Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
040296 Planning
AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1996 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. OATH OF OFFICE 3. CONSENT ITEMS 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 * Case 96-07 Requests for Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit Approval and Lot Frontage Variance to Allow Construction of Two Office/Warehouse Buildings, 7300 49th Avenue North, Brad Hoyt/J-S Winnetka, Inc., Petitioner 4.2* Case 96-05 Request for Site and Building Plan Review/Approval for Building Addition, 5500 International Parkway, City of New Hope, Petitioner 4.3 Case 96-01 Consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code §4.202 Regulating the Decisional Process for Special Zoning Requests, City of New Hope, Petitioner 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Report of Design and Review Committee - Next Meeting: April 18 at 8:00 a.m. 5.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee - Next Meeting: To be scheduled 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Miscellaneous Issues 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Review of Planning Commission Minutes of March 4, 1996. 7.2 Review of City Council Minutes of February 26 and March 11, 1996. 7.3 Review of EDA Minutes of February 26 and March 11, 1996. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT * Petitioners are required to be in attendance. : I .: ..... : ~. '"-, .... '"'-:'- NEW HOPE APRIL J , r .... "' { *~ " ~C06-05 New Hope --'' 1 Public Works ~' 5500 InternatSonal Parkway --' ( }-- " PC96-07 '~ ~'~/ ~ Hoyt Development - ' -'-~' 7300 49th Avenue :-~_. ~ --' ' (t~ <301.DEEN VALLIEY CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: March 29, 1996 TO: All Planning Commission Members FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Oath of Office for New Planning Commission Members The City Code states that "the Planning Commission may consist of up to ten members appointed by the City Council. Every appointed member shall, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, take an oath that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office." The Planning Commission consisted of eight (8) members up until December 31, 1995. At that time Bob Gundershaug informed staff of his upcoming retirement, which reduced the number of Commission members to seven (7). The City sought applications for appointment to various commissions from interested residents in the City newsletter and received eight applications. The Council interviewed the six (6) applicants prior to the February 26th Council meeting and formally approved two (2) new appointments to the Commission at the March 11 Council meeting. Mr. Steven Svendsen, 3508 Flag Avenue, and Mr. William Keefe, 9024 471h Avenue were appointed to the Planning Commission and I have enclosed their applications for your information. I will be administering the oath of office to the two new members at the beginning of the April 2 Planning Commission meeting. Please make them feel welcome to be a part of the Commission. Also enclosed please find an updated listing of Planning Commission members. 4401XylonAvenue North City Halh 612-531-5100 City Hall Fax: 612-531-5136 New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Police: 612-531-5170 Police Fax: 612-52~174 Public Works: 612-533-4823 Public Works Fax: 612-5,. , 650 TDD: 612-531.5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531-5175 April 2, 1996 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) I, William Keefe, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Minnesota, and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Planning Commissioner in the City of New Hope, Minnesota, to the best of my judgement and ability. So help me God. William Keefe Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of April, 1996 William Sonsin, Chairman Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator (seal) Family Styled City ~ For Family Living 4401 Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612-531-5100 City Hall Fax: 612.531-5136 New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Police: 612-531-5170 Police Fax: 612-531-5174 · Public Works: 612-533-4823 Public Works Fax: 612-533-7650 TDD: 812-531-5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531-5175 April 2, 1996 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) I, Steven Svendsen, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Minnesota, and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Planning Commissioner in the City of New Hope, Minnesota, to the best of my judgement and ability. So help me God. Steven Svendsen Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of April, 1996 William Sonsin, Chairman Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator (seal) Family Styled City ~ For Family Living 2.13, 2.131, 2.132, 2.133, 2.134, 2.135 2.13 PLANNING COMMISSION. 2.131 Establishment. The Planning Commission heretofore established may be abolished by two-thirds vote of all the members of the Council. 2.132 Composition. (1) Number. The Planning Commission may consist of up to ten members appointed Py the Council. Every appointed member shall, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, take an oath that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office. (2) Term. Unless sooner removed by a four-fifths vote of the Council, nine of the members shall serve a term of three years, and the person appointed as the tenth member shall serve a term expiring the first business day of January in the year following the year appointed. All members appointed and qualified shall serve until their successocs -qualify. (3) Councilman May Be Tenth Member. The Council may appoint a member of the Council to serve on the Planning Commission who shall serve a term expiring on the first business day of January in the year following the year appointed. (Code 072684, Ord. 96-1) (4) Residency ReQuirement. All members of the Planning Commission shall be a resident of the City of New Hope. (Ord. 89-19) 2.133 Purpose, Authority and Duties. The Planning Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the CounCil. It is hereby authorized and directed to carry on City Planning activities and to adopt a plan for the regulation of the future physical development of the City, and to prepare and adopt an official map of all proposed alterations of existing lands and public spaces, and the future development of unplatted properties and shall recommend approval or disapproval of subdivisions of land. The Commission shall make a study of future developments of the City, including proposed public buildings, street arrangements and improvements, public utility services, parks, playgrounds, and other similar developments. The results of all studies made by the Commission, together with the recommendations of the Commission shall be submitted to the Council. The Planning Commission shall upon request of the Council, make recommendations to the Council regarding matters affecting zoning, platting, the making of public improvements and other measures affecting the future or present development of the City. 2.134 Orqanization. The Planning Commission shall elect one of its members as chairman, one as vice chairman, and another as secretary, each of whom shall hold office until December 31st, following their election. (Code 072684) 2.135 Meetings, The Planning Commission shall hold one regular meeting each month, on such day and at such time es established by the Council. Special meetings shall be called by the Chairman upon his request not more than two days after receipt by the Chairman or Secretary of a written request for a special meeting signed by three or more members of the Planning Commission. Special meetings shall require two days written notice to each member. No meeting shall be held during the month of July unless called as a special meeting according to the procedure of this section. (Code 072684, Ord. 85-11) 2-9 072684 , 2.136 Minutes. The Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of business, and shall keep a public record of its resolutions, motions, transactions and findings. One copy of the minutes of each meeting ,~ ' shall be delivered to the Clerk prior to the next regular meeting of the '~ Council, and the Clerk shall record the same as a permanent record of the City. 2-9A 072684 4401 Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612.531.5100 City Hail Fax: 5'2-52'-5 New Hope. Minnesota 55428.4898 Police: 612-531-5170 Po/ice Fax: Public Works: 612.533.4823 Public Works Fax: 612.& TOD: 612-531-5109 Fire Oep't. Fax: 6t2-537-5:75 March 12, 1996 Mr. William Keefe 9024 471/2 Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Dear Mr. Keefe: The New Hope City Council unanimously selected you to serve on the City's Planning Commission. The Council was impressed with your qualifications and interest in serving the City. Your term will expire on December 31, 1998 (3-year term). An oath of office will be administered at your fa:st Planning Commission Meeting of Tuesday, April 2, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. You will receive the agenda packet on the preceding Friday, which will be hand delivered to your residence. This will allow you ample time to read over the material and do a little on-site investigation if you so desire. Should you have any questions regarding the Commission, please contact Kirk McDonald, staff liaison for the Planning Commission. For your review, I have enclosed a copy of minutes from a recent Planning Commission Meeting. Congratulations! Sincerely, Valerie Leone, MCMC City Clerk eric. cc: Kirk McDonald ~,~, ~ For Family Living Family Styled City ,~,it~,~ ~i~;~' CITY OF NEW HOPE APPLICATION FOR COMMISSION ~plying for: ( ) Citizen Advisory Commission ( ) Personnel Board j~) Planning Commission ( ) Human Rights Commission 1. Name WI'//iO,,r3,~ /~/~ Home Phone Bus. Phone 3. How long have you lived in the Ci~? ~/~~ ~ ~ 4. What skills do you have that you feel would benefit the Ci~? 5. Why do you want to ser~e on this commission? / 6, What experience~ave you had that you feel would be pe~inent to this commission? 7. What other civic activities are you involved in? 8. Have you served on any City commissions or boards in the past? Sig at-ar-e -- 4401 Xylon Avenue North C¢ty Hall: 612-531-5100 C¢ty Hall ~-~x New Hope. Minnesota 55428-4898 Pot/ce: 612-53!-5170 Police Fax.- Public Works: 612-533-4823 Public Works Fax: TOD: 612-531.5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: March 12, 1996 Mr. Steven Svendsen 3508 Flag Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Dear Mr. Svendsen: The New Hope City Council unanimously selected you to serve on the City's Planning Commission. The Council was impressed with your qualifications and interest in serving the City. Your term will expire on December 31, 1998 (3-year term). An oath of office will be administered at your first Planning Commission Meeting of Tuesday, April 2, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. You will receive the agenda packet on the preceding Friday, which will be hand delivered to your residence. This will allow you ample time to read over the material and do a little on-site investigation if you so desire. Should you have any questions regarding the Commission, please contact Kirk McDonald, staff liaison for the Planning Commission. For your review, I have enclosed a copy of minutes from a recent Planning Commission Meeting. Congratulations! Sincerely, Valerie Leone, MCMC City Clerk enc. cc: Kirk McDonald Family Styled City "~,'ii'", ~"i,V" For Family Living 02/08/96 15:32 *~612 544 8530 BOUSTE~LD ELE ~002/002 CITY OF NEW HOPE APPLICATION FOR COMMISSION )plying for: . ( ) Citizen Advisory Commission - ( ) Personnel Board {~) Planning Commission { ) Human Rights Commission Bus. Phone 2. Address ~0 ~ ~LR~ ~E~ 3. How long have you lived in the Ci~? ~. ~ skills do you have tha~ you feel would benefit the CiW? 5. ~y do you wa~ to ee~e on this commission? ~ experien~ have you had ~= you fe~ would be pe~nent to this ~mmiseion? 7. Whm mher ~vic a~es are ~u involved 8. Have you se~ed on any Ci~ commissions or ~ards in the pa~t? -' 0t/96--[o3 ~ CITY OF NEW HOPE ~, PLANNING COMMISSION ~ CHAIR: Sonsin, William 3308 Gettysburg Avenue N. 55427 545-4401 Chair 525-0258 (w) MEMBERS: Codes and Standards Sonsin, William - Chair Underdahl, Vi 7706 53rd Avenue North, 55428 533-5913 Landy, Roger 4417 Flag Avenue North, 55428 535-7602 920-3512 (w) Design and Review Cassen, Sharon 8040 60-1/2 Avenue North, 55428 537-5193 Chair 553-1810 (w) Oelkers, William 5909 Ensign Avenue North, 55428 535-6144 (h) 569-5641 (w) Smlberg, Richard 8824 47-1/2 Avenue North, 55428 533-9059 831-5828 (w) Damiani, James 4665 Flag Avenue North, 55428 537-2294 (h) 545-1111 (w) Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Kirk McDonald 4401 Xylon Avenue North 531-5119 (w) Pam Sylvester Community Development Secretary 531-5110 (w) New Commissioners Keefe, William 9024 47 1/2 Avenue North, 55428 537-0613 (h) 755-2229 (w) Svendsen, Steven 3508 Flag Avenue North, 55427 545-2984 (h) 544-9131 (w) Planning Consultant Alan Brixius) Northwest Associated Consultants 595-9636 David Licht ) 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555 Minneapolis, MN 55416 595-9837 (Fax No.) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETS THE FIRST TUESDAY OF EACH MONTH AT THE CITY HALL AT 7:00 P.M. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 96-07 Request: Requests for Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit Approval and Lot Frontage Variance to Allow Construction of Two Office/Warehouse Buildings Location: 7300 49th Avenue North PID No: 08-118-21-24-0012 Zoning: I-l, Limited Industrial Petitioner: Brad Hoyt, J-S Winnetka, Inc. Report Date: March 29, 1996 Meeting Date: April 2, 1996 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting Planned Unit Development/Conditional Use Permit approval and lot frontage variance to allow construction of two office/warehouse buildings, pursuant to Sections 4.19, 4.194, 4.032(2)(e) and 4.22 - New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. Hoyt Development Company has requested concept/development/final plan stage approval of a planned unit development/conditional use permit to allow the construction of two office/warehouse buildings to be located on the 10-acre site remaining from the 36 acres originally purchased from Soo Line in 1988. In 1994, a building was constructed for Navarre Corporation on the property immediately to the west. The proposed site is located north of 49th Avenue and west of the Soo Line Railroad. 3. The existing property is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial use. According to Section 4.032(2)(e) of the Zoning Ordinance, not more than one principal building shall be permissible on a site except by a planned unit development/conditional use permit. Additionally, a variance is necessary from the frontage requirement of 200 feet as stated in Section 4.194 of the Zoning Ordinance for an. industrial planned unit development. 4. Building A, which would be located on the south portion of the property and extend in a north/south direction parallel to the Navarre building, would contain 52,000 square feet with 41,600 square feet for warehouse and 10,400 square feet for office. 5. Building B, which would be located on the northeast portion of the property and extend in an east/west direction, would contain 44,800 square feet with 41,800 square feet being utilized for warehouse space and 3,000 square feet for office. 6. Per the petitioner's correspondence, the construction is speculative and no tenants have yet been identified. Ownership is under one entity and on one lot. The petitioner indicates that a joint maintenance agreement with the adjacent property is in place for ingress, egress and maintenance of the shared drive that accesses 49th Avenue North. A CUP for the shared drive was approved Planning Case Report 96-07 2 March 29, 1996 in 1994 with the subdivision of the property when the Navarre building was approved. 7. Surrounding land uses/zoning include the New Hope Ice Arena (R-I) to the east (and Crystal residential east of Louisiana Avenue); I-1 Limited Industrial across 49th Avenue to the south (and R-1 residential east of the railroad tracks); I-1 Limited Industrial to the west; and vacant R-1 zoned property to the north of the railroad tracks which is owned by the City and has future potential single family residential development possibilities. The area north of the tracks is also identified in the Surface Water Management Plan as a future ponding site 8. This property is located in Planning District #11 of the Comprehensive Plan which discusses adequate screening and landscaping in the arena area to create a positive relationship in the neighborhood. 9. This property has been zoned industrial since 1956. In 1960, the designation was changed to Heavy Industry (later General Industry and 1-2). In 1988, the property was rezoned to I-1, Limited Industrial. 10. The existing site contains a 30-foot stockpile of dirt in the middle which will be used to flatten the site for development. Some trees will be lost in the center and on the north end of the lot. The grading plan shows an enlarged pond at the northwest corner and a low area in the northeast corner adjacent to Crystal. 11. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received several inquiries from residents and business owners about the proposed development. Several Crystal residents residing east of Louisiana Avenue have requested additional landscaping on the east side of Building B. ANALYSIS VARIANCE 1. PUD Frontage: Section 4.194 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the frontage requirements for an industrial planned unit development must not be less than 200 feet on a public right-of-way. The subject site has a frontage of 117 feet on 49th Avenue North. To accommodate the proposed 117-foot frontage width, the Planning Consultant recommends that the processing of a variance is necessary. (A lot frontage variance was previously approved in 1994, with the subdivision of this property.) 2. In consideration of variance requests, the City Code stipulates that approval of a variance must be based upon demonstrated non-economical hardship unique to the subject property. 3. The City Code further states that a hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of property. Considering the triangular shape of the subject property (due to adjacent rail line locations) and degree of lot frontage, it is the opinion of staff that a genuine hardship does exist to warrant variance approval. This position is further supported with the following site design characteristics: Planning Case Report 96-07 3 March 29, 1996 A. The size of site is greatly in excess of that required for that district. B. Additional setback (185 feet) is provided between the building and 49th Avenue North. C. The interrelationship with Navarre property through shared driveway. The deficient frontage requirement does not hinder the proposed design standards and staff recommend approval of the variance from the frontage requirements. I-1 SPECIAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS 1. Special requirements for all developments in the I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District include the following: A. Lot Coverage. Not more than forty percent of the lot, parcel or tract of land shall be covered in a Limited Industry District. B. Lot Area. Minimum lot area requirement of one acre. C. Green Area. At least twenty percent of the lot, parcel or tract of land shall remain as a grass plot, including shrubbery, plantings or fencing, and shall be landscaped. Required minimum green area should be emphasized in the front and side yards abutting streets or residential property. The word "landscaped" means a controlled surface and grade and plantings to allow a smooth surface flow and being under continual maintenance for the preservation of scenic harmony. D. Parking Lots. The minimum setback for parking lots shall be twenty feet adjacent to a residential district and ten feet adjacent to a non-residential district. E. Parking Lot Screening. The parking lot in front of the building shall be screened from the street and from adjoining property in the residential district in conformance with the provisions of the City Code. F. Landscaping Plan. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted to City Council and approved before a building permit may be obtained. G. Design Standards - Curb Cuts. All off-street parking facilities shall be designed with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or alley as well as maneuvering area. Curb cuts shall be placed at intervals of not less than 150 feet and no curb cut shall be located within 75 feet of an intersection, as measured from the driveway centerline along the edge of the traveled surface to the intersecting edge of the traveled surface. 2. The lot coverage, lot area and green area requirements are met with the proposed plan, as listed below: Planning Case Report 96-07 4 March 29, 1996 A. Lot Coverage. The proposed structures have areas of 52,000 square feet and 44,800 square feet. This constitutes 20.2 percent of covered area and meets zoning requirements. B. Lot Area. The proposed site is 10 acres and therefore exceeds the one acre minimum I-1 District lot size requirement. C. Green Area. With approximately 25 percent of the subject site being devoted to green area, the development proposal complies with the I-1 20 percent minimum green space requirements. PUD REQUIREMENTS 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development is to provide for the grouping of land parcels for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and unplanned approach to development. The PUD is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of buildings and activities. It is further intended that Planned Unit Developments are to be characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture, joint or common use of parking, maintenance of open space and other similar facilities, and harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. 2. General Requirements and Standards for a PUD. A. Ownership. An application for PUD approval must be filed by the landowner or jointly by all landowners of the property included in a project. The application and all submissions must be directed to the development of the property as a unified whole. In the case of multiple ownership, the approved PUD shall be binding on all owners. B. Comprehensive Plan Consistency. The proposed PUD shall be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. C. Common Open Space. Common open space at least sufficient to meet the minimum requirements established in City Code and such complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the PUD shall be provided within the area of the PUD. D. Operating and Maintenance Requirements for PUD Common Open Space/Facilities. Whenever common open space or service facilities are provided within the PUD, the PUD plan shall contain provisions to assure the continued operation and a maintenance of such open space and service facilities to a predetermined reasonable standard. E. Staging of Public and Common Open Space Dedication. When a PUD provides for common or public open space, the total area of common or public open space, shall, at a minimum, bear the same relationship to the total open space to be provided in the entire PUD as the stages or units completed or under development bear to the entire PUD. Planning Case Report 96-07 5 March 29, 1996 F. Underground Utilities. In any PUD, all utilities, including, but not limited to telephone, electricity, gas and Cable television shall be installed underground. G. Utility Connections. 1. Water Connections. Where more than one property is served from the same service line, a shut off valve must be located in such a way that each unit's service may be shut off and secured by the City, in addition to the normally supplied shut off at the street. 2. Sewer Connections. Where more than one unit is served by a sanitary sewer lateral which exceeds 300 feet in length, provision must be made for a manhole to allow adequate cleaning and maintenance of the lateral. All maintenance and cleaning shall be the responsibility of the property owners association or owner. H. Roadways. Private. 1. Design. Private roadways within the project shall have an improved surface to 25 feet or more in width and shall be so designed as to permit the City fire trucks to provide protection to each building. 2. Parking. No portion of the required private road system may be used in calculating required off-street parking space or be used for parking. I. Landscaping. In any PUD, landscaping shall be provided according to a plan approved by the City Council, which shall include a detailed planting list with sizes and species indicated as part of the Final Plan. In assessing the landscaping plan, the City Council shall consider the natural features of the particular site, the architectural characteristics of the proposed structures and the overall scheme of the PUD plan. J. Public Services. The proposed project shall be served by the City water and sewer system and fire hydrants shall be installed at such locations as necessary to provide fire protection. K. Building lteight. Height limitations shall be the same as imposed in the respective districts. L. Refuse. Provision for trash pick-up shall be provided according to a plan approved by the City Council. M. Site Improvement A~eement. Prior to the issuance of a building permit as part of Planned Unit Development, the permit, applicant, builder, or developer shall execute and deliver to the Council a development agreement. The agreement shall detail all use restrictions and required on and off-site improvements conditional to the PUD rezoning or CUP approval. The agreement shall provide for the installation within one year of the off- site and on-site improvements as approved by the Council, secured by a cash escrow or surety bond in an amount and with surety and conditions satisfactory to the City, to insure the City that such improvements will be actually constructed and installed according to specifications and plans approved by the City as expressed in such agreement. The amount of the bond shall be one and one-half times the estimated cost of the improvements as Planning Case Report 96-07 6 March 29, 1996 determined by the City Engineer or City Building Official. 3. Commercial or Industrial Planned Unit Development CLIP Requirements. A. Purpose. The intent of this section is to establish special requirements for the granting of a conditional use permit to allow commercial or industrial PUD projects which are in compliance with the permitted and conditional uses allowed in a specific district in one or more buildings in relation to an overall design, an integrated physical plan and in accordance with the provisions and procedures prescribed in this Code. B. Frontage. The tract of land for which a project is proposed and a permit requested shall not have less than 200 feet of frontage on a public right-of-way. C.Yard. No building shall be nearer than 50 feet to the side or rear property line when such line abuts an R-i, R-2, R-3, or R-4 use district. D. Landscaping, Screening and Surfacing. 1. Surfacing. The entire site other than that taken up by structures or landscaping shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage. 2. Drainage. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. 3. Screening and Landscaping. Developments abutting an R-I, R-2, R-3, and R-4 District shall be screened and landscaped in compliance with City Code. 4. Procedure for Processing a Planned Unit Development. A. Stages of PUD. The processing steps for a PUD are intended to provide for an orderly development and progressions of the plan, with the greatest expenditure of developmental funds being made only after the City has had ample opportunity for informed decisions as to the acceptability of the various segments of the whole as the plan affects the Public interest. The various steps are: 1. Application Conference. Preliminary discussions. 2. General Concept Plan. Consideration of overall concept and plan. 3. Development Stage Plan. One or more detailed plans as part of the whole final plan. 4. Final Plan. The summary of the entire concept and each Development Stage Plan in an integrated complete and final plan. 5. General Concept Plan. A. Purpose. The General Concept Plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the City showing his basic intent and the general nature of the entire development before incurring substantial cost. This Concept Plan serves as the basis for the public hearing so that the proposal may be publicly considered at an early stage. Planning Case Report 96-07 7 March 29, 1996 6. Development Stage Plan. A. Purpose. The purpose of the Development Stage Plan is to provide one or more specific and particular plans upon which the Planning Commission will base its recommendation to the Council and with which substantial compliance is necessary for the preparation of the Final Plan. 7. Final Plan. A. Purpose. The Final Plan is to serve as a complete, and permanent public record of the PUD and the manner in which it is to be developed. It shall incorporate all prior approved plans and all approved modifications thereof resulting from the PUD process. It shall serve in conjunction with other provisions of the City Code as the land use regulation applicable to the PUD. 8. The petitioner has requested concurrent approval of the Concept, Development and Final Stage plans and the Commission will need to determine if one or more phases or all phases are to be approved with this submission. REVIEW OF PLANS 1. City Department Heads reviewed the plans on March 13 and the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on March 14. Issues discussed included: building setbacks, dimensional conflicts between plans and survey, parking requirements, shared drive access, drainage, landscaping and green space, truck maneuvering/loading areas, exterior building materials, lighting, snow storage, refuse, signage, drainage easement width and Fire Department comments. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. 