The URL can be used to link to this page

090396 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CONSENT ITEMS 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1' Case 96-29 Request for a Vadance from the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of an Addition, 3532 Ensign Avenue North, Jonathan & Christy Arnoldy, Petitioners (continued) 3.2* Case 96-30 Request for a Variance from the Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition, 7251 40th Avenue North, Richard & Patricia Bruins, Petitioner 3.3 Case 96-21 An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-Street Parking by Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parking Areas, City of New Hope, Petitioner (continued) 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee - Next Meeting: September 12 at 8:00 a.m. (if necessary) 4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee - Next Meeting: September 25 at 7:00 a.m. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Miscellaneous Issues 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Review of Planning Commission Minutes of August 6, 1996. 6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of July 22 & August 12, 1996. 6.3 Review of EDA Minutes of July 22, 1996. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 7.1 Distribution of Pawn Shop Ordinance information (to be reviewed during September by Commissioners for informal discussion at October I meeting) 7.2 Reminder that the November Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, November 4, due to the fact that the General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 5, and no public meetings can be held on Election Day. 8. ADJOURNMENT * Petitioners are required to be in attendance. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 96-29 Request: Request for a Variance from the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of an Addition Location: 3532 Ensign Avenue North PID No.: 19-118-21-21-0038 Zoning: R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District Petitioner: Jonathan & Christy Arnoldy Report Date: August 30, 1996 Meeting Date: September 3, 1996 UPDATE 1. At the August 6 Planning Commission meeting, the petitioners were requesting a variance from the side yard setback requirement to allow construction of a 12' x 13' addition and a 12' x 13' open porch/deck onto the existing residence, pursuant to Sections 4.034(3)(c) and 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. They were proposing to construct a master bedroom addition to the north side of the existing home. The addition would extend out 12 feet from the existing structure and would be 26 feet wide, with the front portion containing the bedroom addition and the rear portion containing an upper level porch/open deck with an open/exposed roof for sunlight. City code states that the side yard setback requirement in a Single Family Residential Zoning District is 10 feet for interior lots, with the exception that an attached garage can be located five feet from the property line. The proposed house addition would have been located three (3) feet from the side yard property line, therefore, a seven (7) foot variance from the ten (10) foot setback requirement was being requested. 2. There was a considerable amount of discussion about this request at the Planning Commission meeting and the majority of Commissioners did not favor the granting of such a large variance. The Commission voted to table the request and requested that three actions be taken: A. The Commission directed the staff to research past variances granted to determine if a seven (7) foot variance from the ten (10) foot side yard setback requirement had ever been approved before for a house addition. B. The Commission recommended that the petitioner strongly consider revising the house addition plans by several feet so that a seven (7) foot variance was not necessary. C. The Commission also requested an explanation/clarification of how the rear yard elevated deck/porch appeared to encroach on the thirty-five (35) foot rear yard setback requirement. All three of these actions have been completed. Planning Case 96-29 2 August 30, 19~6 3. Variance Research: Research was completed by City staff on all of the variances that have been granted back to 1980, and that research is attached to this report for your information. The research/graphs are divided into two sections: all variances and side yard variances. From the research completed, it appears that the largest variance granted for a house addition into the 10-foot side yard setback was five feet (Planning Case 85-20). This information was sent to the petitioner with the enclosed memo stating that based on this research, staff felt that it was unlikely that the Commission would recommend approval of a seven-foot variance. (Copies of memo and research were also sent to the Planning Commission Chair.) Staff suggested that the petitioner submit revised plans that show a reduced encroachment into the side yard setback. 4. Revised Plans: The petitioner met with staff and has submitted a new revised site plan, floor plan and cross-section, along with some new elevation photos. The proposed width of the addition has been reduced by two (2) feet. The original proposal was for a 12-foot wide addition, which would have encroached seven feet into the 10-foot setback area. The revised plans show a 10-foot wide addition, which would encroach five feet into the 10-foot setback area. In fact, the updated site plan shows that the house sits at a slight angle to the side yard property line so that there would be five feet between the addition and the side yard property line at the closest point on the northwest corner of the house. The distance between the addition and the side yard property line at the rear of the addition (or the northeast corner of the house) would actually increase to 7.5 feet. The petitioner can explain the revisions to the floor plan to you at the meeting. Staff is mainly concerned with the exterior dimensions and the amount of encroachment into the setback area. Staff feels that the petitioner has done a good job revising the plans and has followed the recommendations of the Commission and staff. The petitioner has also clearly stated in writing that the entire home and addition would be re- sided with new high-quality, steel siding and that a new asphalt shingle roof would be installed on the existing home and the new addition. There will be no change in the type or style of windows, as the windows in the existing house will be re-used in the addition: The petitioner has stated that the building materials of this addition will exactly match the present existing structure. 5. Deck/Porch Addition: The Building Official has prepared the enclosed memo on the deck/porch addition and the petitioner's revised site plan shows the correct distance between the rear yard property line and the elevated deck/porch. The site plan shows that the distance is 30 feet, or the elevated porch/deck encroaches five feet into the 35-foot rear yard setback area. The home was built in 1965. In 1986 the former owner applied for a building permit to construct. the elevated deck. It appears at that time that the site plan submitted was inaccurate. However, decks are allowed as encroachments into the yard setback areas. The home was sold in 1990. In 1991 the petitioner, using the same site plan, applied for a building permit to enclose the deck and construct the porch. When decks become enclosed they are considered part of the structure and are supposed to meet setback requirements. Because the deck had already Planning Case 96-29 3 August 30, 1996 been approved, based on an inaccurate site plan submitted by the previous owner, the Inspection's Department approved the porch construction. There was probably an error on both the former owner's part and the City's part. I have discussed this issue with both the Building Official and City Attorney. We do not feel that any action by the Planning Commission is necessary on this "past error." The City Attorney has indicated that he would consider the porch/deck a legal non-conforming use. The Building Official has indicated he will be more careful with future plan reviews, which is sometimes difficult to do and be 100% accurate without requiring certified surveys for every construction project, which the City does not like to do because it is an expense that most homeowners do not want to incur. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a five-foot side yard setback variance to allow the construction of a ten-foot wide addition, per the revised plans, that have been submitted. Attachments: New Elevation Photos Revised Site Plan Revised Floor Plans Revised Cross Section Petitioner Facts About Revised Plans 8/22 Staff MemoNariance Research Sent to Petitioner 8/16 Building Official Memo re: Deck/Porch 8/7 Correspondence from Petitioner August Planning Commission Report VIEW OF PRESENT ELEVATIONS ~il~ ~o. AR.NOLD¥ FRONT, WEST ELEVATION SIDE, NORTH ELEVATION REAR, EAST ELEVATION VILLI,AM O. $CHO~"L..I., ' CARk. ISL. F_ a,#...e..~, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYOR5 a*... I~. ~ill 1'11 ~0 NIN'rH &V~NUi ~OUTN "0'*'"'""" CERTIF.ICATE OF SURVEY ,o...LEEMAN CONqT~N, I~C ' I CER~ ~T I ~ ~E P~~O~ER OR O~E~ REPRESE~A~ ~D ~T ~IS ~ I~ ~~D AC~~. · ~1 ~ ~,..~ ~ /, - , ~ ~ / I I . I~;~ ' ~1 I~ ' . t LI I~r:' '~ ~"1~ I ~.~ ~,,. ,-.; '~1, ~ ~LAT~ ~~ ~~ ' ' : .... ~ ~.~ :~., ...... ... ..? o. WE HEREBY CERTI~ TH I REPR~ENTATION OF A SURV[Y OF THE BOUNDARIES L~ t, ~t~-ck 4, L~tmn's Gr, n ~ri'~r RKGI~Y[W[O LANO IU~V[YOR ' ~ C~ ~ ?'., 5 "* <.-,';;~ 'i.'.r,-e', ,*', :. _ PNON (;: g3e-7~14 ',ERTIF.ICATE OF SURVEY I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE PROPERTY O~ OR O~EI~S REPRESENTATIVE AND THA; PLAN ISl COMPETE/AND ACCURATE. ~, ..,,.I "T' I ' · ~i~i:::iL;H/^HI:::^ I^I:JLI-: AL)OFNOUM " File No: ARNOLDY S [k~r'°'we'/Cl~nt . · JaN & CHRIS ARNOLDY Properly Addres~ 3532 ENSIGN AVENUE NORTH City County State Zip Code Ci NEW HOPE HENNEPIN MN 55427 ,~~= ~, Porch I BE:DROOU ~ Bedr<x~n ~] Kitchen Dining 22 M; Ei::: _~ El VI no N~ ~ ~ 13=il Bedrocng/,4e:~ rb5 I--= .. 2 Car Garage .. ~_ ~q-~~.__ = o,~~ a_~'~_.~ ~ R ...... 1 ~ 2~ .,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: !:: Ki!i -r I.:.:.:.F:.>:.:.:..~.:.?: >~.~ M.?..:.:.:.:.:.:. ~::Prc~osed Addition 1 (~ X ~ 3' Proposed New FI oor P! en SCALE: 1 inch = 12feet AREA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY LIVING AREA CALCULATIONS AR Area Name of Area Size Totals Breakdown Subtotals :,;~:""!:: GL*, F,r,t Froot 1326.00 1326.00 46.00 x 26.00 1196.00 BS#T Basement 1:326.00 1:326.00 10.00 X 1:3.00 1:30.00 i POR :3 Season Porch 180.00 Portico 104.00 284.00 GAR Garage 462.00 462.00 OTH Oeck 108. O0 ADDITION FACTS' Old bedroom was 11.5 ' X 12' with a 2.5' X 6' closet. New bedroom size will be 1:3' X 15t with a 4.5' X 12' walk-in closet. Old 1/2 bath was 4.5' X 5'5. The new bath will change to a 314 bath and be 5.5' X 7.5' (same size as present main bath) ' A new 13' X 10' lath roof porch will be constructed on the northeast elevation, which will allow the roof line to remain the same, no changes in roof pitch. The entire home and addition will be resided with new HIGH QUALITY STEEL siding, and a new asphalt shingle roof will be Installed on the existing home and the new addition. No changes in windows, as present windows in bedrooms will be re-used. BUILDING MATERIALS O1~ THIS ADDITION WILL F. XACTLY MATCH PRESENT IX/STING STR~ CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM TO: J°n Arnoldy FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development' Coordinator DATE: August 22, 1996 SUBJECT: Variance Research and Revised Plans Enclosed please find copies of the research that was completed on all the variances that have been granted back to 1980. The research/graphs are divided into two sections: all variances and side yard variances. From the research completed, it appears that the largest variance granted for a house addition into the 10-foot side yard setback was 5 feet. Based on this research, I think it is unlikely that the Commission will recommend approval of a 7-foot variance. I would suggest that you submit revised plans that show a reduced encroachment into the side yard setback, as the Planning Commission requested. I will be preparing the Planning Commission packet next week and would appreciate you submitting any revised plans you want the Commission to consider to me by Monday, August 26. Please contact me at 531-5119 if you have any questions. cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Bill Sonsin, Planning Commission Chair (fax) (This copy faxed to Comp. Value Services. Original mailed to home address: 3532 Ensign Avenue North, New Hope) SIDE YARD VARIANCES--- 1980- 1996 1 96-18 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match existing Leone Bigelow Request: 2' vartance CC: unanimous 3840 Geltysburg Avenue Request to construct an addition onto existing garage, extendin9 2' into side yard setback. 92-31 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure Roger Griggs Request: 1.8' variance 1 excused 5313 Pennsylvania Avenue Request to construct garage on side of house, which extends CC: unanimous 1.8' into side yard setback. 88-13 Side yard (20' co. mr lot) & fronl yard (35') setback Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure. ' Daniel & Barbara Nordberg Request: S' alde & 12' front variances 1 abstain 3243 Fla~ Avenue Request to expand ~lara~e on non-conformin~l structure. CC: unanimous 88-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - Approved 1' PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. James & Sandra Larson Request: 2' vlfianit CC - Approved 2' CC: 3 for 5908 Boone Avenue Request to add onto ga[age, which would extend 2' into side I against yard setback. 88-02 Side yard setback (35' across from indusbial, along 49"' Approved PC: unanimous New Community Builders Avenue) CC: unanimous 4884 Erickson Drive Request: t' variance Request to build new home 1' into side yard setback. 85-20 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Richard & Donna Kranz Request: S' variance I against Drainage not adversely impact neighbors. 3240 Ensign Ct. Request to add a family room to existing home wilh CC: unanimous Lot survey be consistent. basement, which would extend 5' into the side yard setback. 85-10 Side yard selback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Patrick O'Meara Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous Extend chain link fence between houses. 8200 39m Avenue Request to add bedroom above garage, which would extend 2' into the side yard. 85-02 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Gregory Davis Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous 7808 39~' Avenue Request to add onto existing) home 84-24 Side yard setback (20' corner lot) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Alvte Carey Requesl: 3' variance CC: unanimous 4052 Decatur Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 3' into side yard (corner lot) setback. 84-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - approved 1' PC: 1' unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure James WkT, zek Request: 2' varfance CC - approved 2' CC: 2' unanimous 4104 Oregon Avenue Request to add a 2-story addition, including tuck-under garage and living area above. '~ SIDE YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 - 1996 2 84-08 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Richard & Patricia Bruins Request: 4' variance 615184 - PC CC: unanimous 7251 40'" Avenue Request to construct a screened porch at rear of house which 6111/84 - CC is technically the side yard and would extend 4' into side yard. 83-55 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing slructure P.O. Dotson Requset: ¶ I/=, variance CC: unanimous 2701 Quebec Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 1 ½' into setback. 83-48 Side yard seLhec___-k (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials t~ match existing structure Joseph Forrer Request: 3' VSIiIn~S CC: unanimous Structure should be only 20' sp. overhang is 2' from lot 4633 Rhode Island Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 3' into line. setback. 83-35 Side yard (10') & rear yard (35) setback Approved PC no minutes in files Roof & building materials to'match existing structure Charles & Phyllis Herren Rlqueat: 2' tide & 3' Ilar yald variance CC: unanimous Remove existing shed. 3204 Gettysburg Requesl to add 3-seasen pinch to rear of house, which extends 2' into the side lfard and 3' to rear yard. 83-30 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous 2'3" variance, move shed at back of propmly, take out Joseph Buslovich Request: 2'9" variance CC: unanimous 1'1" of sidewalk, take care of water problem, work to be 3530 Yukon Avenue Variance was granted 3' var~ in 1980, alter survey by done in 30 days. neighbor, he should have requested 2'3" variance as the sidewalk and a shed are located on n~hbor's properb/. 83-26 Side yard variance (10') and front yard vmiance (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Larry & Carol Adams Requeat: 5' side & 5' front CC: unanimous 5200 Ore,Ion Avenue Request to construct double garage. 83-09 Side yard selback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to malch existing structure· Thomas Gagnon Requelt: 4.25' VlHSnCt with OVllttlng 2.25' front CC: unanimous 6025 Sumter Place pmlm~ty line. Requesl Io construct and addition onto existing home. Council recommended that addition be Bush along rear of house so that the variance be less than ori~linal plan. 83-04 Side yard setback variances for stailway and wing walls Approved PC: 4 for Vernon Sluhr already constructed. 3 against 5635 Wisconsin Avenue CC: 4 for 1 a~lainst 82-38 Side yard setback (20' on corner lot) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match exisling slructure William & Jacqueline Sheperd Requeat: 8.4' variance CC: unanimous . 8501 28"' Avenue Request to build 3-season porch onto existing house 8.4' into 20' setback required for corner lots, leavin~ 11.8'. SIDE YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 - 1996 3 82-29 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous Robert Yunker, 4606 Boone Request: Both parties requesting 5' variance to construct CC: unanimous Martin Kvasnik, 4612 Boone a concrete apron up to the property line at both residences & 4606 Boone requesting variance lo park recreational vehicle on cement pad t0 within 3' of propert~ line. 82-21 Side yard setback (5') i Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure Frederick Starke Request: 3' variance 1 abstain 4042 Oregon Avenue Request to construct a 2-car detached garage to within 2' of CC: unanimous side yard prope~/line. 82-20 Side yard selback (5') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure Joel Olson Requelt: S' VIHIIt~I 3 against Overhang cannot extend over property line. 8833 31'~ Avenue Request to add onto existing garage right up to the lot line at CC: unanimous the rear comer of new addition. 