Loading...
070291 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 2, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Case 90-35 Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval to Modify Existing Building and Parking Lot at 4300 Xylon Avenue North, K-Mart, Petitioner 3.2 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 3.3 Case 91-09 Request for Final Plat Approval, Creamette Addition, 7300 36th Avenue North, Creamette Company, Petitioner 3.4 Case 91-16 Request for Variance for Air Conditioner in Side Yard, 2748 Ensign Avenue North, Lyle Alan Sandstrom, Petitioner 3.5 Case 91-17 Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval for Temporary Office Building at 7709 42nd Avenue North, Tom Boettcher/ Autohaus, Petitioner 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee (set date for July meeting) 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Staff report on miscellaneous issues 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 4, 1991 6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of May 28 and June 10, 1991, and City Council Work Session Minutes of March 27, June 3, and June 19, 1991 6.3 Review of HRA Minutes of April 22, 1991, and EDA Minutes of May 28, 1991 7. ANNOUNCF_,MENTS 8. ADJOURN34ENT The meeting will be held in the District #281 Adminis~ation Building Board Room (third floor), 4148 Winnetka Avenue North. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 90-35B Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review to Modify Existing Building Location: 4300 Xylon Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21 11 0013 Zoning: B-4 (Community Business) Petitioner: Weis Builders/K-Mart Corporation Report Date: June 28, 1991 Meeting Date: July 2, 1991 UPDATE The City has finally received a response from K-Mart Corporation (East/Central Regional Office in Illinois) in regards to their outstanding Planning Case involving parking lot and site improvements. The project representative from the Building Division/Construction Department has been advised that K-Mart will be proceeding with plans to udate the exterior of the New Hope K-Mart store and has indicated that the City' s concerns will be addressed as drawings are submitted for considertaion. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends tabling the request, as K-Mart has indicated they will proceed with their plans and address the City's concerns. The City desires to cooperate with K-Mart, as the exterior improvements, parking lot revisions, and additional landscaping will be a noticeable improvement to the site that will benefit the community. Attachments: 6/13 K-Mart Correspondence 5/17 and 3/19 City Correspondence Engineer's Recommended Parking Lot & Site Improvement Plan Planner's Report Attorney's Comments -Time Limit on Planning Cases June 13, 1991 Kmart Corporation East/Central Regianai Office City of New Hope 2300B w Higgins Road 4401 Xylon Avenue North Hoffmar~ Estates IL 60~95-2~t?] New Hope, MN 55428 708 884 3860 Attn: Mr. K. McDonald RE: Kmart ~3045 - New Hope, MN Kmart Parking Lot & Site Improvements Dear Mr. McDonald: In response to your letter of 3-19-91, I have been advised that Kmart will be proceeding with plans to update the exterior of the above referenced location and that the City of New Hope's concerns will be addressed as we submit our drawings to the City for con- sideration. We apologize for our delay in responding. Your patience is appreciated. D. A. DeSecki, Project Rep. Building Division Construction Department DAD:sib cc: J.K. Bruner S.E. Moneta W.R. Simmons J.R. McGuire File 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521 ~ May 17, 1991 Mr. Dave DeSecki, Regional Facilities Manager K-Mart Corporation, Midwestern Regional office 2300 B West Higgins Road Hoffman Estates, IL 60195 Subject: K-MART PARKING LOT AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS Dear Mr. DeSecki: Several months ago the City sent you a conceptual plan for improvements to the K-Mart parking lot and requested that you review and respond to the proposed plan. We also requested that you indicate to us in writing as to your intentions in dealing with the pending K-Mart planning application for a site/building plan review approval. The options are outlined on page 2 of our letter of March 19th, which is attached for your information. I would appreciate your responding to the plan and indicating whether you intend to pursue or withdraw the pending planning application request. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/lb Enclosure= March 19th correspondence cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521 March 19, 1991 Mr. Dave DeSecki, Regional Facilities Manager K-Mart Corporation, Midwestern Regional Office 2300 B. West Higgins Road Hoffman Estates, IL 60195 Subject: K-MART PARKING LOT AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS Dear Mr. DeSecki: As per our meeting in January, the City of New Hope has revised the conceptual K-Mart Parking Lot and Site Improvements Plan and has broken the plan down into three different phases to lower the cost impact. The plan involves installation of concrete curbing, bituminous overlay, sealcoating and landscaping. The estimated cost to implement the plan is $36,320, $25,380, and $27,640 in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, for a total estimated cost of $89,340. Phase I would involve parking improvements on the Xylon Avenue side of the property. Phase II would involve parking improvements on the 42nd Avenue side of the property. Phase III concentrates primarily on the installation of perimeter curbing around the site. Minor landscaping is included in all three phases. I would request that you review and respond to the proposed plan. As you may be aware, K-Mart made application for a conditional use permit to relocate a convenience food operation and for a site/ building plan review approval to remove existing storefront glass and construct solid walls to increase the merchandise area. The application was made in conjunction with the nationwide K-Mart Corporation expansion and refurbishing program. As part of the site/building plan review approval, K-Mart had agreed on the original plan to add additional landscaping and planting areas to the site to enhance the store and the image to the surrounding neighborhood. The plan called for new planting islands to be added to the parking lot to help direct traffic and highlight the entry to the store. The proposal also showed that additional planting beds were to be placed along 42nd and Xylon Avenues. Both applications were tabled at the first Planning Commission meeting so that the Design & Review Committee could meet with your representatives and give input to the plan. Issues discussed at the Design & Review meeting, aside from landscaping, included Fami~S~l~ C~'~~F~Fami~L~i~ continuous curbing around the site, snow storage, restriping of lot, the main drive aisle not being aligned with the Xylon curb cuts, and trash receptacles. Because the K-Mart parking lot and site plan are an integral part of the entire City Center area and have an impact on surrounding properties, it was generally agreed that the K-Mart plan would be forwarded to the City Engineer for analysis. It was the consensus of Design & Review to routinely approve the interior convenience food relocation and to table the exterior improvements until recommendations from the Engineer were received. As it stands now, K-Mart basically has three options regarding the pending site/building plan review request to remove the store front glass and improve the landscaping: #1 - Withdraw the request #2 - Pursue the request with the original plan #3 - Pursue the request with the City's recommended plan - phasing the improvements in over a three-stage process It was the City's understanding that K-Mart was open to suggestions and recommendations on the plan and was willing to cooperate to im- plement a plan that would improve the exterior landscaping and at the same time address several other primary concerns regarding drainage and traffic flow. If we did not feel that there was a cooperative understanding between K-Mart and the City, the City would not have directed the Engineer to spend the time analyzing the original plan or drafting a new plan. It is the City's preference that K-Mart pursue Option #3 and complete the site/building plan review process. If Option #3 is not a feasible alternative, then perhaps you want to pursue the request with the original plan. In any event, after you review the plan, please notify the City as to your intentions to either pursue or withdraw the request. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/lb Enclosure: Parking Lot & Site Improvement Plan cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official ~TT~CH."'LENT B K-MART PARKING LOT & SITE IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION PHASING January, 1991 Phase I (Xvlon Avenue Parkiw,) 1,700 S.Y. Bituminous removal @ $1.50/S.Y. $2,550.00 2,100 L.F. B612 Concrete curb @ 7.00/LF. 14,700.00 700 S.Y. Bit. patch (2" Thick) @ 7.00/S.Y. 4,900.00 22,600 S.Y. Seal coat ~ 0.45/S.Y. 10,170.00 Lump Sum Landscape @ 4,000.00/L.S. 4,000.00 Total $36,320.00 Phase 11 (42nd Avenue Parkint) 1,400 S.Y. Bituminous removal @ $l.50/S.Y. $2,100.00 1,800 L.F. B612 Concrete curb @ 7.00/L.F. 12,600.00 600 S.Y. Bit. patch (2" thick) @ 7.00/S.Y. 4,200.00 5,600 S.Y. Seal coat @ 0.80/S.Y. 4,480.00 Lump Sum Landscape @ 2,000.00/L.S. 2'000.00 Total $25,380.00 Phase III (Perimeter Curb) 500 S.Y. Bituminous removal @ $1.50/S.Y. $750.00 2,450 L.F. B616 concrete curb @ 7.00/L.F. 17,150.00 820 S.Y. Bit. patch (2" thick) @ 7.00/S.Y. 5,740.00 200 S.Y. Bituminous drive @ 10.00/S.Y. 2,000.00 Lump Sum Landscape @ Z000.00/L.S. 2,000.00 Total $27,640.00 34.COR I ! - ----- z .~J .---=:----..;:==;._ F _~ ,L..,, ~, ,. ,! PHASE Illl ! ' I ~--~,II ., ~I~~) I ' L_ _JIFlll? 'Il [ J · 'l ! ._~.]t I I Iii ' k ...... _L ..................... ..J_~,, 1 . ! ~7- ,....-'~ Ii!Ii I I I'"" '~", .-,,4,-' ~'"' /~'"" "1 I I r '~'"' ~'l'" /-I- '1 I I _.... --...- 'l il , ~ ,,F----,.,-..-'-x . 'Ti '?'i /,.,,?'~,~,~ 71 ,H-~ j ~~~,:~ '---~,J.t--~' ' ,I '...__ :..,/,; / ~,, ............... .-/ XYL~ M~MORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: ElizaBeth Stockman/Alan Srtxius DATE= 14 January 1991 RE: New Hope - K-MarC Parking Lo: Review FILE NO: 131.01 - 90.35 As requested, I have reviewed ~ho parking lot layout for the New Hope K-Mart located a~ Xylon Avenue and 42nd Avenue. The majority of the plan is functionally and aesthe=ically acceptable. There are, however, several issues whlch I ~eel should be addressed further. Parktn~ Along Main Driving Aisle~ The parking of vehicles along :~e main driving aisles of a parking loc (as shown on the included plan) is nec recommended. The backing of vehicles into one or bo~h Of the drivin~ lanes and =he crossing of traffic when parking are safe~y hazards. The lots%ion of =he spaces along =he outer edges o~ =he main park£ng area mos% likely at=fac= only minimal use for most of =he year holiday season, =he addi:ion of traffic along the main driving maneuver in and o~: o£. A¢¢o~ding to the New Hope Zonin~ Ordinnance, ~he K-Mar~ lot has ample space enouph to compensate ~or ~he removal o£ ~he spaces in question and adequately supply chair customers wl~h places ~o pa~k. Parking Abu::lno 42nd Avenue A portion of =he parking space~ (as sAown in tie included plan), located on tie far south Of the sics ad~acenC ~o the bank project, need to be re-evalua:ed. The eight spaces proposed a= 60 degree and one a= 90 degree represent a confusing situs:ion, especially when located along.a narrow aisle proposed as one way. Th~ area may be better utilized as landscapeamenity space %o avoid %he confusing sinus=ion. The aisle should be of uniform width along its en:ire~y to proven= vehicles from turning down i: =he wrong way. 4601 Excelsior Blvd.. Suite 410. Minneapolis, MN 55418. (812) 925-9420. Fax 925-2721 The redesign of the KT~art parking lot, speci~icall¥ the addition of many curb areas, wail greatly affect the. direc:ion and speed o~ snow/rain runoff travel across the site. The exist£ng drainage system must be evaluated ~or its ability and to per=orm and Be upgraded, if necessary, to meet all associated with the new design. The existing lighting also needs to Me re-evaluated for its effic%ency, location and physical condition. The relocation of existing lights is possible if they still meet the required foot be necessary to adequately light the stall and driveway areas. bandscaoino Many issues need =o be considered when choosing plant materials iora parking area. They are as follows: 1. ~ sit II Ve~ important that the area from about 2-1/2 ~eet to feet above the ground be clear of growth, with the exception of the trunks of trees. Shrubs and hedges w£=~n this height range or that have dense branch/leaf ~rowth should be avoided in areas where cars and pedestrians have =o be fully visible. 