030204 Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Tuesday, March 2, 2004
7:00 p.m.
'1. CALLTO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.1 Case 04-01 Request for rezoning, platting of properties, and concept/development
stage planned unit development, 5340-5550 Winnetka Avenue (east
side of road), 7601-7809 Bass Lake Road (south side of road), 5519-
5559 Sumter Avenue (both sides of road), Ryland Homes, Inc.,
Petitioners
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1 Report of Design & Review Committee - March 18, 8 a.m. (discuss earlier time)
5.2 Report of Codes & Standards Committee - to be scheduled
6. OLD BUSINESS
6.1 Miscellaneous Issues
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 2, 2003
7.2 Review of City Council Minutes of January 26 and February 9, 2004
7.3 Review of EDA Minutes of January 26 and February 9, 2004
8. ELECTIONS
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS
10. ADJOURNMENT
· Petitioners are required to be in attendance
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.
5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give
their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your
questions.
7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity
to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
A. If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the
planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this
meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting.
B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next
Commission meeting.
PLANNING 'CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: March 2, 2004
Report Date: February 27, 2004
Planning Case: 04-01
Petitioner: Ryland Homes, Inc.
Address: 5340 Winnetka Avenue, 5400 Winnetka Avenue, 5406 Winnetka Avenue, 5410
Winnetka Avenue, 5412 Winnetka Avenue, 5420 Winnetka Avenue, the rear portion
of 5420 Winnetka Avenue, 5422 Winnetka Avenue, 5434 Winnetka Avenue, 5440
Winnetka Avenue, 5446 Winnetka Avenue, 5500 Winnetka Avenue, 5506 Winnetka
Avenue, 5512 Winnetka Avenue, 5518 Winnetka Avenue, 5524 Winnetka Avenue,
5532 Winnetka Avenue, 5540 Winnetka Avenue, 5550 Winnetka Avenue, 7615, Bass
Lake Road, 7605 Bass Lake Road, 7609 Bass Lake Road, 7643 Bass Lake Road,
7601 Bass Lake Road, 7603 Bass Lake Road, 7621 Bass Lake Road, 5519 Sumter
Avenue, 5520 Sumter Avenue, 5530 Sumter Avenue, 5538 Sumter Avenue, 5546
Sumter Avenue, 5559 Sumter Avenue, 5537 Sumter Avenue, 5531 Sumter Avenue
7801 Bass Lake Road, 7809 Bass Lake Road, strip between 7801 Bass Lake Road
and 5559 Sumter Avenue, strip between 7801 Bass Lake Road and 5537 Sumter
Avenue, strip between 7605 and 7603 Bass Lake Road, and strip east and south of
7615 Bass Lake Road
Request: Platting of properties, rezoning, and concept/development stage planned unit
development approval
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting rezoning of property from R-1, single family residential, and CB, community
business, to PUD, planned unit development, preliminary plat approval, and concept/development stage
planned unit development, to allow construction of 117 urban townhomes and 58 condominiums,
pursuant to Sections 4-24, 4-30, 4-34 and Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
In review of the proposed application, the following development approvals are necessary:
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Currently, the New Hope Comprehensive Plan designates the
property for commercial and Iow to medium density residential use, although it is a targeted
redevelopment site. Under Comprehensive Plan definitions, the proposed development would
qualify as a high density residential use. As such, a land use change will be required.
2. Rezoning. Currently, the site is zoned R-l, single family residential, and CB, community business. A
change in zoning is necessary to accommodate the proposed use. In light of the various design
flexibilities being requested by the applicant, rezoning to a planned unit development district is
recommended. Within this district, the city can provide the density and design flexibility that is
necessary to accommodate this redevelopment without variance.
3. Subdivision. To accommodate this proposed development, a preliminary plat and final plat will have
to be processed.
4. Street Vacation. A segment of Sumter Avenue will need to be vacated to accommodate the project.
This vacation will require a public hearing before the City Council and must be approved if the
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 1 2/27/04
project is to proceed. The public hearing will be scheduled at a later date and is not apart of this?~,
approval process.
II. Zoning Code References
Section 4-24 PUD, Planned Unit Development District
Section 4-30 Administration - General
Section 4-34 Administration - PUD, Planned Unit Development
Chapter 13 Subdivision and Platting
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: R-l, Single Family Residential and CB, Community Business
Location: Southeast quadrant of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue (specifically
5340 to 5550 Winnetka and 7601 to 7809 Bass Lake Road, 5519 to 5559
Sumter, and 5520 to 5546 Sumter Avenue)
Adjacent Land Uses: R-1 single family residential to the south and east, including Elm Grove Park
and St. Raphael Catholic Church in Crystal, land uses to the north include CB,
community business, LB, limited business, R-O, residential-office, and Crystal
residential properties, properties to the west include CB, community business
and R-l, single family residential, and school district property.
Site Area: L-shaped parcel containing approximately 16.5 acres
Building Area:
Heritable Condominiums ScI. Ft. Per Building
Building 23 15,307
Building 24 15,307
Building 25 14,962
Building 26 11,605
Building 27 11,605
Building 28 15,962
Building 60 15,307
Building 61 11,605
Total Condo Scl. Ft. 111,660
Carriage Townhomes II1. Units Sq. Ft./Unit Total Sq. Ft./ Sq. Ft. Per
East of Street B Unit Type Buildin~l.
Building Units 1 - 7 End Units 1 & 7 1,715 3,430
Units 2,3,4,5,6 1,284 6,420 9,850
Building Units 8 - 16 End Units 8 & 16 1,715 3,430
Units 1,284 8,988 12,418
9,10,11,12,13,14,15
Building Units 17 - 22 End Units 17 & 22 1,715 3,430
Units 18,19,20,21 1,284 5,136 8,566
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 2 2/27/04
Carriage Townhomes IV. Units Sq. Ft./Unit Total Sq. Ft./ Sq. Ft. Per
West of Street B Unit Type Building
Buildincj Units 1 - 9 End Units 1 & 9 1,7!5 3,430
Units 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 1,284 8,988 12,418
Building Units 10- 15 End Units 10 & 15 1,715 3,430
Units 11,12,13,14 1,284 5,136 8,566
Building Units 16 - 21 End Units 16 & 21 1,715 3,430
Units 17,18,19,20 1,284 5,136 8,566
Building Units 22 - 26 End Units 22 & 26 1,715 3,430
Units 23,24,25 1,284 3,852 7,282
Building Units 27 - 30 End Units 27 & 30 1,715 3,430
Units 28,29 1,284 2,568 5,998
Building Units 31 - 35 End Units 31 & 35 1,715 3,430
Units 32,33,34 1,284 3,852 7,282
I
Building Units 36 - 43 End Units 36 & 43 1,715 3,430
Units 1,284 7,704 11,134
37,38,39,40,41,42
Building Units 44 - 51 End Units 44 & 51 1,715 3,430
Units 1,284 7,704 11,134
45,46,47,48,49,50
Building Units 52 - 59 End Units 52 & 59 1,715 3,430
Units 1,284 7,704 11,134
53,54,55,56,57,,58
Building Units 62 - 70 End Units'62 & 70 1,715 3,430 "
Units 1,284 8,988 12,418
63,64,65,66,67,68,69
Building Units 71 - 79 End Units 71 & 79 1,715 3,430
Units 1,284 8,988 12,418
73,74,75,76,77,78
Building Units 80 - 88 End Units 80 &' 88 1,71,5 3,430
Units 1,284 8,988 12,418
81,82,83,84,85,86,87
Building Units 89 ' 97 End Units 89 & 97 1,7i15 3,430
U nits 1,284 8,988 12,418
90,91,92,93,94,95,96
Total Townhome Sq. Ft. 163,996
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 3 2/27/04
Lot Area Ratios: Green Space: 44% (from plans)
Building Area: 37%
Hard Surface: 19%
Planning District: No. 6; the Comprehensive Plan identified two target residential areas in this
district for redevelopment. The first area is the Iow-density residential
properties along Bass Lake Road and the Bass Lake Road extension. The
Comprehensive Plan states that the area is characterized by small homes in
marginal condition on large lots and that the city will seek to acquire and
redevelop these sites as new Iow to medium density residential land uses.
The second area is the Iow-density residential area along Winnetka Avenue
between Bass Lake Road and 53r°Avenue consisting of very deep lots. The
redevelopment of this area is intended to alleviate poor housing conditions,
improve access onto Winnetka and more fully utilize the available land.
Specific Information: Over the past eight years, the city has been acquiring property in the subject
area in anticipation of future redevelopment. In 1998, the city completed its
update of the Comprehensive Plan, which targeted several areas in the city
for redevelopment. Recommendations for the subject area included the
acquisition and redevelopment of sites located along the south side of Bass
Lake Road, in the Bass Lake Road extension area, and along the east side of
Winnetka Avenue between 5340 Winnetka and Bass Lake Road. (Excerpts
from the Comprehensive Plan are attached.) A Metropolitan Council Livable
Communities Grant was received in 2000 to study redevelopment
opportunities in this area. A task force was formed to study redevelopment
opportunities and prepare concept plans and recommendations and the report
was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in December
2002. Early in 2003, the Council selected preferred developers for each study
area based on proposals received, and Ryland Homes was designated as the
preferred developer for the East Winnetka site.
On June 24, 2002, the Council directed staff to complete the steps necessary
to create a tax increment financing area in the Livable Communities
redevelopment area. Staff coordinated with Krass Monroe to draft special
legislation to allow for the creation of this district. In April 2003, staff testified
in favor of the special legislation at the State Legislature. During the 2003
Legislative Special Session, the special legislation was passed. On
September 22, the City Council approved a resolution, which approved
special legislation enacted by the Minnesota State Legislature in June
governing the use of tax increment financing by the city within a designated
area. This legislation relates to special rules governing the use of tax
increment financing by the city within a designated area. On October 13, the
City Council called for a public hearing to modify the restated redevelopment
plan and tax increment financing plan for redevelopment project no. 1,
modification of TIF districts, creating TIF district no. 03-1 and the adoption of
the TIF plan. The public hearing was held at the December 8 Council/EDA
meetings and the East Winnetka TIF District was approved.
IV, Background
Staff has been meeting with Ryland Homes for the past year to develop site plans and discuss financing
for the redevelopment of the East Winnetka area of the Livable Communities study area. In April 2003,
the EDA approved an exclusive 90-day negotiation period between Ryland Homes and the city. The
EDA approved preliminary terms of agreement on August 25, which reflect a land sale price of $12,500
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 4 2/27/04
per finished unit, and continues to work with Ryland on final site plan/development contract issues. In
October, the Council authorized the completion of a storm water analysis for the Livable Communities
redevelopment area by the city engineer. At its work session in November, the Council confirmed the
selection of two unit types, Carriage Townhomes and Heritage Condominiums. At the January 26, 2004,
New Hope EDA meeting, the EDA approved the development agreement with Ryland Homes, based on
the concept plan presented and authorized eminent domain for the remaining properties in the area. It
is anticipated that an agreement will be reached on the voluntary acquisitions of most of the properties
and that eminent domain will only be necessary on a small number of properties where agreement
cannot be reached.
The terms of the development agreement call for the city to turn over several vacant parcels of land on
Winnetka to the developer for the construction of two model buildings (one of each type) by April 15,
2004. It is anticipated it will take four months to complete the model construction. The agreement states
that the city will turn over a Phase I parcel of land (anticipated to be all remaining parcels on Winnetka)
by July 1, 2004. The Phase 2 parcel of land (anticipated to be along Bass Lake Road) is to be turned
over to the developer by September 1. The city is continuing to coordinate with the developer on a
number of aspects on the development that will be either a city or joint city/developer responsibility,
including public sidewalk along Winnetka and Bass Lake Road, the burial of overhead utilities along
Winnetka, the vacation of Sumter Avenue and related turn-around, the removal or relocation of utilities
on the site and park/ponding improvements. The developer will contribute approximately $80,000 in
park dedication fees to the city as part of the development agreement and those funds will be utilized to
make improvements at Elm Grove Park, adjacent to the development on the east.
V, Petitioner's Comments
Correspondence submitted with the planning application on February 6 states, in part:
Community Description: Ryland Homes is pleased to be working in partnership with the city of New
Hope in the redevelopment of the East Winnetka planning area. We have worked in close alignment
with the city to develop a community of 117 Carriage Townhomes and 58 Heritage Condominiums. The
new development will be called Winnetka Green and it will be a community with an emphasis on
maintenance free life style.
Background: Ryland has been involved with New Hope in the design of Winnetka Green for nearly two
years. We first responded to the city task force recommendations with three different site plans. The
current plan is the result of dozens of meetings with city staff, consultants, and policy makers. It is
important for the project to meet city goals, including financial viability for the city. Factors that were
important in the creation of the plan were: policy maker direction and task force recommendations,
transition to the existing neighborhood, style of the housing and target demographic, quality of homes,
pedestrian oriented neighborhood, and maintenance free lifestyle.
Future Residents of Winnetka Green: An important goal of New Hope's redevelopment of the East
Winnetka area was to create new housing that would appeal to older people currently living in the city to
allow them the ability to stay in their community when they no longer needed their single family home.
This opens up starter and move-up single-family homes for your people and young families and helps to
revitalize the city. The one-level Ashley model of the Heritage condominiums provides maintenance free
living with a ground floor entry on a single level. The Ashley has two bedrooms, one bathroom with a
master bath option, a nicely sized kitchen, dining room and living room, and a two-car garage. The
homeowners' association will be a significant draw and will ensure residents of the long-term care and
beauty Winnetka Green will possess. New Hope also wanted quality new construction homes that
appealed to young professionals and move-up buyers.
Homes at Winnetka Green: Ryland is proposing two distinctly different types of homes and six different
models for Winnetka Green:
Heritage Condominiums: One and two-level town home style condos with two-car garages.
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 5 2/27/04
1. Ashley- 1,276 sq. ft., one-level, main level with two bedrooms, living and dining room and two-car~_.~
garage.
2. Brighton - 1,671 sq. ft., one-level, upper level with three bedrooms, living and dining room and two-
car garage.
3. Dunham - 1,612 sq. ft., two-level plan with a living and dining room, two-car garage and choice of
two bedrooms and a loft or three bedrooms.
Heritage condos are planned in six and eight unit buildings with garage toward the street. Exterior
materials are all maintenance free siding, trim and windows, with brick accents on front elevations.
Prices to start in the $140x and $150x for a base unit. Typically, buyers will choose about $20,000 in
options. There are a limited number of these homes proposed in Winnetka Green, so prices could
increase as homes are sold.
Carriage Townhomes: New urban townhomes with two car garages.
1. Greenwich - 1,595 sq. ft., interior unit, three bedrooms, 2.5 baths, three level townhome with lower
level on grade, rear entry, two-car garage, laundry and future finished space behind garage. Main
level features a family room and dining room with a front kitchen/breakfast area. Standard,
unfinished lower level, offers a future recreation room or bedroom/bathroom, which could add 218
finished sq. ft.
2. Hopewell - 1,648 sq. ft., interior unit, three bedrooms, 2.5 baths, three level townhome with lower
level on grade, rear entry, two-car garage, laundry and future finished space behind garage. Main
level features a living/dining room, separate family room and rear kitchen/breakfast area. Standard
unfinished lower level offers a future recreation room or bedroom/bathroom, which could add 226
finished sq. ft.
3. Jamesburg - 1,947 sq. ft., end unit, three bedrooms, 2.5 baths, three level townhome with lower
level on grade, rear entry, two-car garage, laundry and future finished space behind garage. Main
level features a living/dining room, separate family room and rear kitchen/breakfast area. Standard
unfinished lower level offers a future recreation room or bedroom/bathroom, which could add 300
finished sq. ft.
Carriage Townhomes will be targeted toward first time owners, young professionals, move-up buyers,
and active adults wanting to downsize.
Carriage Townhomes are traditional row-style homes, with a two-car, tuck-under garage served from a
rear parking court. Front of home is oriented toward sidewalk with guest parking on the street. Carriage
Townhomes are unique as townhomes, with three different models in each building. Models have a total
of nine different exterior front elevations, including materials, windows, bays, box bay windows, roof
gable and roof dormers, all of which adds to the value and curb appeal. Townhome buildings are
planned in four to nine-unit buildings.
Transition of Winnetka Green to the Existinq Neighborhood: Winnetka Green was planned for the more
urban type of Carriage Townhomes to be on the northern portion of the site, oriented toward Bass Lake
Road and Winnetka Avenue. The more suburban style Heritage Condominiums are located adjacent to
the existing single family neighborhood with a grassy backyard area, landscaping, and an attractive,
maintenance-free opaque white fence along the south and east boundaries of the site.
Traffic: Per a recommendation from the city, Sumter Avenue will be discontinued through the site. Site
access will be consolidated to one point on Bass Lake Road and one point on Winnetka. These two
accesses will be connected by a curvilinear public street designed to limit through trips and calm traffic.
The street will also be designated for parking along one side. The interactions of the county roads will
be greatly simplified by eliminating dozens of individual driveways.
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 6 2/27/04
Parkinq: Each home will have a two-car garage and a double driveway. The Carriage Townhomes will
have guest parking at the front of the home along the public street, and/or additional landscaped
parking in court spaces in the rear of the unit with sidewalks to the front. The Heritage home provides
parking in the driveway in front of the units and additional on-street parking. The driveways and
landscaped parking courts will be private and maintained by the homeowners' association.
Street Lighting: Both public and private street lighting will be of an attractive "period" coach light on a
16-foot pole.
Sidewalks/Overhead Utilities: The city will build a special streetscape sidewalk along Bass Lake Road
and Winnetka Avenue (as well as place all current overhead utilities underground). Ryland will construct
all interior sidewalks and streets, public and private. Every Carriage home will have a sidewalk directly
in front of it and the Heritage Condominiums will all front on a street with a sidewalk. Ryland will install
all new utilities within the development, underground.
Snow Removal: The city will be responsible for all public street maintenance and snow plowing and
Winnetka Green homeowners' association will be responsible for all private drive, private walkways, and
snow removal and common open space maintenance. The homeowners' association will contract for
pdvate snow removal. Snow is to be removed from the entire neighborhood within 12 hours of a two-to-
four-inch snowfall and within 24 hours of a snowfall greater than four inches. The plan is designed so
that there is adequate space on site for snow storage. During heavier snowfalls, snow may have to be
moved to the storm pond or off site.
Waste Collection: The homeowner's association will contract with a single waste hauler for trash
removal for all of the homes. Waste receptacles are required to be kept inside except for pickup day.
There is adequate room for storage of waste receptacles within each garage.
Landscaping: Winnetka Green is a redevelopment of a number of individual lots. Existing vegetation
was planted as part of each homestead. The large trees at the boundaries of the site will be those that
may be saved, and Ryland will make reasonable efforts to preserve these threes, where possible.
Retaining even a few trees at the edges of the development will help preserve the mature character of
the site. Ryland prepared a comprehensive landscaping plan for the entire property, which will
incorporate boulevard street trees, foundation plantings, common space plantings, and transition and
buffer plantings to soften the edge of the development to the existing neighborhood. Winnetka Green
will also have a central reflecting pool with a fountain that will be developed with benches, fencing and
landscaping to be a gathering space.
Summary: Ryland is very excited to be involved in the redevelopment of the East Winnetka area of New
Hope. We believe Winnetka Green will be a great value to the city and provide hOmes for many new
and existing residents. We look forward to an early start in the spring, and the completion of a new
neighborhood in the city.
Additional correspondence was submitted with revised plans and is outlined in the plan review section
of this report.
VI, Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified of the public headng at the Planning
Commission meeting, including the city of Crystal, and staff has received some calls and comments.
Property owners within 350 feet received a notice of a neighborhood meeting, which was conducted on
February 24, in conjunction with the task force and city staff/consultants, to show the concept plans and
answer questions because this is a joint project between the developer and the city. Over the past two to
three years, the city has mailed out a number of project bulletins on the status of this development, with a
mailing list of approximately 500 residents within a half-mile radius of Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake
Road. The most recent project bulletin is enclosed. There have also been a number of articles wdtten for
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 7 2/27/04
the city newsletter about this project and a number of cable TV interviews about this redevelopment,,_~.
project.
VII. Development Analysis
A. Zonin.q Code Criteria
Subdivision and 'Platting
The purpose of this chapter is to make certain regulations and requirements for the subdivision and
platting of land within the city of New Hope pursuant to the authority contained in Minnesota Statutes
462.358, which regulations the City Council deems necessary for the health, safety and general
welfare of this community. It is also the purpose of this chapter to safeguard the best interests of the
city of New Hope and to assist the subdivider in harmonizing his interests with those of the city at
large.
The city and Ryland Homes are requesting the approval of the following two preliminary plats:
1. Winnetka East - Prepared by Bonestroo & Associates on behalf of the city, which combines all
existing parcels into one plat to facilitate the transfer of property from the city to Ryland.
2. Winnetka Green Condominium Plat - Prepared by Pioneer Engineering on behalf of Ryland
Homes, to re-subdivide the property into condominium units.
The Winnetka Green Condominium plat contains the following information:
Total area 17.1081 acres
Total right-of-way area 2.2995 acres
Total lot area 14.8086 acres
Number of units 175
Largest multifamily lot 15,307 sq. ft.
Smallest multifamily lot 1,284 sq. ft.
Average multifamily lot 2,197 sq. ft.
Density 10.2291 units/acre
Net density (excludes r-o-w) 10.8175 units/acre
Proposed zoning P.U.D.
Utilities Available
Note: 5519 Sumter is included in the condo plat, but not on the city plat. The city is currently
negotiating with the property owner on the sale of the property, and it most likely will be included in the
redevelopment. The city plat will be revised to reflect this change.
Per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to city department heads, city attorney, city
engineer, planning consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment.
Comments received include the following:
Utility Companies - staff/consultants conducted a meeting with all utility companies regarding this
redevelopment and is currently coordinating with Xcel Energy on a request to bury overhead utilities.
City Engineer - see attached correspondence and comments.
Hennepin County - see attached correspondence and comments.
City Attorney - see attached correspondence and comments.
The City Code states that copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its
review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commission
during its review of the preliminary plat, Per the attached correspondence, the petitioner has
requested waiver of the review of the final plat by the Planninq Commission, The Planning
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 8 2/27/04
Commission will need to make a determination as to whether it wants to review the final plat or not.
Due to the simple nature of the plat, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission waive the
review of this final plat.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Per the planner's report, the 1998 New Hope Comprehensive Plan identifies this area of the
community for redevelopment. Specifically, the plan directs Iow to medium density residential land
use for the area. Redevelopment was recommended for the following reasons:
· Extraordinary deep lots along Winnetka, existing housing conditions.
· Marginal commercial development at the corner of Winnetka and Bass Lake Road.
· Access via a substandard street (Bass Lake Road extension).
The Land Use Plan directs Iow to medium density residential use upon the subject property. As part
of an examination of the site, the Livable Communities Task Force recommended townhome and
Iow-density single family uses upon the property and expressed the following concerns for site
development:
1. Integration and compatibility with the neighboring single family areas.
2. Traffic generation and prevention of traffic intruding upon the adjacent single-family area.
3. Development density and its impact upon quality of development.
4. Building quality and establishing a design that was attractive and complementary to the existing
single family neighborhood and the Winnetka and Bass Lake Road streetscape.
After being considered by the Livable Communities Task Force, the city solicited developers to provide
a proposal that would not only achieve the Livable CommunitieS recommendations, but also
demonstrate the financial feasibility of the project. Upon review of the development proposals, it was
demonstrated that the Iow and medium density land use options could not generate sufficient tax
revenues to cash flow overall redevelopment of this area of the community.
Alternative plans were prepared over the last year which, while attempting to respond to Livable
Communities concerns for land use compatibility, also introduced a density that would be financially
feasible to uphold the redevelopment.
The Comprehensive Plan defines Iow density as 0-4 units per acre and medium density as 5-10
units per acre. The proposed redevelopment site is 17.1 acres in total area, 14.8 acres subtracting
out the street rights-of-way. A total of 175 housing units on the site produces a net density of 11.8
units per acre. This falls into a high density classification, mandating a Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Any change of land use is a policy decision for the Planning Commission and City Council. This
change in land use will serve to implement the area redevelopment. In evaluating the land use
change staff offers the following review of the planned unit development and housing product.
Rezonin~
Per the planner's report, the applicant has requested a planned unit development zoning
designation to provide design and density flexibility. In evaluating the PUD, it will be compared to the
city's R-4, high density residential district, to show where the flexibilities are being requested and the
differences between the standard R-4 and the higher density PUD district that is being proposed.
Section 4-32 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines the criteria for considering a change in
zoning as follows:
(1) The zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past zoning mistake.
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 9 2/27/04
(2) The character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of an amendment.
(3) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions and
has been found to be consistent with the official city Comprehensive Plan.
The past zoning was appropriate for the prior land uses, however, the character of the area has
changed and redevelopment has been recommended for this project site by the Comprehensive Plan.
As a mature fully developed community, New Hope has targeted a number of areas for residential
redevelopment as a means of promoting reinvestment into the community and offering new housing
options within the city.
The 1997 Life Cycle Housing Study for year 2010 identified the following housing needs for New
Hope:
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 blighted sites which may have amenities that would be attractive to higher
value, medium or high density housing options.
2. Owner Occupied or Rental Attached Housinq. The Life Cycle Housing Study identified the need
for attached housing (townhomes, twinhomes, cooperative apartments) that offer Iow
maintenance, independent housing opportunities. These types of housing opportunities are
attractive to empty nesters or older residents wishing to live in New Hope.
The proposed Winnetka Green housing project will provide upscale townhomes and condominium
housing units that fit the description of categories 1 and 2 above.
The change in zoning is also consistent with the New Hope residential goals and policies as follows:
RESIDENTIAL GOALS
Goal 1: Provide a variety of housing types, styles and choices to meet the needs of New Hope's
changing demographics.
Policies:
A. Through infill development and redevelopment efforts, increase life cycle housing opportunities
not currently available within the City (i.e,, high value housing, townhomes).
B. Promote medium density attached housing to address the needs of an expanding empty nester
or independently living elderly population.
Goal 2: Maintain and enhance the strong character of New Hope's single family residential
neighborhood.
Policies:
C. Prevent the intrusion of incompatible land uses into Iow density single family neighborhoods.
F. Pursue the redevelopment of substandard single family homes when it is judged not
economically feasible to correct the deficiencies.
Goal 3: Promote multiple family housing alternatives as an attractive Life cycle housing option.
Policies:
B. Adhere to the highest community design and construction standards for new construction and
redevelopment projects.
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 10 2/27/04
C. Accompany medium and high density development with adequate accessory amenities such as
garages, parking, open space, landscaping, and recreational facilities to insure a safe,
functional, and desirable living environment.
PUD, Zonin,q District
The purpose of the PUD district is to provide for the integration and coordination of land parcels, as
well as the combination or mixture of varying types of residential, commercial, and/or industrial land
uses.
The purpose of the PUD is to provide for the grouping of lots or buildings for development as an
integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and
unplanned approach to development. It is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and
architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of lots, buildings and
activities, which promote the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan or serve another public
purpose. It is further intended that Planned Unit Developments are to be characterized by central
management, integrated planning and architecture, joint and common use and maintenance of
parking, open space and other similar facilities, and harmonious selection and efficient distribution
of uses. The PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of the Code related to
setbacks, heights, lot area, width and depth, yards, etc., by either conditional use permit or rezoning
to a PUD District, is intended to encourage:
1) A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not
intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.)
2) Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic
expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and siting of structures and by the
conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.
3) The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as existing vegetation,
natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion.
4) A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly
transition of varying land uses in close proximity to each other.
5) An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering
development costs and public investments.
6) Promotion of a desirable and creative environment that might be prevented through the strict
application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the city.
Procedure for Processing a Planned Unit Development
1) Stages of PUD. The processing steps for a PUD are intended to provide for an orderly
development and progression of the plan, with the greatest expenditure of developmental funds
being made only after the city has had ample opportunity for informed decisions as to the
acceptability of the various segments of the whole as the plan affects the public interest. The
various steps, outlined in detail in the following sections, are:
a. Application Conference. Preliminary discussions.
b. General Concept Plan. Consideration of overall concept and plan.
c. Development Stage Plan. One or more detailed plans as part of the whole final plan.
d. Final Plan. The summary of the entire concept and each development stage plan in an
integrated complete and final plan.
General concept plan.
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 11 2/27/04
Purpose. The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the aPplicant to submit a plan to the
city showing his-basic intent and the general nature of the entire development before incurring~''~'
substantial cost. This concept plan serves as the basis for the public hearing so that the proposal
may be publicly considered at an early stage.
Development stare plan.
Purpose. The purpose of the development stage plan is to provide one or more specific and
particular plans upon which the Planning Commission will base its recommendation to the Council
and with which substantial compliance is necessary for the preparation of the final plan.
It is apparent through the Comprehensive Plan and the city's redevelopment efforts, the character of
the area has changed to warrant consideration of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and change
in zoning. The proposed redevelopment is consistent with the land use objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan related to the city's housing needs and redevelopment goals and policies. The
Planning Commission and City Council will need to evaluate the details of the submitted site plan
and preliminary plat and determine if the requested rezoning and development stage PUD is
appropriate for the site.
B. Development Review Team
The Development Review Team reviewed the plans on February 11 and was supportive of the
project, however, the following concerns were discussed: sidewalk location along internal street,
reduce setback along Winnetka in some areas and increase it in others, no parking on east side of
Street A, lengthen townhome driveways, identify B6-12 curbing, traffic counts, turning radius at
intersections, driveway widths, identify guest parking stalls, fire turn around on Sumter cul-de-sac,
knock-down bollards, transit stops, landscaping, fence, pond and retaining wall, gazebo, lighting and
photometric plan, location of utility boxes/transformers and mailboxes, signage, fire hydrants, water
main, valley gutters, force main/lift station, and utilize correct building code for condo plans.
C. Design and Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner on February 12 and discussed the same
issues as listed above. The Committee was supportive of the project.
D. Plan Description
Revised plans and comments were submitted as a result of the Design and Review Committee
meeting and comments from the planning consultant and developer on the submitted plans are as
follows:
Developer Comments
After subrnitting a final detailed plan at the end of January, we met with the Design and Review
Committee on February 12 to review comments developed by city staff, consultants and
Commission members. We have worked very hard to address all of the points identified. Plans have
been amended, additional plans created, and additional information requested by the Committee
has been provided. Following is a summary of the changes we have made to bring the plans into
conformance with the recommendations of the Committee:
1. All sidewalks along public streets have been increased to six feet in width and placed as an
"urban sidewalk" behind the street curb.
2. The Heritage Condominium buildings have been planned with driveways a minimum of 24 feet
in length to the edge of the sidewalk or edge of curb where there is no sidewalk. All townhome
and condominium driveways are a minimum of 18 feet in width and garages are adequate in
size for two cars plus two (90) gallon waste and recycling containers as required by the city.
