090704 Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City HaU, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Tuesday, September 7, 2004
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
4. PUBLIC HEARING
· 4.1 Case 04-23 Request for Variance to the eight-foot fence height requirement, 9209
59th Avenue North, William Gabrys and Patricia Toro-Gabrys,
Petitioners
4.2 Case 04-24 Request for text amendment, 40Q0Winnetka Avenue North, Spirit
United Interfaith Church, Petitioner
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1 Report of Design and Review Committee - September 16, 7:30 a.m.
5.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee
6. OLD BUSINESS
6.1 Miscellaneous Issues
Winnetka Townhomes - preliminary plat- Approved.
Release financial guarantee - Approved.
PPL- final plat- Approved.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of August 4, 2004
7.2 Review of City Council Minutes of August 9, 2004
7.3 Review of EDA Minutes of August 9, 2004
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
· Petitioners are required to be in attendance
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The
Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon
the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning
Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the
surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your
questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the
Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission
will utilize the following procedure:
1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal.
2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the
Planning Commission.
3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal make comments on the staff report, and answer
questions from the Planning Commission~
4. The chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by
raising their hands. The chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large
number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer
period of time for questions/comments.
5. When recognized by the chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give
their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
6. Direct your questions/comments to the chair. The chair will determine who will answer your
questions.
7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity
to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will .discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
A. If the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the
planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually
this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting.
B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next
Commission meeting.
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date:September 7, 2004
Report Date: September 3, 2004
Planning Case: 04-23
Petitioner: William Gabrys and Patricia Toro-Gabrys
Address: 9209 59th Avenue North
Request: Variance to .... ' ..... ~ _ c ....
~n~ ~lgrtr-jo~,t jr,t~e height requirement
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting a three-foot variance to the eight-foot fence height requirement to allow the
construction of an ll-foot fence along the rear property line, pursuant to Sections 4-3(d)(3)b and 4-36 of
the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
II. Zoning Code References
Section 4-3(d)(3)b Residential fencing and screening
Section 4-36 Administration - Variances
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: R-l, Single Family Residential
Location: On the south side of 59th Avenue approximately 80 feet west of Gettysburg
Avenue North
Adjacent Land Uses: Single family residential properties to the north, east and west, and R-O,
residential-office (Mid America Financial Plaza) to the south
Site Area: 12,568 square feet
Planning District: District No. 1; The low density single family neighborhoods in this district are
in good to excellent condition. The city will continue to strongly promote
private reinvestment in this housing stock.
Specific Information: There is a five-foot drainage and utility easement along the rear property line
and the plans indicate that there are side yard fences in the rear yards of the
properties on both the east and west sides of the applicant's property.
IV. Background
Bill Gabrys and Patricia Toro-Gabrys are requesting a variance from the eight-foot height limit for a
fence for their residential property at 9209 59th Avenue North. The applicant's property is zoned R-1
single family residential. The rear lot line of the applicant's property abuts that of Mid America
Financial Plaza, a commercially zoned (R-O Residential-Office) property. In 2001, the city approved a
Planning Case Report 04-23 Page 1 9/3/04
conditional use permit to convert the building into a multi-tenant building. Windows have been
recently installed on the north side of the Mid America building where previously there were none.
The applicants feel that their backyard privacy has thus been reduced and they wish to install an ll-
foot fence to screen views into their backyard from these windows.
During the remodeling of the Mid America building, staff and the Planning Commission examined the
landscape and screening issues along the common lot line between the Mid America building and the
residential properties. Commercial uses are required to provide screening between the commercial use
and adjacent residential uses. At the time of the Mid America remodeling, it was felt that adequate
screening was provided through the use of existing plant material and some additional landscaping
was added on the site. The code does allow fences higher than eight feet on commercial property with
a conditional use permit.
The applicants have voiced their concerns about the lack of screening over the past several years and
the City Council requested that the Planning Commission review this matter this past spring. The
Planning Commission reviewed the issue and made no changes to the original approval.
¥. Petitioner's Comments
The petitioner submitted a narrative that stated: "We seek a variance to build an ll-foot fence along
our back property line. 1) We wish to create a screen between our home and the commercial property
adjacent to our back lot line. 2) We wish to restore the comfort and privacy while in our back yard and
on our deck which was paramount to our home purchase in 1995. These features have disappeared
with the installation of windows after the Mid America building became a multi tenant property. 3) We
wish to improve the look of our home and bring an increase to its value moving forward. Thank you
for your consideration."
VI. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and at the time this report was prepared
staff had received no comments from neighboring property owners.
Vii. Development Analysis
A. Zoning Code Criteria
Variance
The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning
Code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of
a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under
consideration and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of this Code.
An application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the
variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant. The following criteria apply to this situation
and should be used to evaluate hardship.
1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in
exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of
this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or
Planning Case Report 04-23 Page 2 9/3/04
topographic or similar conditions-unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes
inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall
not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this
Code.
Comment: The applicant's parcel sits at a lower elevation than the two story Mid America building. The
Mid America building's foot print is parallel to and within 50feet of the applicant's rear property line.
Screening the applicant's property from the adjacent commercial use is made challenging due to the
elevation and orientation of the Mid America building and windows relative to the applicant's property.
2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not
generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district.
Comment: The physical conditions leading to the applicant's concerns are present for the applicant's
parcel and are generally not applicable to other residential properties.
3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner
or any previous owner.
Comment: The applicant's concerns were originated by the recent installation of windows in the second
floor of the Mid America building facing the applicant's property.
4. The variance requested will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will not
impair and adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties or endanger public safety.
The variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship and it does not involve a
use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district.
Comment: Fences up to eight feet are allowed in the R-1 District and the applicant is proposing a design
common to residential areas in the city. The fence design meets the code's requirement for having at least
five percent open for passage of air and light. There do not appear to be other options that are more cost
effective in mitigating the applicant's concerns.
B. Development Review Team
The Development Review Team met to discuss the request and was supportive of the fence.
Specific items discussed included: insure no obstruction of natural drainage with the construction
of the fence, verify location of rear property line, due to proposed fence located in an existing
drainage and utility easement, owner must submit written acknowledgement that the city is not
responsible for restoration of fence if future work is necessary in easement, and provide
engineering wind load calculations to building official with permit application.
C. Design and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee met and discussed the same issues with the applicant. The
committee was supportive of the request.
