050791 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 7, 1991
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 Case 91-07 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval and Variances for Green
Area and Two Buildings on One Lot, Don Harvey Second
Addition, Quebec and Winnetka Avenues, Winnetka
Properties/Don Harvey, Petitioner
3.2 Case 91-08 Request for Site/Building Plan Review for Revised PUD Site
Plan, New Hope Mall, 4203-39 Winnetka Avenue North, New
Hope City Center/U.S. Swim Partnership, Petitioner
3.3 Case 91-09 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval, 7300 36th Avenue
North, Creamette Company, Petitioner
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS
4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee (will meet on May 16, 1991)
4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee (meeting date to be scheduled)
5. OLD BUSINESS
5.1 Limitation of fast food restaurants in shopping centers
5.2 Miscellaneous issues
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 1991, and April 2, 1991.
6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of February 25 and March 11, 1991 (included in
April packet but not reviewed because of Planning meeting cancellation), March 25,
and April 8, 1991, and City Council Work Session Minutes of March 18, 1991.
6.3 Review of EDA Minutes of February 11 (included in April packet but not reviewed),
February 25, and April 8, 1991.
6.4 Review of HRA Minutes of January 14, 1991
7. ANNOUNCEmeNTS
7.1 Resignation of Linda Oja
7.2 Change of Meeting Location, May and June
8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 91-07
Request: Request for Preliminary Plat and Variances for Green Area and Two
Buildings on One Lot for Don Harvey 2nd Addition
Location: Quebec and Winnetka Avenues North
PID No.: 17-118-21 32 0001
Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial)
Petitioner: Winnetka Properties/Don Harvey
Report Date: May 3, 1991
Meeting Date: May 7, 1991
UPDATE
This request for preliminary plat approval for Don Harvey 2nd Addition was considered at the
March Planning Commission meeting and staff recommended tabling the request until the
petitioner submitted a site plan and drainage plan to address the concerns outlined in the staff
report. The site plan is needed to show how existing non-conformities will be corrected and to
show specific percentages for lot coverage and green area. The drainage plan is required
because Old Dutch Pond is a designated DNR protected wetland and both a treatment basin
and storm sewer improvements are required.
In March the staff and City Engineer met with the petitioner on these issues and they were
agreeable to providing plans to address staff concerns. However, plans were not submitted in
time for the April meeting and staff recommended tabling the case. No official action was taken
in April due to the cancellation of the Planning Commission meeting.
During April the petitioner submitted a revised preliminary plat and a concept site/drainage
plan. The site plan indicated that two variances would be required in conjunction with the plan
approval: a variance from the green area requirements and a variance for two buildings on one
lot. The petitioner submitted the appropriate additional fees for the variances. The concept
drainage plan was reviewed and received preliminary approval from the City Engineer. Because
the drainage improvements require construction and easements which extend beyond the plat
to the north, the next step is for the petitioner to meet with the adjacent property owner to
secure the necessary drainage easements so that a final plan can be submitted along with the
plat. This step is in process now.
Staff has contacted the petitioner and he is requesting that this case be tabled for an additional
month so details on the drainage plan and easements can be finalized.
Staff recommends that this case be tabled for one month. Staff would recommend that the site
plan be reviewed by Design & Review in May and that the entire request be considered by the
Commission in June.
Attachments: Revised Preliminary Plat
Concept: Site/Drainage Plan
Concept: Site/Drainage Plan (enlarged)
April Planning Case Report
March Planning Case Report
REVISED PRELIk' "ARY PLAT
DON HARVEY °
2ND ADDITION
has an assumed bearing of South
0 degrees ]5 minutes 47 seconds East. o ,:- ..j -'-
iron pipe marked by License No. m I -~ m~ -~ ~--~
0 I00 2~ 300 ~ :;
SCALE IN FEET ;': f: -~ ),ne of ]~e N 48 roJs o~
CONCEPT: SITE/DRAIN6QE PLaN
CONCEPT: SiTE/DRAINAGE-
pL~'~ (enlar-ged)
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF:
DON HARVEY 2ND ADDITION
WINNETKA PROI~.RTIES, INC.
CITY OF NE~ HOPE
PLANNZNG CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 91-07
Request: Request for Preliminary Plat for Don Harvey 2nd Addition
Location: Quebec and Winnetka Avenues North
PID No.: 17-118-21 32 0001
Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial)
Petitioner: Winnetka Properties/Don harvey
Report Date: March 1, 1991
Meeting Date: March 5, 1991
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting subdivision and Preliminary Plat approval
of Don Harvey 2nd Addition' located adjacent to and northwest of the
newly constructed Quebec Avenue extension. The request is made pursuant
to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
2. The property is zoned I-1 (Limited Industrial) and is proposed to be
subdivided into two lots: the undeveloped property would be platted
into one lot abutting the west side of Winnetka Avenue, while the
easterly portion of. the property with the two existing warehouse/
manufacturing buildings would be platted into another lot.
3. The original proposal for the subdivision of this property called for
subdividing all of the Harvey property into two blocks with five lots.
The petitioner revised the plan to plat only the property east of Quebec
Avenue into one lot (final plat now under consideration). This proposal
is for the remaining portion of the property, where 3 lots and an outlot
were originally proposed.
4. The 7.5 acre parcel was first developed in 1976 with two identical
warehouses located in the middle of the site sharing a back-to-back
loading zone.
5. The minimum lot area requirement for properties in the I-1 Zoning
District is one (1) acre and the minimum lot width requirement is 150
feet. Lot area sizes and widths of the proposed plat are as follows:
Area Width
Lot 1, Block 1 111,580 sq.ft./2.56 acres 314 ft.(On Winnetka)
Lot 2, Block i 180,525 sq.ft./4.14 acres 341 ft.(On Quebec)
Quebec Avenue
Dedication 22,837 sq.ft./.52 acres
Winnetka Avenue 14,080 sq.ft./.32 acres
Dedication
TOTAL 329.022 sq.ft./7.5 acres
The two proposed lots meet the area and width requirements.
Planning Case Report 91-07 ~
March 5, 1991
Page -2-
6. The Preliminary Plat has been sent to the appropriate City Department
Heads, utility companies, and County agencies for review and comments.
7. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified.
ANALYSIS
1. The two-lot proposal for the property is an improvement over the
original three-lot/outlot proposal, however, there are still a number of
issues that need to be resolved.
2. Staff requests that the petitioner submit a site plan to show how the
existing non-conformities on Lot 2, Block i will be corrected. Staff
met with the petitioner last fall and discussed a concept plan to
increase green area and landscaping. A site plan should be submitted in
conjunction with the Preliminary Plat that addresses:
A. Specific percentages for the lot coverage and green area for the
developed parcel to determine if the 40%/35% standards are met or
if a variance will be necessary.
B. Elimination of bituminous in front of the two buildings and the
incorporation of landscaping in this area.
C. Revised parking plan to eliminate parking in front of the buildings
in conjunction with increased green area.
D. Driveway improvements: curb-cut and new access at northeast corner
of Lot 2 on Quebec Avenue; resolve existing curb-cut issue at
northwest corner of Lot 1 on Winnetka Avenue.
E. The off-site references to Lot i and Lot 2, Block 1, Don Harvey
Addition, east of the proposed plat need to be deleted and
corrected - this property has been platted as one lot.
3. The proposed plat contains two building on one lot and a variance will
be required.
4. If the bituminous in front is replaced with green area, Fire Department
connections on the front of both buildings will need to be relocated and
truck directional signs should be installed (see staff sketch).
5. Drainage and utility easements need to be shown on the plat. The Pre-
liminary Plat states "Easements to be dedicated on final plat as
required by City".
6. Aside from the site plan, a second major issue that needs to be
addressed is drainage. Existing drainage is conveyed overland across
private property to the north to Old Dutch Pond. The City Engineer is
recommending that a storm sewer system be installed. Shingle Creek
Watershed and the DNR will also require a storm water treatment basin to
Planning Case Report 91-07
March 5, 1991
Page -3-
collect water before it enters Old Dutch Pond, a designated DNR
protected wetland (see City Engineer correspondence). Both the storm
sewer improvements will require construction and easements which extend
beyond the plat and will need approval from the appropriate agencies.
