Loading...
030105 PlanningPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City HaLt, 4401 XyLon Avenue North Tuesday, March 1, 2005 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. OATH OF OFFICE 3. ROLL CALL 4. CONSENT BUSINESS 5. PUBLIC HEARING 5.1 Case 05-02 Request for variance to the number of off-street parking spaces required for an automobile repair facility, 7900 Medicine Lake Road, Naftali Alkalai - Mahzal, Inc., Petitioner 5.2 Case 05-03 Request for variance to maximum curb cut width, residential off- street parking, and prohibition against parking on the boulevard, 4717 Independence Avenue North, Barbara Bruemmer, Petitioner 5.3 Case 04-26 Ordinance No. 05-06, An ordinance amending setback and placement regulations for accessory antennas, City of New Hope, Petitioner 5.4 Case 04-19 Ordinance No. 05-04, An ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code regulating side yard setback requirements for living space built over attached garages in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner 5.5 Case 03-13 Ordinance No. 05-05, An ordinance amending the setback requirements and sign locations for permitted signs, City of New Hope, Petitioner COMMITTEE REPORTS 6.1 Report of Design and Review Committee - next meeting March 17, 7:30 a.m. - (if necessary) 6.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee - next meeting March 16, 7 a.m. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Miscellaneous Issues 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 7, 2004 Review of City Council Minutes of January 24 and February 14, 2005 60-Day Rule / Planning Commission Schedule Change Election of Officers ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT · Petitioners are required to be in attendance Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the chair. The chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will .discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. A. If the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: March 1, 2005 Report Date: February 25, 2005 05-02 Naftali Alkalai - Mahzal Inc. 7900 Medicine Lake Road Variance to the number of off-street parking spaces required for an automobile repair facility I. Request The petitioner is requesting a variance to the number of off-street parking spaces required, for an automobile repair facility, pursuant to Sections 4-3(e)(10)r, 4-3(e)(11), and 4-36 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. II. Zoning Code References Section 4-3(e)(10)r Number of spaces required - Automobile repair and motor fuel station Section 4-3(e)(11) Joint facilities - off-site joint use of parking Section 4-36 Variances - Administration III. Property Specifications Zoning: Location: Adjacent Land Uses: Site Area: Lot Area Ratios: Planning District: Specific Information: CB, Community Business Northwest quadrant of Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road CB to the north, west (Midland Shopping Center) and east, city of Golden Valley across Medicine Lake Road to the south 13,180 square feet or .3 acres Existing Building Area: Green Space: Hard Surface Area: ' 4,320 square feet 33% 1,850 square feet 15% 7,010 square feet 53% No, 18; The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically identify this property. The plan does indicate that the image of the commercial properties of the district could be enhanced with a streetscape treatment that would tie this area together with other commercial locations in the city. In order to accommodate this development, in 1992, the city of New Hope granted a conditional use permit and a six-foot side yard variance from the west property line and a 25-foot rear yard variance from the north property line. The current variance request to the city's parking standards is not to Planning Case Report 05-02 Page 1 2/25/05 accommodate future growth of the business; rather, the applicant argues that because of slowing business, this variance is necessary because the cost to rent off site parking is too prohibitive to continue the existing business operations. The applicant currently has six on-site parking spaces and is required to lease an additional 12 parking spaces from the owner of the Midland Shopping Center. Background In 1992, the applicant received approval for a CUP, variances to the rear and side yard setback requirements, and site/building plan approval to allow the construction of a Car-X muffler shop on the site. Previously, a Burger King restaurant was located on the site. The restaurant had rented adjacent parking spaces from Midland Shopping Center. When the Burger King was demolished and the Car-X muffler building was proposed, the city requLred that the shared parking agreement with Midland Center remain in place. The 1992 approval was based on the applicant renting 12 parking stalls off site from the shopping center in addition to the six stalls on the site. Over the past several years, the applicant has contacted city staff on several occasions complaining that they do not make use of the off-site parking spaces and feel that they are being over charged for the spaces by Kraus Anderson. They have requested that city staff review this requirement and waive the off-site parking. The applicant submitted letters to the city in 2003 and 2004 and staff advised that there were two scenarios under which the parking could be reduced: 1) code text amendment that would impact the number of parking stalls required for all automobile repair facilities or 2) a variance to the number of parking stalls required for this specific Site only. The Codes and Standards Committee reviewed the concept of a code text amendment at its February meeting and generally was not supportive of a text amendment. Therefore, the applicant has filed a variance application for this specific site. Petitioner's Comments Please refer to all correspondence submitted by the petitioner as only excerpts are in the planning report. Correspondence dated February 14, after the Design and Review Committee meeting, states in part, "The request is as follows: 1) the city requires me to have 12 parking spaces; 2) after 12 years at this location, we have clear record of actual parking usage of six to eight cars per day at the shop; and 3) we are open Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and closed on Saturdays and Sundays. Due to these reasons I would like to clarify to the committee that I have six bays in the shop and six parking spaces on my lot. In the past 12 years, I have yet to use the parking space I rent from KraUs-Anderson. ! therefore find no reason to pay for parking I do not use." The petitioner submitted correspondence dated February 3 that stated in part, "! will be asking for the variance to permit me relief from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code requirements. The requirement causes me undue hardships and have circumstances unique to the property. ! am required by the city to rent 12 parking spots from Kraus Anderson based on the code and the usage of my property. In 1992, we did not have 12 years of business records to guide us as to how much Use we would have for parking. Today, after 12 years in this location, we have clear record of usage for parking. We on average work on six to eight cars per day at the shop. ! have them scheduled at Planning Case Report 05-02 Page 2 2/25/05 different hours of the day so they are not all there at once. I have six bays in the shop for those cars, which leaves me with enough parking on my lot for any other usage. I therefore find no reason to pay for parking that ! am not using. ! realize the code encompasses all types of businesses, but, there must be reason within the code. It seems to me that Kraus Anderson is using the city requirement to price gouge me for the parking spots and easement. The prices I am being charged are over 100% higher than market value." The applicant submitted correspondence on October 7, 2004, to ask the city for considerati°n in changing the parking requirements for the following reasons: "1) Since ! opened the shop in May of 1993 1 have never needed or used the required parking spaces; 2) The reason for the lack of use is due to the fact that we service on average eight cars a day, throughout the day, and we do work by appointment; 3) Over the past 10 years our industry has gone through serious change and the car count for the industry has dropped dramatically. Causes for this situation are many but primarily due to better made vehicles and stainless steel parts that fail less often; 4) In addition to the above the great deal of leased vehicles on the market has caused less repair since people spend less money on leased vehicles; 5) New vehicle purchases in the past five years has been unbelievably high so repairs will not be needed soon. Zero percent financing has been very attractive to buyers." Due to these reasons the car count in the undercar industry has dropped. Kraus Anderson is charging $79 per spot instead of the industry average of $30 to $40 a spot. The petitioner had an appraisal done to verify that prices were high. They service six to eight cars a day and have six bays in the shop and six spots on the lot for a total of 12. The petitioner was asking for special consideration to change the requirement to six parking spots for his business in order to lower the expense of leasing spaces from Kraus Anderson. The applicant submitted correspondence to the city on June .3, 2003, requesting consideration in lowering the number of required parking spaces for the same reasons as listed above. VI. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified, including the city of Golden Valley, and staff has received no comments. VII. Development Analysis A. Zoning Code Criteria General Provisions Section 4-3(e)(10)r: Number of spaces required. Automobile repair and motor fuel station. At least five off-street parking spaces plus three off-street parking spaces for each service stall. Section 4-3(e)(11): loint facilities. Off-site joint use of parking. The City Council may, after receiving a report and recommendation from the Planning Commission, approve a conditional use permit for one or more businesses to provide the required off-street.parking facilities by joint use of one or more sites where the total number of spaces provided are less than the sum of the total required for each business should they provide them separately. Additional criteria to include: 1) proximity, 2) conflict in hours, 3) written consent and agreement. Variance The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of Planning Case Report 05-02 Page 3 2/25/05 a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code. An application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, the following criteria have been met: 1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar ,conditions unique to the parc. el or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. 2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. 3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous owner. 4.Additional Criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria: a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality. b. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the · public safety. c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. d. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district. In its report dated February 24, 2005, the city's planning consultant presents the following arguments against the variance: 1. "The parking demand is based on the size of the building and number of service bays (6). Special consideration was given to accommodate this oversized building. (i.e., setbacks, variance, parking stalls required) on the site. In review of the City Code as well as the CUP issued, it is not unreasonable to continue to enforce the agreement set in 1992, particularly since it was a condition of approx~al. 2. The intent of Section 4.035(10)(r) of the Zoning Ordinance regarding parking is to provide sufficient parking areas for customers and employees. It is not unrealistic for this type of business to park cars prior to service or at the completion of service. Additional parking would also be required for those drive-up customers coming into the business for questions, quotes, etc... 3. The city establishes parking performance standards as a means of controlling traffic and maintaining safety along public streets. The original CUP set forth in 1992 stated that a total of 18 parking stalls were required to ensure that parking performance standards were upheld. Planning Case Report 05-02 Page 4 2/25/05 4. A change of business or reuse of the building could impact the demand for on-site parking stalls required within the site. The elimination of the required parking stalls would limit the use or resale of the building in the future. In its report dated February 24, 2005, the city's planning consultant presents the following arguments that favor the variance: 1. "The applicant has submitted a letter with regard to undue hardship (Exhibit B). According to the applicant, after 12 years at the location the actual amount of parking used is between 6 to 8 cars per day at the business. 2. The unique shape of the lot complicates the ability to provide alternative locations for off-street parking within the site area. 3. While economic hardship does not warrant a variance, the applicant is required to rent additional spaces from the Midland Center at the price set by the Midland Center. 4. In review of the American Planning AssOciation (APA) parking standards, a reduced parking standard may be considered for automotive repair businesses. Examples include 1 space for each service bay (Durham, NC), 1 space per each service bay and mechanic (Orange CO, CA), or 2 spaces per service bay; service bay is not a parking space. (Columbus, OH). B. Development Review Team The Development Review Team met to discuss this request and was generally not supPortive of the request. Comments included: variance remains with a property and if property were sold for another use it would be short on parking spaces; money charged for off-site parking spaces is between the tenant and property owner not the city; economic hardship alone is not reason for granting a variance and rental rate is the major issue; pOssibility of utilizing inside bays as part of parking requirement. C. Design and Review Committee The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant on February 10 and discussed the same issues. The Committee asked the applicant how many people are employed at the shop. The applicant indicated that there are three full time employees and all automobiles are serviced on an · appointment basis. The Committee requested that the applicant provide additional information regarding the number of cars that are serviced on a daily basis by Alfa Muffler & Brake. The applicant submitted correspondence on February 14, 2005. The applicant indicated that the shop services six to eight cars per day. The applicant argues that because of the limited usage, this business should not be required to lease additional parking spaces from the adjoining property owner. The applicant indicated to the Design and Review Committee that with the six parking spaces that are available on site as well as the six service bays that are in the shop, there is no need to rent additional space from the adjoining property owner. The applicant also presented an appraisal of the cost 'for the parking spaces and the typical parking space in New Hope has an average value of $40 per space per month. The applicant is paying $79 per stall per month to the owner of the Midland Shopping Center. Planning Case Report 05-02 Page 5 2/25/05 At the Design and Review Committee meeting, city staff suggested that the Planning Commission might consider allowing the applicant to count the six service bays within the shop as parking spaces. Therefore, the required number of parking spaces that the applicant would have to rent from the Midland Shopping Center would be reduced from 12 to six. The applicant indicated that he has contacted Hennepin County to determine the possibility of providing a direct access from this site to Medicine Lake Road. D. Plan Description This variance application is not being made to accommodate expansion by the applicant. The existing site plan as approved in 1992 is not being modified; rather, the applicant has sought this variance from the original approval which stipulated the requirement to lease 12 additional parking spaces from the owner of the Midland Shopping Center, which is too cost prohibitive for this business to remain in its current location. The owner has submitted correspondence that indicates the 12 parking spaces that are leased are not in use as the shop only services six to eight automobiles per day and the shop employs 3 full time mechanics. E. Planning Considerations The planner's comments have been incorporated into this report. Excerpts from a June 12, 2003, memo includes the following comments: "In order to meet the parking requirements for the city, a condition of the CUP approval required that the applicant lease additional parking stalls from neighboring businesses. Without the ability tb lease additional parking stalls, the original site plan would not have been approved. The city, when reviewing site plans for various uses, has required that adequate parking be provided to support a specific business during operation. A business that does not meet parking requirements as part of city code is a non-conforming use. In reviewing the current code, it is not unreasonable to continue to enforce the original agreement set in 1992, particularly since it was a condition of approval. Although Mr. Alkalai makes valid points regarding his business, the intent of the code is to allow parking for not only customers but also the employees of the business, Additionally, it is not unrealistic for this type of business to park cars prior to service or at completion of service. Additional parking would also be needed for "drive-up" customers coming into the business for questions, quotes, etc." F. Building Considerations The building official's comments have been incorporated into this report. G. Legal Considerations The city attorney did not offer any comments on the proposed variance. Engineering Considerations The city engineer offered no comments regarding the parking variance request as the application will not alter the previously approved site plan. The city engineer did indicate that the city would Planning Case Report 05~02 Page 6 2/25/05 not support a new "curb cut" to Medicine Lake Road to accommodate a direct access to this site unless it was authorized by Hennepin County. I. Police Considerations The police department did not offer any comments on the proposed variance. J. Fire Considerations West Metro Fire did not offer any comments on the proposed variance. VIII. Summar~ In 1992, the city of New Hope approved the development of the Alfa Muffler & Brake building. As part of the approval, the owner provided six on-site parking spaces and agreed to lease 12 additional parking spaces from the owner of the Midland Shopping Center. The applicant argues that since that time, business in the car service industry has reduced and there is no longer a need to provide 12 additional leased parking spaces ~rom the owner of the Midland Shopping Center. The applicant has indicated that that prices being charged to lease the additional parking spaces is excessive and the cost to provide those additional spaces is cost prohibitive. The applicant has indicated that three ~ull time mechanics work at the site and the business services six to eight automobiles per da3/. The applicant indicates that between the six bays that are provided within the building and the six on-site parking spaces, there is ample room to accommodate Ids employees and customers without the need to lease additional parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the number of on-site surface parking spaces from 18 to six. While staff is sympathetic to the business owners concern, there is also a concern about future use of this property if parking reductions are allowed for this specific business. IX. Recommendation In consideration of the variance request, three options are offered: 1. Denial based on the following finding: A. There is no hardship created by the city's parking requirements. B. The applicant willingly entered into a ioint parking agreement with the owner of the Midland Shopping Center in 1992 when the site plan was approved. C. Granting the variance may set a precedent for other businesses that are having difficult financial times. D. The owner "over built" the site in 1992 with the understanding that it would always be required to lease 12 additional spaces from the owner of the Midland Shopping Center. E. Reuse of the property without off-site parldng will be compromised. F. The cost of the stalls is an economic condition that the variance is intended to relieve. 2. Approval of a modified variance request reducing the number of required surface parking spaces from 18 to 12: Planning Case Report 05-02 Page 7 2/25/05 A. The parking bays inside the structure should count towards tabulating the parking requirements. B. The variance will not cause an undue hardship to the adjoining property owners. C. The granting of this variance will not cause a precedent as the size of the site is limited and the size of a structure required to accommodate a successful business would need parking accommodations to be made by the city. Approval of the variance request as submitted reducing the number of required surface parking spaces from 18 to six: A. The parking bays inside the structure should count towards tabulating the parking requirements. B. The size and configuration of the parcel complicates the ability to provide additional on-site parking. C. APA parking standards provide alternative parking ratios that substantiates the applicant's demand claims. D. The variance Will not cause an undue hardship to the adjoining property owners. E. The granting of this variance will not cause a precedent as the size of the site is limited and the size of a structure required to accommodate a successful business would need parking accommodations to be made by the city. F. The applicant has successfully argued that this business will not need any additional surface parking spaces other than the six that are currently provided on site. Additional parking needs will be accommodated by the bays that are located within the building. Attachments: Address/Zoning/Topo Aerial Maps Applicant Correspondence and Petition Parking Space Appraisal Planner's Report - February 24, 2005 Planner's Report- June 12, 2003 Plarming Case No. 92-26 Access and Parking Easement Agreement (Alfa Mufflers & Midland Shopping Center) City Zoning Code Excerpts Planning Case Report 05-02 Page 8 ' 2/25/05 SCHOOL & PARK GOLDEN VALLEY 919.4 43 920.8, 43O 912.2 ×1¸ 911.4 911 · 6 --'~ .I 911.8 911 .1 x¢ 905. I, 906.7 X NORTH AVl AV TERRA LINDA 30 TH AVE. N VIEWCREST LANE O NO 5785800 -- STORM SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARY --- SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY .... WATERSHED DISTRICT BOUNDARY ..... INCREMENT BOUNDARY HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNES TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPA SURVEY DIVISION Alfa Muffler & Brake 7900 Medicine Lake Rd New Hope, MN 55427 763-541-1984 February l4,2005 Kirk Mcdonald Director of Community Development 4401 Xylon Ave N New Hope, MN 55428 763-531-5119 RE: PARKING REQUIRMENTS Dear Kirk: In regards to the Design and Review Committee on February 10th 2005, I would like to remind you of my request for a parking variance based on zoning code Sec. 4-36 and Sec. 4-3(E)(10). The request is as I have stated in my February 3~a 2005 letter and at the commission as follows: The city requires me to have 12 parking spaces. After 12 years at this location we have clear record of actual parking usage. Our usage is 6 to 8 cars per day at the shop. We are open Monday thru Friday 8:00am to 5:30pm closed Saturdays and Sundays. Due to the above reasons I would like to clarify to the committee that I have 6 bays in the shop and 6 parking spaces on my lot. In the past 12 years I have Yet to use the parking space I rent from Kraus-Anderson. I therefore find no reason to pay for parking I do not use. I realize the code encompasses all types of businesses, but, there must be reason within the code for my unique situation. It seems to me that Kraus-Anderson are using the city requirement to price gouge me for the parking spots and easement for parking I do not use. The prices I am being charged are over 100% higher than market value (see attached appraisal). I would like to appear before the planning commission on March 1~t 2005 to review the issues. Alfa Muffler & Brake 7900 Medicine Lake Rd New Hope, MN 55427 763-541-1984 Februa~ 3, 2005 Kirk Mcdonald Director of Community Development 4401 Xylon Ave N New Hope, MN 55428 763-531-5119 RE: PARKING REQUIRMENTS Dear Kirk: I am writing this letter in referance to our conversation on February 2, 2005 in regard to getting a variance to the parking requirements set for me in 1993: In this letter I will be asking for the variance to permit me relief from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code requirements. The requirement causes me undue hardships and have circumstances unique to the property,. I am required by the city to rent 12 parking spots from Kraus Anderson based on the code and the usage of my property. In 1993 we did not have twelve years of business records to guide us as to how much use we would have for parking. Today, after twelve years in this location we have clear record of usage for parking. We on average work on 6 to 8 cars per day at the shop. I have them scheduled at different hours of the day so they are not all there at once. I have 6 bays in the shop for those cars, which leaves me with enough parking on my lot for any other usage. I therefore find no reason to pay for parking that I am not using. I realize the code encompasses all types of businesses, but, there must be reason within the code. The code I am referring to is Zoning Code Sec. 4-36 and Sec. 4-3(E)(10). It seems to me that Kraus-Anderson are using the city. requirement to price gouge me for the parking spots and easement. The prices I am being charged are over 100% percent higher than market value (see attached appraisal). I would like to appear before the planning commission to review the issues. Alfa Muffler & Brake 7900 Medicine Lake Rd New Hope, MN 55427 763-541-1984 June 3, 2003 Kirk Mcdonald New Hope Community Development 4401 Xylon Ave N New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Parking Rental at Midland Shopping Center Dear Mr. Mcdonald: As you know Alfa opened its doors May 1993. In order to do so, Alfa was required at the time to have 18 parking spots. Since our property is limited to its parking space we were required to rent space from the mall. Within two Years of operating Alfa it becam~ evident, that we do not use the rented parking spaces and after ten (10) years of operation and experience at the location we clearly know that we do not need the parking spaces for the following reasons: 1. The business is open 6 days out of every week which concludes the following 52 weeks X 6 days = 312 open days, less holidays which we are closed, leaves 300 days. We service no more than 3200 cars a year, when derided by the number of days equals 10.66 oars a day. Our industry has had a serious change in the past 8 years and because of the change we have also changed our service procedures to accommodate the change. Our goal is fewer customers for better service. The changes to the industry are due to the following factors; exhaust systems are made of stainless steel, which last on average 8 to ten years compared to 3 to 4 years. Better cars are made to break down less. And more and more people lease their cars and therefore do not want repair unless they have to. We have 6 bays for 6 cars in the shop, which leaves a need for 4 to 5 cars at the most throughout a 10-hour day. We are open 8am to 5:30pm and there are 7 parking spaces on our lot, to total 13 spaces, The management at the shopping center studied this as well and concluded we do not use the rented space. It is for the above we ask why is it that we need to pay for parking we never use? As mentioned above car count is down and since we changed our operating procedures will not increase. We ask that the city consider our situation and release us from the burden of renting' space we do not need. We are walling to assist the.city with any information they may need to make their deeision~ Sincerely, Nafhli Alkalai President Alfa Muffler & Brake 7900 Medicine Lake Rd, New Hope, MN 55427 763-541-1984 October 7, 2004 Kirk Mcdonald Director of Community Development 4401 Xylon Ave N New Hope, MN 55428 763-531-5119 RE: PARKLNG REQULRMENTS Dear Kirk: In reference to our Conversation on 10/5/04 in regard to the Parking requirements that the city code requires me to have based on my type of business, I would like to ask for your, and the city of New Hope, consideration into changing the parking requirement for the folloMng reasons: . Since I opened the shop in May of 1993 I have never needed or used the required parking spaces. The reason for the lack of use is due to the fact that we service on average 8 cars a day, tln'oughout the day, and we do work by appointment. Over the past 10 years our industry has gone through serious change and the car count for the industry has dropped dramatically. Causes for this situation are many but primarily due to better made vehicles and stainless steel parts that fail less often. In addition to the above the great deal of leased vehicles on the market has caused less repair since people spend less money on leased vehicles. New vehicle purchases in the past 5 years has been unbelievably high so repairs will not be needed soon. Zero percent financing has been very attractive to buyers. Due to the above reasons you can see why the car count in the undercar industry has dropped and specificallyiny car count has dropped. All which caused me thousands of dollars in lost revenue. Ail of this is in addition to Kraus-Anderson taking advantage of the city requirement and charging me a ridiculous $79.00 a spot instead of the industry average of $30 m $40 a spot. I even-had an appraisal done to ve,'ify that I was being charged too much. Since the business situation is as I have described above and I have no need for the space. We have 6 to 8 cars a day Mth 6 bays in the shop and 6 spots on my lot for a total of 12 I am asking for your special consideration to change the requirement to 6 parking spots for a total 12 spots not in the buildh~g including my six. All of the above will bring the total space for me with the bays to 18 spots which is much more than we use or need. Also, we have a shop in Plymouth, which is in a building with 4 other shops with a total of 21 bays and 40 total parking spaces. The two spots per bay would work well for me since I have 6 bays in the shop and 6 spots on my lot all I would need is 6 total spots to lease. Again, I am asking for your consideration in the matter due to all of the above and allo~ me to lower ma unaffordable expense which I do not and have not used. If there are any questions for me I can be contacted at 763-541-1984, Naftali Alkalai NAGELL APPRAISAL & CONSULTING 7515 Wayzata Blvd. #115 Minneapolis, MN 55426 Minneapolis St. Paul Central Fax 952-544-8966 651-209-6159 952-544-8969 Alfa Muffler and Brake Shop May 1, 2003 · Atto: Naftali Alkalai 7900 Medicine Lake Road New Hope, MN 55427 Dear Mr. Alkalai: RE: General market comments regarding lease value for parking stalls as is rented by Alfa Muffler and Brake Shop at 7900 Medicine Lake Road in New Hope, MN. This letter docs Subject Description Alfa Muffler and Brake Shop is located in New Hope, MN, a second ring suburb approximately 25 minutes from downtown Minneapolis. The shop is on the northwest comer of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue, adjacent to the Midland Shopping Center. Alfa Muffler and Brake Shop rents twelve, average/fair condition parking stalls just beyond the common driveway on the north side of the shop from Kraus-Anderson, owner of Midland Shopping Center. The rent for the twelve parking stalls is reported at $79.00 per month, per stall. Highest and Best Use The twelve parking stalls are on the outer edge of the Midland Shopping Center and appear to be surplus space. The owner of Alfa Muffler and Brake Shop reports that he uses the space very seldom. Therefore, the demand for the space is estimated to be less and the highest and best use is estimated to be surplus space and has marginal utility to Alfa Muffler and Brake Shop and Midland Shopping Center. Comparable Data and Discussion of Market Data for parking stall rents is limited in the New Hope area. The clOsest rents have been used, each are in the marketing area and were selected to bracket the subject. · Downtown Minneapolis, MN: Covered, heated, lined and maintained parking stalls are reported at $70.00-$80.00 per stall in a downtown Minneapolis garage. · Woodbury, MN: Underground parking stalls are reported at $30.00-$50.00 per stall in a Medical Office Park. · Uptown Minneapolis, MN: Outdoor, lined and maintained parking stall rents reported at $50.00-$60.00 per stall at a multi-tenant retail business unit. · Wayzata, MN: Outdoor, lined and maintained parking stall rents reported at $10.00- $12.00 per stall at a funeral home. · Residential Apartments: Most apartments in the Twin Cities Metro Area report a rental rate of $30.00-$50.00 per garage parking space. The stalls range from $10.00 to $80.00 with an average of $40.00 per stall. i)arking stalls that are underground, covered, heated and maintained are more appealing than average outside, lined asphalt or concrete parking stalls particularly because they require less maintenance, offer privacy, and keep cars out of climatic conditions. Additional Support The following data is used to further support the cost of a parking stall: 10' x 18' = 180' x $5.55/SF = $1,000 (rounded) + $500 = $1,500 x 20% = $300 / 12 months Size of a Parking Stall Kraus Anderson Assessed .Value Cost of Paving Rate of Return (including typical maintenance) -- $25 per month, per stall Based on past appraisals and market information parking stalls like those at Alfa Muffler and Brake Shop, would commonly rent around $25.00 to $35.00 per stall. The value range should not be construed or relied on as being an appraiSal but are observations from the overall market. If you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Laura L. ~Mollner Registered Real Property Appraiser MN 20330506 Eric; Map, Subject Photos, Appraiser Qualifications ii '1 LOCATION MAP/AERIAL MAP I 111 I I I I I SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS From view of subject looking north Rear view of subject road looking south iv I I I SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Subject Parking Space View from subject parking space of closed parking lot entrance on Winnetka Avenue V TelePhone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2501 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Michael Dan'ow / Alan Brixius DATE: February 24, 2005 RE: New Hope- Alfa Muffler & Brake - Vadance from the parking requirement NAC FILE: 131.01-05.05 Mr. Naftali Alkalai, owner of Alfa Muffler & Brake, has submitted an application for a variance from the Parking requirements allowed for the site located at 7900 Medicine Lake Road in the City of New Hope. The site is currently zoned B-4. On November 9rn, 1992, the City of New Hope approved a site and building plan, a Conditional Use Permit (minor auto repair service stores are allowed as conditional uses in the B-4 Zoning District), and setback variances to allow for a larger building on the site. (The building is located 4 feet from the west property line and 10 feet from the north properly line). According to Section 4.035 (4) (b), off-street parking spaces and loading spaces or lot areas existing upon the effective date of the City Code, shall not be reduced in number or size unless said number or size exceeds the requirements set forth within the Zoning Ordinance for a similar new use. In order to meet the parking requirements for the City, a condition of the 1992 CUP required that the applicant lease additional parking stalls from the neighboring shopping center. The site has a total of 6 parking stalls, however, approval of the CUP called for a total of 18 parking stalls. Therefore, the applicant' was required to lease a total of 12 stalls from the adjacent Midland Center. In 1993, the applicant began constructing the building prior to finalizing a lease or easement with Midland Shopping Center. The applicant is seeking a vadance from the required 18 stalls previously approved as part of the CUP. According to the applicant he is required to rent a total of 12 stalls, however, his business does not generate enough business to use all those stalls during peak and non-peak hours of operation. Additionally, he feels that he is being asked to pay a cost per stall by the owners of the Midland Center that greatly exceeds metro wide rates (see Exhibit A). The City establishes parking performance standards as a means of controlling traffic and maintaining safety along public streets. The odginal CUP set forth in 1992 stated that a total of 18 parking stalls were required to ensure that parking performance standards were upheld. A change of business or reuse of the building could impact the demand for on-site parking stalls required within the site. The elimination of the required parking stalls would limit the use or resale of the building in the future. Ar,quments that favor the variance: The applicant has submitted a letter with regard to undue hardship (Exhibit B). According to the applicant, after 12 years at the location the actual amount of parking used is between 6 to 8 cars per day at the business. 2. The unique shape of the lot complicates the ability to provide alternative locations for off-street parking within the site area. VVhile economic hardship does not warrant a variance, the applicant is required to rent additional spaces from the Midland Center at the price set by the Midland Center. In review of American Planning Association (APA) parking standards, a reduced parking standard may be considered for automotive repair businesses. Examples include I space for each service bay (Durham, NC), I space per each service bay and mechanic (Orange Co, CA), or 2 spaces per service bay; service bay is not a parking space. (Columbus, Ohio). CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS In consideration of the requested variance, staff has outlined three options for Planning Commission and City Council consideration: Option 1. Denial The New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines specific criteria to be considered when evaluating a requested variance. In comparison with these criteria, the following findings for denial are offered: 1. The site is over developed with the understanding that off-site parking must be provided. This is a condition that was created by the applicant. 2. Reuse of the property without off-site parking will be compromised. 3 I I 02-07-~005 02:27;~ Fro~CITY OF NEW HOPE NAGELL APPRAISAL & CONSULTING 7S15 Wli3~its. Blvd. #IlS Minaeep01~ MN SS426 ! ,,~r;hl,.;. ,, ~ · Minneapolis St. Paul Cent~! Fax T-671 P.005/010 F*-392 952-54,~g66 6SI-209-6159 I I I I I I. I I ! I I ! I Alfa Muffler and Brake Shop 'AU~x: Nagzli AlkaJai 7900 Medicine Lake Road New Hope, MN 55427 ~,' 1, 2003 RE: General marker comments regarding lease value for parking stalls as is rcnteA by Alii Muffler and Brake Shop at 7900 Mcciicine Lake Road in New Hope, MN. Th{s letter (lacs Subject Description Alfa Muffler and Brake Shop/s lo.ted in New Hope., MN, a second ring suburb approximately 25 minutes from downtown Minneapolis. The shop is on the nt,rthwest comer of Medicine Lake Road and W'w.~ed~ Avenue, adjacent To the Midland Shopp. ng Center. Alfa Muffler and Brake Shop rents twelve, average/fair condition parking stall ~ just b~ond the common driveway on the north side of the shop from Kraus-Anderson, evader of Midland Shopping Center. The rent for the twelve parking stalls is reported at $79.00 p~ month, per stall. Highest and Best Usc Thc twelve parking stalls are on the outer edge of the Midland Shopping Center and appear ~o be surplus space. The owner of Alfa Muffler and Brake Shop reports that hc u~;cs thc space very seldom. Therefore, thc demand for the space is estimated to bc less and rite Mghest and best usc is estimated to be surplus space and has marginal Utility ~o Alfa Muffi,:r and Brake Shop and Midland Shopping Center. Comparable Data and Discussion of Market Data for parking stall rents is limited in the New Hope area. The closest rents have been used, enoh are in the marketing ama and were selected to bracket thc subject · Downtown Minneapolis, MN: Covered, hcaz~, lined and ~ed paring stalls. are reported at $70.00-$80.00 per stall in a downtown Minncapolh garage. * Woodbury, MN: Underground parking st~lls arc reported at $~0.00-$J0.00 per stall. in a Medical Office Park. · Uptown Minneapolis, MN: Outdoor, lined and maintained parking st~l rents reported at $50.00-$60.00 per stall at a muki-tenant retail business unit. EXHIBIT A Froe-ClTY OFNEW HoPE · .T-?47 P.002/008 Alfa Muffler & Brake 7900 Mcdicine Lake F,d New Hope, MN 55427 763~541-1984 February 14, 2005 Kirk Mcdonald Dim~r of C~mmuniH Developm~'t 4401 Xylon Ave N N~w Hope, MN 55428 763-531-5119 RE: PARKINO RBQ~S In regards to thc Design and Review Committee on Febmary 10m 2005, I w~mld like to remind you of my request for a parking variancc based on zoning code Sec. 1-36 and Sec. 4-3(BX10). Thc rextuost is as I have stacd in my February 3TM 2005 letter and aithc commission as follows: -3. The city requires me to havc 12 parking spaces. After 12 years at this location we have clear record of actual parldng usage. Our usage is 6 to 8 cars per day'at tho shop. We are open Monday thru Fliday 8:00am to 5:30pm dosed Sam-days and Sundays. Duc to tho above rca,sons I would like to clarify to the committe~ that I hay{ 6 bays in the shop and 6 parking spaces on my lot, In the past 12 year~ I have y~t m use '-.ho parking space I rent from Kraus.Andexson. I therefore find no r~ason to pay for par,~ing I do not use. I realize the code encompasses all types of businesses, but, there must be reason within the 00~ fOr my unique situation. h seems to mc that IG'aus-Andorson arc using the city rcq.uirement to price gouge me for the parking spots and easement for parking I do not use. Thc !rices I am Ix:lng charged arc over 100% higher than market value (sec ~._~a:ched appraisal). I would like to appear beforc thc planning commission att March 1q 2005 to review the issues. EXHIBIT B Telephone: 952.B95.9636 Facsimile: 952.595;,9837 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Michael Darrow / Alan Bdxius DATE: June 12, 2003 RE: New Hope- Alfa Muffler & Brake - 7900 Medicine Lake ROad NAC FILE: 131.00- 03.05 BACKGROUND Mr. Naftali Alkalai, president of Alfa Muffler & Brake, submitted a letter to the City of New Hope on June 3rd,'2003 requesting that the city release the company from being required to rent additional parking from nearby businesses. On November 9~,1992, the City of New Hope approved a site and building plan, a Conditional Use Permit (minor auto repair service stores are allowed as conditional uses in the B-4 Zoning District), and setback variances to allow for a larger building on the site located at 7900 Medicine Lake Road. (The building is located 4 feet from the west property line and 10 feet from the north property line). The applicant's site plan does not satisfy the city's parking requirements.. According to Section 4.035 (10) (r) of the Zoning Ordinance, at lease five (5) off-street parking spaces plus three (3) off-street parking spaces for each service stall are required for Automobile Repair. The applicant has 6 service staIIs* 3= 18 + 5= 23 spaces required. Currently, the applicant has a total of 6 parking stalls. In order to meet the parking requirements for the city, a condition of the CUP approval required that the appliCant lease additional parking stalls from neighboring businesses. According to Section 4.035 (4) (b), off-street parking spaces and loading spaces or lot area existing upon the effective date of City Code, shall not be reduced' in number or size unless said number or size exceeds the requirements set forth [within code] for a similar new use. Without the ability to lease additional parking stalls, the odginal site plan'would not have been approved. The city, when reviewing site plans for various uses, has required that adequate parking be provided to support a specific business dudng operation. A business that does not meet parking requirements as part of City code is a non- conforming use. In reviewing the current code, it is not unreasonable to continue to enforce the original agreement set in 1992, .particularly since it was a condition of approval. Although Mr. Alkalai makes valid points regarding his business, the intent of the code is to allow parking for not only customers but also the employees of the business. Additionally, it is not unrealistic for this type of business to park cars prior to service or at completion of service. Additional parking Would also be needed for "drive-up" customers coming into the business for questions, quotes, etc. Based on the review of the existing code (during the time of the CUP) as well as a review of the current code, staff recommends that' the current agreement be maintained as outlined in the original report. "~,~ COUNCIL ) Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Development and City Managor 11-9-92 P1 anning Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant 8.3 PLANNING CASE 92-26 - RE ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES TO REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/APPROVAL TO ALLOW A CAR-X MUFFLER SHOP, '/900 27TH AVENUE NORTH, ('PID #19-118-21-44-0034), NAFTALI. ALKALAI-MAHZAL. INC.. PETITIONER The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit, setback variances, and site/building plan review/approval to allow construction of a Car-X Muffler Shop on the former Burger King site in Midland Shopping Center, pursuant to Sections 4.134, 40.034, and 4.039A of the New Hope Zoning Code. The petitioner proposes to demolish the existing vacant building and completely. redevelop the site with a new 4,320 square foot building, new signage, landscaping, parking areas, sidewalk, curbing, trash enclosure, and elimination of existing curb cut off of Winnetka Avenue into the site. The specific zoning requests include the following: A. Site and Building Plan Review/Approw! B. Conditional Use Permit - minor auto repair service stores are allowed as conditional uses in the B-4 zoning District provided that certain conditions are met. C. Setback' Variances - the proposed building is located 4 feet from the west property line and side yard setback requirement is 10 feet, therefore a 6 foot variance to the side yard setback requirement is needed. The building is located 10 feet from the north property line and the rear yard setback requirement is 35 feet, therefore a 2S-foot variance to the rear yard setback requirement is needed. The building will' have six (6) service bays with overhead doors on the north and south elevations. The office/reStroom area will be located on the southeast comer of the building. Review: Administration: Finance: n 'A-o0 Planning Case 92-26 November 9, 1992 Council Meeting Building materials will consist of scored concrete block (colored), with dumpster enclosure of same materials, Overhead doors will be aluminum and glass. Hours of operation will be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. six days per week (closed on Sundays). A total of 54 trees/shrubs are proposed to be added to the site. A 75-square foot pylon sign will be located on the comer of Medicine Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue and a 95-square foot wall sign will be installed on the east building elevation; both signs meet code requirements. A total of 18 parking stalls are. provided: 6 on site and 12 leased from Midland Center, similar to the Burger King operation. Staff suggests that the variances being requested are reasonable because the existing Burger King building was granted very similar variances on the north and west sides when it was approved in 1973. The Burger King building is located 10.9 feet from the north property line and Car-X will be 10 feet from the north property line, so essentially Car-X will be no closer to the rear property line than the existing building. Burger King is located 8.8 feet from 'the west · property, however the trash enclosure encroached over the property line. Car-X is proposing to locate their building 4 feet from the west property line and the trash enclosure will also be set back a similar distance. This site and the adjacent Midland Center are essentially' an unofficial PUD with overlapping parking, access, facilities and functions, which somewhat reduces the specific zoning ordinance setback standards. Also, the setbacks off of Winnetka AVenue (35 feet) and Medicine Lake Road (50 feet) are met, which pushes the building to the northwest comer of the site. The Planning Commission reviewed this case on November 4, 1992, and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: Development Agreement and performance bond required for all curbing, removal of Winnetka 'access, and landscaping. Existing utilities to be cut and capped at property line under city permit, with inspection by public works before demolition. Petitioner to submit parking and snow removal agreement to City prior to construction for leased space from Midland Center. Landscaping to be added to west side of building. Annual review by staff. St~ff recommends approval of the resolution. Planning Case: R~uest: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: 92:26 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Request for Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variances, and Site/Building Plan Review Approval 'to Allow a Car-X Muffler Shop. in a B-4 Zoning District 7900 27th Avenue North 19-118-21-44-0001 B-4 (Community Business) Naftali Alkalal-Mahzal, Inc. October 30, 1992 November 4, 1992 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit, setback variances, and site/building plan review approval, pursuant to Sections 4.134, 4.034, and 4.039A of the New Hope Code, to allow construction and operation of a Car-X Muffler Shop on the old Burger King site in Midland Shopping Center. The Design & Review Committee met with Car-X in September, but due to lack of detailed plans the ease was tabled for one month at the October Planning Commission meeting. The petitioner is proposing to demolish the existing vacant Burger King building at the northwest corner of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue and completely redevelop the site. The proposal is to construct a new 4,320 square foot Car-X Muffler and Brake Shop with new site signage, landscaping, new parking arms, sidewalk, curbing, trash enclosure, and elimination of the existing curb cut off of Winnetka Avenue into the site. The specific zoning requests include the following: A. Site & Building Plan Review/Approval B. Conditional Use Permit - minor auto repair service stores are allowed as conditional uses in the B-4 Zoning District provided that certain conditions are met. C. Setback Variances - the proposed building is located 4 feet from the west prOperty line and side yard setback requirement is 10 feet, therefore a 15 foot variance to the side yard setback requirement is needed. The building is located 10 feet from the north property line and the rear yard setback requirement is 35 feet, therefore a 2S-foot variance to the rear yard setback requirement is needed. The site is zoned B-4 "Community Business District" and is surrounded by commercial uses with Midland Shopping Cedter located on the north and west (B-4), Amoco Gas Station ~ located across Winnetka Avenue to the east (B-3), and Mutual Cemetery of Golden Valley 'located across Medicine Lake Road to the south. The topography of the existing site is flat and is nearly all covered with impervious surface. The building has been vacant for the past 2 years and prior to the Burger King operation, a gas station was located on the site. Planning Case Report 92-26 November 4, 1992 Page -2- Site plan data is as follows: Lot area Building area Landscape area Parking/Drive area 13,180 square feet : 4,320 square feet 33% 1,850 square feet 15% 7,010 square feet 53 % (There is no specific green area percentage requirement in the City Code for the B-4 District) Parking spaces required = 13 stalls Parking spaces provided = 18 stalls (Shared. parking agreement with Midland Center; similar to Burger King operation) It is staffs' feeling that the proposed use will reduce rush hour peak numbers to this site (as opposed to the former convenience food operation) and that traffic safety will be improved with the elimination of the former Burger King curb cut. Access to the Muffler/Brake Shop will be through Midland Center. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and the primary tenant of the Midland Center (Cinema 'n' Drafthouse) has contacted the City in support of the redevelopment. ANALYsIs CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Motor fuel stations, minor auto repair and tire/battery service stores are allowed by conditional use permit in the B-4 Zoning District provided that the following conditions are met (pertinent to this reques0: A. ComPatibility. The architectUral appearance and functionai plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing building or areas to cause impairment in property values of constitute a. blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. B. Surfacing. The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be surfaced with a materials tO control dust and drainage. C. Area. A minimum lot area of twenty-two thousand five hundred square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty feet by one hundred thirty feet. D. Drainage. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City. E. u.C_.q__~. A curb not less than six inches above grade shall separate the public sidewalk form motor vehicle service areas. F. Vehicle Circulation. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conffict with through-traffic movement. G. Noise. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise in accordance with the Noise Control Section of the City Code. H. Outside Storage. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with City Code. I. Sales'Limitations. Sale of products other than those specifically mentioned in this subdivision be subject to a conditional use permit. Planning Case Report 92-26 November 4, 1992 Page -3- 2. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional us is to be allowed, The city may e0nsider the nature of the adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health and safety.' Other genera/ criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve of deny a conditional permit include: A. ComPrehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City. B. Compatibility_. The. proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. D. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use Will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. E. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP Meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts. 1. In Business District~ (B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4): a. Traffig. The proposed use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. b. Nearby Residences. Adjacent residentially-zoned land will not be adversely affected because of traffic generation, noise, glare, or other nuisance characteristics. c. Effect on Other Businesses. Existing businesses will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of unduly heavy non-shopping traffic or general unsightliness. 3. Staff finds that the only condition not met is the area requirement. This parcel contains 13,180 square feet and measures 120' x 111' and the code requirement is 22,500 square feet with minimum lot dimensions of 130' x 150'. However, this is an existing parcel of record and staff recommends that it qualifies for exemption for this code requirement. 4. Staff also finds that the redevelopment will reduce traffic hazards with the closing of the curb cut and increase the valuation of the property, as opposed to depreciating the area or adversely affecting neighboring businesses. VARIANCE REQUESTS 5. 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 exception topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be cause 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 92-26 November 4, 1992 Page -4- 6. *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 klter 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. 7. 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 Pu _rpose of Variance. 'Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. I,igllLg~[_&~. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E. Prol~rty Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 8. Staff finds that the variances being requested are reasonable due to the following reasons: A. The existing Burger King building was granted very similar variances on the north and west sides when it was approved in 1973. The Burger King building is located 10.9 feet from the north property line and Car-X will be 10 feet from the north property line, so essentially Car-X will be no closer to the rear property line than the existing building. Burger King is located 8.8 feet from the west property, however the trash enclosure encroached over the property line. Car-X is proposing to locate their building 4 feet from the west property line and the trash enclosure will also be set back a similar distance. B. Staff finds that this site and the adjacent Midland Center are essentially an unofficial PUD with overlapping parking, access, facilities and functions, which somewhat reduces the specific zoning ordinance setback standards. Such projects need to be considered as part of the "whole" complex, with some flexibility. C. The setbacks off of Winnetlm'Avenue (35 feet) and Medicine Lake Road (50 feet) are met, which pushes the building, to the northwest comer of the site. D. The hardship could be considered the smallness of the parcel located at the intersection of two major thoroughfares and meeting the setback standards. SITE & BUILDIN0 PLAN REVIEW 9. Design & Review met with the petitioner on October 15th and issues discussed included parking agreement with Midland; signage, trash enclosure, sidewalk, landscaping, air conditioning unit, elimination of curb cut, setback variances, building aesthetics, .deliveries, snow storage, and utilities. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting and include the following changes: A. Pylon and wall signage details have been submitted. A 75-square foot pylon sign will be located on the comer of Medicine Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue. A 95-square foot wall sign will be installed on the east building elevation.' Both signs meet code requirements. B. The landscaping on the east side of the building has been extended to the north edge of the curb line to help screen the air conditioning unit. Planning Case Report 92-26 November 4, 1992 Page -5- 10. 11. 12. 13. C. The parking stalls on Medicine Lake road have been shifted east to provide for a landscape area on the southwest comer of the site and boulevard trees have been added. A total of 54 trees/shrubs are proposed to be add. ed to the site. The building will have six (6) service bays with overhead doors on the north and south elevations. The office/restroom area will be located on the southeast corner of the building. Building materials will consist of scored concrete block (colored), with dumpster enclosure of same materials. Overhead doors will be aluminum and glass. Landscaping has not been added to the west side of the building, as suggested by Design & Review. Hours of operation would be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. six days per week (closed on Sundays). The petitioner has complied with the majority of recommendations from staff and Design & Review. RECOM/VIENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for site/building plan review, rear/side yard setback variances, and conditional use permit to allow Car-X Muffler to redevelop the vacant Burger King site at the northwest intersection of Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development Agreement and performance bond required for all curbing, removal of Winnetl~ access, and landscaping. 2. Existing utilities to be cut and capped at property line under city permit, with inspection by public works before demolition. 3. Petitioner to submit parking agreement to City prior to construction per leased space from Midland Center. 4. Annual review' by staff. Attachments: Section/Topo/Zoning Maps Site Plan Building Elevations Building Sections Floor Plan Revised Landscape Plan Pylon & Wall Sign Detail Site Survey Midland Center Parking Plan ON P~OP~ UNE: 0.15' OVER PROPrRTY 2.0' (~'ER PROP[RTY NO;m UN[ OF $OUm 153 fEET OF S.£ ¥,~ OF ¥4 s£C. ts 111.01' S Bg'S2'30'E t -5-BRICK (TO K ;rUC~D) NJ' CURB BURIED ~OSC~P£ RO~ "--'--~NORTH R/W WALK 1.0' C)~:~ PROP£~TY B5.01' S MEDICINE LAKE ROAD S 89m$2'30'g ~""----$0Lrl~ UN£ 0F 5.F- Y4 OF $.F.. Y4 0r SEC. 19, T. 1 IS, R, 21 D.g' OV~R PROP[RTY UN[ H[NN[PIN COUNTY MONUM[H? -~ $.E. C0R. $£C. tS No'rE; NO EXISTING IRONS FOUNO CERTIFICATE of SURVEY $CN.;: We hereby certify that this is o true and correct representation of (3 survey of the boundries of: The East 153 feet of the South 153 feet of the Southeast ~/4 of the Southeast ~/4 except the East 33 feet thereof, Section 19. Township 118. Range 21. Hennepin County. Minnesota. according to the Government Survey thereof. Subject to road easement over the South 33 feet thereof and subject to i~art taken for widening of County Road No. 156 as described in Document No, 907802. Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. And of the locations of oil buildings, thereon, end all visible encroachments, if any from or on said land. As surveyed by me, or under my direct supervision, this 2nd day of September, 1992. JOB j 40210 BARRIENTOS &: ASSOCIATES, INC. Barton G. Ahrens Land Surveyor, MN Reg. No. 19162 Subject to easements of record. Barrientos & Associates. Inc. Pro/e$$/o~o/ £n9/~/~~ !~1 ~ ~k~ 155~ W~y~ta B~le~rd ~ot~ M~ne~oto 5539/ (612) 473- 1676 ]? D.B. DEVELOPMENT NIEW HOP~ --MINN~t~OTA 'ii ,o D.B. DEVELOPMENT N[¥/ HOPE--M:.'~%~OTA I,iJCi~K. K. DESIGN ACCESS AND PARKING EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT, is made as of this day of , 1993, by ENGELSMA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership (hereinafter called "Owner"), and NAFTALI ALEALAI and LONAE ALKALAI, husband and wife (hereinafter jointly called "Grantee"). WITNESSETH THAT WHEREAS: A. Owner is the owner of land located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described, upon Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "Owner Parcel"); B. Grantee is the owner of that certain tract, of land located .in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described upon Exhibit B attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee Parcel"); C. Owner has agreed to grant Grantee a nonexclusive easement for ingress, egress, and parking purposes over and across a portion of the Owner Parcel, in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is herebY acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. A. Access. Owner~ for itself, its successors and assigns, and all subsequent owners of the Owner Parcel, hereby grants to Grantee, its successors and assigns, and all subsequent owners of the Grantee Parcel, for the benefit of said Grantee Parcel, a 1 perpetual, nonexclusive easement for ingress and egress over and across those portions of the Owner Parcel which are from time to. time constructed as driveway. Said. easement shall be for the benefit of and appurtenant to the Grantee Parcel, and may be used and enjoyed by the owners of the Grantee Parcel, the tenants of each such owner, and the agents, employees, visitors and invitees of each such owner and tenant for purposes of entering upon and exiting from the Grantee Parcel. The driveways of the Owner Parcel may be used by Grantee and such tenants, agents, employees, visitors, and invitees for ingress and egress purposes only, and Grantee shall have no right to park motor vehicles upon the Owner Parcel. or otherwise use the Owner Parcel for any other purpose, except as specifically provided in Paragraph 1-B 'below. Owner shall have the right from time to time, at Owner's sole election, to modify, relocate, reconstruct, or eliminate the driveways existing upon the Owner Parcel, provided 'that Minimum Driveways shall always exist upon the Owner Parcel, subject, however, to governmental action and restrictions. For purposes of the preced- ing sentence, the phrase "Minimum Driveways" shall mean one of each of the following: (±) One driveway which allows ingress and egress between the Grantee Parcel and Medicine Lake Road; and (ii) One driveway which allows ingress and egress between the Grantee Parcel and Winnetka Avenue North. B. Parkinq Easement. Owner, for itself, its successors and assigns, and all subsequent owners of the Owner Parcel, hereby grants to Grantee, its successors and assigns, and all subsequent owners of the Grantee Parcel, for the benefit of said Grantee Parcel, a non-exclusive easement to park a total of up to twelve (12) motor vehicles upon the most easterly southeastern portion of the Owner Parcel shown crosshatched and designated upon Exhibit C attached hereto which is from time to time constructed and marked as parking areas (the "Parking Easement Area"). The easement established and created pursuant to this Paragraph 1-B shall be for the beneifit of .and appurtenant to the Grantee Parcel, and may be used and enjoyed by the owners of said Grantee Parcel, the tenants of each such owner, and the agents, employees, visitors and invitees' of each such owner and tenant for purposes of parking their motor vehicles while said persons are visiting or conducting business upon the Grantee Parcel. The Parking Easement Area may be used by the owners of the Grantee Parcel and such tenants, agents, employees, visitors, and invitees for parking purposes only, and such persons shall have no right to park motor vehicles within said Parking Easement Area overnight or otherwise use said Easement Area for any other purpose. The owners of the Owner Parcel shall have the right' from time to time, at said owners' sole election, to reduce, modify, relocate, or reconstruct the parking areas existing within the Parking Easement Area, provided that at least twelve parking spaces shall always exist within at least a portion of the Parking Easement Area or any substitute easement area established pursuant to this Paragraph 1-B. The owners of the Owner Parcel may submit alternate easements to the ownersof the Grantee Parcel for purposes of substituting a new easement area in place of the Parking Easement Area described in this Paragraph 1-B. Theowners of the Grantee Parcel shall approve any proposed alternate easement area submitted by the owners of the Owner Parcel if the alternate easement area provides similar parking areas in reasonable proximity to the Grantee Parcel. The Parking Easement Area created herein shall remain effective until altered or amended of record by agreement between the owners of the Owner Parcel and the owners of the Grantee Parcel. Nothing in this Paragraph shall be construed to require the owners of the Owner Parcel to modify or substitute the Parking Easement Area described in this Paragraph 1-B. 2 · ~erm. A. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the earlier of (i) the date that Grantee opens the Grantee Parcel for business, or (ii) August 1, 1993, and this Agreement shall terminate (unless sooner terminated pursuant to Paragraph 8 below) on the date that is ten (10) years, plus the partial month, if any, after said commencement date (the "Original Term,'). B. Grantee shall have the option to renew the term of this Easement Agreement for one (1) period of ten (10) years upon the same terms and conditions as are provided herein except that the monthly fee described fn Paragraph 4 hereof shall be in the amount of $1,450 per month for each month, and there shall be no further options to renew. The s'aid option shall be exercised by Grantee giving notice by certified mail to Owner, return receipt requested, at least one hundred eighty (180) days before the.expiration of the then existing term and not more than 365 days before~the expiration of the then existing term. It shall be a condition of the exercise of the foregoing option that at the time of the exercise of said option, Grantee shall not be in default hereunder. 3. Maintenance. The easement areas on the Owner Parcel shall be maintained in good order and repair by the owners of that portion of the Owner Parcel which contains the applicable easement area, at the sole cost and expense of said Owner Parcel owners. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, if any damage to an easement area, beyond ordinary wear and tear, is caused by Grantee, the tenants of Grantee, or the agents, employees, visitors or invitees of Grantee or such tenants, then the owner of the Grantee Parcel shall be liable for the cost of repairing such damage. 4. Fees. A. In consideration of the rights granted to Grantee hereunder, Grantee shall pay Owner, in advance, beginning on the commencement date hereof and on the first day of each month thereafter during the Original Term hereof, a monthly fee equal to Nine Hundred Fifty Dollars ($950) per month. B. On the first day of each month of the renewal term described in Paragraph 2-B hereof, if any, Grantee shall pay Owner a monthly fee equal to One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty ($1,450) per month. 5. Obstruction of Driveways. Subject to the terms of Paragraph 1 hereof, the driveways located from time to time within the easement areas described hereunder shall be kept open at all times and Grantee shall not permit any vehicle to be parked or any obstruction of any kind to exist in said driveways which will in any way prevent or obstruct pedestrian and vehicular traffic over and across said driveways to and from the Owner Parcel and Grantee Parcel, or between portions of said parcels. 6. IndemnitY. The owners of the Grantee Parcel shall indemnify and save Owner harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, liabilities, costs and/or expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred or suffered by reason of loss or damage to any person and/or property which arise or are caused, directly or indirectly, by the use of the Owner Parcel by the owners of the Grantee Parcel and such Grantee Parcel owners' tenants, agents, employees, visitors, and invitees. 7. Insurance. Grantee shall procure and maintain in force during the term of this Agreement, at Grantee's sole cost and expense, a policy of general liability insurance, insuring Grantee against all claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage sustained by one or more persons in the amount of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), combined single limit, and arising from, related to, or connected with, Grantee's presence or activities upon the Owner Parcel. Said policy shall name Owner as an additional insured, and shall not be cancelled without at least 30 days' prior written notice to Owner. Grantee shall provide Owner with a copy of the insurance certificate evidencing such insurance. 8. ~efault. A. In the event that Grantee does not timely pay Owner the amounts due hereunder, the amount due shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per year or the highest rate allowed by law, whichever is less. In addition, Grantee shall pay all costs incurred by Owner as a result of such nonpayment including, without limitation, collection costs and all attorneys' fees. B. In addition to Owner's rights and remedies provided in Paragraph 8-A above or otherwise Provided by law, Owner may terminate this Easement Agreement if Grantee defaults in the 4 performance of Grantee's obligations hereunder and said default remains uncured for a period of thirty (30)' days after written notice from Owner (or after such longer~ period of time after Owner's notice as may be reasonably'necessary to cure said default in light of the nature of such default, provided that Grantee promptly commences cure and diligently proceeds to complete such cure). Upon such termination, Grantee shall thereafter have no further right in and to the use of the Owner Parcel for any purpose whatsoever. Grantee shall also, upon such termination, execute any and all documentation required or necessary upon ,the reasonable request of Owner to terminate such easement of record. If Grantee shall refuse to execute such required and reasonable documentation upon reasonable notice and Owner is required to commence an action in connection therewith for the aforesaid purpose, then all costs incurred by Owner as a result of such refusal, including, but without limitation, collection costs and attorneys' fees, shall be payable by Grantee. 9. Restrictive Covenant~. Grantee hereby establishes and imposes upon the Grantee Parcel the following covenants, restric- tions, and reservations which shall run with and burden the Grantee Parcel as equitable restrictions and covenants passing with the conveyance of said Grantee Parcel. (±) No buildingor other structure shall be constructed upon the Grantee Parcel which exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height from the ground level, without the prior written consent of t~he owners of the Owner Parcel. (ii) No building or other structure shall be constructed upon the Grantee Parcel unless and until the owners of the Grantee Parcel have provided the Owner Parcel owners with a copy of the plans and specifications for such proposed building or structure and the owners of the Owner parcel have approved in writing the color and landscaping plans for such construction. After an approved building or structure is constructed on the Grantee Parcel, the color of such building or structure and the landscaping features of the Grantee Parcel shall not be changed or altered without the prior written consent of the owners of the Owner Parcel. If the owners of the Grantee Parcel breach the restrictions and covenants of~this Paragraph 9, Grantee acknowledges that Owner's remedies at law for such breach will be inadequate, and that the owners of the Owner Parcel shall have the right to (a) obtain injunctive relief against the Grantee Parcel owners to specifically enforce said owners' compliance with this Paragraph, and/or (b) terminate this Easement Agreement and all of Grantee's easements and rights hereunder after twenty (20) days' prior written notice to Grantee. 5 10. Title. The easements and covenants created hereunder shall be subject to all easements, declarations, and restrictions of record. 11. Covenants to Run with the Land. The terms, easementsand covenants contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, and the covenants, agreements and easements contained herein shall run with and burden the Owner Parcel and the Grantee Parcel; provided, however, that no party shall be personally liable under this Easement Agreement except to the extent such liability arises during the period that such party owns the Owner Parcel or the Grantee Parcel. 12. Modification of Aqreement.. Any provision of this Agreement may be subordinated, modified, rescinded, or amended in whole or in part only by an agreement in writing and in recordable form, executed by Owner and Grantee, or their successors or assigns. 13. CaDtions. The captions preceding the text of paragraphs hereof are inserted solely for the convenience of reference and shall not constitute part of this Agreement, nor shall they affect its meaning, construction or effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Access and Parking Easement Agreement as of the day and year first above written. "OWNER,, ENGELSMA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP~ By: Its: "GRANTEE,, NAFTALI ALKALAI LONAE ALKALAI 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS · COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,-199_, by , the of Engelsma Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Publi6 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS· COUNTY OF~&,~ ) The ,~oregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this da~of \~-~4 , 199~, by Naftali Alkalai. Notary ~ubl~ STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF ;,.!~.,,,w~/_~ I SS~ t, IOTARY PUK.F,--~NNE~OTA ~ ItENNEPIN COUN'n' ~ day of ~.,~-~ Notary PuD=Sic The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~44~ , 199!, bY Lonae Alkalai;~) ~,~ +k.~ik ~.~; ~/~, ~ ~"~'9,,- .-,~.%, _ :.., ..~ ._~- THIS DOCUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Thomas J. Wratkowski, Esq. 523 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55404-1078 K-FILES~280ZAE-l(O52793)WP$1 7 EXHIBIT SHOPPING CENTER LEGAL DESCRIPTION Outlot 2, Twin Terra Linda, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, in and for Hennepin County, except the most' easterly 9 feet thereof. The East 153 feet of the South 153 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter except the East 33 feet thereof, Section 19, Township 118, Range 21, according to the Government Survey thereof,, except that part which lies East of a. line drawn parallel with and distant 42 feet West of the East line of said Section and except that part which lies. South and East of a curve having a radius of 26 feet being concave to the Northwest and tangent to said parallel line and a line drawn parallel with and distant 33 feet North of the South line of said Section, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 23 ~ I 22I 12 WINNETKA AVENUE midland shoPping Center "' lnnetka ave. & medicine leke road new.hope, minnesota I£]~Aus-ANor. aSON II~An'r¥ Co~n': (8) (9) (10) ZONING § 4-3 nature necessary for the efficient operation of a vehicle, provided that it does not result in oil spillage, litter or other damage to the parking area surface, and provided that such routine home maintenance and upkeep work is completed within 48 hours. Sidew~]lr~. Sidewalks shall be provided from apartment parking areas, loading zones and recreation areas to the entrances to the building. Portland cement type concrete sidew~llr.~ to a width of not less than five feet shall be provided in the boulevards along all streets abutting the property. Garages. A Priv~ate garage shall be provided in connection with the erection or increase of units of any multiple-f~mfly dwelling structure as follows: One private garage per dwelling unit. No such private garage shall be less than ten feet in width nor less than 20 feet in depth. Each garage shall have an individual door for vehicular access shall be not less than nine feet in width. If more than one private garage is contained in a single building, an area of each such private garage shall be separated by a continuous fire-resistant wall extending from the foundation up to the roof at all points. The side of the garage building containing the doorway for vehiculsr access shall be not less than 30 feet from other garage buildings or apartment house buildings, or from other structures which may interfere with vehicular movement. Number of spaces required. The following mlnim,m number of off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained by ownership, easement and/or lease for and during the life of the respective uses hereinai~er set forth: Single-family dwellings. One enclosed and one open space, except that all structures with existing or potential floor area, as calculated under subsection 4-3(e)(4)a of this Code, in excess of 2,200 square feet shall require one enclosed and two open spaces for parking. Two-family dwellings and townhomes. One enclosed and one and one-half open parking spaces per unit. Townhornes and multiple-family dwellings. At least one enclosed and one and one-fourth open spaces per unit. 1. Senior citizen residential housing. One space per unit. plus one space per employee on ms~raum shill. One-half of required stalls may be provided at initial development for projects with occupancy restricted to persons age 55 and older. A proof of parking restrictive covenant shall be entered into by property owner and filed with property permitting the city to require, at its sole discretion, addition of parking required by this section in the event the city determines there is a need for this deferredparking. 2. Physically disabled citizen residential housing. One parking space for each unit, plus one space per employee on maximum shift. Convalescent homes, rest homes, nursing homes. One for each four beds for which accommodations are offered plus one per each two employees. CD4:45 § 4-3 NEW HOPE CODE eo Motels, motor hotels, hotels. One space per each rental unit and one space for each employee on any shift. School, elementary, and junior high school or church schools. At least one parking space for each seven students based on design capacity plus one for each three classrooms. g. Schools, trade school/specialty schools such as gymnastic training. One and one-half parking spaces for every two pupils at student capacity, unless it can be demonstrated that a differing amount of parking is required by that activity. h. Senior high school and post high school facilities (public and private). One space based on four students based on building design capacity. i. Church, theatre, auditorium. At least one parking space for each three seats based on the deSign capacity of the main assembly hall. Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with such buildings or uses shall be subject to additional requirements which are imposed by this Code. j. Community centers, libraries, private health clubs, museums, art galleries. One parking space for each 300 square feet of floor area. k. Bowling alley. At least six parking spaces for each alley, plus additional spaces as may be required herein for related uses contained within the principal structure. 1. Office buildings, medical and professional offices. Three spaces plus at least one space for each 300 square feet of floor area. m. Retail store, serviCe/ shopping center or convenience food take-out/delivery establishment. At least one off-street parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area. n. Retail sales and service business with 50 percent or more of gross floor area devoted to storage, warehouses. At least eight spaces or one space for each 200 square feet devoted to public sales or service plus one space for each 1,500 square feet of storage area. o. Restaurants, cafes, private clubs serving food and/or drinks, bars, taverns, night clubs. At least one space for each 40 square feet of gross floor area of dining and bar area and one space for each 80 square feet of kitchen area. p. Drive-in establishment and convenience food. At least one space for each 40 square feet of floor area or dining area, plus one space per 80 square feet of kitchen area, plus one space per 15 square feet of lobby and service center area. q. Funeral parlor. At least 20 parking spaces for each chapel or parlor, plus one parking space for each funeral vehicle maintRined on the premises. Aisle space shall also be provided off the street for mRlrlng up a funeral procession. r. Automobile repair and motor fuel station. At least five off-street parking spaces plus three off-street parking spaces for each service stall. Those facilities CD4:46 ZONING § 4-3 designed for sale of other items thsn strictly automotive products, parts or service shall be required to provide additional parking in compliance with other appli- cable sections of this Code. s. Automobile sales. At least one space for each 500 square feet of showroom, plus one space for every 3,000 square feet of outdoor sales lot, plus parking required for any ancillary automobile service or repair. t. Garden supply, nursery, lumber yard. At least one space per 250 square feet of interior sales floor area plus one space for each 3,000 square feet of outdoor sales Manufacturing, fabricating or processing of a product or material. One space'for each 500 square feet of floor area, plus one space for each company owned vehicle (if not stored inside principal building). Warehousing, storage or handling of bulk goods. That space which is solely used as office ancillary to the larger warehouse facility shall proVide one space for each 300 square feet of floor area used as office and one space per each 1,500 square feet of floor area used as warehouse, plus one space for each company owned vehicle (if not stored inside). Other uses. Other uses not specifically mentioned herein shall be determined on an individual basis by the city council. Factors to be considered in such determination shan include (without limitation) national parking standards, parking standards for similar businesses or land uses, size of building, type of use, number of employees, expected volume and turnover of customer traffic and expected frequency and number of delivery or service vehicles. (11) Joint facilities. Off-site joint use of parking. The city council may, after receiving a report and recommendation from the planning commission, approve a conditional use permit for one or more businesses to proVide the required off-street parking facilities by joint use of one or more sites where the total number of spaces provided are less than the sum of the total required for each business should they provide them separately. When considering a request for such a permit, the planning commission shall not recommend that such permit be granted except when the following conditions are found to exist. Entertainment uses. Up to 50 percent of the parking facilities required for a theatre, bowling alley, dance hall, bar or restaurant may be supplied by the off-street parking facilities provided by types of uses specified as primarily daytime uses in subSection 4. below. Night time or sunday uses. Up to 50 percent of the off-street parking facilities required for any use specified under iv below as primary daytime uses may be supplied by the parking facilities provided by the following CD4:47 § 4-3 NEW HOPE CODE night-time or Sunday uses; auditoriums incidental to a public or parochial school, churches, bowling alleys, dance halls, theatres, bars, restaurants or apartments. 3. School auditorium and church uses. Up to 80 percent of the parking facilities required by this section for a church or for an auditorium incidental to a public or parochial school may be supplied by the off-street parking facilities provided by uses specified under subsection iv below as primarily daytime uses. 4. Day'me uses. For the purpose of this section the following uses are considered as primarily daytime uses: banks, business offices, retail stores, personal service shops, household equipment or furniture shops, clothing or shoe repair or service shops, manufacturing, wholesale and slml]ar uses. b. Additional criteria for joint parking. In addition to the preceding requirements, the following conditions are required for joint parldng usage: 1. Prox~mlty. The building or use for which application is being made to utilize the off-street parking facilities provided by another building or use shall be located within 300 feet of such parking facilities. 2. Conflict in hours. The applicant shall show that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the two buildings or uses for which joint use of off-street parking facilities is proposed. 3. Written consent and agreement. A legally binding instrument, executed by the parties concerned, for joint use of off-street parking facilities, duly approved as to title of grantors or lessors, and form and manner of execution by the city attorney, shall be filed with the city clerk and recorded with the Hennepin county recorder or registrar of titles, and a certified copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the city within 60 days after approval of the joint parking use by the city. (12) Off-site parking. a. A conditional use. Any off-site parking which is used to meet the requirements of this Code shall be a conditional use permit as regulated by section 4-33 of this Code and shall be subject to the conditions listed below. b. Code compliance. Off-site parking shall be developed and maintained in compli- ance with all requirements and standards of this Code. c. Access. Reasonable access ~om off-street parking facilities to the use being serviced shall be provided. d. Lessee agreement required. The site used for meeting the off-site parking requirements of this Code shall be secured by a lease agreement between the parties, with term approved by the city council subject to the review and approval of the city attorney, filed with the city clerk and recorded with the Hennepin CD4:48 ZONING § 4-3 County Recorder or Registrar of Title, and a certified copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the city clerk-within 60 days after approval of the agreement by the city council. e. Proximity to multiple residence. Off-site parking for multiple-family dwellings shall not be located more than 100 feet from any normally used entrance of the principal use serviced. f. Proximity for nonresidential uses. Off-site parking for nonresidential uses shall not be located more than 300 feet from the main entrance of the principal use being served. No more than one main entrance shall be recognized for each principal building. g. Term ofparking agreement. Any use which depends upon off-site parking to meet the requirements of this Code shall maintain ownership and parking utilization of the off-site location until such time as on-site parking is provided or a site in closer proximity to the principal use is acquired and developed for parking. (13) Deferment of required parking. A reduction in the number of required parking stalls may be permitted by conditional use permit provided that: a. Evidence is provided demonstrating that the parking requirements of the proposed use will be less than the parking required under subsection 4-3(e) of this Code during the peak demand period. Factors to be considered when reviewing the proposed parking demand shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Size, type and use of building. 2. Number of employees. 3. Projected vol,,me and turnover of employee and/or customer traffic. 4. Projected frequency and volume of delivery or service vehicles. 5. Number of company owned vehicles. 6. Storage of vehicles on site. b. In no case shall the amount of parking provided be less than one-half to the amount of parking required by ordinance. c. The property owner can demonstrate that the site has sufficient property under the same ownership to accommodate the expansion of the parking facilities to meet the minlmum requirements of subsection 4-3(e) of this Code if the parking demand exceeds on-site supPly. d. On-site parking shall only occur in areas designed and constructed for parking in accordance with subsection 4-3(e) of this Code. The area reserved as "proof of parking~' shall be sodded or seeded and maintained as green space or a recreational area. No permanent buildings shall be permitted in the "proof of parking" area. e. The property owner shall record a restrictive covenant against the title to the property providing that additional parking shall be constructed in accordance CD4:49 § 4-3 NEW HOPE CODE with subsection 4-3(e) of this Code if the site parking demand exceeds the actual on-site parking supply in the sole opinion of the city. The form of the restrictive covenant shall be approved by the city attorney before the issuance of the conditional use permit. f. To qualify for a parking deferment, the site plan must comply with all current zoning standards. g. Application for and approval of a conditional use permit for deferment of required parking shall also be subject to the provisions of section 4-33 et al of this Code. (f) Off-street loading. (1) Purpose. The regulation of loading spaces in these zoning regulations is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of-way and in off-street parking areas so to promote the safety and general welfare of the public, by establishing minimum requirements for off-street loading and unloading from motor vehicles in accordance with the specific and appropriate utilization of various parcels of land or structures. Location. a. Off-street. All required loading berths shall be off-street and located on the same lot as the building or use to be served. b. Distance from intersection. All loading berth curb cuts shall be located at minimum 50 feet from the intersection of two or more street rights-of-way. This distance shall be measured from the property line. c. Prohibited in front yards. Loading berths shall not occupy the front yard setbacks. d. Front or side yard locations. A conditional use permit shall be required for loading berths for nonresidential uses located at the front of the building or at the side of the building on a corner lot must comply with the following standards: 1. Pedestrians. Loading berths shall not conflict with pedestrian movement. 2. Visibility. Loading berths shall not obstruct the view of the public right-of- way from off-street parlrlng access. 3. General compliance. Loading berths shall comply with all other require- ments of this section. e. Traffic interference. Each loading berth shall be located with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or public alley in a manner which will cause the least interference with traffic. f. Distance from residential use. No loading berth for an industrial use shall be located closer than 100 feet from a residential district unless within a structure. Surfacing. All loading berths and accessways shall be improved with not less than six inch class five base and two inch bit~ml-ous surfacing to control the dust and drainage according to a plan submitted to and subject to.the approval of the city engineer. (2) (3) CD4:50 ZONING § 4-36 Sec. 4-36. Administration--Variances. .... ~(a) Purpose of ~variance. The purpose of a variance is to permit rebel from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue noneconomic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where circ-m.~tances are unique to the individual property under consideration, and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code. (b) Procedure. An application for a variance requires a public hearing and shall be processed pursuant to the provisions outlined in subsection 4-30(c) of this Code. (c) Hardship. An application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, the following criteria have been met: (1) A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property that results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or slml]ar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy, systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. (2) The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. (3) The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous owner. (4) Additional criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria: a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality. b. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. d. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district. (d) Informational requirements. (1) A certificate of survey depicting the following: a. Lot dimensions and area. b. Location, setback and dimension of all buildings on the lot including existing and proposed structures. c. The proposed variance. (2) Narrative description of the requested variance and hardship unique to the property. CD4:171 Planning Distdct~ PLANNING DISTRICT 18 Planning District 18 is located on the southern edge of New Hope. Its boundaries are Boone Avenue to the west, the Soo Line Rail System to the east, Golden Valley to the south and Crystal to the north. Land uses within this area include' single family residential, medium density residential, high density residential, parks/recreatiOn and commercial. The following recommendations pertain to District 18. The Iow density residential neighborhoods are generally in good condition, however, some select sites display declining building and site conditions. Housing maintenance and scattered site renovation and redevelopment will be pursued. The medium density residential uses along ×ylon Avenue and Virginia Avenue are in good condition but lack required residential amenities. The City should encourage the provision of amenities when considering future development applications associated with these sites. The commercial area in District 18 is proposed to be expanded to include a non- conforming multiple family use located along the east side of Winnetka Avenue. Redevelopment of this non-conforming use is intended to provide a uniform commercial image along Winnetka Avenue between Terra Linda Drive and Medicine Lake Road. This image would be further enhanced with a streetscape treatment that would tie this commercial area together with other commercial locations in the City. Storm water drainage impacts the high density land uses along Rosalyn Court. Efforts to mitigate the storm water problems will be investigated. Street improvements are required on Medicine Lake Road to provide left turn lanes for traffic accessing Winnetka Avenue. City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update 104 Deve/opment Framework February 14, 2005 Mark Grimes City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Subject: New Hope Planning Case 05-02 Dear Mark: Enclosed is a public hearing notice/map for Planning Case No. 05-02 for a variance to the number of off-street parking spaces required for an automobile repair facility. Please notify the appropriate properties in your dty about the request if you feel it is appropriate. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 763-531-5119. Thanks for your cooperation. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development Enclosures: Public Hearing Notice Address Map cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North * New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 * www. ci.new-hope.mn.us City Hall: 763-531-5100 * Police (non-emergency): 763-531-5170 * Public Works: 763-592-6777 * TDD: 763-531-5109 City Hall Fax: 763-531-5136 * Police Fax: 763-531-5174 * Public Works Fax: 763-592-6776 CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by City that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver 05-02 Naftali Alkalai- Mahzal, Inc. 2/4/05 4/5/05 6/4/05 7900 Medicine Lake Road New Hope 55427 H 763-473-2585 W 763-541-1984 19-118-21-44-0001 Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. B. C. D. Eo Assign each application a number. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). List the date the City received the application. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) List the deadline under any extension or waiver. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or .F, or, if applicable, Box H.) List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: March 1, 2005 Report Date: February 25, 2005 05-03 Barbara Bruemmer 4717 Independence Avenue North Variances to maximum curb cut width, residential off-street parking and prohibition against parking on the boulevard II. Request The petitioner is requesting variances to the maximum curb cut width, residential off-street parking requirements and prohibition against parking on the boulevard, pursuant to 4-3(e)(4)h6, 4-3(e)(6)d, and 4-36 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. Zoning Code References Section 4-3(e)(4)f Section 4-3(e)(4)h6 Section 4-3(e)(6)d Section 4-36 III. Property Specifications Zoning: Location: Adjacent Land Uses: Site Area: Building Area: Lot Area Ratios: Planning District: Sections 4-3(e)(4)f, General Provisions - Residential off-street parking General Provisions - Curb cut maximum General Provisions - Location - Boulevard parking prohibited Variances - Administration R-l, Single Family Residential On Independence Avenue just north of 47th Avenue R-l, single family land uses in all directions 12,026 square feet or .276 acres Existing house: 1,51~ square feet Existing Building Area: 1,512 square feet 12.5% Green Space: 9,545 square feet 79% Hard Surface Area: 969 square feet 8.5% No. 7; The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the low dehsity residential neighborhoods are in good to excellent condition. The dry will strive 'to maintain and enhance these neighborhoods through the promotion of continuous housing in-place expansion, renovation and modernization. Planning Case Report 05-03 Page 1 2/25/05 Specific Information: IV. Background The group home located at 4717 Independence Avenue North was formerly a single family residence until it was purchased by Barbara Bruemmer, owner of Heartfelt Homes, Inc. in May 1999. The house has a two car tuck under garage that has been converted into a storage area by the owner. The garage is no longer used to store automobiles. The owner extended the parking area without the knowledge of the New Hope city officials as there are no requirements to seek a driveway permit to construct these facilities. Upon inspection of the property, it was discox?ered the extended parking area in the front of the property was not installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the New Hope City Code. When the applicant was notified of the non-conforming parking area, they filed the variance request to seek approval from the city of New Hope to continue to maintain and operate the parking area in the front of the property. As currently situated, the site has enough space to park four vehicles on-site. There is room for two vehicles in the driveway and two in the extended parking area. Heartfelt Homes, Inc., which owns a group home for four developmentally disabled adults at 4717 Independence Avenue, has altered the single family home to expand the driveway and curb cut to allow for off-street parking within the front yard of the single family home. This was noted by staff and Ms. Bruemmer was notified she was in violation of city zoning regulations pertaining to maximum curb cut width and parking prohibited in a boulevard section of the street right-of-way. The applicant indicated to staff that these improvements were necessitated based on the group home's location within a cul-de-sac and the need to service the various parking needs of the group home including transportation providers for the group home tenants, staff automobiles, deliveries to the site, vehicles for maintenance personnel, etc. The improvements were necessary to take these vehicles off the street to avoid problems with the adjoining neighbors such as non-delivery of marl, interruptions of on-street parking for other residents, and traffic safety.. Ms. Bruemmer makes the argument that her use and lot are unique in character, creating hardships that are not otherwise found in single family neighborhoods. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner submitted a lengthy narrative about the variance requests and background information on the group home. Excerpts of that narrative follows: "Heartfelt Homes, Inc. is a small and friendly company developed to offer consumers with developmental disabilities high quality, specialized services in a caring manner. Our goal is to promote independence, natural community supports, increase communication abilities, foster emotional growth, promote exercise and healthy eating and aid in managing medical needs. We offer specialized behavioral programming as needed, teach/assist in budgeting, expand recreational experiences and help make positive decisions. We encourage artistic and musical interests, strengthen personal hygiene skills and teach social and safety skills and train consumers in independent living skills." Planning Case Report 05-03 Page 2 2/25/05 The petitioner stated that she purchased the home on Independence Avenue in 1999 and made renovations such as egress windows in the bedrooms per the fire marshal and county and state guidelines for licensing the group home. Due to the vulnerabilities of the individual consumers, frequent quality assurance checks are required to ensure services are being provided. During these checks, additional cars will be parked at the property. State Statutes require training for all staff members and monthly house meetings are required. In all these instances, more vehicles are parked at the house. All four consumers at this site attend different work/day programs and are transported daily to those locations in large commercial size vehicles, some with wheelchair lift capabilities. In addition to those vehicles, there are also maintenance personnel and delivery vehicles. The petitioner states, "changes made to the driveway has made the neighborhood look more appealing and is much more useful and practical than the previous driveway. Staff members are responsible for shoveling the driveway and sidewalks to ensure safety." Three variances are being requested: 1. Residential off-street parking - justification for variance: · Van sized to accommodate four consumers and does not fit in garage due to low garage door. · State law requires consumers to have access to their belongings and seasonal items are stored in the garage. · Garage also used to store lawn mowers, patio furniture, grill, Christmas tree, decorations, etc. · Twenty-four hour supervision is required and these staff people park at the house. Before the driveway was enlarged, staff received tickets at various times for parking in the street. The mailman also refused to deliver mail with staff cars parked in the street and causing an obstacle to the neighbors' mailboxes. The remodeled driveway and landscaping does not interfere with the essential character of the locality and looks more appealing than the previous driveway and landscaping. The changes made do not pose any hindrance for the neighbor's property. 2. Curb cut maximum - justification for variance: · Changes to the driveway have reduced street congestion in the center of the cul-de-sac. Many of the neighbors have made changes to their driveways to add additional parking, however, the unusual shape and topography of this lot makes this difficult. The driveway reconstruction reduces the danger for consumers when being picked up or dropped off from activities. · The nature of this property does not allow us to add a driveway on either side of the home. House is located in a low area of the cul-de-sac and water drains toward the home. · At any given time, there are several cars parked at the site, such as house vehicle, live-in staff member, additional staff, and many times a manager, maintenance, delivery trucks, consumer transportation vehicles, visitors, etc. - six or more vehicles. · Due to the topography of the site and the addition of the retaining wall, pavers and grading all helped to reduce water runoff into the garage and basement. Planning Case Report 05-03 Page 3 2/25/05 Two landscaping contractors worked on the project and a great deal of money was spent to make the site look better and more efficiently. 3. Boulevard portion of street right of way cannot be used for parking - justification for the variance: · City code requires parking three feet from the property line, which they feel does not allow them to park on the right side of the property in the street. · Parking to the left of the old driveway caused an obstacle for the mailman and for the neighbors. · Neighbors were concerned when staff parked on the street blocking mailboxes and all the shifting of vehicles was causing a safety risk for neighborhood children. · There are four women with disabilities at the house and the old driveway design did not allow enough room for the consumers to walk safely from the vehicles due to physical and mental impairments. The expanded driveway is much safer for the consumers. · City snow removal on the cul-de-sac can be accomplished the same as it is now. The applicant also stated that, "We feel that even through we fall under the' city ordinances of being a single unit family dwelling, we are different than the average single unit family dwelling by being licensed by I-Iennepin County and the state of Minnesota which mandates the level of supervision and quality of services and maintenance of the home to such a high level that we will most definitely need to have more parked vehicles ~ at our property. With no legal options to add any additional parking to this particular property due to only having a curb front of 46.36 feet and by it being an odd pie shaped lot does not allow for parking on the sides and the house is not set back enough from the street to even add it beyond the first 20 feet like specified by the city. However, there are many other cul-de-sac properties that have enough space to legally add some type of additional parking as even 50% of my neighbors have been able to do it within the required guidelines as well as other cul-de-sac homes in the neighborhood. I wish to be granted all three variances with regard to the odd shape of my lot and with regard of the use of the property being an approved and licensed group home by the State of Minnesota and Hennepin County." The attorney for the applicant submitted correspondence on February 18, 2005. The applicant argues that because of the unique business needs of a group home, it is necessary for the city of New Hope to grant these variance requests. The following excerpt addresses the concerns of the city that were expressed by the Development Review Team and the Design and Review Committee: "Selection of the site by the property owner for this use. This home is licensed by the State of Minnesota as a group home under Minn. Stat. 245B and an adult foster care facility under the Department of Human Services, who have found it suitable for this use. The FHAA requires the city to make reasonable accommodations to allow persons with disabilities to live in the housing of their choosing. To fail to do so is tantamount to stating that persons with disabilities who require 24-hour staff may not live at the end of a cul-de-sac. Damaging cars. The city argues that it is concerned about damage to cars parked too close to the curb when it plows snow. However, without the variance, the city has had to plow snow around parked cars on the street; certainly the risk of damage to a car parked on the street is greater than the risk of damage to a car parked in the driveway, which is 21 feet deep. If an average car, 15 feet in length, is Planning Case Report 05-03 Page 4 2/25/05 parked one foot from the front of the stall the car is still five feet from the curb. It would be rare for snow to be plowed more than five feet beyond the curb. Having all the cars off the street also allows the city to do a better job of plowing, because it can plow the entire street, rather than having to plow around parked cars. There has been at least one heavy snowfall since the changes were made, and no problems were noted. There is just as much room behind a vehicle parked in the new parking area as there would be behind the vehicles parked in the original driveway. Snow storage. The city also argues that the variance will prevent it from using the boulevard in front of 4717 Independence for snow storage. The city has never stored or dumped snow in front of 4717 in the past because of the limited frontage and the placement of the mailboxes and a large tree that used to be there. Snow in the cul-de-sac has always been moved to a part of the cul-de-sac with the largest frontage. The city has cited no reason why it. is now necessary to being storing snow in front of 4717 Independence. The oversized parking are out of character with the surrounding residential driveways. The parking configuration is a reasonable accommodation for the people with disabilities who live at this home. They cannot be left unsupervised so staff is not able to leave the home and move the vehicles around whenever someone has to come or go. The company cannot require a staff member to allow someone else t° move their car. Alternative configurations. The city proposes that one additional parking space be constructed on the east side yard, and/or that the group home be required-to park vehicles in the garage. This is not practical for several reasons. The first of these is that the current configuration is already in place. Heartfelt Homes relied on not one, but two different contractors who were not aware that the current construction would violate the city's zoning code. Heartfelt Homes did not deliberately violate the ordinance, and spent $25,000 to have the current parking arrangement constructed. The current arrangement is more attractive than the old arrangement. Second, the landscaping on the east side of the driveway would have to be removed, and would recreate a past drainage problem. Heartfelt Home has landscaped the area to the right of the driveway to be higher than at the edge of the property to direct the water aWay from its property and toward the street. The neighbors' property and Hearffelt's yard are both higher than Heartfelt's house, and in the past water would run into the garage and back up the sewer. There have been no flooding problems since the new landscaping was completed. The garage is not being used for parking. As discussed above, because there are a number of vehicles, each with a different owner, parking one .vehicle behind another is not a workable solution for the reasons described above. Heartfelt Homes has clearly demonstrated that the addition of two parking spaces in the current configuration is a necessary and reasonable accommodation. As requested, Heartfelt provides the attached staffing patterns. At any given time, there are at least two or three staff vehicles and a house van, which will not fit into the garage because the van is taller than the garage. Consumers attend a different day program, each sends its own transportation vehicle to take consumers to work and bring them home. In addition, the administrator, supervisor, maintenance staff, case managers, friends and family of the consumers, vendors and others all visit on a regular basis, which contribute to a lively and busy household. Since the schedule is different everyday, there is no way to predict exactly who will need which parking space on a given day. There is clearly a need for four side-by-side parking spots to accommodate the needs of the household. Planning Case Report 05-03 Page 5 2/25/05 Having four parking spots .side by side is much more practical than the city's proposal to park one vehicle in the garage and two behind the garage with one on the east side. Thus, four parking spots are required much of the time. The city's "two behind" proposal creates practical problems of playing "musical cars." A different person owns each of these vehicles. To ask staff to leave the clients alone to move a vehicle so that the vehicle in front of it can get out creates unnecessary additional traffic, and would require staff to leave consumers unsupervised, which could be a violation of licensing standards. The city's proposal to take out the existing two spaces on the west and substitute one on the east is likewise not practical because it still uses the "two behind" configuration. Proposed conditions. Heartfelt is willing to agree to use its best efforts to park smaller vehicles nearer the street, and would agree not to hold the city liable for damage to vehicles that are parked in the two variance spaces; likewise, it would not expect the city to remove snow from any of the parking spaces. (The city did not remove snow from the area during the last major snowfall.) However, Heartfelt does not feel that the proposed condition that cars be parked in the garage is reasonable unless it is enforced uniformly throughout the city." VI. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified, including the city of Plymouth, and staff has received no comments. VII. Development Analysis A. Zoning Code Criteria General Provisions Section 4-3(e)(4)f: Residential off-street parking. Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles... Section 4-3(e)(4)h6: Curb cut maximum: No curb cut access shall exceed the following width dimensions measured at a point set back 20 feet from the property line: Residential - 24 feet. Section 4-3(e)(6)d: Location: Boulevard parking prohibited - The boulevard portion of the street right-of-way shall not be used for parking. Variance The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code. An application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, the following criteria have been met: 1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, Planning Case Report 05-03 Page 6 2/25/05 narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if ~ reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. 2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. 3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous owner. 4. Additional Criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria: a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality. b. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. d. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district. The city's planning consultant stated that "this variance application is difficult in light of the use of the property being a group home which is allowed by State Statutes in any single family zoning district and the fact that the applicant has already made the improvements to the site. Arguments against the variance: 1. While Minnesota State Statutes allow group homes as a permitted use within a single family zoning district, the selection of the site was a decision made by the landowner in creating this facility. The cul-de-sac lot lacks sufficient frontage to accommodate the stated parking needs for a group home. 2. The city establishes parking performance standards as a means of controlling traffic and maintaining safety along public streets. The expanded curb cut provides for a variety of access points into the lot which will complicate traffic safety concerns for those entering and exiting the site. Additionally, parking within the boulevard area provides little room for snow storage which is an important element in street maintenance. The city shall not take any responsibility for clearing of snow from the new parking area or responsibility for any vehicles that may be damaged from snow wash being pushed off the public street into the boulevard area. The applicant has indicated that the parking stall from back of curb to the retaining wall is only 21 feet. This suggests that vehicles will be in close proximity to the street surface and could be damaged in the event of a large snowfall. While the applicant is attempting to remove the vehicles from the public street surface, the city does not believe that all traffic safety issues have been resolved with the current design. 3. The group home is located on a cul-de-sac lot which has limited street frontage (approximately 46.36 feet). It appears that the proposed curb cut width is approximately 36 feet in width, Planning Case Report 05-03 Page 7 2/25/05 providing a broad range of access to the site. This is out of character with the surrounding residential driveways which are limited to a maximum curb cut width of 24 feet. 4. Another unusual characteristic of this group home is that the two parking stalls within the garage are not being utilized for parking; rather, they are being reserved for storage for the operation of the group home. This requires all parking to be outdoors. This loss of available parking is operational driven rather than a unique characteristic of the site. The elimination of these two parking stalls increases the demand for additional outdoor parking. 5. There appears to be room on the east side yard to expand the drive to provide an additional parking space. This, in connection with parking in the garage, may resolve the parking issue without variance and in a manner more customarily found in single family neighborhoods. The city engineer has indicated that this side yard does not contain any utilities. Arguments that favor the variance: 1. The proposed use is by state law a permitted use within any R-1 Zoning District, therefore, it is consistent with the intent and purpose of the R-1 District. 2. The unique shape of the cul-de-sac lot complicates the ability to provide alternative locations for off-street parking. 3. As a group home, it does have unique transportation and parking needs that are dissimilar from any other single family use within the R-1 District. This in itself makes the property unique. 4. While economic hardship does not warrant a variance, the property owner's investment in the front yard changes has been considerable." Development Review Team The Development Review Team considered the request and was not generally supportive of the request. The team offered arguments for and against the variance as follows: 1) In Favor - group home is a permitted use in R-1 zoning district; unique shape of lot complicates alternative locations for off-street parking; unique transportation and parking needs; petition of support from neighbors; if home sold in future, restore driveway to original condition. 2) Against - property owner selected this site; parking in boulevard area leaves little or no room for snow storage; potential damage to parked vehicles during snow plowing; over-sized parking area out of character of surrounding properties; two stalls in garage not being utilized for parking; potential for expanded parking on side property line. Design and Review Committee The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner on February 10 and discussed the same issues. The Committee reviewed the operations with a representative of Heartfelt Homes, Inc. The Committee requested that the applicant submit additional information regarding the staffing levels of this facility and whether or not it would be possible to construct a storage unit in the rear yard and using the garage space for. parking vehicles. The attorney for the applicant submitted a detailed letter in response to the concerns raised by the Development Review Team and the Design and Review Committee. The correspondence contains the staffing patterns for this property. The Planning Case Report 05-03 Page 8 2/25/05 applicant has indicated that there are two to three staff vehicles on site at any given time due to the staffing requirements of a group home facility. The Design and Review Committee proposed an alternative parking configuration that would remove the parking area in the front of the property, and relocate it closer to the house on the eastern side of the driveway. The Committee also suggested constructing a storage facility in the rear yard to provide additional parking within the existing garage. The correspondence that was submitted on behalf of Heartfelt Homes, Inc. indicated this alternative is practically impossible because the on-site staff would have to shuffle the vehicles to allow ingress and egress from the parking areas. The letter indicated that this alternative could create a situation where the residents of the property might be left unattended by the staff and this is a violation of the rules that govern the operation of group home facility. D. Plan Description The applicant submitted the variance request on February 7, 2005. The variance application seeks approval of three variances. The variance requests are as follows: The applicant is requesting a curb cut width variance from 24 feet to 36 feet. The applicant has also requested a variance from the residential off-street parking provision of the New Hope City Code which strictly prohibits the parking of automobiles belonging to employees, owners, tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing establishments not a resident at the residential site. The applicant has also requested a variance from the prohibition of the boulevard parking provision in the New Hope City Code. The extended parking area as constructed is within the right-of-way. The applicant installed the parking area which is located in front of the house and is located within the boulevard area prior to rec~eiving the necessary variance approvals from the city. Because no driveway permit is required, the city of New Hope was not notified of this nonconforming use until after the parking area had been installed. The additional, parking surface is 19 feet wide and is 21 feet deep. The parking surface is brick pavers and the applicant uses the parking area to park staff vehicles for the licensed group home that is operated on the site. The original driveway is 17 feet wide and is 30 feet deep. The driveway terminates at a tuck under garage that is used for storage of the tenants' personal items. The applicant has indicated that there is not enough room to park a vehicle inside the garage because of the storage of the tenants' personal items. Because of the significant drop in elevation, it was necessary for the applicant to install a retaining wall in frOnt of the expanded parking area. E. Planning Considerations The planner's comments have been incorporated into this report. F. Building Considerations The building official's comments have been incorporated into this report. Planning Case Report 05-03 Page 9 2/25/05 Legal Considerations The city attorney has responded to the applicant comments as follows: "! have reviewed the February 18, 2005 letter from attorney Mary K. Martin in connection with the Heartfelt Homes, Inc. variance request at 4147 Independence. We believe her letter misinterprets the federal law requirements imposed upon the City by the Fair Housing Act Amendments (FHAA) and the case law interpreting this act. The City clearly supports the integration of developmentally disabled adults into the community by permitting group homes located in single-family zoning districts. Therefore the case law referred to in her letter dealing with fact-specific situations wherein City zoning codes completely prohibited the establishment of group homes in residential zoning districts is not applicable to her client's request. These cases do provide us with direction and insight as to the nature and extent of reasonable accommodations that must be made for people with disabilities to insure they have an - equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice. However, the cases do not require the City to grant a blanket waiver of all facially neutral zoning policies and rules regardless of facts nor are we required to provide to the disabled the carte blanche ability to determine where and how they should live regardless of zoning ordinances to the contrary. (see Hovsons, Inc. v. Township of Brick, 89 F.3,d 1096 (3Ta Cir. 1996). Rather than rebut each of the arguments she has made in her letter, ! will simply state that it is within the City's prerogative to make reasonable regulations that preserve and promote the health, safety, and well-being of its citizens. We could spend considerable time and money reviewing the civil engineering and city planning design specifications and principles that make these regulations reasonable. This may be necessary if an acceptable solution cannot be reached with, the applicant. This problem however has been created by the applicant since it failed to consult with the City before the costly changes were made to the property that now give rise for our need to consider this variance request. In other words, this applicant failed to give the City a chance to provide any reasonable accommodations to our zoning requirements relating to its parking issue by first constructing the illegal parking arrangement and then requesting a variance after the City discovered the problem. As suggested in Hovsons, Inc. supra, we are not required to provide a blanket waiver of all facially neutral zoning policies and rules regardless of facts. Our parking requirements are facially neutral. I do want to address her troubling allegation that the City, by refusing to grant the variance, is discriminating against her client by refusing to make reasonable modifications or accommodations as required by law. This is simply not true. Unlike the factual setting in Hovsons, Inc., Casa Marie, Inc., and Smith & Lee Assocs. our zoning code does not prohibit the presence of a group home in the single-family zoning district, and is therefore not discriminating against her client by refusing to allow its presence. The code does however prohibit the driveway modification and parking arrangement precipitating the need for the requested variance. A refusal of the variance request is not discrimination by failing to make reasonable modifications or accommodations for the residents of the group home. Under 42 USCA 3601, et seq., any modifications or accommodations must be necessary, to afford a disabled person the opportunity to enjoy the premises. As in the cases she cites, the modifications or Planning Case Report 05-03 Page 10 2/25/05 accommodations must be related to the disability. In Trovato and Shapiro the disabled persons had difficulty walking and therefore required a parking space closer to their residence to minimize the burden walking imposed upon them. Her client, the owner/operator of the group home does not need the driveway it constructed to facilitate a_ny of the residents' disabilities. Her client constructed the driveway to serve the needs of others visiting the residence, including electricians, plumbers, and delivery persons. If the residents truly needed the driveway due to any disability, the driveway expansion would have been built closer to the home, as the City proposes, not further away from the home. She suggests that denial of the requested variance in effect prohibits group homes from being located on cul-de-sacs. We do not agree with that assertion, but instead believe there are other viable solutions and accommodations that can be made that would allow a group home to be located on a cul-de-sac. These solutions have been proposed to the applicant but now are not economically feasible to the applicant because they have already made changes prior to seeking City approval of the Variance. Again, the applicant cannot complain about the City's refusal to grant a reasonable accommodation when prior permission by the applicant was not requested. We were not given the opportunity to suggest any alternative accommodations regardless of their reasonableness. We are now simply being asked to accept carte blanche the changes by the applicant because it is too costly and or inconvenient for the owner/operator of the facility to consider other alternatives at this time. The effect of applicant's assertion that this variance request must be granted is that group homes are legally entitled to locate wherever they see fit, without regard for proper land use, and the City should permit the group home to make whatever modifications and accommodations the group home desires. The law cannot be interpreted that way. The law is designed to allow integration of group homes into single-family zoning districts. It's our opinion a court would uphold our proposed accommodations as reasonable." Ho Engineering Considerations Because the alterations to the site did not adversely impact the existing drainage of the area, the city engineer offered no comment. I. Police Considerations The Police Department did not have any comments on this matter. J. Fire Considerations West Metro Fire did not have any comments on this matter. VIII. Summary Heartfelt Homes, Inc. which owns a group home for four developmentally disabled adults at 4717 Independence Avenue North, submitted three variance requests regarding a recently installed parking area that is located in the front yard of property within the boulevard area. The additional parking that has been created allows for the side by side parking of four vehicles without any stacking. The applicant is permitted to have a 24 foot wide curb cut, however, the expanded parking area has created a 36 foot wide curb cut. The expanded parking is also located within the boulevard area and parking of Planning Case Report 05-03 Page 11 2/25/05 automobiles belonging to employees, owners, tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing establishments not a resident at the residential site is not allowed per city code. The applicant has indicated that the unique shape of this lot located on a cul-de-sac left only this alternative to address the parking needs of the employees. The applicant has indicated this parking area was installed to address neighborhood concerns regarding employees parking on the public street. The applicant has indicated that because the property is used as a group home and the lot is unique in character, a hardship has been created that is not otherwise found in other single family neighborhoods. IX. Recommendation In consideration of this request, two options are offered: Denial based on the following findings: 1. Minnesota State Statute allows group homes as permitted uses within a single family zoning district. This was approved because these facilities have similar characteristics of single family homes and can compatibly coexist with the adjoining properties. The decision to purchase this site was made by the applicant and not dictated by any licensing agency. The cul-de-sac lacks sufficient frontage to accommodate the stated parking needs for the group home. The applicant, in selecting this property, altering the garage to accommodate tenant storage and other operational characteristics has created the parking concern as well as the need for the requested variances. 2. The city has established parking performance standards as the means of controlling traffic and maintaining safety along public streets. The expanded curb cut provides a variety of access points to the property which complicates traffic safety for those entering and exiting the site. Additionally, parking within the boulevard area provides little, if any room for snow storage which is an important consideration for street maintenance. The Public Works Department has indicated that they typically use the entire 15 foot boulevard for snow storage. Retaining this space is critical on cul-de-sac lots due to the narrow frontage of the lot. Front end loaders are used in cul-de-sacs and snow is pushed into the front yards of the cul-de-sac lots. 3. The group home is located on a cul-de-sac lot which has limited street frontage (approximately 46.36 feet). The curb cut width for this property is approximately 36 feet in width. This provides a variety of access points .to the site and is out of character with the adjoining properties which are limited to a curb cut width of 24 feet. 4. The group home is not using the two parking spaces within the garage for parking. Rather, the applicant has converted the garage to a storage area for the residents' personal items. This measure increases the demand for additional outdoor parking. The loss of available parking area was done at the discretion of the applicant and is not a unique characteristic of this site. 5. There is room on the east side yard to expand the existing driveway to accommodate additional outdoor parking. If that and additional parking were made available Within the existing garage, there would be enough parking to accommodate the needs of the group home facility. The city engineer has indicated that there are no utilities in this side yard. Approval based on the following findings: Planning Case Report 05-03 Page 12 2/25/05 1. The proposed use is permitted by state law within any R-1 Zoning District. As such, it is consistent with the intent and purpose of the R-1 Zoning District. 2. The unique shape of the cul-de-sac complicates the ability to provide alternative locations for off- street parking. 3. As a group home, it does have unique transportation and parking needs that are dissimilar from any other single family use within the R-1 District. This provision makes the property unique. 4. An economic hardship cannot be the basis for granting a variance request, the property owner has made a significant investment in altering the front yard to accommodate the additional outdoor parking. 5. The newly constructed parking area would be restricted to compact car parking. 6. The city would not be held liable and would be indemnified against any damage to vehicles that are parked within the city boulevard. 7. The city will not be responsible for any snow removal within the parking area or boulevard area of the street. 8. The excess parking area is removed and restored to its original condition so that it complies with city ordinances upon sale of the property for a single family use. Regardless of whether this variance request is approved or denied, city staff recommends that the city reinstate the driveway permit requirement which was deleted from the city code in 1995. Over the past several years, Public Works and Community Development staff have encountered a number of situations in the city where driveway work is being completed that does not comply with city ordinances. Staff is requesting to amend the city code to require a permit so that plans can be reviewed prior to the commencement of driveway work to ensure compliance with applicable city ordinances. Attachments: Address/Zoning/Topo Aerial Maps Applicant Correspondence and Petition - February 3, 2005 Petitioner Legal Counsel Correspondence - February 18, 2005 Planner's Report - February 9, 2005 Planner's Report - February 25, 2005 City Correspondence/Inspection Reports City Attorney Correspondence - February 25, 2005 Excerpts from City Code Residential Front/Side/Rear Yard Variances - 1980-Present Legal Notice/Letter Application Log Planning Case Report 05-03 Page 13 2/25/05  4920 / . i :': ~ . · H AV~. :: ~ . .] ~H AVE N ~ ., · ~o~ ~ '~ ~ HOLIDAY g024 PARK 898.7 899. × 890, 899. I 890.5 X' 901 895 I 902,8 // $99,7 899.5 900.9 899,8 896,3 901 47TH { ~99.s >~' 90.5,0 902.7 9o~.s;< AVENUE NOT A LEGALLY RECORDED MAP. NTS A COMPiLA[!ON OF INF()RN,~IATiON 'A FROM ~i~Y, (~()UNTY AND S~.A~IE ITHORi'T'IES AND () T~i[.it '.:~OijR( FS, Hennepin Coun'¢ Map Server Page 1 of 1 Hennepin MN Click on map to view information on adjoining properties Scroll down to see property address, value & tax info 2a 24 Last update: 1/04/2005 at 1:00 PM RE.ad) IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW Click on Property Information Button below to view main tax information page for the property you have selected The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain.discrepancies. The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. Please report any map discrepancies to Bob Moulder (HennePin County Survey Division) at (612) 348-2618 or via e-mail at Bob. Moulder~co.hennepin.mn.us . The quality of the display may be influenced by your screen size and resolution set;ring and is best viewed at 800X600 screen resolution. This application requires Internet Explorer 3.02 or Netscape 2.01 or later version for proper operation. Copyright © 2004 Hennepin County http ://www 19.co.hermepin.mn.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=Hennepin&Cmd=Pan&Value=... 1/26/2005 02/03/05 RE: Request for Driveway Variance at 4717 Independence Ave. N., New Hope, MN 55428 To Whom It May Concern: Heartfelt Homes, Inc., is a small and friendly company developed to offer consumers with Developmental Disabilities high quality, specialized services in a caring manner. Our goal is to promote independence, natural community supports, increase communication ,abilities, foster emotional growth, promote exercise and healthy eating and aid in managing medical needs. We also offer specialized behavioral programming as needed, teach/assist in budgeting, expand recreational experiences and help consumers make positive decisions. In addition, we encourage growth in artistic or musical interests, strengthen personal hygiene skills and teach consumers effectiVe social skills to help develop lasting friendships with peers, family, staff, and other community individuals. We find creative ways to reduce the vulnerability of each consumer and teach safety skills and we are devoted to training consumers in independent living skills. Our program is client centered with a team advocacy approach to ensure the consumer's needs are being met and to ensure that high quality care is always maintained. Our services offer experiences that lead to a rich and supportive environment that allows consumers to experience life in the least restrictive community environment, while still meeting the needs of each consumer in the most normalized way possible. Not knowing who my audience is that I will be presenting this to I will give you some definitions to ensure that everyone reading/listening to this has the same understanding of the type of service my business provides. Developmental Disability is the more "proper term" used to refer to individuals with Mental Retardation (medical term), or in other words, individuals with IQ's of 70 or less in respect to their age group. Some of these folks may be more specifically diagnosed with such things like Down's Syndrome, or Autism, but many do not have that specific of a diagnosis other than Mental Retardation. For the purpose of giving some examples of a Mental Illness, (as many of our consumers are dually diagnosed) these might be such diagnosis as schizophrenia, bi- polar disorder (i.e. manic depressive disorder), obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, etc. Most folks with a Mental Illness have a normal IQ and take daily medication to lessen their symptoms. However, there is a small population of individuals that struggle both with Mental Retardation and with a Mental Illness. These individuals often need to live in a group home setting. People often think that the word Developmental Disability refers to someone in a wheel chair or with physical limitations. This is not the case. Developmental. Disability refers to being significantly behind the developmental ability of others in your age group with the onset before the age of 18. Therefore, when they become adults they still lack the ability to care for themselves in all the areas needed to function safely in the community without any guidance. These individuals may need help with such basic everyday living skills such as grooming/bathing, money, proper socialization, cooking, job skills, laundry, etc. These individuals don't necessarilY have to have a physical disability of any type but many of them actually do have other physical issues as well. Some physical disabilities our 20 consumers within the 5 homes we operate straggle with is seizures, or mild cerebral palsy, vision and hearing issues, brain shunt, and one individual has only one leg due to an amputation from having cancer. Our consumers have needs and wants like everyone else in the world. They want to do well and succeed, they want love and affection, they have feelings and emotions like everyone else, they have hobbies that interest them, they want friends and socialization, they want to have a nice home and have nice things around them, they want to go on vacations and go on activities in the community, and they want to have a job that feels rewarding and earn money that they can spend on things they enjOy, they want to look their best, and they want to be respected in their community as being a good contributing citizen. To give you a little bit of background on myself, I have 19 years of experience in working with individuals with Developmental Disabilities. I started' working with individuals with Developmental Disabilites at age 17 in my senior year of high school where I taught consumers with Developmental Disabilites job skills at community job sites. Then throughout college I worked in group homes that had some consumers with Developmental Disabilites and with some consumers who had a Developmental Disability and a Mental Illness. I thoroughly enjoyed the work which lead me to switch my major from Accounting to Psychology and to eventually Social Work. After college, with my many years of experience I had already gained in the field, I got a job managing 2 group homes for two different companies at the same time working full time at one company and part-time at the other. I was partial to one company in particular and switched over to continue to manage one group home for them exclusively along side of taking another full-time position with them as a Contracted Case Manager (same thing as a County Social Worker). They hired me out to 9 different counties to do case management for them working with individuals with Developmental Disabilities and with individuals with a dual diagnosis of a Developmental Disability and a Mental Illness. Then I started working on my Master's Degree to give me the option of advancing my career to become a therapist some day and then had to drop the part-time group home managing to fit in time for school and just did Social Work full time for several years while plugging away at my Master's Degree. Then, I found myself really missing working in group homes and decided that that was my niche. I was always frustrated with other companies I had worked for because they would often spend money in areas that did not really benefit the consumers and they would let the home or furniture get run down or have the consumers ride in unreliable vehicles and often not pay the staff well enough to attract higher quality staff with more experience and education. I knew I could do a better job than many of my competitors, especially if my company remained relatively small so that I could ensure the consumers were getting quality care and that the homes were well maintained. To give it a try I took a small step forward by taking a consumer with a Developmental Disability into my own home in April of 1998 to care for after incorporating as a business in January of 1998. I had to not only remodel my home to meet County and Fire Marshall requirements in order to license the home but also had to get a State license in order to operate, which of course came with lots of daily required paperwork similar to a cross between a nursing home and a school program as group homes are designed to teach consumers independent living skills to decrease their dependence on others. During this time, I was still working as a Social Worker since my client went to a work program during the day, (which is also state law) to learn job skills, social skills, and do community activities. I again enjoyed my work so much and even though I enjoyed social work, it was clear to me that my niche was Group Homes. I decided to take the plunge of being an entrepreneur and purchased the home on Independence Ave. on May 5th, 1999. I made some renovations to the home such as had to replace the bedroom windows to egress even in the upstairs bedrooms even though in single family dwelling homes this is not required. I found that once it becomes a group home, we are automatically treated differently than other home owners by the Fire Marshall and 2 the County licensor and are required to change out windows, and have additional requirements in regards to smoke detectors, fn'e extinguishers, fire doors between house and the garage, etc. The home was licensed by the State on July 30, 1999 and 4 consumers .moved into that home on the same day from a place called Clara Doer in Minneapolis (a 100 bed institution that was forced to shut down due to the state of MN making laws to deinstitutionalize Developmentally Disabled consumers into regular 4 person homes in the community, which 5 person homes are now allowed). I left my job as a Social Worker in August of 1999 and I was positive I wanted to do this for a living but new I needed to get to 5 or 6 homes to survive financially and with enough man power to make it all work. On November 1 st, of 1999 1 opened a third home that I had recently purchased and three consumers moved in to start with and a 4th soon after. In addition, I added two more consumers to my own home totaling 3 until the next year when I remodeled my own home once more so that I could add a 4th bedroom and client the following year. The foUrth home was opened in June of 2001 and the fifth home was opened in September of 2002. All of the above homes has been licensed by the State for use as Group Homes under nde 245B (Consolidated Rule) and as single unit family dwellings through the city in which they are located and by Hennepin County under Rule 203 (Adult Foster Care). Our homes need to be inspected by the State Licensing Division and Fire Marshall before we can even open as a Group Home and we have regular County and state visits to ensure continued compliance on a regular basis. All our homes have additional safety measures beyond what governs most single unit family dwellings that are needed to ensure we are in compliance with County laws as well and are authorized to provide services to these consumers by the State of Minnesota. We are mandated by Rule 256B.092 subpart 3 (9525.0024 subpart 3) to have staffing that meets each individual consumer's vulnerabilities. The vulnerabilities of each consumer are decided with their own team of Social Workers, Guardians, Day Program Providers, Residential Providers, Doctors, Therapists, and various other professional personnel involved in improving the consumer's quality of life (called the client's Interdisciplinary Team). Once the vulnerability level is decided it is our responsibility to ensure that we are providing the required number of staff members to provide the needed service at the required times. Due to the vulnerabilities of our individual consumers, frequent quality assurance checks are required to ensure proper services are being provided as well as maintenance of the home and grounds. During the times of these checks, additional cars are going to be parked at the property. We are required by the State under Rule 245B.07 that indicates how many training hours each of our staff members need. We remain in compliance with this requirement by conducting Monthly House meetings so that our staff stay well informed as well as meeting their training requirements. In conducting these trainings, there will again, be more vehicles parked in front of the house. All four consumers at the Independence site attend a Day Training and Habilitation Program (Work/Day Program) during their days so they can learn work related skills and earn money of their own. Each client happens to attend a different program from each other that is best suited for their needs that are decided upon with their individual interdisciplinary team. The four different DT&H Programs use transportation providers who utilize large commercial size vehicles, most with wheelchair lift capabilities. Four different transportation providers park in front of the house two times'daily to transport the consumer's to and from their Day Programs. In addition to the above listed vehicles parked in our driveway, we also have contracted maintenance personnel that serve our Group Homes and handle minor repairs. We also have Minnesgasco Homes Service Plus to service our furnace and water heaters and additional contractors such as plumbers and electricians who drive large vehicles and will need to park at the house from time to time. As a result of the differing levels of vulnerabilities of our consumers many are tougher on furniture than the average person such as being rough with dresser drawers as they are not as coordinated to operate these with ease so we have delivery trucks parking in front of our house to replace furniture on a more frequent basis than a "normal" house. The changes that have been made to our driveway has made the neighborhood look more appealing and is much more useful and practical than our previous driveway. The staff members working at our homes are responsible for shoveling the driveway and sidewalks to ensure safety. Since the changes have been made, our staff will be also be responsible for shoveling the new parking spaces and making sure that after the plow goes through the excess snow is shoveled back into our yard. We feel even the city snow plow drivers will be happier having less parked vehicles to dodge. We made the 2nd driveway about 21 feet deep so that there should still be ample room to plow the streets without damage to our vehicles. We will get blocked into our driveway no more than the average neighbor who parks two cars deep into his driveway. We will shovel ourselves out like everyone else after the plows go by. They have always tended to dump the snow two houses to the left of us as that neighbor has a curb width of 99.84 feet compared to my 46.36 feet. Heartfelt Homes, Inc. is currently licensed by the State of Minnesota and by Hennepin County to run the Group Home located at 4717 Independence Ave N, New Hope, MN 55428. This group home serves 4 adults with Developmental Disabilities and is a single unit family dwelling. The four consumers that live at this home require 24 hour supervision. We are requesting 3 variances for our property. 1. We are requesting a variance for the following violation: residential off street parking Justification for the variance: · The vehicles for our consumers are purchased with the needs of the consumers in mind as lower riding vehicles often make it difficult for certain consumers to get out of and smaller vehicles make it impossible to take all the consumers and 2 staff to the grocery store and still have enough room for groceries. Smaller vans sometimes cause space issues agitating certain consumers that are uncomfortable with being too close to others or being touched or bumped. This particular van was chosen specifically to accommodate these 4 consumers. Unfortunately, this vehicle does not fit in the garage due to the unusually low tuck under feature of the garage. Our garage door is so low that when we recently replaced it they had to custom make it by removing one entire panel. · Another State Law that we are required to follow is Rule 245B.07 subdivision 10 (See also Rule 17 9543.1020, subpart 15) which states that consumers must have access to their belongings upon request. Currently the garage space is used to store the consumer's extra belongings in such a manner so that they can have easy access to them (such things as seasonal items and luggage and other personal items/furniture they aren't currently using, etc). The length of the garage is not deep enough for anyone to have access to the back of. the garage with a vehicle parked in it and so our van for the consumers' transportation is parked in the driveway enabling us to store consumer's belongings according to the laws by which we are regulated, and the van is too tall for the garage opening regardless. · Currently, over half of the garage is used for storage of the consumer's goods and household Seasonal items such as lawn mower, grill, Christmas tree and decorations and other seasonal property such as patio furniture. This leaves no room for even a smaller vehicle to be parked in the garage. · The consumers who live at this house require 24 hour staff supervision. However, previous to our construction of the driveway, staff members who are required to be at the house to provide supervision by law, have received tickets during various times for parking in the street and the mail man has refused to deliver our mail as well as our neighbor's mail as the vehicles parked in the street during that time act as an obstacle/obstruction for him as he could not easily access all the mailboxes. · The remodeled driveway and landscaping does not interfere with the essential character of the locality and looks more appealing than the previous driveway and landscaping. Furthermore, the changes that have been made do not pose any hindrance for the neighbor's property. 2. We are also requesting a variance for curb cut maximum for the following reasons: Justification for the variance: · The changes made to the driveway have reduced street congestion in the center of the cul de sac. Unlike 50 % of our neighbors who have already made changes to their additional driveway or parking space, we are unable to do the same due to current city laws and ordinances and the unusual shape, size and topography of our lot. Furthermore, if we regularly park on the street this interferes with mail delivery and causes our staff to be ticketed, and increases the danger of our staff or our consumers of getting hit by another vehicle if always walking in a traffic filled cul de sac to get to the house, which is as bad as allowing them to play in the street and hope something doesn't happen to them. We apparently cannot add to our driveway at all and still be within city codes, because the city law states we would have to be 20 feet into the property before angling but at the same time be 5 feet from the neighbor's property for that first 20 feet. This would not give us enough space in front of the house or to the side of the house unless the vehicle is the size of a scooter or bicycle. · The~nature of this property does not allow us to add a drive way on either side of the home. Even if the property were wide enough to build additional parking on the sides, cement placed at the side of the house would cause additional flooding in the garage because the back yard slopes downward towards the front yard on the sides of the house. Also, we are located on one of the lowest levels in the cul de sac and we have no drain in front of our house to assist with directing water away from our driveway therefore we constantly deal with issues of flooding. This has been further complicated by the fact that all the houses in this area are built on hills so the rain water has no where to go except into our house and we have been dealing with issues of flooding and do not wish to continue to do so. · This is a unique parcel of land in the neighborhood as it is positioned in the middle of a cul de sac and since the women living at the house need 24 hour supervision, our staff members have mn into parking problems. The house's vehicle, the live-in staff's vehicle and often time's additional staff vehicles, managers spot checking, maintenance contractors, delivery tracks and client's transportation Vehicles. from day programs, or vehicles from other group homes gathering to celebrate a holiday or birthday, or vehicles of staff parked for purppses of a monthly staff meeting all need to have parking available. There can at any given time, even more than six vehicles needing a parking space, although on more of a rare occasion to be more than 6. The old driveway was not deep enough to hold more than 4 vehicles. Therefore, adding the additional 2 parking spaces to the side helped greatly. Staff members who have tried to park on the street during their shifts have received tickets for parking illegally from time to time. We are at the lowest point in the cul de sac and have hills all around the driveway. We had rocks surrounding the driveway which had plastic under them. Due to these factors, each time it rains, the rain water is directed into the garage which floods our septic system and eventually floods the home. The remodeling of the driveway and installation of the retaining wall will hopefully eliminate these problems. The way our pavers our designed allow a little more water through than the rocks with plastic underneath. Adding the retaining wall and changing the slope will also help with deterring water from coming into our garage. Once it is in our garage, it has in the past, flooded our basement through the drain in the garage which leads into the laundry room which acts as an easy access in the house. A few years ago we had $10,000 of damage that our insurance refused to pay from flooding of rainwater totaling 4 inches in our lower basement that was finished off and an additional 10 inches in the garage where we store the consumer's extra property and lawn items. We had two sets of landscapers working on this property. The first set of landscapers claimed that they checked with the city and they claimed no permit was needed to remodel the driveway as long as we were 5 feet from the neighbor's land at the curb. However, they obviously didn't understand that there was a permit required for changing the curb cut. The first landscapers charged us precisely $16,645.00 and did not complete the job properly as they did not make the second driveway deep enough to fit more than a compact car and forgot to give us a side walk for the consumers to get from the vehicle to the house safely. They refused to redo it and we just ate the cost. Then, we hired a second landscaper team to rip out the retaining wall and move it back about 7 feet and tier it so that it didn't look like a prison wall, and add the sidewalk down the middle and make side walking areas on each side of the entire drive. We Paid these landscapers $8,042.00 to fix the problems that the first landscapers caused. It would be an unfortunate financial hardship if the consumers living at this home would have to pay for additional changes on this property a third time. After all, the services we provide and the improvements that we make to the house are all paid for by the benefit money entitled to each consumer and managed by my company. These financial monies come from Social Security (SSI & RSDI) and GRH (Group Residential Housing) and Medical Assistance-MR/RC Waiver Dollars (50% Federal & 50% State Funds) 3. The last variance we are requesting is for the boulevard portion of street fight of way can not be used for parking for the following reasons: Justification for the variance: · The city ordinances state that we need to park at least three feet away from the neighbor's property line which in essence does not allow us to park on the fight side of our property in the street. · Parking to the left of our old driveway caused an obstacle for the mailman and caused an obstacle for the neighbors to our left to potentially back into us when they baCked out of their driveway. Our neighbors became concemed when our staff parked on a daily basis and for hours at a time in the street as it interferes with their mail delivery and poses an obstacle to their backing out of the drive way. The neighbor's also worry about their children who may ride bike in the cul de sac and when there is so many "musical cars" needing to switch places as one vehicle may need to move to get two others out, etc. and that street parking may pose safety risks to their children. Currently, our neighbors have expressed their happiness at our remodeling efforts which has made the property look better and has increased the values of their homes and feels less congested. · This home is owned by Barbara Bruemmer (Emrud-maiden name) owner of Heartfelt Homes, Inc. and serves four adult women with disabilities. The way the driveway was designed did not allow enough room for our consumers to walk with safety as before the old driveway was lined with landscaping rocks in the same places that there is now cobblestone. Our consumers were having various difficulties in maintaining balance due to their physical and mental impairments when walking on the rock when getting out of the vehicle. Our remodeling project has made it a safer environment for our consumers. · Snow removal can continue to be dumped 2 doors to our left as it usually has been in the past due to that particular neighbor's curb front is twice as wide as ours. ***All in all, we feel that even though we fall under the city ordinances of being a single unit family dwelling, we are different than the average single unit family dwelling by being licensed by Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota which mandates the level of supervision and quality of the services and maintenance of the home to such a high level that we will most definiately need to have more parked vehicles at our property. With no legal options to add any additional parking to this particular property due to only having a curb front of 46.36 feet and by it being an odd pie shaped lot does not allow for parking on the sides and the house is not set back enough from the street to even add it beyond the first 20 feettike specified by the city, However there are many other cul-de-sac properties that have enough space to legally add some type of additional parking as even 50% of my neighbors have been able to do it within the required guidelines as well as other culdesac homes in the neighborhood. I wish to be granted all 3 variances with regard to the odd shape of my lot and with regard of the use of the property being an approved and licensed group home by the State of Minnesota and Hennepin County. Thank you for your time in considering this matter. Sincerely, . ~ . . ~. ~ ' *,., "iC:~.:?'c~::: ' i:~,! ,~ ',:~itl :..~: Barbara.Bmemmer (Emrud) Owner and Program Director of Heartfelt Homes, Inc. Owner of 4717 Independence Ave. N., New Hope, MN 55428 7 5480 Nathan Lane Suite 102 Plymouth, MN 55442 Office 763-533-9655 Fax 763-533-5362 2/1/05 Dear Neighbors: As you are aware, we operate a licensed group home at 4717 Independence Ave. North for 4 individuals with Developmental Disabilities. Due to the nature of the service we provide to consumers who cannot take care of themselves and the laws that govern over our facility, we end up having more parked vehicles than the average home owner. This parking nightmare happens by our facility being required to meet the state staffing supervision requirements and additional management and maintenance personnel needed to keep our home and the quality of the care we provide to always be compliant with state and county laws. This has, as you all know and have shared with us on many occasions, created a parking problem which caused many neighbors, including ourselves, to not receive their mail and has made it difficult for next door neighbors to back straight out of their driveway as our vehicles were often an obstacle. We wanted to resolve or improve as much of this problem as possible as to provide you, our neighbors, with a less congested cul-de-sac of parked vehicles and therefore decided to structurally alter our driveway to allow for more parking on our own property to reduce the number of times vehicles would need to be in the cul-de-sac to be more of an exception rather than the rule. We also thought it might raise all of our property values by putting in cobblestone instead of blacktop or cement and we also added a retaining wall to help deter water from going into our garage less often and added some shrubs and flowers to improve the look of our property. You may have noticed other great improvements to the outside of the house such as a new roof within the last couple years, new decorative front double entry doors, painting the brick on the outside of the house to be more modem, and replacing the garage door with a more decorative newer style. We also took down the overgrown tree in the front yard that was constantly breaking offbranches into the cul-de-sac during storms and disposed of our old, dilapidated basketball hoop that was an eyesore. I have paid tens of thousands of dollars in improvements to that home inside and out, including new carpeting on the inside, new light fixtures, paint, added another bathroom and remodeled the upstairs bathroom as well as the entire lower level, adding an additional bedroom. We want to keep our property looking nice and I have worked hard since owning it from 1999 on to keep improving the home and neighborhood. You may have noticed that we hired two separate landscapers this past summer to complete the remodeling job for our front yard and driveway. We were unhappy with the work of the first set of landscapers who promised that they checked with the city before starting and were told that there is no permit to remodel your driveway as long as they followed the 5 foot role at the curb from neighbor. We paid the first set of landscapers $16,645.00 and complained to them that they had goofed up on to the property as they did not make the 2nd driveway deep enough and did not put in a sidewalk as requested as well as other issues. They refused to fix anything and I was stuck with an unusable 2na driveway. I then hired a second landscaper to rip out much of their work and redo the project, still under the assumption that we were in compliance with the city codes like they had said. The second landscaper did a beautiful job and I was very pleased with his work but of course it cost us another $8,042.00 to redo the entire retaining wall and part of the new driveway. Our total cost for this landscaping pro,ject totaled $24,687.00 merely to add a little extra parking to keep peace in the neighborhood. Then, the city drove by and cited us because they said the curb cut was changed and is no longer in compliance because the entrance to our driveway is too wide and we were given the standard 10 days to rip it out. I was.just about in tears. I went down to the city and asked if there was a process to request a variance and there is but it is usually done before construction starts. After reading all the city driveway requirements, there is no way I can add any extra driveway space at all without being out of compliance due to the unique shape of my property. The city encouraged me to seek out support for a variance from my neighbors since we have such a unique situation by being a group home (which is absolutely allowed by law) but lack having adequate parking space and remodeling options in my particular part of the cul- de-sac. The front and sides of my property are not wide enough to add any additional parking to be within city code. So my options are to request a variance from the city council and obtain support from neighbors to aid in that process otherwise we will incur another expense in ripping it out to put it back the way it was and then still need to park vehicles in the street of the cul-de-sac going back to the same problem that frustrated the neighborhood in the first place. Therefore, I am asking for your approval and support on me obtaining a variance on our Group Home's improved extra parking at the front of our home. We hope you feel it has been an esthetic improvement to the cul-de-sac. We want to have a positive image in our neighborhood and want to have' a positive relationship with all of you. We will continue to do things to improve the value of our property in the neighborhood. We appreciate all your hospitality you have already shown us by being patient and forgiving in the past with issues our parking has caused. We hope you will be willing to sign and date below to show your support for the changes that were completed on our driveway. We would be forever grateful to you in doing so. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Heartfelt Homes, Inc. Owner/Director Signature: x., .