050305 Planning1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.1 Case 05-06
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hat[, 4401 Xy[on Avenue North
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
7:00 p.m.
Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide two parcels into
six tots, rezoning from R-l, single family to R-3 medium density
residential, variances for reduced lot area, and site/building plan
review to allow construction of three twinhomes, Northwest
Community Revitalization Corporation and city of New Hope,
Petitioners
COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1 Report of Design and Review Committee - next meeting May 19, 7:30 a.m
5.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee
OLD BUSINESS
6.1
Miscellaneous Issues
· PC05-02, Alfa Muffler, 4/25 approved CUP amendment for reduced parking
· PC05-03, Group home variance, 4/11 referred to city attorney to prepare findings
of fact for denial, action postponed to 5/9 per petitioner's request
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 1, 2004
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
· Petitioners are required to be in attendance
Plannin Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory bOdy, created to advise the City Council on land use. The
Plarming Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon
the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning
Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the
surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you. to ask questions and offer comments. Your
questions and comments become part of the record and Will be used by the Council, along with the
Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the PlarmJng Commission
will utihze the following procedure:
1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal.
2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the
Planning Commission.
S. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal make comments on the staff report, and answer
questions from the Planning Commission.
4. The chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by
raising their hands. The chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large
number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer
period of time for questions/comments.
5. When recognized by the chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give
their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
6. Direct your questions/comments to the chair. The chair will determine who will answer your
questions.
7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity
to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will .discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
A. If the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the
planning case will be placed on the City Council' agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually
this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting.
B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next
Commission meeting.
Planning Case:
Petitione~.
Address:
Request:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date:
Report Date:
05-06
May 3, 2005
April 29, 2OO5
Northwest Community Revital&ation Corporation (NCRC) and City of New Hope
4301 and 4317 Nevada Avenue North
Preliminary plat, rezoning, variance, and site/building plan review
Request
The petitioner is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide the two parcels into six lots,
rezoning from R-l, single family, to R-3, medium density residential, variances for reduced lot area,
and site/building plan review to allow construction of three twinhomes, pursuant to Sections 4-7,
4-7(f)(1), 4-32, 4-35, 4-36, and Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
II. Zoning Code References
III.
Section 4-7
Section 4-7(0(1)
Section 4-32
Section 4-35
Section 4-36
Chapter 13
Property Specifications
Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses:
Site Area:
Building Area:
Lot Area Ratios:
R-3, Medium Density Residential District
R-3, Lot Requirements - Lot Area
Administrative - Amendments
Administrative - Site Plan Review
Administrative - Variances
Subdivision and Platting
R-l, Single Family Residential
Northwest quadrant of 43rd and Nevada intersection
Rz4, high density residential to the west, R-l, single family residential to the
north and south, Fred Sims Park to the east across Nevada Avenue, and R-1
properties on the east side of Nevada south of the park property.
Property is 228.50' by 130.00'. Total lot area is 29,703 sq. ft. -- 0.68 acres.
Proposed building area: 9,787 sq. ft. = 33%
Proposed green area: 15,455 sq. ft. = 52%
Proposed hard surfaces Total hard surfaces - 4,463 sq. ft. -- 15% ]driveway
(2,688 sq. ft. 9%)/sidewaIk/patio (1,775 sq. ft. 6%)]
Planning Case Report 05-06 Page 1 4/29/05
Planning District: No. 10; The Comprehensive Plan indicates the city will pursue
redevelopment of the poor condition, low density residential land along
Nevada Avenue between 42nd and 45th avenues. Medium density residential
alternatives are suggested for this area.
Specific Information: The proposed redevelopment consists of two properties. The city owns the
property located at 4317 Nevada Avenue and the applicant owns the
property located at 4301 Nevada Avenue. The city demolished the
dilapidated house at 4317 Nevada Avenue in 2004 and NCRC will demolish
the dilapidated house at 4301 Nevada Avenue North during spring 2005.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends low density dilapidated housing units
in the Nevada Avenue corridor be demolished and redeveloped with
medium density owner occupied housing units. The site is bound by an
apartment complex on the west, Fred Simms Park on the east and single
family housing units to the north and south. The proposed redevelopment
provides a ~ransition between the higher density apartment complex and the
adjoining single family residential neighborhood.
~¥. Background
The city of New Hope acquired the property at 4317 Nevada Avenue North in August 2003 under its
scattered site housing program. The site was acquired and the house demolished using Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds which primarily benefits low to moderate income households.
In February 2004, NCRC acquired the property at 4301 Nevada Avenue North in anticipation of
partnering with the city on a redevelopment project. On April 26, 2004, the New Hope City Council
approved a sale/purchase agreement with NCRC for the redevelopment of the site into six owner
occupied zero lot line twinhomes (3 units) or townhomes (2 triplexes), on the combined site. NCRC
developed concept plans for the development of six townhome units on the site. In September 2004, the
New Hope EDA expressed reservations regarding the proposed development due to the small
association that would be required to manage the site. As a result, NCRC revised the plans to
redevelop the site into three twinhome units (six total units). The twinhomes will be owner-occupied
units with a combination of two-story and single level units. The single level units will be handicap
accessible. That proposal is being presented to the Planning Commission at this time. If approved, each
homeowner will be responsible for all interior and exterior maintenance; there will be no association to
manage the site. Common wall maintenance will be governed by a "Party Wall" agreement that will be
recorded with each deed. The EDA expressed support of this concept at its meeting of February 28,
2005.
On April 27, NCRC and the city of New Hope hosted an open house and invited the neighborhood to
visit city hall to review the proposed redevelopment plans. No residents of the neighborhood attended
the open house. City staff has received limited inquiries regarding this project and to date, all have
been positive in nature.
To accommodate this redevelopment, the applicant has fried a rezoning request from the current R-1
residential zoning classification to the R-3 residential zoning classification. In accordance with the
provisions set forth in the R-3 residential zoning district, each lot must be 5,000 square feet in area. The
Planning Case Report 05-06 Page 2 4/29/05
proposed subdivision of the combined sites into six units does not conform to this requirement and the
applicant has also filed a 50 square foot per lot variance request. Each proposed lot is 4,950 square feet.
Petitioner's Comments
Excerpts from the petitioners April 7 correspondence indicates that NCRC's main goals include both
the preservation of the existing affordable housing stock and the creation of new units. The NCRC and
member cities have recognized a growing need for home ownership opportunities for households of
low to moderate income, including households in which a member is disabled. Home ownership
stabilizes households and increases investment in communities. Stable housing is a necessary condition
to stable employment, education, and planning. Wages have not kept pace with rising costs,' leaving
many working families with no option but to rent. There is a strong demand for "workforce housing,"
housing that is affordable to entry level blue collar and service workers.
The proposed project would take all of these factors into consideration. The homes on the sites to be
redeveloped were deemed by the city to be beyond rehabilitation due to numerous code violations and
dilapidated conditions because of severe neglect. The properties are in a designated redevelopment
area and well located near many amenities. The addition of six new units will add to the city's property
tax base. NCRC will develop six new units (three twinhomes) with zero lot lines on the site, three of
which will be handicapped accessible. The units will have basements that can be finished for additional
living space. There will be no homeowner association; individual property owners will be responsible
for maintenance, yard work and snow removal.
The city currently owns 4317 Nevada and has demolished the structure. NCRC purchased the property
at 4301 Nevada. The structure on that site will be demohshed when site preparation begins. NCRC has
a contract to purchase 4317 Nevada pending the necessary planning approvals. NCRC presented plans
for the project to the New Hope EDA in February, and the EDA directed NCRC to proceed with the
planning process.
VL Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments. A
neighborhood meeting was held on April 27 to show the proposed plans and no one from the
neighborhood attended the meeting.
VII. Development Analysis
A. Zoning Code Criteria
Subdivision and Platting
The purpose of this chapter is to make certain regulations and requirements for the subdivision and
platting of land within the city of New Hope pursuant to the authority contained in Minnesota
Statutes 462.358, which regulations the City Council deems necessary for the health, safety and
general welfare of this community. It is also the purpose of this chapter to safeguard the best
interests of the city of New Hope and to assist the subdivider in harmonizing his interests with
those of the city at large.
Planning Case Report 05-06 Page 3 4/29/05
Per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to city department heads, city attorney, city
engineer, planning consultant, utility companies and I-tennepin County for review and comment.
Comments received include the following:
Utili .ty Companies - no response.
City Engineer - see attached correspondence and comments dated April ~3 and 27, 2005.
I-Iennepin County - please refer to city eng-ineer's comments.
City Attorney - The city attorney submitted comments regarding the preliminary plat on April 28,
2005. The following is a summary of the comments:
1. The proposed subdivision must be named. The applicant will contact I-Iennepin County to ensure
the name is not a duplicate or closely resembles the name of existing subdivisions within the
county.
2. The applicant must provide names and addresses of the owner, developer and the designer
and/or surveyor making the plat.
3. The plat must identi/y the property zoning of the adjoining parcels.
4. Clearly identify the boundaries and widths of Nevada Avenue and 43rd Avenue on the plat. The
width of the proposed driveways must also be added.
5. Clearly identify the sizes of existing sewer, water mains, culverts and any underground facilities.
6. Clearly identify the boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided and subdivided land, within 350
feet, identified by name and ownership, including all contiguous land owned or controlled by the
subdividor. The city may elect to waive this requirement.
7. Utilize the city's topographic map to identify water courses, marshes, wooded areas, rock
outcrops, power transmission poles and lines and other significant features. Coordinate with city
engineer to determine compliance.
8. Clearly identify locations of proposed easements, alleys and pedestrian ways.
9.' Identify center line gradients of proposed streets and alleys, and adjoining streets, if any.
10. Clearly identify minimum building setback lines.
11. Clearly identify NCRC's dedications, if any.
12. The applicant will be required to submit a commitment £or title insurance or other appropriate
evidence of title history to determine that all proper individuals are included in the signature
block on the proposed final plat.
13. Correct the second tax identification number as per comments.
Please refer to the city attorney's comment letter dated April 28, 2005, for a full description of each
cogent.
The City Code states that copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the ?lann~§ Con. fission for its
review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the Plannln§ Commission
durin§ its review of the preliminary plat. The petitioner has not submitted correspondence
Planning Case Report 05-06 Page 4 4/29/05
requesting a waiver of the review of the final plat by. the Planning Commission, but the issue wa.q
discussed and the Commission may want to discuss this further with the applicant. The Planning
Commission will need to make a determination as to whether it wants to review the final plat or not.
Due to the simple nature of the plat, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission waive the
review of this final plat.
Rezoning
In order to accommodate the proposed redevelopment, it is necessary for the applicant to request a
rezoning request from the current R-1 single family residential zoning district to the R-3 medium
density residential zoning classification. The R-3 medium density residential zoning district permits
medium density housing such as twinhomes, town_homes or other multiple family dwellings
containing 12 or less units. Because the site is adjacent to a higher density apartment complex and a
single family residential neighborhood, the redevelopment of this site as a medium density
residential housing development will provide a natural land use transition from higher intensity
land uses to less intense single family residential land uses.