Staff requests the petitioner to submit a drainage plan that addresses
these concerns.
7. The City Attorney has examined the plat and has found the legal descrip-
tion to be inaccurate and this needs to be corrected.
8. Minnegasco responded when the original plat was sent out that they have
an easement near the north line of the plat and this should be shown on
the plat.
9. Hennepin County responded with the following requests:
A. Seven additional feet of right-of-way should be dedicated on
Winnetka Avenue fOr a uniform width - this is shown on plat.
B. Ail access from the plat to CSAH 156 should be limited to proposed
Quebec Avenue. The existing driveway located approximately 220
feet north of proposed Quebec Avenue must be removed and the area
within County right of way restored.
The other items outlined in the County letter regarding utility permits
and restoration are routine.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to the large number of items that need to be addressed on the Preliminary
Plat, staff recommends that the plat be tabled. Staff requests that the
petitioner submit a site plan and a drainage plan to address the concerns
raise in the staff report. The site plan would then be reviewed by Design &
Review and brought back to the Commission.
Staff has notified the applicant of this recommendation.
Attachments: Section/Zoning Map
Preliminary Plat
Engineer Correspondence & Sketch (2-22/2-27-91/9-20-90)
Attorney Correspondence (2-22-91)
Hennepin County Correspondence (2-20-91)
Minnegasco Correspondence (9-19-90)
Staff Sketches & Correspondence (2-14-91)
Previous Staff Report Case 90-27 (9-28-90)
:SCHOOL .
BETHEL I L.I ONS
CE:METE:NY | PANK
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF:
DON HARVEY 2ND ADDITION
WINNETKA PROPERTIES, INC.
7147 SANDBURG RD.
GOLDEN VALLEY. MN
,' ~ ~ /
'1
~ I /
~'x , ~ ,-,,~ ~o ...... , ............
...... J. ~ ~:,.,.. -,
-, , ,,~ , , ,.
"' " OUC~d ......... ~ ~ "'
~ ~
DON HARVEY 2ND ADDITION
February 27, 199t
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Itt)pc, MN 55428
Attention: Kirk McDonald
Re: Don Harvey 2nd Addition
Our Fiic No. 34,.gert
Dear Kirk:
We have reviewed the drainage requirements for the above plat. Presently the existing
drainage is conveyed over'land acrt~s private property (4~10 Winnetka Avenue) tn thc north
to Old Dutch Pond. Therefore, the mo~t ~:fficic:nt storm sewer system to serve the ar~a
one w~lich collecu runoff from i:k)n Harvey 2ltd Addi~i~)n a.qd the property to the north
(40(XJ Winn~:tka Avenue). In a. dditkm, Shingle Creek W',4tetshed will require that st<)rm
water treatment be provided for a 2" rainfall event for the drainage ~ea tributary to the new
storm scw~r. The DepGttment of Natured R~ourccs (DNR) will also encourage storm water
treatment becauae Old Dutch Pond ia d~signated DNR Protected W~:tland. Attached
sketch which identit:[es a poss~le storm .~wcr system which will require c~snstructk,)
easements outside the Don Harvey 2nd Addition.
tn summary, the Don Harvey 2nd Addition will require storm sewer imprcwements t~ Old
Dutch Pond (DNR Ptoteoted Wetland) which will extend beyond the plat. Thc
imprcwcments w~J have to be reviewed and ultimately npproved by the Shingle Cr~:cL
Water~hed, DNR, and the City of New Hope.
[f you have any questions please contact this office.
Yours very truly,
M~ar~ He,neon MH:Ik
Attachment
233S ~r/est Highway 36 · St, Paul, Minnesota SSI13 · 612-636,4600
JO~ C. An~lk: ~E.
R;c~a~ E. rurn~, PE
~tenn R C~, PE
~san M E~. CPA
February 21, 1991
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Attn: Kirk McDonald
Re: Don Harvey 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat
Our File No. 34-Gen.
Dear Kirk:
It's recommended the preliminary plat for Don Harvey 2nd Addition not be approved until the
following items are addressed and properly shown on the preliminary plat:
- The site improvements required for Lot 2 Block 1 including green space, parking, driveway
and landscape in accordance with the City.
The proposed site plan for Lot 1 Block 2 including driveway locations, parking, landscape
and green space requirements.
The overall drainage improvements for Lot 1 and 2 including storm sewer and ponding
requirements in accordance with the City of New Hope and Shingle Creek Watershed.
If you have any questions please contact this office.
Yours very truly,
BONy~TROD, ,R, OSE~, ANDERL1K & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:dh
34GEN.
233S West Hlgl~way 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota SSl13 · 612-636-4600
City o~ ~ew Hope
z+401 Xylon Avenue
~e: Do: ~e~ Add~o~ · Our File No. 34-Gen
Dear Kirk:
We have reviewed =he above pla= and reco~end =he following:
- The existing warehouae om Lo~a 2 am~ ~ ~lock 1 ~ Ou~lot A presently drain
north overlam~ across private p~operty to 01~ Dutch Pom~. It's reco~,nded an
easemen~ be secured from ~he property ~o ~he north and s~o~m sewer be constructed
to properly convey drayage from =he existing warehouse =o Old Dutch Pond. Old
Dutch Pond is desi~a=ed a D~ we~land: therefore the discharge cf s=o~ water
into i= shall be done ~ accord~ce ~i=h cheir =equire,aen[s and =he Shi=~le Creek
Watershed. The s[om sewer shall also be p=oper!y desired ~o conve~ the storm
water r~off from Lo[ 1 Block 3.
- The d=ainase of Lo~ 1, Block 2 shall be direc[ed nor[hwa=d ~o Old Duluth PonJ.
However, =he drayage from Lo[ 2, Block 2 shall be direc=ed south by s=o~ sewer
in=o the pond~ area developed as pa== of Quebec Avenue Ez[ension - Project
A proper grad~g plan ~a no~ been provided fo= =he proposed development of Lot
2, Block 2. The=efo~e ~ en~ee=~s review of the 8rad~ pl~ can no[ be done.
The discharge of s[om wa~e= ~o Old ~[ch Pond shall be done ~ accordance with
D~ requi~emen[s ~d [he Sherle Creek Wa[ershed.
- The grad~g of Quebec Avenue extension provided for min~al removal
bi=~ous and grad~g ~o blend =he exis=~g pa~k~g a:eas se~inS the warehouses
~o the new street. ~erefore, i='s reco~ended =he parkin~ a=eas, driving lanes
and green spaces se~g ~he ezis[~g warehouses be recons[~cted ~o confo~ with
the new s[ree= ~ acco=d~ce with Ci[y requiremen[s. (Conc=e=e curb, green space
requi=emen[a, l~dscape plan, etc. )
2335 ~st Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota SSl13 · 612-636-4600
City of New Hope September 20, 1990
Page 2
At=n: Kirk HcDonald
- The existing driveway access to serve this site at Winnetka Avenue is being
removed as part of Quebec Avenue to conform with Hennepin County's Access Permit
for Quebec Avenue connecting to Winnetka Avenue. The access will be removed and
a sidewalk will be constructed within County right-of-waF. Therefore, it's
recommended the remaining driveway access on proposed Lot 1, Block 1 serving the
existing warehouse be removed.
- The right-of-wa7 dedication along ~innetka Avenue shall be reviewed by
Hennepin Co. and dedicated in accordance with their requirements. It's
anticipated an additional 7' of right-of-way will be required along ~innetka
Avenue.
- The right-of-way dedication for Quebec Avenue extension has been acquired by
the City. However it's recommended an additional 10' wide utility and drainage
easement be dedicated beyond the street right-of-way acquired for Quebec Avenue.
A minimum 5' wide utilit7 and drainage easements shall be dedicated on all side
lot lines and 10' wide on all rear lot lines.
- As part of Quebec Avenue extension, $ accesses are being provided to serve the
existing ~arehouses on Lot 2 & 3, Block 1, and 0utlot A. It's recommended the
proper easements be executed for the shared accesses located between Lots 2 and
3 and the access across 0utlot A. It's recommended the access across 0utlot A
be constructed as part of the plat approval.
