080691 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 1991
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 Case 91-18 Request for Variance to 35' Rear Yard Setback Requirement
to Allow Construction of a Porch 20' from the Rear Property
Line, 3820 Boone Avenue North, Steven/Kathleen Anderson,
Petitioners
3.2 Case 91-19 Request for Variance from Distance Requirement for Off-street
Parking from the Side Yard Property Line, 3948 Oregon
Avenue North, Gary/Carol Johnson, Petitioner
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS
4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee
4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee
5. OLD BUSINESS
5.1 Staff report on miscellaneous issues
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of luly 2, 1991
6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of June 24, 1991
6.3 Review of EDA Minutes of June 24, 1991
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
8. ADJO~
Meeting wffi be h~d in the District //281 Administration Building Board Room
(third floo0, 4148 Winn~ka Avenue North
PLANNING CASES
AUGUST 1991
. ~__~ PC 91-19
~ . ',948 Oregon
PC 91-18 =~ ._
3820 Boone ~'--
ZONING DISTRICT MAP
CiTY ~ ~W HOPE
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 91-18
Request: Request for a Variance to the 35' Rear Yard Setback Requirement to
Allow Construction of a Porch 20' from the Rear Property Line
Location: 3820 Boone Avenue North
PID No.: 18-118-21 42 0101
Zoning: R-1 (Single-family Residential)
Petitioner: Steven/Kathleen Anderson
Report Date: August 2, 1991
Meeting Date: August 6, 1991
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to the 35' rear yard setback requirement to allow
construction of a porch 20' from the rear yard property line, pursuant to Sections 4.034(3)
and 4.034(5c) of the New Hope Code.
2. The City Code requires a 35-foot rear yard setback for structures located in an R-1 Single
Family Residential Zoning District and the petitioner is requesting to construct a four-
season porch which would be located 20 feet from the rear property line at the closest
point, therefore a 1S-foot variance to the 35-foot setback requirement is needed.
3. Although City Code allows balconies, breezeways, open porches, decks and detached
outdoor living rooms as permitted encroachments on the rear yard setback requirement,
porches which become closed in and attached to the dwelling subsequent to initial
construction of the principal dwelling are not exempt from the yard setback
requirements.
4. The four-season porch is proposed to be located on the southeast comer of the house off
of the existing family room and would measure 16' x 18' or contain 288 square feet.
5. The existing structure meets all setback requirements, as the rear southeast comer of the
house is located 36 feet from the rear property line, the rear northeast comer of the
home is located 78 feet from the rear property line, and the front and side yard setback
requirements fr 30 feet and 10 feet, respectively, are currently met.
6. The petitioner states on the application that the shape and shallowness of the lot is an
undue hardship that does not allow them to reasonably utilize the property. The physical
characteristics of the lot show that it is irregular in shape, due to the tapered rear lot line,
and has a sloping hill towards the house at the rear of the property.
7. The petitioner has discussed the porch proposal with the two neighboring properties who
would be most impacted by the granting of the variance (3812 Boone Avenue, adjacent
to and south of petitioner's property, and 3808 Boone Circle, adjacent to and east of
petitioner's property) and both neighbors have indicated they have no problem with the
variance request.
8. The home was constructed in 1961 and has been maintained as a single family use since
that time.
Planning Case Report 91-18
August 6, 1991
Page -2-
9. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no
inquiries about the proposal.
ANALYSIS
1. The purpose of the variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms
of the Zoning Code where circumstances are unique to the individual property. A
hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific parcel of
property where the property cannot be put to a reasonable use. The variance should not
alter the character of the neighborhood and economic considerations alone cannot
constitute a hardship.
2. Additional criteria to be considered include findings that the variance will not:
A. Consistent with Purpose of Variance - be contrary to the purpose of a variance
B. Light and Air - impair an adequate amount of light and air to adjacent property
C. Street Congestion - unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street
D. Public Safety_ - increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety
E. ProPerty Values -unreasonably diminish or impair established proPerty values
within the neighborhood
3. Staff agrees with the hardship stated by the Petitioner on the application - the irregular
shape of the parcel due to the angle of the rear property line and the shallowness of the
lot at the southeast comer prohibit them from constructing a four-season porch that will
meet the required rear yard setback.
4. Staff does not feel that the granting of the variance would alter the character of the
neighborhood or unreasonably impair or diminish property values.
5. The two neighboring proPerties that would be most affected by the porch construction
have no objection to the variance.
6. Based on the above points, staff could recommend approval of the variance application.
7. On the other hand, the Building Official points out that a 43 % reduction in the minimum
setback is hard to justify when a porch with the same square footage could be built
without a variance adjacent to the dining room to the north. This option os shown in
"Exhibit Aw.
8. Staff would suggest that the Commission discuss this option with the petitioner to see if
they would consider a new design that would shift the porch to the north where it would
be accessed off of the dining room, resulting in no setback problem or a very minor
variance. The Petitioner needs to explain the specific reasons why the porch is proposed
for the southeast comer of the home.
9. The Commission will also want to insure that the addition will be constructed of similar
materials as the existing home and be compatible with the present structure.
Planning Case Report 91-18
August 6, 1991
Page -3-
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission discuss the above points with the petitioner and either
approve the requested 15-foot rear yard setback variance as proposed or ask the petitioner to
consider a new design that would shift the porch to the north and reduce the setback variance
that is being requested.
Attachments: Section/Zoning Map
Site Plan
Letter from Petitioner
Elevation
Footing Plan
Staff "Exhibit A"
GETHSEMANE
CEMETERY
NORTHWO00
~- .~ PARK
PARK /
~ -
#.
