The URL can be used to link to this page

110492 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 1992 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Case 92-07 Request for a Variance to Expand Non-conforming Structure and a Rear Yard Setback Variance to Allow A Garage Addition, 3910 Boone Avenue North, Craig Allen Hall, Petitioner 3.2 Case 92-19 Request for Text Amendment to Rezone 5501 and a portion of 5425 Boone Avenue North from and I-1 (Limited Industrial) to an R-5 (Senior Citizen and Physically Handicapped Residential Housing) Zoning District, City of New Hope/Senior Outreach Services/North Ridge Care Center, Petitioners 3.3 Case 92-23 Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval and Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Adult Day Care Facility in an R-5 Zoning District, 5501 & 5425 Boone Avenue North, Senior Outreach Services/North Ridge Care Center, Petitioners 3.4 Case 92-26 Request for Conditional Use Permit, Variance to Setback Requirement, and Site/Building Plan Review Approval to Allow a Car X Muffler Shop, 7900 27th Avenue North, Naftali Alkalai-Mahzal, Inc. Petitioner 3.5 Case 92-27 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Occupation, 3833 Gettysburg Avenue North, Robert Goldman, Petitioner 3.6 Case 92-31 Request for Side Yard Setback Variance to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition, 5313 Pennsylvania Avenue North, Roger. W. Griggs, Petitioner 3.7 Case 92-32 Request for Rear Yard Setback Variance and Variance to expand a Non- Conforming Structure to Allow Construction of a 3-Season Porch Addition, 9009 42nd Avenue North, Jack and Annette Nabedrick, Petitioners 3.8 Case 92-29 Request for A Text Amendment Regarding Side Yard Air Conditioners, City of New Hope, Petitioner 3.9 Case 92-30 Request to Consider An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code Section 13.073 Relating to Placement of Monuments, City of New Hope, Petitioner 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Miscellaneous Issues 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of October 6, 1992 6.2 Review of City Council and City Council Executive Session Minutes of September 28 and City Council Minutes of October 12, 1992 6.3 EDA minutes of September 28, 1992 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 92-07 Request: Request for Variance to Expand Non-conforming Structure and a Rear Setback Variance to Allow a Garage Addition Location: 3910 Boone Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21-42-0070 Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: Craig Allen Hall Report Date: October 30, 1992 Meeting Date: November 4, 1992 UPDATE 1. This case was considered at the April 14, 1992, Planning Commission meeting. The petitioner was proposing to construct a garage addition that would be located 7 feet form the south rear yard property line, thus a 28-foot variance from the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement is needed. Although the variance request was substantial, the Commission was generally agreeable to approving the request due to the fact that this is a comer lot with the house fronting the side yard on Boone Avenue. The case was tabled due to the fact that the petitioner had not presented a certified lot survey and staff and the Commission both felt that a survey was necessary to determine the exact setback distances and so informed the petitioner. 2. The case was tabled again in May and June because a certified survey had not been presented, despite the fact that staff had tried to contact the petitioner on several occasions by phone and mail. When the petitioner did not respond,staff deleted the case from the Planning Commission agenda. 3. Staff desires to resolve this case before the end of the year. A survey has still not been presented to the City. The petitioner recently indicated to staff that he may construct the garage in 1993, but would be agreeable to withdraw the request at this time if a reapplieation could be made next year with no additional fees. Staff has no problem with a reapplication at a later date. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission pass a motion to accept the request to withdraw Planning Case 92-07 from consideration. Attachment: Letter to Petitioner 6-26-92 April/June Planning Commission Repons 4401 Xyton Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX ~ :£, 55' _~' - June 26, 1992 Mr. Craig Hall 3910 Boone Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR GARAGE ADDITION Dear Mr. Hall: As you are aware, your Planning Commission variance application for a garage addition was tabled at the April Planning Commission meeting. The Commission was generally agreeable to the request, but indicated that a certified survey should be provided to show the exact setback from all property lines due to the fact that you are requesting a significant variance from the setback requirements. I have tried to contact you several times by phone to check on the status of your survey. Please contact me or Doug Sandstad, Building Official, to notify us if you intend to obtain the survey and complete the Planning Commission/City Council approval process or if you intend to withdraw your request. The Planning Commission next meets on August 4th and the survey should be submitted to the City the week of July 20th if you want the Commission to act on your request. Please call if you have any questions. Sincere ly, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator N/lb cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Family Styled City'~~ For Family Livin8 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 92-07 Request: Request for Variance to Expand Non-conforming Structure and a Rear Setback Variance to Allow a Garage Addition Location: 3910 Boone Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21-42-0070 Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: Craig Allen Hall Report Date: May 29, 1992 Meeting Date: June 2, 1992 ~rPDATE 1. This case was considered at the April 14, 1992, Planning Commission meeting and the Commission was generally agreeable to approving the request, however, the case was tabled due to the fact that the petitioner had not presented a certified lot survey. Staff and the Commission both felt that a survey was necessary to determine the exact setback distances and so informed the petitioner. As of the May 5th Planning Commission meeting a survey had not been provided, therefore the case was tabled for one month. As of the date this report is being prepared, a survey still has not been presented to the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this case be tabled for an additional month, unless a certified survey is submitted prior to the meeting. Attachment: April Planning Commission Report CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 92-07 Request: Request for Variance to Expand Non-conforming Structure and a Rear Setback Variance to Allow a Garage Addition Location: 3910 Boone Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21-42-0070 Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: Craig Allen Hall Report Date: April 10, 1992 Meeting Date: April 14, 1992 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to expand a non-conforming structure and a rear yard setback variance to allow a 14'x 32' garage addition to existing structure, pursuant to Sections 4.031(10) and 4.034(3), New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the south side of the existing attached garage. The proposed addition would be 14 feet wide and 32-I/2 feet in length and contain 4:55 square feet. The existing garage contains 440 square feet, thus the total square footage of the existing garage and the proposed addition would be 895 square feet (which is close to the 900 square foot maximum allowed by code). 3. The proposed garage addition would necessitate two variances: a variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement and a variance to expand a non-conforming structure. 4. The property is located on a comer lot in an R-1 Single Family Residential District at the southwest intersection of Boone Avenue and Hopewood Lane. The property has a 90-foot frontage on Hopewood and a 127-foot frontage on Boone. The zoning ordinance def'mes lot frontage ~s the boundary abuttin~ a public right-of-way having the least width, therefore the setback requirements for this lot are as follows: North (fronting Hopewood) front yard- 35-foot setback West (fronting Boone) side yard - 35-foot setback South rear yard - 35-foot setback East side yard- 10-foot setback 5. Petitioner is proposing to construct a garage addition that would be located 7 feet from the south rear yard property line, thus a 2g-foot variance from the 35-.foot rear yard setback requirement is needed. 6. Due to the fact that this is a corner lot, a portion of the existing garage is located outside the buildable yard area which makes the existing structure non-conforming. The zoning ordinance states that normal maintenance of a structure containing a lawful non- conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural repairs and incidental alterations which do not physically extend or intensify the non-conforming use. This is a structural alteration which would physically extend the non-conforming use, thus a variance to expand a non-conforming structure is also required. Planning Case Report 92-07 April 14, 1992 Page -2- ~'~' 7. The property is surrounded by single family families and is in close proximity to Northwood Park. 8. The applicant has stated a need for more garage space as the reason for the request. 9. The topography of the property slopes from the north to the south. 10. Property owners within 350' of the site have been notified of the request. Staff has received at least one anonymous complaint about the petitioner's "hobby car" storage and firewood piles. ANALYSIS I. Detailed plans have not been received from the petitioner and staff recommends that the request be tabled until a lot survey and elevation drawings have been submitted. 2. The purpose of the variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent the reasonable use of the property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminm' h or impair property values in the neighborhood. 3. This is one of many problem comer lots where the home was built facing the wrong street as far as ordinance interpretation is concerned. Defining the front yard on a corner lot usually leaves a large (deep) rear yard where most activities take place. Staff's "Attachment A" shows that this. lot only has a 27-foot (east) side yard and a 21-foot (south) rear yard and the hashmarks define the "buildable yard" area. 4. The hardship may be that the comer lot setback restrictions do not allow reasonable room for a garage addition, however the setback reductions are substantial. 5. The proposed garage addition would reduce the existing 21-foot rear yard setback to 7 feet, or take a setback that is 60% of the requirement and reduce it to 20% of the required 35 feet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends tabling the request until detailed drawings are submitted that address the aesthetic compatibility of the addition and a new survey obtained to confirm exact lot lines. Any driveway changes, which are currently not shown on the site plan, also need to be addressed as well as the scope of the intended garage use. Attachments: Section/Topo Maps Site Plan Staff Exhibit A - Setbacks GETHSEMANE ._,~_o~,1o~4~ ~**~ CEMETERY NORTHWOOO PARK H NORTHWOOD "~ PARK 92:~. 7 '"- 925. I 924 ~893.0 888.9 I¥' 25'' -----t ,¢ ,/. "t' SITE PLAN 0ECLARATi0N I CERT¢F¥ T';4..-',,'T ~ AM THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR OWNERS REPRESENT,",TiVF_. & THIS P~I.~AN IS COMPeTE AND ACCURATE: EXISTING SETBACK 21 ' PROPOSED SETBACK 7' ~ ,,.~' ,, SITE PLAN OECLARATION I CERTIFY THAT t AM THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE & THIS P.~I,~,N IS COMPI,,ETE AND ACCURATE: ~-~ D^T~ ~.~. _50UTI4 SIDE. I/4 - I ,... · APR 0 Af~ I olgg~ 12 NORTH._ ,SHGL5 15~ FELT ?/16 W,P. WAFER 13D-WITit CLIPS TRUSSES 24"0, C (TRUSS DES,GN BY' SUPPLIER') CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 92-19 Request: Request for Text Amendment to Rezone 5501 and a portion of 5425 Boone Avenue North from an I-1 (Limited Industrial) to an R-5 (Senior Citizen and Physically Handicapped Residential Housing) Zoning District Location: 5501 and 5425 Boone Avenue North PID No: 06-118-21-34-0007 & 06-118-21-34-0010 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: City of New Hope/Senior Outreach Services/North Ridge Care Center Report Date: October 30, 1992 Meeting Date: November 4, 1992 I~PDATE 1. This is a request by the City of New Hope, Senior Outreach Services and North Ridge Care Center to consider an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code by rezoning industrial property from an I-1 (Limited Industrial) to an R-5 (Senior Citizen and Physically Handicapped Residential) Zoning District, pursuant to Sections 4.23 and 4.24 of the New Hope Zoning Code. 2. This request was tabled at the September 1st and October 6th Planning Commission meetings at the request of the petitioner and the City, as the actual amount of property to be acquired and rezoned for the development had not been determined and the site/building plan needed to be revised. Revised plans have now been submitted and will be considered under Planning Case 92-23. 3. Senior Outreach Services/North Ridge Care Center is proposing to construct an adult day care facility, which would accommodate up to 120 adults, on vacant property located at 5501 and a portion of 5425 Boone Avenue North. The property is currently zoned I-1 and this request regards the rezonlng of the property to an R-5 District. The rezonlng issue precedes the request for a conditional use permit and site/building plan review/approval for actual construction of the facility, which will be considered later on the agenda under Planning Case 92-23. 4. The City has been working with North Ridge and Senior Outreach Services and the owners of both properties over the past year in regards to the acquisition of the property west of Boone Avenue for the construction of an adult day care facility. A. At the June 22nd EDA meeting a resolution was passed authorizing the acquisition of 5501 Boone Avenue North by eminent domain proceedings, which authorizes the City to acquire the property by direct purchase or to utilize the "quick take" procedure. The resolution states that the acquisition of the property is reasonably necessary to the furtherance of the goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan and will be for the benefit of the public health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of New Hope. Planning Case 92-19 November 4, 1992 Page -4- 1. Acquisition of the property by the City and/or North Ridge/Senior Outreach Services. 2. Platting of the property/subdivision with legal description. 3. Only the property acquired for the Adult Day Care Facility to be rezoned at this time. 4. Rezoning subject to approval of CUP for facility and completion of project. 5. Rezoning not to be officially published or changed on the zoning map until after acquisition of property and completion of construction of facility. 6. If facility not constructed on the proposed site, rezoning is null and void. Attachments: luly 10th Attorney Correspondence & Public Hearing Notice lune 22nd Planner's Report City Code/R-5 and I-1 Maps/Site Plan TIF Amendment Eminent Domain Proceeding Options: Lee Property NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONS[DER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY REZONING INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY FROM "I-1" LIMITED INDUSTRIAL TO "R-5" SENIOR CITIZEN AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED RESIDENTIAL HOUSING City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 1st day of September, 1992, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the affect of rezoning the following described properties from "I-1" Limited Industrial to "R-5" Senior Citizen and Physically Handicapped Residential Housing: Parcel 1: That part of Lot 2, Block 2, lying north of the north line of the south 639.88 feet of said Lot 2, Block 2 as measured along the east and west lines thereof, except the north 100 feet thereof; Science Industry Center, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said Hennepin County. Parcel 2: The north 100 feet of the south 539.88 feet (as measured along the east and west lines thereof) of Lot 2, Block 2, Science Industry Center, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said Hennepin County. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of- being heard with respect to.the zoning code amendment. Dated the 11th day of August, 1992. s/ Valerie J. ~.eone Valerie J. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 19th day of August, 1992.) July 10, 1992 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE:North Ridge Adult Day Care Facility Our File NO. 99.11101 · Dear Kirk: I have had a chance to review the City Planner's June 22nd, 1992 memo in connection with rezoning the proposed site for the North Ridge Adult Care Facility. It is my opinion that the proposed site can be rezoned R-5 to accommodate the adult day care facility as recommended by the City Planner. However, as you know, the EDA is in the process of acquiring that site. I recommend that we-do not begin the rezoning process until the EDA has acquired the site. If.you need any further information concerning this matter, please contact me. Very truly yours, St even A. Sondrall slf cc: Daniel J. Donahue Alan Brixius Northwest Associated C-6-hsultants, Inc. UR;lAN PLA N N I NG · DES I G N · M AR K E T R ES E A R C H TO: , Kirk McDonald FROM: Elizabeth Stockunan/Alan Brixius DATE: 22 June 1992 RE: New Hope - North Ridge Adult Day Care/ Hospice Facility FILE NO: 131.00 92.08 We have compiled a list of the necessary application procedures and site issues related to the potential adult day care and hospice facility proposed in New Hope. The proposed development is to be located on a site along Boone Avenue between Science Center Drive and East Research Center Road, currently zoned I-1. The North Ridge Care Center and senior citizen apartment complex are located across Boone Avenue. 1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Currently, New Hope has the R-S, Senior CitiZen Residential Housing District. This district is specifically intended to define locationsandamenities for elderly housing and related complementary uses. The R-5 District currently allows elderly housing as a permitted use and nursing homes and adul= day care by conditional use. Under this zoning, the proposed adult day care is allowed. In consideration of the proposed hospice facility, we contacted the Department of Health and Human Services. They indicated that hospice facilities offer a degree of care similar to nursing home operations. In this regard, an amendment to the R-5 Zoning District to allow a hospice facility under the same conditional use permit as a nursing . home is recoup%ended. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.' Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416-(612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 2. Rezoning The subject property is currently zoned I-1, Limited Industrial. A rezoning is necessary to R-5, Senior Citizen Residential Housing, in order to allow (by CUP) the proposed adult day care facility. Consideration of any rezoning in the City of New Hope involves the review of two criteria, outlined as follows: a. Does the existing zoning represent a mistake in the original layout? b. Have the characteristics in the area changed which warrant reconsideration of the existing zoning? The existing zoning designation does not allow health care facilities, thus it is necessary to rezone the subject site to R-5 to accoa~%%odate the adult day care/hospice facility given the location of the North Ridge Care Center and apartments across Boone Avenue. Although the R-5 District is very limited in the types of uses which are allowed in the zone, it is of benefit to maintain a clustering of health care properties which can support one another. 3. Cond~tional Use Permit As mentioned previously, the applicant will require CUP approval to construct the proposed adult day care/hospice facility within an R-S, Senior Citizen Residential Housing Zoning District. The Planning Comission ~d City Council will consider possible adverse effects of the use through review of specific criteria outlined in Section 4.212 of the City Zoning 0rdinance.~ 4. Information As par= of the rezoning application, a certificate of title and detailed written/graphic materials fully explaining the proposed change and development will be required. Graphic material submitted must include, but is not limited to, a site plan, drainage plan, landscape and lighting plan. . pc: Doug Sandstad Dan Donahue 2 .,' 4.08, ;.08A~, ~.08^~, ~.08A3 (L) - (2) 4.08~ "~-5"_SE~:O~_;:T:Z¢~ AND ~and;c~pped Citizen Resident:al Housing Dis:riot is co provide areas wi:~:n the City w~ich are particularly suitable as to location and amen::ies for elderly an~ physically handicapped housing, and to limit t~e development of su:h districts Co this type o~ residential cons:ruction, and d~rec:ly talace~ complementary uses. (Code 072684, Ord. 88-19] 4.05~ Per.-.,~:ted ~ses. Elderly (Senior Citizen) Housing which is conditional use under 4.084 in an R-40:stric: is the only use :n an R-5 D~scr~cc, provided however that all of the conditions Sec:ion 4.084(4). (Ord. 81-1) 8A3 CondO:ions! uses, ~-5. (1) Nursi~ M~es. Nursing homes, b~'no: including hospitals, clinics, ssn::ari~s or sLmilat ins:i:u::ons as defined by 4.022 (100) of :~is code provided (a)Side Yards, Double. Sade yards are double the minim~ in compliances wlCh 4.033 (3) of C~is coda. ~ear Yar~ R~quir~efl:s. Only t~e teat yat~ shall ~ use~ ~ottectea:~ofla: areas. Sa~a area s~all M ~eflcea con::olle~ and screened in comp!raaco w~cm 4.033 (3) o~ chis c~e. (~) Sc:ee: Access. The site shall be serves by an atcet~al collector street o~ sufficient capacity Co acc~a:e ~ traffic wh:cn v~ll ~ generateS. ~ermits an~ State Laws. All scare laws and statutes gove:n~ng sa:~ use ate s:t:ctly a~e:ea to an~ at: opera:Lng ~tmL:s ate se~utea (2) R~ul: Oay Ca~e. A state l~cense~ ~ac~lLty as ~e~ne~ ~n 4.022 ~2) o~ tn:s c~4 ptovLded that: (a) Front Se: Back. The ~tonc yat~ ~epth ~s a m~nLm~ ~eec. Rear Yard nequir~ents. Only the teat yard shall ~ used for tecteac~anal areas. Said area shall M ~ence4 coattails4 an~ icteeme4 in compliance wiCh 4.033 (3) o~ Chis c~e. (c) Off-Street Loading. Loading aha unloading o~ adult day care participants shall :ake place ~n afl area dei~gnac~ solely ~ot Chat purposo. (~)Street Access. The site an& relat~ ~tking and served ~y an atcet~a: oF co~eccot scteec o~ capacity co acc~n~ace chi c:l~c which v~ ~ genetacea. (e) Permits an~ State :ars. A~: state ~avs ane statutes govern:rig s~cfl ~se are strictly adhered co and a~ r~u~red operating petn~cs ate secured. .