050592 Planning2.
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
o
4.1
4.2
5.1
6.1
6.2
6.3
7.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 5, 1992
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case 92-07 Request for Variance to Expand Non-Conforming Building and Variance
to Rear Yard Setback to Allow Expansion, 3910 Boone Avenue North,
Craig Allen Hall, Petitioner
Case 92-09 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Dining in Winnetka
Commons Shopping Center, 3520 Winnetka Avenue North, Jackson-Scott
Associates, Petitioner
Case 92-10 Request Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Site/Building Plan Review/
Approval for Expansion, 3216 Winnetka Avenue North, J.R.Jones Fixutre
Company, Petitioner
Case 92'12 Request for Conditional Use Permits and Site/Building Plan
Review/Approval to Allow Front and Rear Building Additions at City Hall
and Deferment of Required Parking, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, 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 April 14, 1992
Review of City Council Minutes of April 13 and April 27, 1992
Review of EDA Minutes of April 13, 1992
ANNOUNCEMENTS
8. ADJOURN3'IF2Cr
y
PC 92-07
3910 Boone Av N
ZONING DISTRICT MAP
CITY of NEW HOPE
PL~N2~ ING CASES
HAY 1992
i
PC 92-12
Xylon Av N
PC 92-09
Winnetka Av N
PC 92-10
Winnetka Av N
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
92-07
Request 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
May 1, 1992
May 5, 1992
UPDATE
This case was considered at the April 14, 1992, Planning Commission meeting and the
Commission was generally agreeable to approving the request, however, the case was
tabled due to the fact that the petitioner had not presented a certified lot survey. Staff
and the Commission both felt that a survey was necessary to determine the exact setback
distances and so informed the petitioner. Staff has discussed the survey with the
petitioner on several occasions within the past several weeks, but as of the date this
report is being prepared, a survey has not yet been presented to the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that this case be tabled for one month, unless a certified survey is submitted
prior to the meeting.
Attachment: April Planning Commission Report
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
92-07
Request 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
April 14, 1992
Page -2-
92-07
7. The property is surrounded by single family families and is in close proximity to
Northwood Park.
9.
10.
The applicant has stated a need for more garage space as the reason for the request.
The topography of the property slopes from the north to the south.
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
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.
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 ff the variance
is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or
unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.
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 (cas0 side yard and a 21-foot
(south) rear yard and the hashmarks define the "buildable yard" area.
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.
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
WO4D
NO 9
GETHSEMANE
CEMETERY
NORTHWOOD
PARK
NORTHWOOD
PARK
$& H
WAY
,,¢..¢f
.<.--
t ~
.,.1
SITE PLAN DECLARATION
t CERT;FY '" ' '~ ,'-',:.-.,,, ~ ,:,.M THE PROPERTY
OWNER, OR OWNF_RS REPRESE,NT'ATiVE &
THiS?~N IS CO;'-¢,P~ETE AND ACCURATE:
IIEQUIRIgD "~"
EXISTING SETBACK
PROPOSED SETBACK
35' ~
21'
7v %.~
SITE PLAN OECLARATION
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE PROPERTY
OWNER, OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE &
ITHIS P_.J~AN IS COMP~,ETE AND ACCURATE:
f
SOUTH SIDE_ I/4 - .I
APR 0 199~
J
WEST SIDE__.
APR I 0 199~
I
12
NORTH_· _SID£
SHGL5
15~ FELT
7/16 W,R WAFER BD-WITH
TRUSSES- 24/', O,C,
("TRUSS DESION BY
CLIP5
SUPPLIER)
APR
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case:
Request:
92-09
Request for A Conditional Use Permit
Winnetka Commons Shopping Center
to Allow Outdoor
Dining
at
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
3520 Winnetka Avenue North
20-18-21-22-0012
B-4 (Community Business)
Jackson-Scott Associates
May 1, 1992
May 5, 1992
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow outdoor dining in a
shopping center, pursuant to Sections 4.125(8) and 4.134(1) of the New Hope Code.
Winnetka Commons Shopping Center is the first businesses in the City to make applica-
tion for outdoor restaurant seating under the recently adopted Outdoor Dining
Ordinance. The application is being made pursuant to requests from restaurant tenants
to have outdoor seating during the summer months.
Outdoor dining is considered as a conditional accessory use and is permitted with various
limitations, as identified in the new ordinance.
The request is to allow up to six (6) tenants to have specific seating on the sidewalk
adjacent to existing or proposed -eateries. The petitioner is requesting a maximum of 18
tables (36 seats) on the property in six clusters, as outlined below:
Tenant # Table Interior Public % Outdoor Ordinance
Space Name Tables Sq. Footage Dining Sq. Footage to Interior Requirement
2 Pot. 3-30" 39 s.f. 1,000 s.f. 3.9% No more than 30%
Future
Restaurant
11 Gung 3-30"
Ho
13 Pot. 3-30"
Future
Restaurant
14 Subbouy's 1-30"
19 Frankie's 2-30"
Pizza
20 Bruegger's 6-30"
Bagels
39 s.f. 1,400 s.f. 2.78% "
39 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 3.25% "
39 s.f. _ 600 s.f. 2.16% "
26 s.f. 1,100 s.f. 2.36% "
91 s.f. 1,300 s.f. 7% "
TOTAL 18 247 s.f. 6,600 s.f. 3.74% (avg) "
Planning Case Report 92-09
May 5, 1992
Page -2-
e
e
Surrounding land uses/zoning include New Hope Terrace Apartments (R-4) to the east,
I-1 industrial buildings to the south, Fina gas station (B-3) and Royal Oaks Apartments
(R-4) across Winnetka Avenue to the west, and Super America gas station and the flood-
plain (Crystal) across 36th Avenue to the north.
This property was zoned Industrial in 1961, rezoned to Residential/Office in 1979, and
rezoned again in 1989 to B-4 Community Business District with the approval/construction
of the shopping center.
The site is generally flat with a slope towards the northwest corner where a silt pond was
constructed in 1989.
Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and no comments have
been received.
ANALYSIS
The intent of the new ordinance is not to prohibit outdoor dining, but to regulate and
allow the practice provided that specific conditions are met. It is not necessary for each
individual fast food operation or restaurant located within a shopping center to make
application for outdoor dining individually. The Commission wanted to streamline the
process by allowing the owner of the shopping center to make application on behalf of
all the food establishments.
The petitioner met with Design & Review on April 20th and issues discussed included:
number of outdoor dining areas, percentage of outdoor vs indoor dining, 5-foot walkway
clearance, segregation from pedestrian circulation, relocation of planting area by
Bruegger's, trash containers, type of furniture, and maintenance of areas.
Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting incorporating the following
changes:
-the proposed seating areas have been spaced to allow fo~? easier clearance
-rope and ballard barriers have been added in all outdoor dining areas to
segregate them from pedestrian traffic
-specific indoor/outdoor dining area square footages have been provided
-six new trash containers have been added to the plan; one for each cluster of
tables
-a note has been added to the plan that the circular planter area in front of
Bruegger's is to be filled with concrete
-a note has been added to the plan stating that new landscaping will be added to
replace the existing landscaping (to be removed in circular planter) at the
northeast corner of the site: 28 variegated hosta and 7 gold tip pfitzer juniper
The City Sanitarian has reviewed the plans and has no problems with the proposed
outdoor dining facilities.
Parking increases are not proposed, although the additional square footage of outdoor
dining requires 20 additional spaces. The original shopping center plan required 230
stalls and 246 were provided, or 16 in excess of requirements. When the excess spaces
are applied to the 20 additional needed, the site is only short 4 spaces. Staff does note
find a practical problem with the available parking because of underuse, vacancies, and
strict original requirements per the Code.
Planning Case Report 92-09
May 5, 1992
Page -3-
6. Tables and chairs must be removed after seasonal use, per the ordinance. Style of
furniture is not specified. The Commission should discuss whether all furniture should
match or not. Will the furniture be provided by the owner or will each tenant purchase
their own furniture? Staff recommends that all furniture be of the same type.
7. Cleaning of the furniture and the concrete walk should be established through a schedule.
8. The outdoor dining area shown on the site plan behind Bruegger's has not been approved
and should be deleted from the site plan.
9. Other issues listed under conditions for approval refer to on-going general site issues that
need to be resolved between the owners and the City.
10. Staff finds that the majority of conditions listed n the new ordinance are met with the
revised plan dated 4/24/92.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend approval of the conditional use permit request for outdoor dining for Winnetka
Commons Shopping Center subject to the following conditions:
1.
2.
Outdoor dining furniture type to be specified.
Outdoor dining cleaning/maintenance agreement/schedule to be approved by City
Sanitarian.
Outdoor dining area in rear of Bruegger's Bagels to be deleted from site plan.
All site maintenance/construction problems, per Building Official, to be corrected before
outdoor dining commences or per an approved schedule by the City including:
A. Non-conforming signage -
B. Parking in loading-fire lanes
C. Damaged/removed handicapped parking signs
D. Removal of debris from rear of property
E. Reconstruction of southeast Winnetka Avenue curb cut and removal of power
pole to allow safe truck entry driveway for access from Winnetka Avenue, per
original approved plans
Resolution of retaining wall issue
expenses associated with
Fo
Payment of outstanding invoices for planning/legal/engineering
Winnetka Commons planning cases, per City Manager
Attachments:
Topo/Zoning Maps
Site Plan
Tenant Layout
Floor Plan/Dining Areas
Detail Sheet
Outdoor Dining Ordinance
Past Correspondence Re: Issues
REZONED FROM R-O to B-4
August 14, 1989 (Res.89-153)
77141,
~ 4 .~) 77,17
~IONS
3-4F
889.5
895. 1
895.1
X
X 895.6
896.2
896.5 X
895,1
893.3
896.5"
X
896.2
894 6
915.8
X
900.4
43 43
PARK
DRIVE
X 900.7
900
901. 1
907 5
WINNETKA
COMMONS
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
36th & WINNETKA
[.shE" & 'BUILDING':.~TATISTla~ ":l
WINNETKA
COMMONS
36th &WINNETKAM~N[SOT^'
WINNETKA COMMONS
36th & WINNETKA
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
WINNETKA.
'COMMONS
36114 & W~INETKA
LF.~5~ ~LAN /
W~NETKA
COMMONS
36lh & W~NE~A
'fqbeT ~M ~
(
W~NETKA
COMMONS
361h & W~NE~A
--~ [AS _~.,,
ORDINANCE NO. 92-05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE
ZONING CODE BY ADDING SECTION 4.125 (8)
ESTABLISHING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCEDURE
ALLOWING OUTDOOR DINING FACILITIES
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 4.125 "Conditional Accessory Use, B-3" of
the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection (8)
to read as follows:
(8)
Outdoor Dining, Accessory. Outdoor dining as an
accessory use for restaurants, drive-in, and convenience
food establishments, under a conditional use permit
subject to the following conditions:
(a)
The applicant be required to submit a site plan and
other pertinent information demonstrating the
location and type of all tables, refuse
receptacles, and wait stations.
(b)
Access to the dining area be provided only via the
principal building if the dining area is a full
service restaurant, including table waiting
service.
(c)
(d)
The size of the dining area is restricted to thirty
(30) percent of the total customer floor area
within the principal structure.
The dining area is screened from.view from adjacent
residential uses in accordance with Section
4.033(3)(b) of this Code.
(e)
(f)
All lighting be hooded and directed away from
adjacent residential uses in accordance with
Section 4.033(5) of this Code.
The applicant demonstrates that pedestrian
circulation is not disrupted as a result of the
outdoor dining area by providing the following:
(i)
Outdoor dinfng area shall be segregated from
through pedestrian circulation by means of
temporary fencing, bollards, ropes, plantings,
or other methods, and shall be subject to
review and approval by the City Council.
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(1)
(m)
(n)
(ii)
Minimum clear passage zone for pedestrians at
the perimeter of the cafe shall be at least
five (5) feet without interference from parked
motor vehicles, bollards, trees, treegates,
curbs, stairways, trash receptacles, street
lights, parking meters, or the like.
(iii)
Overstory canopy of trees, umbrellas or other
structures extending into the pedestrian clear
passage zone or pedestrian aisle shall have a
minimum clearance of seven (7) feet above
sidewalk.
The dining area is surfaced with concrete,
bituminous or decorative paver to provide a clean,
attractive, and functional surface.
A minimum width of thirty-six (36) inches shall be
provided within aisles of the outdoor dining area.
Storage of furniture shall not be permitted on the
sidewalk between November 1 and March 31. Sidewalk
furniture that is immovable or permanently fixed or
attached to the sidewalk shall not be subject to
the storage prohibition of this section. However,
any immovable or permanently fixed or attached
furniture must be approved as part of the site plan
application provided for by §4.125(8)(a) of this
Code.
No outside bar or cooking facility shall be
established, only wait stations shall be allowed.
Additional off-street parking shall be required
pursuant to the requirements set forth in §4.036 of
this Code based on the additional seating area
provided by the outdoor dining area.
Refuse containers are provided for self-service
outdoor dining areas. Such containers shall be
placed in a manner which does not disrupt
pedestrian circulation, and must be designed to
prevent spillage and blowing litter.
The operation is subject to approval of the City
Sanitarian and compliance with any written
provisions he or she requires.
Rooftop dining- facilities shall be permitted
provided they meet all applicable conditions as
listed herein and in addition:
(ii)
(iii)
Provide permanent walls of fencing around the
periphery of the dining area at a minimum
height of 42 inches to ensure the safety of
persons/property.
Any permanent structures, including divider
walls, trellis work, etc. be included aS part
of the building upon which they are located
and are subject to the building height
limitations as specified in Section '4.033(I)
of this Code.
The submitted plans for a roof top dining
facility as well as the building upon which
the proposed outdoor dining is to occur is
subject to review by the City Building
Inspector. He/She will determine whether the
building is structurally capable of handling
the additional weight of persons and
equipment.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective
upon its passage and publication,
Dated the 23rd day of March , 1992.
Attest: Y_ ,_
Ve~lerie Leone, YCity Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the
April , 1992.)
1st day of
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Phone: 531-5100
FAX (612) 531-51,
April 29, 1992
Mr. Richard Curry
Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership
9000 Old Cedar Avenue
Bloomington, MN 55420
Subject: OUTSTANDING INVOICES FOR CONSULTING EXPENSES
Dear Mr. Curry:
Per your April 24th request, the City has assembled copies of all
invoices previously billed to Winnetka Commons and provided a
print-out of fees paid to the City by Winnetka Commons. All
invoices have an explanation on them. The invoices are primarly
related to Planning Cases 89-11/Winnetka Commons Shopping Center,
90-04/Tires Plus, and 90-20 & 90-24/comprehensive sign plan and
sign variances. Other issues include the retaining wall, driveway
and power pole items, and renewals on the letters of credit.
The planning/zoning application clearly states that the petitioner
will be responsible for consulting expenses incurred by the City as
a result of a project. Your application deposits have been
deducted from the amount due.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development .Coordinator
KM/lb
Enclosures: Invoices
cc:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Larry Watts, Finance Director
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Doug Sandstad, Building official
Planning Case Files
Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living
WlNN]grKA COMMONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
9000 OLD CEDAR AVENUE
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420
April 24, 1992
Mr. Kirk McDonald
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Planning Case 89-11
Dear Kirk:
Winnekta Commons Limited Partnership at its meeting of April 23rd,
1992, determined that it would like to resolve the open invoices
for consulting expenses incurred by the City of New Hope for Planning
Case 89-11.
It was determined that in order to do this, the partners will need
an accounting of all fees paid to the City of New Hope by Winnetka
Com~mons for Case 89-11, all outside consulting fees paid by the
City of New Hope for Case 89-11, along with an explanation Of why
this outside service was required.
We hope this information is readily available
partnership can resolve the invoices quickly.
to you so the
Very truly,
Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership
Richard Curry /
RC/k
cc: Steve Sondrall
W.C. Limited Partners
4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX ~6 t2~ $$'-5' -~
1992
Mr. Richard Curry
Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership
9000 Old Cedar Avenue
Bloomington, MN 55420
SUBJECT: Winnetka Commons/Tires Plus Retaining Wall
Dear Mr. Curry:
Enclosed please find the correspondence the City has received from Mark Hanson, City
Engineer, summarizing the meeting conducted on February 14th regarding the falling retaining
wall west of Tires Plus at Winnetka Commons Shopping Center. Mark outlines three options
to resolve the situation. Please advise the City as to which option you will pursue and the
schedule for completion.
The City would also request an update on the schedule for the removal of the power pole and
the reconstruction of the driveway at the southwest corner of the center. You indicated last fail
that NSP had agreed to remove the pole and that the curb cut opening would be reconstructed.
Please advise the City as to when this will occur.
Lastly, the City records indicate that Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership has an outstan~ ding
balance that is owed to the City for planning/engineering/legal expenses in the amount of
$4,400.06. The City would appreciate prompt payment on this outstanding amount.
Please contact me if you have any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Larry Watts, Director of Finance/Administration
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Mark Hanson, City Engineer _
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Family Styled City ~ For Family Living
Bonestroo
Rosene
Ander!ik &
Assooates
Engineers & Architects
March 12, 1992
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Otto G. Bonestroo. PE. Ke~tiq ^. Gordon. PE. James R. Maland. PE. Rene
Jo~eplq C. Andedik. RE. R~a~ ~. ~er, PE ~nnet~ P Ande~n. PE. ~es M R~g. A I C P
Ma~n L. ~ala. PE. Jer~ A ~u~n. RE Mare ~ ~lh. PE. Jer~ 0 ~scn PE
R~na~ E. Turner PE, Mark A Han~n. RE. Thomas E. Angu[ RE. C~fl~ Ol~v~c PE
Glenn R C~. PE. Dawd Q ~s~M. RE. ~an~el J. Edison. PE. Ga~ W Monen. PE
Thomas E N~S. ~E. R~e~ C. ~usseK. AI.~. Ma~ A. ~0. PE. ~n L. W~emen. PE
Robe~ ~. ~hun~t. PE. ~a~ A. ~. PE. Philip J, Cas~ll, RE. ~m R vao~, PE
~n M. Ebe~in. CPA. Donal~ C. Bu~, PE. ~sma~ Ma~nez. PE. M~cnael P Rau. PE
Ted K. F~e~. PE. Mark O. Walli[ ~E. Cha~es A Er~ck~n
Mic~t [ ~utmann. PE. Thomas ~. Ande~n. A.LA.
Ro~e~ R. ~de. EE Ga~ ~ ~a~de~ ~E, Ha~an M O~so~
Thomas ~ ~mmon, PE. Miles E J~n,
M~ch~l C. Lynch, RE. L. Phfllip Oral
Attn: Kirk McDonald
Re: Winnetka Commons/Tires Plus Retaining Wall
Our File No. 34-Gen.