2. Purpose. Vegetative plantings may be used fo= many purposes. It is important that a decision be made up front plantings; i.e., screening or enhancing, monotone or colorful, variety Or uniformity, shady Or open, s~mp£e or elaborate, etc. 3. Plant S ecl s Location.. The types o~ trees and shrubs c osen or a ea gn are darectly dependent on their location wi=hAm the plan. A parking area generally tends to dlc=ate restricted, curbed planting areas where any plant chosen is limited by the man-made surroundings. In light o~ ~his fact, the choice of plant materials is a difficult process, but they can contribute to the overall ~eauty and success o~ a ~esign when the proper species ate chosen for =he desired location(s). and leaves, soil suitability, hardines~, su$cep:abiAi=y to disease, and tolerance co hear/cold or drought a:o ~ar&me=ers =o consiOer =ha: will either encourage or inhibit plan: ma:oriels in :he New }lope K-Mar: parkig lot are cf Sufficient size to provide for ~he successful growth ~ compa=ible species. However, :he inclusion of addi=ion~l m~dian areas for ~lan=ings in ~lace of :he pain=ed marking areas a= =he would add =o ~he quality of =he design and give =he si:e a more cc: Mark Hanson Dan Oonahue Doug Sands:ad 3 7. Time L!mit on Plannina Cases The issue of a time limit on planning cases was raised at the last Planning Commission meeting in regard to the K-Mart site/building plan review request. This matter has been tabled for the last several meetings due to the fact that the o City and K-Mart are working together to develop a plan that addresses both K-Mart and City concerns. Section 4.202(lk) of the City Code states that "the City Council shall act upon a Special Zoning Procedure application after it has received the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff or sixty days after the first regular Planning Commission meeting at which the request was considered, if no recommendation is received from the Planning Commission". I have discussed this matter with the City Attorney and he does not feel that this restriction is necessarily applicable in this situation because K-Mart and the City have mutually agreed to delay the request. It was the City that requested to have input into the plan so that access to neighboring properties could be addressed'. The delay may result in an improved parking/landscaping plan. The improvements could not be made until spring anyway. The staff recommends that the Commission take no action at this time. The recommended plan is currently under review by K-Mart officials and staff anticipates they will respond before the next meeting. 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: June 28, 1991 Meeting Date: July 2, 1991 UPDATE An outline of the action on this case is as follows: March Planning Commission -Preliminary Plat submitted and staff recommended tabling request until petitioner submitted site plan and drainage plans. March - Staff met with petitioner to discuss issues and petitioner agreed to provide plans to address staff concerns. April Planning Commission - Cancellation of meeting. April - Petitioner submitted revised Preliminary Plat and a concept site/drainage plan. The site plan indicated that two variances are needed and the petitioner submitted additional fees. The concept drainage plan was reviewed and preliminarily approved by the City Engineer. Drainage improvements required construction and easements extending north beyond plat. May Planning Commission - Petitioner requested a tabling of case to allow time to meet with the adjacent property owner to secure the necessary drainage easements so final plan could be submitted along with the plat. May - Petitioner met with Dura Process about easements, but issue not resolved. June Planning Commission -Petitioner requested that the case be tabled for one month. June - City received written request from petitioner for time extension/tabling of request because they have not secured an agreement from Dura Process for an easement through the property to the ponding area. The staff will be meeting with Dura Process in July. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the case be tabled, per the petitioner's request. Attachments: Petitioner's Correspondence 6/25/91 May Planning Case Report/Attachments · W I NNETKA P ROP E RT I ES 7145 Sandburg Road Minneapolis, MN 55427 612/544-2767 June 25, 1991 Mr. Dan J. Donahue, City Manager City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Don Harvey 2ndAddition. Planning Case File #91-07 Dear Mr. Donahue: We are at this time requesting an extension to the 100 day limit on the above subdivision because we cannot currently get an agreement from Dura Process for an easement through and to their ponding area. We have talked to Mr. Fahlgren of Dura Process, and I do not believe he realizes the ad- vantage to his property. Therefore, we probably won't have the drawings ready and make the meetings within the 100 day limitation. Kirk McDonald and Doug Sandstad are aware of this situation and can fill you in on the current status. Respectfully yours, WINNETKA PROPERTIES D. L. Harvey Partner DLH/wja cc: Martin P. Malecha Doug Standstad~ Kirk McDonald 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 00131 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: Revi.~l Preliminary Plat Concept: Site/Drainage Plan Concept: Site/Drainage Plan (enlarged) April Planning Case Report March Planning Case Report REVISED DRELIMINARYPLAT DON HARVEY 2ND ADDITION 0 degrees 15 minutes 17 seconds Inst. o .- .~ : - o - ~notes I/~-inch x 14-inch set ~ ~ C,= -- iron pipe marked by License No. I I ~ ~o o[ Sec j~, T .8 N, R Z~ 3o , ~ ,,~ / I CONCEPT: S I TE/I)RAI N ~'GI~ P ~',A N CITY OF NEN HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-07 Request: Request for Preliminary Plat for Don Harvey 2nd Additic~ 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 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 pursuan% 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 plat:ei 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 lc%s. 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 outlet 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: W~dth Lot 1, Block i 111,580 sg. 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 Depart~an~ Heads, utility companies, and County agencies for review and commen-s. 7. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. 1. The two-lot proposal for the property is an improvement over' _h_ original three-lot/outlet proposal, however, there are still a number cf issues that need to be resolved. 2. Staff requests that the petitioner su mit 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 increase green area and landscaping. A site plan should be submitted in conjunction with the Prelimina~ Plat that addresses: A. Specific percentages for the lot coverage and green area for '.he developed parcel to determine if the 40%/35% standards are met if a variance will be necessary. B. Elimination of bituminous in front of the two buildings and 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 northwest corner of Lot 1 on Winnetka Avenue. E. The off-site references to Lot I and Lo= 2, Block 1, Don Haruev Addition, east'-of the proposed plat need to be deleted corrected - this property has been platted as one lot. 3. The proposed pla= contains two building on one lot and a variance 'wLl be required. 4. If the bituminous in front is replaced with green area, Fire Departne.~. connections on the front of bo~h buildings will need to be relocated anh 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 pla= required by City". 6. Aside from the site plan, m second m&Jo= 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 recommending that a storm sewer system be installed. Shingle Creel< Watershed and the DNR will also require a storm water treatment basin Planning CaSe Report 91-07 March 5, 1991 Page -3- collect water before it enters Old Dutch Pond, a designated protected wetland (see City Engineer correspondence). Both the s:~-- sewer improvements will require construction and easements which ex:en~ beyond the plat and will need approval from the appropriate agencies. Staff requests the petitioner to submit · drainage plan that addresses these concerns. 7. The City Attorney has examined the plat and has found the legal descrtu- tion to be inaccurate and this needs to be corrected. 8. Minnegasco responded when the original plat was sent out that they haue an easement near the north line of the plat and this should be shown the plat. 9. Hennepin County responded with the following requests: A. Seven additional feet of right-of-way, should be dedicated Winnetka Avenue for a uniform width - this is shown on plat. B. All access from the plat to CSAH 156 should be limited to propose/ Quebec Avenue. The existing driveway located approximately 22? 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 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 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) . ffAI~K February 2.7. 199! City of New l-lop~ 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Ih,pc, MN .15428 At~cntitm: Kirk McDonald Re: D(,n Hl.,'v~ 2nd Addition Our File No. 3~,-gen Dear Kirk: W~ have reviewed the dt~ina~l requirement, s for the above plat. Presently the existing drainage is conveyed over 'tal~d ~.rc~ plivu~e properly (44100 Wirl/letiG~ AYe~u~) tn thc hutch m Old Dutch Fond. Therefore., ~he mu~t ct'ficiunl ~tum ~wer system lo ~rve the area (~ Winnucka Aven~). ~ ~didu~ Shini]c Creek Wale~h~ will require thai w~tct ~rcmmcm ~ prided to~ ~ ~" rainfull event A)r ~hc dmi~ ~ tributa~ m thc new sm~ Kwcr. Thg De,mere o~N,~ R~ur~s (DNR) ~11 ~u cn~m~ storm w~ccr cr~tmunt ~ Old Dut~ Pund ~ d~i~mamd DNR Prmgcmd W~t~d. Attached s~c~ch which iden~es I ~~ sm~ Kwcr s~lum which will Nui~ con~imc~i(m and ea~mcnt~ outside the ~m ~ 2nd Addition. In summa~, ~e ~n ~ ~ ~dit~n w~ ~qui~e ~mtm ~et ~pn~ement& t, Oki Dutch Pond (DNR ~ Watland) whi~ will e~nd ~ ~e plat. Thc impt(w~mea~ ~ ~ m ~ ~~d ~d ~timatc~ npp~ ~ ~e Shingle Crock Watershed, DN~ ~ the Ci~ of N~ ['1o~. [f you have any ~u~tiom ple~ contain t~ Youn veo t~ly, MH:Ik Attachment 2331 V/est Hlghwly 36 · St. Paul, Mlflflesota 11113 * 612436,-4600 February 21, 199! 