The URL can be used to link to this page

110393 Planning2. 3.~,~ 3.1 3.2 3.3 .. 4.1 4.2 5. 5.1 6. 6.1 6.2 6.3 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2, 1993 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT ITEMS (All items listed under 3.1 are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Planning Commission or a citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and be considered following the consent items) Case 93-34 Request for Variance to the 35' Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Porch Addition, Richard Kleinbaum, Petitioner Case 93-33 Request for Rezoning from R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District to R-O, Residential-Office Zoning District, 7901 28th Avenue North, Paul T. Wrobel, D.D.S., Petitioner Case 93-35 Request for Rezoning from B-l, Limited Neighborhood Business Zoning District, to B-2, Retail Business Zoning District, 7811/7821 62nd Avenue North, Oliver Tam/Tam's Family Partnership, Petitioner COMMITTEE REPORTS Report of Design and Review Committee Report of Codes and Standards Committee OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of October 5, 1993 Review of City Council Minutes of September 27 and October 11, 1993; Work Session of October 20, 1993 Review of EDA Minutes of September 13, and October 11, 1993 and Executive Session of October 11, 1993 ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 93-33 Request: Request for Rezoning from R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District, to R-O, Residential-Office Zoning District Location: 7901 28th Avenue North PID No: 19-118-21-44-0065 Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: Paul T. Wrobel, D.D.S. Report Date: October 29, 1993 Meeting Date: November 2, 1993 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting the rezoning of this parcel of property from R-l, Single Family Residential, to R-O, Residential Office, to allow total professional office occupancy of the building, pursuant to Sections 4.05, 4.09, 4.20, 4.23 and 4.29 of the New Hope Code. The property is currently zoned R-l, Single Family Residential, and a special use (conditional use) permit was granted by the City in 1963 to allow a portion of the home to be used as a dental office. Currently the main floor of the home is utilized as a residence and the walkout basement is used as a dental office. = The request is to expand the existing dental office to both floors of the building, while eliminating the residential use. The petitioner states in a letter that a dental office in his residential building was appropriate and appreciated for the past 29 years where he has had a successful private dental office. He states that the location of this building on Winnetka Avenue and immediately adjacent to the Midland Shopping Center now makes the entire building more useful for professional business rather than residential. The applicant states that he wishes to abandon the present living quarters within this building. He is requesting permission for total professional occupancy of the building. On November 12, 1963, Dr. Wrobel obtained City Council approval for the construction of a "combination dental office and home" on this property. The special use permit was approved subject to the condition that not more than one 10. person not residing on the premises to be employed (see enclosed 1963 Planning Commission and Council minutes). In the spring of 1964, the home/office was constructed under the special use permit. The petitioner continued to operate the business from the home/office until last year, when he began leasing to another dentist in anticipation of his retirement. He now wants to be able to abandon the residential use and have medical or professional offices on both floors. The petitioner states on the application that the request should be granted to provide a necessary change in the usage of the site, as appropriate for that location. The existing parcel, located at the southwest intersection of Winnetka and 28th Avenue, contains 16,440 square feet and the home/office contains 1,150 square feet per floor for a total square footage of 2,300 square feet. The existing structure meets setback requirements, being set back 35 feet from 28th Avenue and 50 feet from Winnetka. The site contains 8 parking spaces, 4 in the driveway off of 28th Avenue and 4 in the drive/parking lot off of Winnetka. Surrounding land uses/zoning include B-4 Community Business District (Midland Shopping Center) to the south, R-2 Single and Two Family Residential (duplexes) to the west, R-1 Single Family Residential to the north across 28th Avenue, and R-1 Single Family Residential directly east across Winnetka Avenue. Note that there is R-O Zoning at the southeast intersection of Winnetka Avenue and Terra Linda Drive. The petitioner's property has been zoned R-1 since 1956. The topography of the property slopes steeply from the northwest corner downward to all other corners approximately 8 feet. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments on the request to date. ANALYSIS The Planning Consultant has prepared a detailed analysis of this request and will be present at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss the pros and cons of the rezoning request so please refer to the attached report, as it is not staff's intent to repeat all of that information in this report. The viewpoints and issues that do need to be considered include the following: A.) The input and comments, if any, received from neighboring property owners. B.) The intent of, the uses permitted in, and the differences between the R-1 and R-O Zoning Districts. C.) The two questions that are always asked in conjunction with a rezoning request: 1.) Was a mistake made in the original zoning designation?, or 2.) Has the character of the are~ ~h~riged to warrant the rezoning? D.) If the site is rezoned to R-O can it meet all of the performance standards for that Zoning District? E.) Is this considered "spot rezoning"? If the site meets the intent of the R-O District and can meet the performance standards for the district, and if it is determined that the nature of the area has changed, then staff could support the rezoning because it would confirm the transitional nature of the building and lot by permanently designating the property R-O. The site is not highly desirable for a residence due to its large size, access off of two streets, and location adjacent to a shopping center. ,. The original action in 1963, was to allow a home occupation and this bUilding was specifically designed for that use. However, over the years the R-1 designation of this corner lot has become an oddity. Because the building was constructed to look like a residence, it blends well with the duplexes and single family homes on 28th Avenue. If the lot were vacant today, staff would probably be recommending an R-O, R-2 or B-4 zoning designation with a specific development proposal. RECOMMENDATION The rezoning request is a policy decision that will need to be made by the Commission and Council based upon the issues outlined in these reports and upon input received from surrounding property owners. Staff could support the rezoning to R-O based upon the transitional nature of the property and due to the unique circumstance that this structure was originally approved and constructed as a combination home and office. On the other hand, the City may desire to maintain the R-1 zoning designation and continue to maintain the split use (residential/office) of the property. Attachments: Planner's Report/Survey Zoning/Section/Topo Maps Petitioner's Letter 1963 Planning Commission/Council Minutes Nort wes ssoci ed Consul ants, Inc. U R B A P L A NG D I G N · M AR K E R ES E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Stuart Roberson/Alan Brixius 27 October 1993 New Hope - Paul Wrobel Rezoning 131.01 - 93.33 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Paul Wrobel has requested a rezoning for a .38 acre parcel of land containing a single family home and a dentist office, located at 7901 28th Avenue North, legally known as Lot 17, Bock 3, Twin Terra Linda. It is the applicant's wish to rezone his property from R-i, Single Family Residential District, to a R-O, Residential-Office District. Paul Wrobel received a special use permit in 1963 to include an office of dentistry on the lower floor of his home. During that time, a special use permit allowed dentistry as a home occupation within the R-1 District. Currently, the applicant wishes to relocate to another residence and convert his property into a dental office. The R-1 Zoning District does not allow for the use of dental offices. Therefore, the applicant wishes to rezone his property to a R-O designation. It is important to note that the applicant's property is currently classified as a legal conforming use due to the fact that dental office use is no longer allowed as a home occupation in the R-1 District. Attached for reference: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Site Location Site Zoning 1975 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Site Plan 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416.(612) 595-9636. Fax. 595-9837 Recommendation The change in land use and zoning is a policy decision that is left to City officials. In making this determination, the.City must consider a number of factors in how the rezoning will affect the neighborhood and the City as a whole. In our review, it is apparent the current zoning was not a mistake based on historic use of the site, Comprehensive Plan policies and surrounding land uses. In this regard, the City must determine if conditions have changed that warrant the requested zoning change. In our review, we noted concerns with regard to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility with existing land uses and the site's ability to provide adequate parking. Without demonstration that the site and future use can address these concerns, we cannot support the rezoning request. ISSUF. S ANALYSIS Judgement Criteria In evaluating any change of land use and rezoning, New Hope uses the following criteria for determining the appropriateness of the rezoning request: Mistake in Zoning. The City may approve a rezoning request if it is determined that the rezoning is necessary to correct a past zoning mistake. Based on the Comprehensive Plan, surrounding land use patterns and the past use of the property, we find that the subject property was properly designated for R-l, Single Family Residential zoning (see Exhibit C). It is apparent that the current R-1 zoning designation does not represent a past zoning mistake. Change in Character. The site and surrounding properties have developed a pattern consistent with the 1975 Comprehensive Plan. There has not been significant change in land use since the 1975 Comprehensive Plan. The 1962 special use permit allowed for the establishment of the dentist office within the existing single family home. the single family home is oriented toward 28th Street while the dental office orients toward Winnetka. The Planning Commission must determine if the existence of the dental office has changed the character of the site significantly enough to warrant a change in zoning. Comprehensive Plan The 1975 Comprehensive Plan indicates that the tier of lots abutting the south side of~28th Street should be developed as medium density residential uses. The area south of the site is designated for commercial land uses recognizing the Midland Shopping Center. With the exception of the site in question, this area of New Hope has developed in accordance with the land use recor~f, endations of the 1975 Comprehensive Plan. The combination single family home/dental office raise issue as to the most appropriate use of the site. The single family use relates to the residential neighborhood along 28th Street. The dental office is an extension of the commercial activities along Winnetka Avenue. In addition to the Land Use Plan, the City must consider the Comprehensive Plan land use goals and policy statements intended to guide land use decisions. The following land use goals and policies are applicable to the current request. Land Use Goals. Develop a cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatibility and functional relationships among activities. Establish planning districts within the community based upon homogeneous or compatible land use characteristics and/or division of physical barriers. Prevent over-intensification of land use development, in other words, development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities (utilities, parking, access, etc.). · Preserve and protect property values. Land Use Policies. Ensure that intensification of land use activity and development is accompanied by sufficient corresponding increases in related supportive and service facilities such as off-street parking. Accomplish transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses in an orderly fashion which does not create a negative (economic, social or physical) impact on adjoining developments. 3 Protect integrated use districts (e.g. residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, industrial park) from penetration by through traffic. Where through traffic problems are identified, correct such problems as opportunities arise. Residential Goals/Policies Provide safe, healthy and attractive residential environments which offer a broad and full choice of housing types. Maintain and where necessary, strengthen the character of individual neighborhoods. Commercial Goals/Policies Strongly discourage any further spot or uncoordinated linear commercial development in favor of a unified development pattern. When opportunities arise, consolidate existing spot and uncoordinated linear commercial development into more functional patterns. Ensure that development of any scattered open parcels along existing commercial strips is accomplished in a fashion which helps to establish more functional development patterns (for example, utilizing shared access and parking, etc.). In evaluating the Comprehensive Plan policies, it would appear that the emphasis is on maintaining and enhancing the existing residential neighborhood. The Policy Plan also discourages the further expansion of commercial zoning. Under these guidelines, the proposed rezoning may be considered a further intrusion into an existing residential neighborhood. Land Use Compatibility In evaluating any rezoning, the City must consider the impact the zoning change will have on existing, as well as future land use compatibility. The following review compares the purpose and land uses of the R-1 Zoning District with the requested R-O Zoning District. Additionally, the City will evaluate the rezoning request in context with the surrounding land uses. R-1 Zoning District. The purpose of the R-l, Single Family District is to provide for low density single family detached residential dwelling units and directly related, accessory and complementary uses. The following is a listing of permitted and conditional uses within the R-1 District: Permitted Uses Single Family Dwelling Day Care Facility Public Parks and Playgrounds Essential Services Group Care Facilit~ Conditional Uses Public, Educational and Religious Buildings Commercial Outdoor Recreation Government and Utility Building Cemeteries Day Care Facility Earth Sheltered Homes R-O Zonin~ District. The purpose of the R-O, Residential-Office District is to provide for high density residential use and for the transition in land use from mid density residential to low intensity business allowing for the intermixing of such uses. The following is a listing of permitted and conditional uses within the R-O District: Permitted Uses Multiple Family Dwellings Boarding Houses Public Parks and Playgrounds Essential Services Club or Lodge Without Serving of Food or Beverage Conditional Uses Public, Educational and Religious Buildings Commercial Outdoor Recreation Government and Utility Buildings PUD Residential Cemeteries Day Care Facilities Earth Sheltered Homes Townhouses Group Care Facilities Nursing Homes Elderly Housing Medical Offices (professional and commercial) Parking for Adjacent Commercial or Multiple Dwellings Retail Commercial Combined Residential and Non- Residential 5 Surroundinq Uses. When considering a rezoning request, it is beneficial to examine whether or not the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use. The following is a listing of adjacent land use and zoning designations: Direction Land Use Zoning North Single Family Residential R-i, Single Family South Retail Business B-4, Commercial Business Northeast Low Density Residential R-2, Single and Two Family Residential East Single Family Residential R-l, Single Family Southeast Limited Business R-O, Residential- Office West Low Density Residential R-2, Single and Two Family Residential The current R-1 zoning allows the existing single family home as a permitted use. this land use is compatible with zoning and land uses to the north and west along 28th Street. The R-O Zoning District is intended to provide a land use transition between the more intense commercial area and lower intensity residential neighborhoods. The R-O zoning would allow the property owner the opportunity to convert the entire home to a dental office. The dental office would be compatible with the existing commercial uses to the south long Winnetka Avenue. However, any commercial use or activity associated with the site that would be oriented toward the residential neighborhood along 28th Street are seen as being incompatible with the character of the area and are not acceptable. In this.light, if rezoning is to be considered, the site plan must demonstrate that the use will not be oriented or intrusive on the 28th Street residential neighborhood. Performance Standards In considering a zoning change, the applicant must demonstrate that the site can comply with the zoning performance standards of the requested district. The following, summary of the R-O performance standards compared with existing site conditions. 