SITE PLAN DECLARATION
I CERTIF'Y THAT I AM THE PROPERTY
OWNER, OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE &'
THIS,,IpLAN IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE:
l'tg, Jl~
!
l
I
I
!
?2 "_ "'
/,L) ·
/~o,o, ~,I~'
July 10, 1991
Planning Commission and City Council
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
To The Planning Commission and City Council:
Enclosed please find our request for a variance to our rear
property setback. We are requesting this variance as we would like
to add a 4-season porch on the southeast corner of our house, off
our family room. The proposed addition of a 18' by 16' porch would
be located in the narrow portion of the lot. Currently, the back
of our house is 37' from the rear setback at the narrowest spot;
with the proposed addition of the porch, the rear setback at the
narrowest spot would be 21'. Please refer to the enclosed site
plan declaration which illustrates our lot dimensions, how our
house is situated on the lot, and where our proposed addition would
be situated. Also attached f~ your consideration, is a copy of
the design of the proposed addltion.
We have discussed o~r proposal with the neighbors who would bemost
affected by the addition and they do not have any problems with our
request for this variance. The individuals contacted are:
Steve and Gerry Carlson Doug Jacobs
3808 Boone Circle 3812 Boone Ave. No.
New Hope 55427 New Hope 55427
545-4424 546-9107
If additional information is required, please let us know. Thank
you in advance for your consideration for this request for
variance.
Steven G. Anderson Kathleen M. Anderson
3820 Boone Ave. No. 3820 Boone Ave. No.
New Hope 55427 New HOpe 55427
544-6097 544-6097
SITE PLAN DECLARATION
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE PROPERTY .
OWNER, OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE &
LAN IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE:
I't~,J/~
!
!
· .~ :,,,,, / t :
I
/(,,.
,- , -- ,,¥
:3'/g" j..,. " .....,.-
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 91-19
Request: Request for a Variance from the Distance Requirement for Off-street
Parking from the Side Yard Property Line
Location: 3948 Oregon Avenue North
PID No.: 17-118-21 31 0027
Zoning: R-1 (Single-family Residential)
Petitioner: Gary/Carol Johnson
Report Date: August 2, 1991
Meeting Date: August 6, 1991
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting a variance from the distance requirement for off-street
parking from the side yard property line, pursuant to (Section 4.036(6c), of the New Hope
Code.
2. The petitioner is requesting to pave their driveway with asphalt up to within one (1) foot
of the north side yard property line. Under City Code "parking distance from property
line" requirements it states that there shall be no off-street parking within three (3) feet
of any property line, therefore a two (2) foot variance to the parking distance form
property line requirement is needed.
3. The paved portion of the driveway was approximately 12 feet wide and this request would
expand the paved width to about 22 feet. The petitioner was ready to have the entire
width paved when City Hall was contacted and they discovered there was a three (3) foot
setback requirement, which prompted the application.
4. In a letter submitted to the City the petitioner states that the portion of the driveway
closest to the property line was installed in 1978 when they owned a travel trailer and
parked it next to the garage and they were told by the City at that time that the driveway
could be right to the property line. It has been a crushed rock surface 10 feet wide since
that time.
5. The petitioner states that five (5) years ago concrete curb was installed on Oregon
Avenue and a curb cut was placed that lined up with the property line. They now want
to pave the driveway. (City Code states that curb cub openings shall be located at
minimum 5 feet from the side yard lot line.)
6. The petitioner states that paving the drive up to within one (1) foot of the property line
would improve the property and the neighborhood. They indicate that a survey of the
neighborhood showed that it was not uncommon for homes to have driveways less than
3 feet from the property line and the curb cuts less than 5 feet from the property line and
the granting of the variance would not allow them to do anything out of the ordinary.
7. A petition signed by a number of property owners in the neighborhood has been
submitted in support of the variance (including the adjacent property owner to the north
at 3956 Oregon Avenue who would be most impacted by the variance).
Planning Case Report 91-19
August 6, 1991
Page -2-
8. The structure on the site is a one-story rambler with a single family residential use. The
lot is generally flat and the existing structure complies with all setback requirements.
9. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no
inquiries about this request.
ANALYSIS
1. The purpose of the variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms
of the Zoning Code where circumstances are unique to the individual property. A
hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific parcel of
property where the property cannot be put to a reasonable use. The variance should not
alter the character of the neighborhood and economic considerations alone cannot
constitute a hardship.
2. Additional criteria to be considered include findings that the variance will not:
A. Consistent with Purpose of Variance - be contrary to the purpose of a variance
B. Light and Air - impair an adequate amount of light and air to adjacent property
C. Street Congestion - unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street
D. Public Safety - increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety
E. Property Values -unreasonably diminish or impair established property values
within the neighborhood
3. This is a standard size parcel with no unusual shape or topography, therefore it is difficult
to determine what the undue hardship is that exists.
4. Staff does not find that the granting of the variance would necessarily alter the character
of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values, although
reasonable use of the property could be made without expanding the driveway to within
one (1) foot of the property line.
5. The expansion of the driveway would probably serve to decrease the congestion in the
public street, as more off-street parking would be provided with a wider driveway.
6. Staff considers this a minor variance request, as the petitioner is only requesting a two
(2) foot variance from the code.
7. However, the code requirement for a 3-foot parking setback from the property line has
a variety of purposes:
A. Dr0Jnage easements -the current subdivision ordinance requires 5-foot drainage
easements on all lot lines, however this particular plat (GWYNNCO ADDITION,
platted in 1959) shows no drainage easements on the side lot line.
B. Landsca i~o.g_- in theory, adjacent homes would have space for six feet of
landscaping between them.
