Loading...
100196 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 1, 1996 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CONSENTITEMS 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1' Case 96-34 Request for a Variance from the Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Expansion of an Existing Screened Porch to a Four-Season Porch, 3809 Xylon Avenue North, Michael & Pamela Terres, Petitioners 3.2* Case 96-33 Request for Rezoning From R-2 (Single & Two Family Residential) Zoning Distdct to R-4 (High Density Residential) Zoning Distdct and Site/Building Plan Review/Approval for Parking Lot Expansion at 5801/5803 & 5805/5807 Winnetka Avenue North, and 8000 Bass Lake Road, St. Therese Home of New Hope, Petitioner 3.3 Case96-21 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 3.4 Case 96-06 Ordinance Amending New Hope Code §4.036(10)(z) Regulating Parking · , Requirements for Shopping Centers, City of New Hope, Petitioner 3.5 Case96-35 Recommendation/Response to City of .Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Re-Guide 5.76 Acre Parcel from CL, Limited Commercial, to CS, Commercial Service, City of New Hope, Petitioner 3.6 Case 96-04 Informal Discussion/Consideration of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the New Hope City Code by Establishing Licensing Regulations for Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal and Second Hand Goods Dealers and An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Pawn Shops as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District, City of New Hope, Petitioner 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee - Next Meeting: October 17 at 8:00 a.m. (if necessary) 4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee - Next Meeting: October 23 or November 20 at 7:00 a.m. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Miscellaneous Issues 6. ~ NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Review of Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1996. 6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of August 26 and September 9, 1996. 6.3 Review of EDA Minutes of September 9, 1996. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS '8. ADJOURNMENT * Petitioners are required to be in attendance. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT . Planning Case: 96-34 Request: Request for a Variance from the Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Expansion of an Existing Screened Porch to a Four-Season Porch Location: 3809 Xylon Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21-43-0002 Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential Petitioner: Michael & Pamela Terres Report Date: September 27, 1996 Meeting Date: October 1, 1996 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioners are requesting a variance from the rear yard setback requirement to allow expansion of an existing screened porch to a four-season porch and a variance to expand a non-conforming home, pursuant to Sections 4.034(3) and 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. The petitioners are proposing to expand an existing 10' x 13' (130 square feet) screened porch, located in the rear yard at the southwest corner of the home, and convert it to a 20' x 21' (420 square feet) four-season, main level porch. 3. City code states that the rear yard setback requirement in a Single Family Residential Zoning District is 35 feet. 4. The proposed porch expansion would be located 11 feet from the rear yard property line (at the closest point), therefore a 24-foot variance from the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement is being requested. 5. The existing home was constructed on this uniquely shaped cul-de-sac lot in 1962. The existing home does not meet the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement, as the existing porch is located 21 feet from the rear property line. That is why a variance to expand a non- conforming structure is also being requested in conjunction with the rear yard setback variance. 6. The property is located on a 9,500 square foot lot on the west side of the cul-de-sac where Xylon Avenue and 38"~ Avenue North intersect. 7.. The property is located in an R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District and is surrounded by single family homes on the north/east/south. The rear yard of the property, where the variance is being requested, abuts up to Northwood Park. 8. The property is located in Planning District #20 of the Comprehensive Plan and no changes were recommended to this established single family neighborhood other than building and site maintenance. 9. The topography of the lot has a uniform slope from the house to the west (rear) towards Northwood Park. · Planning Case 96-34 2 September 27, 1996 10. The petitioners state on the application that the request is due to a shallow lot which was originally developed and built on in 1962. They state that the request should be grante~'-~, because they would like to invest in the home and upgrade the current, somewhat confining, living spaces. 11. Property Owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments regarding this request. ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner, and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 2. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a 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: 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" definitely pertain, since the shallow lot depth and original home design, approved by the City, are beyond the control of the petitioner. The original lot was so shallow (83 feet deep at center) as to prevent any home from being built that complied with zoning setbacks in 1962. If the normal setbacks are applied to this property (30' front yard and 35' rear yard), only 18 feet remained for the depth of the home. B. "Use Compatibility" is maintained with this porch request, as many of the homes in the area already have porches. No expansion investment is possible for this home without a variance. C. "Light and Air," "Street Congestion," and "Public Safety" protections in the code are met with this request. Planning Case 96-34 3 September 27, 1996 D. "Property Values" preservation is met with this investment and such a porch addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. ~ 5. The petitioner has submitted the following details on the porch addition: · Porch to be sided with 12" masonite lap siding to match the existing structure. Shingles planned to match the existing structures (light gray asphalt). · Planned 2" x 12" joist and cross beam construction supported by concrete footings. Cross beams to suspend joists will be at grade level, consistent with existing deck. · Grade is quite level at the perimeter of the planned expansion. · Plans include venting awning picture windows (3 units, 2 singles and I triple) spanning approx. 18'5" of the 21' west face. · South face window planned to be a double hung approximately 4' wide by 6' high. · A 6' sliding door is planned to the existing deck on the 10' north face - see floor plan. · All planned windows and doors to be of Andersen type quality and efficiencies. · Planned roof pitch will change as drawn at the bearing wall separating the garage from the planned porch expansion. Interior ceiling to be vaulted at the same pitch as the roof. 6. The one concern that staff has are the inconsistent roof styles. A more attractive and consistent roof connection, according to the Building Official, would be a matching slope gable roof. The proposed "south elevation" drawing shows a design roof pitch (2:12) that normally would not have asphalt shingles. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of the rear yard setback variance for the porch addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building materials of addition to match existing structure. 2. Petitioner consider an upgrade in the roof design and meet with the Building Official to fine tune a more conventional and attractive roof line. Attachments: Address/Zoning/Topo Maps Property Survey As-Built Site Plan with Addition Floor Plans West/South Elevations Porch Details Submitted by Petitioner Photos Application Log "-'-'--42 ~ ~ 42 92'7.6 42 X 918.9 912.3 907.3 ~' 913.3 IORTH x 908.7 4.2 9 .0 42 X 914. 38TH AVENUE 909.5 NOR'I x 909.5 6.7 X 889.2 X 884.4 i0.4 ) 42 891 .8 ,/ '7708 Lakeland AVe. (Brooklyn Park), 0ss%, Minn. 'Phon~ HA.. 5-2181 . CASWELL ENGINEERING CO. Registered Profe~siona~ Engineers and Land Surveyors CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY For ' ~.', / I hereby c~rtify that thi~ i~ a trut aad corrtct r~prtstntatlon of a lur~ty of th~ koundari~l of th~ land dtlcriktd abov~. It does not p~rport to sh~ i~ve~ots~n encroachments, if any. As surveyed by .me this PLAN DECt. ARAT~ ~ /~' Proposed Porch Expansion for Lot 3, Block 10, Hopewood Hills, 3809 Xylon Ave. N. Michael and Pamela Terres September 6, 1996 Notes: · Porch to be sided with 12" masonite lap siding to match the existing structure. - Shingles planned to match the existing structures' (light gray asphalt). · Planned 2"x12" joist and cross beam construction supported by concrete footings. Cross beams to suspend joists will be at grade level, consistent with existing deck. · Grade is quite level at the perimeter of the planned expansion. · Plans include venting awning picture windows (3 units, 2 singles and 1 triple) spanning approx. 18'5" of the 21' west face. · SoUth face window planned to be a double hung approximately 4' w x 6' h. · A 6' sliding door is planned to the existing deck on the 10' North face - see floor plan. · All planned windows and doors to be of Andersen type quality and efficiencies. · Planned roof pitch will change as drawn at the bearing wall separating the garage from the planned porch expansion. Interior ceiling to be vaulted at the same pitch as the roof. ( 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 96-34 Michael & Pamela Terres 9/9/96 11/8/96 1/7/97 3509 Xylon Avenue Phone: h-541-1652 Phone: w-541-1494 Fax: 541-1494 Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. A. Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the City received the application. D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10'business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60~day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by 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: 96-33 Request: Request for Rezoning From R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) Zoning District to R-4 (High Density Residential) Zoning District and Site/Building Plan Review/Approval for Parking Lot Expansion Location: 5801/5803 & 5805/5807 Winnetka Avenue & 8000 Bass Lake Road PID No.: 06-118-21-41-0027, 06-118-21-41-0026, 06-118-21-41-0029 Zoning: R-2 & R-4 Petitioner: St. Therese Home of New Hope Report Date: September 27, 1996 Meeting Date: October 1, 1996 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting rezoning from R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) Zoning District to R-4 (High Density Residential) Zoning District and site/building plan review/approval for parking lot expansion, pursuant to Sections 4.039A, 4.06, 4.08, 4.20, 4.23 and 4.28 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. St. Therese Home, Inc. has acquired a second parcel of land north of its existing property for the purpose of expanding its parking lot area located adjacent to Winnetka Avenue by 19 net spaces. The parcel of land 5805~5807 Winnetka Avenue was previously used for residential purposes. The twin home that was located on the property is being relocated to another site. St. Therese is requesting site plan review and rezoning from R-2, Single Family and Two Family District to R-4, High Density Residential District to allow the parking lot and include the newly acquired parcel under the same zoning as the balance of the St. Therese property. 3. Approximately five years ago another duplex adjacent to the property was removed to accommodate parking lot expansion. That property is also zoned R-2 and was not rezoned at the time of the previous expansion. This request is to rezone both R-2 properties so that they have similar zoning as the existing R-4 parcel that contains the Nursing Home. 4. The two duplex lots each contain approximately 13,000 square feet, for a total of 26,000 square feet. 5. Land uses surrounding the property include R-4 apartments to the east, B-2 retail to the south, City of New Hope Golf Course and R-4 apartments to the west, and Golf Course and R-2 duplexes to the north. 6. The property is located in Planning District #2 in the Comprehensive Plan. General policies of the Comprehensive Plan include statements to eliminate parking problems with off-street solutions. Planning Case 96-33 2 September 27, 1996 7. The existing parking lot contains 210 parking spaces. The proPosed new parking lot expansio~,~ will add an additional 33 spaces, for a total of 243 parking spaces on the site. 8. The topography of the two duplex properties slopes down about eight feet from the Winnetka frontage towards the west (Golf Course). 9. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments regarding this request. St. Therese has been in close contact with the property owner immediately north of the property to keep them informed of the expansion plans. ANALYSIS REZONING 1. The Planning Consultant has prepared the attached report that addresses the rezoning issue; please refer to it as it is not staff's intention to repeat all of that information in this report. 2. Because St. Therese is a senior housing facility, the Planner is recommending rezoning the entire site to an R-5, Senior Citizen Housing, Zoning District rather than just rezoning the two duplex lots from R-2 to R-4. 3. Staff is in agreement with this recommendation and does feel that the character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of a zoning change. 4. As the Planner points out, the Comprehensive Plan and recently adopted Housing Action Plan contain goals and policies that support approval of the rezoning request. 5. Due to the amount of additional landscaping, screening and buffer area between the proposed parking lot and the R-2 home to the north, the Planner points out that the proposed use will likely be compatible with present and future land uses. While only a five-foot setback for the parking lot on the north is required, the petitioner is providing a setback of 13 feet from the north property line. 6. The Planner also indicates that the proposed use meets all necessary R-4 and R-5 performance standards when considered in combination with the existing St. Therese property. SITE & BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/APPROVAL 1. The Design & Review Committee, City Engineer, Planning Consultant and staff met with the petitioners twice to review/make recommendations on the submitted plans. The Committee met at their regularly scheduled time on September 12 with the petitioner to review the original plans. Revised plans were submitted as a result of that meeting. The Committee met with the petitioner again on September 24 to review the second set of plans and additional revisions to plans were submitted subsequent to that meeting. Staff is pleased to report that all items/changes requested by the Committee have been submitted/incorporated into the plans. 2. The Planner's report also contains a site plan review analysis, so please refer to that report for general site plan information. It is the intent of this report to identify the changes that were incorpoated into the plans subsequent to the last Design & Review meeting. : Planning Case 96-33 3 September 27, 1996 3. These changes include the following: ^. Parking - The petitioner has submitted total parking counts for the entire property. The number of parking spaces provided with the expansion are as follows: Regular Spaces 83 150 233 Handicapped Spaces 4 6 10 243 ADA requirements are one handicapped space per 25 regular spaces, so the plan meets ADA requirements. B. Plantings - The three coniferous plantings located adjacent to Winnetka Avenue have been shifted approximately two feet west, away from the public right-of-way. C. Storm Sewer Discharge - The plans show the abandonment of the old private storm sewer discharging towards the Golf Course and the construction of a new private storm sewer to run north. D. Site Lic~htinc~ - The petitioner has submitted additional site lighting information including the type of light (down lights) and illumination pattern details. The Building Official has confirmed that light levels have been reduced to less than one foot candle at all property lines. E. Winnetka Curb Cut - The plans show the removal/restoration of the Winnetka Avenue street curb cut where the old driveway existed. F. Center Median - The raised center median in the parking lot has been eliminated. G. Fence Detail - The detail of the north fence is shown at a 48" height. H. Buffer - The buffer zone to the north has been widened, as requested. I. Platting/Easement - The petitioner has agreed to start the platting process for the entire property and provide a 20-foot wide storm sewer easement for this public utility, among others. ~' 4. The Plant Materials Schedule is as follows: Coniferous Trees White Spruce 11 B.B. 7' Hr. Picea glauca Techny Arborvitae .' 8 B.B. 6' Hr. Thuja occudentalis "Techny" Planning Case 96-33 4 September 27, 1996 5. Staff commend the petitioner and the Design & Review Committee for their cooperation on thi~.,~ project so the parking lot expansion can proceed yet this fall. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend, approval of the site/building plan review/approval for the parking lot expansion and the rezoning, subject to the following conditions: 1. Performance bond be submitted for improvements; amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official. 2. Complete platting of all parcels into one lot within six months and provide necessary easements. Attachments: Zoning/Address/Topo Maps 9/24 Planner's Report Site Map Demolition/Erosion Control Plan Site Layout, Utility and Grading Plan Site Details Planting Plan Planting Details 9/23 City Engineer Memo Plant Materials Schedule Fence Detail Revised Plans: Landscaping Rip-Rap Flared End Section Storm Pipe Detail Fence Height Light Detail Application Log (NOTE: Revised plans were faxed and are dark. Full scale revised plans will be available at the meeting.) MEADOW 611./J ll~). I .... 1 ~117 I~J(.ll~, J~.lz.w J~z.,,,l. J ELEMENTARY I I 61 ST AVE ~o~ PARK --~[ ~'~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ITH AVE. N. ~-- ME4OO~ ~1oo I/2 ~VE. N. CAKE · 59 TH AVE. N. PARK VILLAGE GREEN GOLF COURSE ST. THERESA NURSING ~3ME 5700 ~K)o ~ ~. ~ 56 TH, A N TY HOSTERMAN WINNETKA JR HIGH SCHOOL ELEMENTARY 5~00 SCHOOL 1.2 0 0 0 0 .- 0 0 I, 07~, Northwest, Associ. ated Consultants, Inc. ' COMMUNITY LANNING DESIGN * MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Daniel Licht / Alan Brixius DATE: 24 September 1996 RE: New Hope - St. Therese Home - Parking Lot Rezoning/ Site Plan Review FILE NO: 131.01 - 96.03 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background St. Therese Home, Inc. has acquired a second parcel of land north of its existing property for the purpose of expanding its parking lot area located adjacent to Winnetka Avenue by 19 net spaces. The parcel of land, 5805~5807 Winnetka Avenue was previously used for residential purposes. The twin home that was located on the property, is being relocated to another site. St. Therese is requesting site plan review and rezoning from R-2, Single Family and Two Family District to R-.4, High Density Residential District to allow the parking lot and include the newly acquired parcel under the same zoning as the balance of the St. Therese property. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - General Location Exhibit B - Existing Site Survey Exhibit C - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit D - Site Details Exhibit E - Landscape Plan Exhibit F - Landscape Details Exhibit G - City Engineers Comments 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555 ,St. Louis Park. MN 55416. (61.,?.) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 Recommendation Decisions regarding the rezoning of property are policy matters to be determined by City Officials based upon a positive response to the following questions: 1. Has the request resulted from a past zoning mistake? 2. Has the character of the area changed to warrant consideration of a zoning change? It is our office's opinion that the requested rezoning is the result of the continuing impact of St. Therese to adjacent properties and the evolution of the area. As such, we believe that the requested rezoning is appropriate. The applicant has requested rezoning to R-4, Multiple Family. This zoning designation would accommodated the proposed use of the subject site. However, our office believes that rezoning the property to R-5, Senior Citizen Housing would offer a more exact definition of the use of the subject site. This wa would therefore recommend that the subject site be rezoned to R-5, Senior Citizen Housing. Should the Planning Commission and City Council agree, we recommend approval of a rezoning to R-5, Senior Citizen Residential Housing and approval of the submitted site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant meet or exceed the requirements for handicap accessible parking established by the American Disability Act. 2. The City Council approve a replat of the subject site combining it with the existing St. Therese site. 3. The existing curb cut to Winnetka Avenue be removed and replaced by curbing. 4. The applicant will be required to provide additional site lighting information including the type of light and illumination pattern details. 5. The proposed plantings located adjacent to Winnetka Avenue be shifted approximately 2 feet to the west, away from the public right-of-way. 6. The applicant extend the existing culvert 18' and provide grading to a slope of 4:1 per the comments of the City Engineer. 7. Comments of other City Staff. 2 REZONING ANALYSIS The subject site is currently zoned R-2 Single Family and Two Family Residential District. To accommodate the proposed parking lot, the applicant is requesting that the site be rezoned to R-4 Multiple Family District, so as to be consistent with the zoning of the existing St. Therese property. The requested R-4 rezoning would accommodate the proposed parking lot use at the subject site. However, in consideration of the nature of the use of St. Therese as senior housing, staff believes that it may be more appropriate to consider rezoning the entire St. Therese property to R-5 Senior Citizen Housing. It is staff's opinion that this zoning designation is a more accurate reflection of the ongoing and future use of the entire St. Therese property, including the subject site. The applicant has indicated that they are agreeable to the R-5 Zoning District. The City of New Hope considers rezoning decisions to be policy matters that are warranted only via a positive response to the following questions: 1. Has the request resulted from a past zoning mistake? The previous use of the property as a residential two-family unit prior to its acquisition by St. Therese was consistent with the site's R-2 Single and Two Family Residential District, as well as the land use designation of the 1977 Comprehensive Plan. It therefore does not appear that this request has resulted from a previous zoning mistake. 2. Has the character of the area changed to warrant consideration of a zoning change. Based upon information within the Comprehensive Plan and a site inspection, it does appear that the character of the area has changed. St. Therese has been an established use within the area that has grown and expanded over time. A previous expansion of the St. Therese parking lot, which involved removal of an existing dwelling, has been approved in the past. In the past, both building and site expansions have been necessary to maintain St. Therese as a vital land use in this area of New Hope. The site expansion into the lot in question appears to be a logical and compatible addition. This history suggests that the uses of adjacent property have changed and evolved over time due to the influence of the multiple family use. In recognizing the influence that St. Therese has had on this area of the City, staff believes that the character of the area has changed to warrant the change in zoning. A determination as to whether this impact warrants consideration of a zoning change is to be made by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3 In addition to the preceding conditions, the City should also review the requested rezoning within the following parameters: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan makes no specific recommendations regarding St. Therese or the adjacent single and two family uses other than to suggest that the single and two-family uses be maintained and upgraded to the extent possible. The Comprehensive Plan and recently adopted Housing Action Plan contain goals and policies that support approval of the request: Goals: Provide safe, healthy and attractive residential environments which offer a broad range and full choice of housing types. Provide sufficient housing and sufficient housing sizes, types and styles to meet the needs of all segments of the population, notably groups with specialized housing needs, such as the elderly or physically challenged. Policies: Encourage and promote adequate living space and fully utilized housing through the provision of a range of choice among housing types and options. Protect Iow density residential neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible higher use types by providing adequate buffedng and separation form other residential, as well as non- residential, use categories. Ensure that intensification of land use activity and development is accompanied by sufficient corresponding increased in related supportive and service facilities such as off-street parking. Accomplish transitions betwccn distinctly differing types of land uses in an orderly fashion which does not create a negative (economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. Maintain and where necessary, strengthen the character of individual neighborhoods. Provide high density development with reasonable, but not necessarily direct, access to major thoroughfares. 4 Locate multiple family housing in areas not inferior to those generally used for conventional single family housing. The proposed rezoning does expand into a lower density neighborhood. However, through site design measures, the applicant has provided significant landscape buffers in an attempt to reduce compatibility issues. With these considerations, the St. Therese expansion is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. As the general land uses within the area would not change as a result of this request, the proposed use would likely be compatible with present and future land uses. The St. Therese parking area is simply getting larger with a corresponding reduction in residential area. The general relationship of the uses is unchanged. A degree of concern does exist regarding the impact of the proposed parking lot expansion to the Iow density residential area to the north. The proposed parking area represents an intrusion into an established residential area. The applicant has provided significant additional landscaping and screening along the property line to protect the existing dwelling from impacts associated with the proposed parking lot. In addition, the proposed parking lot is to be setback approximately 13 feet from the property line, when only a 5 foot setback is required. Staff believes that these landscape and buffer elements, as well as increased setback distance, is sufficient to protect the existing dwelling from potential negative impacts. 3. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. In consideration of the subject site as separate from the balance of the St. Therese property, the site, as it currently exists, does not meet the lot area or lot width requirements of the R-4, Multiple Family District or R-5 Senior Citizen Residential Housing District. Lot Area Lot Width Existing 13,300 sq.ft. 91 feet Required (R-4) 15,000 sq.ft. 100 feet Required (R-5) 15,000 sq.ft. 100 feet However, when considered in combination with the existing St. Therese property, the minimum lot size and width requirements of the R-4 and R-5 Districts are satisfied. As such the applicant will be required to formally combine the property 5 through the subdivision platting process if the proposed rezoning is approved. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. The removal of the previous twin home and construction of a parking area on the subject site would not overburden the City's service capacity. ,5. Traffic generated by the proposed use is within the capabilities of the streets serving the property. The St. Therese property, including the proposed lot expansion area is proposed to have access to Winnetka Avenue via an existing access. The proposed 19 additiona!parking stalls is not anticipated to overburden the capacity of Winnetka Avenue. SITE PLAN REVIEW ANALYSIS Request. The applicant is requesting site plan approval of an expansion of their exiting parking lot to include a second parcel of land that has been acquired. The parking lot expansion will result in a net increase of 19 parking stalls. Same Lot/Owner, Section 4.036 (5) (a) of the Zoning Ordinance requires off-street parking to be on the same lot under the same ownership as the principal use. While the subject site is under ownership of St. Therese, it would not be of the same lot. The applicant has indicated that they will replat the subject property to combine it the existing St. Therese property. The City should regard the lot consolidation as a condition of site plan approval. Impact of additional parking to required disability parking. The Amedcan Disability Act requires a certain number of disability access stalls based upon the total number of parking stall provided. As St. Therese is increasing their total number of spaces, they may be required to provide additional disability stalls. The applicant will be require to demonstrate compliance with regards to the number of required accessible stalls. -" Street Access. Street access to the expanded parking area is to be provided by the existing curb cut located on the St. Therese property. The submitted site plan illustrates a curb cut adjacent to the subject site which will be removed at the expense of the applicant. This curb cut provided access to the previous residential use of the site and no connection to the expanded parking lot is proposed. 6 Lighting. The submitted site plan indicated the location of site lighting. The description ~-~ specifies a 25 foot standard, however, no additional details are provided other than the type will be similar to existing light standards. Given the light standard's 25 foot height, some impact to the adjacent property may occur. The applicant will be required to provide additional site lighting information including the type of light and illumination pattern details. Parking Lot Design. In review of the submitted plans, the proposed parking lot meets the parking stall and drive aisle design requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the drive aisle that abuts the parking stalls adjacent to the north property line measures 22.5 feet due to a concrete barrier that runs parallel to the drive aisle being offset 1.5 feet from the parking stalls it abuts. The Zoning Ordinance requires two way drive aisles to measure 24 feet. The applicant has indicated that the proposed barrier will not be installed. Thus the drive aisle meets the required 24 ft. width. Landscape Plan. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that provide additional screening between the proposed parking lot and existing dwelling to the north.~ The applicant is proposing to plant nine 7ft. White Spruce trees along the north property line. In addition the fence located on the existing north property line will be relocated to the proposed north property in line to the south (parking lots side) of the proposed White Spruce trees. The trees and relocated fence will be at the same elevation as the proposed parking surface. Staff believes that these landscape elements and buffers are functionally and aesthetically appropriate to screen the view of the proposed parking lot from the existing dwelling to the north. The landscape plan has also provides additional plantings along Winnetka Avenue. These plantings are located for more aesthetic purposes rather than a functional screen. The proposed plantings will serve to visually disrupt the view of the parking lot from Winnetka Avenue. It should be noted that the proposed plantings are located right on the property line. While not prohibited in the Zoning Ordinance, this location may be problematic if any improvements occur in the right-of-way. There are currently existing plantings of the same type within the right-of-way. The applicant has indicated that these plantings will be shifted approximately 2 feet to the west, off of the property line. Existing Culvert Retaining Wall. The City Engineer has raised concerned that the existing retaining wall has deteriorated and may not support the parking surface. Staff recommends that the applicant extend the existing culvert approximately 18 feet and provide a slope of 4:1 to eliminate the retaining wall and avoid an unsafe drop between the parking lot and the existing culvert. 7 CONCLUSION The applicants have requested rezoning to R-4 and site plan approval to allow a parking lot expansion for St. Therese. The requested R-4 zoning would accommodate the proposed use of the subject site by St. Therese. However, based upon the considerations outlined in this report, our office believes that a rezoning of the subject site as well as the entire St. Therese property to R-5, Senior Citizen Residential Housing would be more appropriate. The R-5 zoning of the site would be a more accurate reflection of the current and future use of the site by St. Therese. Overall, we find that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and that the applicant has taken sufficient actions to negate potential negative impacts to adjacent residential uses. Should the Planning Commission find that the requested rezoning is warranted, they may choose to recommend to the City Council approval of rezoning to R-5, Senior Citizen Residential Housing. Our specific recommendations regarding the requested rezoning and site plan review are outlined in the Executive Summary of this report. 8 City of New. Hope SING~[ FJMILY RESIOENTIAL SINGLE ANO TWO FJMI~y RE~O[NTIAL R-Z MEDIUM 0[NSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENS/TY RES~DENT[AI. SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL OFFICE R-O LIMITED NEtGHSORNQOO BUSINESS RETAIL BUSINESS B''~ AUTO ORIENTED BUSINESS S* 3 COMMUNITY BUSINESS L,IMITED iNDUSTRIAL, GENERAL, INDUSTRIAL Fl. O00 PI.AiN FP wET L,ANO W Associated ~ Consultants. inc. "EXHIBIT A ST. THEP. ESE OF NEW HOPE NE'er HOPE. (~ CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING P LiNT I ~'-G DETAILS CONTRACT DOCUMENTS .. EXHIBIT F o~'~ B. NESTRO0 AND ASSOCIATES "~ 612 6361.'.11 C"/23/96 11:05 ~ :02 N0:167 ,~ Bonestroo ~' ...... ""~"' ~'"'"" ..... ~ .... ' ............ " ............ ~ ...... '"""'"""' ..... '" Roche ': ........ '~ ~"" "~"'"" ....... "'" ........ ' '""'" ....... "~ '"" ...... "'.'  Anderlik & ,,~,~,~,0,,,,.,~..,,....,,,,, ........ ,, .,~,.,,., ...... ,.,,~. ~,,,,,, ...... ,,. Enginccr~ & Architects , ~,~'~ ~.. DATE: $¢i~ml~r 23, 1996 TO: Kjdt McDonn]d FROM: Mark Hanson SUBJP, C~: St. Thcmse Nurling Home Pm-ldng Lm F, xpefl,don Our Pilc No. 34-Oen ('E06-2.5) A revised plan has been submitted for the abm~-t=ferenced project. Baaed on our commenu from our memo dazed September 10. 1996. and the,revised plaa, we tecomm~Kt the followia8: · The pmpo~.xl storm ~we~ Lq conn~cmd lo d~ cx/sting 30-inch storm sgw~' a~ mcomme, ndccl; however, the existing storm sewcz is not. Prom an cogincc6ng stmdpoint, it is recommended thc existing storm sewer be connected to MH.~ A draina~ and utility casement (20 feet wide) shall be provided over the exi~n[ ~0-incb diamem- storm sewcr. · Thc existing mtalning wall over the ~0-1ncb public sttwm sewer is shown being left in plat~c. Prom an cn~imcdn$ standpoint, It is r~commcndcd ~¢ exJstin] rctaining wall be removed and tl~ 30-trice diamctc~ storm scwcr piin b~ ¢~tcndcd 18 teat to In'Ovide · minimum 4:1 slope. Anod~r alternative is to moait~ tb~ condttkm of the existing retaining wall during eonatmeaon and evaluate if Its reconstruction is warranted during cons~on ot tl~ storm sewer plpa be extended. All costs shall b~ th~ r~pousibili~ of St. ~. · As surfd in our lnvimm me,~. ~he dndm~ issues be~ve~ St. 'Tlm~.se aad the Golf Co~tse acljamm to Fairwey 1~. 2 ~ be imM~ed in a coogenav~ effort. No iml~ov~ments shown on the m~r, od plana as .ubmiund. EXHIBIT G PLANT MATERIALS SCHEDULE WHITE SPRUC[ Pieea Iouca 7' HT. AS SHOIM~I TECHNY ARBORVITAE ' occudentalie 'Techn, 6' HT. AS SHOWN 4'-~° VAR~$ T R A N $ M I T T A L ~-~ / ~ 1 ...... ,~-- __ _ ~_ ,~l.. 1 _ -- ~ ..... ~, .~ ~ ~ FO~ ~. ~~ HO~ I FP, O~ (~D) 09. 25'96 14:55 ./'NO. 3562181193 ,:'%'&-.,,2¢ , ~ ,-' : ' ' ',,. * . ",. ' ' ' ' :: , '~" '""'"~ ~ ~ ~/~' '~ ;' '. t. ~ %" '; ~ ~.~." :~%,. ,~,, ~' -,.,. .:"~ ,,, , , .,.~: ,'¢~. -,.,¢ , ' ¢ ;.'~. :" ''.f ...... //"~ ';-. '~,~ . ,~..¢ , . . ,- ~ ~.~'.~-, .,.,;-~..',', ~.' ;,.}, .. ~- ~ .',. , ~:~,..~,- ", ~,.~ ' , ..... :, .,.. . '~.~:/,.,;?.%1.~. , .,. ''~-..:. , 2. .- . ' ,% '. ~. ~". ?RO.~ ~ (t~D)09. 25'96 14'54 ,/'NO. 3562tBtt93 ? 5 ?t0~ (~D)09. 25' 96 I4:53 ~0. 3562181~93 ?4 :~.~,,;,., ~,¢,~ ~,. '.;~ ~,4 ,, .. ':,.,, .... ,~, :"¢~"' "'::~- ..... "'"I"~J "" .... "' ~,,.,~., ~, ~,.'~ .~:' - . ~ " t' ' ...,. . ..r. - - · ...;.~ ¢. ,,.r, :,.: : ~,~ *'. · , ,,,*;~.. ~r,j' ;.. .% ~, . '. ~ ~ ,~' * '.,.,' '~,,.. ¢' ¢'~.. ~ * '~ ,. ~ ~2 '; "~' FEATURES ............................................. . ....... HOUSING -- Rugged, .063' thick, lightweight aluminum rectilin- Catalog number .. ~' ear housing. All seams are continuously welded for weather- ' .................................................................. tight seal and integrity. Dark Bronze (DOB)TGIC-FREE polye~. A~m-Mounted Rectilinear Cutoff Lighting ter powder finish is standard. Other powder architectural cot- o..v.,,.,.. KSF2 400M DOOR FRAME -- Natural anodized extruded aluminum door frame with mitered comers is retained with (two) .188' diam- eter hinge pins and secured W~th (one) quarter-turn, quick ,-',~.~~'~ ~ 400W METAL HALIDE release fastener. Weatherproof seal between housing and door frame is accomplished with an integrally designed, ex- 15' to 25' Mounting truded silicone gasket that snaps into door frame. ! --' LENS-- .125' thick impact-resistant tempered glass with ther- mally-applied, silk screened power door shield. Standard dimensions MOUNTING -- Extruded 4" aluminum arm for pole or wall mount- ing shipped in fixture carton. Optional mountings available. EPA: Z0 fl2 (.28m2) (includes arm) Lengl~: 25 -5/16 (64.3) OPTICS ---Anodized segmented reflectors for superior uniformity Wide: 18-1/2 (47.0) and control, which allows the flexibility to mix distributions without compromising the overall lighting job. Reflectors are Oepl~: 8-5/16 (21.1) rotatable and interchangeable. Four cutoff distributions avail- Weight: 52 lbs (23.6kg) able: Type II (Roadway), Type III (Asymmetric), Type IV (For- Arm: 4 (10.2) ward Throw), Type V (Square Symmetrical). ELECTRICAL SYSTEM -- Constant-wattage autotransformer, ir----~l_Arm! 100% copper wound and factory tested (-2(Y'F starting). Re- I movable power door and positive locking disconnect plug. O SOCKET- Porcelain, horizontal position-oriented mogul-base socket with copper alloy nickel plated screw shell and center contact. UL listed 1500VV- 600V. L LISTING -- UL 1572 listed for wet locations. CSA certified (see options}. All dimen~ona a~e inchel (cinfimMem) unless othe~v~e ORDERING INFORMATION' Choose the boldface catalog nomenclature that best suits your needs and Example: KSF2 4O0M R3 120 SP04 SF DOB write it in the appropriate blank. KSF2 KSFZ 4~M ~ IZ~ ~ Square pole (4' ami) (mndardP Shipped lastailed II Fixture Amhiteetlal Colem (powder finish Z,l $[~ Square pale (9- arm) SF Single fuse (1~, Z77, 347V, I Di,~budo. I 2# RPI4 Round pola (4' arm}3 TS) DBa Dado bronze (standard) I I ZT/ RP06 Round pole (9' arm) OF Double fuse (208, 240, 4a0V, n/a OWN Whim R2 lES Type II Roadway 347 WW04 Wood pole of wall (4- ami) TB) OgL Black 113 lES Type III Asymme.~c 411 WBO~ Wall bracket (9' arm) PER NEMA twist-lock receptacle only (no photocont~ol) Cla~ie R~ lES Type IV Fofwa~d TBz M~ Mounting b~ackst DM~ Medium bronze Throw QI~ Quartz resl~ike system (75W max) (lamp not included) DNA Natural aluminum R6~ lES Type V Square 0PTIO~M. MOUN11N° (shipped separately) EC Emergency Circuit O~ $andstoue DA121~ Degree arm (Pole) CI! Corrosion-resistant Finish DGC Charcoal gray DAI2W Degree arm (Wood Pole of Wall) (:SA Labeled for US shipment to DTG Tennis green NOTES: ~ Mast arm adapter Canada (120, Z77, 347V only) DBR Bright red t u~e with ED2~ reduced jedmead lame. ~ Twin mounting bar ShiPlmd mparalely4 D~ Steel blue 2 Optional muRi-tap ~ (120, 2(~, 240, ZT/V). PE1 NEMA twist-lock PE(120, 208, oriented on & 90~ drilling i~ttMn. PO NEMA twist-lock PE (347V) 4 May b~ ordmred al aeemm~:~y, 5 Add~o~al architectural COlOm avaihble; see plier brochure. PE4 NEMA twist-lock PE (480V) PE7 NEMA t,,~st-lock PE (277V) Tenon Mounting SlipfitMr ~ Sho~ng cap for PER opl~ou Order as separate catalog number. 1(2t~ House side shield iR3 only) ~-~ Number of fixtures K2VG Vandal guard Tenon 0.O. One TwoO180' Two~30'~ Three~lZO' Three.S0°~ Four~3O~ .' ' ""~' .'.. ~. ,: 2-3/8' T21-1N T2~211 T21-2~1 T20-321 T21-361 T21-461 2-7/8' T2S-IN T25.2ll T2S-2N T2S-321 T26-3N T264al 4' 1'3~1N T3S-Z# 'r3~2N ~ ~ 'r3s-4N ~' ARCHrrECTURAL OUTOOOR UGHlqN~ .' KSF2 M3 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 96-33 Sr. Bernice Ebner, CEO 9/6/96 11/5/96 1/4/97 'l St. Therese Home of New Hope 8000 Bass Lake Road 5801/5803 Winnetka 5805/5807 Winnetka Phone: 531-5014 Fax: 531-5004 Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. A. Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the City received the application. D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is 'restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 96-21 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.: 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: September 27, 1996 Meeting Date: October 1, 1996 UPDATE 1. At the August 6 Planning Commission meeting, City staff requested Planning Commission 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. 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. 2. The City Attorney had prepared an 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 original proposed ordinance stated 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." The current ordinance exempts single, two family and townhouses from installing perimeter Curbing and the odginal revised ordinance continued that exemption; as the intent was to require interior concrete curbing for commercial and industrial sites. The Codes & Standards Committee reviewed/approved the revised ordinance this summer and the ordinance was considered by the full Planning Commission at its August meeting. At that time several Commissioners indicated an interest in revising the ordinance to require townhouses to also have perimeter concrete curbing. Staff 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 was completed in August. Planning Case 96-21 2 September 27, 1996 3. After reviewing this information with the Planning Consultant, it was staff's recommendatiO, that this matter again be tabled at the September Planning Commission meeting and be referred to the Planner for a more detailed report. The Planner indicated 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. Staff felt that the Planner probably needed to clarify the criteria that should be considered when requiring or not requiring concrete curb. The Commission tabled action on the ordinance at the September meeting. 4. The Planning Consultant prepared the attached report on this issue with a proposed new ordinance. Please review the 9118 Planner's report. 5. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed this report at their September 25 meeting and discussed whether the issues that were raised by the Commission were addressed or not. The consensus of the Committee was that the new ordinance was acceptable. The Committee requested that staff review the new ordinance with the Commissioner that raised the issue initially. This was done, the Commissioner feels the revised ordinance is acceptable and it has been placed on the agenda for reconsideration. 6. The City Attorney prepared the attached final ordinance. The ordinance states that all off-street parking areas would be required to construct perimeter concrete curbing around parking areas with the exception of single-family and two-family dwellings and townhouse units with direct street access to garages. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Attachments: 9/26 City Attorney Correspondence and Ordinance 96-14 9/18 Planner's Report August/September Staff Reports August/September Planning Commission Minutes ?,O2/O3 SE?-26-@6 T~U ~t~38 ..... September 26, ~996 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. ¢it7 of New HOpe 4401Xylon, Avenue North New Hope~ MN 55428 RE: Amendment to Perimeter Con, rate 6urblng Ordinance Our File No; 99.49~1¢ Dear Kirk: In follow upto our Septeaber 26, 1996 telephone conversation, please find enclosed amended Ordinance No. 96-14, an Ordinance Amending New Ho~e City Code §4.0Z6(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-Street Parking by Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parklng Areas for consideration at the OGtober Planntng Comatssion meeting. Pursuant to our discussions at the September ZS, lgge Codes and Standards meeting, the enclosed Ordinance has been amended to exempt townhouse units wlth dtrect street access to garages from the perimeter concrete curbing requirement. is a result, all off-street parking areas would be required to construct perimeter concrete curbing around parking areas wtth the exception of single-family and two-family dwellings and townhouse unit~ with the direat street aCCesS tO garages. If you hive any other queettono or consents regarding thii Ordinance, pleaae contaGt me. Very truly yours, . Steven'A. Sondrall sit Enolosure cc: Valerie Leone, City Clerk A1 Brix~ua, ¢tt¥ Planner SEP-26-96 THU 11:38 P. 03/03 ORDINANCE NO. 96-1~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CITY CODE SECTION 4.036(4)(h)(xv) REGULATING OFF-STREET PARKING BY REQUIRING PERIUETER CONCRETE CURBING AROUND OFF-STREET PARKINQ AREAS The City Council of the City of New HoDs ordains: Sec~io~ 1.. Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) "Curblna and Lands;aDios" of the New Hope Code la hereby amended to read aa follows= (xv) C~rbin~ and ~andscapin~. C~c;~t-'-- -= .... , G,%d itC~,%h~k;C, CC, :~ll o~en off-street =arktng shall have e oO~_t_~ perimeter concrete curb~ne ~, ~ ~th+KNltSa recommended by the Otty Engineer~ around the entire parking lot, said curb barrier shall not be closer than five feet to any lot line. Plantinss or eurfa¢in9 materi&l shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area, No lanuscaoing in the boulevard shall interfere with the view of the street for driver's entering or exiting the premises, This r~guirement shall ~qt e~gly to off?street Decking areas for atflela family pr two family dwellinee or ~ownhouae units with direr[ street acGess to ;are;es. ~.9.~. EffeGttve Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its ~assage and oubltcat~on. Dated the day Of ..... , 1996. Cdw. J. Erickeon, M~yor Atteat: Valerie Leone, City Clerk Publiohed in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the day of .... ~ 1~6.) Northwest Associated nsultants, Inc COMMUNITY PLANNING · DE~IG MARKET RE~EA-I~C~ MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Daniel Licht ! Alan Brixiua DATE: 19 Septembe;' 1996 RE: New Hope - Continuous Curt) FILE NO.: 131.00 - 96.08 BACKGROUND The Planning Comm~, at b 6 August 1996 meeting cor~idered an amertdment to the Zoning Ordinance that would require concrete curbing for all off stre~ parking areas except for single family and two family use~. This amendment had been prompted by a previous development appllcatlon. The applicant in that case bed requested that ~ 13e allowed to install bituminous curling rather than concrete. The current Zoning Ordinance regardi~ curbing vms no~ apeci~ aa to lhe type of material ~ be utilized. However, it was de~ermined that corx:rete curbing ~ the IXefatred malarial and that ia what was required. In order to avoid such discuaaion~ in the future, art ordinance amandmant was drafted to specify that concrete curbing was required. As with the currant Ordinance, single family and two family ~ were exempted from this requireme~ During the Planning also exempted. The prolx~ amendme~ m table to allow staff additional time to study tt~ issue. The following is an analysis of the need for concrete curbing within townhome developments. Attached for Referance Exhibit A: Revi~KI Ordinance Amertd~t IssuEs ANN. YS~ l'm, mhouee/Cendominlum. Dudng the Planning Commission meeting them was some discussion regarding appl~ of tim proposed ordinm'K~ amendment to tc~houae and condominiums. It should be clarified that the terms townhouse and condominiums refer to differerrt cheracterisflce of dwelling units. The definitions of each from the Zoning Ordinance are included below for reference: 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555' St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636oFax. 595-9837 Townhouse: Structures housing three or more dwelling units of not mom than two stories each and contiguous to each other only by the shadng of one ~=mm~ wail, such st~'uctures to be of the town or row house type as contrasted to multiple dwelling apartment structures. Eact~ ctwelling unit shall have a separate and individual front and ~ear entrances from the exterior. Condominium: A multiple dwelling or development containing individually owned dwelling units and jointly owned and shared areas and facilities, wtlicll dwelling is subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Condominium Law, Minnesota Statutes, As illustrated by the above definitions, the term 'townhouse' refers to a specific type of multiple family rivalling, which is defined by unique characteristics. The term 'condominium' is a reference to ti3e ovwlemllip characte~sfi~ of a multiple family dv~lling unit. This v~uid include to~'Ynouse~ as v~il as individual units in a multiple family building such as an apa~ higi'H'ise. The only criteda necessary for a multiple family dwelling or townhouse development to be classified as a condominium ia that the individual units are individually owned with a common ownership of public areas. Thus these two terms are not interchangeable. Based upon tt~ meeting minutes from the 6 August 1996 Planning Commission meeting, our office believes that trte issue at question is the provision of concrete curbing for townl~ouse developments. ~ of Curbing. Sirnply, Curbing of peddng areas ~erve tva3 functions. First, curbing helps to channel water runoff into storm water facilities. Second, concrete curbing serves to define the boundaries of parking arese and re~'lct vehicle movement within the parking Townhouse Parfdn~ ~ Parking areas for townllouse~ and town house deve~ vary. Some townhousea have frontage along · public street with off street parking and garage acce~ provided in a heed-in f~hion as is typical to single family and two family dv~iling units. Other townhouse developments will be accessed by a pdvate street that intemects the public street. Off street parking for individual units from the private street ia also typically heed in perking with garage access. In addition, townhouse devetopmenta typically provide off-street parldng to accommodate gust parking. The issue raiesd by the plarmi~ =3remission requires a determination be made as to what off street perking areas of townhouse developments be required to provide surrounding concrete curb and gutter. DIr~mt Access to Public Street. ~ townhouses that have direct head-in acceu to a public street function in a manner similar to single and two family units. Therefore it is 2 not anticipated that concrete curb and gutter would be necessary around these parking _. Private Street Access. ¥ow~house developmsnts which are provided access Yfa a p~vat~ street require ti'mt tim specific a~eas be defined in terms of tl~eir need for concrete cum and gutter. , Private Street. No on-street parking is typically allowed on private streets. In addition concrete curb is most often required of these roadways. · Guest Parldng Areas. ~ parking areas at townhouse developments are small off-street parking areas provided for general use and not related to any specific unit. In this ~ they funclxx3 nx3m like a parking lot at a multiple family apartment building than an individual ddveway of a single or two-family dwelling. They are also often provided as direct head-in parking from the pdvate street Given these factors it would seem logical to require curbing around these areas to help delineate guest parking areas as public and al~o channel StmTn water runoff. · Off street parking for specific unit~. Most townhome units will have specific off- street parking ames designated to the specific unit. These areas function in much · the same way as off-etre~ parking f~ single family and two family dwelling serving as a driveway with access to a garage structure. As with townhouses with direct access to a public sl~'eet, limits on the widlt3 of such driveway area need to be imposed to provide for appropriate greenspace and avoid storm water runoff problems. ReviSed Ordinance Amendment. Our office has revised We proposed ordinance amendment to provide additional language specifying curbing requirements for tow~house developments. Essentially concrete curb would be required around all common parking areas. Off-street parking for specific individual dwelling units va3uid be exempt provide that the surfaced area was four stalls wide or less. CONCLUSION In review of the off-~'eet parking charactedstic~ of tow~house developments, our office believes that in those, inelancee where the off-street parking is similar in nature to that of a single family of two family unit, concrete curbing ia not necessary. These instances include heacl4n parkklg ~ specific individual units of a widtll not grater than two adjacent two-~all garage& In are~ oti3m' man ~e~e case~, off-stre~ parking serves as more of a general parking lot similar in characteristic to a parking lot of a multiple family apartment building. In this regard it ie our opinion that it is appropriate to require concrete curb and gutter around these areas. Concrete curb around .these areas will provide additional identification of ~ areas es public parking and tmsist with channeling storm water 3 runoff. Therefore, our office recommends that the Planning Commission approve the revised Ordinance amendment and recommended adoption to the City Council. ; 4 ORDINANCE NO. 9~-14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE CITY COOE SECTION 4.036 (4XhXxv) REGULATING PERIMETER CONCRETE CURBING AROUND OFF STREET PARKING AREA~o . The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) 'Curbing and Landscaping' of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (xv) Curbina and Landacaoino. _ _' , ' ,~, '.