6 Lot Area and Setbacks. The proposed site exceeds the R-0 lot area and width requirements. Review of the site survey indicates a slight setback nonconformity involving a tenth of an inch. This degree of nonconformity should 'not present an obstacle for the use of the site. Parking. The current dental office provides five parking stalls and some residential parking iht he garage off 28th Street. With the rezoning to R-0, the dental office would be enlarged from 1,201 square feet to 2,401 square feet. Based on the expanded office size, the office would have to provide 14 parking stalls. In review of the site plan, it is questionable as to whether the site can provide 14 parking stalls that comply with City performance standards with regard to parking lot design, dimension, setback and construction features. To limit intrusion on the residential area along 28th Street, we note that the driveway parking could not be used for more than two parking stalls. More than two stalls in this location would not be consistent with the City design standards for commercial parking lots. CONCLUSION Any change of zoning is a policy decision of the City. In evaluating this zoning request, the City must determine if conditions have changed that warrant a rezoning. In review of the request, we would note that any rezoning consideration must evaluate the potential impact on the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the site must be capable of accommodating the proposed use in full compliance with City performance standards. Without demonstration that these concerns can be addressed, we cannot support the rezoning request. pc: Dan Donahue Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall Tim Keane Paul Wrobel 7 IN 'City of New Hope ~11~ FJM~IILy REStDENTI~4. Roi $1NGI~ AND TWO FAMILY RESIOENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-$ HIGH DENSITY RE$1DEKrYtAL R-4 SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL OFFICE R-O LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS B-I RETAIL BUSINESS AUTO ORIENTED BUSINESS B-$ COMMUNITY BUSINESS B-4 LIMITED iNDUSTRiAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL FLOOD PLAIN FP WET LAND W "Associated '"' Consultants,.inc. EXHIBIT B land use framework ~low dens|fy res|dentlal ~mld density residential ~Jhlgh density residential ~.publlc and semi public ~ i nd usf~ia I/buslness new hope, minn. ~.~:: ~ ~TIFICAT[ 0F URVE~ ' 1415 ~RTH LILAC DRIVE. ~N VALLE'V MN 55422 D ge P~ U ~ W ~O ~ E ~ '- )S ~,,.,~ Z,~'r,4 'AY=.. 33*' I hereby certify that this suryey, plan .or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the/State of Minnesota Date ~//&/~) Reg. No. /~*~'P.~ .~ob Nc, 771AOi Book '~'Z Page Sec 15) T.' II~ EXHIBIT D $3 RO SiN &V ,/ N. 30 TH AVE. N i VIEWCR£ST LANE L_:~K) i Z74 I &?3& TERRA LINDA Doug Sandstad Building Official 4401Xylon Ave N New Hope, mn 55428 C-O/fie~ CZD,~o':~: 545-3o~o September 30,1993 iii AUG30'993 Dear Mr. Sandstad, A dental office in my residential building was appropiate and appreciated for the 29 years ~ have successfully had my private dental office. This was accomplished within the confines of the special-use permit granted to me in 1963. The location of this building on 2775 Winnetka Ave., and immediately adjacent to the Midland Shopping Center now makes the complete building more useful for professional business rather than residential. I wish to aba-ndon the present living quarters within this building. I submit for you to grant permission for total professional occupancy of this building. Sincerely, Planning Commission ~inu~es October 1, 1963 Mr~ Gordon Nelson, 7801 & 7809 Bass Lake Road, said he was' in favor of the rezoningo Gordon Johnson also said he was in favor° Richard Jew- eft said he was no~ in favor of ~he rest home or the units near his property o Motion 0y Price, seconded by Adams, to recommend to the Village Council that lot 86, Auditor's Subdivision No. 2~6, be rezoned from limited bus- iness and residential to multiple family residence and general businesso Motion carried, with Krueger opposed° Public Hearing closed° ~..~-~~.~--~___~---~_.f ..... _~---___ _~--~. ~, ~ ~ ~., /George Johnson c~e before ~he Commission ~o discuss a proposal ~o build~.~ / ~a home containing den~al offices on lo~ 1~, block.~, ~ln Terra'Linda.~ He said he would make formal application for a special use permi~ No ~ ~actlon taken~ ~~ ~~ The minutes were read of the 5eptember 17th Planning Commission meetly. and were accepted as read. The budget balance was reviewed° It was noted that with four months left of the year there remained $966. of whlch ~512 would be available for planning services° Motion by P~tce, seconded by Olson, to recommend to the Village Council that Leonard Mlch~.le:z be reappointed ~o the Planning Commlsslon~ Mot- ion carried° Motion by Click, seconded by Krueger. to 'adjourn. Motion carried.. Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 93-34 Request for Variance, Rear Yard Setback 8309 Northwood Parkway 18-118-21-43-0048 R-1 (Single Family Residential) Richard Kleinbaum October 29, 1993 November 2, 1993 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a 7' variance to the 35' rear yard setback requirement to allow construction of a 14' x 16' porch addition pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 14' x 16' (224 square feet) porch on the southeast side of the home in the rear yard. The porch would be located 28 feet from the rear yard property line, therefore a seven (7) foot variance from the 35 foot rear yard setback requirement is needed. o The City Code allows open porches and decks as encroachments on yard setback requirements, however, porches and outdoor living rooms which become enclosed in and attached to the dwelling subsequent to initial construction of the principal dwelling are not exempt from yard setback requirements. The petitioner states on the application that the only feasible area to add a porch is behind the eating area off of the kitchen. The property is located on the south side of Northwood Parkway east of Boone Avenue and is surrounded by single-family R-1 Residential Zoned land uses. o The existing structure was constructed in 1968 and this will be the first addition. The variance request is due, in part, to the 1967 approval of the "Towers South" plat which created this lot with a shallow depth of 105 feet. If the lot contained the average City lot depth of 125 feet, no variance would be required for the porch addition. To compensate for the shallow depth, the lot was platted extra wide (95 feet), thus the total lot area of 11,025 square feet exceeds the minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet by about 16%. The existing structure meets all side/rear yard setbacks but the attached garage is two feet shy of the 30 foot front yard setback (not unsimilar to other adjacent structures). The topography of the property slopes downward from the south side towards the street front approximately 8 feet. Planning Case Report 93-34 October 29, 1993 Page -2- Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments on the request. ANALYSIS The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property no created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Additional criteria is to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: A. B. C. D. E. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Property_ Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. Staff finds that the shallow depth of the lot qualifies as reasonable hardship under the Zoning Code. Staff f'mds that the 7-foot variance from the 35-foot requirement is a minor request and consists of a 20% variation from the code requirements for setbacks. Note from the enclosed topo map that a natural buffer exists in this area because the nearest home to the south is approximately 54 feet away and 12 feet higher in elevation. Modest fencing, retaining wall and greenery (lilac bushes) further improve the buffer. The petitioner has submitted plans confirming that the addition will be architecturally compatible with the existing home in style, quality and building materials. The plans show that the addition will have a gabled roof with asphalt shingles, cedar facia, and masonite siding Planning Case Report 93-34 October 29, 1993 Page -3- that will match the existing house. Note from the plans that a 10' x 6' cedar deck will also be constructed on the west side of the porch. The deck does not require a variance. The porch and deck will be located on top of 6' x 6' treated posts and sit about 3 feet off the ground, with the deck having stairs down to the yard. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a 7-foot variance from the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement to allow construction of a porch 28 feet from the rear property line. Attachments: Section/Zoning/Topo Maps Certified Survey Site Plan Floor Plan Wall Section Roof Plan East Elevation #OOD )$EI~'S 'HOLI¢ JRCH CIRCLE NORTHWOOD PARK H 7 I-1 NORTHWOOD PARK PARK / / SETHEL CEMETERY LIONS PARK ST JOSEPfl'$ CHURCH SONNESYN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL B-4 R-4 1'2 : HIDDEN VALLEY PARK B.4 90.5.1 18.3 $6TH 0918.7 917.6 X AVENUE ?CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY RONALD J. SWENSON REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR SWENSON LAND SURVEYING 827 Norwood Street Anoka, Minnesota 55303 TELEPHONE (612) 427-1020 SURVEY FOR: ~-, LEt ~J E,P~J ~, · Denotes Iron Monuments Found C) Denotes Iron Monuments Set Scale 1 inch equals '~ o fee~ Invoice No. 0 0 a survey of the that th~s is a true and~5~ct boundar ~es of' / reg. resentat ~on of Lot 28, Block 3, TO4ERS SOdTH, Hennepi:~ Cour]t'¢. Minnesota. It does purport to show imorc, vements ,or encroachments, any_. As surv~h:s 27th day of September t993. ~onald J. Swenson,Registered Land Surreyor M~nnesota L~cense No. 13297 ~f CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY SWENSON LAND SURVEYING 827 Norwood Street RONALD J. SWENSON Anoka, Minnesota 55303 REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR TELEPHONE (612) 427-1020 SURVEYFOR: ~C[~.. ~LEtM BP~J~ R I GERTIFY THAT I AM THE PROPERTY~ I O R OWN,~ REPRE~ENTATIVE AND ~ I,~OMPI,,ETE/AND ACCURATE. I hereby certify "that th~s a survey of the boundaries · Denotes Iron Monuments Found O Denotes Iron Monuments Set Scale 1 Inch equals 3 o feet Book I~'l Page ~o Invoice No. ,~ c~z~ 0 O Cf' representation of Lot 28, Block 3, TO'gERS SOUTH, Hennep~n County. Minnesota. It does purport to show irnoro¥'emer~ts or encroachments, any_. As surveyed by me this 27th day of September 1993. Ronald J. Swenson,Registered Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 13297 ~f "/ CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 93-35 Request: Request for Rezoning from B- 1, Limited Neighborhood Business Zoning District, to B-2, Retail Business Zoning District Location: 7811/7821 62nd Avenue North PID No: 05-118-21-22-0120 Zoning: B-1 (Limited Neighborhood Business) Petitioner: Oliver TarrdTam's Family Partner Report Date: October 29, 1993 Meeting Date: November 3, 1993 BACKGROUND Petitioner is requesting rezoning of property from B-l, (Limited Neighborhood Business) Zoning District, to B-2, (Retail Business) Zoning District, to allow for graphics/drycleaning/laundromat businesses, pursuant to Sections 4.10, 4.11, 4.20, 4.23, 4.30 and 4.31 of the New Hope Code. The petitioner owns the small multiple tenant commercial building at the southeast intersection of 62nd and Winnetka Avenues. The property is currently zoned B-1, Limited Neighborhood Business, which allows only 6 permitted uses and a limited number of conditional uses. The existing 4-bay building has two current tenants, a take-out pizza business and a hair salon, and two of the bays are vacant. The petitioner is requesting either a rezoning or an amendment to the permitted B-1 uses to allow two new businesses to locate at the site. One of the businesses is a graphics art business and the other is a drycleaning/laundromat business. o The petitioner states in his letter to the city that the spaces at the multiple tenant building have been vacant for some time and it is his opinion that the businesses would not be detrimental to the residential environment. He is requesting that the B-1 District uses either be expanded to allow the new tenants or that the zoning district status be upgraded from B-1 to B-2 to allow the uses. The lot area of the parcel is 38,000 square feet and the multiple tenant building contains 6,900 square feet, or covers about 20% of the site. The surrounding land uses and zoning includes R-l, Single Family Residential, to the north (Brooklyn Park) across 62nd Avenue; R-3, Medium Density Residential, townhouses across Sumter Avenue to the east; R-l, Single Family Residential, to the south; and R-1 across Winnetka Avenue to the west. Planning Case Report 93-35 October 29, 1993 Page 2 There is a detailed zoning/legal history on this property, per the enclosed memo from the Building Official. In 1954, this property along with every lot along 62nd Avenue North was zoned commercial. By 1960, this was corrected to leave only the extreme west and east properties on 62nd Avenue as commercial, excluding the site. In 1964, the District Court ruled in favor of the Compton-Murray Development Company, finding the 1959 New Hope Zoning Ordinance unreasonable as to the property. The City never felt that this lot, surrounded by residential uses, was an appropriate commercial site, but the Court ruled that it be zoned commercial. The present building was constructed in 1975. o The Comprehensive Plan stressed the concern about inadequate maintenance of commercial properties, including this specific site. o The topography of the site is flat because a 9 foot hill was cut down (and retained along the south) to permit construction. A few small trees exist on the site. Maintenance of the building, site and landscaping is a concern of the staff, which may be influenced by the lack of income generated by a partially filled building. With the owner restricted to only B-1 uses, he appears unable to fully lease the building and reluctant to invest in maintenance of the site. 10. The parking spaces on the site total about 40 and exceed code requirements. Existing truck access is poor. No changes are expected in traffic patterns except that an upzoning to B-2 or an expansion of the B-1 permitted uses would probably fill the building and result in additional car/track traffic. 11. prOperty owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments on the request to date. ANALYSIS The Planning Consultant has prepared a detailed analysis of this request and will be present at the Planning Commission meeting to discuss the pros and cons of the rezoning request.so please refer to the attached report, as it is not staffs intent to repeat all of that information in this report. 2. The viewpoints and issues that do need to be considered include the following: A.) The input and comments, if any, received from neighboring property owners. B.) The intent of, the uses permitted in, and the differences between the B-1 and B-2 Zoning Districts. C.) The two questions that are always asked in conjunction with a rezoning request: 1.) Planning Case 93-35 October 29, 1993 Page 3 Was a mistake made in the original zoning designation?, or 2.) Has the character of the area changed to warrant the rezoning? D.) If the site is rezoned to B-2 can it meet all of the performance standards for the Zoning District. E.) Is this considered "spot rezoning"? The options that are available in addressing this request are as follows: mo Deny the rezoning and do not consider the graphics business a professional office as allowed by conditional use permit or consider the processing of drycleaning a permitted use. This will result in the site continuing to be only half-filled with poor maintenance continuing. Bo Deny the rezoning and maintain the site as a B-1 District, but allow one or both of the businesses to be located at the site under the existing definitions/interpretations of the code (the graphics business as a professional office CUP and the drycleaning laundromat as a permitted use). Deny the rezoning and maintain the site as a B-1 District, but expand the uses allowed in the district through a code text amendment. Approve the rezoning from B-1 to B-2 to allow not only these businesses to locate at the site, but expand the opportunities in the future for a greater variety of businesses to be located at the site. The staff favors allowing these businesses, in some form, to locate at this site, whether that be accomplished through a code amendment expanding the uses allowed, through rezoning or simply through a broader interpretation of the definitions of what uses are and are not permitted. The City has taken action over the past several years to try and strengthen/maintain the industrial base of the City, through the reduction of the green requirement, and the single/multi-family housing units in the City, through code compliance and financial assistance policies. Staff feels that the same consideration needs to be given to retail centers so that they maintain their viability, so long as the changes do not detrimentally impact the surrounding neighborhoods. Currently only 6 permitted uses and 4 conditional uses are allowed in the B-1 Zone, which severely limits the uses...but also eliminates nuisances. The B-2 Zone has 49 permitted uses and 12 conditional uses, so a rezoning of this property would significantly increase the potential uses from 10 to 61. Some of the differences between the uses allowed in each district include a greater likelihood of odors (drycleaners, etc.), traffic increases (restaurants, boat sales, etc.); Planning Case 93-35 October 29, 1993 Page 4 including more track traffic that may not be compatible with adjacent residential property. Thus, it is probably more prudent to consider minimally expanding the usesallowed in the B-1 Zone than to rezone to B-2. o The Building Official has suggested another alternative to consider: eliminating the B-1 Zone altogether and combining these sites with the B-2 Zone. There are only 3 properties zoned B-1 in New Hope: the petitioner's site and the two Tom Thumb Stores located at 7980 36th Avenue and 2720 Winnetka Avenue. Therefore, any code amendment changes to the B-1 Zone, which was established in 1979, will basically only affect the petitioner's site because the other two are developed. The Building Official asks if there is a compelling reason to maintain such a unique zoning district, with no vacant land for furore development. The two Tom Thumb stores would also be permitted in the B-2 and B-4 Zones. RECOMMENDATION The rezoning request is a policy decision that will need to be made by the Commission and Council based upon the issues outlined in these reports and upon input received from surrounding property owners. Staff could support the rezoning from B- 1 to B-2, but is concerned about the numerous other non-compatible neighborhood uses that would be allowed. Staff finds that a better alternative would be to either minimally expand the uses to allow the two new businesses to locate at the site, or to allow the graphics business by CLIP and allow the drycleaning/laundromat as a permitted use but deny processing at the site. Attachments: Planner's Report Zoning/Section/Topo Maps Building Official Attachments Petitioner's Letter Memo/Minutes re: Past (our) Action and Development U R B P L A N N G DES N · M AR K E R ES E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE: Kirk McDonald Elizabeth Stockman / Alan Brixius 27 October 1993 New Hope - Oliver Tam Rezoning 131.01 - 93.35 EXF CUTIVE SUMMARY BACKHROUND Mr. Oliver Tam of Tam's Family Partnership is requesting that his property located at 7811/7821 62nd Avenue North be rezoned from B- 1, Limited Neighborhood Business to B-2, Retail Business. A small strip-type retail center exists on the site which has been partially vacant for some time. His reason for the request is to allow a broader range of businesses/permitted uses which will help to fill the vacant units. Specifically, Mr. Tam desires to accommodate a graphics business which prepares film for the printing process, but does not do any on-site printing. Additionally, he desires to accommodate a dry cleaning/laundromat business.. Question has been raised as to whether the desired uses are allowed within the B-1 District and what implications rezoning of the site, if necessary, may have on the surrounding area. The following provides you with the history of the site and addresses these issues. In 1956, the Tam property and every lot along 62nd Avenue North on the northern border of New Hope was zoned commercial as shown in Exhibit C. By 1961, this was changed to leave only the extreme west and east properties as commercial, which excluded the subject parcel as shown in Exhibit D. In 1964, the District Court ruled in favor of the Campton-Murray Development Company, finding the 1959 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 New Hope Zoning Ordinance unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious as to the applicants lot. The City has never felt that the parcel was suited to commercial development, but had to abide by the court's ruling. After a number of developers spoke to the City about building on the lot, the present building was constructed in 1975. Attached for reference: Exhibit A Site Location Exhibit B Site Photos Exhibit C 1956 Zoning Map Exhibit D - 1961 Zoning Map Exhibit E - B-1 Permitted and Conditional Uses Exhibit F - B-2 Permitted and Conditional Uses Exhibit G - Comprehensive Plan Policies for Commercial Areas ISSUES ANALYSIS EXISTING ZONING The B-1 zoning designation was established for the site at the time the strip-center was constructed. The purpose of the B-1 District is to provide for the establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, and retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer. Such centers are to provide goods and services only for the surrounding neighborhoods and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community. The permitted and conditional uses within this district are fairly limited and do not specifically provide for graphics businesses, although professional and commercial offices are allowed as conditional uses and may include graphics operations. Dry cleaning/laundromat operations are permitted provided they do not process the clothing on site (refer to Exhibit E). In consideration of the graphics business, the Zoning Ordinance does not contain a definition for professional and commercial offices, thus further study is needed to define such. In this regard, reference was made to The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions which states the following: Professional Offices: The office of a member of a recognized profession maintained for the conduct of that profession. (The major question is what is a recognized profession? The granting of a license by the State or other organization is not in itself an indication of a recognized profession.) Commercial Use: An activity carried out for monetary gain. 2 Office: A room or group of rooms used for conducting the affairs of a business, profession, service, industry or government. In our opinion, based on the above definitions, a graphics business can be considered a commercial office. Therefore, if the only .intent of the applicant is to fill the building vacancy with a graphics business, rezoning of the subject site is not necessary but would require that a Conditional Use Permit be obtained. Allowance of a dry cleaning/laundromat operation is also not a problem under the present B-1 zoning, provided processing of the clothing is not done on site. If, however, the intent is to provide increased opportunity and flexibility for future/changes in businesses on the site, two options may be further explored: 1) expansion of permitted or conditional B-1 uses, or 2) rezoning of .the property must be considered. In either scenario, additional factors must be reviewed prior to making a decision on the matter. PROPOSED ZONING The B-2 zoning designation is intended to provide goods and services on a limited community market scale in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts. The B-2 District contains an extensive list of permitted and conditional uses which specifically includes copy and printing services, professional/commercial offices, as well as allowing on site processing in association with dry cleaning/laundromat operations (refer to Exhibit F). JUDGEMENT CRITERIA The City of New Hope considers rezoning decisions as policy matters that are warranted only via the following conditions: 1. Has the rezonin9 request resulted from a past zoning mistake? No; in review of the Comprehensive Plan, existing land use patterns, and past use of the subject property, it is apparent that the current B-1 zoning designation does not represent a past zoning mistake. Has the character of the area changed to warrant consideration of a zoning change? The character of the area in which the subject property is located has not changed since initial development of the site and adjacent lands. The surrounding area remains predominantly single family residential, although multiple 3 family development and a church are located to the east and northeast of the property, respectively. History of this site has shown that problems filling all the vacancies in the building have been present from ~he onset. This raises questions as to the viability of the site as a commercial use. The City may consider expanding the permitted and/or conditional B-1 uses or rezoning the site to increase its economic development potential. In evaluating the preceding conditions, the City shOuld also review the requested rezoning within the following parameters: Se 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 City Comprehensive Plan. The 1975 Comprehensive Plan indicates the continued operation of a commercial facility in this location and includes specific policies and provisions which are intended to regulate such. In consideration of the requested rezoning, the City needs to make a determination as to whether the proposed zoning would comply with the established Comprehensive Plan policies (refer to Exhibit G). bo The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. The expanded types and number of uses allowed on the site under the B-2 zoning designation may not all be compatible with surrounding area land uses given the potential for increased traffic, more intense uses, etc. Given the amount of B-2 commercial development in other areas of the City, successful operation of B-2 land uses on the Tam site is questionable due to the relatively isolated property location. In consideration of rezoning requests, it is typically beneficial to examine the proposed use's compatibility with surrounding land uses. The following is a listing of land uses and zoning designations which are located adjacent to the subject site: Direction Land Use Zoning North Single Family (City of Brooklyn Park Low Density Resid.) South Single Family Residential R-i, Single Family Residential 4 ~ ?Direction East Northeast Land Use Multiple Family Resid. (6-plex) Church West Single Family Residential Zoning R-3, Medium Density Residential (City of Brooklyn Park, unknown) R-i, Single Family Residential The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. The existing property and building conforms with the required performance standards overall, however, improvement to the fencing and screening along the east side and rear of the property and improved enclosure of the trash receptacle would be desired. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. It is unknown whether rezoning of the subject property would depreciate the building or surrounding area in any way, although physical improvements to the site may result in an upgrade of the facility from its current state. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. The need for public services is not expected to change from the existing demand. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. The subject property is~located at the intersection of a minor arterial (Winnetka) and a collector street (62nd Avenue) which were constructed at the proper size and capacity standards to accommodate the commercial traffic generated by the maximum of four businesses which could locate in the building. Upon rezonin~, increases in traffic, if any, are expected to be minor and should not overburden the adjacent streets but may impact surrounding area residential uses. 5 RECOMMENDATION The change in land use and zoning is a policy decision that is left to Cit~ Officials. In making this determination, the. City must '~consider a number of factors on how the rezoning will affect the site and the City as a whole. Given the complexity of issues associated with the subject property and this request, three options are available which should be reviewed by the City. Maintain the existing B-1 zoning which would allow for the establishment of a graphics business and dry cleaning/laundromat operation without on site processing. Maintain the existing B-! zoning, but consider amending the pe_~mitted and/or conditional uses to allow on site processing in association with a dry cleaner/laundromat or to allow additional land uses within the district. Rezone the property to B-2 to provide for a full expansion in the number and variety of land uses. In our opinion, Option 1 or 2 would provide the City with the best means of maintaining land use compatibility in the area as well as providing the applicant with increased flexibility in the types of uses allowed within his building. Given the relatively isolated location of the site and the surrounding residential character of the area presents land use compatibility problems. The opportunity to expand the B-1 District to include additional uses allows the necessary study time to determine the impacts of possible changes, rather than immediately rezoning the property and opening it up to a variety of 40+ land uses. Justification for this recommendation can be seen in the lack of change in the surrounding area in past years which does not warrant consideration of a rezoning request. The character of the area has remained predominantly low density residential since initial construction more than 20 years ago and problems filling all vacancies on the B-1 site have also been present from the onset. Option 1 or 2 provides ample opportunity to accomplish the applicants goal of filling building vacancies without adversely affecting the surrounding area. 6 SUBJECT PROPERTY '3AY kmmu.~immme.mmmm VX 3 Ay 'T]AV 'N '3A~' NO'lAX NOX t~J,, 9;I *ON EXHIBIT A LOOKING SOUTH FROM 62ND AVENUE LOOKING WEST FROM SUMTER AVENUE EXHIBIT B EAST SIDE OF BUILDING FRONT OF BUILDING LOOKING WEST REAR OF BUILDING FROM SUMTER AVENUE SIDE/REAR OF BUILDING FROM WINNETKA $.i0, 4.101. 4.102, 4.103 4.10 "B-i' LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT 4.101 Purpose. The purpose of the 'B-i" Limited Neighborhood Business District is to provide for the establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer from whom the goods or services are furnished. These centers are to provide services and goods only for the surrounding neighborhoods and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community. 4.102 Permitted Uses{ B-1. The following are permitted uses in a "B-i' District: (1) Barber Shops. (2) Beauty Shops. (3) Essential Services. (4) Convenience{ Limited Merchandiser Grocery Stores (not Supermarket Type). (5) Laundromat. Self-service washing and drying, dry cleaning. Also dry cleaning pickup and laundry station, including incidental repair and assembly, but not including commercial processing on the site. 4.103 (6) Mortuary. Permitted Accessory Uses, B-]. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "B-l" District: (1) Floor Space Limited. Commercial or business buildings and structures for a use accessory to the principal use, but such use shall not exceed thirty percent of the gross floor space of the principal use. (2) Parking. Off-street parking as regulated by Section 4.036. (3) Off-St~eet Loading. Off-street loading as regulated by Section 4.037 · (4) (5) Signs. Signs in compliance with Chapter pinball Machines. Pinball machines as defined and licensed in Chapter 8 are permitted as accessory uses in commercial establishments provided that the number of devices does not exceed six in those establishments whose principal business is the serving of food or beverage, or providing recreational or leisure time activities. Other commercial establishments, including employee lounges and private clubs, may have up to three machines. 4-59 072684 EXHIBIT E I 1 1 I 1 I I I I ! I i I I I I I 4.104 4.]o4 (1) - (4) Conditional Usesf B-1. The following are conditional uses in a District= (requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20, and compliance with 4.033, Screening)= (1) Government and Utility Buildings. Governmental and public utility buildings and-structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community provided that= (a) Compatibility and Set-backs. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met. (b) Equipment Enclosed. Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent-type structure with no outside storage. (2) Professional and Commercial. All professional and commercial offices provided that: (a) Local Area. The Services which are provided primarily are for the local area rather than the community or region. (b) Traffic. The traffic generated will not raise traffic volumes beyond the capacity of the surrounding streets. Cc) Appearance. The architectural appearance of the building housing the office use shall reflect the building character of the area and shall not ~ so dissimilar as to cause impairment of property values or constitute a blighting influence within the neighborhood. PUDr Commercial. Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Section 4.19. (Code 072684) (4) Convenience Food Take-Out/Delivery Establishment. A convenience food take- out/delivery establishment provided that: Ca) Comparability with Surrounding Property. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and/or site shall not be so dissimilar to existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence. (b) Operation Limited. The establishment must be exclusively used as a take-out and delivery facility for over the counter food sales as defined in section 4.022(30) of this Code. On-premises consumption of food in any form or manner shall be prohibited. (c) Street Access. The establishment must have access to a collector or arterial street. (d) Parkin~ Requirement. The establishment must have sufficient parking spaces to comply with the requirements of section 4.036(10)(p) of this Code, but not less than six spaces. The parking facilities must also comply with all other off-street parking requirements required by section 4.036 of this Code. (e) Sanitation Requirement. All food preparation, packaging, sale and delivery shall be subject to regulation and approval by the City Sanitarian. The Sanitarian shall provide specific written sanitary requirements for such establishments pursuant to applicable state and county regulations. Hours of Operation. Hours of operation may be limited as necessary to minimize the effect of nuisance factors such as traf£ic, noise and glare. (Ord. 86-13) 4-60 0?2584 4.11 "B-2" RETAZ~ BUSINESS DISTRICT 4.11, 4.i11, 4.112, 4.113, 4.114 (1) - (2)(a) 4.111 Purpose. The purpose of the "8-2" Retail Business District is to provide for low intensity, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in this district are to provide goods and services on a limited community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities at the edge of residential districts. 