~-$6 07268& 4.08A3 (3), 4.08.A4 (3) Ph~s£c·Ll7 Hsnd£c·.pped Hous£n~ as deEined £n Sect&on 4.022 (&0ga) of th&m code provided that: (a) ·Very dve~l£ng unit, £nc~uding antra·COl and exits ~h~oughout th· common are· of tho structure, sh·~ be h·nd~c·pped, acc·ss~bLe per the Henna·st· State Building Code. (h) Usable open space as dc~inod ~n Scc~ion 4.022 nh·Il be. at a m~n~mumequ·L to &verity percent o~ the grOll Lot area. (c) La·dsc·ping sh·~l be provided p~r Section 4.033(4)(h) of th£s code. (d) The mils entrance of the principal building sh·l~ be served or loc·ted vi&his ~our hundred ~eet o~ regular public trinse& service. (e) ~ ir&mb enc~omvres mh&~ be ~u~y mcr·shed mhd h·nd~cmpped accem·&b~e. (f)One unit per bu£Lding ·my be design·ted for · non- hand~cmpped citer·Kef. (g) Physically hmndicspped housing shill be &rch&tecturally compatible vith surrounding uses in the area is to exterior design and construction nmter£a~s. (Ord. 4.08.A4 Conditional Accessory Usam. The following comrc£al uses shall be · L~oved am conditionl~ accessory uses to Sen£or Citizen and Phys£ca~ly Hand&capped Housing and Nursing Homes. It £s the intent o~ this (1) Financial lnstttut~onm. (2) Barber/Beauty Shop. (3) L£m£ted Rtt·£l Sells. (4) Ney·stand. (S) Pharmacy. (6) Per,orBs·ce Stmnc~lrd·. Al~ condit£onil accessory uses Listed (&) ~ocition. AIl ule· Ih·Il 1=4 Loc·ted completely v~th&n the pr£nc~peL structure o~ the res&deft&Lei ~lCi~ty. (b) Access. qo separate exterior entrance or exit allowed £or any accessory use(s). (c) Sign·ge. Mo exterior sign·ge o~ any type shell be allowed ~or accessory (d) Size. Any individual cond&t~ona~ accessory use shall not exceed five ~ufldred (S00) square ~eet of gross floor are·. AIl ruth&ned commercial accessory uses building shal~ no~ exceed two thousand (2,000) square ~eet g~Oll ~lOOr ·ri·. (e)Houri. ~1o iCClllOry Ult shall be opl~ the hours o~ ~=OQ ~.H. and 8=00 (f) Perking. Sufficient par~ing ~or the coaunercial ~ provided Ln ·cc·rd·nco v~th Section 4.03S of this Code. (Or~. 89-2~) 4-S6 A 0?2684 4.14, 4.141, 4.142, 4.143, 4.144 (1) 4.14 'I-l' LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 4.141 Purpose. The purpose of the 'I-l' Limited Industrial District is to provide for the establishment of industrial development in a well planned, residentially compatible setting. 4.142 Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in an #I-1' Dzstrict= (1) Radio and Television Antenna Farm (2) Research Laboratory (3) Trade School (4) Warehouses (5) Essential Services (6) G~vernmental and Public Utility Buildings and Structures (7) Building Materials Sales and Storaq~ (8) Engravinqr Printing and Publishing' (9) Medicalf Dental and Optical Laboratories Wholesale Business . Manufacturing etc. The manufacturing, compounding, assembly, packaging, processing, treatment or storage of products and .~}:, materials. . Automobile Ma~or Repair Commercial Offices (14) Cable TV Limited scope production Itudio for franchised Cable TV company allowing for production of community oriented cable television programming produced by and for members of the community or commercial progr-mmiflg limited to presentation on the cable system serving only New Hope and other member cities of the Northwest Suburban Cable Communications Coauaission. Said use shall require all antennae conform to height limits of Section 4.035. Additional antenna height may be permitted by Conditional Use Permit pursuant to those procedures set forth and regulated by Section 4.20. Notwithstanding Section 4.20, no Conditional Use Permit shall be granted unless a public hearing is held and there is a finding that the additional height is technically necessary to serve the New Hope area and that this additional height will have no adverse effect on the area surrounding the studio. (Ord. 82-7) 4.143 Permitted Acceslor~ Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "I-l" Dii~riCt= (1) Less Int~sive District Use. Ail permitted accessory uses as allowed in the:"B-4' District. (2) Eating Establishments. Cafeterias, restaurants, cigar and candy counters, snack bars and similar uses, provided such uses are primarily for the use of employees in the immediate area. ~ 4.144 Conditional Uses. The following are conditional uses in an "I-1' District= (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20 and compliance with 4.033 (3), Screening, 4.033 (5) Shielding of Lights). (1) ODen Stora~ef Accessory. Open and outdoor storage as a ~- conditional accessory use provided that= 4-73 07~68& ZONING DISTRICT MAP CITY of NEW HOPE ~EGgNO: ~ESiDE~TiAG OFF~CE ~ .:* ...... " NORTH BNCB INdUSTry '"' CENTE~ c~) o~ ADDITION ~.~) CORRICK & SONDRALL 8525 Ju'ly 21, 1992 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xy]on Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: 1992 Amendment to Redevelopment Plan 82-1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan 82-1 (North Ridge Adult Day Care Project) Dear Kirk: P3ease find enclosed the following Resolutions for consideration at the July 27th, 1992Council meeting and EPA meeting in connection with the referenced matter. Also enclosed is the Amendment Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Finanoing Plan 82-1. 1. EPA Resolution ~Pprovin9 1992 Amendment to Redevelopment Plan 82-1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan 82-1 Requesting the Approval of the City Council. 2. City Council Resolution Approving 1992 Amendment Redevelopment Plan 82-1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan 82-1 and Making Findings with respect, thereto. I would recommend that when we get to this item on the City Council agenda that the City Council meeting bo suspended and that we go the EPA meeting so that the EPA Resolution is adopted prior to the City Council Resolution. Procedurally, I believe this is the correct way to handle adoption of the Resolutions. It is also my understanding that our bond counsel, Jerry Gilligan, is correcting page 2 of the Amendment to reflect changes in the budget for expenditures of tax ~ncrement that we previously discussed. Hopefully that modification will be provided prior the Council meeting. If it is not, there should be some indication on tho record to publicly indicate a change in that budget. 1992 AMENDMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 82-1 AND TAX IiNCREMENT FINANCI2',IG PLAN 82-1 (NORTH RIDGE) NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY I. INTRODUCI'ION The Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of New Hope, biinnesota (the "HRA") and the City of New Hope, ~innesota (the "City"), have previously approved Redevelopment Plan 82-I ("Redevelopment Plan 82-1") and Redevelopment Project 82-1 ("Redevelopment Project 82-I") to be undertaken pursuant thereto, and in order to finance the public redevelopment costs to be incurred by the City and the HRA in connection with Redevelopment Plan 82-1 and Redevelopment Project 82-1, the HRA and the City have approved Tax Increment Financing Plan 82-1 ("Financing Plan 82-1"), which establishes Tax Increment Financing District No. 82-1 which is designated by Hennepin County as Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1603 and 1604 ("District 82-1"). The HRA and City have also approved amendments to the Redevelopment Plan 82-I, Redevelopment Project 82-1 and Financing Plan 82-1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.094, subdivision 2, the City has transferred control of Redevelopment Plan 82-1, Redevelopment Project 82-1, Financing Plan 82-1 and District 82-I from the HRA to the New Hope Economic Development Authority (the "fDA"). It has been proposed that additional property be included in the area subject to the Redevelopment Plan 82-1 and that public redevelopment costs incurred by the City and EDA in connection with the development and redevelopment of such additional property and property adjacent thereto which is already included in Redevelopment Plan 82-1 be paid from tax increment derived from District 82-1. The Additional Property to be included in Redevelopment Plan 82-1 is as follows: 1. Street Address and PIN: 5555 Boone Avenue North (06-118-21 34 0006) Legal: Lot 2, Block 2, Science Industry Center - the north 150 feet. 2. Street Address and PIN:' 5425 Boone Avenue North (06-118-21 34 Legal: Lot 2, Block 2, Science Industry Center - that part of Lot 2 lying North of the South 339.88 feet thereof and South of' the North line of Lot 2, Block 2 extended east. (the "Additional Property"). By this Amendment the Commissioners of the fDA amend Redevelopment Plan 82-I, Redevelopment Project 82-1 to include the Additional Property in the area subject to Redevelopment Plan 82-1 and authorizes the expenditure of tax increment revenues derived from District 82-1 for public redevelopment costs incurred by the City or fDA in connection with the development and redevelopment of the Additional Property and 5501 Boone Avenue North which is located adjacent to the Additional Property and is already included in the area subject to Redevelopment Plan 82-1. This Amendment does n_9.I, include the Additional Property in District 82-1. This Amendment is approved by the Commissioners of the fDA and the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469.029, subdivision 6, and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivision 4. II. ~TATEMENT OF NEED AND OBIECTIVES The inclusion of the Additional Property in the area subject to Redevelopment Plan 82-1 will aid in the redevelopment of the Additional Property in accordance with Redevelopment Project 82-1 and in a manner beneficial to the residents of the City and consistent with the objectives of the EDA as stated in Redevelopment Plan 82-I all of which will meet the needs specified in Redevelopment Plan 82-I. IlL ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OF TAX INCREMENT It is proposed that the Additional Property and 5501 Bc~ne Avenue North be acquired by the £DA and sold to a private developer for construction thereon of a facility for use as a senior day care center and hospice. The estimated public redevelopment costs that are proposed to be paid by the EDA or City with respect to development of the Additional Property and 550I Boone Avenue North from tax increment derived from District 82-1 are as follows: Land Acquisition $ 800,000 Sitework and Public Utilities 300,000 Contingency 100,000 Administrative 50.000 $1,2~0,000 The use of tax increment derived from District 82-1 to pay the costs of the public redevelopment costs with respect to the Additional Property and 5501 Boone Avenue North described herein is hereby authorized. Such costs may be paid directly from tax increment derived from District 82-1, or may be paid indirectly from tax increment derived from District 82-1, by the payment of debt service on a loan or loans made by the City to the EDA to finance such cost. Any such loan made by the City will be repaid, with interest, from the tax increment derived from District 82-1. Other than the loan or loans from the City to the EDA, it is not expected that any obligations will be issued by the City or EDA to finance such costs. IV. FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES It is estimated fiscal and economic implications of the additional expenditures of tax increment revenue derived from District 82-1 authorized by this Amendment will be as follows; The local governmental units other than the City which are authorized by law to levy ad valorem property taxes in the area where District 82-1 is located are Independent School Distri.ct No. 281, Hennepin County, the HRA, the EDA, and various metropolitan area authorities, including the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Transit Commission, the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District (the local government units). After the establishment and during the continuation of District 82-I, as a result of Redevelopment Project 82-1 and the implementation of Redevelopment Plan 82-1 and the improvements in District 82-1 there has been an increase in the tax capacity of the taxable property in District 82-1. If the tax increments derived from District 82-1 are not applied to pay the public redevelopment cost of the Additional Property a_nd 5501 Boone Avenue North described herein, District 82-1 would terra,ate approximately two (2) years earlier than would otherwise be tt'.e case assuming ad valorem taxes are paid with respect to the taxable property in District 82-1 in the anticipated amounts. Upon such termination such increased tax capaci .n, would be available for taxation by the local governmental units. However, as a result of th.is Amendment such increase in tax capacity will not be available for taxation by the local governmental units u.rttil approximately two (2) years later. Offsetting such later termination of District 82-1 will be an increase in tax capacity to the Additional Property and 5501 Boone Avenue North as a result of the development of a senior day care center and hospice thereon. Since the Additional Property and 5501 Boone Avenue North are not included in District $2-1, such increase in tax capacity will be available for taxation by the City and the local governmental units. V. OETERMINATIONS IN ORIGINAL FINANCING PLAN The determinations made ia Financing Plan 82-I with respect to designation of District 82-! a.s a Redevelopment District and Housing District, the impact of the establishment of District 82-1 and the implementation of Redevelopment Plan 82-1 and undo. rtaking of Redevelopment' Project 82-1 and the captured assessec[ value of District 82-1 upon the redevelopment thereof are not affected by this Amendment and such determinations remain in fur force and effec: following the adoption of thi~ Amendment. VI. ADDITIONAl. AMENDMENTS TO PLAN The City and the EDA reserve the right to alter this Amendment and to further amend or modify Redevelopment Plan 82-1 and Financing Plan 82-1 by their joint action, subject to the provisions of state law regulating such action. ~ F.-L.~. 612 3-10 2(344 DORSEY WHITI~Y · . . .. ~i 54~:h 3., .~1.. · ' couJ,,'rv~J ,~oAo_ 9J_ · (42ND v& June 16, 1992 Mr. Daniel J. Donahue City Manager City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Resolution Authorizing Acquisition of 5501 BOone Avenue North By Eminent Domain Proceedings Our File No: 99,11101 Dear Dan: Please find enclosed for consideration at the June 22nd, 1992 Economic Development Authority meeting a proposed Resolution Authorizing Eminent Domain Proceedings to acquire the property at 5501 Boone Avenue North. As we have discussed, this Resolution is necessary to initiate the adult day care facility proposed by North Ridge. Please bear in mind that it does not include a reference to the additional property we have discussed in the event that the North Memorial Hospital Project is done in conjunction with the North Ridge Project., Due to the uncert&jaty of the North Project, we have decided to~del&y constderatfo~or taking the required property for that project if it does materialize. Please contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slt Enclosur® cc: Kirk McDonald Valerie Leone EDA RESOLUTION;: NO. 92- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF'EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AT 5501 BOONE AVENUE NORTH, NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA BE IT RESOLVED, by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope, Minnesota, as follows: WHEREAS, a Tax Increment Financing Plan 82-1, Redevelopment Project 82-1, and Redevelopment P3an 82-1 has been established within the City commonly referred to as the North Ridge Project and identified as Hennepin County TIF District Nos. 1603 and 1604, and WHEREAS, by & 1989 Amendment to Tax Increment Financing Plan 82-1, Redevelopment Project 82-1 and Redevelopment Plan 82-1 the fo~3owing described property was included in the area subject to Redeve]opment P3an 82-1: Lot 2, Block 2, Science Industry Center, That part of Lot 2 3ying South of North 150 feet, thereof, and North of North line of Lot 2, B3ock 3, extended, (PID e06-118-21-34 0007), and WHEREAS, the EconomiC' Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope does hereby determine that the acquisition of this property is reasonably necessary and convenient to the furtherance of the goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan and redevelopment project, and that in its judgment the acquisition of this property will be for the benefit of the public health, welfare and safety of the citizens of New Hope, and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. §489.101, Subd. 4 gives the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope the authority to acquire property by power of eminent domain under Minn. Stat. Chapter 117, including the power of acquiring possession of the property per the "quick-take" provisions of §117.042, if necessary to carry out the redevelopment plan and redevelopment project, and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope has determined it is necessary to acquire this property by eminent domain proceedings, and CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 92-23 Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval and Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Adult Day Care Facility in an R-5 Zoning District Location: 5501 & 5425 Boone Avenue North PID No: 06-118-21-34-0007 & 06-118-21-34-0010 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial)/R-5 Senior/Disabled Residential Petitioner: Senior Outreach Services/North Ridge Report Date: October 30, 1992 Meeting Date: November 4, 1992 UPDATE 1. Senior Outreach Services/North Ridge are requesting site/building plan review/approval and a conditional use permit to allow an adult day care facility in an R-5 Senior/Disabled Residential Zoning District, pursuant to Sections 4.039A and 4.08A3(2) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. The request is being made subsequent to a request to rezone the site from an I-1 Limited Industrial District to an R-5 Senior Citizen and Physically Handicapped Residential Housing District, which is considered under Planning Case 92-19. 3. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner in August and revised plans were submitted that incorporated changes recommended by the Committee, and this request was also referred to the Planning Consultant for review. 4. When the original concept proposal was developed it included a second building (North Memorial Hospice) on the 5555 Boone Avenue property at the southwest comer lot of Boone Avenue North and East Research Center Road. Under this concept the three parcels would be developed under a PUD, with all 3 properties being combined/platted into one lot. The "front" of the lot, for zoning purposes, would have been the narrowest frontage or the frontage abutting East Research Center Road. The setback requirements would be: Front Yard 50 feet East Research Center Road Side Yard 35 feet Boone Avenue 20 feet West property line Rear Yard 35 feet South property line However, the Hospice facility was dropped from the plan, thus no longer making it a comer lot and shifting the front yard to Boone Avenue. 5. This case was tabled in September and October and revised plans were developed. The building was shifted to face Boone Avenue. The setback requirements under the current plan are as follows: Front Yard- 35 feet Side Yard - 20 feet Rear Yard - 35 feet With the exception that any front yard on Boone Avenue must have a minimum setback of 50 feet. Planning Case Report 92-23 November 4, 1992 ~-~, Page -2- The revised plans meet all setback requirements. 6. Petitioner is proposing to construct a one-story (121' x 248') 30,000 square-foot adult day care center. The parcel (5501 Boone Avenue and 75 feet of the Lee Brothers property) contains 171,000 square feet. Other site information is as follows: Building = 17.6% of area Green/I_andscape area = 31.4% of area Parking/drives = 51% of area There is no City Code green area percentage require- ment for the R-5 Zoning District. 145 parking spaces would be provided (including 4 handicapped stalls). The excessive amount of parking is intended to address on-street parking problems that currently exist with North Ridge employees parking on Boone Avenue. 7. The property is surrounded by I-1 "Limited Industrial" properties on the north/south/west, and is located across Boon Avenue from the existing North Ridge Care Center site (R-5 and R-4). 8. Property owners within 350' of the property were notified and the only inquiry the City has received is from the Lee Brothers at 5425 Boone Avenue. ANALYSIS 1. 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 consider the nature of the adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premi.~es or on other lands dose 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. 2. Other general criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve of deny a conditional permit include: A. Comprehen$iv; 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 Stand0xd$. 