The URL can be used to link to this page

041492 Planning2. 3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 5. 5.1 6. 6.1 6.2 6.3 7. 8. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 14, 1992 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS Case 92-04 Request for Variance to Allow Expansion of B-2 (Commmunity Business) Garden Novelty Store in Excess of 3,500 Square Feet of Floor Area/Expansion of a Non-Conforming Building, a Variance from the Accessory Building Design Criteria to Allow Construction of an Accessory Garden Novelty Store, and Site/Building Plan Review/Approval at 5620 Winnetka Avenue North, Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Petitioner Case 92-06 Request for Variance or Text Amendment to Section 3.184 of New Hope Code to Allow Property Identification sign 10 feet from Property Line at 8015 36th Avenue North, Royal Oaks Properties Limited Partnership, Petitioner Case 92-07 Request for Variance to Expand Non-conforming Building and Variance to Rear Yard Setback to Allow Expansion at 3910 Boone Avenue North, Craig Allen Hall, Petitioner Case 92-08 Request for Variance From Parking Distance from Property Line Requirement to Allow Existing Driveway and Curb Cut to Remain in Place, 6109 Gettysburg Avenue North, James Benson, Petitioner Case 91-34 Proposed Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Amending Section 4.033(3)Regulating Fencing and Screening, City of New Hope, 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 March 4, 1992 Review of City Council Worksession Minutes of March 2, 1992, and City Council Minutes of February 24, March 9, and March 23, 1992 Review of EDA Worksession Minutes of March 2, 1992, and EDA Minutes of March 23, 1942 ANNOUNCEMENTS PC 92-08 6109 Gettysburg 11-4 PLANNING CASES APRIL 1992 ~ PC 92-04 Winnetka PC 92-07 3910 Boone PC 92-06 8015 36th CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: t 92-04 Request for Variance to Allow Expansion of B-2 (Community Business) Garden Novelty Store in Excess of 3,500 square feet of Hoot area/Expansion of Non- Conforming Building, a Variance from the Accessory Building Design Criteria to Allow Construction of an Accessory Garden Novelty Store, and Site/Building Plan Review/Approval 5620 Winnetka Avenue North 05-18-21-32-0007 B-2 (Retail Business) Frank's Nursery and Crafts, Inc. April 10, 1992 April 14, 1992 UPDATE The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow expansion of a garden novelty store in excess of 3,500 square feet of floor area/expansion of non-conforming building, a variance from the accessory building design criteria and site/building plan review/approval, to construct a "poly" greenhouse in the rear yard, pursuant to Sections 4.031,4.032.2(F),4.032(3), 4.034(3), 4.112(4), and 4.039(A) of the New Hope Code. Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc. is requesting to construct a "poly"greenhouse to protect plant deliveries from frost, rain, wind, and excessive heat/cold damage. A previously constructed poly house was destroyed by a storm last November. This application was tabled at the March 4th Planning Commission meeting due to lack of site plan detail. The petitioner met with the Design & Review Committee on March 19th with revised plans which showed the following details: -New curbing on parking area on Winnetka Avenue side of building, in front of building, and on north side of building -New concrete driveway aprons on Winnetka Avenue (both entrances) and widening of entrances -New "shoe-box style" down-lighting to be installed throughout site to replace existing floodlights -Existing east fence on Sumter Avenue replaced with 8-foot high cedar and brick column fence -details provided -Six (2-1/2" minimum trunk diameter) new boulevard trees (hackberry) on Sumter Avenue in front of &foot fence -158 total new shrubs and tees added to the site -Front building fence and trash enclosure detail provided -New cross-section elevation drawing provided showing view from Sumter -Building rotated to north/south direction (42 x 84 feet) Planning Case Report 92-04 April 14, 1992 Page -2- 5. Design & Review requested the following plan changes: -Repair retaining wall on northwest comer of property to address poor drainage situation -Provide illumination contours and address spillage/excess illumination -Existing lathe-house to be cut back 5 feet from property line to meet setback requirement -"No truck" signs to be installed on south entrance -Truck delivery lane to be shown on plan -Replace some of the landscaping in front with conifers -Note on site plan that planters will be repaired -Repair southeast fence, as necessary -Paint cashier shed in front of building -Inflate building with double roof -Investigate retaining wail location on south property line 6. The petitioner submitted new revised plans in April that incorporate the above recommendations and include many site upgrades. Staff commends the petitioner for their cooperation in addressing the concerns of the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance to expand a garden novelty store subject to the following conditions: 1. Greenhouse (21 x 84 fee0 to be air inflated and oriented as shown on plans with total size not the exceed 3,528 square feet. 2. Installation of new cedar/masonry screening fence along east property line, per plan. 3. Eliminate two parking stalls as shown on staff "Exhibit A" and build steel "cart corrals" in center of front lot. Balance of space to be pedestrian walkway. Total parking stalls will number 127. 4. Development Contract and performance bond to be provided for improvements on public property (amount to be determined by City Engineer). Attachments: Staff Exhibit A Revised Plans Planting Schedule Fence Detail Light Fixture Schedule Building Photos Engineering Analysis Petitioner Letter March 4th Staff Report 127 PARKING SPACES PROPOSED LANDSCAPING Frank's Nursery and Crafts 5620 Wlnnedm Aveune North Nmv Hope, Minnesota Brinier and Associate, Ltd IDms APR I 19~ "-'w I/ PROPOSED SITE PLAN FRANK'S NURSERY & CRAFTS 5620 WINNETKA AVE. NORTH LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,~__.;__, ~.,. ..~,..--__,._..,...,..~.. '__.-1:" ,. ....... :-.,_..%--:..~__. APR 11992 NO TRUCK SIGN 1-1} DETAILS FRANK'S NURSERY & CRAFTS 5620 WINNETKA AVE. NORTH APR I 1992 -- LIGHTING PLAN PROPOSED SITE PLAN FRANK'S NURSERY & CRAFTS 5620 WINNETKA AVE. NORTH LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,T.: ", '.:.' .".:'..--,:',::7 ' ': ~'o .............. ELATES ......... ~IIIMTFR /tVF. NORTH APR I ~992 EXISTING LANDSCAPING FRANK°S NURSERY & CRAFTS 5620 WINNETKA AVE. NORTH LEGAL DESCRIPTION / / / / APr I I~ TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY .FRANK'S NURSERY & CRAFTS 5620 WINNETKA AVE. NORTH' LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPOSED LANDSCAPING Frank's Nursery and Crafts 5620 Winnetka Aveune No~h New Hope, Minnesota BEluer and A.~sodates, ~ SITE CROSS - SECTION FRANK'S NURSEY &' CRAFTS 11992 WINNETKA AVE. PARKING EXISTING FRANK'S NURSERY EXISTING LATH HOUSE · CNAFTS PROPOSED GREENHOUSE SUMTER EXISTING AVE. HOUSE , ELEVATION VIEW FROM POINT SECTION THRU SITE 60 FEET NORTH OF SOUTH PROPERTY LINE LOOKING NORTH Date: Revision: ~cld tree~ ADD MUG/lO PINE Februa~' 3-30-92 PROPOSED PLANTING SCHEDULE KEY i :AS SS icH ID COMMON N,4.tIE BOT,4:\'ILL4L N,4ME SIZE SHADEMASTER GLEDITSIA TR[CANTHOS HONEYLOCL'ST 'INERMIS' "SIIADEMASTER" 2.5" RIVER BIRCI I BETULA' NIGRA 2.0" SAX'iN JUNIP[:R JUNIPERUS SABINA 5 (;AL{ ANTH()NY W:XTERER SPIREA X BUMALDA ~.'~ GAL! SPIRF, A "AN'Fi I()NY WATERER" ('UTLEAF SNIt)()TIi RHUS (;LABRA 3 GALi SLIMAC 'LACINIATA' CLAVEY'S DWARF LONICERA CLAVEYI NANA 3 GALi HON EY.'.;L:CKI.E CRIMSON Pi(;MY BERBERIS THL:NBER(;I 2 (;AL{ BARBERRY "CRIMSON PI(;MY ISANTI DOGWOOD CORNUS STOLONIFERA · 5 (}ALi HACKBERRY- - ' CELTI$ ACCIDENTALS 2.5 MUGHO P~NE . PINUS MUGHO MUGHU~ ROOT QTY ! B&B 6 B&B 2 CONT. 16 CONT. 9 CONT. 9 CO,.NT. 39 CONT., I 1 CONT.1 26 PLANTIN(; BED MULCH TO MATCH EXISTING STONE MULCH, DEPTH 4" OVER LANE FABRIC. }TE: SEE SITE PLAN FOR SITE DETAILS MAX ., I _ BRICK COLUMN __ _._F~E~!C E E L E.VAT I O N. -_F~FIO M_ .SUMP_'[ E ~A~ E._ 4X4 CEDAR //,- 2X6 CEDAR FENCE DETAIL .. Q ............ _~__ SUMPTER AVE. SCREEN FENCE K,,/.~- PRECAS1 CON( FACE BRICK COLUMN DETAIL. / FIX OUA,q~ NO 4 K 2 P 2 P1 1 P2 L I G ][T F I X T U R E S C Il E D U L E M,XN~J FA CTURER, CATALOG NO. GARDCO WE14-~-!20-175~- IOR EQUAL "STERNER" OR "EHCO FIXTURE E;lCO : PAE K- 3H-4OCS-2OS-DDB -FF-RTSP35DB OR EQUAL "GARDCO" OR "STERNER" FIXTURE E~!CO PAED-3H-4OOS-2OS-DDB -FF-RTSP35~B OR EQUAL "GARDCO" OR "STERNER" FIXTURE EMCO PAEK-3H-4OOS-2OS-EDB -FF-RTSP35DB OR EQUAL "GARDCO" OR "STERNER"?IXTURE LIGHT FIXTURE NOTES: VOZ 208 2O8 2O8 TS < ....... LkMPS QTY. -WATTS TYPE 1-175W METAL HALIDE 4-400W HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM 1-40OW METAL HALIDE 4-400U NETAL HAL i DE --> ORDERING CODE mrR~ T S/C/U LU400 LU400 LU400 MOUNTINGIFIXTURENoTES WALL ]WALL SURFACE BRACKET NOTES a,b,d,G,h POLE PARKING LIGHT NOTES )a~b,d,g,h ~OLE POLE PARKING LIGHT NCTES a,b,d,g,h ~ARKING LIGHI NOTES a,b,d,g,h There shall be NO SUBSTITUTIONS for designated fixture types. Fixtures shall be submitted exactly as specifie~ on schedule. F~xture types noted "OR APPROVED EQUAL BY ..." shall be submitted prior to bid, according to Specifications, with full manufacturer's catalog number. General Electric lamp ordering code is shown. Sylvania and Westinghouse are acceptable manufacturer substitutes. Designated fixture types shall be 0 ballasts. All painted metal fixture parts shall be painted after fabrication for rust resistance. Designated fixture types shall be furnished with in-line fusing. ~esignated fixture types shall be U.L. Listed and Labeled for wet locations. RETAIL THE [--] Sell Live Goods From Bedding Plants to Christmas Trees. ~ Flexible Benching System Changes With the Seasons. i--] Automatic, Natural Ventilation. [--] Wide Aisles · Easy Access for Shopping Carts. CALL TOLL FREE 1-800-852-3443 OR DIAL 507-663-0362 POLY-TEX, INC. ,.0. ~ox,~s C~ST,~,oc~, MN 55010 hor~zont&l v~nd lo&~ of S4.8 mph. A~ y~e~d o~ ~he a~ee~ the lo~d be~omel ~.? expolure B conditiono. ~he code aleO allova that the vind ~oad may be 3/4 of ~he lCt~l~ ~el£g~ ~old ~Bed under the present code ~o~ g~eenhouaee. The Un,form Bu~ld£ng Code at~tel ~hat 3/& of the bale v~nd load - ER - GPE ' '-" '""'- --"""' I - - ~ "" ' '"" C ~"~ ~ ~,_,.' '._: ~ ,..7_. i- '-1 ,~,' i ',,' . .A" "'" ~ it '4 r"- ,_.. . _ BLUE RIBBON GREENHOUSE PRODUCTS Until now, when the operator of a retail nursery/garden center wanted to purchase a retail selling house, he called his~ commercial greenhouse supplier. The result was usually a house that was over-designed and over priced. It has features ' meant to Grow plants, but not to Sell them. Now, Poly-Tex Inc. (originator of the GARDEN MART portable greenhouse) has introduced the PRO-MART. The PRO-MART is designed to do one thing ... Sell Plants. It can be easily erected from standard components like the Garden-Mart. Mass production keeps the cost Iow and the set-up fast. Mr. Kenny steel yield e~resses. As long am the vied ~orces ere within the above mentioned speeds, the 5/16 inch diameter connection bolts are adequate as long as they are ASTH A307 standard bolts or better. e The above vertical and horizontal snow mad vied loaOs are based on the structure being rigidly founded at its base. While the concrete footings are sdequate for the loads intended under ldesl Boil conditions, made or intended as tO the sdequaGy oX the structure or other me~hOdB. The foundations may at that time be sdjueted s=¢ordingly. Local codes may be more stringent than what is e~teO above. This should be veriXied with the building officiml in charge of the locale where the structure is to be construoted~ Afl , P.E. ~t r uc%Jr m ~ E~ng i near ~egistrst£on No. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE EXPANSION MANSION for POLY-TEX, INC. CASTLE ROCK, MINNESOTA HEREBY CWRT%FY THAT THIS SPeCiFiCATiOn, OR REPORT Be~is~rat~on No. ~6177 April 1990 ENGINEERING CONTENTS TO REPORT ......... 18 AprZ~ 1990 C M P U T A T I 0 N COPY OF LETTER TO MR. BRIAN CROMBIE MEMBER PARAMETERS WIND LOAD GEOMETRY VERTICAL SNOW LOADS COMPUTER MODEL - FRAME CHECK MEMBER SIZES FOR VERTICAL LIVE LOAD MAX VERTICAL LOAD COMPUTER MODEL - FRAME 2 CHECK MEMBERS FOR VERTICAL LIVE LOAD MAX VERTICAL LOAD WIND LOAD - FRAME WIND LOADS - FRAME Page 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 12 APPENDIX A - TYPICAL FRAME SECTION - POLY-TEX SKETCH APPENDIX B - SELECTED UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SECTIONS APPENDIX C - COMPUTER PRINTOUTS FRAME 1 APPENDIX D - COMPUTER PRINTOUTS FRAME 2 29 Mar 1990 Mr. Brian Crombie Poly-Tex, Inc. P.O. Box 458 Castle Rock, M~nnesota 55010 Re: Engineering Analysis of the E~pansion Mansion Dear Mr. Crombie, According to my analysis which you will receive by hard copy under separate cover, your Expansion Mansion model greenhouse frame will support the following loads. This analysis is based on the current 1985 edition of the Uniform Building Code which the state of Minnesota has adopted for use in the design of all commercial structures. The Minnesota State Building Code is basically the adoption of the UBC with additional amendments made for such items as snow loads, etc. for which the state of Minnesota has some uniqueness. The analysis was performed on two separate frame structures. The first structure has a simple quanset shape with a center post support from floor or ground to peak of roof, or a three post support. The second structure contained a cross tie with a short vertical member between cross tie and peak. This cross tie is at what would be about normal ceiling height in a building of one story. Due to vertical loads acting independently, the three post frame structure will carry 10.9 psf, the two post with cross tie frame will carry 15.9 psf~. These figures are based on an allowable bending stress of .66 x 52000 psi, the steel yield stress, tf the yield stress is used without reduction, the load capacity would increase to 16.5 psf and 20.1 psf for the struc- tures respectively. These figures would be the snow or live load capacity of the framing units. Due to wind load acting independently of the vertical l=ads on the frames, the three post structure will withstand a horizontal wind load of 7.7 psf or a wind of 54.8 mph at allowable stress of .66 x 52000 psi. An yield of the steel the three post structure will withstand 11.7 psf or a 67.6 mph wind. The two post structure with cross tie will withstand a hor==ontal wind load of 7.6 psf or a wind speed of 54.5 mph. At yield oi the steel the load becomes 11.6 psf or a 67.3 mph wind. Both of the above frames assume exposure B conditions. The above numbers also assume that the psf wind load Br~an Crombi~ ~ page 2 is 3/4 of that actually designed for as allowed by code. The Uniform Building Code states that 3/4 of the base wind load in psf may be used but not less than 10 psf. Based 'on this fact, the stress on some framing members is between what is normally called allowable and the psint of steel yield. Most of Minnesota falls under the 80 mph wind category. As long as the wind forces are within the above mentioned speeds, the 5/16 inch diameter connection bolts are adequate as long as they are ASTM A307 standard bolts or better. The above vertical and horizontal snow and wind loads are based on the structure being rigidly founded at its base. While the concrete footings are adequate for the loads intended under ideal soil conditions, the soil will vary from site to site. No claim is made or intended as to the adequacy of the structure from overturning based on the frame analysis unless the actual soil conditions can be verified by testing or other methods. The foundations may at that time be ad3usted accordingly. Local codes may be more stringent than what is stated above. This should be verified with the building official in charge of the locale where the Structure is to be constructed. Sincerely, Arle~ P.E. SJS Engineering Registration No. 16177 ENG-2 SU BJ ECT CONTRACT No. ,,:;'~L~'- ~,E.,~.. PAGE CONTRACT No. PAGE FILE OATE SU BJ ECT CONTRACT No. P~?/..~'-7'~'~"~ /,'[/~-,. ENG-2 SU BJ£CT CONTRACT No. ENGINEERING DEPT. PAGE FILE DATE,/~ t ! ENG-2 SU BJEC'T EiNGIN£ERING DEP'r. CONTRACT No. /Z t EN~-2 SUBJECT CONTRACT No. ~'~4~-~"~'~ /,U'~,. I ! I , I , I I I I I ! I I SUBJECT CONTI:~CT No. PAGE ENGo2 SUBJECT CONTRACT No. ENGINEERING DEPT. PAGE LINDQUIST & VENNUM Ida~w~,,(3..