This has been verified with identical homes with identical requirements in Circle Pines.
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 12 2/27/04
3. Ryland is evaluating improved ways to handle sheet drainage on the driveways created by the
placement of downspouts on the fronts of the Heritage Condominium buildings. A better
solution may be to retain the gravel planting area between driveways for a short distance in
front of the garage, to provide area for outlet of the downspout and decorative planting.
4. The southernmost Heritage Condominium along Winnetka Avenue has been moved further to
the east to increase the distance between the driveways and the public street intersection with
Winnetka.
5. Parking will be provided along the west side of the north/south public street paralleling
Winnetka. The plans have been revised to reflect additional guest parking.
6. All areas of surmountable curbing have been identified on the plans.
7. All street and private drive turning radiuses are adequate for garbage trucks, delivery vehicles,
etc.
8. A fire turn around has been planned at the terminus of Sumter Avenue from the existing single-
family neighborhood.
We have met with fire department staff and have resolved all remaining issues. We are
including a small revision to the plan to reflect minor changes in hydrant location and lengths of
two fire access lanes on the east end of the project.
9. Additional plans have been provided and plans revised to show:
A. Area for a transit stop along Winnetka.
B. Details of streetlights (including photo metrics showing light shed of .5 foot candles at 34 feet
of distance from the source), bollard lights, "knock-down" emergency access bollards,
screening fence, gazebo, and mailbox structures.
C. Existing trees on the site that will be saved, transplanted, and incorporated into the
landscaping plan.
D. Identification signage locations and monument signs.
E. The gas meters for the Heritage Condominium buildings are grouped together behind a
decorative fence at one end of each building. The electric meters are grouped behind
landscaping underneath one of the decks. The air conditioning units and gas meters for the
Carriage Townhomes are paired into the auto service court and landscaped. The electric
meters for the Carriage Townhomes are paired on the back of the buildings in the auto
service court and landscaped. The electric meters for the Carriage Townhomes are paired
on the back of the buildings in the auto service court and landscaped.
F. The plan notes that the playground equipment for Elm Grove Park will be relocated by the
city and upgraded with some use of the cash park fee from this project.
G. A plan showing planting, fence and railing design, fountain, and retaining wall details of the
central pond feature of the neighborhood.
H. The homeowners' association will own and maintain all of the common grounds, private
drives and private sidewalks, and many of the utilities not within the public right-of-way. The
storm water pond will be constructed privately, owned and maintained by the HOA.
The retaining wall around the central pond will be a two-tier wall, as requested, for aesthetic
purposes. The wall is proposed as a modular, rock-face wall. The wall will come to the
water's edge and a portion of it will be under water. The manufactured block is stronger than
a field poured concrete and is much less subject to "spalling" and cracking from the weather.
The dry laid wall allows incremental expansion and contraction without cracking. There will
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 13 2~27~04
be a warranty in place to deal with any issues due.to settlement or construction of the wall~,.
itself for a period of five years after installation. We will provide engineering details and'
performance reports as a part of final construction plans. The manufacturer and installation
contractor indicate the wall has an expected life, in this type of condition, of 75-100 years.
Planner Comments -
1. General Site Layout
The proposed redevelopment project creates a high density Carriage Townhome neighborhood
along two of New Hope's minor arterial streets. The Carriage Townhomes front onto Winnetka
Avenue, Bass Lake Road and proposed Street A. The buildings have a reduced setback to the
street to conserve land and create an attractive urban streetscape. The taller urban townhomes
are located along the minor arterial street.
The Heritage Condominiums are planned along the single family homes, maintaining the
required 30+ foot setbacks. A property line fence and boulevard planting are intended to screen
the single family neighborhood from the traffic and back yards of the condominiums.
The roadway design isolates the condominium neighborhood from adjoining single family
neighborhood to reduce traffic conflicts and congestion. This street pattern eliminates multiple
curb cuts from Winnetka Avenue and the substandard Bass Lake Road extension. Access
points at 54th Avenue and Rhode Island improve traffic circulation at the Winnetka Avenue and
Bass Lake Road intersection and eliminates the unsafe Sumter Avenue jogged intersection.
2. Density
Density is the first area of flexibility being requested by the applicant. The project site comprises
17.1 acres of land. The total number of units being proposed for the project site is 175 units,
117 Carriage Townhomes and 58 Heritage Condominiums. The applicant has indicated that the
gross density resulting from this development would be 10.2 units per acre. A rough calculation
of the net density (exclusive of the public street right-of-way) would be 11.8 units per acre.
The required lot unit per unit for townhome is 5,000 square feet. The proposed project would
have an average of 4,303 square feet per unit based on gross acreage and an average of 3,714
square feet per unit based on a net buildable acreage. This density is required to make the
redevelopment financially feasible.
3. Setbacks
The standard setbacks in an R-5, High Density Residential District are as follows:
· R-5 District front setback from local street is 25 feet from property line.
· Townhome proposed 25 feet from back of curb.
· Condominium proposed 25 feet from back of curb.
Review Comments:
Setback flexibility has been requested where, the townhome buildings abut Street A. Setbacks
are being measured from curb. The specific issue is that driveways for the condominium
townhome units on the south end will have parking that will extend within the public right-of-way
of the street. This is not typically allowed by city standards. PUD flexibility is being requested to
ensure adequate setback between the garage and back of curb (to accommodate the safe
parking of vehicles and snow storage).
The site plan provides a driveway length of 25 feet from the back of curb on Street A and 24 feet
from the back of the sidewalk along the west side of Street A. This dimension is seen as
adequate to accommodate off-street parking in front of the garages.
· R-5 District front yard setback from arterial street is 30 feet from property line.
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 14 2/27/04
· Townhome proposed 25 feet from property line.
Review Comments:
At the suggestion of city staff, the building setbacks from Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake
Road have been reduced from 30 feet from 25 feet. The proposed townhome developments are
of an urban design and it is believed they will complement and enhance the streetscape appeal
of these street corridors. This reduced setback also serves to conserve land in the balance of
the project.
· R-5 District side yard setback for interior lot line is 10 feet required from lot line.
· Townhome proposed 20 feet between buildings.
· Condominium proposed 20 feet between buildings.
· R-5 District side setback from local street required 20 feet from property line.
· Townhome proposed is 20 feet from curb.
· Condominium proposed 20 feet from curb.
· R-5 District side yard setback from arterial street requirement is 25 feet from property line.
Townhome proposed is not applicable.
· Condominium proposed is 25 feet.
Review Comments:
The site plan has shifted Building 88 east to provide a 40-foot setback separation between
Winnetka Avenue right-of-way and the first driveway per Design and Review recommendation.
R-5 District rear yard setback requirement is 30 feet.
· Townhome proposed is 24 feet to bituminous drive.
· Condominium proposed is 30+ feet to lot line.
Review Comments:
The initial site plan illustrates a rear yard setback for the urban townhomes of 22 feet from the
face of the garage to the private drives. In response to city concerns for parking, the applicant
has increased the setback to 24 feet.
4. Public Streets/Circulation
Flexibility is also being requested with regard to the street and access points. Street A is
intended to be a public street. Flexibility is being requested from the 60-foot required right-of-
way requirement and the 32-foot required street width. Specifically, a 50-foot driveway and a 28-
foot street width have been proposed. With this dimension, parking would be restricted to one
side of the street. Signage must be provided by the applicant that identifies the parking
restriction.
Street A follows a curvilinear design and then backs up to the single family lot to the east after
passing through the condominium townhomes. This design was intended to move the individual
buildings away from the single family areas, and provide some physical separation between the
different uses. Street A will be screened using a combination of fencing and boulevard trees.
Access to the site is provided via Winnetka Avenue (in alignment with 54th Avenue) and Bass
Lake Road (in alignment with Rhode Island Avenue). Both these locations were chosen to move
any access or egress from the site away from the Winnetka/Bass Lake Road intersection. This
alignment has been reviewed by Hennepin County and is viewed as a desirable location that
corrects some of the past problems in the area (such as multiple access points onto Winnetka
and the Sumter Avenue intersection).
Hennepin County will be required to approve the access points for the subdivision as well as any
right-of-way dedication for Bass Lake Road or Winnetka Avenue. The city will be responsible for
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 15 2/27/04
any street design and improvements along the county roads, i.e., landscaping, lighting, sidewall~._,~.
improvements. The city will work closely with the applicant in the preparation of a streetscape
plan.
The vacation of Sumter Avenue is viewed as a positive action that will segregate townhome
traffic from the single family neighborhood to the south and east. It is anticipated that complaints
from the single family neighborhood may be received regarding the lengthening of trips that
some residents may encounter to access Winnetka Avenue or Bass Lake Road.
Review Comments:
1. Sheet 9 of 10 illustrates the plans for site and parking lot curbing.
a. Street A will have B-618 curbing except where the condominiums have driveways. In the
driveway locations a mountable curb will be installed.
b. B-618 curbing shall be used to define the center islands on the townhome courtyards.
c. Mountable curbs will define the private drive except where driveways enter the private
drives.
To avoid confusion related to curbing installation, the site plan should be revised to more
clearly delineate the changes in curbing types. The city engineer should comment on curb
locations.
2. Applicant has identified emergency access drives at Drive B per city recommendation. A
detail for the drive is provided on Sheet D-1 of 2. The city engineer and fire inspector should
comment on pavement section and drive width to insure the design will accommodate weight
and maneuvering of emergency vehicles.
These emergency drives will use 6' x 6" wooden breakaway posts to prevent through traffic
on these emergency vehicle drives.
Drives A, B, H, I, K and a stub street north of Building 26 are all fire lanes. These areas shall
be posted no parking. The Homeowners' Association shall be responsible to keep the lanes,
as well as the emergency access at the end of Drive B clear of snow.
Drive H must be redesigned to avoid crossing 5510 Sumter, which is not part of the project.
Bollard placement on Drive H cannot interfere with the driveway access of 5510 Sumter.
3. Sumter Avenue will be terminated approximately 140 feet north of 55th Avenue. A cul-de-sac
with a 30-foot radius is proposed for the end of Sumter Avenue. This radius is adequate for
automobiles. With the installation of emergency access Lane H, the smaller cul-de-sac is
seen as acceptable. Public Works has recommended that the cul-de-sac be shifted south to
maintain a minimum setback of 15 feet between the street and proposed fence for snow
storage.
4. The site plan has illustrated a location for transit shelter along Winnetka Avenue. An
easement for the transit shelter shall be described and dedicated to the city. Said easement
should be sized based on a Winnetka street and boulevard improvement plan coordinated
between the city and county.
5. Public Works has also expressed concern for snow storage between Street A and the
eastern boundary line fence. The applicant has indicated that the fence is set back 20 feet
from the curb. This setback offers sufficient space for snow storage.
5. Private Drives
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 16 2/27/04
Within the townhome area, drive aisles 20 feet in width have been proposed. Typically, a drive
aisle that not less than 24 feet in width is desired to accommodate 90 degree parking (in parking
lots).
Review Comments:
1. The applicant's site plans still illustrate 20 foot wide private drives. These are narrow for two-
way traffic. To accommodate two-way traffic, 22 foot drive lanes should be considered. The
applicant has lengthened the urban townhome setback between garage and the private drive
to reduce parking conflicts with through traffic.
2. The curb radius on the private drive have been enlarged to accommodate a vehicle with a 20
foot wheel base (see sheet 9 of 10).
6. Parking
The site plan must provide 2¼ parking stalls per townhome. The 175 townhomes require 393
parking stalls. The site plan provides:
2 car garages per unit 350
36 surface spaces 36
386
If the driveway surface spaces in front of garage are counted for required parking, the site plan
greatly exceeds the parking standards. On-street parking along the west side of Street A is also
proposed.
Review Comments:
1. The urban townhome garage measures 22 feet by 21 feet for a total of 462 square feet in area.
The area for the condominium garages measures 19.5 feet by approximately 19.5 feet, for a
total floor space of 380 square feet. These garages address the requirement for at least one
enclosed parking space per unit. It should be noted that the city should consider the adequate
dimension of these garages to accommodate not only the parking of two vehicles but storage
of ancillary equipment such as refuse containers. Applicant is requested to provide an
illustration of two mid-sized vehicles parked in the 19.5' by 19.5' garage for Planning
Commission consideration.
2. To accommodate two vehicles parked in front of the garages, townhome unit driveways have a
minimum width of 18 feet to accommodate the car door swing and the turning radius from the
narrower 20 to 22 foot right-of-way private drive.
3. To avoid maintenance issues, it is recommended that the narrower landscape strip between
townhome driveways for Buildings 71-79 and 89-97 be paved.
4. The applicant has provided generously dimensioned parking stalls in the green islands
between the private drives. Wider stalls are necessary to provide proper turning radius in and
out of the individual stalls.
7. Sidewalks
Sidewalks will be integrated into the overall site design along the west side and north side of
Street A and west side of Street B, connecting with private sidewalks (connecting the townhome
fronts and back into Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road). Overall, the pedestrian oriented
design is considered attractive. Public sidewalks are six feet wide and located immediately
behind the street curb consistent with recommendation of Public Works.
Review Comments:
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 17 2/27/04
Sidewalk or trail connections should be extended to the east property lines to provide pedestrian,._,,
connections to Elm Grove Park and St, Raphael Church
8. Landscape Plan
The landscape plan illustrated on Sheets L1 of 2 and L2 of 2 show a generous landscape
treatment for the streetscape, common area and foundation areas each addressed.
Review Comments:
1. The plant materials are appropriate for Minnesota climate. The plant sizes exceed city
standards and will do well to help establish an attractive neighborhood and screen the
adjoining single family areas.
In review of the landscape plan, we would recommend additional shrubs or coniferous plants
at the ends of Drives B, C, G and L to where they abut Winnetka Avenue or Bass Lake
Road. These plantings are intended to further screen the garages and private drives from
the public streets.
2. Screening between townhomes and the single family neighborhood is accomplished with six
foot white vinyl boundary line fence. This fence will provide solid screen of the proposed
streets and first floor townhomes. Complementing the fence is a row of deciduous trees
(Maples, Linden, Birch) that will provide canopy screening above the fence that serve to
interrupt the views of the townhomes.
Sheet D-2 of 2 are landscape plan cross sections that illustrate the view of townhomes from
the single family neighborhood. These cross sections reveal that the townhome site will have
a higher elevation than the adjoining single family homes. The elevation changes will limit
the screening effectiveness of the six-foot fence. The following options to increase the
screening should be considered:
a. Increase the fence height to eight feet.
b. Consider using a berm along the property line to increase the height of the fence.
3. The applicant is proposing to save some of the existing trees on the site for reuse in the
development (see Sheet TR1 of 1). Existing trees and shrubs are to be spaded out and held
for planting after site grading. This practice will provide the site with some more mature trees
in the landscape plan. Inquiry was made at the open house for saving a significant Spruce
tree in the extreme southeast corner of the project site. The tree's location may interfere with
fence construction, however, the applicant is encouraged to investigate measures to retain
the tree.
In review of the Tree Preservation Plan, we recommend that the Silver Maple not be
included in the tree preservation.
4. The foundation plantings are type and size appropriate for New Hope. The plan even gives
attention to shade and sun sides of the townhomes and selects plantings appropriate for
these conditions.
5. The landscape plan addresses the ponding area. The ponding area will be defined by a
series of retaining walls. The top of the retaining wall will abut sidewalks. A 42-inch
aluminum fence shall be installed to protect pedestrians.
Between the retaining walls will be landscaping consisting of viburnum and planting beds.
The east and west end of the pond are dogwood shrubs and additional planting beds.
Details on the retaining walls have been provided. These plans shall be subject to review
and comment of the Public Works director and city engineer.
6. Monument details have been provided for Planning Commission review:
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 18 2/27/04
a. All monument signs shall be set back 10 feet from all property lines.
b. Monument signs located at the project entrances must be located outside of a required
sight transfer extending 20 feet along both property lines on the corner lot.
7. The proposed landscape plan indicates that the entire site will have an irrigation system for
long-term maintenance and has also identified snow storage locations that are necessary as
part of the street clearing and parking lot clearing during the winter.
PropoSed Landscaping - Overall Site
Common Name Botanical Name Size Quantity Actual
Noted Shown
OverStory Trees
Autumn Blaze Maple Acer X Freemanii 3" B&B 33 33
Thornless Gleditsia Triacanthos Inermis 3" B&B 35 35
Honeylocust
River Birch Betula Nigra 'Heritage' 10' B&B '37 36
Red Oak Quercus Rubra 3" B&B 34 34
Summit Ash Fraxinus Pennsylvanica 3" B&B 28 28
'Summit'
Sentry Linden Tilia Americana 'Sentry' 3" B&B 53 53
Whitespire Birch Betula Platyphlla 'Whitespire' 10' B&B 18 18
Evergreen Trees
Black Hills Spruce Picea Clauca Densata 6' B&B 39 39
White Pine Pinus Strobus 6' B&B 16 16
Ornamental Trees
Japanese Tree Lilac Syringa Reticulata 2" B&B 8 8
Serviceberry Amelanchier Laevis 2" B&B 6 6
Pink Spires Crab Malus Pink Spires' 2" B&B 12 12
Sugar Tyme Crab Malus 'Sugar Tyme' 2" B&B 12 12
Shrubs
European Cranberry Viburnum Opulus .... #3 Pot 12 21
Total Items 343 351
Existing Trees & Shrubs The following trees and shrubs will be retained and relocated)
Type Existing Location Relocation Size Height
Site
Trees
Norway Spruce 5530 Sumter Ave. N, SW Perimeter 4" 18'
Colorado Spruce 5537 Sumter Ave. N. SW Perimeter 5" 12'
Green Ash 5546 Sumter Ave. N. S Perimeter 6" 20'
Sugar Maple 5546 Sumter Ave. N. S Perimeter 5" 20'
Colorado Spruce 5546 SumterAve. N. SW Perimeter ,6", .....20' ,,
Colorado Spruce 5559 Sumter Ave. N. SW Perimeter 6" 20'
Silver Maple 5559 Sumter Ave. N. S Perimeter 5" 20'
Green Ash 7601 Bass Lake Roac~ S Perimeter 4" ' ' 20'
Green Ash 7621 Bass Lake Road S Perimeter 5" 20'
Green Ash 7621 Bass Lake Road S Perimeter 5" 20'
Black Hills Spruce 5406 Winnetka Ave. N. SW Perimeter 5" 20'
Green Ash 5410 Winnetka Ave. N. S Perimeter 6" 25'
Colorado Spruce 5412 Winnetka Ave. N. SW Perimeter 6" 20'
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 19 2~27~04
Type Existing Location Relocation Size Height ~_,,~
Site
Trees - cont.
Colorado Spruce 5412 Winnetka Ave. N. SW Perimeter 6" 20'
Colorado Spruce 5434 Winnetka Ave. N. SW Perimeter 5" 20'
Norway Spruce 5434 Winnetka Ave. N. SW Perimeter 8" 30'
Colorado Spruce 5434 Winnetka Ave. N. SW Perimeter 5" 20'
Colorado Spruce 5434 Winnetka Ave. N. SW Perimeter 5" 20'
Red Maple 5506 Winnetka Ave. N. S Perimeter 5" 20'
Shrubs
Common Lilac (5) 5546 Bass Lake Road NE Perimeter 8-10'
Bridal Wreath Spirea 5412 Winnetka Ave. N. NE Perimeter 4-6'
(4)
Total Items: 28
Perimeter Building Plantings - Carriage Townhomes (Typical 6 Unit Building)
Common Name Botanical Name Size Quantity Actual
Noted Shown
Shrubs
Anthony Waterer Spirea Spiraea Bumalda X 'A.W' #3 Pot 4 4
Bush Honeysuckle Diervilla Lonicera #3 Pot Noted 0
Autumn Magic Chokeberry Aronia Melanocarpa #3 Pot 2 2
Little Princess Spirea Spiraea Bumalda, "Little #3 Pot 18 18
Princess'
Minuet Lilac-Syringa Prestoniae 'Minuet' #3 Pot 4 4
Polka Weigela Weigela Florida 'Polka' #3 Pot 10 10
Red PrinCe Weigela Weigela Florida #3 Pot 2 2
Scandia Juniper Juniperus Sabina 'Scandia' #3 Pot 6 6
Techny Globe Arborvitae Thula Occidentalis #5 Pot 6 6
Total Items 52 52
Perimeter Building Plantings - Heritage Condominiums (Typical 6 Unit Building)
Common Name Botanical Name Size Quantity Actual
Noted Shown
Shrubs
Blue Chip Juniper Juniperus Horizontalis #5 Pot 8 8
Compact American Cranberry Viburnum Trilobum #3 Pot 4 4
Hetz Midget Globe Arborvitae Thuja Occidentalis #3 Pot 6 6
Japanese White Spirea Spiraea Japonica #3 Pot 4 4
Java Red Weigela Weigela Florida #3 Pot 3 3
Miss Klm Lilac Syringa Velutina 'Miss Klm' #3 Pot 4 4
Magic Carpet Spirea Spiraea × Bumalda #3 Pot 12 12
Minuet Weigela Weigela Florida #3 Pot 4 4
Nearly Wild Rose Rosa X #3 Pot 3 3
Sea Green Juniper Juniperus Chinensis #5 Pot 5 5
Taunton Yew Taxus X Media #5 Pot 5 5
Total Items 58 58
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 20 2/27/04
Monument Plantings (1)
I Common Name I Botanical Name Size Quantity Actual
Noted Shown
Trees
Sunburst Honeylocust Gleditsia Triacanthos 3" B&B 3 3
Shrubs
Miss Klm Lilac Syringa Meyeri #3 Pot 3 3
Magic Carpet Spirea Spiraea Bumalda 'Magic #3 Pot 4 4
Carpet'
Japanese Garden Juniper Not provided #3 Pot 10 10
Modern Fireglow Rose Not provided #3 Pot 13 13
Honeysuckle Vine Not provided #3 Pot 4 4
Misc.
Annuals Not provided N/A Unavailabl Unavailabl
e e
Rock Mulch
Total Items 37 37
Sub Entrance Monument Plantings (2)
Common Name Botanical Name Size Quantity Actual
Noted Shown
'Shrubs
Modern Fireglow Rose Not provided #3 Pot 10 10
Japanese Garden Juniper Not provided #3 Pot 10 10
Misc.
Rock Mulch
Total Items 20 20
Main Pond
Common Name Botanical Name Size Quantity Actual
Noted Shown
Shrubs
Mohican Viburnum Viburnum Lantana #3 Pot 50 50
'Mohican'
Redosier Dogwood Cornus Sericea #3 Pot 20 20
Misc.
Iris plants or bulbs Not provided N/A
Total Items 70 70
Notes:
· Disturbed areas to be sodded and irrigated. Irrigation to be designed by others.
· Spaded tree holding area is located at approximately 5520 Sumter Ave. N.
· Monument signs will be brick with stone caps. A wooden pergola will be placed at the main
monument sign.
· A two-tier protective aluminum rail system will be located around the north and south
perimeter of the main pond. Please see plan D-2 for retaining wall detail.
· The secondary/overflow pond located on city property between 5501 & 5543 Sumter Avenue
North will be designed with native seed mix and plantings. Bonestroo's landscape architect
will complete the design.
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 21 2/27/04
· The perimeter of the site abutting private property will be screened with a 6' white vinyl~.,~
privacy fence.
9. Li(3htin_q
The applicant is proposing two types of exterior light fixtures to illuminate the streets and private
drives. The lighted bollard is proposed along the sidewalk along the pond. This type of light is to
keep light levels manageable, but to avoid glare from intruding onto the single family homes to
the east.
The second light fixture is titled Traditional-Old Favorite. This fixture is a lantern design and the
luminary will be visible to adjoining properties. This light fixture will be 18 feet high. These light
fixtures have been located along Street A generally between buildings. As such, they will be
visible to the adjoining single-family neighborhood.
To avoid issues related to nuisance lighting, we would recommend a light fixture that is hooded
to screen the luminary and direct downward to avoid glare.
10. Accessory Equipment
Sheet 9 of 10 illustrates locations of street signs, address signs and mailboxes. These locations
are acceptable.
11. Buildin.qs
The applicant has provided front building elevations and typical floor plans for both urban
townhomes and Heritage condominiums. In review of building plans, we raise the following issues:
1. We would request color elevation of the back of the structure to illustrate how the gas
meters, electrical meters and air conditioning units are integrated into the design of the
building.
2. Downspouts directed to the driveways present issues related to water freezing on the
driveway and downspout damage related to snow removal. This issue will require attention.
3. As noted earlier in this report, we request an illustration of proposed Heritage condominium
garages with cars parked inside.
12. Homeowners' Association Documents
A sample copy of homeowners' association documents for the townhome, condominium and
master association were submitted with the plans and the table of contents and pertinent
information is enclosed as an attachment. Some of the issues addressed in the documents
include: restrictions on use of property (leasing, parking, rubbish, etc.) maintenance, and rules and
regulations (architectural modifications, patios and decks, lights, etc.). The documents have been
referred to the city attorney for review and the city attorney finds them in compliance .with the
statutes, but does recommend several minor modifications (refer to city attorney correspondence).
A complete copy of the documents is available for review at city hall.
13. Street Vacation
To facilitate the replatting of Winnetka Green subdivision, approximately 395 feet of Sumter
Avenue must be vacated. This vacation serves the following objectives:
1. Eliminates an unsafe intersection at Bass Lake Road.
2. Provides buildable land area for the project.
3. Disconnects the Winnetka Green townhome from the single family homes to the south.
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 22 2/27/04
The vacation of Sumter serves to benefit the city's redevelopment efforts and provide for a
more favorable traffic circulation pattern. To vacate this right-of-way, the city/developer
must relocate utilities currently existing in this right-of-way.
E. Planning Considerations
The planning consultant's report and comments/recommendations have been incorporated into this
report.
F. Buildinq Considerations
Comments from the building official are outlined in the attached memorandum and will be made a
condition of approval.
G. Le.qal Considerations
The city attorney has provided assistance throughout this project on the redevelopment agreement
with the developer, property acquisitions, and closings, etc. The city attorney has provided
comments on the plat and association rules and those recommendations will be a condition of
approval. The city attorney will prepare a PUD/Site Improvement Agreement for the project, which
will also be a condition of approval, along with an appropriate financial guarantee.
H. Engineerin.q ConsideratiOns
Comments from the city engineer are outlined in the attached memorandum and will be a condition
of approval.
I. Police Considerations
The Police Department was involved in the review of the plans.
J. Fire Considerations
There have been several meetings among staff, West Metro Fire and the developer, but all issues
have been resolved with the latest revision submitted (and attached) that corrects a concern near
Drives I, J and K on the east side of the development. A condition of approval will be that plans are
subject to West Metro Fire review and approval.
VIII. Summary
Ryland Development has requested the following development applications:
1. Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the designated land uses to high density
residential.
2. Rezoning from R-l, single family and CB, community business to PUD, planned unit
development.
3. Concept and development stage PUD and preliminary plat.
These applications are interconnected and should be considered together. Any land use change is a
policy decision for the City Council. Generally, the city must find that the proposed change is
consistent with the following criteria:
1. The zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past mistake.
2. The character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of an amendment.
3. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of
and has been found to be consistent with the official city Comprehensive Plan.
The past zoning was correct for the past uses, however, the city, in its Comprehensive Plan,
recognized the changing character of the area by designating this site for redevelopment. The change
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 23 2/27/04
in land use and zoning provides the opportunity to implement the redevelopment objective. The PUD
zoning is directly tied to the proposed development plan and staff is recommending that the Plannin¢~~'-~'
Commission and Council find the proposed density and design fulfill the city's redevelopment objective
and approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment is recommended along with city approval of the
PUD concept and development stage plan.
Ryland has done a good job addressing a number of issues with their revised plan submission. They
have been cooperative and good to work with throughout the past year on the first major
redevelopment project in New Hope, and staff is confident that they will be good to work with
throughout the construction process. Ryland was selected as the developer for this site because of
their experience and quality and even though there are still some issues to coordinate on (such as
park improvements, utilities, etc.) staff is confident that all matters will be resolved and that this will be
a successful project. The project will bring a much needed life-cycle housing option to the city for its
residents.
IX, Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Winnetka East and Winnetka Green preliminary plats, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Planning Commission agrees to waive review of the final plat.
2. Comply with city engineer plat recommendations.
3. Address Hennepin County issues before final plat is processed for approval by City Council.
Staff recommends approval of the PUD rezoning and of the concept/development stage PUD plans,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Enter into a PUD/Site Improvement Agreement with the city and furnish a performance bond or
suitable financial guarantee for site improvements (amount to be determined by city engineer and
building official).
2. Furnish all documents necessary for final stage PUD administrative approval.
3. Comply with recommendations of city engineer memo dated 2/26/04.
4. Comply with building official recommendations, obtain required permits and developer is
encouraged to submit plans for review as soon as possible.
5. Comply with recommendations of city attorney regarding minor revisions to Homeowner's
Association documents.
6. Continue to coordinate with West Metro Fire District to insure that plans comply with code.
7. Comply with conditions outlined in planner's report dated 2/25/04.
Attachments: Zoning/Topo/Address Maps
2/6/04 Applicant Correspondence
2/25/04 Applicant Correspondence
Certificate of Survey
Winnetka East Plat
Excerpts- Association Sample Documents
Ryland Revision for Drives J & K
Ryland Garage Plan for Heritage Condo
Planner's Report
City Engineer Comments
City Attorney Comments
Building Official Comments
Hennepin County Comments
Comprehensive Plan Excerpts
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 24 2/27/04
Sample/Project Bulletin Sent
Livable Communities Task Force Recommendations and Minutes
Application Log
Other Attachments:
Rendering Book: Site Plan
(Preliminary Plan Drive View Looking North
Submission) Pond View from Winnetka
Foundation/Landscape Plan
Heritage Condominium Floor Plans/Elevations
Carriage Townhome Floor Plans/Elevations
Site Monument
Entrance Monuments
Mailbox Structure
Light Bollard
Privacy Fence
Fountain
Housing Unit Plans: Heritage Condominiums
Carriage Townhomes
Large Plan Sets: Winnetka East Preliminary Plat
Cover Sheet/Index/PUD Setbacks
Preliminary Site Plan
Condominium/Preliminary Plat/Plan Details
Existing Conditions
Preliminary Grading Plan
Preliminary Utilities
Street/Sign Plan and Turning Radius
Removal Plan
Details Sheet
Cross Sections/Fence Detail/Pond Wall
Landscape Plan and Schedule
Planting Details
Tree Plan
Planning Case Report 04-01 Page 25 2/27104
ELI ~ATHOUC .. - ..-_~i .......
SCHOOL .......... : .... '. :E CHURCH ..........................
....................... AVON ..... . ..........
............ ~ ......... ~ ..... : ..... ~ ~ ............ ~_ ~ . ........... - ..... , ................