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 (:riteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP Meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts. Planning Case Report 92-23 November 4, 1992 ?age -3- 1. In Resid,nti~ District~ (R-1. R-2. R-3. R-4. R-5. R-O): a. Traffic. Non-residential traffic is channeled into thoroughfares or onto a street abutting business or industrial uses leading directly to thoroughfares, and not on to minor residential streets. b. Screening. The proposed use will be sufficiently separated by distance or screening form adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be materially depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. c. Compatible Ap_t~xance. The structure and site shall have an appear- ance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 3. An Adult Day Care facility is permitted as a conditional use in the R-5 Zoning District, subject to the following specific conditions: A. Front Set Back. The front yard depth is a minimum of thirty feet. B. Rear Yard Rea_uirements. Only the rear yard shall be used for recreational areas. Said area shall be fenced and controlled and screened in compliance with 4.033(3) of this code. C. Off-Street Loading. Loading and unloading of adult day care participants shall take place in an area designated solely for that purpose. D. Street Access. The site and related parking and service is served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated. E. Permits and State Laws. All state laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to and all required operating permits are secured. Staff finds that all of the above conditions are met. 4. The proposed rezoning and conditional use permit can be viewed positively given the rezoning which has occurred in the surrounding area in order to accommodate related health care uses. In addition, the character and building orientation on the site is complementary to existing I-1 properties and the R-5 prol~, rties across Boone Avenue. 5. The proposed adult day care center is similar in character to the existing North Ridge Nursing Home and elderly housing facilities in the immediate area. The selection of materials/archi- tecture are similar to the materials and style of the North Ridge elderly housing building and thus represent a positive addition to the overall health care campus theme. 6. The proposed development provides for ample parking and may reduce on-street parking along Boone Avenue North through the shared use of parking among adjacent health care facilities. Compatibility of the proposed day care center at this location can be enhanced by effective screening. In addition, the proposed building is compatible in size to limited industrial activities occurring on adjacent properties. 7. The plans do provide excellent facilities for the drop-off and pick-up of adult day care partici- pants. A covered, attached entrance area has been provided on the east side of the building for bus traffic and a separate entrance and pull-off lane is designated for small vehicles on the south and north sides of the building. The separation of uses is representative of a high- quality design. Planning Case Report 92=23 November 4, 1992 Page -4- 8. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on October 15th and the following issues were discussed: parking, building orientation, curb cuts, landscaping, screening fence and trash enclosure, building materials, rooftop equipment, lighting and sprinkling. 9. The existing program at North Ridge provides care for about 55 adults per day and with this new building it is anticipated that 150 adults will be served. The building is being designed so that a second story addition could be added in the future. 10. The building contains a bus garage on the north side for the storage of 8 buses. 11. The building floor plan is separated into PODs, which group persons together according to health needs. A walking circular hallway is also incorporated into the floor plan. 12. The center would operate form 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. - no overnight stays. 13. One site identification sign will be located on the east side of the building near the canopy entrance. The sign will be mounted on a "California Stone" base and contain a circular "Senior Outreach Services" logo. 14. A total of 181 trees and shrubs will be planted on the side, with alternating wood screen fence and landscaping on the west boundary. A drainage retention pond will be constructed near the northeast corner of the property near Boone Avenue. 15. The exterior of the building will consist of face brick on the lower portion and creme colored stucco on the upper portion, with fabric awnings over the windows - the intent is to match/ blend with the existing North Ridge Care Center. 16. Staff commends the petitioner for the excellent plans that have been presented. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit application and site/building plan review, subject to the following conditions: 1. Acquisition of the property by the City and/or North Ridge/Senior Outreach Services. 2. Platting of the property/subdivision with legal description. 3. Conditional Use Permit subject to approval of rezoning. 4. If facility not constructed on the proposed site, rezoning and conditional use permit are null and void. 5. Annual review by staff. Attachments: Area/Site Plan Revised Site Plan Revised Landscape Plan/Schedule Revised Lighting Plan Building Elevations Floor Plan tO'f'14 AY/. NO. BERTY PARK PARK VIi.&.AGE GREEN GOLF CCIURSE~ R.0 ST. THERESA NURS~,IG 1:t-5 R~4 INDUSTRY R.3 PARK w~s'r R[S~ARC~ CENTER ~O&D CENTER HO~TERMAN WINNETKA JR HIGH $CHOO~ 5STH AV~. N, R-4 SiTE LOCATION NORTH RIOG~ CENTER I / · , ,vt. / . ,,. ,v,. EXHIBIT A [ AREA SENIOR OUTREACH SERVICES ADULT DAY CARE NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA I ~SITE' IDENTIFICATION SIGN ! cc: i ~:::~ I~, I [] ' ...... 0 ' I.l,. ' : :'"'.:...~ I~ [3 ~] ;. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 92-26 Request: 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 Location: 7900 27th Avenue North PID No.: 19-118-21-44--13001 Zoning: B-4 (Community Business) Petitioner: Naftali Alkalai-Mahzal, Inc. Report Date: October 30, 1992 Meeting Date: November 4, 1992 BACKGRQIJND 1. 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. 2. The Design & Review Committee met with Car-X in September, but due to lack of detailed plans the case was tabled for one month at the October Planning Commission meeting. 3. The petitioner is proposing to demolish the existing vacant Burger King building at the northwest comer of Medicine Lake Road and Winnetlm 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 areas, sidewalk, curbing, trash enclosure, and elimination of the existing curb cut off of Winnetka Avenue into the site. 4. 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 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 25-foot variance to the rear yard setback requirement is needed. 5. The site is zoned B4 "Community Business District" and is surrounded by commercial uses with Midland Shopping Center 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. 6. 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 2 Page - - 7. Site plan data is as follows: Lot area 13,180 square feet Building area 4,320 square feet 33 % Landscape area 1,850 square feet 15 % Parking/Drive area 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) 8. 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. 9. 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 1, 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 request): A. Compatibility_. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so di.~imilar 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. ~. 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.~. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City. E. Curbing. 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 conflict 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 consider the nature of the adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premlnes or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premlr, es, 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 general 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.Compatibili _ty. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. C. P~rformance 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 CDP Meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts. 1. In Business Districts (B-1. B-2. B-3. B-4): a. Traffic. 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 REQUF_~T$ 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 ~ng~o_~ wness, 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 alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 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. Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Str~ Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 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 Winnetka Avenue (35 feet) and Medicine Lake Road (50 feet) are met, which pushes the building to the northwest corner 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 & BUILDING 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 corner of Medicine I. ake 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- C. The parking stalls on Medicine Lake road have been shifted east to provide for a landscape area on the southwest corner of the site and boulevard trees have been added. A total of 54 trees/shrubs are proposed to be added to the site. 10. 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. 11. Landscaping has not been added to the west side of the building, as suggested by Design & Review. 12. Hours of operation .would be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. six days per week (closed on Sundays). 13. The petitioner has complied with the majority of recommendations from staff and Design & Review. RECOMMENDATION 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 Winnetka 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 WlSCON I,, $OTH ~J AV N. $OTH N V~EWCR(ST LANE [,. TERRA LINOA ~ , p ~Tto · ~UNNY ZONING DISTRICT MAP CITY of NEW HOPE R-I R-2 R-$ R-4 R'5 This map is inlended to generally depicl the zoning ZON classifications legally described in Chapter 4 of REVISE0 JAN. 1963 JUL. R'O the Cily Code, The New Hope Zonin90rdinonce. FEB. 1964 JUL. B-I The zoning ordinance should be consulted for the FEe, i96~ DEC. B- 2 descriptioe of the acl~l zoni~ districts. FEB. 1966 JUNE B' 3 ~.. ,9~ JUL. 1967 MAR B-4 ~.. ,sss 919.4 905.8 X /, OG/, 920.8 ~ 906.7 X 1,..~ ~ ~ ,,, 911.4 ' ~. g12.2 911 .6"~ x¢ 911.8 /V NORTH A1 ....... t D.Ed. DEVELOPMENT / CAR/, I~IF'K. K. DES,C~ ~- - o~r{ ,&-~/,~=! NEW HO~I~' NORTIt ) EAST M[_,_~ANINE L~]V[L [L[VAIIONS LANDSCAPING PLAN 1/~6" = 1' - 0" 'PLANTING SCHEDUEE KEY QTY. COMMON BOTANICAL MATURE PLANTING SIZE NAME NAME SIZE &: ROOT TYPE SPIREA, SPIRACA 24"-36" ~ 5 PoT A 11 JAPANESE RED JAPONICA PINE, MUGHO PINUS MUGHO 48" 10 GAL. B 10 MUGHUS POTENTILLA, POTENTILLA 24" ~2 POT C 3'~ GOLD DROP FRUTICOSA EXISTING TREES , E TO REMAIN i .// LOCUST, OLEDIT$1A 45'-0" 2 1/2" F 1 SKYLINE TRIACANTHOS NOTES: 'SKYLINE' ...... 1. EXISTING PINE~ MUGHO · SITE TO BE RELOCATED VERIFY QUANTITY & CONDITION · SITE L 2, PROVIDE ROCK MULCH & EDGER AROUND ALL LOW PLANTINGS ~.] ~-, ELEVATIONS 1/8" = i'-~" CUR8 STOP SCALE: ON PROPERTY LIN~ 1-S-8R~K ~ · ! (TO K ~u ROCK ~ R~ W~K 85.01'S S.E. C~. SEC. M~DICIN~ ~K~ ROAD S 8ge52'30~ CERTIFICATE of SURVEY We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundries of: The East 15*% feet of the South 1§*% feet of the Southeast ~4 of the Southeast 1/4 except the East 5.% feet thereof. Section 19. Township 118, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota. according to the Government Survey thereof. Subject to rood easement over the South ~3 feet thereof and subject to port token for widening of County Rood No. 156 os described in Document No. 907802, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. And of the locations of all buildings, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any from or on said land. As su~eyed by me, or under my direct supervision, this 2nd day of September, 1992. ' BARRIENTOS ~ ASSOCIATES, INC. ~~ ~~ ~ ~arrientos ~ Associates. ,nc. Barton G. Ahrens Land Su~eyor, MN Reg. No. 19162 I~I 155~ W~y;~/a B~le~rd Subject [o easements of record. ~oe ~ ,o2m (6t2) 473 - /676 ]oluo:) §u!ddoqs puulP!m ~JllSlXO ~ -- 'r...'o8¢'¢ ~ ~ __ ~,.. ~ OJllOql UJMI MOU' Planning Case Report 90-31 November 7, 1990 Page -3- C. Approval of a new ground sign and the proposed wall sign will actually constitute an amendment to the existing comprehensive sign plan. The pEoposed w&11 Sign meets sods requirements, at ~ust unHer ~00 square feet, but it is slightly taller than the standard sign at this =enter. 5. Parking A. , The petitioner states that while they are not proposing to 'increase the size of the center, the theater use requires more parking than retail. They are requesting a v&riance from in=teasing the ~,mher of spa=es because: 1. The hours of peak operation will be at a time of day when adjacent tenants are closed or their business at the low end, 2.The site is already at the maximum parking potential. Parking requirements calculate as follows: Total shopping center = 70,502 square fe~t -13.380 Cinema-Drafthouse sq. footage 342 spaces for retail - 57,122 square feet 133 spaces for 400 patron theater 475 required 427 show on plan to be provided to Burqer King ~ 67 total parking deficit C. The Planning Consultant recommends that this parking reduction request be handled as a conditional use permit rather than a variance. The City Code allows for joint use parking by conditional use. The Planner supports the granting of the CUP due to: Desk hour difference, and reduction of trips ~ECOMMENDATIONS 1. Staff recommends approval of the Site/Building Plan Review for Cinema-Drafthouse, pending any conditions theCommission may want to impose on the arcade. 2. Staff recommends approval of the parking requirement reduction and agrees with the Consultant that this be handled as a conditional use permit for joint parking rather than a variance. 3. Staff recommends approval of the ground sign with tenant identifica- tion, due to recent grantings of a similar request, subject to the following conditions: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 92-27 Request: Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Occupation Location: 3833 Gettysburg Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21-32-0006 Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: Robert Goldman Report Date: October 30, 1992 Meeting Date: November 4, 1992 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit, pursuant to Sections 4.038 of the New Hope Code, to allow a home occupation. 2. This request was tabled at the October 6th Planning Commission meeting at the request of the petitioner due to the fact that the meeting date conflicted with a religious holiday. 3. The request is to continue the operation of a plumbing business in the home and the application is a result of follow-up on neighbors complaints and an order by the Building Official to apply for a conditional use permit. 4. The home was constructed in 1964, and in 1970 an attached garage was added by the .previous owner. No improvements have been made since that time. The City began receiving complaints from neighbors in 1991, about an "illegal business" in the home due to outside storage and vehicle parking problems. Many discussions followed and there were visits to the site that confirmed outside problems (no one would answer the door). An order was issued on 10/35/91 for an unlicensed truck stored in the driveway. At that time the property owner was ordered to apply for a conditional use permit, but refused and denied that a violation had occurred. In June, 1992, the adjacent neighbor to the north wrote the enclosed letter of complaint to the City. With subsequent complaints and other plumbers vehicles coming to the site, in addition to a bookkeeper three times per week, the Building Official again ordered the property owner to apply for a home occupation conditional use permit. 5. The property is surrounded by "R-l" single family homes on the north, west, south, and across Gettysburg Avenue to the east. 6. The property contains approximately 9,000 square feet and the existing structure meets all setback requirements. 7. The topography of the property slopes form the house towards the street and rear yard. 8. The Comprehensive Plan's "Residential Policies" stresses the need to protect residential areas from incompatible uses. 9. Traffic and parking need to be discussed in detail, as there is business traffic to the house and trucks are parked outside because the garage is used for the permanent storage of undriveable car and plumbing supplies. 10. Property owners within 350' fo the request were notified and staff received a number of calls regarding the application. Planning Case Report 92-27 October 6, 1992 Page -2- ~-~. ANALYSIS 1. The regulation of home occupations within residential structures is intended to insure that the occupational use is clearly accessory or secondary to the principal dwelling use and that compatibility with surrounding residential uses is maintained. 2. For purposes of the City Code, home occupations are defined to distinguish between "permitted home occupations" and "conditionally permitted home occupations". All home occupations which satisfy the "permitted home occupation" criteria shall be considered as a permitted accessory use in all residential zoning districts. Itome occupations which fail to satisfy the permitted home occupation criteria, shah require a conditional use permit and nmy be located in any residential zoning district based upon eonditious set forth in the approved conditional use permit. 3. Permitted Home Occupations. Home occupations which meet the following criteria: A. Structural Changes. Businesses which require no interior or exterior changes necessary to conduct the business; which are conducted within a principal building; and which require no mechanical or electrical equipment not customarily found in a home. B. Traffic. Businesses which do not significantly alter the traffic pattern of the neighborhood. C. Employees. Businesses which do not require employees other than those living on the premi~ees. D. Area Permitted. Businesses which require no more than twenty percent of the gross floor area of a dwelling, not to exceed three hundred square feet including accessory building. E. Sales on Premises. Businesses which are not involved in direct sales on the premises except as may be conducted through the use of the U.S. mail or by taking and ordering delivery of orders by telephone. 4. Conditi0ngl Use Permit. Conditionally permitted home occupations shall consist of those home occupations which do not meet all of the provisions of #3 above. Said home occupation may be granted a conditional use permit provided that: A. Adverse Effect on Neighborhood. The City Council shall find that aH business related activity occurring on the premhes shah not cause nay adverse changes to the residential character of the neighborhood. B. Screening of Exterior Changes. The City Council shall /'md that any exterior changes necessary to conduct the business are sufficiently' screened, properly designed, or separated by distance so as to be consistent with existing adjacent residential uses and compatible with the residential occupancy. C. Interior Changes. The City Council shall find that any interior changes necessary to conduct the business comply with all building, electrical, mechanical and fire codes governing the use of the residential occupancy. Planning Case Report 92-27 October 6, 1992 Page -3- D. Traffic. The City Council shall f'md that the traffic generated by the business involves only vehicles of the type that typically service single family residences and that such traffic constitutes neither a nuisance nor a safety hazard. 5. Staff finds that this home occupation is conditionally permitted because provisions 3B and 3C of Permitted Home Occupations (employees and traffic) are not met. There are also concerns as to whether conditions 4A (adverse effect on neighborhood) and 4D (traffic) can be complied with. 6. Other general criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit include: A. ¢om_orehensive 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 Residential Districts eR-1. R-2. R-3. R-4. R-5. R-O): a. Traffic. Non-residential traffic is channeled into thoroughfares or onto a street abutting business or industrial uses leading directly to thoroughfares, and not onto minor residential streets. b. Screening. The proposed use will be sufficiently separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land so that existing homes will not be materially depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. e. Compatible A_[oearance. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. 7. Staff finds that there are four major issues that need to be addressed: 1. Employees/Consultants coming to the site who do not reside there, 2. The area permitted for a home occupation cannot exceed 300 square feet and the property owner has declined to allow staff in to verify the extent of the business use, including the garage, 3. Traffic to and from the home is perceived by at least one neighbor as disruptive "business" traffic, 4. The history of complaints on this property. Planning Case Report 92-27 October 6, 1992 Page -4- 8. The submitted sketch is not clear or accurate and staff have requested a better drawing. 9. The general rule followed in the past is that those businesses which are not visible to the neighborhood are generally permitted in a home. RECQMMENDATION An argument can be made that allows no CUP or if the petitioner is willing to work with the City and his neighbors to reach a compromise, a "reduced-visibility" CUP could be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Dead storage vehicle must be removed form the site, to allow parking of a used vehicle inside garage. 2. A maximum 300 square feet of garage is illustrated on a scale plan for plumbing business storage. 3. The large panel-type truck used for dead storage of plumbing supplies in the driveway be removed from the site. 4. No old toilets, pipes, supplies, garbage cans or debris are to be stored outside. 5. Business visitors limited to three individuals at a time, with ALL vehicles parked in the driveway. 6. Annual unannounced inspection by staff with no denial of entry. Attachments: Section/Topo Maps Survey Garage Plan 9/1/92 Building Official Letter 8/31/92 Inspection Report 6/12/92 Resident Letter 10/15/91 Inspection Report 1988 Plumbing Permit issued to Affordable Plumbing & Heating at 3833 Gettysburg Avenue North Petitioner's Sketch ;IRCLE NORTHWOOD PARK 36 TH AVE.