81-58 Side yard se~c__.~. (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Sukbender Nath RI<Iai: 3' Yedlll~e CC: unanimous 8717 30"' Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 2' from Foped,/~me, 81-52 Side yard selback (20' on comer) No minutes in file. Roger & Janice Fechoer Requeet: 4'11"' variance 4700 Independence Request to add onto existing garage leaving a 15'1' setback alon~ 47m Avenue, which requires 20'. 81-34 Side yard sell)ack (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Beverly Cooper Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous 3433 Hillsboro Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 1' from p,Ol~~ #oe. 81-27 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous ' ' Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Harold lund Request: t' vedaflce CC: unanintous 4617 Hillsboro Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 4' from propert,/line. 81-11 Side yard setback (35' along 36"h Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to malch existing structure Kenneth Kline Request: lO' vlriall~e CC: unanimous 3551 Wisconsin Avenue Request Io coflveft existing garage into living space and build new 2-car garage, which would extend 10' into the 35' side )~ard setback alon~136"' Avenue. 81-02 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to malch existing structure. Frank Dahlen Reque~l: 3' variance CC: unanimous 7301 40"' Avenue Request to add family room on to existing home, which would extend 3' into the 10' setback. SIDE yARD VARIANCES--- 1980- 1996 80-59 Side (20') & [ear yard variance (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure Myron & Betty Klos Request: 2' side yard & 5.5' rear yard variance CC: unanimous 3837 Hillsboro Avenue Lot line is somewhat at an angle to new garage and half the garage is over the side setback by 2' and the rear extends into the rear setback by 5.5 feet -80-48 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure Joseph Buslovich Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous 3530 Yukon Avenue Request to add on to make a 2-car garage, which would be 3' from the properly line with the overhang right on the properly line. Neighbor~ house is 10' from line with no windows on that side. 80-47 Side* yard variance (5' garage) Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing slructure. Daniel Hanka Request: 2' veHl~tce CC: unanimous 3625 Gettysburg Avenue Requesl to add on large addition, garage and living area, which leaves onl[/3' from IXOl)er~/line at one corner of home. 80-40 Side yard variance (5'garage) Approved PC: 6 for Curb cut moved by City so driveway does not encroach Elroy Meyer Requelt: I' VlHlnoe I against on neighboring land when paved. 5832 Cave# Avenue Request to keep driveway right up to the property line as it CC: unanimous was f~' past 19 years. Want to pave driveway and at the houlevard it encroaches onto the nei~hbom land. 80-34 Side yard selbeck (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure Linne Johnson Requeet: 2' variance CC: unanimous 3022 Boone Avenue Add a 2' x 5' alcove to dining room, which would extend out 2' into lhe 10' side }/ard setback 80-27 Side yard sethack (35' for major arterial street - 36'h Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous Remove existing fence, building materials to match Roy Lindgren Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous 3600 Jordan Avenue Want to add onto the garage into the 35' side yard setback by 4', which would leave 31' 80-13 Side yard selback (10') Approved PC: unanimous A removable gafeway section be installed in fence to Cooper/Herman Requeet: 3' variance CC: unanimous allow for tire protection. 4200 Flag Avenue Houses were built too close Iogether in cul-de-sac & one corner of each house does not meet requirement 80-12 Side yard setback (10') - Approved PC: unanimous A removable gateway section be installed in fence to Cooper/Herman Requeet: 6' variance ' CC: unanimous allow for tire protection. 4208 Flag Avenue Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one . co~ner of each house does not meet re(luiremont ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 1996 i 96-18 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match existing Leona Bigelow Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous 3840 Gettysburg Avenue Request to construct an addition onto existing garage, extendin~l 2' into side yard setback. 96-16 Rear yard selback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Consideration given to roof pitch matching house. Clifford Miller Requelt: 9' variance CC: unanimous 4076 Ensign Avenue Request to construct sun room at rear of house, extending 9' into rear yard selback. 94-28 Rear yard selback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Robert Funk Reflueal: 6' vldea~ CC: 4 for Additional shrubs to be planted along addition and shutter 4052 Cavell Avenue Request to coaslmcl garage addition onto existing, extending 1 against to be installed on south windows to match house. 6' into tim rear yexd seE)ack 94-12 Variance to ~ NC un# In aide yard. Approved PC: unanimous Donald Ruch& Harold Teigen CC: unanimous 3352 Boone Circle 94-07 Variance to allow A/C unit ia aide yard. PC -approved PC: unanimous Acoustical barrier to be inslalled Fence to be extended to Michael Stiegler CC - tabled & then CC: accept withdrawal front of garage and additional plantings. 3432 Ensign Avenue withdrawn 93-34 Rear yard selback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Richard Kleinbaum Requeat: 7' variant® CC: unanimous 8309 Norlhwood Parkway Request to construct porch on rear of home, e,~ ~ ~" into the rear yard setback. 93-29 Rear yard selback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Submit revised plans showing gable roof & asphalt Kuo May Requeat: 10' variance CC: unanimous shingles rather Ihan shed-type fiberglass roof as 7608 48"' Circle Request to conslrucl a porch on rear of house, extending 10' previously submitted. into rear yard setback 93-24 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure Bill KranzlDavid PomiJe Requelt: ¶1' variance 1 abstain Neighbor's property be restored after construction 3233 Gettysburg Ct. Request to construct a bedroom/bath at rear of house, CC: unanimous completed (trucks driving over property) extendin~116' into rear yard selback 93-21 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Porch design & materials to blend/match with existing Michael Banker Requeat: 6' variance CC: unanimous structure. 3501 Xylon Avenue Request to construct a porch on the rear of the house, which extends 5' into the rear yard setback. 93-20 Variance from the driveway parking area aatback Approved PC: unanimous James &Vede Fackler requirement and widen driveway 2' into the 3' driveway CC: unanimous 4301 Nevada Avenue setback. ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 1996 2 93-18 Rear yard selback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Virginia McDurmott Request: 7' variance CC: unanimous 4058 Ensign Avenue Request to construct a 3-season porch, which extends 7' into Ihe rear yard setback. -92-36 Variance for non-conforming structure. Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure Ellen Jordano Request to construct porch at rear of house, leaving 19' to 1 not voting 3501 Vir~linia Avenue properb/line. CC: unanimous 92-33 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: 7 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure Michael & Arlene Reich Request: 10.1' vlriaace 1 abstain 2724 Aquila Avenue Request to conslruct 4-season porch on rear of house, which CC: unanimous extends 10.5' into rear yard setback. 92-32 Variance to add onto itoe-conlonntog itru¢lure and rear Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Jack & Annette Nabedrick yard setback variance of 20'. CC: unanimous 9009 42'" Avenue 92-31 . · Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match eXiSting Structure. Roger Gdggs Request: 1.8' variance 1 excused 5313 Pennsylvania Avenue Request to construct garage on side of house, which extends CC: unanimous 1.8' into side yard setback. 92-28 Real' yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. -] Duane Hoff Request: I' variance CC: unanimous Submit 'as built' survey. 4164 Ensign Avenue Request to construct a 3-season porch onto rear of house, which extends 8' into rear yard setback. 92-21 Front yard setback (50' on Boone Avenue) Tabled to look al PC: unanimous ;~ Harry Wong Request: 20' variance other plans. : .... 2800 Boone Avenue Request to convert existing garage to living area and build V~thdrawn new ~lara~le, extendin~120' into front yard setback. ~- 92-14 Variance to allow A/C unit ill Iide yard. Approved PC: unanimous Fence or screening remain in place as long as ,~JC in side.. John Leigh CC: unanimous yard. . ~ 8401 Hopewood Lane :.~. 92-07 Variance to expand non-conformin0 structure (add more Withdraw until PC: unanimous -. Craig Hall garage space) and a 28, variance from rear yard setback of survey can be 3910 Boone Avenue 35'. (corner lot) compleled. 92-02 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Submit revised elevation drawings Michael & Theresa Gray Request: 13' variance CC: unanimous Submit "as built' survey 3433 Gettysburg Request lo construct 3-season porch to rear of house, which .~.: extends 13' into rear yard setback. 91-36 Variance to allow utility abed to remain in drainage/utility Tabled Petitioner will move shed LD Krarner eeaereent Withdrawn 4764 Erickson Drive ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 1996 3 91-35 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Robert Lindell Request: 19' variance CC: unanimous 4741 Boone Avenue Request Io add a 34season porch to rear of house, which extends 19' into rear yard setback. 91-27 Rear yard setback {35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match e~[sting structure Robert Natzel Requeet: 13' variance CC: unanimous 7621 48~ Cimle Request lo conslruct addition to rear of house, which extends 13' inlo rear yard setback. 91-19 Off-street parking in side yard setback 3' Approved PC: unanimous Any drainage problems that arise to be solved by Gan/& Carol Johnson Request: 2' vlHl~,e CC: unanimous petitioner. 3948 Ore,Ion Avenue Requesl to pave driveway within 1' t'rom properb/line. 91-18 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Sleven & Kathleen Anderson Requeal: tS' varilltCe CC: unanimous 3820 Boone Avenue Request tb construct 4-season porch, which extends 15' into the rear yard setback. 91-16 Variance tO place A/C un# in aide yard. Approved PC: unanimous Additional landscaping Lyle Sandstrom CC: unanimous 2748 Ens~ln Avenue 90-21 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. John Degnan Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous 5206 Quebec Avenue Request to add onto the existing homo a family room and altachod double garage (existing detached garage to be removed), which would extend 4' into rear yard setback. 90-19 Variance to allow expansion ~ non-~onfm'mlng a/~uctum Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Charles Kyllonon for 3-seanan po~ch & deck, which extends 9' into lhe rear yard CC: unanimous 4825 Aquila Avenue setback. 90-18 Rear yard setback (35') I Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure James & Madene Bukstein Requelt: S' variance CC: unanimous 3224 Ensign Ct. Request tb construct a farmly room at the back of the house, which extends 5' into the rear yard setback. 90-14 Variance lo add garage addition onto nonconforming Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Daniel Riser etructure & 14' variance from front yard setback (50' on CC: unanimous 3421 Yukon Avenue Boone) 90-13 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Root' & building materials Io match existing struclure Sandra W~eland Requeat: Z' variance . CC: unanimous 3541 Virginia Avenue Request to enclose a portion of the deck to make a 3-season porch, which encroaches 7' into the rear yard setback ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 1996 4 90-06 Variance to allow AJC unit in side yard Approved PC: 4 for Screening to remain in place John Hansen 2 against 8009 40~h Avenue CC: unanimous 89-14 Variance to expand non-conforming structure and 5' side Approved PC: no minutes in file House is stucco Donald lee yard (35') variance CC: unanimous Porch will be prefabricated 7901 60'h Avenue Req. uest to construct screened porch. 89-13 Variance Io allow A/C unit in side yard. Approved PC: unanimous Provide adequate screening James ~wedberg CC: unanimous 9317 Northwood parkway/ 89-01 Front yard setback (30') Denied PC: 5 for Jerome Rath Requeat: 3' variance 2 against 3464 Ensign Avenue Requesl to add additional garage space extending 3' into front CC: 2 for yard seU:~ack and add a family room to the back side of the 1 against ~lara~le. 88-29 Rear yard selback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Mary Lee Rich Requeat: t¶' variance CC: unanimous 9117 34~h Avenue Request to construct a deck off the rear of the house, extandin~) 11' into the rear yard setback. ~8-25 Froot yard setback (30') PC - Denied PC: unanimous Changed plans so no variance needed Marlys & Glenn Joly Requelt: 4' vaffance Withdrawn before CC: unanimous - accepted 4417 Decatur Avenue Request to converl existing garage to family room and build a CC meeting withdrawal new garage to the front, which would extend 4' into front yard 88-22 Rear yard setback (35') PC - Denied PC: unanimous deny Roof & buildin9 materials to match existin9 structure Kenneth Kline Requeat: 8' variance CC - Approved CC: unanimous approve PC - denied because felt petitioner could build smaller &~ 3551 Wisconsin Avenue Request to construct a screened porch, which would extend not need a variance. 5' into the rear yard setback. 88-18 Variance 1o expand a non-confomting atltl¢ture, which Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure John & Louise Young would be 16' from the side/rear properly line. CC: unanimous 3341 Flail Avenue 88-13 Side yard (20' corner lot) & front yard (35') selback Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure Danml & Barbara Nordberg Request: 5' side & 12' front variances 1 abslain 3243 Flail Avenue R_-~L,e_~_! 10 expand ~lara~e on non-conformin~l structure. CC: unanimous 88-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - Approved 1' PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure James & Sandra I. arson Request: 2' variance CC - Approved 2' CC: 3 5908 Boone Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 2' into side 1 against ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 1996 5 88-02 Side yard setback (35' across from industrial, along 49"' Approved PC: unanimous New Community Builders Avenue) CC: unanimous 4884 Erickson Drive Request: 1' variance Request to build new home !' into side yard setback. 87-38 Variance to add onto non-conforming structure. Approved PC: unanimous ' Roof & building materials to match existing structure. -- Ronald & Bitlie Potter CC: unanimous Submit lot survey 3930 Boone Avenue New structure cannot encroach into 10' side yard 87-36 Variance to allow 2 garsge~ on t property. Present garage Approved PC: unanimous Gordon Schwichtenberg to be turned into carpod (considered garage). CC: unanimous 5406 Utah Avenue 87-27 Variance to allow 2~ driveway on comer lot. PC - Denied PC: unanimous Bruce & Marsha Pinney CC - Approved CC: unanimous 5436 Rhode Island Avenue 87-21 Variance to allow .dUC unit to remain In side yard. PC - Denial PC: 4 for denial Plant additional shrubs around unit James &Roberta Casey No permit obtained when installed - discovered 2 years later CC - Approved I against 4617 Nevada Avenue that a permit was needed. CC: unanimous approved 87-18 Front yard selback (30') Approved PC: 6 for Shingles to match house. William Asplund Request: 4' var'lance 1 against 4948 Wisconsin Avenue Requesl to construct an open porch (no walls) on the front of CC: unanimous the home, with overhan~l extendinl~ 4' into front yard setback. 87-17 Rear yard setback (35') Withdrew - PC did James & Barbara Crandall Request: t1' variance not like large 9120 61" Circle Request to construct an addition to back of house, which variance. would extend into the rear yard leaving 18' to rear property line. House was built 26' from rear ~o~ert~ line, 87-15 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure James & Judy Larson Request: S' vaftancs CC: unanimous 5833 Meadow Lk. Rd. Request to construct entryway at front of house, extending 5' into front yard setback. Front of house was built 30' front street. 87-14 Variance to allow JVC unit in lids yard. Approved PC: 7 for Unit to be screened from view. Sally Kolian 1 against 3231 Flail Ct. CC: unanimous 86-32 Rear yard setback (35') Approved in 1975 Not on agendas Clifford Popp Request: t 1' variance and no action 8300 33rd Avenue Request to add onto gara~le, needed now ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980- 1996 6 86-30 Front yard (30') & side yard (5') setback PC approved 1' PC: 1 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure James & Susan Carlson Request: 6' front & 1' side variance side & 4' front. 3 against 4673 Ensign Avenue Request to add 6' to front of garage and onto the side of CC approved 1' 2 abstain garage, which would extend 1' into side yard setback, side and denied CC: unanimous any front. 86-15 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure David Hanson Requelt: 4' variance CC: unanimous 8119 59"' Avenue Request to add onto garage (non-conforming comer lot), which extends 4' info front yard setback. 86-14 Variance to construct a coq)oft in mar yard on comer lot Approved PC: unanimous PC said to enclose by end of year Delmar Lindberg leaving only 7'3' fo property line. CC: unanimous CC said no outside storage if not enclosed If home sold, 5904 A(~uila Avenue structure to be removed 86-11 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials fo match existing structure William Lyman Requeet: 10' variance CC: unanimous 3332 Ensign Avenue Request fo construct a 3-season porch at back of house, which will extend 10' info rear yard setback. 86-10 Rear yard setback (36') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Jeffrey & Jane Rudy Requeet: 20' variance CC: unanimous 8260 Del Drive Request to add onto garage in rear yard (this is another non- conforming comer lot), which would extend to within 15' of the mar lot line. 86-09 Variance for 2~ driveway Approved PC: 2 for Robed Busch 1 against 5605 Wisconsin Avenue 4 abstain CC: unanimous 85-28 Variance to piece AJC unit in eide yard. Approved PC~ u~i~us ~q~ r Jerome Unger There are several shrubs around it. CC: unanimous 3018 Independence Circle 85-24 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.. John Height, Jr. Requeet: 18' variance 2 against 9016 44"' Circle Request fo replace deck with screened porch at rear of CC: unanimous house. House already infrin~les 3' info rear yard. 85-20 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure,, Richard & Donna Kranz Request: 8' variance 1 against Drainage not adversely impact neighbors 3240 Ensign Ct, Request to add a family room to existing home with CC: unanimous Lot survey be consistent. basement, which would extend 5' into the side yard setback, 85-15 Variance fo place JUC unit in olde yard. Neighbor's garage Approved PC: 3 for Additional shrubs to screen unit. Donald & Kathryn Moorehead abuts property. 