The city's planning consultant has outlined the criteria for rezoning the properties from R-1 to R-3
in accordance with Section 4.32 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Those criteria are as follows:
1. There was no mistake in the current R-1 zoning to require this change.
2. The character of the lots has changed allowing the consideration of a zoning amendment to
replace deteriorating buildings with twinhomes.
o
The change in zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed land use of
twinhomes is compatible to existing apartment buildings to the west and the public park to the
east of the proposed redevelopment.
Based upon the criteria set forth in Section 4.32 of the New Hope City Code, the request to rezone
the properties from R-1 single family residential to R-3 medium density residential is consistent
with the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that dilapidated
properties in the Nevada Avenue corridor be redeveloped into owner occupied medium density
residential un/ts.
Variance
The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning
Code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of
a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are Unique to the individual property under
consideration and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of this Code.
An application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the
variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be apphcable, the following
criteria have been met:
1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in
exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of
Planning Case Report 05-06 Page 5 4/29/05
this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or
topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or 10t. Undue hardship also includes
inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall
not constitute an undue hardship ff reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this
Code.
2. The undue hardship is unique to Lhe parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not
generally applicable to other properties witl'Lin the same zoning district.
3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner
or any previous owner.
4. Additional Criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria:
a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality.
b. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adiacent property, or substantially
increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the
public safety.
c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
d. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district.
Approval of the variance request is a policy decision to be made by the Planning Commission and
City Council. Based upon review of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, the proposed
twinhome development meets the zoning standards set forth in the City Code with the exception of
the lot area requirement. If the city determines that the development is acceptable, city staff would
recommend approval based on the following recommended findings of fact:
1. The existing condition on the properties has deteriorated to a point where the city and
Comprehensive Plan identified the properties for redevelopment.
2. Costs for redevelopment exceeds new development costs due to land and building acquisition,
demolition and site preparation. These redevelopment costs warrant consideration of a greater
density to make the proiect financially feasible.
3. The change in land use and new development benefit the city by maintaining its housing stock
and preserving its residential neighborhoods.
4. The proiect site is finite and the physical boundaries of the property cannot be enlarged.
5. The 50 square foot variance per lot is in the minimum variance possible to make the proiect
feasible. Except for the lot area variance, the proiect is in compliance with all other New Hope
zoning performance standards.
6. The redevelopment of this site offers a land use transition from the higher density apartment
complex to the east to the single family residential neighborhood to the north and south.
Development Review Team
The development review team considered the plans and was supportive of the proiect. The
following comments were offered/discussed: easement required over swale on west side of
Planning Case Report 05-06 Page 6 4/29/05
Co
properties, install a retaining wall on northeast comer, relocate dogwoods on west property line,
water and sanitary sewer service, street repair, curb and gutter required, burial of overhead
utilities, fencing, fire separation, party wall agreements, idenfffy the discharge for the sump pump
system, identify the area in the basement where the sump pump will be located, accessible ramps in
garages, install nine-foot garage doors in the accessible units, exterior building materials, park
dedication fees, and storm water fees in lieu of ponding on site.
Design and Review Committee
The Design 'and Review Comanittee met with the applicant on April 14, was supportive of the
project, and discussed the concerns of the development review team with the applicant. The
committee indicated that the basement plans must show the sewer ejection system as well as the
location of the sump pump system and where it will drain. The committee also indicated that the
basements on all units must be waterproofed.
The applicant was asked to submit a street restoration plan that would indicate the limits of the
disturbance to make individual water and sewer service connections within the street. The
committee discussed other issues that were discussed with the development review team and the
applicant submitted revised plans reflecting the requested changes.
Plan Description
The applicant submitted revised plans on April 22 and offered the following description of the
changes that were requested by staff, the Design and Review Committee, city engineer and
planning consultant:
Comments prepared by City Engineer:
Item 1. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 2
Item 2. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 2.
Item 3. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 2 and 4.
Item 4. Sump pump discharge location noted on Architectural Site Plan, Sheet Al.1. It was
determined that an on-site storm sewer to receive sump discharge was not needed and any
discharge could be handled by surface drainage as designed.
Item 5. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 3.
Item 6. To be determined at a later date.
Item 7. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 3.
Item 8. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 3.
Item 9. Noted on Architectural Site Plan, Sheet Al.1
Item 10. Removal of overhead utilities from 4301 Nevada to be addressed at time of demolition.
Cost of burying existing utility lines running along 4301 and 4317 would cost between $25,000 and
$30,000. Cost is more than budget can absorb, therefore overhead utilities will have to remain.
Item 11. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 4.
Item 12. No action. (stormwater management fee)
Comments prepared by Planning Consultant:
Sump Pump Discharge: Noted on Architectural Site Plan, Sheet Al.1.
Retaining Wall: Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheets 2 and 4.
Planning Case Report 05-06 Page 7 4/29/05
Stormwater Sump Basket: Noted on Basement Plan, Sheet A2.1.
Unit Electrical Service: To be addressed by Electrical Sub-Contractors drawings at time of pulling
building permits.
Street Plan: Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 3.
Landscape Plan: All comments noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 4.
9'-0" Garage Door Height: Noted on Architectural Elevations, Sheets A3.1, A3.2 and A3.3.
Party Wall Agreement: City of New Hope has sent a boilerplate party wall agreement that will be
incorporated for this project.
Party Wall Construction: To be addressed during Construction Document Phase by Architect.
Miscellaneous Comments:
Easement required over swale: Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 3.
Location of Dogwoods: Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 4.
Utility Connections: Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 3.
Rain Gutters: Noted on Architectural Elevations, Sheets A3.1, A3.2 and A3.3.
Staff and Planner Comments Regarding the Revised Site Plans:
If the rezoning request from the R-1 single family residential zoning to the R-3 medium density
housing is approved, the following lot area and setbacks will be required:
Required proposed Compliant
Lot Area 5,000 sq. f. 4,950 sq. ft. -50 sq. ft. Variance Required
Lot Width 37.5 feet 38 feet Yes
Front Setback 25 feet 25-31 feet Yes
Rear Setback 30 feet 31-43 feet Yes
Side: Interior Setback 10 feet 9-10 feet Yes*
Side: Local Street Setback 20 feet +/-55 feet Yes
* The eave on Building 1, Unit A extends one foot over the required 10 foot side
interior yard setback. The eave is considered a permitted encroachment by the
New Hope Zoning Code, therefore, no variance is required.
Landscaping: Pursuant to Section 4-3(d)(4)a. of the New Hope City Code, the lot area remaining
after providing off-street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveways, building and/or site
requirements shall be landscaped using ornamental grass, shrubs, trees, or other acceptable
vegetation. The developer is proposing a mix of trees and shrubs that will meet the conditions of
the New Hope Zoning Code. All lawn areas will be covered with sod. As per the code
requirements, the developer proposes the installation of one 2 1/2 caliper Patmore Ash in each front
yard to satisfy the requirement of one boulevard tree per lot. The developer also proposes the
installation of three 2 1/2 caliper Autumn Purple Ash and three 2 1/5 inch caliper Red Maple trees
(one tree per lot) in the rear yard to provide better screening from the property to the east. The
applicant also proposes the installation of 23 red and yellow twigged dogwood shrubs ha the rear to
yard provide additional screening from the adjoining property on the east. The following is the
Planning Case Report 05-06 Page 8 4/29/05
proposed planting schedule for each twinhome unit (2 single family homes). The proposed
schedule includes ornamental shrubs and other vegetation being proposed as foundation plantings.
Quantity Per Quantity for
Type Size Root TwirLhome Total Area
Patmore Ash
Red Maple
Autumn Purple Ash
Glossy Black Chokechery
Purple Leaf Sandcherry
Broadmoor Juniper
Abbotswood Potentilla
Spring Snow Crabapple
Thunderchild Crabapple
Red Twigged Dogwood
Yellow Twigged
Dogwood
2.5" cal. B&B 1 6
2.5" cal. B&B 1 3
2.5" cal. B&B 1 3
3 gal. Potted 6 18
3 gal. Potted 2 6
1 gal. Potted 11 33
1 gal. Potted 16 48
1.5" cal. B&B 1 3
1.5" cal. B&B 1 3
24" ht. 1 Gal. 23 '69
24" ht. 1 Gal. 23 69
As previously noted, the applicant has indicated that it will install trees near the required drainage
and utility easement to the rear of the property. Those plantings will not be allowed in the bottom
of the drainage swale that will service these properties. Those plantings near the drainage swale
will be "field" located to ensure they are not planted within the drainage and utility easement area.
Utilities: Each unit will have individual water and sewer connections to the New Hope water and
sewer systems. Because the basements cannot gravity feed to the wastewater system, it will be
necessary for the applicant to install a sewer ejection system in each basement as part of the
redevelopment. Once installed, each basement will have a plumbing "rough in" and the area can be
finished to create additional living space by each respective homebuyer. The city engineer has
indicated that the sump pump discharge areas should be located toward the west side of the
property toward the swal'e. The plans as submitted indicate the sump pump discharge shall be
located in the side yards, the plans will have to be revised to comply with the city engineer
comments. Per the city engineer, the applicant will be required to install new stop boxes on the two
existing water services that are proposed for use with this development. The city's Department of
Public Works will inspect the condition of the existing sewer service connections and if necessary,
the applicant will replace those connections. The applicant has also identified the limits of street
area to be disturbed which includes the limits of removal of the curb and gutter to install new water
and sewer service connections for each property. The applicant will be responsible for all repairs to
Nevada Avenue.
The Design and Review Committee recommended that the applicant consider the burial of all
overhead utilities along Nevada Avenue. The applicant has indicated that such a measure would
cost between $25,000 to $30,000. The applicant has indicated that this would be cost prohibitive due
to the limited number of units that are being proposed. The applicant will install individual
Planning Case Report 05-06 Page 9 4/29/05
underground utility connections that will service each property. In addition to providing individual
underground utility connections, the applicant will also have to relocate the utility pole on the
property located at 4301 Nevada Avenue. The applicant will work with Xcel Energy to develop
plans and specifications for the utility pole relocation.
The proposed redevelopment does not have an on-site stormwater management pond. Rather than
construct an on-site pond, the applicant will be required to pay a fee in lieu of pond construction.
The city engineer has established a fee of $0.40 per square foot of the total site area of 29,640 square
feet. The applicant will be required to pay a fee of $11,856 towards future regional stormwater
management improvements.