~ N. * , 43 43 899. i 43 899.5 898 6 904.2 43 43901.5 904. 43 900.5 · 904.2 298,7 904.2 33.3 / ~"=====~890! Lyndale Ave. So. CALVIN H. HEDLUND Land Surveyor - C'wil Engi~ee~ /~ Bloomington 20, Minn. ~ '-~ SurVrgar's ~ertif/?atr DESCffi~ AS: Lot lq, ~loek 3, NOrD TER~ 2~ ~DITICN. '~GE OF :~W ~CPE. HENi,~PIN ~L~, ~N~TA ~se~g the utiilt; ease~nt sho~ on / / 8UIL~(,NG INSPECTOR V~LLA~E DF NEW HOPE~ DATE ~ ~ ~ 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota:55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX (612) 531-517 September 1, 1992 Bob Goldman 3833 Gettysburg Dear Mr. Goldman, After another complaint about "alleged illegal business activity" at your home I made an unannounced inspection, yesterday. Neither you or any other "plumbers" were home, when I spoke briefly to a young woman I assumed to be your daughter. Ail three vehicles parkied in the driveway were regis- tered to your family members and currently licensed. It did appear that the old gray step van may not have been driveable, because it was blocked in place. If the van is not operable, this is a violation of our zoning code, as Would be the case if it is used as a storage warehouse for plumbing materials, r~ther than a motor vehicle. In addition, I found some illegal plumbing materials, piping fixtures and debris on your driveway next to and behind the gray van. New Hope ordinances do not allow outdoor storage of such. The garbage cans were also outdoors, in violation of a city code. They must be stored in the garage, alleged to be chock full, or screened from view. I had a chance to speak with you, later in the day, by phone and discussed the use of the property. You have a bookkeeper coming to the home three days a week for personal and/or business purposes, and sometimes have other plumbers stopping in.' Because of some non-residential activities and repeated instances of illegal outside dumping of plumbing supplies etc. I must require you to apply for a Conditional Use Permit by September 11, 1992 on the attached form. Please enclose the $75.00 filing fee and a scale drawing to illustrate exactly which areas of the home and garage are used for plumbing supplies, offtce etc. A hearing will be held on October 6 by the Planning Commission and they will recommend action to the council. A decision by the council should occur on October 12th. I had not heard about a "disability" until yesterday and know that the Council will appreciate any difficulties you may be faced with. Among their options is denial and approval of the C.U.P.. with conditions. Please call me, if you have any questions. Douglas C. Smith Director of Fire & Safety Building Official/Zoning Administrator cE: Complainant file Family Styled City ~ For Family Living I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. MN 55428 (612) 531-5127 Date: Time: /'*~/~ ]~C~]0[~1' ~ ~)~/~ PID# Address: 3dX~'~ ~,, Busines~ Name: Gorr~t~ Comm~n~: ' /~6 ~~ ~ . Issued to: Date: Mailed [] Representing: Phone: NOTE days to Correct these Conditions Reinspection Date: / / s]~M~,~.~zl N,' ~3785 ] I~spector: white: applicant yellow: inspector pink: file ! -' 3841 Gettysburg Ave. No. ii., JUN% 2 ~J~ Ney Hope, Mlq 55427 Mayor Ed Erickson t 8216 - 49th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Mayor Erickson: I am asking your assistance in resolving a vehicle storage problem in my neighborhood. - My neighbor, Mr. Goldman, 3833 Gettysburg Avenue North, regularly · keeps ~ commercial vehicles in his driveway, in the course of operating his plumbing business. - I have enclosed pictures, taken last Summer, of two of his trucks. The third is a white van,' similar to the black one in the photo. These pictures were taken from my driveway, so you can see the proximity of the problem. - The two trucks in the photos are seldom driven in the course of his business. The third is used on a regular basis. By way of background, I spoke with Doug Sandstad on several occasions last Summer regarding what was then a larger matter.of Mr. Goldman's apparent operation of a plumbing business in my residential neighborhood. I found Mr. Sandstad to be curteous and helpful, and I sincerely appreciated his assistance. (He can probably fill you in on some conversations he stated he had had with Mr'~ Goldman.) As a result of his efforts, some of the problems were resolved. However, a basic matter I was unable to resolve, involves the ongoing storage of these commercial vehicles in my neighborhood. Mr. Sandstad stated that storage, with occasional use, is not expressly prohibited in New Hope. (This may be dependent upon vehicle size . . or whatever.) My point is this: as a residential citizen and taxpayer in this City for 28 years, I continue to be stuck with looking at the kind of thing portrayed in the photos. In addition, I retired last year and will very possibly Wish to sell my home in the near future, and therefore, I am very concerned about maintaining the market value of my house. Mayor Erickson, I would appreciate it if you would look into this situation. I invite you to drive by and take a look, stop in and chat, etc. I am not totally clear regarding what local ordinances say on this matter, but I do know that storage of three commercial vehicles in a residential driveway ought to be prohibited by law. I am certainly not interested in driving anyone out of either their business, or the neighborhood, but I can't believe someone's right to do business permits him to store commercial vehicles in a residential neighborhood area. For the record, please pass this le%ter on to the members of the City -Council. Thank you for your help. Sincerely~ ~ ~z-' ' yles A. Winjum ~ Copy: Doug San~lad ~-Enclosure (2) /~/~~ III .... COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTI 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 (612) 531-5127 Date: 10-15-91 . Time: Noon ]~NSP~-- CT~O[~' ~PO~ PID#. Address: 3833 Gettysburg Ave. No. Business Name: Type: Complatnt-"Illegal business in home-unlicensed vehicle in drive" Source: ~ Construction [][:Complaint [] Other [] Annual Corrected Comments: CONFIRMED UNLICENSED CAR IN DRIVE- NO ANSWER AT DOOR DESPITE THE "OCCUPIED" APPEARANCE (10-8-91) Remove unlicensed chev. MN property, 480 EYX from the st)re ingi~e the garage er !icen~e it per r~.y rn~._ .~. R,,hm~t app]4emt~on to the Planning Commission for a C~P in .~he home as previously advised. This must include the $75.00 fee and plans. Your plumbing business viokates seueral sections of city code, as you know. Issued to: Ro~_ert G0!4~9- Date: " Mailed Representing: Phone: NOTE 7 days to Correct these Conditions Reinspection Date: , ~, 4,. S S M P t' L/~I~'/'z J~ N.° 12 6 6 0 Inspector:--/,/Signature white: applicant yellow · inspector pink: file I I INSP-O¢ ~l ~' i ~.,~ i'~"~ n~r"ic PERMIT TYPE: '" t - 4401 Xyton Avenue North r- L .JMB ]' N(~ New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Permit Number: £~)(~ 1 l 1 (612) 533-1521 Date Issued: SITE ADDRESS: 741~.) 53RD PL N LOT: 11 BLOCK: 2 SUNSET HEIGHTS P.!.N.: 08-t18-21-21-(~(~22 DESCRIPTION: 1 BATHTUB REMARKS: SUMMARY: VALUATION $5S0 Base Fee $15.~0 ~/ Surcharge .~ ,,~..4~,~ -'- Total Fee $15.50 -- flppli~:ant -- OWNEi~R~y CONTFiA~FTj~,:D~BLE PLBC~ ,& HTG 5442131 ROBERT :3,933 GETTYSBURG AVE N 741(~ 5:3RD PL N MF'LS MN 55427 NE~ HOPE MN 55428 (6.12) S44-2131 APPLICANT PERMITEE SIGNATURE .... /-- -- IS~"~Eo BYi S GNATUF:~ ' ' CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 92-31 Request: Request for Variance to the Side Yard Setback to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition Location: 5313 Pennsylvania Avenue North PID No.: 08-118-21-21-0034 Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: Roger W. Griggs Report Date: October 30, 1992 Meeting Date: November 4, 1992 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to the 5 foot side yard setback requirement to allow construction of a garage addition, pursuant to Section 4.034(3)(0 of the New Hope Code. 2. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 14.66' x 30.75' (450 square foot) garage addition to the south side of the existing home. There is currently no garage located on the property. The petitioner desires to locate the garage 3.2 feet (at the closest point) from the south side yard property line. City Code states that the side yard setback requirement in the R-1 Zoning District is 10 feet, with the exception that an attached garage may be located within 5 feet of the side yard lot line. If the garage is to be located 3.2 feet from the side property line, a 1.8 foot side yard setback variance is needed. 3. The petitioner states on the application that he is the original owner of the home and has resided there for 39 years without a garage. 4. The property is located on the west side of Pennsylvania Avenue between 53rd Avenue and St. Raphael Drive, about 1/2 block south of St. Raphael Catholic Church. The property contains 10,125 square feet and the existing structure meets all setback requirements. 5. The site is zoned "R-I" Single Family Residential and is surrounded by R-1 single family homes. 6. The topography of the property slopes gently from the southwest comer to the north. 7. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no comments in regards to this request. ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of the variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent the reasonable use of the property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 2. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Planning Case Report 92-31 November 4, 1992 Page -2- 3. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: A. Consistent With Pu _rpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. Public Safety_. Increase the danger of fn'e or endanger the public safety. E. Pro_~rty Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 4. This garage addition will bring the house up to code standards for an enclosed parking space. 5. The request reflects the importance of the placement of a home on a lot. The lot is 75' wide, the home is 46' wide and the north setback to lot line is 11', which .leaves only 18' along the south side for a garage (a 13' garage and a 5' setback). 6. The home design/placement on the lot prevents a double garage and the owner feels strongly that he needs more than a 13' garage which he is permitted without a variance. He is requesting a 14.8 foot wide garage and a 1.8 foot variance. 7. While the only hardship may be the placement of the home on the lot, a case could be made that a minor variance is reasonable in a case like this. 8. The most impacted neighbors to the south have submitted the attached letter and have no objection to the garage or variance. 9. The garage does not encroach onto drainage and utility easement and a drainage problem is not created by the construction. 10. Exterior design, roof pitch, and materials are to match the existing home. 11. The structure to the south is located 10 feet form the side yard property line. 12. The petitioner requested permission to beat the frost by excavating and pouring footings prior to Planning Commission/City Council review and the City Manager authorized him to proceed at his risk with foundation work only prior to the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the 1.8 foot side yard setback variance request for construction of a garage on the site. Staff received a new lot survey from the petitioner to confirm all measurements and all work to date matches the submitted plan and survey. Attachments: Section/Topo/Plat Maps Letter from Neighbor Certified Survey Site Plan Floor Plan Elevations COUNTY L,.-- a~-- ROAO ~'ll ~... ST. RAPHEL ,. CATHOLIC CHURCH ..~ >< 'L---J / · . I L , x-~ _~ 895.91 I 906,6 895,0 X 53R'D }19.3 2604.65 RES 4 , (63) 13s 135 , (29) (~5) (45) ~ ~ s 3 (~) = ,35 '~ (46) ~ 6 4 (]1) ~ ~ ~ (9) 3 (17) (47) ~ ~ 7 t~.~ (26) (18) ) 5 . (25) ~ (J9) ~ Z 6 (24) (ZO) / (51) ~ (~) ~ (14) / , (~) (37) ~ < ~2 ~ (~) ~ ~ (~) ~ ~3 s (46) Z ~ - (~) - 2 2 ~ ~ (~) (47) 3 (~) ~ ~ (61) ~ ,o 3 ~.~ (55) ~ ~ (4~) Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. ,.vo,c~.o. '" F. 8. NO. ~ IAND 81,TRYBYO~8 SCALE i" o Denotes Iron Monumsnf B~,G~8~BED UNDEr, LAW8 0~' 8'rAT~ OF M~lhlSO'rA a 0motes 'Wood Hub Sst ?~01 · ?~rd &~emm NMtA MO. SQ&! For Excavation Only MilmceFdbt )lMabmoM 6S4,28 xO00.O Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Proposed Elevation ,,~'1~'~ ~ ~ Denotes Surface Drainage ~ Proposed Top of Block RC~d~ G~GGS ~ Propped Garage Flonc Proposed Lowost Floor Type of 8uildiag - ,:~ ".x b" 'r. -f ~ L 1' r-~- ~'--"-'1 i r'~r~ ,.~ ' II . __ ~:i , ' I I ~" "-~ /' lc; (- '. cC'. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 92-32 Request: Request for Variance to Rear Yard Setback Requirement and Variance to Expand a Non-Conforming Structure to Construct a 3-Season Porch Location: 9009 42nd Avenue North PID No. 18-118-21-21-0011 Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: Jack and Annette Nabedrick Report Date: October 30, 1992 Meeting Date: November 4, 1992 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to the 35' rear yard setback requirement and a variance to expand a non-conforming structure to allow construction of a three-season porch, pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code. 2. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 14' x 14' (196 square foot) three-season porch on the east side of the existing home. The porch would be located 15 feet (at the closest point) from the east rear yard property line and City Code requires a 3S-foot rear yard setback, therefore a 20-foot variance is needed for construction to proceed. A 6' x 14' elevated deck would be constructed on the west side of the porch and the deck requires no variance. The City Code allows open porches and decks as encroachments on yard setback requirements,however, porches and outdoor living roms which become closed in and attached to the dwelling subsequent to initial construction of the principal dwelling are not exempt from yard setback requirements. 3. The "buildable yard" area is denoted on the attached survey. This isanother non-conforming comer lot residence, as the front yard (per City Code) is the narrowest lot frontage which abuts Flag Avenue, however the house fronts onto 42nd Avenue (which is defined by the City Code as the side yard). Therefore, a second variance to expand a non-conforming structure is also required. 4. The petitioner states on the application that the relation of the proposed porch to the interior layout of the house (the porch would be located off of the dining area for utility purpose-most convenien0 is one of the reasons that should be taken into consideration in favor of granting the request. 5. The property is located on the southeast comer of 42nd and Flag Avenue and contains approximately 10,600 square feet. 6. The site is zoned "R-I" Single Family Residential, and is surrounded by "R-I" Single Family Residential uses across 42nd Avenue to the north (Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, across Flag Avenue to the west and on the south and east. 7. The topography of the property slopes uniformly down and away from the north (County Road //9) towards the south. Planning Case Report 92-32 November 4, 1992 Page -2- 8. The home was constructed in 1967. 9. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no comments in regards to this request. ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of the variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent the reasonable use of the property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 2. "Undue hardship* as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 3. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: A. Consistent With Pu _rpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. ~. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. Pol~lic Safety_. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 4. Although this is a sizeable variance request (20 feet) and the property does not necessarily have a unique shape or unusual topography, staff finds that the following issues should be taken into consideration: A. A non-economic hardship exists because right-of-way along the north side was taken some years ago for the widening of County Road #9, which made the north side yard setback non-conforming (22 feet instead of 35 feet). B. The home was built facing the wrong street, as the platted lot was shaped for a home facing west with a large east rear yard. The existing rear (east) setback is 15 feet compared to the 35-foot requirement. The proposed porch will be no closer to the east line than the existing home (15 feet). Thus although a non-conforming structure would be expanding, the degree of the non-conformity would not be increased. C. The south "side yard" setback is generous with 25 feet after the addition, compared to a minimum requirement of 10'. Planning Case Report 92-32 November 4, 1992 Page -3- D. Unless serious objections are raised by neighbors, this is the only practical location for the porch. E. The porch does not encroach on the drainage and utility easement to the east. F. The taking of the property for the County Road could be considered circumstances unique to the property. G. It is doubtful that the construction of the porch would diminish or impair property values or alter the character of the neighborhood; to the contrary, the porch would be a positive addition. 5. The plans show that the exterior for the porch would be constructed of 12" hard board to match the existing house. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the 20-foot rear yard setback variance request for the construction of a three-season porch subject to the following condition: 1. Exterior to match the existing home in roof pitch and siding. Attachments: Secfion/Topo Maps Survey/Buildable Yard Elevations Floor Plan :%: ~ -, o: .ITE4~-/ - "i ~OGKIrORO IIOAO i 4,151 i "-'---r-'---- AVE. X ' ~ X ~ 9.:37.7 ; 935. I [] / ~ ,0 ,0 936.! 4 o ,0 ,OC) X 934.8 945. 933. I X 932,3 ROCKFORD 928.5 9<~4 · 2X ([.. ~ .' 930.6 , 3 77C14 Lakeland Ave. (Brooklyn Park), P. O. Oss4o, Minn. ~ , CASWELL ENGINEERING CC~ (' ", Registered Professiona~ Engineers and Land Surveyors CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY /~ ~' : . .---......~. ~ ~1 ~, -~ --~ ~"~"~~ VILLAGE OF NEW HOPE I ~" ~ ~ -- ~' ~ ' ~', DATE I hereby certify that this is a true and correct repres~ntatio ey o t t boundari~s of the land describtd It does not purport to show improvements or encroachments, if any. As surveyed by me this ~/ sr day of CASWELL E.G~.EEm.O CO. Minnesota Registration No. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 92-29 Request: Request for Text Amendment Regarding Side Yard Air Conditioners Zoning: Residential Zoning Districts Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: October 30, 1992 Meeting Date: November 4, 1992 BACKGROUND 1. This is a request by the City of New Hope to consider a code text amendment regarding side yard air conditioners. 2. In June of this year a variance application was processed regarding the replacement of an air conditioning unit located in the side yard of an existing home at 2748 Ensign Avenue North. The existing zoning code states that "No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may be located in a required side yard except for side yards abutting streets and in such case the equipment shah be fully screened from view': Therefore, even though there are a number of homes in the City with air conditioners located in the side yard, every time a homeowner desires to replace an existing unit a variance application is required. 3. The Planning Commission and City Council both requested that staff research this issue, determine the code requirements of other cities, and recommend possible changes to the existing City Code regarding air conditioners. 4. This ordinance amendment is a result of that research. The intent of the amendment is to not force homeowners who want to replace/update existing air conditioning units located in the side yard to make application for a variance, but in~ead to allow side yard units currently in existence to remain in place and be replaced .... subject to certain conditions. 5. The Planning Consultant, City Attorney, staff and Codes and Standards Committee have been studying this issue the for past several months and the City Attorney has drafted the attached ordinance amendment for consideration. The Codes & Standards Committee has recommended approval of the amendment. 6. While the amendment does not address all situations (moving an air conditioner from the rear yard to the side yard due to noise conditions interfering with rear yard patios/decks would still require a variance), it does address the replacement on an existing unit which is non-conforming. The amendment would only apply to units now in existence; aH new units would still be required to be placed in the rear yard. 7. An ordinance amendment to the Zoning Code does require a public hearing and official notice has been published. This amendment would be effective city-wide in all R-1 Districts, this notification of all property owners within a specified distance is not required. Planning :~ase Report 92-29 November 4, 1992 Page -2- ANALYSIS 1. In June the Planning Commission suggested that Codes & Standards review the air conditioner placement ordinance and compare it with other cities requirements to see if more flexibility could be allowed on the issue. 2. The Planning Consultant has indicated that the intent of the ordinance prohibiting the location of air conditioning cooling structures or condensers within side yards is generally to limit potential adverse effects of air conditioning units upon neighboring properties (noise and visual concerns). Within recent years the City has received several requests for variances from the existing standard. 3. The Planning Consultant contacted a number of communities in regards to their specific regulations relating to air conditioner setbacks, as listed below: City Setback R~uirement Burnsville Prohibited in side yard, except those abutting public streets Cottage Grove May encroach 2-1/2 feet into required setbacks Eden Prairie Five foot side yard setback (not within required drainage and utility easemen0 Eagan None - must not lie within required drainage and utility easement Edina Five foot side yard setback Inver Grove Heights No requirement Minnetonka Varies, may encroach five feet into required yard setbacks Plymouth Not allowed in side yard St. Louis Park Within 6 feet of principal building, must comply with nuisance ordinance The survey shows that setback requirements imposed on air conditioners vary widely form city to city, however the prohibition of air conditioners within required side yards is not uncommon. 