2 against 9232 40 ½ Avenue CC: unanimous ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS -~- 1980 - 1996 7 85-10 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing struclure. Patrick O'Meara Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous Extend chain link fence between houses 8200 39"' Avenue Requesl to add bedroom above garage, which would extend 2' into the side yard. 85-04 Variance to put'AJc unit in side yard as house is on a hill Approved PC: unanimous Provide additional buffer between houses Edward Dooley and there is no rear yard to install it. CC: unanimous 5910 X)/Ion Avenue 85-02 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match exis~g struclure Gregory Davis Requelt: 3' variance CC: unanimous 7808 39"' Avenue Request to add ol~to exislin~ home 84-29 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials in match existing structure Soren & Gale Shamblolt ReqUelt: 7' Vedllte, I 1 abstain 8701 32"d Avenue Request to conslmct a vestibule to rear of existin~ house. CC: unanimous 84-24 Side yard setback (20' collier lot) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to malch existing structure Alvie Carey Requeet: 3' variance CC: unanimous 4052 Decatur Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 3' into side yard {corner lot) ~4back. 84-13 Rear yard ~etback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof gabled & building materials to match existing Hadan Sandber9 Request: 27 ~' variance CC: unanimous structure. 9008 40 ½ Avenue Request to no less than 7 ½' from property line as house already encroaches into setback. Request is for an enclosed porch 84-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - approved 1' PC: 1' unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure James W~zek Requeat: 2' variance CC - approved 2' CC: 2' unanimous 4104 Oregon Avenue Requesl to add a 2-story addition, including tuck-under garage and livin~l area above. 84-08 Side yard setback (10') ~ Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Richard & Patricia Bruins Request: 4' variance 615184 - PC CC: unanimous 7251 40"' Avenue Request to construct a screened porch at rear of house which 6/11184. CC is tachnk?,ally the side yard and would extend 4' into side yard. 84-05 Rear yard setback (35') Approved variance PC: 7 for Family room roof & building materials to match existing David &Linda Jones Request: 3'2" variance for family room & variance for 3- for family room. 1 abstain structure. 4410 Independence Avenue season pomh lo enclose pool. Denied variance CC: unanimous V~Athdrew part of request to enclose swimming pool for 3-season porch 84-03 Rear yard setback (35') ApProved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure Terry Hebig Requelt: t5' variance 1 against 7750 47 ½ Place Request to add a 2-story addition to the rear of the house, CC: unanimous which would extend 15' into the rear yard. " ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 1996 83-60 Rear yard (35') setback Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Michael & JoEIlen Ostrow Request: 9' variance CC: unanimous 3233 Gettysburg Ct. Request to construct family room to rear of house, which extends 9' into setback. ~3-59 Rear yard (35') setback Approved PC: Unanimous Roof & building materials Io malch existing structure Ole & Karen Johnson Request: 7' variance CC: unanimous Approval of fence by Inspeclions Dept 8108 28'" Avenue Request lo construcl 3-season porch on rear of house, which Lot survey extends 7' into setback. '~3-55 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure-. P.O Dotson Request: ¶ ~A' vartance CC: unanimous 2701 Quebec Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 1 ½' into setback. 83-54 Froot yard (30') & rear yard (35') setbacks Approved PC: unanimous Will be installing new siding and roof will match exis~g Randy Elam Requell: 5 ~' front yard & 4' lear yard variance CC: unanimous 3227 Flag Ct. Request to add ooto froot of garage in front yard, which would extend 5 ½' into seL_h_h_h~-.-. & add an addition to rear of house which would extend 4' into the rear yard selback 83-52 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Roger Fechner Requsel: t4' variance CC: unanimous 4700 Independence Avenue Request to add ooto existing house, which would extend 21' into tbe rear yard· 83-51 Variance for A/C unit in aide yard Denied PC: unanimous Petitioner & contractor knew when getting permit not to Thomas Engelke CC: unanimous place in side yard· 5832 W. Meadow Lake Rd 83-50 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Leroy & colleen Lilly Requset: 20' variance CC: unanimous 9140 34 ½ Avenue Request to construct a 3-season porch to the rear of the house, which would extend 20' into tbe setback. 83-48 Side yard setback (5') , Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Joseph Forrer Requelt: 3' variance - CC: unanimous Structure should be only 20' so overhang is 2' from lot 4633 Rhode Island Avenue Requesl lo add ooto garage, which would extend 3' into line· setback. 83-44 Rear yard setback (35')' · Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Donald & Judy Hoseth Requset: 2t' variance CC: unanimous 3641 Boone Circle Request to construcl an enclosed porch 14' from the rear yard properly line. Back of property/abuts an outlot. 83-41 Variance to keep A/C unit in aide yard PC motion failed PC: 3 for Steven & Julia Van Vliet CC approved 4 against 4048 Jordan Avenue CC: unanimous ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 1996 9 83-35 Side yard (10') & rear yard (35) setback Approved PC no minutes in files Roof & building materials to match existing structure Charles & Phyllis Horton Request: 2' side & 3' rear yard variance CC: unanimous Remove existing shed 3204 Gettysburg Request to add 3-season porch to rear of house, which exlends 2' into the side yard and 3' to rear yard. 83-30 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous 2'3" variance, move shed at back of property, lake out Joseph Buslovich Request: 2'9" variance CC: unanimous 1'1" of sidewalk, take care of water problem, work to be 3530 Yukon Avenue Variance was granted 3' variance in 1980. after survey by done in 30 days. neighbor, he should have requested 2'3' variance as Ihe sidewalk and a shed are located on nei~lhboCs property. 83-26 Side yard Vili~a~ce (10') and froot yard variance (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Larry & Carol Adams Request: E' Iidl & 8' frmtt CC: unanimous 5200 Ore,Ion Avenue Request to coflslfuct double ~lara~le. 83-24 Variance for 2'~ ddvemm¥ on comer lot PC - denied. PC: 5 fo~ denial Richard VanHeel CC - withdrawn 2 abstain 6020 Ensign Avenue CC: 3 for I a~lainst 83-23 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Raymond Dionne Request: 8' variance CC: unanimous 8412 58"~ Avenue Request to construct an addition to rear o1' house, which extends 5' into seWack. 83-22 Froot yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials Io match existing structure. Roland Englund Requllt: 8' vadln~,l CC: unanimous 8408 E. Meadow Lake Road Request to add ooto existing dining room by extending out 4' Io the lronl and add a bay window which adds 18' more. 83-18 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Roy Beavedander Request: S' vldlnc® CC: unanimous 6132 Geltysburg Avenue Request to add a dining room to existing house, which would extend 8' into the rear yard. 83-09 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Thomas Gagnon Rlfluelt: 4.26' variance ~ ove~ang 2.28' from CC: unanimous 6025 Sumter Place properly line. Requesl to construct and addition ooto existing home. Council recommended Ihat addition be flush along rear of house so that the variance be less than nd~inal plan. 83-06 Variance fo~ 2'~ eecelam'y bulldlag lit rear yard. Approved PC: 6 for Rog! & building materials to match existing structure. Harold Johnson Size of building was reduced after much discussion. 1 abstain 4073 Gettysburg Avenue CC: 4 for 1 against ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 1996 1 83-04 Side yard setback variances for stairway and wing walls Approved PC: 4 for Vernon Stuhr already constructed. 3 against 5635 Wisconsin Avenue CC: 4 for I a~lainst 83-01 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Abe Pasno Request: 1'4" variance CC: unanimous 8641 33'~ Avenue Request to construct a vestibule at front entrance, which extends 1'4' into front setback. 8244 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Robert Wynne Requeat: 14' variance CC: unanimous 9017 44"' Circle Request to construct 3.season porch on existing deck, which would extend into the rear yard 14', leaving a 21' setback. 8243 Rear yard setback (35') & sma yard on comer (20') Planning Co. PC: unanimous Petitioner would now construct a detached garage in the Naomi Nygaard Requeat: 6' variance in rear/tO' variance on side approved with CC: unanimous rear set back 20' from property line. 6000 Ensign Avenue Request to convmt existing garage to family room and condition of no construct a new garega and porch to the rear. Garage would parking in encroach 6' into the rear selback and lite side yard driveway driveway. would leave only 10' to the sa'eel. Council denied side yard & approved rear. 8241 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Ralph Lichlder Requeat: t0' variance CC: unanimous 4075 Ensign Avenue Request Io build 3-season porch onto existing house, which would extend 10' into rear y, ard setback. 82-38 Side yard setback (20' on comm' lot) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure V~lllam & Jacqueline Sheperd RiKlueal: g.4' variance CC: unanimous 8501 28"' Avenue Request Io build 3-season ix~ch onto existing house 8.4' into 20' ~e_~_b_.~_.k required for corner lots, leavir~l 11.8'. 82-30 Opilllon requested on requests fol' variances in setback, lot CC - Refer back to Duplex built before garage was required City allowed il Mart Omlvedt under 7,000 sf, no garage and zero lot line. Plan. Co. for zero be built on undersize lot. Rezone to R-2 from R-0 when 5614 & 5618 Rhode Island lot line plattm~l, plattin~l 82-29 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous Robed Yunker, 4606 Boone Request: Both padies requesting 5' variance to construct a CC: unanimous Martin Kvasnik, 4612 Boone concrete apron up to ~e properly line at both reaidence~ & 4606 Boone requesting variance to park recreational vehicle on cement pad to within 3' of properly line. 82-25 Variance for enclosed 3-season porch & rear yard variance, Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing struclure. Donald Krekelberg which extends 7' into the 35' setback. CC: unanimous 9111 61" Avenue Requset: 1' variance ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 1996 11 82-24 Variance for 2'~d accessory building/garage Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Vernon & Helen Youngquist CC: unanimous Remove existing shed 8710 Bass Lake Road 82-21 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existmg sfructure Frederick Starke Request: 3' variance 1 abstain 4042 Oregon Avenue Request to construct a 2-car detached garage to within 2' of CC: unanimous side yard properb/line. 82-20 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match exisling struclure Joel Olson Request: S' variance 3 against Overhang cannot extend over property line 8833 31" Avenue Request to add onto existing garage right up to the lot line at CC: unanimous the rear comer of new addition. 82-15 Variance for 2 glreOee Oil '1 P~.opeltY and 2 curb CUll Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure -- Jack Hill needed (1 allowed by ordinance). I against 5804 Boone Avenue There is a 1-car attached garage, new garage would be 720 CC: unanimous sf with cult) cut on Boone Place. Both curb cuts would meet comer setbacks. 81-62 Variance request to allow Ittl)l to relllailt Ol1 inure aMI Approved PC: unanimous Signed agreement with neighbor presented to Council Duane Rehnke yard Iltback (between garage & neighboring fence)owner CC: unanimous regarding disposition of space belween steps and fence. 8810 60'" Avenue will need to add ~lravel in Itm 2' area between steps and fence 81-58 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Sukhender Nath Reqmmt: 3' vadanue CC: unanimous 8717 30'" Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 2' from properb/line. 81-53 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Exterior treatment of the total addition to match existing Jay &Cara Cline Requtll: 4' variance CC: unanimous structure. 3801 Xylon Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 26' from front propert~ line. 81-52 Side yard setback (20' on comer) No minutes in Roger & Janice Fechner Request: 4'11"' variance 4700 Independence Request to add onto existing garage leaving a 15'1' setback atonal 47"' Avenue, which requires 20'. 81-41 Variance to allow 2~ garage It reit of bt PC approved PC: 5 for Withdrew alter hearing how many neighbors objected to Cliff Helling CC withdrew at 1 against 2''~ garage and/or garage addition. 4649 Gett~sbur~l Ave meetin~l CC accepted withdrawal 81-34 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure Beverly Cooper Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous 3433 Hillsboro Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 1' from property line. ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980 - 1996 81-28 Variance to allow A/C unit to be placed In aide yard rather Approved PC: unanimous Robed Middlemist than rear yard CC: unanimous 460t-4609 Xylon Avenue 81-27 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials Io match existing structure. Harold Lund Request: ¶' variance CC: unanimous 4617 Hillsboro Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 4' from property line. 81-11 Side yard setback (35' along 36"~ Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials lo match existing structure Kenneth Kline Request: t0' vaHl~e CC: unanimous 3551 Wisconsin Avenue Request lo convert existing garage into living space and build new 2-car garage, which would extend 10' into the 35' side yard setback ~ 36"~ Avenue. 81-02 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to malch existing structure Frank Dahlen Request: 3' Vlflaacl CC: unanimous 7301 40"' Avenue Request to add family room on to existing home. which would extend 3' into the 10' setback. 80-62 (:Xvnar requested to coavl~t garage into bedroom and go Denied Owner to construct new garage with no need for a Charles & Marie Downs wilholll I gerege until al~lag (code requires a garage for variance. 2865 Valle Vista each residence). 80-61 Rear yard selback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing slructure. Robert Yunker Request: 2.23' variance & variance for overeize garage. CC: unanimous 4606 Boone Avenue Request to add on large addition to garage, which will extend 2.23' into the rear yard setback. Vmiance also needed for oversize gara~le. 80-60 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing strocture. Robert Laurel Request: 12' re,alice CC: unanimous 4069 Flag Avenue Request to add on to the existing house, which would extend 12' into Ihe rear yard 80-59 Side (20') & rear yard variance (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure: Myron & Betly Kjos Requell: 2' aide yam & 5.5' rear yard variance CC: unanimous 3837 Hillsboro Avenue Lot line is so--al al an angle to new garage and half the garage is over the side setback by 2' and into the rear setback by 5.5 feet 80-53 Request to leave A/Cunitl In side yard PC approved PC: 3 for Units to be moved .~:~. Sleven Kau~fman CC case dropped 2 against 4167-69 Jordan Av. (duplex) 80-52 Request to leave A/C unltl In iide yard Denied Petitioner needs to have contractor correct mistake and Richard Kauffman put A/C in rear yard. 412414126 Jordan (duplex) ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS --- 1980- 1996 13 80-51 Front yard variance (30') Approved PC: unanimous Arnie Carlson Requesl: 2' variance CC: unanimous 7930 59 ½ Avenue Request to add on a greenhouse/solarium lo the front of the existing house, which would extend 2' into the front yard selback . 80-50 Rear yard variance (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure Donnavan Lysdahl Request: 9.5' variance CC: unanimous 7649 48~ Avenue Request to add a family room on the rear, which would be 25.5 feel from I:)ropert)t line. Rear of lot abuts a park. 80-48 Side yard valiance (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials lo match existing structure Joseph Buslovich Requset: 2' vl~tl~e CC: unanimous 3530 Yukon Avenue Request to. add on lo make a 2-car garage, which would be 3' from the properly line with the overhang right on the property line. Neighbors house is 10' from line with no windows on that side. 80-47 Side yard variance (5' garage) Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure. Daniel Hanka Requeet: 2' variance CC: unanimous 3625 Gettysburg Avenue Request to add on large addition, garage and living area, which leaves onb/3' from propert~ line at one corner of homo. 80-40 Side yard valiance (5'garage) Approved PC: 6 for Curb cut moved by Cily so driveway does not encroach Elroy Meyer Requset: 6' variance I against on neighboring land when paved. 5832 Cavell Avenue Requesl to keep driveway r~ght up to the property line as it CC: unanimous was for past 19 years. Want to pave ddveway and at the boulevard it encroaches onto the nei~lhbors land. 80-37 Request was k~' variance to pem~ expansion of use. Want to Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure William & Louise Kranz remove carport and construct a separate garage on property. CC: unanimous 3043 Louisiana Avenue This is a no~-~onfo~mlng ilmctu~e in a light industrial district. 