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 K.ixk: It's recommended the preliminary plat for Don Harvey 2nd Addition not be approved until the following items are addressed and properly shown off the prelim/nary plat: - The site hnprovements required for Lot 2 Block I includ/ng green space, parlang, drwew'av and landscape in accordance with the City. - The proposed site plan for Lot 1 Block 2 mciud/ng driveway locations, parldng, landscape and green space requ/tements. - The overall dra/nage/mprovements for Lot 1 and 2/nclud/ng 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, J~OSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark'~A. Hanson MAH:dh 34GEN. 233S ~f/est Hlgl~wny 36 · St. Plul, Minnesota SSII3 · 612-636-4600 ;eDruary 22, 1991 Hr. Kirk HcDonald Management Ase~. City of New HODI 4401Xylon Avenue North New NODe, MN 55428 RE: Don Harvey 2nd Addition Preliminary Our File No. 9g.15030 Dear Kirk: : have examinee the Dreliminary plat of Don Harvey 2ne Addition. The only comment ! have is that the legal covers the mroDoeea second aa~it~on aa well as the lan~ involves the Don Harvey 1st AaQJtion. The legal aemcrimtion neeas to De moalfiea to reflect only the lan~ actually containea in :~e DroDosea Dlat of Don Harvey 2n~ Aaaition. aleame contact me ~f you have any quemtions. Sincerely, Martin p. M&lecha s3f cc: Dan~el J. Donmhue Steven A. Sonar&Il, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468  PHONE: (6~2) ~30-2500 FAX (6~2] 930-25~3 TDD: (612) 930-2696 February 20, 1991 K~rk McOonal~ Assistant Community Oevelopment Coordinator City of New HODe 4401Xylon Avenue North New HOpe, HN 5~428 Oeec Hr. ~E: ProDose~ Plat - Don Hervey Secon~ A~ttton CSAH 156, east sloe approximately 1900 feet south of CSAH Section 17. Townshtp lla. Range 21 Henneotn County Plat NO. lgll Revtew eno RecommenOattons Htnnesota Statutes 50~.02 anO 509.0~, Plats ama Surveys. requtre County review of ~ro~osea ~lats aOutttng County roaas, we revtewea the aOove ~lat ama ~ave ~e following comments: - As sho~n on the ~ro~osea pint. the ~evelo,er shoul~ aealcate 7 of rtght o~ wey for a untform 40 feet of rtght of way from ama along the CSAH 1~ centerltne. - ACCESS from the ~lat to CSAH 1D6 must ~e 11mtte~ to 9ueaec Avenue. The existing drive~ay locatea a~roxtmetely 220 feet north of 9ueOec Avenue must ,e removeO eno the area wtthtn County rtght of way restore~. Thts restoration work re~utres an a~,rove~ entrance permtt. The ~evelooer cnn contact Oave Zetterstrom at g~o-2~4a for Information ana entrance permtt forms. - All ~ropose~ construction ~tthtn County rtght of way requires etther an aoDrovea uttltty permtt or entrance permtt prtor to ~egtnntng construction. The uttl~y permtt Includes, ~ut t$ not 11mtte~ to, ~ratnage ~evelopment, ane lana$captng. Contact our Permtts Offtce, ~0-2~4~, for utility permtt forms. -The ~evelo~er must restore ail areas, wtthtn County ~urtng plat construction. Please ~trect any response or questions to Doug ~attson at Sincerely. Oenn~s L. Hensen. P.E. Transportation P~anntng Engtneer HENNEPIN COUNTY OLH/O~q:g~ T'Mvnnega o ~ep~em~er Ig, eggo Manaqemen: Assis:an: Ci:y Of New 4401Xylon Avenue New Mope, MN. ~S428 RE: Preliminary Pla: of Don Harvey ~ear Mr. Mcdonald: wi:h reference :o :he preliminary pla~ of Don Harvey Minnegasco, Inc. curren:ly has an eaaemen~ near :he Nor:A line ~he pla~. I have enclosed a copy of Minne~asco's easemen: number 7~'-~, 42S6368. I reques: :ha~ :hZs easemen~ ~e referred ~o on final pla:. Thank you for :he advance no~ice and coul~ 7ou please send ~e copy of :he final pla~ w~en i~ is approved. Sincerely, $:~ven V:n ~argen Real ~s~a~e Minne~a$co, Inc. cc: R. J. Pilofl, PO. lee 1168 CITY OF NEw HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-09 Request: Request for Final Plat Approval Location: 7300 36th Avenue North PID No.: 17-118-21 34 0003 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Creamette Company Report Date: June 28, 1991 Meeting Date: July 2, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting Final Plat approval of Creamette Addition, which includes all of the Creamette property north of 37th 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 Preliminary Plat was approved at the June 4th Planning Commission meeting and the June 10th Council meeting, subject to the condition 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 37th 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 3. The plat application was submitted in conjunction with the pending construction application and 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. 4. 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). 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. 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. Planning Case Report 91-09 July 2, 1991 Page -2- 6. 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. 7. 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 Commission during their review of the preliminary plat". This requirement was not waived by the Planning Commission, as staff specifically recommended that it be brought back for review to insure that all appropriate changes were made. 8. The Final Plat has been sent to City department heads and utility companies for review and comment. 9. City Code does not require legal notification to residents for Final Plat applications. 10. Since the Preliminary Plat approval, there has been no further contact between the attorney representing the neighbors and the City. ANALYSIS 1. City Code states that if the Preliminary Plat is approved by the City Council, the subdivider must submit the Final Plat within one hundred days (100) after said approval or the approval shall be considered void, unless a written request for an extension is approved. Creamettes has complied with the 100-day time limitation. 2. The Final 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 9040, as any expansion on the Rainbow property would not be allowed within 30 feet of the west property line. 3. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Final Plat and finds it to be in order from a legal standpoint with all concerns resolved. Borden, Inc. has supplied the appropriate information to show good title to the property included in the proposed plat. The legal description of the Final Plat does include the dedication of the streets. 4. The City Engineer has reviewed the Final Plat and recommends approval. The following concerns have been resolved: A. Ten (10) foot wide drainage and utility easements are shown along all lot lines B. Seven (7) feet of additional right-of-way has been dedicated along 36th Avenue North (for a total 40-foot dedication) Planning Case Report 91-09 July 2, 1991 Page -3- C. The railroad right-of-way is shown as the Soo Line Railroad (formerly identified as the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railroad) D. The lot is identified as Lot 1, Block 1 5. The Building Official has reviewed the plat and recommends approval. 6. The Hennepin County Department of Transportation responded that they have no comments, as no County roads are involved in the plat. 7. No comments were received from utility companies. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat of Creamette Addition. The plat should be recorded with Hennepin County within 100 days if it receives approval from the City Council on July 22nd. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Final Plat Attorney's Comments Engineer's Comments Prelimimary Plat Site Plan Planning Case Report 90-40 NATIVITY ' ' -- LUTHERAN CHURCH 0 I BETHEL LIONS -- CEMETERY PARK --I 38 T~ JERSEY CI~CL[ MARKWO( TH AVE N FINAL PLAT ~,, ~ CREAMETTE ADDITION ~' ~C ......... C mR' DOC' NO' ~',,, g SOO LINE RAILROAD ~ LOT I -- E B LOCK I  Bonestroo o~o G. Bonestroo. ~E. Keith A. Gordon. RE Mark R. Rolls, RE. Robe~ ~. Rosene, P.E. Richard ~. ~ster, RE. Ro~e~ C. Russek, A.LA. ~nes M. Ring, A.I.C.~ Joseph C. Anderlik, ~E. Donald C. Burgar~ PE. Thomas E. Angus. RE. Jer~ D. Pe~sch, Rosene Matin L. ~ala, RE. Jer~ A. BouMon, RE. H~a~ Richard E. Turner, RE. Mark A. Hanson, RE. Daniel J. Edge~on, RE. Ro~ ~ Glenn ~. Cook, RE. Ted K. Field, RE. Mark A. ~ip, RE. Ga~ ~ Morien, RE. Anderlik & ~o~,~.~o~,.~. ~,c~,~u~,.~.~. ~,,,,~.~,,.~.  Associates ~o~. ~,~ ~. ~o~,~. ~,~, ~. ,,~, ~. ~.~. ~,~ ~. ~, ~. ~san M. Eberlin, CRA. David O. ~skota, RE. Mark D. Wallis, RE. Chades A Erickson Thomas W. Pete~on. RE.Thomas R. ~nde~on, A.I.~. Leo M. Pa~lsky Michael C. Lynch. RE. Ga~ E ~lander, PE. Haflan M. Olson Engineers & Archit~ts ~, ~. Malarial, RE Miles B. Jensen, Kenne~ E Andemon. RE. L. Phi~lip G~I IlL RE. J'o~e 25, 1991 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue No. New Hope, MN 55428 Attn: Mr. Kirk McDonald Re: Creamettes Addition Final Plat Our File No. 34 Gen. Dear Kirk, We have reviewed the above final plat and the previous issues addressed in our letter dated April 25, 1991 have been included. Therefore, we recommend approval of the final plat. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BO3~TROO~ RO~NE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. -/l ~ lt l l Mark A. Hanson MAH:li Ltr2 2335 ~X/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 · 612-636-46OO CORRICK & SONDRALL A PAIRTNI~RSHIP OF PROFI[$11ONAk CORPORATIONS 3811 WEST BROADWAY I:{OBBINSDALE, MINNESOTA 55422 TELEPHONE (6~Z} 533-ZZ4 ~ June 21, 1991 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Creamette Addition Our File No. 99. 15031 Dear Kirk: I reviewed the proposed final plat for the Creamette Addition. I find the plat to be in order from a legal standpoint, Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha s3f cc: Daniel J. Donahue Steven A. Sondrall, Esq. CORRICK & SONDRALL A PARTNERSHllI OF ~IROIrE$SIONA~- CORPORATIONS 3811 WEST BROADWAY ROBBINSDALE. MINNESOTA 55422 TELEPHONE (612) 533-224.1 CORRICK LAW OFFICES, P.A. FAX (612) 533-2243 LSGAL ASSISTANTS WILLIAM J. CORRICK LAVONNE E. KESKE STEVEN A. SONDRALL, P.A. SHARON D. DERBY STEVEN A. SONDRALL MICHAEL R. LAFLEUR MARTIN P. MALECHA WILLIAM C. STRAIT June 18, 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: Please be advised that Borden, Inc. has supplied the appropriate information to show good title to the property included in the proposed Creamette Addition plat. The issue involving whether the legal descriptions for the streets should be included in the plat has not yet been resolved. I will contact you with information regarding that as it becomes available. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha s3t cc: Daniel J. Donahue Steven A. Sondrall, Esq. 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521 June 1] 1991 Mr. Don Litterer, Operations Manager Creamette Company 7300 36th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Subject: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT PLANNING CASE 91-09 Dear Mr. Litterer: Please be advised that on June 10, 1991, the New Hope City Council approved the preliminary plat for the Creamette Addition as submitted in Planning Case 91-09, subject to the condition 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 shown along all 'lot lines, B. 7-foot additional right-of-way dedicated along 36th Avenue North, C. Railroad right-of-way shown as Soo Line Railroad, D. Lot identified as Lot 1, Block 1, E. Legal description include street dedications, F. Title insurance and property ownership updated/ clarified. Please submit 12 copies of the Final Plat with the above changes to the City no later than June 20th if you want the Final Plat to be considered at the July 2nd Planning Commission meeting. If you have questions, please call. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator KM/lb cc: Planntng ~s~ ~,~-09 Property File Family Styled City "~A~A~ For Family Livin8 v,V ~I V ~V, 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521 CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: April 10, 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 New Hope Building Official FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat 'Creamette Addition Enclosed you will find a preliminary plat for Creamette Additon. Please review and forward comments to me prior to 4:30 p.m.on Friday, April 26, 1991. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Family Styled City ~ For Family Living PRELIMINARY PLAT tN~____L__.rI~NAIIY GQPY CREAMETTE ADDITION ,.T. c, oc..o. ; .... -. .... .