The URL can be used to link to this page

080492 PlanningAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 1992 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Case 92-16 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Educational Use in R-4 Zoning District, 4219 Oregon Avenue North, School District #281/Parent- Child Center, Petitioner 3.2 Case 92-21 Request for Variance to Front Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Addition to Garage, 2800 Boone Avenue North, Harry Wong, Petitioner 3.3 Case 92-22 Request for Sign Variances to Allow an Off-Premise Sign on City-owned Property, and to Exceed Sign Area Requirements, 47th & Winnetka Avenue North (Corner Park), School District g281/Cooper High School, Petitioner 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 4.2 Report of Design and Review Committee Report of Codes and Standards Committee 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Miscellaneous Issues 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 2, 1992 Review of City Council Minutes of May 26, June 8, and June 22, 1992, and City Council Executive Session Minutes of June 8, 1992 Review of EDA Minutes of May 11, June 8, and June 22, 1992, and EDA Executive Session Minutes of June 8, 1992 Review of HRA Minutes of May 26, June 8, and June 22, 1992 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: o 92-16 Request Zoning District 4219 Oregon Avenue North 17-118-21-21-0049 R-4 (High Density Residential) School District #281~Parent-Child July 31, 1992 August 4, 1992 BACKGROUND for Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Educational Use in R-4 Center The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow an educational use in R-4 Zoning District, pursuant to Sections 4.054 and 4.084 of the New Hope Code. The Parent-Child Center, an Early Childhood Family Education program of the Robbinsdale School District, has been located in an apartment at Wynmore Estates for four years and desires to move to another location and have chosen Park Ridge Way as their new site. The program would be located in Apartment #305 of Building #4301, which is a 24-unit building. The two-bedroom apartment, which contains 936 square feet, would contain a children's classroom, a parent education classroom and an adult basic education classroom. Surrounding land uses/zoning include R-1 Single Family Residential to the north and east, railroad right-of-way and industrial to the west and vacant City commercial property to the south. The topography of the site is flat and it is located just east of the elevated railroad tracks. The Parent-Child Center offers parents information and support in raising children and encourages parent involvement in children's learning and development. This is a free service to families with young children who live in New Hope. The Planning Commission and City Council have previously approved a conditional use permit for this same group to occupy an apartment at 8421 Bass Lake Road in 1986 that was successful from 1986 through 1990, when the program relocated to Thorson School. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no comments on the request. ANALYSIS Conditional uses in the R-4 High Density Residential Zoning District include conditional uses allowed in less intensive use districts, and "roll-back"to the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. Planning Case Report 92-16 August 4, 1992 Page -2- o Section 4.054(1)of the City Code allows "Public, Educational, and Religious Buildings" as a permitted conditional use provided that three conditions are met: A. Side Yards. Side yards shall be double that required for the district, but no greater than thirty feet. B. Parking. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting directly across a public street or alley to the principal use and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses. C. Off-Street Loading. Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable. Ail three conditions are complied with and met. Section 4.212 of the City Code lists general criteria/conditions determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit: A. to be considered in Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City. B. ComPatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards. D. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. E. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts. F. In Residential Districts: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Compatible Appearance. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have ad adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Staff finds that all conditions are met with this request or are not applicable. This program is strongly supported by the community, the School District, and the City. No problems have resulted with the apartment building location in the past, and this site is also located on a bus route. Planning Case Report August 4, 1992 Page -3- 92-16 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow an educational use in an R-4 Zoning District, subject to two suggestions: 1. The parking lot be restriped in white prior to October 1, 1992. 2. That the Building Official be contacted before installing any sign for the Parent-Child Center (if one is desired) to insure it complies with code requirements. Attachments: Section/Topo Maps Apartment Complex Map Apartment Floor Plan Applicants Letter Parent-Child Center Info Planning Case 87-13 PARK q7fl I 0 [---F--] I F' .j l AV E, 7 TH Z ,~v[. N : ~4?_i 45 AVE $ L ![ ~ ~ ,~;oo I.3 < / K - ROCKFORD F412.0 4q81 c/HO OFFICE ~1~ } 4~ ST ~vE N SCHOOL : ' BUS AVE. AVE × ~gT.~ 894.$ - , , 42ND AVENUE 4-1000 GAL. MOUNDED F.A. ANN UNCIATO~ IN ENTRANCE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING. NORTH CAR GAR. FAMILY HOUSING .IZI 4¢05 M M i.23 UNI~ '1 8 CAR GARAGE I G CAR GARAGE IG CAR GARAGE ~6CAR · _ 5' GARAGE ~/ 45 TH { NF_NADA -- --~ 700' ' . G,~RAG E ~ I P~L IN ~ ~ 3< ~ ,- ~ ' . BALCONY · CHILDREN' CLASSROOM i APARTMENT 305 PARKRIDGE MAY APARTMENTS 4219 OREGON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, WiN 55428 PARENT EDUCATION CLASSROOM , B ED.,nC ©.~.~ 1.%.6 x 14.10 I 7.0 x 7.0 KITCHEN · ~ O~ PARENT-CHILD CENTER Early Childhood Family Education A program of Community Education and Facilities Cavanagh Early Childhood Center 5400 Corvallis Avenue North Crystal, Minnesota 55429 (612) 537-2270 May 21, 1992 Mr. Douglas Sandstad Building Official City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Mr. Sandstad: The Parent-Child Center, an Early Childhood Family Education program of the Robbinsdale School District, had rented an apartment at Bass Lake Road Apartments from 1986 to 1990. The planning commission granted us a conditional use permit with fees waived at that time. This program was brought to Thorson School when we received a Federal Grant to provide an Even Start Family Literacy program. We have rented an apartment at Wynmor Estates (formerly Dalton Estates) for four years. We are going to close this program and move this apartment model to a new site. After reviewing the entire District 281 area we have chosen Parkridge Way in New Hope as the new location. I am writing to ask your help in applying for a con- ditional use permit and waiver of zoning fees. We are making this request because we are bringing a free social service to all families with young children in this area. We have a limited budget which prompts this request. Enclosed find a registration brochure about the Parent-Child Center and its programs. Sincerely, Delores Fletcher, Coordinator Parent-Child Center Programs Enc. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 281 Pa~iblmdei~ Ami Sckoeb Parent-Child Center A program of Community Education and Facilities See inside for 1992-93 registration and 1992 spring miniclasses information INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 281 l(obbi~td~it Area Sckools Welcome to the Parent-ChtM Center! Newcomer Sample Classes and Registration Form .......................... Page 2 14-Week Class Registration Form .................................... Page 4 Mission Statement Goals .......................................... Page 5 General Information ............................................ Page 8 14-Week Semester Classes Description ................................. Page 10 14-Week Registration Information .................................. Page 12 1992-93 14-Week Class Schedule .................................. Page 14 Dads' Classes ................................................ Page !6 Special Classes .............................................. Page 17 Family Play Times ............................................ Page 17 Just for Me and My Dad, Special Class Offerings and Play Times Registration Form ..... Page 19 Get Acquainted Open House Registration Form ......................... Back cover 3 Mission Statement of Parent-Child Center An Early Childhood Family Education Program The mission of early childhood family education is to strengthen families and support the competence of all parents in providing the best possible environment for the healthy growth and development of their children. (;{)als of Parent-Child Center The goals of Parent-Child Center are: · To help parents develop informed, realistic attitudes and expec- tations about raising children and to build on personal parenting skills and techniques. To encourage parent involvement in children's learning and development by understanding and supporting children's physical, mental, social and emotional development. · To promote healthy self-esteem for both the parent and the child through awareness of effective communication skills. · To encourage healthy relationships between parents and children by learning and being together. · To help prevent child abuse, family violence and other negative family outcomes. What Parents Say: "I feel this is a very positive, educational program for my child and myself. It is a very good support program for parents.' ' What Parents Say: "I have enjoyed the program and have learned a lot. My children have also enjoyed the class, teacher and interaction with other children." · T° help parents experience a sense of belonging and feelings of support among other parents. · To encourage development and utilization of community resources that promote healthy families. Discover Early Childhood Family Education For parents: · Groups which provide support, encouragement, information and opportunities to make friends. · A curriculum with a wide variety of topics: discipline: living with toddlers; temper tantrums, self-esteem and bedtime. A place to learn about the development of young children. discuss parenting joys and concerns, and get information on ho~ children grow and learn. · Ideas for activities to do with children. · Help in finding ways to enjoy being with your child and under- stand his or her needs. A program that presents ideas that encourage parents to feel good about themselves and their role as parents of young children. For children: · Warm, comfortable rooms designed for infants, toddlers and preschoolers with age-appropriate equipment and activities. 6 For Opportunities to play with other children the same age. A curriculum designed for young children by early childhood teachers that encourages social, emotional, physical and intellec- tual development. Thinking skills are developed by helping children make choices and decisions in the classroom. Creative expression is encouraged through music, art, movement and language. A learning environment with hands-on activities where children learn through play. the family: Parent-child activities in art, music, movement and field trips to places of interest for young children. Activities to do with children at home. Gym nights, special events, fall celebrations and a spring party. A library of children's books and parent books. Guest speakers on a variety of topics. Dad's classes, Mom's and Dad's Night Out classes, multi-age family classes, single parent classes, evening classes, play-and- learn classes. What Parents Say: "I really enjoy our programs at Parent-Child Center. There is a lot of variety and different opportunities for our whole family." General Information What Parents Say: "I have been very pleased with the education I receive in basic parenting -- my child is thriving." The center's programs are located at: Parent-Child Center and Office Cavanagh Early Childhood Center 5400 Corvallis Avenue North Crystal. MN 55429 (612) 537-2270 Parent-Child Place Wynmor Estates 6459 Zane Avenue North. Apt. 5 Brooklyn Park, MN 55429 (612) 537-4705 Parent-Child Center RHS Resource Center 3730 Toledo Avenue North Robbinsdale, MN 55422 (612) 588-2228 Even Start Thorson Family Resource Center 7323 58th Avenue North Crystal, MN 55428 (612) 533-1573 The Parent-Child Center is District 281's early childhood family education program (ECFE). The center's programming focuses on the family with an emphasis on parent education. Information for parents is provided through group discussion, parent-child activities and an age-appropriate early ~hildhood program for children. The Parent- Child Center supports the important role of the family in the develop- ment of the child. Tuition is charged based on a sliding-fee scale determined by family income. No one will be excluded because of inability to pay. Fees may be waived for any individual or family in need of financial assistance to cover the early childhood family education class fee. See pages 10 and 15 for further description, schedule and registration in- formation, or call 537-2270 for more information. Parent-Child Center office hours'are 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, August 24, 1992, through June 11, 1993, and every Wednesday morning, 9 a.m.-12 noon throughout the summer. The Parent-Child Center is closed for all school holidays and winter, spring and summer breaks. Parent-Child Place The Parent-Child Place offers parents information and support in finding ways to cope with the difficult job of raising children. Living on a limited income may add an additional challenge to parenting. The Parent-Child Place apartment program offers activities where children from birth to kindergarten-entrance age play and learn. Parents have time to talk, share concerns and get information about other resources in the community, such as health care, housing and other emergency assistance programs. No fee is charged. For more information, call 537-4705. 8 Paren! 1o Parent Program The Parent-Child Center offers free, one-to-one home visits to District 281 parents who have children between the ages of birth and five years. The purpose of these visits is to offer in-home support and information to families raising young children. Parent volunteers have been trained to work with other parents who would benefit from a home visit. Home visits are once a week for one hour. If you think your family could benefit from the support and information gained ?rom a one-to-one home visit or if you would like to be a parent volunteer, call 537-2270. Ex eh Start -- Family Literacy Program Even Start provides integrated educational services to parents and their children between the ages of one and seven years, and serves families from Chapter I attendance areas of Forest, Lincoln, Meadow Lake, New Hope and Northport Elementary Schools. Licensed teachers assisted by volunteers work with each family to develop and implement a family education plan focusing on parenting skills, academic skills for parents and developmentally appropriate skills for children. Families cannot participate for just one component -- they must be eligible for and involved in all three. No fee is charged. Call Thorson Family Resource Center, 533-1573, for more information. Earl~ Childhood Special Education Parent~child groups for families who have children with special needs, birth to age five, are available for District 281 families. For more information, call 535-9427. Kindergarten Connection/Visitation Kindergarten Connection/Visitation is a program to help bridge the gap from home to school for District 281 families who have children entering kindergarten in September 1993. No fee is charged. Between February and May 1993, parents and their prekindergarten child -- without sibling(s) -- will have an opportunity to attend four weekly evening sessions from 6:30-8 p.m. at their neighborhood school. In- formation/registration brochures are available at any of the District 281 elementary schools, District 281 Administration Building lobby, Preschool Screening Center and the Parent-Child Center. For more information, contact your neighborhood school or call the Parent- Child Center, 537-2270. Special E~ ents Special events are offered for District 281 residents that include field trips, January family events and one-time class offerings. Exact dates and times will be published in the community education publication 77~e Programmer. What Parents Say: "Parent-Child ECFE is a wonderful, helpful, supportive educational program. It helps us to be positive parents." 9 'Dads' Classes For District 281 residents only -- See page 19for registration form. What Parents Say: "The Parent-Child Center is a wonderful program. It has put me in touch with myself and taught me how to be the best parent I can possibly be! I recommend it to everyone in the area with small children." Just for Me and My Dad Join us for our discussion-interaction classes. Enjoy focused time with your child as well as with other fathers to discuss parenting issues important to you. Six-12 months Semester I (seven weeks) W October 28-December 16 Semester II (seven weeks) W March 17- May 5 Cavanagh, room 23 Cavanagh, room 23 Maximum -- 10 children $14 6:30-7:30 p.m. $14 6:30-7:30 p.m. One-year-olds Semester I (seven weeks) W September 9-October 21 Semester II (seven weeks) W January 27~March 10 Cavanagh, room 23 Cavanagh, room 23 Maximum -- 10 children $14 6:30-7:30 p.m. $14 6:30-7:30 p.m. Two-year-olds Semester I (seven weeks) Th October29- December 17 Semester II (seven weeks) Th March 18-May6 Maximum -- 10 children $12 Cavanagh, rooms 21/22 6:30-7:30 p.m. $12 Cavanagh, rooms 21/22 6:30-7:30 p.m. Three-five-year-olds Semester I (seven weeks) Th September 10-October 22 Semester II (seven weeks) Th January 28-March 11 Maximum -- 12 children $21 Cavanagh rooms 21/22 6:30-8 p.m. $21 Cavanagh rooms 21/22 6:30-8 p.m. Dads" Play ~Tghts Two-five years Maximum -- 15 children Open playtime for dads and their children. Come and have fun playing together in the Parent-Child Center, room 22. Fees can be waived. Preregistration required. $2 per family, per time Choose one or more. Cavanagh, room 21 6:30-7:30 p.m. Tuesday, September 15, 29, October 13, 27, November 10, 24, December 8. 