110105 Planning
;,]
,I /
'i ~
~/L,L',
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Tuesday, November 1, 2005
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.1 Case 05-13 Consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code
4-3(4)(h)(11) regulating acceptable parking and driveway surfaces in all
zoning districts, city of New Hope, Petitioner
4.2 Case 05-14 Consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code
4-3(e)(4)(h)(7) and 4-3(e)(6)(c) regulating curb cut and parking setback
requirements in R-l and R-2 districts, city of New Hope, Petitioner
4.3 Case 05-15 Consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope City Code 3-
25(b)(1) requiring fencing around swimming pools, city of New Hope}
Petitioner
4.4 Case 05-16 Consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code
4-30(c)(11) Council review and 4-30(c)(12) Council action on planning
applications} city of New Hope} Petitioner
4.5 Case 04-28 Approval of Comprehensive Plan Updates, city of New Hope,
Petitioner
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1 Report of Design and Review Committee - next meeting November 17" 7:30 a.m. (if
needed)
5.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee
A. Certificates of Survey
6. OLD BUSINESS
6.1 Miscellaneous Issues
. PC04-02} Northland Mechanical, release of financial guarantee, approved
. PC04-04" AC Carlson, release of financial guarantee} approved
. PCOS-09, Frey Development} final plat for New Hope Quebec Addition, approved
. PC04-17, PPL} reduction of financial guarantee, approved
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission :tvlinutes of September 6} 2005
Revievv/Approval of 2006 Plcumll1g Commission Schedule
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. j\DJOURNMENT
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body} created to advise the City Council on land use. The
Planning 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 Planning Commission
will utilize 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.
3. 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.
S. 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 REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: November 1, 2005
Report Date: October 28, 2005
Planning Case: 05-13
Petitioner: Cih} of New lfope
Address: City wide
Request: Ordinance alnending the New Hope Zoning Code 4-3(4)(11)(11) regulating acceptable
parking and driveway surfaces in all zoning districts.
I. Request
City staff is requesting Planrring Commission and City Council approval of the attached ordinance
amending the language of the New Hope Zoning Code relating to acceptable parking and driveway
surfaces in all zoning districts.
II. Zoning Code References
Section 4-3(4)(h)(11) Surfacing
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: All Zoning Districts
IV. Background
This proposed ordinance amendment addresses two issues rela~ed to parking and driveway surfacmg
issues:
1. It clarifies what is suitable material for parking area surfacing. Inspections staff has indicated the
permitted surfacing materials for off-street parking are currently vague and further clarification is
necessary to identify materials suitable for off-street parking.
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance 4-3(4)(h)(11) requires that driveways be "surfaced with materials
suitable to control dust and drainage." It requires tvvo inches of bituminous paving over a six inch
base of class-five for all driveways and parking, except single and two-family dwellings. Staff
recommends altering the code to include a list of acceptable paving materials and stating that a
covering permitting the growth of grass is not acceptable.
2. It requires hard surface driveways for newly constructed homes in the R-l and R-2 zoning districts.
The current city code does not require paved driveways in the R-l and R-2 zoning districts and
there are some older single family homes in the city without paved driveways. There are several
scattered site single family housing redevelopment projects taking place in the city. While staff does
not want to require all existing homes in the city to have hard surface driveways, staff does
recommend that all new construction be required to have a hard surface fa! drivewa:y pu~poses.
Planning Case Report 05-13 Page 1 10/25/05
v. Petitioner's Comments
Staff requested the city planner review the potential change to the Zoning Code and make
recommendations for changes to the code.
VI. Notification
The required notice was published in the official newspaper of the city.
VII. Development or Code Analysis
Initial staff recommendations included a requirement to require paved driveways on all residences. In
the staff and consultant meeting, it was determined that a retro-active ordinance may be overly
restrictive, but new single family and two-family developments should be required to meet a new
ordinance} which will specify acceptable materials to control dust and drainage. Materials other than
those listed in the ordinance are subject to the approval of the building official. The city attorney has
drafted a revised ordinance, attached.
VIII. City Attorney Comments/Draft Ordinance
Per the attached correspondence from the city attorney} enclosed is a proposed ordinance amending
the language of the New Hope Zoning Code relating to acceptable parking surfacing in all zoning
districts. The changes made by this ordinance follow up on recommendations by staff and were
discussed at the September 21 Codes and Standards meeting.
The draft ordinance states:
11. Surfacing. III alll~-3, R-4, R-5, R-O, R-B, LB, CB, I aI1d PUD zoning districtst Ag.ll parkiIlg areasL
intcr:dcd to be utilized for p:lrking ~.pacc JJ1d driveways sl~J.ll be 8Llrfaccd '~\~itl~ InZltcri31::;
suitJ.blc to control du~t Jnd drairlJgc. 311d Q..4riveway aprons shall be constructed and
surfaced with either concreteL et=-bituminous or ot11er 11.ard surface material in compliance
with adopted City construction specifications. E)~ccpt in the CJ.~C of :;inglc f~nil)" :.1l~d_~
fm.~.il}T d~\~cllings, All driveways and parking stalls shalL at a Ininimum. be surfaced with a six
inch class five base and two inch bituminous topping. Plans for smfacing and drainage of
driveways and stalls for five or more vehicles shall be submitted to the city engineer for
review and the final drainage plan shall be subject to written approval of the Engineer. For
ne\rv COl1Structioll of nevv garages and/or hon1es ill a111\.-1 and R-2 districtst areas intended to
be used for vel1icle parl<:ll1g spaces and drive\,vay.Ts shall conlJ?I~r \A/itl1 tlle abo~ve-stated
requireme11t. Parking areas a11d dri'levva:ys for existing garages and/or hon1es shall be
sllrfaced \,vitl1 a Inaterial suitable to COl1trol dllst and drau1age. A covering permitting tl1e
grovvt11 of grass in the R-l or R-2 districts does not constitute an acceptable sllrfacll1g lnaterial.
VIII. Codes and Standards Committee
Staff and the Codes and Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission has discussed
and reviewed the proposed ordinance and recommends approval of the amendments to the full
Planning Commission.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance, Memo to Codes & Standards Committee, Public Hearing Notice
Planning Case Report 05-13 Page 2 10/25/05
ORDINi\NCE NO. 05-
AN QRDINAL~CE AlVIENDING NEW HOPE CODE 94-3(4)(h)(11)
REGULATING ACCEPTABLE PARKING AND DRIVEWAY
SURFACES IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 4-3(4)(h)(11) "Surfacing" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
11. Surfacing. In all R-3~ R-4.. R-5'l R-O~ R-B'l LB'I CB.. I al1d PUD zoning districts'I AE!ll
parlcing areas-,- il1tellded to be utilized forparlcing 8p:lCe and driveways shall be surfaced "',"',yith
materials suitable to control du~t 311d drainage. and 9Qriveway aprons shall be constructed
and surfaced with either concrete~ erbituminous or other llard surface material in compliance
with adopted City construction specifications. E)(cept ill the caGe of siI1gle fUlniljr and_-twe-
fmnily dv/ellings, All driveways and parking stalls shalt. at a minilTIUln'l be surfaced with a
six inch class five base and two inch bituminous topping. Plans for surfacing and drainage of
driveways and stalls for five or more vehicles shall be submitted to the city engineer for
review and the final drainage plan shall be subject to written approval of the Engineer. For
ne\\T COl1Structiol1 of l1e\V garages a11d! or homes ill all R -1 and R -2 districts'l areas illtellded to
be u.sed for 'vellicle parki112: spaces and dri\Te\\lavs shall cOlnplv \\ritll tIle above-stated
reqllirelTI ent. Park:il1g areas and drive\vavs for existillg garages al1d/or hOll1es sllall be
surfaced \vith a Inaterial Sllitable to COlltrol dust and draillage. A Go\tering pe11nittil1g the
gro\vil1 of grass in tIle R-l or R-2 districts does not eOllstitute all acceptable surfacing
nlaterial.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Dated the 30th day of August, 2005.
Martin E. Opem Sr., Mayor
Attest:
Valene Leone, City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the _ day of , 2005.)
P:\ATTOR..NEY\o..'H ORDINANCES\99.40138-001.0RD REG PARKING & DRIVE\VAY SURFACES.DOC
1
Memorandum
To: Codes and Standards Committee
Kirk McDonald, CD Director
Steve Sandrall, City Attorney
Roger Axel, Building Official
Al Brixius, City Planner
Kim Green, CD Assistant
Shawn Siders, CD Specialist
From: Charles Carlson, CD Intern
Date: September 9, 2005
Subject: Code Issues Background Information: Driveway Surfacing Materials
Driveway/Parking Surface Materials
The inspections division of the community development department is recommending
consideration of an ordinance amendment to clarify driveway surfacing requirements.
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance 4-3(4)(h)(11) requires that driveways be "surfaced with
materials suitable to control dust and drainage". It requires two inches of bituminous paving
over a six inch base of class-five for all driveways and parking, except single and two-family
dwellings. Staff recommends altering the code to include a list of acceptable paving materials.
The outcome of this request should help to clarify what it means to "control dust and drainage" .
In the staff and consultant meeting, it was determined that a retro-active ordinance may be
overly restrictive, but new single family and two-family developments will be required to meet
a new ordinance, which will specify which materials are acceptable to control dust and
drainage. The ordinance will specify that other material may be subject to approval by the
building official. The city attorney has drafted a revised ordinance, attached. The new ordinance
clarifies the requirements, including a performance standard.
Staff recommends that the committee review and discuss the attached information and
recommend approval of the ordinance amendments. Staff will then present the changes to the
full planning commission and City Council for consideration and approval.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance and letter from city attorney, existing code
1 G:\CommDev\Charles\Code and Standards\July 2005 memos\Driveway Surface Materials.doc
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. FB\ ~~'\/7
( [' \\ lj 1; '..VI
\ (r!!~ ""f
Attorneys .4t Law ~) \':::::1/ LJ LJ
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201
BROOKL YN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail law@j ensen-sondrall.com
GORDON L. JENSENl
CLARISSA M. KLUG WriterJs Direct Dial No.: (763) 201-0211
GLEN A. NORTON e-mail sas@jensen-sondrall. com
Ai'\fY E. P APENHAUSEN
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
ARIc T. STIENESSEN October 6, 2005
STACY A. WOODS
OF COUNSEL Via E-Mail Only To le/(als@mnsun. com
LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD The New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post
10917 Valley View Road
Eden ~rairie, MN 55344
Attn: Mary Ann
Re: Notice of Public Hearing
Our File No. 99.40138
Dear Mary Ann:
Attached please fmd a Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance Amending New Hope
Zoning Code by Modifying Acceptable Parking and Driveway Surfaces in All Zoning Districts,
the City of New Hope) for publication on the 20th day of October, 2005) in the New Hope-
Golden Valley Sun-Post.
Please forward your affidavits of publication and statement in the usual manner.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sandrall) City Attorney)
City of New Hope
. Attachment(s)
cc: Valerie Leone, City Clerk) City of New Hope (wiatt.)
Kirk McDonald) Community Development Director, City of New Hope (wiatt.)
Kim Green, Community Development Assistant, City of New Hope (wiatt.)
P:\Attomey\SAS\l Qient Files\2 City of New Hope\99-40138\OO3-Sun-Posl Ltr.doc
'Real Property Law
Specialist Certified By
The Minnesota State
Bar Association
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
Al\1ENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY MODIFYING
ACCEPTABLE PARKING AND DRIVEWAY
SURF ACES IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS
City of New Hope, Minnesota
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota,
will meet on the 1st day of November, 2005, at 7 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon
A venue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of
an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code.
Said ordinance will have the affect of amending New Hope Code 9 4-3(4)(h)(11) by
requiring all properties in the R-3 district or above to comply with the City's driveway and parking
surface construction specincations. All new construction in the R-l and R-2 districts must also
comply with said specifications and existing R-l and R-2 properties must contain surfaces to
control dust, drainage and prohibit the growth of grass~s and weeds.
All persons interested are invited t6 appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard
with respect to the zoning code amendment.
Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are available
upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make
arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531-5109).
Dated the 6th day of October, 2005.
sl Valerie J. Leone-------------------------------
Valerie J. Leone
City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 20th day of October, 2005.)
P: \Anomey\SAS\ 1 Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-40138\OO2~Pub1ic Hearing N otice.doc
'"
, -- D~ ~\J"\\..\ / r
r l ".C?Q:)~ \ C\\~"-~) \\,*~'~~~~J,,-
~'- ~'''-~ \..,," ~"'--..-:_~~.__._...~-~-----_._..-
ZO~iL'1'G ~ 4-3
6. Curb cut maximum. No curb cut access shall exceed the following width
dimensions measured at" a point setback 20 feet from the property line:
Residential .. . l' . . . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. · .. .. .. . . . . · . . · . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. 24 feet
Residential single-family
with a three car garage. . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . 28 feet
Commercial/industrial. .. , . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . 26 feet ,
All curb cuts shall be installed to comply with the citYs curb cut design
standards. The curb radius for any curb cut shall not exceed 35 feet. Curb
cut widths up to 32 feet may be permitted subject to re'View and recommen-
dation of the city engineer and approval of the city manager. Before the city
engineer recommends a curb cut exceeding the maximum. widths set out
herein, they shall consider the type of land use the curb cut 'Will serve, the
. extent an9. nature of the vehicular traffic anticipated the type, the width of
the street serving the property where the curb cut will be located, and any.
regulations promulgated by the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation
relative to. driveway and curb cut dimensions.
S I ..-: \ ~ Curb cut minimum. Curb cut openings shall be located at minimum five feet
. l v R. -. L from the side yard lot line in all districts.
8. Curb cut separation. Driveway access curb openings on a public street
except for single-, two-family and townhouse dwellings shall not be located
less than 40 feet from one another..
9. Parking area grades. The grade elevation of any parJ:ting are8: shall not
exceed five percent.
10. Driveway access minimum. All property shall be entitled to at least one
driveway access. Each property shall be allowed one driveway access for
each 125 feet of street frontage. Single-family uses shall.be limited to one
driveway access per lot. ~ /
11. Smfacing. All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways
~ ~~ / Ishall be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage.
\)t.> - L Driveway aprons shall be constructed and surfaced with either concrete or
~l C\t)A e bituminous in compliance with adopted city construction specifications.
t 0 Except in the case ~f single-family and two-family dwellings, driveways and
stalls shall be surfaced with a six. inch class. :five base and two inch
bituminous topping. Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and
stalls for five or more vehicles shall be submitted to the city engineer for
review 8.I;ld the final drainage plan shall be subject to written approval of thE?
engineer.
12.. Striping., Except for single-family, two-family and townhouses, all parking
stalls sh~ be marked with painted lines not less than four inches 'Wide,
which striping shall be maintained for legibility ,an a regular basis.
CD4:43
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: Nove~ber II 2005
Report Date: October 281 2005
Planning Case: 05-14
Petitioner: City afNew Hope
Address: City wide, R-l and R-2 districts
Request: Ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code 4-3 (e) (4) (h) (7) and 4-3(e)(6)(c) regulating
curb cut and parking setback requirements in R~l and R-2 districts.
I. Request
City staff is requesting Planning Commission and City Council approval of the attached ordinance
amending the language of the New Hope Zoning Code relating to driveway setback requirements
II. Zoning Code References
4-3( e)( 4) (h) (7) Curb cut m.ini.n1um
4-3(e)(6)( c) Parking distance from property line
III. Property Specifications
Zarling: R -1 and R - 2 Zoning districts
IV. Background
Several minor changes to this section of the City Code have been suggested by inspections staff. The
city attorney and staff consider the nature of this change to be minor. Inspections staff has noticed some
inconsistencies with the zoning code since passage of the driveway ordinance. Upon review of
driveway setback regulations, staff requests consideration of a code change to give homeowners
greater flexibility and by clarifying some inconsistencies within City Code.
V. Petitionerl s .Comments
Staff r~quested the city attorney and pl~er review the potential changes to the Zoning Code and
make recommendations for changes to the code.
VI. Notification
The 'required notice was published in the official newspaper of the city.
VII. Development or Code Analysis
Side yard parking setback requirement: Current code requires a driveway to be set back three feet
from a side property line} but five feet from the side within public Right of Way. The requirement was
to allow for a radius installation at the driveway entrance. Because New Hope lots are not oversized,
Planning Case Report 05-14 Page 1 10/25/05
driveways must of tell be placed as close to the side lot line as possible. This ordinance Cha11ge would
allow driveways to elld at the curb Witll a three foot setback requirement on the lengtll of the driveway.
Zero lot line setbacks: Many twin homes and townhouses in New Hope have wide, common driveways,
with paving up to the shared property line. These driveways do not comply with the zoning ordinance
requirement. The ordinance requires a three foot setback from the property line for driveways. Staff
suggested that the Codes and Standards Committee review the code to address the nonconforming
properties and allow zero driveway setbacks on twin home and townhouse row properties along
common lot lines. Generally there are not six feet between garage doors on these properties, so a three
foot driveway setback is impractical or impossible. The proposed code amendment will exempt twin
homes and tovvn homes from this requirement for garages on a zero lot-line setback.
VIII. City Attorney CommentslDraft Ordinance
Per the attached correspondence from the city attorney, enclosed is a proposed ordinance amending
the language of the New Hope Zoning Code relating to acceptable parking setbacks in R-l and R-2
zoning districts. The changes made by this ordinance follow up on recommendations by staff and were
discussed at the September 21 Codes and Standards meeting.
The draft ordinance states:
Section 4-3(e) (4) (h) (7)
7. Curb cut minimum. Curb cut openings shall be located at minimum five feet from the side yard
lot line in all districts except tile R-l and R-2 districts. In tile R-l and R-2 districts, curb cuts IDa!' be
tllree feet fronl the side yard lot llile. Further, tllere shall be 110 set-back requiremellt frolll a shared
lot llile for d\t\relli11gs defitled as "zero lot line" TlV1n.homes by ~ 4-2(2) of this Code.