-' Date: 4717 Independence Avenue North 4717 Independence Avenue North LAW OFFICES OF MARY K. MARTIN 2411 Francis Street So. St. Paul, MN 55075 Phone: 651-451-0550 Toll Free: 1-888-664-6529 Fax: 651-451-8470 Email: MMinlaw~aol.com February 18, 2005 City of New Hope Attention: Design and Review Committee 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 BY FAX 763-531-5146 AND COURIER RE: Variance Request for 4147 Independence Dear City of New Hope: I represent Heartfelt Homes, Inc., which has asked me to review its concerns regarding a variance request for the licensed group home at 4147 Independence Avenue North. Heartfelt Homes will also submit additional information under separate cover. In reviewing applicable state and federal statutes, it appears this variance request should be granted. As you have already noted, Minn. Stat. 245A requires the city to treat this facility as a single family use for zoning purposes. In addition, the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments (FHAA), found at 42 USCA 3601 et seq., require that the city grant this variance. The FHAA requires municipalities to make reasonable accommodations to their policies to allow persons with disabilities to live in the community. The FHAA makes it unlawful to discriminate: (a) in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of that buyer or renter; (b) against a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented or made available, or (c) against any person associated with that buyer or renter. The law also makes it unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or "in the provision of services or facilities" in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of City of New Hope 2/18/2005 Page 2 that person, or a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available, Or any person associated with that person, For purposes of the FHAA, discrimination is defined to include: (a) a refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such solidifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises...; (b) a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or servi.ces, when SUch accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 42 USCA 3604(0 1-3. A number of cases around the country have confirmed that this section of the law extends to requests for variances, including variances from parking standards to accommodate persons with disabilities. See Travato v. City of Manchester, New Hampshire, 992 F. Supp. 493 (1997); Hovsons, Inc., v. Township of Brick, 89 F.3d 1096 (3rd Cir. 1996); Shapiro v. Cadman Towers, Inc, 51 F.3d 328 (2~d Cir. 1995); Casa Marie, Inc. v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico, 988 F.2d 252 (1st Cir. 1993); and Smith &'Lee Assocs. v. City of Taylor, 102 F.3d 781 (6th Cir. 1996) These cases alsO make it clear those provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USCA 12102 et seq.) and the Rehabilitation Act, (28 USCS 796a), also apply. For a more detailed discussion of these related claims, please refer to Travato at 493. Granting a variance in this case will not substantially disrupt the neighborhood; in fact, all of the neighbors have signed a letter expressing support for the project,, as it will decrease congestion on the street and increase safety and visibility, and make it easier to plow snow rather than harder. Likewise, the city has not shown that granting the variance will impose any financial or other administrative burden on the city. We address each of the city's expressed concerns below. Selection of the site by the property owner for this use. This home is licensed by the State of Minnesota as a group home under Minn. Sta. 245B and an adult foster care facility under the Department of Human Services, who have found it suitable for this use. The FHAA requires the city to make reasonable accommodations to allow persons with disabilities to live in the housing of their choosing. To fail to do so is tantamount to stating that persons with disabilities who require 24-hour staff may not live at the end of a cul-de-sac. City of New Hope 2/18/2005 Page 3 Damaging cars. The city argues that it is concerned about damage to cars parked too close to the curb when it plows snow. However, without the variance, the city has had to plow snow around cars parked On the street; certainly the risk of damage to a car parked on the street is greater than the risk of damage to a car parked in the driveway, which is 21 feet deep. If an average car, 15 feet in length, is parked one foot from the front of the stall, the car is still five feet from the curb. It would be rare for snow to be plowed more than five feet beyond the curb. Having all the cars offthe street also allows the city to do a better job of plowing, because it can plow the entire street, rather than having to plow around parked cars. There has been at least one heavy snowfall since the changes were made, and no problems were noted. There is just as much room behind a vehicle parked in the new parking area as there would be behind the vehicles parked in the original driveway. Snow storage. The city also argues that the variance will prevent it from using the boulevard in front of 4147 Independence for snow storage. The City has never stored or dumped snow in front of 4147 in the past because of the limited frontage and the placement of the mailboxes and a large tree that used to be there. Snow in the cul-de-sac has always been moved to a part of the cul-de-sac with the largest frontage. The city has cited no reason why it is now necessary to begin storing snow in front of 4147 Independence. The oversized parking are out of character with the surrounding residential driveways. The parking configuration is a reasonable accommodation for the people with disabilities who live at this home. They cannot be left unsupervised so staff is not able to leave the home and move the vehicles around whenever someone has to come or go. The company cannot require a staff member to allow someone else to move their car. Alternative configurations. The city proposes that one additional parking space be constructed on the east side yard, and/or that the group home be required to park vehicles in the garage. This is not practical for several reasons. The first of these is that the current configuration is already in place. Heartfelt Homes relied on not one, but two different contractors who were not aware that the current construction would violate the city's zoning code. Heartfelt Homes did not deliberately violate the ordinance, and spent $25,000 to have the current parking arrangement constructed. The current arrangement is more attractive than the old arrangement. Second, the landscaping on the east side of the driveway would have to be removed, and would recreate a past drainage problem. Heartfelt Home has landscaped the area to the right of the driveway to be higher than at the edge of the property to direct the water away from its property and toward the street. The neighbors' property and Heartfelt's yard are both higher than Heartfelt's house, and in the past water would mn into the garage and back up the City of New Hope 2/18/2005 Page 4 sewer. There have been no flooding problems since the new landscaping was completed. The garage is not being used for parking. As discussed above, because there are a number of vehicles, each with a different owner, parking one vehicle behind another is not a workable solution for the reasons described above. Heartfelt Homes has clearly demonstrated that the addition of two parking spaces in the current configuration is a necessary and reasonable accommodation. As requested, Heartfelt provides the attached staffing patterns. At any given time, there are at least two or three staff vehicles and a house van, which will not fit into the garage because the van is taller than the garage. Consumers attend a different day program, each sends its own transportation vehicle to take consumers to work and bring them home. In addition, the administrator, supervisor, maintenance staff, case managers, friends and family of the consumers, vendors and others all visit on a regular basis, which contribute to a lively and busy household. Since the schedule is different every day, there is no way to predict exactly who will need which parking space on any given day. There is clearly a need for four side- by-side parking spots to accommodate the needs of the household. Having four parking spots side by side is much more practical than the city's proposal to park one vehicle in the garage and two behind the garage with one on the east side. Thus, four parking spots are required much of the time. The city's "'two behind" proposal creates practical problems of playing "musical cars." A different person owns each of these vehicles. To ask staff to leave the clients alone to move avehicle so that the vehicle in front of it can get out creates unnecessary additional traffic, and would require staff to leave consumers unsupervised, which could be a violation of licensing standards. The city's proposal to take out the existing two spaces on the west and substitute one on the east is likewise not practical, because it still uses the "two behind" configuration. Proposed conditions. Heartfelt is willing to agree to use its best efforts to park smaller vehicles nearer the street, and would agree to not hold the city liable for damage to vehicles that are parked in the two variance spaces; likewise, it would not expect the city to remove snow from any of the parking spaces. (The city did not remove snow from the area during the last major snowfall.) However, Heartfelt does not feel that the proposed condition that cars be parked in the garage is reasonable unless it is enforced uniformly throughout the city. If we are not able to reach an agreement on how to proceed, our office will request access to all driveway variance requests for the last five years under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Chapter 13, to review how these variance requests have been handled in the past. City of New Hope 2/18/2005 Page 5 We appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and look forward to working with you to resolve this matter. If you have any concerns or questions, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF MARY K. MARTIN Mary r. ~i~ Cc: Barbara B~memmer 2:00pm- 5 oo~m- t ! i:OOpm Roseber~, House Staffing Patterns '*Tire astc'risked fndivduals fn:q~.e,! the house ot'tert but not on a scheduled b,tsis a~d I-orva~.ing lengths oftJn'e They comp cie Qm]ib, Assuctnce:'Repai: che¢~s. Nolo: In addilion to tlc ab. ov¢ lis:ed schedul:d staffan~ ast~'risks Qualib. Assurance per~)oncl, we a}so have th',, I'ollowing inc[~x'~duah p~flc[ne x~ the house: Ou,'~er..q3i~ect {approximately once per week) Count~, Li~'e-[r House Veh,;c I¢ Direcl Care Staff Live-In House Vchi~re Direct Ca~c S!at-f * PTogTam Mana_ee~ Li ye- In Ho'~sc Vehicle I)Jr~ct ~arc $[arf ~ Pro~m-a ti Manager House Yehicle D~r~c~ C~r¢ SLaff aHousc Li ye- In House V~hiclc D~r~r C~ '~m Managc~ House ~[ooda~' Tuesday · ~ ~ IWednrsdav Thursda · Live- M Live-~ Liv~-~ Live-~n Live-So L~vr-ln House Vehicle Hou~ Ychiclc Housc%~hicle Hou~ Vehicle Ho~e ~hJclc House Vehicle Livc-h ~ve-ln ~vc-[~ Liv~ln Live-in House Ychiclc House %'chicle Ho~e V~hiclc Hou~ Ych[cle House V~hJcle Uousc Vehicle ~Y ~d'~ Day P~m Day P~m Day Proem Day P~o~m DJr~t Cam S~' ~Mainl~cc e~'lainl~cc *~ain:cn~cc aMa[n~nznce *Maint~anrc 'Proem Macocr ~P~o~am Adminis~l~ *~o~a,~ Admini$lm~r *Pro~m Ad~n~tor *Pm~ Adminis~alor *Pro~ Admmis~tor L;ve.ln Live-hi ~vc-~ Liv~[n ~ve-ln Live-lo House ~chicl~ Ho~c Vehicle House Vehicle House %'eh[cSt I Iou~ V(hicle House Vc~icle e~la~[~n~ ~Mafn~ce 'Main~ance "Maintmance 'Mainle~ce · Proem Admiflis~toT ~m Admiuis~[~ 'P~Jm Adm~nimator *Proem .Admlnis~lor ~fo~m AdminJs~lor vPao~am ~iaaa~cr bye-In Live- [n Li ye* ~ Live*In LK'c-h Li ye. H~sc 'Vehicle House Vehicle Hou~ V:hiC[e Ilousc V~hiclc ~y ~m H~sc Vehicle ~ou~Vchicle ~)' Pm~m Day ~pa., House Su~'~ s~ Day ~m ~)' Proem House S~'isor Ho~e SciSsor ~mc[ Ca~ S~ House Supc~s~ House Su~'isor ~P~oera~ .~fa~cr 'M[[nt~ancc ~Mmn~nance *Mainrcn~cc ~Main{cr~cc *M~in~ce - ' · ~m Adminislm~r "Pr~m Administrator 'Pro~m AdmJnis~or ePra~ Adminis~alor ePm~m A~inist~or 'Hou~ SuFem-~s~ "Pro~ff. Manag~ *~ Manag~ '~a~ Manage~ ~ *~m ~anage~ "Proem ~lanag~ ~ve-ln Live-~ Live-In Live-In Live-la Ho~e Vehicle Hou~ V~icle House ~'ehlcle House Vehicle Hou~ V~h[cge Rou~ Vehitle D[rccl C~ S~ ~ct C~ Slaff Direr ~ ~ff D[r~t Ca-c S~ff Dir~[ Cart '~ ~Ma~ cr 'p~ ~a~r ~m M~ager '~a~Managcr 'proem ~l=ag~ Livc-~ Livc-~ ~vc-ln Livc-~ Live-In ~vc-Jn ' H~use Vehicle Ho~c Vehicle Jlouse V:h[c~c House Vehicle ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ou~ V~hicle ~u~ C J1 Telephone: 763.231.:2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning. Com MEMORANDUM. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald / Shawn Ciders Alan Brixius February 24, 2005 New Hope - 4717 Independence Driveway Variances 131.01 - 05.03 BACKGROUND Heartfelt Homes Inc., which owns a group home for four developmentally disabled adults at 4717 Independence Avenue in New Hope, has altered their single family home to expand the driveway and curb cut to allow for off-street parking within the front yard of the single family home. This was noted by City staff and Barbara Bruemmer, owner of Heartfelt Homes, was contacted and notified she was in violation of the City zoning regulations pertaining to Section 4-3.E.4.h.6, maximum curb cut width and Section 4- 3.E.6.d, parking prohibited in a boulevard section of the street right-of-way. The applicant has provided an extensive narrative as well as a site plan showing the existing improvements to the site. She indicated that these improvements were necessitated based on the group home's location within a cul-de-sac' and the need to service the various parking needs of the group home which include transportation providers for the group home tenants, staff automobiles, deliveries to the site, vehicles for maintenance personnel, etc. Ms. Bruemmer indicated that the improvements were necessary to take these vehicles off street to avoid problems with the adjoining neighbors such as non-delivery of mail, interruption of on-street parking for other residents, and traffic safety. In Ms. Bruemmer's narrative, she makes argument that her use and lot are unique in character, creating hardships that are not otherwise found in single family neighborhoods. ANALYSIS Section 4-36.C outlines the criteria for hardshrip that will be used by the City in making a determination in whether a variance is warranted. These criteria include: A hardship may exist by reason of physical conditions unique to the property that results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the stdct application of the terms of this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship may also include in adequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. = An undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the vadance is being sought and is not generally.applicable to other properties within the same district. Hardship or circumstances unique to the Parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or previous owner. 4. Additional criteria of the application for variance shall also meet the following criteria: It will not alter the essential of the locality. It will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property or substantially increase congestion on public streets or increase the danger of' fire or endanger the public safety. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within a respective zoning district. This vadance application was difficult in light of the use of the property being a group home which is allowed by State Statutes in any single family zoning district and the fact that the applicant has already made the improvements to the site. We offer the following comments. Arguments against the variance: Minnesota State Statutes allows group homes as a permitted use within a single family zoning district. This was done with the recognition that facilities have similar characteristics of single family homes and will compatibly coexist with the adjoining properties. The selection of the site was a decision made by the landowner in locating in this facility. The cul-de-sac lot lacks sufficient frontage to accommodate the stated parking needs for a group home. The applicant, in choosing the lot, changes to the home, and operational characteristics of the facility have created the parking issue and need for the requested variance. The City establishes parking performance standards as the means of controlling traffic and maintaining safety along public streets. The expanded curb cut provides for a variety of access points into the lot which will complicate traffic safety for those entering and exiting the site. Additionally, parking within the boulevard area provides little room for snow storage which is an important element in street maintenance. Public works has indicated that they typically 2 utilize the entire 15 foot boulevard for snow storage. This is particularly important on cul-de-sac lots due to the lot's narrow frontage. Front end loaders are used in cul-de-sacs and snow is pushed into the front yards of the cul-de-sac lots. The City shall not take any responsibility for clearing of snow from the new parking area or responsibility for any vehicles that may be damaged from snow wash being .pushed off the public street into the boulevard area. The applicant has indicated that the parking stall from back of curb to the retaining wall is only 21 feet, This suggests that vehicles will be in close proximity to the street surface and could be damaged in the event of a large snow fail. While the applicant is attempting to remove the vehicles from the public street surface, we do not believe that all traffic safety issues have been resolved with the current design. The group home is located on a cul-de-sac lot which has limited street frontage (approximately 46.36 feet). It appears that the proposed curb cut width is approximately 36 feet in width, providing a broad range of access to the site. This is out of the character with the surrounding residential driveways which are limited to a maximum curb cut width of 24 feet. Another unusual characteristic of this group home is that the two parking stalls within the garage are not being utilized for parking, rather, they are being reserved for storage for the operation of the group home. This requires all parking to be outdoors. This loss of available parking is operational driven rather than a unique characteristic of the site. The elimination of these two parking stalls increases the demand for additional outdoor parking. There appears to be room on the east side yard to expand the drive to provide an additional parking space. This, in connection with parking in the garage, may resolve the parking issue without variance and in a manner more customarily found in our single family neighborhoods. The City Engineer has indicated that this side yard does not contain any utilities. Arguments that favor the variance: The proposed use is by State law a permitted use within any R-1 Zoning District. As such, it is consistent with the intent and purpose of the R-1 District. 2. The unique shape of the cul-de-sac lot complicates the ability to provide alternative locations for off-street parking. As a group home,' it does have unique transportation and parking needs that are dissimilar from any other single family use within the R-1 District. This in itself makes the property unique. While economic hardship does not warrant a variance, the property owners' investment in the front yard changes has been considerable. 3 DESIGN AND REVIEW The Design and Review Committee reviewed this item on February 10, 2005. In this meeting, the Design and Review Committee expressed concern over the new parking arrangement related to street maintenance and precedent that the variance may establish for other single family lots in the community. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION This case and many like it demonstrate the need for the City to require driveway permits as a means of monitoring the type of improvements. This case is sensitive in light of the current improvements and the private investment weighed against the issue of traffic safety, street maintenance, and pc~tential precedent that this vadance may create. In consideration of the variance, staff has outlined two options for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. Option I - Denial The New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines specific criteria to be considered when evaluating a requested variance. In comparison with these criteria, the following . findings for denial are offered: Parking variances are not related to the physical condition of the home, rather they are responsive to the operation of the group facility. The selection of the cul-de-Sac' lot, closing of the garage, and design of the proposed parking are actions of the landowner that created the parking hardship. Alternative parking arrangements are available to increase the on-site parking configuration without variance or with less variance than being requested. 4. Parking within the boulevard represents a problem with ongoing street maintenance. The requested variance is not generally applicable to properties within the same district. Option 2 - Approval The New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines specific cdteda to be considered when evaluating a requested variance. Any approval must narrow the application of the vadance to the property at hand to avoid the proliferation of similar requests. In comparison with these criteria, the following findings for approval are offered: 1. The group home is a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. 4 The State mandated transportation and parking needs of the group home (residents and staff) are different from the standard single family home within the R-1 District. This makes the property unique. The configuration of the cul-de-sac complicates the ability to provide alternative parking configurations. If the variance is approved, the following conditions may be attached to the variance: The parking stalls south of the retaining walls would be signed and restricted to compact automobiles. The City would not be liable for any damage to vehicles that are parked on City right-of-way. The City would not be responsible for any special snow removal from City streets or the boulevard area. 4. Use of the garage for parking. November 1, 2004 Barbara J. Emrud 4717 Independence Ave. N. New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Driveway Width' Dear ~rs. Emrud; The Ci[y of New Hope is committed in maintainin8 the quality of housin8 within the City. The objective is to prevent conditions that adversely affect or are UkeIy to adversely affect the life, Safety, 8enera[ we[fare, and health, inc[udinB the physical, mental, and social.well beinB of persons occupyin8 or utilizin8 structures within the City. Our.office has received complaints reBardin8 storaBe of thinBs in back of a truck at 4933 Winnetka Ave. N. The condition of your property is unacceptable and must be brouBht into compliance immediately. Please be advised of the fo[[owin8: 1) Sec. 4-3(e) (h) (6) Curb cut maximum: No curb cut access shai[ exceed the fo[[owin8 width dimensions measured at a point 20 feet from the property line. Residential .......... ; ................ 24 feet a) Your driveway is in noncomp[iant and must be brouBht into compliance immediately. I have enclosed a driveway information sheet. A re-inspection of the above Violations wi[[ be conducted after 10 days of this letter. If the violations remain, a citation wi[[ be issued for each offence without further notice. Each citation ranBes from $50 to $200. We trust that this notice is needed in order to secure your cooperation in makin8 New Hope a better and cleaner place in which to For further reference the complete ordinance is posted o~ the Internet www. d. new- hope.mn.us or available at City of New Hope. Please contact me at the Community Development Department (763-531-5125) should you have any questions or concerns. with the above orders. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. ~ (- Since_Ere[y,' /~,¢~ n~ ~,.~'( ~ Rob Ward Code Enforcement Officer Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development Cc: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Property file Enclosed: Curb Cut Req~reme(~i~z, O1~ NElN I-IoFF. ~-~-~.01 Xylon Avenu~Jorth · Ne-w Hope, IVLinnesota 55428-4898 * w-ww. al.new-hope.mu.us City Hall: 763-531-5100 · Police (non-emergency): 763-531-5170 * Public Works: 763-592-6777 · TDD: 763-531-5109 City Hall Fax: 763-531-5136 * Police Fax: 763-531-5174 * Public Works Fax: 763-592-6776 Curb Cut Requirements HOUSE 4,3(e.)(h)(6) Maximum width of ddveway 24' GaraEe Property Line 20' 24' ~- .5t 1 24' -b COMMUNITY DEVELOPMI Address:~ ~/~ 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 (763) 531-5127 (763). 531-5136 Fax INSPECTION REPO Time: Permit# Business Name: Type:~ Source: [] COnstruction ..i~Complaint [] Other Comments: [] Annual Corrected Issued to: Representing:_ NOTE Reinspection Date: Date:, Phone:, days to Correct these Conditions / / Mailed [] white · applicant Inspector:. yellow: file Signature INSP-O01 Address: Business Name: Type: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEk 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 (763) 531-5127 (763) 531-5136 Fax Date: Time:, INSPECTION REPORT Permit# Source: [] Construction ~'complaint [] Other [] Annual Comments: Corrected Issued to: Representing: NOTE Reinspection Date: days to Correct these Conditions / / Date: Phone: Mailed [] Inspector: · white: applicant · yellow: file DOUGLAS J. DEBNER2 GORDON L. JENSEN1 GLEN A. NORTON STEVEN A. SONDRALL STACY A. WOODS OF COUNSEL LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD tReal Property Law Specialist Certified By The Minnesota State Bar Association 2Admitted in Iowa JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968 TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEX*AX (763) 493-5193 e-mail law~jensen-sondrall.com February 25, 2005 VIA E-MAIL TO ssiders(~ci.new-hope.mn.us AND BY REGULAR U.S. MAIL Shawn Siders Community Development Specialist City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re-' 4147 Independence Driveway variance Response to Attorney Letter Our File: 99.20503 Dear Shawn: I have reviewed the February 18, 2005 letter from attorney Mary K. Martin in connection with the Heartfelt Homes, Inc. variance reqUest at 4147 Independence. We believe her letter misinterprets the federal law requirements imposed upon the City by the Fair Housing Act Amendments (FHAA) and the case law interpreting this act. The City clearly supports the integration of developmentally disabled adults into the community by permitting group homes located in single-family zoning districts. Therefore the case law referred to in her letter dealing with fact-specific situations wherein City zoning codes completely prohibited the establishment of group homes in residential zoning districts is not applicable to her client's request. These cases do provide us with direction and insight as to the nature and extent of reasonable accommodations that must be made for people with disabilities to insure they have an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing of their choice. However, the cases do not require the City to grant a blanket waiver of all facially neutral zoning policies and rules regardless of facts nor are we required to provide to the disabled the carte blanche ability to determine where and how they should live regardless of zoning ordinances to the contrary. (see Hovsons, Inc. v. Township of Brick, 89 F. 3'~11096 (3'd Cir. 1996). Rather than rebut each of the argmuents she has made in her letter, I will simply state that it is within the City's prerogative to make reasonable regulations that preserve and promote the health, safety, and well-being of its citizens. We could spend considerable time and money reviewing the civil engineering and city planning design specifications and principles that make these regulations reasonable. This may be necessary if an acceptable solution cannot be reached with the applicant. This problem however has been created by the applicant since it failed to consult with the City before the costly changes were made to the property that now give rise for our need to consider this variance request. In other February 25, 2005 Page 2 words, this applicant failed to give the City a chance to provide any reasonable accommodations to our zoning requirements relating to its parking issue by first constructing the illegal parking arrangement and then reqUesting a variance after the City discovered the problem. As suggested in Hovsons, Inc. supra, we are not required to provide a blanket waiver of all facially neutral zoning policies and rules regardless of facts. Our parking requirements are facially neutral. I do want to address her troubling allegation that the City, by refusing to grant the variance, is discriminating against her client by refusing to make reasonable modifications or accommodations as required by law. This is simply not true. Unlike the factual setting in Hovsons, Inc.!, Casa Marie, Inc,2 and Smith & Lee Assocs.s our zoning code does not prohibit the presence of a group home in the single-family zoning district, and is therefore not discriminating against her client by refusing to allow its presence. The code does however prohibit the driveway modification and parking arrangement precipitating the need for the requested variance. A refusal of the variance request is not discrimination by failing to make reasonable modifications or accommodations for the residents of the group home. Under 42 USCA 3601, et seq., any modifications or accommodations must be necessary to afford a disabled person the opportunity to enjoy the premises. As in the cases she cites, the modifications or accommodations must be related to the disability. In Trovato4 and Shapiros the disabled persons had difficulty walking and therefore required a parking space closer to their residence to minimize the burden walking imposed upon them. Her client, the owner/operator of the group home does not need the driveway it constructed to facilitate any of the residents' disabilities. Her client constructed the driveway to serve the needs of others visiting the residence, including electricians, plumbers, and delivery persons. If the residents truly needed the driveway due to any disability, the driveway expansion would have been built closer to the home, as the City proposes, not further away fi:om the home, She suggests that denial of the requested variance in effect prohibits group homes from being located on cul-de-sacs. We do not agree with that assertion, but instead believe there are other viable solutions and accommodations that can be made that would allow a group home to be located on a cul-de-sac. These solutions have been proposed to the applicant but now are not economically feasible to the applicant because they have already made changes prior to seeking City approval of the variance. Again, the applicant cannot complain about the City's refusal to grant a reasonable accommodation when prior permission by the applicant was not requested. We were not given the opportunity to suggest any alternative accommodations regardless of their reasonableness. We are now simply being asked to accept carte blanche the changes by the applicant because it is too costly and or inconvenient for the owner/operator of the facility to consider other alternatives at this time. The effect of applicant's assertion that this variance request must be granted is that group homes are legally entitled to locate wherever they see fit, without regard for proper land use, and the City should permit the group home to make whatever modifications and accommodations the group home desires. The law cannot be interpreted that way. The law is designed to allow integration of group homes into single-family zoning districts. It's our opinion a court would uphold our proposed accommodations as reasonable. Hovsons, Inc. v. Township of Brick 89 F. 3rd 1096 (3rd Cir. 1996) Casa Marie, Inc. v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico 988 F. 2d 252 (1st Cir. 1993) Smith & Lee Assoc. v. CitY of Taylor 102 F. 3ra 781 (6tn Cir. 1996) Trovoto v. City of Manchester 992 F. Supp 493 (1997) Shapiro v. Cadman Towers 51f3r~ 328 (2nd Cir. 1995) February 25, 2005 Page 3 Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope cc: Kirk McDonald P:'~_ttomey~AS\l Client FilesX2 City of New l-Iopek99-20503\ltr2 to s. side'rs, doc § 4-3 NEW HOPE CODE the safety and general welfare of the public, by establishing m/n/mum requirements for off-street parki~ of motor vehicles in accordance with the intensity of utilization 'of the various parCels of land or structures. (2) Application of off-street parking regulations. The regulations and requirements set forth herein shall apply to all off-street parking facilities in all of the zoning districts of the city. (3) Site plan drawing necessary. All applications for a building or an occupancy permit in all zoning districts shall be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned indicating the location of off-street parking and loading spaces in compliance with the requirements set forth in this section. ' (4) General provisions. a. Floor area. The term "floor area" for the purpose of calculating the number of off-street parking spaces required shall be deterrn~ned on the basis of the exterior floor area dimensions of the buildings, structure or use times the number of floors, minus ten percent except as may be hereinal%er moji*ed. b. ' Reduction of existing off-street i~arking space or lot area. Off-street parking spaces and loading spaces or lot area existing upon the effective date of this Code Shall' not be reduced in number or size unless said number or size exceeds the requirements set .forth herein for a similar new use. c. NonConforming structures. Should a nonconforming structure or use be damaged or destroyed by fire, it may be re-established ff elsewhere permitted in these zoning regulations, except that in doing so, any off-street parking or loading space which existed before shall be retained. d. Change of use or occupancy of land. No change of use or occupancy of land already dedicated to a parking area, parking spaces, or loading spaces shall reduce the area necessary for parking, parking stalls, or parldng requirements below the m/nimum prescribed by these zoning regulations. e. Change of use or occupancy of buildings. Any change of use or occupancy of any building or buildings including additions thereto requiring more parking area shall not be permitted until there is furnished such additional parking spaces as required by these zoning regulations. Residential off-street parking. Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles; no more than one truck not to exceed gross weight of 12,000 pounds; and recreational vehicles and equipment. Under no circumstances shall parking facilities ~[ccessory to residential structures be used for the storage ofcomr~ercial vehicles or equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing estab- lishments not a resident at the residential site.. CD4:40 ZONING § 4-3 Angle Parkir~ 90° 75° 60° 0o Fractions of a ~pace. When determi~ug the number of off-street parking spaces results in a fraction, each fraction cf one-half or more shall constitute another space. Places of public assembly. In stad/-ms, sport's arenas, churches and other places of public assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews or other ~m~lar seating facilities, each 22. inches of such seating "facilities shall be counted as one seat for the purpose of determ~Mug requirements. Floor area. The gross floor area of each use shall be calculated and a ten percent reduction shall be made for nonproductive space. The resulting net useable floor space figure shall be ut-ilia, ed to determine the off-street par~,~g requirement. Snow storage in par]ring stalls. Provision shall be made in the Par]~i area for adequate snow storage or removal to ensure that the required number of spaces are available at all times during the year. h. Stall, aisle and driveway design. ParMng space size. Each par~-g space shah be not less th~u eight feet -~-e inches wide and 19 feet in len~h exclusive of access aisles, and each space shall be served adequately by access aisles. Parl~-g stall standards. Except in the case of single-f~.~]y, t~ro-f~]y and townhouse dwe]l~-gs, par~.~ areas and the/r aisles shall be developed in compliance with the following standards: (C) Stall Stall ('B) Curb CD) Depth Depth In- (F) (F) Stall Length Stall Wall to ter-lock to Aisle One Width ~:dth Per Car Length Aisle Aisle Way Two Way 8'9" 8'9" 19'0;' 19'0" 19'0" 24'0" 24'0" 8'9"* 8'9" 18'0"* 18'0"* 18'0"* 24'0" 24'0" 8'9" 9'0" 19'0" 20'3" 19'5" 20'11" 23'0" 8'9"* 9'0" 18'0"* 19'3"* I8'5"* 20'11" 23'0" 8'9" lO'O" 19'0" 20'3" I9'5" 18'6" 22'0" 8'9"* 10'0" 18'0"* 19'2"* 18'6"* 18'6" 22'0" 8'0" 22'0" 22'0" 8'0" 8'0" 12'0" 24'0" *The parking lot a~-ensions may be reduced upon submission and prior city council approval of a comprehensive snow removal site plan. The snow Supp. No. 9 CD4:41 § 4-S NEW HOPE CODE removal site plan shall be contractual in nature, signed by the property owner and filed with the city clerk. The reduction shall not be allowed until the conditions of this section are met. Psrking Lot Dhn-~.~/o~.~ Within structures. The ofDstreet parh~g requirements may be furnished by providing a space so designed within the principal building or one structure attached thereto; however, unless provisious are made, no building permit shall be issued to convert said par~,~g structure into a dwelling unit or living area or other activity until other adequate provisions are made to comply with the required off-street paring provisions of this Code. Stmeets not used. Except under joint parkers provisions or in the case of single-, two-f~m;~y and townhouse dw~]~;~gs, parking areas shall be de- signed so that circulation between parM~g bays or aisles occurs w~ithin the designated parking lot and does· not depend upon a public street or alley. Except in the case of single-, two- family and townhouse dw,~]~ugs, parking area design which requires bac~g into the public street is prohibited. Curb cut proximity to intersection. No curb cut or other driveway access shall he located less than 40 feet from the intersection cf two or more street rights-cf-way. This distance shall be measured from the intersection cf lot lines, not curb lines. Sump. No, 9 CD4:42 ZONING § 4-3 ~) Curb cut maximum. No curb cut access shall exceed the following width d~mensions measured at a point setback 20 feet from the proper~y line: Residential ............................................... 24 feet Residential single-family with a three car garage. ' ' .................................. 28 feet Corn m ercis.Uindustrial. ,' ................................... 28 feet All curb cuts shall be installed to comply with the ci~s curb cut design standards. The curb radius for any curb cut shall not exceed 38 feet. Curb cut widths up to 32 feet may be permitted subject to review and recommen_ dation of the city engineer and approval of the city manager. Before the city engineer recommends a curb cut exceeding the m~mum widths set out herein, they shall consider the type of land use the curb cut ~ serve, the extent and nacre of the vehicular traffic anticipated the type, the width of the street serv/ng the property where the curb cut wi~ be located, and any regulations promulgated by the Minnesota Com~-issioner of Transportation relative to driveway aud curb cut ~r~ensions. 7. Carb cut m~mum. Curb cut openings shall be located at m~rQmum five feet from the side yard lot line in all districts. 8. Curb cut separation. Driveway access curb openings on a public Street except for single-, tWo-f,m~ly and townhouse dwellings shall not be located less than 40 feet from one another. 9. Parking area grades. The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed five percent. 10. Driveway access rain/mum. All property shall be entitled to at least one driveway access. Each proper~ shall be allowed one driveway access for each 128 feet of street frontage. Single-family uses shall be lima.ted to one driveway access per lot. 11. Surfacing. All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage. Driveway aprens shall be constructed and surfaced with either concrete or bitur-~ous in compliance with adopted city construction specifications. Except in the case of single-family and two-family dwe/lings, driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with a six inch class five base and two inch bituminous topping. Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five or more vehicles shall be submitted to the city en~/neer for review and the final drainage plan shall be subject to written approval of the eu~i~eer. ' 12. Striping. Except for single-f-mqy, two-f-mqy and townhouses, all parking stans shall be marked with p-~ted lines not less than four inches wide, which striping shall be maintained for legibility on a re~alar basis. CD4:4~ § 4-S - 1N-EW PlOPE CODE (5) (6) (7) 13. Lighting. Any lighting used to i]lnm~nate an off-street parking area shall, be so arranged as to reflect the light away fro.m adjoining property, abutting residential uses and public rights-of-way and'be.in compliance with subsec- tion 4-3(d)(5) of this Code. 14. Signs. No sign shell be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly operatiOn and traffic movement wi~:hin any parking lot. 15. Curbing and landscaping. All open off-street' parking shall have a ccntinu- ous perimeter concrete curbing, unless otherwise recommended by the city engineer, around the entire parking lot, said curb ban'ier shall not be closer than five feet to any lot line. Plantings or surfacing material shall be provided in all .areas bordering the parking area. No landscaping in the boulevard shall interfere with the view of the street for drivers entering or · exiting the premises. This requirement shall not apply to off-street parking areas for single.family or two-f~m{]y dwellings or townhouse units with direct street access to garages. 16. Required screening. All open, off-street parking areas of five or more spaces shall be screene, d and landscaped from abutting or surrounding residential districts in compliance with subsection 4-3(d)(3) of this Code. Maintenance. It shall be the joint and several responsibility of the owner of the principal use (or lessee, ffthere be one), to use and to maintain'in a neat and adequate manner, the parking space, accessways, striping, landscaping, and required fences. Location. Ail accessory off-street parking facilities required by this Code shall be located and restricted as follows: a. ~ Same lot. ReqUired accessory off-s~eet parking'shall be on the same lot under the same ownership as the principal use being serviced, except under the provisions of subsections 4-3(e)(11) and 4-3(e)(12) of this Code. b. .Head inparking. Except for single-, two-fAmily and townhouse dwellings, head-in parking, directly off of and adjacent to a public street, with each stall having its own direct access to the public street, shall be prohibited. c. Parking distance from property line. There shall be no off-street parking within three feet of any property line. Boulevard parking prohibited. The boulevard portion of the street right-of-way shall not be used for parking. Other use of required paring area. Required accessory off-street paring spaces in any district shall not be ut~{{~ed for open storage, sale or rental of goods, storage of inoperable vehicles as regulated by subsection 4-3(d)(8)a of this Code, and/or storage of snow. No parking area shall be used for sales, dead storage, body repair work, including, but not {~m{ted to, frame or fender repair, or mechanical repairs of any kind, except that this shall not apply to home m-~n~,enance work of a customary or routine CD4:44 ZON'HqG § 4-3 nature necessary for the efficient operation of a vehicle, provided that it does not result in off spillage, litter or ether damage to the parking area surface, and provided that such routine home maintenance and upkeep work is completed within 48 hours. (8) Sidew, lW~. Sidewalks shall be provided fi.om apartment parking areas, loading zones and recreation areas to the entrances to the building. Portland cement type concrete sidewalks to a width of not less than five feet shall be provided in the boulevards along all streets abutting the property. (9) Garages. Aprivate garage shall be provided in connection with the erection or increase of units of any multiple-family dwe}]~ng structure as follows: One private garage per dwelling unit. No such private garage shall be less than ten feet in width nor less than 20 feet in depth. Each garage shall have an individual door for vehicular access shall be not less than n~-e feet in width. If more than one private garage is contained in a single bUilding, an area of each such private garage shall be separated by a continuous fire-resistant wall extending from the foundation up to the roof at all points. The side of the garage building containing the doorway for vehicular access shall be not less than 30 feet fi.om other garage buildings or apartment house buildings, or from other structures which may interfere with vehicular movement. ' (10) Number of spaces required. The following m~mum number of off-street parIdng spaces shall be provided and maintained by ownership, easement and/or lease for and during the life o.f the respective uses hereinafter set forth: a. $ingle-f".mily dwel~ir~s. One enclosed and one open space, eXcept that dl structures with existing or potential floor area, as calculated under subsection 4-3(e)(4)a of this' Code, in excess of 2,200 square fe~/" Shall require one enclosed and two open spaces for parh~,g. b. Two-f".mily dwdiings amd townhomes. One enclosed and one and one-half open parking spaces per unit. c. Townhomes .-nd multip~e-£.-rniiy dwdiings. At least one enclosed and one and one-fourth open spaces per unit. 1. Senior dtizen residential housing. One space per unit. plus one space per employee on max/mum Shift. One-half of required stalls may be provided at initial development for projects with occupancy restricted to persons age ~5 and older. A proof of park/rig restrictive covenant shall be entered into by property owner and filed with property permitting the city to require, at its sole discretion, addition of park/rig required by this section in the event the city determl-es there is a need for this deferred park/~_g. 2. Physically disabled citizen residential housing. One parking space for each unit, plus one space per employee on rn,*~,,~_ shill. d. Convalescent homes, rest horne~, nursing homes. One for each four beds for which accommodations are offered plus one per each two employees. CD4:45 RESIDENTIAL FRONT/SIDE/REAR YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 - TO PRESENT 04-13 Side yard setback (10' for living space) Approved PC; unanimous Exterior materials to match existing Derrick Slagle Request: 5' variance on side CC: unanimous Plans to be approved by building official 6024 Hillsboro Avenue Request variance to construct living space above a garage that is 5' from the property line 04-12 Front yard setback (25') Approved PC: unanimous Exterior materials to match existing Loren Stegman Request: 13' variance on front CC: unanimous Plans to be approved by building official 8233 39th avenue Request 13' variance to construct a 3rd stall on garage (house is situated on a corner lot so garage extends into the legal front yard) 03-11 Front yard setback PC: Approved PC: 6 for, 1 against Too great a variance for front yard Kurt Klipstein Request: 5' variance on front CC: Denied CC: unanimous 4053 Nevada Avenue Request to construct 22' x 20' attached garage to front of house to be located 20' to property line 03-05 Front yard setback (25') and curb cut Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match existing. Susan Pfeilsticker Request: 8' variance on front and curb cut closer than 40' to CC: unanimous Comply with code on plantings in sight triangle. 3853 Hillsboro Avenue intersection Request to construct 23' x 29' attached garage and move driveway curb cut closer to intersection 02-21 Side yard setback comer lot (25') and rear (25') Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match existing. Joal Stockton Request: 9.6' variance on side and 1' on rear CC: unanimous Driveway width 8700 61% Avenue Request to construct 26' x 28' attached garage to side of home Submit detailed plans for building permit 02-09 Rear yard setback (25') Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match existing. Gary & Faith Novitsky Request: 5' variance CC: unanimous 4404 Independence Avenue Request to construct 15' x 15' 2-story addition to home 20' front rear yard property line 01-08 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Submit detailed construction plans at time of Timothy Praimesberger Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous obtaining building permit. ' 5841 Cavell Avenue Request to construct a 620 SF expansion onto existing home 7' from property line 00-15 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Demo detached garage and foundation. Timothy & Arnetta Glum Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous Submit grading/drainage plan for City Engineer 5307 Pennsylvania Avenue Request to construct an attached 2-car garage 3' from the property review. line Gutter & downspout on west side of garage. Building materials to match house. Driveway to taper to street, Retaining wall on south property line. 99-13 Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous None Robert & Janet White Request: 6' variance CC: unanimous 8948 Northwood Parkway Request to construct 6' addition to the front of garage and front entry to accommodate a second story to be located 24' from front property line RESIDENTIAL FRONT/SIDE/REAR YARD VARIANCES --- 1980- TO PRESENT 98-20 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to matcl~. Richard & Liane Shive Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous Work out drainage issues with neighbor. 8489 N. Meadow Lake Road Request to construct 22' x 26' garage onto existing house extending 2 feet into the side yard setback 96-29 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous 10' addn. Council approved 12' addition. Jon Arnoldy Request: 7' variance CC: unanimous 12' addn. Building materials to match. 3532 Ensign Avenue Request to construct 2-story addition to home extending 7' into side yard setback 96-28 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: 6 for Building materials to match. Doug Norwick Request: 1' variance t against Roof pitch to be 3.5/12 4057 Boone Avenue Request to demolish existing 1-car garage and construct new 2 absent Garage dimensions to be 26' wide by 30' long attached 2-car garage to extend 1' into side yard setback CC: unanimous 96-18 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match existing. Leona Bigelow Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous 3840 Gettysburg Avenue Request to construct an addition onto existing garage, extending '2' into side yard setback. 92-31 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Roger Griggs Request: 1.8' variance I excused 5313 Pennsylvania Avenue Request to construct garage on side of house, which extends 1.8' CC: unanimous into side yard setback. 88-13 Side yard (20' corner lot) & front yard (35') setback Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Daniel & Barbara Nordberg Request: 5' side & 12' front variances 1 abstain 3243 Flag Avenue Request to expand garage on non-conforming str.c.t.re. CC: unanimous 88-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - Approved 1' PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. James & Sandra Larson Request: 2' variance CC - Approved 2' CC: 3 for 5908 Boone Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 2' into side yard I against setback. 88-02 Side yard setback (35' across from industrial, along 49'" Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous New Community Builders Request: 1' variance CC: unanimous 4884 Erickson Drive Request to build new home 1' into side yard setback. 85-20 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Richard &.Donna Kranz Request: 5' variance 1 against Drainage not adversely impact neighbors. 3240 Ensign Ct, Request to add a family room to existing home with basement, CC: unanimous Lot survey be consistent. which would extend 5' into the side yard setback. 85-10 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Patrick O'Meara Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous Extend chain link fence between houses. 8200 39th Avenue Request to add bedroom above garage, which would extend 2' into the side yard. 85-02 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Gregory Davis Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous 7308 39th Avenue Request to add onto existing home * RESIDENTIAL FRONT/SIDE/REAR YARD VARIANCES-- 1980- TO PRESENT 84-24 Side yard setback (20' corner lot) pproved PC: unammous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Alvie Carey Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous 4052 Decatur Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 3' into side yard (comer lot) setback. 84-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - approved 1' PC: 1' unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. James Wiczek Request: 2' variance CC - approved 2' CC: 2' unanimous 4104 Oregon Avenue Request to add a 2-story addition, including tuck-under garage and living area above. , 84-08 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Richard & Patricia Bruins Request: 4' variance 6/5/84 - PC CC: unanimous 7251 40th Avenue Request to construct a screened porch at rear of house which is 6/11/84 - CC technically the side yard and would extend 4' into side yard. 83-55 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. P.O. Dotson Request: 1 Y=' variance CC: unanimous 2701 Quebec Avenue Request to add Onto garage, which would extend 1 W into setback. 83-48 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Joseph Forrer Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous Structure should be only 20' so overhang is 2' from 4633 Rhode Island Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 3' into setback, lot line. 83-35 Side yard (10') & rear yard (35) setback Approved PC no minutes in files Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Charles & Phyllis Horton Request: 2' side & 3' rear yard variance CC: unanimous Remove existing shed. 3204 Gettysburg Request to add 3-season porch to rear of house, which extends 2' into the side yard and 3' to rear yard. 83-30 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous 2'3" variance, move shed at back of properly, take Joseph Buslovich Request: 2'9" variance CC: unanimous out 1'1" of sidewalk, take care of water problem, work 3530 Yukon Avenue Variance was granted 3' variance in 1980, after survey by neighbor, to be done in 30 days. he should have requested 2'3" variance as the sidewalk and a shed are located on neighbor's property. 83~26 Side yard variance (10') and front yard variance (30') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Larry & Carol Adams Request: 5' side & 5' front CC: unanimous 5200 Oregon Avenue Request to construct double garage. 83-09 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Thomas Gagnon Request: 4.25' variance with overhang 2.25' from property line. CC: unanimous 6025 Sumter Place Request to construct an addition onto existing home. Council recommended that addition be flush along rear of house so that the variance be less than original plan. 83-04 Side yard setback variances for stairway and wing walls already Approved PC: 4 for Vernon Stuhr constructed. 3 against. 5635 Wisconsin Avenue CC:'4 for I against RESIDENTIAL FRONT/SIDE/REAR YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 -TO 82~38 Side yard setback (20' on corner lot) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. William & Jacqueline Sheperd Request: 8.4' variance CC: unanimous 8501 28th Avenue Request to build 3-season porch onto existing house 8.4' into 20' setback required for corner lots, leaving 11.8'. 82-29 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous Robert Yunker, 4606 Boone Request: Both parties requesting 5' variance to construct a CC: unanimous Martin Kvasnik, 4612 Boone concrete apron up to the properly line at both residences & 4606 Boone requesting variance to park. recreational vehicle on cement pad to within 3' of property line. 82-21 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Frederick Starke Request: 3' variance I abstain 4042 Oregon Avenue Request to construct a 2-car detached garage to within 2' of side CC: unanimous yard property line. . 82-20 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Joel Olson Request: 5' variance 3 against Overhang cannot extend over property line. 8833 31st Avenue Request to add onto existing garage right up to the lot line at the CC: unanimous rear corner of new addition. 81-58 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Sukhender Nath Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous 8717 30th Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 2' from property line. 81-52 Side yard setback (20' on corner) Approved PC: unanimous Roger & Janice Fechner Request: 4'11"' variance No minutes in file. CC: unanimous 4700 Independence Refluest to add onto existing garage leaving a 15'1" setback along 47th Avenue, which requires 20'. 81-34 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC[unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Beverly Cooper Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous 3433 Hillsboro Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 1' from property line. 81-27 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Harold Lund Request: 1' variance · CC: unanimous 4617 Hillsbore Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 4' from property line. 81-11 Side yard setback (35' along 36TM Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Kenneth Kline Request: 10' variance CC: unanimous 3551 Wisconsin Avenue Request to convert existing garage into living space and build new 2-car garage, which would extend 10' into the 35' side yard setback along 36~h Avenue. 81-02 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Frank Dahlen Request: 3' variance ' CC: unanimous 7301 40th Avenue Request to add family room on to existing home, which would extend 3' into the 10' setback. · RESIDENTIAL FRONT/SIDE/REAR YARD VARIANCES -- 1980 - TO PRESENT 5 80-59 Side (20') & roar yard variance (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing Myron & Betty Kjos Request: 2' side yard & 5.5' rear yard variance CC: unanimous structure. 3837 Hillsboro Avenue Lot line is somewhat at an angle to new garage and half the garage is over the side setback by 2' and the rear extends into the roar setback by 5.5 feet 80-48 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing Joseph Buslovich Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous structuro.' 3530 Yukon Avenue Request to add on to make a 2-car garage, which would be 3' from the property line with the overhang right on the property line. Neighbors house is 10' from line with no windows on that side. 80-47 Side yard variance (5' garage) Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing Daniel Hanka Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous structuro. 3625 Gettysburg Avenue Request to add on large addition, garage and living area, which leaves only 3' from property line at one corner of home. 80-40 Side yard variance (5'garage) ApprOved PC: 6 for Curb cut moved by City so driveway does not Elroy Meyer Request: 5' variance 1 against encroach on neighboring land when paved. 5832 Cavell Avenue Request to keep driveway right up to the property line as it was for CC: unanimous past 19 years. Want to pave driveway and at the boulevard it encroaches onto the neighbors land. 80-34 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing Linne Johnson Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous structure 3022 Boone Avenue Add a 2' x 5' alcove to dining room, which would extend out 2' into the 10' side yard setback 80-27 Side yard setback (35' for major arterial street - 36TM Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous Remove existing fence, building materials to match Roy Lindgren Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous 3600 Jordan Avenue Want to add onto the garage into the 35' side yard setback by 4', which would leave 31' 80-13 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous A removable gateway section be installed in fence to Cooper/Herman Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous allow for fire protection. 4200 Flag Avenue Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one corner of each house does not meet roquirement ,. 80-12 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous A romovable gateway section be installed in fence to Cooper/Herman Request: 5' variance CC: unanimous allow for fire protection. 4208 Flag Avenue Houses wero built too close together in cul-de-sac & one corner of each house does not meet roquiroment February 14, 2005 Ms. Anne Hurlburt City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447-1482 Subiect: New Hope Planning Case Nos. 05-03 Dear Anne: Enclosed is a public hearing notice/map for Planning Case No. 05-03 for variances to maximum curb cut width, residential off-street parking requirements, and prohibition against parking on the boulevard. Please notify the appropriate properties in your city about the request if you feel it is appropriate. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 763-531-5119. Thanks for your cooperation. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development Enclosure: Public Hearing Notice Address Map cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager CITY OF NEw HOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North * New Hope, Minnesota 554284898 * www. ci.new-hope.mn.us City Hall: 763-531-5100 * Police (non-emergency): 763-531-5170 * Public Works: 763-592-6777 * TDD: 763-531-5109 City Hall Fax: 763-531-5136 * Police Fax: 763-531-5174 * Public Works Fax: 763-592-6776 CITY Of NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- .Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by City that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver 05-03 Barbara Bruemmer 2/7/05 4/8/05 6/7/05 Heartfelt Homes, Inc. 5480 Nathan Lane, Suite 102 Plymouth 55442 cell- 763-438-0909 4717 Independence Ave N 07-118-21-32-0046 Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. B. C. D. Ho Assign each application a number. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). List the date the City received the application. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) List the deadline under any extension or waiver. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: March 1, 2005 Report Date: February 25, 2005 Planning Case: 04-26 Petitioner: City of New Hope Address: City wide Request: Ordinance No. 05-06, accessory antennas An ordinance amending setback and placement regulations for I. Request II. City staff is requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the attached ordinance, which amends New Hope Code Section 4-3(b)(6)(h) regulating, accessory antennas. Zoning Code References Section 4-3(b)(6)(h) Accessory Antennas III. Property Specifications Zoning: IV. Background Residential The city of New Hope's zoning code states, in part, that accessory antennas and/or satellite dishes cannot be placed within the required front setback of 25 feet or within a requi~ed side yard abutting a street. This particular ordinance, however, was written in 1988, prior to the advance in technology which has made the typical satellite dish quite small (approximately 20 inches in diameter - much smaller than the satellite dishes in the 1980s) and the increased popularity and prevalence of them. Furthermore, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has strict rules regarding a local government's regulation of placement of satellite dishes under one meter (39.37 inches) in size, unless the placement has adverse impacts on public safety or property of historic value. The operation of a satellite dish depends greatly on the placement of the structure in relation to the media from which the signal is being transmitted. Thus, placement of the satellite structure oftentimes does not (and cannot in order to work properly) follow the existing code. In response to concern expressed over the regulation of such structures, an investigation of this matter was requested. V. Petitioner's Comments This is a request by city staff to update the City Code, necessary due to the FCC's rule which prohibits local governments to regulate the placement of satellite dishes, as described above. Planning Case Report 04-26 Page 1 02/25/05 VI. Notification Zoning code amendments require a public hearing and the required notice was published in the official newspaper of the city. Due to timing requirements, the formal public hearing was scheduled for the March 14 Council meeting. Staff is requesting that the Planning .Commission review this matter and make a recommendation to the City Council for the public hearing. VII. Development or Code Analysis A. City Planner Comments Question has been raised as to whether or not the existing code regulating the placement o£ satellite dishes should be enforced as written or if an ordinance change is in order. Section 4-3(h)(2) of the Ordinance states that a satellite dish placed in a yard "must not be located within the required front setback or side yard abutting a street, except for wall mounted antennas less than 24 inches in dimension, wall mounted to a principle building and the setback encroachment does not exceed two feet." In accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local laws, including zoning and land use regulations, may not control the placement of satellites/antennas that would impair the installation, maintenance, or use of video programming. These rules prohibit restrictions which may (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of ~n acceptable quality signal. An "unreasonable expense" is defined by the FCC as a requirement to pay a fee to the local authority for a permit to install a satellite or antenna or to incur additional costs associated with the installation. The FCC has rules that prohibit local governments to place regulations on the installation, usage and placement of satellite dishes "one meter or less in diameter designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service or to receive and transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite," antennas that are "one meter in diameter or less designed to receive wireless cable or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than by. satellite" and "commercially available analog and digital television antennas." These rules apply to satellite/antenna users who have these antennas placed on their owned or rented property, however, limitations apply to users within condominiums, cooperatives and rental property. FCC rules do not apply to "common" areas that are oWned by a landlord or association. The only .time a local government, association or landlord can impose restrictions is if the placement in question poses safety concerns or is of historic value. However, according to an FCC fact sheet concerning the placement of antennas, "a regulation requiring that antennas be placed were they are not visible from the street would be permissible if this placement does not prevent reception of an acceptable quality signal or impose unreasonable expense or delay." Based on the preceding information, it is the opinion of the, planner that there cannot be an ordinance regulating the placement of satellite dishes/antennas if they are less than one meter in diameter. Therefore, the existing ordinance regulating the placement of satellite dishes/antennas needs to be amended. The FCC strictly prohibits local governments from regulating the placement of satellite dishes, unless the placement has adverse impacts on public safety or property of historic value. The FCC suggests, however, that a governing body may "have written restrictions that provide a prioritized list of placement preferences" so that residents have an idea of where the city would like for Planning Case Report 04-26 Page 2 02/25/05 them to place their antenna if at all possible. Additionally, the FCC suggests that "a requirement to paint an antenna in a fashion that will not interfere with reception so that it blends into the background against which it is mounted would likely be acceptable" and that "a regulation requiring that antennas be placed to the extent feasible in locations that are not visible from the street would be permitted." The FCC's Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas further states that when determining these permissible regulations "determining the reasonableness of any costs imposed include: the cost of equipment and services, whether there are similar requirements for other similar installations like air conditioning units or trash receptacles, and what visual impact the antenna has on the surroUndings." It is the suggestion of the planning consultant that the city change the ordinance as follows: ' 1) Repeal: setback 2) Add: Satellite must be placed in the back yard unless the necessary reception can only be obtained from a location in the front yard. If placed in the front yard, satellite must be camouflaged by way of site location, screening, or painted/colored to blend with the site background when viewed from the street right-of-way. For safety purposes, placement of satellite dishes ils prohibited within the visibility triangle. Placement of satellite dishes is prohibited in drainage/utility easements 'and the city is not responsible for damage to or restoration of satellite dishes and their components located herein. B. Ct_fy Attorney Comments / Draft Ordinance The city attorney prepared the enclosed ordinance amendment for consideration. The ordinance amendment is precipitated by the FCC's rule prohibiting local governments from regulating the placement of satellite dishes, unless the placement has adverse impacts on public safety or property of historic value. A copy of the rule is attached. Following are the changes to subsections 2 and 4 of New Hope Code Section 4-3(b)(6)(h) needed to bring the code in compliance with federal law. Basically, the antennas one meter or less in size will not be subject.to the setback requirements of subsections 2 and 4. Section 1. Section 4-3Co)(6)(h) "Accessory Anterma~" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 4-3(b)(6)(h) "Accessory Antennas". Accessory antennas shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVROs, short-wave dispatching antennas and amateur short-wave radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Accessory antennas that are accessory to the principal use of property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: 1. Height..A ground mounted accessory antenna shall not exceed 20 feet in height from ground level. The height of an accessory antenna attached to an antenna support structure may not exceed five feet above the peak of the roof of the principal building. An accessory antenna in excess of the aforementioned height standards may be allowed by conditional use permit. 2. Yards. Accessory antennas greate~ than one meter in diameter shall not be locaied within the required front yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street. 3. Roofs. If vegetation or obstructions interfere with satellite signals at a location in any allowable placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. Planning Case Report 04-26 Page 3 02/25/05 4. Setbacks. Accessory antennas greater than one meter in diameter shall not be located within five feet of any 10t lines of adjoining lots or within a drainage or utility easement. The cost to repair or replace any antenna one meter or less located in a public easement inadvertently damaged by or removed by the city necessitated by maintenance, construction or repair of the easement or infrashnacture located on, over or under the easement shall be borne by the owner of the antenna or the 6wner or occupant of the property served by the antenna. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. VIII. Codes and Standards COmmittee Staff and the Codes and Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendment on December 22, 2004, and recommends approval of the amendment to the full Planning Commission. Attachments: Draft Ordinance 05-06 11/12/04 City Attorney Correspondence 9/23/04 Planner's Report Current Ordinance FCC Rule Legal Notice Planning Case Report 04-26 Page 4 02/25/05 ORDINANCE NO. 05-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SETBACK AND PLACEMENT REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY ANTENNAS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4-3(b)(6)(h) "Accessory Antennas" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 4-3(b)(6)(h) "Accessory Antennas". Accessory antennas shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVROs, short-wave dispatching antennas and amateur short-wave radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Accessory antennas that are accessory to the principal use of property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: 1. Height. A ground mounted accessory antenna shall not exceed 20 feet in height from ground level. The height of an accessory antenna attached to an antenna support structure may not exceed five feet above the peak of the roof of the principal building. An accessory antenna in excess of the aforementioned height standards may be allowed by conditional use permit. 2. Yards. Accessory antennas greater than one meter in diameter shall not be located within the required front yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street,~ ..... location in any allowable placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. 4. Setbacks. Accessory antennas ~eater than one meter in diameter shall not be located within five feet of any lot lines of adjoining lots or within a drainage or utility easement. The cost to repair or replace any antenna one meter or less located in a public easement inadvertently damaged by or removed by the City necessitated by maintenance, construction or repair of the easement or infrastructure located on, over or under the easement shall be borne by the. owner of the antenna or the owner or occupant of the property served by the antenna. ................................................................................................................. '~.'." i elated. ¶ "f Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", ~ Hanging: 0.5", Adjust space between J Latin and Asian text, Adjust space L between Asian text and numbers Deleted:, except for wall mounted antennas less than 24 inches in dimension, wall mounted to a principal building and thc setback encroachment does not exceed two feet. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the 14th day of March, 2005. Martin E. Opem Sr., Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the __ day of ,2005.) DOUGLAS J. DEBNER2 GORDON L. JENSEN1 CLAPdSSA M. KLUG GLEN A. NORTON STEVEN A. SONDP. ALL STACY A. WOODS OF COUNSEL LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD tReal Property Law Specialist Certified By The Minnesota State Bar Association -~Admitted in Iowa JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law November 12, 2004 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968 TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mail law~jensen-sondrall.com Writer's Direct Dial No.: (763) 201-0211 e-mail sas~jensen-sondralLcom Ruben Vazquez Community Development Intern City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending Setback and Placement Regulations for Accessory Antennas Our File No.: 99.40133 Dear Ruben: In follow up to our November 9, 2004 meeting please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance Amending Setback and Placement Regulations for Accessory Antennas for consideration at the next Codes& Standards meeting. The proposed Ordinance ameiids New Hope Code Section 4-3(b)(6)(h) regulating accessory antennas. As indicated in the City Planner's September 23, 2004 memo, FCC regulations preveni the City from imposing setback requirements on satellite antennas and dishes that are one meter in diameter or smaller. As a result, subsections 2 and 4 of New Hope Code Section 4-3(b)(6)(h) have been amended to apply to antennas greater than one meter in diameter. Basically, the antennas one meter or less in size will not be subject to the setback requirements of subsections 2 and 4 of our Code. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding the proposed Ordinance enclosed or the contents of this letter. Very t~lv yours, Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope Enclosure cc: Kirk McDonald (w/enc.) Dan Donahue (w/enc.) Valerie Leone (w/eric.) A1 Brixius (w/enc.) P:\Attomey\SAS\l Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-40133\99,40133-001-Vasquez Ltr. doe Telephone: 763.2:31.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 p~anners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald City of New Hope Laurie Shives/Alan Brixius September 23, 2004 New HoPe - Satellite Dish Location 131.00 - 04.07 Background The City of New Hope's zoning code states, in part, that accessory antennas and/or satellite dishes cannot be placed within the required front setback of 25 feet or within a required side yard abutting a street. This particular ordinance, however, was written in 1988 - prior to the advances in technology which have made the typical satellite dish quite small (approximately 20 inches in diameter - much smaller than satellite dishes in the 1980s) and the increased popularity and prevalence of them. Further more, the Federal Communications Commission has strict rules regarding a local government's regulation of placement of satellite dishes under one meter in size. The operation of a satellite dish depends greatly on the placement of the structure in relation to the media from which the signal is being transmitted. Thus, placement of the satellite structure oftentimes does not (and can not in order to work properly) follow the existing code. In response to concern expressed over the regulation of such structures, an investigation of this matter has been requested. Existing Regulation Question has been raised as to whether or not the existing code regulating the placement of satellite dishes should be enforced as written or if an ordinance change is in order. Section 4-3(h)(2) of the ordinance states that a satellite dish placed in a yard "must not be located within the required front setback or side yard abutting a street, except for wall mounted antennas less than 24 inches in dimension;, wall mounted to a principle building and the setback encroachment does not exceed two feet". In accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local laws, including zoning and land use regulations, may not control the placement of satellites/antennas that would impair the installation, maintenance, or use of video programming. These rules prohibit restrictions which may (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal. An "unreasonable expense" is defined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as a requirement to pay a fee to the local authority for a permit to install a satellite or antenna or to incur additional costs associated with the installation. The FCC has rules that prohibit local governments to place regulations on the installation, usage and placement of satellite dishes "one meter or less in diameter designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service or to receive and transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite", antennas that are "one meter in diameter or less designed to receive' wireless cable or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals otl~er than by satellite" and "commercially-commercially available analog and digital television antennas". These rules apply to satellite/antenna users who have these antennas placed on their owned or rented property, however, limitations apply to users within condominiums, cooperatives and rental property. FCC rules do not apply to "common" areas that are owned by a landlord or association. The only time a local government, association or landlord can impose restrictions is if the placement in question poses safety concems or is of historic value. HoWever, .according to a FCC fact sheet concerning the placement of antennas, "a regulation requiring that antennas be placed were they are not visible from 'the street would be. permissible if this placement does not prevent reception of an acceptable quality signal or impose unreasonable expense or delay", Proposed Ordinance Changes Based on the preceding information, it is the opinion of our office that there cannot be an ordinance regulating the placement of satellite dishes/antennas if they are less than one meter in diameter. Therefore, they existing ordinance regulating the placement of satellite dishes/an-tennas'needs to be amended. The FCC stdctly prohibits local governments to regulate the placement of satellite dishes, unless the placement has adverse impacts on public safety or property of historic value. The FCC suggests, however, that a governing body may "have written restrictions that provide a prioritized list of placement preferences" so that residents have an idea of where the City would like for them to place their antenna if at all possible. Additionally, the FCC suggests that 'a requirement to paint an antenna in a fashion that Will not interfere with reception so that it blendS into the background against ~vhich it is mounted would likely be acceptable" and that "a regulation requiring that antennas be placed to the extent feasible in locations that are not visible from the street would be permitted". The FCC's Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas further states that when determining these permissible regulations "determining the reasonableness of any costs imposed include: the cost of equipment and services, whether there are similar requirements for other similar installations like air conditioning units or trash receptacles, and what visual impact the antenna has on the surroundings". It is our.suggestion that the City change the ordinance aS follows: Repeal: setback Add: Satellite must be placed in the back yard unless the necessary reception can only be obtained from a location in the front yard. If placed in the front yard, satellite must be camouflaged by way of site location, screening, or painted/colored to blend with the site background when viewed from the street right of way. For safety purposes, placement of satellite dishes is prohibited within the visibility triangle. Placement of satellite dishes is prohibited in drainage/utility easements and the City is not responsible for damage to or restoration of satellite dishes and their components located herein. § 4-3 NEW HOPE CODE 8. The cooling structure or condenser shall not lie w~thin a required drainage and/or utility easement. Accessory antennas. Accessory antennas shall be l~rnlted to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVROs, short-wave dispatching antennas and amateur short-wave radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Accessory antennas that are accessory to the principal use of property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: 1. Height. A ground too.unfed accessory antenna shall not exceed 20 feet in height from ground level. The height of an accessory antenna attached to an antenna support structure may not exceed five feet above the peak of the roof of the principal building. An accessory antenna in excess of the aforementioned height standards may be allowed by conditional use permit. Yards. Accessory antennas shall not be located within the required front yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street, except for wall mounted antennas less than 24 inches in ~mension, wall mounted to a principal building and the setback encroachment does not exceed two feet. Roofs. If vegetation or obstructions interfere with satellite signals at a location in any allowable placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. Setbacks. Accessory antennas shall not be located within five feet of any lot lines of adjoining lots or within a drainage or utility easement. Building permits. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory antenna requiring a conditional use permit~ Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site Plan and structural components data for the accessory antenna, including details of anchoring. The building official must approve the plans before installation. Lightning protection. Each accessory antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electri- cal Code as adopted by the city. Electrical code. Accessory antenna electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Cod~ as adOPted by the city. Color/content. Accessory antennas shall be of a neutral color and any lettering or scenes contained on said device qus]ifying it as a sign shall be subject to the regulations of sections 3-40 through 3-40(i) of the New Hope Sign Code. Effective date. The provisions of this section sh~]l be applicable to all accessory antennas erected aider April 7, 1988. All such structures existing prior to this date shall be addressed as legal nonconforming uses. Supp. No. 9 CD4:30 FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennaz FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FACT SHEET May 2001 Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule Preemption of Restrictions on Placement of Direct Broadcast Satellite, Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, and Television Broadcast Antennas Quick Links to Document Sections Below Questions and Answers, Links to Relevant Orders and the Rule Guidance on Filing a PetitiOn Where to Call for Mo~'e Information As directed by Congress in Section 207 of the TeleCommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission adopted the Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule concerning governmental and nongovernmental restrictions on viewers' ability to receive video program, lng signals fi.om direct broadcast satellites ("DBS"), multichannel multipoint distribution (wireles~ cable) providers ("MMDS"), and television broadcast stations ("TVBS"). The rule is cited as 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000 and has been in effect since October 14, 1996. It prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. The rule applies i0 video antennas including direct-to- home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter (or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cable antennas. The rule prohibits most restrictions that: (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal. http://www.f¢¢.gov/mb/facts/otard.html (1 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC Fact Sh=et on Placement of Antennas Effective January 22, 1999, the Commission amended the rule so that it also applies to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such. as a balcony or patio. On October 25, 2000, the Commission further amended the rule so that it applies to customer-end antennas that receive and transmit fixed wireless signals. This amendment became effective on May 25, 2001. The rule applies to viewers who place antennas that meet size limitations on property that they own or rent and that is within their exclusive use or control, including condominium owners and cooperative owners, and tenants who have an area where they have exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio, in which to install the antenna. The rule applies to townhomes and manufactured homes, as well as to single family homes. The rule allows local governments, community associations and landlords to enforce restrictions that do not impair the installation, maintenance or use of the types of antennas described above, as well as restrictions needed for safety or historic preservation. In addition, under some circumstances, the availability of a central or common antenna can be used by a community association or landlord to restrict the installation of individual antennas. In addition, the rule does not apply to common areas that are owned by a landlord, a community, association, or jointly by condominium or cooperative owners. Such common areas may include the roof or exterior wall of a multiple dwelling unit. Therefore, restrictions on antennas installed in or on such common areas are enforceable. This fact sheet provides general answers to questions that may arise about the implementation of the rule, but is not the rule itself. For further information or a copy of the rule, call the Federal Communications Commission at 888-CALLFCC (toll free) or (202) 418-7096. The rule is also available via the Internet by going to l_inks to relevant Orders and the rule,. Q: What types of antennas are covered by the rule? A: The rule applies to the following types of video antennas: (1) A "dish" antenna that is one meter (39.37") or less in diameter (or any size dish if located iii Alaska) and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite. (2) An antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive video programming services via'MMDS (wireless cable) or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite. (3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.hmal (2 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on "masts" to reach thc height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes. Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive usc area may not be covered by this rule. Q: What are "fixed wireless signals"? A: "Fixed wireless signals" are any commercial non-broadcast communications signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed customer location. Examples include wireless signals used to provide telephone service or high-speed Internet access to a fixed location. This definition does not include, among other things, AM/FM radio, amateur ("HAM") radio, Citizens Band ("CB") radio, and Digital Audio Radi© Services ("DARS") signals. ' Q: Does the rule apply to hub or relay antennas? A: The rule applies to "customer-end antennas" which are antennas placed at a customer location for the purpose of providing service to customers at that location. The rule does not cover antennas used to transmit signals to and/or receive signals from multiple customer locations. Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited? A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person's ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulatiOns, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule. The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose. .. Q: What types of restrictions unreasonably delay or prevent viewers from using an antenna? A: A local restriction that prohibits all antennas would prevent viewers from receiving signals, and is prohibited by the Commission's i'ule. Procedural requirements can also unreasonably delay installation, maintenance or use of an antenna covered by this rule. For example, local regulations that require a person to obtain a permit or approval prior to installation create unreasonable delay and are generally prohibited. Permits or prior approval necessary to serve a legitimate safety or historic preservation purpose may be permissible. http://www.fcc.gov/rnb/factz/otard.html 0 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas Q: What is an unreasonable expense? A: Any requirement to pay a fee to the. local authority for a p. emait to be allowed to install an antenna would be unreasonable because such pen'nits are generally prohibited. It may also be unreasonable for a local government, community association or landlord to require a viewer to incur additional costs associated with installation. Things to consider in determining the reasonableness of any costs imposed include: (1) the cost of the equipment and services, and. (2) whether there are similar requirements for comparable objects, such as air conditioning units or trash receptacles. For example, restrictions cannot require that expensive landscaping screen relatively unobtrusive DBS antennas. A requirement to paint an antenna so that it blends into the background against which it is mounted would likely be acceptable, provided it will not interfere with reception or impose unreasonable costs. Q: What restrictions prevent a viewer from receiving, an acceptable quality signal? A: For antennas designed to receive analog signals, such as TVBS, a requirement that an antenna be located where reception would be impossible or substantially degraded is prohibited by the rule. However, a regulation requiring that antennas be placed Where they are not visible fro'm the street Would be penuissible if this placement does not prevent reception of an acceptable quality signal or impose unreasonable expense or delay. For example, if installing an antenna in the rear of the house costs significantly more than installation on the side of the house, then such a requirement would be prohibited, If, however, installation in the rear of the house does not impose unreasonable expense or delay or preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal, then the restriction is permissible and the viewer' must comply. The acceptable quality signal standard is different for devices designed to receive digital signals, such as DBS antennas, digital MMI)S antennas, digital television ("DTV") antennas, and digital fixed wireless antennas. For a digital antenna to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal, the antenna must be installed where it has an unobstructed, direct view of the satellite or other device from which signals are received or to which signals are to be transmitted. Unlike analog .antennas, digital antennas, even in the presence of sufficient over-the-air signal strength, will at times provide no pictUre or sound unless they are placed and oriented properly. Q: Are all restrictions prohibited? A: No, many restrictions are permitted. Clearly-defined, legitimate safety restrictions are permitted even if they impair installation, maintenance or use provided they are necessary to protect public safety and are no more burdensome than necessary to ensure safety. Examples of valid safety restrictions include fire codes preventing people from installing antennas on fire escapes; restrictions requiting that a person not place an antenna within a certain distance from a power line; and installation requirements that describe the proper method to secure an antenna. The safety reason for the restriction must be written in the text, preamble or legislative history of the restriction,, or in a document that is readily available to antenna userS, so that a person wanting to install an antenna knows what restrictions .apply. Safety http://www'fe¢'g°v/mb/facts/otard.htral (4 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC Fact Sheet on Plac~rn-nt of Antennas restrictions cannot discriminate between objects that are comparable in size and weight and pose the same or a similar safety risk as the antenna that is being restricted. Restrictions necessary for historic preservation may also be ~ermitted even if they impair installation, maintenance or use of the antenna. To qualify for this exemption, the property may be any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible/'or inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, restrictions necessary for historic preservation must be no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the historic preservation goal. They must also be imposed and enforced in a non-discriminatory manner, as compared to other modem structures that are comparable in size and weight and to which local regulation would normally apply. Q: How does the rUle apply to restrictions on radiofrequency (RF) exposure from antennas that have the capability to transmit signals? A: All transmitters regulated by the Commission, 'including the customer-end fixed wireless antennas (either satellite or terrestrial) covered under the amended role, are required to meet the applicable Commission guidelines regarding RF exposure limits. The limits established in the guidelines are designed to protect the public health with a large margin of safety. These limits have been endorsed by federal health and safety agencies, such as the Environmental'Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration: The Commission requires that providers of fixed wireless service exercise reasonable Care to protect users and the public fi:om RF exposure in excess of the Commission's limits. In addition, as a condition of invoking protection under the rule from government, landlord, and association restrictions, a provider of fixed wireless service must ensure that customer-end antennas are labeled to give notice of potential RF safety hazards posed by these antennas. It is recommended that antennas that both receive and transmit signals be installed by professional personnel to maximize effectiveness and minimize the possibility that the antenna will be placed in a location that is likely to expose subscribers or other persons to the transmit signal at close proximity and for an extended period of time. In general, associations, landlords, local governments and other restricting entities may not require professional installation for receive-only antennas, such as one-way DBS satellite dishes. However, local governments, associations, and property owners may require professional installation for transmitting antennas based on the safety exception to the rule. Such safety requirements must be: (1) clearly defined;' (2) based on a legitimate safety objective (such as b'ona fide concerns about RF radiation) which is articulated in the restriction or readily available to antenna users; (3) applied in a non-discriminatory manner; and (4) no more burdensome than necessary to achieve the articulated objectives. . For additional information about' the Commission's RF exposure limits, please visit http://www, fcc.gov/ oet/rfsafety or call the RF Safety Information Line at 202-418-2464. Q: Whose antenna restrictions are prohibited? http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facta/otard.html (5 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antmmas A: The rule applies to restrictions imposed by local governments, including zoning, land-use or building regulations; by homeowner, townhome, condominium or cooperative association rules, including deed restrictions, covenants, by-laws and similar restrictions; and by manufactured housing (mobile home) park owners and landlords, including lease restrictions. The role only applies to restrictiOns on property where the viewer has an ownership or leasehold interest and exclusive use or control. Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule apply to me? A: The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit building, such as a condomim'um or apartment building, if the antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your condominium or apartment may inclUde a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule applies tO these areas; The rule does not apply to.common areas, such as the roof, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior Walls of a condominium or apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. For example, the rule would not apply to prohibit restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall of a condominium or rental unit. Q: Does the rule apply to condominiums or apartment buildings if the antenna is installed so that it hangs over or protrudes beyond the balcony railing or patio wall? A: No. The rule does not prohibit restrictions on antennas installed beyond the balcony or patio of a condominium or apartment unit if such installatiOn is in, on, or over a common area. An antenna that extends out beYond the balcony or patio is usually considered to be in a common area that is not within the scope of the rule. Therefore, the rule dOes not apply to a condominium or rental apartment unit unless the antenna is installed wholly within the exclusive use area, such as the balcony or patio. Q: Does the fact that management or the association has the right to enter these areas mean that the resident does not have exclusive use.* A: No. The fact that the building management or the association may enter an area for the purpose of inspection and/or repair does not mean that the resident does not have exclusive use of that area. Likewise, if the landlord or association regulates other uses of the exclusive use area (e.g., banning grills on balconies), that does not affect the viewer's rights under the Commission's rule. This rule permits persons to install antennas on property over which the person has either exclusive use or exclusive cOntrol. Note, too, that nothing in this rule changes the landlord's or association's right to regUlate use of exclusive use areas for other purposes'. For example, if the lease prohibits antennas and flags on balconies, only the prohibition c~f antennas is eliminated by this rule; flags would still be prohibited. Q: Does the rule apply to residents of rental property? A: Yes. Effective January 22, 1999, renters may install antennas within their leasehold, which means htlp://www.fec.gov/mb/facts/otard.html (6 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas inside the dwelling or on outdoor areas that are part of the tenant's leased space and which are mad'er' the exclusive use or control of the tenant. Typically, for aparmaents, these areas include balconies, balcony railings, and terraces. For rented single family homes or manufactured homes which sit on rented property, these areas include the home itself and patios, yard~, gardens or other similar areas. If renters do not have access to these outside areas, the tenant may install the antenna inside the rental unit. Renters are not required to obtain the consent of the landlord prior to installing an antenna in these areas. The role does not apply to common areas, such as the roof or the exterior walls of an apartment building. Generally, balconies or patios that are shared with other people or are accessible from other units are not considered to be exclusive use areas. Q: Are there restrictions that may be placed on residents of rental property? A: Yes. A restriction necessary to prevent damage to leased prOPerty may be reasonable. For example, tenants could be prohibited from drilling holes through exterior walls or through the roof. However, a restriction designed to prevent ordinary wear and tear (e.g-., marks, scratches, and minor damage to carpets, walls and draperies) would likely not be reasonable provided the antenna is installed wholly within the antenna user's own exclusive use area. In addition, rental property is subject to the same protection and exceptions to the rule as owned property. Thus, a landlord may impose other types of restrictions that do not impair installation, maintenance or use under the rule. The landlord may also impose restrictions necessary for safety or historic preservation. Q: If I live in a condominium, cooperative, or other type of residence where certain areas have been designated as "common," do these rules apply to me? A: The rules apply to residents of these types of buildings, but the rules do not permit you to install an antenna on a common area, such as a walkway, hallway, community garden, exterior wall or the roof. However, you may install the antenna wholly within a balcony, deck, patio, or other area where you have exclusive use. Drilling through an exterior wall, e.g. to nm the cable from the patio into the unit, is generally..n°t within the protection of the rule because the exterior wall is generally a common element. You may wish to check with your retailer or installer, for advice on how to install the antenna without drilling a hole. Alternatively, your landlord or association may grant permission for you to drill such a hole. The Commission's rules generally do not cover installations if you drill through a common element. Q: If my association, building management, landlord, or property owner provides a central antenna, may I install an individual antenna? A: Generally, the availability of a central antenna may allow the association, landlord, property owner, or other management entity to restrict the installation by individuals of antennas otherwise protected by http://www.fcc.gov/mb/fact~/otard, html (7 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC Fact Shee~ on Placemen! of,antennas the rule. Restrictions based on the availability of a central antenna will generally be permissible provided that: (1) the person receives the particular video programming or fixed wireless service that the person desires and could receive with an individual antenna covered under the.rule (e.g., the person · would be entitled to receive service fi:om a specific provider,'not simply a provider selected by the association); (2) the signal quality of transmission to and fi:om the person's home using the central antenna is as good as, or better than, than the quality the person could receive, or transmit with an individual antenna covered by the rule; 0) the costs associated with the use of the central antenna are not greater than the costs of installation, maintenance and use of an individual antenna covered under the rule; and (4) the requirement to use the central antenna instead of an individual antenna does not unreasonably delay the viewer's ability to receive video programming or fixed Wireless services. Q: May the association, landlord, building management or property owner restrict the installation of an individual antenna because a central antenna will be available in the future? A: It is not the intent of the Commission to deter or unreasonably delay the installation of individual antennas because a central antenna may become available. However, persons could be required to remove individual antennas once a central antenna is available if the cost of removal is paid by the landlord or association and the user is reimbursed for the value of the antenna. Further, an individual who wants video programming or fixed wireless services other than What is available through the central antenna should not be unreasonably delayed in obtaining the desired programming or services either through modifications to the central antenna, installation of an additional central antenna, or by using an individual antenna. Q: I live in a townhome community. Am I covered by the FCC rule? A: Yes. If you own the whole townhouse, including the walls and the roof and the land under the · building, then the rule applies just as it does for a single family hOme, and you may be able to put the antenna on the roof, the exterior wall, the backyard or any other place that is part of what you own. If the townhouse is a condominium, then the rule applies as it does for any other type of condominium, which means it applies only where you have an exclusive use area. If it is a condominium townhouse, you probably cannot use the roof, the chimney, or the exterior walls unless the condominium association gives you permission. You may want to check your ownership documents to determine what areas are owned by you or are reserved for your exclusive use. .. Q: I live in a condominium with a balcony, but I cannot receive a signal from the satellite because my balcony faces north. Can I use the roof?. ' A: No. The roof of a condominiUm is generally a common area, not an area reserved for an individual's exclusive use. If the roof is a common area, you may not use it unless the condominium association gives you permission. The c°ndominium is not obligated to provide a place for you to install an antenna if you do not have an exclusive use area. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html (8 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC Fact Sheet on Plac~ncnt of Antenna~ Q: I live in a mobile home that I own but it is located in a park where I rent the lot. Am I covered' by the FCC rule? A: Yes. The rule applies if you install the antenna anywhere ~)n the mobile or manufactured home that is owned by you. The rule also applies to antennas installed on the lot or pad that you rent, as well as to other areas that are under your exclusive use and control. However, the rule does not apply if you want to install the antenna in a common area or other area outside of what you rent. Q: I want a conVentional "stick" antenna to receive a distant over-the air television signal. Does the rule apply to me? A: No. The rule does not apply to television antennas used to receive a distant signal. Q: I want to install an antenna for broadcast radio or amateur radio. Does the rUle apply to me? A: No. The rule does not apply to antennas used for AM/FM radio, amateur ("ham") radio, Citizen's Band ("CB") radio or Digital Audio Radio Services ("DARS"). Q: I want to install an antenna to access the Internet. Does the rule apply to me? A: Yes. Antennas designed to receive and/or transmit data services, including Internet access, are included in the rule. ' Q: Does this mean that I can install an antenna that will be used for voice and data services even though it does not provide video transmissions? A: Yes: The most recent amendment expands the rule and permits you to install an antenna that will be used to transmit and/or receive voice and data services, except as noted above. The rule will also continue to cover antennas used to receive video programming. Q: I have already installed an antenna that is used solely for the purpose of receiving video programming. Am I affected by this amendment? .. A: Persons who have already installed, or who plan to install, an antenna designed to reCeive only video programming are not affected by this amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to permit persons to install antennas that may be used for voice and data services, as well as for video programming se~rvices. The rules conceming restrictions 'on the placement of video antennas will apply equally to antennas that are used for voice and data services. Q: I'm a board member of a homeowners' association, and we want to revise our restrictions so that they will comply with the FCC rule. Do you have guidelines you can send me? http'J/www, f¢c.gov/rab/facts/otard.html (9 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of.antennas A: We do not have sample guidelines because every community is different. We can send you the rule and the relvant orders, which will give you general guidance. (See list of documents at the end of this .factsheet. Some commun/ties have written restrictions that provide a prioritized list of placement preferences so that residents can see where the association wants them to install the antenna. The residents should comply, with the placement preferences provided the preferred placement does not impose unreasonable delay or expense or preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal. Q: What restrictions are permitted if the antenna must be on a very tall mast to get a signal? A: If you haVe an exclusive use area that is covered by the rule and need to put your antenna on a mast, the local government, community association or landlord may require you to apply for a permit for safety reasons if the mast extends more than 12 feet above the roofline. If you meet the safety requirements, the permit should be granted. Note that the Commission's rule only applies to antennas and masts installed wholly within the antenna user's exclusive use area. Masts that extend beyond the exclusive use area are outside the scope of the rule. For installations on single family homes, the "exclusive use area" generally would be anywhere on the home or lot and the mast height provision is usually most relevant in these situations. For example, if a homeowner needs to install an antenna on a mast that is more than 12 feet taller than the roof of the home, the homeowners' association or local zoning authority may require a permit to ensure the safety of such an installation, but may' not prohibit the installation unless there is no way to install it safely. On the other hand, if the owner ora condominium in a building with multiple dwelting units needs to put the antenna on'a mast that extends beyond the balcony boundaries, such 'installation would generally be outside the scope and protection of the rule, and the condominium association may impose any restrictions it wishes (including an outright prohibition) because the Commission rule does not apply in this situation. Q: Does the rule apply to commercial property or only residentiaI property? A: Nothing in the rule excludes antennas installed on commercial property. The rule applies to property used for commercial purposes in the same way it applies to residential property. Q: What can a local government, association, or consumer do if there is a dispute over whether a particular restriction is valid? . A: Restrictions that impair installation, maintenance or use of the antennas covered by the rule are preempted (unenforceable) unless they are no more burdensome than necessary for the articulated legitimate safety purpose or for preserVation of a designated or eligible historic site or district. If a person believes a restriction is preempted, but the local government, community association, or landlord disagrees, either the person or the restricting entity may file a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC or a court of competent jurisdiction. We encourage parties to attempt to resolve disputes prior to filing a petition. Often calling the FCC for information about how the rule works and applies in a particular situation can help to resolve the dispute. If a local government, community association, or landlord acknowledges that its restriction impairs installation, maintenance, or use and is preempted http://www, fcc.gov/rab/facts/otard.html (10 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC Fact Shect on Placement of Antennas under the rule but believes it can demonstrate "h/ghly specialized or unusual" concerns, the restricting entity maY apply to the Commission for a waiver of the rule. Q: What is the procedure for f'fling a petition or requesting a waiver at the Commission? A: There is no special form for a petition. You may simply describe the faCts, including the specific restriCtion(s) that you wish to challenge. If possible, attach a copy of the restriction(s) and any relevant correspondence. If this is not possible, be sure to include the exact language of the resthction in question with the petition. General or hypothetical questions about the application or interpretation of the rule cannot be accepted as petitions. Petitions for declaratory rulings and waivers must be served on all interested parties. For example, if a homeowners' association files a petition seeking a declaratory ruling that its restriction is not preempted and is seeking to enforce the restriction against a specific resident, service 'must be made on that specific resident. The homeowners' association will not be required to serve all other members of the association, but must provide reasonable, constructive notice of the proceeding to other residents whose interests foreseeably may be affected. This may be accomplished, for example, by placing notices in residents' mailboxes, by placing a notice on a community bulletin board, or by placing the notice in an association newsletter. If a local government seeks a declaratory ruling or a waiver from the Commission, the local government must take steps to afford reasonable, constructive notice to residents in its jurisdiction (e.g., by placing a notice in a local newspaper of general circulation): Proof of constructive notice must be provided with a petition. In this regard, the petitioner should prOvide a copy of the notice and an explanation of where the notice was placed and how many people the notice reasonably might have reached. Finally, if a person files a petition or lawsuit challenging a local government's ordinance, an association's restriction, or a landlord's lease, the person must serve the local government, association or landlord, as appropriate. You must include a "proof of service" with your petition. Generally, the "proof of service" is a statement indicating that on the same day that your petition was sent to the Commission, you provided a copy of your petition (and any attachments) to the person or entity that is seeking to enforce the antenna restriction. The proof of service should give the name and address of the parties served, the date served, and the method of service used (e.g., regular mail, personal service, certified mail). All allegations of fact contained in petitions and related pleadings before the Commission must be supported by an affidavit signed by one or more persons who have actual knowledge of such facts. You must send an original and two copies of the petition and all attachments to: Secretary, Federal Communications COmmission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, Attention: Media Bureau. Q: Can I continue to use my antenna while the petition or waiver request is pending? http://www'fcc'g°v/mb/factatotard, html (I 1 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas A: Yes, unless the restriction being challenged or for which a waiver is sought is necessary for reasons of safety or historic preservation. Otherwise, the restriction cannot be enforced while the petition is pending. Q: Who is responsible for showing that a restriction is enforceable? A: When a conflict arises about whether a restriction is valid, the local government, community association, property owner, or management entity that is trying to enforce the restriction has the burden of proving that the restriction is valid. This means that no matter who questions the validity of the restriction, the burden will always be on the entity seeking to enforce the restriction to prove that the restriction is permitted under the rule or that it qualifies for a waiver. Q: Can I be fined and required to remove my antenna immediately if the Commission determines that a restriction is valid? A: If the Commission determines that the restriction is valid, you will have a minimum of 21 days to comply with this ruling. If you remove your antenna during this period, in most cases you cannot be fined. However, this 21-day grace period does not apply if the FCC rule does not apply to your installation (for example, if the antenna is installed on a condominium general common element or hanging outside beyond an apartment balcony. If the FCC rule dOes not apply at all in Your case, the 21- day grace period does not apply. Q: Who do I call if my town, community association or landlord is enforcing an invalid restriction? A: Call the Federal Communications Commission at (888) CALLFCC (888-225-5322), which is a toll- free number, or 202-418-7096, which is not toll-free. Some assistance may also be available from the direct broadcast satellite company, multichannel multipoint distribution service, television broadcast station, or fixed wireless company whose service is desired. Links to Relevant Orders and the Rulc · (First) Report and Order, FCC 96-328, released August 6, 1996: [ Text Version I WordPerfect Version ] · Declaratory Ruling, Star Lambert, DA 97-1554, released July 27, 1997: [ Text ] · Declaratory Ruling, Jay Lubliner, DA 97-2188, released October 14, 1997: [ Text ] · Declaratory Ruling, Michael MacDonald, DA 97-2189, released October 14, 1997: [ Text ] · Declaratory Ruling, Omnivision, DA 97-2187, released October 14, 1997: [ Tex. t ] · Declaratory Ruling, Wireless. Broadcasting Systems (WBSS), DA 97-2506, released November 28, 1997: [ WordPerfect [.Text ] http://www.fc¢.gov/rnb/factn/otard.html (12 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC F~t Sheet on Placement of Ant~nas Declaratory Ruling, Victor Frankfin-t, DA 97-2305,'released December 31, 1997: [ .Text J Declaratory Ruling, Jason Peterson, DA 98-0188, released Febm. ary 4, 1998: [ Text ] Declaratory Ruling, Jordan Lourie, DA 98-1170, released June 17, 1998: [ WordPerfect I Text Declaratory Ruling, James Sadler, DA 98-1284, released July 1, 1998: [ WordPerfect I ..Text ] Memorandum Opinion and Order, Denial °fApplication of Review of Declaratory Ruling for Jay Lubliner (above), FCC 98-201, released August 21, 1998: [ WordPerfect I Text ] · Order on Reconsideration, FCC 98-214, released September 25, 1998: [ WordPerfect I .Text ] · Second Report and Order, FCC 98-273, released November 20, 1998: [ Text I WordPerfect t Acrobat I News Release and Statement~ ] · Declaratory Ruling, Stanley and Vera Holliday, DA 99-2132, released October 8, 1999: [ MSWord I Acrobat ] · Second Order on Reconsideration, FCC 99-360, released November 24, 1999: [ .Text l MSWord · Declaratory Ruling, Bell Atlantic Video, DA 00-927, released Aprii 26, 2000: [ MSWOrd I Acrobat ] · Competitive Networks Report and Order, FCC 00-366, released October 25, 2000: [ Text I MSWord I .Acrobat I News Release and Statements ] · Declaratory Ruling, Victor Frankfurt', DA 01-0153, released February 7, 2001' [ MSWord I Acrobat ] · Declaratory'Ruling, Corey Roberts, DA 01-1276, released May 24, 2001: [ MSWord I Acrobat ] · Memorandum Opinion and Order, Denial of Application of Review of Declaratory Ruling for Victor Frankfurt (above), FCC 03-210, released August 27, 2003 · [ MSWord I Acrobat ] · Memorandum Opinion and Order, Philip Wojcikewicz, DA 03-2971, released September 29, 2003: [ MSWord I Acrobat ] · Declaratory Ruling, Michael and Alexandra Pinter, DA 04-2839, released September 1, 2004: [ MSWord I Acrobat ] ' · OTARD Rule, 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000. GUIDANCE ON FILLNG A PETITION Q: What are the procedural requirements for filing a Petition for Declaratory Ruling or Waiver with the Commission? ~ A: There is no special form for a petition. You may simply describe the facts, including the specific restriction(s) that you wish to challenge. If possible, attach a copy of the restriction(s) and any relevant correspondence. If this is' not possible, be sure to include the exact language of the restriction in question with the petition. General or hypothetical questions about the application or interpretation of the rule cannot be accepted as petitions. http://www.f¢¢.gov/mb/facts/otard.hlxal (13 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antcnna~ Petitions for declaratory rulings and waivers must be served on all interested parties. An entity seeking to impose or maintain a restriction must include with its petition a proof of service that it has served the affected residents. Similarly, an antenna user seeking to challenge the permissibility ora restriction must include with the petitiOn a proof of service that the antenna u~er has served the restricting entity with a copy of the Petition. If you are an antenna user, you must serve a copy of the Petition on the entity seeking to enforce the restriction (i.e., the local government, community association or landlord). If you are a local government, community association or landlord, you must serve a copy of the Petition on the residents in the community who currently ha~,e or wish to install antennas that will be affected by the restriction your Petition seeks to maintain. For example, if a homeowners' association files a-petition seeking a declaratory ruling that its restriction is not preempted and is seeking to enforce the restriction against a specific resident, service must be made on that specific resident. The homeowners' association will not be required to serve all other members of the association, but must provide reasonable, constructive notice of the proceeding to other residents whose interests may foreseeably be affected. This may be accomplished, for example, by placing notices in residents' mailboxes, by placing a notice on a community bulletin board, or by placing the notice in an association newsletter. If a local government seeks a declaratory ruling or a waiver from the Commission, the local government must take steps to afford reasonable, constructive notice to residents in its jurisdiction (e.g., by placing a notice in a local newspaper of general circulation). Proof of constructive notice must be provided with a petition. In this regard, the petitioner should provide a copy of the notice and an explanation of where the notice was placed and how many people the notice might reasonably have reached. Finally, if a person files a petition or lawsuit challenging a local government's ordinance, an association's restriction, or a landlord's lease, the person must serve the local government, association or landlord, as appropriate. You must include a proof of servme with your petition. Generally, the "proof 1! · ~! of service" is a statement indicating that on the same day that your petition was sent to the Commission, you provided a copy of your petition (and any attachments), to the person or entity that is seeking to enforce the antenna restriction. The proof of service should give the name and address of the parties served, the date served, and the method of service used (e.g., regular mail, personal service, certified mail). If you wish to file either a Petition for Declaratory Ruling or a Petition for Waiver pursuant to'/he Commission's Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule (47 CFR Section 1.4000), you must file an original and two copies of your'Petition on the folloWing address: Office of the Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Attn: Media Bureau http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html (14 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas Q: What are the substantive requirements for f'flinll a petition for waiver or declaratory ruling? A: To file a Petition for Waiver, follow the requirements in Section 1.4000(c) of the rule. The local government, community association or landlord requesting tJ~e waiver must demonstrate "local concerns of a highly specialized or unusual nature." The petition must also specify the restriction for which the waiver is sought, or the petition will not be considered. To file a Petition for Declaratory Ruling, follow the requirements set forth in Section 1.4000(d) of the rule. Set out the restriction in question s° that we can determine whether it is permissible or prohibited under the rule. In a Petition for Declaratory Ruling, the burden of demonstrating that a particular. restriction complies with the rule is on the entity seeking to impose the restriction (e.g., the local government, community association or landlord). We recommend that you include the language of the restriction in question, as Well as a daytime telephone number, with your petition. While a petition for declaratory ruling or waiver is pending with the Commission or a court, the restriction in question may not be enforced unless it is necessary for safety or historic preservation. No fines or penalties, including attorneys fees, may be imposed by the restricting entity while a petition is pending. If the restriction is found to be permissible, the antenna users subject to the ruling will' generally have at least 21 days in which to comply before a fine Or penalty is imposed. - FCC - http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard, html (15 of 15)9/24/2004 4:24:42 AM NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING THE PLACEMENT AND SETBACK REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY ANTENNAS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 14th day of March, 2005, 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 the setback and placement regulations for radio and television receiving antennas, TVROs, short-wave dispatching antennas and amateur short- wave radio transmitting and receiving antennas, otherwise known as accessory antennas, which are greater than one meter in diameter. All pers'ons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are available upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531-5109). Dated the 15th day of February, 2005. s/Valerie J. Leone Valerie J. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 24th day of February, 2005.) -1- Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: PLANNING CASE'REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: March 1, 2005 Report Date: February 25, 2005 04-19 City o/New Hope~ City wide Ordinance No. 05-04, An ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code regulating side yard setback requirements/or living space built over attached garages in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts I. Request II. City staff is requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the attached ordinance, which amends the New Hope Code Sections 4-5(f)(4)(b) and 4-6(f)(4)(b) regulating side yard setback requirements for living space built over attached garages in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. Zoning Code References Section 4-5(f)(4)(b) Section 4-6(f)(4)(b) III. Property Specifications Setbacks - R-1 Zoning District Setbacks - R-2 Zoning District Zoning: IV. Background R-1 and R-2 Districts With the 1998 Comprehensive Plan update, the city amended its Zoning Ordinance reducing the front and rear setbacks to expand the building envelope of its single family lots. The goal of this was to promote 'in-place home expansions and reinvestment in the city's housing stock. In the last couple of years, the city approved side yard variances to allow home expansion over attached garages. The city's ordinance requires a 10-foot side yard setback for living space, but allows a lesser five-foot side yard setback for garages. Variances were then required to allow the living space to match the five-foot garage setback. After processing these variances, staff and City Council suggest an ordinance change to accommodate similar requests in the future without need for a variance. V. Petitioner's Comments This is a request by city staff to change the ordinance in order to accommodate hving space expansions over attached garage requests in the future without a need for a variance. Planning Case Report 04-19 Page 1 02/25/05 VI. Notification Zoning Code amendments require a public hearing and the required notice was published in the official newspaper of the city. Due to timing requirements, the formal public hearing was scheduled for the March 14 Council meeting. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review this matter and make a recommendation to the City Council for the public hearing. VII. Development or Code Analysis A. City. Planner Comments The Codes and Standards Committee viewed setbacks from other cities (see attached) and evaluated three setback amendment options. Option 1 Allow living space within five feet of a side lot line only above a garage footprint. Option 2 Allow living space within five feet of a side lot line along the garage side of the house over and beyond the garage foundation. Option 3 Reduce all single family lot side yard setbacks to five feet, After review and discussion, the Codes and Standards Committee recommended Option 1 as a means of providing some limited side yard expansion while protecting the adjoining property from further setback encroachment. To facilitate the recommendation of the Codes and Standards Committee, the following ordinance changes are recommended: Section 4-5(f)(4)(b) - R-1 Single Family Residential District: Ten-foot side yard setbacks are required except a five-foot setback is permitted for an attached garage. The five-foot side yard setback is also apphcable to hving space above the garage footprint. Section 4-5(f)(4)(b) - R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District: Ten-foot side yard setbacks are required except a five-foot setback is permitted for an attached garage. The five-foot side yard setback is also applicable to living space above the garage footprint. B. City Attorney Comments / Draft Ordinance The city attorney prepared the enclosed ordinance amendment for consideration: Section 1. Section 4-5(f)(4) "Setbacks" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 4-5(f)(4)(b) to read as follows: 4-5(f)(4)(b) Ten foot side yard setbacks are required except a five foot side yard setback is permitted for an attached garage and any hying space constructed above the attached garage footprint, Section 2. Section 4-6(f)(4). "Setbacks" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 4-6(f)(4)(b) to read as follows: 4-6(f)(4)(b) Ten foot side yard setbacks are required except a five foot side yard setback is permitted for an attached garage and any living space constructed above the attached garage footprint. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Planning Case Report 04-19 Page 2 02/25/05 VIII. Codes and Standards Committee Staff and the Codes and Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission discussed.the proposed amendment on December 22, 2004, and recommends approval of the amendment to the full Planning Commission. Attachments: Draft Ordinance 05-04 11/30/04 Planner Memo 7/20/04 Planner Memo 6/18/04 Planner Memo Legal Notice Planning Case Report 04-19 Page 3 02/25/05 ORDINANCE NO. 05-04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE REGULATING SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR LMNG SPACE BUILT OVER ATTACHED GARAGES IN THE R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4-5(0(4) "Setbacks" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 4-5(f)(4)(b) to read as follows: 4-5(f)(4)(b) Ten foot side yard setbacks are required except a five foot side yard setback is permitted for an attached garage and any living space constructed above the attached garage footprint. Section 2. Section 4-6(0(4) "Setbacks" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 4-6(f)(4)(b) to read as follows: 4-6(f)(4)(b) Ten foot side yard setbacks are required except a five foot side yard setback is permitted for an attached garage and any living space constructed above the attached garage footprint. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage .and publication. Dated the 14th day of March, 2005. Martin E. Opem Sr, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the __ P :'~ATTORNEY'xCNH ORDINANCES\99.40127-ORD AMEND SIDE YARD SETBACK P~Q.DOC day of ,2005.) Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: March 1, 2005 Report Date: February 25, 2005 04-19 City o/New Hope City wide Ordinance No. 05-04, An ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code regulating side yard setback requirements/or living Space built over attached garages in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts I. Request City staff is requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the attached ordinance, which amends the New Hope Code Sections 4-5(f)(4)(b) and 4-6(f)(4)(b) regulating side yard setback requirements for living space built over attached garages in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. II. Zoning Code References Section 4-5(f)(4)(b) Section 4-6(0(4) (b) IlL Property Specifications Zoning: IV. Background Setbacks - R-1 Zoning District Setbacks - R-2 Zoning District R-1 and R-2 Districts With the 1998 Comprehensive Plan update, the city amended its Zoning Ordinance reducing the front and rear setbacks to expand the building envelope of its single family lots. The goal of this was to promote 'in-place home expansions and reinvestment in the city's housing stock. In the last couple of years, the city approved side yard variances to allow home expansion over attached garages. The city's Ordinance requires a 10-foot side yard setback for living space, but allows a lesser five-foot side yard setback for garages. Variances were then required to allow the living space to match the five-foot garage setback. After processing these variances, staff and City Council suggest an ordinance change to accommodate similar requests in the future without need for a variance. V. Petitioner's Comments This is a request by city staff to change the ordinance in order to accommodate living space expansions over attached garage requests in the future without a need for a variance. Planning Case Report 04-19 Page 1 02/25/05 VI. Notification Zoning Code amendments require a public hearing and the required notice was published in the official newspaper of the city. Due to timing requirements, the formal public hearing was scheduled for the March 14 Council meeting. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review this matter and make a recommendation to the City Council for the public hearing. VII. Development or Code Analysis A. City Planner Comments The Codes and Standards Committee viewed setbacks from other cities (see attached) and evaluated three setback amendment options. Option 1 Allow living space within five feet of a side lot line only above a garage footprint. Option 2 Allow living space within five feet of a side lot line along the garage side of the house over and beyond the garage foundation. Option 3 Reduce aH single family lot side yard setbacks to five feet. After review and discussion, the Codes and Standards Committee recommended Option 1 as a means of providing some hmited side yard expansion while protecting the adjoining property from further setback encroachment. To facilitate the recommendation of the Codes and Standards Committee, the following ordinance changes are recommended: Section 4-5(f)(4)Co) - R-1 Single Family Residential District: Ten-foot side yard setbacks are required except a five-foot setback is permitted for an attached garage. The five-foot side yard setback is also apphcable to hving space above the garage footprint. Section 4-5(f)(4)(b) - R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District: Ten-foot side yard setbacks are required except a five-foot setback is permitted for an attached garage. The five-foot side yard setback is also applicable to living space above the garage footprint. B. City Attorney Comments / Draft Ordinance The city attorney prepared the enclosed ordinance amendment for consideration: Section 1. Section 4-5(0(4) "Setbacks" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 4-5(f)(4)(b) to read as follows: 4-5(f)(4)(b) Ten foot side yard setbacks are required except a five foot side yard setback is permitted for an attached garage and any hying space constructed above the attached garage footprint. Section 2. Section 4-6(f)(4). "Setbacks" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 4-6(f)(4)(b) to read as follows: 4-6(f)(4)(b) Ten foot side yard setbacks are required except a five foot side yard setback is permitted for an attached garage and any hying space constructed above the attached garage footprint. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shah be effective upon its passage and publication. Planning Case Report 04-19 Page 2 02/25/05 VIII. Codes and Standards Committee Staff and the Codes and Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendment on December 22, 2004, and recommends approval of the amendment to the full Planning Commission. Attachments:. Draft Ordinance 05-04 11/30/04 Planner Memo 7/20/04 Planner Memo 6/18/04 Planner Memo Legal Notice Planning Case Report 04-19 Page 3 02/25/05 ORDINANCE NO. 05-04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE REGULATING SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR LIVING SPACE BUILT OVER ATTACHED GARAGES IN THE R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4-5(0(4) "Setbacks" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 4-5(f)(4)(b) to read as follows: 4-5(f)(4)(b) Ten foot side yard setbacks are required except a five foot side yard setback is permitted for an attached garage and any living space construCted above the attached garage footprint. Section 2. Section 4-6(0(4) "Setbacks" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 4-6(f)(4)(b) to read as follows: 4-6(f)(4)(b) Ten foot side yard setbacks are required except a five foot side yard setback is permitted for an attached garage and any living space constructed above the attached garage footprint. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the 14th day of March, 2005. Martin E. Opem Sr, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the __ P:L~-TTORNEY~CNH ORDINANCES\99.40127~ORD AMEND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQ.DOC day of ,2005.) Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 ptanners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO:. FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Larry Kruse / Ruben Vazquez Alan Brixius / Dan Petrik November 30, 2004 New Hope - Side Yard Setbacks 131.00 - 04.03 With the 1998 Comprehensive plan update, the City amended its Zoning Ordinance reducing the front and rear setbacks to expand the building envelope of its single family lots. The goal of this was to promote in-place home expansions and reinvestment in the City's housing stock. In the last year, the City approved side yard variances to allow home expansion over attached garages. The City's ordinance requires a 10 foot side yard setback for living space, but allows a lesser five foot side yard setback for garages. The variance was required to allow the living space to match the five foot garage setback. After processing these variances, staff suggested an ordinance change to accommodate similar requests in the future without need for variance. Through the Fall, the Codes and Standards Committee viewed setbacks from other cities (Table 1) and evaluated three setback amendment options. Option 1 Allow living space Within five feet of a side lot line only above a garage footprint. Option 2 Allow living space within five feet of a side lot line along the garage side of the house over and beyond the garage foundation. Option 3 Reduce all single family lot side yard setbacks to five feet. After review and discussion, the Codes and Standards Committee recommended Option 1 as a means of providing some limited side yard expansion while protecting the adjoining property from further setback encroachment (see Exhibits A and B). Recommendation To facilitate the recommendation of the Codes and Standards Committee, the following ordinance changes are recommended: Section 4-5 - R-l, Single Family Residential District Section 4~5(f)(4)(b) changed to read: (b) Ten (10) foot side yard setbacks are required except a five (5) foot setback is permitted for an attached garage. The five (5) foot side yard setback is also applicable to living space above the garage footprint. Section 4-6 - R-2, Single and Two Family Residential District Section 4-6(f)(4)(b) changed to read: (b) Ten (10) foot side yard setbacks are required except a five (5) foot setback is permitted for an attached garage. The five (5) foot side yard setback is also applicable to living space above the garage footprint. pc: Steve Sondrall Roger Axel 2 Scenario A: One property owner expands directly above the garage and to the maximum permitted height of 32 feet. The scenario also shows the expansion extending 15 feet directly behind the garage to illustrate its impact on the neighbor. Expansion behind garage maintains 10 foot setback.__ ~r'- -. ........... ;, ~- .......... ~ I~'i I 'With 15 feet between structures, the expansion of one building to the permitted height of 32 feet does not have a significant negative impact on the elevation view of the two structures from the street. Sufficient space between the structures still allows for ample light. Scenario B: Both property owners sharing a common lot line expand directly above the garages and to the maximum permitted height of 32 feet. This scenario also shows both expansions extending up to 20 feet directly behind the garage but to the 10 foot setback to illustrate the spatial impact along the property line. Expansion behind garage maintains 10 foot setback. j2.4,/ With only 10 feet between structures and the expansion of both to a height of 32 feet, light is severely restricted between buildings. Only shade tolerant plants are likely to grow and a canyon effect is created, especially if both structures expand to the rear behind the garage. The elevation view from the street is altered, though not dramatically. Use of details and materials will have a larger impact on the street view than the reduction in space between the two buildings at the second floor. Table 1: Comparison of Side Yard Set Backs and Related Controls for R-1 or Similar Districts New Hope Crystal Robbinsdale Golden Golden Plymouth Plymouth Brooklyn Brooklyn R-1 R-1 R-1 Valley R-1 Valley-R-1 RSF - 2 RSF -3 Center Park Pre 1982 post 1982 R-1 R-4 structures structures Min. Lot Size 9500 7500 6000 10,000 10,000 12,500 7,000 9,500 8,500 (sO Lot Width 75/90 comer 60 50 80 80 80 65 75 70 Lot Depth None 100 None None None None None None None Building Height 2.5/32 2/32 lesser 3/30 lesser 2.5/30 35 35 3/40 lesser (stories/feet) greater lesser Setbacks Front 25 30 30 25 35 25 25 35 30 (residential Street) Rear 25 30 20% of lot 10 20% of lot 25 25 25 30 depth depth Side-interior 10 living 5 5 3 Based on lot 10 living 8 living 10 (5)~'~ 10 living 5 garage width at front 6 garage 6 garage 5 garage setbacki. Increases for long structuresii Side - comer 20/25 10 15/5 (40 ft 25 20 (Collector lots)/15 St.) driveway Permitted side No more Stoops no Central ACTM Cornices same No more Same Wide No closer yard than 2 ft into closer than Open parking and eaves than 2 ½ variety than 5 feet encroachments the yardiv. 4 ft. Others spaces may not feet into permittedx from lot No closer no closer Eaves up to 2 project side linexi than 3 ft to than 3 ft to ft. more than yard'~ii. property the 30 inches No closer linev property into a than 6 feet line'~ required to p.roperty setback line~ New Hope Crystal Robbinsdale Golden Golden Plymouth Plymouth Brooklyn Brooklyn R-1 R-1 R-1 Valley R-1 Valley-R-1 RSF - 2 RSF -3 Center Park Pre 1982 post 1982 R-1 R~4 structures structures Permitted Fences 8 ft max 6 ft max 6 ft max 6 ft or 8 ft Same Fences over Fences up between between between homes as CUP. 4 feet to 8 feet. homes in homes in in side yard. permitted. side yard. side yard. i For lots wider than 100 fl the side setback is 15 ft. For lots greater than 65 ft and less than 100 ft the side setback is 12.5 ft. For lots 65 ft or less the side yard setback on the north or west side shall be 10% of the lot width and the setback on the south or east side shall be 20% of the lot width. i.!.For principle stmctures longer than 40 ft along a side yard, the setback shall be increased by 1 ft for each additional 10 ft of length or portion thereof. ~' Setbacks of 5 feet allowed on one interior lot line provided all other setbacks met and the exterior wall of the dwelling facing the interior side yard of less than 10 feet does not contain any openings or mechanical equipment. iv Chimneys, flues, bay windows, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves and gutters. v Terraces, steps, decks, stoops that do not extend above the ground floor of the principle structure. vi Awnings, chimneys, eaves, handicap ramps, accessory structures, antennas. vii Conditioned on: the equipment is not adjacent to the neighbor's side yard unless the neighbor's structure is or will be equipped with central AC or there are no doors or windows in the wall abutting the side yard in question or the adjacent principle building is at least 20 ft from the AC equipment or noise from the equipment is sufficiently abated. viii Cantlilevers, chimneys, flues, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves and gutters. i~ Terraces, steps, decks, patios, uncovered porches, stoops no higher than ground floor of the principal structure, or play facilities, kennels, laundry drying equipment and gazebos not exceeding 500 sr. ×.Open parking spaces, terraces, awnings, canopies, steps, chimneys, flagpoles, air conditioners and temporary pools ~ Carports, vehicles, recreational equipment, driveways, parking areas, solar collectors, pools, balconies, breezeways, gazebos, decks, patios and porches.  NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. ~' ~' Wa Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55z~16 · ~ Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com To: Kirk McDonald/Amy Baldwin From: Dan Petrik/Alan Brixius Date: July 20, 2004 Re: New Hope - Zoning Ordinance: Single Family Side Yard Set Backs File No: 131.00 - 04.03 Background With the recent update of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the City has reduced front and rear set backs to allow a larger building envelope for single family homes. The goal is to promote expansion of the existing housing stock and to encourage families to remain in their homes rather than moving to other cities with larger houses. Towards this same goal, the City is exploring the option of reducing side yard setbacks within the R-l, R-2 and R-3 Zoning Districts. Currently there is a 10 foot setback. A 5 foot setback is permitted on the side with an attached garage. Two options have been proposed for chan~ng New Hope's side yard set back. 1. Modifying the current requirement with the exception that Living space could be constructed over the garage to the 5 foot setback. 2. Establishing a side yard setback of 10 feet and five feet with no restrictions on the 5 foot setback. At least one side yard would have a 10 foot setback and the other could have a 5 foot setback. In both of these options, there is the oppommity to have homes sitting within 10 feet of one another, with both homes having 5 foOt setbacks fi.om a share.property line. Side Yard Setback Zoning Review Side yard setbacks and related issues were investigated and documented (Table 1) for New Hop~ and six neighboring communities to establish a comparative context for potential changes to New Hope's side yard setback requirements. The communities of Crystal, Robbinsdale, Golden Valley, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and Plymouth were examined as providing a range of communities developed over different periods of time and with varying growth patterns. As reductions in side yards are considered, allowable building heights and permitted encroachments including fences in the side' yard become more important. -Setbacks Golden Valley allows the smallest setback at 3 feet for homes built prior to 1982 and both Crystal and Robbinsdale have standard 5 foot setbacks. Plymouth and Brooklyn Park have larger setback requirements identical to New Hope's current requirement. There is generally a relationship between the minimum lot width and size of the side yard setback. Golden Valley has a variable setback tied to the actual lot width for homes built since 1982. Golden Vallev'has also incorporated solar access into the setback with a larger setbacks required on the east and south sides of a structure. Permitted Encroachments Most communities allow encroachments similar to those permitted by New Hope. Some communities permit central air conditioners with strict requirements to reduce sound impact,. others are more lenient and others make no mention of cenu:al air conditioning at all. Providing greater side yard flexibility may warrant greater restrictions on central AC units in side yards. Currently, such units are allowed in New Hope subject to noise limits ((9-42(0 and 9-42(d)) and landscaping requirements. Despite existing noise limit regulations, a central AC unit v¥ithin a space of only 10 feet separating living quarters may be a nuisance. In order to maintain quality living enVironments w~hile re.ducing setbacks, it is important to specifically deal with Central Air Conditioning units, one optaon would be to permit them subject to specific physical conditions oftbe structure on the adjoining property. As an example (endnote #3 on the attached Table), Brooklyn Park allows AC units in narrow side yards if the neighboring structure has no openings on the side facing the side yard. Fences Most communities are more restrictive than New Hope on the height offences allowed within side yards. While New Hope allows 8 foot fences, most other communities only allow 6 foot fences. A reduction in the maximum fence height may be appropriate in situations where homes are only 10 feet a part. Buildin~ Both Plymouth and Brooklyn Park allow building heights of up to 35 feet and 40 feet respectively. While New Hope allows building heights up to 32 feet, this may still create a canyon effect in situations where only 10 feet separates structures that are both built to this maximum height limit. A "stepped" side yard setback based on building depth could be considered to mitigate this negative impact. Golden Valley requires the side yard setback to be increased by one foot for every additional 10 feet of building depth beyond 40 feet (see end note #2 of the attached Table). Other Issues Increasing setback flexibility may allow non-conforming buildings to become conforming or allow expansion ofnon-cO.nforming buildings. The maximum height requirement would still be applied to expansions of non-conforming buildings, however. Overall, greater flexibility on side yard setbacks may improve the feasibility o.f building on some non-conforming lots. 2 Visual Analysis of Side Yard Setback Options Three illustrations are proVided to examine the spatial impact on interior parcels of the two options being considered to side yard Setback requirements. All illuswations are drawn for interior lots using the zoning requirements for the. R-1 District: Min Lot Size Lot Width Lot Depth I Building Front Setback Rear Setback c~s~ on ~a~ Jot Height siz~ and width) 9,500 ~SF 75 Feet 126 Feet 32 Feet 25 Feet 25 Feet Option 1: Modifying the current side yard setback requirement by allowing living space to be constructed over a garage that is set back 5 feet from the interior property line. A 10 foot side yard setback is still required on the living quarters side of the property. Scenario A: One property owner expands directly above the garage and to the maximum permitted height of 32 feet. The scenario also shows the expansion extending 15 feet directly behind the garage to illustrate its impact on the neighbor. Expansion directly behind the garage at the 5 foot setback is not being considered in Option 1 and is shown for illustrative purposes only. Expansion behind garagI shown for illustrative purposes ~nl? With 15 feet between structures, the expansion of one building to the permitted height of 32 feet does not have a significant negative impact on the elevation view of the two structures from the street. Sufficient space between the structures still allows for ample light. 3 Scenario B: Both property owners sharing a common lot ~ine expand directly above the garages and to the maximum pemaitted height of 32 feet. This scenario also shows both expansions extending up to 20 feet directly behind the garage to illustrate the spatial impact along the property line. Such expansion is not being considered in Option 1. Expansion behind garage sho' for illustrative p~s~.~ --°nly' With only 10 feet between slructures and the expansion of both to a height of 32 feet, light is " severely restricted between buildings. Only shade tolerant plants are likely to grow and a canyon effect is created, especially ii'both structures expand to the rear behind the garage. The eleva~on view- from the street is altered, though not dramatically. Use of details and materials will have a larger impact on the street view than the reduction in space between the two buildings at the · second floor. 4 Option 2: Establishing a side yard setback of 10 feet and five feet with no restrictions on the 5 foot setback. At least one side yard would have a 10 foot setback and the other could have a 5 foot setback. Scenario .4: Both property owners sharing a common lot line expand existing living quarters to within 5 feet of the property line. The scenario shOws both expansions extending for a depth of 44 feet along the property line to illustrate spatial impact along the property line. The visual and perceptual effect is the same as Option 1 scenario B above. Next Steps The Codes and Standards Committee should review this information and consider how changes to the side yard setback are likely to affect actual design decisions by property owners within the City. The Committee should then decide what changes are to be made to the Zoning Code. 5 Table 1: Comparison of Side Yard Set Backs and .Related Controls for R-I or Similar Districts New Hope Crystal R-I R,I Min. Lot Size 9500 7500 Lot Width 75/90 corner 60 None 100 Building Height 2.5/32 greater 2/32 lesser Setbacks Front 25 30 (residential Rear 25 30 Side-interior 10 living 5 5 garage Side - comer 20/25 (Collector St.) Permitted side No more than yard 2 ft into the encroachments yard4. 10 Stoops no closer than 4 ft. Others no No closer than closer than 3 3 ft to ft to the property lines property line6 Permitted Fences 8 fl max 6 ft max between between homes in side homes in side yard. yard. Robbinsdale R-1 6000 50 None 3/30 lesser 30 20% of lot 5 15/5 (40 ft lots)/15 Central A( Open parking spaces Eaves up to 2 ft. 6 ft max between homes in side yard. Golden Valley R- 1 Pre 1982 structures 0,000 80 None &klen -' Valley~R-1 post 1982 structures 10,000 80 None 2.5/30 lesser ~ 35 10 3 Cornices and eaves may not project more than 30 inches into a required setback 20% of lot Based on lot width at front setback~. Increases for long structures2 same Plymouth RSF - 2 12,500 80 None 35 25 25 10 living 6 garage No more than 2 ~ feet into side yards' No closer than 6 feet to proverty line9 ' 6ftorgfl as CUP. Plymouth RSF -3 7,000 65 None 35 Brooldyn Center R-I 9,500 75 None 25 35 25 25 8 living. 6 garage 25 Same Wide variety perm itted~° Same Fences over 4 feet permilted. Brooldyn Pail: R-4 /1,500 70 None 3/4.0 lesser 3O 30 10 living 5 garage No closer than 5 feet from lot line~ Fences up to 8 feet. ~ For lots wider than 100 fl the side setback is 15 ft. For lots greater than 65 fl and less than 100 fl' the side setback is 12.5 ft. For lots 65 ft or less the side yard setback on the norlh or west side shall be 10% of the lot width and the setback on the south or east side shall be 20% of the lot width. 2 For principle structures longer than 40 ft along a side yard. the setback shall be increased by I fl for each additional 10 ft ot' lengfh or portion thereof. 3 Setbacks of 5 feet allowed on one interior lot line provided all other setbacks met and the exterinr wall of lhe dwelling facing the interior side yard of less than 10 feet does not couiain any openings or mechanical equipment Chimneys, flues, bay windows, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves and gutters. s Terraces, steps, decks, stoops that do not extend above the ground floor of the principle strncture. ~ Awnings, chimneys, eaves, handicap ramps, accessory structures, antennas. ? Conditioned on: the equipment is uot adjacent to the neighbor's side yard unless the neighbor's structure is or will be equipped with central AC or there are no doors or windows in the wall abutting the side yard in question or the adjacent principle building is at least 20 ~ from the AC equipment or noise fi'om the equipment is sufficiently abutted. a Cantiilevers, chi~m~eys, rifles, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves and gutters. 9 Terraces, steps, decks, patios, tmcovered porches, stoops no higher than ground floor of the principal structure, or play facililies, kennels, laundry drying equipment and gazebos not exceeding 500 si. , x0 Open parking spaces, terraces, awnings, canopies, steps, chimneys, flagpoles, air conditioners and temporary pools I1 Cai'ports, vehiclos, recreational equipment, driveways, parking areas, solar collectors, pools, balconies, breezeways, gazebos, decks, patios and porches. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952..595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald /Amy Baldwin FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: June 18, 2004 RE: New Hope - Zoning Ordinance: Single Family Side Yard Setbacks FILE NO: 131.00 - 04.03 Within New Hope's R-l, Single Family Residential District; R-2, Single Family and Two Family Residential District; and R-3, Medium Density Residential District, the City allows single family and two family dwelling units an intedor side yard setback of 10 feet and five feet. Ten-foot side yard setbacks are required except a five-foot side yard setback is permitted for an attached garage. The original ordinance that allows the garage side of the house closer to the side lot line is based on the premise that the garage is not used as living space and has a lesser amount of activity in close proximity to the adjoining homes. Recently, the City of New Hope has approved variances to allow the expansion of a garage within five feet of a property line and allow living space above the garage. With the approval of the variance; we are now bdnging living space in closer proximity to the adjoining residential properties. It is difficult to demonstrate a hardship unique to the property in New Hope. for this type of variance. This being the case, it may be more appropriate to change the ordinance than to continue to approve future similar variances. With the recent update of the Comprehensive Plan and the New Hope Zoning Ordinance, the City has attempted to increase the building envelope for single family homes as a means of promoting reinvestment of the existing housing stock and allowing families to stay in place, rather than moving to other cities with larger houses. In this respect, reductions in front and rear yard setbacks have already been made. In this case, we are now looking at possible reduction in side yard setbacks. In consideration of the side yard setback, we offer the following options: 1. Within the R-l, R-2, and R-3 Zoning Districts, for single family and two family dwellings, we would have an interior side yard setback of 10 feet and five feet with a footnote that the 10 foot side yard setbacks are required except that a five foot side yard setback is permitted for an attached garage and that living space immediately above the garage is permitted. This would be the Only exception to the 10-foot setback. It would allow for the expansion of living space above the garage, however, it does not anticipate expansions behind the garage along the same setback or expansion on the side of the house opposite thegarage. Within the R-l, R-2, and R-3 Zoning Districts, establish a side yard setback of 10 feet and five feet with no restrictions on the five foot setback, but a requirement that at least one side yard would have a 10 foot setback and the second side yard would have a minimum of five foot setback. The City would remove any indication or limitation on the five foot setback related to the garage, giving the property owner the choice. In both scenarios, there is opportunity to have homes sitting withir~ 10 feet of one another, with both homes having five-foot setbacks from a shared property line. Option 2 would establish the 10 foot and five foot required setback, but give the property owner greater flexibility in how they utilize those setbaCks in the expansion of their home. There would be no requirement that the five-foot setback only applied to the garage sides. Codes and Standards Subcommittee will have to evaluate both options and determine whether either of these options are appropriate for the City. In staff's opinion, if the City is inclined to grant future variances for similar requests as have-been'recently been applied for, a change to the Ordinance is certainlY warranted and that we need to identify speCifically how we would like to grant the five foot setback for living space. pc: Steve Sondrall Roger Axel NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE REGULATING SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR LIVING SPACE BUILT OVER ATTACHED GARAGES IN THE R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 14th day of March, 2005, 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 permitting a five foot side yard setback for living space built over an attached garage in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are available upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531-5109). Dated the 15~ day of February, 2005. s/Valerie J. Leone Valerie J. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 24th day of February, 2005.) P:\Attomey\SAS\l Client FilcsL2 City of New Hop¢\99-40127kNotice of Public Hearing before city council.doc Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope ' Meeting Date: March 1, 2005 Report Date: February 25, 2005 03-13 City of New Hope City wide Ordinance No. 05-05, An ordinance amending the setback requirements and sign locations for permitted signs I. Request City staff is requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the attached ordinance, which amends the setback requirements azid sign locations for permitted signs, pursuant to Sections 3-40 of the New Hope Sign Code. The amendment is specifically intended to clarify setback requirements for political signs and make the placement consistent with other temporary signs. II. Zoning Code References Section 3-40(c)(4) Section 3-40(f)(4)(b) Section 4-30(f)(4)(c) Section 3-40(f)(4)(d) Section 3-40(0(5) Section 3-40(0(11) III. Property Specifications Zoning: IV. Background The enclosed Sign Location Directional Signs Garage Sale Signs Open House Signs Pohtical Signs Violations All districts ordinance is precipitated by the city clerk's AugUst 17, 2004, letter to City Council candidates, per the city manager's direction, indicating that the previous sign code amendment reducing the sign setback requirements applied to all temporary signs including political signs. In discussion between staff and the Codes and Standards Committee, the committee felt that the zoning ordinance is too restrictive with regards to locating temporary signage on comer lots. The committee instructed staff to also examine the sight triangle setback and its impact on signs. Planning Case Report 03-13 Page 1 02/25/04 V. Petitioner's Comments This is a request by city staff to change and clarify the ordinance to permit all temporary signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the nearest lot line. VI. Notification A public hearing notice is not required to be published in the official newspaper regarding this ordinance amendment,, as the amendment is not part of the Zoning Code. Notices are not required to be mailed to individual property owners, as the amendment would be applicable to ali zoning districts. VII. Development or Code Analysis A. City Planner Comments The Codes and Standards Committee has been analyzing the sight triangle setbacks and their impacts on signage, along with making the placement of political signs consistent with other temporary signs. The current ordinance starts the setback measurement at the property comer and moves back into the lot. As such, the setback includes both the street boulevard and the 20 foot setback. A typical boulevard on a residential street is approximately 14-15 feet deep. As the setback, in addition to the boulevard, is seen as an excessive encumbrance on a property with regards to locating temporary signage, it was suggested that the sight triangle setback be measured from the curb line of two intersecting streets rather than the lot comers. Option 1. Sight Triangle Setback. On comer lots in all districts, no structure or plantings shall be placed or Constructed within the sight visibility triangle setback in a manner that may interfere with traffic or pedestrian visibility along a public right-of-way between the heights of two feet and eight feet of the street centerline grade. The sight triangle is defined as follows: beginning at the intersection of the projected prcFcrty curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence 20 feet along one FrcFcr~ curb line, thence diagonally to a point 20 feet from the point of beginning on the other FrcFcrty CUrb line, thence to the point of beginning. Option 2. Sight Triangle Setback. On comer lots in all districts, no structure or plantings shall be placed or constructed within the sight visibility triangle setback in a manner that may interfere with traffic or pedestrian visibility along a public right-of-way between the heights of two feet and eight feet of the street centerline grade. The sight triangle is defined as follows: 'beginning. at the intersection of the projected prcpcrty curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence 30 feet along one preferS- curb line, thence diagonally to a point 30 feet from the point of beginning on the other FrcFcrty curb line, thence to the point of beginning. It should be noted that permanent signage is required to have a minimum setback of 10 feet from any property line. As such, this placement would not be affected bY the ordinance change. Option 3. Sight Triangle Setback. On comer lots in all districts, no structure or plantings shall be placed or constructed within the sight visibility triangle setback in a manner that may interfere with traffic or pedestrian visibility along a public right-of-way between the heights of two feet and eight feet of the street centerline grade. The sight triangle is defined as follows: beginning at the intersection of the projected property lines of two intersecting streets, thence 20 feet along one property line, thence diagonally to a point 20 feet from the point of beginning on the other property line, thence to the point of beginrdng. Planning Case Report 03-13 Page 2 02/25/04 City At-~orney Comments / Draft Ordinance The matter was referred to the city attorney to prepare a draft ordinance. The city attorney submitted the following comments: Specifically, Section 3-40(c)(4)(a) has additional language defining a "sight triangle" for signs requiring a permit. Existing "sight triangle" language is being reinstituted into this section. As discussed, the "sight triangle" language for signs requiring a permit are being differentiated from the "sight triangle" requirements for signs not requiring a permit. The proposed ordinance incorporates into Section 3-40(c)(4)(b) the "sight triangle" language previously set out in subsection (c). In other words, subsection (c) was eliminated and incorporated in a "sight triangle" requirement for signs requiring a permit as distinguished from signs not requiring a .permit. The net effect of this "sight triangle" revisionary language is to establish an easily-determinable area for "sight triangles" on corner lots for the so-called temporary signs or signs not requiring a permit. The new "sight triangle" language found in subsection (b) permits a property owner placing a garage sale sign or other such temporary sign to determine the "sight triangle" by measuring it from the back of the curb line. This is not required for signs needing a permit since said signs are generally located on a survey or a site sketch by a commercial or industrial property user. Therefore, it was felt that the existing language for the "sight triangle" relating to signs requiring a permit should be maintained. This recommendation is incorporated into the new "sight triangle" language found in Section 3-40(c)(4)(a). Subsection 3-40(£)(11) has been amended by eliminating the word "will" and replacing it with "may." The committee felt this change would be more palatable and would allow city staff some discretion in determining whether a sign should be removed or not without notice to the property owner. It is felt likely that the inspectors will attempt on a policy level to notify property owners of sign violations prior to confiscating their sign. Section 1. Section 3-40(c)(4) "Sign Location" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3-40(c)(4) "Sign Location" (a) Signs requiring a permit must be located on private property. Freestanding signs shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the nearest lot line. The setback shall be measured from the lot line to that portion of the sign nearest to the lot line. On all corner lots, signs requiring a permit shall not be permitted within 20 feet of any corner formed by the intersection of two streets or the rights-of-way of a railway intersecting a street. The 20 feet shall be in the form of an isosceles triangle with the two equal 20 foot sides formed by and measured along the property lines and the third side formed by a straight line connecting the corner of each 20 foot point as measured along the property lines. (b) Freestanding signs not requiring a permit as described in Section 3-40 (f) of this Cod~ shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the back of the curb unless a sidewalk is present at the sign location, in which case the sign must be set back behind the sidewalk. On all corner lots, signs not requiring a permit shall not be permitted within 20 feet of any corner formed by the intersection of two streets or the rights-of-way of a railway intersecting street. Planning Case Report 03-13 Page 3 02/25/04 The 20 feet shall be in the form of an isosceles triangle with the two equal 20 foot sides measured from the back of the curb of the intersecting the streets or railway right-of-way and the third side formed by a straight line connecting the corners of each 20 foot point as measured. Section' 2. Section 3-40(f)(4)(b) "Directional Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3-40(c)(4) "Directional Signs." Directional signs not exceeding two square feet in area subject to the setback requirements of Section 3-40(c)(4)(b) of this Code. Section 3. Section 3-40(f)(4)(c) "Garage Sale Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3-40(f)(4)(c) "Garage Sale Signs." Garage sale signs subject to the following: 3. All signs shall be set back in compliance with Section 3-40(c)(4)CO) of this Code. Section 4. Section 3-40(f)(4)(d) "Open House Signs" of the New.Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 3-40(f)(d)(3) to read as follows: 3. All signs shall be set back in compliance with Section 3-40(c)(4)(b) of this Code. Section 5. Section 3-40(0(5) "Political Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 3-40(f)(d)(3) to read as follows: 3-40(0(5) "Political Signs." Political signs containing matter which is intended or tends to influence directly or indirectly any voting at any primary, general municipal, special or school election including pictures or announcements relative to candidates or campaign advertising, subject to the following: (a) no sign shall exceed 32 square feet in area, Co) all signs shall be set back in compliance with Section 3-40(c)(4)Co) of this Code, (c) one sign per candidate and issue per lot is permitted in addition to other signs on private property in any zoning districts, (d) In state general elections, no person shall permit or allow any such sign to be publicly displayed or posted before August 1 or 10 days after the state general election to which the sign relates. In special elections, the durational limit shall be 90 days before and 10 days after the special election to which the sign relates, (e) Any sign permitted by the section may be used as a noncommercial opinion sign, (f) In state general election year only, the size and number regulations set out in (a) and (c) above shall not apply but shall be governed instead by the regulations set forth in Minn. Stat. §211B.045. Section 6. Section 3-40(a)(4) "Sign Location" of the New Hope City Code is hereby repealed in its entirely. Section 3-40(a)(4) was a typographical error amended and corrected by adoption of Section 1 of the herein ordinance. Planning Case Report 03-13 Page 4 02/25/04 Section 7. Section 3-40(f)(4)(c) "Violations" of the New Hope City Code is hereby deleted in its entirely. Section 8. Section 3-40(/)(11) "Violations" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: 3-40(/)(11) "Violations.'" Any violation of this section shall be a petty misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum fine of $300.00. Persons violating this section may be fined in addition to other p ~enalties for Code violations allowed by this Code. Any sign in violation of this section may be subject to immediate removal by the city without notice to the property owner or owner of the sign ff different than the property owner. Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. VIII. Codes and Standards Committee Staff and the Codes and Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendment on December 22, 2004, and recommends approval of the amendment to the full Planning Commission. Attachments: Draft Ordinance 05-05 12/13/04 Planner Report 12/23/04 City Attorney Correspondence 12/17/04 City Attorney Correspondence 11/12/04 City Attorney Correspondence 9/23/04 City Attorney Correspondence Planning Case Report 03-13 Page 5 02/25/04 ORDINANCE NO. 05-05 A~ ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND SIGN LOCATIONS FOR PERMITTED SIGNS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 3-40(c)(4) "Sign Location" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3-40(c)(4) "Sign Location". (a) ~R_s.!..gg..r..e.~l.u_i__n.'_n.g_.a_p..e_.rg3..!_t.s_..h_.a.l~l._be erected or te.m.,porafi!/Eplaced within a street rigl!..t- ~ ...... I Deleted: Excepting governmental signs, of-way or upon public lands, eaS-~';';'~-~--~ay~ ~'~'i'_~_'~'~:~u.'i~b.-~da-i't'- must be located on private property. Freestanding signs shall be set back a minimum ",, often feet from the nearest lot line. The setback shall be measured from the lot line to '"I Deleted: The setback requirements for that portion of the sign nearest to the lot line. On all comer lots, siens reouirin~ a | these ~empted signs are specifically set '~ .......... -) .... '-' ' ' ' / out in ~-ections 340(f)(4Xc) and (d), perrm[ snait not oe perm]ttea within -0 Ieet of any comer tbrmed by the intersection | 40(0(~) and ~-40(0(~) oftUs Code. of tWO streets or the fights-of-way ora railway intersecting a street. The 20 feet shah be in the form of an isosceles triangle with the two equal 20-foot sides formed by and measured along the property lines and the third side formed by a straight ]/ne connecting the comers of each 20-foot point as measured along the property lines. ~, ..... Deleted: All signs, excepting · ~ ..