4.112 Permitted Uses, 8-2. District: The following are permitted uses in a "B-2" (1) Less Intensive Use District. All permitted uses as allowed in the "B-I" Limited Neighborhood Business District. (2) Cleaninq. Laundry and dry cleaning provided the process used meets the requirements of the Fire Prevention Code for use in buildings with other occupancies. (3) Food. Grocery stores and supermarkets providing the use does not exceed 21,500 square feet of floor space. (Code 072684) (4) Limited B-4 Uses. asterisk(=). All "B-4" uses that are not marked with an (Code 072684, Ord. No. 92-13) 4,113 Permitted Accessory Uses, B-?. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "S-2" District: (1) Less Intensive Use District. All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a "8-1" District. (2) Drive-Uo. Financial. One lane drive-up service windows for federal and state regulated financial institutions, providing the facility is approved as part of the original construction approval of the building. If a service window is to be added to an existing building, or if more than one lane is to be provided, a conditional use permit procedure shall be used and the facility must be found to meet the criteria of Section 4.201 and the Council shall apply such conditions as it deems necessary to reasonably control traffic, noise and other nuisance characteristics. Conditional UsesI B-2. The following are conditional uses in a "B-2" District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20, and compliance with 4.035, Off-Street Parking and 4.037, Off-Street Loading; Chapter 3, Signing) (1) Less Intensive Use District. Al1 conditional uses, subject to the same conditions as allowed in the "B-l" District. (2) Multiole Family. Multiple family buildings provided that: (a) Compatible. Development is compatible with existing and planned use of the area and conflicts are not created between commercial and residential use and activities. 4-61 EXHIBIT F 4.114 (2)(b) - (4)(j)(i£) (b) Set-backs. The lot, set-back and building requirements outlined in Sections 4.032, 4.033, 4.034, and 4.035 are complied with. (c) Open Space. At least five hundred square feet of useable open space as defined in Section 4.022 is provided for each dwelling unit. id) Street Access. The development is adequately served by a collector or arterial street. (3) PUD Commercial. Commercial planned unit development as regulated by Section 4.19. (4) Commercial Enterprises. Various commercial enterprises as follows: ia) Banks. Savings and loans, credit unions, banks and other financial insCitutions. (b) Electrical Appliance Stores. Including incidental repair and assembly but no~ fabricating or manufacturing. (c) Fabric Stores. id) Off-Sale LiQuor. (e) Offset Printinq and Copy Service. if) Restaurants. (g) Camera and Photomraohic Suoolies. ih) Book Stores. ii) Medical. (Code 072584) (j) G~rden Novelty Stores. With outdoor storage/sale areas subject to the following conditions: ii) Outdoor storage/sales area(s) shall not exceed one hundred twenty-five (125) percent of the gross floor area of the building. (ii) Outdoor storage/sales area(s) may be allowed in a front yard if a ten (10) foot setback from public rights-of-way is provided, required fencing across front yards shall be at least seventy-five (75) percent open for passage of air and light, and said fencing does not exceed seven (7) feet in height. 4-62 072684 (k) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) Outdoor storage/sales area(s) shall be fenced around its periphery and must be screened from residential zoning districts. The design and materials used in constructing the required fencing/screening shall be subject to City Council approval and constructed of premium quality materials such as masonry, brick, quality wood(s) and/or metal(s), not including wire weave/chain link, barb wire, or scrap metal materials. Outdoor storage/sales area(s) must be surfaced with'concrete, bituminous, or similar material to control dust and to provide a clean, attractive and usable surface. Outdoor storage/sales area(s) do not take up parking space necessary to meet the requirements of th~s Code. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall no~ be visible from the public right-of-way or ?rom neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 4.033 (5) of this Code. (Ord. 92-15) Criteria for (a) Throuqh (.i): meet the following criteria: Uses (a) through (j) preceding must (i) Size of Operation. The scale of operation is in keeping with the stated intent of District (see Section 4.111). (ii) Traffic Volume. Traffic volumes and circulation creates a minimum of conflict and shall be approved by the review of the City Engineer and the City Council. 4-62 A 072684 &.13, 4.131, 4.132, &.133 I I 1 i I I ! 1 I( I I I I I I I i 4.13 "B-4" COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT 4.131 Purpose. The purpose of the "B-4" community Business District is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community' or sub- region. 4.132 Permitted Uses, B-4. The following are permitted uses in a District: (1) Less Intensive Use Districts. Ail permitted uses in "B-l" and 2" (2) Antigue Shops (3) Art/School Supplies, Book, Office Supplies, Stationery Stores (4) Bicycle Sales/Repair (5) Candy, Ice Cream, I6e Milk, Poocorn, Nuts, Frozen Desserts, Packaged Snacks, Soft Drinks (6) Carpet, Rugs and T~le and Other Floor Coverings (7) Coin and Philatelic Stores (8) Commercial and Professional Offices (9) Copy and Printing Service (10.) ~Ostume and clothes Rental' (il) Office Equipment Store~ *(12) Enclosed Boat and Marine Sales *(.13) Dry Cleaning Including Plant Accessory heretofore, Pressing and Repairinq (14) Drug Store (15) Employment Agencies (15) Florist Shoo (17) Furniture Stores (18} Furriers when Conducted only for Retail Trade, on Premises *(19) Garden Novelty stores (20) Gift or Novelty Stores (21) Hobby Store (22) Insurance Sales (23) Locksmith (24) Meat Market but Not Including Locker Storag9 (25) Paint and Walloaper (26) Plumbing, Tele~ision~ '~io, Electrical Sales and Such Repair *(27) Theaters, not Outdoo~ , ~ve-In Type (28) Toy Stores *(29) Custom Manufacturing and RepaiK (30) Tailor Shops (31) Jewelry Shoos and Other similar Uses (32) Travel Bureaus, Transportation, Ticket offices (33) Variety Stores, 5/10 Cent Stores, Stores of s~milar Nature (34) Wearing Apparel (35) Banks, savings/Loans, Credit unions, Other Financial Institutions *(36) Public Garage/Parking Ram~ (37) Record Shop (38) Real Estate Sales (39) Building Material Sales of Retail Nature in Totally Enclosed ~Uilding (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) Fabric Stores. Camera/Photographic Supplies Restaurant Off-Sale ~i~uor Stores ~edical. sporting Goods stores Pet Shops Hardware stores 4.133 Permitted Accessory Uses, B-4.. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "B-4" District: (1) Less Intensive Use District. All permitted accessory uses in a "B-3" District. 4-70 072684 coMMERCIAL GOALS · Provide safe, convenient, and attractive, and accessible commercial development within New Hope. · Promote and maintain balanced cOmmercial activity that ~s viable and responsive to the needs o£ the community and surrounding market area. · Establish a commercial, service Focal point For the community. I I I I I I I COMMERCIAL POLICIES General Develop commercial and service centers as cohesive, highly inter- related units with adequate off-street parking. 5 Ensure that service and commercial uses are adequately and appropriately landscaped according to community requirements as may be amende~l. e Ensure that all service and commercial uses are adequately screened or buffered From any adjacent residential development. Strongly discourage any Further spot or uncoordinated' linear commercial development in Favor ora unified development pattern. 10. When opportunities arise, consolidate exlstin.q spot and uncoordinated linear commercial development into more Functional patterns. -' Ensure that development of any scattered open parcels along existing . commercial strips is accomplished in a fashion which helps to establish more Functional development patterns (For example, utilizing shared access and parking, etc.). Enact and uniformly enforce a commercial/industrial maintenance code to help ensure that commercial and industrial structures represent community attributes on an on-going basis. Promote joint utilization of parking and other relate~l supportive.services in service and commercial districts. Provide For safe and convenient pedestrian movement within service and. commercial districts. When possible or when opportunities arise, provide for major street access to service and commercial districts at the periphery c~f the districts. EXHIBIT G 11. Restrict commercial development at street intersections. Develop- ment of one quadrant does not.indicate or d~ctate commercial use of the remaining quadrants. Office Concentrate major regional multi-tenant office development in areas which provide good access and visibility from major roadways. Encourage ma]or regional multi-tenant office development to locate wJthln existing industrial parks, when such development is complementary to existing industrial uses. City Center Establish the 42nd and Winnetka commercial center as the primary retail and service focal point of the community and promote and facilitate through direct public involvement further complementary development in this area. This "City Center" is intended to encompass major retail, service, cultural, entertainment and governmental uses, as well as higher density housing on the periphery. 2. Establish a cohesive, integrated image for the City Center. e Where feasible, provide better connections between exlsting, un- coordinated elements of the City Center. Climate-controlled connections shall be considered the most desirable type of connection· Relate and integrate new development within the City Center to all adjacent development. Se Establish a pedestrian circulation system for the City Center, which ties the retail/service activities with the governmental functions, including the public open space. Limit access to the City. Center to a few well defined points a sufficient distance from controlled street intersections to minimize conflicts between center-oriented traffic and through traffic. Neighborhood Convenience Centers Provide limited convenience type service and commercial centers within easy immediate access of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that neighborhood convenience centers are provided with convenient accessibility for both motorists and pedestrians. 16 I I I o Allow the development of additional neighborhood convenience centers only when there is clear and demonstrable evidence indicating a need for the uses proposed for the center. This evidence shall include, among other related considerations, the delineation of the retail support area and its population, purchasing power oF the retail support area by type of goods as Well as the proportion which Could be reasonably expected to be captured By the uses proposed, location of competitive facilities, and anticipated dollar volume per square foot of retail floor area. 4. Locate neighborhood convenience centers along minor arterial or major col lector streets. i ! I I ! I I I ! I 17 physical and environmental ¢onditt, of the isolation factor, ntative maintenance this area will be monitored is being undertaken and t'c~ of screening and landscaping of adj '. Another issue, which also relates ta fhe preservation of a quality residential environment, is the.dist~j~:t'~ border with Crystal. In that this border occurs at mid-block~fhcim;~s':along both sides are and will continue to be affected by the Ph~s]c~al and environmental conditions of the opposite side. It is therefore necessary that both communities be especially aware of preventative maintenance levels in this as well as similar areas and that proper maintenance code enforcement measures be taken where necessary. Maintenance of commercial properties is yet.another issue facing District 3. Although the convenience center at 62nd and Winnetka exhibits good site planning and deslgn~, existing screening has not been well maintained and therefore is not fulfilling its intended function of protecting the abutting residential neighborhood. A more serious problem exists at the vacant service station at 62nd and West Broadway, where overall site maintenance as well as screening have been neglected. In both instances, non-residential maintenance code compliance will be required to more properly control and limit their impact on adjoining residences. In addition, the City will promote reuse of the service station at a scale compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, to better insure proper maintenance of the property. A final concern within District 3 is the lack of park facilities. Since the district is totally developed, the only viable option rests with the develop- ment of the two city-owned Idts south of 60th and Quebec. However, it is suggested that improvements be minimal, thereby allowing the site to continue to function as a pondlng area when necessary. 1 DISTRICT 4 Land use within District 4 is dominated by the Broadway Village Apart- ments, consisting of 13 buildings .and a total of 288 individual units. Remaining. uses include older single family homes concentrated along the district's northern and eastern borders, several rental t.ownhouse units and convenience commercial and limited industrial use along West Broadway. The convenience commercial center adjacent to the apart- ment complex is well located to serve the apartment residents as well as surrounding neighborhoods. 7O SCHOOL R.4 CENTER RO R'4 CENTER HOSTERMAM JR HIGH ECHOOL SCHOOL AVE. COOPER HIGH ECHOOL I I R.4 llll/llll/lill ~OTHY ~RY I/2 AVE. N. · .~9TH AVE. N. immmmmmmmmmmmmmm ~OUNTY m &l S T AVE, 60 TH AV ~ VILLAGE GREEN GoLF COURSE ST. THERESA · NURSING AVE 882.X 4343 X 4343 62ND X 876 876.6 61ST 874 · 9 × X~ 877. ~ 877.7 °E iCE 61 S T AVE. ~1 ST AVE [ AVE. 6tST N· LINDA NURSING B.4 .1 ~m~m M DICiNE i- ! Oliver Tam Tams, Inc. 1160 Fireside Drive, NE Minneapolis, MN 55432 September 28, 1993 Planning Commission and City Council City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: 7821 62nd Ave. North, New Hope, MN Dear Council Members & Planning Commission Members: Property to be considered by this application - 7821 62nd Avenue North, New Hope, MN. The property which I own at the above address has been vacant for some time. It was most recently occupied by a laundromat business. I now have a potential tenant who would like to rent this space for a graphics business. Their business is involved in prepress, preparing film for printing presses. The professionaI term for their service is "Stripping and Film Assembly." The equipment necessary to provide these services would include a camera, computerized scanner, film processing machine, and other miscellaneous graphics-type equipment. This firm will not house any printing presses in this space. It is my opinion that this business would not be detrimental to the residential environment. It is my request that you would expand the B-i Zoning on this property to include a tenant as I described in the graphics business. If it is possible for the City to provide the necessary clearance my tenant is prepared to move into this space November 1, 1993. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Oliver Tam OT/slg TO: KIRK McDONALD ~ FROM: DOUGLAS SANDSTI~D DATE: OCTOBER 15, 1993 SUBJECT: 7801-7841 62nd AVENUE NORTH COMMERCIAL BUILDING HISTORY I have attached a capsule summary of the zoning history for you on this property, as requested. Mv memory was correct ! In 1954, the property and every lot along 62nd Avenue North on our north border was zoned "Commercial". By 1960, this was corrected to leave onlv the extreme west and east properties as Commercial, excluding this site. [See exhibit "56" & "61"~Zoning maps] In 1964, the District Court ruled in favor of the Campton-Murray Development Co.,'find±ng the New Hope 1959 zoning ordinance unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious, as to this lot. The city has never felt that this lot, surrounded by residential uses, is an appropriate commercial site, but the court has spoken. Staff believe that the current property owner is having financial trouble, related to a difficulty in fully leasing the building, which in some degree results from the bad location on two local streets. Prior owners, also, had problems filling the building. A number of developers spoke to the city about building on this lot, and eventually, William Olson built the present facility in 1975. A copy of the 1991 topo map of the lot, illustrates the site layout with drives on two streets, including a steep and miserable truck lane at the rear (south). The City Manager's reports in April and June, !973 on Plan Case 73-14 are good summaries of the basic issues. My detailed Plan Case Report 93-35, is being drafted, to follow in about 10 days. cc: Al~Brixius, NAC file enclosures (many) , _LAG NEW ZONING "MAP F/ BROOKLYN PARK The Ca:wDl0n-gdrr~.~y DeveloD.~an: DISTRICT, I;DLI~2~i J~ICiA/. DiST~R~CT Village 'of Ne'a Hope, Hennepin Coun:y~ Mlnne$o~, PlaintLe~ Janu~ ry T, Defendant. The above entitled aotion having been regularly placed upon ~.~ ¢-.lendar of the above named Court for the Eeptc~mber A. D. 15~2 C~neral Ten= thereof, c~me on for trial before the Court on the 2~h day of May A. D. 1563; and the Court, after hearing the evidence adduced at maid ~r~al and b~eing fully advised in tho did on the 12th ~ny of J~O~ A. D. 1~6~, d~' m~?