120192 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1992
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 Case 92-27 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Occupation, 3833
Gettysburg Avenue North, Robert Goldman, Petitioner
3.2 Case 92-33 Request for a Variance to the Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow
Construction of a 4-Season Porch and Deck, 2724 Aquila Avenue North,
Michael/Arlene Reich, Petitioners
3.3 Case 92-35 Request for an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Expansion
of Outdoor Storage and Increase in Trailer Limit, and a Variance to Green
Area Requirement, 3531 Nevada Avenue North, Karl H.A. David/VII)CO,
Petitioner
3.4 Case 92-36 Request for a Variance to Expand a Non-Conforming Structure to Allow
Construction. of a Porch, 3501 Virginia Avenue North, Ellen Jordano,
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 November 4, 1992
6.2 Review of City Council Work Session Minutes of October 19, 1992 and November 4, 1992,
and City Council Minutes of October 23, and November 9, 1992
6.3 I-IRA minutes of June 22, 1992
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
8. ADJOURNM~NT
PLANNING CASES
DECEMBER 1992
PC 92- 2 7 7 :~ ~~==:I "'~- '-'
3833 Gettysburg.
~ ~ ~: ~ PC 92-35
-- ~ , ~,,' 31 Nevada
...'~: --I'Z ;:~'~ 92- 36
: ~=.. ;~ 3501 Virginia
PC ~2-33
2724 Aquila
ZONING DISTRICT MAP
CITY ~ NEW HOPE
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: November 25, 1992
Meeting Date: December 1, 1992
UPDATE
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. The request was considered at the November Planning Commission meeting, and was tabled
to allow the petitioner to work with staff to resolve several issues.
3. Staff met with the petitioner on November 24th at his property and was allowed access to the
garage and residence. Staff is in the process of discussing this matter with the City Attorney,
as there are a number of issues that need to be reviewed, to determine whether a CUP for
a home occupation is required or not. Staff will orally report to the Commission at the
December 1st meeting on the outcome of the discussions with the attorney.
Attachments: Planning Case Report 92-27, November 4, 1992
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 10/15/91 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 jhome
occupation conditional use permit.
5. The property is surrounded by "R-I" 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. Home occupations which
fail to satisfy the permitted home occupation criteria, shall require a conditional use
permit and may be located in any residential zoning district based upon conditions set
forth in the approved conditional use permit.
3. P~.rmitted 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.lg~!ll!9.y_l~. Businesses which do not require employees other than those living
on the premi~qes.
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. Conditional 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 all business
related activity occurring on the premises shall not cause nay adverse changes to
the residential character of the neighborhood.
B. Screening of Exterior Changes. The City Council shall find 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. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the
specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the
official Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City.
B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses.
C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable
performance standards contained in the Code.
D. No Depreciation in Value The proposed use will not tend to or actually
depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
E. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed
CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts.
1. In Residential Districts (R-l, 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.
c. Compatible A_~earance. The structure and site shall have an
appemance 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/Cousultants 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.
RECOMMENDATION
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
NORTHWOOD
PARK
$6 TH r AV~° N. ·
899.1 43
43 43'"" 899.5
898.6 "
43901
43
904.7 /
* 98,84
900.5
· 904.
398.7
904.2
:)3.~
~ ~"=====~8901 Lyndale Ave.
CALVIN H. HEDLUND
Land Surveyor · Ci~i! Engineer ~..~____~ Bloomington 20, Minn.
5urvrgar's rrti/ atr
OE~m~ AS: Lot l~, 2lock 3, ~:O~D TER~ 2~ ~DITICU. '~GE CF :',~W ~CPE.
HE~i,,~PI~; ~. ~N~SOTA ~se~ng the utilit: casein% as
sho~ on ~e reco~ olat ther~f.
/
IPLAT~P~AN ~PRO~ED ~ , ~~_~ '
BUILDtNG INSPECTOR .
VILLAGE OF NEW HOPE,
~d tha~ t~ a~ve plat LI a co~t ~aent~ o~ ll~d ~ey.
........... ~,.,,.~ ~,~, -.~:~..':~.,~,~. ~ :~,.~.~.?: ,k .... , ,
4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX (612) 531-51
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. All 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, rather 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, offlce 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
Sin~ere~_ ~
~oug ~and~C'ad
Building Official/Zoning Administrator
cE: Complainant
file
Family Styled City ~ For Family Living
New Hope, MN 55428
(612) 531-5127 Date: ·
INSPECTION REPORT
Business Name:
~urce: ~ ConstructiOn omplant ~ ~her ~ Annual
Corr~t~
Comments:
Issued to: Date: Mailed []
Representing: Phone:
NOTE days to Correct these Conditions .
Reinspection Date: / /
i
I
S B M P F L H Z N_~ I ~,s~or:
white: applicant yellow: inspector pink: file
ii' '. J0N ~ Z ~J~ New Hope, MN 55427
~June
1992
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 3 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 leSter on to the members of the City
-Council. Thank you for your help.
yles A. W~njum ~ Copy: Doug San~/ad
4401 Xylon Avenue North ~ OOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT~~
New Hope, MN 55428
(612) 531-5127 Date: 10-15-91
Time: Noon
INSPECTION REPORT PID#
Address: 3833 Gettysburg Ave. No.
Business Name:
Type: Complaint-"Illegal business in home-unlicensed vehicle in drive"
Source: ~ Construction [][Complaint [] Other [] Annual
Corrected
Comments:
GONFIRME__-D UNLICENSED CAR IN DRIVE-
NO ANSWER AT DOOR DESPITE THE "OCCUPIED" APPEARANCE (10-8-91)
Remove unlicensed chev. MN 480 EYX from the property, st~re
insi~a th~ garage er !ice-~e ~t per ~y ~n~_
~,,hm~t sppl~cat~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 plumbin~ business violates seueral
sections of city code, as you know.
Issued to: Re~_ert Ge!4~_¢. Date: " Mailed
Representing: Phone:
NOTE 7 days to Correct these Conditions
Reinspection Date: , ~, /, ~. ,~ ~
white: applicant yellow · inspector pink · file
SP-O0
~,, a~,--~, ,,,,,v, --- I'~P_..HMII Iypl-: F'LLtHE'.]'NG
4401 Xylon Avenue North Permit Number: (~(~(~ ]. 1_ 1
New Hope. Minnesota 55428 Date Issued: (~7/:Il...-'-'/'""-'.:. o
(612) 533-1521
SITE ADDRESS:
S3RO PL N
LOT~ 11 BLOCK; 2
SUNSET HEIGHTS
P. I.N. ~ (~8-118-21-2 !-¢.'~(t22
DESCRIPTION:
~T
I BATHTUB
REMARKS:
FEE SUMMARY: VALUATION $SS0
Base Fee $15.~0 ~-¢/
Surcharge ~ ~,~ '"
To~al Fee $1S.50
-- Applicator --
CONTRA~FT~:DAE:LE PLBG & HT6 5442131 OWNEI~AY ROBERT
:38:3.3 GETTYSBURG AVE N 741(~ S:3RD PL N
MPLS MN S5427 NE~¢ HOF'E MN 554,',.,
(E,:[2) 544-..-t._ t
APPLICANT PERMITEE SIGNATURE .... ·--' iS'~UED BY: S,GNATuf~ ' '
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 92-33
Request: Request for Variance to Rear Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction
of a 4-Season Porch
Location: 2724 Aquila Avenue North
PID No. 19-118-21-43-0022
Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Petitioner: Michael and Arlene Reich
Report Date: November 25, 1992
Meeting Date: December 1, 1992
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to the 35' rear yard setback requirement to allow
construction of a four-season porch, pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code.
2. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 14' x 16' (224 square foot) four-season porch on the
north side of the existing home. The porch would be located 24.5 feet (at the closest point)
from the north rear yard property line and City Code requires a 35-foot rear yard
setback, therefore a 10.S-foot variance is needed for construction to proceed. An elevated
deck would be constructed on the east side of the porch, but it requires no variance. The deck
would be located 19.2 feet from the east side yard property line and about 20 feet from the
north rear yard property line. 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. This is a "non-conforming lot" as the home was constructed facing the west side yard instead
of the south front yard. As you are aware, the Zoning Code defines the front yard on a
comer lot to be the frontage having the least width. This lot was platted with 90 feet of
frontage on 27th Place North, but in 1969 the home was constructed to face Aquila Avenue.
The existing home is legal and meets all setback requirements, even though it is oriented in
the wrong direction (according to City Code). Staff has denoted the "buildable yard" on the
petitioner's survey.
4. The petitioner states on the application that as a result of the placement of the house on the
lot and the spacing on each side of the house they believe that the most appropriate location
for the porch-is on the north side of the home with the deck adjacent on the east side.
5. The petitioner further states that the plan was designed to provide a maximum privacy for both
the petitioner and neighbors. The porch will face the side of the garage of the neighbor on
the north side and the deck in the backyard will be parallel to the house to allow adequate
space to the property line. The neighbor to the east has a pool (see attached topo map) in the
back yard and if both the porch and deck were proposed for the east side yard, privacy would
be an issue. The petitioner states that they intend to provide landscaping around the porch and
deck as well as along the north and east property lines to provide a buffer from the neighbors.
Planning Case Report 92-33
December 1, 1992
Page -2-
6. The property is located on the northeast comer of 27th and Aquila Avenue and contains
approximately 12,060 square feet.
7. The site is zoned "R-l" Single Family Residential, and is surrounded by "R-I" Single Family
Residential uses.
8. The topography of the property is generally flat and the site is well-maintained with trees and
shrubbery.
9. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. The neighbors directly
adjacent to the property on the north and east have both come in to City Hall to review the
plans and have no strong objection to the proposed addition.
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. 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 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. The major hardship with this request is the orientation of the house. If the home were
oriented to fact 27th Place it is possible that the addition could be constructed without a
variance. The owner is proposing to build the porch on the north because the perceived rear
yard is too small. The petitioner has put a lot of thought into the development of the plans,
the placement of the porch and the impact on adjacent neighbors.