Section 4-3(e)(6)(c) "Parking Distance from Property Line"
c. Parking. distance from property line. There shall be no off-street parking within three feet of any
property line. TI1is prollibition shall not apply to zero lot llile parcels in any reside11tial zoning
dish"ict containing adjacent garages that share a common ,.\Tall on the zero lot line whel1 tile
drive\.va~y is sl1ared by' the dvvelliJ.1g units Rlld t1le dri\.1e"\-'vay curb cut also abllts the s11ared or zero
lot llile.
VIII. Codes and Standards Committee
Staff and the Codes and Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission has discussed
and reviewed the proposed ordinance and recommends approval of the amendments to the full
Planning Commission.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Memo to Codes & Standards Committee
Public Hearing notice
Planning Case Report 05-14 Page 2 10/25/05
ORDlNANCE NO. 05-
-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DRIVEW AY AND
CURB CUT SET-BACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE
R-l AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICT
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 4-3(e)(4)(h)(7) "Curb Cut Minimum" of the New Hope City Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
7. Curb cut nzinimum. Curb cut openings shall be located at minimum five feet from the side
yard lot line in all districts except the R-l and R-2 districts. In the R-l and R-2 dist1i.cts~ curb
cuts may be t11ree feet from the side yard lot line. Further" there shall be no set-back
requirenlent fi.onl a shared lot line for d\velli11gs defined as "zero lot line" T\\rinhonles bv ~ 4-
2(2) oftIus Code.
Section 2. Section 4-3(e)(6)(c) "Parking Distance from PropertvLine" of the New Hope City
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
c. Parking distance fro In property line. There shall be no off-street parking within three feet
of any property line. This prohibition sllall 110t apply to zero lot line parcels in any
residential zoning district containing adiacent garages that share a common \vall on the zero
lot 1i11e \"\Then the drive\vav is shared bv the d\:velling tmits and tIle drive,vav curb cut also
abuts the shared or zero lot line.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Dated the 30th day of August, 2005.
Martin E. Opem Sr., Mayor
Attest:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
(published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the _ day of , 2005.)
P:\ATTORNEY\CNH o RDINANCES\99.4 0 1 37-0RD AMEND DRVWAY & CURB CUT SETBACKS.DOC
1
-
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. (::;(OP'1~
Attprlleys At Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE,
BROOKLYN PARK, lYIINNESOTA 55443-1Jucl
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail law@jensen-sondrall.com
GoRDON L. JENSEN1
CLARISSA M. KLUG Writer's Direct Dial No.: (763) 201-0211
GLEN A. NORTON e-mail sas@jensen...sondrall. com
AMY E. P APENBAUSEN August 10., 2005
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
ARIc T. STIENESSEN
,. STACY A. WOODS Kirk McDonald Via Email To knlcdonald@ci.new-hol1e.nln.us
Community Development Director And
City of New Hope By Regular U. S. Mail
OF COUNSEL 4401 Xylon Avenue North
LoRENS Q. BRYNESTAD New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Ordinance Amending Driveway and Curb Cut Set-Back Requirements in the R-l and
R-2 Zoning District
Our File No. 99.40137
~
Dear Kirk:
In follow up to our July 29th staff meeting, please fmd enclosed a proposed Ordinance Amending
Driveway and Curb Cut Set-Back Requirements in R-l and R-2 Zoning -District for consideration
at the August 30, 2005 Codes and Standards meeting.
This Ordinance incorporates the zero lot line parking set-back for twin. homes and the reduction
of curb cut set-backs from 5 feet to 3 feet for R-l and R-2 properties. This amendment modifies
New Hope Code ~ 4-3(e)(4)(h)(7) relating to "curb .cut minimum" and 4-3(e)(6)(c) relati.ng to
"parking distance from property line".
Basically, single-family and two-family properties will now be permitted a curb cut set-back
three feet from the property line as suggested in Chuck Tatro's 2/20/2005 memo. Further, this
Code amendment will also pennit zero lot line side-by-side twin homes to abut both their curb
cut and driveway to the shared property line. This will bring into conformance the various
twinhomes Chuck made reference to in his photographs at the July 29th staff meeting.
If you. have any questions or comments regarding this Ordinance amendment, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sandrall, ,City Attorney,
City of New Hope
Enclosure(s)
tReal Property Law cc: Charles Carlson, Community Development Intern (w/enc.)
Specialist Certified By
The }.,.1innesota State Kim Green, Community Development Assistant (w/enc.)
Bar Association
P:\Attomey\SAS\1 Client FiJes\2 City of New Hope\99-40137\OO l~Kirk Ltr.doc
~~ &.~- --. ......
Memorandum
To: Codes and Standards Committee
Kirk McDonald, CD Director
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Roger Axel, Building Official
Al Brixius, City Planner
Kim Green, CD Assistant
Shawn Siders, CD Specialist
From: Charles Carlson, CD Intern
Date: September 9, 2005
Subject: Code, Issues Background Information: Driveway Setback Requirements
. .
The inspections division of the community development department is recommending
consideration of an ordinance amendment to clarify driveway surfacing requirements.
Driveway ROW Setbacks
Current code requires a driveway to be set back three feet from a side property line, but five feet
from the side within public Right of Way.-The requirement was to allow for a radius installation
at the driveway entrance. Because New Hope lots are not oversized, driveways must often be
placed as close to the side lot line as possible. This ordinance change would allow driveways to
dead end at the curb, with a three foot setback requirement running the length of the driveway,
provided the driveway does not have a radius finish at the street. The ordinance change needs
to be drafted for this code modification. Alternatively, this change could be handled through
administrative permits.
Driveway Zero-lot Line Setbacks
Many twinhomes and townhomes in New Hope have wide, common driveways. These
driveways do not comply with the zoning ordinance. The ordinance requires a three foot. .
setback from the property line for driveways. Staff suggests that the committee review the code
to address the nonconforming properties and allow zero driveway setbacks on twinhome and
townhouse row properties along common lot lines. Generally there are not six feet between
garage doors on these properties, so a three foot driveway setback is impractical or impossible.
1 G:\CommDev\Charles\Code and Standards\July 2005 memos\Driveway setbacks.doc .
The city attorney prepared a code modification to reflect these changes. The proposed code is
attached. Staff recommends that the existing practice for twinhome driveway setbacks is
acceptable. Staff also recommends the committee review and discuss the attached information
and recommend approval of the ordinance amendments. Staff will then present the changes to
the full planning commission and City Council for consideration and approval.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance and letter, current ordinance, photos of zero setback
instances, Chuck Tatro Memo (6/20/05), Photograph examples
~
2 G:\CommDev\Charles\Code and Standards\July 2005 memos\Driveway setbacks.doc .
,-
Memorandum
To: Kirk McDonald
From: Chuck Tatro
Date: June 201 2005
Subj ect: Five foot rule at the right of way
Kirk;
Now that the driveway permit requirement has been in affect for a few weeks, the
obvious questions and concerns have surfaced. From previous discussions and
meetings it has been my understanding that the five foot rule at the curb/right of way
was to allow space for a radius installed at the drive entrance. Lots throughout the city
are not over sized creating the need to install dIiveways and parking areas as close as
po~sible t? one of the lot lin~s.
As you axe aware/ the current requirements call for a three foot setback from th.e side
yard lot line and a five foot setback at the curb. As shovvn in the attached photo, the jog
in a driveway is unattractive and in many cases makes the approach less convenient.
Can the inspection department adopt the following policy and/or propose a change to
codes and standards?
Provided the property ovvner doesn't add a radius at the curb,. pemut the edge of the
driveway to continue at the three foot distance and dead end into the curb. T;his vvill
allow a more ascetically pleasing installation and-be a more conducive approach. ,flease
review the attached photo for review. Please note, this method has been allowed in
certain cases at the discretion of the. inspector.
chuck Tatro
~ t~ t+
. . ~ t
~\ J,
· ,J:.; ...: .~ :/ ".'.:" ~~~i~iJi~~:5~~ri~t~~~!~I};ii~ii';~f~
14,]r~l(ihW\~~~~~!r!'iM(l)~iil)1ii)tt,j~l
t ,,, '~f' 'i, ',\:;!~ I ,:J. \;.~!~\; \~~l\' \'{~.(i :/11 \: i:I;:i~'Pl}I:4i;('i'
~)'~i~)lili!)ij~~J~Jif~i.i:0!~:11;,i~\~~i~i .
' - !~t~',#;;(,\kl.-}.;!'\'~~1~Mil~~!JiIYi: i!,\!\~rql
I ~~ il~~M'i~\;~1~:r1~fJll!j(i(iii!\i;::\!(!N~~!~
.i' "i,,~,'ll ill ,\.! J/f" X11.1'i ;~, 'Iil':; '1IrlV~;I\!M
'1r*Ii!(fWl;,lf~\>~f1fu~U~Jt;li~~i:ilt-I~'~~
~~'Ji{ ~JJ\v'I{l~,.~\i)::;r~:, ',',I -::{-'':'''I4'!Mi~,:'j~4kll
ZONiNG 9 4-3
6. Ourb cut maximum. No curb cut access shall exceed the following width
dimensions measured at a point setback 20 feet from the property line:
Residential. . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . "'O 24 feet
Residen~al single-family
with a three car garage. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . ... . .. 28 feet.
ConunerciaYtndustrlal..................................... 26 feet
All curb cuts shall be installed to comply with the city's curb cut design
standards. The curb radius for any curb cut shall not exceed 35 feet. Curb
cut widths up to 32 feet may be permitted subject to, review and recommen-
dation of the city engineer and approval of the city manager. Before tl;le city
engineer recommends a curb cut exceeding the maximum. 'Widths set out
herein, they shall consider the type of land use the curb cut will serve, the
. extent an9. nature of the vehicular traffic anticipated the type, the width of
the street serving the property where the curb cut will be located, and any
regulations promulgated by the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation
relative to driveway and curb cut dimensions. ' .
I -r- Curb cut minimum.. Curb cut openings shall be located at minimum five feet
S 1\.J\.e from the side yard lot line in all districts.
8. - Curb cut separation. Driveway access curb openings on a public street
except far single-, two-family and townhouse dwellings shall not be located
less than 40 feet from one another.
9. Parking area grades. The grade elevation of any parking are~ shall not
exceed five percent.
10. Driveway access minimum. All property shall be entitled to at least one
driveway access. Each property shall be allowed one driveway access for
each 125 feet of street frontage. Single-family uses shall.be limited to one
driveway access per lot.
11. Surfacing. All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways
\)v'S"~ / G shall be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage.
- Driveway aprons shall be constructed and surfaced 'With either concrete or
D<<Ai ~e bituminous in compliance with adapted city canstru~tion specifications.
Except in the case of single-family and two-family dwellings, driveways and
stalls shall be surfaced with a six inch class :five base and two inch
bituminous topping. Plans for surfacing and drainage of dri-veways and
stalls for five or more vehicles shall be submitted to the city engineer for
review and the final drainage plan shall be subject to written approval of the
engineer.
12. Striping. Except for single-family; two-family and townhouses, all parking
stalls shall be maxked with painted lines not less than four inches wide,
which striping shall be maintained for legibility ,on a regular basis.
CD4:43
S 4-3 NEW HOPE CODE
.
13. Lighting. Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be
so arranged as to reflect the light .away from adjoining property, abutting
residential uses and public rights-of-way and be in compliance with subsec-
tion 4-3(d)(5) of this Code.
14. Signs. No sign shall be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly
operation ~d traffic movement within any par~g lot.
15. Curbing and landscap~g. All open off-street parking shall have a continu-
ous perimeter concrete curbing, unless otherWise recommended by ~e ci:tY
engineer, around the entir~ parking lot, said curb barrier shall not be closer
than five feet to any lot line. Plantings or surfacing material shall be
provided in all areas bordering the parking area.. No landscaping in the
boulevard shall interfere. with the view of the street for drivers entering or
exiting the premises. This requirement shall not apply to off-street parking
areas for single-family or two-family dwellings or townhouse units 'With
direct street access to garages. ;
16. Required screening. All open, off-street parking areas offive or more spaces
shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or suxrounding residential
districts in compliance 'With subsection 4..3(d)(3) of this Code.
(5) Maintenance. It shall be the joint and several responsibility of the owner of the
principal use (or lessee, if there be one), to use and to maintain in a neat and adequate
manner, the parking space, accessways, striping, landscaping, and required fences.
(6) Location. All accessory off-street parking facilities required by this Code shall be
located and restricted as follows:
,
a. Same lot. Required accessory- off-street parking shall be on the same lot under the
same ownership as the principal use being serviced, except under the proviSions
of subsections 4-3(e)(11) and 4-3(e)(12) of this Code.
b. Head in parking. Except for single-, two....family and townhouse dwellings, head--in
parking, directly off of and adjacent ,to a pubIlc street, with each'stall having its
own direct access to the public street, shall be prohibited.
-S / ~ ~ Parking distance from property line. There shall be no off-street parking within
fl.) three feet of any propertY line.
d. Boulevard parking prohibited. The boulevard portion of the street right-of-way
shall not be used for parking.
(7) Other US~ of required parking area.. Required accessory off-s~eet parking spaces in
any district shall not be utilized for open storage, sale or rental of goods, stor~ge of
inoperablevebicles as regulated by subsection 4-3(d)(8)a of this Code, and/or storage of
snow. No parking area shall be used for sales, dead storage, body repair work,
including, but not limited to, frame or fender repair, or mechanical repairs of any kind,
except that this shall not apply to home maintenance work of a customary or routine
CD4:44
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. CC(0)~lf
Attorlzeys At Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE . "1
BROOKL YN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443- ~ _ J8
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail law@jensen-sondrall.com
GORDON L. JENSENl
CLARISSAM. KLUG Writer's Direct Dial No.: (763) 201-0211
GLEN A. NORTON e-mail sas@jensen-sondrall. com
AMY E. PAPENHAUSEN
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
ARIc T. STlENESSEN October 6, 2005
STACY A. WOODS
OF COUNSEL Via E-Mail Only To le1!als@~nsun. com
LoRENS Q. BRYNESTAD The New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post
10917 Valley View Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Attn: Mary Ann
Re: Notice of Public Hearing
Our File No. 99.40137
Dear Mary Ann:
Attached please find a Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance Amending New Hope
Zoning Code by Reducing Curb Cut Minimums and Parking Requirements in the R-I alid R-2
Zoning Districts, the City of New Hope, for publication on the 20th day of October, 2005, in the
New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Postw
Please forward your affidavits of publication and statement in the usual manner.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney,
City of New Hope
Attachment(s)
cc: Valerie Leone, City Cler~, City of New Hope (wIatt.)
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, City of New Hope (wiatt.)
Kim Green, Community Development Assistant, City of New Hope (wiatt.)
P:\Attomey\SAS\l Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-40137\00J..Sun.Post Ltr.doc
lReal Property Law
Specialist Certified By
The Minnesota State
Bar Association
- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
. AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY REDUCING
CURB CUT l\1INIMUMS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS
IN THE R-l AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS
City of New Hope, Minnesota
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the CitY of New Hope, Minnesota,
will meet on the 1st day of November, 2005, at 7 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon
A venue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of
an ordinance. amending the New Hope Zoning Code.
Said ordinance will haye the affect of amending New Hope Code Sections 4-3 (e) (4) (h) (7)
and 4-3(e)(6)(c). The amendments will reduce the R-l and R-2 curb cut minimums to 3 feet from
the side yard lot lines, eliminate the curb cut setbacks for zero lot line twin and town homes with
adjacent garages and eliminate the parking restriction within 3 feet of the property line for twin
and town homes with adjacent garages.
All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard
with respect to the zoning code amendment.
Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are available
upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make
arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531-5109).
Dated the 6th day of October, 2005.
sl Valerie J. Leone-------------------------------
Valerie J. Leone
City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 20th day of October, 2005.)
P:\Anomey\SAS\l Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-40137\OO2-Public Hearing Notice.doc
PLANN.ING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: November 1,2005
Report Date: October 28, 2005
Planning Case: 05-15
Petitioner: City of New Hope
Address: City wide
Request: Ordinance alnending the New Hope City Code 3-25(b)(1) requiring fencing around
swimming pools.
I. Request
City staff is requesting Planning Commission and City Council approval of the attached ordinance
amending the language of the New Hope City Code relating to required fencing around swimming
pools.
H. Zoning Code References
3-25(b )(1) Pools on Location
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: All Zoning Districts
IV. Background
Inspections staff has indicated that the current ordinance language is outdated, as it only addresses in-
ground swimming pools. As above-ground swimming pools have become popular in New Hope, the
existing ordinance does not adequately address fencing requirements for above-ground pools. The
attached code amendment eliminates the existing requirement for a fence built more than four feet
from the pool edge. A fence at least four feet in height will still be required to fully enclose the pool, but
the code will allow flexibility in fence location to accommodate above ground pools.
V. Petitioner's Comments
Staff requested the city attorney and planner review the potential change to the Zoning Code and make
recommendations for changes to the code.
VI. Notification
Notice of this change was not required because the ordinance is in chapter 3 of the New Hope City Code.
Because the change is not a Zoning Code issue, official notice is not required for this ordinance.
VII. Development or Code Analysis
Planning Case Report 05-15 Page 1 10/25/05
This ordinance currently requires a fenced enclosure around swinuning pools "110t less thaJ.1 four feet
from the edge". This ordinance was enacted before abO\Te-ground pools were conunon ll1 New Hope.
The code change would keep the ordinance, but strike the requirement that a fence be built more than
four feet from the pool edge. Many above ground pools built today have optional railing systems that
meet safety requirements. The ordinance will continue to require that pools be fully enclosed by a fence
not less than four feet tall. The proposed change also eliminates a redundancy in the fencing
requirement related to picket fencing.
VIII. City Attorney Conunents/Draft Ordinance
Per the attached correspondence from the city attorney} enclosed is a proposed ordinance amending
the language of the New Hope Zoning Code relating to the fencing requirement for swinuning pools
located in New Hope. The changes made by this ordinance follow up on reconunendations by staff and
were discussed at the September 21 Codes and Standards meeting.