~,,. -- CF~. DOC. NO. :~ '' · - I I a LOCK I ;;~ C : ~' CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING C&SE REPORT Planning Case: 90-40 Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval t~ 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 shc~ metal panel screen walls surrounding the units. Planning Case Report 90-40 3anuary 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%. · sub~l-~-~. G A more detailed grading and utility plan has been 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 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 proper~¥ line. Creameries estimates a cost of $30,000-$40,000 landscaping. J. The front dock on the southeast corner has been screened by 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 an last meeting, however staff still has some concerns as ou~inei below. 3. The Building Official prepared the enclosed graphic wkirn illustrates the types of complaints the City has received over years about the Creamettes operation, as per your request. 4. Staff has also prepared the attached chronology of approva~ Creamettes has received from the City. Note that only one variance was approved (1975). 5. Ail concerns of the Fire Department have been resolved. 6. The revised plans were submitted to the City Engineer for review the following recommendations made: A. The previously recommended storm sewer has been incorpora~a~ along the east side of the building and driveway, however a sm&ll de~en~io~ &~e& for col~eo~£o~ of s~o~n ~a~er s~il~ needs to be provided. Planning Casa Report 90-40 January 2, 1991 Page -3- B. It is recommended the Creamette's 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 revised site plan subject to the following conditions: A. Parking lot resurfaced to meet City performance standards, S. 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. Creame~tes has submitted an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 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 meetin? 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 las~ major concern of the staff. Creamettes informed by the City Manager that they must plat the property resolve the easement issues. No plat application has been received. Any approval should be subject to the platting. R~¢OMMENDATION Staff supports the Creamettes expansion plan and feels that the revisel plans address a number of issues. However, there are sill several 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 te more appropriate to table this case for one more month so that ~he petitioner can address the remaining concerns. Attachments: Revised Plans: Site Plan Grading/Utility Plan Landscape Plan Elevations Floor Plan Light Fixture Details & Footcandle Pa~tern 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 condi:ion&l 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 cons:ruction 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 :he city staff findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the comments of persons at:ending :he City Council meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope ~h&: :he site/building plan, variance to sideyard se:back, variance to expand non-conforming building, and conditional use permit to allow loading bere. h in front yard, as submitted in Planning Case No. 90-40, is hereby approved, subject to =he following conditions: 1. Plan be reviewed by Basset= Creek Watershed CommiSliOn for conformance with their requirements. 2. Parking lo: be resurfaced to meet City standards. 3. A small ds:in:ion area for collection of storm wa:er needs to be provided on east side of building/driveway, as per City Engineer. 4. Lo&dingbeL~ch a: southeast corner be limited to use by trucks less than 50 feet in leng:h. 5. Utility easements meet City requirements. 6. £nvironmen=al Assessment Worksheet be prepared for City. 7. Dust levels be kept at a minimum during construction. Property must be pla=ted to resolve easement and other issues. 9. Final plans to be approved by Building Official. 10. Landscaping on mas= side of fence. 11. Fence to be 8-1/2 fee= in height. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, HenneDin County, Minnesota on this 14th day of January, 1991. City Cler~ ~ CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-16 Request: Request for Variance for Air Conditioner in Side Yard Location: 2748 Ensign Avenue North PID No.: 19-118-21 34 0033 Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: Lyle Alan Sandstrom Report Date: June 28, 1991 Meeting Date: July 2, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to permit an air conditioner in the side yard, pursuant to Sections 4.034(5)and 4.032(3)of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. This is an after-the-fact application, as an air conditioner was installed in the side yard of the Lyle and Jonelle Sandstrom residence at 2748 Ensign Avenue North on May 14, 1991. 3. The contractor, Dependable Air, applied for and received a permit for the installation on May 1st. The permit clearly states in the "Remarks' section that all air conditioning condensers must be placed in the rear yard. 4. The petitioner states that he was unaware that the air conditioner needed to be placed in the rear yard until the day the Building Official checked the installation, which prompted this variance application. 5. Dependable Air stated they were not informed that the unit needed to be placed in the rear yard until they received the permit, yet the permit was issued 13 days prior to the installation and clearly stated that the unit must be placed in the rear yard. 6. The property is located in an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District and the side yard setback requirement is ten (10) feet (with a five (5) foot exception for garages. 7. City Code states that certain structural elements or equipment shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements and air conditioners in rear yards are permitted encroachments. However, air conditioners are not allowed as encroachments in side yards, thus a variance is required. 8. Section 4.032(3)of the Code, "Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment" further states that "no accressory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may be located in a required side yard except for side yards abutting streets and in such case the equipment shall be fully screened from view". This property is an interior lot and the side yard does not abut a street. 9. The home is set back thirty (30) feet from the front yard property line, 6.31 feet from the east property line (attached garage side), and is set back ten (10) feet from the west property line. The air conditioning unit is located within the 10-foot setback area on the west side of the home. Planning Case Report 91-16 July 2, 1991 Page -2- 10. The home was constructed in 1969 and is surrounded by single family homes. 11. Property owners within 350 feet of the request have been notified. ANALYSIS 1. Letters have been submitted from the following properties stating that they have been informed about the variance request for the air conditioner and have no problem with it being placed on the side of the home: -Miller, next door neighbor on west side, at 2756 Ensign Avenue North -Shaw, neighbor across the street to south, at 2737 Ensign Avenue North -Froseth, neighbor across street to south, at 2741 Ensign Avenue North 2. One of the concerns the staff would routinely have is the impact that the noise from the unit would have on adjacent properties, however in this particular situation the applicant's home and the neighbors home to the west do not have windows on the side facing the air conditioner so the noise issue is not a factor. One neighbor indicated that they preferred the unit on the side because it was not as noisy as a unit located in the rear yard. 3. Another concern staff feels should be addressed is aesthetics. An air conditioning unit in the side yard is visible from the street and staff recommends that landscaping be installed to screen the unit. 4. The mechanical permit clearly stated that the air conditioner must be placed in the rear yard, but the contractor is the one that made the error - not the homeowner. Due to the support of the neighbors, the cooperation of the homeowner, and the fact that no windows are located on the side of the home, staff has no problem recommending approval so that the air conditioner can remain in place. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request to install an air conditioner in the side yard, subject to the following conditions: 1. Homeowner should install appropriate landscaping on the south side of the unit to screen it from the view of the street. 2. If windows are installed by the adjacent home at a future date, and a noise complaint arises, this matter may have to be reconciled. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Certified Survey Site Plan Petitioner's Letter Neighbors' Consent Permit VATER mmm~~?T~mAv£ mN gmmm 48 Ensign- Sandstrom (Petitioner) z56 Ensigm - ~iller 741 Ensign - Froseth !737 Ensign - Shaw ---, ' GOL-DE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY For. · ; , -. ,, ,,,, ,,,~ ,t BUILDING INSPECTOR c~//F~,~ 2:-/. r .... /~ -.-- -/~ -- -- Qbove. It does not purport to show ~mprovememts or encroochments, f day ~Y ' ' 'i~ ~ & SITE p~N DEC~RON c~sw~ ~, ,SSOC,~TES ~ OE~TI~ T~AT I AM T~E THIS P~N IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE: ~~ 0 ~0 t~ d ~ ~ %0.0 ~M ............ II I I I I ~ I I I ;. i 4 " To the New Hope Planning Commission and City Council. This letter of intent is to inform you that we (Lyle and Jonelle Sandstrom) are applying for a single family dwelling variance so we can keep our air conditioner installed on the side of our home. Our air conditioner was installed on May'14,1991. Our contractor Dependable Air from'Coon Rapids had applied for a permit'and recieved it prior to installation. On the day that the city inspeqtor had come to check the air conditioner was th~ day I found out that the air conditioner needed to be in the back of the house. Dependable said they were not informed that the unit neede~ to be in the rear, until theF received the permit. I'm not sure if they had received the physical piece of paper or a verbal that the permit was approved. I have spoke to my immediate neighbors and have asked them to sign a statement, see enclosed. One neighbor who would be affected..said that they'prefer the air between the houses. Both homes have no windows between them and therefore they would not be able to hear the air conditioner. If theee are any questions please feel free to call me or my husband regarding the above. Thank-you for your immediate attention to this matter. Lyle and Jonelle Sandstrom 2748 Ensign Ave N New Hope, MN 55427 541-1121 Home (Lyle) 347-1770 Work(Jonelle) To wh° it may concern. This letter is to notify the New Hope City Council that we as neighbors to Lyle and Jonelle Sandstrom (2748 Ensign Ave N) have been informed that they are applying for a variance regarding their air conditioner, and have no problem with them placing it on the side of their home. To who it may concern. This letter is to notify the New Hope City Council that we as neighbors to Lyle and Jonelle Sandstrom (2748 Ensign Ave N) have been informed that they are applying for a variance regarding their air conditioner, and have no problem with them placing it on the side of their home. To who it may concern. This letter is to notify the New Hope City Council that we as neighbors to Lyle and Jonelle Sandstrom (2748 Ensign Ave N) have been informed that they are applying for a variance regarding their air conditioner, and have no problem with them placing it on the side of their home. CITY OF NEW HOPE -:-~0~ Xy~on Ave~e ' New~ooe M~nnesota Da,~ !ssueg 6'2) 533-~ 52~ ....... SIT ADDRESS: 2748 ENSI6N AVE N LOT: 6 BLOC:K: 3 ~EST OAK TERRACE P. [ .N.: DESCRIPTION: CENTRAL ~ ~[R CONOITIONING REMARKS: ALL AC CONDENSERS MUST BE PLACED IN REAR YARD! CALL FOR INSPEC:TION WHEN HC, MEO~N~ ~N IFT THE INSPECTOR INSIOE. FEE SUMMARY: VALUATION $1,802 Base Fee Surcharge .... Total Fee $53.55 CONTRACTOR: -- Applicant -- OWNER: DEPENDABLE HTG & AC, INC 7575040 SANDSTROM LYLE 2619 COON RAPIDS BLVO 2748 ENSIGN AVE N C:00N RAPIDS MN 5542:3 NEW HOPE MN 55427 (612) 757-5040 THIS PERMIT IS GRANTED UPON THE EXPRESS CONDITIONS THAT SAID OWNER OR AGENT TO WHOM IT IS GRANTED, AND CONTRACTORS, AGENTS, WORKERS AND EMPLOYEE::-; '.:.;HALL COMPLY IN ALL RESPECTS WITH THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NEW HOF'E. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-17 Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval for a Temporary Office Building Location: 7709 42nd Avenue North PID No.: 17-118-21 23 0005 Zoning: B-4 (Community Business) Petitioner: Autohaus of Minneapolis Report Date: June 28, 1991 Meeting Date: July 2, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting Site/Building Plan Review Approval for a temporary office building, pursuant to Sections 4.211, 4.039, and 4.039(A) of the New Hope Code. 2. The petitioner met with Design & Review on June 13th and discussed a number of issues. The petitioner did not submit adequate plans with the application and Design & Review recommended that the case be tabled for one month and brought back to the July 18th Design & Review meeting and be presented to the Planning Commission in August. The applicant is agreeable to the delay and is in the process of developing adequate plans for the request. 3. Property owners within 350' of the request were notified. RECOMMENDATION Staff concurs with Design & Review and recommends tabling the case for one month. CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: lune 27, 1991 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Issues 1. Codes & Standards Meeting Due to the two variances regarding fences that were considered at the last meeting, the City Council has requested that the Planning Commission review the code definition of "front yard" to determine if there is a reasonable change that can be made to avoid the number of variance requests that are made because the house is situated incorrectly on the lot. I understand this issue was reviewed in 1988 and the Planning Consultant has forwarded that information to staff. I assume that the Planning Commission wants the Codes & Standards Committee to review this issue and staff would request that a date be established for a future meeting. 2. Olson Storage Conditional Use Permit Extension For your information, Olson Storage recently requested a one-year extension on a conditional use permit/PUD that was approved in 1990. Due to the fact that the extension was requested after a one-year period had already lapsed, the City Attorney issued an opinion that the Council did not have the authority to grant an extension and the petitioner will have to reapply for the expansion. See enclosed information. 3. First Minnesota Bank Expansion The First Minnesota Bank expansion project that was approved in 1989 is also void because the petitioner did not submit a written extension request. The site is now occupied by Norwest Bank. I have enclosed the approved drive-thru plan and the most recent correspondence in the file for your information. 4. Holiday Station Car Wash/Noise Complaint The City received several complaints from residents and a Planning Commissioner about the noise generated in the summer from the industrial blow-dryer at the Holiday Station owned by Randy Rau due to the car wash overhead doors being left in an "open" position. Staff has sent Mr. Rau a letter informing him of the complaints and directing him to keep the doors in a closed position until the drying cycle is completed. 5. Flood Plain Ordinance The Flood Plain Ordinance was approved by the City Council on June 10th and the security language recommended by the Commission was included in the ordinance. The ordinance has been sent to the DN-R. for final approval. 6. Compost Ordinance The City Council adopted the Compost Ordinance on June 10th and included recommendations the Commission made on the containment structure and the elimination of food wastes. The Council felt that compost piles should be set back 5 feet from the property line and did not include the recommendation regarding boundary line fences. 7. New Planning Commission Member The July issue of City Report will include an article indicating that there is a vacancy on the Planning Commission and inviting interested residents to make application. 8. Continental Baking The approved site plan for Continental Baking shows bituminous curbing on the interior of the property and concrete approaches on the right-of-way. Site plan, minutes and staff report are attached for your review. Attachments: #1-Council Min. 6-10-91/Planner's Corresp. w/attach. 1988 Coruer Lot Study #2-Olson Storage Request for Action with attachments 6/24/91 #3-1st Minnesota Correspondence 10-2-89/Drive-thru Plan #4-Letter to Holiday 6-25-91 #5-Council Min. 6-10-91 re Flood Plain Ord. #6-Council Min. 6-10-91/New article re Compost Ord., #8-Site Plan/PC Min. 10-2-90/Report, Planning Case 90-28 being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: L'Herault, Otten, Enck, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; Absent: Erickson; whereupon the resolution was declared dql¥ passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. PLANNING CASE Mayor Pro tom Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.4, 91-14 Planning Case 91-14, Request for Variance to Exceed Item 8.4 Required Fence Height, 3700 Jordan Avenue North (PID #18- 118-21 33 0066), Larry Erickson, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald explained that the petitioner is requesting a two-foot variance to exceed the maximum front yard fence height requirement of four feet for the purpose of constructing a six-foot high fence. The fence will be a wooden privacy fence to avoid nuisance public shortcuts across his lawn corner. The fence would be in two sections: one section extending from the garage to Hillsboro Avenue; one section extending from the south corner of the house to Hillsboro and northeast to the driveway. The property is located at the northwest intersection of Jordan and Hillsboro Avenues. Although the front of the house faces southwest toward Jordan Avenue, the zoning code defines the front yard as the narrowest street frontage (which would be the Hillsboro Avenue side), thus a variance is required. The "sight triangle" rule would be applicable in this case because the intersection is not regulated with traffic controls, but the applicant's fence request does not interfere with the triangle. Mr. McDonald indicated that .the Planning Commission considered this request at its June 4, 1991, meeting and recommended approval subject to the condition that the sight triangle at the intersection of Jordan/Hillsboro T~ Avenues be kept clear of all fencing. ~ I RD,ONOF~ TheCouncil dtscussedthedefinitionof the"front-yard" -YA as it relates to the zoning code. It was pointed out that some homes in the City face a street which would not be .... ~ .... ~ defined as their "front-yard" since it is not the narrowest street frontage. Councilmember Williamson raised the issue of re-defining the zoning code's definition of "front-yard". Mr. Donahue stated he would request the Planning Commission to review the definitions of front and side yards. RESOLUTION 91-105 Councilmember Williamson introduced the following New Hope City Council Page 8 June 10, 1991 ,~1 E,~IORAND L'.~I Kirk McDondal d FFtOM: Alan Brixius I ~~Ac bATE: 17 June 1991 RE: New Hope - Corner Lots Study (612) 925-9420 FILE NO.: 131.00 - General FAX (612) 925-2721 Attached please find past work prepared addressing corner lot development in single family areas. Please review and contact me for further discussion. 4601 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD · SUITE 410 · MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 WHITE - ORIGINAL yI:LLOW - FILE COPY PINK - C FILE northwest associated consultants, inc TO: Jeannine Dunn FROM: Mike Ridley/Alan Brixius DATE: 26 October 1988 RE: New Hope - Corner Lot Study FILE NO: 131.00 - 88.08 The City of New Hope has been studying the situation of non.- conforming residential dwelling units located on corner lots throughout the City. The study was initiated because of the large number of variance requests for the expansion of non- conforming single family residential units. Apparently, the basis for granting such variances was credited to hardships created by the current Ordinance, which was adopted in 1980. Review of several sample corner lot situations, provided by the City Building Official, revealed that the non-conforming situations were not created by the current Ordinance. Because criteria to be met for granting a variance is very stringent, this office suggests an Ordinance amendment whereby expansion of non-conforming single family structures would be handled on a case-by-case basis by conditional use permit. Analysis of existing corner lot conditions was presented in a ,July 7, 1988 planners report. This report also outlined a zoning pr~vision that allowed for the expansion of a non-conforming single family dwelling by conditional use. Based on discussion of the July 7 planners report by the Codes and Standards Committee, we have drafted an alternate ordinance amendment to Section 4.031(11). The following amendment language is identical to that contained at the bottom of page two of our 7 July 1988 report (attached) except that it pertains only to corner lots. "Lawfully existing non-conforming single family individual dwelling units located on corner lots may be expanded to improve livability as a conditional use as regulated by Chapter 4, Section 4.21 of this Ordinance, provided the non- conformity of the structure is not increased." 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 410, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420 The amendment above will only allow expansion by conditional use for corner lots. The amendment in our initial report allows for this expansion for corner as well as interior lots. By specifying corner lot, the City is denying interior lot owners the opportunity to expand their non-conforming structures in this manner. The Planning Commission should determine the appropriateness of distinguishing between lot type. cc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall Dan Donahue northwest associated consultants, inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Dan Donohue FROM: Mike Ridley/Alan Brixius DATE: July 7, 1988 RE: New Hope - Corner Lot Study FILE NO: 131.00 - 88.08 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background: The City has had a number of requests for expansion of non- conforming single family structures located on corner lots. By ordinance, expansions have to be granted by variance. The basis for granting these variances has been due to hardships created by the current ordinance adopted in 1980 that altered the definition of lot frontage. To avoid further variance requests of this type, the City has instructed this office to investigate the application of this definition. Conclusion Review of the random cases selected by the City Building Inspector reveals that the non-conformity of single family structures on corner lots is not caused by the updated City Ordinance adopted in 1980. This being the case, past variance requests have not been characterized by a hardship created by City action. Ordinance criteria to be met for granting variances is very stringent. Therefore, we suggest handling non-conforming, single family structure expansion as conditional uses. Also, when expansions are granted, the area allowed for expansion must be established. 