~'.. "'" --- ~-~' .... /
~'~~ ~'" ' - ~:' .... ................-~ ": ZO
5700 $70~
5620 I.d
5605
(/3 5601
5600 7800 56.14- 'r
g~H
5559 7301
7621
5519 5520
ELM ST. RAPHAI
?~o' 551~ ~o~ GROV[ CATHOLIC
5512 55o0 CHURCH
~o1 PARK.
- 55TH AVE N
' {
5444. 54J7 5436 5457
5438 5455 5454 5435
54z~ 5425 54~9 5~0 5429 54~0
5425. 5427 7506 5425
54~3 ST RAPHAEL DR~
5417
5413
5313
5313 5313
RY[AND
-60C' =.xecmive Drive
~oer' P~uirie ,'V.N 553'.44
Zomroctor s L;c ~ 200354~3
Febm~y 6, 2004
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Comm. Dev. Dir.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue north
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Application for Winnetka Green
Dear Mr. McDonald,
Please accept this application to Planning Commission and City Council for Winnetka
Green. As directed by Staff, please find with this letter:
· Application
· Fees
· Narrative
· Development Plans
· Building Plans
· Sample homeowner association books
Ryland is very excited to be involved in the redevelopment of the East Winnetka area and
look forward to working with the City of New Hope though the duration of the project.
Land Manager
Ryland Homes, Twin Cities
R,Y D
HOMES
Winnetka Green of New Hope
Community Description
Ryland Homes is pleased to be working in partnership with the City of New Hope in the
redevelopment of the East Winnetka Planning Area. We have worked in close alignment
with the City to develop a community of 117 Urban Town Homes and 58 Heritage
Condominiums. The new development will be called Winnetka Green and it will be a
community with an emphasis on maintenance free life style.
Background
Ryland Homes has been involved with New Hope in the design of Winnetka Green for
nearly two years. We first responded to the City Task Force recommendations with three
different site plans. The current plan is the result of dozens of meetings with City staff,
consultants, and policy makers. It is important for the project to meet City goals,
including financial viability for the City. Factors that were important in the creation of
the plan were: Policy maker direction and Task Force recommendations; transition to the
existing neighborhood; style of the housing and target demographic; quality of homes;
pedestrian oriented neighborhood, and maintenance free lifestyle.
Future Residents of Winnetka Green
An important goal of New Hope's redevelopment of the east Winnetka area was to create
new housing that would appeal to older people currently living in New Hope to allow
them the ability to stay in their community when they no longer needed their single
family home. As the older population in New Hope is able to find new housing more
suitable to their life-style, it opens up starter and move-up single-family homes for young
people and young families to move into New Hope. This helps revitalize the City. The
One level Ashley model of the Heritage condominiums provides; maintenance free living
with a ground floor entry on a single level. The Ashley has two bedrooms, one bathroom
with a master bath option, a nicely sized kitchen, dining room and living room, and a
two-car garage.
Winnetka Green will also be attractive to the first time homebuyers looking for a
conveniently located city with all of the services just down the street. The maintenance
free situation created by a Homeowners Association will be a significant draw for these
target markets and will ensure residents of the long-term care and beauty Winnetka Green ~.~
will possess. New Hope also wanted quality new construction homes that appealed to
young professionals and move-up buyers.
Homes at Winnetka Green
Ryland is proposing two distinctly different types of homes and six different models for
Winnetka Green:
Heritage Condominiums: One and two-level town home style condominiums with 2 car
garages.
· Ashley - 1276 sq. ft., one-level, main level plan with 2 BR's, LR and DR and a
two-car garage.
· Brighton - 1671 sq. ft., one-level, upper level plan with 3 BR's, LR and DR and a
two-car garage.
· Dunham - 1612 sq. ft., two-level plan with a LR, DR, two-car garage and choice
of two BR's and a loft or three BR's.
The Heritage Condominiums appeal to: active adults; seniors; first time buyers; small,
young families; singles; and young professionals. Heritage condominiums are planned in
six and eight unit buildings with the garages toward the street. The exterior materials are
all maintenance free siding, trim and windows, with brick accents on the front elevations.
We expect the prices of these homes to start in New Hope in the $140's and $150's for a
base unit. Typically, depending on market, buyers will choose about $20,000 in options.
There are a limited number of these homes proposed in Winnetka Green, so prices could
increase as homes are sold.
Carriage Town homes: New urban town homes with 2 car garages.
· Greenwich - 1595 sq. ft., interior unit, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, three level town home
with the lower level on grade, with a rear entry, two car garage, laundry and future
finished space behind the garage. The main level features a family room and dining
room with a front kitchen/breakfast area. The standard, unfinished lower level, offers
a future recreation room or bedroom/bathroom which, when finished, will add 218
finished sq. feet.
· Hopewell - 1648 sq. ft., interior unit, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, three level town home
with the lower level on grade, with a rear entry, two car garage, laundry and future
finished space behind the garage. The main level features a living/dining room,
separate family room and rear kitchen/breakfast area. The standard, unfinished lower
level, offers a future recreation room or bedroom/bathroom which, when finished,
will add 226 finished sq. feet.
· Jamesburg - 1947 sq. ft., end unit, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, three level town home with
the lower level on grade, with a rear entry, two car garage, laundry and future finished
space behind the garage. The main level features a living/dining room, separate
family room and rear kitchen/breakfast area. The standard, unfinished lower level,
offers a furore recreation room or bedroom/bathroom which, when finished, will add
300 finished sq. feet.
The Carriage Town homes will be targeted towards the first time owners, young
professionals, move-up buyers, and active adults wanting to downsize, all looking for a
maintenance free life-style.
The Carriage home is a traditional row-style town home, with a two-car tuck-under
garage served from a rear parking court. The front of the home is oriented to the
sidewalk with guest parking on the street. The Carriage home building is unique as a
town home. It is made up of three different models, which make up each building. The
models have a total of nine different exterior front elevations. The different elevations
include differences in: material, windows, bays, box bay windows roof gable and roof
dormers, that add to the diversity of the design and its' authenticity as a traditional
Georgetown style town home. The town home buildings for Winnetka Green are planned
in; four through nine-unit buildings. All of this adds to the value and curb appeal of the
community, within a defined architectural framework.
Transition of Winnetka Green to the Existing Neighborhood
Winnetka Green has been planned for the more urban type of Carriage Homes to be on
the northern portion of the site, oriented toward Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue.
The more suburban style Heritage Homes are located adjacent to the existing single
family neighborhood with a grassy backyard area, landscaping, and an attractive,
maintenance-free opaque white fence along the south and east boundaries of the site.
Traffic
As part of the recommendations from the City, Sumter Avenue will be discontinued
through the site. Site access will be consolidated to one point on Bass Lake Road and
one point on Winnetka Avenue. These two accesses will be connected, according to the
Task Force suggestion, by a curvelinear public street designed to limit through trips and
calm traffic. The street will also be designed for parking along one side. The interactions
on the County Roads will be greatly simplified by eliminating dozens of individual
driveways.
Parking
Each home will have a two-car garage and a double driveway. The carriage homes will
have guest parking at the front of the home along the public street and, or, additional
landscaped parking court spaces in the rear of the unit with sidewalks to the front. The
Heritage Home provides parking in the driveway in front of the unit typical to the
suburbs, and additional on-street parking. The driveways and landscaped parking courts
within the development will be private and maintained by the Home Owner's
Association.
Street Lighting
Both public and private street lighting will be of an attractive "period" coach light on a
sixteen-foot pole. This height is sufficient to light the street and sidewalk without
creating glare off of the property.
Sidewalks / Overhead Utilities
The City will build a special streetscape sidewalk along Bass Lake Road and Winnetka
Avenue (as well as place all current overhead utilities underground. Ryland will construct
all interior sidewalks and streets, public and private.' Ever carriage Home will have a
sidewalk directly in front of it and the Heritage homes will all front on a street with a
sidewalk. Ryland will install all new utilities within the development, underground.
Snow Removal
New Hope will be responsible for all public street maintenance and snow plowing and
Winnetka Green Home Owner's Association will be responsible for all private drive,
private walkways and snow removal and common open space maintenance. The Home
Owner's Association will contract for private snow removal. Ryland initially sets home
owner's association up so that snow is removed from the entire neighborhood within 12
hours of between a 2-4 inch snowfall and within 24 hours of a snowfall greater than 4
inches. The plan is designed so that there is adequate space on-site for snow storage.
During heavier snowfalls, snow may have to be moved to the storm pond or off-site.
Waste Collection
The Winnetka Home Owner's Association will contract with a single waste hauler for
trash removal for all of the homes. Waste receptacles are required to be kept inside
except for pickup day. There is adequate room for storage of waste receptacles within
each garage.
Landscaping
Winnetka Green is a redevelopment of a number of individual lots built post World War
II. The existing vegetation was planted as part of each homestead. The large trees at the
boundaries of the site will be those that may be saved, and Ryland will make reasonable
efforts to preserve these trees, where possible. Retaining even a few trees at the edges of
'~ · the development will help preserve the mature character of the site. In addition, Ryland
has prepared a comprehensive landscaping plan for the entire property, which will
incorporate boulevard street trees, foundation plantings, common space plantings, and
transition and buffer plantings to soften the edge of the development to the existing
neighborhood. Winnetka Green will also have a central reflecting pool with a fountain
that will be developed with benches, fencing and landscaping to be a gathering space.
Summary
Ryland is very excited to be involved in the redevelopment of the East Winnetka area of
New Hope. We believe Winnetka Green will be a great value to the City and provide
homes for many new and existing residents. We look forward to an early start in the
Spring, and the completion of a new neighborhood in the City of New Hope.
02/25/2004 15:50 FAX 9522266024 ~¥L.,.....~D ~0~3 ......
The Ryland Group, Inc.
7600 ~'x~.:u~ ~rive
rde. P~airjo, ~ 55344
C~n~racror's
Feb~y 25, 2004
Ci~ of New
4401 Xylon Av~ No~
New Hope, ~ 55428
Honorable ~yor. Ci~ Co~c~ m~be~, ~d Plug Commission~:
We =~ pleiad m preset m ~ Ci~ of New Hopc a pl~ for r=devolopm~t of~c E~t
W~ ~a for a co~~ of 175 to~ homcs ~d
W~nn~a ~eem Ryl~d Homes, T~ Cities Di~sion
~ea by ~e CiW Co~c~, to ~velop a pl~ eommemmte ~ ~ CiW of New Hope
gofls.
~r sub~ a ~ de.ed pl~ at ~ ~d of S~u~, we m~ ~ ~e Desi~
~ew Com~i~e~ on Feb~ 12, 2004 to m~ commits d~elop~ by ciW st~,
com~m~ md Commission m~b~. We have world v~ ~d to ~ss ffi of~e
~o~afion requested by ~e Desi~ r~ew Commi~ee h~ be~ ~ovided. Follo~g
a s-~m~ of~ c~ges ~ ~ve mdc to ~ng ~e plus ~to coffo~ee ~ ~e
recomme~afions o~e Desi~ ~ew Commi~e:
1. ~ sid~ flong public ~e~ Mve been ~m~ m six ~m ~ wid~ ~d
2. ~e Hefi~ CoMo~m b~ Mw been planed ~ ~v~ a
minim~ o~24' ~ l~ to ~c edge of~e side~
is no side~. ~ ~-hom~ ~d ~ondomini~ ~veways
w~te ~d reeyc~g eou~s m req~ by ~e Ci~. ~s hm been vexed
3. Rylmd is evfl~t~ ~pmv~ ~ to h~e ~eet &~ge on ~e ~veways
~a~d by ~e placem~t of do~oum on ~e ~nm of~e H~e
CoMom~-i~ b~gs. A b~r solu~on may be
~ea be~e~ ~v~ays for a ~o~ ~e ~ ~nt
for oufl~ of~ do.spout ~d d~orafive pl~g.
4. ~e sou~o~ H~mge Coudo~m flong Wi~e~ Av~ ~ be~
moved ~r to ~e ~t to ~creme ~e ~ce
public ~t ~mmecfion ~ Winner.
02/28/2004 15:50 FA~ g82226802~ RYLAND HOMES
5. Pari~g will be provided along the west side of the north/south p_ublic~z~
paralteting-Winn-etka.~been revised to reflect additional gues~
parking.
6. All areas of surmountable curbing have been identified on the plans.
7. All street and private drive turn~_g radiuses are adequate for garbage ts'ucks,
delivery vehicles, etc. ..
8. A ~re turn around has been planned at the terminus of Sumter Avenue from the
exi~n~ single'-family neighborhood.
We have met with the Fire Depanment Staff and have resolved all remaining
issues. We are including a small revision to th~ plan to reilect roi.or changes in
hydrant location and lengths of (2) fire access lan~s on thc east end of the project.
9. Additional plans have been provided and plans revised to show:.
s_ Area for a transit stop along W'innctk~_~
b. Details of streetlights (including photo metrics showing light shed of.~
foot candles at 34'of distance from the source), bollard lights, "knock-
down" ~merg~ncy access bollards, screening fence, gazebo, and mailbox
~S.
c. Existing trees on the site that will be saved, transplanted, and incorporated
into thc landscaping plan.
d. Identification signage locations and monument signs.
e. The gas ~ for the Heritage Condomi,~ium buildings are grouped
together behind a decorative f~nce at one end of each building. TI~
electric meters are grouped behind !~,~ascaping undern~h one of thc
decks. The air conditiovi,,£ units and gas meters for the Can'iage Town
homes am paired in the auto service court and landscaped. The el~ctric
meters for the Carriage Town homes are paired on the back of the
buildings in the auto service court and laudscaped.
f. The plan notes that the playgrou,~a equipment for Elm Crrovc Park will be
relocated by the City and upgraded with some use of the cash park fcc
from this project.
g. A plan showing planting, fence aud ra/ling desil~ fountain, and mta/ning
wall details of the cenIral pomi f~ature of the n~ighborhood.
lz The Homeowners association will own and maintain all of the common
grounds, private drives and private si&walks, and many of the utih'ties not
withi,~ the public right of way. The storm water pond will be consmuaed
privately, owned and maintained by the HO&
The retaining wall around the central pond will be a (:2) tier wall, as
requested, for esthetic purposes. The wall is proposed as a modular, rock-
face wail. The wall ~ come tn the water's edge and a portion of it will
be under water. We bare provided some photos of other similar walls the
man~er has installed. Thc manufactured block is stronger tbsu a
field poured concrete and is much less subject to "spallinE" and cracMng
from the weather. The dry laid wall allows incremental expansion and
contract/on without cracking. There will be a warranty/n place to deal
wiflrany/ssu se~-dtt¢ m settlement or construction of ~¢ wall itself for a
period of five years after installation. We will provide en~n~.erln~ details
and performance reports as a part of final construction plans. Thc
manufacturer and installation contractor indicate the wall has an expected
life, in this type of condition, of 75-100 years.
We have developed the plans for W~nnntka Ctrccrl working in partnership with the City.
We believe we have appropriately addressed all of the final comments made by the
Design Review Committee and provided necessary changes and additional information.
We appreciate all of the help and direction offered by the City of New Hope and look
fonvard to bringing th~ dream to a reality starting within file coming weeks.
We respectfully request your support in moving the redevelopment of W~nnet.:ka Green
for, yard.
Kylanfl Homes, Twin Cities Division
I'~l I I I I 'IR~CI'i ~al~l~l ........ r I ~ I,[~[ [~ ~1.~ L.~ o t I ~*.~.[,~ .... ~>,.~.,~.r~.~,~ ......
t~ I -~-~ ~-~'~'i ~:-~ .... q ~ .... L- ~, .................................................. ~, ~. ,~ ,.., ~.., ~...~..,, ~. ,~-~ ,~...,, '
~ff t I ..... ~,~Tr-- j I , g,5~ ':.. -~,~%~t~ ~
WINNETKA EAST
PRELIMINARY PLAT
..~ ~ .,~dSACK & CARL$~;SI
"'.. A~.ud.,or,s'. ~, r~-~. I I I I
55~h
Avenue
N
...... % ..... ] I
I
--
/
16.68 +/-
I
Sample
Homeowners Association
For Winnetka Gresen
Based on Riverside
Homeowners Association D~
~STER ASSOCIATION
DISCLOSU~
ASSOC~TION DOC~ENT~
RY~ND' HOMES
Homeowner Master & Condominium Documents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Homeowner Master Association Declaration
2. Amendments to Homeowner Master Association Declaration
$. Homeowner Master Association Bylaws
~' 4. Homeowner Master Association Articles of Incorporation
5. Condominium Association Disclosure Statement
6. Condominium Association Declaration
7, Amendments to Condominium Association Declaration
8. Condominium Association Bylaws
9. Condominium Association Articles of Incorporation
10. Condominium Association Agreement Reducing Statute of Limitations
11, Common Interest Community Plat; Condo Plat Available Upon Request
12. Current Association Rules and Regulations
13. Associations Balance Sheets and Projected Budgets
14. Description of Blanket insurance
15. Copy of Ryland Home Warranty Program
16. Lots, Blocks, and Addresses
17. Maintenance Disclosure
18. Zoning Information
Sampl
Homeowners Association
Documents
For Winnetka Green
Based on Riverside Grove
Homeowners Association Documents
HOMEOWNER
MASTER A iON
ASSOCIA
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS
Homeowner Master & Townhome Documents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Homeowner Master Association Declaration
2. Amendments to Homeowner Master Association Declaration
3. Homeowner Master Association Bylaws
4. Homeowner Master Association Articles of Incorporation
5. Townhome Association Disclosure Statement
6. Townhome Association Declaration
7. Amendments to Townhome Association DeClaration
8. Townhome Association Bylaws
9. Townhome Association Articles of Incorporation
10. Townhome Association Agreement Reducing Statute of Limitations
11. Common Interest Community Plat
12. Current AsSociation Rules and Regulations
13. Associations Balance Sheets and Projected Budgets
14. Description of Blanket Insurance
15. Copy of Ryland Home Warranty Program
16. Lots, Blocks, and Addresses
17. Maintenance Disclosure
18. Zoning Information
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RIVERSIDE GROVE DECLARATION
1.1. Additional Property ....................................................
1.2. Architectural Control Committee ............................................................................. 2
1,3. City ...........................................................................................................................
2
1.4. Common Area ........................................................................................................... 2
1.5. Common Elements ................................................................................................... 2
1.6. Common Expenses ...................................................................................................
2
1.7. Community ............................................................................................................... 2
1.8. Comm~mity .A~ssessIIlent ............................................................................................
1.9. Community Association or Community Associations ............................................. 2
1.10. Community Board ................................................................................................. 3
1.11. Community Governing Documents ....................................................................... 3
1.12. Community Plat ..................................................................................................... 3
1.13. Community Property ............................................................................................. 3
1.14. Community Rules .................................................................................................. 3
1.15. Condominium Association .................................................................................... 3
1.16. Development ......................................................................................................... 3
1.17. Dwelling ................................................................................................................
3
1.18. General Assessment ............................................................................................ ,.3
1.19. Governing Documents ........................................................................................... 3
1.20. Improvement ......................................................................................................... 3
1.21. Limited Assessment .............................................................................................. 3
1.22. Master Articles ...................................................................................................... 4
1.23. Master Assessment ................................................................................................ 4
1.24. Master Association ................................................................................................ 4
1.25. Master Board or Master Board of Directors .......................................................... 4
1.26. Master By-Laws .................................................................................................... 4
1.27. Master Declarant ................................................................................................... 4
1.28. Master Declarant Control Period 4
1.29. Master Declarant Rights ................................................................................... ~'....4
1.30. Master Declaration ................................................................................................ 4
1.31. Master Governing Documents ............................................................................... 4
1.32. Master Rules .......................................................................................................... 4
1.33. Member ................................................................................................................. 4
1.34. Mortgagee .............................................................................................................. 5
1.35. Occupant ................................................................................................................ 5
1.36. Owner .................................................................................................................... 5
1.37. Person ............................................................. ' ....................................................... 5
1.38. Roadway ................................................................................................................
1.39. Rules ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.40. Special Assessment ............................................................................................... 5
1.41. Townhome Association ......................................................................................... 5
1
1.42. Unit ........................................................................................................................ 5
SECTION 2 ~ DEVELOPMENT AND ADDmONAL PROPERTY .............................. 5
2.1. Development ..................................... : ......................... ~ ............................................. 5
2.2. Annexation of Additional Property ..........................................................................
2.3. Interests Subject to Plan of Development ................................................................. 6
SECTION 3 ASSOCIATION STRUCTLrRE, AUTHORITY AND ME~ERSH1P ........... 6
3.1. Formation and Purposes ........................................................................................... 6
3.2. Authority and Administration ............................................ : ...................................... 6
3.3. Communities ....................................................................................
3.4. Membership .............................................................................................................. 8
3.5. Member Voting ......................................................................................................... 8
3.6. Master Bylaws .......................................................................................................... 8
3.7. Master Board ............................................................................................................ 8
3.8. Scope and Binding Effect of Actions ....................................................................... 8
3.9. Management ................................................................................. ~ ........................... 8 l
3.10. Rules ...................................................................................................................... 9
3.11. Appointment of Officers and Directors by Master Declarant ............................... 9
SECTION 4 PROPERTY RIGHTS AND COMMON ELE1VIENTS ....................................... 9
4.1. General ...................................................................................................................... 9
4.2. Title to Common Area .............................................................................................. 9
4.3. Acquisition of Property By Master Association ....................................................... 9
4.4. Members' Rights and Easements ............................................................................ 10
4.5. Dissolution or Liquidation ...................................................................................... 11
SECTION $ EASEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 11
5.1. Utilities ................................................................................................................... 11
5.2. Communications ..................................................................................................... 11
5.3. Governmental Authority ......................................................................................... 11
5.4. Master Declarant Rights ......................................................................................... 12
5.5. Ingress and Egress; Parking .................................................................................... 12
5.6. Use and Enjoyment ................................................................................................. 12
5.7. Master Association Access ..................................................................................... 12
5.8. Maintenance .......................................................................................................... ,12 1
5.9 Emergency Access to Units .................................................................................... 12
5.10. Encroachments ............................................................................. : ...................... 12
5.11. Project Sign Easements ....................................................................................... 13
5.12. Restriction on Easement Grants .......................................................................... 13
5.13. Continuation and Scope of Easements ................................................................ 13
SECTION 6 ASSESSMENTS FOR COMMON EXPENSES ..... , .......................................... 13
6.1. General .................................................................................................................... 13
6.2. General Assessments ................................... : .......................................................... 14
6.3. Special Assessments ............................................................................................... 14
6.4. Limited Assessments .............................................................................................. 14
6.5. Community Assessments ................................................................................. , ...... 15
ii
6.6. Assessment Procedures ........................................................................................... 16
6.7. Working Capital Fund ............................................................................................ 16
6.8. Liability for Assessments ........................................................................................ 16
6.9. Assessment Lien ..................................................................................................... 17
6.10. Foreclosure of Lien; Remedies ..... ; ...................................................................... 17
6.11. Lien Priority, Foreclosure .................................................................................... 17
6.12. Voluntary Conveyances; Statement of Assessments ........................................... 18
SECTION 7 M.M]gTENANCE OF DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 18
7.1. General Master Association Responsibilities ......................................................... 18
7.2. Community and Owner Responsibilities ................................................................ 19
7.3 Trash Contract ........................................................................................................ 19
7.4 DSL and Cable/Satellite Television ........................................................................ 19
7.5. Requirements Management and Sercvice Agreements .......................................... 20
SECTION 8 USE RESTRICTIONS ............................. ~ ........................................................... 20
8.1. General .................................................................................................................... 20
8.2. Subdivision Prohibited ........................................................................................... 20
8.3. Residential Use ....................................................................................................... 20
8.4. Business Use Restricted .......................................................................................... 20
8.5. Leasing .................................................................................................................... 21
8.6. Parking .................................................................................................................... 21
8.7. Pets .......................................................................................................................... 21
8.8. Antennas ................................................................................................................. 22
8.9. Rubbish/P, ecycling ................................................................................................... 22
8.10. Heating of Dwellings ............. :...;,; ............................... , ....... , ............................... 22
8.11. Signage ................................................................................................................ 22
8.12. Compliance with Law ......................................................................................... 22
8.13. Alterations ........................................................................................................... 23
8.14. Temporary Structures .......................................................................................... 23
8.15. Traffic Regulations .............................................................................................. 23
8.16. Time Shares Prohibited ....................................................................................... 23
8.17. Access to Units .................................................................................................... 23
8.18. Quiet Enjoyment; Interference Prohibited ........................................................... 23
SECTION 9 ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE STANDARDS ................................ 24
9.1. General .................................................................................................................... 24
9.2. Architectural Control Committee .............................. : ............................................ 24
9.3. Application and Approval Required ....................................................................... 25
9.4. Approval Standards ................................................................................................ 25
9.5. Notice of Decision .................................................................................................. 26
9.6. Variances 26
9.7. Completion Schedule .............................................................................................. 26
9.8. Certificate of Compliance ....................................................................................... 26
9.9. Inspection and Remedies
26
9.10. Review Fees ........................................................................................................ 27
9.11. Independent Consultants ..................................................................................... 27
9.12. Master Declarant Exemption ............................................................................... 27
i
9.13. Protection from Liability ..................................................................................... 27
9.14. No Representation of Compliance ...................................................................... 27
9.15. Additional Standards ........................................................................................... 28
SECTION 10 INSURA_NCE AND RECONSTRUCTION ...................................................... 28
10.1. Property Insurance ..................................................... : ......................................... 28
10.2. General Liability Insurance ................................................................................. 28
10.3. Employee Dishonesty Insurance ......................................................................... 29
10.4. Directors' and Officers' Liability Insurance ........................................................ 29
10.5. Workers' Compensation Insurance ..................................................................... 29
10.6. Other Insurance ................................................................................................... 29
10.7. Master Association as Trustee/Premiums ........................................................... 29
10.8. Policy Requirements ............................................................................................ 30
10.9. Individual Insurance ............................................................................................ 30
10.10. Damage or Desm~ction to Improvements on Common Area .............................. 31
10.11. Damage or Destruction to Improvements Not on Common Area ....................... 31
10.12. Condemnation of Common Area ........................................................................ 32
10.13. Condemnation of Community Property .............................................................. 32
10.14. T,~mination of Membership ................................................................................ 33
SECTION 11 COMPLIANCE AND REMEDIES ................................................................... 33
11.1. Entitlement to Relief ........................................................................................... 33
11.2. Remedies ...~ ....................... ~ ...... ;.: ............... .,';-.,..;;,.;.- ...................................... 33
11.3. Rights to Hearing ................................................................................................ 34
11.4. Liability for Owners' and Members' Acts .......................................................... 35
11.5. Costs and Attorneys' Fees ................................................................................... 35
11.6. Lien/Liability for Charges, Etc ............................................................................ 35
SECTION 12 MASTER DECLARANT RIGHTS .................................................................. 35
12.1. Complete Improvements ..................................................................................... 35
12.2. Relocate Boundaries and Alter Units .................................................................. 36
12.3. Sales Facilities ..................................................................................................... 36
12.4. Signs .................................................................................................................... 36
12.5. Easements ............................................................................................................ 36
12.6. Control of Master Association ............................................................................ 36
12.7. Appointment of A.C.C. Members ....................................................................... 36
12.8. Consent to Certain Amendments ...................................................................... ;..36
12.9. Add Additional Property ..................................................................................... 36
SECTION 13 RIGHTS TO ADD ADDITIONAL PROPERTY, RELOCATE AND
SUBDIVIDE ......................................................................................................... 36
13.1. Master Declarant's Right to Add Additional Real Property ............................... 36
13.2. Master Declarant's Right to Relocate and Subdivide ......................................... 37
13.3. Transfer of Master Declarant Rights ................................................................... 38
SECTION 14 AMENDMENTS ................................................................................................ 38
14.1. Approvals .......................................................................................... ~ ................. 38
14.2. Binding Effect ..................................................................................................... 38
14.3. Affidavit of Compliance ...................................................................................... 38
SECTION 15 INDEMNIFICATION ................................................................... , .................... 39
SECTION 16 MISCELLANEOUS ........................................................................................... 39
16.1. S everability .......................................................................................................... 39
16.2. Construction ........................................................................................................ 39
16.3. Notices ................................................................................................................. 39
16.4. conflicts Among Documents .. ;, .......... ; ............................................................... 39
16.5. Litigation ............................................................................................................. 39
16.6. Duration of Covenants ........................................................................................ 40
16.7. FI, lA Recluire~nents .............................................................................................. 40
shall have the power to bid in at the foreclosure sale and to acquire, hold, lease, mortgage ~'~
and convey any Unit so acquired. The Owner and any other Person claiming an interest
in the Unit, by the acceptance or assertion of any interest in the Unit, grants to the Master
Association a power of sale and full authority to accomplish the foreclosure. The Master
Association shall, in addition, have the right to pursue any other remedy at law or in
equity again.et the Owner who fails to pay any assessment or charge agaln~t the Unit.
5.12. Lien Priority;, Foreclosure. A lien under this Section is prior to all other liens and
encumbrances on a Unit except (i)liens and encumbrances recorded before the
Declaration, (ii) any first mortgage on the 'Unit, and (iii) liens for real estate taxes and
other governmental assessments or charges against the Unit. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, (1) if a first mortgage on a Unit is foreclosed, (2) the' first mortgage was
recorded on or after the date of recording of this Townhome Declaration, and (3) no
Owner redeems during the Owner's period of redemption provided by Minnesota Statutes
Chapters 580, 581, or 582, then the holder of the sheriff's certificate of sale from the
foreclosure of the first mortgage shall take title to the Unit subject to unpaid assessments
for Common Expenses levied pursuant to Sections 515B.3-115(0(1) to (5), (f), and (i) of
the Act which became due, without acceleration, during the six (6) months immediately
preceding the first day following the end of the Owner's period of redemption.
5.13. Voluntary_ Conveyances; Statement of Assessments. In a voluntary conveyance of
a Unit the buyer shall not' be personally liable for any unpaid assessments and other
charges made by the Townhome Association against the seller or the seller's Unit prior to
the time of conveyance to the buyer, unless expressly assumed by the buyer. However,
the lien of such assessments shall remain against the Unit until satisfied. Any seller or
buyer shall be entitled to a statement from the Master Association setting forth the
amount of the unpaid assessments against the Unit, including all assessments payable in
the Master Association's current fiscal year, which statement shall be binding on the
Townhome AssoeiaOon, the Master Association, seller and buyer.
SECTION 6.
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF PROPERTY
All Owners and Occupants, and all secured parties, by their acceptance or assertion of an interest
in the CIC, or by their occupancy of a Unit, covenant and agree that, in addition to any other
restrictions which may be imposed by the Act, Governing Documents and the Rules promulgated
from time to time by the Townhome Association or the Master Association, respectively, the
occupancy, use, operation, alienation and conveyance of a Unit shall be subject to the following
restrictions:
6.1. General. The Property shall be owned, conveyed, encumbered, leased, used and
occupied subject to the Governing Documents, the Rules and the Act, as amended from
time to time. All covenants, restrictions and obligations set forth in the Governing
Documents are in furtherance of a plan for the Development, and shall run with the
Property and be a burden and benefit to all Owners and Occupants and to any other
13
Person acquiring or owning an interest in the Property, their heirs, personal
representative, successors and assigns.