~ and file its fLudinus and order for ~u~en~ herein. N~, P~s~nt to ca!d order and on motion.of Mesmrs. ~l~ and A~eys for P~intiff, It la ~re~ adJ~ga~ a~ de~re~ 1.. Trmt ~e ~n~ ~di~nce ~ ~e V~ge ~ ~;a~ Eo~ kn~ cs ~o. a~op~ ~r. ~to~r of 1959, ~ ln%mll~ and void as ~ ~m p~rty Involved ~s aotlon, to-wit, ~td ~ot i{o. 2 and as ~ the sams, t~ co,ion of the Vl~ge ~ rez~e ~la Pr~oes ~i ~sormble, arblt~ corWl~to~ and In of the rl~tc of ~ P~intif~ ~der mhe FO~eenth Ambient ~ t~ Cou=titution ~f ~ U~ ~s, ~ the eq~l Pro~cti~ c~use of ~e Conmtltutlon of the ~i~ $~tes and be~e ~t ~s ~t~'s pr~y ~i~hout Just c==~n~tlon f~t ~ ~ld or sec~, con~ A~i~ 1~ ~cticn 13 of the Oons~l=utlon ~ ~e $~te of M~eso~. 2. Trot ~e P~int~f Is enticed to '~e ~1~ ~ot No. 2 for the c~er- c~1 ~=e~ au~orized by the ~ning 0rdl~nce of 1954 tm=~ as 0rdlr~nco Eo. 3. ~t ~e Co~t re,ins Surl~dtctlon ~er ~e e~tu~ ~ ~!~ent ~cl~ on a~ ait~tiona w~ch ~y a'rl.c ~reafter. ~lerk of DIs~rlc~ Court. l~pu~y. Plannin9 Case No. 73-14 (Approval of Development - William Olson - SE Corner Winnetka and 62nd). Commissioner Meyer moved, second by Ohman, to table Planning Case No. 73-14 until later in the meeting as the petitionerwas not present at this time. Motion carried on voice vote. ,Plannin~ Case No. 73-14 (Approva~ ot Development - William Olson - SE Corner Winnetka and 62nd). Commissioner Cameron stated that he objected to the petitioners coming in late and made a motion that the Commission proceed with the meeting, Second by Fulton. Motion carried on voice vote. bdl~.3ded ~nt - h~ee 1 ase ' . ~l Ji~g.~:fac ~ ng-: th e ~tes ] den t~ al -.property ~ s ~w] ndow1 ess ~.~,)~< ~,~-..e~s ~t~ano wes::Q[evac~ OhS ;:~Ane :onmy, w~dows~f~whi ch ~e bui-)d~ ,the:north ~elevati6~,~'b - ,y the en :ranc'es Land~ ~issiF~~ :if~ wtd, Commissioner Herman asked where they would store the snow, he felt that it would create potential problems. In reply it was pointed out that the snow would probably need to be hauled away:' Mr. Brochure, 6201 Winnetka Avenue North, questioned the need for a convenience center. He felt that between Crystal, New Hope, and Brooklyn Park we had the'most convenient area in the States. There were major shopping centers and fine convenient stores open from early morning to late at night, with a wide variety of products including meats in the area. Mr. Brochure then said that he had watched the growth of his area for many years and it has been a healthy growth but he had to take exception to another Superette in as much as the neighbors living within eight or ten blocks already have a wide choice. They can go to chain stores, independent merchants, etc. and can buy economical products and just about anything they want at any time of the day or night. Mr. Brochure said that snow removal was a problem also in that area and he was basically opposed to having one-third of the building used for a Supere~te. He stated that to the best of his knowledge there is no food van delivering to stores; larger trucks are used. The major warehouses in the metropolitan area would never, under any circumstances, deliver products to a Superette. ina van. Snow removal for a Superette must be done in the early hours of the morning. They should have the lot bladed by 9:00 a.m. so, therefore, unless there were snow removal trucks that had noise suppressers, there would be an awful lot of noise and there's only one way to get the snow removed and that is to blade it, pick it up, put it in a truck, and take it out. Another major problem that bothered Fir. Brochure was the traffic problem on 62nd and Winnetka. He said that on the corner of 62nd and Winnetka there was a bus stop and he felt they did not need any more traffic on this corner and he was bitterly opposed to more traffic. Mr. John Burke, 6133 Sumter Avenue, asked how far the fence would be from his garage. Mr. Stahl stated that he was not certain how far Flr. Burkes lot line was so at present he could not answer this. Fir. Burke then questioned the drainage. Would it be draining unto his property? Mr. Stahl assured F~r. Burke that there would be no drainage unto his property. Mr. Burke said that whenever there is a Superette there is also a lot of paper laying around and he was opposed to this. Mrs. Mavis Jolberg, 6209 Winnetka asked if Mr. Olson was going to permanently own this property or if he planned to sell it. Mr. Olson replied that he was planning to own it permanently. Mrs. Jolberg then asked Mr. Olson if the laundry mat and Superette he planned on putting in would be open on Sunday. The reply was that it would be open Sundays. To this Mrs. Jolberg stated that the First Lutheran Church of Crystal was located on 62nd and Sumter and they have four church services there every Sunday and this would be a catch for all the children going to Sunday school. She was also opposed to the traffic situation as she has seen many accidents in the area. Mrs. Jolberg went en to state that the windows were facing 62nd which means they will look toward the Brooklyn Park side. She said that there were some neighbors who lived right across from there with two little children and she could not see all the windows, lights, and traffic coming towards those children. Pastor Dahlon, 61st and Winnetka stated that he was new to this area and did not know much about its history but would like to concur, with some of the comments mainly with relation to the church. There were approximately 1,000 children in the Sunday school and this was a pretty busy area. He was wondering what the affect would be on the traffic in this area and in relation to the movement of the children back and forth. One basic concern was that, at the most, it was only about six blocks up to Highway 94 and only two blocks to West Broadway where there is a Superette. If you go south on Winnetka from Bass Lake Road to all the way down to 42nd you won't find one grocery store in that whole area. There are other business facilities but no grocery stores. Mr. Glen Haffa, 6132 Winnetka, stated that he lived next to this property and his feelings were pretty much the same as the rest. felt it should be residential. He Commissioner Fulton moved, second by Commissioner Oswald, to recommend approval of Planning Case 73-14 with the variance as required for the sign and the additional lighting if added would not exceed 8 feet in height. Motion carried on voice vote. DATE: June 5, 1973 d) CASE: 73'-14 APPLICANT: William Olson REQUEST: Approval of Site and Building Plans LOCATION: SE Corner of 62nd and Winnetka STAFF FINDINGS AND CO~,~ENTS: e A preliminary plan was approved for the Olson property at the SE corner of 62nd and Winnetka last month. The final proposal is now before you. The citizens in the area have been notified of the presentation. The Design Review Committee is just being organized and will not have an opportunity to review the project. The changes suggested by you at the earlier meeting - change to one drive on 62nd and one on Winnetka have been incorporated. The specifics on the proposal include: e Ge a). Area of site 38,125 square feet b). Structure 6,936 square feet c). Parking - (i) 49 spaces (52 potential) (ii) 1 space per 141.6 square feet d). Lot coverage: (1) 18% structure (ii) 27% landscape (iii) 55% paved There are some problems with the proposal - generally that of short turning radius. The parking staffs are generally 20 feet deep, with 27 feet of maneuvering area between rows in front, a 16 foot service drive behind the building - only 20 feet of back up space on the east side of the building. The building does have 3 proposed store spaces as discussed earlier - the building itself is quite attractive and a rather detailed and well designed fencing, landscaping plan has been submitted. Signing proposed at this time is a three part sign - 13 feet high by'17 feet long - at the NW corner - set back 6 feet from 62nd - l0 feet are required might be able to pull it back the additional 4 feet and 23 feet from Winnetka. The basic problem is the same as before - legal order vs the Village needs - I still feel the development is too big for the site - but what choice do we have? There is also the question of sidewalk on 62nd Avenue. None is pro- posed and we prefer that it not be installed because of the un- certainty of grades and improvement of 62nd. I~lotlo~ by Councl linen Johnson, second by Councl linen Enck, to take Plan~ Case NO.. 73-14 Off the Voting in favor: Voting against: I~otion carried. Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka. None. Plannin9 Case No. 73-14. request from Mr. William Olson for approval of site plan concept for a 7,000 square foot convenience center for the property at the south side of 62nd Avenue between Winnetka Avenue and Sumter Avenue, was discussed. Nessrs. William Olson and Thomas H. Stahl architect were present to discuss the proposed site plan. ' The Village 'Nanager advised that the Planning Commission-had recommended approval of site plan concept contingent upon presentation of a revised detail plan that would include an opening onto Winnetka Avenue and elimination of one of the 62nd Avenue openings. Mr. Stahl said the site was .88 acre, with a 7,000 square foot or 18% structural coverage of the site. Proposed parking is to be provided for 53 cars. · Nr. Stahl said that the Planning Commission had tentatively agreed that there could be an entrance from Winnetka Avenue. The change in plan was the result of requirements of the prim lessee. ~ Village ~lanager advised that the Planning Commission had agreed that ~J~e~l~ ~es so~ logic to having an entrance off Winnetka Avenue but the ~J~tng Commission specifically wanted to see the layout for the revised ~i~ay plans. Mr. Stahl said the driveway off 62nd Avenue could be centered on the site. He said the driveway on Winnetka could be held back approximately 97 feet to the centerline of the drive and the driveway could be cut down to 22 feet. Mr. Stahl said that the fencing along the southerly line should be a mini- mum of six feet, opaque in nature, with the type not decided on yet. Dlscussion held as to possibility of moving the fence in on the proper~y and having the landscaping to the south. ~a'. Stah. I said that Io~ perimeter lightlng would be provided for the park- lng lot. Councilman Plufka suggested that the driveway to the rear of the building be held to a minimum width so that it be used only for servlcing the building. Nr. Stahl stated that the building and site will conform to the existing codes as much as possible. (This being the property to which the 1954 zoning applies). It was noted that Hr. Olson would be back before the Planning Commission and Council with detailed plans for final consideration. Mr. Olson was then advised that ~he Council does approve the development concept with the understanding that flnal plans will include one access off Winnetka and one off 62nd. DATE: April 3, 1973 CASE: 73-14 APPLICANT: William Olson LOCATION: Southside of 62nd between Winnetka and Sumpter REQUEST:' Approval of Site Plan A long standing battle is either to be ended or joined for good in this case· The lot in question was zoned commercial under the 1954 zoning code. The 1960 code changed the lot and other commercial areas on 62nd to Residential. Many attempts have been made over the years to develop the subject lot commercially based on ?he earlier code, The one application ended up in court with a decision ?hat ?he lot could be used as provided for in the 1954 code. Three years ago application was made for a convenience center. A major argument then developed over which screening requirements, parking, setbacks, etc. stand- ards were to be followed. The application was finally dropped. A new site plan has now been submitted for a 7000 square foot convenience center. I have had three meetings with the developer and I feel we have reached aqreement on a basic plan that is about as good as will be obtained. The present plans are for a 2000 square foot section for a dairy store and 3000 square foot Laundramat. The other 2000 square foot area is under consideration by several different uses.' The developer has agreed to meet present screening stand- ards which will provide a 15 foot green landscaped area on the east and west sides with a screening fence on ?he east, west, and south sides· The 1954 setback of et least 55 feet from all streets has been provided. The earlier ordinance did no? require much parking. This plan does provide 53 spaces· The side stalls only have 40 feet of standing and maneuvering room, but I felt it was more Important to get the green area and fence than the extra depth in the parking area, - 2 - Three different proposals have been submitted on access to the lot. The present plan is for two 22 foot drives off 62nd. Originally it was proposed to access off both Winnetka and Sumpter. The Sumpter side would have faced directly into the front of an apartment building· The Winnetka Avenue access would have been directed into the backyards of the houses on Uta~ (one is screened). The Brooklyn Park side of 62nd has the sideyards facing 62nd of two residential units· One (east) has a garage insur- ance office on 62nd. The other a drive, garage and side- yard. Consequently it would appear that they would be least affected. I would note that the petitioner is in for site plan approval. The building plans, etc. will be carried through the regular permit Issuance procedure. The pe- titioner has also been most willing to cooperate and I feel he will be open to reasonable suggestions as to the type of screening fence, if anyone has some feel lngs on that subject or changes in the parking, etc. Frankly he wants to get a building and get out, but apparently feels the 7000 square foot is the smallest he can go. Within that limitation he is apparently willing to co- operate. He has agreed to meet present siqn, refuse storage and other performance standards. No notice of any kind has been given adjacent properties. Most of the people of a few years standing in area are aware of the legal problem with the property. Also the last court go around seems to indicate little is to be gained by additional "legal" battles· Council of course has the right to attempt additional delay if they so de- ire. ..! ,fl DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM October 29, 1993 Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Miscellaneous Issues o October llth Council Meetina - At the October 1 lth City Council Meeting, the following planning cases were approved, subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission: A. Planning Case 93-29, Request for Variance to 35-foot rear yard setback requirement to allow construction of three-season porch at 7608 48th Circle North, Kuo Moy, Petitioner Ponderosa Sign Area Variance Request - The City Council tabled the sign area request from Ponderosa Steakhouse and requested that the Planning Commission study the portion of the Sign Code dealing with "murals and pictorial representations" and come back to the Council with a recommendation regarding possible changes to the front wall sign requirements. The Council indicated that they anticipated that the study could take up to six months and will allow Ponderosa to leave the sign in place until the study/recommendation is completed, at which time the request will again be considered. At the Codes and Standards Meeting conducted on October 20, 1993, staff did refer this matter to the Committee and the issue was discussed briefly. The Committee and staff directed the Planning Consultant and City Attorney to start research on this issue, and it is anticipated that the Committee will meet to start studying this issue after the preliminary groundwork is completed. While the Council agreed with the Commission that granting such a large variance was not the proper route to take because of the precedent that would be set, they did find the sign visually appealing and were pleased that the restaurant was being updated. They compared this situation to the green area requirement and indicated that perhaps it was time to look at revising the code requirements. Please refer to the Council Minutes for more information. Broadway Lanel Tax Increment Financing/Redevelopment District Amendment For Expansion - The City Council and EDA held a public hearing at their October 11, 1993 meetings and approved the expansion of the Broadway Lanel Redevelopment District, which includes the Anthony James Apartment complex. This expansion will allow the vacant Super America site to be incorporated into the site and will also allow improvements to be made at the Broadway Village Apartment complex. Both of these projects may be coming to the Planning Commission for review in the future. See enclosed information. Third Quarter Activity Report - Enclosed for your information is the Third Quarter Planning and Development Report for 1993. I have also enclosed the Housing and Engineering Reports, in case you are interested in activities in these areas. 