- Curb cuts for driveway openings serving Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2 Block
2 have not been provided with the Quebec Avenue extension project since
development plans for this area have not been approved. The future driveway
accesses for these lots shall conform to city standards based on width and
spacing.
~an~tar? Sever/Va=er
- Sanitary sever and va=er services to serve the existing warehouses' on Lot 2
and $ Block 1 have been maintained with the Quebec Avenue extension project. A
sanitary sewer and water service has also been provided to Lot 1 Block 1.
Relative to Lot 1 and 2 Block 2, durin$ construction of Quebec Avenue the proper
owner was contacted whether he would pay for the cost of an additional sewer and
water service to the easterly side of Quebec Avenue. A response was not given;
therefore only one sewer and water service has been provided to the east side of
Quebec Avenue. Therefore, ic's recommended the sewer service co Loc 1 Block 1
be provided from the existin8 sever located on ica north line and its water
service be provided either from the existing hydrant located at its northwest
corner on the water service stub provided from Quebec Avenue at its southwest
corner. The sewer service provided at the southwest corner of Lot 1 Block 2 from
Cit7 of New Hope September 20, 1990
Page 3
Attn: Kirk HcDonald
Quebec Avenue shall be used to serve Lot 2 Block 2. In the event the sewer
service extends across a portion of Lot 1 Block 2 (which it appears it does) a
utility easement shall be shown on =he plat across ~he southwest corner of Lot
1 Block 2. The water service to Lo= 2 Block 2 shall be provided from the
existing water main located along its south line.
If you have any questions please contact =his office.
Yours very truly.
BONE~TRO0, ROS~E, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
MH:lk
\$4.gen
Co~°JcK & SO~DR~LL
3e? I WEST SROADWAY
RO~L~. ~ 5~22
CORRICK ~W OFFIC~I, P.A. F~ (~ ? ~)
WILLIAM J. COR~ICK
STEVEN A. IONDRALL SHARON D. OERBY
MICHAEL N. ~FLEUN
MARTIN P. MALECHA
WILLIAM C. STRAIT
February 22, 1991
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Hanagement Asst.
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: Don Harvey 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat
Our File No. 99.15030
Dear Kirk:
I have examined the preliminary plat of Don Harvey 2nd Addition.
The only comment I have is that the legal description on the plat
covers the proposed second addition as well as the land involved in
the Don Harvey 1st Addition. The legal description needs to be
modified to reflect only the land actually contained in the
proposed plat of Don Harvey 2nd Addition.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Martin P. Malecha
s3f
cc: Daniel J, Donahue
Steven A. $ondrall, Esq.
320 Washington Avenue South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
PHONE: [612] 930-2500
FAX [612] 930-2513
TDD: [612] 930-2696
February 20, 1991
Kirk McDonald
Assistant Community Oevelopment Coordinator
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Dear Mr. McDonald'
RE: PropOsed Plat - Don Harvey Second Addition
CSAH 156, east side approximately 1300 feet south of CSAM 9
Section 17, Township 118, Range 21
Hennepin County Plat No. 1911
Review and Recommendations
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 50).03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of
proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and have the
following comments:
- As shown on the proposed plat, the developer should dedicate 7 additional feet
of right of way for a uniform 40 feet of right of way from and along the CSAH
156 centerline.
- Access from the plat to CSAH 1)6 must be limited to Quebec Avenue. The existing
driveway located approximately 220 feet north of Quebec Avenue must be removed
and the area within County right of way restored. This restoration work
requires an approved entrance permit. The developer can contact Oave
Zetterstrom at 930-2548 for information and entrance permit forms.
- All proposed construction.within County right of way requires either an approved
utility permit or entrance permit prior to beginning construction. The utility
permit includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility cohstruction, trail
development, and landscaping. Contact our Permits Office, 930-2549, for utility
permit forms.
- The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed
during Plat construction.
Please direct any response or questions to Doug Mattson at 930-267).
Sincerely,
Oennis L, Hansen, P,E,
Transportation Planning Engineer HENNEPIN COUNTY
DLH/DBM:gk an~:lUa~Opporlunltyernp~oy~
I!
/I/Fnnegasco
Company o( D~verslfied ~fler~,~s. [~c.
September 19, 1990
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New ~ope, MN. 55428
RE: Preliminary Plat of Don Harvey Addition
Dear Mr. McDonald:
With reference to the preliminary pla= of 0on Harvey Addition,
Minnegasco, Inc. currently has an easemen= near the North line cf
the plat.
I have enclosed a copy of Minnegasco's easement number 76-@,
recorded with the Hennepin County recorder as document number
4256368. I request that this easement be referred
final plat.
Thank you for the advance notice and could you please send me a
copy of the final plat when it is approved.
Sincerely,
$'ta/v~ Yon Sargan
Real Estate Specialist
Minnegasco, Inc.
cc: R. J. Pilon, Minnegasco
P.O. Sox [~6~
Minne~lis. MN _5,-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.~4_0- t 165~ "
"One-Lot Optlon"-Preferred
Install #er Drlvevay
Provide 10'
Relocate Fire Dept. Connec )ns ..... . ......
/il
Remove Asphalt-Install sod ~ & .... ~
Instal I Truck Direct lo[iai Signs ~(
NOTE: 'l'~o bulldl~gs on one lot la a lechnlcal garlance.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 14, 1991
TO: Hennepin County Department of Transportation
Minnegasco
Northern States Power Co.
U.S. West Telephone
King Cable Television
New Hope Director of Public Works
New Hope Director of Finance/Administrative Services
New Hope City Attorney
New Hope City Engineer
FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community
Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat
Don Harvey Second Addition
Enclosed you will find a preliminary plat for Don Harvey Second
Addition. Please review and forward comments to me prior to 4:30
p.m.on Fri4av, February 22, 1991.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me.
CITY OF NE~ HOPE
PLANNING CA~E REPORT
Planning Case: 90-27
Request: Request for Subdivision and Platting
Location: 3920/40/60/80 Winnetka Avenue North
PID No.: 17-118-21 32 0001
Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial)
Petitioner: Winnetka Properties
Report Date: September 28, 1990
Meeting Date: October 2, 1990
1. The petitioner is requesting subdivision and Preliminary Plat
approval of the Don Harvey Addition located on the extension of
Quebec Avenue currently under construction. The request is made
pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
2. The property is zoned I-1 Industrial and is proposed to be
subdivided into five lots.
3. The site is an 11 acre parcel that was first developed in 1976 with
two identical warehouses in the middle of the site sharing a back to
back loading zone. The new plat follows the bisection of the
acreage by Quebec Avenue and is being filed in conjunction with a
proposed warehouse development for Lot 2, Block 2. No PUD is being
requested.
4. The minimum lot area requirement for properties in the I-1 Zoning
District is one (1) acre and the minimum lot width requirement is
150 feet. The lot area sizes and width of the proposed plat are
outlined as follows:
Area Width
Lot 1, Block I 115,450 sq.ft, or 2.65 acres 307 ft.(on Winnetka)
Lot 2, Block I 76,765 sq.ft, or 1.76 acres 218 ft.(on Quebec)
Lot 3, Block i 75.040 sq.ft, or 1.72 acres 225 ft.(on Quebec)
Outlot A 30,765 sq.ft, or .71 acres
Lot 1, Block 2 52,970 sq.ft, or 1.21 acres 180 ft.(on Quebec)
Lot 2, Block 2 84,495 sq.ft, or 1.94 acres 220 ft.(on Quebec)
Street 31,2088q. ft. or_~
TOTAL 10.71 acres
Ail lots meet the minimum area and width requirements.
Planning Case Report 90-27
October 2, 1990
Page -2-
5. The Preliminary Plat has been sent to the appropriate City
Department Heads, utility companies, and County agencies for review
and comment.
6. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified.
1. Staff has a concern with Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, as they are already
developed but do not meet the I-1 35% areen area reau~rement do to
the fact that the lot is almost totally covered with bituminous.
2. Staff has a concern with Outlot A standing on its own and recommends
that it be combined with Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, as shown on the
Attachment (One-Lot Option). The resulting lot would nearly meet
the I-1 standards with the "front" asphalt reD~aced by sod.
3. Other problems that should be corrected on the site include:
A. Construct a new driveway at northeast Quebec, as'shown.
B. Remove all outdoor storage including 50 pallets, semi-trailers,
wire cages, trash, 30 barrels, inoperable vehicles, etc.