80-34 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials lo match existing structure Linne Johnson Requeet: 2' variance CC: unanimous 3022 Boone Avenue Add a 2' x 5' alcove to dining room, which 'would extend out 2' into the 10' side yard setback 80-32 Front yard selback (50' on major arterial street - Boone Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match exisling structure Ron & Jane Kalin Avenue) CC: unanimous 4311 Boone Avenue Requset: 4' variance Want Io extend garage to the f~ont by 4' and convert porch at rear of garage lo a dining room, which leaves 46' setback on Boone ALL VARIANCE REQUESTS--- 1980- 1996 14 80-28 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous John Resch Request: 13' variance CC: unanimous 8408 49'h Avenue Existing house already 1' into the setback. Request to add a porch to rear of house which would leave 22' in rear yard 80-27 Side yard setback (35' for major arterial street - 36'h Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous Remove existing fence, building materials to match Roy Lindgren Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous 3600 Jordan Avenue Want to add onto the garage into the 35' side yard setback by 4', which would leave 31' 80-25 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous DeMatts, Inc. Requelt: 4' variance CC: unanimous 8140 46"~ Avenue This house was constructed before street was put in and ended up 27.8' from property line. Garage was to have been detached and set back from house. With a change of owners, etc. the garage was lined up with the house when finally construcled. Problem was discovered when code compliance done for sale of home. 80-14 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof line, siding and texture to match existing house William & Judith Stewart Request: 10' variance CC: unanimous 3500 Virginia Avenue Want to extend the garage 10' to the front into the 30' setback so they could add onto the kitchen at the rear of the garage 80-13 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous A removable gateway section be inslalled in fence to Cooper/Herman .: Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous allow for fire protection. 4200 Flag Avenue Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one corner of each house does not meet requirement 80-12 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous A removable gateway section be installed in fence to Cooper/Herman Request: S' variance CC: unanimous allow for lire prolection. 4208 Flag Avenue Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one corner of each house does not meet requirement sandstad memo date: August 16, 1996 to: Kirk McDonald re: Arnoldy Property History-3532 Ensign Avenue Our property file indicates the f°llowing routine permits for this lot: 1965 building.permit _& all related subcontract permits for home 1986 " for a deck with future porch footings (12'x16') 1990 certificate of compliance; point-of-sale 1991 building permit for a porch NOTE: The site plan "A", attached, was submitted before construction, certified by John Arnoldy to be accurate on March 15, 1991 (in the upper right-hand corner). A close check of the plans has revealed this site plan to be drawn inaccurately. The east setback from the rear lot line to the porch is drawn at 37 feet, using the listed scale of 1 inch -- 30 feet; LEGAL. Recent discussions have identified the problem to be the inaccurate drawing of the home on the lot in 1986 or 1991. For this 1996 variance, the site plan "B" was submitted, used to build the home in 1965, illustrating no porch and a different front yard setback. Clearly, our process was flawed, in this case. A more aggressive plan review on my part or requiring a $200 lot survey would have caught the problem in 1986, when the former owner built the deck, with future porch footings, which we encourage. I have taken a tougher approach to site plans in the last 12 years, because of other problems, but very rarely force owners to pay for a new survey when remodelling. [ New buildings, of course, always submit a new lot survey.] I assist many owners and builders with these site plans, but they must certify the accuracy. In this case, the shallow lot depth (100 feet) prevented any significant rear addition, if a 40 or 42 foot rear setback remained. It is a tough balance when customers demand little red tape and the Building Official asks for a revised or more accurate site plan. I would be glad to speak to the Commission and Council about the process. / · .,,.3 E:LI_ E J ~. OR O~E~ REPRE~A~ .... DA~ ' ,-1 ~:.--~ ,~ _; ~ I - ~.~l i ~ ~ J ~ ,~;f : ~ % _/ ~ I ~ '~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ , VLL '= "": "(~ T ~,EPRB~N?ATION DP P, ~URVE~ OF THE BOUNDA~I~ -Lot I, Bloc~ ANY, FROM OR ON SAID ~N~. 1.) Addition is an overall upgrade of property, which will be more conforming with other upscale homes in the Kimball Addition-( the most expensive subdivision in New Hope). 2. Present AC:-~ finished area is only a modest 1196 sq. fL, the addition of 12' X 13' would only bring it to a 1352 sq. fL A(~I~', hardly an over-improvement in size for this 3. Facts of Set backs are this- The property at 8919 36th Avenue North is 91.75' feet from present improvement (Joe's home to my home)~ With our addition of 12' X 13' being added you wouM sUII have 79.75' feet between improvements. Plus there are lilac bushes on my side of the property, and evergreen pine trees recently planted on 3oe's side which offer additional buffer. * ]~t should also be noted that the recent PLANNIN0 COMMISSION APpRO__VED_~ allowed the home in the Kimball addition, located directly behind my home to be built (wMch totally destroyed my rear views of open land) and is located only TS* from my improvements. Yet this is Mlowed!!!l??? 4. This 1965 built home is totally inadequate for closet and storage spac~ We gain in addition to a modest mount of more living space, an adequate mount of storage space for this home..A, unsightly tool shed does not have to be built. S. As a CERT~ ~ RF. SEDF. NT/AL PROPI~TY A~PRAISER, I have inspected and appraised many, many homes in New Hope, and have inspected and appraised hundreds of other homes through out the entire 9 county metro area. ! would think that New Hope should reco~nize that most of the cities homes are between 20-30 years old, and that improvements to these older homes should be encouraged not discouraged. There comes a time at some point that you allow the present housing stock to improve as to be more competitive with SUlTOundin_o communltte~ Again, within reasons, which ! feel ! have given many pluses to my case) 6.) No one came to oppose my addition at the planning commif~ion public hearing, in fact many neighhor*s think that it*s a good Ide~ 7.) ! have a sat down with my neighbor, (the one mostly affected)showed him the plans, examined the requested variance together, and he has no absolutely no problem or objection~ Why does the planning commission then?? 8.) The home will use the present roof line, be upgraded significtntly on the outside and will be more aesthetically pleasing to the eye~ (Great care Jn design assures this) By the time this addition is done, there would be no way that you could ever tell that this was an addition .( Which is more than ! could say for some other approved additions in this city) 9. A improvement like this is good for the community, it sets a positive example and encourages upgrades to the cities present older honsin~o stock. Again ! feel that this request is within reason and does not necessarily set a precedent, due to the great distances between the improvements, and to the fact ora signed letter that yo~, have /'Jo TOTi:::tL P. 02 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 96-29 Request: Request for a Variance from the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of an Addition Location: 3532 Ensign Avenue North PID No.: 19-118-21-21-0038 Zoning: R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District Petitioner: Jonathan & Christy Arnoldy Report Date': August 2, 1996 Meeting Date: August 6, 1996 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioners are requesting a variance from the side yard setback requirement to allow construction of a 12' x 13' addition and a 12' x 13' open porch/deck onto the existing residence, pursuant to Sections 4.034(3)(c) and 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. The petitioner is proposing to construct a master bedroom addition to the north side of the existing home. The addition would extend out 12 feet from the existing structure and would be 26 feet wide, with the front portion containing the bedroom addition and the rear portion containing an upper level porch/open deck with an open/exposed roof for sunlight. 3. City code states that the side yard setback requirement in a .Single Family Residential Zoning District is 10 feet for interior lots, with the exception that an attached garage can be located five feet from the property line. 4. The proposed house addition would be located three (3) feet from the side yard property line, therefore, a seven (7) foot variance from the ten (10) foot setback requirement is being requested. 5. The property is located on a 100-foot deep lot with a 90-foot wide frontage on Ensign Avenue North and a 105-foot rear property line width (approximately 9,900 square feet). 6. The property is located on the east side of Ensign Avenue just south of the 36"' Avenue intersection. The property is located in a Single Family Residential Zoning District and is surrounded by single family homes on the north/east/south/west. Note that the new Kimball Addition is adjacent to the rear property line to the east. 7. The property is located in Planning District #24 of the Comprehensive Plan and no changes were recommended to this established single-family neighborhood. 8. The topography of the property slopes toward the center of the rear yard, with a drop of four (4) feet. Planning Case 96-29 3 August 2. 1996 5. "Use compatibility" is maintained with this request, as many of the homes in the area have had master bedroom expansions. 6. "Light and air," "street congestion," and "public safety" protections in the code are met with this request. 7. "Property values" preservation is enhanced with this addition investment because it will not appear to be "too close" to an adjacent home. The most affected neighbor's home is located at 8919 36th Avenue North, which faces a perpendicular street (see Building Official's Attachment A). That home is over 90 feet away. The owner has signed a letter of approval for this variance. 8. There are some lilac bushes and trees that will assist in buffering the addition from the neighboring property, besides the large amount of distance. 9. A number of similar variances have been approved where the adjacent homes face another street at a right angle and have a large distance between. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of a variance to the side yard setback reqUirement to allow the construction of an addition, subject to the following condition: 1. Building materials of addition and roof pitch to match existing structure. Attachments: Address/ZoningFFopo maps Site Survey Floor Plan Elevations Photos Building Official Attachment A Letter from Adjacent Property Owner Roof Detail Information Application Log '~ .... ~ .... "' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY I CER~ ~T I ~ ~E ~~O~ER OR O~E~ REPRE~A~VE ~D ~T ~IS ~ IS ~~ ~O AC~~. ,. ~ ~,..- .....l~.Ol: ..... . _, ~ ~1 ~ -] : ~ ~' ltl /" ~' ' ,,,,., _ , : ~ ~' ~ --~ ~ ~ ~~..~_~, :_ ~ I ~ ~ i ~,~ ...... " .T~ BOUNOARI~ AND OF THI C~ATION OF~N~.A~ BUILDINGS, IF ANY, THEREON, AND ALi VISlILI ~CROACHMIN11.~ ... IF A~ SURVEYED ~Y U~ TH~ ., ' ~' ~. -] ~~~,' ~ .... :ss~ppv i eleoS, O.L qole~lS 6u!pl!nE! 944. 957' 42 X 65.2 X X [3 R £ F 0 R ~ ~ N O T H ~E FirSt. story dormerS and vaulted ceilings changed this home from sprawling to spectacular. ..... Low ceilings, dark hallways, and breoding expanses or' barren roof haunt many a ranch house. This California home, left. suffered all these woes and more until homeowners enlisted architect Bill Remick to come up with a plan for ret'om. As part ora major remodeling. they asked him to capture the attributes of a two-step' =~c,c¢:a:~s -:.-est_=~,.., house within a one-story shell. That me:mt next' light :-:-..~c. ,,, .a~-~ =.-~--. -': and openness for the intetnor and a w.'.,re face for the exterior, above. CITY OF NEW HOPE ~ PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 96-30 Request: Request for a Variance from the Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition Location: 7251 40th Avenue North PID No.: 17-118-21-31-0030 Zoning: R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District Petitioner: Richard & Patricia Bruins Report Date: August 30, 1996 Meeting Date: September 3, 1996 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioners are requesting a variance from the rear yard setback requirement to allow construction of a garage addition onto the existing garage, pursuant to Sections 4.034(3)(c) and 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. The petitioners currently have an attached single car garage on the east side of the home. They are proposing to construct a 12' x 22.8' (274 square foot) addition onto the garage, which would expand the existing garage into an attached double garage. 3. City Code states that the rear yard setback requirement in a Single Family Residential Zoning District is 35 feet. 4. The proposed garage addition would be located 25 feet from the rear yard property line, therefore a ten (10) foot variance from the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement is being requested. 5. The home was built in 1961 on a corner lot by the developer. As we have seen many times before in New Hope, these rectangular lots at the end of the block were sized so that the homes could be built parallel to the narrow frontage of the lot to fit better on the lot. However, the home on this lot was built perpendicular to the narrow frontage. The Zoning Code definition of"Lot Frontage" states that "the front of a lot shall be ... that boundary abutting a public right- of-way having the least width." Although the front of the house faces north and for practical purposes is the front yard, the Zoning Code defines the yard on the west side of the house as the front yard because the property has a narrower frontage on Nevada Avenue (77.5 feet) than it has on 40th Avenue North (117.5 feet). Because the home was built facing the wrong street, home expansion possibilities have been limited. 6. The setbacks applied to this property, per Zoning Code definition are as follows: Front yard (west) 35 feet Side yard (south) 10 feet Side yard (north) 20 feet Rear yard (east) 35 feet Planning Case 96-30 2 August 30, 1996 7. Therefore, while for all practical purposes, it appears that the home owner is expanding the garage into the side yard where the usual setback requirement for an attached garage would be five feet, the City Code defines it as an expansion into the rear yard where the setback requirement is 35 feet. This is what necessitates the 10-foot variance request. 8. The property is located at the southeast intersection of 40th and Nevada Avenues and is surrounded by single family homes on all sides. 9. The 117.5' x 77.5' lot contains approximately 9,106 square feet. The existing structure meets all setback requirements except on the south side yard where a four (4) foot variance was approved in 1984 allowing the property owner to construct a 12' x 14' porch six (6) feet from the south side yard property line. (Please refer to attached information on 1984 variance.) 10. The property is located in Planning District #22 of the Comprehensive Plan and no changes were recommended to this established single family neighborhood. 11. The topography of the property is generally fiat. 12. The petitioner states on the application that they want to add the single car garage addition to the existing single car garage to provide for two (2) car use and to increase the value of the home and future saleability. 13. The petitioner met with staff in a pre-application meeting. 14. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments regarding this request. ANALYSIS Variance 1. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from strict application of the Zoning Code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner, and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 2. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 3. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: , P~nning Case 96-30 3 August 30, 1996 A. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E. Property' Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 4. Staff find that there are several criteria in the Code that may be met with this request: A. "Undue Hardship" may pertain if it can be argued that a single car garage is too small for a household of the 1990s. Staff do not feel that the garage addition would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. In addition, the fact that the lot is undersized and the home faces the "wrong street" are beyond the control of the current owner. B. "Use Compatibility" is maintained with this garage addition request, as 95% of the single family homes in the area already have double garages. C. "Light & Air," "Street Congestion," and "Public Safety" precautions in the Code are met with this request. D. "Property Values" should only increase with the investment in this addition. 5. The adjacent home to the east was also built facing the side yard and has a garage wall about fifty (50) feet away from the proposed new addition. Exhibit A from the Building Official shows an aerial view of both lots. 6. It does not appear that any other double garage options exist on this lot and the proposed addition is only 12 feet wide and is not oversized. 7. The plans show that the garage addition will match the style and pitch of the existing garage roof, with fiberglass asphalt shingles to be used. Siding and front brick will also match the existing structure. 8. The Planning Commission and City Council previously approved a variance for this property in 1984 for a porch addition. RECOMMENDATION Pending comment from neighbors, staff recommend approval of the 10-foot rear yard setback variance to allow the garage addition, subject to the following condition: 1. Exterior construction materials of addition to match existing structure. Attachments: Zoning/Address/-i'opo Maps 1984 Rear Yard Variance Information Site Survey Application Front Elevation Staff Reports Cross Section Planning Commission/Council Minutes Wall Section Site Plan/Setbacks Foundation/Floor Plan 1996 Application Log Building Official Attachment A R.4 ~TATION GETHSEMAN~ CEMETERY I-1 BETHEL I LIONS CEMETERY | PARK (491 - .. (48) ( · 915, 917, (~o).e -- ~.' (4O) ( ( ) <3 ) <3 · 9.! I hereby certify that this topographic survey of the above described Lot 2 was prepared by me or under my direct ,supervision and that I am a duly registered Land Surveyor under the law8 pf the_ StAte. of Mi~°ta. RECEIVED ?.2-47 . ^ lu-¢,/- ~"~" ~'~'/ c~: A ~ Cl YOFNEW HOPE l' ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ /,,,~- ~' *"-- Date June 26, 1984 Res. t;o. 11505 VARIANCE REQUESTS--- 1980- 1996 85-04 Variance to put A/C in side yard as house is on a hill and Approved PC: unanimous Provide additional buffer between houses Edward Dooley there is no rear yard to install it. CC: unanimous 5910 Xylon Avenue 85-02 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Gregory Davis Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous 7808 39"' Avenue Request to add onto existing home 84-29 Rear yard setback {35') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Soren & Gale Shamblott Request: 7' variance 1 abstain 8701 32'~ Avenue Request to construct a vestibule to rear of existing house. CC: unanimous 84-24 Side yard setback (20' corner lot) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Alvie Carey Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous 4052 Decatur Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 3' into side yard (corner lot) setback. 