2. The revised plans include the following details: A. Setbacks. The proposed site is adjacent to the Sool Line right-of-way along the north and east property line. According to the Zoning Code, the minimum side or rear yard setback of a parcel adjacent to a railroad right-of-way must be 10 feet. As shown below, the proposed warehouse meets all applicable setback requirements. Required Building A Building B Front Yard 50 feet 190 feet ___730 feet Side Yard (East) 10 feet 36 feet 20.7 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 210 feet 36 feet Setback between the two buildings is 170 feet and meets Zoning Ordinance requirements. According to the Zoning Ordinance, a 50-foot side or rear yard setback would be required for an industrial PUD abutting a residential use district. However, because the proposed site is adjacent to a railway right-of-way along the north and east property line and therefore Planning Case Report 96-07 8 March 29, 1996 does not require the 50-foot setback required for a PUD. B. Off-Street Parking. Parking Spaces. Based on the City's off-street parking requirements, 90 spaces are required of the proposed warehouses as calculated below: Use Ratio Requirement Building .4: Warehouse 41,600 x .9 SF 1 space per 1,500 square feet 25 Office 10,400 x .9 SF 1 space per 300 square feet 31 plus 1 company owned truck Building B: Warehouse 41,800 x .9 SF 1 space per 1,500 square feet 25 Office 3,000 x .9 SF 1 space per 300 square feet 9 TOTAL 90 The reVised site plan shows 50 off-street parking spaces along the west property line. However, a count of these spaces shows 49 stalls and this is consistent with the dimensions of the parking width as indicated on the revised site plan. The site survey plan, however, shows 52 parking stalls along this area and this is inconsistent with the intended design. Clarification and consistency of parking spaces must be indicated to illustrate the clear intent by the applicant. A total of 111 off-street parking stalls have been provided, including 15 spaces in the front yard, 12 spaces abutting the south wall of the Building A, and 35 spaced in the north parking lot, and as such, the proposed parking supply complies with that required by Ordinance. Note that the parking spaces abutting 49th Avenue have been revised, per the request of Design & Review. Parking Dimensions. According to the Zoning Ordinance, 90-degree parking stalls such as these being proposed must measure not less than 8'-9" in width and 19 feet in depth. In addition, drive aisles must provide a width not less than 24 feet. All proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or exceed the cited stall dimension requirements. Handicap Parking. According to State law, one in every 25 off-street parking stalls must be devoted to use by the handicapped. The revised site plan has indicated five spaces for handicapped car/van parking (one in south parking area, two in west parking area and two in north parking area) and therefore meets the zoning and state requirement. 'The handicapped stalls meet the design standards as required by ADA. Curbing. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that all off-street parking driveway areas must have perimeter curbing. This provision applies both to designated parking areas and the proposed shared access drive. The revised plan indicates B6-12 concrete curb and gutter along the east property line and area surrounding the seeded triangular area addition. Planning Case Report 96-07 9 March 29, 1996 Surfacing. All areas intended to be utilized for parking spaces and driveways are to be surfaced with material suitable to control dust and drainage. The site plan shows the surface area to be bituminous paving and meets the Ordinance requirement. Striping. All parking stalls must be marked with white painted lines not less than four inches wide. C. Loading. The number and size of loading berth design meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements. When the original plan was reviewed, the Design & Review Committee recommended eliminating two loading spaces along the southern part of Building A and the two eastern loading spaces provided for Building B. The revised plan indicates that these loading areas are removed. However, there still remains some concern regarding the maneuvering of the truck for the two loading spaces along the southern part of Building A and one eastern loading space provided for Building B (see Exhibits H and I). These loading spaces lack sufficient area to accommodate the maneuvering of a 55-foot semi-truck without interfering with circulation driving aisles and landscaped areas. There is some inconsistency in the revised site plan (Exhibit A) and the revised survey (Exhibit C). The revised site plan scales out five feet short of the indicated dimension of 36 feet at the southeast corner of Building A. By correcting this inconsistency between the site plan and certificate of survey, the maneuvering space for one of the two trucks at the southern end of Building A would be improved. In regard to the other two loading spaces, staff recommends eliminating them on the proposed design or reducing building width to accommodate maneuvering space. D. Property Access. The property is to be accessed via an existing 32-foot wide shared access (with adjacent Lot 2) from 49th Avenue. This is a permitted use for a PUD considering the relatively high traffic volumes which exist upon 49th Avenue. The applicant has indicated that they have a joint maintenance agreement for ingress, egress and maintenance of the shared driveway with the adjacent property. This agreement must be submitted to the City Attorney for his review and comment. Navarre Corporation is also currently utilizing the shared access for parallel parking. This is not acceptable and is in violation of their construction approval. This issue needs to be resolved between Navarre and the City and is not the responsibility of the petitioner. City staff have contacted Navarre to resolve this issue. It is also anticipated that Navarre will be expanding their building soon and that the parking issue will be addressed at that time. E. Snow Storage. According to the Zoning Ordinance, a provision must be made in off-street parking areas for adequate snow storage or removal to ensure that the required number of spaces are available at all times of the year. Of specific concern in regard to snow storage is the __ five-foot wide curb island which separates the western warehousing parking area and shared drive aisle. With a dimension of only five feet, it is questionable whether ample area exists in this area of the site for snow storage. To provide additional area for snow Planning Case Report 96-07 10 March 29, 1996 storage, the applicant has indicated the area along the eastern property for snow storage. Such arrangement would allow for additional snow storage. As a condition of site and building plan approval, all on-site parking stalls must be available for year-round use. F. Trash. The revised building plans (Exhibits F and G) show locations of two trash storage areas to be located inside the building. The proposed location complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. G. Lot Coverage totals are presented below: Building 96,800 square feet 23 % Green Area 134,824 square feet 32.2% Asphalt 188,284 square feet 44.8% H. Lighting. The revised lighting plan shows 30 exterior lighting locations. All lighting used to illuminate street parking areas should be hooded and directed to reflect light away from neighboring properties and adjacent rights-of-way. The lighting plan appears to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Further, the lighting plan does not include footcandle level and this must be specified on the final drawings. I. ~. Neither the revised site plan or building elevations indicate whether any signage is to be provided on site. All site signage will be required to comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance and a Comprehensive Sign Plan for the two buildings should be submitted. J. Building Material and Building Height. The building plans/elevations indicate that the proposed building material will be precast concrete wall panels with insulated metal overhead door. The petitioner indicated that the buildings would have color band accents similar to Navarre. According to the Zoning Ordinance, buildings within I-1 Zoning Districts may not exceed three stories in height. The proposed elevations for Building A and Building B is 21 feet and therefore the buildings conform to I-1 District height requirements. K. Lighting. The revised lighting plan shows 30 exterior lighting locations. All lighting used to illuminate street parking areas will be hooded and directed to reflect light away from neighboring properties and adjacent rights-of-way. The lighting plan appears to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements The Building Official has reviewed the illumination contour data for the project and he indicates that the fixtures and light levels meet City guidelines for site lighting. L. Landscaping. In compliance with Ordinance requirements, a landscaping plan has been submitted. The plan specifies the location, type and size of the proposed site plantings, as listed below: Planning Case Report 96-07 11 March 29, 1996 Plant Name Size Quantity Sea Green Juniper 18" 54 Teonny Globe Arborvitae 18" 27 Redmond Linden 21/2" 4 Compact Armur Maple 36" 1 Black Hills Spruce 6' 8 TOTAL 94 The notes on the plan indicate that all sod areas would be underground sprinkled. A green seeded area has been added on the east property line, as requested by the Design & Review Committee. Staff feels that there are several issues that were previously noted on the preliminary plans which have not been adequately addressed on the final plans: 1. The plantings shown on the south and southeastern property line do not adequately screen the proposed off-street parking and loading area from the residential use across 49th Avenue North. Additional landscaping should be required. The Planning Consultant recommends that a hedge of plant material extending 300 feet along the southeastern property line would sufficiently screen the parking/loading areas. The type of hedge planting should have growth characteristics similar to the Dwarf Amur Maple listed in the plant list. The landscaping shown along south property line is insufficient (one tree and one shrub). Extensive landscaping is to be provided on the south side of the berm. 2. It was recommended that the landscape treatment within the curb island be similar to the parallel curb of the Navarre property that runs along the shared common access driveway. Junipers were added to the plan but not in'a continuous hedge. The shade trees that were shown on the preliminary plan have been removed. Trees and Junipers should be added to the final landscape plan to mirror those used across the common driveway. 3. The landscape plan should specify how the seeded areas are to be prepared, the timing (dates) of the seeding, amount of seed to be used, and what mulch or erosion control is to be used. 4. Five Black Hills Spruce have been shown at the rear of Warehouse B, along the north property line as landscape screening. What has been proposed is an insufficient screen. A solid screen of vegetation is not expected, but landscaping that creates a positive relationship between the industrial and the residential land use areas is required. Additional coniferous trees and deciduous trees should be added along the north and east sides of the building at grade to break up the building's mass and visibility to residential areas. Planning Case Report 96-07 12 March 29, 1996 There are additional items that should be addressed in the planting design for the proposed buildings. The foundation plantings located on the south and west side of Building A and the west side of Building B should utilize vertical growing plant material in order to break up the buildings mass and to highlight its entries. Staff have also received requests from Crystal residents for sOme landscaping on the east side of Building B. 3. Ci_ty Engineer Comments - The City Engineer reviewed the revised plans and made the following recommendations: A. Water quality improvements for the development of Lot 2 shall comply with the requirements of the Shingle Creek Watershed. The ponding capacity shall be sufficient to include not only this project, but also the adjacent Navarre project to the west. Construction of the pond shall be done so as not to damage the existing 30" storm sewer located along its east edge. B. The existing 30" storm sewer located near the east wall of the southerly building is located in a 10 foot-wide easement. It is recommended the existing easement be widened 10 feet to include a total 20 foot-wide easement. In addition, it is recommended the footing design for the easterly wall adjacent to the existing 30" storm sewer be designed to allow a 1:1 side slope in the event the existing storm sewer is open cut and repaired. C. New Hope's Draft Storm Water Plan proposed three water quality ponds in this area with the intent to provide storm water treatment before discharge to Upper Twin Lake. The development of this site proposes that two of the ponds will not be constructed as defined in the Draft Storm Water Plan. Although the removal efficiency for phosphorus is reduced from 49 percent to 36 percent for one pond vs. three ponds, it is strongly recommended the City still consider constructing the third pond on the property north of the railroad tracks. D. Existing wetlands shall be delineated and protected by an easement in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. E. The grading plan shall insure all drainage within the westerly right-of-way of the C.P. Rail system is conveyed from the south to the north. F. The sanitary sewer serving the northerly building shall include insulation in areas where cover is less than 4-5 feet. It is assumed the sanitary sewer and water main serving Lot 2 will be private. G. The driveway access to Lot 2 is shared by Navarre to the west. The private driveway cannot accommodate parking due to its width (30'). In the event parking is not properly accounted for on each site, resulting in vehicles parking on the shared driveway, the ability of emergency vehicles to access each site will be compromised. Therefore, parking cannot be allowed in the shared drive. Planning Case Report 96-07 13 March 29, 1996 4. The Fire Inspector has reviewed the revised plans and made the following comments: A. Water supply for fire protection (hydrants) - 10 hydrants required or 2 hydrants with installation of approved automatic fire sprinkler system. B. Fire Department access road - Fire Department access road is required around both warehouses. If building is to be used for High-piled storage, this requirement goes without exception. If building is not used for High-piled storage, there are some possible exceptions. C. Storage limitations or compliance with Article 81 - Storage height must be limited to a maximum of 15 feet in closely packed piles or 12 feet in racks. If these storage heights are exceeded, building must comply with all requirements of UFC Article 81 (High-piled Combustible Storage). (Compliance with Article 81 would include mechanical smoke removal system, aisles, access road, access doors and standpipe connections.) Staff recommends that the petitioner meet with the Fire Inspector to resolve these issues prior to final plan approval. 5. Staff commend the petitioner for the changes that have been made to the plans, but feel that there are too many unresolved issues to recommend concurrent concept/development/final stage approval. Staff will be recommending concept approval and request that the petitioner submit revised plans, meet again with the Design & Review committee, and return to the Commission in May for development/final stage approval. The Commission may feel that the plans are complete enough to approve concept/development stage approval, but the petitioner would still need to submit revised plans and return for final stage approval. RECOMMENDATION Pending comments from persons in attendance at the hearing, staff recommend approval of concept stage PUD/CUP approval to allow the construction of two office/warehouse buildings and a variance to the lot frontage 'requirement, subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner submit revised plans and documents for development/f'mal stage approval that addresses the following issues: A. Consistency in the site plan and survey plan indicating the total number of parking spaces. B. The loading space maneuvering changes be incorporated into the site plan as recommended in the report. C. A joint maintenance agreement for ingress, egress, and maintenance of shared drives submitted and reviewed by the City Attorney. Planning Case Report 96-07 14 March 29, 1996 D. The landscape plan be revised to incorporate the recommendations of additional screening and landscaping: 1. Additional and landscaping required along the sough and southeast property lines. 2. Additional screening and landscaping required in the parking lot island to the west of office warehouse "A" to mirror the landscape provided on the Navarre property. 3. Additional screening required to the north and east of warehouse "B". 4. A seeding plan be incorporated into the landscape plan that specifies seeding type and amount, ground preparation, dates of seeding, mulch type and erosion control areas. 5. Landscaping at the front of the Building A should consist of plant type that provide some vertical amenity that breaks up the building massing and enhances the entrances. E. Comprehensive Sign Plan be submitted that shows all site signage will comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. F. Existing 10-foot wide easement near east wall of southerly building for 30 inch storm sewer be widened 10 feet to include a total 20-foot wide easement. G. Footing design for easterly wall adjacent to existing 30 inch storm sewer be designed to allow a 1:1 side slope in the event the existing storm sewer is open cut and repaired. H. Existing wetlands be delineated and protected by an easement in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. I. The grading plan shall insure all drainage within the westerly right-of-way of the C.P. Rail System is conveyed from the south to the north. J. The sanitary sewer serving the northerly building shall include insulation inn areas where cover is less than 4-5 feet. It is assumed the sanitary sewer and water main serving Lot 2 will be private. K. Recommendations of Fire Inspector to be incorporated into plans. Attachments: Planner's 3/28 Report on Revised Plans Exhibits: A - Site Location B - Revised Site Plan C - Drainage/Utility Plan · D - Landscape Plan E - Lighting Plan F - Building A Floor Plan & Elevations G - Building B Floor Plan & Elevations H - Building A Turning Radius Diagram I - Building B Turning Radius Diagram Lighting Plans/Photometrics Engineer's 3/27 Comments on Revised Plans Revised Plant Schedule Revised Site Plan Data Fire Department Comment on Revised Plans & Diagram Planner's 3/12 Report on Original Plans Engineer's 3/12 Comments on Original Plans Petitioner's 3/8 Correspondence City 2/16 Correspondence MAR-28-199G 19:19 NAC 612 595 983? P. 02/05 Con ,U!t nt , COMMUNITY-'~L'~NNING ' DESIGN``; MARKET RESEARC~ PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Madhulika Singh / Dan Sjordal / Alan Brixius DATE: 28 March 1996 RE: New Hope - Hoyt Development PUD/CUP Revised Plan Review - 5000 Winnetka, 2nd Addition FILE NO: 131.01 - 96.02 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background A revised concept, development and final stage PUD plan have b=cn submitted based on recommendation by our office as outlined in a 12 March 1996 Planning Report, and comments by the Design Review Committee. We have conducted a review of the revised plan which provides a general analysis of issues and notes any problems which are yet unresolved with regard to the approval of a planned unit development/conditional use permit, to allow the consin~tJon of two office/warehouse buildings to be located on the 10 acre site In 1994, a building was constructed for Navarre Corporation on the property immediately to the west_ The proposed site is located north of 49th Avenue and west of the Soo Line Railroad. The existing propaly is zoned I-1, Umited Industrial use. According to Section 4.032(2)(e) of the Zoning Ordinance, not. more than one principal building shall be permissible on a site except by a planned unit development/conditional use permit. Additionally, a variance is necessary from the frontage requirement of 200 feet as stated in Section 4.194 of We Zoning Ordinance for an industrial planned unit development. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Revised Site Plan Exhibit C - Drainage/Utility Plan 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 MAR-28-1996 19:19 N~C 612 595 983"7 P.03×05 Exhibit D - Revised Landscape Plan , Exhibit E - Revised Lighting Plan Exhibit F - Revised Building A Floor Plan and Elevations Exhibit G - Revised Building B Floor Plan and Elevations Exhibit H -Tuming Radius Diagram (Building A) Exhibit ! - Turning Radius Diagram (Building B) Recommendation Based upon the following review, our office recommends the approval of the requested PUD/CUP contingent on the following conditions: 1. The City approves a variance to allow the site to exhibit a lot front less than 200 feet. 2. Consistency in the site plan end survey plan indicating the total number of parking spaces. 3. The loading space maneuvering be incorporated as recommended in the report. The City provides comments as to the acceptability of the loading area's infringement on the shared access drive. 4. A joint maintenance agreement for ingress, egress, and maintenance of shared ddves submitted and reviewed by the City Attorney. 5. The ~ plan should be revised to reflect the recommendations of additional screening end landscaping: a. Additional and landscaping will be required along the south and southeast property lines. b. Additional scrccning and landscaping will be required in the parking lot island to the west of office/warehouse "A' to mirror the landscape provided on the Navaar property. c. Additional screening will be required to the north and east of warehouse 'B'. d. A seeding plan is to be incorporated into the landscape plan that specifies seeding type and amount, ground preparation, dates of s=-,.,ding, mulched type and a erosion control areas. e. Landscaping at the front of the Building A should consist of plant type that provide some vertical amenity that breaks up the building massing and 2 MAR-28-1996 19:19 NAC 612 595 98~ P.~×05 enhances the entrances. 6. The City Engineer provide comment on the acceptability of the easement locations upon the site and proper sizing and location of required drainage and utility easements throughout the site. The revised final plan must reflect the recommendation as noted by the City Engineer. 7. The submitted grading and drainage plan is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. All site signage comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. 9. The site plan is modified to illustrate all exterior lighting locations. All lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas must be hooded and directed to reflect light away from neightx~ng pmpe~es and public fights-of-way. The lighting plan must indicate the footcandle levels. 10. Comments from other City staff, Fire Inspectors and City Engineers. ISSUES ANALYSI~ Planned Unit Development, As noted previously, the applicant has requested a planned unit development (conditional use permit) to allow the construction of two principal buildings which vary from the base zoning (I-1) requirements. PUD/CUP is intended to provide flexibility from the strict provisions of the Ordinance and encourage development innovations, higher standards of building design, a harmonious development pattem, etc. Land Use. The applicant has proposed rite construction of two office/warehouses on the subject site. According to the Zoning Ordinance, warehouses are considered a permitted land use in the I-1, Limited Industrial District. Lot Area. According to the Zoning Ordinance, lots within I-1 Zoning Districts may not be less than one acre in size. The proposed site is 10 acres and therefore exceeds the minimum I-1 Distrfct lot size requiremenL Lot Width. According to the Zoning Ordinanca, Iot~ within I-1 Zoning Districts must provide at least 150 feet of width. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance defines lot width as the shortest horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth. The proposed site has a lot width of 150 feet measured at 50 feet from the front 3 M~R-28-1~96 17:20 N~C 61~ SDS 985"~ P.05×~ ' property line and therefore meets Zoning Ordinance requirements. PUD Frontage. As per Section 4.194 of the Zoning Ordinance, the frontage requirements for an industrial planned unit development must not be less than 200 feet on a public right- of-way. The subject site has a frontage of 117 feet on 49th Avenue North. To accommodate the proposed 117 foot frontage width, the processing of a variance will be necessary. In consideration of variance requests, Section 4.22 of the Ordinance stipulates that approval of a variance must be based upon demonstrated non-economical hardship unique to the subject property. The Ordinance further states that a hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of property. Considering the triangular shape oft~e subject property (due to adjacent rail line locations) and degree of lot frontage, it is the opinion of our office that a genuine hardship does exist to warrant variance approval. This position is further supported with the following site design characteristics: 1. The size of site is greatly in excess of that required for that district. 2. Additional setback (185 feet) is provided between the building and 49th Avenue North. 3. The interrelationship with Navarre property through shared driveway. The deficient frontage requirement does not hinder the proposed design standards and our office would recommend the variance approval from the frontage requirements. Setback. As stated earlier, the propom~l site is adjacent to the Scm Line fight-of-way along the north and east property line. ~ding to Section 4.034 (6) the minimum side or rear yard setback of a parcel adjacent to a railroad fight-of-way must be 10 feet. As shown below, the proposed warehouse meets ail applicable setback requirements. Required Building A Building B Front Yard 50 feet 190 feet _+730 feet Side Yard (East) 10 feet 36 feet 20.7 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 210 feet 36 feet Setback between the two buildings is 170 feet and meets Zoning Ordinance requirements. According to Section 4.194.K of the Zoning Ordinance, a 50 foot side or rear yard setback would be required for an industrial PUD abutting a residential use district. However, as stated earlier, the proposed site is adjacent to a railway right-of-way along the north and east property line and therefore does not require the 50 foot yard required for a PUD 4 TOTAL P.05 MAR-2g-1996 88:12 NAC 612 595 9839 P.01×01 Building Height. According to the Zoning Ordinance, buildings within I-1 Zoning Districts may not exceed three stories in height. The proposed elevations for Building A and Building B is 21 feet and therefore the buildings conform to I-1 District height requirements. Lot Coverage. According to the Zoning Ordinance, not more than 40 percent of the lot may be covered by building in an I-1 District. The proposed structures have areas of 52,000 square feet and 44,800 square feet. This constitutes 20.2 percent of covered area and meets zoning requirements. Off-Street Parking. Parking Spaces. Based on the City's off-street parki.ng requirements, 90 spaces will be required of the proposed warehouses as calculated below:. Use Ratio Rec!uiremenl~ Building A: Warehouse 41,600 x .9 SF 1 space per 1,500 square feet 25 Office 10,400 x .9 SF I space per 300 square feet 3t plus I company owned truck Building B: Warehouse 41,800 x .9 SF ' 1 space per 1,500 square feet 25 Office 3,000 x .9 SF I space per 300 square feet 9 TOTAL 90 The required site plan (Exhibit A) indicates 50 off.street parking spaces as shown along the west property line. However, a count of these spaces shows 49 stalls and this is consistent with the dimensions of the parking width as indicated on the revised site plan. The site survey plan (Exhibit C), how~, shows 52 parking stalls along this area and this is inconsistent with the intended design. Clarification and consistency of parking spaces must be indicated to illustrate the clear intent by the applicant. A total of 111 off-street parking stalls has been provided and as such, the proposed parking supply complies with that required by Ordinance. Perking Dimensions. According to the Zoning Ordinance, 90 degree parking stalls such as that being proposed must measure not less than 8'-9" in width and 19 feet in depth. In addition, drive aisles must provide a width not less than 24 feet. All proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or exceed the cited stall dimension requirements. 5 TOTAL P.01 612 S9S 9~37 P.01×0~ Handicap Parkina. According to State law, one in every 25 off-street parking stalls must be devoted to ~ by the handicapped. The revised site plan has indicated five spaces for handicapped car/van parking and therefore meets the zoning and state requirement. The handicapped stalls meet the design standards as required by ADA. Curbing. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that all off-street parking driveway areas must have perimeter curbing. To be noted is that this provision applies both to designated parking areas and the proposed shared access drive. Additionally, the revised plan indicates concrete curb along the east property line and area surrounding the seeded triangular area addition. Surfacina~. All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with material suitable to control dust and drainage. The site plan shows the surface area to be bituminous paving and meets the Ordinance requirement. Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls must be submitted to the City Engineer for his review. StriDing. All parking stalls must be marked with white painted lines not less than four inches wide. Loading, The number and size of loading berth design meets the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.037(6)(a)(i) requirements. In a planning report dated 12 March 1996, our office recommended eliminating two loading spaces along the southern part of Building A and the two eastern loading spaces provided for Building B. The revised plan indicates that these loading areas am removed. However, there still remains some concern regarding the maneuvering of l]~e truck for the two loading spaces along the southem part of Building A and one eastern loading space provided for Building B (see Exhibits H and I). These loading spaces lack sufficient area to accommodate the maneuvering of a 55 foot semi- truck without interfering with circulation driving aisles and landscaped areas. There is some inconsistency in the revised site plan (Exhibit A) and the revised survey (Exhibit C). The revi~cl site plan scales out five feet short of the indicated dimension of 36 feet at the southeast ccxner of Building A. By camc~ng this inconsistency between the site plan and ced~ of survey, the maneuvering space for one of the two trucks at the soulhem end of Building A m~uld be improved. In regard to the other two loading spaces, our office recomnten~ eliminating them on Ihs 13'oposed design or reducing building width to accommodate maneuvering space. The accep~l~ of this situation should be subject to further City comment. Property Access. As shown on the submitted site plan, the subject property is to be accessed via an existing 32 foot wide shared access (with adjacent Lot 2) from 49th Avenue. This is a permitted use for a PUD considering the relatively high traffic volumes 6 MAR-28-1996 17:~5 NAC 612 595 9839 which exist upon 49th Avenue. During a site inspection of the shared driveway, our office observed that parallel parking was allowed on the shared driveway. This raises concerns with regard to the parking demand for the existing Navarre site and the proposed use and the need to preserve the private drive for ingress and egress exclusively. This issue should be discussed and reviewed in greater detail pdor to Planning Commission consideration and recommendations. The applicant has indicated that they have a joint maintenance agreement for ingress, egress and maintenance of the shared ddveway with the adjacent property. This agreement must be submitted to the City Attorney for his review and comment. Green Area. ~ing to Section 4.145 of the Zoning Ordinance, at least 20 percent of the subje~ property must be devoted to green area. VV'~d~ approximately 25 percent of the subject site being devoted to green area, the development proposal complies with minimum green space requirements. Landscaping. In compliance with Ordinance requirements, a landscaping plan has been submitted. The plan specifies the location, type and size of the proposed site plantings. There are several issues that were previously noted on the preliminary plans which have not been adequately addressed on the final plans. 