Dear Kirk:
On Friday, February 14 Gary Morien (BRA Structural Engineer) Doug Sandsted and myself
met with Dick Curry and the installer of the retaining wall west of Tires Plus. The meeting
was requested by Dick Curry to review the condition of the existing retaining wall. The
retaining wall due to it's size requires it be designed by a structural engineer. Engineered
drawings must be developed and submitted to the City building official for approval before
it's construction. The wall was installed without engineered drawings and has never been
accepted by the City. Therefore the City is holding a letter of credit equal to the cost of an
approved wail until engineered drawings signed by a structural engineer are prox4'ded
guaranteeing the design and construction of the wall. The function and importance of the
wall should not be taken lightly. It's essential to the operation of Tires Plus and the service
drive providing access to the rear of the shopping mall.
From an engineering/structural standpoint the wail has failed. The wall has moved both
horizontally and vertically since it's construction. In addition the expected life of a timber
retaining wall is minimal (10 to 20 years). The developer has three options.
Find a structural engineer to provide engineered drawings for the existing retaining wall
signing off on it's design and construction.
Brace/shore-up the existing wall to engineering standards.
Construct a new wall in accordance with engineering standards.
It's highly unlikely that a structural engineer will accept the design and construction of the
existing wall. Relative to the last two options, Gary from our office briefly reviewed the
construction and cost for each option.
Brace/Shore-up Existing Wall: Construct vertical support posts with soil anchors in
accordance with engineering standards. Estimated Cost $20,000.
2335 ~Vest Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 · 612-636-4600
New Wall: Construct 670 sq.ft, of new modular block retaining wall (e.g. Keystone) with
a design life of 50 plus years. Estimated Cost $23,000.
It's not recommended the City accept the wall until one of the three options is fulfilled.
If you have any questions please contact this office.
Yours very truly,
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:dh
cc: Daniel Donahue
Doug Sandsted
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Phone: 533-1521
August 9, 1991
Mr. Richard Curry
Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership
9000 Old Cedar Avenue
Bloomington, MN 55420
Subject: WINNETKA COMMONS SHOPPING CENTER CURB OPENING
Dear Mr. Curry:
On November 29, 1990, the City sent you the enclosed letter
regarding the southwest curb cut at Winnetka Commons Shopping
Center. The curb cut was not built according to approved plans and
the City stated that this issue must be resolved. The two options
available were to move the existing NSP power pole and reconstruct
the driveway opening to the approved 25' width, or to seek an
amendment to the originally approved PUD. The City indicated that
we wanted the pole moved and the driveway reconstructed.
You responded with a letter dated December 12th and requested that
the City allow you the time necessary to pursue three different
solutions to the problem, as listed in your correspondence. You
indicated you preferred either to relocate the pole easterly along
the south property line or to amend the PUD rather than moving the
pole north on Winnetka Avenue, due to the cost involved.
On January 14, 1991, the City Council approved a'reduction in the
Winnetka Commons construction Letter of Credit, but $22,500 was
held as a guarantee that the driveway reconstruction would be
completed this past spring. The Letter of Credit was automatically
renewed on July 31st for another six months.
In April the City again contacted you, stated that adequate time
had been provided for you to pursue solutions to the problem, and
requested that you inform us as to how the curb issue would be
resolved and provide a timetabIe for the work to be completed. The
Building Official and City Engineer met with you on the site this
spring, but no action has taken place.
Family Styled City ~ For Family Living
-2-
The City wants the pole moved and the driveway reconstructed this
construction season. Please inform the City immediately of your
intentions. If no progress is made on this issue soon, the City
will have no alternative except to draw on the Letter of Credit and
complete the work ourselves. This letter will serve as official
notice to you that if work is not commenced by October 1, 1991, to
move the pole and reconstruct the driveway, the City will draw on
said Letter and undertake the work. We would also expect that the
necessary repair to the retaining wall, as discussed with Mr.
Sandstad and Mr. Hanson, be completed in accordance with the drive-
way reconstruction.
Please contact me if you have any cOmments of questions.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
KM/lb
Enclosures: Past CorresPondence
cc:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
Alan Brixius, City Planner
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Winnetka Commons File
4401 Xylon Avenue Nortl~
New Ho~e. Minnesota 55428
Phone.'553-z52~
April 16, 1991
Mr. Richard Curry
Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership
9000 Old Cedar Avenue
Bloomington, MN 55420
Subject: WINNETKA COMMONS SHOPPING CENTER CURB OPENING
Dear Mr. Curry:
On November 29, 1990, the City sent you the enclosed letter regarding the
southwest curb cut at Winnetka Commons Shopping Center. The curb cut was
not built according to approved plans and the City stated that this issue
must be resolved. The two options available were to move the existing NSP
power pole and reconstruct the driveway opening to the approved 25' width,
or to seek an amendment to the originally approved PUD. The City indicated
that we wanted the pole moved and the driveway reconstructed.
You responded with a letter dated December 12th and requested that the City
allow you the time necessary to pursue three different solutions =o the
problem, as listed in your correspondence. You indicated you preferred
either to relocate the pole easterly along the south property line or to
amend the PUD rather than moving the pole north on Winnetka Avenue, due to
the cost involved.
On January 14, 1991, the City'Council approved a reduction in the Winnetka
Commons construction Letter of Credit, but $22,500 was held as a guarantee
that the driveway reconstruction would be completed this spring. Said
Letter of Credit e~l~ires on July 31st.
The City has provided adequate time for you to pursue the solutions =o =he
problem. Please inform us immediately as to how the curb cub issue will be
resolved and provide a timetable as to how soon the work will be
completed.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Cop~unity Development Coordinator
KM/lb -
Enclosures: Past correspondence
cc=
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Steve Sondrall, City Attorn~
Mark Hanson, Ci · '
Alan Brixius, F.~ann~ng
Winne%ka Comons F£1e-
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case:
Request:
92-10
Request for A Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Site/Building
Review/Approval to Allow Expansion of Existing Building
Plan
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
3216 Winnetka AVenue North
20-18-21-23-0003
I-1 (Limited Industrial)
J.R. Jones Fixture Company
May 1, 1992
May 5, 1992
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit, variance and site/building plan
review/approval to allow expansion of existing facility, pursuant to Sections 4.037(2e).
4.145,4.031(10) and 4.039A of the New Hope Code.
J.R. Jones Fixture Company is proposing to construct a 72' x 115' (8,543 square foot)
warehouse addition at the southeast interior comer of the existing building.
The property is located in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District and the setback
requirements are as follows:
Front yard - 50 feet (west - Winnetka Avenue)
Side yards - 20 feet (north & south 32nd Avenue)
Rear yard - 35 feet (east - Winpark Drive)
The present owner built the original building in 1963, with subsequent expansions in
1968, 1979, and 1990. The proposed addition would be the maximum development of
this site and staff has encouraged petitioner to purchase two adjacent undeveloped one
acre lots to the north in order to combine with the existing lot through the platting
process to increase future options. A purchase agreement has been executed on the
property, but is not final at this time.
Surrounding land uses/zoning include industrial buildings to the east across Winpark
Drive (Crystal), multi-family residential to the south across 32nd Avenue (Crystal), single
family residential across Winnetka Avenue to the west (Crystal), and I-1 vacant industrial
property to the north.
The site slopes steeply away to the north and east at the building walls and a silt "dry"
pond was created on the east side of the property with most recent 1990 expansion.
Specific zoning requests include the following:
A. Site and Building Plan Review/Approval
Planning Case Report 92-10
May 5, 1992
Page -2-
B. Variance to expand non-conforming structure - although the proposed addition
meets all setback requirements, the existing building is non-conforming as it is
located 15.17' from the north side yard property line. City Code states that non-
conforming building may continue, but shall not be enlarged, and that a non-
conforming building may be maintained and repaired, but may not be physically
extended; thus a variance to construct an addition is necessary.
C. Conditional Use Permit for Loading Berth Frontine Street - this would be for
track loading facing 32nd Avenue North to the south and is a relocation of an
existing condition, which is buffered effectively by the 1990 landscaping that was
added. The trucking entry driveway would not be changed.
D. Green Area or Parking Variance - without the final approval on the land
acquisition to the north, only the existing property is being taken into
consideration. The petitioner can either provide the required parking and be
slightly short on the green area requirement (33.3% vs 35% minimum) or a 1.7%
green area variance, or provide the required green and be short on parking (84
spaces provided vs 117 required) or a 33 stall parking variance.
Property owners within 350' of the property have been notified and staff has had several
comments from neighbors (all positive).
ANALYSIS
Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on April 20th and the following
issues were discussed: green area and parking requirements, status on acquisition of
adjacent property and environmental testing, landscaping, lighting, and building materials
to match existing building.
Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting that include the following:
-A small amount of landscaping has been added on the east side of the proposed
addition: 6 golden leaf ninebark and 2 purple leaf sand cherry. Extensive land-
scaping was added in 1990.
-New addition (painted concrete block) to match' existing building
-Specific data provided on green area percentages and parking requirements.
CUP for loading berth - City Code states that a CUP shall be required for loading berths
for non-residential uses where the loading berth is located at the front or at the side of
the building on a comer lot and shall be subject to the following:
A. Pedestrians. Loading berths shall not conflict with pedestrian movement.
B. Visibility. Loading berths shall not obstruct the view of the public right-of-way
from off-street parking access.
C. General Compliance. Loading berths shall comply with all other requirements of
City Code.
As staff indicated, a loading berth at this location was previously approved and the berth
is simply being relocated with the expansion. Screening of the loading berth was
previously addressed with extensive landscaping in 1990.
Planning Case Report 92-10
May 5, 1992
Page -3-
o
o
Variance for Expansion - staff does not see the variance to expand a non-conforming
building as a major issue, as the new addition meets all setback requirements.
Green Variance - under the green variance scenario, 117 parking stalls would be provided
(as per code) and the site data would be as follows:
Total Parking Required 117 stalls
Total Parking Provided - 117 stalls
Total Building Area
Total Paved Area
Total Green Area
TOTAL AREA
- 62,755 sq. ft. 33.8%
- 61,167sq. ft. 32.97%
- 61,848 sa_. ft. 33.3%
- 185,770 sq. ft. 100%
A 1.7% variance fromt he 35% green area requirment would be needed, excluding the
acquisition of the property to the north. Staff does not find that this is a significant
variation from the code requirements. The additional parking is located in a remote
location from the building, with 24 spaces added along the curving driveway up the hill
and 9 added near the east driveway.
Parking Variance - if the code requirements
requiremtns are short by 33 stalls:
Total Parking Required
Total Parking Provided
Variance Requested
for green area are met, the parking
- 117 stalls
- 84 stalls
- 33 stalls
Total Building Area 62,755 sq. ft. 33.8%
Total Paved Area - 55,250 sq. ft. 29.7%
Total Green Area - 67,765 sa_. ft. 36.5%
TOTAL AREA 185,770 sq. ft. 100%
Staff would prefer to see either a minor green variance granted (with adequate parking
provided) or a deferred parking CUP allows so that adequate green area is provided.
7. One complaint was received several weeks ago regarding sawdust dumped on the
ground,which is not acceptable. This issue was discussed with the petitioner.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval oft he variance to expand non-conforming building, a conditional use
permit for loading berth, site/building plan rev_iew/approval, and a 1.7% green area variance
subject to the following conditions:
1. Immediately repair/redesign plans for sawdust collection system including hauling. Said
plans to be on paper and approved by Building Official 14 days prior to a building permit
application for the addition.
Plannign Case Report 92-10
May 5, 1992
Page -4-
Additional landscape improvements recommended for the building front yard including
2-1/2" maple tree (3) and 20+ shrubs (as per Commission). Submit revised plan prior
to Council review.
City Engineer to review site drainage changes and forward to Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission, if necessary.
Owner to agree to Development Contract and bond for all parking lot work and grading/
landscaping (amount to be determined by City Engineer).
Attachments:
Topo/Zoning
Site Plan & Date -Parking and Green
Floor Plan
Elevations
Staff Exhibit
1990 Addition Reports/Minutes
Area Percentages
HOLY NATIVITY
LUTHE~IAFI GHUI~H
77~?
36 TH
$$ RO
33
i
3a &~
X 910.2
9~
Lz.J
Z
I.~
940
944.2
X
95o
X 919.3
9
913.1 X
9i4.7
916.7
X
X 919.1
918.0~
912.2
X
916.6
X
937.6
918.5
X
32nd RVENUE NOI~TH
PLRNTING SCHEDULE
~.~l 18~'-2¢'' COL~I~q~ NUX~K
BELAIR
1
l
!l
944.2
X 919.1
4
I
t
!
X
9,37.6
X
.2
919.3
/
91
913.1 X
~916.
914.7
916.7
X
912.2
X
918.5
X
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case:
90-15
Request:
Request for Variance to Allow Expansion of Non-
Conforming Structure for Construction of Building
Addition
Location:
3216 Winnetka Avenue North
PID No.:
20-118-21 23 0003
Zoning:
I-1
Petitioner:
J.R. Jones Fixture Company
Report Date:
July 6, 1990
Meeting Date:
July 10, 1990
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting a Variance to allow the expansion of a
non-conforming structure to allow the construction of a 64' x
115.33' two-level warehouse addition on to the existing building.
The request is pursuant to Section 4.031 (Non-Conforming Buildings)
of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
Sub-section 4.031(2) states that a non-conforming building may
continue, but shall not be enlarged, and sub-section 4.031(10)
states that a non-conforming building may be maintained and
repaired, but may not be physically extended.
Although the proposed addition meets the 20-fo0t side yard setback
requirement on the north, the existing building is non-conforming
as it is located 15.17' from the north side yard property line.
The Planning Commission approved the Site and Building Plan Review
at the June 5, 1990, meeting. Subsequent to the meeting, City
staff contacted the City Attorney and Planning Consultant to
discuss whether a variance was required. Both felt that a variance
was necessary because the existing building is non-conforming and
technically this would be viewed as the expansion of a non-
conforming structure. Staff informed Mr. Jones by letter that a
variance was necessary.
The City Council approved the Site and Building Plan Review at the
June 11, 1990, Council meeting. After discussing the construction
schedule, it was determined that an excavation/ grading permit
could be issued prior to the formal approval of the variance, but
that the applicant would be proceeding at their own risk. Council
also requested staff to research the petitioner's property file to
determine if the non-conformance had been discussed when the
original building permit was issued or during subsequent building
additions. No evidence was discovered that this issue was ever
discussed in the past and the original 1963 building permit states
that the setback from the north property line was 15 feet.
lanning Case Report 90-15
July 10, 1990
Page -2-
Se
Additional background information is contained
Building Review Report, June 5, 1990.
in the Site/
7. Property owners within 350' of the site have been notified.
ANALYSIS
The City's Planning Consultant has stated that the basis for the
approval of this variance could be that 25 years ago the setback
requirements may have been different and that revisions in the code
may have made this building non-conforming.
Other arguments the Consultant has presented in favor of granting
the variance are that the setback of the existing building is being
maintained and the new addition will not violate the setback
requirement.
The city Attorney has stated that it is in the company's best
interest to seek the variance because the granting of the variance
would officially change the use from non-conforming to legal non-
conforming and the action will be duly recorded in the City
records.
Staff feels that the encroachment of the existing building into the
setback area is minor (4.83 feet).
The new addition will exceed the setback requirement, as it is
located 20.56' (at the closest point) from the side yard property
line.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance to allow the
expansion of a non-conforming structure. Conditions .for the expansion
were included in the Site/Building Review Approval, June il, 1990.
Attachments:
Section Map
Excerpts, Planning Commission/Council meetings
Correspondence (6-8-90)
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Floor Plans
Elevations
Site/Building Review Report (6-5-90)
Ordinance Excerpts (p. 17, 18)
adouted, signed by the mayor which was att~sts~ to by the city
clerk.
90-14
It~ 8.1
Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Planning Case
90-14: Request for Variance to Allow Expansion of a Non-Oonformir~
Build/rig and Variance to the Required 50-Foot "Fzunt" Yard Setback
at 3421 Yuko~ Aver~/e North (PI/) #19-118-21 12 0099), Daniel R.
Riser, Petitioner.
Coord/nator, stated the petitioner is requesting approval of a
variance to allow expansion of a non-ccnfo~ building and a 16-
foot variance to the r~c~ed 50-foot "front" yard setback to allow
expansion of a single garage. This request is made pursuant to
Section 4.034(3) and 4.034(4B) of the New Hope Code of O~.
Mr. F~Donald indicated t~e structure is technically non-conforming
because of the placement on the lot and the structure does not meet
present setback rec~,i~ (rear yard).
He stated the Planning Cu~..~ission ~mbled t. his request at its
meeting of June 5, 1990, and requested the petitioner to attempt to
reduce the amount of the encroa~ and also bring more detailed
draw~ on the addition. ~he Planning C~.,~ssion reviewed this
case again at its July 10, 1990, meeting and recommended approval.
The petitioner had presented drawings which showed a reduction of
two feet in the encroachment.
RESOLUTIC~ (k~nci~ Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its
90-140 adoption: ~ESOIJ3TI~ ~ ~ CASE NO. 90-14 R~-~'r~NG
It~a 8.1 A ~ ~) ~TZ'f'~T ]~(~-~/:~ OF ~ ~K/~DING AND A
VARIANC~ TO ~ "FR~'I~ YArD SETBA~ AT 3421 YUNC~{ AV~3E ~
(PID #]_9-118-21 12 0099)". The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Otten, and upon
vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof:
Erickson, Enck, Otten, L'Herault; and the following voted against
the ~--: Nc~e; Absent: Williamson; whereupon the resolution was
~ declared duly passed and adouted, signed by the mayor which was
~ ~ l~¥or I~'icJmon ~..roduc~l for dL.qoJ~.on It~ 8.2, Plann.h~ Ca..qo
90-/5 9~-15: Request for Variance to Allow Expansion of A Non-Conforming
It~ 8.2 /Structure for Construction of a Building Addition at 3216 Winnetka
~~ / Avenue North, J.R. Jones Fixture Ccm~k3ny, Petitioner, (PID #20-118-
~ 21 23 0003).
Mr. ~d stated the petitioner is request/rig a variance to allow
expansion of a nc~-conforming structure to allow construction of a
warehouse addition at 3216 winnetka Avenue North. ~ request is
made pur~,ant to Section 4.031 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
He stated the Planning C~m~dssion approved the Site and Building
New Hope City C~uncil
Page 5
July 23, 1990
Plan Review at their June 5, 1990, meeting, but it was determined
that t/me that a variance was ncc~ed because the existing building
is no~orming as it is located 15.17' f~-c~ the north side yard
prope~7 line.
Mr. McDonald further stated the Planning O~/ssion reviewed the
variance request at its meeting of July 10, 1990, and re~ended
~SOIL'~IC~
90-141
It~ 8.2
Ccuncilrember Enck ~.ced the foll~win~ resolution and moved its
adoption: ~RESOLU~/C~ APPROV/NS ~ (:~. ~. 90-15 ~
A ~ TO AT;~ EXP~A~/C~ OF ~ ~ AT 3216
~ AV~ ~E~ ~ BY J.R. JC~E5 ~ (IP~%NY (PID
%20-L18-21 23 0003)". The motic~ for the adoptio~ of the foregoing
resolution was seconded by Counc~ L'Herault, and upon vote
being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof:
Erickson, Enck, Otten, L'Herault; and the following vote_ against
the same: None; Absent: Williamson; whereupon the resolution was
decla~ duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was
attested to by the city clerk.