6.2. Subdivision Prohibited. Except as permitted by the Act, and Section 16 of this
Townhome Declaration, no Unit may be subdivided or partitioned without the prior
and all secured parties holding first mortgages on the
written
approval
of
Units.
be used exclusively for private, single family
6.3.
Residential
Use.
The
Units
residential pm-poses; except that Declarant shall be entitled to maintain model units and
other sales facilities within an Unit owned by it. No Unit may be used for transient,
hotel, commercial business, professional or other non-residential purposes, except as
provided for in Section 6.4. Any lease of a Unit (except for occupancy by guests with the
consent of the Owner) for a period of less than thirty (30) days, or which includes
services customarily furnished to hotel guests, shall be presumed to be for transient
purposes.
6.4. Business Use Restricted. No business, trade, occupation or profession of any kind,
whether carried on for profit or otherwise, shall be conducted, maintained or permitted in
any Unit; except (i) an Owner or Occupant residing in a Unit may keep and maintain his
or her business or professional records in such Unit and handle matters relating to such
business by telephone or correspondence therefrom, provided that such uses are
incidental to the residential use, do not involve physical alteration of the Unit visible
from the exterior, are in compliance with all governmental laws, ordinances and
regulations, and do not involve any observable business activity such as si~, advertising
displays, bulk mailings, regular deliveries, or pedestrian or vehicular traffic to and from
the Unit by customers or employees, (ii)the Townhome Association or the Master
Association may maintain offices on the Property for management and related purposes,
and (iii) Declarant may maintain offices, sales faeilities and other business facilities on
the Property in connection with the exercise of its special Declarant rights under this
Townhome Declaration or the Master Declaration.
6.5. Leasing. No more than ten percent (10%) of the Units at any given time shall be
leased to non-Owner Occupants. Any Owner intending to lease his or her Unit shall first
obtain the prior written permission of the Master Board. The Master Board shall not
withhold its permission to lease a Unit unless the Master Board's records show that such
lease would result in more than ten percent (10%) of the Units being leased to non-Owner
Occupants or unless the Owner's right to lease a Unit has been suspended or terminated
as hereinax~ter provided.
In addition, leasing of Units shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) that no Unit
shall be leased for transient or hotel purposes, (ii) that no Unit may be subleased, (iii) that
all leases shall be in writing, (iv) that all leases shall provide that they are subordinate and
subject to the provisions of the Governing Documents, the Rules, and the Act, and that
any failure of the lessee to comply with the terms of such documents shall be a default
under the lease, and (v) that except in the case of emergency or endangerment to public
health and safety, the Townhome Association may require that all communications with
the Townhome Board and the management agent regarding a Unit or the Development be
made by and through the Owner rather than the lessee, despite any provisions to the
contrary in the lease.
In addition, the Townhome Association may propose and the Master Association may
such reasonable Townhome Rules approved by the Master Association, as may
impose
be necessary to implement procedures for the leasing of Units and the en_forcement of
restrictions thereon consistent with this Section and the Master Rules. The Master Board
establish such rules, regulations and procedures as are necessary to implement and
shall
enforce this restriction. Enforcement measures may include the imposition of fines or
penalties against any Owner who intentionally violates this provision, maintenance of an
action to terminate the lease and remove the tenant, and/or any other remedy
afforded
under the terms of the Governing Documents.
6.6. Parking. Driveways within the CIC shall be used only for parking of vehicles
owned or leased by Owners, Occupants and their guests, and such other incidental uses as
may be authorized in writing by the Master Association. No trailers, boats, buses, motor
homes, campers, snowmobiles or other type of recreational vehicle shall be parked
outside a garage more than seventy-two (72) eonsecntive hours within a two (2) week
period. No abandoned motor vehicles shall be permitted to remain upon the driveways of
the CIC. The use of driveways, private streets, and other parking areas within the
Development, and the type of vehicles and personal property permitted thereon, shall be
subject to further regulation by the Master Association, including without )~m~tation, the
right of the Master Association to tow vehicles parked illegally or in violation of the
Rules or to remove ~mauthorized personal Property.
6.7. Pets. No pets shall be permitted to be kept on the Property by any Owner or
Occupant, except conventional domesticated animals of a type normally kept as pets in
residential areas. No kennel, dog house or outside run shall be constructed or maintained
on the Property. No animal shall be kept for any commercial purpose nor shall
be bred for a commere.~al purpose upon the Property. Any pet, whenever outside of a
Unit, must be kept under the direct control of the pet owner or another person able to
control the pet. The person in charge of the pet must clean up after it and is responsible
for any damage done by the pet. The Master Board may adopt more specific rules and
penalties not inconsistent with the foregoing, and may make all or specified portions
the Common Areas of~ Hm~ts to pets.
6.8. Antennas. Except with the prior written approval of the A.C.C., no exterior
television, radio, satellite, or microwave antenna of any sort shall be erected or
maintained upon the exterior of a Unit, except (i)an antenna one (1) meter or less in
diameter for the purpose of receiving direct broadcast/satellite service or video
programming services, or (ii)any antenna for receiving television broadcast signals,
subject to govermnent regulations regarding masts and other related equipment.
Additionally, no wires for the operation o£ this equipment will be visible on the exterior
of the Unit. The antenna shall be installed so as to m~n~m~.e its visibility fi:om other
Units and the Common Areas and avoid damage or injury to property or Persons. The
Master Board may impose Master Rules regard~_~ng antennas, consistent with law and this
Townhome Declaration; however, any such requirements shall be reasonable, shall not
impair or degrade reception and shall conform to the Federal Telecommunications Act of
1996, and regulations imposed thereunder. No exterior wiring, including without
limitation, DSL lines, cable television transmission lines or cables for personal satellite
television systems, shall be installed nor shall there be penetrations of the walls, window
fi.ames or roofs of the exterior of the building, except as authorized by the Master Board.
6.9. Rubbish/Recycling. Garbage, rubbish, trash and recyclable materials shall be kept
inside, except they may be placed outside in sanitary containers on days estabhshed for
removal of such trash or recycling.
6.10. Heating of Units. For the purpose of preventing damage to and breakage of water,
sewer and other utility lines and pipes in a Unit which might result in damage to an
adjoining Unit, all Owners shall maintain the temperature in their Units, at all times, at
least at fifty-five degrees Fahrenheit (55°F) (or such other reasonable temperature or
standard established by a Townhome Rule or Master Rule), subject, however, to the
inabiIity to maintain such temperature due to causes beyond the Owner's reasonable
control.
6.11. Quiet Enioyment; Interference Prohibited. All Owners, Occupants and their
guests shall have a right of quiet enjoyment in their respective Units, and shall use the
Property in such a manner as will not cause a nuisance, nor unduly restrict, interfere with
or impede the use of the Property by other Owners and Occupants and their guests.
6.12. Compliance with Law. No use shall be made of the Property which would violate
any then existing municipal codes or ordinances, or state or federal laws, nor shall any act
or use be permitted which could cause waste to the Property, cause a material increase in
insurance rates on the Property, or otherwise cause any unusual liability, health or safety
risk, or expense, for the. Townhome Association, the Master Association or any Owner or
Occupant.
6.13. Timeshares Prohibited. The time share form of ownership, or any comparable
form of lease, occupancy rights or ownership which has the effect of dividing the
ownership or occupancy of a Unit into separate time periods, is prohibited. ..
6.14. Access to Units. In'case of emergency, all Units are subject to entry, without
notice and at any time, by an officer or member of the Master Board, the management
agent or by any public safety personnel, Entry is also authorized for maintenance
under Section 7 and 12 and for enforcement purposes under Section 13, after
purposes
reasonable notice to the Owner.
6.15. Waivers/Variances. Any request by an Owner or Occupant for a waiver or
variance of any k~nd fi.om the foregoing restrictions, the Rules, or for special
consideration of any kind, shall be made in writing to the Master Board, accompanied by
·
16 I
appropriate written verification or documentation stating the reasons therefor. In the case
of special accommodations requested pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act,
such request shall be accompanied by a written statement of a licensed professional
qualified to diagnose the illness or condition covered by said act.
SECTION 7.
MAINTENANCE
7.1. Maintenance by Master Association. For the purpose of preserving the architectural
character, quality, and uniform and high standards for appearance of the Property, the
Master Association shall (unless delegated by the Master Board to the Townhome Board)
(i) provide for exterior maintenance, repair and replacement within each Unit as follows:
paint, repair and replace roofs, gutters, downspoms, exterior siding and other building
surfaces, sidewalk.~ and driveways, and (ii)provide for maintenance, repair and
replacement of lawns, shrubs, and trees within all Units as originally installed, and
irrigation system installation, maintenance and operation. The Master Association's
obligation to maintain exterior building surfaces shall exclude entry lighting, and garage
lighting, patios, deck~, door hardware, garage doors, exterior entry doors, air conditioning
equipment, windows and window frames, duct work beneath concrete slabs, and any
other items not specifically required to be maintained by the Master Association, unless
otherwise approved under Section 7.2. However, at the request of the Owner, or as
otherwise deemed necessary by the Master Association, the Master Association shall be
responsible for the repair and replacement of those items, and charge back the expenses
therefor as Limited Assessments according to Section 5.4. The Master Association shall
have easements as described in Section 12 to perform its obligations under this Section 7
and the Master Declaration.
7.2. Maintenance by Owner. Subject to Section 9 and this Section 7, all maintenance,
repair and replacement of and/or in the Dwellings shall be the sole responsibility and
expense of the respective Owners thereof. The Master Association may undertake any
maintenance and emergency or other necessary repairs which the responsible Owner fails
to perform or improperly performs, and assess the Unit and the Owner for the cost
thereof. Such cost shall be a personal obligation of the Owner and a lien against the
Owner's Unit. The Master Association may require that any exterior maintenance to be
performed by the Owner be accomplished pursuant to specific uniform criteria
established by the Master Association or the A.C.C. Furthermore, the Master Association
may, with the approval of a majority of votes cast in person or by proxy at a meeting of
the Owners called for such purpose, undertake to provide additional exterior maintenance
of the Units or Dwellings and assess the cost of such maintenance as a Community
Assessment.
7.3. Damage Caused. by Ownex. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this
Section, 'if, in the judgment of the Master Association, the need for maintenance of any
part of the Property is caused by the willful or negligent act or omission of an Owner or
Occupant, or their guests, or by a condition in a Unit which the Owner or Occupant has
willfully or negligently allowed to exist, the Master Association may cause such damage
17
RYLAND HOMES
RULES & REGUI~TIONS
The Board of Directors and the Owners of a common interest community have
established the following 'Rules and Regulations to create the mos~ livable and enjoyable
conditions for the majority of the members/owners. The rules were given substantial
consideration not established in an arbitrary fashion or to create a hardship on anyone. With
mutual respect, consideration and cooperation, all may enjoy the many benefits of community
living to its fullest.
Registration and Payment of Assessments
1. All owners are required to register their current name, address where they reside, list of all
vehicles which will be left on site and telephone numbers with the association via The
Community Association Group. Failure to provide this information within 30 days after
assuming ownership shall result in an automatic fine of $100.00 for each month the owner fails to
register. In accordance with the association documents, any owner who has not registered will
have voting rights or use of recreational facilkies.
not
any
2. All owners are asked to make their association assessment payments via the ACH method or
automatic withdrawal from a designated account. Any owner who does not utilize this method of
payment may be charged a service fee of $15.00 per year. Any payment not received in full by
the 15~ day of any month will be subject to a late of $30.00 per month. Any payment which is
more than 60 days delinquent may be subject to acceleration and legal action in accordance with
the association documents.
Use of Community
1. Individual homes shall only be used for single family residential purposes by unit owners,
their immediate families, tenants and guests. Commercial or business activity is limited to
professional occupations carried on within a living unit and without external evidence of same.
2. Children are welcome at our community. Residents who have children or have guests, who
have or are children, shall warrant they abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Association.
Parents/tenants and homeowners are responsible for their own children's' and guests' safety while
on common areas of the community. Bicycles and toys may not be stored on Common property,
or exterior limited common property.
3. Residents shall not conduct any activity nor maintain any item within their home, patio, deck
or yard area, or on the which is unlawful, hazardous
garage
property
or
could
result
in
a
rate
increase or cancellation of Association insurance.
4. Occupancy shall not exceed an average of two persons bedroom.
per
$. All internal repairs to living units and garages are at the owner's expense. Owners are
responsible for damage to other units, garages and common areas due to their actions, negligence
or failure to make necessary repairs.
05.01.03 1
6. Improvements or alterations within units that impair the slructural integrity, mechanical
systems or lessen the support of any portion of the building are prohibited.
7. Tampering with any common area electrical, mechanical, plumbing, TV cable, antenna,
irrigation lines or pool and recreation equipment is prohibited. In addition to the cost of repair
and/or replacement, the responsible party will be fined $30.00 by the Association per incident.
8. Residents shall not overload the electrical wiring in the buildings, or operate machines,
appliances, accessories or equipment which may cause unreasonable disturbance to other
residents.
9. Wood burning stoves are prohibited. Installation of a gas fireplace may be allowed in
locations provided, subject to approval as referenced in the Architectural section of the Rules and
Regulations. Specifications and approval forms are available from The Community Associations
Group.
10. Garage areas shall be solely for the use of parking motor vehicles, bicycles and storage of
personal property. No owner shall erect any structure to utilize the garage area as a part of the
unit or living area or for business purposes.
11. Garage doors shall not be left open while unattended. Owners may leave their doors up 6-12
inches for ventilation during the months of May through September.
12. Other than those sponsored by the Association, garage sales are not allowed on the property.
The association may designate days which owners may hold garage sales.
13. Park and picnic area shall be used only during the hours of 8:00 AM and I0:00 PM. Any
guest using the recreation areas must be accompanied by an owner at all times. For health and
safety, children under the age of 14 should be supervised by an adult at all times. The association
takes no responsibility for anyone using these areas. Owners are asked to please remove all
debris.
14. It is the owner's responsibility to inform guests of the community Rules and Regulations,
particularly those regarding parking. Owners shall be responsible for any violation and damage
caused by their guests.
Guests
1. It is the owner's responsibility to inform guests of the community Rules and Regulations, ..
particularly those regarding parking. Owners shall be responsible for any violation and damage
caused by their guests.
2. Owners should advise the Association and neighbors of guests occupying their condominium
for more than 21 days in their absence.
Pets
1. Animals, reptiles, rabbits, livestock, fowl or poultry of any kind shall not be raised, bred or
kept in any condominium, garage or on the common property. Household pets such as dogs, cats,
birds and fish are the only pets permitted in condominiums.
05.01.03 2
2. Only one (1) dog weighing 100 pounds or less when fully grown or two (2) dogs with a total
combined weight not exceeding 50 pounds or less when fully grown will be permitted in any unit.
A maximum of two (2) cats is allowed in any unit.
3. All pets m'e subject to any and all City Pet Ordinances.
4. Pets are not permitted in common areas unless carried or on a leash.
5. Pet owners are required to carry a suitable disposal container/bag and immediately remove
excrement from the grounds.
6. Pet owners shall be considerate when walking their pets not to allow pets to make deposits
around patios and mailboxes.
7. Unattended pets shall not be kept or restrained on patios, decks, garages or anywhere on
common property.
8. Kennels, dog houses or animal pens of any kind are prohibited.
9. Commercial breeding prohibited.
is
10. Owners are responsible for any damage to property and grounds, including sod replacement
caused by their pet, guest's pet or tenant's pet. Owners must replace damaged sod or
any
landscaping before June 1~t of each year or be subject to a $25.00 per week fine in addition to any
cost for the association to conduct the r,e~air. Owners must keep all landscaping in a healthy
condition from June 1~ to September 30 of each year.
11. Pets must n°t be permitted to habitually bark, cry or behave so as to annoy or endanger the
safety or comfort of other residents and become a nuisance to the community.
12. Pet owners shall indemnify and hold harmless the Association and the management against
any loss or liability arising from a pet.
13. Pet owners will not permit pets to leave excrement on neighbors living areas and common
grounds.
14. Pets are not permitted near or in any recreational areas of the community.
15. Pet owners that are in violation of the By-laws will be given only one (1) written warning.
Any further incidents will be subject to a fine and or request to remove the pet permanently.
regulations result in a warning letter from the Board of
The
first
violation
of pet
and
Directors advising the owner of the violation and consequences of additional infractions. The
second violation will initiate another warning letter in addition to a $50 fine. The fine will be
added to the owners account and if not paid promptly, will initiate a late charge to the
account.
If a third violation occurs, the resident will receive written notice to permanently remove the pet
from the property within three days. Refusal to remove the pet will then result in an additional
$50 per day fine.
I
05.01.03 3
Selling
1. Prior to listing their unit for sale, owners must notify the Association.
2. "For Sale" signs or other advertising or window displays shall not be placed anywhere on the
property without approval oftbe Board.
3. Open houses may only be held on Saturdays or Sundays from 9:00 A.M. thru 6:00 P.M.
Open house signs will be allowed during the hours of the open house (one in front of the home
and one at each main enlxance to the community). Signs must be removed by 6:30 P.M
4. Lock boxes may only be located on the garage door or front door of the respective unit for
sale. Lock boxes must be coated with a protective soft covering.
5. Owners must provide the Condominium Documents, and Rules and Regulations with a
potential buyer prior to entering into a purchase agreement.
6. Minnesota Statutes require sellers to obtain a copy of a Disclosure Statement including the
amount of any unpaid assessments or other charges due and owing the Association. Statements
must be obtained from The Community Association Group and require a ten day notice and
payment of a processing fee to be paid by the seller. An additional fee will be required of the
seller when a statement is requested with less than a ten day notice.
Leasing
1. Homes may not be leased for a period of less than one year, absent prior written consent of
the 'Board of Directors.
2. "For Rent" or "For Lease" signs or other advertising or window displays shall not be placed
anywhere on the property.
3. A fee of $100 will be assessed for each issue the association must deal with relating to any
renter or rental unit and the owner. It shall be the owner's responsibility not the association to
prevent or address all renter or tenant related issues and disturbances. Owners are liable and
responsible for the conduct of their renters at all times.
4. Owners must provide the address and phone number of their off-site residence if they are
renting out their home within the community and also provide the name of each occupant or .
renter within any unit/home. A fine will be assessed to any owner failing to provide such
information.
5. Owners must provide a potential tenant with a copy of these Pules and Regulations for
review prior to entering into a lease. Owners must include a paragraph in their lease informing
the tenant of the Association's authority to enforce the Documents, By-Laws, and Rules and
Regulations.
6. Owners shall advise all renters to obtain a tenant homeowner insurance policy also known as
an HO3 policy. A certificate of insurance shall be provided to the Homeowners' Association.
Owners are advised to maintain their own insurance on the respective property.
05.01.03 4
for service from tenants of owners shall be directed only to the landlord.
7.
Request
The
Association and/or The Community Association Group shall have no responsibility or liability to
respond to guest, occupant or tenant requests.
8. Owners are responsible for tenant compliance with the Community Documents including the
rules and regulations. Lease Agreements shall provide that the renters of the lease must be
subject in all respects to the provisions of the Governing Documents of the community and that
any failure by the lessee to comply with the terms of such documents shall be a default under the
lease. Fines for violations are the responsibility of the owner and will be added to the own6fs
account.
9. A move in]out fee of $200.00 must be paid to the Association, prior to any move into or out
of the property. This is to compensate the Association for additional wear and tear to the
common property. If the Association is not notified of a move and/or the fee not paid in advance,
the owner will be freed an additional $100 by the Association.
Architectural Changes and Modifications
l. Alterations or additions (INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF SATELITE DISH2ES) to any
of the Common or not by a resident without
Elements
Limited
Common
Elements
shall
made
prior written approval of the Association. Owners must first obtain any necessary City approval
before submitting a request to the Board of Directors.
2. A "Request for Change" must be accompanied by plans and specifications prepared at the
expense of the owner. However, consent of the Board is not required to replace or restore
windows, screens, doors, screen doors, storm doors and garage doors to the original color/style
and condition or to install solar film on windows as long as the film is non-reflective. All changes
to original specification (including storm doors) are subject to the Architectural Control
Committee to maintain architectural integrity in the complex. Changes made without the approval
of the Board of Directors may be subject to fmc, removal and/or restoration at the expense of the
homeowner.
Letters should be addressed to the Board, % The Community Association Group.
3. Any construction must meet all safety standards and all changes to the exterior of units must
be approved prior to construction or suer additions will be removed at owner's expense.
4. Owners failing to comply with any satellite dish instadlation guidelines may be required to
re-locate the dish and be subject to a fine and serving fee along with all restrictions set forth in the
association documents. Any other antennas, wiring or cable may not be visible from the exterior
of the building. All wires and cable shall be hidden whenever possible. "
5. Air conditioners and fans may not be installed in windows. Central air conditioning units
must be installed at locations provided, upon approval of the Association.
6. Residents shall not place items such as lawn ornaments, bird feeders/baths, windmills,
clotheslines, swing sets, wading pools, etc., on the common property of the Association at any
time.
7. Signs, advertisements or notices shall not be displayed by a resident on the building~
grounds, interior or exterior ora unit.
05.01.03 5
$. Rugs, blankets, towels, clothes, etc., shall not be exposed on patios, decks or on any part of '~"~
the common elements. Doormats are permissible.
9. Draperies, curtains and blinds, visible from the exterior of the building, must be typical
window treatments compatible with the community.
10. Holiday lights and decorations are permitted on patios, privacy fences, trees, shrubs, and
entry doors. Winter holiday decorations may not be displayed prior to November 15th and must
be removed by January 30th. All other holiday decorations may be displayed for a two week
period.
General Appearance
1. All tenants and owners will take responsibility to keep their immediate areas clear of any
clutter.
2. Temporary window coverings will be permitted for 60 days.
Patios & Decks
1. Patios must be clean and free of debris and unsightly items. Only outdoor furniture and
approved grills may be stored. Storage of bicycles or other objects is prohibited. Patios are not to
be used for storage.
2. The only types of grills permitted on the deck area shall be electric. All other grills must be
conducted a minimum of 15 feet away from buildings for public safety. Grilling must only be
d~ne in accordance with city ordinances as amended, and as specified by the state and community
and the insurance policy. The Board may prohibit a resident from grilling if warranted
complaints are received.
3. Screening or enclosing of patios is not allowed as referenced in the Architectural section of
the Rules and Regulations.
Lights
1. Each homeowner is required to maintain the exterior light attached to the garage of that unit.
This light is to have an operable white or clear 60 watt output bulb, and is to be left on at night.
The building exterior lights are vital for the safety and security of the entire community and each
owner should be mindful of its importance. Colored bulbs are permitted during the winter
holiday season.
2. Owners are asked to utilize their garage light and to keep it working at all times.
3. The Board reserves the right to replace bulbs and charge a fee to the owner if necessary.
Parking
I. Homeowners and residents are to park in their own garage and or driveway.
05.01.03 6 ~
2. Guest parking areas may be used for short term intermittent basis by homeowners and
residents. Otherwise, the guest parking areas shall be available for guests.
3. No parallel Parking in driveways or near mailboxes or in front of a fn-e hydrant is
permitted. *No Parking shall be permitted in the alleyways of the Carriage Townhomes.
4. Not at any time may a vehicle be parked in the street blocking any po~ don of another
homeowner or resident's driveway.
5. No boats, trailers, recreational vehicles, snowmobiles or similar vehicles be parked in the
community unless in garage for a period of time to exceed 72 hours. Exceptions may be granted
on a short term basis by the Board.
6. No non-operative vehicle may be parked or stored in the community except garage.
7. For the safety of the commtmit3/s children, garage doors must be kept closed unless
homeowner or resident is in close attendance. However, garage door may be left open up to
twelve (12) inches for ventilation.
8. The community shall adhere to any applicable city Fire Code. Therefore, no vehicle may
block a route defined as an emergency access.
9. Should any owner, guest, occupant or tenant residents disregard any portion of the parking
policies, the obsu'ucting vehicle will be towed at the owner's expense.
10. Owners are responsible for advising their guests, occupants, and service and delivery
personnel of parking regulations.
11. Maximum speed limit within the community streets and roadways shall be no more than 15
MPH.
12. All vehicles must be in operating condition. During a resident's absence, a designated
responsible individual must have keys and be available to move a vehicle for maintenance or
emergency. If necessary, vehicles will be removed at the owner's expense.
13. Vehicles must be maintained to prevent damage or cause negative effects upon the property.
Non-operating vehicles may not be stored on the property. Homeowners and residents are
responsible any damages to the common areas.
for
14. Commercial and Oversized vehicles may not be parked or stored on the property. Parking
spaces not be used for
may
storage.
15. Pads must be placed under motorcycle kickstands to prevent damage to blacktop.
16. Mechanical repairs other than routine maintenance on personal vehicles is not permitted in
garages and parking areas of the community
17. During snow months, residents are responsible to insure all parked vehicles do not interfere
with snow removal. Owners who fail to remove their vehicles may be held responsible for any
additional charges for return visits made by the snow removal contractor.
05.01.03 7
18. Each violation of the parking rules and regulations will result in a $25 fmc plus expenses for
any damages incurred to the property and the Association may remove a vehicle, without
warning, a.t the owners expense. If not promptly paid, a late charge will be added to the owner's
account.
19. A maximum of 2 vehicles per unit may be stored outside either in the driveway or on the
common area at anytime.
Locks & Keys
1. In event of an emergency, it may be necessary to enter a unit. The Association does not
maintain keys to individual units, therefore, it is imperative owners or another responsible party is
available to provide access to a unit. Should forcible entry become necessary, it will be at the
owner's expense.
2. Replacement mailbox keys may be obtained from the local Post Office. 'Mailboxes and
mailbox keys are owned and maintained by the U.S. Post Office.
Moving & Deliveries
1. Owners will be fully responsible for any damages and wear and tear to the common
property.
2. Moves and major deliveries must be completed between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
3. Cleaning or repairs necessitated by a move or delivery must be completed immediately. The
Association will bill the owner forany cleaning or repairs required as referenced in "Use of
Condominiums".
4. Owners must supervise and be responsible for all aspects of a move or delivery.
5. Damages caused by the moving of any occupant or renter shall be charged to the
homeowner.
Refuse Disposal & Recycling
1. All garbage and trash must be secured in plastic bags and deposited in approved garbage
containers.
2. No garbage and/or trash shall be permitted to become a nuisance, annoyance, safety or
health hazard to the community.
3. Failure to adhere to the proper procedures for disposing of garbage and/or trash may be
subject to a written warning and frae if problem continues.
4. Refuse may not be placed outside prior to 7:00 PM on the evening prior to trash pick up day.
Trash must be curbside for pickup by 7:00 A.M. on trash pick up day and refuse containers must
be placed back in the garages by 9 p.m. the day of pick up.
05.01.03 8
refuse set forth by the sanitation or city
5.
Owners
must
prepare
company
recycling
program.
6. Non-corrugated packing boxes, moving materials, furniture, mattresses, tires, batteries, etc.,
will not be taken by the regular collector and must be removed promptly from the property.
Homeowners must contact the refuse company directly to make special arrangements for pickup
and direct billing to their own home for that special pickup.
7. Refuse or other items should never be left in common areas.
8. Christmas trees must not be wrapped for pickup. Plastic must be removed from trees or the
collector will not pickup. Trees will only be picked up by the collector during the first two weeks
in January.
9. Our homes have a significant impact on recycling precious resources. Your Association
encourages your participation and each unit has been provided with a stacking recycling system.
As specified by the collector, properly separate recycling in paper bags and then put those paper
bags into the stacking system for pickup. Haulers will not pick up any recycling which is not
properly bagged or separated.
10. Recycling procedures are as follows: Remove and throw away all caps, lids, pumps and
metal handles. After rinsing containers clean, they may be commingled and must be in bags prior
to placing in bins. Commonly accepted plastic bottles are: soda, milk, water and laundry product
containers. Please exclude the following items: aerosol cans, paint cans, motor oil, gasoline
containers, light bulbs, pens, window panes, mirrors, pottery, ceramics, disposable razors, glasses,
medicine containers, plastic cups, plastic silverware, plastic wrap, styrofoam cups, styrofoam
packaging, yogurt, cottage cheese and butter containers. Newspaper should be separated from
containers and placed inside a paper bag. Miscellaneous paper such as envelopes, office paper,
junk mail, and magazines should be placed in a separate paper bag. Corrugated card board
(especially moving boxes) must be broken down, laid flat and tied together. These procedures do
not apply if your site participates in a "one sort" program.
11. Owners are responsible for appropriately disposing of all toxic waste materials such as paint,
solvents, motor oil, etc.
12. Any owner utilizing more than the 60 gallons of trash as provided by the container will be
responsible for any additional charges assessed to the community.
Noise & Disturbances
i. Homeowners, residents and guests shall not interfere with the rights, comfort~ and or
convenience of other homeowners, etc.
2. ~ the interest of neighborliness, homeowners and residents are asked to cooperate among
themselves.
3. Problems concerning annoyances and nuisances caused by loud music, parties, excessive
behavior, etc. that are not resolved by the individuals involved should be brought to the Board's
attention.
05.01.03 9
4. Any emergency situation or suspicious behavior shall be reported immediately to the local
police department.
5. Any fines that are assessed by the police and/or fire deparmaent are the responsibility of the
homeowner and/or resident.
6. Residents are responsible for the actions of their children, guests, guest children and pets,
and agents to assure they do not cause any annoyance which may unreasonably disturb other
residents.
7. Residents shall not make or permit unreasonable noise that will disturb others. Radios, TV's,
stereos and musical instruments must be kept at a reasonable volume at all times.
Enforcement Policy
The fiduciary responsibility of the Board of Directors to preserve the common scheme of
the community includes the enforcement of use restrictions, preservation of arc.hitectural integrity
and maintenance of the safety and soundness of the common property. The Board is committed
to the uniform, consistent and timely enforcement of Association Documents.
Violations
1. Prior to reporting an infraction or dispute to the Association and The Community
Association Group, residents should make every reasonable attempt to resolve the matter between
themselves.
,.." Violations must be documented and reported, in writing, to the Board of Directors through
The Community Association Group. Please include date, address and time of incident.
Anonymous complaints will not be recognized.
3. The Association may levy reasonable fines against a unit for failure of the owner, tenant,
guest or agent to comply with any provision of the Declaration, Bylaws, or Rules and Regulations
of the Association. A fmc may be levied on the basis of each day of a continuing violation with a
single notice and an opportunity for a hearing to the unit owner.