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 4 t0, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420 Analysis Definition: The pre-1980 definition allowed each homeowner the option of choosing the front lot of a corner lot. The current ordinance assigns lot frontage for corner lots by definition: Lot Frontage. the front of a corner lot shall be that boundary abutting the public right-of-way having the least width. Doug Sandstad, City Building Official has provided ten random samples of corner lot surveys in the City that illustrate application of both corner lot definitions. In each case, the current lot front application provides more buildable area. Also, none of ten samples meet setback requirements when the old definition is applied, while 7 of 10 meet current definition setbacks. Please see Exhibits 1 - 10. This information illustrates that the ordinance definition adopted in 1980 actually did not create the hardships for these lots. INTENT: If intent of the City is not to deny expansion of these non- conforming single family homes on corner lots, the City should attempt to regulate this type of expansion without using a variance. With this in mind, our office recommends expansions of non- conforming single family structures to be dealt with as conditional uses. We suggest an ordinance amendment to provide this mechanism. Ordinance Amendment We propose amending Section 4.031 (11) to read as follows: Lawfully existing non-conforming single family residential dwelling units may be expanded to improve livability as a conditional use as regulated by Chapter 4, Section 4.21 of this ordinance provided the nonconformity of the structure is not increased. An ordinance interpretation will have to be attached to this amendment. The City needs to decide which option is more appropriate. 1. Expansion allowed provided it is contained in the buildable area of the lot, per existing ordinance. 2. Expansion is allowed provided the existing setback encroachments are not increased. Conclusion The non-conformity of single family structures on corner lots is not caused in all cases by the updated City Ordinance adopted in 1980. This being the case, past variance requests have not been characterized by a hardship created'by City action. Ordinance criteria to be met for granting variances is very stringent. Therefore, we suggest handling non-conforming single family structure expansions as conditional uses. Also, when expansions are granted, the area allowed for expansion must be established. cc: Jeannine Dunn Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall ReG~s~cre~ Professional Engineers and L~nd Su~ SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~l/x ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~: Fl=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE / ~-~ ....... ~ ..... PT;~T'~ F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE ,N F ECTOR ; hereb'/ certify tirol th;s ;s o true one correct represerftotion of o survey of the boundar;e$ of ~he lend described ob~ve. ': ~ffoe~ no: purport to ~F, ow improvements or encrcachmenls, if ony. As surveyed by me lhis ._ [~_%.~_ ..... do7 of CASWELL ENGL%~RING CO. ,.', dUILDABLE AREA: C~, ~, ~, ur'"" ~--) -,-- i "","= ;~" '~ '~,~ '''~ ~,-'.; ;'.'=-' ~ m, ,~.f~""' '" ~C DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANC , FRONT YARD: ,..--- , . ---- IZT. 4-E, .... , __..,~ Fl=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE i ,~ :. "-,% ~., I' 1 I \ ~9\. ".X,..',s' '~,_-~,~.':' ~ ! I i'~ \ ~'., '...'X. x_ .'NZ ,':'z. "~"' 'N Iio fi?/~' ,-:.'~- ..,.~ I hereby certify~that this isi a tmue and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries''of: Lot 5, ~lock 3, Terra Linda And of the location of all buildings, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyd by me this 10th d~y of May, 1973. ' N//APPROVED /~ ~ ?LAT ,,?LA ; ~ :', .' .... 7 EXHIBIT 2 ~ ...... ~ "McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC." ~4 j ~ [~ L~[~ ~w ,r ANOKA COUNTY .CN.£.,. COU~.Y So.~C.S LA 5'l) b'L,:6' tl'J }'(.)[~.~ DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE  ]W~lN N£APOLI~ 5URV£Y$ su..,...~ L~C~N~o ~ O.O,.A.C~ o~ C,~ or. "'-~0 SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE , 320 pLyMOUTH DUILDING INDUSTRIAL - JUOICI~L H[NNEPIN AT SIXTH · ~INNEAPOLI5 3. mu FRONT YARD: ~ ~ V~ ~' ~'~'~"~,i ~ Fl=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE '.~ , -" , F2=CURRRENTORDIANACE ~T , '- ~'~: _,' ' r' '" ~ ~' ~ '>.l ~ ' m · - '< ~ ~'' . ~,~.~ ~ ~ ~o,, ~o,~;:~?, :o~,, ~.~ ~~:/"~ ~o'/ " T hereb,..- cert£..~/ thr:t "~n~.s' is a trot--. :nj cor:'ec~ rearcsentation, of a As loccte,1 by me t~s 21st d*.y or .~ust, ....... EXHIBIT 3 8UILDABLE AREA: ENGINEERS AND SU~V'[ SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANC ~-o ~u~-e FRONT YARD: G418- 5GTM AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS ~7. M~NN.. Fl=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE KE ~- 5.G37 F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE ~.~.3 U~l ~ ,.// -~, . . ~/ /,' = /,¢ ~ '~;. ~.'.-o.~ ~: K '.~'. :,~ ~ ~ >~ ..... ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ : ' ' · L~O ~V[ DE~IBED AND OFT~E LOCkTIOH OFkLL~UILDtHG5, IF ~, ,,~,,~o~o.o.,.o~.o. ~x~ ~a,~ EXHIBIT 4 $72'~ Wayzata ~lvd. Minnea'po!is 16, Minn. DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE C A SW E L L E N G I N E E R I so~,~ ~,.[=c~..~.~ o..,.~.c. Registered Professional Engineers and Land S~ FRONT YARD: CERTIFICATE OF SURVl Fl=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land described above. It does not purport to show improvements or encroachments, if any.~s surveyed by me this ~/ day of CASWELL ENGtNEERING CO. ~, ~ EXHIBIT 5 JUILDABLE AREA: DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINAN( FRONT YARD: F~=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE ~ ~ ' ~ ".." ~--'~' C:';i.~ u3. . ~ m . ... "~ . ~ -.. ,, . . ;h ·. .... :.. .. :. ;d ' ' ~ ,,. :. ·; ' ).'~; . '"'. :' ,./.~'~'~., "; i'~...~ ~. ,.,.,.'.,' . . .,.,'.';.y ,, EXHIBITo ::~:.?..;, %,:.- y ~':J': '"'":-' '~'*~{ ~ ', ~ ',:"',"n.'.' ~'r,~l'~,;'?.' 4. t.~ .' .,¥.:, ~)~',7¥?;:?~'~? ;, ~ '~ .' · '- ';' '~' "t" ~ ""t'?.'~4'~:', ', ,d~',,~ '.-'~.?~ '? ' ~.": · '.' .... %' "' ~ . ~,'~,;' . '/.' '-. ~'.', ..... · .:'.... ..~ . .. ~ ,'~:.'..,. . '~.~ ;,,,..,,,,,?.~ .~. jLtILDABLE AREA: ~ DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE .. '~ ... SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE ~?.:~ ? FRONT YARD: ;~f .~'t:? 'Z' -'"" F 1=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE '~" ':' " F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE .. ..... ~ ,.,.~ . . ..'. ,:.. .~ - , ', . '" }' ~UILDABLE AREA: ENGI NEE~ ~ND ~U~V~ SOLID LINE--CURRENT ORDINANC' L~.D ~u~v~,~o FRONT YARD: ~4~8- 5G ~" AVENUE H. Fl=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE MInnEAPOLIS ~7. ~I~N. KE 7- 5G37 F2=CURRRENT ORDIANACE I ,: '-v .>~. :....., r U~.~.~ nV O~)~"^~Cr. Or cz'fY or ~z,~.'f: SOLID LINE=CURRENT ORDINANCE ..... f '. . · . ~ ~, - ~ ~ ~ · . ,., .~. :.'62nd ..;'.,,' N. '" ' ' ' ' -" ~ '" ~i ..'~.."i' '....'"'.', .. :i'. ·-"...... .~... ~f~,,~.-...,,.~, ~ ... ti ' . '.,d..'.,.'~'," ~"~ ' 5 ' .. -: . -.. .,:, ...... .~- .;:~_ i" '. '. ~' ./~ TD' ~ .... ·', .'....'.:-':.~.:'.,: '"">~-' ' ' ' .... . "'' ": :' - .. ' ' . '" ' ' .": · t '' : · .4r ,.,-..:,,~ .'t ' ' . I ?.. :',, ..':. ... · .. :..;': '. ~:~ '~ '.. ."'' . · ':'. ' .:." .. · '. ' ' .'...".';.',': ., · · . ,' .., : ~'~:: '.:- '., .;'~" '?. ~ ~'.' , ''~.'~"~"; ...... '~' '"'a'""" '~' :~ '-: :: '".:.1;'~'. : ' ,<,~..'-':. "' · .... ".a..> .... ' ..... ''- .'-, ..... clUILDABLE AREA: 7708 Lakeland Ave. (Brooklyn Park), P. O. Osseo, Minn. DASHED LINE=PREVIOUS ORDINANCE C A S W E L L E N G I N E E R II so~,o ~,.~:c...[.~ o.o,.,~.~ Registered Professional Engineers and Land S, FRONT YARD: CERTIFICATE OF SURVl Fi:PREVIOUS ORD,.A.CE I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land described above. It dOes not purport to show improvements or encroachments, if any. As surveyed by me this '~--0~-'~ day of 'g~' ~' /' ~ CASWELL ENGLNEERING CO._ ' ?'~..$  EXHIBIT 10 : "File No. '~'7_6,.~ -I Book ~'] ~ Page '7- ~r Minnesota Registration No. COUNCIL ~~~~~Oq? REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Ag,~nda Section Flannlng City Manager Development 6-24-91 Item No. Kirk McDonald By: Management Assistant By: 8. -/ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OI~/SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURE AT 9211 52ND AVENUE NORTH (PID #17-118-21 22 0009), OLSON STORAGE/R.S.OLSON, PETITIONER The City Council approved Planning Case No. 90-9, REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF A STORAGE FACILITY, OFFICE, AND OUTSIDE STORAGE AT 9211 52ND AVENUE NORTH at the May 14, 1990, Council meeting. The approval was for the implementation of Phase II construction of the mini-storage facility, which included three additional buildings with 47,200 square feet including offices for the company headquarters. The Zoning Code states that if the work authorized by a Special Zoning Procedure has not been implemented within a year after approval, the procedure shall terminate unless a petition for extension of time to implement the use or complete the work has been granted by the City Council. The extension request must be submitted to the City Manager at least 30 days prior to the termination deadline, otherwise the permit shall automatically terminate. Robert Olson has submitted the enclosed petition dated May 23, 1991, requesting a one-year extension on the approval. This matter was tabled at the June 10th Council meeting and the City Attorney was requested to issue an opinion as to whether the Council had the authority to grant an extension in light of the fact that more than one year had passed since the original approval. The City Attorney has concluded that Olson's request to extend their permit is untimely and therefore defective. It is the Attorney's opinion that the Council cannot grant the extension and the petitioner should be required to submit a new application for the PUD permit. Staff recommends that the Council take no action on this request. Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ._l- ij i..i _ _-;:. 0 -- ~:~ t T H U 9 : 58 C 0 R R I C K ~ COR~CK & SONDP, ALI. 1811 W~T B~A~WAY GORRI~K LAW OFFICE~, ~,A, ~ ~YEVEN A, ~N~RALL, P-A, ~HARON D. DERBY aY~V[N A, ~GNQRAL~ MICHAEL R, LA~LEUR WILLIAM O, ~TRAIT June 20, 1991 Hr. Kirk HcOonald HanagemenM Assistant City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Olson Storage PUD/CUP Our File No. 99.29009 Dear Kirk; I have reviewed our ordinance regarding 01son SMorage's request to extend their Planned Unit Development CondiMtonal Use Permit. It is my conclusion that their request to ex:end :heir permit untimely and therefore defective, As a result, the Council cannot 9ran: the exMension and the petitioner should be required to submit a new application for the PUD permit. This conclusion is based on Sections 4.191(2), 4.196(5)(e) Section 4.202(1)(~) of :he New Hope Cl%y Code~ copies of which are enclosed herein. 4.191(2) subjects Planned UntM Development Conditional Use Permits to the administrative and procedural requirements of Section and Section 4,20 of our Code. Section 4.19~(5)(e) c~ear~y indicates that a PUD permit automatically terminates if construction has not commenced within one year of i~s approval and no extension has been obtained by the pe:it{oner. Section ~.202(1)(q) further indicates that a request for extension must be submitted to the City Manager at least 30 days prior to the termina:ion deadline, oMherwise :he permit shall automatically terminate. The petitioner's request for extension in this case came 7 days after the termination date. Unfortunately, i: is 37 days la:e and as a result~ a PUD permit iS no longer in existence to extend $UN--20--91 THU 9 = 59 60RR I CE & 80N~R~LL P . 07 Hr. Kirk McDonald June 20, 1991 Page 2 pursuant to the clear language of our ordinance. In other words, the permit automatically terminated and as a resul~ there is nothing left for the Council ~o extend by the ole&r and unambiguous language of our own ordinance. I[ is my opinion %hat this termination language is so clear that it rises to the level of a jurisdictional requirement. Therefore, the Council has no discretion in the matter and should follow mandaSory directional language of our ordinance. If the Council desires more discretion in considering extensions of special zoning procedures then we should consider amending ~he ordinance, Very truly yours, S~even A. Son~rall s1~2 Enclosbres cc: Daniel J. Donahue J U N-- 20 -- 9 i T H U 9 ." 