PLA~T/NS CASE
90-18
It~ 8.3
Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 8.3, Plannir~ Case
90-18: Request for Varianoe to Required 35-Foot Rear Yard Setback to
Allow Addition of a Family Roc~ at 3224 Ensign Court North, (PID
#19-118-21 24 0022), James/Marlene Buck, Petitioners.
Mr. F~Donald stated the petitioner is requesting approval of a
5-foot variance to the required 35-foot rear yard setback for the
.purpose of ~ing a 16' x 14' family roc~ addition. ~ne
family room addition would be constructed at the rear of the home as
the existing family ~ is to be remodeled into a
aco~Lm~date a parent in a wheelchair who is moving into the home.
He. stated the Planning O~m,dssion reviewed this casa at is meeting
of July 10, 1990, and rec~m~/~led approval.
Counc~ Enck inquired why construction had already begun on
this site. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, indicated he was not
awar~ of the construction but did not believe that a permit had been
issued. He stated staff will check with t_he Building Official
r~janlin~ the mattero
90-142
It~ 8.3
CounciLmember Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "~ESOIL'fIC~ ~~ ~ CASE 1~O. 90-18 ~
OF A FANTT.V ~ AT 3224 ~/(~l ~ ~ (PID %19-118-21 24 0022)
~ BY JAMES/MAI~NE ~U(~T~. The motion for the adoption
of the foregoing resolution was secorded by Oounci~ L'Herault,
~ upon vote bein~ taken there~; the following voted in favor
thereof: Erickson, Enck, Otten, L'Herault; and the following voted
against the same: None; Absent: Williamson; wb~_reupon the
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor
New Hope City Council
Page 6
July 23, 1990
Pc ~o-17 (2.4)
in=l~ c~r~:zu~J.c~ of a feno~ ~ a 260'x 52' ar~a cn ~ ~
cz1 of t:~ ~,4],44,~, ~ ~ in ~---Md.~ spsose rrm 303 to 200
hOUSe S~__'~"a~ ar~ F,~II~ of ~ Goo~# ~.~ mother Use~# sectic~ of
site, and cited
~ ~ ~ for
l~, ~M ~,
~ ~d ~i~
City ~ bare if ~ perk~ var~ i~ g~ n~w and in five
Gazy ~, ~ Mm-m~j~r fo= Uni~--~ ~aze. mr~, intxu~u=sd
himself ar~ ~ that ~ _~,41~,~ ~am desi~ as a at-.~trih.,'tion
New ~ P],wrd2~ C~mife~kn -2- ,n.u.¥ lo, :L~eo
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case:
90-15
Request:
Request for Site and Building Review to Allow
Construction of a Building Addition
Location:
3216 Winnetka Avenue North
PID No.:
20-118-21 23 0003
Zoning:
I-1
Petitioner:
J.R. Jones Fixture Company
Report Date:
June 1, 1990
Meeting Date:
June 5, 1990
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting a Site and Building Plan Review
to allow construction of a 64' x 115.33' (7,381 square feet)
two-level warehouse addition on to the existing building.
The request is made pursuant to Section 4.039A(D)
(Additions) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
The property is located in an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning
District and the setback requirements are as follows:
Front yard -
Side yards -
Rear yard -
50 feet (west-Winnetka Avenue)
20 feet (north & South 32nd Avenue)
35 feet (east-Winpark Drive)
Although the proposed addition meets the 20-foot side yard
setback requirement on the north, the existing building is
non-conforming as it is located 15.17' from the north side
yard property line. If the site/building plans are
approved, the applicant will need to obtain a variance for
the expansion of a non-conforming structure. The need for
the variance was not stipulated on the original application,
however, as of this date the applicant has submitted the
necessary fees and published notice should occur as soon as
possible.
The first J.R. Jones building was built in 1963. A second
major addition followed in 1968. The most recent major
addition was erected in 1980, all by the same owner. Unless
adjacent vacant land is acquired and combined with this lot,
this proposal would amount to a MAXIMUM site development.
So
Design and Review met with the petitioner on May 24, 1990,
and expressed concerns regarding uniform color of building
and addition, surfacing of parking area and curbing,
drainage plan, landscaping, snow storage area, and lighting.
Planning Case Report 90-15
June 15, 1990
Page -2-
ANALYSIS
The majority of the suggestions made by Design & Review have
been incorporated into plans.
Total parking required, based on 3 different uses (office,
manufacturing, and warehouse), equals 108 spaces. The plan
shows 91 spaces provided with area for an additional 25
spaces in the future (if needed) for a total of 116 spaces.
Current number of employees is 55 and staff feels the
parking plan is adequate as long as future expansion is
possible.
0
Total building ground cover equals 53,880 square feet or 29%
of total area. This meets the 40% requirement.
Total green area equals 65, 041 square feet or 35% or the
total area. This meets the 35% green area requirement.
Number of new plantings proposed equals 48; 24 trees and 24
shrubs - see Landscape Plan for details. Staff feels this
is adequate (and an improvement over original landscape).
Security lights are shown on the east side of the addition
as per Police Department recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Ail block walls to be cleaned and painted in a
harmonious way.
All street frontages be sodded within 25 feet of curb
and maintained.
Parking layout be revised to show 8'9" x 19' stalls-
white striped.
Curbing be installed in all areas east of the building.
41" guardrail is required at loading dock.
Dumpster enclosure construction is missing - 6-foot
cedar should be detailed on elevation drawing A3.
48 new plantings are proposed, 24 trees and 24 shrubs-
OK.
City Engineer will review the new storm sewer work.
Approval of variance- for expansion of non-conforming
structure.
Attachments:
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Floor Plans
Elevations
Mr. Riser said he given it consideration but had not ac~_~l ly pursued
it because he had looked at sc~e similar additions in the neighborhood
and that the single addition would he adequate and the contractors
he had ~i.~_,_~_~4_ it with a~z-eed.
C~tssic~_r Gundershaug questioned the size of the new door and if it
would present a balar~md look. He c~.nt~ that he felt there was a
need for more detail on what the petitioner was planning and w~dered
if the petitioner's timeeahle w~lld allow a delay until more concrete
details were presented.
C~/ssio~er Oja wondered if the addition could be downsized to re~i~e
less of a variance and still satisfy the needs of the petitioner.
Omirman Cameron sugg~ that the ~mtitioner ¥~view his plan and
possibly omsider h~tldir~ a double-car garage that would be ~
with a more specific and detailed plan.
(]mairman Camerc~ questioned staff about why the front yard is
designated on Boc~e Avenue since the house faoes Yukon, and if there
are other like variances in that area.
Mr. Donahue, City Manager, explained that the side with the shortest
width is cz~sidered the front yard and there are a number of hc~es in
the City with this problem.
Motic~ by C~issic~.r Sonsin, secum~ by C~,,,dssioner Friedrid~, to
table P~ Case 90-14 fc~ a period of c~e mooch.
Voting in favor:
PC 90-15 (3.3) Cha/xman Camerc~ ex~used himself frc~ the meetir~ at this point and
R~3~"T P~ O~,~issic~er Gundershau~ assumed the Chair and called for Plannin~ Case
S/~.,/~J~I~ 90-15.
TO ~ ~ Mr. McDonald intruduced the request for site/k~3d~ng plan review to
S~H~fI~ OF allow ~~-tion of a 64' x 115.33' two-level warehouse addition to
Hlr~nIN~ A[~I- an existir~ building located in an I-1 Industrial District. He ex-
TIC~ AT 3216 plaine~ that the ~ addition meets the 20-foot side yard setback
because it is located 15.17 feet frc~ the north side yard property line
and if the site/build/n~ plan is approved, a varianoe will be needed
for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. He added that the
petitioner is aware of the variance and has already submitted the
necessary fees. He noted that Design and Review met with the
petitioner and expressed concerns r~3amitng a number of issues and a
mjority of their suggestions have been incorporat~ into the plans.
C~,,~issi~ Cassen ask__~d if the addition would match the existing
build/n~ in color and mt-rial, ar~ if the existing building would be
New ~ope P~ C--.'"~-~::ion -3- JU~ 5, 1990
Jc~es Fixture Om%0any, and Fa] Pierce, Architect. He stated that the
build~ will be cc~crete block and color will match the old ~Hlding,
C~i~er Csssen asked if the new area wuuld have continuous
Mr. Ma~owski res~ that the revised plan will shc~ bituminous
O~,~ssioner Cassen questioned staff if cor~rete curbing is re~H~ed
rather than bitu~.
C~ssioner C~ssen expressed concern about a lack of sidewalk for
employees frum the parking area to the k~]a~ng.
Mr. Pierce stated that the revised plan shows a sidewalk around the
drivin~ area so they will not have to walk c~ the driveway.
C~maL~ssioner C~sse~ ~ a~ dum~ locatic~ and enclosure for
it, if there is a snow removal area, and what lightir~ is planned.
Mr. Malowski stated that they were working out details of the du~er
enclosure with staff.
Mr. Pierce pointed cut that the dumpier location was moved out of the
parking lot area to a spot behind the r~taining wall and would have a
6-foot enclceure. He added that there are two ar~_m-~ for snow removal,
plantings. He indicated wall lightir~ over the overhead doors, and
O~.,dssioner Cassen questioned if there would be parking lot lighting
for employees who leave after dark and what types of lights are used
r~Dw.
Mr. Malowski point~ out that there is a street light on Winpark Drive
and 32nd which casts lighting over the lot, and they do not run a
s~ shift so ther~ are never employees there late. He added that
they have a wall-pack type lighting that is luminous and non-
doors, k~t it does not seem to bother residents, which was a co~cexn of
staff.
Cum~ssi~m_rOusenask~d if anysignagewasplanned, and if acoess for
trucks is sufficient.
Mr. F~]owski c~m~_ntedthat no pylon signage is planned, and explained
the movement of trucks in t hear ea.
Ne~ Ho~e Plannir~ O..,~{-~ic~ -4- Jur~ 5, 1.990
C~,,~i~ Oja asked if the parking area was striped according to the
new code, ar~ if there will be directional signs for employee and
visitor parking.
Mr. Malcwski res~__~_ affirmatively to the questions.
Oa,,~sioner Oja questioned t_he lack of landscaping on the south side
next to the building ar~ suggested sc~e 1~ shrubs be added to break up
the lor~ look of the build/rig frc~ the residents' view.
C~/~dssio~er Cassen referred to the green areas and wondered what will
be seeded and what will be sodded, if it will be sprinkled and
rain,a in g4, ar~ if any area will be left wild.
Pierce pointed out the specific areas for sodding and seeding.
Commissioner Gur~ersha~ asked the petitioner to oonfirm that all
areas will be mowed and maintained, and also that additional shrubs or
trees will be placed along the south side of the building.
Assuranoe was granted that the areas will be sprinkled, mowed, and
maintained, and new plantings added.
Cu,,Ldssioner ~u~ called attentic~ to staff request for a 41"
Mr. Pierce ~ that it will be
O~issic~er ~ndershaug wondered what color the build/rig will be
painted, and also brought up Design and R~view C~,,,.~ttee's concern
regaz~ the dust collector.
Mr. Malowski ~ that it will be painted a light beige or off
white and will be a uniform color all around. He added that they had
r~mar~be~ the dust collector and four~l cut that it has a ceramic-
necessary to pr~ide m frequent ~intenance. He assured that it is
in excellent cc~litic~ an~ b~ no rust, it is just a blue color.
(l~t~si~r ~u~ ~ that bsmus~ of its visibility they
o~sider paint~ it as it will add to the upgraded look of the
C~/ssi= Gun~ershaug conf~ that parkir~ is adequate for the
number of employees.
N~ N Plannin~ CU--issim -5- June 5, /990
0
5.
6.
7.
All street ~ be s~ldsd wi.thin 25 feet of cu=b ard
~aintalr~d.
Pa~ la~ be r~wised to show 8'9" x 19" s~ll.~, ~hite
41" guaz~r~{1 m load/ll~ clock.
48 ~ ~ as pro~, 24 ~ ~ 24 shrube, plus
addi~ sbrtt:~ c~ scuth side of
Voting in favor:
Absent:
Casserl, Sonsin,
Watschke
None
Zak, Cameron
Frisdrich, Gundershaug, Oja,
Mr. Dorkahue addressed the issue of a variance, stating that the new
k~tild/ng additic~ was ccnfo~, but the old buildin~ was non-
conforming. He noted that at the time the case was su~~, the ~
for a variance was not ~ since there was no survey provided to
a non-conforming building cannot be expanded, He pointed cut that
there were no variances given when the original build/rig was oon-
structed. He explained that the petitioner bas suhnitt~_ the
necessary fees for _a variance, but official notice b~ not been
published at this time. He suggested that the variance be dealt with
at a future meeting and after discussi~l with the Planner on the
situation.
PC 90-16 (3.4) C~,~issioner Gundershau~ called for Planning Case 90-16.
C~TI~
USE P~T
TO ATI ~9/
INS WO~SHIP
SERVICES ~
R-1 ~
DIS~I~ICT AT
3/24 B0flqE
Mr. ~lXx,ald s~arized the re~,_~t for a conditional use permit to
allc~ Sunday morning worship services in an R-1 Single Family Residen-
tial Zoning District. He explained that Holy Nativity Lutheran Church
has been in New Hope for 25 years, but their chu~/~ was demolished to
allow cormfcruction of a shopping center and they had currently secured
new facility is reacly in October, 1990. He added that the c~l~ was
not aware that a conditional use permit was needed to use the school,
but they ~ba~_~ been cooperative with staff upon learning of this. He
stressed that the oonditi~ use was tempos, but the rain ~
Pastor Gerald Wahl addressed the Cc~,,i.~ion and apologized for not
being aware that a conditior~l permit was necessary. He noted that
thi_~ will be ~_ only through tb~ ~ and into S~, and
most programs are currently on Sunday mornings since strainer sd~edules
are in effect. He assured that the 113 spaces in the parking area was
adequate and that the school provided a custodian to open and close the
New Hope p1 ~nir~ ~i.~ic~l -6- Jur~ 5, 1990
~/kmmald, Management Assistant/C~L-L~nity Develc~anent Coordinator,
explained that this was a ~ for an approval of a seven foct~
variance fr~ the r~,~ed 35-foot rear yard setback to allc~ fo~
the addition of a porch and a portion of the existing deck would be
enclosed. Mr. MaDormld stated the Plannin~ C~,~dssion reviewed this
RESOLUTI~
90-117
It~ 8.1
adoption subject to approval of plans su~~ to staff:
"RESOI]]TIC~ ~ ~ (~SE 90-13 R~'r~n~ A VARIAN(~ TO
K~~ 35-FOOT ~ ~%RD SETB~( TO ~Tx~ A~ITIC~ OF A ~ AT
3541 ~ AV~K]E N~, (PID 19-118-21-11 0030). The motion for
the adoption of the foregoing r~solution was seconded by
Ccunci~ Williamso~, and upon vote being taken thereon; the
following voted in favor thereof: Otten, Erickson, Enck,
Williamson, L'Herault; and the following voted against the same:
None; whereupon the r~solution was declared du!v passed and
adooted, and was signed by the mayor which was attest~ to by the
city clerk.
PLA~r/A~ C~SE
90-15
It~ 8.2
Mayor Erickson ~ for ~-=3,~ion Item 8.2, Plan~ Cas~ 90-
15, _~3~.~t for Site/Building Plan R~view to Allow Construction of a
Build/rig ~dition at 3216 Winnetka Avenue North, J.R. Jc~es Fixture
~y, Petitioner (PID 20-118-21 23 003).
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Develo~
Coordinator explaine~ this was a request for a site and build/n~
plan review to allow construction of a 64' x 115.33' two-level
warehouse addition to the current buildir~ at 3216 Winnetka Avenue
North. Mr. McDonald stated this building is locat~ in an I-1
limited ir~ustrial zoning d/strict. Mr. McDonald indicate_ there
wms one problem disooverm~ after the application w-us suhni~--~
existing ~ng is n~-confozmLng because it is located
app~tely 15 feet from the property line, therefore a variance
will be needed for the expansion of a nc~-om~orming structure. He
public hearir~ is scheduled for July 10, 1990.
~e Planning C~,...ission revie~s~ the ~ on June 5 and reo~L~
Site and Beview (k~ttee also discussed, a number of points
May~r Ericksc~ ~ if J.R. Jc~es ~ould be able to start
c~9~tru=~.ion before ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~Y- ~. ~~
Mayor ~icksc~ asks~
New Hc~e City Council
~ representative of J.R. Jooes to take the_
of the prupoeed om~-truction schs~ule. Mark
June 11, 1990
90-118
'r~ 8.2
Comx:~ Enck irdircduced the following rmsolution ar~ moved
its adoption subject to the approval of the necessary variance:
P~ ~ ~O ~ (]~]C~/C~ OF A BOTTn~ AEI3ITIC~ AT 3216
~ AVJ~]G~ ~, J.~. JC[~S, P~C~t (PID 20-118-21 23
0003)#. ~me motic~ for the adcsfci~ of the foregoir~ resolution was
thereon; the follcm~ng voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck,
Williamsc~, L'Herault, Often; and the following voted against the
city clerk.
90-16
I~ 8.3
Mayor Ericksm ~ for discussic~ Item 8.3, Plan~ Case 90-
16, Request for Cc~ditic~al Use Permit to All~ Sunday Morning
Worship Services in an I%-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zcnir~
Distric~ at 3421 Boc~e Averse NoxTh, Holy Nativity Lutheran
Church/Gerald Wahl, ~m~.iti~'~r (PID #~9..-~1.S-21 21 0002).
9(}-11~
I~ 8.3
~ 447
8.4
~ ~ for d/scussi~ Item 8.4, Resolution
Plans ard Spmcificatic~s an~ ~~ ~ for
~ ~~ ~. 447 (F~ ~m ~c~i~).
Mr. D~mbue stated he. had a cc~y of the plans and specifications
that ~mxm r~arly finalized. Mr. Donahue requested Council to give
bids in by the July 26, 1990 co.ul:il memory. Counc~ Otten
stated m of the ~or plar~ are subject to ~mange, but the
June 11, 1990
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
o
92-12
Request for A Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit and
Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Front and Rear Building
Additions at City Hall and A Conditional Use Permit for Deferment of
Required Parking
4401 Xylon Avenue North
18-18-21-12-0005
R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
City of New Hope
May 1, 1992
May 5, 1992
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting conditional use permits and site/building plan
review/approval to allow front and rear building additions at the City Hall and deferment
of required parking.
The City is proposing to construct a 1,120square foot 1-1/2 story front entry addition on
the south side of the existing building, a 4,000 square foot second story addition above
the existing police garages on the north side of the building and a 100 square foot
entry/vestibule addition to the Police Department on the east side of the existing
building.