Planning Case Report 91-19
August 6, 1991
Page -3-
C. Maintenance - some reasonable setback assists owners in clarifying lot lines and
maintenance/use responsibilities.
D. Other - a setback also allows for car doors to open without swinging over the
property lines.
8. Unfortunately, there is no written record as to what the City told the property owner in
1978 or why a curb cut was installed on the property line in violation of the city code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff considers this a minor variance request, but does not find that a reasonable hardship exists
and recommends that the Commission discuss the above points with the petitioner to see if a
compromise solution can be worked out.
Attachments: Zoning/Section Map
Property Survey
Petitioner Letter
Petitioner Photos
Petitions in support of variance
Original Plat
Staff Exhibits
OFFICE
SCHOOL
BUS
I
l
--
BETHEL LIONS
%~-~1c~ CEMETERY
I
36TH - AVE
I
HOLY NATIVITY * ~
- 7
~ ~ ......... ~ .,.. ER, OR OWNERS R~PRESEN '
~ YILLAu~ ~ t'~E;'~ "~ ,"~SPLAN~SCOMP .
~ ~,. -~. HO, E ~ LET ..... ~u ....
The part of the driveway closest to the property line was put
in in 1978 when we owned a travel trailer and parked it next to the
garage. We were told by the city then that the driveway could be
right to the property line. It has been a crushed rock surface 10 ft
wide since then. 5 years ago concrete curb was installed on Oregon Ave.
and they left a curb cut that lined up with our property line.
Now we want to pave our driveway with asphalt and we beleive it will
make our property and thereby the neighborhood look b~tter. This
varience would not allow us to do anything out of the ordinary. As we
looked over our neighborhood we found it common to have a driveway
less than 3 ft from the property line and few driveways observe the
5 ft setback for boulevards.
Property owners at 3956 Oregon approve of the driveway at 3948 Oregon
being within 14" of our property line.
Date
This petition is for your approval of an asphalt driveway at 3948 Oregon
being within 14" of the property line between 3948 and 3956 Oregon.
This petition is for your approval of an asphalt driveway at 3948 Oregon
being within 14" of the property line between 3948 and 3956 Oregon.
This petition is for your approval of an asphalt driveway at 3948 Oregon
being within 14" of the property line between 3948 and 3956 Oregon.
This petition is for your approval of an asphalt driveway at 3948 Oregon
being within 14" of the property line between 3948 and 3956 Oregon.
GW'
! .... "'"' r'".: ~ -'
i""; :--': .. ..... ..., :. .... ~ ..... .~ !....:! ~"", "-~ r'"', ,':
;"'::. :-.-.--:" ..... !"'".. '-...-'t.....~ ... ...... ' ..-"'-'-.. F'~_
~ N.~. J~ o¢ S.w.~
u. eq°so',t"s mN. line of $.W. 1/~ Sec. 17, TII8 I::::L. 21 .--1071 ~r~_-
~'*:.~ F -- o, 40'f'k. ---.q~5.o,--. AVl::.
~ ~ L
~ ~ AVE.
~ ~' ~t u · "
Property
Existin
Drive
PRIVATE YARDS
A&B
PUBLIC BOULEVARD I
A Parking Distance From Property Lin~. There shall be no off-
(c)
street parking within three feet of any property line.
B (vii) Curb Cut Minimum. Curb cut openings shall be located
at minil%il fiVl feet fro~ the side yard lot line in all
districts.
A
/
SETBACK BLDG.
INIMUM
PARKING
SETBACK
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 1, 1991
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development
Coordinator
SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Issues
1. Complaint about shed at 3700 Jordan Avenue North
In response to the complaint received at the last meeting
regarding a utility shed being built in the front yard at 3700
Jordan Avenue (the site of a recent fence variance request),
the attached letter has been sent ordering that it be removed
from the front yard.
2. New Hope Bowling Alley Buffer
The Commission should be aware of the complaints we have
received about the lack of a buffer behind New Hope Bowl.
Staff has drafted the enclosed report for the Citizen Advisory
Commission and is passing it on to you for your information.
We are trying to resolve this in a cooperative manner with the
owners of the bowling alley.
3. Ouarterly Report
A copy of the Planning and Development 2nd Quarter Report is
enclosed for your information.
4. Pending Cases
Autohaus, Don Harvey Plat, and K-Mart planning cases are on
hold and have been removed from the agenda. A letter has been
sent to K-Mart requesting plans for the next meeting. Staff
will be recommending some type of action on all pending cases
at the September meeting.
5. Upcoming Cases
A. New drive-thru facility at Norwest Bank at 42nd/Xylon Ave.
B. Cellular telephone tower - possibly to be located at
Victory Park on Science Center Drive
C. Text amendment request by Waste Management to locate a
transfer/storage facility in New Hope.
4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521
July 22, 1991
Larry Erickson
3?00 Jordan Ave. No.
Dear Mr. Erickson,
I receded a complaint about a "new shed" in the front yard of your
home. I have confi~ed, today, that one is bein$ built. Please be aware
that storase sheds are not pe~itted in front yards by ordinance ~4.032 (3)b.
I have attached a copy for your reference. If the shed is smaller than
120 square feet, there would not be a requirement for a buildin$ pe~it
for such a shed.
Please remove the shed from your front yard within 7 days. Your cooperation
will be appreciated. Call me at 531-5122, if you have any questions.
Dei~$1as Sandstad
Bui ...... nldi g Official/Zonin$ Administrator
cc: file
Complainant
Family Styled C~ For Family Livi~
Survegor's ~e#ifi'eate
:IFY THAT ! AM THE PROP:RTY
VJL~GE OF NEW HOPe ~ ~' -~ ~~~.