5. It is doubtful that the granting of the variance will diminish or impair property values or alter
the character of the neighborhood; to the contrary, the addition will improve property values
and compliment the neighborhood.
Planning Case Report 92-33
December 1, 1991
,Page -3-
6. Entry to the porch will be from the living room and entry to the deck will be from the porch.
The porch and deck will both be elevated, with steps from the porch to ground level.
7. Petitioner stats that exterior porch material will be "as similar as possible" to the house and
this should be confirmed with the petitioner. The plans show that lap siding will match the
existing structure, as well as the soffit, facia, and shingles.
8. Staff also recommends that the Commission inquire as to the type and placement of new
landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION
Pending public comments, staff recommends approval of a 10.5-foot variance to the 35 foot rear yard
setback requirement to allow construction of a four-season porch at 2724 Aquila Avenue North,
subject to the following condition:
1. Exterior materials and roof pitch of porch to match existing structure.
Attachment: Section/Topo Maps
New Site Survey
Staff Sketch - Buildable Yard
Floor Plan
Section Plan
Elevations: Front/Side/Rear
Foundation Plan
Petitioner Letter
948.2
944.6 43
944.3 O 0 43
)IIx
· 0 949.6
43 43 947.3
X
948.9 43 43 43
43 [~] 949.2 ·
947. ~
3 942.7
27TH x 940.8 PLACE
947 43
X
941 .5
7.8 ----,,%0 43
94
X 941 ,8
X
945. 1
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
,' ~,~,7,~--~~- -"~,~- - '~,~v "
~ , eo~ ~ ~. ,. ,
I
~ ~, ~ :
~ ' ,
I , I '
~7 TH PLACE NO~TH
i -
o Denot~ iron ~nu~nt Pro~ Iow~ fl~r
~ ~t~ off~ ~ske Pro~ top of found=tion elw. =
~o.o ~not~ exl~ffilng el~. BENCH MARK:
~.o ) Denot~ Pro~ el~.
~ D~ot~ ~ dr~in~
I here~ ~rtify thet thil it ~ true ~d correct representetion of ~ survey of File No.
the ~und~riet of the ~e ~i~d I~nd ~nd of the Ioc;tion of ~11 ~ildin~,
Plymouth MN 5~41 .. , ~" I , , /
Pho.e:(~12)~ ~ . . : ·
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
~7 TH PLACE NO~TH
'BUILDABLE YARD"
o Denot~ Iron ~nu~nt
( ~.o ) Denot~ Pro~ el~.
I here~ ~rtify that thil i~ ~ true ~nd correct representation of · survey of File No.
the ~undlriel of the i~ve ~i~d I~nd lnd of the Ioc~tion of ~11 ~ildin~. .~~
DEMAR8 -OABRIEL if any, thereon, Ind III viliSe encrolch~ntl, if any, from or on slid land.
Book
Pa~
~ Hirer Llnl No.
IF, AC, lA,
M,NTCN
I
" I" H~M, &~ ~PAC~. "~
2 x ~ ~' IJ o.C,
.
~v ~TT~IT ~IT~ OF-NEWHOPE
APPLICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CI
New Hope ~V 2 199~ ii i li
Ladies and Gentlemen: i ~
Attached is our application to the Planning Commission for approval of a set-
back variance to enable us to construct a 3 season porch and deck to our house.
It is our understanding that there is a need for approval of a set back variance
due to the unusual placement of our house on our lot. The front of our home
faces the platted side of the lot. As a result of the placement of our house
on the lot and the spacing on each side of the house, we believe that the most
appropriate location for the porch is on the north side of our home with the
deck adjacent thereto on the east side (backyard).
Our plan was designed in this manner so as to provide the maximum possible
privacy for both ourselves and our neighbors. The 3 season porch will be facing
the side of the garage of our neighbors on the north side -- an area rarely
used by this neighbor. Our deck in the backyard will be parallel to the house
and will allow adequate space to the property line for privacy. Our neighbor
on the east side (backyard) has a swimming pool in their yard. If we were
to attempt to place both the porch and deck in our backyard, we would be within
a few feet of the property line, leaving little, if any, privacy for both our
neighbors and for us. We also intend to provide landscaping around the porch
and deck as well as along the north and east property lines so as to provide
as much privacy as possible for everyone.
Entry to the porch will be from our living room and entry to the deck will
be from the porch. The exterior porch material will be as similar as possible
to the house. The porch, deck and landscaping will all be done in a way that
we believe will be aesthetically pleasing and, we hope, will add significantly
to the value of our home.
Because of the unusual placement of our home ~n the lot, we request that the
Planning Commission and City Council approve our application for the needed
variance.
Sincerely,
~ichae['l: Reich~ ' ( Arlene Reich
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 92-35
Request: Request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to Allow Expansion of
Outdoor Storage Area and Increase in Trailer Limit, and a Variance to Green
Area Requirement
Location: 3531 Nevada Avenue North
PID No.: 20-118-21-21-0010
Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial)
Petitioner: Karl H.A.David/VIDCO
Report Date: November 25, 1992
Meeting Date: December 1, 1992
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting an amendment to a conditional use permit to allow expansion of
outdoor storage area and increase in trailer limit, and a variance to green area requirement,
pursuant to Sections 4.144(1) and 4.145(3) of the New Hope Code.
2. The petitioner is requesting amendment to the existing conditional use permit for outdoor
storage to expand the outdoor storage area by 2,100 square feet and increase the number
of semi-trailers stored on the existing concrete surface from 3 to 5. The expansion of the
outdoor storage area would reduce the existing green area from 35 % to 33 %. The green area
requirement for the I-1 District is 35 %, thus a variance if required.
3. This property was first developed with a warehouse in 1986. In 1987, the owner of the
property, Karl David, was required to apply for a conditional use permit for outdoor storage
(see attached planning case and minutes) that had not been included in city plans or approvals.
Planning Case 87-33 was approved with specific limits on the storage:
A. A 60' x 70' (4,200 square foot) enclosure with screening fence was approved,
B. Concrete surface had to be installed,
C. The number of semi-trailers stored on the site was limited to 3, and
D. Annual inspection by staff was required.
4. These conditions were only initially met and the use has expanded beyond the previously
approved parameters. The General Inspector has issued repeated orders (see attached) to the
petitioner to reduce the outdoor storage or apply for an amended CUP, thus this filing.
5. The parcel is located on the west side of Nevada Avenue near the intersection of 35th and
contains 2.2 acres.
6. Surrounding land uses and zoning include industrial uses to the north and south, MNS Rail-
road and New Hope Terrace Apartments to the west, and City of Crystal/Industrial to the
east.
7. The topography of the property slopes gently towards the south and west. The adjacent
property owner has complained of runoff to the north from this site.
8. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified, including neighboring
properties in Crystal.
Planning Case Report 92-35
December 1, 1992
Page -2-
ANALYSIS
CONDITIONAL ~$E PERMIT
1. Open Ac~ssory_ Storage is allowed by conditional use permit in the I-1 Zoning District,
provided that the following conditions are met:
A. Screened From Residential Uses: The area is fenced and screened from view of
neighboring residential uses or if abutting a residential district.
B. Surfacing. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
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 use 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 premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and
from the premi.~,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 approved or deny a
conditional permit include:
A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the
specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official
Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City.
B.Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses.
C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance
standards contained in the Code.
D.No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate
the area in which it is proposed.
E. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP
must meet the criteria specified for the specific zoning districts:
In Industrial Districts ~-1 and I-2):
a. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an
adverse effect upon existing and future development in adjacent areas.
b. Economic Return. The use will provide an economic return to the community
and commensurate with other industrial uses that the property could feasibly
be used for. In considering the economic return to the community, the
Planning Commission and City Council may give weight to the sociological
impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative.
3. The petitioner is requesting to expand the previously approved 60' x 70' (4,20 square foot)
storage area to 90' x 70' (6,300 square feet) by adding a 30' x 70' (2,100 square foot)
addition to the south side of the existing area and increase the number of trailers from 3 to
5, per the enclosed plan.
Planning Case Report 92-35
December 1, 1992
Page -3-
4. Staff has two concerns with the proposal:
A. The proposed trailer storage area is unacceptable because it compromises the
loading/unloading design for the west side of the building and negatively impacts the
required turning radius. Staff requests that the owner submit a revised plan to change
this...similar to the staff revision shown on Attachment A.
B. The past pattern of storage beyond what was/is officially approved must be stopped.
If this proposal is not something that the property owner, who leases to several
tenants, can reliably enforce, then a realistic revised plan should be submitted. NO
ADDITIONAL STORAGE OF MATERIALS BEYOND THE ILLUSTRATED TWO
· AREAS IS ALLOWED, IF THE AMENDMENT IS APPROVED.
VARIANCE
6. The original building/site plan in 1986 contained 39% green area (38,518 square feet). The
approval of the outdoor storage area in 1987 reduced the green area to 35 %. With the
addition of the requested outdoor storage area, the Building Official has calculated that the
green area on the site will be reduced to 33%. City Code states that all parcels in the I-1
Zoning District are required to have no less than 35 % of the site green, thus a 2 % green area
variance is required for the expansion of outdoor storage.
6. 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.
7. "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.
8. 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. _IAgIII_all~L~L Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
C. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street.
D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
E. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within
the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code.
9. Although the variance request is minimal and staff wants the outdoor storage problem~
resolved, it is difficult to support a reduction in green area below the code requirements.
Perhaps the property owner would add green area in another location to compensate for
the 2% loss with the addition of the storage area or add additional landscaping.
Planning Case Report 92-35
December 1, 1992
Page -4-
10. The Commission will also want to consider any public input that is received, particularly
from the multi-family residential area to the west with 2nd and 3rd floor apartments who view
this site.
11. Staff did not submit this request to the Design & Review Committee due to the minimal
changes requested with this amendment. If the Commission wants Design & Review to meet
with the petitioner prior to consideration by the full Commission, the request should be
tabled.