The front addition is being constructed so that an elevator can be incorporated into the
front entry to provide access to both the lower and upper level floors for the disabled,
in accordance with the 1991 American Disabilities Act (ADA), as the existing handi-
capped access ramp is no longer in compliance with accessibility requirements. The
existing ramp would be eliminated, the elevator would be installed just west of the
existing entry steps, and the entire area would be enclosed with the existing vestibule/
automatic doors being relocated to sidewalk grade. A new metal roof (blue) would be
constructed over the new entrance which would match the roofs at the new fire station
and swimming pool bathhouse, essentially tying all of the City buildings together with
similar roof colors. The new addition would include an elevator equipment room and
storage area and a roof-top skylight would be installed over the currently open roof area
on the east side of the entrance, with the two-story open area being utilized as an
expanded lobby/waiting area/meeting space with Cable TV monitor.
The rear second story addition is being constructed to add additional office space, storage
space, and conference room areas. The existing lower level police garages constructed
in 1973 were specifically designed to accommodate an upper level expansion. A staircase
will be built at the north end of the addition and the lower level former firing range will
undergo lead removal/decontamination and be renovated into four (4) additional police
garages and storage space for the Park and Recreation Department.
Planning Case Report 92-12
May 5, 1992
Page -2-
5. A small vestibule addition is proposed to be added to the Police Department on the east,
which will contain automatic doors to accommodate handicapped persons and which will
improve the energy efficiency of the area and increase adjacent lobby space.
6. A number of site improvements are also proposed with the additions including six (6)
inch watermain connection to building on east side for future sprinkling, new storm sewer
on west, new landscaping/benches/concrete walk and optional fountains, new entrance
lighting, new signage and new trash/recycling enclosure at rear of building.
7. There are three specific zoning requests for the proposed additions:
A. Site and Building Plan Review/Approval- required for all additions/new
construction.
B. Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit - the City Hall property is
Zoned R-l, Single Family Residential, which allows for public buildings as
conditional uses. The entire Civic Center area, including the City Hall, Fire
Station, Swimming Pool, etc. is considered a planned unit development/
conditional use permit, thus a PUD amendment is necessary.
C. Conditional Use Permit for Deferred Parking - the additional office area being
constructed requires that additional parking be added, hoWever, due to the fact
that no additional employees are anticipated the City is requesting a conditional
use permit for deferred parking. The City Code was amended several years ago
to allow deferred parking . Under this process, the required parking is shown on
the plan, but is not constructed unless deemed necessary.
D. ~- in addition to the above listed requests, the signage requested for the
site and the applicability of the ordinance must be addressed (see Analysis).
8. Surrounding land uses/zoning include R-5 elderly housing (VOA) and K-Mart (B~4) to
the east, swimming pool and fire 'station to the immediate south, and Norwest Bank (B-2)
on 42nd Avenue, Civic Center Park to the immediate west, and R-1 residential across
Zealand Avenue, and Civic Center Park and the cemetery to the immediate north and
R-1 Residential on 46th Avenue North.
9. The topography of the site is flat with a minimal slope to the northeast. Surface drainage
problems around the City Hall are addressed by the plan.
10. Two preliminary reports were prepared in 1991 (attached) regarding the addition over
the police garages and the entrance remodeling/landscaping plan. The entrance plan was
later revised to include an elevator to address ADA concerns. An informational meeting
on these additions was conducted in October, 1991, by the Citizen Advisory Commission,
and no negative comments were received.
1 I. The City Council has authorized this project to proceed up to the bidding process, which
is scheduled to take place in July. The project is being bid in phases and with alternates,
and depending upon the bids received, tlxe Council may or may not authorize proceeding
with all or a portion of the project. The front entrance addition would be funded almost
totally with Community Development Block Grant Funds (handicapped accessibility is
one of the items for which the funds can be used).
12. Residents within 350' of the request have been notified and no comments have been
received.
Planning Case Report 92-12
May 5, 1992
Page -3-
ANALYSIS
The petitioner met with the Design & Review Committee on April 20th and the following
issues were discussed: parking requirements, landscaping, lighting, signage, roof-top
equipment, utilities, trash enclosure, and construction materials. Staff drafted a detailed
list (enclosed) of items to be added to the site plan. Revised plans were submitted that
include all recommendations made by Design & Review and staff.
The Planning Consultant has prepared the enclosed report which addresses parking
requirements, the building additions/height, landscaping, signage, setbacks, trash
enclosure, and pedestrian circulation.
Landscat}ing - the revised plan shows 75 new shrubs and trees to be added to the site in
addition to the existing landscaping around the building (existing low-lying shrubs around
entrance to be removed). Design & Review requested that additional conifers be added
and 23 Junipers are included on the revised plan.
The Planning Consultant has recommended that the azalea plants (16) be replaced with
a more healthy plant that thrives in direct sunlight and staff is conferring with the City
Forester and will have a recommendation at the Commission meeting.
Architecture - the architecture of all the work matches the existing City Hall, while
incorporating a new "blue-gable roofed entry" element which has been used in the other
Civic Center buildings, pool bathhouses and fire station. This is consistent with our
"Commercial Core Design Guidelines" adopted twelve years ago for "city center". A
convenience benefit to the blue gable entries is the easy identification of the two access
points for the public-Police on the east and Administration on the south. Many people
have been baffled by what is where over the years. A more prominent sign at the main
driveway will help even more in this regard. Clear readable address numerals will also
be added. Rooftop equipment will be color clad to match the brown brick. A new cedar
fence enclosure for trash and recycling containers is shown and already ordered. The
elevator and some internal bathroom changes will make the building fully accessible to
the disabled, meeting the requirements of the "Americans with Disabilities Act" (ADA).
A complete analysis is underway for other needed improvements such as door hardware,
etc, and is not included in these plans.
Parking- the Planning Consultant has calculated that eight (8) additional parking stalls
are needed for the office addition and the building official has calculated that fourteen
additional spaces are needed. The plan is based on the higher calculation and shows a
deferred parking area which could be constructed on the north side of the building.
~-please review the comments in the Planner's report regarding signage. Two
monument signs are proposed at 75 sq_uare feet and 27 square feet (identifying the
location of the Administration/Police facilities and Police Station, respectively). R-1
Zoning only allows one sign no larger than 20 square feet in area. This is a unique
situation due to the fact that the City Hall is a public facility and the proposed signage
is intended to clarify exactly where specific facilities are located. The existing ordinance
does not clearly set a standard for public buildings located in an R-1 Zone. The three
options that staff will be discussing with the Commission include:
Planning Case Report 92-12
May 5, 1992
Page -4-
A. Reducing the size/number of size to Comply with the current ordinance.
B. Consider granting a variance in this unique situation.
C. Table this part of the plan and research a text amendment to address public
facilities in R-1 Zones (a study is already scheduled on another portion of the sign
ordinance). Staff recommends option C.
7. Condition Use Permit Standards -
A. Government buildings are allowed as a conditional use in an R-1 Zoning District
provided that:
Compatibility and Setbacks. Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is
maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements are met.
Equipment Enclosed. Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure
with no outside storage.
B. General criteria for conditional use permits includes:
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the
specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the
official Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City.
Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses.
Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable
performance standards contained in City Code.
No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually
depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed
CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts.
C. Residential Zoning District criteria for a conditional use permit includes:
Traffic. Non-residential traffic is channeled into thoroughfares or onto a street
abutting business of industrial uses leading directly to thoroughfares, and not onto
minor residential streets.
Screening. The proposed use will be sufficiently separated by distance or
screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not
be materially depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development
of vacant land.
Compatible Appearance . The structure and site shall have an appearance that
will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent properties.
Staff finds that the proposed additions are compatible with the existing structure,
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and will not have a detrimental impact on
surrounding property values. _
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit and
Site/Building Plan Review/Approval for the proposed City Hall Additions and the Conditional
Use Permit for Deferred Parking subject to the following conditions:
Planning Case Report 92-12
May 5, 1992
Page -5-
o
o
Under a deferred parking arrangement, 14 additional off-street parking stalls are
constructed if the need arises.
Consider substituting a different plant variety for the proposed azaleas within the
entrance plaza.
Amend the sign ordinance to address public building signage in a residential zone.
Trash enclosure to be constructed of materials compatible with principal structure.
Watermain brought to building to accommodate automatic fire sprinkler installation with
2nd story office addition.
Replace existing equipment enclosure on west side of building with new cedar fence to
match trash/recycling enclosure.
Complete lead cleanup of former firing range prior to police garage renovation.
Attachments:
Topo/Zoning Map
Design & Review List
Parking Requirements
Site Plan
Survey/Utilities
Landscape Plan/Schedule
Floor Plans: Upper/Lower
Building Elevations
Detail Sheet
Planner's Report
Preliminary Feasibility Reports
Geotechnical Report
R.4
NORTH R)DGE
CARE
CENTER
AVE.
4STN AVE
HOMEWARD
I]OUND
COOPER
HIGH SCHOOL
NEW HOPE
ELEMETARY
CIVIC
CENTER
CiTY
H&LL
POOL
FIRE
STATION
!.4
!.0
I-,1
R.4
SUNNYSIDE
PARK
R!-4
ARENA
GETHSEMANE
CEMETERY
I-1
918.6 43
916.6
X
-/
9~3.9
X
X
9~4.3 43
43 43
917.3
X
928.2
X
920
X
POOL
x-- --~x
923.0
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
April 21, 1992
Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation
Milt Powell, Architect, Bonestroo & Associates
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development
Coordinator
Design & Review Committee and Staff Recommendations
Re: Plan Changes for City Hall Addition
The following list includes the recommendations made by the Design &
Review Committee and staff at the April 20th Design & Review Committee
meeting regarding plan changes/additions for the City Hall Addition
(Planning Case 92-12).
1. State on the plan that materials used for addition (brick, etc.) will
match existing building. Identify canopy material over front
entrance.
2. Add quantity/number of plants/shrubs to landscape schedule and
identify new and existing.
3. Show sidewalk from lower front patio connecting to theater sidewalk
(access to public righg-of-way).
4. Add existing lights to plan (on building and in parking areas) and
incorporate new entrance lighting into plan.
5. Add fountains (optional) and/or trees to entry plan and show fountain
detail on detail sheet.
6. Add new corner signage to site plan and show sign detail on detail
sheet.
7. Identify benches on site plan and provide detail.
8. Label retaining walls on site plan and provide detail.
9. Label masonry pillars on site plan and provide detail.
10. State on plan that roof-top HVAC equipment will be screened or
painted to match building.
11. Show 6-inch watermain connection to building for sprinkling on east
and new storm sewer on west.
12. Show new trash enclosure on site plan and show detail on detail sheet
(contact Doug Sandstad). State type of materials to be used.
13. Add cedar fence around air conditioning units on west and show
detail.
14. Show address on building.
I would recommend that you discuss these changes with Doug Sandstad,
Building Official, if you have any questions (531-5122).
Please deliver revised plans to city Hall by Monday, April 27th. Planning
Commission meeting to be conducted on Tuesday, May 5th.
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
TO: KIRK McDONALD
FROM: DOUG SANDSTAD
DATE: MARCH 11, 1992
SUBJECT: PARKING REQUIREMENTS RESULTING FROM POTENTIAL CITY HALL REMODEL.
I have reviewed the "concept" sketch for the front elevator and rear
office (above garage) to determine what additional parking would be
required on-site. No full scale detailed plans exist, yet.
14 additional parking spaces would be required on the basis of the
following calculations and city code:
REAHZnd STORY OFFICE:
3,700 (net) x .9 / 200 = 16.65
[Ground floor] - 4.0 (NEW GARAGES SPACES CREATED)
FRONT ELEVATOR/ENTrY:
320 (lounge) sf x.9/200- 1.4
(balance is mech/hallway/token storage)
14.0 Spaces required
Fourteen parking spaces, primarily needed for the north office could
be easily added by extending our "north" lot with 14 stalls. This would
involve minimal grading, 3,800 sq. ft. of asphalt and base and perimeter
curbing as illustrated on attachment "0".
00 0
HR CONO~IONE~
EXlb"nNO
D~T,N L M/~ML
LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANTING SCHEDU'L~'
LOCt~T ~ ~/~ 8/8
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
1
UPPERLEVEL FLOOR PLAN
NORTH ELEVATION
WES'I' ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
~'~-~"' ~ "'5 I ' ~ '
· : i...' ~.~ ~. ~: . - ::~ , w
~ ~ ....... ~ .......... IEIIIlffil ..:,
: -..:, '.?.:-
I '
i 0 SCREEN D~AIL 0 T~SH SCREEN D~AIL 0 TRASH SCREEN D~AIL ~ FOUNTAIN D~AIL
I
X
U R B A P L N G · D N · M A R K E T
Inc.
RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Robert Kirmis/Alan Brixius
30 April 1992
New Hope City Hall Expansion
131.00 92.12
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROIIRD:
Plans have been submitted to construct three additions (totalling
4,900 square feet) to the New Hope City Hall located west of Xylon
Avenue and north of 42nd Avenue North. The said expansion is to
include the construction of a 4,000 square foot wing on the
facilities north side, 800 square foot addition to the City Hall's
south entry, and a 100 square foot vestibule addition to the Police
Station entry.
The proposed north wing addition is to lie atop the existing Police
Station parking garage and incudes area for offices, conferences
and storage. The south entry addition has been prompted by a
desire to improve handicap access to the City Hall and is to
include an elevator, storage area and expanded foyer. The Police
Station entry vestibule will improve the energy efficiency of
subject structure while increasing adjacent lobby space.
The City Hall property is zoned R-I, Single Family Residential
which allows public buildings as conditional uses. The entire
Civic Center Campus, which includes the City Hall, Fire Station,
swimming pool, etc. is considered a planned unit development/CUP.
As such, a PUD amendment will be necessary.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Landscape Plan
Exhibit D - Floor Plans
Exhibit E - Building Elevations
Exhibit F - Details
5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of a
PUD conditional use permit amendment to allow the proposed City
Hall expansion. Approval should, however, be contingent upon the
fulfillment of the following conditions:
Under a deferred parking arrangement, eight additional off-
street parking stalls (as required by Ordinance) are
constructed if the need arises.
Consideration is given to substituting a different plant
variety for the proposed azaleas within the pedestrian plaza.
It is questioned as to whether the plant will survive in an
area where very little shade is provided.
Either the proposed signage is modified to conform to the
ordinance's most applicable signage requirements, or an
amendment .is pursued to more appropriately address the type of
signage which is being proposed.
The proposed trash enclosure is constructed of materials
judged as compatible with the principal structure.
5. Comments from other City staff.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Off-Street Parkinq. The New Hope Civic Center Park Complex holds
a variety of uses with differing off-street parking requirements.
Currently, the site's existing uses hold a literal parking demand
of 289 spaces as shown below (93 spaces for outdoor theatre/City
Hall):
Use
Required Parking
Outdoor Theatre/City Hall
Fire Hall
Swimmin9 Pool
Community Park
93
52
58
86
TOTAL 289 Spaces
In past review, it was determined that the site's existing supply
of 265 spaces was found to be acceptable in consideration of the
shared and overlapping nature of the site uses and events. The
combined 93 stall requirement for the City Hall and outdoor theatre
is responsive of the differing off-hour peak demand situation which
exists between the two uses.
2
The said 93 stall off-street parking requirement for the City
Hall/outdoor theatre was calculated as follows:
Use Ratio
City Hall
(16,800 SF X .9)
Outdoor Theatre
(280 Seats)
3 plus one for each 200 square
feet of floor area
OR
At least one parking space for
each three seats based on the
design capacity of the main
assembly hall
Requirement
79
93
Considering that the forementioned off-street parking requirement
of 93 spaces relates to an expectant peak demand for the outdoor
theatre rather than the City Hall, a 14 stall surplus would appear
to currently exist for the City Hall.
In consideration of the proposed City Hall expansion (4,900 square
feet), an off-street parking requirement of 101 spaces would exist
as calculated below.
Us e Rat i o Requirement
City Hall
(21,700 SF X .9)
Three plus one for each 200
square feet of floor area
101
To meet minimum ordinance requirements, it appears that 101 off-
street parking stalls (or 8 additional stalls) should be provided
for the City Hall/outdoor theatre.
In response to this stipulation, the City has requested a deferred
parking arrangement. As a consequence, the submitted site plan
illustrates an ability to construct 14 off-street stalls to the
north of the proposed City Hall addition.
Considering that the proposed City Hall expansion will not, at the
present time, result in the hiring of any additional employees, it
is not anticipated that off-street demand will escalate. In this
regard, the requested parking deferment arrangement woUld be
considered acceptable. In a deferred parking arrangement, the City
would not be required to construct additional parking unless the
need presents itself.
Buildin~ Additions. As mentione~ previously, the proposed City
Hall expansion is to include a 4,000 square foot addition to the
north side of the facility, an 800 square foot addition to the
south entry, and a 100 square foot vestibule Police Station
3
entrance. The proposed north wing addition is to lie atop the
existing Police Station parking garage and is to include area for
offices, conferences and storage. The south entry addition has
been prompted by a desire to improve handicap access to the
facility via the installation of an elevator. The Police Station
vestibule would simply improve the structure's energy efficiency
and provide additional lobby space.
From a visual standpoint, the proposed additions are considered.to
be highly compatible to the existing City Hall structure and are to
be finished in brick which is to match the building's existing
brick work in terms of color, style and pattern.
In addition, the building's roof top equipment screen is to match
that which currently exists on the existing structure (metal
standing seam)
Buildinq Helqht. At 20 feet in height, the proposed building
addition is to match that of the existing structure. The said
building heigh~ complies with the maximum height allowed with the
site's applicable R-1 zoning (2 1/2 stories).
Landscapinq. The proposed building addition incudes a provision
for a pedestrian court/plaza adjacent to the City Hall's south
entry. The said court is to include pedestrian seating, fountains,
and landscaping. The inclusion of the pedestrian court is
considered highly positive, both from a functional and visual
standpoint.
As noted on the landscape plan (Exhibit C), the court area is to
include a variety of planting types, including species of juniper,
and azalea. While the proposed plantings appear well placed, some
concern exists in regard to the azalea plants ability to sustain in
an area where very little shade is provided. As such,
consideration should be given to replacing the azalea plantings
with a more healthy plant variety which thrives in direct sunlight.
Sicrna~e.. As shown on the submitted site plan, two monument type
signs are to be constructed in association with the City Hall
expansion. To the southeast of the City Hall, a 75 square foot
sign illustrating the City logo and directional elements
(identifying the location of administration and police facilities)
is to be provided. To the east of the City Hall, a 27 square foot
directional sign identifying the Police Station is provided.
In review of the City Sign Ordinance, it is apparent that specific
regulation of the type of signage being proposed is not offered.