4.032 (2)(d) - (3)(d)~)
(d) Existing Smaller Lots. A lot of record, existing upon the
effective date of this Code in a Residential District, which
does not meet the requirements of this Code as to area or
width may be utilized for single family detached dwelling
purposes provided the measurements of such area or width are
within seventy-five percent of the requirements of this
Co~e.
(e) Principal Building. Except in the case of Planned Unit
Development as provided for in Section 4.19 of this Code,
not more than one principal building shall be located on a
lot. The words "principal building" shall be given their
common, ordinary meaning; in case of doubt or on any
question of interpretation, the decision of the Building
Official shall be final, subject to the right of appeal as
provided in (~apter 1. For purposes of this Code, all
shopping centers shall be interpreted as having more than
one principal building, thus requiring that they be handled
under Section 4.19, Planned Unit Develo$~ment.
(f) Double Front Lots. O~ a through lot (a lot fronting on two
parallel streets), both street lines shall be front lot
lines for applying the yard and parking regulations of this
Code.
(3) Accessory Buildings~ Uses and Equipment.
(a) Integral Part. An accessory building shall be considered an
integral part of the principal building if it is connected
to the principal building by a covered passageway.
(b) Rear Yard Limitations. No accessory storage type buildings
other than a garage shall be located in any yard other than
a rear yard.
(Code 0?2684)
(c) Garage Location Limitation. In no case shall an accessory
garage be located in a required front yard or a required side
yard paralleling the depth of the principal structure.
(d) Further Location Limits.
(i) Ex~ept as provided in this section, aceessorv ~ildin~s
and~hall not exceed f~£~--- ~--~ in height and
shaT~"~l~ feet or more ~T~om all lot lines of
adjoining lots and shall not be located within a utility
or drainage easement.
(ii) Upon the processing of a the
(a) ~e u~e o~ ~he s~uc~u~e is ~he ~o=age of operable
~ssenger vehicles ~ich are the property of the
oc~nt of ~he principal s~c~ure.
(b) ~e lo,=ion of the st~cture ~s at ~nim~ sixty
feet f=~ the front property line or Is lo~t~ to
the rear of the princi~al st~c~ure, whichever
4is~an~ Is greater.
4-19
0T~14
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 15, 1991
TO: Shari French, Director of Parks/Recreation
FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development
Coordinator
SUBJECT: Buffer Behind New Hope Bowl
As per your request, I am writing this memo to make you aware of
the complaint we have received about the lack of a buffer behind
New Hope Bowl, to update you about the research that has been
performed on this problem, and to inform you of the discussions
that the City has had with the owner of the bowling alley. I want
to make it clear that at this point the only issue that we have
discussed is the lack of a green buffer behind the bowling alley;
we have had no complaints or discussions about the lack of land-
scaping in front of the bowling alley.
Early this spring the city received a complaint from Mr. Gordon
Hustad, 4008 Louisiana Avenue North, about the lack of a buffer/
landscaping behind the New Hope Bowling Alley. In March Mr. Hustad
had written a letter to the City about the deterioration of the
buffer zone that he feels is to be in place behind New Hope Bowl.
He indicated that the back, or south side of the property, was to
be shielded with trees, etc. to minimize the impact of the rear of
the building on the abutting residential property. He stated that
sometime in the late 50's or early 60's when the bowling alley
expanded, the people of the Rockford Park neighborhood petitioned
New Hope to have a buffer placed between the rear of the bowling
alley and the homes. He requested that the City please see what
might be accomplished to restore the buffer behind the building.
The staff spent several days researching City Council and Planning
Commission minutes from 1957 through 1961. Although there was some
discussion about the bowling alley additions in those minutes, only
slight mention was made of a green space or a buffer zone. You may
want to keep in mind that the minutes at that time were quite brief
and not very detailed. On April 25th I wrote a letter to Mr.
Hustad informing him that the City had not forgotten his complaint,
but that we had not been successful in finding any past records
that indicated a buffer was required when the building was
constructed/ expanded. I explained to him that we would examine
present ordinances to see if there was any code requirement that
addressed this issue and that we may also initiate discussions with
the owner about the problem (please find letter attached).
The N~w Hope Bowl is currently located in a B-4 Community Business
Zoning District. The purpose of the B-4 Community Business
District is to provide for the commercial and service activities
which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or
sub-region. Unlike other zoning districts, such as the I-1 Light
Industrial District which requires a 35% green area, there is no
specific percentage requirement in the B-4 Community Business
Zoning District. Present ordinances do require landscaping between
business and residential uses, but these codes were not in effect
in 1960 and are not retroactive. Landscaping and other green area
issues are discussed at the Design & Review Committee level before
the plans normally proceed to the Planning Commission and then on
to the City Council. I have discussed this matter with the
Building Official and it is our opinion that the City has no
authority to simply order New Hope Bowl to install additional trees
or a buffer at the rear of the building.
The Building Official and I did meet with a co-owner of New Hope
Bowl at the beginning of May and informed him of the complaint we
had received about the lack of a buffer in the rear of the
building. The co-owner indicated to us that when the building was
originally constructed trees were planted along the entire south
property line, but that over the years they have died due to the
effects of snowplowing and salt. He was not opposed to additional
landscaping and indicated to staff that he would discuss the idea
of additional trees, a berm, or a fence with his partner and
contact the City about the outcome. The City staff has received no
reply from the owners of the New Hope Bowling Alley about the
landscaping since we last talked with them, therefore I asked the
Building Official to contact them around the first part of July.