84-13 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof gabled & building materials to match existing Harlan Sandberg Request to no less than 7 ½' from property line as house CC: unanimous structure. 9008 40 ½ Avenue already encroaches into setback. Request is for an enclosed porch 84-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - approved 1' PC: 1' unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. James Wiczek Request: 2' variance CC ~ approved 2' CC: 2' unanimous 4104 Oregon Avenue Request to add a 2-story addition, including tuck-under ~ ................................ garage and living area above, , 84-08 ~ Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Richard & Patricia Bruins "~equest: 4' variance - 615/84 - PC CC: unanimous 7251 40~ Avenue /Request to construct a screened porch at rear of house which 6111184 - CC ~-~ is technically the side yard and' would extend 4' into side yard. ~4-05 Rear yard setback (35') Approved variance PC: 7 for Family room roof & building materials to match existing David & Linda Jones Request: 3'2' variance for family room & variance for 3- for family room. I abstain structure. 4410 Independence Avenue season porch to enclose pool.. Denied variance CC: unanimous Withdrew part of request to enclose swimming pool. for 3-season porch 84-03 Rear yard setback (35') Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Terry Hebig Request: 15' variance I against 7750 47 ½ Place Request to add a 2-story addition to the rear of the house, CC: unanimous which would extend 15' into the rear yard. 83-60 Rear yard (35') setback Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Michael & JoEIlen Ostrow Request: 9' variance CC: unanimous 3233 Gettysburg Ct. Request to construct family room to rear of house, which extends 9' into setback. CASE Nd. AND CITY COUNCIL _/ C~//--~.. City of New Hope DAli F.~/,ED 4401 Xylon Avenue ~,~ New Hop~, M.:~ 55428 North ..... RECEIVED BY ,treet Location of Property: 7~/ -- ~~ ~~. ~ga] Description of Property: t0t~ ~.. R1 nck. 6~ Gwynnco Add. O~ER OF) Name: ~,~_~ ~ ~~I~I~ ~~ Pho~e: ~~7~7/ RECORD ) ' ' ' 'f '~ PLEASE P~T ~ . ,,~ APPLICANT (If Other Than Owner) Name: Phone: PLEASE P~INT Address: Nature Jf Legal o~ Equitable Interest of Applicant: Wnv Should Request be Granted: Applicant acknowledges that s/he understands that before this request~ can be considered and/ct approved, all fees, including the basic zoning fee and any zoning deposts must be paid to the city and that, if additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by.the city, the cit~; manager has a right to require ad~na] payment. Fee Owner Contract for Deed Owner Other Owner In Ci%ain of Title Purchaser Dy Purchase Agreement Other Owner in Chain of Title Applicant Other Than Owner FOR CITY USE ONLY Evidence of Ownership Submitted: Y~s No L/'/ Required Certified Lot Survey: Yes No -- Required Legal Description Adequate: Yes ~,F' No __ Legal Ad Required: Yes No __ Date of Design and Review Meeting: Date of Planning Commission Meeting: 'kpproved:__ Denied: By Planning Commission on: Approved:__ Denied: By Council on: SuDject to the following conditions: PLAN CASE REPORT DATE: June 5, 1984 PLAN CASE: 84-8 PETITION[R: Richard & Pat Bruins REQUEST: Rear Yard setback Variance SITE: 7251 '40 th Ave. No. ZONING: R-1 ZONTNG ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS; I. Submittal; A. Everything is in order. II. Background; A. The home-was built in 1961 on a corner lot, No permi, ts have been issued since then. III. Concerns; A'. The petitioner has a non-economic hardship created the improper construction of the home on the lot, As we have seen many t.imes before, these rectangular corner lots were sized so that the homes, had to be built parallel the narrow frontage in order to work. Our zon?ng~ordinance also requires that the narrower dimension frontage 'must be the front yard. If the home had faced west, the addition,~ or a larger one, could have been built without a variance. B. It must be confirmed that it is impossible to expand to the north or east yard for the same use without a variance. We appreciate their treatment of the north yard as the front, but it is the side yard, legally, and the home is non-conform- ing because of its location. DATE: June 5, 1984 CASE: 84-8 PETITIONER: Richard and Pat Bruins REQUEST: Sideyard Setback Variance of Four Feet.~ · LOCATION: 7251 40th Avenue North ZONING: R-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner is planning to construct a screened in porch that is approximately 12 x 14 feet. A variance will be needed because the porch will come within six feet of the property line. The Zoning Code requires that there be at least 10 feet from any non garage structure or improvement. 2. The home was built in 1961 on a corner lot by a developer. 3. The petitioner has a non economic hardship created by the improper construction of the home on the lot. As we have seen many times before, these rectangular lots were sized so that the homes could be built parallel to the narrow frontage in order to work. Our Zoning Ordinance does require that the narrower dimension of lots be the front yard. In this case, the property owner considers the wider frontage to be the front of his home. If the home had been properly constructed (facing west) then no variance to build this addition would be needed. 4. Technically, it must be confirmed that it is impossible to expand to the north or east by the petitioner. This should at least be ex- plored at the Commission meeting. 5. The neighbor to the south does have frontage to the west, and thus the addition proposed by the petitioner will face his neighbor's side- yard. It appears that concern will be probably be quite small from the neighbor.- Staff recommends approval if the petitioner is unable to locate further to the rear or to the north side. From staff's.perspec- tive, it appears that this will not work. PLANNING CA~E 84 - 8 - REQUEST FOR S~DEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AT 7251 40TH AVENUE NORTH - RICHARD AND PAT BRUINS, PETITIONERS. Mr. Br~in$ stated he was requesting a four foot variance in the sideyard to allow him to construct a porch, which would then put his porch to within six feet of the lot line. He had been told that the house had been placed in the wrong location on the lot. It will be a screened porch, not a three season porch. He did not feel t~ere was another location for the porch. As proposed ~t would be off the kitchen, any other location would require the porch to be located off the dining room. This location is more accessible. Commissioner Anderson asked whether they intended to do any additiona~ screening? Mr. Bruins said he had not planned on it. At the present time there is a chain link fence at the lot line. Commissioner Anderson confirmed that the roof and exterior materials would be harmonious with the rest of the house. Mr. Bruins said it would not be heated or insulated. Commissioner .~nderson made a motion recommending, amDroval of the sideyard variance as reouested at 7251 40th Avenue North in Case 84 - 8. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolande~r.~ Friedrich, Bar:os, Cameron, Gunder~_haug, Edwards, LuSts Voting against: None Motion carried. ' ~-= .... · i+,,m for consideration by Council was ~h to come within 6 feet '['=' ..... ce a u'"~'/~ .... "n'h Ave~truc_tlon, u ........... var~an .... m;,-h= d and Pat Bruins--~titioners' er: i,,,:. ,.,~,,.r ~the roper: line, The petitioner is proposing to construct a 12 x lq foot screened porch on the ~outh side of the existing structure. Councilmember Williamson then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: -RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE NO. Bq-B" The motion for the adoption of the Foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Daly and upon vote being taken thereon, the Following voted in favor thereof: Erickson 0 OalY,whereupOn the resolutionOtten, Williamson :was declaredand theduly followingpassed andV°tedadopted~againStandthewasSame:signedN°ne;by theAbSent:mayor Enck Extract Book) ~-~[. [ ~'~ (Page 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 96-30 Richard & Patricia Bruins 8/2/96 10/1/96 11/30/96 7251 40th Avenue N. Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. 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 mall 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: 96-21 Request: O.rdinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-Street Parking by Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parking Areas Location: PID No.: Zoning: R-4, R-5, R-O, B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1, and I-2 Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: August 30, 1996 Meeting Date: September 3, 1996 UPDATE 1. At the August 6 Planning Commission meeting, City staff requested Planning Commission and City Council approval of an Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-Street Parking by Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parking Areas. 2. As you are aware, City ordinance does not currently specifically require concrete curbing on the interior of commercial and industrial sites, although the Planning Commission and City Council have routinely required concrete curbing as a condition of approval for a conditional use permit/PUD development. The Design & Review Committee has recommended that consideration be given to amending the City Code to require concrete curbing on the interior of all commercial/industrial developments so that the concrete vs. bituminous curbing will not be an issue for future developments. It is the City Engineer's recommendation that all curbing be constructed of concrete because bituminous is more prone to deterioration and is highly susceptible to snow plow damage. 3. The City Attorney prepared the attached Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-Street Parking by Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parking Areas. The current City Code states that "all open off- street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot" and the proposed ordinance states that "all open off-street parking shall have continuous perimeter concrete curbin.q, unless otherwise recommended by the City En.qineer around the entire parking lot." 4. The current ordinance exempts single, two family and townhouses from installing perimeter curbing and the revised ordinance continued that exemption; as the intent was to require interior concrete curbing for commercial and industrial sites. 5. At the last Planning Commission meeting, several Commissioners indicated an interest in revising the ordinance to require townhouses to also have perimeter concrete curbing. Staff Planning case 96-21 2 ~' August 30, 1996 requested that the ordinance be tabled so that research could be completed on the number of these townhouse complexes located in the City, the type of curbing that presently exists on these sites and the impact that the ordinance revision would have on these complexes. This research has been completed and is attached to this report. 6. After reviewing this information with the Planning Consultant, it is staff's recommendation that this matter again be tabled and referred to the Planner for a more detailed report. The Planner feels that certain situations would require interior concrete curbing, such as a large complex with guest parking areas and private streets; while other smaller complexes that utilize public streets for access similar to single family homes may not require interior perimeter concrete curbing. If the Commission wants to pursue having this ordinance revised to include townhouses, the Planner probably needs to better clarify the criteria that should be considered when requiring or not requiring concrete curb. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends tabling the ordinance for one month until the October I Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: Staff Research August Planning Commission Report Parking Lot Status of New Hope" Condominiums and'ToWnhouses August 1996 PROJECT/LOCATION ZONED UNITS PER BUILDING/ COMPLEX TYPE CURB TOTAL UNITS TYPE 1 62"d Ave. & West Broadway R-4 4 & 6 Townhouse no curb 16 total 2 Hidden Park R-4 17 Condominium concrete 61st Ave. & West Broadway 68 total (Apartment) 3 62nd & Sumter R-3 6 Condominium no curb 6 total (Townhouse) 4 51st Ave. & Winnetka R-3 6 Townhouse no curb 18 total 5 Sandpiper Cove R-3 4 & 6 Duplex/ concrete 42nd Ave. & Boone Duplex=20frownhouse=l 6 Townhouse 36 total 6 Valley Wood R4 22 Condominium concrete 42~d & Boone 22 total (Apartment) 7 35~ & Independence R-3 4 Townhouse no curb 20 total 8 9208 29* Ave. R-3 4 Townhous¢ no curb 4 total 9 Presidential Estates 1 R4 72 Condominium concrete 28~ & Flag 72 total (Apartment) 10 Presidential Estates 2 R.4 72 Condominium concrete 28u' & Hillsboro 72 total (Apartment) 11 27~' Ave. & Flag R-3 4 & 8 Townhouse no curb 12 total Definitions - City of New Hope Residential Zoning Code (chapter 4) Condominium. "A multiple dwelling or development containing individually owned dwelling units and jointly owned and shared areas and facilities, which dwelling is subject to thc provisions on the Minnesota Condominium Law, Minnesota Statutes." Condominiums are a permitted use in Residential Zoning Districts according to Minnesota Statute 515. Multiple Dwelling (apartment). "A building designed with three or more dwelling units exclusively for occupancy by three or more families living independently of each other but sharing hallways and main entrances and exists." Apartments are permitted in R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District, and in areas zoned R-3 Medium Density Residemial provided they contain twelve or less dwelling units. Townhouse. "StrUctures housing three or more dwelling units of not more than two stories each and contiguous to each other only by sharing of one common wall, such structures to be of the town or row house type as contrasted to multiple dwelling apar~ent structures. Each dwelling unit shall have separate and individual front and rear entrances from the exterior." Townhouses are a conditional use in areas zoned R-3 Medium Density Residential and R-4 High Density Residential. t. 62~ Ave. & West Broadway -~ 2. Hidden Park ~ ~ ~* 61~ Aw. & Wes~ Broadway 3. 62~ & -- ~ ~' ~4. 51" Ave. & Winnetka Sandpiper Cove 42~ Ave. & Boone Valley Wood 42"~ & Boone 7. 35." & Independence 8. 9208 29." Ave. Presidential Estates 1 28~ & Flag 10. Presidential Estates 2 28'" & Hillsboro 27th Ave. & Flag ¢.OG~ (1.) - ~t), 4~07, 4.071 4.06 'R-2'_$INGLE AND TWO ?AMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 4.061 Purpose. ?be ~urpose of the "~-2= Single and ?wo ~amil7 Residential District is to provide for iow density one and two unit dwellings and directly related, complementary uses. 4.062 Permitted Usesr R-2. The following are permitted uses in a "R-2= Less Intensive Use District. All Dermitted uses allowed in an 'R-1= District. (2) Two Family. Two family dwelling units. 4.063 Accessory Uses Permitted~ R-2. The following ara permitted accessory 'uses in a 'R-2" Olstrict: (1) Less Intensive Use District. All accessory uses as allowed in an "R-l" District. 4.064 Conditional Usesr R-2. The following are conditional uses in a "R-2" District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20) (1) Less Intensive Use District. AIl conditional uses and subject to the same conditions as required in an "R-l" District. (Code 072684) (2) Deleted. (Code 072684, Ord. 85-2) 4.07 "R-3 MEDZUM DENSITY RRSZDENTZAL DISTRICT 4.071 Purpose. The purpose of tho "R-3" Medium Density Residential District is to provide for medium density housing in townhousea and multiple family structures and ~trectly related complementary uses. 4.072 Permitted Usesr R-3. The following are permitted uses in an Oistrict~ (1) Multi,lo 'Family. ~ultiplo family dwelling structure containing twolvo or less dwelling units. (2) Boarding Houses. Boerding houses limited to not more than ton resident persons. (Ord. 84-3) (3) Deleted. (Ord. 84-3, 85-2) 4-5Q 072S84 Oa?_Care_Fac£L£cy. A s~aCe L~:eflsed Eac~L£~7 secv~g ~r~ee~ so SLX~ee~ (Ord. 84-3, and ~Layqrounds. (Ord. 84-3) (Ord. 84-3, 84-L6, 85-1, 4.0?3 Accessory ~ses~ R-3. The ~oLlow£ng are pe:mi=ted &ccesso~, uses £~ an "R-3" D~st=£ct: alloyed ~n an "R-2" D~s=r~c=. (2) Off-Street LoadLfl~. 4.074 Condi=£oflel Usesr, R-3. The ~ollowtflg are cofldi=Lofle~ uses in iff "R-]" O~s~r~c~ (R~ui~es a ~fld~tLofla~ use 9em~ ~sed ~oa p~oc~ures set Eorth ~n and rflulated by SecCLofl 4.20 and 4.036, Plrkiflg~ 4.037, o~f- (1) Lass ~ntensive Use Dlstric2, Ai~ cond~tional uses, subject to the same conditions, allowed ia &fl uR-2" District. (Cc<Is 072S04) (2) Day Care. A state ~£ceflsed £aciLity se~v£flg seveflteeu or ~ore ~ersofls, provided t~ac= (a) Front Set ~uck. The front yard depth is a ~LLnimum Cb) O~-Street Parkiflq. Adoclu~e o~-stree~ perking and access is provided Ln cmupliaflce v~th Section 4.036 o~ th~s Cc) O~-StreeC LoedLflq. Adeq~ute o~e-stree~ ~oading and service entrances are Provided Ln coaplia~ce vith sectiou 4.037 o~ this Code. (d) Street Access. The s£te and related perking and service served by an arterial or collector street o~ sufficient capecicy ~o accouaodete ~e tra~Lc v~icb will (e) ~efleral Conditional Use RecL~£re~e~s. The prov£siofls of secCiofl 4.2L through 4.2~2(6)(c) o£ this Code are seCis~ecorLXy ¢~) State Requlat~ons. The requlat£o,s aha co,ditiofls o~ Minn. Rules Parc 9S4S.0S1O through 9545.0670 are sac£s~actor~ly meC. No ~aci~ity shal~ begin operation without a ~cense as requ£red by the tegulaC£ons :e~e::ed to ~fl ~hLs sub-secCon (~). ~-S1 072884 =he Minnesota Sta:e Building Code and Fire Cods have Been met. That the Ci:y Building O~ficial and Firs Marshall shall inspect :he property prior :o :~e issuance o~ condL:ional use pe~i: :o dateline i~ :his sub-section =~Ls ~de has ~een complied with. (Code 072684, Ord. 85-2, 85-7) Townhouses. Townhouses as de~iaed ~y Section 4.022 provided regulations and requiremen:s of Section 4.19 are satisfactorily compie:~ and (C~e 072684) 4) Group Care Facility. A state licensed facility serving seven to sixteen persons provided that the following conditions are met for (a)' The facility is licensed by :he State of ,qinnesota and the operator oe the facility provides documentation of compliance with all applicable ~ederaL, State, ~etropo~itan and County regulations. (b) ~e ~aci~tty Ls in ~mplLance wi~h and is ~Ln~ined ~n accordance with :he Minnesota State Fire C~e and Uni~om Building Code. (c) ~e ~aciLity is in ~mpliance wt:h al~ regulations as detemifled by the City Director o~ Fire and Safety or his designated agent. (d) ~e ~acili:y is no: locat~ wi:biff one thousand three hufldr~ ~wenty ~ee~ of any si~lat ~ype use or ~te facility. (e) ~e entrance o~ the ~a=~l~ty Ls ~ocated ~ithin four hundred feeC of a public transit rou~t and stop, and ~des:rian access is available, or ~he opera,ors pr~ide a transportation/access pl.n which is ~ound accep=abXe by =be City Council. (f) ~e operation is sub~e~ ~o annul ceviev and ~n~inual monitoring by the 'City's ~n Services ~i:tee and Ls ~ound ~o ~ in ~mplian~ with all applicable ~nstruction and opera:ion regulations and s:an~rdl. (g) ~e ~rititia as specilied ~n Section 4.212 of this OrdLnance are consider~ and ~ound =o ~ sa=is~ac~oriiy M~. (Ord. 85-2) 072684 ~,.08z~ <L><2) 4.