The URL can be used to link to this page

040594 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1994 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS '4.1 Case 93-23 *4.2 Case 94-07 *4.3 Case 94-06 *4.4 Case 94-08 Request for Final Plat Approval of Northwest Church Addition, 8624 50th Avenue North, Northwest Church of Christ, Petitioner. Request for Variance to Allow Air Conditioning Condensor in the Side Yard, 3432 Ensign Avenue North, Michael Stiegler, Petitioner. Request for Rezoning from an R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District to a PUD, Planned Unit Development Zoning District, at 2775 Winnetka Avenue North (7901 28th Avenue North), Paul T. Wrobel, Petitioner. Request for Site and Building Plan Review, Preliminary Plat to Subdivide Property, Conditional Use Permit for Shared Driveway Access and Variances to Lot Width and Parking Requirements, 5000 Winnetka Avenue North, Hoyt Development/J-S Winnetka, Petitioner. 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 5.2 Report of Codes .and Standards Committee *a) Ponderosa Steakhouse Wall Sign Variance Issue, Planning Case 93-30 and 93-36 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Miscellaneous Issues 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 2, 1994 7.2 Review of City Council Minutes 'of February 28 and March 14, 1994. ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT * Petitioners are requested to be in attendance CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: 93-23 Request for Final Plat Approval of Northwest Church Addition 8624 50th Avenue North 07-118-21-23-0103 R-1 Northwest Church of Christ March 28, 1994 April 5, 1994 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting Final Plat Approval of Northwest Church Addition, pursuant to Chapter 13 - New Hope Code, to allow subdivision of the land so that unneeded land can be sold and proceeds used to improve present church building and parking lot. The purpose of the plat is to split off the property on the north with the house on it from the church property on the south. The plat would divide the property into two lots: Lot I would contain the existing church and Lot 2 would contain the existing house and detached garage. It is staff's understanding that the house will be sold to a private party and that a tentative purchase agreement is pending. 3. The property is located at the northeast intersection of Boone Avenue and 50th Avenue North. ° The property is located in an R-1 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and is bordered on the east and south (across 50th Avenue) by R-1 single-family homes and is bordered on the north and west (across Boone Avenue) by I-1 Limited Industrial properties. ,¸ The topography of the property slopes minimally down to the north and east from the church building. A drainage problem previously existed with water ponding at the northeast corner of the proposed LOt 1 adjacent to the parking lot. The total area of the plat is 73,655 square feet or 1.7 acres and the existing parcel has a width of 210 feet on the north/south and a length of 350 feet on the east/west. The plat subdivides the property into two (2) parcels: LOt 1 or "church lot" and Lot 2 or "house lot". The lot area and lot width requirements for the R-1 Single-Family Residential Zoning District are compared below: R-1 Requirement Minimum Lot Area = 9,500 sq.ft. Minimum Lot Width = 75 feet Preliminary_ Plat Lot 1 (south/church) = 52,655 sq.ft. Lot 2 (north/house) = 21,000 sq.ft. Lot 1 = 205 feet (on 50th Avenue) LOt 2 = 105 feet (on Boone Avenue) The two proposed lots meet the Zoning Code lot area and lot width requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. Planning Case Report 93-23 April 5, 1994 Page 2 The preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission on August 3, 1993, and by the City Council on August 9, 1993, subject to the following conditions: Comments/recommendations from City Attorney, City Engineer and Building Official be incorporated into the Final Plat. B. Final Plat be submitted to Planning Commission for review/approval. The specific recommendations from the City Attorney, City Engineer and Building Official were as follows: City Attorney: A. The legal description involves the West 250 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. The plat illustration shows a 40-foot street easement plus a proposed platted area 210.04 feet in width. These add up to slightly more than 250 feet. This needs to be resolved, otherwise the owners will be platting slightly more property than they, in fact, own. The same situation exists for the north/south measurement. The legal description involves the North 380.66 feet of the property in question. The plat illustration shows a 30-foot street easement adjacent to a property dimension of 350.74 feet. Again, the discrepancy of .08 feet needs to be resolved. In this particular case, however, the additional .08 feet will be located within the apparent street easement because the measurement begins at the north line of the quarter and goes south from there. If the legal description on the preliminary plat is accurate, the property is subject to 50th Avenue No~.h and Boone Avenue North. This language indicates that the owners own the underlying fee for the land portions subject to the roadway easements of Boone Avenue North and 50th Avenue North. If the property owners do own the underlying fee, the plat should be extended to include that underlying fee and contain dedications for the roadways. On the other hand, if the fee to the "street" portion of the property has previously been deeded to the City or County, the proposed handling of the street in this plat is fine. The title evidence and other documents should provide the answer to this question. D. The City will need to see evidence of title before the final plat can be approved. City Engineer: A. A 10' wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated around the perimeter of the plat. The common lot line between Lots 1 & 2 shall include a 10' wide drainage and utility easement centered over the common lot line. The parking lot does not include perimeter curb. It is suggested perimeter curb be constructed around the parking lot to contain drainage in accordance with City standards. The City is presently in the process of constructing a storm sewer along the Planning Case Report 93-23 April 5, 1994 Page 3 east line of the plat to collect drainage from the church Parking lot and the adjacent properties to the east. Present the church's parking lot drains easterly onto the adjacent properties. Due to low elevations and inadequate grades in this area the stormwater runoff ponds in the backyards of the properties east of the church. The storm sewer extension from 50th Avenue will eliminate the ponding of stormwater. The storm sewer improvement is intended to be financed solely by the City. The bid amount for the construction of $10,927.00. The City should evaluate if a cash dedication for the storm sewer improvements is justified if the church prefers not to construct the perimeter curb. The estimated cost to construct perimeter curb is $4,000- $6,000. It should also be noted the bituminous parking lot is in poor condition. C. The City should evaluate if additional landscaping is required. The shared driveway and access to Boone Avenue by both lots should be reviewed. It is suggested if the Boone Avenue access is to be shared with the church, the access should be upgraded and paved. A private easement may be required between the two lots. If the Boone Avenue access is not to be used by the church, the access should be completely separated from the church's parking lot and serve only Lot 2. Building Official: A. Easements are needed around the perimeter 5 feet on sides and rear, 10 feet on front and streets. Separate driveways are needed onto Boone Avenue for both lots. Each must be at least 5 feet from the nearest side property line. NOTE: the existing garage is only 25 feet form the property line, requiring a very tiny care or a driveway variance; garage should be turned to west and shifted over to the minimum 5-foot setback, or be attached to the home. Co Drainage problem is aggravated by church lot runoff, without curbing. City Engineer should evaluate grade change of limited scope storm sewer with some curbing. D. A green buffer is needed between the church and the house lot. 10. The Final Plat was submitted to City Department Heads, City Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies, and Hennepin County for review and comment. 11. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. Planning Case Report 93-23 April 5, 1994 Page 4 ANALYSIS The following changes/improvements have been made on the property/to the plat since the preliminary plat was approved: The legal descriptions on the plat have been corrected to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. A 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement has been dedicated around the perimeter of the plat, as requested by the City Engineer. The common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 includes a 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement centered over the common lot line, as requested by the City Engineer. Do Last fall the church agreed to participate with the City in a drainage improvement project on this site and on an adjacent property. Storm sewer pipe was constructed along the easterly edge of Northwest Church's parking lot and B612 concrete curb was constructed in conjunction with catch basins to collect drainage from their parking lot. The church reimbursed the City in the' amount of $4,988.50 for the extra work completed on their property and the drainage problems have been substantially resolved. The preliminary plat showed a width of 100 feet on Boone Avenue with the existing garage being located 25 feet from the property line and the southern boundary of the driveway being right on the property line. This would have required a variance, as City Code requires a three foot setback between the property line and the driveway. The property line dividing Lots 1 and 2 has been shifted five feet farther south than what was shown on the preliminary plat, eliminating the need for a variance for the majority of the driveway. The City Attorney reviewed the Final Plat and indicates that it is in order from a legal standpoint; evidence of title is in the process of being submitted. The City Engineer has reviewed the Final Plat and finds it to be acceptable, except for the driveway issue, and he is in agreement with the Building Official's recommendations. The Building Official has reviewed the Final Plat and f'mds it to be acceptable if the following conditions are met: A suitable landscaping buffer must be installed on the north side of the church property to buffer the house from the church (see staff exhibit). Staff is recommending that the landscaping buffer plan be submitted to and approved by City staff. All existing asphalt within three feet (north and south) of the new property line should be removed (see staff exhibit). C. The existing asphalt driveway connection between the church and the driveway serving Planning Case Report 93-23 April 5, 1994 Page 5 the house should be removed (see staff exhibit). Do A portion of new driveway will need to be constructed (per the staff exhibit) to adequately accommodate vehicle access to the existing garage. o Lastly, the church as been cooperative in reimbursing the City for costs incurred due to this platting process up to this date, as required on the Planning/Zoning application. There is some concern on their part about a previous billing sent out that covers the City Engineer's attendance at a meeting to explain drainage improvements and they are declining to pay the bill. Staff recommends that any approval of the Final Plat include a condition that all consulting expenses incurred by the City for this platting/drainage project be paid for by the church. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat of Northwest Church Addition subject to the following conditions: o A suitable landscaping buffer be installed on the north side of the church property to buffer the house from the church (plan be submitted to and approved by City staff). All existing asphalt within three feet (north and south) of the new property line should be removed (per staff exhibit). The existing driveway connection between the church and the driveway serving the house should be removed (per staff exhibit). A portion of new driveway be reconstructed (per staff exhibit) to adequately accommodate vehicle access to the existing garage. All consulting expenses incurred by the City as a result of this plat and drainage improvement be reimbursed to the City by the church. Attachments: Northwest Church Final Plat Plat Distribution Letter City Engineer Final Plat Review Letter City Attorney Final Plat Review Letter Staff Exhibit Billing and 2-22-94 Correspondence from Church Preliminary Plat Approval Letter 8-9-93 City Council Minutes 8-9-93 City Council Request 8-3-93 Planning Commission Report 8-3-93 Planning Commission Minutes .I~OT SuR. VEYS COMPANY, INC LAND SURVEYORS NORTHWEST 51ST AV£. r :\;ORTHEtiN HEIGHTs 2ND I IRT DOC. NO, CHURCH ADDITION azl. md A. Brute, t,cem~d Lind sl'~T.r. ' 4O 4O " ......... i ........ 250.04 S89°08'26"E ......... -'- 40.00 to ,I, 210.04 I _ :::~.U'T~LrTT ,{', C~,~^~e ~-^oeme-sT"~''''/~--- ~ I ~t 40 o_I 2 ~ 'r ~oI , i,o ~ tY L__ J ' S89°oe'26"E ,~ 0 -ir -- -- '--" ~z F---'F-' r-- ~o.o4 · ~-q~ ~,..~z= I ~ I -.~ t ,, I ~,Zo~11 ', 'I t .............. ~0.oo ..... 1 ,~o 1 h~, - i 210.04 o :50TH AVE. NO. o o ~ + ~ 0 CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 18, 1994 Hennepin County Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation Mirmegasco Northern States power Co. U.S. West Telephone King Cable Television New Hope Director of Public Work~ New Hope Director of Finance/Administrative Services New Hope City Attorney New Hope City Engineer New Hope Building Official Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Final Plat Northwest Church Addition Enclosed you will find a final plat for Northwest Church Addition. Please review and forward comments to me prior to 4:30 p.m. on Monday, March 28, 1994. The f'mal plat will be considered by the New Hope City Council at their April 11, 1994, meeting. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Bonestroo Rosene m--m Anderllk & Associates Engineers & Archltec:s March 31, 1994 Mr. Kirk McDonald City ~ New Hope 4401 Xylon AvenUe N. New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Northwest Church Addition Our File No. 34-Gen Dear Kirk: We have reviewed the prelimina~ plat for Northwest Church Addition and find all drainage and utility easements properly shown. We concur with staffs recommendation to separate the interconnecting driveway between Lots 1 and 2, It's also recommended the lot line between Lois 1 and 2 include plantl.gs (shrubs/trees) to better define the lot line, It appears the new lot line is located approximately 32' south o£ the existing garase on Lot 2 which is adequaie for most vehicle~ to properly mm into the §arage. The City should determine if additional landscaping and a development bond is required for this plat. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson 2335 ~/elt Hlgl~wa¥ 36., St. Paul, MN 5Sl!3 · 612-636-4600 STEVEN A. SONDRALL MICHAEL R LAFLEUR MARTIN P MALECHA WILLIAM C. STRAIT CORRICK & SONDRALL, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671 FAX (612) 425-5867 LEGAL ASSISTANTS LAVCNNE E KESKE SHARON D DERBY March 29, 1994 Mr: Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Northwest Church Addition Our File No: 99.15036 Dear Kirk: I have reviewed the proposed final plat of Northwest Church Addition and find the plat to be in order from a legal standpoint. The legal description issues raised in my previous letter have been resolved, The dedicated plat now also includes the street right- of-way, I have not yet received evidence of title, but expect to get that within the next several days and will provide you with a separate title opinion. Be sure to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha Asst. New Hope City Attorney s3t CC: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney II U I U/~INI JAlan L. Manz Northwest Church of Christ 8624 50th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 February 22, 1994 Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Subject: Invoice for consulting expenses incurred by City Of New Hope for planning case 93-23. Invoice # AR100513 is not a billable expense. The consultant for Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates is taking advantage of his association with the city. The invoice should not be paid for the following reasons: 1) The consultant for Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates visited the church to sell us on a project for his company. They wanted to get it scheduled. 2) He offered to come and explain their plans to us. 3) He led us to believe he worked for the city. The church had to ask direct questions at the church building to discover his true association with the city. 4) He never indicated there would be any fee for his visit. This visit is not a billable expense. If he would like to discuss this with us we would be happy talk with him. Sincerely, Alan L. Manz Church of Christ / Trustee CC: Dan Donahue, City Manager Larry Watts, Director of Finance / Administration Planning Case File 93-23 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD Line: 612-531-5100 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: #612-531-513~ Police Fax: #612-531-517, Public Works Fax: #612-533-765( January 31, 1994 Northwest Church of Christ 8624 50th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Subject: INVOICE FOR CONSULTING EXPENSES INCURRED BY CITY OF NEW HOPE FOR PLANNING CASE 93-23 Dear Planning Case Applicant: Enclosed please f'md an invoice in the amount of $140.00 for additional consulting expenses incurred in the fourth quarter of 1993 by the City of New Hope for the above noted planning case. 'Consulting expenses incurred by the City are detailed on the invoice and copies of bills and invoices are enclosed for your information. Deposit amounts are deducted from expenses and the enclosed invoice represents the difference between the deposit and expenses. Please contact me if you have any comments or questions. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/prs Enclosures: CC: Invoices/Attachments Dan Donahue, City Manager Larry Watts, Director of Finance/Administraton Planuing Case File 93-23 Family Styled City ~ For Family Living Bonestroo M2t Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN S5428 For Engineering Services Rendered Keltn R YaDp, PE Attend Council Meetings on Sept. 13, and Sept. Inspect and prepare letter re: 5307 Pennsylvania Ave. Attend meeting on Sept. 2, 1993 with N.W. Church regarding storm sewer Prepare for and attend Staff Meeting on Sept. 20, 1993 Attend meeting on Sept. 16, 1993 With Doug Standsted ~o review drainage of 9381 Bass Creek Circle %trend meeting on Sept. 22, 1993 re: Hennepin County policy for City/County cost sharing for road projects repare bond amount for Gethsemane Cemetery Ispect and review bond for Auto Haus October 1993 File No. General 34 September 1, 1993 27, 1993 Prin/Proj.Mgr. 3.0 Prin/Proj.Mgr. 2.0 Prin/Proj.Mgr. 3.0 through September 31, 1993 $ 100.00 Hrs. @ $70.00 210.00 Hfs. % $70.00 ~rs. ~ $70.00 140.00~' 210.oo Prin/Proj.Mgr. 1.0 Hrs. @ $70.00 70.00 Prin/Proj.Mgr. 3.0 Hrs. ~ $70.00 Prin/Proj.Mgr. 1.0 ~rs~_~$..O0 Prin/Pr°j.Mgr~f~'/~r-'s. O0 Picture Maker Technical Repro Inv #24168 7/22/93 210.00 70.00..- 105.00 ~ 6.42 83.:4 A/I D~]ls c/ue ar',<; Pa~at:~e wi~in 30 ~ ~ ~11 ~ c~ ~ ~ annul ~ ~ 12% a~ ~ ~ e~m~ Mi~ claim a~ ~at ~ ~ ~ ~ki~ Tn~ ama ~ ~. .... ~ tsju~ a~ ~; ~t --- --- ~ ~in ~aim; mat I nM nail ~ ~ I~ a~ ~ no ~ -,c ,~s m~n C~ a~ ~ml a~ a~ ~n ~ ~ a~. g ~ a~ ~ ~o u~r ~. :33S IX/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota SSI13 · 612.636'4600~~ COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda City Manager 10-25-93 Kirk McDonald By: Management Assistant IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 508) IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,988.50 Agenda Section Consent Item No. 6.4 NO. 1 FOR 1993 STORM SEWER & DRAINAGE The City Council awarded the bid for the 1993 Storm Sewer & Drainage Improvements (Improvement Project No. 508) to Bituminous Consulting & Contracting on July 26th in the mount of $181,296.00. Subsequent to the awarding of the bid, Northwest Church of Christ, located at 8624 50th Avenue North, submitted a preliminary plat to the City to subdivide the property. The church property is located adjacent to one of the drainage projects and as part of the platting requirements, staff requested that the church participate in the project because part of the drainage problem was caused by run-off from the church parking lot. The church agreed to participate in the project, and to reimburse the City for extra costs associated with expanding the project onto their property. The additional costs to expand the project were $4,988.50. Staff recommends approval of the enclosed resolution which approves Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $4,988.50. MOTION BY SECOND BY Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & 'Associates Engineers & Architects October 21, 1993 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Attention: Mr. Kirk McDonald Re: Backyard Drainage Improvements Project No. 508, File No. 34162 Dear Kirk: Attached is Change Order No. 1 for the above referenced project. Change Order No. 1 revises the scope of work for constructing the storm sewer improvements at 8524 50th Avenue. ' The proposed platting and required parking lot improvements for Northwest Church has resulted in changes. The changes provide for constructing the storm sewer pipe along the easterly edge of Northwest Church's parking lot and constructing a B612 concrete curb in conjunction with catch basins to collect drainage from their parking lot. The additional cost ($4,988.50) over the bid amount°($10,927.00) for this work has been agreed to be paid by Northwest Church. We ~'ecommend approval of Change Order No. 1. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTRO0, RpSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson Attachment 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 I I SAVE EXIST. an!u ou.s ..... t i i I i ! 1 ! i I i ! i BIT. REM( LIMITS I CONNBCT 12" TO Ex.! CB B612 CONCRETE CURB &: GUTTER ~rist 05.8 NOTE CONSTRUC ~ RELOW Ex. SHAPE TO t :~ATCH BITUMINOUS ' ' ~ARKII~IG LOT i I ........ ~,S" DIRECTED I I i i I 50th Avenue No. 8624 50th Ave Ho. New Hope, Himeso~ 55428 City Of New Hope 4401Xylon Ave No. New Hop~, HN 55428 c/o Kirk McDoneld September 15, 1993 Deer Mr. McDonald, This letter is in response to your call to our church building on September 14, 1993 concerning epprovel from the Northwest Church of Christ regarding the dreinege project on 50th Ave. North. The men of the church met in · business meeting ~n Sunday, September 11, 1993 to discuss the plans.proposed by the city to build · drainage route on the back of our perking lot, elong with the houses immediately connected to our property. The proposal we discussed concerned our paying an assessment of $4,988 to the city for this project. The assessment was approved by,the business meeting. We thereby agree with the improvements as stated to us, giving you permission to proceed with construction. We understand from you that the arrangements for paying this assessment will be worked out et & later date. Sincerely, /I ,1401 Xyton Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 TelephOne: TDD Line: 612-531-5i00 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: #612-531-515, Police Fax: #612-531-5 ~ 7-. Public Works Fax: #612-533-765 October 26, 1993 Mr. Wilson Copeland Northwest Church of Christ 8624 50th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Subject: INVOICE FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AT NORTHWEST CHURCH OF CHRIST Dear Mr. Copeland: Enclosed please find an invoice in the amount of $4,988.50 for the drainage improvements made at the Northwest Church of Christ. I have also included a copy of the change order with specific details on the costs for your fries along with a letter and graphics from the City Engineer. The New Hope City Council approved the change order at their October 25th meeting. As you are aware, a storm sewer pipe was constructed along the easterly edge of the church's parking lot along with the installation of a B612 concrete curb and catch basins to collect drainage from the church parking lot. The additional cost of $4,988.50 over the bid amount of $10,927.00 was agreed to be paid by Northwest Church. Please contact me if you have any questions. The City appreciates your cooperation on this project in conjunction with your planing/subdivision of the property. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/Ib Enclosures: CC; Invoice Engineer's Lener/Change Order Dan Donahue, City Manager Larry Wans, Director of Finance/Administration Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 93-23 Improvement Project File #508 Property File (8624 50th Av. N.). ~ Family Style. City For Family Living 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD Line: 612-531-5100 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: #612-531-515, Police Fax: #6 ~ 1-5 ~ 7. Public Works Fax; #6',. t$3.76& August 9, 1993 Pastor Wilson Copeland Northwest Church of Christ 8624 50th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Subject: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF NORTHWEST CHURCH ADDITION, PLANNING CASE 93-23 Dear Pastor Copeland: Please be advised that on August 9, 1993, the New Hope City Council approved the request for Preliminary Plat approval of Northwest Church Addition, as submitted in Planning Case 93-23, subject to conditions: Comments/recommendations from City Attorney, City Engineer and Building Official be incorporated into the Final Plat. Final Plat be submitted to Planning Commission for review/approval. Per the enclosed "Instructions to Petitioners for Approval of Plats and Subdivision Requests", after the City Council has approved the Preliminary Plat, the petitioner can prepare the Final Plat. The Final Plat must be prepared in accordance with Chapeter 13 of the New Hope Code (also enclosed), and it should incorporate changes required by the Planning Commi~ion and City Council and be submitted to the City within 100 days of Preliminary Plat approval. I would suggest that you schedule a short meeting with the City staff and City Engineer to review the recommendations for the Final Plat prior to starting preparation of the Final Plat. Please contact me at 531-5119 to let me know when you would be available to meet and I will be glad to coordinate the meeting. The Planning Commission next meets on Tuesday, September 7th, and I would request that the Final Plat be submitted to the City no later than Friday, August 20th, if you would like it considered at the September Planning Commi.~sion meeting. Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living -2- If you have questions, please call. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/Ib Enclosures: Plat Instructions Excerpt, Chapter 13' Final Plat CC: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Cam File 93-23~ Property File (8624 50th Avenue North) ,/ MOTION TO TABLE Item 8.4 Item 8.6 New Hope City Council · Page 8 Discussion ensued regarding the benefits of a planting a hedge versus tall trees. It was determined that trees may provide a better screening. Mr. Donahue indicated he wo=ld have to review the state building code or contact'the F.C.C. to clarify the issue regarding approval by a mechanical engineer. He noted it may have been required in Mr. Serber's case since the structure was not new. John Bellows, Attorney and friend.of Mr. Pengelly, and Mike Segalman, an active amateur radio operator in Golden Valley, spoke in support of the communication tower. Mr. Segalman noted he has the same type of HDBX tower ae requeste(t by Mr. Pengelly. He also stated this was the only type, approved by the City of Maple Grove and he suggested the City of New Hope contact Maple Grove to inquire of the basis for their decision. Mr. Bellows also cited two cities, Minnetonka and Edina, both which adopted an ordinance allowing 70' and 65' tower/antenna structures so long as the owner adheres to the manufacturer's specifications for installation. The Council thanked Mr. Pengelly for following the Planning Commission's suggestion to meet with neighbors regarding screening the tower. Mayor Pro tern Enck asked legal counsel to comment. Mr. Marty Malecha, Corrick & Sondrall, explained that the conditional use permit process allowing antennas greater than 35' in height is a valid ordinance and would be upheld. He expressed reservations regarding the engineering requirements from the Inspections Department standpoint. Mr. Malecha alal~ commented on the liability issue indicating that Mr. Pengetty's homeowner's insurance coverage should cover any potential damages caused by the antenna to other properties. It was the consensus of the Council to delay action on the item for two weeks. Motion was made by Councilmember Wehling, seconded by Councilmember Otten, to table Planning Case 93-22 until August 23, 1993. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Pro tern Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.5, Planning Case 93- 23, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Northwest Church Addition, 8624 50th Avenue North (PID #07-118-21-23-0103), Northwest Church of Christ, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated the petitioner is requesting Preliminary Plat aPproval of Northwest Church Addition, pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code, to allow subdivision of the land so that unneeded land can be sold and proceeds used to improve present church building and parking lot. The purpose of the plat is to split off the property on the north with the house on it from the church property on the south. The plat would divide the property into two lots: Lot 1 (52,655 square feet) would contain the existing church, and Lot 2 (21,000 square feet) would contain an existing house and detached garage. It is staff's understanding that the house will be placed for sale. The property slopes minimally down to the north and east from the church building and a drainage problem exists, with water August 9, 1993 RESOLUTION 93-122 Item 8.6 PLANNING CASE 93-24 Item 8.6 New Hope CiW Council Page 9 ponding at the northeast corner of the proposed Lot 1 adjacent to the parking Iot~ The two ~r0PoSed 10ts meet the Zoning Code lot area and width requirements for the R-1 Zoning District, however, the lot areas for the two lots are switched on the preliminary plat and should be corrected. As per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to Department Heads, City Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies, and Hennepin County for review and comment. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at their August 3, 1993, meeting and recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1) Comments/recommendations from City Attorney, City Engineer, and Building Official be incorporated into the Final Plat and 2) Final Plat be submitted to Planning Commission for review/approval. Mr. Bill Eve, member of Church of Christ, was recognized and explained that Tool Products has expressed an interest for acquisition of the property to expand their parking capacity. He indicated before the Church can begin discussions the preliminary work must be completed. He commented that perhaps they can achieve a joint parking arrangement. Mr. Marty Malecha, Assistant City Attorney, pointed out that the legal description needs to be corrected and he expects it will be resolved prior to approval of the final plat. Mr. Mark Hanson, City Engineer, stated a storm sewer is being built along the east line of the plat for 'drainage from the parking lot. There is no perimeter curb along the parking lot. He suggested that perimeter curb be constructed around the parking lot to contain drainage in accordance with City standards. Councilmembe. r Otten introduced the following re~otufion end adoption: RESOLUTION PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NORTH~~J[DDi~ON AT 8624 50TH AVENUE NORTH (PID #07-118-21-23-0103 SUBMITTED BY NORTHWEST CHURCH OF CHRIST". The motion for the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, 0tten, Williamson, Wehling; and the following voted against the s=me: None; Absent: Erickson; whereupon the resplul;ion was duly oassed and adooted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Pro tern Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.6, Planning Case 93- 24, Request for Variance from the 35-foot Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow a Bedroom/Bath Addition, 3233 Gettysburg Court, PID #19-118- 21-23-0081, Bill Kranz/David Pomije, Petitioners. Mr. McDonald stated the petitioner is r .eq~ uasting e 16' variance from the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement re, allow construction of a 28'x18' (504 square feet) master bedroom/bath addition in the rear yard of the property off of the northwest corner of existing structure. The addition will be set back 19 'feet from the north rear yard property line at the closest point, therefore a rear yard variance is being requested. The east end of the edditioct, wiil be more than 31 feet from the property line and trees on adjoining~Properties should help buffer.{he addition. The petitioner states that the shape of the lot/location of the house on the lot make it August 9, 1993 REQUF.~T FOR ACTION originating Department Approved for Agenda A/!enda Section L~veiopment City Manager & Planning Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant By: 8.5 PLANNING CASE 93-23 - REQUEST FORA~LIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR NORTHWEST CHURCH ADDITION, 8624 50TH AVENUE NORTH (PID g07-118-21-23-0103), NORTHWEST CHURCH OF CHRIST, PETITIONER The petitioner is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of Northwest Church Addition, pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code, to allow subdivision of the land so that unneeded land can be sold and proceeds used to improve present church building and parking lot. The purpose of the plat is to split off the property on the north with the house on it from the church property on the south. The plat would divide the property into two lots: Lot 1 (52,655 square feet) would contain the existing church and Lot 2 (21,000 square feet) would contain an existing house and detached garage. It is staff's understanding that the house will be placed for sale. The property slopes minimally down to the north and east from the church building and a drainage problem exists, with water ponding at the northeast corner of the proposed Lot 1 adjacent to the parking lot. The two proposed lots meet the Zoning Code lot area and width requirements for the R-1 Zoning District, however, the lot areas for the two lots are switched on the preliminary plat and should be corrected. As per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to Department Heads, City Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies, and Hennepin County for review and comment. The City Attorney made the following comments/recommendations: A. The legal description needs to be corrected for the east/west measurement. B. The legal description needs to be corrected for the north/south measurement. C. If the property owners do own the underlying fee for the land portions subject to the roadway easements of Boone Avenue North and 40th Avenue North, the plat should be extended to include that underlying fee and contain dedications for the roadway. On the other hand, if the fee to the "street" portion of the property has previously been deeded to the City or County, the proposed handling of the street in this plat is fine. (continued) MOTION BY ~ ~ 9/__. SECOND BY ,~/2~,Z/J'~ ~ Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Planning Case 93-23 August 9, 1993 Page -2- The City Engineer reviewed the plat and made the following comments/recommendations: Co A 10' wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated around the perimeter of the plat. The common lot line between Lots 1 & 2 shall include a 10' wide drainage and utility easement centered over the common lot line. The parking lot does not include perimeter curb. It is suggested perimeter curb be constructed around the parking lot to contain drainage in accordance with City standards. The City is presently in the process of constructing a storm sewer along the east line of the plat to collect drainage from the church parking lot and the adjacent properties to the east. Presently the church's parking lot drains easterly onto the adjacent properties. The City should evaluate if a cash dedication for the storm sewer improvements is justified if the church prefers not to construct the perimeter curb. It should also be noted the bituminous parking lot is in poor condition. The City should evaluate if additional landscaping is required. The shared driveway and access to Boone Avenue by both lots should be reviewed. It is suggested if the Boone Avenue access is to be shared with the church, the access should be upgraded and paved. The Building Official reviewed the plat and made the following additional comments/recommendations: Ao Separate driveways are needed onto Boone Avenue for both lots. Each must be at least 5 feet from the nearest side property line. The existing garage is only 25 feet form the property line, requiring a driveway variance; garage should be turned to west and shifted over to the minimum 5-foot setback, or be attached to the home. A green buffer is needed between the church and the house lot. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at their August 3, 1993, meeting and recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Comments/recommendations from City Attorney, City Engineer, and Building Official 'be incorporated into the Final Plat. 2. Final Plat be submitted to Planning Commission for review/approval. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 93- ! 22 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 93-23 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NORTHWEST CHURCH ADDITION AT 8624 50TH AVENUE NORTH (PID//07-118-21-23-0103) SUBMITTED BY NORTHWEST CHURCH OF CHRIST WHEREAS, the City of New Hope is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of New Hope has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Planning Case No. 93-23 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a preliminary plat of Northwest Church Addition, requested in Planning Case 93-23, as submitted by Northwest Church of Christ. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of New Hope hereby approves the preliminary plat of Northwest Church Addition, subject to the following conditions: Comments/recommendations from City Attorney, City Engineer, and Building Official be incorporated into the Final Plat. Final Plat be submitted to Planning Commission for review/approval. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, on this 9th day of August, 1993. ,/Mayor Attest: City Clerk Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 93-23 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of Northwest Church Addition 8624 50th Avenue North 07-118-21-23-0103 R-1 Northwest Church of Christ July 30, 1993 August 3, 1993 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting Preliminary Plat Approval of Northwest Church Addition, pursuant to Chapter 13 - New Hope Code, to allow subdivision of the land so that unneeded land can be sold and proceeds used to improve present church building and parking lot. The purpose of the plat is to split off the property on the north with the house on it from the church property on the south. The plat would divide the property into two lots: Lot 1 would contain the existing church and Lot 2 would contain the existing house and detached garage. It is staff's understanding that the house would then be placed for sale. The property is located at the northeast intersection of Boone Avenue and 50th Avenue North. The property is located in an R-1 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and is bordered on the east and south (across 50th Avenue) by R-1 single-family homes and is bordered on the north and west (across Boone Avenue) by I-1 Limited Industrial properties. The topography of the property slopes minimally down to the north and east from the church building. A drainage problem exists and water ponds at the northeast corner of the proposed Lot 1 adjacent to the parking lot. As per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to City Department Heads, City Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies, and Hennepin County for review and comment. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. ANALYSIS The total area of the plat is 73,655 square feet or 1.7 acres and the existing parcel has a width of 210 feet on the north/south and a length of 350 feet on the east/west. The plat subdivides the property into two (2) parcels: Lot 1 or "church lot" and LOt 2 or "house lot". The lot area and lot width requirements for the R-1 Single-Family Residential Zoning District are compared below: R-1 Requirement Minimum LOt Area = 9,500 sq.ft. Minimum Lot Width = 75 feet Preliminary Plat Lot 1 (south/church) = 52,655 sq.ft. Lot 2 (north/house) = 21,000 sq.ft. Lot 1 = 210 feet (on 50th Avenue) LOt 2 = 100 feet (on Boone Avenue) The two proposed lots meet the Zoning Code lot area and lot width requirements for the R-1 Zoniag District. The lot areas for the two lots are switched on the preliminary plat and should be corrected. Planning Case Report 93-23 August 4, 1993 Page -2- No comments were received from Hennepin County or utility companies on the plat. The City Attorney reviewed the plat and made the following comments/recommendations: A. The legal description involves the West 250 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. The plat illustration shows a 40-foot street easement plus a proposed platted area 210.04 feet in width. These add up to slightly more than 250 feet. This needs to be resolved, otherwise the owners will be platting slightly more property than they, in fact, own. B. The same situation exists for the north/south measurement. The legal description involves the North 380.66 feet of the property in question. The plat illustration shows a 30-foot street easement adjacent to a property dimension of 350.74 feet. Again, the discrepancy of .08 feet needs to be resolved. In this particular case, however, the additional .08 feet- will be located within the apparent street easement because the measurement begins at the north line of the quarter quarter and goes south from there. C. If the legal description on the preliminary plat is accurate, the property is subject to 50th Avenue North and Boone Avenue North. This language indicates that the owners own the underlying fee for the land portions subject to the roadway easements of Boone Avenue North and 40th Avenue North. If the property owners do own the underlying fee, the plat should be extended to include that underlying fee and contain dedications for the roadways. On the other hand, if the fee to the "street" portion of the property has previously been deeded to the City or County, the proposed handling of the street in this plat is fmc. The title evidence and other documents should provide the answer to this question. Be sure to remind the owners and developers that we will need to see evidence of title before the final plat can be approved. The City Engineer reviewed the plat and made the following comments/recommendations: A. A 10' wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated around the perimeter of the plat. The common lot line between Lots 1 & 2 shall include a 10' wide drainage and utility easement centered over the common lot line. B. The parking lot does not include perimeter curb. It is suggested perimeter curb be constructed around the parking lot to contain drainage in accordance with City standards. The City is presently in the process of constructing a storm sewer along the east line of the plat to collect drainage from the church parking lot and the adjacent properties to the east. Present the church's parking lot drains easterly onto the adjacent properties. Due to low elevations and inadequate grades in this area the stormwater runoff ponds in the back'yards of the properties east of the church. The storm sewer extension from 50th Avenue will eliminate the ponding of stormwater. The storm sewer improvement is intended to be financed solely by the City. The bid amount for the construction of $10,927.00. The City should evaluate if a cash dedication for the storm sewer improvements is justified if the church prefers not to construct the perimeter curb. The estimated cost to construct perimeter curb is $4,000- $6,000. It should also be noted the bituminous parking lot is in poor condition. C. The City should evaluate if additional landscaping is required. Page -3- D. The shared driveway and access to Boone Avenue by both lots should be reviewed. It is suggested if the Boone Avenue access is to be shared with the church, the access should be upgraded and paved. A private easement may be required between the two lots. If the Boone Avenue access is not to be used by the church, the access should be completely separated from the church's parking lot and serve only Lot 2. 6. The Building Official reviewed the plat and made the following comments/recommendations: A. Easements are needed around the perimeter 5 feet on sides and rear, 10 feet on front and streets. B. Separate driveways are needed onto Boone Avenue for both lots. Each must be at least 5 feet from the nearest side property line. NOTE: the existing garage is only 25 feet form the property line, requiring a very tiny care or a driveway variance; garage should be turned to west and shifted over to the minimum 5-foot setback, or be attached to the home. C. Drainage problem is aggravated by church lot runoff, without curbing. City Engineer should evaluate grade change of limited scope storm sewer with some curbing. D.A green buffer is needed between the church and the house lot. E. It is noteworthy to envision other possible Uses for this lot, since the size, zoning and location are "odd": R-2, R-3 zones, higher density based upon 21,000 square feet as transition to industrial use at north. I-1 with house demolition, to be combined with Tool Products lot, increasing their green area (and expansion potential). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat of Northwest Church Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. Comments/recommendations from City Attorney, City Engineer and Building Official be incorporated into the Final Plat. 2. Final Plat be submitted to Planning Commission for review/approval. Attachments: Topo/Secfion/Zoning Maps Preliminary Plat City Attorney Letter City Engineer Letter Building Official "Exhibit A' Plat Review Letter ~:) z Q <3x <3 Q Q lURCH 'CHRIST .2 9]8.8 z o 9~6.3 X 913.8 X 909.4 Oo 7 X Q FAIRVIEW C. ZEALAND k ~3 914.5 AVENUE .920.5 g20. 922 LEd' ~Uf~YEYS COMPANY.. MdC PRELIMINARY PEAT NORTHWEST CHURCH ADDITION CiTY OF N[W HOPE HENN[PIN COUNTY I lOTH AVENUE NO. f~Y)RTHERN H~IG;*ITS ZNO A~)DITICf, I kl I o P.II il./~ CORRICK & SONDRALL ~nb~ ~u~e Office 8525 ~mb~k C~si~ Sm~ ~203 B~ ~ M~n~ 5~3 ~LE~NE (61~ F~ (67~ ~7 LAVONNE E. KE~<E SH4RON O. OERSY July 22, 1993 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401 Xy!on Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Northwest Church Addition Preliminary Plat Our File No: 99.15036 Dear Kirk: BY FACSIMILE I have reviewed the preliminary plat of the proposed Northwest Church Addition. From my review, I note the following: 1. The legal description involves the West 250 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. The p]at illustration shows a 40 foot street easement plus a proposed platted area 210.04 feet in width. These add up to slightly more than 250 feet. This needs to be resolved, otherwise the owners will be platting s]~ghtly more property than they, in fact, own, 2. The same situation exists for the north/south measurement. The legal description involves the North 380.66 feet of the property in question. The plat illustration shows a 30 foot street easement adjacent to a property dimension of 350.74 feet. Again, the discrepancy of .08 feet needs to be resolved. In this particular case, however, the additional .08 feet will be located within the apparent street easement because the measurement begins at the north line of the quarter quarter and goes south from there. 3. If the legal description on the preliminary plat is accurate, the property is subject to 50th Avenue North and Boone Avenue North. This language indicates that the owners own the underlying fee for the land portions subject to the roadway Mr. Kirk McDonald July 22, 1993 Page 2 easements of Boone Avenue North and 50th Avenue North. If the property owners do own the underlying fee, the plat should be extended to include that underlying fee and contain dedications for the roadways. On the other hand, if the fee to the "street" portion of the property has previously been deeded to the City or County, the proposed handling of the streets in this plat is fine. The title evidence and other documents should provide the answer to this question. Be sure to remind the owners and developers that we will need to see evidence of title before the final plat can be approved. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Ma]echa s3t2 cc: Daniel J. Donahue Steven A. Sondra11, Esq. Bonestroo Rosene derlik & Associates Engineers & Architects T~'omas E Noyes. PE July 28, 1993 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Attention: Mr. Kirk McDonald Re: Northwest Church Addition Our File No. 34-Gen Dear Kirk: We have reviewed the above plat and recommend the following: · A 10' wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated around the perimeter of the plat. The common lot line between Lot 1 & 2 shall include a 10' wide drainage and utility easement centered over the common lot line. · The parking lot does not include perimeter curb. It's suggested perimeter curb be constructed around the parking lot to contain drainage in accordance with City standards. The City is presently in the process of constructing a storm sewer along the east line of the plat to collect drainage ~om the Church parking lot and the adjacent properties to the east. Presently the Church's parking lot drains easterly onto the adjacent properties. Due to low elevations and inadequate grades in this area the storm water runoff ponds in the backyards of the properties east of the Church. The. storm sewer extension from 50th Avenue will eliminate the ponding of storm water. The storm sewer improvement is intended to be financed solely by the City. The bid amount for the construction is $10,927.00. The City should evaluate if a cash dedication for the storm sewer improvements is justified if the Church prefers not to construct the perimeter curb. The estimated cost to construct perimeter curb is $4,000-6,000. It should al~o be noted the bituminous parking lot is in poor condition. · The City should evaluate if additional landscaping is requked. · The shared driveway and access to Boone Avenue by both lots should be reviewed. It's suggested if the Boone Avenue access is to be shared with the Church it's recommended 2335 UVest Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 Mr. Kirk McDonald City of New Hope Page 2 the access be upgraded and paved. A private easement maybe required between the two lots. If the Boone Avenue access is not to be used by the Church then the access should be completely separated from the Church's parking lot and serve only Lot 2. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAH:dh 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD L~he: 612-531-5100 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: #612-531.5 Police Fax: #612-531-5 Public Works Fax: #612.533-7~ CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 9, 1993 Hennepin County Department of Transportation Minnegasco Northern States Power Co. U.S. West Telephone King Cable Television New Hope Director of Public Works New Hope Director of Finance/Administrative Services New Hope City Attorney New Hope City Engineer New Hope Building Official Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Preliminary Plat of Northwest Church Addition Enclosed you will find a preliminary plat for Northwest Church Addition. Please review and forward comments t6 me prior to 4:30 n.m. on Friday. July 23rd. 199~. The preliminary plat will be considered by the New Hope Planning Commisiion at their August 3rd, 1993, meeting. If you have question~, please feel free to contact me at 531-5119. Family Styled City ~ Fol' Family Livin~ 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD Line: 612-531-5100 812-531-5109 City Hall Fax: ~¢61~.~$1-5 ! ~ Police Fax: #81 '3 ? -51; Public Works Fax: #61~-533-7~ August 9, 1993 Pastor Wilson Copeland Northwest Church of Christ 8624 50th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Subject: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF NORTHWEST CHURCH ADDITION, PLANNING CASE 93-23 Dear Pastor Copeland: Please be advised that on August 9, 1993, the New Hope City Council approved the request for Preliminary Plat approval of Northwest Church Addition, as submitted in Planning Case 93-23, subject to conditions: Comments/recommendations from City Attorney, City Engineer and Building Official be incorporated into the Final Plat. Final Plat be submitted to Planning Commission for review/approval. Per the enclosed "Instructions to Petitioners for Approval of Plats and Subdivision Requests", after the City Council has approved the Preliminary Plat, the petitioner can prepare the Final Plat. The Final Plat must be prepared in accordance with Chapeter 13 of the New Hope Code (also enclosed), and it should incorporate changes required by the PlanninE Commin~ion and City Council and be submitted to the City within 100 days of Preliminary Plat approval. I would suggest that you schedule a short meeting with the City staff and City Engineer to review the recommendations for the Final Plat prior to starting preparation of the Final Plat. Please contact me at 531-5119 to let me know when you would be available to meet and I will be glad to coordinate the meeting. The Planning Commission next meets on Tuesday, September 7th, and I would request that the Final Plat be submitted to the City no later than Friday, August 20th, if you would like it considered at the September Planning Commission meeting. Family Styled City'~~ For Family Living CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 3, 1993 CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairman Gundershaug called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT ITEMS (3'.1) Present: Absent: Also present: Lifson, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Watschke Zak, Cameron Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant Vice-Chairman Gundershaug announced that the petitioner for Planning Case 93-11, Gethsemane Cemetery Planned Unit Development, has requested the case be tabled for one month so there will be no public hearing on it at the present time and those in the audience to hear that case are free to leave rather than sit through the meeting. He announced that no further notices will be sent so interested persons should make a note to return on Septernl~ 7th. Vice-Chairman Gundershaug introduced the list of Consent Items as listed and stated that all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested by any Commissioner or citizen that an item be removed for discussion. It was clarified that a motion for approval would be subject to conditions requested by staff for each case. Commissioner Sonsin requested that Planning Case 93-12, Science Industry Center 3rd Addition Final Plat, be removed for discussion. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Casen, to aPl:wove all remaining Consent Items listed for Planning Cases 93-20, 93-21, 9~23,93-25, subject to conditions recommended in the individual Planning Case Reports. PC 93-20 PC 93-21 PC 93-2S PC 93-22 (3.2) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW Voting in favor: Lifson, Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundemhaug, Cassen, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Cameron Motion carried. Request for Variance from Driveway Parking Area Setback Requirement to Allow Replacement of Blacktop and Widen Curb Cut, 4301 Nevada Avenue North, James/Verle Fackler, Petitioners Request for Variance to Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Porch, 3601 Xylon Avenue North, Michael Banker, Petitioner, subject to the conditions: 1. Professional detailed plans submitted prior to the City Council meating~. 2. Porctl .design and materials match/blend with existing structure. Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Northwest Church Addition, 8624 50th Avenue North, Northwest Church of Christ, Petitioner, subject to the conditions: 1. Comments/recommendations from City Attorney, City Engineer, and Building Official be incorporated into the Final Plat; 2. Final Plat be submitted to Planning Commission for review/approval. I~equeet 'for Prellminary Plat Approval for Carol James Addition, 7105 62nd Avenue North, Carol James, Petitioner, subject to the conditions: 1. Comments/recommendations from City Attorney, City Engineer, and Building Official be incorporated into the Final Plat; 2. Final Plat be submitted to Planning Commission for review/approval. Vice Chairman Gundershaug informed the petitioners that the City Council will consider their cases individually on August 9, 1993. Planning Case 93-22 was introduced by the Vice-Chairman and Mr. McDonald presented the request for conditional use permit to allow erection of a 60-foot communication support structure and antennas, which include a 48-foot tower with 12-foot antennas, for effeCtive and reliable amateur transmission and reception under New Hope Planning Commission -1- August 3, 1993 Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 94 -07 Request for Variance to Allow Air Conditioning Compressor in the Side Yard 3432 Ensign Avenue North 19-118-21 21 0034 R-1 Michael Stiegler March 28, 1994 April 5, 1994 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a variance to the requirement that air conditioning cooling structures or condensers be located in the rear yard behind the rear building line to allow an air conditioner in the side yard less than five feet from the property lines, Section 4.032(3) - New Hope Code of Ordinances. The purpose of this request is to allow the relocation of an existing air conditioner in the side yard that was displaced by a recent addition on the rear of the home. The petitioner states on the application that if the compressor were located in the rear or opposite (south) side of the house to satisfy code requirements, it would be closer to the bedrooms of both the petitioner and neighbors. The proposed location of the compressor is on the north side of the property along the garage. This relocation then leaves only three feet between the compressor and the property line and City code requires five feet. The property directly to the north has a garage and family room on the side of the house that would be next to the proposed air conditioning compressor. The bedrooms are on the opposite sides of both homes. o The petitioner states in a letter that he is requesting a "variance to allow my air conditioner compressor to be relocated to the north side of my property along the garage. The need to move the compressor arose because of a recently completed addition to our home which took the compressor's old space. The north side of the house is preferable because the compressor will then not be in close proximity to bedrooms in either home as would be the case if the compressor were to be placed at the rear (east) of our house or along the south side of the house. However, by placing the compressor on the preferred north side of the garage there remains under three feet between the compressor and the property line (as is shown in the accompanying diagrams). I am told that code requires a minimum of five feet so the variance is needed. (I am also trying to find a narrower compressor but the difference, if found, is not likely to be more than one foot). Fortunately, the two houses have their garages along the narrower side as shown. Our neighbor has a family room contiguous with the garage but it is further away from the compressor as shown." Planning Case Report 94-07 April 5, 1994 Page 2 5. The specific variances being requested are: A. A two foot variance to the five foot side yard setback requirement to allow an air conditioner three feet from the property line, and B. A variance to allow an air conditioner in the side yard. 6. The home was built in 1965; swimming pool built in 1972; addition built in 1993. 7. The existing structure meets all setback requirements with a 10 foot side yard setback on the south and a five foot side yard garage setback on the north. The property had a 75 foot width/ frontage onto Ensign Avenue and a length of 135 feet, for a total lot area of 10,125 square feet. 10. The property is located in an R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District and is surrounded by single-family land uses on three sides and Sonnesyn Elementary School directly behind the property to the east. The topography of the property slopes downward from a front yard elevation of 961 to 952 at the rear property next to the school property. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and the property owner directly to the north has inquired about the plans and expressed concern about noise from the air conditioning compressor. ANALYSIS 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. Planning Case Report 94-07 April 5, 1994 Page 3 Additional criteria is 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. City Code states that certain structural elements or equipment shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements and air conditioners in rear yards are permitted encroachments. However, air conditioners are not allowed as encroachments in side yards, thus a variance is required. Section 4.032(3) of the Code, "Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment" further states that "no accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may be located in a required side yard except for side yards abutting streets and in such case the equipment shall be fully screened from view. This property is an interior lot and the side yard does not abut a street. In 1992, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve an ordinance amendment to the section of the City Code regulating air conditioner setbacks. The amendment addressed the replacement of air conditioning condensers currently located in side yards as non-conforming uses, not the installation of new units, therefore, the amendment is not applicable to this situation. 7. The City code 4.032(3) has two basic premises behind it: A) Noise problems are serious when sleep disruption occurs and health is impacted. An air conditioner placed between houses with bedrooms adjacent is a formula for conflict. The time to consider noise is before placing the noise source. With nearby adjacent buildings and a noise source on the ground, there is the potential for both direct and reflected noise. I5) Aesthetic problems with equipment viewed from the front street as unsightly. This matter is routine to solve with shrubbery or a decorative fence between the equipment and the street. Similar requests for side yard air conditioners have been approved in the past as long as bedrooms were not located nearby on the adjacent wall facing the equipment. This particular situation involves a neighbor's family room approximately 12 feet away. Planning CaSe Report 94-07 April 5, 1994 Page 4 Staff feels that perhaps the petitioner's request can be accommodated and the neighbor's concerns addressed with the installation of an acoustical barrier around the air conditioner. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a minor setback variance and a variance to the requirement that air conditions be located in the rear yard to allow the unit to be located in the side yard if the petitioner agrees to the following conditions: A) Submit detailed plans for an "acoustical barrier" to be installed along the north side of the equipment that is substantial enough to eliminate direct noise and substantially reduce the indirect noise at the property line, compared to a normal air conditioning installation. B) Agree to install and maintain the barrier within 14 days of the air conditioning installation. c) Agree to meet with the City Building Official and the neighbor to discuss the plan for the noise barrier and its paint/stain colors at least 14 days prior to the installation. (NOTE: ACOUSTICAL WALLS ARE SOLID AND DENSE, SUCH AS 2" X 6" Tongue & Groove Cedar or heavier. The bottom will be buried in the soil several inches and the top will be five or six feet tall to deflect most of the noise upward.) D) Add two 18 inch shrubs (lilac or spirea) six to ten feet west of air conditioning unit. Attachments: Zoning/Topo/Section Maps Petitioner Letter Survey Petitioner Site Plan Staff Extfibits A, B and C 1992 Code Amendment NOR'THWOO0 PARK NORTHWOOD PARK NORTHWOOD PARK SCHOOL HIODER VALLEY PARK R.4 ~SUNNY P, OLLI~W SCHO0~ 1=, I~K B.4 TH N. ST. JOSEII~'$ ~ATNOLIC CHURCH SONNESYN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HIDDEN VALLEY PARK X'~ 964. 960.6 ~ ~C 969 X 955.2 X × 969.8 __974.9 X X 967.4 976 2 :X 966,9 961.2 ~ 961.6 977.1 971.8\~/ Michael Stiegler New Hope, March 10, 1994 Planning Commission and New Hope City Council City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. N. New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Madams and Sirs: Enclosed is my application for a setback variance to allow my air conditioner compressor to be relocated to the north side of my property along the garage. The need to move the compressor arose because of a recently completed addition to our home which took the compressor's old space. The north side of the house is preferable because the compressor will then not be in close proximity to bedrooms in either home as would be the case if the compressor were to be placed at the rear (east) of our house or along the south side of the house. However, by placing the compressor on the preferred north side of the garage there remains under three feet between the compressor and the property line (as is shown in the accompanying diagrams). I am told that code requires a minimum of five feet so the variance is needed. (I am also trying to find a narrower compressor but the difference, if found, is not likely to be more than one foot.) Fortunately, the two houses have their garages along the narrower side as shown. Our neighbor has a family room contiguous with the garage but it is further away from the compressor as shown. I am sorry to take the time of the planning commission and the city council for such a mundane request. I appreciate your consideration. Sincerely yours, _,~.....P. .~.~ _ Michael Stiegler ,4~.~. ~o. "a~s ENGINEERS AND ~URVEYORc: MADSON CARLISLE MAOSON ~' RlrOllT~lqKI3 I. AND 5URV~'YOR · MINN, NO, 4374 SO. OAK. WIS. NO, IOW4. NO, 37OS · .o.T..o.,.,... CERTIFICATE OF' SURVEY :o,,..... N. NST UCT, .,ur, .' 1 CER:U~-y THAT I ' " · ~, .,.' · · AM THE PROPER b~ ~ - .. ...... ~,~., ..S~ .;- , . ~-: I~.~ --- - .... WE;HER£BY CERTir-Y-TH-AT-THi.a,-ig-~-y~UE G~D"¢O~R~C;T ~r-"I=~$£NTAT,ON O~ A SURVEY O~' THE BOI;INDARIES OF: ..... 'AND OF THE LO~ATION. OF ALL BUILDINGS, IF ANY,..THE~E~:'AND. ALL VI$1BL~ ~CROACHMENTS IF" ANY, FROM OR ON SAID ~ND." '~ ..t~ ........... ~ -- ' AS ~URVEYED BY .US THIS · , ~ ,' DAY OF g~D~ ' l CERTIFY THAT I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND THAT THIS ":'"'"'--Pills Guat'i.,'-'i c Ai~D DATE I; ~ ? Propo8~ i ~Windows ' i PROPOSED NOISE BARRIER 6~ h~.gh 2" x 6" t & 8; cedar 4m x 4' posts @ 36" ORDINANCE NO. 92- 17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 4.032 (3)(i) REGULATING AIR CONDITIONER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.032 (3) (i) "Air Conditioners" of the New'Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (i) Air Conditioners. ~:c accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers (ground mounted) which generate noise .,mc7 shall be located in rear yards behind the rear building line. Air conditioning cooling structures or condensers located within a required side yard ...... ' ~-- -~ ..... ~- f'Jlly ;=r;;n~d from vl;w at the effective date of this section may lawfully continue and may. be replaced at such a location provided the following conditions are met: (i) The cooling structure or condenser shall not produce noise levels contrary to §§9.423 and 9.424 of this Code. (i i ) The cool lng st ructure or condenser shal 1 be screened by landscaping, rendering it concealed property. fencing, OK other means from view from adjacent (iii) The cooling structure or condenser shall not lie within a required drainage and/or utility easement. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the 23rd day of November , 1992. Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk Edw. ,~'. ~Erickson, Mayor (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the December , 1992.) .,' 2nd day of 4.032 (g) ~araaa end On-Site Parktna S~,~-. NO Permit shall be iseued atructure for each dwelling. Each applicant for a bu~ldtng to conatruct any dwelling shall be required to provtd® off-e~rae: Dirking IplCI for at lilac automobile par family to addition to any garIge IplCa to bi uaad. Every dwi11tng unt.: hereafter erected Iha11 be io locltad on the lot IQ s two car garage; either attached or detached, can (h) Limit on Numbtrm. Each lot eh&11 I~ limited to one aGGeaeor). building in addition to an acceisory glraga. (Code 07~e84, Ord. 84-3) ~ir Condittonerm. ACCtllOry umaa or equipment ~uch mm air onditioning cooling mtructurea or conUInStrl (ground mounted) which generate notea shall be located in rear yardi behind Chi rear building line. Air conditioning cooling m~ructuree or condensers located within a required aide yard at the effective eection may lawfully continue and may be replaced mt auch location provided the following condtttonm ara met: (t) The cooling atructura or condanear shall not produce noiee levale contrary to 11~.423 and g.424 of thta Coda. (ii) The cooltng etructure or condanaar ahall be acreanad by landacaDtng, fencing, or Other maine rendering ,~: concealed from view from adjacent property. (iii) The cooling etructure or condenear shall not lie within required drainage and/or uttlity (Code 072ea4, ord. E4-3~ (j) Communication Racaotton/Tr&nemtllion Device-. Satellttt Oiahea, television and radio antennae and other communication transmisaion/rec®ption dlvlctl &ri permitted accessory uaes within all zoning dte~rtcta, provided they meet the following ¢onditiona: (i) bll~. The communication device height shall not exceed twenty feat from ground level. (tt) Yardi. The communication device shall not be located within the required front yard ee:back or aide yard macback abutting a a~raa~. (iii) l~. Zf vegetation or obeCructtons interferewit~ satellite miEn&la a: a location in any allowable olacemen: area, the communication device may be placed on the roof of any authorized atructura on the pramisea. (iv) 8e~be~ke. The height of the communication device may exceed ftva feet above the ~ask of the roof only by conottionel usa permit. Communication devices ehall be located fivl felt or more from sll lot ltnea of adjoining lore and s~all not be loci:ed within & utility easement. o7268ze Currently, City code requires that monuments be recorded on the plat and proof of the monumentation be provided as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. Monuments are the pipes or steel stakes placed at lot corners defining lot boundaries. He explained that there may be some merit to the revision, because grading and utility operations make it difficult, if not impossible, to prevent some monuments 'from being disturbed. The City Planner, City Attorney, and County~ Surveyor's Office have reviewed and commented regarding the ordinance amendment. The amendment allows a delay in the placing of monuments if specific written approval is obtained from the City. The City has the authority to require a security deposit for the monument installation. No lot can be sold or building permit issued until the monuments are in place. The Council inquired of the monitoring method. Mr. McDonald stated the City may require the developer to post security of 150% of the cost of any monument installation for delayed monuments. He stated prior to setting of any monuments, the developer shall obtain written approval from the City for any delay in monumentation, including the specific time delay and the specific monumentation to be delayed. A copy of this written approval shall be sent to the County Surveyor's Office. For any lot affected by delayed monumentation, no building permit will be issued, and no conveyance of said lot shall be allowed until all monuments are in place and certified by a land surveyor. ORDXNANCE 92-16 Item 8.1 Councilmember Enck introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: 'AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE COOE SECTXON 13.073 RELATING TO PLACEMENT OF MONUMENTS.' The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and upon vote being taken thereof; the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, L'Herault, Williamson, Otten; and the following voted against the same: None; Absent: None; whereupon the ordinance was declared dul.y passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Planning Case g2-2g, Ordinance No. 92-17, An Ordinance AXR CONDITXONER SETBACKS ~mending New Hope Code Section 4.032(3)(i) Regulating Air Item 8.2 //Conditioner Setback Requirements. ~_~j~J/ Mr. McDonald explained that the Council had directed staff New Hope City Council November 23, 1992 Page 2 OROINANCE ~2-17 Ite~ 8.2 GROUNDWATEt~ PLAN Item 8.3 * New Hope City Council Page 3 to review the ,/city code regarding side yard air conditioners. The existing code states: "No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may be located in a required side yard except for side yards abutting streets and in such case the equipment shall be fully screened from view". He stated every time a homeowner desires replacement of an air conditioning unit which is located in his side yard, a variance application is required. The intent of the ordinance amendment is to not force homeowners who want to replace/update existing air conditioning units located in side yards to make application for a variance, but instead to allow side yard units currently in existence to remain in place and be replaced (subject to certain conditions}. The intent of the ordinance prohibiting the location of air conditioning cooling structures or condensers within side yards is generally to limit potential adverse impacts of air conditioning units upon neighboring properties (noise and visual concerns). The amendment would only apply to units currently in existence; all new units would still be required to be located in the rear yard. To limit adverse impacts, the following conditions would have to be met: 1) the air conditioner must not produce noise levels contrary to 9.423 and 9.424 of the code; 2) the air conditioning unit must be screened by landscaping, fencing, or other means rendering it concealed from view from adjacent property; and 3) the air conditioner must not lie within required drainage and/or utility easements. Councilmember Enck introduced the following ordinance and, moved its adoption: 'AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 4.032(3)(t) REGUIJ~TIND AIR CONDITIONER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.' The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Councilmember Wtlliamson, and upon vote being taken thereof; the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, L'Herault, Williamson, Otten; and the following voted against the same: None; Absent: None; whereupon the ordinance was declared duly oassed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 8.3, Discussion Concerning Extension of Review Period for Hennepin County Groundwater Plan. Mr. Donahue, City Manager, stated the final draft of the Hennepin County Groundwater Plan has been submitted to the November 23, 1992 Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 94-06 Request for PUD Rezoning 2775 Winnetka (7901 28th Avenue North) 19-118-21 44 0065 R-1 Paul T. Wrobel, D.D.S. March 28, 1994 April 5, 1994 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting to rezone his property from an R-i, Single Family Residential Zoning District, to a PUD, Planned Unit Development, Zoning District, pursuant to Section 4.19 of the New Hope Code. The purpose of the PUD application is to allow a mixed use office/residential development on the site, with office occupancy on the lower level and residential on the upper level. The PUD would allow the existing use to remain in effect (residential/rental on the upper level) with a possible expansion of the office on the lower level within the confines of the existing structure. The petitioner is proposing to rezone his property located on the southwest comer of 28th Avenue North and Winnetka Avenue from R-l, Single Family Residential to Planned Unit Development Zoning District. This rezoning would allow a mixture of residential and commercial uses. Specifically, the structure in question would contain a residential living space on the first floor and an office of dentistry on the lower floor. The petitioner received a special use permit in 1963 that permitted a dentist office on the lower level of his house. At that time, a special use permit would allow dentistry as a home occupation. Currently, the employee count exceeds the City's home-occupational standards and the property owner does not reside on the site. Therefore, this particular use has become an illegal non-conforming use, thus the need to redesignate this property in order to bring it into compliance with current City regulations. In the fall of 1993, the petitioner submitted a request to rezone the property from an R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District, to an R-O, Residential Office, Zoning District. On December 7th the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the rezoning request to the City Council for the following reasons: A) The current zoning designation does not represent a past zoning mistake, based on the City's Comprehensive Plan, surrounding land use patterns and past use of the property. The property was properly designated for R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning. Planning Case Report 94-06 April 5, 1994 Page 2 B) The existence of the dental office has not changed the character of the site significantly enough to warrant a change in zoning, as there has not been a significant change in land use since the 1975 Comprehensive Plan. c) While the present dental office use in a portion of the existing building has blended well with the neighborhood, a rezoning to R-O to allow total professional occupancy of the building could have a significant impact on the neighborhood if the present building was demolished and a new office was constructed that was not compatible with the neighborhood. D) If rezoned to R-O, a variety of R-O uses could occupy the site, including medical, professional and commercial retail uses. It is questionable whether the site can adequately meet all the zoning requirements for an R-O Zoning District, including parking, loading berth, screening, etc. F) The purpose of the R-1 District is to provide for low density single family detached dwellings and the purpose of the R-O District is to provide for high density residential use and for the transition in land use from mid density residential to low intensity business allowing for the intermixing of such uses. The Commission felt that any commercial use or activity associated with the site that would be oriented toward the residential neighborhood, on 28th Street would be incompatible with character of the area. In January and February 1994, the City Council met to consider the applicant's request to rezone his property from R-I, Single Family Residential to R-O, Residential Office District, for the purpose of converting his entire home into a dental facility. The request was denied in order to prevent the expansion of a commercial use in a residential area and for similar reasons outlined in Resolution 94-22. At the time of the denial the Council requested that the staff research and present alternate zoning options that would not allow total office occupancy, but would allow the existing split use to remain. The staff presented the following options: A) Rezone to a PUD District, which would allow the existing mixed use to remain, but not expand. B) Rezone to an R-2 District, with the entire building being converted to residential dwelling space. c) Rezone to an R-2 District and amend the City Code to allow a dental office in the R-2 Zone by conditional use permit. Planning Case Report 94-06 April 5, 1994 Page 3 D) Amend the R-1 District to allow dental offices as a conditional use permit. E) Make no changes and enforce the Code as written. o Several Council members indicated that they would consider supporting a rezoning to a PUD District, thus this application. The applicant has returned to the City after reviewing several options presented by City Officials and staff on ways to accommodate the property's current use. It is the applicant's desire to redesignate his property to PUD, to allow the continuance of its residential and commercial mixed use character. The existing parcel, located at the southwest intersection of Winnetka and 28th Avenue, contains 16,440 square feet and the home/office contains 1,150 square feet per floor for a total square footage of 2,300 square feet. The existing structure meets setback requirements, being set back 35 feet from 28th Avenue and 50 feet from Winnetka. The site contains eight parking spaces, four in the driveway off of 28th Avenue and four in the drive/parking lot off of Winnetka. 10. Surrounding land uses/zoning include B-4 Community Business District (Midland Shopping Center) to the south, R-2 Single and Two Family Residential (duplexes) to the west, R-1 Single Family Residential to the north across 28th Avenue, and R-1 Single Family Residential directly east across Winnetka Avenue. Note that there is R-O Zoning at the southeast intersection of Winnetka Avenue and Terra Linda Drive. The petitioner's property has been zoned R-1 since 1956. 11. The topography of the property slopes steeply from the northwest comer downward to all other comers approximately eight feet. 12. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified of this new rezoning request and staff have received no comments on the request to date. ANALYSIS The Planning Consultant has prepared the enclosed report on the request and will be present at the Commission meeting to review the issues and answer questions. Following are excerpts from past and current reports from the Planning Consultant on this issue. The City has ordinance language that does accommodate a mixed land use development. Section 4.19 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance is the Planned Unit Development District (PUD). The purpose of this district is as follows: 4.191 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section of the Zoning Code is to provide for the grouping of land parcels for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by Planning Case Report 94-06 April 5, 1994 Page 4 parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and unplanned approach to development. This section is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of buildings and activities. It is further intended that Planned Unit Developments are to be characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture, joint or common use parking, maintenance of open space and other similar facilities, and harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. Through the PUD zoning, the City may permit the mixed use office/residential development on the site. The uses may be limited in size and scope through an approved PUD site plan and enforced through a PUD agreement. The PUD is a zoning mechanism that allows for terms of approval to be negotiated and contractually defined. Through the PUD Zoning District, the City can be geographic and land use specific in its control of the proposed use. The City has not used the PUD Zoning District in the past. Rather, the PUD/CUP has been used for shopping centers and apartment complexes where all the land uses are permitted in the base zoning district. If the City wishes to accommodate the Wrobel land use arrangement, staff feels that the City's PUD Zoning District currently would accommodate the mixed land use arrangement. Additionally, this zoning mechanism does provide the City with control over the land use types, location, size and scope. In evaluating any change in land use and rezoning, New Hope uses the following criteria for determining the appropriateness of the rezoning request: Mistake in Zoning. The City may approve a rezoning request if it is determined that the rezoning is necessary to correct a past zoning mistake. Based on the Comprehensive Plan, surrounding land use patterns and the past use of the property, staff finds that the subject property was properly designated for R-i, Single Family Residential zoning. It is apparent that the current R-1 zoning designation does not represent a past zoning mistake. Change in Character. The site and surrounding properties have developed a pattern consistent with the 1976 Comprehensive Plan. There has not been significant change in land use since the Comprehensive Plan was completed. The 1963 special use permit was issued to allow for the establishment of the dentist office within the existing single family home. Subsequent use has evolved in violation of the home occupation requirements. However, it has remained compatible and has contributed to the character of the neighborhood. Application of the PUD will maintain its character and provide consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Case Report 94-06 April 5, 1994 Page 5 It is the applicant's desire to allow residential and commercial uses at one location, therefore, a PUD zoning will be necessary to permit the integration of uses. The purpose of a mixed use PUD is to provide flexibility of site design to coordinate uses into a harmonious and efficient use of space. A PUD zoning will permit a residential/office development on the site. This use may be limited in size and scope, and enforced through a PUD development agreement contract. The 1976 Comprehensive Plan indicates that the tier of lots abutting the south side of 28th street' should be developed as medium density residential uses. The area south of the site is designated for commercial land uses recognizing the Midland Shopping Center. The site in question was established prior to the 1976 Comprehensive Plan. The combination single family and dental office raises the issue as to the appropriate use of the site. The single family use relates to the residential neighborhood along 28th Street. The dental office is an extension of the commercial activities along Winnetka Avenue, thus providing a transitional zone between commercial and residential uses. Through the use of the PUD, the existing use can continue to operate in the same size and intensity. In evaluating the Comprehensive Plan policies (outlined in the attached report), it would appear that the emphasis is on maintaining and enhancing the existing residential neighborhood. The Policy Plan also discourages the further expansion of commercial zoning. Under these guidelines, the proposed rezoning does not alter or intensify current land uses. In evaluating any rezoning, the City must consider the impact the zoning change will have on existing, as well as future land use compatibility. The current land use of this property is single family residential on the first floor (rental) and office (dentistry) on the lower floor. The combination of residential/office has existed since 1963 and compatible with the surrounding land uses. However, this does not conform with the Zoning Ordinance due to the fact the employees do not reside on the premises. Through the PUD zoning and subsequent development agreement with the City, an assurance will be provided that the proposed use is compatible with the area. Performance standards within such an agreement will be imposed to ensure land use compatibility. The PUD will also allow the conversion of the entire property to residential use in accordance with the regulations associated with the R-2 District. 10. Mixed use performance standards will be imposed within the PUD development agreement, which will be drafted by the City Attorney. Specific requirements applicable to the residential and commercial use components are listed below: A) Residential Uses. 1) Street Access. Access to first floor living area will be restricted to 28th Avenue. As a part of the PUD, access or entrances shall not be shared by the Planning Case Report 94-06 April 5, 1994 Page 6 upper or lower levels. 2) Off-Street Parking. First floor parking will be accommodated solely by the driveway/garage area fronting 28th Avenue. B) Commercial Uses. 1) Structural Expansion. Commercial expansion will be limited to the lower level, which is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan that prevents the intensification of land use. 2) Employees. Home occupation standards do not allow employees other than those living on the premises. A PUD would not place any restrictions on the number of people the office may employ. 3) Trash. As noted on the submitted site plan, all trash handling activities are to occur within the principal building. As such, trash screening requirements are not considered applicable. 4) Loading. It must be demonstrated that semi-trailer truck deliveries will not occur at the site or all deliveries will occur at such a time as to not conflict with customer or employee access to the building and parking demand. 5) Lighting. The submitted site plan makes note that no exterior lighting is to be provided on site. 6) Signage. If new or additional signage is to be erected as part of the dental office expansion, all such signs must comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. 7) Parking Lot Circulation. While an adequate number of off-street parking stalls have been proposed, some concern exists in regard to parking lot circulation and stall accessibility. As a condition of site and building plan approval, all off-street parking stalls must be positioned so as not to prohibit access to any stall. 8) Dimensional Requirements. All proposed off-street parking stalls have been found to meet minimum required stall (8'-9" x 19') and drive aisle (24') dimensions. 9) Street Access. The lower floor office space will be accessed from Winnetka Avenue. As a part of the PUD, access or entrances shall not be shared by the upper or lower levels. Planning Case Report 94-06 April 5, 1994 Page 7 10) Off-Street Parking. The Zoning Ordinance requires that professional offices must provide three off-street parking spaces plus at least one space for each 200 square feet of floor area. The dental office contains 1,201 square feet of floor space. This will require nine parking stalls, which must include one disability parking stall that is van accessible. Currently the site provides ten parking stalls. This excludes the driveway/garage area in which office parking is not permitted. 11) The proposed PUD rezoning of the subject property for residential/office use is viewed positively, given its compatibility with surrounding uses, and its avoidance of land use intensification. The site exists in size and intensity in 1963, as it does today. Through the application of a PUD Zoning District, the City will be able to bring this property into conformity with City codes, and protect future land use compatibility concerns by establishing performance standards via a development contract. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a rezoning from R-l, Single Family Residential, to a PUD, Planned Unit Development Zoning District, subject to the following conditions: 1. Residential. A) B) c) D) E) The first floor will retain residential use/occupancy. Residential access must be obtained from 28th Avenue. Parking will be restricted to the driveway and garage area. Access or entrance will not be shared with commercial use. Furore land use conversion to residential may include single or two family residential. 2. Commercial. A) B) C) D) E) F) Commercial land use to be limited to lower floor of building. No expansion of use to the first floor. Commercial access must be obtained from Winnetka Avenue. All commercial parking provided on site with access from Winnetka Avenue. No commercial parking will be allowed on 28th Avenue. No commercial parking will be allowed on 28th Avenue or residential driveway/garage area. The off-street parking lot is revised to illustrate one handicap parking stall that is van accessible, as required by State law. The proposed off-street parking configuration is revised so that all off-street parking stalls are fully accessible at all times. In no case may parked vehicles block access to other designated off-street parking stalls. The applicant must demonstrate that the property does not require a loading berth. Planning Case Report 94-06 April 5, 1994 Page 8 G) H) ~) J) K) Provide a trash enclosure. No exterior lighting. Any new on-site signage comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. Employees are not required to reside on premises. No restrictions placed on the number of employees, provided that all parking standards are met. The applicant shall enter into a PUD development agreement with the City, to be prepared by the City Attorney. Attachments: 3/23/94 Planner's Report: PUD Rezoning Zoning Map Site Plan Survey 3/11/94 Letter to Petitioner 2/14/94 Council Request Resolution Denying Rezoning 2/11/94 Planner's Report Petitioner's Letter 12/3/93 Planner's Report Site Photos 10/27/93 Planner's Report 10/1/63 Planning Commission Minutes 11/5/63 City Council Minutes 11/12/63 City Council Minutes 11/12/93 Letter to Petitioner 11/5/93 Planner's Report 12/16/93 Letter to Petitioner 2/14/94 City Council Minutes 2/15/94 Letter to Petitioner 1/13/94 Letter to Petitioner 1/10/94 City Council Minutes 12/16/93 Letter to Petitioner 1/10/94 Council Request 12/7/93 Planning Commission Minutes 11/2/93 Planning Commission Minutes U R B PL A N NG D N · MAR K E R ES E A RC H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Stuart Roberson/Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius 23 March 1994 New Hope -Wrobel PUD Rezoning 131.01 - 94.06 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Paul Wrobel has submitted a request to rezone his property located on the southwest corner of 28th Avenue North and Winnetka Avenue from R-I, Single Family Residential to Planned Unit Development Zoning District. This rezoning would allow a mixture of residential and.commercial uses. Specifically, the structure in question would contain a residential living space on the first floor and an office of dentistry on the lower floor. Mr. Wrobel received a special use permit in 1963 that permitted a dentist office on the lower level of his house. At that time, a special use permit would allow dentistry as a home occupation. Currently, the employee count exceeds the City's home occupational standards and the property owner does not reside on the site. Therefore, this particular use has become an illegal non-conforming use, thus the need to redesignate this property in order to bring it into compliance with current City regulations. On 14 February 1994, the City 'Council met to consider the applicant's request to rezone his property from R-l, Single Family Residential to R-O, Residential Office District, for the purpose of converting his entire home into a dental facility. However, this request was denied in order to prevent the expansion of a commercial use in a residential area. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416 · (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 The applicant has returned to the City after reviewing several options presented by City Officials and staff, on ways to accommodate the property's current use. It is the applicant's desire to redesignate his property to PUD, to allow the continuance of its residential and commercial mixed use character. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Zoning Exhibit C - 1976 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Exhibit D - Site Plan Recommendation The City has found the site exists in size and intensity in 1963, as it does today. Through the application of a PUD Zoning District, the City will be able to bring this property into conformity with City codes, and protect future land use compatibility concerns by establishing performance standards via a development contract. If the PUD zoning is found acceptable, we recommend approval subject to the following conditions: Residential. 1. The first floor will retain residential use/occupancy. 2. Residential access must be obtained from 28th Avenue. 3. Parking will be restricted to the driveway and garage area. 4. Access or entrance will not be shared with commercial use. Future land use conversion to residential may include single or two family residential. Commercial. Commercial land use to be limited to lower floor of building. No expansion of use to the first floor. Commercial access must be obtained from Winnetka Avenue. Ail commercial parking provided on site with access from Winnetka Avenue. No commercial parking will be allowed on 28th Avenue or residential driveway/garage area. The off-street parking lot is revised to illustrate one handicap parking stall that is van accessible, as required by State law. 2 The proposed off-street parking configuration is revised so that all off-street parking stalls are fully accessible at all times. In no case may parked vehicles block access to other designated off-street parking stalls. The applicant must demonstrate that the property does not require a loading berth. 7. Provide a trash enclosure. 8. No exterior lighting. Any new on-site signage comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. 