In order to accommodate the run-off from the redeveloped area, the applicant proposes that all run-
- off will flow to a swale to the rear of the property and will be collected by a proposed catch basin
that will "tie into" the existing storm sewer on the southern property line and will flow to the storm
drain system in Nevada Avenue. The applicant will be required to grant the city a 15-foot' drainage
and utility easement to the rear of the property as well as a 10-foot drainage and utility easement
between each twiruhome unit. A retaining wall will be installed alOng the northern most twinhome
unit to ensure proper drainage from properties that lie to the north of the proposed redevelopment.
Design Guidelines: The project architect has developed a series of three twinhome units that have
the same floor plans yet have different faqade treatments and roof lines to differentiate each unit.
The proposed faqade materials are vinyl siding which has a functional life of 20 to 30 years and
composite stone/brick at the base of each property that provide additional architectural features.
The proposed exterior faqade materials have few if any maintenance requirements.
Lighting: Each unit has front and rear yard lights. The proposed lighting plan is typical of new
single family residential developments.
Floor Plans: Three of the twinhome units will be single level handicap accessible units. Those units
will have 1,240 square feet of finished living space on the first level. An unfinished basement with a
plumbing "rough in" will also be included in the event a second living area is installed by a
resident of the home. The accessible units are proposed to have two bedrooms with a single large
bathroom. The common areas, kitchen, bedrooms and bathroom all have oversized entryways and
enough room to maneuver a wheelchair. The accessible unit garage doors will be nine feet tall to
accommodate oversized vehicles that may be necessary to transport the residents of the units.
There will be a ramp '.mstalled along the side yard to provide wheel chair access to the unit. The
oversized garages attached to the accessible units are large enough to accommodate the installation
of a ramp in the garage to allow wheelchair access in the garage.
Three of the twinhome units will be two story non-accessible units. Those units will have 1,640
square feet of finished living space on two levels. The three bedroom, two bathroom units will also
have an unfinished basement with a plumbing "rough in" for future expansion of the living space.
The three non-accessible units will have a seven-foot garage door which is typical of new single
family residential units. All six units will have an outdoor patio in the rear yard.
Party wall agreements will be required to address shared walls within each twinhome unit. Those
agreements will be reviewed by the city attorney and recorded with the deed to each property.
Planning Case Report 05-06 Page 10 . 4/29/05
Park Dedication Fee: The developer will be required to pay a park dedication fee in the amount of
$1,500 per lot. The total park dedication fee for the project will be $9,000.
Parking: Each unit will have a two-stall attached garage. The three-handicap accessible units have
room to install a ramp within the garage if desired by the homeowner. The driveway will be able to
accommodate two additional vehicles.
Snow Storage: Because these units will be individually owned and not managed by an association,
each property owner will be responsible for snow clearance. Each lot has enough space to
accommodate snow storage in the side yards and should not encroach on neighboring properties.
Access: Each property will have direct access to Nevada Avenue North. Due to the lack of an
association to manage use-in-common driveways, it would be difficult to require shared access
points along Nevada Avenue.
Developers Agreement: A development agreement must be established to ensure that the applicant
will be responsible for all costs associated with the project and related fees and securities. The city
attorney shall prepare the development agreement.
E. Planning Considerations
The planning consultant's report and comments/recommendations have been incorporated into this
report.
F. Building Considerations
Comments from the building official have been incorporated into this report.
G. Legal Considerations
The city attorney will prepare a Site Improvement Agreement for the project, which will be a
condition of approval, along with an appropriate financial guarantee. The city attorney's comments
on the plat are also a condition of approval.
H. Engineering Considerations
Comments from the city engineer are outlined in the attached memorandum and will be a
condition of approval.
I. Police Considerations
The Police Department was involved in the review of the plans.
3. Fire Considerations
The plans are subject to the recommendations and approval of West Metro Fire.
VIII. Summary
Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) has submitted the proposed redevelopment
of the properties located at 4301 and 4317 Nevada Avenue North. The plans propose the
redevelopment of those two dilapidated single family residential units into six owner occupied
twinhome un/ts, three of which will be handicap accessible. The city has been working with this
redevelopment project for an extended period of time. The proposed rezorLing from the R-1 single
Planning Case Report 05-06 Page 11 4/29/05
family residential zoning district to the R-3 medium density residential district appears to be in
compliance with the recommendations of the city's Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning and minor
variance requests would be appropriate to accommodate this redevelopment.
Staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat, rezoning request, variance request and site and
building plan and found those to be generally ctnsistent with the applicable standards of the proposed
zoning district and subdivision ordinance.
Staff feels that the petitioner has done a good job in revising the plans and addressing a number of
issues raised by staff, consultants, and the Design and Review Committee.
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, rezoning, variance' and site/building plan review
subject to the following conditions:
1. Enter into a development agreement with the city and provide a performance bond (amount to be
determined by city engineer and building official)
2. Comply with city engineer recommendations, including those dated April 13 and April 27, 2005.
3. Comply with city attorney recommendations on plat dated April 28, 2005.
4. Approval of plans by building official.
5. Approval of plans by West-Metro Fire-Rescue District and comply with recommendations.
6. Comply with planning consultant recommendations including:
a. Pay $1,500 per lot park dedication fee ($9,000 total) at the time the final plat is submitted.
b. Pay SAC charges for four units.
c. Pay stormwater management fee in-lieu of on-site ponding in the amount of $11,856.
Payment will be due prior to building permit issuance.
d. The overall grading and drainage plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the city
engineer.
e. Each unit shall have a separate utility connection. The overall utility plan shall be subject to
the approval of the city engineer.
f. Utility cuts and street restoration plans and tirnelines shall be subject to city review and
documented within the development agreement.
g. All garage doors on the handicap accessible units shall be nine feet in height.
h. A lighting plan shall be provided for any lights at or near the rear yard patio.
i. Party wall agreements shall be provided for review and approval of the city. Those
agreements will also contemplate fagade treatments to ensure continuity.
7. Planning Commission to determine if final plat review is to be waived.
8. Relocate the proposed sump pump discharge area to the rear of each property, facing the proposed
swale.
9. Provide underground individual utility connections that will service each property.
10. Provide the city with drainage and utility easements as outlined by the city engineer.
Planning Case Report 05-06 Page 12 4/29/05
Attachments:
Address/Zoning/Topo/AeriaI Maps
Petitioner Correspondence - April 7, 2005
Petitioner Correspondence - April 22, 2005
Revised Plans
Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Grading Plan
Preliminary Utility Plan
Preliminary Landscaping Plan
Architectural Site Plan
Basement Level Floor Plan
Main Level Floor Plan
Upper Level Floor Plan
Building I Elevation Plan
Building 2 Elevation Plan
Building 3 Elevation Plan
Planner's Report - April 27, 2005
City Engineer Memo - April 13 and April 27, 2005
City Attomey Comments - April 28, 2005
Application Log
Planning Case Report 05-06 Page 13 4/29/05
470i
4657
4649
4641
4633
,.4625
4617
4609
4601
4565'
'4557
4549
4541
453~
4525
4517
4509
4501
4700 4701
4656 4657
4648 4649
4632 4641
4624 4633
4616 4625
4608 ¢617
4609
COO 4601
4556 ......
4549
454O
4532
45'24 4525
4517
4508 4509
4500 4501
.4301
4215
7300
4225
4221
4217
4215
.... I I I I ~ -
!~ 47TH AVE N
Z
-- 46TH
451H
AVE N
AVE
FRED
SIMS
PARK
4350
43RD AVE N
7260
7240
4~2° 1
42161
7180
7220
7200
AVE N
~]_~...5 R D __
ROCKFORD RD
'H EL
~ETERy'
R-1
R-5
"Se
R-O
Res
R-B
Res
LB
CB
Con'
Indus1
Open
City Size ..
;x
809 . 5
i894-6
;'< t
i /!
""" ~'RED S t iris
/-
897'
April 7, 2005
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Nevada Avenue Twinhomes Project
NCRC is a nonprofit corporation that evolved from a collaborative formed by the
Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council (NWHHSC) in 1991. This
collaborative, Communities Organizing _Qpporttmities for People (CO-OP) Northwest
involved cities, school districts, community groups and other organizations in the
northwestern suburbs in identifying and addressing growing poverty and needs in the
region. CO-OP Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (CNCRC).evolved
from this effort and became a Community Housing Development Organization
(CHDO) in 1995. The original cities in which activities were to be carried out were
Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, New Hope and Robbinsdale. In 1999 the
CNCRC separated from NWHHSC and became the Northwest Community
Revitalization Corporation (NCRC). The cities currently active in NCRC are Brooklyn
Park, Maple Grove, New Hope and Robbinsdale.
Northwest
Community
Revitalization
Corporation
400 Selby Ave
Suite G-1
St. Paul, MN 55102
651-298-1903
The communities that NCRC serves have historically been proactive in meeting the housing
needs of all their residents. With housing costs rising rapidly in all of the area's cities, it is
increasingly difficult for many area residents to purchase homes in the communities in which
they live and work. The demand for home ownership is high, but the price of housing prohibits
~T~any people from buying their own homes.
NCRC's main goals include both the preservation of the existing affordable housing stock and
the creation of new units. The member cities and NCRC have recognized a growing need for
home ownership opportunities for households of low- to moderate-income, including households
in which a member is disabled. NCRC has worked with the city for over a dozen years to
rehabilitate existing housing while developing new units at more than a dozen sites.
Home ownership stabilizes households and increases investment in communities. Stable housing
is a necessary condition to stable employment, education and planning. The entire metropolitan
region has experienced drastic increases in the prices of homes, and information on the changes
is attached. Wages have not kept pace with rising costs, leaving many working families with no
option but to rent, even though rents have also escalated and many rental properties are in need
of significant repairs. There is a strong demand for "workforce housing," housing that is
affordable to entry level, blue collar and service workers.
The price of housing in the City of New Hope has escalated at a rate slightly higher than the rates
of similar communities, but the household incomes of city residents are lower than the
Metropolitan median income, and the population is aging. According to data from the 2000
census, the number of residents aged sixty-five and over is growing, as is the number of
"Rebuilding neighborhoods one house at a time."
EQUAL HOUSING
OPPORTUNrTY
households needing financial assistance. Also, most of the city's major employers are not in
industries that provide high wages.
NCRC and the City's Comprehensive Plan identify that a mix of housing types and prices is
important to the health of a community. With housing costs increasing annually and wages
remaining relatively flat, the production and preservation of a less expensive housing provides a
balance to increasing home sale prices and will ensure that the city a retains a variety of housing
opportunities. Young families, who will be utilizing and supporting the city's schools,
businesses and other services, are a necessary part of the city's stability.
The proposed project takes all of these factors into consideration. The homes on the sites to be
redeveloped (4301 and 4317 Nevada) were deemed by the city to be beyond rehabilitation due to
numerous code violations and dilapidated conditions because of severe neglect. The properties
are in a designated redevelopment area and well located near many amenities. The addition of
six new units will add to the city's property tax base.
NCRC will develop six new units (three twinhomes) with zero lot lines on the site, three of
which will be handicapped accessible. The units will have basements that can be finished for
additional living space. There will be no homeowner association; individual property owners
will be responsible for maintenance, yard work and snow removal.