~ Idea(aoT~ 66402-2205 TB,.Bq,~ 612-371,.3211 F,,~,~ 612,,371-,3207 600 17'r~ b~"R~L="r. ~urr~ 2125 T~: 303-573-5900 AT'r0~N~'YS AT LAW JOHN B. WINSTON 612/371-3521 Hr. Daniel Donahue City Manager Administration Office 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 March 10, 1992 Re: Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc./Case No. 92-04 Dear Mr. Donahue: I represent Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc. ("Frank's") with respect to its application in New Hope Case No. 92-04. On March 4 I appeared before the New Hope Planning Commission to present Frank's position. At the hearing I advised the Planning Commission that Frank's, after careful review and consideration of Staff's Planning Case Report, was prepared to satisfy each and every one of Staff's recommendations as set forth in the Report. I further indicated to the Planning Commission the urgency of the application, since it was, and is, anticipated that a need for the outdoor storage area will exist on or before April 15 of this year~ :' Following my presentation, one member of the Planning Commission expressed reservations with respect to-the detail that had been furnished to the Planning Commission by Frank's. I responded by noting that we would be happy to have an additional condition or further conditions added which would require Frank's to provide additional detail, and that we would work closely with City Staff to the end that Staff would be satisfied with the materials presented. At that point, the chairman and the same member of the Planning Commission who had complained earlier spoke vehemently against the construction of any sort of poly greenhouse. Notwithstanding Frank's expressed willingness and desire to satisfy all conditions, these men stated that they would be absolutely and unqualifiedly opposed to such a structure. The hostility with which these statements were made was surprising. LINDQUIST & VENNUM Mr. Daniel Donahue March 10, 1992 Page 2 Because the only members of the Planning Commission who had spoken on the matter were so dead set against the proposal, I fully expected a motion to deny the application. Instead the motion was to table, and that motion carried unanimously. Sensing that there was no point in further discussing the application with a Commission that was so inhospitable, I appealed to the Commission for a vote denying the application, so that Frank's could move on to the City Council. In the same hostile tone I was told that our hearing was over, and that there was nothing further for the Planning Commission to consider that evening. My understanding, then, of the procedural posture of the application is that Frank's will be appearing before the Planning Commission again at its next regularly scheduled meeting in April, though to what end I am not sure, as I do not see the Planning Commission changing its stance. However, Frank's will promptly deliver to City Staff all additional detail that it requests, and will commit to fulfilling such conditions as Staff may suggest in response to the receipt of such detail. In other words, Frank's is willing to fully cooperate with City Staff. In the meantime, is there any way that we can obtain temporary relief in view of the spring selling season which will be fast upon us? I am informed that the outdoor poly greenhouse is in use from approximately April 15 through September 15, and if Frank's were to secure a permit to erect only a temporary structure while we work out the remaining details and get beyond Planning Commission and City Council approval, then at least Frank's would not lose the spring selling season. Alternatively, even if Frank's is unable to secure a permit for the temporary erection of a poly greenhouse, then I ask City Staff do whatever is in its power to prevent this matter from being tabled again. It is imperative that we get beyond the Planning Com-ission at its April meeting and on to the City Council. Any suggestions or advice you might have with respect to the foregoing would be most appreciated. Frank's is desirous of establishing a better working relationship with the City, and sees this current application as an opportunity to foster and improve that relationship. I hope that my experience with the LINDQUIST & VENNUM Mr. Daniel Donahue March 10, 1992 Page 3 Planning Commission was an aberation, and that Frank's will be able to work with the City of New Hope to improve the appearance of this location. Sincerell~, JBW/dmc Douglas Sandstad Martin I. Caruso Brad Bieraugel Glen Pulkrabek Walter Gregory CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: o 92-04 Request for Variance to Allow Expansion of B-2 (Community Business) Garden Novelty Store in Excess of 3,500 square feet of floor area/Expansion of Non- Conforming Building, a Variance from the Accessory Building Design Criteria to Allow Construction of an Accessory Garden Novelty Store, and Site/Building Plan Review/Approval 5620 Winnetka Avenue North 05-18-21-32-0007 B-4 (Community Business) Frank's Nursery and Crafts, Inc. February 28, 1992 March 4, 1992 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow expansion of a garden novelty store in. excess of 3,500 square feet of floor area/expansion of non-conforming building, a variance from the accessory building design criteria and site/building plan review/approval, to construct a "poly" greenhouse in the rear yard, pursuant to Sections 4.031,4.032.2(F),4.032(3), 4.034(3), 4.112(4), and 4.039(A) of the New Hope Code. Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc. is requesting to construct a "poly"greenhouse to protect plant deliveries from frost, rain, wind, and excessive heat/cold damage. A previously constructed poly house was destroyed by a storm last November. The specific zoning requests include the following: A. Garden Novelty Stores are allowed as a permitted use in the B-2 Zoning District if they do not exceed 3,500 square feet of floor area. The existing building contains 16,580 square feet, thus a variance is needed to expand the garden store (previous planning cases approved the existing building size). B. Site/Building Plan Review/Approval is required. C. City Code states that the same or similar quality building material shall be used in the accessory building as in the principal building. Additionally, the exterior appearance and architectural design of the accessory building is to be similar to that of the principal building. The "poly" green house is not similar to the principal building, thus a variance is needed. The applicant had originally proposed to locate the accessory building within the rear yard setback, however, the building has been shifted in the revised plans and a setback variance is no longer needed. Surrounding zoning/land uses include single family residential to the east (Crystal), B-2 Retail Business (muffler shop and funeral home) to the south, B-3 and B-2 (gas station and nursing home) to the west, and R-4 (apartments) to the north. Planning Case Report 92-04 March 4, 1992 Page -2- 10. The site is several feet lower than the property to the south and it slopes northwesterly towards a catch basin in the parking lot. The site contains approximately 40 small trees on the east and west boulevards. The facility was approved in Planning Case 72-3 in 1972, and Planning Case 84-17 was approved in 1984 for the outdoor storage CUP (after the fact). The "poly"house that collapsed in the rear yard last fall did not receive any approval and the petitioner was advised to receive the proper approVals prior to replacing the building. Existing site details include the following: Setback Requirements Front Yard (Winnetka) 90 feet Front Yard (Sumter) 35 feet Side Yard (Principal Building) 10 feet Side Yard (Accessory Building) 5 feet Area Lot Area Building Area Green Space Building Coverage Asphalt/Gravel Parking Indoor Sales Outdoor Sales 137,974 square feet 16,580 square feet 10,800 sq. ft. (8%) (12%) 110,594 sq. ft.(80%) (per Building Official) 12,000-10%/150 = 72 spaces 21,000-10%/500 = 35 spaces Required 110 spaces Provided 119 spaces Petitioner is proposing to construct a "poly"house with dimensions of 63' x 54' (3,402 square feet). The building would consist of three 18' x 63' quonset hut type steel supported structures covered with white plastic. The building would not contain a foundation - it would have a ground stake system. The structure will be 11-1/2 feet in height and a rigid board 16 inches high would surround the bottom. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no comments on the proposal. ANALYSIS Design & Review met with the applicant in February and major issues discussed include: lack of building detail, architectural appearance of building, setbacks, lack of landscaping on site (front and rear), screening from residential to east, lighting, trash enclosure, semi deliveries, drainage, and parking. Staff met with an architect several days after Design & Review to review the issues. As a result of the Design & Review meeting, revised plans were submitted that address some, but not all, of the issues raised: Planning Case Report 92-04 March 4, 1992 Page -3- Issues Addressed on Site Plan -the proposed structure has been relocated to meet the 35-foot rear (front) yard setback requirement on the east - a setback variance is no longer needed. -all parking to be restriped.-trash enclosure to be enlarged, but no detail.-snow storage area shown on plan (northeast corner).-new proposed fence to be installed in front of building (south side), but no detail.-both curb cuts on Winnetka to be reconstructed/widened to permit exit/entrance by two vehicles at one time (this will prevent backing up of traffic on Winnetka at south entrance and improve semi delivery access at north entrance). -existing entrance/exit signs to be removed, as they will not be needed after curb cuts are widened. -substantial new landscaping/planting beds to be installed on front (west) side of site with the planting of 144 shrubs and 8 trees. Staff sees the elimination of the setback variance, new landscaping, parking lot restriping, and reconstruction of curb cuts as significant improvements. Issues Not Addressed on Site Plan -no further detailed drawings of the building have been provided. -no exterior lighting changes are proposed (down lighting was requested). -no rear landscaping or screening fence is proposed. -semi delivery truck path not shown on plan. -no fence or trash detail Pr0.vided. Staff does not find that the expansion of the garden shop/novelty store use in excess of the code requirement is unreasonable due to the large lot size, however, other issues need to be addressed. The accessory building design criteria requires that "the same quality building materials shall be used in accessory buildings as in the principal building and that the exterior appearance and architectural design is to be similar to the principal building". This is only a problem ff an effectivescreenlng is mi~ing between the greenhouse and the adjacent residential property to the east and north. Staff would argue that an expensive glass greenhouse placed at the required setback would require no screening (however, outdoor storage/sales still would need screening). It is staff's opinion that either screening {landscaping and fencing) must be installed on the east ff the "poly" building is to be constructed or a more quality-type building must be constructed. Staff recommends screening on the east to include a fence up to 8' high in the buildable side and rear yards along with various trees (of nboulevard caliper") and shrubs to soften the fence appearance to be installed on public boulevard. Design & Review stressed the need for significant upgrading of the plantings on the property of a "landscapingn business. Planning Case Report 92-04 March 4, 1992 Page -4- 7. Staff would like to see the past neglect of the site (trash containers, parking lot, debris, and construction work without necessary approvals) improved. 8. Design & Review and staff also requested that the greenhouse be "double inflated" to improve the appearance of the building. RECOMMENDATION Staff either recommends tabling of the case so that a revised site plan can be prepared to address screening/landscaping and lighting issues on the east side of the property, or recommends approval with a number of conditions, as follows: 1. Greenhouse/s to be inflated and oriented north-south on site all year. 2. Remove existing east fence, replace with 8-foot high cedar and brick column fence - column spacing maximum 50 feet on center (see staff exhibit attached). 3. Plant 6 new boulevard (min. 2-1/2" trunk) trees spaced evenly 8 feet behind the Sumter Avenue curb; remove the buckthorn shrubs, if damaged during fencing work (see staff exhibit attached). 4. Widen Winnetka driveways as proposed to improve the safety for vehicles entering and exiting the site. 5. Add new landscaping (144 shrubs and 8 trees) as proposed in front yard. 6. Replace floodlights with "shoebox-style" downlights throughout the site. 7. Provide front building fence and trash enclosure detail. 8. Development Contract and Performance Bond to be provided for improvements on public property (amount to be determined by City Engineer). Attachments: Section/Zoning/Topo Maps Topographical Survey Proposed Site Plan Existing Landscaping Proposed Landscaping Planting Schedule Building Details Original Site Plan Original Landscape Plan Staff Attachment ~9 ~/8 avE: N 59 TH AVE N. ~_~ ~- _, VILLAGE GREEN GOLF COURSE ST. THERESA NURSING I-IOME 59 TI ! i AVE ST e4-sb ~4~ Road L..~ ST. RAPHEL CATHOLIC CHURCH 55 T~ AVE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FRANK'S NURSERY & CRAFTS 5620 WINNETKA AVE. NORTH FEB 2'4 Ig~ ~ ~.. AS?>OCIATE~ ..... - ) PROPOSED SITE PLAN FRANK'S NURSERY & CRAFTS 5620 WINNETKA AVE. NORTH LEGAL DESCRIPTION :.:.'"." ,.. ,,. ,-,..~, ,~.:.3.~ =.'_.' ~'.'._. FBI 2 41992 EXISTING LANDSCAPING FRANK'S NURSERY & CRAFTS 5620 WINNETKA AVE. NORTH LEGAL DESCRIPTION FEB 2,~ 199Z '1 PROPOSED LANDSCAPING Frank's Nursery and Crafts 5620 Winnetka Aveune Notlh New Hope. Minnesota Brauer and Associates, Ltd Ptmt~)~r:lLl~.~N~l~Cllk32~L~ Lo2 PROPOSED PLANTING SCHEDULE IlD COMMON N,4ME SHADEMASTER HONEYL¢)CUST I~IVER BIRCI I JUNIPER ANTHONY WATERER SPIREA CUTLEAF SM()( )TI ! SUMAC CLAVEY'S DWARF HONEYSLIC'KLE CRIMSON Pi( ;MY BARBERRY ISANTI DOGWOOD BOT,4NIC.4I. N.4ME (;LEDITSIA TRI('ANTltOS 'INERMIS' "StlADEMASTF. R" BETULA NI(;RA JI. JNIPER[ IS SABINA SPIREA X BtlMALDA "ANTH()NY WATERER" RIIUS (;I.ABRA 'LACINIATA' LONICERA ('I.AVEYI NA BERBERIS TIIUNBER¢;! ('()N'I %TRIMS{)N PIGMY CORNUS STOLONIFERA C()NT 'ISANTi' II PLANTIN{; BED MLII.Cti T() MA'F('II EXISTIN(; .";T()NE MUI.~'Ii DEPTll 4" ()VER LANDS('A FABRIC ' HEIGHT: 11 '-4' WIDTH: 21'-If SIZE SHOWN: 63' x 84' HOOP SECTIONS: SPACED 6'-0' ON CENTER HOOP SECTIONS, RIDGE PURUN. AND END FRAME: 2" O.D. x 14 GAUGE TUBE, SZ,O00 YIELD, SS,O00 TENSIL S';RENGTH GROUND SI'AK[: 3° LONG x I 3/4' O.D. TUBE OR 10' LEG STAND RAIN GUTTER: 14 OAU~[ GALVANIZED SHEET METAL COMPONENTS: 24 GAUGE GALVANIZED 28' WIDE POLY COVER REQUIRED PER It. AY POLYETHYLENE FOR POLY-VENT MANUFACTURED FROM CLEAR, 6 MIL, $ YEAR FILM (2)--POLY-VENT BLOWERS: 4C006 ELECTRICAL: I I OV (I)-DAYTON 2 STAGE THERMOSTATS PRO-MART 63'.-5" x 84'..0" FRANK'S NURSERY & CPaFrS - NEW HOP£ I |"~2-6-92 r'~ ¢980-921 -..,-,~.~ H I I POLY--I"EX, INC I T, EpRC)-IVJflRT~ Set Up Manual NURSERY POLY-TEX, INC. F~.O. I~ox 458. CA$-I-LF 63'-5" X X X X X X X X X X X X ~' -.~ ~ X X X X X X X X X X X X ! xI x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x I 84'-0" X 2 !'-0" 2 I/2" I 21 '-0" ! 2 t/2" 1 21'-0" KEY: ~ REAR GUILD[.: X [fRONT GUI.r~;:S O REAR WALL ~plr ~ POLY-VIrNT '--I PANEL AS$£,,4;qLY ~ FLEX TUB[ .bKdP[R C~ POLY-V£NT 3_OW;'R ,~ POW~:R POI:' ASSEMBLY IFRANK'S NURSERY & C,~A~I'S - NEW HOPE °'"'1-27-92 I:''''~ i'974-921: .... m'"K H I, POLY--TEX, iNC INSTALLING END FRAME REAR WALL PIPE ttOOP UPPER VENT RAIL (2x4x5'0" LO;~ER VENT RAIL (2x4x5'0" BASE SECTION (2x6x5'0" UPPER VENT RAIL (2x4x8'0" LOWER VENT RAIL (2x4x8'0" BASE SECTION (2x6x8'0 --"0-2" FITTING --17" EXTENSION "G" FITTING 9'3" x 2" O.D. LUMBER MOUNTS -CORNER VENT RAIL BRACKET ( SWEDGE ) \\ --" It II Ii I I I I When constructin9 gutter connected "PRO-MARTS", use only (3) ]umber mounts where hoops meet. Be sure to locate all (3) on tile same hoop. ) A291 INSTALLING END FRAME WITH DOORS RIDGE PURLIN "J-2" FITTING HOOP DOOR JAMB DOOR HEADER_ --~ FILLER (2"X 4"X 17") FILLER (2"X 4"X 43") FILLER (2"X 4"X 9") UPPER VENT RAIL (2"X 4"X 7'-5" LOWER VENT RAIL (2"x 4"x 7'-5" BASE SECTION (2"X 6"X 7'-5") - INSTALL FLASillNG ON EXTENSIONS SO IT FACES OUTWARD 2) 3" LAG BOLT (TYPICAL) 6'-10" SllEET ' METAL FLAStt ING WIDE LIP TO TIlE \ .... 6'-2" SttEET I NS i DE INSIDE :l!/I PUL¥ ¥1 .N I When installing POLY-VEI']T, ~ you should always start at the beginning of one side, it's best to be close to a door. Before you start, cl~eck poly-vent gutters for overlap direction. It's easiest to go with the overlap. If you have to go against the overlap be sure to have extra persons along the way to keep poly-vent from getting caught or torn. Don't worry about positioning the top edge when installing poly- vent. It is very easily positioned when it has begun to inflate. t?hen installing tile roof poly, keep in mind tile following points. Try Lo pick a calm day. If iL is uindy, it's almost impossible to handle the ptastic. Be sure that all "T-LOK" sections are iii place with the narro~ channel towards the poly. Lay out the 2~ lock sectious around the peri- meter of the structure so they are handy. Unroll poly on ground along the length of the structnre. Place one worker at point(~)and point(~. It helps to have another ~orker inside the PRO-MART at point (~), on a ladder, to help carry the poly over. Ouce the poly is iii position, install a 2~ lock section at point ~). Tllen, go to the opposite end point ~), tension poly and install lock sectiou. ~ext, install lock section al point(~. Then tension poly and iustall lock sectiou at point (~). From there on, fau out from point (~)and (~until all lock sections are installed. CLEAI FACF, POLY Face poly can easily be installed by first fasteuiug the lock sections along the dotted .line aa indicated in the dras, ing. Next, lift poly up and over tile end hoop aud install lock sections. II II u NOTE: YOU H^Y IIAVE TO CUT I.OCI( SECTION D¢)IdN TO I ' I,ON¢; 1N ORI)EI~ TO IN,q- 'l'Al,I. Till'iH 1411EllE TIlE END IIOOP CIIRV E.c; I':X'I'RI,:HEI,Y · T ^s'r c IS INSTAIA, ED ON / / WEATIIER WARMS. I'r / MIGIIT BE NECESSARY /TO GO AI.ONG PERIOD- / ICAI,LY AND RETENSION TIlE SIIEET OF PI,ASTIC. (~III';RI': AI)I)I. ICAI~I,I~:) ..J Using #12 x 1" TEK screws, fasten "T-LeK" to the upper vent rail, lower vent rail and the door jambs. Notice that '°T-LeK" splice is used on the upper vent rail. This will hold i, [)lace your upper face po]y and your fewer face poi y. Once tile pol. y fast. e,]er .is in place, cover area with clear poly and install 2' lock sec t ions. ~----~ 1'0 I'()I,Y-~' NilTE: AI,WAY,S IN,SI'Al,I, "T-I,OK" WITII TIlE NARROW CllANNEI, TOWAI,:I)S Till': I)()I,Y. $~j~f '-I ,, --'°' ' A~'~.~'NORT. SITE PLAN FRANK'S NURSERY & CRAFTS 5620 WINNETKA AVE. NORTH LEGAL DESCRIPTION Mm. WCm..,)~M mi SUMTER AVE. NORTH I ! I I \ LANDSCAPE PLAN FRANK'S NURSERY & CRAFTS 5620 WINNETKA AVE. NORTH LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,?= ~:.-._ ,~?.~. ',= .,'~ _ -~ .:---" · - ._~-_2" - · . ..- ~--_.' -_' -~. . AVE. Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: o o o 92-06 Request CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT for Variance or Text Amendment To Section 3.464 of the New Hope Zoning Code to Allow Installation of a Property Identification Sign 8015 36th Avenue North 19-118-21-11-0002 R-4 (High Density Residential) Royal Oak Properties Limited Partnership April 10, 1992 April 14, 1992 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a text amendment to or variance from Section 3.464 of the New Hope Zoning Code to allow installation of a property identification sign set back no less than 10 feet from the property line. Petitioner is requesting to install a 25-square foot property identification sign 10 feet from their property line on Winnetka Avenue that states "Royal Oaks Apartments - 544-2888". City Code states that signs accessory to residential uses shall be set back from the street right-of-way line a distance at least one-half of the required minimum building setback. In this situation the side yard building setback requirement is 35 feet, thus the minimum sign setback is 17-1/2'. The applicant wants to place the sign 10 feet from the property line, thus a 7-1/:z foot va 'rmnce is required. Apartment complexes are allowed one 25 square foot sign per street frontage so there are no problems with the number or size of the sign(s). The sign would be an entrance monument with two single-sided clear redwood sandblasted sign panels mounted back to back. Petitioner seeks to improve the property appearance and visibility through new and larger signage. Petitioner states that "although we are on the comer of 36th & Winnetka Avenues, we do not enjoy the exposure of a typical comer due to the Fina gas station which blocks our visibility to drive-by traffic. The signage design will blend well with the brick exterior of our buildings and improve the property curb appeal.". Surrounding land uses include single family homes on the west and south, Winnetka Commons Shopping Center on the east across Winnetka. Avenue, and a gas station/ convenience store on the north. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. ANALYSIS Staff would recommend that the Commission consider either a variance to the existing sign setback requirements and/or consider a code text change now or in the future so that residential sign setbacks would conform to the requirements for commercial/ industrial signs. Planning Case Report 92-06 April 14, 1992 Page -2- 2. Code Change The Building Official has encourage this property owner and others to pursue this type of request because of an "ordinance inequity*. Signs that are erected away from a building are referred to as "ground signs", whether they are permanent or "special event" (temporary). All commercial/industrial signs (except Shopping Centers) are permitted to be ten feet from the property line, and are allowed signage area of 40, 75, or 200 square feet depending upon the traffic classification (and speed limit) of the roadway. However, residential signs are restricted to BOTH a small size (25 sq. ft.) and a remote location, set back from the property line 1/2 of the building setback. In practical terms, most residential, church, and school signs are required to be 17.5 feet or 25 feet behind the lot lines. Since there is no safety or visibility purpose for the greater setback, it clearly responds to a lesser need for "commercial" signage. This is accomplished by allowing commercial/industrial signs to be 160-800% larger than residential. Not only is little or no benefit derived by the greater residential setbacks, but the signs are not easily read from roadways, when placed properly. Many apartment owners place signs at a ten-foot setback without inquiring about a sign permit. As long as we are restricting the allowed sign area, the confusion over the second restriction -greater setbacks- is questionable. Staff recommends approval of a sign ordinance text change to Section 3.464: "Signs Accessory to Residential Uses". Each sign accessory to residential uses shall be set back from the street right-of-way line a distance of at least ten feet... If there is a desire to bring ALL ground sign setbacks to one standard, then staff recommend the same change be made to Ordinance 3.463(1) (1): Delete the third sentence and replace it with the following pertaining to church, schools, and non-profits: "Such signs shall be set back from the street right-of-way line a distance of at least ten feet". NOTE: This complex is 6 acres, with only 2 ground signs allowed (one per street on comer lot) to put this in perspective. Variance The City Code outlines the following criteria for sign variances: When considering a variance, the Planning Commission shall make a finding of fact and grant approval based upon the following conditions: 3.481 Unique Conditions. That the conditions involved are unique to the particular parcel of land or use involved. 3.382 Variation Pu_rpose. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved. 3.483 Cause of Hardship. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Sign Code and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel. Planning Case Report 92-06 April 14, 1992 Page -3- 3.484 Effect of Variance. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood. 4. Staff finds that this is a minor variance request (7-1/2 feet) and the property may be unique in its' location. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a minor sign setback variance to allow the apartment complex sign to be located 10 feet from the Winnetka Avenue property line and recommends thata study be undertaken to determine if a code text change should be made in the future. Attachments: Section Map Sign LocatiOn Map Sign Detail Petitioner Letter RD N 'r NO¸ AVE / '/716 ~.4 4(J 77,~ %.47 :"L ND 'A AV~ 30TH AVE ~ VtEWCREST VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 10~' 36th Avenue North ¼ sign (Existing) x <3 932.9 0 X sign (Royal Oaks) N X 930.2 AVENUE X 931.8 935.4 SIGN= 25 ,sq. ft. 4~ 10' OyAL ~P~I~ YIn. I~ ~Y ~ 3~ ,.J AN-- I $--92 MON I 8 : 29 ELEMENTS . I NC . P . 0 1 ELEMI NI: ~lv~ . '.~.fi~ IST AVENUE NVV *NFW t~l-fl(';I II~ ',N MINNt .'fl ~1,~ ,.,'i~I;'~ · ,~ {f~12) (i?11.0457 JAN~JA~ ? : '~. 1992 · ,HA~ON ~,ULLY hA(~t ! 'r)MPANY ~/, .' ~,~P ~: INS CROSSROADS MiNNETONKA, MN, 5,554~ ' ' I~"'~"' ...... - ~..~" ~ ~ I - ,,,,,,..,,,.... ...... .... SHARON &5 I~F(JuF,';,TED, WE ARE PROVIDING THE. FOLI. OWING Pl:tOf-',)&AL REGARDING THE ENTf4AN, ~ HONUI'IFNT AT ROYAL OAK& FI FMI: NT;:-,, INC. WILL CONSTRUCT ONE ENTRANCE I'IONUI'~t NT A,.S FOLLOWS: ALL EXOAWa, ,, FOOTINGS. FOUNDATION, AND BRICKWORK (HEASURIN$ 4 X 1 4' X 1 6"); TWO SINGLE ~,1 FAG RFDWOOD SANDBLASTED SIGN PANEI.,~ MOUNTED BACK TO BACK (MEA~URIN~ 7' ,' ', A:~, 3HOWN IN THE DRAWfN08 WE PROVIDED ~:l ,'' '-, ARE AS FOLLOWS: ¢INF MONUMENT. ~WO MONUMENTS AT SAMF TIMF' 4962.00 + 9524.00 + THE:3F CO~,T$ DO NOT INCLUDE THE SECURING OF PERt'lIT,!. LANDSCAPING, OR ELECTI;~ ~. , w,npF ~ f~FSIRED. %HARON .tHERE ARE ALTERNATIVE5 THAT WILL EITHER IN¢;REA~E OR DECREASE THE ,2 THF5F FNTRANOE MONUMENT$, INCLUDING SiZE CHANOF~:. DE,ION CHANOE$ OR HATFP ,, GHAN('~F:'. I WILL GLADLY DiSCU,S,5 THE,GE WITH YOU AT YC, UR CONVENIENCE. fA,hi- PHONE ME WITH ANY QUESTIONS YOtJ r-I~GHT HAW 'rHANI, F, F~HARON, 4' "t,f'" R fC't4ARF: FD OPE3, DENT FI FMFNTS, INC. t3o 11 NORTh_ ._SJ L~_L.. .SHGL5 15~ FELT .7/16 W,R WAFER 13D-WITH CLIPS TRUSSES- £q/~O,C. (TRUSS DESIGN BY SUPPLIER~ APR WEST s I O.E..__. Planning Case: 92-07 Request: Request Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT for Variance to Expand Non-conforming Structure and a Rear Setback Variance to Allow a Garage Addition 3910 Boone Avenue North 18-118-21-42-0070 R-1 (Single Family Residential) Craig Allen Hall April 10, 1992 April 14, 1992 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a variance to expand a non-conforming structure and a rear yard setback variance to allow a 14'x 32' garage addition to existing structure, pursuant to Sections 4.031(10) and 4.034(3), New Hope Code of Ordinances. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the south side of the existing attached garage. The proposed addition would be 14 feet wide and 32-1/2 feet in length and contain 455 square feet. The existing garage contains 440 square feet, thus the total square footage of the existing garage and the proposed addition would be 895 square feet (which is close to the 900 square foot maximum allowed by code). The proposed garage addition would necessitate two variances: a variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement and a variance to expand a nOn-conforming structure. The property is located on a comer lot in an R-1 Single Family Residential District at the southwest intersection of Boone Avenue and Hopewood Lane. The property has a 90-foot frontage on Hopewood and a 127-foot frontage on Boone. 'The zoning ordinance def'mes lot frontage as the boundary abutting a public right-of-way having the least width, therefore the setback requirements North (fronting Hopewood) West (fronting Boone) South East for this lot are as follows: front yard- 35-foot setback side yard -35-foot setback rear yard - 35-foot setback side yard - 10-foot setback Petitioner is proposing to construct a garage addition that would be located 7 feet from the south rear yard property line, thus a 28-foot variance from the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement is needed. Due to the fact that this is a comer lot, a portion of the existing garage is located outside the buildable yard area which makes the existing structure non-conforming. The zoning ordinance states that normal maintenance of a structure containing a lawful non- conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural repairs and incidental alterations which do not physically extend or intensify the non-conforming use. This is a structural alteration which would physically extend the non-conforming use, thus a variance to expand a non-conforming structure is also required. Planning Case Report 92-07 April 14, 1992 Page -2- 7. The property is surrounded by single family families and is in close proximity to Northwood Park. 8. The applicant has stated a need for more garage space as the reason for the request. 9. The topography of the property slopes from the north to the south. 10. Property owners within 350' of the site have been notified of the request. Staff has received at least one anonymous complaint about the petitioner's "hobby car" storage and firewood piles. ANALYSIS 1. Detailed plans have not been received from the petitioner and staff recommends that the request be tabled until a lot survey and elevation drawings have been submitted. 2. The purpose of the variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent the reasonable ,use of the 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. 3. This is one of many problem comer lots where the home was built facing the wrong street as far as ordinance interpretation is concerned. Defining the front yard on a comer lot usually leaves a large (deep) rear yard where most activities take place. Staff's "Attachment A" shows that this lot only has a 27-foot (east) side yard and a 21-foot (south) rear yard and the hashmarks define the "buildable yard" area. 4. The hardship may be that the comer lot setback restrictions do not allow reasonable room for a garage addition, however the setback reductions are substantial. 5'. The proposed garage addition would reduce the existing 21-foot rear yard setback to 7 feet, or take a setback that is 60% of the requirement and reduce it to 20% of the required 35 feet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends tabling the request until detailed drawings are submitted that address the aesthetic compatibility of the addition and a new survey obtained to confirm exact lot lines. Any driveway changes, which are currently not shown on the site plan, also need to be addressed as well as the scope of the intended garage use. Attachments: Section/Topo Maps Site Plan Staff Exhibit A - Setbacks GETHSEMANE CEMETERY NORTHWOOD PARK NORTHWOOD PARK WAY 893.0 925.1 924 4 923.7 io6 t SITE PLAN OECLARATiON I CERTIFY THAT t AM THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE & THIS P_.t~kN IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE: IIEQ1JIP. E]) EXISTING SETBACK PROPOSED SETBACK 21' 7' 8liE P~N OEC~RATION ! CERTI~ THAT t AM THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE & THIS ---- /,20' 0" /V 4 c) ~, 7 1.9oo4 'l . - C4 ,. Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: 92-08 Request CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT for Variance From the Parking Distance From Property Line Requirement to Allow Existing Driveway and Curb Cut to Remain in Place 6109 Gettysburg Avenue North 06-118-21-22-0008 R-1 (Single Family Residential) James Benson April 10, 1992 April 14, 1992 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a variance from the parking distance from property line requirement to allow existing driveway and curb cut to remain in place, pursuant to Sections 4.036(6)c, and 4.036(4)h viii of the New Hope Code. The variance application is in response to an order from the Housing Inspector during a point-of-sale inspection (see attached Order #8: "Provide 3 feet clearance from asphalt expanded driveway to side yard lot line/5 feet at boulevard, restore ground cover)." City Code imposes specific restrictions on all accessory off-street parking facilities. The "parking distance from property line" requirement states that "there shall be no off-street parking within three (3) feet of any property line". The requirements further state that "curb cut openings shall be located at minimum five (5) feet from the side yard lot line in ail districts". The existing driveway and curb cut are located approximately one (1) foot from the north side yard property line, therefore a two (2) foot drivewaysetbaek variance from the three (3) foot driveway setback requirement is needed and a four (4) foot curb cut setback variance from the five (5) foot curb cut setback requirement is needed. The property is located in an R-1 Single Family Residential District and is surrounded by single family homes on the north, east, and south, and the rear yard abuts the Bassett Creek floodplain and R-2 duplexes on the west. The property is 75 feet in width and 145 feet in length and contains 10,800 square feet. The existing structure meets ail setback requirements; the only non-conformity is in the driveway/curb cut. The existing driveway is approximately 53 feet in length and 23 feet wide and a parking area is provided on the north side of the garage. The topography of the front yard is flat and the rear yard slopes quickly downward towards the creek. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments to date on the request. Planning Case Report 92-08 April 14, 1992 Page -2- ANALYSIS Staff "Exhibit A" illustrates the problem area on the north side of the lot where the driveway encroaches 2 feet into the driveway setback area and 4 feet into the curb cut setback area and extends about one foot inside the property line to the street. The variance application is a technicality to allow the existing drive to remain in place, providing that there are no negative impacts on neighboring properties. The lot survey and the original plat map show that there are no utility or drainage easements on the side yard property line where the variance is being requested; the only easement is a 15-foot wide drainage and utility easement across the rear width of the property. No drainage problems, of which staff is aware, have been created by the encroachment of the driveway. There is a green buffer approximately 8 feet in width between the petitioner's driveway and the adjacent drive to the north. Staff has received no comment from the most affected neighbor to the north. The purpose of the variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent the reasonable use of the 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 dlmini.~h or impair property values in the neighborhood. In this case it is difficult to define the hardship, except for the fact that the property owner purchased the property in it's non-conforming condition. This property owner clearly did not create the problem. The condition has existed for over 15 years so it is doubtful that the granting of the variance would alter the character of the neighborhood or diminish property values. Precedent exists for this variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance from the parking distance from property line requirement to allow existing driveway and curb cut to remain in place. Attachments: Section/Topo Maps Exhibit A - Survey Plat Map - Easements Housing Inspection Report Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 91-34 Request for Consideration of an Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Amending Section 4.033(3) Regulating Fencing and Screening City of New Hope April 10, 1992 April 14, 1992 BACKGROUND City staff is requesting consideration of an ordinance to amend the New Hope Zoning Code by Amending Section 4.033(3) regulating fencing and screening. In the summer of 1991 the Planning Commission and City Council approved two variance requests for fences to exceed the allowed height in the front yard. The Council requested that the Planning Commission and staff review the lot frontage definition for possible revision in order to avoid the need for these types of variances. The lot frontage definition was reviewed in 1988 at length and it was determined that no change should be made. At that time the consensus was that the lot frontage definition was not the cause of the variance requests, but rather that the homes were not situated properly within the lot's buildable area. The Planning Consultant again reviewed this issue and has recommended that the City may want to consider modifying the fence requirements so that they are more consistent with the rest of the zoning ordinance. The staff and Planning Consultant reviewed the existing ordinance and definitions in detail and found the existing language to be confusing, contradictory, and difficult to apply in a variety of situations (corner lot, through lot, house front facing side yard, etc.) and concurred that the fence regulations, not lot frontage definition, needed revision. The Planning Consultant and City Attorney drafted a preliminary amendment to the fence ordinance which was presented to and reviewed by the Codes & Standards Committee last fall. Since that time there have been a number of revisions incorporated into the proposed amendment as a result of input from the Committee, Building Official and other staff. Enclosed with this report is the final proposed draft of the fence ordinance amendment agreed to by the staff and Codes & Standards. The City Attorney has drafted the enclosed Ordinance No. 92-01, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Amending Section 4.033(3)Regulating Fencing and Screening. Due to the fact that this is an amendment to the City Code, a general legal notice was published for public hearings at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels. Planning Case Report 91-34 April 14, 1992 Page -2- e ANALYSIS In the Planner's August 12, 1991, report it is stated that the lot frontage definition was previously reviewed in July of 1988. The investigation stemmed from the number of expansion requests of non-conforming single family homes located on comer lots. It was believed, at that time that the lot frontage definition, adopted in 1980, created the need for those variances: Lot. Frontage. The front of a lot shall be, for the purposes of complying with this code, that boundary abutting a public right-of- way having the least width. This definition provides for building setback uniformity within a given residential block and also maximizes the buildable area of a comer lot once the required building setbacks are applied. This definition does not dictate the orientation of the home, but does provide the greatest degree of flexibility for building placement in accordance with City setback standards. The conclusion of the 1988 corner lot review revealed the current lot frontage definition was not the cause of the variance requests. Rather, the individual homes were not situated properly within the lot's buildable area. Provisions of the existing ordinance only limits a fence location to the area behind the front line of the principal building. This is unique language in that it does not identify specific setback or required yard restrictions. Based on the specific wording of this provision, the orientation of the principal structure establishes the front line of the principal building and the location limits of the fence location. Under this interpretation, the lot's front yard setback and other required building setbacks would not be applicable to the regulating fence location.' A comparison of the fence location restriction with City's location restriction for other accessory structures highlights the unique language of the fence performance standards. While fence location only deals with the front line of the principal building, other accessory structures are limited by yard restrictions, as illustrated below: Rear Yard Limitations. No accessory storage type buildings other than a garage shall be located in any yard other than a rear yard. Air Conditioners. No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may be located in a required side yard except for side yards abutting streets and in such case the equipment shall be fully screened from view. Both of these requirements and others like them in the Ordinance address structure restrictions by yard requirement. This makes the location restriction very clear, and not affected by structure orientation, or subject to interpretation. The fence requirements need to be more definitive in describing allowed fence location on the lot. The current regulations present concern with fences being permitted in required front yards on corner lots. Clearly defined fence setbacks would eliminate interpretation differences and could reflect the actual objectives of the City. Planning Case Report 91-34 April 14, 1992 Page -3- The proposed ordinance amendment differentiates between residential and commercial/ industrial district regulations in addition to providing more detailed conditions throughout. Staff finds that the proposed text amendments will accomplish three major objectives: A. Existing language that contradicts itself will be eliminated. Section 4.033(3)a(ii) allows 48" high fencing (open type) within a "Sight Triangle, while the very next paragraph (iiii) permits 36" fencing in the balance of the front yard. Proposed is 42". Several new standards 1. will change fencing roles: All comer lots will have the "sight triangle" restriction in the new code. No longer will there be confusion or exemption for intersections where traffic is controlled in all directions. There have been several personal injury accidents on at least two "exempt" comer lots with sight triangle fencing. Fences must be 5 % open (or more). Fence posts must be on the inside, unless construction is symmetrical, and this is now stated. 