4. The Planning Consultant indicated that if the City does wish to allow ground mounted air conditioners within required side yard, it is recommended that the following conditions be upheld to limit adverse impacts: A. The air conditioner does not produce noise considered a nuisance as defined by the nuisance ordinance. B. The air conditioning unit is screened via landscaping and/or fencing as judged acceptable by the City. C. The air conditioner does not lie within required drainage and utility easements. Planning Case Report 92-29 November 4, 1992 Page -3- 5. The Codes & Standards Committee met on this issue and the general consensus was to revise the existing ordinance to allow existing side yard air conditioners to remain in place and be repaired/replaced without a variance application. The Consultant then drafted a preliminary ordinance amendment that essentially requires all new air conditioners to be located within rear yards. Air conditioning units which currently lie within required side yards are allowed to continue to exist at such location provided a number of conditions are satisfactorily met. 6. The City Attorney prepared the final proposed ordinance for consideration, incorporating the Planning Consultant's comments. Two minor changes were made from the original draft: A. The noise level restrictions were tied to the City's noise ordinance, as this is a more specific and measurable regulation as opposed to tying the noise levels to the nuisance ordinance. B. The screening condition has been amended to require that units located in the side yard are concealed form view from adjacent property. 7. The proposed ordinance amendment states that "accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise shall be located in rear yards behind the rear building line. Air conditioning cooling structures or condensers located within a required side yard at the effective date of this section may lawfully continue and may be replaced at such a locatiOn provided the following conditions are met: A. The cooling structure or condenser shall not ~oroduce noise levels contrary to §9.423 and §9.424 of this code. B. The cooling structure or condenser shall be screened by landscaping, fencing, or other means rendering it concealed from view from adiacent l~ro_oert¥. C. The cooling structure or condenser shall not lie within a re~_uired drainage and/or utility easement." RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of an Ordinance Amending New Hope Code Section 4.032(3)(i) Regulating Air Conditioner Setback Requirements. The amendment keeps in place the City's long-standing prohibition of placing air conditioners in side yards, which is not uncommon among municipalities, but does allow for the replacement of existing non-conforming units without variance application. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Amendment 9/18 Attorney Correspondence Public Hearing Notice $/27 Planner's Report 7/17 Attorney Correspondence 6/11 Planners's Report & Survey Current City Code Planning Case 92-14 ORDINANCE NO. 92- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 4.032 (3)(i) REGULATING AIR CONDITIONER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1, Section 4.032 (3) (i) "Air Conditioners" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (i) Air Conditioners. No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers (ground mounted) which generate noise may shall be located in rear yards behind the rear building line. Air conditioning cooling structures or condensers located within a required side yard ~^~cpt for~ ~ .... ab''~' ~ ~t t th I be .... ~ ................ ew at the effective date of this section may lawfully continue and may be replaced at such a location provided the following conditions are met: (i) The cooling structure or condenser shall not produce noise levels contrary to §§9.423 and 9.424 of this Code. (ii) The cooling structure or condenser shall be screened by landscaping, fencing, or other means rendering it concealed from view from adjacent property. (iii) The cooling structure or condenser shall not lie within a required drainage and/or utility easement. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1992. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest- Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the day of , 1992.) CORRICK & SONDRALL A PAFITNEI~HIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORlaORATION~ CORn~CKw~L~M~W O~.CES,j. COR~,C~"~ Edinburgh Executtve Office Plaza ~ ~"*~"~ STEVe.*. so.v. AL~ P.< 8525 Edinbrook Crossing LAVO..E[ ~ STEVEN A.~ONDRALL SHARO~ D. DERBY U~C~E, .. ~FLEU. Suite //203 ~rn,...*~ECHA Brooklyn Park. Minnesota 5,~43 ~ll&l~M O. OTR~r TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671 FAX (612) 425-5867 September 18, 1992 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Residential Air Conditioning Setback Requirements Our File No, 99.40051 Dear Kirk: I have reviewed the August 27th, 1992 memo from the City Planner in connection with the referenced matter. Please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance for Planning Commission and City Council consideration incorporating the comments made by the City Planner, I have made two changes to the conditions for placement of air conditioners in the side yard as follows: 1. I have tied the noise level restrictions to our noise ordinance found in Sections 9.423 and 9.424 of our Code. This is a more specific and measurable regulation and in my opinion preferred to a regulation tying the noise levels to the nuisance ordinance. 2. I have amended the screening condition by requiring that units located in the side yard are concealed from view from adjacent property and have deleted the reference to the Building Official as the judge in connection with the acceptability of the screening method used. If we want to define a specific screening regulation, it should be stated. Giving the Building Official complete discretion concerning what is acceptable could not be enforced in my opinion, Kirk McDonald September 18, 1992 Page 2 Contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slf2 Enclosure cc: Doug Sandstad, City Bldg. Official (w/enc) A1 Brixius, City Planner (w/eric) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE §4.032 (3)(i) BY REGULATING AIR CONDITIONER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 4th day of November, 1992 at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the affect of amending Zoning Code §4.032 (3)(i) by requiring rear yard placement of new air conditioning units but permitting side yard placement under certain circumstances set out in said section. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Dated the 15th day of October, 1992. s/ Valerie J. Leone Valerie J. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 21st day of October, 1992.) Nort west ssoci ed Consul ants, Inc. U R B A P L A N N G · D I G N M A R K E R E S E A R C H TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius DATE: 27 August 1992 RE: New Hope - Air Conditioner Setback Requirements FILE NO: 131.00 92.11 Attached please find an Ordinance amendment relating to air conditioner setback requirements. The amendment essentially requires all new air conditioners to be located within rear yards. Air conditioning units which currently lie within required side yards are allowed to continue to exist at such a location provided a number of conditions are satisfactorily met. If you have any questions or comments regarding this material, please advise. pc: Dan Donahue Doug Sandstad 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 ORDINANCE NO. 92 CITY OF NEW HOPE I-W NNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCEAMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY REVISING SECTION 4.032 (3) (i) REGULATING AIR CONDITIONER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Sectio~ 1. Section 4.032 (3) (i) "Air Conditioners" of the New Hope City Code is hereby revised to read as follows: (i) Air Conditioners. Accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers (ground mounted) which generate noise shall be located in rear yards behind the rear building line. Air conditioning cooling structures or condensers located within a required side yard at the effective date of this Ordinance may lawfully continue and may be replaced at such a location provided the following conditions are met: (i) The cooling structure or condenser shall not produce noise levels considered a nuisance as defined by the Nuisance Ordinance. (ii) The cooling structure or condenser shall be screened via landscaping, fencing, or other means judged acceptable by the City Building Official. (iii)The cooling structure or condenser shall not lie within a required drainage and/or utility easement. Section 2. E££ective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. DATED: , 1992 Edward J. Erickson, Mayor ATTEST: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the day of , 1992) CORRICK & SONDRALL A PAII~I'NI~q~HIP Of~ I~OFE~ ~T~ CORIqlCK LAW OFIrlCE.~, PA. ,,,,,.t.~,,. co,~K Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza ~r~.,. so.a~u. ,. 8525 Exiinbrook Crossing · I'E~N A.~ONDRALL ~,~a.~. u~,,,u~ Suite #203 ~t,,,. ~ Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (~12) 425-5671 FAX (612) 425-~7 July 17, 1992 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Air Conditioner Side Yard Setback Requirements Our File No, 99.40051 Dear Kirk: I have had a chance to review the City Planner's June 25th, 1992 memo in connection with the referenced matter. If we do adopt an amendment to our zoning code allowing air conditioners in side yards, I agree with the recommendations of the City Planner relative to the placement of air conditioners in a side yard, Please contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slf R B A P L N G . DES N M A R K E R ES E A R C H [E V[ORANDUN[ TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius DATE: 11 June 1992 RE: New Hope - Air Conditioner Setback Requirements FILE NO: 131.00 - 92.10 At your request, I have contacted a number of cor~ftunities in regard to setbacks imposed upon air conditioners. This effort has been prompted by some questions raised as to whether the City of New Hope's existing setback regulations (imposed upon air conditioners) are appropriate. Currently, Section 4.032 (3) (i) of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance prohibits the location of air conditioning cooling structures or condensers within required side yards (except on side yards abutting streets). The intent of the stated requirement is generally to limit potential adverse effects of air conditioning units upon neighboring properties (noise, visual concerns). Recently, the City has received numerous requests for variance from the existing standard. The following is a listing of City's con~acted and their specific regulations relating to air conditioner setbacks. City Setback Requirement Burnsville Prohibited in side yard, except those abutting public streets. Cottage Grove May encroach 2-1/2 feet into required setbacks. Eden Prairie Five foot side yard setback (not within required drainage and utility easement). Eagan None - must not lie within required drainage and utility easement. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555-St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 City Setback Requirement Edina Five foot side yard setback. Inver Grove Heights No requirement. Minnetonka Varies, may encroach five feet into required yard setbacks. Plymouth Not allowed in side yard. St. Louis Park Within 6 feet of principal building, must comply with nuisance ordinance. As shown above, setbacks imposed upon air conditioners vary widely in the sampled co~LLunities. It should be recognized, however, that the prohibition of air conditioners within required side yards is not unco~L~Lon as evidenced in the sample co~unities previously listed. If the City does wish to allow ground mounted air conditioners within required side yards, it is recommended that the following conditions be upheld to limit adverse impacts: 1. The air conditioner does not produce noise considered a nuisance as defined by the nuisance ordinance. 2. The air conditioning unit is screened via landscaping and/or fencing as judged acceptable by the City. 3. The air conditioner does not lie within required drainage and utility easements. If you have any questions or co-~ents regarding this material, please do not hesitate to ask. With your authorization, we can prepare a Zoning Ordinance amendment. 2 4.032 (3) (~)- ~) (i) - (vii) ~arage_and. OnoSite Parking Space. No permit shall be issued ~0r the construction of more than one private accessory garage structure for each dwell£ng. Each applicant for a build£ng per~lt to construct any dwelling shall be required to provide off-street parking space for at least one auto. bile per family to he housed in add£tion to any garage space to be used. Every dwelling unit hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so Chat at least a two car garage; either attached or detached, can be located off sa~d lo~. Li~it aa ~. ~ac~ lot shtll ~ limited to one .... accesso~ buildin~ in ~ddition to aa accesso~ ~a~ ~i~ Condi~ione~s. No accessory ~s~s o~ eq~i~eat such as · i~ coaditio~i~ c~lia~ st~ct~es o~ co~de~sers ~ic~ ~en~tte aois~ ~ay ~ located ~a a ~equi~ed sid~ ~a~ except Oishes, television ~nd ~adio aateaaas ~nd othe~ co~ication ~ans~issionT~eceptioa devices a~e permitted accesso~ ~ses ~it~ia all zonia~ dist~icts~ p~ovided meet t~e ~ollo~in~ condi~ioas~ (i) ~. T~e co~ic~tioa device heiqht shall (ii) Yards. The co~unic~ioa device shall not ~ located ~n t~e ~ui~ f~oa~ ~a~d o~ side ~a~d set~ack, (iii) R~s. If ve~e~ation o~ obst~ctions inte~e~e ~ith ~ls at · location in a~ allo~able placement a~ea, the co~lcatioa device ma~ ~ placed aa the ~oo~ o~ any autho~iz~ st~uct~ aa the p~ises. (iv) Setbacks. The ~ei~h~ of t~e co~unica~ioa device ~a~ exceed '~ive ~ee~ above the peak of the ~oo~ onl~ b~ coadi~ional ~se ~it. Com~nic~tion devices shall located five fe~t o~ mo~e ~o~ ~11 lot liens o~ ad~oinin~ lots ~nd sh~ll eot ~ locat~ ~it~in a ~tility ~s~e~t. (v) Buildin~ Permits. A building permit shall be required for the lnat/llation of any co~u~uflication device requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit applicatione shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural components data for the co~u~unication device, including details of anchoring. The Building Official mul~ approve the plans before installation. {vi} Li~h2~lnq Protection. Each coselunicetion device shell ', bi grounded to p£ot~ct against natural lightning atrikee in conformance with the National Electrical Code &e adopted by the Cit~ of Ney ~ope. (vii) Electrical Code. Communication device electrical equipment and connectiona shall be deaigned and installed in con,america with the National Electrical Code aa adopted by t~ City o~ Ne~ Hope. (Ord. 84-3, Ord. 88-8) 4-20 072684 REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Planning & City Manager '~ Development _ Kirk McDonald J/ 6-8-92 Item No. Dy: Management Assistant By:.' O~R A 8.2 p~..ANNING CASE 92-14- REQUEST VARIANCE TO ALLOW AIR CONDITIONER IN SIDE YARD, 8401 HOPEWOOD LANE, (PID #18-118-21-42-0080), JOHN LEIGH, PETITIONER The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow an air conditioner in the side yard pursuant to Section 4.032(3i) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. This is an after-the-fact application, as an air conditioner was installed in the east side yard of the residence between April 20th and May 5th, 1992. The contractor, Sedgwick Heating & Air Conditioning, applied for and received a permit for the installation on April 20th. The permit clearly states in "Remarks" section that all air conditioning condensers must be placed in the rear yard. On May 5th the contractor requested a routine inspection and the Building Official discovered the problem and indicated that the air conditioner must be moved to the rear yard or an application made and approval of a variance granted to allow the unit to remain in place. The petitioner stated that they were unaware of the ordinance prohibiting air conditioning condensers in side yards, left the installation up to the contractor, and that the contractor did not make the owner aware of the notice on ..the mechanical permit regarding placement in rear yards only. The petitioner has indicated to staff that this was not a new, first-time installation of an air conditioner in this location, but that the unit that was installed replaced a previous unit, and that the new unit is placed in the same location as the old unit - the side yard. The petitioner submitted a variance application to retain the air conditioner condenser on the side of the house rather than relocate it to the rear of the house and states on the application that "the only other homeowner possibly affected by this variance has no objection to the current placement of the unit". The adjacent neighbor to the east at 8317 Hopeweod Lane (most impacted by the side yarct air conditioner location) has submitted the enclosed statement indicating that "the current placement of the air conditioning condenser at the Leigh residence causes me no discomfort or irritation. The previous condenser did not create a noise problem and the new condenser is much quieter. I see no reason for this unit to be moved". TO: _ /_ Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Planning Case 92-14 ~-' June ;~ 1992 Page -2- The existing structure meets all setback requirements except for the air conditioner. There is an existing 5-foot privacy fence on the east side of the home that extends from the mid-point of the side of the house into the rear yard around the patio and the air conditioning condenser is located within the fenced area. The west side of the neighboring structure contains garage space and the estimated distance from the condenser to the nearest window on the neighboring house is about 50 feet. Petitioner indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that he had lived in the home for 5 years and the previous side yard air conditioner condenser was in place when the home was purchased. The Planning Commission reviewed this case on June 2, 1992, and recommended approval of the variance due to the fact that this was not a new installation but the replacement of an older unit, and due to the fact that a privacy fence was in place to screen the unit from the street and neighboring property; subject to the following condition: That the existing privacy fence or comparable screening renmin in place as long as the aid conditioner condenser remains in the side yard location. The Planning Commission also recommended: 1. That a letter of reprimand be sent to the contractor, and 2. That Codes & Standards review the side yard air conditioner ordinance requirement to see if it is still pertinent, including surveying other cities' requirements; due to lifestyle changes (more persons spending leisure time on decks/patios in rear yards where noisy air conditioner condensers are required by code to be located). Staff recommends approval of the resolution. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 92-14 Request: Request for Variance to Allow Air Conditioner in Side Yard Location: 8401 Hopewood Lane PID No.: ' 18-118-21-42-0080 Zoning: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Petitioner: lohn Leigh Report Date: May 29, 1992 Meeting Date: lune 2, 1992 BACKQROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow an air conditioner in the side yard pursuant to Section 4.032(3i)of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. This is an after-the-fact application, as an air conditioner was installed in the east side yard of the 1ohn Leigh residence at 8401 Hopewood Lane between April 20th and May 5th, 1992. 3. The contractor, Sedgwick Heating & Air Conditioning, applied for and received a permit for the installation on April 20th. The permit clearly states in 'Remarks' section that all air conditioning condensers must be placed in the rear yard (see attached Permit #3461). 4. On May 5th the contractor requested a rourine inspection and that is when the Building Official discovered the problem and indicated that the air conditioner must be moved to the rear yard or an application made and approval of a variance granted to allow the unit to remain in place. 5. The petitioner submitted a variance application to retain the air conditioner condenser on the side of the house rather than relocate it to the rear of the house and states on the application that "the only other homeowner possibly affected by this variance has no objection to the current placement of the unit". 6. The adjacent neighbor to the east at 8317 Hopewood Lane (most impacted by the side yard air conditioner location) has submitted the enclosed statement indicating that "the current placement of the air conditioning condenser at the Leigh residence causes me no discomfort or irritation. The previous condenser did not create a noise problem and the new condenser is much quieter. I see no reason for this unit to be moved~. 7. The property is located in an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District and is surrounded on all sides by single family homes. 8. The existing structure meets setback requirements for this zoning district, as the house is set back 30 feet from the front yard property line, 8 feet from the west side yard property line ( attached garage side), and 10 feet from the east side yard property line. The air conditioning unit appears to be located within the 10-foot setback area on the east side of the home. IPlanning Case Report 92-14 lune 2, 1992 Page -2- 9. City Code states that certain structural elements or equipment shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements and air conditioners in rear yards are permitted encroachments. However, air conditioners are not allowed as encroachments in side yards, thus a variance is required. 