10. Employees are not required to reside on premises. No restrictions placed on the number of employees, provided that all parking standards are met. 11. The applicant shall enter into a PUD development agreement with the City. ISSUES ANALYSIS Judgement Criteria In evaluating any change in land use and rezoning, New Hope uses the following criteria for determining the appropriateness of the rezoning request: Mistake in Zoninq. The City may approve a rezoning request if it is determine that the rezoning is necessary to correct a past zoning mistake. Based on the Comprehensive Plan, surrounding land use patterns and the past use of the property, we find that the subject property was properly designated for R-l, Single Family Residential zoning. It is apparent that the current R-1 zoning designation does not represent a past zoning mistake. Chanqe. in Character. The site and surrounding properties have developed a pattern consistent with the 1976 Comprehensive Plan. There has not been significant change in land use since the Comprehensive Plan was completed. The 1963 special use permit was issued to allowed for the establishment of the dentist office within the existing single family home. Subsequent use has evolved in violation of the home occupation requirements. However, it has remained compatible and has contributed to the character of the neighborhood. Application of the PUD will maintain its character and provide consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Planned Unit Development It is the applicant's desire to allow residential and commercial uses at one location, therefore, a PUD zoning will be necessary to permit the integration of uses. The purpose of a mixed use PUD is to provide flexibility of site design to coordinate uses into a harmonious and efficient use of space. A PUD zoning will permit a residential/office development on the site. This use may be limited in size and scope, and enforced through a PUD development agreement contract. Comprehensive Plan The 1976 Comprehensive Plan indicates that the tier of lots abutting the south side of 28th Street should be developed as medium density residential uses. The area south of the site is designated for commercial land uses recognizing the Midland Shopping Center. The site in question was established prior to the 1976 Comprehensive Plan. The combination single family and dental office raises the issue as to the appropriate use of the site. The single family use relates to the residential neighborhood along 28th Street. The dental office is an extension of the commercial activities along Winnetka Avenue, thus providing a transitional zone between commercial and residential uses. Through the use of the PUD, the existing use can continue to operate in the same size and intensity. In consideration of the Land Use Plan, the City must consider the Comprehensive Plan land use goals and policy statements intended to guide land use decisions. The following land use goals and policies are applicable to the current request. Land Use Goals. Develop a cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatibility and functional relationships among activities. Establish planning districts within the community based upon homogeneous or compatible land use characteristics and/or division of physical barriers. Prevent over-intensification of land use development. In other words, development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities (utilities, parking, access, etc.). 4 · Preserve and protect property values. Land Use Policies. Ensure that intensification of land use activity and development is accompanied by sufficient corresponding increases in related supportive and service facilities such as off-street parking. Accomplish transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses in an orderly fashion which does not create a negative (economic, social or physical) impact on adjoining developments. Protect integrated use districts (e.g. residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, industrial park) from penetration by through traffic. Where through traffic problems are identified, correct such problems as opportunities arise. Residential Goals/Policies. Provide safe, healthy and attractive residential environments which offer a broad and full choice of housing types. Maintain and where necessary, strengthen the character of individual neighborhoods. Co~ercial Goals/Policies. Strongly discourage any further spot or uncoordinated linear commercial development in favor of a unified development pattern. When opportunities arise, consolidate existing spot and uncoordinated linear commercial development into more functional patterns. Ensure that development of any scattered open parcels along existing co~f~ercial strips is accomplished in a fashion which helps to establish more functional development patterns (for example, utilizing shared access and parking, etc.). In evaluating the Comprehensive Plan policies, it would appear that the emphasis is on maintaining and enhancing the existing residential neighborhood. The Policy Plan also discourages the further expansion of commercial zoning. Under these guidelines, the proposed rezoning does not alter or intensify current land uses. 5 Land Use Compatibility In evaluating any rezoning, the City must consider the impact the zoning change will have on existing, as well as future land use compatibility. The current land use of this property is single family residential on the first floor (rental) and office (dentistry) on the lower floor. The combination of residential/ office has existed since 1963 and compatible with the surrounding land uses. However, this does not conform with the Zoning Ordinance due to the fact the employees do not reside on the premises. The following reviews the purpose of a PUD zoning along with an inventory of surrounding land uses. Surrounding Uses. When considering a rezoning request, it is beneficial to examine whether or not the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use. The following is a listing of adjacent land use and zoning designations: Direction Land Use Zoning North Single Family Residential R-l, Single Family South Retail Business B-4, Commercial Business Northeast Low Density Residential R-2, Single and Two Residential East Single Family Residential R-l, Single Family Southeast Limited Business R-O, Residential Office West Low Density Residential R-2, Single and Two- Family Residential Via the PUD zoning and subsequent development agreement with the City, an assurance will be provided that the proposed use is compatible with the area. Performance standards within such an agreement will be imposed to ensure land use compatibility. The PUD will also allow the conversion of the entire property to residential use in accordance with the regulations associated with the R-2 District. Performance Standards Mixed use performance standards will be imposed within the PUD development agreement. Specific requirements applicable to the residential and commercial use components are listed below: Residential Uses. Street Access. Access to first floor living area will be restricted to 28th Avenue. As a part of the PUD, access or entrances shall not be shared by the upper or lower levels. Off-Street Parking. First floor parking will be accommodated solely by the driveway/garage area fronting 28th Avenue. Commercial Uses. Structural Expansion. Commercial expansion will be limited to the lower level, which is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan that prevents the intensification of land use. ~ployees. Home occupation standards do not allow employees other than those living on the premises. A PUD would not place any restrictions on the number of people the office may employ. Trash. As noted on handling activities building. As such, considered applicable. the submitted site plan, all trash are to occur within the principal trash screening requirements are not Loading. It must be demonstrated that semi-trailer truck deliveries will not occur at the site or all deliveries will occur at such a time as to not conflict with customer or employee access to the building and parking demand. Lighting. The submitted site plan makes note that no exterior lighting is to be provided on site. Signage. If new or additional signage is to be erected as part of the dental office expansion, all such signs must comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. Parking Lot Circulation. While an adequate number of off- street parking stalls has been proposed, some concern exists in regard to parking lot circulation and stall accessibility. As a condition of site and building plan approval, all off- street parking stalls must be positioned so as not to prohibit access to any stall. Dimensional Requirements. Ail proposed off-street parking stalls have been found to meet minimum required stall (8'-9" x 19') and drive aisle (24') dimensions. Street Access. The lower floor office space will be accessed from Winnetka Avenue. As a part of the PUD, access or entrances shall not be shared by the upper or lower levels. Off-Street Parking. The Zoning Ordinance requires that professional offices must provide three off-street parking spaces plus at least one space for each 200 square feet of floor area. The dental office contains 1,201 square feet of floor space. This will require nine parking stalls, which must include one disability parking stall that is van accessible. Currently the site provides ten parking stalls. This excludes the driveway/garage area in which office parking is not permitted. CONCLUSION The proposed PUD rezoning of the subject property for residential/ office use is viewed positively, given its compatibility with surrounding uses, and its avoidance of land use intensification. It is for this reason we recommend approval of a PUD rezoning to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. pc: Doug Sandstad Dan Donahue Paul Wrobel 8 ESTION. 'City of New Hope SING~ FLMI/.T R[$i0£NTIAL ~-I MEOW ~NSITY ~ESID~NT~ ~-3 R~SID[NTIAL 0FFIC[ ~-0 LIMITED N[IG~BONH~O BUSIN[SS RCTA~ BUSIN~ COMMUNITY BUSINESS 9-4 ~IMITED ~NDUSTRIAL Z-I GEN~Ak IN~STRIAk Fk~O ~AIN FP ~T ~ANO W l~lorthwest '~'~sodated Consultants,.inc. land use frameWork ~low density residential .~mld density residential ~h~gh density residential ~publlc and semi public new hope, minn. ,j -I I SUR~ CEI~TIFICATE* OF' SURVE',( ~ENNEPII,[ ~OUN"/'¥, I'VlININ~$OT~ I hereby certify that this survey, plan.or report was prepared by' me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the, State of Minnesota Date ~//~//~ Reg. No. .~ob No 77'1AO! Book 4. Z . Page ~ Sec 19 EXHIBIT 0 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: 612-531-5100 TDD Line: 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: Police Fax: ~612-531.5 ' - Public Works Fax: ~'612-533- 7~ March Il, 1994 Paul T. Wrobel, D.D.S. 7901 28th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Subject: Planning Case 94-06, Request for Rezoning From R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development Zoning District Dear Dr. Wrobel: The City is in receipt of your application for the above mentioned rezoning request. The City staff, planner and attorney met briefly to discuss this matter on March 1 lth and the Planning Consultant is in the process of drafting a preliminary report on the PUD rezoning and conditions related to the rezoning. When the preliminary report is prepared, I will contact you so that we can review it prior to the April 5th Planning Commission meeting. You did not write any letter to accompany your application detailing exactly what your request was, so I want to clarify the specific request. As I understand your application, you are applying for a rezoning to a PUD District to allow the existing mixed use to remain: office occupancy on the lower level and residential on the upper level. This is the arrangement the Council preliminarily agreed to at the February 14th Council meeting. The PUD would not allow total office occupancy of the entire structure, but would allow the existing use to remain in effect with a possible expansion of the office on the lower level within the confines of the existing structure. Essentially the PUD would make the existing use legal and would not require you to reside on the property. If you do not agree with this clarification of your application, please contact me immediately at 531-5119 so that we can further discuss this matter. I have enclosed a copy of the February 14th Council minutes for your information. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Aasiatant/ Commumty Development Coordinator Enclosure: February 14th Council Minutes cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant Doug Sandstad, Building Official Sarah Bellefuil, Administrative Analyst Planning Case File No. 94-06 Family Styled City ~/~ For Family Living ($C)UIYL;IL O~at~g Dep~ment Approved for ~enda ~enda Section ~velopment Ci~ Manger ~ planning (~ 2-14-94 Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By: 8.1 Management Assistant ~SOLUTION CONSIDE~NG PLA ING CASE 93-33, ~ZONING ~QUEST FOR PROPERTY AT 7901 28TH AVENUE NORTH, AND DENYING S~E ~is ma~er was discussed at ~e Janu~ 10~ Council meet~g, at w~ch t~e ~e .Council directed ~e Ci~ A~omey to prepare findings of hct for the Febmau 14~ Council meeting and requested stuff to review and cogent on zo~ng classification/issues and reseamh alternate optio~ ~t could resolve ~is issue wi~out a rezo~ng from R-1 to R-O. The Ci~ A~omey has prepared ~e enclosed "Resolution Co~idering Plamng Case 93-33, Rezo~ng Request for Prope~ at 7901 28~ Avenue No~, and Denying Sine" and stuff mcomends approval of the resolution. As previously discussed, the petitioner is requesting ~e mzo~ng of ~s pamel of prope~ from R-l, Single Fmily Residential, to R-O, Residential Office, m allow total professioml office occupancy of ~e buildbg. ~e prope~ is cu~ently zoned R-l, Sbgle Family Residential, and a special use (condkional use) pemk was granted by ~e Ci~ b 1963 m allow a potion of ~e home to be used as a dental office. Cu~ently ~e main floor of ~e home is util~ed as a residence and ~e walkout basement is used as a dental office. ~e request is to expand ~e existing dental office to bo~ floors of the building while el~batbg ~e residential use and abandomg ~e present living qua~ers. In his petition the applicant stated ~at the location of this building on Wi~e~a Avenue and ~ediately adjacent to ~e Midland Shopping Center m~es ~e entke buildbg mom use~l for professional business ra~er ~an residential. TO: g ~ Remew: Admstratlon: France: ~A-O01 ~ Request for Action Planning Case 93-33 Page 2 The Planning Commission considered this request at their November and December meetings and was unanimously opposed to the rezoning for the reasons outlined in the staff and consultants reports, the minutes of those meetings, and the findings contained in the attached resolution. City staff did meet to discuss alternate options. If it is the intention not to allow total office occupancy, but to allow the existing split use to remain, staff recommends that the petitioner pursue one of the following options: 1. Rezone to a PUD District, which would allow the existing mixed use to remain, but not expand. 2. Rezone to an R-2 District, with the entire building being converted to residential dwelling space. 3. Rezone to an R-2 District and amend the City Code to allow a dental office in the R-2 Zone by conditional use permit. 4. Amend the R-1 District to allow dental offices as a conditional use permit. 5. Make no changes and enfome the Code as written. RESOLUTION NO. gA- £2 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING PLANNING CASE 93-33 REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY AT 7901 28TH AVENUE NORTH AND DENYING SAME WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. Chap. 462 authorizes the City Council with the aid and assistance of the City Planning Commission to carry on municipal planning activities which guide future development and improvement of the City, and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. §§462.355, 356 and 357 provide the City with specific authorization to adopt a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ordinances establishing uses within different zoning districts, and WHEREAS, the City in 1960 approved a Comprehensive Municipal Plan, and enacted a zoning ordinance and established permitted uses and special use permits and variances for the individual districts and is attempting to plan and guide future development of the community, and WHEREAS, the New Hope City Council, after several years of study and numerous hearings, acting upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, adopted a revised Comprehensive Municipal Plan on the 22nd day of May, 1978, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.355, and WHEREAS, again after long study and numerous hearings, the City Council on June 11, 1979, adopted a new zoning ordinance to implement the revised Comprehensive Plan, said ordinance being Ordinance 79-11 of the City, and WHEREAS, Dr. Paul Wrobel (hereinafter Applicant), the fee owner of property located at 7901 28th Avenue North in the City of New Hope and legally described as follows (hereinafter Property): Lot 17, Block 3, Twin Terra Linda petitioned the City to rezone the Property from "R-11' to "R-O", said matter being designated as Planning Case No. 93-33, and WHEREAS, pursuant to duly mailed and published notice, the petition was considered at meetings of the New Hope Planning Commission on November 2 and December 7, 1993, with all interested persons being given the opportunity to be heard, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission had before it the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, the Findings and Comments of the City Staff and the Northwest Associated Consultants Planning Reports dated October 27, November 5 and December 3, 1993, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the petition for rezonin9, and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on January 10, 1994, the City Council heard all persons interested who wished to be heard on the matter, and WHEREAS, the City Council had before it the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, minutes of the Planning Commission, the Findings and Comments of City Staff, the Northwest Associated Consultants Planning Reports, the comments of the petitioner, members of the Council, and any interested citizens who were present, together with long familiarity with the si're in question and its zoning history, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan of the City identifies residential neighborhood and housing preservation and maintenance, enhancement of commercial vitality, prevention of strip pattern of commercial development and land use compatibility as important issues to be addressed by the City, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan in response to these issues sets out general, residential and commercial land use goals and policies used to provide a decision-making framework to guide all public and private actions and developments within the City. Further, said policies and goals also function as evaluation criteria for development and change which subsequently occurs, and WHEREAS, the land use policies and goals most pertinent to t~e applicant's rezoning application in light of these issues are as follows: a. General Land Use Goals i) Develop a cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatibility and functional relationships among activities, ii) Establish planning districts within the community based upon homogeneous or compatible land us~ characteristics and/or division of physica: barriers. iii) Prevent over-intensification of land use development, in other words, development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities (utilities, parking, access, etc.). b. General Land Use Policies i) ii) Ensure that intensification of land use activity and development is accompanied by sufficient corresponding increases in related supportive and service facilities such as off-street parking. Accomplish transitions between distinctly different types of land uses in an orderly fashion which does not create a negative (economic, social physical) impact on adjoining developments. iii) Protect integrated use districts (e.g. residential neighborhoods, comme,rcial centers, industrial park) from penetration by through traffic. Where through traffic problems are identified, correct such problems as opportunities arise. c. Residential Goals/Policies i) Provide safe, healthy and attractive residential environments which offer a broad and full choice of housing types. ii) Maintain and where necessary, strengthen the character of individual neighborhoods. d, Commercial Goals/Policies i) Strongly discourage any further spot or uncoordinated 1 inear commercial development in favor of a unified development pattern. ii) When opportunities arise, consolidate existing spot and uncoordinated linear commercial development into more functional patterns. iii) Ensure that development of any scattered open parcels along existing commercial strips is accomplished in a fashion which helps to establish more functional development patterns (for example, utilizing shared access and parking, etc.). WHEREAS, in keeping with these goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the City's housing policies and objectives, the subject property was zoned "R-1 Low Density Residential". NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of New Hope, Minnesota finds as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The recitations above are incorporated herein by this referenced. 2. The property is currently zoned "R-1 Sing]e-Fami!y Residential" and improved with a dual-purpose building containing a single-family residence oriented to 28th Avenue North and professional dental office oriented to Winnetka Avenue North. 3. This dual-purpose building was constructed in !964 pursuant to a home-occupation special .use permit granted on November 5, 1963 by the New Hope City Council conditional upon the following: That the special use permit is renewable at three year intervals; That no more than one non-resident employee may work at the dental office; That the special use permit was subject to the severance of paragraph III (E)(3)(a) of the 1963 New Hope Zoning Code, and 4. The Zoning Code was amended in 1979 and thereafter prohibiting the issuance of home occupation special use permits like the one received by applicant for the subject property and rendering the building's dual-purpose a legal non-conforming use if compliance with the terms of the original 1963 special use permit are maintained, and 5. The 1978 New Hope Comprehensive P]an holds that property abutting 28th Avenue North should be developed with low and medium density residential housing and property immediately south of the subject should be developed with commercial land uses recognition of the Midland Shopping Center, and 8. The subject property and properties surrounding it have developed consistently with the 1978 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the properties east, west and north of the subject have been developed with single and two family residences as called for by the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the Midland Shopping Center to the south of the subject has been commercially developed as called for in the Comprehensive Plan as well. ?. The property's existing R-1 zoning designation promotes the general and residential land use goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, maintaining the property as low density residential strengthens the neighborhood's residential character, strengthens cohesive land use patterns and ensures land use compatibility. 8. Rezoning the property to "R-O", allowing for high density residential and low density business or commercial use, will be contrary to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it will result in over-intensification of land use development unsupported by sufficient services and facilities such as parking and access. The applicant's proposal for a dental office proposes staggered off-street parking in the residential garage stalls and driveway to meet parking space minimums. This arrangement will result in prohibited access to required parking stalls and inadequate parking circulation. Further, cars using these driveway and garage stalls will be forced to back out onto 28th Avenue North. Both conditions are also contrary to the Zoning Code. 9. The proposed dental office will also result in cars from said office utilizing residentially oriented 28th Avenue North as well as Winnetka Avenue North. This will weaken rather than strengthen the residential character of the neighborhood. Further, allowing R-O status to the property encourages rather than discourages spot or uncoordinated linear commercial development in light of the numerous other R-O commercial uses the property will be subject to in addition to the dental office use if rezoning. 10. The property's initial primary use was a residential use with a secondary home occupation use. The property's physical appearance and characteristics still indicate a primary residential use. Maintaining the R-1 zoning is consistent with the property's primary residential use while the requested rezoning would be directly contrary to said use. The applicant' primary use of the property has changed only because of his abandonment of the residential unit as his personal living quarters. These 'circumstances do not warrant a rezoning in that the dental office allowed as a home occupation has not changed the character of the property from single-family residential. 11. By vacating the property's residential quarters, applicant is in violation of the home occupation special use permit. Specifically, applicant now has more than one employee living off-site working at the dental office in violation of the special use permit conditions. As result, the secondary use of the property as a dental office is in violation of the Zoning Code. Based on the foregoing Findings, the City Council hereby makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW That the property's zoning designation as R-1 is not a mistake and should be maintained. That the property's residential use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That the dental office permitted by the 1963 special use permit as a home occupation has not changed the residential character of the property. Rezoning the property to R-O would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. That maintaining the residential character of the property provides an adequate and reasonable use of the property notwithstanding rezoning the property to R-O may increase the resale value of the property. Rezoning property purely for economic gain beneficial only to a private individual with no corresponding value to the community is inappropriate· Therefore, the City Council hereby DENIES Petitioner's rezoning application designated as Planning Case No. 93-33. Dated the 14th day of February , 1994. /Edw. ~, Ericks~n, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk FEB-lO-94 THU 12:07 P, 02/09 ST~V~N A .e, ONOD.,to~ Uk~A~L R. C,~'I, EUR COmVCK & ,,'~ND~,A~,, P.A. ATTORNEYS A? I,.AW F~l/nbur~ Executive Office Pla~a 8525 ~brook C~sing Sul~ ~203 Br~yn ~rk, M~neso~ 55d43 February 10, 1994 Daniel J. D6nahue City Manager City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Wrobel Rezoning Requeet/Planning Case 93-33 Our File No: 99.40058 Dear Dan: Please find enclosed a proposed Resolution Considerin9 Planntn9 Case 93-33 Rezoning Request for Property at 7901 28th Avenue North and Denying Same. Th~s reso]ut~on establishes Findings of Fact to deny the rezonin9 request fOr the referenced property. The enclosed resolution, is for consideration at the February 14, 19'94 City Council meeting. Basica]ly~ the resolution conc]~des the fo~owin~: 1. A past zon.4ng mistake was no[ made when the property was designated as R-1 ain91e Famt]y Residential. 2. The use of the property as = dental off,ce has not changed the character of the property from slngle family resident{al to warrant a rezon~ng. 3. The current zonin~ des~gnatlo~ is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a rezoning to R-0 wou~d be detrimental to ~he hoe]Ih, sa(ety and we]fare of the surroundina PrOperties. ~f the Councl] wishes to adopt the enclosed resolution, a majority vote is necessary. HOWever, if the Council wishes to rezone the property to R-O which in effect wou~d be a text amendment to the Zoning Code, a ~/5'~ vote of the City Council would be required. FEB-lO-94 THU 12:07 P, 03/09 Mr. Daniel J. Donahu~ February 10~ t994 Page 2 Contact me if you have any quest tons. Ve. ry truly yours, Steven A. Sond~all s1~2 Enclosure Kirk McDonald Management Asst. ( Valerie Leone (w/eric) ' ; ....... ~...,...", FEB-- 1 1 --94 FR I 1 1 : $ ~ 0 P . 02 S-E A R.. H M~E,~,IOR,~UM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius 1! February 1994 New Hope Wrobel Land Use 131.01 - 93.33 On 7 February 1994, Ci=y staff me~ to discuss cptlons for dealing with the Wrobel dental office located at 7901 ~lSth Avenue. This property is zoned R-l, Single Family ResidentS. il District. The site contains a dental office and a single f~mily home. This combination of land uses does not qualify as a iaome occupation in that the property owner does not live on the site and has an employee count =hat exceeds New Hope's home occupation standards. The u~e does no~ qualify as a legal non-conform~;ig use in =~a= the property owner changed the site use from its a~._~oved 1963 special use permit. The New Hope Ci=y Council is no= in favor of char~in~ the zoning on ~he Wrobel site from R-1 to R-O to accomm¢late an expanded commercial office on ~he si~e. However, =he Cou~cil has requested staff to consider alternative options for deal~ng with ~his land use issue. The following options were discussa~.: Option No. 1 No change, the site would remain R-1 and the use would have to be converted to a single family home and potentially a home occupation. The property owner contends the: investment in the property makes the conversion to a single family home untenable, 5775 Wayzata Blvd,. Suite 555,,St, Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax, 595-9837 FEB--11--94 FRI 1 1 :~ 0 P. 0~ Option No. 2 Rezone the property Zo R-2. While this option would riot accommodate the existing office use, it would allow the existing single family home to be converted to a two family home. This would provide the property owner an expanded reuse of the property. The R-2 Zoning District is consistent with New Hope's Comprehensive Plan for this area of ~he City. The R~2 zoning is also compatible with zoning and land uses abutting the site on the west. Option No. 3 To.accommodate the Wrobel' office use, the City staff discussed rezoning the proper~y =o R-2 and amending =he R-2 District to allow dental and medical offices as a conditional use within this zoning distric=. The use would be narrowly defined and conditions for approval woula be established ~o restric~ the use operation and potential locations for such uses. Staff concerns with regard to 0p=ion No. 3 include: The R-2 Zoning District uses generally roll over ~o the more in~ense zoning distric~s. In ~hls regard, ~he office CUP would ~hen be allowed not only in the R-2 District but also ~he R-3, R-4, and R-S Zoning Districts. We are concerned =~au this type of ordinance change may present similar land use problems over an expanded geographic area of the City. Staff is also concerned about narrowly defining =he use to just medical and dental offices. Other office uses may claim ~o be a less intense activity and wish to be included in these residential dis=rlc~s. Equity and uniform treatment of similar land uses suggest that the City may not be able to specifically llmiu uhe conditional use =o den=al and medical clinics. The Zoning Ordinance attempts Co separate different land use activities from one another to establish compatible land use patterns. The City would have to de~ermine that medical and dental offices are complimenZary and compatible uses in r~sidential neighborhoods. 2 FEI~-* 1 i --94 FR T I I : ~5 0 P . ~4 Optio No. 4 The City of New Hope has ordinance language that does accommodate a mixed land use development. Section 4.19 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance is the Planned Unit Development District (PUD). The purpose of this district is as follows: 4.191 Purpose and In=eh=. The purpose of this section of the Zoning Code is =o provide for the grouping of land parcels for development as an integra=ed, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and unplanned approach to development. This section is in=ended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of buildings and activities. It is further in=ended Chat Planned Unit Developments are to be characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture, joint or common use of parking, maintenance of open space and other similar facilities, and harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. Through the PUD zoning, the City may .permit the mixed use office/ residential development on the site. The uses may be limited in size and scope through an approved PUD site plan and enforced through a PUD agreement. The PUD is a zoning mechanism that allows for terms of approval to be negotiated and contractually defined. Through =he PUD Zoning Dis=tlc=, =he City can be geographic and land use specific in its control of =he proposed use. The City has not used the PUD Zoning District in the past. RaSher, the PUD/CUP has been used for shopping centers and apartment complexes where all the land uses are permitted in the base zoning district. Since the City has not utilized the ~UD Zonin~ District in the past, staff has noted some concern over the process for establishing a ~UD Zoning District. The City's rezonlng criteria are geared to evaluating =he standard zoni.~ dis~ri¢~. To establish a clear understanding as to where and ~hen the PUD Zoning Dis=rio= may be appropria=ely used in the f-~ure, staff would recommend outlining some additional PUD zoni~.~ criteria. This would allow the City to evaluate similar zoninw requests on their OWn terms rather than establishing an undeslrabl~ zoning precedent. Conclusion If the City wishes =o accommodate the Wrobel land use arrangement, we feel that =he City's PUD Zoning Distric~ currently would accommodate the mixed land use arrangement. .%ddt=ionally, this zoning mechanism does provide the City with control over the land use types, location, size and scope. zoning criteria for the PUD Zoning District for evaluating future potential PUD zoning requests, Dan Don&hue Steve $ondrali 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone.. TDD L~'ne: 12.531-5100 12.531-5109 C/ty Hall Fax: Police Fax: PuDlic Works Fax: January 13, 1994 Paul T. Wrobel, D.D.S. 7908 28th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Subject: PLANNING CASE 93-33, REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO R-O, RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE TO ALLOW TOTAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICE OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING Dear Dr. Wrobel: Please be advised that the City Council took the follow, ihg two actions on the above stated request at the January 10th New Hope City Council meeting: They directed the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact on the request and to present those findings at the February 14th Council meeting. I would advise that you plan on attending that Council meeting. They requested the staff to review and comment on zoning classifications and rezoning issues as they relate to your situation and to research alternate options. I anticipate that within the next several weeks that City staff will again be meeting with the Planning Consultant and Citv Attorney to see if there are other options available to resolve this situation without rezoning the property, t will keep you updated on the progress of these discussions. If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at 531-5119. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager '% Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator cc: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 93-33 Property File (7901 28th Avenue North) Family Styled City ~~ For Family Living September 30,1993 Doug S. id Build~-~ _:ficial 4401X _~n Ave N New Hope, mn 55428 Dear Mr Sandstad, A dental office in my residential building was appropiate and appreciated for the 29 years i have successfully had my private dental office. This was accomplished within the confines of the special-use permit granted to me in 1963. The location of this building on 2775 Winnetka Ave., and immediately adjacent to the Midland Shopping Center now makes the complete building more useful for professional business rather than residential. I wish to abandon the present living quarters within this building. I submit for you to grant permission for total professional occupancy of this building. sincerely, Paul T. ~Trobel Roger A. Anderson & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineerir~ Consultants Suite 107, 7415 Wayzata Blvd. Minneal:x)lis, MN 55426 (6~.2) 546-7035 CiTy cf New Hcpe 4401 Xylon -~ue North New Ho~9 55428-4898 November 29.1993 Attn: Kirk McDonald Request for rezcn~n~ frcm family =o R-O, res[dentla~- Office PLANNING CASE 93-33 Dear Mr. McDonald: Dr. Wrobel has directed us to prepare a Site Plan showing the parking lot expansion in response to your letter dated November 12, 1993 and Bob Kirmis letter dated Nov. 5,~gg3. Enclosed are five copies of the Site Plan for the abcve referenced pro~ect. If you have any questions or need any additional information please feel free to call us at 546-7035 S I~NCERELY: Gary D'Heil CC: Dr. Wrobel Land Develepment · Municipal · Hljeways · Railreads SITE PLAN SCALE: 1%20' 138.o4 L T . 2.' P^/~ KING t::f £ _CI .LII ,~ E., ff £ N TS Inc, PLAN~ING REPORT FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Bob Kirmis/Alan Braxius 3 December 1993 .New ~oDe - Wrobel Size and Building ~lan Review 131.01 - 93.33 EXECUTIVE SUM54ARY Background As you are aware, Mr. Paul Wro~el has requesZed a rezonlng cf DroDer~y loca:ed south of 28th Avenue North and west of Winnmt~a Avenue from an R-l, Single Family Residenzial tO an E-O, Residen=ial Office designs=ion. Such a rezoning would allow residence Co be conver~ed exclusively inzo a denZal office (por:~cn of s:ruc=ure curren=ly used as a den:al o~ice). A= i=s 30 November meeting, =he Planning Commission tabled Mr. Wro~el's reques=e~ rezonlng pen~ing a review of size and ~u~ldzng plans and a dmmons=ra=ed conformance to R-O Die:floc s=andards. Having received size and ~uilding plans, =his repot: will prov=ae review sad re¢~nda=ion as =o =heir accep:abili=y and conformance to aDplica~!e Ordinance pr~visions gxhlbi= C - SiZe ~lan Exhlbl= D - Builaing Elevations gxhibi= Z - ~arkin~ Lo= Design AiZerna=ives 5775 Wayzata Blvct. Sure 555 'St, Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636. Fax, 59= Findings ~ased on =he following review, our cffi=e offers the follow,n; sub"eot zo =he following :onditions: 10. ~esi=en:ial 0~fice is ap~ropria=e. The C!=y approve a condi=ional use permt: ~o allow The proposed o~-scree= parking configure=ion ia revised ~s =~a: all off-sores= parking s:alls are fully acoesslble az all ==mss. in no case, may parked vehi:les block access =o o=hsr desi~na=ed off-szree: parking s=alls. The off-sOres= parking handicap par~ing s=ali as required ~y State law. ~ar~ng io~ grades gra~ing plan submission. Perlmecer curbing is provided around all o~f-s=ree= park!n? areas wi~h proper setbacks. Screening is provided along t~e subJec= property's wes:em ~or~er. Such screenlng may consls~ of ei~er a fence or green ~el= plan~ings. A condi=ional use permi: is o~=ained =o allow a wavering cf off-street loadin~ re~uiremen:s for a co~=eroial use. The su~jec= e=ruc=ure is fully accessible =o handicapped persons. Any new on-si:e signage comply wi=h applicable provisions the ClOy Sign Ordinance. 12. Commen=s from o=her C!=y s=a~f. ISSUF ANALYSIS of =~e Zonin9 Ordinance, =he following ac=ions (applicable Planning Commission and a~proval by =he Ci=y Co~ncii. use to eno:her. 2. Modi~Ioaulon of or add!ulons or enlargements to a building accessory site improvements and/or land features of a parcel of land =ha= result in the need for additional ~arklng. Considering uha: the proposed deve!opmen: would result in bo:~ a change in use and accessory site improvements (additional Darkingl, site and Building ~lan review is considered necessary. Conditional ~_ae Permit, R-O District provisions llst den:al rezcnlng, =he aDplioan: will be required to ob=sin a cond!%ional use pa.-mi= in accordance wi:~ Sec:ion 4.21 o: :~e Zoning Ordinance, As such, site and building plan approval shall be contingen: u~cn approval of the requested rezoning and necessary conditions! use pe.~mit. proposed den=al office meets all recfuiremen=s as shown below: applicable R-0 se=~ack Side Yard 20 fee: 35 feet NOTES: Eaves and ~u==ers ex:ap:ed from setback provided they dc nO~ proJec~ m~re :hen :wo fee: inzo a yard. R-0 Dis=tlc: rear yard se=back requlremen=s (nor current set~ac~)0 =he se=Aack is considered legally non-conforming and holds grandfather righCs. So&~mi ~a__=uirmd~ According =o :he Zoning Ordinance, professional offiCeS mus~ provide ~hree off-street parking spaces plus a= leas= one space for each 200 square feet cf floc= area. As cai:tls=ed below, an off-s=reet parking supply of %4 spaces must ~e provided for the proposed dental office. 2,288 square feet Ratio ~ spaces plus 1 per 200 square fee= of floor area Aequired 14 of 14 spaces has ~een provided. o · a~kin~ LoC Ci~culaCic~, While an adeT~ate number of off- s:reet parking stalis has been proposed, some concern exists ~n re~ard ~o parking Io: circulation an~ stall &ccesslbili%y. O~ par~~ L~r issue are :he off-scram: parkln~ s~alls which exis~ :he garage driveway. While i: is acknowledged uha: :h~ .~e may ~e used for employee parking, a strong l~>:~ ...:cod exists that vehic!ee parked in front o~ the garage w~iL block ~he s~alls. AS a condi:ion of Sx~e and buil~In~ plan approval, al1 off-$~ree~ parkin~ s~alls mua~ ~, Additionally, szalls should also bs designed ~o =hat vehicles are not force~ to back on:o either 28~h Avenue or Winnetka Avenue. ~arkln~ in =he axis:ins driveway will ~rln~ commercial =raffle onto 2~th S~eec. This was noted as a concern a: the previous ~lanning Co, ism!on meetln~. e Dimensional Reeu_.i.=~men~s. Ail proposed off-s:ree: parking stalls have been found =o meet minimum required x l~') an~ drive aisle (24') dimensions. ~andtcap S~alls. Per State law, one of every 2s O~-s=ree~ parking stalls must ~e devoted to use ~y the ~andicapped. in illustrate one ~an~icap parking e~all. Perkins Area Gr%dq~, AS noted on :he submit:ed site plan, :~e erection of a retaining wall will be necessary :o expand :he den=al office parking loC. According Zo =he Zoning Ordinance, park!nestea grades may not exceed S percent. A~ a condition demonstrate that propermanageman: of etorm water take place. The City Engineer should provide comment in regard to the need for a gr21ing pla~ submission. ° ~ According to the Zoning Ordinance, all off-s:ree: par~ing areas for commercial uses must have a perimeter around =he enClre parking Io=. go as =o conform =o recruiremen~, the den~al office's off-s~ree~ parking areas have a perimeter cur~. Sore_shirt,Lands=amAna, According to Sec=ion 4.033 (3)(b)-(d) of =he Zoning Or~ina~¢e, where any business (i.e., $:ruc:ure, par~ing, e:c.) abuts property zoned for residen:ial use, =~ac ~usiness shall provide screening along cae boundary of the residenclal proper=y. Such screenlngmay consist of either a fence or green belt plan=in~ strip. So as to comply wl:h :his provision of the Ordinance, b~rder. As no=ed on =he submit:ed site plan, all =rash handlin] activi:les are co occur wi=bin =he ~rinci~a! buildin~. As screening requirements are no= cons=dered applicable. ~ Am shown on the submit:ed site plan, a loading stall nas Sectlon 4.037 (6) (b) of :he Zoning Ordinance, co~nercial build=ngs less than S,000 square fee= in area may waive loading ~er=~ requiremenzs upon =he approval of a conditional use permit. ?o qualify for such an ex=eD=ion, :he follcw~ng provisions must te loading berth =o =he size required. i~ must be demons=rated that semi-=railer truck deliveries will no= occur a= the site or,,a~l deliveries will occur a~ suc~ a :ime as :o not conf!Ic= with customer or employee access ~o the building and parking demand. persons. ~ The submit=ed si:e plan makes no:e that no ex:er!zr lighting is =o be provided on site. condi:Ional uses in =he R-O Dis=ri==, As & condition of approval, accep,=a~le, all =ohm%er=iai =raffi¢ e~ould be =is¢ouraged along 28th Bui14~n~_Hei=~=- According to the Zoning Ordinance, struc=ur~ within R-O Zonin~ Dis=tlc=s may no~ excee~ three stories in height. Duilding height re~uiremen=s. den=al office 'expansion, all such signs must com~ly with aDplica~le provisions of =he City Sign Ordinaz~ce. Dc: Doug Sands=ad Dan Donahue EXHIBIT BI - SiTE EXHIBIT B2 - $~TE ' N ,f C N EXHIBIT C - OPTION 1 · 3'6,04. ELIMINATE DRIVEWAY PARKING ,f OPTION ' ).3'7.?z ' _~ EXHIBIT E - PARKING LOT DESIGN U I=1 ~ A I~ L A N G D Consultants, M A R K E T R E $ E A R H PLANNLNG REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Stuart Roberscn/Alan Br!xius 27 Oc=ober 1993 New Hope Paul Wrcbe! Rezoning 131.01 - 93.33 EXECUTIVE SI. Dd54ARY Background Paul Wrobel has requested a rezoning for a .35 acre parcel of land containing a single family home and a dentist office, located an 7901 28th Avenue North, legally known as Lot 17, Bock 3, Twin Terra Linda. It is the applicant's wish to rezone his property from R-l, Single Family Residential District, to a R-O, Residential-Office District. Paul Wrobel received a special use permit in 1963 to include an office of dentistry on the lower floor of his home. During that time, a special use permit allowed dentistry as a home occupation within the R-1 District. Currently, the applican~ wishes relocate to another residence and convert his property into a dental office. The R-1 Zoning District does not allow for the use of dental offices. Therefore, the applicant wishes to rezone property to a R-O designation. It is importan~ to note that the applicant's property is currently classified as a legal 'conforming use due Co ~he fact =hac dental office use is no longer allowed as a home occupation in the R-1 District. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Zoning Exhibit C - 1975 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Exhibit D - Site Plan 5775 Wayzata Blvd.' Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416 .(612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-- _ - Recommendation The change in land use and zoning is a policy decision that is left to City officials, in making this dete.~minaticn, the City must consider a n~"%ber of factors in how the ~= ~- __ __z.~ ..... g wiTM affect the neighborhood and the City as a whole. In cur review,~.~" is apparent ~=_.._ current zcnlng was nc'. a mistake based on '- -%2ric use of the site, Comprehensive Plan policies an/ surrouna. ~ land uses. in this regard, the City must de~e~.ir.e conditions have changed =ha= warran5 ~he re~aes~ed zcnlng change. In our review, we nc~ed ccnce.n- w~un retard zo ccnslsuency the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility wi~h existing land uses and the site' s ability ~o pr~ v,~_ ade=aa== parkin= wishcuu demonstration ~hat the site and fusure use can address concerns, we cannot support the rez~n!ng reTaesu. ISSUES ANALYSIS Judgement Criteria In evaluating any change of land use and rezoning, New Hope uses the following criteria for dete.-rr..ining the appropriat=~=== cf rezoning request: Mistake in Zonin=. The City may approve a rezoning request if i% is de~ermined ~ha~ the rezoning is necessary ~o correct a pas- zoning mistake. Based on the Comprehensive Plan, surrounding lan/ use patzerns and the past use of the property, we find that the subject prcper~y was properly designated for R-l, Single Family Residential zoning (see Exhibit C). It is apparent that the current R-i zoning designation does not represent a pas= zonin~ mistake. Cb~nqm in Character.. The si~e and surrounding properties have developed a pa~tern consistent with the 1975 Comprehensive Plan. There has no= been significant change in land use since the !975 Comprehensive Plan. The 1962 special use permi~ a!Icwed for the establishment of the dentist office wi:hin ~he existing single fa~nily home. the single fa_~ily home is oriented toward 28th Stree~ while the den~al office orients toward Winnetka. The Planning Commission must dete-~mine -~ the existence of the dental office has changed the character of the si~e significantly enough to warrant a change in zoning. Comprehensive Plan The !975 Comprehensive Plan indicates that the asu~t.,,g the south side of 2Sth S~TM should be d=ve!c~ed as medi,~ density residential uses. The area south cf designa:ed for commercial !and uses recognizing With the = = _xc_p~,on of the site in ~uesticn, ~kis area cf ~ew has developed in accordance with the land use reccm.