1994 Planning Commission Schedule - The proposed schedule for 1994 Planning Commission meetings is attached. Please review and let me know if you see any problems or conflicts. o -2- 1994 Officer Elections - Just a reminder that elections for 1994 Planning Commission Officers will be conducted at the January 4, 1994 meeting. Reappointments - The three-year terms of Planning Commissioners Cameron, Cassen, Lifson and Underdahl expire as of December 31, 1993, and the City is in the process of contacting these members regarding reappointment to the Commission. (Lifson and Underdahl were appointed in the middle of a term.) Itome Occupation Code Amendment - The Codes and Standards Committee met on October 20, 1993, to review suggested changes to the home occupation regulations, and staff has scheduled a public hearing on this topic for the December Planning Commission meeting (see the preliminary ordinance enclosed.) As discussed previously, the proposed amendments would allow more flexibility by allowing one off-premise employee to come to the home, but would tighten up restrictions on parking, deliveries and outdoor storage. The Committee can review the proposed changes with you at the November meeting, if you are interested. Gas Canopies - Codes and Standards also discussed establishing regulations for gasoline canopies not related to convenience stores (see attached preliminary report.) The Building Official is in the process of surveying all existing canopies in the City for signage, setbacks, etc. Once this information is completed, the Committee will meet again to finalize the amendment before it is presented to the Commission. Attachments - TIF Amendment Third Quarter Reports 1994 Planning Commission Schedule Home Occupation Report Gas Canopy Report ~ COUNCIL Orlgtnatlng Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Public Hearing McDonald t? 10-11-93 Item No. Kirk By: Management Assistant By:// 7.2 PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLIJ/TION APPROVING 1993 AMENDMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 85-1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN 85-1, AND MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO This is the Public Hearing for the amendment to enlarge the Broadway LaNel Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan 85-1. At the August 23rd Council meeting the Council established this public hearing date to discuss the enlargement of the Tax Increment Financing District near 62nd and West Broadway. The existing TIF District includes the Anthony James Apartments, but does not include the vacant Super America site at 6144 West Broadway, the neighborhood shopping center at 6026-6034 West Broadway, or Broadway Village Apartments at 6020-7240 West Broadway. Broadway LaNel is interested in possible acquisition of the vacant Super American site (to incorporate into the existing complex) and they have requested assistance for a community center and street lighting project at Broadway Village Apartments. Enlargement of the TIF District would allow the City to consider accommodating these requests. When the Council gets to this item on the agenda, the Council meeting should be suspended and the Council should go to the EDA meeting. The EDA should then consider adopting the Resolution requesting the City Council to approve the amendment to the Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan 85-1. After the New Hope EDA has adopted its resolution, the City Council meeting should be reconvened for the purpose of adopting the resolution in response to the EDA recommendation. (continued) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Revl. ew: Administration: Finance: i RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Public Hearing on 85-1 October 11, 1993 Page -2- The enclosed resolution approves an amendment that expands the redevelopment area and authorizes the expenditure of tax increment revenues derived from the Tax Increment District to pay a portion of the public redevelopment costs in the additional area and with respect to property adjoining such additional area which is already included in the redevelopment plan. The amendment further serves the original goals and purposes of the City by developing property in the City and by providing needed facilities which will be of benefit to all residents in the City, including those residing in the area subject to the redevelopment plan. The resolution states that the proposed development to be undertaken by this amendment would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. Staff recommend approval of the resolution. EXISTING TIF DISTRICT F % % lillemlll/lmllCO~#Ty i 10i0 7~4~ T~ ?~l q mal~ AV , ~.&N£ PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TIF DISTRICT ~,..i N AVE LaNel Fittanciai Group, Inc. 4601 Excelsior Blvd., Suite 601 Minneapolis, MN 55416 (612) 920-5338 August 9, 1993 Dan Donahue City Manager city of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 RE: Broadway Village Apartments Dear Dan, As I previously discussed with you, we are investigating some substantial improvements to our Broadway Village Apartments and would like to explore ~he availability of City assistance through either tax exempt financing or o~her funds ~.at may be.~v~ilable~ Our plan is to build a community center onto our building, which cen[er when finished, would be similar =o our Waterford Community Center. In addition, in order to improve the security at the site, we would like to put in new street lighting. At this point it is estimated that the community center expense would be approximately $150,000 and the lighting project which would also include ~he area around our convenience center, would -be approximately $100,000. Please let me know wha~ additional information you may need and how we proceed wi~h ~his request. Very Paul G. Brewer President PGB/kme LaNel Financial Group, Inc. 4601 Excelsior Blvd., Suite 601 Minneapolis, MN 55416 (612) 920-5338 BROADWAY VZLLAGB APARTN, KNT8 NL*W HOPB~ Mil Broadway LaNel/Golle Holmes, A Limited Partnership the owner of Broadway Village Apartments, 6046 West Broadway, New Hope, Minnesota, proposes to construct a 2200 (approximately) square foot community building that will be attached to the existing indoor swimming pool building. The older building will be remodeled to include not only the swimming pool, but also an exercise area with locker rooms, lavatories, showers and saunas as well as a guest room for use by guests of the residents. The new structure will be attached to the south side of the building and will contain a reception area, community office suite for management staff, billiards room, lavatories, party room with kitchen and living room area with fire place. The new community center will be open to the residents and used as a meeting and social center for this adult community. Additionally the project will involve the replacement and installation of a comprehensive street lighting system that will not only upgrade and improve the appearance of the community, but also provide better street lighting and security for the entire site. '[ ' ~.fP~P,T ARC-I-II-T-E-C T S 0 10' 20' 40' N EXISTING BUILDING PICNIC AREA PROPOSED ADDITION //////. 1,3 JS~JECT.' BROI=M)WAY VILLAGE COHHUNITY BUILDING SITE PLFIN DATE: I IIII I I-_I I- I I I I I I II I II I I I I ISUBJECT: 8ROROWR¥ VlLLRGE COI'It'IUNITY 8UILDIN6 FLOOR PLRN DATE: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Third Quarter Report The Planning Commission reviewed the following cases during the third quarter: Month July No. of Cases Notices Sent July 4 70 August 8 440 September 4* 5 *1 case carried over from August Type of Request Number Approved Preliminary Plat 1 1 Site/Bldg. Plan Rev. i 1 Var., setback I 1 CUP, outdoor stor. i 1 Denied Withdrawn August Preliminary Plat 2 2 CUP, PUD 1 (tabled) Final Plat 1 1 Variance, setback 3 3 CUP, tower/antennas 1 September Preliminary Plat 1 CUP, PUD 1 Site/Bldg. Plan Rev. 2 I (Final Plat Waived) 1 2 YEAR-TO-DATE TOTALS CUP Home Occup. CUP Open Acc. Stor. Rezone Property Comp. Sign Plan Text Amend.-Apart. Conv. CUP-Outdoor Dining CUP-Oil Ch. Facil. Var.-Lot Front Site./Bldg. Rev. Var.-Green Area Text Amend. I-1 Green Area Reduc. Preliminary Plat Var. -Setback Final Plat (2 Waived) CUP-Radio Tower CUP-PUD APPROVED DENIED WITHDRAWN 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 5 5 1 1 I 1 TOTALS 30 2 1 PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT ISSUES Commission meeting the Commission recommended approval of the City's Preliminary Plat of Science Industry Center 3rd Addition. The purpose of the plat was to finalize the consolidation of the 5500 and 5430 International Parkway properties for the Public Works expansion project and the 5501 and 5425 Boone Avenue properties for the Care Break Adult Day Care Center project. The Council approve the preliminary plat on July 26th. Commission approved the site/building plan review for the construction of a salt-storage building at the Public Works site on July 6th. The approval included plans to develop newly acquired property on the south to accommodate the storage of excavated materials, street construction mater~:~ts~ a sludge drying pit, and additional landscaping, fencing, and concrete curb and gutte~-. ~' :~.~ City Council approved zoning approval at their July 26th meeting. Budget approval to proceed with the project will be discussed at a later date. ~i~!i~iiii~~!iiii~iiii~iiiii~- On July 6th the Planning Commission recommended approval of a 7-foot variance from the rear yard setback requirement to allow construction of a three-season porch addition at 4058 Ensign Avenue North. The City Council concurred with the recommendation and approved the request on July 26th. ~~!?i~ii~ii!i!~?iiii~~?ii!~ - The Planning Commission approved a request for a conditional use permit for outdoor storage to allow the installation of three silos for bulk storage for Construction Technology at 9151 International Parkway. This is a new start-up business utilizing a vacant industrial building. The City Council approved the request at their July 26th meeting. ===================================================================================== ~.~.~.:.::.i.~l~ - At the New Hope Annual Appreciation Picnic on July 27th, Gail Friedrich was presented a plaque of appreciation for his years of service on the Planning Commission. ~~?iii~ii~- A developer requested a sewer connection from New Hope for a townhome complex that was proposed to be constructed in Brooklyn Park just north of 62nd Avenue. On July 26th a number of residents attended the New Hope City Council meeting expressing concern about the connection and how it would impact the existing capacity of the sewer system. No formal request was ever received from the City of Brooklyn Park, therefore New Hope took no formal action. ~:i~i:~i:~~ - At the July 26th Council meeting the Council authorized the release of the Letter of Credit that was being held for the newly constructed Car-X Muffler Shop at 7900 27th Avenue North, as the work was satisfactorily completed. ~ii!~ - Per the Planning Commission's request, in August a consent agenda format was added to the Planning Commission agenda to facilitate the approval of non- controversial zoning requests. ~iiii~iiii!~~iiii~ - The Planning Commission approved a 2-foot variance from the 3-foot driveway area parking setback requirement to allow replacement of a deteriorated blacktop area and widening of the curb cut to 30 feet at 4031 Nevada Avenue North at their August 3rd meeting. The City Council approved the recommendation on August 9th. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. ~ii~~i~iii~' The Planning Commission approved a 5-foot variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement to allow the construction of a three-season porch at 3501 Xylon Avenue North on August 3rd and the Council concurred with the recommendation at their August 9th meeting. ~i~~iii~~ii!~!~- On August 3rd the Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat of Northwest Church Addition, subject to comments/recommendations from staff being incorporated into the Final Plat. The purpose of the plat is to allow subdivision of the land so that the property with the former parsonage on it can be split off from the main church property. The Council approved the Preliminary Plat on August 9th and staff have worked with the church since that time to address drainage concerns and coordinate improvements with a City project on an adjacent property. ~iii~iiiiii~iiiii~- On August 3rd the Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat of Carol James Addition, subject to conditions that utility connections and other minor changes be incorporated into the Final Plat. The purpose of the plat is to split the existing large single-family R-1 lot into two parcels, with the new northerly lot retaining the home and the southerly vacant lot allowing for an additional building site. The City Council approved the Preliminary Plat on August 9th. ~ii!i~iiiiiii~~!i!iiii~!i!!ii~~- The City's Final Plat of Science Industry Center 3rd Addition was presented to the Planning Commission on August 3rd and was approved, as the DNR had notified the City that no wetland mitigation would be necessary. The City Council approved the Final Plat on August 9th. Planning Commission voted to recommend denial (3-3 split vote) of a conditional use permit to allow the erection of a communication support structure in excess of 35 feet. The property owner at 3877 Independence Avenue North had requested to install a 60-foot (total height) antenna/tower for amateur radio communications. This matter was presented to the City Council on August 9th and was tabled for several consecutive meeting until a structural analysis of the tower was completed. The analysis recommended that the total height of the tower be lowered to 50 feet, to which the petitioner agreed, and the Council approved the request at the September 27th meeting. ~ii~~ii~!i~' The property owners at 3233 Gettysburg were present at the August 3rd Planing Commission meeting to request a 16-foot variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement to allow the construction of a bedroom/bath addition 19 feet from the rear property line. The Planning Commission approved the request, as did the City Council on August 9th. ~i~~ii~ii~i~ ' On August 23rd the City Council released the Letter of Credit held on the warehouse addition project at J.R.Jones Fixture Company, 3216 Winnetka Avenue North, as all work had been completed in accordance with the plans. ~ii~ii~ii~i~iii!~iii~- On August 23rd the City Council set the date for an October 10th Public Hearing to consider enlarging the geographic area of the redevelopment district in the 62nd Avenue/West Broadway area neighborhood for possible improvements to Broadway Village apartments and vacant Super America site. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24: 25. 26. 27. Commission approved the Preliminary Plat of Village Industrial Park 2nd Addition. The property, located at 3940 Quebec Avenue North, is the site of the new Paddock Laboratories development and the purpose of the plat was to change the legal description from an outlot to a lot/block. The Commission waived their review of the Final Plat to expedite the development process and the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat at their meeting on September 13th. ~!iii~~iiii~!i~- On September 7th the Planning Commission approved a site/building plan review application for a 7,000 square foot addition to the shipping/receiving area at Avtec Finishing Systems located at 9101 Science Center Drive. The City Council concurred with the recommendation and approved the request on September 13th. ~!ii~~ii!~~iii~ii~- The Planning Commission approved plans for a new gasoline canopy at the 42nd/Winnetka Unocal Station on September 7th. The plans also included a number of other site improvements including new perimeter curbing, land- scaping, new islands, and multi-product dispensers. The City Council approved the request on September 13th. had been working with Gethsemane Cemetery during the course of the summer on a conceptual master plan for development of the site and detailed plans for the construction of a mausoleum and office building for Phase I development and these plans were presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on September 7th, subject to a number of conditions to be outlined in a Development Agreement. The PUD/CUP was approved by the City Council on September 13th. ~ii~ii~iiiii~- On September 15th the City staff met with the Planning Consultant and Chair of the Codes & Standards Committee to initiate discussions on a possible revision to the existing Home Occupation Ordinance. The intent of the revisions would encourage home occupations for professionals, in accordance with changing work trends. The Codes & Standards Committee will be studying this issue during the 4th quarter and will present a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. ~iiii~iii~'~- Staff also initiated a study during the 3rd quarter regarding regulations for free-standing gasoline canopies and this issue will be pursued during the 4th quarter. ~!~!~:::::i!~!~ - On September 27th the City Council approved the Final Plat of Village Industrial Park 2nd Addition. ~~i~i~i~ During the 3rd quarter, Development Agreements were prepared for the following projects: Rapid Oil, Vidco, Lakeside Ltd., Paddock Laboratories, and Gethsemane Cemetery. ~:.~iiii~ - The closing took place on the sale of the City property at 7305 42nd Avenue North to Valvoline Instant Oil Change in August. The required performance bond has been submitted and construction is in progress. ii ,iii iiii ii iiii - During the 3rd quarter the Electronic Industries building at 7615 42nd Avenue, recently acquired by the City, was demolished. The long-term goal is to acquire/redevelop all 3 properties on the northeast comer of 42nd and Quebec Avenues. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. ~gi.i~!.i~~ - Groundbrea?dng for the new Paddock Laboratories facility at 3940 Quebec Avenue took place in August and the new facility is currently under construction. ~i~i~~i~~[!~- On September 24th the City of New Hope hosted the Twin West Economic Development Committee and a presentation was made regarding current City projects/improvements. ~~!ii~ii~ - City staff and a Twin West Chamber Representative conducted business calls to West Pac and J.R.Jones during September in conjunction with the Twin West Executive Call Program and both businesses had favorable comments about City services. ~i::~::::~ii::~..~il...i.i.i :..~.~.~.~.:..~.~.:.:~:.:.~.:.~:.~:.:~:.~:.:.:.:.:.~:~:.:.::.:.~:.:.~.~.~ i i':.::.:i:i~i, i i.i ~.:..:..:..~:~:.:.:.:.:.~:.~:.~:.~:.~:...~.~:.~:.~:.~:.:.~:~:.