D. Plan Description
1. Existing Structure Setbacks - the certificate of survey indicates that the existing home complies
with the R-1 setback requirements. The survey shows a 30-foot front yard setback, a 15-foot
setback from the east property line, and a 10-foot setback on the west property line.
Planning Case Report 04-23 Page 3 9/3/04
2. Site Plan - the site plan denotes two silver maple trees at the rear of the backyard, six pine trees
at the southwest comer of the backyard and five pine trees at the southeast comer of the
backyard, a small storage shed in the center of the rear of the backyard, and Comcast boxes at
the two rear line property comers.
3. Fence Location - the site plan denotes that the fence would be set inside the rear property line
and be parallel to the rear property line, running in an east/west direction, and angle into the
side yard lot lines at the southeast and southwest corners. The fence would not connect to the
other existing side yard fences, so as to provide access for maintenance on the south side of the
fence. The rear property line is 122 feet in length. The applicant states that they intend to
construct the fence along the 120-foot two-inch sight line (as shown on the plan) to insure they
are within their property line.
4. Fence Detail - the fence structure woUld consist of 22 treated posts (5" x 6" x 16') and 20 cedar
panels consisting of 1" x 6" x 10' cedar boards. The fence would range in height between 10 feet
6 inches and 11 feet.
5. Property Irons - the applicant has indicated that they have been unable to locate their property
irons, even though they rented a metal detector. Staff has supplied the applicant with a copy of
the survey that was completed for the Mid America project and the survey shows the exact
distance to the property line. In the opinion of the building official this survey should be
adequate for the location of the applicant's fence.
E. Planning Considerations
The planner's report has been incorporated into this report.
F. Building Considerations
The building official's comments have been incorporated into this report.
G. Legal Considerations
The city attorney is aware of the application.
H. Engineering Considerations
The city engineer is aware of the application, but did not feel that there were any pertinent issues to
address.
L Police Considerations
The Police Department was involved with the review of this request.
,L Fire Considerations
West Metro Fire was not involved in reviewing this request.
VIII. Summary
The applicants state that the recent addition of windows to the Mid America building has reduced the
privacy and thus use of their backyard. There are two unique issues affecting this property pertinent to
the request for a variance: First, the subject fence is adjacent to a commercial property and secondly, an
ll-foot fence would be allowed through a conditional use permit on the Mid America side of the
Planning Case Report 04-23 Page 4 9/3/04
property line. In this situation, it does not- appear that the fence will alter the essential character of the
locality nor impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The applicants are
proposing to build the fence within a drainage easement. Should the variance be approved, the
applicants must recognize that the city is not responsible for fence replacement should maintenance
work in the easement be required.
~X. Recommendation
A variance to the maximum height of 11 feet for a fence has been requested. It must be determined if an
undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of this property exists. This is a policy decision for
the Planning Commission and City Council. If the Planning Commission and City Council find that a
hardship exists for the variance, staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. A utility locate be conducted along the south lot line hn the construction zone where the fence is to
be installed.
2. That the applicant submit a written acknowledgement that the city is not responsible for restoration
of the fence if future work is n?cessary in the easement.
3. That no obstructions of natural drainage occur with the construction and on-going existence of the
fence.
4. That engineering calculations of wind loads be determined and submitted with the building permit
application.
Attachments: Address/Zoning/Topo/Aerial Maps
Survey
Petitioner's correspondence
Fence plans
Planner's report
Excerpts Mid America survey
Application Log
Planning Case Report 04-23 Page 5 9/3/04
5961 5961
5949 59,48
~ ~ ~ ~.~ LIBERTY
9015 5941 5940
PARK ,~ ~
5924 5917 5941 5924.
5925
5918 5913 5933 5916
5917
5912 5909 5925 5908
5909
5905 5917 5924 5900
5901
5916 584.8
5909 5849
59O8 5840
584.1
5852
5900 5833
· -' 5825
5817
5808
58O9
~ g~;.O , 58O'
~ 8901
5701
5741
5651
/ PKWY
/
5621 5650
.... .:~' ._ _ .............. · - ............ :~ .___~
-- ~ ~ ...... = ~ - -~ ..... ~ .... - ~i
_ ~ ...... _- ~ ........ ~ .................
HOSTERMAN
JR HIGH
SCHOOL
I .......... .' ....... ~ ,'. ....... ~ .......
~u, ! _ i~". ..... ; ........
~' .......... 'r- ~ u~! i
OHOBS99IH
Hennepin Coun~ Assessor's Office
Area/Regional Map
4
Parcel Information
Parcel ID 06-'!18-21 23 0049
9209 59TH AVE N
NEW HOPE
Land Area (SQ FT) 12568
This is not a legally recorded map. It represents a compilation of information
and data from City, County, and State road authorities and other sources.
s..~ ;~.,~ ENGINEERING, INC.
;'~: O~d Z~ ~I~..~oI 5~t 4~0~
,/ i F~N~ ~
/~ ~
/ t~ ~,
'-'~,;~. ~.~ 'x BUILDING li~PECTu~
""~ ~ .VILLAGE OF NEW HOP[
· · DATE /x/~/'
Variance Petition
Submitted to: New Hope City Council & Planning Commission
Date: Friday, August 13, 2004
Applicants: Patricia Toro-Gabrys & William Gabrys
Address: 9209 59th Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Parcel ID #: 06 - 118 - 21 23 0049
Lot Description: Lot 2, Block 3 Jesseffs Highland Hills 2nd
Request' We seek a variance to build an 11 ft. fence along our back property line.
Reasons: 1) We wish to create a screen between our home and the commercial
property adjacent to our back lot line.
2) We wish to restore the comfort and privacy while in our back yard
and on our deck which was paramount to our home purchase in 1995.
These features have disappeared with the installation of windows after
the Mid America building became a multi tenant property.
3) We wish to improve the look of our home and bring an increase to
its value moving forward.
Thank you for your consideration to our request,
Patricia Toro-Gabrys
William Gabrys
, .~-.--.,~,-~___ _ 4 ,:.,i, ~ ---- ,---,
,, ,~.: ~,~ ~ ~ ,~"~ x/,d~ ..
Lot2, Block3 j~sen's H~hland H~ 2nd C~w~'~""~-~~, /
9209 59th Avenue N. New Hope 55428 '
Patricia Toro-Gabrys & William Gabrys PID # 06-118-21 23 0049
74.50 in.
70.00 in. 14 board
I 5.83 ft.