59 C 0 R R I OK & S 0 I-I I;I R A L L P . 08 4,19, &,lB1, 4.192 (1) (4) tO p~-~vide fo= the ~=oupin~ of land parcels ~or developmen= &s an in=agra=ed, coordihated unic as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and ~nplanned approach ~o d~velopmcn~. This S~ction is intended Co in~oduce ~iexibllity of site design and architecture ~or ~e conservation of land and open space c~roug~ clusCering of ~uiidinps and ac~ivities. I~ is further intended planned Unit Developments are ~o be charaoterized by central manage- ment, integrated planning and architecture, Joint or common use of pa=king, maintenance of open space and other similar facilities, and ha~monious selection and e£ficien~ distribution of uses. (1) Application. All permitted, permitted accessory, or conditional ~ses con~ned in Sections 4.05 ~h~ough 4.15 thall be treated as permitted u~es to elimin~e ~he overlapping procedural requirements o~ individual conditional use provisions. {2/~'-)$Recial Procedures. The es=ablishment o~ a Planned edm~nisC~aCive requirements outlined in Section 4.~0 plus 4.[92 Gene~a~ ~eqairemenCs and S~andar~ ~o= a (1) Ownership. An application ~or PUD approva~ must be ~iled T~= o= jointly by all landowners o~ the p~ope=~y included In a project. ~he application and al~ submissions =usc be d~recCed co c~e d=ve%opmen= oE the p=opez=y as a unified whole. ~n Cbs case of multiple ownership, ~he approved PUD shall binding on all owners, (2) ComE[ehensive Plan Consistenc~. The proposed POD shall be ~'~si~-~'~ ~i[h ~he Cl[y Comp~ehensive Plan, (3) Common Open Space. Common open space a[ least eufficien[ [o mast ~he '~'imum requirements established in this Code and such complemen[ary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate ~or the beflefi= and enjoymefl~ o~ ~he residents o£ ~he PUD shall be provided within the area o~ the PUD. {4) ~e~!~!~l. and Hain[enance Require~ents for p~D Common Opcn ~pace/Fa~tlicte~. Wh~f-~%-~n spare"or service lac-EfliEi~i-a~e provided within ~he PUD, =he PUD plan shall contain provisions Co a~sure the con[inued opc~a[lon and a main- tenance of such open space end service fa=ill[les to a prods[er- mined reasonable s[andard. Co~on open space and service £acllities within a PUD nay be placed under =he ownership o£ one or mo~e of [he followingz Landlogd-TennanC. Landlord control, where only use by ~enanCa is anticipated. owners. Properly Owners Association, provided all of Lhe ~['~';ing conditions ace mec~ 07268~ JUN--20--91 THU 10 = 00 CORR I CK & $ONDRALL 4. 196 (5)(e)~ 4.197 (1) (a) (b) (ii) /' C~e approval o~ a-~ln~-~an-i~-PUO, or such shorter time / aa may be established by the approved development schadule, / const~u¢Cion Ghall commence in accordance with such / plan. Failure tg commence construction with lucl~ period / shall, unless an extension shill have been granted and [ he:eina~te~ provided, automatically render void the PUD ~ permit an~ all agp~ovala of the ~U~ plan and tbs'area \ ~ncompassed within the ~UO shall thereefi~er be subJec~ to ~ those provisions of the zoning Code, and ocher Code X, provisions, applicable in the district in which it is ~ located. ~n such ca~e, the Council shall adop~ a resGlu~l~n ~ :epeal£ng the PUD permit and PUD approvals and_re-. ~ establishing the zoning and other Provisions ~i~"would_ 4.197 IMormation ana"~eumentation Regal:emerita Esr Plan · 06~y ~opies O~ ~h&-1611owing eR~'bit~lyse~ and Pi~n~ ~all be submitted to t~e planning Commission ant Council during ~e PUD (i) !eneral concep= Stag!. (a) Oenera! Inlorma~ion~ Owner. The l&ndowner's name, ad~ress and telephone number and his interest tn the sub~ect property. (ii) ~lican._~. The applicant's name, address end telephone n~m~et if dif£erent from ~he landowner. The applicant may designate an agent to be contacted by ~he City, who may speak for the Applicant. (iii) Consultants. The names and addressee of all ~s--r~l ¢onsultan:s who have contribu~ed to the development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor, (iv) Title of AE~l_ica~.~. Evidence that the applicant has ~'~tcten~ co~"~ol over the sub~ect property to e£~ectuate the proposed PUD, including a s~atamen~ of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual interests held in or affecting the sub~ect property and including an up-to-date certified abstract oE title or regis[e~ed property report, and such other evidence as the City Attorney may require to shOW the staeua oE (b) present Status of Premises and Ad,scent Properties. iii Oescri~tton. The address and legal description ce the ~t p=ope:~y, 1£ a survey iS avallable~ it should be furnished. ~onint. The existing zoning classification and p~esent ~'~g the subject property and all lands within 500 feet of the sub,eeC property. &-89 07268~ J U N -- 2 0 -- ~ t T H U 1 0 : 0 1 C O R R I CK & S O H T'I R A L L P - 1 0 Record Before Council. The City Manager shell place the report and recommendations o~ the PLanning Commission and the City Manage=, on ~he agenda Eot [he nex[ regular Council mec~ing a~ce~ ~annLn~ Commission action, oc ~he exptca~ion whichever is earlier. Such reports and ~ecommen~ationa sha~l be entered tn an~ ~ade pac[ o~ [he permanen[ ~c[~en recoc~ oE the City Council meeting. Council Action. Upon receiving the report and =ecommendaf=ion Of the Planning Corem/salon and the City Manager, the City Council may, at tis option set and hold a public heartnq tE aecme8 necessary aaa shall make ~in~ings oE E~ct an~ lmpoee any condition on approval which i~ considers necessary to p~oCecC the pubiic health, safety and welfare, and shall make ib~ decision aa to ~he appliea[ion, (n) Votes Rec~v_L..[e~d. Approval oE .a request Eot text amendment aha1[ require passage by a 4/5Lha vo~e o~ ~he Eul[ City Counct[~ and a vole ~o~ a Conditional Use Pe~[[~ Variance vo~e oE a majority o~ a quoru~ o~ the Ci[y Council presen[ for ~he vole for passage. ~£[~-~ ~ 'a~cision o~ the Counc{! in writing, including any relevant re~olukion and ~lndtnge which may have been passed by the Council. Aocons£dera~£on. Nheneveg an application ~or a Special ~[ng Procect~re h~s been considered aaa ~onte~ by the Council, a simiZa~ applies[ion a~ec[Lng aubs~anLia[Zy the same properly shall nob be considered again by ~he Planning Comm/ssion o~ Ci~y Counc/[ be~o~e the expL~a[/on of Iix mon~h~ Erom the date oE t~s denial an~ any succeeding denials. However, a dec/s/on ~o reconstde~ suc~ marcor may be made by nob Less than 4/5~hs vote oE the full City Council a= any t[me~ oc unde= Robert's Hulas oE Order, work ~&e au[ho~Lzed by a 8pectat ~6~g P=ocedu=e has no= been implemen~e~ ~i~hin a yea= after Einal council approval, pent,ton [or extension of lime to tmplemen[ the use or comple[e khe work pursuan~ [o ~he Special ~onLng P~ocedu~e has beea gran[ed by the City council. Pelt[ion extensions shall be made in wrt[Lng and ~tled with ehe Special Zoning Procedure. ~he~e shall be no charge for [he ~iiing og a pe~t~ion ~or extension. ~he peri[ion shall include a sta~emen[ o~ ~aeta explaining the c[~cumatancea neceaai[a~Ln9 the extension, l~ a petition Eot ex~eneton La ~t[ed, [he Council may [e=mtna~e o= modt[y tl~e special Son/n~ Procedure ~o~ non-vge~ afLe~ a hea~/ng or hea~ings held ~he same manner as ~o= [he original considers[ton o~ [he Spec/el Zoning ~roced~e~ tncludLn9 no~tce ~o [he [he counc/[ datelines [ha~ [he basis ~or approval oE ~he original special Sontn~ P~oced~e no Longer ex/s~s~ tn ~hoLe or eubs~an~iai pa=b, ~he ~unci/ may [e~minate or modify the autho~ity o= use p~eviousiy approved =nde= the Special Zoning Procedure. 4-98 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521 June 11, 1 Mr. Robert Olson Olson Storage 5010 Hillsboro Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 Subject: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURE AT 9211 52ND AVENUE NORTH, OLSON STORAGE PLANNING CASE 90-09 Dear Mr. Olson: Please be advised that on June 10, 1991, the New Hope City Council tabled your request for a one-year extension on the special zoning procedure approval for the mini-storage expansion. The Zoning code states that if the work authorized by a special zoning procedure has not been implemented within a year after approval, the procedure shall terminate unless a petition for extension of time to implement the use or complete the work has been granted by the City Council. The Code further states that the petition for an extension shall be made in writing and filed with the City at least 30 days before the expiration of the special zoning procedure. The City Council approved your request for a Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Permit and Site/Building Plan Review to allow expansion of the storage facility, office and outside storage at the May 14, 1990, Council meeting. Your letter requesting the extension is dated May 23, 1991, therefore slightly more than one year has passed since the original approval. The Council tabled the matter and requested that the City Attorney issue an opinion as to whether the Council has the legal authority to grant an extension in light of the fact that more than one year has passed since the original approval. This matter will be discussed again at the June 24th City Council meeting. If you have questions, please call. Sincerely, Daniel J. Donahue ~it~ Manage~ ~ ~ · Kirk McDonald - Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator ', KM/lb FamilyS~ledC~'~~ForFamilyLivin~ cc: Planning Case File 90-09 Property File Quality Commercial & Industrial Construction for 80 years 5010 HILLSBORO AVENUE NORTH · MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55428 · 612/535-1481 May 23, 1991 iqAY 2 Mr. Doug Sandstad Building Official CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 Xylon Av. N. New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Olson Storage - 9211 52nd Avenue North Dear Doug: I believe it has been over a year since the City Council approved the expansion plans for the mini-storage expansion. We would like to request a one-year extension on the approval since it looks like there might be a possibility that the project may go ahead. Sincerely, Robert S. Olson President OLSON COMPANY RSO:kn ! I / \ \ ', I / \~\ WOI~K$ MINt4(~ APOI,.I S ST I~ l ~ ~, · ~&UT.T SAINTg kll& I~ [ 1 ~URCN BOUNO ~IG~ vie i. , EXHIBIT I - SITE LOCATION F/rst Minnesota October2, 1989 Ms. Jeannine Dunn Management Assistant/C~L,,~nity Development Coordinator City of New Hope 4401XylonAvenueNorth New Hope, ~ 55428 Just a quick note to provide you with the status of our New Hope expansion project. We have decided that we will not be starting this project this fall but have elected to start it in the spring of 1990. In addition to the start of the project, we have also agreed to the settlement arrangement regarding the 1979 easement. Once again, thanks for your help throughout this entire process. Sincerely, Bruce Bednarek Assistant Vice President Admln/strative Services BB/cl First Minnesota Savings Bank. KS.B. 690 16th Avenue South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612-935-6126 · TOTAL PARKING SPACES 4S TRAFFIC CIRCULATION & NEW HOPE OFFICE PARKING PLAN a ~-=,o..o.1,"-':~: ............................ ...................... =: ~ .~.._-'~'_._~:.~ _ ,.