C. Extend both Fire Department connections from the south walls to
the common drive corner, as shown on staff sketch.
D. Replace front asphalt with sod.
4. If the "One-Lot Option" is not acceptable to the petitioner or the
Commission, then staff would recommend a "Two-Lot Option", as shown
on staff sketch. Under this option the easterly lot line of Lot 1,
Block 1, would be reduced by at least 50 feet and that strip would
be added to Lot 2 for green space. Outlot A would then be combined
with Lot 3 for green area, as shown on staff sketch.
5. The petitioner needs to provide exact percentages to the staff on
lot coverage and green area for these two developed parcels.
6. Another staff concern is that Lot 1, Block 2, is quite small and
will not permit a building as large as the one proposed for Lot 2.
No buildina approval on the north lot is Dart of this petition.
7. Minnegasco has responded that they have an easement near the north
line of the plat and this should be included in the final plat.
8. Hennepin County responded with 2 requests that should be
incorporated into the plat:
A. The developer should dedicate additional right of way so there
is a minimum uniform 40 feet of right of way from and along the
CSAH 156 centerline.
Planning Case Report 90-27
October 2, 1990
Page -3-
B. Ail access from the plat to CSAH 156 should be limited to
proposed Quebec Avenue. The existing driveway located
approximately 220 feet north of proposed Quebec Avenue must be
removed and the area within County right of way restored.
The other items outlined in the County letter regarding utility
permits and restoration are routine.
9. The City Engineer has made a number of recommendations regarding
grading/drainage, street/access, and sanitary sewer/water (a total
of 9 in all). No drainage or utility easement are shown on any of
the side or rear lot lines. Instead of repeating all of the issues
in this report, staff directs you to the attached letter from the
City Engineer.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the large number of items that need to be addressed on the
preliminary plat to answer staff, County and the Engineer's concerns,
staff recommends that the preliminary plat be tabled. Staff request the
petitioner to specifically address all concerns and to submit a revised
preliminary plat.
Attachments: Section Map
Preliminary Plat
Staff Sketches, "One-Lot Option"
"Two-Lot Option"
Letter Re: Plat Review
Minnegas¢o Response
Hennepin County Response
City Engineer Response
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 91-08
Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review for Revised PUD Site Plan
Location: 4203-39 Winnetka Avenue North
PID No.: 18-118-21 11 0016
Zoning: B-4 (Community Business)
Petitioner: New Hope City Center/U.S.Swim Partnership
Report Date: May 1, 1991
Meeting Date: May 7, 1991
UPDATE
Due to the cancellation of the April 2nd Planning Commission because of the lack of a
quorum, this request by New Hope City Center/U.S.Swim Partnership for site/building plan
review approval for a revised Planned Unit Development site plan was not considered. Staff
contacted the petitioner and they were agreeable to waiting until the May Planning
Commission meeting. The report prepared for the April meeting is attached. One
commissioner contacted the staff and inquired about the time' lapse between the time the
orders were issued and the revised plan submitted. I am unaware as to the reason for the
delay, but do know that staff met with the petitioner and architect on several occasions to
identify the problems on the site and to recommend solutions. The end result of the
meetings was a revised plan that corrects the unauthorized changes that were made.
Staff recommends approval of the site/building plan review for the revised PUD site plan
for the New Hope City Center and recommends that the new plan be designated to replace
the 1986 site plan.
Attachments: April Planning Case Report/attachments
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 91-08
Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review for Revised PUD
Site Plan
Location: 4203-39 Winnetka Avenue North
PID No.: 18-118-21 11 0016
Zoning: B-4 (Community Business)
PetitiOner: New Hope City Center/U.S.Swim Partnership
Report Date: March 29, 1991
Meeting Date: April 2, 1991
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting Site/Building Plan Review approval for a
revised PUD site plan for the New Hope Mall, pursuant to Section 4.039A
(lc & d) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
2. Planning Case 85-38 dealt with the major redevelopment/expansion of the
New Hope Mall, including a text amendment to permit a commercial
recreational use in a B-4 zoning district, a conditional use permit for
a PUD amendment, and preliminary plat approval to combine two lots.
Planning Case 86-12 dealt with the construction approval, approval of
the final plat and the Planned Unit Development Agreement for the
conditional use permit.
3. The PUD Agreement that was approved included specific blueprint exhibits
for the PUD, one of which was the Site Plan( labeled "PUD Exhibit B").
It is this plan which is proposed to be replaced with a new "Exhibit B"
by this request.
4. This filing results from a City order which was issued to the property
owner after unauthorized changes were made to the site in 1988 and 1989.
Problems with the site are outlined in the September, 1989, letter from
the Manager, and included:
A. The parking lot was re-striped and was changed considerably from
the original plan. No new plan was submitted or approved prior to
the striping being done.
B. The handicapped parking stalls do not meet with or conform to State
law, as they are undersized and not adequately marked.
C. Due to the re-striping, some of the driving aisles are now less
than 24 feet wide, as required by City Code, and are not properly
marked with yellow paint.
Planning Care Report 91-08 ~'
April 2, 1991
Page -3-
H. Handicapped Darkinq stalls - Si~naqs - All handicapped parking
stalls to have handicapped wheelchair symbol painted on parking
surface. Ail stalls to be marked with HANDICAPPED PARKING signs
and additional 12" x 6" signs are to be mounted below standard
handicapped sign which reads "UP TO $200 FINE FOR VIOLATION".
i. No2-conforming sians -A number of signs will be removed: "30
Minute Parking Only", "15 Minute Parking Only", and existing
painted curb stenciled with Block Buster Video to be removed.
3. The original 1986 PUD site plan showed a total of 463 parking stalls.
The revised plan shows 476 stalls, or an increase of 13 parking spaces.
The plan meets the parking requirements of the City Code.
4. The plan would be implemented this spring, as soon as the weather
permits.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends site/building plan review approval of the revised PUD site
plan for the New Hope Mall. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
designate the new plan, dated 2/4/91, to replace 1986 "PUD Exhibit B".
Attachments: Section/Zoning Map
Petitioner's March 6, 1991 letter
City's September 6, 1989 letter
New Site Plan
Original PUD Exhibits
Original Planner's Report - New Hope Mall Renovation
NEW HOPE "
IrLIrMETAHY
S~HOOL
Rea~ Estate Services
BROKERAGE AND MANAGEMENT
~cemed R~ ~Ute B~
March 6, 1991
hr. Doug Sandstad
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Site and Building Plan ReviewAmended P~D
New Hope City Center
Dear Doug,
Enclosed please find our Application to the Planning Commission
and City Council regarding the Site and Building Plan
Review/Amended P.U.D for New Hope City Center. Pope Associates,
our architects, have sent eight copies of the original plan and
one 8 1/2 x 11 reduction of the same to your attention. Also,
please accept our enclosed $150.00 application fee.
Please feel free to contact me at (612) 924-4688 with any
questions or concerns you may have regarding the enclosed. We
sincerely appreciate all your help in generating and submitting
these documents.
Sincere ly,
?
Senior Real Estate Manager
cc: Peter Obernesser
amc71
Minne-x~a Center, 7760 France Avenue South, Suite 770 · Minnesl~, Mirme~ota 55435-5282
4401 X¥1on Avenue Nortft New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521
SEP 7
September 6, 1989
Mr. Peter J. Obernesser
Managing Percher
New Hope/US Swim Partnership
20 Boulder Crescent
Suite C
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
SUBJECT: NEW HOPE CITY CENTER
Dear Peter:
I am sorry I am so slow in responding to your letters of August
10 and August 18, 1989. I think we can work out the drainage
problem and I have discussed this with the Building Official.
However, if and when the situation with McDonalds gets resolved
and construction begins, I would like to request that both
parties see what can be done to improve the drainage as a
driveway between the two properties is developed.
There is another matter that just recently came up that is
causing a real problem for the City and is further jeopardizing
the Certificate of Occupancy. It involves the recent striping of
the parking lot. ~ ·
What apparently started out as good intentions, now has developed
into what I consider to be a bit of a mess. The City assumed,
along wi~/1 myself, ~hat the striping recently done on the parking
lot would duplicate what was existing. That was the plan
originally submitted to the City and made part of the planned
unit development agreement. Since there was no subsequent plan
submitted, our assumption was that the lot would be re-striped
exactly as it existed in the past.