~endaticns cf the 1975 Comprehensive Plan. The ccr~inaticn single home/dental office raise issue as :o ~= mcs~ aDsr~Driat= u-_ the si~= The single family use re!a:es to 5he residenz~5 nei~P~crhccd along 28~h Stree: ~h_ den:a! c==ice is an = of the ccm~erciai act~, '~.;~._==_- alcn~. Wi..n_:ka- = ~_..,_ In addition :o :he Land Use Plan, :he City mus: consider zhe Comprehensive Plan land use gca!s and policy s~a~ .... e..ts intended guide land use decisions. The following !and use gca!s anl policies are applicable to the .......... ..... =-~ -=qu_st,= . Land Use Goals. · Develop a cohesive land use pa~ern which ensures compatibility and functional reia~ionships among activities. Establish planning districts within the community based uucn homogeneous or compatible land use characteristics and/~r division of physical barriers. Preven~ over-intensification cf land use development, in other words, deve!opmen~ which is nc: accompanied by a sufficienz level of supportive services and facilities (u:ilisies, parking, access, e~c.). · Preserve and pro=ec= prcperzy values. Land Use Policies. Ensure chat in=ensificaticn of land use activity an/ developmen~ is accompanied by sufflcien~ correspondin~ increases in rela~ed suppor5ive and service facilities such as off-s=ree~ parking. Accomplish transitions between distinctly differing types cf land uses in an orderly fashion which does not create a negative (economic, social or physical) impac~ on adjoin±n~ deve!cpmen~s. Protect integrated use districts {e.g. residential - ~ ~ ~ , industrial ,.e_g,~c~..ccds, ccm~,ercia! centers park) frtm penetration by through traffic. Where through traffic prcb!ems are ilentifled, correct such ~=~ Residential Goals/Policies .m~_~v~de safe, healthy and attractive residential =-v_~ which off_. a broad and ='a~t choice cf housing types Y~intain and '~=~= sary strengthen ~= w~ .... neces , .... charac~=~ ~= individual neighborhoods. Commercial Goals/Policies e Strongly discourage any further soot. or "~n-~-~ted,..~.~_.._ lin_ar ~ ~ in favor c ......er~_a! deve~c~me~ o~ a unified d=ve!cumen5 e Wp. en opportunities arise, consolidate existing spot and uncoordinated linear ccr~,ercia! deve!opmen~ inao more funcuional patterns. Ensure that deve!cpment cf any scattered open parcels alon~ existing commercial strips is accomplished in a fashion which helps ~o establish more functicna! development patterns (for exa~uple, utilizing shared access and parking, etc.). In evaluating the Comprehensive Plan policies, it would appear the emphasis is on maintaining and enhancing the existin~ residential neighborhood. The Policy Plan also discourages further expansion of commercial zoning. Under these guidelines, the proposed rezoning may be considered a further intrusion into an .existing residential neighborhood. Land Use Compatibility in evaluating any rezoning, the Clay mus~ consider the impact the zoning change will have on existing, as well as future !and use ccr. patibiiity. The following review compares the purlocSe and land uses of the R-1 Zoning District with the requested R-O Zonin? District. Additionally, the City will evaluate the rezcnin? reques~ in context with the surrounding land uses. R-1 Zonin= District. The purpose of the R-I, Single Family District is to provide for Icw density single family detache.! residential dwelling units and directly related, accessory anl complementary uses. The following is a listing of permitted and ccnditicna! uses within the R-! District: Permitted Uses Single F~ily Dwelling Day Care Facility Public Parks and Playgrounds Essential Services Group Care Facility Conditional Uses Public, Educational and Re!igicus BuiifflnVs Commercial Cu~docr Recreazlcn Gcverr~ent and Utillzy Builfflnz Cemeteries Day Care Faci!izy Earth She!tered Homes R-O Zoninq District The DurD~cse cf z!._ R-O Residential Cf Distric~ is ~o provide for hi~h density residential use and ~ransiticn in land use from mid density residential intensity business allowing for the iht= ~ .rm.x~..g of such uses. The following is a listing of permitued and ccnditlcnal uses W~ the R-O District: Permitted Uses Mu!~iple Family Dwellings Boarding Houses Public Parks and Playgrounds Essential Services Club or Lodge Without Serving of Food or Beverage Conditional Uses Public, Educational and Religious Buildings Commercial Outdoor Recreation Government and Utility Buildings PUD Residential Cemeteries Day Care Facilities Earth Sheltered Homes Tcwnhouses Group Care Facilities Nursing Homes Elderly Housing Medical Offices (professional and commercial) Parking for Adjacent Commercial or Mul~iple Dwellings Retail Commercial Combined Residential and Non- Residential Surroun~in~ Uses. When considering a rezcning request, it is beneficial to ex~mine whetker cr nc5 the prcpcsai is ccmpasitle with the surrounding land use. The fo!lowing is a listing cf adjacen~ land use and zoning designations: Direction Land Use Z- ~ North Single Family Residential R-~-, Sin='=.__ Family South Retail Business B-4 ~--=~'~ai Business Northeast Low Density Residen5iai Eas~ Single F~mily Residential R-l, -lng!_ F .... fi'v Southeast Limited Business R-O, Residential- West Low Density Residential R-2, Single and Two F~mily Residential The curren~ R-1 zoning allows the existing single family home as a permitted use. ~his land use is compatible wi~h zoning and !an/ uses to the north and wes~ along 2$th Street. The R-O %onln{ District is intended ~o provide a land use transition between the more intense commercial area and lower intensity residential neighborhoods. The R-O zoning would allow the property owner the opportunity ts convert the entire home to a den:al office. The den=al office would be compatible wi~h the existing commercial uses ~o the south long Winnetka Avenue. However, any commercial use or ac:drily associated wi~h ~he si~e ~hat would be orien:ed toward the residential neighborhood along 28th Street are seen as bein{ incompagible with the characuer of 5he area and are not accep~abie. In ~his light, if rezoning is to be considered, tke site plan mus- demonstrate ~ha~ the use will not be oriented or intrusive on the 2$th S~reet residential neigP~orhood. Performance Sta ldards In considering a zoning change, the appiicanZ must demonstrate tha5 the site can comply with the zoning performance standards of the requested district. The following su~.ary of the R-O performance standards compared wi~h existing site conditions. Lot Area and Set. backs. The proposed site exceeds the R-O lot area and width requirements. Review of the site survey indicates a slight setback nonconformity involving a tenth cf an inch -~ degree of nonconformity should not present an cbstac!e for the use of the site. ~.arkinq. The current dental office provides five parking stalls and some residenuia! parking iht he garage off 28th Street. Wi:h the rezoning uo R-O, the dental office would be enlarged from square feet to 2,401 square feet. Based cn the expanded office size, the office would have to provide 14 parking stalls. in review of the site plan, i~ is Taestionable as to whether site can provide 14 parking stalls that comply performance standards with regard ~o parking lot design, llmenslun, setback and const~action features. To limit intrusion cn the residential area along 2$th Street, we note that ~he driveway parking could not be used for more ~han zwo parking stalls. More than two stalls in this location would not he consistent with the City design standards for ccmmercia! parkin~ lots. CONCLUSION Any change of zoning is a policy decision of the City. evaluating this zoning request, the City must determine conditions have changed that warrant a rezoning. In review of request, we would note that any rezoning consideration must evaluate the potential impact on the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the site must be capable of accommodating the proposed use in full compliance with City performance standards. Withou~ demonstration tha~ these concerns can be addressed, we canno= suppor= the rezoning request. pc: Dan Donahue Doug Sands=ad Steve Sondrall Tim Keane Paul Wrobel Planning Commission October i, 1965 Mr~ Gordon Nelson, ?SO1 & 7809 Baas Lake Road, said he was' in favor of the rezonln~. Gordon John.-on also said he was in favor. Richard Jew-~ ett said he was no: in favor of t~%e rest home or :he units near his proper:y~ Motion oy Price, seconded bt' Adams, to recommend to the Village Council th. at lot ~6, Auditor's Subdivision No, ~ZS, be rezoned f~om limited bus- lnees and res~den~!al to multiple fa~ly residence and ~enerai bus~ne~s Motion carr~e~, wl:~ Krue~er oppoaed~ Public Hearin~ closed~ ~eor~e Johnson c~e before t~e ~oma!sslon to discuss a proposal ~o butL~ a home contaLnln~ dental offices on lot ~?, bloc~ ~, ?~ln Terr~ Llnda He s'~ld he wou~d ~ake formal appilcat~on for a special use .permi~ ~ action taken ~ . The mlnu~es were read of the September i~th Planning Commission meeting, and were accepted as read. The budEet balance was reviewed° It was noted tho: with four monZhs left of th~. ~.ear thor. ~e..~t~ed C~6, of ~,h~ch J'51~ would be avai!a~!e for plannln~ servlces~ Motion by ?~lce, seconded by Olson, to recommend to the that Leonard i~lch~letz be reappointed to the Piannin~ Commisslon~ lO~ car~led~ Motion by Click, seconded by Krueger, to 'adJourn~ ~otion carried. Motion by Kuebelbeck, seconded by Klosterman, to recom=end =o the age Council that ~l~e requested rezonlng be den~ed, Vot~n[~ ~n favo~ of t~e ~ot~on: Kuebe~bec~, K~oaterman, Kelso, Ad~a~ Opposed ~o motion: Price, C~ck, Krue~er. Mo~on carried. Public hearln~ e~.~ Public a~ar~'s opened on proposed rezonl~ fro~ retail ~us~ness :o multiple residence ~nd proposed spec~l uae permit for gasoZ~ne at 72~Q Bass ~e Road. Hlc~rd D. Uaca:ler pre~ented a $~e plan, and a~ao bulzdlng plans for ~he ae~lce station. The flnd[n~s of =he v~ll~4~ · planner were read. Krucger left the meeting at 10:00 Motion by Gllc~, seconded by Kue~eioeck, to adjourn t~e public on the proposed rezoning.and speci,'l use permit until ~he next Commission mee:~ng~ Mo~un carr~ed~ Tl~ls application and the of t~ village p~anner were referred ~o the village attorney for open,on (~) on ~he ownership and status o~ Uhe llmlted buslness ~o .the nor~t~ of the property In question, and (~) ~s to the r~ety of the exlatln~ retal~ business zonln~ of the property Public hearl:4~ opeued on special use permit for a mortuary at .the nor:n- east corner of Baas L~ke Road and ~.ar¥1and Avenue~ Mro C, earty and ~'.r Nason presented a site plan, ~e co~ent~ of ~he village planner were read, The appllcan:a said they would be wlill~ to dedicate lonal five feet of right of way on Bass Lake Road~ Hr. Bro~rg, 55tH Ave. ;.;o,, said he approved of '~he requested spec~ai ~se Motion by Price, seconded by Adams, to recommend to the Village Ccunc:2 that the special use permit be approved, Motion carried, Public hearing closed, Pu011c hearing Opened on proposed special use permit for temporary u~e for limited business purposes of the property at 82~@ Flag Avenue :~-~.~. ,~lark Z~ Jones discussed his prupoeed use of toe exls~In~ house as a constructlo:~ office° Kuebelbeck moved to recommend to ~e Village Council t~at the spec!al use permit be ~ran~ed. renewaOle yearly° Seconded by Prlce~ 2otl-~n ~bllc hearing reconvened on the application of Geor~je Johnson anY. %;robel for a special uae permit for a combination home and dental on lo: 17, bloc~ O, ~in Terra Llnda~ The appiican~s ~aln preser.~, a site plan, floor plan, and plc=ure of the bulldl~,, Click moved to recommend to the Village Council t~u~t tr~ s~eciai use permit be denied. Motion lost for lack of a second° lal use permit be renewable at three year intervals, ,,nd wlt~ not one person not residin~; on the ;'remlses to be e~,~ployed, and sub Jet~ servance of paragraph III E 3 (a) of the zoning ordinance (Crlter!~ grantlng special uae pe~lt). Seconded by Kioster~an. wi~n Click opposed~ Public" lxear!n,; closed. KuebelDeck moved to recommend to th,. Village Council that it lal use permit for a dental office as a home occupation, but COdiCIL ~ : -A- Nevmber 12, 1963 I. Discussion held a~ to issuance of · special use Re.sit to build · cc.bination deeCcdl office and h~4 at 7901 - 28th Avenue North. Engimeer P~en~ r~pwted ~n the streets in S~ T~race Ad~ti~. A letter, ~ ~, 1963, ~~ ~ ~l ~tter ~ ~e~ by ~r ~ l~t~ ~tes t~t it ~ ~ ~ the d~o~r ~d the ~ontractor that the b~ ~~ ~~ of ~ ~d be ~d ~ ~~ ~d the de~~ h~ ~er ~ ~eh of ~ ~d ~ ~ ~t~ ~ ~ the ~k ~. A~ ~~ ~ ~ti~ of t~ ~~, ~ ~e ~atee t~t he ~ ~ ~c~ce of S~ ~aee .t~. ~ the The letter ~ae ar. lc~ledged md pl~e4 ~n file. A. ~lac~,ai~n held a~ t~ the hardsh~ for Mid~eatern Pmeperties Ad~ti~. ~. ~ a~~f~ ~e ~~ ~~ ~ t~a ~t. ~by ~er A~~ ~ ~~~ ~e ~ ~d the Cle~ ~ e~ the ~t, ~J~ to ~~ of d~~ c~t ~d ~1o~ ~d ~ ~ho~ the ~ t~ Cle~ ~ ~ ~e ~1~ co~ract ~ ap~ ~ the ~.lotl~n oarried, Bo Dim~*ummion held a~ to the balance of Mid. stern Pr~p~rtiem ~sed ad~:iono to ~e ~c~. ~~ t~~dl ~ ~ be ~ ~d p~e~t ~7 ~es ~ ~ ~o~d to whe~ ~e ~ mt~ ~ ~ l~l I~mo Petition for ~e~ar and ~ter for ]i&t&Lies additim ~ not preset.fred by Jerry Harr~oa. He had requeeted t4 be placed ~n the agenda and did not appear° The ~atter ~ held over. 10o ~iseu~si~ ~ held u to the approval of the Registered Land Survey for Fred Add~ md ~ Anete%%, ¢c~xty ~ad 18, no~ of ~e ~s ~e ~d. ~tion ~, ~Ject ~ d~ ~ce of ~ side of ~de~d~ce ~ the ~e Die~.i~ held a~ t~ the ~mving in of the ho~e Zt ~ ~med ~ ~o~te ~l h~e at ~ held ~r ~ ~ ~e~ il ~a~. .. November 12. 1993 Paul T1 W'robei. D.D.S. 7908 2$th Avenue North New Hope, MN 5f427 SubJect: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-1. SINGLE F,(MILY RESIDENTL~L. R-O. RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE. PLANNING CASE 93-33 Dear Dr. Wrobei: Please be advised that on November 2. 1993. the Plarming Commission tabled the request for rezoning, from the R-I, Single Family Residential, to R-O, Residential-Office. as submitted Planning Case 93-33. The Planning Commission tabled the rezoning request, at your request, to allow you suffic~en: to have more detailed plans prepared to show that the site could meet all of the R-O Zomng standards. I have enclosed excerpts of the Plarmmg Commission minutes from that meeting for information so that you will have a better understanding of the issues that the Commission addressed. I have also enclosed a memorandum from the City's Planmng Consultant that outlines specific details that should be included on the site developmem plan. As you are aware, several of the Commissioners indicated that they were opposed to the rezor'azz regardless of any plans that were prepared. Several Commissioners indicated that they could consider the rezonmg until more specific plans were prepared, but that they were not comm~mr,~ supporting the rezonmg even if more specific plans were prepared. The Planning Commiss~o?, course only makes recommendations to the City, Council. The City Council makes the final dec',s, I assume that you will be proceeding to develop more detailed plans. Please contact myself or Sandstad, Building Official, if you have any questmns about what should or should not be inc;.'.:,:cz on the plans. The Planning Commission meets again on December 7th and if you would like Family Styled n.i~, -' ~ ~ '-~ · For Family Livin~ Dr, Wrobel Page 2 November 12, 1993 request to be considered again at that meeting, I would request that you submit your new plans to the City by Monday, November 29th so that the staff can review them and so that they can be included in the December Planning commission packet, which is sent out on the Friday prior to the Commission's meeting. Thanks for your cooperation and please contact me at 531-5119 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/Ib CC: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valene Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 93-33 Property File (7901 28th Avenue North) I~ I,. N G 0 E S I G N Consultants, Inc. M A R K E T R E S E A R~H TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius 5 November 1993 New Hope Wrobel Rezoning · 131.01 93.33 This memorandum is intended to specify items which rm.[sC be addressed as parc of a possible site development plan submission from Mr. Paul Wrobel. As you are aware, Mr. Wrobel is currently requesting a rezoning of his property located south of 2$th Avenue North and west of Winnetka Avenue from an R-1 to an R-O designation. Such a rezoning would allow the residence to be converted exclusively into a dental office (portion of structure currently used as a dents1 office). If the City chooses to rezone the property, the submission of a de~ailed site development plan in conjunction with the proposed building conversion will be necessary. The said development plan would subsequently be subject to recommendation by the Planning Co~L~,tission and approval by the Planning Commission as part of the CUP process. The said site development plan should be drawn to scale and include, but not be limited to the following: Building location. Location and number of parking spaces (proper dimension setbacks construction design, driveway dimensions, etc.) 3. Location of loading space. 4. Location of exterior lighting. 5. Floor plan. 6. Location of trash receptacles. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.. Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595- It should be recognized that the submission of the site plan will essentially determine whether the subject site can successfully accommodate the proposed use and intensity. In preparing the said site plan, the parking lot slope should be such that direct access to the structure's first floor may be provided. If you have any questions or comments regarding this material, please advise. 2 4401 Xyton Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD L~ne: 612.531.5100 612-53 I-5109 C~t~ - Pohc~ PuDlic December 16, 1993 Paul T. Wr°bel, D.D.S. 7908 28th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Subject: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO R-O, RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE, PLANNING CASE 93-33 Dear Dr. Wrobeh As you are aware, 9n December 7, 1993, the New Hope Planning Commission recommended denial of ~he reclueSt for rezonmg from the R-l, Single Family Residential, to R-O, Residential-Office, as submitted Planning Case 93-33. Per your request, the New Hope City Council tabled the consideration of this matter at their December 13~ meeting. The Council tabled the matter for one month and your request will be placed on the January 10th Council agenda. Please inform me prior to that time if you want to continue to pursue this request or if you will be modifying or withdrawing the recluest. Thanks for your cooperation and please contact rne at 531-5119 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Daniel J. Oonahue City Manager Kirk McDonald Management As$iatant/ComrnuniW Devetoprnent Coordinator cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve $ondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 93-33 Property File (7901 28th Avenue North) Family Styled City ~ For Family Livin[ PLANNING CASE 93-33 Item 8.1 New Hope City Council Page 2 Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Resolution Considering Planning Case 93-33, Rezoning Request for Property at 7901 28th Avenue North, and Denying Same.. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, reviewed the planning case stating that this matter was discussed at the January 10, 1994, Council Meeting at which time the Council took two actions. First, they directed the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact to be presented at this meeting; and second, the Council requested staff to review and comment on zoning classification and research alternate options that would resolve this issue without a rezoning from an R-1 Zoning District to a R-O Zoning District. Mr. McDonald stated the petitioner is requesting the rezoning of this parcel of property from R-l, Single Family Residential, to R-O, Residential Office, to allow total professional office occupancy of the building. He stated that in 1963 the City did grant a special use permit to allow a dental office on the bottom floor of the building and a residence on the top floor. Currently the main floor of the home is utilized as a residence although the owner of the dental practice does not live there. The walkout basement is used as a dental office so the initial request was to expand the dental office to include both floors of the building for professional use and eliminate the residential use altogether. The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their November and December meetings and came to the City Council in January with the recommendation to deny based on the reasons detailed in earlier staff reports. Mr. McDonald stated that staff has looked at alternate options. He said that if it is Council's intention not to allow a total professional office occupancy of the building but to allow the existing split use of the property to remain as it is then there are the following five options: Rezone to a PUD District; which would allow the existing mixed use to remain, but not expand. Rezone to an R-2 District, with the entire building being converted to residential dwelling space. Rezone to an R-2 District and amend the City Code to allow a dental office in the R-2 Zone by conditional use permit. February 14, 1994 Amend the R-1 District to allow dental offices as a conditional use permit. Make no changes and enforce the Code as written. Councilmember Williamson stated she favors the PUD but would like to know if there is a desire to expand the business. Councilmember Williamson stated that she would be willing to have the building go 50-50, if they wanted to take another room in the house and make it into a dental office, she would have not problem with it. Mr. McDonald stated that most of the basement of the building is used as a dental office and a space beneath the garage on the same level that the petitioners would like to expand. Mr. McDonald said that with a PUD, an agreement could specify all of the bottom level as dental office and all of the top level as residential. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, stated the petitioners would have to make application for a PUD. He said if a PUD Zoning District is being considered then a evaluation by the City Planner would have to be done to develop criteria for when a PUD Zoning District will be allowed within the City because a new zoning district would be established within the City that has not been previously used. He went on to say there is not a lot of guidance within the City Code relative to what criteria can be used to establish a PUD Zoning District. Councilmember Otten questioned the reason behind the rezoning request. Mr. Sondrall stated that he understands that in 1963 the petitioners received a special use permit that allowed for a dental office as a home occupation within the R-1 Zoning District. He said the only condition was that there be only one non-resident employee working at the dental office. Mr. Sondrall stated that the situation now exists that all of the employees working at the dental office are non-residents. He went on to say that if there is more than one eml~loyee working at the dental office at this time, they are in violation of the special use permit that was granted in 1963. Councilmember Enck stated that he recommends that the resolution be adopted to deny. He said the other issue is whether the petitioners want to utilize the property differently. He said he would not be inclined to waive the fees on any PUD request because the City could be looking at a fair expenditure of funds to establish that PUD. He said there should be some reimbursement to the City as fees were originally designed to cover the City's time and expenses. He said he is not in favor of establishing a PUD, if the petitioner's are inclined to rezone the property to a R-2 to be consistent with all other properties on the south side of 28th he would find that acceptable, but anything beyond that it would be very difficult for him tO approve, Mrs. Jean Wrobel, petitioner, addressed the Council stating she was present at the Council meeting last month asking for help. She stated their character has been hurt because of the article in the Post newspaper. In 1963, Dr. Wrobel lived in the residence for eleven years. She said he was the first dentist in the New Hope area. She went on to say that not too many people would like to have their residence in that area as the property backs up to the Midland Center. Every winter snow is dumped on the New Hope City Council Page 3 February 14, 1994 New Hope City Council Page 4 fence when plows clear the shopping center lot, and there is debris in the yard. Mrs. Wrobel said that the dental office has provided 32 years of service to the community. Mrs. wrobei said they asked the City for a R-O rezoning because the City Building Official told them it would be the only way to do something with the building. She also stated that they have no intention of selling the building at this point. Mrs. Wrobel stated the only thing they want to accomplish is to hire another dentist. Mayor EricKson stated the City wants to work with the Wrobels without setting a precedent. Mayor Erickson told Mrs. Wrobel that if the Council denies their request for rezoning, she may wish to would work with staff for another option. Councilmember Wehling asked staff if other cities had been surveyed to see how their codes read in regard to this matter. Mr. Donahue stated that he would be glad to have staff research this matter, but he said that most suburban cities have a standard zoning code. He said most suburban cities have a R-O Zoning District for professional buildings that would not allow a retail operation like a fast food restaurant as those uses fall under a B-3 Zoning District. Mr. Donahue stated that the 13etitioners are asking for a spot zoning and that is not allowable under the Comprehensive Plan or the zoning code of the City. Mr. Donahue stated another concern of staff is if the property is changed to a R-O it could become exclusively an office. Mr. Sondrall said that by establishing a PUD district, it would allow maintaining the existing property's use which is a dual purpose building that has a dental office plus a residence. The PUD would eliminate the special use permit that allows a home occupation. Councilmember Wehling stated she feels comfortable in following the staff recommendation and encouraging the petitioners to meet with City Staff to discuss the PUD. She commented that she would like to see the matter resolved in a positive manner. Councilmember Williamson asked Mrs. Wrobel what her plans are for the property. Mrs. Wrobel replied their intent is to hire an additional dentist and a hygienist so one more room is needed. Dr. Wrobel addressed the Council clarifying that he really did not want a total office building. He said they came in for the R-O request because the ordinance did not allow for the office to be there in the first place. He said that two-thirds of the workforce is engaged in service oriented industry and it is a complete reversal of what it was twenty years ago. He said that now there is a need for more buildings provided for people within the community. Dr. Wrobel said that what they are asking for is not a change in character of the outside of the building and nothing that will affect intrusion into the residential neighborhood, but what they want is a realistic use for that piece of property. Mayor Erickson stated the resolution before the Council is to deny the request for R-O zoning. If the petitioners want to consider other options, they should meet with staff to discuss alternatives. Commissioner Wehling noted that the request being denied is for the R-O February 14, 1994 RESOLUTION 94-22 Item 8.1 .re-zoning. Mr. Donahue explained that staff is forced into a difficult position when recommendations are denied. He emphasized that staff tries to work with homeowners and property owners, but oftentimes decisions are based on the good of the City and not necessarily the desires of the petitioner. Councilmember Wehling introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION CONSIDERING PLANNING CASE 93-33, REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY AT 7901 28TH AVENUE NORTH, AND DENYING SAME". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Enck, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, Otten, Williamson, and Wehling; and the following voted against the same: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly oassed and adooted, signed by the mayor which was at'tested to by the city clerk. New Hope City Council Page 5 February 14, 1994 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD Line: 612-531-5100 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: Police Fax: Public Works Fax: #612-531-51~ #612-531-5~7 #612-533-7~ February t5, t994 Paul T. Wrobel, D.D.S. 4908 28th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Subject: PLANNING CASE 93-33, REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO R-O, RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE TO ALLOW TOTAL PROFESSIONAL OF/:ICE OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING Dear Dr. Wrobeh As you are aware, the New Hope City Council approved a resolution denying your request to rezone the property at 7901 28th Avenue North from an R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District, to an R-O, Residential-Office Zoning District, at the February 14th Council meeting. The reasons for the denial are outlined in the resolution which was previously mailed to you. While the Council indicated that they could not support total professional office occupancy of the building, several Council members did indicate that they could support making the existing split-use (office/residential) a legal conforming use. The Council indicated that this could be accomplished with a rezoning from an R-1 to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District. This option, and several others, are outlined in the attached memo prepared by the City's Planning Consultant. If you wish to pursue another zoning application, please feel free to contact me at 531-5119 and I will be glad to work with you and coordinate the process. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator Enclosure: Planner's Memo Re: Zoning Options cc: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Cam File 93-33 Property File (7901 28th Avenue North) Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TDD Line: 612-531-5100 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: #612.531-5'_ Police Fax: #61~,,31-5 r- Public Works Fax; ~6 33-76J January 13, 1994 Paul T. Wrobel, D.D.S. 7908 28th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Subject: PLANNING CASE 93-33, REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO R-O, RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE TO ALLOW TOTAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICE OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING Dear Dr. Wrobeh Please be advised that the City Council took the following two actions on the above stated request at the January lOth New Hope City Council meeting: They directed the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact on the request and to present those findings at the February 14th Council meeting. I would advise that you plan on attending that Council meeting. They requested the staff to review and comment on zoning classifications and rezoning issues as they relate to your situation and to research alternate options. I anticipate that within the next several weeks that City staff-will again be meeting with the Planning Consultant and City Attorney to see if there are other options available to resolve this situation without rezoning the property. I will keep you updated on the progress of these discussions. If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at 531-5119. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager \ ~',, ,~ - - ~ , Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator cc: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 93-33 Property File (7901 28th Avenue North) Family Styled City ~ For Family Living RESOLUTION 944)6 Item 6.9 RESOLUTION 94-07 Item 6.10 HRG WINNERS Item 6.11 COMMUNITY PARTNERS Item 6.12 RESOLUTION 94-08 Item 6.13 RESOLUTION 94-09 Item 6.14 RESOLUTION 94-10 Item 6.15 BID/VACUUM SEWER/ CATCH BASIN CLEANER Item 6.16 BID/SQUAD CARS Item 6.17 PLANNING CASE 93-33 Item 8.1 Resolution Appointing Acting Mayor for 1994 (W. Peter Enck). Resolution Accepting Easements for Construction and Maintenance of Public Improvement at 4917 and 4933 Winnetka Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 483). Acknowled~,ement of December 1993 $50 HRG Recycling Winners. Motion Approving 1994 Community Partner's Business Retention Program Proposal and Authorizing $30,000 Payment of 1994 Business Retention and Development Commission Dues. Resolution Approving Agreement with Events of Distinction to Assist with Coordination of 1994 Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair (#514). Resolution Approving Hennepin County Housing Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program Repayment Agreement and Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Execute Agreement. Resolution Approving Change Order No. 6 for Improvement Project No. 489 (City Hall Improvements) in the Amount of $2,110. Approval of Bid Submitted by MacQueen Equipment, Inc. for One 1994 Combination Vacuum Sewer/Catch Basin Cleaner- $149,607 Approval of Bid Submitted by Eggebrecht Chevrolet-Geo for Four 1994 Police Squad Cars and Authorization to Purchase - $54,952. Mayor Pro rem Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Planning Case 93- 33, Request for Rezoning from R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District to R-O, Residential-Office, Zoning District, 7901 28th Avenue North, (PID #19-118-21 44 0065, Paul T. Wrobel, D.D.S., Petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator, stated the petitioner is requesting the rezoning of the property located at the corner of 28th and Winnetka Avenue from R-l, Single Family Residential, to R-O Residential Office, to allow total professional office occupancy of the building. The property is currently zoned R-1 and a special use (conditional use) permit was granted by the City in 1963 to allow a portion of the home to be used as a dental office. Currently the main floor of the home is utilized as a residence and the walkout basement is used as a dental office. The request is to expand the existing dental office to both floors of the building while eliminating the residential use and abandoning the present living quarters. In Mr. Wrobel's petition the applicant stated that the location of this building on Winnetka Avenue and immediately north of the Midland Shopping Center makes the entire building more useful for professional business rather than residential. The Planning Consultant prepared a report on this request which was New Hope City Council Page 2 January 10, 1994 discussed in detail at the November 2nd Planning Commission meeting and again in December. Mr. McDonald emphasized that the purpose of the R-1 district is to provide for Iow density single-family detached dwellings and the purpose of the R-O district is to provide for high density residential use and a transition from mid density residential to Iow intensity business allowing for the intermixing of a variety of uses. He stated th= Planning Commission was not favorable toward the rezoning for the following reasons: The current zoning designation does not rel~resent a past zoning mistake, based on the City's Comprehensive Plan, surrounding land use patterns and past use of the property. The property was properly designated for R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning. The existence of the dental office has not changed the character of the site significantly enough to warrant a change in zoning, as there has not been a significant change in land use since the 1975 Comprehensive Plan. While the present dental office use in a portion of the existing building has blended well with the neighborhood, a rezoning to R-O to allow total professional occupancy of the building could have a significant impact on the neighborhood if the present building was demolished and a new office was constructed that was not compatible with the neighborhood. If rezoned to R-O, a variety of R-O uses could occupy the site, including medical, professional and some commercial retail uses. It is questionable whether the site can adequately meet all the zoning requirements for an R-O Zoning District, including parking, loading berth, screening, etc. Mr. McDonald noted since the Planning Commission Meeting, the petitioner has submitted a revised site plan that shows that R-O zoning would require 14 parking stalls on the site. It appears the site could accommodate 14 parking stalls but there would have to be significant construction in the rear including a retaining wall. Se The purpose of the R-1 District is to provide for Iow density single family detached dwellings and the purpose of the R-O District is to provide for high density residential use and for the transition in land use from mid density residential to Iow intensity business allowing for the intermixing of such uses. The Commission felt that any commercial use or activity associated with the site that would be oriented toward the residential neighborhood on 28th Street would be incompatible with character of the area. The Commission considered this request again at the December 7th Planning Commission meeting, where revised plans were presented. Although the Commission was sympathetic towards the situation (the petitioner wants to bring in additional help for failing health reasons), they were unanimously opposed to the rezoning for the reasons stated. They New Hope City Council Page 3 January 10, 1994 unanimously voted to recommend denial of the request to the City Council. Mr. McDonald stated at the petitioner's request, the City Council tabled this request at the December 13, 1993, Council Meeting for one month. Since that time the staff has met with the applicant to discuss alternate options, such as selling the property with the current mixed-use status, rezoning to R-2, pursuing a text amendment that would allow offices on a limited be=is in an R-1 Zone, or placing specific limits on the use of the property if it was rezoned to R-0. No conclusion was reached. Mayor Pro rem Enck questioned whether the rezoning request related to a financial benefit (selling the property as a commercial classification rather than residential property). Mr. McDonald stated that was one of statements made at the Planning Commission Meeting. Mayor Pro rem Enck also mentioned that if the City grants a change other than the historical use of the property it may damage the capacity for the Council to evaluate other home occupations depending on the location. Mrs. Wrobel was recognized. She clarified that the rezoning request is not for any financial gain. She pointed out that the construction of the retaining wall and parking stalls will cost more than the increase in value. Mrs. Wrobel explained that in 1963 this was classified as an office within a home. She stated due to health reasons her husband needs assistance with his dental practice. Mrs. Wrobel argued that the character of the neighborhood has changed. She stated since 1963 the traffic has tripled in volume. An attractive office building would be an asset to the location. She stated Dr. Wrobel built the house with a dental office on the lower level. She commented that if the rezoning request is denied they would like the Council to grant a conditional use permit allowing more than two people to work in the dental office. Mayor Pro tem Enck told Mrs. Wrobel she would need to discuss that request with staff should the current request be denied. Councilmember Wehling questioned the reason behind the reluctance to rezone to an R-O zone. Mr. Daniel Donahue, City Manager, stated there are a number of uses allowed in an R-O zoning district. In the planning study done it does not appear the uses would be compatible. Technically, according to the zoning code to change the zoning it must be found that the past zoning was a mistake or that the character of the surrounding area has changed significantly enough to warrant a re-examination. Mrs. Wrobel reported that an app¢ol3riate zoning would be for a "professional office"; however, the City does not have such a zoning classification. She pointed out that most of the surrounding neighbors are New Hope City Council Page 4 January 10, 1994 patients and they in no way wish to upset them. Councilmember Otten indicated he is not opposed to allowing the business to continue under the present conditions but he would object to strip zoning. He expressed concern with creating a precedent. Mrs. Wrobel pointed out that the office faces Winnetka Avenue and it has served as & good buffer between the residential area and the Midland Shopping Center. Councilmember Otten suggested the Wrobels again discuss alternate options with staff. It was noted that the Wrobel's no longer reside at the property. The living-quarters are currently being rented. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, conveyed the fact that the special use permit has been violated as it was granted as a home occupation special use permit. Mrs. Wrobel contended that they were unaware of this condition until just recently. Dr. Wrobel approached the podium and pointed out that the property serves as a transitional-type buffer between commercial and residential properties. He called attention to the following properties: across the street an office building is classified as R-O and the property is next to residential and is not a buffer and is not as justified as his property; Dr. Keilo is located across the street and has a special use permit similar to his but it is not located next to commercial property; and Dr. Echo's office on 50th and Winnetka is zoned R-O which is office property next to residential properties. He emphasized that his property has more justification for an R-O justification than any of the fore-mentioned cases. Mayor Pro tern Enck stated during 1980 a revision of the comprehensive plan occurred which included a review of all zonings. He agreed that there are some properties which were grandfathered in and are confrontational with the abutting property owners. He maintained that this is unfortunate but the City would not want to expand upon this type of problem. Dr. Wrobel questioned whether there has been any problems with residential properties located next to the fore-mentioned offices. Mayor Pro tem Enck recollected past problems in one of the mentioned locations. He stated the zoning remains with the property not the existing use, so if anything occurred within the building such as a fire and the structure had to be rebuilt, any type of business which fits the zoning classification could be built on the property. Dr. Wrobel contended that the City has no zoning classification which allows only professional offices. Councilmember Wehling asked whether other cities have zoning classifications which allow for office-type buildings only. Mr. Sondrail replied that each city is different and other cities probably have different type of zoning classifications. New Hope City Council Page 5 January 10, 1994 MOTION Item 8.1 MOTION Item 8.1 PLANNING CASE 94-01 Item 8.2 It was noted that the R-O (residential-office) zoning district would accommodate an office bui!ding but would also accommodate other uses which may be undesirable for the residential location. Councilmember Wehling suggested reviewing the zoning codes and possibly amending the code to restrict certain uses within an R-O district. She commented that the R-O classification may be too broad. Dr. Wrobel noted the character of dentistry has changed and the solo practitioner is not as prevalent today due to overhead costs and the increase of HMO's. He urged the City to be receptive to different possibilities for his business. Mayor Pro tem Enck recommended handling the request as two parts: 1 ) refer the review of the zoning code to staff for input; and 2) because the issue currently before the Council is whether or not the property should be re-zoned to R-O, he suggested referring this to the City Attorney for findings of fact. The City Attorney agreed to have the findings of fact prepared for the February 14th Council Meeting. Motion by Councilmember Wehling, seconded by Councilmember Otten, to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and present same at February 14, 1994, Council Meeting. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Wehling prefaced the following motion by emphasizing that today's times differ from 30 years ago and perhaps the City needs to consider how it is adapting to residents' needs. She asked staff to give attention to redefining more specific appropriate areas for office buildings and the impact they may have on residential areas. Motion by Councilmember Wehling, seconded by Councilmember Otten, requesting staff to review and comment on zoning classifications and re- zoning issues as it relates to Planning Case 93-33 and research alternate options. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Pro tem Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Planning Case 94- 01, Request for Site and Building Plan Review for Building Addition and Conditional Use Permit for Deferred Parking, 3216 Winnetka Avenue North, (PID #20-118-21-23-0003), J. R. Jones, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated the petitioner is requesting a site and building plan review for construction of a two-level warehouse addition and a conditional use permit for the deferment of required parking. He stated J. R. Jones Fixture Company is proposing to construct a 132' x 62' (17,000 square foot) two-story warehouse addition at the east side of the existing building. The present owner built the original building in 1963, with subsequent expansions in 1968, 1979, 1990 and 1992. The proposed 17,000 square foot addition, combined with the existing 80,000 square foot building, will bring the total building size to 97,000 square feet. The petitioner purchased the two vacant lots to the north of their property (Lots I and 2, Pazandak Addition and is now in the process of initiating a New Hope City Council Page 6 January 10, 1994 4401 Xy/on Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone.. TDD L/ne' 612-531-5100 612.531-5109 Citk ' Polic~ PuDlic · 12-53 December 16, 1993 Paul T. Wrobel, D.D.S. 7908 28th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Subject: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO R-O, RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE, PLANNING CASE 93-33 Dear Dr. Wrobel: As you are aware, on December 7, 1993, the New Hope ,Planning Commission recommended denial of the request for rezonmg from the R-l, Single Family Residential, to R-O, Residential-Office, as submitted in Planning Case 93-33. Per your request, the New Hope City Council tabled the consideration of this matter at their December 13th meeting. The Council tabled the matter for one month and your request will be placed on the January 10th Council agenda. Please inform me prior to that time if you want to continue to pursue this request or if you will be modifying or withdrawing the request. Thanks for your cooperation and please contact me at 531-5119 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 93-33 Property File (7901 28th Avenue North) Family Styled City ~ For Family Living COUNCIL tms? c?xo Originating Department Approved for Agenda ~engta Section ~Velopment City Manager & Planning Kirk McDonald ~ Item No. By.Management Assistant By: /// 8.1 PLANNING CASE 93-33 - REQUEST FOR R/EZONING FROM R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO R-O, RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE, ZONING DISTRICT, 7901 28TH AVENUE NORTH, (PID #19-118-21 44 0065), PAUL T. WROBEL, D.D.S., PETITIONER The petitioner is requesting the rezoning of this parcel of property from R-1, Single Family Residential, to R-O Residential Office, to allow total professional office occupancy of the building. The property is currently zoned R-l, Single Family Residential, and a special use (conditional use) permit was granted by the City in 1963 to allow a portion of the home to be used as a dental office. Currently the main floor of the home is utilized as a residence and the walkout basement is used as a dental office. The request is to expand the existing dental office to both floors of the building while eliminating the residential use and abandoning the present living quarters. In his petition the applicant stated that the location of this building on Winnetka Avenue and immediately adjacent to the Midland Shopping Center makes the entire building more useful for professional business rather than residential. The Planning Consultant prepared a report on this request which was discussed in detail at the November 2nd Planning Commission meeting. The Commission was not favorable toward the rezoning for the following reasons: 1, The current zonin,q desi,qnation does not represent a past zoninq mistake, based on the City's Comprehensive Plan, surrounding land use patterns and past use of the properW. The property was properly designated for R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning. 2. The existence of the dental office has not chanqed the character of the site si,clnificantly enou.qh to warrant a chan,qe in zonin,q, as there has not been a significant change in land use since the 1975 Comprehensive Plan, 3. While the present dental office use in a portion of the existing building has blended well with the neighborhood, a rezonin,q to R-O to allow total professional occupancy of the buildin,q could have a si,qnificant impact on the nei,qhborhood if the present buildin,cl was demolished and a new office was constructed that was not compatible with the neighborhood, Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Planning Case 93-33 Page 2 January 10, 1994 If rezoned to R-Of a variety of R-O uses could occupy the site, including medical, professional and commercial retail uses. o It is questionable whether the site can adequately meet all the zoning requirements for an R-O Zoninq District, including parking, loading berth, screening, etc. The purpose of the R-1 District is to provide for tow density single family detached dwellings and the purpose of the R-O District is to provide for high density residential use and for the transition in land use from mid density residential to Iow intensity business allowing for the intermixing of such uses. The Commission felt that any commercial use or activity associated with the site that would be oriented toward the residential nei.qhborhood on 28th Street would be incompatible with character of the area. The Commission considered this request again at the December 7th Planning Commission meeting, where revised plans were presented. Although the Commissior~ was sympathetic towards the situation (the petitioner wants to bring in additional help for failing health reasons), they were unanimously opposed to the rezoning for the reasons stated. The Commission considered this request at the November and December meetings and unanimously voted to recommend denial of the request to the City Council. The City Council tabled this request at the December 13, 1993, Council meeting for one month at the petitioner's request. Since that time the staff has met with the applicant to discuss alternate options, such as selling the property with the current mixed-use status, rezoning to R-2, pursuing a text amendment that would allow offices on a limited basis in an R-1 Zone, or placing specific limits on the use of the property if it was rezoned to R-O. No conclusion was reached and staff discovered that the petitioner no longer resides on the property--the upper floor is rented. Staff recommends that the Council take this request under consideration and refer the matter to the City Attorney for preparation of "findings of fact". CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 7, 1993 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Absent: Also Present: Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Cassen, Watschke Gundershaug, Underdahl Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Alan Planning Consultant Brixius, There were no consent items on this agenda. PC 93-33 Item 4.1 Chairman Cameron introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Rezoning from R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District to R-0, Residential-Office Zoning District, 7901 28th Avenue North, Paul T. Wrobel, D.D.S., Petitioner Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant reviewed the case by stating that the petitioner is requesting the rezoning of this parcel of property from R-l, Single Family Residential, to R-O, Residential Office Zoning District. Mr. McDonald stated there was a lot of discussion on this case last month with a presentation/report by the Planning Consultant. The case was tabled and several of the Commissioners were opposed to the rezoning and other Commissioners stated they would give further consideration if more detailed plans were submitted. He said a letter was sent to Dr. Wrobel and revised plans were submitted and the Planning Consultant prepared an updated report. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, presented a brief overview of the site plan. He stated that the site is residentially zoned and is being used as two uses with the first floor being a single residential family home and a dental office on the basement level. The land uses to the north and west are residential in' character. The building is currently oriented toward 28th Street for the residential purpose and Winnetka Avenue for the dental office. Mr. Brixias stated at the last meeting questions were raised as to the capabilities of the site to provide adequate parking in full compliance with the City codes. The site plan-attempts to demonstrate that with ten parking spaces on the Winnetka side, but it is reliant on two parking spaces in the garage and two spaces is for in front of the garage. Mr. Brixius stated this does not fully comply with code as by ordinance the City requires all parking spaces to have direct access for backout onto a public street. In this regard, tandem parking and garage parking raises questions of compliance. Mr. Brixius stated that at the last meeting there was discussion concerning limiting the impact of any kind of commercial operation on 28th Street as this street is more residential in character. Mr. Brixius stated that his office developed an alternative plan which showed an expansion of the Winnetka parking to provide two additional stalls,'still reliant on two stalls in the garage, or providing off-street parking by expanding the driveway parking which would be consistent with City code. New Hope Planning Commission - 1 - December 7, 1993 Mr. Brixius stated both of these options raise questions as to whether the site has some limitations such as grade and other concerns. Mr. Brixius showed the Commissioners a photograph which demonstrated the topography starting at the first floor which slopes down toward the shopping center and as a result there is a need for a retaining wall to provide the required parking which would have access off Winnetka Avenue. Mr. Brixius said the retaining wall would have to be pushed back further into the slope and there are some physical limitations as to whether this could be accomplished. If this were the case, only two additional parking spaces could be provided and the garage parking would still have to be utilized to meet City code requirements. In addition to this, it appears that a handicapped stall would have to be provided so additional dimensional widths would have to be considered. Mr. Brixius said that basically a land use question still has to be addressed. He said that parking would meet minimal City standards, although some exceptions and flexibility would have to be considered as far as the garage parking and some alteration to the site plan would have to be made to accommodate the balance of the parking. Mr. Brixius stated that the site size conforms with the R-O District, however, the past land uses remain the same and in evaluating this, the Commission is going have to determine whether the original zoning was proper and if the character of the area has changed to justify the rezoning and whether the site can adequately accommodate a full commercial activity on this site. Chair Cameron asked if the City would have a problem with another dental office going on that site. Mr. Brixius replied that if the use remained the same, and not expanded in size or character, there would not be an application change. Mr. Brixius stated that under the current home occupation code, a dental office would not be a permitted home occupation, however, the City would recognize the existing conditional use that was passed and allow it to continue to operate the same as it does today. Petitioner, Jean Wrobel, 17230 5th Avenue North, addressed the Commission stating that she had contacted the City Engineer who provided names of several engineers/surveyors, one of which drew up the plans for the retaining wall. Mrs. Wrobel stated that they have no intention of making this a commercial property. She said that they would like to have another dentist come into the practice and help out so they would need to have some expansion. She stated there is no intention on their part in changing the front of the building. She said there is handicapped access in the back of the building so people would not have to go up any stairs. Chair Cameron commented that when residents asked for a rezoning, it is the most serious issue the Commission can consider. He said zoning goes with the property and could radically change the value of the piece of property. Chair Cameron said there are other options for the Wrobels to pursue to get another dentist on the site. Chair Cameron said that to rezone the property would be the most radical request. Mr. Brixius said that right now the dental office exists as a legal non-conforming use and under current code, it cannot be expanded without bringing it into conformity with the City's zoning requirements. He said if it were rezoned to a R-O, it cannot be on condition of a specific use. When the zoning is changed, the Commission is maki.ng a finding that the uses that are allowed in a district are acceptable in that area. He said contractual zoning is.not a legal means of accomplishing this. New Hope Planning Commission -2- December 7, 1993 Chair Cameron stated he is not convinced that this is a reasonable request. He said he thinks it is spot zoning and does not think this piece of property can adequately I~andle the kinds of uses that a R-O would put on it. He said he is absolutely opposed to rezoning this piece of property. Commissioner Cassen stated she has a concern with traffic on 28th Avenue as it is a main residential area. She said two additional parking spaces could be added, but there is no turn around and cars would have to back out unto 28th Avenue. She said usage of the driveway on 28th Avenue would be a problem. Commissioner Cassen stated that the driveway couldn't be blocked and there must be access in and out according to City ordinance. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, seconded by Commissioner Zak, to deny Planning Case 93-33, Request for Rezoning from R-1 to R-O. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Cassen, Watschke None Underdahl, Gundershaug PC 93-35B Item 4.2 Chairman Cameron introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Planning case 93- 35, Request for Rezoning from B-l, Limited Neighborhood Business Zoning District, to B-2, Retail Business Zoning District, or Code Text Amendment or Conditional Use Permit to Allow Laundromat/Drycleaning (with processing) Business to locate at 7811/7821 62nd Avenue North, Oliver Tam/Tam's Family Partnership, Petitioner. MOTION Item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Lifson, seconded by Commissioner Sonsin, to table Planning Case 93-35, as petitioner was not present. Planning Case 93-35 will be put on the January 4, 1994, Planning Commission agenda. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Lifson, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Cassen, Watschke None Underdahl, Gundershaug PC 93-31 Item 4.3 Chairman Cameron introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Planning Case 93- 31, Request for Amendment to Home Occupation Ordinance, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, briefly outlined the Amendment to the Home Occupation Ordinance. The Codes and Standards Committee has been reviewing the "home occupation" ordinance since September and the purpose of the review was to determine if the existing ordinance needed to be updated/revised to address changing trends in the work force or to determine if the current ordinance adequately addresses these trends. Mr. McDonald stated that four changes are being recommended to the Home Occupation Ordinance. He said the Codes and Standards Committee is trying to be proactive on this issue due to changing work force trends. The four changes would be to permitted home occupations. The first is traffic and parking. The recommendation is businesses would not alter traffic patterns in the neighborhood and not create a traffic demand in excess of what can be accommodated in the driveway. The change will not require people to park in the driveway. The second change is employees. Mr. McDonald stated the Committee would like to see the code be more flexible to allow one employee residing off of the premises. He said as the New Hope Planning Commission o 3 - December 7, 1993 PC 93-33 Item 3.2 Chairman Cameron introduced for discussion Item 3.2, Request for Rezoning from R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District to R-0, Residential-Office Zoning District, 7901 28th Avenue North, Paul T. Wrobel, D.D.S., Petitioner Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant reviewed the case by stating that the petitioner is requesting the rezoning of this parcel of property from R-1, Single Family Residential, to R-O, Residential Office, to allow total professional office occupancy of the building. The property is currently zoned R-l, Single Family Residential, and a special use (conditional use) permit was granted by the City in 1963 to allow a portion of the home to' be used as a dental office. Currently the main floor of the home is utilized as a residence and the walkout basement is used as a dental office. The property is located on the corner of 28th Avenue and Winnetka. The request is to expand the existing dental office to both floors of the building, New Hope Planning Commission - 1 - November 2, 1993 while eliminating the residential use. The petitioner states in a letter that a dental office in his residential building was appropriate and appreciated for the past 29 years where he has had a successful private dental office. He states that the location of this building on Winnetka ;&venue and immediately adjacent to the Midland Shopping Center now makes the entire building more useful for professional business rather than residential. The applicant states that he wishes to abandon the present living quarters within this building. He is requesting permission for total professional occupancy of the building. Dr. Wrobel came to the City Council in 1963 when the lot was vacant and requested approval for the construction of a "combination dental office and home" on this property and it was approved. Construction began the next spring on the building that is now on the property. Dr. Wrobel feels that the request should be granted to provide a necessary change in the usage of the site as appropriate for the location. Mr. McDonald stated that in his report he has explained the current land uses. The lot currently contains approximately 16,500 square feet and the building contains 1,150 square feet per floor for a total of 2,300 square feet. The building does meet all of the setback requirements, being setback 35 feet from 28th Avenue and 50 feet from Winnetka. The site contains 8 parking spaces, 4 in the driveway off of 28th Avenue and 4 in the drive/parking lot off of Winnetka. Petitioner, Dr. Wrobe! told the Planning Commission that he has been in this residence for 30 years and has been a very successful business. He said the value of the building as a residence is not an~/where near the value of it as it could be for a professional building and that is why he wants it considered for a total professional building. He went on to say that this property is an excellent buffer between the commercial and R-2 and R-O across the street on the southeast corner. He said it has been an attractive building, well-kept and has not been an interference with any other neighbors. He said it has been very well maintained as both a residence and a professional office building and would be more conducive to the transition stage from the residential (R-l) which now does not accept a dental office and only an R-2 would accept a use such as a dental office. He stated that there would be no intrusion into a residential street or into the residential area. There can be sufficient space for the number of parking spaces that would be needed for total usage of the building as a professional building. Chairman Cameron informed Dr. Wrobel how the Planning Commission approaches any request for rezoning. He stated that the City has been zoned in a certain way for a number of years and a Comprehensive Plan has been developed with a lot of time and energy considering zoning. rezoning and is not out to increase or decrease property values. What the Planning Commission looks at is land use and the appropriateness of land use for the property in question and the surrounding property owners. Chair Cameron stated that the Planning Commission has only rezoned when they are convinced that either there was a mistake originally or that the character of the property or the surrounding property had changed. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant with Northwest Associated Consultants New Hope Planning Commission - 2 - November 2, 1993 presented his report regarding the property in question. He stated that there are a number of criteria that the City uses in evaluating any rezoning request. First, was the zoning a mistake; second, has there been a changing character in the area that justifies a change in land use intensity and five additional criteria outlined in the zoning ordinance to assist the Planning Commission in making a judgment on the first two. Mr. Brixius said the s;,~e in question is zoned R-1 and is abutting an R-1 and R-2 District to the north and east. It is oriented both to 28th Street and Winnetka with a second use. Based upon the surrounding land uses, the Comprehensive Plan ~lnd this historic use as a single-family residence it does not appear that the R-1 was a mistake in zoning. The use of the walk-out basement as a dental office was a conditional use permit allowed in that district in 1963 and as a result the zoning does seem appropriate. Mr. Brixius stated that over the course of years since the original use went in, the City adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1975 and it suggested that the southern tier of lots facing on 28th Street should be a medium density residential district with the exception of the site in question, twin homes have been ~eveloped in that area so that basically the Comprehensive Plan has been effectuated. Mr. Brixius stated that 28th Street is a residential area. He said that the first floor use is oriented toward 28th Street and does blend well with the twin homes and single family homes to the north. Dr. Wrobel's dental office is oriented toward Winnetka and has commercial characteristics which are not consistent with the City's current home occupation ordinance but would blend well with both.the Midland Shoppin; Center and Winnetka Center. Mr. Brixius stated that the land use goals and policies are specific as far as intrusion on single family or residential areas and basically promote the protection of the character of residential areas. Mr. Brixius stated that commercial goals discourage linear expansion of commercial areas or fragmented spot or uncoordinated commercial development. He stated that in this regard the proposed zoning is questionable under those policies. He went on to say that permitted uses are quite different between the R-1 District, which is a single-family Iow density residential district, and R-O Zoning District. He said the R-O District is a transitional land use district and is intended to be utilized between Iow density single family areas and commercial areas to provide some transitional arrangements. Mr. Brixius stated the concern the City does have with the other criteria for evaluating the proposed rezoning is whether the site can adequately meet the performance standards of the proposed zoning district. Based on conversion of this home to a dental office, it would need 14 parking stalls. -~ese parking stalls would have to meet all of the performance standards · re.oard to setback, aeces.~. ¢.tn. He said revi~winn th~ .~it~ pl~n if :ars that there is some questions as to whether they can adequately be prowded, Mr. Brixius stated that full consideration would have to be given to zoning standards. He said he does not believe that R-1 zoning is a mistake from the past use, but the changing character is something that has to be evaluated and a determination made as to what is the predominant use of the site, is it a dental office, or a single-family home and how does it best fit within the neighborhood. Mr. Brixius stated that without a clear New Hope Planning Commission - 3 - November 2, 1993 definition of thiS ahd blear definition that the site could meet all of the performance standards, Northwest Consultants cannot support the rezoning of the property. Commissioner Sonsin asked about the use of the property immediately to the north across 28th Avenue, which is zoned a single-family residential R- 1, but co,)tains a chiropractor in the bottom floor of that building. He inquired if the chiropractor would now request a rezoning. Mr. McDonald replied that they have not submitted an application that he is aware of. Comr~issioner Sonsin asked Dr. Wrobel if he has made firm plans to sell the property and vacate the premises if the rezoning is approved. Dr. Wrobel replied that first he had to know if the City would rezone the property so he would know which way he could go. He said if the zoning remains R-1, it obviously eliminates any kind of change. Commissioner Sonsin informed Dr. Wrobel that if he wanted the Commission to pursue consideration for request for rezoning, plans would have to be submitted showing what was to be done to the property to make it into a professional office. Commissioner Sonsin stated he is not supportive of a rezoning without seeing plans. Dr. Wrobel stated he would be glad to submit a more detailed submittal. Commissioner Sonsin suggested tabling this matter for a month or so to give Dr.'Wrobei a chance to work with City staff on rezoning issues. Commissioner Zak stated that she feels it is definitely a residential area and the smatl parking lot that abuts Winnetka blends in with Midland but the basic north front of the residence does look like a residence and the rest of the neighborhood is either the twin homes or single family residential. She said she could not see a lot of compatibility if the whole building is changed to a professional building and parking would be a major problem. Commissioner Underdahl stated she understands his request for total professional office occupancy of the building and doesn't think it would be totally incompatible. She said that maybe Dr. Wrobel could look into this matter with City staff to determine what options there are for the property. Commissioner Gundershaug stated that he sees a transitional piece of property at this point. He said he didn't believe it would be compatible to R-O and meet all of the requirements for an R-O zoning. He stated he could see an R-O there if it did not require a single variance. It would have to meet all criteria. Commissioner Cassen stated she feels it is a transitional piece of ~ropertv and if it could meet all of the performance standards of an R-O she would not have a problem with it. She stated parking on 28th Avenue would be a problem because of it being residential and would want that vacated and have the entrances on the Winnetka side. Commissioner Watschke stated he has the same concerns as Commissioner Underdahl with how the architecture of the building would change. If all the parking is on the Winnetka side, there would be accessibility problems to the upper level. He stated that the Commission also has to Ioo1~ at what New Hope Planning Commission - 4 - November 2, 1993 MOTION Item 3.2 other permi~ed issues are in an R-O zone. He stated he feels the Commission needs more information on this issue. Chairman Cameron stated he feels that zoning goes with' a piece of property forever.~ Right now there is a nice home on the property, but once the rezoning is in place and meets the criteria of CiW, anything can go on that piece of property that meets the R-O District standards. He stated he is opposed to the rezoning even if he works with the City staff. Dr. Wrobel stated he would like the Planning Commission to table this item and enable him to work with City staff to see what is required to have it rezoned as an R-O and that a more detailed submittal would be made in the future. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin to table Planning Case 93-33, Request for Rezoning from R-1 to R-O for one month until the December 7, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Gundershaug. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion Carried. Underdahl, Sonsin, Gundershaug, Cassen, Watschke Zak, Cameron Lifson New Hope Planning Commission - 5 - November 2, 1993 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No: 94-08 Request for Site and Building Plan Review, Preliminary Plat to Subdivide Property, Conditional Use Permit for Shared Driveway Access and Variances to Lot Width and Parking Requirements for Construction of Off'ace/Warehouse 7300/7400 49th Avenue North 08-118-21 24 0010 Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: I-1 Hoyt Development/J-S Winnetka, Inc. March 28, 1994 April 5, 1994 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a Site and Building Plan Review/Approval, a Conditional Use Permit for Shared Driveway Access, Variances to the Lot Width and I-1 Front Yard Parking Requirements, and Preliminary Plat Approval of' Five Thousand Winnetka 2nd Addition (Sections 4.039A, 4.19, 4.21, 4.035, 4.036, and 4.145 - New Hope Code of Ordinances). The petitioner is proposing to subdivide the 19 acre vacant parcel at 7400 49th Avenue into three lots and erect a 78,000 square foot office/warehouse building on the center lot. 3. The specific zoning requests include: B. C. D. E. Preliminary Plat Approval Site and Building Plan Review/Approval Conditional Use Permit for Shared Driveway Access Variance to Lot Width Requirement Variance for Front Yard Parking in the I-1 Zone The property is located in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District and is bordered on the east by the Soo Line Railroad and New Hope Ice Arena, on the south (across 49th Avenue) by I-1 industrial property, on the west by three I-2 industrial lots (one contains a non-conforming single family residential farmhouse), and on the north by the Soo Line Railroad and vacant R-1 Single Family Residential property. The Comprehensive Plan (District 11) stresses the industrial character of the area, and the need for maintenance and buffers toward the nearly residential properties (including Crystal). The physical/topographic characteristics of the property include a wetlands area, a large pile of excavation material, a rail spur crossing the site with rail lines on two sides of the property, scattered trees and some soil problems. Planning Case Report 94-08 April 5, 1994 Page 2 7. Property owners within 350' of the request have been noti ANALYSIS SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW The petitioner is proposing to construct a 78,400 square foo proposed plat, with 69,280 square feet being warehouse office area. The building is being constructed for Navare recorded discs. This building would house the corporate 75. The company has been in business for 10 years and buildings in Brooklyn Center. The plan provides 86 parking spaces, including four A.D.3. exceeds code requirements. A total of 68 spaces are locat~ and 18 spaces are located on the south (front) side of the 1 will be surfaced with bituminous and surrounded by B-612 3. The building meets/exceeds the I-1 Zoning District setback The building contains six overhead doors/loading dock are, storage is located within the most northerly loading dock. o Building materials would consist of stucco finish/precast c bronze insulated windows on the two-story office and the w concrete insulated panels with textured surface, pre-finist tinted glass windows in aluminum frames with smooth concre o The utility plans show an eight inch watermain looped from and an eight inch sanitary sewer extension to Lot 2, as re Engineer. Plans also show the installation of an erosion co,, four wetlands (A,B,C,D) are identified. The landscape plan/schedule shows the installation of 28 Oak), 36 one to one and one-half caliper ornamental trees (~ evergreen trees (Black Hills Spruce), 29 fifteen to thirt3 (Sumac and Spirea), and 56 twenty-four inch diameter ever a total of 174 trees/shrubs. The site will be sodded. ° The petitioner met with the Design and Review Committee issues were discussed including utilities, parking, sidewa lighting, building materials, roof-top equipment, truck landscaping. Revised plans were submitted as a result of t Planning Case Report 94-08 April 5, 1994 Page 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT The Preliminary Plat subdivides the 19 acre parcel into two lots and an outlot with proposed square footages as follows: Lot 1 264,363.2 sq. feet 6.06 acres Lot 2 419,908.2 sq. feet 9.63 acres Outlot A 160,411.2 sq. feet 3.68 acres TOTAL 844,682.6 sq. feet 19.37 acres The lot area requirement in the I-1 Zoning District is one acre, thus the Zoning Code requirement is easily met. The minimum lot width requirement for any lot l¢cated in the I-1 Zone is 150 feet. The Outlot and Lot 1 easily meet the requirement, however, LOt 2 does not meet the requirement due to it's triangular shape. Lot 2 has a minimum lot width on 49th Avenue of 116.99 feet, therefore, a variance is required. Staff finds the variance to be acceptable because a hardship related to the unusual shape and topography of the property can be sited. The plat was distributed to the City Attorney, City Engineer, Departments Heads, utility companies, Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation for review and comment and several minor revisions were requested, per the attached correspondence from the City Attorney and City Engineer. The Zoning Code states that "if the preliminary plat is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, the subdivider must submit the final plat within 100 days after said approval. Copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commission during their review of the preliminary plat." The petitioner is requesting that the Planning Commission waive their review of the final plat to expedite the approval process. Due to the simple nature of the plat, staff has no problem with the request and recommends that the Commission agree to waive it's review of the final plat. The final plat could then be considered by the City Council on April 25th. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The subject property is to be accessed off of 49th Avenue via a 30 foot Wide shared common access driveway; to be shared between Lots 1 and 2 with 15 feet of the drive to be located on each property. The Zoning Ordinance allows joint access (parking) through a conditional use permit. In considering the high traffic volume on 49th Avenue, staff views the shared access positively because one joint access will be safer than several accesses. Planning Case Report 94-08 April 5, 1994 Page 4 The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional us is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health, and safety. o The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider possible adverse effect of the proposed conditional use. In determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit, the City Council and Planning Commission shall find that: Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in re~ specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the otficia~ Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts: In Industrial Districts (I-l, I-2): ao Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing or future development in adjacent areas. Economic Return. The use will provide an economic return to the community and commensurate with other industrial uses that the property could feasibly be used for. In considering the economic return to the community, the Planning Commission and City Council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative. Planning Case Report 94-08 April 5, 1994 Page 5 VARIANCES 1. Two minor variances are required for this development: lot width and front yard parking. The minimum lot width requirement in the I-1 Zone is 150 feet and the minimum width of Lot 2 is 116.99 feet on 49th Avenue, therefore, a 33.01 foot lot width variance is required. Also, the Zoning Code, under "special requirements for all Limited Industrial uses," states that "no parking lot in front of the building shall be used by vehicles of employees." The plans show that 17 regular and one handicapped parking space(s) will be located in front of the building, some of which may be utilized by employees. Staff does not have a major problem with this due to the fact that: A. the site fronts onto another industrial area to the south, Bo the petitioner has provided a good landscape buffer between the street and the parking area, C. front yard parking has been allowed on several other sites and staff has been considering recommending a review of this requirement for some time, with the condition that the parking area should be adequately screened. 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: Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. Planning Case Report 94-08 April 5, 1994 Page 6 Public Safe _ty. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. STAFF COMMENTS The petitioner has been cooperative in providing revised plans that address some of the major issues discussed by Design and Review, particularly in regard to utilities. 2. The Planning Consultant has prepared a detailed report on these requests, which is attached. 3. The City Engineer has reviewed the revised plans and has made the following comments: The master grading plan implies the entire site is to be graded at this time. It's recommended the City impose a time limit to complete the grading. In the event stockpiled material is hauled off-site, the specifics for that work shall be stated and reviewed by the City (working hours, dust control, etc). The above plat included 19.4 acres. It's recommended the pond grading at a minimum include that which is required for this plat (Lots 1 and 2 and Outlot A). Ponding shall comply with the Shingle Creek Watershed and New Hope's Surface Water Management Plan. It's recommended the pond grading by the developer at a minimum include grading Pond SC-P4.9 (Cells A and B) to allow development of Lots 1 and 2. It is felt the grading of Pond SC-P4.4 is the responsibility of the City and can be graded when Outlot A is developed. The outlet pipe and control structure for Pond SC-P4.9 shall be'constructed by the developer. The pipe size and outlet structure will be determined by the City in accordance with the Shingle Creek Watershed. It should be noted drainage area (SC-A4) is a tributary to Twin Lakes, which is a high priority water body in Shingle Creek. The developer's engineer has delineated four wetlands on the property in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. It appears each wetland will be impacted by development. The replacement of each wetland shall comply with requirements under the Wetland Conservation Act (minimum 2 to 1 replacement). It's recommended a small sediment basin be graded upstream of Wetland A collecting runoff from Lot ! before discharging to Wetland A. D. All permitting requirements shall be approved before construction can begin. Erosion contrOl and restoration shall be maintained and completed in a timely manner~ as directed by the City. Planning Case Report 94-08 April 5, 1994 Page 7 F. Drainage, utility, and pond easements shall be shown on the plat. It is intended the driveway located along the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 be shared. The issues associated with a shared driveway between two properties shall be resolved before approval. The existing driveway serving Lot 2 from 49th Avenue shall be removed. Due to the minimal street frontage of Lot 2 and the location of the railroad tracks, it is preferred from an engineering standpoint that the shared driveway, as proposed, be approved. The minimal street frontage of Lot 2, based on its size, will limit its ability to develop in the future. Outlot A will also be limited in how it can develop in the future. Therefore, it's important the condition of LOt 2 and Outlot A following the development of LOt 1 be acceptable due to the time it may take for either of these two parcels to develop in the future. The eight inch looped watermain serving Lot 1 is properly shown as previously requested. The location of hydrants shall be reviewed with the fire marshall. J. The eight inch sanitary sewer serving Lot 2 is properly shown. 4. The City Attorney has reviewed the revised plans and has made the following comments: There are several very minor differences between the angles on Outlot A of 5000 Winnetka compared to the angles of the proposed 5000 Winnetka 2nd Addition. These differences will be noted and either corrected or disregarded by the Hennepin County Surveyor's Office. I recommend that the City approve the plat without regard to this issue. The owner of the plat, apparently 5000 Winnetka Limited Partnership, must supply the City (our office) with an updated Abstract of Title for the abstract portion of the property, as well as a Registered Property Abstract for the property in the Torrens system. Any persons or entities with an ownership or other interest in the property will need to be listed on the plat and sign the same. At this point I do not know whether there are any ownership or other interests in the property aside from that of 5000 Winnetka Limited Partnership. I will provide the City with the required signatories on the plat after I have completed the title opinions. The approval and acceptance language for the City Council on the plat is drafted for the City of Eden Prairie, and needs to be changed to the City of New Hope. Do The property owner should be aware that the Hennepin County Auditor will not sign off on the plat until the entire real estate taxes due and payable in 1994 have been paid. Planning Case Report 94-08 April 5, 1994 Page 8 So if the plat is approved prior to October 15 of 1994, the property owner will need to either prepay the second half taxes or delay filing the plat until that time. 5. The Building Official has reviewed the plans and has made the following comments. A. CUP for shared access may require driveway/road adjustment. B. Variance for lot width is ameliorated by the fact that two lots with 400 feet of frontage are entitled to two curb cuts, but only one will be built. C. Variance for employee parking in front is routine because staff have realized that effective landscaping in front is more important and the current code has not been stringently enforced. Several recent projects have proceeded without strict adherance to this code. Staff are in the process of initiating a zoning text change on this section of the code. D. Parking layout on east side needs adjustment to permit a widened green strip along the shared driveway, with more than a line of 24 inch shrubs on a four foot strip of grass separating the large parking lot from a shared drive. E. Exterior lighting ("down-type") has not been shown on the plans. F. Revise the preliminary plat to delete the dash line that is parallel to and south of the railroad property line at the north of Lots 1 and 2. The entire area is now within a drainage and utility easement. G. No soils data provided on all three lots per our platting ordinance. H. Snow storage areas must be shown in reasonable proximity to asphalt areas. I. Revised Site Plan, A-I, and revised Civil Engineering plan are still in conflict as to lot lines, street curbs and building location. Lot lines vary by ten (10) feet and street curbs vary by thirty (30) feet. K. Shingle Creek Watershed Commission approval is required after City Council approval. L. Easement defined and recorded for the shared utility and access driveway area. Planning Case Report 94-08 April 5, 1994 Page 9 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for site and building plan review, preliminary plat to subdivide property, conditional use permit for shared driveway access and variances to lot width and parking requirements for construction of an office/warehouse subject to the following conditions: (These include the recommendations of the City Attorney, City Engineer, Building Official, and Planning Consultant.) Approval of the 5000 Winnetka 2nd Addition preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: A. The preliminary plat is modified to illustrate all required building setbacks. B. The following easements are to be eStablished: Drainage and utility easements at least ten feet in width along rear and other lot lines. 2. A rail easement over the rail spur which bisects the subject site. An access easement over the shared access drive to provide joint access to Lots 1 an 2 and to accommodate loading movements. Properly sized drainage, ponding and utility easements over the storm water ponding area must be established and dedicated with the final plat approval. Co Restrictive covenants be drafted/filed which require all access to Lots 1 and 2 to be 'achieved only via the proposed shared access. Such covenants should include a maintenance agreement which stipulates maintenance responsibilities for the proposed shared access drive. All covenants shall be subject to City approval. Provide City Attorney with an updated Abstract of Title for the abstract portion of the property and a Registered Property Abstract for the property in the Torrens systems. Eo Change the approval and acceptance language for the City Council on the plat to the City of New Hope. Revise the preliminary plat to delete the dash line that is parallel to, and south of the railroad property line at the north of Lots 1 and 2. The entire area is now within a drainage and utility easement. G. Easement to be defined and recorded for the shared utility and driveway access. Planning Case Report 94-08 April 5, 1994 Page 10 2. Approval of the warehouse site and building plans subject to the following conditions: Time limit to complete the grading to be specified in Development Agreement and in the event stockpiled material is hauled off-site, the specifics for that work shall be stated and reviewed by the City (working hours, dust control, etc.). Bo The pond grading at a minimum include that which is required for this plat (Lots ! and 2 and Outlot A). Ponding shall comply with the Shingle Creek Watershed and New Hope's Surface Water Management Plan. The pond grading by the developer at a minimum include grading Pond SC-P4.9 (Cells A and B) to allow development of Lots 1 and 2. The outlet pipe and control structure for Pond SC-P4.9 shall be constructed by the developer. The pipe size and outlet structure will be determined by the City in accordance with the Shingle Creek Watershed. Co The replacement of each wetland impacted by development shall comply with requirements under the Wetland Conservation Act (minimum 2 to 1 replacement). A small sediment basin shall be graded upstream of Wetland A collecting runoff from Lot 1 before discharging to Wetland A. D. All permitting requirements shall be approved before construction can begin. Erosion control and restoration shall be maintained and completed in a timely manner, as directed by the City. Fo The existing driveway serving Lot 2 from 49th Avenue shall be removed. Due to the minimal street frontage of Lot 2 and the location of the railroad tracks, it is preferred from an engineering standpoint that the shared driveway, as proposed, be approved. The location of hydrants shall be reviewed with the fire marshall. Hydrant also to be installed on southeast comer of 5000 Winnetlm property where water main connects. Parking layout on east side of building needs adjustment to permit a widened green strip along the shared driveway, with more than a line of 24 inch shrubs on a four foot strip of grass separating the large parking lot from a shared drive (to be shown on revised plans). Consideration is given to recortfiguring the east parking lot to provide an angled, one-way parking arrangement. Such an arrangement would provide an additional five feet of green area width which may be devoted to snow storage and/or landscaping. Exterior lighting ("down-type") to be shown on revised plans. The site plan is modified to illustrate all exterior lighting locations. All lighting used to illuminate off- street parking areas must be hooded and directed to reflect light away from neighboring properties and public rights-of-way. Planning Case Report 94-08 April 5, 1994 Page 11 J. Soils data to be provided on all three lots, per platting ordinance. Snow storage areas to be shown on revised plans in reasonable proximity to asphalt areas. Revised plans to be submitted showing similar lot lines, street curbs and building location between all plans. Mo All off-street parking areas, including the shared access drive is provided a perimeter curb. No The proposed 32 foot wide curb cut on 49th Avenue is subject to approval by the City Engineer. Oo Consideration is given to providing a sidewalk along designated off-street parking areas. P. All site signage comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. Q° Developer to execute development contract and provide performance bond to the City (amount to be determined by Building Official and City Engineer). Attachments: Planning Consultant's Report Zoning Map Preliminary Plat Grading/Drainage Plan Grading/Utility Plan Site Plan Building Elevations Floor Plan Landscaping Plan City Engineer 3/17 and 3/31 Correspondence City Attorney Correspondence Staff Exhibits A/B/C/D/D-2/E Aerial Photo Plat Distribution Letter / U R B A P L A N NG · DES N · M AR K E T R S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius 30 March 1994 New Hope - Hoyt Development 131.01 - 94.08 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Hoyt Development Company has requested preliminary plat approval of a two lot subdivision entitled Five Thousand Winnetka Second Addition. The subject 19 acre site is located north of 49th Avenue and west of the Soo Line Railroad and holds an I-l, Limited Industrial zoning designation. The proposed subdivision essentially involves the replatting of an existing outlot into two lots and an outlot which would, at some future point, be accessed via a future extension of Quebec Avenue. In conjunction with the subdivision request, the developer has requested approval of a 78,400 square foot warehouse facility on Lot 1 of the subdivision. In total, the following approvals are needed to accommodate the development proposal: 2. 3. 4. 5. Preliminaryplat. Site and building plans. Conditional use permit for shared access. Variance for lot width less than 150 feet. Conditional use permit to allow parking deferment. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.. Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat Exhibit C - Grading and Utility Plan Exhibit D - Site Plan Exhibit E - Building Elevations Exhibit F - Floor Plan Exhibit G - Landscape Plan Recommendation Past planning for the subject property had recommended that Quebec Avenue be extended northward to provide street access into the area. To accommodate such a street extension, the acquisition and removal of the adjacent Jacobwith single family residence would be necessary. To date, efforts to acquire the residence have failed. While the inability of the applicant to acquire the Jacobwith property will prohibit the Quebec Avenue street expansion, the applicant has proposed a subdivision design in which future development of an outlot will coincide with future acquisition of the Jacobwith property. Recognizing the applicant's situation, the proposed subdivision design and building plans are viewed as positive. In this regard, our office recommends the following: Approval of the 5000 Winnetka 2nd Addition preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: ae The City approve a variance to allow Lot 2 to exhibit a lot width less than 150 feet. b. The preliminary plat is modified to illustrate all required building setbacks. c. The following easements are established: Drainage and utility easements at least ten feet in width along rear and other lot lines. (2) A rail easement over the rail spur which bisects the subject site. (3) An access easement over the shared access drive to provide joint access to Lots 1 and 2 and to accommodate loading movements. 2 (4) Properly sized drainage and utility easements over the storm water ponding area must be established and dedicated with the final plat approval. d. The City Engineer provide comment on the following items: (i) The acceptability of the easement locations upon the outlot and Lot 2. Proper sizing and location of required drainage and utility easements throughout the plat. (2) Utility issues. (3) The ability of 49th Avenue to successfully and safely accommodate vehicular ingress/egress. Se Restrictive covenants are imposed which require all access to Lots 1 and 2 to be achieved only via the proposed shared access. Such covenants should include a maintenance agreement which stipulates maintenance responsibilities for the proposed shared access drive. All covenants shall be subject to City approval. The submitted grading and drainage plan is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. g. Comments from other City staff. Approval of the warehouse site and building plans subject to the following conditions: Ail off-street parking areas, including the shared access drive is provided a perimeter curb. Ail snow is removed such that all off-street parking stalls are available for year round use. de The City approve a conditional use permit to allow the proposed shared access from 49th Avenue. The proposed 32 foot wide curb cut on 49th Avenue is subject to approval by the City Engineer. Se Consideration is given to providing a sidewalk along designated off-street parking areas. The City provide comment as to the acceptability of the loading area's infringement on the shared access drive. Consideration is given to reconfiguring the east parking lot to provide an angled, one-way parking arrangement. Such an arrangement would provide an additional five feet 3 of green area width which may be devoted to snow storage and/or landscaping. If applicable, the site plan is modified to illustrate all exterior trash handling areas. All site trash facilities must be screened from view of neighboring properties and public rights-of-way. Ail site signage comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. The site plan is modified to illustrate all ~terior lighting locations. All lighting used to illum±~.