12. If the amendment to the CUP is approved, a new 30' x 70' concrete slab and additional
screened fence should be added to match the existing storage area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Semi-trailers to be moved as shown on Exhibit "A".
2. A development contract and bond be submitted to enforce the new slab, matching screening
fence, and trailer moves, and be held in effect for 24 months (bond to be determined by City
Engineer and Building Official).
3. Property owner to agree that future CLIP violations resulting in citations will provide a basis
for staff to begin action to remove the CLIP approvals from the property.
4. Additional green area or landscaping be added to compensate for the 2 % loss so that no
variance is required.
5. Annual inspection by staff.
Attachments: Secfion/Topo Maps
Site Survey
Attachment ~A" - Staff Revision
Inspection Dept. Orders
Planning Case 87-33 and Minutes
Original Site Plan - Green Area %
· · 38 'Tl~ AVE N
I JER$£Y (,IR,'.[_[ AVE:.
-- MAI~KWO0 . ff/
43 895 OX·
X-- X ,,-X '
z 903.9
892.3 895.8 X W
X
9~0.2 ~
×
.4
X 897.4
902.0
X 899.5 x
X X
901. I
X
903.3
.9
.4
/0
X
930.7'- '¢'y¢ ~ 92~<.~
PREPARED
FOR:
~204 WEST. ~TTfl ETREET. - %~,~'~,? ~i
PrePareD aY: HE~L'uND'~I':~'I~NiI~G
I=NGINI=L~RIN6
'
I~ED~UND
· ,rerARED eor:'~lDCO'.~.~..' .'.'~ ':.~". '
ST.LOmS ~A~K,'U~NN!SO~g ',
· ENGiNEERiH'G~ sURV.EY~NG
; ~2OI'~AST B~OO~iN~TO~EEWAY
~.. ~'~ .-.--
..... ~
~' o~~ ~"- ...I ~ ........
[, .......
~~ ~ ~ . .............
~ CONCEflTE PARKING AREA
'~,d,,F'~' i.';. :. :.: : , :. ~
~- ['" ' -' LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EZISTING [
N E~cb° E~E~* .BO" I~
4 E~7. O0
1205~
~ -. //' I~, ~' '
OX~0 o'~ ,o* .... EXISTING BUILDING
I ~°~ -~' ~'~ ~" ....
~~ ~ .......... c~ c~-~ ,~~ SOD
STORAGE AREA ~ ' , , , , ~
CONC
SLAB
I , I I I ~ I
' ~ ' ~ ' 25 ~SPACES~ */'
,
, I ~ I I I ' ' / ,/ ~ ' I 'l I I
_ _J ,, ~ ........ , , , : 6 ~PAqES:' : :
~' ,, ~ , SOD - -' ~
OV£RI-i£ ~,D
IZ'~ 14'
OVERHEAD
Curb
STORAGE AREA
CONC. SLAB ~ ~
I
[ ,
~~ I ,,'1 ~ ~ ~
~ j ~ I I I ~ ,
,'/ ~ I I I I
/
I I ~ I I
I ~ I ~ ~ J I
~' ~ /~ SOD J
3OMMUNITY DEVELOPM
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
(612) 531-5127 Date:
Time: '--~-'~ J-
INSPECTION REPORT PID#.
Address:. ,, '~ j''~ / /~-"-~'~'J
Type:
Source:
Corr~ted
(A COMPLAINT CALL LAST NOVEMBER RESULTED 'IN WARNING TO OWNER THAT FURTI-ER VIOIATI S
WOULD RESULT IN RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL TO RESCIND CONDIT. USE PERhlT FOR TH
DD"~D E [~TV )
Issued ,o: ,,_ / )~ ~'-<.--~.~. Date: /0 -1/~,- ~ ~/ Mailed~/'
Representing: ~ ~ ~ ~ P~ne:
/
N~E ? daysto~rr~ttheseCond~fions ...... ~ //'~ ~,' --
Reinspe~ion Date: / /
~hit~: ~ppl}can~ y~llo~ · inspoctor pink: ill,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
~.~~,.] New Hope, MN 55428
(612) 53~-~521 Date:
Time:
I~S~C~IO~ ~O~ PID~
Address: ~{
Business Name: ~ t'd ~
Type:
8ourc~:.~ Construction ~ ~ Other ~ ~nnua~
' Corrected
C~mments:
OHCE AGA~ ~T ~S [~ECESSARY TO COHTACT YOU W~TH A~ ~RDER TO ~EMOVE
ILLEGAL E~ERIOR STORAGE. YOU ARE LIMITED TO STORAGE WITHI THE
EHCLOSURE. COUNCIL APP~VED THIS SPECIFYING THE T~ILERS T( BE STORE~
m' ~ ·
WITHIN THE ENCLOSURE ALSO./WE AGREED IN JANUARY 1989 TO PEt~HIT THE
TRAILERS TO BE PARKED OUTSIDE THE ENCLOSURE. LIMITED TO THRI[E, P~VID~
YOU KE~ ALL OTHER STORAGE IHSIDE THE E~ICLOSURE.
· ** YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO RE~VE ALL ILLEGAL E~ERIOR STORAGE WITHI~
~ ~ ~' 7 DAYS '
FUTURE VIOLATIONS ~ILL RESULT I~CITATIONS BEING ISSUED;UlT~t~PRIOR
~A~ I NGS, AND ~Y RE~MMENDAT I ON~~ TO 'COUNC I L' ~0 RESC I ND THE (;OND I T I ONA
U~E PER~IT.~ ~' ~FOR THIS PRoPERTy, '
,ssuedto: .~-e ~-~ ..... Date: //- ~-~o Mailed~'
'" Representing: ~~ . Phone:.. , ~ ~ ~.A~ ,
NOTE~a days to Correct these Conditions ~ I>/~ ~~.~
~oinspoCtion to:
BM LHZLN ~0984 / ~ ~~Sig.atare
white · applicant yellow 'inspector pi~
,,, / ),'.,,
( //~~'~ 4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
(612) 533-1521 Date: / - / '/ - ~ o
Time:
[~TS]3E C~'TO]~I' ~1~- PO~'[' PID~
Address:
Name:
Type:
Source: ~ Construction g Complaint ~Other g Annual
/,
~ ~-~. ~ '~ Corrected
~gl I II I I~1 I~
Issued to: : ~ ~ ~ Date: V/./~ 'Mailed~
/
Representing: ~ ~ Phone:
NOTE ~' days to Correct these Conditions
Reinspection Date: / /
SSM,, .Z N9 955 [Inspector: ~ ~ture
white: applicant yellow: inspector pink :.file
~P-001
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428 ////~
(612) 533-1521 Date:
Time: //:
T~I'SPE CTTOI~I' ]~E ~30]~T PID#
Address:
Business Name: ~//~
Type:
Source: [] Construction [] complaint /~Other [] Annual
· / Corrected
Comments:
/
Representing: ~ j I' ~C..O Phone:
NOTE
(/" -~,~ays to Correct these Conditions
Reinspection Date: / /
S B M P F L H Z NO 9451 Inspector:f.~,
white · applicant yellow · inspector pink · file
~~ Ir~ ............................ 11 ......... COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' II
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428 ,/
(612) 533-1521 Date:
Time: / ,, ..~'"','o
T 1~' S 131~-- C 'i"' TO 1~1' 1~1~' POINT PID#
Address: 3 .,~-~./
Business Name: //~/_,~I.~ [ K~,~ ~ I
Type:
Source: [] Construction,~ [] Complaint [] Other E~Annual g g('/::::2, __..
· ' / /~'~~~~-//.-~.,,~..~ Corrected
Comments:
Issued to: ~'/,,]~
Representing:
NO~E / 0 days to corre~ these Conditions
ReinspectionDate: /o1~71 ~
s s M ~ ~ ~ ~ N9 9i 01 Inspector: ~ Signature
white: applicant yellow ' inspector pink · file
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 87-33
Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor
storage in an I-1 "Limited Industrial" Zone
Location: 3531 Nevada Avenue North
Zoning: I-1
Petitioner: Karl H.A. David/VIDCO
Date: October 6, 1987
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a
4200 square foot outdoor storage area in an I-1 "Limited
Industrial Zone" pursuant to Section 4.144 of the New Hope Code
of Ordinances. Property owners within 350 feet of this property
have been notified.
ANALYSIS
1. Outdoor storage areas are allowed in an I-1 zone provided
that:
1. It is accessory to the primary use of the
property;
2. The storage area is screened from neighboring
residential area and in compliance with Section
4.033(3) of the New Hope Code.
3. That the storage area is surfaced.
2. Section 4.033(3) requires that screening be constructed of
masonry, brick, wood, or steel. The fence cannot exceed
eight feet in height or be less than six feet in height.
'3. The pro o~r storage area reduces the required green
area Fo 35 percent_~hich is the minimum required by the City
Code.~.~ ~
4. Staff believes that the area will be adequate to contain
only a maximum of three trailers or vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use
permit t6 allow outdoor storage in an I-1 "Limited Industrial
Zone" at 3531 Nevada Avenue North with the following conditions:
1. That an 8 foot fence of solid material is installed
that will provide adequate screening.
2. That suitable surfacing (asphalt or concrete) be
installed within one year of approval by the City
Council.
3. That the site be reviewed on an annual basis by city
staff.
Attachments: Site Plan
staff review prior to any installation.
MC~ION C~Lmdssioner Anderson made a motion r~mmendir~ approval of the 55'
tower, as requested in Case 87-32, subject to: '1) plans being
suk~it~ to staff for review, prior to the City Council meeting; 2)
that an eight foot fence be installed around the tower; 3) that the
Conditional Use Permit be terminated upon the petitioner's ~acation
of the prop~; 4) that the petitioner sukmtit proof to the city of
FCC app~uval of the tower.
Voting in favor: Ar~erson, Sonsin, Lutts, Friedrich, Gundershaug,
· Edwalxls, Oja
Voting against: None
Motion carried.