5.50 4.50 5.50 4.50 5.50 4.50 5.50 4.50 5.50 4.50 5.50 4.50 5.50 4.50 0.50 overlap
4.5 4.5
I I
79.00 in.
6.58 ft. -
74.50 74.50 74.50 74.50 74.50 74.50 74.50 74.50 596.00
74.50 74.50 74.50 74.50 74.50 74.50 74.50 521.50
B B B B B B B B B B B B B [~ B B 4.,
stretch alon~ the back lot line prior to elbows at pole 1 (8 W) & pole 16 (8 E) I 1122.00 in.
I
93.500 ft.
Top View Diagram P2 Cedar Board 1" x 6" x 10'
9209 59th Avenue N. New Hope 55428 Lot 2, Block 3 Jessen's Highland Hills 2nd
Top view of posts across back of lot ~ 9209 ~9th Ave N. New Hope PID # 06-118-21 23 0049
Request for Variance to build a fence between 10 ' 6" & 11 ' 0" in height - We seek a Variance for an 11 ' fence
122 ' 0"
6'2" 120 ' 2"
] 12' ] ~ Back Lot Line
Fence Sight Line ~ ~ ~ .... ~ .... ~ Fence t Line
11 W The Back Lot Line me~ures 122 fl. 0 in. The Shed
distance between the adjoining neigh~r's
12'
12'
We intend to construct the t~ncc along the
120' 9" t~nce sight line to ensure we are
within our prope~y line
t~at~sts q~ 22 - 5"x6"x16' IW-11W & IE-I1E N
20 C~ P~els ~ illustrat~ on p~el dia~ms PI ( front & back view) ~d P2 (top view)
Back Lot Line Location: We were unable to locate any lot irons. The attempt was made by
renting a metal detector. Our east neighbor said he saw an iron when the Tharp Partnership did
their su~ey. He felt confident that the properW line is beyond the placement of his fence.
Patricia Toro-Gabrys & William Gabrys Lot 2, Block 3 Jessen's Highland Hills 2nd ~.
1 Section of 20 PID # 06-118-21 23 0049
for Fence ~ 9209 59th Avenue N. New Hope
'--F-- l"x 6" x lO ' cedar boards
5"x 6" x16'
I
10'
10' - 10"
6 treated
4~ 4~
Approximate Scale 1/2" = 1 '
Front & Back View
Diagram P1
Patricia Toro-Gabrys & William Gabrys Lot 2, Block 3 Jessen's Highland Flill~ 2nd
'l
RENTAL INVOICE No. 1 '
Store 2808 PLYMOUTH Hours: Men 6:00 10:00
1705 ANNAPOLIS LANE W~d 6:oo lo:co
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 Thr 6:00 10:00
(763) 519-9480 Fri 6:00 10:00
Sat 6:00 10:00
Sun 8:00 8:00
WILLIAM L GABRYS
9209 59TH AVE N
NEW HOPE, MN 55428
PHN (763) 535-5857
Agent Driver's License Number Vehicle License Written By
MN g162887488.242 MN JAMES R
Job Number/Locat on Job Phone PO Number/Birthdate Ch~cked In By
9209 59TH AVE N MICHAEL M
Date and Time Out Date and Time Due In Date and Time In Rented Period
08/10/2004 6:35 pm 08/11/2004 9:00 am 08/11/2004 9:13 am 4 HR
RENTAL EQUIPMENT
Part Number Out In Description Min Charge Ex-Hours Per Day IPer Week IPer Month IDW ITax I Amount
1014400757 1 1 Metal Detector 12.00 1.20 16.00 60.00 180.00 Y Y 12.00
Rental Subtotal 12.00
INVOICE SUMMARY
Invoice Subtotal 12.00
Damage Waiver 1.20
Sales Tax 0.78
,- Total 13.98
Payment Amount 13.98
* NOT VALID WITHOUT REGISTER VALIDATION * Remaining Balance Due 0.00
Page 1 of 1 No.. 153139 Customer Copy (9801) 02 00298692
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Dan Petrik/Alan Brixius
DATE: August 25, 2004
RE: New Hope - Fence Height Variance: 9209 59th Ave. No.
NAC FILE: 131.01 - 04.18
Background
Bill Gabrys and Patricia Toro-Gabrys are requesting a variance from the eight foot
height limit for'a fence for their residential property at 9209 59th Ave North. The
applicant's property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. The rear lot line of the
applicant's property abuts that of Mid America Financial Plaza, a commercially zoned
property. Windows have been recently installed on the north side of the Mid America
building where previously there were none. The applicant's feel that their backyard
privacy has thus been reduced and they wish to install an eleven foot fence to screen
views into their backyard from these windows.
During the remodeling of the Mid American building, staff and the Planning Commission
examined the landscape and screening issues along the common lot line between the
Mid America building and residential properties. Commercial uses are required to
provide screening between the commercial use and adjacent residential uses. At the
time of the Mid America remodeling, it was felt that adequate screening would be
provided through the use of plant material. The code, however, does allow fences
higher than eight feet on commercial property with a conditional use permit.
Variance Criteria and Analysis
The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the
zoning code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue noneconomic hardship in the
reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to
the individual property under consideration, and the granting of a variance is
demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Code.
An application for a variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure
to grant the variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant. The following
criteria apply to this situation and should be used to evaluate hardship.
1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property
that results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel within the strict
application of the terms of the Code. Physical hardships may include lot
shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope or topographic or similar conditions
unique to the parcel.
Comment: The applicant's parcel sits at a lower elevation than the two story Mid
America building. The Mid America building's foot print is parallel to and within 50 feet
of the applicant's rear property line. Screening the applicant's property from the
adjacent commercial use is made challenging due to the elevation and orientation of the
Mid America building and windows relative to the applicant's property.
2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel for which the variance is being
sought and is not generally applicable to other properties within the same
zoning district.
Comment: The physical conditions leading to the applicant's concerns are present for
the applicant's parcel and are generally not applicable to other residential properties.
3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel has not been created by
the landowner or any previous owner.
Comment: The applicant's concems were originated by the recent installation of
windows in the second floor of the Mid America building facing the applicant's property.
4. The vadance requested will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance will not impair and adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
properties or endanger public safety. The variance is the minimum action
required to eliminate the hardship and it does not involve a use which is not
allowed within the respective zoning district.