4. "No fence shall obstruct natural drainage" is now stated. 5. Rules for non-conforming comer lots are clarified. 6. Barb wire use in security applications in commercial/industrial areas is detailed; fence must be set back from the property line enough so that projecting arms do not cross property lines, etc. The separation of Residential and Commercial/Industrial fencing language is clearer to the public. Adding the "General Provisions" paragraph seems simpler also. Staff supports the amendments proposed to the existing ordinance. The Planning Consultant will be present at the meeting to further explain the amendments and to describe how they would impact specific situations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of An Ordinance Amending the Amending Section 4.033(3)Regulating Fencing and Screening. New Hope Zoning Code By Attachments: Public Hearing Notice Proposed Ordinance Existing Ordinance Staff Exhibit - Fence Options 2/5/92 Planner's Diagram 11/20/91 Planner's Report 8/12/91 Planner's Report 1988 Comer Lot Study NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 4.033(3) REGULATING FENCING AND SCREENING City of New Hope, Minneosta Notice is hereby given that the city of New Hope Planning Commission will meet on April 14, 1992, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the effect of amending Section 4.033(3) of the New Hope Zoning Code regulating fencing and screening. The New Hope City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the ordinance at its meeting on Monday, April 27, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as may be heard in the Council Chambers, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. Ail persons interested are invited to appear at said hearings for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Dated the 19th day of March, 1992. s/ Valerie J. Leone Valerie J. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post News on the 25th day of March, 1992.) April 10, 1992 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xy]on Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Fencing and Screening Ordinance Our File No. 99.49201 Dear Kirk: Per our meeting of yesterday with Ordinance 92-01. Very truly yours, Steven A. 8ondral] slf Enclosure 92-01 Doug, enclosed is revised cc: Valerie Leone (w/eric) ORDINANCE NO. g3-O1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 4.033 (3) REGULATING FENCING AND SCREENING The City Council of the City of New HOpe ordains: Secti~O 1. Sections 4.033 (3)(a)(i) "Heieht...~aximum", "Inte~'secti,¢D Visibilitz" . .... _ , (iii)"$~ort fence~" and (iv)"Location" of the New Hope City Code are hereby repealed in their entirety. Sea, ion 2. Section 4.033 (3)(b) "~qu.jred Fencin~ and $creeni..Dg" of the New Hope City Code is hereby renumbered §4.033 (3)(d), Se.c~ton 3. Section 4.033 (3)(a) "~eneral Provist~Q~" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (a) General P~o_vf si cna. (i) On all corner lots. fences shall not be permitted within twenty (20) feet of any corner formed by the intersection of two (2) streets or the right-of-way of a railway intersecting a street. The twenty (20) feet shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides ~formed by the property lines and the third side formed by a straight line connecting the two twenty (20) foot points on each side of the corner. (t~) The required screening provisions as specified in subsection (d) of this section, $~all supersede, where applicable, the provisions of this Subsection, (iii,) All posts or similar supporting instruments used in the construction of fences shall be faced inward toward the property being fenced, unless symmetrical. (iv) No fence shall obstruct natural drainage. APR-- 10--92 ER I 9 ; I 5 CORR ICK ~ $ON~RALL P. 04 ~ (v) The height of a fence, in the case of grade separation, shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. (v~) In the case of a corner lot with the building front oriented to the side yard abutting & street, fences over forty-two (42) inches may not encroach into either the required front yard setback or the required side yard setback abutting a street. (vii) In the case of double front lots as defined by §4.022(87) of this Code fences over 42 inches in height shall not be permitted within'IS feet from the apparent back lot line, Section 4. Section 4,033 (3)(b) "B~idential Fenci,n,fl and Screening" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (b) E.e_sjdential Fencin~ .... and screening. general provisions of this section: Subject to the (i) (ii) Fences shall be at least five (5) percent open for passage of air and light, Fences not meeting this design standard will be treated as walls and will be required to meet building setbacks, Short Fences, Fences forty-two (42) inches in height or less may be locateO on any part of ~ lot. (iii) Tall Fences. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height may be located within the required side and rear yard setbacks of a lot which is behind the required front yard building setback as defined by Section 4.034 (3). Section 5. Section 4.033 (3)(0) "Commer~cial and_Industr.!jl D!strict Fences" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (c) Commercial a~d..Indus~ria!_~j_~trict Fencgs. Subject to the general provisions of this section: ~ AP R-- I 0 -- 9 2 F R I 9 : 1 5 CO R R i ~-~ ~ S ON D RA L L P . 0 5 (ii) (iii) Commercial and industrial fences may be erected up to eiiht (8) feet in height. Fences in excess of eight (8) feet shall require ~ conditional use permit. Fences which are primarily erected as a security measure may have pro~ecttng arms on which barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a Doint at least seven (7) feet above the ground on condition that the arms and barbed wire do not encroach onto or over public right-of-way or property lines of adjacent property, Commercial and industrial fencing may be located within the required side and rear yard setback of a lot which is behind the required front yard buildin9 setback as defined by Section 4,034 (3), Section ~. Effective Date, This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and ~ub]ication. Dated the day of , 1992, Edw, J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Cierk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the , 1992.) 3 day of 4.032 (4), 4.033 (1) - (3)(a)(ii) (4) Drainage Plans. In the case of all residential plats, multiple family dwellings, business and industrial developments, the drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for his review and the final drainage plan shall be subject to his written approval. 4.033 Performance Standards. (1) Purpose. The performance standards established in this section are designed to encourage high quality development by providing assurance that neighboring land uses will be compatible. The performance standards are also designed to prevent and eliminate those conditions that cause blight. All future development in the City shall be required to meet these standards. The standards shall also apply to existing development where so stated. The Building Official shall be responsible for enforcing these standards and may require the submission of information showing compliance or non-compliance with the standards. (2) Conformance to Standards. Before any building permit or certificate of occupancy is approved, the Building Official shall determine whether the proposed use is likely to conform to the performance standards. The developer shall supply additional data about the proposed use (such as equipment to be used, hours of operation, method of refuse disposal, type and location of exterior storage, etc.), where required to do so by the Building Official. It may occasionally be necessary for a developer or business to employ specialized consultants to demonstrate that a given use will conform with the performance standards. Fencing and Screeninq ~ (a) Permitted Fencinc~ and Screeninc~ (i) (ii) Height Maximum. No fence shall exceed eight feet in height and in the case of grade separation such as the divisi6n of properties by a retaining wall the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the averag, point between the highest and lowest grade. Intersection Visibility. Except as to street intersections where vehicular access is controlled by electrical signals, or where all vehicular access to the intersection is controlled by non-electrical stop signs, such as three and four-way or other all-way electrical stop signs, no fence, other than a chain line or woven wire fence forty-eight inches or less in height with openings between one and five eighths and two inches, shall be permitted within twenty feet of any corner formed by the intersection of street property lines or the right-of-way of a railway intersecting a street. The twenty feet referred to above shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides formed by the property lines and the third side formed by a straight line connecting the two twenty foot points on each side of the corner. No planting or structure which exceeds a width of twenty-four inches within a height eight feet or less from the top of the street curb shall be permitted within said triangle. (Ord. 81-7, 82-17) 4-21 072684 4,033 (3) (a)(iii) - (4) (s) (iii) Short Fences. Except as provided in ii, above, fences three feet in height, or less, may be located on any part of a lot. (iv) Location. Except as provided in ii, above, fences may be erected on any part of a lot which is behind the front line of the principal building. (b) Required Fencing and Screening. Where any business or industrial use (i.e., structure, parking or storage) abuts property zoned for residential use, that business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of the residential property. Screening shall also be provided where a business or industry is across the street from a residential zone, but not on that side of a business or industry considered to be the front (as determined by the Building Official). All the fencing and screening specifically required by this Code shall be subject to (a), above, and shall consist of either a fence or green belt planting strip as provided for below: (i) Green Belts. A green belt planting strip shall consist of evergreen trees and/or deciduous trees and large shrubs and shall be of sufficient width and density to provide an effective visual screen. This planting strip shall contain no structures. Such planting strips shall be designed to provide complete visual screening to a minimum height of six feet. Earth mounding or berms may be used but shall not be used to achieve more than three feet of the required screen. The planting plan and type of plantings shall require the approval of the Planning Commission, which shall have before it the recommendations of the City Engineer or Building Official. (ii) Screen Fencinq. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or steel. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight'f~et in height or be less than six feet in height. The design and materials used in constructing a required screening fence shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission which shall have before it recommendations of the City Engineer or Building Official. (4) LandScaping. (a) Required Landscaping - General Residential. The lot area remaining after providing for off-street parking, off-street loading sidewalks, driveways, building site and/or other requirements shall be landscaped using ornamental grass, shrubs, trees or other acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used in landscaping. Fences or trees placed upon utility easements are subject to removal if required for the maintenance or improvement of the utility. (The planting of large trees is not recommended under overhead wires). 4-22 072684 90' GENERAL Curb [ RESIDENTIAL ] LBS: m CE ST BOTH ~DES NO FEI~EM~ NO BAR **WE R NONCI 75' / REAR YARD SIDE YARD 20' CORNER FRONT YAR~ BE AT LEAST 5% OPEN HUST BE ON THE INSIDE~ UNLESS FENCE IS SIT~qETRICAL. tGROUND UNDER FENCE MUST BE NAINTAIN~ OBSTRUCT AREA DRATNAGE ~ED WI~E OR ELECTRIC FENCING PERMITTED iCE ERECTED ON AN F.A.~EMENT IS PLACED AT O~ RS RISK. ~-COHHEND FENCING TO BE ERECTED 2 FEET OR MORE FROM PROPERTY LINES** INFORMING BUILDINGS / LOTS HAVE DIFFERENT RULES ! CALL CITY HALL WITH QUESTIONS.~_~-~ ...... 531-5123 REAR YARD , "INSIDE" LOT' FRONT 125' mm, 20' TO: FROM: r' 'E: RE: FILE NO.: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius 5 February 1992 ME,XlOR,\NDL'M New Hope - Fences 131.00 - 91.11 (612) 595-9636 FAX (612)595-9837 Review of the Attorney's draft of the revised New Hope fence ordinance indicates that all of the discussed changes from the 3 January 1992 staff meeting have been completed. We have attached a revised corner lot fence diagram that illustrates the suggested fence heights and setbacks. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD · SUITE 555 · SAINT LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 WHITE - ORIGINAL YELLOW - FILE COPY PINK - C FILE STREET -= i I I · I CI FINER LOT ',1'1 I . .! .mm I : il-' ...... ---) -" ..... 1 '=-- : i i I ~ ...- .- == .= II 'Il i ~ INTERIOR LOT ~::= I I ~ I CORNER LOT I =' { I i -I. --i I . · · II I.I · · · · STREET "'"""'""" FENCES UP TO EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT .... · m FENCES UP TO 42 INCHES IN HEIGHT U R B P L A N N G DES I G N M A R K E T R S E A R C H TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius/Elizabeth Stockman 20 November 1991 New Hope - Corner Lot - Fences 131.00 - 91.11 BACKGROUND In August of 1991, New Hope confronted a number of issues in the application of City fence regulations on corner lots. We have reviewed the New Hope fence regulations and identified areas of vague or confusing zoning provisions. These findings are outlined in our 12 August 1991 planning report. Since this report, we have been directed to develop specific zoning language that addresses fence construction and setbacks. Attached is a draft ordinance that outlines proposed fence regulations. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 4.033. (3).a establishes general fence regulations that would be applicable to all fences within the City. These regulations include: o Requirements for a site survey to identify fence proposed locations. o Requirement that fences be maintained in good condition. o Traffic visibility triangle applicable to corner lots. o General fence design standards. o Requirements that prevent visibility interference for driveways. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 RESIDENTIAL FENCING ANDSCREENING Section 4.033.(3).b outlines specific performance standards for fences in residential districts. These districts include: o Design standards for fences. o Short fences which are allowed anywhere on the lot. o Tall privacy fences which are limited to side and rear yards behind the principal structure. o Requirements that front yard fences must provide 50 percent opaqueness. o Building orientation on corner lot and its influence on the fence location. Exhibit A and B illustrate the application of these regulations on residential lots. COb~IERCIALAND INDUSTRIAL FENCING Section 4.033.(3).c outlines specific performance standards for fences in commercial and industrial districts. include: o o o These districts Commercial and industrial fence heights. Performance standards for security fences. Industrial and commercial fence setback requirements. REQUI~RD FENCING AND. SCREENING Section 4.033.(3).d remains the same as it is currently written in the City Ordinance. This section was renumbered to accommodate the preceding Ordinance changes. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall Dan Donahue ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY REVISING SECTION 4.033 (3) REGULATING FENCING AND SCREENING. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 4.033 (3) "Fencing and Screening" of the New Hope City Code is hereby revised to read as follows: (3) Fencing and Screening. (a) General Provisions. (i) Ail fences shall be located entirely upon the private property of the person constructin9 such, unless the owner of the property adjoining agrees, in writing, that such fence may be erected on the division line of the .. respective properties. The Buildin9 Official may require the owner of the property upon which a fence now exists, or may require any applicant for a fence permit to establish the boundary lines of a person's property by a survey thereof to be made by a registered land surveyor. (ii) Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial, professional manner and of substantial material reasonably suited for the-purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. Every fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute nuisance, public or private. Any such fence which is, or has become dangerous to the public safety, health or welfare, is a public nuisance, and the Zoning Administrator shall commence proper proceedings for the abatement thereof. (iii)On all corner lots, fences shall not be permitted within twenty (20) feet of any corner formed by the intersection of two (2) streets or the right-of-way of a railway intersecting a street. The twenty (20) feet shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides formed by the property lines and the third side formed by a straight line connecting the two twenty (20) foot points on each side of the corner. (iv) The required screening provisions as · . specified in Item (d) below, shall supersede, where applicable, the provisions of this Sub- section. (v) Ail posts or similar supporting instruments used in the construction of fences shall be faced inward toward the property being fenced. (.vi) Ail fences shall not obstruct natural drainage. (vii)The height of a fence, in the case of grade separation, shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. (viii)No planting or structure which exceeds a width of twenty-four (24) inches shall be allowed in such a manner as to materially impede vision between a height of two (2) and eight (8) feet where it will interfere with traffic or pedestrian visibility from a driveway, alley, or public right-of-way. (b) Residential Fencing and Screening. (i) Fences shall be at least five (5) percent open for passage of air and light. Fences not meeting this design standard will be treated as walls and will be required to meet building setbacks. (ii) Short Fences. Except as p~ovided in Section ~3.a.(iii) and 3.a.(Viii), fences forty-two (42) inches in height or less may be located on any part of a lot. (iii)Tall Fences. Except as provided in Section 3.a.(iii), and 3.a.(viii), fences up to eight (8) feet in height may be located within the required side and rear yard setbacks of a lot which is behind the required front yard building setback as defined by Section 4.022. (iv) Fences extending across required front yards shall be at least fifty (50) percent open space for passage of air and light. (v) In the case of a corner lot with the buildin9 front oriented to the side yard abuttin9 a street, fences over forty-two (42) inches may not encroach into either the required front yard setback or the required side yard setback abuttin9 a street. (b) Commercial and Industrial District Fences. (d) (i) Business and industrial fences may be erected up to eight (8) feet in height. Fences in excess of eight (8) feet shall require a conditional use permit. (ii) Fences which are primarily erected as a security measure may have arms projecting into the applicant's property on which barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven (7) feet above the ground. (iii)Except as provided in Sections 3.a.(iii) and 3.a.(viii), commercial and industrial fencin~ may be located within the required side and rear yard setback of a lot which is behind the required front yard building setback as defined by Section 4.022. Required Fencing and Screening. Where any business or industrial use (i.e., structure, parking, or storage) abuts property zoned for residential use, that business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of the residential property. Screening shall also be provided where a business or industry is across the street from a residential zone, but not on that.side of a business, or industry considered to be the front (as determined by the Building Official). All the fencing and screenin9 specifically required by this Code shall be subject to (b), above, and shall consist of either a f~nce or green belt planting strip as provided for below: (i) Green Belts. A green belt plantin~ strip shall consist of evergreen trees and/or deciduous trees and large shrubs and shall be of sufficient width and density to provide an effective visual screen. This planting strip shall contain no structures. Such planting · strips shall be designed to provide complete visual screening to a minimum height of six 3 feet. Earth mounding or berms may be used but shall not be used to achieve more than three (3) feet of the required screen. The planting plan and type of plantings shall require the approval of the Planning Commission, which shall have before it the recommendations of the City Engineer or Building Official. (ii) Screen FencinG. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood, or steel. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight (8) feet in height or be less than six (6) feet in height. The design and materials used in constructing a required screening fence shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission which shall have before it recommendations of the City Engineer or Building Official. Section 2. Effective Date. The Ordinance effective upon its passage and publication. shall be Dated the day of , 1991. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the of , 1991.) day 4 STREET CORNER LOT I I I I I I I I I I I INTERIOR- lOT I '" I I I CORNER LOT FENCES UP TO EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT STREET EXHIBIT A STREET I I I CORNER LOT I ..~< ............. ...~...~.~ STREET ,~'mllml FENCES UP TO EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT B · Ill FENCES UP TO 42 INCHES IN HEIGHT EXHIBIT B or we Consultants, Inc. R 8 P L N G · DES N · M A R K E T R ES E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: mE: FILE NO: kirk McDonald Allan Hunting/Alan Brixius 12 August 1991 New Hope - Corner Lot Study/Fence Location iS1.00 - 9!.ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background: a fence on a resi0en%iai corner lot. The home on the 13! is oriented to the side s~ree~ and the Proposed fence is ~: ce ioJated in the defined front yard. This situation ~as processe~ as a variance. The City, in revie~ o~ this request, suggeste~ ~at City staff revie~ ~he lot frontage definition for posslc.e revision in order ~o avoid the need rom the variance for tne~e lo~s in the~fu~ure. ANALYS I S The lot frontage ~efini~ion was previously reviewed in in July of 1~88. T~is investigation stemmed fram the numae~ expansion requests of non-conforming single family homes on corner lots. It ~as ~eiieved, a~ ~he time, f~ontage definition, adopted in i980, created the need ~o~ variances. T~e cu~ren~ lot frontage ~eflnl~lon ~eads as Section 4.022.84 Lot, Frontaqe. The front of a lot s~ail Oe, for ~-e purposes of complying with this Code, that Ooundary a0u~ll-z a Pumlic right-of-way bav~ng ~e l~ast ~ld~h. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.. Suite 555-St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 This definition Drovides for buildina setback uniformity within a given residential block and also maximizes the bulldable area of a corner lot once the re,wired building setbacks are aDplled. This definition does not dictate the or-ientatian of the nome. but does provide the greates[ de~ree of flexibility for building placement in accordance with Citx setback standards. The conclusion of the 1~88 corner lot review revealed the current lot frontage definition was not the cause of the variance reauests. Rather, the individual homes were not situate~ Droperly within the lot's builOabie area. In review of the fence request, we have again re-evaluated the iot frontage definition in conflunc~lon with the City's fence regulations. Exhibit A illustrates th~ reauired set~ack and a house oriented to the side s~reet using ~he current lo~ frontage definition. Please note ~hat the required setback along both S~reets A and B are uniform ~ith aa~acent lot development. Also. the larger front and rea,- setbacks are apolied to the lots longest dimension, providing the largest PosslPle bulldable area. Section 4.053.5 outlines the performance standards for fences in New Hope. Exhibit B illustrates the aD~iication of the fence requirement to the caf'net lot situation. Section 4.035.3: (3) Fencinq and Screening (a) Permitted FenclncL_~qq_Sc~gp3_9~ (i) Height Maximum. No fence shall exceed eight feet in Melght and in the case of grade separation such as the division of properties by a retaining wail. the height snail be determined on the ~asi5 of measurement ~rom the average point between the highest and lowest gra~e. (ii) In~rsect!.o~_ ~.%~.~b_ll_~.~y.. Except as to st~'eet intersections where vehicular access is controiiec by electrical signals, or where all vehlcula~ access to the intersection is controlled by non- electrical stop signs, such as three and or other all-wax electrical stop signs, no fence. other than a chain line or woven wire fence forty- eight inches on ie~s in height witl~ openings between one and five-eighths and two inches, shali De permitted within twenty -feet of anx corne~ formed by the in,er'section Of street lines or the ~-ioht-of-wax of a intersecting a street. The twent~ feet referred 2 to above shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides formed by the property lines and the third side formed by a straight line connecting the two twenty foot oolnts on each side of the corner. No plantiOg or structure which exceeCs a width of twenty-four inches within a height elg~t feet or less from the too of the street curb sna!! be permitted within said triangle. iii)Short Fence. Except as provided in fences three feet in helgnt, or located on an~ bart of a lot. ii. a0ove, iv) Location. Except as provided in ii, a0ove, fences may be erected on any Dart of a lot which is behind the front line of {he ~rinciDal bulldlnq. Provision iv) above only limits a fence location to the area behind the front line of the Drinci~ai building. This is unique language in that it does not i0en~Ify soecific setback or required yard restrictions. Based on the specific wording ~? ~his provision, the orientation of ~he principal structure establishes the front line of ~he 0rlnclpal building and ~ne location limits of the ~ence location. Un,er Ehls interpretation, the lot's front yard setback and ot~er re~ui~ec building setbacks would not ~e a~iicable to the regulatlno fen]e location. A comparison of the fence location restriction wit~ Cit~ ~ location restriction for' ot~ner accessory structures nlghli~n~s ~he unique language of the fence oerformance stan0ar~s. While fence location only deals with the front line of the ~rlnci~ai building, other accessory structures are limited by ~ar~ restrictions, as illustrated below: (O) Rear Yard Lj~..~.~Q~_~. No accessor'x storage buildings other titan a g~ca0e shall be locate0 in yard other than a rear Section 4.052.3 (d) (ii) Air Conditioners. No accessory uses or eOulpment as air condl~ionlnq cooling structures o,- conCense~s which ~enerate noise may Oe located in a required yard except for side ,,ar~s abutting streets an0 in case the eoui~ment shall be fully screened from vle~. Both of these rec~uirements and others like them in the Ordinance address structure restrJ orions by yard reouirement · This makes ciea~-, and not affected by the location restriction very structure orientation, or sub3ect to interDretation. As Exhibit B ii lustrates, the fence reot~irernents need to be more definitive in desCriDing al lowed -fence location on tme lot. This deficiency is brought out most ciea,- l'/ in t~s co~-ner ict scenario · As stated earlier, t~e definition of lot frontage does not affect the fence ~lacement. theMe'fore, a change in this definition w~l 1 not a~ress ~utuMe concerns. [ne Git', should, however, consider amending its fence renu 1 at. ion5 t~ more clearly ~e~ine the aQpro~riate locations Sot ~ences. ] he current regulations present concerns wit~ fences being ~ermltted in re~ui~eo front yar~s on corner lots. Cleariy ~efined fence setbacks woul~ eliminate InterDretatlon dlf~e~-ences and could re~lect the actual ob3ectlves of the City. CONCLUS I ON Based on the interpretation of the fence requirements, changing the definition o'f Lot F,-ontac~e wili have no lmmact on the location of fences. Chan~]lng she lot ~-ontaQe definition would not DMovide any Mel lef ~oM any coCne¢ lot stFtiCtLiMe va¢lance o¢ fence a~licatiom. ~e would suggest that t~e City ma,/ want tc investigate the ~os~lbillty o¢ ~udif,/in~ the fence ~e~ul~ements so that the~ a~e made consistent ~itm the nest o{ the O~dlnance in the ~ay they deal ~lth ideation on the tot. House Front Line of the Principal Structure Street A EXHIBIT A 35' Garage ~Fo'' Front Line of the SPttincipal ructure j-~------ Fenc etin e Street A EXHIBIT B northwest associated consultants, inc. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Jeannine Dunn Mike Ridley/Alan Brixius 26 October 1988 New Hope - Corner Lot St(ldy 131.00 - 88.08 The City of New Hope has been studying the situation of n~n- conforming residential dwelling units located on corner l~ts throughout the City. The study was initiated because of the large number of variance requests for the expansion of non- conforming single family residential units. Apparently, the basis for granting such variances was credited to hardships created by the current Ordinance, which was adopted in 1980. Review of several sample corner lot situations, provided by the City Building Official, revealed that the non-conforming situations were not created by the current Ordinance. Because criteria to be met for granting a variance is very stringent, this office suggests an Ordinance amendment whereby expansion of non-conforming single family structures would be handled on a case-by-case basis by conditional use permit. Analysis of existing corner lot conditions was presented in a ,July 7, 1988 planners report. This report also outlined a prgvision that allowed for the expansion of a non-conformir~c single family dwelling by conditional use. Based on discussion of the July 7 planners report by the Codes and Standard~ Committee, we have drafted an alternate ordinance amendment Section 4.031(11). The following amendment language is identica' to that contained at the bottom of page two of our 7 July 19~~ report (attached') except that it pertains only to corner lots. "Lawfully existing non-conforming single family individua] dwelling units located on corner lots may be expanded improve livability as a conditional use as regulated Chapter 4, Section 4.21 of this Ordinance, provided the non- conformity of the structure is not increased." 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 410, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420 northwest associated consultants,/nc. PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Dan Donohue Mike Ridley/Alan Brixius July 7, 1988 New Hope - Corner Lot Study 131.0.0 - 88.08 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background: The City has had a number of requests for expansion of non- conforming single family structures located on corner lots. ordinance, expansions have to be granted by variance. The basis for granting these variances has been due to hardships created the current ordinance adopted in 1980 that altered the definition of lot frontage. To avoid further variance requests of this type, the City has -instructed this office to investigate application of this definition. Conclusion Review of the random cases selected by the City Buitdinq Inspector reveals that the non-conformity of single family structures on corner lots is not caused by the updated Citu Ordinance adopted in 1980. This being the case, past variance requests have not been characterized by a hardship created ~-,' City action. Ordinance criteria to be met for granting variances is very stringent. Therefore, we suggest handling non-conforminc, single family structure expansion as conditional uses. Also, when expansions are granted, the area allowed for expansion mus~ be established. 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 41 O, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420 2. Expansion is allowed provided the existing setback encroachments are not increased. Conclusion The non-conformity of single family structures on corner lots is not caused in all cases by the updated City Ordinance adopted in 1980. This being the case, past variance requests have not been characterized by a hardship created by City action. Ordinance criteria to be met for granting variances is very stringent. Therefore, we suggest handling non-conforming single family structure expansions as conditional uses. Also, when expansions are granted, the area allowed for expansion must be established. cc: Jeannine Dunn Doug Sandstad SteVe Sondrall ~,...o. M;nn. BUILDABLE AREA: !~ ,,--,-! .~;, ,", "'.- ~"= !:~ ?'.-, '" ' DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE .. ~. ; .,;.r ~i, '~ . . ~ , ..j ,~....,, ,.. ',. ',...j ~ ~ I...,'~ ~ t. SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE Regls'¢rcd ?roiressi°r'a[ ~Cngineers and L~nd Sut ,.o ....... ..,-..~,,.., ~, ,- .... :~,:~ ~.r--~¢.'.'~. FRONT YARD: ~,j ,~ ~-',~.//\,~x,-.4 (~ -._, ~-.4 -','Ti-.4'~ ,'-' FI=PRE¥1OUS ORDINANCE F°r-~----'""----':~--" .... ~ -~IDT"-A-T - -E F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE BUILDING VILLAGE OF NEW 140PE 'DATE .FI ~.:£_ ..~,,, F2 -~--~~--' ° . here~y certify thai this [sa true and correct repr. eserttation of a survey of ~he boundaries of the land descr,bec doe:, nc: purport to *,how improvements or encroachments, if any. As surveyed by me ~his .. ).'~,."~? ..... cay af · ~ de Nc,... "t,'~ "~"~'.¢4> 3oo~, ................. Page ... CASWELL CNG;:,.-'=ERING CO. EXHIBIT 1 Minnesota Regi$1rollon No.. "~c~..=~c~, ...... dUILDABLE AREA: DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANI.,~ o FRONT YARD: V t ~\VC P.~$T .~ L~t.~ ~ F 1=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE .,, ...... I ZT. 46 ....... lO.7~ '~-~, ~'~ '";~,'~: _~ 1'~ F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE i. '~ · 5C~L~ - i", ~' I hereby certify:that this isia tmue and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries'of: Lot 5, Block 3, Terra Linde And of the location of all buildings, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyd by r~e this loth day of May, 1973. "LAT pi ~.N.//APPROVED iX./ ..'-.,( c- z.:"~'-/...-/', ."--'-~ -,-"--- - .... ,10'~ tT ~-?' ."" ~ 2 HAI~V£Y A. CARTWIqlC, HT OdlO PALM ~RE~T N ~ H & Val J; Ro%hschild LA,%'D b'UA' BUILDABLE AREA: DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE REGIBTtR(O _LLMn · n L,c[,-~,,u ,,v o,,o,.,,~cc o. tiT. or. '",-,Nc, SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE HENNEPIN AT SIXTH Jvc!,: .',':. !ill: FRONT YARD: F 1=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE .:..'/.5' F2 JL'/ and f.s voi] for any I hcrc'.':,j ccrti:~/ th::t this is a truc :nd cor:'-.ct rearesentation of a :'~v~¥ . f CARTW ........... EXHIBIT · . J dUILDABLE AREA: ENG! NF_E. IA,$ AND ,BU~V'~ SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANC_. CIVIL I~ MUNI¢IDIk. I, i. NQINC[I:I. INI3 MIHI~IE. APOLI$ %1,1~4IMN. FRONT YARD: F 1=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE · 4 I I: x4 ' . .,.... ~ / ~r, '' " . , /~, ~ ,' ,, ...,,..: ..... ,., ...... ~ .... ,.,.~ ,,~.,,o~o,o.,~o~,o. ~~ ~a,~ EXHIBIT 4 1 5722 W. ayzata Blvd. Minnea'Po!i$ 16, Minn. aUILDABLE AREA: DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE C A SW E L L E N G I N E E R I ~o~,o ..~=c~,..