The striping that was done on the lot has changed considerably
from the original plan. No new plan was submitted to the city
prior to the striping being done. This is the first problem.
The second problem is that ~he handicapped parking stalls do not
meet with and do not conform to State law. They are undersized
and not adequately marked. The third problem is that some of the
Peter J. Obernesser
Page 2
September 6, 1989
driving aisles are now less than 24 feet as required by the City
code and not properly marked with yellow paint.
The fourth problem exists in that whoever the company hired by
Larry Grell, chose to defy a direct order to cease work until the
~lty was contacted with a striping plan. The inspectors went
back and found ~hat the lot had been completed although they had
been told not to proceed.
I would appreciate anything you can do to rectify this. Orders
have been given by the inspections department to correct the
striping and I hope that something can be worked out. I am
afraid I will have to withhold any action on the Certificate of
Occupancy until the striping is rectified.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Donahue
City Manager
DJD/J f
cc: Building Official
IJ~l(I
ParkbI Lot
PARKING TABULATION
P~k~g Provided- 4~ lllJ
Z
~CP. P~kbo 8e~ed --4N II~ ~ i~ Il-Il
HTII Jllll~ iF, J Jt ~llJ ~l J
42ND AVENUE NORTH '(ROCKFORD, R~AD) '~'''~'
' [~~" rhh~:~ ~ [ ilX:~ i .l ====
r~
....... ' SITE PLAN
lllllllll Wl#elkl Mill
-"
IK. /"" lXlITNIG
~NIW HOPE MALL
,~ON
I
r~d
41ND AVENUE NORTH
PARKING TABULATION
Building Area 79,844 Sq. Ft.
Existing Parking (1986 PUD)--463 Stalls
Proposed Parking -- 476 Stalls
HDCP. Parking Required 476 Stalls Divided By 50=10
10 Stalls Provided
NOTE: Shaded Areea Indicate ~ I "
Fire Lanee (Shown Thus)
NO PARKING Allowed In Fire Lane8
NOTE: Exitting HDCP. Sign~ To Remain Mu~t
Be Provided 'WIf. h..An Additional Sign
Shown Below. New HDCP. Signs Shall
Match The Exleting Signe.
ilgne muqlt~l~e · 12'x6' sign below
the etenderd hendi¢lpl~ed sign which
rte(it II tollowe
'CMet - White on live (Refleet~l&e4)
Per ulflaelOtl Slllull 111.346, Subd. 2 Minded
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR PROPOSED NEW HOPE MALL
1. Pa=ties.to Aqreement. This Agreement dated the ~'%-day of
(~,f~%.~.. , 1986 is between the City of New
Ho~e~ a Minnesota Municipal Corporation (hereafter City) and
New Hope/U.S. Swim Partnership, a Colorado general partnership,
(hereafter Developer).
2. Subject Property. That the Developers are the owners of the
following described property which is the subject of this
Agreement:
See Exhibit A attached
3. Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit Development Approval.
The Developers have asked the City to approve a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for the subject property consisting of the
following uses: a commercial recreation facility and retail
strip center allowing for permitted and conditional uses
authorized in a B-4 zone per the New Hope Zoning Code. The
City hereby approves the PUD conditional use permit on the
condition that the Developers enter into this Agreement and
comply with the terms contained herein and Chapter 4.19 of
the New Hope Code.
4. Platting Requirement. The Developers agree to plat the
property pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope City Code.
That a preliminary plat has been submitted and approved.
The Developer agrees to submit to the City a final plat for
approval on or before October 31, 1986.
5. Development Exhibits. The Developers shall develop the plat
in accordance with the plans shown on the following
exhibits. If the exhibits vary from the written terms of
this Agreement,.~.~h.% written terms shall control. The
exhibits have be~n provided by the Developer, are on file
with the New Hope City Clerk and are identified as follows:
Exhibit B -- Site Plan
Exhibit C -- Landscape Plan
Exhibit D -- Building Elevation Plans
Exhibit E -- Floor Plans -
U.S. Swim & Fitness Club
Exhibit F -- Floor Plans -
Retail Area of New Hope Mall
Exhibit G -- As Built Survey (05/27/86)
Exhibit H -- Ingress and Egress Easement
from Winnetka Associates
6. Shared Ingress and Egress. The Developers agree to provide
ingress and egress to all uses on the subject property
pursuant to the site plan identified as Exhibit B. Developers
t"" ......... ~-'~ .'~.,~,~. BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHIC, AND LOCATION SURVEY FOR:
,1[ .... ...:. OFFICES AMERICA. INC.
\ "- '"'" ~' ' *.
COUNTY STATE Ali) HIGHWAY NO. 9j. PLAT . .,Ct:;.i~,. ~.,~,.' ,. ,., _ m..,.~_ e..d ~.,~,,.,~,....,.~.
northwest associated consultants, inc.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Dan Donahue
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: 27 November 1985
RE: New Hope Mall Renovation
FILE NO: 131.01 - 85.38
BACKGROUND
Offices America, Inc. has a contract to purchase the New Hope Mall. They have
applied for several development requests to allow for the redevelopment of this
existing shopping center. These applications include:
1. Text amendment to permit a commercial recreational use in the B-4
zoning district.
2. Conditional use permit for a PUD amendment.
3. Variance from parking stall and aisle dimensions.
4. Subdivision to combine two lots.
TEXT AMENDMENT
The applicant is proposing to expand the existing New Hope Mall to 91,800 square
feet, of which 43,650 square feet is intended to be occupied by U.S. Swim and
Fitness, a health club. The health club facility is a commercial recreational
use which is not allowed in the B-4 zoning district. Currently only New Hope's
B-3 district allows this type of facility as a permitted use and the industrial
district allows it as a conditional use.
The proposed health facility is consistent with the findings of the 42nd Avenue/
City Center Market Study which identified the lack of recreation and entertain-
ment facilities in the City Center area. The introduction of the health club
to the shopping mall would be a step to improving the area's market attraction
by introducing a use that would serve to draw people to this commercial area.
The increased attraction created by the health club should serve to benefit the
new and existing commercial establishments in the New Hope City Center area
through business interchange.
- 820 m nnetonka blvd. m nneapol $, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420
Dan Donahue
27 November 1985
Page Two
Based on New Hope's planning objectives for the City Center, we would recommend
that the City strongly consider amending its Zoning Ordinance to allow such a
use in the B-4 zoning district.
Health club facilities are generally characterized by having large buildings to
house their activities, high client turn-over and traffic generation. These
use characteristics must be addressed in any zoning text amendment. The City has
two options in considering a possible zoning text amendment:
1. Permitted Use: Due to their high traffic generation and more regional
market attraction, conmercial recreational uses were listed as permitted
uses in New Hope's B-3, Automobile Oriented Commercial Zoning District.
The City must consider the impact of such a use in the B-4 zoning area.
The intent of the B-4 zoning district is to provide for the establishment
of commercial service and retail activities which draw from and serve
customers from the entire community or subregion. Commercial recreation
use would be consistent with this stated intention.
Review of the New Hope Zoning Map reveals three B-4 zoning districts, each
containing shopping centers ( City Center area,. Midland Shopping Center,
and Poste Haste Center). While each of the areas is located along major
traffic carrying streets, only the City Center provides sufficient buildable
area to accommodate a health club and its related parking area, As noted
earlier, the impact on adjacent land uses is expected to be beneficial
due to increased market draw to the area.
2. Conditional Use Permit: If the City would like to be more discretionary on
the review and approval of commercial recreational uses in the B-4 district,
the use could be allowed by conditional use permit, as it is in the
industrial districts, The New Hope commercial recreation facilities con-
ditional use requirements are listed as follows:
"Commercial Recreation Facilities. Commercial Recreation, provided
that:
(a) Access. The site of the proposed use has direct access to an
arterial street as defined in the City Code, without utilizing
public streets of a lower traffic handling classification to
reach the arterial street, and
(b) Proximity to Residential. The outside perimeter of the site,
as legally described is, 500 feet or more from the boundary
of a residential zoning classification, or
(c) Compatibility. The architectural appearance and functional
plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to
the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in
property values or constitute a blighting influence.