The draft ordinance states:
Section 3-25(b)(1) "Pools on Location"
Pools on location. All swimming pools to be constructed or which are already c.onstructed shall be
completely surrounded by a fence or wall not less than four feet in height,_ Jnd not lc:::;~ them four
feet from the pool edge} which shall be so constructed as not to have openings, holes or gaps larger
than fOUI inches in any dimension, except for doors and gates.J if ;l picket fence i~ erected or
rnm1t~ir..cd, the 1:orizo11tJ.l dimc11~ion~ :;hill r'..ot exceed four ir..chcs. A dwelling house or accessory
building may be used as part of such enclosure} but otherwise the fence or wall shall be erected on
the ground. All gates or doors opening through such enclosure shall be equipped with a self-closing
and self-latching device for keeping the gate or door securely closed at all times when not in actual
use, except that the door of any dwelling which forms a part of the enclosure need not be so
equipped. The fence shall be a type not readily climbed by children.
VIII. Codes and Standards Committee
Staff and the Codes and Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission has discussed
and reviewed the proposed ordinance and reconunends approval of the amendments to the full
Planning Commission.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Memo to Codes & Standards Committee
Planning Case Report 05-15 Page 2 10/25/05
ORDINANCE NO. 05-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE ~ 3-25(b)(1)
REQUIRING FENCING AROUND SWIMMING POOLS
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 3-25(b)(1) "Pools on Location" of the New Hope City Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(1) Pools on location. All swimming pools to be constructed or which are already
I constructed shall be completely surrounded by a fence or wall not less than four feet in
height,_ and not less than four feet from the pool edge, which shall be so constructed as not to
I have openings, holes or gaps larger than four inches in any dimension, except for doors and
gateS~t if a piclcct fence is erected or maintuil1ed, the horizontal dimCl18iollS shull not e)~cecd
rOlIT inclleG. A dwelling house or accessory building may be used as part of such enclosure,
but otherwise the fence or wall shall be erected on the ground. All gates or doors opening
through such enclosure shall be equipped with a self-closing and self-latching device for
keeping the gate or door securely closed at all times when not in actual use, except that the
door of any dwelling which forms a part of the enclosure need not be so equipped. The fence
shall be a type not readily climbed by children.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Dated the 30th day of August, 2005.
Martin E. Opem Sr., Mayor
Attest:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
..
(published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the _ ~ay of , 2005.)
P:\ATTORNEY\CNH ORDINANCES \ 99.40 1 39-0RD AMaro POOL FENCING.DOC
1
Memorandum
To: Codes and Standards Committee
Kirk McDonald, CD Director
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Roger Axel, Building Official
Al Brixius, City Planner
Kim Green, CD Assistant
Shawn Siders, CD Specialist
From: Charles Carlson, CD Intern
Date: September 9/ 2005
Subject: Code Issues Background Information: Swimming Pool Fencing
Swimming Pool Enclosures
The inspections division of the community development department is recommending
consideration of an ordinance amendment to clarify swimming pool fencing requirements.
This ordinance currently requires a fenced enclosure around swimming pools "not less than
four feet from the edge". This ordinance was enacted before above-ground pools were common
in New Hope. The proposed, code change keeps the ordinance, but strikes the requirement that
a fence be built more than four feet from the pool edge. Many above ground pools built today
have optional railing systems that meet safety requirements. The ordinance will continue to
require that pools be fully enclosed by a fence no less than four feet tall. The city attorney
drafted a letter and ordinance to address these changes. This letter and proposed ordinance is
attached.
Staff recommends that the committee review and discuss the attached information and
recommend approval of the ordinance amendments. Staff will then present the changes to the
full planning commission and City Conncll for consideration and approval.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance and letter, Existing code with marked revision.
1 G:\CommDev\Charles\Code and Standards\July 2005 memos\Swimming Pool.doc
"<. 11 J
J/J<~
/
-/
_!~ L
~ \ '.Iy
"': \ 'J ~
t,'" ~V l .. } v'
r '\ ' . Yl\fJ
"\ \\1
i~ \'
V
Memorandum
To: Codes and Standards
From: Chuck Tatro
Date: March 22, 2005
Subject: Text change in ordinance section 3-25.b.l
M~y of the ordinance requirements were written to meet the. needs at the time of '--
origination. Please review the following proposed update to the above mentioned
section.
Text: Pools on location. All svvimming pools to be constructed or which are already
constructed shall be completely surrounded by a .fence or wall not less than four feet in
tleight, md not lc~s mm four feet from the edge, which shall be so constructed as not to
· have openings, holes or gaps larger than four inches in dimension, except for doors and
gates; if a picket fence is erected or maintained, the horizontal dimensions shall not
exceed four inches. A dwelling house or acce.ssory buil · be used as ar
enclosure, but otherwise the fence or wall shall b er~sted on the ground. gates or
doors opening through such enclosure shall be equippe wi a self-closing and self- _ .,
latching devise for keeping the gate or door securely closed at the times when not in
actual use, except that the door of any dwelling which forms a part of the enclosure need
not be 'so equipped. The fence shall be a type'not readily climbed by children.
Comment: At the time this section was originated, above ground pools were not a common
pr~ctice.and fencing availability was not what-we have today. Many above ground pools
built today have the option of installing a railing system on the sidewalls of the pool
structure. 'This meets the intent to provide life safety.
9 3-24 NEW HOPE CODE
.. (b) Building moving conditions. The city shall specify the route to be followed and may
impose any reasonable conditions for crossing street intersections; provided that the following
conditions shall apply in every case: --
(1) Speed. All removals of.buildings over public streets shall be done with the greatest
speed reasonably possible when the same is on a public street within the city limits.
(2) Protection of streets. Any building exceeding five tons moved over or across any street
shall be momited upon wheels, at least 24 inches in width ,unless such streetway is
adequately planned with three inch planks to protect the same from injury.
(3) Overnight stand. If it, shall be necessary for any building to st~d in any street
overnight, the person having charge thereof shall place around said building a good
and sufficient number of red lights as a warning to 'persons, showing the situation
thereof, and shall keep the same burning overnight. -
(4) Notification of location. Any person receiving a permit to move any building onto or
upon the streets of the 'city shall, every evening, at or before 6:00 p.m., notify the Police
and fire departments, or whomsoever is in charge of said departments, as to the exact
location of every s~ch building while the same is occupying any portion of any street.
(c) Temporary removal of wire. Upon the request of any person holding a building moving
permit used by.the city, any person maintaining wires upon, across or above the streets and
public places shall temporarily raise or lower them to permit the moving of buildings. The
expe~se of such temporary removal, raising. or lowering of wires shall be' paid by the person
requesting the same, and shall be paid in advance if so requested. Advance notice of not less
than 4~ hours shall be given to arrange for such temporary wire change.
, (Code 010166; Ord. No. 2000-10)
C secyrivate ~g pools.
(a) Water:
(1) City water supply. There will be no cross connections of the city water supply with any,.
other source of water supply for the pooL The line from the city water supply to the pool
shall be protected against backflow of polluted water by means of either an air gap,
'vacuum breaker or other adequate device to prevent ~8:ck siphonage.
(2) Polluted water. No body of water, whether it be a natural or artificial ~ody of water in
the city which contains sewage, waste or other contaminating or polluting ingredients
rendering the water hazardous to health shall be used for, swimming or bathing
purposes by any person or persons.'
-/ (b) Enclosed by fence.
(1) Pools on locatio~. All swimming pools to be constructed or which are already
constructed shall be completely surrounded by a fence or wall not less than four feet in
height, and not less than four feet from the pool edge, which shall be so constructed as
not to have openings, holes or gaps larger than four inches in any dimension, except for
" CD3:12 t
BUILDING AL~D SIGN REGULATIONS * 3-25
doors and gates; if a picket fence is erected or maintained, the horizontal dimensions
shall not exceed four inches. A dwelling house or accessory building may be used as
part of such enclosure, but otherwise the fence or wall shall be erected on the ground.
All gates or doors opening through such enclosure shall be equipped with a self-closing
and self-latching device for keeping the gate or door securely closed at all times when
not in actual use, except that the door of any dwelling which forms a part of the
enclosure need not be so equipped. The fence shall be a type not readily climbe.d by
children.
(2) Pools on display. All portable "private swimming pools" that are on display by retailers,
whether for sale, demonstration' or otherwise and when actually filled with water over
a greater depth than 18 inches, shall be enclosed as provided in (1) above, provid'ed
that, the director of fire and safety or his agent may make modifications in individual
cases of display pools, upon the showing of good cause, with respect to the height,
nature'or location of the fence or wall gates or latches, or the necessity therefor, and
may permit other protective devices or structures to be used so long as the degree o~
protection sought by this section is not reduced thereby. Modifications for other than
display pools shall be processed pursuant to subsection 3-25(g).
.
(c) Shielding lights. Lights used to illuminate B?Y swimming pool shall be so arranged and
shaded as to reflect light away from adjoining premises.
Cd) Unnecessary noise. It shall be unlavvful for any person to make, continue or ,cause to b,e
made or continue at any swimming pool or family pool any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise
!i or any noise which annoys, distUrbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or
:' safety of others. In t~e operation of a swimming pool, the use or permitting the use or operation
of any radio, receivillg set, musical instrument, phonograph or other machine or device for the
producing or reproducing of sound in such a manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort
of the neighboring inhabitants or' at any time with louder volume than is necessary for
convenient hearing of the person or persons who are in the pool or the swimming pool,premise.s
shall be unlavvful.
(e) Lot lines. Swimming pools shall comply with the setback line requirements of the zoning
code of the city.,
(f) Prior construction. The owner of any land upon which a private swimming pool has been
constructed prior to the effective date of this Code shall within 60 days after said effective date
comply with the requirements of this Code" and thereafter it shall be unlawful to maintain any
swimming pool which does not meet the r~quirements of this Code.
(g) Modifications.
(1) Certain modifications. The city council may make modifications in individual cases,
upon a showing of good cause, with respect to the height, nature or location of the
fence, wall, gat"es or latches, or the necessity therefor, provided the degree of protection
is not reduced thereby.
;. ~
Supp. No.5 CD3:13 .
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: November I, 2005
Report Date: October 28, 2005
Planning Case: 05-16
Petitioner: City of New Hope
Address: City wide
Request: Ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code 4-30(c)(11) C01-lncil review and
4-30(c)(12) Council action on planning applications.
I. Request
City staff is requesting Planning Commission and City Conneil approval of the attached ordinance
amending the language of the New Hope Zoning Code relating to City Council action on planning
applications and extension of the 60-day rule.
II. Zoning Code References
4-30( c)(11) Council Review
4-30( e)(12) Connell Action
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: All Zoning Districts
IV. Background
The 60-day rule is a state law [Minn. statute 915.99] that requires the City COlUlcil to take action on
certain types of land use decisions. The Council must approve or deny zoning, septic system, and
MUSA line decisions within 60 days of application receipt.l or the application is automatically
approved. The statute allows for a 60-day extension to the rule at the request of the Conncll. This rule
was incorporated into the Zoning Code and Commnnity Development/city procedures in 1996. At that
time} the city changed the zoning code to automatically extend the 60-day period.
V. Petitioner's Comments
When city staff was made aware of the recent change in state statutes, staff requested the city attorney
and planner review the potential change to the Zoning Code and make recommendations for changes
to the code.
VI. Notification
The required notice was published in the official newspaper of the city.
Planning Case Report 05-16 Page 1 10/25/05
VII. Development or Code Analysis
III a letter dated JaJ.luary 31, 2005, the city attorney ll1formed staff that tile existing automatic extellsion
of the 60-day rule in the Zoning Code may not be allowed under the state ordinance. In a Supreme
Court case heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court} the Court found the automatic extension of the 60-
day rule is not allowed, as determined by American Tower} LP v. City of Grant. The Grant planning
application and code is very similar to New Hope's application} with respect to the 60-day rule.
The application and ordinance must be revised to exclude the automatic 60-day extension. These
extensions must be handled on a case-by-case basis, as necessary. The city attorney has drafted a
modified ordinance)' attached.
VIII. City Attorney Comments/Draft Ordinance
Per the attached correspondence from the city attorney)' enclosed is a proposed ordinance amending
the language of the New Hope Zoning Code relating to the 60 day rule. The changes made by this
ordinance follow up on recommendations by staff and were discussed at the September 21 Codes and
Standards meeting.
The draft ordinance states:
Section 4-30(c)(11) "Council Review"
(11) Council review. The City Council shall act upon an application after it has received the report
and recommendation from the Planning Commission and the City Staff. A response shall be
provided within .:Q.G60 days from the date a completed application is submitted for consideration.
Tl:i~ tunc lilnit J.uton..... J.tic Cilly' irLcorpor~tcG the 60 dJ.Y extension to the rcs"pon~c dC;1dlirLC .set out iT:.
As requ.ired by Minn. Stat. 9 15.99, subd. 3(g). Tthe Cit~r COU11cillna~y request a 60 da~/ extension isil
I necessary to provide adequate time for public hearings and appropriate design and environmental
review. J.^J.ll ;}pplic3tion~ \.\7ill require tl.....c Zlpplic~t to ~cccpt thi::; 120 d3yr:=; tin......clli.....c for citjr COUI"'Lcil
J.ctior... If} upon receiving the reports and recommendations of the Planning Commission and City
Manager} the City Council desires further consideration} or finds that inconsistencies exist in the
review process, data submitted or recommended action, the City Council may, before taking final
action} refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with a statement detailing the reasons for
referral. This procedure shall be followed only one time on an application)' except for a good cause.
The council may refer an application back to the Planning Commission if it determines that changes
in the application after Planning Commission recommendation require such action} or such referral
may be waived by the council.
Section 4-30(c)(12) "Council Action"
Council action. Upon receiving the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the
City Manager, the City Council may)' at its option set and hold a public hearing if deemed necessary
and shall make findings of fact and impose any condition on approval which it considers necessary
to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and shall make its decision as to the application.
VnlcGs J. longer period of tin~e i~ Zlppro\'cd ll1 \vriting byF tli.C J.F'plic;).rl.t, Cbity eCouncil action will
occur within -1-2:Q-~days after submission by the applicant of a completed application reqlliTed as
l)roT~idcd by section 4-30( 4~)(2) of this Code u111ess a 60 da:' exteJlsioll is req"uested by the City'
Planning Case Report 05-16 Page 2 10/25/05
I COllncil or a l011gerperiocl of till1e is req.uested by" t11e a.pplicc1l1t \Vaivu1g tile tilllC deadli11es of t11is
J sectiol1 and l\:1iI1.l1. Stat. ~ 15.99.
VIII. Codes and Standards Committee
Staff and the Codes and Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission has discussed
and reviewed the proposed ordinance and recommends approval of the amendments to the full
Planning Commission.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Memo to Codes & Standards Committee
Public Hearing Notice
Planning Case Report 05-16 Page 3 10/25/05
ORDINAL\JCE NO. 05-07
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE
~ 4-30(c)(11) AND (12) REGARDING CITY COUNCIL
ACTION ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 4-30(c)(11) "Council Review" of the New Hope City Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(11) Council review. The City Council shall act upon an application after it has received the
report and recommendation from the Planning Commission and the City Staff. A response
shall be provided within ~60 days from the date a completed application is submitted for
consideration. This tilne lilnit a::toll1aticull:/ lllcorporates the 60 dUj' e)~tension to the
reGpOllSe deadline Get out in As required bv Minn. Stat. S 15.99, subd. 3(g). T!he City
COlillCil may request a 60 day extension isif necessary to provide adequate time for public
hearings and appropriate design and environmental review. .LALlI applicatiollS v/ill rcqr:.irc the
applic::Ult to aecept tllis 120 da)'s tilneline for citJ. eoullcil action. If, upon receiving the
reports and recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Manager, the City
Council desires further consideration, or finds that inconsistencies exist in the review
process, data submitted or recommended action, the City Council may, before taking final
action, refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with a statement detailing the
reasons for referral. This procedure shall be followed only one time on an application, except
for a good cause. The council may refer an application back to the Planning Commission if it
determines that changes in the application after Planning Commission recommendation
require such action, or such referral may be waived by the council.
Section 2. Section 4-30( c )(12) "Council Action" of the New Hope City Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(12) Council action. Upon receiving the report and recommendation of the Planning
Commission and the City Manager, the City Council may, at its option set and hold a public
hearing if deemed necessary and shall make fIDdings of fact and impose any condition on
approval which it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and
shall make its decision as to the application. 1Jnles8 n IOllger period of tilnc is appro-r,:ed ill
'\,\rliting by' the. applicul1t, cCity eCouncil action will occur within HG-60 days after
submission by the applicant of a completed application required as proT./ided by section 4-
30( G.Q)(2) of this Code unless a 60 day extension is requested byl tile City C01IllCil or a lonQer
period of tinle is requ.ested by the applicant V\.rai\,ing the tinle deadlines of this section and
Mil1n. Stat. 9 15.99.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
1
Dated the 30th day of August, 2005.
Martin E. Opem Sr., Mayor
Attest:
Valene Leone, City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the _ day of , 2005.)
P:\A TTORNEY\CNH ORDINANCES\99.80507-0RD 05-07 AMEl\TD CODE RE COUNCIL ACTION OR APPS.DOC
2
~'
if... ....
Memorandum ~\
To: Codes and Standards Committee
Kirk McDonald, CD Director
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Roger Axel, Building Official
Al Brixius, City Planner
Kim Green, CD Assistant
Shawn Siders, CD Specialist
From: Charles Carlson, CD Intern
Date: September 9, 2005
Subject: Code Issues Background Information: 60 Day Rule
The 60-day rule is a state law [Minn. statute 915.99] that requires the City Council to take action
on certain types of land use decisions. The Council must approve or deny zoning, septic system,
and MUSA line decisions within 60 days of application receipt, or the application is
automatically approved. The statute allows for a 60-day extension to the rule at the request of
the Council. This rule was incorporated into Community Development and city procedures in
1996. At that time, the city changed the zoning code to automatically extend the 60-day period.
The reason this code is proposed for discussion relates to notice from the city attorney that the
automatic extension may not be allowed under the state ordinance. In a Supreme Court case
heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court, court found the autqmatic extension of the 60-day rule
is not allowed, as determined by American Tower, LP v. City of Grant. The Grant planning
application and code is very similar to New Hope's application, with respect to the 60-day rule.