Mr. Sandstad did contact one of the owners of the bowling alley,
however he indicated that the partner was out of town and that no
decision had been made regarding the landscaping. He indicated to
staff that he would contact the City when his partner returned to
New Hope.
Please contact me if you have any further questions or comments
regarding this matter. We feel it may be more prudent to proceed
in a cooperative manner with New Hope Bowl rather than trying to
force them to install more landscaping without any ordinance
backup.
cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
R'S
B.4 R.4
B'4! ~ "
4401 Xylon Avenue Nortl~ New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521
April 25, 1991
Mr. Gordon Hus.tad
4008 Louisiana Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Subject: BUFFER BEHIND NEW HOPE BOWL
Dear Mr. Hustad:
I am writing to let you know that the City has not forgotten you~
complaint about the lack of a buffer/landscaping behind New Hope
Bowl and that we are still working to resolve the issue. Although
we have not been successful in finding past records that indicate
a buffer was required when the building was constructed/expanded,
we are examining existing ordinances to see if there are any code
requirements that address this issue.
Several City staff members have arranged to meet with the owner of
the Bowling Alley at the site in the near future to inform them of
the complaints we have received. We are hopeful that the Bowling
Alley might voluntarily agree to install some landscaping at the
rear of the building to help shield it from adjacent residential
property.
I will contact you after our meeting has been conducted to notify
you of the outcome of our discussions.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
KM/lb
cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Family Styled City'~~ Fm*'Family LivinE
NEW HOPE BOWLING ALLEY
Council:
2-14-57 A discussion was held on Norm Rooney's request for
rezoning of property behind Rockford Park. Matter
referred to Planning Commission.
3-14-57 Petition from people in Rockford Park asking council to
reject F.& R. Realty's request for rezoning of property
back of Rockford Park. Planning Commission had
recommended against rezoning. Motion made to accept
Planning Commission's recommendation to deny rezoning.
3-20-57 Norman Rooney appears before Council to inquire about
securing a permit to build a bowling alley to be located
in Rockford Park - the portion zoned commercial.
Referred to Planning Commission for review.
3/28-57 Motion made to allow Norman Rooney to proceed with
bowling alley subject to the approval of specifications
by the Council.
4-11-57 The Council informed the people present from Rockford
Park that they woul4 check with Norman Rooney on P.H.&.
buffer zone requirement near bowling alley.
4-25-57 Discussion held on installation of catch basin and
drainage tile by the Sinclair Station in Rockford Park.
Council requested Rooney to furnish letter stating he
will install tile. Motion made to approve bowling alley
and issue permit contingent on receiving letter.
Planninq Commission
3-4-58 Discussion initiated regarding New Hope Bowling Alley
proposed addition. Owner to get figures on brick and
block.
1-7-60 Letter from Rooney regarding expansion of New Hope Bowl -
how close could he build to property line of side street.
Possibility of vacating Louisiana Avenue discussed.
1-14-60 Rooney presents preliminary drawings of addition.
6-19-62 Discussion held on request by Rooney to add 8 alleys and
relocation of Louisiana - recommend issuance of special
use permit for expansion.
Council
6-26-62 Motion approved to authorize issuance of building permit
for expansion.
4.13, 4.131, 4.132, 4.133
4.13 "B-4" COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT
4.131 Purpose. The purpose of the "B-4" Community Business District is to
provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities
which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or sub-
region.
4.132 Permitted Uses, B-4. The following are permitted uses in a "B-4"
District:
(1) Less Intensive Use Districts. Ail permitted uses in "B-l" and "B-
(2) Antique Shops
(3) Art/School Supplies~ Book, Office Supplies, Stationery Stores
(4) Bicycle Sales/Repair
(5) Candy, Ice Cream, Ice Milk, Popcorn, Nuts, Frozen Desserts, Packaged
Snacks, Soft Drinks
(6) Carpet~ Rugs and Tile and Other Floor Coverings
(7) Coin and Philatelic Stores
(8) Commercial and Professional Offices
(9) Copy and Printing Service
(10) Costume and Clothes Rental
(11) Office Equipment Stores
*(12) Enclosed Boat and Marine Sales
*(13) Dr~ Cleaning Including Plant Accessory heretofore, Pressing and
Repairing
(14) Drug Store
(15) Employment Agencies
(16) Florist Shop
(17) Furniture Stores
(18) Furriers when Conducted only for Retail Trade, on Premises
*(19) Garden Novelty Stores
(20) Gift or Novelty Stores
(21) Hobb~ Store
(22 Insurance Sales
(23 Locksmith
(24 Meat Market but Not Including Locker Storage
(25 Paint and Wallpaper S~[es
(26 Plumbing, Television, adio, Electrical Sales and Such Repair
*(27 Theaters, not Outdoo~ , Lye-In Type
(28 Toy Stores
*(29) Custom Manufacturing and Repair
30 Tailor Shops
31 Jewelry Shops and Other Similar Uses
32 Travel Bureaus~ Transportation, Ticket Offices
33 variety Stores~ 5/10 Cent Stores, Stores of Similar Nature
34 Wearing Apparel
35 Banks, Savings/Loans, Credit unions, Other Financial Institutions
* 36 Public Garage/Parking Ramp
37 Record Shop
38 Real Estate Sales
39 Building Material Sales of Retail Nature in Totally Enclosed
Building
40) Fabric Stores
41) Camera/Photographic Supplies
42) Restaurant
43) Off-Sale Liquor Stores
44) Medical
45) S~orting Goods Stores
46) Pet Shops
47) Hardware Stores
4.133 Permitted Accessory Usesr B-4. The following are permitted accessory
uses in a #B-4' District:
(1) Less Intensive Use District. Ail permitted accessory uses in a
"B-3# District.