10. Section 4.032(3)of the Code, "Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment" further states that "no accessory uses or equipment such az air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may be located in a required side yard except for side yards abutting streets and in such case the equipment shall be fully screened from view. This property is an interior lot and the side yard does not abut a street. 11. The topography of the property slopes downhill at the house to the rear yard. 12. Property owners within 350" of the request have been notified and staff has received no comments to date except from the adjacent neighbor. ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of the variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent the reasonable use of the property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 2. "Undue hardship" az used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 3. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: A. Coo~i~tent With Pu _mose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. I~. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connection. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. ]~7~.~Y_. Increase the danger of f'u'e or endanger the public safety. E. Pronertv Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values wi~in the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 4. The petitioner has indicated to staff that this was not a new, first-time installation of an air conditioner in this location, but that the unit that was installed replaced a previous unit. Petitioner also has indicated that the new unit is placed in the same location az the old unit - the side yard. Planning Case Report 92-14 Iune 2. 1992 Page -3- 5. The petitioner stated that they were unaware of the ordinance prohibiting air conditioning condensers in side yards and left the installation up to the contractor and that the contractor did not make the owner aware of the notice on the mechanical permit regarding placement in rear yards only. 6. There is an existing 5-foot privacy fence on the east side of the home that extends from the mid-point of the side of the house into the rear yard around the patio. The air conditioning condenser is located within the fenced area. 7. The west side of the neighboring structure contains garage space and the estimated distance from the condenser to the nearest window on the neighboring house is about 50 feet. 8. Arguments can be made in support of and against the granting of the variance: A. The following factors could be taken into consideration in support of granting the variance: -there was a condenser unit located in the side yard prior to the installation of the new unit in the same location, -the unit is screened from the street and side yard with a 5-foot privacy fence, -the adjacent neighbor has no objection to the unit, -the condenser is adjacent to the neighbor's garage -not living space, -there is a 50-foot distance between the condenser and the nearest window on the adjacent structure -it is doubtful that the granting of the variance would significantly alter the character of the neighborhood B. Factors that could be considered against the granting of the variance include: -the permit clearly states that air conditioning condensers must be placed in the rear yard, -although aesthetics are addressed with the privacy fence alreadY in place, noise being projected toward the neighbors is a significant concern, -although the affected neighbor has submitted a consent letter, owners and neighborhood relationships change over time, ~ -it is possible to shift the unit from its' present location around the house to the rear yard so that code requirements are met, -the air conditioning unit not only is located in the side yard, it encroaches on the 10-foot required side yard setback, -what is the hardship for the granting of the variance, as the property is not unique in size or shape.'? Planning Case Report 92-14 June 2, 1991 Page -4- RECOMMENDATION Due to noise concerns, the Building Official recommends denial of the variance and would prefer to see' the unit moved to the rear yard. Staff would prefer to listen to the petitioner and affected neighbors before recommending approval or denial. While the permit clearly states that air conditioning condensers should be placed in the rear yard, staff feels that the privacy fence, consent letter from the neighbor, and previous location of a similar unit in the same place also need to be taken into consideration. Attachments: Section/Topo Maps Survey Site Sketches Mechanical Permit Letter from Adjacent Property Owner ~ ~ ~ ~~I ~ OF~'~CE i _AV m GETHSEmaNE ~ ~ CEmETErY SCHOOL ~L BUS JUO LA. 3 ~O0 CIRCLE NORTHWOOD PARK WAY '* ZEALAN x 93~.5 --933.8 929.3 923.3 925 1 924 907.3 NORTH ~12. 908.7 CASW I1,1~:. INGINEERING Rngis~mci' Engineers and Land Surveyo~ P/,ofmsi°nai (;ERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Scale VILLAGE OF NEW HOPE I ~ c®~i~y thQ! thi~ ia ~ ~ ~d ~ re~t~n ~ ~ ~ey ~f t~ ~un~s ~ th~ land d~scribed obove. It ~ nm pur~ to sh~ im~v~ ~ ~hment~, if any. As su~ey~ by ~ ~his day of , 19 , ~ INGmE~N~ ~O. by . ..~ [~ : - ~ ,, . ., ~ A -- ' ~ "~ '~ '~' ':~' ' "''' ' ~' SCALE: 1" :: 20' CITY OF NEW HOPE PERMIT TYPE: 4401 Xylon Avenue Non~ Permit Number: New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Date Issued: (612) 531-5127 ....... SITE 3DRESS: :340 t HC, F'EW000 L.A " LOT: ~ E:LOC:K: 4 M~F'P'S HOF'EI~O00 HILLS F'.[.N.' [:3-1 DESCRIPTION: HE~T .:,Y.:,/c.bNTR~ ~C: ~ HE~T[NG SYSTEH M~KE LENNOX ~OOEL ..... ' ......... '"' ," 1 ~IR C:0NDITIONING M~KE LENNOX REMARKS: ALL AC CONOENSERS MUST BE PLACEO IN REAR YARO! CALL FOR [NSPEC:TION FEESUM~RY:'" '~ "" ................. VALUAT I ON $:3, :374 Surcharge -~[-~ ~ 0 ~ Tot. al Fee $90.11 CONTRACTOR: - App I i c ant - OWNER: .:.EDGWICk HTG & AIR E::::lgO~o LEIGH .JOHN 89t0 WENTbJOR'TH AVE S :34¢~1 HOPEWO00 LA MPL'.;; MN 5~42~.'~ NEW HOPE MN S..q42:3 ( 6 t 2 ) 8:3 t ~ TH]~- ~RH]~- ~S ~~~~~ EXPRESS O O~NER OR ~GEN TO ~H '[~'-tS '6R~TED;%~-CO~TR~TORS, RGENTS,oF_:,~ORKERSciT~ OF~NE~EHPLOYEESHoPE. ~ COHPLY IN ~LL REJECTS ~ITH THE '' INSPECTION RECORD ..................... ~'CIT~ OF NEW HOPE PERMIT TYPE: MECHANICAL 4401 Xylon Avenue North Permit Number: 0034E. 1 New Hope, Minnesota ~28 Date Issued: 04 / 2(:') / 92 (612) 531-5127 SITE ADDRESS: APPLICANT: LOT: tt BLOCK: 4 8401 HOPEWOOD LA SEDGWICK HTG ,*~ AIR HIPP'S HOPEWOOO HILLS (612) 881-9000 PERMIT SUBTYPE:. TYPE OF WORK: HEAT I NG SYSTEM A I R CONDI T I ON I NG REPLACEMENT " DESCRIPTION HEAT SYS/CENTRAL A FINAL _.. /,';12 0" ~ .~/t4~.. i.,-, "ORSAT /"~REMARK$: ALI ~'"'1~'~ C'ONOENSERS MUS-T:BE :P£'"""" IN REAR YARD! ~"'~'~: INSPECTION WHEN IN$IOE .. HAY t 3 1992 May 11, 1992 To: City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. No. New Hope, MN 55428 This is to certify that the current placement of the air conditioning condenser at the Leigh residence (8401 Hopewood Lane) causes me no discomfort or irritation. The previous condenser did not create a noise problem, and the new condenser is much quieter. I see no reason for this unit to be moved. Charles L. Patterson 8317 Hopewood Lane New Hope, MN 55427 Motion by Commissioner Hundershaug, second by Commissioner Cassen, to approve PLanning Case ]Jo. 92-13. Voting :in favors Underdahl, Sek, Sons:in, Cameron, Oundershsug, Cassen, #at$ohko Votimg 8ge:i.nst~ None Absents Lifson, Friedrich Motion carried. Chairman Cameron added that the petitioner had done a nice Job. PC 92o14 (3.'3) Planning Case No. 92-14 was introduced by the Cha£rman and Hr. ILBQVJBST FOR McDonald expla£ned that it was an after-the-fact &ppl£cat£on since VARL,~NCE TO the &£r cond£t£oner wes installed earlier in the spr£nq £n the east ~ AXR s£de yard of the residence. He noted that the permit wes CONDITIONER for on April 20th and that it clearly states on the IN lIDS YARD that all &£r conditioning condenllrl muir bi placed £n the rear AT 8401 HOPS- yard. The contractor called for routine inspect£on on May 5th and MOOD LANE the Building Off£ci&l discovered the problem end £nformed the petitioner it hid to be moved or a variance applied for. ~....~ McDonald noted that the petitioner stated that the new unit is a -- replacement unit end he was unaware of the ord£n&nce proh£b£t£ng J air condit£oners in the side yard and basically left the instal- lation up to the contractor. He ~ointed out that the a£r con- d£t£oner is located w£thin an existing 5' privacy fence on the east side of the home that extends from the mid~o£nt of the house into the rear yard end around the patio, and the west s£de of the b ne£gh~oring structure is a garage, with the nearest w£ndowof that res£dence approximately 50 feet away. The home-owner there, who would be affected by the variance, has no object£on to the current placement of the unit and eubm£tted a wr£tten statement to that effect. ~r. John Leigh, the petitioner, addressed the Coen£ssion and called / attent£on to the fact that if the unit were moved to the rear it // would be located on the patio area and would conflict with their use of the patio for outdoor entoL~cain£ng. He pointed out that the contractor appl£ed for the perm£t by mail, made the £nstallation on April 21st, and received the permit by return mail on April 23rd. He added that they had rece£ved 3 d£fforent b£ds for the job and none of them were aware of the requ£rement for rear yard £nstal- lat£on. He read · quote from the contractor stating that over a year ago they had sent a letter out to each mun£cipality where they do bus£ness request£ng copies of ordinances pertain£ng to a£r cond£t£oner condenser locat£ons, but had never received a reply from New Hope. Hr Leigh added that the contractor also claims he had · perm£t for another locat£on in New Hope and the notat£on was not on the permit. Chairman Cameron questioned staff if that was poss£ble and Hr. McDonald stated that all mechanicalperm£ts are a standard£zed form end have the notation printed right on the form, although general building perm£ts may not have it. C~n£ssioner Sonsin confirmed with the petit£oner that the old air cond£t£oner wes probably at least 20 years old and had been in place before he moved in to the home $ years ago. He also confirmed that the pr£vacy fence was in place when the pet£t£oner moved in. Coaunissioner Sonsin questioned how long the a£r conditioner ordinance has been in effect end there was not a specific answer. He continued by stating his support ~or the variance since it was not a new installation but & rePlaceme, nt and that a privacy fence was £n place for screening. Co~m£ss£oner Hundershaug conf£rmed that the fence was not £n need of immediate repa£r and emphasized that if it ever becomes necessary to remove it that it be replaced w£th fence or screening so that there is always adequate screening around the un£t. Ne~ Hope Planning Coumission -2- Ma! 5, 1992 NOTION // MotAon by Commissioner Sons£n, second byCoanissionar Underdahl, to ~ approve PlannAng Case 92-14 sub, act to tho follow~ng cond£t£on: That the exAstAn9 prAvacy fence or comparable ecroonAng rema£n in pXace as long as there As an gar condAtAoner ~n the sade yard. VotAng im favor. Underdahl, Sak, eonsim, Cameron, Ouudershaug, Voting agaimet. ~one LAfson, FrAedrAch MotAon carrAed, PC 92-1S (3.&) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 92-15, RBQUBBT FOR ANBN1MIBNT TO ILr. NcDonald explained that in responee to complaints from property CONDZTXONAL owners, the city has issued several c£tatione to House of Hope Lutheran ChurCh for the outdoor storage of i bus on the church USS PERMIT TO property, therefore tho request for an amendment to their condi- ALLOW EITRRZOR tional uee pormit because the original CUP did not include outdoor STORAGB/PARKZNG storage. He outlined thrOe Ol~CiOne that the church would like the OF BUS ON Commission and Council to consider: first, allowing parking at any locat£on on the lot; ascend, a epec£f£cally dea£gnated location; or &800 BOOb~ third, apossible future arrangement with Homeward Bound to expand AVENUE NORTH parking needs for both the church and Homeward Bound. He emphasized that the primary concern of staff As the screen£ng £1lue. Nr. Bob Pray, Y£ce President of the ~OUll of Hope congregation, IpOkl about the frUltrlt£on of the congregat£ofl because io many people worked so hard and pUt £n a lot of effoz"c and ~oney to obtain the bus for use in their outreach ministry to transport members, youth, and especially een£or c£t£sene from Chardon Court, North R£dge and St. Theresa to ~orsh£p ea~v£ces and other activ£tiee, and they feel the p&rkAng of the bus II only a very minor distraction to the appearance of the property. He stated that they wore taken by surprise when they learned they hsd to have a conditional use permit to park the bus on the property. He acknowledged that they are currently improvising w£th other means of transpor~at£on and not us£ng the bus until the matter is resolved. He po£nted out where they proposed to park the bus, at the southeast corner of the parking lot fa~chest from all residences, but they also include a mod£f£cation to allow the bus to be parked anthers because d£fflrent dr£verl at different times pull £t over to v&r£ous places for loading and cleanup, and they want to avo£d citations for that. Ha prov£ded pictures taken from & number of locations all around the church showing the view of the bus, emphas£z£ng that they had spent a great deal of money to make At a nice looking vehicle. Nr. Pray po£nted out an ares at the rear of the church that could be used for a garage area, but in order to get to it they would have to go to cons£derable expense to remove the bez~ed area on the south side. He called attention to the park£ng problem at Ho~eward Bound to the south of the church, stating that they have talked w£th Home~ard Bound about an exchange of land for an easement to the area where a garage could be located, g£v£ng the church access to the back without the expense of r~mov£ng the entire be~aed area and g£v£ng Homeward Bound more parking apace. He does not feel that such an exchange is ~,m£nent, he. ever, Horae~ard Bound is aware tha~ they ~£11 have to alleviate their parking problem £n the near future. He added that there is also & poseibil£ty that several years in the futura the church might opt to change to a van rather than the bus. Nr. Pray continued etat£ng they have a problem with bu£1ding an 8' fence in the fron~ for screening purposes al suggested by staff because they do not want to hide their beautiful building which they are vary proud of. He pointed out that fencing in =he back would not be a problem if they can work out & solution w~th Homeward Bound. Chairman Cameron conf~rmed with the petitioner that the bus is currently u~ed on Sundays only, and stored 6 days a week, but it would be put in service for Wednesday morning Bible Study if they could find a retired person to drive it on that day. New Hope Planning Coultission -3- June 2, 1992 MO'~ZON Not,on by Commissionersons~n~ilecondhyComm£ssioner Gundersh&ug, · o approve Planning Case 92-15, O~Lon #2, subject,s the following 1. Tho approval is only for a one(l) year period, durAng which tame ~he church is to pursue other options to resolve the outside storage issue, and tho church must como hack to the City An one (1) year with other Ol~ions/solutions. 2.Absolutely no on*site bus maAntenance. 3. Bus to bo parked An designated bus parking location in southeast corner of parking lot, per submitted plan. 4.Parking lot to be rostriped An southeast corner to designate bus parkAng sene and roloca%od fire lane. Voting An layoff Underdahl, Sak, ~onsAn, Cameron, Oundershsug, Cassen, Wetschke VotAng against ~ None Motion 4.! D. & R. Design and Review met on the Most Pac request and were impressed with their cooperation. 4.2 C. & S. Codes & Standards has not met but have a number of things pending Chairman Cameron suggested that Codes & Standard reexamine the conditioner placement ordinance and compare it wi~h other cities regarding requirements on air conditioners to see if more flexi- bility can be allowed on the issue, since rear yard decks and 5. OLD Commissioner Sonsin questioned the Mon=essori School site and was BUSXNBSB informed by staff that they have not returned the Development Agreement to the City, hut there has been interest in the building for a medical clinic. Commissioner Sonsin also called attention to signs on the new Block Buster Video canopy and wondered if they have a Permit for it. Staff agreed to check into it. Chairman Comeron expressed appreciation for the new signs at the Northwest Bank si~c. Commissioner Gundershaug suggested further review of industrial parking requirements and rogues=ed staff to research when it was last reviewed. Coaunissioner Sonsin wondered if there was 8ny action from K-Mart and staff indicated they are still trying to get in touch with them. 6. NEW May 5, 1992, Planning Coaunission minutes unanimously approved. No BUSINESS comments on other minutes. ?. ANNOUNCB- No PlanningCommiss£onmeeting scheduled for July, but. if something MENTS critical comes up Commission will be notified. 8. ADJooJmHBHT Meeting unanAnously adjourned at 8=10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, Secretary Mew Hope PlannAng Commission -6- June 2, 1002 and is currently printing candy bar wrappers for Milky Way, Mars, Fifth Avenue, etc. He explained that they are currently printing using two major pieces of capital equipment and to be able to expand its sales volume, racking is necessary for storage. It is proposed to double the sales volume. Mayor Erickson informed Mr. Finch of odor problems emitted by another printer in the City. He asked if West Pac has any history of similar problems. Mr. Finch stated they have had no odor problems andstated the facility actually incinerates the by-product of the printing. The MPCA gave them an excellent bill of health on the incinerator. There is no odor and no visible exhaust of the incinerator. Alcohol is actually being burned and the exhaust is carbon dioxide and water. Mayor Erickson acknowledged his gratitude that West Pac is remaining in the City. RE$OLIJTION 92-105 Councilmember L'Herault introduced the following Item 8.1 resolution and moved its adoption: 'RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 92-13 REQUESTING SITE/BUiLDING PLAN REVIEg APPROVAL AT 9000/SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE (PID #06-118-21 34 0011) SUBNITTED BY WEST PAC/D.J. KRANZ, INC." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Enck, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following vote& in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, L'Herault, Otten, W~lliamson; and the following voted against the same: None; Absent: None; whereupon the ~. resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by ~ ' the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. PLANNING CASE ~ Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 8.2, 92-1& Planning Case 92-14, Request for a Variance to Allow Air ItemS.2 I., Conditioner in Side Yard, 8401Hopewood Lane (PID #18-118- ~' 21 42 0080), John Leigh, Petitioner. The Planning Commission reviewed this case on June 2, 1992, and recommended approval of the variance due to the fact that this was not a new installation but the replacement of an older unit and due to the fact that a privacy fence was in place to screen the unit from the street and neighboring property. Approval was also subject to the existing privacy fence or comparable screening remaining in place as long as the air conditioner condenser remains in the side yard location. (~Councilmember L'Herault questioned whether the Planning Commission was to review the ordinance prohibiting air conditioners in side yards. . (-~-~Councilmember Enck stated he believes the rear yard k,~-~location is best and the ordinance language needs no New Hope City Council Page 9 June 8, 1992 "9 ('~ change. The Council may continue to consider variance ,~~ requests for side-yard locations. RESOLUTIO#9~-106 Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and ItemS.2 moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVIN& PLANNIN& CASE 92-14 REQUESTIN& VARIANCE TO ALLOW AIR CONOITIONER IN SlOE YARD AT 8401 HOPEWOOD LANE (PID #18-118-21 42 0080) SUBMITTED BY JOHN LEIGH'. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, L'Herault, Otten, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was de¢la.red duly oassed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. PLANNING CASE Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 8.3, 92-15 Planning Case 92-15, Request for Amendment to Conditional Item 8.3 Use Permit to Allow Exterior Storage/Parking of a Multi- Transportation Vehicle on Premises, 4800 Boone Avenue North (PID #07-118-21 42 0036), House of Hope Lutheran Church, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald explained that the petitioner is requesting an amendment to the conditional use permit to allow exterior storage/parking of a multi-transportation vehicle on premises pursuant to Sections 4.054(1), 4.2111, 4.212(6), 4.036(6), and 4.033(9) of the New Hope Code. The vehicle is a converted, painted school bus being used to transport youth, members of the congregation, and senior citizens to worship services and other activities. Staff has received several complaints from surrounding property owners regarding the parking of the bus on the property. The Church Council has presented three options to the Planning Commission and the City Council: Ootion 11 Amend CUP to authorize parking of the bus at any location within the hard-surfaced parking lot. Ootion 2) Amend CUP to authorize parking of the bus at a "specifically designated" location on the hard-surfaced parking lot. Ootion 3) In the future, have the church and Homeward Bound work together to mutually resolve Homeward Bound's parking shortage problem and the bus storage issue for the church through a possible property exchange/planned parking/storage area on the south property line of the church. Mr. McDonald stated parking the bus off site and bringing it in for weekend use was also discussed. The primary concern of the staff is the bus screening from the off-site residential view. The code states that the use must be sufficiently separated by distance or New Hope City Council Page 10 June 8, 1992 PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 92-30 Request: Request for Text Amendment Regarding Monumentation of Plats Zoning: All Zoning Districts Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: October 30, 1992 Meeting Date: November 4, 1992 BACKGROUND 1. This is a request by the City of New Hope to consider a code text amendment regarding the monumentafion of plats. 