The application and ordinance must be revised to exclude the automatic 60-day extension.
These extensions must be handled on a case-by-case basis, as necessary. The city attorney has
drafted a modified ordinance, attached.
Staff recommends that the committee review and discuss the attached information and
recommend approval of the ordinance amendments. Staff will then present the changes to the
full planning commission and City Council for consideration and approval.
Attachments: City attorney letter and ordinance, Planning application cover sheet, current
zoning code, Steve Sandrall memo (1/31/05), American Tower, LP vs. City of Grant summary,
Kirk McDonald memo (2/25/05)
CC: Dan Donahue
1 G:\CommDev\Charles\Code and Standards\July 2005 memos\60 Day Rule.doc
The city attorney prepared a code modification to reflect these Cllal1ges. Tl1e proposed code is
attached. Staff recomn1ends that the existing practice for twinholl1e driveway setbacks is
acceptable. Staff also recommends the committee review and discuss the attached information
and recommend approval of the ordinance amendments. Staff will then present the changes to
the full planning commission and City Council for consideration and approval.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance and letter, current ordinance, photos of zero setback
instances, Chuck Tatro Memo (6/20/05), Photograph examples
2 G:\CommDev\Charles\Code and Standards\July 2005 memos\Driveway setbacks.doc
IJ{'r~~Er~ .('l SnNL~-R A, lr ~ p,~
U Jl..:.J Lj' - _. ~ r, L J..~_~....JD," e~o
A J yo
ttofl'te)Js /ft Lal-V
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 7
BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1~~....
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail la'\v@jensen-sondrall.com
GORDON L. JENSENl
CLARISSA M. KLUG JVriter's Direct Dial No... (763) 201-0211
GLEN A. NORTON e-mail sas@jensen-sondrall. com
MITE. PAPENHAUSEN
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
ARlC T. STIENESSEN
STACY A. WOODS
August 10, 2005
OF COUNSEL
LoR&'lS Q. BRYNESTAD Kirk McDonald Via Email To knlcdonald@ci.llew-hope.nln.us
Community Development Director And
City of New Hope By Regular U. S. Mail
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Ordinance Amending New Hope Code Section 4-30(c)(11) and (12)/CounciI Action on
Planning Applications
Our File No. 99.80507
Dear Kirk:
In follow up to our July 29th staff meeting, please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance Amending
New Hope Code Section 4-30(c)(11) and (12) Regarding City Council Action on Planning
Applications for consideration at the August 30, 2005 Codes and Standards meeting.
As we have discussed, this Code amendment is necessitated by a recent Minnesota Supreme
Court decision holding that an automatic sixty-day extension for City Council action on planning
applications is not enforceable. As a result, our current Code language implementing an
automatic sixty-day extension must be amended
Please refer to my March 21, 2005 memo regarding the "60 Day R1l1e" on Council extensions to
act on Planning Case applications. Basically, Minn. Stat. 9 15.99 requires Council action within
sixty days. This sixty-day deadline can be extended an additional sixty days if the City Council
passes a resolution implementing the sixty-day extension and notice to the applicant regarding
said extension is mailed prior to expiration of the initial sixty~day deadline. In other words, we
simply cannot automatically impose the extension by ordinance. The proposed Ordinance
corrects this existing problem.
Please contact me if you have any questions concerning the proposed Code amendment or the
procedure required to insure the Council can extend the first sixty-day deadline an additional
sixty days, if necessary, to act on a planning application.
'Real Property Law
Specialist Certified By
The Minnesota State
Bar Association
August 10, 2005
Page 2
'\ Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney,
City of New Hope
Enclosure(s)
cc: Charles Carlson, Community Development Intern (w/enc.)
Kim Green, Community Development Assistant (w/enc.)
P:\Anomey\SAS\l Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99..s0507\OOl-Kirk Ltr.doc
...
Ir'.':==~ ~ "'~~~",."..~~'="'='= --"~'=-,-~. - --=-=-~~=-. ----"""='="''''''''-'''''''~-~'~--11'
, JENSEN & SOI'TDRALL, P.A. I
Attol'neys At Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201
I BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 . TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail law@jensen-sondrall.com
MEMORAN DUM
Date: January 31,2005.
To: Kirk McDonald
From: Steve Sandral!
Re: Minn. Stat. S15.99 - "60 Day Rule" approval/denial of zoning applications
This memo will confirm our telephone conversation concerning the application of the "60 Day Rule"
set out in Minn. Stat. ~15.99 relating to our approval/denial o(zoning applications. As we discussed, I
was concerned we may be using language in our zoning/planning case applications attempting to
automatically extend the 60 day time period permitted by Minn. Stat. 915.99 to approve or deny
zoning/planning applications to 120 days. The automatic extension language will not work as
determined by the-Supreme Court case of American Tower v. City of Grant, 636 Nw2d 309 (Minn.
2001).
The American Tower v. City of Grant case held automatic extensions as a blanket rule before any
determination is made for a need for an extension are invalid. The statute as interpreted by the Court
requires a City to deal with each application on a case-by-case basis. In other words, if we conclude
the application cannot be processed in 60 days a resolution by the City _ Council authorizing the
extension and a letter to the applicant informing the applicant of the extension must be sent prior to the
60 day expiration period on each case we intend to rely on or utilize the additional 60 day extension.
If we do not follow this procedure the. application will be approved at the end of the fIrst 60 day
period.
As we discussed, both the resolution and letter regarding the extension must be sent to an applicant to
take advantage of the second 60 day extension. Tills procedure may be more relevant to our planning
cases considering planning cases will not be forwarded to the City Council from the Planning
Commission until the second Council Meeting after the Planning Commission has reviewed the case.
If we are running to close to the 60 day period, please keep me informed so we can insure the
resolutions and letters extending the approval period are properly drafted and served on the applicants
if we want to insure ourselves the planning applications are not automatically approved by operation of
law due to untimely filing extensions under Minn. Stat. 915.99.
Contact me if you have any further questions or comments regarding this issue.
P:\Altorney\SAS\I Client Files\2 City of Ne~ Hope\99~l0030(community development general)\rnemo to K McDonald re 60 day rule.doc
MEMORANDUM - PAGE 1
A..1VIERICAi'I TO'VER, L.P. v. CITY OF GRA1~T rvIinn. 309
Cite as 636 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. 2000
larly reviews each and every file and five years subj ect to the conditions set
contemplates legal matters on a timely forth above.
basis. BY THE COURT:
g. Petitioner shall pay in full the out- Paul H. Anderson
standing Wisconsin disciplinary judg- Associate Justice
ment before the conclusion of his proba-
tion. ?J1d shall provide the Director Vlith
a copy of the satisfaction of judgment at
least six months prior to the end of his
probationary period.
h. Petitioner vr.ill make good faith ef-
forts to reduce and/or satisfy all out- AMER:IC...L\.N TOWER, L.P., a Delaware
standing tax liens and civil, judgments.
In addition, petitioner 'Nill provide the limited partnership, Respondent,
Director's. Office with a repayment plan APT Minneapolis, Inc., a Delaware
for satisfying his past..due tax liabilities corporation, Plaintiff,
and the Schurstein civil judgment.
i. Prior to resuming solo practice or v.
taking management responsibilities for a CITY OF GRANT, Petitioner,
firm, petitioner shall provide to the Di- ...t\ppeUant.
rector's Office a business plan including No. CI-OO-786.
budget ind financing arrangements indi-
cating how he will pay his outstanding Supreme Court of Mlnnesota.
judgments and manage his practice in a Dec. 6, 2001.
financially responsible manner.
j. Within 60 days from the date peti-
tioner resumes practice, he shall provide Applicant, which sought to construct a
his probation supen1sor with a written communications tower, challenged denial
plan, acceptable to the Director, outlin- of its conditional use permit application.
ing office procedures designed to ensure The District Court, Washington County,
that petitioner is in compliance with pro- Thomas G. Armstrong, J., granted sum-
mary judgment for applicant. The city ap-
bation requirements. Petitioner shall pealed, and the Court or Appeals, Willis,
provide progress reports as requested J., 621 N .W.2d 37, a.f:Ormed. City appealed,
by either his supervisor or the Director's and the Supreme Court, Gilbert, J., held
Office. that: (1) city could not prospectively ex..
The Director and petitioner agree with tend 60-day period for reviewing applica-.
the panel's recommendation and conditions tiOD by passing resolution, but (2) extenu-
of probation. ating circumstances wert; not necessary for
city to extend the time limits.
This court has independently reviewed . Affirmed as modified.
the file and approves the recommended
disposition.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that peti- 1. Appeal and Error ~893(1)
tioner Scott E. Selmer is reinstated to the' Statutes ~176
practice of law in the State or Minnesota Interpreting a statute is a ques~on of
and is _placed on supervised probation for law that appellate court reviews de novo.
~ If
ZO~li\IG 9 4-30
(k) Amendments. All amendments to this Code, including revisions to the official floodplain
zoning district map, shall be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Natural
Resources prior to adoption. The floodplain designation on the official floodplain zoning district
map shall not be removed unless an area is filled to an elevation at or above the regulatory
flood protection elevation and is contiguous to lands outside of the floodplain. Changes in the
official zoning map must meet the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
Technical Conditions and Criteria and must receive prior FEMA approval before adoption. The
Commissioner of Natural Resources must be given ten days. written notice of all hearings to
consider an amendment to this Code and said notice shall include a draft of the Code
amendment or technical study under consideration.
COrd. No. 04-10, 9~ 1-:-8~ 8-9-2004, Ord. No. 04-11, 9 1, 9-27-2004)
Sees. 4-27-4-29. Reserved.
Sec. 4-30. Administration-General.
(a) Development application procedures. Certain applications of the zoning code require
study and action by the city council, the planning commission, city manager, city staff, the
applicant, and various experts, in varying combinations dependent upon the nature of the
nonstandard use or proposed use or change. These include proposed conditional use permits,
variances; site plan reviews; zoning code text or map amendments, and appeals on zoning
questions..
(b) Decisional process. The city council acting as the board of adjustments and appeals ~
under Minn. Stat. ~9 462.354, 462.357 (6), 462.359 (4) and 15.99 shall make the decisions
within the legislative and executive framework of the city on applicable development .Jq
a pplica tions. ?A6.~
(c) Application procedure. Pursuant to Minn" Stat" 15.99, a zoning application for a zoning Lf: 1~'-\
text or map amendment, conditional use permit, variance and/or site plan review shall be
processed in accordance 'With the following procedure:
(1) Planning commission. All zoning applications sball first be presented to the planning
commission, together with appropriate comment and recommendations from the city
manager or designated representatives.
(2) Application. Applications shall be filed with the zoning administrator or any staff
persons designated by the city manager on an official applicatio.n form of the city,
accompanied by a fee as outlined in chapter 114.. The application shall also be
accompanied by detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the proposed
change, development, or use. The number of copies to be provided and any additional
data shall be determined by the city manager. Applications must be complete before
they axe accepted. A complete application must include the follovring information:
a. A city application fOrni(s) relating to the request signed by all persons with an
interest in the subject property affected by the request.. A copy of an ownerts
duplicate certificate of title or other approved documentation of interest shall also
be submitted with the signed application formes);
supp.. No. 9 CD4:142.1
9 4-30 NEW HOPE CODE
b. All supporting information required by this Code and/or outlined in section 4-35
oftbis Code and application documents included with the city application forms;
c. Payment of q].l fees associated with the applicable applicationCs);
d. A pre-application meeting shall be required by city staff at which the appropriate
application procedures, requirements and applicable code provisions relating to
the request vvill be reviewed and explained.
:
..
f .
Supp. No.9 CD4:142.2
ZONING S 4-30
e. An application will be deemed complete unless the applicant receives written
notice within ten business days exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal
holidays of its submission indicating it is not complete and indicating what
information is missing. This notice shall be considered given by its deposit in the
U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed to any listed applicant at the
address given on the application form. In the event the applicant fails to provide
an address on the application form, this notice requirement for incomplete
applications shall be deemed waived by the applicant.
(3) Further data. The council, planning commission and city staff may request additional
information from the applicant concerning the application or .may retain expert
opinions at the expense of the city, or may require as a condition of proceeding with its
consideration of any matter, that the applicant furnish expert opinion and data at the
expense of the applicant.
(4) City manager1s report. The application shall be processed under the d.iIection of the
city manager for a report and recommendation and initially presented to the planning
commission. A preliminary draft of the city manager's report with comments and/or
recommendations and such applicant furnished supporting data as the city manager
deems necessary or desirable shall be given to the planning commission prior to the
m~eting at which said report and recommendations are to be presented. The final
report and/or recommendations of the city manager are to be entered in and made part
of the permanent written record of the ,planning commission, and forwarded to the
council.
(5) Notice of hearing. For applications involving zoning amendments, conditional use
permits, and variances, the city manager shall set a date for a public hearing. Notice
of such hearing shall be published in conformance with chapter 1 of this Code and
individual notices shall be mailed not less than ten days nor more than 30 days prior
to the hearing to all owners of property, according to the records available to the city
within 350 feet of each parcel included in the request, as provided in chapter 1.
(6) Notice not received. Failure of the city to send, or a property owner to receive notice
shall not invalidate any proceedings under this Code.
(7) Hearing. After receipt of the report of the city manager, the planning commission shall
consider the application at its next regular meeting unless the filing date of the
application falls within 15 days of said meeting, in which case the application shall be
placed on the agenda and considered at the regular meeting following the next regular
meeting.
(8) Presentation of application. The applicant or a representative of the applicant shall
appear before the planning commission in order to present the case for the application
and to answer questions concerning the request. Failure of the-proponent to appear at
either the planning commission or council consideration of the matter shall constitute
grounds for rejection of the application. The planning commission and the council may
each require sworn testimony and a verified transcription of the proceedings at the
CD4:143
9 4-30 N~W HOPE CODE
expense of the city. The applicant shall have the same privilege .of presenting sworn
testimony and may provide for a transcript of the proceedings at the expense of the
applicant"
(9) Recommendations of planning commission. The planning commission shall recom-
mend such actions or conditions relating to the application as deemed necessar.y or
desirable to carry out the intent and purpose oftbisCode and the comprehensive plan.
Such recommendation shall 'be either in the minutes or by 'Written resolution, and
accompanied by the report and recommendation afthe city manager, and forwarded to
the city council.
(10) Record before council. The city manager shall place the report and recommendations
of the planning commission aild the city manager, on the agenda for the next regular
council meeting after planning commission action, or the expiration of 60 days after
the first consideration by the' commission, whichever is earlier. Such reports and
recommendations shall be entered in and made part of the permanent written record :
(11) Council reyiew. The city council shall act upon an application after it has received the
report and recommendation from the planning commission and the city staff. A
response shall be provided within 120 days from the date a completed application is
submitted for consideration. This time limit automatically incorporates the SO-day
extep.sion to the response deadline set out in :Minn.. Stat. g 15.99, subd. 3(g). The
extension 'is necessary to provide adequate time for public hearings and appropriate ~
design and environmental,review. All applications will require the applicant to accept
this 120 days timeline for city council action. If, upon receiving the reports and
recommendations of the planning commission and city manager, the city council
desires further consideration, or finds that inconsistencies exist in the review process,
data submitted or recommended action, the city council may; before taking final action,
refer the matter back to th~ planning commission with a statement detailing the
reasons for referral. This procedure shall be followed only one time on an application,
except for a good cause. The council may refer an application back to the planning
commission ifit determines that changes in the application after planning commission
recommendation require such action, or such referral may be waived b the council.
--
(12) Council action. pan receiving the report and 'recommendation of the planning
commission and the city manager, the city council may; at its option set and hold a
public hearing if deemed necessary and shall make findings of fact and impose any
condition on approval which it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety
and welfare,' and shall make its decision as to the application. Unless a longer period
of time is approved in writing by the applicant, city council action will occur "Within 120
days after submission by the applicant of a completed application as provided by
section 4-30(d)(2) of this Code.
(13) Votes required.
a. Residential district amendments. Approval of a request for an amendI;nent of this
chapter (text and/or map) which changes all or part of an existing residential
zoning district classification to either a commercial or industrial district shall
require passage by a four-fifthsr vote of the full city council.
~
~' CD4:144t.
310 Minn. 636 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
2. Statutes e=>190 city's receipt of a complete written request
VVhen interpreting a statute, a court ,rela~g to zoning by an applicant, includ-
must first determine whether the statute's ing the time deadline to provide vvritten
language, on its face, is ambiguous; a stat- notice of an extension of the initial time
ute is only ambiguous when the language period.
therein is subject to more than one reason-
able interpretation. James M. Strommen, Karen R. Cole,
3. Statutes e:=188 Minneapolis, for appellant.
Words and phrases in a statute are to Gary A. Van Cleve) Mark D. Christo-
be construed according to their plain and pherson, Bloomington, for respondent.
ordinary meaning.
4. Statutes e=188, 190 Susan L. Naughton, St. Paul, for amici
curiae League of Minnesota Cities.
"Wbere the legislature's intent is clear- Donald Smith, Edina, for amici' curiae
ly discernable from plain and unambiguous Minnesota Association of Realtors.
language) statutory construction is neither
necessary nor permitted and courts apply Heard, considered, and decided by the
the statute's plain meaning. court en bane.
5. Zoning and Planning ~439.5
City could not prospectively extend OPINION
initial 6O-day period by passing resolution, GILBERT, Justice.
before receiving application to which ex-
tension appliedl stating that city extended We must decide whether appellant, City
deadlines; rather, citys receipt of written of Grant (City), complied with the require-
request for conditional use permit trig- ments contained in Minn. Stat. 9 15.99
gered both commencement of 6O-day time (2000) in denying respondent's request for
limit to approve or deny request and com- a conditional use permit (CUP) more than
men cement of period in which city could 60 days after receiving respondent's vnit-
extend 6O-day deadline~ M~S.A. 9 15.99, ten request. We hold that the City did not
subd. 3(a, f). comply with the statutory requirements
6. Zoning and Planning €=>436.1 and affirm the court of appeals for the
reasons stated below.