1. The pier?rings shown on the south and ~heastem property line do not adequately screen the proposed off-street parking and loading area from the residential use across 49th Avenue North. Additional landscaping will be required. Our office recommends that a hedge of plant material extending 300 feet along the southeastern property line would sufficiently screen the parking/loading areas. The type of hedge planting should have growth characteristics similar to the Dwarf Amur Maple listed in the plant list. The landscaping shown along south property line is insufficient (one tree and one shrub). Extensive landscaping is to be provided on the south side of the berm. 2. It was recom~ that the landscape treatment within the curb island be similar to the parallel curb of the Navarre property that runs along the shared common access driveway. Junipers were added to the plan but not in a continuous hedge. The shade trees that were shown on the preliminary plan have been removed. Trees ancl Junipers should be added to the final landscape plan to minor those used across the common driveway. 3. The landscape plan should specify how the seeded areas are to be prepared, the timing (dates) of the seeding, amount of seed to be used, and what mulch or erosion control is to be used. 7 MAR-28-199G 17:23 NAC GI~ 595 983~ P. 03×04 4. Five Black Hills Spruce have been shown at the rear of Warehouse B, along the north property line as landscape screening. What has been proposed is an insufficient screen. A solid screen of vegetation is not expected, but land~..aping that creates a positive relationship between the industrial and the residential land use areas is required. Additional coniferous trees and deciduous trees should be added along the north and east sides of the building at grade to break up the building's mass and visibility to residential areas. There are additional items that should be addressed in the planting design for the proposed buildings. The foundation plantings located on the South and west side of Buildings A and the west side of Building B should utilize vertical growing plant material in order to break up the buildings mass and to highlight its entries. Snow Storage. According to Section 4.036(4)(g) of the Zoning Ordinance, a provision must be made in off-street parking areas for adequate snow storage or removal to ensure that the required number of spaces are available at all times of the year. Of specific concerning regard to snow storage is the + five foot wide curb island which separates the western warehousing parking area and shared drive aisle. W'~,h a dimension of only five feet, it is questi~le whether ample area exists in this area of the site for snow storage. To provide additional area for snow storage, the applicant has indicated the ama along the eastern property for snow storage. Such arrangement would allow for additional snow storage. As a condition of site and building plan approval, all on-site parking stalls must be available for year round uae. Easements. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement is indicated on the proposed site plan along the front, rear and east property lines. An access eesernent of 15 feet is indicated over the shared access drive along the west property line. As part of final plat approval, a ponding easement must be identified. The acoeptability of such easement locations should be subject to comment by the City Engineer. The City Engineer recommends widening the existing 10 foot easement located near the east wall of the southerly building to include a total 20 foot wide easement_ In addition, the City Enginccr recommends the footing design for the easterly wall adjacent to the storm sewer be designed to allow a 1:1 side slope. Grading and Drainage. A grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review. Appropriately, all site wetlands have been delineated. The grading and drainage plan will be subject to review and approval of the City Engincc,". 'Trash. The revised building plans (Exhibits F and G) show locations of two trash storage 8 MAR-28-1996 17:25 HAC 612 595 9839 P.~4×~4 areas to be located inside of the building. The proposed location complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. Building Material. The building plans/elevations indicate that the proposed building material will be precast concrete wall panels with insulated metal overhead door. The applicants, however, indicate that the consb'uction is speculative and no tenants have been identified. All construction must comply with applicable codes. Signage. Neither the revised site plan or building elevations indicate whether any signage is to provided on site. All site signage will be required to comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. Lighting. The revised lighting plan shows 30 extedor lighting locations. All lighting used to illuminate street parking areas should be hooded and directed to reflect light away from neighboring properties and adjacent rights-of-way. The lighting plan appears to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Further, the lighting plan does not include footcandle level and this must be specified on the final drawings. Rail Spur. As shown on the submitted site plan, a Soo Line rail spur traverses the northem portion of the subject site. Based on lhe site plan configuration, it does not appear that the proposed warehouse is to utilize the spur. CONCLUSION 'Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of concept/development/ final plan for the proposed warehouse facilities subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. pc: Doug Sandsted Mark Hanson Steve, Sondrall 9 TOTAL P.I~4 MAR-28-1996 19:15 NAC 612 595 983? P.02×10 ~.4 \ EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION MAR-~8-199G 17:16 NAC~ 612 595 9839 P.OJ~IO · '"'"' ~'~:' ': .i '.-' ,~i REVISED SiTE PLA~ M~R-2B-1996 17:16 N~C 61~ $95 985'7 P.0~/10 ~ ..... ~.~.~~-~ ................... ~__ / ...... :' '''''...~'~ .... ~ . I p[mm[ I,'-., mt ~ifl ,,,-.~t ~.-.--,,j ~ ~it~- ,-,,, ~ ~,.~-~ ~ ~. ,,~~_..[[~.~-[i~ [11 ~-. ~.pr,.=.t: .:.~, . EXHIBIT C ili i-~l/ ~ ~ ! ~tlTY ~ I II ~iia .:.1], __,, ,__- -~--, , ~ {DRAINAGE/UTILITY PLA~ MAR-28-1996 17:16 NAC 612 595 9839 P.05×10 MAR-~8-1996 17:17 NAC 612 595 9839 P.OG×10 MAR-28-1996 17:17 NAC 612 595 9837 P.07×10 ~ "'~ I 11 ':"~:'""; ' I" i t I I... 1 / L .... '"'; '.:: ~': ' [ ' .~ i ' !.*,~ i '1' I "" ' / ~.:. ----., i'~; ~- 1 : ..: i .: I"" ' .. ;~, i ' , I,-- ': !. ; . ' -: ~ ' I ' "": ~ ; · i.. ' 'i · I i ! ~ I I,...... : ' 'f" · .. I ~ '~ "~" ' tl : ; .; 'rIll' il~-z~...,I msa-~K t.,,.-,..,.~..,,,..,,~.4~',J,-.~-,.~.,,,~ ' I' EXHIBIT F 1.1. I-, · REVISED BUILDING A FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATIONS MAR-~8-1996 17:17 NAC 612 595 9839 P.08×1~ }. '~ * .... ~ .'.' .......... ~:.~REVISED BUILDING.B FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATIONS M~-28-1996 17:18 N~C 612 ~59~ 9~37 P.lag/10 MAR-28-1996 19:18 NAC 612 595 9839 P.10×10 /~-'"~- - ...... - TURNING RADIUS DIAGRAM-BUILDING B TOTAL P. 10 SOUTH SIDE ELECTRIC, INC. 9201 East Bloomington FWY Suite H Bloomington, MN 55420 Ph(612) 888-5500 FAX(612) 888-1415 PHOTOMETRICS - NEW HOPE FIXTURE "A" (Shoebox wall mounted) A = 13.00 Footcandle ~~~~ B = 6.40 Footcandle C = 3.20 Footcandle ~A~ 2 2 1996 D = 1.28 Footcandle _ E = .64 Footcandle -- F = .32 Footcandle Above is at 20' mounting height. FIXTURE "B" (Well,ack) A = 2.00 Footcandle B = 1.00 Footcandle C = .50 Footcandle D = .25 Footcandle E = .10 Footcandle Above is at 20' mounting height. FIXTURE "C" (Pole Lights) A = 10.00 Footcandle B = 4.99 Footcandle C = 2.49 Footcandle D = 1.00 Footcandle E = .49 Footcandle F = .25 Footcandle G = .10 Footcandle Above is a 24' Pole. ""0~'"'"~":'~'~ 25 YEARS OF SERVICE National Nome.Improvement Council HERITAGE DIMENSIONS Bracket - 3-bolt Pattern Sq. Note: A 4' x 4" x 12" steel arm mount (bolt-on bracket) is shipped standard with Heritage fixtures. LUMINAIRE EPA CHART Includes bracket. Single 090* ONee* O180' TgO* TN120° QgO' QN90' F OL F OL F OL F DL F OL F DL F OL F DL Herita~e-12'eracket I 2.0 2.4 I 4.1 4.9I3.8 4.5I4.t 4.9 I 6. f 7.3I 6.2 7.3I 8.2 9.7 Note: F - Flat Glass, DL- Drop Lens. ORDERING INFORMATION Sp. lect appropriate choice from each column to formulate order code. Refer to example below. Optional Braokat,~: If optional bradlett will he ordered, yon mu~t selecl "D$8 - Delele $1andard 9rackel' In the Options column of this chad. Optional brackets must be ordered separately from the ordering chad in the Poles/Brackels section of this catalog, I Luminalre Lamp Line Lumieaire Options Prefix Dish'lbutlen Waltage Light Sogree Lens Voltage~* Finish HE A - Asymmetrical 150 HP~ - High Pressure Sodium DA - Dropped Prismatic 120V Standard Brackets 175 150. 20(]1, 250, 400 Watt Acrylic 208V 8RZ - Bronze 0S8 - Delete Standard Bracket (See 200 SMH - Super Metal Halide DP - Dropped Prismatic 240V 9Ll( - Black Poles~Brackets section of catalocj 250 175, 250, 400 Watt Polycarbonats 277V PLT - Platinum to order other mountincj t,/pes ) 400 Mil - Metal ~ F - Clear Rat Tempered 480V COA- Cocoa Fixture 175, 250, 400 Watt Glass MT - Multi Tap VAN - Vanilla PCR - Photoelectric Control 7:3 - C73 Dfffussd Flat Writ - White with Twistlock Receptacle Tempered Glass GRN - Green LL - Less Lamp :3 - Type ill' F - Clear Flat Tempered Architectural CL - Coated FT - Forward Glass BRO - Brick FS - Fusin(:J for t20V & 277V Throw* GYG - Gray Granite FD - Double Fus~ncJ for 2n~BV & 240V 5 - Type V* ROG - Red Gramte FrJ1 - Double Fusmcj for .ISdV LMS - Limestone HSS - House Side DTS - 0esertstone PLS - Polycarbonate Sh,eld' MGR - Green M~qrble NO - N~ Of~tions EXAMPLE OF A TYPICAL ORDER HE - A - 250 - MH - DA - 120V - BRZ - NO Noles: Architectural finishes require additional lead time. PCR - Specify single line voltage. 'When specifying Type Ill, Forward Throw. or Type V distribution, a clear flat tempered glass lens must be used. · 'For i~ternational voltages, consult factory. 'Not available off fixtures equipped with dropped lenses. Wall Mount Applications Dimensions Wll-Pak provides efficient T Illumination In a ruled die-cast aluminum housing ~/"'1 for lasting performance. / Easy to Install, Wal-Pak . la. . complements any environment and is Ideal for loading docks, underpasses, offices, vehicle ramps and schools. . ~o,~,- · Ordering Information Catalog Number Logic Lamp P~oduct Lamp ~ Refractor Famil~ Wlttage/~lae Volt~g~ HP=HPS W-Borosilicate Glass L=WaI-Pal 50~50W/Mogul 120-'F MH=Met. Hal, P--Pol~arbonate 70=70W/Mogul MV=Merc. 75=75W/Mogul 2 I ,. 150=t 50W/Mogul 175= 175W/Mogul 20~200W/Mogul 250=250W/Mocjul ' ~,00=400W/Mogul Catalog' Lam~ Lamp Ballast Net. Wt. Numl~r ~ Wattle Tn~ II-b..I va, HPWL-50 HPS 50 HPF 32 HPWt .70 HPS 70 HPF 35 HPWL-100 HPS 1 gO HPF 35 HPWL-! 50~ HPS 1 50 HPF 35 HPWU200 HPS 200 HPF 35 HPW[-250 HPS 250 HPF 37 HPWL-40O HPS 400 HPF 42 MHWU 175 MH 175 HFF 33 MHWt-250 MH 250 HPF 36 MHWL~00 MN 400 HPF 39 M~?NI. 50 Mere 50 HPF 33 MWVU75 Mere. 75 HPF 33 MVWU 100 Mere 109 HFF 33 MVWL-175 Merc. 175 HFF 33 MVWL-250 Mere 2~ HFF 33 1 ~drt 4e*,,~l v~lt~Qe t,~ end nf catalc~J mJmt~.r 12~ ~ 2~11'1 277 ~r ~1~0 Volt 2 ~l'md.l,d Inml~ ,~ mn~u! ba'~ Not i~luded [ l,I-iiI. "e__." HERITAGE DIMENSIONS Bracket - 3-bolt Pattem Sq. Note: A 4" x 4" x 12' steel arm mount (bolt-on bracket) is shipped standard with Heritage fixtures. LUMINAIRE EPA CHART Includes bracket. $1qle Der R DE F DL F OL F "L F OL F DL F "L F DE ~-~r8~ I ~.o 2.4 14.~ 4.9 I 3.8 4.5l 44 4.9I 6.~ ;.~1 6.~ ;.31 8.2 ".;I ~.5 9.0 Nm: F - ~t 6~, DL- Or~ L~. i I ORDERING INFO~RON Selm appropriate choice from each column to formulate order code. Refer to example below. O~oflal 8ncke~: ff o~lofl~l ~m~ ~11N ordered, you mN fll.~ "DS8 - hlelg StafldaM Sra~M" In the 0pliom column of this chad. 0ptloul b~m~ mN be o~emd sepamle~ Imm ~e ordering cha~ iff the Pole~racke~ section of this catalog. Lumlflalm Lamp Line Lumlflalre 0pUons MIIx O~lb~on Wa~ge LIIM So.~e bm Voltage" Flfl~ HE A - ~ 1 ~ 175 1 2~ $MH - Suer ~ ~ DP - Or~ Pfl~ 240V 8LK - 6~k Poles/Brackets s~tion of ~tat~ 250 1 4~ MH - ~ ~1~ F- C~r ~t Tem~r~ 480V COA - C~oa Fi~re 175, 250, ~ W~ G~ MT - MuiU Tap VAN - Vanfl~ ~R - Photoelectric Control 73 - C73 O~used F~t WHT - White with TwJstlock Receptacle Te~r~ GM~ GRN - Green LL - Less ~mp 3 - Ty~ Iii' F - CMar fiat T~r~ ~chile~l CL - Coated Lam~ ~ - Fo~rd Gla~ 6RO - Brick FS - Fusing for 120V & 277V Thru* GYG - Gray Granite FO - Double Fusing for 208V & 240V 5 - Ty~ V* ROG - R~ Granite FO1 -Oouble Fusing for 460V LMS - Limesto~ H88 - House Side Shield DTS - Oese~stone PLS - Poly~rbonate Shield~ MGR - Gr~ Marble NO - No Options EXAMPLE OF A WPICAL OnOEn HE - A - 250 - MH - DA - 120V - BRZ - NO Note~: ArchH~uml fln~h~ require add~ional ~ad time, · When s~ci~tng Ty~ iii, Fo~ard Throw, or Type V distribution, a clear fist tem~md gla~ lens must be · · For International voltagel, consult f~to~. 'Not ~ilab~ on fl~ur~ ~uipped with dropped lense. TO: Kirk McDonald FROM~ Mmic ~ DATE: Msrch 27, 1~ ~a ~ ~d ~No.~ ~ ~t2~~~~ 1~ on ~ n~ ~ ~4~ A~ ~y ~ ~ ~. ~ S~ ~. · W~ ~ 30' ~ 1¢ m 27, I99 Pa -2- · New Hope's Drffi Storm Wnt~ Plan laXlx~ed three wa~r quality ponds in this n~n with th~ intent to provide storm water um~nen..t b~fo~ did:bm'se to Upper Twin Lake., Th~ d~velolnmntt of this site In~q~es that two of the ponds will not be construct~ as d~fnmd in Ih~ Drnft ~ Wnl~r Plan. Allhough Ihe removal efficiency foe plto~pl~otu.~ i~ t~hao~ from 49~ to 36~ for on~ pond v~. ~ ponds, it's smmgly r~mmended the Clty ~iI consider oons~ I!~ third pond · The 8radin$ plan shall insu~ all d~ wtthin th, westerly right-of_way of 1t~ C.P. Ratl ~ttstero i~ conveyed ft~m th~ s~uth to th, north. wimr~ oowr i~ less than 4'-5'. It's assumed the amitary sewe~ and wan~ main · Th~ driveway neeeas to Lot 2 is shared by Navarre ~o th, west. The l~iValn is not Im~pefly n,e. ounted for on each si~.. r~ultin$ in velfi~.le~ paddng on the shnred driveway, the ability of ~nn'k~cy vuhi~ to a~a~.ss ~ stln will I~ ~',-t: ,o...... SITE LOCATIOH MAP' 7o / Memorandum Date: March 28, 1996 To: Doug Sandstad, Building Official Fro. m: Brett Riewe, Fire Inspector ~ SUBJECT: Plan Review - 7300 49th Ave N - Revised Plans Dated March 21, 1996 Here is a short, quick List of the major items that have not been addresses on the latest set of blueprints we received.. · WATER SUPPLY FOR FIRE PROTECTION (RYDRANTS) el0 hydrants required OR 2 hydrants with installation of approved automatic fire sprinkler system. · FIRE DEPT. ACCESS ROAD ®Fire Dept. access road is required around both warehouses. If building is to be used for High-piled storage this requirement goes without exception. If building is not used for High-piled storage there are some possible exceptions. · STORAGE IIM1TA~ONS OR COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICI.~. 81 · Storage height must be limited to a maximum of 15 feet in closely packed piles or 12 feet in racks. If these storage heights are exceeded building must comply with all requirements of UFC Article 81 (High-piled Combustible Storage). *Compliance with Article 81 would include mechanical smoke removal system, aisles, access road, access doors & standpipe connections. COMMUNITY PLANNING * DESIG MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Madhulika Singh / Alan Brixius DATE: 12 March 1996 RE: New Hope - Hoyt Development PUD/CUP Plan Review - 5000 Winnetka, 2nd Addition FILE NO: 131.01 - 9602 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Hoyt Development Company has requested concept/development/final plan stage approval of a planned unit development/conditional use permit to allow the construction of two office/warehouse buildings to be located on the 10 acre site remaining from the 36 acres originally purchased from Soo Line in 1988. In 1994, a building was constructed for Navarre Corporation on the property immediately to the west. The proposed site is located north of 49th Avenue and west of the Soo Line Railroad. The existing property is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial use. According to Section 4.032(2)(e) of the Zoning Ordinance, not more than one principal building shall be permissible on a site except by a planned unit development/conditional use permit. Additionally, a variance is necessary from the frontage requirement of 200 feet as stated in Section 4.194 of the Zoning Ordinance for an industrial planned unit development. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Drainage/Utility Plan Exhibit D - Landscape Plan Exhibit E - Lighting Plan Exhibit F - Building A Floor Plan and Elevations Exhibit G - Building B Floor Plan and Elevations 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555-St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636'Fax. 595-9837 Recommendation Based upon the following review, our office recommends the approval of the requested PUD/CUP contingent on the following conditions: 1. The City approves a variance to allow the site to exhibit a lot front less than 200 feet. 2. All off-street parking design standards are met and handicap parking stalls identified and shown on the site plan. 3. The loading space maneuvering for the two southern loading areas of Building A and the two eastern areas of Building B are reconsidered. The City provides comment as to the acceptability of the loading area's infringement on the shared access drive. 4. Evaluate parking on the shared driveway. Determine if parking restrictions are appropriate. 5. A joint maintenance agreement for ingress, egress, and maintenance of shared drives submitted and reviewed by the City Attorney. 6. The landscape plan revised to reflect the recommendations of additional screening and landscaping. 7. The City Engineer provide comment on the acceptability of the easement locations upon the site and proper sizing and location of required drainage and utility easements throughout the site. 8. The submitted grading and drainage plan is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. ' 9. In accordance with the site plan, the trash enclosure must be located within the proposed buildings. 10. All site signage comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. 11. The site plan is modified to illustrate all exterior lighting locations. All lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas must be hooded and directed to reflect light away from neighboring properties and public rights-of-way. 12. Comments from other City staff. 2 ISSUES ANALYSIS Planned Unit Development. As noted previously, the applicant has requested a planned unit development (conditional use permit) to allow the construction of two principal buildings which vary from the base zoning (I-1) requirements. PUD/CUP is intended to provide flexibility from the strict provisions of the Ordinance and encourage development innovations, higher standards of building design, a harmonious development pattern, etc. Land Use. The applicant has proposed the construction of two office/warehouses on the subject site. According to the Zoning Ordinance, warehouses are considered a permitted land use in the I-1, Limited Industrial District. Lot Area. According to the Zoning Ordinance, lots within I-1 Zoning Districts may not be less than one acre in size. The proposed site is 10 acres and therefore exceeds the minimum I-1 District lot size requirement. Lot Width. According to the Zoning Ordinance, lots within I-1 Zoning Districts must provide at least 150 feet of width. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance defines lot width as the shortest horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth. The proposed site has a lot width of 150 feet measured at 50 feet from the front property line and therefore meets Zoning Ordinance requirements. PUD Frontage. As per Section 4.194 of the Zoning Ordinance, the frontage requirements for an industrial planned unit development must not be less than 200 feet on a public right- of-way. The subject site has a frontage of 117 feet on 49th Avenue North. To accommodate the proposed 117 foot frontage width, the processing of a variance will be necessary. In consideration of variance requests, Section 4.22 of the Ordinance stipulates that approval of a variance must be based upon demonstrated non-economical hardship unique to the subject property. The Ordinance further states that a hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of property. Considering the triangular shape of the subject property (due to adjacent rail line locations) and degree of lot frontage, it is the opinion of our office that a genuine hardship does exist to warrant variance approval. This position is further supported with the following site design characteristics: 1. The size of site is greatly in excess of that required for that district. 2. Additional setback (185 feet) is provided between the building and 49th Avenue North. 3 3. The interrelationship with Navarre property through shared driveway. The deficient frontage requirement does not hinder the proposed design standards and our office would recommend the variance approval from the frontage requirements. Setback. As shown below, the proposed warehouses meet all applicable I-1 District setback requirements: Required Building A Building B Front Yard 50 feet 185 feet + 730 feet Side Yard 20 feet 36 feet 20.7 feet Rear Yard 35 feet 310 feet 36 feet Setback between the two buildings is 170 feet and meets Zoning Ordinance requirements. Building Height. According to the Zoning Ordinance, buildings within I-1 Zoning Districts may not exceed three stories in height. The proposed elevation for Building A and Building B is 22.5 feet and therefore the buildings conform to I-1 District height requirements. Lot Coverage. According to the Zoning Ordinance, not more than 40 percent of the lot may be covered by building in an I-1 District. The proposed structures have areas of 52,000 square feet and 44,800 square feet. This constitutes 20.2 percent of covered area and meets zoning requirements. Off-Street Parking. ParkinQ Soaces. Based on the City's off-street parking requirements, 123 spaces will be required of the proposed warehouses as calculated below: Use Ratio Requirement Building A: Warehouse 41,600 SF I space per 1,500 square feet 28 Office 10,400 SF 1 space per 200 square feet 52 Building B: Warehouse 41,800 SF I space per 1,500 square feet 28 Office 3,000 SF 1 space per 200 square feet 15 TOTAL 123 4 As shown on the submitted site plan, a total of 135 off-street parking stalls have been provided. As such, the proposed parking supply complies with that required by Ordinance Parking Dimensions. According to the Zoning Ordinance, 90 degree parking stalls such as that being proposed must measure not less than 8'-9" in width and 19 feet in depth. In addition, drive aisles must provide a width not less than 24 feet. All proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or exceed the cited stall dimension requirements. Handicap Parking. According to State law, one in every 25 off-street parking stalls must be devoted to use by the handicapped. An appropriate number of handicap parking stalls must be shown on the site plan. .Curbing. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that all off-street parking areas must have perimeter curbing. To be noted is that this provision applies both to designated parking areas and the proposed shared access drive. Surfacing. All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with material suitable to control dust and drainage. The site plan shows the surface area to be bituminous paving and meets the Ordinance requirement. Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls must be submitted to the City Engineer for his review. Striping. All parking stalls must be marked with white painted lines not less than four inches wide. Loading. The number and size of loading berth design meets the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.037(6)(a)(i) requirements. However, there are certain concerns regarding the maneuvering of the truck for the two loading spaces along the southern part of Building A and the two eastern loading spaces provided for Building B. These loading spaces lack sufficient area to accommodate the maneuvering of a 55 foot semi-truck without interfering with circulation and driving aisles. Our office recommends using these loading spaces for smaller trucks, or eliminating them on the proposed design. The acceptability of this situation should be subject to further City comment. Property Access. As shown on the submitted site plan, the subject property is to be accessed via an existing 32 foot wide shared access (with adjacent Lot 2) from 49th Avenue. This is a permitted use for a PUD considering the relatively high traffic volumes which exist upon 49th Avenue. 5 During a site inspection of the shared driveway, our office observed that parallel parking was allowed on the shared driveway. This raises concerns with regard to the parking demand for the existing Navarre site and the proposed use and the need to preserve the private drive for ingress and egress exclusively. This issue should be discussed and reviewed in greater detail prior to Planning Commission consideration and recommendations. The applicant has indicated that they have a joint maintenance agreement for ingress, egress and maintenance of the shared driveway with the adjacent property. This agreement must be submitted to the City Attorney for his review and comment. Green Area. According to Section 4.145 of the Zoning Ordinance, at least 20 percent of the subject property must be devoted to green area. With approximately 25 percen~ of ~he subject site being devoted to green area, the development proposal complies with minimum green space requirements. Landscaping. In compliance with Ordinance requirements, a landscaping plan has been submitted. The plan specifies the location, type and size of all proposed site plantings. As shown on Exhibit D, site plantings focus on the south side of the property line and building perimeter. While the plan is generally acceptable, there are several issues which need to be addressed as follows: 1. Additional trees to be provided along the south and southeastern part of the property line up to the front of the ice arena building line on the adjacent property. This will provide screening of the loading area/off-street parking from the residential use across 49th Avenue North. 2. Our office also recommends that the landscape treatment along the curb island be similar to that provided along the parallel curb of the Navarre property. Junipers have been installed as a hedge within this island. As the site has excessive parking, it may also be recommended that the two end parking spaces also be reduced to provide additional landscape area. 3. In light of the amount of bituminous proposed on the eastern side of the site, some reduction of bituminous surface may be warranted with the expansion of green space provided on the site. We believe that this can be done without any reduction of the truck maneuvering area or snow storage capacity on site. Snow Storage. According to Section 4.036(4)(g) of the Zoning Ordinance, a provision must be made in off-street parking areas for adequate snow storage or removal to ensure that the required number of spaces are available at all times of the year. Of specific concerning regard to snow storage is the + five foot wide curb island which separates the 6 western warehousing parking area and shared drive aisle. With a dimension of only five feet, it is questionable whether ample area exists in this area of the site for snow storage. To provide additional area for snow storage, the applicant has indicated the area along the eastern property for snow storage. Such arrangement would allow for additional snow storage. As a condition of site and building plan approval, all on-site parking stalls must be available for year round use. Easements. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement is indicated on the proposed site plan along the front, rear and east property lines. An access easement of 15 feet is indicated over the shared access drive along the west property line. As part of final plat approval, a ponding easement must be identified. The acceptability of such easement locations should be subject to comment by the City Engineer. Grading and Drainage. A grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review. Appropriately, all site wetlands have been delineated. The grading and drainage plan will be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Trash. The applicant has expressed the intention of providing the trash storage to be located inside of the buildings. This complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. Building Material. The proposed building materials will be pre-stressed concrete. The applicants, however, indicate that the construction is speculative and no tenants have bene identified. All construction must comply with applicable codes. Signage. Neither the submitted site plan or building elevations indicate whether any signage is to provided on site. All site signage will be reqUired to comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. Lighting. The lighting plan shows 30 exterior lighting locations. All lighting used to illuminate street parking areas should be hooded and directed to reflect light away from neighboring properties and adjacent rights-of-way. The lighting plan appears to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Rail Spur. As shown on the submitted site plan, a Soo Line rail spur traverses the northern portion of the subject site. Based on the site plan configuration, it does not appear that the proposed warehouse is to utilize the spur. CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of concept/development/ final plan for the proposed warehouse facilities subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. pc: Doug Sandstad Mark Hanson Steve Sondrall 8 3-12'--19S~ 3:3Ea:::~ ~ E~::I~:.STRC~ " ASSOC 612 636 1311 P. 2 TO: W~k McDonald FROM: Mark Hansou DAT~: March 12, 1996 -' Winneltia 5000 lind Addition - Lot 2 Our File No. i]4 Gen The above referenced project proposes two buildings (52,000 sq. ft. and 44,800 sq. ~) on Lot 2 W~nnetka 5000 2nd Addition (9.6 acres). The following is recommended: · Existing wetlands shall be delineated and Ixotea~ by m easement in accordance With thc Wetland Conservation Act. · Water quality requh'~ments for development of Lot 2 shall comply with the Shingle Creek WntershecL It's presently pmposcd to cxpand thc water quality pond serving Lot I (Navar~), which h ioca~ off Lot 2 sod protected by eanement. Additional easement is required over the expanded poncL The expanded pond conflicts with the City's existing 30" storm sewer which will have to be relocatecL · The cxistiag :30" storm sewer owned by the City is protected by a 10' wide easement. Tt's preferred the existing easemeat be enlarged to 20' wide based oa the locatioa of the proposed westerly building., Dire~ drahmse from the proposed development shall not discharge directly into the existiag storm sewe~. N.vJsting manholes shall be · Now Hope's Draft Storm Warm Plan proposed water quality ponds in tho northerly portion of this sit~ with tho intent to provide tmamient befo~ discharge to Upper Twin Lake (priority water body in Shingle C:~k Watershed). The Comp Plan in this area identified three ponds (two on this site, one on the site north of the tracks). The goal in new development is to achieve a 60~ removal ~fficiency of phosphorous (P). The z.n.