~8 "R-4" ,qTGH D£NS~TY RI~S~D~NTrAL (L) Less Intensive ~se D£stti::. All petalS:ed uses alloyed £n an (2) Club ct Lodqe without c~e ServLnq c{ Food or aevetaqe. (3) Multiple Fomily 0weli£nqs.' 4.083 Accessory Uses eermitted~ R-4. T~e follcw£ng are peL~n£tted accessory (l) Less ~ntensive Use Oistr£c~. A11 permitted accessory uses as allowed :n an 'R-3' District. 4.084 Conditional Uses, R-4. The follow,nv are conditional uses ~n an 'R-4= OasCricc: (Requires a condiciona~ use permit ~ased upon procedures sac for=~ in and regulated by Section 4.20 of chis Cede, and compliance w~Cb C~&pcer 3, Signing, 4.036, Psr~ing, and 4.037, Of~-S=resc Loading). (1) Less :nCsflsLvs Usa District. All conditional uses, subject ~o (2) Nursin~ Homes. Nursing homes, bu~ nsc including (a) Side Yards~ Double. Side yards are double =he min£mum requirements established ~or ~.Ais Oiscric~ and are screened ~n ccap~iance w~=a Section 3, 4.033 (3). (b) Rear Yard Requirements. Only =he rear yard shall be used and co~t~rolled and screened in compliance with Section 4.033 (3). (c) Street Access. Tbs sics s~all be secved by an arCer£al or co~lector street off su~£iciefl~ capacity ~o accommodate ~raf£~c which will be geflera~ed. Permits and Sr. aCe Laws. All scats Laws and st&cutes ~overning sucm use are strictly adhered =o and al~ required cpera=£ng perni=s are secured. 07268& :..~ea (2) - (~)(=) i~r ~u~:~pLe ~am~Ly dweL~nngs ~f uen un,cs ~r ~cre as required ~n Square Foo~ (a) Cons=ruction. Type =we cons=ruction 100 square (~) ~Leva:or. Elevator serving eac~ floor $0 square feet Underground Parking. ~#o-:~irds of :ne required free para,ag underground or w~n :~e principal s%ructure (not ~ncluding a==ac~ed or de=ached garages). 150 square (d) Recreetion~ Indoor. Indoor recreation and social rooms equal ~o ~wen~y-~ive square feet per unit or seven ~undred fifty square feet =oral, whichever is greater. 50 square fee= (e) Recreacion~ Outdoor. Major outdoor recreational facilities such as swimming pools, tennis cou~ts or similar facilities requiring a substantial invesuaent equaling at minimum five percent of the c~nstruction cos= o~ =he principal structure 20 square feet Public Transit. Transit service available wi%bin three aundred fee= of entrance 50 square fee= (4) Elderly Housing. Elderly (Senior Citizenl housing provided requirements are met as ~o procedure, 4.20; 4.036, Parking; 4.037, Off-Street par~inq; 4.033 (3), Screening; Chap=er 3, Signing; and provided the== (e) Age Limit. HoC more than ten percent of the occupants may ~m persons sixty years of age or under (spouse of a person over sixty years of age or caretakers, etc.) Public Transit. T~e site of the main entrance of the princZpal use is secved or is located within ~our ~undred feec of regular transit service. (c) A~e Certification Required. To continue to qualify for ~he elderly housing classification, ~he owner or agency s~all annually ~ile wi~A the City Cler~ and ~he Building Official a certified copy of a monthly resume of occupdncs of such a multiple dwelling, listing the number of tenants by age and clearly identifying and setting forth the relationship of all occupants SLX=¥ years o~ age or under =o qual£fied tenants, or to the building. 07268& ~:en $~a:~. ~seabLe open space as defined Ln SectLon 4.022 a:ea. ~r:~:::aL. use Ts vi:~in ~ur hundred .~ee: o~ compete:al s~opp:~g ~eveLopmen: or adequate ~tovLs~ofl ~or access s~c~ ~ac£L£t:es £s ~rov£ded. BuiLd£ngs Ln excess of tares stor£es 4.20 are met and ptov£ded :~at= (a) Sui:abilitg. T~e site is capable of accommodating tho inctease~ :nteneity o~ use. surtoGnd£flg streets. Cc) ~t£~£t£es. Public uti~t£es and services ate adequate. (d) Added Set-Sacks. For each add£tiona2 story over three stories or '~-each addi:~oflaL ten feet above ~orty ~eet, [rant and s£de yar~ setback requirements s~all be increased Grouo Care Facil£:Y. A state licensed ~ac£1Lt2 serving seventeen more persons. (~ode 072684, CFa. 85-2) 4-5S 0?2684 :L:~::s, sa~::er£.~ms or s:m:Lsr £ns:icutions as dee:ned by 4.022 Ca) Si~e Yar~so Double. Side yards are double the minimu~ :e~::~me~:s es:aoLis~e~ !or t~is Oiscrict and are screened :~ compliances wL:h 4.033 (2) o! t~is code. R~ar Yard Req~::~men:s. Only c~e rear yard shall b~ used ~or reorder:offal areas. Said area s~all be ~eflced end con:roLLe~ and screened in compliance wic~ 4.033 co~e. (:~ S~ree: A::ess. T~e s£te shall be served ~ am arterial or ~oLLe~:or s:ree: o~ su~icLefl: capacity CQ acccau~ctace crab,lc w~:c~ wLll be generated. (~) Permi:s an~ $:a:e Laws. AL1 state laws and s:acuces govern:~g sa:~ use are strictly adhered to and all requited opera:Lng perm£:s are saluted. (2) Ad,i: ~ay Care. R slate licensed ~acilicy as defined in 4.022 (2) o~ :n:s code provided that: Ca) Fro~: Se: Ba:~. T~e !font yard deptA is a minimu~ Rear Yard Req~it~encs. Only the rear yard shall ~ used ~or ~ecteacLonal areas Said area shall ~ ~eflc~ and conctoll~ aA~ screened iff compliance v~th 4.033 code. (c) O~-Scree: Loading. Loading and unloading o~ adult day care pa~::c:pancs shall take place in afl area designated solely ~o: c~ac purpose. cd) Scree~ Access. The 'siCs arid ~e~aced ~k~flg and service .. served D~ an a~cer~a~ oF co~eccor sc:eec o~ capacity co accomm~ace c~e traffic w~ich will ~ generated. Ce) ~erm::s and SCa:~ Lays. A~ state ~avs and statutes go~e:n:~g suc~ ~se ate strictly adhered co and all t~ui~ed operating pe~ics ate secured. (Or~. 88-L4) ~-5~ 07268~ 4.~8A3 ~3), 4.~8.A4 Code. (c) Landscaping shaL~ be provided per Section 4.033(4)(~) of =~is code. Cd} T~e main entrance of the pr£~c£pal ~uild£ng shall ~e served or located w~ia four ~undred fee~ ~rans~ service. (.e) Ail trash enclosures shall ~ fully screened and ~andicapped aocessi~la. (~) One uni~ per ~u£1ding may ~ designated ~o~ a non- hand~capp~ ca~e~a~e~. (g) P~ys~ca~y ~afld~capped ~ous~ng shal~ ~ a~c~L~ec~u~al~y ccmp~le w~ surrounding uses design and cofls==uc=~on (Ord. 86-19) 4.08.A4 Condi=~onal Accesaor~ Uses. The Eolloving commercial uses shall be allowed as cofld~iona~ accessory uses to Senio~ Citizen and Physically HafldAcapped Housing and Nursing Homes. ~ ~s ~he ifl=efl~ of =his sec=ion tha~ sa~d uses primar£~¥ serve and hencol= =he rllidlfl~l O~ said (2) Barber/Beauty Shop. ~imited Re,ail Sales. (4) ~ewas=an~. ($) Pharmacy. (6) Per~o~naflce Standards. ~ll cofldA~onal accessory uses lis~ed here~n shall conform ~o ~e ~o~low~ng provLs~o~s~ (a) Location. All usel shall ~ loca~ c~ple~ely w~h~n ~he p~ncA~l s~uc~ure o~ ~Ae residen~Lal (b) Access. ~ separate ~erAor entrance ~ ~A~ sAall ~ all~w~ ~or any accesaoey uae(a). (c} SAqnaqe. ~ ~e~Loe sigflage o~ any ~ype shall ~ allo~ed ~or accessory uae(a). (d) SLze. Any ~ndAvAd~al cofldt~o~l accessory use shall exce~ ~Lve ~und~ (~00) ~uare ~ee~ o~ gross ~1oo~ a~ma. All com~Aned co~cAal accessory uses w~An a sAngle buAldLng s~aXL no~ exceed ~o ~o~aand (2,000) ~ua=e ~ee~ g~oso ~loo~ area. (e) Hours. ~ accessory ~se shall ~ open ~or ope~a~Aon ~ween ~Ae ho=rs o~ 9=00 P.~. and 8~00 A.M. (~) Parking. Su~c~efl~ par~Aflg ~or ~e cc~erc~al use(s) be provided ~n accordance ~t~ Sec~ton 4.036 o~ ~is C~e. (Ord. 89-21) 4-56 A 072684 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 96-21 Request: Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-Street Parking by Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parking Areas Location: PID No.: 7oning: R-4, R-5, R-O, B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1, and I-2 Petitioner: City of New Hop® Report Date: August 2, 1996 Meeting Date: August 6, 1996 BACKGROUND 1. City staff is requesting Planning Commission and City Council approval of an Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-Street Parking by Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parking Areas. 2. As you are aware, dudng the discussion of the Lasky PUD project the issue of bituminous vs. concrete interior curbing was an issue. The City ordinance does not currently specifically require concrete curbing on the intedor of commercial and industrial sites, although the Planning Commission and City Council have routinely required concrete curbing as a condition of approval for a conditional use permit/PUD development. 3. The Design & Review Committee has recommended that consideration be given to amending the City Code to require concrete curbing on the intedor of all commercial/industrial developments so that the concrete vs. bituminous curbing will not be an issue for future developments. 4. It is the City Engineer's recommendation that all curbing be constructed of concrete because bituminous is more prone to deterioration and is highly susceptible to snow plow damage. 5. The City Attorney has prepared the attached Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-Street Parking by Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parking Areas. The current City Code states that "all open off- street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot" and the proposed ordinance states that Wall open off-street parking shall have continuous perimeter concrete curbinq, unless otherwise recommended by the City Enqineer around the entire parking lot." 6. The Codes & Standards Committee reviewed this proposed ordinance amendment at their June meeting and is recommending approval of the amendment. Planning Case 96-21 2 ': August ~. 199,6 7. The amendment would be applicable to all Zoning Districts except for single, two-family and townhouse developments. 8. A public hearing notice was published in the official newspaper and staff have received no comments on the proposed amendment. The ordinance amendment would be effective upon publication. 9. Please see the attached comments from the Building Official who supports the amendment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of the proposed amendment. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance 6/12 City Attorney Correspondence Public Headng Notice Existing Code Requirements for Curbing Building Official's Comments ORO[NANCE NO. 96-1& AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CITY CODE SECTION ~.036(&)(h)(xv) REGULATING OFF-STREET PARKING BY REQUIRING PERIMETER CONCRETE CURBING AROUND OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.036(&)(h)(xv)"Curbing and Landscaping" of the New Hope Code iS hereby added to read as follows: (xv) Curbing and ~andscamin~. Except for single, two family and townhouses, all open off-street parking sh&11 have e continuous perimeter concrete curbin_.o.~ ~i-e+-, unles~ otherwise re~ommende~ by the City Engineer. around the entire parking lot, said curb barrier shall not be closer than five feet to any lot line. Plantings or surfacing material shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area. No landscaping in the boulevard shall interfere with the view of the street for driver's entering or exiting the premises. Section ~. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1996. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valarie Leone, City Clerk Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the day of .. , 1996.) CORR~CK & SO,piXalL. P.A. ~-~,~ · ~c,*c~. .~. ~O~EYS .~ LV,V ~ ~-~ ~...,.* ~Ec~ '~ ~ ~~mnourgn Execunve Office Plaza .,~..~ z ~..,. 6525 Edinbrook C rOS~l~g Suite ~'203 Btookl~ P~k. Minneso~ 55443 TE~NE (~12) June 12, 1996 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hooe 4401Xylon Avenue North New NoDe, MN 55428 RE: Codes and Standards Meeting ProDosed Ordinance for Off-Street Parking Standards/Continuous Concrete Curbing for Parking Lots Our File No:.gg.49~14 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed for consideration at the June 19, 1996 Codes and Standards meeting a proposed Ordinance amending New NoDe Code §4.036(4)(h)(xv) regulating curbing for off-street Darking lots. It is my understanding the recommendation is for off-street Darking lots to be constructed with concrete Derimeter curbing. After reviewing the referenced code section, we simDly need to insert the word "concrete" within the language of the section to imDlement the recommendation. The enclosed DroDosed Ordinance Drovides for the perimeter concrete curbing requirement. Contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, " St even A. Sondrall slw Enclosure cc: Alan 8rixius, City Planner NOT[C~ ;~ PUBLIC NEARING TO CONSIDER ORO[NANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE §4.036(~)(h)(xv) REGULATING OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS BY RE.QUIR[NG PER[METER CONCRETE CURBING AROUND OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS C~ty of New Hope! Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 6t~ day of August, 1996, 1995, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue. North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the affect of requiring all open off- street parking lots and areas to have a continuous perimeter concrete curbing around the entire parking, lot or parking area except for single family, two family, and townhouse uses. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDO number 531-5109). Dated the 15th day of July, 199~. s/ Valerie J. ~eone valerie d. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 24th day of July, 1996.) Oe e~o]e~ ~o ~ne ~evLev end approval ~£ :no C~:¥ CS) PlasmatiC. ~equ~ed. T~e suOdivision saa~ ~e pLa~ed and ~ecorded An ¢oflfo~unce ~o aLL o~ner ~equL~eeen~s of ~ne ~e~ a S~I~d~vLILon Bond. O££-S~reet,,Par~nq P~riK~se. The requLat&o~ o~ of~-stree~ par~in~ spaces StYe PLan Oravtn~ seceesary. ALL appLLca~Aons ~or · IN/~dtfl~ or Loca~ of off-street ~rXinq ~d LoedLnv s~cee tn ~pLtaflce ~eraL p~vte~one. (a) FL~e Ar~. ~ ~e~ '~r ·re·" ~or cnn pur~se sna~A M ~te~Xad m ~e m~s of tee ezcer~or e~r are· n~r el t%~ro, menus ~ ~cflnz ea~p~ as uy tel m~mfonim~ S~cz~ree.. S~u%d m n~-~fomlav r~ulA%en~ %f eAs~nere ~mLzc~ tn ~ese '"'' '''"' ''''' per~ea~ r~ioa s~aAL M ude ~or flan-pr~uc~vq ~,~ ~e ensure ~na~ ~ne r~uir~ fl~r of spaces ire avia%aBle a~ a%L ~%ml during ~ne year. (C~O 0~2684, Ord. 14-)J S~L%, AisLe and Orivevay Oeeiqn. aisles, mad e~ .pa~e snail ~ served M~eLy ~y {C~e 0~614, Grd. 4-3~ I o~ cnLs Code. provLs~ons or ~fi ~he case o~ single ~vo ~amt~F and ~ouae dveLltngs, pa~aAfl~ areas snaAX ~ destgfl~ s~ vt~ntn ~ne desL~flat~ ~=~flg lo~ and doee flo~ depend area deeLqn ~L~n r~u~res ~cZLn9 Ln~o cna scree~ ts probA~A~. ~ee~ ~rom ~e tncersec~ion o~ two or more Lfl~ersec~oa of Lo~ LAnes. flo~ c~ru lanes. (c~e 0?2sea) tv) parktflt S~aLL Staa~rdq. gxcep~ La ~he ease Of etflvLe ~aa~Ly,' cw ~anlXy and to~aouae_dve~lLnvs, vtcn ~ne ~oXXovtnv a~an~rds, Para,nv ULd~ Per Car ~ag~a AAsLe ~o Ats~e ~ay way 9Os I,pe I,po ~9'0· ~9'Qe ~9*Qe 24'Q' 24*0' 7Se 8'9' 9'0e XO'Oe 20'2' ~O'S" 20'Ll" 23'0" el'9° 9'Oe ~l'O" ~J'3' Ll'S" 2O'LL" 23'0' iQ* 8'9' lO'Oe LP*O' 20'3" LO'Se ll'S" 22'0" · 8'9' XO'Oe LO'O' L9'3e Ll'l' ~.'e' 22'0' 01'9' x3'3e Ll'O' ~TtOf ~6'6' ~3'0" 22'0" O* I'O" 23'00 22*0" I'01 I'01 ~2'0" 24*0" ~ ~rkia~ lot di~nsLan8 ~y ~ r~ ~gee~f~ve an~ r~aX s~te plan. ~e pr~r~y Met ~d trim vttn ~he CLty Ciera. ~e (CMa O?2ele, ~4. ! 4-33 ~ne C~Cy Co~flc~. ~{=~e one C~cy ~n~Lnee~ recommends tra~Lc ant~c~ced and cae type aad v~dt~ o~ the Located, ~e C~y 8n~Lneer sna~L also cons~der regu~a~toa8 pr~gac~ Uy ~.e HLflfleso~a Cmm~sst~ner o~ Tcans~c~actQn ceLa~t~e co dr~vevay and c~c~ {CMa 072il4, Ord. II-~O) ~ (vLL) Cur~ C~ Htfltm~. C~rb ~ ~peflLflgl I~aL~ (vLsi) Cur~ Cu~ SeRaratton. ortv~ay access curU opefltflqs off a pu~e street excep~ ~or single, t~ famALy and ~or~y [eet ~rm ~e (Az) pirXLn~ Area ~radeo. ~e grade e~evatLo, of any ~rKLn9 ar~ anaAL 'no~ exce~ ~tve ~rcen~. I J I 4-33 A 071114 ! -- II · Loner concFece or OLC'~LflOUl Ln ~mpLLanc~ s~ree~ ~r~,~ ecea snail M es arriflq~ ii ~o ce~Lecc ~ne ligmt aviy ~r~ ad2oifllfl~ pro~r~y, ssgn~ Lines ifld orderly o~ritLofl and ~raf~i~ ~veaen~ a ~rme~er ~rt Mrr~er around ~ne eflK&r~ ~tk~flg ~o~. · said ~rU Mrrler snell flo~ ~ closer provid~ ia ai~ areas ~rderLng ~ne (xvi) Im~r~ screea~flq. AX~ open, of~-ecree~ ~e ~aer of ~e pzLncx~L ~se (or ~eeiee, ~7~6~ TO: KIRK McDONALD ?ROM: OOt:G $AVDSTAD DA TE: .~CH 1, 1996 SU~ECT: CONC~TE ~D OR ASP~T CU~ O~[N~CES ~e code sect~ you havg ~red a~ mcl~ $~eral: 13.084 (2)c re~r~ concr,~ c~bing for S~ETS ~ NEW 4.036 (4) h [vii ref, renc~ ~ "Ci~'~ c~b c~ ~$ign $~r~5 which ~p~lt c~b concre~ c~b /~ay& 4.036 (4) h {xi] a~ws ~v~ay apro~ ~ ~ e~r co~re~ or bi~~ according I ~ve a~ched cop~ of soeral oM ~ ~ B~ ~mi~ ~t re~ ~ driv~ays. ~eir ~, a~o, a ~mil for c~b~g of each ~ ~ught I d~'t ~ o~ ~ ~rnmg. ~e absence of s~ciflc c~ ~ge rear concre~ c~ on p~va~ pro~r~ ~ no m~m~. I ~rs~ ~t proem s~ ~ Co~il's felt ~t ~ ~y ~e~r's pro~ed a~ ~l~d ~p~ c~b~s w~ ~ p~va~ ~e~p~ ~ w~t ~ were ~mg ~er ~ ye~& ~re ~e ~ ~y ~c~ at s~ff ~e~ De~gn-R~ ~e~ngs, Plying Co~ion Hea~g~ ~ Co. cji ~g$ ~ ~ ~erenc~ ~een co~re~ asp~l~ Bo~ ~ve ~ ~ ~ a ~ve a~ ~ c~ wi~ con~ B~ ~ ~e~ ~ recent years ~ ~en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ive concre~ for c~ on co~rcm~ indwell a~ a~~ s~ ~ $~g~ prob~ wi~ concre~ ~ c~r In 1966, or--ce 4.73 (~c~) re. red c~b ~ ~r a~ng p~c s~ee~ ~ n~ ~ve~p~n~ In 1~4, or~e 4.78 (3) w~ ~~ ~ rede "~r co~re~ c~" at new apart~ ~S) .~o Le~din~.3ermz o~ vehicles aver Cwo-~:ons cap~,city sk-~iZ be closer ~h~a lO0 fee~ ~o ~esi6emce ¢is~ric~ ~less canDle=ely emclose~ by ' but!din8 walls not less.than ei~h~ feet in height. (4) '~ere noise from loading or ~loadin~ activity is audible in a residential district the activity shall terminate between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. ~.71 T~FFIC CONTROL. The traffic ~enerated by any use Shall be cha~elized ~d con~rolled in a m~ner %ha~ will avoid: a) con~es~ion on the public streets, b) traffic hazards, ~d c) excessive traffic through residential areas, particularly ~raffic. Internal ~raffic shall be so reEulate~ ensure i~s safe ~ orderly flow. Traffic into ~ out of business ~d industrial area shall in al~ cases be for- ward movin~ wi~h no backin~ into 0101~ 4.7Z PEDRSTRI~N T~FFIC. In all BUSINESS DISTRICTS (LB, ~ ~4 GB) ~4 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS (LI ~ GI), all 4evelopmen: uses shall provide Portland Cement con~reZe sidewalks zoa wi~k of no~ than five feet in the boulevar~ alone all ~ree:s abuzzin~ the proper~y. Such sidewalk shall also, be provide~ wi~h any new 4evelopmen~ alon~ a s~ree= desi~a%e4 as a :ri~ waldoF i~ the Village 1128~7 4.75 D~INA~. No 1~ shall be developed ~4 no use shall be pe~itted tho: resul:s in water ~n-off, flooding, or erosion on ~d3acenZ properties. Such r~-off shall be properly channeled into a sto~ drain, water course, pondin~ area, or other public facility. All new developmen~ shall include provision of curb ~d ~Z~er alon~ public streets. 