4. At the direction of the Board, The Community Association Group, will send the offending
owner written notice detailing the violation and fmc. The notice will request voluntary
compliance and payment of the fine within five days.
5. If the violation is not corrected within five days and the violator has not requested an
informal heating, a $50.00 or greater fine or the amount as referenced in specific categories of the
Rules and Regulations, will be levied and may be levied on the basis of each day of a continuing
violation. The Board of Directors, management and Association Legal Advisor may initiate
appropriate action to bring about compliance.
Hearing
1. An owner accused ora violation may request a hearing in from of the Board of Directors.
The notice must be in writing and submitted to the Board of Directors through The Community
Association Group within the five day compliance period.
05.01.03 10
1
2. The hearing will be held at a regular Board Meeting and will take place prior to the
scheduled start of the meeting. If the Board of Directors, after careful deliberation, reaffirms the
fine, it will be due and payable immediately.
Fines
1. Fines are only levied against the owner of a unit, whether caused by the owner, guest, tenant,
agent, etc..
2. Fines levied by the Board of Directors will be added to the owner's account and if not
promptly paid, will initiate a late charge to the account.
3. On behalf of the Association, the Board of Direct°rs will exercise its legal rights and
fiduciary responsibility to collect fmcs, in the same manner as if the fmc were a delinquent
assessment. Failure to pay a fmc may result in a lien being placed against the owner's unit and/or
foreclosure proceedings.
i
~ 05.01.03 11
Revised Ryland drawing to address Fire Department
issues on drives J and K in northeast area
of development
02/25/2004 16:06 FA~ 9522266024 R¥~N~ BO~[ES ~UOl
RYtAND HOMES'
FAX
Fax# 763.531.5136
To: Iiurt McDonald
From: Corey Collius
Mr. McDonald,
Here is a copy of our garage plans with vehicles and trash cans and also a picture of a
Heritage Condo garage with a mid-sized car in it.
Thanks,
Corey Collin.~
Ryland Homes
Twin Cities Division
Laud Assistant
952.229.6000
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planner$@nacplanning.¢om
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: February 25, 2004
RE: New Hope - Winnetka Green Development Plans
FILE NO: 131.01 -04.01
BACKGROUND
Ryland Development has submitted their development plans for the Winnetka Green
preliminary plat/planned unit development for New Hope. These plans have been
revised to respond to staff development review team (2/11/04) and Design and Review
Committee (2/12/04). In review of development plans, the following findings and
recommendations are offered for consideration of the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Processing
In review of the proposed application, the following development approvals are
necessary:
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Currently, the New Hope Comprehensive
Plan designates the property for commercial and Iow to medium density
residential use. Under Comprehensive Plan definitions, the proposed
development would qualify as a high density residential use. As such, a land use
change will be required.
2. Rezoning. Currently, the site is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential and CB,
Community Business. A change in zoning is necessary to accommodate the
proposed use. In light of the various design flexibilities being requested by the
applicant, rezoning to a planned unit development district is recommended.
Within this district, the City can provide the density and design flexibility that is
necessary to accommodate this redevelopment without variance.
3. Subdivision. To accommodate this proposed development, a preliminary plat
and final plat will have to be processed.
4. Street Vacation. A segment of Sumter Avenue will need to be vacated to
accommodate the project. This vacation will require a public hearing before the
City Council and must be approved if the project is to proceed.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The 1998 New Hope Comprehensive Plan identifies this area of the community for
redevelopment. Specifically, the plan directs Iow to medium density residential land use
for the area. Redevelopment was recommended.
· Extraordinary deep lots along Winnetka, existing housing conditions.
· Marginal commercial development at the corner of Winnetka and Bass Lake
Road.
· Access via a substandard street (Bass Lake Road extension).
As previously indicated, the Land Use Plan directs Iow to medium density residential
use upon the subject property. As part of an examination of the site, the Livable
Communities Task Force recommended townhome and Iow density single family uses
upon the property and expressed the following concerns for site development:
1. Integration and compatibility with the neighboring single family areas.
2. Traffic generation and prevention of traffic intruding upon the adjacent single
family area.
3. Development density and its impact upon quality of development.
4. Building quality and establishing a design that was attractive and complementary
to the existing single family neighborhood and the Winnetka and Bass Lake Road
streetscape.
After being considered by the Livable Communities Task Force, the City went out and
solicited developers to provide a proposal that would not only achieve the Livable
Communities recommendations, but also demonstrate the financial feasibility of the
project. Upon review of the development proposals, it was demonstrated that the Iow
and medium density land use options could not generate sufficient tax revenues to cash
flow overall redevelopment of this area of the community.
Alternative plans were prepared over the last year which, while attempting to respond, to
Livable Communities concerns for land use compatibility, also introduced a density that
would be financially feasible to uphold the redevelopment.
The Comprehensive Plan defines Iow density as 0-4 units per acre and medium density
as 5-10 units per acre. The proposed redevelopment site is 17.1 acres in total area,
14.8 acres subtracting out the street rights-of-way. A total of 175 housing units on the
site produces a net density of 11.8 units per acre. This falls into a high density
classification, mandating a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
2
Any change of land use is a policy decision for the Planning Commission and City
Council. This change in land use will serve to implement the area redevelopment. In
evaluating the land use change staff offers the following review of the planned unit
development and housing product.
Rezoning
The applicant has requested a planned unit development zoning designation to provide
design and density flexibility. In evaluating the PUD, it will be compared to the City's R-
4, High Density Residential District to show where the flexibilities are being requested
and the differences between the standard R-4 and the higher density PUD district that is
being proposed.
Section 4-32 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance outlines the criteria for considering a
change in zoning as follows: -
(1) The zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past zoning mistake.
(2) The character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of an
amendment.
(3) the proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies
and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
The past zoning was appropriate for the prior land uses, however, the character of the
area has changed and redevelopment has been recommended for this project site by
the Comprehensive Plan. As a mature fully developed community, New Hope has
targeted a number of areas for residential redevelopment as a means of promoting
reinvestment into the community and offering new housing options within the City.
The 1997 Life Cycle Housing Study for year 2010 identified the following housing needs
for New Hope:
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 blighted sites which may
have amenities that would be attractive to higher value medium or high density
housing options.
2. Owner Occupied or Rental Attached Housing. The Life Cycle Housing Study
identified the need for attached housing (townhomes, twinhomes, cooperative
apartments) that offer Iow maintenance, independent housing opportunities.
These types of housing opportunities are attractive to empty nesters or older
residents wishing to live in New Hope.
3
3. Affordable Rental. The Life Cycle Housing Study identified a need for additional
affordable rental units before year 2010. Due to the City's extensive rental
housing supply, these units can be provided through rental assistance certificates
for use within existing rental units.
4. Special Needs Housinq. 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 proposed Winnetka Green housing project will provide upscale townhomes and
condominium housing units that fit the description of categories 1, 2 and 4 above.
The change in zoning is also consistent with the New Hope residential goals and
policies as follows:
RESIDENTIAL GOALS
Goal 1: Provide a variety of housing types, styles and choices to meet the needs
of New Hope's changing demographics.
Policies:
A. Through infill development and redevelopment efforts, increase life cycle housing
opportunities not currently available within the City (i.e., high value housing,
townhomes).
B. Promote medium density attached housing to address the needs of an expanding
empty nester or independently living elderly population.
Goal 2: Maintain and enhance the strong character of New Hope's single family
residential neighborhood.
Policies:
C. Prevent the intrusion of incompatible land uses into Iow density single family
neighborhoods.
F. Pursue the redevelopment of substandard single family homes when it is judged
not economically feasible to correct the deficiencies.
Goal 3: Promote multiple family housing alternatives as an attractive life cycle
housing option.
Policies:
B. Adhere to the highest community design and construction standards for new
construction and redevelopment projects.
C. Accompany medium and high density development with adequate accessory
amenities such as garages, parking, open space, landscaping, and recreational
facilities to insure a safe, functional, and desirable living environment.
PUD Zoning District
The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to provide grouping of buildings
in an integrated coordinated design. The PUD is intended to introduce flexibility and
architecture for the conservation of land. The PUD district is intended to encourage
creative environments that might be prevented through the strict application of zoning
and subdivision regulations of the City.
The proposed development is urban design that does not fit with New Hope's standard
high density residential zoning district. The PUD zoning district allows the Planning
Commission and City Council to evaluate the requested zoning based on the merit of
the proposed development.
It is apparent through the Comprehensive Plan and the City's redevelopment efforts, the
character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and change in zoning. The proposed redevelopment is consistent with the
land use objectives of the Comprehensive plan related to the City's housing needs and
redevelopment goals and policies. The Planning Commission and City Council will
need to evaluate the details of the submitted site plan and preliminary plat and
determine if the requested rezoning and development stage PUD is appropriate for the
site.
PUD/Preliminary Plat
The applicant is pursuing PUD concept and development stage approval along with a
preliminary plat. The following review identifies the site development issues along with
the PUD flexibilities being requested.
General Site Layout
The proposed redevelopment project creates a high density urban townhome
neighborhood along two of New Hope's minor arterial streets.
The urban townhomes front onto Winnetka Avenue, Bass Lake Road or proposed
Street A. the buildings have a reduced setback to the street to conserve land and
create an attractive urban streetscape.
5
The taller urban townhomes are located along the minor arterial street. The carriage
home condominiums are planned along the single family homes, maintaining the
required 30+ foot setbacks. A property line fence and boulevard planting are intended
to screen the single family neighborhood from the traffic and back yards of the
townhomes.
The roadway design isolates the townhome neighborhood from adjoining single family
neighborhood to reduce traffic conflicts and congestion, this street pattern eliminates
multiple curb cuts from Winnetka Avenue and the substandard Bass Lake Road
extension. Access points at 54th Street and Rhode Island improve traffic circulation at
the Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road Intersection and eliminates the unsafe
Sumter Avenue jogged intersection.
In the following review, these features are further described.
Density
Density is the first area of flexibility being requested by the applicant. The project site
comprises 17.1 acres of land. The total number of units being proposed for the project
site is 175 units, 117 urban townhomes and 66 heritage condominium townhomes. The
applicant has indicated that the gross density resulting from this development would be
10.2 units per acre. A rough calculation of the net density (exclusive of the public street
right-of-way) would be 11.8 units per acre.
The required lot unit per unit for townhome is 5,000 square feet. The proposed project
would have an average of 4,303 square feet per unit based on gross acreage and an
average of 3,714 square feet per unit based on a net buildable acreage. This density is
required to make the redevelopment financially feasible.
Setbacks
The standard setbacks in an R-5, High Density Residential District are as follows:
· R-5 District front setback from local street is 25 feet from property line.
· Townhome proposed 25 feet from back of curb.
· Condominium proposed 25 feet from back of curb.
Review Comments:
Setback flexibility has been requested where the townhome buildings abut Street A.
Setbacks are being measured from curb. The specific issue is that driveways for the
condominium townhome units on the south end will have parking that will extend within
the public right-of-way of the street. This is not typically allowed by City standards.
PUD flexibility is being requested to ensure adequate setback between the garage and
back of curb (to accommodate the safe parking of vehicles and snow storage).
The site plan provides a driveway length of 25 feet from the back of curb on Street A
and 24 feet from the back of the sidewalk along the west side of Street A. This
dimension is seen as adequate to accommodate off-street parking in front of the ~
garages.
· R-5 District front yard setback from arterial street is 30 feet from property line.
· Townhome proposed 25 feet from property line.
Review Comments:
At the suggestion of City staff, the building setbacks from Winnetka Avenue and Bass
Lake Road have been reduced from 30 feet from 25 feet. The proposed townhome
developments are of an urban design and it is believed they will complement and
enhance the streetscape appeal of these street corridors. This reduced setback also
serves to conserve land in the balance of the project.
· R-5 District side yard setback for interior lot line is 10 feet required from lot line.
· Townhome proposed 20 feet between buildings.
· Condominium proposed 20 feet between buildings.
· R-5 District side setback from local street required 20 feet from property line.
· Townhome proposed is 20 feet from curb.
· Condominium proposed 20 feet from curb.
· R-5 District side yard setback from arterial street requirement is 25 feet from
property line.
· Townhome proposed is not applicable.
· Condominium proposed is 25 feet.
Review Comments:
The site plan has shifted Building 88 east to provide a 40 foot setback separation
between Winnetka Avenue right-of-way and the first driveway per Design and Review
recommendation.
· R-5 District rear yard setback requirement is 30 feet.
· Townhome proposed is 24 feet to bituminous drive.
· Condominium proposed is 30+ feet to lot line.
Review Comments:
The initial site plan illustrates a rear yard setback for the urban townhomes of 22 feet
from the face of the garage to the private drives. In response to City concerns for
parking, the applicant has increased the setback to 24 feet.
Public Streets/Circulation
Flexibility is also being requested with regard to the street and access points. Street A
is intended to be a public street. Flexibility is being requested from the 60 foot required
right-of-way requirement and the 32 foot required street width. Specifically, a 50 foot
driveway and a 28 foot street width have been proposed. With this dimension, parking
7
would be restricted to one side of the street. Signage must be provided by the applicant
that identifies the parking restriction.
Street A follows a curvilinear design and then backs up to the single family lot to the
east after passing through the condominium townhomes. This design was intended to
move the individual buildings away from the single family areas, and provide some
physical separation between the different uses. Street A will be screened using a
combination of fencing and boulevard trees.
Access to the site is provided via Winnetka Avenue (in alignment with 54th Avenue) and
Bass Lake Road (in alignment with Rhode Island Avenue). Both these locations were
chosen to move any access or egress from the site away from the Winnetka/Bass Lake
Road intersection. This alignment has been reviewed by Hennepin County and is
viewed as a desirable location that corrects some of the past problems in the area (such
as multiple access points onto Winnetka and the Sumter Avenue intersection).
Hennepin County will be required to approve the access points for the subdivision as
well as any right-of-way dedication for Bass Lake Road or Winnetka Avenue. The City
will be responsible for any street design and improvements along the county roads, i.e.,
landscaping, lighting, sidewalk improvements. The City will work closely with the
applicant in the preparation of a streetscape plan.
The vacation of Sumter Avenue is viewed as a positive action that will segregate
townhome traffic from the single family neighborhood to the south and east. It is
anticipated that complaints from the single family neighborhood may be received
regarding the lengthening of trips that some residents may encounter to access
Winnetka Avenue or Bass Lake Road.
Review Comments:
1. Sheet 9 of 10 illustrates the plans for site and parking lot curbing.
a. Street A will have B-618 curbing except where the condominiums have
driveways. In the driveway locations a mountable curb will be installed.
b. B-618 curbing shall be used to define the center islands on the townhome
court yards.
c. Mountable curbs will define the private drive except where driveways enter
the private drives.
To avoid confusion related to curbing installation, the site plan .should be revised
to more cleady delineate the changes in curbing types. The City Engineer should
comment on curb locations.
2. Applicant has identified emergency access drives at Drive B per City
recommendation. A detail for the drive is provided on Sheet D-1 of 2. The City
Engineer and Fire Inspector should comment on pavement section and drive
width to insure the design will accommodate weight and maneuvering of
emergency vehicles.
These emergency drives will use 6' x 6" wooden break away posts to prevent
through traffic on these emergency vehicle drives.
Drives A, B, H, I, K and a stub street north of Building 26 are all fire lanes. These
areas shall be posted no parking. The Homeowners Association shall be
responsible to keep the lanes, as well as the emergency access at the end of
Drive B clear of snow.
Drive H must be redesigned to avoid crossing 5510 Sumter which is not part of
the project. Bollard placement on Drive H cannot interfere with the driveway
access of 5510 Sumter.
3. Sumter Avenue will be terminated approximately 140 feet north of 55th Avenue.
A cul-de-sac with a 30 foot radius is proposed for the end of Sumter Avenue.
This radius is adequate for automobiles. With the installation of emergency
access Lane H, the smaller cul-de-sac is seen as acceptable. Public works has
recommended that the cul-de-sac be shifted south to maintain a minimum
setback of 15 feet between the street and proposed fence for snow storage.
4. The site plan has illustrated a location for transit shelter along Winnetka Avenue.
An easement for the transit shelter shall be described and dedicated to the City.
Said easement should be sized based on an Winnetka Street and Boulevard
Improvement Plan coordinated between the City and County.
5. Public Works has also expressed concern for snow storage between Street A
and the eastern boundary line fence. The applicant has indicated that the fence
is setback 20 feet from the curb. This setback offers sufficient space for snow
storage.
Private Drives
Within the townhome area, drive aisles 20 feet in width have been proposed. Typically,
a drive aisle that not less than 24 feet in width is desired to accommodate 90 degree
parking (in parking lots).
Review Comments:
1. The applicant's site plans still illustrate 20 foot wide private drives. These are
narrow for two-way traffic. To accommodate two-way traffic, 22 foot drive lanes
should be considered. The applicant has lengthened the urban townhome
setback between garage and the private drive to reduce parking conflicts with
through traffic.
2. The curb radius on the private drive have been enlarged to accommodate a
vehicle with a 20 foot wheel base (see sheet 9 of 10).
Parking
The site plan must provide 2 ¼ parking stalls per townhome. The 175 townhomes
require 393 parking stalls. The site plan provides:
2 car garages per unit 350
36 surface spaces 36
386
If the driveway surface spaces in front of garage are counted for required parking, the
site plan greatly exceeds the parking standards. On-street parking along the west side
of Street A is also proposed.
Review Comments:
1. The urban townhome garage measures 22 feet by 21 feet for a total of 462
square feet in area. The area for the condominium garages measures 19 ¼ feet
by approximately 19 ¼ feet, for a total floor space of 380 square feet. These
garages address the requirement for at least one enclosed parking space per
unit. It should be noted that the City should consider the adequate dimension of
these garages to accommodate not only the parking of two vehicles but storage
of ancillary 'equipment such as refuse containers. Applicant is requested to
provide an illustration of two mid-sized vehicles parked in the 19.5' x 19.5' garage
for Planning Commission consideration.
2. To accommodate two vehicles parked in front of the garages, townhome unit
driveways have a minimum width of 18 feet to accommodate the car door swing
and the turning radius from the narrower 20 to 22 foot right-of-way private drive.
3. To avoid maintenance issues it is recommended that the narrower landscape
strip between townhome driveways for Buildings 71-79 and 89-97 be paved.
4. The applicant has provided generously dimensioned parking stalls in the green
islands between the private drives. Wider stalls are necessary to provide proper
turning radius in and out of the individual stalls.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks will be integrated into the overall site design along the west side and north
side of Street A and west side of Street B, connecting with private sidewalks
(connecting the townhome fronts and back into Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake
Road). Overall, the pedestrian oriented design is considered attractive. Public
sidewalks are 6 feet wide and located immediately behind the street curb consistent
with recommendation of Public Works.
l0
Review Comments:
Sidewalk or trail connections should be extended to the east property lines to provide
pedestrian connections to Elm Grove Park and St. Rapheal Church
Landscape Plan
The landscape plan illustrated on Sheets L1 of 2 and L2 of 2 show a generous
landscape treatment for the streetscape, common area and foundation areas each
addressed.
Review Comments:
1. The plant materials are appropriate for Minnesota climate. The plant sizes
exceed City standards and will do well to help establish an attractive
neighborhood and screen the adjoining single family areas.
In review of the landscape plan, we would recommend additional shrubs or
coniferous plants at the ends of Drives B, C, G and L to where they abut
Winnetka Avenue or Bass Lake Road. These plantings are intended to further
screen the garages and private drives from the public streets.
2. Screening between townhomes and the single family neighborhood is
accomplished with six foot white vinyl boundary line fence. This fence will
provide solid screen of the proposed streets and first floor townhomes.
Complementing the fence is a row of deciduous trees (Maples, Linden, Birch)
that will provide canopy screening above the fence that serve to interrupt the
views of the townhomes.
Sheet D-2 of 2 are landscape plan cross sections that illustrate the view of
townhomes from the single family neighborhood. These cross sections reveal
that the townhome site will have a higher elevation than the adjoining single
family homes. The elevation changes will limit the screening effectiveness of the
six foot fence. The following options to increase the screening should be
considered:
a. Increase the fence height to 8 feet.
b. Consider using a berm along the property line to increase the height of the
fence.
3. The applicant is proposing to save some of the existing trees on the site for reuse
in the development (see Sheet TR1 of 1). Existing trees and shrubs are to be
spaded out and held for planting after site grading. This practice will provide the
site with some more mature trees in the landscape plan. Inquiry was made at the
open house for saving a significant Spruce tree in the extreme southeast corner
]!
of the project site. The tree's location may interfere with fence construction,
however, the applicant is encouraged to investigate measures to retain the tree.
In review of the Tree Preservation Plan, we recommend that the Silver Maple not
be included n the tree preservation.
4. The foundation plantings are type and size appropriate for New Hope. The plan
even gives attention to shade and sun sides of the townhomes and selects
plantings appropriate for these conditions.
5. The landscape plan addresses the ponding area. The ponding area will be
defined by a series of retaining walls. The top of the retaining wall will abut
sidewalks. A 42" aluminum fence shall be installed to protect pedestrians.
Between the retaining walls will be landscaping consisting of viburnum and
planting beds. The east and west end of the pond are dogwood shrubs and
additional planting beds.
Details on the retaining walls have been provided. These plans shall be subject
to review and comment of the Public Works Director and City Engineer.
6. Monument details have been provided for Planning Commission review:
a. All monument signs shall be setback 10 feet from all property lines.
b. Monument signs located at the project entrances must be located outside
of a required sight transfer extending twenty feet along both property lines
on the corner lot.
7. The proposed landscape plan indicates that the entire site will have an irrigation
system for long term maintenance and has also identified snow storage locations
that are necessary as part of the street clearing and parking lot clearing during
the winter.
Lighting
The applicant is proposing two types of exterior light fixtures to illuminate the streets
and private drives, the lighted Bollard is proposed along the side walk along the pond.
This type of light is to keep light levels manageable, but to avoid glare from intruding
onto the single family homes to the east
The second light fixture is title Traditional-Old Favorite. This fixture is a lantern design
and the luminary will be visible to adjoining properties. This light fixture will be 18 feet in
high. These light fixtures have been located along Street A generally between
buildings. As such, they will be visible to the adjoining single family neighborhood.
]2
To avoid issues related to nuisance lighting, we would recommend a light fixture that is
hooded to screen the luminary and direct downward to avoid glare.
Accessory Equipment
Sheet 9 of 10 illustrates locations of street signs, address signs and mail boxes. These
locations are acceptable.
Buildings
The applicant has provided front building elevations and typical floor plans for both
urban townhomes and Heritage condominiums. In review of building plans, we raise the
following issues:
1. We would request color elevation of the back of the structure to illustrate how the
gas meters, electrical meters and air conditioning units are integrated into the
design of the building.
2. Downspouts directed to the driveways present issues related to water freezing on
the driveway and downspout damage related to snow removal. This issue will
require attention.
3. As noted earlier in this report, we request an illustration of proposed Heritage
condominium garages with to cars parked inside.
Homeowners Association
The applicant has provided Homeowners Association documents for City Attorney
review. These documents shall be filed with the final plat.
Street Vacation
To facilitate the replatting of Winnetka Green subdivision, approximately 395 feet of
Sumter Avenue must be vacated. This vacation serves the following objectives:
1. Eliminates an unsafe intersection at Bass Lake Road.
2. Provides buildable land area for the project.
3. Disconnects the Winnetka Green Townhome from the single family homes to the
south.
The vacation of Sumter serves to benefit the City's redevelopment efforts and provide
for a more favorable traffic circulation pattern. To vacate this right-of-way, the
City/developer must relocate utilities currently existing in this right-of-way.
RECOMMENDATION
Ryland Development has requested the following development applications:
1. Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the designated land uses to light
density residential.
2. Rezoning from R-l, Single Family and CB, Community Business to PUD,
Planned Unit Development.
3. Concept and development stage PUD and preliminary plat.
4. Street vacation for a segment of Sumter Avenue.
Based on the previous review, the following recommendations are offered:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment/PUD Rezoning
These applications are interconnected and should be considered together. Any land
use change is a policy decision for the City Council. Generally, the City must find that
the proposed change is consistent with the following criteria:
1. The zoning amendment is necessary to correct a past mistake.
2. The character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of an
amendment.
3. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
The past zoning was correct for the past uses, however, the City in its Comprehensive
Plan recognized the changing character of the area by designating this site for
redevelopment. The change in land use and zoning provides the opportunity, to
implement the redevelopment objective. The PUD zoning is directly tied to the
proposed development plan if the Planning Commission and Council find that the
proposed density and design fulfill the City's redevelopment objective approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment is recommended contingent on the City approval of
the PUD concept and development stage plan.
PUD Concept and Development Stage/Preliminary Plat
If the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning is deemed appropriate for the site, we would
recommend approval of the PUD concept/development and preliminary plat with the
following conditions:
]4
1. Site net density shall be 11.8 units per net acreage.
2. Setbacks shall not vary from the setbacks illustrated on Sheet 2 of 10,
Preliminary Site Plan dated 2-20-04.
3. Streets
a. Curbing plan be revised to more clearly identify curb types and location
subject to review of City Engineer.
b. Drives A, B, H, I, K and stub street north of building 26 shall be posted no
parking and Homeowners Association shall keep these drives free of
snow.
c. Drive H shall be redesigned to avoid crossing 5510 Sumter Avenue.
Bollard placement on Drive H shall not interfere with the driveway assess
to 5510 Sumter Avenue.
d. Sumter Avenue cul-de-sac shall shift south to provide a 15 foot separation
between the street curb and privacy fence for snow storage,
e. An easement for the placement of a transit stop shall be dedicated to the
City. The specific size and location of the easement will be based on a
Winnetka Street and Boulevard Improvement Plan coordinated between
the City and County.
f. City Council should determine if the private drives should be widened to
22 feet.
4. Parking
a. Applicant should provide detail on Heritage condominium garages
illustrating the parking of two automobiles.
b. Narrower landscape strips between the driveways for Buildings 71-79 and
89-87 be paved.
5. Sidewalk or trail connections shall be made to Elm Grove Park and St. Rapheal
Church.
6. Landscaping
a. Additional plantings be provided at the ends of Drives B, C, G and L to
screen the garage areas from Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road.
b. Investigate options to increase the height of the screen fence.
c. Investigate the preservation of a significant Spruce tree at the southeast
corner of the site. Eliminate the Silver Maple from the trees to be
preserved.
d. Retaining walls are subject to review and comment of the City Engineer
and Public Works.
e. Monument signage must meet required setback and avoid traffic visibility
triangles.
7. Lighting shall be modified to hood light fixtures that screen the luminary and
direct light downward.
8. Buildings
a. Provide rear building elevation addressing location and screening of gas
meters, electrical meters and air condition units.
b. Address downspout location onto driveways.
9. Plat approval shall be subject to the City Engineer's comments regarding:
a. Site grading and erosion control
b. Stormwater management
c. Utility plans
d. Easement size and location
Street Vacation
Staff recommends the vacation of 395 feet of Sumter Avenue with the following
condition:
1. Existing utilities are relocated and appropriate easements are provided.
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal
Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned
R(~ Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P,E. · Marvin L. Sorvala, P,E. · Glenn R. Cook, P.E, · Robert G,
nestroo Schunicht, P.E., Jerry A. Bourdon, P,E.,
Mark
Hanson,
P.E.
Rosene Senior Consultants: Robert W, Rosene, P.E., Joseph C. Anderfik, P.E., Richard E. Turner,
P.E, · Susan M. Ebeflin, C.P.A. .~"~.
~ Anderlik& Associ,,, Principals: Keith A. Gordon, P.E,,Robert R. Pfeferle, P.E,,Richard W. Foster,
Associates P.E.. 0avid O. Loskota, P.E.. Micba,I T. Re,mann, - Ted Field, P.E.. K nn,,h ..
Anderson, P.E, · Mark R. Rolfs, P.E. · David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. · Sidney P. Williamson, P.E.,
L.S. · Agnes M, Ring, M.B.A. · Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. · Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. · James R.
Maland, P.E. · Miles B. Jensen, P.E. · L. Phillip Gravel iii, P,E. · Danie{ J, Edgerton, P.E. ·
Engineers & Architects Ismael Martinez, P,E. · Thomas A. Syfl(o, P.E. · Sheldon J. Johnson, Dale A. Grove, P.E, ·
Thomas A. Roushar, P.E. · Robert J, Devery, P.E,
Offices: St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, IL
Website: www. bonestroo.com
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Vince Vander Top
CC: Mark Hanson, Guy Johnson, Jason Quisberg
DATE: February 26, 2004
SUBJECT: Winnetka East Redevelopment Area
Revised Plan Review
Our File No. 34-Gen E03-11
We have received the revised preliminary plans and have met on numerous occasions with the
'developer and engineer. The meetings have been useful in reducing the number of engineering
and public works issues/concerns. Continuing items are listed below. Some items are repeated
from previous reviews. Items not repeated from previous reviews may still be applicable.
Preliminary Plat
1. Public ROW and easements will need to be shown on the plat. The easements can be
finalized after all utility issues are finalized.
2. Drainage and Utility easement is shown over the first 5 feet of the lots adjacent to the
Public Works ROW. Previously this had been discussed as a 10-foot easement. This
should be clarified.
3. The City should discuss if drainage and utility easement over all of Lot 25, block 1
and Lot 98, Block 2 is desired. We have discussed only retaining easement over
public utilities. The concern with a "blanket" drainage and utility easement is that it
could imply City ownership of other private utilities within the easement. The
developer has discussed a preference for a "blanket" easement as shown to facilitate
work with private utility companies. Both concerns have merit. A final approach
should be discussed.
4. Hennepin County has just completed traffic counts at key intersections around the
site. This information will be used to review turn lane and future geometric
requirements. These requirements, in turn, will dictate Cotmty Road ROW
requirements and ultimately could impact the preliminary plat. The City and
developer will continue to work with the County on this issue. It is not clear at this
time that the plat needs to be changed but that potential still remains.
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311
Existing Conditions
5. The applicant should work with the City and private utility companies to document
existing overhead and underground utilities. We have met with private utility
companies. The developer will continue this coordination.
6. The City is continuing coordination with Xcel Energy in efforts to bury all overhead
utilities along Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road. The City Mil coordinate a
project to facilitate the burial of these overhead utilities and in conjunction replace the
sidewalks along the County Roads. This effort will require continued effort and
coordination between Xcel, the County, the developer, and the City. The potential
construction phasing of this project is to be determined.
Preliminary Grading Plan
7. A pond will be graded in Elm Grove Park as part of the storm water requirements for
Winnetka Green. The construction/grading of this pond should be discussed. It could
be constructed as part of the mass grading for Winnetka Green or as part of the City
park project. Soil borings will be required in the ponding area.
8. The estimated first floor elevation of all adjacent properties is shown on the plans. In
general, the units in the development will all be higher than adjacent homes. Site
lines from the new units will be down and into adjacent properties. The six-foot-high
perimeter fence will provide a significant amount of screening, however, additional
screening could be considered. For example, the strategic placement of trees and
landscaping could further enhance the screening. This should be considered in the
landscaping plan and the actual placement during construction.