Because the subject property holds a residential zoning designation
(R-l), the application of commercial signage requirements is not
considered appropriate. In response to this condition, the
following options appear to exist:
4
Consider the proposed signage as "accessory to churches,
schools or non-profit institutions" If such a definition is
utilized, signage would be regulated by Section 3.463 of the
Sign Ordinance which states that:
Not more than one sign per lot is permitted (except on
corner lots).
o No sign shall exceed twenty (20) square feet in area.~
Such signs shall be setback from the street line at least
one-half the minimum 30 foot setback specified in
zoning district.
While the proposed signage does meet required setback
requirements, they fail to meet maximum allowable sign area
and exceed the maximum number of signs allowed on the subject
property.
Amend the Sign Ordinance to specifically address
institutional, non-commercial public and semi-public uses. If
pursued, the maximum sign area could be directly related to
site area.
If the City wishes to impose the most applicable existing sign
regulation (pertaining to non-profit institutions), then a single
sign not exceeding 20 square feet in size should be provided. If
however, the City feels that item 1 above does not adequately
address the signage in question, an amendment should be pursued.
Setbacks. As noted previously, the proposed building addition is
to lie atop the existing Police Station garage. As such, the
building addition meets applicable 30 foot R-1 setbacks for front
yards.
Trash. The submitted site plan indicates that trash handling
activities are to occur within a enclosure on the northeastern side
Of the City Hall facility. The proposed containment of facility
refuse is considered highly positive. The said enclosure should,
however, be constructed of materials judged compatible with the
City Hall structure.
Liqhtin~. Based on the received plans, it appears that the only
new exterior lighting to be provided as a result of the City Hall
addition is to be in the form of Bollard Lights within the
pedestrian court/plaza. The said lights are to be low lying and
should not inflict any glare upon the neighboring residential
properties or adjacent street rights-of-way.
5
Pedestrian Circulation. Due to the anticipated sharing of off-
street parking facilities, it is important that proper pedestrian
connections are provided from the parking lot to both the City Hall
and adjacent outdoor theatre. At the recommendation of the Design
and Review Committee, a sidewalk connection has been provided
between the outdoor theatre and adjacent pedestrian sidewalk.
Additionally, a sidewalk connection is also provided between the
theatre and City Hall pedestrian plaza.
CONCLUSION
Generally speaking, the proposed City Hall expansion is viewed as
highly positive, particularly the integration of the pedestrian
plaza. As such, our office recommends approval of a planned unit
development CUP amendment to allow the construction of the various
facility expansions. Approval is, however, to be contingent upon
the conditions listed within the Executive Summary of this report.
pc:
Dan Donahue
Shari French
Doug Sanstad
NEW HOPE CITY HALL REMODELING AND ADDITION - EAST ELEVATION
FEASIBILITY REPORT
NEW HOPE
CITY HALL EXPANSION
DRAFT COPY
MARCH 5, 1991
FILE NUMBER 34124
f~'a~ Bonestroo
Rosene
I_11
~lAnderlik &
Associates
Engineers & 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 pnrts. Each building portion will be examined separately in
all areas. First, the project's scope will be described. Next, planning and design issues will
be discussed. Finally, a cost estimate is included.
34124rpt
34124rpt
Garage Renovation
1.
II. DISCUSSION
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.
Cost Estimate: Garage Renovation
$20,000 - $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
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).
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 bt, ilding codes requires two exits from the office area.
Therefore, additional staircase must be added. This staircase has to exit
to the exterior.
The state code also establishes the required number of plumbing
Co
fixtures. These are adequate even with the additional space.
d. The addition will match the architecture of the existing city hail.
Figire 1).
Cost Estimate:
Upper Floor Addition
$200,000' - $250,000
(See
Note: Cost estimates current as of January 1991. Future construction must allow
for inflation.
34124rpt
3
III. 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 meets building code criteria for restroom facilities' and
existing.
34124rpt
NEW HOPE CITY HALL REMODELING AND ADDITION - EAST ELEVATION
/'t/!/!
~ Rosene
,~rtderllk &
IOll-O"
~.VIDCNC~
~*-0m ~ Zg.'-Od
AND
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
41'-Gm x I~'oGd
I
NEW HOPE CITY HALL REMODELING - LOWER FLOOR
I~OJI~r..,T NUH6CP
0124
IG
]~ Bonestroo
'~--~ ,~d't, derJik &
AssocJates
IOll-OII
covNcaL,
ZO~ ,~ iZ~
NEW HOPE CITY HALL REMODELING - UPPER FLOOR
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
34124rpt
Total
II-N Noncombustible-Unrated
Allowable Areas A.3
B2
B1
Note: Site preparation & two-story increases.
2 required - total width 5.4'
I hour occupancy wall at B2/BI (also ceiling).
Office Floor 50 psf
Roof Load 40 psf
Wind Load
Exit Floor
Plumbing
Men (55)
Women (55)
21,200sf/200 = 110 Occupants
4 we/urinals 3 Lavs
4 wc 3 Lays
Ventilation A.3 & B.2
5 cfm
B.1
15 cfm
3/4 cfm/sf
sf = Square Feet
21,200 sf
36,200 sf
48,{}00 sf
48,000 sf
100 psf
exhaust/occupant
circulated/occu pa n t
exhaust
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
6
REPORT
NEW HOPE CITY HALL
REMODELING AND LANDSCAPING
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
1991
COPY
FILE NO. 3~131
,r~ Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Arcl~itects
St, Paul, Minnesota
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Transmittal Letter & Certification
Table of Contents
Goals, Objectives and Conclusions
Discussion
Phasing and Cost Estimate
PAGE NO.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Existing Conditions - Plan View
Figure 2 - Preliminary Study - Option A - Plan View
Figure 3 - Preliminary Study - Option A - Cross-Section
Figure 4 - Preliminary Study - Option B - Plan View
Figure 5 - Preliminary Study - Option B - Cross-Section
Figure 6 - Preliminary Study - Details
Figure 7 - Sign
34131 - 2 -
GOALS. OBJECTIVES AND CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this project is to improve the appearance of the existing City Hall. Areas
to be addressed include:
* Overgrown landscaping clutters entryway
* Relocate seulptur~ to a better setting
* Improve scale of entrance so building makes good first impression on visitors
* Existing handi.eapped ramp does not meet code
* Existing access bridge shows some signs of weathering
* Current signage does not clearly direct visitors
The end result is a masterplan for improving the City Hall entrance. The masterplan
phases the construction, landscaping and other improvements over time. This allows the
work to be done within economic limitations.
Two options wbre considered for the masterplan's architectural design. Option B was
chosen for the masterplan. It is slightly less expensive and creates a greater sense of
openness. Both options are listed under "Illustrations" at the end of the report.
34131 - 3 -
DISCUSSION
This section discusses the architectural response to issues. Issues were identified under
"Goals, Objectives and Conclusions." Two options are discussed for some architectural
features. The chosen architectural design is summarized. A phasing plan is proposed.
Architectural responses are as follows:
Overtrown Landscanin_t:
Existing shrubbery trimmed back (see Figures 2 and 4). The existing crab tree is
removed. New shrubs are proposed. They will consist of several species. The goal is to add
some color at all seasons. A new tree is proposed west of the stairs. All new plantings will
be located to maintain a clear view of the building and a sense of "openness" at the entry.
Relocate Scutptu~:
Sculpture blocks traffic flow at: present. Proposed location is in planter west of Stairs
(see Figures 2 and 4). This maintains public exposure from both stairs and handi-capped
ramp.
Improve Scale of Entrance:
The existing entrance has two different scale problems:
1. Overgrown trees and shrubbery create cluttered feeling.
2. Steep entrance stairs create intimidating first impression.
The architectural response in each case is as follows:
34131 - 4 -
Problem.'. Cramped feeling Solution: Open up entry
A new sidewalk is proposed. It creates an unimpeded flow of circulation to the
stairs. Shrubbery and landscape details, such as benches, are placed at the sides of the
sidewalk rather than the middle. This preserves the benefit of the details while
maintaining a smooth traffic flow. The new sidewalk would have colored concrete and
a decorative surface texture.
As previously noted, existing shrubbery and trees will be trimmed back or
removed. New plantings will maintain the sense of "openness" and frame the building
view.
34131
Problem: Intimidating Feeling Solutiola: Soft, Human Scale
A new stairway design is proposed (see Figure 3). The new design has an
intermediate landing. This offers a "break" and eliminates the imposing view of steep,
uninterrupted'stairs. An easier 6" rise/13" run proportion is proposed for the new
stairs. This is more typical for outdoor stairs.
Fountains are suggested as another means to add a "human" touch. The sound
of running water has a soothing effect to welcome people to the building. The columns
flank the sidewalk. This reinforces the sense of space by creating a gateway effect. If
a fountain proves too expensive, pyramidal - plantings can at least maintain the
gateway effect (see Figures 2-6).
A canopy is proposed to accent the entry. The canopy will create a sense of place
and orientation. It will also act as a unifier. The canopy design relates to all of the
other municipal buildings on the site: brick pillars match city hall brick, canopy sh,qpe
derived from outdoor theater, blue metal roof rm~tches new bath house. A strong first
impression of orientation and shelter avoids a cold, impersonal effect. Furthermore,
the canopy covers the steps. This reduces snow, ice and wetness that can cause a
hazard.
The outdoor space south of the stairs is also remodeled. It maintains its basic size
and location. However, its box-like shape is altered. The north and west walls are
made irregular in shape. Benches are built into wall recesses. Plantings surround the
space on three sides (see Figure 2 and Figure 4). This creates an inviting outdoor
"room". It can be used by employees and visitors.
Existing, Handi-Caooed Ramo
A new handi-capped ramp is proposed. The existing handi-capped ramp does not meet
the current building code. It has a slope of 1:12. The maximum allowable slope is 1:20 for
handi-capped circulation out-of-doors.
The new ramp is located west .Of the entry (see Figure 2 and Figure 4). It will be built
out of reinforced concrete. A planter edges the ramp on three sides. This softens the
architectural effect of the ramp.
The City building inspector has questioned the need for a new ramp. A new nation-
wide code may be proposed for handi-capped access. This national code allows 1:12 slopes
for exterior handi-capped ramps. Building a new ramp should be deferred until this issue
is settled. A new ramp is expensive. This money should not be spent unless absolutely
necessary.
34131 - 6 -
Existinf Access Bridle
A new concrete finish is proposed for the access bridge. It would be colored and
textured with a decorative pattern to match the proposed sidewalk.
Current signage does not clearly direct visitors to their destination. A new sign is
proposed for the corner east of the main entry (see Figure 7). It features the City logo as
a theme. Arrows clearly indicate the direction of the police entry and the main
(administration) entry.
The sign will be made from bricks that match City Hall. It will be raised on a slight
berm to increase its visibility. Uplights provide night visibility.
A small canopy is proposed for the police station entry. It will echo the shape and
color of the main canopy. Landscaping will also be provided north of the police entry. The
object is to create a good "first impression" for the police department and to clearly mark
the entry.
Architectural Desifn Options
Two designs were prepared for your project. The difference is the canopy design and
the location of landscape details.
Option A (see Figures 2 and 3) has the new canopy located in front of the existing
canopy. The benches and brick bollards begin 8 feet north of the existing sidewalk.
34131 - 7 -
Option B is more spacious (see Figures 4 and 5). The new canopy is partly built on
top of the existing canopy. The benches are moved out to the very edge of the sidewalk.
This creates a more open feeling in the space in front of the canopy.
Preferred Option
Option B is the preferred option. It will form the basis for the masterplan. This option
was selected because:
1.
More Spacious Forecourt: The greater sense of openness found in Option B is
more consistent with project goals.
Less Cost: Integrating the new canopy with the existing canopy means slightly less
construction cost.
Maintains Function: This option maintains the smooth circulation flow, usable
outdoor space, strong orientation and convenient handi-capped access that make
the project work.
34131 - 8 -
PHASING AND COST ESTIMATES
Economic restrictions make phased construction necessary. The project components
are grouped into logical "packages". Priorities are assigned according to the cities' wants and
needs. Estimated costs are assigned to each package. The Master Plan consists of
Architectural Design B and the Phasing Plan listed below:
PI:IASE I
SIDEWALK. STAIRS. CANOPY
Demolition
Colored Concrete Sidewalk
Patched Concrete Sidewalk
Brick Bollards
Benches
New Concrete Stairs ·
Brick Pillars at Canopy
Roof Frame at Canopy
Steel Roofing & Soffit at Canopy
Shrubs
Trees
Subtotal
$5,000
7,000
1,000
2,000
6,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
3,000
5,000
1,000
$36,000
General Conditions (25%)
Contingency (20%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
9,000
$55,000
34131 - 9 -
Foundation, Masonry & Signage
Policy Station Canopy & Landscaping
General Conditions (25%)
Contingency (20%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
$15,000
5,000
5,000
5.000
$30,000
PI:IASE 3
FOUNTAINS
Foundation, Masonry & Fountain
General Conditions (25%)
Contingency (20%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
$20,000
5,000
5.000
$30,000
PFsASE 4
I:IANDI-CAPPED ACCESS RAMP
Concrete Ramps
Concrete Walls & Footings
Landscaping
General Conditions (15%)
Contingency (15%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
$2,000
55,000
3,000
10,000
10.000
$80,000
Please note that construction cost estimates are expected to be accurate within 10-20
percent. They are current as of summer, 1991. The Architectural Commission is not
included. The costs of soil tests and surveys are also extra.
34131 - 10-
~/,'?/?! ; .'
/ ~".~,,. ',.~'~..=. ____..__~
· ~.__~,.... i '
~'~'" ,""t""
.,,,.r,,.. EXISTING CONDITIONS - PLAN VIEW
.. ,.- - ....- FIG.]
? ~ 9 ~-~9
1/11 F-LLeI~LII, I -:- TOO
~i~-~-F ~ iNT~M~D/~TI/0{/ . ?6LIOE fi=NTI~ C/~.l~
............. ' I E _ . ~ I
Illlllli Illllll ~~VT~ / ~D M?~
F~FOSED ~TIOH ~ T~ ~ ,U
PRELIMINARY STUDY -OPTION A - CROSS SECTION
m m m
PRELIMINARY STUDY - OPTION B -~AN ~EW
Ililil~l II11 IIIII I ~ ~ ~0~ ~IEN~LY.
~'*"* ~' I~-~ I
'~'-" ~ ~ELIMINARY STUDY - OPTION B ~__CROSS SECTION
,.,.~, ...... ~-I~-~1 ~P lU=lOt 34151 p~ ~p~',' ~N
.......... FIG.5
SIGN
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW
FOR
CITY HALL ADDITIONS
NEW HOPE, MINNF.3OTA
AET g92-792
PREPARED FOR:
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES
2335 WEST HIGHWAY 36
ST. PAUL, MN 55113
APRIL 10, 1992
ENGINEERING
~ESTING, I~C,
April 10, 1992
City of New Hope
c/o Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates
2335 West Highway 36
St. Paul, MN 55113
Attn: Jerry Pertzsch
Geotechnical Exploration and Review
City Hall Additions
New Hope, Minnesota
AET ~t92-792
Dear Mr. Pertzsch
This is our report on the subsurface exploration program and geotechnical engineering review
for the proposed New Hope City Hall-additions. We are sending you four copies of our attached
report. This report documents the exploration/test results and provides our opinions and
recommendations to aid you and your design team in planning and construction of the project.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions about the report. I can also be contacted
for arranging construction observation and testing services during the actual earthwork phase.
Sincerely,
Steven D. Koenes, PE
Principal Engineer
Phone: (612) 659-1304
Fax: (612) 659-1379
SDK/sk
2102 University Ave. W. · St. Paul. MN .55114 · 612-659-9001 · Fax 612-659-1379
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW
FOR
CITY HALL ADDITIONS
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
AET #92-792
CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY ............................................. 1
Purpose ............................................. 1
Scope of Services ....................................... 1
Findings ............................................. 1
Recommendations .......................................
INTRODUCTION ......................................... 2
Scope of Services ....................................... 2
PROJECT INFORMATION ................................... 3
SITE CONDITIONS ........................................ 4
Surface Observations ......................... ; ........... 4
Subsurface Soils/Geology ................................... 5
Water Level Measurements ................................. 5
LABORATORY TESTS ...... -~ .............................. 6
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS ............................ 6
Review of Soil Properties ................................... 6
Review of Ground Water Conditions ............................ 7
Discussion ............................................ 7
RECOMMF~NDATIONS ..................................... 8
Building Grading Procedures ................................. 8
Foundation Recommendations ................................ 9
Floor Slab Support ....................................... 10
Perimeter Backf-fll ....................................... 10
Elevator Pit Backfilling - Water Control .......................... 11
Potential Construction Difficulties .............................. 11
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ................... 12
CONTENTS
PAGE 2
Page
EXPLORATION PROCEDURE~ ............................... 12
Boring Location/Elevation Data ...............................
Field Sampling/Testing Methods ..............................
Classification Methods .................................... 13
Sample Storage ......................................... 13
EXPLORATION PROGRAM LIMITATIONS ....................... 13
STANDARD OF CARE ..................................... 14
APPENDIX
Boring Location Sketch
Logs of Test Borings
Field Sampling and Test Methods
Boring Logs: Abbreviations, Notations and Symbols
Identification of Soils
Soil Identification and Description
Geologic Terminology
Boring Logs: Ground Water Information
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW
FOR
CITY HALL ADDITIONS
NEW HOPE, MINNF_3OTA
AET g92-792
SUMMARY
Pu _rpose
You are proposing to construct additions to the existing City Hall in New Hope, Minnesota.
The purpose of our work on this project is to obtain subsurface information, and based on this
data, prepare a geotechnical engineering report presenting comments and recommendations to
assist you and the design tcarn in planning and construction of the project.
Scope of Services
To accomplish the above purpose, you have authorized our fu'm to drill two test borings,
perform laboratory tests, and furnish a geotechnical engineering report.
Findings
The two test borings indicate a generalized soil profile of sUrflcial fill and topsoil extending to
depths of 2' to 4' below existing grade and then clayey sand glacial till to the depth of our
borings. Sources of ground water were noted at a depth of about 51/2, below grade at Boring
#1.
Recommendations
These recommendations are in condensed form for your convenience. It is important you study
our entire report for detailed recommendations.
The south addition can be supported on spread footing foundations designed for an
allowable bearing capacity of 3000 psf. Foundations should extend through the existing
fill, topsoil and any soft glacial till soils to bear on the f~rmer underlying glacial till.
· Fill and topsoil should be excavated from the floor slab area.
· It is our judgment the soils supporting the existing foundations in the north 100' of the
building should be capable of sUpporting the planned loading increase to 2600 psf.
AET #92-792 - Page
INTRODUCTION
You are proposing to construct two additions at 4401 Xylon Avenue North in New Hope,
Minnesota. Further, you have authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to conduct
a subsurface exploration and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for your project.
This report presents the field information we obtained at the site, and also our engineering
recommendations.
To protect you, AET, and the public, we authorize use of opinions and recommendations in
this report only by you and your project team for this specific project. Contact us if other
uses are intended. Even though this report is not intended to provide sufficient information
to accurately determine quantities and location of particular materials, we recommend that
your potential contractors be advised of the report availability.