4.74 ~CHI~CTU~. IN ALL DISTRICTS BXCBPT GB ~d CI, all principa1 buildings other than one and two-family dwellings must be ~esi~ned by a registered architect. With respec~ ~o resi- dential st~ctures, there must be some variety in house ~esi~n within a ~iven block. 010~66 [ " AN ORDINANCE A~.IENDING SECTION 4.78. SUBD. (3] OF T~I~ CITY CODE RE~T~G TO ~NTENANCE OF PARKING A~AS FOR ~T~IENTS WIT~ THeE OR ~I0~ U~TS. ~ ' Cit7 of New Hope, Mh~nes0ta The Cit7 Counc~l of :he Cit7 of New Hope ord~s: , Se~on 1. Sec~on &.78 (3) of ~e Ci~ Code, Pa~n~. sha~ be ~ende~ ~ read as follows: Subd. (3) P~n~. . Re~ess 0f ~e p~visions ~ 4.68 (i), off~s~eet P~S ~eas sha~ be paved t~ ~ asph~c ~ concrete ~d shall ~ave con~uous ~t~io~ concrete ~bs def~ ' ~. ~e pe~e~. P~S ~eas sh~ be used for ~utomob~e ~?" ' P~S onl~ ~ no s~es. ~ead ~orase, body ~epa~ ~ ~clud~s ~e or fender rep~, or mech~c~ rep,s .- any ~d, excep~ ~t ~s shaB not apply to m~tenance ... '"" - ' work of a custcma~ or rou~e nature necessa~ for '~ .- ~ent opera,on of a ve~cle,' ~o~ded ~at it does not , .. r~sult ~ off spi~a~e, ~ or o~er d~age m ~e par~g ~ea s~ace, ~d prodded ~t such ~-t~t~ce work completed ~ 48 ~rs. -. Section 2~ ~s ore,ce s~ be ~ ~I force ~d ~ect from ~d' ~ its passase ~ pubM~on,. .. " P~sed~y ~e CtW co~cfl ~ ~e ~ ~ New Hope ~s . 9th . day ~ .. A~est:'~ B~ot, Cle~k-Treas~e~ ~ublished ~ ~e New H~e-Piymou~ Post ~e' day ~ , ., 1974. Cutlter slope f:o be ~ .~/'a.' asr foot .~/4" Min. ~;$e 2" Bituminous_ _~ .~x. Sit.' ....:-' · · .. . ~ ' I '1-- ~ ~ an~ ...... ~ .: .... '. ~. '...: . Base Mater ~ ....... ~ . · _ ..., .: '~ :~ ~ // ....... curb and gutter' No Scale Radius is optional j~ ' -2" Minimum Provide clean straight edge Compacted where existing curb meets new Thickness curb by sawing or cutting at Bituminous nearest construction joint. 81tumlnous pavement · I~C)MF'TRI~. to match back of concrete curb No Scale at thll point pall Re~ision? I/~ AnderlJk & // BITUMINOUS CURB CUT FOR DRIVEWAY Ii .I1' CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: August 30, 1996 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: MisCellaneous Issues 1. August 12 Council Meeting - At the August 12 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Resolution Authorizing City Staff to Draw Upon Kimball Addition Letter of Credit: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Project #560, Resolution Awarding Contract to Hunerberg for Terra Linda Park Shelter Roof Repair - $15,400: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain an Appraisal for Property at 4317 Nevada Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. D. PC96-28, Request for a Variance form the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a two-Car Garage Addition, 4057 Boone Avenue: Approved, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. E. Project #545, Resolution Awarding Contract for the Construction of a Single Family Home at 6067 West Broadway: Approved, see attached Council request and plans. F. Ordinance 96-121PC96-06, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code §4.036(10)(z) Regulatin_cl Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers: Referred back to Planning Commission; please see City Council minutes. G. Ordinance 96-161PC96-23, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code §3.463 by Permitting Wall Si.qns on Churches, Schools, Non-Profit Institutions and Government Buildings: Approved. H. Ordinance 96-181PC96-25, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code _~64.125(2)(d) Re~ulafin~ Food Handling Licenses as Subordinate Uses for Automobile Service Stations: Approved. 2. August 26 CouncillEDA Meefin_~s - At the August 26 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Resolution Approving Hennepin County Housing Deferred Loan Program Repayment Agreement and Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Execute Agreement: Approved, see attached Council request. B. PC94-20, Resolution Authorizing Release of Letter of Credit on Don Harvey 2"d Addition/Versa Die Cast Expansion Project: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Project #571, Motion Authorizing Staff to Negotiate to Purchase the Property.at 4317 Nevada Avenue North with David Curry, Owner: Approved, see attached Council request and appraisal. D. Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of 5212 Winnetka Avenue North Under HUD Direct and Private Sale Provisions: Approved, see attached Council request. 4. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee met on August 28 and discussed: A. Shopping Center Parking Requirements B. Pawn Shops: C. Opinion Sign Issue D. Seasonal Outdoor Sales E. R-1 District Performance Standards Please see attached Status Report of Code Amendments. 5. Design & Review Committee - Did not meet in August. May need to meet in September if new plan for Hoyt property is submitted. 6. Project Bulletin - Enclosed for your information is a copy of the recently mailed project b,.~itetin on the 6067 West Broadway housing project. 7. Update on Development Projects - A. Gill Brothers Funeral Chapel - Under construction. B. Pro Engineering - Under construction. C. Taber Bushnell - Under construction. D. Lasky Car-X PUD - Not yet under construction; performance bond and Development Agreement not yet submitted. E. Hoyt Industrial PUD - Not yet under construction; performance bond, revised plans and Development Agreement not yet submitted. F. Public Works Expansion - To get underway this fall. G. Ice Arena Expansion - Under construction and on schedule; to be completed in October. Attachments: Kimball Addition Request Park Shelter Roof Repair Request 4317 Nevada Avenue Request 6067 West Broadway Request/Plans Rehab Loan Request Don Harvey 2"~ Addition Request 4317 Nevada Request and Appraisal 5212 Winnetka Request Code Amendments Status Report 6067 West Broadway Project Bulletin Status Report of Code Amendments COUNCIL, FOR Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent 8-12-96 Kirk McDonald ~ [tern No. By:. Management Assistant B~,J// ~. lo RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO DRAW UPON KIMBALL ADDITION LETTER OF CREDIT The enclosed resolution authorizes City staff to draw upon the Kimball Addition Letter of Credit. The developer originally provided a Letter of Credit in the amount of $133,500 on the Kimball Addition development on 36~ Avenue for the installation of public improvements and on-site extedor amenities. This amount was held to insure that specific improvements were made. In August of 1995, the Letter of Credit was reduced to $25,000 to cover the work that remained to be completed. The current Letter of Credit expires August 16, 1996. Although most improvements are completed, the City Engineer still has several concerns, and there are some outstanding planning bills for legal/engineering expenses that have not been paid. If a new Letter of Credit is not provided before the expiration date of the current Letter, staff requests authority to draw on the current Letter to cover the uncompleted items and unpaid expenses. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-001 COUNCIL . REQUF.~T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Parks and Recreation 8/12/96 Item No. B~. Shari French B~. 6. ~2 / RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT TO HUNERBERG FOR TERRA LINDA PARK SHELTER ROOF REPAIR - $15,400 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ~560) Bids were received as follows on August 6, 1996 for the Terra Linda Park shelter roof repair, project 560: BNM Construction $17,945 Morcon $15,537 Hunerber9 $15,400 The Park CIP contains $31,069 for this project. The engineer's estimate was $15,000. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to the low bidder, Hunerber~ for $15,400. The work will take place this late summer, early fall. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: ~mtnlstration: Finance: RFA-O01 REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Apl)roved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent 8-12-96 Sarah Bellefuil \r~ Item No. By: Community Development Speciali.~ By:.// 6/13 MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBT/~N AN APPRAISAL FOR PROPERTY AT 4317 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH In late July,. General Inspector Jean Coone did an annual inspection of the house at 4317 Nevada. During the inspection the General Inspector found many items that need to be fixed or replaced in order for the house to be considered habitable. Items listed on the inspection report include rotting windows and tdm, a crumbling foundation, replacement of the roof, and electrical and structural repairs. After receiving the list of improvements the property owner called the General Inspector and stated that he was interested in selling the home rather that putting additional money into fixing it up. In response, staff sent a letter to the owner stating that the City is interested in purchasing the house on a voluntary basis and that an appraisal on the site needs to be completed to determine the value of the property. Once the appraisal is completed, the Council will determine if the City is interested in purchasing the property. If the City decides to purchase the property, staff recommends that the property be demolished and a new single familY home built on the site. Staff recommends demolition of the property because of its very poor condition, size, and age. If the City decides to acquire the property, the following funds may be used: $84,000 in CDBG acquisition/scattered site housing funds, $40,000 from an MHFA Blighted Residential Grant received by the City in 1994, EDA funds, and TIF funds. The lot is approximately 9,035 square feet. The house was built in 1938 and is approximately 830 square feet in size. There is also a detached single car garage on the site. The assessed value of the property is $62,000 ($22,500 land, 39,500 building). Staff is requesting authorization to obtain an appraisal on the property for compedson and negotiation purposes. The estimated cost of a single family residential appraisal from BCL Appraisals is $350 and will be paid for with EDA funds. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 4317 Nevada Avenue North. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Admlnlstrat~n: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ o ARENA ~.,?. ~ ~ ~ , / _ avl .... N. PARK ~751 ~ TH AVE. "N I o ~[ ,, i ~ 4~ ~ _ ~oo . N. F~ED ~42-1/~ G o LOT sUR~~~ COMPANy .2urvey for: '- ' - ~e here~ ce~Lf~y a surre, v of the: ~o:~,da~ea of rEST aCTXON Originating Department Approved for Agenda _ A~enda Section L)ev~lopment City Manager & Planning 8-12-96 Sarah Bellefuil Item No. By:. Community Development Speci Ilis~l/~' 8,3 RESLOUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 6067 WEST BROADWAY, NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT # 545) The City of New Hope published a request for bids in the SunPost on July 24, and the Construction Bulletin on July 26 and August 2, for the construction of a three-bedroom, single family home at 6067 West Broadway. Bids were opened on August 9, and the following bids were received: Contractor Bid Amount Equal Access Homes $103,739 Michlitsch Builders $111,900 Staff recommends awarding the bid to Equal Access Homes, the Iow bidder, in the amount of $103,739. An estimated budget for the project is attached. Per the budget, the revenue from the sale of the home, the second mortgage, and the HOME grant funds will cover the cost of construction. CDBG Scattered Site housing funds and EDA funds will be applied toward acquisition, utilities, landscaping and miscellaneous costs. The benefits of the project to the City are the redevelopment of a parcel located on West Broadway, increased tax base and providing home ownership opportunities for the Iow/moderate income population. The enclosed resolution awards the contract for the construction of the single family home to Equal Access Homes° in the amount of $103,739. Construction will begin immediately upon approval by the City Council. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Admintstratlom FInarice: [ RFA-001 ~ E] I~EAR eLeVATION ' 'LEFT ELEVATION '~ ' C'ITY OF NEW HOPE I' SITE PLAN Lot l&2 Block 1, MORK-CAMPION HEIGHTS The following estimated amounts are for 6067 W. Broadway -- August 8, 1996 Expenditures Anticipated Actual Acquisition $ 41,400.00 $ 41,923.06 Demo - house, cut sewer/water, seal well $ 7,000.00 $ 7,875.00 Construction - Building ($60 x 1500) $ 90,000.00 Construction - Landscaping $ 3,000.00 Engineering $ 197.00 Legal $ 2,000.00 $ 1,509.75 Publishing $ 36.14 Surveying $ 500.00 $ 300.00 Asbestos Survey $ 500.00 $ 287.50 Admin/Cledcal $ 127.49 Lawnmowing $ 400.00 $ 260.91 Appraisal $ 350.00 $ 325.00 Utilities $ 100.00 $ 5.50 Property Tax $ 500.00 $ 557.37 Supplies , $ 31.93 Postage $ 13.44 Design Fees $ 500.00 $ 591.00 CRC Development fee (HOME funds) $ 1,500.00 Marketing/Realtor (HOME funds) $ 5,400.00 TOTAL $153,150.00 $ 54,041.09 Revenues Proceeds from sale of home $ 90,000.00 Home second mortgage $ 5,000.00 HOME grant to City $ 5,000.00 i HOME soft costs (marketing and dev. fees) $ 1,000.00 CDBG funds $ 50,000.00 EDA funds $ 2,150.00 TOTAL $153,150.00 $ - h:~housing~6067bud2.xl~ Page 1 c o UHCH., I } REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating DepmL~,ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section . City Manager Consent 8-26-96 Kirk McDonald Item No. ~y: Management Assistant ay:. 6.7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF LETTER OF CREDIT ON DON HARVEY 2"0 ADDITIONNERSA DIE CAST EXPANSION PROJECT (PLANNING CASE 94-20) The citY originally held a Letter of Credit in the amount of $215,200 on the Don Harvey 2"4 AdditionNersa Die Cast project at 3943 Quebec Avenue North for the installation of public improvements and on-site extedor amenities. The amount was held to insure that specific improvements were made, including new/rehabilitated bituminous surface, concrete curb, storm sewer, pond excavation, and installation of landscaping and retaining wall. In September of 1995 the owner/developer requested a partial release of the financial guarantee on the project due to the fact that the majority of work had been completed. Upon the recommendation of the City Engineer and Building Official, the Council reduced the Letter of Credit to $5,000. This amount was held to insure that restoration around the pond was completed. The $5,000 Letter of Credit is now due ,to expire and either needs to be renewed or released. The City Engineer and Building Official have inspected the property for completion of the improvements and are recommending that the Letter of Credit be released, as all improvements have been completed. The enclosed resolution authorizes release of the Letter of Credit and staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY ,, TO: P,~lew: Administration: Finance: Associates Engineers & Architects August 19, 1996 Mr. Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Don Harvey Second Addition Our File No. 34-Gert Dear Kirk: We have reviewed the site work for the above project and find everything to be completed in accordance with our July 28, 1994 letter. It is recommended that the bond amount or the remaining portion be released. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, RO~ENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, l~C. M k~ Hanson, P.E. MAH:la 2335 gCfest Highway 36 ' St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 · 612-636-4600 ?LA/~N~NG PLAT BOND REVIEW TO: City Manager A _ . FROM: Doug Sandstad DATE: August 21, 1996 SUBJECT: Don Harvey 2nd Addition BOND AMOUNT: ? ~ TOTAL N%5~BER OF LOTS: 2 FACILITIES/LANDSCAPING REQUIRED: Curbing OK Sod OK Trees OK Driveway OK Sidewalks (none~ Grading OK Structures OK Other Describe: I have on chis day a,,~n.~ 15. 1996 , inspected the plat for on of all work covered by the bond we retain. It is appropriate co RELEAS] Chis amount: $ balance I have consulted with the CiTy Engineer on this. Yes cc: CiTy Engineer City Clerk File 005 8/91 ~ REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Deparlznent Approved for Agenda _ A~ienda Section Uev~lopment City Manager & Planning 8-26-96 Sarah Bellefuii Item No. By: Community DeveloPment SpecbilistBY: 8.3 MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AT 4317 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH WITH DAVID CURRY, OWNER (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #571) At the August 12, New Hope City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to have an appraisal completed on the property located at 4317 Nevada Avenue North. BCL Appraisals completed an appraisal of the property on August 21, and estimated that' the fair market value of the property is $59,000. The property is approximately 9,035 square feet. The house was built in 1938 and is approximately 830 square feet in size. There is also a detached single car garage on the site. The assessed value of the property is $62,000 ($22,500 land, and $39,500 building). If the City decides to acquire the property, the following funds may be used: $32,000 in CDBG acquisition/scattered site housing funds, $40,000 from an MHFA Blighted Residential Grant received by the City in 1994, EDA funds, and TIF funds. If the City decides to purchase the property at 4317 Nevada, the City staff recommends demolishing the house immediately after purchase. Due to the very poor condition of the property, staff recommends that that Council direct staff to begin negotiations with the owner of 4317 Nevada for purchase of the property. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Adminl.~tion: Finance: RFA-001 ~ ARENA TH AVE. N. TH AVE -- ' N. q~o BCL Appraisals, Inc. Bjorklund, Carufel. Lachenmayer, IncorpOrated Augun 21, 1996 City of New Hope 4.401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, M3155428 Attention: Sarah Bellefuil Attached is the appraisal completed on August 21, 1996 for the property at: 4317 Nevada Avenue North New Hope, 1HN S$428 David Curry The estiraats '.~' as of August 21, 1996 is: so. m_'ty? for. roarer, .which m in nor any. opm, on on mem. ~ r~n~er~a omer than a.vummg market, lc rifle. Liens in ~ _this appraisal .a~gnmem, t~e e.' ..xJ.~;~e.. of potenthtty hazardous material ~ .cor~vvc~.~ or.~ o.