~1 open of~-street parking'sh~ll have a i' perimeter ~ curbing barrier, unless ott'tepwise ~ by tl~ City Engineer, around the entire paddng ~. id curb bamer sl3all not be closer than five feet to any lot line. Plantings or surfacing matedal shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area. No landscaping in the boulevard sl3ail interfere with the view of the street for ddvers entering or exiting the premise,~. The following shall not be required to provide continuous concrete curb around off-etreet parking areae: a. Single family dwellings b. Two family dwelli~ c. Townhouae units wi~ head in access to driveways and/or garage~. =~iil;2Jg0..~ EfflK~ve Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the , day of, ,19~6. Edw. J. Ertl, Mayo~ ~alede Leone, City Clerk Publisi3ed in the New Hopa-C~den Valley S[xt Poet tl~ day of .. _. 1998. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT '-~ Planning Case: 96-Z'1 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.: 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 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. 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. 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 Wall open off- street parking shall have a perimeter curb barder around the entire parking lot" and the proposed ordinance states that "all open off-street parking shall have continuous perimeter concrete curbinq, unless otherwise recommended by the City Engineer 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, 1S96 requested that the ordinance be tabled so that research ceuld 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 i[npact 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 i CL'RB i TOTAL L'NITSI TYPE i , [ 0TMAve. d,: West Broadway R-4 4 & 6 Town. house no curb t 6 total 2 Hidden Park R-4 17 Condominium concrete ,61'~ Ave. & West Broadway 68 total (Apartment) 3 [ 62"a & Sumter R-3 6 Condominium no curb 6 total {Townhouse) 4 51~' Ave. & Winnetka R.-3 6 Townhouse no curb 18 total 5 Sandpiper Cove R-3 4 8,: 6 Duplex/ concrete 42"': Ave. & Boone Duplex=20/Townhouse=16 Townhouse 36 total 6 Valley Wood R-4 22 Condominium concrete 42"'~ 8: Boone 22 total (Apartment) 7 35* & Independence R-3 4 Townhouse no curb 20 total 8 9208 29* Ave. R-3 4 Townhouse no curb 4 total 9 Presidential Estates 1 R4 72 Condominium concrete 280' & Flag 72 total (Apartment) i0 Presidential Estates 2 R4 72 Condominium concrete 280' & 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 facilitiea, which dwelling is subject to the provisions on the Minnesota Condominium Law. Minnesota Statutes." Condominiums are a permitted use in Residential Zoning Districts according to Minnesota Statute 515. Multiple Dwelling (apaatmenO. "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 Residential provided they contain twelve or less dwelling units. Towrthouse. "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 apartment 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. _._~ ~ .... ~ ~-_-:"_---~-__ L_~. ~-"~ PROJECT/LOCATiON 61~ Av~. & Wes~ Broadway ,' ,~:~.~ _~ ~i~ 2. Hidden Park ~ 61~ Ave. & West Broadway -- 3. 61~ & Sumter x4. 51'* Ave. & Winnetk~ ---i Sandpiper Cove 42'a Ave. & Boone Valley Wood 42d & Boone .7. 35* & Independence 8. 9208 29"' Ave. Presidential Estates 1 28"' & Flag 10. Presidential Estates 2 -- 28* & Hillsboro 11.27" Ave. & Flag CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT P!ann~ng 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: PIP 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 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 interior 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 haa prepared the attached Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv) Regulating Off-Street Parking by Requiting Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parking Areas. The current City Code states that "all open afl- street parking shall have a 0edmeter curb barrier around the entire parking lot" and the proposed ordinanCe states that 'all open off-street parking shall have continuous perimeter concrete curbinq, unless otherwise recommended by. the City Ena_ineer around the entire parking lot." 8. The Codes & Standards Committee reviewed this proposed ordinance amendment at their June meeting and is recommending approval of the amendment. P,anmng Case 96-21 2 August 2. & : 7. The amendment would be applicable to all Zoning Districts except for s~ngte, two-faro townhouse developments. _. 8. A public heanng 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 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 The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1, Section ~,036(~)(h)(xv)"Curbin~ and Landscap~nq" of t~e New Hope Code is ~ereby added to read as follows: (xv] Curbinq and Landscaping. Except for single, two family and townhouses, all DOan off-street parking shall have e cqntinuous perimeter concrete curb~_J3_~ i~i-e~, un3e~s otherwise recommended by the City Eneineer. around the entire parking 3pt, said curb barrier shall not be c3oser than five feet to any lot line. Plantings or surfacing material shai1 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 Oate. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and 13ublication. Oat ed the day of , 199e. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk Published in the New Hope-Golden valley Sun-Post t~e day of 1996.) June 12, ~996 Kirk McDonald Management ASSt. City of New NODe · 401Xylon Avenue North New HODe, MN 55428 RE: Codes and Standards Meeting Prooosed Ordinance for Off-Street Parking StandarUs/Continuous Concrete Curbing for Parking Lots Our File NO: gg.4961& Oear Kirk: =lease find enclosed for consideration at the June 19, 1996 Codes and Standards meeting a Drogosad Ordinance amending New HoOe Code §4-.036(4)(h)(xv) regulating curbing for off-street oarking lots. It is my understanding th® recommendation is for off-street ~arking lots to bm constructed with concrete gerimeter curbing. After reviewing the referenced code section, wa simDly need to insert the word "concrete" within t~a language of t~a section to imDlement the ra¢ommand&tion. The enclosed gro~osed Ordinance ~rovides for the gerimeter concrete curbing requirement. Contact ma if you have any questions. very truly yours, Steven A. $ondr111 Enclosure cc: Alan arixius, City Planner was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl. Voting in favor: All. Motion carried. Case96-21 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.1, An Ordinance Item 3.1 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. ×~ Chairman Sonsin commented that some of the wording has been changed ×,,'~ in this ordinance amendment. This began from the Lasky case where /? asphalt curbing was requested by the petitioner rather than concrete ~ curbing. The precedent has Dean concrete curbing but this wording  change formalizes the ordinance. Commissioner Cassen stated she understands why single family and two family is an exception for this ordinance, but wondered why townhouses and condos aren't required to have concrete curbing. Many times there / are townhouses that have a legal description as condo so how does the City determine what the right definition is. What happens in the future if townhouses are rehabbed or a new development is constructed. Concrete curbing would be required at these developments. Commissioner Cassen suggested that townhouses not be exempted from the ordinance amendment. The City Attorney clarified that Commissioner Cassen wanted townhouses and condos to be required to install continuous concrete curbing. Commissioner Cassen confirmed this saying there is guest parking included at these developments. Many times townhouses '~ are considered a condo because of the legal description. Mr. Sondrall ~ stated that in New Hope the condos are mostly double units. Commissioner Underdahl stated that there are several townhouses just south of Bass Lake Road between Boone and Winnetka. Chairman Sonsin questioned the zoning of townhouses in the code and it was determined that townhouses are in the R-3 District, which, by definition, is something other than single family or two family homes. The City Attorney stated that R-3 uses are subject to this ordinance. The only Zoning Districts that are exempt are Single Family (R-l) and Two Family (R-2). If the use does not fit in either Single or Two Family Districts, then the use is not exempt. . The City Attorney explained that the revision mainly involved commercial/ '~ industrial uses and not any type of residential uses, however the wording could be changed to include R-3 uses as well. The Commissioners recommended that the wording be changed before a vote is taken on this ordinance. Chairman Sonsin suggested tabling this ordinance until the wording is / / changed and the Commission can review the revision. Mr. McDonald ,/ interjected that staff and Codes & Standards only studied the issue of ~ concrete curbing at industrial/commercial sites and did not consider residential areas. Additional time would give staff time to identify the definition of townhouse, where the townhouses are located in the City, what type of curbing there is now, and provide more information to the Commission. Commissioner Cassen added that this ordinance would then apply to any new developments. ON Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to / Item 3.1 table for one month Planning Case 96-21, An Ordinance Amending New ! Hope 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. New Hope Planning Commission - 7 - August 6, 1996 Cassen, Oelkers, D.'.miani, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: None Motion carried. This planning case will proceed to the City Council on September 9, 1996. Case 96-21 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.3, An Ordinance Item 3.3 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. Chairman Sonsin reported that this issue was considered last month. Commissioner Cassen raised the question whether townhomes and condominiums should be included or not. The planning case was referred back to staff and staff requested tabling this issue for another month for further study. Mr. McDonald interjected he wanted the Commission to be certain of what would be voted on. Staff would like further study by the Planning Consultant regarding the size of the complex, guest parking MOTION Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to Item 3.3 table for one month Planning Casa 96-21, An Ordinance Amending New / Hope Code Section 4.036(4)(h)(xv} Regulating Off-Street Parking by Requiring Perimeter Concrete Curbing Around Off-Street Parking Areas, _. r City of New Hope, Petitioner. ~ Commissioner Cassen expressed that she would like to see apartment / buildings included in the study and to be sure the study is complete so these issues'do not come up again. Chairman Sonsin suggested that this issue be reviewed bY Codes & Standards before being presented to the ×-" Planning Commission. Commissioner Cassen added that staff should be / sure to include all commercial/industrial developments, multiple dwelling units, including twin homes if they are within an association, and other ~ townhomas if they are within an association. Twin homes by themselves /~ would not need to be included. .. Voting in favor: Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Underdahl Sonsin, /~ Cassen, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen , Voting against: None ~ Abeent: None Motion carried.' This planning case will proceed to the City Council on September 9, 1996. COMMFrrEE REPORTS Design & Review Commissioner Cassen reported the Design & Review Commit'tee did not Item 4.1 meet in August. Mr. McDonald stated that the deadline for planning applications for October is the end of the week. There is a possibility of a new one-building proposal on the Hoyt property and St. Theresa Nursing Home site improvements. St. Theresa bought the duplex to the north and a rezoning and a site and building plan review ~vould be required to expand the parking lot. The property from the first duplex St. Theresa bought was never rezoned so the additional properties would now be rezoned to make the entire property consistent with the R-4 zoning. New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - September 3, 1996 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 96-06 Request: Ordinance Amending New Hope Code §4.036(10)(z) Regulating Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers Location: PID No.: Zoning: B-4, Community Business Zoning Distdct Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: September 27, 1996 Meeting Date: October 1, 1996 UPDATE 1. As a result of the Lasky New Hope Mini-Mall proposal to construct a Car-X muffler shop/retail space addition to an existing retail facility earlier this year, City staff requested that the Planning Consultant examine the City's current regulation of shopping centers. As part of that review process, City staff and the Codes & Standards Committee also requested that the Planning Consultant examine the City's parking standards for shopping centers. 2. Currently, the City has the following parking standards for shopping centers: Section 4.036(10)(z) (z) Shol313in.q Centers (i) 0-20,000 square feet of building area - ten spaces per one thousand square feet (ii) 20,001-30,000 square feet of building area - eight spaces per one thousand square feet (iii) 30,001 square feet and over of building area - six spaces per one thousand square feet 3. Per the March 5 Planner's report, parking standards for shopping centers are established to accommodate the parking demands of a variety of commercial land uses occupying a multiple occupancy building. However, in examining the City's parking standards for shopping centers smaller than 30,001 square feet, staff finds the standards to be excessive. It was the recommendation of the Planner that the City pursue an amendment to its off-street parking requirements for shopping centers to more accurately reflect anticipated demand and the Codes & Standards Committee and staff agreed with this recommendation. The Planner recommended that a standard of six spaces per one thousand square feet be considered for shopping centers regardless of size. The City Attorney prepared an ordinance based on that recommendation. 4..The Planning Commission considered this recommendation at its August 2 meeting and recommended approval of the ordinance. Planning Case 96-06 2 September 27, 1996 ' 5. This recommendation was considered by the City Council at its August 12 meeting, and ti',~''~ ordinance was tabled and referred back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Excerpts from the minutes on this issue along with the Council request and attachments are enclosed for your information. One Councilmember had a concern that the amendment might not provide adequate parking for smaller shopping centers and suggested a different standard for smaller centers. 6. This matter was again referred to the Planning Consultant and his September 18 report is attached. Besides that report, City staff inventoried parking spaces at every shopping center in the City and prepared a chart identifying the shopping center area, current parking requirements, parking spaces provided on site and the parking that would be required with the amendment. 7. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed this issue again at their September 25 meeting and are recommending no change in their original recommendation. 8. The full Commission needs to determine if you are going to revise the recommendation or send it back to the Council as you originally recommended. Attachments: 9/18 Planner's Report Staff Research/Shopping Center Parking Requirements Excerpts 8/12 Council Minutes Ordinance 96-12 3/5 Planner's Report APA Parking Standards ' I'NA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. ~ J C COMMUNITY PLANNING · OESIGN · MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Daniel Licht/Alan Brixius DATE: 18 September 1996 RE: New Hope - Retail Parking Requirements FILE NO: 131.00 - 96.03 BACKGROUND The City Council, at its 12 August 19cj6 meeting, considered a 13'opossd Zoning Ordinance amendment which would provide an off-street parking requirement of six parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of area, regardless of the size of the shopping center. A concern was raised over the impact this change would have to smaller shopping centers with less than 15,000 square feet of building area, which currently are required to provide ten spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The question centered around the need to provide adequate parking for both customers and employees if the reduced standard were utilized. The City Council voted unanimously to refer the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. The following memorandum is a brief examination of the impact of the proposed parking standards on. shopping centers less than 15,000 square feet in size. The current ordinance requirements., as well as the proposed requirements are discussed. Attached for reference are topographY= site maps for each of the shopping centers within New Hope, which illustrate the area dedicated for parking at each site. ISSUES ANALYSIS Current Ordinance Requirements. The current off-street parking requirement for shopping centers less than 15,000 square feet in size is ten spaces per every 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. This figure does not include public areas such as malls, lanes, stairwells, etc. In comparison, an independent retail store is required to 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555 .St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595:9837 provide one space per 150 square feet of floor area. This equates to 6,67 spaces per 1,000 square feet or almost 40 percent more parking for a small shopping center versus an independent retail establishment. Based upon the current parking requirements a small shopping center would be required to provide more parking than two independent retail establishments located next to one another. Independent office/professional buildings are required to provide three spaces plus one space per 200 square feet, equal to five spaces per 1,000 square feet. Small shopping centers are required to provide double the parking of an independent office building. Shopping Center Concept. The concept of a shopping center is based upon the idea of economizing space and providing convenience to the customer. Shopping Centers offer the advantage of one-stop shopping with business interchange between stores. Consumers may shop at a vadety of stores at one location without the need to travel from independent store to independent store. Within the shopping center concept is an inherent cross parking relationship between tenants. Due to the variety of goods and services typically offered within the center, the peak shopping and parking demand times for the various store are likely different. This variation in peak shopping times translates into a varied demand for parking. While an independent store may require a specific number of spaces to accommodate its peal, demand, a shopping center may overlap parking and require a smaller number of spaces despite an overall larger size because the peak demand times of the center tenants occur at different times. Thus the parking required for a shopping center is not necessarily the sum of the peak parking demands for each tenant, but an anticipated demand that takes into consideration the potential for business interchange and differing peak parking demand times. Comparison Requirements. The following is a list of shopping center parking requirements of adjacent communities and communities provided by the American Planning Association.. Locltlon Requirement Brooklyn Center 11 spaces for 1st 2,000 sq. ft. = 5.5 space for each additional 1,000 sq. ft. Plymouth 5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of leasable area St. Louis Park 5.5 space peri 1,000 sq. ft. 2 Bellevue, Washington 5 spaces/1000 sq. ft. < 15,000 Sq. Ft. % Albemarle Co., Virginia 5.5 spaces/1,000 sq ff. Savannah, Georgia 5 spaces/1000 sq. ft. Proposed Ordinance. The current off-street parking requirement has been proposed to be reduced from ten spaces per 1,000 square feet to six spaces per 1,000 square feet. This requirement, based upon national standards for shopping center parking demand developed by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, would be generally consistent with those of independent retail stores and office buildings. We believe this requirement is realistic standard given the inherent economy of parking demand of shopping centers and our research of local and national standards. CONCLUSION In consideration of current off-street parking requirements, our office believes that the current parking Ordinance requires parking space beyond demand for shopping centers less than 15,000 square feet in size. It is our opinion that the proposed 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail area requirement is appropriate for all sizes of shopping centers. This proposed requirement is generally consistent with those applied to independent retail stores and office buildings in New Hope and those applied to shopping centers elsewhere. The proposed 6/1000 requirement provides economy of parking which is responsive to the natural business interchange charactedstice of shopping malls. The additional area that the proposed Ordinance would save could be utilized to provide additional commercial development area, to improve circulation patterns or add'additional greenspace. Therefore, we recomrnend that the proposed 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet be applied to all shopping centers regardless of size. 3 New Hope Retail Parking Analysis September 1996 Shopping Center Shopping Current Ordinance Current Parking Name/Address Center Area Requirement Parking Spaces Requirements with on Site Proposed Amendment Kmart 121,000 SF 726 880 726 4300 Xylon Ave. N (6 per 1,000 SF) (6 per 1,000 SF) Winnetka Center 92,200 SF 553 617 553 4301 Winnetka Ave. N (6 per 1,000 SF) (6 per 1,000 SF) New Hope Mall ' 79,800 SF 478 463 478 4203 Winnetka Ave. N (6 per 1,000 SF) (6 per 1,000 SF) Midland Center 70,500 SF 423 421 423 2703 Winnetka Ave. N (6 per !,000 SF) (6 per 1,000 SF) Winnetka Commons Center 44,000 SF 264 247 264 3520 Winnetka Ave. N (6 per 1,000 SF) (6 per 1,000 SF) Post Haste Center 21,800 SF 174 156 130 9408-9446 36* Ave. N (8 per 1,000 SF) (6 per 1,000 SF) 6026 West Broadway 6,200 SF 62 33 37 (10 per 1,000 SF) (6 per 1,000 SF) 7191 42na Avenue North 6,000 SF 60 43 36 (10 per 1,000 SF) (6 per 1,000 SF) 2728 Winnetka Ave. N 4,350 SF 43 54 26 (10 per 1,000 SF) (6 per 1,000 SF) 7910 Bass Lake Road 4,000 SF 40 41 24 (10 per 1,000 SF) (6 per 1,000 SF) 7801 62nd Avenue North 6936 SF 69 40 46 (10 per 1,000 SF) (6 per 1,000 SF) Current Ordinance Regulating Parking for Shoooine Centers (96-12) (i) 0 - 20,000 square feet of building area- ten spaces per one thousand square feet. (ii) 20,001 - 30,000 square feet of building area - eight spaces per one thousand square feet (iii) 30,001 square feet and over or building area- six spaces per one thousand square feet. Proposed Ordinance Regulating Parking for Shoooine Centers (z) Shopping Centers - six spaces per one thousand square feet of building area. SITE AREA PARKING K-MART 121 880 WINNETKA CTR 92 617 NEW HOPE MALL80 463 MIDLAND CTR 71 421 WINNETKA COM 44 247 POSTE HASTE 22 156 W. BROADWAY 6 33 42nd AVENUE 6 43 2728 VVTKA 4 54 BASS LAKE RD 4 41 45O 2955 {thousands) AVERAGE 1/152 Page I Sl~e: 4300 Xylou Ave. No. K-Nar~ Center A Building - L21,000 sf Parking: 880 Spaces G 0 ~ 0 ~ Q ~ t2~O _. Site: Ney Hope Ha11-/+203 Winne£ka Ave. No. N Ituildin$ ~ 79,800 sf Paritin$: /+63 Spaces : ~ o : \ · / / o ! ., , ..r ..' / .: "' ~. ~ I"" '-"1 '"' '"' '" ' '" ~,..,..-' : ,.% o :' / Site: L'Lidland Cent~r- 2703 Winnetka Ave. No. Butldin$ - 70,500 sf ~]~ Parktn$: 121 Spaces Build~ ' 44,000 sf Parking: 247 Spaces ...::::~::':;'; ? · / x :- }1i i1.. i '. ! Site: Poste Baste Center 8uildin$ - 21,800 sf ?arlr. ~n$: 156 Spaces :~, : ~.4 g70,2 Site: 6026 West Broadvay Building - 6,200 sf Parking: 33 Spaces Site: 719l 42nd Ave. No. (& 7141) But.~Ldin$/s (2) ~ 6,000 si[ Pa:~king: ~.3 Spaces Site: 2728 l,i'inne c ka Butlding ~ 4,350 sf Parkin8: 54 Spaces S~ce: ?9~OBass Lal~e Itoad Buildin~ t 4,000 Parians: 41 Spaces acceptable in this type of situu:ion, the repercussions of such sigr~, and report back with a recommendation. FUND RAISING GOLF Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 9.3, Consideration of Request from TOL?R. NA,'d'E.N~I' - Care Break to Utilize the Golf Course for a Fund Raising Golf Tournament. MOTION Motion w~ made by Councilmember Enck, seconded by Cotmcilmember Wehling. Item 9.3 to approve Care Break utilizing the goil' course for a fund raising golf tournament. Voting in favor: AIl. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 96-12 ayor EricSon introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Ordinance No. 96-12 Item 10.1 [ (Planning Case 96-06), An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code ¢.036 (10)(z) I Regulating Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers. Coumcilmember Enck stated the original offiinance requireci 10 spaces per 1.000 gqu~e feet of building area of 0-20,000 square fern of buildin8 area; 8 spaces for 20,001 to 30,000 squar~ feet; and six spaces for 30,001 square f~t and greater. He pointed out the proposed ordinan¢~ of six spac~ ~ 1,0OO square fe~ for shopping cente~ regardless of size is a sigzfi.ficant change and will eff~'t the small shops in addition to the larger one~. He questioned whether them would be adequate customer parking spac~ if ther~ wen s~vetal employees in a small shopping c~ntm'. He sugg~ted imposing a minimum such as six spaces per 1,000 fee~ for 15,000 square fee~ and above. MOTION Motion wes rt~cle by ¢otm¢ilmemi~r Em:k, seconded by Coun¢ilmember Ottm, to Item 10,1 ref~ Ordlm No, ~1~,1:l beel~ to the lq~amla$ Commission for reeon~icle~flo~, Voting in favor:. Ail. Motion c, an, ied. ~.~ ORDIIqtANCE 96-16 Mayor Erickson introduc~cl for dis~m.qsion Item 10.2, O~linance 9~.16 (Plamaing Item 10,1 Case 9~-23), An Ch'dinan~ Azz~-~ling New Hope Code 3.463 by Permitting Wall $i8~s on Chumhes, ~:hools, Non-Profit/~nstitutio~ and Government Buildings. Council~ Wehlin8 c, omznemed on the l)mlx)sed sig~ fo, the i~ ext)~c)a, la her opinion, she ~ it would look bem~ without the hoclc~ stick extemdi~ d)c)ve the 'N* ia New Hope. Mr. Dcmahue noted lettering altemions c, anno~ be made ~z tl~ sh~e o! the proj~(a. ORDINANCE ~).,16 C~ Enck inuoduced the follow~ ordinanc~ and moved its adoption: Item 10.~ "OI)J)INANC~. g~,l$, AN-ORI)INANC~- AMIJq'Z)llqlG N~W I-IO1~ CODE ;),4(~ ~¥ I)lffi.MII*rI~G WALL SIGNS ON CltLrRC~, ,~2:l-lOOl.& NON- lqlOk"lT INsTrrIJTION$ ANI) GO~ BtII~DllqI'GS". The motion fo~ th~ adopfi~ of the foregoing ordismy:e w~ seooaded by ¢ouacilmeml:mr Welflin$, ~ci ~ vo~ being talam thereon, the followi~ voted in favor thereof: ~ Enck, Ottea, Nor~, Wehliztg; and the followiz~ voted agmnsc the same: Nol~; Al)~iaed: No~; Absealt: No~; whel~*~Ixm ~ ontimaz~ was declared dul~ oa.q.qed a~! adooted, signed ~ the m~¥oc whic~ was anested to by the city Clerk. ORDINANCE ~,18 Mayo~ Ericlmo~ inm)duc~d for discassion Item 10.3, Ordi.tmm~ No. 96-18 Item 10.~) (PlAtmizl$ C~ c)6-2~), A~ OR[izmz~c~ A. me~dizl8 New Hopo Code 4.12~(2)(d) Result8 Food H~x~lling L,i~ as Subo~ Uses for Automobile gervic~ gtaziozm. ORDINANC~ (.t~*lg Co~ Enck intmd~ the following oRli~az~e and moved its adoption: New Hope City Couacii Au~ 12. 1996, Page ~ ~~ REQ~T FOR ACTION Or~glnaung 9epa~ t,,,ent Approved for Agenda _ A~enda Section Urct~ances & City Manager Resolutions ay./~ 8-12.96 Kirk McDonald Item No. ~ Management Assistant '.0. [ ORDINANCE 96-12/PLANNING CASE/ 96-08, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE §4.036(10(Z) REGULATING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHOPPING CENTERS, CITY OF NEW HOPE, PETITIONER City staff is requesting Planning Commission and City Council approval of an Ordinance Amending New Hope Code ~4.038(10)(z) Regulating Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers. As part of the review of the shopping center development regulations (as a result of the Lasky New Hope Mini Mall proposal to construct a Car-X muffler shop/retail space addition to an existing retail facility), City staff requested that the Planning Consultant examine the City's parking standards for shopping center~a. Currently the City ha~ the following parking standards for shopping centers: Section 4.036(10)(z) (z) Shoooinq Center~ (i) 0-20,000 square feet of building area - ten spaces per one thousand square feet (ii) 20,001-30,000 square feet of building area. eight spaces per one thousand square feet (iii) 30,001 square feet and over of building area - six spaces per one thousand square feet Per the attached Planner's report, parking standards for shopping centers are established to accommodate the paddrtg demands of a variety of commercial land uses occupying a multiple occupancy building. However, in examining the City's parking standards for shopping centers smaller than 30,00¶ square feet, the Planner found New Hope's standards to be excessive. MOTION BY $~XIOND BY TO: -- - II Ill II II I II I II IIIII I I~_~ - Request for Action PC96-G6 Page 2 8.12-~6 The table included in ~he Planner's re,port shows the application of the City's shopping center par~(ing standards to the Lasky development proposal. Under the current orclinance, the Lasl(y proposal would be required to provide 117 parking spaces compared to 55 sl~aces under the Prol:~sed staff application of off-street parking standards. The Lasky site clid not offer sufficient lot area to accommoclate the required shopping center parking. It was the recommendation of the Planner that.the City pursue an amendment to its off-street ~arking requirements for shol~ping centers to more accurately reflect anticiDated demand and the Codes & Standards Committee and staff concur with this recommendation. In this regard, the Planner has recommended that a standard of six sl~aces per one thousand square feet be considered for ShOl~ping centers regardless of size. The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed ordinance based on this recommendation, which revises the current shopping center parking requirements and establishes a standard of six (6) spaces per one thousand square feet for all shopping centers, regardless of size. The Codes & Standards Committee support the ordinance amendment for off-street parking requirements for shopping center~ because the revision more accurately reflects the anticipated parking demand at smaller centers. The Planning Commission c~nsidered this ordinance amendment at their August $ meeting and recommended approval Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment. AN OROINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE §4.036(lO)(z) REGULATING PARKING REGUIREWENT$ FOR SHOPP!NG CENTERS The City Council of the City of New WODe ordains: Section 1. Section 4.'036 (lO')(z) "Shoooing Canters" New NODe Code is hereOy amended to read as follows: (z) Shoooin~ Cen~erq. ~ix ~oaces os? one ~hou~and sauare Duildin~ area. All areas are cumulative and refer to groll leasable building area and do not include covered or enclosed w&lkw&ys, malls or lanes between stairs and similar public &rems not intended or used for sales, display or other commercial purposes. · e.~.~_~_._~. Effective Date. Thin Ordinance shall be effective upon its paHH&ge and publication. Dated thl dmy of , l~e. Edw. d. Erickson, Mayor AtteSt: velerie Leone, City Clerk ~ublished in the New HOpe-Golden Valley Sun-Post the day o' , lgge.) k 4401 Xylon AvlnUl ~: ~ro~o~eg Ordinate 94-12 A~nding ShoGatng ~n~er Oelr SArah: · ~ zontn8 Defore ~m~t ng. very ~r~ly G~even A. ~ndr~l 1 cC: Klrk NcOo~lld N°rthwest Associated Consultants, Inc MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McOor~ald FROM: Cary TeaguelBob Kirmi$/Alan 8rixius 0ATE: 5 March 1996 RE: New Hope - Shopping Cent~ PUDIC~P' ~ FILE NO: 131.00 - 9~.03 BACKGROUND A~ a result of We Laa&'y New Hope Mini Mall 13'olx~al to a3n~n.~ct a C~*X ~er shoO/ retail sp~ additi~ to ~ e~ r~il f~li~, ~ ~ h~ ~ dir~ to examine the Ci~s ~ff~t r~ulati~ ~ ~~ ~t~. ~i~ m~d~ ~atl examine ~e issues su~unding a ~ible ~~~ to ~t CiCa ~l~a relati~ to shopping cent~. '. ISSUES ANALY~J~ SlIoi31Nr~ Center Defhl#le~l, Ctal~ntly Section 4.~ ~ ~ Z~i~ Omin~ defines a shopping ~t~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ i~~l retail ~ s~i~ ~ea I~t~ in ~e sing~ ~ ~ ~ ~. S~~ ~~ ~e pl~n~ unit Bas~ on ~e ~i~ ~ifl~ ~ ~ Mini~l (~ i~ ~ ~ ~ develo~~ifi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Mini~l h~ ~ ~ ~sti~ as to t~e appm~at~e~ ~ ~~i~ 'smail~ ~le' ~i~ ~t~ aa a PUD/CUP. 5775 Wayzata Blvcl., Sate 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416' (612) 595-9636,Fax. 595-9837 ~ec~on 4 ~9 ~f :~e Z~n~g Ordinance ~s~ ~e a~e~e~ :o. Wh~fe a mult~-s~aqe ~e'~'e,,~ or, tess ,s sug~es~e~, single s~age ~UO review s~m~ar ~o :~e cQ~t]~al ~se cerm[t ;r~ce~ural ;roc~ss ~s allowed u~er Sect;on 4 1~(3)(c). Se~on 4.19 also estaDhs~es Cedc~an~ standards Dey~d t~e general zon~g ~ed~rmance standards of t~e C,ty. I~ regar~ to c~mmerc~at/industr~al PUD/CUPs, the fotlow~ng gederman~ standards are CrowCe~: 1. ~ The tract of land for which a project is proposed and a permit reques~e<3 snail not nave less than ~,00 feet of frontage on a puDlio r~gnt..of.way, 2. Yard. No l)uilding sl~all be nearer then fifty feet to the side or rear property ~,ne when suc~ line al)uts an R-l, R-2, R.3, or R-4 use district. 3. Landsca~3ino. Sc. reenina and Surfacina. a. Surfacing. The entire site other then that taken up 13y structures er I~ing si~all be surfaced witl't a material to control dust and drainage. l). Drainage. A drainage system sul)ject to the appcovel of the City Engineer' sl~ell l)e installed. c. Scraen~ ami ~ng. Developments abutting en R.1, R-2. R-3. and R-4 cliatrict si'mil be screened and Ill'~ in comp!ience w~ Section 4.033(3), It has been suggested ~ the PUD I'lvilw 13COCI~ may be overly c~11t3~1~11e for smailer multi tenant retail faciliti~ ~ as tl~ Lask¥ pl'oposal. Smaller retail activities having four tenants or leM may be excJuded from tl'm slx3pping center definifiort tllrougtl a zoning an~e~aiment encl be eviuatecl stricdy on a ate plan 13asia. Thie would eliminate the I;}Ul)lic hearing precede, some of tl~ City review autl'mdty, and special perforrnence stendm'cls iml:mse<l on commercial PUD& The advm'itages and cliaa(~ventage~ of mis type of amendment is ~eaented aa · $1~ of Itm aclminisa'ative i:m=cess, a~ 'smaller' at',opping centers (2-4 tenerltl) would be required only to go tl"trougtt a site plan review, ra~er than a PUD/ClJFI rlvilw. · The required site plan review ~il aflbrdl the City tl'le al~ility to review and apply the genera zoning pede~mm',=e standards as recpdired l)y City Code. 2 O is a~v ar ta~es: · ~e s,te plan revi~ r~res no pu01ic ~ean~g. As su~. no o~un,~y for ~O~t ,s pray,Ced. · Elimination of PUD and s~opping cente~ pedo~an~ standards ~e,ng apptiea · Th® a=ili~ to im~ ~ditional ~nditions aa a ~m~t of ~e PUD ,s lost these small~ f~ilities are d~m~ pe~iff~ uses. ~e CiN mu~ ~i~ ~e ~s ~ di~t~es ~ ~e PUD/CUP pr~aa as it relates to smatl~ s~opping ~t~s. If ~e Ci~ f~ls ~at ~e PUD/CUP pro~ is ove~y ~~ ~ ~all~ mu~ t~t retail f~iitie=, ~e d~niti~ of s~o~ing ~ter may ~e amend~ aa foll~: Section 4.022 (124) (124) Shoooina Cant~'. An integrated grouping of'tlV~c~:rm~ individual retail and s~'vic~ ~ Icx:~ed in =n~ or rno~ ~ncip~l I~Jildings, ~ring parking, entrance ancl exit areas, un,let single ownem~ip or unified ~. Shopping cereus are planned unit developments arid processed accordingly. Off-,.%'treet Pm~ing. Al pit c~ our ~ ¢~ b'te shopping cantar development regulations. we also ex~mine¢l ~ City's p~king stm~cl~'cls. Currantly tl~ City I~ ~ follow,ng parking stm~arcls for sl"~ng c~nt~: SecUe 4.o3 1o)(z) (z) Sl ooir _ Ca, tars.. (i) 0-20,~ IqUarl fl~ ~ I~iiding ami * tan spaces per o~e ~ouaancl square (ii) 20,0131-30,0130 ~ fe~ c~ I:Mk:ling ami - eight spaces per one thousancl (iii) 30,001 ~ fl~ argl ~ of I~iicling area - six ~ per one tl'tousar<l.-- square feet. 3 ~GIIC area~ ~ct intena~ ~r use~ f~r saies, azs~ay ~r m~er c~mmerc~ai our:cses ~ar~mg stanclaras for shopping centers are estal)lisl~ecl to accommodate the ceman~s ~f a vanety of c~mmerciat lan~ uses occupying a muttlpte occupan~ 0u,l~ing. However. ~n examining t~e Ci~'s pa~lng standards for shopping centers smaller ~han 30.~1 ~u~e feet. staff finds ~e standards to De ex~ssive. ~o foll~tng taOle snows t~e aD0ti~tion of ~e Ci~s shop~mg ~nt~ pa~ing standards to t~e Lasky ~evel~mem propel. Un~ the ~ff~t or~ina~, t~e Las~ pro.sat ~uld be r~u~r~ to 117 pa~ing spa~s ~mp~ to 55 s0~s und~ the pm~s~ staff aopli~t~on ~f ~ff- strut pa~l~ s~ds. ~e L~ site ~s ~t ~ s~ent lot area to a~mm~ate the r~uir~ s~opp~ng ~t~ pa~ing. ~ Ratio R~ir~ Soa~- Alternate A S~oooing C~t~~ ~ Alternative Auto Repair (~, 8~ ~ Retail Stores (6,~8 ~ · 10 ~ reduction required for ~ive sp~oe ~ Indudtl futum retail it is ~ recemmendefle~l of our ofl~e that the City ~ an amendment to its off. street paining reClU~ ~ ~ ~ to ~e ~~ r~ ~pat~ In this r~. 'a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ,~ ~ ~ ~ld ~ ~sid~ for 4 CONCLUSION t~asecl ~:n ~r,e Crec_ecting ~nvestigat~on. we woulcl rec(3mmencl ~l~e f(31lcwlng: The'C;ty ccns~cter (3ne of the f(311~)w~ng cpti(3ns. a. Retain ex~sting orclinance language in regatcl to shopping center clefin,~cn ancl PUD/CUP processing; or 13. Amend sl~ot313ing center definition to exclude 'smaller' centers. 2.. The City amend its off-street parking requirements for slnopping centers to mc)re accurately reflect anticipated demand. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondratl 5 Residential, Multifamily, Studio Thirteen spaces per each 1,000 sq.ft, of gross'floor area One space per dwelling unit (Orange Co., Calif.) (Albemarle Co., Va.) --~ 1.2 spaces per unit (Bellew~e, Wash.) Sixteen spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. (Bellevue, Wash.) 1.25 per dwelling unit (Savannah, Ga.) One space for each 60 sq.ft, of usable floor area with a minimum of four spaces (Alpena, Mich.) Residential, Single-Family, Townhouse One space per 50 sq.ft, of eating area, plus one space for each employee on the largest working shift 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit (Clifton Forge, Va.) (St: Clair Shores, Mich.) Two spaces per dwelling unit (Lexington Co., S.C.) Fourteen spaces per 1,000 sq.ff, of gross floor area, 2.25 spaces for each dwelling unit (Piano, Tex.) plus five off'street waiting spaces per drive-in lane (Lake Co., Ill.) Residential, Single-Family Thirty spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. (Lake Forest, Ill.) One space per dwelling unit (Clifton Forge, Va.) The greater of one space per 40 sq.ft, of customer Two spaces for each dwelling unit (Northport, Ala.) service or dining area or one space per 150 sq.ft, of Detached two spaces per dwelling if access to the lot gross building area (Omaha, Nebr.) is on to a public street; 2.5 spaces per dwelling if One space for each 25 sq.ft, of usable floor area access to the lot is from a private street, common (Alpena, Mich.) drive, or common parking court (Leesburg, Va.) Ten spaces per 100 sq.ft, gross leasable area, plus one Comment. Nearly every code examined required two additional space for every four outside seats spaces per unit. (Leesburg, Va.) One space for every two seats, plus two spaces for Restaurant every three employees on the maximum shift One space per 150 sq.ft. (St. Charles Parish, La.) (St. Louis Co., Mo.) One space per each 100 sq.ft, of floor area One space per four seats, plus one space per two (Glendale, Calif.) employees where seating is at tables, or one space per One space for each 75 sq, ft. of usable floor area or one two seats, plus one space per two employees where seating is at a counter. For a fast-food restaurant with for each two persons allowed within the maximum no seating facilities: one space per 60 sq.ft, of net floor occupancy load, whichever is the greater (Alpena, Mich.) area with a minimum of 10 spaces. For a fast-food restaurant with drive-in facilities: in addition to the Fourteen spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. (Bellevue, Wash.) parking requirements presented above, 11 stacking Two spaces per 100 sq. ft. of floor area (Clifton Forge, Va.) spaces for the drive-in window, with a minimum of One parking space for every four seats, five such spaces designated for the ordering station. (Salisbury Township, Pa.) Such spaces shall be designed so as not to impede pedestrian or vehicular circulation on the site or on One space for every three seats, plus two spaces for any abutting street. (Fairfax Co., Va.) every three employees on the maximum shift (St. Louis Co., Mo.) Five spaces, plus one space per three seats in dining area or 10 per 1,000 sq.ft, gross floor area, whichever One space for each three persons for the first 150 is greater (Long Beach, Calif.) persons, and one for each two persons over 150 a~ determined by the fire marshall to be the maximum capacity of the establishment (Bay City, Mich.) Retail, Outdoor One space per each 1,000 sq. ft. of lot or floor.area used One space per each three seating accommodations, for display purposes (Bozeman, Mont.) plus one space per each two employees on shift of . greatest employment (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Co., N.C.) One space for each 600 sq.ft, of lot area One space for each three fixed seats provided for (Bay City, Mich.) patron use, plus one space for each 200 sq.ft, of floor One space per 500 sq.ft, of open sales/display area, area provided for patron use but not containing fixed plus one space per employee (Fairfax Co., Va.) seats (South Burlington, Vt.) Three spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area Four spaces, plus one space for each three seating (Hillsborough Co., Fla.) accommodations (Northport, Ala.) One space for each 200 sq.ft, of stall space and cus- One space for each 2.5 seats or 40 sq.ft, of dining and/ tomer circulation area (Albuquerque, N.M.) or drinking space or area (Bozeman, Mont.) Retail Store Restaurant, Fast-Food One space per 1,000 net sq.ft.; if more than 15,000 net 'One space per 100 sq.ft, of gross floor area' sq.ft., 1.5 spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. (Bellevue, Wash.) (Norman, Okla.) One space per 300 eq.ff, of gross floor area One parking space per each 80 sq.ft, of floor area (Orange Co., Calif.) (Glendale, Calif.) If less than 5,000 sq.ft, of floor area, one space per every 250 sq.ft, of floor area; if over 5,000 sq.ft, of floor One space per fOur students (Orange Co., Calif.) area, 20 spaces, plus one space per every 400 sq.ft, in xcess of 5,000 sq.ft, of floor area (Bozeraan, Mont.) School, Elementary One space per 250 sq.ft, of sales floor area One space per 25 classroom seats (Leesburg, Va.) (Lexington Co., S.C.) One space for each 20 students of design capacity, One space per 200 sq.ft, of gross leasable area for plus one space per 400 sq. ft. of office floor space buildings 50,000 sq. ft. or less; one space per 250 sq. ft. (Honohdu, Hawaii) of gross leasable area for buildings 50,001 to 100,000 sq.ft.; one space per 300 sq.ft, of gross leasable area for One space for each 15 students of design capacity buildings 100,001 to 400,000 sq.ft.; one space per 350 (Piano, Tex.) sq.ft, of gross leasable area for buildings larger than One space for each teacher, employee, or administra- 400,000 sq.ft. (Citrus Co., Fla.) tor (St. Paul, Minn.) One space per 200 sq.ft, of net floor area for the first One space per teacher and staff member, plus one 1,000 sq.ft., plus six spaces per each additional 1,000 space per two classrooms (Lake Co., Ill.) sq.ft. (Fairfax Co., Va.) One space for each vehicle owned or operated by the 5.5 spaces for every 1,000 sq.ft, of gross floor area school, plus two spaces for each faculty member and (St. Louis Co., Mo.) administrative office (Hilton Head Island, S.C.) One space for every 150 sq.ft, of usable floor area At least one space for each classroom based on design (St. Paul, Minn.) capacity, plus one additional space for each 100 One parking space for each 100 sq.ft, of gross floor students, based on capacity (Hopkins, Minn.) area (Salisbury Township, Pa.) One space for each classroom and each 1.5 employees, One space per each 100 sq.ft, of retail sales for the first plus off-street loading space for at least two school 5,000 sq.ft., and one space for each 200 sq.ft, of retail buses (Aurora, Colo.) sales area above 5,000 sq.ft. (Albemarle Co., Va.) 1.6 spaces per classroom (Hillsborough Co., Fla.) Three spaces per each room used for administrative Rifle Range offices or class instruction, or one space for each six One space per target area (Orange Co., Calif.) seats in auditoriums and other places of assembly or facilities available to the public, whichever is greater Sawmill (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Co., N.C.) One space per employee (Orange Co., Calif.) School, Beauty School, Junior High One space per 10 classroom seats (Leesburg, Va.) Three spaces, plus one space for each operator station ( Gainesville, Fla.) Two spaces per classroom (St. Charles Parish, La.) 2.5 spaces per classroom (GainesvilIe, Fla.) School, Dance One space for each vehicle owned or operated by the One space per 200 sq.ft. (St. Charles Parish, La.) school, plus three spaces for each faculty member, Five spaces, plus one space for each 150 sq.ft, of dance plus one space for each five seats in the auditorium or floor area in excess of 500 sq. ft. (Gainesville, Fla.) gynmasium (Hilton Head Island, S.C.) Ray's "Drive Inn" Restaurant, San Antonio, Texas 23 School, High School [maximum]. Between 15,000 and 400,000 net sq.ft.: One space for each vehicle owned or operated by the four spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. [minimum]; 4.5 spaces school, plus seven spaces for each faculty member, per 1,000 net sq.ft. [maximum]. Between 400,000 and plus one space for each administrative office 600,000 net sqdt.: four spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. (Hilton Head Island, S.C.) [minimum]; five spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. [maxi- mum]. More than 600,000 net sq. ft.: five spaces per One space per teacher and staff member on the largest 1,000 net sq.ft. [minimum and maximum]. shift, plus one space per five students (Lake Co., Ill.) (Bellew~e, Wash.) One space per emplc~yee, plus one space per 10 Five spaces for each 1,000 sq.ft, of leasable area students of design capacity ( Gainesville, Fla.) (Savannah, Ga.) One space for each 10 students of design capacity, 5.5 spaces per each 1,000 sq.ft, of gross leasable floor plus one space per 400 sq.ft, of office floor space area (Albemarle Co., Va.) (Honolulu, Hawaii) One space per 200 sq.ft, of net floor area for the first One space per employee, and one space per each 100 sq.ft., plus six spaces per each additional 1,000 eight students (Norman, Okla.) sq.ft., plus additional spaces, as required herein~, for One space per staff member, and one space per four associated offices, theatres, and eating establishments students (Orange Co., Calif.) (Fairfax Co., Va.) One space for each 1.5 students, faculty, and staff, One space for each 100 sq.ft, of usable floor area based on design capacity (Piano, Tex.) (St. Clair Shores, Mich.) Seven spaces per classroom (Bozeman, Mont.) One space for each 100 sq.ft, of usable floor area for .33 spaces per student, plus one space per staff the first 15,000 sq.ff. One space for each 125 sq.ft, for member (Hillsborough Co., Fla.) the next 15,001 to 450,000 sq.ft, of usable floor area. One space for each 150 sq. ft. for that area in excess of School Trade 450,000 sq..ft, of usable floor area. (Alpena, Mich.) Comment. It is especially difficult to determine parking One space per four students (Omaha, Nebr.) requirements for shopping centers because they contain so One space per two students (Orange Co., Calif.) many uses under one roof. Unfortunately, ample and One space for each student, based on the design accessible parking is seen by merchants and consumers to capacity of the building, plus one space for each be the most important feature of a shopping mall. The teacher or other employee (Montgomery Co., Ohio) tension between this perceived need and a desire by developers to limit the amount of parking built at a facility Self-Service Storage Facility due to the expense has caused controversy for decades. The code from BelleVue, Washington, goes a long way towards One space per 2,000 sq.ft. (Honolulu, HawaiO reconciling this conflict. By providing both minimums and Four spaces per 1,000 sq.ft, of net floor area of office maximums, both parties interests are represented. At the space associated with the use, plus one space per same time, the government's interest in reducing the employee, and/or two spaces for a resident manager amount of area devoted to off-street parking is also pre- (Fairfax Co., Va.) served. For f'urther reading on this subject, please refer to One space for each 225 sq.ft, of gross floor area, plus Shared Parking, published by the Urban Land Institute, one space for each employee (Aurora, Colo.) and Flexible Parking Requirements, PAS Report No. One parking space for every 100 individual storage 377, available from APA. spaces. Two parking spaces for the manager and one parking space ,per additional employee shall also be Skating Rink provided. A minimum of three parking spaces shall One space for each 250 sq.ft, of floor area be provided. (Northport, Ala.) (Durham, N.C.) Three spaces, plus one space per 100 units One space per each 200 sq.ff, of floor area (Long Beach, Calif.) (Albany, Ore.) One space per 10 storage units, plus one space per One space for each seat or six feet of benches, or one employee (Hillsborough Co., Fla.) for each 150 sq.ff, of skating area, whichever is greater One space per three storage units, or one per six (Alpena, Mich,) storage units with an aisle width of 20 feet or greater, One space for each 125 sq.ft, or fraction thereof of but a minimum of five spaces for the complex, skating rink area (Albemarle Co., Va.) whichever is greater (Citrus Co., Fla.) One space per each 100 sq. ft. of floor area or lot area (Bozeman, Mont.) Shipping Port One space per employee (Hillsborough Co., Fla.) Slaughterhouse One space per i,000 sq.ff, of gross floor area ~'~Shopping Cent~"~ (Hillsborough Co., Fla.) Less than 15,000 net sq.ft.: five spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. [minimum]; 5.5 spaces per 1,000 net sq. ff. Sorority (See Fraternit!t) 24 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 96-35 Request: Recommendation/Response to City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Re-Guide 5.76 Acre Parcel from CL, Limited Commercial, to CS, Commercial Service Location: Southwest Quadrant of Highway 169 and Schmidt Lake Road/49~ Avenue PID No.: Zoning: CL, Limited Commercial Petitioner: City of Plymouth Report Date: September 27, 1996 Meeting Date: October 1, 1996 BACKGROUND 1. The City of Plymouth has requested Metropolitan Council approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to re-guide a 5.76 acre parcel, located at the southwest quadrant of Highway 169 and Schmidt Lake Road/49~ Avenue, from CL, Limited Commercial to CS, Commercial Service. Highway 169 represents the municipal boundary between Plymouth and New Hope. Due to the project's proximity to areas of New Hope, the City has been provided a copy of the application for its review and comment related to any potential impacts to New Hope. 2. The requested Comprehensive Plan amendment has been prompted by a proposal to develop a 5.76 acre parcel, of land in the southwest quadrant of Highway 169 and Schmidt Lake Road in Plymouth with three uses: a convenience store with gas, a sit down restaurant, and an auto service center. The proposal has been approved by the City of Plymouth, subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment. 3. In accordance with Metropolitan Council's guidelines for reviewing local Comprehensive Plan amendments, the Metropolitan Council requires adjacent cities which may be potentially affected by the proposed amendment be notified. The purpose of this notification is to provide potentially affected communities the opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the proposed amendment. (The City reviewed a similar plan amendment for the City of Plymouth in 1995.) 4. The review process that has been followed in the past is as follows: A. Submit amendment to Planning Consultant for review, comment and recommendations. B. Have Codes & Standards Committee meet with staff and Planning Consultant to review/ discuss recommendations. C. Codes & Standards Committee presents recommendations to Planning Commission. D. Planning Commission presents recommendations to City Council. E. Staff responds to Metropolitan Council and city proposing amendment, per City Council action. Planning Case 96-35 2 September 25, 1996 ~ 5. This amendment was submitted to the Planning Consultant and City Engineer and the~'~ recommendations are included in this report. The Codes & Standards Committee considere(3 this request at their September 25 meeting and their recommendations are outlined in the attached resolution. 6. The Planning Consultant has indicated that currently the subject parcel is guided for limited commercial use. Uses which may be established in these districts include mainly office and professional buildings. The proposed amendment would change the commercial orientation of the parcel to a more consumer service retail site. However, because the general nature of the use will remain commercial, he does not anticipate any impacts related to the general commercial use of the property beyond what would be anticipated if the parcel developed under the current Comprehensive Plan guiding. 7. The properties adjacent to the Highway 169/49"` Avenue intersection on the New Hope side of the freeway consist of a gas station and office building to the north of 49"` Avenue and single family residential uses south of 49"` Avenue. ANALYSIS 1. The Planning Consultant has made the following comments on the Comprehensive Plan amendment request: LANDSCAPING - Regardless of the type of commercial development which occurs on the site, provisions must be made for adequate screening and buffering of the proposed use from the single family uses. According to the materials included in the application, there appears to be a landscape berm along the north and east property lines. However, there is insufficient information within the application to verify if this berm will adequately screen the subject site from view of the residential properties on the east side of Highway 169. No additional landscaping information has been included in the application. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - As part of the development proposal review, the City of Plymouth undertook a detailed traffic analysis to determine the impact of the proposed development on adjacent roadways. The traffic study, included as part of the Metropolitan Council application, indicated that traffic generation by the site would increase from 1,204 to 2,734 trips based upon current land use designation to 4,398 trips if the proposed project is developed. This is an increase of between 60.9 and 265.3 Percent. Generally, the traffic analysis found that the proposed development could be accommodated by the existing roadways with the completion of recommended improvements related to the traffic system west of 169. The improvements include: A. Installation of a traffic signal at the west entrance ramp intersection to Highway 169 (traffic signals are to be installed at both ramp intersections on Highway 169 by MNDoT during 199S). B. Construction of a center median island on 49"' Avenue which extends from the west Highway 169 intersection past the west frontage road. The purpose of this median is to restrict movements from the frontage road to right in right out turns only to avoid conflict Planning Case 96-35 3 September 25, 1996 with left turn movements to and from the site. If the City chooses not to install the center median, the long range realignment of the west frontage road should be considered. C. Traffic levels at the Nathan Lane/49th Avenue intersection should be monitored to determine if a traffic signal is warranted prior to the year 2015. The traffic analysis contains no discussion of the potential impact of the proposed development in terms of traffic volumes to 49t~ Avenue or other roadways within New Hope. The Traffic Analysis projects that 40 percent of the traffic generated by the subject site will travel via 49~ Avenue. This raises concern regarding potential negative impacts'of such a volume increase to the single family residential properties with frontage and driveway access along 49t~ Avenue. The residential use of the properties located adjacent to the south side of 49~ Avenue are not expected to change in the near future. MNDoT has recorded 1994 traffic volumes for 49= Avenue between Highway 169 and Boone Avenue of 7,300 average annual daily trips. Based upon the projected trip generation by the proposed development, it can be anticipated that traffic volumes along 49~ Avenue will increase by 1,759 trips to 9,059 trips or 24.1 percent. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, a typical single family house generates approximately 10 trips per day. As such the projected increase of trips per day on 49= Avenue resulting from the proposed development would be equal to the traffic of almost 176 additional houses. The City Engineer should comment on the current and planned capacity of 49= Avenue to handle such an increase in traffic volumes. If the projected traffic volumes would require improvement of 49th Avenue, which is currently not within the infrastructure improvement plans of the City, the proposed development would, from New Hope's perspective, be a burden to the City's service capacity and financial situation and may be considered premature. SEWER AND WATER SERVICE - Sewer and water service is not anticipated to be negatively impacted by the proposed development. The proposed development does not alter the projected flows for the City of Plymouth to the regional sewer facility and therefore will not affect New Hope's ability to provide sewer service to its own properties. Water service will be provided by the City of Plymouth with no impact to the City of New Hope's water system. PLANNER'S SUMMARY - In review of the proposed Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Planner believes that the proposed amendment may adversely affect the infrastructure of the City of New Hope. The potential impacts from a 24 percent increase in traffic volumes along 49= Avenue have not been fully determined. Additional impacts may exist related to the landscaping and screening of the subject site from residential uses located in the southeast quadrant of Highway 169. However, insufficient information has been provided to make a determination regarding this issue. The City Engineer should determine if the proposed development would result in traffic volumes beyond the current capacity of 49~' Avenue and require improvements that the City of New Hope has not planned to undertake in its infrastructure improvement programs. If such a determination is made, the Planner recommends that the City Council make a finding that the proposed development is premature as it would exceed the existing or planned infrastructure capacity of the City of New Hope, However, should the City Engineer determine that the projected traffic volumes are within the Planning Case 96-35 4 September 25, 1996 , current or planned capacity of 49th Avenue, the Planner suggests that the requeste~'--' amendment is reasonable. 2. The amendment was submitted to the City Engineer for his review/comment, per the recommendation of the Planning Consultant, and the City Engineer made the following comments: The traffic on 49th Avenue east of Highway 169 in New Hope is expected to increase for this development approximately 1,760 daily trips. However, it is assumed many of these daily trips will be "dual trips" which implies the trips already exist. Therefore, it is more realistic to assume the traffic increase on 49t~ Avenue in New Hope will increase by approximately 1,000 trips per day. The existing trips per day in 1992 and 1995 were 7,300 and 7,000 respectively. The design capacity for 49t~ Avenue is between 10,000 and 14,000 trips per day. Therefore, the additional trips generated due to this development will not cause a degradation of the service level along the two-lane segment of 49t~ Avenue in New Hope. The future traffic signal at Highway 169 (programmed in l gg8 based on Plymouth's Comprehensive Plan Amendment) may cause conflicts with the frontage road in New Hope east of Highway 169. It is recommended a capacity and queuing analysis be done to see if the frontage road and 49t~ Avenue are affected. Lane modification and additional stripping may be required. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Codes & Standards Committee recommend approval of the attached Resolution Regarding Comments on the City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Attachments: Resolution 9/18 Planner's Report 9/24 City Engineer Comments Excerpts from Transportation Plan Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-1 RESOLUTION REGARDING COMMENTS ON CITY OF PLYMOUTH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Be it resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope as follows: Procedural Background WHEREAS, on August 7, 1996, the Plymouth City Council granted preliminary approval to an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the City and authorized submission of the Plan to the Metropolitan Council and adjacent communities; and WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment proposes to re-guide a 5.76 acre parcel, located at the southwest quadrant of Highway 169 and Schmidt Lake Road/49"' Avenue, from CL, Limited Commercial to CS, Commercial Service; and WHEREAS, adjacent communities and governmental units have the opportunity to comment on the amendment and comments will be considered by the Metropolitan Council as advisory; and WHEREAS, Highway 169 represents the municipal boundary between Plymouth and New Hope and due to the project's proximity to areas of New Hope, the City has been provided a copy of the application for its review and comment related to any potential impacts to New Hope; and WHEREAS, the City of New Hope desires to submit comments on the amendment and said comments are contained within this resolution; and WHEREAS, the New Hope City staff, City Engineer, the Planning Consultant, and the Codes & Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission have reviewed the amendment and formulated comments regarding the amendment, and .these comments were reviewed by the full New Hope Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting on October 1, 1996. Comments on Amendment/Findings of Fact WHEREAS, based on the procedural background referenced herein, the New Hope Planning Commission hereby makes the following comments on the amendment/findings of fact in connection with the proposed City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment: 1. Proposed Development: The requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been prompted by a proposal to develop a 5.76 acre parcel of land in the southwest quadrant of Highway 169 and Schmidt Lake Road in Plymouth with three uses: a convenience store with gas, a sit down restaurant, and an auto service center. Currently, the subject parcel is guided for limited commercial use. Uses which may be established in these districts include mainly office and professional buildings. The proposed amendment would change the commercial orientation of the parcel to a more consumer service retail site. However, because the general nature of the use will remain commercial, the Planning Commission does not anticipate any impacts related to the general commercial use of the property beyond what would be anticipated if the parcel developed under the current Comprehensive Plan guiding. 2. Screening/Buffering: The properties adjacent to the Highway 169/49~ Avenue intersection onf the New Hope side of the freeway consist of a gas station and office building to the north of 49~ Avenue and single family residential uses south of 49~ Avenue. Regardless of the type of commercial development which occurs on the site, provisions must be made for adequate screening and buffering of the proposed use from the single family uses. According to the materials included in the application, there appears to be a landscape berm along the north and east property lines. However, there is insufficient information within the application to verify if this berm will adequately screen the subject site from view of the residential properties on the east side of Highway '169. No additional landscaping information has been included in the application. 3. Traffic Analysis: As part of the development proposal review, the City of Plymouth undertook a detailed traffic analysis to determine the impact of the proposed development on adjacent roadways. The traffic study, included as part of the Metropolitan Council application, indicated that traffic generation by the site would increase from 1,204 to 2,734 trips based upon current land use designation to 4,398 trips if the proposed project is developed. This is an increase of between 60.9 and 265.3 percent. Generally, the traffic analysis found that the proposed development could be accommodated by the existing roadways with the completion of recommended improvements related to the traffic system west of 169. The improvements include: A. Installation of a traffic signal at the west entrance ramp intersection to Highway 169 (traffic signals are to be installed at both ramp intersections on Highway 169 by MNDoT during 1998). B. Construction of a center median island on 49~ Avenue which extends from the west Highway 169 intersection past the west frontage road. The purpose of this median is to restrict movements from the frontage road to right in right out turns only to avoid conflict with left turn movements to and from the site. If the City chooses not to install the center median, the long range realignment of the west frontage road should be considered. C. Traffic levels at the Nathan Lane/49t~ Avenue intersection should be monitored to determine if a traffic signal is warranted prior to the year 2015. The traffic analysis contains no discussion of the potential impact of the proposed development in terms of traffic volumes to 49t' Avenue or other roadways within New Hope. The Traffic Analysis projects that 40 percent of the traffic generated by the subject site will travel via 49= Avenue. This raises concern regarding potential negative impacts of such a volume increase to the single family residential properties with frontage and driveway access along 49t~ Avenue. The residential use of the properties located adjacent to the south side of 49"~ Avenue are not expected to change in the near future. The New Hope City Engineer has indicated that the traffic on 49t~ Avenue east of Highway 169 in New Hope is expected to increase for this development approximately 1,760 daily trips. However, it is assumed many of these daily trips will be "dual trips" which implies the trips already exist. Therefore, it is more realistic to assume the traffic increase on 49"~ Avenue in New Hope will increase by approximately 1,000 trips per day. The existing trips per day in 1992 and 1995 were 7,300 and 7,000 respectively. The design capacity for 49"~ Avenue is between 10,000 and 14,000 trips per day. Therefore, the additional trips generated due to this development will not cause a degradation of the service level along the two-lane segment of 49"~ Avenue in New Hope. However, the future traffic signal at Highway 169 (programmed in 1998 based on Plymouth's Comprehensive Plan amendment) may cause conflicts with the frontage road in New Hope east of Highway 169. It is recommended a capacity and queuing analysis be done to see if the frontage road and 49t" Avenue are affected. Lane modification and additional stripping may be required. 4. Sewer and Water Service - Sewer and water service is not anticipated to be negatively impacted by the proposed development. The proposed development does not alter the projected flows for the City of Plymouth to the regional sewer facility and therefore will not affect New Hope's ability to provide sewer service to its own properties. Water service will be provided by the City of Plymouth with no impact to the City of New Hope's water system. RECOMMENDATION ~.... WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council of New Hope approve the amendment to the Plymouth Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. Adequate provisions be made for screening and buffering the proposed use from single family uses south of 49~ Avenue. 2. A capacity and queuing analysis be completed by the City of Plymouth or the Minnesota Department of Transportation to determine if the future traffic signal at Trunk Highway. 169 will cause conflicts with the frontage road in New Hope east of Trunk Highway 169 and determine if lane modifications and additional stripping may be required. 3. That these recommendations be forwarded to the City of Plymouth and the Metropolitan Council. Adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, this 1't day of October 1996. Bill Sonsin, Chairman Attest: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Coordinator COMMUNITY PLANNING · DESIG MAR RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Daniel Licht / Alan Brixius DATE: 18 September 1996 RE: New Hope - Plymouth Comprehensive Plan - Grey Fox Square FILE NO.: 131.00 - 96.14 BACKGROUND The City of Plymouth has requested Metropolitan Council approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to re-guide a 5.76 acre parcel, located at the southwest quadrant of Highway 169 and Schmidt Lake Road 149th Avenue, from CL, Limited Commercial to CS, Commercial Sen/ice. Highway 169 represent the municipal boundary between Plymouth and New Hope. Due to the project's proximity to areas of New Hope, the City has been provided a copy of the application for its review and comment related to any potential impacts to New Hope. ISSUES ANALYSIS Proposed Development. The requested Comprehensive Plan amendment has been prompted by a proposal to develop a 5.76 acre parcel of land in the southwest quadrant of Highway 169 and Schmidt Lake Road in Plymouth with three uses; a convenience store with gas, a sit down restaurant, and an auto service center. The proposal has been approved by the City of Plymouth, subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment. Currently, the subject parcel is guided for limited commercial use. Uses which may be established in ~ districts include mainly office and professional buildings. The proposed amendment would change the commercial orientation of the parcel to a more consumer, service retail site. However, because the general nature of the use will remain commercial, our .office does not anticipate any impacts related to the general commercial use of the property beyond that would be anticipated if the parcel developed under the current Comprehensive Plan guiding. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555-St. Louis Park, MN 55416-(612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 The properties adjacent to the Highway 169 / 49th Avenue intersection on the New Hope ~'~ side of the ~eeway consist of a gas station and office building to the north of 49th Avenue and single family residential uses south of 49th Avenue. Regardless of the type of commercial development which occurs on the site, provisions must be made for adequate screening and buffering of the proposed use from the single family uses. According tho the materials included in the application, their appears to be a landscape berm along the north and east property lines. However, there is insufficient information within the application to verify if this berm will adequately screen the subject site from view of the residential properties on the east side of Highway 169. No additional landscaping information has been included in the application. Traffic Analysis. As part of the development proposal review, the City of Plymouth undertook a detailed traffic analysis to determine the impact of the proposed development on adjacent roadways. The traffic study, included as part of. the Metropolitan Council application, indicated that traffic generation by the site would increase from 1,204 to 2,734 trips based upon current land use designation to 4,398 trips if the proposed project is developed. This is an increase of betv,=cn 60.9 and 265.3 percent. Generally, the traffic analysis found that the proposed development could be accommodated by the existing roadways with completion of recommended improvements related to the traffic system west of 169. These improvements include: 1. Installation of a traffic signal at the west entrance ramp intersection to Highway 169 (traffic signals are to be installed at both ramp intersections on Highway 169 by MNDoT dudng 1998). 2. Construction of a center median island on 49th Avenue which extends from the west Highway 169 intersection past the west frontage road. The purpose of this median is to restrict movements from the frontage road to right in right out turns only to avoid conflict with left turn movements to and from the subject site. If the City chooses not to install the center median, the long range realignment of the west frontage road should be considered. 3. Traffic levels at the Nathan Lane149th Avenue intersection should be monitored to determine if a traffic signal is warranted prior to the year 2015. The traffic analysis contains no discussion of the potential impact of the proposed development in terms of traffic volumes to 49th Avenue or other roadways within New Hope. Figure 3 of the Traffic Analysis projects that 40% of the traffic generated by the subject site will travel via 49th Avenue. This raises concern regarding potential negative impacts of such a volume increase to the single family residential properties with frontage and driveway access along 49th Avenue. The residential use of the properties located adjacent to the south side of 49th Avenue are are not expected to change in the near future. 2 " MNDoT has recorded 1994 traffic volumes for 49th Street between Highway 169 and · Boone Avenue of 7,300 average annual daily trips. Based upon the projected trip generation by the proposed development, it can be anticipated that traffic volumes along 49th Avenue will increase by 1,759 trips to 9,059 trips or 24.1 percent. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, a typical single family house generates approximately 10 trips per day. As such the projected increase of trips per day on 49th Avenue resulting from the proposed development would be equal to the traffic of almost 176 additional houses. The City Engineer should comment on the current and planned capacity of 49th Avenue to handle such an increase in traffic volumes. If the projected traffic volumes would require improvement of 49th Avenue, which is currently not within the infrastructure improvement plans of the City, the proposed development would from, New Hope's perspective, be a burden to the City's service capacity and financial situation and may be considered premature. Sewer and Water Service. Sewer and water service is not anticipated to be negatively impacted by the proposed development. The proposed development does not alter the projected flows for the City of Plymouth to the regional sewer facility and therefore will not effect New Hope's ability to provide sewer service to its own properties. Water service will be provided by the City of Plymouth with no impact to the City of New Hope's water system. CONCLUSION In review of the proposed Plymouth Comprehensive Plan amendment, our office believes that the proposed amendment may adversely affect the infrastructure of City of New Hope. The potential impacts from a 24 percent increase in traffic volumes along 49th Avenue have not been fully determined. Additional impacts may exist related to the landscaping and screening of the subject site from residential uses located in the southeast quadrant of Highway 169. How~v~, insufficient information has been provided to make a determination regarding this issue. The City Engineer should determine if the proposed development would result in traffic volumes beyond the current capacity of 49th Avenue and require improvements that the City of New Hope has not planned to undertake in its infrastructure improvement programs. If such a determination is mede, our office recommends that the City Council make a finding that the proposed development is premature as it would exceed the existing or planned infrastructure capacity of the City of New Hope. Hov~ver, should the City Engineer determine that the projected traffic volumes are within the current or planned capacity of 49th Avenue, we would suggest that the requested amendment is reasonable. 3 .40 ASSOCIATES I~ 612 6361311 09/24/96 15:06 ~] :02 N0:205 E~l~ers & Architects MEMO TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Mark Hanson Sheldon Johnson DATB: Sel~m~ 2,4, 1996 SU'gJE, CT: Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment Omy Foa Square (Southwest Corner 49th AvcnueZf.ti. 169) Our File No. 34-Gca (R96-24) We have reviewed the above-referenced project and offer ~ followins comments: · The traffic on 49th Avemm east of T.H. 169 in New Hope is expected to increase for this d v¢iop, nt mxim _ely 1,760 dslly lril~, l-low~ver, R Ls assu~ many of ~ll~s~ dally trip will I~ "dun] Izips" which impli, th~ trips ~lready exist. Therefore, it is more rmdisdc to assum~ the traffic ~ on 4~: Ave~ne in Nmv Hops will i~ by aplxo~ly 1,000 ta'ips per day. Tbe existin8 tril~ per day in 1992 and Igg~ v~m 7,300 and 7,000 tc, apc~'~ly. The deaisn capacity for 491h Avenu~ is between 10,000 mad 14,000 tril:n I~r day. the additional trips Suaernted due to thin development will riot ~ a desruds~on of tl~ .qm'vic~ level alonl the two-lano selpnont of 49th Avenue in New IIop~. · The fumns trait-ac sisnal at T,FL 169 (prosrammed in 1998 bua~t on Plymouth's Comprehensive.Plan Amen~0 may cause conflicts with the frontage road in New Hope east of T.H. 169. it is recommend~ a capacity and queuinl analysis be done to see if the frontage road and 49th Avenue are affected. Lane modification and additional stripping may 4401 Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 512.531.5100 City Hall Fax: 612.53 ~-5 New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Police: 812.531-5170 Police Fax: 612.531.5 ~ Public Works: 612-533.4823 Public Works Fax: 612-533-7550 TDD: 612-531-5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531.5~75 September 9, 1996 Mr. Alan Brixius Northwest Associated Consultants 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for City of Plymouth Dear Al: The City of NeW Hope has received the enclosed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the City of Plymouth regarding a land use change from Limited Business to Service Business for the Grey Fox Square area. It was sent to New Hope as an adjacent local governmental unit. Please review and let me know if you think the amendment would cause any negative impact on New Hope. Also, in the past the City has had an opportunity to formally express its views on these amendments in writing to the Metropolitan Council and the City proposing the amendment. I don't see any allowance for that process with this amendment. Has the process changed or is the nature of this amendment so minor that they are not accepting comments from adjacent communities. Please look into this and let me know. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator Enclosure: Grey Fox Square Comprehensive Plan Amendment cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Sarah Bellefuil, Community Development Specialist Planning Case File 96-35 Family Styled City ~ For Family Living Figure 6 ~ ,~ooo--'; 1992 Average I J Daily Traffic --- --. Volumes ! 0 1100 220Q S¢¢ie In feet '' ~ Bofleotroo ~der/lk A A~l~tee GOLDEN VALLEY ~ ! ciTY OF ! ~ NEW HOPE I-- Figure g ~ --,~~,~r-' Preliminary Year ' 2015 Volumes § Source: Mefropofitan ~ Council CITY OF:: NEW HOPE Principal Arterial --. Minor Arterial ~oi Community u Collector ~t ~ , Neighborhood Collector Figure 10 Functional Classification System 0 ~I00 2200 ,ad~lerlli~ & GOLDEN VALLEY Information Summary for Comprehensive Plan Revisions and Plan Amendments This form summarizes key information about your comprehensive plan revision or amendment that the Metropolitan Council needs for its review. Please complete the form as directed below and submit it to the Metropolitan Council with each comprehensive plan revision or amendment. (See Item C, page A50 for a list of the information to be included with your submittal.) _ NOTE: If your plan amendment is a simple "housekeeping" change, you need to complete only Part I of this form ("General Information," pages A49-AS0). Please be as specific as possible in your answers. If the staffofyour local governmental unit prepared a report for your Planning Commission or City Council regarding this plan revision or amendment, please attach it as well. IMPORTANT: Provide complete answers. This form is used to enable staff to determine completeness within t0 days. If the response on the form references an attached plan, the reference must Include the appropriate page, paragraph(s), tables, maps or figures. If you do not clearly reference where information can be found and Council review staff cannot find it, your plan may mistakenly be considered Incomplete. If you would prefer, you may request a diskette of this form (available in WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.1 and in ASCII). You may also submit a reasonable facsimile of this form from your word processing system. Please send plan revision or amendment to: Lynda Voge, Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth Street; SL Paul, MN 55101-1634 L General Information A. Sponsoring governmental unit City of Plymouth Name of local contact person Barbara Senness Address 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Telephone number 509-5452 FAX number 509-5407 Internet address (if applicable) BSenness~ci.plymouth.mn.us Name of preparer (if different from contact person) Date of preparation _August 22, 1996 Al B. Check all that apply and fill in requested information: ~ Overall plan revision ~-~ Name of amendment Grey Fox Square ~ Revision cfa plan chapter or element "Housekeeping" text change (If so, complete only Part I of this form.) X Land, use change (describe) _Change from Limiied Business to Service Business Size of affected area in acres 5.76 ~ Urban service area expansion (Applies only to amendments submitted before you submit your revised comprehensive plan due in 1998. Page 4.1 describes the information on development staging and timing.) Size of expansion in acres ~ Other (please describe) If you are submitting an amendment, briefly describe the amendment: C. Please attach seven copies of the following: 1. Completed Information Summary for Plan Revisions and Plan/lmendments form. 2. Your proposed plan revision or amendment. 3. A citywide map showing the location of the proposed change. 4. The current plan map, indicating areas affected by the revision or amendment. 5. The proposed plan map, indicating areas affected by the revision or amendment. _ NOTE: If your community has access to a geographic information system (GIS) or other automated mapping technology, the Council would appreciate it if you would submit your land use map and staging boundaries in digital form (one copy), in addition to the hard copies you send. The "Arc Export" format is preferred, but we can also use the "DXF" format. Putting this information in digital form will help minimize map discrepancies between your data and data maintained by the Council. D. What is the official local status of the proposed plan revision or amendment? (Check all that apply.) X Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on June 25, 1996 (date) X Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council Review on August 7, 1996 Considered, but not approved by governing body on (date) Other (Please describe). E. List adjacent local governmental units and other jurisdictions (school districts, watershed districts, etc.) affected by the change that have been sent copies of the plan revision or amendment, if any, and the date the copies were sent to them (required by Minn. Stat. 473.858, Subd. 2). City of New Hope--August 22, 1996 A2 _ Note: Please review the information requests in the following handbook sections for a complete description of information to accompany or to be included in your comprehensive plan revision or amendment: Wastewater, page 5.8 Transportation, page 5.1 Aviation, page 5.7 Recreation Open Space, page 5.10 Land Use, page 4.1 Housing, page 4.8 Water Resources, page 4.20 Implementation Program, page 6.1 Water Supply, page 5.12 Il. Impact on Regional Systems A. Wastewater Treatment 1. Total flow for community based on existing plan: ' NA (see No. 2) million gallons/day (mgd) year 2000; _NA (see No. 2) mgd year 2010 2. Will the proposed plan revision or amendment result in a change in the projected sewer flows for the community? X~ No, If not, skip to question 7. __ Yes - Indicate the expected change: 3. Total flow for community based on plan revision or amendment: .mgd year 2000; . mgd year 2010 4. If your community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor, indicate which interceptor will be affected by the revision or amendment. 5. Will flows be diverted from one interceptor service area to another? No __ Yes - Describe the change and volumes involved in mgd: 6. Is any wastewater flow an intercommunity flow to an adjoining community's sanitary sewer system? No __ Yes - If yes, enclose a copy of the inter-community agreement. 7. Has your community adopted a comprehensive program for the management of on-site septic systems including biennial inspections? No Yes X~Not applicable- Please explain: The City's rural area density is less than one unit per 10 acres A3 B. Transportation ~-~ 1. Does this plan revision or amendment potentially increase existing trip generation (use Institute of Transportation Engineers trip-generation manual)? ~ No - If not, skip to question 3. X Yes - If yes, how much average daily'traffic? ~4,398~trips versus 1 ~204 to 2,734 trips based on existing plan How much peak hour traffic? 333 trips versus 161 to 326 trips based on existing plan 2. Does the existing local and regional road network (including metropolitan interchanges) have the capacity to accommodate planned land use(s)? X No Yes a. If not, will this plan revision or amendment require improvements to local or regional roads or interchanges? No X Yes Specify: installation of a traffic signal at TH 169 ramps at Schmidt Lake Rd. Explain who will pay for these improvements: Mn/DOT and the developer If not, will these improvements be in place to accommodate the proposed development? No ~ Yes Are these improvements included in a capital Improvement program? No ~X Yes b. If not, will this plan revision or amendment require implementing traffic demand management (TDM) strategies or land use and urban design measures? ___~_x No __ Yes - If yes, How? (For example, park & rides, flexible work hours, mixed land uses.) 3. Does this plan amendment impact transit service or facilities? X No Yes - How? 4. Does the proposed plan revision or amendment affect pedestrian or bike systems? X No Yes - How? A4 C. Aviation 1. Do your community's plan or codes/ordinances include a "nOtification" element to protect regional airspace? X~No Yes 2. Do the proposed changes in the plan revision or amendment involve areas within an airport influence area or airport search area? ~X No - If no, skip to "D," "Recreation Open Space." Yes 3. Are the proposed changes in the plan revision or amendment consistent with guidelines for land use compatibility and aircraft noise guidelines and approved airport Long-term Comprehensive Plan7 No Yes __ Not applicable D. Recreation Open Space 1. Does the plan revision or amendment affect existing 'or future federal, state or regional parks, park reserves or trails? ~x No ~ Yes - If yes, describe: 2. Does the plan revision or amendment include a trail segment or connection to a regional trail or park? X No Yes III. Impact on Land Use A. Plan Revision If you are submitting a plan revision and you are using your own community's land use data, please attach copies of the land use tables you completed on pages Al7, Al8, A25-A27 in the handbook appendix. B. Plan Amendment Questions 1, 2 and 3 below apply only to plan amendments involving a land use change and urban service area expansion. Describe the following, as applicable: 1. For the area in the amendment: a. Existing land uses in acres: b. Proposed land uses in acres: A5 2. For residential use amendments: a. Number of residential dwelling units and types (single, multi-family) involved under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment b. Density under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment 3. For commercial/industrial/institutional use amendments: a. Square footage of commercial structures under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment b. Square footage of industrial structures under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment e. Square footage of institutional structures under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment d. Number of employees under existing plan Under proposed revision/amendment IV. Impact on Housing 1. Will the plan revision or amendment affect the availability of affordable or life-cycle housing in your community? ~X No - If no, skip to "V," "Environmental Resources." Yes If this change favorably affects your community's ability to achieve housing goals under the Livable Communities Act or goals stated in the housing element of your comprehensive plan, please describe: If this change negatively affects your community's ability to meet your housing goals, what provision has your community made to compensate for this impact? V. Environmental Resources 1. Will an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) be prepared for the plan revision or amendment? ~x No ~ Yes - If yes, what is the schedule for completion of the EAW? 2. Does the plan revision Or amendment affect a state, federal or locally protected wetland? No ~X Yes - If yes, please include a map showing the location of the wetland. Describe the type of wetland affected and tell how it will be protected or how impacts will be mitigated. The affected wetland is of High QualiW according to the CiW's classification system. At the time of development, the City will require a combined wetland buffer and building setback of 65 feet from the wetland. The CiW will also require an appropriately-sized NURP pond and erosion control measures during construction. A6 3. Will the plan revision or amendment potentially affect the quality of any surface water body? X No See Question 2 above. Yes Identify which ones and describe the impacts: Indicate how any negative impacts will be mitigated: 4. Has the community adopted the Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to All Metropolitan Water Bodies? No X Yes - If yes, has the community implemented the strategy? No X Yes 5. Does the plan revision or amendment affect the Mississippi River Critical Area planning standards and the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan? ~X No Yes. Describe: ~ Not Applicable 6. Does your community have an adopted water supply plan that meets the requirements of Chapter 186 of 1993 Session Laws? ~ Not Applicable X~ No This plan is in its final local review stages. __ Yes - If yes, will the proposed plan revision or plan amendment affect your water supply plan? No ~ Yes - If yes, how? 7. Has your community adopted a local surface water management plan? ~X No The.City has iust completed its first draft of this plan. __ Yes - If yes, will the proposed plan revision or plan amendment affect your local surface water management plan? No __ Yes - If yes, how? A7 VI. Implementation Program 1. Will the plan revision or amendment require changes in zoning, subdivision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls? No ~X Yes - If yes, when? following plan amendment adoption Describe proposed changes The zoning will be changed from B-2 (Shopping Center Business District) to B-3 (Service Business District) which is consistent with the new Guide Plan designation. 2. Has your community adopted a capital improvements program? No X~ Yes - If yes, what changes will be needed in your community's capital improvement program to implement the plan revision or amendment? ['lOne AS · Existing Land USe Guide Plan ~ Site Location rj) ~ Parcel Boundary Land Use Guide Plan ~ CL-Limited Business C;[t~ Of ~ CR2-Shopping Center Retail ~ IP-Planned Industrial [P].yTJ'I_out~. ~VI'il'J.Ticsot. a ~ LAl-Low-Density Residential ~ LA2-Low-Medium Density Residential . J~JJ~J LA3-Medium Density Residential ~h.,..,....,.. com,,,..o, o,,.~...,.-..~ ~ ~ LA4-High Density Residential =,.,,om ~.,,c.,,.,...,.....,.,-.,~.,.,,~.. w~ s ~ OPEN-Park/Public Land not been field veriled. InformetiM1 Ihould bt IIId venled ind compared W~ (xiginll I~urce documentl. s ~ U-Park/Public Land Proposed Land Use Guide Plan ~ Service Business rl r---] Parcel Boundary Land Use Guide Plan ~ CL-Limited Business Cit~ o~' ~ CR2-Shopping Center Retail ~ IP-Planned Industrial Plymouth, Minnesota ~LAl-Low-Density Residential ~ LA2-Low-Medium Density Residential , ~ LA3-Medium Density Residential ,,,,.,., .... ~..o..,,.,,o.o,,.,o....o.... ~/~ ~ LA4-High Density Residential ""'"0' ~. °~,. """"' "ho' """" '"' "" w~ ~ ~ OPEN-Park/Public Land not been fi.Md ~riied. Information should bi fetal ~..~°...= co...,°. ~ .~...... ~..a. r-'-i u-Pa rk/Public La nd $ TO: Dwight ~ohnson, City Manager ~°-~] FROM: John Keho, Senior Planner through Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director SUBJECT: C.G. REIN INDUSTRIES, INC. AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE GUIDE PLAN ELEMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, SITE PLAN; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF HIGHWAY 169 AND SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD. (96~,) DATE: August 2, 1996 for the City Council Meeting of August 7, 1996 REVIEW PERIOD DEADLINE: September 7, 1996 1. PROPOSED MOTION: Move the resolution approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permits, Site Plans, Variances and a Preliminary Plat for C. G. Rein Industries. Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Conditional Use Permit requires a 5/7 vote of the City Council. 2. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Guide Plan Element designation of 5.76 acres of land from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business). The City Council will review the related zoning change for this property after the Metropolitan Council has completed its review of the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment. Other requests that the Council will review as part of the current application include: a Preliminary Plat, Site Plans, Conditional Use Permits and Variances. Since these applications are subject to the approval of both the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment and the Rezorting, the review and approvals can occur prior to Council review of the Zoning Change. The Resolution approving these items includes a condition stating that it is subject to the approval of the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment and the Rezoning. 96044, Page 2 The applicant is proposing to construct three buildings~ A convenience store with gas pumps would be located on Lot 1. A Class I (sit down) restaurant would be located on Lot 2, and an eight-bay auto service center would be located on Lot 3. The Rezoning request would be reviewed by the City Council at a later meeting date. At the Public Hearing on June 2:5, 1996, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 (Ribbe voted Nay) to recommend approval of the requests. In addition to the applicant, several members of the Church of the Epiphany spoke as well as a resident of New Hope. The primary concerns raised by members of the church related to the potential of traffic from the new development using the church property for a short cut to Nathan Lane. Their concern was due to.the congestion they believe would occur for motorists making a left mm onto Schmidt Lake Road from the shared driveway to the applicant's site. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant revised the entrance plan to include an island in the entrance driveway that would channelize all vehicular traffic to Schmidt Lake Road. The median would make it very awkward for a motorist to drive from the applicant's property to the church site. The applicant and members of the church met on July 17, 1996 to discuss the revision. The church members were satisfied with the changed plan. The City received a copy of a letter dated July 18, 1996 from John Spoolman of the Building and Grounds Committee to C. G. Rein agreeing to the revised plan. The letter also indicates agreement on the signage and driveway maintenance issues. The letter is attached. Mr. Rodrigue of New Hope expressed concern over increased traffic and wondered why another service station was needed. His concerns regarding traffic are discussed as part of the Traffic Analysis. Planning Commission Discussion The Commission discussed this item quite thoroughly. Several Commissioners were concerned that the traffic produced by this project would create additional traffic congestion in the area. Director Hurlburt indicated that there would be traffic congestion with any development on this site. She indicated that the additional traffic generated by this proposal would not be a problem immediately but in the future. Ms. Fisher, representing the applicant, stated that the Level of Service would be a Level D or higher for all the intersections except one. (Level of Service of A through D is considered acceptable) The one movement that would be unacceptable would be the left mm from the project site onto Sehmidt Lake Road. The unacceptable service would only occur for one hour a day. The applicant indicated that they would pay for one fourth of a traffic signal on Sehmidt Lake Road. The traffic signal could be located at Nathan Lane, the entrance to their project or at Highway 169. The Planning Commission's recommendation of approval included modifying the resolution to require: 1) that the applicant pay for one leg of a traffic signal between Nathan Lane and Hwy. 169, 2) that the applicant enter into an agreement with the church to pay for signage at both church entrances to reduce cut through traffic (the church and the applicant have agreed to delay installation of the signs until they are needed) and 3) that the applicant enter into an agreement with the church regarding a maintenance agreement for the shared driveway. The applicant has agreed to all three additional conditions. 96044, Page 3 ' Later in the Planning Commission meeting, ~ ~0~ssion reopened discussion on this item. Several Commissioners indicated that theY ~ ~nce~ about'the project that they did not voice during the earlier discussion because they were unsure about other Commissioners' positions. They also raised the appropriateness of raising objections to the Council once the Commission had voted. Staff noted that the Commission may want to consider ground rules. After considerable discussion, staff indicated that the Commission could vote to reconsider their earlier motion, even with the applicant absent.' Commissioner Spigner made a motion to reconsider the item. The motion failed for lack of a second. Revised Traffic Analysis In order to clarify some of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission regarding traffic, the City's Traffic consultant revised the Traffic Study. The revised report also more clearly discusses the future forecasted traffic conditions on the street system and includes the following additional finding: Based on this traffic study and analysis it is concluded that the proposed retail development could be accommodated by the adjacent roadway system with the recommended traffic control and traffic operations improvements. Most traffic movements to and from the site can be made with little or no difficulty, and overall levels of service will be acceptable. Staff believes that the revised Traffic Analysis more effectivelY describes the impact of this project on the roadway system. Specifically, the Sehmidt Lake Road intersection with the driveway into this site would operate at a Level of Service of A except for the left mm from the site onto Schmidt Lake Road. The report makes a finding that the left mm movement would operate at a Level of Service F even if the site were to be developed under the existing Guide Plan classification. 3. ANALYSIS: A. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guide Plan Element The applicant is requesting approval to reguide 5.76 acres of land from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business). Changes to the Land Use Guide Plan must be based on the proposal's impact on the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City Council should consider: 1) the Comprehensive Plan Goals, 2) the Land Use Guide Plan Element, 3) the City's overall land use pattern, and 4) site specific characteristics and issues. These issues are addressed below. D Comprehensive Plan GOals The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Plymouth includes seven goals upon which the Comprehensive Plan is built. The goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan include: 1) Communications and Community Relations, 2) Suitable Housing, 3) Economic Vitality, 4) Security, 5) Access through Infrastructure, 6) Human Development and 7) Fiscal Resources. A detailed description of the goals is attached. 96044, Page 6 b. Utilities: The proposed change would not have an impact on the City's Utility System. B. Preliminary Plat The applicant is proposing to create three lots out of an existing lot. Each building would be located on its own parcel of record. The acreage of the lots would be: Lot 1; 2.64, Lot 2, 2.1; and Lot 3, 1.03. The proposed lots would meet all the requirements of the Subdivision Code and the Zoning Ordinance. The Subdivision Code includes a provision that enables the City to require developers to construct sidewalks on arterial streets. Staff has included a condition in the resolution requiring the applicant to construct a sidewalk along Schmidt Lake Road. C. Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variances The applicant is proposing to construct three buildings. A convenience store with gas pumps would be located on Lot 1. A Class I (sit down) restaurant would be located on Lot 2, and an eight-bay auto service center would be located on Lot 3. All three lots have been designed to function as one project and include similar wall and roof designs. There would be one entrance to the site from Schmidt Lake Road and the signage would be coordinated between the lots. The trash enclosures for each building would be incorporated into the structures a and would not be freestanding. The Luminaire Plan for the project meets City requirements. Additional discussion regarding the sign Variance request is detailed later in this section. The landscaping plan has also been coordinated between the lots.. A total of 41 trees are required for this project. The applicant is proposing to install 75 trees, 39 ornamentals and numerous shrubs. The Landscaping Plan therefore exceeds the City requirements. This project is subject to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Up to 75 percent of the caliper inches may be removed from the site without reforestation. The applicant's plan would remove 77 percent of caliper inches from this site. The Tree Preservation Ordinance requires that 38.75 caliper inches be planted on the site to compensate for the removal of trees in excess of the Ordinance threshold. The landscaping plan includes the plant',rog of 157.5 caliper inches. Consequently; the plan exceeds the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Lot 1, Convenience Store The proposed convenience store requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the gasoline pumps and the'car wash. A Variance is also required to permit the canopy over the pumps to be separated from the main building. The convenience store would contain 2880 square feet and include a drive through car wash. The business would have two pump islands with a two gas pumps on each island.. The applicant's design shows a total of 32 parking spaces on the lot, one more than required by the Zoning Ordinance. 96~, Page 7 Lot ! is the only lot with wetland issues. The ~e~ is designated as a High Quality Wetland and requires an average buffer of 50 feet with a 15-foot building sethack. The applicant's plan meets this requirement by proposing an average 65-foot or greater buffer and setback from most of the wetland. The minimum 55-foot buffer and setback is proposed only in a small area adjacent to the west side of the convenience store. A Variance is requested to permit a freestanding canopy for the pump island. Staff finds the proposed Variance for two structures on a lot meets the Variance criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the hardship is created by this Ordinate and conflicting requirements of the !994 Unified Building Code (UBC). The Zoning Ordinance does not permit two structures on commercial lots. The UBC design regulations for a single structure containing both a convenience store and gas pumps require a one-hour fire separation. This requirement essentially prohibits a glass storefront. In addition, Staff will be recommending changes in upcoming revisions of the Zoning Ordinance to permit free standing canopies for convenience stores. Also, the Variance will not .impair the supply of light and air to the surrounding properties and will not impair property values in the area. Staff f'mds that the proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit standards for a gasoline sales and a car wash. Lot 2, Class I Restaurant The proposed restaurant would contain 6200 square feet an have 300 seats. The specific restaurant has not yet been determined. A total of 122 parking spaces are proposed. The Zoning Ordinance requires 122 spaces for a restaurant of this size. Lot 3, Auto Service Center The proposed auto service center would include eight bays in a 5,000 square-foot building. The building could be divided into three tenant spaces. No outside storage of vehicles is proposed. A total of 15 parking spaces are required and the applicant is proposing to construct 18 spaces on this lot. Consequentiy, this site meet the Ordinance requirements for parking. All automobile service uses require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Staff f'mds that this proposal meets the CLIP standards for an automobile service center. Sign Variance Request The Variance requested is for the sign on Lot 3. The applicant is requesting that the sign on Lot 3 be permitted to advertise all three businesses. The Zoning Ordinance permits the advertisement of two adjoining business on commonly owned property. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit the advertisement of three business, each on a separate lot, on a single sign. Staff believes there may be unique features to this request; however, staff also believes that the applicant should clearly incorporate the "ground' sign for the restaurant into the front wall of the building and thereby eliminate any free standing signage from Lot 2. The project would then have two freestanding signs instead of the three permitted by the Ordinance. Staff has made this a condition of the approving resolution. 96044, Page 8 Staff finds that this three-lot commercial development is unique due to the single entrance to the site and the unified architectural design of the project. In addition, the Variance will not impair the supply of light and air to the surrounding properties and will not impair property values in the area. 4. RECOMMI~NDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and a Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions in the attached resolution, as recommended by the Planning Commission. ATTACRMENTS: 1. Resolution Approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2. Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat, Site Plans, Conditional Use Permits and Variances 3. Engineer's Memo 4. Traffic Study 5. Comprehensive Plan Goals 6. Location Criteria for CL and CR Land Uses 7. Conditional Use Permit Standards 8. Zoning Ordinance Variance Standards 9. Petitioner' s Narrative 10. July 18, 1996 Letter from the Church of the Epiphany 1 f. Location Map 12. Site Graphics 13. Site Plan Including the Church and the Project Site 14. Revised Entrance Design .15. June 25, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes plan\staffrep\cc\96044 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 96 - APPROVING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR C. G. R~N INDUSTRIF. S, INC. (96044)- WHEREAS, C. G. Rein Industries, Inc. has requested reclassification of the land use guiding from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business) for a 5.76-acre property located at the southwest quadrant of Highway 169 and Schmidt Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT I-rt~_Rh-3~y RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNF_SOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by C. G. Rein Industries, Inc. for reclassification of the land use guiding from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business) for a 5.76-acre property located at the southwest quadrant of Highway 169 and Schmidt Lake Road. FURTHER, approval of the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment is contingent upon, and subject to, the required review and response by the Metropolitan Council. Adopted by the City Council off August 7, 1996. STATE OF MINNF_3OTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPI/q) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on , with the original thereof on f'fle in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNF_3S my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this dayof city Cle CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 96 - APPROVING PR]=IIMINARY PLAT, SITE PLANS, CONDITIONAL USE PERNtITS, AND VARIANCES FOR C. G. REIN INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SO~EST QUADRANT OF HIGHWAY 169 AND SCHlVIIDT LAKE ROAD (96044) WI-~REAS, C. G. Rein Industries, Inc. has requested approval of a Preliminary Plat, three Site Plans, and related Conditional Use Permits and Variances for a commercial development on property legally described on the attached Exhibit "A'; and, WI-IERF~S, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY REBOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by C. G. Rein Industries, Inc. for Preliminary Pht, three Site Plans, and related Conditional Use Permits and Variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Preliminary Plat, three Site Plans, and related Conditional Use Permits and Variances are subject to the approval of the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications. 2. A Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variance is approved on Lot I for a 2,880 square-foot convenience store with two gas pump islands, according to the plans received by the City on May 10, 1996, except as amended by this resolution. 3. A Site Plan is approved on Lot 2 for a 6,200 square-foot Class I restaurant with 300 seats, according to the plans received by the City on May 10, 1996, except as amended by this resolution. 4. A Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit is approved on Lot 3 for a 5,200 square-foot auto service center with.eight hays, according to the plans received by the City on May 10, 1996, except as amended by this resolution. 5. A Preliminary Plat is approved for the creation of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Epiphany Second Addition. 6. A note shall be added to the plans indicating that all roof-top equipment shall be painted to match the building. 96044, Page 2 7. Two Variances are granted from the Fire Code. A fire lane is not required on the east side of the auto service center on Lot 3 or on the south and west side of the convenience store on Lot 1. 8. Covenants regarding cross access, parking and fire access shall be submitted for staff review and. shall be fried with I-Iennepin County prior to issuance of building permits. 9. The developer shall construct a six-foot sidewalk along Schmidt Lake Road. An easement for the trail (if needed) shall be submitted to the City and recorded with the Final Plat. 10. A Variance is granted to permit the advertisement of the business of all three lots on the free standing sign located on Lot 3. The Variance is based on the finding that: A. This three-lot commercial development is unique due to the single entrance to the site and the unified architectural design of the project. B. The Variance will not impair the supply of light and air to the surrounding properties and will not impair property values in the area. 11. A Variance is granted to permit two structures on Lot 1. The Variance is based on the f'mding that: A. The Variance is needed so that the building can comply with the Unified Building Code regarding area separation issues. B.. The Variance will not impair the supply of light and air to the surrounding properties and will not impair property values in the area. 12. The ground sign shown on Lot 2 shall be physically attached to the restaurant building and shall be counted toward the wall signage permitted for the building. 13. A covenant shall be placed on all three lots providing for the joint use and maintenance of the free standing sign on Lot 3. The covenant shall also prohibit the placement of a freestanding sign on Lot 2. 14. The developer shall pay for one leg of a traffic signal that would be installed between Nathan Lane and I-Iighway 169. 15. The developer shall pay for signage to be located at both entrances of the Church of the Epiphany to discourage cut through traffic as agreed upon by the devloper and the church. 16. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the Church of the Epiphany regarding the shared driveway. 17. Standard Conditions: A. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum. 96044, Page 3 B. Compliance with Policy Resolution 79-80 regarding minimum floor elevations for new structures on sites adjacent to, or containing any open storm water drainage facility. C. Submission of the required Financial Guarantee and Site Performance Agreement for completion of site improvements within twelve months of the date of this Resolution. D. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per Ordinance provisions. E. Compliance with the Ordinance regarding the location of fire hydrants, fire lanes, and fire lane signage. F. An 8 1/2 x 11 inch "As Built' Fire Protection Plan shall be submitted prior to the release or reduction of any site improvement bonds per City Policy. G. Submission and approval of fire flow calculations prior to the issuance of building permits. H. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, regulations and ordinances, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. I. Park dedication fees shall be cash fees in lieu of land dedication in accordance with the dedication policy in effect at the time of building permit issuance. J. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers, employees, and agents for all costs, damages or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. K. No building permits shall be issued until the Final Plat is fried and recorded with Hennepin County. L. No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for construction of municipal sewer and water. M. Submittal of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the City Engineer prior to filing the Final Plat. N. Compliance with regulations regarding handicapped parking spaces and access. Adopted by the City Council on August 7, 1996. 96044, Page STATE OF MINNF_SOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPn~ SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on ,1996, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNF__~S my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this day of City Clerk 96044, Page 5 ~ ~ City of Plymouth ENGINEER'S MEMO to Planning Commission &,City Council DATE: June 6, 1996 FILE NO.: 96044 PETITIONER: Linda Fisher Larkin, Hoffman, Daily and Lindgren, Ltd. 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55431 PRELIMINARY PLAT: EPWHANY SECOND ADDITION LOCATION: West of Highway 169 and south of Schmidt Lake Road in the southeast 1/4 of Section 12. ASSESS1V~NT RECORDS: N/A YES NO 1. ~ ~ ~ Have watermain area assessments been levied based on proposed use? 2. -- ~-~ ~ Have sanitary sewer area assessments been levied based on proposed use? 3. ~ F'~ ~ Will SAC and REC charges be payable at the time building permits issued?. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and No. 2 Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at the time of final plat approval. _ 4. Area assessments: None. 5. Other additional assessments estimated: The developer will be responsible _for 1/4 of the cost for signal installation if the frontage road is relocated to opposite the driveway. A letter of credit and/or an assessment a_t, reement will be required for this profect.. EPIPItANY SECOND ADDITION (96044) PRELIMINARY PLAT Page 2 LEGAL/EASEMENTS/PE~$: N/A YES NO 6. ~'~ ~-~ ~ Does the preliminary plat comply with standard utility/drainage easements? If "No" is marked, the City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. 7. ~ ~ ~'~ Are all standard utility easements required for construction provided? The City will require twenty foot (20') utility and drainage easements for proposed utilities along thc lot lines where these utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed with the preliminary plat construction plans. _ If "No" is marked,' the following shall be included on the fmal plat: A 20 foot drainage and utility_ easement will be required for the public portion of the sanitar~ sewer. The 100 _year high water elevation for Pond NH-P6 is 898.0 8. ~-~ F-~ ~ Complies with ponding easement requirements? Thc City requires the dedication of drainage easements for ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year high water elevation in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Water Drainage Plan. If 'No" is marked, the following easement shall be included on the final plat: A drainage easement for ponding will be required over the ponding area including the treatment pond. 9. ~'~ ~ F-~ Have all existing unnecessary easements and fights-of-way been vacated? If "No" is marked, it will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/rights-of-way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process, it is the owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. EPIPHANY SECOND ADDITION (96044) PRELIMINARY PLAT Page 3 N/A YES NO 10. [-~ ~-~ ~ Has the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title been submitted to the City with this application? _ It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City attorney with the Owner's Duplicate certificate of Title in order that he may fde the required easement or vacation of unnecessary easement. If it is subsequently determined that the subjecl~ property is abstract property, then this requirement does not apply, 11. ~ ~ All necessary permits for this project have been obtained? The developer must comply with the conditions within any permit. If "No" the following permits must be obtained by the developer: DNR Bassett Creek MnDOT Minnehaha Creek Hennepin County Elm Creek lVlPCA Shingle Creek State Health Department Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Conservation Act of N'PDES (5 Acres Or More) 1991 from City TRANSPORTATION: 12. ~ ~ Does the preliminary plat conform with the grid system for street names? If *No~ is marked, the following changes will be necessary: EPIPHANY SECOND ADDITION (96044) PRELIMINARY PLAT Page 4 N/A YES NO 13. ~ ~-~ ~ Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided? If "No" is marked, acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of and 14. ~ ~-~ [-~ Are all existing street fights-of-way the required width? If "No" is marked, an additional feet of fight-of-way will be required on 15. ~ ~ ~ Do the preliminary street and utility plans conform with City standard requiring the developer to construct utilities necessary to serve this plat? If "No" is marked, in accordance with City standards, the developer shall be responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and prof'fles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities, and streets to serve the development. 16. ~-~ ~-~ ~ Do preliminary utility and street plans submitted comply with all City requirements? If "No" is marked, the following revisions are required for:? If "No" is marked, the utility plan shall be revised to indicate the size and type of material.  S anitary Sewer Watermain Storm Sewer Street/Concrete Curb & Gutter EPIPHANY SECOND ADDITION (96044) PRELIMINARY PLAT Page 5 N/A YES NO 17. --~-~[---] Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions must be made to conform with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan 18. ~ ~-~ ~ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan? If "No" is marked the following revisions will be requixvxl: 19. ~ [-'~[~ Do the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions will be required: 20. [--] [-~ ~-~ Is it necessary to contact Greg Cook, the City's Public Utility Foreman, 509-59927 If "Yes" is marked, 24 hour's notice is required in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. All wat0r ~9nnegfions shall be via wet tap. 21. ~ [-~[--~ Is it necessary to contact Roger Wenner, the City's Street Foreman, at 509-5993 for an excavating permit? If "Yes" is marked, 24 hour's notice is required before digging within the City fight-of-way. . - ~ G:~NG*~DEVL~~PP.DOC EPIPHANY SECOND ADDITIOis' (96044) PRELIMINARY PLAT Page 6 PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL: N/A YES NO 22. ~'~~[---] DO the preliminary construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions are re~luLred: 23. ~ ~ ~'~ DOCS the preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan comply wkh the City's Erosion ConU'ol Policy? If "No' is marked, the following revisions will be required: Hay bales shall be placed around catchbasins, all necessary notes and details shall be included to meet NPDE$ permit requirements, 24. [-'--] ~ ~ Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots: SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED: 25. A. The pond calculations submitted did not include the 100 year high water elevation calculation. This shall be submitted for review and approval. B. The developer shall enter into a pond maintenence agreement with the City for the water quality treatment pond. C. The l,snd Use Guide Plan change for this development will have no impact on the sanitary trunk system, watermain distribution or storm sewer system. ~ D. A traffic study is attached from SRF Consulting Group, Inc. addressing traffic volumes associated with uses permitted in the current Land Use Guide Plan and traffic volumes associated with the proposed Land Use Guide Plan. Since there is not a significant impact on, the Road system between permitted uses under the current guiding and the proposed guiding the Engineering Department recommends approval of this project. G:'~I4 G~E'VLMI4TSk9 f~P~I~OC~ P P .DOC EPIPHANY SECOND ADDITI~,4 (96044) PRELINONARY PLAT Page 7 E. The traffic study indicates there will be operational problems for traffic exiting the site driveway in the future and for the frontage road. Although frontage road relocation, traffic signal and median construction are discussed, none of these improvements are approved as part of the City's construction program or as part of this plan approval. The city will monitor traffic on the public streets for future recommendations for any improvements. F. The radius for the driveway at Schmidt Lake Road shall be reconstructed to at least a 30' R. Submitted by: ~~ ~ ~ Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. City Engineer G:~ENO-'~DEVLMNT~'~6044~X~M'I%'~f044PP.DOC City of Plymouth ENGINEER~S MEMO to Planning Commi.~sion & City Council DATE: June 6, 1996 FILE NO.: 96044 PETITIONER: Ms. Linda Fisher Larkin, Hoffman, Daly 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerses Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55431 SITE PLAN: CONVENH~ STORE, RESTA~ AND AUTO SERVICE CENTER LOCATION: West of Highway 169 and south of $¢hmidt Lake Road in the southeast 1/4 of Section 12. ASSESSMF~NT RECORDS: 1. Have watcrmain area assessments been levied based on proposed use? _ 2. ~ ~'~ Have sanitary sewer area assessments been levied based on proposed use? _ 3. -- ~-~ ~ Will SAC and REC charges be payable at thc time building permits are issued?. These are in addition to the assessments shown in No. 1 and No. 2 Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed annually on Sanuary 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at the time of site plan approval. 4. Area assessments estimated None. N/A YES NO 5. Other additional assessments estimated: This development will be re~onsible for 1/4 of the cost for the in~l!~#on of a_future signal ~stem ff the _frontage road is relocated tO oppo~_te the site driveway. A financi_n_l euarantee and/or assessment agreement will be required for this project. CONVENFF.~ STORE, RESTA~ AND AUTO SERVICE CEN · ER (96044) SITE PLAN Page 2 LEGAL/EAS EM~.NTS/PFA1MITS: N/A YES NO 6. ~ ~ ~'~ Is property one parcel'/'. If "No" is marked, the approval of the site plan as proposed requires that a lot consolidation be approved by the City Council Will comply when the final plat of F4~iphanv 2nd Addition is recorded with Hennepin Count_. 7. ~-~ Complies with standard utility/drainage easements? If *'No" is marked, the current City ordinance requires utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and six feet (6') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. (If easements are required, it is necessary for the owner to submit separate easement documents executed and in recordable form prior to the issuance of any building permits.) Will comply when the _final plat Ephinay 2nd Addition with Hennepin Count_. 8. ~ ~-] ~'~ Complies with ponding easement requirements? The City requires the dedication of drainage easements for ponding purposes on all property lying below the established 100 year high water elevation in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Water Drainage Plan. If "No" is marked, the following easement shall be included on the final plat: A drainage easement for pondine will be required over the ponding area includin~ the treatment oond. The 100 year h&k water elevation for Pond NH-P6 is 898,0 9. -- ~ [-~ Are aH standard utility easements required for construction provided? The City requires twenty foot (20') utility and drainage easements where these utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed with the f'mal site plan. If "No" is marked, the following changes are necessary: Will comply when the final plat of Ehinay 2nd Addition is recorded with Hennepin County_, 10. ~-~ [~ ~ . Have aH existing unnecessary easements and rights-of-way been vacated? If "No" is marked, it will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/rights- of-way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process, it is the owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. G**~ENG~DE~ MTSY~M S P. DOC CONVENrENT STORE, RESTA~ AND AUTO SERVICE CEN $'ER (96044) SITE PLAN Page 3 N/A YES NO 11. [~ ~--] ~'-] Has the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title been submitted to the City with this application? If it is subsequently determined that the subject property i.q abstract pro_~rty, then this requirement does not a?ply. It will be necessary for the property owner to provide the City Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file the required casements referred to above 12. __ ~-~. Have all necessary permits for this project been obtained? The developer must comply wit~ the conditions within any permit. DNR Bassett Cr~k MnDOT Minnehaha Creek I-Ierm~in County Elm Cr~k MPCA Shingle Creek State Health Department Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Conservation Act of NPDF_~ (5 Acres Or More) 1991 fmm City 13 ~ ~-~ [~ Does the Site Plan COmply with the City's Adopted Storm Drainage Plan? If "No" is marked, the following revisions am required: 14 ~ -- ~'~ Does the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan comply with the City's Erosion Control Policy? If *No~ is marked, the following revisions are required: Hay bales shall be vlaeed around eatehbasins, all notes and det_m'_t~_ shall be included in the fi. at_ -eradin~ vlan to meet NPDES permit reanirement$~ 15. -- ~'~ Are necessary f'u'e hydrants provided? If "No" is marked, the City of Plymouth requires fire hydrants be spaced at minimum 300 feet apart. It will be necessary to locate hydrants in such a manner that the site plan complies with Plymouth Code Section 905.05. CONVF2qlENT STORE, RESTA~ AND AUTO SERVICE CEN , ER (96044) SITE PLAN Page 4 N/A YES NO 16. ~ Is the size and type of material proposed in the utility systems included on the utility plans? If "No" is marked, the utility plan shall be revised to indicate the. size and type of material. Sanitary Sewer Watermain Storm Sewer 17. ~ [-~ Is the post indicator valve and fire department connection provided? If "No" is marked, they shall be included on the site utility plan. 18. ~-~ ~-~ ~--~ Are hydrant valves provided? If "No" is marked, all new fire hydrants shall be valved with 6" gate valves per City Engineering Guidelines Detail Plate No. W-2: 19. ~'~ ~-] F'--] Are sanitary sewer clean-outs provided? If "No" is marked, it will be necessary to provide clean-outs on the proposed internal sanitary sewer system at a maximum of 100 foot intervals: 20. ~-~ ~ ~ Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided? · If "No" is marked, acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of and G:'~ENG'~~IVfTgg~O~SP: DOC CONVENW~NT STORE, RESTA~ AND AUTO SERVICE CEN ,ER (96044) SITE PLAN Page $ N/A YES NO If "No" is marked, an additional ~ feet of right-of-way will be required on GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL: 22. [-~ ~-~ ~-] Does the grading plan comply with site drainage requirements? If "No" is marked, the City will not permit drainage onto a city street from a private parking lot, the site plan shall be revised accordingly. 23. ~ ~ ~-~ Is concret~ curb and gutter provided? If "No" is marked, the City requires B-612 concrete curb and gutter at all entrances and where drainage must be controlled, curb stone may be used where it is not necessary to control drainage. For traffic control either B-612 or curb stone is required around the bituminous surfaced parking lot. The site plan shall be revised to indicate compliance with this requirement. Include a detail ]'or the B-612 curb and gutter. 24. ~-~ ~ [-~ Does the site plan comply with parking Iot standards? The City requires that all traveled areas within the parking lot, as well as the proposed entrances, shall be constructed to a 7-ton standard City design with six inches of Class 5 100% crushed limestone and three inches of 2341 wear or five and one-half inches of 2331 base and two inches of 2341 wear. All parking areas may be constructed to a standard 5-ton design consisting of four inches of Class 5 100% crushed limestone and two inch bituminous mat. If "No" is marked, the site shall be revised to indicat~ compliance with these requirements; G:~NG~DLrVLMlqTS~04~IOC~P.DOC CONVENrgNT STORE, RESTAGRANT AND AUTO SERVICE CEN ~ER (96044) SITE PLAN Page 6 N/A YF~ NO 25. ~ [-~ [--~: Is it necessary to contact Greg Cook, the City's Public Utility Foreman, at 509-5992 If "Yes" is marked, 24 hour's notice is required in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. All water connections shall be via wet tap. 26. [--] ~ [--] Is it necessary to contact Roger Wenner, the City's Street Foreman, at 509-5993 for an excavating permit? If "Yes" is marked, 24 hour's notice is required before digging within the City right-of-way. 27. -- [-~ -- The City requires reproducible mylar prints of sanitary sewer, water service, and storm sewer As-Builts for the site prior to the f'mancial guarantee being released. 28. F-~ F-~ ~ Does the site plan comply with the City of Plymouth's current engineering Standards Manual? If "No" is marked, see Items 6. 7. 8. 9. 12. 14, 15, 23 and Special Conditions. SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQLTHt~I'~: 29. A. The pond calculations submitted did not include the 100 year high water elevation calculation. This shall be submitted for review and approval. B. The developer shall enter into a pond maintenance agreement with the City for the water quality treament pond. C. The'Land Use Guide Plan change for this development will have no impact on the sanitary trunk system, watermain distribution or storm sewer system. D. A traffic study is attached from SRF Consulting Group, Inc. addressing traffic volumes associated with uses permitted in the current Land Use Guide Plan and traffic volumes associated with the proposed Land Use Guide Plan. Since there is not a significant impact G:~lqG-'K~E~P.DOC CONVF2qlE~ STORE, RESTA~ AND AUTO SERVICE CEa, ,'ER (96044) SITE PLAN Page 7 on the Road system between permitted uses under the current guiding and the proposed guiding the Engineering Department recommends approval of this project. E. The traffic study indicates them Will be operational problems for traffic exiting the site driveway in the future and for the frontage mad. Although frontage road relocation, traffic signal and median construction are discussed, none of these improvements are approved as part of the City's construction program or as part of this plan approval. The city will monitor traffic on the public streets for fumm recommendations for any improvements. F. The grading plan shall be revised to show how drainage will be maintained from the Water Quality Pond to Pond NIt-P6. G. Explain how the existing trees will survive in the wetland area adjacent to the water quality pond. H. Note the 100 year elevation for Pond NI-I-P6 on the grading plan. I. The radius for the driveway at Schmidt Lake Road shall be reconstructed to at least a 30' R. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. City Engineer Consulting Group, Inc. Transportation · Civil · Structural · Environmental · Planning · Traffic · Landscape Architecture · Parking SRF No. 0962385 May 1, 1996 (Revised July 15, 1996) Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. City Engineer CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 RE: TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 169 AND SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD CITY PROJECT NO. 929 Dear Dan: As you requested, we have completed a traffic study for the above referenced development proposal. This traffic study updates a study of the same site completed in March, 1989 by SRF, Inc. which included similar land use types but significantly more building square footage. We have also reviewed a study completed for the developer by BRW, Inc. dated March 1996. Based on our review and analysis, we offer the following comments and recommendations for your consideration: Introduction The proposed development would be located in the southwest comer of the TH 169 and Schmidt Lake Road interchange (see Figure 1, Project Location). The proposed development plan for this site consists of a 3,800 square-foot convenience store with gas pumps and car wash, a 6,200-square-foot sit-down restaurant, and a 5,200 square foot auto service center (see Figure 2, Proposed Development Plan). The existing land use guiding for this site is limited business, which includes employment-based office and/or service oriented office such as medical/dental office. The proposed land use guiding is retail business. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447-4443 Telephone (612) 475-0010 · Fax (612) 475-2429 An Equal Opport?nity Employer -~~ ...... ~_. ~1 ~ ~I "'" ~'/-~ F~. ~ -- ~ 4 4~ 'm &YE. OUEBE, "'"'~ ' '~. ,, d ~ ...... ~ ' ~ ~ ' POP 2~0~1 ' 40,. = A~. ' o z4 ' ~.,.,.~ ._... '"~ · ( RYsr~! ~~. , ~ ~ · ,~ .I ~ -I &/~' PROJECT LOCATION MAP 1 c.-.,,,-~-w.~- SCH~IDT'~ ROAD/~'~169 S.W. QUADRANT TRAFFIC STUDY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD/TH169 S.W. QUADRANT TRAFFIC STUDY Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. -4 - May 1, 1996 (Revised July 15, 1996) Trip Generation The number of vehicle trips generated by the proposed development was estimated by applying trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report 5th Edition (1991 and 1995 Update). The proposed development would generate 4,398 daily trips and 333 p.m. peak hour trips. Should this site be developed according to the existing land use guide plan of CL-Limited Business(Office), it is expected the site would generate 1,204 daily trips and 161 p.m. peak hour trips. An alternative scenario for medical office would also fit the existing land use guiding for the site. Trips generated by this medical office scenario are estimated at 2,734 daily and 326 p.m. peak hour trips (see Table 1). The p.m. peak hour (peak one hour between 4:00-6:00 p.m.) is typically the most critical hour for analysis purposes especially when considering retail land use. Directional Trip Distribution The assumed directional trip distribution used in this study (which is also similar to the tdp distribution assumed in the BRW study) (see Figure 3) was based on the specific land use types proposed plus the' local, and to a lesser extent, the regional distribution of households and employment. Retail land use as proposed on the subject site may have a more local and neighborhood related directional trip distribution. This explains the lower trip distribution to Highway 169. An employment based office land use may have a more regional directional trip distribution, which would have resulted in higher trip distribution to Highway 169. However a service oriented office like medical/dental office may also have a more local and neighborhood related directional trip distribution. The specific mix of retail land use on the site may ultimately evolve to result in a more regional trip distribution with a heavier trip attraction to and from Highway 169. Traffic Operations Analysis Existing conditions and two proposed development scenarios were analyzed: 1) Existing Background Traffic only, 2) Existing Traffic Volumes plus Site Traffic, and 3).Year 2015 Traffic Forecasts with site traffic. P.M. peak hour turning movements forecasts were developed and four key intersections were analyzed: · Schmidt Lake Road at TH 169 West Ramps · Schmidt Lake Road at TH 169 West Frontage Road · Schmidt Lake Road at Site Access · Schmidt Lake Road at Nathan Lane TABLE 1 CITY OF PLYMOUTH SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD AT TH 169 AREA TRAFFIC STUDY Trip Generation Estimates/Proposed Development Plan P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation Daily Trips Trips Land Use Size Trips In Out Convenience Store w/Gas Pumps 3,800 s.f. 3,213 119 119 High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 6,200 s.f. 1,103 45 35 Auto Care Center 5,200 s.f. 82 7 8 Totals 15,200 s.f. 4,398 171 162 Trip Generation Estimates/Existing Land Use Plan P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation Daily Trips Trips Land Use Size Tdps In Out General Office .80,000 s.f.. 1,204 27 134 Trip Generation Estimates/Alternative Land Use Scenario P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation Daily Trips TriPs Land Use Size Tdps In Out Alternative I - Medical Office 80,000 s.f. 2,734 98 228 Note: All flip generation rates are average rates from the 1991 ITE Trip Generation Report, 5th Edition and 1995 update. :e LAKF. ~0. 41. ~. ldF. AOOW , ~.~ ~..~. - ~ ~ S. $!~t A~. M. h AV~. 515, l~, · ~. 40% 15% - 3~. 4f I/: AVL ,~. ~,,. SITE ..~,,,,... 46 ,~. NBW HOPE 1980 POP. 23081 40th z A~ N. RE. GIONAL ~ r~RN DIRECTIONAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION 3 Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. - 7 - May 1, 1996 (Revised July 15, 1996) Existing Conditions Schmidt Lake Road at TH 169 West Ramps Traffic signal control is currently warranted at the Schmidt Lake Road and TH 169 west ramps intersection. The subject intersection will meet the peak hour volume warrant requirements under each traffic volume scenario. The recommendation to signalize the Schmidt Lake Road and TH 169 west ramps intersection is consistent with the conClusions in the previous SRF traffic study (dated: March 1989) for this site. Installation of traffic signal control at both ramp intersections is tentatively scheduled for 1998 construction by Mn/DOT. Schmidt Lake Road and TH 169 West Frontage Road Existing overall operation of this intersection is at acceptable levels of service. However, the existing southbound left-turn at this intersection is operating at. poor levels of service during the peak periods. Schmidt Lake Road and Site Access The existing church driveway on Schmidt Lake Road experiences little use during the weekday peak periods and traffic operations for this condition are expected to be acceptable. VVhen church services or events are held, this driveway operates overall at acceptable levels of service. However, the northbound left-tums exiting the church site at this driveway may encounter some infrequent difficulty. Schmidt Lake Road and Nathan Lane This existing all-way stop controlled intersection is operating at acceptable levels of service. Future/Forecast Conditions Schmidt Lake Road and TH 169 West Ramps Traffic signal control to be installed by Mn/DOT in 1998 will result in acceptable traffic operations at this intersection with the additional site generated traffic and background traffic growth. Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. - 8 - May 1, 1996 (Revised July 15, 1996) Schmidt Lake Road at TH 169 West Frontage Road In order to analyze this intersection, p.m. peak hour turning movement forecasts were developed from the approach traffic volumes provided in the BRW report. The turning movement pementages from the previous SRF traffic study were used to develop the p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts. The existing southbound left-tums at this intersection are operating at poor levels of service. After the proposed development opens, it is expected that southbound left tums at this intersection would continue to operate at Level of Service F dudng the p.m. peak hour. Upon review of the capacity analysis for this intersection, the average delay for southbound left tums after the proposed development opens would be 73 seconds. Based on the year 2015 traffic forecasts, the average delay for southbound left tums would be 341 seconds during the p.m. peak hour. The capacity analysis worksheets for this intersection are provided in the appendix of this report. The extent of delay that is expected for the southbound left-tums at the Schmidt Lake Road and TH 169 west frontage road intersection is unacceptable and would require either traffic control improvements or roadway geometric improvements. In order to accommodate proposed development and future background traffic in this area, the previous SRF traffic study (1989) recommended two alternative improvements (see Appendix for study recommendations from the previous SRF report): Alternative 1-This alternative would include construction of a center island median along Schmidt Lake Road to restdct the TH 169 west frontage road to a right-in/right-out access only. This restriction is needed due to the close spacing between the frontage road and the west ramps intersection. If this restriction is not provided, it is expected that the west frontage road intersection would eventually be frequently blocked by eastbound queues at the future signal at the TH 169 west ramps intersection. Alternative 2-This would include re-aligning the TH 169 west frontage road to the west to provide a four-legged intersection at the proposed site access. This improvement would provide better spacing between the intersections along Schmidt Lake Road between Nathan Lane and TH 169. Traffic signal control could then be justified and provided at Schmidt Lake Road and the TH 169 west frontage road/site access intersection. Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. - 9 - May 1, 1996 · (Revised July 15, 1996) Alternative 3-This would include closing the intersection all together or establishing a one-way northbound operation only for the west frontage road thereby eliminating the problem southbound left-turn. Schmidt Lake Road at Site Access It is expected that with side-street stop control, the Schmidt Lake Road and site access intersection would operate at an "overall" intersection Level of Service A for all scenarios. However, it is also expected that left turns from the proposed site would operate at Level of Service F for all scenarios. Based on a capacity analysis for the existing plus site traffic scenario, the average total delay for lefts tums from the proposed site would be 62 seconds. The average total delay for left turns from the site in year 2015 would be 115 seconds. This condition would result in few gaps being available during the afternoon peak period for left turning traffic entering Schmidt Lake Road from the proposed site. The developer should be aware that if customers experience traffic operational problems with the site, they may decide to avoid it. The proposed site access will be a shared access point with the existing Epiphany Church, located west of and adjacent to this site. It is expected that the amount of left-turning traffic generated by the church dudng the peak hours would be minimal. Proposed site generated vehicles experiencing long delays leaving the proposed site access may divert through the church parking lot to use Nathan Lane. Actions to mitigate this diversion through the church site could include "no through traffic" signing, speed bumps or humps on the route through the church site and gate/barrier controlled access to the church site at the shared driveway. There may also be geometric features (such as median islands) that could be included in the shared ddveway design that could restrict and discourage diversion through the church site. Schmidt Lake Road at Nathan Lane It is expected that the existing all-way stop will operate at an acceptable level of service .beyond year 2010. By year 2015 the intersection would operate at Level of Service E (unacceptable level of service) with all-way stop control. While the Schmidt Lake Road and Nathan Lane intersection year 2015 traffic forecasts do not meet the requirements of the peak hour signal warrant, it is our conclusion that traffic signal control may be justified prior to year 2015. Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. - 10- May 1, 1996 (Revised July 15, 1996) Findings and Conclusions: 1. BaSed on this traffic study and analysis it is concluded that the proposed retail development could be accommodated by the adjacent roadway system with the recommended traffic control and traffic operations improvements. Most traffic movements to and from the site can be made with little or no difficulty, and overall levels of service will be acceptable. 2. However, it is also concluded that almost any form of development on the site may result in poor levels of service for the northbound to westbound left turns exiting the site during peak periods. These left-turn volumes combined with the through volumes on $chmidt Lake Road at the site driveway intersection may also satisfy the warrants for traffic signal control. However, it would be difficult to justify installing traffic signal control at this private access driveway location. The level of delay experienced by these northbound left-turn movements would not be unlike the delay to left-turns at many other similar higher volume unsignalized intersections throughout the City of Plymouth. 3. Limited business or office use of the site, as currently guided, may or may not generate the same traffic impacts as a retail use. The probable directional trip distribution for an employment-based office type land use may be more regional and use of the TH 169 interchange would be more primary to the site. However, a service oriented office development such as a medical/dental office (which may be a more probable office type use of this site) may have a directional trip distribution similar to a retail site and therefore generate very similar traffic impacts and require very similar mitigative measures. It should be noted that the current proposal represents about half the square footage of the 1989 proposal for this site. 4. While traffic signal control may be "warranted" at the subject site driveway, it may not necessarily be justified. The City could consider not installing traffic signal control and allow the driveway intersection to operate at the expected levels of service. However, as the traffic volumes on Schmidt Lake Road continue to increase, fewer acceptable gaps in the traffic flow will be available for the left-turning traffic to turn into. As the delays to these left-turning motorists lengthen, drivers may tend to accept gaps that may not be long enough to safely complete their turn. This condition can lead to vehicular conflict and an increased potential for traffic accidents. Should a serious problem develop and the city choose to take action to Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. - 11 - May 1, 1996 (Revised July 15, 1996) resolve this problem, the only other option to installing traffic signal control at the site driveway intersection, is to construct median along Schmidt Lake Road through this intersection, restricting access to the site to right in/out only access. 5. Future installation of traffic signal control on Schmidt Lake Road at the TH 169 interchange ramps and/or at Nathan Lane will introduce larger and possibly more frequent gaps in the traffic flow on Schmidt Lake Road. This traffic control may mitigate the left-turn problem associated with exiting .site traffic. Traffic signal control installation .at the Schmidt Lake Road/ TH 169 interchange ramps is tentatively scheduled for 1998 construction by Mn/DOT. Traffic signal control at Nathan Lane and Schmidt Lake Road is not scheduled at this time. Recommendations: In order to accommodate proposed development and future background traffic in this area, the following improvements are recommended: 1. Install a traffic signal at TH 169 west ramp at Schmidt Lake Road. In addition, traffic signal control should be provided at the east ramp intersection as part of the interchange system. A signal at the ramp intersections will also help create gaps in Schmidt Lake Road traffic at the site driveway intersection. Traffic signal control installation at the Schmidt Lake Road/TH 169 interchange ramps is tentatively scheduled for 1998 construction by Mn/DOT. 2. The intersection at Schmidt Lake Road and Nathan Lane should be monitored to determine if traffic signal control may be justified prior to the year 2015. 3. Consider future construction of a center island median on Schmidt Lake Road through the existing TH 169 frontage road intersection. This improvement would restrict traffic to and from the frontage road to right- in/right-out movements only. W'rth this restriction, the eastbound Schmidt Lake Road queue and southbound left-turn would not be a problem. Mr. Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. - 12 - May 1, 1996 (Revised July 15, 1996) 4. Should' the City decide to not. provide a center island median on Schmidt Lake Road, it is recommended that the TH 169 west frontage road be realigned to the west to provide a four-legged intersection at the proposed site access intersection. Traffic signal control could then be prOvided at the common TH 169 west frontage road/proposed site access intersection. This improvement would provide better spacing between the intersections along Schmidt Lake Road and would resolve future eastbound Schmidt Lake Road queuing problems that are expected to develop. See Figure 4. Note that this alternative would require significant right-of-way acquisition by the City from the property north of Schmidt Lake Road and would involve significant construction costs. And while this is the preferred long range alternative, an interim alternative could be considered which would include establishing one-way northbound only operation of the west frontage road from Schmidt Lake Road to 51stAvenue. This interim alternative would also mitigate the problems at the west frontage road intersection on Schmidt Lake Road. 5. Actions to mitigate through traffic diversion through the church site should be considered. "No through traffic" signing, speed bumps/humps on the route through the church site, gate/barrier access control, and geometric features (such as median islands) in the design of the shared driveway to restrict or discourage through traffic through the church site are actions that could be considered. If you have any questions or comments concerning this traffic study, please contact us. Sincerely, SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Dennis R. Eyler, P.E. Principal DRE:bba APPENDIX CROSS-STREET STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS A Traffic operations characterized by Iow delay (less than 5 seconds per vehicle). Free flow condition. B Traffic operations characterized by low delay (5 to 10 seconds per vehicle). Stable flow condition. C Traffic operations characterized by moderate delay (10 to 20 seconds per vehicle). Stable flow conditions. D Traffic operations characterized by moderate delay (20 to 30 seconds per vehicle). Approaching unstable flow condition. E Traffic operations characterized by significant delay (30 to 45 seconds per vehicle). Unstable flow condition. F Traffic operations characterized by significant delay (over 45 seconds per vehicle). Considered unacceptable by most ddvers. Failure/forced flow condition. CONSULTING G ROUPt I NC. COMM. NO. SHEET ~ OF' I PROJECT NAME ~Hll)'r LE.. ~ / ~.I~UV I~q I BY .~-~m]~.~OATE ~~'~ COMPUTATION FOR ~ CHKD. BY DATE FORM NO. 1001 ARCHITECTURAL - FOUR SPACE I INCH GRID Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ........ 169WOP.HC0 Major Street Direction .... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... SRF Date of Analysis .......... 4/11/96 Other Information ......... EXISTING + SITE TRAFFIC INCLUDED Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 0> 2 0 0 2< 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 Stop/Yield N N Volumes. 35 595 525 75 110 60 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%) 0. 0 0 0 0 0 CV's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation MCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ***************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 300 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 976 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 976 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.93 Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 600 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 817 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 817 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.95 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.94 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1192 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 183 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.94 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.94 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.94 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 171 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg. Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App SB L 128 171 76.8 F 73.2 SB R 69 976 4.0 A EB L 41 817 4.6 A 0.2 Intersection Delay = 8.3 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name 169W15.HC0 Major Street Direction .... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... SRF Date of Analysis .......... 4/11/96 Other Information ......... YEAR 2015 TRAFFIC FORECASTS Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes O> 2 0 0 2< 0 0 0 0 I 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 40 655 580 85 125 65 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CV's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ***************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 332 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 940 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 940 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.92 Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB Conflicting FlOws: (vph) 665 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 754 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 754 Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.94 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 3400 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-free State: 0.92 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1318 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 152 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.92 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.92 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.92 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 140 Center For Microcomguters In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCa9 SharedCap Avg. Total Delay Movement v(gcph) Cm(gcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By Agp SB L 145 140 2?9.2 F 341.9 SB R 75 940 4.2 A EB L 46 754 5.1 B 0.3 Intersection Delay = 3?.9 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS MISSION STATEMENT Plymouth - "a city in a country setting" - is a unique, complementary blend of residential, business, and industrial development and open space. Comprising nearly 36 square miles, Plymouth is a growing second tier suburban community of over 51,000 persons (198g estimate). Our natoral amenities feature numerous lakes, marshes, ponds, woodlands and hills. The community boasts, a strategic geographic location in the metropolitan area and is served by a well developed.regional transportation system. To enhance our desirable natural environment, the government of Plymouth provides an appropriate level of services to its residents, business community .and visitors at comparatively reasonable costs. The City operates on an efficient staff philosophy, promoting performance principles coupled with merit compensation.and retention of the best qualified performers. To 'complement personnel resources the City has adopted a philosophy of acquiring and maintaining modern tools and capital equipment to accomplish city work goals. Where appropriate, the City contracts with private vendors to provide certain municipal services. The following constitute the mission of the City of Plymouth: I. Suitable Housing Environment - The City will promote the development of a variety of affordable quality housing for various income levels through the development approval process and through Housing and Redevelopment Authority activity. In addition to meeting the above criteria, residential developments are to harmoniously integrate with the natural environmental qualities of the community to provide for an impression of rural living in an urban setting. II. .~conomic Vitality - With the assistance of periodic analysis, the City will encourage economic vitality through a diversified economic base, balanced commerce, industry and residential population, and the availability of a broad range of employment opportunities for residents and non-residents alike. In accomplishing this goal the City will promote sound land use and the continued development and maintenance of a solid property tax base. III. Security - The City will enact, maintain and administer policies and ordinances which assure the Safety and health of the individual and preservation of property consistent with maintaining quality of life in the community and protection the natural living environment of Plymouth. IV. Access through Municipal Infrastructure - The City will promote orderly development through advanced planning for municipal water and sewer '- extensions, storm water drainage improvements and street roadway systems. This planning will be supplemented by fiscal analysis to assess and plan for the impact of extending new, while replacing existing, facilities. 2 12/18/89 V. Human Development - A broad range of educational and leisure time opportunities and experiences will be offered for residents in cooperation with other area agencies. These will utilize available municipal buildings and recreation facilities. VI. Fiscal Resources - Long range fiscal planning, as well as monitoring of current fiscal activity, will be a continuing high priority. The careful management of fiscal resources will facilitate the City's ability to attain its objectives. Locational Criteria for "CL" and "CR" Land Uses CL (Limited Busines$)_ Development Location -At or near the intersections Criteria: of arterials for both access and exposure. -May adjoin planned industrial park development and high. density residential areas. -In conjunction with major commercial centers. -The high amenity development expected renders the CL areas very suitable as "gateways" to the City. CR (RETAIL SHOPPING) Development Loca~ional Criteria: -CR-I: May be adjacent to low density residential areas. -CR-i: Intersection of streets classified as at least collectors. -CR-2: No abutment to low density residential development; high level transition to all proximate residential land and development. -CR-2: Intersection of arterials and major collectors. ~ S~C~IC~ 9, S%~DIVISI(~ A ,. Procedure. Before any Om~dit/onal Use Permi~ may be granted, the apglication the~fore, s~ be ~f~ed to ~e B~ Ommission for purposes of evaluation against the sta~_ ~ of this section, Public Hearing, and development of a rec~t,~endation to the City Council, which shall make the final deten~tnation as to ~ or denial. a. The Planning C~mdssion sb~ll miew the application and consider its confo~ with the follc~ standards: (1) Ccmpliance with and effect upon the C~pr~hensive Plan. (2) The establishment, n~{n.tenance or operation of the conditional use w~ ] ] pzu~ote and enhance the general public w~lfa~e and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public ,health' safety, morals or ccmfort. (3) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjcsa~_nt of other property in the in~edia~ vicinity for the (4) The establishment of the conditio~l use will not impede %he nozmal and orderly development and L~o~ent of su~'r'ounding pr~ for uses pen~itted in the district. (5) A~quate measures haw~ bee~ or will be takan to provide ingress, egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic applicable z~zlati~' of the district in which it is loca%ed. (fon~s:o>pl/cup.stnd/s). 10/89 1. That because of the particular physical su~-~u~Ltngs, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the z~gulations were to be carried out. 2. Tha~ the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and aze not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zon/ng classification. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based e~clusively upon a desire to increase the value or inom~ potential of the parcel of land. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Or~{nance and parcel of land. 5. That the grant/rig of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or ~ts in the neighbozhood in which the parcel of land is located. 6. That the proposed variation will not imp~ an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent paope~Lf, or substant{-lly increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the ~nger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or imp~ property values within the (fozms:o>pl/zon.stnd/s) 10/89 ~"-".