The City of New Hope currently owns 4317 Nevada and has demolished the structure that was
on the site. NCRC obtained a loan from the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC)
and purchase the property at 4301 Nevada. The structure on that site will be demolished when
site preparation begins, a cost savings for the project. NCRC has a contract to purchase 4317
Nevada Avenue, pending the necessary planning approvals.
This project has been awarded $294,000 in HOME funds through Hennepin County. The City of
Robbinsdale was also awarded $50,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
to use for this project due to the regional impact of the project (proximity to 42nd Avenue, North
Memorial Hospital, freeway access, transit lines, etc.). It is highly unusual for CDBG funds to
be awarded to one city for use in another. This regional cooperation is a major goal of NCRC
and benefits the City of New Hope.
NCRC presented plans for the Nevada Avenue Twinhomes Project to the New Hope EDA at its
February 28, 2005 meeting. At that meeting the EDA directed NCRC to proceed with the
planning process and to begin the necessary work to obtain final city approval. NCRC's staff
and architect subsequently met with city staff and consultants for initial planning review and
continue to work within the city's processes toward final design approval and construction of the
proposed units.
Contact:
Kristine L. Madson, Executive Director
Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation
400 Selby Avenue, Suite G-1
St. Paul, MN 55102
Phone: 651-298-1903, extension 227
"Rebuilding neighborhoods one house at a time."
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOIl
4317 NEVADA
Between
'lh"~/"l/'¥1~,TrY&/TTr~ 'r~'l~'~7-~T rYD'~/T'I~'I~TrT~ A TTq'~T--T~'DTT~'TI2'
FOP. Tlq-F, CITY OF NEW HOPE
and
NORTHWEST COMMUNITY REVITAIZATION CORPORATION
c. Development. The Property and the Improvements to be constructed thereon
according to the Construction Plans approved by the City.
f. .EDA. The EcOnomic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope.
g. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), The Housing and Urban
Development Community Development Block Grand program, 24 C.F.K. Part 570, under
which the City will obtain reimbursement for expenditures for the purchase of the Property
and certain related expenditures, all as necessary to provide a buildable lot to Developer, for
Developer to construct a housing unit to be sold to low or moderate income individuals.
h. HOME l~unds. The HOME Investment Partnership Program with Hennepin County.
i. .Improvements. Bach and all of the structures, landscaping, and site improvements
constructed On the Property by the Developer, as specified in the Construction Plans .
approved by the City.
j. Permitted Encumbrances.. Permitted Encumbrances shall includ~ the following
items: (i) Taxes and installments of special assessments payable in 2004 and in subsequent
years; (ii) building and zoning laws, and federal, state and local laws, ordinances and
regulations; (iii) easements for public streets, drainage, utilities, highways and roads existing
now and at closing; (iv) liens, easements, encumbrances, agreements, restrictions, conditions
and covenants 0frecord, if any, as of the date hereof; and(v) the terms, conditions, covenants
and agreements set £orth in this Agreement.
k. Property.. The real proper~y known as 4317 Nevada Avenue North, New Hope,
Minnesota $5428, located in Henuepin County, Minnesota, shown on Exhibit B1, and
legallydescribed on Exhibit B2; -'
1. Title Evidence. A commitment for title insurance fi:om a title' insurance company
reasonably acceptable to the City and Developer.
m. Unavoidable D~lays. Delays which are the direct result of strikes, labor troubles,
fire or other casualty to the Improvements, litigation commenced by third parties which
results in delays, or acts of any federal, state or local government, except those contemplated
· by this Agreement, which are beyond the control of the Developer.
Section 1.2 Exhibits. The following Exhibits are attached to and by reference made a
part ofth/s Agreement:
Certificate of Completion
Lot Survey .
Construction Drawings and Landscape Description (with sPecified landscape value)
-2-
d. The Developer will obtain, in a timely mariner, all required penn/ts, licenses and
approvals, and will meet, in a timely man~er, the requirements of all local, state and federal
laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Improvements may be
constructed. Responsibility for payment of any fees or costs associated with sa/d permits,
licenses, and approvals are as set forth in Section 4.1.
Section 11.2 By the City~E-D-~. The Cits;m~DA makes the following representations as the ]
basis for the undertaldng on its part herein contained:
a. The City,~DA is authorized by law to enter into this Agreement and to carry Out its [
obligations hereunder; and
b. The Cits;m~DA w/Ii, in a timely mauner, subject to all notification requirements,
review and act upon all-submittals and applications of the Developer and w/Il cooperate with
the efforts of Developer to secure the granting of any permit, license, or other approval
required to allow the construction of the Improvements; provided, however, that nothing
contained in this subparagraph 2.2(5) shall be construed to limited in any waythe reasonable
and legitimate exercise of the City's discretion in congidering any submittal or application.
ARTICLE
CONVEYANCE TO DEVELOPER
Section 111.1 Sale of Property. to Developer. The Cits;m~DA agrees to sell the Property to
the Developer and the Developer agrees to purchase the Property fromthe Ci~m~DA
in "as-is" condition. At the Closing, the City, m~DA agrees to convey the Property to
the Developer by Quit Claim Deed in the general form of Exhibit D. The purchase
pr/ce for the Property will be $1}00.
.Section ]1[.2 Closing. The Closing of the sale of the Property from the City, m~..D)~ to the
Developer will take place on or before ,2004, or such other date
as may be agreed to by the parties in writing. At the Closing, the Developer will pay
the purchase price in Cash to the Cits;m~DA_.
Section 111.3 Recording Fees. The Developer shall be solely responsible for the cost of
any and al/state deed or transfer taxes, agricultural land fees, and recording fees.
The Developer shall promptly record all transfer documents including, but not
lira/ted to, the Quit Claim Deed conveying the property and the Certificate of
Completion.
Section I11.4 Taxes and SPecialAssessments. Real est~te taxes payable in the year ofthe
Closing will be prorated between the City, m~DA and the Developer as of the date of I
-4-
(2) Agreement to proceed with the Closing and transfer of possession of
the Property without any further obligation or liability of any kind on the City/~.DA
to cure or satisfy any objections to title, whereupon the risk that the objection cannot
cured (or that title cannot be rendered marketable) shall be entirely borne by the
Developer.
I_fno such written election is given to the Cit~;~DA within said ten (10) dayperiod, [
the Developer shall be deemed to have waived all objections to rifle.
ARTICLE IV
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
Section IV. 1 Construction of Improvement,~. The Developer shall construct the
Improvements On the Prope~ in accordance with its' Proposal and Construction
Drawings and Landscape Description attached hereto as Exhibits and the City Code,
and shall maintain, preserve and keep the Improvements in good repair and condition
until sale of the Property. The Developer shall pay all costs and fees associated with
the construction of the Improvements, including but not limited to all material and
labor, all building permit fees not waived by the. City, including but not limited to a
park dedication fee as determined by the City, all State of Minuesota surcharges and
electrical permit fees, and all utility connection and SAC charges. DevelOper shall be
responsible for scheduling and obtaining all required State and. City inspections
during the construction of the Improvements, and with giving at least 24 hour notice
ofinspecrion requests.
Section IV.2 Construction Plans. No building permit will be issued bYthe Cityunless the
Construction Plans therefore are in conformity with tkis Agreement, including the
cons .truction drawings and landscape description attached as Exhibit C, with all of the
requirements of the City Code, and with all federal, state, and local regulations. The
City shall, within ten (10) business days of receipt of Construction Plans submitted in
application for a lJuilding permit, review such plans to determine whether the
foregoing requirements have been met. If the City determines such plans to be
deficient, it shall notify the Developer in writing stating the deficiencies and the steps
necessary for correction. Issuance of the building permit by the City shall be a
conclusive determiuatio, n that the Construction Plans have been approved an.d shall
.satisfy the provisions of this Section 5.2.
Section IV.3 Schedule of Construction. Subiect to Unavoidable Delays, construction of
the Improvements in accordance with the Construction Plans shall commence prior to
and be completed prior to . All construction
shall be in conformity with the approved Construction Plans and the City Code.
Periodically during construction the Developer shall make reports in such detail as
may reasonably be requested by the Cit ,~DP~ concerning the actual progress of the
the reasons set forth above, the Developer represents and agrees that prior to the
completion of Improvements as certified by the City:
a. Except only by way of security for the purpose of obtaining financing necessary to
enable the Developer or any successor in interest to the Property to perform its obligations
with respect to the Development under this Agreement the DevelOper, except as so
authorized, has not made or created, and it will not make or create, or suffer to be made or
created, anyiotal or partial sale, assignment, conveyance, or any trust or Power, or transfer in
any other mode or form of or with respect to this Agreement or the Property or any interest
. therein, or any contract or agreement to do any of the Came, without the prior written
approval ofthe Cit);~DA; and
b. The City,~DA shall be entitled to require, except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement, as conditions to any such approval under this Section 5.2 that: (i) Anyproposed
transferee shall have the qualifications and ~Snaucial responsibility, as determined by the
City,~DA, necessary and adequate to fulfill'the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by
the DevelOper. (ii) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the
Cit)~DA and in form recordable among the land records, shall for itself and its successors
and assigns, and specificallY for thc benefit of the City,~DA, have expressly assumed all of
the obligations of the Developer under this Agreement and agreed to be subject to such
obligations, restrictions and conditions or; provided, that the fact that any transferee of, or
any other successor in interest to, the Property, shall, for whatever reason, not have assumed
such obligations or agreed to do so, shall not relieve such transferee or successor fi:om such
obligations, conditions, or restrictions, or.deprive or l~m{t the City,~D.n~ of any rights or
remedies or controls with respect to the Property or the construction ofthe Improvements; to
the fullest extent pen'nitted by law and equity no transfer of, or change with respect to,
ownership in the Property, or any interest therein, however consummated or occuniug,
whether voluntary or involuntary, shall operate to deprive or limit the Cit3;~DA of anyrights
or remedies or controls provided in or resulting from this Agreement with respect to the
Property and the construction of the Improvements that the Cit)~D.~. would have had, had
there been no such transfer or change. (iii) There shall be submitted to the City,~DA for
review all instruments and other legal documents involved in effecting transfers described
herein, and if approved. . by the ---v,c~/ur".-.---- ^~, its approval shall be indicated to the Developer in
writing.
In the absence of specific written agreement by the Cit)~DA to the contrary, no such
transfer or approval by the City, DA thereof shall be deemed to relieve the Developer from
any of its obligations with respect thereto. The sale of any units within the Development to a
Homeowner shall not be deemed to be a transfer witb{n the meaning of Section 5.1.
Section V.3 Approvals. Any approval required to be given by the Cit3~DA under this
Article V maybe denied only if the City reasonably determines that the ability of the
Developer to perform its obligations under this Agreement will be materially
Cit);~DA to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce performance and
observance of any obligation,, agreement, or covenant of the Developer under this
Agreement.