16 Special Classes For District 281 residents only -- See page 19for registration form. Cahning A Fussy Baby Birth-five months Maximum 12 families Come and learn new ideas for dealing with your baby's fussy periods. One of the techniques presented will be infant massage which may relieve tension and relax your baby. Choose one class. Semester I $2/one-time class W September 30 Cavanagh, room 23 1-2 p.m. W October 21 Cavanagh, room 23 2:45-3:45 p.m. W November 18 Cavanagh, room 23 2:45-3:45 p.m. Semester II $2/one-time class W February 17 Cavanagh, room 23 2:45-3:45 p.m. W March 24 .Cavanagh, room 23 2:45-3:45 p.m. W April 21 Cavanagh, room 23 2:45-3:45 p.m. Cmtples' Night Out For couples with children, birth-five years Maximum -- 24 adults Maximum -- 15 children for child care How to "parent" and stay friends. In this class we will examine parenthood together. Class topics will give parents a chance to talk, problem solve, gain sup- port and information on parenting and family issues. Some topics may include: · What to do when mom and dad don't agree. · Mom's/dads' role -- whose turn is it? · How to keep love in your life! · Family together time, balancing work, family and others 7 weeks $14/adult $14 per child for child care T September 15-October 27 Cavanagh, room 21 6:30-8 p.m. Family Play Times For District 281 residents only -- See page 19 for registration form. Family Come and Play i'~¥ghts Parents and children, two-five years old Maximum 10 children A time for parents and children to enjoy each other's company. Open playtime will be in the Parent-Child Center, room 22. Fees can be waived. Preregistration is required. $2 per time, per family Choose one or more Cavanagh, room 22 6:30-7:30 p.m. Tuesday September 22, October 6, 20, November 3, 17, December 1, 15 17 Family Play Times continued What Parents Say: "Parent-Child Center is a great program for all parenting skills and developing positive self-esteem in mom, dad and child! It's a special something my son calls his 'own' school and loves it!" Family Come and Ha.5' Daytimes Parents and children, two-five years old Maximum 20 children Parents and children come and have fun together. Open playtime will be in the Parent-Child Center, rooms 22 and 24. Fees can be waived. Preregistration is required. $2 per time, per family Choose one or more Cavanagh, rooms 22 and 24 Tuesday September 15, 22, 29 October 6, 13, 20, 27 November 3, 10, 17, 24 December 1. 8, 15 Thursday September 17, 24 October 1, 8, 15. 22, 29 November 5, 12, 19 December 3, 10, 17 2-3 p.m. Family Gym Nights Parents and children two-five years old Maximum 25 children The gym is open for families with preschoolers to come and play. Put on your tennis shoes and warm-up suits and join us. No black-soled shoes or stocking feet ple.ase. Preregistration is required. $2 per time, per family Choose one or more Cavanagh, gym 6:30-7:30 p.m. Monday November, 2, 16, 30, December 14 January 11, 25, February 8, 22, March 8, 22, April 19 Tuesday November 10, 24, December 8 January 5, 19, February 2, 16, March 2, 16, 30, April 27 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: Request: Location: Zoning: Petitioner: Date: 87-13 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Parent-Child Center in an R-4 Zone 8421 59th Avenue North R-4 School District #281/Dr. Carroll Vomhoff June 2, 1987 BACKGROUND Independent School District #281 has requested that a conditional use permit be auithorized to continue the Parent-Child Center at the apartment building located at 8421 58th Avenue NO~th. A conditional use permit was authorized for this purpose on November 10, 1986 subject to: 1. The parking lot be re-striped, and/or ® If parking next to the building occurs, that curbing be installed as a preventative measure. e ANALYS I S The City has received very positive response regarding this center in the apartment complex. City staff has observed cars parked next to the building which allows exhaust fumes to go into the building. This center meets all requirements established by Section 4.074 of the New Hope Code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to operate a parent-child center at 8421 58th Avenue North, Apt. #3, with the following conditions: 1. That the parking lot be striped by October 1, 1987; That concrete bunkers be installed to prevent parking next to the buildings; 3. That staff review the permit on an annual basis. Attachment: Site Plan (10-16-86) ''; 5 ":'.. · CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING COmmISSION MINUTES June 2, 1987 Call To Order Roll Call Planning Case 87-11 Plats'ting Case 87-13 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope Tuesday, June 2, 1987 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401Xylon Avenue North The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cameron at 7:3~ p.m. Roll Call was Taken: was held on Present: Anderson, Lutts(arrived at 7:33 Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja(arrived at 7:35 p.m.) Absent: None p.m.), Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Jeannine Dunn, ~ministrative Assistant,stated that the petitioners in Case 87-11 had requested that the case be tabled until the meeting of July 7, 1987. Motion by Co~missioner Gundershaug to table Planning Case 87-11 until the meeting of July 7, 1987. Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich,Cameron, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: Lutta, Oja Motion carried. Lonnie Grabham, represented the petitioner~"~213. She stated that she was accompanied by Mr. Harry Lebow, owner of the building. They were requesting renewal of their existing Conditional Use Permit to allow a parent-child center in Apartment %3 at 8421 58th Avenue North. She noted that the center was sponsored by District %281. C~issioner Lutts asked about the striping of the parking lot, which had been a condition of the approval for the center in 1986-877 Ms. Grabham stated that the target date for that re-striping had been changed to October 1, 1987 at the Council meeting. She added that she did wish the issue discussed at the present meeting, because if there were going to be a problem with the parking lot, she wanted to know this prior to signing a new lease for the 1987-88 school year. Co~missioner Lutts said one problem had been the parking up close to the building and the need for curbs to prevent cars frem being too close to the building, and creating a hazard with exhaust fumes. Ms. Grabham said she felt the comission/city should talk to Mr. Lebow about this problem. Chairman Cameron stated that the problem was not with the program, or the tenant, but with the owner of the building. He requested that Mr. Lebow come to the front and speak with the Con~aission. Mr. Lebow said he had been told last May to re-stripe the lot, but was then told to keep it the same'way. He has had some of the blacktop sealed, and has just completed some landscaping and is now ready to do the re-~triping. To his knowledge the striping will be done the same way as it now exists. Mr. Lebow said he wes all set to do the re-striping in one week and there will be enough parking space for all of the buildings. Chairman Cameron asked about the curbing? Mr. Lebow asked why they needed curb? The cars park t~ long way, not toward the buildings. Last spring it had been talked about to move the curb and put the parking away from the buildings. He questioned how the snow plow would get near the building to remove the snow if there were curbs -- no one drives up to the buildings. Chairman Cameron asked what prevented cars from driving right up to the buildings? Mr. Lebow said they only parked five or ten minutes if they did that. If people park close to the buildings, they leave them a note. Chairman Cameron confirmed that at the present time the asphalt ran right up to the building -- so cars could conceivably park right next to the buildings. Mr. Lebow said they did not allow this. Chairman Cameron noted that they did not have 24 hour observance of the site. Mr. Debow stated this had been talked about for three years -- if people parked ~. the buildings, the managers either left ther~ a note or called the police. Chairman Cameron asked what the city's position on this curb issue was? Ms. Dunn stated that staff now felt that curbs should be installed -- cars have been observed by city inspectors parking next to the building. Chairman Cameron asked whether Mr. Lebow was planning to install the curbs? Mr. Lebow sa id no. There was no one present in regard to this case. C~issioner Lutts asked Ms. Grabham is the parent-child center had been going well? She said yes, felt it had been a real benefit for the families and as they worked as a referral agency. They are c~mmitted to keeping the apartment program going. They would like to stay in this location. Mr. Lebow said he could not see the benefit of putting in curbing. He was also concerned about other construction no longer being "grandfathered in" if he made these changes. Ms. Dunn stated that the apartment is legally non conforming, and that if there were major changes made to the building, the owner would be required to bring the entire complex into full compliance with the Code. Mr. Lebow questioned how the snow plow could get up to the building if there were curbs installed. Co~%missioner Gundershaug asked why they needed to get that close to the buildings? He could not see how installing curbs could ever be a problem to snow plowing. He asked why the owner could not use four foot curbs, placed 15 feet away from the building -- they then could plowbehind the curbing? Mr..Lebow asked about the other buildings, where the parking is parallel? Co~r~issioner Gundershaug asked whether Mr. Lebow would have any objections to installing the four foot concrete curbs. Mr. Lebow said he could at the two buildings where the cars face the building. The cars are parked parallel on 58th Avenue. Con~issioner Gundershaug confirmed that Mr. Lebow was agreeing to install the four foot concrete bumpers. Mr. Lebow asked how the cars were supposed to get into the parking area, if the curbs were blocking the entrances? Commissioner Gundershaug said that the Con~ission/City was concerned about cars being able to park too close to the buildings. Con~issioner Edwards asked whether the petitioner could provide a detailed plan of the parking lot, showing the proposed striping, as well as the placement of the curbing, prior to the Council meeting? Ms. Dunn noted that the illustration in the Co~nission packets was a sketch that had been amended by city staff. City staff has not seen or reviewed the plan for re-striping that Mr. Lebow was now proposing. Discussion continued between Mr. Lebow and the Co~issioners regarding the proposed striping layout, and where the curbs could be located. In response to a question from the cor~nissioners, Ms. Grabham said that the parent-child center was located on the lower level, at their reguest, and that usually there were no more than six adults with accompanying children there at any one time. She added that she would be concerned if there were snow piled up four feet by the windows during the winter. Discussion continued about the possibility of tabling this case for a month. Commissioner Anderson said it was his opinion that if the city were to allow the situation with the parking, and no curbing, to continue, it would be hazardous to the children. He could not support this Conditional Use Permit. Planning Case 87-14 Discussio~ continued regarding the deadline for re-signing a lease, and the need for the parking/curbing situation to be resolved. Chairman Cameron said one way would be to pass the case forward to Council with the provision that Mr. Lebow provide the city staff with a detailed plan, showing the exact striping layout, and where ha will install the four foot curb bumpers, prior to the Council meeting. Mr. Lebow asked if the curbs had to be continuous or the barrier type? He felt it would be feasible to install curbs by two of the buildings. He asked whether he could put the curbs right up to the buildings? Chairman Cameron said that wherever he had the stripes (15 feet from the building) that is where the curbs would have to be, to stop the cars from getting too close to the building. Commissioner Sonsin said that if the parking issue was not resolved prior to the case going to the City Council he could not support the CUP. He would want there to be a firm plan approved by the city staff before the case proceeded to Council. Co~missione.r Lutts made a m~_tion r~nd' ~e~.-~a~m'~a~eo-a 9~n '~n~e'~~~~d be imstall~d, prior to ~n:~.~m{ic,2~ ccmuissioner Gundershaug second. Conm~issioner Oja asked if the Con~ission did not want to include a time deadline for the completion of the striping and curb ir~tallation? She felt the work should be done by a specific time. Co~iss{oner Anderson said he would prefer that the case be held over until the July meeting. Cc~anissioner Oja amended the motion, stipulating that the parking lot striping and installation and placing of the curbing be completed in 30 days, with the petitioner suk~nitting a detailed plan for the striping and curbs to the city staff prior to the Council meeting. Co~nissioner Edwards second. Voting in favor: Lutts, Sonsin, Frierich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Voting against: Anderson Motion carried. Voting on the amended motion: Voting in favor: Lutts, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Voting against: Anderson . Moti~ .car:ied. ' Mrs. Sally Kolian, the ~etitioner in Case 87-14, stated that she was requesting a variance to allow her to install an air conditioner in her sideyard. This location is preferable because of the location of the furnace, and the fact that it would allow wiring to be run through an existing close, and not have to be on the exterior of the house. Con~issioner Lutts asked why the unit could not be installed in the rearyard? Ms. Kolian said there were two rear entrances to the home, one from the family room and one from an area that was once an apartment but is now bedrooms for her children. She would also like to make the mOst use of her back yard. The location of the house on the lot would make it difficult to install the air conditioner in the rearyatd. The air conditioner would not be visible from the road and could also be concealed by bushes or shrubs. She did not feel she wanted it to be fenced. Chairman Cameron asked how close the neighbor's house would be to the air conditioning unit? Mrs. Kolian said she could only estimate. Her house is 15 feet from the lot line, then there is the neighbor's garage and a driveway and fence. She thought the rooms of the neighbor's house would be at least 20 feet from the lot line. Chairman Cameron confirmed that the neighbors had expressed no problem with the placement of the air conditioner. PIANNING CASE 87-13 ~he Mayor introduced for consideration Plannin~.~:mse 87-13 CONDITI~ USE submit~ by School District No. 281/Dr. Carroll Vcmhoff 8421 58~H AVE. N. requesting conditional use permit to allow Parent Child Center Item 8.2 in an R-4 zone at 8421 58th Avenue North. The A~hlistrative Assistant was recognized by tb~ Mayor and advised that the conditional use permit was granted last year to allow the Parent Child Center to operate at 8421 58th Avenue North, Apartment 3. She noted that the petitioner was a~d Ms. ~e Gr~hh~m with School District 281. Ms. Dunn cont/numd by stating that the Planning C~,.~ission ~ed the property owner submit a parking lot site plan to staff prior to the issue com/r~ before the Council. She advised that the plan has not ~ su~mi~ and staff ~ecc~J~s the planning case be t~bled for two weeks. The Mayor suggested that Counc~ approve t~ planning case subject to staff receiving the parking lot site plan so the petitioner would not have to ccme back before Council. Counci~ Enck asked Mr. Lskow if there was a problem since the plan was not suhmi~ to staff. Mr. Lebow, owner of the apartment building at 8421 58th Avenue North, was recognized and stated that at the Planning C~m~ission meeting he agreed to re-stripe tb~ parking lot. He noted that the Plann/ng C~ission allowed 30 days to stripe the parking lot and installation of curbing. Mr. Lebow distributed copies of the notice to the apartment tenants on the re-striping of the parking lot. He advised that the re- striping of the parking lot was scheduled for June 9, 1987, and the concrete blocks would be ~led within two weeks. ~ouncilmember Enck stated that approval of the planning case should be subject to submission of par.king lot site plans for staff review and approval; completion within 30 days; and the use of Apartment 3, as a Parent. Child Center, be subject to annual review by staff. New Hope City Counc~ Page 4 J%lne8, 1987 ~~?~ Ccunc~ Enck introduced the following resolution and CC~D~ t~E moved its adoption:~5~E~~~%~fj~ .C~%SE P~R~T~.C~Tn.~-i~ A (I~DIT/C~AL ~SE PERMIT TO ~T~ OPERATION OF A - ~ TO CERI~IN CZ~qDIT/C~.- The motion for the adoption of tb~ foregoing resolution was seconded by' Councilmember Otten, ~ upon vote bein~ taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, Often, Williamson; and the following vot_~d_ against the same: None; absent: Daly; whereupon the resolution was declared ..duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. PIANNING CASE 87-14 Next introduced for consideration was Planning Case 87-14 VARIANCE submitted by Sally Kolian requesting variance in the required 3231 FLAG ODtTRT N. location of accessory equipment at 3231 Flag Court North. Item 8.3 Ms. Dunn was recognized and stated that the Planning Commission on JtIne 2, 1987, reo~Lm~nded approval of the pl~ case. She noted that the petitioner, Sally Kolian, was present to answer any questions Council may have. The Mayor read a letter presented by the petitioner as follows: "To whom it may concern: MS. Sally ~olian has petitioned the City to be permitted to install an air conditioning compressor on the north side of her home. We are the i~te property owner, residing at 3235 Flag Court and wish it be known that we support her request and have no obj.ection. We certainly hope that her request will be granted and that she will be allowed to proceed in the very near future." MOTION RESOLUTION 87-78 VARIANCE 3231 ~ (IYJR~ NO. /s/ James W. Greenlee, Fn. D. Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Counci~ Williamson, to accept as a part of the record the letter James W. Greenlee. Ail present voted in favor. Ccunc~ Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: '~ESOI/IT/ON APPROVINS PLANN/NG CASE NO. 87-14 ~EQ~ESTING VARIANCE IN ~m~u~w~io IDCATION OF A~ ]~ AT 3231 FL~ S~ TO S(:~RFNING OF AIR CC~D~~ %~rfT." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Often, and upon vote being takan thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, Otten, Williamson; and the following voted ~gainst the same: None; New Hope City Council Page 5 June 8, 1987 Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: o Se o o 92-21 Request CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT for a Front Yard Setback Variance to Allow a Garage Addition 2800 Boone Avenue North 19-118-21-43-0012 R-1 (Single Family Residential) Harry Wong July 31, 1992 August 4, 1992 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a front yard setback variance to allow a 21' x 22' garage addition to existing structure, pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of New Hope Code of Ordinances. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 420 square foot attached double garage to the west side of the existing house (in front of the existing garage) and convert the existing garage to living area. The New Hope Zoning Code imposes a greater front yard setback along heavily used collector streets or thoroughfares, including Boone Avenue, where the minimum setback requirement is 50 feet, rather than the usual 30 feet required for setback distance. The existing structure is set back 51 feet 6 inches from the front yard property line, and the proposed garage addition will extend out 21 feet 4 inches from the front of the house, therefore the proposed front yard setback would be 30 feet 2 inches. The Zoning Ordinance calls for a 50-foot front yard setback on Boone Avenue, therefore a 19 foot 10 inch variance (rounded up to. 20 feet) is needed. The existing structure meets all required setbacks (front/rear/side yards). The proposed garage addition will have brick veneer (face brick) to match the lower level of the home, matching roof pitch and asphalt shingles, and matching cedar facia. Surrounding land uses/zoning include R-1 Single Family Residential on the north/east/ south/west with Sunny Hollow School and Park located across Boone Avenue to the southwest. No change in the existing curb cut or driveway is proposed and the driveway length would be 31 feet (plus boulevard), similar to most other properties in the City. The topography of the site is flat. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent the reasonable use of the property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Planning Case Report August 4, 1992 Page -2- 92-21 2. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 3. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: A. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connection. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 4. A hardship could be determined in this case because the existing home could not be expanded with a similar-sized addition in the front, rear, or side yards without a variance. 5. Many homes in the City were not built to meet the stricter 50-foot setback along thoroughfares, or were constructed prior to the adoption of this setback, resulting in a mix of setbacks for structures. 6. The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the "50-foot setback along thoroughfares" issue in Planning Case 77-90, where a homeowner across the street at 3025 Boone Avenue requested an identical variance 15 years ago (see staff exhibit). At that time the consensus was that a decision to approve the variance would have the effect of reducing the front setbacks all along Boone Avenue to 30 feet, however, no controversy or flood of variance requests resulted from that action. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a 20-foot front yard setback variance at 2800 Boone Avenue North for purposes of constructing a garage addition no closer than 31 feet from the front yard property line, pending public comment, subject to the following condition: 1. The property owner should confirm that the dwelling is and will continue to be used as a single family dwelling with one common household and shared cooking/living facilities. Attachments: Section Map Topo Map Site Plan Certified Survey West/South/North Roof Plan Floor Plan Excerpt/Planning Elevations Case 77-90 $ AV WISCONSIN &v SITE PLAN OECLAP, ATION I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER.Lq p~ ,~,~ ~ ,-,..OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE & TE: -- NorD_D: AVE. N. / = $ ~ : ,O : : DATE: November 1, 1977 CASE: 77-90 PETITIONER: Warren/Dorothy Jorenby REQUEST: Variance LOCATION: 3025 Boone Avenue STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: The petitioners are proposing to add a 20 x 22 foot garage in front of their existing home. The home is on Boone Avenue which requires a 50 foot front setback. The proposed garage would extend to within 28 feet of the front lot line. While not stated in the application, it is assumed that the existing single car garage is to be converted into living space. The 28 feet of setback is only two feet less than the normal 30 feet required on streets other than major arterials. There are, of course, many homes in the City that have a projection of one kind or another that extend a couple of feet into the setback, including three or four garages that have received variances over the past years. This case will probably set the stage for additional requests since this is the only type of expansion possible for many of the homes in the City. It is, therefore, most important to provide a carefull review. If this is permitted it would in effect change the setback on Boone. The extra setback on major arterials is generally justified on two counts. First lis that it provides space for future widening if and when necessary. Secondly, the setback removes the home to some small degree from traffic noise, smell, etc. The basic question is really if these are still valid reasons for maintaining the setback. Since the lot is now used in full compliance with the ordinance, it is able to have all the development rights other lots in the same district and situation do, there is no hardship involved. -1- PLANNING CASE 77-90 6. PLANNING CASE 77-90 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN FRONTYARD SETA%CK AT 3025 BOONE AVENU~ - WARREN AND DOROTHY JORENB¥, PETITIONERS. Mr. Jorenby stated they wished to make some changes to their home and it had seemed to the~ that the simplest way was to use the existing single garage for living space and were requesting the 22 foot vari- ance to allow them to add a garage at the front of the house. In answer to a question from Con~nissioner Atchley about the possibility of putting the addition on the rear of the house, Mr. Jorenby noted that the architect had not recommended it, stating they would lose too much natural light and it would be more expensive. He noted that he had spoken to the immediate neighbors -- the one to the .'outh was in favor and the one to the north he felt had mixed feelings about the project. Mr. Jorenby stated that the siding, roof line, pitch of the roof would all match the existing home. Commissioner Anderson raised the issue of the setback on Boone and the fact that this was a different type of request because it would in effect change the 50 foot se=back presently in force on Boone Avenue which is a major arterial. This would be, in his opinion, a fairly significant change. Commissioner Atchl~y questioned what the street width was now and asked what the dimensions would be, should Boone Avenue ever need to be widened? Mr. Reimer, the Director of Protective Inspections,~tated he thought that Boone was now 60 feet wide and noted that when Winnetka had been widened, his property had lost seven feet to the street. Commissioner Bartos coam~nted that it was his opinion that the City could go up to 75 feet for the width of the street - this would come extremel~ close to the structure if the variance were granted. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether Boone would ever be widened, since Winnetka and Highway #18 were so close. Mr. Jorenby noted that Boone began to curve away from his lot at the south end and noted that the house on the corner of 30th~Boone was located only 30 feet from the street. It was determined that this house did not front on Boone and the 30 feet was a sideward setback. Discussion then centered on the size of the variance and that the traditional reason for granting a vari- ance was that there was some hardship involved. Commissioner Anderson noted that a persuasive case had been made for granting a 22 foot variance. Commissioner Bartos noted that in the past the variance requests ha~ usuall~ been for 1-4 feet and this was a much larger request. Co~issioner London noted that each request had to be considered separately. Commissioner Atchle~ made a motion to recommend denial of Case 77-90 due to the fact that there had not been a hardship proven, other than the fact that the ~etitioner would like for economic reasons and con- venience, to build his ~ara~e toward the front o~ the srosert~. Commissioner London second. Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Atchley, Cameron, Andersom Voting against: None Absent: C~ristensen, Gustafson, Gundershaug. Motion carried. ,~_ _ /- '7 ? /~ Mr. Jore~bg co~ed tha~ he had been treated well bg the Cit~, but fel~ tha~ it migh~ he practical to make future petitioners aware earlw t2ta= there were certain screens in =he Ci~9 that ha4 d/fferent setback restrictions tha~ norm41, j?C_ //' / - '? U J'~! ¸4. Planninq Case No. 77-90) request from Warren and Dorothy Jorenb¥, 3025 Boone Avenue North, for a variance in ~rontyard setback to permit a garage addit'i~n to ~ront of their ho~ ~ come within 28 feet of the lofTih~, was considered by the Council. Mr. Warren Jorenby appeared. He said that the variance was needed to permit the double garage addition and that he would be agreeable to a 30 foot rather than the 28 foot setback originally requested. He said that he had not been aware of the 50 foot setback requirement on Boone. Discussion followed as to the width of the pavement on Boone and whether future widening of the street was a possibility. It was noted that Boone had been striped for bicycle use which restricts traffic to a single lane, that Boone is primarily, a residential street and the need for widening Boone did not appear prob~ble.~'~6/~C ~' /~ //-/~/~/72, -2- PLANNING CASE 77-90 Upon question as to utilization of the existing garage, Mr. Jorenby said that it would be converted to living quarters. Further discussion followed as to setback of the neighboring homes, feelings of the neighbors, and whether consideration should be given to a code amendment· Mr. Jorenby said that he would like to start construction this year. Motion. by Councilperson Pl ufka, second by Councilperson Otter ~__~b]_e_Pj~nn_in~C~s~.~o. 77-90_ .until the meetinq of November 28, 1977 and askiQg th~9_t~_~e_r__tq_.~ut_a_~o~.p~_stakes ~_~b~y~rd to .i~d~_~a~e_t~_e__3P f__oot se~ba~ck lipe____and to can_v~ss his nej~gbb~rs by~e~j.~io~ as to thei~ feelings on the encroachment. Voting in favor: Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Otter, Plufka. Voting against: None. Motion carried. Councilperson Enck asked that staff review the setback requirements for Boone Avenue and the number of requests which could be anticipated for setback variances along Boone. The Mayor acknowledged the group of Boy Scouts in attendance at the meeting, this being Troop 405 from First Lutheran Church of Crystal. ?C~ 6i x~ (~ / ~ /,/_ /~/_ ~ ? ~?~ ~9 PUBLIC HEARINGS Plannln Case No 7- request from Warren and Dorothy Jorenby, 3025 Boone Avenue North, · g . ~ .... -~-~ e~ ~ermit a oaraoe addition to the front of their home, ~or a variance ~n frontyard to come within 30 feet of t~t lot line was considered by Council. (Planning Case 7?-90--tabled at meeting of November 14, 1977). Mr. Warren Jorenby appeared. He presented written statement from four of his neighbors: Mary & Linne johnson, Mr. and Mrs. James Brunelle, Mrs. Gerald Quenemoen, and Louis A. Doerr. The statements were in support of the requested variance. Motion by Councilperson Enck, second by Councilperson Otter to accept statements from jorenby's. ne~ors and placing them on file. Voting in favor: Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Otter, Plufka. Voting against: None. Motion carried. No one appeared in regard to this case. The petitioner stated that the garage ~iding would match the masonite siding now on the house as would the shingles and the roof line. It is intended .that the addition match the house identically. MotiOn by Councilperson Otter, second by Councilperson Hokr grantino variance in front yard ~k ~? ~~!~a~e~hne front of the house at 3025 Boone Avenue North, Lot 13, BlOck 3, West Winnetka Park 2nd Addition~th-~--~a~-~o~ ~w~30 feet of the front lot line. Voting in favor: Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Otter, Plufka'. . Voting against: None. Motion carried. Adaress SLAB LOCATION AND BUILDING PERMIT SLIP City or Village Work Phone Countour of lot At Garage Site Permit to be obtained by: Permit No. Addition Fiat Home Days Garage Size Gradual Miles Lot No. Home Phone ~-~,'t~ - ~ ~ 71 Home Evenings Steep Slope Customer Block No. Lot Size [] Check here if alley [] Paved ~__ Not Paved Width i i , ,~ Office Copy [] Cement Copy Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 92-22 Request for Sign Variances to Allow an Off-Premise Sign on City-owned property at Comer Park and to Exceed Sign Area Requirements 47th & Winnetka Avenue North 07- ! 18-21-44-0054 R-1 (Single Family Residential) School District g281/Cooper High School July 31, 1992 August 4, 1992 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting sign variances to allow an off-premise sign to be erected on City-owned property at Comer Park and to exceed sign area requirements, pursuant to Sections 3.451 and 3.463 of the New Hope Code. Last spring the Robbinsdale Cooper High School Pride Committee addressed the City Council and requested approval of placement of a message board located on City-owned property at Comer Park at the southwest intersection of 47th and Winnetka Avenues. The proposed sign would be constructed with a brick base and a iockable polycarbonate cover to protect the message area and the sign would be financed through donations from local businesses and fund-raising efforts. Members of the Pride Committee would be responsible for maintaining the sign and monitoring displayed messages. The illuminated message board would promote school activities. Due to the fact that the high school is lOcated in a residential area and is difficult to find, the Pride Committee feels that the proposed sign would inform passersby of school and community events and also indicate the location of the school itself. The City Council was supportive of the request and passed a motion approving the message board subject to approval of final plans by the City Engineer and City Manager. The school has now made application for a sign permit. Because this is an "off-premise" sign which technically requires a variance, staff has recommended that the application be channeled through the routine approval process, thus the variance application. The proposed sign would be 4 feet in height and 8 feet in width and contain an area of 32 square feet. It would be situated on a larger monument base measuring 14 feet in length and 7 feet in height (at the tallest point). The monument portion of the sign is not calculated into the sign area calculation. The sign would be double-faced and internally illuminated within an aluminum cabinet. The cabinet would have a hinged face with a clear lexan protective lens cover and a reader board track. Variance requests: A. Off-Premise Location - Section 3.451 of the City Code states that "no sign shall be permitted which advertises a business which is not being presently conducted on the premises on which the sign is located...", thus a variance to locate a sign off of the Cooper High School premises is required to install the sign on City property. Planning Case Report 92-22 August 4, 1992 Page -2- o B. Sign Area - Section 3.463 of the City Code, "Sign Accessory to Churches, Schools or Non-Profit Institutions", states that "signs accessory to schools are permitted subject to ..no sign shah exceed 20 square feet in area". The .proposed sign is 32 square feet in area, thus a 12 square foot variance from the 20 square foot requirement is needed. The surrounding land uses/zoning include R-1 Single Family Residential to the north (across 47th Avenue), east (across Winnetka Avenue), south, and west. The topography of the site slopes sharply down towards the center on 47th Avenue and occasionally floods. The sign is proposed to be constructed on the hill on the east side of the park. The required sign setback distances are one-half the minimum setback specified in the district regulations. The minimum setbacks from Winnetka and 47th Avenues is 50 feet and 35 feet, respectively, thus the required sign setback is 25 feet from Winnetka and 17-1/2 feet from 47th. The proposed sign will comply with setback requirements. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. There may be some neighborhood opposition to the request, as the City received several phone calls and letters on this issue last fall (enclosed), however no comments have been received to date in regards to the August public hearing. e ANALYSIS The purpose of the variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent the reasonable use of the property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: B. C. D. E. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Street Connection. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. Planning Case Report 92-22 August 4, 1992 Page -3- o When considering a sign variance a finding of fact and grant of approval should be based on the following conditions: A. Unique Conditions. That the conditions involved are unique to the particular parcel of land or use involved. B. Variation Purpose. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved. C. Cause of Hardship. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the Sign Code and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel. D. Effect of Variance. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood. E. Impairment Of Light and Air. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or interfere with the function of the police and fire departments of the City. Staff does not find that the request to exceed the maximum square footage allowed by 12 square feet is significant. In fact, a sign code amendment is currently under study by the Codes & Standards Committee to address the size of signs allowed for governmental and educational entities (in conjunction with the City Hall Remodeling Project). It is very likely that a proposed code amendment to allow larger signs for governmental/ educational entities will be forthcoming for Commission/Council consideration this fall. Staff f'mds that this request for off-premise slgnage is unique due to the fact that the school is located off of the main. thoroughfare. The public's understanding of where Cooper High School is located may be greatly improved with the installation of the sign, resulting in improved traffic flow. Also, the request for the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved...it is to make the public aware of school activities. A hardship can be made because of the school's remote location for some type of directional sign, which also would serve community service or civic event purposes with the reader board. Approval of the sign should be based upon the need for a direction sign, which would differentiate the use of this park from future park sign-use requests. Issues that need to be addressed: A. Sign Maintenance - Should be school's responsibility and stated in a lease between the City and school. Maintenance should include replacement of cracked or broken parts promptly and an agreement on graffiti cleanup/sandblasting. B. Message Content/Frequency of Change - A lease might also include general guidelines for content: message should relate to civic, community, or School District sponsored events. The frequency of message change should be discussed, possibly requiring a change of message at least monthly. School should be responsible for installing/changing all messages. Also, the sign should contain a secure, locked cover on the reader board. Planning Case Report 92-22 August 4, 1992 Page -4- C. Lighting/Electrical Hookup & Costs -The frequency and times that the sign will be illuminated should be discussed and said terms incorporated into the lease; will the sign be lit through the night or turned off at night? It is the City's position that the school should be responsible for any costs involved in bringing electrical service to the sign site and for on-going electrical costs. The City Engineer has reviewed the Cooper sign installation at Comer Park and contacted NSP and addresses these issues in the attached letter. There are two options for bringing electrical service to the site and the City prefers Option 1, where NSP would provide a power pole in the park located on the south line at no cost. An electrical contractor would direct bury approximately 200 feet of wire to the sign and provide a 5-1/2 foot pole with disconnect and meter (Electrical Contractor Estimated Cost = $2,400). This option is more desirable because it does not require a power pole along Winnetka Avenue or overhead wires. D. Insurance Liability - A lease needs to address the insurance ramifications of kids climbing on the monument sign and an injury involving the sign, owned by the school but located on City park property. E. Impact on Park Users/Concerns of Park and Rec - The Director of Parks & Recreation has drafted the enclosed memo outlining concerns of that department and will be seeking input/comments from the Citizen Advisory Committee. These concerns involve sign maintenance, frequency of message change, illumination, wiring, site restoration, and utility costs. F. Concerns of Neighbors - Public comment from adjacent property owners should be incorporated into the conditions recommending approval. 10. The City staff and Council support the concept of the sign provided that an agreeable lease addressing the issues is acceptable to all parties involved. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a sign area variance and an off-premise location variance for Cooper High School to locate a directional/message board sign in Corner Park, subject to the following conditions: 1. Lease to be executed that addresses all issues between School District and City. 2. Staff recommend that the monument be redesigned to delete the 12-inch brick ledge near ground level to reduce the potential for injury. Attachments: Section/Topo Maps Sign Permit Application Sign Elevation Correspondence - School District Staff Memo Park & Rec Comments Engineer Comments -Electrical Hookup & Map Staff Exhibits - Sign Setbacks, Sign Area 5/28/91 Council Minutes Post Article Letter/Calls Re: Sign Zt. ALAND AVE:. IrAIIt'VIE W AVE. HOUSE OF LUTHERAN -- .. CHURCH 47 .--_iL 5O COOPER HIgH SCHOOL NEW HOPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 46 CfVIC CENTER laARK ,V,/// CITY HALL $1 ST. kVE. N. 4~ TH AVE. N. OIrL. 4~'11 AVE. ~--000 i , AVE AVE DRIVE <3 <3 X x 93! .2 X ~1 47TH AVENUEINORTH 928.8 ~28.5 PARK 913.8 <3 919,4X 1.3 A/ <3 0/ X <391 - ~ ~ ~ ..: ..... an~ :~e Scats o~ 'P®rmanont' $30. O0 "Special Event' ~. Sc&co iva~c (~AX~HUN: ~ DAYS) $25.00 DAT~: 97,5" 48' 3 lines of 6" Copy or 4 lines of 4" Copy SIDE ELEVATION DOUBLE FACED/INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ALUMINUM CABINET. WITH HINGED FACE WITH CLEAR LEXAN PROTECTIVE LENS COVER. WITH READER BOARD TRACK Ii ~I~COOPER BOASTERS I ] IN SDA. LE,.,!GOOPER HIGH INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 281 8230 47TH AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 5,5428 SCHOOL G. DAVID KNUTSON PRINCIPAL TELEPHONE- 533- 2551 May 15, 1991 To whom it may concern: The RCHS Pride Committee composed of student and faculty members is exploring the possibility of placing an illuminated message board on the comer of 47th and Winnetka Avenues North on land owned by the City of New Hope. We feel a high school is an asset to the community, and people should be aware of its existence. RCH~ is located in a residential area and is difficult to find. A sign such as the one proposed would not only inform the passersby of school and community events but would also indicate the location of the school itself. The Pride Committee feels this a project which will benefit all the students and faculty at RCHS as well as the community. If approval is granted, we would like to have the sign constructed during late fall 1991 for use beginning in spring 1992. Members of the Pride Committee will be responsible for the care of the area around the sign and also for monitoring the messages to be displayed. The sign will be attractive although it will be durable with a brick base and a polycarbonate cover to protect the message area. Shrubs will be used to enhance its appearance. Attached are two copies of the proposed design and site. Any assistance you can offer in helping us make tiffs project a reality will be greatly ap~redatecL Yours truly, RCHS Pride Committee Arlene Breckenridge, Administrator INS[.)ALE COOPEFI f-tlC, il-.I ~ ilJE;I ::ENDENr $( H()~)L [:ISTIII(;~' 2r'l 't',!,qO 4 zTH %¥'I--.I'I!IE SCHOOL June 10, 3.992 Mr. Bill Cragg Pascual Sign Erectors 11215 Xylon Avenue North Champlin, MN 55316 ~"' Dear Mt'. Cragg: Sharon Goodff~e )las infe."r~ me thaK ,,n,'e you h~ve ~',~[)Jet~.d the Robbinsda].e Cooper High School s~gn ?,t 47th ~.n,J ;,~i~inetka 'you ~r,= riot authorized to wire it to a city electrical sea',ice. M~s. Ooodrie was directed ty Superi. nte~'dent Li~da Pnw9]l to have you contact Dr. Carroll Vomhof when the g.[Gn has been compLet-.~. We [n turn will arrange with the City of New HoF'~ to be connecte~ to a [~owe. ~ource. Thank you! G. David Knutson Principal GDK/ag C: ASSISTAN I' PRF/C~'ALS' r.",~ v r; I~ ~.-narw~ ~, ~' rle. t .3 r..~vnn, ,(!q.? ~1, E rv,n G a, t:~ 25' eot beck fora property line / City Pa~k elgn 47TH AVE. N. Cooper High School .tv Hope CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 1, 1992 Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation Mark Hanson, City Engineer Steve $ondrall, City Attorney Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Cooper High School Sign at Corner Park You may recall that in May of 1991 the Robbinsdale Cooper High School Pride Committee made a presentation to the City Council regarding a request to locate a message board sign at Corner Park, 47th & Winnetka, to promote school activities (see attached Council minutes and news article). The council voted to approve the sign subject to final approval of the plan by the City Manager and City Engineer. We have just received final plans of the sign and a sign permit application. After discussing this with the City Manager and Building official, it is the consensus that this sign application should follow the routine Planning Commission/City Council approval process due to the fact that a variance is required for an off- premise sign. The reque$~ will be considered at the August 4th Planning Commission meeting and the August 10th City Council meeting. I would request that each of you comment on the request from your own perspective (in writing if possible) as follows: French: Parks perspective: What are the concerns that you have relative to a school sign being located in a City park? (Maintenance, upkeep, changing the message on a regular basis, trimming around the sign, illumination, etc.) Hanson: Engineering perspective: At the meeting a concern was expressed regarding the grade on the corner, additional fill, and the need for a possible storm sewer extension. Sondrall: Lease: After we receive the comments from French and Hanson, the City will need to draft a long-term lease agreement for the location of the school sign on City park property. The lease should contain certain conditions regarding cost ($0, I believe), maintenance, electrical hook-up, setbacks, purpose/use of sign (for school purposes only), etc. -2- I would like to have all this information available for the August 4th Planning Commission meeting, and I will be on vacation the week prior to that, so would appreciate it if French and Hanson could respond by July 15th so I can forward the information to Sondrall so a lease can be prepared by July 22nd. Please contact me or Doug Sandstad if you have any questions and thanks for your input. Enclosures cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building official Planning Case File 92-22 CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: July 1, 1992 TO: Kirk FROM: Shari SUBJECT: COOPER HIGH SCHOOL SIGN AT CORNER PARK My concerns and questions are as follows: · What would the site look like that the sign will be erected on? There's quite a slope right off Winnetka in that park. HoW would the area be built up and how would that affect the park, especially drainage. · Who would maintain the sign? If vandalized would that be handled right away? I can imagine that some pretty interesting signs may be put up there on occasion, (rearrangement of the letters, for instance). · Who would trim around the whole sign site and how often? This will not be a site that the City will maintain even though it is located within a park. · How often would the sign message be changed? If it's not changed often people won't read it or watch for its messages. (It's not fun to change a sign such as the one on 42nd Avenue with removable letters. It's a chore and must be assigned in order to be taken care of. Also the letters must be hand washed periodically, which is something not always thought of.) · How brightly illuminated would it be? offensive to the neighbors? Would it be · I assume that the wiring would all be underground. · I further assume that all installation and site restoration costs as well as ongoing costs including the electrical utility cost will be born by the school district. · At the risk of being redundant, I assume that the park will be put back in complete order after installation. The site must be restored completely by the school district. Bonestroo i' Rosene Anderlik & ^ssociate$ Engineers & Architects Howard A Sanfo~. PE Ke~tn A Gordon. PE RoDert R P~efferle. PE R~cnard ~ ~ster. Robe~ C Russek. A~A Jer~ A Bouraon. PE ~ark A Hanson. ~E Ted K F,e~d. PE gon~d C Burgara~. RE Thomas E Angus. PE. Agnes M Rmg, AICP M~c~ael C. Lynch. PE Jerry O Pe~zscn, PE. Gary W Monen, PE. ~an~et J Edgerton. BE. F Todd Foster. PE Ke~[h R /¢]go. PE James ~ Enge!narc~ July 16, 1992 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Attn: K/rk McDonald Re: Cooper Sign at Comer Park 47th Avenue/Winnetka Avenue Our File No. 34-Gen Dear Kirk: We have reviewed the Cooper sign installation in Comer Park. It's recommended the sign be located a mirdmum of 40' south from the south curb line along 47th Avenue not to conflict with existing underground utilities (sanitary sewer and storm sewer). The location from Winnetka Avenue shall comply with set back requirements. We have also reviewed two options for providing electrical service to the sign which are discussed below and shoWn on the attached figure. Option 1 - NSP provide power pole in park located on south line at no cost to City. Electrical contractor direct bury approximately 200' of #8 wire to sign providing pole (5' high, 6"x 6") with disconnect and meter. Electffc Contractor Estimated Cost $2400 Option 2 - NSP provide power pole adjacent to Cooper Sign with overhead wire across Winnetka Avenue at no cost to City. Electrical contractor direct bury minimum #8 wire to sign providing pole (5' high, 6"x 6") with disConnect and meter. Electric Contractor Estimated Cost $1000 Option 1 would not require a power pole along Winnetka Avenue and overhead wire across Winnetka Avenue which maybe more desirable than Option 2. 233S ~X/est Highway 36., St. Paul, Minnesota $$113 * 612-636-4600 Kirk McDonald City of New Hope July 16, 1992 Our File No. 34-Gen If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONE TROO, R S NE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Markka. Hanson MAH:dh O. A A ~ A A V r 3 lines of 6" Copy or 4 lines of 4" Copy SIDE ELEVATION DOUBLE FACED/INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ALUMINUM CABINET. WITH HINGED FACE WITH CLEAR LEXAN PROTECTIVE LENS COVER. WITH READER BOARD TRACK 3 lines of 6' Copy or 4 lines of 4' Copy SIDE ELEVATION DOUBLE FACED/INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ALUMINUM CABINET. WITH HINGED FACE WITH CLEAR LEXAN PROTECTIVE LENS COVER. WITH READER BOARD TRACK .......... ii COOPER BOASTERS CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401Xylon Avenue North Hennepin County, Minnesota 55428 Approved City Council Minutes Regular Meeting #10 May 28, 1991 St. Therese Home CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVE MINUTES OPEN FORUM New Hope City Council Page 1 The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Mayor Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Present: Erickson, L'Herault, Otten, Enck, Williamson Motion was made by Councilmember Enck, seconded by Councilmember Williamson to approve the minutes of May 13, 1991. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The Robbinsdale Cooper High School Pride Committee addressed the Council and requested approval of placement of a message board located on city-owned property at the corner of 47th and Winnetka Avenue. The Committee presented a drawing of the proposed marquee. The sign will be constructed with a brick base and a lockable polycarbonate cover to protect the message area. It will be financed through donations from local businesses and by fund-raising efforts. The Commit{ce also requested approval to connect to city lighting since the sign would be illuminated. The Council discussed the importance of maintenance of the board. The Council was informed that members of the Pride Committee would be responsible for the care of the area and for monitoring the displayed messages. Mayor Erickson stated continual maintenance of the area is vital since the sign would be located near single family residences. Councilmember Williamson inquired of the size of the marquee as it relates to the sign code. City Manager, Dan Donahue, stated according to the sign code a variance would be required for an off-premise sign, however, he did not believe the code would apply in this instance. Councilmember Enck inquired whether the 25' setback shown on the drawings applies to both Winnetka and 47th Avenue. The Committee replied that the setback applies to both streets and the drawings were done according to May 28, 1991 MOTION CONSENT BUSINESS Item 6 MOTION Consent Items BUSINESS LICENSES Item 6.1 FINANCIAL CLAIMS Item 6.2 RESOLUTION 91-91 Item 6.4 New Hope City Council Page 2 instructions by the City's Building Inspector, Doug Sandstad. Mayor Erickson inquired whether the School Board supported the message board. The Committee indicated that the School Board has given informal approval for the sign but had requested authorization from the City. before it would grant final approval. The City Engineer expressed concern regarding the grade on the corner and that additional fill may be needed. He indicated the storm sewer may need to be extended and that he would like to see the actual plans. Mr. Oonahue informed the Committee that after it receives approval by the School Board, they should arrange a meeting between the sign company and City staff to resolve engineering aspects. Motion was made by Councilmember Enck, seconded by Councilmember Otten, to approve the message board subject to approval of final plans by the City Engineer and City Manager. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Erickson introduced the consent items as listed for consideration and stated that all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be removed for discussion. Items 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, and 6.8 were removed for discussion. Motion was made by Councilmember Enck, seconded by Councilmember Otten to approveall remaining items listed under "Co.rtsent Business'. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Approval of Business Licenses. App6oval of claims for services and commodities purchased through May 28, 1991, as listed on Check Disbursement Report. Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 'RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 91-72, RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XVII (lggl) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNOS, ANO AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL'. 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, L'Herault, Otten, Enck, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; Absent: None; whereupon the May 28, 1991 Message board will tout Cooper By Sue Webber An illuminated message board to promote Cooper High School activities is being pro- posed at the corner of 47th and Winnetka Avenues in New Hope. In a May 15 letter, Arlene Breckenri,dge, assistant prin- cipal at Cooper and head of the school's 14-member Pride Committee, said, "We feel a high school is an asset to the community, and people should be aware of its existence. RCHS is located in a residen- tial area and is difficult to find. A sign such as the one proposed would not only inform the passersby of school and com- munity events but would also indicate the location of the school itself." Kelli Rourke, a junior at Cooper, member of the school's Pride Committee and student body president for 1991-92, told the New Hope City. Council May 28 that members of the committee believe the mar- quee also could be used by the city. Sophomore Amy Kienitz told the council that students will solicit local businesses for money to fund the $8,000 pro- ject. Names of donors will be placed on a placque in the foyer or school office, she said. The school also will hold fund- raisers this spring and next fall to augment money collected within the community. The message board requires approval from the New Hope City Council since it would oc- cupy a piece of city-owned land at the edge of Corner Park. "We're taking you at your word that this will never be an eyesore," said New Hope. Mayor-Ed Erickson, prior to the council's vote to approve the plan. Rourke and Cooper teacher Sharon Goodrie also appeared at the Robbinsdale District 281 School Board meeting May 30 to seek .board members' ap- proval for the project. "I recommend that we sup- port this effort," said Superin- tendent Linda Powell. The school board was expected to render a final decision on the project at its June 3 meeting. The illuminated sign will have a brick base and a .polycarbonate cover to protect the message area. Members of the Pride Committee will' be responsible for maintair~ing the area around the sign and also for monitoring the messages to be displayed. Members of the committee have informed' homeowners living adjacent to the area about their plans to erect the sign in the spring of 1992. Slap in the.face To the Editor: On Thursday, June 6 in the Star Tribune's Briefings in the Suburbs, it was reported that the New Hope City Council in the course of its fire depart- ment budget cuts denied the request for $1,000 to provide an Open House for the public to view their new fire station. As a resident and taxpayer, I see this as a slap in the face to the people of New Hope. Tbe people are the ones who voted for the new fire facility and the · :funds to accomplish its com- pletion. Now it looks as if the city council feels they don't deserve a sincere thank you. Mary Olson NEW HOPE ar Council Member, After reading an article in the Post Newspaper it appe~S that the New Hope City Council is going to approve a lighted sign on the corner of Winnetka and ~7th Avenue North. This sign would promote Cooper High School. The article claims they talked to the neighbors'but the onl one I can find that they talked to was against the sigh. As for the school taking care of the sign we the people of this neighborhood have had to fight with this school to get them to clean up the garbage that is all over the school grounds. It usually ends up in the neighbors yards. Look at all the graffiti on the school buildings that they don't seem to be able to control. How are they going to stop it from happening to this proposed sign? They can't. The students are running all over the neighborhood during the school year. They don't control that either. The former administrations did. As for the Park where this sign is supposedly going to be erected,the Cooper students abuse this park on a regular basis with graffiti and wind the swings up around the top ,so they can't be used. Just recently I called the park department,because some students had thrown a 3 lb coffee can of roofing nails all over the play area. The park supervisor came out and I helped'him pick these nails up. You can verify this with him. I witnessed this'event and stopped it. ~what.iwill-~hey ~do-to~]~h~.'~q~sed'~ign?.· 'I had tO"CaI1 ~h"e ~'c~6'oI,b'e6adse they-'w~e~no~ flying the American flag for weeks. They did put the flag up,but now they never take it down even at night which requires a light to shine on it to be proper. Highview School never flys a flag. It is easy to find the schoolas all you have to do is follow the garbage from Mc Donalds to the school. We have the pleasure of picking it up on a daily basis during the school year. Would this sign also say Robbinsdale Cooper which is not what this school was named to begin with it was E.J. Cooper High School. Why should the people be supporting Robbinsdale. Let's · start supporting New Hope as we should. Maybe we should move the Administration offices and Bus garage back to Robbinsdale and put the land back on the tax rolls. It's time we get the name Robbinsdale off our school If the city council approves this sign I can assure yov it is not with the neighbors approval. We certainly have some rights too and remember most of these homes were here before this school was built. We neighbors urge you not to approve this sign. P.J. Dag_nault ,-5/.~'~'"'"//- / ~ D.E. Hatcher MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 26, 1991 ~Ed Erickson, Mayor Dan Donahue, City Manager Valerie Leone, City~lerk~ Message Board at 47th and Winnetka Avenues North Today I spoke with Clyde Morrison who is against the message board on the corner of 47th and Winnetka; I assured him that the Mayor would be made aware of his concerns: siqn size - too large (7' tall and 14' long based on 3 to 4' footprint). location - allowing a sign in the park is establishing precedence, also, who will pay for necessary fill? maintenance - vandalism, graffiti. liqhtinq - who will pay for lighting? Taxpayers should not have to pay anything for this (especially since school is not only for New Hope students). Feels the wiring for the lighting will be an eye sore. Real estate agent said the sign will reduce market values. neiqhborhood objections - the newspaper indicated no neighbors objected to the sign; however, Mr. Hatcher made'it known that he was against it. Mr. Morrison stated he was unaware of any other residents being questioned. Felt neighbors should have been able to provide input or have a say in the matter. Overall, feels the Council made an unwise decision. Also commented to me regarding the new charge on his water bill for storm sewer ($1.25/month), and that he was against the last local street project because it was not needed and if anyone caused damage, it was the school buses. , Let me know if you wish to respond. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM July 23, 1992 Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Miscellaneous Planning Issues Development Coordinator Second Quarter Report I have enclosed the second quarter Planning & Development Report for your information. I have also enclosed the Housing Report in an effort to answer several questions that came up at the end of the June Planning Commission meeting. Fence Ordinance Amendment When the ordinance amending the fencing and screening regulations of the Zoning Code was adopted in April, the existing language in the Code regarding plantings and structures within the site triangle was inadvertently omitted. A public hearing is required for an amendment to the Zoning Code to correct the omission. Due to the fact that the omission was basically a typographical error, it is the City Attorney's position that a referral back to the Planning Commission is not necessary and that a public hearing before the Council is all that is necessary. The hearing will be conducted at the July 27th Council meeting and the Request for Action is attached for your information. City Hall Remodeling Bids on the City Hall Remodeling project will be considered at the July 27th City Council meeting. A Planned Unit Development Agreement (enclosed) has been prepared for the expansion. Electronic Industries Building You are probably aware that the City has been trying to get the Electronic Industries Building on 42nd Avenue declared as a dangerous/hazardous building so that it would either have to be repaired or torn down. Enclosed is information on the public hearings that have been taking place. This issue should be resolved at the July 27th Council meeting. K-Mart I contacted the local manager of the K-Mart store to see if any progress was being made on their previous commitment to address landscaping/parking lot issues and he indicated that no funds are forthcoming from headquarters to date. Staff is in the process of writing the headquarters directly to express the City's concerns with their lack of follow through. Winnetka Commons Outdoor Dining The City has received the attached correspondence from Winnetka Commons regarding outdoor dining and I am enclosing the same for your information. They indicate that none of the restaurants have proceeded with outdoor dining because they have been unsuccessful in coming up with a method to install non-movable bollards to rope off the seating areas that could be removed during the winter months. The owners are requesting suggestions from City staff on this issue or are requesting that we consider "weighted down" bollards versus ones that are affixed in the concrete. Commission comments? PC Miscellaneous Issues August 4, 1992 Page -2- o 10. 11. 12. Finn Construction The former Fina station at 36th & Winnetka has been demolished and construction is proceeding on the new service station/car wash/convenience store. Super America Super America has submitted the appropriate bond amount for their project at 62nd & West Broadway, but has not yet returned an executed CUP Agreement or applied for a building permit. Staff will be following this up. Frank's Site improvements at Frank's should begin soon, as they have six months from the date of approval to complete parking lot, landscaping, curb cut and other improvements. Codes & Standards Background repons on the following issues have been prepared by the Planning Consultant and reviewed by the City Attorney, so staff is prepared to conduct a Codes & Standards meeting sometime in August at the Committee's convenience. Issues to be reviewed include: A. Government sign setbacks and area requirements B. B-2 Zoning Amendment C. North Ridge Adult Day Care Zoning Change D. Side Yard Air Conditioners E. Crystal Comprehensive Plan The report on apartment sign setbacks is still in process. Apartment Conversions A large amount of background material has been assembled on the apartment conversion/moratorium issue and compiled into notebook format and submitted to the Planner. This issue will be considered for discussion later this fall after the Planner consolidates the information. If anyone is interested in reviewing the material compiled to date, please contact Lucille and she will prepare a notebook for you. Crystal Comprehensive Plan The City of Crystal has submitted a revised Comprehensive Plan to neighboring cities for review and comment. Staff has discussed this with the Planner and comments have been prepared. Staff would like Codes & Standards to review this in August so that it can be reviewed by the full Commission in September and a formal resolution passed on to the City Council. I will be on vacation fishing in Canada the week of July 27th - 31st, so all planning repons and this memo were prepared one week in advance. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Second Quarter Report The Planning Commission reviewed the following cases during the second quarter: No. of Cases Notices Sent May June 5* 102 4** 80 4** 115 *1 case carded over from March **1 case carded over from April Month Type of Request April Site/Bldg. Rev. Var.-Floor Area Var.-Bldg.Des. Var. -Sign Var. -Setback Var.-Pkg. Dist. May Site/Bldg. Review CUP Var. -Setback Var.-Green Space Var. -Pkg. June Var. -Setback Site/Bldg. Review- Var.-AC/side yard Amend CUP Number Approved Denied Withdrawn 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1(tabled) i 1 2 2 3 3 l(tabled) 1 1 1 (tabled) 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 YEAR-TO-DATE TOTALS Cond. Use Permit Variance-Setback Site/Bldg. Review Ad. Ent. Ord. Var.- Floor Area Var.-Bldg. Design 24-hour Operation Ordinance - Outdoor Dining Var. - Sign Var. - Parking Distance Var. - Green Area Var. - Parking Var. -AC in Side Yard Amend CUP APPROVED DENIED WITHDRAWN 6 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 -1- Planning/Development Issues ~'.~i~~i~ii~i- Frank's Nursery conditional use permit request for expansion of the garden novelty store for purposes of erecting a poly greenhouse, which was tabled at the March Planning Commission meeting, was continued at the April 14th meeting. New revised plans were submitted showing a number of site upgrades and incorporating recommendations from Design & Review and staff. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request, which was approved at the April 27th City Council meeting. Development Agreement prepared. Apartments requested approval of a setback variance for an identification sign at the April 14th Planning Commission meeting. Staff also recommended that a code text amendment be researched so that sign setback requirements are consistent between zoning districts. Planning Commission recommended approval of the request and directed Codes & Standards to study the issue. This request was tabled at the April 27th City Council meeting, due to questions regarding the measurement of sign areas, but was subsequently approved at a May Council meeting. ~~ii~ii~ii~~~!i~- A request for a variance to expand a non-conforming garage at 3910 Boone Avenue North was reviewed by the Commission on April 14th and tabled due to lack of a certified survey showing exact setback distances. As of this date the petitioner has not submitted a survey, but has been contacted by staff several times. property at 6109 Gettysburg Avenue, as a result of a code compliance inspection, submitted a request at the April 14th Planning Commission meeting for a variance from the parking distance from property line requirement to allow an existing curb cut and driveway to remain in place. -The Commission recommended approval, as did the Council on April 27th. o ~g~?~g~~i.i~.:.:.:.:.:.~~- The fence ordinance amendment, which was researched and recommended by Codes & Standards and staff, was presented to the Planning Commission on April 14th. The purpose of the amendment was to clarify existing regulations and to make the language more consistent with other city ordinances. The Commission recommended approval of the amendment and the Council approved the text change at the conclusion of their April 27th public hearing. ~i'~ the City Council passed a Resolution Authorizing a Planning Study to Consider the Impact of Apartment Conversions Increasing the Number of Bedrooms Per Unit and Authorizing an Interim Moratorium Ordinance Pending Study. The staff expressed a concern about the number of conversions taking place and the impact on loss of amenities and the impact on other City facilities. The Council approved a one-year moratorium on conversions and this issue is currently under study by the Planning Consultant and staff. Background information has been obtained and when a draft report/ordinance is prepared it will be forwarded to Codes & Standards for review input. -2- o 10. 11. 12. ~~iiiii~~iiiiii~~iiiiii~iiii~~iiii~i- On May 5th the Planning Commission considered a request for a conditional use permit to allow outdoor dining at Winnetka Commons Shopping Center (this was the first application considered under a new ordinance to allow and regulate such uses). The Commission recommended approval Subject to a number of conditions, as did the City Council on May 1 lth. ~i~ii~~g- The Planning Commission considered a request by J.R. Jones Fixture Company for a conditional use permit, variances and site/building plan review to allow for the construction of an 8,500 square foot 2-story warehouse addition at 3216 Winnetka Avenue North on May 5th. The Commission recommended approval, including a 33 stall variance to the parking requirements. The Council approved the request on May llth and modified the action by granting a deferred parking conditional use permit instead of a variance, with the petitioner to submit revised plans showing the deferred parking area. A Development Agreement has been forwarded to the petitioner for execution. ~~ii~~i~~iii~~i - The City is considering a front and rear addition to the existing City Hall to meet American Disabilities Act requirements and to create needed office space and the plan was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration on May 5th. The office addition will require a minimal number of increased parking spaces (14) and the City sought approval of a deferred parking conditional use permit so that the spaces would not need to be constructed unless deemed necessary. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requests, as did the City Council on May l lth. ~~~i - On May 1 lth the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code by defining and regulating sexually-oriented businesses and uses. The ordinance was identical to the one approved by the Planning Commission in February/March. The Council approved the adoption of the new ordinance and a study on licensing fees is to be conducted in the future. ~:.....~~~~~-On May 18th a special Council meeting was conducted regarding a proposed Industrial Development Bond Project on behalf of Paddock Laboratories, Inc. The company is seeking $4 million in industrial development revenue bonds through the State to fund construction of a new 50,000 square foot building on the Quebec Avenue Extension. Although the project will not be constructed until 1993, a Federal sunset on the authorization for such funding made the present approval process necessary. Additional hearings were conducted at June Council meetings, with final approval received from the Council on June 22nd. ~i~iii~~~.- On June 2nd the Planning Commission voted for approval of a site/building plan review application by West Pac, 9000 Science Center Drive, for an 18,700 square foot warehouse addition to the existing building and the Council sub- sequently approved the request on June 8th. -3- 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. g~i~i~i!~l~$~i~~- A variance request for an after-the-fact side yard :::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: :::5:::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::;::::5 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.. ,.:: air conditioner replacement/installation at 8401 Hopewood Lane was approved by the Planning Commission on June 2nd with a recommendation that the ordinance regulating the location of air conditioners be reviewed. The City Council approved the request on June 8th. ~~i.i.~i.(~.i.~.i~~i.~i~i- House of Hope Lutheran Church, 4800 Boone Avenue North, received conditional use permit approval from the Planning Commission and City Council on June 2nd and June 8th, respectively, for the exterior storage of a bus used for transporting seniors to church services. On June 22nd the City Council passed a resolution making it possible for West Pac to obtain industrial development revenue bond financing from the City in the amount of $6 million in the future for their proposed expansion if the Federal sunset authoriza- tion is extended. The resolution permits Central States Diversified to incur costs for the expansion which could later be reimbursed out of bond proceeds. ~~ii~~}i!i~~i- In 1991, the City and Autohaus executed a Development Contract whereby specific site and drainage improvements were to be completed by April, 1992. Autohaus petitioned for an extension on the contract and the EDA discussed this matter at length during the second quarter. An agreement was reached at the June 8th EDA meeting and an addendum to the Development Contract approved whereby all improvements north of the rear line of the building are to be completed by October, 1992, and the remainder of the improve- ments to be completed by October, 1993. ~.~...~~!~.i.!i~.i.~ii-The EDA also spent considerable time during the 2nd quarter discussing development options for the City-owned property at 7305 42nd Avenue North. The EDA has received a purchase offer on the property from Valvoline Rapid Oil and All Star Sports has also developed plans for expansion on the property. A final determination on the preferred development is to be made on July 27th. [~i:i:i:~:i:i:~~i:i:~~ - The City has been pursuing the acquisition of the property at 5501 Boone Avenue North in conjunction with the North Ridge Adult Day Care Facility Project. At the June 22nd EDA meeting a resolution was passed authorizing the acquisition of the property in eminent domain proceedings if a direct purchase cannot be negotiated. ~~~i:!:~~-In conjunction with the Twin West Executive Call Program, staff met with officials from Creamettes on April 29th regarding future expansion plans and satisfaction with City services. ~~iii~i- The closing on the City purchase of the Custom Mold outlot property was completed on April 29th. sponsored a Twin West Coffee Break on May 13th at the City Hall which featured displays prepared on current development projects in the City with the focus on the proposed North Ridge development. -4- 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Economic Development Committee meeting on April 24th. the Twin West ~~ii!~ii~~ii- A public hearing was conducted on June 22nd regarding a determination by the Building Official that a dangerous/hazardous building exists at the former Electronic Industries building site at 7656 42nd Avenue North in an effort to have the building demolished. The hearing was continued until July and the City may pursue the acquisition of the property in its continuing effort to upgrade 42nd Avenue. ~~~:i:~:- A current Community Profile with statistical data on the City was received mid-June from the State after being updated by City staff. ~i!~{~ii- The Fina redevelopment at 36th & Winnetka is proceeding. During the 2nd quarter a Development Agreement was executed and easement documents were received/accepted, with a building permit application being issued at the end of June. S~i:i~~-A Development Agreement regarding their proposed development at 62nd and West Broadway was forwarded to Super America officials during the 2nd quarter. The appropriate bond amount was received, but an executed Development Agreement has not yet been returned to the City. ~iii~g~~i~~!~i- City staff made a presentation, to Cooper High School students on the functions of City government in mid-June and will be repeating the presentation on July 8th. ~~?::i:~:ii~- Miscellaneous issues that are currently under study by staff, City Attorney, and Planning Consultant, to be reviewed by Codes & Standards and Planning Commission during the 3rd quarter include: B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Apartment Conversion Study Governmental Sign Setbacks Multi-Family Residential Sign Setbacks Rezoning of 5501 Boone Avenue Property Air Conditioner Restrictions B-2 Zoning District Text Change (Country Club Foods site) Hoyt Plat Crystal Comprehensive Plan Industrial Parldng Requirements Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator -5- HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY $~ond Ouarter Report The New Hope HRA continues to be busy with the management of housing programs and redevelopment activities in the City. Currently, the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program is providing assistance to 277 New Hope low income families. This is down from the 285 families that were being served in March, but staff had anticipated a minor decrease this spring due to routine shifts made at the end of the school year. During this same time period in 1991, New Hope was providing assistance to 262 fanlilies, so overall the program is serving a greater number of families in 1992 than in 1991. The increases are due to the new portability policy adopted by Metro HRA which allows families with vouchers/certificates to move from one jurisdiction to another. This policy also accounts for some of the decreases and during the second quarter some participants left the program altogether due to increasing income, etc. The breakdown is as follows: Certificates April 220 May 216 June 214 Vouchers Total 65 285 62 278 63 277 The Section 8 Housing Representative and General Inspector attended a Housing Quality Inspectors Seminar in June regarding "rent reasonableness" and electrical aspects of inspections. The number of housing inspections, has increased only slightly compared to the same time period in 1991. During the second quarter of 1992 a total of 259 inspections were completed, as compared to 254 for the same time period in 1991. A breakdown of housing unit inspections is contained Section 8 ~ Rgin$_r~x:t 96 46 in the following table: Year Total to Date 142 259 ~....~~: :"'"":';'~:':~i ..... :: ................... - The city-owned home at 2709 Ensign Avenue North was sold during the second quarter and the program is being closed out. A purchase offer was received on the property in April and the HRA conducted a public hearing on May l lth and approved the sale of the property. The closing took place on May 22nd. Staff continued to work with the new owners through June on the resolution of several additional repairs to the home. At the May 261h HRA meeting an Agreement to Pay Past Due Rent was approved in regards to the former rental occupants of the property. All documentation and proceeds form the sale of the city-owned home have been submitted to Hennepin County. The sale proceeds will be reprogrammed to another CDBG activity. Staff will be .recommending that the funds be allocated to the City Hall Remodeling Project (removal of architectural barriers) and a public hearing on the reallocation is scheduled for July 271h. -2- that was sponsored by the 5-City group in September, 1991, staff cooperated with other munici .... palities during the first and second quarters to plan/sponsor a similar forum for landlords in the spring of 1992. The Landlords' Workshop was conducted on Saturday, April 1 lth at the Crystal Community Center and was a resounding success, with over 175 multi-family complex owners in attendance. The workshop included speakers from the Department of Revenue, Mediation Services, Metro HRA and Legal Services and covered topics such as tenant leases, Section B/public housing, and resolving disputes. In addition, presentations were made by the loc. al police departments regarding property management and the police and a panel presentation was made on cOde compliance and licensing by inspectors from the 5 cities. ~~~j!ii~~ ~~~- Staff continues to participate in the 5- City' Multi-lurisdictional Housing/Human Services Group, which is seeking programs to integrate human services with multi-family housing complexes. Seven action groups have been formed and during the second quarter an application was submitted to the McKnight Founda- tion for planning/implementation grants for the northwest suburban area. At the end of May, Northwest Hennepin Human Services was notified that the application for a planning grant had been approved. The group will be meeting this summer to prepare a second application, due in September, for implementation funds. staff received approval to submit two grant application to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency in regards to a new program for Blighted Residential Property Acquisition and Rehabilitation. The grant funds can be used to finance the acquisition or demolition of blighted properties or to provide gap financing for rehabilitation or new construction. A city must designate specific neighborhoods where the funds would be utilized and the City Council authorized the Winnetka Avenue North and the 62nd Avenue/West Broadway areas as appropriate neighborhoods. In March the City was notified that .the application for the West Broadway neighborhood had been awarded at a funding level of $60,000. Although this is less than the original application, it should be adequate for the rehabilitation of one property. During the second quarter the grant agreements were executed and an amendment to the original application was completed and submitted to the MHFA describing how the grant would be utilized with a lesser amount of funding. Following the submission of the amendment, the MHFA just recently made the funds available to the City. Staff also met with County officials during the second quarter to determine how CDBG and MHFA funds could be jointly utilized to carry out the program. The goal for the last two quarters of 1992 will be to initiate marketing activities in the neighborhood, determine one property to be rehabilitated, and complete an appraisal and code compliance report. ~::::::~gii~i~i' The $22,000 in Year XVH funds that the Council authorized to assist low income families with improvements to their .homes has been committed by the County and is in the process of being expended. Work is currently in process on three homes. In addition, two $10,000 rehabilitation grants were approved during the first and second quarters of 1992. There are currently 11 homes on the waiting list. The Year XVIII funds that were allocated for this program ($30,000) will become available for use on Suly 1st. Hennepin County manages the program for the City and maintains a waiting list. The City continues to provide information and referral services to homeowners in need of housing rehabilitation. ~:i~~iii~- During the third quarter of 1991 New Hope entered into an agreement with Hennepin County, NSP, and Minnegasco to participate in a new county-wide energy conservation program. The energy services, which include a free Energy Checkup, Home Energy Fix Up and/or free Energy Workshops, are available to all owners and renters in New Hope regardless of income. The services show residents ways to save energy and reduce energy bill costs, and free energy saving materials are distributed. Residents were notified of the program via the September issue City Report. A total of 370 residents, or 7-1/2% of those who received the mailing, responded that they were interested in one or more of the programs. To date, 81 New Hope single family homes have had the free Energy Checkup performed and 8 homes have had work completed through the Home Energy Fix-up Program. During the third quarter of 1992 staff will be cooperating with neighboring cities to coordinate/ organize community energy workshops available to both residents and businesses. ':"''.~:;:::i:;:;~::;: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : .:::;:i:':::':;:~: ":::'::::::::::!:i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1. Family Stabilizafign Pro_~ram - On Sune 22nd the I-IRA approved, a Resolution Authorizing the St. Louis Park Housing Authority to Administer a Rental Assistance for Family Stabilization Program Within the City of New Hope. This ia a joint venture between the St. Louis Park HRA and the Employment Action Center for 25 vouchers under the Minnesota Finance Agency's recently funded Rental Assistance for Family Stabilization Program. Participants of the vouchers are required to participate in programs to help them achieve self-sufficiency. Due to the demand for the program in the western suburbs outside of-St. Louis Park, up to one-third of the families assisted by the program might reside outside St. Louis Park, thus their request to operate the program within New Hope's jurisdiction. 2. Resolution: Multi-Jurisdictional Housin_~ and Human Services Group -On April 27th the City Council approved a revised resolution Approving Participation in the Multi- Jurisdiction Housing and Human Services Group. The original resolution, which was approved in 1991, was revised primarily to include the four school districts, Hennepin Technical College and North Hennepin Community College. The group is working jointly to pursue grants and legislation that address housing issues and rela,ted human service needs that would have a positive impact on the north metro area, with Northwest I-Iennepin Human Services acting as the coordinating agency. 3. Section 8 Pro_~ram Co~t~ -During the second quarter staff analyz_e~l_ Section 8 Program costs to determine if additional vouchers/certificates should be acquired from neighboring cities to increase revenues or if program costs should be reduced. It was determined that an effort would be made to reduce expenses and more accurately reflect staff time dedicated to the program for the next 6 months and re-analyze at the end of the year. 4. Housing Intern - Staff has developed a list of possible housing-related activities that could be accomplished by a Housing Intern, such as developing a data base of housing information, and this issue will be analyzed in greater detail during the third quarter. -4- New Hope Terrace - During the month of April the EDA discussed a request by LaNel Financial Group to amend the assessment agreement for New Hope Terrace Apartments. In exchange for amending the assessment agreement and lowering the market value (and property taxes) on the property, LaNel would retain 10 of the original 30 Iow and moderate income apartments for the life of the bond issue. The EDA determined not to change the assessment agreement at this time, however, a new proposal might be presented during the third quarter. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator ,~'~ ~~~O~~ REQ~T FOR ACTION O~gmatmg Department Approved for ~enda ~enda Section C~ty M~ger Publi~ ~ngs 7-27-92 Item No. ~rk McDon~d BY: M~agement Assismt By: PUBLIC HEARING: O~INANCE NO~ 92-09 - AN O~INANCE AME~ING THE ~W HOPE ZO~NG CODE BY AME~ING SECTION 4.033(3) ~GULATING FENCING A~ SC~E~NG When the ordin~ce amending the fencing ~d scr~ning regulations of the Zoning Code was adopt~ in April, 1992, existing l~guage in the Code reg~ding platings ~d st~cmres within the site ~gle was inadve~ently omitt~. The enclos~ propos~ Ordin~ce No. 92-09, An Ordin~ce Amending the New Ho~ Zoning C~e By Amending S~fion 4.033(3) Regulating Fencing ~d Scr~ning, co~ts the omission. ~e amendment states that 'No planting or structure which excee~ a width of twenty-four (24) ~ch~ with~ a height of eight feet or 1~ shall be allowed with~ the sight t~angle...