9. Light pollution from vehicles and street lights in this development cannot impact
adjacent properties. A photometric plan must be submitted. The plan should also
account for the impact of vehicle head lights. In some instances, head lights could
shine over the perimeter fence into adjacent properties. Head lights will also have an
impact to new residential units within the development. For example Lots 52 and 53
in Block 2 are directly in the head light path of northbound vehicles.
10. The transit stop location should be shown and coordinated with sidewalks. The
location may be constructed with the city sidewalk project along the County Roads;
however, is should still be described on these plans.
11. Storm sewer will need to be modified to eliminate (or minimize) the need for valley
gutters. This comment was made previously. The intent was to replace valley gutters
with additional catch basins if feasible. The intent was not to just eliminate valley
gutters. This can be further clarified in the engineering review of final plans.
12. More detail has been provided for the pond along Winnetka Avenue. This is shown
on the Preliminary detail page and landscaping plan.
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 ° 65~-636-4600 ° Fax: 65~-636-~3~
a. We recommend that this pond be maintained as a private pond as the pond will be
treating local storm water from the development. Previously, we had discussed
the pond being maintained publicly.
b. The western slope of the pond should be "armored/protected" in a specific area to
protect from washouts when overflows from major rain events occur from
Winnetka Avenue. This will need to be coordinated with the landscaping plan
such that it is acceptable aesthetically.
13. The pond in Elm Grove Park will be sized and designed as part of the City's overall
design of Elm Grove Park. This will be coordinated through Parks and Recreation.
14. Final stormwater calculations will need to be submitted. These calculations have
been consistent with the City comprehensive review of the area. The City will submit
the drainage calculations and City's comprehensive report to Shingle Creek
Watershed for review.
15. Further consideration must be given to backyard drainage issues in properties
adjacent to the development. The potential exists for the perception of increased
runoff into adjacent yards. The developer will need to coordinate with the City in
defining adjacent drainage areas to backyards and then comparing those areas to post-
development areas. Runoff rates and quantities to adjacent backyards cannot be
increased and every effort must be made to actually decrease runoff to those
properties. Additional storm sewer in backyards may be required pending this
review.
16. The Sumter Avenue cul-de-sac will need to be reconstructed as part of this project.
The exact location of the cul-de-sac will dependent on whether 5519 Sumter is
included in the project. The exact details may need to be finalized during
construction. The cost of this reconstruction will be discussed with other trunk utility
discussions.
17. An erosion control plan will be required as part of the submittal plan to the
Watershed. Further definition including the location of erosion control devices will
be required.
Preliminary Utility Plan
18. The configuration of the utilities has been adjusted according to Public Works and
Engineering Review. Additional meetings as required will be scheduled to finalize
utility alignments and details.
19. The location of the St. Raphael forcemain must be adjusted based on previous Public
Works comments. Based on the final forcemain alignment, the City will review
impacts to the lift station including the pumps. Any required adjustments will be
identified.
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 ° Fax: 651-636-131'1
20. The water main configuration as shown should provide adequate flow and pressure.
This was verified by modeling the area water main system according to fireflow
requirements.
Prehminary Street/Sign Plan
21. B618 curb and gutter is shown along the public street. The location of S-type curb
and gutter must be discussed further. It appears consistent with requirements in
recent staffmeetings. The line work on the plans does not make the location of this
curb type evident.
22. Site signage is shown generally. Further detail including sign materials, dimensions,
and quantities will be needed in the final design. The Building Official shall review
the location and type of all address and directional signs. All departments including
fire, police, engineering, and public works will review traffic control signage.
23. Mailbox locations are shown generally along private drives as requested by Public
Works. Only one location near Lot 26, Block 1 is adjacent to Public ROW. The
location of mail boxes along private drives will minimize conflicts in the Public
ROW for maintenance activities.
24. The developer will be required to work with private utility companies to identify
acceptable location for utility service boxes. It is the intent to screen utility pedestals
when feasibile.
Preliminary Removal Plan
25. A preliminary removal has been prepared including the removal of existing utilities.
The developer and City must coordinate regarding the responsibility for the removal
of these utilities. We have prepared cost estimates for this work and will continue
coordination with the developer.
26. Curb and gutter, sidewalk, and pavement removals along Bass Lake Road and
Winnetka will be addressed through a City sidewalk project as discussed previously.
27. The City will coordinate the removal and reconstruction of the play equipment in Elm
Grove Park. The City is currently preparing concept plans for the redevelopment of
the park.
Preliminary Details
28. The typical pavement sections for Public and Private streets, emergency accesses,
trails, and sidewalks will need to be adjusted according to City standards. Select
Granular, geotextile fabric, and drain tile will be required under the public street. The
final section will be reviewed as part of the pavement design. The final design will
be according to the requirements of the City Engineer.
2335 West Highway 36 · SL Paul, MN 55113 ° 65~-636-4600 ° I=ax: 651-636-~3~1
29. City plates and details will be utilized for street and utility construction. These details
will be coordinated during final design and subject to the approval of the City
Engineer and Public Works Director.
30. Comments regarding the modular block wall:
a. Retaining walls are modular block. The will need to be designed by a registered
engineer. The City's structural engineer and building official will also need to
review the design.
b. Similar examples of a modular block wall design adjacent to water have been
provided. This type of installation is feasible if properly designed.
31. Detail should be provided on the anticipated fountain type in the pond.
32. The railing detail must be reviewed by the City's structural engineer and building
official. The relationship of the posts to the retaining will also be reviewed.
Preliminary Landscape Plan
33. The City's Landscape Architect is currently reviewing the overall landscape plan.
The suggested specie and placement will be reviewed for long-term success.
34. Landscaping recommendations for planting the filtration area in "55th Avenue
extension outlot" are attached. It is the intent for this area to be natural.
35. The grading and drainage plan has also resulted in several depressions in turf areas
such as median areas. These areas are also typically used for snow storage. Water
will collect in these areas and could result in maintenance concerns, particularly if
regular mowing is required. It could be considered, instead, to provide plantings and
seeding at these low points. An example detail is attached for the low areas near Lots
52 and 53, Block 2. These naturally landscaped areas would buffer/enhance the
storm water system, while providing an amenity. This type of landscaping is
suggested for further review and has not been reviewed with the developer.
36. Some trees will be spaded for reuse. The location of reuse should be identified. We
will review the potential for utilizing some of the spaded trees in the reconstruction .of
Elm Grove Park.
37. Any existing trees to remain in place should be identified.
38. Any other amenities such as gazebos, benches, etc. will need to be detailed as part of
the final design.
End of Memo
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201
BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 $ TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail law~jensen-sondrall.com
DOUGLAS J. DEBNERz
GOi~ON L. JENSI,:N~ Writer's Direct Dial No.: (763) 201-0211
GLEN A. NORTON e-mai[ sas~/ensen-sondrall, com
STEVEN n. SONO~U~L February 27, 2004
STACY A. WOODS
VIA E-MAIL TO kmcdonald(~ci.new-hope.mn.us
or COUNSEL AND BY REGULAR U.S. MAIL
LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD
Kirk McDonald
Community Development Director
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Ryland Homes Development/Winnetka Green
Our File No.: 99.11287
Dear Kirk:
In connection of the application of Ryland Homes to develop a residential planned unit community
known as Winnetka Green, the developer has submitted (together with its preliminary plat) sample
association documents for creation of a master association, a condominium association and
townhome style single-family residential community. The documents submitted are based on a
development "Riverside Grove" which was apparently developed by Ryland Group, Inc. in
Shakopee, Minnesota, however the unit type mix of its New Hope development is similar. Based
upon my review of the documentation provided, and the applicable Minnesota Statute (Minnesota
Common Interest Ownership Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 515B) the documents comply with
the applicable statute for a residential planned community.
Although in compliance with applicable statutory requirements, I suggest for consideration by the
City and developer the following:
1. The Master Declaration, Section 53, grants the City and other applicable governmental
authorities a non-exclusive easement to perform City responsibilities. The language "...
provided, the City is granted this discretionary right and easement solely as a precautionary
power to deal with future unforeseen circumstances" should be deleted.
2. The documentation and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 515B anticipate enforcement of the
applicable declaration provisions by the created Association. The City should be able to
act if the Association fails to enforce the provisions of the Declaration. I suggest adding a
section substantially as follows:
~Real Property Law Section . Rights Granted to the Citv of New Hope
Specialist Certified By
The Minnesota State X.1 Purpose. The City of New Hope has executed various agreements with and secured
Bar Association
:Admitted in Iowa certain covenants from the Declarant and has a continuing interest in the performance of those
agreements and covenants. Further, the City of New Hope is concerned that all conditions
requested by the City of New Hope are complied with and that the Development is improved
and maintained in accordance with the plan contemplated by this Declaration and approved by
February 27, 2004
Page 2
the City. ~'~
X.2 Release of Liability. The Declarant, for itself, its successors and assigns, and by accepting a conveyance
of a Unit, any Owner, for itself, its family and invitees, release and shall forever hold harmless the City of
New Hope (including its elected and appointed officials, employees, servants and agents) from all liabilities
for enforcement or for non-enforcement of this Declaration, and further expressly acknowledge that the City
of New Hope is not obligated to perform or to enforce performance by the Declarant, the Association or
others, any obligations contained in this Declaration.
X.3 Specific Rights Enforceable by the City of New Hope. The City of New Hope, at its option and in its
sole discretion, may enforce for the benefit of itself the specific provisions of Section 5 [Easements], Section
7 [Maintenance of Development], Section 8 [Use Restrictions], and Section 9 [Architectural and Landscape
Standards] of this Declaration.
X.4 Notice and Procedure. In the event the Declarant and/or the.Association fail to perform any
obligation referred to in Section X.3 above, the City of New Hope may, after, ten (10) days written notice to
the Declarant, and/or the President or Secretary of the Association, perform such obligations (directly or with
contract personnel or personnel of the City of New Hope). The Declarant, Association and all Owners hereby
waive all notice requirements except as hereinabove provided and further waive all procedural and other
objections to action taken by the City of New Hope in connection with exercise of its specific rights
referenced in paragraph X.3 above.
X.5 Payment for City Maintenance. The Association, Declarant and Owners shall reimburse the City of
New Hope or its designee, on demand, for the cost of any Declarant, Association or Owner obligations
undertaken by the City of New Hope or its designee pursuant to this S~ction. Such costs, including but not
limited to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses incurred in connection with collection, shall be
an obligation of each Owner, enforceable in any way available to the City under law.
X.6 Right to Assess. In addition to the right of collection as stated in Section X.5 above, the City of New
Hope may, in any assessment year, levy against the Units an assessment for all costs and expenses incurred by
the City or its designee pursuant to this Sectign. The assessment shall be prorated among all Units and shall
be enforceable by the City in the same manner as provided in Section 6 [Assessments for Common Expenses]
of this Declaration.
X.7 Exclusive Rights. The rights granted by this Section are exclusive to the City of New Hope and may
be exercised only by the City, in its sole discretion. No other person or entity, including the Association, the
Declarant, or Owners, whether or not a resident of New Hope, shall be entitled to request or require the City
to act pursuant to this Section. The rights of the City of New Hope under this Section cannot be rescinded,
cancelled, or amended by the Declarant or the Owners without the written consent of the City.
3. Although the concept expressed in the foregoing proposed provisions should be incorporated in the
documentation, precise terminology can be finalized with legal counsel for the developer prior to the date the final
documents are filed. Therefore, it is my opinion that documentation substantially in the form reviewed meet
statutory requirements and adequately protect public interests of the City.
4. We have no objections to their preliminary plat at this time.
Febmary 27, 2004
Page 3
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney,
City of New Hope
P:~Attomey\GIj\l-Client Folders\CNH~CNH-Ryland-Opinion Ltr-D3.doc
To: Kirk McDonald
From: Roger Axel
Date: 2-25-04
Subject: Winnetka Green
I would like to provide additional comments for the Winnetka Green project proposed
by Ryland Homes based on the most recent plans and narrative letter provided. A1
Brixius has provided comments (12-1-03 memo) relative to the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Vacation of Sumter Avenue and various PUD
issues. I will not duplicate his comments. ! agree with many of his concerns.
Shelby Wolf also has provided comments (12-15-03 memo) relative to various MN State
Fire COde requirements. Likewise, I agree with many of her comments and will defer
fire related issues such as hydrant placement and fire access routes to West Metro Fire-
Rescue.
The narrative letter from Chris Enger, Ryland Homes, dated 2-19-04, has several issues
that still have not been adequately addressed on the revised plans dated 2-20-04. These
items include:
Item #2. Buildings 24, 25,27 & 28 show a driveway length of approximately 15' to the
public right-of-way along Street A. Buildings 60 & 61 show a driveway length of
approximately 18'. This would result in parked vehicles projecting into the R.O.W.
There is room behind each of these buildings to set them all deeper on the lots to
increase the driveway lengths. I would rather see minimum rear setbacks to improve the'
short driveway issue. Provide templates showing clear garage floor area for two vehicles
and two 90-gallon trash/recycling containers.
Item #3. Ryland should address the water drainage issue at the condominium driveways
at this time rather than after the buildings have started construction.
Item #5. The public parking provided along the west and north sides of Street A results
in an approximate traffic lane width of 18'-19' based on an 8'-0' parking stall width. MN
State Fire Code requires a minimum 20' wide access route. Additional 'No Parking'
signs would need to be installed along Street A.
Item #7. The templates on Sheet 9 show delivery vehicle turning radii. The templates
indicate extremely tight maneuvering areas. I also question whether private vehicles and
garbage/delivery vehicles will be able to pass safely on Street A and the private Streets.
The plans indicate no possible street width reduction because of snow accumulation.
Item #8. There is not a 'general rule' as stated by Ryland but rather the MN State Fire
Code requires a maximum distance of 150' access to all exterior portions of residential
buildings with more than two Group R-3 or U occupancies. Public safety and fire
protection is a higher priority than not losing additional dwelling units.
Item #9b. The knock down bollards design shown on Sheet D-1 indicates a 6 x 6 treated
timber with a saw kerf at the base. This design would not work effectively because if the
vehicle approaches the bollard from the side opposite the kerf, the post will only deflect
the height of the saw kerf and will offer resistance to breaking, therefore not' breaking
away' cleanly. If the vehicle approaches from the kerf side, the post will adequately
break away. I would recommend a highway department standard type of breakaway
bollards.
Item #9e. The ground mounted mechanical equipment proposed for the auto service
court side of the Town homes would have to be screened as this area would be defined
as the front yard for the building. Our City ordinance prohibits mechanical equipment
in front yards so the PUD would specifically have to address this issue.
Has the Gazebo and the fountain that was proposed on earlier plans been deleted?
These comments only address specific planning and zoning related issues. No specific
building plans have been submitted yet. Any building code related issues would have to
be addressed at time of permit application. I would encourage Ryland Homes to submit .
a preliminary set of plans for each building type for a cursory review prior to final
building design. I was contacted by their design group on January 12, 2004, regarding
construction related questions and suggested at that time that they submit preliminary
plans. I have had no contact from their design group since.
Page 2
FEB-2?-2004 08:15 FROM PUBLIC WORKS TO S7635315136 P.02×03
Hennepin County Transportation Department
1600 Prairie Driv~- 763-745-7500, Phone ~-',,
Medina, MN 55340-5421 763-478-4000, Fax
763-478-4030, TDD
www. co. hennepin,m n.us
Mr. Kirk McDonald February 26, 2004
D/rector of Community Development
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
N~,v Hope, MN 55428 ,.
Re: Proposed Plat - Winnetka Green
CSAH-10 (Bass Lake Rd.yCSAH-156 (Witme~ Ave.) - Souttm~ Quadrata
Section 5, Township 118, Range 21
Heimepin County Plat No. 2798 - Review and Recommendations
Dear Mr. McDonald:
Minnesota Statutes 505.02, 505.03, and 462.358, Plats and Surveys, provide up to 30 days for county review of
proposed plats abutting county roads. The Preliw~ary Plat was submitted by the City on February 10, 2004 and
the Plat Review Committee reviewed the plat at its regular meeting that same day.
k is our understanding that the City's engineering consultants are completing a traffic study for this area in
response to our initial comments, regarding the future need for up~ading the CSAH-10 / CSAH-I$6 intersection.
We would reoommend that the City delay any final approvals of the preliminary plat until the study rc, sults can be
evaluated regarding the components of the recommended improvements and any necessary right-of-way along the
property frontage.
Although the traffic study is not complete, the City has requested the County provide initial comments since this
issue is on the Planning Commission agenda for next week.
· The developer should dedicate 60 feet of right of way fi.om and along the centcrlincs of CSAH-10 and CSAH-
I56 (see attached typical section). This action will help accommodate a~y future roM,way upgrading, plus
utilities, snow storage, and a future lxsil. CSA_T-I-10 is identified as a trail corr/dor in the Hennepm County
Bicycle Transportation Plan. Once the details of the traffic study are known, the right-of-way and roadway
needs can be beth,'r defined. A trail easement for a portion of thc necessary fight-of-way may be appropriate.
* It appears that the two proposed access points, labeled Street "A" and "B" do not meet the County Access
Spacing Guideline of 'A - mile on Minor Arterials. When an access does not meet the spacing guidelines, we
ask that the developer / city explain why the access is required for the development, and demonstrate that both
the access and County roadway can function safely.
· All proposed construction within county fight of way requires an approved Hermepin County permit prior to
beginning construction. This includes, hut is not limited to access, drainage and utility ¢onsmg~on, trail
development, and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 763-745-7601 for the appropriate permit forms.
Please direct any response to Dave Zet~rstrom at 763-745-7643.
Siueerely,
James N. Crrube, p.E.
~NO:cba/mb Director of Tram'portation Department
Attachment - 4-Lane Urb~ Divided Typical Roadway Section
cc: Plat Review Cornrn/~tee - Byers/John-~on/Lindgr~n/Ho[lz/Srm~ka/Z~ttcr~trora/Abcne
Rob Wied~ Heunepin County Surveyor's Office
Vince Vander Top - BRA, Inc. (City consulting engineer~)
Tom Madison -Aigl$~aJ ~Rb~.il~Jployer Recycled Paper
4 LANE URBAN .,
DIVIDED
FtlTICROI{ (:LASS:UIIQR AIITIII, I~iS
Pti07. N)[ t'DLUI, IE~ ~l]O - 26,{~0
SPEED,'35 - ir, MPII
'FIIOHT-OF-WAY (B4,'Lft
.~ BASIC J
ROADWAY t
I1RIVBqG IL~tlE ofllT/lm
LINE
ULTI-USE I
'
DWAY ,:=9-'---'~=-,
PPJVINQ LANE
ACCOMMODATION I--
,., ,. ,.-
{ I Iq -- J i :i i I1
~ tm TUn. I
FR~ Zel, lm
- ORIGINAL: JA~IUAII¥ 1696
REVISED: J~JUAg¥ {99!
t55UE5 IDENTIFiCATiON
F~ood Pio,n (Boss Cr~k; ~ ~ro~av ~ ~
tn~u~a[ issues c{ ~o { c ~2 ~oJse
1. In p~ace ~nsio~ ~io~ o~ medium [mgn ~e~s~'
2. Outdoor 5tm~ge ~ ~ resJOe~: or~.,
4. Com~¢ibil~ ~sue / Rec~e:c~e"'
~eevelopme~ O;po~uni~e5 6
5. Noise P~biem~
,u~er Avenue / Bass L;,e
5ingle Family ' I~erse~on Re~gnmen'
4~th ~ Boone
Turnin~ ~diu¢ ear semi %uc~ ~ ~eoium ~ns~
Reus~ oppo~ni~es)
Facilities
High School ~ Inm~¢i ~e~opmert s~te
Loitering,
Potential expansion o~ multieam~t~ exponsio~ / Coo~ermive
Drainage ~ssu~: = par~ sarma E
Demolish old ~ building -- ~ ~rna~und
ie fomiiy r~e~o~ment amc
X~on~2rd Ave {n~r~e~on ~
,m~roveme~T 1 9
,, Xyio, ~ 45 ~treet
No,se wali ~nsiaerodon ~
Oomme~iai dium ~,s~ red~elo~ment
op~o~n~ ~w~n Homes)
Nedium densi~ housing condi~or~ 21ace i~du~nal fssues
5tron~ oork amenities
~ssue
Noise wall considermion --
Ooundary
family redevetopment/
e issue
Medium ~,s~ ~elo~me~
op~omn~ ~nter
lntersem~on Immmvemenr
SCALE IN FEET
Ci~ of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
23 Planning Tactics
Planning1 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 Iow density
residential with areas of multi-family residential
and commercial development scattered along Bass
Lake Road. The following recommendations are
offered for Planning District 6.
1. The Iow density residential neighborhoods
in District 6 are generally in good condition,
however, two Iow density redevelopment
target areas have been identified within
Planning District 6. In addressing the Iow
density residential land uses in District 6,
the following recommendations are made:
a. The City will aggressively promote pdvate reinvestrnent 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 Iow 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. The City will seek to acquire and
redevelop these sites as new Iow to medium density residential land uses.
d. A second Iow density residential area targeted for redevelopment consists
of a number of very deep lots along Winnetka Avenue between Bass Lake
Road and 53rd Avenue. The redevelopment of this area is intended to
alleviate poor housing conditions, improve access onto Winnetka and more
fully utilize the available land.
City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
89
Plannin~ Distr~cts
e. New Iow 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:
a. The City 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 lSD
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 concems. 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:
a. Expand the commercial land use patterns along Bass Lake Road to increase
the land area for commercial redevelopment.
b. Assemble and redevelop smaller commercial sites to create larger
commercial lots for contemporary retail, service and office uses.
c. In cooperation with the City of Crystal, establish a commercial streetscape
that enhances the overall character of the Bass Lake Road commerCial
corridor.
City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
90
BROOKLYN PARK
COMMERCIAL
REDEVELOPMENT
TARGET AREAS
June 1995
Base
Map: 0 1000 2000 3000
~ ~)ofle.~roo Re.riB ~- ' r
· Anderlik&Associates SCALE IN FEET
{ VALLEY
Cib/ of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
45 Development Framework
BROOKLYN PARK
RESIDENTIAL
REDEVELOPMENT AND
MAINTENANCE
TARGET AREA~
i Maintenance
· Redevelopment -
·
Medium & High Density
· Redevelopment -
Low Density
·
· Anderlik & Assodates ~;
GOLDEN VALLEY .
35
PROJECT BULLETIN
East Winnetka Redevelopment Area
December 9, 2003
East Winnetka Update,,
New Hope city staff and consultants have been continuing to work with representatives of Ryland Homes to
refine the firm's proposal for redevelopment of the 16-acre, "L"-shaped East Winnetka area. The area, which
is located along the southeast quadrant of the Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue intersection, was one
of the focus areas of the Livable Communities Task Force study that concluded in November 2002.
The most recent version of the Ryland proposal calls for 165 to 185 owner-occupied units including a mixture
of its heritage condominiums and carriage townhomes products. Illustrations of these two housing units are
featured below. The projected sale price of the new homes would range from about $155,000 to $275,000.
The proposal features the less dense housing type next to the nearby existing single-family homes and an
internal roadway system with limited access points to Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue.
Next Steps
The city expects to complete a development agreement with Ryland in January. The city signed a preliminary
term sheet in August with Ryland that established a proposed sale price for the property and spelled out
which party would be responsible for the various components of the redevelopment project.
A preliminary land survey of the site has been completed and storm water analysis should be completed by
the end of the year. The final site plan, including the precise number of units, will be contingent on the
ponding needs identified in the storm water analysis. If the project continues on schedule, Ryland has
indicated that they would like to break ground in May 2004 and build out the development within
approximately 18 to 24 months. The city is continuing to purchase properties on a voluntary basis; however,
in order to acquire the remaining properties, other action may be taken in the near future, likely in early 2004.
In October, the City Council visited a Ryland development in Circle Pines that contains the same type of
products as the proposed development and was very impressed with the quality of the product. Residents are
encouraged to visit the development as well (for more information, visit Ryland's website at
www.ryland.com/home_search and do a "Quick Search" for Circle Pines). Neighborhood meetings will be
held in the coming months as the project progresses. We invite all interested parties to attend the meetings
to get information and ask questions of staff and consultants.
Other Livable Communities Study Areas
The proposed housing development at East Winnetka has generated interest from CVS, a major national
drugstore company, on the commercial corner in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Bass Lake
Road and Winnetka, an area recommended by the Livable Communities Task Force.
Bear Creek Capital, CVS's representative, with the city's cooperation, has completed appraisals for the four
properties included in the proposed development area and is currently negotiating for the purchase of those
properties. Bear Creek Capital has submitted a building elevation that depicts what the proposed store
might look like and is working with city staff to develOp a site plan that would successfully integrate with a
possible second phase of development that could wrap around the corner to the west.
The Frank's Nursery site at 5620 Winnetka Avenue is another area targeted by the task force. Frank's will
be relocating to the former Lyndale Garden Center within the new few months. The preferred developer,
Master Engineering, has an option to purchase the Frank's site and has begun working with city staff to
refine plans for a 45-unit owner-occupied town house development. A pre-development grant has been
received from the Metropolitan Council and will be used to cover city staff and consultant costs.
Livable Communities Backqround
In September 2001, the Livable Communities Task Force first met to learn
about the grant and the goals of the study. The task force received
58thAvenue information about the Livable Communities Grant, what other cities have
done as the result of similar studies, the background of the project, and
maps of the study area and the city. The study concluded in November
2002.
The task force also obtained in-depth information regarding "smart growth"
principles, visioning opportunities, demographic, housing, transportation,
_~ crime statistics and explanations for the city tax structure, park
~. information, and principles of land use planning.
With this information, the task force created a number of concept plans for the four target areas -
Hosterman, Bass Lake Road Apartments, East Winnetka, and Frank's Nursery - using a mix of single and
multi-family housing, commercial business, and community gathering and green space, as well as
rehabilitation of existing structures (see map).
Related News
In late June, the City Council extended the temporary prohibition of all major construction or development
within the four redevelopment areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force, including the East
Winnetka area, until July 31, 2004. The building moratorium was initially adopted in August 2002.
The Minnesota House and Senate passed special legislation during the 2003 session which made it
possible for the city to establish a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district for East Winnetka and the other
Livable Communities redevelopment areas. Hennepin County approved the city's plans to establish a new
TIF district in November and the City Council formally established the TIF district at its December 8, 2003
meeting.
City Contacts
If you have questions or comments about the project, please contact Amy Baldwin, community
development intern, at 763-531-5196 or abaldwin@ci.new-hope.mn.us, or Kirk McDonald, community
development director, at 763-531-5119 or kmcdonald@ci.new-hope.mn.us.
The city appreciates the cooperation of all residents and businesses in the area that may be impacted by
this redevelopment project. Additional bulletins will continue to be sent to you periodically as the project
proceeds.
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428
www.ci.new-hope.mn.us
· I
New Hope L~vab e Communities Task
For_ce
Final Recommendations
Winnetka Avenue East Area recommendations;
· Ryland looked good - incomplete
· Question desi.q.n - living on top of each other
· Reduce density
· Better amenities - dislike straight lines
· Need more financial info
· Two levels unappealing
· Nice park keep that
· Poor road alionment'
· Unimaqinative
· Reduce density
GSR far away from vision, development is workable.
· GSR too hiqh density
· Consider senior sinqle level housinq - missing in New Hope
· More consistent with vision
· GSR too dense, keep senior housing as component, reduce townhome density
· Needs single family housing
· Not sufficient buffer
· Need to be more upscale
· High-rise by Franks
· One access on Bass Lake Road
· This site is dependent on adjacent redevelopment and it seems to be a lower priority than some
other areas. Commercial may become more necessary if other redevelopment occurs.
· Of the two proposals, there was a preference for Paster; liked the rear parking an.d._g~een
streetscape.
· Major concerns about the image of Aide; may feel more positive about a different grocery store.
· Brookstone proposal is not utilizing real estate efficiently.
Suggestions for improvement include:
· One access on Bass Lake Road.
· Access must be safe onto both Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue.
· Coordinate with Xylon signal, median strip on Bass Lake Road."
3. Review and Comment on Revised East Winnetka Concepts
Brixius reported that staff met with both developers regarding their proposals for the East Winnetka
area. No additional developers were solicited for this area.
GSR
GSR modified its plans by reducing the density, especially along Winnetka Avenue. A total of 16
acres would be used for the development, to include 64 one and two-story twinhomes with values of
approximately $225-250,000 and two-car garages; 110 senior apartments with underground parking,
workout room, and community room; 72 senior co-op units; and 77 single and double-loaded
townhomes along Bass Lake Road valued at approximately $190,000 with one and two-car garages.
R¥1and 1
This plan calls for 162 condo/townhomes valued at approximately $140,000. There would be upper
_~ and lower units, two-car garages, and no basement. There would be a pool at the corner of Bass
Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue with an open space area. The task force felt that the back of the
buildings would need an improved look.
Ryland 2
This plan offers a variety of housing types with 154 urban three-story and one-level townhomes
valued at approximately $150,000 and 42 single-family homes valued at approximately $200,000,
which would be tall and narrow with garages in the rear. The single-family homes would be situated
in close proximity with narrow setbacks, and utilize an alley/street design. There would be an
association, and pool and tot lot provided on 16 acres of land.
The financial consultant provided the following numbers for the proposals:
GSR - $2.4 million
Ryland 1 - <$2.7 million> and no subsidy
Ryland 2 - <$122,000> and no subsidy
Comments/recommendations from the task force for the East Winnetka area were as follows:
Ryland
· Ryland looked good - incomplete
· Question design - living on top of each other
· Reduce density
· Better amenities- dislike straight lines
· Need more financial info
· Two levels unappealing
· Nice park - keep that
Page 2
October 22, 2002
· Poor road alignment
· Unimaginative
· · Reduce density
· GSR
· GSR far away from vision, development is workable
· GSR too high density
· Consider senior single level housing - missing in New Hope
· More consistent with vision
· GSR too dense, keep senior housing as component, reduce townhome density
· Needs single family housing
· Not sufficient buffer
· Need to be more upscale
· High-rise by Franks
· One access on Bass Lake Road
Discussion on the proposals included the following:
· GSR - liked financial picture, keep northern design. Re-do strip along Winnetka Avenue to
reduce density and make street internal. Single family adjacent to existing homes, higher density
along Winnetka. Make the project break even.
· Don't like GSR - not consistent with vision. Too dense, not neighborhood friendly.
· Didn't like GSR. Concern about ponding on the south end. Road in a bad position next to Sumter
houses. Of the options, Ryland 1 is the closest to being acceptable. Want single°family homes on
single level. Would rather see higher priced units. Make sure the street is not directly behind the
houses on Sumter. Would recommend City to act as the developer.