~.. o.o,.,~.o~ Registered Professional Engineers and Land S~. FRONT YARD: CERTIFICATE OF SURV! ~:~=PREWOUS ORD~.A.CE F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE i ?os'I I hereby certify that this ~s a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land described abo~e. It does not purport to show improvements o~ encroachments, if any.~s surveyed by me this ~/ d~,/ cf File No. /.~4:~ 7-/~, _Book Page CASWELL ENGtNEERING CO. EXHIBIT 5 ~y/Y,r,-~. I Minnesota Registration No.__~3 ~-~ '..~:~: 'L " -? 1 EXHIBIT 6 ../ dUILDABLE AREA: DASHED LINE=PI~EVIOUS ORDINANCE SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE FRONT YARD: F 1=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE · ~UILDABLE AREA: ENGI N F_. E P. ~ AND ,~U ~.Vl SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINAN~._., FRONT YARD: F 1=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE JUILDABLE AR~=A:' DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE ,iL ~.', :,,~..-~s~ ny o~cn or c~ or ~ SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE '.~?,' .~:? I,i.} .... ~,'~.' ~.':.~-" "-...:, . ':'. ,,:. ,: ' FRONT YARD: .> F 1=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE :~'~ :.,:. ,....,,-. ;~..; .. .,,, lr~u.i..~.~,. -. , . '' -.¥~ /' ' i \, 2". -- .¥ i'?-.,!: , BLOCK I~ t i : .... ,PETERSON,C '"" .:, HAZEl_HILL I. t.. ": t", . ,,') - I , .-r ... .. -. ~; ',' -.i'% i .... .-./'..... I -;i.i -- . ' ';.z.'. '""~ "': ' ' " "~ .- . t"" m~.~i~, 'il , ;l"'h'~'~'.~' of1~,,d ~,~k" ..... .'.:.' .... ·' ' '"': . '..;',: .,: .:.' ..... ',~ ~ ' ,','' .\. ..,",. "' .', '.' , ,- ',~ .:' '1' L' '..'(."~:'.'-:'-'.,' , ".2"~ :'~. k,. \ : .'. ".'.*'~. ~ .... .~ ; :," , '. · -."¥' : ""'"' ?~,-',', ~ ' '\. \~;~':.'.' "',7~ ', ...... .: ' "'. "- .. ~-:~ ., · , .,. ,, . ',1 .~, \ ,: ~, · ...... .-. ..... ~ ,..,,tt ,....i.. ~- '-; .'. ,i .... /'.'' , .......... . " i< 1 I .I 77G8 Lakeland Ave. (Broeklyn Park), P. O. O$$eo, Minn. clUILDABLE AREA: DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE C A S W E L L E N G i N E E R Ii SOL,~, L.,,,:--CU..,:.',' 0.,:,,.,~.,....~ Registered Professional Engineers and Land S~ FRONT YARD: CERTIFICATE OF SURVI F~=PREVlOUS ORDmA.CE For ~ I~_..~ F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE ~'" ~:~. ~ r"~ [Z.. ~ C.. t4,.S ~,_. --., CASWELL ENGINEERING CO. EXHIBIT Minnesota Registration No. '~ File No "~'Z. 6,.~ -I Book '7_-I 7,. .Page 'Z. ~. I hereby certify that this is o true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land described abo~e. It does not p~rport to show improvements or encroachments, if any. As surveyed by me this ~0~'~ doy of DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM April 10, 1992 Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Coordinator Miscellaneous Planning Issues Assistant/Community Development Moratorium Ordinance on Conversion of Apartment Complexes On April 13th the City Council will consider adopting an Interim Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on the Conversion, Renovation, or Remodeling of Existing Multiple Residential Housing Apartment Complexes the Purpose for Which Would Increase the Number of Bedrooms Per Unit. The ordinance would impose a one-year moratorium on such activity until a planning study is completed to determine impacts, and make recommendations on City Code changes. I anticipate that this issue will be referred to Codes & Standards, and we should schedule a meeting this April/May with the Planning Consultant to preliminarily discuss the issues. Please review the enclosed information. Gravel Driveways The Council has also requested that the Planning Commission review the current Code requirements regarding driveway surfaces to determine if gravel/rock should continue to be a permitted use for driveway surfaces (see attached excerpt from 3-23 Council minutes). Norwest Bank Exit Sign The enclosed letter was sent to the Manager of the Norwest Bank New Hope regarding your concerns about the bank exit sign. Autohaus Autohaus requested 23rd EDA meeting information. a one-year extension on their development improvements at the March and the issue was tabled until the first meeting in May - see attached Fina The Fina planning case was approved at the March 9th City Council meeting, except for the 24-hour operation. The request for 24-hour operation was continued until the March 23rd Council meeting and approved with several conditions (see enclosed letter from Fina). -2- 6. Outdoor Dining Ordinance The Outdoor Dining Ordinance was approved at the March 23rd Council meeting and all establishments were subsequently notified of the approval (see enclosed letter). The two major shopping centers are in the process of t'fling applications and we will be considering the Winnetka Commons application at the May meeting. 7. City Hall Proposed Addition The City will be submitting an application for site/building plan review for the May meeting regarding an elevator addition to the front of the City Hall and a second story addition over the rear police garages. We will be discussing this at Design & Review on April 16th. We want to get the plan approved before we seek bids. Once bids are received the Council will determine whether to proceed with all or a portion of the project or may decide not to proceed at all (see enclosed preliminary plans). 8. Salt Storaee/Fuel Center The City has developed a preliminary concept plan on a possible joint-city salt storage/fuel center site on a portion of the School District, YMCA, and Dura Process properties. The enclosed letter and concept plan has been submitted to the School District for their review and comment. REgUF- T FOR A ION O~atmg Dep~ent Approved for ~enda ~e~da S~ction Ci~ M~er ~velopment 4-13-~2 Item ~rk M~n~d ~:M~agement Assis~t ~OL~ON A~O~Z~N~ PL~~ S~Y TO CONSIDER IMPACT ~AR~~ CO~ERSIONS ~C~AS~ ~ ~MBER O~ BEDR~MS P~R U~T A~ A~O~~ ~ MO~TO~ O~~CE P~IN~ S~DY ~er the ~t ~ve~ monks, s~f h~ ~me ~on~ a~ut ~e numar of ap~ment conversions ~at ~e ~ng pla~ in ~e City ~d is r~ommend~g ~at ~e Counc~ ~onsider ~mplemen~g a modicum on ~d ~nversions un~l ~e issues ~ ~ smdi~ by ~e Planing Commission. ~e en~lo~ re~lu~on auto.s ~ pl~ning study to ~sider ~e im~t of ap~ment ~onversions ~at ~ ~e numar of ~r~ms ~r u~t ~d auto.s ~ in~m mo~to~um ord~ ~nding ~er study. ~e majo~ of a~ment ~mplexes ~ ~e Ci~ we~ ~ns~ ~ one or ~o ~r~m uni~ ~d over ~e ~t ~ve~ y~s ~e~ h~ ~n ~ ~~ dem~d for ~ or mo~ ~r~m dwelling u~ p~m~ly due to ~- ~~ of ~gle ~nt f~ies. ~e s~ d~ not obj~t ~d in fact su~ ~nversions ~at wo~d p~de g~ ~for~ble hous~g wi~ ~e Ci~ for s~gle ~ent f~ies, ~ve~ issues n~ to ~ s~di~ to de~e ove~ im~ on ~e ~mmuni~ such as: 1. A~ment ~nve~ions ~ould r~ult in ~e loss of o~er ~mplex ~eni~es, including s~mming ~ls, ~k ~ or o~n s~ g~e or p~ ~ms, ~d ~ng ~. ~. M~y a~ment ~omplexes we~ ~low~ ~r~i~ for ~~ densi~ subj~t to providing ~eni~ w~h may ~ subj~t ~ ~mov~ ~ a~mm~ ~e ~on~ion for in~r~ 3. ~ ~~ ~ ~ms ~r u~t ~out sufficient ~e~eS ~ould ~uk in ~ ove~ of pro~ ~d ~ de~men~ ~ ~e h~, ~e~, ~d welf~e of ~n~ ren~rs, ~ well as · e Ci~ at 4. S~d ~onve~ ~ent ~mplex~ ~uld de~men~y ~t adja~nt munici~ ~enities M~ON BY SECO~ BY TO: R~: M~stration: F~ce: ~A-~ I ~ Request for Action Apartment Conversions April 13, 1992 Page -2- Staff feels that it would be prudent to conduct a planning study to determine what impact,, if any, apartment conversions increasing the number of bedrooms per unit would have on adjacent municipal amenities and facilities and the impact on the converted property itself from an overuse perspective. The study would recommend building and use standards for such conversions and staff recommends that an interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on such conversions be adopted while the study is being conducted. The enclosed resolution directs staff to study and report on the impact of apartment conversions, to make recommendations on building and use standards for said conversions, and states that it is appropriate to adopt an interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on all apartment conversions that would increase the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in complexes with 4 or more dwelling units until said study is complete. If the Council concurs with these recommendations, the action would be to first approve the resolution and then to adopt the ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Authorizing Planning Study To Consider Impact Of Apartment Conversions Increasing The Number Of Bedrooms Per Unit And Authorizing Interim Moratorium Ordinance Pending Study. CORRICK & SONDRALL F.~flnburgh E~u~ Office 8525 F.,dlnbrook Crossing Sult~ #203 Brooklyn Pm-k, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (~12) ;AX (a12) April 7, 1992 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant City of New Hope 4401Xylon .Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Proposed Resolution and Ordinance Providing for Moratorium on Apartment Conversions Our File No. 99.49208 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed proposed Ordinance No. 92-08 and a Resolution Authorizing Planning Study to Consider Impact of Apartment Conversions Increasing the Number of Bedrooms Per Unit and Authorizing Interim Moratorium Ordinance Pending Study for consideration at the April 13th Council meeting. The Ordinance and Resolution are fairly self-explanatory. Please contact me 'if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondra11 slt Enclosure cc: Daniel J. Oonahue (w/enc) A1 Brixius (w/enc) Doug Sandstad (w/enc) Valerie Leone (w/enc) RESOLUTION NO. 92- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PLANNING STUDY TO CONSIDER IMPACT OF APARTMENT CONVERSIONS INCREASING THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS PER UNIT AND AUTHORIZING INTERIM MORATORIUM ORDINANCE PENDING STUDY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: WHEREAS, many of the multiple residential apartment complexes with four or more dwelling units have been constructed as efficiency, one or two bedroom units, and WHEREAS, the demand for dwelling units in said complexes with two or less bedrooms have decreased while there has been an increased demand for three or more bedroom dwelling units primarily due to an increase of single parent families unable to afford home ownership, and WHEREAS, it is feared that apartment conversions to three or more bedrooms per dwelling unit will result in the loss of other complex amenities including but not limited to swimming pools, park areas or open space, exercise, game or party rooms and parking area, and WHEREAS, many apartment complexes were allowed credits for increased density subjec~ to providing the described amenities which may be subject to removal to accommodate the conversion for increased bedrooms per unit, and WHEREAS, it is further feared that an increase in bedrooms per unit without sufficient amenities as described may result in an overuse of property detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of potential renters as well as the City at large, and WHEREAS, without sufficient apartment amenities an expected increase in the number of renters or tenants in said converted apartment complexes may detrimentally effect adjacent municipal amenities such as parks, playgrounds, streets and possibly the City's municipal pool, and WHEREAS, the City Council does not object and in fact supports conversions that would promote good affordable housing within the · City for single parent families, and WHEREAS, the City Council further believes it would be prudent to conduct a planning study to determine what impact, if any, apartment conversions increasing the number of bedrooms per unit would have on adjacent municipal amenities and facilities and the impact on the converted property itself from an overuse perspective, and WHEREAS, the City Council also believes that the proposed study should recommend building and use standards for such conversions and that an interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on such conversion should be adopted while the study is being conducted as permitted by Minn. Stat. §462.355, Subd. 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: That the City Manager and staff are hereby directed to study and report on the impact of multiple residential apartment conversions increasing the number of bedrooms per unit in all existing comp]exes with four or more dwelling units on the health, safety and we]fare of potential tenants residing therein as well as to the City at large. That the described report shall also make proposed recommendations on building and use standards for said conversions· That it is appropriate to adopt an interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on all apartment conversions, renovations or remodelings which in effect would increase the number of bedrooms per dwelling units in apartment complexes with four or more dwelling units until said study is complete and acted upon by this City Council. That the purpose of the study and moratorium is to protect the land use and plannin9 process within the City to promote and not hinder good affordable rental housing within the City and especially for single parent families. Adopted by the City Council this 13th day of April, 1992. Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor TO: FROM: DAT~: FIL~ NO: Kirk McDonald Kyle Brown/Alan Brixius 19 February 1992 New Hope Apar=men= Conversion S~udy 131.00 - 92.01 The City of New Hope has recently received several requests from owners of apartment complexes to conver= 1-2 bedroom units in=o 3-4 bedroom units. This is in response =o the demand for larger units to accom~nodate larger families. This memorandum outlines the ways in which these conversions can occur, and identifies =he potential effects, as well as the advantages and disadvan=ages of each conversion method. AND AN~.~Y~L~ The Ordinance does not regulate the composition of an apartment building by uni~ size. The number of apartments of various sizes is driven by local markets. Under these circumstances, the conversion of apartment units to different size units is not restricted, provided the density and unit sizes comDly with City standards. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.' Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416, (612) 595-9636'Fax. 595-9837 4.035 (2) and (3) (2) Lot Area Per Unit. The lot area per unit requirement for townhouses, multiple family dwellings and planned unit developments shall be calculated on the basis of. the to=a! area in the project and as controlled by an individual and joint ownership. Other minimum areas are: Single Family Two Family Townhouse Multiple Family Elderly Housing' 9,500 square feet 7,000 square feet $,000 square feet 3,000 square feet* 1,000 square feet *4,000 square feet in an R-3 district. (3) Usabl9 QDen space. No dwelling may occupy in excess cf twenty percent of the lot area on single or two-family dwelling sites. Each multiple family dwelling site shall contain at least rive hundred square feet of usable open spacm as defined by Section 4.022 (131) of this Code (other tha~ the front yard) for each dwelling unit contained thereon. 4.035 6 (b) and (c) (b) ~ultiDIe Dwellina Units. Except for elderly housing, living units classified ~as multiple dwellings shall have the following minimum floor areas per unit: Efficiency Units One Bedroom Units Two Bedroom Units More t~an two bedroom units - an additional 100 square feet for each additional bedroom. 500 square feet 600 square feet 750 square feet (c) Elderly (Senior Citizen) Housina. Living units classified as elderly (senior citizen or R-5) housing units shall have the following minimum floor area per unit: EfficiencyUnits One Bedroom 440 square feeC 520 square feet CONFm~SXO~OPTIONN There are two clearly identifiable methods of converting 1-2 bedroom units into 3-4 bedroom units. Option A: One method of conversion would be to simply further subdivide a larger 2 bedroom unit and add additional bedroom(s) without expanding the overall size of the unit. This method could be accomplished by rearranging =he internal layout of the unit. Review of recent New Hope apartment proposals reveals that two bedroom apartments had an average floor area of 1,100 square feet. These units could accommodate an additional bedroom and still comply with the City's minimum floor area standards of 850 square feet for a three bedroom unit and 950 square feet for a four bedroom unit. This type of conversion raises the following issues: The Option A conversion raises issues with regard to functional design of the apartment unit after a bedroom is added. Often times, the unit amenities for kitchen, dining and closet space are designed based on the anticipated number of people occupying the unit. Increasing occupancy of the unit raises concern with the overall functioning of the unit. The conversion of two bedroom apartments into more bedrooms under O~tion A increases the occupancy capacity of these units without reducing the number of units on the site. Increasing the number of residents in an apartment complex raises the nee~ for more ancillary amenities such as parking, open space, and recreational amenities. The other conversion option available is to simply combine two units creating one larger unit and one smaller unit. This option would still provide acc~mnodations for approximately the same number of people, option B presents the following: The larger 3 and 4 bedroom apartments are intended to cater to larger families. This presents a need to provide open space and recreational amenities that cater to households with children. The recreational needs of children are significantly different from adults. These needs should be addressed as part of the apartment conversion plan. An Option B apartment conversion would maintain the same number of apartment units, but would change the mix=ute of apartment sizes within a building. By ordinance standards, =his should no= change the parking demand of the apartment building· I= is recognized that rental market dictates the trends and sizes of apartments. The City housing stock should be responsive =o the regional market elements. The conversion of existing housing stock to larger units must give attention to the life styles and needs of its residents. In this regard, the following elements must be considered: Increased DensitvL The total number of people within the complex may increase, particularly under Option A. This can result in an over-utilization of the site. As such, a limit to increasing the density should be ex~lored. Increased Parkina Demand. 