4-70 "
072684
4.134 (I) - CF)
4.134 Conditional Uses~ B-4. The following are conditional uses in a "B-4"
District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures
set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20, and conformance where
applicable, with Chapter 3, Signing).
(1) Less Intensive Use District. Ail conditional uses, subject to
the same conditions as allowed in the B-3 Districts excluding any
"B-3" conditional use listed as "permitted" in "B-4".
(2) Planned Unit Development - Commercial. Commercial planned unit
development as regulated by Section 4.19.
(3) Training Schools. Training schools, provided that:
(a) As Principal Use. The school is operated as an adjunct of
the principal use to provide training for the consumer,
distributor or installer of the product, process or service
which is sold, distributed or manufactured under the
principal use.
(b) Code Compliance. Proof of compliance with City and State
life and safety codes is shown.
(c) Parking. Adequate on-site parking is provided so that no
customers, visitors or employees are required to park
outside the existing off-street 'parking areas of the
business as a result of the operation of the school.
(4) Veterinarian Clinics. When all facilities are totally
enclosed, and procedures and construction which will comply with
the noise Regulation portion of this Code are approved by the
City.
(5) Deleted.
(Code 072684, 85-22)
4-71
072684
4.1~4 (5)(f). 4.134 (6) (s)-(h)
(6) Commercial Recreation Facilities. Commercial
recreation, provided that:
(a) Access. The site of the proposed use has
direct access to an arterial street as
defined in the City Code, without utilizing
public streets of a lower traffic handling
classification to reach the arterial street,
and
(b) Proximity to Residential. The outside
perimeter of the site, as legally described
is, 150 feet or more from the boundary of a
residential zoning classification, or
(c) Compatibility. The primary recreational
facilities are enclosed such that the
architectural appearance and functional plan
of the building and site shall not be so
dissimilar to the existing buildings or areas
as to cause impairment to property values or
constitute a blighting influence.
(d) Screening from Residential. Parking areas
shall be screened from view of residential
districts and shall be curbed with continuous
concrete curbs not less than six inches high
above the parking lot or driveway grade, at
the curb line.
(e) Access. Vehicular access points shall be
limited and designed and constructed to
create a minimum of conflict with through
traffic movement.
(f) Lighting Shielded. All lighting shall be
hooded and so directed that the light source
is not visible from the right-of-way or from
a residential zone or use.
(g) Surfacing. The entire area other than that
occupied by buildings, structures or
plantings shall be surfaced with bituminous
or concrete material which will control dust
and drainage. The material and grading shall
be subject to the approval of the City.
(h) Landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided
and the type of planting material and the
number and size of plants shall be subject to
the approval of the City.
(Ord. 85-32)
4-72 "
072684
4.032 (4), 4.033 (1) - (3)(a)(ii)
(4) Drainage Plans. In the case of all residential plats, multiple
family dwellings, business and industrial developments, the
drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for his
review and the final drainage plan shall be subject to his
written approval.
4.033 Performance Standards.
(1) Purpose. The performance standards established in this section
are designed to encourage high quality development by providing
assurance that neighboring land uses will be compatible. The
performance standards are also designed to prevent and eliminate
those conditions that cause blight. All future development in
the City shall be required to meet these standards. The
standards shall also apply to existing development where so
stated. The Building Official shall be responsible for enforcing
these standards and may require the submission of information
showing compliance or non-compliance with the standards.
(2) Conformance to Standards. Before any building permit or
certificate of occupancy is approved, the Building Official shall
determine whether the proposed use is likely to conform to the
performance standards. The developer shall supply additional
data about the proposed use (such as equipment to be used, hours
of operation, method of refuse disposal, type and location of
exterior storage, etc.), where required to do so by the Building
Official. It may occasionally be necessary for a developer or
business to employ specialized consultants to demonstrate that a
given use will conform with the performance standards.
(3) Fencing and Screening
(a) Permitted Fencing and Screening
(i) Height Maximum. No fence shall exceed eight feet
in height and in the case of grade separation such as
the division of properties by a retaining wall the
height shall be determined on the basis of measurement
from the averag, point between the highest and lowest
grade.
(ii) Intersection Visibility. Except as to street
intersections where vehicular access is controlled by
electrical signals, or where all vehicular access to
the intersection is controlled by non-electrical stop
signs, such as three and four-way or other all-way
electrical stop signs, no fence, other than a chain
line or woven wire fence forty-eight inches or less in
height with openings between one and five eighths and
two inches, shall be permitted within twenty feet of
any corner formed by the intersection of street
property lines or the right-of-way of a railway
intersecting a street. The twenty feet referred to
above shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides
formed by the property lines and the third side formed
by a straight line connecting the two twenty foot
points on each side of the corner. No planting or
structure which exceeds a width of twenty-four inches
within a height eight feet or less from the top of the
street curb shall be permitted within said triangle.
(Ord. 81-7, 82-17)
4-21
072684
4,033 (3) (s)(iii) ,~ (4) (~)
(iii) Short Fences. Except as provided in ii, above, fences
three feet in height, or less, may be located on any
part of a lot.
(iv) Location. Except as provided in ii, above, fences may
be erected on any part of a lot which is behind the
front line of the principal building.
