The URL can be used to link to this page

070693 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1993 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Case 93-12 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of Science Industry Center 3rd Addition, 5425/5501 Boone Avenue North and 5500/5430 International Parkway, City of New Hope/Senior Outreach Services, Petitioners 3.2 Case 93-17 Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Construction of Public Works Salt Storage Building, 5500 International Parkway, City of New Hope, Petitioner 3.3 Case 93-18 Request for Variance to 35-Foot Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a 12'x18' Three-Season Porch, 4058 Ensign Avenue North, Virginia McDurmott, Petitioner 3.4 Case 93-19 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Storage, 9151 International Parkway, Construction Technology, Inc., Petitioner 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 -Miscellaneous Issues 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 1, 1993 6.2 Review of Minutes of Special City Council Meeting//1 of March 29, 1993 and City Council Minutes of May 24, and June 14, 1993 6.3 EDA Minutes of May 24, 1993 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT · CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 93-12 Request: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Science Industry Center 3rd Addition Location: 5425/5~01 Boone and 5430/5500 International Parkway PID No: 06-118-21-34-0010/06-118-21-34-0007/06-118-21-34-0017/06-118-21-34-0005 Zoning: I- 1 Limited Industrial Petitioner: City of New Hope/Senior Outreach Services Report Date: July 2, 1993 Meeting Date: July 6, 1993 BACKGROUND 1. This is a request for preliminary plat approval of Science Industry Center 3rd Addition and the request if made pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code. 2. The property included in the plat includes all of the vacant parcel at 5501 Boone Avenue North and the north 75 feet of 5425 Boone Avenue North. The City has acquired both of these parcels through the eminent domain/condemnation process to facilitate the construction of the Care Break Adult Day Care Center to be operated by Senior Outreach Services. It is anticipated that once the platting of the property is completed that the City will transfer the ownership of the property over to Senior Outreach Services. You will recall that one of the conditions for the rezoning of this property and the site/building plan review approval for the Adult Day Care Center (Planning Case 92-23) was that the property be platted and construction initiated within a two-year period. It is anticipated that once the platting process is completed construction will start on the Adult Day Care Center this fall. 3. The other two parcels included in the plat are the existing public Works Department property at 5500 International Parkway and the north 129 feet of 5430 International Parkway, also know as Outlot A, Custom Mold Addition. As you are aware, when Custom Mold acquired the 5430 International Parkway property for their building expansion in 1991, the northern portion of the property was split off and sold to the City to be combined with the public Works property. A plan has now been deve. loped to utilize the property by public Works, in- cluding construction of a salt Storage building, being considered under Planning Case 93-17. 4. The purpose of the plat is to finalize the consolidation of the above-referenced properties for both the North Ridge/Senior Outreach Services project and the Custom Mold/public Works expansion project and to include all of these properties into one plat to be known as Science Industry Center Third Addition. 5. All of the properties included in the plat are currently zoned I-1 Limited Industrial. However, the rezoning of the 5501/5425 Boone Avenue properties from I-1 to R-5 Senior Citizen Residential Housing has been approved subject to the platting of the property and the completion of construction of the Adult Day Care Center. The rezoning will be officially published when that project is completed. 6. The zoning codes 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 Cormnission during their review of the preliminary plat". Staff is not requesting a waiver of the final plat review by the Planning Commission and if the Preliminary Plat is approved in July, a Final Plat will be brought back for consideration in August. Planning Case Report 93-12 July 6, 1993 Page -2- 7. 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. 8. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no comments about this proposal. ANALYSIS 1. The total area of the plat is 385,390 square feet or 8.847 acres, and includes the following parcels: 5501 Boone Avenue North (entire parcel) 5425 Boone Avenue North (north 75 feet) 5500 International Parkway (entire parcel) 5430 International Parkway (north 129 feet) 2. The plat subdivides the above-referenced properties into two (2) parcels, with Lot 1 ,Block 1 combining the Public Works property with the Custom Mold Outlot, and Lot 2, Block 1 combining the two Boone Avenue properties. The lot area and lot and lot width requirements for the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District are compared to the plat below: I-1 Requirement Preliminary_ Plat Minimum lot area - 1 acre Lot 1 = 211,100 square feet or 4.846 acres Lot 2 = 174,290 square feet or 4.001 acres Minimum lot width- 150 feet Lot 1 = 300 foot width at narrowest point Lot 2 = 300 foot width The two proposed lots meet the Zoning Code lot area and lot width requirements for the I-1 Zoning District. 3. The plat contains the proper drainage and utility easements along all property lines as required by the City Code: 5 feet in width on adjoining lot lines and 10 feet in width on adjoining street lines. 4. No comments were received from utility companies on the plat. 5. No comments were received form Hennepin County on the plat, as it does not abut a County right-of-way. 6. The City Engineer reviewed the Preliminary Plat and made the following recommendations: A. The final site plan for LOt 2, Block 1 has not been finalized pending the Shingle Creek Watershed review for ponding requirements. It's expected some form of public improvements will result for storm sewer improvements for this plat, based on the findings. This plat will be required to comply with those requirements and dedicate the necessary easements on both Lot 1 and 2. B. The parking lot serving the property north of Lot 1,Block 1 (Public Works) encroaches onto Lot 1, Block 1. The City will need to review this issue and determine how it can be resolved. C. The site plans for Lot 1 and 2, Block 1 are being developed and/or being financed in part by the City. The City must comply with all requirements for developing each site plan. Planning Case Report 93-12 July 6, 1993 Page -3- 7. The City Attorney reviewed the Preliminary Plat and made the following recommendations: A. The City has a'drainage and storm sewer easement over the northerly 15 feet of what is proposed at Lot 2, Block 1, as well as an easement 20 feet in width along the north 200 feet of the westerly border of the same Lot 2, Block 1. These easements were obtained from Melvin Doyle several years ago. B. NSP has an existing utility easement along the north 5 feet of the proposed Lot 2, Block 1. This easement will be included in the proposed 5-foot utility and drainage easement to be dedicated as part of the plat. C. According to my information this property is currently zoned I-1. D. The preliminary plat lists the City of New Hope HRA as the owner and developer. That should be changed to the Economic Development Authority, since the EDA is now owner of the Doyle/Lee Brothers property through the ongoing condemnation action, as well as owner of Outlot A, Custom Mold through purchase. The property occupied by the Public Works building is also included in this proposed plat, and is owned by the City of New Hope. Accordingly, the City of New Hope must join in the plat as an owner. 8. The Building Official reviewed the Preliminary Plat and recommends that the City contact both property owners to the north regarding their encroachment onto City property, inform them of the proposed improvements for both Lot 1 and Lot 2, and encourage some repairs/maintenance/ improvements on their properties in conjunction with the upgrading of the Public Works property and the construction of the Adult Day Care Center. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat of Science Industry Center 3rd Addition subject to the following condition: 1. Recommendations and corrections requested by City Engineer, City Attorney, and Building Official be incorporated into the Final Plat. Attachments: Topo Map Section Map Zoning Map Preliminary Plat Engineer's Letter Attorney's Letter Building Official's Memo Plat Review Letter Excerpt - Custom Mold Planning Case Excerpt - Senior Day Care Planning Case RESEARCH CENTER ROAD 892.~ ~ 0 +04 § 43 ~902. 43 /. 0/~?, 901.8 X 903.0 X 905.9 X .~, ~-~ 902,6 X 905.5 _. 902.8 X 0 o lil ~'~ ......... ~ ..... ~-t; ...... q~ .................. -r ......... k--~-A- ~. '- -o~-~,t--~ ..... ~ ..... ~ ........ ~;~ .................... ~ , - ,,. ~ I '"" >' Mr. Kirk McDonald June 24, 1993 Page 2 Please let me know if you have any quffstions. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha Assr. New Hope City Attorney s3t2 cc: Daniel J. Donahue Steven A. Sondrall, Esq. TO: KIRK McDONALD FROM: DOUG SANDSTAD DATE: JUNE 30, 1993 SUBJECT: SCIENCE INDUSTRY CENTER 3RD ADDITION I have reviewed the prelim, plat and have one comment, to supplement those of our engineer and attorney. Both industrial developments to the north of this plat are encroaching onto Lot 1 and Lot 2. Both sites are poorly maintained and park or drive trucks and cars on "our" land adjacent. We will want to explore the need to cooperate on new construction while perhaps encouraging or requiring some repairs/ improvements on their lots. Perhaps a letter sent to each owner to invite them in for a chat would be a good start. Please advise me of the approach you prefer. 7 4401 Xylon Avenue North Telephone: 612-531-5100 City Hall Fax: #612-531-51; New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 TDD Line: 612-531-5109 Police Fax: #612-5~"~1; Public Works Fax: #612-5~ 76~ CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: June 14, 1993 TO: 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 FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Prelimimry Plat of Science Industry Center 3rd Addition Enclosed you will f'md a preliminary plat-for Science Industry Center 3rd Addition. Please review and forward commems to me prior to 4:30 p.m. on Friday, June 25th, 1993. The preliminary platwill be considered by the new Hope Planning Commission at their July 6, 1993, meeting. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at 531-5119. Family Styled City'~~ For Family Living UOUN(SlL REQUF.,~T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Devolopraont: and City Manager 11-9-92 ?~.annJ. nq Kirk McDonald ~ Item No. By: Management Assistant By:// a. 2 PLANNING CASE 92-23 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/APPROVAL TO ALLOW AN ADULT DAY CARE FACILITY IN AN R-5 ZONING DISTRICT, 5501 BOONE AVENUE NORTH (PID//06-I 18- 21-34-0007) AND 5425 BOONE AVENUE NORTH (PID ff06-118-21-34-0010), SENIOR OUTREACH SERVICES/NORTH RIDGE CARE CENTER, PETITIONERS Senior Outreach Services/North Ridge are requesting site/building plan review/approval and a conditional use permit to allow an adult day care facility in an R-5 Senior/Disabled Residential Zoning District, pursuant to Sections 4.039A and 4.08A(2) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The request is being made subsequent to a request to rezone the site from an I-1 Limited Industrial District to an R-5 Senior Citizen and Physically Handicapped Residential Housing District, which is considered under Planning Case 92-19. Petitioner is proposing to construct a one-story (121' x 248') 30,000 square-foot adult day care center that is proposed to be located on the 5501 Boone Avenue parcel and the north 75 feet of the Lee property at 5425 Boone Avenue North, subject to acquisition of the property. The site plan also originally included a second building (North Memorial Hospice) on the 5555 Boone Avenue parcel, however the Hospice facility has been dropped from the plan and revised plans were submitted. The proposed adult day care center is similar in character to the existing North Ridge Nursing Home and elderly housing facilities in the immediate area. The existing program at North Ridge provides care for about 55 adults per day and with this new building it is anticipated that 150 adults will be served. The building is being designed so that a second story addition could be added in the future. The selection of materials/architecture are similar to the materials and style of the North Ridge elderly housing building and thus represent a positive addition to the overall health care campus theme. The building contains a bus garage on the north side for the storage of 8 buses and the plans do provide excellent facilities for the drop-off and pick-up of adult day care participants with a covered, attached entrance area. A total of 145 parking spaces would MOTIONBY ~~ SECOND BY~ Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Planning Case 92-23 November 9, 1992 Council Meeting be provided and the excessive amount of parking is intended to address on-street parking problems that currently exist with North Ridge employees parking on Boone Avenue. A total of 181 trees and shrubs will be planted on the side, with alternating wood screen fence and landscaping on the west boundary. A drainage retention pond will be constructed near the northeast corner of the property near Boone Avenue. One site identification sign will be located on the east side of the building near the canopy entrance. The sign will be mounted on a "California Stone" base and contain a circular "Senior Outreach Services" logo. The center would operate from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. - no overnight stays. The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their November 4th meeting, commended the petitioner on the plans, and recommended approval of the CUP and site/building plan review, subject to the following conditions: Acquisition of the property by the City and/or North Ridge Senior Outreach Services. Platting of the property/subdivision with legal description Conditional Use Permit subject to approval of zoning. 4. If facility not constructed on the proposed site, rezoning and conditional use permit are null and void. 5. Provisions be made for a safe cross walk across Boone Avenue between the existing North Ridge facility and the new Adult Day Care facility. 6. City may require removal of snow from site if it is determined that snow storage eliminates needed parking spaces. 7. Annual review by staff. Staff recommends approval. CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 92- 187 RESOLUTION APPRO~NG PLANNING CASE 92-23 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/APPROVAL TO ALLOW AN ADULT DAY CARE FACILITY IN AN R-5 ZONING DISTRICT AT 5501 BOONE AVENUE NORTH (PID ff06-118-21-34-0007)AND '5425 BOONE AVENUE NORTH (PID ff06-118-21-34-0010) SENIOR OUTREACH SERVICES/NORTH RID(~E CARE CENTER, PETITIONERS WHEREAS, the applicants Senior Outreach Services/North Ridge Care Center, have submitted a request identified as Planning Case No. 92-23 for a conditional use permit and site/building plan review/approval, pursuant to Section 4.033, and 4.039A of the New Hope Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Planning Case No. 92-23 on November 4, 1992, found that all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for the conditional use permit have been satisfied by the applicant, and recommended approval of the planning case request subject to all conditions as set forth in the City Staff report dated October 30, 1992; and WHEREAS, the City Council on November 9, 1992, considered the report of the City staff, findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the comments of persons attending the Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and concludes that the applicant has satisfied all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for issuance of the requested conditional use permit and site/building plan review/approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL~, by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hermepin County, Minnesota, that the conditional use permit and site/building plan review/approval, as submitted in Planning Case No. 92-23, is approved __~.ject to the following conditions: - ' OutreachAcquisiti°nservices,°f the property by the City and/or North Ridge Senior Platting of the property/subdivision with legal description Conditional Use Permit subject to approval of zoning. 