Comment: Fences up to eight feet are allowed in the R-1 District and the applicant .is
proposing a design common to residential areas in the City. The fence design meets
the code's requirement for having at least five percent open for passage of air and light.
There do. not appear to be other options that are more cost effective in mitigating the
applicant's concerns.
Summary of Variance issues
2
The applicants state that the recent addition of windows to the Mid America building has
reduced the privacy and thus use of their backYard. There are two unique issues
affecting this property pertinent to the request for a variance: First, the subject fence is
adjacent to a commercial property and secondly, an eleven foot fence would be allowed
through a conditional use permit on the Mid America side of the property line. In this
situation it does not appear that the fence will alter the essential character of the locality
nor impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The applicants are
proposing to build the fence within a drainage easement. Should the variance be
approved, the applicants must recognize that the City is not responsible for fence
replacement should maintenance work in the easement be required.
Recommendation
A variance to the maximum height of eight feet for a fence has been requested. It must
be determined if an undue noneconomic hardship in the reasonable use of this property
exists. This is a policy decision for the Planning CommiSsion and City Council. If the
Planning Commission and City Council find that a hardship exists for the variance, we
recommend approval with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant verify the location of property location monuments
documenting the location of the rear property line.
2. A utility locate be conducted along the south lot line in the construction zone
where the fence is to be installed.
3. That the applicant submit a written acknowledgement that the City is not
responsible for restoration of the fence if future work is necessary in the
easement.
4. That no obstructions of natural drainage occur with the construction and on-going
existence of the fence.
5. That engineering calculations of wind loads be determined and submitted with
the permit application.
Exhibits
A. Property location map
B. Site Plan
C. Fence Design
3
PHASE 2 61
PHASE 1 -- WEST 21 ,,,
TOTAL OUTDOOR .,19,5
TOTAL INDOOR (PHASE ,5) 30
TOTAL
PARKING 225
,, I i - \
PERMANENT~J'ILITY
.~AND DRAINA(~
EASEMENT ,J,
REMOVE EXISTING
CURB ,j.
EXISTING
TRANSFORMER
ENCLOSED WOOD
SCREEN
EXISTING
BITUMINOUS
NEW TYPICAL NEW __
SKYLIGHTS EXISTING WALL TRUCK.
NEW WALK REMOVE EXI
RELOCATE CURB AND
LIGHT FROM
EXISTINC LOCaTing' ~
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG
A B C D E F G H I J
Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City
cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response
number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant
Address by City that required expires expires of under application
Phone information extension extension
was missing or waiver
04-23 W.illiam and Patricia Gabrys 8/13/04 10/12/04 12/11/04
9209 59th Avenue N
New Hope, MN 55428
763-535-5857 H
952-841-8140 W
06-118-21-23-0049
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
A. Assign each application a number.
B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
C. List the date the City received the application.
D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within '10 business days after the
date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record a~l subsequent deadlines on a new line.
E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.)
J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before
the time limit expires.
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date:September 7, 2004
Report Date: September 3, 2004
Planning Case: 04-24
Petitioner. Spirit United Interfaith Church
Address: 4000 Winnetka Avenue North
Request: ,
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting a text amendment to allow a church use as a conditional use within an
industrial zoning district, pursuant to Sections 4-32, 4-33 and 4-20 of the New Hope Code of
Ordinances.
II. Zoning Code References
Section 4-20 I, Industrial District
Section 4-32 Administration - Amendments
Section 4-33 Administration - Conditional Use Permit
III. Application Withdrawn
The applicant met with both the Codes and Standards and Design and Review committees to discuss
this application and both committees indicated they would not support a text change to the code. The
applicant contacted staff after the committee meetings and indicated that they wanted to withdraw
their application. A legal notice was published in the newspaper regarding this application; therefore,
staff is recommending that the Commission approve a motion accepting the withdrawal of the
application.
Attachments: Petitioner's correspondence withdrawing application
Petitioner's original correspondence
NAC planning report on a similar previous case
Planning Case Report 04-24 Page 1 9/3/04
'INTER ITH CHUR H
4139 Regent Avenue North · Robbinsdale, Minnesota 55422' * ~ON~/F~X: 763-504-4937
August 31, 2004
%
Mr. KirkMcDonald ;'-
Director of Community Development
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon'Avenue North . -
New Hope, MN 55428 :
Dear Mr: McDonald':
!
Spirit United Interfaith Church is withdrawing our application for a text amendment change in '
the zonins code of the City of New H°Pe..If ~ny of the $400.00 for the zoning dq~o$it for the
text amendment application is r~mdabJ~ please s~nd the fund~ to my attention ~,t our office.
Thank you for. Your consideration. ' , . . : '
.Sincerely,
St~en J. Birchler
Church Coordinator ., ':"
4139 Regent Avenue North · Robbinsdale: Minnesota'$$422 · 'PHONF./FAX: 763-504-4937
August 13, 2004
Mr. Kirk McDonald ......
Director of Community Development '
City of New Hope '-'
4401 Xylon Avenue North "
N~v Hope, .MN 55428 ,- ,
Dear .Mr. McDonald:
Spirit United Interfaith Church is interested in s ,ec~g a ne~v location for our community in
New HOpe. This.location is zoned for industrial rise, and it is our und/rs~nd~g thai achurch -
is currently not allowed in an ind~alarea. We are therefore applying'for a text amendment '
to allow us .to lease space at 4000 Winnetka Avenue North, :We have hired'Hois'.mgton Koegler
Group Inc.:to assist in this efforL
We understand that if the zoning c6de.text amendment were approved, our next step would be to
apply for a conditional use permit; We would intend tO have thin application ready for the, City
'by September 10, 2004. There is a possibility that w~ will need to vadate our currenfiocation b~-
October 31, 2004. We would greatly appreciate~some indication of our chances for approval
from the Planning Commi~si~on and the City Council. This i;equest stems from.the circumstanc~
that have beefi plac,ed on us.that'are, beyond our.cofitrol. -
Enci0sed ,is a,check, for $800.00 to~coVer, the basic zoning fee and the zoning deposit for the text
amendment application: We look' forward to working wi'th you on this application process. -, "
Thank you' for your consideration. '
Sinc~ely~ _-.