Section VL3 Revestin~ interest in EDAthe Ci.ty Upon Happenin~ of Event ofDefault [
,,Subsequent to Conveyance of Property. to Developer. I/subsequent to the sale of
the Property to the DeveIoper and prior to the issuance of the Certificate of
Completion:
a. The Developer fails to begin construction of the Improvements in conformity with
this Agreement, and such failure is' not due to Unavoidable Delays;
b. The Developer, after commencement of the construction of the Improvements,
defaults in or violates'its Obligations with respect to the construction of the Improvements,
including the nature and the date for the completion thereof, or abandons or substantially
suspends construction work, and such act or actions are not due to Unavoidable Delays;
c. The Developer or successor in interest fails to pay real estate taxes or assessments on
the Property or any part thereof when due, or place~ thereon any encumbrance or lien
unauthorized by this Agreement, or suffers any levy or attachment to be made, or any
· materialmen's or mechanic's lien, or any other ur/authorized encumbrance or lien to attach;
d. There is; in violation of Article V of this Agreement, any transfer of the Property Or
any part thereof; or
e. The Developer fails to comply with any of its covenants under this Agreement,
then the Cits;~DA shall have the right upon thirty (30) days written notice to DeVeloper and the
Developer's failure to cure within such thirty (30) dayperiod, to re-enter and take possession of the
Property and to terminate and revest in the EDACity the interest of the Developer in the Property;
provided, however, that such revestiture oft/tie shall be subject to the lien of any prior encumbrance
permitted under this Agreement.
Section VI.4 No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the
City/ED.*. is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but
each and every such remedy shall .be cumulative and shall be in addition to every
other remedy given under this Agreement or now or. hereafter existing at law or in
equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing
upon an Event of Default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed
to be a waiver thereof, bu{ any such right and power may be exercised fi:om time to
time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle the Cits;~DA or
the Developer to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give
notice, other than such notice as may be required in this Article VII.
the Developer as though fully set forth herein.
Section VII.4 Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Agreement, a notice, demand or other communication .under this Agreement by either
party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is sent by United States
Mail, postage prepaid andretum receipt requested, or delivered personally:
a: As to the City, m~DA:
City of New Hope
City Manager
4401 XylOn Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
and
Steven A. Sondrall,
City Attorney
8525 Ed~nbrook Crossing, Suite 201
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
12.
Gene J. Nicolelli Jr. A.I.A.
5950-H Teakwood Ln. N.
Phdmouth, MN 55442
phone/fax: 763 551.9357
architect
MEMO
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Regarding:
April 22, 2005
Design Review Committee
Gene Nicolelli
NCRC Development - 4301/4317 Nevada Avenue
Comments/Concerns from Development Review Team
The following addresses the comments made from the Design Review Committee meeting held on April
14, 2005. The comments are based on two separate lists prepared by Vince Vander Top and Alan
Brixius.
Comments prepared by Vince Vander Top:
Item 1. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 2
Item 2. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 2.
Item 3. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 2 and 4.
Item 4.
Sump pump discharge location noted on Architectural Site Plan, Sheet A1.1. It was
determined that an on-site storm sewer to receive sump discharge was not needed and
any discharge could be handled by 'surface drainage as designed.
Item 5. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 3.
Item 6. To be determined at a later date.
Item 7. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 3.
Item 8. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 3.
Item 9. Noted on Architectural Site Plan, Sheet A1.1
'Item 10.
Removal of overhead utilities from 4301 Nevada to be addressed at time of demolition.
Cost of burying existing utility lines running along 4301 and 4317 would cost between
$25,000 and $30,000. Cost is more than budget can absorb, therefore overhead utilities
will have to remain.
Item 11. Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 4.
Item 12. No action.
Comments prepared by Alan Brixius:
Sump Pump Discharge: Noted on Architectural Site Plan, Sheet A1.1.
Retaining Wall: Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheets 2 and 4.
Stormwater Sump Basket: Noted on Basement Plan, Sheet A2.1.
Unit Electrical Service: To be addressed by Electrical Sub-Contractors drawings at time of pulling
building permits.
Street Plan: Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 3.
Landscape Plan: All comments noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 4.
9'-0" Garage Door Height: Noted on Architectural Elevations, Sheets A3.1, A3.2 and A3.3.
Party Wall Agreement: City of New Hope has sent a boilerplate party wall agreement that will be
incorporated for this project.
Party'Wall Construction: To be addressed during Construction Document Phase by Architect.
Miscellaneous Comments:
Easement required over swale: Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 3.
Location of Dogwoods: Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 4.
Utility Connections: Noted on Civil Engineering drawings, Sheet 3.
Rain Gutters: Noted on Architectural Elevations, Sheets A3.1, A3.2 and A3.3.
I Il ~ I SIrE
~ I /~ ~ -- .-~ x .~ ~ ......
~ ~ m = I m s e~'~'mo"e ,~o.~
..... ~_~ ~, ~ ~ ~-~ :~-IL~-, ',, .ri :,
..... I,,.. ~ / .r I ~,z ......... --, I , ,
· ,.. :, ,/ ,, ~.~'~
~,.~ ,_~ ~ ~~: ...... :.,. r
,. x~, i :. ~ I ':~t'L,~: ..-' I
~~ ~ ' ..... ' ......... ' ......... ',"r'~.,
", PRIVATE DRIVE
!
/
PR/VA TE DRIVE
1
43RD A
DEVELOPE~
NORT
POC:
400
ST. F
PHON
FAX:
BUILDING
FRON
REAR:
ZONING
EXIST
PROP
TOTAL
TOTAL
BENCHMAR
THN
ELEV.
LEGAL DE~c
The East I
County. Mi
Abstroct
LEGAL DEc,
The East i
Minnesota,
Abastract
I
TOP g.. 898.0
', :._'..'~,'7 , %./
, ~, ',~
~*~ ~, LEGEND
_ ..... ,-~
.:.OT
LOT
J
?- "~' VERIFY LOCATION
PR/VA TE DRIVE
I' CONNE. C~ON TO WATERMNN
('rY~CAL)
4' PVC SADOLE TEE, (TYPICAL)
TYPICAL SANITARY
4" PLUG
TO PROPERTY LINE. INSTALL NEW
LEGEND
I.) CONNECTIONS TO E~STING WATERMNN SHALL BE DRY.
NO WET TAPS PERMI'FTE~O.
2.) CONTACT CJTY OF NEW HOF£ PLI~JC WORKS
TO SCHEDULE CONNECTIONS,
x.) REPNRS TO E~ISTING S1REL=T SHALL CONSIST OF: I I/2" BIT. WEAR COURSE
N
N
SUGGESTED LANDSCAPE LEGEND - PER DOUBLE
COMMON/eOTANICALSiZE ROOT KEY QUANTITY
SUGGESTED LANDSCAPE LEGEND - LARGE TREES
COMMON/BOTANiCALSlZ~ ROOT KeY QUANTITY
w~
~ 3-RTDW ~ I
~_.~ ..... ~ ~ _ Z_~_~ .......... ~ ......................
NO. /
SUGGESTED LANDSCAPE LEGEND - PER DOUBLE
COMMON/BOTANICAL SIZE ROOT KEY QUANTITY
GLOSSY BLACK CHOKECHERY 3 GAL. POTTED GBC 6
/ARONIA MELONOCARPA
PURPLE LEAF SANDCHERRY 3 OAL POTTED PLS 2
/PRUNUS X CISTENA
BROADMOOR JUNIPER I GAL. POTTED BMJ II
/JUHIPEROUS HORIZONTALS "RROADI. IOOR"
ABBOTSWOOD POTENTILLA I GAL, POTTED AWP 16
POTEN11LLA FRUllCOSA 'ADBOTSWOOD"
SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 1.5" B & B SSC I
/MALUS "SPRING SNOW"
THUNDERCHILD CRABAPPLE 1,5" B &: B TCC I
/MALUS "THUNDERCHILD"
RED TWIGGED DOGWOOD 24" HT. I GAL. RTDW 2;3
/CORNUS STOLONIFERA
YELLOW TWIGGED DOGWOOD 24" HT. i GAL. YTDW 2;3
/SERICEA FLAVIREMA
SUCGESTED LANDSCAPE LEGEND - LARGE TREES
COMMON/BOTANICAL SIZE RO~T KEY
PATMORE ASH 2 I/2" CAL.
/FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA
"PATMORE"
B &B PA
RED MAPLE 2 I/2" CAL. B & B RM
/ACER RUBRUM
"RED SUNSET"
AUTU, MN PURPLE ASH 2 I/2" CAL. B · B APA
/FRAXINUS AMERICANA
"AUTUMN PURPLE"
QUANTITY
SUBSTITUTE SHRUBS
BELOW ARE SHRUBS WHICH ARE. CONSIDERED TO BE SUITABLE SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SHRUBS LISTED
SUITABEE 'SUBSTITUTES
GLOSSY BLACK CHOKECHERRY
/ARONIA MELONOCARPA
OR
PURPLE LEAF SANDCHERRY
/PRUNUS X CISTENA
PINK FLOWERING ALMOND
/PRUNUS GLANDULOSA
ISAN~ DOGWOOD
/CORNUS STOLINOFERA "ISANTI"
PEEGEE HYDRANGEA
/HYDRANGEA PANICULATA"GRANDFLORA'
GOLDEN MOCKORANGE
/PHILADELPHUS CORONARIUS"AUREUS"
FLOWERING WEIGELA '
/WEIGELA FLORIDA
BROADUOOR JUNIPER
/~IPEROUS HORIZONTALS "BRO^DUOOR'
SARGENT BLUE JUNIPER
SARGENT GREEN JUNIPER
BAR HARBOR JUNIPER
BLUE CHIP JUNIPER
BLUE FOREST JUNIPER
PRINCE OF WALES JUNIPER
ABBOTSWOOD POTENTILLA
POTElt'I'ILLA FRUTICOS^ "ABBOTSWOOD"
BUSH HONEYSUCKLE
/DIERVILL;A LONICERA
P.OTENTILLA
/POTENTILLA FRUTICOSA
GOLD DROP
KATHERINE DYKES'
MCKAY'S WHITE
SPIREA
/SPIRACA JAPONICA OR X BUMALDA
ANTHONY WATERER
GOLD FLAME
JAPANESE ALPINE
LIME MOUND
SHiBORI
o
gAIHO :71 VAIHd
I
3-¸
(LOT I ONLY)
NOTE: ALL LAWN AREAS TO BE SODDED
r-,~ wp' - -
SCALE: I"-- I0'
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN ~ 1'=20'-0"
STREET SCENE ~ 1/8"=1'-0-
GENEJ. '~
NICOLELLI, JR.I
k.~RCHIT11CTI
G EN £ J, NICOLELU, JR- A.I~
! !