~ the ~.uil~ing, such u the presence of urea-rormai~enyue rosin inSUlation, a.st~stca, and/or the exis~*nce of substances such as toxic wus~ of radon gas, and/or the exia*,~*rlce of any other envirorunental infl .ue_n~.. th~ may salve, me. ly af.r..e.ct r~e value ot'_the properly, wu not observed by me; nor ~2 t nave any knowledg~ of me existence of sudi flmenaLs/substaflces/influences on or .in. ~ pmperv/... The apprmer, however, ia no~ qualified to detect such rna~,nals/~influem~, The existence of uru-formaldobyde foam iraulation, or other Inneflli~y hazafltous material, or toxic wasm or radon fas, may have effect aa the value of the property. I urge the client to retain an expert in Plmss f~nt fr~ to call if you haw any ~ We appr~:iat~ your businms. Sincerely, BCL Appraisals, Inc. $ulie Bjorklund 21S2 Amaoay Laao S~nta, Minfmpofi~ ,',(immou 5~18 (612~ ml-0S0S Fax: 711-'~26 UNIFORM RESIDENTIAl. APPRAISAI.'REPORT ;;o ~. ~_, :~j c~Hen~ep ~n Par~ ~p ~f.~ 50-2C c~sus ~ ~08.0 ~ · ~dm. 28~2 ~t~on~ ~flo ~uth, Minn~i~. ~ ~4t8 c~m~ of ~ ~~ ~e ~t ~ f~ cni~cteflsflcs: ~ At~h~ A~. ,' the Om~es iff t~ flei~od (pmxim)~ to emoioy~nt ind i~mties, emoioymeflt ltl~ili~, iOoesI ~ ~f~et. etc. h ~ iuch u ~M off ~mHUh ;mOe~es for sale in t~ ~i~M~4. dllcnoUon of t~ p~llnCl of shill ifld flnanmflg ~nflssioas. etc.): ~~ ~ ~ ~ Average ~ 100 ~Brkrs sM ~ o~~ ~ ~T~ ~z~C , ~ul/~/8~ ~ ~ ~ ~iM ami/ille~ or laM{ ~ncoofo~ag zoning, use, ~M~ I ~ ~ ~ 762 ZGO M,m~WCm.,mk. H~.ATm ~on:.m~ muP. Arm: AMmeno CA~ snueA~r= pbs,. ~ __ Ww ~ ~,) ~ ..... ~ ~ v,m,ee, seerm, UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL I~FORT ~..e. ~-~ a~j, B~t.rLn. s~Ft · t 0.00 · 0 ~ve ~ ob~n~ :brough :he ~ A~ r~tures on Sst P~ · 0 S~t Cost Gu$~ as ~1~ as L~l sour:es. ~ 280s~es.18.00 · ~,0aO 'No f~ctAo~l nor exter~l o~olescence ~ ~0% o~1 o~ .s ~6.000 ~mc=a~ Val~ el Im~e~t~ · S ~ t ~70J ~317 Ne~ Av~ue North ~500 Perry Av~ue N 57aa ~e~t Br~y 3a49 Zane Avenue N A~e, N~ Hol,e Crys~l ' Crys~l trysil Pmx,m,~toS~iect ~ Ht~es ~at I 1/2 ~tlea North 1 ~/a Htles ~utheas: si~ 69 z 130 ~2 z 1~9 : 6~ z ~7~ -~.500j63 z 13a ~ Res/Prk/~lC~es[d/Coenee ; V.B~ Strut: -3.500 Rest~ntta~ ~a~ A~/Stueco ~A~/Stueeo Ave/Stueea : A~/Stueco A~ 58 ~4 ~ ~ 64 ~ Aveea~e/rit~ Average ' -~.000 A~le -3.000 E~[~ -5,000 ~~ Un~tntsh~ ~ftntsh~ ~ 3/4 hth :, -I,000 ~/2~0 ~ ~ -2,000 ~ ~ Averaee Ave~i~ ; , Ave~e : Ave~ee ~ -~, 000 ~~,N~e I~ Fu~ ; -Z,000 N~e ~ N~ rurMee : -2,000 :S su..w.en,M v~u.,~ skin UNIFORM RESIDENTIAl APPRAISAl REPORT I~w~ ~; N/3~ ...... '..'"":~ ~O,O00i. " ....... ~m ~ ~ns~c~on ~ 114 3ys/Co~Cy C s~t, 69 z 1~0 7~ x 124 ~~ Av~/$tu~co A~/~u~o ~.,L'~=~ N~. ~e g[r~.e~,, -1,500 : BCL Appraisals, Inc. Bjorklund, Carufel, [~chenmayer, incorporated NEIGBrBORI'IOOD BOUN~A~.rF~g AND CHARAC~C$: The northern boundary of the subject's neighborhood is formed by the Soo Line railroad .w. hic.h ~ at ap. proximately 52.nd Avenu. e No?h, the western boundary is WiflfleOca Avenue ~o.rtn, toe .mu~em.bou.nda.cy. ts appmx~atety 38th Avenue North, and the eastern boundar~ ts the meafl(aermg ctty hne b~ween New Hope and Cr~al which is at t~mes Nevada Avenu~ and Louisiana Avenue North. ,NEIGHBORHOOD FACTORS THAT AFFECT ,MARKETABK,ITY: The subjec~ is located in New [-[ope, a northwestern suburban commu~ty bounded by Highway 169 on the west. New Hope reported a 1992 population estimate of 21,874, and that population has continued to be stable. The 1993 average home va~ue in New Hope $89,700. The city is located in the Robbinsdale School Distr~ct, with Cooper High School _M.t~. o..ne mile of the subject, and other elem.entary schools within busing distance. Fred Sims t'a~ ~di ..r~.y acme., me street from the sub ~.j~ct. The neighbo, rhc~xl Ls mUted use, pnmaflly sinSte family, out v,~m apartment buildings to me west and soumea~ of the subject. The Soo Li.~. raflroad track2 .form the were..m bou.mL~y, o.f the a..p~'tment buildings to the west of the sut~jnct, and surr?u~.' .~. the Soo Line trac.~. ~s an md ..u~. area which coflcinues nor~ of A.v.~.~..Them a neighbori~xl., commercial surroundif~ County Road 9 or Rocidord Road, wltic, h Ls just south..of the su. bject. Coetlzsemane .Cern. etc.1? is approxJmatety one mile to the _sou~. we~ of the sue ..~ct.. Netghborflood comme~ial ~s .Mthin watldng distance of the subject. K .ocrro~ Road pmvioes convenient access east/west tl~rough New Hope and connects it nmghbormg Cr~stal ~ well a~ to the Highway 169 to the west and I-Eghway tOO to the east. NEIGH]JORHOOD MARKET CONDITIONS: tithe s.ubj~..xvould be..e, lig~ble for ~n~.~on~t_ ~'maac. in_g, and_could be eli~bl? for rEA nancmg after several t .v~,n~ were re~r~, c;urrenz ~u year rtxen convenuuna~ rates ar~ around K?,5~ with no pou~, and current 30 year FZ-ZA/VA mortgqes are available at g.5~. Them is currently some new commemia[ being built just sou~ of the subject on Rocid'ord Road. Mark~s time in the subjem's nm~hborbood rernaim under three months if [he property is in g_~__ marketable condition. Financin~ conceuiom up to two poinu are SITE COMMENTS: The subject has an averqe landa:a~, rectangular-shaped site with the home elevated from stre~ level and latins ~ Them a a ~ privacy fence separating the real of the site with the apartmen~ to the ~ There is also a partial short wood fe~ near the rear idtchen entrance. Ther~ is an Isphalt driveway to the detached one ca' ~arage. CONDITION OF THE IMPRO~: The subject is an expansion bungalow, almost 60 year~ old, and has an affecfive age of approximately 35-40 year~ etd. The exterior is stucco, and them is some craddflg of the StL_u~__ in the northez~ comer of the home. The roof appears to be in ave .r~e condition, coold pos~. ly have two layers. The detached ftrage has wood lap siding which is peeling and blbterinj bedly. TlJe ~lrage floor is primarily concrete, although them is an area near the overbmd door which is dirt. The interior of the home does need some tender loving care. The floor coverings are ~ener~y in avora&~ to fair condition, and ail of the car~g could be .~placod. Every ~ surface could also be repeinted. The hath floor is smaller ceramic tile which is in average condition. Tbev8 is · corner SCltmre tub in that bathroom. The lfitchen does have a vinyl fl .c~. r in average condition, and the kitchen cabinetry could also be replaced. Them i~ · freestanding raflge and fan as web ~ mfriserator. The bath is placed off the Idtchen ins~!~__ of being m. ore c?v.e, flien~ to the two bedmotm, T'ne exj:~i. ~oo ama upsta~m is reac, Aed by an entrance rrom me li_v~_g room. Them is a tight turn m this stairwell with small treads which v,~c~dd not meet compliance. Them is also no door, unly t hanging curtain. The home is heated by a gas gravity furnace and there are thr~e windo .w air cotxLifi_oners,, one in the living room, one in. the front bedroom, and one in the ups~.~ ~2room...there older gas water heater Mm no pressure relief valve, arid them zs tuu amp up~av~2 Lmm Sm~t~ Mbumpob, Mimme*a ~S4lS (612) 71.1-(M0~ F'*: 7~I- ?t2S Bjorklund, Carufel. Lachennmyer, Incorpornted SA~ CO~ON CO~: ~e sub~ is a 1.5 ~ ex.ion bung~ow l~at~ n~r the ~rder ~w~n N~ ~o~ ~d C~. It is o~ of the o~r ~ s~er hom~ m ~e neigh~rh~, ~d i3 mo~ t~ic~ of hom~ m ~ fo~ fu~er m ~e ~ in C~ ~er th~ th~ newer ~ lar~er homes funher m ~e ~ m N~ H~, ~r ~hing the Mut~pte L~ing ~ for ~es of hom~ ~ich have ~u~ M New ~o~ over the 1~ y~, no ~ could ~ found that we~ c~mpa~le m the~ub~. ~fo~ n~i~pg F~ ~ ~ught for. simil~ compa~ble ~in~ 1.5 ~ ex~i~ bung~o~ ~e ~e sub~. ~e fou~ com~ble ~e is included home m~b ~ ~ of u~n~ ~e the sub~. Com~ 1 ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ of the sub~ at 35~ Pe~ Avenue No~h in dt~ ~. A ~uve ~m$ ~ ~ven for~e la.er N~ f~e. It d~ not have my ~m ~F ~mo~n. ~ ~ ngve a o~ ~ old ~ fu~. ~e app~ are o~y ~ ~e home ~ ~e. Negatxve ~u ~ ~ven for ~e ~di~o~ A~ No~ m c~. ~ ~ a ~er ex.on b~ow ~ o~y t~ ~IM, ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ f~t d~, b~ ~ fu~ ~ ~m~ ~r SAt.~ CO~~N ~YS~ OF ~ AG~~ OR ~OR ~r ~ of f~g L'~e~ o~e~]~ ~i~ ~fl ~ ~ all U~ v~uat)on ~mlcbes we~ uul~. 9. L'~e~ o~i~ i~ netlh~ ~fl of 12. U~o~~m~~l~~~u~~~i~lefor develop~ m i~ hi~ mv~ 15. U~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ m~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~or~ ~of P~. 16. UM~ O~ i~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,~ ~ o~ ~ ~ o~ d~ w ~ I~k of ~1~ ~ ~ for s~ 18. U~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ m~ ~ ~ ~im~ ~, ~iy~o~ bip~ls' ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~s ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~l~ge of fo~ f~ ~ 20. ~ ~ Silmmm of ~v~w Appramr (if appiie..abl~) SKETCH/AREA TABLE ADDENDUM David 4317 Nevada Avenue North , New Hope Hennepin ~ 55428 City of New Hope First. Floor Garage 26 x 15 = 3gO 1~ x 20 = 280 3[ z ~ = 37~ ~[tached Lean-To 762 5 x ~0 = 50 ~r Second Floor ! 26 x ~0 = 260 I ~ Eit. che~ Bat.~ ,Bedroom ' Bedroom 1~,0 ~/' Living ~1 Room 'Bedroom SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTO ADDENDUM :ss:'^.tho.,, l.~,~ so~,~. ~612~ 781-0~5 F~X: '~-7~26 FROl~rr VlEW OF SU~ PR .Oi~.RTY AT: 43 [7 Nevada Avenu~ No.h New I-[o~,~. MN $542S A4~: Ausus~ 21. [996 A{W,~ai~d Valsm: $59.000 5420 491h Avenue N Cr,/s~a1 ~ [3lM:3/96 Sale IWia.:. $50,0(]0 [~CL ^p. pm~s~ls. [nc. Bjarklund, C~r~f~l, ~c~e~er, ~nco~ COMPA~BLE SAL~ PHOTO ADDE~ :~ Mind.lis, Min~ ~4T8 (612) 7~1-0~ Fax: 7~1-78~6 . -~ ~iI~ No. 96-1 4~5J 3500 Pef~y Avenue N C~scal ~ Dam:. 1/96 ~ ~ $65..~00 COI~A~.A~.E SALE/3 3449 Z. ane Avenue N C~slal e.,,a,,, 13s,la,: 7/94 ~,~., {"ti,as: DEFINITION OF MAPJ<E"I' VALUE: Me ~o~t ~roO~te ~nce ~ich ~ ~roDe~ ~ul~ ~n~ ~n ~ c~e~ve un,er ail conditi~ re~mte ~o a fair salt, ~e ~er ~d seiler, each Kfing ~md~t~. K~wle~e~ly ~ ~mg affected by ~e sti~l~. ~mplic~t in ~is ~efimtion xs ~e con~mation of a sale a ~f 4 ~ec~fi~ ~ate ~ ~e ~s ma~ ~n te~ of c~ in U.S. dollam or ~n te~ of fin~a a~gem~ co~lt ~mto: ~ (5} ~ Once rHr~ts co~deraO~ for ~ prope~ ~l~ ~aff~t~ ~ ~la or creat~e fin~q or ~u co~= gr~tH ~ my~ ~c~ated w,~ =Adi~. to ~ co~ar~l~ ~ be m~e for ~a or creaive fi~ing or ~1~ c~l~. No ~j~ those costs ~ic~ a~ no~ ~ald ~ ~llem ~ a r~lt of tradition or I~ in a ~et area; ~e cos~ ~e re~ly ~dentifi~le seca seller ~ ~ co~ ~n v~a~ al ~ tr~ti~ S~a or crma~e ~i~ ~)~ c~ be m~ to ~e ~y com0an~m to fin~ing te~ offer~ by a ~ird p~ instJ~ti~a I~er ~at is ~t alm~ invo~ in ~e pm0e~ or tr~t~on. Any a~j~t ~d ~t be cac~at~ ~ a m~c~ ~11~ for ~11~ coil of ~e fin~l~ or co~ ~ ~e doll~ ~t ad~t ~ld ~m~mate ~ ~ers m~fi~ to ~ fin~i~ or c~ ~ on ~e ~praM~s jud~L STATEMENT OF' UMrT1NG CONDrrlONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CON'I'INGE~T AND UMFFING CONDITIONS: The ~raser's certification ~t ~pe~ in ~e ~;r~ r~o~ is ~ject to ~e follo~ 1. ~ ~r~r ~l ~t be r~le f~ mafl~ of a I~ na~ ~ aff~t ei~ ~ p~ ~ ~ or ~e title to iL ~e ~ ~ 0~ of it ~ ~r r~ 2. ~e ~ ha Dr~i~ a ~et~ in ~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ ~ of ~e i~ ~ ~ ~etch ~s 3. ~ ~ ~ ex~ ~ wal~ fl~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ F~ ~ ~t A~ (or o~er data ~to ~ ~~fo~ or ~ c~ of ~ ~ ~ M W~ c~ (~ ~ p~e of ~u~ w~. toxic offS. it~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ Freddie ~ Fomt 439 6-93 Page 1 of 2 Fa'~ie Mat Form 10048 6-g3 ~a~et m~ti~ to ~o~ it~ of si~ific~t v~a~. If a s~fi¢~t item in a ¢am~le gmOe~ is ~enor to, or more favorite '.~, ~e ~j~t prope~, co~le pmpe~ is infen~ 2. ~ h~e t~ into ~00ra~ re~ I have ~nowledge, ~at ~l stat~ ~ ~nto~ ~n ~ ~ re~o~ am t~e ~ co~t. 3. I stat~ in ~ ~r~ r~ only to ~e c~ti~t ~ limi~ c~ ~fi~ in Ca fem. 4, I h~e ~ ~t or ~ inte~ in ~ p~ ~a is ~e ~i~t to ~is r~o~ ~ I h~e no ore~t or Oro~tive oe~na inte~ or bia ~ ~t to ~e p~c~ a ~ ~ti~. t did ~t b~. eider ~¢ia~ or c~tete~, ~ ~a~is ~d/or ~e estimate of m~et va~ in ~ ~ ~ on ~ r~e, color, mligi~, ~x, h~aic~, f~lial sta~, or national origin of e,~er ~e ~ro~e o~m 5. I h~e ~ p~t or c~t~lat~ co~ for ~edo~ ~j~t~e,~~ ~~~j~of~ I~~j~=for r~ Ice~~~~~t~ I~t~nz~~eac~to~yit~ SUP~RW~OI~Y A.~ C~]~A'rI~ If a ~l~e~vim~ry ~ ~igne4 the al~ais~ re~o~, he or ~ certifie~ ADI311~OFI~OI~RI'YAI~flAIS~3: 1317 ffevacla Avenue North. Ney Ho_t)e. ~ =J~426 APPRAISER: SUP~SORY APPKAISER (re'dy ff N~ J~i~ B lork~d~ N~ Date Si~ A~t 21. I q~ Date S~ or S~ Licm ~ _ aO00~?9 or S~ L~m J: ~t~ ~ ~ Da ~ Did ~t~~ Freddie Mac Foffa 436 6-63 Page 2 of 2 Fame Mae Form 10048 BJORKLUND, C,MtUFEL, LA~~'MAYER, L-NC. BCL APPRAISAl, INC. 2852 ANTHONY LANE SOUTH, MLN'NEAPOLI$, MINNESOTA 55418 (612) 781-0605 Fax: 781-7820 B~AD BJOR~LUND ~^[ REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AL CARUFEL ,~ & RON ~M::HENMAYER saA CONSULTA~'~ Bachelcx of Scienc~ in B:~xmti~, With D~~: ~i~ of ~ 1973 ~i~ ~~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ly ~1~: ~ ~ ~ ~1~ 1989 ~ Of ~f~i~ ~ ~990 ~ A~ Li~ ID~4000579 C~z~.iftM FHA ~ Selm~.i~m ~, Licm,~e #4000579 2985 ~ 2992: MOP. F. THAN 50 ~ APPPcq2M. L EXPERIENCE Acr o Originating Department Approved for Agenda A~enda Section Development City Manager & Planning 8-26-96 Item No. Sarah Bellefuil By: Community Development Specil listBy: 8. ~, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 5212 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH UNDER HUD DIRECT AND PRIVATE SALE PROVISIONS Located at 5212 Winnetka Avenue North is a single family house owned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD has contacted the City stating that the property is eligible for purchase by the City under their Direct and Pdvate Sales provisions. The City has purchased houses from HUD under this program in the past including 7109 62''~ Avenue North, 5009 Winnetka, and 6067 W. Broadway. The City received a notice from HUD on August 14, 1996, indicating that the property is for sale under the Direct and Pdvate Sales program. The pdce is $77,400 and includes a $5,000 reduction for a wet basement and an additional 10% discount for direct sale to the City. The odginal appraisal amount estimated by a HUD appraiser is $91,000. As required by HUD, City staff have indicated preliminary interest by August 25. The City has until September 6, to provide HUD with a formal commitment to purchase the property. The attached resolution is part of the formal commitment. The property is located in a neighborhood formally designated by the Council as blighted and in need of rehabilitation efforts. The homes surrounding the property are in faidy good condition and this property is a detriment to the neighborhood. The site is 72 feet wide and 124 feet deep, or approximately 8,928 square feet in size. The house is a rambler in poor condition. The total living space is 1,490 square feet and includes five bedrooms and one bathroom. The assessed value of the property is $91,000 ($22,000 land, $69,000 building). The City has access to a number of funding sources to purchase, rehabilitate and sell the property, including the following: 1. $60,000 Metro HRA Housing Assistance Loan 2. $40,000 proceeds from the sale of the home at 7109 62"~ Avenue (MHFA grant) 3. CDBG Scattered Site Housing funds. 4. HOME funds MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: ,~l~tion: Finance: RFA-O0 ! ~ Request for Act!on 2 8-26-96 If the Cit~ purchases the property, staff estimates that the rehabilitation costs will range between $20,000 to $25,000. Once the rehabilitation is complete, staff will sell the property to a first-time I~ome buyer for an estimated $90,000 to $95,000. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. ~Y"O00 LITTLE N. RE STATUS REPORT - CODE AMENDMENTS September '1996 1. Pawn Shop Study On-going, 6-month moratorium expires September 11, 1996; extended to March 11, 1997, at 7/22 Council meeting. Informal discussion at October Planning Commission meeting and public hearing to be held at November Planning Commission meeting. 2. Shopping CenterParking Study and ordinance completed; presented to Requirements Planning Commission and City Council in August. Referred back to Commission for reconsideration. 3. Concrete Curbing Study and ordinance completed; presented to Planning Commission in August. Tabled until September Planning Commission meeting. 4. Ice Arena Wall Sign Discussed at July Codes & Standards meeting and presented to Planning Commission and City Council in August. Approved/completed. 5. Food Handling Discussed at July Codes & Standards meeting and presented to Planning Commission and City Council in August. Approved/completed. 6. Minor Variances/Setback Report/survey completed and preliminarily discussed Requirements by Committee; to be presented to Council for direction in September. 7. Temporary Outdoor Sales Report/survey completed; to be discussed at September Codes & Standards meeting. 8. Garages/Accessory Buildings Report/survey to be completed; to be studied by Study Codes & Standards this fall. 9. Communication Towers Moratorium in effect until December 1; North Suburban Cable Commission undertaking study; then presented to Codes & Standards Committee this fall. 10. Loading Docks at Nursing This is an item that the Committee may want to Homes review in the future, per recommendation of the Design & Review Committee. 11. Opinion Signs This item to be discussed at September Codes & Standards meeting. 12. Navarre Corporation Rezoning of No application submitted yet, but property owner has Jacobwith Property indicated an interest in pursuing later this year or early 1997. 13. Update of Comprehensive Plan Per Metropolitan Council directive, staff would like the Committee to undertake this project in 1997. 14. DNR Shoreland Ordinance Need ordinance/report from Planner, per new New Hope Surface Water Management Plan. Page 2 PROJECT NO. 545 ~ BULLETIN NO. 3 PROJECT BULLETIN 6067 WEST BROADWAY Residents were nOtified in April 1996, that the City of New Hope purchased the property at 6067 West Broadway from HUD in October 1995. The City purchased the property with the intent to demolish the house and construct a new single family home on the site. In June 1996, the house located on the property was demolished. Since June, the City has been working with a company on a single family house design for the property. The single family home will be two stories and include three bedrooms, 1½ bathrooms, a living room, dining room, kitchen, dinette, and two-car garage. Once construction is complete, the site will be landscaped and sold to a first-time home buyer. Construction Schedule At their June 24 meeting, the New Hope Economic Development Authority approved the final plans and specifications and ordered an Advertisement for Bids for a single family home to be built at 6067 West Broadway. Since the June 24 meeting, City staff has published an Advertisement for Bids for construction of the single family home. The bids were due August 9, and were presented and approved by the City Council on August 12. Construction on the property will begin sometime in the next two weeks. New Hope City Code states that construction can occur on the site between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Site Upkeep The site will be mowed on a weekly basis during the summer months. Contact Persons If you have questions or concerns, call Community Development Specialist Sarah Bellefuil at 531-5137, or Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Kirk McDonald at 531-5119. The City appreciates the cooperation of all businesses and residents in the area that may be impacted during this project. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North ..... "~' '~" New Hope, MN 55428 From elevation of the house to be built at 6067 W. Broadway. 8/14/96