Church Coordinator
.' W~BS~: www. spiritunited, com
Supplemental Application information
Spirit United Interfaith Church
Zoning Amendment Request
Page 1 of 3
Request
Spirit United Interfaith Church is requesting that the City of New Hope amend Chapter 4-
20, Industrial District to allow religious uses as a conditional use permit. Spirit United is
seeking to occupy approximately 4000 square feet of lease space in an industrial office
building located at 4000 Winnetka Avenue North. The major tenant in the building is
Recycling Technologies. Currently, Spirit United's church home is located in
Robbinsdale. A new home in New Hope is a very desirable location to help build the
congregation's existing membership base.
Backgound
Religious institutions are regulated in Chapter 4 of the New Hope Zoning Code where
they are allowed in residential (R-l, R-2, and R-3) and residential-office (R-O) districts
as conditional uses. Commercial and industrial districts do not allow these uses as a
permitted or conditional use.
Religious institutions have historically located in or near residential neighborhoods, close
to their congregation base. Traditional town planning oftentimes identified places of
worship in the town plan because it was an integral part of the community fabric. From a
land use perspective, religious institutions have changed over the years and are now more
than just a "Sunday morning" operation. Some may suggest that "churches" are more
integral in communities because they offer a wide range of needed community services.
In serving community interests, churches today have become much larger and can
become more like commercial and office uses. Large building and parking lots can be an
imposition on residential neighborhoods.
Many communities are responding to the increasing size of religious institutions and
allowing them in commercial and industrial areas. This is a common trend in ciries closer
to the urban core than it is in fringe cities. Land availability, values, and redevelopment
oppommities are all contributing factors to allowing religious institutions in more
locations.
Issues
The Industrial District does allow other non-industrial uses with a conditional use permit.
Chapter 4-20(e) identifies the following commercial type uses:
Commercial Recreation
· Health and Social Services
· Day Care
· Adult Use, Principal
· County, State,.and Federal Buildings
· Animal Kennels and Day Care
The Industrial District includes an intent statement that establishes an overall purpose for
activities. The intent statement reads as follows:
Supplemental Application information
Spirit United lnterfaith Church
Zoning Amendment Request
Page 2 of 3
The purpose of the I, industrial district is to provide for the establishment of
heavy industrial and manufacturing development use which, because of the nature
of the product or character of activity, requires isolation from residential or
noncompatible commercial uses. The I district is also intended to provide for
large scale activities of a sociological nature not suited to other districts, but
reasonably compatible with the same characteristics suitable for general
industrial use.
In addition to identifying the appropriateness of typical industrial and manufacturing
activities, it contemplates other non-industrial activities. We would suggest that the last
sentence of the intent statement, "...is also intended to provide for large scale activities of
a sociological nature not suited to other districts... "may be general enough to address
religious activities. Although we are not prepared to address the preparer's actual intent,
this sentence does seem to acknowledge the need to provide locations for large gatherings
that may be problematic in residential and commercially zoned areas. It may also
recognize the relative smaller scale of existing commercial and residential development
patterns as compared to built industrial areas of New Hope.
Amending the Zoning Code is a process that should be done in a manner that carefully
considers the full implications of all known issues. We would suggest there are a number
points to consider in including religious institutions in the Industrial District as a
conditional use:
· Industrial zoning is generally located on arterial or community collector streets
that are designed to carry higher traffic volumes.
· The proposed location at 4000 Winnetka Avenue North is on the fringe of an
industrial area an along an arterial roadway. This is a more favorable situation
than an internal location within an indush-ial park or along a collector roadway.
· Existing industrial areas are established in the community. Religious institutions
are virtually innocuous activities as compared to some industrial manufacturing
activities.
· Joint use various multi-tenant building facilities such as parking lots, reduces
traffic impacts in the surrounding area.
· A large percentage of industrial buildings in New Hope are warehouse or office-
warehouse designs. Smaller religious institutions like Spirit United are better
adapted to reuse of office portions which comprise a small percentage of a
buildings floor area. This leaves the majority of the building intact for industrial
or other use.
Supplemental ~4pplication information
Spirit United Interfaith Church
Zoning drnendment Request
Page 3 of 3
· Industrial buildings are owned by larger commercial real estate companies which
make it difficult to subdivide or split into condominium space. This point speaks
to the property tax issue that can be a valid City tax revenue issue. Religious
institutions would most likely remain in lease arrangements with the commercial
property owner which would not negatively affect property tax status and
resulting city tax revenues.
· Reuse of existing industrial buildings is good for community development. As
the manufacturing economy has declined over recent years, identifying other
appropriate uses for these buildings provides positive economic activity for
property owners.
We thank the Staff, Planning Commission and City Council for your time and attention to
our request.
northwest associated consultants, inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Dan Donahue
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: 2 June 1988
RE: New Hope - Church of Open Door
FILE NO: 131.00 - 88.06
BACKGROUND
The Church of the Open Door wishes to lease the building at
9000 Science Center Drive for the purpose of holding their
services. This site is located within the New Hope Science
and Industry Park and is zoned I-1, General Industrial
District.
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance allows religious institutions
such as churches by conditional use permit only within
residential zoning districts. As the ordinance currently
exists, the church is prohibited from locating within the
Industrial Park. To accommodate the wishes of the Church of
the Open Door a zoning text amendment would be required.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The New Hope Comprehensive Plan identified the Science and
Industry Center along Highway 18 as the highest priority for
ful~l development. The plan suggests that the City increase
the potential for achieving full development by allowing
compatible, non-industrial uses, the acceptable non-
industrial uses are identified in the I-1 zoning District as
conditional uses. These uses include professional offices,
restaurants, motels and commercial-recreational facilities.
Review of these, uses indicate that they provide services
that complements the other industrial'park tenants and they
can ~compatibly coexist in the industrial setting.
4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 41 O, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420
The New Hope Comprehensive Plan establishes the following
goals and policies that industrial parks development.
Industrial Goals.
o Provide for a sound industrial base for the City that
will be stable and on-going.
o Concentrate industrial development in the existing
industrial parks (Science and Industry Center, Olson,
Winnetka).
o Fully develop existing industrial parks.
o Promote continued ind~s~ia~ development in order to
create an expanded employment base and opportunity
within New Hope.
Industrial Policies
1. Continue to maintain and expand the City's industrial
and commercial tax base to assist in paying for needed
services and in reducing tax impact on housing costs.
2. Within economic capabilities, provide those public
services and facilities to New Hope industries to help
ensure their satisfaction with locating in the
community.
3. Promote continued industrial development in existing
industrial parks which have direct access to major
highways.
4. Encourage the development of compatible, non-industrial
activities within industrial parks in order to increase
the potential utilization of undeveloped industrial
park land.