Dan Donahue
27 November 1985
Page Three
(d) Screening from Residential. Parking areas shall be screened
from view of residential districts and shall be curbed with
continuous concrete curbs not less than six inches high above
the parking lot or driveway grade, at the curb line.
(e) Access. Vehicular access points shall be limited and designed
and constructed to create a minimum of conflict with through
traffic movement.
(f) Lighting Shielded. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed
that the light source is not visible from the right-of-way or
from a residential zone or use.
(g) Surfacing. The entire area other,tM~ that occupied by buildings,
structures or plantings shall be surfaced with a bituminous or
concrete material which will control dust and drainage. The
material and grading shall be subject to the approval of the City.
(h) Landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided and the type of
planting material and the number and size of plants shall be
subject to the approval of the City."
With the exception of provision (b), most commercial uses in the B-4 zoning
district are required to meet the provisions outlined above through the
City's general zoning provisions. The conditional use process does require
a more detailed review process which may be desired by the City.
Commercial recreational .uses in the B-4 zoning district appear to be acceptable.
As described in either option, the City determines how they would like to treat
the uses. Upon making this decision, City staff can prepare the appropriate
text amendment.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Due to the integration of uses and shared ancillary amenities, shopping centers
are required to be planned unit developments. Planned unit developments are
reviewed and processed in three stages. The applicant has submitted a concept
plan for review at this time. The following is a site plan review based on the
City's Zoning Ordinance and the 1977 Commercial Core Guidelines.
~uilding Massing and Appearance ,
The applicant is proposing a 91,800 square foot shopping center, 43,650 square
feet will be occupied by the U.S. Swim and Fitness Health Club. The balance
will be leased for retail sales and service and 6,650 square feet is designated
as service area.
Dan Donahue
27 November 1985
Page Four
The southern building extension raises a concern over the isolation of the K-Mart
facility from the remainder of the City Center area. While the site plan provides
a driveway connection between the Mall and K-Mart, the southern building serves as
a visual barrier separation of the two commercial facilities. The building
orientation is toward Winnetka and as such the building elevation visible to east
bound motorists on 42nd will be the back of the building. This layout is undesirable
and we would suggest a consistent architectural and landscape treatment on all
sides of the southern building expansion. Display area exposure is also suggested
along the southern wall to provide added exposure to 42nd Avenue. The archi-
tectural changes are suggested to promote a continuous and coordinated appearance
for the City Center area from all directions, as recommended in the City Center
guidelines.
The applicant is proposing a canopy along the south and east elevation, which
will provide an attractive mall image. The owner of Winnetka Shopping Center
has expressed some interest in continuing this architectural element to the
Winnetka Center.
The west elevation is proposed to be concrete block painted to match the brick
front facade. This elevation is highly visible from 42nd Avenue and properties
to the west. As such, the back of this building should be treated in an
architectural and landscape manor consistent with the front of the building.
Extending the canopy may not be desirable, however, the building materials
should be consistent.
Circulation and Parking
Review of the proposed Site plan indicates a well designed internal traffic circula-
tion system which Qccomplishes the following items:
1. Limited direct access points to Winnetka Avenue and 42nd Avenue.
2. Utilization of a shared access drive from Winnetka in conjunction with
Winnetka Mall. '~¥ ~
3. The site plan provides internal driveway connections to the other commercial
area in the City Center.
4. The site plan shows a pedestrian sidewalk connection between the New Hope
blall and the Winnetka Shopping Center.
The following parking items must still be addressed:
Based on the New Hope parking requirements of six parking stalls for every 1,000
square feet for shopping centers over 30,000 square feet, the following parking
calculation was made:
Gross floor space 91,800 square feet
Cover hallway -6,280 square feet
~ square feet
10% parking credit -8,550 square feet
Net Floor Space 76,970 square feet
76,970 + 1,000 - 76.97 x 6: 462 parking stalls
Dan Donahue
27 November 1985
Page Five
The applicant shows 460 parking stalls, however, the site plan indicates that some
of the parking stalls are substandard in dimension when compared to the City's
size requirements. The City requires 90 degree parking to provide 64 feet inter-
lock to interlock to provide for a 20 foot stall length and 24 foot aisle width.
We strongly recommend that City dimensional requirements be observed. We estimate
that by enlarging the existing parking stalls approximately 20 stalls will be
loet. The parking deficiency can be accommodated in a number of ways:
1. Reduce the shopping center building size to reduce the parking demand.
2. Reduce available green space to accommodate more parking. The site already
lacks space for snow storage. As such, this alternative is not recommended.
A snow storage Plan should be provided.
3. Promote shared parking between the shopping centers under the PUD design.
This alternative appears to be the most efficient. The over-flow traffic
could use Winnetka Center parking. The New Hope Bank being a day time use
and the health club more night time oriented could compatibly share parking
as needed.
The parking area located on the west side of the building contains 41 parking stalls.
This area should be designated for employee parking since it will be inconvenient
for customer use. A sidewalk should be provided to allow pedestrian access to the
employee parking lot. This sidewalk should also provide access to the loading
dock area and the trash and service area.
Loading Area
The site plan shows a loading area sufficient to accommodate two large delivery
trucks. An internal building hallway provides access to the loading for the
majority of the shopping center, however, the southern extension has no access
to this loading area.
The service area should.~ ~esigned to accommodate all deliveries. Direct
deliveries from the westeFn driveway to the southern extension should be dis-
couraged rather pedestrian access to the loading area and trash area should be
provided.
Lightin9 Plan
In the subsequent development stage of the PUD, a lighting plan for the parking
lot aid building must be provided. Said plan should address location, illumination,
- and lighting fixture styles. Styles and location should be coordinated with
adjacent shopping centers.
Dan Donahue
27 November 1985
Page Six
Landscape Plan
Review of the landscape plan shows an extensive landscape layout providing a
variety of landscape material. The type and size of the material is acceptable
by City standards.
Signage
The building elevations show that wall signs will be mounted on the canopy. The
site plan proposes two pylon signs. The New Hope Sign Ordinance requires the
submission of a comprehensive sign plan for a shopping center.
SUBDIVISION
The parcel exists as two parcels of land. A subdivision must be approved to
combine these existing parcels into a single parcel.
CONCLUSION
The City of New Hope has conducted numerous studies regarding the City Center area.
The opportunity now presents itself to implement some of the City's planning
objectives for the area. The applicant is now presenting only a concept plan
for City approval. As noted in this report, there remains several design elements
that must be resolved between the City and the applicant. These design elements
should be discussed to allow any revisions to be shown in the future development
stage.
cc: Doug Sandstad
"' -- '""-'"-' "::'
Iml 1 '""- I'''''~'' I I J- '~"'"~~
1" I'1'~'''''''''''~ i.,..-~ ,.-,~.....~!,..-I i::
-....=..::==..._:-.=.-:=.:..:-=..~ .,_,...__,_.._,,_, ...... ~.
................... ' I1~1 I..
i - · __ [I!H~LI ll.!14q~
· ...~,---~,.~,._~..~_~.- ~ ~ I~'IIIIIIlUllIIIIII~ t'~~~a~''~ama~e~J
....... ~ 1 ~ .litllllilillllr'lllpl!ll!illl'---~-J:~ ,, n J
"'~:- '"'=- ' ' /il- u"'"""°'"'"""L_~k/) Il ~ II
~_~__..~.._~ [~ . ~.i-.~ IIIIIIIIll. lPl!lllill/llfi ~JJl_V' I1'~11 '..
%
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 91-09
Request: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval
Location: 7300 36th Avenue Noah
PID No.: 17-118-21 34 0003
Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial)
Petitioner: Creamette Company
Report Date: May 3, 1991
Meeting Date: May 7,1991
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of Creamette Addition, which
includes all of the Creamette's property north of 36th Avenue and south of 38th Avenue,
just east of the Soo Line Railroad right-of-way. The request is made pursuant to Chapter
13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
2. The plat application is being submitted in conjunction with the pending construction
application and is being submitted at the request of the City. One of the conditions of
approval for Planning Case 90-40, Creamette's building expansion, was that the property
be platted to resolve easement issues.