Discussion followed re~ the possibility of the city imposing
insurance rec~lir~a~cs on the petitioner. Following discussion with
the consultant, it was determined that this could make the city
liable for damages in the event of an accident.
OOND ~4r. _Karl David stated that he was requesting a Conditional Use
,ITIONAL USE P~rmit to allow him to have exterior storage at the site of a
PE~4IT FOR building he w~s constructing at 3531 Nevada Avenue North.
~ __(~=~ Cameron asked whether this case had been reviewed by Design
..... and Review?
C~,,~d-~mi~ Oja replied it had, and then amked the petitioner about
the fencin~ ma~_rials ~mt would be ~ around the ~corage area.
Mr. David s~a~ed ~ will be a chain link fence with screen~,
with plastic ~ woven ~. The petitioner said he w-as
prc~in~ an eight foc~ high fence with barbed ~p to inmure
~ity. There will be c~shed rock am ~h~ hame of the enclomure.
He added ~hat there im mc~e probl~m~ wi~h soil conditions on the
mite, and he wc~ld like to use the crumhed rock at least through the
win~.r to de~_rmine what the ~round will do.
C~m~ssioner Oja asked what would be stored?
Mr. David said it was for the storage of work tz-ailers, construction
equipment, scaffolding, etc. There will be one or two vehicles in
the enclosure, and will be primarily for storage of the construction
equipment. There will be a 20 foot gate. The remainder, of the area
in the rear is scheduled to be seeded. The park~ area is
campletely curbed.
Conmtissioner Gundershaug stated that the city would require that in
a year's time, the temporary surface in the enclosure be removed and
a hard surface installed.
New Hope Planning Comqdssion October 6, 1987
page 3
The petitioner noted that he w~uld like to m~ve the front enclosure
slightly f~-c~, the location on the plans, so that he could a~id
going into the city's e~=m~nt. The ~ions would remain ne
same.
sit~o
Mr. D~vid said only mterials and vehicles related to his concrete
masonry business would be stored on the site.
MOTION C~m~ioner Ga made a motion re~cmmmmading approval of the
Conditional Use Permit request~ in Cms~ 87-33, at 3531 Nevmda
Avenue North, with the foll~_ng conditic~ms: 1) that an eight foot
solid fence be installed; 2) that suitable surface be installed
within the enclosure in one year; and 3) that the conditional use
permit be subject to annual review by staff. C~L,,~Hssioner
C~u~issioner Anderson clarified that there %fas already a curb cut on
the property, that drminage will be off the lot into the easement,
primarily toward the west,and that the size of the enclosure will be
70 feet frc~ east to west.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Lutts, Friedrich, Cameron,
voting against: None
Motion carried.
PC 87-34 Daryl Hampton represented Tool Products C~I?ny. He stated that
OONSTRUCTION they were requesting construction approval for an 80' x 130'
APPROVAL addition to the main part of their building, and a 40' x 30'
addition to the front office portion. ~hey were requesting no
variances.
C~m~ssioner Edwards asked_ hc~ many parkir~ stalls there would be
and what the building addition mterials w~uld be?
The petitioner responded they planned to provide 286 stalls, and
that 283 were required by code. The additions will match the
existing buildings as far as exterior materials are concerned.
C~m¥,~ssioner Edwards then confirmed that any rooftop equipment would
Mr. Hampton stated that they would be add3_~g security lighting, but
the plans for this were not c~lete.
Discussion continued regarding the n~ for additional security
New Hope Planning Col~m~ssion October 6, 1987
page 4
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE TI:~E
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: APPROVED FOR AGENDA: AGENDA SECTION:
NO.
City Manager 10-12-87 Development & Planning
BY:Dan Donahue BY: ~ ITE~4 NO.
PLANNING CASE 87-33 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR
· STORAGE IN AN I-1 ZONING DISTRICT
3531 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH ..
KARL H.A. DAVID/VIDCO, PETITIONER
The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow
outdoor storage in an I-1 zoning district pursuant to Section 4.144
of the New Hope Zoning Code of Ordinances.
The Planning Commission reviewed this case at its October, 1987
meeting and unanimously recommended approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. That an 8 foot fence of solid material is installed to
'provide adequate screening.
2. That suitable surfacing (asphalt or concrete) be installed
within one year of approval by the City Council.
3. That the site be reviewed on an annual basis by city staff.
In addition to the Planning Commission conditions, staff recommends
that the number of semi-trailers stored not exceed three.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
2. That an eight-foot screening/~ity fence be installed around
the tower;
3. That the conditional use permit expire upon the sale or
vacation of the property by Mr. Baltz;
4. That evidence of an aPP~-oved license f;-c~, the Federal
C~,~nications C~dssion be provided to city staff prior to
construction of the tower.
Mayor Erickson stated that another condition should be ~-~oval of
the tower by the petitioner if it causes interference problems that
Michael Baltz, 2849 Valle Vista, was recognized and stated that the
tower would be used for an amateur radio. He noted that the FCC has
any complaints near his property, the FCC would have the power to
revoke kis license. Mr. Baltz stated that he agreed to the
condition stated by the Mayor.
Counc~]member Enck inquired whether the petitioner had a schematic
drawing of the proposed tower.
~he petitioner distributed drawing of his property and the location
of the tower. He assured Counci~ Enck that there would be no
guide wires at the base of the tower; it would be self-anchoring.
RESOLUITC~ Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its
~. 87-145 adoption: ~RESOLUTT(~ ~ PLA~ CASE NO. 87-32 F~
CC~DITIf~AL USE A (I~DITI~%L ~ ~ TO A~x~ A 55-POU~ ~ IN AN 1%-1 ZC~ING
P~H~[T DISTRIC~ AT 2849 V~xR ~." ~e motion for the adoption of the
2849 VA?XF. foregoing resolution was seconded by Oouncilmember Daly, and upon
V/S~A vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof:
Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson; 'and the foil=wing voted
against the same: None; absent: None; whereupon the resolution
was declared duly Dassed and adopted, and was signed by the mayor
which was attested to by the city clerk.
ge Extract Book)
~ ~ ~II-~",xMa¥or int2o~cod for considoration PlannS~ Ca..qo 87-33 ~ml:mi.tt~l
87-3~ -~ by }~rl H.~. r~avid/'v'Tr~ r~:tuo.~in~:j corditional ~ pex~t to allow
~ ~ recently constru~ the building at 3531 Nevada Avenue North. He
was proposing to create an outside storage area which requires a
conditional use permit. The Planning Ccmmd~ion set stipulations
as follows to allow the request:
New Hope city Council October 12, 1987
Page 6
l. ~nat an eight-foot fence of solid material be installe~% to
provide screening;
2. That suit~ble surfacing (asphalt or concrete) be installed
within one year of approval by the city Council;
3. That the site be reviewed on an annual basis by city staff.
Mayor Erickson inqu{red what would be stored outside.
Ms. Dunn stated that the petitioner wishes to store three trail~r-
type vehicles and smaller equipment.
Mr. Earl David, property owner at 3531 Nevada Avenue North, was
recognized and stated that the use of the outside storage would be
primarily for storage of forklifts, trailers, and scaffolds used in
the construction business.
Councilmember Enck stated that he noted the area behiz~ the building
Mr. David noted that it was his parking requirement and even though
it will not be used for parking, he cannot park trailers on the
based on city code. He was proposing a screened area behind the
Counc~ Enck stated that there was a potential problem with
the apartment building across the z-ailroad tracks as the Upper
floors w~uld have the capacity to look down onto the property.
Mr. David pointed out that the entire area would be screened and
plans have been su~mi~ for approval.
Counci~ Enck inquired whether a chainlink fence with a fabric
weave w~s more durable.
Mr. David stated that there are questio~r~_ble ~ conditions on
the site. He explained that with an eight-foot high fence the wind
load was a factor and the intent wins to have a light material. The
petitioner stated that he understands maintenance of the fence is
impo~. ,
Counc~ Enck noted that the petitioner has stated that the
The petitioner explained that his building was fully occupied and
estimated that approximately ten of the 46 parking stalls would be
O:~r~~ ~ stat. od that thor~ may be an ar~ for a tradooff
so that th~ .~..affolclL~ could be under a cover ard a
variance requested so the petitioner would not p~ the additional
New Hope City Council October 12, 1987
Page 7
hard surface and fencing and would allow storage of the trailers on
the existing hard surface.
Mr. David stated that he would appreciate that consideration however
the neighborhood looks like a war zone with the fences and barbwire
on the top. He wishes to have a lessee's material stored outside
protected as well as inside the building.
RESOLUI~C~ Ccunc~ Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its
~). 87-146 adoption: ~]~b~I(~ AP~ROVI~ ~ CASE'NO. 87-33 ~
PE~4IT ~~ AT 3531 ~ A%]~]E N0~{." The zxfcion for the adoption
3531 NEVA[1% of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Ccunc~ Daly, and
AV~JE upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof:
Erickson, Dsly, Enck, Otten, Williamson; and the following voted
against the same: None; absent: None; whereupon the resolution
was declared duly passed and adouted, and was signed by the mayor
which was attested to by the city clerk.
(Page Extract Book)
Ccuncilmember Enck noted for the record that the petitioner has
indicated he was aware of the re~,~m~_nt for the maintenance of the
fencing.
PIANN/NG CASE Mayor Erickson introduced for consideration Planning Case 87-34
87-34 submitted by Tool Products Company, Inc. requesting construction
OC~t~C~ approval at 5100 Boone Avenue North.
5100 BO~E AVE.
It~ 8.4 ~ne Administrative Assistant stated that the petitioner was
proposing a 11,936 s~a~e foot addition for offices, warehousing and
production area to the present facility. The Planning Cu~:=L,~ssion
rec~mt~nded approval with the following conditions:
1. Tnat additional lighting be installed along the sidewalk in the
e~st parking lot;
2. Tnat the nine park/rig spaces designated as future parking be
deleted;
3. ~nat the missing or damaged landscaping be replaced.
She noted that the petitioner ba~ revised the plans to show these
corrections and staff reco~m-~-~nds approval.