~'~" LARk.,~, HOFFMAN, DALY ~OeERT L. H(:XCFMAN ~Y ~E~C. ER~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~'~'~'~ F~ I. ~ 1500 NOR~ FI~NC~L CEN~R ~,ST~ ~. ~ 7900 XE~ES A~NUE SOU~ ~"' ~ BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 5~31-11 ~a. ~ ~LEPHONE (612) 83~38~ ~,. ~ F~ (612) 8~3~ April 1, 1996 Ms. Anne Hurlburt Community Development Department Director City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Re: Grey Fox Square Limited Partnership (C.G, Rein) Application for Land Use Guide Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan With Variances, and Preliminary Plat for Proposed Service Business Development at the Southwest Comer of Schmidt Lake Road and T.H. 169 Our File No. 6189-21 Dear Anne: This narrative is submitted in support of Grey Fox Square Limited Partnership's (''Grey Fox") application ("Application") to the City of Plymouth ("City") for approval of a land use guide plan amendment, rezoning, conditional use permit, site plan with variances and prelimluary plat for a proposed service business development on approximately 5.7 acres of land at the southwest comer of Schmidt Lake Road and T.H. 169 ("Site"). It addresses the following Application narrative requirements: (1) explanation of the proposed land use guide plan amendment, including consistency with the guidelines and criteria set forth in the Comprehensive.Plan; (2) explanation of proposed rezoning; (3) description of the proposed conditional uses and how they conform with conditional use permit standards set forth in Section 9 of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance; (4) description of site plan request, including explanation of how the proposed variances conform with criteria set forth in the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning Ordinance"); and (5) written verification that all commonly owned contiguous land is included in the plat. The Application also includes a separate written statement by the applicant's consulting civil engineer, Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson ("HTPO"), comparing the projected sewage flow for the Site under the existing guiding with the projected sewage flow for the Site under the proposed guiding. Finally, the Application includes a separate-analysis of the location of the proposed NURP pond in terms of its effect on the on-site wetland by Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. ("PEC'), the applicant's wetland consultant. LAM.~N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, ~ . O. Ms. Anne Hurlburt April 1, 1996 Page 2 Description of the Proposed Service Business Development on the Site The proposed service business development on the Site consists of a 5,200 square foot automobile service center, a 6,200 square foot Class I restaurant, and a 2,800 square foot convenience store with attached 810 square foot car wash. The development will be served by one access point to Schmidt Lake Road near the west property line. The Site access will provide for a fight-turn lane and a left-turn lane exiting the Site. Each of the three proposed uses on the Site is located on a separate platted lot. Parking on each platted lot meets ordinance parking requirements for the proposed use on such platted lot. Large vehicle parking, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, is provided along the southerly perimeter of the Site. The three components of the proposed service business development on the Site will have complementary exterior materials and an integrated landscape planting theme. Reciprocal driveway and access easements will further link the planned development. PEC delineated the boundaries of a city-designated wetland on the western portion of the Site. The boundaries of the delineated wetland are shown on the submitted site plan, together with the wetland buffers required by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed service business development does not require alteration of the wetland and complies with all applicable wetland ordinance requirements. As described in further detail in this letter-memorandum, based on pre-application consultation with city staff, a water quality treatment (NURP) pond is located in the wetland buffer. The treatment pond will pretreat all storm water runoff from the Site prior to discharge to the wetland and any other receiving waters. For further discussion, see separate PEC memorandum regarding the location of the NURP pond. Explanation of Consistency With Land Use Guide Plan Amendment Guidelines and Criteria The existing Site guiding is CL Limited Business. The proposed Site guiding is CS Commercial Service. CL guiding is generally implemented by B-1 office limited business zoning. CS guiding is generally limited by B-3 service business zoning. A number of uses are allowed in both the B-1 and B-3 zoning districts, including but not limited to office, medical office, day care, financial institutions, motel or hotel, personal service and repair establishments, and Class I restaurants. The Site meets the locational criteria of both the existing CL guiding and the proposed CS guiding. With regard to the existing CL guiding, the Site is near the intersection of arterials and is near land guided planned industrial to the north. The locational criteria for the proposed CS guiding are similar to the locational criteria for the existing CL guiding: (1) near arterial access points; (2) adjoining other business or industrial areas; and (3) not adjacent to residential development. The Site conforms with the CS locational criteria. The proposed service business development on the Site meets all other Comprehensive Plan guidelines for CS development: (1) maximum lot coverage by all buildings; (2) minimum lot area; (3) available city utilities; and (4) commercial service development. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan provides that this business category provides a wide range of services primarily oriented toward the motorist and will often be located near other business facilities. Uses in this category may frequently be in free-standing structures that are designed for the particular use and not for multiple occupancy. Consistent with LAIx._,N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, ~.. D. Ms. Anne Hurlburt April 1, 1996 Page 3 Comprehensive Plan guidelines, general retail sales are not proposed for the Site. Fuel dispensing and the sale of petroleum products, vehicle washing, restaurants and motels are examples of service uses that properly belong in the CS classification. The Site has remained undeveloped for several years under the existing CL guiding. Consultations with the Community Development Department indicate that there is generally a lack of developable property in the same classification (CS) as that which is being proposed. There is a need for this type of development in the area. The community structure concept plan encourages groupings of compatible businesses. The proposed development, together with existing and proposed land uses in the area, is consistent with the community structure concept plan. Other undeveloped property in the proposed CS classification will not be affected by the proposed service business development on the Site because of the fairly substantial distances between the Site and other existing CS-guided properties. A review of the existing land use guide plan indicates that there are no developed properties in the proposed CS guiding, which might be subject to redevelopment or rehabilitation, which would be adversely affected by the proposed land use guide plan amendment. The proposed service business development on the Site will serve the needs of the neighboring community and the motoring public. The Site's location at the intersection of arterials is comparable to the location of other developed CS-guided properties in the City. The submitted site plan protects the on- site wetland, conforms to tree preservation guidelines, and provides an adequate transition to the adjoining CL-guided and B-1 zoned church and residential properties greater than 500 feet from the Site. A developing community, such as the City, needs to provide for service business developments such as that proposed for the Site. The applicant believes that the proposed guiding is the highest and best use of the Site and provides a community benefit. The Application includes a traffic study of the proposed development prepared by BRW, Inc. ("BRW Traffic Study"). The assumptions in the BRW Traffic Study were reviewed with city staff and the City's consulting traffic engineer, SRF, Inc., and were agreed to by all parties prior to preparation of the BRW Traffic Study. The BRW Traffic Study will be reviewed independently by SRF. The BRW Traffic Study shows that the proposed service business development has similar traffic characteristics to alternative land uses allowed under the existing guiding and zoning. The BRW Traffic Study further finds that traffic generated by the proposed service business development on the Site fits within the existing and planned roadway system and will not adversely affect traffic operations, as compared to development of the Site under the existing zoning and guiding. Municipal sewer and water facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed service business development on the Site. HTPO has documented that there is no appreciable difference between projected sewage flow under existing or proposed guiding. The Application includes a storm water management plan and calculations consistent with City and watershed district criteria. As described above, an on-site water quality treatment pond will pretreat all LA..,ri, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN,_...~. Ms. Anne Hurlburt April 1, 1996 Page 4 storm water runoff from the developed Site prior to discharge to wetlands and receiving waters. Erosion control measures are also proposed consistent with applicable criteria. The proposed service business development on the Site is not expected to significantly affect City parks and open space or housing. Similarly, the likely impact upon area utility charges, current and future special assessments, current and future property tax assessments and per capita-based municipal aids is expected to be comparable under either the existing or proposed guiding. Description of Rezoning Request The existing zoning of the Site is B-1 Office Limited Business District. The proposed zoning of the Site is B-3 Service Business District. Assuming approval of the requested land use guide plan amendment, the requested rezoning application should be approved so that there is no conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning map as required by Minnesota law. All of the proposed land uses on the Site are allowed under the proposed B-3 zoning. Minor automotive repair and service is a conditional use in the B-3 district. A Class I restaurant is a permitted use in the B-3 district. A convenience store with gasoline pumps and car wash is a conditional use in the B-3 district. Except as specifically noted in this letter, the Application complies with B-3 ordinance requirements. Conditional Use Permit for Automobile Service Center and Convenience Store With Gas Pumps and Car Wash The proposed Application includes a request for approval of two conditional use permits: one conditional use permit is requested for the eight-bay automobile service center in the northeast comer of the Site, and a second conditional use permit is requested for the convenience store with gas pumps and car wmh in the westerly portion of the Site. Both of the proposed conditional uses conform with conditional use permit standards in the Zoning Ordinance as follows: The Application includes requests for approval of a land use guide plan amendment and rezoning. Assuming approval of the land use guide plan amendment, the proposed conditional uses comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed conditional uses will promote the public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. The uses are located near the intersection of arterials at a fairly substantial distance from residential development. The Application complies with ordinance requirements specifically applicable to minor automotive repair and gasoline convenience store uses. Screening and buffering meet or exceed City code requirements. The proposed conditional uses will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity of the Site for purposes already permitted, nor will the proposed conditional uses substantially diminish or impalrproperty values. The property immediately to the west, south and north of the Site is guided CL and IP, respectively. The proposed CS guiding/B-3 zoning is compatible with existing and planned surrounding uses. Interior trash facilities are provided and the submitted luminaire "7 LA,..,N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, -. O. Ms. Anne Hurlburt April 1, 1996 Page 5 plan demonstrates compliance with ordinanCe provisions which prohibit spillover lighting. As described throughout this letter-memorandum, the development is sensitive to natural resources, meets City and watershed district storm water management criteria, and does not exceed the allowable tree removal without reforestation threshold. The establishment of the proposed conditional uses on the Site will not impede normal and ordinary development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. As described in detail in the BRW Traffic Study, adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Traffic operations at all affected intersections will be acceptable. One hundred seventy-three total parking spaces are proposed for the Site. Each of the three proposed platted lots meets parking code requirements for the proposed use on that lot. Adequate stacking and circulation for the convenience store is provided. The conditional uses conform to applicable regulations in the proposed B-3 zoning district. As described in a subsequent section of this letter, two minor variances are requested which do not affect the ability of the two proposed conditional uses to conform to conditional use permit standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Site Plan With Two Minor Variances With two minor exceptions, the proposed service business development on the Site complies with all applicable ordinance requirements. A variance is requested for two structures on Lot 1, the convenience store lot. The hardship is created by conflicting requirements between the Zoning Ordinance and the 1994 Unified Building Code ("UBC"). The Zoning Ordinance does not permit two structures on commercial lots. The UBC design regulations for a single structure containing both the convenience store and gas pumps require a one-hour fire separation. This requirement essentially prohibits a glass storefront. If the canopy is separate from the convenience store, the fire separation can be accomplished by a 40-foot setback between the structures. The applicant is proposing a separation that would meet the UBC requirements for two separate structures, but not the Zoning Ordinance requirement prohibiting two structures on the lot. It is our understanding that staff will be recommending changes in upcoming revisions of the Zoning Ordinance to address this issue. A similar variance request was recently approved for a proposed convenience store with gas pumps at the southeast comer of 1-494 and County Road 6. The second variance request involves a proposed deviation from Section 10(A)(5)CO)(5) of the sign code which provides that "business signs shall direct attention to the business, profession, commodity or service which is found On the premises where the sign is located, except that such signs may be placed on adjacent premises if all of the following conditions are met: (a) there is common ownership of the two premises; Co) the signs are in compliance with all other ordinance requirements; and (c) that the sign(s) shall be removed from the adjacent premises within six months in the event that the two premises are no longer in common ownership." This code provision would allow one free-standing sign on Lot 3 to name both the auto service center and the Class I restaurant on the adjacent Lot 2, provided that Lots 2 and 3 remain in common ownership. The submitted signage plan shows a free-standing pylon sign on Lot 3 identifying not only the two LA, _,q, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN,. .~. Ms. Anne Hurlburt ' ' March 30, 1996 Page 6 proposed uses on adjacent Lots 2 and 3, but also the proposed convenience store use on Lot 1. The request is made to allow convenience store identification at a location visible from T.H. 169. In evaluating this request, it should be noted that the Zoning Ordinance allows three pylon signs, one on each of the three proposed platted lots on the Site. The submitted sign plan provides for two pylon signs, one on Lot 3 and one on Lot 1, and a monument sign on Lot 2. All o£the signs proposed for the proposed service business development meet size criteria and other dimensional requirements contained in the ordinance. It is our understanding that the signage provision which is proposed to be varied was adopted in 1994 based on the unique circumstances of a particular development. In this situation, the applicant believes that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the project area. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Written Verification That All Commonly Owned Contiguous Land Is Included in the Plat Grey Fox currently owns Lot 2, Block 1 Epiphany Addition. This existing platted lot represents all of the contiguous property owned by Grey Fox. The preliminary plat proposes to subdivide the existing platted lot into three lots which meet all applicable zoning and subdivision requirements. For further documentation, see the accompanying survey, site plan, and preliminary plat. If you have any questions concerning this letter-memorandum or the AppliCation in general, please give me a call. Sincerely, Linda H. Fisher, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. cc: Dennis Cavanaugh,' C.G. Rein Industries John Bergly, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Bergly Steve Pellinen, Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson Ron Peterson, Peterson Environmental Consulting Mike Graham, Peterson Environmental Consulting Dick Wolsfeld, BRW, Inc. Bob Green, BRW, Inc. 0197828.01 Church Of July 18~' 1996 ~-" the Epiphany Mr. Dennis Cavanaugh ,~. ....... C.G. Rein Comply 949 Sibley Memorial ~ghway St. Paul, ~ 55118-3698 Tha~ you for m~ting ~th our Building and ~ounds co~tt~ last M~t to present the reused co--on entrance adjacent to Schmidt Lake Road between our two properties. ~ we discuss~, we believe the reused entance proposal (Mtemate 2, Cha~elized ~ght Turn from B.R.W.) will ~ze "unauthorized" traffic t~ough the church's par~Jng lot..M such, we find the design to be acceptable (pl~ atacMd). Our uMerstanding ~om our meeting is that C.G. Rein Co. agrees to the following: - If needed, appropdae signage ancot ~ows p~nt~ on tM pavement will be pro~d~ (a no ch~ge) to discourage church p~ng lot t~ou~-tr~C should that become a problem and we m~e the request. - C.G. Rein ~11 write a driveway m~ntenan~ agreement wMch will split the cost of ~ture pavement mainten~ce as such; 75% by C.G. Rein Co. and 25% by Church of the Epiphany. We ~I1 ~ch accept ~ture mainten~ce costs of cu~ ~d ~tter on our respective sides of the ent~ in ~ture m~ntenance. ~ufing construction a reidomed ent~, including ~l necessa~ curb ~d ~tter, ~11 be Mstalled by C.G. Rein to adequately support se~-tmck tr~c.) We understand that tMs agreement will be included as a pm~sion in the sale or lease of the property to ~ture o~ers or residents. Agai~ we ~sh to express our appreciaion for your h~dling oftMs entire mater. You have been forthright, candid ~d cooperative tMou~out. Tha~s Mso to the City of Pl~outh's Keho for attending our meeting, and for the city's interest in our concerns. Jo~ Spoolm~ Building and Ground~ Jo~ Keho, City ofPl~outh, ~400 Plymouth Blvd., 55447-1482 Building & Gmund~ co~ttee member~ Vest~ memb~m Fred Naim Judy Hoov,r ~n ~endance ~ July 1 [ 1996 men, g: Al ~er, Raj, Jo~ensen, Mark ~, Don Ro~g and John Spoo~ from Epipban)~ D~nh Cav~augb from C.G. Re~. John Keno from ~e C~ of ~ymou~) The Reverend Frederick W. Naim Rector - T~e Reverend Judith H. H~ver Ass~iate Rector 40~ Nnth~n ' C.G. Rein/Grey Fox Square 96044 ~ Site Location r i---i Parcel Boundary Lard Use Guide Plan City of ~I CIR2-~pim Center Retail ~ IP-Pl~nned Industrial Plyn~uth, 1V~sota ~ L,~-Lo~r~y ~ LA2-Low-IVl~dium Demity Residential ~ I1TITI! LA3-~ium Density R~identi~l SITE CALCULATIONS , BUILDING SETBACKS I I WJ.T~R *Lq~, I L.~NDS~Jq~ AJ~A J HA,qO Ca~R ~J~A J tOt~4r I PARKING TABLE OF REQUIRED AND PR~O~D LOT CO~RAGE R= 39' I O' 1,41N. ROAD SETBACK L IIIE PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAl~ .03 - \ Z " TJ.L 18~ and..Bchnidt Lake 'Road ~ .em, Chan~ lq~ht TLrn Mymouth, ~ CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 25, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mike Stulberg, Commissioners Allen Ribbe, John Stoebner, Jeff Thompson, Tim Bildsoe, Saundra Spigner, Roger Berkowitz MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Director Anne Hurlburt, Planning Supervisor Barbara Senness, Senior Planner John Keho, Planner Shawn Drill, City Engineer Dan Faulkner, and Clerical Supervisor Denise Hurt 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. PUBLIC FORUM: 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Spigner recommending approval of the May 28,_1996, Planning Commission Minutes. Vote. ? Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. 5. CONSENT AGENDA: No items. 6. PUBLIC HE~ARINGS: A. C.G. REIN (96044) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by C. G. Rein for an Amendment to the Land Use Guide Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan to reguide 5.?6 acres from CL (Limited Business) to CS (Service Business), Rezoning from B-I (Office Limited Business District) to B-3 (Service Business District), Preliminary Plat to create three lots, Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances for property located at the southwest quadrant of Highway 169 and Schmidt Lake Road. Planning Commission Minutes ~ June 25, 1996 Page #~5~ Senior Planner Keho gave an overview of the June 14, 1996 staff report noting that on Page 5, Item E, it should state "to rezone 5.76 acres to B-3 (Service Business District)." Commissioner Ribbe stated that he is concerned with the traffic that will be generated by the proposal, and that it does not seem possible that a medical building would produce the same amount of traffic as a Class I restaurant, as the traffic report indicated. City Engineer Faulkner stated that traffic would be about the same for outbound leR turns for a medical building considering the directional trip distribution during peak time. Director Hurlburt commented that an office building could be three or four times larger - 80,000 square feet, versus the proposed 15,200 square feet. Commissioner Thompson stated that his understanding is that the church is concerned with traffic on Sunday mornings, and that traffic from a restaurant can be higher on a Sunday morning. City Engineer Faulkner added that background traffic is very minimal on weekends. Commissioner Ribbe stated that the traffic study indicates that any form of development may cause some traffic problems. He wondered if the proposal is approved, and traffic gets unmanageable, can the process be sped up with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for tra~c signals for the east and west ramps of Highway 169. City Engineer Faulkner replied that it is envisioned that the four way stop at Nathan Lane and Schmidt Lake Road would continue to work until 1998. Director Hurlburt added that traffic controls are needed whether this de~velopment is approved or another development goes in on the site. Commissioner Bildsoe asked what a level of service F is as indicated in the traffic report prepared by the City's consultant, Strgar-Roseoe-Fauseh (SRF). City Engineer Faulkner explained that it is a stop-type condition that constitutes delays being minutes rather than seconds. Commissioner Bildsoe asked if the level of service F would happen aRer the site is developed and would it be acceptable if a signal was not installed. City Engineer Faulkner replied that traffic signals for the west and east ramps of Highway 169 are scheduled for 1998. Until the signals are installed, traffic will cause a slight problem, but not an unacceptable situation. Commissioner Thompson questioned if a specific finding has to be demonstrated to change the Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner Keho explained that you do not have to rely on a specific item, rather there are goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan and staff looks at all the items together to see if the benefit of the project outweighs the negatives. Director Huflburt added that the City has broad discretion to define the Comprehensive Plan and does not have to meet a specific criterion. Commissioner Spigner commented that since the businesses have not been named, we do not know the popularity, and there could be significant traffic difference based on the Planning Commission Minutes ._) June 25, 1996 Page #152 popularity of the restaurant. There is no ingress/egress which causes more difficulty. There will be added traffic not only to Schmidt Lake, but to residential traffic on 45th Avenue. Chairman Stulberg stated that you need to assume that any business that goes in on the site will be successful. Commissioner Spigner stated she would rather have the facts and not assume. Chairman Stulberg stated that the applicant is not required to come forward with the names of businesses that may occupy the site. Senior Planner Keho stated that the access is a shared access built to serve this property and the church property. The potential for cut through traffic would exist no matter what business goes in on the site. Commissioner Spigner stated that an office building has a totally different traffic pattern than a restaurant and convenience store. She asked what if something larger goes in than what is proposed. Senior Planner Keho replied that the.application includes a restaurant for 300 seats. If they want something bigger, they would have to come back through the Planning Commission process. Commissioner Berkowitz asked what a Class I restaurant is. Senior Planner Keho explained that a Class I restaurant does not have a drive-through facility. If the applicant would want a drive-through facility, it would have to go through the Planning Commission process. Commissioner Stoebner asked about the possibility of signalizing the entrance, or an entrance along Highway 169. City Engineer Faulkner replied that a signal would not be placed on a private drive. There are no'plans scheduled to relocate the west frontage road, and the land is owned by someone other than the applicant. Chairman Stulberg introduced Linda Fisher, representing the petitioner. Ms. Fisher stated that they concur with the staff report and the listed conditions. The applicant has met with people representing the church to discuss issues. Ms. Fisher stated that the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the previous request in 1989. The size of the project has decreased dramatically since the last application. The proposed development in 1989 was for a retail shopping strip mall, and the need has changed to create service type businesses. Since 1989, CS guided land is not as readily available for developing. Ms. Fisher stated that the applicant also had a traf~c study prepared by BRW, Inc. She explained that traffic generation is based on two things, type of use and square footage of use. Both type of use and square footage have changed since the 1989 proposal. Ms. Fisher stated that the site will be developed whether this proposal is approved or not. Ms. Fisher stated that there is a clear finding in the both the SRF and BRW traffic studies, which is that tra/fic impacts would be substantially the same for the existing guiding and the proposed guiding. All four levels of service - A to D - are acceptable. Level of service D is generally considered acceptable in an urban area. She stated that there is a Planning Commission M~nutes ! June 25, 1996 Page #153 minor leR-hand turn movement at a level of service F for one hour of the day. From an overall function, the project would operate at an acceptable level of service. The applicant has offered to contribute one leg of'the traffic signal, which they are not required to do. If' monitoring looks to be acceptable long term at Nathan Lane and Schmidt Lake Road, the applicant would escrow money for the one leg of the traftic signal. Ms. Fisher explained that trip generation is done on the basis of category of uses. Both traffic studies indicated that the proposed use is comparable to other uses. The studies looked at the PM peak hour, and traflSc generation and trip generation is comparable. The studies did' not take into account Sundays, because of low background traffic. The uses such as the convenience store and auto service center, have a high percentage of pass by trips, which means that the traflSc is already on the road, rather than destination oriented. Ms. Fisher commented that the proposed guiding is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The developer has chosen to integrate all sites, as opposed to coming in with separate applications. The auto service center is close to being leased. Chairman Stulberg introduced Tony Heppelman, of BRW, Inc., representing the petitioner. Mr. Heppelmann stated that he agrees with Ms. Fisher's analysis of the traffic report. Mr. Heppelmann presented a chart from the BRW, Inc. traffic study indicating that during PM peak hour, the trip generation for the proposed site is 115 versus 134 under a general oflSce use. He stated that any uncontrolled intersection causes a problem for leR-hand turn movement, but you then look at the ~maount of delay. The traffic study assumed an even split of movement, but uses are more oriented from Highway 169; therefore, there would be more fight-turn movement from the site. The access can handle a queue of three or four vehicles. If the queue gets too long, people do begin to take chances at pulling out. Mr. Heppelmann presented an aerial photo of the site showing the access out to Nathan Lane is not highly visible, so it should not present a problem for cut-through traffic. Chairman Stulberg introduced John Bergly, landscape architect, representing the petitioner. Mr. Bergly stated that the applicant originally started out with a .Planned Unit Development for the site, but then decided to plat into three lots. The green areas are just under 50 percent of the site. Mr. Bergly presented the Landscape Plan detailing landscape buffering between two parking areas for the restaurant and the auto service center. The site is 18 to 20 feet lower than the intersection. The building exteriors will consist of brick and stucco, and the roofs will be the same color. The canopy for the fuel island will be coordinated with the convenience store building. There will be decorative lighting around the perimeter of the site, with large overhead lighting only in the back of the site. The landscaping will consist of 76 overstory and 39 ornamental trees, and 50 shrubs. Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 1996 Page #154 Chairman Stulberg opened the public hearing. Chairman Stulberg introduced Donald Roening of 4709 Louisiana Avenue North, Crystal. Mr. Roening stated that he is concerned with the additional traffic and the risk of damage to the curbs and driveways. He wanted to know who is responsible for the repairs to the curb and driveway. Mr. Roening asked what is the proposed height of the freestanding signs. Mr. Roening was also concerned with a restaurant going in and the potential of a liquor license next to the church. Mr. Roening would like to see a separate entrance for the proposed businesses. Chairman Stulberg introduced Paul Rodrigue of 4724 Efickson Drive, New Hope. Mr. Rodrigue States that he lives on the east side of Highway 169. He did not see the need for an additional service station since there is already one located on 49th Avenue east of Highway 169. Mr. Roddgue stated his concern for the added traffic, loss of wildlife and what the freestanding signs would look like. Mr. Rodrigne asked why the site has to be developed at all. He stated that the proposal will add jobs, but will also add traffic. Chairman Stulberg introduced MaUd Mickelson, 6072 Rhode Island Avenue North, New Hope. Mr. Mickelson stated that the site was alwiiys intended to be a business type property and that is why the church agreed to a shared driveway. They did not agree to the proposed type of development. He stated that traffic will be a continuous problem, not just on Sundays. With the long term projection of an controlled intersection, there will be a back- up of traffic causing further hindrance to the church site. Mr. Mickelson stated that the current shape of the driveway precludes sharp tums made by semi-trailers. Mr. Mickelson did not think a "Do Not Enter" sign would be an appropriate sign for a church property. Mr. lVIickelson commented that he was also concerned for building and ground maintenance of the proposed development. Chairman Stulberg introduced Dr. Bob Hoover of 2020 Orlda Drive, Golden Valley. Dr. Hoover commented that the proposal looks good from an aesthetics point. He stated that no matter what goes in, there will be the same types of problems with the internal intersection. He was concerned with the road in front of the businesses going into the church lot and then exiting out to Nathan Lane. Chairman Stulberg closed the public hearing. In response to questions raised regarding traffic, Senior Planner Keho stated that there are constraints from the wetland that would prohibit offsetting the exit from the church. The Planning Commission Minutes ) June 25, 1996 Page #155 road is designed to a 45 degree naming radius for fire trucks to access the site if needed. Mr. Bergly commented that alternatives were looked at that were not acceptable to the City. Offsetting the driveways to the church and the C. G. Rein site was considered, but there was not enough room to do so. Mr. Heppelmann stated that templates were applied for the turning width for trucks entering the site. The access is designed for trucks to get in and out of the site. Mr. Heppelmann stated that a "No Thru Traffic" sign would be more appropriate for the church property, and C. G. Rein would be willing to pay for the signs. In response to the question raised as to who is responsible for damage to the private drive, City Engineer Faulkner stated that the City does not get involved with private drives; it is up to the individual owner. Mr. Bergly stated that there will be two fi'eestanding signs at 36 feet; one sign will be placed in Lot 1, and one in Lot 3. Mr. Bergly stated that the signs have not been designed yet, but will be compatible with the buildings. Chairman Stulberg added that the ordinance will not allow any reader boards or blinking lights on signs. Director Hurlburt asked how high the signs would be in relation to Sehmidt Lake Road. Mr. Bergiy replied that the sign on Lot 3 will be at grade level, and the one on Lot 1 will be down 16 feet from the level of Schmidt Lake Road. Senior Planner Keho explained that if the application is approved as submitted, the applicant will be required to submit a financial guarantee. Once the project is completed, and all conditions are met, the financial guarantee is return'ed. If the land is platted and sold and there are any changes of impact, the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission. A use that requires a Conditional Use Permit would also need to come back before the Planning Commission. Chairman Stulberg stated that the City has no setback regulations regarding liquor licenses being issued to establishments located near religious facilities. Director Hurlburt added that the City does not allow a liquor license without a restaurant attached. In response to Mr. Rodrigue's question, Chairman Stulberg replied that the area does not have to be developed, but the owner has the right to do so. The City can only consider the application as it relates to guiding and zoning regulations. In response to Mr. Mickelson's comments, Senior Planner Keho stated that he did not find any documentation on file regarding a covenant for the shared access. Ms. Fisher stated in talking with the applicant, there is no covenant that connects the shared access to zoning of the site. The church did not buy the property from C. G. Rein, so she did not know what may have been said verbally. Ms. Fisher offered that the applicant would work with the church on a maintenance agreement for the shared access, if development goes forward. Chairman Snalberg introduced Dennis Cavanaugh, president of C. O. Rein. Planning Commission Minutes ) Sune 25, 1996 Page #156 Mr. Cavanaugh stated that there will be a format for maintenance of all the properties. C. G. Rein would retain ownership of one of the entities and the other two would be separately owned. C. G. Rein will make sure they have a maintenance agreement with the new owners to ensure the property is maintained. Ms. Fisher stated that with regard to consideration of growth in background traffic, the traffic study done by SRF projected to the year 2015 and growth was built into the study. -Commissioner Spigner asked why two Variances were granted from the Fire Code. Senior Planner Keho explained that a Variance from the Fire Code is approved by the City Council and that it is put into the resolution now, so that it is not omitted when it goes to City Council. Commissioner Spigner asked what the Fire Chief's opinion was on the issue. Senior Planner Keho replied that it was recommended for approval. Director Hurlburt added that there are issues that need to be amended in the Fire Code regulations and that the buildings on Lot 1 and 3 do not need to have a fire lane around them. Commissioner Thompson questioned what finding #3 means on Page 2 of the staff report. Senior Planner Keho explained that it was standard wording used by the City Council at that time. Director Hurlburt explained that "highest and best use" is not a planning term, rather an economic term. It is not a reason to approve or deny an application. Commissioner Berkowitz was concerned that the entry way is not large enough to serve three businesses and the church and thought there could be potential problems. He asked if there is a frontage road along Highway 169, south of Schmidt Lake Road. City Engineer Faulkner replied negatively. Director Hurlburt asked if the driveway would be widened from what currently exists. Mr. Bergly stated the roadway is built out to the edge of the easement - 33 feet, while the plan shows 40 feet. Commissioner Berkowitz commented that a "no thru traffic" sign would be more appropriate for the church. Commissioner Thompson asked what the maintenance agreement entails relating to the -private drive. Ms. Fisher replied that nothing has been discussed at this point, but that the developer would work out an agreement with the church. Commissioner Ribbe stated that according to Mr. Heppelmann there would be a stronger orientation of traffic exiting right from the site toward Highway 169, but vehicles would still have to make a lei~ turn into the site from Schraidt Lake Road. Mr. Heppelmann stated that vehicles making a lef~ mm from Schmidt Lake Road only have to look at oncoming traffic from two lanes. Vehicles making a lei~ turn from the site onto Schmidt Lake would have to look both lef~ and right before exiting. There will be two exiting lanes from the site for let~ and right turns. Planning Commission M,,ates .) June 25, 1996 Page #157 MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Thompson recommending approval of the Land Use Guide Plan Amendment and Rezoning for C. G. Rein Industries, Inc. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried on a 6-1 Vote. (Commissioner Ribbe voted Nay.) MOTION by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Thompson recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat, Site Plans, Conditional Use Permits, and Variances for C. G. Rein Industries, Inc. for property located at the southwest quadrant of Highway 169 and Schmidt Lake Road. MOTION to Amend by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Stoebner adding Condition #14 requiring the applicant to pay for one leg ora traffic signal between Nathan Lane and Highway 169. Commissioner Berkowitz asked if the Department of Transportation would be paying for that. City Engineer Faulkner replied that a local contribution might help speed up the process through the Department of Transportation. Roll Call Vote on Motion to Amend. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously.. MOTION to Amend by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Stoebner adding Condition #15 requiring the applicant to pay for signage at both church entrances to reduce cut through traffic. Roll Call Vote on Motion to Amend. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION to Amend by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Thompson adding Condition #16 requiring the applicant to enter into a maintenance agreement concerning the shared driveway with the church property owners. Roll Call Vote on Motion to Amend. 7 Ayes. MOTION carried unanimously. Roll Call Vote on Main Motion as Amended. 6 Ayes. MOTION carried on a Vote. (Commissioner Ribbe voted Nay.) Chairman Stulberg called a recess at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:28 P.m. B. ROGER SCHLUSSEL (960'/4) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Roger Schlussel for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment for an addition that would encroach four feet into the required side yard setback for property located at CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 96-04 Request: Informal Discussion/Consideration of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the New Hope City Code by Establishing Licensing Regulations for Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal and Second Hand Goods Dealers and An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Pawn Shops as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District Location: All B-4 Zoning Districts PID No.: Zoning: B-4, Community Business Zoning District Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: September 27, 1996 Meeting Date: October 1, 1996 BACKGROUND 1. At the March 11, 1996, City Council meeting, the City Council passed a Resolution Authorizing a Planning Study to Consider Regulations for Pawn Shops and Pawn Brokering as a Legitimate Business Within the City of New Hope. The City currently has no special zoning or license requirements for pawn shops and within the past several years the City has received several inquiries regarding the possible location of pawn shops in the City. 2. The resolution directs the City Manager and staff to prepare a planning study addressing the secondary impacts that such a business would have on the City's land planning process. The study was to address the need for buffer zones from other land uses which may be sensitive to a pawn shop business and document the licensing fee to be charged in connection with Police Department costs involving the regulation of such a business. 3. In conjunction with that resolution, the City Council also approved an ordinance establishing a six-month moratorium on any pawn shop or pawn brokering business within the City. The prohibition was effective through September 11. On July 22, the moratorium was extended an additional six months through March 11, 1997. 4. Staff have compiled a notebook of information on this issue which was distributed to all Planning Commissioners at the September 3 Planning Commission meeting. This notebook contains the information that the Codes & Standards Committee has been studying for the past five months and includes reports from the Planner, correspondence from the City Attorney, ordinances/information from other cities, and a preliminary draft of the ordinances proposed for New Hope. Please bring the notebooks to this meeting for reference. 5. Attached to this report, are the preliminary draft ordinances regarding pawn shops. The City Attorney, Planning Consultant and Codes & Standards Committee will be present at the meeting to review the proposed ordinances with the full Commission. Planning Case Report 96-04 2 September 27, 1996 6. This meeting is intended only to be an informal discussion with the Commission on this ordinance. If the Commission is agreeable, a formal public hearing will be conducted in November. 7. It is possible that representatives from Cash 'N' Pawn will be present at the meeting to discuss zoning district, fee and APS reporting requirement issues. Staff also have invited a representative from the Minneapolis Police Department to the meeting to present an update/ answer questions on the APS reporting system. Representatives from the New Hope Police Department may also be present. 8. Specific issues that the Commission will want to address include the amount of the fees to be charged and whether this use should be limited to the B-4 Zoning District. 9. The purpose of this informal discussion is to determine if the full Commission wants to make changes in the ordinances prior to the formal public hearing. Attachments: Proposed Ordinances $EP-25-96 WED 14:40 P, 02/05 Kirk McDonald Management Ae~t. City o~ New HoDs $401Xy]on Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Prooosed Ordinance Establishing Pawn Shops as Permittea use in the B-4 Zoning Oiatrict Our File No: 99,40025 Dear Kirk: Per our September 25, 1990 telephone conversation, please find enclosed & proposed Ordinance Amending the New. HoDs Zoning Code by E~t~bliehing Pawn Shops as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District. This Ordinance 15 in addition to the proposed Ordinance Establishing Licensing Regulations Tot Pawn Brokers, Precious Metal and Second Hind Goods Dealers ! previously ~ent you. Both OrdlnanGes ~re for consideration ~t the O©tober 1~ 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Also aa we discussed, the zoning ord~na~Ge is for informal ~tscusston only. A pub~tc heartn9 wtll be required to officially adopt thezontng ordinance. We have not published a public hearing not,ce, therefore the Ootobar meeting w~ll not be · public he·rinG on this ordJnanGe. Zt is also my underet·nding th·t some consider·t~on should be given to establishing pawn shops a~ a permitted ubs in the B-3 District as well as the 8-4 District. The Planning Commission may want to discuss that issue tnform·lly at their next meeting before a public hearing on th~s m·tter anyway. ! will insure th&t · publtG he&ring notice is published for t~e November Pl&nntng Commission meeting if you so d~rect after consider&tion of thege issues at the O~tober meeting. $E?-25-96 WED 14:41 ?,03/05 Mr. Kirk McDonald Se;)tember 25, 1996 Page 2 Contagt me if you have any other questions or comments on th~s matter. Very truly yours, Steven ~. Sondr&ll sl w2 Encl osurea cc: Dante1 J. Donal~ue, city Manager Valer~e Leone, City Clerk SEP-25-96 NED t4:41 P. 04/05 ORDINANCE NO. 96- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ESTABI.[SH[NG PAWN SHOPS A8 A PERMITTED USE IN THE B-4 ZONING The City Council of the City of NeW Hope ordalns: Section ~, SeG~ton 4,13~ (49) "pawn 8hope" of the New Hope Ctty Code ~s hereby added to read as follows: (cs) SeCtion Z, Effective Date, This Ord~nanoe shall be effective upon its passage and Oubllcatlon, Dated the day of , 1996. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Leone, C~ty Clerk Publ{shed ~n the New Nope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the day of ....... , 199e.) $EP-25-96 NED 14:41 P, 05/05 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING PAWN SHOPS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE B-4 ZONING DISTRICT City qt New _HODS. Mlnne.spt..a[ Notice is hereby glven that the Planning commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, wi]] meet on the 6th day of November, 199e, at 7:00 o'clock p,m, at the City Hall, 4401 Xy]on Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of ho]ding a ~ub]lc hearing to eons{der the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Nope Zoning Code. S&~d o~dtnance wi31 have the affect of establishing pawn shops ~s a ~ermttted use in the B-4 Zoning Dtstr~¢t. A33 persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard w~th respect to the zontn~ amendment. Accommodations euoh ae sign l&nguaee interpreter or large printed m&teria]e are available upon request at ]east working days in advance. P]ease contact the City C]er~ to make arrangements (telephone 531-6117, TDO number 510~). Dated t~e day of , 19S8, S/ yale¢te.J. L~one va~s~te ~. LeOne City Clerk (Published in the NeW Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 23r0 day of octo~er~ 1996.) CORRICK & SONDRALL. P.A. Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza ~ o. ~ 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite $203 Brookl~ P~k, Minneso~ 55443 TEXtOnE (Sl2) September 3, 1996 Kirk HcOonald City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Proposed Pawn Shop Ordinance Our File: 99.40028 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed a revised draft of the proposed Pawn Shop Licensing ordinance for distribution to the full Planning Commission. As you know, a great deal of time was spent in the Codes and Standards Committee discussing this ordinance. The ordinance was prepared by the Planning Consultant and patterned after the Minneapolis Ordinance. This was done because we want to utilize the Minneapolis Automated Pawn System (APS) when it becomes available sometime next year. Our moratorium has been extended to March 11, 1997 to accommodate our association with Minneapolis via APS. Therefore, no significant changes were made to the ordinance presented by the Planning Consultant. However, I did make the following changes we discussed at the last Codes and Standards meeting: 1) the code section number was changed to 8.33 et.al. We already have a §8.32. This is the Commercial Lawn Fertilizer License'section. 2) §8.334(1)(i) was rewritten to more clearly indicate an Antique Dealer would be excepted from the license requirement only if his or her total purchases for the year did not exceed $2,500.00 for second hand items containing precious metal. 3) §8.335 was amended to require the licensee or its manager to provide 40 hours of on-site supervision monthly. This will Kirk McDonald September 3, 1996 Page 2. require more than a token manager at the business to ensure accountability for the day to day operation of the business and conformance to this code section. 4) §8.340 was changed by adding a separate Billable Transaction Fee as subsection 4. I simply removed the language pertaining to these fees in §8.340(1)(c)-(e) and reinserted it as §8.340(4). The amount of these fees as well as the other fees for application, investigation and the annual license were moved to Chapter 14. Any other changes made were grammatical in nature. As we discussed, [ think this ordinance will still need to be "TWeaked" before the City Council finally adopts and puts it into affect. Contact me if you have any other questions or comments. Very truly yours, Steven A, Sondrall zlt enclosure cc: Alan Brixius ORDINANCE NO. 96- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING LICENSING REGULATIONS FOR PAWNBROKERS, PRECIOUS METAL AND SECOND HAND GOODS DEALERS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 8.33 "License for Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal Dealer and Second Hand Dealer" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: 8.33 License for Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal Dealer and Second Hand Dealer. 8.331 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to prevent pawn shop, precious metals and second hand goods businesses from being used as facilities for the commission of crime, to assure that such businesses comply with basic consumer protection standards and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City. The City Council therefore finds consumer protection regulation is warranted in transactions involving pawnbrokers, precious metal dealers and second hand dealers. 8.332 Definitions. The following words and terms when used in this Section shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: (1) Billable Transaction. Every reportable transaction conducted by a pawnbroker except renewals, redemptions, or extensions of existing pawns on items previously reported and continuously in the licensee's possession is a billable transaction. (2) Minor. Any person under 18 years of age. (3) Pawnbroker. Any person or agent or employee thereof, within the City who loans money on deposits or pledge of personal property or other valuable thing; who deals in the purchasing of personal property or other valuable item on condition of selling that same item back again at a stipulated price; or who loans money secured by a mortgage on personal property, taking possession of the property or any part thereof so mortgaged. To the extent that a business includes buying personal property previously used, rented or leased, or selling it on consi.gnment, the provision of this section shall be applicable. Any bank, savings and loan associations or credit union shall not be deemed a pawnbroker for purposes of this section. (4) Pawnshop. The location at which or premises in which a pawnbroker regularly conducts business. (5) Person. An individual; a partnership, including a limited partnership; a corporation including a foreign, domestic or nonprofit corporation; a trust; a political subdivision of the State; or any other business organization. (6) Precious Metal Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of buying coins or second hand items containing precious metal, including but not limited to, jewelry, watches, eating utensils, candlesticks, and religious and decorative objects. (7) Second Hand Dealer. A person, partnership, firm or corporation whose regular business includes selling or receiving tangible personal property (excluding motor vehicles) previously used, rented, owned, or leased. The term second hand dealer shall include pawnbroker and antique shops. (8) Reportable Transaction. Every transaction conducted by a pawnbroker in which merchandise is received through a pawn, purchase, consignment or trade, or in which a pawn is renewed, extended or redeemed, is reportable except: (a) The bulk purchase or consignment of new or used merchandise from a merchant, manufacturer or wholesaler having an established permanent place of business, and the retail sale of said merchandise, provided the pawnbroker must maintain a record of such purchase or consignment which describes each item, and must mark each item in a manner which relates it to that transaction record. (b) Retail and wholesale sales of merchandise originally received by pawn or purchase,' and for which all applicable hold and/or redemption periods have expired. 