4. If facility not constructed on the proposed site, rezoning and conditional use permit are null and void. 5. Provisions be made for a safe cross walk across Boone Avenue between the existing North Ridge facility and the new Adult Day Care facility. 6. City may require removal of snow from site if it is determined that snow storage eliminates needed parking spaces. ?. Annual review by staff. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 9th day of November, 1992. ...~ /_~ / Attest: , City Clerk Planning Case Report 92-23 November 4, 1992 Page -3- -- 1. In R¢$iden0al Districts (R-1. R-2. R-3. R-4, R-5. R-Q): a. -Traffic. Non-residential traffic is channeled into thoroughfares or onto a street abutting business or industrial uses leading directly to thoroughfares, and not on to minor residential streets. b. Screening. The proposed use will be sufficiently separated by distance or screening form adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be materially depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. c. Compatible Appearance. The structure and site shall have an appear- ance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 3. An Adult Day Care facility is permitted as a conditional use in the R-5 Zoning District, subject to the following specific conditions: A. Frgnt $¢t Back. The front yard depth is a minimum of thirty feet. B. Rear Yard Reo_uirements. Only the rear yard shall be used for recreational areas. Said area shall be fenced and controlled and screened in compliance with 4.033(3) of this code. C. Off-Street Loading. Loading and unloading of adult day care participants shall take place in an area designated solely for that purpose. D. Street Access. The site and related parking and service is served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. E. Permit~ and State Laws. All state laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to and all required operating permits are secured. Staff finds that all of the above conditions axe met. 4. The proposed rezoning and conditional use permit can be viewed positively given the rezoning which has occurred in the surrounding area in order to accommodate related health care uses. In addition, the character and building orientation on the site is complementary to existing I-1 properties and the R-5 properties across Boone Avenue. 5. The proposed adult day care center is similar in character to the existing North Ridge Nursing Home and elderly housing facilities in the immediate area. The selection of materials/archi- tecture are similar to the materials and style of the North Ridge elderly housing building and thus represent a positive addition to the overall health care campus theme. 6. The proposed development provides for ample parking and may reduce on-street parking along Boone Avenue North through the shared use of parking among adjacent health care facilities. Compatibility of the proposed day ease center at this location can be enhanced by effective screening. In addition, the proposed building is compatible in size to limited industrial activities occurring on adjacent properties. 7. The plans do provide excellent facilities for the drop-off and pick-up of adult day care partici- pants. A covered, attached entrance area has been provided on the east side of the building for bus traffic and a separate entrance and pull-off lane is designated for small vehicles on the south and north sides of the building. The separation of uses is representative of a high- quality design. Planning Case Report 92=23 November 4, 1992 Page -4- 8. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on October 15th and the following issues were discussed:- parking, building orientation, curb cuts, landscaping, screening fence and trash enclosure, building materials, rooftop equipment, lighting and sprinkling. 9. The existing program at North Ridge provides care for about 55 adults per day and with this new building it is anticipated that 150 adults will be served. The building is being designed so that a second story addition could be added in the future. 10. The building contains a bus garage on the north side for the storage of 8 buses. 11. The building floor plan is separated into PODs, which group persons together according to health needs. A walking circular hallway is also incorporated into the floor plan. 12. The center would operate form 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. - no overnight stays. 13. One site identification sign will be located on the east side of the building near the canopy entrance. The sign will be mounted on a "California Stone" base and contain a circular "Senior Outreach Services" logo. 14. A total of 181 trees and shrubs will be planted on the side, with alternating wood screen fence and landscaping on the west boundary. A drainage retention pond will be constructed near the northeast corner of the property near Boone Avenue. 15. The exterior of the building will consist of face brick on the lower portion and creme colored stucco on the upper portion, with fabric awnings over the windows - the intent is to match/ blend with the existing North Ridge Care Center. 16. Staff commends the petitioner for the excellent plans that have been presented. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit application and site/building plan review, subject to the following conditions: 1. Acquisition of the property by the City and/or North Ridge/Senior Outreach Services. 2. Platting of the property/subdivision with legal description. 3. Conditional Use Permit subject to approval of rezoning. 4. If facility not constructed on the proposed site, rezoning and conditional use permit are null and void. 5. Annual review by staff. Attachments: Area/Site Plan Revised Site Plan Revised Landscape Plan/Schedule Revised Lighting Plan Building Elevations Floor Plan ELEVATIONS NOR'IH ELE~IkTIOI~ - ENTRY CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 92-19 ~ . Request: Request for Text Amendment to Rezone 5501 and a portion of 5425 Boone Avenue North from an I-1 (Limited Industrial) to an R-5 (Senior Citizen and Physically Handicapped Residential Housing) Zoning District Location: 5501 and 5425 Boone Avenue North PID No: 06-118-21-34--0007 & 06-118-21-34-0010 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: City of New Hope/Senior Outreach Services/North Ridge Care Center Report Date: October 30, 1992 Meeting Date: November 4, 1992 UPDATE 1. This is a request by the City of New Hope, Senior Outreach Services and North Ridge Care Center to consider an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code by rezoning industrial property from an I-1 (Limited Industrial) to an R-5 (Senior Citizen and Physically Handicapped Residential) Zoning District, pursuant to Sections 4.23 and 4.24 of the New Hope Zoning Code. 2. This request was tabled at the September 1st and October 6th Planning Commission meetings at the request of the petitioner and the City, as the actual amount of property to be acquired and rezoned for the development had not been determined and the site/building plan needed to be revised. Revised plans have now been submitted and will be considered under Planning Case 92-23. 3. Senior Outreach Services/North Ridge Care Center is proposing to construct an adult day care facility, which would accommodate up to 120 adults, on vacant property located at 5501 and a portion of 5425 Boone Avenue North. The property is currently zoned I-1 and this request regards the rezonlng of the property to an R-5 District. The rezoning issue precedes the request for a conditional use permit and site/buildlng plan review/approval for actual construction of the facility, which will be considered later on the agenda under Planning Case 92-23. 4. The City has been working with North Ridge and Senior Outreach Services and the owners of both properties over the past year in regards to the acquisition of the property west of Boone Avenue for the construction of an adult day care facility. A. At the June 22nd EDA meeting a resolution was passed authorizing the acquisition of 5501 Boone Avenue North by eminent domain proceedings, which authorizes the City to acquire the property by direct purchase or to utilize the "quick take" procedure. The resolution states that the acquisition of the property is reasonably necessary to the furtherance of the goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan and will be for the benefit of the public health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of New Hope. -' CUSTOM MOLD N* co. LOT z, SLOC~S ~ [./. I~ FPART OF LOT I, 8COCK ~ LYING SOUTH 0 ~ ' OF NORTH LINE OF LOT 2, 8LOC, ~._ ~-- ,/ --299.89 N89*O2'OO"W ~ -- ~ ~ ~ -: '" "l_ St/4 CO~ S O ~0 SCALE IH FK~T CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 93-17 Request: Request- for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Construction of Salt Storage Facility Location: 5500 International Parkway PID No: 06-118-21-34-0005 Zoning: I- 1 Limited Industrial Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: July 2, 1993 Meeting Date: July 6, 1993 BACKGROUND 1. This is a request by the City of New Hope for site/building plan review/approval to allow construction of a salt storage facility and related site improvements at 5500 International Parkway, pursuant to Section 4.039A of the New Hope City Code. 2. 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 the 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. 3. The Public Works Garage was constructed at this location in 1980/81. 4. The property is located in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District and is surrounded by I-1 properties on the north and south (Custom Mold), across International Parkway to the west, and to the east where the Adult Day Care Center will be constructed (and be rezoned to R-5). Victory Park is located to the northwest across International Parkway. 5. The City Code allows "governmental and public utility buildings and structures" as a permitted use in the I-1 Zoning District. 6. The setback requirements for the I-1 District are as follows: Front yard 50 feet Side yard 20 feet Rear yard 35 feet The proposed salt storage dome complies with the required setbacks. 7. The topography of the property slopes slightly to the east and a new storm sewer is proposed to catch/direct run-off on the east property line. 8. Property owners within 350 feet of the property line have not been notified, as City Code does not require a public hearing for site/building plan review/approval. Copies of this report and the plans were forwarded to Custom Mold and North Ridge, the two properties most affected by this project. Planning Case Report 93-17 July 6, 1993 Page -2- ANALYSIS 1. The proposed salt dome is intended to bring the City into compliance with state requirements and is designed to reduce/minimize pollution of diluted salts after rain or snow events. It will help prevent salt from entering the stormwater system and should help reduce negative environmental effects. The sand/salt pile used for sanding streets in the 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 salt dome is a permitted accessory use. 2. Structure Height - Per the Building Official, the effective limit on the salt dome height is 35 feet above the floor of the main Public Works building, which is located 903.41 above sea level. This is the same procedure utilized to evaluate silos at C.B. Edwards Co. across the street several years ago. The maximum roof peak elevation per City Code then is 938.41. The proposed salt dome building peak is 938.3, therefore it meets code requirements.. 3. Parking - This project does not require additional parking but has provided space for at least 15 new stalls in the future if needed. 4. Outdoor Storage - This use was a primary part of the original approval for this building and is necessary for municipal services/activities such as snowplowing, sanding, street construc- tion, sealcoating, water/sewer excavations, storage of vehicles, etc. The proposed storage area and bins will help to separate and store various materials and ultimately provide for a neater appearing Public Works storage yard. 5. The Design & Review Committee reviewed this plan at their June 17th meeting and the following issues were discussed: -New berm and landscaping along east property lines. The Committee requested additional landscaping in the front yard. The site will be sodded. -New fencing and repaired fencing and gate will match existing. -Design & Review requested that a landscape schedule be submitted. -The storage dome will be located in the rear of the building and be at a low profile. The dome will have a 6,000 ton storage capacity, cement walls, and a wood with brown asphalt shingle roof. This is a pre-built building and the Committee requested data on the building. The door of the building will face south and the conveyor system will load sand/salt into the building. -New area to be blacktopped with concrete curb/gutter. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. 6. Landscaping - A revised landscape plan and schedule have been prepared. Last fall a berm was constructed on the new south property line between Public Works and Custom Mold and 20 Black Hills Spruce were planted along the berm. This plan calls for a similar berm to be installed on the east property line between Public Works and the Adult Day Care Center site with 22 - 4' Colorado Spruce to be planted along the berm. In addition, the following new plantings have been added to the front yard, as recommended: 6 - 4' high Black Hills Spruce 8 - 2" diameter Red Splendor Crab Apple 2 - 2" diameter Marshall Seedless Ash There are also a number of existing plantings on the site. Planning Case Report 93-17 July 6, 1993 Page -3- 7. Structural data on the building will be distributed at the meeting. 8. Other site plan details include: -B618 concrete curb & gutter to be installed around perimeter of newly developed area on south side of property -6' high cyclone fence to be installed 3 feet in back of curb at the base of the berms -60'x50' storage area for excavated materials and storage bins for street construction materials (rock) to be installed in southeast comer of site -12'x26' sludge drying pit to be installed in southwest comer of site with PVC connection to sanitary sewer 9. The City staff have tried to develop plans of a similar quality that would be required of any private developer. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site/building plan review to allow construction of a salt storage facility and other site improvements at the City of New Hope Public Works Department. Attachments: Topo Map Section Map Zoning Map Grading Plan Landscape Plan Site Plan Elevations Fence Layout Planting Schedule Dome Sections R.4' ~.~KRTY R'O ST THERESA NURStNG I ~'~'°~ 11-4 ~ SOO U~ RAILROAD COMPANY I'~ 1 RESEARCH ) CENTER ROAD 892.3 910 4 904.5 0 910.2 x x I 901.8 X 903.0 X 905.9 X 905.5 X 902.8 X o o 57D0 PARK ~'&oo / N O&D CENTER RD 4~ e'~' HOSTERMAN dR HIGH SCHOOL ~UBLIC Ok\O WORKS 5'~-~o J 5'ST. AVE GARAGE Edm,~4~.~ BEGIN S~ ~ NORTH RIDGE ~ ~4~ CARE E~ ~4~ PARK ~ CENTER CENTER SAU~T SAINT[ UAR~E ~A~ROAO... ,. .. .. /"~ // ./ '~~~ ' ~ '~ ~~Z l--J"'" ~.~...~.......,~....-t~.~ ........ ~T~ ~ ~' ~ ~ , ~~" ............ , ......... =...~ ............. ~;~5;~ ......... ; ............ ~..-- ~ ~ ...... ~ .................. ~ ~t N~ HOPE, MINNESOTA PUBUC WORKS ~E 6' HIGH CYCLONE FENCE~, N P IA 1 FENCE LAYOUT ~_ I I El I II I III I~1 I II I IIII III III I II II TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE SYMBOL QUAN. DESCRIPTION 6 4' HiGH 8 2" DIA. RED SPLENDOR CRAB APPLE 2 2" DiA. MARSHALL'S SEEDLESS ,~,S~ PANELIZED WOOD DOME W/ SP~NGLES FAN H( 1'-0" VENT, 1'-0" X 6'-0" CONC. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT _- 15'-0" ENTRANCE 73'-0" -- OUTSIDE DIAMETER CONCRETE GRADE BEAM O ENTRANCE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"= 1'-O" SALT STORAGE ~ ~'~,^,~ . .. ~ x,%'~ LINK FENCE SECTION A-A SCALE: ~/~6" =~'-0" · CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT ~ Planning Case: 93-18 Request: Request for Variance to Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Three-Season Porch Location: 4058 Ensign Avenue North PID No: 18-118-21-24-0107 Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential Petitioner: Virginia McDurmott Report Date: July 2, 1993 Meeting Date: July 6, 1993 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a seven-foot (7') variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement to allow construction of a three-season porch at the rear of the existing building, pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code. 2. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 12'x18' (plus a 2-foot bay window for a total of 20' or 228 square feet) three-season porch on the east side of the existing home in the rear yard. A 13'x17' elevated deck would also be constructed on the north side of the proposed three- season porch. The requested porch and deck would be located approximately 28 feet from the rear yard property line. 3. The rear yard setback requirement in the R-1 Zoning District is 35 feet. The City Code allows open porches and decks as encroachments on yard setback requirements, however, porches and outdoor living rooms which become dosed in and attached to the dwelling subsequent to initial construction of the principal dwelling are not exempt from yard setback requirements. Therefore, a 7-foot variance from the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement is needed to locate the three-season porch 28 feet from the rear yard property line. (The elevated deck would be in compliance and requires no variance.) 4. The property is rectangular in shape (85' x 114'), contains 9,700 square feet, and the existing structure meets all yard setback requirements. 5. The home was constructed in 1966 and the building and property are well-maintained. 6. The site is zoned "R-l" Single Family Residential and is surrounded by "R-l" single family homes on the north/east/south/west. 7. The topography of the property slopes slightly downward from the northeast comer to the south and west (front) yards. 8. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no comments in regards to this request. ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Planning Case Report 93-18 July 6, 1993 Page °2- 2. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 3. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: A. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E. Property_ Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 4. The hardship in this case may be the original placement of the home on the property. The design of the original home created a short rear yard, as the building is 36 feet deep. The proposed porch is 18 feet in length plus a 2-foot bay or a total of 20 feet, which is slightly longer than a standard porch. The combination of the short rear yard and proposed 20 feet long porch have resulted in a need for a variance because the rear yard is only 48 feet deep. 5. A seven (7) foot variance amounts to about a 20% variance form the 35-foot setback requirement and staff considers it a minor variance request. 6. In general, a rear yard setback variance is the least visible to the neighbors and the community. 7. The addition of the three-season porch (with fireplace) and elevated deck will improve property value in the area, not diminish them. 8. The petitioner states on the application that the porch was designed to follow and blend with the lines of the existing structure. 9. The plans do not state the type of mateiSals to be used for the porch addition and the Commission should confirm that the construction materials will compliment the existing home. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a 7-foot variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement to allow the construction of a 3-season porch 28 feet from the rear yard property line subject to the following conditions: 1. Owner to sign and date "Site Plan Declaration". 2. Building materials for porch to match existing structure. Attachments: Zoning Map Topo Map Section Map Site Plan Floor Plan Rear/Side Elevations NORTHWOOD PARK NORTHWOOD ~ PARK IClRCLE CIVIC C~NTER SWIMMING Al POOL CI~YSTAL irl~lE:Ir CNU~CN FIRE STATION ~OC~O~I ~OAO · NO~THWO00 PARK NONTHWOQO PARK NORTHWOO0 PARK 41ST X 900.2 ~' 9O9.5 ~ X ' I ~ -- 43 43 X 903' 1 901 '8 43 X x 901.0 40 1/2 x 899.4 AVE x 906.5) ~01.3 i CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 93-19 Request: Req._uest for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Storage Location: 9151 International Parkway PID No: 06-118-21-33-0009 Zoning: I- 1 Limited Industrial Petitioner: Construction Technology, Inc. Report Date: July 2, 1993 Meeting Date: July 6, 1993 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit for outdoor storage to allow the addition of three (3) silos for bulk storage on the property, pursuant to Section 4.144(1) of the New Hope Code. 2. Construction Technology, Inc. has a five (5) year lease on the building located at 9151 International Parkway (which has been vacant for several years) and is proposing to install three 10' diameter x 35' tall silos on the southeast side of the existing warehouse to allow for the bulk storage of sand and cement. 3. The building will house a construction manufacturing business and the product lines will include, but are not limited to, mortars, grouts, stuccos, and other cementitious goods. The materials stored in the silos will be combined and mixed inside the building into various mortars and grouts. 4. The property is located in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District and is surrounded by I-1 Industrial uses, with the exception of Victory Park which is located~ across International Parkway to the northeast. 5. The warehouse building at 9151 International Parkway was constructed in 1977, and site information is outlined below: Site Area = 98,146 square feet (2.208 acres) = 100% Building Coverage = 11,500 square feet = 12% Asphalt Coverage = 14,050 square feet = 14% Green Area = 56,596 square feet = 58% Outside Storage = 16,000 square feet -- 16% Parking Required Office Area = 1,000 square feet 6 stalls Warehouse Area = 10,500 square feet 20 stalls 26 stalls Parking Provided = 10 stalls (based on number of employees) Future Deferred Parking= 16 stalls (shown on plan) 6. The physical characteristics of the site show that the original building approval had minimal landscaping. The topography of the site slopes generally to the south (rear property line) into an existing drainage ditch. 7. Petitioners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments on the request. Planning Case Report 93-19 July 6, 1993 Page -2- ~ ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of a Qonditional 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. 2. Other general criteria .to be considered when determining whether to approve of deny a conditional use permit include: A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. D. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. E. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts: 1. In Industrial Districts (I-I, I-2): a. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing or future development in adjacent areas. b. 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. 3. Open and outdoor storage is permitted as a conditional accessory use if the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District provided that: 1. Screened from Residential Uses. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses if abutting a residential district. 2. Surfacing. Storage area is grassed or surface to control dust. 4. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on June 17th and the following issues discussed: - Operation consists of mixing and blending of dry product materials (cement, sand, dry chemicals), no explosive materials, no dust (as there is a dust collector inside building), and a pneumatic auger is used for mixing. - Petitioner states that traffic will consist of both flatbed trailers and bulk trailers, with one (1) truck per day delivering materials (no night deliveries). The truck weights will conform with weight restrictions. Materials are loaded out on flat- bed trailers and delivered to distributors. All loading and inloading will take place on the east (side) and south (rear) of the property. Planning Case 93-19 ~ July 6, 1993 Page -3- - A total of 5 employees will be at the site. - Th~trash dumpster will be located inside the building. - Design & Review questioned the parking layout with flatbeds backing in and if adequate turning radius was provid.ed. The Building Official and petitioner confirmed that there is an adequate turn-around area in the back of the building. - The silos will be of block construction on piers below the frost line. The silos will be painted a cream or light gray color and the petitioner will sandblast and repaint the existing building to match the silos. - Design & Review recommended adding screening in the front of the property. - The petitioner has hired a lawn service to maintain existing shrubs and green areas. 5. City Code allows 35' tall structures, as proposed, and similar sized silos were constructed 5 years ago for industrial uses at the adjacent property at 9101 International Parkway. 6. The material in the silos will not create dust or noise on the site. 7. Staff considers this a routine request, as there are similar uses in the same area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit for outdoor storage to allow the installation of three (3) silos for material storage, subject to the following conditions: 1. Restriping (in white) of parking lot this summer. 2. Silos and building to be painted to match. 3. Five (5) additional conifers (5' high) to be planted between the silos and the front property line. 4. Fire Department to approve special hazard permit. 5. Annual review by staff. Attachments: Topo Map Section Map Zoning Map Site Plan Grading Plan Site Information Planning Case 77-30 I ~ ~~ ~NTER ~ ~NTER RD PUBLIC ~0~ WORKS ~. -~ . GARAGE c~ ~ ~ ~ " "~ .~ 5 ~ ~' SCIENCE ~IV[ . . CENTER Il ¥1LL.AGE ~I~E:N GOI. F 11.4 HO~TI~RIdAH ~00 UNE RAilrOAD COMPANY ATHLETIC GOOPEN HIGH SCHOOL $UNNY SlOE PARK H O~AtRD X · 899.6 903.0 X X ~ 901.8 X 902.8 910.8 PLAMNIMB CASE 77-30 12. PLANNING CASE 77-30__ - REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY - J.K.H. CONSTRUCTIOm COMPANY, PETITIONER. Mr. Jeff Howe, the general contractor, distributed new plans to the Commissioners. He stated that they were requesting a variance to reduce the number of parking stalls from 26 to 10, with the unused portion of the site to be green area. Farmers Steel employs only 7-8 people and the parking stalls required ,? 12. by Ordinance would be unnecessary. The building will be split face block, will be an open structure on the inside, with a clear space of 26'8' from floor to ceiling. The front faces North and there will be no roof top equipment. Commissioner Christensen cautioned Mr. Howe to be sure to review the Sign Ordinance before he decided on a sign for the building. There will be no refuse containers and they intend to screen the back with cyclone fencing with wood batting. There will be no manufacturing, no electrical shearing or fabrication but only saw cutting. During a discussion on the landscaping, Mr. Ho~e noted that there would be 20 honeysuckle bushes and five green ash trees. Discussion about the parking stalls as requested and the fact that there was adequate space for expansion parking if it were needed. Also discussed was the fact that there should not be any more blacktopping than was absolutely necessary. Commissioner Christensen noted that should they need refuse containers, the Ordinance required that they be screened. Mr. Fiterman, owner of the company, noted that Farmers Steel was presently located at 2300 North 2nd Street. The hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and perhaps 8:00 - 12:00 on Saturday. Lighting on the building will be wall-pack lighting units. Mr. Fiterman noted that he had been consi-. dering the golden type of night light for security lighting. Paper trash would be in a container in the warehouse bay. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, Mr. Fiterman noted that they used no overhead cranes, but a four-wheel drive crane. During a discussion on the landscaping, ~r. Howe stated they would be sodding the entire front area. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of Case37-30, Request for Variance in Parking S~aces from 26 ~o kO and App~ovai of Construction Plans, subject to t~e entire front of the lo~ being sodded. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Christensen, CAmeron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Absent: Bartos, Atchle~, Craigie, Pakonen Motion massed. 43 7.Planning Case No. 77-3O, request for construction plan approval and parking variances to permit the construction of a ll,500 square foot office/warehouse on International Parkway, just east of Data Documents, was considered by the Council. The petitioner is J. K. H. Construction Company. Mr. Jeff Hollo, general contractor, represented the petitioner. He said that code would require 26 parking spaces, but they are requesting a variance to reduce the number to 10. Mr. Hollo said that there would be about seven to eight people employed at the site. He said an additional three or four stalls could be provided by some additional striping. Discussion held concerning outside storage. Mr. Fiterman, owner of Farmer's Steel, said that they would be storing large channels and I-beams, properly blocked with wooden blocks, on a crushed rock surface. Mr. Holle stated that there would be a five foot high chain link fence with board batts. The materials would not be stacked any higher than the fence. Upon question, Mr. Fiterman said that the two cranes to'be used for moving materials would be stored inside the building at night. All the cutting of pipe~ etc., would be done inside. Mr. Hollo said that the exterior of the building would be split face block with the exception of the back elevatio~ which is toward the storage area~and the wall between Data Documents and the Farmer's Steel building. However, on t~e side towards Data Documents, there would be split face block back to the first pilaster which is about 20 'f~et back on the west side of t~e building. PLANNING CASE 77-30 The back elevation and Part of the west elevation will be regular block. Upon question, Mr. Holle stated that four or five parking spaces would be added. Further discussion was held as to potential for accon~nodating future parking. Mr. Holle stated ~'~ that there was ample room on the site to expand parking if needed. Mr. Fiterman, stated that ten would be the maximum number of employees. Mr. Holle noted that it would be~ossible to stripe in some parking spaces back by the fence. Motion by Councilperson Hokr, second by Councilperson' Enck to approve construction plans and yrantvariance in parking requirements for Farmer's Steel building to be constructed on nternational Parkway, just east of Data Documents with parking to be expanded as suggested by the Planning Commission. (Planning Case No. 77-30). Voting in favor: Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Otten, Plufka. Voting against: None. ~.?C' ~:.~ / ~ - ''-- J~ - Motion carried. ' DATE: April 5, 1977 CASE: 77-30 PETITIONER: J.K.H. Construction Company · ~ REQUEST: Approval of Construction Plans and Variance in Parking LOCATION: International Parkway just East of Data Documents STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 11,500 square foot building with a 1000 square foot office and 10,500 feet of warehouse on a 2.208 acre site on International Parkway. The building would be used to operate a steel distribution business. Considerable exterior storage of material would be involved. The operation, as I understand it, would be a junior version of Keeler Steel. The development figures are: Site: 98,146 square feet 100% Building: 11,500 square feet 12% Parking/Driveway: 14,050 square feet 14% Green Area: 56,590 square feet 58% Outdoor Storage: 16,000 square feet 16% The limits are 40% building and at least 35% green. 2. Exterior storage is permitted subject to: The materials stored must be directly related to the principal use and there must be acceptable screening provided which shall equal a solid fence or wall, hedge, trees and windows not less than five feet high. 3. The building is very simple. At Design and Review the petitioner had not submitted any detail on the screening fence for the exterior storage, nor had plans been submitted for landscaping or for the final exterior finish of the building. 4. The development needs 26 parking spaces. A total of 10 have been pro- vided. Also, since the product will be distribution of steel beams, etc. it appears that considerable truck traffic will be involved. It is impossible to tell from the site plan submitted if necessary turn- ing movements have been considered in the layout of the storage area and driveway. There is adequate room on the site for the additional parking. If it is not needed now, potential spaces should at least be designated for the future. It would appear that another row of 10 spaces could be placed on the East side of the drive similar to the ones provided by the building. CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: July 1, 1993 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Issues 1. June 14th City Council Meetin~ At the June 14th City Council meeting the Council approved the following planning cases, subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission: A.) Planning Case 93-14, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Minnesota Sun Addition, 8801 Bass Lake Road B.) Planning Case 93-15, Request for Variance from Rear Yard Setback Requirement and Site/Building Plan Review/Approval for Paddock Laboratories, 3940 Quebec Av. N. C.) Planning Case 93-16, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Dining at Taco Johns/City Center, 4219 Winnetka Avenue North 2. Electronic Industries Building Demolition As you may be aware, the City has acquired the Electronic Industries building at 7516 42nd Avenue North, with a long-term goal of acquiring/redeveloping all three properties on the northeast comer of 42nd and Quebec Avenues. At the June 14th Council meeting the City Council approved plans and specifications for the demolition of the building and authorized advertisement for bids. At the June 28th meeting the bid was awarded and demolition of the building should take place in July. The City is also in the final stages of acquiring the Foremost property, adjacent to Electronic Industries. The long-term goal will be to rezone these properties from Limited Industrial to B-4 Community Business. 