2. On August 1, 1992, a revision to Minnesota Statues, Chapter 505.02, Subdivision 1, dealing with the monumentation of subdivision plats took effect. This revision gives munieipallties the option of allowing up to one year after the recording of the plat to require the monuments be set. The change is "...or will be set within one year after recording, or sooner as specified by the approving local government unit. A financial guarantee may be required for the placement of monuments." As a municipality within Hennepin County, the City needs to ensure compliance with this part of the requirements of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 505.02, Subdivision 1. 3. The Subdivision and Platting Ordinance of the City Code currently requires that monuments be recorded on the plat and proof of the monumentafion (in the form of a surveyor's certificate) be provided as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. 4. The County has indicated that municipalities should coordinate with the County Surveyor's Office to administer this revision and that any delay in the monumentafion of a subdivision plat according to this statute should be reviewed closely before being permitted. There may be some merit to the revision~ because grading and utility operations make it difficult, if not impossible, to prevent some monuments from being disturbed. However, this could be handled through an escrow account established to fund the replacement costs for monuments that have been destroyed. 5. With the revised statute in mind, the Hennepin County Surveyor's Office made the following comments/suggestions: A. The exterior plat boundary should never be subject to delayed monumentation because excavation should not be occurring across property lines, thereby protecting adjacent property. B. The County Surveyor's Office must be notified in writing by the city if delayed monumentation is permitted or not and to what extent on each plat. This will determine the land surveyor's certification and the delineation of monumentafion on the plat. C. Lot conveyances and/or building permits should not be allowed until monuments have been placed in the ground according to state statue specifications and certified to by a land surveyor. This will help avoid possible litigation ii~ the future concerning monumentation and boundary locations. Planning Case Report 92-30 November 4, 1992 Page -2- D. The municipality could require at a minimum, that durable iron monuments be set at all angle and curve points on the outside boundary lines of the plat and also at all block corners and at all intermediate points on the block lines indicating changes of direction in the lines. These boundaries should be monumented at the time of recording the plat. This would allow for survey control of the developing subdivision. The adjacent land owners would know the limits of the development. If another land survey has to be called in to finish the job, the necessary survey control is in place. The lot corners could be delayed up to one year if it was deemed necessary. 6. This matter was referred to the CitY Planner and City Attorney for review and comment, and subsequent to their recommendations the proposed revision to the City Code was reviewed by the Codes & Standards Committee. 7. This text change deals with an amendment to the Subdivision and Platting Code, which is contained in Chapter 13 of the City Code (not the Zoning Code), therefore a public hearing is not necessary to amend the code section being addressed. Only Zoning Code amendments require a public hearing before changes can be made. Legal notices for public hearings are not necessary in this case and if approved, the ordinance change would become effective on publication. ANALYSIS 1. The Planning Consultant prepared a draft ordinance amendment which made reference to the specific time period for the placement of the monuments and listed several conditions recommended by the County Surveyor's Office. 2. The Planner's proposal was modified by the City Attorney, who prepared the final ordinance amendment. The amendment deals mainly with the new authority granted to dries which allows local governments to delay up to one year the setting of certain monuments for plats. The comments/suggestions made by the County Surveyor's Office have been incorporated into the ordinance. Slight changes have also been made in subsections 1 and 2 of the current ordinance to clarify the provisions and make the language more consistent with the Minnesota Statues platting requirements. 3. Keep in mind that it is completely at the City's option to allow delayed monumentation. The Hennepin County Surveyor has indicated that some municipalities have elected to not allow any delayed monumentafion. Others are considering requiring an escrow or a bond of a certain amount per delayed monument. This proposed ordinance amendment includes a 150% security provision following the pattern for development and site improvement contracts. 4. The major change to the existing ordinance is the addition of Section 3, "Delayed Monumentafion', which reads as follows: Delayed Monumentafion. All monuments required above shall be set by the time of the recording of the plat with the County. In the alternative, certain monuments reo_uired by subsection (2) above shaH be set within one year after recording, nrovided the following conditions are met: A. Prior to the setting of any monnments, the developer shah obtain written approval from the City for any delay in monumentation, including the specific time delay and the specific monumentation to be delayed. A copy of this written approval shah be sent to the County Surveyor's Office prior to the setting of any monuments. Planning Case Report 92-30 November 4, 1992 Page -3- B. All block comers and all angle and curve points on the block lines which indicate a change in direction must be monumented at the time of recording the plat. C. The City may specif_v a time shorter than one year for completion of delayed monumentatlon. D. The City may re~lnlre the developer to post security, in a form acceptable for development contractors, of 150% Of the cost of any monument installation for any delayed monument~. E. For any 10t affected bv delayed monnmentation, no buildin~ nermlt for said lot $hall be issued, and no conveyance of said lot shall be allowed until all monuments are in place and certified to by a land surveyor. 5. The additional subsection allows a delay in the placing of monuments if specific written approval is obtained from the City and the City has the authority to require a security deposit for the monument installation. No lot can be sold or building permit issued until the monuments are in place. 6. Codes & Standards reviewed this proposed amendment and are recommending approval of Ordinance No. 92-16. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 92-16, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code Section 13.073 Relating to Placement of Monuments. Attachments: Ordinance No. 92-16 10/19 Attorney Correspondence 9/15 Planner's Report Current Ordinance 7/15 Correspondence from County ORDINANCE NO. 92-16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 13.073 RELATING TO PLACEMENT OF MONUMENTS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 13.073 (1) "Placement of Official Monuments" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as fol 1 ows: (1) Placement of Official Monuments. Official monuments, as designated and adopted by the Hennepin County Surveyor's Office and approved by the Hennepin County District Court for use as judicial monuments, shall be set at all ~ -~- ;r angle and curve points on the outside boundary ocr .... of the final plat. The boundary line of the property to be included with the plat shall ~-e be fully dimensioned; all angles of the boundary excepting the closing angle shall t; be indicated; and all monuments and surveyor's irons shall Yea be indicated, etch .,,=l~ ~ ........... Section 2. Section 13.073 (2) "Other Monuments; Preservation; Plat Detail" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as fol 1 ows: (2) Other Monuments; Preservation; Plat Detail. Pipes or steel rods shall be placed at all block and each lot corners, at all intermediate points on the block and lot lines indicating changes of direction in the lines and witness corners, and at each intersection of street center lines. All United States, State, County or other official bench marks, monuments or triangular stations in or adjacent to the property shall be preserved in precise position and shall be recorded on the plat. All lot and block dimensions shall be shown on the plat and all necessary angles pertaining to the lots and blocks, as an aid to future surveys, shall be shown on the plat. No ditto marks shall be permitted in indicating dimensions. Section 3. Section 13.073 (4) "Delayed Monument at i on " of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (4) Delayed Monumentation. All monuments required above shall be set by the time of the recording of the plat with the County. In the alternative, certain monument~ required by subsection (2) above shall be set within one year after recording, provided the following conditionn are met: (a) Prior to the setting of any monuments, the developer shall obtain written approval from the Oity for any delay in monumentation, including the specific time delay and the specific monumentation to be delayed. A copy of this written approval shall be sent to the County Surveyor's Office prior to the setting of any monuments. (b) All block corners and all angle and curve points on the block lines which indicate a change in direction must be monumented at the time of recording the plat. (c) The City may specify a time shorte~ than one year for completion of delayed monumentation. (d) The City may require the developer to post security, in a form acceptable for development contracts, of 150% of the cost of any monument installation for any delayed monuments. (e) For any lot affected by delayed monumentation, no building permit for said lot shall be issued, and no conveyance of said lot shall be allowed until all monuments are in place and certified to by a land surveyor. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication, Dated the day of , 1992. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor At t est: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the day of , 1992.) October 19, 1992 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Amend Platting Ordinance Regarding Monuments Our File No: 99.49216 Dear Kirk: Enclosed please find a proposed draft amending the platting ordinance. This proposed amendment deals mainly with the new authority granted to cities by changes in Minn. Stat. §505.02, Subd. 1, which allows local units of government the authority to delay up to one year the setting of certain monuments for plats. As you are aware, the Hennepin County Surveyor's Office forwarded a list of comments and suggestions, which have been incorporated in this proposed ordinance. In developing this material, I also modified somewhat the proposal from Northwest Associated Consultants. Finally, I also took this opportunity to make slight changes in subsections (1) and (2) of §13.073 to clarify these provisions and make the ]anguage track the Minnesota Statutes platting requirements more closely. When considering these changes keep in mind that it is completely at the City's option to allow delayed monumentation. I have learned from talking with the Hennepin County Surveyor that some municipalities have elected to not allow any delayed monumentation. Others are considering requiring an escrow or a bond of a certain amount per delayed monument. I have included a 1504 security provision for the enclosed ordinance, following the pattern for development and site improvement, contracts. Mr. Kirk McDonald October 19, 1992 Page 2 ~-~ If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please contact me. Very truly yours, Martin P. Malecha slm2 Enclosure cc: Valerie Leone (w/enc) Daniel J. Donahue (w/enc) Steven A. Sondrall, Esq. ort we Asso Consul ants, Inc. R B A P L N N I N G . D N · M A R K E R ES E A R C H TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Elizabeth Stockman/Alan Brixius DATE: 15 September 1992 RE: New Hope Subdivision and Platting Ordinance FILE NO: 131.00 - 92.15 We have revised the Subdivision and Platting Ordinance relative to the recent revision to Minnesota Statutes which allows up to one year after the recording of a plat to require the monuments to be set. The City Code currently requires that monuments be recorded on the plat and proof of the monumentation (in the form of a surveyor's certificate) be provided as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. Given the changes in statute which make reference to a specific time period and list of several conditions which the Hennepin County Surveyor's Office reco~=~Lends, we have attached a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment which addresses these items. For reference purposes, we have also attached the letter from Hennepin County and the existing City regulations. If you should need any further assistance or changes in this regard, please contact our office. I assume that this issue will be addressed at the next Codes and Standards meeting. pc: Dan Donahue Doug Sandstad 5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF NEW HOPE I-I PIN COUNTY, MINNF OTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDIN~ SECTION 13. 073 OP THE ZONIN~ CODE RELATIN~ TO THE TIME ALLOWED FOR THE SETTIN~ OF MONUMENTS. The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains. Section 1. Section 13.073 of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to add the following: (4) Time Allowed for Placement of Monuments. Ail monuments as required in Sub-sections (1) and (2) above, shall be set at the time of recording of the plat at the County or shall be set within one year after recording, provided the following conditions are met: (a) A lesser time has not been set, as specified by the City, for the setting of monuments. (b) The exterior plat boundary is not subject to delayed monumentation for purposes of protecting adjacent properties. (c) For survey control purposes, all angle and curve points, all block corners, and all intermediate points on the block lines which indicate a change in direction must be monumented at the time of recording the plat. (d) Prior to the setting of any monuments, the developer must obtain written approval from the City for any delay in monumentation, including reference of the specified time delay and to what extent on each plat the delay will occur. A copy of this written approval shall be sent to the County Surveyor's Office prior to any setting of monuments. (e) The City may require the develope~ to post a security of one hundred twenty-five (125) percent of cost of monument installation. (f) No occupancy permits will be issued for any str~cture on individual lots until als monuments are in place. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated this day of 1992. Edward J. Erickson, Mayor ATTEST: Valerie Leon~, City Clerk (Published in the N~w HoDe-Golden Valley Post on the day of 1992) t3.07, 13.071, 13.072, 13.073 (1) 13.07 R£QUIR£D IMPROV£M£NTS. 13.071 General. S%azf Approvals of Pla:. No final plat shall be approved by the Council w~=hou% flrst receiving a repot% signed by the Ci:y Englneer and %he Ci:y A%:orney certifying %hat the improvements described :herein, %oge%her w~%h %he agreements and documen%s required above, meet %he requirements of %he City and certi~ica:ion by the City Clerk that all fees required %o be paid =o %he Clty in connection with %he pla= have been paid. (2) Performance Bonds. The City of New Hope shall, where approprlate, require of a subdivider submission of a bond accep%able in form and surety %0 %he Ci:y in %he amounn equal one and one-half t~mes :he original cos= of the improvemen:s, whlch shall be in force for one year following %he final acceptance of any required improvemen:s and shall guarantee satisfactory performance of :he said improvemen%s. (3) "As Built" Drawl:cs. Where improvements are no= ins=ailed by the Cz%y, reproducible "as bull=" drawings shall be certified to be true and accura%e by the registered engineer responsible for %he ins%alia%lo: of =he improvement. (4) ImDrovemen=s for Draina=e. No final pla% shall be approved by =he C~=y Councll on !and subject %0 flooding or containing drainage faclli%les, and on land which would make adequate drainage of the s:reets and io:s impossible. However, if the subdivider agrees to make improvements which will, in the opinion c~ the Clty £ng~neer, make =he area completely safe for resldential occupancy and provide adequate $:ree% and lot drainage and conform to applicable regulations of other agencies such as the U.S. Corps of £ng~neers, or the Department of Na:ural Resources, %he final pla= of %he subdivision may be approved. In addition, such pla%s may not be approve~ if %he cost of ~roviding municipal services %o protect %he floo~ plain area would impose an unreasonable economic burden upon %he Ci%y. 13.072 Water and Sewer Facilities. Sani=ary sewers, and water distribu%ion facilitzes shall normally be ins=ailed by :he City and costs assessed in accordance wi%h the assessment procedures as regulated under Minneso=a S=a=u:es No. 429. 13.07~ Monuments. (1) Placement of Official Monuments. Official mo:omen%s, as designated and adoS:ed by :he Hennepin County Surveyor's Office and approved by :he Hennepin County Dis%rio= Court for use as judicial monumen:s, shall be se% at each corner or angle on the outside boundary of the final 91at. The boundary line of :he property to be included with the plat to be fully dimensioned; all angles o~ the ~oundary excepting the closing angle to be indies%ed; all mcnumenns and surveyor's irons %o be in, ica=ed, each angle porn% cf :ne boundary perimeter :o be so mo:omen%ed. 12-20 07268& 13.073 (2).(3), 13.07~ (1) - (5) Other Monuments~ Preservation; Plat Detail. Pipes or steel rods shall be placed at each lot and at each intersection of street center lines. All United States, State, County or other official bench marks, monuments or triangular stations in or adjacent to the property shall be preserved in precise position and shall be recorded on the plat. Ail lot and block dimensions shall be shown on the plat and all necessary angles pertain'lng.to the lots and blocks, aa afl aid to future surveys, shall be shown on :he plat. No ditto marks shall be permitted in indicating dimensions. Second Monumentation Required. To insure that all irons and monuments are correctly in place following the final grading of a plat, second monumentation shall be required. Proof of the cer=ifica:e an~ %his requiremen= shall a~di=ionally be a con~i:ion o~ =he cer=iflca%e of occupancy as provided for in Improvements. Right-of-Way Grading. The full width of the right-of-way shall be graded, including the subgrade of the areas :o ~e paved, in accordance with s=an~ar~s an~ specifics=ions for street construe=ion as ou=lifle~ in Subsection 13.084. (2) Street Pavement. Ail streets shall be improved with pavement in accordance with the standards and specifications for street construction as required in Subsection 13.084. (3) Street Surface width; Richt-of-way Surface. Ail streets to be surfaced shall be of an overall width in accordance with the standards and specifications for construction as approved by the City Council. The portion of the right-of-way outside the area surfaced shall be sodded or riprapped by the developer if deemed necessary. Curb and Gutters. Curb and gut:er will be required on all streets according to specifications for street construction as set forth in Subsection 13.084. All curb corners shall have a radius of not less than fifteen (15) fee% except at collector and marginal access streets where they shall be not less than twenty- five feet. (5) Grade and Drainage Requirements. The grade and drainage requirements for each plat shall be established by the City Engineer at :he expense of the applicant. Every plat presented for final signature shall be accompanied by a Certificate of the City Engineer that the grade and drainage requirements have been met. In an area not having municipal storm sewer trunk, the applicant shall be responsible, before platting, to provide for a storm water disposal plan, wi%hour damage to properties outside the platted area, and said stcrm water disposal plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer who shall report to the City Council on the feasibility of :he plan presented. 13-2! -~ ~ DATE: July 15, 1992 TO: City Administrators HENNEPIN FROM: Bernard H. Larson, County Surveyor I SUSJECT: Monumentation of Subdivision Plats On Au~just 1, 1992, a revision to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 505.02, Subdivision 1, dealing with the monumentation of subdivision plats takes effect. This revision gives municipalities the option of allowing up to one year after the recording of the plat to require the monuments be set. The change is "...or will be set within one year after recordina. or sooner as soecified by the aoorovinq Iq(pal q0vernment unit. A financial guarantee may be re(3uired for the olacement of monuments." As a municipality within Hennepin County, it will now be your responsibility to ensure compliance with this part of the requirements of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 505.02, Subdivision 1. Municipalities will need to coordinate with the County Surveyor's Office to administer this revision. Any delay in the monumentation of a subdivision plat according to this statute should be reviewed closely before being permitted. There may be some merit to the revision, because grading and utility operations make it difficult, if not impossible, to prevent some monuments from being disturbed. However, this could be handled through an escrow account established to fund the replacement costs for monuments that have been destroyed. With the revised statute in mind, the Hennepin County Surveyor's Office would 'offer the following comments/suggestions: 1. The exterior plat boundary should never be subject to delayed monumentation because excavation should not be occurring across property lines, thereby protecting adjacent property. 