8.333 License Required. No person, firm or corporation shall conduct or operate the business of pawnbroker, precious metal dealer and second hand dealer without havin9 first obtained a license therefore as herein provided; or in violation of any of the provisions herein contained. No pawnbroker, precious metal dealer and second hand dealer license may be transferred to a different location or a different person. A separate license is required for each place of business. A person may be issued multiple licenses if there has been compliance with this code and all other county, state and federal laws for each license. 8.334 Exceptions to License Requirement. (1) The following transactions shall not require a precious metal dealers license: (a) Transactions at occasional "garage" or "yard" sales, or estate sales or auctions held at the decedent's residence, except that precious metal dealers must comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, §§325F.734 to 325F.742 for these transactions. (b) Transactions regulated by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 80A. (c) Transactions regulated by the Federal Commodity Futures Commission Act. 3 (d) Transactions involving the purchase of precious metal grindings, filings, slag, sweeps, scraps or dust from an industrial manufacturer, dental lab, dentist or agent thereof. (e) Transactions involving the purchase of photographic film such as lithographic and x-ray film or silver residue or flake covered in lithographic and x-ray film processing. (f) Transactions involving coins or bullion in ingots. (g) Transactions in which the second hand item containing precious metal is exchanged for a new item containing precious metal and the value of the new item exceeds the value of the second hand item, (h) Transactions between precious metal dealers if both dealers are licensed under Minnesota Statutes §325F,733, or if the seller's business is located outside of the State and the item is shipped from outside the State to a dealer licensed under Minnesota Statutes §325F,733, (i) Resale transactions by an antique dealer of second hand items containing precious metal if the items are resold at retail in an unaltered condition except for repair, and the antique dealer paid less than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500,00) for a]] second hand items containing precious metals purchased by said antique dealer within any twelve (12) consecutive month period, (2) The following transactions shall not require a second hand dealers license: (a) The sale of second hand goods where all of the following are present: (i) The sale is held on property occupied as a dwelling by the seller or owned, rented or leased by a chari t ab1 e or polit i ca1 organization. (ii) The items offered for sale are owned by the occupant. (iii) That no sale exceeds a period of seventy-two (72) consecutive hours. (iv) That no more than two (2) sales are held in any twelve (12) consecutive month period. (v) That none of the items offered for sale shall have been purchased for resale or received on consignment for purpose of resale. (b) The sale of second hand books, magazines, sound or video recordings, or film. (c) The business of buying or selling only those second hand goods taken as part of full payment for new goods of greater value and where such business is incidental to and not the primary business of a person. (d) A bulk sale of property from a merchant, manufacturer or wholesaler having an established place of business or of goods sold at open sale from bankrupt stock. (e) Goods sold at an exhibition. 8.335 Business Manager. A person(s) designated by the licensee to operate a business in the licensee's absence. A licensee must designate a manager to operate the licensed business if the licensee cannot provide on-site supervisory services at the business for at least 40 hours per month. (1) When a licensee places a manager in charge of a business, or if the named manger(s) in charge of a licensed business changes, the licensee must complete and submit the 5 appropriate application, on forms provided by the City within fourteen (14) days. (2) Upon completion of an investigation of a new manager, the licensee must pay an amount equal to the cost of the investigation to assure compliance with this Code. If the investigation process is conducted.solely with the State of Minnesota, the fee shall be one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500,00). If the investigation is conducted outside the State of Minnesota, the issuing authority may recover the actual investigations cost not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). 8.336 Application for License. Every application for license under this Section, whether for a natural person, partnership, corporation or other organization shall be made on a form supplied by the City and shall contain all information on said license form as required by law. 8.337 Application Execution. All license applications under this Section shall be signed and sworn to. Any license obtained by use of false information shall result in the denial or revocation of a license. 8.338 Application Verification. All applications shall be referred to the Police Department for verification and investigation of the facts set forth in the application. The Police Department shall make a written report and recommendation to the City Council as to issuance or non-issuance of the license. The City may order and conduct such additional investigation as it deems necessary during normal business hours. 8.339 Application Consideration. If an application is granted for a location where a building is under construction or not ready for occupancy, the license shall not be delivered to the licensee until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the licensed premises. 8.340 Fees. (1) Application Fee. 6 (a) A nonrefundable application fee shall be as set forth in §14.106(1) of this Code, (b) The application fee shall be paid in full before the license application is accepted. (2) Investigation Fee. A license applicant under this Section shall pay the City at the time an original application is submitted, a nonrefundable investigation fee as set out in §14.106(2) of this Code for the following cost s: (a) To verify the license application and; (b) To assure compliance with this section. (3) License Fee. (a) The license fee shall be as set out in §14.106(3) of this Code. (b) The first annual license fee shall be paid with the application and investigation fee. The application fee shall be credited to the first annual license fee, if the application is approved. {c) Upon rejection, denial or withdrawal of any license application, only the annual license fee shall be refunded in full, but not the investigation or application fee. (4) Billable Transaction Fee. (a) The billable transaction license fee shall be as set out in §14.106(4) of this Code and classified according to the medium by which daily required reports are submitted to the New Hope Police Department. .. (b) The billable transaction license fee shall reflect the cost of processing transactions and other related regulatory expenses as determined by the City 7 Council, and shall be reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, at least every six (6) months. Licensees shall be notified in writing thirty (30) days before any adjustment is implemented. The billable transaction fee for modem transaction shall not exceed the billable transaction fee for manual transactions. (c) Billable transaction fees shall be billed monthly and are due and payable within thirty (30) days. Failure to do so is a violation of this section. 8.341' Bond. A pawnbroker license will not be issued unless the applicant files with the City Clerk a bond with corporate surety, cash, or a United States Government Bond in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for a pawnbroker, precious metal dealer and second hand dealer license. The bond must be conditioned on the licensee obeying the laws and ordinances governing the licensed business and paying al1 fees, taxes, penalties and other charges associated with the business. The bond must provide that it is forfeited to the City upon violation of any law or ordinance. 8.342 Application Renewal. All licenses issued as per this section shall be effect'ive for one year from the date of approval by the City. An application for the renewal of an existing license shall be made prior to the expiration date of the license and shall be made in such form as the City requires. No expiration of any license shall impair or affect the obligation of any pre-existing lawful contract between the licensee and any pledgor. 8.343 Death of a Licensee. In the case of the death of a licensee, the relative or personal representative of the licensee may continue operation of the business for not more than ninety (90) days after the licensee's death. 8.344 Conditions for Approval of License. To be eligible for or to maintain a pawnbroker, precious metal or second hand dealer license, a person must operate 8 lawfully and fairly within the provisions of this section and all other applicable laws, and: (1) No license under this Section shall be issued to an applicant who is a natural person if such applicant: (a) Is a minor at the time the application is filed; (b) Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes §364.03, Subd. 2, unless the person has shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties of a pawnbroker as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes §364.03, Subd. 3; or (c) Holds an intoxicating liquor license under this Code. (2) No license under this Section shall be issued to an applicant that is a partnership if such applicant has any general partner or managing partner who: (a) Is a minor at the time the application is filed; (b) Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation and the person licensed as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes §364.03, Subd. 2, unless the person has shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties of a pawnbroker, as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes §364.03 Subd. 3; or (c) Holds an intoxicating liquor license under this Code. (3) No license under this Section shall be issued to an applicant that is a corporation or other organization if such applicant has any manager, proprietor, or agent in charge of the business to be licensed who: 9 (a) Is a minor at the time the application is filed; (b) Has been convicted of any crime directly related to the occupation licensed as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes §364.03 Subd. 2, unless the person has shown competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties of a pawnbroker as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes §364.03 Subd. 3; or (c) Holds an intoxicating liquor license under this Code. (4) Any change, directly or beneficially, in the ownership of any licensed pawnshop, precious metal or second hand dealer shall require the application for a new license and the new owner must satisfy all current eligibility requirements. (5) The following locations shall be ineligible for a license under this Section: (a) No license shall be granted or renewed if the property on which the business is to be conducted is owned by a person who is ineligible for a license under any of the requirements of this Code. (b) Where operation of a licensed premise would violate Chapter 4 of this Code. (c) Where the applicant's present license was issued conditioned upon the applicant makin9 specified improvements to the licensed premise or the property of the licensed premise which improvements have not been completed. 8.345 General License Restrictions. (1) Recordkeeoin~. At the time of a receipt of an .. item of property, whether sold or pawned, the pawnbroker, precious metal dealer and second 10 hand dealer shall immediately record, using the English language, in an indelible ink, or in a computerized record approved by the City Manager, the following information: {a) A complete and accurate description of the item of property including, but not limited to, any trademark, identification number, serial number, model number, brand name, or other identifying mark on such item; {b) The date and time the item of property was received by the pawnbroker; (c) The full name, residence address, residence telephone number, address, date of birth and reasonably accurate description of the pledgor or seller; (d) The amount advanced or paid; (e) The maturity date of the pawn transaction and the amount due; (f) The monthly and annual interest rates, including all pawn fees and charges; and (g) The licensee must also take color photographs or color video recording of: (i) Each customer involved in a billable transaction, (ii) Every item pawned or sold that does not have a unique serial or identification number permanently engraved or offered, (iii) If a photograph is taken, it must be at least two (2) inches in length by two (2) inches in width and must be maintained in such a manner that the photograph can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate, Such photographs must be available to the Chief of Police, 11 or the Chiefs designee, upon request. The licensee must inform the person that he or she is being photographed by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place in the premises. (iv) If a video photograph is taken, the video camera must zoom in on the person pawning or selling the item so as to include an identifiable close up of that person's face. Items photographed by video must be accurately depicted. Video photographs must be electronically referenced by time and date so they can be readily matched and correlated with all other records of the transaction to which they relate. The licensee must orally inform the person that he or she is being videotaped and by displaying a sign of sufficient size in a conspicuous place on the premises. The licensee must keep the exposed videotape for three (3) months. (h) Digitized Photographs. Effective ninety (90) days from the date of notification by the Chief of Police, the licensee may fulfill the color photograph requirements in §8.345(1)(g) by submitting them as digital images, in a format specified by the issuing authority, electronically cross referenced to the reportable transaction they are associated with. Notwithstanding the digital images may be captured from required video recordings, this provision does not alter or amend the requirements in §8.345(1)(g). (2) Printed Record Keeping. The following shall be printed on all pawn tickets: (a) The statement that "any personal property pledged to a pawnbroker with this state is subject to sale or disposal when there has been no payment made on the account 12 for a period of not less than sixty (60) days past the date of the pawn transaction, renewal, or extension; no further notice is necessary, There is no obligation for the pledgor to redeem pledged goods," (b) The statement that "the pledgor of this item attests that it is not stolen, it has no liens or encumbrances against it, and the pledgor has the right to sell or pawn the item". (c) The statement that "this item is redeemable only by the pledgor to whom the receipt was issued, or any person identified in a written and notarized authorization to redeem the property identified in the receipt, or a person identified in writing by the pledgor at the time of the initial transaction and signed by the pledgor. Written authorization for release of property to persons other than the original pledgor must be maintained along with the original transaction record", (d) A blank line for the pledgor's signature, (3) Inspection of Records. The pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer shall make available the information required in §8.345(1) of this Section during business hours for inspection by the City. The information required in §8.345(1) of this Section shall be retained by the pawnbroker, precious metal dealer and second hand dealer for at least three (3) years, These records shall be a correct copy of its entries made of the pawn transactions. (4) Daily Report to Police. (a) Method. Licensee must provide to the Police Department the information required in §8.345(1)(a-f), by transferring it from their computer to the Police Department via modem. All required records must be transmitted 13 completely and accurately after the close of business each day in accordance with standards and procedures established by the City using a dial-callback protocol or other procedures that address security concerns of the licensee and the City. The licensee must display a sign of sufficient size, in a conspicuous place in the premises, which informs all patrons that all transactions are reported to the Police Department daily. (b) Billable Transaction Fees. Licensees will be charged for billable transactions at the rate for the medium by which they were reported to the Police Department except: (i) If a licensee who has consistently reported via modem, is unable to successfully transfer the required reports by modem, the licensee must provide the Police Department printed copies of all reportable transactions along with the video tape(s) for that date, by 12:00 Noon the next business day and must be charged at the modem rate for billable transactions, (ii) If the problem is determined to be in the licensee's system and is not corrected by the close of the first business day following the failure, the licensee must provide the required reports as detailed in §8,345(1) and must be charged at the modem rate for transactions through the close of the first business day following the failure, and at the manual rate for all subsequent billable transactions until the error is corrected; or (iii) If a licensee who has consistently reported via modem is unable to capture, digitize or transmit the photographs required in 14 §8.345(1 )(g), the li censee must immediately take all required photographs with a still camera, immediately develop the pictures, cross reference the photographs to the correct transaction, and deliver them to the Police Department by 12:00 Noon the next business day. Billable transactions will be charged at the modem rate for transactions through the close of the first business day roi]owing the failure, and at the manual rate for all subsequent billable transactions until the error is corrected. (5) Items for Which Reports to Police are Required. For the following items whether sold or pawned, the pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer shall complete forms approved by the City and send the forms weekly to the Police Department: (a) Any item with a serial number, identification number, or "Operation Identification" number; (b) Cameras; (c) Electronic audio, video, or computer equipment; (d) Precious jewelry, gems, and metals; (e) Artist-signed or artist-attributed works of art; (f) Firearms; (g) Any item not ~ncluded in a-f above, except furniture and kitchen or laundry appliances, which the pawnbroker intends to sell for more than two hundred dollars ($200). (6) Police Order to Hold Property. Whenever the Police Department notifies the pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer not to sell an item, the item shall not be sold or removed from the licensed premises until authorized to be released by the Police Department. 15 (7) Holding Period for Pawnbrokers. Any item sold or pawned to a pawnbroker, precious' metal dealer or second hand dealer for which a report to the police is required shall not be sold or otherwise transferred for ninety (90) days after the date of the sale or pawn. However, an individual may redeem an item pawned seventy-two (72) hours after the item was received on deposit by the pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer excluding Sundays and legal holidays. (8) Receipt. The pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer shall provide a receipt to the seller or pledger of any item of property received, sold or owned which shall include: (a) The name, address, and phone number of the pawnbroker business; (b) The date on which the item was received by the pawnbroker; (c) A description of the item received and amount paid to the pledger or seller in exchange for the item pawned or sold; (d)The signature of the pawnbroker agent; (e) The last regular business day by which the item must be redeemed by the pledger without risk that the item will be sold and the amount necessary to redeem the pawned item on that date; (f) The annual rate of interest charged on pawned items received; and (g) The name and address of the seller or pledger. (9) Hours of Operation. No pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer shall keep the pawnbroker, precious metal or second hand business open for the transaction of business on any day of the week before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. (10) Minors. The pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer sh&11 not purchase or receive personal property of any nature or deposit or pledge from any minor. le (11) Inspection of Items. The pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer shall, at all times during the term of the license, allow the City to enter the premises where the pawnbroker is located, for the purpose of inspecting such premises and inspecting the items, ware, and merchandise therein for the purpose of locating items suspected or alleged to have been stolen or otherwise improperly disposed. (12) License Display. A license issued under this Section must be posted in a conspicuous place in the premises for which it is used. (13) Maintenance of Order. A licensee under this Section shall be responsible for the conduct of the business being operated and shall maintain conditions of order. (14) Gambling. No licensee under this Section may operate or permit the operation on the licensed premises of dice, slot machines, roulette wheels, punch boards, blackjack tables, or pinball machines which return coins or slugs, ships, or tokens of any kind, which are redeemable in merchandise or cash. No gambling equipment authorized under Minnesota Statutes, §§349A.11-349.60, may be operated and no raffles may be conducted on the licensed premises and/or adjoining rooms. The purchase of lottery tickets may take place on the licensed premises as authorized by the director of the lottery pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, §§349A.O1-349A.15. (15) Prohibited Goods. No licensee under this Section shall accept any item of property which contains an altered or obliterated serial number or "Operation Identification" number or any item of property whose serial number has been removed. (15) Proper Identification. A licensee under this Section shall not accept items of property unless the seller or pledger provides to the pawnbroker one of the following forms of photo identification: 17 (a) A valid Driver's License; (b) A Minnesota Identification Card; or (c) A photo identification issued by the state of residency of the person from whom the item was received and current Minnesota address. No other, forms of identification shall be accepted. (17) Redemption Period. The date by which an item of property that has been pawned must be redeemed by the pledger without risk that the item will be sold must be a day on which the pawnbroker is open for regular business. (18) Effect of Redemption. (a) A pledgor shall have no obligation to redeem pledged goods or make any payment on a pawn transaction. Pledged goods not redeemed within at least sixty (60) days of the date of the pawn, transaction, renewal, or extension shall automatically be forfeited to the pawnbroker, and qualified right, title, and interest in and to the goods shall automatically vest in the pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer. (b) The licensee's right, title, and interest in the pledged goods under (a) is qualified only by the pledgor's right, while the pledged goods remain in possession of the pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer and not sold to a third party, to redeem the goods by paying the loan plus fees and/or interest accrued up to the date of redemption. (c) A pawn transaction that involves holding only the title to property is subject to Minn. Stat. Chapter 168A or 336. (19) Payment by Check. When a pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer accepts an item for purchase or as security for a loan, 18 payment for any article deposited, left, pledged or pawned shall be made only by a check, draft or other negotiable instrument or order of withdrawal which is drawn against funds held by a financial institution. This policy must be posted in a conspicuous place in the premises. (20) Business at Only One Place. A license under this Section authorizes the licensee to carry on its business only at the permanent place of business designated in the license. The City may issue more than one license to a person if that person complies with this section for each license. (21) Restrictions on Weapons. (a) A pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer may not receive as a pledge or otherwise, or accept for consignment or sale any revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other firearm unless said dealer also maintains a federal firearms dealers license. (b) A pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer may not.receive as a pledge or otherwise, or accept for consignment or sale, any sawed off shotgun, automatic rifle, black jack, switchblade, or other similar illegal weapons or firearms. 8.346 Restrictions Regarding License Transfer. Each license under this Division shall be issued to the applicant only and shall not be transferable to any other person. No licensee shall loan, sell, give or assign a license to another person. 8.347 Suspension or Revocation of License. (1) The City Council may suspend or revoke a license issued under this Section upon a finding of a violation of: (a) Any of the provisions of this Section; or 19 (b) Any state statute regulating pawnbrokers, precious metal dealers or second hand dealers. Any conviction by the pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer for theft, receiving stolen property, or any other crime or violation involving stolen property shall result in the immediate suspension pending a hearing on revocation of any license issued hereunder. (2) Except in the case of a suspension pending a hearing or revocation, a revocation or suspension by the City Council shall be preceded by written notice to the licensee and a public hearing, The written notice shall give at least ten (10) days' notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the charges against the pawnbroker. The Council may, without any notice, suspend any license pending a hearing on revocation for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days. The notice may be served upon the pawnbroker or precious metal dealer by the United States mail addressed to the most recent address of the business in the license application. 8.348 Permitted Charges. (1) Notwithstanding any other statutes, ordinance, rule, or regulation, a pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer may contract for and receive a charge not to exceed three (3) percent per month of the principal amount advanced in the pawn transaction plus a reasonable fee for storage and services. A fee for storage and services may not exceed twenty ($20.00) dollars if the property is not in the possession of the pawnbroker. (2) The charge allowed under paragraph (1 ) shall be deemed earned, due, and owing as of the .. date of the pawn transaction and a like sum shall be deemed earned, due, and owning on the same day of the succeeding month. However, if 2O full payment is made more than two (2) weeks before the next succeeding date, the pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer shall remit one-half (1/2) of the pawnshop charge for that month to the pledgor. (3) Interest shall not be deducted in advance, nor shall any loan be divided or split so as to yield greater interest or fees that would be permitted upon a single, consolidated loan or for otherwise evading any provisions of this section. (4) Any interest, charge, or fees contracted for or received, directly or indirectly, in excess of the amount permitted under this section, shall be uncollectible and the pawn transaction shall be void. (5) A schedule of charges permitted by this section shall be posted on the pawnshop premises in a place clearly visible to the general public. 8.349 Prohibited Acts. (1) No pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer licensed under this Section shall: (a) Lend money on a pledge at a rate of interest above that allowed by law; (b) Possess stolen goods; (c) Sell pledged goods before the time to redeem has expired; (d) Refuse to disclose to the pledger, after having sold pledged goods, the name of the purchaser or the price for which the item sold; (e) Make a loan on a pledge to a minor. (2) No licensee may receive any goods, unless the seller presents identification in the form of a valid drivers license, a valid State of Minnesota identification: or (3) No licensee may receive any item of property that possesses an altered or obliterated serial number or "operation identification" number or any item of property that has had its serial number removed. 21 8.350 Redemption; Risk of Loss. Any person to whom the receipt for pledged goods was issued, or any person identified in a written and notarized authorization to redeem the pledged goods identified in the receipt, or any person identified in writing by the pledgor at the time of the initial transaction and signed by the pledgor shall be entitled to redeem or re-purchase the pledged goods described on the ticket. In the event the goods are lost or damaged while in possession of the pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer, the pawnbroker, precious metal dealer or second hand dealer shall compensate the pledgor, in cash or replacement goods acceptable to the pledgor, for the fair market value of the lost or damaged goods. Proof of compensation shall be a defense to any prosecution or civic action. 8.351 Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Section is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Division. 8.352 Penalty. A violation of this Section shall be a misdemeanor under Minnesota Law. Section 2. Section 14.106 "Pawn Br. okers, Precious Metal Dealer and Second Hand Dealer" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: 14.106 Pawn Brokers, Precious Metal Dealer and Second Hand Dealer License. (1) A nonrefundable Application Fee $500.00 (2) A nonrefundable Actual Cost Investigation Fee of investigation (including Manager not to exceed investigation) $10,000. If investigation solely conducted in Minnesota, the inve~ igation fee shall not exceed $1,500.00 22 (3) Annual License Fee $12,000.00 (4) Billable Transaction Fee Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1996. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor At t est: Valerie Leone, City Clerk Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the day of , 1996.) 23 CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: September 27, 1996 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Issues 1. September 9 Council/EDA Meetings - At the September 9 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: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Grant Application for Minnesota Housinq Finance Agency Community Rehabilitation Fund Program: Approved, see attached Council request for program description and designated neighborhoods. C. Resolution Supporting Park National Bank's Application for Access to the MHFA Community Fix-up Fund: Approved, see attached Council request for program description. D. PC96-29, Variance from Side Yard Setback Requirement, 3532 Ensign Avenue: Tabled to 9/23 Council meeting. One Councilmember did not find any fault with the original plans which required a seven-foot variance. Staff was directed to get opinions from the City Attorney and Planner on this issue. Please refer to the Council minutes for more information. E. PC96-30, Variance from Rear Yard Setback Requirement, 7251 40t' Avenue: Approved with the recommendations suggested by the Planning Commission. F. Discussion Regarding Request by Ambassador Nursing Home for City to Share Cost in New Water Main/Loop Connection: Approved a maximum amount of $3,800; see Council request for more information. The plans for the water main connection had to be modified subsequent to the plan approval by the Planning Commission. G. Discussion Re.qarding Revised Request for TIF Assistance for Car-X/PUD Development at 7180 42"~ Avenue: The EDA directed staff to meet with Lasky, work out the terms of an agreement for $100,000 in TIF financial assistance. The agreement will be brought back to the EDA on October 28. See attached EDA request. H. Pro|ect #554, Resolution Approving Loan to Tasks Unlimited Lodges to Purchase 3579/3581 Independence Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. 2. September 23 CouncillEDA Meetings - At the September 23 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Resolution Terminating Conditional Use Permit for 5701 International Parkway: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Motion Authorizinq Staff to Obtain an Appraisal for HUD Owned Property at 5812 Boone Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request. C. PC96-29, Variance from the Side Yard Setback Requirement, 3532 Ensign Avenue: Seven-foot variance (original request) approved. Please see attached Council request, City Attorney's opinion and memorandum from Planning Consultant. D. Project #542, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for. the Public Work Remodeling Project: Approved, see attached Council request and final plans. E. Project #567, Presentation Regarding Proposed 1997 Street Improvement Project, Motion to Direct City Engineer to Prepare a Concept Report and Conduct Neighborhood Meetings: Approved, see attached Council request. F. Presentation Regarding Proposed Xylon Avenue Street Improvements (45th to 46th Avenues), Motion to Direct the City Engineer to Prepare a Concept Report and Conduct Neighborhood Meetings: Approved, see attached Council request. G. Project #563, Resolution Providing for Public Hearing on Proposed Improvements (Car-X/Champion Auto Storm Sewer Improvements): Approved, see attached Council request and Feasibility Report. H. Project #572, Discussion Regarding Request for Financial Assistance for Rehabilitation of Apartment Building at 7610 Bass Lake Road: EDA directed staff to work on agreement with property owners and obtain financial records, see attached EDA request. 3. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee met on September 25 and discussed: A. Concrete Curb Ordinance B. Shopping Center Parking Requirements C. Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment D. Opinion Signs E. Outdoor Seasonal Sales 4. Design & Review Committee - Met twice in September to review plans for St. Therese Nursing Home's expansion of parking lot and rezoning. 5. Project Bulletin - Enclosed for your information is a copy of the recently mailed project bulletin on the 36~ Avenue reconstruction project. 6. Miscellaneous Articles - Enclosed are several miscellaneous articles from Zoning Bulletin and Zoning News for your information. Attachments: Deferred Loan Repayment Agreement Grant Application for MHFA Community Rehabilitation Fund MHFA Community Fix-Up Fund Ambassador Nursing Home TIF Assistance for Car-X/PUD Development Tasks Unlimited Project 5701 International Parkway 5812 Boone Avenue 3532 Ensign Avenue, Arnoldy Public Works Remodeling Project 1997 Street Improvement Project Xylon Avenue Street Improvements Car-X/Champion Auto Storm Sewer Improvements TIF Assistance for Apartment Rehab at 7610 Bass Lake Road Project Bulletin Miscellaneous Articles ,~ ~ COUNCIL c'r oN Ortgtnaung DeparCnent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent --~ 9-9-96 Kirk McDonald ) Item :~o. By: Management Assistant ~ /J/ 6.5 RESOLUTION APPROVING HENNEP!~COUNTY HOUSING DEFERRED LOAN PROGRAM REPAYMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT A housing rehabilitation loan is being proposed for a New Hope resident through the Hennepin County/City of New Hope Community Development Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation Program. The County manages the program on behalf of the City and a routine Housing Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program Repayment Agreement must be executed. The specific amount of the loan is not included because the County has revised the program so that the agreement is executed before the rehab work is completed, however, the total loan amount will not exceed $15,000. The proceeds of the loan will be used for repairs and improvements to the property at 5324 Oregon Avenue North to improve conditions relating to health, safety, energy efficiency and accessibility. The program is for Iow/moderate income persons. The lien created by the agreement terminates in fifteen years, and if the property is sold before that time, a percentage of the loan must be repaid. The enclosed resolution approves the Hennepin County Housing Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program Repayment Agreement and authodzee the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: COUNCIL  REQUF.~T FOR ACTION Originating Depa~u~ent Approved for Agenda Agenda SecUon City Manager Consent 9-9-96 Sarah Bellefuil ~' ] Item No. By:. Community Development Specialist By:.t_/ 6.6 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMI'~AL OF GRANT APPLICATION FOR MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY COMMONITY REHABILITATION FUND PROGRAM a grant application for the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Community Rehabilitation Fund Program by the Economic Development Authority. The cities of New Hope of Crystal are applying jointly for the grant and Crystal will be approving a similar resolution. The program will finance the acquisition, demolition or rehabilitation of blighted properties, provide gap financing for rehabilitation of blighted properties, or provide gap financing for construction of new housing on blighted properties. The 'gap" is the difference between the sum of the cost of acquiring/demolishing/constructing new housing on the site and the market value of the property upon sale and there is a requirement that the property must be sold to Iow/moderate income persons after completion. The goal would be to acquire two properties in neighborhoods identified on the attached map (that have significant code compliance problems) on a voluntary basis and either rehabilitate or demolish and construct new. Some existing CDBG dollars that have been designated for scattered site housing would be used in conjunction with the MHFA grants if the grants are funded. The City will also utilize HOME funds to support the project. The proposed budget for the application is attached and is only an estimate. The pool of MHFA funding is actually quite small and many cities will be submitting applications so completion will be keen. New Hope will be submitting its application in conjunction with the City of Crystal to strengthen our funding chances. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: RFA-O01 COMMUNITY REHABILITATION FUND PROGRAM PROGRAM CONCEPT PROGRAM GOAL To encourage partnership efforts between MHFA, cities, local lenders, nonprofit organizations, local governments, community organizations, and other participants providing funds to assist communities in improving and preserving ciesignatec] neighbomoods and/or geographical areas. ELIGIBLE PROGRAM APPLICANTS.--Cities Any entry meeting the definition of a city as defined in Minnesota Statute 462C.02, · sul~. 6, may apply. (Thi~ may include cities, city and county housing authorities, port authorities, and economic develol~nent authorities), If authonzed by a resolution of the c~y. a nonprofit organization may apply on bM1alf of a city. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Loans/grams will be made available in participating communities for the pu~osee of acquisifiort, cor~a'uotio~, demoliti~t, rehabilitation, pe~nanent financing, refinancing, or ~ financing et single family housing. (Gap financing is financing to cover the gao between rebels/new conm~ coats and tho aoprei~d property value. Propoeala that are requeeting I gap lubeidy, the amount of the gap may be coneidered in ranking applications. To calculate the Gap complete the attached Gap Financing Worksheet). · Program recipients total income cannot exceed 115% of the greater of the state or area HUD median income. · Community Rehabilitation Program fundl cannot be used to defray the cost of administering the program. · Leveraged funde will be considered when swan:ling grent~. · Partnemhil~ betwee~ the city and ott't~ local participant(s) must be deveiOl:~d. · Eligible projects mute address housing need~ created by existing economic devMopment. Thio information is contained in the investment guidelines. See attached cover letter for copy of guidelines. FUNDS AVAILABLE--$:~,000,000 $2 millk~ in grants currently available to citiee for the improvement and prasewation of sing~ family housing in designated neighbortloodl or geogral~ical ama. Funde will be awarded to citie~ in the form of a grant for designated areas. The minimum grant is $20,000. Tho maximum grant is $3;X),000. $650,000 will be allocated to the Small Great Pool (requests from $30,000 to $100.000). $1,350,000 will be allocated to the Largo Grant Pool (request~ greater then $100.000, I~ut no greater than $3(X),000). CRF 7/96 APPLICATION/SELECTION REQUIREMENTS II The Selection Committee will be rant;lng the Community Rehabilitation Fund Program applications on a scale of 1.7. Proposals that are strong in the following Application/Selection Requirements will be ranked th· highest. Describe how the proposal will meet/impact housing needs created by recent/ongoing local economic clevelol~ent initiatives. ~' Specifically identify the designated area in which the Community Rehab Funds will be used. Gecgral~iC t~oundaries must be specific. ,/ Identity the source(s) and amount of funds I·veraged, and how program administrative costs will be paid. Attach letters from other sources indicating tt~e amount of fund~ (or services) being comm~ed. Provide a description of th· city's administrative capacity to deliver the program and the in-house supportive programs, related services and activities that are relevant to the administration of this program. ,/ Provide a description of th· applicants past exl~rience in providing services similar to those to be provided in th· Community Reh&l~ilitation Fund Program. ~ If your organization is · nonprofit, attach a cody of a resolution by the city's governing ~ designating the organ~.ation to al~ty on the city's behalf. / Attach a timeline for administering the program. / De~cribe what stel~ will be taken to addre~ affirmative action issues in marketing the Community Re~tal~iitation Fund Program. ~' Attach any additional do~urnent~ that add validity and strength of the project described in the prol;K~al. CONTACT PERSONS: Reecl Erick~on, 296-8843 or 800-710-8871 Brian Kluvar, 296-9567 or 800-710-8871 CRF 7/96 COUNCIZ, '  REQb'EST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Secuon City Manager Consent 9-9-96 Kirk McDonald Item No. ~ Management Assistant ~ 6.7 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PARK NATIONAL BANK'S APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY'S COMMUNITY FIX-UP FUND The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is soliciting applications from lenders for participation in the Community Fix-Up Fund Program. The purpose of the program is to provide access to lenders for targeted community rehabilitation efforts. Park National Bank has indicated an interest in applying for access to these funds to further the efforts of the cities of both New Hope and Crystal. The funds would be used for 'value-added' improvements and single family residential rehabilitation. This resolution indicates support for Park National Bank's application to the MHFA for Community Fix-Up Fund dollars. This program would address several of the objectives of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan, including: · Maintain and improve single family housing stock · Work cooperatively with adjacent communities and the lending community on housing issues. Staff recommends approval of the resolution supporting Park National Bank's MHFA Community Fix-Up Fund application. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: COMMUNITY FIX-UP FUND PROGRAM CONCEPT PROGRAM GOAL Encourage partnership efforts between Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). local lenders, nonprofit orgamzations, local governments, and commumty organizations by providing funds to assist a designated community in acldresslng ~ts specific home improvement needs or objectives. ELIGIBLE PROGRAM APPLICANTS Applications must be submitted by participating MHFA Fix-up Fund lenders (or participating lender consortia), in partnership with a nonprofit organization delivenng housing programs, or a city as defined by Minnesota Statute 462C.02. sul=ct. 6 (including local governments, housing and redevelopment authorities, economic development authorities and port authorities). PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS · The Community Fix-up Fund (CFUF) is a program designed to address 'targeted community rel~abilitation efforts*, rather than serve a general need for home improvement funds. · Lenders approved to participate in CFUF must first determine whether a potential bon'ower in the designated commumty qualifies for the Fix-up Fund. If not, CFUF serves as another Iow-interest financing option, with more flexible underwriting guidelines, to reach · larger segment of the market in the designated community. The underwriting guide#nee which differ from the Fix-up Fund include: 1) Higher maximum income limit than the $44,000 maximum for the Fix-up Fund. CFUF income limit is based on the geographic location of the household a~ identified below:. Counties of Anoka, Carver, Chisego, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsay, Scott, She~uma, $62,790 Olmeted County S53,020 All Other Countle~ $53,475 2) Larger maximum loan amount of $25,000 versus $15,000 for the Fix-up Fund; longer maximum loan term of 20 yearn versus 15 yearn for the Fix-up Fund. 3) A maximum of 49% of the property to be improved can be used exclusively for businese purposes as compared to a maximum business use percentage of 15% for the Fix-up Fund. Only improvements to the resiclential portion of the property are eligible. 4) Ineligible Fix-up Fund improvemente may be eligible, if they make the property ~ hazardous to tyro health and safely of tim residents. FUNDB AVAILABLE ApproximatMy $10 million is available, with approximately $5 million set aside for Anoka, Carver, Chicago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanfl, Ramsay, Scott, Shemume, Wa.Mlirtgton and Wright counties. Lenders do not apply for a specific dollar amount of funds, but rather apply to access funds in the appropriate pool. The funds are available to ~e designated community as long as there am funds in that pool. APPLICATION/SELECTION REQUIREMENTS III A selection comrmttee compnSed of MHFA staff will be ranking the Community Fix-U; Fund ;roposals on a scale of 1.7. Proposals that are strong ~n me following Ap;lication/Setection Requirements will I~e funded. A description of the designated community, and the specific home improvement needs/ol~iectives t~eing addressed. An explanation as to how the loan funds meet the identified needs/objectives of the clesignated community. The impact these funds will have on meeting the specific needs/objectives of the designated community. ~' A detailed marketing plan for reaching potenti&l borrowers in the designated ; community. The name and address of the local partner, assisting in evaluating the credit needs of the designated community. Please describe any additional involvement this partner will have in delivering or marketing the program, if applicai~le. CONTACT PERSON: Terri Black, 296-8275 or 800-710-8871 Judcl Schuitz, 297-3124 or 800-710-8871 ~ F~.up Fuml ?/9~ ~~ ~ COUNCIL REQUF.~T FOR ACTION Originating Deparmaent Approved for Agenda _ Agenda Section L)eV~lopment City Manager & Planning 9-9-96 Kirk McDonald Item No. By:. Management Assistant By:. 8.3 DISCUSSION REGARDING REQUEST BY AMBASSADOR NURSING HOME FOR CITY TO SHARE COST IN NEW WATER MAIN/LOOP CONNECTION The City has received the attached letter from Jim Jasper, Administrator of Ambassador Nursing Home, requesting the City to consider' shadng in the cost of the Midland Center water main connection and restoration. Mr. Jasper states in his letter that he feels that the City and Midland Center may, bottt" benefit by this connection/loop and he has attached a copy of the bid for the work submitted by Lund Martin Construction, Inc. in the amount of $7,600. On June 19;,- 199~, the Council al:q3foved the requeet for a conditional use permit amendment from Ambassador Nursing Home to construct a two-story addition on the east side of the existing building. The addition includes 8,565 square feet on the upper floor and 1,948 square feet on the lower floor. The project also includes remodeling the existing two wings of the building. A fire sprinkling system will be installed in the existing and new buildings. The preliminary drawings indicated a dead-end water main from Virginia Avenue. City staff strongly recommended a looped-main or at least a service off of a looped main along Medicine Lake Road. The plans approved by the Planning Commission and City Council showed a connection to Medicine Lake Road. However, Ambassador found that the connection to Medicine Lake Road was cost prohibitive. Public Works also did not favor a Medicine Lake Road connectio~ due to the cost and impact on traffic. After receiving approval from Midland Center, their tin~lr~ plans showed the looped main to Midland Center from the Virginia dead~lll~ma~. Ttte City strongly recommended this loop because of improved water flow and r.~ protection for alt properties in that area. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: , Request for Action Page 2 9-9-96 ~ The City Manager requested that the Director of Public Works and City Engineer review this request for cost shadng and make recommendations as to whether the City receives a benefit or not and/or whether the City should consider participating or not. The Public Works Director and City Engineer have reviewed the request and are recommending that the City participate in 50% of the cost ($3,800). They state that the connection will provide benefit to the residents on Virginia Avenue (north of Medicine Lake Road), Ambassador Nursing Home, and Midland Shopping Center. The benefit is based on water quality (better circulation) and an alternate source in the event of a water main break. Discussions with Jim Smith at Kraus-Anderson (managers of Midland Shopping Center) have indicated they will agree to the connection based on the following: · The disruption to their tenants is properly coordinated and minimized. · An easement is retained over the new water main construction on Midland Shopping Center property. · Midland Shopping Center does not incur any cost associated with the project. Relative to the easement description, the surveyor~ for Amba~sedor Nursing Home will prepare an easement description (20' wide) over the new water main and the City Attomey will prepare 'a legal document incorporating_ the easement description between the C~ of New Hope and Midland Shopping Center. Staff requests that the Council discuss this request and direct staff how to proceed. Ros;~_r'%~ ........... ~'"'~" ~'~ ............. ' ..... "" ' '""""' """" "' -""-.", ,~ ,,-,,,-,.,.,-. ,,. ~SSOClc~es- ..... .,, , ............ ,......, ,,<,~ ,~. ,.,,,.,,,, ,,,~.,,,. ~,.. ~.,,.., ,,,,, .,, . Engineers A Architects ,fl, I L.",e , ........... -'~,,.t,e,.~-. DAT~: Seplcmb~ 5, 19~ TO: Kirk MeDe,&Id FROM: Mark SUBa'ECT: Amb&.ssador Nursing Water Main Comlccr/oe wi':.'~ Midland Shoppln8 Cen~r Om' File Nu. 34-Gert In accordance with your memo (dated A,.~'..:st 30, 1996), Seanniae and i hive reviewed the reque~ by Ambassador Home to share in the cost ($7,6G0) to make the w~er main connection to Midland Shopping Cemet's exis~g 6" diameter water main. The connection will provide benefit to Ibc mklems on Virginia Avenue (north of'Medicine Lake Road), .-Lm~,usadow Nutsin~ Homes, and Midland Shopping Cram'. The benefit is based on water qtmlity (ha:t,u. :l~ulatioa) m~l ~n alternate m~Ja~.e in the event ot'a water main break. Oiscu.<.~ien.~ with Jim Smith at ~.::s~s-Anderlon (manaGers of Midland ~loppinI Canter) have indicated they will a~'~e to the connec:~¢.n ha.e~d on d~ Followinl: · The disruption to thei~ tenants is ~.4~r~y eoca, dinated and minimized. · An easement is retained over thc ,-,ow ','-'.-'or main conmuctien on Midland Simppin~ Center IXOpe~. · Midland Shopping Center does r.o: ':~..;~ any cost associated wil~ the proje~ Baaed on the above, Se~nnine and I tecorr..,'r.¢~'.d the City pls1:ioi~ in :50~ of the etNt (Amlsnsmd~ ~ $3,800, New Hope Water Utility S3,800). Relative to the easement description, it is recommended the sm'veyots f'ot Ambasmd~ Nutsin~ Hame prepare an easem~! descril~ion (20' w~¢~ over the new wa~et main and have Stove's office prepare a legal document incorporating the cescr...cr'. ,=cscription between the City of New Hope and Midland Shopping Center. The = _-,~"ney fro' K,-=:~ Ar, clerson (Frank Connelly, 332-7281) will coordinate the arrangements wilh Midland Sho~ing Can:ar. All the water main consma:tion shall ba ¢cord:nated with Guy Johnson at Public Works. cc: Jeennine Clancy Guy Johnson Steve Sondrall Jim Smith - Kmu.~ Anderson Frank Conn¢lly - K,'aus Anderson ...... i:" 460 233S ~Vest Hicjhw~.~/ 36 · ,et. P,:u .::'J $S113-]898 · 612- - z Ambassador Good Samaritan Center ~'1S% August 26. 1996 .Mr. Kirk McDonald .Mamg~ment Assistant/Commum~ I~'elopm~nt Coordinator City. of New Hope 4401 Xlon Ave. N. New Hope. MN 55428.4898 Subject: Amb~ts.~lor Good Samarim~ Cent=r Building E.xpagsioa This let~r is a nxl~st m th= City. of Ne~ Hop= to coasid~r slmrm$ ia tl~ ~ of tim M~m~ad Wamr Maia Corugguoa/Re~muom This commetioa ~ mquest~ al~r tim ongiaal building ptaa ~ aptax~l tl~CityComgfl. The addition lms b~a bid out at $7600. If~ltlmttlmCityo~Ne~Ho~aadtl~ o~ers of tim Midlaad SImpleS C=amr b=aefit ~ ~ additioa aad migl= be ~ to lmlp pay for tl~ [m~6~ell~L ~ ha~ a Staf~ of ~ apggt~d l~.iding pi'oiler that limi~ all c~t to on~nnibid. Any additional costs wtll a~ere, imbumble to the fa~tymitsProg~Rates. Sin~the State conuois what a Nmsing Home can charg~ any additional costs then. mil not be atlowable. ! have attached a copy of the altermtix~ work bid from Lurid Martin Construction. ~ Please feel free to contact me w~th any additional information you may need. Sincerely, lira 8100 MeClickl( lake Roicl · I'M'w Hof:4, MN 55427-3499 Pllofle:. 