3-4 bedroom units exceeds requirement for providing considered. In the event that the number of the number of smaller units, a increased parking should be Ad~itio~al Amenities. An increase in the number of people in the complex will result in a~ increased demand for services and amenities provided on site. In addition, an expected increase in the number of children will require =he provision of appropriate amenities for young people such as playgrounds, etc. Dwellina U~t Delilah Standards. To ensure ~hat =he conversions provide a well functioning and safe living space for tenantl, s~andardl for dwelling unit design should be considered. Additionally, the City may wish to review its minimum dwelling unit size standards to ensure they are sufficient. pc: Dan Donahue Doug Sandscad ' Nor we Associat Consultants, Inc. URB I~L NI NG · DES N · MARKET R ES E A R C H TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Kyle Brown/Alan Brixius 31 January 1992 New Hope Hillside Apartments Pool Demolition 131.00 - 92.02 The owner of the Hillside Apartment complex has requested permission to demolish their existing pool. This pool is considered by the New Hope Zoning Ordinance as an amenity which permits increased densities on the property. The pool in question is presently damaged. The site is zoned R-4, High Density Residential. The site is 106,119 square feet in size and possesses 40 units. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance presently allows only 35 units on the site (106,119/3,000 - 35.37). However, the Ordinance allows for density, bonuses. These bonuses consist of site amenities which improve the quality of life for apartment dwellers. The Building Inspector has identified two bonus features related to this site. The bus line along Bass Lake Road allows a 50 square foot reduction per dwelling unit. In addition, the pool in question allows a 20 square foot reduction per dwelling unit. With these bonus features figured in, the site accon~nodates 36 dwelling units (106,119/2,930 - 36.21). If the pool is eliminated, only 35 dwelling units would be allowed (106,119/2,950 - 35.97). This analysis reveals that the site, as it currently exists, is non-conforming. By removing the pool amenity from the site, the owner is essentially increasing the non-conformity by one dwelling unit. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.. Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 A strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance in this matter would dictate that the non-conformity must not be intensified. Therefore, we are in agreement with the Building Inspector's conclusion that the pool must remain on the site or be replaced with a similar recreational amenity which can qualify as a density bonus feature per the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the pool is retained by the property owner, the City should require that it be repaired to ensure safety and to ensure that it functions properly as a site amenity worthy of a density bonus. REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda P~n~i S~ctlon City Manager Development 4-13-92 Item No. Kirk McDonald BY'Management Assistant By:. ORDINANCE NO. 92-08 - AN IKI'ER1M ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION, RENOVATION, OR REMOD~LINO OF EXISTING MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING APARTMENT COMPLEXES THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS PER UN1T The enclosed interim ordinance establishes a one-year moratorium on the conversion, renovation, or remodeling of existing multiple residential housing apartment complexes that would increase the number of bedrooms per unit. The ordinance establishes a City-wide ban on the application for and issuance of building permits, text changes, variances, conditional use permits, and rezoning requests for any construction that would change the number of bedrooms per unit in any multiple residential housing complex or apartment containing four or more dwelling units. The moratorium would expire in one year, on April 13, 1993, during which time the Planning Commission would study this issue and make recommendations for possible zoning ordinance amendments on this subject. Staff recommends a motion for approval ..of An Interim Ordinance Establishing Moratorium on the Conversion, Renovation, Or Remodeling of Existing Multiple Residential Housing Apartment Complex The Purpose For Which Would Increase The Number of Bedrooms Per Unit. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ April 7, 1992 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant City of New Hope 4401Xy]on Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Proposed Resolution and Ordinance Providing for Moratorium on Apartment Conversions Our File No. 99.49208 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed proposed Ordinance No. 92-08 and a Resolution Authorizing Planning Study to Consider Impact of Apartment Conversions Increasing the Number of Bedrooms Per Unit and Authorizing Interim Moratorium Ordinance Pending Study for consideration at the April 13th Council meeting. The Ordinance and Resolution are fairly self-explanatory. contact me if you have any questions. Please Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondra11 slt Enclosure cc: Daniel J. Oonahue (w/eric) A1Brixius (w/enc) Doug Sandstad (w/enc) Valerie Leone (w/enc). ORDINANCE NO. 92-08_ AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION, RENOVATION OR REMODELING OF EXISTING MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING APARTMENT COMPLEX THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS PER UNIT The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 1.56 "Suspension of Residential Apartment Conversions Increasing Bedrooms Per Unit" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: 1.56 Suspension of Residential Apartment Conversions Increasing Bedr°oms Per Unit. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.355, Subd. 4, a City-wide ban is hereby imposed on the application for and issuance of building permits under Chapter 3 of this Code, text changes, variances, conditional use permits and rezoning requests under Chapter 4 and subdivision requests under Chapter 13 of this Code for any conversion, renovation, remodeling or any construction which would change the number of bedrooms per unit in any multiple residential housing complex or apartment containing four or more dwelling units. This section shal--1 expire, and be of no further force and effect at Midnight, April 13, 1993. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1992. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Publish'ed in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the , 1992.) day of Driveway Reconstruction $66,400 Cost (66,400) Assessments Mr Hanson explained that the anticipated project deficit is $817,024 which includes $435,850 for storm sewer extensions, $20,807 for street assessments to neighborhood parks (Hidden Valley, Northwood Parks), $19,567 for collector streets and $340,800 for sanitary sewer/water main improvements. The revenue deficit for collector streets can be offset with state aid funds. The City of Crystal's portion is estimated at $56,483 for the south half of 33rd Avenue (local street) and the east half of Nevada Avenue {collector street). i ounciimember Enck questioned whether gravel driveways ause problems to catch basins. r. Hanson explained that anY time gravel gets into the torm sewer system it ultimately ends up in.the pond or ake which is not a good situation. r. Donahue stated the City allows hard surfaces for riveways which could be crushed rock. ouncilmember Enck asked the Planning Commission to review he ordinance and determine if gravel/rock should continue o be a permitted use for driveway surfaces. He illustrated the specific streets {and storm sewer extensions) included in the project. He stated the most significant improvement proposed is in Northwood Parkway. He stated these properties have been in close :contact with the City because many homes experienced sanitary sewer flooding in their basements. He explained the three reasons for the flooding are due to the increased flow and the condition of sewer and elevation of the sewer. He stated it is recommended that the existing 15", 12", and 9" sanitary sewer in Boone Avenue and NorthwoodIParkway be upgraded to a 21", 18", 12", and 10" respectively. Mr. Hanson stated a survey of whether the property owners wish to have their driveway included in the project will be sent with the street project notices. Also with the notices, property owners will be provided with data regarding sump pumps. The property owners will be asked to state whether they have a sump pump and where it is discharged (sanitary sewer or yard). He stated the storm sewer extension will provide residents with sump pumps discharging to the street to be directed to nearby storm sewers. It is hoped that the storm sewer extensions can reduce the number of sump pumps discharging to the sanitary sewers. New Hope City Council Page 8 March 23, 1992 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX ~612,~ 53~-5' -- March 9, 1992 Ms. Julie Stefano, Manager Norwest Bank New Hope 8320 42nd Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Subject= EXIT SIGN ON 42ND AVENUE Dear Ms. Stefano= Per the enclosed excerpt from the February 4, 1992, New Hope Planning Commission minutes, I am writing to inform you that there has been a concern raised by several Planning Commission members regarding the size and/or location of the new "EXIT ONLY" sign placed on 42nd Avenue North. The concern is that the size and location of the sign may block the view for traffic wanting to exit onto 42nd Avenue. I am not aware as to whether the bank has had any complaints-on the sign, and the City is aware that Norwest is not yet done with the redevelopment of the site. I did, however, want to pass this comment on to you and request that you review the situation. Is it possible that the sign could be reduced in size if it is to remain in the same location or is it possible for the existing sign to be moved? Anything the bank could do to address this safety concern would be appreciated. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ~ Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/lb Encl. Excerpt from 2/4/92 Planning Commission Minutes Site Plan cc '. Dan Donahue, City Manager Colin Kastanos, Director of Police Doug Sandstad, Building Official Planning Case File 91-20 Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living OLD BUSXIrIfm Commilm£oner Underdahl questioned if property o~nerm w~Chin 350' ~ould hive 1:o be not~.f4od and tlr. BrJ;x~.um answered Chat process would be follc4eld only Zf Zt wore applLed for under condLCZonal uae permit. He ICremmed that the way the ~mx~ ~m draf~ ~t ~uld be I ~~ ulm, ~horoforl no ~XLc hmmrZng would ~ r~Zred conltderaC~on of ~C. He noC~ CAe ~rfo~ance lCandmfdl Chic ou~lLned Ln the ordLnance al prelenC~ a~e &n~end~ 2o reduce ~ch al ~llLbZe leconda~ ~pacCl Cha~ v2iZ be ~denC~fL~ Zn ~he f~ndZngl of fac~, and revZ~ vZll be ~re through the lZceniZng. ~. SondralL ~Ln~ ou~ ~haC the ray ~he ordinance LI loc up Zi a pro~ecCZon Malu~e ~o &nlula~e the Planning C~Lml~on and CouncZZ agaZnlt a vt~ Large ~d vocal ~bXZc he~ng, bu~ CAere m ~liLb~l~ Chat the C2C~'i ~ge and aFl,anco may be Under Ic~CZny becmule L~ lOC Zn v~ChouC ~he CL~ mXlovZng ~he ne~g~orhood to mddreml concmrnl. He I~rell~ ~hm~, Zf Z~ wece ~o be allMd under cond~Lonml uae ~mLC, ne~g~rh~d op~mZCZon I~mndLng alone cannot be ~he bmmLm fo~ denZal of a condZCZonaZ ume ~mZC Zf ZC ~1 concluded ~hmC all iCmndmrdl m~e MC. CZ~y icaff vii rec~ndLng Chic the ordLnmncm be changed il the uie ~ou~d handl~ al m ~ and Chm~ Cmron and ~he reit of ~he C~ZIILon conf~ ~hm~ ~hey mgr~ vZ~h ~h~m recondition and ~ha~ ~he public ihould have an o~unZCy for ~. Br~Lul Znd&cmCed ~he n~ for conienlul 2haC ~he ordinance necemmm~ for ~he remlonl ou~ZZn~ Ln the A~orney ~nerml'l re~rC ~hmC condeC&ertl Chic oxZIC Ln ocher cLCLel could exLlC Lf the I&CumCZon occurred ~n N~ Ho~ and by ~Zng ~hZl de~e~&na~on vZiL on,Lo Icmff ~o drmf~ the necellmr~ f~nd~ngl Ln f&na~ fem. ~Zll&oner Underdahl exprelled a concern a~ ~he prox~Lt~ of i~ h~l Co the delZgnmCed aZl~ ~eml and the m~n~ 300' lo,back. ChmL~ C~fon ~Ln~ ouC ~hm~ LncremiZng ~he le~bmckl ~uZd eX~Znm~e the o~unLCy. ~. Br~Zul MphmlLz~ Chic v~hout IM&~I much bulLnemlel would be ~remced am ~y other recall oIC~LLi~nC, and could even go ZnCo C~ Ihopp~ng con, off, and v&ChouC mny o~Zon CAm~ ~uld ~ ~he onZ~ option. He no~ ~ha~ b~ Zocm~Lon Ln &nduiCrZal areal Zc Z~LC~ ~o ~eam ~haC are I~hmC LIoiaC~ IZnce the naCuce of LndulCc&aX ~km LI co provLde ~re LlolmC~ areal for ZndumCry co exZlC vL~hou~ ~. Son~mLl luggelC~ con~nu&ng ~he publZc hearing unCZl Harch. Dei~gn & Rev&~ re~ Choy had M~ vL~h Su~ ~del & S~dudl rl~ ~hey dLd not mC ~n Janus. Several ~LllLonerl ~ei~Zon~ ~he ICatum of Bloc~ulte~ VZdeo and Autohaul. ~. HcDonald Lnd~caC~ Chit ICmZ~ ~m vmL~2ng Co heac rrm BLoc~ulte~ ~d noC~ ~hmC ~he ~l HolpL~al hal been d~lLl~, buC ~hey have unCZl iprLng Co c~ple~e the ~prov~encs r~elC~. ~nCelmorL Sch~l ~al brough~ up and ~. HcDonmld moated ~hac developn~ agre~nC hal nec Mn returnS, bu~ i~mff vouZd up on on ~o corricc~Onl no,ed for PlannLng C~ll~On m~nUCll of ~anuac~ ?, ~992. No c~nC on ocher I~nUCil. AMMOUM~ None. ADJOURM~ The mmmC£ng was adjourned at 8=3S p.m. Luctlle ButLer, SecreClx~ Mmv lope February 4, 1992 Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager EDA f~3-23-92 Item No. Kirk McDonald BY: Management Assistant BY:. / CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION ON DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT IMPROVEMENTS, AUTOHAUS, INC., 7709 42ND AVENUE NORTH On April 4, 1991, Autohaus, Inc. and the City of New Hope executed a Development Contract regarding specific improvements to be made to the Autohaus property such as the installation of concrete curb, landscaping improvements, paving and lighting impwvements, construction of storm water drainage improvements, and the demolition/removal of the Animal Hospital building. The Development Contract states that the 'Developer agrees to make all private improvements as shown on February ?, 1992, revised site plan...within one year from the date of this agreement, except if this period of time is extended by resolution of the City Council~. April 4, 1992, will mark the end of the one year period and while certain improvements have been completed, others have not been completed. Staff has contacted Autohaus and has recommended that if they do not intend to complete the improvements by the April 4, 1992, deadline that they should seek an extension of time from the City Council prior to the expiration date. The petition for extension should explain the circumstances necessitating the extension. Autohaus has submitted the enclosed petition requesting an extension and Tom Boettcher will be present at the meeting to answer questions. Staff will draft a resolution subsequent to the action of the ED A on this matter. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 LF. ASING & SALES / FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC AUTOMOBILES Audi GM March 18, 1992 FORD NISSAN HONDA City of New Hope 4401Xylon Ave. N. New Hope, MN 55427 Subject: Development Contract Improvements Dear Dan and Kirk: CHRYSLER BMW MERCEDES A year has passed since executing our development contract. The date of April 4, 1991 was the date of final approval of our expansion plans. As of today, March 18, 1992, Autohaus has done as much as possible to complete improvements, although delays and economic times have caused an extension of one year to be necessary. We have demolished the old Animal Hospital building and improved the 42nd Avenue appearance. Delays in the city doing a practice fire and an early snow cover have also contributed to our need for an extension. VOLVO ACURA TOYOTA Aut ohaus fully intends to finish these contract improvements in a timely manner considering our capability to pay as we go for improvements. Autohaus has construction money set aside for the area's improvement but due to. economic times some improvements will need to be rebid an~ some Autohaus will do itself. The next stage is to pave the front area where the Animal Hospital building was, an~ address enhancing the view from 42nd Avenue. We would ask at this time to appear before the City Council POR$CHE on Marc~ 23rd and explain our request for an extension of time. JAGUAR · · 7709 42nd Avenue North ~r Mirmeapofis, MN 55427 ~e (612) 535.5707 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX ~6 !2 `25' -2' - March 9, 1992 Mr. Thomas Boettcher, President Autohaus of Minneapolis, Inc. 7709 42nd Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Subject= DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT IMPROVEMENTS Dear Tom= On April 4, 1991, Autohaus, Inc. and the City of New Hope executed a Development Contract regarding specific improvements to be made to the Autohaus property, i.e. installation of concrete curb, land- scaping improvements, paving and lighting improvements, construc- tion of storm water drainage improvements, and the demolition/ removal of the Animal Hospital building. Paragraph 2, page 2, of the Development Agreement states that "Developer agrees to make all private improvements as shown on February 7, 1991 revised site plan...within one year from the date of this agreement, except if this period of time is extended by resolution of the City Council". April 4, 1992, will mark"the end of the one year period and while certain improvements have been completed, others have not been completed. If Autohaus does not intend to complete the improvements by the April 4, 1992, deadline, you should seek an extension of time from the City Council prior to the expiration date. The City Council next meets on March 23rd and the first meeting in April is on the 13th, so I would strongly recommend that if you plan on requesting an extension of time on the making of the improvements, that you do so at the March 23rd Council meeting. I would recommend that you follow the same procedure that the City Code outlines for zoning procedure extensions. The code states that "Petition for extension shall be made in writing and filed with the City Manager and there shall be no charge for the filing. The petition shall include a statement of facts explaining the circumstances necessitating the extension". If you are going to submit a petition requesting an extension and want to have it considered at the March 23rd Council meeting, please submit the petition to the City by March 18th so that your request can be included on the agenda. Family Styled City ~ For Family Living Please contact me if you have any comments or questions and call (531-5119) to let me know your intentions regarding an extension on the installation of the improvements. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator K]~/lb Encl: Excerpt/City Code Development Agreement cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Thomas-Oestreich, Autohaus Project File ~467 81~-~1-01'~9 ~ I NN-DAN I ELS-~ROUSS. Mar 440! ~eW TO sca: :h 18, 1992 of New Hope Xylon Ave Nort~ Hope, MN 55428 : Staff and City Council Fina Oil's Proposed Raze & Rebuild of =he 36~h, and Winnetka Store HeM IT MAY CONCERN: Mar~ let me thank the s~aff for ~he months of consulting time rting in early November and working with us right .up to ~he lent. I would also like to thank ~he Planning Commission and Council for t~air approvals ~o our plans. To move forward and/make this a vzable project I will again be before you on 23, 1992 rsquelting 24-hour operation. Below is an ~zed listing of ~he illUlI pertinent to this rlquls~: 1 ~ t~ 2324 UNIVE riason blhind the 24-hour optratton request is Fins would be investing a substantial a~ount of int~ this project to make t. he project economically vi- Fins must provide the 24-hour convenience ~hat Super- across the stree~ provides for its customers. To this project a reality Fins is requesting an equal op- in this competitive ~arketplace. city ordinance for a B-3 zoning dia~rict regulates hours operation from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, ~ The wording in the ordinance 't state for what reasons the City Council would ap- or disapprove longer hours. I would refer 'leu to =he v'riCten by Northwest Associated Consultants, dated 31~ 1992. have done our beIt at mitigating any perceived adverse on adJacint property owners. In our approved plan have added landscape area, evergreen overstory trees and , and placed any noisy functions on the northeast side the building, away from ~he apartments. Speakers a= pump are on a variable control so they are no~ exces- Lvely loud and Fins does not advertise over ~lese speakers. have been through two (2) planning contssion public 's and two (2) city council public hearings in the est seven (7) months, (the Etrst timm throuqh was for the plans approved in September, 1991). Since sta~cing publio hearing process we have not heard one (1) neqa- t:.ve comment regarding our facility, past or proposed fu- t~Iri, from our adjacent neighbors which havi rICeived m)tification of our propoied planl. Fins works hard =o p~:oject a good neighbor policy. The lack of any opposition ~ the project and 24-hour proposal from the neighborhood ~y be ~e fruits of that hard work. AVENUE. SU[T~ ~. ~ ~Uk M~!~'~OTA ~11~. 612-~1a~9 City of New Hope . St~ff and City Council Pa~ 2 4.f The neighborhood is predominantly business oriented. Single family homes have quite a distance buffer to this property. Also we have worked hard with Staff and the Planning Commis- sion =o buffer the apartments =o the wes= and the south. The Planning Commission, upon seeing that our site is ac- tually four (4) feet below that of =he adjacent apartments and the screening we did, recommended to =he City Council that 24-hour: operation be approved by a unanimous Finally, the fear of every convenience store requesting 24- hour opera=ion, if granted to Fine, is unfounded. Firs~ of all, any convenience s~ore only (not one selling gas) in ocher than a B-3 zone can s~ay open as long as it wants. So all we're talking about is B-3 zoned proper~ies (in which all convenience stations selling gas must be located). Since =be existing wording in =he city's ordinances allows anyone owning a business in a B-3 zone to reques~ 24-hour operation at any time, =his par~icular request sets no precedent. I believe =ha= this places =he decision to ex- tend hours on =he Council to consider each request on it's own merits and approve or deny each request for good reason. So ~ow can ~/le city feel comfortable about =heir amoun~ of con- tro~ over a station ~hat operates 24-hoUrs? As ~ stated at ~lle Marc~ 9, .1992 PUblic hearing, since t~lis is a C.U~P. (Cond~=ional Use Permit) request, =he city has annual con- =roi as well as a vel~icle ~in =he renewal of existing C.U.P.s to suf: iciently control any unforeseen problems. We ari~ · pro~ rels lo not perceive any potential problems, but if one were to e, Fine has been very responsive in ~he past to fixinq that lem. Neighborhood relations are important ~o every local il business and Fine has no intention of jeopardizing that tionship. have any questions prior to the meeting, please call me or zf _~ou a FiCa repreeen=ative lis=ad below. Stn~ely~ /~ · inn ~aniele ~roussardArchitecte: Davi~ Riddings Fine Dis~ri¢= Manager= 452-9161 641-1339 Don ~arrow Fina~Construction E~gineer: 4~2-9161 4401 Xylon A venue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX (612) 55~-$~ --' March 27, 1992 Addressee (List attached) Subject= PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR DINING FACILITIES AT RESTAURANTS AND FAST FOOD ESTBLISHMENTS Dear Fast Food Licensee/Shopping Center and/or Restaurant Owner: At the end of February the City sent you a public hearing notice and a copy of a proposed ordinance that was being considered for adoption by ~he New Hope Planning Commission and City Council regarding regulations for outdoor dining facilities at restaurants and fast food establishments. The notice indicated that outdoor dining is currently not permitted by,he New Hope City Code, unless previously approved, and that the new ordinance would establish guidelines to permit and regulate this use. This letter is to infor~you ~hat the new ordinance wee adopted by the City Council at the N arch 23rd Council aeeting. The ordinance is drafted so that the owners of shopping centers will need to apply for a conditional use amendment to their existing Planned Unit Development to allow outdoor dining (each individual restaurant will not need to apply on their own). Free- standing establishments with existing approved, outdoor permanent dining will not be required to apply for another conditional use permit. Free-standing restaurants ~hat do not have existing outdoor dining will need to make a conditional use permit application if they desire outdoor/rooftop dining in the future. If you would like a copy of the ordinance, have questions about whether or not outdoor dining is currently approved for your establishment, or want to initiate the application process to allow outdoor dining at your establishment, please contact myself or Doug Sandstad, Building Official, at 531-5112. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Planning Commission Members FamilyS~l~ C~~ForFami~Livi~ RESTAURANTS/FAST FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS Applebee' s - Gofer Bagels, Inc. - Broadway Pizza - Gung Ho - Country Kitchen - Domino's Pizza - Domino's Pizza - Frankies To Go - Cinema 'n' Drafthouse- Hardee ' s - K-Mart - Little Ceasar's #200- New Hope Bowl - Zappy ' s - Ole Piper Inn - Ponderosa Steakhouse- Port Arthur - Sunshine Factory - Circus - Taco Bell - Winnetka Super Valu - Kinhdo Restaurant - Subway/Taco Johns - McDonald's Rest. - Woody's of New Hope - Pizza Hut - Papa's Cafe - Bosa Donuts - T.C.B.Y. - 4203 Winnetka Avenue North 3558 Winnetka Avenue North 7117 42nd Avenue North 3542 Winnetka Avenue North 7849 42nd Avenue North 2757 Winnetka Avenue North 784i 62nd Avenue North 3556 Winnetka Avenue North 2749 Winnetka Avenue North 4210 Winnetka Avenue North 4300 Xylon Avenue North 4229 Winnetka Avenue North 7107 42nd Avenue North 4335 Winnetka Avenue North 9420 36th Avenue North 7112 Bass Lake Road 7858 42nd Avenue North 7600 42nd Avenue North 4411 Winnetka Avenue North 7100 Bass Lake Road 4471 Winnetka Avenue North 2709 Winnetka Avenue North 4219 Winnetka Avenue North 4201 Winnetka Avenue North 7912 27th Avenue North 7500 Bass Lake Road 7181 42nd Avenue North 5550 Winnetka Avenue North 4231 Winnetka Avenue North SHOPPING CENTER OWNERS New Hope Mall - 4301 Winnetka Health Spa~Ma11 - 4203 Winnetka 4300 Xylon Post Haste 9416 36th Ay. Winnetka Co~ons- 3520 Winnetka Midland Center - 2703 Winnetka Winnetka Associates Park Place West Office Center 6465 'Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 750 Minneapolis, MN New Hope/US Swim Partnership Attn: Peter J. Obernessor 20 Boulder Crescent #C Colorado Springs, CO O'Fallon Associates K-Mart Corporation 3100 West Big Beaver Road Troy, MI Post Haste Square Partnership PDQ Food Stores, Inc. Attn: Susan Grimes P.O. Box 997 Middelton, WI Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership Attn: Richard Curry 9000 Old Cedar Av. Bloomngton, MN Lloyd Engelsma 523 South 8th St. Minneapolis, MN Bonestroo Anderllk & Associates Page [ ~ Client: t~Et~ ~ ~ Project: 4x1~ ~ Proj. No. Calculations For: Prepared B~: ~ Date: ~E~-- 14--92 ~R ! 15 : 5? )ONESTROO & ASSOCIATES Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & AssOCiates Engineers & Arcl~Jtects Fchruary [4, ]992 Ms. Shari French City of New HOpe 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN $5428 City Hall Remodeling. Preliminary Study Fiic Nc). 34131 Dear Shari, Thc preliminary cost estimate ts finished. It is summar~ed below: Foundations Walls Floor Roof Doors & Wtndow~ Finishes Elevator t IVAC : l FJectrical O~nerai Conditiom TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 6,0OO - $ 7,000 27,000 - 32,000 13,000 - 12,000 . I$,000 22,000 27,000 5,000 18,000 47,000 57,000 7,000 . 9,000 7,000 - 9,000 . 30.0 ) $180,000 . $220,000 Dcvclopmem co~t~ are not included. Example~ are soil borings, architectural-engLneering comm~ion. These should run 10-15 p~rcent. This is not a typical project. It is a remodeling and is very small. Cost estimating is difficult. Our response is to list a range of possible costs. Thc estimate does IL~ include: Unusual sitework. Demolition beyond area show~ on drawings. Sprinkler system, Remodeling beyond area shown on drawings. Landscaping and sidewalks, Additional ~lectricaJ service. Page 23~ :~; ~est Hlgfwvay 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota 65113 · 612-636-4600 FLOOR 0 FLOOR" I/ i HA,tJ I90~ellfO0 l ~.....~=..,,,, ~ PRELIMINARY STUDY - OPTION B - PLAN VIEW J~cr. $oPPOkl-- -J. ~11 ~, Ii I1~ / ~K~S ~u~l~ I Ilil~l ,i J Ii111 i ~ ~ ~ HOI~ ~lEg r~ ~.,"' ~ ~ELIMINARY STUDY - OPTION B ~_CROSS SECTION .~.,~.~. .... ~-~-~; ~P ~,,=~o, ~i~ ~ ~pe, ~. FIG.5 SIGN CITY HALL ADDITION: 34146 MWP 3'20'92 REVISED ENTRY PLAN' I Bonestroo Rosene ~ncleriik & Associates W ~ " I UN~JCCAVAiT'EO ELEVATOR H.C. ACCESS '1 UNEXCAVATED WAI, J(WAY ABC)V~ EMPLOYEE LOUNGE FL. EL. 917.0(} ~ F CITY HALL ADDITION: REVISED LOWER LEVEL PLAN :~4.148 ' MWP * 312019;~ · CI]¥ NO. 489 E 7' PARKING STALL B D STLL CITY HALL / / Ir~PANSION '"B" / ..~ ~-v,e'~'~l~ I~&RKING STALLS SCALE"- 1" = 50* NEW HOPE CITY HALL REMOOELING AND AC)OITION - EAST ELEVATION FEASIBILITY REPORT NEW HOPE CITY HALL EXPANSION DRAFT COPY MARCH 5, 1991 FILE NUMBER 34124 //~ Bonest roo Rosene II__l~ ~1 Anderllk & Associates Engin~ers & Architects St. Paul, Minnesota I. INTRODUCTION Purpose This report examines the two separate areas, first, the feasibility of converting the abandoned police firing range. This area will become the extra garage and storage for the police department. Second, the feasibility of adding a new upper floor above the existing garage. Conclusions The conclusions drawn are that both projects are feasible and economical. We recommend bidding both projects together. Contents This report contains three parts. Each buildin§ portion will be examined separately in all areas. First, the project's scope will he described. Next, planning nnd design issues will be discussed. Finally, a cost estimate is included. 34124rpt 34124rpt II. DISCUSSION Garage Renovation I. Description: The firing range is to be abandoned. In its place will be expanded garage and storage space for the police department, circulation for this area is to be separated from the rest of the building. (See Figure 2). Issues: a. A proposed staircase for the upper floor must be isolated from the police functions. This will provide the security necessary. b. The garage must allow easy access for police vehicles. c. It is necessary to minimize expensive remodelling. It is required to do structural modifications. Those modifications should not make the cost prohibitive. C°st Estimate: Garage Renovation $20,0OO - $40,000 Note: Cost estimates current as of January 1991. Future construction must allow for inflation. Upper Floor Addition 1. Description: There is need for additional specialized rooms adjacent to the council chamber. First there is a council room for the private council 2 functions. Second, there is a room for the cable TV equipment used for broadcasts of council meetings. Finally there is a room which provides access to the roof. Besides these spaces the majority of the addition is comprised of open office space. A new staircase is included to meet the required emergency egress requirements. (See' Figure 3). 2. Issues: a. The corridor floor loading is greater than the existing deck's capabilities. To accommodate the extra weight, additional columns and beams are added. They are placed at the middle of the span, beneath the floor. This halves the distance that the deck is spanning. b. The state building codes requires two exits from the office area. Therefore, additional staircase must be added. This staircase has to exit to the exterior. c. The state code also establishes the required number of plumbing fixtures. These are adequate even with the additional space. d. The addition will match the architecture of the existing city hail. (See Figire 1). 3. Cost Estimate: Upper Floor Addition $200,000' - $250,000 Note: Cost estimates current as of January 1991. Future construction must allow for inflation. 34124rpt IlL SUMMARY A. Garage Renovation There are three benefits to this renovation. First is the addition of interior parking. There are eleven parking stalls in this design. (See Figure 2). Of the eleven stalls, four are new. The second benefit is storage. The design adds usable storage space. The final benefit is separate access. The police areas remain separate from other city activities. B. Upper Floor Addition The primary benefit of this addition is additional space. There is added council space and new office space. Another benefit is that the new addition matches the existing building's architecture. The abundant natural light is also a big plus. Finally, the addition megts building code criteria for restroom faCilities and existing. 34124rpt NEW HOPE CITY HALL REMODELING AND ADDITION - EAST ELEVATION !B ],4~derlik & ,~s$oci/tes J I~AFKIN~· ~lZ C)LIIdF'~'IK ~'.-0d ,~ ';CyoO~ w r · r I I I I I I I (~ NEW HOPE ciTy HALL REMODELING - LOWER FLOORI F"~OJeCT NUHE, I:~ '~412.4 2/~.l/ql JAg 0124 I& K-I-r-I Ilosene '~ A/~lik & Associates IOlloO~ .'.'.'5'4d x ~ (~NF_W HOPE CITY HALL REMODELING - UPPER FLOOR PFCUg. C.T HUHBglr 3412,4 2/21/ql JAK- APPENDIX A BUILDING DESIGN DATA - EXPANDED CITY HALL Occupancy Load Upper Floor Main Floor Existing A 1290sf/15=90 B 5270sf/100=50 B 6560sf/100--70 New B4,040sf/100=40 B4,040sf/200=20 Total 130 50 Occupancy Type Total Occupancy Load 270 Council Chamber A.3 1,290 Offices B2 15,870 Garage/Storage B 1 4,040 sf sf sf Construction Type Exits Fire Walls Loads Mechanical Total II-N Noncombustible-Unrated Allowable Areas A.3 B2 B1 Note:. Site preparation & mo-story increases. 2 required - totnl..width 5.4' I hour occupancy wall at B2/B1 (also ceiling). Office Floor 50 psf Roof Load 40 psf Wind Load Exit Floor Plumbing Men (55) Women (55) Ventilation 21,200sf/200 = 110 Occupants 4 wc/urinals 3 Lays 4 wc 3 Lays A.3 & B.2 5 cfm 15 cfm 21,200 sf 36,200 sf 48,000 sf 48,000 sf 100 psf exhaust/occu pa n t circulated/occupa n t B. 1 3/4 cfm/sf exhaust sf = Square Feet 34124rpt 5 Electrical Acoustics Heat Loss Heat Gain Lighting Power STC 45 4,090 sf x 10' x 6 Btuh = 4,040 sf x 43 Btuh -- 60 FC (3 Watts psf) 1.2 Watts psf (100sf/receptacle) Office/Office Reverberation Time 0.3-0.6 sec. sf -- Square Feet 242,000 Btuh 173,000 Btuh 34124rpt 4401 Xylon A venue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX ~6~2,, 53, 5'-- March 30, 1992 Ms. Linda Powell, Superintendent School District ff281 4148 Winnetka Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Subject: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY CITY TO PURCHASE PORTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY FOR JOINT-CITY FUEL CENTER FACILITY Dear Linda: The City of New Hope is requesting that the School Board consider a preliminary concept proposal by the cities of New Hope and Crystal to purchase a portion of the School District property south of the existing bus garage for the development of a joint-city fuel center facility. New regulations will soon require that all salt/sand piles utilized for street maintenance be covered within an enclosed building. The cities of Crystal and New Hope also are both in need. of upgrading their existing fuel centers for City vehicles. The enclosed concept plan shows a combination of these two uses with a joint-city fuel center and __s01t storage building on portions of the existing School District property, Dura Process property, and YMCA property. The City of Robbinsdale may also be interested in joining in this endeavor and, of course, if the School District had an interest you would certainly be invited to join in the project. '. The City has preliminarily analyzed several sites within New Hope for this use and the Winnetka Avenue/Quebec Avenue site is our first choice for several reasons: 2. 3. 4. 5. The site is properly zoned for such a use. The site is centrally located between Crystal and New Hope, The site is located on a major County road. The site would be accessible from both Winnetka and Quebec Avenue. The project would utilize/combine several parcel remnants that are basically not presently useable. The project would improve drainage and water quality conditions through the creation of a new pond at the rear of the existing Dura Process property. The City has not contacted other property owners regarding this proposal as of this date, because the concept would not proceed if there is no interest on the part of the School Board. Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living Superintendent Powell Page 2 March 31, 1992 The proposed joint site would contain one or two pump islands, 2-3 2,000 galloon underground storage tanks and an above-ground LP gas tank. The underground tank area would be located at the front (west) of the site and would be mgintained as a green area with landscaping. We would like to consider a shared driveway access with the present school bus garage. The surface of the pump island site would be bituminous with concrete curbing and drainage would be directed to the new pond, which would contain a skimmer for water quality. The salt storage facility proposed for the YMCA property would have a 2,500 ton capacity and consist of either a 30-40 foot high dome or a 60 x 200 foot rectangular building. We would anticipate that with two cities sharing the site, between 20 and 40 vehicles per day would access the site. I would appreciate it if the School District would give this preliminary concept plan due consideration and analyze whether the District has any long-term plans for the property south of the bus garage or not. If the District has an interest in selling the property for this proposed use, the City would like to further discuss this matter with yourself and the School Board. I have taken the liberty to put it on the agenda of the Government Advisory Council meeting of april 8, 1992 Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager Enclosure: Concept Plan Jerry Dulgar, Crystal Bill Monk, Crystal Mark Hanson, New Hope Z Z (ROCKFORD RD) CITY OFFICE; I SCHOOL /Sher~d Dwy. ~Promosed P~o~e~v QUEBEC AVE, LOCATION PLAN NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA PROPOSED SALT STORAGE SITE K:\34\34138\34138C02 O£CEMBER 1991 FIGURE COMM. 34138 >- Z 0 0 Z 0 0 Boneetroo Rolene Anderlik & ' (CORDNO 156)WINNETKA !., "-'"1 ! I I I I I ! ! ! ! L AVE