2. The County Surveyor's Office must be notified in writing by the city if delayed monumentation is permitted or not and to what extent on each plat. This will determine the land surveyor's certification and the delineation of monumentation on the plat. City Administrators Page 2 July 15, 1992 3. Lot conveyances and/or building permits should not be allowed unti~ monuments have been p~aced in the ground according to state statute specifications and certified to by a land surveyor. This will help avoid possible litigation in the future concerning monumentation and boundary locations. 4. The municipality could require at a minimum, that durable iron monuments be set at all angle and curve points on the outside boundary lines of the plat and also at all block corners and at all intermediate points on the block lines indicating changes of direction in the lines. These boundaries should be monumented at the time of recording the plat. This would allow for survey control of the developing subdivision. The adiacent land owners would know the limits of the development. If another land surveyor has to be called in to finish the job, the necessary survey control is in place. The lot corners could be delayed up to one year if it was deemed necessary. If you have any questions, or would like to meet and discuss this in more detail, please don't hesitate to call. BHL:bd CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM )ATE: October 30, 1992 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Planning Issues 1. Third Quarter Planning/Development Report Attached is the Planning/Development Report for the 3rd quarter of 1992, for your information. The report outlines planning and development activities for the months of July/ August/September. 2. October 12th Council Meetine The City Council approved the following planning cases at their October 12th meeting: Planning Case 92-20, Ordinance Amending Section 4.112 of the New Hope Code By Eliminating the Square Foot Limitation Requirement on Limited B-4 Uses in the B-2 District Planning Case 92-25, Lyndale Garden Center's request for a Zoning Text Amendment, Condi- tional Use Permit and Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow a Garden Novelty Store in a B-2 Zoning District at 8001 Bass Lake Road Planning Case 92-28, Request for a Variance to the Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Three-Season Porch at 4164 Ensign Avenue 3. City Center Parking Lot The Council also approved a change order to construct additional concrete curb and gutter and install sod and landscaping at the City Center Parking Lot on the west side of Applebee's. This will finish the lot and will reduce traffic congestion in the area, as the drive lane will be widened. Landscaping will be installed, per the Commission's recommendation from several years ago, and I will make the landscape plan available for your comment/review when it is ready. See attached preliminary plans for curb and gutter. 4. 1993 Planning Commission Schedule Enclosed please find the proposed 1993 Planning Commission schedule. We are distributing it early so that you can mark your calendars accordingly. No meeting has been scheduled for July and, as usual, we will walt until that time to determine if a meeting should be conducted depending on the number of cases pending. 5. 1993 Officer Elections Just a reminder that elections for 1993 Planning Commission Officers will be conducted at the January meeting. 6. Reappointments The three-year terms of Planning Commissioners Friedrich, Gundershaug, and Sonsin expire as of 12/31/92 and the City is in process of contacting these members regarding reappointment to the Commission. 7. Aoartment Conversions The Planner's preliminary report on apartment conversions is completed and after the Planner/Attorney/Staff meet to discuss the issues, a Codes & Standards meeting will be coordinated - probably in November. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Third Ouarter Report The Planning Commission reviewed the following cases during the third quarter: No. of Cases Notices Sent July No meeting scheduled August 3 139 September 9** 50 **1 case carried over from June and 1 case carried over from August Month T_v_~ of Request Number Approved Denied Withdrawn July No meeting August Cond. Use Permit 1 1 Variance-Setback 1(tabled) Variance-Sign 1 1 September Variance-Setback 1 (tabled) Text Amend.-Rezone l(tabled) Cond. Use Permit 2(tabled) S ite/Bldg. Rev. 2 (tab led) Variance-Prkg. Setback 1 1 Text Amend.-Bldg. Size 1 1 Text Amend.-Govt. Signs 1 1 Text Amend.-Apt. Signs 1 1 YEAR-TO-DATE TOTALS APPROVED DENIED WITHDRAWN Cond. Use Permit 7 1 Variance-Setback 2 1 1 Site/Bldg. Review 5 1 Ad. Ent. Ord. 1 Var.- Floor Area 1 Var.-Bldg. Design 1 24-hour Operation 1 Ordiflance - Outdoor Dining 1 Var. - Sign 1 1 Var. - Parking Distance 1 Var. - Green Area 1' Var. - Parking Defer. 1 Var. -AC in Side Yard 1 Amend CUP 2 Variance-Parking Setback -1 Text. Amend.-Bldg. Size 1 Text Amend.-Govt. Signs 1 Text Amend. Apt. Signs 1 Planning/Development Issues 1. ~~lliii~~ii - A public hearing was conducted on June 22nd regarding a determination by the Building Official that a dangerous/hazardous building exists at the former Electronic Industries building site at 7656 42nd Avenue North in an effort to have the building demolished. The hearing was continued on July 27th and the order was affirmed by the City Council. The City is currently negotiating with the property owner and considering acquisition of the property in an effort to upgrade 42nd Avenue. 2. ~iii~~li~~~- An amendment to the fence ordinance was adopted in April to clarify existing regulations and to make the language more consistent with other City ordinances. The existing "site triangle" language was inadvertently omitted from the amendment, thus a second text amendment (Ordinance 92-09) was approved on July 27th that reinstated the original "site triangle" language. 3. ~iii~~i!i!ii~~.:~...i:.~' On July 27th the North Ridge Tax Increment Financing District was amended to include property west of Boone Avenue for possible site improvements in conjunction with the Senior Services Adult Day Care Center project. 4. ~~g~i~$~!~i~~i~i-School District #281/Parent Child Center i::.:.::!::..-... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:::::::::::::.::.. ======================================= ====================== made application in August for a conditional use permit to allow an educational use in an R-4 Zoning District at 4219 Oregon Avenue North and the Planning Commission and City Council approved the request. 5. ~ig.i~.:~:i~l~.!~~:.- In August, the PRIDE Committee of Cooper High School made an application for variances for an off-premise sign to be located at Comer Park on 47th and Winnetka Avenues. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request, but on August 10th the City Council approved the request and a lease was executed between the City/School District regarding on-going maintenance, etc. .... '::::: :'"::: :":: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: '::::.'::::::::::.':::: :::'"::::' ' ' '"::::5 ::: ~;: ' '::: :::.': :'":~: ::: ~ ' ~: '" '~::-'::::::::::!:i:'" '::::::'"' ' ':::::::::~::::-' ":::.'::::~ 6. ~i~~~{~ii~!i~~i' In response to a variance request earlier in the year and a staff recommendation that a text amendment be investigated to make sign setback requirements consistent between zoning districts, Ordinance 92-12 establishing a 10-foot setback for residential uses was introduced and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in September. 7. ~:i~~~!' In response to the City Hall Remodeling Project/ Conditional lJse Permit application earlier in the year, staff was directed to investigate a code amendment addressing the site signage issue. Ordinance 92-14, which establishes new signage area and setback requirements for governmental signs, was introduced and approved by the Planning Commission and City council in September. 8. ~ .:~"'~il[':'~!'i~ ':~ : ~::~~ In effort to promote the redevelop- ment of the vacant Country Club Market building, staff introduced Ordinance 92-13, which would eliminate the 3,500 square foot building limitation requirement on B-4 uses located in the B-2 Zoning District. The Planning Commission approved the amendment in September, but the City Council tabled the text amendment until October. 9. ~iiiii~i!i!i~!!iii~~! As a result of the Bass lake Road widening and channelization project, Hennepin County will be acquiring property south of the existing roadway which necessitates a parking lot setback variance for the existing office building at 8701 Bass Lake Road. The Planning Commission approved a 10-foot setback variance in September, which allowed for some green area in front of the building. After consideration of the request on two occasions the City Council approved a 20-foot setback variance due to snowplowing concerns. 10. ~}i.~ii.i.~.i.i.~~.i.~gi.~g~- The property owner at 2800 Boone Avenue North made application in August for a 20-feet variance to the 50-foot front yard setback requirement to construct a new garage in front of the existing garage with the idea of converting the existing garage to living area. The Planning Commission did not support the front yard variance request and directed the petitioner to consider alternate options. Petitioner met with staff and revised concept plans were developed for a rear yard addition, however the petitioner requested to withdraw the application, which the Commission accepted at their October 6th meeting. 11. ~iiii~iil~i!i~i- On September 1st, North Ridge/Senior Outreach Services made application for a conditional use permit and site/building plan review/approval to construct an Adult Day Care facility at 5501 Boone Avenue North. Senior Outreach Services had previously appeared at a Council meeting on August 10th to request consideration of CDBG funding for the project. The case was tabled until November due to a reorientation of the building and questions about the amount of land to be acquired for the project. 12. ~:~i:~}*~- North Ridge/Senior Outreach Services, in conjunction with the City, also filed an application in September for a text amendmenffrezoning of the 5501 Boone Avenue property from an I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District to an R-5 Senior Residential Zoning District to allow construction of the Adult Day Care facility. Codes & Standards reviewed the issue in August and was in agreement with the change, however, the case was tabled until November pending acquisition of the property. 13. ~~!iii~~iii~- Lyndale Garden Center made application in September for a text amendment to allow a garden novelty store in a B-2 Zoning District, a conditional use permit to allow the use, and site/building plan review/approval to redevelop the vacant Country Club Market site. The case was tabled, pending plan revisions, and the development was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in October. 14. ~i- During the 3rd quarter Codes & Standards met to review the Crystal Comprehensive Plan Update and, in conjunction with the staff and Planner, drafted comments on the plan; The comments were incorporated into resolution format and adopted by the full Planning Commission in August and the City Council sub- sequently adopted/ratified the Commission's resolution. Said comments were forwarded to the City of Crystal and the Metropolitan Council. 15. ~i~!i~g-In July the EDA accepted a proposal by Rapid Oil to develop an oil change facility on City-owned property on 42nd Avenue, subject to the approval of final plans. Staff is continuing to meet with Rapid Oil on purchase agreement, easement, and pollution liability issues. 16. ~~..~~i- The staff and Planner continued to work on the preliminary report for the apartment conversion study during the 3rd quarter and discussion on this matter will be initiated with the Planning Commission during the 4th quarter. ,, 17. ~ii~~!::.:: - Staff developed a display of current developments in the City for the Twin West Expo, which was conducted on September 10th, and distributed development information to persons that stopped at the New Hope booth. 18. ~!~.!:~i- Staff worked with Cooper High School officials regarding the school sign to be installed on City park property at 47th & Winnetka. 19. ~iiiii~- The City was notified in September that Super America had determined not to redevelop the property at 62nd & West Broadway. 20. ~~i~~il- The development agreement on the J.R. Jones expansion project was executed during the 3rd quarter and construction is underway. 21. ~~i.i.~.- Staff continued to work with Paddock Labs during the 3rd quarter on their proposed 1993 construction of a new facility on Quebec Avenue. 22. ~~!~i~::::::}-Staff continued to work with Universal Color Lab during the third quarter on their interest in acquiring City-owned property on 42nd & Nevada Avenue and constructing a new facility. 23. ~~ii~~- Site development/upgrading was initiated during the 3rd quarter per a conditional use agreement reached in the spring. 24. ~!.~....~!ii- The City Hall remodeling and addition project got underway during the 3rd quarter with work progressing on both the front elevator and rear second story additions. 25. ~- Car-X Muffler Shop filed an application in September to redevelop the vacant Burger King site on Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road. The request was tabled until November pending the development of more specific plans. 26. ~ii~i- Staff is working with Lakeside LTD on an interior upper level expansion and possible warehouse addition. 27. The Codes & Standards Committee met in August and September to discuss the following issues: Government Sign Setbacks, Country Club Foods Rezoning, Adult Day Care Rezoning, Air Conditioner Ordinance Revisions, Apartment Sign Setbacks, Crystal Comprehensive Plan, Platting Ordinance, Lyndale Garden Text Amendment. 28. ~~~::..[i The platting ordinance is currently under review and will be presented to the Commission and Council during the 4th quarter. 29. ~:..~...~ii~~i- The ordinance regarding placement of air conditioners is also under review and a text amendment will be presented to the Commission and Council during the 4th quarter. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX (612) 531-577 October 13, 1992 Mr. Richard Dwyer/Mr. Tim Duoos AND Mr. Ed Sorgatz Lyndale Garden Center 01son Construction Company 6412 Lyndale Avenue South 5010 Hillsboro Avenue North Richfield, MN 55423 New Hope, MN 55428 Subject= REQUEST FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/APPROVALTOALLOW A GARDEN NOVELTY STORE IN A B-2 ZONING DISTRICT, PLANNING CASE 92-25 Dear Mr. Dwyer and Mr. Duoos= Please be advised that on October 12, 1992, the New Hope City Council approved the request for a zoning text amendment, conditional use permit, and site/building plan review/approval, as submitted in Planning Case 92-25, subject to the following conditions= 1. Annual conditional use permit review by s~aff. 2. Any signs or banners must meet City Code requirements.. 3. Eliminate 2 stalls at the southwest corner of parking lot to facilitate customer pickup. Please be advised that if the work authorized by this special zoning procedure has not been implemented within a year after final council approval said procedure shall automatically terminate, unless a written petition for extension of time to implement the use of or complete the work has been filed with the City Manager at least thirty (30) days before the expiration. There is no charge for filing of a petition for extension, which should include a statement of facts explaining the circumstances necessitating the extension. If you have questions, please call. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/lb cc= Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building Official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 92-25 Property File FamilyS~ledC~ ForFamilyLiving 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone; 531-5100 FAX (612) 531-51 October 13, 1992 Mr. Duane L. Hoff 4164 Ensign Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Subject: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO REAR YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW ADDITION OF A THREE-SEASON PORCH, PLANNING CASE 92-28 Dear Mr. Hoff: Please be advised that on October 12, 1992, the New Hope City Council approved the request for a variance to the rear yard setback requirement to allow addition of a three-season porch, as submitted in Planning Case 92-28, subject to the following conditions: 1. Exterior design to match the existing home in roof pitch and siding. 2. Owner to submit an "as built" lot survey within 14 days of building permit application to verify the changes in the lot size and the home/porch location. Please coordinate with Doug Sandstad, Building Official (531-5122), regarding the survey and building permit application. If you have questions, please call. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/Zb cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Doug Sandstad, Building official Valerie Leone, City Clerk Planning Case File 92-28 Property File FamilyS~ledCi~'~~~ForFamilyLivin~ Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager ~-12-92 Development and Planning Kirk McDonald l// ] Item No. By: Management Assistant By:0/ 8.5 RESOL~ON APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR 1992 STR~FT RESURFACING PROJECT (IMPROVEMENT PROJF. CT NO. 485) FOR C1TY CENTER PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS, HARDRIVES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,154.00 When the City Center Parking Lot (west of Applebee's Restaurant) was constructed in 1989, the plan did not include concrete curb and gutters on the north and west outside perimeter of the lot. There has been some discussion by staff about adding the curb and gutter and sod on the north and west sides and widening the entrance (bituminous patching) between Applebee's and the parking lot to provide for three driving lanes and improve the congestion in the area. The work would give the parking lot a more "finished look". Also, Applebee's may be proposing an outdoor dining area on the west side of the restaurant in 1993. Staff requested that the City Engineer prepare a sketch showing the modifications and seek quotes on the work. Two quotes have been received, as follows: Hardrives, Inc. $ 8,154.00 Talberg Lawn & Landscape $10,001.50 Staff requests to discuss these parking lot modifications with the Council. Hardrives, Inc., low bidder on the modifications, currently is under contract for the MSA portion of the 1992 Street Resurfacing Project. Therefore, if the Council is agreeable to proceeding with the modifications, the parking lot improvements could be handled as a change order to an existing conwact. The improvements would be financed out of the 42nd Avenue Tax Increment District Fund. The enclosed resolution approves the change order, which would be prepared if the Council determines to proceed. The City will also need to obtain approvals from the owners of the City Center Shopping Center and K-Mart properties before the improvements could proceed. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 W [%.. October 6, 1992 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. No. New Hope, M2q 55428 At*m: Mr. Kirk McDonald Re: City Center ParkinS Lot (West Side Applebees Restaurant) Om' File No. 34147 Dear Kirk, Attached is a sketch to widen the entrance between Applebee's Restaurtut ~nd City Center Parking Lot. The widening will provide for three drfvinf lanes iud improve the congestion adjacent to the outside dininj prGposed by AppJebees on its west side. We have received two quotes for the work which is listed below: H~u'clives, Inc. S 8,154.00 Taldberg Lawn dr Landscape 10,001.$0 If you have tm/questions, please contact me at ~his office. Yours very truly, BONF. STROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 34147.cor 235! Wes: HIglMmy ~6 * St. Prod, Minnesota SII13 * 61~14C0 1993 PLANNING COH~ISS~ON SCHEDULE P.C. Public Council Public Design and Hearing Hearing Application Delivered to Review Revised Plan 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. Submitted Paper-NOON 3:45 p.m. Published on Deadline January 5 January 11 December 11 December 17 December 17 December 23 December 28 February 2 February 8 January 8 January 14 January 14 January 20 January 25 March 2 March 8 February 5 February 11 February 11 February 17 February 22 April 6 April 12 March 12 March 18 March 18 March 24 March 29 May 4 May 10 April 9 April 15 April 15 April 21 April 26 June i June 14 May 7 May 13 May 13 May 19 May 24 July (No meeting scheduled) August 3 August 9 July 9 July 15 July 15 July 21 July 26 September 7 September 13 August 13 August 19 August 19 August 25 August 30 October 5 October 11 September 10 September 16 September 16 September 22 September 27 November 2 November 8 October 8 October 14 October 14 October 20 October 25 December 7 December 13 November 12 November 18 November 18 November 24 November 29 TYPE OF REQUEST BASIC ZONING FEE ZONING DEPOSIT A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (minor residential) $75* None, or as required by Manager B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (all others) $225* $225, or as required by Manager C. REZONING/TEXT AMENDMENT $250* $250, or as required by Manager D. VARIANCES (single family residential) $75* None, or as required by Manager E. VARIANCES (all others) $175, $175, or as required by Manager F. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT $500* $250, or as required byManager G. SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING $225* As required by Manager H. SITE & BUILDING PLAN REVIEW $150 As required by Manager I. COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN $40 *Published Notice Required