~-~~ 4401 Xy/on Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521 June 25, 1991 Randy Rau Holiday Store 9400 36th Ave. No. Dear Randy, I received a complaint on behalf of two residential property owners adjacent to your Jordan Avenue frontage, regarding excessive noise. The problem is caused by the car wash "blower", day and night, when the east car wash overhead door is not closed. Be reminded that we discussed potential noise problems during your Plan Case 90-8 discussions and were told that you would comply with our tough ordinance. One specific assurance was that the car wash doors would be closed, if necessary, on the east side. I beleive that time has come. City code sectiom 9.421 describes our general prohibition of "noise that creates a disturbance beyond the property line". The affected neighbors I have heard from are 120 and 250 feet away from the car wash, one actually on Gettysburg Avenue, the next block. You must take the necessary steps to eliminate the off-site noise problem within 14 days. My recommendation is to reconnect the east garage door opener/closer so that it is automatically closed until the fan shuts off, which is your normal winter-time mode. Please call me, if you have any questions. Thanks, in advance, for your cooperation. erel s Building Official/Zoning Administrator cc: Smith McDonald file complainant/s Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living Item 8.4 resolution and moved its adoption: *RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 91-14 REQUESTING VARIANCE TO EXCEED REQUIRED FENCE HEIGHT AT 3700 JORDAN AVENUE NORTH (PID ~18-118-21 33 0066) SUB#ITTED BY LARRY ERICKSON". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember L'Herault, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: L'Herault, Otten, Enck, Wi111amson; and the following voted against the same: None; Absent: Erickson; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. ORDINANCE 91-04 Mayor Pro rem Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, FLOOD PLAIN An OrdinanceAmending Appendix D of the New Hope City Code Item 10.1 Repealing Existing Flood Plain Regulations and Adopting New Flood Plain Regulations. Mr. McDonald stated in January the Department of Natural Resources sent the City a new model flood plain ordinance which reflects changes in federal regulations. Every community in the National Flood Insurance is Program being required to amend their flood plain zoning ordinances to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance / Program. New Hope's existing ordinance provides regulations only for a singular floodplain district, as do the floodway boundary maps. The Planning Consultant and North Hennepin County Hydrologist both recommended that New Hope pursue its regulation via a single district ordinance instead of a two-district ordinance because there are few significant floodway channels and regulation through a single district simplifies the review process. Mr. McDonald indicated that the Plaming Commission recommended approval of the ordinance subject to language being added that a security be required prior to the issuance of a permit for a structure or land alteration within the flood plain. The Council approved the recommendation made by the \ Planning Commission and directed the City Attorney to incorporate the language regarding security into Ordinance 91-04. ORDINANCE 91-04 Councilmember L'Herault introduced the following ordinance Item 10.1 and moved its adoption: 'AN ORDINANCE AMENDIN6 APPENDIX D OF THE NEWNOPE CITY CODE REPEALING EXISTING FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING NEW FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS'. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: L'Herault, Otten, Enck, Williamson; and the following New Hope City Council Page g June 10, 1991 voted against the same: None; Absent: Erickson; whereupon the ordinance was declared duly passed and adooted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. ORDINANCE 91-11 Mayor Pro tem Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.2, COMPOSTING Ordinance 91-11, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 9 of the Item 10.2 New Hope City Code by Permitting and Establishing Procedures for Composting Yard Refuse. Mr. McDonald stated the City CoUncil, in response to citizen inquiry, requested that staff prepare an ordinance permitting and establishing procedures for composting yardwaste. The Codes and Standards Committee of the Planning Commission made recommended three changes: A) Location - the ordinance states that compost sites may not be closer than $ feet from any rear or side property line, may not be located in any front yard, may not be located in any drainage easement, or may not be closer than 25 feet from any residence. Codes and Standards wanted to require that the compost site must be located in the rear yard and may not be located in any side yard abutting a public right-of- way. Codes and Standards also recommended that if the lot had an approved boundary line fence, the fence could be used as part of the compost containment structure (which would negate the 5-foot setback). B) Containment - to allow "a structure constructed of permanent, non-degrading material" (this would allow wire enclosures as being acceptable for containment). C) Composition - to allow only composting of yard waste (no fruit or vegetable waste, and no eggshells or coffeegrounds). Ms. Helen Peterson, 4768 Decatur Avenue, was recognized and indicated she currently has a neighbor who has a compost site located seven feet from her property line. She commented that the compost site emits an offensive odor and it is located near her clothesline. She commented that she may not smell the compost site if it was moved to the other side of the neighbor's existing garden. Mayor Pro tem Enck stated the ordinance will allow the City to have some control regarding compost sites. He stated there are benefits to composting if it is properly maintained. He stated Ms. Peterson's complaint may be handled through the City's nuisance ordinance. Mr. Donahue stated he would ask the Inspections Department to address the situation. New Hope City Council Page 10 June 10, 1991 Councilmember Williamson inquired whether the composting ordinance addresses odor. Mr. Sondrall, City Attorney, stated the nuisance ordinance would be applicable. Councilmember Williamson inquired of the consequence of violation of the nuisance ordinance. Mr. Sondrall replied that it would be handled through a ticket process resulting in a fine, or a civil application obtaining an injunction and court order that the compost site be removed. Councilmember Williamson inquired whether as a City we must allow composting. Mr. Sondrall stated at the present time chapter g of the City Code lists composting materials as an exception to the prohibition of waste storage. Adoption of the ordinance would allow the City control in regulating compost sites. Councilmember L'Herault suggested that if the composting ordinance is adopted, it be reviewed after one year. The City Attorney emphasized that the Council has the right to review and amend an ordinance at any time. It was the consensus of the Council to adopt the ordinance with the inclusions of fore-mentioned items B & C and that the result of citizen complaints will be cause for review of the ordinance by Council. ORDINANCE gl-ll Councilmember Otten introduced the following ordinance and Item 10.2 moved its adoption: 'Al( OROINANCE AMENOING CHAPTER g OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE BY PERMITTING AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR COMPOSTING YARD REFUSE'. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Councilmember L'Herault, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: L'Herault, Otten, Enck, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; Absent: Erickson; whereupon the ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. HEDIA EQUIPMENT Mayor Pro tem Enck introduced for discussion Item'll.1, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Resolution Awarding Contract for Council Chambers Media (IHP. PROJ. ~463) Equipment (Improvement Project 463). Item 11.1 Mr. Donahue stated as part of the settlement with the cable commission to the City in which they gave the City $170,000 to be used only for cable-related equipment, the Council initiated improvements to the Council Chambers to New Hope City Council Page 11 June 10, 1991 New Hope adopts compost ordinance BY Sue Webber * Be located in the rear yard and not in any side yard abut- Helen Peterson was a resi- ting a public right-of-way. dent of north Minneapolis most · May not be closer than five of her life, until she moved to feet from any rear or side New Hope not long ago. property line. But the move netted her one · May not be located in any' negative suburban "amenity." drainage easement. "I have a neighbor with a · May not be closer than 25 compost, and it's terrible~ feet from any residence. When we can't go on our patio · Must be totally contained to cook hot dogs and ham- within a structure Constructed burgers because the smell is so of apermanent, non-degrading: offensive, that shouldn't be. mater~l. There is a good reason for- · May not exceedll~O square compoating, but this is a mess. feet or four feet inheight. I foresee this as a problem i/- · Only yard waste may be everyone starts doing it," composted. Fruit or vegetable Petersonsaid. wastes, eggshells and ~ In, aa: attempt tor ~' ' ~0~will not be allowed. probl~like Peterson's--as- New Hope City Att°may well as requests from citizens Steve Sondrall said, "It's my who would like to compost- understanding that if they'r~ the New Hope City Council last (composts) maintained pro- week 'adopted an ordinance perly, there's not supposed permitting compostiv-g and bean odor." establishing procedures for it. ff a compost is not maintain- "ff people want to compost, ed ami- turned frequently, we should eneou~.age it," said said, it could be considered council member Gary' violation of the city's ordi- L'Herault. nance. According to the ordinance, composts must: 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 favor: Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Watschke /~ ~otion passed. Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-28 and called on in9 Commission -2- Ocober 2, 1990 AMENDMENT TO Company for amendment to conditional use permit to expand CONDITIONAL US~ retail sales and site/building plan review. PERMIT TO EXPAND REXAIL SATES AND Mr. McDonald stated that the petitioner wishes to remodel a SITE/BUILDING portion of their existing building and construct a 900 square PLAN REVIEWAT foot addition to expand their retail sales operation and has 5130 WINNETKA AV. 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 & 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 signage 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 Commission -3- October 2, 1990 Commissioner Gundershaug recommended they consider a sprinkling system to preserve 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 same. 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. MOTION Motion by Commissioner Gundershaug, second by Commissioner Oja, to approve Pladm~Bg C~ee '-~90-28, 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 permitted to exceed the 10%. 4. That six (6) additional parking spaces be provided on the south side of the south entz*y, not to be in front of the building. 5. Annual review by staff. Voting in favors Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja Voting againsts None Absents Zak, Watschke PC 90-29 (3.4) Chairman 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 AT~W SHARED tabled, therefore he called for a motion to table this case PARKING/LOADING also. FACILITIES AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW OFFICE/WARE- 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 against~ None Absents Zak, Watechke Motion passed. New Hope Planning Commission -4- October 2, 1990 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING 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 processed on the site is allowed as a conditional use provided that: A. Area - Ail 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. Ail exterior storage be eliminated, 2. Ail 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