3. Car-X Letter of Credit As you are aware, New Hope entered into a Conditional Use and Variance Site Improvement Agreement for the Car-X Muffler Shop development at the intersection of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. The improvements involved in the development, such as curbing and landscaping, were secured with a Letter of Credit. Said letter expires on July llth. The improvements have been completed but there is one section of damaged curbing that needs to be replaced. Therefore, instead of releasing the entire Letter of Credit, the City Council on June 28th approved retaining $1,000 until the curbing problem is corrected. 4. Cooper High School Siren The landscaping around the Cooper High School Sign at 47th & Winnetka Avenues was installed this past month and looks good - drive by and take a look. 5. Stormwater Management Task Force Minutes The City has formed a Task Force to develop a local Stormwater Management Plan, as required by State Law, and the Task Force will be working throughout thc year to develop the plan. I am enclosing the minutes from these meetings for your information, as it is quite likely that some new ordinances regarding erosion and floodplain issues will have to be developed in the future to enforce the plan. Page -2- 6. Community Center At the June 28th Council meeting the Citizen Advisory Commission presented their recommendation to the City Council regarding the construction of a new community center and their recommendati~)n is enclosed for your information. Based on citizen input received at town meetings and through the survey distributed with the City newsletter, the recommendation is not to construct a community center at this time-. If you are interested in reviewing the full report with survey results, let me know and I will make it available to you. 7. Retaining Walls I know that several of you are interested in the retaining wall issue so I am enclosing a copy of the Council Request for Action that was reviewed at the June 28th Council meeting seeking Council direction on this issue. 8. Planning Case 92-35, Amendment to CUP to Allow Expansion of Outdoor Storage Area, Vidco, 3531 Nevada Avenue North You will recall that this case was tabled at the January Council meeting pending the outcome of the I-1 green space requirement study. This case went back to the Council on June 28th and now a variance is not required due to the ordinance change. 9. Appreciation Picnic The annual Appreciation Picnic will be held on July 27th and you will be receiving invitations soon. I would encourage you all to attend, as Gail Friedrieh will be receiving a plaque of appreciation for his years of service on the Planning Commission. 10. Radon Project You have probably received a notice from the Building Official about volunteers for the City's radon demonstration project. I believe he is conducting informational meetings on July 1st and 15th and we are encouraging all commissioners to. participate if you are interested. New Hope was selected as one of 15 communities in the United States to develop a pilot project. See attached information. 11. Final Plat of Minnesota Sun Addition The Final Plat of Minnesota Sun Addition was approved at the June 28th City Council meeting subject to several minor conditions. 12. Home Occupation Study I have contacted the Planning Consultant regarding a review of the City's home occupation regulations in preparation for a study of that issue this fall. I will be arranging a short meeting with the Consultant, Building Official, City Manager, and City Attorney on this issue later in July so that a preliminary report will be ready in September. Attachments: Advertisement for Bids, Electronic Industries Building Request for Action Car-X Letter of Credit Stormwater Management Task Force Minutes Community Center Report Request for Action Retaining Walls Request for Action Planning Case 92-35 Request for Action Radon Project cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Sealed bids will be received by the City of New Hope, Minnesota in the City Hall at 4401 Xylon Avenue until 11:30 A.M., C.D.S.T., on Friday, June 25, 1993, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud for the furnishing of all labor and materials and ali else necessary for the following: 7516-42nd Avenue North - Building Demolition Demolish and remove existing building and its materials at 7516-42nd Avenue. Site restoration shall include topsoil borrow and seeding. Plans and specifications, proposal forms and contract documents may be seen at the office or' the City Clerk, New Hope Minnesota, and at the office of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers, 2335 W. Trunk Highway 36, St. Paul, MN 55113, (612) 636-4600. Each bid shall be accompanied by a bidder's bond naming the City of New Hope as obligee, certified check payable to the Clerk of the City of New Hope or a cash deposit equal to at least five percent (5%) of the amount of the bid, which shall be forfeited to the City in the event that the bidder fails to enter into a contract. The City Council reserves the right to retain the deposits of the three lowest bidders for a period not to exceed 45 days after the date and time set for the opening of bids. No bids may be withdrawn for a period of forty-five (45) days after the date and time set for the opening of bids. Payment for the work will be by cash or check. Contractors desiring a copy of the plans and specifications and proposal forms may obtain them from the office of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc., upon payment of a deposit of $25.00. See "Information to Bidders" for plan/specification deposit refund policy. Thc City Council reserves thc right to reject any and all bids, to waive irregularities and informalities therein and further reserves the right to award the contract to the best interests of the City. Daniel Donahue, Manager City of New Hope, Minnesota 34161ad .. I COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating DePartment Approved fo.r Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent 6-28-93 Item No. Kirk McDonald By: Management Assistant By: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER AND STAFF TO DRAW UPON CAR-X LETTER OF CREDIT The City of New Hope entered into a Conditional Use and Variance Site Improvement Agreement for the Car-X Muffler Shop development at the intersection of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue (Planning Case 92-26). The agreement contained a number of required improvements, including curbing, landscaping, and removal of the Winnetka Avenue access. To secure performance of the developer under said agreement, the developer provided the City with a Letter of Credit in the amount of $8,650.00. Said Letter of Credit expires on July ! 1, 1993. The improvements have all been completed, but some of the curbing has been damaged and needs replacement and the Building Official recommends retaining $1,000 to correct the curbing. While there have been no indications of problems with the developer, given the time deadlines involved, it is appropriate to obtain Council authorization to reduce the Letter of Credit to $1,000 and to' draw upon the existing Letter of Credit in the amount of $1,000 if an extension of the Letter is not received by July 5, 1993. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Authorizing City Manager and Staff to Draw Upon Car-X Letter of Credit. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ RESOLUTION NO. 93- ~'~ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING C~TY ~NAGER AND STAFF TO DRAW UPON CAR-X LETTER OF CREDIT WHEREAS, the Ctty of New Hope (City) entered into s Conditional Use Permit and Vartance S~te Improvement Agreement (Agreement) with Naftalt Alkalai and Lonae Alkal&~, and Mahzal, Znc. (Developer), dated February 1, 1993, and WHEREAS, said Agreement contains cert&~n obligations on Developer's part, and WHEREAS, to secure performance of the Developer under said Agreement the Developer provided the City with Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 218 issued by 1st State Bank of Spring Lake Park In an amount of $8.650.00, and WHEREAS, said Letter of Credit expires July 11, 1993, and WHEREAS, a review by staff of the improvements requtred by the Agreement showed that some new curbing needs rep&tr or replacement, and WHEREAS, staff re=ommends reducing the Letter of Credit to $1,000,00, and WHEREAS, un;ess Developer provides the C~ty with & Letter of Credit having an extended termination date, it w~ll be necessary for the City to draw u~on Letter of Credit No. 216. NOW THEREFORE, BE ZT RESOLVED by the City Counsel of the C~ty of New Hope= 1. Unless Developer has provtded the City with a Letter of Credit tn the amount of at least $1,000,00 by July 5, 1993, the Ctty Manager and staff are authorized and d~rected to take such steps as are necessary to draw upon [rrevo=abls Letter of Credit Ho. 21~ issued by 1st State Bank of SPr~n9 Lake Park in the amount of $1,000.00. Dated the 28th day of June, 1993, Edw. d. Ertckson, MaYor Attest= Valerte Leone, Ctty Clerk June 24, 1993 Dante1J. Donahue City Manager City of New Hope 4401X¥1on Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Car-X Muffler Shop 7900 27th Avenue North Our File No. 99.29220 Dear Dan: The Conditiona~ Use Permtt and Variance Site Improvement Agreement for the above development contained a number of required improvements, including curbing, landscaping, and removal of the Winnetka Avenue access. The improvements have all been completed, but some of the curbing has been damaged and needs replacement. Doug S&ndst&d has recommended retaining $1,000 to correct the curbtng. While there has been no indications of problems with the Developer, given time deadlines involved, tt is appropriate to obtain counct~ authorization to reduce the Letter of Credit to $1,000, and to draw upon the existing Letter of Credit tn the amount of $1,000 if an extension of the Letter ts not received by ~uly 5, 1993. Enclosed you wilt find a proposed Resolution to that effect. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Matecha s3t Enclosure cc: Valerte Leone (w/enc) Kirk McDonald (w/enc via Fax) Mark Hanson Steven A, Sondra11, ESQ. PLA/{NING PLAT BOND REVIEW TO: City Manager FROM: Dou$ Sandscad TOT~ ~ OF ~T$: FACILITIES/LANDSCAPING .REQUIRED: Trees ~ ~ Driveway X ~ Sidewalks Gradin~ Struc ture s I have, on ~i, ~y ~;~, inspected the plat for completion of all workco--co bond we retain. I= is apprppriace ~o RE~SE. ~O~~ chis ~ounc: $ ~ . I hav~ consulted with che tneer on this. . · cc: City Enstneer City Clerk File 005 8/91 CITY OF NEW HOPE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE SITE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by Naftali Alkalai and Lonae Alkalai, husband and wife, and Mahzal, Inc,, a Minnesota corporation (hereinfter collectively "Developer") and the City of New Hope (hereinafter "City"), this day of , 199 WHEREAS, on November 9, 1992, by Resolution No. 92-188, the City Council approved Developer's request for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance (hereinafter the "CUP/Variance") for certain real property located in the City of New Hope, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota known as 7900 27th Avenue North, legally described as: The East 153 feet of the South 153 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter except the East 33 feet thereof, Section 19, Township 118, Range 21, according to the Government Survey thereof except that part which lies East of a line drawn parallel with and distant 42 feet West of the East line of said Section and except that part which lies South and East of a curve having a radius of 26 feet being concave to the Northwest and tangent to said parallel line and a line drawn parallel with and distant 33 feet North of the South line of said Section, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "Property") to allow construction of a Car-X Muffler Shop, and WHEREAS, the City Council also approved Developer's site development plans for the Property dated October 8, 1992 as set forth in Planning Case 92-26 (hereinafter "Plans"), and WHEREAS, the CUP/Variance was granted subject to the following conditions: 1, Developer to sign Development Agreement and provide performance bond for all curbing, removal of Winnetka access, and landscaping, 2, Developer to insure existing utilities are cut and capped at property line under city permit, with inspection by public works before demolition, 3, Developer to submit to City prior to construction parking . and snow removal agreement for leased space from Midland Center. 4. .Developer to add landscaping to west side of building. 5. Annual review by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows: 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS. The recitals above are incorporated herein by reference, specifically including the conditions of the CUP/Variance. 2. THE WORK. The Work shall consist of the site improvements described in the Plans, including the Secure Work as described below, and including any amendments to the Plans which are approved by the City Council. The Work shall be performed by the Developer to the City's satisfaction and in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, standards, and policies of the City. 3. THE SECURED WORK. The Secured Work includes all on-site exterior amenities shown on the Plans that are listed below. Quantity Item 250 Lin.ft. Concrete Curb 500 S.Y. Bituminous Surface Lump Sum Landscape TOTAL AMOUNT OF FINANCIA~ GUARANTEE: $8,650.00 The Developer unconditionally guarantees to the City all of the Secured Work for a period of one year subsequent to the Completion Date of the Secured Work. This guarantee shall include failure of the Secured Work due to poor material, faulty workmanship, or any other cause. This guarantee shall continue whether or not all of the financial guarantee shall have been rele&sed by the City. 2 3. COMPLETION. The Developer agrees that the Work shall be completed in'its entirety on or before the 1st day of December, 1993 (the Completion Date), except as this period of time is extended by resolution of the Council, or by the City taking no action to requi're completion hereunQer on a timely basis. It is understood and agreed that failure of the City to promptly take action to draw upon the bond or other security to enforce this Agreement after the expiration of the time in which the Work is to be completed hereunder will not waive, estop or re]ease any rights of the City and the City can take action at any time thereafter to require completion of the Work, and payment for same. Furthermore, the term of this Agreement shall be deemed to be automatically extended until such time as the City Council dec]ares the Developer in default thereunder, and the statute of limitations shall not be deemed to commence running until the City Council has been notified in writing by the Developer that the Developer has either complieQ with this Agreement, or that it refuses to for any reason. These provisions shall be applicable to any person who shall give a financial guarantee to the City as required be]ow. 4. COST OF WORK. The Developer shall pay for all costs of persons doing work or furnishing skill, tools, machinery or materials, or insurance premiums or equipment or supplies and all just claims for the same, and the City shall be under no obligation to pay the Developer or any subcontractor any sum whatsoever on account thereof, whether or not the City shall have approved the subcontract or subcontractor, and the Developer and its surety shall hold the City harmless against any such claims, and provide the City with all necessary lien waivers. 5. DEFAULT. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the Secured Work to be performed hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the Secured Work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred therein by the City, provided the Developer is first given written notice by United States Mail of the Secured Work in default and required to be done by the Developer, not less than 48 hours being given thereby to the Developer to remove the default status, said notice being addressed to the Developer at the address set forth below. Notice given in this manner being sufficient as described, by agreement of the parties hereto. Notice to the Developer shall also constitute, without further action, notice to any contractor or subcontractor, whether they are approved and accepted by the City or not. In the event of emergency, as determined by the City Engineer, the 48 hours notice requirement to the Developer shall be .and hereby is waived in its entirety by the Developer, and the Developer shall reimburse the City for any expense so incurred by the City in the same manner as if mailed notice as described above had been given. It is understood by the parties, however, that the responsibility of the Developer is limited by strikes and force majeure. 