~ ~ch a ma~er ~ to mate~ally ~pede vBion where it will inteffe~ with t~ffic or ~d~an vBibiHty from a public right-of- way". This l~guage is ve~ simil~ to the regulation con~n~ in the ofig~ ordin~ce. A public h~ng is r~uir~ for ~ amendment to ~e Zoning C~e ~d notice has b~n duly publish~. Due to the fact that the omission was basic~ly a ty~gmphic~ e~or, it is the C~ty Attorney's ~sition that a refe~ back' m the Planing Commission is not n~es~ ~d that a public h~ng before the City Council prior to the adoption of the pro~s~ ~endment is ~i that is n~. Stuff r~ommends approv~ of the pro~s~ ordin~ce amendment that reinstates l~guage regula~ng pl~6ngs ~d s~cmres within the sight ~gle. ~e ordin~ce mendment will be eff~ve upon publi~tion. MORON BY SECO~ BY TO: Renew: A~stra~on: F~ce: ~ ~A-O01 ~ CORRICI{ & SONDRALL Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park. Minnesota 55443 PAX (812) 42~-~7 LAVONNI~ E. KE~K~ SHARON 0. OER~Y June 11, 1992 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Second 1992 Amendment to Fencing and Screening Ordinance Our File No. 99.49209 Dear Kirk: We apparently omitted some language from the Fencing and Screening Ordinance regarding planting and structures within the sight triangle. Please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance which corrects the omission. Unfortunately, because we are dealing with a Zoning Code amendment, we need a public hearing to consider its adoption. Basically, this is a typographica3 error.so it is my position that a referral back to the Planning Commission is not necessary. I think a public hearing before the City Council prior to the adoption of the proposed amendment is all we need. There is a 10 day notice requirement, therefore we will not be able to consider this amendment until the July 27th meeting. I will take responsibility for publishing the notice of the public hearing for that Council meeting. Contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slt Enclosure cc: Daniel J. Oonahue Doug Sandstad Valerie Leone CORRiCK LAW OFFICES. PA. WILLIAM J. CORRICK STEVEN A. SONDRALL, P.A. STEVEN A.~ON DRALL MICHAEL R. L~FLEUR MAKe'IN P. MALECHA WILLIAM C. STRAff CORRICK & SONDRALL A ~ARTNEI~HIP OF PROFE~81ONAL CORPORATIOH8 Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671 FAX (612) 425-5867 LAVONNEE. KE~<E SHARON D. OEREY July 15, 1992 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Second Amendment to Fence/Screen Ordinance Our File No. 99.42909 Dear Kirk: In follow up to our recent telephone conversation regarding the referenced matter, please find enclosed a revised Ordinance 92-09 eliminating the reference to a 2 foot height provision. The new Ordinance would prevent any planting or structure exceeding a width of 24 inches at a height of 8 feet or less within a site triangle as defined by the Ordinance. Contact me if you have any' questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slw Enclosure CC: Daniel J. Donahue (w/enc) Valerie Leone (w/enc) ORDINANCE NO. 92-09 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 4.033 (3) REGULATING FENCING AND SCREENING The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.033 (3)(a) "General Provisions" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection (3)(a)(viii) to read as follows: (viii) No planting or structure which exceeds a width of twenty- four (24) inches shall be allowed within the sight triangle referred to in (i) above in such a manner as to materially impede vision at a height of eight (8) feet or less where it will interfere with traffic or pedestrian visibility from a public right-of-way. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the 27th day of July, 1992, Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the , 1992.) day of ORDINANCE NO. 92-09 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 4.033 (3) REGULATING FENCING AND SCREENING The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.033 (3)(a) "General Provisions" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection (3)(a)(viii) to read as follows: (viii) No planting or structure which exceeds a width of twenty- four (24) inches shall be allowed within the sight triangle referred to in (i) above in such a manner as to materially impede vision between a height of two (2) and eight (8) feet where it will interfere with traffic or pedestrian visibility from a public right-of-way. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the 27th day of July, 1992. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the , 1992.) day of NOT[CE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONS[DER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 27th day of July, 1992, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the affect of amending New Hope Code §4.033 (3)(a) by establishing regulations prohibiting the placement of plantings or structures within the sight triangle on corner lots that would impede traffic or pedestrian visibility from public right-of-ways. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment, Dated the 7th day of July, 1992. s/ Valerie d. Leone Valerie d. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 15th day of July, 1992.) ORDINANCE NO, 92-01 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY AMENDING SECT[ON 4.033 (3) REGULATING FENCING AND SCREENING The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Sections 4.033 (3)(a)(i) "Height Maximum", "Intersection Visibility", (iii)"Short fences" and (iv)"Location" of the New Hope City Code are hereby repealed in their entirety. Section 2. Section 4.033 (3)(b) "Required Fencing and Screening" of the New Hope City Code is hereby renumbered §4.033 (3)(d). Section 3. Section 4.033 (3)(a) "General Provisions" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (a) General Provisions. (i) On all corner lots, fences shall not be permitted within twenty (20) feet of any corner formed by the intersection of two (2) streets or the right-of-way of a railway intersecting..a street. The twenty (20) feet shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides-'formed by the property lines and the third side ~ormed by a straight line connecting the two twenty (20) foot points on each side of the corner. (ii) The required screening provisions as specified in subsection (d) of this section, shall supersede, where applicable, the provisions of this Subsection. (iii) All posts or similar supporting instruments used in the construction of fences shall be faced inward toward the property being fenced, unless symmetric&]. (iv) No fence shall obstruct natural drainage. 1 (v) The height of a fence, in the case of grade separation, shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade, (vi) In the case of a corner lot with the building front oriented to the side yard abutting a street, fences over forty-two (42) inches may not encroach into either the required front yard setback or the required side yard setback abutting a street, (vii) In the case of double front lots as defined by §4.022(87) of this Code fences over 42 inches in height shall not be permitted within 15 feet from the apparent back lot line. Section 4. Section 4.033 (3)(b) "Residential Fencing and Screening" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (b) Residential Fencing and Screening. general provisions of this section: Subject to the (i) Fences shall be at least five (5) percent open for passage of air and light. Fences not meeting this design standard will be treated as walls and will be required to meet building setbacks. (ii) Short Fences. Fences fOrty-two (42) inches in height or 1Fess may be located on any part of a lot. (iii) Tall Fences. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height may be located within the required side and rear yard setbacks of a lot which is behind the required front yard building setback as defined by Section 4.034 (3). Sectign 5. Section 4.033 (3)(c) "Commercial and Industrial District Fences" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (c) Commercial and Industrial District Fences. Subject to the general provisions of this section: 2 (i) (ii) (iii) Commercial and industrial fences may be erected up to eight (8) feet in height. Fences in excess of eight (8) feet shall require a conditional use permit. Fences which are primarily erected as a security measure may have projecting arms on which barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven (7) feet above the ground on condition that the arms and barbed wire do not encroach onto or over public right-of-way or property lines of adjacent property. Commercial and industrial fencing may be located within the required side and rear yard setback of a lot which is behind the required front yard building setback as defined by Section 4.034 (3). Section G. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the 27th day of April , 1992. .. Edw. J~' Erickson, Mayor At t est: Valerie Leo~e; City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the 6th May , 1 992. ) day of 3 DECLARATION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROPOSED NEW HOPE CITY HALL EXPANSION Party. This Declaration dated the__/~ day of .hdv , 1992 involves the City of New Hope, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation (hereafter City) and certain real estate owned by the City. Subject Property. The City is {he owner of the following described property which is the subject of this Declaration (hereafter Property): Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 324, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit Development Approval. The City has approved a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Property as set forth in Planning Case 92-12, consisting of the following uses: expansion of a public building as a conditional use authorized in a R-1 zone per the New Hope Zoning'Code. The City hereby approves the PUD conditional use · permit on the condition that this Declaration be made and the City comply with the terms contained herein and Chapter 4.19 of the New Hope Code. This Declaration shall take the place of any required development contract or site improvement agreement. Development Exhibits. :The City shall develop the Property in accordance with the plans shown on the following exhibits. If the exhibits vary from the written terms of this Declaration, the written terms shall control. The exhibfts are on file with the New Hope City Clerk and are identified, as follows: Exhibit A -- Exhibit B -- Exhibit C -- Exhibit D -- Exhibit E -- Site Plan Landscaping Plan Building Elevation Plans Floor Plans -- Upper Level and Lower Level Site Detail The Work. The work shall consist of the improvements described in the Development Exhibits, including any approved subsequent amendments, which shall be performed by the City in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, standards, and policies of the City. The work includes all on-site exterior amenities as shown on the plans including, but not limited to, landscaping, storm drainage systems, water mains, sanitary sewers, hydrants, curbing, lighting, fences, fire lanes, sidewalks, and trash/recycling disposal enclosures. Mi scel laneous, (i) This Declaration shall be binding upon the City, its successors or assigns, (ii) If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Declaration is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, paragraphs or phrases of this Agreement. CITY OF NEW HOPE By By Its Mayor Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of -' , 1992, before me personally appeared Edw. J. Erickson and Daniel J. Donahue, to me known to be the persons described in the foregoing instrument and who did say they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the 'municipal corporation named therein and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the coroorate seal of 'said municipal corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and said Edw. J. Erickson and Daniel J. Donahue acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. Notary Public Il Exhibit A -.~ All. I1\' t. ANo$CAPE ~ NOITTH IZ'LLrVAI~)N ~ ELEVAIIOM EAST LrLEVAnON L UPPER I_E'VEI. FI..OOR Pl_,~l QPLANIER WALL OI~TAIL DETAIL OSIGN t)~-TAJL OTRASN SCREEN OIrOUNTAIN DE'TAIL COUNCIL REQ~T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Public Hearings 7-27-92 Item No. Kirk McDonald By: By: Management Assistant PI. IBLIG HEARING - RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DETERMINATION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT A DANGEROUS/HAZARDOUS BUILDING EXISTS AT 7516 42ND AVENUE NORTH This is a continuation of the public hearing that was tabled at the June 8th Council meeting and continued from the June 22nd Council meeting. The enclosed resolution confirms the determination of the Building Official that the Electronic Industries building at 7516 42nd Avenue North is a dangerous/hazardous building. At the conclusion of the hearing the Council has the option to adopt the resolution, amend or modify the resolution, or vacate the order from the Building Official and allow the building to remain in its present condition. Per the attached correspondence from the City Attorney, if the Council adopts the enclosed resolution, the next step will be to obtain an Order from Hennepin County District Court ordering the property owner to demolish the building pursuant to the findings in the enclosed resolution or to allow the City to demolish the building and assess the costs of said demolition against the property taxes for the property. The fact that the City is proceeding ahead with the Hazardous Building Complaint and requesting demolition of the property will not prevent or preclude the City from continuing to negotiate with the property owners for the acquisition of the property if the EDA still wishes to acquire it. The City Attorney and staff are recommending that anyone desiring to present further information at the hearing be allowed to do so, but that at the conclusion of the hearing the Council adopt the resolution confirming the Building Official's order. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Confirming Determination of Building Official That A Dangerous/Hazardous Building Exists at 7516 42nd Avenue North. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ RESOLUTION NO. 92- RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DETERMINATION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT A DANGEROUS/HAZARDOUS BUILDING EXISTS AT 7516 42ND AVENUE NORTH AND ORDERING THE DEMOLITION OF SAID BUILDING WHEREAS, the New Hope Building Official has determined that a Dangerous/Hazardous Building is located at 7516 42nd Avenue North within the City of New Hope legally described as follows: The west 95 feet of the east 195 feet of the south 350 feet of Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 324, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and WHEREAS, pursuant to New Hope Code §9.40 et. al. and Minn. Stat §463.15 et. al. the Building Official duly served by certified mail on all interested parties his April 22, 1992 Notice of Dangerous/Hazardous Building evidenced by signed receipts from Prairie, Anderson and Zemke, contract vendees, and Howard Gulden, the fee owner of the property. Further, said parties are the only owners or lien holders of record known to the City, and WHEREAS, a June 22, 1992 public hearing was held before the New Hope City Council pursuant to a duly requested appeal from the referenced interested part'ies for the purpose of confirming, modifying or vacating the April 22, 1992 order of the Building Official at which all interested persons were heard who desired to be heard, and WHEREAS, the City Council had before it the affidavit testimony of Douglas Sandstad the New Hope Building Official, Brad Bjorklund a certified fee appraiser with MAI/SRA designation, Wendell Van Vliet of Electronic Industries, Brian Deavers of CRA, Inc. and Scott Carlstrom of the MPCA, a written appraisal on the subject property from Brad Bjorklund a written engineering report on the structural integrity of the subject building prepared by professional engineer G.N. Hashami, P.E. for Electronic Industries, Inc. and Robert J. Prairie and their own personal opinions, comments and recollections of the subject property, and FINDINGS OF FACT WHEREAS, based on the affidavit testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact: i) There exists extensive corrosive damage to the building's structural steel columns, beams, roof bar joists and roof decking. There also exists extensive corrosive damage to electrical systems including conduit, fixtures and overall electrical service. Portions of the roof is under designed by at least 10% of minimum load carrying capacity with further weakening due to the observed corrosion and improper drainage on the roof. ii) That the roof is sagging and not providing for adequate drainage towards the two downspouts at the east wall. iii) There exists extensive soil and ground water contamination under the building and it is believed hazardous and corrosive chemicals, including heavy metals, are trapped between the concrete floor slabs of the building. iv) The contributory value of the building and site improvements to the property's overall value is $172,600.00. Due to the corroded and polluted condition of the building its value has been reduced by 133,700 or 77% of its value, thereby rendering the building damaged in excess of 50% due to the corrosion and pollution of the building and site. v) That the subject building is found to be a dangerous and hazardous building per New Hope,Code §1.135 and Minn. Stat. §463.15. This finding is based on the fact that the building has been abandoned and vacated, has suffered inadequate maintenance causing dilapidation and physical damage, its roof has been underdesigned causing improperly distributed loads upon the roof rendering it insufficiently strong to be reasonably safe, that the strength of the roof has been further weakened by the corrosion from years of exposure to vapors from chemicals used for manufacturing on site, corrosion to the roof and electrical system has caused damage to the building to such an extent as to render it dangerous~ that it is believed that heavy metals and other volatile organic chemicals are trapped within the building and the underlying soil and ground waters as to render the building unsuitable for human habitation. vi) That required repairs to correct the dangerous and hazardous condition of the subject building would be as follows: Removal of the entire metal roof deck including insulation and built-up roofing and rock in place. This must be replaced with new corrugated decking of a suitable gauge thickness and dimension to support the required snow loads and other loads that are required by building codes, Bar joists must be tested by an independent laboratory, such as Twin City Testing, in order to determine whether corrosion has rendered them structurally unsound. If said bar joints are structurally unsound, then entire new bar joists would have to be installed. Structural steel beams and posts have suffered corrosion damage and will need to be repaired in strict accordance with the recommendations of an independent testing laboratory, such as Twin City Testing. Sand blasting of beams in addition to an effective paint sealing may be adequate. Posts may require replacement. The second category of repai rs would involve electrical service to this building, most of which has been removed. An analysis of electrical service must be made by an independent testing laboratory to determine the extent of corrosive damage to the wiring, insulation, conduit, connections, switches, fixtures, services, meter and all other components of the electrical system. At the present time, visual damage to electrical systems is apparent. All damaged systems must be removed after the roof systems are totally rebuilt. A third category of repair would involve having an independent testing agency drill test cores through the floor slab in at least six locations throughout the building to determine if the bu'ilding materials themselves have surface or interior contamination. A careful analysis must be made for contamination of building materials, soil and water as an assortment of toxic materials have been used over a period of years according to records now available. A complete screening of heavy metals and toxic organics and other materials will have to be made. Once evaluation of building materials and soils under the building is made, it may be appropriate to remove major portions of these building materials, including slabs and soil under the building. The products of any demolition may qualify as hazardous waste requiring specialized handling, shipment and disposal. However, due to the fact the Dangerous/Hazardous Building has suffered damage exceeding 50% of its original value §9.402 (3) of the New Hope Code requires the building demolished, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered by the City Council as follows: That the Dangerous/Hazardous Building described herein shall be demolished and removed in accordance with the provisions of New Hope Code §9.40 et.al, and Minn. Stat. §463.15 et.al, within a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days from the date of service of this Order on the owners or lien holders of record. That a motion for summary enforcement of this Order shall be made to Hennepin County District Court unless corrective action is taken, or unless an Answer is filed to this Order within the time prescribed in Minn. Stat. §463.18. Dated the day of , 1992. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor At t est: Valerie Leone, City Clerk April 22, 1992 TO: ALL OWNERS OR LIEN HOLDERS OF RECORD RE: NOTICE OF DANGEROUS/HAZARDOUS BUILDING Common Address: 7516 42nd Avenue North, New Hope, MN PID No: 17-118-21 22 0007 Legal Description: The West 95 feet of the East 195 feet of the South 350 feet of Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 324, Hennepin County, Minn. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The purpose of this notice is to inform all interested parties that the building located on the referenced property is found to be hazardous and dangerous building per Mtpn. Stat. §463.15 et. and New Hope Code §9.40 et. al. The building is found to have improperly distributed loads upon the roof which has insufficient strength to be reasonably 'safe. The roof and electrical system is damaged from corrosion to such an extent as to be dangerous to the life, safety and genera] health of any occupants of the building. [t is also believed that hazardous corrosive chemicals trapped between the concrete floor slabs of the building as well as contaminating the soil and ground water at the site have rendered the condition of the property unfit for human occupation as a work place. The building has also been vacant for several years rendering it a fire hazard and a hazard to public safety and health. Finally, the building is at least 50~ damaged, decayed or deteriorated from its original value. The grounds for this finding are as follows and are supported by a Structural Engineering Inspection Report prepared by G.N. Hashmi, P.E.: i) There exists extensive corrosive damage to the butldtng's structural steel columns, beams, roof bar joists and roof decking. There also exists extensive corrosive damage to electrical systems including conduit, fixtures and overall electrical service. The roof ~s undersized by ~ April 22, 1992 Page 2 least 10~ of minimum load carrytng capacity with a possibility of further weakening due to the observed corrosion and improper drainage on the roof. ii) There exists extensive soil and ground water contamination under the building and tt is believed hazardous and corrosive chemicals are trapped between the concrete floor slabs of the building. The owner or any occupants or lessees of the building must vacate the building or repair the building in accordance with this notice, Repair options are as follows: 1. Removal of the entire metal roof deck including insu]ation and built-up roofing and rock in place. This must be replaced with new corrugated decking of a suitable gauge thickness and dimension to support the required snow loads and other ]oads that are required by building codes. Bar joists must be tested by an independent laboratory, such as Twin City Testing, in order to determine whether corrosion has rendered them structurally unsound. If said bar joints are structurally unsound, then entirely new bar joists would have to be installed. Structural steel beams and posts have suffered corrosion damage and will need to be repaired tn strict accordance with the recommendations of an independent testing laboratory, such as Twin City Testing. Sand blasting of beams in addition to an ~ffecttve paint sealing may be adequate, Posts may require replacement. 2. The second category of repairs would involve electrical service to this building, most of which has been removed. An analysis of electrical service must be made by an independent testing laboratory to determine the extent of corrosive damage to the wiring, tnsul&tton, conduit, connections, switches, fixtures, services, meter and all other components of the electrical system. At the present time, visual damage to electric.al systems apparent. All damaged systems must be removed after the roof systems are totally rebuilt. 3. A third category of repair would involve having an independent testing agency drill test cores through the floor slab in at least six locations throughout the building to determine if the building materials themselves have surface or interior contamination. A careful analysis must be made for contamination of building materials, soil and water as an assortment of toxic materials have been used over a peri.od of years according to records now available. A complete screening of heavy metals and April 22, 1992 Page 3 toxic organics and other materials will have to be made. Once evaluation of building materials and soils under the building is made, it may be appropriate to remove major portions of these building materials, including slabs and sot1 under the building. The products of any demolition may qualify as hazardous waste requiring specialized handling, shipment and disposal. The referenced repairs must be completed within a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days. If said repairs are not made in accordance with this notice, the building shall be demolished or removed. Any interested party may appeal this notice within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice as prescribed in New Hope Code §1.43. The appeal process allows for an informal appeal to the Director of Fire and Safety and City Manager. An aggrieved person may appeal to the City Council at a public hearing per New Hope Code §1.431 if dissatisfied after the informal appeal process is exhausted. If any further information is needed, you may contact the undersigned at (612) 531-5122 or the New Hope City Attorney at (612) 425-5671, Douglas C. Smith Director of Fire and Safet~ Doug Sandstad Building Official/Zoning Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA UNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN RE: Dangerous/Hazardous Building Complaint Against Property at 7516 42nd Avenue North, AFFIDAVIT OF DOUGLAS SANDSTAD STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Douglas Sandstad, after being first duly sworn, under oath, deposes and states as follows: That I have been employed by the City of New Hope as its Building Official for 13 years. That I am familiar with the property at 7516 42nd Avenue North commonly known as the Electronic Industries, Inc. site· That the original building was constructed in 1961. That a second story addition on the south end of the original building and a first floor northern addition to the building was constructed in 1968. That the building is located in an I-1 Light Industrial Zoning District and was primarily used by Eledtronic Industries, Inc. for the manufacture of pr:inted circuit boards. That this type of manufacturing process r~quired the use of hazardous chemicals and solvents. That in 1983 a major hazardous waste release was discovered at the site. I discovered a sanitary sewer discharge problem during a plumbing inspection. The acidic materials that were discharged into the sewer had eaten away the bottom of the sanitary sewer pipe under the building and a tank located just east of the building. It was clear that the soil in this vicinity and perhaps groundwater, were contaminated because of the exotic materials being discharged. The MPCA was notified immediately. The following day the MPCA staff inspected the property and began involvement. During the course of my involvement with the property it was readily observed that corrosion had affected and damaged the building's roof structure and electrical system. It was also discovered that a second concrete floor slab had been poured over the original concrete floor. This was apparently necessary due ~L.9 deterioration of the original floor slab from chemicals, solver and heavy metals used in the manufacturing process. It is believed these hazardous materials are "sandwiched" between the floor slabs in addition to polluting the soil and groundwater at the site. That on February 5, 1988 I issued an Order attached as Exhibit A to Bob Prairie of Electronic Industries, Inc. to complete or repair the following eight items: a. Have smoke detection and heat system repaired if necessary. Provide back flow preventer on water system and all threaded hose outlets. c. Remove/repair all improper plumbing, d. Rebuild/repair flammable corrosive storage room. e. Repair/remove damaged electrical. Obtain structural engineer's evaluation of corrosion effects on all structural steel in building. Primary concern is roof deck, bar joist, and steel beams and columns. Submit report to City Building Official prior to making repairs if necessary, 30 days to comply. g. Remove all old chemicals from site. h. Clean up exterior of site. ? That there has been some clean-up of the exterior site but that to the best of my knowledge the interior repair orders have not been compl et ed. That pursuant to my February 5, 1988 Order I did receive a Structural Engineering Inspection Report, attached as Exhibit for the site prepared by G.N. Hashmi, P.E., a professional engineer for Electronic Industries and Robert Prairie. The engineering report confirmed that the roof structure is unsafe. Specifically, the maximum total load bearing capacity of the subject building's roof structure is 50 PSF (pounds per sq. ft.). The Uinnesota State Building Code requires a 40 PSF live load or snow load for the roof. The roof's dead load which includes its own weight and mechanical/electrical structures mounted on the roof is 15 PSF. As a result, the total load of the subject roof is 55 2 10. PSF or 5 PSF in excess of its maximum load bearing capacity. In other words, the roof's strength is under designed by 10% by today's building requirements. It is believed that the load bearing capacity or strength of the roof structure has been further diminished by th'e corrosion damage done to the structural steel columns, beams, roof bar joists and roof decking. The engineering report prepared for Electronic Industries and Robert Prairie recommended that an evaluation be made of the exact loss of the cross sectional area of the joists to determine the current load bearing capacity of the corroded joists and metal deck by a qualified material testing company. To date, no such evaluation has been submitted to the City. 11. The engineering report also made the following recommendations: 12. 13. 14. The roof structure should be strengthened to conform to the State Building Code requirements. b. The roof should be properly drained to avoid ponding. The electrical system effected by corrosion should also be inspected and corrective action taken. To date, these recommendations have not been followed. In my April 22, 1992 notice it was requested that test cores be drilled through the floor slab to determine ,the extent of contamination trapped between the floor slabs and in the soil and ground water beneath the building. To date, no such evaluation has been submitted to the City. As a result of the foregoing information, I have concluded the building located at 7516 42nd Avenue North is a Dangerous/Hazardous Building as that term is defined by New Hope Code §1.135 and Minn. Stat. §463.15. I have also reviewed the appraisal report prepared by Brad Bjorklund regarding the subject property. Based on the conclusion reached by Bjorklund that the contributing value of the building to the property's overall value has been diminished by 77% due to its contaminated and polluted condition, it is my opinion that New Hog~ Code §9.402 (3) requires demolition of the building. Further your affiant sayeth not. Douglas Sandstad, New Hope Building Official STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this 1992, by Douglas Sandstad. day of June, Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN RE' Dangerous/Hazardous Building Comp]aint Against Property at 7516 42nd Avenue North, AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY BJORKLUND STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Bradley Bjorklund, after being first duly sworn, under oath, deposes and states as follows: 1. That I am a certified fee appraiser. That the City of New Hope retained me to prepare an appraisal of property located at 7516 42nd Avenue North in the City of New Hope commonly known as the Electronic Industries, Inc. site. That the appraisal dated January 27th, 1992 attached to this Affidavit is the appraisal I submitted to the City in connection with their request. Prior to preparing the appraisal, I made an on-site inspection of the property, reviewed the City of New Hope records in connection with the property, and"discussed the condition of the property with a representative of the owner and New Hope officials, As pointed out in my attached appraisal, the Property and building located thereon has been subjected to significant contamination and pollution due to a manufacturing process that had been conducted upon the site that used hazardous and corrosive chemicals, solvents and heavy metals. Due to the contaminated and polluted condition of the property and building, it is my opinion that the contributing value of the building to the property's overall value has been diminished by approximately 77%. Based on this fact, it is my further opinion that the building can be considered damaged to an extent exceeding 50% of its original value. The attached appraisal supports this opinion. Further your affiant sayeth not. Bradley Bjorklund, MAI/SRA STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this 1992, by Bradley Bjorklund. day of June, Notary Public 2 JAC ON~SC ASSOCIATES, INC, RETAIL REAL ESTATE SERVICES July 14, 1992 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator City of New Hope 4401Zylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Winnetka Commons Outstanding Issues Dear Kirk: I would like to update you on the status of outstanding issues at Winnetka Commons as follows: 1) Retaining Wall: Doug Sandstad approved our engineer's proposal to resolve the retaining wall issue by Tires Plus, however, he strongly recommended that the wall be rebuilt completely using a keystone type modular block system. Because Of his recommendation, we have obtained several bids for a keystone block installation and are currently evaluating the same. In the process of obtaining bids, however, we have been informed by the contractors that there is a risk involved in this type of installation, as the structural integrity of the wall will be adversely affected by any damage caused by vehicular traffic in that area. Damage to any portion of the wall would require extensive repairs involving nearly a complete redo of the section of wall affected. Protective barriers would have to be installed as a part of any wall construction. While we are still very much considering this alternative, I want the City to be aware of the potential "pitfalls" in this type of installation. 2) Replacement Plantings for Landscape Island Eliminated in Front of Bruegger's: The City has been provided plans indicating where these additional plantings will be placed. Barring negative comments from the City, I am assuming these have been approved and will proceed with their installation. 5500 W~rzam Boulev~d, Sui[e 200 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 · 612/591-5000 FAX 612/591-5022 Mr. Kirk McDonald Page two July 14, 1992 3) Outdoor Seating for Restaurant Tenants: As you are probably aware, none of the restaurants that requested outdoor seating have proceeded with their plans. The primary obstacle to-date has been the City's requirement that non-moveable bollards be installed to rope off the seating areas. We have been unsuccessful in coming up with a method to install these bollards and be able to remove them during the winter months. I have personally talked to several companies in this business and they have not been able to recommend an installation that will adequately address our requirements, I would welcome any suggestions from City staff on this issue or request that you consider "weighted down" bollards versus ones that are affixed in the concrete. Please give me a call with any thoughts you have on the above or if you have any questions. I will look forward to hearing from you. Yours very truly, Jackson-Scott & Associates Gary ~..~on GWJ: al