(b) Required Fencing and Screening. Where any business or
industrial use (i.e., structure, parking-or storage) abuts
property_~on_ed__go/~res!~_~se, that business or ~
~n-h-d~Ft?y shall pro_~~ n~g. alo~ the bo_u~ndp~y of the
residential property. Screening shall also be provided-' '
w e--Ti~--a---b-~'£ness or industry is across the street from a
residential zone, but not on that side of a business or
industry considered to be the front (as determined by the
Building Official). All the fencing and screening
specifically required by this Code shall be subject to (a),
above, and shall consist of either a fence or green belt
planting strip as provided for below:
(i) Green Belts. A green belt planting strip shall consist
of evergreen trees and/or deciduous trees and large
shrubs and shall be of sufficient width and density to
provide an effective visual screen. This planting
strip shall contain no structures. Such planting
strips shall be designed to provide complete visual
screening to a minimum height of six feet. Earth
mounding or berms may be used but shall not be used to
achieve more than three feet of the required screen.
The planting plan and type of plantings shall require
the approval of the Planning Commission, which shall
have before it the recommendations of the City Engineer
or Building Official.
(ii) Screen Fencing. A required screening fence shall be
constructed of masonry, brick, wood or steel. Such
fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not
exceed eight feet in height or be less than six feet in
height. The design and materials used in constructing
a required screening fence shall be subject to the
approval of the Planning Commission which shall have
before it recommendations of the City Engineer or
Building Official.
(4) Landscaping.
(a) Required Landscaping - General Residential. The lot area
remaining after providing for off-street parking, off-street
loading sidewalks, driveways, building site and/or other
requirements shall be landscaped using ornamental grass,
shrubs, trees or other acceptable vegetation or treatment
generally used in landscaping. Fences or trees placed upon
utility easements are subject to removal if required for the
maintenance or improvement of the utility. (The planting of
large trees is not recommended under overhead wires).
4-22
0?2684
4.033 (4) (b) (i) (ii)
(b) Required Landscaping - Semi-Public and all income producing
property uses. Prior to approval of a building permit, all
of the above uses shall be subject to a mandatory Landscape
Plan requirement. Said Landscape Plan should be developed
w~th an emphasis upon the following areas:
The boundary or perimeter of the proposed site at
points adjoining another existing or proposed site or
sites: the immediate perimeter of the structure or
building at points of its placement on the site; and
the public boulevard areas at points of interface with
streets or sidewalk areas of the city.
Ail landscaping incorporated in a Landscape Plan shall
conform to the following standards and criteria:
(i) Ail plants must equal not less than the following
minimum sizes:
Potted/ Balled/
Bare Root Burlapped
Shade Trees* 1 3/4" dia. 2"
Russian Olive, Hawthorn
etc.)
Evergreen Trees -- 3-4 ft.
Tall Shrubs and Hedge 3-4 ft. 3-4 ft.
material (evergreen or
deciduous)
Low Shrubs - deciduous 18-24 in. 24-30 inches
evergreen 18-24 in. 24-30 inches
spreading potted 18-24 inches
evergreen
Type and mode are dependent upon time of planting
season, availability, and site conditions (soils,
climate, ground water, man-made irrigation, grading,
etc.
*Ail boulevard trees must be not less than 2 1/2 inches
in caliper.
(ii) Spacing.
(aa) Plant material shall not be placed closer than
three feet from the fence line or property
line and shall not be planted to conflict with
public planting.
(bb) Where plant materials are planted in two or more
rows, plantings shall be staggered in rows unless
otherwise approved by the City.
(cc) Deciduous boulevard trees shall be planted not
more than forty feet apart.
(dd) Where massing of plants or screening is intended,
large deciduous shrubs shall not be planted more
than four feet on center, and/or, evergreen shrubs
shall not be planted more than three feet on
center.
4-23
072684
&.033 (&)(b)(iii) (iv)(ee)
(iii) Types of boulevard/street trees.
(aa) Suitable trees include:
Quercus (varieties) Oak
Acer platanoides Norway Maple (and
(and varieties) Schwedler, Emerald
Queen, etc.)
Acer saccharum Sugar Maple
Celtis accidentalis Hackberry
Betula (varieties) Birch
Gledi~sia triacanthos Honeylocust (Imperial,
(varieties) Majestic Skyline, Sun-
burst, and thornless
Tilia cordata (and Little leaf Linden
varieties) (and Redmond, Green-
spire, etc.)
Tilia americana Basswood (American
Linden)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash (and Summit,
lanceolata Marshall)
Ginkgo bilaba (male tree Ginkgo
only)
Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffee Tree
(bb) Trees specifically prohibited within the public
right of way include:
Acer negundo Box Elder
Acer rubrum Red Maple
Acer Saccharinum Silver Maple
Ulmus (varieties) Elm
Populus (varieties) Poplar (including
Cottonwood)
Salix (varieties Willow
Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven
Catalpa speciosa Northern Catalpa
(iv) Design
(aa) The landscape plan must show some form of designed
site amenities, (i.e. composition of plant
materials, and/or creative site grading,
decorative lighting, exterior sculpture, etc.,
which are largely intended for aesthetic
purposes).
(bb) Ail area within the property lines (or beyond, if
site grading extends beyond) shall be treated.
All exterior areas not paved or designated as
roads, parking, or storage must be planted into
ornamental vegetation lawns, ground covers, or
shrubs unless otherwise approved by the City.
(cc) Turf slopes in excess of 1:1.5 are prohibited.
(dd) All ground areas under the building roof overhang
must be treated with a decorative mulch and/or
foundation planting.
(ee) Ail buildings must have an exterior water spigot
in a location adequate for providing for landscape
maintenance.
4-24
072684
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Second Quarter Report
The Planning Commission reviewed the following cases during the third quarter:
NO, of Cases Notices Sent
April 2* 0
May 3** 61
June 7*** 303
* 2 cases carried over from March
**2 cases carried over from April (no meeting)
***2 cases carried over from May
Month, T._vpe of Request Number Approved Denied Withdrawn
April Site/Bldg. Review 1 (Tabled-no mtg.)