~:~:.~ - After calling on several businesses recently for the Twin West Executive Call Program, staff became aware that many businesses/industries are still not aware of the ordinance change this spring that reduced the I-1 green area requirement from 35% to 20% (although an article was published in the City newsletter). Therefore, a letter informing businesses of the changes was mailed directly to all business/property owners in New Hope during September. ~~.i.i~.i!i~ - During the 3rd quarter the City continued to participate in the North Metro Business Link Program and over 100 businesses are in the process of being interviewed in detail regarding their current needs, future expansion plans, etc. as a part of this business retention effort. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Third Quarter Report The New Hope HRA continues to be busy with the management of housing programs and redevelopment activities in the City. Section 8 Rental Assistance Pro.am Currently, the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program is providing assistance to 252 New Hope Iow income families. This is down from the 275 families that were being Served in June, but staff had anticipated a minor decrease this spring due to routine shifts made at the end of the school year. During this same time period in 1992, New Hope was providing assistance to 286 families, so overall the program is serving a lesser number of families in 1993 as in 1992. The difference is due to the new portability policy adopted by Metro HRA which allows families with vouchers/certificates to move from one jurisdiction to another. Also, during the third quarter some participants left the program altogether due to increasing incomes, etc. The breakdown is as follows: Certificates Vouchers Total July 205 62 267 August 196 57 253 September 193 59 252 The number of housing inspections has decreased slightly compared to the same time period in 1992. During the third of quarter of 1993 a total of 109 inspections were completed, as compared to 141 for the same time period in 1992. A breakdown of housing unit inspections is contained in the following table: Year Initial Reinspect Total to Date Section 8 70 39 109 335 Metro HRA has continued conducting quarterly meetings with the local housing representatives to listen to complaints, work out procedures/problems, and to determine how clients can be served more efficiently. New Hope's representative actively participates in these meetings. Community Development Block Grant Program A. ~iiiiii~- $30,000 in 1993/94 CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation became available on July 1st. All 1992/93 funds have been expended or committed. Hennepin County manages the program for the City and maintains a waiting list. The funds assist low income persons in making basic repairs to homes that they own. Two grants were approved earlier this year by the City Council and a third Deferred Loan Program Repayment Agreement was approved by the Council at the September 27th Council meeting. There are currently 6 rehabilitation projects in process and two on the waiting list. B. ~i~!:.ii~~i!ii~~iiii?i~ - During the 3rd quarter staff submitted a warrant reimbursement request to Hennepin County for the City Hall/Removal of Architectural barriers Project and received reimbursement in the amount of $160,427.00 for Year XVII (1991) and Year XVIII (1992) CDBG monies. An additional reimbursement will be received for Year XIX (1993) after Subrecipient Agreements are executed and all labor standards issues are satisfied. Do Eo ~i!iii~i!}i~iiii~~ - At the August 23rd meeting the City Council approved the Year XIX Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County for program management purposes. The 1993 Budget includes a total amount of $159,493.00 and includes six programs. ~i~ii~iii i !ii - At the September 13th meeting the City Council approved the Year XIX (1993) Third Party Agreement for the Senior Outreach Services Adult Day Care Facility. The City will be contributing $100,000.00 in CDBG funds to this project over a 3-year period. ~~!ii~ii~~~ - During the 3rd quarter the City initiated several future projects which will be funded in part by previous years CDBG monies for scattered site housing programs. The City is in the process of purchasing the home at 5009 Wirmetka, which will be demolished and a new handicapped accessible duplex constructed. The City is also in the process of purchasing a vacant HUD home at 7109 62nd Avenue North, which will either be rehabilitated or demolished and replaced with a new home. The objective of the program is to provide home ownership opportunities for New Hope low/moderate income residents who may or may not have specialized housing needs. Both of these projects will also be financially supplemented with other grant funds, besides CDBG, that have been awarded to the City. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Grants $60,000 grant for the 62nd Avenue/West Broadway neighborhood to finance the acquisition of a blighted property and to provide gap financing for either rehabilitation or demolition/new construction to provide affordable housing for low/moderate income New Hope residents. During the 3rd quarter staff identified an eligible property at 7109 62nd Avenue North and the City Council authorized the purchase of the property at the September 27th Council meeting. Staff is proceeding to acquire the site and during the 4th quarter specifications for rehabilitation of the property will be completed and bids sought for the work. This project will be financed with MHFA and CDBG grant funds. B. ~i~~iii~ii~ii~~- On August 30th, staff was notified that the MHFA had awarded the City funding in the amount of $45,000 for a Land Trust Grant Application which had been submitted this summer. The MHFA is in the process of drafting a loan commitment document which will be presented to the City Council for approval during the 4th quarter. These funds, in conjunction with HOME and CDBG grant funds, will be utilized to acquire the property at 5009 Winnetka Avenue North. Multi-Family Housing Financial Assistance Policies At the July 26th EDA meeting a consultant agreement was approved with Public-Private Ventures, Inc. to assist staff in formulating policies to address requests for funding assistance for building rehabilitation/renovation work from owners of multi-family buildings in the City. Staff worked with the consultant throughout the 3rd quarter and the policies were presented to and approved by the EDA on September 13th. In conjunction with the development of theses policies, staff and the consultant also met with the owners/managers of two complexes seeking assistance during the 3rd quarter: New Hope Apartments and Park Square Apartments. Broadway Lanai Multi-Family Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds On August 9th the New Hope City CounCil and EDA approved a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of Multi-Family Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds for Broadway Lanel, who are the owners of the Anthony James Apartments at 61st and West Broadway. The project was built as a tax increment project and housing bonds were utilized. The purpose of the refunding was to refinance the bonds to allow the developers to obtain a lower interest rate. CO-OP Northwest A. ~?iii!~ii~i - During the 3rd quarter staff was notified that Hennepin County has approved a $274,100 5-City grant application for Federal HOME funds. New Hope will utilize its portion of the funds, in conjunction with other grant monies, to acquire the property at 5009 Winnetka Avenue North and demolish the sub-standard home and construct a new duplex that will accommodate special housing needs. The goal is to provide home- ownership opportunities for low/moderate income new Hope residents With specialized housing needs on a scattered site basis throughout the City. B. ~~i!~~ii~ii!~iii~ - During the 3rd quarter staff have continued to assist with formation of the CHODO Board of Directors by encouraging a variety of sectors of the community to apply for positions. At the July 26th New Hope EDA meeting, City Manager Dan Donahue was appointed as the City's representative to the Board. The Board will oversee the expenditure of the HOME Grant funds. An additional $10,000 was also received to assist with the staffing/administration of the CHODO and staff is assiSting in delineating City/consultant responsibilities. C. ~[~ - Staff continues to participate in the 5-City Multi-Jurisdictional Housing/Human Services Group, which is seeking programs to integrate human services with multi-family housing complexes. Seven action groups have been formed and staff serves as Co-chair for the Housing and Family Services Action Group, which is in the process of formulating a 1993/94 work plan. Besides serving on this Action Group and reporting to/attending Executive Committee meetings, staff also continues to serve on the Planners' Sub-Group, which is currently working on the formation and staffing of a 15- member, 5-City CHODO (Community Housing Development Organization). The 5-City "assistants" group also continues to meet on an informal basis to coordinate housing programs and new initiatives. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator ENGINEERING PROJECTS Third Quarter Report Progress took place on the following major engineering projects during July/August/September, 1993: quarter staff continued to work with Northern Environmental on the groundwater monitoring project at 42nd/Nevada Avenues and is coordinating with the MPCA on the Petro Fund reimbursement application. ~!~iii~i~ii!~~~iiii~ - The City Council conducted a work session on August 3rd and the future City-wide retaining wall improvement project was discussed. Assessing property owners for a portion of the cost was one of the items discussed and the Council requested that staff determine the approximate City cost after utilizing state and county funding. The Council authorized staff to conduct an informational meeting with impacted property owners later this year and during the 3rd quarter a detailed listing of all property owners with retaining walls was compiled. at 7516 42nd Avenue was completed during the 3rd quarter and on August 23rd the City Council approved a minor change order on this project in the amount of $651.50. 9th 'meeting' the City Council accepted this project and authorized final payment, as all work had been completed. o ~ii~ili~i~iiii~~iiii~~- At the July 27th meeting /ii~ (2{t~"~2'6/iii~'il i3iii~ed a resolution accepting easements for the construction and maintenance of this improvement. The cleanup work on this project was completed during the 3rd quarter. ~iii~ii~~iii~- On June 28th the Citizen Advisory Commission presented their recommendation to the City Council regarding the construction of a community center. This issue was briefly discussed at the August 3rd City Council work session, but no further action has taken place on the project during the 3rd quarter. ~j~i!i~iiii~:?i~iii~iii!~ - Final work prOceeded on the 1992 Street Improvement Project during the 3rd quarter, with the City Council establishing the date for the assessment public hearing at the August 23rd Council meeting; the hearing date was set for September 27th. At that meeting the Council also discussed several assessment options for additional curb costs. The public hearing was conducted on September 27th and was continued until October 10th, due to the need to resolve a number of issues regarding assessment amounts and project quality. ~iii~ii~ii~!!~~- The Phase I/City Hall Remodeling project is nearing completion with punch list items being completed. A new project inspector was brought on in October to assist in finishing up the project. Major issues that still need to be resolved are several mechanical and aesthetic items. of Bass Lake Road proceeded during the 3rd quarter with a majority of the work being completed, however construction is behind schedule. The final lift should be installed before winter. On August 23rd the City Council passed a resolution requesting to use "off-system" MSA funds for right-of-way acquisition and roadway construction. At that same meeting the Council also accepted petitions and approved assessment agreements for installation of water service at the A.C.Carlson and Minnesota Sun properties, in conjunction with this project. 10. 11. ~i~!ii~i!~~iiiii~!ii!~~- At the July 26th City Council meeting the City Engineer presented the preliminary Northwood Lake Flooding Feasibility Study and presented alternative improvement options and costs. These options will be forwarded to the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission for review and comment and cost sharing options will be discussed in the future with both the Commission and the City of Crystal. ~i~ii~iiii~~ii~~~ii~ - The Stormwater Management Plan Task Force continued to meet during the 3rd quarter, with meeting//3 held on July 13th and meeting//4 held on August 31st. The Task Force has been working on finalizing the stormwater goals and policies for the City, identifying/reviewing problem areas and solutions, and assembling the first educational newsletter which will be distributed to all New Hope residents in November. The Task Force will continue to meet during the 4th quarter and finalize the Stormwater Management Plan for presentation to the City Council. 12. ~l~!ii~{!ii~iiii~iiiii~!}i~i~ii~l~- At the August 3rd Council work session the City Manager and Director of Finance presented the Phase II plans for interior City Hall remodeling. Estimated cost for the project is $350,000 and there are adequate resources to fund the project. The Council recommended hiring a space consultant to review the architects plans and that is currently in process. 13. Council approved plans and specifications for the installation of new playground equipment at Elm Grove Park and Sunnyside Park and in June the contract for the work was awarded to Sum'am Construction. At the July 26th Council meeting Change Order//2 was approved for the project in the amount of $4,026.00 for drain tile to be added to the playground site. Construction proceeded during the quarter with all equipment being installed and final inspection now in progress. 14. were'installed on the park shelters at Fred Sims and Northwood Parks during the 2nd quarter. At the July 26th Council meeting the City Council approved Change Orders #1,//2, and #3 on the project in the amount of $4,214.00 and the authorization for final payment was approved. 15. ~!!iiiiii~:. .............. :ii!}!~ili~ - The City was notified during the 3rd quarter that the inflow/infiltration reduction project grant application that the City made to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission was not funded. The proposed project would have included the rehabilitation of 880 lineal feet of 12" RCP sanitary sewer with inflow/infiltration problems, including a combination of slip lining chemical grouting, and reconstruction of sewer line and manhole in the area behind the Post Publishing building on Bass Lake Road. This project will be pursued in 1994. 16. 17. Council approved a resolUtion awarding tlae contract for tlais project to Bituminous Consulting in the amount of $181,296.00 and work proceeded on these improvements throughout the 3rd quarter. This project includes the original two projects that were approved for the 1993 baclcyard drainage improvement program: 1. 4224 Flag Avenue North 2. 8821 60-1/2 Avenue North In addition, the project includes eight additional minor drainage improvements, the majority of which were included in the 1993 Street Improvement Project: 3. Wincrest Apartments 4. Allen Circle/Gettysburg Avenue 5. 60-1/2 Avenue North/Winnetka Avenue 6. Utah Avenue Norttg62nd Avenue 7. 60-1/2 Avenue NorttgMeadow Lake Road 8. 8524 50th Avenue North 9. 4740 Utah Avenue North 10. 3237 Gettysburg Avenue North ~i~!i~ii~:.~!~ii~!iii~{!i~ii~- During the 3rd quarter the Park and Recreation Department, in conjunction with the City Engineer, initiated an evaluation of all City tennis courts and basketball courts to determine wtfich facilities have major problems and may require reconstruction. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE P.C. Public Council Public Design and Hearing Hearing Application Delivered to Review Revised Plan 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. Submitted Paper-NOON 3:45 p.m. Published on Deadline ***************************************************************************************************** January 4 January 10 December 10 December 16 December 16 December 22 December 27 February i February 14 January 7 January 13 January 13 January 19 January 24 March i March 14 February 4 February 10 February 10 February 16 February 21 April 5 April 11 March 11 March 17 March 17 March 23 March 28 May 3 May 9 April 8 April 14 April 14 April 20 April 25 June 7 June 13 May 13 May 19 May 25 May 25 May 31 July 5 July 25 (If meeting is needed) June 10 June 16 June 22 June 22 June 27 August 2 August 8 July 8 July 14 July 20 July 20 July 25 September 6 September 12 October 4 October 10 August 12 September 9 August 18 September 15 August 24 August 24 September 21 September 21 August 29 September 26 November I November 14 October 7 October 13 October 19 October 19 October 24 December 6 December 12 November 11 November 17 November 23 November 23 November 28 TYPE OF REQUEST BASIC ZONING FEE ZONING DEPOSIT A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (minor residential) B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (all others) C. REZONING/TEXT AMENDMENT D. VARIANCES (single family residential) E. VARIANCES (all others) F. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT G. SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING H. SITE & BUILDING PLAN REVIEW I. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN $75* $225* $250* $75* $175' $500* $225* $150 $4o None, or as required by Manager $225, or as required by Manager $250, or as required by Manager None, or as required by Manager' $175, or as required by Manager $250, or as required by Manager As required by Manager As required by Manager *Published Notice Required DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM October 26, 1993 Kirk McDonald Valerie Leone 1994 Planning Commission Meetings The only planning commission meeting which falls on a Jewish holiday is September 6, 1994 -- Rosh Hashanah (New Year) is September 5-7. I briefly discussed this with Dan and he felt we may want to work around it. Jewish holiday celebrations end at sundown of the final day of observance; therefore, Wednesday, September 7 would be an alternative date. Keep in mind Monday, September 5, is labor day holiday and Tuesday, September 13, is our Primary Election Day. I suggest leaving the 1994 schedule as printed and discussing the September meeting date with the Planning Commissioners next summer. ORDINANCE NO. 93-07 AN ORDINANCE AMENDZNG SECTZON 4.038 (3) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE REGULATING PERMITTED HOME OCCUPATIONS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains= Section 1. Section 4.038 (3)(b) "Traffic" of the New Hope Code iS hereby amended to read as Traffic and Parking, Businesses which do not si9niflcantly alter the traffic pattern of the neighborhood and do not ere&re a parkinR demand in excess of which can be accommodated in the existing Section 2_ Section 4.038 (3)(c) "Empl.oyees" of the New Hope Code ia hereby amended to read as follows- (c) Employees. Business which do not require more then one employee~ other than those livin9 on the premises. ~ection 3. Section 4.038 (3)(e) "Sales on Premises" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (e) Sales on Premises. Businesses which are not involved in direct sales on the premises except as may be conducted through the use of the U.S. mail, commercial deliv_ery services, or by taking and ordering delivery of orders by telephone. Section 4. Section 4.038 (3)(f) "Outside Storage" of the New Hope Code ~s hereby added to r~ad as follows: (f) Out~ide S[ora~.~. Businesses w~.ich reouire...no outdoor storage of equipment, machinery, inventory, tools o? any other item required for use by the business. ~a~_G~. Fffective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Daf ed t he day of mm , 1993. Valerie Leone, City Clerk Edw. J, Erickson, Mayor (Published in the New HoPe-Golden Valley ~un-Post the , 1993.) day of U R B A P L A NG D N M AR K E T R E S E A R C H TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius 29 September 1993 New Hope - Zoning Ordinance - Home Occupations 131.00 93.06 Attached please find a draft amendment to Section 4.038 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance regarding home occupations. Per staff discussion on 15 September, performance standards applicable to home occupations have been amended to address the following items: Employment Off-Street Parking Exterior Storage Please note that the amendment does not address home occupation signage requirements. As such,the current allowance of a two square foot sign remains applicable. Considering that home occupations generally are not intended to demand visual attention, some consideration should be given as to whether home occupation signage should be allowed. If you have any questions or comments regarding this material, please do not hesitate to call. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 DRAFT DRAFT - DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 93- CITY OF NEW HOPE I{E~PIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.038 OF THE NEW HOPE ORDINANCE REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: ZONING Section 1. Section 4.038 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.038 Home Occupation. (i) Purpose. The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to insure that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. (2) Application. For purposes of this Code, home occupations, as defined in Section 4.022, shall be further defined to distinguish permitted home occupations from conditionally permitted home occupations. Accordingly, all home occupations which satisfy the permitted home occupation criteria shall be considered as a permitted accessory use in all residential zoning districts. Home occupations which fail to satisfy the permitted home occupation criteria shall require a conditional use permit, as provided for in Section 4.20, and may be located in any residential zoning district based upon conditions set forth in the approved conditional use permit. (3) Permitted Home Occupations. Home occupations which meet the following criteria shall be considered permitted home occupations: (a) Structural Changes. Businesses which require no interior or exterior changes necessary to conduct the business; which are conducted within a principal building; and which require no mechanical or electrical equipment not customarily found in a home. (4) (b) Traffic. Businesses which do not significantly alter the traffic pattern of the neighborhood. (d) Area Permitted. Businesses which require no more than twenty percent of the gross floor area of dwelling, not to exceed three hundred square feet including accessory building. (e) Sales on Premises. Businesses which are not involved in direct sales on the premises except as may be conducted through the use of the U.S. Mail or by taking and ordering delivery of orders by telephone. Conditional Use Permits. Conditionally permitted home occupations shall consist of those home occupations which do not meet all of the provisions of (3) above. Said home occupation may be granted a conditional use permit provided that: (a) Adverse Effect on Neighborhood. The City Council shall find that all business related activity occurring on the premises shall not cause any adverse changes to the residential character of the neighborhood. (b) Screening of Exterior Changes. The City Council shall find that any exterior changes necessary to conduct the business are sufficiently screened, properly designed, or separated by distance so as to be consistent with existing adjacent residential uses and compatible with the residential occupancy. (c) (d) Interior__Changes. The City Council shall find that any interior changes necessary to conduct the business comply with all building, electrical, mechanical and fire codes governing ~he use in a residential occupancy. Traffic. The City Council shall find that the traffic generated by the business involves only vehicles of the type that typically service single family residences and that such traffic constitutes neither a nuisance nor a safety hazard. Section 2. E£fective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. DATED this day of 1993. ATTEST: Edward J. Erickson, Mayor Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope Golden Valley Post on the 1993.) day of 3 MEMORANDUM City of New Hope DATE .. September 30, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Kirk McDonald~ D.o~ug Sandstad~ Plan Case 93-31, ~me Occupation Zoning Code Text Change I have considered the various ideas and inputs from interested parties on the subject of our home occupations and suggest the following: In principle, I will favor reducing the size and complexity of our city codes, once again. The suggestion to add three sections raises more questions and subjects for neighborhood complaints, resulting in public confusion over the regulations and additional staff resources. I recommend changing section 4.038(3)[c] to say: "Employees. Businesses which employ not more than one (1) person who does not reside on the premises." This represents a true relaxing of standards, with few foreseeable problems. I also recommend that the Zoning Administrator cease the city-attorney advised practice of offering no-fee city forms and reviews of "Home Occupation Affidavits" for all home business inquiries, unless a fee/license/permit/etc system is included. We spend time on the phone, at the counter, in mailings, in review, in copying for various staff and document storage by essentially issuing a FREE PAPER APPROVAL FOR THE BUSINESS. C North. west Associated U R B A P L A N N I NG ' DES i G N Consultants, Inc. MARKET RESEARCH FILE COPY TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Stuart Roberson/Alan Brixius 14 October 1993 New Hope - Zoning Ordinance - Gas Pump Canopies and Motor Fuel Facilities Green Space 131.00 - 93.07 BACKGROUND In September 1993, New Hope approved a site plan for Uno-Ven Company. The site plan approval involved the Unocal station at Winnetka Avenue and Rockford Road. The development request was for the removal of existing gas fueling islands and their replacement with three new fueling islands with a canopy. In evaluating this proposal, City staff indicated that the City Zoning Ordinance lacked performance standards regulating the design and placement of gasoline pump island canopies. At the request of City staff, we have reviewed the City regulations and outlined the following ordinance changes to regulate gasoline fuel island canopies. Specific areas of regulation include setbacks, signage, height, lot coverage, and lighting. In developing the proposed regulations, it is necessary to recognize that in New Hope, the application of these new regulations will apply most often to existing developed sites rather than new development. Under these circumstances, the ordinance must give attention to past development trends to avoid making existing sites become non-conforming or discouraging new site improvements. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636. Fax. 595-9837 Gas sales are allowed by conditional use permit in association with automobile service stations and convenience retail facilities. These uses are limited to New Hope's B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts. Canopies over gas pump islands are frequently associated with gas sales to shelter customers from the elements while they service their vehicle with gas. In this light, canopies are an attractive convenience for area consumers. In addressing the performance standards for gas canopies, we have attempted to identify their land use characteristics in order to prepare appropriate performance standards. Accessory Use. Gas island canopies are accessory structures to gas sale facilities. Since gas sales facilities are already conditional uses in their respective district, it is not necessary to treat the canopy as an independent conditional use permit. We would recommend that the performance standards for canopies be included in Section 4.032.3 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance addressing accessory buildings, uses and equipment. 2. Performance Standards. Setbacks. Currently, there is a lack of uniformity regarding the setback requirements for gas pump canopies located at automobile service stations and convenience stores with gas. The setback rule of thumb for automobile service stations has been 10 feet, while 20 feet is the standard for a convenience store with gas. In establishing a uniform setback for all gas island canopies, the City must consider past action. In using a 10 foot rule of thumb standard for automobile service stations, precedent has been established for the lesser setback. The Unocal Station maintained a canopy setback of 18' 9 from the property line. To avoid establishing a number of non-conforming sites, we recommend a standard canopy setback of 10 feet. Signage. The New Hope Sign Ordinance allows a commercial site two signs. These signs may consist of two wall signs or a combination of one wall sign and one freestanding sign. The sign area may not exceed 15% of the front wall of the principal building or 125 square feet. Frequently, the gas pump canopy is located in the front of a principal building, making it by far the most prevalent structure at a motor fuel facility. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that a business would select this structure as a primary location to identify their business. The issue is whether or not to provide additional square footage to accommodate a canopy sign, or limit signs to two locations and calculate it within the overall signage requirements. There are good reasons for supporting both arguments. If the City decided to provide additional square footage for a canopy sign, it would allow for the simplification of sign review. However, it would create an additional sign location on the property which may result in a visual unattractive facility. The argument for limiting the site to two signs and calculating size within the allowable square footage is that it would prevent signage overuse. However, it would make sign calculation more difficult. We would recommend limiting motor fuel stations to two sign locations. Height: The regulated clearance minimum height for a gas pump canopy is fourteen (14) feet. This allows reasonable access for larger than average vehicles. However, regulations do not limit its maximum height. We have determined that the maximum height of twenty (20) feet for a separate or attached canopy would be sufficient to accommodate the necessary signage and roof pitch (if any), while avoiding a disproportionate size relationship with the principal structure. Lighti:g: The current ordinance allows one (1) foot candle, measured from a centerline of a public right-of- way and four (4) foot candle when measured from a residential property. We have researched other communities, and discovered that motor fuel service facilities could be illuminated sufficiently when levels were reduced to one (1) foot candle measured on the property line when such a line abuts a similar area, and five-tenths (.5) foot candles on the property when abutting a residential zone. These lowered levels of candle footage will reduce the amount of spill over light, without jeopardizing the subject property's visibility. Canopy Size: Limiting canopy size is a difficult issue to address for the following reasons: (1) The canopy generally covers an area that is already paved and impervious. As such, limiting the area of the canopy offers no site drainage benefit. (2) The canopy's function is to shelter the customer servicing their automobile. Limiting the canopy size may reduce the effectiveness of the canopy's function. (3) The gas sales sites in New Hope vary in size and design and a maximum canopy size may result in non- conforming lots or lots where the canopy use becomes impractical. (4) After considering the aforementioned item, limiting the canopy size becomes an aesthetic consideration. the standard to insure architectural compatibility and scale may not strictly relate to canopy size or function. We would recommend that the canopy size be dictated setback and site constraints. CONCLUSION Attached are draft ordinances for your review and discussion related to gasoline island canopies. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 3.465 (5) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE REGULATING SIGNS ACCESSORY TO BUSINESS OR INDUSTRIAL USES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 3.465 (5) (b) "Height" of the New Hope Code is hereby deleted. Section 3.465 (5) is amended to read as follows: (5) Awning or Canopy Signs. Letters may be painted or otherwise affixed to any permissible awning or canopy as follows: (a) Location. Lettering or letters shall not project above, below or beyond the physical dimensions of the awning or canopy. (b) Use. Lettering or letters shall not denote other than the name and address of the business conducted therein and/or a product or products produced or sold or service rendered therein. (c) Maximum Signage.. Lettering or letters shall be included in calculating the maximum sign area of the permissible wall sign. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated this day of 1993. ATTEST: By: Edward J. Erickson, Mayor By: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun Post the , 1993). day of ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 4.032 (3) AND 4.124 (1), AND 4.124 (2) OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE P.E~]LATING GAS PUMP CANOPIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 4.032 (3) (g), Canopy Specifications, of the New Hope Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (g) Canopy Specifications. A protective cover located over a pump island shall be allowed as an accessory structure, and subject to the following conditions: Placement shall occur ten (10) feet or more from the lot line, provided adequate visibility both on and off site is maintained. The total height will not exceed twenty (20) feet, and shall provide a minimum clearance of fourteen (14) feet. Reflected glare or spill light may not exceed five-tenths (0.5) foot candles, as measured on the property line when abutting residential zones and one (1) foot candle measured on the property line when such line abuts a similar zone and land. Signage may be allowed on the canopy facade as an alternative to a wall sign or ground sign as permitted in Section 3.465 of the New Hope City Code. Section 2. Section 4.124 (1) (o), Canopy of the New Hope Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (o) Canopy. A protective cover located over pump island shall be allowed as an accessory structure in compliance with Section 4.032 (3) (g). Section 3. Section 4.124 (2) (h), Canopy. of the New Hope Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (h) Canopy. A protective cover located over a pump island shall be allowed as an accessory structure in compliance with Section 4.032 (3) (g). Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated this day of 1993. ATTEST: By: Edward J. Erickson, Mayor By: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun Post the ,1993). day of