Consultant
Certification
Proiect Title
NEVADA
TWINHOMES
Sheet Title
+ Site Plan
Revisions
r~' Al,1 -9~
!
L_
I I-
Imm.
-I
BASEMENT PLAN
II
II
iL F~rURE
BEDROOM
FUTURE
II .EOROOu
~ = _ ~,~T~iI
.... ,_.'_~c .... '~
~ '-~ =j ...... ~
..... = ::::: I I
UNIT 'B' UNIT 'A' (Universal Design)
®
I1/4"=1'~0"
GENEI. ~
NICOLELLI, JRi
I
GENE J, NICOLELLL JR.
Ii
I I
Consultant
Cedification
Proiect Title
NEVADA
TWlNHOMES
NEW HOPE,
Sheet Title
+ Main Level Floor Plan
Revisions
UNIT 'B' UNIT 'A' (Universal Design)
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
BUILDING SQ, FT. TABULATIONSI
UNIT A 1.240 S.F,
UNIT a 1,640 S.F.
®
I114"=1'-0"
GENEJ. ~
NICOLELLI, JRi
RCHITECTI
I I
Consultant
Certification
Proiect Title
NEVADA
TWIN'HOMES
· Sheet Title
+ Upper Level Floor Plan
Revisions
_. A2.2 --03.07
I I
UNIT 'B' UNIT 'a'
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
®
I114"=1'-0"
GENE J: -~
NICOLELLI, JR.I
! s
I I
Consultant
Certification
Proiect Title
NEVADA
TWINHO1V~S
Sheet Title
Upper Level Floor Plan
Revisions
BUILDING 1 - SOUTH ELEVATION
BUILDING 1 - WEST ELEVATION
BUILDING 1 - NORTH ELEVATION
J1/8"=1'-0"
~ 1/8"=1'-0"
I1/8"=1'-0"
BU LD NG 1 - EAST ELEVATION
114"=1'-0
GENEJ. ~
NICOLELLI, JR.I
~ARCHITECT !
GENE J. NICOLELL[,
!
! !
Consultant
Certification
Proiect Title
NEVADA
TWINHOMES
NEW HOPE. MN
Sheet Title
+ Building 1 Elevations
RevisJons ~
-. A3.1 -os.o7
BUILDING 2 - SOUTH ELEVATION
BUILDING 2 - WEST ELEVATION
' BUILDING 2 - NORTH ELEVATION
118"=1'-0"
I1/8"=1'-£
1/8"=1'-0
==============================================================================================
BUILDING 2 - EAST ELEVATION
114"=1'-0" I
GENEJ. ~
NICOLELLI, JR.I
~ARCHITECT [
GENE t. N1COLELL[, JR. A.I.A.
! !
I I
Consultant
Certification
Proiect Title
N~VAD^
TWINHOMES
Sheet Title
+ Building 2 Elevations
Revisions
-. A3.2 _gq ,97
I I
BUILDING 3 - SOUTH ELEVATION
BUILDING 3 - WEST ELEVATION
BUILDING 3 - NORTH ELEVATION
118"=1'-0"
1/8"=1'-0"
118"=1'-0'
BUILDING 3 - EAST ELEVATION
I1/4"=1'-0"
GENEJ, %
NICOLELLI, JR.I
~.~RCHITECTI
CENE ]. NICOLELLT, IR. A.L~
I I
I !
Consultant
Certification
Proiect Title
NEVADA
TWIN'HOMES
Sheet Title
+ Buitding 3 Elevations
Revisions
_. A3.3 _o7,o?
I I
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 OIson Memorial Highway, Suite 2Q2, Golden Valley,. MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2501 Pianners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Michael Darrow / Alan Brixius
DATE: April 27, 2005
RE:
FILE NO:
New Hope - 4301 and 4317 Nevada Avenue No.
131.01 - 05.08
BACKGROUND
Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (NCRC), a non-profit housing
organization is proposing to construct a twinhome subdivision in a redevelopment area
located along Nevada Avenue just north of the intersection of 43~d Avenue North and
Nevada Avenue North. The developer is proposing three twinhome units. The
twinhomes would be owner-occupied units with a combination of two-story and single
level Units. The single level units will be designed for disability accessibility.
The redevelopment will require the lots to be rezoned from R-l, Single Family to R-3,
Medium Density. A variance on current lot sizes will also be necessary to
accommodate the new housing units. The lots will need to be subdivided to create
twinhome unit lots with zero lot line setbacks. According to Section 4-7 (f) the lot area
per unit for twin homes is 5,000 square feet. Below is a review of the proposed
rezoning and variance request based upon plans dated April 19, 2005.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed site is located within Planning District 10 as
defined in the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. Planning District 10 addresses the
redevelopment in the following manner:
The Iow density residential neighborhoods are generally in good condition. The
City has identified areas of single family homes along Nevada as' a target for
redevelopment. The following strategies will be implemented to address the Iow
density residential areas of District 10:
Promote property maintenance through private investment, the City
Housing Maintenance Code and scattered housing programs.
Actively pursue the redevelopment of the poor 'condition, Iow density
residential land along Nevada Avenue between 42nd Avenue and 45th
Avenue. Medium density residential alternatives are suggested for this
area.
Zoning. As a part of the redevelopment of the site the developer wishes to rezone the
property to R-3, medium density residential distdct from its current zoning of R-l, single-
family residential district in order to accommodate the twinhome units. The site is
located adjacent to an apartment complex and across the street from a public park. The
R-3 district provides for medium density housing such as townhomes and other multiple
family dwellings containing 12 or less units. The R-3 zoning district would be
compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Section 4.32 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines the following criteria for
changing the zoning from R-1 to R-3:
a. There was no mistake in the current R-1 zoning to require this change.
The character of the lots.has changed allowing the consideration of a
zoning amendment to replace deteriorating buildings with twinhomes.
The change in zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The
proposed land use of twinhomes is compatible to existing apartment
buildings to the west and the public park to the east of the proposed.
BaSed upon the criteria of Section 4.32, the suggestion to rezone the site from single
family to medium density is consistent with New Hope's Comprehensive Plan, which
calls for the redevelopment of these marginal single family homes along Nevada
Avenue.
The following table illustrates the lot requirements and setbacks for the R-3 Zoning
District and those proposed by the developer:
PLAN REVIEW
Required Proposed Compliant
Lot Area 5,000 sq.ft. 4,950 sq.ft. -50 sq.ft.
Lot Width 37.5 feet 38 feet Yes
Front Setback 25 feet 25-31 feet Yes
Rear Setback 30 feet 31-43 feet Yes
Side: Interior Setback 10 feet 9-10 feet Yes *
Side: Local Street 20 feet +/-55 feet Yes
Setback
* The eave of Building 1, Unit A extends one foot over the required 10 foot side
interior setback. The eave is considered a permitted encroachment by the New
Hope Zoning Code, therefore, no variance is required.
The lot area proposed by the developer falls below the minimum set by the City of New
Hope. The allotted minimum is 5,000 square feet; the proposed lots for the
redevelopment would be 4,950 square feet, therefore a variance will need to be
obtained.
As a condition of approval, the developer will be required to provide a dedication for 6
units x $1,500 for a total of $90,000 to satisfy the dedication requirements of the City.
Landscaping, pursuant to Section 4-3 (d)(4) a., the lot area remaining after providing
for off-street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveways, building and/or site
requirements shall be landscaped using ornamental grass, shrubs, trees, or other
acceptable vegetation.
The developer is proposing a mix of trees and shrubs that will meet the conditions of
Section 403 (d) (4) a. Tree and shrub species include ash, maple, dogwood, crabapple,
chokecherry, and juniper.
Grading and Drainage. The developer has submitted a grading and drainage plan.
SAC and WAC charges will be collected on four units. Two unit credits are offered for
the two existing homes. The developer shall pay a stormwater charge in lieu of
providing on-site stormwater management. Said charge amount will be calculated by
the City Engineer. The overall grading and drainage plan shall be subject to the review
and approval of the citY Engineer.
Utility Plan. Each unit will have separate utility connections per ordinance. The overall
utility plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
Streets. The developer has provided a street plan that includes plans for utility cuts
and street restoration, curb and new curb cut aprons. Utility cuts and street restoration
plans and timeline will be subject to the review and approval of the City.
Building Plans
The overall building plan exceeds the design standards for individual twinhomes. The
homes will offer variable faCades and townhome designs. The exterior materials
include simulated stone, brick, vinyl siding, and singled roofs. As a condition of
approval, all garage doors.shall be a minimum of 9 feet in height. The developer shall
also illustrate any lights at or near the rear yard patio. Party wall agreements must be
provided for review and approval of the City.
Variance
In order for the development to occur, a variance must be approved to allow flexibility
from the lot area requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Criteria for variances includes
the following:
A hardship may exist by reason of physical conditions unique to the property that
results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict
application of the terms of the Code. Physical hardship may include lot shape,
narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the
parcel or lot, Undue hardship may also include in adequate access to direct sunlight
for solar systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship
if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code.
2. An undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being
sought and is not generally applicable to other properties within the same district.
3. Hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the
landowner or previous owner.
4. Additional criteria of the application for variance shall also meet the following criteria:
a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality.
b. It will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property or
substantially increase congestion on public streets or increase the danger of
fire or endanger the .public safety.
c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
d. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within a respective zoning
district.
The unique hardship that warrants constitution for a lot area variance includes:
The existing condition of the properties has deteriorated to a point where the City
and comprehensive plan identified the property for redevelopment.
Cost for redevelopment exceeds new development cost due to land and building
acquisition, demolition and site preparation. These redevelopment costs warrant
consideration of a higher density to make the project practical.
The change in land use and new development benefit the City by maintaining its
housing stock and preserving its residential neighborhOods.
The project site is finite and the physical boundaries of the property cannot be
enlarged.
The 50 square foot per unit variance is the minimum variance possible to make
the project feasible. Except for the lot area variance, the project is in compliance
with all other New Hope Zoning Performance Standards.
4
CONCLUSION
Approval of the Rezoning and Variance requests made by Northwest Community
Revitalization Corporation is a policy decision to be made by the Planning Commission
and City Council. Based upon the review Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan,
the proposed twinhome development meets the zoning standards imposed by the City
of New Hope with the exception of the lot area requirement. If the City determines that
the development is acceptable, our office would recommend approval be based upon
the following recommendations and findings of fact.
Variance
If the City of New Hope finds that the variance from the minimum lot area requirement is
acceptable, the following findings of fact shall be considered:
1. The existing condition of the properties has deteriorated to a point where the City
and comprehensive plan identified the property for redevelopment. '
Cost for redevelopment exceeds new development cost due to land and building
~.. acquisition, demolition and site preparation. These redevelopment costs warrant
Consideration of a higher density to make the project practical.
The change in land use and new development benefit the City by maintaining its
housing stock and preserving its residential neighborhoods.
The project site is finite and the physical boundaries of the property cannot be
enlarged.