6. REVOCATION OF CUP AND/OR VARIANCE. The City Council approved a CUP and Variance for the Property subject to certain conditions including completion of the Work. As an additional remedy separate and independent from any other remedy available to it, upon breach of this Agreement by Developer, the City may revoke the CUP and/or the Variance for the Property. Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City may also revoke the CUP and/or the Variance for failure of the Developer to satisfy any of the other conditions of the CUP/Variance. 7. ADMINISTRATION COSTS. Developer agrees to reimburse the City for the actual costs to the City associated with Planning Case 92-25, the CUP/Variance, and this Agreement, including but not limited to, engineering and attorney's fees. Developer agrees that the financial guarantee shall not be released until all such costs have been paid to the City. 8. HOLD HARMLESS. The Developer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents and employees against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages and expenses (including attorney fees) arising out of or resulting from the Developer's negligent or intentional acts, or any violation of any safety law, regulation or code in the performance of this Agreement, without regard to any inspection or review made or not made by the City, its agents or employees or failure by the City, its agents or employees to take any other prudent precaution. In the event any City employee, agent or representative shall come under the direct or indirect control of the Developer, or the City, upon the failure of the Developer to comply with any conditions of this Agreement or the Variance, performs said conditions pursuant to the financial guarantee, the Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its employees, agents and representatives for its own negligent or intentional acts ~n the performance of the Developer's required work under this Agreement or the CUP/Variance. 9. CO~T OF ENFORCEMENT. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for al3 costs incurred by the City in the enforcement of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, including court costs and reasonable engineering and attorney's fees. 10. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE. The Developer shall furnish the City with a financial guarantee acceptable to the City in one of the following forms: a) cash escrow; b) a performance bond issued by an approved corporate surety licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, and executed bY the Developer as the principal; c) an irrevocable letter of credit; d) an automatically renewing certificate of deposit in Developer's name but assigned to the City; e) other, financial instruments which provide equivalent assurance to the City. Said financial guarantee shall be furnished to the City as .security to assure .completion of the items of Secured Work as set forth above, and payment of the costs of administration as set forth above. The financial guarantee shall be in an amount of 150% of the cost of the Secured Work as estimated by the City Engineer. The financial guarantee provided shall continue in full force and effect until the City Council approves and accepts all of the Secured Work undertaken and releases the surety and/or the Developer from any further liability, and until all administrative costs are paid in full. The City Council may reduce the amount of the financial guarantee upon partial completion of the Secured Work and payment of all outstanding administrative costs. 11. NOTICE. The address of Developer, for purposes of this Agreement is as follows, and any notice mailed by the City to this address shall be deemed sufficient notice under this Agreement, until notice of a change of address is given to the City in writing: Naftali Alkalai/Mahzal, Inc. 896 Highway 10 Spring Lake Park, MN 55432 12. SEVERABILITY. If any portion, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. 13. SUCCESSION. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns as the case may be. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals. CITY OF NEW HOPE By Its Mayor Its City Manager 5 Naft&l i Alk&l~i Lonae A1 kalai MAHZAL, INC. By Its By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of , 1993, by EDW. J. ERICKSON and DANIEL J. DONAHUE, the Mayor and Manager, respectively, of the City of New Hope, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said municipal corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged befOre me this day of , 1993, by Naftali Alkalai and Lonae Alkalai, husband and wife. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1993, by and , the and , respectively, of MAHZAL, [NC., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: CORRICK & SONDRALL, A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, #203 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 (612) 425-5671 c:\wp51\cnh\cup.mah 7 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE MINUTES Meeting #1 April 13, 1993 PRESENT: Mr. Bill Keefe, New Hope Citizen Mr. Pat Conrad, New Hope Citizen Mr. Richard Larson, New Hope Citizen Peter Enck, City Councilmember Dan Donahue, City Manager Kirk McDonald, Management Asst./Community Development Coordinator Paul Coone, Street Superintendent Shari French, Director, Parks & Recreation Mark Hanson, City Engineer, Bonestroo & Associates Daniel Edgerton, Bonestroo & Associates Cecilio Olivier, Bonestroo & Associates Following introductions among members of the Task Force Mr. Donahue stated that under State Law a stormwater management plan is mandated and the New Hope City Council has directed that a Task Force be formed to assemble a plan, review the requirements for a stormwater plan, determine what the plan should include, and advise Council on the adoption of a plan. He explained that the City has contracted with Bonestroo to aid the Task Force in formulating and assembling the plan, and added that New Hope is located in two Water- shed Districts, Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek. He stated that the committee will review the progress of Bonestroo's work. He suggested that the first few meetings be educational in nature and after that the committee can proceed in a more knowledgeable fashion. He indicated that he felt the Task Force would need to meet at least 5 times to prepare the plan. He questioned the members if the scope of services summary which they received sufficiently laid out the plan and task. Mark Hanson stated that he will be the water resources team leader and will be providing guidance, that Cecilio Olivier will be serving as the Project Manager, and Dan Edgerton will review the work and provide supervision. He gave an overview of the Watershed Districts located within New Hope, noting he represents Shingle Creek Watershed and Peter Enck represents Bassett Creek Watershed. He stated there are 9 communities associated with each district, but the Task Force is responsible for a local plan only. He noted that the City developed a comprehensive plan in 1960, which identifies ponding areas to be protected and the storm sewers that flow into them, but there is a need to do a more technical plan now that the City is fully developed. He indicated that one of the tools to be utilized in the development of the plan would be the new 2-foot contour maps that show elevations and define drainage boundary areas for the entire City. He noted the City is currently updating the storm sewer record plan index, since years ago some storm sewers were built by private developers and some by the City, and that task should be completed by early summer. He indicated that the Task Force needs to evaluate storm sewer capacities, identify deficiencies and areas that need upgrading, and resolve existing flooding problems. He reviewed the planning objectives and the costs included and stated the goal was to form a Task Force first and then evaluate what sections to work on. Consensus among members was that water quality is as much of a concern now as is water quantity, and it will be a future concern so people in the community need to be educated on what adversely affects water quality. Mr. Donahue stated the basic plan does not include the quality component and the Task Force will have to make a recommendation to modify the workplan if they want it to also address water quality. Statutes now require watersheds to address the issue of water quality, whereas back in 1960 the management of flooding and water quantity was more of a mandate. One of the components of the plan will be to talk about the flooding aspects, and the Task Force also will be reviewing methods to separate solids and particles out before they get back into the stormwater system. Peter Enck discussed the 509 Statutes and the increasing requirements for the establishment of retention/holding ponds. Mark Hanson stated that the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission is in the process of completing a study on drainage areas tributary to Twin Lake, as there is real concern to improve the quality of Twin Lake. The water quality of Medicine Lake is also being studied and a small area in the southwest portion of New Hope drains into it. There are also real concerns with Northwood Lake and Meadow Lake water quality and how to improve it. The consensus was that communities must share information. The members agreed that one of the first things to do before a plan can be initiated is to collect and review the requirements and standards of all involved agencies, such as the DNR, Corps of Engineers, PCA, and Board of Water & Soils Resources, since all have different rules. Stormwater Task Force Meeting #1 April 13, 1993 Page -2- The Task Force members agreed that their responsibility is to identify issues, develop and define goals and policies, design criteria, set priorities for areas of study, review samples of plans that have been completed in other cities, and provide feedback. The Task Force also needs to make recommendations regarding where to spend dollars for improvements and prepare/review cost estimates for those improvements, with an overall goal of presenting a prioritized list to the City Council. They questioned what the deadline was to accomplish this task, if any plan has been submitted thus far, and who approvi~s final plan. Mark Hanson acknowledged that something in draft form should be ready by right after the first of the year. Donahue, Hanson, and Enck explained to Task Force members that to date the City Council had only authorized a portion of the expenditures necessary to complete the stormwater plan, and that this included updating the storm sewer index and the quantity portion of the plan; it did not include the quality component. Donahue indicated that the Task Force should make a recommendation on whether they wanted to include quality as a component of the plan or not and forward said recommendation to the Council. Cecilio Olivier stated that quantity could be studied first with quality to follow, but that it would be preferable to study both aspects at the same time. Task Force members questioned how the plan was being financed and McDonald indicated it was being funded out of the Storm Sewer Utility Fund and that the additional cost for the quality component would cost an additional $21,000. The Task Force members were in agreement that the quality component should be included in the plan. MOTION by Larson, SECOND by Conrad, to make a recommendation to Council to spend an additional $21,000 to study water quality; UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. It was determined that City staff would place this item on the next Council agenda. Donahue suggested a chairperson be appointed. Members agreed it should be someone with access to secretarial staff so that minutes, agendas/packets could be prepared and distributed. Kirk McDonald was unanimously approved and he will coordinate the meeting schedules, prepare minutes, and assist with agenda preparation, with Bonestroo's help. Donahue stated that an agenda should be compiled for the next meeting that establishes the goals and addresses the expectations of the Task Force. It was determined that the next agenda would include a discussion of requirements from various agencies for local storm water management plans, a discussion on stormwater quantity/quality modeling, and that a report would be given regarding the City Council decision on the expenditure for the quality component of the plan. The next meeting was scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on May 25th. Meeting unanimously adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ~.. ~ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE MINUTES Meeting #2 May 25, 1993 PRESENT: Mr. Bill Keefe, New Hope Citizen Mr. Pat Conrad, New Hope Citizen Mr. Richard Larson, New Hope Citizen Peter Enck, City Councilmember Dan Donahue, City Manager Kirk McDonald, Management Asst./Community Development Coordinator Paul Coone, Street Superintendent Shari French, Director, Parks & Recreation Mark Hanson, City Engineer, Bonestroo & Associates Daniel Edgerton, Bonestroo & Associates Cecilio Olivier, Bonestroo & Associates I. INTRODUCTION Kirk McDonald opened the meeting and noted that all members were present with the exception of the City Manager, who intended to serve only as an ex-officio member of the Task Force and who would not be present at this meeting. McDonald asked if there were any corrections to be made to the minutes from the April 13th meeting. There being none, French moved, Enck seconded approval of the minutes as written and the minutes were unanimously approved. McDonald asked if there were any additions or deletions to the agenda and the consensus of the group was that the agenda was fine, as presented. II. AGENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS A. Final Plan Approval Process Mr. Olivier explained the final Stormwater Management Plan approval process, noting that in 1987 the Legislature approved the Metropolitan Water Management Act and the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BOVVSR) is in charge of implementation of the MVVMA. New Hope has 2 watershed management organizations, Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek, which in turn have commissions which are basically in charge of developing a local plan for the watershed that will be consistent with Metropolitan Water Management Act.. The Commissions developed their plans in 1990 and local plans are to be prepared within 3 years after the adoption of the Watershed Commission plans. There was general discussion on when other cities were developing their plans and the role of BOWSR. Olivier indicated that BOWSR makes the rules and sees that the plans are implemented. McDonald questioned if the Watershed District plans covered broader issues and if the City plan was to be more specific and the answer was affirmative. If the New Hope plan is submitted to both VVatersheds and accepted, that is the end of the approval process; the plan does not need to be submitted to BOWSR. However, the Watershed Districts have 60 days to submit comments on local plans and may require some modifications. Keefe questioned what would happen if New Hope submitted a plan before Plymouth, for example, and Plymouth based their plan on different flows/ assumptions than New Hope, would the New Hope plan then need to be modified. Hanson indicated that he would hope those types of inconsistencies could be worked out before submittal and that the assumptions in the plans are based on pipes functioning at full capacity. B. Summary of Watershed Manaqement Or,qanizations Requirements Olivier reviewed two tables with Task Force members showing that there are different, but similar, local water management plan requirements for both the Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek Watershed Commissions. The tables compared New Hope with other area cities and identified regulations, standards, arid programs that either currently comply or that need to be developed or modified. Under the Shingle Creek requirements, an erosion, and sediment control and stormwater treatment.