Sco_m~ of Services
Our scope of services for this project was presented in our proposal letter dated March 12, 1992.
Our work on this project was authorized by your acceptance of this proposal on March 23, 1992.
A review of our agreed-upon scope of services is as follows:
· Drill two standard penetration test borings to depths of about 26' below grade.
· Perform a limited amount of geoteclmical laboratory tests to aid in classifying the soil
types and predicting soil properties.
Prepare a formal engineering report which includes logs of the test borings, a sketch
indicating boring locations, presentation of soil and ground water conditions, the
laboratory test results, and our geotechnical opinions and recommendations regarding the
following:
AET ~2-792 - Page 3
Grading procedures to prepare the south building area for structural support,
including comments on the suitability of the on-site soils for reuse as fill
Foundation types and depths, including allowable soil bearing capacity and
estimates of foundation settlement
Ground floor slab support, including recommendations on the need for a vapor
or capillary water barrier
Backfilling procedures with drainfile recommendations and estimates of lateral
earth pressures
Feasibility of increasing loads on existing foundations in the north end of the
building to 2(:~0 psf
Comments on other items which may affect performance or constructability, such
as frost he~ve or drainage considerations
The scope of our work is intended for geostructural purposes only. TI'Lis scope is not intended
to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination at the site.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Two additions are planned to the New Hope City Hall located at 4401 Xylon Avenue North in
New Hope, Minnesota. The addition at the southwest comer of the building will be two-story
construction and will include an elevator.
We understand the walls of the addition will be masonry construction, to match the existing
building. The lower floor will be at 917.0', which is 1' lower than the existing floor slab. The
elevator pit will extend to elevation 913'. Bearing wall loads for this addition are expected to
be less than 5 ksf.
AET//92-792 - Page
We understand the original building is supported on spread footing foundations designed for an
allowable bearing capacity of 2500 psf. Subsequent additions have been designed for bearing
capacities of up to 3000 psf.
The planned addition in the north end of the building is to add an additional floor level over the
garage. We understand this addition will be 100' (north-south) by 40' (east-west). The
additional loads will result in new foundation bearing pressures of 2600 psf. The existing
footings in this area vary from elevation 911.5' in the north to 909.5' in the southern part of the
addition.
Our foundation design is based on attaining a factor of safety of at least 3 with respect to
localized shear or base failure of the foundations. In addition, we assume allowable total and
differential settlements of 1" and 1/2", respectively.
The presented project information represents our understanding of the proposed construction.
This information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you
contact us if there are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether changes
in our recommendations are appropriate.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Observations
The soil borings were drilled adjacent to the existing City Hall building. The south addition area
is landscaped with trees, shrubs and grass.
The surface elevations at the boring locations ranged from 917.1' to 917.5'.
AET ~2-792 - Page 5
Subsurface Soils/Geology
We have included the boring logs of the test borings and a boring location sketch in the
Appendix. We refer you to these logs for specific information concerning soil layer depths,
soil/geology descriptions and density/consistency, based on the penetration resistance.
It is important to note that the subsurface conditions only indicate the material
classification/properties at the sampled locations and variations do occur between and beyond
borings.
Based on our interpretation of the available boring information, it is our judgment the
generalized soil profile consists of surficial fill or topsoil extending to depths of 2' to 4' below
grade, and then clayey sand glacial till to the depth of our borings.
The fill includes both granular and cohesive soils. Some of the fill is black indicating an organic
content. Concrete is also present within the fill at Boring//2.
Organic lean clay topsoil or fill is present between a depth of 2' and 4' at Boring//1. This
material is black in color.
The glacial till soils present at the site are clayey sands. These soils vary from very soft to
hard, based on the penetration resistance (N-values). Generally, the softer till soils are located
in the upper portion of the profile.
Water Level M{~surements
During our drilling operations, we probed the boreholes for the presence of ground water. The
results of these measurements are noted on the attached boring logs. Based on our interpretation
of the water level data, it is our judgment the water level at this site may be as shallow as about
51/~' below existing grade. The majority of the soils encountered are relatively impervious;
therefore, an extended period of time would be necessary for water levels to stabilize within the
AET//92-792 - Page
boreholes. Long-term monitoring of water levels is beyond the scope of our work. Fluctuations
in the ground water table should be expected both seasonally and annually.
The attached Appendix sheet entitied "Boring Logs: Ground Water ~formation" provides
additional information on ground water level measuring.
LABORATORY TESTS
Physical laboratory tests were performed on selected samples to aid in judging engineering
properties. The tests were limited to moisture content, density and unconfined compressive
strength. The results of the laboratory tests axe indicated on the data sheet in the Appendix or
on boring logs, opposite the samples upon which they were performed.
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
Review of Soil Properties
Strength - The existing fill and topsoil are judged to have a low and variable strength due
to it's organic content. The underlying clayey sand glacial till generally has a moderate
to high strength, with the exception of the upper few feet of clayey sand at Boring #I.
The clayey sand which has a penetration resistance of 8 or more is judged suitable for
supporting foundation loads of 3000 psf.
Compressibility - The existing fi_Ii and topsoil are judged to be compressible. The very
soft clayey sand glacial till is also judged to be somewhat compressible under foundation
loadings. The fu'mex underlying glacial till is judged to be iow in compressibility.
· Frost Susceptibility - It is our judgment the near surface soils axe at least moderately
frost susceptible. If these soils remain in-place and are allowed to freeze, we anticipate
AET ,~2-792 - Page 7
heave may be on the order of i/4" to 3/8" for each foot of frost penetration within the
soil, which could translate to 1" to 2" of total movement. This could be exaggerated
further if free water were available such that ice lensing could be formed. Movements
of exterior sidewalks/slabs is especially critical in building doorway areas. These
exterior features should be designed to accommodate such frost movement; or the on-site
soils should be subcut and replaced with low frost susceptible sands which include
subsurface drainage.
Drainage Properties - The majority of the soils are considered to be poorly draining
materials. Water can temporarily perch over the on-site soils during wet weather. This
is an important consideration beneath exterior slab areas, particularly when overlain by
new sand fill. Where the potential for perched water exists, you should consider the
placement of draintile lines or other means of drainage to relieve water buildup.
Review of qlro~nd Water Conditions
A water level was encountered at a depth of about 51/2' below grade at Boring/ti, after sampling
to a depth of 9'. It is our judgment this water level represents the static ground water level, or
perhaps a perched water condition. Since the proposed addition will have an elevator pit, it will
be necessary to provide a subsurface drainage system around the elevator pit to eliminate water
problems.
Discussion
It is our judgment the proposed south addition can be supported on spread footing foundations.
The existing f'fll, topsoil and any soft clayey sand glacial till should be excavated from the
building area. Much of the unsuitable soil will be removed to attain planned grade. Some
additional subcutting may be necessary in ~e floor slab area. Two feet of excavation is
anticipated based on the soil conditions at Boring/t2.
AET #92-792 - Page
We are concerned about the presence of ground water at a depth of about 51/2' below grade at
Boring #1. Because of the high water level, we recommend a perimeter draintile system and
perhaps an underfloor draintile system around the elevator pit area. Even with a perimeter
draintile system, a backup pressure relief system is recommended in the event of a power
failure.
We understand footings along the west wall of the north end of the existing building were
extended to elevations of 911.5' in the north and 909.5' in the south. It appears they were
extended through the softer soil to stiffer underlying glacial till, based on the available soil
information at Boring #1. It is our judgment it should be feasible to increase foundation loads
in this area to 2600 psf.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Building Grading Procedures
Excavation
Preparation of the building areas should include removal of all existing fill, topsoil and softer
clayey sand glacial till soils (penetration resistance of less than 8 blows). We estimate an
excavation depth of 2' in the south addition area.
The estimated elevation of the bottom of the excavation is based on soil conditions at the boring
locations. Since conditions may vary, it is highly recommended that a geotechnical
engineer/technician observe the final excavation prior to new fill or footing placement.
If there are areas where fill is required below foundations, the excavation bottom should be
oversized laterally from the planned outside edge of foundation a distance equal to at least 1' for
each foot of compacted fill required beneath the foundation at that location (i.e., 1:1 oversize).
AET//92-792 - Page 9
We anticipate sources of ground water may be encountered during excavation in the elevator pit
area. We recommend any water that enters the excavation be removed as quickly as possible.
The presence of standing water within the excavation increases the possibility of softening and
disturbance of the existing soils. The glacial till soils are susceptible to disturbance. Therefore,
we recommend the excavation be performed with backhoe.
Filline
If fill is required to attain footing grade, the fill should be uniformly compacted in thin lifts to
a minimum of 98% of the standard Proctor density (ASTM:D698-78).. Fill placed which
supports the floor slab only (outside of the 1:1 oversize zone below footings) can have a reduced
minimum compaction level of 95 % of the standard Proctor density.
We recommend any fill placed below footings or the floor slab be a clean granular soil with less
than 5 % passing the MOO sieve and 40% passing the #40 sieve.
Foundation Recommendations
After preparing the site, as recommended previously, it is our judgment the structure can be
supported on spread footing foundations. We recommend perimeter foundations for heated
building space be placed at a depth such that a minimum of 42" of soil cover is provided for
frost protection. Interior foundations can be placed at a convenient depth below the slab. If
foundations are included which do not border heated building space, additional frost cover is
recommended since frost penetration is anticipated to be deeper. We recommend these types
of foundations be provided with a minimum of 60" of soil cover.
It is our judgment the foundations can be placed on the competent natural soils, or on the
oversized, compacted fill system recommended. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the
borings, and on the minimum fill compaction levels recommended, it is our opinion the
foundations can be designed based on a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf.
AET ~2-792 - Page 10 -'~
It is our judgment this design will include a factor of safety of greater than 3 against shear or
base failure. It is also our judgment that total building settlement should be less than 1", and
differential settlements should be less than 1/2".
Floor Slab Support
Preparation of the building area, as previously recommended, will also prepare the site for floor
slab support. All fill supporting the floor slab should be compacted to a minimum of 95 % of
standard Proctor density. This includes utility and foundation trench backfill.
We recommend the upper 6't of soil immediately below the floor slab be a free draining,
granular soil containing less than 5% by weight passing the g200 sieve and less than 40%
passing the #40 sieve.
A polyethylene vapor membrane can provide added moisture protection beneath the floor slab.
If moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, use of membrane is recommended. If a
membrane is used, we recommend it be placed beneath the sand cushion layer to reduce concrete
curling effects.
P~rimeter Backfill
It is our judgment the non-organic site softs would be suitable for reuse as perimeter backfill.
The backf'fll should be placed in relatively thin, loose lifts and be uniformly compacted to a
minimum of 95 % of standard Proctor density. Where bituminous surfaces will be constructed
over the backfill, we recommend the compaction level be increased to 100% of standard Proctor
density within the upper 3' perimeter backfill in non-basement areas.
Exterior grade around the structure should be planned with a positive slope away from the
building.
AET #92-792 - Page 11
Elevator Pit Backfilling - Water Control
The clayey sand soils in which the elevator pit will be excavated are quite impervious and may
cause water to collect in the backfill soil. Because of this, we recommend installation of a
perimeter draintile system around the elevator pit area and damp proofing of any below grade
walls. The draintile system should be installed at an elevation below the elevator pit slab. In
addition, the draintile should be bedded in a coarse sand or gravel which should be wrapped
within a filter fabric.
The perimeter backfill around the elevator pit should be a clean granular soil with less than 5 %
passing the g200 sieve and 40% passing the #40 sieve. The backf'fll should be uniformly
compacted to a minimum of 95 % of standard Proctor density. We also recommend that the zone
of clean granular backfill extend laterally from the outside face of the wall to at least 2' at the
base of the wall and then upward and outward at a 30' angle from vertical.
Based on the granular backfill around the elevator pit, we recommend the pit walls be designed
to resist lateral pressures based on soils, having an equivalent fluid weight of 45 pounds per cubic
foot.
Potential Construction Difficulties
· Runoff Water in Excavation - As pointed out earlier, the on-site soils are relatively poor
draining. Because of this, surface water can be expected to "perch" in the excavation
during times of wetter weather. To allow observation of the excavation bottom, to
reduce the potential for soil disturbance, and to facilitate filling operations, we
recommend water be removed from within the excavations during construction. Based
on the soils encountered, we anticipate the ground water can be handled with
conventional sump pumping. _
AET g92-792 - Page 12
Disturbance of Soils - Although much of the on-site soils are quite competent, they can
become disturbed under repeated construction traffic, especially if ground water is
available. If soils become disturbed, they should be subcut to the underlying undisturbed
soils.
Cobbles and Boulders - Glacial till softs, which are present at this site, can include
cobbles and boulders. This may make excavating procedures somewhat more difficult
than normal if they are encountered. Also, if cobbles or boulders are encountered at
footing grade, it may be necessary to remove these oversized particles and replace them
with compacted fill to allow full footing placement.
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test
boring locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring
locations, we recommend on-site observation by a geotechrdcal engineer/technician dtiring
construction to evaluate these potential changes. Soil density testing should also be performed
on new fill placed in order to document that project recommendations or specifications for
compaction and moisture have been satisfied. Where fill material type is important, sieve
analysis tests should be performed to document the actual fill meets the recommended gradation
criteria.
EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
Boring Location/Elevation Data
Our subsurface exploration program included_drilling two standard penetration test borings in
the proposed building areas. These borings were drilled at the site on March 30, 1992. The
locations of the borings are shown on the attached sketch in the Appendix. These are the
AET//92-792 - Page 13
locations which appeared on the sketch provided to us by your consulting engineers. The
surface elevations at the test boring locations were referenced to the main floor of the existing
building. This elevation was taken as 927.3', an assumed elevation.
Field Sampling/Testing Methods
The field sampling methods for the borings are described on the included data sheet under the
subheading "Standard Penetration/Split-Spoon Sampling Method."
~l~$ification Methods
For soil samples in which no sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits tests are performed, soil
identifications and descriptions shown on the boring logs are judgments based on ASTM:D2488-
84 (Visual-Manual Procedure). Charts taken from ASTM:D2488-84 are shown on the appended
sheet entitled "Identification of Soils." Where the classification tests have been performed,
ASTM:D2487-85 is used. The logs also indicate the apparent geologic depositional origin,
which is interpretive.
We will retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30
days. The samples will then be discarded unless you notify us otherwise.
EXPLORATION PROGRAM LIMITATIONS
The data derived through this sampling and observation program have been used to develop
our opinions about the subsurface conditions at your site. However, because no exploration
program can reveal totally what is in the subsurface, conditions between borings and between
samples and at other times, may differ from conditions described in this report. The
exploration we conducted identified subsurface conditions only at those points where we took
samples or observed ground water condit/ons. Depending on the sampling methods and
sampling frequency, every soil layer may not be observed, and some materials or layers
which are present in the ground may not be noted on the boring logs.
AET #92-792 - Page 14
Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the
spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Thus, most contacts shown on the logs
are approximate, with a possible upper and lower limits of contacts defined by the overlying
and underlying samples.
Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings,
and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs.
If conditions encountered during construction differ from those indicated by our borings, it
may be necessary to alter our conclusions and recommendations, or to modify construction
procedures, and the cost of construction may be affected.
The extent and detail of information about the subsurface condition is directly related to the
scope of the exploration. It should be understood, therefore, that information can be obtained
by means of additional exploration.
STANDARD OF CARE
Our services for your project have been conducted to those standards considered normal for
services of this type at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty, either express or
implied, is intended.
Report Prepared by:
Steven D. Koenes, PE
Principal Engineer
MN Reg. No. 13180
Report Reviewed byi
/leffery K. Vo/ Manager, GecYteecnl~mP'cEal Engineering
, I'
A.~[ERICtN
ENGI,NEERING
TESTING, INC.
PROJECT
CITY HALL ADDITIONS
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
SUBJECT
SCALE
NONE
BORING LOCATION SKETCH
J DRAWN BY J CHECKED BY
S~
AETJO8 NO.
92-792
DA TE
4/10/92
PAGE
1 OF 1
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
April 30, 1992
Planning Commission Members
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development
Coordinator
Miscellaneous Planning Issues
First Quarter 1992 Planning/Development Report
The first quarter 1992 Planning/Development report is enclosed
for your information.
Super America
The Development Agreement for the Super America redevelopment
at 62nd Avenue North and West Broadway has been completed anD
forwarded to the petitioner for execution - copy enclosed for
your information.
Fina Serve
The Development Agreement and easement documents for the Fina
redevelopment at 36th and Winnetka Avenues have been completed
and forwarded to the petitioner for execution - copies
enclosed for your information.
Custom Mold
Construction on the Custom Mold addition will start this
spring. The City recently closed on the acquisition of the
outlot property, which will be combined with the Public Works
site.
New Hope Bowl
Now that spring is here we are dealing with New Hope Bowl on
the landscaping issues again. The Bowling Alley had
voluntarily agreed last fall to install a fence or a berm with
some trees on the south side of the building to provide a
screening from the residential properties across the street.
The Halloween snow storm held up their plans. We received
several complaints this spring and have contacted the owners
of the Bowling Alley who have stated that they still plan to
plant some landscaping this spring.
0
0
-2-
Construction Trailer
We are making an effort to get the construction trailer
removed from the Brandell Industrial Park 2nd Addition site on
49th Avenue. See attached correspondence and citation.
Blockbuster Video Canopy
The owner of the shopping center has provided evidence that
the material for the canopy for the Blockbuster Video store is
on backorder, but should be installed prior to June 1st.
Autohaus
The EDA will be considering the Autohaus extension request on
development improvements at the May llth meeting and I will
inform you as to the outcome.
Adult Entertainment Ordinance
The City Council will be conducting their public hearing on
the Adult Entertainment Ordinance on May llth.
10. April Planninq Cases
The City Council approved the Fence Ordinance revisions,
Frank's Nursery variance and site/building plan
review/approval request, and the driveway variance request at
the April 27th meeting. The Royal Oaks Apartment sign setback
variance request was tabled for one month for further study.
11. West Pac Expansion
Staff met with West Pac officials this past week regarding an
18,000 square foot expansion at 9000 Science Center Drive.
This application will be coming to the Commission in June.
12. Codes & Standards
No progress by staff has been made on the Codes & Standards
issues during the past several weeks. We will be coordinating
a meeting between the Planner and staff in the near future to
preliminarily discuss the issues so that the Consultant can
prepare background reports. Once the reports are prepared we
will schedule a committee meeting at your convenience. Issues
to be considered include:
-multi-family sign setback
-definition of "family"
-gravel driveways
-zoning at Country Club Foods site
-apartment moratorium
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
First Ouarter Re~rt
The Planning Commission reviewed the following cases during the first quarter:
No. of Cases Notices Sent
January 4* 8
February 4* 53
March 5** 26
*2 cases carried over from December
**2 cases carried over from lanuary
**1 case under study since 1991
Month
Tvve of Reauest Number Aovroved Denied
Withdrawn
January
CUP 3 (2 tabled)
Variance-Setback 2 (tabled)
SitedBldg. Rev. 2 (tabled)
Disc. Ad. Ent. Ord. 1 (set pub.hrg.)