The 50 square foot per unit variance is the minimum variance possible to make
the project feasible. Except for the lot area variance, the project is in compliance
with all other New Hope Zoning Performance Standards.
Rezoning
If the City of New Hope finds that the Rezoning Request from R-1 to R-3 is acceptable,
the follOwing findings of fact shall be considered:
Based upon the criteria of Section 4.32 of the Zoning Ordinance, the request to
rezone the area from R-1 Single Family to R-3 Medium Density is consistent with
New Hope's Comprehensive Plan, which calls for the redevelopment of these
marginal single family homes along Nevada Avenue.
Site and Building Plan Review
1. The developer shall pay $90,000 to satisfy the City's Park Dedication requirement.
2. SAC and WAC charges shall be collected for 4 units.
5
3. The developer shall pay a stormwater charge in lieu of providing on-site stormwater
management. Said amount shall be calculated by the City Engineer.
4. The overall grading and drainage plan shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City Engineer.
5. Each unit shall have a separate utility connection. The overall utility plan shall be
subject to the City Engineer.
6. Utility cuts and street restoration plans and timeline shall be subject to City review
and documented within the Developer's Agreement.
7. All garage doors shall be a minimum of 9 feet in height.
8. A lighting plan shall be provided for any lights at or near the rear yard patio.
9. Party wall agreements shall be provided for review and approval of the City.
10.The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City of New Hope.
The development agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney.
~j~ Bonestroo
~-~ Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113
Office: 651~636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Kirk McDonald
Vince Vander Top
Guy Johnson, Paul Coone
April 13, 2005
..
NCRC Redevelopment - 4301/4317 Nevada Ave.
Our File No. 34-Gen NW17.03.04
We have reviewed the submitted plans and offer the following comments:
Preliminary Plat
Ensure the drainage, swale along the west side of the property is within the drainage
and utility easement.
Preliminary Grading Plan
Redefine swale to assure a minimum of 2% slope. The average slope is greater than
2%; however, the slope across Lots 2 and 3 is currently only 1.4%.
Construct a retaining wall along the walk to the north unit. Coordinate any
modifications with the landscaping plan.
Preliminary Utility Plan
Identify sump pump discharge locations. Discuss possible on-site storm sewer to
receive sump discharges.
5. ~install new stop boxes on existing water services to be salvaged.
Verify condition of sanitary service to be salvaged. Public Works to approve
condition of the service. Service will be replaced if recommended by Public Works.
Identify location of sanitary sewer service to be abandoned at 4301 Nevada. Identify
procedures for capping and abandoning. Remove existing service entirely from the
property line into the property.
Identify area of street to be disturbed. Include lin-fits of curb and gutter removal.
· St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, Willmar, MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, I1_
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned
Minimum patching section shall include 10 inches of class 5, crashed limestone and 3
½ inches of bituminous.
9. Identify aggregate and bituminous section to be used for driveways.
10.
Existing oVerhead utilities into 4301 Nevada will need to be removed. New
individual services will need to be installed. Discuss the possibility of burying all
overhead utilities in front of the property along Nevada Ave.
Preliminary LandScape Plan
11.
Coordinate location of dogwoods with the rear swale. Do not locate dogwoods in the
bottom of the swale.
Other Comments
12.
The redevelopment will contribute $11,856 toward future regional storm water
improvements in lieu of constructing ponding on the property. The fee was
established based on 29,640 SF of redevelopment area and a cost of $0.40/SF.
End of comments
~ Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113
Office: 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Kirk McDonald
Vince Vander Top
Guy Johnson, Paul Coone
April 27, 2005
NCRC Redevelopment - 4301/4317 Nevada Ave.
Our File No. 34-Gen NW17.03.04
We have reviewed the revised plans and offer the following comments. A number of the earlier
comments were addressed via the previous review.
Preliminary Utility Plan
Sump pump discharge should be toward the west side of the property toward the
swale.
Copper services into the structures from the stop boxes shall be one continuous piece.
Copper to copper joints will not be allowed.
Areas of curb and gutter and bituminous removal are identified. Existing driveways
should also be removed including curb and gutter replacement.
Existing overhead utilities into 4301 Nevada will need to be removed. New
individual services will need to be installed. Discuss the possibility of burying all
overhead utilities in front of the property along Nevada Ave.
Other Comments
The redevelopment will contribute $11,856 toward future regional storm water
improvements in lieu of constructing ponding on the property. The fee was
established based on 29,640 SF of redevelopment area and a cost of $0.40/SF.
End of comments
· St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, Willmar, MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, IL
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned
GORDON L. JENSEN~
CL~mSSA M. KLUG
AMY E. PAPENHAUSEN
GLEN A. NORTON
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
ARIC T. STIENESSEN
STACY A. WOODS
OF COUNSEL
LOm~NS Q. BRYNEST~
~Real Property Law
Specialist Certified By
The Minnesota State
Bar Association
3 Requkements unde:
streets and utilities,
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201
BROOKLYN PARI~ MINNESOTA 55443-1968
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 $ TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail law~j ensen-sondrall.com
Apd128,2005
Writer's Direct Dial No.: (763) 201-0222
e-mail cmk~jensen-sondrall, com
Mr. Shawn Siders
Community Development Specialist
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
VIA E-MAll, & US MAlL
Re:
Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) Preliminary Plat
Our File No.: 99.15066 (Nevada Avenue)
Dear Shawn:
Our office has reviewed the above-referenced preliminary plat for compliance with the applicable
City ordinances (found at New Hope City Code~ Section 13-4(a) et seq). The land as you know
includes 4301 Nevada Avenue (currently owned by NCRC) and 4317 Nevada Avenue (currently
owned by the City of New Hope and slated for conveyance to NCRC). Our comments are outlined
below.
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS:2
City Code Section 13-4(a)(1)(a): Proposed name. Proposed name of subdivision; names
shall not duplicate or closely resemble names of existing subdivisions within Hennepin
County.
Status: Unknown
Comment: It is our understanding from discussions with Kristine Madson of NCRC that a
proposed plat name is yet to be chosen. The City may want to remind NCRC to coordinate
with Hennepin County to verify that it is not choosing a duplicative name.
City Code Section 13-4(a)(1)(c): Names and addresses. Names and addresses of the
owner, developer and the designer or surveyor making the plat.
Status: Non-compliance
Comment: Owner data is missing from the Plat, but as this information is available to the City by
way of the Hennepin County property records database it is the opinion of the City Attorney's
Office that the City may waive this requirement.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS3:
~ "Code" in this letter refer to the New Hope City Code.
2 Code Section 13-4(a) requires the plat name, boundary line data, owner/developer/surveyor information, a
scale within a specified range, and northpoint and date of plat creation data.
Code Section 13-4(a)(2) are data regarding boundary lines, zoning classifications, acreage/dimensions, existing
Jjoining land ownership, and topographic draining.
April 28, 2005
Page 2
City Code Section 13-4(a)(2)(b): Zoning classifications. Existing zoning classifications for and within and
abutting4 the subdivisions.
Status: Non-compliance
Comment: The Plat indicates the owners of all abutting land areas, but includes only one zoning notation
implying that the Plat land and all abutting land are currently zoned R-1. The zoning notation also includes a
comment that proposed zoning is R-3. While this is a technical point, it would be helpful from the point of the
creation of permanent City records that the zoning notations specify that all areas shown are currently zoned R-1
and (presumably) that the propped re-zoning to R-3 will impact only the platted lots. However, because the
City's zoning ordinance and resolution records are what govern classification of the property, it is the opinion of
the City Attorney's Office that the City could elect to accept the zoning data as currently presented on the Plat.
Ci~. Code Section 13-4(a)(2)(d): Previously platted streets, other details. Location, widths and names of all
existing or previously platted streets or other public ways, showing type, width and conditions of improvements,
if any, railroad and utility rights-of-way, parks and other public open spaces, permanent buildings and structures,
easements and section and corporate lines within 350 feet beyond the tract.
Status: Non-compliance
Comment: Our office suggests that the boundaries and widths of Nevada Avenue and 43ra Avenue be more
clearly illustrated on the Plat, and that the symbols shown to the west of the Nevada Avenue labeling (which
appear to show existing watermain and sewer lines) be identified in the chart in the lower right corner of Sheet 1
of the Plat. The width of the existing or proposed private drive areas also needs to be added. While the Plat does
not extend to 350 feet beyond the tract, it is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the City may waive that
requirement.
ge
City Code Section 13-4(a)(2)(e): Sewer, water main and other details. Location and size of existing sewers,
water mains, culverts or other underground facilities within the tract and to a distance of 350 feet beyond the tract.
Such data as grades, invert elevations, and locations of catch basins, manholes and hydrants shall also be shown.
Status: Non-compliance
Comment: It is the opinion of our office that sizes of existing sewers, water mains, culverts and any other
underground facilities should be either added or more clearly labeled. The Plat area does not extend to 350 feet
beyond the tract, but as noted above it is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the City may waive this
requirement if it wishes.
City Code Section 13-4(a)(2)(0: Adjoining land. Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land,
within 350 feet, identified by name and ownership, including all contiguous land owned or controlled by the
subdividor.
Status: Non-compliance
4 "Abbutting," "adjoining," "adjacent" or s/milar terms are r~ot defined in the Code. It is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office
that the meaning of each these terms will vary depending on the context in which the term is used, but that the terms in general refer to
all land area sharing a boundary with the subject property, including streets, other public rights of way, parcels of land that only touch
the subject property at a comer, and any land which is only slightly separated from the subject property (for example, land separated
by a street or alley).
s A "subdivision" is "a described tract of land which is to be or has been divided into two or more lots or parcels, for the propose of
transfer of ownership or building development, or, if a new street is involved, any division of a parcel of land. The term includes
resubdivision and, where it is appropriate to the context, relates either to the process of subdividing or to the land subdivided." Code
Section 13-2(b).
April 28, 2005
Page 3
Comment: While the Plat does not detail the boundary lines between the Plat's lots and the immediately
adjoining land, it does generally identify these areas with ownership data and accordingly it is the opinion of the
City Attorney's Office that the City may waive this requirement and, as previously noted, may also waive the
requirement that data within 350feet of the Plat's lots be included.
'City Code Section 13-4(a)(2)(g): Topographic drain. Topographic data, as shown on the city topographic map.
Water courses, marshes, wooded areas, rock outcrops, power transmission poles and lines, and other significant
features shall also be shown. The city topographic map shall be used, and shall be furnished by the city to the
subdivider at the subdividor's cost. Topographic maps shall include all areas within 350 feet of the tract.
Status: Compliance Status Unknown
Comment: The Plat shows tOPographic data, but it does not indicate whether the topographic data is as shown on
the City's topographic map. At the election of City staff, a notation on this point could be added. The
requirement that topographic information be included to 350 feet out can, again, be waived by the City if the City
so desires.