~ehed memo identifies the removal efficiency if all ponds are constructed to be while if only thc pond north of the tracks is constructed, thc removal efficiency is 36%. 6'1 '6' g 2335 NY/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN S5113 · - - Mr. F, irl~ McDomdd March 12, 1996 Re: ltrmnetlra 5000 2nd Add'n - Lot 2 Page -2- Th~tzfm~, if thc two ponds on this site ar~ not constructed and only thc pond north of the tracks is constructed to i~s specified size, the removal efficiency is reduced from 49% to 36~. It's ~commended ll~ a~a ~.st of fl~c no~ly building be expanded to ~ so~ additional lX~,,$ (am~hed). · The grading plan shall properly accoun! for ~he .dr~i,,.,oe betw~an ~e railroad u'a~ks · The sanihso' sewer serving the northerly building shall include manholes Slmced no mom than 400'. Insulation shall be considered in areas where less than 4'-5' of cover exists over the mw sewer. It's as,mined the sanitary sewer and water main constructed to serve Lot 2 will be private. Conflicts between the City's existing storm sewer and " utilities shall be resolved. · The sit= plans pr~-pared by Fischer Engineering and Kmeger & Associates conflict relative to c.4=b location, building location, and/wolmzt'y lines (i.e., the distance between the southeast comer of tho westerly building and concrete curb - Kmeger drawin~ 25', Fischer drawing 50% In ~ locations ~ distance between buildings 3-12--199~ 3:371:'M FROM 801x~s'rRo0 ~ ASSOC 612 ~ 1311 I~. ~I. · Upon your/equest I have looked at the various scenarios for the pon&nS s~hem~ in the industrial a~ea alon~ the New Hope-C~stal border near 49th Ave. and Louisiana Ave. The draft N~w · Hope Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) assumes two n~w ponds and one improved pond would be created in this area since thc area d_~ins to Upper Twin Lake, a ware~hed priority waterbody. Since some difficulties rosy exist in creating ponds SC-P4.4 and SC-P4.9, gae effects on water " quantity and quality were exsmined assuming these ponds can not be created but that SC-P4.8 · would be created. ~ the New Hopo SWMP, this analysis a.~umea that if $C-P4.8 is created, that the drainage alza~ SC-A4.1, -A4.2, and -A4.10 would be diteote~ to SC-P4.8 along the northern s/de of the railwad tracks. The table below summarizes the n~ults of the various scenarios investigate. Scenario 100-yr Peak OutflOw P Overall P Removal ii Pondis) Created Q to ~* Concentration 1 None - Existing 320 cfs 430 ppb 13% 2 5C-P4.8 only 313 als 299 ppb 36% 3 SC-P4.8, -P4.4, -P4.9 168 cfs 245 ppb 49% 4 All Comp Plan Ponds --- 184 ppb 61 *includes some pipe re~ctions in upstream ponds. The created ponds, wben used, have the following charactedstics. Pond , NWL . .HWL . Ama O NWL Wet Vol,~AF) Peak $ _tomge(AF) $C-P4.8 885.7 893.3 1.6 ~ 6.4 8.4 SC-P4.4 885.7 8~.6 0.6 ~ 2.4 10. I 5C-P4.9 884.0 891.4 1.2 ~ 4.7 11.7 .................... P~,C_..~E March 8, I996 City ofNewHope Re: 7300-49th Ave. No. Planni~ Application Gentlemen: Hoyt Development requests your approval of it's submittal for the final phase of development for the above captioned property. The staffhas required that the project be p~ aa a PUD. The project consists of two warehouse buildings to be located on the 10 acres remaining from thc 3(5 acres originally purchased from Soo Linc in t988. In 1994 a buldin8 was constructed for Navarre Corporation on the propert innately to the west. Access is provided by a shared driveway that accesses 49th Ave No. The minimum lot ~ontage is below the threshold stated in .- the PUD ordinance as a result of the prior approval and the unusual configuration of the property. Drainage will be accomplished via expansion and u 'ulization of the pond previously constructed as a part ofthe Navarre project. Snow storage will take place on the southeast and northwest behind curb. A joint maintenance agreement with the adjacent property is in place for ingress, egress, and maintenace of the shared drive. Ownership is under one entity, on one lot, and will require no joint agreements. In fact, the only reason for this PUD application is the City's requirement for same when more than one building is constructed on one lot. Building materials will be pre-stressed concrete as on the 5000 Winnetka Building, The construction is speculative and no tenants have yet been identified. Construction will comply with applicable codes. Due to market forces it is im?erative that we receive timely approval of'this project to avoid irreparable harm. The PUD process appears to require a number of subsequent reviews that potentially could extend the start date into winter construction. Mr. McDonald has indicated that we will appear on March 14, 1996 at design/review, on Planning Commission on 'April 2, 1996, at City Council on April 8, 1996 at Planning Commission again on May 7, 1996 and at City Council again on May 13,1996. Oiven toda?s application date the City*s timeframe is on it's face statutorily impermissible, We therefore respectfully request Concept, Development and Final Stage approval concurrently. Thank you for your consideration. Very Truly Yours, Presid~m 4401 Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612-531-5100 City Hall Fax: ~72-53!-5 New Hope, Minnesota 55428.4898 Police: 612-531-5170 Police Fax: ~12-531.5 Public Works: 612-533-4823 Public Works Fax: 612-533-7: TDD: 612-531-5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-53'1-5 February 16, 1996 Mr. Brad Hoyt Hoyt Development Company 13400 15th Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55441 Subject: PUD Application Dear Brad: I am writing as a follow-up to our conversation earlier this week. Unfortunately, the City was not able to accept your application for a PUD industrial development on property you own due to the late submittal and incomplete plans. I am sure you are aware that due to newly enacted legislation, municipalities have to be very specific in regards to their acceptance or non- acceptance of zoning applications depending on whether the submitted plans are complete or not. The City really had no alternative except to not accept your application. The City will hold the check you submitted with the application and not deposit it, as I assume you will be submitting another application for the April Planning Commission meeting. If this is not acceptable and you would like the check returned, please call me and I will return it to you. The City will be glad to cooperate with you on a PUD industrial development on your property and I have enclosed a schedule outlining the dates for the next application deadline which is March 8th. If you submit plans by that date, you would meet with the Design & Review Committee on March 14th and proceed to the Planning Commission and City Council on April 2nd and 8th, respectively. I am also enclosing a copy of the PUD zoning regulations that I faxed to you earlier this week. The PUD process normally requires a minimum of two months, with concept stage or concept and development stage approval at the fa'st Planning Commission/City Council meeting(s) and development and final stage or just final stage approval at the second Planning Commission/City Council meeting(s). Per the enclosed ordinance, you will need to determine if you want to proceed with only concept approval initially or if you want concept and development approval at the same time, with final stage approval at the second meeting. Family Styled City ~ For Family Living Mr. Brad Hoyt February 16, 1996 Page 2 With a PUD application, the City will need all the routine items that you have submitted in the past and as outlined on the enclosed Design & Review checklist, including eight sets of full-scale plans and one set of reductions. The plans should include a site plan, building elevations, grading/drainage plans, floor plans and landscaping plans, plus the other items outlined in the ordinance. In addition, some of the main items the City would look for with a PUD application are a narrative description, a traffic circulation plan and some architectural linkage between the two buildings. I think it would be beneficial if a pre-application meeting was held prior to your submission of plans and if you are agreeable to such a meeting, please let me know and I will be glad to coordinate it. As you are probably aware, the PUD application is necessary to accommodate two buildings on one lot. The PUD process could be avoided and we could probably accomplish everything in one Planning Commission/City Council meeting if only one building was constructed on the property. Again, the City is willing to cooperatively work with you on the development of your prQperty. Please contact me if I can be of assistance. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator Enclosures: 1996 Planning Commission Schedule PUD Ordinance Design & Review Checklist cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 96-05 Request: Site and Building Plan Review/Approval for Building Addition Location: 5500 International Parkway PID No: 06-118-21-34-0020 Zoning: I-1 Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: March 29, 1996 Meeting Date: April 2, 1996 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting site and building plan review/approval for a building addition, pursuant to Section 4.039A of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. The City of New Hope is proposing to construct a 4,500 square foot building addition on the north and west sides of the existing 32,600 square foot Public Works Facility, which is located at 5500 International Parkway. The project involves remodeling 4,200 square feet of the existing office area in addition to the new space being added, and the addition will bring the total building size to 37,100 square feet. 3. Per the attached excerpts from the Facility Assessment and Building Program for the Public Works Facility, the improvements include office addition and remodeling, lunch room remodeling, relocation of employee locker facilities and exterior painting. The purpose of the project is to make the building more functional, correct code deficiencies and to bring the building into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Funding for the project will be from the Capital Improvement Program and federal Community Development Block Grant funds. (CDBG funds will only be utilized for building corrections related to the ADA Act.) 4. The Public Works Garage was constructed at this location in 1980/81. 5. In 1992, the City cooperated with Custom Mold, located south of the Public Works site, to purchase and split the vacant property between Public Works and Custom Mold to accommodate a building expansion for Custom Mold. At that time the Commission approved the platting/ combination of the existing Public Works property with Outlot A, Custom Mold Addition. 6. In 1993, the City received approval to construct a salt storage facility on the east side of the Public Works building and developed the newly acquired property on the south to accommodate the storage of excavated materials, etc. This project, which also included additional landscaping, concrete curb and gutter and new fencing, was completed in 1994. 7. The Public Works property is located in an I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District and is surrounded by I-1 properties on the north and south, across International Parkway to the west and to the east where an Adult Day Care Center may be constructed in the future. Victory Park is located to the northwest across International Parkway. Planning Case Report 96-05 2 March 29, 1996 8. The City Code allows "governmental and public utility buildings and structures" as a permitted use in the I-1 Zoning District. 9. The topography of the property slopes slightly to the east and a new storm sewer was installed with the last project to catch/direct run-off on the east property line. 10. Property owners within 350' of the property line have not been notified, as City Code does not require a public hearing for site/building Plan review/approval. If the project is approved, prior to the start of construction a Project Bulletin will be mailed to surrounding properties informing them of the construction improvements. ANALYSIS 1. Special requirements for all developments in the I-l, Limited Industrial, Zoning District include the following: A. Lot Coverage. Not more than forty percent of the lot, parcel or tract of land shall be covered in a Limited Industry District. B. Lot Area. Minimum lot area requirement of one acre. C. Green Area. At least twenty percent of the lot, parcel or tract of land shall remain as a grass plot, including shrubbery, plantings or fencing, and shall be landscaped. Required minimum green area should be emphasized in the front and side yards abutting streets or residential property. The word "landscaped" means a controlled surface and grade and plantings to allow a smooth surface flow and being under continual maintenance for the preservation of scenic harmony. D. Parking Lots. The minimum setback for parking lots shall be twenty feet adjacent to a residential district and ten feet adjacent to a non-residential district. 2. The lot coverage data for this project is listed below and meets the I-1 Zoning District special requirements. Lot Coverage Building % 18% of total area Green Area % 28% of total area (Within property lines & not including patio) Asphalt 54% of total area Snow Storage Area Total Lot Area 100% of 211,000 square feet (The parking lot Setback distance from the north property line is 10 feet.) 3. The setback requirements for the I-1 District are as follows: Front yard - 50 feet; Side yard - 20 feet; Rear yard - 35 feet Planning Case Report 96-05 3 March 29, 1996 The proposed building expansion complies with the reqUired setbacks, with a 50-foot setback in · the front from International Parkway, a 52-foot setback (at the closest point) on the north side yard, and a 160-foot setback in the rear yard. 4. City Department Heads reviewed the plans on March 13 and the Petitioner met with the Design & Review Committee on March 14. Issues discussed included: building setbacks, landscaping, building materials for the new addition, exterior improvements to the existing building, parking requirements, grading improvements, public and employee entrances, exterior lighting, building identification signage, and roof-top equipment. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meetings. 5. The revised plans include the following details: A. Parking data is as follows: Office 8,700 x .9 + 300 = 26 Garage 28,400 x .9 + 1,500 = 17 Company Owned Truck = Total Stalls Required 43 Total Stalls Provided 50 Standard Handicap Parking 48 2 Stall Size 9'-0" x 18'-0" The parking complies with Zoning Code requirements. Seven stalls are proposed in addition to what is required and the petitioner has indicated that the additional parking is needed for seasonal employees. The existing parking lot will be expanded on the north side of the property with eight new stalls being added on the west side of the northerly lot. Visitor parking signs will be installed at the front of the new stalls. · Two handicapped parking stalls will be added on the south side of the north lot near the main public entrance and will be signed with the appropriate signage. · The expanded parking area will be bituminous with concrete curb and gutter. · The existing fence and gate at the east end of the north parking area, which separates the parking area from the yard area, will be relocated farther to the east to provide additional parking. B. The square footages of the existing, remodeled and new building areas are listed below: Space Area Garage 28,400 square feet existing Office 4,200 square feet existing remodel Office 4,500 square feet new Total 37,100 square feet Planning Case Report 96-05 4 March 29, 1996 C. The trash area/dumpster with screening is shown on the plan to the east of the fence/gate enclosure. D. Snow storage is shown on the plan along the north property line. E. New patio and walkway is shown on the south, west and north sides of the new addition. F. Landscaping - With the 1994 yard improvements, the following plantings were added to the site: 20 Black Hills Spruce planted along southern berm 22 Colorado Spruce added along eastern berm 6 - 4' high Black Hills Spruce added to west front yard 8 - 2" diameter Red Splendor Crab Apple added to west front yard 2 - 2" diameter Marshall's Seedless Ash added to west front yard With this 1996 building addition, the landscape plan/schedule shows that 18 additional plantings will be added, as listed below: 2 - 4' high Colorado Green Spruce 5 - 4' high Black Hills Spruce 6 - 2" diameter Red Splendor Crab Apple 5 - 2" diameter Marshall's Seedless Ash · The Colorado Spruce will be added in the front yard. · The Black Hills Spruce will be added near the patio area and at the northwest corner of the property near the expanded parking area. · The Crab Apple will be planted near the front entrance, on the patio, and at the northwest corner of the property near the expanded parking area. · The Seedless Ash will be planted along the north property line near the expanded parking area. · Several existing trees on the north property line and in front of the existing building will be removed to accommodate the building and parking lot expansion. Existing plantings in front of the existing building that need to be removed for the building expansion will be relocated to new planting areas on the north and west sides of the building. · A new hedge is also shown around the southwest patio area. G. Floor plans show that the main public entrance would be shifted from the north side of the existing building to the west side of the new building addition. The employee entrance would remain on the north side of the building. Planning Case Report 96-05 5 March 29, 1996 H. Building elevations and building materials are described as follows: · New addition to have standing seam metal prefinished roof over north employee entrance and west public entrance. The roof colors will blend with the other City buildings (City Hall, pool building, etc.). · The roof over the public entrance will have signage stating "New Hope Public Works" identified with 15" individual aluminum letters. · The lower portion of the addition will be integrally colored rockface concrete block and the upper portion of the addition will be scored concrete painted block with a prefinished metal cap flashing. Examples of materials and color schemes will be displayed at the meeting. · The new windows to be installed in the addition will be anodized aluminum windows and entry frames with insulating clear glazing. · The block walls of the existing building will be painted to blend with the addition. I. Exterior lighting is proposed as follows: · North elevation to have building mounted parking lot lights with cut-off lens. · South elevation to have wall mounted patio light. · West elevation to have wall mounted entry lights. 6. Staff finds that the majority of the recommendations of the Design & Review Committee have been incorporated into the revised plans. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends site/building plan approval to allow the construction of a 4,500 square foot office addition to the New Hope Public Works building, subject to the following condition: 1. Roof-top units to be screened or painted to match building. Attachments: Address/Zoning/Topo Maps Floor Plan Site/Utility/Grading Plan Building Elevations - Project Data Facility Assessment/Building Program Landscape Plan Application Log Landscape Schedule ~?00 PARK JR NiGH SCHOOL PUBLIC ~O~ GARAGE ;~ ~ ~ ~ NORTH RIDG[ C AR E PARK ~ CENTER R.~ 910 4 904 · 5 0 910.2 I. 077, ~3 x 901 · 6 X 903. X 905.9 '~ X 9o .6 X 905.5 X 902.8 X PRO,,IECTDATA ~ARKIN9 OFFICE 8,700 x .9 / 300 = 26 GARAGE 28,44)0 x .@ / 1,500 = 17 COMPANY OWNED TRUCK = TOTAL STALLS REQUIRED TOTAL STALLS PROVIDED 50 PARKING 4.8 2 STALL SiZE 9'-0" X 18'-0" SPACE AREA 3ARAGE 28,400 S.F. EXISTING '3FFICE 4.,200 S.F. EXISTING REMODEL OFFICE ~,500 S.F. NEW 'ORAL _OT COVERAGE ~U;LDiNG % :~% OF TOTAL AREA rgREEN AREA % 28% OF TOTAL AREA (Wflg-~N PROPEETY LINES &: NOT INCLUDING PATIO) ASPHALT 5~% OF TOTAL AREA SNOW STOi::tAGE AREA ,.,.:A, _ AREA '00% 0 0 · ee ' NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA PU~LtC WORKS ~ITE IMPROVEMEN~ ~8LIC ~ORKS ~gl~l~ ~OIT~ TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE QU^~. D£SC~IP'FIOS 2 4' HIGH COLORADO GREEN sPRucE 5 4' HIGH BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 6 2" DIA. RED SPLENDOR CRAB APPLE ,_5 2" DIA. MARSHALL'S SEEDLESS ASH ....... Provide and install plant materials that meet specifications and (]re of the size type and species given in planl schedule, Remove dec~d ' form of the shrdb. Piece weed NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA PUBLIC WORKS BU,L~NG I t REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Development Public Works ~ 12-11-95 & Plallniinl~ :/ Item No.' Jeannine Clancy By: B~. · 8.3 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FACIMTY ASSESSMENT AND BUILDING PROGRAM FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 542, AUTHORIZING ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES CONTRACT AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates has completed the Facility Assessment and Building Program for the Public Works Facility. This document serves as a basis for completing several projects at Public Works that will make the building more functional, correct code deficiencies, and comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. At this time, staff'is requesting approval to proceed with the preparation of'the plans and specifications for the following components: · Office addition and remodeling · Lunchroom remodeling · Relocation of employee locker facilities · Exterior paint Funding for the project is available from the Capital Improvement Program and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. CDBG funds will be only u611~.ed for building corrections related to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and requests authority to enter into a contract with BonestroO, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates for the development of project plans and specifications. Pending approval from City Council, construction drawings could be complete in three months. MOTION BY ~ SECONDBY ~~t~-~ TO: __ /'" Re-view: Administration: Finance: I RFA-O01 Otto · Roi)eh w ~ose~e, ~£.' Ke~t~ ^, Gordon., P.E. James R. Malaria. P E. ~ Toa~ Foster. la.E. Roserl e i ~ M~n. ln ~. Sorrily. la E. Ricl'~ard %', Foster. I~ lt. Scott J. ArqaneR. P E. Oouglis J. Benoit. ~ E. G~enn Associates I * Senior Consultant Ted Engineers & Architects T%omas R. Anclersofl, A.I.A. Donald C. aurgarOt. ~ ~. Philip J. Caswetl, PE. Lee M. Mann. lag. Tho~s W. Peterson. P.E. Gary O, t~rlstofltz. P.~ James F, Et~gel/~ar~t i November 8, 1995 Jeannine Clancy Director of Public Works 5500 International Parkway New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Facility Assessment and Building Program Our File No. 34183 Dear Ms. Clancy: our report on facility assessment building program the Public Transmitted herewith and for Works Building. Thi~ report evaluate~ the existin~ facility, summarizes the plannin~ information obta~ed fi'om you and your staff and presents a space program needed to sa~f'y plazming i~sues. In addition, it proposes one concept plan and a corresponding cost estimate, which would be refined in a ~ture schematic design phase. We will be happy to review the contents of this report at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, BONESTROO, ROSEN'E, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. I Paul Joseph Garmon, A.I.A. PJG:gs cc: Robert C. Russek I 233S L~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 EXISTING PROBLEMS CITY OF NEW HOPE Office Area · Publio Works management team and support staff ye not in a centralized location. (The management team consists of the Director, Street Maintenance Coordinator, Utility Maintenance Coordinator, Central Garage Coordinator, Park Superintendent, and Parks Leadworker. The support staff consists of two secretaries.) Three separate office areas exist. This is not efficient. · Superintendent/Coordinators are in a large open area. There is no privacy to conduct a one-on-one conversation with an employee: Phone conversations and work that requires concentration can be difficult due to background noise. · Conference room size and space is inadequate. · Storage space for office supplies is inadequate. · File storage is inadequate. · Existing decor is deteriorated and soiled. · Phone system is outdated and does not interact effectively with the City Hall phone system. The City Hall receptionist cannot act as a backup for incoming Public Works phone call.$. · There is no defined emry area where a citizen question or complaint can be resolved. Lunch Room · Many of the old appliances do not work and should be removed and replaced. · Cabinets axe old and deteriorated. Counter space is limited. · Current size of lunch room e~nnot accommodate staff during summer motors. · No separate ventilation system ex, ts. Odors from shop and lunch room migrate into office area. · Decor is old and soiled. Locker Room · The toilet and shower facility i.s not attached to the locker room. · Lockers for uniforms are not in this room. · The locker room is located in the shop, which takes away needed parking and storage area. · There is no ability to accommodate female employees. Garage / Shoo Area · Ventilation needs to be assessed for adequacy and he',dth/safety issues. · The storage area is used for an office area. · Fire sprinkler system located throughout the building is not adequate. Most of the concerns are within the garage/shop area. · Walls need to be cleaned and painted. Buildimt Exterior · Building needs to be painted. 4 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-day Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent notice time limit day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received that required expires limit was notified action under denied the to Applicant Address by City information expires of extension extension application Phone was missing or waiver 96-05 City of New Hope March 8 May 7 July 6 Public Works 5500 International Parkway 535-4823 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 all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) 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. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 96-01 Request: Consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code §4.202 Regulating the Decisional Process for Special Zoning Requests Location: City of New Hope PID No: Zoning: All Zoning Districts Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: March 29, 1996 Meeting Date: April 2, 1996 BACKGROUND 1. This is a request by the City of New Hope for consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code §4.202 Regulating the Decisional Process for Special Zoning Requests. 2. This ordinance is necessitated because of an amendment to Minnesota Statutes (15.99) that was passed into law last July by the State Legislature that places a timeline limitation on cities for action on amendments, rezonings, conditional use permits, PUD's and variances. 3. The new state law imposes a 60-day response deadline on all special zoning requests governed by City Code Section 4.202 which outlines the "Decisional Process for Special Zoning Procedures." The deadline requires City action on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application submittal. If action is not taken within the 60-day period, the application is considered approved as submitted. This could have serious ramifications if the deadline is missed. In that situation, an unfavorable zoning request could be forced on the City. 4. Per the attached correspondence from the City Attorney, the statute provides for a 60-day extension if requested by the City. This would enlarge the response period to 120 days. 5. The statute also provides for the City's ability to define a completed application. This is · important because submission of an incomplete application will not start the response clock running. However, the City is required to inform an applicant within 10 da_ys from the application submittal date if it is incomplete to stop the running of the response clock. The City must also inform the applicant of the necessary information needed to complete the application in the notification. 6. The Codes & Standards Committee, City Attorney, Planning Consultant and staff have been studying this new statute for several months and the result of that study is represented by the attached ordinance and new or revised planning application forms, logs and letters. 7. As you are aware, per the recommendation of the Commission and staff at the March 11 City Council meeting, the Council approved the enclosed Resolution Establishing Minimum Planning Case Report 96-01 2 March 29, 1996 Requirements for Accepting Written Requests Relating to Zoning. The purpose of the resolution was to establish the City's policy for accepting zoning applications during the interim between the adoption of the resolution and the enclosed ordinance. The resolution states that written zoning requests shall not be accepted until the following items have been completed: A. Pre-application meeting with staff; B. Submittal of completed application forms; C. Submittal of all supporting information; and D. Submittal of all fees associated with the application. 8. The consideration/adoption of the enclosed ordinance is the second step of the process to bring the City into compliance with the new statute. 9. The enclosed public hearing notice has been published establishing April 2 as the date for consideration of this ordinance. The ordinance would be effective upon publication. ANALYSIS 1. The amendments to the ordinance are outlined as follows: Section 1 - incorporates the new statute number into the New Hope ordinance. Section 2 - states that all requests for special zoning will be processed pursuant to the new statute. Also, the minor variance language is deleted because it is in error (see City Attorney's 3/28 correspondence). Section 3 - states that applications will first be presented to the Planning Commission, with comments and recommendations from the City Manager or his designated representatives. Section 4 - incorporates the following new language into the ordinance to comply with the new · statute: Applications for Special Zoning requests must be complete before they are accepted. A complete application must include the following information: i) A City_ application form(s) relating to the request signed by all persons with an interest in the subject property affected by the request. A copy of an Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title or other approved documentation of interest shall also be submitted with the signed application form(s): ii) All supporting information required by this Code and/or outlined in the application procedures documents included with the City application forms: iii) Payment of all fees associated with the applicable application(s): Planning Case Report 96-01 3 March 29, 1996 iv) A pre-application meeting may be required by City staff at which the appropriate application procedures, requirements and applicable Code provisions relating to the request will be reviewed and explained. An application will be deemed complete unless the applicant receives written notice within 10 business days exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays of its submission indicatin.