- gnwmmentel signs, "garage sale" signs, ......................................................................................................................... ~, "open house" signs, '~politicaI" signs and (b) Freestanding signs not requiring a permit as described in Section 3-40(f) of this Code ',',,, p~Vateprope~y. shall be setback a minimum often feet from the back of the curb unless a sidewalk is \i~, be set back a mlnlmmn often feet fi'om the nearest lot line. The setback shall be present at the sign location, in which case the sign must be setback behind the measured fromlhe lot line to that portiou sidewalk. On all comer lots, signs not requiring a permit shall not be permitted ,. ofthe sign nearest te the propetty line. within 20 feet of any comer formed by the intersection of two streets or the rights-of- way ora railway intersecting a street. The 20 feet shall be in the form of an isosceles Formetted: au,ets and Number~n§ tr/angle with the two equal 20 foot sides measm'ed from the back of the curb of the intersecting s~eets or railway right-of-way and the third side fomaed by a straight line Deleted: <#>O~ an comer lot~, signs connecting the comers of each 20-foot point as measured. //: shall not be permitted within 20 feet of any cornet formed by the intersection of / .two s~'cets or the fights-of-way of a (l) *. ............ ,." railway intersecting a s~cet. This shall ...................................................................................................... ~ ineinde, but not be limited to, those signs referred to in Section 3-40(0)(4Xa) of this (2) .. ................. ' Code. The 20 feet shall be in the form of ,,, a triangle with two sides fonned by the property lines and the third aide formed by Section 2. Section 3-40(f)(4)(b) "Directional Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby ;\ a s~ght U~e ce~e~ the two 20-foot amended to read as'follows: pointa on each side of the comer. A sign may be extended into the niangnlas area '"',, provided that:.¶ 3-40(f)(4)(b) "Directional Signs". Directional signs not exceeding two square feet in area \ The clearance above the street grade is subiect to the setback requirements of Section 340(c)(4)(b) of this Code., x,,t more than ei,____.~t feet. ........................ -, | Deleted: No part ofthe slgn structore '" ,/ encroaches in the triangulas area at an elevation less than eight ~et above street Section 3. Section 3-40(f)(4)(c) "Garage Sale Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby ",,,, ~ade. amended to read as follows: i'l Deleted: which are placed entirely upon private property and not located an public lands, easements or fights-of-way. 1 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75" Section 3-40(f)(4)(c) "Garage Sale Signs". Garage sale signs subject to the following: ~...1!.s_i_~.s..s..h.a.!!..b_e._setback in compliance wit.h..S.e..c_ti.o__n...3._4..O. [c.)(.4.)_(b_)._9_f Code. Section 4. Section 3-40(f)(4)(d) "Open House Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 3-40(f)(d)(3) to read as follows: Deleted: ~tl signs shall be setback a minimum often f~et from the back of the curb or belfind any existing sidewaLk, whichever is greater. 3-40(f)(4)(d) "Open House Signs". Open house signs subject to the following: 3. All signs shall be setback in compliance with Section 3-40(c)(4)(b) of this Code, .-- [ Deleted: a m~;,~um often feet from ] ................................................................................................... the back of the curb or behind any existing sidewalk, whichever is greater. Section 5. Section 3-40(0(5) "Political Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3 -40( f)(5) "Po litical Signs". ~9 !i. ti.c.a! .sJ.~ .s. 9.o. ~ .m..i.n..i!3_g. _.m_.a. tt..e.r~..w..h_i _c~_!s..i..n_t.e. _n_d.e.¢' .o..r.t.?..d.s._t_9' ........ influence directly or indirectly any voting at any primary, general, municipal, special or school election, including pictures for announcements relative to candidates or campaign advertising, subiect to }he following; ............................................................................. : (a) . no sign shall exceed 32 square feet in area, (b) all signs shall be setback in compliance with Section 3-40(c)(4)(b) of this Code. },, (c) one sign per candidate and issue per lot is permitted in addition to other signs on*, private property in any zoning district. \ , \, \\ (d) In state general elections, no person shaU permit or allow any such sign to be, publicly displayed or posted before August 1 or ten days after the state genera!: election to which the sign relates. In special elections, the durational limit shall be 90 days before and ten days after the special election to which the sign relates, '(e) Any sign permitted by this section may be used as a noncommercial op~mon sign, ' .... (fl In state general election years only, the size.and number regulations set out in (a) and (c) above shall not apply but shall be governed instead by the regulations set forth in ~M__!_n_n__.__S_tat. §211 B.045. Section 6. Section 3-40(a)(4) "Sign Location" of the New Hope City Code is herebyrepealed in its entirety. Section 3-40(a)(4) was a typographical error amended and corrected'by adoption of Section 1 of the herein Ordinance. Deleted: Signs. not exceeding 32 square ] feet in area, dlsplay~l on private property, J Deleted:. One sign per candidat~ and issue per lot is pennltted in addition to other signs on pfivat~ property in any zoning district. In state general clecfions, no person shall pemak or alinw any such sign to bc publicly displayed or posted before August I or ten days after thc state gonct~ election ~o which the sign relates. In special elections, the flurafional limit shall be 90 days before and ten days after the special election to wh/ch the sign relates. Any sign pennktcd by this section may be used as a noncommercial opinion sign. · Formatted: Indent: Left: g.75", Hanging: 0.25", Space After: 12 pt Formetted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Space After: 12 pt Formatted: Space After: 12 pt, Numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.75" + Tab after: 1.25" + Indent at: 1.25" Formatted: Underline Section 7. Section 3-40(f)(4)(e) "Violations" of the New Hope City Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 8. Section 3-40(0(11) "Violations" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: 3-40(f)(11) "Violations". Any violation of this section shall be a petty misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum fine of $300.00~ Persons violating this section may be fined in addition to other penalties for Code violations allowed by this Code. Any sign in violation of this Section may be subiect to immediate removal by the City without notice to the property owner or owner of the sign if different than the property owner. ',- ...... ~ Formal~: Indent: Left: 0" Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated thel4th day of March, 2005. Attest: Valefie Leone, City Clerk Martin E. Opera Sr., Mayor (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the __ day of ,2005.) Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 76.3.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald / Ruben Vazquez FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: December 13, 2004 RE: New Hope - Zoning Ordinance: Sight Triangle Setback NAC FILE: 131.00 - 04.'09 The Codes and Standards Committee has been analyzing the sight triangle setbacks and their impacts on signage. The consensus appears to be that the existing zoning ordinance is too restrictive with regards to locating temporary signage on corner lots. Existing Zoning Ordinance - Section 4-3(c)(6)d: Sight Triangle Setback. On corner lots in all districts, no structure or plantings shall be placed or constructed within the sight visibility triangle setback in a manner that may interfere with traffic or pedestrian visibility along a public right-of-way between the heights of two feet and height feet of the street centerline grade. The sight triangle is defined as follows: beginning at the intersection of the projected property lines of two intersecting streets, thence 20 feet along one property line, thence diagonally to a point 20 feet from the point of beginning on the other property line, thence to the point of beginning. Existing Sign Ordinance- Section 3-40(c)(4)c: On all corner lots, signs shall not be permitted within 20 feet of any corner formed by the intersection of two street or the rights-of-way of a railway intersection a street. The 20 feet shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides formed by the property lines and the third side formed by a straight line connecting the two 20 foot points on each side of the corner. A sign may be extended into the triangular area provided that: 1. The clearance above the street grade is more than eight feet. No part of the sign structure encroaches in the triangular area at an elevation less than eight fee4t above street grade. As illustrated in the following diagram, the current ordinance starts the setback measurement at the property corner and moves back into the lot. As such, the setback includes both the street boulevard and the 20 foot setback. A typical boulevard on a residential street is approximately 14-15 feet deep. BOULEVARD / ! /~' 20' ~ ! As the setback, in addition to the boulevard, is seen as an excessive encumbrance on a property with regards to locating temporary signage, it was suggested that the site triangle setback be measured from the curb line of two intersecting street rather than the lot corners. Staff offered the following options for consideration; Option 1' Sight Triangle Setback. On corner lots in all districts, no structure or plantings shall be placed or constructed within the sight visibility triangle setback in a manner that may interfere with traffic or pedestrian visibility along a public right- of-way between the heights of two feet and eight feet of the street centerline grade. The sight triangle is defined as follows: beginning at the intersection of the projected ~ curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence 20 feet along one ~ curb line, thence diagonally to a point 20 feet from the point of beginning on the other ffreffeC, y curb line, thence to the point of beginning. iEBLVA.TIE P. BOpERTY TRAFFIC VISIBILITY TRIANGLE BOULEVARD STREET 2 Option 2: Sight Triangle Setback. On corner lots in all districts, no structure or plantings shall be placed or constructed within the sight visibility triangle setback in a manner that may interfere with traffic or pedestrian visibility along a public right- of-way between the heights of two feet and eight feet of the street centerline grade. The sight triangle is defined as follows: beginning at the intersection of the projected ~ curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence 30 feet along one ~ curb line, thence diagonally to a point 30 feet from the point of beginning on the other ~ curb line, thence to the point of beginning. TRAFFIC VISIBILITY 'TRIANGLE BOULEVARD STREET It should be noted that permanent signage is required to have a minimum setback of 10 feet from any property line. As such, this placement would not be affected by the ordinance change. Upon further review, staff provides a third alternative option to accomplish the objectives of the Codes and Standards Committee. Option 3: Zoning Ordinance - Section 4-3(c)(6)d: Sight Triangle Setback. On corner lots in all districts, no structure or plantings shall be placed or constructed within the sight visibility triangle setback in a manner that may interfere with traffic or pedestrian visibility along a public right- of-way between the heights of two feet and eight feet of the street centerline grade. The sight triangle is defined as follows: beginning at the intersection of the projected property lines of two intersecting streets, thence 20 feet alOng one property line, thence diagonallY to a point 20 feet from the point of beginning on the other property line, thence to the point of beginning. Sign Ordinance- Section 3-40(c)(4): ~. a_. All signs, excePting governmental signs and permitless siqns, shall be located on private property. Freestanding signs shall be set back a minimum of ten feet from the nearest lot line. The setback shall be measured from the lot line to that portion of the sign nearest to the property line. ~. b. All signs requiring a sign permit shall comply with the site triangle setback as described in Section 4-3(c)(6)d of the Zoninq Ordinance. c_ Permitless siqns shall not be located within the followinq sight visibility trian.qle setback in a manner that may interfere with traffic or pedestrian visibility along a public right-of-way. The sight visibility triangle is defined as follows: beginning at the intersection of the proiected curb lines of two intersectinq streets, thence 30 feet alonq one curb line, thence diagonally to a point 30 feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of be.qinnina. STREET I PRIVATE PROPERTY I~l 14'- t 6'.J ONLY TEMPORARY SIGNS ALLOWED ~ NO SIGNS ALLOWED 4 GORDON L. JENSEN1 CLARISSA M. KLUG GLEN A. NORTON STEVEN A. SONDRALL STACY A. WOODS OF COUNSEL LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD ~Real Property Law Specialist Certified By The Minnesota State Bar Association JENSEN-& SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law December 23, 2004 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968 TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mail law~j ensen-sondrall.com Writer's Direct Dial No.: (763) 201-0211 e-mail sas@jensen-sondrall, com Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Via E-Mail To kmcdonald@ci, new-hope, mn. us And By Regular U.S. Mail Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending the Setback Requirements and Sign Locations for Permitted Signs Our File No.: 99.40130 Dear Kirk: In follow up to the discussion and recommendations at the December 22, 2004 Codes and Standards Meeting, please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance Amending the SetbaCk Requirements and Sign Locations for Permitted Signs incorporating the recommendations of the Codes and Standards Committee. Specifically, in Section 3-40(c)(4)(a) we have added additional language defining a "sight triangle" for signs requiring a permit. Basically, we are reinstituting the existing "sigfit triangle" language into this Section. As we discussed, we are differentiating the "sight triangle" language for signs requiring a permit from the "sight triangle" requirements for signs not requiring a permit. The proposed Ordinance incorporates into this Section 3-40(c)(4)(b) the "sight triangle" language previously set out in stlbsection (c). In other words, we have now eliminated subsection (c) and incorporated a "sight triangle" requirement for signs requiring a permit as distinguished from signs not requiring a permit. The net effect of this "sight triangle" revisionary language is to establish an easily-determinable area for "sight triangles" on corner lots for the so-called temporary signs or signs not requiring a permit. The new "sight triangle" language found in subsection (b) permits a property owner placing a garage sale sign or other such temporary sign to determine the "sight triangle" by measuring it from the back of the curb line. This is not required for signs needing a permit since said signs are generally located on a survey or a sight sketch by a commercial or industrial property user. Therefore, it was felt that our existing language for the "sight triangle" relating to signs requiring a permit should be maintained. This recommendation is incorporated into the new "sight triangle" language found in Section 3-40(c)(4)(a) as already discussed. December 23, 2004 Page 2 Finally, we have amended subsection 3-40(f)(11) by eliminating the word "will" and replacing it with "may" in the fourth line of this subsection. The Committee felt this change would be more palatable and would allow City Staff some discretion in determining whether a sign should be removed or not without notice to the property owner. It is felt likely that the inspectors will attemlX on a policy level to notify property owners of sign violations prior to confiscating their sign. If you have any questions or comments regarding the amendment to this Ordinance as we disCussed at the December 22'~ Codes and Standards Committee Meeting, please contact me with those comments or changes to this Ordinance. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope Enclosure cc: Ruben Vazquez, Community Development Intern (w/enc.) Alan Brixius, City Planner (w/enc.) P:,\Attomey\SAS~l Client FilesX2 City of New Hope[99-40130\99.40130-005-Kirk Lit.doc DOUGLAS J. DEBNER~ GORDON L. JENSEN~ CL~aSSA M, ~UG G~N ~ NORTON STE~N A. SOND~ STA~ ~ WOODS OF COUNSEL LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD IReal Property Law Specialist Certified By The Minnesota Stat~ Bar Association :Admitted in Iowa JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968 TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 $ TELEFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mail law®j ensen-sondrall.com December 17, 2004 VIA E-MAIL ONLY TO rvazquez~ci.new-hope.mn.us Ruben Vazquez Community Development Intern City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Proposed Ordinance Relating to Sign Locations, Setback Requirements and Violations Our File No.: 99.40130 Dear Ruben: Attached is the revised Ordinance Relating to Sign Locations, Setback Requirements and Violations for consideration at the December 22nd Codes and Standards meeting. The revisions relate to the setback requirements for signs allowed by permit and the dimensions of the "sight triangle". These changes are in Section 1 on page one of the ordinance. As you will recall, Staff discussed these changes at our recent meeting. Regarding the setback changes, 3-40(c)(4)(a) has been revised so that the setback measurement for signs requiring a permit will be from the lot line and not the back of the curb. This is our current language; however, the proposed ordinance will now incorporate this language into this section. Presently, this setback language is found in CO) rather than (a). Maintaining our existing language was recommended by the City Planner since signs which require a permit are generally placed pursuant to a survey as part of a site plan; therefore the location of the lot lines is always known. This is a different situation than placement of temporary signs such as garage sale signs. The placement of these temporary signs need to be measured' from the back of the curb. The setback for temporary signs is now found in Co). The "sight triangle" dimensions are changed by this proposed ordinance as well. Please see 3- 40(c)(4)(c). The inspectors felt the area of the triangle needed to be enlarged. As a result, the dimensions of the triangle have been increased l~om 20 feet to 30 feet. Also, it was recommended no part of a sign may be extended into this "sight triangle" area. I believe these two changes incorporate what Staff discussed in connection with the attached ordinance. If there are any other changes which need to be made, or you have any further questions or comments please contact me. Very truly yours, December 17, 2004 Page 2 Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope Enclosure CC: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director (w/enc.) Valerie Leone, City Clerk (w/enc.) P:',Attomey\SAS\l Client Files'~. City of New Hopek99-40130~99.40130-004-V~quez Ltr re amended ord. doc DOUGLAS J. DEBNER~ GORDON L JENSEN~ CL~aSSA M. KLUG GLEN A. NORTON STEVEN A. SONDRALL STACY A. WOODS OF COUNSEL LO~WNS Q. BRYN'ESTAD ~Real Property Law Specialist Certified By The Minnesota State Bar Association ~'Admitted in Iowa JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK; MINNESOTA 55443-1968 TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mail law~j ensen-sondrall.com November 12, 2004 I~'riter's Direct Dial No.: (763) 201-0211 e-mail sas~]ensen-sondrall, com Ruben Vazquez Community Development Intern City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re:. Proposed Ordinance Relating to- Sign L~cafions, Setback Req'~ements and Violations Our File No.: 99.40130 Dear Ruben: In follow up to our November 9, 2004 staff meeting regarding our sign code, please find enclosed for the next Codes & Standards meeting the Ordinance referenced above. Basically, the enclosed Ordinance inCorpOrates the recommendation of the Planning Commission Codes & Standards Committee discussed at their October 6, 2004 meeting. Specifically, the enclosed Ordinance amends the setback requirements Contained in Section 3-40 (c)(4) of the Code to permit free' Standing signs not reqUiring a permit to be setbaCk 10 feet from the curb line unless there is an existing sidewalk at the proposed sign location, in which case, the sign would then need to be placed behind the existing sidewalk. This change is set out in the new Section b of Section 3-40(c)(4). The other significant change to Section 3-40(c)(4) is contained in Subsection (c) of this Section, This Section prohibits placement of signs in the "site triangle". The dimensions of the "site triangle" have been amended by this section to measure the two equal 20 foot sides of the "site triangle" from the back o~ the curb of the intersecting streets. This effectively reduces rite area of ~he "site triangle", however, the Codes & Standards Committee felt the area established by this new measurement formula was sufficient. Also, I have added a new 25 foot setback for free standing signs requiring a Permit. This change is in Section 3-40(c)(4)(a). This will conform the measurement standards from the back of the curb instead of using the property line. Assuming 15 feet to the property line from the curb, a 25 foot setback is needed from the curb to maintain the current 10 foot setback requirement from the property line. This is needed for consistency and to avoid confusion. The enclosed Ordinance further amends the setback requirements for directional signs, garage sale signs and open house signs found in Section 3-40(f)(4). The setback November 12, 2004 Page 2 requirements have not changed for these signs. I simply moved the setback requirements for all freestanding signs not requiring a permit under Section 3-40(f) to the "sign location" section of Section 3-40(c)(4)(b). The effect of this change will permit all signs not requiring a permit described in Section 3-40(f) to take advantage of the 10 foot setback requirement from the curb line. In other words, flags, memorial signs, signs required by law, noncommercial opinion signs, holiday signs, political signs and construction and remodeling signs will be permitted this 10 foot setback from the curb line. Also see the attached September 23, 2004 letter I previously forwarded to you describing the reasons for amendments to the "political sign" language of Section 3-40(f)(5) and 3- 40(f)(ll). If you have any questions or comments about the enclosed Ordinance or this letter, please contact me. Very, truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope Enclosure CC' Kirk McDonald (w/enc.) Dan Donahue (w/enc.) Valerie Leone (w/enc.) A1 Brixius (w/enc.) P:\Attomey\SAS\l Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-40130\99.40130-003-Vasquez Ltr. do¢ DOUGLAS J. DEBNER2 GORDON L. JENSEN1 CLARmSA M. KLUG GLEN A. NORTON STEVEN A. SONDRALL STACY A. WOODS OF COUNSEL LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD ~Real Property Law Specialist Cer~fi~d ~y The Minnesota State Bar Association :Admitted in Iowa JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968 TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 $ TELEFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mail law~jensen-sondrall.com September 23, 2004 Ruben Vazquez Community Development Intern City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 O0 p Re: Proposed Ordinance Relating to Sign Locations, Setback Requirements and Violations Our File No.: 99.40130 Dear Ruben: Please find enclosed for consideration at the October 6, 2004 Codes and Standards meeting a proposed Ordinance Amending the Setback Requirements and Sign Locations for Permitted Signs. Basically, this Ordinance will allow the following temporary signs to be placed in the City right-of- way and setback 10 feet from the back of the curb or behind an existing sidewalk, whichever is greater: 2. 3. 4. Garage sale signs regulated by Section 3-40(f)(4)(c); Open house signs regulated by Section 3-40(f)(4)(d); Political signs regulated by Section 340(0(5); and For sale and for rent signs regulated by Section 3-40(0(9). All other signs regulated by Section 3-40(0, including flags and memorial signs, signs required by law, non-commercial opinion signs, holiday signs and construction and remodeling signs do not get the advantage of the 10-foot setback regulation. Said signs will need to be setback 15 feet or more from the curb 1/ne since they are not permitted within the City right-of-way or boulevard. Apparently, the enclosed Ordinance is precipitated by the City clerk's August 17, 2004 letter to City Council candidates indicating our recent sign code amendment reducing the sign setback requirements applies to all temporary signs including political signs. I'm not sure this was the Council's intent. The setback reduction for garage sale, open house and for sale or for rent signs is based on the fact we are regulating the size of said signs. The garage sale and open house signs can only be 6 square feet in area. The for sale or for rent signs can only be 8 square feet in area. However, political..signs can be 32 square feet in area and during State general elections, the size and number of political signs cannot be regulated at all. Taken to the extreme, this means that a property owner could "fence in" his yard with political signs 32 square or larger 10 feet from the cUrb line..The political signs I have seen during this election season have not abused the unlimited size provision of the State statute on political signs, however, we could not prevent the extreme example I described if a property owner was so inclined to sign his property in such a manner. As a result, I would not recommend that any additional signs, even if they are temporary, be included in the 1 O-foot setback category. I think we should reconsider placing political signs in this September 23, 2004 Page 2 category as-well. Finally, I have removed the violations section of 3.40(f)(4) and reestablished it as Section 3.40(f)(11). This will have the effect of making the violations section applicable to all sign violations of Section 3-40(0. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments concerning this letter or the attached ordinance. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope Enclosure CC: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director (w/eno.) Valerie Leone, City Clerk (w/eric.) P:~.tmmey~SAS\l Client Ffle~2 City ofN~w HopekOg-40130~9.40130-002-V~quez Ltr.doc Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development February 25, 2005 Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on Council/EDA/HRA actions on Community Development related issues or other city projects. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. February 14 CounciI Meeting - At the February 14 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: · PC03-03, Resolution authorizing reduction of financial guarantee for the Woodbridge Senior Cooperative: Approved, see attached Council request. · Resolution ordering published notice and scheduling public hearing to approve the projected use of funds in the 2005 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program: Approved, see attached Council request. Public hearing scheduled for February 28. · Project #782, Motion authorizing staff to negotiate the potential purchase of property_ located at 5300 Winnetka Avenue: Postponed to February 22 work session, see attached Council request. · Project #750, Discussion and update regarding Bass Lake Road Apartments redevelopment: Accepted letter of withdrawal from Boisclair Corporation; directed staff to prepare for developer's round table, RFQ and RFP process. · Project #775, Resolution approving demolition contract with Hempel Corporation to demolish house at 5207 Pennsylvania Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. · Ordinance 05-02, An ordinance amending Section 2-13 of the New Hope Code increasing the membership of the Planning Commission: Adopted, this information is included with oath of office memo. · Motion appointing persons to the Citizen Advisory Commission, Human Rights Commission and the Planning Commission: See attached Council request. o February 22 Council Work Session - At the February 22 Council work session, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: · Discussion regarding noise ordinance and issues: Council directed staff to continue to work with company to find solution. · 5300 Winnetka Avenue: The Council determined not to pursue the purchase and rehabilitation of this property. February 28 Council Meetin~ - Items on the agenda for the February 28 Council meeting, the Council will consider the following planning/development/housing issues (the planning packet is being prepared prior to this Council meeting): · Public Hearing - Resolution approving proposed use of 2005 urban Hennepin County CDBG.program funds and authorizing execution of subrecipient agreement with Hennepin County and anythird party agreements: See attached Council request. · Project. #751, ResolUtion ordering published notice and scheduling public hearing to approve sale of portion of Outlot A to Barbara and Michael Drenth and Paul Edi.~on: See attached Council request. · Project #778, Discussion and update regarding concept plans for the proposed development of 4301-4317 Nevada Avenue: See attached EDA request. Codes and Standards Committee - The committee met on February 2 to discuss the following items: · Transit Shelter Ordinance - a new representative from Outdoor Promotions was at the meeting. A representative from US Bench Corp will be meeting with the Committee on February 23, and a representative from Transtop, a local company that has been offering this service to both Minneapolis and St. Paul for the last 25 years, is scheduled to meet with the Committee on March 16. Continue to review the status of the Roseville ordinance, determine if adjustments are going to be recommended for the draft ordinance and finish the work on this issue. · Alfa Muffler - the owner was asking the city to consider changing the parking requirements as it related to this type of business. Staff presented this request to the committee, and after some discussion, the committee agreed to keep the ordinance as it stands and therefore declined Mr. Alkalai's request. In a letter dated, February 9, Mr. Alkalai was informed of the Committee's decision and advised that he was welcome to pursue a code amendment or variance if he so desired. This is one of the planning applications for consideration at the March 1 meeting. Design and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee met in February to review the variance applications. The deadline for the April Planning Commission meeting is March 11. Staff will contact the committee regarding a meeting following the application deadline. 10. 10. 11. 12. Future Applications - Future applications or businesses that staff is currently working with, or has recently met with, include: 1. Restaurant and office condo project, 42nd and Quebec - on hold 2. 4301/4317 Nevada - six housing units 3. Dakota Growers Pasta (Creamettes) expansion 4. Intermet expansion, 5100 Boone Avenue 5. Holy Trinity Lutheran Church expansion, 4240 Gettysburg Avenue 6. Crystal Free Church CLIP amendment for minor expansion 7. Waymouth Farms parking variance/CUP Livable Communities - Now that three of the four Livable Communities projects are underway (Ryland, CVS and Winnetka Townhomes), staff is focusing on the remaining site adjacent to the golf course. The developer staff had been working with for the past year withdrew from the process. The Council directed staff to open up the project to other developers. A developer's roundtable will be held sometime in March followed by developers submitting a Request for Qualifications, and after a review of the RFQs, the city would invite the top developers to submit proposals for the project. City Center Task Force Update - The City Council has directed that staff discontinue work on potential redevelopment of the School District site and instead coordinate with existing property owners regarding future improvements to their businesses and ~ite. Development Update - Enclosed please find the current "Development Update" which describes the status of the development projects in the city. ,~ Project Bulletin - Enclosed is a project bulletin regarding 5207 Pennsylvania Avenue. Vacancies -Appointments were made by the Council on February 14. See separate memo and attachments. Minutes - Enclosed are planning Commission and City Council meeting minutes for your review. If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff. Attachments: Woodbridge Senior Cooperative financial reduction Schedule CDBG public hearing 5300 Winnetka Avenue Bass Lake Road Apartments redevelopment 5207 Pennsylvania Avenue Planning Commission membership ordinance Commission appointments Noise ordinance Project bulletin Development update Minutes: Planning Commission 12/7/04 City Council-1/24 and 2/14/05 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 7, 2004 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Svendsen called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Anderson, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy, O'Brien, Svendsen Oelkers Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Vince Vander Top, City Engineer, Amy Baldwin, Community Development Assistant, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC03-18 Item 4.1 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for conditional use permit amendment to allow expansion of outdoor storage area, 4990 Highway 169 North, Collins Electrical Systems, Inc. d/b/a ColliSys, Petitioners. Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated that petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit to allow expansion of the outdoor storage area and development of the rear lot. The proposed future building identified on the site plan would require a separate future CUP/PUD application to allow a second building on the site. The site is located in an industrial zoning district with other industrial uses adjacent to the site on the north, south, and east. Highway 169 and the city of Plymouth are to the west of the site. The total site area contains 3.741 acres. The existing building contains 15,070 square feet. The current green area on the site is approximately 57 percent which would decrease to 41 percent with the development of the outdoor storage area. The zoning code requires 20 percent green space in the industrial district. McDonald stated the Comprehensive Plan indicated the primary goal in this district is the preservation and enhancement of the industrial land used and the city would work with existing industries to encourage business retention and in-place expansion. McDonald stated that ColliSys purchased this site in 1994 and the Planning Commission and City Council approved a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage in the rear yard. At that time a ponding easement was included to expand the DNR wetland at the north and back of the site, due to the fact that the New Hope Surface Water Management Plan called for construction of a ponding area in the vicinity in the future. McDonald explained that ColliSys coordinated with the city over the past several years with regard to storm water quantity/quality requirements. They agreed to participate in the 49th Avenue regional pond project and pay their share of the cost of that project to address its storm water needs. Improvements to the pond were completed this summer and a condition of approval of the CUP would be payment to the city in the amount of $18,125. The narrative submitted by ColliSys indicated the company has grown dramatically over the last several years, which resulted in the addition of many company vehicles and equipment. Generally these vehicles and equipment are stored on job sites, however, when that is not possible, it needs to be parked in their yard. Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified, including the city of Plymouth, and staff did not receive any comments. McDonald explained the purpose of a conditional use permit and criteria to consider including nature of adjoining land or buildings, similar uses close by, effect upon traffic, and other factors bearing on general welfare, health and safety. Specific criteria to consider include consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility with adjacent uses, performance standards, and no depreciation in value in the area. Items specific to the industrial district include nuisance characteristics to adjacent areas and providing an economic return to the community. A conditional use permit is required for open outdoor storage when the area exceeds 20 percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure. The CUP can be approved if the request complies with requirements for screening and landscaping, fencing, surfacing, setbacks, on site parking areas, no storage of hazardous materials, and keeping area'free of refuse and general upkeep of the area. McDonald stated that staff and consultants reviewed the plans and the Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner and discussed several items. Revised plans were submitted as a result of those meetings. The site plan shows the existing building area is 15, 070 square feet. Twenty percent of that is 3,014 square feet, which would be allowed for outdoor storage without a CUP. The proposed outdoor storage area is 27,007 square feet, therefore, a CUP is required. No additional plantings are proposed for the site. There were some plantings installed as part of the ponding project. The city and ColliSys have agreed that the area north of the proposed storage area would be re-examined in spring 2005 to determine if additional plantings would be required for erosion control and to discuss access and maintenance of the area. A new six-foot high chain link fence with visual barrier slats is proposed around the perimeter of the storage area. The fence would have a top rail with three strands of barbed wire. A portion of the existing fence would be removed to allow access to the proposed storage area and an existing gate would be relocated to the north side of the new fence for access to the ponding area for snow storage and maintenance of the north side of the fenced area. A new bituminous surface and B612 concrete curb and gutter is proposed for the outdoor storage area. All setbacks are in compliance. No hazardous or flammable liquids would be stored on the site. No additional parking stalls are proposed as part of this request. If the applicant submits plans for a future storage building, parking would need to be revisited. Two Planning Commission Meeting 2 December 7, 2004 new light standards would be added to the site. The application would be forwarded to the Shingle Creek Watershed District for review and comment. No additional signage was proposed. McDonald reported that staff supports the conditional use permit request for additional outside storage, subject to the conditions listed in the planning report. Mr. Vince Vander Top, city engineer, addressed the Commission on storm water issues. The Surface Water Management Plan indicated existing wetlands and waterbodies and called for water quality ponds on the entire parcel where the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital was constructed. The pet hospital was constructed on the front two thirds of the site and the back portion of the property was constructed as a water quality pond. At the time the 49th Avenue pond was constructed, and knowing that ColliSys was contemplating expanding its outdoor storage area, the city constructed a sediment trap as directed by the Surface Water Management Plan. The sediment trap was constructed in an easement on the ColliSys property and would be maintained by the city. A storm sewer from Plymouth and Highway 169 discharges into the 49th Avenue wetland. All properties are treated equally according to the Surface Water Management Plan. Staff identified in 2003 the financial responsibility for ColliSys toward the overall project. The improvements were constructed this past summer. Commissioner O'Brien initiated discussion on access to the sediment trap. Vander Top replied that the weed maintenance would be the responsibility of ColliSys and the area was restored with natural vegetation that would not require regular mowing, other than once in the spring. Public Works would have to access the sediment trap from 50th Avenue and remove sediments with a backhoe. If that cannot be done during summer conditions, the sediment would need to be removed in winter when the ground is frozen. A question was raised with regard to the site improvement agreement that is one of the conditions of approval. McDonald explained that a site improvement agreement was typical of every project, along with a bond, to cover the improvements and insure completion. Upon completion of the improvements, the City Council releases the bond. Mr. Rick Boe, president of ColliSys, stated they were fortunate to be in New Hope and liked their location, which provided great access to the highway. The company has grown a lot during the last few years and they have added more vehicles and equipment, which was why they needed to expand the outdoor storage area They recently completed the Hiawatha Light Rail project. There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Brauch, to close the public hearing on Planning Case 03-18. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting 3 December 7, 2004 Commissioner Brauch stated he felt it was great for the city that ColliSys elected to stay in New Hope and expand its business. Chairman Svendsen read comments from Commissioner Oelkers who wrote that he was in "complete support for the ColliSys application. They are a great community business, which we need to keep in New Hope. They responded positively to all the requests of the Design and Review Committee." MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner t-Iemken, to approve Planning Case 03-18, Request for conditional use permit amendment to allow expansion of outdoor storage area, 4990 Highway 169 North, Collins Electrical Systems, Inc. d/b/a ColliSys, Petitioners, subject to the following conditions: 1. Execute Site Improvement Agreement with city and provide financial security for improvements (amount to be determined by building official and city engineer). 2. Comply with city engineer recommendations outlined in report. 3. Payment of previously agreed upon storm water ponding project fee. 4. Landscaping, access and erosion control to be reviewed in spring 2005 by city and ColliSys to determine if additional work is necessary. $. Fence slats shall be required for the entire fence. $. No hazardous or flammable liquids shall be allowed to be stored within the outdoor storage area. ?. The application is subject to the review and comment of the Shingle Creek Watershed District. 8. All grading, drainage, and storm water issues shall be subject to the review and approval of the city engineer. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the area between the easement located north of the storage area and the fence line. 10. This approval does not include the proposed second "future" building on the site; that will require a future application if it is detached from the existing building. Voting in favor. Anderson, Brauch, O'Brien, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Oelkers Motion carried. Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy, Svendsen stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on December 13 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance. PC04-28 Item 4.2 Chairman Svendsen introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for approval of Comprehensive Plan updates, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, explained that the Comprehensive Plan is the document that addresses community issues and lays the Planning Commission Meeting 4 December 7, 2004 foundation for community planning and land use development. The current plan was finalized in 1998 and outlined the projected land use through the year 2020. Updates to the plan are to be completed periodically and the formal amendment application submitted to the Metropolitan Council for approval and inclusion in New Hope's Comprehensive Plan. Brixius stated that over the last year New Hope has had a number of projects that were approved and with those applications minor Comprehensive Plan changes were required to make the proposed rezonings consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Projects included Winnetka Green, Winnetka Townhomes, Project for Pride in Living (PPL) at 5501 Boone Avenue, and CVS Pharmacy. Brixius explained the changes on the land use plan map included: Winnetka Green from Iow/medium density to high density; former Frank's Nursery site from commercial to high density; St. Joseph Church out. lot from public/semipublic to low density single family residential; PPL project from public/semipublic to high density residential, and the CVS project site increased the commercial land area. A mixed-use area was introduced for the City Center area that would include both commercial and residential as proposed in the City Center Task Force recommendations. Other changes to the Development Framework section of the Comprehensive Plan included: proposed land use acreages and densities on page 27; Residential Redevelopment and Maintenance Target Areas map on page 35 included completed projects and City Center; general land use description on page 37; change in quantity of medium and high density residential in the community on page 38; added 5501 Boone Avenue (PPL) site and 42nd and Quebec site to the potential redevelopment sites on page 39; added language for Winnetka Green townhomes, Winnetka Townhomes, and PPL housing on page 40; included commercial and mixed use land uses to the general commercial description on page 42; included a description of the City Center Task Force recommendations for 42nd and Winnetka avenues on page 44; map on page 45 now includes commercial redevelopment target sites - this map als° includes Midland Shopping Center as a potential area to revitalize. Brixius indicated that Planning District 11 was reconfigured to encompass all of the proposed City Center area. Changes to specific planning districts include: District 3 referenced the PPL new development on page 85; District 6 references the redevelopment for Winnetka Green and Winnetka Townhomes and the Franks Nursery site on Bass Lake Road on pages 89 and 90; District 11 references the proposed City Center area by describing the new boundaries and redevelopment goals of the City Center Framework Manual. Brixius noted that the changes for Winnetka Green, Winnetka Townhomes, and PPL sites were approved at the time of the planning applications, therefore, these changes are housekeeping items. The introduction of the City Center area into the Comprehensive Plan is a new change and the Planning Commission should make a determination on whether or not it should be included in this amendment. Staff felt that there may be future opportunities for the Midland Shopping Center for improvements or redevelopment and was included as a target area. Planning Commission Meeting 5 December 7, 2004 Discussion was initiated on the apartments to the west of the golf course and Brixius affirmed that site was already included in the 1998 plan as a target site. Commissioner Brauch clarified that most of these changes were for projects that had already been approved or completed. He wondered what the advantage was for completing the periodic update now rather than waiting until closer to the year 2020. Brixius stressed that these changes had to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council and the zoning had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A decision should be made on whether or not to include the proposed City Center changes as part of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Brixius pointed out that when the city pursues a livable communities grant application, one of the criteria for getting a project funded was whether the project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If not, an amendment had to be processed to make it consistent because any funding application had to be worded as pending or already consistent. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan provides additional leverage with grant applications. Upon receiving the formal amendment application, the Me~opolitan Council Review Authority would review the changes and approve it so the maps could be changed and become part of the city's Comprehensive Plan. The city received grant funds for the Livable Communities project area from Metropolitan Council. The City Center Task Force incorporated the same type of objectives as endorsed in the Livable Communities concepts, which the Metropolitan Council promoted. Commissioner Landy concurred that the Metropolitan Coundl would agree with the changes. Brixius added that the Blueprint 2030 was leaning toward the Livable Communities objectives with compact development, diversity of housing styles, pedestrian friendly environments, mass transit, etc. A question was raised whether there were additional areas the city was considering with regard to redevelopment. Brixius noted that the 1998 plan was still a vital document for the city because it promotes reinvestment in the community, promotes opportunities for single family neighborhoods to be improved, promotes continued maintenance of infrastructure, and revitalization of shopping centers. The city tries to be proactive in the zoning, redevelopment, and scattered site housing projects. Chairman Svendsen read into the records comments from Commissioner Oelkers who stated he "reviewed the Comprehensive Plan updates and supports staff in their thoughts. I am very concerned that we keep on track on the great improvements we have approved and are making in the city." Chairman Svendsen stated he felt the dty has a lot of great things going and was headed in the right direction. Commissioner Houle asked for clarification on the amendment process with the Comprehensive Plan and forwarding items to Metropolitan Council. Brixius responded that due to the number of planning applications in a relatively short amount of time, the city was accomplishing all of these changes to the Comprehensive Plan at one time rather than individually. At the time of the individual applications, the city also advertised for Planning Commission Meeting 6 December 7, 2004 comprehensive plan amendments along with the zoning applications. Chairman Svendsen asked for comments from the audience. Mayor Elect Martin Opem came to the podium and stated this was the first time he had attended a Planning Commission meeting. He thanked the commissioners for the work they do. He stated he was in complete agreement with the ColliSys application and about 90 percent of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Elect Opem explained his platform during the election campaign and found most people he talked with were not in favor of the high density housing projects in New Hope. He stated he felt references to the City Center portion of the amendment should be removed at this time and that proposed redevelopment area discussed by the new Council after the first of the year. Chairman Svendsen stated that even if the Planning Commission recommended approval, the City Council could table action until next year and when the new council members are seated. Mayor Elect Opem responded he preferred the Planning Commission table action on the amendment at its meeting. He stated he had discussed the City Center project with the School District and a potential sale of its property to the city and felt the School District was not in favor of selling. He reiterated that city residents do not want more high density housing. He stated he would prefer more commercial opportunities in the City Center area. Mr. Ranjan Nirgude, 7780 48th Avenue North, came forward to address the Commission. He stated he had talked to many residents during his campaign for election and also found city residents did not approve of the high density housing being constructed. He recommended removing references to City Center in the Comprehensive Plan amendment. McDonald stated he did not disagree with the comments from the audience. However, he preferred not to hold up all of the Comprehensive Plan amendments because of the City Center issue. Therefore, he would support approving the amendments for previously approved projects and forward them on to the Metropolitan Council. It was obvious that there would be continued discussion on the City Center redevelopment after the first of the year. It would not be worthwhile to approve an amendment that the new City Council may not support. A suggestion was made to delete all City Center references from the amendment and approve the balance. Brixius confirmed that all City Center items could be deleted from the amendment and forward the balance to the Metropolitan Council for approval. The City Center redevelopment area could be addressed in the future. Commissioner Brauch stated he heard both gentlemen state that they had talked to many residents, however, the task force conducted meetings for over a year and solicited input from citizens on the proposed concept plans. The task force came to a consensus on the recommendations and the citizens were a part of that through comments solicited at the open house. He agreed the city desired citizen input, but thought it had accomplished that goal with Planning Commission Meeting 7 December 7, 2004 the opportunities offered the community. Mayor Elect Opem reported that residents he talked to were not happy with the similarity of the City Center concept plans. He reiterated that residents were not happy with the density of Winnetka Green and the proposed density on the concept plans for City Center were even higher. He felt the square footage for commercial opportunities, less the proposed grocery store, did not offer much in the way of shopping for New Hope residents. Mayor Elect Opera stated he felt city staff, the Planning Commission and City Council should work together on a new, more appropriate concept for the City Center area. Commissioner Landy stated he was part of the City Center Task Force and indicated residents did not come forward or disagree, with the findings. The task force looked at the high density for this area and made recommendations prior to the start of Winnetka Green. Landy agreed that the density for the City Center area should be looked at again. The task force considered a grocery store for the area. In the past, a grocery store has not been successful in New Hope. Input was sought from citizens with ~egard to a grocery store and there was no definitive direction. At the time the task force was meeting, they did not feel the density was too great. Mr. Nirgude questioned financing of the City Center project. He stated the new council members have a lot of good ideas and decisions on City Center should wait until after they are seated. The new council members proposed to seek information from and listen closely to the residents. There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to dose the public hearing on Planning Case 04-28. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION Item 4.2 Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Planning Case 04-28, Request for approval of Comprehensive Plan updates with the exception of all references to City Center, city of New Hope, Petitioner. Voting in favor. Anderson, Brauch, O'Brien, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Oelkers Motion carried. Buggy, Hemken, Houle, Landy, The City Council will consider this plarming case on December 13. Design and Review Committee Item 5.1 Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee'met in November with the petitioner. The next meeting would be December 16, if needed. At this time staff was not aware of any applications for the January meeting. McDonald added that the Planning Commission had previously approved a Planning Commission Meeting 8 December 7, 2004 Codes and Standards Committee Item 5.2 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT phase 3 and 4 for Paddock Laboratories. Phase 3 had been completed and Paddock would be ready to construct the 10,000 square foot phase 4 addition in 2005. Staff met with Crystal Free Church regarding several smaller additions to the church for construction in 2006 with approvals some time in 2005. Staff hoped to bring a commercial development forward for the 42nd and Quebec avenue site soon after the first of the year. I-Iemken reported that the Codes and Standards Committee met in October and another meeting was scheduled for December 22 to discuss the sign code, above garage living space, and satellite dish placement. There was no old business. Motion was made by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 7, 2004. All voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed. Chairman Svendsen stated he would be out of town on the regular January meeting night. McDonald inquired if the Commission wanted to meet in January if there were no applications and only minor ordinance amendments to consider and the Commission agreed not to meet unless planning applications were submitted. Commission elections will be conducted at the first meeting held in 2005. Commissioners Brauch and O'Brien were commended for their years of service on the commission. Brauch reported he enjoyed serving on the commission and complimented city staff for the comprehensive reviews of the projects and information supplied to the commissioners. The Design and Review Committee takes its job seriously when reviewing plans and making recommendations. McDonald indicated the city would be advertising for the two openings on the commission. If any of the commissioners would like to change subcommittees, they should contact the chairman. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 9 December 7, 2004 City Council Minutes Regular Meeting CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 January 24, 2005 city Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OPEN FORUM The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Mayor Opem 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. Council Present: Martin Opem Sr., Mayor Mary Gwin-Lenth, Council Member Andy Hoffe, Council Member Karen Nolte, Council Member Steve Sommer, Council Member Staff Present: Dan Donahue, City Manager Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Paul Coone, Utility Maintenance Supervisor Sherry Draper, Director of Administration Mark Hanson, City Engineer Clarissa Klug, Assistant City Attorney Valerie Leone, City Clerk Gary Link, Director of Police Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Dale Reed, Operations Manager Shawn Siders, Community Development Specialist Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer Motion was made by Council Member Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Council Member Sommer, to approve the regular and work session meeting minutes of January 10, 2005, subject to minor changes. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. James Pukal, 7607 Angeline Drive, requested city assistance to reduce the noise level of the Scherer Brothers Cabinet Distributors business at 50th and. Winnetka. Suggestions included amending the city's noise ordinance and requesting the business to construct a wooden fence to serve as a noise buffer. Staff was directed to schedule the noise ordinance issue on a future work session agenda. Ms. Amy Sharp, 8151 45~, Avenue North, urged the city to improve sidewalk snowplowing efforts to enable greater mobility for disabled New Hope City Council Page 1 January 24, 2005 PRESENTATIONS RESOLUTION 05-17 MET COUNCIL persons. City Manager Donahue advised that property owners are responsible for clearing sidewalks, however, past policy has been that the city will clear sidewalks but as a lower priority to streets and on regular shifts rather than paying overtime. Mr. Donahue agreed to review the policy and to talk to the property manager of Winnetka West Apartments. Mayor Opem noted if the property owner does not adequately remove snow, perhaps arrangements could be made for the city to plow the lot and charge the owners. Mr. Michael Brown, 8151 45th Avenue North, pointed out that Winnetka West has a snowblower on the premises; however, they do not permit anyone other than employees to use it. He noted there are no on-site employees. Mr. Gary Link, Director of Police, presented the award by the National Association of Town Watch. Mr. Link stated New Hope was awarded a 14th place national award out of 400 applications for the city's national night out event. He credited Officer Nichole Korth for her efforts as well as the participation of other city departments, businesses that made contributions, block captains, and the residents who participated in the event. Council Member Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING NATIONAL NIGHT OUT AWARD FOR 2004." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Council Member Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Opem, Gwin- Lenth, Hoffe, Nolte, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Ms. Peggy Leppick, Metropolitan Council Member of District 6, presented the city with a certificate for the award of a $125,000 Local Housing Incentives grant to assist the condominium project located at 5501 Boone Avenue North. Some of the other funding sources for the Project for Pride in Living project include $274,000 from the Minnesota Housing & Finance Agency and $650,000 from the city through tax increment district funds. Next Ms. Leppick provided an overview of the Metropolitan Council activities. The core mission of the Metropolitan Council is to develop, in cooperation with local communities, a comprehensive regional planning framework, focusing on transportation, wastewater, parks and aviation systems, that guides the efficient growth of the metropolitan area. The Council operates transit and wastewater services and administers housing and other grant programs. New Hope City Council Page 2 January 24, 2005 ROTATING VOTES CONSENT AGENDA MOTION Consent Items RESOLUTION 05-18 Item 6.4 Council Member Hoffe inquired of the Metro Mobility bus service. Ms. Leppick reported that Met Council contracts out the service for Metro Mobility. She stated the company must meet certain federal standards including hours of operation. Ms. Leppick noted that the present bus service operation exceeds the minimum requirements set by the government. Council Member Gwin-Lenth questioned whether the Met Council has considered taking a role in development of a regional water supply plan. Ms. Leppick stated the present legislative mandate concerns wastewater. She noted they have no authority relating to control or regulation of drinking water, but because water quality and supply is a regional resource it may be possible for the Met Council to add such an endeavor in the distant future. Mr. Ranjan Nirgude, 7780 48th Avenue North, was recognized. He questioned whether the Met Council has transportation plans to include light rail from northern suburbs to downtown. Ms. Leppick stated there is no plan to make the northwest corridor a light-/ail line. She stated there are plans to implement a rapid bus transit line to Rogers and St. Cloud. The intent is to make it comparable in efficiency and effectiveness to a light rail line. She stated at this time due to insufficient resources, the Met Council has not made decisions to build future light-rail lines. The Council thanked Ms. Leppick for her presentation. Please note that votes taken on each agenda item are called by the secretary on a rotating basis; however, the written minutes always list the Mayor's name first followed by the Council Members in alphabetical order. Mayor Opem 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 6.1, 6.2, 6.5, and 6.6 were removed for discussion. Motion was made by Mayor Opem, seconded by Council Member Nolte, to approve the remaining items (6.4 and 6.7) on the Consent Agenda. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Resolution approving change order no. 1 relating to contract for relining 1,685 feet of sanitary sewer pipe and four manholes (improvement project no. 777). Mayor Opem requested that future change orders involving structural integrity or civil engineering be signed off by a licensed professional engineer. Mr. VanderTop, assistant city engineer, affirmed that the engineering firm will follow the requested practice. New Hope City Council Page 3 January 24, 2005 RESOLUTION 05-19 Item 6.7 CONSENT ITEMS REMOVED - - BUSINESS LICENSES Item 6.1 MOTION Item 6.1 FINANCIAL CLAIMS Item 6.2 MOTION Item 6.2 IMP. PROJECT 777 Item 6.5 MOTION Item 6.5 Resolution in support of keeping the Mission Detox Facility open and operational. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion the Consent items which were removed for discussion beginning with Item 6.1, Approval of business licenses. Mayor Opem noted the item involves tobacco licenses for All About Smoke and Quick Stop. The city clerk reported that the application for All About Smoke was withdrawn today as the business is not proceeding, with a change of ownership. Mayor Opem expressed concern with the merchandise offered for sale at the All About Smoke store at 4225 Winnetka. He asked staff to review the ordinance as it applies to the sale of questionable substance abuse items. Mr. Donahue indicated that staff will conduct research and report back to the council. Motion was made by Council Member Nolte, seconded by Mayor Opem, to approve the business license for Quick Stop at 7141 42nd Avenue North. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 6.2, Approval of financial claims through January 2z~, 2005. Mayor Opem.requested that greater detail of the expenditures be included in future reports. Motion was made by Council Member Sommer, seconded by Council Member Hoffe, to approve the financial claims through January 24, 2005. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 6.5, Motion to accept the relining of 1,685 feet of sanitary sewer pipe and four manholes (improvement project no. 777). Mr. Vince VanderTop, assistant city engineer, reported that the project has been successful; however, the lining of the manholes is not completely finished. Therefore, he recommended a partial payment rather than a final payment of the project. He stated approval of the final payment will be brought back at a future date. He indicated the standard practice of the city is to hold a retainer until project completion. Motion was made by Mayor Opem, seconded by Council Member Hoffe, to process the partial payment for improvement project no. 777. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. New Hope City Council Page 4 January 24, 2005 PLANNING CASE 04-14 Item 6.6 RESOLUTION 05-20 Item 6.6 Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 6.6, Resolution approving time extension requested by Master Transfer to submit final plat (planning case 04-14). Mayor Opem pointed out that this is the second extension required by the petitioner. He inquired regarding normal practice. Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated the current extension will expire on February 1, 2005. He stated normally a developer does not need an extension, but in this case the developer is still working with the SBA for financing. Mr. McDonald stated he did ask the developer of his intentions if financing is not in place after another 60-day extension. The developer advised that if he cannot secure financing, he will put the property on the market to sell for another development. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed use of the property for the truck business to transport printing supplies, screening of delivery trucks, and impact to the neighborhood. Mr. McDonald confirmed that the original application does not include storage of garbage hauling trucks (another business owned by Master Waste that is operated out of Crystal). Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, explained that the 100-day deadline is to ensure that the conditions of the final plat approval remain in place and the conditions do not change. He noted allowing delays could result in changing conditions of the neighborhood, etc. He further noted that if there were changes in circumstances then it would be appropriate for the council to deny the extension. Mr. Sondrall indicated to the best of his knowledge there have been no changes in circumstances and he recommends approving the extension. He commented that denial of the extension would only cause the developer to incur additional costs to re- submit the application. After further consideration, the council agreed to grant the extension and directed staff to advise the developer that this would be the final 60-day extension. Council Member Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING TIME EXTENSION REQUESTED BY MASTER TRANSFER TO SUBMIT FINAL PLAT (PLANNING CASE 04-14)." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Council Member Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Opem, Gwin- Lenth, Hoffe, Nolte, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which' was attested to by the city clerk. New Hope City Council Page 5 January 24, 2005 5300 WINNETKA IMP. PROJECT 782 Item 8.1 MOTION Item 8.1 LIQUOR COMPLIANCE CHECKS Item 11.1 Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Motion authorizing an appraisal of 5300 Winnetka Avenue North. Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, explained that based on direction from the January 18 work session, staff is seeking authorization to obtain an appraisal of the property located at 5300 Winnetka Avenue North. He stated the cost of the appraisal is $350. Staff intends to present the results of the appraisal at the February 14 council meeting. Mayor Opem commented that direction from the council relating to remaining CDBG funds is to establish a program to utilize the funds to assist current qualifying residents to repair their properties. This last scattered site housing project is being authorized as a means to expend CDBG funds by the June 30 deadline. Mr. McDonald stated the CDBG public hearing will be held soon and staff is preparing to advertise reprogramming of funds for rehabilitation loans as directed by the council. Mayor Opem emphasized that the appraised price of 5300 Winnetka should reflect the house's deteriorated condition. Motion was made by Council Member Sommer, seconded by Council Member Nolte, authorizing an appraisal of 5300 Winnetka Avenue North. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 11.1, Appearance by liquor licensee regarding consequences for failing compliance check. Mr. Dan Donahue, city manager, stated a short presentation will be given by the police department regarding-liquor and compliance check regulations. He stated the licensee, LaPicante Market located at 7914 Bass Lake Road, failed a second compliance check with 24 months. Sgt. Tim Fournier stated the city has been conducting liquor compliance checks since 2000. He indicated prior to the bi-annual compliance checks, the city sends letters notifying license holders of the upcoming checks. Licensees that 'pass the compliance checks are presented with an "Excellence in Citizenship" certificate. In the case of a failure, a criminal citation is issued to the sales clerk who made the illegal sale and an administrative fine is issued to the license holder. Sgt. Fournier explained that cable 12 was conducting a story on underage drinking, and the compliance check failure was captured on tape. The videotape was shown to the council and audience. New Hope City Council Page 6 January 24, 2005 Mayor Opem reported that state law allows for a penalty up to $2,000 and a license suspension of 60 days. The city's ordinance is less severe in that the penalty for a second violation is a fine of $1,500 plus a 3-day suspension. He noted the fines for failing tobacco compliance checks appear to be more punitive than failing alcohol compliance checks. He commented on the seriousness of underage drinking and recommended reviewing the penalty structure at a future work session. A representative of LaPicante Market was not present at the meeting. Mr. Donahue confirmed that a notice to appear was mailed to the license holder. MOTION Item 11.1 SCWM Item 11.2 Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, acknowledged that the city council heard audio testimony from Sgt. Fournier regarding the illegal sale. He also noted the license holder was given the opportunity to appear before the council. According to city ordinance, failure to appear at this meeting waives his right to a hearing. Motion was made by Council Member Sommer, seconded by Council Member Gwin-Lenth, to impose fine of $1,500 and a 3-day suspension to LaPicante Market. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 11.2, Review of Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission's second generation plan and capital improvement program. Mr. Dan.Donahue, city manager, stated City Engineer Mark Hanson serves as the city's representative on the Shingle Creek Water Management Commission and Council Member Mary Gwin-Lenth serves as the city's representative on the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. He stated the co.uncil is being asked to comment on a proposal by Shingle Creek WMO relating to funding options of a capital improvement program. Mr. Mark Hanson, city representative of Shingle Creek Water Management Commission, was recognized. He illustrated the Shingle Creek Watershed that encompasses the northern part of New Hope plus eight other communities. He noted the second generation plan by Shingle Creek did not include a capital improvement plan. He stated it did include a plan but it was not as aggressive compared to the Bassett Creek WMO. Mr. Hanson reported that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed the CIP policy, proposed projects, and various funding options. Mr. Hanson illustrated examples of financial impacts based on Option 4 funding option (25% watershed, 25% streamside or lakeshore property, and 50% contributing watershed for lakes/tributaries or Shingle Creek main stem). He reported that the watershed share would be funded through an ad valorem tax through Hennepin County, and the city's share New Hope City Council Page 7 January 24, 2005 would be funded from the city's budget such as the storm water utility fund. Mr. Hanson stated that he will take council's comments back to the commission. The commission would like to consider adoption of the Water Quality Plan with an Implementation Plan at its February meeting. The plan amendment must be reviewed by cities twice for formal comment. It was noted that Bassett Creek WMO utilizes the ad valorem tax to entirely fund its CIP. Council Member Sommer questioned the length of time the watershed management commission has been in existence and what the prior contributions were for water improvements such as Northwood Lake. Mr. Hanson stated the watershed has existed since the early 80s. He stated the Northwood Lake area is part of Bassett Creek Watershed. He stated the only capital improvement project that New Hope contributed to in Shingle Creek Watershed was a flood management project that included an upgrade of culverts under France Avenue between Twin Lake and Ryan Lake, and the outlet to Ryan Lake was upgraded into north Minneapolis into 49th Avenue. The formula used was Option I (100% cost to city based on contributing watershed). Council Member Gwin-Lenth stated the first project undertaken by Bassett Creek WMO under its 10-year CIP which was funded through an ad valorem tax was the regional pond near St. Joseph's Church. Council Member Nolte questioned funding for on-going maintenance. Mr. Hanson stated cities will have to consider financing associated maintenance strategies. He noted the ponds do address flooding concerns, but the main intent of the second generation plan is to improve water quality before water is discharged into protected areas (i.e. Twin Lakes, Shingle Creek, etc). It was noted that the watersheds have done a good job of obtaining grants when available. Grant funds were used to conduct studies to determine costs for the three projects Used as examples. Mayor Opem requested a list of all needed improvements with corresponding priority order and costs to help determine funding and benefits. He expressed his opinion that 25% cost sharing is too low for benefiting lakeshore property. He also noted that it may be necessarY to lengthen the project timeframe in order to make the projects more affordable. Council Member Gwin-Lenth commented that the city needs to recognize the importance of cooperative efforts as solutions that are beyond the city's borders. She commented that the decision to use the ad valorem tax New Hope City Council Page 8 January 24, 2005 REPRESENTATIVE FOR SCWM Item 11.3 MOTION Item 11.3 MOTION Item 11.3 CITY PUBLICATIONS Item 11.4 financing mechanism for Bassett Creek Watershed was not arrived at easily. She pointed out that two of the key projects to improve Northwood Lake water quality need to occur in Plymouth, and the plan must allows for enough watershed involvement and sufficient funding to accomplish the project to benefit the entire watershed. She also cautioned against too great of an assessment to benefiting properties as it is difficult to define a direct benefit for water quality and water quantity. Council Member Gwin- Lenth sated the other completed capital improvement projects are the two water quality ponds adjacent to Medicine Lake for which New Hope contributed to the construction via an ad valorem tax. She noted New Hope contributed water from the southwestern part of the city into the Medicine Lake Watershed. Mayor Opem noted the ad valorem tax is another tax, and expressed his desire to achieve a funding mechanism that will be equitable for all residents. Mr. Hanson agreed to provide a list of all proposed capital improvement projects for review by the council. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 11.3, Motion accepting Sharon Cassen's resignation as city's alternate representative of Shingle Creek Water Management Commission. Motion was made by Council Member Nolte, seconded by Council Member Hoffe, t° accept Sharon Cassen's resignation as city's alternate representative of Shingle Creek Water Management Commission. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion was made by Mayor Opem, seconded by Council Member Hoffe, to appoint Council Member Nolte to complete Sharon Cassen's unexpired term. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 11.4, Discussion regarding city publications. Mr. Jerry Beck, communications coordinator, reported that the city publishes six issues of the City Report newsletter per year. He stated prior to 2002 the newsletter was produced by an outside vendor. Significant cost savings have been achieved by preparing the design work in-house by the communications coordinator. Council Member Hoffe suggested undertaking a formal bidding process on the newsletter printing to encourage competition and perhaps a lower Price. Mr. Beck also reported on the publication of In the Pipeline which is a one- . third page insert mailed with utility bills. He noted most of the information New Hope City Council Page 9 January 24, 2005 CITY READER BOARD Item 11~5 New Hope City Council Page 10 contained in the utility bill insert is repeated in the newsletter and/or on the city's website. Mayor Opem pointed out that apartment residents do not receive the utility bill inserts as they do not receive city utility bills. He suggested increasing the usage of the city's bulletin board on cable channel 16 to communicate with the public. Mr. Beck commented on the limitations of the bulletin board software and that survey data reflected that only a small portion of cable subscribers regularly view channel 16. Mr. Beck also emphasized the weight limitations to avoid exceeding the one-ounce postage rate of utility bills. Council Member Nolte questioned the feasibility of utilizing the Internet for bill payment to replace mailings. Mr. Beck indicated the finance director could best address the question, 'but he does not believe it is possible at this time. The council debated ways to increase communications with apartment dwellers. Staff was directed to provide information on the cost of mailing an 8-1/2x11" size publication to all residents on an every-other month basis. Staff was also directed to prepare questions relating to communications for inclusion in a future resident survey. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 11.5, Discussion regarding city reader board. Mr. Jerry Beck, communications coordinatOr, indicated staff is seeking approval from the City Council to proceed with planning for the purchase of a city sign equipped with an electronic reader board. Mr. Beck explained that for many years the city had a changeable message board on Gethsemane Cemetery property on the south side of 42nd Avenue across from Xylon Avenue. That sign was removed when 42nd Avenue was reconstructed in 1999 and the entry to the cemetery was realigned. The cemetery was unwilling to renew the lease to relocate the sign on its property. In 2000, at Council direction, city staff researched the possible purchase of a city sign with an electronic message board which would be located on city-owned property on the north side of 42nd Avenue between Kmart and Applebee's. Plans and specifications were prepared and bids were solicited. The City Council ultimately decided not to accept the low bid for the sign. During the 2005 budget preparation process in fall 2004 the City Council requested that staff get updated pricing information for a city sign and reader board. The Council believed that a city sign was a significant community asset and contributed to a sense of community identity and pride. Other factors included a recommendation in the Ice Arena Business January 24, 2005 New Hope City Council Page 11 Plan (2004) that the city seek more marketing venues for arena programs and an observation by the recreation staff that the previous message board on 42nd Avenue increased the number of class registrations. He stated staff obtained an updated price estimate based on the plans and specifications produced in 2000, but with a larger electronic reader board component. The sign specifications call for a 16½-foot-high twin pole sign with an illuminated cabinet and two single-faced electronic message boards (one facing east, the other west). The electronic message board would have three lines of text with 16 to 22 8-inch characters per line. The message board would be controlled via modem with Windows-based software. Mr. Beck stated the 2004 price estimate from Lawrence Sign is $68,908. The 2005 budget contains $50,000 for the electronic reader board. This budget figure is less than the estimate of $68,908 because the vendor indicated that minor modifications to the sign could reduce the cost and because additional funding would likely be available from the EDA and money set aside by the Hennepin Recycling Group. Council Member Sommer noted the reader board would be a means to improve communication. He pointed out there was a noticeable drop in park and recreation registrants after the old message board sign was removed. Mr. Beck suggested hiring a vendor to assist with establishment of design and specifications that could be utilized to obtain formal quotations. Council Member Nolte inquired of the life expectancy of the reader board and projected maintenance costs. She asked what other cities own reader boards. Mr. Beck indicated he would address these issues through the bidding process. It was noted that the cities of Blaine and Eden Prairie have reader boards. Council Member Gwin-Lenth pointed out that the issue of a reader board was resurrected when the Ice Arena Business Plan Committee suggested a reader board in lieu of other marketing tools. Mayor Opem questioned the possibility of obtaining demographics of the reader board audience. Mr. Beck stated traffic counts could be obtained but demographic data would be speculation only. Mayor Opem also asked for costs relative to electricity and installation. Communications Coordinator Beck discussed the proposed sign location and commented that it would behoove the city to obtain quotes for a sign that could be relocated if necessary. The council authorized staff to proceed to develop specifications for an January 24, 2005 SUMP PUMP INSPECTIONS Item 11.6 COUNCIL HANDBOOK Item 11.7 electronic reader board~ Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 11.6, Discussion regarding sump pump inspection program. Messrs. Dale Reed and Paul Coone of the Public Works Department addressed the council, Mr. Paul Coone, utilities maintenance supervisor, provided background of the sump pump ordinance. He noted the first inspection took place in August of 2003 and to date 1,553 properties (28% of the city) have been inspected. The council complimented staff on the revised inspection notification letter. Comments were shared on the high cost of sewer charges borne by the city and the need to accelerate completion of the inspection program. Staff was directed to explore options to expedite the inspection process and to consider staggered work schedules to offer evening appointments to accommodate w. orking home owners. A suggestion was made to consider hiring part-time inspectors at lower wages than full-time employees. Mr. Dan Donahue, city manager, indicated that staff is ensuring that information collected with the point of sale inspections pertaining to sump pumps is being entered into the sump pump database. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 11.7, Review of council handbook. Mayor Opem recommended minor changes on sections 2.2 and 2.10 to address the agenda packet delivery that was changed from Fridays to Thursdays. He also requested that section 2.9 (agenda amendments) be utilized for an emergency situations only rather than a routine occurrence. Council Member Hoffe requested that section 9.2 and the community bulletin board (channel 16) be revised to reflect that the Personnel Board meets on an "as needed basis" and to call the city clerk to inquire of meeting dates. Discussion ensued regarding a suggestion to increase the planning commission membership from 10 to 12 members. The 12th member, if appointed, could be a council member. Mayor Opem pointed out that the Citizen Advisory Commission allows for 15 members. Council Member Gwin-Lenth requested information from staff on the impact of increasing the membership (such as affect on decision making, costs for training, costs for additional agenda packets). She suggested that the council be more cognizant of gender balance if the council increases the membership. Council Member Sommer commented that New Hope is fortunate to have New Hope City Council Page 12 January 24, 2005 FORM OF GOVERNMENT Item 11.8 MOTION Item 11.8 several very qualified applicants interested in serving the city on commissions. Mr. Dan Donahue, city manager, reported that due to the earlier agenda packet deadline, it may be necessary to alter the planning commission meeting date or present planning commission matters on the council's second meeting of the month. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 11.8, Discussion regarding city's current form of government and options for changing. Mayor Opem reported this discussion is in follow up to a suggestion to change New HoEe's type of government from a statutory city to a charter city. He commented on the volume of information provided by the city manager and recommended directing the matter to the Citizen Advisory Commission for study. He emphasized the need to research the advantages and disadvantages of both types of government before taking any type of action. Mr. Dan Donahue, city manager, conveyed his willingness to consult the League of Minnesota Cities and the City of Plymouth for additional information relative to charter cities. Council Member Hoffe pointed out that the council members attending upcoming training could discuss the pros and cons with staff of the League. of Minnesota Cities. Council Member Gwin-Lenth pointed out that when referring a matter to the Citizen Advisory Commission, it is the council's responsibility to establish objectives and parameters of the study. She questioned the basis of the need to explore the change of government structure. Mayor Opem commented that during his campaign several residents expressed an interest in changing to a charter city to permit recall and referendum authority. Mr. Larry Green, 5936 West Meadow Lake Road, was recognized. He doubted that 10% of the city wants to change the form of government. He emphasized that it appears 99% of the city is against a merger with the city of Crystal. He noted residents want services delivered by the city and an effective government. Council Member Gwin-Lenth requested an opportunity to discuss the issue at greater length by the council. Motion was made by Council Member Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Council Member Sommer, to table discussion relative to New Hope's form of government to the February 22, 2005, work session. All present voted in New Hope City Council Page 13 January 24, 2005 COMMUNICATIONS Item 12.1 ADJOURNMENT favor. Motion carried. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Exchange of communication between members of the city council. Mayor Opem · Reported that he, along with Council Members Hoffe and Nolte, will be attending a Leadership Conference on January 28-29. Motion was made by Council Member Sommer, seconded by Council Member Nolte, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. 'The New Hope City Council adjourned at 11:18 p.m. ectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope City Council Page 14 January 24, 2005 City Council Minutes Regular Meeting CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 February 14, 2005 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OPEN FORUM The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Mayor Opera 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. Council Present: Martin Opem Sr., Mayor Mary Gwin-Lenth, Council Member Andy Hoffe, Council Member Karen Nolte, Council Member Steve Sommer, Council Member Staff Present: Dan Donahue, City Manager Amy Baldwin, Community Development Assistant Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Valerie Leone, City Clerk Shawn Siders, Community Development Specialist Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer Mayor Opem presented for approval the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 24, 2005, and Work Session Minutes of January 18, 2005, and .January 24, 2005. Council Member Nolte questioned portions of the council minutes. The city clerk agreed to review the January 24 audio tape and amend the minutes if there were misstatements. The minutes will be presented for approval at the February 28, 2005, council meeting. Ms. Joanna Fifield, 2633 Quebec Avenue North, requested a variance to the ordinance granting her permission to keep two ducks at her residence. She presented medical reasons to support her request. Mayor Opem and Council Members Hoffe and Nolte expressed support for Ms. Fifield's request. The council agreed to review the ordinance at its February 22 work session. City Attorney Sondrall suggested an ordinance amendment concerning regulations for the keeping of fowl rather than a variance so that the ordinance is uniformly applied throughout the city. It was noted that the ordinance review could be undertaken by the Citizen Advisory Commission for community input. City Manager Donahue stated he will advise staff not to enforce the provision of the ordinance during its review; the item will be placed on the February 22 work session; and based on council direction, an ordinance amendment could be drafted for the February 28 council meeting. New Hope City Council Page 1 of 11 February 14,2005 ROTATING VOTES CONSENT AGENDA MOTION Consent Items FINANCIAL CLAIMS Item 6.2 MOTION Item 6.4 Please note that votes taken on each agenda item are called by the secretary' on a rotating basis; however, the written minutes always list the Mayor's name first followed by the Council Members in alphabetical order. Mayor Opem 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 6.1, 6.3, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, and 6.12 were removed for discussion. Motion was made by Council Member Sommer, seconded by Council Member Hoffe, to approve the remaining items (6,2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7) on the Consent Agenda. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Approval of financial claims through February 14, 2005. 'Motion aPproving final payment to LOGIS for new utility billing software. RESOLUTION 05-21 Item 6.5 RESOLUTION 05-22 Item 6.6 RESOLUTION 05-23 Item 6.7 CONSENT ITEMS REMOVED - - BUSINESS LICENSES Item 6.1 MOTION Item 6.1 LIABILITY CLAIMS Item 6.3 New Hope City Council Page 2 of 11 Resolution authorizing reduction of financial guarantee for the Woodbridge Senior Cooperative (planning case 03-03). Resolution approving agreement with REACH for Resources, Inc. for provision of adaptive recreation services for persons with developmental disabilities for 2005 for $9,737. Resolution approving agreement with the New Hope/Crystal/Plymouth Swim Club for use of Milton C. Honsey Pool for summer practices. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion the Consent items which were removed for discussion beginning with Item 6.1, Approval of business licenses. Mayor Opem reported that YesMart 1 is a business located at 2720 Winnetka Avenue North that is requesting a tobacco license. He stated he personally visited the store and after expressing concern with the manager regarding the drug paraphernalia merchandise, it has been removed from the shelves. He complimented the manager for this action and conveyed his support for approval of the tobacco license. Motion was made by Council Member Sommer, seconded by Council Member Nolte, to approve the tobacco license. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 6.3, Acknowledgement of liability claim nos. 05-03 (Aaron Johnson) and 05-05 (Maxwell Holly). At the request of Mayor Opem, City Manager Donahue explained that one liability claim involved a sewer backup and the other claim resulted from an injury during a parks and recreation-sponsored class. He reported that all claims against the city are processed through the city clerk and are February 14, 2005 MOTION Item 6.3 SafeAssure Item 6.8 RESOLUTION 05-24 Item 6.8 CDBG Item 6.9 forwarded to the city's insurance company for investigation. The council is merely asked to acknowledge receipt of the claims. Motion was made by Council Member Sommer, seconded by Council Member Gwin-Lenth, to acknowledge receipt of the liability claims. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 6.8, Resolution approving a contract with SafeAssure Consultants Inc. for safety training and consulting services. Mayor Opem expressed support to contract with SafeAssure. He acknowledged that in certain situations it is best to contract for services rather than expending internal personnel labor costs. Council Member Hoffe concurred with Mayor Opem for safety training. He requested a future review of the types of consultants utilized by the city and associated costs. He explained his intent to explore the feasibility of offering similar services in-house by city staff. Council Member Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH SAFEASSURE CONSULTANTS INC. FOR SAFETY TRAINING AND CONSULTING SERVICES." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Council Member Hoffe, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Opem, Gwin-Lenth, Hoffe, Nolte, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 6.9, Resolution ordering published notice and scheduling public hearing to approve the projected use of funds in the 2005 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program. Mr. Shawn Siders, community development specialist, stated the public hearing will be held on February 28 to determine allocation of the 2005 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) funds. He reported that city staff is recommending 15% of the funds be allocated for public service activity and 85% of the funds be allocated for the single family housing rehabilitation loan program. He pointed out that per council direction, no funding is being recommended for the scattered site housing program. Mr. Siders explained that staff will provide details of the funding recommendations at the February 28 council meeting at which time the city council can make funding adjustments if so desired. Mayor Opem invited the public to attend the CDBG public hearing on February 28, 2005. New Hope City Council Page 3 of 11 February 14, 2005 RESOLUTION 05-25 Item 6.9 VEHICLE BIDS Items 6.10, 6.11, and 6.12 New Hope City Council Page 4 of 11 Council Member Hoffe inquired whether action will be required on February 28 or if the council could continue the public hearing into March to allow a greater timeframe for community input. Mr. Siders explained that the grant applications are due on March 1, but he would be willing to consult Hennepin County to inquire whether an extension could be obtained. Council Member Hoffe inquired of the possibility of receiving the funding request information sooner for future years. Mr. Siders agreed to provide the available information to the council earlier in future years. He reported 'that although the city may not know the exact CDBG funding amount, staff can provide information relative to various agencies' funding requests. Council Member Gwin-Lenth asked Mr. Siders to advise the council on the housing rehabilitation program and differentiate between the loan and grant program as well as an explanation of the income qualifier. Mr. Siders stated the housing rehabilitation program provides loans up to $25,000 to existing owner-occupied units in New Hope. The loans are available to persons earning 80% or less of the area median income. He stated' for persons at an area median income of 50% or below, there is no interest accrued on the loan for the first 10 years of the loan. Interest is accrued at 3% for loans provided to persons between 51% to 80% area median income. The loan is forgiven if the homeowner remains in their home 15 years. If the property is sold before the 15-year period, the loan must be repaid (either with or without interest depending on income level) to Hennepin County. Mayor Opem spoke in favor of the loan program. He noted it provides an opportunity for persons on limited incomes to maintain their property. He asked staff to advertise the loan program on the city's web site. Council Member Nolte introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION ORDERING PUBLISHED NOTICE AND SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE THE PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS IN THE 2005 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Council Member Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Opem, Gwin-Lenth, Hoffe, Nolte, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 6.10, Approval of bid from Elk River Ford for a Ford Expedition vehicle for $25,125.40; Item 6.11, Approval of bid from Superior Ford for a Crown Victoria vehicle for $24,220; and Item 6.12, Approval of bid from Thane Hawkins Polar February 14, 2005 MOTION Item 6.'I0 IMP. PROJECT 782 Item 8.1 Chevrolet for an Astro cargo van for $18,148.25. Council Member Sommer commented Lhat due to budget restraints, past council direction to staff has been to extend the life of vehicles whenever possible. He expressed support for the vehicle purchases and noted the surplus funds earmarked in the CIP for vehicle replacements of approximately $22,495. Council Member Sommer reported on the higher maintenance costs for older vehicles and pointed out it may be advantageous to replace another squad car at this time. City Manager Donahue concurred with coUncil Member Sommer's assessment of the surplus for vehicle replacement. Mr. Donahue noted this year's vehicle prices are approximately $900 less than last year. He also commented that steel prices are expected to increase next year which will drive up vehicle costs. Council Member Sommer recommended reviewing the financial and maintenance aspects of vehicle replacements at the February 22 work session. He questioned the amount of funding already set aside for the next scheduled police vehicle replacement. Mr. DOnahue noted he believes there are adequate replacement funds for another vehicle (through the monthly rental and monthly maintenance fees paid through the police departx~nent budget). Councilmember Gwin~Lenth supported CoUncil Member Sommer's suggestion and recalled prior council discussions to extend the life of rolling stock. She supported a work session discussion. Mayor Opem pointed' out that the vehicles are being purchased through the State of Minnesota's ~ooperative purchasing agreement. He noted the city strives to achieve the lowest cost on purchases whenever possible by cooperatively purchasing with the state, county, and other agencies. Council Member Nolte commented on the favorable vehicle pricing. She inquired of the disposition of the city's used vehicles. Mr. Donahue stated the vehicles are sold either through the auto auction or to the highest bidder at a city sale. The revenue from the sale goes into the CIP vehicle replacement fund. Motion was made by Council Member Sommer, seconded by Council Member Nolte, approving the bid from Elk River Ford for a Ford Expedition vehicle for $25,125.40; approving the bid from Superior Ford for a Crown Victoria vehicle for $24,220; and approving the bid from Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet for an Astro cargo van for $18,148.25. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Motion authorizing staff to negotiate the potential purchase of property located at 5300 Winnetka Avenue North (improvement project no. 782). New Hope City Council Page 5 of 11 February 14, 2005 IMP. PROJECT 750 Item 8.2 New Flope City Council Page 6 of 11 Mayor Opem requested that this item be postponed to allow coundl discussion at the February 22, 2005 work session. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Discussion and update regarding Bass Lake Road Apartments redevelopment (improvement project no. 750). Ms. Amy Baldwin, community development assistant, stated staff requests to update the city council on the developer status for Bass Lake Road Apartments redevelopment area and for the council to provide direction and feedback as to proceeding with the solicitation of proposals from developers for this project. Ms. Baldwin explained that at the ~anuary 10, 2005, council meeting, staff presented an update on the Bass Lake Road Apartments redevelopment project area. At that meeting, the council set February 14 as the deadline to review a final proposal and updated financial information presented by the Boisclair Corporation. On January 27 the Boisclair Corporation 'submitted a letter to the city indicating t}iey were withdrawing their proposal from consideration dUe to Mr. Boisclair's health issues. Ms. Baldwin relayed staff's recommendation to hold a developers roundtable to present the project to interested developers in March. Notice of the meeting would be sent to a combination of the list of developers from the process in 2002, as well as developers who have contacted the city regarding the potential City Center redevelopment. Ms. Baldwin explained that background and key objectives for the project would be provided to developers. Following the developers' roundtable, developers would be asked to respond to Request for Qualifications. (RFQs) and the city would select and invite top developers 'to submit Request for Proposals (RFQs). Ms. Baldwin pointed out that there are a number of details that staff seeks council input regarding prior to preparation of the information packet: 1) concept plans for the type of development the city supports - the city will likely need to allow design flexibilities to accommodate the project; 2) inclusion of two possible footprints for the project (one including the apartment buildings and the four single family homes on the north side of 58~' Avenue; and one with only the five apartment buildings); 3) review the development issues and design parameters initially included in the Livable Communities developer packet; and 4) keeping the acquisition of the property open ended in respect to the city or the developer taking the lead role in this process. Ms. Baldwin reviewed page 7 of the concept summary for the Bass Lake Road Apartment area contained within the Livable Communities Study. Council Member Nolte questioned whether the city council needs to finish defining housing density (relating to the comprehensive plan). Ms. Baldwin stated staff anticipates this project will be constructed under a planned unit development agreement which may differ from the February l~ 2005 New Hope City Council Page 7 of 11 comprehensive plan. Mayor Opera indicated it should be stipulated that whatever is proposed must be appealing to the neighborhood. Council Member Sommer emphasized the need for single level living for empty nesters who desire to remain in the community. Ms. Baldwin stated the city has had a number of developers express an interest in the site and expects a favorable developer turnout for the March meeting. Council Member Hoffe inquired of development costs. Ms. Baldwin stated the estimate for property acquisition, demolition, and relocation costs is $5.6 million (including the four single- family homes). Mr. Bob Sable, 5242 Quebec Avenue North, was recognized. He requested that citizens who served on the City Center Task Force be kept apprised of the development process. Ms. Baldwin expressed a willingness to mail. notices to members of the task force committee. Ms. Baldwin pointed out that financing has been an issue that delayed the project from proceeding. She stated even with a significantly higher land payment by a developer, a gap will still exist. The next steps include obtaining appraisals on the properties involved to get'a better understanding of the acquisition costs, and communicate with the property owners the city's desire to acquire their property. Staff will bring a formal request to the council for authorization to obtain appraisals on the properties in the future. Staff supports the redevelopment of the area and recommends conducting a developers' roundtable and then a Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposals on the project as the next steps in moving forward. Mayor Opem questioned the reason for Boisclair Corporation's comment relating to releasing its interest in the architectural plans for a direct 3~a party cost reimbursement. Ms. Baldwin stated DJR Architecture Inc. was the architect that prepared the original plans. She stated the city will make developers aware of the existing plans, and they would contact Boisclair if they are interested in purchasing the plans. Ms. Abby Christian, 8405 E. Meadow Lake Road, was recognized. She questioned the projected development timeline. Ms. Baldwin stated the city would like to finalize a plan and select a · developer in 2005 with construction occurring in 2006. Mr. Roger Engle, 8404 58th Avenue North, was recognized. He indicated he February 14, 2005 has been a New Hope resident for 47 years. He would be willing to move "if the price is right". Mr. Engle requested to be kept informed of future meetings pertaining to the development. Mr. Larry Green, 5936 W. Meadow Lake Road, was recognized. He asked if an access road to the golf course and realignment of the streets is part of the project. Mayor Opem replied that the city has plans to pursue federal funds of $1.2 million for improvements for Bass Lake Road and the realignment of Yukon and Xylon avenues. He stated the street project would be completed independently from the housing development. Mr. Green suggested.including the Frank's Nursery site if it would help attract developers. Ms. Baldwin stated the developer's packet will include all available land, including the Frank's Nursery property. Ms. Pam Frey, 5928 Meadow Lake Road West, was recognized. She commented on the senior population that would prefer single-level living. She also expressed traffic concerns. Mayor Opem noted the street realignment p~:oject includes a semaphore, and a controlled intersection will assist with traffic flow. Council Member Sommer advised Ms. Frey that the goal is a development with '100% single-level living, owner occupied condominiums with elevators. New Hope City Council Page 8 of 11 Ms. Christian expressed concern with the increased crime in the neighborhood and park especially during warmer weather. She recommended setting up a police sub station at the apartment parking lot for neighborhood safety. Council Member Sommer stated Chief Link could be consulted about the possibility of having squads parked at the golf course between calls for increased visibility and a deterrent to crime. Council Member Gwin-Lenth noted the council is committed to taking action for a developers' round table to develop a quality development that meets the needs of all the community. She noted 'the council desires to move quickly but in a careful and deliberate fashion in order to achieve a good end product. Council Member Hoffe pointed out that this is a choice piece of property located by the golf course and Meadow Lake. He stated the developers that come in should look at it for an opportunity for them and maybe bring down acquisition and demolition costs because that was a key factor that was causing a problem with the other developer. The prior project expected too much financial assistance by the city. February 14,2005 MOTION/ACCEPT WITHDRAWAL Item 8.2 MOTION/SUPPORT RECOMMENDATION Item 8.2 IMP. PROJECT 775 Item 8.3 Mayor Opem pointed out there are many people who like the condominium lifestyle, but do not want to live in downtown Minneapolis. He noted New Hope's close proximity to downtown Minneapolis and the amenities offered in New Hope will help drive the project. Motion was made by Council Member Sommer, seconded by Council Member Gwin-Lenth, to accept the January 27, 2005, letter of withdrawal from Boisclair Corporation as the preferred developer. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion was made by Council Member Sommer, seconded by Council Member Nolte, supporting staff's~recommendation for a developers' roundtable, RFQ, and RFP process. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Opera introduced for discussion Item 8.3, Resolution approving demolition contract with Hempel Corporation to demolish house at 5207 Pennsylvania Avenue North (improvement project no. 775). Mr. Shawn Siders, community development specialist, stated the base bid was $22,143 from Hempel Corporation. He stated the city forester inspected the site and has recommended removal of seven trees at a cost of $840. The total project cost is $22,983. Mr. Siders commented that staff has already received many inquiries from. people interested in the property. He noted the site is desirable especially due to its dead-end street. Staff anticipates marketing the property to private developers to solicit proposals. The proposals will be brought to the city council for consideration. Council Member Hoffe questioned whether the bid includes removal of the vermiculite-type asbestos. Mr. Siders confirmed that it is included in the quoted price. Council Member Nolte stated the city purchased the property for $80,000. She inquired whether the lot is worth $105,000. Mayor Opem shared that the city of Crystal has been purchasing dilapidated properties, demolishing the houses, and putting them out for bid. They select a builder and the average 2004 new home selling price is $303,000. The average lot price is $67,000 in Crystal. He noted there is a need for upscale housing in New Hope. Mayor Opem stated even if the city doesn't immediately recover the $105,000 for the lot, repayment will be made through ongoing increased property taxes. Mr. Siders stated along with the proposals, staff will provide council with a tax analysis of what the city can reasonably expect to receive in tax income versus the former property tax revenue. New Hope City Council Page 9 of 11 February 14, 2005 RESOLUTION 05-26 Item 8.3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP Item'10.1 ORDINANCE 05-02 Item 10.1 WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS Item 10.2 ORDINANCE 05-03 Item 10.2 COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Item 11.1 New Hope City Council Page 10 of 11 Council Member Nolte introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING DEMOLITION CONTRACT WITH HEMPEL CORPORATION TO DEMOLISH HOUSE." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Council Member Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Opera, Gwin-Lenth, Hoffe, Nolte, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Opera introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Ordinance no. 05-02, an ordinance amending section 2-13 of the New Hope Code increasing the membership of the planning commission. Mayor Opem stated the amendment increases the membership by two. Council Member Sommer introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 05-02, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-13 OF THE NEW HOPE CODE INCREASING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Mayor Opem, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Opem, Gwin-Lenth, Hoffe, Nolte, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which wa~ attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 10.2, Ordinance no. 05-03, an ordinance amending New Hope Code section 6-2(A) relating to weight and load limits on city streets. Mr. Donahue stated the amendment will allow the city to follow the same dates for road weight restrictions as established by the state. It was noted that construction and trucking companies are very aware of road restrictions, and one set of dates can be easily followed. Council Member Gwin-Lenth introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 05-03, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 6-2(A) RELATING TO WEIGHT AND LOAD LIMITS ON CITY STREETS". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Council Member Nolte, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Opem, Gwin-Lenth, Hoffe, Nolte, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 11.1, Motion appointing persons to the citizen adVisory commission, human rights commission, and the planning commission. February 14,2005 'MOTION APPOINTMENTS Item 11.1 CITY COMMUNICATIONS Item 12.1 COMMUNICATIONS Item 12.2 ADJOURNMENT The council unanimously supported the appointments of the following persons to city commissions: Citizens Advisory Commission - two year term James Fackler Kimberly Johnson Dean Muldoon Bill Wills Human Rights Commission - two year term Margaret Flaherty Planning Commission - three year term James Brinkman Pat Crough Ranjan Nirgude Tom Schmidt The Council thanked all persons who are willing to volunteer on city commissions, and reported that vacancies exist on the Human Rights commission. Interested community members are encouraged to apply. Motion was made by Council Member Sommer, seconded by Mayor Opem, to approve the appointments to the commissions. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Council input on city communications. The council reviewed various recent city communications. Mayor Opem introduced for discussion Item 12.2, Exchange of communication between members of the city council. Mayor Opem · Reported that the North Metro Mayor's meeting will be held February 16 City Manager Donahue · Reviewed agenda items for the February 22 council work session Motion was made by Council Member Sommer, seconded by Council Member Nolte, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before the Council. Ail present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope City Council adjourned at 8:35 p.m. ~~Res ectfully s~u. bmitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk. New Hope City Council Page 11 of 11 February 14, 2005