612/5444171 FIx: 612/544-5526 ~ --IIIr ' .I I I I ....... - - I EDA Originating Department ~p~ for ~e~ ~da ~on Ci~ Manager EDA ~ g-9-96 ' Ki~ McDonald ~. ~ It~ No. ~ Management Assistant DISCUSSION REGARDING R~ISE~ REQUEST FOR T~ INCREMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE FOR CAR-~PUD DEVELOPMENT AT 7180 42"~ AVENUE NORTH At ~ ~o~r 9, 1~, EDA ~fi~, ~ EDA d~ a similar ~uest in ~e a~unt of $200,~. ~ ~at ~ L~ h~ subm~ a ~n~t plan to ~e Planning C~mi~n, but the plan had ~ ~ a~~ by ~ C~mi~n ~ ~un~l a~ d~ not include any financ~l data' ~a~"'~ ~t of t~ pmj~ or in~a~ ~ ba~ proj~ons. T~ EDA ~s~ ~ntinu~ ~rough ~ planning pr~ a~ mvi~ ~ plans many times to address r~u~t f~ a Plann~ Un~ Deve~~C~~al U~ P~ to al~ t~ ~nstm~on of a Car-X Muir, ~ a~ N~n~nt Fa~l~ in a ~n~ll ~n~t w~ ~ture re~il spa~. The approv~ plan in~ a ~ t~r, e~ensNe land--ping, matching bui~ing materials, etc. Las~ has m~n~ ~~ ~ C~ and in~ us ~at d~ to ~e increa~ ~sts ass~iat~ ~ ~e mvi~ p~ns, ~e renal ~st ~r Car-X in=ea~ to a ~vei that they ~uld not afford to ~ a ~ ~ a ~uE, the pm~ p~ has ~ to a haE. Las~ estimates ~ ~ d~~ in ~t from ~ o~inai plans and ~ revi~ plans is appmximate~ $1~,~. Request for Action Page 2 9-9-96 Per the attached letter, Lasky is requesting reconsideration from the EDA on TIF assistance and is requesting consideration of $100,000 in 'pay-as-you-go' TIF assistance. This basically means that as additional tax revenues are generated from the project that a portion of those revenues could be paid back to the developer to reimburse the developer for TIF eligible improvements. Lasky has-indicated that the current real' estate taxes generated on the property-are.--S16,646 ~er--year.and that the bui~ling addition would double that amount, although thea~ numbers have rmt-been c, on~ by staff. Staff requests direction from the EDA on this matter. Issues that the EDA should take into consideration when considering this request include: Do the plans for the development meet the criteda of the City? · Is the property unique in that it may not be developed without TIF assistance? · Under a new Minnesota law, the developer must establish that the development will create a net increase in jobs to qualify for the assistance. If the EDA i~ interested in fx~.suing this request, etaff eeuid= further discuss the project with Heflnepin' County~'~'~-~C'-'-'-'-'-'-'~. A:.a~' C53. nsdll~rT[' .~ .it~b_ ~"%~t~ 1~xp~nses are development. If the EDA ist~3t interested-~n con$iderh~ ~ request, ~tafr probably does not need to pursue this further. REAL ESTATE -- FAX (612) 922-e,f~ 2506 MONTEREY AVENUE SOUTH ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE (612) 922-3334 or 377-1167 September 4, 1996 Dan Donahue, City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN $S428 RE: New Hope Mini-Mall Project 7180 42nd Avenue North Dear Mr. Donahue: About two years ago, we were approached by the Cer-X franchises in this area. They had a strong interest in our erecting · facility for them on our property at Nevada and 42nd Avenue in New Hope. After many meetings with prospective tenants, our architects, various contractors and numerous staff members of the City of New Hope, we outlined a project for Car-X on our site. On the basis of this preliminary plan, we generated a rental schedule that was acceptable to the tenant. Unfortunately, the plan that we had proposed was not acceptable to the City Planning Commission. Because we felt the project had merit for us, for Car-X, for the City of New Hope and for residents of a broad area around this comer, we pursued a new approach to developing the property, including a building for Cer-X. As it turned out, 'the project grew in complexity, beauty and cost. After finishing all of the drawings for the entire project and taking new bids on the changes everyone desired, the costs increased $100,000 from our original plan. Unfortunately, these additional costs raised the rent needed from Car-X. With these increases, Car-X said they could not afford to become a tenant. As a result, the project came to a halt in July of this year. Mini-Mall Project- September 4, 1996 Page 2 In order to make this site come to life as the Mall we proposed, we can only move ahead.with Car-X if we get some assistance from the City of New Hope. It appears that Tax Increment Financing in the amount of $100,000. is the minimum needed for us to move ahead with development on this site. The following pages included in this request will outline costs and benefits to the City. Obviously, the comer where the property is located will be vastly improved by the project. Based on information from Car-X, other businesses in the area, and experts we have talked with, there is sound business value in such a facility. Besides yielding greater tax revenue, the development will add local employment opportunities that are above average for retail businesses. I hope that the City will agree that this vastly improved Mini-Mall project is worthy of support from the City by way of TIF financing. If you require any further information, please contact me at your earliest convenience. I am very anxioue to move this project ahead. Sincerely, David Lasky DL/dlr Enclosures NEW HOPE MINI-MALL PROJECT 7180 42nd AVENUE NORTH SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 SITE DEVELOPMENT COSTS Survey $ 1,500 Soil tests 1,750 Permits 5,000 City storm sewer 20,000 Excavation, fill, compacting 20,000 Blacktop 28,000 Curbs & concrete walks 9,000 Sewer & water on-site 6,000 Site lighting 20,000 Landscaping & plantings 16,000 Landscape sprinkler system 6,000 SAC & WAC charges 5,000 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS: $ 148,250 -3- NEW HOPE MINI-MALL PROJECT 7180 42nd AVENUE NORTH SEPTEMBER 5, 1996 FACTS ABOUT THE MINI-MALL I. ABOUT THIS SITE The site of the planned mini-mall is the northeast corner of 42nd Avenue North and Nevada. A few of the business in the area are: to the west, the new Gill Brothers Funeral Home; to the south, a service station, bowling alley, grocery, and a Rapid Oil Change; and to the east is Crown Auto. The property is approximately an acre and a half in size, with 292 feet along 42nd Avenue North and 190 feet along Nevada. The contour of the site is both complex and severe, rising from east to west, and dropping off over 10 feet from 42nd Avenue to the north border. Among other challenges, this makes for costly development. In addition, the high water table of the area eliminates many types of uses the property might otherwise have. With the new street alignment, semaphores and other changes, we agree that the site has great potential for serving many communities along 42nd Avenue. II. MARKETING HISTORY The property at 42nd Avenue was purchased from the City in 1978 and the existing bar was purchased by others. The use was consistent until the late 1980's when the business was taken back by the first tenants, who were under lease to us. They devoted about two years to trying to find a new tenant for the building or property. In 1989 we cancelled their lease and took possession of the property. Since then we made several attempts to put the property to better use. For part of a year, we explored a residential development with New Hope City staff, which turned out to be too costly for the existing market. -4- MARKETING HISTORY, continued Then, we spent over two years presenting the property to many potential users, particularly tenants in the restaurant, hardware, video, bank, medical and auto areas. The primary businesses that were interested were in the automotive field. However, they required certain rental arrangements that would allow them to be competitive with others in the industry. After intensive negotiating, we have come to the present working relationship with Car-X. They would like to be tenants once we find a way to maintain the original rental structure proposed to them. III. COSTS OF THE MINI-MALL The following page shows a brief outline of the costs for the project. These figures are based on expenses already incurred, bids for most elements of the development, and a few estimates of forthcoming costs. -5- COST SUMMARY FOR 7180 42ND AVENUE Architect $ 26,142 Engineering --- Survey 1,500 Soil Test 1,760 City Fees and Charges 5,848 Legal Costs 5,000 Permits 5,000 Construction Financing 15,000 Excavating and Fill 20,000 Blacktop 28,000 Curbs, Ail Concrete 9,900 Clock tower 38,964 Plumbing-interior only 16,000 Electrical-interior only 27,000 Concrete and masonry 92,571 Steel 28,973 Roof 16,692 Heating and A/C 21,000 Sewer and water 16,280 Carpentry 11,780 Painting 9,500 Doors and windows 22,950 Sprinkler system 10,272 Ughting 20,000 Landscaping 16,000 Irrigation 6,000 Signs -- Stripping --- SAC and WAC charges 5,000 Loan initiation 5,000 Miscellaneous 40.000 TOTAL PROJECT COST: $ 522,132 Less site development TOTAL BUILDING COSTS $ 373,882 -6- IV. REAL ESTATE TAX IMPACT At the present time the real estate taxes on the property before assessments are $16,646. It is fair to assume that the value of the property will double from its present $302,000 assessed valuation. In that case, the completed project will likely produce an estimated annual real estate tax of $33,292. This amounts to an estimated additional real estate tax return for a ten year period of $166,460. Originating Depa~ent ~p~ for ~e~ ~da S~on Ci~ Manager EDA 9-9-96 Sarah Bellefuil ~ ~t~ ~o. ~: Communi~ Development Sp~ialist ~~ 5 RESOLUTION APPROVING "LOAN~ TASKS UNLIMITED LODGES TO PURCHASE 3579/3581 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 554) At me May Z~ ~conom~c Development Authon~ m~ting, the EDA approved Tasks Unlimited as the owner and se~ice provider for a special n~s renal housing proje~ to be Io~t~ in New Hope. On June 24, the EDA pass~ a resolution approving a Leffer of Undemtanding with Tasks Unlimit~ for a loan to purchase housing in New Ho~ for pemons w~h sedous or persistent mental illness. Tasks Unlimit~ would also provide suppo~ se~i~s to the residents. At the July 22 EDA meeting, the EDA approv~ a motion allowing Tasks Unlimit~ to sign a purchase agreement for the duplex prope~ at 357913581 Inde~nden~ Avenue No~h. After the July 22 mo~on was approve, Tasks Unlim~ sign~ a purchase agreement and are sch~ul~ to close on the prope~ on September 20, 1996. Since the July 22 meeting, A~istant C~ Affomey Ma~ Mal~ha, Tasks Unlimit~, and Ci~ staff have been finalizing a loan d~ument be~n the Ci~ and Tasks Unlimit~. The a~ached resolution approves the loan to Tasks Unlim~ L~ges. The loan provid~ by the Ci~ will be a $90,000 zero interest, 30-year flint mo~gage that will be us~ for the purchase of the prope~. If the loan is defauE~, the EDA ~n d~am a defauE, b~in charging interest 2% over pdme, and for~lose on the prope~. CO-OP NW Commun~ Revaluation Co~orafion will be supplying a $90,000 second mo~gage that ~11 ~ u~ t~a~ the purcha~ and rem~eling of the pmpe~. The second mo~gage is pmv~ ~mugh 1995 F~eral HOME ~nds that have b~n designat~ specifi~lly for s~ial n~s rental housing to be Io~t~ in New Hope. ~: .... - II I I EA~I ~ Request for Action Page 2 9-9-96 ~-' The house that the EDA approved at the July 22 meeting is located at 3579/3581 Independence Avenue North. The duplex was built in 1981 and is 1440 square feet per side. Each unit contains three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, living room, dining room, den, laundry room, and two-car garage. Only one of the two-car garages is needed by Tasks Unlimited, the other garage will probably be converted into a recreation room. Tasks Unlimited will be presenting architectural drawings of the interior remodeling at the September 23, EDA meeting. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. NORTHWOOD ~ARK COUNCIL  - REQIIEST FOR ACTION originating Depazbaient Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent / 9-23-96 Kirk McDonald Item No. By:. Management Assistant By:. 6.1 o RESOLUTION TERMINATING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 5701 INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY In 1990 a conditional use permit was approved by the City Council authorizing a specialty school (gymnastics) to be located at 5701 International Parkway, which is located in an I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District (Planning Case 90-37). The property is no longer used for any type of specialty school and that use is no longer desired by the owner. The City has been approached by the owner of the property, Griffin Real Estate Fund - VI, with a request to terminate the CUP. Gdffin is selling the property and the new owner is insisting that the CUP be terminated before the buyer will close the sale. Although the City does not necessarily agree with the buyer's position that the CUP is a title cloud, the buyer is insisting it be removed. The City does have an interest in not obstructing the sale of real estate within its borders and does not want to be the cause of an obstacle to the sale. The City is not giving up anything in terminating the CUP because the property is not being used as a specialty school any more. The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed resolution terminating the conditional use permit for 5701 Intemational Parkway and staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: SEP-18-96 WED 15:13 Oaniel d. Donahue City of New Nope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Nope, MN 55428 RE: Request for Terminating CUP 5701 International Parkway Our File No. 99,10,000 Dear One: The Ctty and our office have been approached by eriffin Real Estate Fund - V! (~rtffin) with a request for the termination nfa CUP affecting the property. See enclosed letter from law firm representing Gritfin dated September 11, lgge. Note that the letter refers to Griffin Real Estate Fund [, ~ut ! have been told this ia m typo, and Meal Estate Fund V! is the correct entity. The CUP was approved by the Council in lSgO as Resolution No. g0- 210, and authorized a speGialty SChoOl (gymnastics) in an Z-1 Zoning D~atrt~t, Griffin t$ selling the property, and the new buyer is Instating that the CUP be terminated before the buyer will close the sale. Griffin has stated that the property is no longer used for any type ~f sDecialty school, and that such a use is no longer desired by the owner. A conditional use perml~ has been held to be an interest in real estate that runs with the land in Northpo(nte Plaza v, City of R_D_~he~, 485 N.W.2d 6~8 (Minn. 1991), 5o the current owner would be the person or enti[y to request a termination. ! have been provided evidence that Griffin is the fee owner o~ the property. Though our offioe has some disagreement with the buyer's position that the CUP is a ttt]s cloud, the buyer is insisting it be removeO. The City does have some interest in seeing the unobstructed sale of reel estate wlthlfl its borders, and in not SEP-18 WED 15:13 Daniel J. Oon&hue ~ep;embsr 1§, lgg6 Page 2 being IhS cause of an obstacle to the sale. The City iS not giving uD anything 4n terminating the CUP, since the property was not being used e8 a specialty sc~ool anymore. If the Council wishes to terminate the CUP, it can pass the enclosed Resolution. We see no legs1 detriment in its doing Please contact me if you have Martin P. Malec~a Assistant City Attorney m3w Enclosures cc: Veler~e Leone, City Clar~ ~trk Mc~nald, M&nagement Aseiat~t (w/eno) Steven A. $ondra11~ C~ty Attorney  COUNCIL - REQUF~T FOR ACTION Originating Depa~Cuient Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent  9-23-96 , Sarah Bellefuil ~, Item No. By:. Community Development Speci; listBY:/ 6. ]. ]. MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF T(;}/ OBTAIN AN APPRAISAL FOR HUD OWNED PROPERTY AT 5812 BOONE AVENUE NORTH Staff is requesting approval for an appraisal of a property located at 5812 Boone Avenue North. The house is currently owned by HUD. HUD will be receiving bids for the property from September 22 to October 20. The purpose of the appraisal is to determine if and how much the City will bid to purchase the property. The 1995 assessed value of the property is $86,000 ($21,500 land, $64,500 building). The house is in deteriorating condition and currently is in need of $25,000 to $30,000 worth of rehabilitation. The homes surrounding the property are in good condition. The site is approximately 122 feet wide and 82 feet deep on the south and 113 feet deep on the north, or approximately 11,895 square feet in size. The house was built in 1959 and is rambler style with a walk out basement and a detached two-car garage. The first floor of the house is 1056 square feet. If the City decides to acquire the property the following funds may be used: CDBG acquisition/scattered site housing funds, MHFA Blighted Residential Grant funds, Metropolitan Council Housing Assistance Loan funds, EDA funds or TIF funds. Staff is requeeting authorization to obtain an appraisal of the property for comparison and negotiation purpoeee. The estimated cost of a single family residential appraisal from BCL Appraisal~ is $350 and will be paid for with EDA or CDBG funds. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 5812 Boone Avenue North. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: ~11/~ AVE ~. LAK~ ELEMENTAEY ~ ~', sc.oo~ ~l ~ avE. NO. & PARK ~ ~i o, 6o~.N. 60TH AVE. NO. YE,dOOW LIBERTY PARK PARK : ' 5700 VI 56 TH. AVE N I REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda _ A~nda Section ueve~opment City Manager & Planning 9-23-96 ,, Kirk McDonald Item No. By:. Management Assistant By:. PLANNING CASE 96-29, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION, 3532 ENSIGN AVENUE NORTH, JONATHAN AND CHRISTY ARNOLDY, PETITIONERS The petitioners are requesting a vadance from the side yard setback requirement to allow construction of an addition onto the existing residence, pursuant to Sections 4.034(3)(c) and 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. This item was tabled at the September 9 Council meeting. Back.qround The petitioner is proposing to construct an addition on the north side of the existing home, with the front portion containing an upper level porch/open deck with an open/exposed roof for sunlight. The existing home is located fifteen (15) feet from .the north side yard property line (at the closest point at the northwest comer). City code states that the side yard setback requirement in a Single Family Residential Zoning District is ten (10) feet for intedor lots, with the exception that an attached garage can be located five (5) feet from the property line. (In this specific situation there is an attached garage located on the south side of the house and the garage is located 12 feet from the south side yard property line.) The original request from the petitioner was for a 12' x 26' addition, which would have placed the new addition three (3) feet from the north side yard property line (at the closest point) and which would have required a seven (7) foot vadance from the ten (10) foot side yard setback requirement. In the August Planning Commission staff report, staff recommended approval of the variance because staff felt that there was some justification for the variance to accommodate the expansion due to the shallowness of the lot (which is only 100 feet deep). Also, the most affected home to the north, 8919 36~' Avenue, faced a perpendicular street with the rear yard adjacent to this side yard. That home is located over 90 feet away and the property owner had submitted a letter of approval for this request. MOTION BY SECOND BY , TO: Review: Administration: Finance: , I RFA-O0 ! ~ Request for Action PC96-29 Page 2 9-23-96 The Planning Commission considered this request on August 6 and were not favorable to granting the seven-foot side yard variance, as they were concerned about setting a precedent. The Commission tabled the request, asked staff to research previous side yard variances, and recommended that the petitioner revise the plans to require a lessor variance. Staff research identified that the greatest side yard vadance granted for a house addition in recent history was a five-foot variance granted in 1985. The petitioner revised the plans and reduced the width of the addition by two feet (from a 12-foot wide addition to a 10-foot wide addition), which reduced the vadance request to five feet. The Commission reacted favorably to the revised plans that were presented at their September 3 meeting and recommended approval. The City Council considered this request at their September 23 meeting and tabled the request. Discussion was held regarding the odginal plans, which required a seven-foot variance, and the revised plans, which require a five-foot variance. There was also discussion regarding the criteda for granting a variance, the uniqueness of this situation, and the issue of establishing a precedent. Information that the Council may want to refer to as you further consider this request includes the following: 1. Role of Plannin.q Commission The Planning Commission serves as an advisory body to the Council and makes findings of fact and recommends such actions or conditions relating to a request as deemed necessary or desirable to car~/out the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. Purpose of Variance/Criteria to Consider 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. "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. 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: 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. Request for Action PC96-29 Page 3 9-23-96 3. City Attorney's Viewpoint: Precedential Value of Council Zoninq Actions - The City Attorney has prepared the attached response to the question 'Does the City, by granting a variance, establish a legally binding precedent requiring the approval of all subsequent variances requested by similarly situated property owners?" The City Attorney states that he would answer this question in the negative on a qualified basis. 4. Planninq Consultant's Viewpoint: This variance situation was also referred to the City's Planning Consultant for review and his opinion is attached. His opinion is that if a variance is granted, that the City hold to the five-foot standard established by past actions. 5. Perimeter Utility and Draina,qe Easements - This property is located in Leeman's Green Briar Terrace Addition, which was platted in 1962. The current Subdivision Ordinance requires ali plats to provide easements at least 10 feet wide, centered on the rear and other lot lines, for the provision of utilities. In this particular case, only a five-foot drainage/utility easement is provided on the rear lot line. No easements are provided on the side yard lines. It is not unusual for the older plats in the City to not contain side yard easements. If a five-foot easement was located on the side yard lot line; an argument could be made that the house addition should not be constructed over the easement. 6. Further Research - At the last meeting, staff indicated that no vadance greater than five feet had been granted into the 10-foot side yard setback area for a house addition. Staff was requested to further research whether any of the past situations involved a side yard variance adjacent to a lot with a rear yard where the house faced a perpendicular street. Yes, there were several previous situations similar to this where a side yard vadance was granted for an addition adjacent to another property's rear yard, but none came within three feet of the rear yard. 7. Revised Topo Map with Measurements/Setbacks - The Building Official has prepared the enclosed revised map showing the exact measurements between the buildings on the two properties and the rear setback area for the 36~' Avenue property. The enclosed resolution shoUld be modified at the Council meeting to state whether a seven-foot or a five-foot variance is being granted. Attachments: 9/17 City Attorney Opinion 9118 Planner's Report Plat/Easements Topo Map/Distance Revised Plans - 10' Wide Addition Odginal Plans - 12' Wide Addition August/September Planning Commission Minutes Staff Reports Letters Cm~.~CK & SOND~,LL. P.A. sruv~ ,, ~ ATTORI~'gy~ AT LAW ~ ~. ~ E~burgh Execu~ Office PI~ ~c. ~ 8525 E~brook Crossing Suite e203 Broo~ P~k, Mtnneso~ 55~3 FAX (112} 4~ September 17, 1996 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 " RE: Precedential Value of Council Zoning Actions Our File No: 99.10000 Dear Kirk: You asked me for an opinion to the following question raised by the sideyard setback variance requested by Jori Arnoldy: Does the City by granting a variance establish a legally binding precedent requiring the approval of all subsequent variances requested by similarly situated property owners? I would answer this question in the negative on a qualified basis. FACTS Mr. Arnold¥ owns a single-family residence at 3532 Ensign Avenue North. He wishes to expand the property by making improvements to the north side of the house. Specifically, he intends to add a master bedroom with walk-in closet space and s bathroom off the bedroom. This improvement would also include construction of a larger basement under the master bedroom. To complete the project, a five to seven foot variance from the sideyard setback is required. The sideyard setback is ten feet per New Hope Coqe §4.034(3)(c). The project would encroach into the setback and be constructed three to five feet from the north property line. Mr. Kirk McDonald September 17, 1996 Page 2 Staff has research previous variances for sideyard setbacks. The largest past variances provided have been five feet. However, the adjacent property's back yard abuts the subject property and the single-family residence constructed on the adjacent northerly property is over 90 feet from the subject's north lot line. LEGAL RATIONALE Granting the variance will not have much binding affect on future Council actions. The Minnesota Appellate Court in In Re Johnson, 404 N.W.2d 298,301 (Minn. App. 1987) held, "An applicant for a variance is not entitled to a variance merely because similar variances were granted in the past. Otherwise, the granting of one variance would likely result in the destruction of the entire zoning scheme'". Furthermore, the Minnesota Supreme Court held in Frank's Nursery Sales v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604,507 (Minn. 1980), "that the administration of a zoning ordinance is a governmental and not a proprietary function, and a municipality cannot be estopped from correctly enforcing the ordinance even if the property owner relied to his detriment on prior City actions". Therefore, the City is not always legally bound to approve variances despite prior variance approvals based on similar fact situations. This opinion must be qualified, however, since several cases have held City Council action arbitrary and a denial of equal protection under the law after they approved an applicant's request but denied the request of another similarly situated applicant. (see Northwestern College vt City of Arden Hills, 281N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1975) and Hay v. Townshio of Grow, 206 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1973). Zn these cases the City Council acted on zoning applications which were submitted simultaneously for all practical purposes. In the Northwestern Colleee case both Northwestern College and Bethel College requested a special use permit to expand their fine arts center. Northwestern's application was denied two months after the Bethel application was approved. The Council made findings in the Northwestern decision that a college use was not appropriate in a residential district despite the fact Bethel was also located in a residential district. In the Hay case the town board acted on two requests for a mobile home park. Only one application was granted. The town board, without demonstrated justification, decided it did not want two mobile home parks. Mr, Kirk McDonald ~-~ September 17, 1996 Page 3 The Northwestern College and Hay cases are instructive and fact- specific because t~e zoning applications were made and dec~ded closely in time, As pointed out by the Court in Castle Design v, City of Lake Elmo, 396 N,W,2d 578,582 (Minn,App, 1986), the timin~ of applications is significant because of the rules set out in the Frank's Nursery Sales case, supra, that a municipality cannot be estopped from correctly enforcing a zoning ordinance despite detrimental reliance on a past City action by a property owner, In other words, zoning applications are not similarly situated if too much time has passed between their submittal dates. Therefore, even though no "bright line" rule of law can be taken from these cases, if more than twelve months passes between similarly situated zoning applications, the precedential value of the Council's prior actions on the subsequent applications will have insignificant legal impact on the Council's decision td approve or deny the subsequent applications. At this point, the precedential value of past Council actions becomes a fairness and policy issue rather than a legal issue since all zoning applications should be decided on their own facts and the application of the relevant law to said facts. The Council should keep in mind that a variance request is a zoning action. The standard of review in all zoning matters is whether the Council's actions are reasonable. The Minnesota Supreme Court in the case of Vandlandshoot v. City of Mendot~ Heights, 33S N.W.2d 503,508 (Minn. 1983), has defined reasonableness as follows: We examine the municipality's action to ascertain whether it was arbitrary and capricious, or whether the reasons assigned by the governing body do not have "the slight'est validity" or bearing on the general welfare of the immediate arsa~ * * · or whether the reasons given by the body were legally sufficient and had a factual basis. Minn. Stat. §462.357, subd. 6 gives cities the power to grant variances where zoning ordinances may cause "undue hardship'. In variance cases, reasonableness is measured by the standards set ... out in the City's zoning code. Specifically, New HODS Code §4.221 sets out the standard the Council must use to determine whether to grant a variance. The City Council has broad discretion in determining whether to grant a yariance, Castle Desien v. City of Lake Elmo, 396 N.W.2d 578,581 (Minn.App. lg8e), and an applicant for a variance has a heavy burden to show that approval is appropriate, since a variance allows property to be used in a manner forbidden by zoning ordinances, Lurer v. City of Burnsville, 295 N.W.2d 609,612 (Minn. 1980). Mr. Kirk McDonald September 17, 1996 Page 4 TherefOre, any action taken on a zoning request, including a variance, will be judicially reviewed for its validity on the basis of this standard. Furthermore, an equal protection claim based on the "similarly situated" requirement cannot be met if the requests are separated by too much time. This rule has been established by the Castle Design case and followed in subsequent cases of Stotts v. Wright County, 478 N.W.2d 802 (Minn.App. 1991) and In Re Johnson, 404 N.W.2d 298 (Minn.App. 1987). The bottom line will almost always be whether the Council's action has a legally sufficient basis factually supported by the record. [f the answer is yes, their decision will be upheld. [f not, their decision overturned as arbitrary and caDricious. Their past actions may not have much imDact on this analysis. If you have any further questions on this matter, ~lease contact me, Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slt4 cc: Daniel J. Donahu®, City Manager Alan Brixiue, City Planner Northwest Associated Consultants,, Inc. COMMUNITY PLANNING · DESIGN · MARKET RESEARCH.--,,, MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Daniel Licht I Alan Brixiu$ DATE: 18 September 1996 RE: New Hope - R-1 District Standar~ - AmoiW Variance FILE NO.: 131.00 - 96.12 BACKGROUND The City of New Hope ha~ received a reque~ from Christy and ,lenaltmn Amoldy for a side yard m~bm:k varianoe of 5 feet to allow of an addition to their exiMJng single family home located ~t 3532 Ermign Avenue. The applicant's property is cun'anfly zoned R-l, Single Family Residantlal. The required side yard settmck w#hin thie distrk=t is 10 feet. The applicants had originally requested a 7 foot variance to allow a 3 lt. side yard setback. Ho~mver, mt the recommandation of ~e Plar~ Commlaio~, ~ addition plans wes revised and a 5 foot varlanoe requested. The Planning Commission recomnmrwded to approve the 5 foot variance. Our office ~ emked to review the applicants request to evaluate the justification of hardehip mm to whether a variance in this case is ~rranted. prom°tes mn equal and consistent devel~ character and design throughout a ~ Olher ~ purposes of seltmck stanaarde include the preservation of open space, se~ beemmen buildinge and property lines, access to rear areas without 10 Fo~ alcle yard ~l~c~ The 10 foot ~ yard ~back w~ originally developed as part of the R-1 Zoning District when the Ordinar~=e wes eMablis~ed. This standard ~ due to the recent trend8 towar~ improving the exWdng housing stock, the number of setl~ck variances ha~ increased. In light of these tren~, the Planning Commission is 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555, SL Louis Park, MN 55416, (612) 595-9636'Fax. 595-9837 currently reviewing · possible reduction in the side yard serf)ack standard as a mean of accommodating property owrmm improvement pierre. ResMrch indicates that the variances that warn issued in the ~ have eitabilatmd a precedence that suggests 5 feet may be an appropriate setback requirement. HowBver, the Planning Commission has not yet completed its. review and thus not determined an appropriate standard to recommend to the City Council. Variance Criteria. Section 4.22 of the New Hope Zoning Ordirmnce outline~ the purpose and critala for granting variances. Specifically, variances are to be granted to mitigate undue no--i(= hardship restricting the reasonable uae of a specific parcel of property. In considering variance requMte, a finding must be made of a hardship which is unique to the subject site, i$ not a result of actions of ti~ landowner and is not purely economic in nature. Thi~ hardship muat be found to prevent the lend owrmr from a reesonal~le [me of their property commonly enjoyed by other propertlea within the same district. The granting of valances in cases that are not wan'anted by the above crltede eetabilah l:X'ecadenta by which other ~ v,~xild ~ to be grartted. Therefore, while it may ~eern harmles~ to allow a valance that clmm not meet the criteria in one ca~e, the precedence would dictate that valance be issued in ell sJmilar cases. This may lead to undesirable situations and confllclz. The pea, granting of variarmes in situations where' questionable juatifi~ exiJted has estebli~ ti p~ that suggests some flexibility to approve varlancoa in cesee of home impmvenmnL City ~aff researcl~ has shown that none of the pa~t variances exceeded a 5 foot reduction in the setback standard. the ~o vadance c~terta. · IMeiMlalMe Uae. The pufl:x:we of the I~-1 single family district is to provide ames including the appli(:mnt's, exist in full (:xxnpliance with the required R-1 District setback standaMa The 8ubje~ property ha~ been developed with a single family uae and hM exiatecl in full ccx~liance with the require R-1 Diabtct standards prior to the apples ixopceed addition and veriarce mquML Therefore, the applicant is able to have a ~ u,e of the property within the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Unique 81tuition. The criteria for granting a variance ,(~ate that the undue hardship mu~t be unique to the Ixoperty and not found on other properUes within the Mime zoning district. The two potential hardships identified with the Amoidy request include the shallowness of the lot and also the separation between the subject property and Ihs adjacent dwelling to the ncNlh. The subjec~t property, as illustrated on the submWed 8its plan confomm to all R-1 2 District ~ llandards, including lot size and width. It is therefore a --- buildlblt percll ~ ,~danl building area, including lot depth, to accommodate a angle flmily deluded dwelling. Thi~ Ls illustrated by the lxisting single family CllllChld house being ~ wtthin the buildable area of the lot. In addition, the ~ al' ltm ~ I~ cloe~ nat appear to be uncommonly shallow in ~ v~h thCil at nlmby R-1 properties. On the basis that the subjeat site is a butldable plrcel with a oommon lot depl~ in our opinion, luggeltS that His ad~cant lo ltm north. The sul3ject propeily is an Interior lot with frontage to Ensign Avenue. The m:l~cent property to Ihs north is an over~ized corner lot at the i~ d Enllgn and ~ Avlnuet. 'rile dwelling unit on the adjacent lot is over~izecl nature of ltm nc, l~ lot, a gO+ foal aspiration exists between the two 1. The situmion of a ~de lot line of an Interior lot abutting a mar lot line of a. coma' lot i~ common within ~ R-1 Dlstri~ 2. The aversizm~ nature atthe acrjaca~ lot ts a element unique to that IOL The ~ ~ the apl31k=l~S IOI iS m~jacant to an overlized lot does not make the subject lot unique. Granting a variance on this basis m3utd allow the property. · A~ionm of the Appli~ The cr~ll for granting a variance states that s variance may not be graraed in inetmx:e~ where ltm hardship has been created by actions of the applicanL In ~ Amoldy case, the desire to improve the existing single family home of the applicant ~ reeultecl in the need for a variance. The in the peat m~ home imlm:wementa a~ positive and granted variances to accommodate property o~m'mm. In such cases, staff research indicates that variances of up to five feet v,~re granted to provide additional area for home impm nmnt,. CONCUJSlON The CRy hal dlmone~lt~d I dleirl tO promo~ the improvement of the existing housing Mock It'm3ugh expansion vdthin New Hope by accommodating property owner's requests fo~ va-lance t~ provide aclditlanel buiicllble area on R-I Iota. As evidenced by the number 3 4  COUNCIL ~ REQ~T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved t'or Agenda Agenda Section Public Works 9-23-96 Development & Planning _~ Item No. B~. Jeannine Clancy By:. 8.2 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AN~ SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS REMODELING PROJECT, IMPROVEMENT 542; AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Public Works staff and Architects from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates have completed the design phase of the Public Works Remodeling project. The Architect is prepared to present the design to Council for consideration and approval. In Apdl, 1996, Council approved the planning case for site and building plan approval and reviewed the construction estimate - design development phase. The project budget was $531,320 for the intedor remodeling and addition, plus $8,000 for extedor paint. No contingency was included in this amount. The Architect's construction estimate at the completion of the construction drawings phase of the project is $589,450, excluding the extedor paint, and excluding contingency. Some of the issues that have caused this increase include: · Inclusion of a day room which would be available for staff during emergency operations, and would also be available as an area of respite for staff who are ill. · Increase in budget for landscaping to reflect the level of plantings desired by the Planning Commission and City Council. · Inclusion of automatic doom at the public entrance in order to increase the level of accessibility to patrons. · Inclusion of new hardware on all doors to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act. · Changes in the front elevation of the building to adequately screen the roof top equipment. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finarice: RFA-O01 Request for Action Public Works Remodeling Project September 23, 1996 Page 2 · An increase in the cost of the extedor paint. The Architect has found that the paint that is currently on the building is not compatible with the environmental conditions that it is exposed to. As a result, it is peeling and will need to be completely removed through an abrasive process before new paint could be applied. · An increase in construction costs due to market conditions. The Architect has structured the contract to include an alternate for deletion of the day room which could reduce the budget. The Architect has also structured the contract to include alternates for items that staff would like to have included in the project, but current budget will not allow. Those items include the following: · The addition of a folding partition for the large conference room, allowing the room to be divided into two smaller rooms · Work associated with the mechanical room located in the garage area to protect existing phone and computer equipment · Removal of the extedor paint through an abrasive method and application of new paint. Project Schedule In order to reduce the amount of time that Public Works staff is in temporary facilities, and to reduce costs that the contractor may incur generally associated with winter construction, the Architect has structured the contract to allow construction to begin in March, 1997, and be completed in August, 1997. However, as an alternate, the Architect has included a winter construction schedule in order to allow more flexibility which could equate into a reduced bid. Assuming a Spdng, 1997, construction, the project milestone schedule is as follows: Council Approves Plans/Authorizes Bidding September' 23, 1996 Pre-Bid Conference October 9, 1996 Bid Opening October 22, 1996 Council Awards Contract October 28, 1996 Work Begins' March, 1997 Work. Completed August, 1997 Funding for this project is available in the 1996 Capital Improvement Program, the Community Development Block Grant Program (for ADA corrections), and fund balances from the Labor Pool, Central Garage, Road/Bridge and General Funds. Staff requests approval of the resolution. msword :g~luests~542AP .................. , oo~,.~oe V~OS~NNII~t '~dOH M3N ¢, Y£O~3NNI~I '3dOH ~3N ~!< ' ':!,~ l;l! . ,,,I :, 1 I;1!~ : lll!i i " ;o' IiI~ i COUNCIL REQIJ'EST FOR ACTION Originating Department ,approved for Agenda Agenda Sect. ton Public Works 9-23-96 Development & Planning  Item No. Jeannine Clancy ky:. 8. ~ / PRESENTATION REGARDING PROPO/SED 1997 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT 567); MOTION TO DIRECT~THE CITY ENGINEER TO.PREPARE A CONCEPT REPORT AND CONDUCT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS Public Works staff and the City Engineer have been gathering data and discussing potential areas for a 1997 Street Improvement Project. Staff and the Engineer have reviewed pavement' condition surveys prepared by Braun Intertec, and have discussed concerns expressed by property owners or observed by staff regarding drainage, conditions of curb and gutter, condition of watermains, etc. The City Engineer has prepared a memorandum addressing these areas and has been asked to present this information to the City Council on Monday evening. The City's past practice has been to request the City Council to authorize the preparation of a feasibility report and conduct informational public headnge with property owners to review/present the feasibility report. This year, staff and the City Engineer would prefer to prepare a concept report for each area. The concept report would discuss existing conditions, present improvements that are contemplated, estimate the cost of the improvements and consider financing optione. The concept report would be reviewed by staffand presented to the property owners through neighborhood meetinge. Once the neighborhood meetings are completed, staff would make a recommendation to the City Council regarding whether or not the project should go forward, be modified, etc. Staff requests that the following motion be made: "Motion directing the City Engineer to prepare a concept report for the 1997 Street Improvement Project (Project 567), and further directing staff to hold neighborhood meetings to discuss the concept report.' MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: ' Review: Administration: Fttmac'e: RFA-O01 Anderlik & Engineers & Architects MEMO DATE: September 16, 1996 TO: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works FROM: Mark Hanson SUBJECT: 1997 Street Improvements Project No. 567 Our File No. 34-Gen In conjunction with Public Works, we have been gathering data and discussing the proposed 1997 Street Improvements in accordance with New Hope's Capital Improvement Program. In the past, we have typically asked City Council to authorize preparation of a feasibility report and conduct informational public hearings with property owners to review/present the feasibility report. We have also requested Braun Intertec to provided an independent pavement condition survey to justify and suggest based on ranking what type of street improvements should be considered. The proposed 1997 Street Improvements are shown on Figure 1 and include 4 areas. Figure 2 shows the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Ranking, recently completed by Braun Intertec (report attached) not only for Areas 1-4 but additional areas. In general, the PCI Ranking suggests the following type of street improvement. PCI Range Suggested Improvement 0-35 Reconstruct 35-60 Overlay 60-100 Seal Coat 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 · 612-636-4600 Based on our recent conversation it's recommended prior to preparing a detailed feasibility report that a Project Concept Report be prepared. The concept report would discuss existing conditions, present improvements contemplated by staff, estimate improvement costs, and consider financing (assessments, City participation). The concept report would be reviewed by City staff, City Council, and be presented to property owners.. A determination would then be made whether an improvement project should move forward or not; In the case of the 1997 Street Improvements, one concept report would be prepared discussing each area separately. Due to different land uses/project scope in each area, the Concept Report would be discussed with each area separately. We would work closely with staff and propose to be compensated on an hourly basis in accordance with our approved rates. A suggested schedule is listed below: Council Authorize Concept Report September 23, 1996 Complete Concept Report October 25, 1996 Review Period (Council, Staff, Property Owners) November, 1996 Authorize Feasibility Report (If Move Forward) December, 1996 Public Hearing/Authorize Plans/Specifications January, 199'7 Approve Plans for Bidding March, 1997 Award Contract April, 1997 LOCATION PLAN NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 1997 STREET IMPROVEMENTS K:¥.34~34MAP~9?-$T-O1.DWG SEPTEMBER 1996 FIGURE PROJECT CONCEPT REPORT i ...... COU'NCE, R ., UB T&C'r ON Public Wo~s ~23-~ Development & Planning Jeannine Clan~ ~ [t~ No. CONC~T R~ORT AN~ OON~UOT N~SO~H~ ~N~ (PROJECT NO. 575) Public Wo~s staff a~ ~e C~ E~in~r have ~n g~ed~ d~ a~ di~.i~ ~ ~on of Xy~ Avenue ~~ 45ffi ~d ~ Av~u~. ~ ~ has ~n p~ on. a num~ of ~sions by ~ Wo~a st~ ~ ~ h~ ~n~ to ~tedo~e. memo~um a~ h~ ~ ask~ to ~ ~ in~~ to ~ C~ ~ ~ Mo~ay eveni~. MOTION BY ~,COND TO:. ,=r,'nCit~dl$: Otto G. ~3onestroo PE. · $oseplq C, Anderhk. PE. · Marwn L Sorvala. PE · Jer%, ~ ~our~on ~E. · ~erc ~. ~osene. ~E. ena Susan M. E~erlin C.PA.. Senior Consultants ,~cnael f Rautmann. PE, · Ted K.F~e~d. P~. · Ken~eth P A~derson. PE. · Mark ~. Rolls. PE. · Sidney P ~dl~amson. RE.. L S. · ~oOert F Off, ce~' St, Paul. Rochester, ~i~mar an~ St. Cloud, MN · Mequon, ~1 Engineers & ~rchite~ts MEMO DATE: September 16, 1996 TO: Seannine Clancy, Director of Public Works FROM: Mark Hanson SUBJECT: Xylon Avenue Street Improvement (450' to 46"' Avenue). Our File No. 34-Gert Xylon Avenue from 45' to 46' Avenue has never been reconstructed. Although its condition warrants improvements, other issues need to be discussed and resolved to determine the scope of work. Figure 1 (attached) identifies the issues which ate summarized below: · The low point in Xylon Avenue between 45~ 1 46' Avenue has an extremely large overland drainage area in comparison-with the existing storm sewer that serves as its outlet to the downstream ponding area located north of 45~ Avenue west of Winnetlm Avenue. As a result the low point frequently floods dining storm events of any size; Should additional storm sewer capacity be constructed from the'Iow point in Xylon Ave. to the downslzeam ponding ama as suggested in New Hope's Surface Water Management Plan? · The pondin~ area locatect ninth of 45a Avenue west of W'mnetka Avenue warrants cleaning similar to other ~lgew ~ Presently this pond serves as a control pond for the City of Crystal protec~.~..~.. ~CrystaL This pond has the ability to be expanded to the north if the water q~~ons could be incorporated in the pond design in accordance with the Surface W'al~.Mima~ement Plan. The pond could also include features to make it an amenity to the area. 2335 1~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 5Sl13-3898 · 612-636-4600 · Xylou Avenue (42"to 4S~ Avenue) and 4S~ Avenue (Xylon/Wirmeflca Avenue) were reconstructed in 1979. TI~ intersection of 45~ / Xylon was constructed similar to its alignment/configuration as it existed before 1979. Since 1979 various improvements have been investigated. Presently the intersection includes stop signs in each direction. Should intersection improvements be considered with street improvements for Xylon Avenue between 45"' and 46~ Avenue? · The Transportation Plan identified an off-road trailibike path along this section of Xylon Avenue serving City Hall. To what extent if any should an off-road bike trail/bike path be considered with street improvements? Based on previous discussions it's recommended a Projec~ Concept Repor~ be authorized m discuss each improvement to allow City Council, Staff and property owner~ to review a project scope. We would work closely wi~h sm'Y and prepo~ to be compensated on an hourly basis in accordance wi~h our approved rates. A su~st~! schedule is listed below: Council Authodz~ Concel~ Report September 23, 1996 Complete Concel~ Report November 29, 1996 Review Period (Council, Staff, Property Owners) December-February 1997 Authorize Fessibility Report (If Move Forward) February, 1997 Public Hearins/Authoriz~ Plans/Specifications March, 1997 Approve Plans for Biddin~ M~.y, 1997~ Award Contr~ ~lune, 1997' ~ ~ Z bJ COOPER HOUSE OF ~ HIGH SCHOOl. HOPE LUTHERAN [ CHURCH OVERLAND DRAI ,., AREA TO ~ AVE LOW IscH°°L i 47TH AVE N __~! FTH AVE N NEW HOPE ! ELEMENTARY ~. ' ~-'~ SCHOOL Z +, +, +, ~. + ·+.- 8ewer +*+* + + A'EA '~ - 42ND A~ N i I~~EC~ON ~ t ' AL~RNA~E8 STREET/STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS NEW HOPE, MINNESOI~ XYLON/45th AVENUE . PEOJECT CONCEPT REPORT COUNCIL RF.~UE~T FOR ACTION OrlginaUng DepazLment Approved for Agenda _ A/amda Sect/on uevelopment City Manager & Planning Kirk McDonald Item No. ~ Management Assistant j ~ ,~/ RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLI~ HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT NO. 563 (CAR-XTCHAMPION AUTO STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS) The City Engineer has prepared the attached Feasibil~ Report for the C~r-X/Champion Auto Storm Sewer Improvement Project near 42'~/Nevada Avenues. The report ~ the proposed storm sewer north of the site and acro~ the apartment prope~. The relx~t al~o pre~ent~ ¢o~t estimates for the improvements and the estimated assessments [or the bener~d Ixopertlea. The project providee for ¢ormtm~Jng storm ~ewer pipe to serve the I~rOlX~ed portion of t~e Ch,',mpion Auto site and a Iow area Ioc~tad on the sout~ ~ o~ New Hope Apertment~. The Car-X end e, portion ot ttm Chaml~on ~ eite. clmn nor~ ~ ttm overl~xl llows ~ erode ·om Ix~th sitee, eliml~e tFle'?ei'oaR~ ~ '~lrltrla~Ovide to an existing storm ~ in.l~,~.r~J ~irrm p_~m~._. An ~il.~mlum ..w~ld...be ~ on ~ New,Hope Apamnent prOla~t~ to collec~ strum ~ ~ · k~ ~ lfl~t ~rmntly ponc~ water ~lter ~torme.~ Hope Apartment~ t~;.,,~~ ttm ~torm ~ewe~. The I~ ie in ~ordanoe with the Coml~mheneive~ ~~ ~1~ Be ~ed indei~mlenl~ oi' ~ ~ w~lt. other The City Att~ ~ enclosed resolution accepting the repor[ and establlihlng a public hearing date of "-'~ 2~to cxmsid~ the project Staff recommend~ aplxOVal of the reselution. MOTION BY SECOND TO: Engineers & Architects Septem~r 16, 1996 Honorable Mayor ~d Council City of New Ho~ ~l Xylon Avenue North New Ho~, ~ ~428 Re: C~-X Sto~ Sewer 7180 42nd Avenue City ~oj~t No. Our File No. 34192 Dear Mayor and Council: Attached is our Feasibility Report for the Car-X/Champion Auto Storm Sewer Improvement Project. This report discusses the proposed storm sewer north of the site, across the ~anment property, and presents cost estimates for these improvements. Also included a~ the estimated assessments for the benefitted properties. We will be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties to discuss this report at a mutually convenient time. Respectfully submitted, BONESTROO, ROSEN'E, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. TWP:Ia I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of Mark ~. Han~on,' P.E. Date: Set~tember 16. 1996 Reg. No.: 14260 Table of Contents Transmittal l.~r ............................................................ 1 Table of Conr~n~ ............................................................. 2 Figure I - Loca~on Plan ....................................................... 3 Scope ..................................................................... 4 Feasibility a.nd Recommen,'lnfion ................................................ 4 Proposed Improvements ....................................................... 4 Ama to be Included .......................................................... :5 Cost Estimate ............................................................... :5 Easemenc~ ................................................................. ~ Assessmen~ ................................................................ 6 Revenu~ ................................................................... 6 Project Schedule ............................................................. 6 Appendix A - Preliminary Cost Esfima~ Appendix B - Preliminary A.s.sesament Roll Figure 2 - Proposed Storm Sewer and Drainage Area 2 LOCATION PLAN " Anderli~ NEW HOPE. MINNESOTA FIGURE 1 Associates CAR X/CHAMPION AuTO STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ":.~.~-: CiT'f ~ROJECT No. 56.3 · < ',~,: ':-:''-~2x.~,~'g2:'2' :wC 80NESTRO0 AND ASSOCIATES ~'~12. ~3~1311 09/19/9~ (~:42[~'0E NO:GE~ Scope : This project provi~s rm. constructing storm ~wer piping to ~.rve tl~ pro~sed Car-X M~ni-Mall and adjacent properties noah of 42nd Avenue between Nevada Avenu~ and Louisiana Avenue, as shown on Rgur~ 1. As shown on Figure 2, st~n sewer is proposed to b~ extended from ~he exiuing priva~ stown ~we~ located on properp/owned by New Hope Apartments. 