February
CUP 2 (1 tabled)
Variance-Setback 3 (1 tabled) 1
Site/Bldg. Rev. 2 (1 tabled)
Ad. Ent. ord. Pub;Hrg. 1 (continued)
March
CUP 2 2
Variance-Setback 2 (1 tabled) 1
Variance-Floor Area l(tabled)
Variance-Bldg. Dea. l(tabled)
SitedBldg. Rev. 2 (1 tabled)
24-hour Opet. I 1
Ordinane~-Out. Din. 1 1
Ad. Ent. Ord. Pub. Hrg. 1 1
YI~AR-TO-DATE TOTALS
APPROVED DENIED W1THD~
CUP
Variance-Setback
Site/Bldg. Rev.
Adult Ent. Ordinance
Var.-Floor Area
Var.-Bldg. Design
24-hour Operation
Outdoor Dining Ordinance
3
2
2
1
35
-2-
PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
$~b?~' In Ianuary, Subby's Restaurant applied for a conditional use permit to allow
a fast-food restaurant in a B-3 Zoning District at the Winnetka Commons Shopping
Center. The Planning Commission recommended approval at their January 7th meeting
and the request was approved by the City Council on Sanuary 13th.
~b~i~.::~:~ for the Planning Commission was conducted at the lanuary 7th
meeting with Robert Cameron elected as Chairman, Robert Gundershaug as Vice-
Chairman, and William Sonsin as Third Officer (all elected unanimously).
~Pl~:.~i-The City received an "offer to negotiate" from Valvoline Rapid Oil Change
for the property at 7305 42nd Avenue North and this issue was discussed at the January
13th EDA meeting. Staff was directed to contact Ali-Star Sports, inform them of
Valvoline's offer, and inquire as to their interest in developing the property. Staff
contacted All Star Sports and has forwarded to them a conceptual plan for expansion.
They will attend a May EDA meeting to further discuss their intentions.
~ii~!i~~-The Planning Commission and City Council approved a request
for a rear yard setback variance to allow for the construction of a three-season porch
at 3353 Gettysburg Avenue North in February.
~i ~i.:~~- The Cedes & Standards Committee completed their
study of the Adult Entertainment Ordinance issue and the Planning Commission had
a long discussion on this matter in Sanuary. A public hearing was conducted at the
February Planning Commission meeting, which culminated in the adoption of a
Resolution of Findings of Fact at the March meeting. The recommendation was that
the Council should proceed to-adopt an ordinance regulating this activity. The Council
will conduct a public hearing in May.
S~ili~!ii~~ii~~' In December, Super America, Inc.
made application for site/building plan review, conditional use permits and variances
to allow the construction of a new convenience store with gasoline, outdoor sales, and
24-hour operation at 6144 West Broadway. A number of residents appeared in
opposition to the request. The Planning Commission tabled the request until traffic
data was provided and recommended that Super America meet with neighbonng
residents to address their concerns. This case was continued at the February ,*th
Planning Commission meeting with the Commission recommending denial of the
request on a 5-3 vote. The request was considered by the City Council at their
February 10th meeting and ultimately resulted in Super America withdrawing their
request for 24-hour operation and outside storage and the City Council approving the
setback variance and conditional use permit request in March.
~~!!ii~' The EDA met on February 10th and at a worksession on March 2nd
and, after considerable research and discussion, directed staff to cease work on the
property acquisition/negotiation.
36
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
-3-
~!i~' Fina Man received approval in 1991 to update their facility at
3535 Winnetka Avenue North, and then later in the year submitted an application to
demolish the existing station and construct a totally new facility with a car wash. This
case was tabled in December, as staff was negotiating with the petitioner on the closure
of curb cuts. This request was continued and approved at the February Planning
Commission meeting and the City Council appwved the redevelopment at the March
9th Council meeting with the exception of the request for 24-hour operation. The 24-
hour request was continued until the March 23rd Council meeting, at which time it was
approved subject to specific conditions.
r~ii~!i~~iiiii~iii!i~- Frank's Nursery appeared at the March 4th Planning
Commission meeting to request a conditional use permit for expansion of the
garden/novelty store for purposes of erecting a poly greenhouse. Due to lack of
detailed plans the ease was tabled until April.
~!~!?: ii~!ii~- Champion
approval to host a one-day outdoor auto
Commission recommending approval and
recommendation.
Auto requested conditional use permit
show this summer, with the Planning
the Council concurring with that
~~i!ii~:~iiiii~ - After a considerable amount of study by the Codes &
Standards Committee, the ?lanning Commission approved in March an ordinance
amendment allowing outdoor dining facilities through the conditional use permit
process. All restaurants in the City were contacted for input during the process. The
Council approved the outdoor dining ordinanc~ on March 23rd.
to the Council on March 9th regarding the construction of an adult day care facility at
5501 Boone Avenue and requested tax increment financing assistance.
~ii~ili!~~' The Council approved an architectural agreement for the City
Hall Addition/Remodeling project at the March 23rd Council meeting, which will allow
plans to be developed and bids sought. This project will go through the Planning
Commission/City Courier planning approval process in May.
..... !i:.:.:.:~ii~' At the March 23rd EDA meeting Autohaus requested a one-year
extension on their development improvements and this matter was tabled until May.
~~!~i~' The City staff is participating again this year in the Twin West
Chamber of Commerce Executive Call Program and met with Nordic Press, Inc. in
March. Meetings with Mello Smello, Paddock Laboratories, and Creamettes are
scheduled for this spring.
~i~~- City staff participated in the Twin Cities Real Estate Business
Exposition on March 8th in conjunction with the North Metro Mayors' Association and
distributed information about development opportunities in New Hope.
37
17.
19.
~i.i~' The acquisition of the Custom Mold outlot is proceeding and should be
completed in April.
R~[?:~iii~~i- During the last week in March staff completed Week 3, Real
Estate Finance, in the four-session Economic Development Finance Professional
Certification Program sponsored by the National Development Council.
F~.i.iO~~- After lengthy study by the City staff and Codes & Standards
Committee, recommendations on amendments to the existing fence ordinance will be
presented to the Planning Commission and Council in April.
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
.:401 Xyton Avenue North
New Ho~e. Minnesota 55428
Phone'531-5100
April 14, 1992
Mr. Michael O'Donnell
Super America Group, Inc.
1240 West 98th Street
Bloomington, MN 55431
Subject:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/PERFORMANCE BOND FOR
SUPER AMERICA FACILITY AT 6144 WEST BROADWAY IN NEW HOPE
Dear Mr. O'Donnell:
On March 9, 1992, the New Hope City Council approved your request
for a conditional use permit to allow a convenience store with
gasoline, a rear yard setback variance, and site/building plan
review/approval to construct a new service station, as submitted in
Planning Case 91-37, subject to specific conditions. One of the
conditions was that a Development Agreement and suitable bond
concerning site improvements be executed with the City. I notified
you that the City would draft the Development Agreement and notify
you regarding the appropriate security to be posted.
Enclosed please find three copies of the Conditional Use Permit
Site Improvement Agreement. The City Engineer and Building
Official have estimated the cost to install the plantings,
retaining wall, concrete curb, and driveway apron at $17,240 and
the total bond to be posted is 150% of the cost of the work, or
$25,860. On page 4 of the agreement the various types of financial
guarantees that are acceptable to the City are outlined under #9,
"Financial Guarantee". The performance bond or other type of
guarantee is released upon completion and acceptance of all the
site improvement work by the City.
Please review the enclosed agreements, and sign all three copies in
the appropriate place on page 5 and have your signature notarized.
Please return the three executed copies of the agreement to the
City with the appropriate type of financial guarantee. I will have
the appropriate City officials sign the agreements and will return
one fully executed copy to you for your files.
Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living
Please contact me or Doug Sandstad, Building Official, if you have
any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
KM/lb
Enclosures:
Engineer's Letter Re: Bond Amount
Three copies CUP Site Improvement Agreement
CC:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Planning Case File 91-37
Bonestroo
Rosene
Ander!ik &
^ssoclates
Engineers & Architects
March 27, 1992
R~cn~ro ~. ~mer. ~E
~homas ~ Noyes. PE
~O~e~ G ~un~C~L ~E
Susan M E~en~n C PA
~erry A 9ourOom ~E Mar~ ~ Rolls. PS ,e'~, D ;-~z::~ :-
Rooe~ R ~e~ene ~E Gary F Ry!ander ~E ~arlan M Osor
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue N
New Hope, MN 55428
Attention: Mr. Kirk McDonald
Re: Super America
Our File No. 34-gen
Dear Kirk:
We have reviewed the bond amount for the above referenced project which is summarized
below:
137 Each
420 Sq. ft.
280 Lin. ft.
3 Each
Plantings per landscape plan @ $20/ea.
Retaining Wall @ $10/sq. ft.
Concrete curb @ $10/lin. ft.
Driveway apron @ $7,500
Total
+ 50% Bond Increase
$ 2,740
4,200
2,800
7,500
$17,240
8~620
Total $25,860
The ~otal estimated bond amount is $25,860. A driveway access permit is required from
Hennepin County for the work in West Broadway. If you have any questions please feel
free to contact me at this office.
Yours very truly,
BONESTRO, O,. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mark Hanson
MH:lk
CC:
Doug Sandstad - New Hope
Marty Malecha - Attorney
2335 ~Vest Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 · 612-636-4600
CORR[CK & SONDRALL
Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza
8525 Edlnbrook Cr~lng
Suite #203
Brooklyn Pa~k, Mlnnesot~ 55443
TELEPHONE (612)
;AX (~2) 425-~7
LAVONNE E. KESKE
SHARON D, DERBY
April 13, 1992
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Asst.
City of New Hope
4401 Xy]on Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE-
Super America CUP Site Improvement Agreement
Our File No: 99.29137
Dear Kirk:
Enclosed please find three copies of a Conditional Use Permit Site
Improvement Agreement for the Super America property. Please
review the agreement, paying particular attention to the conditions
which the CUP is subject to.
If the agreement is in .order, please obtain the appropriate
signatures on all copies Of the document and return two copies to
me, one for filing and one for our records.
Be sure to call me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Martin P. Malecha
s3m
Enclosures
CC:
Daniel J. Donahue
Valerie Leone
Steven A. Sondrall, Esq.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
SITE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by Super America Group, Inc.,
a Kentucky corporation (hereinfter "Developer") and the City of New
Hope (hereinafter "City"), this day of , 1992.
WHEREAS, on March 9, 1992, by Resolution No. 92-51, the City
Council approved Developer's request for a Conditional Use Permit
(hereinafter "CUP") for certain real property located in the City
of New Hope, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota known as 6144
West Broadway, legally described as:
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 602, Hennepin County,
Minnesota,
(hereinafter "Property") to be used as a Gas Station/Convenience
Store, and
WHEREAS, the City Council also approved Developer's site
development plans for the Property as set forth in Planning Case
91-37 (hereinafter "Plans"), and
WHEREAS,
conditions:
said CUP was granted subject to the following
The property shall be developed in accordance with the
plans submitted by Petitioner.
Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00
midnight unless otherwise approved by the. City Council.
Noise governors shall be installed on all outside
intercom systems and volumes reduced after 8:00 p.m.
No outdoor storage or sales of merchandise shall be
allowed, unless a conditional use permit for same is
applied for and granted at a later date·
Petitioner shall execute a development agreement and post
a performance bond for required site improvements,
including but not limited to, landscaping, curbing and
retaining wall as shown on its plans.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS .HEREBY AGREED as follows:
1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS.
incorporated herein by reference,
conditions of the CUP.
The recitals above are
specifically including the
2. THE WORK. The Work shall consist of the site
improvements described in the Plans, including any amendments to
the Plans which are approved by the City Council. The Work shall
be performed by the Developer to the City's satisfaction ~n
compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, standards, and
policies of the City. The Work includes all on-site exterior
amenities shown on the Plans that are listed below.
Quant ity Item
Estimated Cost
420 sq. ft.
Retaining Wall Q $10/sq.ft. $4,200.00
137 each
Plantings per Landscape
Plan a $20/each
2,740.00
280 lin. ft. Concrete curb · $10/lin. ft. 2,800.00
3 each Driveway Apron a $2,500/ea 7,500.00
Subtotal
+ 50% Security Increase
$17,240.00
8,620.00
TOTAL: $25,860.00
The Developer unconditionally guarantees to the City all of the
Work for a period of one year subsequent to the Completion Date of
the Work. This guarantee Shall include failure of the Work due to
poor materiel, faulty workmanship, or any other failure of the
Work. This guarantee shall continue whether or not all of the
financial guarantee shall have been released by the City.
3. COMPLETION,. The Developer agrees that the Work shall be
completed in its entirety on or before the 9th day of March, 1992,
except as this period of time is extended by resolution of the
Council, or by the City taking no action to require completion
hereunder on a timely basis, It is understood and agreed that
failure of the City to promptly take action to draw upon the bona
or other security to enforce this Agreement after the expiration of
the time in which the Work is to be completed hereunder will not
waive, estop or release any rights of the City and the City can
take action at any time thereafter to require completi°n of the
Work, and payment for same, Furthermore, the term of this
Agreement shall be deemed to be automatically extended until such
time as the City Council declares the Developer in default
thereunder, and the statute of limitations shall not be deemed to
commence running until the City Council has been notified in
writing by the Developer that the Developer has either compliea
with this Agreement, or that it refuses to for any reason. These
provisions shall be applicable to any person who shall give a
financial guarantee to the City as required below.
A. COST OF WORK. The Developer shall pay for all costs of
persons doing work or furnishing skill, tools, machinery or
materials, or insurance premiums or equipment or supplies and all
just claims for the same, and the City shall be under no obligation
to pay the Developer or any subcontractor any sum whatsoever on
account thereof, whether or not the City shall have approved the
subcontract or subcontractor, and the Deve]oper and its surety
shall hold the City harmless against any such claims, and provide
the City with all necessary lien waivers.
5. DEFAULT. In the event of default by the Developer as to
any of the Work to be performed hereunder, the City may, at its
option, perform the Work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse
the City for any expense incurred therein by the City, provided the
Developer is first given written notice by United States Mail of
the Work in default and required to be done by the Developer, not
less than 48 hours being given thereby to the Developer to remove
the default status, said notice being addressed to the Developer at
the address set forth below. Notice given in this manner being
sufficient as described, by agreement of the parties hereto.
Notice to the Developer shall also constitute, without further
action, notice to any contractor or subcontractor, whether they are
approved and accepted by the City or not. In the event of
emergency, as determined by the City Engineer, the 48 hours notice
requirement to the Developer shall be and hereby is waived in its
entirety by the Developer, and the Developer shall reimburse the
City for any expense so incurred by the City in the same manner as
if mailed notice as described above had been given. It is
understood by the parties, however, that the responsibility of the
Developer is limited by strikes and force majeure.
6. REVOCATION OF CUP. The City Council approved a CUP for
the Property subject to certain conditions including completion of
the Work. As an addition&l remedy separate and independent from
any other.remedy available to it, upon breach of this Agreement by
Developer, the City may revoke the CUP for the Property. Developer
acknowledges and agrees that the City may also revoke the CUP for
failure of the Developer to satisfy any of the other conditions of
the CUP.
7. HOLD HARMLESS. The Developer agrees to indemnify and
hold harmless the City and its agents and employees against any and
all claims, demands, losses, damages and expenses (including
attorney fees) arising out of or resulting from the Developer's
negligent or intentional acts, or any violation of any safety law,
regulation or code in the performance of this Agreement, without
regard to any inspection or review made or not made by the City,
its agents or employees or failure by the City, its agents or
employees to take any other prudent precaution. In the event any
City employee, agent or representative shall come under the direct
or indirect control of the Developer, or the City, upon the failure
of the Developer to comply with any conditions of this Agreement or
the CUP, performs said conditions oursuant to the financial
guarantee, the Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its employees, agents and representatives for its own
negligent or intentional acts in the performance of the Developer's
required work under this Agreement or the CUP.
8. COST OF ADMINISTRATION. The Developer agrees to
reimburse the City for the actual costs to the City associated with
this planning case, the CUP and this Agreement, including but not
limited to engineering and attorney's fees. Developer agrees that
the financial guarantee shall not be released until all such costs
have been paid to the City.
9. COST OF ENFORCEMENT. The Developer agrees to reimburse
the City for all costs incurred by the City in the enforcement of
this Agreement, or any portion thereof, including court costs and
reasonable engineering and attorney's fees.
10. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE. The Developer shall furnish the
City with a financial guarantee acceptable to the City in one of
the following forms: a) cash escrow; b) a performance bond issued
by an approved corporate surety licensed to do business in the
State of Minnesota, and executed by the Developer aS the principal;
c) an irrevocable letter of credit; d) an automatically renewing
certificate of deposit in Developer's name but assigned to the
City; e) other financial instruments which provide equivalent
assurance to the City. Said financial guarantee shall be furnished
to the City as security to assure completion of the items of Work
as set forth above, and payment of the costs of administration as
set forth above. The financial guarantee shall be in an amount of
150% of the cost of the Work as estimated by the City Engineer.
The financial guarantee provided shall continue in full force and
effect until the City Council approves and accepts all of the Work
undertaken and releases the surety and/or the Developer from any
further liability, and until al1 administrative costs are paid in
4
full. The City Council may reduce the amount of the financial
guarantee upon partial completion of the Work and payment of all
outstanding administrative costs.
11. NOTICE. The address of Developer, for purposes of this
Agreement is as follows, and any notice mailed by the City to this
address shall be deemed sufficient notice under this Agreement,
until notice of a change of address is given to the City in
writing:
Super America Group, Inc.
1240 West 98th Street
Bloomington, MN 55431
12. SEVERABILITY. If any portion, section, subsection,
paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement i~s for any
reason held to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement.
13. SUCCESSION. This Agreement shall be binding upon the
parties, their heirs, successors or assigns as the case may be.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
By
I t s Mayor
By
Its City Manager
SUPER AMERICA GROUP, INC.
By
Its
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 199__, by EDW. J. ERICKSON and DANIEL d.