Ruling on a conditional use permit is a Respondent, American Tower, is a limit..
quasi-judicial act-. ed partnership engaged in the business of
7. Zoning and Planning ~360, 439.5 constructing communications towers for
Extenuating circumstances are not lease by providers of "Wireless digital tele-
necessary for agency to extend the time phone and pager services. American Tow-
limit for considering request relating to er sought to construct a communications
zoning; agency must merely state reasons tower in the City of Grant, a Minnesota
for the extension. M.S.A 9 15.99, s~bd. municipal corporation. Under the City's
3(f). ordinances, American Tower had to obtain
a CUP in order to build the tower.
Syllabus by the Court. On May 5, 1999, the City Clerk sent a
The time deadlines contained in Minn. CUP application to American Tower. It is
Stat. 9 15.99 (2000) are triggered upon a the City's practice to send to a prospective
...4lVIERICA-N' TOWER, L.P. v. CITY OF GR...iliT 1\1inn. 311
Cite as 636 N.Vv.2d 309 (Minn. 2001)
applicant a copy of Resolution No.199B-II City Planning Commission recommended
together Vlith the CUP application. This that the City Council approve the applica-
resolution was adopted by the City in 1996 tion. The City Council tabled consider-
and states: ation of American Tower's application at
[T]he" TOVlIl of Grant hereby extends the its meetings on October 5 and November
timelines under Minnesota Statutes 2, 1999. At its December 7 meeting, the
9 15.99 for each and every written re- Council denied American Tower's applica..
quest relating to zoning * * * for a per- tion for reasons that are not contested
mit, license, or other governmental ap- 'here.
proval of ~ action. American Tower challenged the denial
The text of the resolution explains that the of its application in district court, contend-
resolution was adopted because the City ing that the City was required to issue the
lacks the resources to process- zoning ap- CUP as a matter of law under M.1nn.Stat.
plications within 60 days. The resolution S 15.99. Finding that there was no disput~
also states that the City's a~thority to as to the material facts of the case, the"
extend the statute's 6O-day review period court granted American Tower's motion
is based on Minn. Stat. g 15.99, subd. 3(t) for summary judgment. The court con-
(2000). eluded that under section 15.99, the City
The City's CUP application contains a was required to issue the CUP because the
City had failed to make a decision Vlithin
double-sided application form. ...t\.ppearing 60 days of the application's submission and
on page 2! directly above the signature had failed to obtain an extension. The
line, is the following statement: court rejected the City's argument that
Extension of Time Deadlines: You are section 15.99 is preempted by the Telecom..
hereby notified that the City of Grant is munications Act. of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-
hereby extending the time deadlines re- 104, 110 Stat. 56 (partially codified at 47
quired in M.S. section 15.99 'With respect V.S.C. S 332 (1994 & Supp. V 1999)).
to the written request you have made to The court or appeals, in a 2-1 decision,
the City. The extension is made for an affirmed the district court. According to
additional sixty (60) days. The reason for the court of appeals, the statutory scheme
the extension is to enable the City Coun.. envisioned by the legislature in enacting
cil and the Planning Commission to section 15.99 requires a city to act in the
more fully deliberate with respect to normal course on a CUP application 'Within
your request and to allow City staff and 60-days after it is received and permits a
consultants time to prepare the neces- city to grant itself an extension only if
sary findings with respect to the City's there are II exten ua ting circumstances."
ultimate determination. This timeline American Tower, L.P. v. City of (flan~
does not begin until the application is 621 N.W.2d 37, 43 CMinn.App.2000)(quot-
complete with all required submissions. ing Hearing on S.F. No. 61;.7 Before the
On August 31, 1999, American Tower Senate Comm. on Governmental Opera.. ~
filed a \YTitten CUP application. Its appli- tions and Veterans (M . 95) (state-
cation did not include page two, which Sen. Riv The court found
contains the extension notice and the sig.;. that the City's practice' of prospectively
nature line.! On September 27, 1999, the granting itself a 6O-day extension to act on
1. American Tower contends that it did not City, but admits that it received this page for
receive page two of the application from the purposes of summary judgment.
~ oj
-
312 Minn. 636 NORTH 'VESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
~ zoning applications was inconsistent \Vi courts apply the statute's plain meaning.
the 6O-day deadline contained in section Ed Herman & Sons v. RU8sel~ 535
15.99. Therefore, the court held that N.W.2d 803, 806 (Minn.1995); Minn. Stat.
municipality cannot extend the initial 60- S 645.16 (2000).
day deadline for a decision on a zoning .. .
li ti t 120 d b t"t If In 1995, the Minnesota legIslature enact-
app ca on 0 ays y gran mg 1 se
th xt . b"'.(! " th Ii ed Minn.Stat. 9 15.99, which establishes
e e enSlon t::lore recelvmg e app ca-
ti t h. h the exten · Ii Th time deadlines for local governments to
on 0 W IC SIan app es. e .
court also held that section 15.99 is not e action on zoning applications. Act of
preempted by the federal statute. June 1, 1995, ch. 248, art. I?, 9 1, 1995
Minn. Laws 2415, 2477-78. Subdivision 2
e Ity appealed, claiming that section provides:
15.99 permits a municipality to extend the'
initial 6O-day deadline by providing Vlrit- Except as otherwise provided in this
ten notice of the extension in the applica- section and notwithstanding any other
tion provided to potential applicants. The law to the contr~,. an agency m~st
City does not contest the court of appeal's approve or deny ~thin 60 d~ys a* ~~-
holding regarding preemption and that is- ten request relating to zonmg .
sue is not before us. Failure of an agency to deny a request
within 60 days is approval of the re-
[1-4] The question before us is wheth- quest. If an agency denies the request,
er section 15.99 permits a municipality to it must state in writing the reasons for
extend th~ 6O-day deadline for response, the denial at the time that it denies the
before receiving a written request relating request.
to zoning, by providing Mitten notice of
extension in the application form provided Minn. Stat. 9 15.99, subd. 2 (2000).
to potential applicants. Addressing this Subdivision 3(t) permits an agency to
question is a matter of statutory construc- extend the time limit before the end of the
tian. Interpreting a statute is a question initial 6O-day period "by providing vmtten
of law that this court reviews de novo. notice of the extension to the applicant."
Hibbing Educ. Ass'n v. Pub. Employment Minn. S tat. 9 15.99, subd. 3(f). liThe notifi-
Relations Bd., 369 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Minn. cation must state the reasons for the ex-
1985). When .interpreting a statute, a tension and its anticipated length, which
court must first determine whether the may not exceed 60 days unless approved
statute's language, on its face, is ambigu- by the applicant." I d.
ous. See Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hasp.,
598 N.W.2d 379, 384 (1finn.1999). etA stat- Sub~vision 3(a) details. the metho~ for
ute is only ambiguous when the. language calculating the 6O-day penod. It proVldes:
therein is subject to more than one reason- The time limit in subdivision 2 begins
able interpretation." fd. Words and upon the agenc:(s receipt of a written'
phrases are to be construed according to request containing all information re-
their plain and ordinary meaning. quired by law or by a previously adopted
Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of rule, ordinance, or policy of the agency.
Roseville, 295 N.W~2d 604, 608 (Minn. If an agency receives a '\\tntten request
1980). Where the legislature's intent is that does not contain all required infor..
clearly discernable .from plain and unarn- mation, the 60-day limit starts over only
biguous language, statutory construction is if the agency sends notice within ten
neither necessary nor permitted and business days of receipt of the request
.A1YIERICA-N" TO\VER, L.P. v. CITY OF GR.ANT :Minn. 313
Cite as 636 N.W.2d 309 (Minn. 200I)
telling the requester what information is applicant. Subdivision 3 defines the time
missing. limit for application and extensions and
Minn.Stat. g 15:99} subd. 3(a) (2000). subdivision 3(a) provides that. "[t]he time
[5] To address the question before us, limit in subdivision 2 begins upon the
we must first determine whether the dead. agency's receipt of a written request." Id.
line extension provision in section 15.99 is The City's interpretation would nullify the
ambiguous. See Amaral, 598 N.W.2d at time frame. established by the legislature
384. If the provision is clear J we must and is therefore directly contrary to the
apply the statute's plain meaning. "Mirin. plain language of the statute.
Stat. g 645.16; Ed Herman & SonsJ 535 This conclusion that the City cannot ex-
N.W.2d at 806. Subdivision 3(f) provides tend the initial 6O-day period before that
that ,U[a]n agency may extend the time 60-day period be'gins is consistent vvith the
limit in subdivision 2 before the end of the requirement in subdivision 3Ct) that "'TIt-
initial 60-day period." Minn. Stat. 9 15.99, ten notice of the extension be pro~ded to.
subd. 3(f). Thus, if the City desires an the applicant and that the applicant be
extension of time to cO!Ilplete its applica- notified of the reasons for the extension
tion review proGess, it may extend the time and its anticipated length." Because one is
frarne ''before the end of the initial 6O-day not an applicant until one has submitted a
period." I d. Subdivision 3(a)J which de- zoning request, the use of the term "appli..
tails when extensions of time are permissi- cant" indicates that an extension must be
bIe,. specifies how to calculate the initial made after the application is received by
6O-day period. Minn. Stat. 9 15.99, subd. the agency.
3(a). "The time limit in subdivision 2 be-
gins upon the agency's receipt of a written [6] Our "conclusion is also consistent
request;' Id. In thIs case, the City re- with section 15.99's individualized ap-.
ceived ~ \Vritten request for a CUP from proach based on an "applicant's z"oning re-
American Tower on August 31, 1999. The quests and deflIUtive deadline and proce-
City's receipt of the "Written request trig- dures for extensions within the statute..
gered both the commencement of the 60- Ruling on a conditional use permit is a
day time limit to approve or deny the quasi-judicial act Interstate Power Co. v.
request and the commencement of the pe.. Nobles County Ed. of Comm'rs, 617
riod in which the City could extend the 60- N.W.2d 566, 574 (Minn.2000)(citing Honn
day deadline. v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409,
The City focuses on the word "beforeu 416 CMlnn.1981)). Section 15.99 provides
and contends that sub\livision 3(f) permits applicants 'With a number of procedural
a municipality to extend the deadline at safeguards. Subdivision 2 mandates that
any time, even before receiving the 'Written an agency provide written reasons for the
zoning request. Therefor~, it argues that denial of a zoning request at the time the
Resolution No.1996-11 and the extension request is denied. Minn.Stat. 9 15.99,
notice on the application form sent to the subd. 2. Failure of an agency to deny the
applicant comply with subdivision 3(t). request V\1ithin 60 days is approval of the
However, by emphasizing the word "be... request.. I d. The City's resolution, by
fore," the City ignores the remainder of granting the City an extension Hfor each
the statute, which specifies that a munici- and every written request relating to zon-
pality may extend the deadline by provid- ing" in advance of an applicationJ is mean-
ing vlrittep notice of the extension to the sistent "With this case-by..case approach
t 'I
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. ~ n in)\.\/?
( { { ( t t 0 \ "/~
'0 \V IF' iI
Attorneys At Lalv ..:::::::;/ w U
8525 EDL~BROOK CROSSING, STE. ... -..
BROOKL YN PARK, lVIINNESOTA 55443-1.. ..J
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail Iaw@jensen-sondrall.com
GORDON L. JENSENl
CLARISSA M. KLUG Writer's Direct Dial No.: (763) 201-0211
GLEN A. NORTON e-mail sas@jensen-sondrall. com
AMY E. P APENH.4.USEN
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
ARIc T. STIENESSEN October 6, 2005
STACY A. WOODS
OF COUNSEL Via E-Mail Only To le~als@mnsun. com
LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD The New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post
10917 Valley View Road
Eden Prairie, IvIN 55344
Attn: Mary Ann
Re: Notice of Public Hearing
Our File No. 99.80507
Dear Mary Ann:
Attached please find a Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance Amending New Hope
Zoning Code by Conforming Section 4-30(c) (11) with State Law Regulating Time Limits for
Action on Zoning Applications, the City of New Hope, for publication on the 20th day of October,
2005, in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post.
Please forward your affidavits of publication and statement in the usual manner.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sandrall, City Attorney,
City of New Hope
A ttachment( s)
cc: Valerie Leone, City Clerk, City of New Hope (wIatt.)
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, City of New Hope (wiatt.)
Kim Green, Community Development Assistant, City of New Hope (wIatt.)
P:\Auomey\SAS\ 1 Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99-8Q507\OO3~Sun~Post Ltr.doc
tReal Property Law
Specialist Certified By
The Minnesota State
Bar Association
-" - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINA1~CE
AlV[El';1)ING NEW HOPE-ZONING CODE BY CONFORlYIING
SECTION 4-30(c)(11) WITH STATE LAW REGULATING
TTh1E LIMITS FOR ACTION ON ZONING APPLICATIONS
City ,of New Hope, Minnesota
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota,
will meet on the 1st day of November, 2005, at 7 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon
A venue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of
an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code.
Said ordinance will have the affect of amending Ne\v Hope Code S 4-30(c)(11) to conform
with State law relating to the City requirement to act on zoning applications within 60 days of an
application submission but permitting one 60-day extension in the event additional time is
necessary to consider application.
All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard
with respect to the zoning code amendment.
Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are available
upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make
arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531-5109).
Dated the 6th day of October, 2005.
sl Valerie J. Leone-------------------------------
Valerie J. Leone
City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 20th day of October, 2005.)
P:\Auorm:y\SAS\l Client Files\2 City of New Hope\99~80507\002~Public Hearing Notice.doc
~
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: November 1, 2005
Report Date: October 25, 2005
Planning Case: 04-28
Petitioner: City of Ne'lu Hope
Address: City 'luide
Request: Approval of Comprehensive Plan Updates
I. Request
City staff is requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the attached
updates to the New Hope Comprehensive Plan} which amends the plan so that it conforms to
recent development projects and studies that have taken place throughout the city. This case was
initially brought before the Planning Commission July 12} 2005} but was tabled at that time to a .
meeting at which the city planner could present the material.
Please bring your COlllprehensive Plan Update
binder to the Novel1lber lllleeting!
II. Background
The Comprehensive Plan is the document that addresses community issues and lays the foundation
for community planning and land use development. The current plan vvas finalized in 1998 and
outlines the projected land use through the year 2020. Periodically, updates to the plan are
completed and submitted to the Metropolitan Council for approval and inclusion in New Hope's
Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council is requiring that all cities update their
Comprehensive Plan by 2008, so staff anticipates coordinating a comprehensive plan update
committee process starting in 2006.
In November 2004, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that the plan complies with the redevelopment
projects that have been initiated by the city. Specifically, the amendments reflect the city's
redevelopment efforts at Winnetka Green, Winnetka Townhomes} St. Joseph's Church
OutlotlHillside Terrace and the Project for Pride in Living, Inc. redevelopments. The adjustments
that were being proposed were procedural in nature as the redevelopment plans had already been
approved and construction had commenced at many of those locations. At that time, the Planning
Commission agreed to delay reclassifying the City Center redevelopment area to a "Mixed Use"
Proposed Land Use until a future date when r~development takes place.
At the December 13} 2004, Council meeting, city staff presented the Plmming Commission
recommendation regardlllg the amendments to t~le Comprehensive Plan to tIle City' COlU1Cil. The
City Council expressed COllcerllS regard:ing tile density' definitiol1S III tIle Comprehensive PlaIl.
Pla11ning Case Report 04-28 Page 1 11-1-05
Specifically, the density in the Winnetka Green project area was listed as fourteen units per acre in
the plan amendments. At that density} the project area should have been classified as high densit),
residential in accordance with the definitions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. After reviewing
the project file, the actual density of the project is 10.6 units per acre which would classify the
project as medium density residential.
The City Council also expressed concerns regarding the Redevelopment and Maintenance Target
Areas map land use classifications because it classified the potential redevelopment of 4301-17
Nevada Avenue as medium to high density residential. After discussing this matter with the city's
planning consultant} that classification is different from the Proposed Land Use classification as it
provides the city with greater flexibility regarding the density of potential redevelopment sites. If a
property is classified as medium to high density residential on the Redevelopment and
Maintenance Target Area map} the city has greater flexibility to adjust the density of a
redevelopment project on a case by case basis. The city's planning consultant indicated that this
classification does not conflict with the Proposed Land Use classification and city staff recommends
not altering that classification.
At the conclusion of that December 13, 2004} discussion, the City Council tabled this matter until
the density questions could be resolved. City staff was directed to meet with representatives of the
Metropolitan Council to determine if the city's definitions are similar to the suggestions of the
Metropolitan Council, and staff met with Met Council representatives in the spring of 2005.
On May 161 2005, city staff presented this information to the City Council at a work session for its
consideration. At that time} the City Council directed staff to adjust the density definitions in the
Comprehensive Plan. The current density definitions are as follows:
Low Density Residential- 1 to 4 rmits per acre
Medium Density Residential- 5 to 10 units per acre
High Density Residential-11+ units per acre
The City Council directed staff to adjust the density definitions to the following:
Low Density Residential- zero up to 4 units per acre
Medium Density Residential- 4 units up to 10 units per acre
High Density Residential- 10+ units per acre
The City Council also directed staff to remove the Winnetka Townhomes, Winnetka Green} 4301-17
Nevada Avenue North} the Bass Lake Road Townhomes completed by PPL, the Hillside Terrace
Subdivision and 5501 Boone A venue Apartments and Condominiums from the Redevelopment and
Maintenance Target Areas map since those projects have been approved and are no longer being
considered for redevelopment.
Finally, the City Council directed staff to reclassify the northwest quadrant of the City Center area
to mixed use on the Commercial Redevelopment and Maintenance Target Areas map.
III. Petitioner's Comments
This is a request by city staff, upon the recommendation of the city's planning consultant from
NAC.
Planning Case Report 04-28 Page 2 11-1-05
lV. Notification
Notice is not required for approval of updates to the Comprehensive Plan by the Planning
Commission or City Council. However} if adjacent communities and other jurisdictions, such as the
school district and watersheds} are impacted by the amendments, they are notified as part of the
application to the Metropolitan Council.
v. Analysis
Per the direction of the City Council, the city's plannillg consultant has prepared the enclosed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Comprehensive Plan amendments were approved for Winnetka Green, Winnetka Townhomes and
the Project for Pride :in Living project at 5501 Boone as part of their plannillg approvals granted in
2004. While these are the major changes, a few others are also being included at this time in order to
make the plan as up to date as possible. All of the changes are outlined in this report. The action
being requested now is to approve the actual Comprehensive Plan amendment to be submitted to
the Metropolitan Council.