Mayor Erickson stated that Tool Products has one of the best
maintained buildings in the city.
RESOLOTI(~ Counci~ Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its
NO. 87-147 adoption: '~ESOI/FfI(~q ~ PLANNING CASE NO. 87-34
APPROVAL 5100 BOC~E AV~JE NC~{, N~ ~OPE, M/I~NESOEA." ~he motion for the
New Hope City Council October 12, 1987
Page 8
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 87-33
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE IN AN I-1 ZONING ~DISTRICT
AT 3531 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, the applicant, Karl H.A. David/VIDCO, submitted a
request for a conditional use permit to allow outdoor
· storage in an I-1 zoning district pursuant to Section
4.144 of the New Hope Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Planning Case No. 87-33 on October 7, 1987, and
recommended approval of the conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on October 12, 1987, considered the
report of the city staff findings and recommendations
of the Planning Commission, and the comments of persons
attending the City Council meeting~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City
of New Hope that the conditional use permit to allow
outdoor storage in an I-1 zoning district as submitted
Planning Case No. 87-33 is aPproved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That an 8 foot fence of solid material is
installed to provide adequate screening.
2. That suitable surfacing (asphalt or concrete) be
installed within one year of'approval by the City
Council. ~i
3. That the site be reviewed on an annual basis by
city staff.
4. That the number of semi-trailers stored on site
not exceed three.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope this 12th day
of October, 1987.
/Mayor
Attest: (.:~''~.~ ' --~ ~,~ .v~ ~,%~' ~.~-(.C.~'' ' City Clerk
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 92-36
Request: Request for Variance to Expand A Non-Conforming Structure to Allow
Construction of a Porch
Location: 3501 Virginia Avenue North
PID No. 19-118-21-11-0021
Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Petitioner: Ellen Jordano
Report Date: November 25, 1992
Meeting Date: December 1, 1992
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to expand a non-conforming structure to allow
construction of a porch, pursuant to Section 4.031(2) of the New Hope Code.
2. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 14' x 15' (210 square foot) porch on the west side
of the existing home.
3. The existing structure is non-conforming in two ways:
A. This is a "non-conforming comer lot structure". The lot was platted to permit a home
facing the north "front yard" (the narrowest width of the lo0, however the home was
constructed in 1966 with the front oriented to the east (the side yard according to the
zoning code).
B. The existing structure is not located totally within the "buildable yard" (the garage on
the south encroaches over the rear yard setback line), even though the proposed porch
addition is located within the buildable yard.
City Code states that a non-conforming structure cannot be expanded, therefore
a variance is required even though the proposed porch meets setback
requirements.
4. The petitioner states on the application that the porch would enhance the home and provide
enjoyment of the property.
5. The property is located on the southwest comer of 35-1/2 and Virginia Avenues and contains
approximately 11,700 square feet.
6. The site is zoned "R-I" Single Family Residential, and is surrounded by "R-l" Single Family
Residential uses. Note that this parcel borders the City of Crystal on the south.
7. The topography of the property slopes down from the south to the north and there is
considerable tree/shrub coverage on the north/west/south of the home.
8. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified, including residents in the City
of Crystal, and staff has received no comments in regards to this request.
Planning Case Report 92-36
December 1, 1992
Page -2-
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. 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 Safe _ty. 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. Staff finds that the "undue hardship" in this case is the orientation of the original structure on
the lot. Due to the fact that all setback requirements will be met (the porch will be located
18 feet at the closet point from the west side yard property line - the code requirement is 10
feet), staff does not find that construction of the porch will diminish or impair property values.
5. Staff also finds that there is no practical alternate location for a porch elsewhere on the lot.
6. The porch plans show that cedar lapsiding would cover the exterior and that wood soffit and
facia would match the existing structure. The Commission should confirm that the addition
will match the existing home.
RECOMMENDATION
Pending public comments, staff recommends approval of a variance to expand a non-conforming
structure to allow the construction of a porch subject to the following conditions:
1. "As-built" survey to be submitted within 7 days of building permit application.
2. Exterior porch materials and roof pitch to match existing structure.
Attachments: Section/Topo Maps
Site Plan
Elevations: Side/Rear
Floor Plan
Section
Staff Sketch: Buildable Yard
932.9
X 4343
X 930.2 AVENUE x 931.8
:__J 935.4
X
951 · 1 936.7
34TH ~LACE 93:~.o
SITE PLAN DECLARATION
I CERTIFY THAT ! AM THE PROPERTY ..
,'~ OWNER, OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE &
"~-'" THIS PLAN IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE:
SITE PLAN DECLARATION
"B UILDABLE YARD"
! CERTIFY THAT ! AM THE PROPERTY
OWNER, OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE &
CITY OF NEW I-IOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 25, 1992
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development
Coordinator
SUBYECT: Miscellaneous Planning Issues
1. November 9th Council Meeting
The City Council approved the North Ridge Rezoning, North Ridge Conditional Use Permit,
Car-X Muffler Conditional Use Permit, Garage Setback Variance, and Porch Setback Variance
planning cases at the November 9th Council meeting, subject to the conditions recommended by
the Commission. Staffis in the process of preparing a development agreement for Car-X, which
includes performance bond requirements.
2. November 23rd Council Meetine
At the November 23rd meeting the City Council approved the code text amendments for air
conditioners and monumentation of plats. These ordinances will become effective upon
publication.
3. Medicine Lake Church/Post Building
Medicine Lake Church from Plymouth has contacted staff and submitted preliminary plans
regarding the use of the existing Post building on Bass Lake road for a church. Staff will be
conducting further meetings with the church in December and I anticipate that they may submit
an application for the January Planning Commission meeting. Although staff wants to see this
building put to a good use, we are uncertain as to whether we would be supportive of spot
rezoning an industrial piece of property to R-1 status, which would allow the church as a
conditional use, and are also hesitant about creating another tax exempt parcel in the City. This
matter will be submitted to the Planning Consultant for review if and when an application is
submitted.
4. Apartment Conversions
Codes & Standards did not meet on the apartment conversion moratorium in November because
the staff wanted to meet with the City Attorney and Planning Consultant first to make certain
everyone was in agreement as to the code process that should be followed for conversions. Staff
did meet on November 19th to discuss this matter and the Planning Consultant's report is being
revised as a result of the meeting. The Planner had originally recommended that all conversions
be processed as a conditional use permit application, per the attached preliminary report. At the
staff meeting it was recommended that existing performance standards in the code be changed
to address conversions, instead of requiring a CUP. Apartment owners who would not meet the
performance standards would have to make application for a variance.
When the Planner's revised report is received, staff will coordinate/schedule a meeting with
Codes & Standards to start discussion on this issue. The moratorium that is currently in effect
expires in April, 1993, and staff anticipates that a code amendment can be prepared before the
expiration of the moratorium.
5. W|n~etk~ Commons Letter of Credit
The City has received a request on behalf of Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership for the
City to release the letter of credit we are holding pending completion of the following:
A. Relocation of blSP power pole at the southwest corner of the property,
B. Reconstruction of driveway at the southwest corner of the property,
C. Reconstruction of the retaining wall west of Tires Plus.
All improvements have been completed and the letter of credit will be released, pending final
resolution of the outstanding planning invoices the partnership has with the City.
6. Su_uer America
The City informed Post Publications about the letter that the City received from Super America
regarding their decision not to construct a new service station on the corner of 62nd & West
Broadway. The Post followed up and wrote the attached article, which I have enclosed in ease
you may have missed it. City staff also forwarded the article with a letter to the Manager of
Anthony James Apartments, per your request.
7. Site Lighting at Continental Bakina
Per your request at the last meeting, I have asked the Building Official to check into the lighting
at Continental Baking on Winnetka Avenue - planning case report attached.
Attachments: Attorney Letter/Planner Preliminary Report, Apt. Conversions
Winnetka Commons Letter, 11/17/92
Letters/News article to Anthony James residents, 11/24/92
Planning Case Report 90-26, Continental Baking Co.
CORR[CK & SONDRALL
October 21, 1992
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401 Xy]on Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: Proposed Multiple Dwelling Conversions CUP
Our File No: 99.49208
Dear Kirk:
This letter is in fo]Iow up to the October 13th, 1992 planning
report regarding a proposed Conditional Use Permit for apartment
conversions in the R-3, R-4 and R-O Zoning Districts.
The planning consultants recommendation that we meet at a staff
]eve] to discuss this proposed Conditional Use Permit is a good
idea. We already have performance standards that govern multiple
dwellings. These standards could be amended to regulate apartments
with three bedroom plus units without the need for a separate
Conditional Use Permit for conversions.
Specifically, issues such as off street parking, open space
requirements, minimum lot size and minimum unit floor area are
already dealt with by performance standards. Amendments to the
existing performance standards for three bedroom or more units
could be added to the existing standards and enforced through site
and building plan review and issuance of building permits.
Also, it appears that a number of the recommendations may be
contrary to the Minnesota State Building Code. Please keep in mind
that any City building or zoning code more stringent than the
Minnesota State Building Code would not be enforceable. As a
result, some of the recommendations need to be reviewed in light of
State Building Code Regulations which may prevent us from imposing
the proposed regulations.
Mr. Kirk McDonald
October 21, 1992
Page 2 ~-~
Finally, we also need to deal with potential "equal protection"
arguments since we would be treating converted buildings
differently from new construction, We definitely must be sure that
we can justify a distinction which treats conversions differently
from new construction to avoid constitutional "equal protection"
arguments,
These are my preliminary thoughts on the planner's report. I look
forward to the staff meeting to discuss these issues.
Very truly yours,
Steven A, Sondrall
slw2
cc: Daniel J, Donahue
Alan Brixius
Doug Sandstad
U R B P L N NG D N · M AR K E R ES E A R C H
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius
DATE: 13 October 1992
RE: New Hope Apartment Conversions
FILE NO: 131.00 - 92.01
Attached please find our preliminary review of the apartment
conversion issue. We recommend that this material be discussed at
a staff level prior to distribution to the Plannin9 Commission.