3. The site is zoned I-1 Light Industrial and the existing land use is
warehouse/manufacturing. Surrounding properties are zoned residential on the north
and east, light industrial on the south across 36th Avenue and multi-family residential to
the west (in Crystal).
4. The minimum lot area requirement for properties in the I-1 Zoning District is one (1)
acre and the minimum lot width requirement is 150 feet. Creamettes is proposing to plat
all the property into one lot. The property contains 698,040 square feet or 16.02 acres
and the minimum width of the property is 375 feet on 36th Avenue, thus there is no
problem in meeting the lot area/width requirements.
5. In January of 1991, Planning Case 90-40 was approved for construction of 73,895 square
feet of additional building on the north side of the existing building and the modification
of 18,525 square feet of the existing building on the east side. The additions eliminate
all truck loading/shipping and movement on the east side adjoining residential property.
6. Section 13.032 of the City Code states that "copies of the final plat shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations, unless this requirement
is waived by the Planning Commi~ion during their review of the preliminary plat".
7. The Preliminary Plat has been sent to the appropriate City department heads, utility
companies, and County agencies for review and comment.
8. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified.
Planning Case Report 91-09
May 7, 1991
Page -2-
ANALYSIS
1. The preliminary plat addresses the concerns about sanitary sewer and storm sewer
easements. A 30-foot storm sewer easement is shown extending north/south through the
property and this easement continues on the Rainbow property. A 7.5 foot sanitary sewer
easement is also shown extending north/south the entire length of the property. These
easements address the "building separation" concerns that were outlined in Planning
Report 90-40, as any expansion on the Rainbow property would not be allowed within
30 feet of the west property line.
2. The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary plat and recommends the following
changes:
A. That 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements be shown along all lot lines,
B. That 7 feet of additional right-of-way be dedicated along 36th Avenue (for a total
40-foot dedication - only 33 feet is shown on current proposed plat),
C. That the railroad right-of-way shall be shown as the Soo Line RailrOad (currently
identified on plat as the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railroad),
D. That the lot be identified as Lot 1, Block 1.
3. The City Attorney has reviewed the preliminary plat and had the following concerns:
A. The legal description does not include the dedication of the streets.
B. The title insurance policy needs to be updated to correctly reflect ownership of the
property.
C. The ownership of the property needs to be clarified (Creamette Company or
Borden, Inc.) and listed correctly on the dedication page of the plat.
The attorney is in the process of resolving these issues with the surveyor and Creamettes.
4. The Hennepin County Department of Transportation responded that they have no
comment ont he plat, as no County roads are involved in the plat.
5. No comments were received from utility companies.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat of Creamette Addition with the following
conditions:
1. That the Final Plat be brought back to the Planning Commission for review/approval
with the following changes:
A. 10 foot wide drainage/utility easements be shown along all lot lines,
B. 7 foot additional right-of-way be dedicated along 36th Avenue North,
C. Railroad right-of-way be shown as Soo Line Railroad,
D. Lot be identified as Lot 1, Block 1,
E. Legal description to include street dedications,
F. Title insurance and property ownership updated/clarified.
Attachments: Section/Zoning Map
Preliminary Plat
Engineer's Comments
Attorney's Comments
Site Plan
Planning Case Report 90-40
NATIVITY
LUTHERAN
CHURCH
I
BETHEL'-
CEMETERY LIONS
' PARK
!
39 TH A
JERSEY CIRCL;
IImIal 36 TH m I miiiI AVE, N
35 I/2AVE N.
B-4 R-4
TH AVE
~4 TH AVE.
CREAMETTE ADDITION ..T. ooc..o.
,c,,, .... ,, C.R. DOC NO.
;,.~ ,':'.%'.,,~:.-~.
L 0 T I :~ ~ -
B
LOCK I
' ' ~ '
· . I J I I ~ '~ '
Robert V~ Rosene. RE. Richard ~,~ Foster. RE. Mark R. Rolls. RE L. Ph$ihD Gravei FJm, p~
Josep~ C. Andeflik, ~E. Donald C. Burga~ PE. ~be~ C, Rus~k. A.~.A Rene C P~uma~. A; A
Rosene Ma~,n L. ~aia. PE. Jer~ A. Bou~on. PE. Thomas E. Angus. RE. ~nes M Rln,, A ~CP
/ ~, ~ Richa~ E. Turner. PE. Mark A Han~n. RE H~affi A. ~nfoffi. PE. Jer~ D. Pe~scn. PE
Glenn R Cook. ~E. Ted K. Field, PE. Oaniel J. Edge~on, RE.Ceolio Oliwer. RE
Associates T~omas E NO, S. PE. M,chae, ~ Rautmann. PE. Mark A. ~ip. ~E. Ro~ R. Drebl~ PE
~n M. E~rlin, CRA. David O. ~skota. PE. Jsmael Mamnez, PE. Cha~es A EncKson
Thomas ~ Pete~on. PE Mar~ D. WalJis. PE L~ M Pawelsk~
Michael C. Lynch, RE. Thomas R. Ande~on, A,LA. Hartan M. Ot~n
Engln~rs & Archit~ts ~m.~ R. M~.~. ~E. ~ ~ ~y~.,~..~.
Apffi 25, 1991
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue N.
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Attn: Kirk McDonald
Re: Creamette Addition
(Preliminary Plat)
Our File No. 34-Gen.
Dear Kirk:
We have reviewed the above plat and recommend the following:
10' wide drainage and utility easements be shown along aH lot lines.
7' of additional right-of-way be dedicated along 36th Avenue (Total 40').
The railroad right-of-way shall be shown as Soo Line Railroad.
The lot shah be identified as Lot 1 Block 1.
If you have any questions please contact this office.
Yours very u-uly,
BONI~STROO, R~)SENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
MarinA. Hanson
34.Gen
2335 ~Vest Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 · 612-636-4600
CORRICK & SONDRALL
A PARTNIEREHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION8
3811 WEST BROADWAY
ROBB~$DALE, M~'ESOTA 55422
TEL[PHONE (612) B33-Z241
CORRICK LAW OFFICES, P.A. FAX (612} 633-2243 LEGAL ASSISTANTS
WILLIAM J. CORRICK LAVONNE E. KESKE
STEVEN A. SONDRALL, P.A. SHARON D. DERBY
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
MICHAEL R, L.AFLEUR
MARTIN P. MALECHA
WILLIAM C. STRAIT
April 19, 1991
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Asst.
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: Creamette Addition
Our File No. 99.15031
Dear Kirk:
I reviewed the preliminary plat for Creamette Addition. I have
some questions regarding the legal description and the survey
illustration of that legal. I am in the process of discussing this
with the surveyor. I will contact you when the outstanding issues
have been resolved, hopefully within the next week or so.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Martin P. Malecha
s3f
cc: Daniel J. Donahue
Steven A. Sondra11, Esq.
' MI::~Y-- 2-- c-:-:-a 1 T HU 1 0 -' 2 T C 0 R F~ ! CK 8~ $ OH I:IR IqL L P . 02
May 2, 1991
Mr. K4rk.McDonald
Management Asst.
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, HN 55428
RE: Creamette Addition
Our F~Io No: 99.15031
Dear Kirk:
Z have reviewed the preliminary plat and a supplemental plat ftled
by dames Kyro, the Surveyor. The legal descr~p:ions contained tn
the dedication clause are approprla:e, wtth the exception of some
problems involving dedication of the streets. Z: appears that the
streets are not tn~ludsd in the legal descriptions for the
property~ though Surveyor Kyro Indicates the Coun%y will likely
require tha:. ! w~11 ¢onttnue ~o talk wtth the Surveyor and
posstbly :he County to resolve these issues. ! w111 contact you
when further information ia available.
Please con,act me ~f you have any ques[ione.
Sincerely,
Martin P. Malech&
cc: Dan~el J, Donahue
Steven A. $ondra11, Esq.
May 2, 1991
The Creamette Company
7300 36th Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55427
ATTN: Mr, Don Litterer
RE: Creamette Addition
Our Flle No: 99.15031
Dear Mr. Litterer:
! reviewed the cody of the Title Insurance Policy you forwarded to
me recently regarding certain property, including the property that
will become Creamette Addition. Based upon my review, I have two
concerns.