~, program need to be developed for New Hope and the shoreland, wetland, and floodplain regulations will need to be modified. Under the Bassett Creek requirements, shoreland and erosion regulations and a stormwater management policy will need to be developed. The written requirements for the two Watershed Management organizations were also reviewed and Enck and Hanson explained the differences between watershed organizations and districts and described the authority to levy taxes, C. Examples of Stormwater Manaqement Plan Goals and Policies Olivier distributed two samples of stormwater management plan goals and policies, each with a different format, from the cities of Brooklyn Center and Chanhassen. The Brooklyn Center format listed 11 different goals with several different policies listed under each goal. The Chanhassen format listed 3 major general goals (flood protection, water quality protection, and wetland protection) and then listed a number of specific policies under each goal. Olivier requested input from the Task Force on which format they preferred, as Bonestroo intended to develop a draft of New Hope's Stormwater Management Plan Goals and Policies and mail it to Task Force members for their comments prior to the next meeting. McDonald and Keefe both indicated that they preferred the Chanhassen format where a general goal is stated and a number of specific policies follow. The other Task Force members were in general agreement with this recommendation, therefore the preliminary draft will follow the Chanhassen format. After Task Force members respond to the initial draft with comments, a second draft of New Hope's policies and goals will be prepared and included in the packet for the next meeting. Enck pointed out that the plans, policies, and goals would have to conform to the 509 Water Quality and Water Management Requirements and that the Task Force may not have a great deal of input except how the rules and regulations are managed to preserve and improve the natural resources. He also indicated that the Task Force could make more stringent requirements, if they desired to do so. He stated that the plan could propose and prioritize specific improvements, but the actual financing decisions would be up to the City Council. Ill. STORMWATER QUANTITY/QUALITY MODELING The Task Force next reviewed a map of New Hope that would be one of the working documents used to compile the plan and identify problem areas in the City. Olivier pointed out that the map was divided into two major districts (Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek), subdistricts, and mini-districts of 10-15 acres. When completed the map will identify all wetlands and ponding areas, overland drainage routes, and storm sewer pipes/inlets. Three types of models will be completed: 1) 100-year storm, 2) 5-year storm, and 3) 2-year storm, with the water quality aspect to address nutrient loads based on phosphorus estimates. Hanson reported that the storm sewer record plan index was 75% completed and Enck reported that the City Council had approved adding the quality component to the plan. It was estimated that the quantity models would be completed over the next two months and that the quality components would follow. General consensus of Task Force members was to meet about every six weeks and the next meeting was scheduled for July 13th at 7:00 p.m. The agenda topics for the next meeting will include reviewing proposed goals and policies, a discussion of issues/problem areas in the City, and expectations of the Task Force for a final product. Enck suggested having the City's Planning Consultant review the goals/policies and McDonald confirmed he would have the Planner review the proposed goals/policies for input. There being no further business, French moved to adjourn the meeting and Coone seconded. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator COMMUNITY CENTER REPORT June 28, 1993 CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: June 22, 1993 TO: New Hope City Council FROM: New Hope Citizens Advisory Commission SUBJECT: Report/Recommendation on New Hope Community Center This brief report is intended to summarize a three year study by the Citizen Advisory Commission on the need for a Community Center in the City of New Hope and to make a recommendation on this issue. Background The idea for the Community Center actually began with the construction of th~ new fire station in the fall of 1991. The old fire station was over 30 years old and had poor lighting and heating, a number of building code violations, no air conditioning and lacked adequate training and storage space; and no longer met the needs of the community. The completion of the new fire station prompted discussions about the reuse/redevelopment of the old fire station as a possible community center. Bernard Herman Architects, Inc. performed an evaluation of the old station building in 1989. That evaluation stated that the existing fire station building was constructed with concrete block and brick exterior walls. The building is deteriorating and in need of significant maintenance and repair work. An on-site review of the existing fire station has revealed a long list of building code violations and issues that should be resolved in order that this building conform with the applicable codes, ordinances, and reasonable standards of construction. The quality of the interior materials, finishes, and colors are outdated and unattractive and the building is in a state of overall deterioration. The summary of the evaluation stated that the existing fire station facility is obviously undersized and inadequately'equipped to properly serve the current needs and programs of the New Hope Fire Department. The building is deteriorating and in need of substantial repairs and maintenance. However, building code violations will be more difficult, if not impossible, to totally resolve due to limitations of space and nature of existing construction. In order for this building to be brought up to code, extensive remodeling will be required including redesign of the mechanical and electrical systems. The advisability of spending a significant amount of money to upgrade a building that will remain functionally deficient is questionable. -1- On February 26, 1990, the community center was discussed 'from a needs perspective. The estimated cost of renovating and bringing building up to code is $500,000. It was determined that a public meeting would be held in March and leaders from the community would be invited to give their input on the community center idea and their perception of features needed. A public hearing was conducted on March 19, 1990 and representatives from the Senior Citizen Club, the NHPAA and City staff were present and gave their statemerjts as to what they felt were the most needed features in a new or rebuilt community center. Needs discussed included a place for senior meetings and recreation, more gym space discussed included a place for senior meetings and recreation, more gym space discussed included a place for senior meetings and recreation, more gym space needed for adult sports and basketball, youth basketball practice, gymnastics and aerobics. It was the general consensus that both additional meeting space and gym space were needed in the City. On April 16, 1990 the Citizen Advisory Commission toured the Fire Station. The commissioners discussed the idea of remodeling the old fire station into a Community Center. After reviewing all information, touring the facility, reviewing the finances available, and discussing with "experts" the feasibility of retaining or remodeling the building, the "opinion of the Citizen Advisory Commission [is] that the current fire station not be considered for rem°deling for a community center. However, the site of the current fire station should be considered for future use of a community center for the City of New Hope. In the spring/summer of 1991, City staff met with architects to develop preliminary concept plans for a community center complex. Staff also toured a number of community centers throughout the metro area to gather ideas. The concept plan calls for a new free-standing building that would be constructed at the west end of the existing municipal parking lot, with architecture blending with the other municipal buildings on the campus. The plans show building? that would range in size from 27,000 - 37,000 square feet, depending on the amount of gym space initially constructed. The main floor would consist of two primary areas; (1) a community room, and (2) a gymnasium with an elevated walkway. There is space for a stage on one end of the gym. There is a kitchen with serving windows that open to both the community room and gym. also, on the main floor is a dance/aerobics room, youth room, public rest rooms, locker rooms, and a warming room (to replace the warming house that would be removed. Upper floor area which consists of storage, the elevated walkway, and a mezzanine space which would be unfinished space for future use. Access to the facility would be entirely off of Xylon Avenue. Existing tennis and basketball courts would be relocated along Zealand Avenue so that the parking area for the community center could be expanded south. On October 21. 1991, a public hearing was held at the Citizen Advisory Commission meeting on a number of city-related improvements, including the construction of a new community center, to gain input from residents. There were two main needs identified. (1) large meeting rooms (with space available for community events and weddings) and (2) additional gym space for both youths and adults. Other, more specific needs identified were: -more meeting space for community organizations, -meeting space for Athletic Association, -more gym space needed for youth basketball, and -more space needed for senior citizens' clubs to meet. The City Hall campus, including the area where the community center would be constructed, is located in a "tax increment financing district" and the City is investigating the use of tax increment funds to finance the construction of a community center. The estimated cost of constructing a community center is $2.5 - $3 million. That would be a basic functional building without many amenities. It is estimated that there would be at least $3 million in the TIF District by the end of the life of the district in 1997. State law says that excess revenues in a TIF district can be used for a community center. The important thing to remember is that tax increment revenues, not general tax dollars, would pay for construction of the center. While the construction of a community center could be funded with TIF dollars, the on-going operating budget could not. The operating budget most likely would be funded through the general or enterprise funds. It is anticipated that the annual cost of staffing and operating the community center would be about $150,000. It is not anticipated that revenues derived from the rental of the facility, etc. would equal the operating expenses. The City Hall facilities and the proposed community center are located in an R-1 single Family Residential Zoning District. Public buildings and neighborhood or community centers are conditionally permitted uses, which means that the Planning Commission and City Council would need to approve a conditional use permit for the facility. One major concern would be shielding the single family homes on Zealand Avenue from the impact of a community center (landscaping, berm, no major access of Zealand, etc.). A parking analysis has been completed and it is felt that parking needs could be met by providing additional parking on the site, developing some "proof of parking" areas, signing an "off-site" parking agreement with K-Mart and through complimentary uses of City facilities. In the fall of 1992, the Citizen Advisory commission started planning other strategies (besides public hearings and meetings at City Hall) to gather citizen input on a community center. It was determined that the committee would conduct "town meetings" throughout the City at a variety of locations in the months of February and March and take the issue to the citizens. This strategy was developed to inform -3- citizens first, and then follow-up with a survey in the City newsletter. The City spent several months becoming well'versed on the subject and a model of the community center was constructed to show citizens what the building would look like. town meetings were conducted at the following locations this past winter. Meadow Lake School February 9th North Ridge Apartments February 16th Holy Nativity Church February 23rd St. Joseph's Parish March 3rd North Park Plaza March 15th Attendance at most of the meetings was Iow and those attending generally were not in favor of the construction of a community center at this time. In March, 1993, a "Community Center Survey" was included in the City Report to seek further input from residents on this issue. Out of 9,600 households and businesses, 296 responses were received (or a response rate of 3.5%). Of those responding, 264 or 89% indicated that they were opposed to the construction of a community center; 11% or 32 responses were in favor of the constructio'n of a community center. RECOMMENDATION Based upon all of the information gathered to date and based upon the input received both through the "town meeting" and survey process, the Citizen Advisory Commission makes the following recommendations to the New Hope City Council regarding the construction of a new community centeri 1. The Commission originally decided that they did not want to make the decision to build a community center, but rather wanted the citizens of New Hope to make the decision. 2. As a result of that decision, five town meetings were held and a survey sent out in the City Newsletter. The Commission's findings are based on the results of town meetings and survey. 3. The Commission' recommends that, based upon the input received, a commvnity center not be constructed at this time. 4. The Commission recommends that City staff work with North Ridc~e Care Center to see if meeting space can be incorporated into the proposed Adult Day Care Center to solve the need of senior meeting space. 5. The Commission recommends that the Parks and Recreation Department continue to work with the School District to see if the district can give the department and NHPAA suitable gym space at reasonable rates. 6. The Commission recommends that the TIF funds be utilized for improvements to Civic Center Park, including ballfields, tennis courts, volleyball courts, theater building, anid demolition of the old fire station. Attachments: Town Meetings Attendance Sheets and Minutes Tabulation of Survey Responses Comments from Surveys Supporting Community Center Comments from Surveys Opposing Community Center Letters Attached to Community Center Surveys Miscellaneous Letters, Phone Messages and News Articles re: Community Center Public Hearing Minutes Community Center Plans/Cost Estimates Fire Station Evaluation cou vC L EQtrES? Originating DePartment Approved for Agenda _ A/!enda Section l~everopment City Manager & Planning 6-28-93 Item No. Kirk McDonald By:Management Assistant By: PLANNING CASE 92-35. - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF OUTDOOR STORAGE, 3531 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH (PID #20-118- 21-21-0010), KARL DAVID/VIDCO, PETITIONER In lanuary the petitioner requested an amendment to the existing conditional use permit for outdoor storage to expand the outdoor storage area by 2,100 square feet and increase the number of semi-trailers stored on the existing concrete surface from 3 to 5. The expansion of the outdoor storage area would reduce the existing green area from 35% to 33%. The green area requirement for the I-1 District at that time was 35%, thus a 2% variance was required. At the January 11, 1993, City Council meeting the City Council extended the existing conditional use permit for outdoor storage for three (3) months and approved an increase in the trailer limit from three (3) to five (5). The City Council tabled the request for an amendment to the conditional use permit to allow expansion of the outdoor storage area and a variance to the green area requirement for three (3) months so that the I-1 35% green area requirement could be studied. As you are aware, earlier this spring the Council reduced the I-1 35% greet area requirement to 20%, based upon a recommendation by the planning Commission. The petitioner no longer needs a variance to the green area requirement due to the ordinance change and would like to proceed with the expansion of the outdoor storage area, which requires an amendment to the existing conditional use permit. This property was first developed with a warehouse and in 1987 the owner of the property was required to apply for a conditional use permit for outdoor storage (see attached planning case and minutes) that had not been included in previous city plans or approvals. Planning Case 87-33 was approved with specific limits on the storage: A. a 60'X 70' (4,200 square foot) enclosure with screening fence was approved, B. Concrete surface had to be installed, C. The number of semi-trailers stored on the site was limited to 32, and D. Annual inspection by staff was required. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: I RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Planning Case 92-35 June 28, 1993 Page -2- These conditions were only initially met and the use has expended beyond the previously approved parameters. The General. Inspector has issued repeated orders (see attached) to the petitioner to reduce the outdoor storage or apply for an amended CUP, thus this filing. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at its December 1, 1992, meeting and on a 5-3 vote recommended approval of the CUP amendment and green area variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. A development contract and bond be submitted to enforce the new slab and matching screening fence (bond to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). 2. Annual inspection by staff. Now that a green area variance is not required, staff recommends approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit to allow expansion of the outdoor storage area. b REQUF~T FOR ACTION originating Department Approved for Agenda Aiienda Section lJevelopment City Manager & Planning 6-28-93 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant By: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION REGARDING RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 469) City staff requests to have a preliminary discussion with the Council on possible retaining wall improvements throughout the City. The City Engineer and staff have been reviewing existing retaining walls in New Hope and Hennepin County public right-of-way for the past year. In many cases the retaining walls have deteriorated to a condition which warrants replacement and the walls damage snow blowers operated by Public Works plowing sidewalks. Some property owners have requested that the City repair/replace walls abutting their property. Many of the walls were initially constructed to accommodate street and sidewalk construction and at the same time maintain the elevations and/or save trees on private property. The City has worked with Hennepin County to develop a policy/procedure to upgrade retaining walls on county right-of-way. In addition, staff have identified the more deteriorated walls in the City, the estimated square footage of wall abutting each property, and the estimated cost for each wall abutting each property. City staff wants to review this project with the Council to determine if and how staff should proceed and whether a portion of the cost should be assessed to the abutting property owner and if so, how much. Permanent and temporary easements would also be needed from property owners to construct the modular block walls. The City Engineer will make a short presentation on this issue and review some photographs of deteriorating retaining walls with the Council on Monday. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: I RFA-O01 ~ June 23, 1993 Mr. Daniel Donahue City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. N. New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Retaining Walls Improvements Project No. 469 Our File No. 34153 Dear Dan: We, along with City Staff and Public Works, have been reviewing existing retaining walls in New Hope and Hennepin County public right-of-way. In many cases the retaining walls have deteriorated to a condition which warrants replacement. In addition, many of the more deteriorated walls continue to damage snow blowers operated by New Hope Public Works plowing sidewalks. Some of the property owners abutting these walls have requested the City repair/replace the walls due to their condition. Many of these walls were constructed to accommodate street and sidewalk construction and at the same time maintain the elevation and/or save trees on private property beyond the street right-of-way. We have worked with Hennepin County Public Works to develop a policy/procedure to upgrade retaining walls on their right-of-way. Attached is a letter from Hennepin County responding to our concerns and requests. Figures 1-6 identify the more deteriorated walls in the city and the estimated square footage of wall abutting each property. Appendix A lists each parcel by address, square footage of wall, the estimated cost per square foot, and the estimated cost for each wall abutting each property. It should be noted if substantial sidewalk restoration is required, the square footage cost for wall reconstruction could increase. In addition, we have listed the estimated assessment, if 25% of the wall cost is assessed to the abutting property. City Staff needs to review this project with the City Council to determine if and how we should proceed. It's presently felt we should assess a portion of the project cost to the abutting property owner, because we feel there is some benefit. Whether we assess 25% of the cost, or assess 25% of the cost not to exceed some amount, is a question that needs to be answered. (25% assessed: minimum $225/Iot, maximum $1821/1ot for this project.) It should also be noted that to build the modular blobk walls that are on the market today, we will need permanent and temporary easements from the abutting property owners. If 2335 ~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 Mr. Daniel Donahue June 23, 1993 City of New Hope Page -2- the City is to assume ownership for the entire wail, including reinforcement, 5'-10' wide permanent easements will be required for walls constructed higher than 4'. It's also preferred to construct walls of the same material for a given section of wall, even if it's located on more than one property. Therefore, the cooperation of the property owners is essential. In summary, in the past we have attempted to pass on the responsibility of repairing/replacing the walls to the abutting property owners. The argument was that the wall was constructed for their benefit to maintain their yard elevation and save trees while the City and/or County were constructing the abutting road. However, many of these walls are located on collector type roads with sidewalks. Therefore, property owners feel the road oversize adversely impacts their property. Presently, property owners are not willing to accept responsibility for these walls. Therefore, further consideration regarding their ownership and maintenance must be reviewed. If you have any questions, please contact me at this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAH:po Appendix A Retaining Wall Improvements City Project 469 - File No. 34153 Retaining Retaining Assess Parcel Address Wall Cost~Sq.fl. Wall 25% Sq.fl. Cost 8433 62nd Avenue 80 $15 $1.200 $300 8429 62nd Avenue 159 15 2.385 597 8417 62nd Avenue 368 15 5,520 1380 6140 Virginia Avenue 421 15 6315 1,579 6141 Utah Avenue 421 15 6315 1,579 6140 Utah Avenue 347 15 5.205 1301 6140 Utah Avenue 138 $15 $2.080 $520 6130 Utah Avenue 138 15 2,080 520 6124 Utah Avenue 138 15 2,080 520 7900 61st Avenue 417 15 6,255 1,564 7900 60 1/2 Avenue 348 15 5,220 1305 7901 60 1/2 Avenue 400 15 6,000 1,500 6001 Winnetka Avenue 325 15 4,875 1,218 7900 59 1/2 Avenue 216 15 3,240 810 7900 59th Avenue 240 15 3,600 900 5558 Sumter Avenue 192 $15 $2,880 $720 7643 Bass Lake Road 94 15 1,410 353 7609 Bass Lake Road '91 15 1365 341 7605 Bass Lake Road 60 15 900 225 7615 Bass Lake Road 86 15 1.290 322 4425 Nevada Avenue 171 $15 $2,565 $641 4424 Nevada Avenue 181 15 2,715 678 New Hope Water Tower 110 $15 $1,650 $412 4148 Gettysburg Avenue 60 $15 $900 $225 9109 42nd Avenue 337 15 5,055 1,264 9009 42nd Avenue 156 15 2r340 585 $85,44O Zealand Avenue iZealand Block 2 (8433) ,~ _ Avenue Ex WALL . ,, 8OFt. Sq. ,~2oo 6-118-21-12-0077 ~ ' 62nd AVE. ~ Z~~D AVE. Boneetroo Rosene N~ HOPE, MINNESOTA FIGURE 1 ~ A~oclates R~AINING WA~ RECON~RUCTION Cl~ PROd. No. 469 L:%34%3415~34153F01 JUNE 1993 COMM. 34153 62nd AVENUE NORTH _ _ = '~ F_x~: WALL EX. :Ex. 'WA~ 1Ft. Sq. 485.5Ft.~ ~ ........~'~ ~ ~ ¥ ~ Ex. WALL '4 ..... ;.~ $2080 ' 61 st Avenue No~h ,~ ~ ~ ..... [ ~)!s220 62nd AVE. · WINN~ AVE. ~ = '= ~ Boneetroo "~ Anderl/k N~ HOPE, MINNESOTA FIGURE ~ Aeeociatea R~NNING WALL RECONSTRUCTION L:~34~34153~35153F07JUNE 1993 COMM. 34153 ........ ' !.1 ~ / ~ ~ .... ~ - i ~ .. ~ ~ J ' ', ~ q ..... ~i ~ ......... ~ II a II ~ ~ 60th Avonuo * ~ i ,.:~ k ~ ; , , , Ex. WALL ~ '~ :..__~ ~ ~ --~ ........ j ~ ....... ~, -~ 246F~,~ ~. ,,.--. , , Avenue ... , ..... i ...... I ...... i .: ~ , ....... ~ ........ .~ ...... ~. , , Ex. L~LL~ ' , : 24OFt. Sq. ! ~ I l-- ,I I I ~ L ........... - --- ' ~-~-J O0 ' 59th mu~ ,,o,, ~ WlNN~ AVENUE o__ ~ ,~, ~ Boneatroo Anderiik N~ HOPE, MINNESOTA FIGURE 2B Aaaociatee R~AINING WALL RECON~RUCTiON L:~34~34153~34153F07 JUNE 1993 COMM. 34153 Sumf, er ,,i , Avenue O (555s) ",, 5-11 8-21 -33-25 I! --J Ex WALL r~ 1925Ft .Sq. rn $2880 ,, (7643) 5-118-21 -~5-25 Rhode Islend Ex. WALL g45Ft.Sq. 'r i $1~10 5-11 8-21 -33-89 i ~ ~, Avenue Ex. WALL glSFt .Sq. I~ii ~ ~5 ,.I-~ (7605) 5-1 1 8-21 -543-88 Ex. WALL 60Ft. Sq. $900 (7615) 5-1 18-21-55-28 Z Ex. WALL 86Ft. Sq. %-- ~ $1290 ~" ""' 8oneetroo BASS LAKE ROAD Rosene Anderlik & NE~ HOPE, MINNESOTA FIGURE Aseociatea RETAINING WALL RECONSTRUCTION CITY PROd. No. 4.69 L:'~54~34153~34.153F02 JUNE 199..3 COMM. 54,153 Aquila Avenue "-, ~ 7-118-21-4,3-2 C1't"1' C'F N:v',~ HOPE Ex WALL 1 1 OF t. Sq. $1650 Z · O 1', ~ 4-7th AVE. & AQUILA AVE. J/]~ Bonestroo Roeene Anderlik NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA FIGURE 4 RETAINING WALL RECONSTRUCTION L:\34\34,153%34153FO~, JUNE lgg3 COMM. 34.153 45th Avenue LT_S] 171Ft. Sq. $2565 , ' ~ 181 Fi. Sq. (4425) , $2715 17--1 18--21--21--22 (4424) 17-118-21-21-24 45th AVE. & NEVADA AVE. ,~/~8onestroo Roaene ~~ Anderlik & NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA FIGURE 5 ~J~ Aaaociatea RETAINING WALL RECONSTRUCTION L:\34X, 34153~34.153F05 JUNE 1993 COlala. 34.153 GETTYSBURG AVENUE N. /. -Z~~~..~.L~.2CC ........ _~_ ~ ¢ (9109) / LEx. STONE R~. WALL~ Z F~6 AVENUE u 1 $$Sq. ~0 / (9009) ' ['",,, Ex. STONE R~. WALL~ ~, ~'", Z r'~iLLS 2 d ADDITION ~~',, ~ 11 42nd AVE. & G~SBURG AVE. Boneatroo Roeene NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA FIGURE B ~ Associates R~AINING WALL RECONSTRUCTION CI~ PROJ. No. 469 L:~34~3~153~3~153FO6 JUNE 1~3 COMM. 3~153 JO~D~ C A~de~k. ~E ~ona~ C. ~urga~. PE ,Mar~ ~ ~olh, PE ~les B Jen~ ~E James COlson PE Ted K F~eJd. PE H~a~ A ~, PE. ~nes M Ring. · ~C P Engineers I Architectg September 13, lggo Hennepin County 320 Washington Avenue So. Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 Attn: Ted Hoffman Re: Retaining Walls, New Hope Our File No. 3~-Gen. Dear Ted: The City' of New Hope has been attempting to establish a policy regarding the reconstruction of existing retaining walls within existing street rights-of-way. These walls were constructed as part of the initial street construction and for the most part have deteriorated to the point where reconstruction is required. To date the City is of a position that the reconstruction of existing retaining walls are the responsibility of the street owner. However, within County rights-of-way the City understands arguments can be made that the retaining wall reconstruction maybe the responsibility of both the City or County. Therefore, the City is proposing to the County that retaining wall reconstruction within County right-of-way shall be shared; 50Z County, 50Z City. The City has measured the approximate square footage of retaining walls within City and County right-of-way. Listed below is the estimated square footage in County right-of-way and their, estimated reconstruction cost assuming ?15.00/square foot. Wall Estimate A~ount Preconstruction Cost County Rights-of way 6000 Sq. Ft. $90,000 In summary the City is requesting of the County the following: Does the County a~ree that retaining wall reconstruction in County rights-of-way shall be shared; 50Z County, 50Z City? - If the County agrees to the cost sharing, at what point will the County budget and directly finance retaining wall reconstruction? Page 2335 ~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 · 612-6364600 · - If the City were to undertake a project to reconstruct retaining walls within City rights-of-way, will the County undertake a similar project of it's own or would the County prefer to have the City expand it's project to include retaining wall reconstruction in County right-of-way? Obliviously with the understanding the County financially reimburse the City as required and the County approve all plans and provide construction supervision as required. The City is concerned and many of the residents abutting these walls have expressed concern regarding the condition of the existing retainin~ walls. Many of the walls in City right-of-way are on MSA streets. Therefore, the City will prepare plans and construct the walls in accordance with MSA standards to be eligible for MSA funding. The City of New Hope is requestinE Hennepin County to respond in a timely manner regarding this issue. If you have any questions please contact Kirk McDonald at the City of New Hope (533-1521) or myself at this office. Yours very truly, Mark K. Hanson MAH:dh cc: Daniel Donahue Kirk McDonald ~J mah/47 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 HENNEP1N PNONE: [6~2) 930-2500 ~B ~ ~ ~J~ I L ~AX -I6'21'30-25'3 TOD: [6~2] 930-2696 August 8. 1991 Mr. Mark A. Hanson Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Assoc., Inc, 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul. MN 55113 Re~ Retaining Wails. New Hope Dear Mark: Reference is made to your letter dated September I3, I990. Responses to your questions follow: Does the county agree that retaining wall reconstruction on county rights-oF-way shall be shared 50% county-50% city? Yes. This cost-sharing could be accomplished with participating in furnishing of materials, and/or cash payment. Zf the county agrees to the cost-sharing, at what point will the county budget and directly finance retaining wall reconstruction? To the extent that the county perceives the amount of repair needed, the county can finance the repairs out of its operations budget, and no major budgeting is necessary. If the city were to undertake a project to reconstruct retaining walls within city rights-of-way, will the county undertake a similar project of its own, or would the county prefer to have the city expand its project to include retaining wall reconstruction in county rights-of-way7 With prior county approval of the work needed to be done, the county would prefer to have the city expand its project. The responses to your questions are based on our inventory of all the retaining walls in the city of New Hope on county rights-of-way. That survey indicated that of the total 4,693 sq. ft. of wall, only 507 sq. ft. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunily employer Mark A. Hanson Page 2 August 8, 1991 is in need of replacement. The remaining 4,186 sq. ft. is either in good condition or needs some minor re-grouting. If the city perceives the necessary repairs to be any more extensive, it is unlikely the county would be able to participate. I have attached the inventory of limestone walls in New Hope. If you have any questions, please contact me or Wayne Matsumoto of our staff. My number is 930-2634 and Wayne's is 930-2584. I apologize for taking so long to get this information to you. I hope it will be of benefit in attempting to establish a policy regarding the rest of the retaining walls within the city of New Hope. Sincerely, TlTeodore J.~f.A~man, P.E. Operations Oivision Engineer TJH;mvr Attachments WALL* WALL AREA NO_...j_ ADDRESS (SQ. FT.) COMMENTS GOOD CONDITION i 2916 WINNETKA AVE- 350 MINOR REGROUTING OF TOP ROW 2 4322 WINNETKA AVE 255 MINOR REGROUTING OF TOP ROW 3 4320 WINNETKA AVE i66 MINOR REGROUTING OF TOP ROW 4 7816 45 1/2 AVENUE N 96 MINOR REGROUTING OF TOP ROW 5 7900 46TH AVENUE N 220 NO REPAIR NEEDED 6 4625 WINNETKA AVE 292 ORIGINAL WALL EXTENDED ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY BY PROPERTY OWNER. ORIGINAL WALL IN GOOD CONDITION. EXTENSION NEEDS MINOR REGROUTING. 7 4627 WINNETKA AVE 142 NO REPAIR NEEDED 8 4624 WINNETKA AVE 48 NO REPAIR NEEDED 9 4632 WINNETKA AVE 27 MINOR REGROUTING OF TOP ROW 10 5009 WINNETKA AVE 118 NO REPAIRS NEEDED 11 5212 WINNETKA AVE 75 MINOR REGROUTING 12 )300 WINNETKA AVE 230 NO REPAIRS NEEDED 13 5540 WINNETKA AVE 174 WALL EXTENDS ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO REPAIR NEEDED ON HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY. MINOR REPAIRS NEEDED ON PRIVATE PROPERTYm 15 9009 ROCKFORD ROAD 181 MINOR REGROUTING OF TOP ROW 18 8431 BASS LK RD; TIER 1 206 NO REPAIRS NEEDED TIER 2 228 20 8)12 BASS LK RD 131 MINOR REGROUTING 21 8604 & 8616 BASS LK RD 156 MINOR REGROUTING. WHEN REPAIR BECOMES NECESSARY, CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO REMOVING THE WALL AND SLOPING THE AREA BEHIND THE SIDEWALK. 22 5800 BOONE AVE 21 SEE COMMENT FOR WALL 2i. 23 811) BASS LK RD 79 NO REPAIRS NEEDED 19 8506 BASS LK RD 16 MINOR REGROUTING FAIR CONDITION 14 9109 ROCKFORD RD 432 REPLACE APPROXIMATELY 100 SQUARE FEET IN-KIND 16 8830 & 8810 ROCKFORD RD 272 REPLACE IN-KIND AND/OR REGROUT APPROX 110 SQ. FT. 24 7605 & 7615 BASS LK RD 212 WALL BEGINNING TO TIP OUTWARD. REPAIR TOP COURSE. 