· Don't like GSR. Don't want apartments. Would like lower density. Not happy with any of the
proposals. Recommend the City act as its own developer. Don't like the alleys next to the single-
family homes. Improve Ryland 2 by reducing density and incorporate single level townhomes
(good for seniors).
The task force did not come to a consensus on GSR - some liked the proposal, however, more
disliked it.
· Ryland 1 - Like Ryland product. Same product lower density next to existing homes, higher
,~ density along Winnetka (same product). Make road internal. Price for a higher market sale.
· Ryland 2 - Like this best - has density, looks nice. Has the single family. Works with adjacent
sites and blends into neighborhood. Don't like their numbers - can live with Krass Monroe
numbers. Like variety of housing types
4. Finalize Recommendations
.~ The task force was not thrilled with The should look at the idea of
any
option.
City
acting
as
its
own
developer and keeping control of architecture, housing type and consider whether it is feasible. Of all
of the projects, East Winnetka should be the highest priority. The task force recommends that the
City should accelerate the acquisition of the remaining properties. It is the sense of the task force
that it would be difficult to receive improved developer proposals until this occurs. Ryland 1 or 2
might work if numbers improved and major improvements including internal road, Iow density next to
existing homes, and higher starting values for dwellings (higher than the proposed $140,000 base
price) could be worked out.
Livable Communities Meeting Page 3
October 22, 2002
did provide green space.
.....~"-~ East Winnetka Are. a.
This area currently includes sin~e_n_ces_along-~ALk'me~n~
the Bass Lake Road extension area, commercial properties along Bass Lake
Road and contains 16 acres. When the task force began studying this area,
concepts were varied with townhomes, single family homes, cul-de-sac and
internal street arrangements. Traffic circulation was a major concern. The idea
of putting Iow density adjacent to Iow density was the preferred option. Issues
and design parameters for the site were established and included ponding
areas be incorporated into the concepts to address stormwater needs, a
system of trails and sidewalks be provided, internal design, buffering along
Winnetka Avenue, Alano property may or may not be included in the project.
Concepts were developed as follows: OPtion A) development of 21 single
family homes or detached townhomes south of 55m Avenue and 50 single
loaded townhome units with underground parking to the north between Bass
Lake Road and 55"~ Avenue. Option B) proposed to develop 25 single family
homes or detached townhomes .and 42 single loaded townhomes with
underground parking.
Brixius stated that two proposals were received for this study area. 1) GSR.
proposed 182 senior apartments/condos at the comer of Bass Lake
Road/Winnetka and' 168 townhome units for the balance of the site. Total site
area to be redeveloped would be 16 acres. Unit sizes for the townhomes
would be 1,200 to 1,500 square feet and for the four-story senior apartment
building would be 1,000 square feet each unit. There would be one and two-
car garages/surface parking for the townhomes and underground/surface
parking for the apartments. Streets would be internalized. There would be an
association for the townhomes and amenities for the senior apartments would
include multi-purpose reom, recreation room and craft room. Exterior finishes
would be vinyl siding with limited brick and stone. Unit prices for the
townhomes would range from $160,000 to $190,000. Total project costs
would be $22 million for the townhomes and $18 - $21 million for the
apartments. Developer investment and gap were not identified. Annual tax
revenue was projected at $200,000 to $350,000. The task force was greatly
concerned with the densities proposed for this project and the townhome
design adjacent to single family homes. A revised concept plan was submitted
by GSR and still included the senior apartments and the townhome units
along the northern portion of Winnetka, however, along the southern portion of
Winnetka the developer proposed a twinhome design. The units proposed
would be 46 one and two-story twinhomes, 110 senior market-rate
apartments, 72 senior condos or co-op units, and 77 two and three-story
townhomes. Townhomes prices would range from $159,000 to $190,000,
condominium costs would range from $135,000 to $175,000, and the
twinhomes from $225,000 to $250,000. Total project costs would be $18 to
$21 million for the senior portion and the townhome project costs were not
identified, but presumably dose to the original numbers. The developer
investment was not identified. This would generate a tax increment of plus
$2.4 million, based on the financial consultant's findings. Brixius stated that
staff visited several other properties that GSR developed in South
Minneapolis. The design was very urban with a masonry/stucco construction.
There would be an association to take care of maintenance of the grounds. It
was pointed out that the project manager the City had been working with has
since left GSR and is now working for Master Engineering, but took this
project with him in the move. 2) .Ryla. nd. Homes' original proposal included
Prairie style townhomes with eight units to a building. The end units have a
lower unit and an upper unit. Staff visited a project in Apple Valley and Brixius
stated the units were very attractive. The lower units would be single level,
two-bedroom with galley kitchen, which would be more attractive to empty-
/-- nesters. All units have two-car garages. The upper unit is larger than the lower
'~lanning Commission M~ 8 December 3, 2002
unit. The middle units would.be two stodes. The original proposal came in with
an internal street system off of 56t~ Avenue. The task force was concemed
with townhomes adjacent to single family homes, the practicality of
uppedlower units, and the_~,u_al~ity_Qf_tl~eJ.u~ts.
Rixius stated that staff and the task force requested revised proposals from
both developers. Ryland submitted two revised proposals. 1) Revised Ryland
'_A: Utilized the same townhome configuration and same number of units, but
moved more units along Winnetka and provided a greater green space
between the units. The internal street was moved further away from the single
family homes. A pool amenity was included with the revised proposal. There
would be 162 condominium units with two-car garages, internal street system,
an association for maintenance, pool, tot lot, ~larden and gazebo. The homes
would be vinyl sided with limited brick. Starting pdce would be $140,000. Total
project cost and gap were not identified. 2) Revised Ryland B: provided more
diversity in housing units and single family units on a small lot. The single
family would be two-story. The tawnhomes are a cardage concept and three
stodes in height with rear garages and parking. Proposed would be 76 urban
three-story townhomes, 7'8 one and two-story townhomes, and 42 urban
single family homes, an internal street system, an association, pool, central
square, tot lot. Townhomes would have vinyl siding with limited brick. The
three-story units would start in the $150,000s and up and the two-story would
start in the $140,000s. The single family would start at approximately
$200,000. Ryland would be requesting approximately $15,000 per unit in
subsidy, The project director had indicated to staff that the homes would be
worth more than what they could sell the units for, which was why they were
requesting the subsidy per unit. Brixius stated that staff felt the units could be
sold for a higher price and the subsidy could be reduced. The task force
preferred the Ryland concept over the GSR primarily due to the density and
housing variety. Specific recommendations offered on the revised plans
included: GSR - liked financial picture, keep northern design, redo strip along
Winnetka to reduce density and make internal street, single family adjacent to
existing homes, make project break even. GSR too dense and not consistent
with vision, not neighborhood friendly, concern about ponding and position of
roads, don't like apartments. Rytand B is best - has density, looks nice, like
single family and it blends into neighborhood, like variety of housing types.
Ryland A is second option - same product lower density next to existing
homes, make road internal, price for a higher market sale.
Bdxius indicated that the task force did not come to a consensus on any
option and recommended that the City be the developer. They felt the City
could work out densities preferred by the task force.
Svendsen interjected that of the four areas, the task force was adamant about
the East Winnetka area with as much single family as possible due the
surrounding neighborhoods. There would be a lot of density in the Franks and
golf course sites and commercial across the street. The task force desired to
have single family as a step-up housing option. Higher density could be
located along Bass Lake Road.
Brixius added that at the neighborhood meeting it was suggested that the City
be the developer of the site.
Discussion ensued on whether or not the area could support homes above
$200,000. It was noted that existing homes in this area were selling for nearly
that amount and the townhomes several blocks to the south were being
marketed at $249,000.
There was some discussion on the style of the townhomes proposed, exterior
finishes, and the multi levels. Questions were raised on the subsidy issue.
Planning Commission Meeting 9 December 3, 2002
these development. Oelkers strongly favored the Ryland A proposal with
some adjustments. He also pointed out that the proposed housing would
definitely not be considered IOSy_iQC-~, because_tcLquaJLfl/_for-the-suggested--
sales price, the income would need to be higher than the current median
income of New Hope.
Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on how the City could act as
the developer of the project. Brixius responded that the City was the developer
for the properties on Erickson Drive. The City completed the subdivision of the
lots, put in the streets, and sold the lots to a developer to construct the homes.
Barrick interjected that the reason the task force suggested the City as the
developer was that no outside developer proposed any plans close enough to
the task force's vision for the area.
Chairman Landy asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to
comment on the plans or project as a whole.
Mr. Paul Edison, 7608 55~ Avenue, came forward. His concern was for the
property behind his house, 7603 Bass Lake Road, and the uneven property
line, and wondered whether the lot line could be evened out. McDonald added
that the City was aware of this situation and would take that request into
consideration when the property was developed.
Mr. Mike Drenth, 7616 55m Avenue, came forward. He furnished the
Commission with a petition signed by all the neighbors on 55~ and Sumter
avenues that would be affected by the construction of townhomes just to the
north of their properties. They were concerned with the high density proposed
for that area and the Iow cost of the townhomes, suggested $140,000,
compared to the current sale prices, approximately $200,000, of the homes in
the area. Drenth indicated there had been drainage problems with several of
the homes along 55~' Avenue, which, he felt, would need to be corrected with
any type of development. He stated that a senior building on the Franks site
would be preferable and to keep all townhomes in the East Winnetka area.
McDonald added that Drenth had served on the task force and that whatever
type of housing was constructed would be high quality and high value..
Ms. Adrian Edison, 7608 55m Avenue, came forward. Edison stated that the
residents in that area built the homes, the schools, and filled the churches.
She was concerned that the new development would devalue the existing
homes and pose a possible safety concern with regard to apartments and
many new people that may not have the same sense of community. At this
point in time, residents are not too excited to keep up their property because
they don't know what may happen in the near future. She raised the question
of whether Bass Lake Road would be widened with the new construction.
Who determines what is valuable to the community as a whole?
Mr. Jim Brinkman, owner of Sir Speedy, 5749 International Parkway,
questioned the financial portion of the projects and whether the numbers
would balance out when all four areas were redeveloped. Brixius replied that
the project at the Franks site would produce surplus funds. Being proactive in
redevelopment would be best for the City because sites that deteriorate tend
to devalue surrounding properties. As far as the concepts for East Winnetka,
the City may not choose one option over another based on financial numbers
alone if the density is too great for the neighborhood. There would need to be
some give and take between the City and the developers.
The Planning Commission maintained that the redevelopment be quality
projects that would not cost the City an enormous amount of money.
Planning Commission Meeting 10 December 3, 2002
requested different plans. The same two developers resubmitted plans. She
suggested that maybe there would be other developers that would be able to
provide what was enviSioned by the_task fome_ancLstilLbe_financialiy-feasible.
There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission the
public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to
close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
Svendsen summarized that this was only a concept and the projects could
change somewhat in the future.
Oelkers confirmed that townhouses are not a detriment to neighborhoods as
long as there was an association to take care of the maintenance issues.
Sales of townhomes have been very strong.
McDonald added that it was a positive step for the City to take the initiative to
apply for and obtain the Livable Communities grant for funding a study of this
type. Two encouraging things came from this: 1) It was the City's first big
planning effort where a lot of residents became involved, which is important if
the City is going to move forward in redevelopment efforts and have the
involvement and support of its residents and businesses; 2) The City was able
to get several developers interested in New Hope.
Chairman Landy, on behalf .of the Commission, extended thanks and
appreciation to members of the Commission, staff and consultants who
worked on the task force.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to
Item4.1 accept Planning Case 00-13, Review and Discussion of Livable
Communities Task Force Study Area Development Proposals and
Recommendations, City of New Hope, Petitioners.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Hemken
Motion passed.
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on December 9.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee did not meet' in
Committee November. McDonald reported that staff was aware of several large projects
Item 5.1 that may be ready for consideration early next year.
Codes & Standards McDonald reported that the Codes & Standards Committee would be meeting
Committee on December 12 to discuss the dog kennel moratorium and bus transit
Item 5.2 shelters.
Landy stated that he would attend the December meeting due to the fact the
chairman had resigned from the Planning Commission in November.
McDonald added that there would be a January Planning Commission to
finalize the dog kennel ordinance and to process an application for a dog
kennel operation.
Planning Commission Meeting 11 December 3, 2002
Mt. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, reported that the
Livable Communities Task Force has comp_!leted th_e~hady of red~elo~exlt~
opporUmities in the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue area. Staff is
recommending that the city council accept the recommendatiom from the task
force and thank the members for their efforts.
Mt. A1 Brixius, planning Consultant, briefly reviewed the steps involved with the
task force that was formed in September of 2001. He commented on the
development proposals received, Open House comments, and task force
reeoaimendatious. Mr. Brixius commended Erin Seeraan for her involvement and
coordination of the task force. He also expressed his condolences to the family of
Fred T~mk.~ who had served on the task force.
Mayor Enck commented on the voluminous amount of information contained in
the 3-ring notebooks that were recently provided to the Council.
Councilmember Norby suggested amending the motion to accept the report rather
than accept the recommendations as such action might be premature.
The Council ~manimously supported an in-dept review of the study at a work
session.
MOTION Motion was made by Councilmember Norby, seconded by Councilmember
Item 8.3 Cassen, to accept the Livable Communities Task Force report. All present
voted in favor. Motion carried.
NOISE ANALYSIS Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.4, Acceptance of the Environmental
REPORT/4630 Noise Analysis Report by HDR Engineering, Inc. Regarding the Industrial
QUEBEC Property of 4630 Quebec Avenue North.
Item 8.4
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated HDR
Engineering has served as the city's noise consultant for the industrial property of
4630 Quebec Avenue North. He stated the report shows that noise levels have
been reduced with the installation of acoustical jackets and the company was not
in violation of the noise ordinance when they conducted the test.
Mt. McDonald also reported that complaints have been received from residents on
Oregon Avenue about late night mack idling. The City sent a letter requesting
installation of appropriate signage to regulate/resolve this matter. The company
responded upon receipt of the letter that they will order signs stating 'qqo Truck
Idling" and have them installed.
Mayor Enck questioned whether the noise, is caused by the truck engine or the
refrigeration unit on the tractor.
Discussion ensued regarding conducting a noise test with all rooftop units in
operauon. ~oUnc~l~ember ~ot]i~r mcticited'~he nonn~ ousmc~s up,,£;ttons'm,/y
not require simultaneous operation of the compressors. A suggestion was made to
conduct random noise tests to ensure compliance. The Council discussed the
city's role of facilitator.
ACCEPT REPORT Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilrnember
4630 QUEBEC Cassen, accepting the Environmental Noise Analysis Report by ttDR
Item 8.4 Engineering, Inc. regarding the industrial property of 4630 Quebec Avenue
~ December 9, 2002
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG
A B C D E F G H I J
Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City
cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response
number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant
Address by City that required expires expires of under application
Phone information extension extension
was missing or waiver
04-01 Ryland Homes 2/6/04 4/6/04 6/5/04
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Chris Enger
952-229~6000
952-229-6024 fax
cenger@ryland.com
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
A. Assign each application a number.
B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
C. List the date the City received the application.
D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within '10 business days after the
date in Box C. If the time dock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.)
J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before
the time limit expires.
City of New ~lTope
Preliminary
Plan
Submission
RYLAND HOMES-TWIN CTI~ES ,
7600 EXF:CUT~¥E DR]YE
......... I I ..... II '111111 ....................... IIII .... IIIIIIIIIIIIII .......... III .... I ....... IIIII IIIIIIIIIII ..... II
City of~V'ew ~Fope
I
~i~ ;i Preliminary
: Plan
~' .-.-~' '-- ' ..... :-"- .~: :,--:-'-.- Submission
February 2004
RYLAND HOMES-TWIN CITIES
SITE P LAN ,~oo ~×~,v~,,~,~
!'~'., J',l ! I~, 1., ',' i I EDEN PP* "JE, MN 55344
,.~ ...... 7' _ 5 d&~.:~".~ '-=.~5=_~_ ~ ~'"-':= - ....
City of ~f'ew :FFope
""~' ',.:,: ~., ', Preliminary
.. ?~ Submission
February 2004
VIEW OF DRIVE LOOKING NORTH
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
City of New ~Fope
Preliminary
Plan
Submission
February 2004
RYLAHD HOMES-TWIN CITIES
VIEW OF POND FROM WINNETKA AVE.
City'u Ytrew JFope
Preliminary
Plan
Submission
CARRIAGE TOWNHOME
' :!;~~ STREET TREES
ORNAMENTAL TREE
POLKA WEIGELA
I~CHNY ARBO~ITAE
AUTUMN MAGIC CHOKEBERRY
MINUET LILAC
SCANDIA JUNIPER
RIVER BIRCtt
El ~LE PRINCESS SPIREA
~,.,,,,,,,s February 2004 i
RY~ND HOMEE'~I" CITIES i
FOUNDATION & LANDSCAPE PLANS
City of ~/'ew ~-Fope
... ... .. p~ii ,, _re,,m,nar~
[,~--~'~'-:~ '~"~ ..... ~-:~"~ "- ~"-~:~ Plan
-~.-~~ ':,.~ .... . ~;;.~...~' ..... '"' -~.. . ...~~ .................... ~. Submission
ASHLEY BRIGHTON DUNHAM
RY~D HOMES'
'ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE CONCEPTUAL AND
SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO OWNER SELECTEDOPTIONS. -'heoruary 2004
II I I I III RY~ND HOMES-~IN CI~ES
,'vl;~,~, I.,',,,~, HERITAGE CONDOMINIUM - FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS
..... 'I I I..... I l' '._ Submiss'
JAMESBURG ....... GREENWICH
RYLAND HOMES'
^mc:ica's 1 Iom~ Iluil&:
...... ' l' HOPEWELL
*ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE CONCEPTUAL AND
su~j~ ~o O,~N~ ou~ ~o owN~ ~.~.~[~.~ u~,,o,a February 2004
]III I I I I I RY~ND HOMES-TWIN CITIES
~oo ~x~cu.v~
~ ,'vi:,,:, I.,-,,:,, CARRIAGE TOWNHOME - FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS
SITE MONUMENT 6' PRIVACY FENCE Preliminary
(MONTEREY SAND) Plan
Submission
MAILBOX STRUCTURE
~-~ ........"~":'":':""' '= .... LIGHT FOUNTAIN
ENTRANCE MONUMENTS BOLLARD February 2004
RYUND "OMES-mlN CITIES
7600 Er"':V'rlvE DR~VE
' ,'.~I. ,} ~, ,, SITE DETAILS [[)[~p, ~,..s,]4~
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Date: February 27, 2004
Subject: Miscellaneous Issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with
additional detail on Council/EDA/HRA actions on Community Development related issues or
other city projects. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review,
at your discretion,
1. February 9 Council/EDA Meetinqs - At the February 9 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA
took action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
· Resolution orderinq published notice and public hearin.q to approve the proiected use
of funds in the 2004 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Pro.qram: Approved, see attached Council request, public hearing scheduled for February 23.
· Cont. public hearinq - Temporary si.qns in boulevard study: Adopted, see attached
Council request and ordinance.
· Proiect #759, Presentation of feasibility report and public hearinq for the proposed 2004
infrastructure improvement project; resolution orderinq construction and preparation of
final plans and specifications: Accepted report, see attached Council request and report
excerpts.
· Project #767, Resolution calling for a public hearinq on the modification of the restated
redevelopment plan and the TIF plans for redeveloPment proiect no. 1 and TIF District
Nos. 80-2, 81-1, 8201, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1, 02-1 and 03-1 (special law); creation of TIF District
No. 04-1 (special law) and adoption of a TIF plan relatinq thereto: Approved, see attached
Council request, public hearing scheduled for February 23.
· Proiect #765, Resolution approvin.q purchase a.qreement and relocation benefits - 5538
Sumter Avenue: Approved, see attached EDA request.
· Project #765, Resolution approving purchase a.qreement and relocation benefits - 7609
Bass Lake Road: Approved, see attached EDA request.
· Proiect #765, Resolution approvin.q purchase a.qreement and relocation benefits - 7643
Bass Lake Road: Approved, see attached EDA request.
· Project #7657 Resolution approvinq purchase aqreement and relocation benefits - 7615
Bass Lake Road: Approved, see attached EDA request.
2. February 23 CouncillEDA Meetin.q-~ - At the February 23 Council/EDA meetings, the
Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
· Proiect #733, Resolution approvin.q Metropolitan Council predevelopment .qrant;
Approved, see attached Council request.
· Public hearinq - Resolution approving proposed use of 2004 Urban Hennepin County
CDBG Proqram funds and authorizinq execution of subrecipient aqreement with
Hennepin County and any third party agreements: Approved, see attached Council
request.
· Project #759, Resolution approving plans and specifications for the 2004 infrastructure
improvement project, orderinq advertisement for bids: Approved, see attached Council
request.
· Project #7'$4, Update on potential redevelopment by Bear Creek Capital and CVS
Pharmacy and motion authorizing preparation of resolution of friendly condemnation
for property at 7'901 Bass Lake Road: Continue working with developer, see attached EDA
request.
3. Codes and Standards Committee - The Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in
February. Staff will be requesting to schedule another committee meeting in March to discuss the
following items:
A. Transit Shelters - City staff met on a staff level in January to discuss the following issues and
reviewed similar ordinances approved by the city of Roseville.
1) Outdoor Promotions has contacted staff and said they want additional changes in both
the ordinance and the contract.
2) U.S. Bench strongly opposes giving up its sites for shelters and wants the city to pursue
"sharing the sites" to accommodate both benches and shelters at the sites.
B. Minor Code Amendments - The city attorney has prepared an ordinance addressing minor
code amendments previously discussed by the committee. Staff wants the committee to review
the final ordinances before proceeding to the full Commission and City Council.
C.Miscellaneous - There are several other miscellaneous code issues that staff wants to discuss
with the committee in the future.
4. Design and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee met in February to review
the plans for the Ryland development. The deadline for the April Planning Commission meeting is
March 12. Several pre-application meetings have already been held or are scheduled, including
the proposed redevelopment of the former Frank's site, Northland Mechanical at 8801 Science
Center Drive, and new construction for A.C. Carlson on the vacant lot at Bass Lake Road and
International Parkway. It is anticipated that at least these three applications will be filed. The
Design and Review Committee will meet on Thursday, March 18. It has been suggested by one of
the committee members that the committee meetings start earlier than 8 a.m. and staff is open to
meeting earlier if the committee wants.
5. Future Applications - Future applications or businesses that staff is currently working with
include:
1. Frattallone Hardware - relocating to Winnetka Commons Shopping Center ivacant
Walgreens space); CUP for outdoor storage
2. CVS/West Winnetka
3, St. Joseph's Church residential development- met with developer
4. Collisys- amend CUP
5. Dakota Growers (Creamettes) expansion
6. YMCA addition
7. Restaurant and office condo project, 42"a and Quebec - on hold
8. Egan McKay lot split
9. Paddock Laboratories expansion
10. Waymouth Farms expansion
11. 850-1 54th Avenue - new construction on vacant parcel
" 6. City Center Task Force Update -The Council will review the study and recommendations in
detail at its work session on March 15. '
7. Livable Communities Study - Staff continues to work with the developer on the southwest
quadrant of the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue intersection and will update the Commission at
the meeting.
8. Planninq/CouncillEDA Minutes - Enclosed are Planning/Council/EDA meeting minutes for your
review.
9. Project Bulletins - Enclosed are project bulletins on 5400 Winnetka Avenue and 7605 Bass Lake
Road.
10. If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff.
Attachments: CDBG schedule public hearing
Temporary sign study
2004 infrastructure improvement project feasibility report
Modification of TIF plan
5538 Sumter Avenue
7609 Bass Lake Road
7643 Bass Lake Road
7615 Bass Lake Road
Met Council predevelopment grant
Public hearing: CDBG
2004 infrastructure improvement project plans & specs
CVS Pharmacy update
Project Bulletins
Planning/Council/EDA Minutes
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 2
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Absent: Hemken
Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Geoff
Martin, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Planner, Greg Johnson,
Krass Monroe Financial Consultant, Rick Martens, Brookstone,
Inc. Developer Consultant, Mark Hanson, City Engineer, Aimee
Gourlay, Mediation Consultant, Jerry Beck, Communications
Coordinator, Amy Baldwin, Community Department Intern,
Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC03-17 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 411, Request for a variance to
Item 4.1 allow a second curb cut on a residential property, 9117 35th Avenue North,
Otto and Annette Lausten, Petitioners.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated that the
applicant was requesting a variance to allow a second curb cut on an R-1
single-family residential property. The site is located on the south side of 35th
Avenue, between Hillsboro and Flag avenues, and is surrounded by single-
family homes. The site area contains approximately 12,000 .square feet. The
existing footprint of the home contains 1,261 square feet and the addition is
proposed at 1,184 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan indicated that the
homes in this area are in very good to excellent condition. The city would
continue to promote housing maintenance through private reinvestment.
McDonald stated that the owners built the home in 1968, moved out of the city
and rented the property for approximately 30 years. They have now moved
back to New Hope and desire to make some improvements to accommodate
their lifestyle for the future and address health concerns. The topography of
the property slopes up from the street and the existing home has a double
tuck-under garage on the west side. There are many mature pine trees on the
lot with four located in the front yard, and a number of trees on the east side of
the yard.
The applicants are proposing to expand the existing home to include a new,
second attached garage and living area. The setbacks for the addition would
comply with city code. The applicants are requesting a second curb cut,
however, the Zoning Code restricts single-family homes to a single curb cut.
The applicants stated in correspondence that they believe it would be in their
best interest to add the second access onto 35th Avenue rather than install a
new driveway across the front lawn to intersect with the existing driveway on
the west side of the property. The curved driveway would be difficult to
maneuver in winter. The applicants stated that they felt a driveway that would
go straight onto 35th Avenue would be the best solution for maintaining the
aesthetics of their property. The new garage and addition would allow them to
access their home on the main level. Currently, they need to climb 16 steps to
them and would like to stay in their home for many more years. The new living
area would include 36-inch doorways and a 3/4 bath that would be
handicapped accessible. The applicant's stated in their correspondence that
the current city code would be a landscape hardship since the four mature,
white pines would have to be removed, and much of the front yard
transformed into a concrete drive. Two homes in close proximity to the
petitioners have two driveways. McDonald commented that the petitioner
submitted a second letter with the revised plans which explained they took
some of the recommendations from the Design and Review Committee into
account, such as dropping the grade of the garage and installing a lift rather
than a ramp from the garage to the living area.
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff
received no comments. The applicant submitted letters of support for the
second driveway from adjacent property owners.
McDonald pointed out that to mitigate the amount of variance being
requested, the applicant was proposing a 12-foot curb cut and driveway
extending through the boulevard area from the curb to the property line, at
which point, it would flare out to provide a full driveway width for a two-car
garage. The original site and building plan illustrated the driveway with a very
steep 23% slope. The revised plans showed the garage floor elevation was
lowered three feet and the driveway grade was reduced to a 15% grade. The
need for a retaining wall was eliminated with lowering the grade of the
driveway. The building elevation indicated that the new addition would match
the roofline and the exterior building materials of the existing house. To
accommodate the lower floor elevation of the garage, the applicant
abandoned the concept of a wheelchair ramp in favor of a wheelchair lift.
McDonald reported that the Zoning Code outlines the criteria for hardship that
must be considered with any variance application. The purpose of a variance
is to permit relief from the strict application of the Zoning Code to allow the
reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are
unique to the individual property. The granting of a variance must be
demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. An
application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that
failure to grant the variance would result in undue hardship on the applicant,
subject to the following criteria: 1) The hardship may exist by reason of a
physical condition unique to the property and results in exceptional difficulties
when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of the
code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness,
slope or other topographic conditions unique to the parcel. 2) Hardship is
unique to the property and not applicable to other properties within the same
zoning district. 3) Circumstances are unique to the parcel and not created by
the landowner. Additional criteria include: 1) not altering the essential
character of the locality, 2) not impairing an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, or increasing congestion on public streets, or increase the
danger of fire or public safety, 3) minimum action required to eliminate the
hardship, and 4)does not involve a use which is not allowed within the zoning
district.
McDonald added that the planner indicated that the house placement and
topography complicate the use of the lot, however these physical features
were not solely unique to this property. New Hope has numerous similar lots
that contain homes with tuck-under garages necessitated by the site's
topography. The applicant was requesting that the Planning Commission and
City Council consider the physical need for improved accessibility as hardship
for a variance. The city granted a variance for a second curb cut for reason of
disability access in 1997, therefore, there is some precedent for such
consideration. The applicant attempted to implement recommendations of
Planning Commission Meeting 2 December 2, 2003
'"' staff and the Design and Review Committee by reducing the driveway grade,
eliminating retaining walls and attempted to protect significant trees. The
._ proposed curb cut would be located in a manner that should not interfere with
other curb cut locations.
McDonald reported that city staff and consultants and the Design and Review
Committee reviewed the plans and discussed the steep grade of the proposed
driveway, suggested moving the garage back and/or lowering the grade,
installing a lift rather than a ramp, 12-foot curb cut rather than original
proposed eight-foot curb cut, and eliminating the retaining wall. Revised plans
were submitted as a result of those meetings.
McDonald stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicated that the city desires
to maintain the strong character of this residential single-family neighborhood.
The city encourages reinvestment in the housing stock and explores
opportunities to change setbacks and accessory building rules to provide
opportunities for property owners to expand and/or modernize their existing
homes. These efforts are intended to maintain the quality of the existing
housing stock and promote higher value homes. The goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan applicable to this application include: 1) Providing a
variety of housing styles and choices to meet the needs of New Hope's
changing demographics and providing special needs housing for people of
various disabilities. 2) Maintaining the strong character of New Hope's single-
family residential neighborhoods by promoting private reinvestment and
examining development regulations to provide greater flexibility for single-
family homeowners. McDonald reiterated that this variance would apply solely
to this property and was consistent with the goals and policy statements in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The property is zoned R-l, single family residential. Lot requirements of an
R-1 district are a 75-foot width and 9,500 square feet in area. The subject
property has a lot width of approximately 92 feet and a total lot area of 11,868
square feet, which exceeds the R-1 standards. All setbacks are in
compliance. The Zoning Code outlines the criteria for accessory buildings
within the single family zoning district, which consists of no more than a
combined total of 1,400 square feet of accessory and garage space. No
individual garage may exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area or 15 feet in
height. The applicant's existing garage is approximately 508 square feet in
area and the proposed garage would be 566 square feet, for a total of 1,074
square feet. The garage addition would have a metal insulated overhead door,
four windows above the garage door, painted lap siding, aluminum-clad
fascia, asphalt shingles and aluminum-dad column. The exterior materials
would match the existing home. The floor plan of the main level would include
the garage and a laundry room, 3/4 bath, coat closet, and dining room at the
rear of the home. A 12-foot wide concrete curb cut would be constructed at
35th Avenue in accordance with New Hope standards. Four existing trees in
the front yard would remain. Five of the 12 trees on the east side of the
property would be removed. The applicant indicated at the Design and Review
meeting that they had wanted to thin out the trees in this area. The building
official suggested in his report that the trees are replaced, but that may not be
necessary in this case. The existing chain link fence and gate to rear yard
would be relocated.