If you have any questions regardin~ this material-/'please do not
hesitate to call.
pc: Dan Donahue
Dou~ Sandstad
Steve Sondrall
5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555 .St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837
Nort wes ssociat Consultants, Inc. .
U R B A P L A N G · DES N · M AR K E T R ES E A R C H
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius
DATE: 13 October 1992
RE: New Hope - Apartment Conversions
FILE NO: 131.00 - 92.01
BACKGROUND
The City of New Hope has recently received several requests of
apartment owners wishing to convert one and two bedroom units to
three and four bedroom units. The said requests have apparently
been made in response to a demand for rental units which
accommodate larger families. Recognizing .that_ the apartment
conversion issue warrants due study, the City has established a
moratorium on such conversions until such time as a planning study
has been prepared.
The issue of apartment conversions is not new to the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area. Beginning in 1991, the City of Brooklyn Center
conducted a highly detailed study of this issue. In large part,
the information obtained and the conclusions drawn in the Brooklyn
Center study will be used extensively in this evaluation.
The following investigation will attempt to identify items of issue
related to apartment conversions and offer Ordinance language which
will appropriately regulate such conversions. Specific items to be
addressed include:
1. Unit Type Demand
2. Existing Apartment Distribution
3. User Group Profile
4. Conversion Needs
5. Formulation/Application of Re~uiations
5775 Wayzata Blvd.-Suite 555. St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837
?
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Unit Ty~e Demand. While the recently encountered requests for
apartment conversions appear to demonstrate that a demand for three
and four bedroom units exists, this "demand" needs to be verified
via a detailed investigation. In investigating this issue, a
variety of background information relating to the apartment
conversion issue (utilized by the City of Brooklyn Center in
previous investigation), have been referenced.
1. Mi~atches Between Supply and Demand - Rental Housinq In the
TWin Cities Metropolitan Area (Met Council 1989).
This document indicates that one of the crucial problems for
many renter households with iow incomes is finding an
affordable unit of appropriate size. Very often a trade-off
exists between overcrowding and excessive rent burden,
In 1980, there were 1.6 households with five or more people
(large household) for each unit with four or more bedrooms
(large unit) in the Metropolitan Area. By 1985, that ratio
had increased to 2.0 households for each unit. During this
time, the number of large renter households increased by 25
percent. Thus, there appears to be a demonstrated trend
toward the need for large rental units in the Metropolitan
Area.
The Met Council report also notes that the generation of baby
boomers born between 1946 and 1965 is followed by a
substantially smaller population group. As such, this will
affect the rental housing market. This means that as baby
boomers move up and buy more expensive homes~'~they will need
new first time homebuyers to purchase their starter homes.
This may mean that vacancies in high cost rental units will
escalate.
The report also states that as minority cultures with large
families in the Metropolitan Area continue to grow, so will
the need for large affordable housing.
The Met Council report is highly comprehensive and
substantiates the assumption that a greater demand for large
apartment units (three bedrooms) exists within the Twin Cities
Area. Consequently, it appears appropriate that the City of
New Hope attempt to address this change.
2
2. Ten Year Housing Needs in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
(Met Council 1985).
This Met Council report forecasts the number of additional
housing units the Twin Cities will need between 1986 and 1995.
Between 1986 and 1995, the report states that 11,500 (9.5
percent) additional housing units will be needed within the
inner-ring suburbs of the Metropolitan Area, of which the City
of New Hope is a part.
3. Single Parent Families in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
(Met Council 1986).
This report is basically a gathering of information on issues
relating to single parent families. The report states that
from 1970 to 1980, single parent families in the Twin Cities
increased by 75 percent and that further increases were
anticipated. Thus, apartment conversions within the City of
New Hope could be responsive to this trend.
The report also indicates that for many single parents,
housing is too expensive and does not meet their needs in
regard to affordability and amenities for children. One of
the ways the report suggests to improve housing for single
parent families is to provide new multiple family dwellings
specifically designed to meet the needs of the user group.
Based on the preceding text, there appears to be a demonstrated
need for larger, rental housing units within the Twin Cities Area
which would meet the needs of target user groups.
Existing ADartment Characteristics. In addressing the issue of
apartment conversions within the City of New Hope, it is important
to examine the characteristics of apartments which currently exist
both in the region and within the City of New Hope.
1. Regi0nal Characteristics
For comparative purposes, an examination of renter-occupied
housing unit characteristics of neighboring co~=~Lunities has
been conducted. By reviewing regional characteristics of
rental units an understanding may be gained as to how the City
of New Hope rental units relate to units within the
surrounding macro area.
1990 RENTER OCCUPIED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Percent
Renter- of Units/ Persons Mean Rental
Occupied Total Per Number Median Vacancy
City Units Units Unit of Rooms Rent Rate
New Hope 3,784 44% 1.87 3.7 $ 498 5.4
8,507
Brooklyn 3,420 30% 2.16 4.0 $ 475 9.6
Center 11,226
Brooklyn Park 6,637 33% 2.18 3.9 $ 447 7.6
20,386
Crystal 2,102 23% 1.95 3.8 $ 478 7.5
9,272
Golden Valley 1,594 19% 1.84 4.1 $ 486 5.6
8,273
Maple Grove 1,281 13% 2.46 4.9 $ 637 8.8'
12,531
Minneapolis 80,837 50% 2.08 4.0 $ 578 8.1
160,682
Plymouth 4,842 26% 2.08 4.0 $ 578 13.2
18,361 .... ~
Robbinsdale 1,622 27% 1.88 3.9 $ 471 3.7
6,008
Hennepin 153,450 37% 1.96 3.8 $ 452 8.3
County 419,060
SOURCE: 1990 U.S. Census
As shown above, 44 percent of the City of New Hope's housing
units are renter-occupied. This figure is significantly
higher than that of neighboring co~,=,~unities and demonstrates
that the City appears to have a sufficient supply of rental
housing. While the conversion of two and three bedroom units
to three and four bedroom units will likely result in a
reduction in total rental units, it is not anticipated that
the total number of renters households will decrease.
The above table also indicates that the number of persons per
dwelling unit within the City of New Hope (1.87) is
significantly less than that found in neighboring communities
and Hennepin County. This may be construed to mean that the
City holds a disproportionate supply of one and two bedroom
rental units. It should be noted, however, that the City of
New Hope does hold a number of elderly rental housing
developments which contribute to the City's relatively low
number of persons per unit. These include the St. Teresa,
Northridge, Anthony'James and Charden Court Apartments. The
conversion of one and two bedroom apartments to three and four
bedroom units in New Hope will likely result in an increase in
the number of persons per rental unit.
Renter-occupied housing units within the City of New Hopehave
a mean number of rooms of 3.7 (does not include bathrooms,
utility rooms, pullman kitchens). This figure has been found
to be less than the mean number of rooms found both in
neighboring communities and Hennepin County. Again, this
figure is likely reflective of the relatively high percentage
of one and two bedroom rental units within the City (in
comparison to neighboring communities).
In regard to median rent, a trend appears to exist in that
rental costs tend to escalate as one moves outward from the
City center. Median rent in the City of New Hope ($498) is
only slightly higher than the County average. It is assumed
that apartment conversions (larger units/updated features)
could result in an escalation in average monthly rents within
the City.
In 1990, the City of New Hope held a vacancy rate of 5.4
percent. While this figure is considered relatively low, it
does represent an increase from past years. The City's rental
vacancy rate verifies that there is a supply of approximately
200 unoccupied/ vacant rental housing within the community.
2. City Characteristics
In addition to evaluating how the City of New Hope's rental
units relate to those found in the region, it is also
important to identify some of the physical characteristics of
its apartment stock. Attached Exhibit A provides a listing of
apartments which exist within the City, their location, the
year they were built and finally the number of dwelling units
which are provided. From the information provided, it can be
concluded that the vast majority of New Hope Apartments were
constructed in the 1960's.
Building permit records show that almost all financial
investments in the City's total 174 apartment buildings have
responded to maintenance or repair needs. The City Building
5
Inspector has indicatedi that ~of approximately $1,338,000
dollars spent on apartment buildings in the last five years
(1988-1922) only three percent was devoted to actual facility
upgrades or improvements.
The City Building Inspector has estimated that construction
dollars spent on apartments from 1982 to 1988 were even lower
than the percentage factor cited in the last five years. This
inference is based on the following influencing factors:
a. The same apartments were newer and less likely to need
repairs.
b. More favorable economic conditions (lower vacancy rates,
easier loan criteria than in recent years).
c. Fewer buildings were in existence prior to 1988.
As evidenced above, very little re-investment in the City's
apartment buildings has occurred in the past ten year period.
User Group Profile. Of L~Lediate issue regarding the proposed
conversion of one and two bedroom units to three and four bedroom
units is that of anticipated user groups and community perceptions.
Based on information provided as part of the Brooklyn Center
Apartment Conversion Study, it may be concluded that three and four
bedroom apartment units will cater to large families with children.
It must be realized that the requested conversions will allow
financial reinvestment in the City's existing apartment buildings
which may not otherwise occur and would respond to a demonstrated
need for affordable alternative housing
Conversion Needs. Referenced research has indicated that the
proposed apartment conversions would likely be utilized by large
families with children. As such, the regulation of apartment
conversions should take into account needs of this user group.
The following is a listing of issues which should be addressed in
the City's regulation of apartment conversions:
1. Off-street parking
2. Recreation/open space
3. Lot area per unit (density bonus)
4. Social services (i.e., day care)
5. Sidewalks
6. Storage (bike racks, etc.)
7. Noise control
8. Handicap accessibility
9. Laundry needs
10. Floor area per unit
11. Community rooms
6
12. School busing
13. Fire protection
ADDlicatfon of Rec~ulatfons. The City holds the ability to regulate
apartment conversions and provide assurances that the needs of
anticipated user groups will be met via its Zoning Ordinance. Once
a determination has been made as to what aspects of apartment
conversions should be regulated, a decision needs to be made as to
the best manner of implementing the regulations via Ordinance
amendment.