5. Identify industrial activities complementary to
existing activities and promote and facilitate the
development of such industries in New Hope.
6. Investigate alternative fi. scal incentives to attract
new desired types of industries to New Hope.
7. Promote the type of industrial developoment which
maximizes the return on City investments in public
facilities and services.
S. -~ Give due consideration to all potential physical
implications and services and facility demands (i. e.,
traffic generation, sewer and water demands, etc.) of
any proposed industrial development.
Based on the aforementioned policies, the introduction of a
church into an industrial area does not appear to be
consistent with the.New Hope Comprehensive Plan.
ZONING
The purpose of the New HoPe Zoning Ordinance is to promoted
orderly growth in a compatible land use pattern. In this
respect, the New Hope zoning Ordinance divides the City into
use districts and outlines performance standards to provide
compatible land use patterns.
The Industrial District, by nature, exists as a homogeneous
setting for industrial operations. The conditions inherent
to these districts, eg, noise, dust, ~raffic,'odors, etc.
are recognized and are acceptable to businesses that locate
there. This is the reason these dis.tricts are generally
secluded from other less intense uses. This type of land
use segregation benefits the industries in that they can
freely operate without negatively impacting adjacent land
uses. This freedom of operation is an incentive for the
attraction of new industries and expansion of existing
industries. Industrial parks also benefit from the
priniciple of accumulative attraction, whereby similar or
complementary businesses located in a common setting, each
benefitting through business interchange among the various
industrial uses.
Introducing an incompatible non-industrial use into this
area may compromise the integrity of the industrial park
setting and be contrary to the intent of the City Zoning
Ordinance. The introduction of incompatible non-Industrial
land uses into an area reduces the security of the area and
increases the potential for personal and property damages.
Any incidents thay may occur could result in greater
liabilities for the existing industries and subsequently
higher insurance costs. In 1984, the City of New Hope
encountered such a compatibility problem; when S.R. Harris
introduced a non-industrial use (retail sales) into his
industrial site at 5100 County Road 18. The introduction
of this use into the industrial park was disruptive to the
neighboring businesses and presented public safety concerns
with regard to traffic circulation and parking.
The introduction of a church into an industrial district
presents similar concerns as the previous case. while
church services may occur during off peak operational hours
of most businesses, other services provided by a church
facility do occur during times other than Sunday.
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance allows public, semi-public,
education and religious facilties in all residential zoning
districts by conditional use permit.
Ii I
The rationale for this zoning designation is two fold.
First, the facilities are intended to be intergraded into
the surrounding residential neighborhoods and provide a
service to community residents; Secondly, educational and
religious facilities typically benefit from a tranquil' and
quiet environment which is best provided in a residential
setting.
The zoning ordinance requires these facilties to obtain a
conditional use permit to insure that these facilties are
properly designed to co-exist wi thin the residential
neighborhood. Proper church site planning must consider the
total operation of the facility. Items such as parking and
circulation have signiificant impact on the church site as
well as adjacent street and properties. The buffering from
incomptible uses is critical in bo{h the oper-atin of the
church and the safety of the Church members. The
introduction of a church into a site and building designed
for industrial use does not allow proper attention to the
operational needs of the church or the impacts that it may
have on adJacent properties.
TAX EXEHPTI ON
Another issue created by the introduction of churches into
an industrial area is its impact on .the established tax
base. Tax exempt status is available to churches. This tax
designation would result in the loss of current industrial
tax revenues. The impact of a single church may not be
significantly negative, however, a change in the current
ordinance would establish the avenue for other churches in
the future.
The previously mentioned tax issues are contrary to th,e City
of New Hope's Community Development Plan, which addresses
industrial pol icies. One pol icy i
"Continue to maintain and expand the City's industrial
commercial tax base to assist in paying for needed
services and reducing tax impact on housing costs."
CONCLUS I ON
Based on our review, churches do not appear to be a use that
would compatibly co-exist within the City's industrial
districts. The introduction of a church into a industrial
district would be contrary to the directives of the
Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the City industrial
zoning distict.
The ..church of the Open door is pursuing the industrial site
as a temporary site to hold services, while they wait to
construct a permanent church in another community. In
considering this text change, the City must evaluate what
benefit the City will obtain from change.
1. The church of the Open door is proposing to located in
site and building not designed for church services or
the assembly of people.
2. The church is eligible for tax exempt status Which
could reduce the City Industrial tax base.
3. The church is not currently proposing constructing
their new church in New Hope.
4. Based on past experience, the introduction of non-
compatible uses in the industrial park have resulted in
5. The further proliteration incompatible non-industrial
uses in the industrial parking will negatively impact
the image of the area and make future Industrial
marketing and development difficult.
In contacting Maple Grove and Plymouth, we find that these
Cities to which the church of the Open Door intends to move
does not allow churches in their industrial districts, as
such they would not be able to acommodate the church on a
· temporary basis in the manner being requested in New Hope.
cc: Jeannine Dunn
Doug Sanstad
Steve Sondral
CITY OF MAPLE GROVE
AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW CHURCHES, DAY CARE CENTERS, AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY oF MAPLE GROVE DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 375:9'6, Subd. 4 of the Maple Grove
Ordinance Code (Conditional Uses in the I-1 Light Industrial Zoning District) is
hereby amended by adding the following language as Paragraphs (g), (h), and (i):
(g) Religious institutions such as churches, chapels, temples,
and synagogues, as transitional uses between similar
existing uses or existing residential uses and planned or
existing industrial uses, provided that:
(1} The site abuts on at least two sides existing
residential uses or zoning districts; or existing
public or semi-public recreational buildings or
neighborhood or comnunity centers; or existing public
or private educational institutions limited to
elementary, junior high or senior high schools; or
religious institutions such as churches, chapels,
temples or synagogues.
{2} The parcel contained a church, chapel, temple, or
synagogue used as such at some time within the ten {10)
years immediately preceding the application for the
conditional use permit.
{3) Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and
landscaping is provided in compliance with Section
375:12, Subd. 7 of this Ordinance.
(4} Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on
the site in compliance with Section 375:21 of this
Ordinance and such parking is adequately screened and
landscaPed from surrounding and abutting residential
uses in compliance with Section 375:12, Subd. 7 of this
Ordinance.
{5i Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are
provided and regulated where applicable by Section
375:24 of this Ordinance.
(6) The provisions of Section 375:120, Subd. l(e) of this
Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met.