DONAHUE, the Mayor and Manager, respectively, of the City of New
Hope, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, on behalf
of said municipal corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 199__, by and
, the and
, respectively, of Super America Group, Inc., a
Kentucky corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
DRAFTED BY:
CORRICK & SONDRALL, A PARTNERSHIP
OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
8525 Edinbrook Crossing, #203
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
(612) 425-5671
6
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minneso~ 55428
Phone:531-5100
FAX (612) 531-5~
April 29, 1992
Mr. Don Marrow
Fina Project Engineer
2020 Silver Bell Road, Suite #23
Eagan, MN 55122
Subject:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/PERFORMANCE BOND FOR
FINA REDEVELOPMENT AT 5535 WINNETKA AVENUE IN NEW HOPE
Dear Mr. Marrow:
On March 9th and March 23rd, 1992, the New Hope City Council
approved your requests for site/building plan review/approval,
conditional use permits, variances from rear yard and curb cut
setback requirements, and 24-hour operation in conjunction with the
Fina redevelopment of a convenience store with gas station and car
wash, as submitted in Planning Case 91-42, subject to specific
conditions. One of the conditions was that a Development Agreement
and suitable bond concerning site improvements be executed with the
City. I notified you that the City would draft the Development
Agreement and notify you regarding the appropriate security to be
posted. Enclosed please find three copies of the Conditional Use
Permit Site Improvement Agreement. The City Engineer and Building
Official have estimated the cost to install the plantings, concrete
curb and driveway apron at $15,420 and the total bond to be posted
is 150% of the cost of the work, or $23,130. On page 4 of the
agreement the various types of financial guarantees that are
acceptable to the City are outlined under #9, "Financial
Guarantee". The performance bond or other type of guarantee is
released upon completion and acceptance of all the site improvement
work by the City. Please review the enclosed agreements, and sign
all three copies in the appropriate place on page 5 and have your
signature notarized. Please return the three executed copies of
the agreement to the City with the appropriate type of financial
guarantee. I will have the appropriate City officials sign the
agreements and will return one fully executed copy to you for your
files.
Another condition was that Fina provide right-of-way easements/
dedications with six (6) feet on Winnetka Avenue being dedicated to
the County and eight (8) feet on 36th Avenue being dedicated to the
City. I indicated that the City would prepare the necessary
documents for easement/right-of-way dedications and forward to you
for execution. Said documents are enclosed and I would request
your signatures in the appropriate place on all three copies.
Please return to the City and we will forward you a fully executed
copy.
FamilyS~ledCi~'~~ForFamilyLiving
-2-
Please contact me of Doug Sandstad, Building Official, if you have
any comments of questions.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
KM/lb
Enclosures:
Engineer's Letter Re: Bond Amount
Three Copies of CUP Site Improvement Agreement
Three Copies of Easement Documents
cc:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Dan Dege, Finn-Daniels Broussard
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Planning Case File 91-37
Bonestroo
Rosene
Ander!ik &
Assooates
Engineers & Architects
March 27, 1992
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue N
New Hope, ~MN 55428
Attention: Mr. K/rk McDonald
Re: Fina Mart Development Bond
Our File No. 34-gen
Dear Kirk:
We have reviewed the bond amount for the above referenced project which is summarized
below:
368 Each
240 Lin. ft.
3 Each
Plantings per Landscape Plan @ $15/ea
Concrete Curbing @ $10/lin. ft.
Driveway Aprons @ $2,500/ea
Subtotal
+ 50% Bond Increase
Total
$ 5,520
2,400
7,500
$15,420
$23,130
The total estimated bond amount is $23,130. A driveway access permit is required from
Hennepin County for any work in Winnetka Avenue.
If you have any questions please contact this office.
Yours very truly,
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATF__.3, INC.
Mark Hanson
MH:Ik
cc:
Doug Sandstad, New Hope
Marty Malecha, Attorney
2335 ~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 · 612-636-4600
North line of the Northeast 1/4 of
the Northeast 1/4 of Section l g,
centedine 56th Ave. No.-~,
N
89'42'50"
W 175.00'
J6th
0
0
Z
Fina Mart
3535 Winnetka Ave.
New Hope, Minnesota
Avenue
N 89'42'50" W
109.13'
N 89'42'50" W
135.00'
North
Z
N 89'42'50' W
40.00'
The East 175 feet of the North 175 feet of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of the
Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4), oil in Section Nineteen (19), Township 118, Range 21,
According to the U.S. Government Survey therof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except
roads. Which lies East of a line drown parallel with and distant 40 feet West of
the East line of said section, also that port of said tract lying North and East of
o curve having o radius of 26 feet, being concave to the Southwest and tangent
to the above described parallel line and a line drawn parallel with ond distant
41 feet South of the North line of said Section 19.
Nortnec:s~
the Nor:nets- .-'
the Nor~ecs:
Sect;on
1t8, Rouge 2'
New Hope, Minnesota
FIGURE 1
iWW ~E~. P~
CORRICK & SONDRALL
~ P.I.q'I'N~I~IP Of~ ~q~leP.~ GOW~'ORA?ION~
F_xtlnburgh Executive Office Plaza
8525 F_xiinbrook Crossing
Suite #203
Brooklyn Park. Minnesota 55443
;AX (~I~ 42~I?
SKAWON O. OEP,~Y
April 24, 1992
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Asst.
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:
Finamart/36th & Winnetka
Our File No: 99.11095
Dear Kirk:
Enclosed please find three copies of the following:
Conditional Use Permit Site Improvement Agreement.
Easement for Construction and Maintenance of PuDllc
Improvement.
Please review these documents, in particular the conditions of the
CUP as set forth on the first page of the Conditional Use Perm~
Site Improvement Agreement. If all is in order, please obtain the
signatures of the Finaserve officials on both the Improvement
Agreement and the Easement, and have Dan. and the Mayor sign the
Site Improvement Agreement.
Then return all copies of the Easement to me, so that I can place
the matter before the Council for acceptance of the Easement.
Be sure to call me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Mart i n P. Mal echa
s3f
Enclosures
cc:
Daniel J. Oonahue
Steven A. Sondrall, Esq.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
SITE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by Finaserve, Inc., a. Te×as
corporation (hereinfter "Developer") and the City of New
(hereinafter "City"), this day of , 1992.
WHEREAS, on March 9, 1992 and March 23, 1992, by Resolution
Nos. 92-53 and 92-60, respectively, the City Council aporovec
Developer's request for a Conditional Use Permit (hereinafter
"CUP") for certain real orooerty located in the City of New HoPe,
County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota known as 3535 WinnetZa
Avenue North, ~ega!ly described as:
The East 175 feet of the North 175 feet of the Northeast
Quarter (NE~) of the Northeast Quarter (NE~), ali in
Section Nineteen (!9), Township 118, Range 21, according
to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Henneoin CounTy,
MN,
(hereinafter "Property") to be used as a Gasoline
Station/Convenience Store, and
Service
WHEREAS, the City Council also approved Develooer's slr. e
develooment plans for the Property as set forth in Planning Case
91-42 (hereinafter "Plans"), and
WHEREAS,
conditions:
said CUP was granted suoject
to the following
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Annual CUP inspection.
Development contract and bond to be provided to cover
public improvements.
Developer to sand and/or salt public roadway if hazardous
conditions develop in winter due to carwash operation.
Developer to provide right-of-way easements/dedications'
6 feet on Winnetka to County and 8 feet on 36th to City.
Developer to operate the car wash only between the hours
of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. midnight.
Developer to set at low volume all communication devices
between pumps and store at all hours, and to limit to a
minimum the use of said devices during the hours of 12-00
midnight and 6:00 a.m.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:
1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS.
incorporated herein Dy reference,
conditions of the CUP.
The recitals above are
soecifically including the
2. THE WORK. The Work shall consist of the site
improvements described in the Plans, ~ncluding any amendmentsto
the Plans which are approved by the City Council. The Work shall
be oerformed by the Developer to the City's satisfaction tn
compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, standards, and
policies of the City. The Work includes all on-site exterior
amenities shown on the Plans that are listed below.
Quantity
358 each
24O lini ft.
3 each
Item
Plantings per landscape
plan a $15/each
Concrete curbing a
$10/lin. ft.
Driveway aprons a $2,500/ea
Subtotal
+ 50% Security Increase
TOTAL:
Estimated Cost
$5,520.00
2,400.00
7,500.00
$15,420.00
7,710.00
$23,130.00
The Developer unconditionaT'ly guarantees to the City ali of the
Work for a period of one year subsequent to the Completion Date of
the Work. This guarantee shall include failure of the Work due to
poor material, faulty workmanship, or any other failure of the
Work. This guarantee shall continue whether or not all of the
financial guarantee shall have been released by the City.
3. COMPLETION. The Developer agrees that the Work shall be
completed in its entirety on or before the 23rd day of March, 1992,
except as this period of time is extended by resolution of the
Council, or by the City taking no action to require completion
hereunder on a timely basis. It is understood and agreed that
failure of the City to promptly take action to draw upon the bond
or other security to enforce this Agreement after the expiration of
the time in which the Work is to be completed hereunder will not
waive, estop or release any rights of the City and the City can
take action at any time thereafter to require completion of the
Work, and payment for same. Furthermore, the term of t~s
Agreement shall be deemed to De automatically extended unti~ such
time as the City Council declares the Developer ~n default
thereunder, and the statute of limitations shall not be deemed to
commence running until the City Council has been notified ~n
writing by the Develooer that the Developer has either complied
w~th this Agreement, or that it refuses to for any reason. These
provisions shall be applicable to any person who shall give a
f~nancial guarantee to the City as required Oelow.
4. COST OF WORK. The Developer shall pay for all costs of
oersons doing work or furnishing skill, tools, machinery or
materials, or insurance premiums or equipment or supplies and all
just claims for the same, and the City shall be under no obligat~o~
to pay the Developer or any subcontractor any sum whatsoever o~
account thereof, whether or not the City shall have approved t~e
subcontract or subcontractor, and the Developer and its surer7
shall hold the City harmless against any such claims, and provide
the City with a-ll necessary lien waivers.
5. DEFAULT. In the event of default by the Developer as to
any of the Work to be performed hereunder, the City may, at its
option, perform the Work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse
the City for any expense incurred therein by the City, provided the
Developer is first given written notice Oy United States Mail of
the Work in default and required to be done by the Develooer, not
less than 48 hours being given thereby to the Developer to remove
the default status, said notice being addressed to the Developer at
the address set forth below. Notice given in this manner being
sufficient as described, by agreement of the parties hereto.
Notice to the Developer shall also constitute, without further
action, notice to any contractor or subcontractor, whether they are
approved and accepted by the City or not. In the event of
emergency, as determined by the City Engineer, the 48 hours notice
requirement to the Developer shall be and hereby is waived in its
entirety by the Developer, and the Developer shall reim0urse the
City for any expense so incurred by the City in the same manner as
if mailed notice as described above had been given. ~t is
understood by the parties, however, that the responsibility of the
Develooer is limited by strikes and force majeure.
6. REVOCATION OF CUP. The City Council approved a CUP for
the rroperty subject to certain conditions including completion of
the Work. As an additional remedy separate and independent from
any other remedy available to it, upon breach of this Agreement by
Developer, the City may revoke the CUP for the Property. Developer
acknowledges and agrees that the City may also revoke the CUP for
failure of the Developer to satisfy any of the other conditions of
the CUP.
3
7. ADMINISTRATION COSTS. Developer agrees to reimburse :~e
City for the actual costs to the City associated with Planning Case
91-42, the CUP, and this Agreement, including Put not limited to,
engineering and attorney's fees. Developer agrees that the
financial guarantee shall not be released until al! such costs nave
been paid to the City.
8. HOLD HARMLESS. The Developer agrees To ~ndemnify and
hold harmless the City and its agents and employees against any and
all claims, demands, losses, damages and expenses (including
attorney fees) arising out of or resulting from the Developer's
negligent or intentional acts, or any violation of any safety law,
regulation or code in the performance of this Agreement, w~tnout
regard to any inspection or review made or not made Oy the Cit7,
its agents or employees or failure by the City, its agents or
employees to take any other prudent orecaution. In the event any
City employee, agent or representative shall come under the direct
or indirect control of the Developer, or the City, upon the failure
of the Developer to comply with any conditions of this Agreement or
the CUP, performs said conditions pursuant to the financ~a'
guarantee, the Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its employees, agents and representatives for ~ts own
negligent or intentional acts in the performance of the Developer's
required work under this Agreement or the CUP.
9. COST OF ENFORCEMENT. The Developer agrees to reimburse
the City for all costs incurred by the City in the enforcement of
this Agreement, or any portion thereof, including court costs and
reasonable engineering and attorney's fees.
10. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE. The Developer- shall furnish t~e
City wit~ a financial guarantee acceptable to the City in one of
the following forms: a) cash escrow; b) a performance bond issued
by an approved corporate surety licensed to do business in the
State of Minnesota, and executed by the Developer as the principal;
c) an irrevocable letter of credit; d) an automatically renewing
certificate of deposit in Developer's name but assigned to the
City; e) other financial instruments which provide equivalent
assurance to t~e City. Said financial guarantee shall be furnished
to the City as security to assure completion of the items of Work
as set forth above, and payment of the costs of administration as
set forth above. The financial guarantee shall be in an amount of
150% of the cost of the Work as estimated by the City Engineer.
The financial guarantee provided shall continue in full force and
effect until the City Council approves and accepts all of the Work
undertaken and releases the surety and/or the Developer from any
further liability, and until all administrative costs are paid in
full. The City Council may reduce the amount of the financial
guarantee upon partial completion of the Work and payment of all
outstanding administrative costs.
11. NOTICE. The address of Developer, for purposes of tn~s
Agreement is as follows, and any notice mailed ay the City to this
address sha]l be deemed sufficient notice under this AgreemenT,
unt~ notice of a change of aadress is given to the City :q
writing:
12. SEVERABILITY. If any portion, section, subsection,
paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement.
13. SUCCESSION. This Agreement shall be binding upon t~e
parties, their heirs, successors or assigns as the case may be.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
By
I t s Mayo r
By
Its City Manager
FINASERVE, INC,-
By
Its
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknow]eQged before me this
day of , 1992, by EDW. d. ERICKSON and DANIEL J.
DONAHUE, t~e Mayor and Manager, respective]y, of the City of New
Hope, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, on behalf
of said municipal corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPtN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1992, by and
the and
, respective]y, of FINASERVE, INC., a Texas
corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
DRAFTED BY:
CORRICK & SCNDRALL, A PARTNERSHIP
OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
8525 Edinbrook Crossing, #203
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
(612) 425-5671
6
EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
THIS INDENTURE, executed on the day of ,
1992, between Finaserve, Inc., a Texas corporation (herein "First
Party") and the CITY OF NEW HOPE, a Minnesota Municipal corporation
(herein "City").
WHEREAS, First Party is the fee owner of real property located
in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as (herein
"Property" ):
The East 175 feet of the North 175 feet of the NE~ of the
NE~, all in Section 19, Township 118, Range 21, according
to the U.S. Government Survey thereof;
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of obtaining a street and
utility easement over, under and across said Property,
WITNESSETH; That the First Party in consideration of the sum
of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration to
it in hand paid by the City, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, does hereby grant, bargain and convey unto the said
City, its successors and assigns, forever, a permanent easement
over, under and across the easement tract described below,
including full and free right and authority to enter upon and make
such use of the said easement tract as is reasonably necessary and
advisable in the construction, maintenance and operation of public
streets and utilities.
The permanent easement herein granted for street and utility
purposes is situated over, under and across a tract of land (the
· easement tract) situated in the County of Hennepin and State of
Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit:
That part of the above described Property which lies East
of a line drawn parallel with and distant 40 feet West of
the East line of said Section, also that part of said
Property lying North and East of a curve having a radius
of 26 feet, being concave to the Southwest and tangent to
the above described parallel line and a line drawn
parallel with and distant 41 feet South of the North line
of said Section 19, and also that part of said Property
lying North of a line drawn parallel with and distant 41
feet South of the North line of said Section 19,
FINASERVE, INC.
By
Its
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1992, by and
, the and
, respectively, of Finaserve, Inc., &
Texas corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
This Document was Drafted by:
CORRICK & SONDRALL, a Partnership
of Professional Corporations
8525 Edinbrook Crossing, #203
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
· (612) 425-5671
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk
of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, hereby certify that the Council
of said City has duly accepted the foregoing easement.
Dated:
City Clerk
A. pri! 20, 1992
()wrier,' Manager
New }tope Bowl
7 [07 42nd Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55427
As a resident oft_he neighborhood mediately ~outh of your bow'fing lanes, [ mn wr/tmg ttii>
letter to inquire as to your plans for cleaning up the property your business sits on.
[ have lived m this neighborhood for over ten years and as such, drive by your property many
times each day. Over the past few years I have noticext a general deterioration in the condition
of your property. Specifically Iam referring to the landscaping, and lack thereof, and also the
mnount of debris that is 'allowed to collect on the land surrounding your building.
[ know you would agree that our neighborhood is a well kept area where all the homeowners
take pride in maintaining the condition of their properties. Many of my neighbors and [ wo ttld
like to know what action you intend to take to upgrade your property so that it complements
our well-maintained neighborhood. It is obvious you have responsibly made improvements to
your building and parking lot, but have ..not even attempted to do so with the land surrounding
the building and parking lot.
Please be so kind to respond t° this letter within ten days informing me what action you, as a
responsible business person, will be taking to make these much needed improvements.
Looking forward to your reply,
Sandy Perhai
New Hope Home Owner
3848 MaD'land Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55427
U/cc: Kirk McDonald
New Hope City Offices
ul uo .tya..rl, s .tB~iJ
4-7-92 I called LeRoy ~
It is his plan to~ ~de ~oOwm~ fniglla ~ne~ ~eea~ ua~°nogne month Mrs Hustad was advised
the south side i 1 o
January 17, 1992
Mr. Clarence R. Brandell
MLB Properties, Inc.
6321 Russell Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55423
Subject:
REMOVAL OF .CONSTRUCTION TRAILER
FROM BRANDELL INDUSTRIAL PARK, 2ND ADDITION
Dear Mr. Brandell:
On November 12, 1991, the City of New Hope sent the enclosed letter
requesting that you remove the construction trailer from the
Brandell Industrial Park 2nd Addition site within 30 days. The
City Code does not permit the parking/storage of a manufactured
building on undeveloped vacant lots unless there is an active
building permit for the site or unless constructions is underway.
As of this date the trailer has not been removed and you have not
contacted the City regarding this matter. Please consider this
letter the City's second request for you to remove the trailer from
the site within the next 30 days. If the trailer is not removed at
that time, the next step would be for the matter to be referred to
the Building Official for action and a citation could be issued.
I would hope that is not necessary and that you will cooperate in
removing the trailer.
Please contact me or Doug Sandstad, Building Official, if you have
any comments or questions.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
KM/lb
Enclosure: November 12, 1991 Letter
cc:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Planning Case File 86-33
4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521
April 22, 1992
Clarence Brandell
MLB Properties
6321 Russell Ave. South
Minneapolis, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Brandell,
Please remove the abandoned trailer from your vacant lot at 9200
49th Avenue North within 7 days. City code does not permit this storage
on vacant land. Failure to comply will result in a citation being issued
AND towing of the trailer to our impound lot. Recovery of said trailer will
require payment of all towing/storage costs and fines.
Although you did not respond to the similar letter from our Management
Assistant, Kirk McDonald, you are welcome Co call 531-5122, if you have
any questions.
Sin~.erely, .-- ~/
Building official/Zoning Administrator
cc: McDonald
file
FamilY Styled City ~ For Family Living