Copies of the maps and text changes being proposed with this Comprehensive Plan amendment are
attached. The changes within the text are highlighted and the map changes are summarized on the
following tables.
The changes to the density definitions have been amended on pages 33 and 38. The proposed
definitions are in accordance with the direction given by the City Council on May 16, 2005.
The major changes to the Proposed Land Use map (page 31 of the Development Framework) are:
Location of Change Current Proposed Land Use(s) Updated Proposed Land Use
EastVVinnetka/VVllxnetka Commercial} Low-Med High Density Residential
Green Density, Single Family
Former Frank's Nursery/ Commercial High Density Residential
Winnetka Townhomes
St. Joseph's Church Public & Semipublic Low Density Residential
OutlotlHillside Terrace
5501 Boone A venuejPPL Public & Semipublic High Density Residential
Condos and Apartments
City Center Commercial} Industrial, High Commercial Mixed Use
Density, Public & Semipublic
The commercial mixed use designation is a new land use category that was previously not a part of
the Comprehensive Plan. These changes are also incorporated into the Land Use acreage chart on
page 27. Also} the new commercial boundaries resulting from CVS's land exchange with the school
district are reflected in this map.
Plan11ing Case Report 04-28 Page 3 11-1-05
Changes to the Residential Redevelopment and Maintenance Target Areas map (page 35) :include:
Location of Change Redevelopment Category
East WinnetkafWinnetka Green Deleted
Former Frank's NurseryfWinnetka Townhomes Deleted
St. Joseph's Church OutlotlHillside Terrace Deleted
5501 Boone A venue/pPL Condos and Apartments Deleted
4301-4415 Nevada A venue North Deleted
City Center Commercial Mixed Use
The related text changes are found on pages 37-44 and are highlighted on the attached pages. The
city's planning consultant has provided a summary of the Commercial Mixed Use classification that
indicates the city's first priority is the promotion of the city's commercial land uses. This
designation reflects the city's potential consideration of complementary, alternative land uses that
will enhance the area and support the commercial uses.
Changes to the Commercial Redevelopment Target Areas map (page 45) include:
Location of Change Redevelopment Category
Southwest WinnetkafBass Lake Road Commercial
Midland Shopping Center Commercial
City Center Commercial :LvIixed Use
Text changes were made to District 3 (page 85) to include the Project for Pride in Living
development at 5501 Boone. As well, text changes were made to District 6 (pages 89-90) to reflect
the Winnetka Green and Winnetka Townhome projects.
VIII. Recommendation
Staff recommends the approval of the comprehensive plan updates as presented by the city's
planning consultant. Following approval by the City Council, the formal amendment application
will be prepared by the planning consultant for submission to the Metropolitan Council.
Attachments: Proposed Map and Text Updates (6/1/05)
Planning Case Report 04-28 Page 4 11-1-05
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS1 IN C .
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@)nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: June 1, 2005
RE: New Hope - Comprehensive Plan Residential Density Categories
FILE NO: . 131.00 - 05.05
The Winnetka Green townhome development has a density of 10.6 units per acre. This
density falls between the medium and high density categories as defined in the New
Hope Comprehensive Plan. In review of the Comprehensive Plan, the residential
densities are defined as follows:
Low Density 0-4 units per acre
Medium Density 5-1 0 units per acre
High Density 11 + units per acre
Concern has been raised by the Council and staff as to those projects that fall by
decimal between the categories and staff has been directed to correct this situation.
On May 4, 2005, City staff met with James Uttley of the Metropolitan Council to discuss
New Hope's density descriptions in comparison with regional descriptions. Mr. Uttley
informed the City that our densities are slightly lower than regional standards, but it was
left to the discretion of the City as to how they choose to define their individual
residential land use categories. New Hope's categories are acceptable.
As a means of resolving the issue related to the gap between low to medium and
medium to high residential land uses, it was suggested that the text of the
Comprehensive Plan be amended with the following language:
Low density residential land uses have a density of one up to four units per acre.
Medium density residential land uses have a density of four, up to 10 units per acre.
High density residential land uses have a density of 10+ units per acre.
These amendments would affect pages 33 and 38 of the New Hope Comprehensive
Plan and would effectively address those residential projects that may fall between the
current residential land use density descriptions of the Comprehensive Plan. Revised
pages are attached.
Other changes suggested are: page 31, Proposed Land Use Plan - change the land
use designation for the Winnetka Green town home project, at the corner of Bass Lake
Road and Winnetka Avenue from medium density residential to high density residential.
A portion of the City Center commercial area has been reclassified as mixed land use.
The land use description for mixed use is provided on attached new page 44 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Page 35) Residential Redevelopment and Maintenance Target Areas Map - changes to
this map would include the following. Deletion of the following projects because they
are underway or near completion:
. Nevada Townhome projects located along Nevada Avenue.
. The Winnetka Green town home project.
. The Winnetka Townhomes located on the old Frank's Nursery site.
. The Bass Lake Road Townhomes project done by PPL.
. Hillside Terrace Subdivision.
. Boone Condominium/Apartments.
Page 44 - A description of mixed land uses has been prepared as a redevelopment
strategy for select commercial sites in the City Center area.
Pages 85-96, Planning Districts - These pages were changed to duplicate the text in
the general body of the Comprehensive Plan.
This memo is a summary of the proposed plan amendments that are being considered
by the City. If these are generally acceptable, they may be approved as amendments to
the current Comprehensive Plan.
pc: Shawn Siders
Steve Sondrall
2
Land Use
NEW HOPE LAND USE
The fallowing table and map illustrate both the existing and proposed 2020 land use
patterns in New Hope. The 2020 Land Use Plan emphasizes the maintenance,
enhancementJ and redevelopment of existing land use areas.
LAND USE (ACREAGE)
Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use
1998
Acres Percent Acres Percent Density
of Total of Total Units/Ac
Residential Total 1 J479.45 42.4 (1.~!i'l~l~ 42li
Low De.nsity (1,198.82) (34.4) (9:?~4) 0-4
Low to Medium Density (0) (0) :{9@~~g~) l~~S$) 0-10
~ . r ~ . ~ ~ .. r
Medium Density (74.70) (2.1) (72.38) (2. 1) 5-10
High Density (205.93) (5.9) (4~~~P~~[) t$~$l 11+
. ~ ~ ~ r r _ .. ...
Commercial 111.98 3.2 Wfsfiiltia AlP
~ .~~ ~.. ~ ........~..-...~ ~. .~~'."...... ~
.~. ~~~&...~. r.r~~.~ + ~t3t8
Industrial 473.85 13.6 4S:~f: :~r~r
::~ ~~ < ._.~~.:::~ ~~ :;;::::~r :::: ~ ~~:
.~. ~~... ~...... ~..... ~
Public and Semi-Public 244.55 7.0 22}f:Z'l 6~:3
,~ / ..'~~~ .:~;. ::~~:. ~
.+~~..~.~.~ ..r~. y~
.~~~ ..~~ ~.~~... .~~
Parks and Recreation 179.88 5.2 182.72 5.2
Open Water 96.63 2.8 96.63 . 2.8
Vacant 29.66 .8 1.56 .001
Roadway 873.19 25.0 873.19 25.0
TOTAL 3,489.19 100.0 3,489.19 100.0
Source: t3onestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates,
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.,
ffi City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Developlnent Framework
27
PROPOSED
LAND USE
c=J Low Density Residential
:J: ~~~~~~: Low Density / Medium Density Residential
I-
::J
0 Medium Density Residential
~ I
~ High Density ,Residential
a.
.. Commercial
_ Commercial Mixed Use
~ Industruial
_ Public & Semipublic
Parks & Recreation
. Lakes
D Vacant
c=J Out side City limit
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
I I Miles
Base Map: Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates
May 2005
.~
B... NOR T H W EST ASS 0 C I ATE D CON 5 U L TAN T S. I N C.
",' ..-c. 4800 OI~Qn MCM"IQnal High......ay. SUIte 202. Colden V.:llcy. MN 55422
,.-,:::.' T..!!"ptY.mf': 783 23 t 2SSr. F;\!::=;MI,I~: 783.23 t .2501 pl;::nl\m='~ n;..::::pl.'l.rV't'l''lg com
GOLDEN VALLEY
Citv of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
31
--- Land Use
RESIDENTIAL
Residential land uses occupy approximately 42.4 percent of the City's total area. While
low density single family housing is' the predominant land use and housing type, New Hope
does provide a broad diversity of housingr as illustrated in the following table.
HOUSING TYPES .. 1996
Housing Type Total Units Percent
Single Family Detached 4,569 51.7
Single Family Attached 305 3.5
Twinhome 42 0.5
Multi Family 3-4 units 137 1.6
Multi Family 5-9 units 153 1.7
Multi Family 10-19 units 984 11.1
Multi Family 20-49 units 1 ,267 14.3
Multi Family 50 units or more 1 ,337 15.1
Other 43 0.5
TOTAL UNITS 8,837 100.0
Source: 1990 U.S. Census
New Hope Building Permit and Demolition Data, June 1997
Life Cycle Housing Study for year 2010
Low Density Residential
The low density residential areas exhibited on the proposed land use map are reflective
of residential neighborhoods having a density of g@~jji~~gfp);ii1gi;ifgYr\;\;units per acre. These
areas in New Hope are comprised of detached single family homes.
ffi City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
33
62ND ~\f~.~. . ,,,BR99KL.Y PARK .'. County Rd 101 RESID ENTIAL
!il~:i:iiiliDIEI\I~1\ REDEVELOPMENT AND
IE ~ . ~~B . ~~~ bll i . MAINTENANt_
I \2b @~t!~Q . ~~I ~'~I~
::cr4'i& EEI1 I ... II . I.. '"
~. ~~~IIDllli:~i ~~~~rI ':.,'~? ~
~J ~ I ~~ J < II I filii
.--11 I J I l...r-= ~ ~ ...Z'"
~K(( ~~~.~~:fl~~ ·
~ p'~ .JlI II I ~ / .~~~
::l .~ ~ ~~.. ...J
~ ~ !:Jlmam~)- IIEHHffi r:::- .1 ~ 11II Maintenance
~ ,.: J &111 eo- ~ .. Redevelopment - Medium & High Density
~ EIffil~' ~tmrm/ () c=J Redevelopment - Low Density
IIJ ' ~ &, EHHB3
't. . ~~ E8 i - - ~::r - City Boundary
_ I ~ ~ WEM , I 91 h Outside City
~~:II~~ n~~ I".i
.. ~ - \ ~pm:~- t
.~ I~~~ I I
~I 11=- ~-" -- lJh~ I - :.,
_.I&I~II'~l~ LT_~~~
mill ill II ~ ]:~:.. .
.,... EHffilHI ~ }-II .' .~. _ "!
mli ~I ~ ~ ~ ....... ;._ 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
'@j{ffJjj I ~~~ T- '.. ~ II f I Miles
It, liill ~ ~:' ~ ~~~e~: Bonestroo Rosene Andertik & Assodates
~ I '<I rnffimml:1111l111l1l111 ~ IUl._ ,~,. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
:::J :'t . .;m" 46,00 OI~':::'1"I MemQn31 Hioh,:",&y. SUl:e. 202. Gold,," V"'~It'y. MN 55422
'n";' ~ ^ ~~~I m Ii: ~~ '.', T.......n.. '53 2" 2555 '=-'.<753.23125n' _n~~.n=p""'~"9 com
, LM !n.L\o1l I h"ifi. 1m<
H
GOLDEN VALLEY
City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
35
Land Use
The vast majority of New Hope's low density residential neighborhoods were developed
prior to 1970. In spite of its age, the City's single family housing stock is generally well
maintained and in very good condition. However, as displayed on the map on Page 35,
a 1996 housing survey, prepared by New Hope's Department of Fire and Safety, identified
small clusters of single family homes having housing condition problems. These areas will
require rehabilitation or redevelopment efforts.
An expressed community goal is to maintain and enhance the strong character of its low
density single family neighborhoods. To achieve this goal, the City will continue its
tradition of aggressively addressing local housing issues. Current programs geared at
addressing single family neighborhood housing conditions include:
1. In 1977, the City adopted its Housing Maintenance Code, which requires home
sellers to have a pre-sale inspection and repair any identified problems. The early
and continued implementation of the Housing Maintenance Code has been credited
as one of the primary reasons for the excellent condition of the City's single family
neighborhoods.
2. F or housing sites that exhibit a significant degree of deterioration, the City has
undertaken rehabilitation and redevelopment efforts through its Scattered Site
Housing Programs. These programs have allowed the City to improve or remove
blighted properties before they negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods.
3. The City has undertaken a plan to address a cluster of substandard homes located
along Bass Lake Road and the Bass Lake Road extension. The City, through
negotiated acqlJ.i~it.i.<:lQ '.... .i~'h?~~~Il}~I.i Q9.. J~~i 9~Qti <:1.1.. ..I(?~~... .t()H. . ?119""..... f()r H' future
redeve lop ment Qfi\!Q~:::~t(~?i~~::;[n~~~gm;:~tg::.Q!9D::\m~~!~Y;:f~$fg~@tl?t:.lgiJg::;q~~~;.
These current efforts have a proven record of effectiveness and will continue into the
future. Other efforts that are being implemented to encourage reinvestment in the City's
single family neighborhoods will include:
1. The examination and modification of the City's development regulations pertaining
to low density single family areas in order to provide local property owners greater
flexibility in the use and development of their properties. Topics addressed to date
have included building setbacks) accessory buildings, and home occupations.
These efforts are intended to allow property owners the opportunity to expand, alter
or modernize their homes in a manner that keeps the housing stock contemporary
and sellable.
1\P" H"',:,,:,,. City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
~ Development Framework
37
Land Use
2. As a continuing community service, New Hope participates with adjoining north
suburban communities in an annual remodeling fair. This community outreach
effort serves to encourage and educate local property owners to make
improvements to their homes.
The New Hope Life Cycle Housing Study, 1997, indicates that the City has a sufficient
supply of affordable ($115,000 or less), low density detached housing units. The
availability of higher value homes within the City has been limited. However, according
to the Multiple Listing Service reports, New Hope homes have been selling at higher
values in recent years. The Life Cycle Housing Study suggests that due to the limited
supply of vacant land, a strategy of continued maintenance, upgrading and modernization
of the existing low density single family housing stock will continue the trend of higher
home values.
Medium and High Density Residential
Medium Density (fqitmgg;::::!g::::1.p:units per acre) and high density (1QffiIiunits per acre)
residential land uses represent ~g@;~i;R~[ggn~~~~of the City's total land area and 48.3 percent
of the City's total housing units.
Existing development patterns reveal that the medium and high density residential
development patterns are dispersed throughout the City. The location of the higher
density is at the periphery of single family neighborhoods generally in close proximity to
commercial land uses and higher functional classification streets~ This strong land use
pattern has served to reduce land use incompatibility issues between high density and
lower, density neighborhoods.
The 1996 Housing Survey, prepared by the New Hope Department of Fire and Safety,
reveals that the majority of the City's high density residential areas are in good condition.
The good condition of the multiple family housing stock is attributed to strict zoning
requirements instituted in the early 19605 that required multiple family buildings to be
constructed with expensive, durable brick veneers. This construction standard provided
an attractive, low maintenance exterior wall treatment and focused exterior building
maintenance dollars for the multiple family buildings to windows, doors and roofing. In
most cases, the City's multiple family units provide for amenities such as attached
garages.
ffi City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
38
Land Use
Through the 1996 Housing Survey and 1997 Community Tour, multiple family areas that
exhibits signs of deterioration and blight have been identified on the previous map. The
multiple family sites displaying deteriorating conditions have been divided into two
categories:
1. Maintenance. Sites in this category may be enhanced through improved building
and site maintenance. These areas include a number of medium density residential
areas that exhibit declining exterior building or yard conditions includingJ but not
limited to, poor sidingJ painting required, driveway conditions, yard conditions,
outdoor storage, etc.
Property ownership patterns, rental properties, and the lack of homeowners
associations related to these medium density residential sites have complicated the
application of the City's point of sale Housing Maintenance Code. Many medium
density housing units initially purchased for owner occupancy may be converted to
rental properties rather than sold. Under these circumstances, the City may not be
aware of the change in occupancy and have the opportunity to implement its
Housing Maintenance Code.
In these instances where housing maintenance or rehabilitation is appropriate, the
City must be proactive in bringing the medium density housing units under the
regulation of the New Hope Housing Maintenance Code with regularJ periodic
inspections and code enforcement.
2. Redevelopment. The 1996 Housing Survey identifies target areas for multiple
family redevelopment efforts. These areas, due to deteriorated housing conditions,
require more dramatic efforts to correct both physical conditions and related social
issues.
The primary redevelopment sites are located along Bass Lake RoadJ 62nd Avenue,
~innet~AvenueJ~~I~~ii~W~~ S~allerredevelop~ent
locations have been identified along 36th Avenue, ~2nq~i~~~y~@nq~, and ~innetka
Avenue near Medicine lake Road.
The City has undertaken efforts, in cooperation with Project for Pride in Living, ISD
281 J and the City of Crystal to redevelop three substandard, non-conforming sites
located along Bass Lake Road between Pennsylvania and Nevada Avenues. This
project involves the assembly of eleven individual lotsJ demolition of two non-
conforming commercial buildings, and the creation of 34 townhome units. The
result of this project is the creation of an attractive townhome neighborhood along
Bass Lake Road. The housing units will consist of affordable three and four
ffi City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
39
Land Use
bedroom townhomes that have been identified as a housing need in New Hope.
Other ancillary benefits include the correction of long term drainage problems in the
area and bringing the entire property under a single ownership and management.
This project serves as an example for future redevelopment areas.
mgQrQjgl~gjfjr~$gg,.mtg~iifttfi@.;'n~g~$ii~li~@~lfie.~~t@;~~ng:;:1ae~,;;mifg;;IYQf:~;ffl.i:11.