1'ne new storm sewer mil ~ ncx only the Car-X Mini. MM! propc~ but also · lX~tio~ of th~ Ct~mpion Auto sit~ and a Iow azea lq~ated o~ tha south $id~ of New Hope Apaztn~nts, Pemmnent easements will need to be acquir~l for the storm sewer pmpmed u part of this project. Feasibility and Recommendation This lm2ject is femibk From an ensineeriflg standpoint and is in accordance with the Core--ye Storm Sewe~ Plan for the City of New Hope. The l~jeet is na:esm~ to c~vey sums wm flnu4Y ~votn d~-~lo~ng iropertim aoro~ private ~ to aa existinf public storm sewer. The ptopomd storm sewer pipe ¢~ is the n2mt cost effective ~ than dlowins overland draifla~. Depending on timing, tM Foject ~n M CnTt~ OUt I~ llsdf ot could I~ ~ with ott~ projects that am similar in nature, '1~ estimated project co~t of S40,000.00 is propmed to be messed to the ~ ~i~. The total druina~ alu is 2.0 anu, which ~ to $20,000.00 per aoro. Proposed Improvements C.m'-X si~. h addition, m inkt smsgt~'e w~ilbe pl'ovldM on tl~ N~at I"~ Apafln~nt ~rty to collect storm water from a low area that currently ponds water attar stoma, P~k. TI~ exis~inl ~ sewer loc~d on New HOl~ Apm~nL~ hu lx~n mlevi~d md found to 1~ in good con4i~ [~v~ver. ~ ~ cleaning ~nd structure re,ir is J~clud~l i~ tl~ proj~-t. Tr~ removal ~lonI ~ north property lin~ of Champion Auto ~d C~r-X Is r~luL,~L Area to be Included The area to bs included for asseusm~nt purposes is shown on FIsuro 2 located at the bock of th~s relxm and is llsUM below: Audlto~ SulMivislon No. 324: Parc~ 28, 30, 31, and 35. Cost Estimate A detailed coat estimat~ is peueflted in Appendix B a~ the beck of this rupo~ Tho tom1 estimamd project corn is $40,000.00 This includss 10 pen:eat for coatin~sncles and 25 percent for indirect pot squa~ foot and are included in tM tom] Easements HOl~ At--tm. Th~ store mwa' ~ ou Chml~oa Auto md the ptogosed Cas,.X ~ is private. Tlmmmu sswerlocm~ on lX~m~ ownod byNew Hope Aperuusm would becon~ Assessments Assessrnencz ~re proposed co be levied ~inst r~e benefitted pml~Lies based on area cb-~ining ~o ~e storm sewer. The following tabul~on shows the c in e are r~e, and estimamd ~.zsment for each property. ~ ~ Rat~ ESL As~ssment Lasky C~-X 1.5 ag. $20,000/ag. $30,000 Champion Auto 0.3 ag. 20,(XX}/ag. 6,000 New Hope Apartments 0.2 ac. 20,000/ag. 4.000 2°0 agtes A preliminary a.ssessment roll is included in Appendix B at the back of this report. Revenue Storm Sewer S3:~,800 -0= Easement acquisition S4,200 -0.- -O- A.~es~ment S40,000 -0- All costs associated with extendins th~ storm sewer for this d~velopment will be assessed to the benefitted properties. Project Schedule Present Feasibility Report September 213, t996 Public Hearing October 28, 1996 Approve plans and specifications Winter 1996 Open bids and award contract Spring 1997 Begin construction May 1997 Completion Sune t997 6 APPENDIX A Preliminary Cost Estimate Lump Sum Cleat and grub trees O S 1300 S1,$00.00 150 L.F. 12" RCP storm sewer O 32.00/L.F. 4,$00.00 210 L.F. 15' RCP storm sewer O 34.00/I.F. 7, !40.00 2 Eagh Std. manhole w/e. stg. ~ 1,200/ea~:h' 2,400.00 3 F.a:h Std. camh basin w/cstg. ~ !,~ 3,000.00 I Ea~:h Connect to existing C'B ~ 500/ew.h 5(X).00 Lump Sum Clesn/repair ex. storm sewer $2,,q00~.s. 2,.q(X}.00 Lump Sum Reconstruct fence ~ (~O/l.s. ~)0.00 1200 S.Y. Sodding ~ 3.00/S.Y. 3.600.00 Subtotal $26,040.00 4- 10~ Contingencies Total Consm~tion + 2~ Indirect Costs Subtotal $35,800.00 Easement Acquisition 4.2~.00 TOTAL PROJEC'I' $40,000.00 7 APPENDIX B Preliminary Assessment Roll Car-X Storm Sewer 7180 - 42nd Avenue (at Nevada Avenue) ProjeCt No. $63 Pnnml De.scrio~ion Ass~s_~able Ama (notes1 R~,JAcm, Tot. mi Assessment Auditor'l Sub. No. 324 Pnr~i 17-118=21-21-0031 l..q S20,000~ $30,000 l ?- 118-21-21-00:35 0.3 ! 7-118-21-21-0030 0.2 20,000 4,000 Total 2.0 -0- Assessment Rate -- S40,00012.0 acres s S20,0001 ~re RAINAGE ; ,: , , 42nd Avenue North STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ~ 0RAINAGE AR~ ~8onestroo Roaene ~ Anderli~ NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA FIGURE 2 A~sociate~ CAR X/CHAMPION AUTO CI~ PROJECT No. 565 RF.,~~T FOR ACTION Ortgtnattr~ Department Apprm'~l for.~nda Agenda S~-'tlon City Manager EDA 9-23-96 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant DISCUSSION REGARDING REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR REHABILITATION OF APARTMENT BUILDING AT 7610 BASS LAKE ROAD The owners of an 11-unit apartment complex at 7610 Bass Lake Road are requesting consideration by the EDA of a loan to rehabilitate the building. The building is in need of rehabilitation and has received citations from the Inspection's Department. There have also been some problems with some of the tenants in the building and the Police Department has been called to the site on several occasions. The owners of the building are trying to make efforts to correct these problems. The owners have submitted the enclosed list of proposed improvements with cost estimates for each item. They state that the improvements are needed to attract more quality tenants and complete some crucial deferred maintenance. They also state that they have begun and will continue to use screening services for all future rentals. The Inspection's Department has reviewed the list of proposed improvements and is in agreement with the items listed. The total cost of the improvements is $48,775. The owners have already completed several of the improvements at a cost of $7,175, and they are requesting consideration of a iow or no interest loan in the amount of $41,550 to complete the improvements. They are proposing to pay the loan back over 100 monthly payments of $415.50 each (assuming no interest) beginning 11 months after the loan is completed. The major improvements include: new roof, installation of new security doors/security system, installation of new fire alarm system, installation of bathroom vents, replacement/repair of windows, replacement of some cabinets, appliances and floor coverings, repair and resurface of parking lot and concrete walks, and installation of outdoor electrical plug-ins (no garages on site). MOTION BY SECOND TO: Review: Administrat~n: Finance: Request for Action Page 2 9-23-96' ' In 1993 the EDA established a loan program directed at maintaining multi-family rental ~-'~. housing. The purpose of the program is to assist owners in obtaining necessary capital for property rehabilitation and upkeep, to provide safe and decent housing opportunities at affordable prices, and to target public resources to reverse property deterioration and improve property values to enhance public safety within the community. The EDA approved a rehab loan for New Hope Apartments under this program in 1994 and that project will be completed this fall. The program stated that the following policies would be used by the EDA to evaluate potential requests for financial assistance by rental unit owners: · Minimum amount of public funding shall be provided in each case. · Pdority given to basic need improvements (roof/wiring/heating), as opposed to provision of amenities. · At least two bona fide bids, from non-related parties, are required for each item that is a part of an overall program of rehabilitation. · No funds are provided to address defaulted mortgages or to bring taxes current. · Public funds will be used to leverage private funding wherever possible. Normally a 50~50 matching of funds for eligible activities would be required. · Wherever possible, loans shall be used as the preferred financing vehicle, rather than grants or equity investments. · In cases involving substantial financial stress, appropriate participation by the lender and equity owner is required for City investment. · Public funds will only be provided in those instances in which they are essential to rehabilitation of the project. Public funds will not be provided when the primary result of that provision would be to merely raise the profitability of a building. · Public funds will not substitute for private funding that may reasonably be raised in the private market. · No funding will be considered for approval without prior objective financial analysis of the project, along with an independent recommendation as to the amount and type of proposed funding. City staff met with the apartment owners and explained the policy guidelines to them. This proposal does not meet the 50~50 match requirement. The $7,175 investment made by the owners to date representS' only 15% of the total improvements and the owners state that they have no funds to contribute for an additional match. Staff is supportive of getting the improvements made, but is concerned that the proposal does not meet certain program guidelines. Staff requests direction from the EDA on this request as to whether staff should continue working with the owners on an agreement or not. The owners of the apartment may be present at the EDA meeting. (If the EDA is not supportive of this request, Hennepin County has just implemented a new Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program and staff would encourage the owners to apply for that program.) September 3, 1996 Kirk McDonald New Hope City Of 4401 Zyton Av. N New Hope, MN 55428 Regarding: 7610 Bass Lake Rd.; Improvements needed, and desired method of paying for said improvements based on preliminary discussions with you, Jean Coone, and city attorney Steven Sondrall. Dear: Mr. McDonald Following is a list of improvements which are much needed to bdng this building to a desirability level so as to attract more quality tenants, and complete some crucial deferred maintenance items. 1 .New roof; 5,5(X).00 2. New cabinets purchased and installed in five of the units 5x$8(X).00 ~,000.00 $.lnstall ceiling fans in each bathrtx)m 1 lx~275.00 3,025.00 4. Replace 16 apartment windows 16x $250.00 ~1,000.00 5. Install new hallway windows 4x~d~X).00 2,4(X).00 6.1netall new window~ in eae, h bathroom 11x $150.0~ 1,~.00 7. Repair all remaining windows not replaced 24x$50.00.. 1,200.00- 8. Repair, resurface, and slope parking lot 1,480.00 9. Install outdoor electrical plug-ins for each apartment 2,100.00 10. Replace concrete walks to building front and back 750.00 11.Replace 7 refrigeratom, 7x$425.00 2,975.00 12. Replace 11 gas cool(lng stoves 1 lx$225.00 2,475.00 13. Replace front and back doom (security type) 8,000.00 14.Install new fire alarm system 3,800.00 15. Remove o~ergrown bushes (trees) from edge of foundation replace w/mcldshruba- 1,5(X).00 16. Kitchen floor covering 2 units 2x$250.00 4(X).00 17.Carpet 3 units 3x$750.00 2,250.00 18. New washer and dryer, $1,150.00 1,150.00 19. Repaint hallways and laundry room. 900.00 20. Recarpet steps and hallways_ 800.00 21 .Repair bathroom in # 8 400.00 Total cost of improvements 48,775.00 Items paid prior to loan. #,s 1,21 and 3 of the 8 refrigeratom(# 11) 7,175.00 Amount needed to complete improvements.. 41,550.00 We propose to pay this back over 100 monthly payments of $415.80 each, beginning 11 months after the loan has been taken down. We have now begun, and will continue to use sc~esning sendces for ALL FUTURE RENTALS. Sincerely, Earl Non~x~d And Roba.rt Engelking ,AVE  ~_ ROAD lO ~m -,. e~i-JO ~,. CATHOLIC _ ELI4 CHURCH PARK~ ~ ~/'O~ 55TH A.V,_F. ~ .~_ ~co '~.~ Z  PROJECT NO. 486 BULLETIN NO. 3 CITY OF NEW HOPE PROJECT BULLETIN 36TH AVENUE STREET/UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN WINNETKA AND LOUISIANA AVENUES Overview The City of New Hope is nearing completion on Phase II of the 36th Avenue street/utility improvements between Winnetka and Louisiana Avenues. The Phase il improvements include utility improvements and street reconstruction of 36th Avenue from 400 feet west of Winnetka Avenue to Louisiana Avenue. New sanitary sewer has been installed between Nevada Avenue and Louisiana Avenue, and existing storm sewer facilities have been replaced at all the intersections. Storm sewer flows were redirected at the Winnetka/36th Avenue intersection to alleviate flooding problems. In addition to the improvements located within 36th Avenue, two large culverts were installed north of 36th Avenue as part of the Northwood Lake storm sewer improvements. An 88-inch concrete pipe was constructed across Winnetka Avenue and a 4-foot by 7-foot box culvert was installed under the driveway to the Winnetka Village Apartments. Project Schedule The original completion date for the project was mid-September. However, due to circumstances beyond the contractor's control, such as private utility relocation and a delay in delivery of traffic signal installation materials, the contractor will not be able to meet the original completion date. It is anticipated that the project completion date will be delayed for approximately three weeks. It is estimated that the traffic signal, final bituminous surface, and all sodding will be completed by the last week of September. The City is estimating that the project will be totally completed around the first week of October. Cooperative Pr~ect This project has been a cooperative effort between the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the cities of Crystal and Plymouth. The City of New Hope has been working with these governmental agencies since 1990 to accomplish this improvement. The City appreciates the cooperation of all the businesses and residents in the area impacted by the construction during this project. The completion of the project will result in much safer traffic conditions on 36~ Avenue for both motor vehicles and pedestrians. Thank you for your cooperation. Contact Persone If you have questions or concerns during these final weeks of construction, please direct your calls to the engineer representatives: Tom Peterson, Project Engineer: 604-4868 Paul Sobania, Project Inspector: 604-4796 Mark Hanson, City Engineer: 604-4838 If you desire to speak with someone at City Hall, please contact either Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works, 533-4823 (ext. 16), or Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, 531-5119. City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota 55428 9/13/96 Zoning Bulletin VOLUME 44, NUMBER 8 · AUGUST 1996 in this issue: · Variance -- Appraiser says landowner probably has most inferior site in neighborhood ................................................... page 2  "~Adult Entertainment wants to close business that City ~-'/~unsuccessfully challenged ordinance ....................................... page 3 ! · Wetlands w Board rejects application after environmental department approves it ............................................................. page 4 · Excavation -- Mining company tries to dispute ordinance that's already been changed ..................................................... page 5 · Environmental Issues-- Must county prove trees grow 'efficiently' on small forestry lots? .......................................... page 6 //'/~vloratorium -- City postpones deciding on permits for I ~/~-~--- ~irclcss-communications facilities .......................................... page 7 in future issues: LIMITATIONS PERIOD -- When does city planning director's decision become final and appealable? JURISDICTION -- Is privately run county jail exempt from zoning? Publisher: E. Michael Ouinlan, Esq. Manaeinl Editor: James A. Bittkcr Group Editor: Michael T. Borruso, Esq. Legal Editors: Carol Johnson Perkins, Esq., Robin Dana O'Donoghue, Esq. Editors: Stephanic Fcdcrico, Elin Dugan, Michael R, Jung, Esq., Jonathan Cohen, Esq. The entire content o! this uewsledef Is copyrighted by Ihe pub#~hM and may nM be col~ed without palm' permla~lon. Contact Copyright Clearance Centre (508) 750-8400 fm permission ia p~olocopy IM IntMflM use. Contact pub#shM fm oth~ repaint requests. The publisher ia not englged in r~*~cIw~ legal M MhM II~OfMsk)nid ~dvico, and aamumen on relp(ma~b#ity Io~ Ihe slelem~nls and opin~ o! I1~ wril~a M ¢~#lbullno ~d#om. Ci~e ~w Ifld $1ltulen ctmng~ ~lhoul notice from time to lime and are often apacilk: to Mm jurledlc#on oldy. 1la iflf(wmMIofl I~Mfl Il nM Ifllended to be. nor should it be considered, a substitute fo( legal M i~'ofeneioflal advice rofldMed by · competent att(x'nay M other jxof~ssional, l! you have any queetiofla about the apidication of hmueo relM<l heroin lo your pmllcul~ situetlon, seek the advice of a competent ett(xnoy of other ~efeeaional. ~hl$ bullelin is evaital, x~ on mlcro~m from Un~e~#y Mlcroh InMm~llunll, Ann A~M~. MI 21 Drydock Ave., Boston, MA 02210-22107 ISC;N IlS 14-7c1{lS (6171 547-f)O4fl ~. n'~il' n, ~inl~nnCri)rlttinlan eom Page 4 -- August 1996 Z.B. Z.B. August 1996 -- Page 3 / Holmberg claimed thc ordinance was unconstitutiomd as applied to his new welfare and nearby property. No evidence supported the neighbors' arguments business. He said its definition of "adult uses -- principal" was an overbroad of environmental consequences. ") restriction of expression because it was not limited to those businesses that Matter of Green v. Denison, 599 lq. ES. 2d 761. ., were shown to cause adverse secondary effects. According to him, no studies Matter of First National Bank of Downsville v. City of Albany Board of / had shown businesses such as his with off-premises consumption and a major- Zoning Appeals, 628 N. ES.2d 199. I ity of non-adult material caused negative secondary affects. He also said the Adult Entertainment -- City want~ to close business that unsuccessfully ordinance was vague because it didn't specify a time period during which the challenged ordinance' 20 percent figure should be calculated. The city argued the ordinance was a content-neutral time, place and man- City ofRamsey v. Holmberg, 548 N.W.2d302 (Minnesota)1996 ncr regulation and that its constitutionality had already been decided, so Holmberg operated an adult business in thc city of Ramsey, Minn. The Holmberg's argument was barred. store sold adult books, magazines and novelties, it also had video booths that " Thc court granted the city judgment with regard to whether the ordinance showed adult movies. When the store opened, the city had no ordinance regard- was content-neutral. However, it found questions existed about whether the lng thc location of adult businesses, studies on which the city relied addressed the cffecls of adult bookstores with The city hired a professional cry planner to study how adult businesses no on-premises consumption of material. There were also questions about affected neighborhoods. The planner wrote a report based on information from {' whether the ordinance affected only the types of businesses shown to produce the city and articles, reports and background materials from throughout the negative effects. Thc court allowed the city to produce more evidence regard- country. Thc city analyzed the planner's report along with studies from other lng those issues. After the city submitted additional matcrials, the court found cities that had similar businesses. Thc City Council concluded adult businesses the ordinance constitutional and granted the city request. produced negative "secondary effects," such as increased crime, lower prop- [ crty values and general neighborhood decay, ttolmberg appealed. The council amended the city's zoning ordinance. Thc ordinance limited ~ DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the city. the areas in which adult businesses could operate, but did not ban them. lt. Thc lower court properly found for the city. The ordinance was not over- separated adult businesses into two categories: "adult use -- principal" and broad or vague. "adult use -- accessory." An adult use was a business that emphasized thc ,The city had enough general information to enact a valid ordinance. The / display or description of certain sexual activities or anatomical areas, city need not prove Holmberg's business would likely have the exact same "Principal" businesses had more than 10 percent of their stock or floor area i. adverse effects as those businesses already studied. The city reasonably believed allocated to, or more than 20 percent of their gross receipts derived from, an Holmberg's business would negatively impact thc neighborhood. adult use. "Accessory" businesses had 10 percent or less of stock or floor area ) The lack of a definite time period in which to calculate the 20 percent devoted to, or 20 percent or less of their receipts derived from, adult-movie figure did not make thc ordinance unconstitutionally vague. rentals or magazine sales. Principal businesses had to be at least 1,000 feet / Holmberg v. City of Ramsey, 800 ESupp. 815 (1992). away from certain protected places (including daycare centers, churches, schools Dorso Trailer Sales v. American Body & Trailer, 482 N. W. 2d 771 (1992). and liquor stores). Holmberg's business violated the new ordinance because it was a principal Wetlands ~ Board rejects application after environmental department adult usc within 1,000 feet of residentially zoned property, a daycare center, a approves it church and a bowling alley that served liquor. He challenged the ordinance in Frank v. Scheye~; 642 N. ES. 2d 956 (New York) 1996 federal court, claiming it violated the First and 14th Amendments. Sometime before 1989, Frank bought a 19,983-square-foot lot in the town Ordinances were valid if they were content-neutral and designed to serve a of lslip, N.Y. Because thc property was in a wetland district, she sought per- substantial governmental interest that did not unreasonably limit alternative mission from thc New York Stale Department of Environmental Conversation means of communication. The court upheld the ordinance. (department) to build a single-family home on it. Holmberg eliminated the video booths and added non-adult merchandise Meanwhile, in 1989, thc town enacted its own wetland overlay district. so only 25 percent of thc stock and floor area was devoted to adult-oriented Under thc zoning ordinance, a property had to be at least one acre to have a material, home on it. Frank's property, which had been of legal size when she bought it, Nevertheless, the city asked a state court to issue an order preventing was ilow Io~ ,:mall Holmberg from operating his business. II asked for i,dgmen! without a trial, Z.B. August 1996 -- Page 7 Page 8 -- August 1996 Z.B. An environmental group, 1000 Friends of Oregon, asked a court to review the commission's decision. It argued the county's 40-acre lots violated the state ( personal wireless-service facilities, tlowever, local regulations couldn't unrea- minimum-lot-size requirements, and the commission was wrong to find other- ) sonably discriminate against service providers or prohibit wireless services, wise. Friends said the county should not have been allowed to create smaller Also, governments had to act within a reasonable time on requests lo build or lots based on only tax-lot data. In a past case, the court ruled such data was not . modify service facilities. enough to prove land was being used appropriately. '" The cily of Medina, Wash., was a prime location for wireless-telecommu- The commission explained that in this case the tax-lot datadidprove appro- ( nications providers because of its proximity to a stifle highway and bridge. priate land use. Before landowners could get a tax break, a county assessor had Already, several receiving and transmitting facilities were in the city; many to determine the land was being used"for the predominant purpose of growing more were expected as a result of the Act's passage. Five days after the Act or harvesting trees of marketable species." The property also had to meet stock- was passed, the City Council adopted a six-month moratorium on the issuance lng and acreage requirements set by the State Board of Forestry. of new special-use permits for wireless-communications facilities. The mora- Friends next pointed to specific language in the state statute: "economi- torture was intended to give the city time to process the expected barrage of cally e,f~icient forest operations." it said even if the land was being used for applications, and to make certain determinations about the nature of the facili- forestry, the county had to first determine the operations were economically ties (e.g., about health and aesthetic concerns). The moratorium would end efficient; then it could allow the smaller lot size. Aug. 12, 1996 and would not be renewed. The commission, which created the rule, said the important language in the Sprint Spectrum L.P. owned the licensing rights to a radio frequency in 21 rule was not "economically efficient," but "typically occurring in the area." Washington counties, including the city's. To fully operate its communication system, it needed base stations throughout the state. According to Sprint, which According to the commission, the rule was intended to preserve existing for- hoped to place a facility in the city, the moratorium would cause it a significant estry patterns, not to make sure forestry operations continued efficiently. Since financial loss. the smaller lots preserved the forestry operations that typically occurred in the On April 11, Sprint applied to the city for a permit for a 100-foot antenna area, they should be allowed. The commission also noted it based its decision / tower; it needed a zoning variance before it could get the permit. Sprint then about the county's legislation on an interpretation of its own rule, so it was sued the city, claiming the moratorium violated the Act and several other statu- entitled to deference. / tory and constitutional provisions. Sprint asked the court to decJare the morn- DECISION: Affirmed. torium invalid under the Act and other federal laws, and also for damages caused The commission properly found the county's land-use legislation complied , by the delay. with state minimum-lot-size requirements. Sprint claimed the moratorium effectively prohibited wireless services. Also, The county was allowed to base its creation of the smaller lots on tax-lot it said, the city unreasonably discriminated among service providers, and failed data. There was a direct correlation between the owners' tax breaks and their to act on its application within a reasonable time. appropriate use of the property; the county could reasonably assume the smaller DECISION: Order denied. lots were large enough to ensure "the opportunity for economically efficient ') The city's moratorium did not violate the Act or any other state or federal forest operations typically occurring in the area." // provision. Interpretation of the rule could have gone either way; that is, neither The moratorium did not have a prohibitive effect.on wireless facilities; it "economically efficient" nor "typically occurring" was given more emphasis, was simply a short-term suspension on issuing permits while the city processed But since the commission wrote the rule, it was entitled to apply its own applications and made factual determinations. The moratorium would not pre- interpretation, vent Sprint's application from being granted.· I000 Friends o[Oregon v. LCDC (Lane Co.), 752 P.2d 271 (1988). By waiting six months to issue any permits, the city was not failing to act on Garcia v. Boise Cascade Corp., 787 P.2d 884 (1990). applications within a reasonable time. Zoning decisions generally required some degree of investigation, especially when they involved "rapidly evolving -~ Moratorium -- City postpones deciding on permits for wireless- technology." The city was entitled to prepare itself for an onslaught of wire- communications facilities less-facilities applications, it did not have to give preferential treatment to set- Sprint Spectrum L.P. ~: City of Medina, 924 ESupp. 1036 (Washington) 1996 vice providers. Last February, Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, There was no evidence Ihe city discriminated among service providers in designed to increase competition in the. telecommunications industry. The Act processing applications. Every other new service provider also would )elayed ~) stated it did not limit state or local governments' authority over placement of by the moratorium. Providers that already had facilities in the city w~ould be · subjecled lo uhmilted new applications. Page 4 -- August 15, 1996 Z.B.  Variance-- Surveyor inadvertently stakes sideline too close to neighbor · Osborne v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Guilfort~ 675 A.2d 917 (ConnecticuO 1996 Conroy owned a summer house on Mulberry Point Road in the town of Guilford, Conn. The,house was five feet from the abutting property line, although the town s zoning regulations required an 8-foot sideline setback. Most other houses in the area were on nonconforming lots. ,. When Conroy decided to enlarge and winterize the house, he hired an architect. The architect retained a land surveyor to stake the corners of the / foundation. The surveyor inadvertently staked the sideline at a point only 7.4 feet from Conroy's west boundary. The error was discovered after con- - ' - struction was substantially complete. The surveyor applied to the town's Zoning Board of Appeals for a vari- -~- . ance from the 8-foot sideyard requirement. · ' At a board hearing, the surveyor and the architect testified that the ' architect hired the surveyor. The architect said he, not Conroy, decided to hire a surveyor to set the corner stakes because of the "tightness of the lot." ~ The board granted the variance. It found the surveyor made an honest :' ' ~, ¢;." error, and because the house was already built, strict enforcement of the sideyard requirement would cause undue hardship. It also found relevant .. that most of the other houses in the area were on nonconforming lots, Conroy's new house would not adversely impact the comprehensive plan, and the new house was more than two feet farther from the sideline than the old house. ~.. Osborne, Conroy's neighbor to the east, appealed. ,~ The court found for Osborne. It found Conroy hired the surveyor who ~c. rade so Conroy's hardship was Because Conroy the mistake, serf-created. eated his own hardship, the court ruled, the board shouldn't have granted the variance. .. [ Conroy appealed. He said the court should not have found he created the Ihardship himseff. He argued the board did not find Conroy hired the sur- , veyor, nor did the record support such a finding.. DECISION: Reversed. The trial court's decision had to be reversed. The board properly granted Conroy the variance based on undue hardship. Conroy'did not create the hardship himself. The surveyor made the mis- take. The trial court was wrong to attribute the surveyor's mistake to Conroy. The board did not find Conroy hired the surveyor, nor did the evidence show Conroy hired or controlled the surveyor. To the contrary, the testimony showed the architect hired the surveyor, and the surveyor was an independent con- tractor who controlled his own work. Tianti v. William Ravels Real Estate Inc., 651 A.2d 1286 (1995). AUGUST 1996 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Zoning and__the basically a land-use development policy intended to guide future zoning decision making. To meet the requirement that zoning ~' -- '-~oml. re.enslvePlan actions be done in accordance with a comprehensive plan, zoning decision makers are required only to take into account By Mark S. Dennison long-term planning and growth management goals for the area. These land-use planning policies may be gleaned from a variety The requirement that zoning be done =in accordance with a of zoning and planning sources, including zoning ordinances, comprehensive plan" remains one of the most fundamental maps, and planning studies, which together embody the yet least easily understood or defined concepts in zoning. This concept of a comprehensive plan. requirement originated from language in the U.S. Department In New York, for example, the state zoning enabling act of Commerce's Standard Zoning Enabling Act (SZEA) of 1922. generally requires that zoning regulations be in accordance Although the SZEA did not define comprehensive plan, it is with a comprehensive plan but does not mandate that they generally understood that the requirement was imposed to depend on any particular external document. (See N.Y. prevent piecemeal and haphazard zoning. Town Law sec. 263; N.Y; Village Law sec. 7-704.) As Whether it is a separate written document or inherent in the explained by New York's highest court in the state's leading zoning ordinance, a comprehensive plan (called a master plan in case on the issue, Udellv. Haas, 21N.Y. 2d463,288 some states) should be designed to reflect current and future N.Y.S.2d 888, 235 N.E.2d 897 (1968): regulation of land uses. It should ensure that local governments act rationally, not arbitrarily, in exercising their delegated We have found the %omprehensive plan" by examining all zoning authority. This issue of Zoning News outlines how relevant evidence .... [T]he %omprehensive plan" requires that different states interpret their laws on comprehensive plans and the rezoning should not conflict with the fundamental land-use explains how to evaluate zoning decisions for adequate policies and development plans of the community. These consistency with them. policies may be garnered from any available source, most especially the master plan of the community, if any has been adopted, the zoning law itself, and the zoning map. (21 N.Y.2d State Appl~aChOS at 471-472.) In most states, the comprehensive plan need not be a separate written document. The requirement is simply a shorthand label Some courts have concluded that the zoning ordinance may for broad value judgments, such as that zoning should be the itself constitute the comprehensive plan with which zoning result of studied forethought, that parrs of the zoning scheme decisions must conform. This issue came before a Wisconsin relate to the whole, and that zoning be free of gross court, as a matter of first impression, in Bell v. City of Elkhorm irrationalities and inconsistencies. The comprehensive plan is 364 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. 1985). First, the court had to determine Not all states expli~'tly require that zoning conform with a comprehensive plan, though most do. But the definition and content of such plans vary widely. Somewhat fewer, though still about half, mandate some form of comprehensive plan for either all or · ~ certain categories oflocalgovernments. a~) · E.~icit Consi~ney R~lulv~'n~n~ How those two requirements mesh aho varies with state law, and the  [] ~/c~,u~.~, ~n~ reader is advised to consult [] ~ £~uimm~ [] N~i~r individualstarutesfor details. whether a formal comprehensive plan was a necessary condition zon[fi~ actions must be undertaken with the comprehensive precedent to the adoption ora valid zoning ordinance. It plan in mind. (See Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W. 2d evaluated Wisconsin's statutory scheme for ci.ty planning (Wis. 66 (Minn. 1984); City ofPharr v. Tippet, 616 S.W. 2d 173 Stat. Sec. 62.23.), which required that zoning regulations be "in (Tex. 1981).) Still, the prevailing view in these states is that, accordance with a comprehensive plan," but left the term notwithstanding the adoption ora distinct comprehensive undefined. The ci.ty argued that the requirement could be met planning document, the plan remains primarily a guide to by enacting a comprehensive zoning ordinance and that the zoning decisions. (See Smith v. Winhall Planning Commission, statute did not require a separate document. The landowners 436 A.2d 760 (Vt. 1981); West Hall Citizens for Controlled contended that a zoning ordinance does not quail .fy as a Development Density v. King County Council 627 P.2d 1002 comprehensive plan and that a separate document must be (Wash. App. 1981).) Strict consistency is not required, but the prepared and adopted before a ci.ty may enact an ordinance, plan's recommendations should be considered. (See Haines v. Because the statute was silent on the term's meaning, the City of Phoenix, 727 P.2d 339 (Ariz. 1986); Taco Bell v. City of court evaluated whether a separate document was required in Mission, 678 P.2d 133 (Kan. 1984).) addition to the ordinance. It determined that the majority view For example, in Bone v. City of Lewiston, 693 P.2d t046 held by courts and commentators is that a zoning ordinance (Idaho 1984), the court decided that in accordance does not may satisfy the requirement when the state enabling legislation mean that a zoning ordinance must be exactly as the does not expressly provide otherwise, comprehensive plan shows it to be. Rather, whether a zoning On the other hand, a minority of states impose more ordinance is in accordance with the comprehensive plan is a stringent requirements that all zoning and land-use regulation question of fact. Thus, a governing body charged to zone in must be done in accordance with an independently identifiable accordance with its comprehensive plan must make a factual plan. This must be a separate planning document, and zoning inquiry to determine whether the requested zoning ordinance or decisions must be consistent with the planning goals and amendment reflects the goals of--and takes into account those policies it contains. (See, for example, Cal. Gov't Code Sec. factors in--the comprehensive plan in light of the later factual 65300; Idaho Code Sec. 67-6511; and Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sets. circumstances surrounding the request. 100.183, 100.187(2), 100.191,100.201,100.213.) The On the other hand, some courts have placed more emphasis adoption of a formal comprehensive plan is a condition on consistency in situations where a separate comprehensive precedent to the enactment of local zoning regulations. In planning document has been adopted. For example, in Webb v. addition, these states often require that all zoning decisions be Giltner, 468 N.W. 2d 838 (Iowa App. 1991), 15 landowners in strict conformity with the mandatory comprehensive challenged the county's approval of a rezoning application planning document, changing the classification of a neighboring landowner's property from residential to commercial. The plaintiffs, all Consistency with Comprehensive Plan owners of land in the same residential use district, contested the Whether a particular zoning action has been done in accordance county's action on grounds that the rezoning was not in with a comprehensive plan, however that is defined, depends on accordance with the county's comprehensive plan. the extent to which the state requires consistency with the plan. After considerable study, the county had enacted The In most states, strict conformity is not mandatory became the Comprehensive Plan for the Unincorporated Area of Wapetlo plan is considered only a guide to rational zoning decision County, Iowa. The court concluded that the county board of making, in a minority of states, however, strict consistency is supervisors had ignored its own comprehensive plan when mandatory. A determination of consistency will likely depend approving the rezoning request. The court ruled that, on how detailed the comprehensive plan is. The more because the county had chosen to adopt a written plan, all generalized the language used to set out planning goals in the subsequent zoning decisions had to be in accordance with it. comprehensive plan, the more difficult it will be for a challenger The court stated: to show a conflict between the plan and the zoning action. Where a county has enacted a written comprehensive plan, we Whore tho Plan Is Only a Guido hold the requirement of Iowa Code section 358A. 5 (that zoning In most states where no separate planning document is required, be 'in accordance with a comprehensive plan') contemplates the zoning ordinance will be designed to promote the goals of that the consistency requirement is met if the zoning body "gave full individualized plan. The hoard did not consider the plan. Nor consideration to the problem presented, including the needs of does the board argue that the rezoning.., is in accordance with the public, changing conditions, and the similarity of other land the plan. Because the board failed to consider its own enacted in the same area." (~4ontgomery v. Bremer County Board of comprehensive plan, our review ofwbether the rezoning &cision Supervisors, 299 N.W.2d 687, 695 (Iowa 1980).) This generic was designed to further the goals of that plan would be poindess. standard applies when a local zoning authority either has no individualized comprehensive plan or has not reduced it to Strict Conforlnity Required writing. The comprehensive plan is considered only advisory in Those states with legislation mandating the preparation and nature. (See Smith v. City of Little Rock, 648 S.W.2d 454 (Ark. ' adoption of a separate written plan will in most cases also 1983); Manning v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, 509 N.E.2d require that all zoning decisions conform stticdy with that plan. ~ 1173 (Mass. 1987).) States with a strict consistency doctrine do not permit local However, if the local zoning body chooses to develop a zoning authorities m enact zoning ordinances, adopt zoning comprehensive plan as a separate written document, subsequent amendments, or make decisions unless their actions are in strict accordance with the requirements set forth in the comprehensive plan. If changing population growth, Mark Dennison is an attorney and author who practices development patterns, community needs, or other public environmental land-vae, and zoning law in Westwooa~ N.J. welfare concerns later necessitate a deviation from the plan, the only recourse is to amend the comprehensive plan itself. Florida The ordinance contains Oaring omissions and serious structural provides a good example. Florida Statutes section 163.3184 problems. Although a significant portion of the land within the mandates that municipalities adopt a comprehensive plan, and city. limits is identified as agricultural land, the zoning ordinance section 163.3194(1) requires that zoning decisions be consistent makes no provisions regulating its use. Some words and terms that are defined in the ordinance are not used later in the ordinance .... with it. In one part of the zoning ordinance, the city prohibits fences of The court anal~ed the meaning and application of these over five feet; in another pan it requires a six-foot fence. The statutory provisions in City of Cape Canaveral v. Mosher, 467 ordinance has 28 separate parking classes for off-street parking, So.2d 468 (Fla. App. 1985). The city had adopted a although the population of Ely was 275 in 1970 and 425 in 1980. comprehensive land-use plan, which designated a large zone The structural problems in the zoning ordinance obviously arose including the landowner's property for R-3, medium-density from a careless combining of two or more model ordinances. residential use. The city later passed some amendments to its zoning ordinance, which included a rezoning of this property Courts have struck down zoning ordinances that provide for to R-1, allowing only single-family dwelling units. The only one or two types of permitted uses with all others being landowner sought a declaratory judgment to nullify the allowed only upon application for and approval of a conditional rezoning, or special use permit. For example, Hardin County v. Jost, 897 On appeal, the city argued that any zoning classification S.W. 2d 592 (Ky. App. 1995), looked at Hardin County, more restrictive or less intensive than that provided by a Kentucky's zoning ordinance, called the Deyelopment Guidance comprehensive plan is consistent with that plan. The court, System. The ordinance established a conditional use approach to however, rejected this theory because it did not comport with zoning and planning by designating the entire unincorporated the concept of consistency mandated by the state statute, which area as an agricultural/single-family residential district and defines the legal status of a comprehensive zoning plan to be designating all other proposed uses as conditional uses to be such that, after its adoption, all land development regulations permitted only after all local regulations were satisfied. The court enacted or amended must be consistent with it. The court gave invalidated the ordinance because it failed to delineate growth a detailed explanation of the meaning of consisteng concluding patterns and development for the future in contravention of state that, "if the compared item deviates or departs in any direction law, which requires comprehensive planning. (See Ky. Rev. Stat. or degree from the parameters of the norm, the compared item 100.187.) The court ruled that designating most property in the or action is not 'consistent' with the norm." county as agricultural/residential and then allowing for The court explained that a comprehensive plan's purpose is conditional uses was the "antithesis of zoning." to "legislatively" set a norm for each zoning district. Under the Purpose and Goals. Another factor to be considered is Florida statute, following adoption of such a plan, zoning whether the zoning authority's decision advances the purpose and changes should be made only when existing zoning is goals outlined in the comprehensive plan. Evidence that the inconsistent with the plan and then only with the goal of zoning body ignored these stated goals, whether the plan is a making it more consistent. Otherwise, the plan should be separate document or a more loosely defined policy, may support amended legislatively as to the area of the entire zone or as to a landowner's challenge, especially where specific planning goals the uses permitted within the entire zone. The court concluded are clearly in conflict with the zoning action. (See Bridget Canyon that the city's rezoning of the landowner's property to a more Property Owners'Association, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning restrictive classification failed to meet the statute's strict Commission, 890 P.2d 1268 (Mont. 1995).) consistency requirements. When a state statute mandates that a comprehensive plan be adopted as a prerequisite to enactment of a local zoning Determining Consistent,n/ ordinance, if no plan is ever adopted, a zoning ordinance cannot Landowners and zoning officials need to be knowledgeable be valid and enforceable because said ordinance obviously about various circumstances that tend to show whether a zoning cannot advance the goals of a nonexistent plan. (See Pennington decision has been made in accordance with a comprehensive County v. Moore, 525 N.W. 2d 257 (S.D. 1994).) plan. A court's determination of the issue is a fact-based inquiry, Findings. Evidence that the zoning body failed to make which often evaluates various types of evidence, including adequate factual findings may provide grounds for invalidating whether the particular zoning action is the product of reasoned the decision. The zoning authority must make a factual forethought, advances the goals of the comprehensive plan, is determination of whether a proposed zoning action will further based on adequate findings, or took into consideration the the goals and take into account the factors contained in the impact on other land uses in the area. comprehensive plan. Reasoned Forethought. In jurisdictions where the If the zoning body's findings indicate that its decision comprehensive plan is not a separate planning document, the conflicts with the comprehensive plan, the court will ordinarily zoning decision must be a product of rational planning declare it invalid. On the other hand, if the findings are merely consistent with the community's basic land-use policies. An inconclusive, meaning that the court does not have enough Iowa case illustrates how proof of a lack of reasoned forethought evidence on which to determine consistency, the court may opt can support a claim that the zoning action was not done in to remand for further factual findings by the zoning authority. accordance with a comprehensive plan. In Wolfv. Oty of Ely, Thus, the action may later be found valid, but the burden will 493 N.W.2d 846 (Iowa 1992), the evidence revealed that the be on the zoning authority to produce adequate findings to zoning authority had essentially developed a new zoning show that its decision was made in accordance with the ordinance by cutting and pasting different sections and comprehensive plan. (See Love v. Board of County Commissioners provisions from two or more model municipal zoning of Binghara County, 701 P.2d 1293 (Idaho 1985).) ordinances. Further, at least two different zoning maps were Neighboring Land Use. Courts have generally stated that identified as the official city zoning map. In invalidating the neighboring land uses must be considered in order for the ordinance, the court stared: zoning action to meet the requirement that it was done in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Still, although the court the first sustainable technology industrial parks in the count .fy, must consider whether the restrictions imposed are in and the county's only sewer system. conformity with the uses and zoning of nearby property, this The park--a federally supported experiment that includes a showing is not necessarily dispositive because zoning must wildlife refuge--alms to entice recycling, solar technologies, and "begin and end somewhere." (See Amalgamated Trust & Savings similar industries to a sustainable development zoning district, Bank v. County of Cook, 402 N.E.2d 719 (Ill. App. 1980).) where no stormwater, sewage, or waste leaves the site. "It has blossomed to where we have established enterprise zones here, Conclusion and we're looking into establishing a foreign trade zone here, The requirement that zoning be done in accordance with a too," says county planning and zoning director John comprehensive plan can be confusing because states have taken Humphrey. In addition, over a 20-year period, 300 Section 8 different approaches. Landowners and zoning officials need to residences will be built. Brown and Root plans to develop determine the state law requirements by evaluating the state residences on its 1,700 acres recently annexed by Cape Charles enabling act and judicial interpretations of the meaning of the and to expand the tiny local marina to 600 slips. term comprehensive plan. The necessary degree of consistency There are doubters. Elizabeth Ballard, a retired Willis Wharf will usually depend on whether the comprehensive plan is a homemaker whose family is connected to one of the biggest aqua compilation of planning documents and policies or a separate, farms on the East Coast, fears anticipated growth will pollute identifiable document. The latter, less frequent situation will drinking water and threaten oyster and clam farms. Many demand more substantial consistency, but this will likely be easier residents lack indoor plumbing, and most rely on septic systems to determine where the plan has been reduced to written form. because soils are highly permeable. In most states, where a separate written plan is not "'9(/hatever nitrogen there is from the septic systems tends to mandatory and a locality has chosen not to enact such a plan, make its way quickly into the shallow aquifer 25 feet down, and evaluating consistency will be more difficult, but strict we have a lot of attention being paid to cleaning the bay up," consistency will not be required because the comprehensive plan says county planning commission chairman Denard Spady. is predominandy advisory. The plan's policies and goals are a Existing zoning laws did not meet the more recent comprehen- guide to zoning decisions, but consistency is evaluated in light sive plan's development objectives or account for the area's natural of several key factors, including reasoned forethought, resources, Humphrey says. The new ordinance relaxes zoning in advancement of the comprehensive plan's goals, adequate 47 villages in the county identified for open space districts, "to findings, and consideration of neighboring land uses. assist in providing affordable housing in the outlying areas and to identify community development areas," he says. In 1983, the county established standard zoning with typical Virginia County segregation of commercial, residential, and agricultural uses. Prewar {~OaI'S for 4)l'olMth land-use patterns centralized homes, shops, churches, and schools and created small communities surrounded by land for agriculture By Debra A. Schwartz and recreation. The proposed ordinance revives the older pattern by funneling growth into rural villages and four community Virginia's poorest county, Northampton, has rewritten its development areas, each located on or near U.S. Route 13. zoning ordinance in reaction to the threat of uncontrOlled Elected officials began rethinking this in the mid-1980s growth. The goals, consistent with its comprehensive plan, are when big developers discovered the county's pristine waterfront. unified development, cluster housing, community revitalization, Then, one house was allowed on three-quarters of an acre. But and providing more residents with water and sewer services, increasing the minimum lot size to five acres caused farmers to Residents' concerns include a large marina proposed in the subdivide their land so they could claim the grandfathered right town of Cape Charles, the impact anticipated growth will have to sell smaller lots when the change later became part of the on water quality in Willis Wharf, and protecting livelihoods and ChesaPeake Bay Act. "Ifa person is redred or poor, a five-acre improving substandard housing throughout the county. Within lot can be hard to manage in terms of keeping everything up to the next 25 years, the county is facing upscale development par. So we realized a large lot wasn't going to work," Spady says. expected to increase its population from 13,000 to 88,000. The In most districts, the proposed ordinance allows one house focus is on Cape Charles, which has a deep-water port, one of on lots as small as a half-acre, except in the conservation district, which requires 50 acres. It generally specifies one residence per five acres throughout the county but allows developers to build a couple more if they plan clusters and leave most of the Zoning News is a monthly newsletter pu.blish~d by the American Planning A$.$ociadon. property as pervious open space. Subscriptions are available for S50 (U.S.) and $65 (foseigo). About half the width of the county on the Atlandc side is tidal Frank S. So, Executive Director: William R. Klein, Director o£Res~u~. marsh outlined by barrier islands," Spady says. "That's the con- Zoning News is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, Editor: Fay DolnicIr, Scott Dvorak, Michelle Gregory, Sanjay Jeer, Meg'an Lewis, Doug Martin, Marya. Morris, Many Roupe. servadon district. We're not talking about any significant upland Aaron Sheffey. Laura Thompson, Reporters; Cynthia Cheaki, Assistant Editor, Lisa are~. We are talking about very fragile, very mobile sand dunes." Barton, Design and Production. Nevertheless, Easrville Mayor Edgar Sturgis III says the Copyright ©1996 by American Planning Asmciation. 122 $. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, proposed county ordinance is worse than the old one. "It' Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning Association has he'adquarters offices at 1776 5 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington. DC 20036. going to lock up land so that people here just can't afford a All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduc, z'd or utilized in any form house," he says. He opposes both the conservation district and or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any designated community development areas. "They are hurting information storage and retrieval system, without.permission in writing from the American Planning Association. the people, Sturgis says. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and ~0% posrco .......... ~ Debra Schwartz is a J~eelance writer in Highwooa~ Illinois. 4