~ it is not complete and indicating what information is mis~ing. This notice shall be considered .~i~en by its deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to any listed applicant at the address given on the application form. In the event the applicant fails to provide an address on the application form, this notice requirement for incomplete applications shall be deemed waived by the applicant. Section 5 - minor language change. Section 6 - states that the City Manager shall set a date for a public hearing ... not the Planning Commission. (This brings the code into conformance with current practices.) Section 7 - states that the Commission shall make recommendations in the minutes or by written resolution. Section 8 - is amended to add the following language to comply with the new statute: "A response shall be provided within 120 days from the date a completed application is submitted for consideration. This time limit automatically incorporates the 60-day extension to the response deadline set out in Minn. Stat. §15.99. Subd. 3(b). The extension is necessary_ to provide adequate time for public heatings and appropriate design and environmental review. All Special Zoning request applications will require the applicant to accept thi~ 120 days timeline for City_ Council action." Section 9 - is amended to state that the City Council action will occur within 120 days after submission of a completed application, unless a longer period of time is approved in writing by the applicant. . Section 10 - repeals "minor variance" language from the code. Section 11 - states that the ordinance will be effective upon its passage and publication. 2. Several changes were made to the ordinance subsequent to the March 27 Codes & Standards meeting, as outline~l below: · At the bottom of page 2, the language relating to the 10 day notice for incomplete applications has been amended to specify 10 business days as authorized by Minn. Stat. §15.99. The term "business days" has a specific meaning within the law as contrasted to calendar days. Any time computation measured in business days means the exclusion of Saturday, Sunday and legal holidays in the computation period. To insure clarity, however, Planning Case Report 96-01 4 March 29, 1996 the Attorney has incorporated into the Ordinance the specific language indicating weekends and holidays are not included in the computation. · On page 4 of the Ordinance, the word "approve" has been deleted and replaced with "accept" in the last sentence of the underlined language in approximately the middle of the page. This was done to more specifically indicate the City intends to extend every approval deadline from 60 days to 120 days as authorized by Minn. Stat. §15.99, Subd. 2 and that as part of the application process the applicants for any special zoning request will be required to accept this extension. The change was made to insure the applicant was not confused in believing there was any option about the length of the approval period or that the applicant would have any control over the decision to extend the approval period. · Finally, Section 10 of the Ordinance on page 5 was added to repeal §4.202(2) because the City Council never approved a minor variance procedure. If the Commission reads §4.202(2) you will see it refers to a definition of a minor variance request in §4.221(4). However, if the Commission refers to §4.221 dealing with variances, they will find there is no definition of a minor variance set out at §4.221(4). In fact, the Code does not have a §4.221(4). As a result, the repeal of §4.202(2) is appropriate. 3. City staff met with the City Attorney and Planning Consultant to review existing application forms/schedules to determine what changes needed to be made to comply with the law. The following forms, which were either modified or are entirely new, are a result of that staff meeting and are intended to meet the guidelines of the new law and assist staff in tracking applications. The forms include the following: A. Revised Planning Commission Schedule. A new column has been added for pre-application meetings one week prior to the application deadline. Staff does not feel that every applicati°n will require a pre-application meeting and have stated on the schedule that the necessity of a pre-application meeting will be determined by the City Manager based on the complexity of the application. (Note that Design & Review meeting times have also been changed to 8:00 a.m., per the Committee's request.) B. Incomplete Planning Application Notification. This letter was prepared by the Planning Consultant and would be mailed to an applicant submitting incomplete application/plans within 10 days of the receipt of the application. The letter would outline the reasons that the application is not complete. C. Special Zoning Procedures Application Log. This log was modified from a draft previously presented and would be utilized to track each planning/zoning application and would be included with all planning case reports. D.Revised Zoning Application Form and Design & Review Checklist. The application form has been modified as follows: - additional room provided to outline description of request; Planning Case Report 96-01 5 March 29, 1996 additional room provided to state why request should be granted; paragraph added above signature lines notifying the applicant that the City is automatically invoking the 60-day extension for development review (for a total of 120 days); - signature lines have been simplified. Per the Codes & Standards Committee and City Attorney, the Application Log was modified to add a column also showing the 120 day deadline. The language was also modified on the bottom of the log. Several minor corrections were also made to the Application Form, including adding an area to list the applicants fax number. 4. Per these forms, the applicant will actually be notified two (2) times that the City is extending the 60-day time period to 120 days. The first notification will be when the applicant signs the application form. If the application is expected to extend beyond the 60-day period, City staff would again notify the applicant in writing. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Codes & Standards Committee recommend approval of the ordinance. Attachments: City Attorney 3/28 Correspondence Ordinance 96-08 City Attorney 3/18 Correspondence March 11 Council Request & Resolution Establishing Minimum Requirements City Attorney 2/15 Correspondence Planning Consultants 12/21 Report Revised/New Forms and Letters St. Louis Park Background Memo Article 18 ~R-28-96 TRU 09:30 P, 02/08 , COP, RICK & 80NDRALL. P.A. ~'~ 8525 E~bwok Cwssing S~ ~103 Br~ P~k, Minfl~o~ 55443 March 28, 1996 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City ct New HOpe 4401Xy]on Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE' Ordinance Codifying 60 Day Approval Deadline for Zoning Application - Ord, No. 96-08 Our Flle NO: 95.49008 Dear Kirk: In follow uD to the March 27, 1996 Codes and Standards meeting, please find enclosed a reviced Ordinance No. 96-08 regarding the GO-day approval deadline for zoning applications. At the bottom of page 2, the language relating to the 10 day notice for incomplete applications has been amended to specify 10 business days as authorized ~¥ ¥.lnn, Stat. §15.9S. The term "business days" has a specific meaning within the law as contrasted to c&lend&r days. Any time oomputatton measured in business days means the exclusion of Saturday, Sunday and legal holldays in the computation period, To insure clarity, however, I have incorporated into the Ordinance the specific l~ngu&ge Indicating week®nde and holtdays are not included in the computation, On page 4 of the Ordinance, [ have deleted the word "approve' and replaced it with "accept" in the last sentence of the underlined ~anguage in approximately the mid~le of the page, This was done to mo~e specifically indicate the City intends to extend every approval dead~ine from SO days to 120 days as authorized by Minn. Sta~. §15.~9~ Subd. 2 and that as part of the application process the a~licants for any soectal zoning reauest will be ~equi~ed to accept this extension. The change was made to insure the applicant was not confused in believing there was any option about the len9~ of the approval period or that the apolicant would have any control over the decision to extend the approval period. ~AR-28-96 THU 09:31 P, 03/08 Mr. Kirk McDonald March 28, 1996 Page 2 Finally, Section 10 of the Ordinance on page 5 was added to repeal §4.202 (2) because the City Council never approved a minor variance procedure. This was verified by the Buildin90ffJ¢ial~ Doug Sandstad, Zf you read §4,20~ (2) YOU will see it refers to a definition of a minor variance request in ~4.221 (4). However, if you refer to ~4.221 deal(rig with variances, you will find there is no definition of a minor variance set out at §4.ZZ1 (4}. In fact, the Code does not have a §4.221 (4). As a result, the repeal of §4.202 (2) (s appropriate. Please contact me if you have any other questions or comments or if any other changes need to be made to this Ordinance that ! have not in~orporat ed herein, Very truly yours, St even A. Sondrall slt2 Enclosure CC: valerie Leone (w/enc) Daniel J. Donahue (w/enc) MhR-28-96 THU 09:31 ?,04/08 ORDINANCE NO. 98-08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE §4.202 REGULATTNG THE DECISIONAL PROCESS FOR SPECIAL ZONING REQUESTS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.202 "Decisional Proces-" of the New Hope Code .is hereby amended to read ae follows: '- 4.202 Decisional PFocesa. The City Council acting ae the Board of ~Adjustments~3~L_~jZg.9.~]_~ under Stat. §§ 46Z.354, 4e2.3§7 (6) en~ 462.359 (4) shall make the decisions within the legislative and executive framework of the City on all Special Zoning ~ request a~plioation=. Section ~. Section 4.202 (1) "Re=uest for Special zqntnq - How Made" of the New Hope CJty Code ~s hereby amended to read as follows: (1) Reauest for Soecia. 1 Zonina -._~. All requests for special zoning sh~11 be p~ocessed pursu&ot toM, rm. ~tat. ~ in the following manner~ wltX t~;--- ...... · .... ~ Seotiqn 3. 8eGtfon 4.202 (1)ia) "Planning Comro.~sion" of the New Hope City Coae is hereby amended to read as follows: ia) ~lannlne Commission. All special Zoning~eee~ J~pp_lj_~ shall first be presented to the Plann{ng Commieeion, together with the appropriate ¢omment-;--¢4~4~ and recommendations from the City Manager pr .. his .dealnnatea reore~entat~ve~. section~4. Section 4.202 (1)(b) "Aoolication" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Cb) A~.JZ]_'L.G~ M~R-28-96 THU 09:31 P, 05/08 Special Zoning ~ .r, equest applications shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator or any staff persons designated by the C~ty Manager on an off~c~el application form of the City, accompanied by e fee as Outlined in Chspter 14. The application shall also be accompsn~ed by detailed written and graphic materials fully explainin~ the propose~ change, ~eveloDment, or use. The number of cop~es to be provided end any additional dat~ shall be determined b~ the City Maneger. Amml~c~ns for Spec~al,.Zon~ng request~ must be aomplA~e before they _are ,,aCcepted, A aompl, ete aDD1 ~.~ation must include the tollowine information...: A City amm.1~o_at~on .... form(s) relating to request slan~ ~v s,]l persons wi~h an inter~s.[ in the aubtect mmooerty affected_ __by ,~ha ,request. A tomy of an ~ner's Du~ ~rtt~Icate o~ Ti~J,e or other amprove~ doc~ntat ion of int_e~s.~ aha1 ~ , a~ so be mubm~tted_w~th the a~ned amml~cat[om ii ) All _mu~art,~n~ information rmau4r~d bY,. thi Code_ and/q~ out 1 ~ ned .... i n t he aoolj.~at ion pro~edNres dR~ument$ inoluqed with t~.,,city a~p].j oat ion forms: i ii ) Pa%Sent o.f .... el 1 fees.._asso~ia~e~_.with the 8ppl i cab I e 8ool i cat i o~(.$ ).;. ~_ ~re-~pO]_~catton meetln~ may be re~uj, red by Ct t y St a?~, at w~i ch t Me ao~l icat ion ~roc~dures, rea~i reme~t s a~olio_abl~ ~d~ provision8 re!attna to the reauest..~ 1 1 ~e r.eyi ewed and exol atned. An $pplt~at~on will be deem~ ~lete unless.the a~ol l,,~_n~ ..... receives written not!ce .... _within 10 business days eX~],usive ,of s~turdays.__Sundaym a,nd 1e~1 ho!iday$ of i~e $H~mleeion,.,indi~atina not oomole~,~ and indioating what l~formatlon mtss~_.ng. This notice shall be c~si.d.e.~ed.si~n~ i~s deoo$it in.t.he U~S. Mail~ fir,~t el, a~m address ;~.yen on the apo~i~a~i0n fOrm. In the event ,the applicant f~ils to provide an the aop,]ioation_.._form, thie notic~ requtr~e~t for ~n;om~let,e appltcst~ons s_ba]; be ;eeme~ the aDD1 icant~ 2 M~R-28-96 THU 09:31 P, 06/08 Se~.tion 5. Section 4.202 (t)(e) "C~ty Manager's ReDqrt" of the New Hope City Code Js hereby amended to read as follows: (e) City Munager's Repq.~t. T~e Special Zoning ~ application shall be processed under the d~rection of the City Manager for a report and recommendation and .~nitlally presented to the Planning Commission. A preliminary draft of the report of the City Manager and his comments end/or recommendations with such supporting data as furnished by the applicant, and as the City Manager deems necessary or desirable shall be g~ven to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting at w~ich said report and/or recommendations are to be presented. The f~nal report and/or recommendations of the C~ty Manager are to be entered in and made part of the permanent written record of the Planning Commission, and forwarded to the Council. .Section 6. Section 4.202 (1)(g) "Notice of Hea~in~" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows; (g) Notice of Heari0g. The P~;~; 3:~=~cc City Manager shall set a date fo~ a publ{c hearing. Notice of such hea~ing eha]~ be ~ubl~shed in conformance wlth chapter 1 and Individual notices shall be me, led not 3ess than ten days ~or more than thirty daya prior to the hearing to all owners of property, according to the records aYailable to ~he Clty within three hundred fifty feet of each parcel included in the request, a8 p~ovided in Chapter 1. ~ect~on 7- Section 4.202 (1)(j) "Recommendations of Planntog Commission*' of the New Hope Ctty COde is hereby amended to read as follows: (j) Recommendations o.f Planning Con,hissing, The Planning actions or conditions relating to the request as deemed necessary or desirable to carry out the intent and purgoee of this Code and the Comorehensive Plan. Such reconaltendation shall be~e~ther {n the minutes o~ by Writte~ resolution, and a~companied by the re~ort and recommendation o~ the city Manager, and forwarded to the City Council. 3 NAR-28-96 ?HU 09:32 ?,07/08 Section ~. Section 4.202 (1)(k) "Co~q~l ~eview" of the New Hope City Code iS hereby amended to read as (k) Council Re¥i.e.w. The City Council shall ac~ upon a Special Zon~ngl~P~e~t~ e~ applicatlon after ~t has received the report and recommendation from the Plann~n~ Commission and the ¢~ty staff ~- -~+" · -~c~ t~- PI .... ,,~ C .......~--~,.--. · A response shall be g..rov~ded ~ith~n 120 .... ¢_a~/s from the date a co~p3et~d ~DDlic&tio~ is ~ubmitted for consideration. This ti. me 1 !.~jt automatical 1¥ jncorporates the._~O ~ay extension t.o the. response deadline .~t out in Minn. Stat, 6[~.99. ~.ubd. 3lb). T~ extension is oe~essary to a_de~uat, e time for ~ubl~o hearings and ~nd enyironmental re~W. All Soecial Zen{ne ~,eques[ 120 days timeline for O~ty Co~nc{1 actioD.. Zf~ upon re~etvtng ~he reports and recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Manager, the City Council desires further consideration, or f~nds that JnconStstencJes ex,st fn the review process, data submitted, or recommended action, the City Oouncll aay, before taking final action, refer the matter back to the PlannJng Commission wJth a statement detailing the reasons for referra3. This procedure she13 be fo31owed only one time on an a~plication, ex=ept for a ~ood cause, The CouncJ1 may refer an application back to the Planning Commission ~f it determines that changes {n the applic&tton after Planning Commission recommendation require such action~ or such referral may be waJved by t~e council. Section 9. 8eot{on 4.202 (1)(m) "Cquncil.Acti.on" of the New Hope CJty Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (m) C_~unoi~ Action. Upon receiving the report and recommendation of ~hs Planning Commission and the City Manager, the City Council may, at its option sst and hold a public hear{rig if deemed necessary and shall make findings of fa~t ~nd imgose any conaition on a~proval which it considers necessary to ~rote~t the pub]fc health, safety and welfare, and shall make ~ts de~s~on as to the application. Unles~ ~ lon~er carlos of time ~$ approved in wrttin~ bY the.applicant.. C~tv Council act.~.on will gccur w~th~n 120 days a~t. er..submission by the aoolic~nt ...... of & completed Special Z~nin~ request a.ppl~=atlon a$_orovJded, bY §4.2_O_2_Ll_)_[b.[..of th~s Code. 4 N R-28-96 THU 09 32 P, 08/08 Section 10. Sect~o, ~-.202 (2) "BequeSt for M~nor V_.~riance" of the New Hope City Code is hereby repea]ecl In its entirety. Sect.lpn 11. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effe~tiYe upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1996. Edw. d. Erlokeon, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, Oity Clerk Published ~n the New Hope-Golden Valley gun-Poet the day of ~ 1996.) 5 Col{RICK & SONDRALL, P.A. STEVEN A. SONDRALL ATTOIANEYS AT LAW MICHA~:L R. L~,FL£UR M~RT,N. ~EC.~ Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza ~,~u~. c. ~ 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite ~203 Brooklyn P~k. Minnesota 55443 FAX (612) 42~5867 March 18, 1996 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: 60 Day Zoning Application Response Deadline Ordinance Our File No: 99.49608 Dear Kirk: In follow up to the City Council's February 26, 1996 adoption of the Resolution Establishing Minimum Requirements for Accepting Written Requests Relatin9 to Zoning please find enclosed the final version of an Ordinance amending New Hope Code §4.202 regulating the decisional process for special zoning requests. As you know, the Planning Commission will consider the enclosed Ordinance at a public hearing at the April Planning Commission meeting. This matter will then be referred on to the City Council for consideration and adoption at its April 8th, 1995 meeting. The public hearing notice for the April Planning Commission is scheduled for publication in the Post on March 20th. [ would also like to see the final City forms regarding the application process for special zoning requests we discussed in our recent meeting. I am assuming you are working with the City Planner and Building Official in connection with the preparation of these forms. Please contact me if you want me to assist in any manner with the continued development of these forms. Otherwise, the enclosed Ordinance can be referred on to the City Council subsequent to the April Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Kirk McDonald March 18, 1996 ~'~ Page 2 Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slm2 Enclosure cc: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Bldg. Official A1 Brixius, City Planner Valerie Leone, City Clerk r~_~-~m-96 ~Hu 13:46 COP, R~CK & SOSDRALL, ~,. ~=~ E~nb~gh Execu~vc O~cc ~ ~,,, 8525 ~broo~ Crossing Saite ~r~ P~k, Minneso~ 55A43 February 15, 1996 Klrk McDonald Management ASSt. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN RE; O0 Day Response Deadline/Specie] Zoning Requests Our File No: 99.40077 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed for consideration at the next Codes and Standards meeting a proposed Resolution and Ordinance Amending New Hope Code §4,202 Regulating the Decisional Process for Special Zoning Requests. This Ordinance is necessitated by Minn, .~tat, §15.99 passed into law last auiy by the State Legislature. Basically, the new state law imposes ~ 60-day response deadline on al~ speoial zoning requests governed by Code §4.202. The deadline requires City action on zoning requests within 60 days from ~he date of application submittal. Zf action is not taken within the 60-day period, the application is considered approved as submitted. Obviously, this could have serious ramifications if the deadline is missed. In that situation an unfavorable zonin~ request could be forced on the City, AS we ~ave discussed, the ~tatute provides for a 60-day extension if requested by the City. This would enlarge t~e response to 12o days. The statute also provides for the City's ability to defl~e a completed application. Th~s is important because submission of an incomplete application will not start the response clock running. HoweYer~ the City will De required to inform an applicant withtn 10 ~ays from the application submittal date it is ~ncomplete to toll the running of the response ~lock. Mr. Kirk McDonald ~-~ February 1§, 1990 Page 2 Also, the City must inform the applicant of l:l~e necessary in~ormat ion needed to complete the aDPl icat ion in this not i ficat ion. The enclosed Ordinance amends our Code to autom&tica]]y incorporate the 60-day extension to the response deadline and better defines the necessary information required to satisfy the complete application definition. [ml31ementation of this statutory requirement is also dependent upon application forms and written proceOures used Dy the City to consider and approve special zoning requests. I have enclosed in this letter various forms being used by other cities in an effort to comply with this 3aw. The ~ttachments to t~e City Planner's memo aZso includes sample forms we may wish to use. We ~robably need to take some time at a staff lave3 to review ~nd modify the forms we are usin~ to insure that we fully comply with this new statute. Again, this ~S necessary to ~nsure that unwanted special zoning requests are not forced u~on us. Very truly yours, Steven A. SonOral 1 eli2 Eric 1 osu re cc: A1 Br~x~us, C~ty Planner Originating Department Approved for Agenda Deflection City Manager & Planning Kirk McDonald ?"~-11-96 Item No. By: Management Assistant By:. y j/ 8.2 PLANNING CASE 96-01' RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCEPTING WRITTEN REQUESTS RELATING TO ZONING, CITY OF NEW HOPE. PETITIONER The enclosed Resolution Establishing Minimum Requirements for Accepting Written Requests Relating to Zoning was prepared by the City Attorney in response to Minn. Stat. § 15.99 passed into law last July by the State Legislature. The new law imposes a 60-day response deadline on all special zoning requests covered in Section 4.202 of the City Code. The deadline requires City action on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application submittal. If action is not taken within the 60-day period, the application is considered approved as submitted. This could have serious ramifications if the deadline is missed, as an unfavorable zoning request could be forced on the City. The statute also provides for a 60-day extension, which enlarges the response period to 120 days. The statute allows the City to define a completed application, which is important because an incomplete application will not start the response time period. However, the City is required to inform an applicant within 10 days from the submittal date that the application is incomplete and what information is necessary to make it complete. Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending a two-step process to deal with the new statute: 1. Adopting the enclosed resolution at the March 1 lth Council meeting to establish the City's policy for accepting zoning applications during the interim. The resolution states that written zoning requests shall not be accepted until the following have been completed: A. Pre-application meeting with staff; B. Submittal of completed application forms; C. Submittal of all supporting information; and D. Submittal of all fees associated with the application. Remew: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action 2 3- 2. Adoption of the enclosed Ordinance Amending the New' Hope Code Regulating the Decisional Process for Special Zoning Request at the April 8th City Council Meeting (copy' enclosed review). A public hearing must be held before the Planning Commission before the ordinance can be adopted and this will occur on April 2nd. The ordinance will codif.v the policy set out in the resolution. Staff will also be revising application forms/letters to comply with the new statute. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. g6- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCEPTING WRITTEN REQUESTS RELATING TO ZONING WHEREAS, Minn. Stat, §15.99 became effective on July 1, 1995, and WHEREA~, said statute establishes certain deadlines for agency actions relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban ser¥ice area, and ~.EREAS, subdivision (1) of the ]aw defines "agency" to include statutory cities, and the deadlines therefore apply to certain actions by the City of New Hope~ and WHEREAS, "actions relating to zoning" are no~ defined by the statute, and WHEREAS, the established time limits begin upon the agency's receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or Dy & previou$3y adopteQ rule, orQtnance or policy of the agency. NOW~.~_HEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVE~ by the City Council of New Hope that written requests relating to zoning shall not be accepted as containing all required information until all of the following h~ve Dean comp~eteO pursuant to New NoDe Code §4,202, et a3: 1, A pre-application meetin9 with C~ty staff durin~ which t~e appropriate ~pplication procedure(s), requirements and applicable Code provision~ are reviewed and explained; 2. Submittal of all applicable, completed City application form(s) relating to the request (current City application forms are available at City Hall and may be periodically updated); 3. Submittal of all supporting information required by City Co~e and/or outlined in t~e application procedures documents that are included with the City application forms (current apD3ication procedures documents are available at City Hall and may be perlodlca13y updateO); Submittal of all fees as$oclazeU With the &Pplicable application(s} (Current fees are included on the apDlication f~rm$ or procedure~ documentm; much fee~ be periodically u~Uated by action of the City Council). D~t ed t he day Of m , 1990. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: valerie Leone, City Clerk c:\wpSl\cnh\re~0.z0n C Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc COMMUNITY PLANNING · DESIGN · MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO'. t~r~ McDonald FROM: Cary Teague/Alan Brtxius DATE: 21 December 1995 RE: New Hope - Development Application Amendments for Time Line Limitetion~ ~.. c~ / FILE NO: 13'1.00 - General Pumuant to a recent amendment to Minnesota State Statute.1 (15.99), a time line limitation ha.t been placed on Cities for action on amandmanta, rezoning, conditional u~e permits, PUD's and variances. Per the amendment, City's are required to act on application within 60-120 day~ of submittal of a complMe appllcatlort, if the City takes no action on · request, the applic41fion ia autmTmticelly approved. Please find attached examplee of pmpoMd Zoning Ordirmnce revisions and aG)plication materials that acldreaa the development iequest time line IimitatJoM placed on the City through Minnesota Statute 15.99, for the City of Delano. It ia asm. k'Tw:l that most amendment's, PUD'a, CUP's and vadarces can be processed within · 60-day time frame. However, tin.la City's I~lve decided to examine their right to extend the time line for all applications which require a publi(= hemtng to 120 clays. AJ~o, etta~wd is an exempts of a City Code amendment forFte City of Delano acldres~ing this i~sue. T/Nme imendrnen~ took place within each Admini~traUve ~n of the Code dealing with IXOCedurea for amendment3, rezoning, variance, CUP, and PUD. Please review these documant~ and make cornmer~ or rec~nmendations you feel necessary. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555 .St, Louis Park, MN 55416' (612) 595-9636,Fax. 595-9837 PLANNING APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE FORM' Th~ followi~ applic~ion for e .... is, , is Th~ ~p~on is i~e for the followi~ I. CITY OF DELA~O P.O. BOX 108 Delano, ~ 55328 9'~2-0550, (Metro 4?9-1135) Date Filed , Basic Fee Plan Review Fe~ Receipt No. , Rec'd By approves the ex~enaiott According, the undersigned applicant hereby acknowledges, approves agrees :o an extension from the ~ty (60) day limit stated in Minnesota Statute Section 15.99 to one hundred rwentT (120) days. In additiott, if the one huaclted twenty (120) day period of t~me insufficierrt tot the City to perform all necemary reviews, the undersized applicant hereby specifically agree~ and cons~t$ to a reasonable extension beyond the one hundred twenty (120) day limit. The City reque~ the extemion in order to allow adequate ~ to thoroughly consider an application including allowance for public iaput~ appropriate design and eavironmeatal review and aa a wag of protecting Delano's small town axmosphete aa ~peciiied in the City's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, ia orde~ to 8uamr, ee that the q~licant's application materials are oomplete and accurate, the applicam hereby a~reea to waive the requirement ia ~mneaota Statu~ Section 1 $.99 that the applkazioa is deemed complete uale~ the C~ notittea the applicaat within 10 days of recei~ of an Applicant Other than Owner Punbasw Subject to foilow~ coadiaor~ .,, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE (The following schedules are the ideal "best case" time lines that applicants can expect to follow if all requested information is submitted to the City on the appro3riate dates.) * Pre-Appl. Application Delivered Design & Published on Revised Plan P.C. Public Council Public Meeting Submitted to Paper - Noon Review Deadline Hearing - Hearing ~ 8:00 am 8:00 a.m. 7 pm 7 pm Dec. 1, 1995 Dec. 8, 1995 Dec. 14, 1995 Dec. 14, 1995 Dec. 20, 1995 Dec. 22, 1995 Jan. 2 Jan. 8 January 5 January 12 January 18 January 18 January 24 January 26 February 6 February 12 February 2 February 9 February 15 February 15 February 21 February 23 Mort. March 4 March 11 March 1 March 8 March 14 March 14 March 20 March 22 April 2 April 8 April 5 April 12 April 18 April 18 April 24 April 26 May 7 May 13 May 3 May 10 May 16 May 16 May 22 May 24 June 4 June 10 May 31 June 7 June 13 June 13 June 19 June 21 July 2 (if July 22 needed) July 5 July 12 July 18 July 18 July 24 July 26 August 6 August 12 August 2 August 9 August 15 August 15 August 21 August 23 September 3 September 9 August 30 September 6 September 12 September 12 September 18 September 20 October 1 October 14 October 4 October 11 October 17 October 17 October 23 October 25 Mon. Nov. 4 November 11 November 1 November 8 November 14 November 14 . November 20 November 22 December 3 December 9 TYPE OF REQUEST BASIC ZONING FEE ZONING DEPOSIT *The necessity A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (minor residential) $75* None, or as required by Manager of a pre-application B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (all others) $225* $225, or as required by Manager meeting will be C. REZONING/TEXT AMENDMENT 8250* $250, or as required by Manager determined by the D. VARIANCES (single family residential) $75' None, or as required by Manager City Manager based E. VARIANCES (all others) $175' $175, or as required by Manager on the complexity F. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT $500* $250, or as required by Manager of the application. G. SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING $225' As required by Manager H. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW $150 As required by Manager I. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN $40 .................... *Published Notice Required ~,'ew ~'ct, e. ,%nne$ota 55,.¢28-~898 .-~:.';ce.' 612-531.5170 Pubh'c Works: 612-533-4823 P','~hc Wor.~$ TDD: 612.531-5109 Fire Oep't. Fax: 612.57, CITY OF NEW HOPE INCOMPLETE PLANNING APPLICATION NOTIFICATION D ate: Dear Applicant: The submitted application for a is not complete. The application is not complete for the following reasons: Please submit the above information in order to complete your application submittal. Due to an incomplete application, a delay in the review process is necessary. Following submission of the above information, consideration of the completed application will be rescheduled for the next possible Planning Commission meeting allowing sufficient time for staff review and public notification, if required. The tentative date of this meeting is: Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator cc: Doug Sandstad, Building Official Family Styled t; y ,~,,;L,~, l~,?,,~;,~ For Family Living 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-day Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent notice time limit day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received that required expires limit was notified action under denied the to Applicant Address by City information expires of extension extension application Phone was missing or waiver 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 all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) 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 APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION .AND CITY COUNCIL City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Basic Case No. Fee Deposit Date Filed Receipt No. Received by Name of Applicant: FID # Street Location Of Property: Legal Description of Property: OWNER OF RECORD: Name: Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Fax: Applicant's nature of Legal or Equitable Interest: Type of Request: (pertaining to what section of City Code) Please outline Description of Request: (use additional pages if necessary) Why Should Request be Granted: (attach narrative to application form if necessary) 3/28/96 Applicant acknowledges that before this request can be considered and/or approved, all fees, including the basic zoning fee and any zoning deposits (as outlined in the attached application materials> must be paid to the City and that, if additional fees are required ~o cover costs incurred by the City, the City Manaqer has the right to require additional payment. The City hereby notifies the applicant that development review may not be completed within the required 60 days, due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the City is notifying the applicant that the City is taking an automatic 60-day extension for development review. Development review will be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. The City Managers Department will notify you of all meetings. Signed: Fee Owner (print or type name) Applicant Other than Owner (print or type) FOR CITY USE ONLY Evidence of Ownership Submitted: Yes__ No__ Required Certified Lot Survey: Yes__ No__ Required Legal Description Adequate: Yes__ No__ Required Legal Ad Required: Yes No__ Required Date of Design & Review Meeting: Date of Planning Commission Meeting: Approved: Denied: By Planning Commission on: Approved: Denied: By City Council on: Subject to the following conditions: DESIGN - REVIEW CHECKLIST All construction projects** that require Planning Commission and Council approval must be introduced to city staff at a scheduled "Pre-Application meeting". These are held at 8:00 am one week before the Friday filing deadlines listed on the attached chart. Please call 531-5119 or 531-5122 to reserve time at a "Pre-Application meeting". In addition to a Planning Commission application, fees and evidence of title, each proposal MUST include all of the starred data: *Project name: *Applicant: * Address: * Value of Construction:$ *Land Owner: Plan Case # 1. * 10 sets of blueprints * One set of 8 1/2" x 11" reductions * One set of 8 1/2" x 11" transparencies 2. * 10 current lot surveys with legal description __ 3. * Detailed site plans designed and signed by a registered architect * All setbacks to property lines * All building locations and dimensions Adjacent building locations Adjacent building and land use * Adjacent streets * Existing and finished grading and drainage plans, with erosion control * Exterior lighting plans (building and parking lots) * Refuse storage and required screening * Utility connections; water, sanitary and storm sewer * Lot coverages: Building % Green area % Asphalt % 100 % of2 continued... __ 4. * Traffic circulation and parking plan including: * Access points '/ * Sidewalk plans, public and private · Parking areas with all dimensions Internal truck loading and maneuvering areas with dimensions (50' r for semis) · Type and location of curbing · Snow storage (Area = 10% of asphalt) __ 5. * Detailed landscape plan and schedule illustrating: · Location of existing plantings · Location of proposed plantings · Size of plants · Type of plants (species) · Number of plants · Lawn irrigation plan · Specify "boulevard trees" close to property lines (Minimum 2 1/2" diameter) __ 6. * Exterior elevations and floor plans designed by a MN registered architect · Building materials Special details and features (security, amenities, etc.) · Fire protection sprinkler system, if included · Layout and dimensions in plan review · Rooftop & Ground-mounted equipment · * City Manager May Amend G:'PLANNING'~DESREV. FM 3 96 2of2 INSTRUCTIONS .~ND NOTES TO APPLICANTS !. FILING INSTRUCTIONS Before application to the Planning Commission can be accepted i- must: a. Be filled out in its entirety and signed by both applicant and property owner if not one and the same. b. Be accompanied by all required fees. c. Be accompanied by evidence of property title - explained in instructions and notes. d. Include a certified lot survey if the request is for a: rezoning, replatting, setback variance, construction approval, or if requested by the Planning Commission or City Council. e. Be accompanied by all necessary background materials in written and plan form which is required for a complete and thorough of the request. 2. Applicants are asked to contact the Building Official, 531-5122, or Management Assistant at 531-5119 if they have questions. Also for the more difficult requests, a meeting can be set up between the applicant and the Planning Consultant in order to assist in explaining procedures, reviewing requests, and providing advice. 3. FEES: (as set by City Ordinance) All applicants must pay a non-refundable basic zoning fee at the time of application. In addition, a zoning deposit is required at the time of application. This zoning deposit is intended to pay for outside planning/legal/engineering consulting expenses that may be incurred because of your application. Expenses inccurred · that e~=e~ e~ the amount of deposit will be billed to the applicant. If expenses do not exceed the deposit, the deposit may be refunded upon the written request of the applicant. Usually the largest direct costs are incurred when the application is reviewed by the City's Planning Consultant. Although no= all cases are referred to the Consultant, the City reserves the right to refer any application it believes warrants such scrutiny to the Planner. Normally, all but minor residential requests are referred to this consultant. iYPE OF RE~L~S? BASIT ZCNiNG FEES ZONING A. Minor residential S 75 None or as re- Conditional Use quired by City Permits Manager B. Ail c~her Ccndi- $ 225 $225 or as required nicna! Use Permits by City Manager C. Zoning Amendments $ 250 $250 or as required (district or text) by City Manager D. Variance, Single- $ 75 None or as required Family Residential by City Manager E. Ail other variances $ 175 $175 or as required by City Manager F. Planned Unit Development $ 500 $250 or as required by City Manager G. Subdivision and Platting $ 225 As required by City (Application and Fees) Manager H. Site & Building Plan $ 150 As required by City Review Manager I. Comprehensive Sign Plan $ 40 4. CERTIFIED LOT SURVEYS Applications for rezoning, conditional use permits and some variances must be accompanied by Certified Lot Surveys. The survey must show these items: A. Location of all existing structures on lot B. Location of proposed structure · C. Dimensions of front, side and rear setbacks D. Dimensions of proposed structure E. Location of adjacent existing buildings 5. CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL If the applicant is seeking construction approval, plans must be submitted which meet the standards of the Design and Review Committee of the Planning Commission. Contact the Building Official for this review check list. -3- State Law now requires that zoning, ccndi:ionai uses and var:antes muss be filed with the County. Since each filing has an effect on the question of real es:ase title marketability, each application must be appropriately screened. Consequently, you must submit evidence of ownership cf the property for which you are requesting a change. I: is aisc necessary that the legal description of the property be absotuze!y accurate. Acceptable evidence of title is as follows: A. If property is Registered/Torrens - applicant must uresenz the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title or a photocopy cf same showing both sides of the certificate. If the Owner's Duplicate is presented, the city office shall photocopy the certificate at once and return it to the owner. If you do not have your Owner's Duplicate Certificate cf Title, it may be on file at the Torrens Office (348-30~0). B. If the property is Abstract, an Abstract certified to a current date must be presented showing ownership in the name of the applicant, or a photocopy. 1) Generally, an Abstract will not.show the name of the applicant because after a purchase, the Abstract is frequently not brought to a current status. Certifica- tion to date by an abstract company would be necessary to establish ownership of record. a) If the title evidence presented does not show the applicant as a fee owner, a recorded or recordable document showing a chain of title to the applicant from the last owner shown in the Certificate of Title or Abstract must be presented to supplement title information. b) These documents may include warranty deed, contract for deed or quit claim deed, or a series of such documents eventually showing title in the applicant. c) If the title evidence shows that the applicant is buying under a contract for deed, or purchase agreement, the fee owners and any other contract for deed owners in the chain of title down to the applicant must also sign the application. d) If the property is Abstract, and an Abstract of Title is unavailable, a copy of an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance and endorsements showing applicant as fee owner of the property certified to a current date must be presented. -4- -~ the a2ternatlve, an Owners and Enrur.~rsnre ~ Remco- cert:fled 5c date by a c .... ~=,.£ :aa~ .~ provides Abstracts cf Title, can be presenzed. Refusal of the fee owner(s) to join in the app!~.ca~.cn~ shcull not invalidate the application, providing the fee owner<s) ~s served with notice of the application. Proof of service cf such notice is a part of the record before the Planning Commission and Council. D. Prior to final processing of a variance, conditional use permit, or rezoning, one of ~he following items must ~e presented: I) Updated title, or 2) Certification from City Attorney tha= the chain of title is sufficient for the purpose. E. If you are the applicant and do not own the property, you will have to have the fee owner(s) and any prior contracu for deed owner who still has an interest in ~he property join in the applica=ion. F. INFORMATION RELATIVE TO OBTAINING TIT~ INFORMATION How do you know whether your property is Torrens or Abstrac~ and how do you get the Title or Abstrac=? 1) If you do not know, you could call your mortgage company. They should be able to tell you whether the proper=y is Torrens or Abstract, or 2) To make inquiry at ~he coun=y, you will need your legal descrip=ion. If you do no= have this information available, you may obtain' this information from City Hall. 3) If you think the property is Torrens, you may call Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. The number is 348- 3070. From your legal descrip=ion, they will tell you whether or no= the proper=y is Torrens and whether the Cer=ifica=e is on file or no=. If it is not on file, they will ~ell you who signed for it. If it is on file, =hey can ~ell you how to go abou= picking up the Owners's Duplicate Copy. 4) If you think ~he proper=y is Abstract, you should call the mot=gage company and ask to check ou~ the Abstract. If you do no~ have a mot=gage, you should have the Abstrac= in your possession. If you do no~ have the Abstract, you should contact an attorney to assist you in obtaining the Abstract. (An Abstract is usually a several page document showing all filed entries pertaining to the property.) CITY OF NEW HOPE INSTRUCTIONS TO PETiTiONERS FOR APPROVAL OF PLATS AND S%~DIVISION REQUESTS Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code sets forth the requirements for approval of preliminary and final plats. This is a guide to assist petitioners with Chap=er 13. Step %. Petitioner submits a completed application to the Planning Commission along with 12 copies a~d one B-1/2" x 11" reduction of the preliminary plat developed in accordance with Chap=er !3. A base fee of $225.00 and an "additional fee" de=ermined by the City Manager. Step 2. City staff establishes a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the request. The City notifies and solicits comments from property owners within 350 fee= of the project, the utility companies, and other governmental entitities of the request. ~p_~. City staff prepares a report of findings for presentation~o Planning Commission at the public hearing. Copies of =he staff report are available for the petitioner to pick up one day prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing. ~_~. The Planning Commission holclsa public hearing and can recommend that the City Council approve or deny the preliminary plat. In addition, the Planning Commission can table the request for further consideration. If the preliminaryplat is routine, =he Planning Commission may also waive its review of the final pla= at this time. ~_~. When the Planning Commission has made its recommendation regarding the preliminary pla=, the City Council considers the request a= the hex= scheduled meeting. The City Council can approve, deny, or table the request for further consideration. ~_~. After the City Council has approved the preliminary plat, the petitioner ca. prepare the final plat. The final plat must be pre~xm~ in accordance with Chapter 13, incozl~orate changes r~ ~f =he Planning Commission and City Council, and be :~~ =O =he City within 1.. ~ys of preliminary pla= If =he Planning Commission has no= waived the review of the final plat, the petitioner submits 12 ~es and one 8-1/2" x 11" rmdu==i~of =he final plat in accordance with the Planning Commission schedule. If no review by the Planning Commission is required, the petitioner may submit 12 ~ee of the final pla= twenty ~ys before the regular City Council meeting a= which :he petitioner wishes to have the final plat considered. 8/91 Approval cf Plats and Subdivision Requests Page -2- / '~ ..... Step 7. Upon consideration and approval of the final plat by the Ci~y Council, the petitioner submits 2 mylars to the City Clerk. The petitioner should obtain all of the necessary signatures on zhe plat wi~h the exception of the City and Hennepin County prior to submission of the final plat to the City Clerk. At this time, the CiSy Attorney's office will prepare a Development Agreement if necessary. The Agreement may require that the petitioner pledge financial security to ensure that the public improvements are made. The petitioner should allow 14 4ays for the City Clerk to have the mylar signed and the Development Agreement prepared. The City Clerk will not release the signed mylars until the petitioner has signed the required Development Agreement and has posted the appropriate financial security. S~eD 8. The petitioner takes the 2mylars to Hennepin County for filing. The petitioner has 100 4ays from the date that the plat was approved to record the plat. If the petitioner does not meet this 100 4my filing requirement, a request must be made t~ have the filing deadline extended. This request can be approved only by the City Council. $~eu 9. After the plat has been filed, the petitioner is required to return one mylar and eigh~ blue line ~op~e~ of the recorded plat 1to the City. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DAT~JUly 5, 1995 AGENDA ~E~IION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: NO. o Resolutions/Ordinances Community Development Resolution to Address Deadlines Janet Jeremiah ~ NO, for Agency Ac=ion Planning Coordinator PROPOSED ACTION Staff recommends t. hat t_he City Council adoDts =he following motion: MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. ESTABLISHING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCEPTING WRITTEN REQUESTS RELATING TO ZONING ~F~ O~ ~ ~ROPOS~D ACTZON Written re~es~s rela~ing ~o zoning woul4 no~ be acceD~ed as containing all re~ired info--=ion ~=il all of ~e following have been completed: 1. A pre-applica=ion mee=~q wi~ ci=y 2. S~mi==al of all applic~le application 3. S~mi==al of all suppo~ing application 4. S~mi==al of all associated fees. In addition, staff will l~ely p~sue ~ 'op~ion from ~e General r~arding ~e =~es of applica=ions ~2 ~e included 'as "re~es=s rela=ing =o zoning". Un=il o~e~ise de=e~~, s~aff will be ass~ing a broad interrelation of ~is l~age in order pro=et= ~e Ci2y agars= po=~=ial au~o~i= approval of ~desir~le proje~s. S=aff ~y suggest addi=io~l resolution l~ge regarding ~e Ci=y's in=e~re~a=ion of appli~le On July 1, 1995, ~e at=ached ~icle 18 of ~ap~er 248, "~adline for Agen~ Ac=ion", bec~e State law. The bill es=~lishes a ~0 day time l~i= for "ag~cies", including cities, =o approve or deny any "~i==en re.es= rela=ing =o zoning, septic sysco, or e~ansion of ~e me=ropoli=~ ~b~ semite area". If a city does no= deny a re.es= wi~ 60 days (or obtain ~ ~ension), ~e re.es= is automatically approved. The 60 day =~e l~i~ b~ins upon ~e Ci=y's Agenda No. 8b July 5, 1995 Page 2 receipt of "a written request containing all information required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordinance or policy of the agency". The purpose of the proposed resolution is to adopt a City policy establishing minimum requirements for accepting written requests relating to zoning. ~XSIS OF ISSUES What 2~pes of requests a~e included in the ney law? The law applies to written requests '*relating to zoning, septio systems, or expansion of ",.he metropolitan urban service area for a permit, license or other governmental approval of an action." Since St. Louis Park is fully wi=bin the metropolitan urban service area and public sewer infrastructure is in place, ~he deadlines are most pertinent with regard to requests relating to zoning. The new law does not define =he types of requests ~.hat are to be included as "relating to zoning". Staff may suggest an amendment to the attached resolution or the adoption of a subsequent resolution at a later date to assist in clarifying ~his ambiguity. Staff also anticipates pursuing an Attorney General's interpretation of ~he language. This could possibly be done in conjunction wi~h ~he League of Minnesota Cities. In ~.he interim, staff is recommending ~.hat ~he City assume a broad interpretation of "requests. relating to zoning# to include the following: amendments to ~.he Comprehensive Plan, amenchnents to =he Zoning Map (rezonings), amendments to ~.he tex~ of ~he Zoning Ordinance, Variances to ~he provisions of ~he Zoning Ordinance, Conditional Use Permits, Planned Unit Developments, and Subdivisions/Plats. Al=hough staff does not believe all of ~hese application types were meant to be included under ~he new statutory language, staff currently recommends assumption of a broad interpretation to protect =he City against po=antial automatic approval of undesirable projects. The Inspections Department may also want to consider =rearing Building Permit requests as potentially included under =he new deadline provisions. When does the 60 day According to =he new law, =he 60 day time limit begins upon =he City's "receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordinance or policy of the agency." The purpose of t. he proposed ordinance is to establish that, at a minimum, written requests will not be accepted as containing all required information unless t_he applicant has had a pre-application meeting with staff, completed an appropriate City application forms relating to the request, submitted all supporting documentation that Agenda No. July 5, 1995 Page 3 is outlined in t. he application procedures documents, and submit=ed ~he appropriate fees for processing t. he request. If a writ=eh request is received t_hat does not meet t. he minimum requirements, %he new law states t~hat the City must notify tile applicant in writing t_ha= t. he request is incomplete. If the City fails to provide written notification Uo the applicant within ten business days, t. he time limit begins the day the request was received. ~n¥ is the proposed resolution necessazT? Due to t. he relatively shor~ time limit contained in t. he new State law, it is essen=ial t. hat the time clock does not begin running until the application is complete. According to the law, application requirements must be outlined in a previously adopted rule, ordinance or policy of the City in order for the application to be deemed incomplete. Not all of the City's application requirements are currently contained in ordinances or formally adopted policies, and t. he resolution is in=ended to formally adopt =he currmn= policies. Minimum application requirements are readily available at City Hall in inf:rmation packets t. ha= arm dispersed =o interested individuals. A pre-application meeting is important, so =2la= staff can inform pot~n=ial applicants of procedures (publi= hearings, etc. ), application requirements, and City Code provisions related to the request. For example, a variance from a certain Code provision may be necessary in addition =o another type of approval. After meeting with staff, =he applicant may decide to apply for a variance simultaneously in order to save time, or the applicant may. choose to redesign the project and avoid the need for t. he variance. The new law states that "if a state s~atute, federal law or cour~ order requires a process to occur, before' the agency acts on the request, and =he time period prescribed in ~he s~ate statute, federal law, or cour~ order makes it impossible to a~c on the request within 60 days...t, he deadline is ex~:ended to 60 days after completion of the las= process required in %he applicable s~atute, law or order." Staff is conducting an analysis of the applicability of ~.his section. The city may also extend =he time limit before the end of ~he initial 60 day period "by providing written notice =o the applicant stating the reasons for the extension and its anticipated lenq~.h, which may no= exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant." In other words, if the City needs more than 60 days =o make a decision on a proposal, the City can take up =o a to=al of 120 days, as 'long as t_he City notifies the applicant in writing. Conceivably, ~he applicant could agree to a longer time exWcension. Agenda No. 8b July 5, 1995 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of t. he proposed resolution establishing minimum requiremen:s for accepting written requests relating to zoning. ATTAChMeNTS o Proposed Resolution o Ar~ic!e 18, "Deadline for Agency Action" 5940:GENS3 NOV-1 ..... 'HU 09:59 P, 09/19 ~ Laws 1995 CI--[AFTI~P,. 2as-$.F.No, t246 An ac: r~Imi~g to public admLuist, mtion; m~ing ch~ges desired to improve efficiency ~d o~iOn of gove~t; abolishing ~fi~ic re~; c=~in du~cs W ~ log/m~fivm ~rd~arin$ commission, ~d providing for ~e c~on o~er legislative commi~ions; ~peaiing ob~lmt~ ~ms, m4 remov~ mt~rences to r~ed ~le~i p~g for study oF ~o~m~gion of ARTICLE 18 DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION Section 1. [15.99] [TIME DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION.] Subdivision I. [DBFINITION.] For purposes of thim ~ctlou, "agency" means a department, agency, board, commission, or o~er ~roup in the executive branch of s~e government; a statutory or homo rule charter ciD,, county, town, or .~chool district: metropolitan agency or rcgiona{ cn$ity; ~md any other political subdivision of the state. Subd. 2. [DEADLINE FOR RESPON$]~.] Excep! ms otherwise provided in this section and nurwRhstanding any othcr law the contrary, an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written request relatMg to zoning, septic systems, or exp~,ll~|orl of thc meta'opolitan urban service area for a permit, license, or other governmental approval of au ~;tlon, ?ailur~ of an agcncy to deny a rectueSt within 60 days is a~roval of the request. If an agcncy denies the request,, it mu~t s~at~ in writing the reasolls for the denial ~ thc time that i~ denies the request. Su~L 3. [APPt.~CATION; EXTENSIONS.] (a) The time ~ubdivi~ion 2 begins upon the agency'~ receipt of a written request containing all information requircd by law or by previously adol~ted role, ordinance, or policy of the agency. If an agency receives a written reqtlest ~hat does not contain all required iaformw, ion, thc 60-day limit sr~'~ over only if the agency sends notice within Ien busin~ days of receipt of request teIlin~ ~ requester wha~ information is missing. (b) If an action relatin~ ~o zoning septic ~ystems, or expansion of thc m~r.-opolimu urban service area requires the al~In'ovai of more Rmn one s~e agency in th~ oxecutiw brmch, the 60-d~F r~,ri~xi in subdivision 2 begins ~o run for ail executive branch agenci~ on tAe d~y a request contain~l~ all required l~formafion is r~elvcd by one ~ a~ency. The agency receiving the reques! must t~rward copies m outer agencies who.~e approva] is required. (C) An agency respomc mcer~ th~ 60-day time limit if the agency can document ~hat the response was sent within 60 days of , NOV-i~ ~ , U 09:59 P, iO/t9 receipt of ~he w~en request. (d) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if ~ state suuute, fede~ law, or co~ order requires a ~ce~ to occ~ ~fo~ ~o agency ac~ on ~e request, and the time presc~d ~ ~ s~tc ~tu:c, fc~ral law, or ~o~ order m~e it ~ibie to act on ~e request wtE~ 60 Oys. e~eR descried in ~is p~ph. ~e deadline ~ extruded to 60 ~y~ ~er complefi~ of the l~t pr~s required applicable statute, law, or o~der. Final ~pproval of ~ agency receiv~g a request is not considered a pt~ess for p~ses ~ ~ph. (e) ~e t~e limit in su~iv~/on 2 is extended if: (I) a ~quest submi~d to a s~te agency ~es ~or approve of a f~e~l agency; or (2) ~ a~lication su~iWed m a co~, ~o~, sch~l diarist, meuopoli~ or re&ion~ ~, or o~er ~titical su~vision ~qu~ prior approval of a state or federal agency. In c~es described in ~is · c dc~llne for agency ~tioa is e~en~d to ~0 ~ys a~er requ~d ~or approval is ~t~. (0 ~ agen~ may ~tend ~e t~el~e ~t ~is subdivision ~f~ &~ ~nd of the ~kial 60-~y ~ by pwvi~ng ~en no,ce of ~e e~ion to ~ appli~t. no~fi~tion m~ rote ~e ~ f~ the extension ~ficipa~d tea~ which may not exceed 60 da~ unl~s ~oved by ~c applic~t. ~c. 2~ ~CTIYE DA~.] ~aion 1 5 effcc~v= luly 1, ~995, ~d ~H~ to ~n re.est su~i~ ~er ~ ~. CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: March 29, 1996 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Issues 1. March 11 Conncil/EDA Meetings - At the March 11 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Lasky PUD, 7180 42nd Avenue - Tabled until the March 25 Council meeting, per the request of the petitioner, due to the fact that the full Council was not present. B. Resolution Appointing Commissioners to the Citizens Advisory Commi.qsion, Planning Commission and Human Rights Commission - Approved; see attached Council request. C. Project//521, Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment in Connection with Street Improvement Project - Approved; see attached Council request. D. Project//540, Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assessment in Connection with Street Improvement Project - Approved; see attached Council request. E. Project #551, Resolution Providing for Public Hearing on Proposed Improvement Project (Louisiana Avenue - Medicine Lake Road to 32nd Avenue and 31st Avenue Street Improvements) - Approved; see attached Council request. F. Projects 545, 548 & 549, Motion Approving Quote bv Don Stodola Well Drilling Co., Inc. in the Amount of $1,300 to Seal Wells at 6067 West Broadway, 5559 Snmter & 7621 Bass Lake Road - Approved; see attached Council request. This will be done before the houses are demolished. G. Projects 545, 548 & 549, Motion Approving Quote bv Beltline Piping for $3,800 to Disconnect the Sewer and Water Service at 6067 West Broadway, 5559 Sumter & 7621 Bass Lake Road - Approved; see attached Council re'quest. H. Project #548, Motion Awarding Contract for Asbestos Removal at a City-Owned Property Located at 5559 Sumter - Approved; see attached Council request. This work also must be accomplished prior to demolition. I. Resolution Establishing Minimum Requirements for AcCepting Written Requests Relating to Zoning - Per the Commission's recommendation, this resolution was approved, see attached Council request. J. Discussion Regarding Development Options for 6067 West Broadway - Per the attached Council request, staff presented several options to the Council for the redevelopment of this property. The Council agreed with staff's recommendation for the City to redevelop the site. K. Projects 545, 548 & 549, Motion Approving Demolition Specifications to Demolish 6067 West Broadway, 5559 Sumter & 7621 Bass Lake Road and Authorizing Staff to Seek Bids - Approved; bids for demolition are being sought (see attached request). L. A Resolution Authorizing a Planning Study to Consider Regulations for Pawn Shops and Pa Brokering as a Legitimate Business Within the City of New Hope - Approved, per the recommendation of the Commission (see attached request). M. Ordinance No. 96-07, An Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting Any Pawn Shops or Pawn Broker Businesses Within the City of New Hope - Approved, per the recommendation of the Commission (see attached request). 2. March 25 Council/EDA Meetings - At the March 25 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Planning Case 95-15, Request for Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Approval to Allow Construction of a Car-X Muffler, Brake and Alignment Facility in a Mini-Mall Concept with Future Retail Space Construction, 7180 42nd Avenue, David Lasky, Petitioner - Approved, per the recommendation of the Commission, with a minor revision to the condition regarding curb installation. B. Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain an Appraisal for Property_ at 5025 Wisconsin Avenue North - Approved; see attached Council request. C. Project #519, Resolution Approving Declaration of Covenants for 6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue North - Approved; see attached EDA request. D. Project #519, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for Landscaping at 6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue North - Approved; see attached EDA request. 3. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee met on March 27 and discussed: A. Deadline for Agency Action on Zoning Applications B. Pawn Shops C. Shopping Center Def~nitiordPUD Procedures 4. Design & Review Committee - The Committee met on March 14 to review plans for the Hoyt PUD and the Public Works expansion. 5. Future Planning Cases - Potential future planning applications include: A. Expansion of car wash at Mobile Mart on 36th Avenue B. Expansion of Valspar building by Creamettes 6. Miscellaneous Articles - Several miscellaneous articles from Zoning News and Zoning Bulletin are enclosed for your information. Attachments: New Commissioners Development Options 6067 W. Broadway Assessment on Street Projects Demolition at Three Properties Public Hearing on Project #551 Pawn Shop Study & Moratorium Seal Wells 5025 Wisconsin Avenue Disconnect Sewer/Water Service Declaration of Covenants Asbestos Removal Landscaping 6073/6081 Louisiana PC96~01 - 60-day Zoning Miscellaneous Articles UOUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Orl~matlr~ Department Appm~d for ~e~a ~enda Section Fin~ce. Admin. 03- I 1-96 Consent Valerie Leone ) Item No. ~SOLUTION ~POINT~'G CO~SSIONE~ TO THE CITIZENS ADVISORY CO~$SION, PL~G CO~SSION. ~ND ~'~N ~GHT$ COMMIS$ION The Ciw Co.cji conducted ime~'iews on ~he ¢vemn! of Feb--' 25, 1996. ~d ~mously atreed to appoint ~e follo~int ~r~ns to v~o~ ciw co~issions: Citizens Adviso~ Co~ission tte~ expiration 12/31/96) Ka~y Bug~ Pl~g Co~ssion (te~ expiration 12/31/98) Willi~ Keefe Steven Svend~n H~ ~ghts Co~ssion (te~ expiration 12/31/96) Stacy Unows~ All persom have ~en contacted ~d ~e ~lling to accept their appoin~ems. The Citizens Advi~u Co~ion ~d ~e Plug Co~ssion mem~rs~p will bo~ incre~e to rune with ~ese ap~m~enm. ~e H~ ~ghts Co~ssion mem~rs~p ~11 be completed at ~ven ~ ~e ap~in~em of Ms. Unows~. Staff reco~en~ Moption of ~e re~lution. / R~: ~tra~on: ~A-O01 ~ COUNCIL REQUF~T FOR ACTION Orlginating Department Approved for Agenda ~.enda.$ectlon City Manager C~nsenc Kirk McDonald ~/ 3-11-96 Item No. By: Management Assistant By: 1/ 6.9 RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT IN CONNECTION WITH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 521 The enclosed resolution directs the determination of assessment costs and the preparation of the assessment roll for Street Improvement Project No. 521. The resolution starts the process to levy assessments against benefitting properties for the cost of the project. At the March 25th Council meeting a resolution will be presented to the Council setting the public hearing date to consider the assessments on this project for May 13th and mailed notice of the hearing date will be sent to all benefitted property owners. The City Engineer and Finance Director have met to determine the f'mal assessment rates and project costs, per the attached correspondence, and the costs will be discussed by the City Engineer at the Council meeting. The f'mal project cost exceeded the contract mount due to curb replacement on Wisconsin Circle/Virginia Avenue, sidewalk replacement on 53rd Avenue, and excavation for soil correction. The Council will need to determine if yon are going to assess at the rate stated at the time of the contract award ($27.45/F.F. residential; $41.18/F.F. commercial/high density) or at the final rate ($29.60/F.F. residential; $44.40/F.F. commercial/high density). If the City assesses at the lower rate, the City's cost would increase by $56,6:55.36. The enclosed resolution prepared by the City Attorney states that the City will pay $428,374.05 of the cost of the project, exclusive of the amount it may pay as a property owner, and that $794,359.05 will be assessed against benefitting properties and is based on the rmal rate. If the Council determines to assess at the contract award rate, the resolution will need to be amended. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. O=ONBY / Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ UOUNCIL REQUF~T FOR ACTION Orlgtnattng Department Approved for Agenda '~-~nda. Section Ci~ Manager Consent Kirk McDo~ld ~) 3-I 1-96 Item No. By: Management Assismm ~/ 6. t 0 ~SOLUTION DECL~NG COST TO BE ASSESSED ~D O~E~NG P~PA~TION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT IN CONNEC~ON ~TH ST~ET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 5¢0 ~e enclosed resolution d~ec~ ~e dem~tion of assessment cos~ and ~e preparation of the assessmem roll for S~eet ~provemem Project No. 5~. ~e resolution sram ~e pr<ess to levy assessmenu aga~t ~nefiaMg. pro~mes for ~e cost of ~e project. At ~e Mamh 25~ Council meeting, a resolution will ~ pre~nted to ~e Council senMg ~e public hea~g dam to comider the assessment on ~s proj<t for April 22nd'and mailed notice of ~e hea~g dam will be sero to all ~nefined pro~ owners. ~e CiW EngM~r and F~nce D~ector Mve met to dete~Me ~e ~I as~ssmem rates and project cosn, ~r ~e a~ched co~s~ndence, ~d ~e cos~ will ~ d~us~ by ~e CiW Engineer at Council meeting. ~e ~1 proj<t costa ge less ~ ~e con,ct awed ~ount due to less concrete curb ~d ~ner ~n was est~amd and less new ~vel barn/soft co~ection ~n est~ated. The Council ~ n~d to d~e~ine if you ~e goMg to ~ at the rate ~ated at the t~e of the contraa awed ($26.15/F.F. r~denfifl; $39.21~.F. co~erci~/Mgh density) or at the rate ($22.12/F.F. r~identi~; $33.18/F.F. commerci~/M~ demi~). The enclosed resolution prep~ by ~e Ciw ARo~y smms ~t ~e CiW will pay $179,457.70 of the cost of ~e project, exclusively ~e mourn it may pay as a pro~ owner, ~d ~t $175,432.59 will be assessed aga~t ~nefinMg pro~ies ~ is b~d on ~e rm~ rate. If ~e Council dem~ines to assess at ~e con~act awed rote, ~e resolution will n~d to ~ mended. Staff reco~ends approval of ~e resolution. Renew: ~stra~on: F~c~: _ I II COUNC[~ · REO~T FOR ~CTION Orlgtnatmg Department ~pm~ for ~enda ~nda Sectlon ~blic Works 3-11-96 Consent Je~ne CI~ ~ Item No. / ~SOL~ION PROLOG FOR ~LIC ~~G ON PROPOSED ~RO~~ PRO. CT NO, 551 ~O~SI~A A~ - ~DIC~ L~ RO~ TO 32~ A~ ~ 31 ST A~ S~ET ~RO~~S) At the Febm~ 26, 1~6, m~in~ the Ci~ Council ~pt~ ~e pre~ report for the proj~. The re~lution before Council t~s ~emg ~s the date for the public h~ng. The proj~ ~eaone dates ~e: ~blic H~ng ~ch 25, 1~6 Awed Contra~ (Ci~ ofCcP) Ap~ 26, 1~6 Subg~tifl Completion F~ 1996 ~ssment H~ng ~mt~ 1~7 St~ reque~s approv~ of ~e re~lution. ~d:~ 1 b.~ R~: ~~a~on: Fm~e: I ~A-O01 ~ CO( REQUF.~T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent Sarah Bellefuil -~,-11-96 Administrative Analyst // Item No. BV: liar:/ 6. MOTION APPROVING QUOTE BY DON STODOLA WTLL DRILLING CO. INC.. IN THE- AMOUNT OF $1.300 TO SEAL WELLS AT 6067 WEST BROADWAY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #545), 5559 SUMTER AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #548}. AND 7621 BASS LAKE ROAD (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #549). 6067 West Broadway was purchased from HUD, due to mortgage foreclosure, in October 1995 for $41.400. There is a one-story, 576 square foot house with a basement currently on the property. The house has been evaluated by City. staff and Project for Pride in Living (PPI.,') staff and it h~s been determined that it is not worth rehabilitating due to its deteriorated condition and a number of code violations. Staff is recommending that the house be torn down to the foundation and a new house be built on the site. Staff is suggesting building a new home with the current foundation due to the size and configuration of the lot and setback requirements. The project would be financed with CDBG. HOME. and Metro Council loan funds. 5559 Sumter Avenue North was purchased from the La. Liberte family in October 1995. for $62.000. There is a one-story house with a crawl space on the property. The City is recommending that the house be torn down and the site filled. The site will be used to realign Sumter Avenue south of Bass Lake Road with Sumter Avenue to the north of Bass Lake Road. 7621 Bass Lake Road was purchased from the McBrady's in December 1995. for $90.000. There is a two-story home with a basement on the property. The City is recommending that the house be tom down and filled and the property be land banked for future use. In order for the three properties to be torn down the wells need to be sealed. Staff obtained quotes from the following firms to seal the wells at aH three properties: FIRM 6067 5559 7621 Total Don Stodola Well Drilling $475 $475 $350 $1.300 E. H. Renner & Sons $600 $600 $375 $1.575 Torgerson Well Company $517 $517 $392 $1.426 Staff recommends approval of a motion accepting the low quote from Don Stodola Well Drilling Co. Inc.. in the amount of $1,300. Once the wells are sealed and all the utilities are removed the CiD· will / / -- Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~..,~ q)~,.] REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Citv Manager Consent Sarah Bellefuil 3-11-96 Item No. By: Administrative Analyst By:. 6. i 5 MOTION APPROVING QUOTE BY BELT LINE PIPING IN THE AMOUNT OF $3.800 TO DISCONNECT THE SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AT 6067 WEST BROADWAY (IMPROVEMENI PROJECT #545), 5559 SUMTER AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT e548), AND 7621 BASS LAKE ROAD (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #549). 6067 West Broadway was purchased from HUD, due to mortgage foreclosure, in October 1995 for $41.400. Because of its deteriorated condition and code violations, staff is recommending that the house be tom down to the foundation and a new house be buik on the site. Because of the demolition that will occur, staff is recommending cutting the sewer and water at the property line. Sewer and water will be reconnected when a new house is built on the property. 5559 Sumter Avenue North was purchased from the LaLibene family in October 1995, for $62,000. Staff is recommending that the house be tom down and the site filled. The site will be used to realign Sumter Avenue south of Bass Lake Road with Sumter Avenue to the north of Bass Lake Road. Since the land will not be redeveloped, staff is recommending that the sewer and water be cut at the main which runs along Sumter Avenue. 7621 Bass Lake Road was purchased from the McBradys in December 1995. for $90.000. The City is recommending that the house located on the property be tom down and filled and the propem.' be land banked for future use. Staff is recommending that the sewer and water line to this house also be cut at the main. The sewer and water cut-offs will be paid for with CDBG, TIF or EDA funds. MOTION BY ~4~ SECOND BY TO: ~7~ FL~(~ , ~vlew: AdrnLu~stration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ REQ ? FOR AC?ION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent Sarah Bellefuil 3-11-96 Item No. By: Administrative Analyst By: 6.16 MOTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ASBESTOS REMOVAL AT A CITY-OXa%'ED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5559 SUMTER AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #548). The City of New Hope requested bids for asbestos surveys for three City-owned residential properties located at 6067 W. Broadway, 5559 Sumter Avenue North, and 7621 Bass Lake Road. The City awarded a contract for the asbestos survey to Angstrom Anal~ical at the January 8th, City Council meeting. They conducted the survey in February 1996 and found asbestos backed linoleum in the kitchen of 5559 Sumter Avenue North. The linoleum is considered "friable" by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and must be removed before the house can be demolished. Staff sought quotes for removal of the asbestos backed linoleum and received the following responses: Firm Quote Jackson Lead & Asbestos Abatement $275 EnviroBate $700 Staff recommends awarding the bid to the low bidder, Jackson Lead & Asbestos Abatement. for the amount of $275. The asbestos removal will be paid for through scattered site housing, EDA. or CDBG funds. Remew: Admlmstration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Originating Department Approved for Agenda DeV~/~ection City Manager & Planning Kirk McDonald ~/~3-11-96 Item No. By: Management Assistant By:. ~T ff,/ , 8.2 PLANNING CASE 96-01: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCEPTING WRITTEN REQUESTS RELATING TO ZONING. CITY OF NEW HOPE. PETITIONER The enclosed Resolution Establishing Minimum Requirements for Accepting Written Requests Relating to Zoning was prepared by the City, Attorney in response to Minn. Stat. § 15.99 passed into law last July by the State Legislature. The new~-law imposes a 60-day response deadline on all special zoning requests covered in Section 4.202 of the City, Code. The deadline requires City action on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application submittal. If action is not taken within the 60-day period, the application is considered approved as submitted. This could have serious ramifications if the deadline is missed, as an unfavorable zoning request could be forced on the City. The statute also provides for a 60-day extension, which enlarges the response period to 120 days. The statute allows the City. to define a completed application, which is important because an incomplete application will not start the response time period. However, the City is required to inform an applicant within 10 days from the submittal date that the application is incomplete and what information is necessary to make it complete. Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending a two-step process to deal with the new statute: 1. Adopting the enclosed resolution at the March 1 lth Council meeting to establish the City's policy for accepting zoning applications during the interim. The resolution states that wTitten zoning requests shall not be accepted until the following have been completed: A. Pre-application meeting with staff: B. Submittal of completed application forms; C. Submittal of all supporting information: and D. Submittal. of all fees associated with the application. MORON BY SECON BY TO: /'rZ& qb-°. / Re,aew: AdministraUon: Finance: I RFA-O01 ~ Request tbr Action 2 3-i ' -~ _. Adoption of the enclosed Ordinance Amending the New Hope Code Regulating the Decisional Process tbr Special Zoning, Request at the April §th City Council Meeting (copy enclosed for reviewl. A public hearing must be held before the Planning Commission before the ordinance can be adopted and this will occur on April 2nd. The ordinance will codify the policy set out in the resolution. Staff will also be revising application forms/letters to comply with the ne~¥ statute. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCEPTING WRITTEN REQUESTS RELATING TO ZONING WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. §15.99 became effective on July 1, 1995, and WHEREAS, said statute establishes certain deadlines for agency actions relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area, and WHEREAS, subdivision (1) of the law defines "agency" to include statutory cities, and the deadlines therefore apply to certain actions by the City of New Hope, and WHEREAS, "actions relating to zoning" are not defined by the statute, and WHEREAS, the established time limits begin upon the agency's receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordinance or policy of the agency. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of New Hope that written requests relating to zoning shall not be accepted as containing all required information until all of the following nave been completed pursuant to New Hope Code §4.202, et al: 1. A pre-application meeting with City staff during which the appropriate application procedure(s), requirements and applicable Code provisions are reviewed and explained; 2. Submittal of all applicable, completed City application form(s) relating to the request (current City application forms are available at City Hall and may be periodically updated); 3. Submittal of all supporting information required by City Code and/or outlined in the application procedures documents that are included with the -City application forms (current application procedures documents are available at City Hall and may be periodically updated); ~'- 4. Submittal of all fees associated with the aPp]~cab]e app]ication(s) (current fees are included on the application forms or procedures documents; such fees may be periodically updated by action of the City Council). Dated the day of , 1996. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk ¢:\i05!\ cnl~\ reSo.zon COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda De,,~lf~f~ection City Manager & Planning Sarah Bellefuil ?-~3-11-96 Item No. By: Administrative ,~malyst By: , . 8.3 DISCUSSION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR 6067 WEST BROADWAY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #545) The City 'of New Hope purchased the property, at 6067 West Broadway from HUD, due to mortgage foreclosure, in October 1995 for $41,400. The site was inspected by Jean Coone, General Inspector. and the staff at Project for Pride in Living. They recommended that, because of its deteriorated condition and code violations, it should be tom down. Staff has developed the following options tbr the site once demolition is complete. 1. Split the lot in half and deed the land to the adjacent property owners. 2. Market the land to a private developer. The developer would then have the opportunity to build a home on the property. 3. Donate the land to Habitat for Humanity. 4. The City could build a home on the site and sell it to a modest income first-time homebuyer. Staff recommends retaining the property and building a home on the current site. In order to reduce costs and remain within the setbacks and utility easements, the City could retain the current foundation and build a 1 ~h or two story home on the property. The foundation was evaluated by Jerry Pertzsch. P.E.. at Bonestroo, and it was determined that it would support a two-story house. The attached sur~'ey shows that the current garage is located over a drainage and utility easement. Staff recommend building a two-car garage on the north side of the property and realigning the driveway. In addition, the original one-story home is only 576 square feet. Staff would like to build a 1 ~h or two story home to increase the square footage and satisfy City Code requirements. A footprint of a possible future home is attached, as well as some possible home designs that would fit into the neighborhood. MOTION BY TO: Review: AdrnmlstraUon: Finance: Request for Action 2 - ,, The City has several funding sources that it can use to build on the site. The Metropolitan Councit has provided the City with a $60.000 interest-free loan to offset the construction costs. $20.000 in HOME funds are available to be used as a second mortgage and as a grant to the Cit'v. CDBO funds are available for acquisition. Thc City also has funds available from an MHFA grant that thc Cit,,,' received in 1994. If the City Council is interested in building a home at 6067 West Broadway. staff would like to obtain quotes for designers who would design a floor plan and elevations for the proper~y. The specifications for demolition, which follow this request, are written to require demolition of the existing structure and retaining the current foundation for future building. If the Council is not agreeable to the City constructing a new home on the existing foundation, the specification should be modified prior to approval. Lot 1&2 Block 1, MORK-CAMPION HEIGHTS Concord From Elevation INTERIOR FEA~JRES AVAILAfltE UI~RADES . _ 1560 Sq h. o/Iwin8 spice 2 x 6 waft/liming / I"""' cg~ tLV~~ ~"~' ~ ~~~ · _ ........... ~ Ccfllcl Ish~ m kslchtn ~ ~ I~ into tlumbnI S~lem EkcmcM s~cm Mare fief -- ~] "'" ................. l x 4 wall hammg is avada~ u~f~ oflenflg~ I. I I wall ~ ~ ~...s,,,,-~-,~o~ ~ Wllw I~s I 139 ~ k ol hying spate 2 x 6 wall I:ammg I I1~ hlhb Vinyl b Study Ilou~ wrdp ~ .. Cb~ A i~lmI ~lfllks Wh,l~l lub _ y~~ COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda City Manager & Planning Sarah Bellefuil ~ 3-11-96 Item No. By: Administrative Analyst By:/ / 8 MOTION APPROVING DEMOLITION SPECIFICATIONS TO DEMOLISH 6067 WEST BROADWAY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #545), 5559 SUMTER AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #548), AND 7621 BASS LAKE ROAD (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #549) AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SEEK BIDS The City, owns three vacant properties located at 6067 West Broadway, 5559 Sumter Avenue North, and 7621 Bass Lake Road. Staff would like to demolish all of these properties and use them for future projects/improvements. Demolition would be paid for out of CDBG, TIF or EDA funds. 6067 West Broadway was purchased from HUD, due to mortgage foreclosure, in October 1995 for $41,400. Because of its deteriorated condition and code violations, staff is recommending that the house be torn down to the foundation and a two-story house be built on the site. 5559 Sumter Avenue North was purchased from the LaLiberte family in October 1995 for $62.000. Staff is recommending that the house be torn down and the site filled. The site will be used to realign Sumter Avenue south of Bass Lake Road with Sumter Avenue to the north of Bass Lake Road. 7621 Bass Lake Road was purchased from the McBradys in December 1995 for $90.000. The CiD' is recommending that the house located on the property be torn down and filled and the property, be land banked for future use. Staff recommends approval of the attached demolition specifications. Once approved, staff will request bids from demolition contractors. The bids will be presented to the City, Council at the April 8, 1996 meeting. 'to: ,(l.D./~/'r r'7/L t / Remew: Admm.tstratlon: Finance: RFA-O01 REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda De~/~r~/I~ection City Manager & Planning Kirk McDonald /'x'9- I 1-96 Item No. By: Management Assistant By:./f' 8.7 PLANNING CASE 96-04: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PLANNING STUDY TO CONSIDER REGULATIONS FOR PAWN SHOPS AND PAWN BROKERING AS A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE The City. currently has no special zoning or license requirements for Pawn Shops and it is questionable whether or not they can be totally prohibited from the City. Within the past year, staff have received several inquiries regarding the possible location of Pawn Shops in the City. Similar to other questionable zoning uses in the City, such as adult entertainment establishments and tattoo parlors, staff are recommending that the City be pro-active and establish strict zoning/licensing requirements prior to the time that such a use attempts to locate in the City. Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending that the Council consider adoption of the enclosed Resolution Authorizing a Planning Study to Consider Regulations for Pawn Shops and Pawn Brokering as a Legitimate Business Within the City of New Hope. The resolution directs the CiD' Manager and staff to prepare a planning study addressing the secondary impacts that such a business would have on the City's land planning process. Such a study would include the need for buffer zones from other land uses which may be sensitive to a pawn shop business, such as churches, schools, parks. etc., and document the licensing fee to be charged in connection with the Police Department costs involving the regulation of such a business. In conjunction with such a study, staff is also recommending approval of an Ordinance Establishing a Six-Month Moratorium on any Pawn Shop or Pawn Brokering Business Within the City. of New Hope. The prohibition would be effective through September I1, 1996. It is anticipated that a six-month moratorium would give stuff adequate time to study this issue and make recommendations regarding Pawn Shop zoning and licensing ordinances. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. Review: Administration: Finance: I RFA-OOI ~ RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PLANNING STUDY TO CONS[DER REGULATIONS FOR PAWN SHOPS AND PAWN BROKERING AS A LEGITIMATE BUS[NESS WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE WHEREAS, a pawn broker business as defined by Minn. Stat. §471.925 (1) is prohibited as a permitted or conditional use in any zoning district within the City, and WHEREAS, as a matter of law a complete prohibition of pawn shops and pawn brokering as a business within the City may not be enforceable and may subject the City to a federal §§1983 and 1988 law suit, and WHEREAS, some of the City's commercial and industrial areas may be suitable for a pawn broker business if appropriate zoning and licensing regulations are enacted to control said businesses per the City's police and municipal land planning powers, and WHEREAS, there is concern that reasonable zoning, land use and licensing regulations of pawn shops and pawn brokers are necessary to guard against the unwanted proliferation'of pawn shops and pawn brokers within the City, and WHEREAS, there is a further concern that despite having similar land use and business characteristics to other retail or financial lending businesses, pawn shops and pawn brokers may have a propensity to attract a crimin&l element within the City as places to "fence" stolen property if restrictive regulations are not imposed to deter such activity and promote a valid public purpose by said businesses, and WHEREAS, there is a concern that the pawn broker business may have negative secondary impacts on adjacent neighborhoods supporting a need for buffer zones from other land uses considered sensitive to said secondary impacts such as schools, churches, parks, day care centers, etc., and WHEREAS, there is a concern that problems associated with pawn broker businesses may be related to business management not controllable by land use or zoning regulations requiring strict but fair licensing regulation to insure the protection of the health, welfare and safety of New Hope residents living in close proximity to a pawn shop or utilizing the services of [he pawn shop or pawn broker. NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City cf New Hope, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to have prepared a planning study to consider the impact of amending the New Hope Zoning Code to allow pawn shops and pawn brokering as a legitimate business within the City including, but not limited to, the following: a. a restriction on hours of operation; b. proximity restrictions to residential zoning districts, churches and schools; c. operational requirements, including but not limited to, photograph or video identification requirements, daily transaction reports made available to the police department, required property holding and redemption periods including police holds of suspected stolen property, prohi'bition against weapons pawn, payment regulations, license, fee and bond requirements and receipt requirements for received property. 2. That the study should be completed and brought back before this Council on or before September 11, 1996. 3. That a moratorium should be imposed on the establishment of any requested pawn shoo or pawn brokering business within the City until the herein planning study is completed. Dated the 11th day of March, 1996. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Pi~u~lu~m~e~ion City Manager & Resolutions Kirk McDonald I ) 3-11-96 Item No. By: Management Assistant By:.'~'/" 10.1 ORDINANCE NO. 96-07. AN ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING ANY PAW.'N SHOPS OR PAWN BROKER BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE The enclosed ordinance provides for a total prohibition on the location of any Pawn Shop or Pawn Broker Businesses anywhere within the New Hope City limits effective through September 11, 1996. The moratorium will provide time for a study to be completed on this type of business and for recommendations to be made regarding zoning and licensing regulations. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. MOTION BY ,r~ . _~. SECOND BY Revleve: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ ORDINANCE NO. 96-07 AN ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING ANY PAWN SHOPS OR PAWN BROKER BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE The City Council of the City of New Hooe ordains: Section 1. Section 1.58 "Temporary Prohibition of Pawn Shops or Pawn Brokering Businesses" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: 1.58 Temporary Prohibition of Pawn Shops or Pawn Brokering Businesses. Pursuant to the authority of Minn. Stat. §§462.355(4) and 412.221 (25) a total prohibition is hereby imposed on the location of any pawn shop or pawn broker businesses anywhere within the New Hope City limits. Said prohibition shall be effective through September 11, 1996. Any application for issuance of buildinQ or occupancy p~rmits under Chapter 3 of this Code, text chan~es, variances, conditional use permits and rezoning requests under Chapter 4 of this Code and subdivision requests under Chapter 13 of this Code for any new use, construction, development or subdivision of property for a pawn shop. or.. pawn broker business as herein defined shall be denied until September 11, 1996. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the 11th day of March, 1996. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the day of , 1996.) COUNCi~ REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Deve~tSecuon City Manager & Planning Sarah Bellefuil ~3-~-96 Item No. By: Administrative Analyst By:.~/ 8.3 MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO O~TAIN AN APPRAISAL FOR PROPERTY AT 5025 'H. On August 8, 1994, the City, of New Hope completed an Inspection Request for the house located at 5025 Wisconsin Avenue North. The Inspection Request was issued as part of the single-family housing rehabilitation program which is administered by Hennepin County and supported with CDB~ funds. The inspection found that there was over $25,000 worth of rehabilitation work necessary on the property to bring it into compliance with City Code. Because of the high cost of rehabilitation, t~e property, owner called the City stating that she was interested in talking to the City about purchasing the property.'. In response, staff believes that the f'~st step is to get an appraisal of the property. The 1995 assessed value is $83,000 ($60,000 building, $22,500 land). Staff feel that this cost is too high considering the amount of rehabilitation work necessary on the property. Therefore, an appraisal that reflects the property's "as is" value must be completed. The following funds are available to finance the purchase and rehabilitation of the properts': $84.000 in CDBG acquisition/scattered site housing funds, a $60,000 zero interest Metropolitan Council Housing Assistant Loan. $40,000 from an MI-IFA Blighted Residential Grant received by the City in 1994. and EDA funds would be used. After rehabilitation is complete, the majority of these funds would be recouped with the sale of the home to a first-time low/moderate income home buyer. Staff have been seeking available properties for rehabilitation for the past year. There have been several complaints against this property dating back to 1989. Many of the complaints concern upkeep of the yard and building exterior, cars parked illegally in the yard, and public disturbances. Staff is requesting authorization to obtain an appraisal on the property for comparison and negotiation purposes. The estimated cost of a single family residential appraisal from BLC Appraisals is $325. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal on 5025 Wisconsin Avenue North. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Ftnance: RFA-O01 5"0o0 TH AVE HIGH HOUSE ~ HO~ LUTHERAN __ CHURCH 47 -~ &vi 4~TH E, N. (EDA 1 Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager EDA C--~-25-96 Sarah Bellefuil ~ ,] Item No. By: Administrative Analyst By: ]/ RESOLUTION APPROVING DECLARAT/ION OF COVENANTS FOR 6073/6081 LOUISIANA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #519) The enclosed resolution approves the Declaration of Covenants for the City-owned property at 6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue North. The City purchased the rear 100 feet ofpropertT located at 7105 62nd Avenue North from Carol and Faye James in June, 1994, using CDBG scattered site housing funds. This property was combined with the rear 100 feet of the adjacent property located at 7109 62nd Avenue North, which the City purchased in October, 1993, for rehabilitation. The two properties were replatted in October, 1994, as the Cameron Addition. On December 11, 1995, the property was rezoned from R-l, Single Family Residential, to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential. The purpose of the rezoning was to accommodate the construction of a zero lot line handicap accessible twin home. The project is being sponsored by the City in conjunction with CO-OP NW Community Revitalization Corporation and the Metropolitan Council. Bids for the construction of the twin home were approved by the City Council on November 13, 1995. Staff is currently securing a purchase agreement with one family. In order for the purchase agreement to be signed, the attached Declaration of Covenants must be approved. The purpose of the Declaration of Covenants is to address certain items peculiar to the property, including the party wall and alterations to the exterior of the property. Other items that are addressed are the construction of temporary, structures on the property, vehicle storage, antennas, the obstruction of traffic site lines, and window treatments. Also included is the sharing of repair and maintenance of the twin home by the property owners. The Declaration of Covenants will be filed at the time the purchase agreement is executed. The enclosed resolution approves the Declaration of Covenants for the property at 6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue North and staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 · .OA ~,,~?' REQUF.~T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager EDA 96"-2 - Sarah Bellefuil ['- ~'~ Item No. By: Administrative Analyst By:./ / 5 / RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS ~/D SPECIFICATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING AT 6073/6081 LOUISIANA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 519) The enclosed resolution approves plans and specifications for landscaping at 6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue North. The City purchased the rear 100 feet of property located at 7105 62nd Avenue North from Carol and Faye James in June, 1994, using CDBG scattered site housing funds. This property was combined with the rear 100 feet of the adjacent property located at 7109 62nd Avenue North, which the City purchased in October, 1993, for rehabilitation. The two properties were replatted in October, 1994, as the Cameron Addition. The site was originally vacant and a handicap accessible twin home is currently being built on the site. The City Forester developed the enclosed landscaping plan. The plan incorporates both new and existing landscaping. The City Forester has also prepared a cost estimate of $3621.00 for the landscaping. This cost does not include sod. Staff would like to obtain bids to landscape and sod the property at this time. Since this project was initiated, it has been the City's intent to provide landscaping and sod at the site once construction is complete. The cost for landscaping and sod will be recouped by the City when the sale of the property is complete. The enclosed resolution approves the plans and specifications for landscaping at 6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue North and staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: . Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ PLANTING SCHEDULE Code Botanical Common Size Form Unit Total Name Name Price 3 LLL Tilia cordata Little Leaf Linden 2.5" B & B 350.¢~) 105¢}OO 2 RSC Malus 'Red Splendor' Red Splendor Crab 2" B & B 215.1~} 430.00 2 BHS Picea glauca Black Hills Spruce 6' B & B 225.00 450.~} 2 TA Thuja occidentalis 'Techny' Techny Arborvitae 5' B & B I(X).00 200.00 8 TY Taxus x media 'Taunton' Taunton Yew 24" B & B 75.00 6(~}.1~ 6 GS Spiraea x bumalda 'Goidflame' Goldflame Spirea //5 Cont. 22.00 ! 32 .iR} 4 HV Viburnum trilobum 'Hahs' Hahs Viburnum //5 Cont. 32.00 128.1~) 3 ID Cornus sericea 'lsanti' lsanti Dogwood #7 Cont. 32.(X) 96.(~} 7 CD Coruus sericea 'Cardinal' Cardinal Dogwood //5 Cont. 25.00 175.(~) 3261 Does not include sod FEBRUARY 1996 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION The ABCs of ZBAs approve certain classes of accessory structures. This has worked so well that Brenrwood is looking for ways to apply it to other By Michael Barrette areas. "It takes pressure off the board. Right now they have the ' lightest load they've had in a very long time," he savs. l'his past fall, Zoning News mailed a survey to its subscribers Champaign, Illinois, has succeeded by keeping its code up to to gather information about zoning boards of appeals date. Zoning administrator Kevin Phillips says the trick is to keep (ZBAs). Nearly 600 responses poured in from all over the track of the appeals: "If we see a pattern developing, we act on it country. This issue of Zoning News examines a representative because a variance, by its very nature, is a unique circumstance. If group of 50 small and medium-sized communities with a it occurs more than once, it's time to look at the code to see if population under 100,000 (see table). The survey focused on something has been overlooked. If we've already granted the basic information such as annual case toad, the frequency of variance under the same conditions, then it is time to add those meetings, compensation, board structure, and terms of office, conditions to the code. That way people don't have to go through and identified several concerns, all the rigmarole of an appeal. Variances have become so unusual that the last time the board was faced with granting a variance, Caseload and Meetings they looked at us and said, 'Why isn't this in the code?'" Most communities are busy with zoning appeals. Only 11 of the 50 jurisdictions reported fewer than 12 cases per year. All but six ColapensatJan have boards that meet at least monthly, 34 boards meet monthly, Two of the 50 communities and 10 meet more often. At the low end, the Washington use hearing officers in lieu of County., Nebraska, board of adjustment has not met since zoning boards. Of the September 1, 1994. "That either means everyone is getting their remainder, 31 offer no permits and following the law," says planning administrator compensation for board Douglas Cook, "or a lot of people aren't getting permits, and we members. Thirteen offer haven't caught them." At the opposite extreme, Oidham County, monetary compensation Kentucky, reports 132 cases. More than half the respondents had ranging from $ 5 per case in 30 or more cases per year; one-fourth reported at least 50. Reading, Pennsylvania, to · · - Several communities have tried to limit the number of cases $10,000 per year for the G ~v ~ before their boards. According to administrative assistant Jo chair of the Southampton, looked at US 411rid Evans, Springville, Utah, has dramatically reduced its caseload. New York, ZBA. There is no "There ~'as a time when the board members seemed to think that clear threshold for compen- Sclidt tWhy isrltt this the purpose of the board was to grant variances," she says. "That, sation. Waverly Hall, in the code?'" combined with a $20 fee, just encouraged people to appeal." But Georgia, with a population Springville decided to get tough with appellants. "We raised the of 769 and an annual fee to $100 and required them to sit down with the staff and go caseload of two appeals, pays over the list of conditions which need to be met in order to win $20 per meeting. But in an appeal," Evans says. "When they find out what the legal Rapid City, South Dakota (pop. 60,738), board members handle requirements are, most people are not willing to risk $100." 100 cases a year without compensation. Most local governments Paul Glauser, community development director for Draper, pay from $15 to $50 per meeting to cover expenses. Several Utah, says his town raised the variance application fee from $50 communities have a per diem arrangement and provisions to to $200. "The fee change, combined with a growing reputation cover mileage to and from meetings and site inspections. for strictly interpreting the law, has drastically reduced the Some communities provide nonmonetary rewards. Lombard, number of frivolous applications," he says. Illinois, holds an annual recognition dinner to publicly thank Administrative approval is another means of streamlining, citizen volunteers. Iowa City throws a luncheon for retiring Theresa Carrington, city planner for Brentwood, Tennessee, board members and honors each with a certificate of says most cases "dealt with either home occupations or accessory recognition. Webster Groves, Missouri, gives each member a structures, so we passed zoning ordinance amendments that complimentary family pass to the cirv's recreation complex. In allow the staff to administratively approve certain home Vail, Colorado, parking is at a premium in the pedestrian- occupations. That alone has cut our caseload bv 44 percent." oriented downtown during the ski season, but board members The ordinance gives the staff a list of allowable home are eligible to receive a parking pass for the citv-owned parking occupations and 10 conditions that must be met. After the structures. Since typical board sessions begin with a pre-meeting revised ordinance was passed, the cirv advertised the new at noon followed bv the public meeting in the late afternoon, permitting process in the local newspaper. With a population of Vail also provides lunches and dinners. But that's just the 20,000, Carrington notes, "we've already issued 300 home beginning, says town planner George Ruther: "Participation on occupation permits. That's a significant number." Once all of our boards is a voluntary cMc dun', but we like to issue permitted, homeowners must renew their permits annually so ski and recreation passes as a Bonus to offset the time the board that the cit~' can update its database. The staff now can also members devote to the communiD'." Training Board Members decision making so that they now rake their work very Without a doubt, adequate training is the prima .ry issue for seriouslv,' he reports. Brown is confident that the board planners working with ZBAs. Training concerns, successes, and moving in the right direction. "They are involved tn failures dominated the comment list. Horror stories include a and they leave here with their eves open," he sa~'s. "They are board with a 95 percent variance approval rate. conflicts of constantly calling things ro our attention: Did ~'ou see the new interest, and controversial cases with indefensible decisions, sign?' or 'Do you know about the new garage?' i can't tell ~'ou Some communities' board members are able to participate in how grail .lying it is to see board members coming in on their state-level or APA training programs, but 5pringville uses an own time requesting additional information about an issue." unusual source. "Once or twice a year, we require our board Brown insists that time invested in training is well spent. members ro go through a risk-management training session run "It is really hard for a planner to guide an untrained board," by our liabilirv insurance group," says Jo Evans. "They get very he says. "As single voices in the wilderness, we can't be specific training on what rhev can and cannot do, and the risk- effective. But when a board is educated and welt prepared, management representative puts them through different the results can be profound. At one time variances were scenarios so they get some practice. It is very. effective when easily granted in Presque Isle, but thev are now the your liability insurance representative stands up and savs 'You exceptions and not the rule." cannot do that. You cannot violate your own code.'" Many communities lack access to training programs but still prepare their board. Iowa Ci,ty has an in-house program run by Melody Rockwell, board secretary and associate planner. "Every C~U~ member goes through an orientation upon appointment," she Feedlot Ban reports. "A workshop is held every two or three years to discuss protocol, due process, the quasi-judicial nature of the board, A legislative battle is brewing in Iowa over livestock and the importance of clear statements of findings of fact." The confinement operations, triggered in part by an Iowa Supreme training works. It has been more than 10 years since an Iowa Court decision in late October. The ruling, in Thompson v. City, ZBA case has gone to the district court. Hancock County, No. 264/94-692 (Iowa October 25, 1995), Presque Isle also has developed a home-grown training overturned Hancock County's attempt to impose zoning regimen. "The city, solicitor was concerned about the quality of regulations on a large hog confinement facility, holding ~at the the board's decisions for a long time," says Jim Brown. "The Iowa code makes no distinction between such operations and code enforcement officer and I decided we had to take the family farms. Under Iowa law, agriculture is exempt from local initiative before we were faced with a heavy lawsuit." The officer zoning regulations. Although a later statute states that feedlots consulted with the city solicitor to launch the program, he are subject to local zoning, the court held that the definition notes, adding that elected officials "aren't necessarily interested described only outdoor, open-air facilities and not confinement in dotting the i's and crossing the t's of land-use documents, so buildings. As a result, says Franklin County zoning the staff becomes responsible for protecting the city's interests." administrator Robert Holze, his county board of supep,'isors has The Presque Isle ZBA's recent past is somewhat checkered, decided "not to fight any of these confinements coming in." "At one point," says Brown, "the ZBA was really practicing de Franklin County already has one such operation, he says, that facto zoning because they considered each case without regard could be considered commercial. Holze says Franklin County to the land-use code or the existing zoning." The code had been perceived as the strictest in the state on "holding the enforcement officer's efforts have changed that. After the regular line" against such facilities. board meeting, Brown says, "we discuss selected topics from the But the Iowa State Association of Counties is supporting land-use code or state statutes; legal topics such as takings; a legislation to create new definitions of livestock confinement smorgasbord of things. This fosters an understanding ofwhai operations that would allow counties to exercise land-use control the code enforcement officer and the planners have to contend over such facilities, says public policy analyst Robert Mulqueen. with and what the specific language is that empowers the board. Otherwise, he says, "we are losing control of our own destinies." The focus on legal dimensions is very important." In the meantime, some counties are experimenting with other Brown says the board has responded favorably to the staff's ways of attacking the problems posed by commercial feedlots. input. "We have impressed upon them the magnitude of their Mulqueen says Humboldt County recently passed an ordinance that subjects such facilities to new public health regulations as an alternative to planning and zoning. As of mid-January, according to Mulqueen, two major bills Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning were under consideration in the Iowa General Assembly. One, Association. Subscriptions are available for $50 (U.S.) and $65 (foreign). unveiled by state Sen. Burl Priebe, who chairs the Senate Frank 5. So. Acting E .... tire Director; William R. Klein. Director of R ..... ch. Agriculture Committee, provides for some local control but Zoning News is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, Editor; Fay Dolnick. Scott Dvorak, does not appeal to ISAC because of complicated exemption Michelle Gregory. Samay Jeer. Megan Lewis. Doug Martin. Marya Morris. Marry, Roupe. Laura Thompson, Reporters; Cynthia Cheski. Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton. formulas based on such factors as the percentage of livestock fed Design and Production. with grain raised within 50 miles of the farmer's land. Copyright © 1996 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite Mulqueen sees this as posing serious verification challenges for 1600. Chicago. IL 60603. The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 M ..... huserts Ave.. N.W.. Washington. DC 20036. county officials. Another bill uses a matrix of "if-then" All rights reserved. No parr of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any propositions to establish a series of regulatory, expectations for form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, feedlot operators. The battle lines have been drawn, and count~ or by' any informati ....... ge and retrieval system, without permission in writing Officials can expect groups like the Iowa Pork Producers from the American Planning Association. Printed on recwcted paper, including 50--0% recycled fiber ~, Association to oppose many provisions they will support. Schwab and 10% p ................. 4 City Pogda~ B.abers* Pm, Ih.th Cmbd Coquudb Lmjfl. Camm~ 1 7,449 5/0 A c5 0 3 ~ Last met 9/1~4, 2 2,100 7/2 2 13 I} "* AIq~ umfrqdimd~ ~ 3 lO, OeO A 5 e 5y. 4 4,so 7/0 2 ** " 5 3,O83 HO A 3 S75p ! yr 6 5,5OO 5/0 I 6 0 2yrs 7 10,500 5/I ! 40 0 3~ bt. brim nbdq smuss. 8 10,o80 7/0 ] t o 603 lO]yr Teqi, ~ cut casdmd. 9 769 5/O I 2 S201) 3yrs Camdd to Nmis CouaJy. 10 875 5/0 ! 2 $20p 3~ C. mctdta bris Corny. 1! 5,600 7/2 I 10.15 0 Iff c~ K md ZIA. ]2 15,000 9/2 ! 25-2O O 3yu Ommmbr finn K.. t3 19,000 5/2 1 ~12 0 Syn bedur uWiq uak ~ mamp,~ speck~. 14 14,OeQ 5/2 I 3~ 0 5~ L.uyer ~ Is cmlJam vddtm dmshm. 15 ]3,000 5/1 A 8 $35pd+ndmp 4yr3 gm mmdmr ha oocb dthe six tmmships. 16 13,859 7/2 2 30.40 0 4yn ktkkmq 17 ]6,270 5/2 2 76 0 3y. 18 19,217 5/0 ! 40 0 3yu Adidsdm~ ~ af horn ~ ~ caseload 44%. 19 23,000 5/0 1 2ff 0 5~ Tw mm m Chl Cam .Wmts mmb~s; stm,-level qPlllUL 20 21,000 5/2 I 40-50 0 I yr ! K tomb .rosa. war ZIA. 21 12,500 5/8 A 6.10 $15/m; S2Sdmir5~ 23 23,000 5/3 1 20 pess 3~ 24 16,389 5/0 I 50 S17..,qp 4ps !10 taurus d qldmla~ qquds go to ZBA. 25 lO,OeO 5/O I 24-36 0 26 18,0eo 7/o 2 4o.58 0 3yu 27 ~ 7~ ! - 1~ 0 4~ Cmdiimd ~ t~fJ~ l~dUbsh~ 28 35,000 5/4 I 60 0 4~ Car cmmlqlekts au mpiar and om ahrme, mayor three mphr md mu dlmmt~ Iq:2i2 dh mu from flu exlratefl'i- 29 29,600 5/0 2 20 0 3O 20,180 5/O ] 60 0 5 ~ 31 25,000 5/3 ! 10 0 5y~s 'lodbu ~ ~ ~ m~ admi~ed. 32 47,000 5/0 2 II0 C~101 5yl3 ZIA bls comud ill ddlhm lu the fivl rlgdm' members. 33 34,004) 5,,'3 ! 20 0 5 34 27,600 5/0 1+ ? 0 5~ SUl. I~. five- or s.v.a-.mdm bead with no mo~e than two meb, d h rui.s~. 35 43,000 5/O I 132 ~ 4~ 36 41,000 7/0 t 15 ** 5~ Amud dimm to rKognin bard smmb3. 37 25,500 7/0 1 75 $25p 4yt3 bamse of btalmd dmmds in die bst four yeah, the board gore hm tw med~ a year to a maddy mee~. 38 27,00Q 7/I 2 25 $25p 3 ~ RKeedy im..d from 5 to 7 mmbe3. Key to Communities Washington County, NE 14 WarringtonTow~ship, PA 27 Cent~wille, OH Eagle, CO 15 Benzie County, MI 28 Columbus, IN 40 Evanston, WY Draper, UT 16 DenvilleTownship, NJ 29 MasonCity, lA 41 Auburn, WA Vail, CO 17 Brookings, SD 30 Manheim Township, PA 42 Marshalltawn, IA Genoa, iL 18 ISrenlwoad, TN 31 Uintah County, UT 43 Trohvood, OH Lexington, MO 19 Winchester, VA 32 Soulhampton, NY 4~ Reading, PA Presque Isle, ME 20 Golden Valley, MN 33 Torrington, CT 45 Rapid City, SD WorYnington, MN 21 Front Royal, VA 34 Urbandale, IL 46 Taunton, MA Wavedy Hall, GA 22 Villa Park, IL 35 Oldham County, ICY 47 Champaign, IL Pine Mountain, GA 23 Webster Groves, MO 36 Lombard, IL 48 Roanoke Count),, VA Ocean Township, NJ 24 Huntington, IN 37 Shelby County, ICY 49 Iowa City, IA Traverse City, MI 25 Streetsbaro, OH 38 Delta Charter Township, MI 50 Youngstown, OH Springvitle, UT 26 Tullahoma, TN 39 McLean Count),, IL 41 3&,OOO IlO I 4e-SO $$5-7~/heer lbming exmdmr ky cenlrecL 42 25,000 5/0' i-2 30.40 O 3yrs Sram awakes m in their fihh term. Held te find kmddgaek~mmested pee~ ~hout codlict of ~tarest 43 30,000 7/0 i 25 0 4 ~ Seven meadms cu~, ixef~s five. 44 7s,3so 5/2 1 40 S5 per cos. 5 ~ 45 60,738 5/2 2 lOO 0 2y~ Appoints peelde fmdliar with desaiplkn of devdo~ment and 46 52,000 5/2 I 120 ** 2y~ Appointed radii Novemb~ 1995. Now dected to two-year terms. Chak' gets $1.5K, others SlK 47 65,000 7/2 1 10-15 0 5y~ Co~fykg gm~ variations has diminished cases. 48 80,000 5/0 ! 20-25 1,2K 4 y~ ~ emptmsis on tndning. 49 62,700 5/0 1 3 *" 5 ~** Luncheon end cer~cote to heeer relbing board members. Full- te~m nmnbers cannot succ~ self. 50 95,732 7/0 1 35-50 0 4 yrs ZBA includes fern dtize~s and lhree oily staffen. Umited to The Nature of the Office Genoa, Illinois, recently converted from using a ZBA to State enabling legislation generally governs terms of office, employing a hearing officer. The problem there was not conflict Most board members are appointed, usually by the mayor or of interest, but lack of interest. City, administrator Keith Schildt ciD, council, but in some cases by the district court that hears reports that the city contracted a professional because no one in appeals bevond the local jurisdiction. Taunton, Massachusetts, the community wanted to serve on the board. recent!~ made its board an elected body. The first group took Finding volunteers is further complicated when appoint- office last November and will serve for two years. Other ments have to meet special criteria. For example, McLean communities place elected officials on their boards by requiring County., Illinois: Benzie County, Michigan; and Columbus, a council member to chair the ZBA. Planning commissioners Indiana, have geographic criteria. Appointees must come from are often required to sit on the ZBA, and in some cities the separate townships or districts to ensure equal representation. In whole planning commission doubles as the ZBA. Columbus, one alternate must be from the extraterritorial All the boards in this survey were composed of five, seven, or jurisdiction. Profession is another common criterion. According nine members. Five is most common, with 31 communities, to Paul Dekker, director of community development in but 19 have one or more alternates who serve when a member is Urbandale, Iowa, state law allows just two real estate profession- absent or is excused from a case due to a conflict of interest. In als on the board. Informal professional criteria are very, com- Youngstown, Ohio, the board consists of four appointed mon, usually aiming to find experienced people. Rapid Ci~, citizens and three staff members. South Dakota, seeks members who are "familiar with design, The length of term varies from one to five years, with most development, and construction issues," says senior planner Tim communities opting for three, four, or five years. Two cities Huev, noting that the current chairman is a retired chief allow iust two terms, nor including the completion of an buil~ling official for the ci~. Among the other regular members, unfinished term. This concept runs contra~ to the concerns of he adds, are three general contractors and a furniture store several respondents who pointed out the difficulty of finding owner. The two alternates are the school district's building appropriate volunteers to serve. Mark Stursma, assistant zoning manager and an architect. Planners generally look for candidates adminisrrator with the Region Six Planning Commission in who will not require much training, resulting in the frequent Marshalltown, lowa, says some board members there are serving appointment of citizens who have had prior contact with the their fifth term. "It is difficult to find members who are planning deparrment. knowledgeable and interested and who do not have frequent In Presque Isle, Maine, however, planning and development conflicts of interest." he says. director Jim Brown says officials go out of their way to bring in fresh faces: "We put out a cattle call when we've got vacancies. We announce it in the newspapers, on the cable channel, and at 3lic/lae/Barrerre is a former APA research associate currently in public meetings. There is no staff input. The cirv council selects graduat~ schoo/ar DePau/Uniz,ersi~. candidates, interviews them, and makes the appointments." 3 Page 4 March 1996 Z.B. Z.B. March 199~} - I'agc 5 She also said Iht Iownship previously issued usc and occupancy permits Ihat Stegeman claimed the zoning ordinance violalcd Ibc duc process }md equal allowed truck storage and repair fl}r all niuc pti)peri}cs, protection clauses of Ihc state constitulion, ilo said a past ctlurl decision forced Wallin and Stone were Copechal's tenanls al two separate properties. In zoning authorities to consider altcrnalivcs to Ibc traditional Ihmily whcu dclin- Augusl 19t)4, both applied for use and occupancy perm}Is to repair and slore ing "family" in zoning ordinances, lie also argued thc ordinance unfairly pan- trucks on their rcspeclive properties. The Iownship's code enforcement officer }shed him and his company fi}r contribuling 1o Ibc arca's t)vc~pt~pulafiml, thc dcuicd thc applicalions, saying thc proposed use was nol allowed in Iht corn- limitation was irrational considering lhe number id' I'ralcmily Ilotlscs illld dorm}- mere}al district. (The ordinance allowed automobile repair only as an acces- sory use to an automobile sales agency; it did not allow truck storage and repair.) tortes in the area, and that groups of unrelated studcnl~, deserved thc lie also Iold Wallin and Slonc Ihey had a right to appeal to the township's protection as functional bm}lies under thcordinancc. Finally, Stcgcman clam}ed Zoning llearing Board. Neither appealed It) the board, the ordinance violated Ihe state Civil Rights Act because il tliscriminlllcd ()il Copcchal sued Iht township on behalf of herself and her tenants. She asked the basis of marital slatus, ttc asked Ihe court liar im tl'rdcr prevcating tile city Iht court It!, order Ihe lownship lo issue Ihe permits. The township asked the from enforcing the ordinance. courl it) dismiss Ihe case, saying Copcchal and her lenanls failed to exhaust The courl denied the order, and Slegeml, n appealed. Ihcir adminislralive remedies. The township said because of this failure, the DECISION: Affirmed. courl had no jurisdiction over Copechal's claims. The ordinance violated neither the Michigan ('onslilulitm m~r Ibc ~,latc ('}vii The courl dismissed the case, and Copechal appealed. She said state law Rights Act. allowed her Io request the order she sought even though she could have appealed The past court decision did not snpport Slcgcman's claims. Ill thai case, thc lo Iht Zoning ttcaring Board. court ordered zoning authorities to accept certain allernalivcs lo thc tladilional DECISION: Affirmed. definition of "family." However, il cxplicilly stated ordinances ct)uld still dis- The Ir}al court properly dismissed Copechal's case. Even if all her allega- tinguish between biological and functional families, and a municipality did uot lions were true, she did nol show she had a clear legal right to an order making have to "open its residential borders to transients and others whose lil'cslylc is Iht township issue the permits, not the funclional equivalent of 'family' lil'c." Ann Arbor's ordinance clearly Withoul first going to the Zoning Hearing Board, Copechal could not seek allowed nontradilional families because it listed "functional family" ils an accept- an order making Ihe lownship issue the permits unless the proposed use com- plied will} the ordinance in effect when Ihe tenants filed lhe applications. She able living arrangement. did m)l show the ordinance gave any clear righl to garages used for truck stor- The ordinance did nol unfairly punish Sicgcman ill violation of Iht stale age and repair, constitution's due process clause. Stcgcman did ntl't prt)vc thc oily singled him ('opechal may have had a vested right to continue garage use if il was a out to alleviate overcrowding problems. Nor did thc ordinance vi{date thc equal noncmlfi)rming usc that preexisted the zoning ordinance. However, the board protection clause by nol giving unrelated individuals thc same protccli{ms ils had !o make thai dclermiualion. The question involved faclual issues the board families. The court noted Ihal, despite undergoing dramalic changes in rcccnl was belier eqnipped lo decide, years, the family "remains a fundmncutal building bh)ck of soo}ely." As snch il l. imly Ilomes Inc. v. Sabtttini, 453 A.2d 972 (1982). deserved greater protectiou Ihau "a raglag c(l'llcclion of ctdlcgc Slegeman could m)t po}hi It} the ncighborhood's colleclion {~1' l'ralcrnily Ordinance ~ College Town (}rdi~a~¢e Limits Number of Unrelated People ........ -~. houses and dorms it} show Ihe ordinance was irrational. Thai argnmcnl applied Living Tngcther to the zone, not the ordinance. -- .~ite,ge't~utn~v. ~_'ity-of,~rrrr:4rborl, $~lONiW..2tlT221:-(MlchiganI t995 ........ Finally, Ihe ordiuancc did iioi tliscrin}i,latc I}ascd on mar}Iai status. II Stcgcman owned Campus Rentals, a company thai rented apartments in hibilcd seven unrelaled individuals ['rom living in thc saint honsehtl'ld, x'~ hclhcl' Ann Arlmr, Mich., to groups of college sludenls. t)r not Ihcy were married. Il' lhosc seven individuals wcrc all man}cd I~), but Parl t)f Iht cily's zoning ordinance prohibilcd more Ihan six unrelaled people l'rtml living ltl'gclhcr ill certain residential dislricls. "Functional families" were separated from, olhcr people, Ibc ()[dina[icc would still p['()hil)i[ ~hcm If mn alh}wcd il' Ihcy got a special exceplion use permil. Thc ordinance defined a liviug together. I'tlilclJl}llal I'amily ils "a group t}l' lit} iiil. l'[e than 6 people plus their offspring, Editor's note: Thc case on which Slcgcnliln relied was l)t']l~t ( 'lt~//'l,'t InT~. having a rclalionship which is funclionally equivalcnl lo ii family." Thc dcfini- } I}tttt.~J}~, 351 N.W. 2d 831 (198,4). li{m cxt>licilly excluded fl'alcrnilics, sororilies, and groups of sludenls "where t't,~q~l~, l': l'crlo.¥, 4(>2 N. W. 2d 310 (1990). Iht emu,mm lixing arrangcnlcnt or ha.sis for thc cstablishmcnl of the tmusc- 'l'ro.v ('ti(tip(rs l't ('itt' o]"l?ov, 34~1 N. W. 2d/77 (19&Il. kcclfing l]llil ih Iclllpllrlu'y.