~ce off- street parking areas must be hooded and directed to reflect light away from neighboring properties and public rights-of-way. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANAINSIS Property History. Past planning for the subject property recommended that Quebec Avenue be extended northward to provide street access into this area. Benefits to such a recommendation included: o Provision for a full intersection with 49th Avenue. o Convenient and safe access to 49th and Quebec Avenues. o Direction of industrial traffic away from residential neighborhoods. To accommodate such a street extension, the acquisition and removal of the Jacobwith ~esidence would be necessary. To date, all negotiations relating to the purchase of the Jacobwith property have failed. As a result of an immediate desire to develop the property, the applicant/property owner now wishes to subdivide the subject property into two lots and an outlot and construct a warehousing facility upon Lot 1 of the subdivision. Development of ~ke outloZ would likely coincide with the future acquisition of the Jacobwith property. 4 Preliminary Plat Lot Area. According to the Zoning Ordinance, lots within I-1 Zoning Districts may not be less than one acre in size. All proposed lots within the subdivision greatly exceed the minimum I-1 District lot size requirement. Lot Width. According to the Zoning Ordinance, lots within I-1 zoning districts must provide at least 150 feet of width. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance defines lot width as the shortest horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth. While Lot 1 of the subdivision greatly exceeds I-1 lot width requirements (280 feet proposed), Lot 2, at 117 feet in width, is deficient. To accommodate the proposed 117 foot lot width, the processing of a variance will be necessary. In consideration of variance requests, Section 4.22 of the Ordinance stipulates that approval of a variance must be based upon demonstrated non-economic hardship unique to the subject property. The Ordinance further states that a hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific parcel of property. Considering the triangular shape of the subject property (due to adjacent rail line locations) and degree of lot width deficiency (117 feet proposed versus 150 feet required), it is the opinion of our office that a genuine hardship does exist to warrant variance approval. Setbacks. Section 5, Subd. B.(5) of the Subdivision Ordinance stipulates that setback lines must be shown on all subdivision lots. As such, the preliminary plat should be modified to illustrate I-1 District setbacks as reiterated below: Front Yard Side Yard Rear'Yard 50 feet 20 feet 35 feet Easements. The submitted preliminary plat illustrates drainage and utility easements which bisect both Outlot A and Lot 2. To be specifically noted in this regard is that the easement locations will likely affect the future buildability of the parcels. In consideration of the Lot 2 storm sewer easement, an essential buildable lot width of only 200+ feet is provided. As such, future development upon the outlot and Lot 2 may require storm sewer relocation and easement vacation. The acceptability of such easement locations should be subject to comment by the City Engineer. 5 As part of ultimate plat approval, the following easements should be established: Drainage and Utility Easements. along rear and other lot lines. At least ten feet in width Rail Easement. site. Over the rail spur which bisects the subject Access Easement. required). Over the shared access drive (description 4. Ponding Easements. Over storm water ponding areas. Grading and Drainage. In accordance with the City Subdivision Ordinance, a grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review. Appropriately, all site wetlands have been delineated. The grading and drainage plan will be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Utilities. The City Engineer should provide recommendation in regard to utility issues. review and Outlot. As shown on the preliminary plat, the western portion of the subject site is to be dedicated as an outlot. As an outlot, no building permit may be issued for development of the property. It is anticipated that a replatting of the outlot will not occur until such time as the adjacent Jacobwith property is acquired. The designation of the said outlot is consistent with the City's past redevelopment objectives for the area. Traffi~ Control. As a condition of project approval, an assurance should be made that ample traffic control measures are taken. In this regard, the City Engineer should provide comment as to whether appropriate traffic control facilities are provided along 49th Avenue (i.e., stacking space, turn lanes, etc.) to accommodate anticipated site traffic. Site and Building Plan Review Land Use. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 78,400 square foot warehouse facility upon Lot 1 of the subdivision. According to the Zoning Ordinance, warehouses are considered a permitted use in the I-l, Limited Industrial District. Setbacks. As shown below, the proposed warehouse applicable I-1 District setback requirements: Required Proposed Front Yard 50 feet 115 feet Side Yard 20 feet 20 feet Rear Yard 35 feet 325 feet meets all Building Height. According to the Zoning Ordinance, buildings within I-1 Zoning Districts may not exceed three stories in height. At two stories in height (25 feet), the proposed warehouse structure conforms to I-1 District height requirements. off-Street Parking. Parking SuDDlv. Based on the City's off-street parking requirements, 75 spaces will be required of the proposed warehouse as calculated below:' Use Ratio Requirement Warehouse (69,280 G.S.F. x 9) 63,352 N.S.F. 1 space per 1,500 square foot 42 Office 1 space per 33 (9,120 G.S.F. x 9) 200 square foot 8,208 N.S.F. 75 As shown on the submitted site plan, a total of 86 off-street parking stalls have been proposed on site. As such, the proposed parking supply complies with that required by Ordinance. Parking Dimensions. According to the Zoning Ordinance, 90 degree parking stalls such as that being proposed must measure not less than 8' - 9" in width and 19' in depth. In addition, drive aisles must provide a width not less than 24 feet. Ail proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or exceed the cited stall dimension requirements. Handicap Parklnq. According to State law, one in every twenty-five off-street parking stalls must be devoted to use by. the handicapped. An appropriate number of handicap parking stalls is shown on the site plan. Curbing. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that all off-street parking areas must have perimeter curbing. To be noted is that this provision applies both to designated parking areas and the proposed shared access drive. 7 Snow Storage. According to Section 4.036(4) (g) of the Zoning Ordinance, a provision must be made in off-street parking areas for adequate snow storage or removal to ensure that the required number of spaces are available at all times of the year. Of specific concern in regard to snow storage is the ± five foot wide curb island which separates the warehousing parking area and shared drive aisle. With a dimension of only five feet, it is questionable whether ample area exists in this area of the site for snow storage. To prOvide additional area for snow storage, the applicant may wish to consider reconfiguring the facility's west parking lot to provide an angled, one-way parking arrangement. Such an arrangement (60 degree) would allow an additional five feet of snow storage/landscaping area. As a condition of site and building plan approval, all on-site parking stalls must be available for year round use. Property Access. As shown on the submitted site plan, the subject property is to be accessed via a 32 foot wide shared access (with adjacent Lot 2) from 49th Avenue. According to the City Zoning Ordinance, joint access (parking) is permissible only via approval of a conditional use permit. Considering the relatively high traffic volumes which exist upon 49th Avenue, the proposed shared access is considered highly positive by ensuring area safety. According to the Zoning Ordinance, curb cuts associated with industrial uses may not exceed 26 feet unless approved by the City Engineer. As such, the City Engineer should provide comment as to the acceptability of the proposed 32 foot wide curb cut. As noted previously in this report, an easement should be established over the said easement. Additionally, a restrictive covenant should be imposed upon the subject property which requires all access to Lots 1 and 2 to be provided from the shared access. Finally, the applicant should submit to the City a maintenance agreement which specifies maintenance responsibilities for the said drive. Loading. According to the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed industrial building must provide one loading berth not less than seventy feet in length and ten feet in width. As shown on the submitted site plan, a total of six loading berths have been proposed. To ensure proper maneuverability, the proposed "hammerhead" turn around lane provides an appropriate depth of 55 feet. To be noted, however, is that the loading area utilizes area within the shared access easement for vehicular maneuvering. The acceptability of this situation should be subject to further City comment. Trash. the submitted site plan does not illustrate any exterior trash handling locations. If applicable, the site plan should be revised to illustrate all exterior trash handling areas. Such areas should be screened from view of neighboring properties and public rights-of-way. Landscaping. In compliance with Ordinance requirements, a landscaping plan has been submitted. The plan specifies the location, type and site of all proposed site plantings. As shown on Exhibit G, site plantings focus on the site and building perimeter. While the landscape plan is generally well conceived, some concern exists in regard to the proposed Juniper shrubs which lie between the proposed off-street parking area and shared access drive. With a curb island width of only ± 5 feet, it is questioned whether the plantings will infringe upon necessary snow storage area. Si~na~e. Neither the submitted site plan or building elevations indicate whether any signage is to be provided on site. Ail site signage will be required to comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. Liqhtinq. The site plan should be modified to illustrate exterior lighting locations. Ail lighting used to illuminate street parking areas should be hooded and directed to reflect light away from neighboring properties and adjacent rights-of-way. Green Area. According to Section 4.145 of the Zoning Ordinance, at least 20 percent of the subject property must be devoted to green area. With approximately 40 percent of the subject site being devoted to green area, the development proposal complies with minimum green space requirements. Rail Spur. As shown on the submitted site plan, a Soo Line rail spur traverses the northern portion of the subject site. Based on the site plan configuration, it does not appear that the proposed warehouse is to utilize the spur. Sidewalks. As shown on the submitted site plan, the off-street parking area has been designed such that facility employees and visitors are to utilize the parking lot drive aisle as a pedestrian circulation route in order to gain building entry. So as to ensure an efficient movement of vehicular traffic and pedestrian safety, consideration should be given to providing a sidewalk along the building's south and east sides (bordering off-street parking areas) . CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of the 5000 Winnetka Second Addition preliminary plat and site and building plans for the proposed warehouse facility subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. pc: Doug Sandstad Dan Donahue Mark Hanson Hoyt Development Company 10 City of New. Hope SINGLE FAMILy RESIDENTIAL R-I SINGLE AND TWO FAMILy RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-3 HiGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-4 SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL R-S RESIDENTIAL OFFICE LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS B-I RETAIL BUSINESS 5-2 AUTO ORIENTEO BUSINESS COMMUNITY BUSINESS B-4 LIMITED INDUSTRIAL T-I GENERAL iNDUSTRIAl FLOOD PLAIN FP WET LAND W r~orthwest 'Associated '-' Consultants..inc. EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION ¥1~INI,~ Ax/E. AVE SOO LINE LUlNNEIP~ Ax/E. I I I Holt Development Comp; I PROJECT DATA DEVELOPER: No"r'T DE~ELOPt'IENT C.O. 134~:~ 15TN AVE. NO~T,q - SUITE F PL¥1"IOUTN, MINNESOT/k 55441 (~12) 551- 4':3,44 ARC.141TEGT: ,A~C. NITEC. T,~ P~E551ONAL ,A.~5OC. IATION ~,3~,~ C.A~J_5ON D~I',,/E , SUITE E lEIDEN ~IRIE, MINNESOTA C::I'v'IL EN~INEIEI~e,: RON KI~UEC~R ,z:~,NP AS,~DC. IA~5, INC. .~3~1 EI:)IN,A INI::)UST~RIAL EPlN,A, f"IN..~.~43,~ (~,12) ~31-2°J~°J 2~4,.3,~,3 5.t::. OF:FI~E AREA : ~,12~ SJ::. ID, UILI::)INC~ F-OOTF:'~INT : 'l'3,J~.~ 5J=. PAF~<.INC~ P~.OVIDEID : (INCLUDE5 4 ,ZLD.,A. ~PAC. ES) ZONE : I-2 OCC..UPANC'r : 15-2 CONS,~OTION T"rT::"E : ~ LU/ ,,~AJTOMATIC. ,5,P~INt~-.LEI~ OUTLOT A , , IRON FIVE THOUSAND WINNETKA 2ND KRUEGER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ADDITION DOC. NO, LAND SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS SHEET 1 OF NOTES: CB 3 (24" × t6" CB Slruclure) Top 892' 10 IJeenah [,t 3067V) Inv. 889 10 All site grading and paving shall be completej:l per the requirements of the Soil Engineer. The Contractor shall schedule the Soils Engineer so that certification of all site grading and paving will be furnished to the Owner and Engineer during and upon completion of'the project. The Soils Engineer is to be paid by the Owner. Grading tolerance to be within 0.2'. All disturbed areas (excluding building and paved areas) to be restored with 6" of topsoil, and be sodded or seeded & mulched wilhin 10 days after the site grading ~s completed. The contractor is responsible for erosion control installation, mainlenance, and final removal after the turf is established, No grading shall begin unlil the C~ty has approved the inplace erosion control. The Contraclor shal~ not start work until all necessary permits have been obtained. The Contractor ~s responsible lot conforming to the requirements of these permits. The City Standard Specifications and Details, MnDOT Slandard Specifications, along with the Specifications and Details prepared byI the Architecl and Engineer shall govern lhis project. i,:~, ',~ ii : ii; i! I MASTER GRADING~DRAINAGE PLAN BUR KruBpr & mlll,,- I] Ass.ciatns, I.r. --ll' SCALE IN FEET SANITARY SEWER DESIGN; Ex. MH Top 906.56 Ex. Inv. 887.71 {N&S) Inv. 887.91 ,,E) Ex. MH to MH 1 182'-8' PVC (SDR35) @ 0.40% MH 1 Top 900.80 ',Neenah R-1755G) Inv. 888,64 MH I to MH 2 202'-8" PVC (SDR35) @ 0.40% MH 2 Top 899.70 (Neenah R-1755G) Inv. 889.45 ':'" :l~":i'~2i:'to'"P'iu~ '"' ~95'-8' P~C (SDR35) @ 0.40% Plug Inv. 890.63 STORM SEWER DESIGN; Outlet 1 Inv. 888.00 {verify) Grade to drain. (riprap, flared end, trash guard) Outlel 1 to CB 2 25'-18" RCP (Cl. 5) @ 2.16% CB 2 (24' × 36" CB Structure) Top 892.10 fNeenah R-3067V) Inv. 888.54 CB 2 to CB 3 28'-18" RCP (Cl. 5) @ 2.00% CB 3 (24" x 36" CB Structure) Top 892.10 Neenah R-3067V) Inv. 889.1 0 Z ,< STORMWATER POND INFO. 3/24/94 I;ITY POND #SC-P4.4 ;Stormwater & 2 Cell ~ediment Treo) Requirements per City Total Drainage Naa Area @ NWL Storage Vol. (NWL-NWL) NWL HWL Bottom Peak Outflow Wet Volume (below NWL) Stormwater 145.4 ac. 0.38 ac. 1.78 ac. 10.27 ac. ft. 885.7' 894.7 8817 53.9 cfa (Outlet control required) 1,20 ac. ft. (Cell A) + 1.20 ac. ft. (Cell B) (2.40 ac. ft. total; 4.0' deep) Plan: 0.30 ac. (Cell Al; 0.30 ac. (Cell B) Area @ NWL Area @ HWL Storage Vol. (NWL-HWL) NWL HWL Bottom Emergency Ovedlow Elev. Peak Outflow (@ NWL) Wet Volume (below NWL) Outlet Pipe Proposed Pond Design per Master Grading/Drainage Plan: 0.79 ac. 0.41 ac. (Cell Al; 0.38 ac. (Cell B) 2.05 ac. 12.00 ac. ft. 885,7 894.7 881.6 896,8 (Surface olay. at ex. railroad tracks) 53.0 cfs (Outlet control structure per std. City detail) 1.23 ac. ft. (Cell A) , 1.20 ac. ft. (Cell B) (2.43 ac. ft. total; 4.1; deep) Ex. 90'-48' CMP ~L~ 0.09% (restrict inter to 27' dia.); Ex. Upper Inv. (886.01); Ex. Low, Inv. (885.93) All untreated stormwater to enter Pond in Cell A. Grass berm between Cells A & B to be I 0' wide. and have top elevation equal to NWL. CITY POND #SC-P4.9 fStormweter ~ 2 Cell Sediment Tr,.o) Requiremante per City Total Drainage Area Area @ NWL Area @ NWL Storage Vol. (NWL-NWL) NWL HWL Bottom Peak Outflow Wet Volume (below NWL) Stormwater Plan: 218.1 ac. (Incl. !45.4 ac. from Pond SC-P4.4) 1.25 ac. 0.50 ac, (Cell Al; 0.68 ac. (Cell 1.65 ac. 11.63 ac. ft. 884.0 891.3 880.0 152.7 cfs (Outlet control required) 2.00 ac. ft. (Cell A) + 2.72 ac. ft. (Cell El) (4.72 ac. ft, total; 4,0' deep) OWNER: FIVE THOUS/ 1340015TH, PLYMOUTH, DEVELOPER: HOYT DEVELE 13400 ! 5TH PLYMOUTH. BRAD HO.v` PH 551 -49 LEGAL DESC; OUTLOT A. ~ HENNEPtN C: AREA 844682 Area @ NWL Area @ HWL Storage Vol. (NWL-HWLI NWL NWL Bottom Emergency Over[Iow Elev. Peak Outflow (@ HWL) Wet Volume (below NWL) Proposed Pond Design par Master Grading/Drainage Plan: 1.33 ac. 0.59 ac. (Cell Al; 0.74 ac. (Cell B) 3.02 ac. 12.13 ac. ft. 884.0 890.0 879.5 891 i0 (Prop. top of berm elev.) 152.0 cfs (Outlet control structure per std. City detail) 2.02 ac. ft. (Cell A) + 2.75 ac. ft. (Cell B) (4.77 ac. ft. total; 4.5' deep) Outlet Pi!~e Upper Inv. f884.0): Lower lev (883,5): 60'-60" RCP @ 0 83% (Alt. oesign Is 2-36' RCP ~ 0.83%) All untreated stormwater to enter Po~d in Cell A. Grass berm 0etween Cells A & B to be 10' w~:le, and have top elevation equal to NWL. !11' .~. . ~..~ _~""..... "~~~ ~tI l~It -Iii III' ,hh,~tI ~,o~ ,, .. ~ dii~4; iii ~ ,~i ,, , - ,~ Ilea Ilrueger i iI JLsmclates, In~. Bonestroo Rosene Ander!ik & Associates Engineers & Architects Otto G. Bonestroo. RE, Robert V,/. Rosene, PE.* Joseph C. Andedik, PE. Marvin L Sorvala. Richard E Turner, RE. Glenn R. Cook, RE. Thomas E Noyes. Robert G. SchunJcht, RI::, Susan M. Eberfin, CRA. *Senior Consultant Howard A. Sanford. PE. Keith ^. Gordon, PE Robert R. Pfefferle. RE. Richard VE Foster, RE, David O Loskota. RE. Robert C. Russek, A.IA. Jerry A. Bourdon. RE. Mark A, Hanson, RE. Michael '~ Rautmann, RE. Ted K. Field; RE Thomas R. Anderson. AJ.A. Donald C. BurgardL RE. Thomas E. Angus. RE. Ismael MartJnez. RE. Michael R Rau, RE. Agnes M. Ring, Philip J. Pyne, RE, Thomas W'. Peterson. RE. Michael C. Lynch, RE. James R. Matand, RE. Jerry D. Pertzsch. RE. Scott J. Arganek. RE. Kenneth R Anderson, Mark R. Rolls, RE. Mark A. Seip, RE. Gary 'v'E Morien. RE. Daniel J, Edgerton, RE. A Rick Schmidt. RE. ?hflip J. Caswefl, RE Mark D. Wallis, RE. Miles 8. Jensen, RE, L. Phillip Gravel RE. Karen L, W'iemeri, RE. Gary D. Kristofitz. RE. R Todd Fosten RE. Keith R, Yapp, RE. Douglas J, Benoit, RE. Shawn D, Gustafson, RE. Cecilio Oiivier, ,RE. Paul G, Heuer, RE John R Gorder RE. Charles A. Erickson Leo M. Pawelsky Harlan M. O/son James F, Engelhardt March 31, 1994 Mr. Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. N. New Hope, MN 55428 Re: 5000 Winnetka Avenue Our File No. 34-Gen Dear Kirk: We have reviewed the above referenced preliminary plat and recommend the The master grading plan implies the entire site is to be graded at this time. It's recommended the City impose a time limit to complete the grading. In the event stockpiled material is hauled off-site, the specifics for that work shall be stated and reviewed by the City ( working hours, dust control, etc.). The above plat includes 19.4 acres. It's recommended the pond grading at a minimum include that which is required for this plat (Lots 1 and 2 and Outlot A). Ponding shall comply with the Shingle Creek Watershed and New Hope's Surface Water Management Plan. It's recommended the pond grading by the developer at a minimum include grading Pond SC-P4.9 (Cells A and B) to allow development of Lots ! and 2. It's felt the grading of Pond SC-P4.4 is the responsibility of the City and can be graded when Outlot A is developed. The outlet pipe and control structure for Pond SC-P4.9 shall be constructed by the developer. The pipe size and outlet structure will be determined by the City in accordance with the Shingle Creek Watershed. It should be noted drainage area (SC-A4) is a tributary to Twin Lakes, which is a high priority water body in Shingle Creek. The developer's engineer has delineated four wetlands on the property in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. It appears each wetland will be impacted by development. The replacement of each wetland shall comply with requirements under the Wetland Conservation Act (minimum 2 to 1 replacement). It's recommended a small sediment basin be graded upstream of Wetland A collecting runoff from Lot 1 before discharging to Wetland A. · All permitting requirements shall be approved before construction can begin. 2335 gffest Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 Mr. Kirk McDonald City of New Hope March 31, 1994 · Erosion control and restoration shall be maintained and completed in a timely manner, as directed by the City. · Drainage, utility, and pond easements shall be shown on the plat. · It's intended the driveway located along the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2 be shared. The issues associated with a shared driveway between two properties shall be resolved before approval. The existing driveway serving Lot 2 from 49th Avenue shall be removed. Due to the minimal street frontage of Lot 2 and the location of the raikoad tracks, it's preferred from an engineering standpoint that the shared driveway, as proposed, be approved. · The minimal street frontage of Lot 2, based on its size, will limit its ability to develop in the future. Ouflot A will also be limited in how it can develop in the future. Therefore, it's important the condition of Lot 2 and Outlot A following the development of Lot 1 be acceptable due to the time it may take for either of these two parcels to develop in the future. · The 8" looped watermain serving Lot 1 is properly shown as previously requested. The location of hydrants shall be reviewed with the fire marshall. · The 8" sanitary sewer serving Lot 2 is properly shown. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAH:pr Bonestroo m-m Rosene Ander. llk& q~ Associates Engineers & Architects March 17, 1994 Mr. Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Re: 5000 Winnetka 2nd Addition File 34-gen Dear Kirk: We have reviewed the above preliminary plat and recommend the following: The grading plan shall include the required pending for storage and water quality in accordance with the Shingle Creek Watershed and the recently completed Surface Water Management Plan for New Hope. The required pending shall be constructed not only on Lot I Block 1 but also Lot 2 Block 1. The existing storm sewers shall be realigned accordingly to satisfy all pending requirements, · NPDES Stormwater Permit requirements shall be satisfied. The storm water runoff from the private drive located between Lot 1 and 2 shall be collected and conveyed in a storm sewer to the required pending areas. All existing wetlands shall be delineated in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. The grading plan shall identify all finish contours including the area on Lot 2 where material is to be removed. The required erosion control (silt fence, etc.) shall be properly shown on the grading plan including restoration. The existing water main serving 5000 Winnetka shall be properly looped through the site connecting to the existing water main in 49th Avenue. Hydrants shall be properly located in accordance with New Hope Fire. 2335 V/est Highway 36 * St. Paul, MN S$113 · 612-636-4600 EO'd 'O~g~ ~ O0~/S~N08 l T£I Mr. Kirk McDonald, City of New Hope Page2 March 17, 1994 A public sanitary sewer shall be constructed across Lot 1 to properly serve Lot 2 for future development. Drainage ponding and utility easement shall be reviewed by City staff and properly shown on the preliminary and final plat. A private acce~ easement shall be in place to allow proper access for Lots 1 and 2 to the private drive located along the common lot line. · A site assessment shall be completed for the plat to insure all contaminated soils are identified and treated in accordance with PCA. The City shall review the proposed lot configuration to insure future development can be accommodated. It's recommended the above comments be properly shown on the grading and utility plans before preliminary plat review. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO,/I~DSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATF~, INC. Mat'k A. Hanson MAH:Ik SC-Plo6 SC-1",3,16 NWA COMPANY SC-P4,10 TO SOUTH EN[ UPPER TWtN L PO' d AVE: N N TT£T 9£9 d ,,~ 0 0 ri,' I- Z o Stormwater Pond Data for Shingle Creek ':.'::i:..-.'.!::':E~::~:i~'~:::.~.-::::.:;~: ~£-:!~!:._:~i-~&~:~;-~i~:i:¢-~:~'~" ' ,"~;::~¢~v'~.~.~:~.~:.:~..:_.::~:~:.:~*<-:..-.-z.:~...,,~ ' ...... i~s;~s~-";C'"~t~ i~'- ......... :-'"--~ '*" ~-~ ':-:~- ':".' ............ :.'----'-~';'~;--~-'-- '"' ""- SC-PI,I 83.20 44.1 127.3 13.90 19.09 28,05 893.3 894.9 9.9 No SC-PlA I12.6 127.3 ,,239'9 0.10 1.20 1.67 875.3 879.9 325.8 No · SC-PI.6 44.1 -- 44.1 1,00 2,20 3.81 893.3 895,5 117.4 No SC-P2.6 25.1 - 25.1 1.34 1.53 4.74 8~q fl 870,3 12.7 No SC-P3,3 12,9 - 12.9 0.50 0.64 1,55 889.3 892,1 SC-P3.4 23,4 58.3 81.7 1.60 1,89 8.10 884.6 889,3 8,5 No SC-P3.7 22.3 - 22.3 0.50 3,40 3.51 812.0 813,8 3.2 No SC-P3.9 44.7 22.3 67,0 0.30 0.83 4.55 883.0 890.1 29.3 Yea SC-P3.15 22.4 -- 22.4 0.40 0.'/5 3.70 900.8 907.6 1.8 No SC-P3.16 23.0 22.4 45.4 1.70 2,14 5,49 899,0 901,9 5.9 Yes SC-P4,2 57.0 24,2 ' 81.2 0.06 0.98 2.63 895.6 901.3 175.3 No S0-P4.3 40,8 - 40,8 0.73 0.95 6.83 898.0 901.2 38.3 No SC-P4A 6.4 139,0 145.4 0.38 1,78 10.27 885,7 894.7 53.9 Ycs SC-P4.8 17,0 I7,86 34,86 0.~0 1.28 7.98 885.7 893.0 25.1 No _SC-P4.9 72.7 145.4 218.1 1.25 1.65 11.63 884.0 891.3 152.7 Yes SC-P4.11] 24.2 -- 24.2 1.04 1.35 7.28 903.7 909.2 8.2 No · 'ti,pen,lit C - Stot~mvater Ptmd Data ~o o 0 n~ o m Water Quality Pond Data for Shingle Creek ~C-fl.IA S~onmuat{:[ & Nulricnt Trap 893.3 ' 2.10 8.40 85.64 47.84 Meadow Lake Lake 893.3 11.80 33.04 13533 54.74 ~C-P1.4 Ctrcck 8753 0.10 0.2(} 219.84 3.10 $C-PL6A Stonnwat~t & 2-Ccll 89~.3 035 1.40 SC-PL6B Nutrient Trap 832.3 0.65 2.60 128.15 40.53 SC-P2.1 Nutrient T~ap 868.0 0.50 1.75 163.06 61.64 ~,-P2.6 Stormwat~r & Nutricnt Trap 868.0 0.55 23fl 185.55 59.66 SC-P3.1 SC~mncnt Trap 8783 0.25 0.50 ~6.83 5~.2~ - SC-P~3 Stormwatcr & Nutdent Trap 889.:] -- 0.50 1.25 176.54 55.87 SC-P3.4 Stonnwatcr & Nu~cnt Trap 884.6 1.60 6.40 158.I6 49.71 SC-P3.9 SU)nmvatcr & Nntfient Trap 883.0 030 135 33?.44 20.75 SC-P3.16 $tormwalcr & Nutrient Trap 899.0 1.70 ~ 186.52 62.75 _ SC-P43 Sto~,uwatCf &Nutricnt Trap 898.0 0.25 0.88 29R_R~ 40 ~9 SC-L*4.4A Sto, uwatCr & Z-CcH 885.7 030 1.20 33.40 SC-P4.4B Sediment Trap 885.7 030 1.20 218.8 26.8 S~IM. SA Stca~uwatcr & Z-Cell 886.0 0.60 2.4 SC-P4~SB SctHmcn! Trap 886.0 I.IX} 4.0 202.3 34.8 SC-P4.gA Sloimwatcr & Z-CcH 884.0 0.50 2.00 184.9 16.5 SOP4.gB Scdimcnt Trap 884.0 0.68 2.72 /;ppe, ul& D IVater Quality Pond Data D D-I STEVEN A SONDRALL MICHAEL R. LAFLEUR MARTIN P MALECHA WILLIAM C. STRAIT CORRICK ~ SONDRALL, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671 FAX (612) 425-5867 LEGALASS~S~NTS LAVONNE E KESKE SHARON D DERSY March 31, 1994 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE- Plat of 5000 Winneta 2nd Addition Our File No. 99.15039 Dear Kirk: I have examined the proposed final plat of 5000 Winnetka 2nd Addition. I find the plat to be in order from a legal standpoint subject to the following: 1. There are several very minor differences between the angles on Outlot A of 5000 Winnetka compared to the angles of the proposed 5000 Winnetka 2nd Addition, These differences will be noted and either corrected or disregarded by the Hennepin County Surveyor's Office. I recommend that the City approve the plat without regard to this issue. 2. The owner of the plat, apparently 5000 Winnetka Limited Partnership, must supply .the City (our office) with an updated Abstract of Title for the abstract portion of the property, as well as a Registered Property Abstract for the property in the Torrens system. Any persons or entities with an ownership or other interest in the property will need to be listed on the plat and sign the same. At this point I do not know whether there are any ownership or other interests in the property aside from that of 5000 Winnetka Limited Partnership. I will provide the City with the required signatories on the plat after I have completed the title opinions. 3. The approval and acceptance language for the City Council on the plat is drafted for the City of Eden Prairie, and needs to be changed to the City of New Hope. Mr. Kirk McDonald March 31, 1994 Page 2 4. The property owner should be aware that the Hennepin County Auditor will not sign off on the plat until the entire rea] estate taxes due and payable in 1994 have been paid. So if the p]at is approved prior to October 15 of 1994, the property owner will need to either prepay the second half taxes or de]ay filing the plat until that time. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha Asst. New Hope City Attorney s3t2 CC: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 17, 1994 Hennepin COunty Department of Transportation Minnesota Departmem of Transportation Minnegasco Northern States Power Co. U.S. West Telephone King Cable Television New Hope Director of Public Works New Hope Director of Finance/Administrative Services New Hope City Attorney New Hope City Engineer New Hope Building Official Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community DevelOpment Coordinator Preliminary Plat of 5000 Winnetka 2nd Addition Enclosed you will find a preliminary plat for 5000 Winnetka 2nd Addition. Please review and forward comments to me prior to 4:30 n.m. on Monday, March 28, 1994. The preliminary plat will be considered by the New Hope Planning Commission at their April 5, 1994, meeting. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at 531-5119. RECOMMENDATION OF CODES & STANDARDS COMMITTEE ON PONDEROSA STEAKHOUSE WALL SIGN VARIANCE ISSUE PLANNING CASE 93-30 AND 93-36 The enclosed report prepared by the Planning Consultant is the recommendation of the Codes & Standards Committee on the Ponderosa wall sign variance issue. As you are aware, Ponderosa installed a 484 square foot sign at their restaurant on Bass Lake Road last summer/fall in conjunction with the remodeling of that facility. City Code limits wall signs to 125 square feet. Ponderosa made application for a variance to allow the sign to remain in place and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request at the October 5th Planning Commission meeting. At the October 1 lth Council meeting the City Council tabled the request for six months and directed the Planning Commission to study the issue and bring a recommendation back to the City Council. The Commission referred the study to the Codes & Standards Committee and this is intended as their study and recommendation to the Commission. The Commission should consider the Committee's recommendation, and in turn, the full Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether a code change should be made or not. After meeting over the past four months and studying a number of options and issues, the Committee is recommending no change to the current sign code regulations. City staff and the Chair of the Committee did meet with Ponderosa officials and they are being forwarded a copy of this report/recommendation and are expected to be in attendance at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission consider the recommendation from the Committee and forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration at the April 1 lth City Council meeting. P L N G N . M A R K E R E S E A R C~_~H PLANNING REPORT - Revised TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius 30 March 1994 New Hope Wall Sign Amendment 131.00 - 93.09 BACKGROUND Metromedia Steakhouses (Ponderosa) constructed a 484 square foot wall sign on their restaurant located near the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Maryland Avenue. This sign was erected without application for a sign permit or prior approval of the City. The sign exceeds the maximum sign area of 125 square feet for commercial properties and therefore exists in violation of the City's sign regulations. Upon discovery of the sign violation, Metromedia Steakhouses requested a variance from the City's maximum wall sign size standards. In consideration of the variance request, the City found the variance to be inappropriate in that a hardship unique to the property would be difficult to define and if approved, an undesirable precedent would be established. The City Council requested that the City Planning Commission investigate options for changing the Sign Ordinance to accommodate the new Ponderosa sign. Attached for reference: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Site Location Existing Painted Wall Sign Proposed Wall Sign Ponderosa Signs in Other Twin City Communities Sign Regulations in Mid-West Cities which have Ponderosa Restaurants Exhibit F - Examples of Painted Wall Signs 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837' ISSUES AND ANALYSIS The New Hope City staff and Codes and Standards Committee began to study alternatives for a change in the Sign Ordinance in November 1993. The following pages outline the City's research findings. Existing New Hope Sign Standards The following existing City sign regulations are applicable to the Ponderosa sign: Definition. The definition of a sign outlined in the New Hope Sign Ordinance states that a sign shall be: "any writing (including letters, words or numerals), pictorial representation (including illustrations or decorations), emblem (including devices, symbols, or trademarks), flag, banner, streamer, pennant, string of lights, or display designed to attract the attention of the public, whether it be attached to a structure, painted _on, or in any other manner represented on a building or other structure or on the ground". City staff and consultants have reviewed and applied this definition to the Ponderosa site and found that it includes the entire 484 square foot mural, not just the lettering. Front Wall Maximum Signage. Section 3.465(1) (2) of the New Hope Sign Ordinance which regulates front wall maximum signage states that: "Not more than two signs shall be permitted on the front wall of any principal building. The total area of such sign or signs shall not exceed 15 percent of the area of the front face of the principal building ... provided that the total area of each sign shall not exceed 125 square feet" The 484 square foot Ponderosa sign greatly exceeds the maximum sign area standard for single occupancy commercial buildings. Ground Signs. The number of wall sign affects the number of ground signs permitted as described in Section 3.465(3) as shown below: "Not more than two ground signs shall be permitted on any lot or one ground sign if the building should contain more than one wall sign over ten square feet, subject to the following regulations ..." Ponderosa has two ground signs. As such, the site is eligible for only one wall sign. Roof Signs. Roof signs are prohibited in the City Code when they are accessory to a single occupancy business. Therefore, since the proposed sign extends into the air space over the roof of the structure, the sign is not allowed. Sign Permit. Section 3.116 of the New Hope City Code prohibits signs from being constructed, erected, remodeled, relocated, expanded, or painted except in case of routine maintenance without a permit. The Ponderosa sign was installed without application for a sign permit or prior approval by the City. Sign Ortlinance intent The City's Sign Ordinance was established for several reasons and remains an important device which cannot be ignored or deviated from without due reason. It contains a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations, and procedures governing the type, number, size, structure, location, height, lighting, erection, use and/or display of devices, signs or symbols serving as visual communication media. It is intended to establish standards that permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise. It encourages opportunity for effective, orderly communication by reducing confusion and hazards resulting from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of communication facilities. It is intended to preserve and promote civic beauty and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering, or illumination. In looking at the regulations/intent of the existing Sign Code, it is apparent that it attempts to apply adopted regulations uniformly among businesses by identifying size, location and setback requirements (which are in most cases related to the scale of the building) to avoid unfair competition and to provide signs that are legible from vehicles and pedestrians within the public right-of- way. It is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with adopted regulations and fulfill the intent of the Ordinance. In this regard, it is mandatory that the Ponderosa sign be safe, equitable, co~Lunicate identification of the business clearly, and demonstrate aesthetic quality. Ordinance ComParison with Neighboring Cities The following table provides a sign area standard comparison with other neighboring cities. This comparison reveals that New Hope's regulations are generally consistent with these other communities and in some respects, the New Hope restrictions are more lenient. New Hope Wall sign area shall not exceed 15 percent of wall facade or 125 square feet per sign, whichever is less. Brooklyn Center Wall Sign: o C-1 Service Office District: Wall sign area shall not exceed 10 percent of total facade. o C-2, General Commercial District: Wall sign area shall not exceed 15 percent of the wall facade. Crystal Wall Sign: The total area of the wall sign and projecting signs may not exceed 10 percent of the area of the wall it is on, up to a maximum of 150 square feet as defined by the street designation of Bass Lake Road (major collector) in Subd. 2(c), Section 407.19 of the Crystal Sign Ordinance. Golden Valley Wall Signs: Wall signs may have 2 square feet of area for each linea foot of street frontage. Plymouth Wall Signs: o B-1 limited to 50 square feet, or 5 percent of the area of the wall to which the sign is attached, whichever is greater. B-2, Shopping Center District - Shall not exceed 96 square feet in surface area or 20 percent of the area of wall to which the signage is attached, whichever is greater. B-3, Service Business District - Shall not exceed 20 percent of the area of the wall to which the signage is attached. With the exception of Golden Valley, each of the aforementioned cities prohibit signs from being directly painted on a building wall. None of the neighboring cities have sign regulations that differentiate commercial signage and wall murals. Comparison With Other Cities Where Ponderosa Restaurants Exist In considering changes to the New Hope Sign Ordinance, City staff contacted other cities having Ponderosa restaurants to see how they handled similar signage requests. Bloomington. In late November or early December 1993, Metromedia Steakhouses contacted the planning staff in Bloomington about erecting as sign similar to the one in New Hope. The applicants were told that the request would require a variance because of its deviation from the Sign Ordinance and given the degree of non- conformity, it was doubtful a variance would be approved. Since that time, Metromedia Steakhouses revised their request and gained approval by the City of a 98 square foot painted sign (which has already been constructed) just like the one being proposed in New Hope (see Exhibit C). The side highlights, however, were denied and just the main portion of the sign (7 x 14 feet) was allowed. Columbia Heights. In October 1993, Metromedia Steakhouses applied for a variance to the City Sign Ordinance in order to construct a wall similar to the one in New Hope, but were denied. The desired sign was never constructed, but the existing signage on the site is already non-conforming. For wall signs, Ponderosa is allowed 2 square feet of sign area per lineal foot of building frontage (without looking at the file, the person thought the Ponderosa limit was at about 100 square feet). The applicants are now working to change both the wall sign and the freestanding incorporate the desired graphic, but at a reduced compliance with the Sign Ordinance. We understand that a ~ foot wall sign (not including the two side sign accents, received permit approval. This approval was done in conjunction with a reduction in the pylon sign size. Spring Lake Park. A wall sign like the existing one in New Hope was constructed at the Spring Lake Park site in late Summer 1993, without prior approval. Metromedia Steakhouses has never requested a building permit or variance from the Sign Code. City staff were somewhat nonchalant about the issue and are not sure if the sign is in violation of their Sign Ordinance, although given the requirement of 30 percent of the front building facade, it is suspected that the sign is non-conforming. No City action was ever taken to enforce the ordinance. Mid-West Cities. New Hope City staff also conducted a phone survey of sign regulations in mid-west cities where Ponderosa restaurants exist. A summary of such is attached as Exhibit E. As a basis for any Sign Ordinance amendment, the New Hope staff and Codes and Standards Committee ~ave due consideration to the followin~ review criteria. Through an objective analysis, the committee was able to identify the potential impacts of each ordinance amendment scenario. Purpose of the Sign Ordinance In considerin~ each ordinance chan~e, the Codes and Standards Committee reflected back on the stated purpose of the New Hope Sign Ordinance. 3.412 Purpose. This Si~n Code is established to protect and promote health, safety, ~eneral welfare and order within the City of New Hope through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations, and procedures governing the type, number, size, structure, location, height, lighting, erection, use and/or display of devices, signs or symbols servin~ as a visual communication media to persons situated within or upon public ri~hts-of-way or properties. The provisions of this Si~n Code are intended to encourage opportunity for effective, orderly communication by reducin~ confusion and hazards resultin~ from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of communication facilities. The key elements of the Si~n Ordinance's purpose include: Establishment of a comprehensive and impartial series of si~n standards, regulations, and procedures. ... Encourage effective, orderly communication by reducin~ confusion and hazards resultin~ from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of communication facilities. The establishment of the Ponderosa si~n was done without consideration of the New Hope si~n regulations. In this regard, the intent and purpose of the City's regulations was not achieved. The City must determine if the amendment to accommodate a 484 square foot wall sign will fit the objective they have defined for commercial business identification. Uniform Application The Sign Ordinance regulations must be uniformly and equitably applied to all New Hope commercial properties. As such, any ordinance changes made to accommodate a single business will also be applicable to similar businesses throughout the City. The Codes and Standards Committee gave due consideration to the potential visual and geographic impacts of amending the Sign Ordinance to accommodate signage the size of the Ponderosa sign. Content Neutral Regulation Information conveyed by signs is free speech protected by the First Amendment. Free speech law weights the constitutional interest in free expression against the governmental interests advanced by sign regulations. A law regulating the content of speech is constitutional if it is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. To protect First Amendment rights, Sign Ordinances must be content- neutral and viewpoint-neutral. Content neutral means that the subject matter is not regulated. Viewpoint-neutral means that the regulation does not discriminate against one point of view and does not suppress ideas. Under these circumstances, the City may limit signage to business identification and may address the physical characteristics of the sign (such as location, height, size). The municipality may not regulate means of expressing the business identification. Understanding the intent of the Sign Ordinance and the limit to which the City may regulate signs, the Codes and Standards Committee outlined these options for amending the New Hope Sign Ordinance: Option #1 - No Change With this option, no Sign Ordinance amendments would be processed and the City would enforce its current regulations. This would require Ponderosa to remove their non-conforming sign and replace it with a sign that complies with City sign area standards. In support of Option #1, the Codes and Standards Committee makes the following findings: New Hope Sign Ordinance standards for business identification wall signs is comparable to the wall sign area regulations of neighboring cities. o Other cities have required Metromedia Steakhouses (Ponderosa) to comply with more restrictive signage requirements. The Ponderosa sign is 484 square feet and is 3.9 times larger than the City's standard for wall signs. An increase of permitted sign area from 15 percent of the wall facade or 125 square feet to 484 square feet is a dramatic increase in sign area. If this ordinance change is made, it would be available to other New Hope commercial properties, resulting in excessive signage throughout the City. This trend runs contrary to the purpose of the Sign Ordinance. The Sign Ordinance must remain content-neutral. This could result in aesthetically, unattractive signs. While the Ponderosa sign may be perceived to be attractive, other signs may not demonstrate good taste in their signage. The larger sign area standard would provide greater latitude for signage communication. The City would not be able to restrict the signage content rather it may only regulate sign appearance via size regulations. The proposed change to the Sign Code would be in response to an illegally established sign. This course of action can be perceived as rewarding the code violator. This is an undesirable precedent for the City. Option//2 - Increase Sign Area For Commercial Properties Option #2 would amend the New Hope Sign Ordinance to increase the sign area for commercial properties. To accommodate the Ponderosa sign, a wall sign area standard of 50 percent of the front building facade, not greater than 500 square feet, may be considered. To limit the impact of this dramatic ordinance change, the Codes and Standards Committee and staff recommended that the increased sign area would only be allowed in the City's most intense commercial zoning districts - B-3, Automobile-Oriented Business District and B-4, Community District. In the less intense neighborhood commercial districts and in the industrial zoning district, a more restrictive sign area requirement would be imposed. Throu9h this type of ordinance change, the City reduces the geographic exposure of these larger signs. We would note that New Hope's most visible commercial centers would be eligible for these large signs. The impact of the Option #2 ordinance is outlined as follows: The City would allow commercial wall signs up to a size of 500 square feet in the City's most visible commercial areas. The 500 square foot size is equivalent to a billboard. The City should give due consideration to the aesthetic impact this may have on New Hope's commercial center. The change would produce some signage inequity between the less intense commercial zoning districts and the more intense commercial districts. o The City will not have control over the content or expression of the business identification sign. In this regard, the aesthetic appearance of the sign is left to the desires of the property owners. Option #3- Wall Murals In brainstorming for options to dealing with the Ponderosa sign, Codes and Standards Committee and staff conceived the idea of separating commercial signage from wall murals. This process would calculate Ponderosa's commercial signage as just the narrative identifying the business, the balance would be a mural. To implement this concept, the following performance standards were investigated: Wall murals would be defined as graphic displays that are unrelated to business identification or product advertising. The wall mural size restriction would be limited to 50 percent of building facade not to exceed 500 square feet in area. This type of size reStriction provides some regulation on mural size. o Business identification signs for a commercial building may be separate from the wall mural or integrated into the wall mural. The business identification sign will be limited in size to 15 percent of the wall facade or 125 square ~feet, whichever is less. Wall murals must be located on a building facade fronting a public street. Colors and art that serve or highlight the building design should be exempted from the sign regulations. The building design elements must be defined to exclude them from communicative signage. 