(7) Development of theSe uses is not allowed without public
sewer.
{h) Day-care group nursery in religious institutions such as
churches, chapels, temples, and synagogues provided that:
(1) No overnight facilities are provided for children
served and that said children are delivered and removed
daily.
{2) Total day-care group nursery enrollment in any one {1)
religious institution shall be no more than thirty {30)
children.
{3) The site and related parking and service shall be
- served by an arterial or collector stJ=eet of sufficient
capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
{4) An outdoor, individually owned, fenced play area, not
to be located in the front yard, of a minimum size of
six hundred (600) square feet or, in the alternative,
sixty {60) square feet per child, whichever is the
greater figure, is a part of the facility. The fence
shall be provided in compliance with Sections 375:12
and 375:15 of this Ordinance.
(5) The regulations and conditions of the Minnesota
Department of Public Welfare, Public Welfare Manual II
3130 as adopted, amended and/or changed, whether by
said Department or by this Ordinance or otherwise, are
satisfactorily met.
{6} A written indication of preliminary pending or final
license approval from the regUlatory welfare agency is
supplied to the City. x
(i} Public or semi-public re'crea%ional buildings and
neighborhood or community centers and public and private
educational institutions for elementary, junior high, and
senior high grades, pro¥ided that:
{1) The building center or educational institution is 'owned
and/or operated in conjunction with a religious
institution for which a conditional use permit has been
issued pursuant to Subd. 4(g) above.
-2-
(2) Required sideyards shall be double that required for
the district, but no greater than thirty {30) feet.'
{3} Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and
landscaping is provided in compliance with Section
375:12, Subd. 7 of this Ordinance.
(4) Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on
the site or on lots abutting directly across a public
street or alley from the principal use in compliance
with Section 275:21 of this Ordinance and such parking
is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding
and abutting residential uses in compliance with
Section 375:12, Subd. 7 of this Ordinance.
(5) Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are
provided and regulated where applicable by Section
-375:24 of this Ordinance.
{6) The provisions of Section 375:120, Subd. l{e} of this
Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met.
{7) The site and related parking and service shall be
served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient
capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be
generated.
SECTION 2. PENALTY. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of
this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor each day the violation
continues.
SECTION 3. EFFECT. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from
and after its passage and publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Maple Grove this. day of , 1988. ~
James P.. Deane, Mayor
ATTEST:
~'ity Clerk
Published in the Osseo-Maple Grove Press:
-3--
northwest associated consultants, inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dan Donahue
FROM: 'Ken Roberts/Alan Brixius
DATE: 24 May 1988
RE: New Hope - Church of the Open Door
FILE NO: 131.00 - 88.06
Pursuant to the City's request, we have prepared the attached
draft Zoning Ordinance amendment which, by conditional use
permit, will allow for -religious institutions in industrial
-zones. It must be noted, however, that our office has some
serious questions regarding the introduction of churches into the
industrial zones.
We have prepared the ordinance amendment to try to address the
concerns outlined in our planning report of 26 April 1988
(attached for reference) and also to address all potential
problems with this possible arrangement in the industrial areas
of New Hope.
· cc: Jeanine Dunn
Doug Sandstad
KR/nd
4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 41 O, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO PERMIT BY
CONDITIONAL USE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 4.144 (12) is hereby a0ded to the
New Hope City Code to read as follows:
(11) Religious Institutions. Religious institutions
provided that:
(a) Applicant Consideration. The applicant
carefully consider and review the impacts of
!ocmting such a land use in an industrial
zone .
(b) Site Location. The applicant makes every
reasonable effort to locate on the outer edge
or periphery of the industrial zone.
(c> Site Access. Religious institutions shall
be located on a collector or arterial street
as defined by the New Hope comprehensive
Plan.
(d) Buitdin~ Requirements. The building for
the religious institution must meet all
applicable site building'codes including
but not limited to those regarding a change
in occupancy classification. All building
plans shall be prepared by a registered
architect and shall 'be approved by the
City Building Official. -"
(e) Site Requirements. The site of a religious
institution must meet all the standards and
requirements of the zoning district in which
.. it is located.
(f) Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size for
Religious institutions shall be one (1) acre.
(g) Minimum Building Setbacks. Religious
Institutions shall be setback a minimum of
'' f~fty (50) feet from all property lines
(~ront, side and rear) of the site.
(h) Site Plan. A detailed site plan shall be
requimed which shows existing and proposed
buildings, parking areas, setbacks~ lot
dimension~, trash handling facilities and alt
other information as required by the City.
(i) impervious Area Setbacks. All parking
areas and driveways shall not be less than
ten (10) feet from the property lines of the
site. This area is to be landscaped and/or
have a grass surface.
(j) Curbing. All parking areas and Oriveways
shall have a continous perimeter concrete
curb of not !ess than six (6) inches in
height.
(k) Surfacing. The entire area other than
occupied by buildings or structures or
plantings or landscaping shall be surfaced
with bituminous or a similar material which
will control dust and surface drainage and
shall be subject to City approval.
(1) Drainage. The entire site shall have a
drainage system which shall be subject to
City approval.
(m) Lot Coverage. Not less than thirty five
(35) percent of the lot, parcel or tract of
land shall remain as grass plot including
shrubbery, plantings, or fencing and shall be
landscaped.
(n) Landscaping. A detailed landscaping plan
in conformance with Section 4.033 (4) shall
be submitted to the City for review and
comment.
(o) 'Building Coverage. Building coverage shall
not exceed forty (40) percent of the lot
area.
(p) L~ghting Shielded.. All lighting shall be
hooded and so directed that the light shall
not be visible from the public right-of-way
and so that no light or glare shines on
adjacent property, building or structures.
(q) Prohibited Storage. Alt outside storage is
Strictly prohibited.
(r) Trash Receptacle. An enclosed trash
handling facility shall be provided which
conforms with the following provisions:
The eRterior wall treatment shall be
similar and/or compliment the principal
buit ding.
2. The enclosed trash receptacle shall be
located in the rear yard.
3. The trash receptacle must be in an
accessible location for trash pick-up
vehicles.
4. The trash enclosure must be fully
screened and landscaped from view of
adjacent properties and the public
right-of-way.
(s) Parking. Off-street parking requirements
shall be regulated by Section 4.036 of the
New Hope City code. All parking shall be
on the site of the principal activity.
(t) Loading. Off-street loading requirements
shall be regulated by Section 4.03? of the
New Hope City code.