&VJbJJ@lg~~~ltQW@hpm@~~~~j~r~:i~~J$Q1~~JPP:!w~~a;iii!rfi~~:i~imJ.ft1ttR;i$~:r~~j
~~@~iY!;m$!ggB.tla.f:;!:IIJY$g;'::::wfie,!;lpprQMgi:~:IJ.QY$ing:;QrQjgl;:rnvQlMeg:;:lVq.~pn~Jng$
erQJ~Qf::;fQf:~!BtiifJg'Jn;;:;gti!ng~tQfi~lp:::m~IR~Ie.;;;pr.9J~ptfin~nplgny:.f~a~iile;
The Land Use Plan does not propose a change in land use in most of the
residential redevelopment target areas. Rather, redevelopment sites are
anticipated to remain residential, with a focus on changing the conditions, type, or
density of the existing residential land use. Specific suggestions include:
1 . Apartment complex located at Bass Lake Road and Yukon Avenue is characterized
by the following conditions:
a. Poor construction.
b. No amenities, no garages.
c. Flooding problems.
d. Crime problems.
ffi City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
40
Land Use
This siteJs proximity to the CityJs golf course offers exc,ellent opportunity for
redevelopment and the creation of higher value housing which has been identified
as a housing need in New Hope.
2. The multiple family buildings along 62nd AvenueJ between Winnetka Avenue and
West Broadway, display the following conditions:
a. Poor building conditions and site maintenance.
b. No amenities, no garages.
c. Outdoor storage problems.
These sites are over-utilized. Any redevelopment should consider a reduction of
density to provide a more attractive living environment and site amenities. Due to
the lot sizes and configuration, this area may be more suited for medium density
townhomes or twinhomes with attached garages. This type of housing has been
identified as a need in New HopeJs 1997 Life Cycle Housing Study for the Year
2010 to accommodate the CityJs growing population of empty nesters and elderly
individuals.
Other redevelopment target areas will require specific site analysis to determine
appropriate housing types and densities when the City undertakes actual redevelopment.
HOUSING NEED
The diversity of New Hope's housing stock goes a long way in meeting the needs of a
variety of income and age groups. The City has been very aggressive in addressing
housing issues pertaining to housing conditions, housing affordabilitYJ and housing for
special needs residents (the elderly and people with disabilities).
In looking to the future, the City has conducted the 1997 Life Cycle Housing Study for the
year 2010 which identifies the following housing needs:
1 . Higher Value, Move UP Housing. Due to the lack of vacant land supply in New
Hope, this housing need must be met through continued maintenance upgrading
and modernization of existing single family housing stock. The City may also look
. to satisfy the housing need through redevelopment of bl ighted sites which may have
amenities that would be attractive to higher value medium or high density housing
options.
ffi City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
41
Land Use
2. Owner Occupied or Rental Attached Housing. The Life Cycle Housing Study
identified the need for attached housing (townhomesJ twinhomesJ cooperative
apartments) that offer low maintenance, independent housing opportunities. These
types of housing opportunities are attractive to empty nesters or older residents
wishing to live in New Hope.
3. Affordable Rental. The Life Cycle Housing Study identified a need for additional
affordable rental units before year 201 O. Due to theCityJs extensive rental housing
supply, these units can be provided through rental assistance certificates for use
within existing rental units.
4. Special Needs Housing. New Hope has made special efforts to provide housing
for people with special needs such as the elderly and disabled. New Hope will
continue to expand its special needs housing stock as opportunities present
themselves.
The specific quantifiable housing needs for New Hope are included in the 1997 Life Cycle
Housing Study for the Year 2010 which has been included as Addendum A of the
Comprehensive Plan. The City's housing policies and implementation plan is identified
in the New Hope Housing Policy Action Plan, 1996, included as Addendum 8 of this
Comprehensive Plan.
COMMERCIAL
Commercial uses occupy ~::pgE~n11of the City's total land area. The vitality and image of
the City's commercial area is a primary concern of the City. New HopeJs shopping areas
display a declining image through building appearance) vacancies) and erratic commercial
land use patterns that provides little continuity or business interchange between the
various commercial areas.
In an effort to respond to the commercial land use concerns related to the function and
vitality of the CityJs commercial areas) the following strategies will be implemented:
1. Work cooperatively with the City of Crystal to establish a cohesive commercial
image along Bass Lake Road between Winnetka AvenueJ and Highway 81.
2. As opportunities present themselves, redevelop and assemble small commercial
sites to create larger commercial lots capable of accommodating contemporary
office, retail, and service providers. Specific land assembly target areas include
ffi Gity of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
42
Land Use
sites along Bass Lake Road east of Winnetka Avenue, 42nd Avenue east of the
railroad tracks, and Medicine Lake Road east of Hillsboro Avenue.
3. Aggressively pursue the redevelopment and/or renovation of the Winnetka Center,
Kmart Center, and PostHaste Center to enhance both the physical appearance and
tenant composition of these centers in an effort to improve the customer draw to
New Hope's commercial areas.
4. Coordinate redevelopment efforts of the shopping centers in the City Center area
of New Hope to promote easy access, shared parking and pedestrian movement
between the shopping centers to promote business interchange between these
shopping centers.
5. Consider a reduction in the shopping center parking standard and promote shared
parking arrangements in an effort to reduce parking lot size and create additional
commercial building sites that would complement the shopping centers.
6. Redevelopment efforts in commercial areas shall promote commercial land uses as
a first priority. However, the City will consider the introduction of compatible and
complementary alternative land uses as part of the commercial redevelopment
projects if it will enhance the commercial vitality on a City-wide basis.
7. The City will promote a business friendly attitude through the community promotion
and ongoing examination of City regulations impacting businesses (e.g., zoningJ
signageJ business licensing) to keep New Hope businesses competitive with
adjoining communities.
8. To enhance the commercial image and to unify the identity of New Hope's
commercial areas! the City will implement its Streetscape Plan to establish a
common design theme throughout the various commercial locations.
In addition to the general commercial land use recommendationsJ the Land Use Plan calls
for the following changes in commercial land use patterns:
1 . The commercial area at the corner of Winnetka Avenue and 62nd Avenue is
proposed to be redeveloped as medium density residential land uses.
2. Two commercial lots located along Bass Lake Road between Pennsylvania and
Nevada Avenue are proposed to be redeveloped as medium density residential
land uses.
ffi City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
43
Land Use
3. New commercial land uses are proposed at the northeast corner of Quebec Avenue
and 42nd Avenue. This land use change involves the redevelopment of three
industrial sites.
4. Commercial land uses have been expanded along the east side of Winnetka
Avenue just north of Medicine Lake Road to include a non-conforming multiple
family site. This land use change is proposed to establish a contiguous land use
pattern along Winnetka Avenue between Medicine Lake Road and Terra Linda
Drive.
5. Commercial land uses have been expanded to two sites located at the. corner of
Hillsboro Avenue and Medicine lake Road.
MJlgl~~jJ4[~g
prQmQtJ.Qn.:Qf;~9Qmm~rg!I:~:~J.an~:;g$~i:i$~;Ii@:~!~y;~:lfit$t:~:p'rlqrltM@~:~~~~~mQW~y~@~i~ItI~:~e:!ty:ilm:il~Q
i~Igl!Dg~tlg::~ifY~~'r~&1~y~;J.QPm~n~:Q~j~p:tiM~~;E:liQP~rt]=::iQf~~r~~I~y18YJ.Q8Ivi~nyg;
wUJ.i~;rgg4jrg.a~::m!I:~gpprQifiU~~Qfi~a'.r@~eygIQPm~ntma!grplgn.~~~~lmmfQqgb.':the:~refl$veIQgmerU
ffi) City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
44
62ND AVE.N. BROOKL Y PARK c~unty Rd 101 COMM ERCIAL
'.li&1! I~~ REDEVELOPMENT
'~III:;"~ .'HI TARGET AREAS
~~@ ~/~ -u iLl ml~
D It!~ ~ ER ~E6~ .
I ;,li"~ . EEED"t
~ ~~~II[Jlli;~7f I~-j- .~~
~ \ ~ ~jA" ~JIIII
~rtf~ ~ "\5~11
:: l . (-Ii~~r_LJt:>o~-;::- -
~kffiHID _ I ~7
~ T ,~~ Q~I .r~
=- ...@~~ M ~ ·
g oV"'<'-' ~_L m. r . Commercial
~ ~_ C=lB111 I _ Commercial Mixed Use
~. e~~1I _rLE:> City ~oun~ary
\. I 1111 - [1ft Outside City
~~ 'l~~ J ,'&.j~;~,; '<'="1. 1 ~ r
~~ill~ '-~~; ii
'~ .'"<<l'TnT ~ Cr:......
I~~.II -~.
I~~ ~ LJ
~%"I ~ I
.i{.~ . ,J;j, ~~ ~
tllril;~~~=~
I -ro'-''-!; ~l i ~ ;: H~. ...::.... EHllll3 0 025 0.5 0.75 1
~ Ililli=~ . . :r II I I Miles
&V \~dl.. /J c . ~ :: :0:: Bonestroo Rosene Anderiik & Associates
., = = 1li9HHHEB1I11l1l11l11l1l1 R I 01- Ji~~7 NORTHWEST AS SO ClUE D CONSUL fA illS. IN C.
=> 2" ~ ~;I ~ '" . ~""' u'o= "=0=' ".-". "',~ ""J, ~"'.= >"'" '-'N ~=J
\ JEE 1~~I..... . --0:", T~;ph:....c.: 7:3 :!:n ;:5$ Fw.~l'r.:te: ;B2.::!:; l..:!EBl po .m..-c::=.;: n:>::;>l.::.n"'S" "l3.;:Q""
\ M ::JTi l~'-I"'. II 1.. I iiT'<
GOLDEN VALLEY
ID CitvofNewHooe Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
45
Planning Districts
PLANNING DISTRICT 3
This district is found on the western edge of New
Hope and is bordered by Plymouth to the west,
Bass Lake Road to the north, 49th Avenue to th~
south, and Boone Avenue to the east. This area
has a strong industrial base and is in excellent
condition., Other land uses within the area include
parks/recreation, public/semi-public lands, high
density residential and a small amount of
commercial.. The following recommendations are
offered for Planning District 3.
1. The primary goal within Planning District 3 is
the preservation and enhancement of its
industrial land uses. In this respect, the
following recommendations are offered:
8. Promote industrial infill development of the remaining vacant parcels on
Bass Lake Road and 49th Avenue.
b. Work with existing industries to encourage, business retention and in-place
expansion.
c. Redevelop two substandard sites located along the sout~ side of East
Research Center Road to establish sites for new industrial development.
d. Promote the proper screening of outdoor storage areas within the industrial
park.
2f ~l.fhf:Q:ilJ$tr~@t..~i~iig~gint.:$If.~::IQgil~~..~l.QQga!ilqn~.lv~I!i@.h?$:&:i@ni:Phgng~iiiffgm
indy~mlit~pH.tghil~rii~Yf~$i~gQtl~I:tq:~ggiiimQ;i~ngi:tMg::llrPJ@W)]lqr:iBrl"g..lnIili!GG
ffi City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
85
Planning Districts
PLANNING DISTRICT 6
This district's borders are Winnetka Avenue to the
west, the C.P. Rail System to the south, and Crystal
to the east and north, with a jagged northern border.
District 6 is primarily low density residential with
areas of multi-family residential and commercial
development s,cattered along Bass Lake Road. The
following recommendations are offered for Planning
District 6.
1. The low density residential neighborhoods in
District 6 are generally in good condition}
however, two low density redevelopment
target areas have been identified within
Planning District 6. In addressing the low
density residential land uses in District 6, the
following recommendations are made:
a. The City will aggressively promote private reinvestment in the existing single
family housing, through housing renovation seminars and programs, and the
through the enforcement of the Point of Sale Housing Maintenance Code.
b. Scattered site housing renovation and redevelopment will be pursued on
selected lots within District 6.
c. The City has targeted the low density residential area along Bass Lake Road
and the Bass Lake Road extension. This area is characterized by small
homes in marginal condition on large lots. mfl~;i;i~imJtY!ii!~~fi~~iii;;j~qq;glr@~;j;~~i~na
fg"~y.gIQpg~:::t~g$I.I$::j:a.$Q~wi1Igm.:::"~n$'~MH[~$ltl~Dtfa.l::=f@il:::g$e~;
d. A second low density residential area targeted for redevelopment consists
of a number of very deep lots along Winnetka Avenue between Bass Lake
Road and 53rd Avenue ip'(:.f$ma.mrlnargtoa.t::~QmmgfQ!al:::pfQPeJli_g$::::alQil
b@ff~r~~~4~;!I1.z~~i~tfi~~j~Q~~i
ffi City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
89
Planning Districts
~~; IgggMg!EBtQf-tl1g:atf~nK$mgr~gi_~l.lg:Qn:::jW!o.~t.Ri:::lg~nggi::~:nQB;@f
f. New low density residential land uses will be encouraged on the remaining
vacant parcels in District 6.
2. The medium and high density residential land uses in District 6 are located along
Bass Lake Road. Inspection of these land uses find these areas in various states
of disrepair. The renovation of medium and high density land use in District 6
includes:
8. The C'ity is currently participating in the redevelopment of a blighted non-
conforming medium density residential site located along Bass Lake Road
between Nevada and Pennsylvania Avenues. This redevelopment is being
undertaken with a non-profit organization along with the cooperation of ISD
281 and the City of Crystal. This project provides a working example of
projects that will provide a much needed housing resource and correct land
use infrastructure concerns. The proposed land use plan has been modified
to illustrate the resulting medium density land use for the site.
b. A second undeveloped target area involves a high density residential site
located along Winnetka Avenue north of Bass Lake Road. This site displays
declining building and site conditions. The City will pursue building
renovation and/or redevelopment as conditions permit
3. Within Planning District 6, an aggressive strategy for enhancing the commercial
character along Bass Lake Road is recommended including:
?~:
b. Assemble and redevelop smaller commercial sites to create larger
commercial lots for contemporary retailr service and office uses.
c. In cooperation with the City of CrystalJ establish a commercial streetscape
that enhances the overall character of the Bass Lake Road commercial
corridor.
ffi City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
90
Planning Districts
PLANNING DISTRICT 11
District 11 has been configured to
include the City Center and the
commercial corridor along 42nd
Avenue. The district extends from
Zealand Avenue on the west to
Louisiana Avenue on the east. In
addition to the commercial land
uses, District 11 includes high
density residential, industrial and
public/semi-public land uses. The
following recommendations are
offered for District 11.
1. A stated goal of the City is to enhance and revitalize the City's commercial location.
The City Center and 42nd Avenue serve as downtown New Hope. In recognition
of the City's commercial goals, the following strategies have been defined for the
commercial land uses in District 11:
a. Aggressively pursue the renovation and redevelopment of the Winnetka
Center and the Kmart Shopping Center. Undertake efforts to enhance the
physical appearance and tenant composition of the centers to improve the
custo~erbaseofthis area. ~~~j~I~~~~~~~~~~n~~~~I~~~6Ii~i6
Qf!::!PQrom~9!at::~o~.'mga!E~Ql1tQfi::!!~go.$1tY:!::f~il~~QtJ?H!:lgo.a!:::g~~$E::::D~
~grn~!;g~r~~!~!;!Qji~!Q~i~~~fg~~y~;Igpm~8~i!~gf;i!h~~jj@fgr@mgptfgg:~~il!I~!fg~i~~
b. Redevelopment efforts for the shopping center must attempt to integrate the
site design with adjoining shopping centers to improve business interchange
and pedestrian movement.
c. The City will provide the creation of satellite commercial sites within the
shopping center properties to accommodate new economic development
The City will examine current development regulations and consider
modification that facilitates satellite site development.
d. The City will pursue a uniform streetscape design around the City Center
and along 42nd Avenue to establish an attractive commercial identity.
ffi City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
95
Planning Districts
e. The City will pursue redevelopment of marginal commercial sites along 42nd
Avenue. Three target sites have been initially identified. The first site
consists of two small commercial lots at the southwest corner of 42nd
Avenue and Oregon Avenue. The lots are over-utilized, creating operation
and aesthetic problems for the businesses. Redevelopment efforts should
attempt to combine the properties to create a large commercial site.
The second site is located at the northeast corner of 42nd Avenue and
Nevada. This site is generally under-utilized and offers opportunity for
commercial expansion.
The third site is located at the northeast corner of Quebec Avenue and 42nd
Avenue. Currently, this site consists of three industrial sites that are
undergoing environmental clean up. Only one lot contains an active
industrial use. Redevelopment efforts should change this site to a
commercial land use that would be complementary to the entire City Center
area.
2. The Civic Center Park and governmental buildings are included in District 11. This
area serves as an important element to the City Center image and as an attraction
to the planning district. Suggestions for this land use area include:
a. Consideration of the Civic Center Park for a community center.
b. Implementation of the Civic Center Park Master Plan.
ffi City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
96
62NDAVE.N. BROOKLYPARK CountyRd101
~ i~~'.~ All;
A:t '\))~~'~ffij~~ ~:'.~~ ~ Ilr~
'""= ...... "'u' .... .'. '-LftI'tlBI=l"lII1 RI~~
?'~::'~i" .:,..:>p:;_-~'"'. ',. . -
~!fll~~~::;::;~~!.~-3\~10~~~~~IHHIIl ~.. I
,~~c< c&~,"".~' :,;c;IDIIII~m ~~ I
.... -. .,"'_"d IIII
." ""."'"~~;. ~':>~ .. ...,~ I BI
II~. . ),,~III
:J:
....
:::>
0
2:
>
..J
c..
~, ~III ~~?5~O';>~{~3~~~~ II i III CJ Parks & Recreation
~ ~~~I~~~!1I111L.;:.~ I~ Lakes
II ~.~I~;m,'i . CJ Vacant
I ~~ '= - ~~ ;i;'~;;.4;?:~ ~~" CJ Out side City limit
~ IC~'\rl I ~II
'.:'~,;~-:-2:.;:
_ - :;'~f~~-ri
wI Fa 1;". ~~ ~~
111&11 iI~~'T;~~; ~
ill ;&11I111 ~. f I]~ 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
~~ I fiil~~~ ;;:;:11 l-L iii I I Miles
rAW iiiil '-~~q~ ~:~e2~~~: Bone&roo Rosene Anderlik & Assoc~tes
.' :.; '" C3L I ~11"1I1"1I1"11 [I ~$111:~tlJ ~~:~ NO Dt HWEST AS 5 0 CIATE 0 CO NSUL TA '''5. IN C.