26 7643 BASS LAKE RD 374 WALL BEGINNING TO TIP OUTWARD. REM. & REPLACE IN- KIND APPROXIMATELY 105 SQ.FT. REGROUT TOP COURSE. POOR CONDITION 17 N/S, W. OF CAVELLE B1 TOTAL REPLACEMENT OR MAJOR REPAIR 25 7609 BASS LK RD 111 TOP COURSE SLOUGHING ONTO SIDEWALK. WALL TIPPING. TOTAL REPLACEMENT. *SEE ATTACHED MAP FOR WALL LOCATIONS. 3. RETAINING W~r~. R~PLACEMENT POLICY ~-~ (This information was obtained from the City Engineer, Hennepin County, and through input at staff meetings.) A. Backaround The City has been attempting to establish a policy regarding the reconstruction of existing retaining walls within existing street right-of-way. These walls were constructed as part of the initial street construction and for the most part have deteriorated to the point where reconstructions is required. Currently, the City is of a position that the reconstruction of existing retaining walls are the responsi- bility of the street owner. However, within County rights- of-way the City understands arguments can be made that the retaining wall reconstruction may be the responsibility of both the City or County. Therefore, the City has proposed to the County that retaining wall reconstruction within County right-of-way shall be shared; 50% County, 50% City. In September, 1990, the City Engineer asked the following questions of the County and received a written response dated August, 1991: 1. ~Qes the County aaree that retaining wall ~econst~uction is County rights-of-way shall be shared: 50% County. 50% City? Yes. This cost-sharing could be accomplished with participating in furnishing of materials and/or cash payment. 2. I~ th~ County a~rees to the cost-sharing, at what Doint will the County budget and directlv finance retainin~ wall reconstruction? To the extent that the County perceives the amount of repair needed, the County can finance the repairs out of its operations budget, and no major budgeting is necessary. 3. If the City were to undertake a Drogect to reconstruct ~etainin~ walls within City riahts-of-wav, will the ~Quntv undertake a similar Dro4ect of it's own or would th~ ~ountv prefer to have the City expand its Dro~ect t9 include retainin~ wall reconstruction in County ri~h~-o~-waV. obviouslv with the understandin~ the cQunt¥ financially reimburses the City as re=uired and the County aDDrove all plans and provide construction SUpervision as re=uired? With prior County approval of the work needed to be done, the County would prefer to have the City expand its project: -7- ~ The City has measured the approximate square footage of retaining walls within City and County right-of-way. Listed below is the estimated square footage in County right-of-way and their estimated reconstruction cost assuming $15.00/square foot: Wall Estimate A~ount Preconstruction Cost County Rights-of-Way 6000 sq.ft. $90,000 The County also conducted an inventory of all the retaining walls in the City of New Hope on County rights-of-way. That survey, in the County's opinion, indicated that of the total 4,693 square feet of wall, only 507 square feet was in need of replacement and the remaining 4,186 square feet was either in good condition or needs some minor re-grouting. The County stated that if the City perceives the necessary repairs to be any more extensive, it is unlikely the County would be able to participate. B. Proposed Assessment Policy and Options Based upon the correspondence from the City Engineer and Hennepin County, staff outlined the following options for replacement of retaining walls on County, MSA, and local streets: 1. C0untv Roads Option #1 County - 50% of cost City - 50% of cost (No assessment to property owner, as an assumption is made that it is a hardship to live on a County road due to increased traffic flows). Option #2 County - 50% of cost City - 25% of cost Property owner - 25% of cost (Under this option the property owner would pay 25% of the cost, similar to MSA and local streets). 2. ~SA State Aid Roads State - 50% of cost City - 25% of cost Property owner - 25% of cost (Many of the walls in City right-of-way are on MSA streets, therefore the walls would be constructed in accordance with MSA standards to be eligible for MSA funding.) 3. Local Streets Option #1 City - 50% of cost Property owner - 50% of cost -8- Option #2 City - 75% of cost Property owner - 25% of cost 4. Miscellaneous Other details that should be included in the policy include: A. The walls will be =onstructed only if easements can be obtained from property owners at no cost. B. Type of wall materials to be used - Keystone (modular block) C.Fabric needs to be installed if the wall exceeds 5 feet D.Establish a ranking process for which walls would be replaced first E. A preference to eliminate walls and maintain a natural slope (3:1) where possible The above general statements need to be consolidated into a brief policy. 4. MISCE~.~m_NEOUS A. Name of Policy - the name of the current policy strictly refers to the repair of streets. With these revisions the name of the policy should be changed to a general assessment policy with sections pertaining to streets, retaining walls, etc. B. Deferral of Assessments - the City adopted a deferred assessment policy in 1991 and said policy should probably be incorporated into any revised/updated policy. I will be contacting you within the next week to set up a meeting of the Assessment Committee to further discuss these issues and develop final policies. Attachments: Backyard Drainage Information Driveway Information Retaining Wall Information Current Assessment Policy COUNCIL ~.~(~ ~)~,./ REQUF~T FOR ACTION Originating DePartment Approved for. Agenda Agenda Sectlon City Manager Consent 6-14-93 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant By: MOTION APPROVING 1993 NEW HOPE RADON DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AND RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING JULY AS RI)ON AWARENESS MONTH IN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE Earlier this year, New Hope was selected as one of the 15 ICMA (International City Management Association) member communities in the United States to participate in a Radon Demonstration Project and in February the Council approved the City's participation in the project. ICMA covered expenses for the Building Official to attend a radon workshop in Washington, D.C., and is providing the City with a $1,000 grant toward the purchase of radon test kits. ICMA also is assisting the City in developing a radon program and offering on-site and off-site technical assistance. The information compiled from all of the communities' experience will be used to develop a model radon program manual by ICMA. Staff has developed the enclosed outline for a 1993 Radon Demonstration Project in New Hope and is requesting City'Council approval to proceed with the project. Because the program will be initiated in July, staff is also requesting approval of the enclosed resolution proclaiming July as Radon Awareness Month in the City of New Hope. Staff recommends that the City Council approve a motion approving the 1993 New Hope Radon Demonstration Project and pass the enclosed resolution proclaiming July as Radon Awareness month in New Hope. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Adralnistratlon: Finance: [ RFA-001 ~[[[ CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING JULY AS RADON AWARENESS MONTH IN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE WHEREAS, New Hope has been selected as one of the 15 ICMA member communities in the United States to participate in a Radon Demonstration Project and in February, 1993, the City Council approved the City's participation in the project; and WHEREAS, ICMA covered expenses for the Building Official to attend a radon workshop, is providing the City with a $1,000 grant toward the purchase of radon test kits, and is assisting the City in developing a radon program and offering on-site and off- site technical assistance; and WHEREAS, City staff have developed the attached outline for a 1993 Radon Demonstration Project in New Hope, which will include residents volunteering to test their homes for radon, the testing of all City and School District buildings, and media contacts/news releases regarding the City's radon project; and WHEREAS, the City Council approves the project and seeks to proclaim this month of July as "Radon Awareness Month" in the City of New Hope. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the New Hope City Council does hereby proclaim the month of July as "Radon Awareness Month" in the City of New Hope. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 14th day of June, 1993. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 4401 Xyion Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX ~5~2, 53 '-$' - 1993 Radon Project I. INTRODUCTION TO ItADON. Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas, that results from the breakdown of uranium. It can be found almost everywhere, in rock and soils, before getting into the air that we breathe. Outside, it is diluted to low concentrations and poses no problem to people. However, inside an enclosed space like a home, radon can accumulate to sig- nificant levels and be inhaled into the lungs. Both the type of building construction and soil composition affect the ease with which radon enters a house. Normal pressure differences be- tween the house and soil can create a slight vacuum in the lower level of the home. If a basement has a forced air heating system, the vacuum can be strong enough to literally pull gases like radon from the soil through foundation cracks and exposed crawl space dirt or open drain tile sumps into the home. Radon levels are generally highest in basements and ground floor rooms. Only underground miners tests in the 1950's alerted workers in that industry of the radon-lung cancer hazard. It was in 1984 that evidence began surfacing to suggest what is now considered to be a national health problem. Consider what happened to Stanley Watras in Pennsylvania in 1984; He amazed fellow workers at the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant by repeatedly setting off radiation detection monitors. Ail were shocked to find that he was actually bringing radiation INTO the power plant. His home was tested very soon afterwards and found to measure 2,700 "units" of radon, requiring immediate action. A house-to-house search was started in the area of eastern PA and northeastern New Jersey, but by 1986 high radon levels had been detected all across the nation. In 1987, local training sessions were offered on the radon subject, while full scale scientific tests were beginning and expanding in the U.S. and foreign countries. We began Offering a free ha_~dout on radon to property owners at the Building DepartmenE in 1987, and answering questions from the public. Three of our property owners have shared their radon test results and two or three others installed a "system" to vent radon to the outside after consulting with me on the design and obtaining a permit. II. RADO~~SS "PARTNKRS". Among the many private and public organizations who are collaborating to increase public awareness and understanding of radon are these: American Medical Association American Lung Association American College of Preventative Medicine American Public Health Association Consumer Federation of America coninued... Fami~ S~led City'~^~'~j~ Fa Family L~in~ "wV~ V~n'- The Surgeon General Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Law Institute National Association of Counties National Civic League National' Coalition of Hispanic Health & Human Services Organization National Medical Association National Safety Council National Association of Home Builders National Conference of State Legislatures Project Learning Tree Advertising Council Association of Energy Engineers The group that has awarded the grant to the city of New Hope for the development of a local radon program is ICMA (the professional association of appointed administrators serving cities, counties, regional councils, and other local governments). ICMA is the catalyst for this project and has offered much support in advance of the start of a New Hope program. III. VOLUNTARY ~ADON PROGRAI4 NEED. Voluntary testing of buildings has not occurred in significant numbers in the first years of federal government encouragement. Ail indications are that less than 10% of the homes have been tested, nationally. With solid evidence piling up to indicate that radon is the 2nd leading cause of lung cancer, the public may not understand this yet. Consider this: The EPA estimates that radon causes about 14,OOO deaths per year in America, more than fires, drownings and airline crashes co~binedl While some states and cities have begun passing laws to regulate radon testing, a voluntary approach seems as likely to accomplish the desired effect-testing buildings, because of the token cost ($20) and simplicity. Even if a test result was well above the EPA "action level" of "4", most homeowners will voluntarily attempt to reduce those indoor radon levels, when given information on health effects and methods for venting radon to the atmosphere. In New Hope, we have knowledge of very few radon tests of buildings, but estimate that perhaps 8-12 % of homes have had some type of test made with a variety of devices. Several of our homes have tested over the "4" level and shared this information with city hall. We have about 5,000 homes and 173 apartment buildings. Our nine School district buildings have not been tested, either. IV. SCO~ OF EADONI'ROJ~CT. I propose that the City Council approves a Resolution of support for the 8 month (March-Dec.) "1993 Radon Project" to encourage voluntary testing of school and residential buildings in New Hope, since we recognize the health risks posed by radon and importance of early detection of exposure problems. Specific elements of the program, as staffing permits, may include the following: A. Use of grant moneys for wholesale purchase through EPA of 200 short-term approved radon detectors. These will be donated to property owners who volunteer to assist us in testing their buildings. By December 1, 1993 we will test 150 homes and all 9 School district buildings l~cated throughout our 6 square miles of land. continued... NOTE: We will invite the volunteers to a brief evening program at city hall on about May 3rd for a discussion of radon issues, viewing a videotape, distributing the detectors and advising them on possible work, if test results warrant voluntary action. Ail radon test results will be shared with owners and the Building Department. Public disclosure of test results will be made by neighborhood, using block and address range locales. No repairs will be mandated by the city, if test results are above the federal "action level". We have special brochures and graphics and hints available to those who consider repair or mitigation of excess radon levels. B. An information letter and brochure will be sent to apartment building owners suggesting the need for testing the lower floors for radon. It may be understood to be wise for a "pro-active" test in a rental situation, rather than waiting for the likely complaint / damage claim later by a renter with health concerns or lung cancer. These will be sent by certified mail. C. Two newspaper articles with photos will be suggested to the New Hope Sun in the next 60 days on radon awareness. D. The local Board of Realtors will be offered a short presentation on the latest information about radon and its impact on sales. I will be recommending that they voluntarily add this statement to their standard home sale "Disclosure checklist", next to the "Lead paint" item: "Radon Gas; Test date: Test Result: # E. I will distribute television public service announcements (PSA) to regional media and local cable studio for airing on radon. A follow-up interview has already been requested by cable tv on our "local radon program". F. Local Medical Dotors offices will be given a packet of radon information and a doctors vidotape for their use. 6. A new handout will be provided to all citizen's who come in to city hall as new homebuyers and receive a City of New Hope packe~. This will describe the need to test for radon and answer general questions. 7. All City Council members and full-time city staff will be invited to become radon volunteers, as visible community members who are interested in improved health and wellness. The experience of testing their homes will enhance our understanding of local radon levels and add credibility to the program. "Voluntary testing is easy, and the few people who decide on mitigation will see that it is not a "budget-buster". I will offer a short program to the City Council on May 24th. 8. After the end of the 8 month RA~ PRO. CT I will present a NEW HOPE RADON MAP WITH 150 to 200 results and summarize our local experience for you 'in a report. ~~ ~.?.17 Radon~ Technical Coordinat,