In considering this matter, there appears to be two options worthy
of consideration:
1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - General Provisions Sections.
2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - R-3, Medium Density Residential,
R-4, High Density Residential District/R-O, Residential Office
District Sections.
It is believed the allowance of multiple family dwelling units as
conditional uses within the City's R-3, R-4 and R-O Zoning
Districts would provide New Hope with a level of control over such
actions and would provide an assurance that proper off-street
parking, open space, and other various amenities are provided. A
draft amendment has been attached for discussion purposes.
CONCLUSION
Based on information gathered as part of a Brooklyn Center Study
regarding apartment conversions, it is evideh~ that there is an
area demand for affordable rental unit~ which cater to the needs of
large families with children. In addition to fulfilling an
alternative housing need, the conversion of apartments within the
City would provide financial reinvestment in the City's existing
apartment buildings which may otherwise not occur.
pc: Dan Donahue
Doug Sandstad
Steve Sondrall
7
DRAFT - DRAFT DP~FT
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.074 OF THE NEW HOPE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING CONVERSIONS WITHIN THE
R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT, R-4, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT AND R-0, RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE DISTRICT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 4.074 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance is
hereby amended to add the following as a conditional use:
(5) Multiple Family Dwelling Conversions. The change or
alteration of existing multiple family dwellings provided
that:
(a) The following off-street parking standards are
upheld:
parking
Unit _Type Requirement (Per Unit)
1-3 Bedrooms 2.25 Spaces
4 or More Bedrooms 2.75 Spaces
(b) The following open space requirements are upheld:
Open Space
Unit ~TTq0~e Requirement (Per Unit)
1-3 Bedrooms 500 Square Feet
4 or More Bedrooms 600 Square Feet
(c) A minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet per unit is'
provided, as described in Section 4.035 (2).
(d) All multiple family dwellings have the following
minimum floor areas per unit:
~ Minimum Floor Area
Efficiency 500 Square Feet
One Bedroom 600 Square Feet
Two Bedroom 750 Square Feet
More than Two Bedrooms An additional 100 feet for
each additional bedroom
(e) The number of units containing three (3) or more
bedrooms in a multiple dwelling shall not exceed
twenty (20) percent of the total number of
apartments within a single building.
(f) Each multiple family development containing four
(4) or more dwelling units and which have an
average of more than one (1) bedroom per unit shall
include a designated play area for children. The
play area shall be located so as to be easily
viewed by residents of the building and/or
buildings.
(g) Sidewalks are provided from parking areas/loading
zones to the entrance to the building and/or
buildings.
(h) Room relationships, hallway designs, door and
window placements, plumbing and ventilating
installations are such that they assist in the
control and reduction of sound transmission from
unit to unit.
(i) All off-street parking areas and exterior walkways
are illuminated such that the average light
intensity is at least eight-tenths (.8) foot
candles measured at ground level.
(j) In addition to normal closet space, at least two
hundred (200) cubic feet of storage space per unit
is provided convenient to each multiple dwelling
unit ..... ~.
(k) Stud supports for grab bars are installed in the
bathrooms of all-dwelling units. Grab bars shall
be installed in the bathrooms of apartment units
containing three (3) or more bedrooms.
(1) All multiple family developments containing at
least twenty (20) dwelling units and an average of
at least two (2) bedrooms per unit shall provide an
interior room or rooms for lounge, recreation,
meeting, or other non-co~,~Lercial use by the tenants
of the development. The size of such room or rooms
shall be at least two hundred (200) square feet or
ten (10) square feet per dwelling unit, whichever
is greater. Such room or rooms shall not be
located over the sleeping area of a dwelling unit.
2
(m) Dwelling unitS With more than two (2) bedrooms
shall be located first of all on the ground floor
with direct access to the outside. Units of this
type above the ground floor shall have a balcony of
at least forty (40) square feet.
(n) Buildings shall be designed and arranged such that
the activity areas of one dwelling unit are not
located over the bedrooms of a lower unit.
(o) Care shall be taken in the design and construction
of hallways to maximize natural light and minimize
the length of hallways. Hallways serving units
with more than two (2) bedrooms shall not have more
than six (6) units opening onto them and shall not
be more than forty (40) feet in length without
staggering.
(p) Laundry facilities shall be provided in all
buildings containing over four (4) dwelling units.
(q) If applicable, the provisions of Section 4.084 (5)
are considered relating to density bonuses.
(r) The procedures set forth in Section 4.21 are
satisfactorily met.
Section 2. E££e~tive 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)
3
lAST UPDATE 0g~30/9,? ~4ST UPDATE 09[30192 LAST U~
m
tAsr uPo~rE ee3e~ LASTUPO~TEeW~OI~ ~sr~~
i Y~ t~
Y~ M f~ ~ Y~ M IMI P
LAST UPI~ I*E 0;13~9~ LAS I' UPDATE 0W 30/9~ LAST UPOA TE 0~30192 LAST UPDATE
LAST UPDATE 0W 3~192 /
4220 WHne~ Av~nu~ N ~ We~ ~ "~ 2;~2S Virgln~ Avenue N. 4 I~'~e ~
Yeer/~ll I~ J HINM~ PARK COND(~
MAY ~ ~ A~ N 4
~AY~
~le ~ A~ q. ~ ~ ~ .....
JAC ON~SC
ASSOCIATES, INC.
RETAIL REAL ESTA~TE SERVICES
November 17, 1992
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Mgmt. Asst./Community Dev. Coord.
City of New Hope Sent via Courier
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Re= Letter of Credit - Winnetka Commons Shopping Center
Dear Kirk=
This letter is intended to serve as a request on behalf of
Winnetka Commons Limited Partnership for the city of New Hope to
release the Letter of Credit it is holding from that partnership
pending completion of the following=
1) Relocation of the NSP power pole at the southwest
corner of the property.
2) Reconstruction of the driveway at the southwest corner
of the property.
3) Reconstruction of the retaining wall west of Tires Plus
in accordance with plans and specifications approved by
the City.
Ail of the above have been completed at considerable expense to
the partnership and have been inspected by Mr. Doug Sandstad.
Please advise as to the timing of the City's release of this
Letter of Credit so the partnership can in turn advise the
lender.
Thank you.for your prompt attention to the above and please feel
free to g~ve me a call if you have any questions.
Yours very truly,
Jackson-Scott & Associates, Inc.
Gary WJck~
GWJ~jj
5500 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 200 * Minneapolis. Minnesota 55416 * 612/591-5000 FAX 612/591-5022
4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 531-5100 FAX (612) 531-51
November 24, 1992
Ms. Dorothy Bamford, Manager
The Anthony/ames Apartments
6100 West B~ roadway
New Hope, MN 55428
Subject: SUPER AMERICA CONSTRUCTION
Dear Ms. Bamford:
I wanted to inform you that Super America has informed the City that they have changed their mind
and will not be constructing a service station on 62nd Avenue and West Broadway. Please find a copy
of their letter to the City attached and a copy of an article that recently appeared in the Post. I would
appreciate it if you would pass this information on to the residents of Anthony James if they are
unaware that Super America will not be constructing a new station on that comer after all.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
KM/lb
Enclosures: Super America Letter and Post Article
cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager
Planning Commission Members
Planning Case File 9i-37
Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living
SuperAmerica Group, Inc.
1240 West 98th Street
Bloomington, MN 55431
(612) 887-6100
SUPERA ERICA. (612 ) 887-6158 FAX
SEP 2 8 Igcj2
September 25, 1992
City of New Hope
Honorable Mayor and City Council
4~01 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members=
We regret to inform you that we will not be constructing a
new SuperAmerica at the southwest corner of West BroaQway
and 62nd Avenue North.
We sincerely appreciate the support of the City Council
during our approval process. We will continue to seek
additional opportunities in New Hope as they present
themselves.
SiDC~rely, ~/
Glenn Hill
Manager of Design & Construction
Leonard Feilmeier
Regional Vice President
SUBSIDIARY OF ASHLAND OIL, INC.
SuperAmei 'ca changes
, .plans for New Hope site
lJ~ Sue Webber microphones by 8 p.m. and
A SuperAmerica station diM outside.
originally planned for the The owners
souttm~t em-ner of 6~nd and W. f~S~s, a small ~
Broadway in New Hope will not station across tl~
In a Sept. ~ letter to the CRy said they would suffer if
et New Hope, emlimn~ officials Supra-America's ~
exprmmt apprectatim ~0r the
.aplroval proeem. We will emi- eouneil by the owners of
HiD, ~ ~ cleaign and emi- the Anthony James senior
strueti0n for SUl~rAmeriea; e~tizen facili~ next doer to the
and'tteonard lreilmeier; proposed site, as well as
re,iraqi vi. ce president, restdents of the Broadway
FeHmeier ~ last week that ~ Apmmemm, al ot whom
certain criteria have to be met, oppmed the lroject.
reve~.~.baek to. i. ts original At t~m r~ltmSt ~ the .New
L~'pt lrebruary, emnlm~~had~
~n tb~.'.dtte. A vacant ~m station side,atica by th·
· .= .~ ._ ~...:..:~.~.??=.~-~-?."?-.*~- ~b~. ='~-TM ~- . ...
CTTY OF NE~ HOPE
PLANNTNG CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 90-28
Request: Request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to
Expand Retail Sales and Site/Building Plan Review
Location: 5130 Winnetka Avenue North
PID No.: 08-118-21 22 0002
Zoning: I-2 (General Industrial)
Petitioner: Continental Baking Company/Delbert Bauernfiend
Report Date: September 28, 1990
Meeting Date: October 2, 1990
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
to expand retail sales. The request is made pursuant to Sections
4.154(1) and 4.144(6) of the New Hope Code.
2. The petitioner is also requesting Site/Building Plan Review approval
for the remodeling of a portion of the existing building and for
construction of a 900 square foot addition to expand the thrift
store operation. The request is made pursuant to Section 4.039A of
the New Hope Code.