\ ' ~i ~ '?~ !~I=\:I ::. ~ti n ~r.ll~ ~.._..' V V "::;..,,;;,?~,?;-';;:?;:;',, "';':.~::~~ :.::;?o.~';;.,."'::;: ..:':~'.'::~, ".~:;.'.~::
GOLDEN VALLEY
~ City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
. \\n Development FramelNork
'tJ 31
S?NO AVEN" BROqKLY PAR < CountyRd 101 RESIDENTIAL
5il~iliiiilc;J~~ tl,m~1I '[ \ REDEVE~~~;~~~~~~
~~[Jf3~'~.. ~g Ill~
~~[J]~t!~~ ~ 1m RIr:Jn~
~'~;~IIDlIIII""I~1 i! I L
U L I ~~ 'D ^ ~V~T 'U IfflI~~! I
b-J rl 1 ~.r---= "\: ~Etf~ {3g
yJL{ l ~~~I_~C>>~r- J ~
\r1v lTH.~~11 $~
~ rn 1l.~1 II1JWU f7-7=~a..J Maintenance
~ ~::: F!r~ -::...~ II\~ = ~ml ~ Redevelopment - Medium & High Density
~ 11~~''1 C:'ZWII - D Redevelopment - Low Density
~.~ ~- Commercial Mixed Use
'-_ all' - - =o=ff - City Boundary
- ~ .~~~~ "Iml
II~-.' ~i~
\~~~ I I
~ >-~ \~
Ldl ria ,~, ~ ~.'I ~~-,
II~~. ll\ LT_==:
mill JII~ II ~ ~
;~I y ~~! If! - ~ -,. 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
mlll~ ~ I m~~, ~ II I I Miles
-II &i /I ~ ~;:: ~;~ Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates
~I 1= J ~!IIlIlIIl\III\1I~. JJ'.- ~ NOUHWOSl ASSOCUHD CONSUlUNlS. INC.
:::1 )f..:=".: .~ ...:..;::".::.; 1_1 .o;=-.... '~1~'I:~"..,;1 .......j: ~ -....JV. ~......:~ ':"';:l_~..;,_ ~~';;f"":"'~" "'~:t~,::,. .....1:.1 :......,l.1..,.:...,.;
~ L Imm~m ~ ~-rN.I~ ~ P'''' ,,_.~, m;'" "" C"o,.k ,<"" , '"'" e,,",,".r.=>~"T~C.C
Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
35
62ND A VE.N. BROOKL Y PARK County Rd 101
il.~gl\\V~~lU!~ PROPOSED
LAND USE
iff' "'~~~Il~
"., '.....'.,' , .,,:. ':: >...," ~ ._:..:)-:: : :". '~~,
,,':', .:' , ,_: .::.' ~.". .',' i\.~z:: 0=;;-
.... .... ..... . .... ftJII '.' hi ..... '. fF4"lr11 AI[fu"\J
, . ,"" . ,. _ ." "'-!~:.l1 ::rt....:l
~ ':..,:'. "',::,.;.., :.,"'. ':".,:,~_.;:-,<'..__')"''-,;:..;,,::,.,.::':;::,i:is-lHIII n .' .,
.... .JF..... ..... ..... ......<;:;.;',,; mmt: I
--8t.~ n:'..':' ilDIII~lllrm I B:
.. T ....;> i~1 I
1. ...1.' .'. liT ...... .... i:t .' i
! '.' T ..;; ......yr... I. .' 2"'-". ~ml I
:=I~ i\. ~ ',. !," -.,... -:.< 0 ~
~r ~Ii_i~~ :;'f# c=J Low Density Residential
Th ..I... 4911H,'- ::: .', ..-;JY
J: DA&qRII I II _.~
I- Low Density / Medium Density Residential
:,:)
0 ~~~!r~'.' .....\..;.;: Iltd ~ rillE CJ Medium Density Residential
~
>- c=J High Density Residential
..J
a. . ~.lb:JI!Ill .....
g . .' ......... ..... ~..... if1fIlUl7 -., ::,,::.::.,.,- c=J Commercial
~.III ~~r....' "'n~ ~ Commercial Mixed Use
~.., ..' - ,~ ~ [2J Industruial
,'. ' '" ''',n_ ,-.' ..' " ,
.,) ~t:PKi 1 ." .', :t [J
~111""~ .~~": m c=J Public & Semipublic
~ ~ ; .,. ""..",. , . ~
~I · ':'i.:'};/~ '. ......... .... ..... :: . CJ Parks & Recreation
~~~ II.. ...................\..<{ ~n II'
Lakes
c=J Vacant
CJ Out side City limit
ldl tiahln ~~1 i~
- &1 ~iI m.\ ....~ ~..........l+ -
. ~ ' ~ ...04 r=c
I 1-1'11I111 ~t ...........-.'.
lilt dI ~~=T "."~ ~I 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
I I Miles
-V.II ~ '~ Base Map: Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates
May 2005
~.. ; ~~I i#i:HIfIll:1 II II II ~ g ~~ U 0 n r H W EST ASS 0 C I ATE 0 CO H 5 U L T A ~J T S. 1 N C.
"":......_ _........, _ ~&...__...-_......_~.......___......,~_~_...~_..._w~_~_~._
- - ;-~:::~..:,....... ~~ 7' . ~~..... ~~',... ~~...~.....~ ......~ ..-..... .:.:: ..~ _ 3- -. <L.,."o ~I ~. ~ ;;:"0 ,~.:.:..
...~? .- ~ ~ ~ ~l........... .. ~~- ... - ......... - . ~,- , . .
KE 1m- r h'1/"-t filT< ' .' ....\\
GOLDEN VALLEY
~ City of New Hope ___. -~--_. ,--'" Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
31
RESIDENTIAL
REDEVELOPMENT AND
MAINTENANCE
TARGET AREAS
:c
J- Maintenance
::J
0 Redevelopment - Medium & High Density
2
>- o Redevelopment - Low Density
...J
a..
Commercial Mixed Use
-City Boundary
Outside City
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
I I Miles
Base Map: Bonestroo Rosene Andcrlik & Associates
June 2005
. _ , ~" '",I"
-
GOLDEN VALLEY
~ City of New Hol2fZ- ...-~ ~ COfTlprehensive Plan ,Update
Development Framework
35
Memorandum
To: Kirk McDonald} CD Director
Roger Axel, Building Offic~a1
Al Brixius, City Planner
Kim Green, CD Assistant
From: Charles Carlson, CD Intern
Date: October 26} 2005
Subject: Planning Applications- Certificates of survey
Certificates of Survey
On September 6, 2005} the New Hope Planning Commission reviewed a planning application for a house
expansion. The petitioner did not submit a certified survey of the property} but instead submitted a site
plan. The commission asked staff to discuss this issue vvith the Codes and Standards Committee and
prepare a recommendation.
Certificates of survey are required for variances} but site plan declarations have traditionally been
accepted for R-l residential properties. The Zoning Ordinance lists Certificate of Survey as an
information requirement for variance applications, but past policy has left this requirement to the
discretion of the building official.
This issue was reviewed in 1998, in planning case 98-07. Some planning commission members felt the
existing requirements were adequate} while others thought a certified survey should be required for all
variances. Staff felt that the Connell at that time would not support the additional expense and delay to
residents if a survey. was required. Recent research shows a single family survey can cost $500 to $1000}
or more depending on the particular situation of a home. The codes and standards committee at that
time felt the inspections process had sufficient safeguards in place to ensure proper as-built compliance
without requiring a certified survey.
The committee discussed the requirement on September 21, 2005. The committee reviewed the
requirement and policy, and agreed with the current policy to give discretion to the building official to
waive the survey requirement for variances on R-1 properties.
Certificates of Survey will continue to be required for all commercial and industrial variances, as well as
variances involving multifamily residential properties.
Attachments: City Code Sec. 4-36} Variances, Planning Case Report 98-07
G:\CommDev\Charles\Code and Standards\July 2005 memos\Certificate of Survey Memo 10.26.05.doc
Sec. 4-36. Ad.lni11isb~ation-- Variances.
(a) Purpose of variance. The purpose of a variculce is to perlnit relief from the strict application of the
:
terms of the zoning code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue noneconomic 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.
(b) Procedure. An application for a variance requires a public hearing and shall be processed
pursuant to the provisions outlined in subsection 4-30(c) of this Code.
(c) Hardship. 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
applicable} the following criteria have been met:
(1) A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property that
results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict
application of the terms of this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape,
narrovvness} shallovvness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the
parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship
if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code.
(2) The 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 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 adjacent 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.
(d) Informational requirelnents.
(1) A certificate of survey depicting the following:
a. Lot dimensions and area.
b. Location} setback and dimension of all buildings on the lot including existing
and proposed structures.
c. The proposed variance.
(2) Narrative description of the requested variance and hardship unique to the property.
G:\CommDev\Charles\Code and Standards\July 2005 memos\Certificate of Survey Memo 10.26.05.doc
'.
-. ~... .. ~ . .... .,... . & .. - ~~ '"'
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 98-07
Request: Discussion Regarding Certificate of. Survey Requirement
Location: City-Wide
PJD No.:
~oning: R-11 Single Family Residential
Petitioner: City of New Hope
Report Date: May 1, 1998
Meeting Date: May 51 1998
SUMMARY
1. At the March 2 Planning Commission meeting, there was discussion by several Commissioners
regarding imposing a requirement on single family homeowners to have a certificate of survey
completed on their property for housing expansion projects. As you are awarel the City Code does not
currently require this and for many years the City has accepted a signed Usite plan declaration" instead
of requiring a survey. City staff requested that this issue be discussed by the Codes & Standards
Committee before any action be taken. The Building Official prepared some comments on this issue to
:. initiate the disc~ssion and he has ,prepared the attached memo and graphics.
2. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed this i$sue at the March 20 meeting and directed staff to
get input from the City Manager and City Council to determine if there was support to require certified
surveys for residential expansions prior to pursuing this issue further. The City Manager has indicated
he does not believe the Council would support imposing this requirement on R-1 property owners,
therefore, staff recommends that this issue not be pursued.
3. The Committee again briefly reviewed this issue at its April 22 meeting and was in agreement with
staffs recommendation. The chair of the Committee requested that this matter be placed on the May
Planning Commission. agenda to that the full Commission could consider this recommendation.
4. The recommendation from the Codes & Standards Committee and staff is that a code amendment not
be pursued to require certified Uas built" surveys for single family home expansions} as it is doubtful that
such an amendment would be supported by the Council and the current "site plan declaratlonlJ process
is adequate in most cases and is not as costly for homeowners, The Building Official may require an "as "'>
built" survey for :esidential property ,expans.ions if ,he id~ntifies the need for one. and "as built" surveys /
are already required for all commercial and Industrial proJects.
RECOMMENDATION
That a code amendment not be pursued to require certified Uas buiJf' surveys for single family home
expansions.
Attachments: 3/20 Building Official Memo & Graphics
Excerpts from 3/2 Planning Commission Minutes
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Date: October 28} 2005
Subject: Miscellaneous Issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional
detail on Council/EDA 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.
1. October 3 Council Work Session - At the October 3 Council work session} the Council discussed
the following planning/development/housing issues:
. Discussion regarding rental housing ordinance and inspection program: Staff presented
information on the rental housing ordinance and inspection program to the Conncll and was
directed to bring it back for formal adoption at the October 10 meeting, see attached Council
request.
. Project #792, Update on applications submitted for the city center advisory committee and
discussion of next steps: Staff reported that 16 applications had been submitted and Council
extended the application deadline to October 31, see attached Council request.
. Project #792, Meeting with key stakeholders in the city center area to discuss potential
development and redevelopment opportunities: Council met with Bahram Akradi} owner
of New Hope Mall and Lifetime Fitness, see attached Council request.
0) Discussion regarding train whistle quiet zone: The Council directed staff to solicit estimates
for design work from professional engineering firms, see attached Council request.
e Discussion of city-owned property north of/adjacent to railroad, near 52nd and
Pennsylvania Avenues: The Council was receptive to exploring development options for the
site and directed staff to prepare a draft Request for QualificationslProposals, review with
the Council, and seek proposals similar to the process utilized for the Bass Lake Road
Apartments redevelopment site.
. Review of revised proposed boulevard tree policy for commercial and industrial areas:
Staff explained the boulevard tree policy and Council directed staff to bring it back for
formal adoption at the October 10 meeting, see attached Council request (application forms
attached with October 10 request).
Miscellaneous Issues Page 1 10/28/05
2. October 10 Council Meeting - At the October 10 Council meeting} the Council discussed the
following planning/development/housing items:
. PC04-02, Resolution authorizing release of financial guarantee for Science Center Drive,
LLC at 8801 Science Center Drive: Approved} see attached Council request.
. PC04-04, Resolution authorizing release of financial guarantee for A.C. Carlson
development at 8901 Bass Lake Road: Approved, see attache~ Coll!'-c~ request.
. Project #771, Resolution relating to a public hearing and adoption of assessments for
Hillside Terrace street and infrastructure: Approved, see attached COlUlcil request.
. Project #750, Update on the project proposals for the Bass Lake Road Apartments
redevelopment site and solicitation of public input: See attached Council request.
. PC05-09, Request for final plat approval for property to be known as New Hope Ouebec
Addition, 7500, 7516, and 7528 42nd Avenue: Approved final plat, see attached Council
request.
. Selection of design for 42nd Avenue banners and authorization to order banners:
Authorization to purchase banners, see attached Council request.
. Project #751, Discussion of Winnetka Green project issues: See attached Council request.
. Discussion regarding gate enclosure at Twin City Poultry, 46300uebec Avenue:
Authorization granted for city to pay for gates to be purchased and installed, see attached
Council request.
. Resolution adopting boulevard tree policy for commercial and industrial areas: Adopted,
see attached Council request.
3. October 24 Council Meeting - At the October 24 Council meeting, the Council discussed the
following planning/development/housing items:
. PC04-17, Resolution authorizing reduction of financial guarantee for the Project for Pride
in Living development: Approved} see attached Council request.
. Adoption of ordinance amending Chapter 3 of the New Hope City Code by adopting the
International Property Maintenance Code, Rental Registration Program, and requiring a
Certificate of Property Maintenance upon sale of any class of property: Adopted the
International Property Maintenance Code with amendments and updated language for the
code compliance program, and postponed the adoption of the rental registration program.
4. Codes and Standards Committee - Several code amendments will be considered by the full
commission at the November Planning Commission meeting.
5. Design and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee did not meet ill October.
The deadline for the December Planning Commission meeting is November 10. Staff is not yet
aware if applications will be submitted for the December meeting, and will contact the
committee regarding a meeting following the application deadline.
IVliscellaneous Issues Page 2 10/28/05
6. Future Applications - Future potential applications or businesses/developers that staff is
currently working with, or has recently met with} include:
1. 7100 Medicine Lake Road (former Egan McKay property) potential redevelopment
2. 4415 Nevada Avenue subdivision
3. Wings Soccer Club (Hosterman soccer field complex)
4. Twin City Hardware expansion, 5650 International Parkway
5. 4300 Quebec - new use (Northwestern Casket)
6. Aldi grocery store, 7180 42nd Avenue
7. Holy Trinity Lutheran Church expansion} 4240 Gettysburg A venue
8. Crystal Free Church CUP amendment for minor expansion
9. Intermet expansion, 5100 Boone Avenue
10. Waymouth Farms parking variance/CUP
11. 4301 Quebec industrial condo conversion
12. St. Therese Nursing Home/duplex
7. Bass Lake Road Apartments - An open house to review developer proposals for the Bass Lake
Road Apartment site was conducted in September. Residents attending filled out surveys on the
proposals and the Council accepted public input at its meeting on October 10. Proposals are
currently being modified and will be discussed at the November 21 'Vvork session. A developer is
expected to be selected at the end of November.
8. City Center Task Force Update - Per direction from the City Council, staff is accepting
applications for a new advisory group. The application deadline has been extended through
October 31.
9. Project Bulletin - Enclosed is a project bulletin regarding Winnetka Green.
10. Miscellaneous Articles - Enclosed is the July issue of Zoning Practice..
11. Crystal Redevelopment - Enclosed is a notice Teceived from the city of Crystal regarding a
redevelopment project on the former Thorson Elementary School site (north of Bass Lake Court
Townhomes). The information was mailed to New Hope property owners within 350 feet of the
site.
12. 2006 Planning Commission Schedule - Enclosed is the draft 2006 Planning Commission
schedule for your review. Meeting night changes would include: Tuesday} July 11 (2nd
Tuesday), Wednesday, August 2 (due to National Night Out), and Wednesday, November 8
(due to elections).
13. Minutes - Enclosed are September 6 Pla.nrllng Commission minutes fOT your revievv.
14. If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff.
Attachments: Winnetka Green concerns
Rental housmg ordinance
City Center Advisory Committee
Key City Center stakeholders
Train ''\Thistle qlliet Z011e
Vacant citY-O\Vl1ed property l1ear 5211d/PerL~syl\'al1ia
Boulevard h~ee policy Tor cOITlnlercial/uld-ustrial areas
l'v1iscella11eous Issues Page 3 1. 0/28/03
Release of financial guarantee - Northland Mechanical
Release of financial guarantee - AC Carlson
Hillside Terrace assessments
Bass Lake Road Apartments update
Final plat for New Hope Quebec Addition
42nd A venue banners
Winnetka Green project issues
Twin City Poultry gate enclosure
Boulevard tree policy
Reduction of financial guarantee for PPL
Rental Housing Program Ordinance
Project bulletin
Zoning Practice
Crystal Redevelopment
2006 Planning Commission Schedule
Planning Commission 9/6/05 1vIinutes
1YIiscellaneous Issues Page 4 10/28/05