Preliminary Plat 1 (Tabled- " )
May Site/Bldg. Review 1 1
Preliminary Plat 2 (Tabled)
June Preliminary Plat 2 1 (1 tabled)
Variance-fence 2 2
Ordinance-Floodplain 1 1
Ordinance-Composting 1 1
Site/Bldg. Review 1 1
Amend CUP 1 1
Variance-Green Area 1 (Tabled)
Variance-2 bldgs/1 lot 1 (Tabled)
YEAR-TO-DATE TOTALS APPROVED DENIED WITHDRAWN,,
Cond. Use Permit 4
Site/Bldg. Review 3
Variance - Fence 3
Variance - Sign 1
Final Plat 1
Preliminary Plat 1
Ordinance - Floodplain 1
Ordinance - Composting 1
Amend CUP 1
-2-
1. Composfing Ordinance - At the end of March the City Council directed the staff, Citizen
Advisory Commission and Planning Commission to review the composting issue and
prepare an ordinance for consideration. The Council considered a preliminary draft
ordinance at the April 22nd meeting which included recommendations from the Citizen
Advisory Commission. The Codes and Standards Committee and Planning Commission
reviewed and approved the ordinance with changes at the June 4th Planning Commission
meeting. The City Council approved the final ordinance on June l lth.
2. Commission Meetings - The April Planning Commission meeting was canceled due to
the lack of a quorum. No meeting was originally scheduled for July, however a meeting
was later scheduled and conducted due to the receipt of several applications.
3. Easement Vacation -The City Council, at the April 8th meeting, approved the vacation
of a drainage and utility easement which ran under a house at 9148 35th Avenue North.
4. Foremost - The EDA directed the staff to proceed with a State Economic Development
Grant to assist Foremost, Inc. with the relocation and expansion, with the City and
Foremost splitting the cost for said application. The EDA also agreed to provide
financial assistance of 2/3 of the cost (up to $15,000 utilizing tax increment monies) for
drilling test wells on the Foremost property to determine the extent of groundwater
contamination.
5. New Hope Mall - A revised PUD site plan was approved for the New Hope Mall for
new parldng lot striping and signage plan to correct non-conformities.
6. ¢0mmi~i0n Resignation -Planning Commissioner Linda Oja resigned from the Planning
Commission in April due to her move out of the City after serving nearly 5 years on the
Commission. Applications are presently being accepted to fill the position.
7. Codes & Standards -The Codes & Standards Committee met on May 29th to review the
proposed Flood Plain and Compost Ordinances and made recommendations for minor
revisions on both ordinances.
8. B-4 Food Establishments -The Planning Commission studied the issue of placing a limit
on the number of convenience food establishments in a B-4 Zoning District and
forwarded a recommendation to the Council that the City not attempt to limit the
number of fast food establishments in shopping centers. The City Attorney, Planning
Consultant, and Commission did not feel the limitation would be enforcable and
recommended allowing the market to dictate the number of said establishments. This
recommendation was accepted by the City Council on May 13th.
9. Liberty_ Diversified Vacation - The City Council approved the vacation of a portion of
a road and street easement (West Research Center Road) at the request of Liberty
Diversified Industries at the May 13th Council meeting. The City retained all drainage
and utility easements over the entire vacated right-of-way.
10. Gethsemane Cemetery_ Market Study - On May 28th the EDA approved a proposal by
the City to have the Planning Consultant prepare a planning document/market study
regarding the development of a portion of the Gethsemane Cemetery property for a
mixed use housing development.
11. Creamette Preliminary_ Plat -The Planning Commission and City Council approved the
preliminary plat of Creamette Addition, subject to specific changes being made.
12. Geth~em~ Cemetery CUP for Temporary Building -The Planning Commission and
City Council approved a CUP and Site/Building Plan Review to allow the placement of
a temporary sales office on the grounds of Gethsemane Cemetery to be used for pre-
sales of units in a proposed mausoleum, subject to specific conditions.
13. Fenc~ Variances/Front Yard Definition - Two variances were approved for fences in the
front yard to exceed the maximum allowable height and the Council directed the
Planning Commission to review the zoning ordinance definition of "front yard".
14. Flood Plain Ordinance - The Planning Commission and City Council approved a new
Flood Plain Ordinance for the City which reflects changes in federal regulations. This
ordinance had been under study since January by the Planning Consultant, City Attorney,
and Codes & Standards Committee. The approved ordinance was forwarded to the
DNR for review/approval.
15. Olson Storage Extension -The City Council denied a request from Olson Storage, 9211
52nd Avenue North, for a one-year extension on a special zoning procedure because the
request was untimely and therefore defective.
16. K-Mart Parking -K-Mart Corporation has notified the City that they will be proceeding
with plans to update the exterior fo the New Hope K-Mart store and indicated that the
City's concerns regarding parking/landscaping will be addressed as drawings are
submitted for consideration.
17. Don Harvey 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat - This plat is on hold pending a resolution
of the drainage improvements which require construction and easements extending north
beyond the plat.
18. Universal Colour Lab - Colour Lab has indicated an interest in acquiring the City
property at 42nd & Nevada Avenue and constructing a new building and this proposal
is in the process of being reviewed.
19. Custom MQld - Custom Mold has met with the City regarding building expansion north
towards the Public Works facility.
20. Executive Call Program - The City has met with Rainbow Paints and Liberty Diversified
in conjunction with the Twin West Chamber of Commerce Executive Call Program.
21. Development of Boone Avenue Property - The City is in the process of initiating
discussions with North Ridge Care Center regarding the development of the property
at 5501 Boone Avenue North.
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coord~fiator