9 In attempting to establish ordinance language, we reviewed ordinances and have photographed examples of wall murals in other cities (see Exhibits D and E). Non-commercial signage such as wall murals may be classified as art and political or cultural speech which is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The distinction between art and architecture highlights and signage is difficult to define and is even more complicated to regulate. The City must adopt a sign regulation that is content-neutral or viewpoint-neutral. By differentiating between murals and commercial signage, the City would establish a forum for artistic or political expression. Because freedom of expression is a constitutional right, it is questionable as to whether the City may regulate the mural message, appearance or location. This' presents concerns as to where murals may locate in the City, the appearance of the wall mural, and the message being expressed. The landscape scene depicted on the Ponderosa wall sign may not be objectionable, or politically controversial, however, future murals may be unattractive, distasteful resulting in visual blight in the City. CODES AND STANDARDS COMM1TYEE RECOM34F A ON In evaluating the signage options, the Codes and Standards Committee recommend Option #1, no change to the current Sign Ordinance, based on the existing 484 square foot sign and findings outlined earlier in this report. At the time this decision was made, they indicated that some expansion of the wall sign area requirements may be acceptable, but at a smaller scale than what is being requested by Ponderosa. ALTERNATIVE SIGN In response to the Codes and Standards viewpoint on this matter, Ponderosa has come forth with an alternative sign plan (shown in Exhibit C) which has been evaluated in relation to the current Ordinance standards, as follows: Sign Size and Number The proposed alternative sign consists of a primary center rectangular sign which contains the business name and two smaller graphics on either side which are non-communicative. The central portion of the sign encompasses 98 square feet, while each of the two adjacent graphics are 40 square feet. The total sign area is 10 178 square feet which exceeds the 15 percent limit of the front facade. The 178 square foot sign represents 17.5 percent of the entire front facade (including the sign background area). Due to the site currently having two ground signs, the Ponderosa restaurant may only have one wall sign. This Ordinance requirement requires the applicant to either eliminate two of the proposed signs or consolidate the three signs into one sign face. Variance One option which could be utilized to accommodate the proposed sign is the variance process. Variance from the total number of signs (3 versus 2 allowed by Ordinance) and percent of front facade (17.5 percent versus the 15 percent allowed by Ordinance) would be required to approve the request. The degree of variance has been greatly reduced since the original variance request for the 484 square foot sign which currently exists, however, defining the hardship which is unique to the property may still be a difficult task and somewhat of an unequitable way to proceed. Approval Options If approval of a variance is not considered to be the best approach to resolution of the Ponderosa sign issue, further consideration should be given to the options which were initially outlined and reviewed in association with the larger sign which currently exists. These factors have been reiterated in relation to the current sign request, as follows: No Change. The 98 square foot central portion of the proposed sign could be approved without the two side sign highlights to be in conformance with current regulations. Ordinance Amendment. If the City wishes to accommodate the proposed sign alternative which includes the two side sign highlights, the percent of front facade area which can be covered by a sign could be increased, possibly to 20% without a 125 foot sign area cap for individual signs. Additionally, the total number of wall signs allowed on a property could be increased to allow a property owner freedom to utilize the entire percent of a building facade which is dedicated to signage with greater flexibility on the number of signs. 11 CONCLUSION After extensive evaluation of the City's sign regulations and the implications of amending the City's Ordinance to accommodate the Ponderosa sign, the Codes and Standards sub-committee recommends Option #1 - no change, as described in this report. This option will require the Ponderosa restaurant to comply with the current regulations addressing commercial wall signs. The alternative sign proposal can comply with City standards without the side sign highlights. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall Dan Donahue Code and Standards Committee 12 R.¢ R'3 £L£NCNTAAY .0 ~C~ EXHIBIT A '"1"" (70s£) Sign '"2'" (41~sf) pic~orial ri1 X COLUMBIA HEIGHTS BLOOMINGTON EXHIBIT D SPRING LAKE PARK .~LL IIII II!1 CITY O~ NEW HOPE DATE: TO: FROM: March 11, 1994 Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant Sarah Bellefuil, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: PONDEROSA I contacted Planning Departments in Duluth; Superior, Wisconsin; LaCrosse, Wisconsin; Beloit, Wisconsin; Davenport, Iowa; and Rockford, Illinois, to determine if these cities had issued sign permits or variances to Ponderosa Steakhouse for a mural sign. Responses include: Duluth, Minnesota: Building Inspector A1 Haugson stated that no permit was granted for a new Ponderosa sign. He stated that the sign is in a C-5 district (planned shopping district). The City ordinance states that any sign going up in a C-5 district has to go before the Planning Commission for approval. He also stated that the city allows two square feet for every lineal foot of building frontage. Superior, Wisconsin: I talked with a person in the Inspections Department who stated that Ponderosa had been issued a permit to renovate the interior of their building. The person stated that it was possible that a new sign was part of the permit. LaCrosse, Wisconsin: Building Inspector Richard Shrader stated that LaCrosse does not issue sign permits. Instead, local sign companies, and anyone else who wants a sign, has to get a sign installer permit each year. As part of the permit, sign installers have to agree to follow the sign ordinance. He stated that he had not seen the Ponderosa sign but, if they put up a sign, they have to get a sign installer permit. He also stated that a sign on the front of a building can be up to 40% of the total front surface area. Also, because Ponderosa is in a commercial district, it is allowed a maximum of 800 square feet of sign space. Beloit, Wisconsin: Ponderosa sent the City a questionnaire asking if the mural sign would be permitted. There was an in- house review, and it was determined that the sign would be allowed. Daven~ Ken Ostreich stated that the City building inspector made the determination that the wording in the sign and the mural portion of the sign are separate. Therefore, the sign was within their sign ordinance requirements and did not require a variance. Robert Jackson, of the Rockford Zoning Department, stated that 750 square feet of sign is allowed in a commercial district. Therefore, the sign did not require a variance. EXHIBIT E 7TH STREET NORTH & 1ST AVENUE 1ST AVENUE & 6TH STREET NORTH EXHIBIT F 22 5TH STREET NORTH 5TH STREET NORTH (ACROSS PARKING AREA FROM ROSENTHAL'S) 500 BLOCK OF l ST AVENUE i ,ii, i BROADWAY & FREMONT PLYMOUTH & EMERSON RESOLUTION 93-161 Item 8.1 PLANNING CASE 93-30 Item 8.2 location for expansion on this lot. He stated the Planning Commission reviewed this request at its meeting on October 5th and the major concern was the architectural compatibility of the proposed addition with the existing home. While the plans showed the masonite siding of the addition would match the home, the original plans showed a shed-type fiberglass roof which was not compatible with the gabled, asphalt-singled roof of the existing home. The petitioner agreed to revise the plans so that the roof of the addition would match the existing house. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request subject to this condition. Councilmember Otten introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 93-29 REQUESTING VARIANCE TO REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AT 7608 48TH CIRCLE NORTH (PID #08-118-21-32-0071} SUBMITTED BY KUO MOY". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Wehling, and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Otten, Wehling, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; Absent: Enck; whereupon the resolution was declared duly oassed and adooted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Planning Case 93-30, Request for Variance to Sign Area Requirement, 7112 Bass Lake Road (PID //08-118-21-31-0005), Metromedia Steakhouses (Ponderosa), Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated the petitioner is requesting a variance to the sign area requirement. The property owner recently remodeled and upgraded the Ponderosa Steakhouse and a scenic mural was painted on the building. This is an after-the-fact application for a variance from the ordinance to keep the signage in place. The only permit issued was a building permit for interior dining room and restroom remodeling. The sign area requirement for single occupancy business is 125 square feet and because of the definition of the sign code this total mural would be considered a sign. Its size is 484 square feet so the petitioner is requesting a variance of 359 square feet so that the mural can remain in place. At the Planning Commission Meeting, the petitioner stated that the mural is part of the new corporate image for their nationwide remodeling. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at its meeting on October 5th and the majority of Commissioners indicated that they could not recommend approval of such a large variance to the Sign Code due to the precedent that would be set even though several of the Commissioners did indicate that they thought the sign was aesthetically pleasing and were glad the building had been renovated. The Commission denied the request on a 5 to 1 vote. Mayor Erickson suggested that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission so that the issue of murals and pictorial representations can be studied for possible code amendments. Mr. Donahue indicated the study could take up to six months during which New Hope City Council Page 8 October 11, 1993 MOTION Item 8.2 PERSONAL LEAVE PLAN Item 12.1 New Hope City Council Page 9 time the code will not be enforced to Ponderosa. Mr. Don Sturms, representing Ponderosa, questioned whether the Council would accept input from the public and Ponderosa representatives at the meetings. Mayor Erickson confirmed that Ponderosa representatives will be notified and invited to the Council Meeting when the study is concluded and the recommendation is before the Council for consideration. Mr. Sturms initiated discussion regarding relocation of the pylon sign. He stated the adjacent Taco Bell sign is blocking the view. However, the Building Department will not grant a permit until the mural issue is resolved. He stated regardless of the mural issue Ponderosa would like to relocate the pylon sign. Mr. Donahue indicated he would have staff review the request. As long as the changes comply with city code, the pylon sign relocation may be allowed prior to a recommendation on the mural. At the City Attorney's request, the petitioner waived his right to the 60- day response period mandated by city code on variance requests. It was noted that the study could take six months to complete. Motion was made by Councilmember Otten, seconded by Councilmember Wehling, to refer the issues of murals and pictorial representations to the Planning Commission for study and possible code amendment. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Presentation of Personal Leave Plan for City Employees. Mr. Donahue stated the personal leave plan has been developed with the assistance of the Personnel Board, Mercer (an outside consultant), and an Employee Focus Group. He stated the plan includes the personal leave plan, a conversion policy, a bereavement plan, and a short-term disability plan. Ha stated an early retirement program for police officers is a part of the plan as well as full utilization of the city's contribution to health insurance. He recommended adoption of the plans so that the City can consider them during negotiations for 1994 labor agreements. He stated the Personnel Board has passed on the personal leave plan and the City Council must approve it because of budget implications. The plans are cost neutral meaning additional dollars will not be expended to change to a new personal leave plan. The plans have been developed based on Council's original direction to decrease the City's long-term liability and to bring personnel benefits more in line with the private sector (eliminating accumulated sick time benefits). Ms. Sherry Draper, Administrative Assistant, presented an overview of the personal leave plan. She stated the personal leave plan would replace the current vacation plan and sick leave plan. She stated it does not affect the holiday schedule, income continuation for work-related disability, or long- October 11, 1993 COUNCIL REQUF~T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda ,5genOa Section L/evetopment City Manager & Planning 10-11-93 Item No. Kirk McDonald By:Management Assistant By: 8.2 PLANNING CASE 93-30 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SIGN AREA REQUIREMENT, 7112 BASS LAKE ROAD (PID #08-118-21-31-0005), METROMEDIA STEAKHOUSES (PONDEROSA), PETITIONER The petitioner is requesting a variance to the sign area . requirement, pursuant to Sections 3.422(1), 3.456(1), and 3.452 of the New Hope Code. The.property owner recently painted a scenic mural on the building with new PONDEROSA STEAKHOUSE lettering without applying for a sign permit and the sign is in violation of Code so this is an after-the-fact application for a variance from the ordinance to keep the signage in place. The only permit issued was a building permit for interior dining room and restroom remodeling. The Sign Code defines sign as "Any writing (including letters, words, or numerals), pictorial representation (including illustrations or decorations), emblem (including devises, symbols, or trademarks), flag, banner, streamer, pennant, string of lights, or display designed to attract the attention of the public, whether it be attached to a structure, painted on, or in any other manner represented on a building or other structure or on the ground". The total area of the pictorial sign is 484 square feet (the text portion of the sign is 70 square feet in area and the pictorial portion of the sign is 414 square feet in area). City staff have determined that according to the Code definition of "sign", the entire area including the mural and lettering should be considered as signage. The sign code limits front wall signs for single occupancy businesses to 125 square feet, therefore a sign area variance of 359 square feet is needed for the sign to remain in place. The petitioner states that the mural is part of the new corporate image for their nationwide remodeling. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at its meeting on October 5th and the majority of Commissioners indicated that they could not recommend approval of such a large variance to the Sign Code due to the precedent that would be set. Several of the Commissioners did indicate that they thought the sign was aesthetically pleasing and were glad the building had been renovated. The Commission denied the request on a 5 to 1 vote. (cc, ntlnucd~, o ,oN TO: (~;/~'Z~'. //4 '?O?~Z~ w Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 Request for Action Planning Case 93-30 October 11, 1993 Page -2- The enclosed resolution denies the request and if the Council intends to deny, the matter could be referred to the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact. If the Council intends to approve the request, staff recommends that the issue of murals and pictorial representations be referred to the Plamng Commission for study and possible code amendments. Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: 10. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 93-30 Request for Variance to Sign Area Requirement 7112 Bass Lake Road 05-118-21-31-0005 B-4 Metromedia Steakhouses (Ponderosa) October 1, 1993 October 5, 1993 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a variance to the sign area requirement, pursuant to Sections 3.422(1), 3.465(1), and 3.452 of the New Hope Code. The petitioner has installed new signage on the front wall of the Ponderosa Stealchouse that is in violation of the New Hope Sign Code and this is an after-the-fact application for a variance form the sign ordinance to keep the signage in place. The property owner recently painted a scenic mural on the building with new "PONDEROSA STEAKHOUSE" lettering without applying for a sign permit. The only permit recently issued was a building permit for interior dining room and mst. room remodeling. When the Building Official made the final inspection on July 1, 1993, no new wall signage was present. Subsequent to the installation of the sign the Building Official sent a letter stating that the sign must be removed or that an application for a variance should be made. The total area of the pictorial sign is 484 square feet and the sign code limits front wall signs for single occupancy businesses to 125 square feet, therefore a sign area variance of 359 square feet is needed if the sign is to remain in place. The Ponderosa Steakhouse is located at the northeast intersection of Bass Lake Road and Maryland Avenue. The property is located in a B-3 Auto-Oriented Zoning District and is bordered on the east by Taco Bell Restaurant (B-3 Zoning), on the west (across Maryland Avenue) by City of Crystal commercial district, on the north by City of Crystal single family residential, and on the south (across Bass Lake Road) by a B-2 gas station. The Comprehensive Plan stresses preventive maintenance along the Bass Lake Road strip to prevent deterioration and this property was zoned commercial in 1956, rezoned to Retail Business in 1961, and rezoned to the current B-3 classification in 1979. The topography of the property is flat and the majority of the lot is covered by building and asphalt. The petitioner states on the application that the request is to install a mural on the front of the building with letters totalling 60 square feet with the remainder a graphic art. The petitioner indicates that the mural is a corporate image. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified, including the City of Crystal. and staff have received no comments on this request. Planning Case Report 93-30 October 5, 1993 Page -2- ANALYSIS Section 3.422 of the Sign Code, Definitions, subsection 1, Si~, states that a sign shall be defined as "Any writing (including letters, words, or numerals), pictorial representation (including illustrations or decorations), emblem (including devises,symbols, or trademarks), flag, banner, streamer, pennant, string of lights, or display designed to attract the attention of the public, whether it be attached to a structure, painted on, or in any other manner represented on a building or other structure or on the ground". City staff finds that the Code definition of "sign" includes the entire 484 square foot mural, not just the lettering, and this interpretation has been confirmed by the Planning Consultant and City Attorney. Section 3.465. Signs Accessory to Single Occupancy Business, subdivision 1,A, Front Wall Maximum Signage states that "Not more than two signs shall be permitted on the front wall of any principal building. The total area of such sign or signs shall not exceed 15% of the area of the front face of the principal building...provided that the total area of each sign shall not exceed 125 square feet." Section 3.452, Painted Wall Signs, states that "No business or advertising sign which is painted directly upon a wall surface shall be permitted". In regards to a variance from the ordinance, the Sign Code states that "Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the Sign Code, the City Council has the power to vary the requirements of the Sign Code in harmony with the general purpose and intent hereof, so that the public health, safety, and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. When considering a variance, the City Council shall make a finding of fact and grant approval based upon the following conditions: A. Unique Conditions. That the conditions involved are unique to the particular parcel of land or use involved. B. Variation Purpose. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved. C. Cause of Hardshio. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Sign Code and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel. D. Effect of Variance. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood. E. Impairment of Light and Air. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or interfere with the function of the police and fire departments of the City. Staff does not find that the conditions for the granting of the variance are met due to the following: A. Unique Conditions - staff does not find that conditions involved are unique to this parcel of land or use, as there are many similar businesses along Bass Lake Road that are in compliance with the sign code. Planning Case Report 93-30 October 5, 1993 Page -3- B. Purpose - staff finds that the sign was probably installed to increase the visibility, of the business and this conflicts with the condition that the variance should not be based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved. C. Hardship - staff finds that the hardship is not caused by the Sign Code, but instead has been created by persons presently having an interest in the parcel. 7. The Building Official has calculated that the text portion of the sign is 70 square feet in area and the pictorial portion of the sign is 414 square feet in area for a total sign area of 484 square feet. The sign code allows 125 square feet for wall signs, so this request is for a 287 % increase over what is allowed by the code. 8. The Planning Consultant has prepared the enclosed Ponderosa Sign Review memo. It states that "the sign code is very specific about regulating pictorial signs. The proposed sign takes up almost 50% of the front wall of the building. 'Granting a variance to this requirement would set a negative precedent for the City in reviewing future sign variance requests. It is our opinion that the code should not be amended to allow this type of use, especially on such a large scale". 9. While it could be argued that the outdoor scene shown on the pictorial could be pleasing to some persons, staff cannot recommend approval of such a large variance request for the reasons outlined in this report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance to the New Hope Sign Code to allow a 484 square foot wall sign. Attachments: Topo/Section/Zoning Maps Building Official Sign Calculations Building Official Photo of Sign Sign Plans Planning Consultant Memo 9-30-93 II INTY ST G,ov=,~ PARK~ AVE: N. 1"~4"~ e~,~z RAPHAEL AVE ST. RAPHEL CATHOLIC CHURCH AVl[ \ ~OLF R.¢ R.3 SCHOOL B-1 R.4 ARENA X 879.6 x_..J 879.7 X ROAD 876.7 x~43 4343 x43 × 876.21 4343 × 4343 ~ Q X 878.5 878.6 1,078.000 N 877.3 × X 877.3 X 877.2~ 877.5 X USIN PONDEROSA BRIGHTENS ITS LMAGE Steak chain embarks on extensive unit and menu ret001ing. Worn down bv years of changes in ownership and management, Dayton, Ohio-based Ponderosa is try- ing to fight back. It faces a tough battle in the fiercelv competitive familv-steak- house market. Parent company Met- romedia, also based in Dav- ton, is pouring capital into the chain. At least 200 of its 782 units are slated for remodeling this year at $70,000 each. In addition to re-empha- sizing quality, service and cleanliness, it has trimmed lavers of management to give the unit general man- ager more control. Accord- KAUFMAN New Ponderosa units sport vibrant colors and a fresh look of the "new West." lng to Ponderosa President Michael Kaufman, the chain is training general managers "to understand a P&L, to let them get the rewards and to broaden their ability." Most of all, Metromedia is seeking to regain the trust of franchisees. Steven Lewis, a major Norristown, Pa.- - based Ponderosa and Burger King franchisee and presi- dent of the Ponderosa Fran- chise Association, is con- vinced that Metromedia is for real, after a series of pre- vious disillusioning experi- ences. "Metromedia was feeling its way the last few years, but now they've learned the business and have a definite direction," he says. "They always had deep pockets and are finally investing big money in Ponderosa." A promising pilot. Met- romedia is focusing special efforts into 16 pilot restau- rants in markets that include Kansas City, Mo.; Pitts- burgh: Cincinnati. Toledo and Lima. Ohio; and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The new Pon- derosa units sport bold, col- ors and a fresh look of the "new West." Employee uni- forms include bright shirts with suspenders. Since remodeling, sales at the Cincinnati pilot have soared from a $600,000 ay. erage unit volume to $1.1 million, says Kaufman. An Orlando. Fla., unit is doing $4 million, while eight otb- ers are doing S9 million or $$ million. From chaos to order. Overall, Ponderosa has changed from "a chaotic. cafeteria chute-walk~,'av service svstem" to an organ- ized one. says Kaufman. "No more confusing trays and utensils for customers pick out." Rather. custom- ers order from cashiers ~n a fast-food system, ther~ sit down. Servers bring orders to the table. On the menu side. Pon- derosa is pushing for quality grain-fed aged and better-grade ,tea;, lack of steak qual~t~ ?las plagued the chain ose- :he years. It also has piec~g,-: to raise prices. --C.B. RI:STAURANTS & {NSTI% ' ' ~- ~ ~, J~ $t "'- o" "1" (7Oaf) text Sla/ "2" (41~sf) pictorial AL'L1 M I Ii'OM' F'R ~'M E'~S E'C'u'RE'D' 't-,,TO,'.- ............ J: 90' 90' SECTION JOINT 9O' 90' ~ ~ (*79' SEE NOTE t2 90" ~ go" 51'-4' DRAIN HOLEs ON BOI'I'OM (,1. PER s c o.) I . got 7E (,8¢) NOTES: L[J: SECTION NUUBER AND SEQUENCE OF INSTALLATION. TEK EACH INSIDE CORNER JOINT mROUGH-INTERIOR ANGLE wire (1)-t12 x .V4" TEK SCREW. ALL JOINTS ARE TO BE S~OOTH AND FREE OF SHARP EDGES. , ACTUAL LENGTH OF SECTION PROVIDED IS LONGER THAN NEEDED AS PER FIELD DIMENSIONS. FOAI~ GASKET.dOINTS OF ANGLE AND HAT IN SECTIONS AT CORNERS AND EXPOSED ENDS. JillL- I~II, JT C,F A"""f .......... ^ r'l?r',~lF I~Alllllq SPUCER ANGLE FACTORY SUPPUED UOUNllNG HOLE 2 PER VERTICAL' F1.EXlBI F SIGN FACE A~GLE 36 DETAIL OF ALUMINUM FRAME SIGN FRAME LAYOUT 1/¢' = 1'-0' 1 KUCK IRNI,.® ALtjUfiNU u 2 KUCK ~ ALUU:N:,.u 3 BINOE~ N"P..C'., 5 l ANu-"I.~ Xl. Uu:', ~ u Fr~n i I"~D I A C~ I Cc:~O ~ No. : 312 440 ~683 Coa~ing Wh II:e 9~ight 20 C~2/-1~ ~, per equate y~rd He,hod $C4~ of Fod. Tee~.~td. No.~LA Adhaeton 20 lb: ~or 2 inch vtd:h (m~n~mum) ~tho4 S970 of Fed. Te~:.fitd. No.~9~A Grab Tensile SO0 1~, x 400 lb~. Me,hod SiO0 of Fed. Tes:.~td. No. lD~A Afte~gle~ a: 6dGa of ch&r~ none ~t~ndards ~94-40 ~,R.. :Pe%rolium, O~1 No vlalble sign ~f ~terioratio. n' ~:hod 301~ o~ Fe0.TeG:.Std. No.!01B & Lubricant or leakage uslng ASTN No.3 Hydros~at~ '400 psi Cmlnimum) ~bOd 55~ et 81 ock~ hS NO.2 .Re,lng Cmax14~m) ~le:noa .fio'/Z or ~9a, les :. ~a. NO, igL A Resistance 60 ~./~00 cycles maxtmum wt. loss Ta~r Neth~d ~8 ~heel ~000 Gr~ Lord crt~ktflg'ef ~ea~ng i~or ~,000 wa~er opray or Xenon Lamp ~Ur/&~O foe ~G .Cea:ad Fa~f~ .muS~ have Acrylic Znk Aeho~lon Top Coat. :a"pr~eq: Fl as:tctzer adhe~m~. Oea~ Load.~oam t60 degrees Fahren~el:'~ 1S les. ~-T-S2983B Para,4.S.2.~9 ~tron~h per inch load. ~ degre~ Fahr.~ol~-- SO 1be. , ~e inch load No slippage, oponlng or breaking of gt~ength 140 lei. per 1ftc, ~e:hod 5:00 of Fod. Tos%.Std. No, 2g~A H®~rom,adla Tuchnologlo=, L.~.O N. Wt1'P.~n Place, Lus Angules, CA 90(28 - ~15) ~5~-6S00 Inc, ARCH TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Cary Tea~ue/Alan Brixiu$ 30 September 1993 New Hope Ponderosa Sign Review 131.01 - 93.30 REVIEW Ponderosa is requesting a variance mural sign above =heir entrance. office's comments: to construct a 484 square fcc= The following summarizes our The entire muxal/sign should be considezed a sign. Section 3.422 (1) of =he zoning ordinance clearly defines a sign as "Any writing..., pictorial_ reDresentatiQn (including illus=rations or decorations)..., or display designed =o at:tact the attention of the public, whether it be attached to a structure, pain=ed on, or in any other manner represented on a building or ocher surucuure or on uhe ground." Therefore, the entire mural is considered as part of the sign. Sec=ion 3.452 prohibizs business or adver=isin~ signs from being p&inted directly on the w&ll surface. The code is very specific about regulating pictorial signs, our opinion is that the code should no= be amended to allow this type of use, especially on such a large scale. aoof signs are prohibited by City Code. Sec=ion 3.465 (4) o~ =he zoning ordinance prohibits roof signs accessory =o a single occupancy business. Therefore, if the proposed sign ex~ends inCo =he air space over =he roof of =he s~ructure, the sign is prohibited. Front wall signs are limited to 15% o~ 12S s~uare feet. The proposed sign takes up almost ~0% of the front wall. Granting a variance ~ ~his requirement would sec a negative precedent for the City in reviewing future si~n size variance requests. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.' Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636'Fax. 595-9837 October 12, 1993 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: 612-531-5100 TDD Line: 612-531-5109 City Hall Fax: #612-531-51 Police Fax: #6/-'~'3 I-51 Public Works Fax: #6~-533-76, Ms. Laurie Cruikshank Ponderosa Steakhouse 7112 Bass Lake Road New Hope, MN .55428 and Mr. Don Sturms Gould Investment Trust P.O. Box 578 Dayton, Ohio 45401 Subject: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SIGN AREA REQUIREMENT PLANNING CASE 93-30 Dear Ms. Cruikshank and Mr. Sturms: Please be advised that on October 11, 1993, the New Hope City Council tabled the request for a variance to the sign area requirement to allow a scenic mural sign to remain in place, as submitted in planning Case 93-30. As you are aware,the issue of murals and pictorial representations was referred back to the Planning Commission for study and possible code amendment. The Ponderosa Steakhouse sign can remain in place during the study and the code will not be enforced. I will keep you informed over the next six months as to the status of the study and notify you when a recommendation will be made to the Council. At that time your request will then be considered again. The Building Official has been informed that the City Council will allow you to proceed with relocation of the pylon sign, as long as the changes comply with the City Code, and the relocation will not have to wait until the mural issue is resolved. Please coordinate these changes with the Building Official and be sure to see if any permits are necessary prior to initiation of the work. If you have questions, please call me at 531-5119. Thanks for your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/lb CC: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 93-29 Property File (7806 48th Circle North)~ Family Styled City'~~ For Family' Living MOTION PC 93-30 (3.2) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SIGN AREA REQUIREMENT AT 7112 BASS LAKE ROAD New Hope Planning Commissioner Zak stated that she drove by to inspect the site and noted that the house has an ivory stucco exterior with green tdm, but she could not see green siding. Mr. Arntson explained that the front is stucco with green stained cedar trim and the back and sides are masonite siding with the same green roof. Commissioner Zak added that she would like to see the roof line match the existing home. Commissioner Gundershaug asked the petitioner if he has any objection to using an asphalt roof. Mr. Arntson explained for Mr. Moy that the addition will be on the north side where there is little sunlight and they would like to use it for plants. Chairman Cameron suggested constructing a gabled, asphalt shingled roof with skylights if light was a major concern. Commissioner Gundershaug questioned the pitch of the roof needed for one type of construction as opposed to another if the underneath structure would then have less strength for the lighter roof. Mr. Arntson explained that snowload is the same for both types of roof, but the deadload of the roof is increased with plywood plus shingles. Commissioner Zak suggested a greenhouse-type of addition be considered if it is to be used primarily for plants. Commissioner Sonsin and the contractor explained to the petitioner that he could let the case proceed with the chance of denial by both the Commission and the Council, or he could request that it be tabled for a month while he reconsiders if he would like to resubmit a new plan with an asphalt shingle roof, or he could withdraw his request and not build the addition. Mr. Moy emphasized that he wanted to build the addition so that he could sit in it and enjoy his yard free from mosquitos, and nodded that he was agreeable to tabling the case for one month to redevelop his plans. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Cassen, to table Planning Case 93-29 for one month. Voting in favor: Underdahl, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Cassen Voting against: None Absent: Lifson, Watschke Motion carried. Planning Case 93-30 was introduced by the Chairman and Mr. McDonald explained that the request by Ponderosa for a variance to the sign area requirement was an after- the-fact application since the sign has already been erected and they are asking to keep the sign in place. He stated that the property owner recently had a scenic mural painted on the front of the building with PONDEROSA STEAKHOUSE lettering without making application for a sign permit, although a building permit was issued for interior remodeling, and the Building Official informed them to have the sign removed or make application for a variance. He quoted the sign ordinance defining a sign as any writing, Pictorial representation, emblem, trademarks, banners, lights, etc. to attract the public, whether it be attached, painted, or represented on a building, structure, or ground, and limiting front wall signs for single occupancy businesses to 125 square feet. He noted that the City Attorney, Planning Consultant, and staff have measured the sign and agree that the total area of the sign is 484 square feet, with the entire mural considered part of the sign, so a 359 square foot variance is needed. He added that the petitioner states that the mural is their corporate image. commission -2- October 5, 1993 MOTION Laurie Cruikshank, General Manager for the New Hope Ponderosa Steakhouse, introduced herself and passed out a booklet pertaining to their mural. She apologized for the oversight and stated it was not intentional as was indicated by the letter from the Building Department. She stated that the building plans were submitted to the City with the sheet showing the mural and the permit was issued with no mention of the mural, thus it was ordered by the corporate office for installation and installed on August 6th. She continued that they were not aware of the issue until the company they were working with tried to contact the City on September 6th to obtain a permit to move the marquee and put on new sign facings to go with their re-imaging and was informed that no permit would be issued until the illegal wall sign was removed. Ms. Cruikshank stressed that the mural is a standard of the corporate image and is intended to enhance the front of the building as well as promote the new western interior. She explained the company's desire to perk up the 20-year old building which is in a good area, but in need of a new image, and she emphasized that they are located in a unique location where all businesses around them are located in Crystal and are allowed banners and pictorial signs, and people often think they are in Crystal, even though they are in New Hope. She added that the sign was put up with the understanding that it was already approved along with the main permit. Chairman Cameron expressed dismay in the size of the sign and that the contractor assumed the sign was approved along with the building permit. He emphasized that the New Hope Sign Code is very distinct in that the purpose of signage is to indicate to people where businesses are located .and not meant for advertising. He added that other businesses have had to undo signs because the ordinance does not allow them. Commissioner Sonsin commented that he was impressed by the sign, but the law does bear weight on what is allowed since signs in New Hope are considered for business identification only. He expressed fear that granting of a variance of that magnitude would be setting a precedent in the City. He asked what their next step would be if the Commission and the Council deny the variance. Mr. Don Sturms from Maintenance Department of Metromedia Corporate Office, introduced himself and acknowledged that they have alternate plans to cover a denial, including removing the letters and leaving the pictorial. He noted that the material in the sign is not paint, but a form of pvc material designed for this kind of application and designed to last a lifetime. He stated, in event of denial, they will try to come up with a different design to stay within the City's restrictions, although they feel the sign is a part of the company image they wish to maintain, and it is a matter of interpretation as to what constitutes a sign, letters and/or background graphics. He added that they do have two already installed in the area, in Phalen Park and Spring Lake Park. He defended the contractor and stated that he had nothing to do with the sign, only the remodeling, and the corporate office ordered a company out of Dayton, Ohio, to install the mural as there was no stipulation on the permit against it. Mr. McDonald interjected that the City Attorney would still consider a mural as a sign even if the letters were removed and again quoted from the Sign Code definition. Commissioner Underdahl asked if there was a Plan B and Mr. Sturms indicated they would try to design one that would stay within the 125-foot requirement, but it will .leave the front of the building looking old and requiring painting every two years. Commissioner Gundershaug expressed his opinion that he does not mind the sign and other Commissioners agreed it is impressive, but it is still considered against the Code, and to approve it would establish a precedent. Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Cassen, to deny Planning Case 93-30 requesting a variance to the sign code ares requirement. Voting in favor: Underdahl, Zak, Sonsin, Cameron, Cassen Voting against: Gundershaug Absent: Lifson, Watschke Motion carried. New Hope Planning Commission -3- October 5, 1993 PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign code to enable them to er.e~ mural on the front of their building on Bass lal(e road, New Hope, MN. NAME ADDRESS PHONE _,.z Z.-c ~ ~ }:"O PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL "~"~ ~ ~ We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a ' variance of the sign code to enable them to e~eet a.mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. k_cc~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE ..~o ? ~ o~ //.- // PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign code to enable them to er-ec~-a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. -'~c.~-~--~-~--- NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign code to enable them to e~et..a mural on the front of their building on Bass Lake road, New Hope, MN. '~-~--~. _ NAME ADDRESS i PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are recluesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign code to enable them to.erect-a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. -~-,~-T~,c..._ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hol3e give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign code to enable them to ereet-a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. ~.~..~__ NAME r ADDRESS / PHONE / i PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to PonderOsa a variance of the sign code to enable them to crc~ a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. ~_-~__ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETTTION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign code to enable them to er-eet-a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. ~.~.,,.~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign code to enable them to ~t~a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETIT1ON TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign code to enable them to ere~ a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. ~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE crrY COUNCIL We the undersigned are recluesting that the City of New Hol3e give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign code to enable them to ere~ a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hol3e, MN. j,;L~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL we the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of tile sign code to enable them to erect a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hol3e, MN. ~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE ,,,f PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the unclersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign COde to enable them to ~ a mural on the front of their building on Bass lal<e road, New Hope, MN. ~ NAME .-? / ~ .r ADDRESS PHONE Il ~ q ~-/44D PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign code to enable them to ~ mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. ~ ~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign cocle to enable them to erect a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. NAME ADDRESS /.. :~ ~,' .,,~.~ ' PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are recluesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a varianCelal<e road,°fNewWe signHo~,~eMN.tO enable t~em to ~ a mural on the front of Weir building on Bass NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE crl'Y COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign code to enable them ~ mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign cocle to enable them to er-e~ a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake roacl, New Hope, MN. /C~.D NAME ADDRESS PHONE v ~~ fl ~ ~ /..,,r=& , 4,"2 7-$~ .~ 555-qq ¥0 PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are recluesting that the City of New Hol:)e give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign code to enable them to ~er-eet a mural on the front of their building on Bass lal<e road, New Hope, MN. ~J,-~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign cocle to enable them to em, ct a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. ~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE 5-7$7 PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign code to enable them to ~ a mural on the front of their building on Bass Lake road, New Hope, MN. ~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are recluesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign code to enable them to ere~ a mural onthe front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. ~.~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE .6-37- ,~ /~ 2 5Z..r7-2./ .5 PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign code to enable them to .erect a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. K.~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE _5?/- 7 ?.5?: /, / / // / / PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undemigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a ~-~ variance of the sign code to enable them to .~t_~a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 7 & ~-? 2 - H..7 o c- PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undemigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign code to enable them to efeet a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake mad, New HoPe, MN. ~'~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned am requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a '-~ variance of the sign code to enable them to erect a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. ~0 NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CI'i'Y COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponclerosa a variance of the sign code to enable them to ~a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign code to enable them to erect a mural on the front of their building on Ba~s lake road, New Hope, MN. ~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign code to enable them to er-e~t a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. ,~_%) NAME ADDRESS PHONE f r PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign code to enable them to e~eet a mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CI'FY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign code to enable them ~mural on the front of their I~uiiding on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. -~ ~~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE q'9 o. (.,?< ; ~77- /~PC{ PETTI'ION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the unclersigned are recluesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign cocte to enaJ31e them to ~ect-a muraJ on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope 'L4N. f~.o~--~'__ NAME ADDRESS PHONE ,99L¥ ? PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CiTY COUNCIL We the unclersigned are recluesting that the C~ of New Hope give to Ponclemsa a variance of the sign cocle to enaPle them to ~ muraJ on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. NAME ADDRESS PHONE g'Sq - P~rTT'iON TO THE NEW HOPE Cr'i'Y COUNCIL We the undersigned are recluestJng that the City of New Hope give to Ponclemsa a variance of the sign code to enaJ:)le them to e. re~a. mural on the front of their Duilding on Bass lake roacl, New Hope, MN. -~L'...-'{ ~-~. ~_ NAME ADDRESS PHONE '7/ PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the unciersigned are recluesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign cocle to enaJ31e them to er-e~-a mural on the front of their buiicling on Bass lake roac[, New Hope, MN. .~Q.-~ -,-'bL (. NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undemigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign cocte to enaiIle them to,erecta, mural on the front of their building on Bass lake roaci, New Hope, MN. '~:~-~?-- c _ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the unclersignecl am recluesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponclerosa a variance of the sign code to enat~le ~em to ~'eet-a mural on me from of their t~uilding on Bass lake roacl, New Hope, MN. NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL we the unclersigned are recluesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign ccx:le to enalile ~em to.~ mural on the front of their building on Bass lake roacl, New HoDe, MN. NAME ADDRESS PHONE "7 ? (' PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the unclersigned am recluesting tha! the City of New Hope give to Ponclemsa a variance of the sign cocte to enai31e them to erect ~--muraJ on the front of their 13uilcling on Bass lake roact, New HoDe, MN. ~_:~.~ :,-~ ..... NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa s variance of the sign code to enable them to ~-mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. -~-~'~--'~ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CiTY COUNCIL We the unclersigne~l are recluesfing that the City of New Hope give to Ponclerosa a variance of the sign co~e to enaDle them to erec~-a~rnural on the front of their building on Bass lake roacl, New Hope, MN. NAME ADDRESS PHONE %/.