C. PROPOSED DESIGN FEATURES6:
City Code Section 13-4(a)(3)(a): Street layout. Layout of proposed streets showing the right-of-way widths,
centerline gradients, typical cross sections, and proposed names of streets. The name of any street heretofore used
in the city or its environs shall not be used unless the proposed street is a logical extension of an already named
street, in which event the same name shall be used.
Status: Compliance
Comment: It is the understanding of the City Attorney's Office that the property to be platted does not include
any property to be dedicated as a street.
e
City Code Section 13-4(a)(3)(b): Alleys, pedestrian ways, easements. Locations and widths of proposed alleys
and pedestrian ways and utility easements.
Status: Non-compliance
Comment: Locations of proposed utilities are shown on Sheet 3 of the Plat, but the Plat does not indicate
easement area widths. With respect to alleys and pedestrian ways, it is the understanding of the City Attorney's
Office that there are none.
Other Design Feature Requirements: Please note that our office defers to the opinions and comments of City
staff and other City consultants as to whether Code requirements have been adequately met by NCRC at this point
with respect to stormwater planning, sewer lines, water mains, water supply, sewage dispo§al and surface water
matters, including as to whether additional information is required as to when specifications labeled on Sheet 3 of
the Plat as "typical" will be followed and when they might be modified.
o
City Code Section 13-4(a)(3)(d): Street and alley centerline gradients. Approximate center line gradients of
proposed streets and alleys, and adjoining streets, if any.
Status: Non-compliance
Comment: This data appears to be missing from some or all of the adjoining streets/private drives.
6 Code Section 13-4(a)(3) outlines requirements for streets, alleys, pedestrian ways, easements, stormwater runoff, utilities, lot and
block designations, setbacks (including special requirements for curved lots), and publicly-dedicated areas in general.
April 28, 2005
Page 4
City Code Section 13-4(a)(3)(g): Building setback lines. Minimum front and side street building setback lines
must be shown.
Status: Non-compliance
Comment: Our office suggests that distances for the setback lines either be added or more clearly labeled.
City Code Section 13-4(a)(3)(i): Other dedicated areas. Areas, other than streets, alleys, pedestrian ways and
utility easements, intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use, including the size of such area or areas in
acres.
Status: Compliance
Comment: It is the understanding of the City Attorney's Office that streets, alleys, pedestrian ways and utility
easements comprise the full list of any public dedications that are intended for the Plat.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At this time the City Attorney's Office is not aware of any Code
Section 13-4(a)(4)(c) supplementary information required by the City Manager in the areas of lot use, soil survey
work, possible adjacent subdivisions, possible resubdivision, or other general matters. With respect to the
proposed zoning data that can be called for under this Code Section, such data is discussed above. As a
supplement to that discussion, NCRC should be informed if it has not been already that under Code Section 13-
4(a)(4)(c) inclusion of rezoning data on an approved preliminary plat does not create a vested right to the
rezoning. Finally it appears that information under this Code Section was required by the City Manager as to
erosion, sediment control, landscaping and vegetation preservation. Our office, however, defers in these areas to
the opinions and comments of City staff and other City consultants.
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN: The Plat's lots do not appear to border a highway or county road and
accordingly a site plan is not required under Code Section 13-4(a)(5).
F. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Dedication: There is no proposed dedication language on the Plat. While dedication language is not specifically
required under the Code at the preliminary plat stage, it is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that use of the
term "plat" implies inclusion of appropriate dedication language and accordingly we recommend that language for
NCRC's dedications (if any) be added to the Plat at this time.
Evidence of Ownership: As a matter of City policy, plat approval applicants are required to submit to the City a
commitment for title insurance or other appropriate evidence of title history. Such documentation will allow the
City to determine that all proper individuals are included in the signature area of the proposed final plat. This
information should be supplied directly to our office as soon as reasonably possible. Please also note that it is the
standard practice of the city to require a title insurance policy for any easement or right-of-way areas to be
dedicated to the public as part of the Plat.
Legal Description: The second tax identification number included in the property description section of the Plat
appears to be in error and given the property address provided by NCRC appears to need to be adjusted from 17-
118-21-21-0018 to 17-118-21-21-0017. In addition, the Hennepin County internet database for this parcel shows
a description of a portion of Lot 24 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 324, not of Lot 2 as indicated on the Plat.
As always, please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
April 28, 2005
Page 5
Clarissa M. Klug, Assistant City Attorney,
City of New Hope
CC:
Steven A. Sondrall, New Hope City Attorney (via email to sas~jensen-sondrall.com)
Pam Sylvester, New Hope Administrative Support Specialist (via email to Psylvester~ci.new-hope.nm. us)
Vincent T. Vander Top, New Hope Engineer (via email to wandertop~bonestroo.com)
Alan Brixius, New Hope Planning Consultant (via email to planners@nacplanning.com)
P :~,Att omey\C mk\Clients\CNFl~99-1506oq.99-15066-001 - Preliminary Plat Review Report (summary version).doe
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Hermepin County Public Works
Center Point Energy Minnegasco
Xcel Energy
Qwest
Comcast
New Hope City Attorney
New Hope City Engineer
New Hope Planning Consultant
New Hope Building Official
New Hope Director of Public Works
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
April 8, 2005
Preliminary Plat for Auditor's Subdivision No. 324
Enclosed please find the preliminary plat for Auditor's Subdivision No. 324. There will be three
twinhomes constructed with zero lot lines. The purpose of the plat is to subdivide the two lots into six
residential lots for development purposes. Please review and return your comments by 4:30 p.m.
Friday, April 22, to:
Kirk McDonald
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Phone: 763-531-5119
Fax: 763-531-5136
The preliminary plat will be considered by the New Hope Plarming Commission on May 3, 2005.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 763-531-5119.
Enclosure
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG
A B C D E F G H I J
Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City
cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response
number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant
Address by City that required expires expires of under application
Phone information extension extension
was missing or waiver
05-06 City of New Hope 418105 617105 8/6/05
and
NW Community Revitalization
Corp. (NCRC)
400 Selby Avenue Suite G-1
St. Paul 55102
Kristine Madsen
651-298-1903
17-118-21-21-0017
17-118-21-21-0018
B.
C.
D:
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
Assign each application a number.
List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
List the date the City received the application.
List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the
date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.)
List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before
the time limit expires.
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Planning Commission
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
April 29, 2005
Miscellaneous Issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional
detail on Council/EDA/HRA actions on Community Development related issues or other city projects.
It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion.
April 11 Council/EDA Meeting - At the April 11 Cotmcil/EDA meeting, the Cotmcil/EDA took
action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
· Project #603, Resolution accepting easement for construction and maintenance of public
improvements - 7819 Angeline Drive: Approved, see attached Council request.
· PC05-03, Resolution establishing findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to request
for two variances for property at 4717 Independence Avenue North and denying request:
Postponed until May 9 Council meeting, per the request of the petitioner.
· Resolution approving scope of work for environmental acoustical services with HDR
Engineering, Inc.: Council directed staff to research other alternatives and report back.
· Project #740, Resolution authorizing approval of a term sheet between the New Hope EDA
and Frey Development and Manley Land Development Inc. for the redevelopment of 7500-
7528 42nd Avenue of the former Electronic Industries site: Approved, see attached EDA
request.
April 25 CounciUEDA Meeting - At the April 25 Council/EDA meeting, the Council/EDA took
action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
· Project #740, Resolution authorizing environmental response fund grant application to
Hennepin County for the redevelopment of the city owned property located at 7500, 7516,
7528 42nd Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
· . PC05-02, Resolution approving zoning application requesting an amendment to CUP/site
agreement for minor automotive repair use at 7900 Medicine Lake Road: Approved, see
attached Council request.
Project #740, Resolution ordering published notice and scheduling public hearing to
approve sale of 7500, 7516, and 7528 42nd Avenue to Frey Development and Manley Land
Development, LLC: Approved, see attached EDA request.
o
o
Codes and Standards Committee
· Transit Shelter Ordinance - Met with Transtop in March regarding their transit shelter
program. Transop recently expanded their services to Roseville and worked with that city on
its ordinance. They also have a good working relationship with U.S. Bench. Transtop
recommended some adjustments to the current proposed ordinance and/or having separate
ordinances for the regulation of transit benches and transit shelters. The next step will be for
staff/consultants to meet and discuss ordinance changes, then committee to meet and review
recommendations. Staff will also present this matter at a future Council work session to
determine if the Council supports moving forward with this program.
Future items for discussion to include zoning code amendment for 60-day rule to conform to
new regulations.
Committee meeting to be scheduled in May or June after several of the vacant Commurdty
Development positions are filled.
Design and Review Committee ' The Design and Review Committee met in April to review the
43rd and Nevada avenues twin_home plans. The deadline for the June Planning Commission
meeting is May 13. Staff anticipates the redevelopment at 42nd and Quebec avenues will be ready
for submittal, as well as a request for a CLIP for a gymnastics school to relocate to an industrial
building on Quebec Avenue, across the street from its current location.
Staff will contact the committee regarding a meeting following the apphcation deadline.
Future Applications - Future potential applications or businesses/developers that staff is
currently working with, or has recently met with, include:
1. Restaurant and office condo project, 42nd and Quebec
2. Rosalyn Court condo conversion
3. Sunset Apartments subdivision
4. Coffee shop - City Center
5. Aldi grocery store, 7180 42nd Avenue
6. Holy Trinity Lutheran Church expansion, 4240 Gettysburg Avenue
7. Crystal Free Church CUP amendment for minor expansion
8. Intermet expansion, 5100 Boone Avenue
9. Waymouth Farms parking variance/CUP
10. Hosterman soccer field complex
12. Alano - shared parking CUP
Livable Communities - Staff has directed its focus on the site adjacent to the golf course. A
developer's round table was held on March 28. Interested developers were direbted to submit a
Request for Quahfications, and after a review of the RFQs, the city will invite the top developers
to submit proposals for the project. Staff will update the Commission on this process at the May 3
meeting.
Ci.ty Center Task Force Update - Staff has been meeting with existing property owners
regarding future improvements to their businesses and sites. The Council invited the task force to
a work session on May 2 to discuss their planning efforts and adjustments to the plan. Staff will
update the Commission on the work session at the May 3 meeting.
Development Update - Enclosed please find the current "Development Update" which describes
the status of the development projects in the city.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Project Bulletin - Enclosed is a project bulletin regarding Elm Grove Park.
Miscellaneous Articles - Enclosed is the February issue of Zoning Practice.
Minutes - Enclosed are Planning Commission minutes for your review.
If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff.
Attachments:
7819 Angeline Drive
HDR Engineering acoustical services
Volunteer recognition week
Term sheet for 42nd and Quebec avenues
Environmental response fund grant application for 42nd and Quebec avenues
Alfa Muffler CUP amendment
Schedule public hearing for sale of 42nd and Quebec avenues
Development update
Project bulletin
Miscellaneous articles
Minutes: Planning Commission 3/1/05