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