3. The property is located in an I-2 General Industrial Zoning District
and limited retail sales of products manufactured or Drocessed on
the site is allowed as a conditional use provided that:
A. Area - All sales are conducted in a clearly defined space,
meeting all requirements for retail sales.
B. Access - The building where such use is located is one having
access to at least a collector level street, without the
necessity of using residential streets.
C. Hours - Hours of operation are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m.
4. Continental Baking Company was granted approval approximately 12
years ago for accessory retail sales in the I-2 Zone. This request
to amend the original conditional use permit to expand sales will
double the size of the retail sales area on the site.
5. The petitioner met with Design and Review on August 16th to review
the original plan for expansion and a number of concerns were
raised. The applicant revised the plan (Plan Revision #1) and met
with Design and Review again on September 13th. Since that time the
applicant has submitted another new plan (Plan Revision #2) to the
staff.
6. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified.
Planning Case Report 90-28
October 2, 1990
Page -2- ~-
ANALYSIS
1. Limited retail sales are allowed as a conditional use. Continental
Baking has stated in correspondence that the Thrift Store is an
auxiliary operation in place to defray wholesale'distribution costs
by selling returned products, which accounts for about 10% of the
total branch sales. If the Conditional Use Permit is granted, staff
recommends that this represent the maximum percentage of retail use
on the site.
2. A number of issues were discussed at the Design & Review meetings,
including increasing green space and landscaping, providing a
suitable traffic flow plan, providing continuous curbing, relocation
and screening of trash enclosure and discontinuance of outdoor
storage.
3. The majority of suggestions made by Design & Review have been
incorporated into the most recent plan (Plan Revision $2):
A. Significant greening and "softening of the front yard will
occur with this plan.
B. Landscaping has been added along the south property line.
C. The drive-thru area in front of the store has been eliminated.
D. The trash enclosure has been relocated behind the building.
E. Continuous curbing would be installed across the front.
F. Snow storage area is defined.
G. New approach to be installed near south property line.
H. Adequate parking provided and good traffic-flow pattern.
4. Exterior storage is not allowed on the site and maintenance of all
green areas is required. Both should be conditions of the granting
of any conditional use permit for expansion.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to the number of changes and revisions made to the original plan,
staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit
to expand retail sales and Site/Building Plan approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. All exterior storage be eliminated,
2. All green area be maintained properly,
3. That no further expansion of retail sales on this site be
permitted.
Attachments: Section Map
As Built Survey
Elevations
Original Plan
Plan Revision #1
Plan Revision #2
~S- BUILT SURVEY
J FOR
', . CONTINENTAL BAKERY
~ ~.-~., .~,,. .,..-.' .'.,/~, ...... ~ ........... : ......... .~ .....
· ,. .. x[ ~. "..;
":Z'..;:. ,, '
..--, .*,,,~,.., ,., ,...., '~ .: '~,~
-' I ' .~ ,-.. ~,L. ,.' ___~'~.---
, Continental Baking Company
Wonder. Bread- l./ostesso Cake Exce,s,orE.
Hopl~ns. Minnesota 55343
~'612~ 935-3034
September 20, 1990
Mr. Doug Sandstad Ji
Planning Commission i~
City of New Hope !' SEP2 0 1990
New Hope, MN ~
Dear Mr. Sandstad: ~
The branch in New Hope is a distribution center for Continental Baking.
We receive product from different baking locations via transports. We have
three transports delivering to this location daily, the first at approximately
3:30 P.M., the second approximately 7:30 P.M., the third can vary from 11:O0 P.M.
to 3:00 A.M. After receiving product via transport the product is loaded on
to route trucks for wholesale distribution. Store is open six days and only
one transport would affect traffic in our parking lot, five times per week.
The Thrift Store is an auxiliary operation in place to defray wholesale
distribution cost by selling our returned product. The Thrift Store sales
constitute about ten percent of the total branch sales.
The reason for asking to expand the retail portion of this location is
the growth of our company has been through addition of new varieties to our
product line. The Thrift Store was built when we had about a third of the
varieties we presently have, and thus we no longer have space to display our
product and process our customers.
The benefits the city can expect to derive from this are a more attractive
property and additional retail trade in the City of New Hope. The property
would be more attractive because we intend to increase our green space, put
continuous curbing across the front, move and screen the dumpsters. Additional
retail trade, because looking a the addresses on our checks we find we draw
customers from well outside the City of New Hope, and thus assume the customers
would spot other retail trades they may be drawn to shop at. Should you have
any questions as to our expansion I would be more than happy to address them.
Thank you,
John M. Howard
Thrift Store Sales Manager
JMH: mb
Winnetka Avenue, and the City Engineer had a number of
comments. He concluded that it was the consensus of staff
that the request be tabled and the petitioner meet with staff
to address all the concerns.
Chairman Cameron requested the petitioner to speak to the
issues brought up by staff.
Bob Johnson, representative for the Don Harvey Addition,
introduced himself and Don Harvey. He commented that he
thought everything was in conformance as far as the plat is
concerned and has not received any comments since the plan was
submitted. He expressed the feeling that tabling the case
would be a hardship on the petitioner, therefore they would
like the preliminary plat approved and will address the
concerns when the final plat is submitted.
Chairman Cameron pointed out that since the petitioner is not
aware of the issues that have been brought forth, it would
take a great deal of time to address them all in this meeting
and he suggested the petitioner make arrangements to meet with
staff and look at all the concerns expressed by the City,
County, and others. He suggested the case be tabled for one
month.
Mr. Johnson expressed dismay that they were not contacted by
staff and made aware of the current issues prior to this
meeting since they had met with Design & Review for the
~ite/Building Plan Review and had conformed with their
suggestions.
Mr. McDonald explained that when a plat is received it is sent
out to all the City departments, all the utility companies,
and Hennepin County, but their responses do not always reach
the staff until the last minute. He stated that if there are
only one or two concerns regarding a preliminary plat it can
be approved with the understanding that the changes can be
incorporated into the final plat, but staff feels there are
too many issues in this particular plat to handle in that
manner.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner
Gundershaug, to table Planning Case 90-27 for one month.
Voting in favors Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron,
Gundershaug, Oja
Voting against~ None
Absent~ Zak, Watschke
Motion passed.
P~~J;.3) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-28 and called on
~IIR Kirk McDonald to review the request from Continental Baking
New Nope Planning Comuission -2- Ocober 2, L990
Company for amendment to conditional use permit to expand
C~~~$H retail sales and site/building plan review.
RE~I~XL ~I~ES AN~ Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner wishes to remodel a
II"~E/~ portion of their existing building and construct a 900 square
I~II~A~W~NETKAv foot addition to expand their retail sales operation and has
5130 . met with Design & Review and staff and discussed a number of
concerns. He noted that the petitioner has now submitted a
second revision from the original plan which incorporates many
of the ideas discussed in the meetings. He suggested that if
the request is approved, it should be with the conditions that
all exterior storage be removed and green space maintained and
no further expansion of retail sales allowed.
Mr. John Howard, representing the petitioner, pointed out the
concerns regarding expansion of green space, traffic flow,
curb cuts, continuous curbing, exterior storage, trash
enclosure area, snow storage, exterior lighting on building,
which they had discussed with Design a Review and pointed out
how they had incorporated the suggested changes into their
plans.
Commissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the addition will
match the existing building in materials, color, and
structure, and suggested if roof-top equipment is added in the
future, it also be painted to match or screened. He compli-
mented the petitioner on a good job of incorporating all
suggestions of Design & Review into the plan. He wondered if
there would be directional signs indicating "for trucks only".
Mr. Howard pointed out that the trucks only lane is a drive-
through well.
Commissioner Gundershaug wondered if the hours of operation
will remain the same. He asked for clarification of the
construction and screening of the trash enclosure, noting that
it is not shown on the plan and recommending it be included
before the plan goes to the City Council.
Mr. Howard confirmed there will be no change in operating
times and explained the trash enclosure will be of wood.
Commissioner Gundershaug questioned if there will be
additional sign&ge put on the building, if the sod in front of
the building will be sprinkled, if the trucks and vehicles now
presently parked in the area will be removed.
Mr. Howard indicated there may be a change in signage, but
they will conform to code if there is. He stated they have
not considered sprinklers at this time and confirmed no
vehicles will be permanently stored on the site.
New Hope Planning Comm£ss£on -3- October 2, ~990
Commissioner Gundershaug recommended they consider a
sprinkling system to prese~e their investment in landscaping
and trees.
Mr. Howard requested that they be allowed to make an
alteration and add 6 parking spaces for customers on the south
side across from the main entry.
Commissioner Oja suggested the walk area to the parking be
striped to indicate a walkway and all the plantings remain the
s&me.
Chairman Cameron congratulated the petitioner on a first-class
job in complying with the City's expectations for upgrading
the looks of their industrial areas.
M0~XON Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner
Oja, to approve P~ ~ *~--~, with the following
conditions~
1. All exterior storage be eliminated.
2. All green area be properly maintained.
3. No further expansion of retail sales on this site be
pezlitted to exceed the 10%.
4. That six (6) additional perking spaces be provided on
the south side of the south entry, not to be in front of
the building.
5. Annual review by staff.
Voting in favors Caseen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron,
Gundershaug, Oja
Voting againsts None
Absents Zak, Watschke
PC 90-29 (3.4) c~ai~a~Cameron noted that Planning Case 90-29 is part of the
REQUEST FOR CUP platting request submitted in Planning Case 90-28 which was
TO ~?~W SHARED tabled, therefore he called for a motion to table this case
PARKING/LOADING also.
FACILITIES AND
SITE/BUILDING
PLAN REVIBW FOR
NEW OFFICE/WA~-
HOUSE, 3970
QUEBEC AVENUE N.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Sonsin, second by Commissioner Oja, to
table Planning Case 90-29.
Voting in favors Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron,
Gundershaug, OJa
Voting againsts None
Absents Zak, Watschke
Motion passed.
New Hope Planning Commission -4- October 2, 1990