First, the title insurance policy is dated November 13, 1980, We
will neea the property records updated to the current time, or, in
the alternative, a statement from your legal counsel that the title
policy still correctly reflects ownership of the property,
including the fact that no person or entity has any legal interest
in the property other than as set forth in the title policy,
Secondly, the title policy places'ownership of the property in the
Creamette Company, a Minnesota Corporation. However, the
dedication page of the preliminary plat lists Borden, Inc., a New
Jersey Corporation, as the owner of the property. If ownership of
the property has been transferred from the Creamette Company to
Borden, Znc,, we will need appropriate evidence o~ that ownership
change.
MAY-- 2-- 9 I T H U I 0 : ~ 9 C 0 RR I CK & $ ON ~ R AL L P . 0~4 ~
The Creamette Company
Hay 2t 1991
Page 2
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincere]y,
BY MARTIN P. MALEGHA
Mar~in P, MaleGha
s3t2
cc: Daniel J. Donahue, City Hanager
$[even A,
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 90-40
Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval to
Modify Existing Building and Construct Building
Addition, Variance to Side Yard Setback, Variance to
Expand a Non-Conforming Building, and Conditional
Use Permit to Allow Loading Berth in Front Yard
Location: 7300 36th Avenue North
PID No.: 17-118-21 34 0003
Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial)
Petitioner: Creamette Company
Report Date: December 28, 1990
Meeting Date: January 2, 1991
UPDATE
1. On December 19th Creamettes presented revised plans to the City and
met with City staff. The plans were submitted after the scheduled
Design & Review meeting (December 13th), but before the revised plan
deadline (December 24th). The revised plans were 'forwarded to the
Planning Consultant and City Engineer for review.
2. The changes that Creamettes noted in the revised plans and which
they will explain in greater detail at the meeting, include the
following:
A. A new decorative woodscreen fence 10 feet in height is being
proposed for the east property line behind the properties
located between 3709 and 3725 Maryland Avenue North. A
separate variance application has been made for this request.
Creamettes has stated that the request is being made on behalf
of the abutting property owners.
B. A new catch basin has been added to the southeast corner of the
property showing that the drain tile around the building and
the roof drains connect into the catch basin, which is linked
to the existing storm sewer system in the street. The drain
tile and roof drains on the north half of the building drain
into the catch basin on the north near the new garage addition.
The intent of these revisions is to better illustrate the
drainage system.
C. The rooftop units have been moved back from the edge to the
westerly side of the new addition. The revised plans show
metal panel.screen walls surrounding the units.
Planning Case Report 90-40
January 2, 1991
Page -2-
D. Handicapped parking stalls are shown on the plan.
E. The dimensions of the parking stalls have been corrected.
F. The site plan data has been revised to show a correct green
area ration of 40,3%.
G. A more detailed grading and utility plan has been submitted.
H. The materials and height of the screening walls around the
rooftop units are shown.
I. The sizes and number of trees has been clarified on the
landscape plan. The plan shows:
15 new Colorado Spruce (4'-6')
23 new Evergreens (4'-6')
The majority of the new plantings would be on the east property
line. Creamettes estimates a cost of $30,000-$40,000 for
landscaping.
J. The front dock on the southeast corner has been screened by a
wall.
K. Downlights have been added for security.
L. Exist doors have been illustrated on the floor plan.
M. Recycling area is illustrated.
The revised plans address a number of issues that were raised at the
last meeting, however staff still has some concerns as outlined
below.
3. The Building Official prepared the enclosed graphic which
illustrates the types of complaints the City has received over the
years about the Creamettes operation, as per your request.
4. Staff has also prepared the attached chronology of approvals
Creamettes has received from the City. Note that only one variance
was approved (1975).
5. All concerns of the Fire Department have been resolved.
6. The revised plans were submitted to the City Engineer for review and
the following recommendations made:
A. The previously recommended storm sewer has been incorporated
along the east side of the building and driveway, however a
small detention area for collection of storm water still needs
to be provided.
Planning Case Report 90-40
January 2, 1991
Page -3-
B. It is recommended the Creamettets expansion be reviewed by
Bassett Creek Watershed for conformance with their
requirements.
7. The revised plans were submitted to the Planning Consultant for
review, who recommends approval of the CUP and variance based on the
revised site plan subject to the following conditions:
A. Parking lot resurfaced to meet City performance standards,
B. Applicant to provide information to City regarding acoustical
and aesthetic adequacy of proposed metal panel walls for
rooftop screening or relocate vent fans west of masonry wall,
C. Loading berth at southwest corner be removed or limited to use
by trucks less than 50 feet in length due to maneuvering
conflicts,
D. Utility easements be changed to meet City requirements.
E. Revision of Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
8. Creamettes has submitted an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. It
is attached to this report and staff has circled areas of concern.
The EAW must be revised and resubmitted with more detailed
information.
9. Potential pollution concerns raised by residents at the last meeting
are not addressed. Anticipated noise and dust levels, both during
construction and operation, must be indentified and steps for miti-
gation should be described.
10. Traffic is still a concern to the staff. Traffic implications have
not been addressed and a traffaic engineer has not been involved
with analysis of the project. A 41% building expansion will have
traffic implications and these need to be addressed by the
petitioner.
G Platting is the last major concern of the staff. Creamettes was
informed by the City Manager that they must plat the property to
resolve the easement issues. No plat application has been received.
Any approval should be subject to the platting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the Creamettes expansion plan and feels that the revised
plans address a number of issues. However, there are sill several major
issues to address:
-Platting
-Environmental Worksheet
-Noise/Dust/Odor
-Traffic
-Engineer/Planner Comments
Planning Case Report 90-40
January 2, 1991
Page -4-
Any approval should be subject to addressing the concerns outlined in
this report. Because the concerns are major issues, perhaps it would be
more appropriate to table this case for one more month so that the
petitioner can address the remaining concerns.
Attachments: Revised Plans: Site Plan
Grading/Utility Plan
Landscape Plan
Elevations
Floor Plan
Light Fixture Details & Footcandle Pattern
Consultant's Report: EAW Comments
Comments-Revised Plan
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
City Engineer's Comments-Revised Plan
Graph re: Complaints
Chronology of City Approvals
Original Report & Attachments
CITY OF NEW HOPE
RESOLUTION NO. 91-18
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 90-40
REQUESTING SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL,
VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK,
VARIANCE TO EXPAND NON-CONFORMING BUILDING,
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW LOADING BERTH IN FRONT YARD
AT 7300 36TH AVENUE NORTH
PID ~17-118-21 34 0003
WHEREAS, the applicant, Creamette Company, has submitted a request
for site/building plan approval, variance to side yard
setback, variance to expand non-conforming building, and
conditional use permit to allow loading berth in front
yard, pursuant to Sections 4.039A, 4.034(4A), 4.032(2,10)
4.037(2d)'of the New Hope Code; and
WHEREAS, The City of New Hope has adopted regulations governing
construction standards and building signage; and
WHEREAS, the City is empowered to approve variances to provisions
of the City Zoning Code where strict application thereof
would result in unnecessary hardship and would deprive
the owner of reasonable use of the property involved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Planning
Case No. 90-40 on January 2, 1991, and recommended
approval of the requests, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on January 14, 1991, 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 site/building plan, variance to
sideyard setback, variance to expand non-conforming
building, and conditional use permit to allow loading
berth in front yard, as submitted in Planning Case No.
90-40, is hereby approved, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Plan be reviewed by Bassett Creek Watershed
Commission for conformance with their requirements.
2. Parking lot be resurfaced to meet City standards.
3. A small detention area for collection of storm
water needs to be provided on east side of
building/driveway, as per City Engineer.
4. Loading berth at southeast corner be limited to use
by trucks less than 50 feet in length.
5. Utility easements meet City requirements.
6. Environmental Assessment Worksheet be prepared for
City.
7. Dust levels be kept at a minimum during
construction.
Property must be platted to resolve easement and
other issues.
9. Final plans to be approved by Building Official.
10. Landscaping on east side of fence.
11. Fence to be 8-1/2 feet in height.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin
County, Minnesota on this 14th day of January, 1991.
City Clerk ~