(u) Site Activities. All activities of the
institution shall remain on the interior
of the building.
(v) Signage. A Oetailed signage plan in
conformance with Section 3.40 of the New
Hope City code shall be submitted to the
City for review and comment. -
Section ~. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be
~effective upon its passage and publication.
Dated:
Mayor
Attest:
City C1 erk
(PubliShed in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the
day o¥ ...... , 1988.
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Date: September 3, 2004
Subject: Miscellaneous Issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional
detail on Council/EDA/HRA actions on Community Development related issues or other city projects.
It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion.
1. August 9 Council/EDA Meetings - At the August 9 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA
took action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
· Project #770, Resolution approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for
bids for curb and sidewalk replacement for the redevelopment areas at Winnetka/Bass Lake
Road: Approved, see attached Council request.
Public Hearing - Ordinance 04-10, An ordinance amending New Hope Code Section 4-26
regulating floodplain districts to conform to the National Flood Insurance Program:
Adopted, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
· Project #677, Public Hearing - Resolution ordering repair and]or demolition of a hazardous/
dangerous building - apartment complex at 8113 Bass Lake Road: Approved, see attached
Council request.
· PC04-06, Request for preliminary plat approval for property to be known as Winnetka
Townhomes, 5620 Winnetka Avenue: Approved, as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
· Project #775, Motion authorizing preparation of purchase agreement to purchase single
family property at 5207 Pennsylvania Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request;
· Project #770, Motion authorizing staff to proceed with the burial of overhead utilities on the
east side of Winnetka Avenue between 53rd Avenue and the north side of Bass Lake Road:
Approved, see attached EDA request.
· Project #751, Update on Winnetka Green Phase 3 expansion and motion authorizing staff to
proceed with appraisals and relocation estimates on eight properties located within the
Phase 3 expansion: No action taken.
· Discussion regarding concept development proposal by Ryland Homes for city-owned
property, north of C.P. Railroad; motion authorizing appraisal of property: Postponed
discussion tmtil September 13 EDA meeting.
2. August 23 Council/EDA Meetings - At the August 23 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA
took action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
· PC01-09, Resolution authorizing release of financial guarantee for multi-tenant building,
9220 Bass Lake Road: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Project #751, Resolution rati_fying reconveyance of tax-forfeited land to the State of
Minnesota and concurrent request for return of the land without use restrictions (tracts O
and P, Registered Land Survey No. 97): Approved, see attached Council request.
· Project #776, Public hearing - Resolution modifying the restated redevelopment plan and
TIF plans for redevelopment project no. 1 and TIF districts nos. 80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-1, 85-2,
86-1, 02-1, 03-1 (special law) and 04-1 (special law); creating TIF district no. 04-2 (special law)
and adopting a TIF plan relating thereto: Approved, see attached Council and EDA request.
· PC04-17, Request for final plat approval for property to be known as Science Industry_
Center 5th Addition, 5501 Boone Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Project #776, Resolution calling for public hearing regarding a proposed transfer of real
property_, 5501 Boone Avenue: Approved, see attached EDA request.
· Project #775, Resolution approving purchase agreement - 5207 Pennsylvania Avenue:
Approved, see attached EDA request.
3. Codes and Standards Committee - The Codes and Standards Committee met in August to
review a request for a church use in an industrial zoning district. The consensus of the committee
was not to amend the code to allow the use.
In September, after the new community development intern has started, staff will be organizing
and scheduling several committee meetings for this fall to' complete work on the following items:
· Floodplain Ordinance - may need to be re-addressed in regards to the definition for
recreational vehicles (per the DNR).
·Sign Code - setbacks for political signs need to be changed so it is consistent with other signs
of a temporary nature.
· Transit Shelter Ordinance - a new representative from Outdoor Promotions has been assigned
to the Minnesota territory. We need to review the status of the Roseville ordinance, determine
if adjustments are going to be recommended for the draft ordinance and finish the work on
this issue.
·Living Space.Above Garages/Other Side Yard Additions - continue discussion on this matter
and make recommendations.
· Screening/Requirements - continue discussion on this issue, per recommendation from city
attorney and make recommendations to clarify ordinance.
~ 4. Design and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee met in August to review the
fence height variance request and the church use in an industrial zoning district. The deadline for
the October Planning Commission meeting is September 10. It is anticipated that several
applications may be filed, including:
· Dakota Growers (Creamettes) expansion
· Dunn Bros. drive through
· Collisys - amend CUP
· Others?
5. Future Applications - Future applications or businesses that staff is currently working with
include:
1. Restaurant and office condo project, 42na and Quebec - on hold
2. 4301/4317 Nevada - six housing units
3. Ryland Winnetka Green Phase 3 ~
4. Paddock Laboratories expansion
5. YMCA addition
6. Waymouth Farms expansion
6. Livable Communities - Now that three of the four Livable Communities projects are underway
(Ryland, CVS and Winnetka Townhomes), staff is focusing on the remaining site adjacent to the
golf course. Staff is continuing to work with the developer on financing and concept plans and is
hopeful that this redevelopment project can proceed in 2005.
7. City Center Task Force Update - In April, the Council directed staff to focus on the potential
relocation/redevelopment of the School District site, per the recommendation of the task force, for
the remainder of 2004. Staff met with the School District to determine its space needs and outline a
process to identify potential sites. Staff has begun meeting to discuss relocation sites for the school
district administration building and bus garage ahd will meet with School District representatives
at the end of September to narrow down the potential sites. Staff anticipates reporting back to the
City Council before the end of this year.
8. Planning/CounciUEDA Minutes - Enclosed are Planning/Council/EDA meeting minutes for your
review.
9. Project Bulletins - Enclosed are project bulletins on 4301/17 Nevada Avenue and 5207
Pennsylvania Avenue.
10. Miscellaneous Publications - The July issue of Zoning Practice is enclosed for your review; please
note the article on regulating light.
11. If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff.
Attachments: Curb and sidewalk replacement Winnetka/Bass Lake Road
8113 Bass Lake Road
5207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Burial of overhead utilities
Ryland Phase 3
Property north of CP Railroad concept proposal
9220 Bass Lake Road release of financial guarantee
Tax-forfeited land
Restated TIF plan - PPL
Final plat of Science Industry Center 5th Addition
Transfer of real property to PPL
5207 Pennsylvania Avenue purchase
Project Bulletins
Zoning Practice