>,- y?/ / PETITION TO 'I'HE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL - We the undersigned am recluesting that the City of New Hooe give to Ponctemsa a vadance of the sign coos to enaOle them tcv-eree~a mural on the front of their Ouiicling on Bass lake roack New Hol3e, MN. .~:~2,;..-,~ . NAME ADDRESS PHONE _ , , ~ ~ ' PETI'TION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We We unclemign~d ~re requ~stJng l~a! ~e Ci~ of New Hope gwe to Ponde~ a v~ance of ~e sign ~e to en~le ~em ~~u~ on ~e ~m of ~eir b~l~g on ~s I~e roa~, N~ Hope, MN. ~c~ ~-- NAME ADDRESS PHONE 411 PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the unctersigned are recluesSng that the City of New Hope give to Pon~erosa a vadance of the sign code to enable them to ere~a--mural on the front of their Ouilcling on Bass lake roa~l, New Hope, MN. ~_~_-~_. ~. ~,,.<.__ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETTTION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undemignecl am requesting that the City of New Hope give to Poncterosa a variance of the sign code to enat~le them to,erect~ mural on the front of ti'reit builcling on Bass lat(e roacl, New Hope, MN. -' ,-~ct~_ NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CFi'Y COUNCIL We the unclersigrted ate recluesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponaemsa a variance of the sign co~e to enable them to ~uraJ on ~e front of their t~uiiding on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. I~AME ADDRESS PHONE /..'~.~, .:--~.~.~-~-~ _ '.~ .?~... ',_,..~ ..- /x :... __., ~," ,": ""-" .2 ' "'~_' :'-"'-r~ -"' ~'-~""-~----c",~x ' .' ~,. . PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL we the un~lemignecl are mClUeSting that the C~ty of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign code to enat:Jle them ~o~efect-a-mural on the front of their building on Bass lal(e roacl, New Hope, MN. ~L~-fft.-( NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undemigned are recluesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign code to enat3te ~em to erect-a-mural on ~e front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hol~e, MN. NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned are requesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a vadance of the sign code to enable them to ereet-a-mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hope, MN. NAME ADDRESS PHONE PE'rFTION TO THE NEW HOPE CITY COUNCIL We the undemigned are recluesting that the City of New Hope give to Ponderosa a variance of the sign code to enable them to.erect-a--mural on the front of their building on Bass lake road, New Hol~e, MN. NAME ADDRESS PHONE '¢~x~&, ,, 0~..h ~ .'-~'~.¢~7 -. ~ .-:' ~ ~ ~'/~ /'' ' DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM March 31, 1994 Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Miscellaneous Issues March 14th Council Meeting - At the March 14th Council meeting the City Council approved the following Planning Cases, subject to the conditions that' were recommended by the Commission: Ao Planning Case 94-02, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of J.R. Jones Addition, 3216/3224/3232 Winnetlm Avenue North, J.R. Jones Fixture Company, Petitioner. Bo Planning Case 94-05, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Storage, 4990 Highway 169, Collins Associates-Minneapolis/Collins Electrical Systems, Inc., Petitioner. Collins agreed to provide the requested wetland easement to the City and the City Council agreed that the City would be responsible for identifying and legally describing the easement. Planning Case 93-32, Ordinance 93-08, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Permitting Pump Island Canopies at Gas Stations and Convenience Stores as an Accessory Structure and Allowing Additional Signage on Canopies; and Ordinance 94-03, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code Regulating Canopy Signage and Other Signage Accessory to Gas Sales at Service Stations and Convenience Stores with Gas Sales. The City Council adopted these ordinances and accepted all of the recommendations except the one that allowed gasoline canopy signage in addition to the 125 square feet that is allowed for wall and ground signage. The Council felt that canopy signage should be included in the 125 square feet of signage currently allowed and the enclosed modified ordinances are what was adopted. Please review the Council minutes for further information. We still plan on mailing out copies of the new ordinances to all gas station owner/operators once the ordinances have been published and are in effect. J.R. Jones Final Plat - The final plat of J.R. Jones Addition was submitted to the City subsequent to the approval of the preliminary plat by the City Council on March 14th. All requested changes were made to the plat and the final plat was approved by the City Council on March 28th. Public Works Salt Storage Building and Site Improvements - You will recall that last year the Planning Commission and City Council approved the plans for the New Hope Public Works Salt Storage building and miscellaneous site improvements regarding development of the vacant property just south of the existing site. Plans and specifications were presented again to the City Council on March 28th for budget approval and authorization to seek bids on the project. The City Council authorized the seeking of bids and, if the bids are acceptable, this project will get underway this spring. ~ Cooper Senior High School Football/Track Facility Improvement Study - The City has not yet received a formal zoning application from District No. 281 for the Cooper football/track facility, however, City staff recently met with the traffic consultant the District has hired to perform a traffic analysis for the project to discuss concerns and issues that should be addressed in such an analysis. It is anticipated that an application for an amendment to the existing conditional use permit will be forthcoming this spring. Home Occupation Ordinance - You will recall that amendments proposed to the existing Home Occupation Ordinance were tabled last fall by the City Council. It is amicipated that these proposed revisions will be discussed at an April Council work session and the ordinance will be brought back for consideration at a regular Council meeting this spring. Super America - The Super America project on 62nd and West Broadwy is back. After receiving site and building plan and conditional use permit approval to construct a new service station on that vacant site two years ago, the City was informed that Super America was not going to proceed with construction. They have now changed their minds and have submitted plans similar to the ones approved two years ago. Due to the lapse of time, they will need to go through the Planning Conunission and City Council process again. Attachments: Revised Gas Canopy Ordinances J.R. Jones Final Plat Request Public Works Salt Storage Building Request STEVEN A SONDRALL MICHAEL R. LAFLEUR MARTIN P MALECHA WILLIAM C STRAIT CORRICK ~/[ SONDRALL, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671 March 16, 1994 Va]erie Leone City Clerk City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Ordinance Nos. 94-03 and 94-04 Our File Nos: 99.49403 and 99.49404 Dear Valerie: Please find enclosed revised Ordinance Nos. 94-03 and 94-04 conforming to the language finally adopted at the March 14, 1994 Council meeting. Please remember that Ordinance No. 94-04 was previously numbered 93-08. Contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, tqI~IGINAL Steven A. Sondrall slw Enclosures cc: Daniel J. Donahue (w/enc) Kirk McDonald (w/eric). , F 'J ~ ORDINANCE NO. 94-03 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE SIGN CODE REGULATION CANOPY SIGNAGE AND OTHER SIGNAGE ACCESSORY TO GAS SALES AT SERVICE STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORES WITH GAS SALES The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 3.465 (5) "Awning or Canopy Signs" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (5) Awning or Canopy Signs. otherwise affixed to any follows: L~.tcr; Signs may be painted or permissible awning or canopy as (a) Location Lc't ct-' ..... ~-I ...... ~ ..... ~ *~ -~"~"^^~ d-' cf thc ........... or canc. py. Signs shall be limited to one (1) sign per canopy facia fronting onto a street. (b) t-p tm ~-**-- *~- * .... '"^ ~~ The canopy sign shall not proiect above or below the physical dimensions of the awnings or canopy facia. (c) Use. Lett~rin~ or ]~tt~r3 Signs shall not denote other than the name and address of the business conducted therein and/or a product or products produced or sold or service rendered thereini (d) Maximum Signage.~.'-*t--in~. ~, or l~ttcr; Awning and canopy signage shal,1 not exceed sixteen (16) square feet per sign. Awning and canopy signs shall be included in calculating the maximum sign area of the permissible wall sign. Section 2.. Section 3.466 "Signs Accessory to Automobile Service Stations" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended to read as 'follows- 3.466 Signs Accessory to Gas Sales in Conjunction with Automobile Service Stations or Convenience Stores. The following signs accessory to automobile service stations and convenience stores with gas sales are permitted in addition to the signs permitted under Subsection 3.465, (1) Oil Racks. Racks for the orderly display of cans of engine oil for convenience in dispensing said oil may be located on or at the ends of pump islands (limit of two to each island). (2) Tire Racks. Two open portable tire racks (not more than seven feet in height including signs, and six feet in length) on casters for the purpose of displaying new tire casings shall be permitted for each ~c=clinc automobile or tire station. (3) Portable Signs, Placards, Pennants. Portable signs, placards, pennants, streamers, flags (except the U.S. flag), revolving placards and all other signs not specifically permitted in this section are prohibited, except for grand openings, as provided in Subsection 3.441. (4) Gasoline and Price Sign. One sign (single or double faced) per frontage on a public street, suitable for apprising persons of the total sale price per gallon. The area of such price sign shall not exceed sixteen square feet on either side. Each such sign shall be affixed to the standard of a ground sign or light fixture, and shall state the total price. No sign posting an incomplete price or less than the total sales price is permitted. (5) Informational Signage. Signs denoting operation instructions associated with self service gas facilities including gas pump, air supply and car washes are exempt from the maximum sign area standards of section 3.465 of this Code. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the 14th day of March, 1994. Edw. d. Erickson, Mayor At t est: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the , 1994.) day o f ORDINANCE NO. 94-04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY PERMITTING PUMP ISLAND CANOPIES AT GAS STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORES AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND ALLOWING ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON CANOPIES The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.032 (3)(k) "Pump Island Canopy" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (k) Pump Island Canopy. Canopies located over pump islands shall be allowed as accessory structures in the B-3 zoning district for automobile service stations and convenience stores with gasoline allowed by §§4.124 (1) and (2) of this Code. CanOpy setbacks shal. 1 be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the property line. Adequate visibility both on and off site must also be maintained. ii. Canopies shall not be allowed in rear yards not abutting a public street. iii. Maximum canopy height may not exceed twenty (20) feet, and shall provide a minimum clearance of fourteen (14) feet. iv, Canopy facades may not exceed three (3) feet in height. Reflected glare or spill light may not exceed five- tenths (0.5) foot .candles, as measured on the property line when abutting residentially zoned property and one (1) foot candle measured on the property line when abutting other commercial or industrially zoned property. vi. Signage may be allowed on the canopy as permitted in §3.465 of this Code. Section 2. Section 4.124 (1)(o)"Canopy" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (o) Canopy. Canopies located over pump islands shall be allowed as accessory structures subject to the specifications set out in §4,032 (3)(k) of this Code. Section 3. Section 4.124 (2)(h)"Canopy" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (h) ---'~-*-' .......... Canopies located over pump Canopy. nA ~ .............. ~J islands ,m,~,~- shall be allowed as ~ accessory structures k~k .... ~ ~ ~.~ =~ --~--~--~" subiect to the specifications set out ~n ~4.032(3)(k) of th~s Code. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the 14th day of March, 1994. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the , 1994.) day of COUIYCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Plannin~enda Section City Manager & Development 3-21/-94 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant By: PLANNING CASE 94-02 - RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF J.R. JONES ADDITION, 3216/3224/3232 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH; ROBERT JONE$/J. R. JONES FIXTURE COMPANY, PETITIONER The enclosed Resolution approves the final plat of J.R. Jones Addition at 3216/3224/3232 Winnetka Avenue North, which has been submitted on behalf of J.R. Jones Fixture Company. The plat includes what is currently known as Lots 1 and 2, Pazandak Addition, and the existin/l J.R. Jones property. These three parcels would be combined into one parcel which would be known as Lot 1, Block 1, J.R. Jones Addition, and said plat would conhain 6.254 acres or 272,403 square feet. In January the petitioner received approval for site and building plan review and a conditional use permit for deferred parking for purposes of constructing an addition on to the existing building, as outlined in Planning Case 94-01. The petitioner currently owns the property at 3216 Winnetka Avenue North where the addition will be constructed and the petitioner purchased the two vacant parcels to the north of this site at 3224 and 3232 Winnetka Avenue North and these parcels are where the deferred parking area will be located. All three parcels need to be combined and replatted into one lot to accommodate the development and platting was a condition of the approval for the building addition. The Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat at their March 2nd meeting, subject to four conditions, and agreed to waive their review of the final plat due to the minor nature of the changes and to expedite the approval process. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on March 14th subject to the following conditions: MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Planning Case 94-02 Page 2 The developer dedicate an additional 7 feet of right-of-way, for a total of 40 feet of right- of-way from and along the CSAH 156 centerline, from 32nd Avenue to a point approximately 320 feet north. A minimum 10 feet wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along all side and rear lot lines. The east line of the plat running down the middle of Winpark Drive be labeled with some identification information to tie it in with the metes and bounds legal description for that property and title evidence showing ownership of the property be provided at the time of the f'mal plat. A 15 foot easement along the north lot line Of the eXisting lot be granted to Northern States Power due to the fact that this line feeds most of the commercial park along Winpark Drive. The petitioner has submitted the final plat and has incorporated all of the requested changes and the plat has been reviewed by the City Attorney, City Engineer and Building Official. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Approving Final Plat of J.R. Jones Addition, 3216/3224/3232 Winnetka Avenue North for J.R. Jones Fixture Company. CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 94- RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 94-02 FINAL PLAT OF J.R. JONES ADDITION AT 3216/3224/3232 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (PID g20-118-21-23-0003) (PID #20-118-21-23-0011) (PID #20-118-21-23-0010) SUBMITTED BY ROBERT JONES/J.R. JONES FIXTURE COMPANY WHEREAS, the City of New Hope is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of New Hope has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a Final Plat for J.R. Jones Addition, requested in Planning Case 94-02, as submitted by Robert Jones/J.R. Jones Fixture Company. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of New Hope hereby approves the Final Plat of J.R. Jones Addition. This resolution will expire one hundred (100) days from the date of adoption. If the aforesaid subdivision is not recorded with the appropriate offices of Hennepin County within one (1) year, a new application will be required for subdivision by the City of New Hope. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, on this 28th day of March, 1994. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Bonestroo Rosene Ander!ik & Associates Engineers & Architects March 24, 1994 Otto G 8onestroo. PE Robert W' Rosene. Joseph C, Anderlik, PE. Matin L ~ala, PE. ~char~ E Turnec PE Gienn ~ Cook, Thomas E No~s. Ro~e~ G ~hun~cht. Susan M Eber~in, CPA '~ntor Consultant Howard A Sanford. PE Agnes M Ring, A IC P Miles B Jensen PE Ke~th A. Gordon. PE Phlhp J Pyne. PE L Phllhp Gravel, PE Robe~ R. ~efferle. PE. Thomas ~ Pe/erson, PE~n L ~emer~. PE Richa~ ~ ~ster. RE Michael C. Lynch. PE Qa~ O Knstofi~. PE David O. ~skota, ~. fl~mes ~. Maland. ~E F Todd ~ster. PE Robe~ C RusseK. A.IA Jer~ g Pe~sc~. PE. Kel[~ R Yapp. PE Jer~ A Bourdon, RE. ~o~ J A~g~nek. PE. Douglas J Benoit. PE Msrk A. Hanson. RE. ~nneth P Ander~n. RE.~n O Gus[arson, PE Michael ~ Rautmann. RE M~rk R. RoOfs. RE Cecllio Ol~wec RE Ted K. Field. RE Mark A ~ip, PE Paul G. Heuer, RE. Thomas ~. Anderson, A.I.A. Ga~ ~. Monen RE. JOhn R Gorder, RE Donald C Bu~ardt. PE Daniel J Edge~on, RE Charles A Erickson Thomas E. Angus, PE A Rick ~midt, RE Leo M Pa~lsky Ismael Ma~lnez, RE PhdJp J. Caswell. RE Harlan M Olson Michael P Rau. PE. Mar~ O Walhg P~. James F EngeJhardt City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue New' Hope, MN 55428 Attention: Mr. Kirk McDonald Re: J.R. Jones Final Plat File 34-gen Dear Kirk: We have reviewed the final plat for J.R. Jones and all recommended easements/right-of-way are properly shown. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, RQSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. M ar'k-'A. Hanson MAH:Ik 2335 ~Vest Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN SS113 · 612-636-4600 HRR-24-~4 THU 15:15 P, 02702 CORRICK Rr SONDP~LL. RA. ATTO~E¥$ AT LAW Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Rdinbrook Crossing Suitc #203 l)rOOklyn Park, Minnesota 55~43 TFI ;PMON; (~12) 42f-5671 LAVONNE E March 24, 1994 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 440t X¥1on Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Final Plat for' J,R. Jones Addition Our Fi 1 e No: 99. 15038 Dear Kirk: I have examined the proposed final plat of the J.R. Jones Addition and find the plat to be in order' from a legal standpoint. And, based upon my lltle opinions involving the property, all of the necessary parties are listed as signatories on the plat. You should, however, be aware that the Hennepin County Auditor will not sign off on the plat until the real estate taxes due and payable in 1994 have been paid in full. The Auditor's signature is required before the plat can be filed. So, unless the property owners are willing and able to pay the entire real estate taxes for 1994 now, the actual recoraing of the plat may be delayed. Finally, both of my title opinions note various bankruptcies, tax liens, and judgments against various persons with the last name of Jones. I have contacted the attorney of the property owners and he will provide the City with an Affidavit of Non-Identification from the various Jones' parties signing the plat. This will resolve Ihat issue, Please contact me with any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely, Asst. New Hope City Attorney s3t Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager Steven A, $onQrall, City Attorney ~R-24-94 THU t2:06 P, 03/07 CORRICK & SO, DRAft,, P.A. ATTORNEYR AT [,Aw Ed/nburgh E~u~ve Officc Pla~a 8525 ~nbr~k Cross~ 5uitc ~203 Brooklyn ~k, Minneso~ 55443 March 24, 199z~ Daniel J. Donahue City Manager City of New Hope 4&01Xy]on Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Title Opinion J.R. Jones Addition Our File NO: 99.15038 Dear Dan: At your request, we have examined the Abstract of Title certified to February g, lgg4 at 7:00 a,m, by Old Republic National Tl~le Insuranoe Company containing 72 entries and covering premises in Hennepin County, Minnesota legally described as: The Southerly 352.7 feet of Lhe West ~ of the Southwest ot the Northwest t of Section 20, Township 118, Range 21. (Note that this Abstract and title opinion cover part ot the real estate involved In lhe J.R. Jones Addition Plat,) From such examination, I find good title of record in' JOHN R. JONES, subjeot to the following: 1. Interes, of the spouse of John R. Jones. This is a ~tatutory interest only, since the s~ouse is not of record. Base~ upon other documents in the AbStract, JOhn R. Jones a~pears to be married to Joyce K. Jones, and she must ~lso sign the plat alon9 w~th John R. Jones. MAR-24-94 THU 12:08 P. 04/O? Mr. Daniel J. Donahue March 24, 1994 Page 2 2. A Contract for Deed da~ea July 20, 1979 and filed as Document NO. 4551905, by which D~uglas j. Jones and Robert M. Jones purchased the subject property. Douglas J. Uones an~ Robert M. Jones and their spouses, if any~ must also sign the plat as contract purchasers. 3. A permanent easement in favor' of the (Village) City of New Hope recordeQ February 3, 1958 as Document No. 3104316. This easement is for sanitary sewer purposes over a strip of land 15 feet in width and located within the area which will be covered by Winpark Drive on the proposed plat. This easement does not affect the platting process. 4. A Quit Claim Deed from' J.R. JoNes Fixture Co,, a Minnesota Corporation, to the (Village) City of New Hope filed February 4, 1966 a~ Document No. 359052. This Quit Claim Deed covers the Southerly 33 feet of the above describeU property. This 33 foot strip is the same property which will be dedicated as 32nd Avenue North in the proposed plat. This deed can be disregarded for the purposes of the platting process. 5. An easement from J.R. Jones Fixture Co. to Northern States Power Company filed January 3, 1967 ~s Document No. 36406~1. This easement involves the North 5 feet of the subject property, and w~ll coincide with a dedicated utility easement along the north line of the property. Accordingly, this easement can be disregarded for the purposes of the plat. 6. Easements for highway purposes in favor of Hennepin County involving a triangular portion of the southwest corner of the subject property, recorded February 13, t981 as Document Nos. 4525045 and 4625046. These easements cover a portion of the property which is included in the dedicated street right-of-way~ and can be disregarded for the purposes of this P~at. 7. A Variance Certificate filed August 20, 1990 as Document No. 56937S4 invol¥ing the expansion of a non-conforming structure, This wi1] not affect the platting process, 8. A Conditional Use Permit Certificate filed May ZT, 199Z as Document NO. 5~17031 relating to a loading berth. This can be d~sregarded. 9. A Variance and Conditional Use Permit Site Improvement Agreement ~iled September 30, 1992 as Document No. ~974235, involving a warehouse expansion. Th~s wil~ not affect the plattins process. ~R-24-94 T~U t2:07 P, 05/07 Mr. Daniel J. Donahue Mar~h 24, 1994 Page 3 10. Re&l e~tate taxes due and payable in the year 1993 and prior years have been paid In ?ull. Taxes due and Dayable in 1994 total $94,091.96, and have not been paid. The property is assessed in the name of Jones as non-homestead, property identification no 20 118 21 23 0003. ' 11. A number of bankruptcies, tax liens, ~nd district court judements are in existence for various parties With the Jones name. This would be expected given such a common name. A list of those bankruptcies, tax liens and judgments should be inoluded in an Affidavit which the property owners will sign indicating that they are not the persons involve~ in any of these bankruptcies, tax liens and judgments. This opinion is subject to tr'ansactlons which may affect the title from the date of certification, February g, 1994, and to any errors in the Abstract itself. This property may also be subject to some of the following items; The right of any person in possession of the property. All rights of public highways and streets upon the land. Posslb'le mechanics liens for work done in the past 120 days which do not appear o7 record. Encroachments, easements and other m~tters which might be ascertained by an actual survey and inspection of the premises above aescribed. Sincerely, Existing zoning and building regulations and Ordinances. Liens, claims or rights under the l~w or Constitution of the United States which the statutes of this Sta~e cannot require to appear of r'e6ord. Martin p. Malecha Asst. New Hope City Attorney s3t3 CC.' Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney Kirk McDonald, Management Asst. /- [ , :IAIlt(I ]'ItiYclblIA , ,, .o,.~,.~ H-T-HO.hi' ~llbI."4'AY ( ggt ON O~ O0 ) 'N '3^V YXLgN~,V, a CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: Request: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of J. R. Jones Addition Location: 3216 Winnetka Avenue North PID No.: 20-118-21-23-0003 20-118-21-23-0011 20-118-21-23-0010 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Robert Jones/J.R. Jones Fixture Company Report Date: February 24, 1994 Meeting Date: March 2, 1994 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a Preliminary Plat Approval ofJ. R. Jones Addition (Chapter 13 -New Hope Code of Ordinances). At the January 4th Planning Commission and January 10th City Council meetings, the petitioner received approval for site and building plan review and a conditional use permit for deferred parking for purposes of constructing an addition on to the existing building, as outlined in Planning Case 94-01. The petitioner currently owns the property at 3216 Winnetka Avenue North on the northeast corner of Winnetka and 36th Avenues and this is the site where the addition willbe constructed. The petitioner has recently purchased the two vacant parcels to the north of this site at 3224 and 3232 Winnetlm Avenue North and these parcels are where the deferred parking area willbe located. Allthree parcels need to be combined and replatted into one lot to accommodate the development and platting was a condition of the approval for the building addition. o The petitioner has proposed the Preliminary Plat of J.R. Jones Addition to accomplish the combination and said plat was submitted to the City near the end of January and was distributed to the City Attorney, City Engineer, Department Heads, utility companies, Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation for review and comment. Due to the fact that the plat was not received until January 21st and comments were not vet returned to the City by the February 1st Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended tabling the request until the March 1st Planning Commission meeting and the petitioner agreed with that recommendation. The Commission tabled the request for one month at the Februarx' meeting. Planning Case No. 94-02 March 2, 1994 Page 2 o 10. The property is located in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District and the set back requirements are as follows: Front yard - 50 feet (west - Winnetka Avenue) Side yards -20 feet (north & sough 32nd Avenue) Rear yard -35 feet (east -Winpark Drive) The proposed addition meets the setback requirements. Surrounding land uses/zoning include industrial buildings to the east across Winpark Drive (Crystal), multi-family residential to the south across 32nd Avenue (Crystal), single family residential across Winnetka Avenue to the west (Crystal), and I-1 vacant industrial property to the north. The site slopes steeply away to the north and east at the building walls and a silt "dry" pond was created on the east side of the property with the 1990 expansion. The plat includes what is currently known as Lots 1 and 2, Pazandak Addition, and the existing J.R. Jones property. These three parcels Would be combined into one parcel which would be known as Lot 1, Block 1, J.R. Jones Addition, and said plat would contain 6,254 acres or 272,403 square feet. The zoning codes states that "ifthe preliminary plat is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, the subdivider must submit the final plat within 100 days after said approval. Copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commission during their review of the preliminary plat". The petitioner is requesting that the Planning Commission waive their review of the final plat to expedite the approval process. Due to the simple nature of the plat, staff has no problem with the request and recommends that the Commission agree to waive it's review of the final plat. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no comment. ANALYSIS Section 4.032 of the New Hope Zoning Code, General Building Requirements , Subsection 2, Platted and Unplatted Property, (A) Platting Required states that '~No building shall be constructed on unplatted property or an outlot ...except for the addition of accessoD' structures or additions to existing buildings." Due to the fact that this building addition requires additional parking which willbe deferred onto the newly acquired property, all of the parcels need to be replatted into one plat. The total area of the plat is 6.254 acres or 272.403 square feet and the parcel has a length of 827.31 feet on the west (Wirmetlm Avenue) and a width of 573.12 feet on the south (32nd Planning Case 94-02 March 2, 1994 Page 3 Avenue). The plat combines all three (3) properties into one (1) parcel. The lot area and lot width requirements for the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District are compared below: I-1 Requirement Minimum Lot Area = 1 acre Minimum Lot Width = 150 feet Preliminary Plat Lot 1, Block 1 = 6.254 acres Lot 1, Block 1 = 573.12 feet The proposed plat meets the Zoning Code lot area and lot width requirements for the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District. The Minnesota Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Division, responded that since the plat is not adjacent to an existing or proposed state trunk highway and has no apparent impact on the state's transportation system, MN/DOT has no comments regarding development of this property, The City Engineer reviewed the plat and made the following comments/recommendations: Ao The right-of-way dedication along Winnetka Avenue (C.S.A.H. 156) shall be in accordance with Hennepin Co. It's expected an additional 7' of right-of-way shall be dedicated where the existing half right-of-way is only 33'. Bo A minimum 10' wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along all side and rear lot lines. The City Attorney reviewed the plat and made the following comments/recommendations: Ao The east line of the plat running down the middle of Winpark Drive needs to be labeled with some identification information to tie it in with the metes and bounds legal description for that property, i.e. the east line of the west half of the southwest quarter or' the northwest quarter. Bo Winnetlm Avenue adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Pazandak Addition, includes a 40 foot easement dedication measured from the middle of the roadway. The road~:~ dedication for the southerly portion of the proposed platted property, that described the metes and bounds legal description, shows a roadway dedication of 33 feet. If the County or the City Engineers consider it appropriate, now would be the time to require a full 40 foot dedication for that southerly portion of Winnetka Avenue adjacent to the existing building. Co Title evidence showing ownership of the property will be necessary at the time the final plat. 7. Hennepin County Department of Public Works reviewed the preliminary plat and made Planning Case 94-02 March 2, 1994 Page 4 following comments/recommendations: The developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right-of-way, for a total of 40 feet of right-of-way from and along the CSAH 156 centerline, from 32nd Avenue to a point approximately 320 feet north. The existing 40 feet of right-of-way from 320 feet north of 32nd Avenue to the north limits of the plat is adequate. The proposed access revisions (to approximately 185 feet north of 32nd Avenue and opposite 32nd Place) as shown on the Site Plan dated December 22, 1993, are acceptable to Hennepin County. The existing driveways to CSAH 156 must be removed. All proposed construction within County right-of-way requires an approved Hermepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access construction driveway removal, drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Do The developer must restore all areas, within County right-of-way, disturbed during construction. Northern States Power Company reviewed the preliminary plat and made the following comments/recommendations: NSP is requesting a 15 foot easement along the north lot line of the existing lot due to the fact that this line feeds most of the commercial Park along Winpark Drive (a copy of the plat showing the easement required is enclosed). The Building Official reviewed the plat and found it to be routine, except for the fact that he questioned the need for the additional right-of-way that was requested by Hennepin County and recommended by the City Engineer. 10. No comments were received from utility companies other than NSP on the plat. 11. Staff finds that the only major revisions needed in the plat are the addition of the NSP easement and the additional right-of-way recommended by the City Attorney, City Engineer and Hennc?~n County. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends conditions: approval of the Preliminary Plat of J.R. Jones Addition, subject to the foil, ,, ..; 1. Recommendations of City Attorney, City Engineer, NSP and Hennepin Coun:'. .' incorporated into the final plat. Planning Case March 2, 1994 Page 5 94-02 The Planning Commission agrees to waive it's review of the final plat so the final plat can proceed directly to the City Council, due to the simplicity of the plat and the minor revisions requested. Attachments: Zoning/Section Maps Preliminary Plat Site Plan Petitioner Request-Final Plat Waiver City Engineer Plat Comments City Attorney Plat Commems MN DOT Plat Comments Hermepin County Plat Comments NSP Plat Comments Building Official Comments Staff Correspondence Planning Case Report 94-01 ZONING DISTRICT MAP CITY of NEW HOPE I t i i !q PRELIMINARy PLAT J.R. JONES .ADDITION LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The South 352.7 feet of the West Half ~f the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quar:e: of Section 20, Township 118, Range 21. Hennepin County, Minnesota, and Lots 1 and 2, Block I, PAZANDAK ADDITION, Hennepin Counw., Minnesota. Subject to easements, reservations and restrictions of r"cord, if any. OWNER AND DEVELOPER,5 Jones Company Properties A partnership consisting of Douglas J. Jones and Robert M. Jones c/o J. R. Jones Fixture Company 3216 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55427 PROPERTY ADDRESS 3216, 3224. and 3232 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55427 ZO",'I'NG: I-I Limited Industrial District NOTE: This map was marion, as-built Hope topographic this map or field .BUILDING SETBACK: Front Yard = 50 feet Rear Yard : 35 feet Side Yard = 20 feet PARKING SETBACK 20 feet adjacent to residential district 10 feet adjacent to other zoning ciistrict LOCATIO I~JlJ 3AlaO N~IVdNIM Jl ..~_~ Bonestroo ' Rmene I :'.~ ,,.il Rnderllk & , Associates Architects 14, 1994 V~, ~ RI.* MMVm k, k/rm. P.E. CaM. liE, Mia, mil R il,i, RE, ,' :f N~w Hope ,lylon Avenue N. t .. lope, MN $5428 Kirk McDonald ~e: I,R, Sones Preliminary Plat File 34 lea Kirk: reviewed the above preliminary plat Ind recommend the follewi=l: '~e rifbt-of-way dedication alon[ WinnetJm Avenue (C.S~I-I. ]j6) shill be tn aocordance with Hennepin Co, It's mtpeeted an additional 7' of dlh~d~ny sh~] be (:~.~cated where the exiittng half rifht-of*wiy is only 33'. A minimum 10' w~de drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated alon8 all side :,~:1 rem' lot lines. ~ ?)~ h~ve any questions please contact this office. · '.-'?TROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. February 1, 1994 Col~mCX & So~nn.~[,, P.A. A~O~ZYS AT LAW ~nbur~ E~ufl~ Office Plm 8525 ~nbr~k C~sing S~te ~203 B~yn ~k, Mi~om 55443 TELEP~NE (~1~ 425-~ ;~ (612) 4~-~ Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: J.R. Jones Addition Preliminary Plat Our File No: 99.15038 Dear Kirk: I have reviewed the preliminary plat of J.R. Jones Addition and have a few comments to make. 1. The east line of the plat running down the middle of Winpark Drive needs to be labeled with some identification information to tie it in with the metes and bounds legal description for that property, i.e. the east line of the west half of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter. 2. Winnetka Avenue adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Pazandak Addition, includes a 40 foot easement dedication measured from the middle of the roadway. The roadway dedication for the southerly portion of the proposed platted property, that described by the metes and bounds legal description, shows a roadway dedication of 33 feet. If the County or the City Engineers consider it appropriate, now would be the time to require a full 40 foot dedication for that southerly portion of Winnetka Avenue adjacent to the existing building. In addition, you may wish to remind the property owners that title evidence showing their ownership will be necessary at the time of the final plat. If you hake-any questions or comments, do not hesitate to contact Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha s3t2 CC: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager Steven A. Sondrall, Esq. Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Wa~ers Edge Building 1500 West Count~ Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Sanuar~ 26, 199~- Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Dear Kirk McDonald: Preliminary Plat Review $.R. Jones Addition Ea.~t of W'mnetka Avenue, north of 32nd Avenue North New Hope, Hennepin County Thank you for submittin~ the $.R. lones Addition preliminary plat for our review. Since the plat is not adjacent to an existing or proposed state trunk highway and has no aplxtmnt impact on the state's transportation syst~-m, Mn/DOT has no comments regarding development of this property. As you my know, preliminary plats adjacent to state trunk highways must, in accordance with stat~ statutes, be submittal to Mn/DOT for review prior to local approval of final plats. It is not necessary, however, to submit proposals which are not adjacent to a stat~ trunk highway and clearly do not have an impact on the sta~ trunk highway sysmm. For those projects that a~e not within the normal prelimina~ plat review process but that are adjacent to or that wi_H affect the trunk highway system, we welcome the opportunity to review and discuss the ~ plans with you in order to prevent traffic problems before r~e¥ If you hav~ al~ qn~ions, please call me at 582-1386. Since~y, Ruth Ann Sobnosky Princilxtl Transporlafion Planner An Equal Opportunity Employer HENNEPIN Kirk McDonald Community Oevelopment Coordinator City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428-4898 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South 55343-8468 Hopkins, Minnesota PHONE: [642] 930-2500 FAX [642] 930-2543 TDO: [642] 930-2696 February 9, 1994 RE: Proposed Plat - J.R. Jones CSAH 156, northeast quadrant of CSAH 156 and 32nd Avenue North Section 20, Township 118, Range 21 Hennepin County Plat No. 2117 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. McDonald: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats' and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: · The developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way, for a total of 40 feet of right of way from and along the CSAH 156 centerline, from 32nd Avenue to a point approximately 320 feet north. The existing 40 feet of right of way from 320 feet north of 32nd Avenue to the north limits of the plat is adequate. · The proposed access revisions (to approximately 185 feet north of 32nd Avenue and opposite 32nd Place) as shown on the Site Plan dated Oecember 22, 1993 are acceptable to Hennepin County. The existing driveways to CSAH 156 must be removed. · All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access construction driveway removal, drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for permit forms. The developer should contact Oave Zetterstrom at 930-2548 for any questions concerning access. · The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Ooug Mattson. Si ncerely, Thomas .O~/~ohns_o_n, P._E. _ Transpo~ation Planning Engineer HENNEPIN COUNTY TOJ/OBM an equal opporluni~ employer Brooklyn Center Aree 4501 68th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429-1798 Telel:)hone (612) 569-0200 February 8, 1994 Mr. Kirk Mc Donald Community Development Coordinator · City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4843 RE: Plat for IR Jones Addition - 3216 Winnetka Avenue Dear Kirk: This letter is a follow-up to our telephone conversation on February 11, regarding NSP request for a 15 foot easement along the north lot line of existing lot. This line feeds most of the commercial Park along Winpark Drive. I have enclosed a copy of the plat showing the easement required. Please call me at 569-0208 if there is any questions. Sincerely, · Jim Elling ~ Customer Service Design Representative NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY Brooklyn Center Area Office Attachment HL~ON ":InNgA'~ ~'),I.L3NNIM ..1 t Z Z :iON ':InN3A¥ ¥),IIZNNIM I COUNCIL t REQUF.~T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Al!enda Section Development City Manager & Planning 3-28-94 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant By: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS SALT STORAGE BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 487) The enclosed resolution approves plans and specifications for the Public Works Salt Storage Building and related site improvements (Improvement Project No. 487) and authorizes advertisement for bids. If approved, bids would be sought and opened on April 22nd and considered at the April 25th Council meeting. These plans received zoning approval from the Planning Commission and City Council in July, 1993. These plans were developed 'in conjunction with the platting/combination of the existing Public Works property with Outlot A, Custom Mold Addition. The City is proposing to construct a salt/sand storage dome on the east side of the site behind the existing building and is proposing to develop the newly acquired property on the south to accommodate storage of excavated materials, street construction materials, and a sludge drying pit. Additional landscaping, concrete curb and gutter, and fencing to match existing are also proposed. The proposed salt dome is intended to reduce/minimize pollution of diluted salts after rain or snow events, help prevent salt from entering the stormwater system, and should help reduce negative environmental effects. The sand/salt pile used for sanding streets in winter has been exposed to the elements in the past and with this new system it will be mixed outside and loaded onto a conveyor belt and transferred to the dome for storage. The dome will have a 2,100 ton storage capacity, cement walls, a wood with brown asphalt shingle roof, and a height of 35 feet. The electric conveyor system is designed to load the dome from the center of the building and will be built through the roof so that the top of the conveyor is not exposed to MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 l~ Request for Action Improvement Project No. 487 Page 2 the elements and is not visible to surrounding properties. The proposed storage area/bins will help to separate and store various materials and ultimately provide for a nearer appearing Public Works storage yard. The estimated cost for the improvements is $377,700 and the project is proposed to be financed from the 1994 Capital Improvement Program. The City Engineer will be present at the Council meeting to review the plans with the Council in detail. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for the Public Works Salt Storage Building/Site Improvements and Ordering Advertisement for Bids (Improvement Project No. 487). CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 94- RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS SALT STORAGE BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 487) WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the New Hope City Council has resolved to proceed with the installation of a salt storage building and the making of specific site improvements at the Public Works Garage, 5500 International Parkway, and has directed that plans and specifications be prepared therefor; and the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for the salt storage building and related site improvements and has presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of N~ Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota: 1. Such plans and specifications are hereby approved. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for 10 days, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that the bids will be opened at 11:30 a.m. on Friday, April 22, 1994, at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN. Any bidder whose responsibility is 'questioned during consideration of the bid shall be given an opportunity to address the council on the issue of responsibility. No bids shall be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the Clerk for five percent (5%) of the amount of such bid. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 28th day of March, 1994. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Bonestroo Rosene Ander. lik& Associates Engineers & Architects March 23, 1994 O~o G I~onestroo. PE RoOen W Rosene, Josepl~ C Andedik. PE. Ma~n L. ~ala, PE R~c~ar~ E Turner. ~E. Glenn R. C~k, Thomas E. No~s. ~E Ro0e~ G. ~hunic~t, Susan M Ebeflin. C~A *~n~or Consultant Howard A Sanford, PE. K~th A Gordon. RE. RobeR R. Pfefferle, PE. Ric~a~ ~ ~ste~ ~E D~id O. ~sko[a, ~E. Robe~ C Rus~k. Jer~ A ~urdon, Mark A Han~n, RE Michael [ ~utmann, PE. T~ K. Field, RE. Thomas R Ander~n. Donald C 8u~a~t. Thomas E. Angus, tsmael Ma~nez, PE Agnes M Ring, A lC P Philip J. Pyne. RE. Thomas L~Z Peterson, RE, Michael C. Lynch, PE. James R MaLand. Jerry D Pertz~h. RE. Sco~ J. Arganek, PE. Kenneth P Anderson. RE. Mark R. Rolfs. Mark A. ~'lp. RE. Gary ~Z Monen, Daniel J. Edg~rl:on. PE. A Rick ~chmidt, RE. Philip J. Caswell. PE Mark D %'allis. PE Miles g Jensen. PE L, Ph~llip Gravel, PE Ka~n L, Wlemen. PE Gary O Kristofitz. PE E Todd ~os:er, PE ~ith R. Yapp, RE Douglas J. ~no~t, PE. Shawn g Gustafson. P~ C~iJio Olivier. PE Paul G. Neuer. PE John P ~order, RE. Cha~es A Encg~n Leo M, P~JSKy James ~ Engelha~t City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Attention: Mr. Kirk McDonald Re: Public Works Salt Storage Site Improvements City Project No. 487 File No. 34138 Dear Kirk: Attached is the engineer's estimate for the salt storage building and site improvements at New Hope Public Works. The total estimated construction cost is $377,700 which includes 5% contingency. The attached cost estimate itemizes the cost for each improvement based on the attached plans. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES INC. MAH:Ik Attachment 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 5S113 · 612-636-4600 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Salt Storage/Site Improvements New Hope Public Works City Project No. 487 File 34138 63O0 150 390 260 1200 8500 6OO 40 3000 Lump Sum Lump Sum CY LF LF Lump Sum Lump Sum LF Lump Sum LF SY LF Each SY Salt Storage Building w/electric Conveyor w/conveyor pit Site grading ~ $4.00/cy Sanitary sewer to sludge pit ~ $28.00/lf Storm sewer w/catch basins ~ $36.00/lf Storage area excavated material Sludge drying area Jersey barries ~ $15.00/1f Relocate propane tank Perimeter concrete curb ~ $6.00/lf Bituminous paving ~ $12.00/sy Perimeter cyclone fence ~ $12.00/lf Landscape plantings ~ $200.00/ea Sod/seed ~ $2.50/sq.yd. + 5% Contingencies $100,000 58,000 25,200 4,200 14,040 14,000 7,000 3,900 1,500 7,200 102,000 7,200 8,000 7,500 $359,74O 17,960 $377,70O i ¥.LO$':INNII~I '3dOH M~N / / ,/ / / / ~q~d 3th"~~ 3~7s~r~ SN~OM 3rIGncl ¥/O$':INNIInl '~ldOH M.3N ¥10$~NNII~ '~]dOH /~3N