McDonald stated that the building official had indicated support for the project
subject to construction complying with the Minnesota State Building Code, any
trees that die be replaced, removal of existing door in lower level between
family room and stairs, and the home could not be used as a two-family home
in the future. The city engineer indicated that while a 15% slope for the
driveway was steep, it would be manageable. The lowering of the driveway
eliminated significant amounts of fill and the need for a retaining wall along the
Planning Commission Meeting 3 December 2, 2003
east side of the proposed driveway and should greatly increase the likelihood
of preserving the existing trees along the east property line. The 12-foot
driveway width at the street would improve operation and safety when entering
and leaving the driveway.
In summary, McDonald stated that the petitioner had prepared good plans and
addressed the concerns raised by staff and the Design and Review
Committee. The Comprehensive Plan promotes private reinvestment in the
city's single family housing stock and the Lausten's proposal was consistent
with the objectives of the plan. He stated staff was recommending approval of
the request, but realized there may be differing opinions on the request. While
the topography and house location on the property presents a physical
hardship in expanding the home, these hardships are not solely unique to the
applicant's lot and do not fully satisfy the criteria for variance approval. Staff
prepared two options as outlined in the staff report, either approval with
findings and conditions of approval or denial based on the fact that the request
did not satisfy the criteria for a variance.
Otto and Annette Lausten, 9117 35th Avenue North, came forward to answer
questions of the Commission. Mark Longworth, architect, also approached the
podium.
Mr. Lausten requested clarification on the building official's recommendation
to remove one existing door on the lower level between the family room and
the stairs. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, responded that the petitioner
should leave the doorway open. The intent was so this home would not
become a two-family dwelling in the future. The petitioner responded favorably
to this suggestion.
Commissioner Svendsen initiated discussion on the control of heating and air
conditioning costs by leaving this doorway at the bottom of the stairs open. Mr.
Longworth stated that the doorway at the bottom of the stairs was original
construction. The home would be warmer if this door to the lower level could
remain closed. Commissioner Oelkers concurred. Mr. Lausten stated they
had no intention of turning the home into a duplex. The reason for the
remodeling was so they did not have to climb stairs regularly to enter or leave
the home.
A question was raised as to why the existing garage would not be closed off.
Mr. Lausten stated that they have a boat and were planning on buying another
camper, the extra garage would be storage space for those vehicles.
No one in the audience wished to address the Commission, and the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Buggy; to
close the Public Hearing on Planning Case 03-17. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned why information on accessory buildings
had been provided in the staff report. Mr. Brixius answered that the accessory
building regulations address attached and detached garages.
Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the COnditions of approval as
suggested by the building official and suggested deleting the replacement of
dead trees and the basement door as discussed previously. Staff and the
commission concurred with this recommendation.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
Item 4.1 approve Planning Case 03-17, Request for a variance to allow a second
Planning Commission Meeting 4 December 2, 2003
curb cut on a residential property, 9117 35th Avenue North, Otto and
Annette Lausten, Petitioners, subject to the following findings and
conditions:
Findings:
1. The site's steep topography limits the opportunity for house
expansion and use of a single driveway.
2. The curb cut variance would allow for the preservation of
significant trees in the front yard of the lot.
3. The variance allows for a more functional and safer driveway
access over a single curb alternative.
4. The home is located on a very Iow traffic volume local street and the
curb cut location will not interfere or create a hazardous condition
from other curb cuts.
5. Aside from the second curb cut, the house expansion complies with
all other standards of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance.
6. The variance is required to provide disability access to the home's
residents.
Conditions:
1. The applicant to furnish floor plans that illustrate how disability
access will be accomplished between the garage floor elevation
and first floor living area. If this variance is based on accessibility,
this information is critical.
2.The home shall not be converted to a two-family unit in the future.
3.Building material of addition to match existing home.
4. All construction must comply with the Minnesota State Building
Code.
5.Obtain curb cut permit from the city.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O'Brien,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Hemken
Motion carried.
Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council
on December 8 and asked the petitioners to be in attendance.
Improvement Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Review and discussion of
Project#718 City Center Task Force study area redevelopment proposals and
Item 4.2 recommendations.
Chairman Landy stated that staff would introduce the project, Aimee Gourlay,
facilitator, would make a short presentation, Geoff Martin, planner With
Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, would present the concept plans and
recommendations, Alan Brixius, planning consultant, would discuss zoning
issues, Greg Johnson, financial consultant, would review financial aspects, a
task force member would give a short review, and then public comment would
be taken. Due to the number of people in the audience, public comments will
be limited to three minutes.
Chairman Landy addressed the misinformation that was being circulated in
the city. The concepts presented tonight are thoughts, ideas and dreams that
have been put on paper. He stated in his experience with other projects in the
city, that the city moves quite slowly when it comes to redevelopment projects
such as this. Many questions have been asked as to why there have not been
more opportunities for public input, and he explained that there would be
Planning Commission Meeting 5 December 2, 2003
many more public hearings during the process.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, director of community development, stated that staff was
requesting to review and discuss the City Center Task Force study area
redevelopment proposals and recommendations with the Planning
Commission. The comments and recommendations from the Planning
Commission would be forwarded to the City Council. The purpose of this
meeting was to present all of the information to the Planning Commission and
to solicit feedback from the Commission. The binders that the commissioners
received included all of the information the task force had studied over the last
11 months.
Redevelopment of the City Center area had been discussed a number of
times in the past, with the most recent being with the Streetscape Master Plan
completed in 1998. There have been a number of changing conditions in the
City Center area, the City Council felt it was important to explore potential
redevelopment opportunities as well as develop some specific goals for the
future.
The goals for the task force were established in May 2002 and include:
1. Establish a sense of place and a unifying theme that connect and inter-
connects the entire City Center.
2. The City Center redevelopment shall be integrated with the surrounding
neighborhoods to encourage community residents to patronize the City
Center.
3. City Center designs shall take advantage of in-place amenities that
contribute to the City Center sense of place.
4. Pursue land use densities and values that make redevelopment
financially feasible. This will require flexibility from current zoning
standards related to setbacks, density, parking, green space, and
building height.
5. Retain or pursue commercial and residential products that are needed
and/or lacking within the city of New Hope.
Applications for the task force were accepted in mid-2002 and in December
the City Council named 15 members to the task force. Members of the task
force that are in attendance include Jim Brinkman, Sir Speedy, Kevin Tiffany,
County Kitchen, Tina Haugstad, TCBY Yogurt in the New Hope Mall, and
Richard Friedrichsen, resident. The task force consisted of residents, civic
leaders, business owners and faith-based organization representatives to
ensure diversity within the group.
One consultant not mentioned previously is Rick Martens, of Brookstone
Development, who is an unpaid consultant. Mr. Martens worked with the
development in Golden Valley at Winnetka Avenue and Golden Valley Road.
Staff felt it would be important to get a developer's perspective as the task
force went through the process.
McDonald explained that the task force had met nine times since January. At
the first meeting, the task force reviewed a number of previous studies and
planning documents including the City Center Streetscape Master Plan, the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and Life Cycle Housing Study. In March,
the task force members participated in a visual preference survey identifying
what they liked or didn't like with regard to architecture for commercial and
residential uses, parking lot treatments, open spaces, etc. In April, the task
force took a bus tour of redevelopment projects in neighboring cities, including
Golden Valley Town Square, Park Commons in St. Louis Park, and Woodlake
Centre in Richfield. A market research study was completed to provide
preliminary analysis of the mix and types of housing and commercial
Planning Commission Meeting 6 December 2, 2003
development that may be appropriate for this area, as well as the price points
and target markets that the site could serve. In May, this research was
presented to the task force and the research showed a market in New Hope
for a broader range of housing products. As far as the commercial portion, the
research showed that the City Centers had a highly visible location and high
traffic counts to make it an attractive site for new retail. In June, the task force
reviewed and presented comments on conceptual redevelopment plans,
which was continued at the July meeting. A draft design guideline was
presented to the task force in August. Earlier in the year, the city submitted a
grant to the Metropolitan Council to help fund costs of the planning study, and
in September, the city was notified that it had received a $55,500 grant, which
was the second largest grant the Metropolitan Council had ever awarded.
McDonald stated that in September an open house was held and attended by
approximately 100 individuals. The concept plans developed by the task force
were displayed and a IJresentation was made outlining the process, followed
by a question and answer session. Useful feedback on the four different
concept plans was received. The feedback received gave the task force
valuable information as the recommendations were finalized. The task force
met in October and discussed the input received from the open house. In
November the task force finalized the policy and implementation
recommendations, which were included in the planning report.
McDonald stated that staff was recommending that the Commission review
and respond to the proposals in concept form only; this is not intended to be a
detailed review of the proposals. If the Planning Commission agrees, staff was
recommending that the concepts be forwarded to the City Council on
December 8. It was anticipated that the Council would accept the report and
table any discussion until after the first of the year.
McDonald explained that this process is similar to the Livable Communities
study. The plans presented here are only concepts on how the area might be
developed in the future. The City Council would need to determine what the
next steps would be, whether it would Solicit proposals from developers, work
with the current property owners, wait for changes in the marketplace, or take
no action. The only certainty is that no development would happen quickly.
Public input would be solicited at the time a redevelopment proposal was
received. No proposals have been solicited from any developers. The overall
goal is to try and improve the commercial image of the city and bring in more
variety to the commercial areas, not to get rid of the existing businesses.
McDonald reiterated that one of the top goals of the task force was to retain as
many of the existing businesses as possible, if or when any redevelopment
should occur. He stated that the task force had worked very hard over the last
year and deserve a lot of credit for dedicating their time to this project. The
focus of tonight's meeting should be the review of the task force's preliminary
recommendations to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Landy pointed out that he was the Planning Commission
representative on the task force.
Ms. Aimee Gourlay, facilitator, stated she acted as the neutral person who did
not have a stake in the outcome of the study. Her professional job is as a
mediator and works at Hamline University. She stated that she was also
involved with the Livable Communities project. The task force decided at the
beginning of the study that its goal would be to come to a consensus on
decisions as a whole. This was defined as letting a recommendation go
forward even if some people found parts of it more favorable than others. As
these recommendations come forward, everyone on the task force is in full
agreement. She added that the task force members put in a lot of time and
dedication in educating themselves on the various aspects of redevelopment.
One of the discussions of the task force involved the vision for the community
Planning Commission Meeting 7 December 2, 2003
and long-term goals and whether it should be considered a neighborhood or
regional area. The thinking process of the task force switched from what we
want to what is realistic and best for the community. Ms. Gourlay stated she
was excited to be involved with such a proactive process. She reminded the
Commission that change happens with or without the community, and in this
case, the community had been involved eady in the process to help influence
the outcome.
Mr. Geoff Martin, urban designer with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, stated
he had worked closely with the task force for the past 11 months. He stated
that the City Center area was centrally located in the community and had great
access from Highway 169, Winnetka Avenue and County Road 9. The area
would continue to change and the city should hamess the potential growth and
mold the changes in a way to help reinforce the vision of the community that
was defined by the task force. There are a broad mixture of uses already in
place within a five minute walking distance of the intersection, including
commercial, multi-family and single-family residential, open space, cemetery,
and the school district buildings. Many redevelopment opportunities exist in
the area. The key sites are the school district property which is approximately
17 acres, the City Center area that includes the Kmart building, Winnetka
Center, and City Center shopping center which is approximately 32 acres. The
task force members represented a wide variety of individuals, as well as
several different consultants, all of which provided good dialogue and vision
for the framework plan.
Mr. Martin explained that the framework plan is a guide for public and private
development to reinforce a mutually supportive plan and community vision. It
illustrates the intent of the design principles and guidelines and provides a
framework to base decisions regarding public and private investments. The
task force brainstormed at the first meeting to define a community vision.
Market conditions and financial feasibility were defined. The group created
design guidelines, which may become ordinances, and implementation
strategies were defined for public improvements and redevelopment. The
process was broken down into four phases, including gathering information
and getting to know the area in detail, defining goals and objectives and
preferences. A bus tour of redevelopment in other metro cities was conducted
during this phase. Preferences for building types, development patterns,
building materials, signs, etc. were developed. That information was then
utilized when reviewing development alternatives. Next implementation
strategies were established. The process is now at the public hearing stage to
present the information to the Planning Commission and community.
In addition to the goals established by the City Council for the task force, key
planning principles were developed. Develop a diverse critical mass of activity
with a compact mixture of uses, which means developing an intense amount
of activity within a five minute walk of City Center. The land should be utilized
efficiently and provide a concentration of retail, commercial, and residential
uses to create a vital synergy. The City Center area should be the identifiable
heart of New Hope and a focus for civic and cultural activities. The entire
development should be interconnected to the surrounding neighborhood and
businesses, and within that development amenities should be provided for the
entire community. A network and hierarchy of streets should be provided and
a streetscape treatment for those streets. Pedestrian needs should be taken
into account and balanced with the vehicular traffic. Different forms of
transportation should be accommodated, including the use of busses and
bicycles. High quality architecture should be encouraged and may be
accomplished by promoting visual interest through proper alignment,
proportion and materials, as well as reinforce streetscapes and open spaces.
Martin explained that the task force visited several projects in adjacent cities
Planning Commission Meeting 8 December 2, 2003
so the task force could better, visualize areas that had been redeveloped and
to get an idea of the size of tl~ose projects compared with the size of the
potential New Hope project.
A market research analysis was completed on both residential and
commercial potential in this area. Residential key points include: 1) site is well
located and highly visible, 2) northwest region is attractive and will continue to
grow and the City Center could capture some of this growth, 3) multifamily
development success in other first-ring suburbs suggest that New Hope can
absorb from 500 to 1,000 units of multifamily housing of different types, 4)
price points may be in the range of $150,000 to $250,000. Commercial key
points include: 1) site is highly visible at the intersection of two major roadways
with strong traffic counts, 2) much of the retail stock in New Hope and the
developed suburbs is 25+ years old and functionally obsolete with large
parking lots, outdated designs, etc. and poorly competitive in the market due
to the shrinkage of the original market area by competition, 3) industry trend is
to prune back to sustainable level of retail in older fully developed areas.
Additional points related to the commercial potential include: 1 ) work creatively
to retain existing mall tenants, which is very important to New Hope staff, 2)
there is a weak office market that is not likely to exceed 25,000 to 50,000
square feet in the upcoming years, 3) total commercial area projected at
75,000 to 125,000 square feet, 4) establish common retail and service uses
that serve the neighborhOod.
A survey of visual preferences was conducted at one of the task force
meetings whereby the members were shown approximately 100 slides of
different built environments and the members rated the images in reference to
the City Center and what they would like to see there. Areas covered included:
general image and character, commercial building types, franchise
architecture, residential building types, signs, parking lot treatments, and open
spaces. These preferences were then incorporated into design guidelines. Mr.
Martin explained the preferences for commercial buildings was for one and
two-story types and built close to the streets to create a more pedestrian
friendly atmosphere. Franchise architecture should integrate exterior designs
into the new development. High quality building materials should be utilized for
residential uses and densities of 10 to 40 units per acre, with design being
more critical than density. The preference was to move away from pylon signs
and utilize monument signs and building signs to tie in with the architecture.
Interior parking lot treatments and edge treatments improve the image of the
area. Multi functional parking lots could act as gathering places for special
events. A hierarchy of open spaces from larger neighborhood to community
parks to pocket parks with good streetscapes should be created to attract and
retain people.
Martin explained that these preferences were integrated into the design
guidelines. The purpose of these guidelines was to foster high quality
architecture and site planning, reinforce the character envisioned by the
community, and protect public and private investment in the City Center area.
The investors in the City Center area would want to protect their investment
and would expect that adjacent developers would construct equally high
quality buildings. The streetscape guidelines developed several years ago
were done for public realm improvements and these guidelines would be for
private redevelopment.
Martin explained that four concept plans were developed by the task force and
presented at an open house. A survey for attendees to fill out was provided for
public input on the concepts. A number of people responded to the survey and
which the task force took those comments into account when developing the
concept plans. The four concepts included: Concept A - mixed use plan with a
grocery store, Concept B - mixed use with a large retailer, Concept C - mixed
Planning Commission Meeting 9 December 2, 2003
use residential, and Concept D - long term plan with an urban core. From that '
survey, the task force came to a consensus on two of the concept plans to
forward to the Planning Commission and City Council. These concepts are
flexible and adaptable to whatever the market conditions might be at the time ~""~'
and however redevelopment opportunities come about over the course of the
next five to 15 years. Each of the concept plans have its focus along County
Road 9 and Winnetka Avenue for the commercial/retail and the New Hope
Center remains in each of the concepts, due to the fact that it would not be
financially feasible to remove it. McDonalds Restaurant would also remain in
each of the concepts. Other items that are consistent include an open space
system on both the northwest and southeast quadrant.
Concept A shows that in the northwest quadrant most of the redevelopment
would be focused around the community public park. The open space system
would provide a linkage from Winnetka Avenue to city hall, provide a focal
point for community events, an area amenity for local residents, and to attract
residential development. It would also interconnect to surrounding
neighborhoods by walkways and trails. McDonalds is shown with internal
landscaping and improved parking areas, and the owners are agreeable to
this. The New Hope Center owner is agreeable to making improvements to
the shopping center to better utilize the building and surrounding property. The
north loading dock area may be closed to allow for redevelopment to the north
of the center. A new commercial development could be incorporated at the
entrance from Winnetka Avenue to create a tight commercial focus in that
area. A grocery store, such as a Kowalski's or Whole Foods, was suggested
on the southern portion of the Kmart site. It is unknown whether the market
would support a grocery store at that location. There would be a mixture of
apartments to townhomes all focusing around the open space on the
Winnetka Center site. Other apartments, condominiums and townhomes
would focus around a smaller pocket park along 45th Avenue and the
improved wetland to the nOrth of 45th Avenue. Over time the parking lot at city
hall could be expanded to better accommodate the swimming pool parking
during the summer months. In the sOutheast corner on the current school
district property, the concept plan shows a mixture of townhomes and three or
four story condominiums or apartments. The real focus would be at the
intersection, with a mixture of uses, including entertainment/retail with
restaurants or nightclubs, or office uses. Transit plazas are included north and
southbound along Winnetka Avenue.
Concept B was similar with the exception that the grocery store would be
moved out the northwest quadrant and potentially included with a large retailer
facility in the southeast cOrner. The thought for the southeast comer was that
there was so little commercial potential that a large retailer would change the
dynamic of the area in terms of drawing in more retail/commercial. There
would be more three or four story condominiums or apartments in the
northwest quadrant where the grocery was on Concept A. If a large retailer
would locate on the southeast corner there would be more of a direct
connection created internally to the entertainment/retail along County Road 9.
It was felt that the entertainment/retail would be a vital draw during the day
and evening for an active population and add more excitement to the corner. It
would be important that the buildings be built out to the street to provide a
more pedestrian oriented character.
Concept D would be a I°ng term vision with an urban core plan, and would
redevelop the New Hope Center, if at some time if became financially feasible
to do so. Whatever would be done in the short term should not inhibit that
possibility.
Martin explained that there were four aspects of implementation that needed
to work together to accomplish the redevelopment. One area is design and
Planning Commission Meeting 10 December 2, 2003
planning tools, which include guidelines and ordinances. The study should be
adopted as part of the ~6m~rehensive Plan. Redevelopment strategies were
developed for each of the sites with their own unique characteristics.
Strategies for public improvements, such as the streets, must be coordinated
with private improvements. Community organization and promotion is another
key piece of redevelopment. Action steps were prepared for each of the
improvements, as coordination of many agencies would be involved with any
redevelopment. The key recommendations of the task force for
implementation include: 1) The city should be proactive in making the
redevelopment occur through land acquisition, investigating opportunities
through discussion with land owners and soliciting developer proposals. 2)
The first action should be to pursue relocating the school district bus garage
and administration building, which would spur other redevelopment in the area
and provide sites for existing businesses to relocate. The next steps would be
to work with Winnetka Center and Kmart. 3) The city should allocate adequate
resources to coordinate the project, such as assigning a staff person just to
work on this project. 4) The task force should stay involved with the project on
an as needed basis, for ongoing civic development in the area, fundraising,
feedback on plans, etc. 5) Adopt the proposed design guidelines and future
supportive ordinances to foster high quality architecture and site planning. 6)
The city should pursue the action steps outlined in the implementation
strategy. Martin added that the redevelopment could take place in phases.
Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, reiterated that this was only concept
plans. He explained the next step would be to incorporate the guidelines into
the city's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the planning
document for the entire city. The idea of redevelopment in the City Center
area is not a new idea. There were design guidelines in 1979, market studies
through the 1980s, redevelopment of City Center Shopping Center in 1986. In
the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, Planning District #11 calls for the aggressive
pursuit of renovation or redevelopment of the Winnetka Center, Kmart center
and taking efforts to enhance the physical appearance, tenant composition,
etc. This was a more detailed study on what the task force would envision in
this portion of the community. The first step would be to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. Following recommendations from the Planning
Commission and City Council and public input, specific language would be
drafted to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan that would replace
existing language for Planning District #11, as well as Planning District #14
which includes the school district administration building and bus garage. The
land use plan would be amended to change the commercial designation to
more of a mixed use designation and adopt the design guidelines that define
what is trying to be accomplished from a land use and a design incentive.
The concept plans are very urban and is much different than anything else in
New Hope. The development would be very dense and compact and
pedestrian oriented. The zoning ordinance does not specifically address the
types of densities and design features that were being proposed. To create
this new neighborhood, densities would be increased to create a sense of
place, to provide a financially feasible redevelopment plan, and create
additional market support for the remaining commercial businesses. The
residential design features would include densities of 10 to 40 units per acre.
Currently, the density in an R-4 high density zoning district is 19 units per acre.
Current townhome developments are about eight units per acre and the
proposed development would be approximately 10 to 15 units per acre. To
create the streetscape image that would be desirable for this development,
the setback would be reduced to 15 feet. The current setback for townhomes
in the R-4 zoning district is 25 feet.
In the commercial areas, the current setback is 20 feet. When New Hope's
shopping centers were designed, the buildings set far back off the street with
Planning Commission Meeting 11 December 2, 2003
a large parking lot in front of the center. With the redevelopment plans, the
proposed buildings would be the focal point and placed close to the street, and
the parking convenient but less prevalent. Adjustments would be made within
the area for more underground parking or shared parking arrangements
between the commercial uses.
Brixius explained that there were two options as far as zoning was concerned.
The city could adjust the zoning districts specific to the site that would allow for
the mixed use and specifically outline, as an ordinance standard, the specific
performance standards with regard to setbacks, parking, green space, etc.
The intent within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning classification in
the zoning code was to allow for a mixed land use configuration, from Iow to
high density residential, based on an approved concept plan. By formulating
the concept plan in the Comprehensive Plan and defining the uses in a
general context, the PUD would then build on those concepts and allow
flexibility to occur as it relates to private streets, setbacks, and design. Private
townhome associations would be established where needed. The PUD
regulations would give the city ultimate control as long as the regulations,
guidelines, and performance standards are adopted in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Brixius stated that through each of the steps, both the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and the rezoning, public hearing would be held for each action
that the city takes.
Chairman Landy added that there were many steps to be taken before any
construction would take place. The Planning Commission, City Council and
residents would have many opportunities to see exactly what was being
proposed and have an opportunity to comment.
Mr. Greg Johnson, financial consultant with Krass Monroe, stated that the
reason for looking at redevelopment was to keep the city vital and improve
property values. If there was no improvement, the city would begin to
deteriorate and the market value would go down and residents would need to
shop elsewhere. The cost for redeveloping a site is high. A developer or the
city would need to fund the purchase of the building, demolish the structures,
clean up any pollution, redo the utilities to the site and any other improvement
costs. The city would need to be proactive in redevelopment. Through
analysis, the city would need to see an increase of eight to 10 times the
increase in market value of what was there. For instance, if a building had a
value of $1 million today, the new development would need to be valued at
$10 million for it to be financially feasible. This was one reason the New Hope
Center was dismissed as a redevelopment option. Additional options are
needed to cover the gap in financing. Through previous studies, any
redevelopment cannot substitute retail for retail, due to the fact that there
would not be enough increase in market value. Mr. Johnson stated that .tax
increment financing would be utilized. The increased tax dollars on the new
development would help to pay for the redevelopment costs, the building,
demolition, public improvements, etc. The property would still pay taxes on the
original value to the taxing jurisdictions, however, the taxes generated from
the increased value would be used for the redevelopment costs. In the last
several years, there were some major changes to the property tax system.
The result of that change is high market value; high density housing would be
needed to make any redevelopment project work. Throughout the Twin Cities
area, there are very few redevelopment projects that do not include high
density housing. The city would need to find other sources of funds for this
redevelopment project, such as grants from the state and county. It may also
be several years until the values depress enough where it makes this project
financially feasible. The housing market may increase significantly in the next
several years, where instead of housing valued at $250,000 the value may
Planning Commission Meeting 12 December 2, 2003
increase to $350~000~
Mr. Kevin Tiffany, Country Kitchen and member of the task force, stated he
concurred with what was presented. The job of the task force was to create a
sense of place and address commercial, residential and transportation goals
as established by the City Council. The two concepts presented accomplished
those goals.
Chairman Landy asked whether anyone in the audience wished to address
the Commission.
Mr. Dave Kloeber, 4471 Winnetka Avenue, owner of Unique Thrift Store,
came forward. He questioned why the city would spend a great deal of money,
including grant money, on a study and then not move forward with the
redevelopment. Landy stated that a grant was received to fund the planning
study. Kloeber wondered if the city would have to condemn the Winnetka
Center property in order for the redevelopment to take place. Landy
responded that the city would work with the owner to purchase the property.
Kloeber then questioned if the owner was willing to sell, would the city have to
honor the leases or would the purchase be accomplished through
condemnation. He asked for clarification on the conflicting statements that he
heard from the speakers, such as pruning back retail, keep existing
businesses and add new, and then financially cannot swap retail for retail.
Landy replied that the city was desirous of keeping as many existing
businesses as possible by relocating them. Retail to retail generally does not
work, therefore, housing has to be brought into the development. If retail was
recommended for one area, then housing would be introduced in another
area. Kloeber wondered who would be contacting the existing businesses to
see who would want to stay in the city. Brixius interjected that when the land
was being purchased or any time the city was involved with the acquisition of a
property, the city was obligated to contact existing businesses and provide
them with relocation assistance and identify options for relocation within the
city or provide costs for relocation elsewhere. The intent of the task force was
to relocate as many businesses as possible.
Mr. Ron Donalds, 8308 39th Avenue North, wondered if his property taxes
would increase if the school district relocated and had to buy more expensive
land. Landy responded that there were a lot of existing buildings in New Hope
that the administrative offices could move into and the bus garage could be
relocated to one of the industrial parks. Mr. Donalds suggested Wal-Mart
rather than a lot of smaller retailers.
Mr. Paul Hartman, 3065 Gettysburg Avenue North, stated he appreciated the
hard work and concept plans by staff, consultants and the task force. His
concern was that this redevelopment would be like all of the other
redevelopment areas in the Twin Cities and he didn't feel that would attract
new businesses. Chain stores would lead to a much less distinctive
atmosphere and devalue the arrangement. He suggested that the city look
outside the box.
Ms. Alida Bradley, 2701 Hillsboro Avenue North, questioned which two plans
were proposed and was told Concept A with residential and a grocery store on
the northwest corner and all residential on the southeast corner, and Concept
B with the large retailer on the southeast corner.
Mr. Harry Wong, 2800 Boone Avenue North, commented that previous
grocery stores, such as Lunds, closed due to lack of patronage in New Hope.
There are several grocery stores close by in Crystal and Plymouth. He stated
he did not feel that a Whole Food store would be appropriate at this site. He
felt the discount retailer in Concept B could work, but it would not enhance the
Planning Commission Meeting 13 December 2, 2003
property values of the housing or the city.
Ms. Deb Mans, 3917 Xylon Avenue North, stated she had concerns with the
high density of the project. There are already lots of apartments to the north of
the site. She questioned what effect it would have on the housing near the
Hosterman site. She would like to see something unique in the development.
Was any consideration given to the Mosaic Youth Center?
Mr. Harvey Feldman, 9317 40 ~ Avenue North, has been a resident of New
Hope for 37 years. He thanked the task force for its efforts to look into and
plan for the future. He stated he wanted his property values to increase in
value and desired to stay in New Hope. He stated he was in favor of the
project moving forward.
Mr. Richard Friedrichsen, 3833 Independence Avenue North, a member of the
task force, stated that many of the concerns he was hearing were concerns of
the task force as it went through the steps in developing the concepts. He
stated he, in particular, wanted to have a grocery store until he heard the
reality of the financial implications. He stated that the concepts were an outline
to a future that may be possible. No one knows right now when any
redevelopment may take place, but unless there was an outline to follow, it
would be difficult to proceed at all.
Mr. Jim Brinkman, 4771 Flag Avenue North, and business owner in New
Hope, stated he was on the task force. It was a great experience from the
standpoint of learning and he stated the task force members had a better
understanding of what commission members dealt with. He stated he felt that
the concept plans really came together after the open house. He stated that
the task force recommended that the large retailer include a grocery store,
because that would fill a need in the city.
No one else in the audience wished to address the Commission, and the
public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
close the Public Hearing on Improvement Project No. 718. All voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Chairman Landy thanked everyone in the audience who commented on the
concept plans and voiced their thoughts.
MOTION Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Barrick, to
Item 4.2 approve forwarding Improvement Project #718 to the City Council for
review and discussion of the City Center Task Force study area
redevelopment proposals and recommendations.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned the proposal for a grocery store with the
large retailer and the fact that other grocery stores had failed in New Hope. He
wondered what the reason was for the school district administration building to
be demolished. Landy stated that consultants indicated that it would be
disastrous to leave the administration building due to the fact that it was a
prime corner to introduce commercial businesses. The school district was
agreeable to moving as long as the tax dollars would stay the same and there
was no impact on the taxpayers. Oelkers suggested that when a proposal
came forward all of the financial information would be explained in detail. He
commended the task force for all of its hard work, and stated that society is
changing and the community needed to be aware of it.
Landy reported that the task force discussed the grocery store issue several
times as well as other altematives. Restaurants and entertainment options
Planning Commission Meeting 14 December 2, 2003
seemed a viable alternative in lieu of a grocery store.
Commissioner Brauch noted that in years past there were several letters to
the editor in the Sun Post newspaper about the lack of redevelopment in New
Hope. At this time, the Livable Communities area has exciting projects moving
forward and that task force was instrumental in developing concept plans for
that area. There are residents in the city that are looking actively looking for
redevelopment and feel it is necessary for the city to move forward. He stated
he felt this was a giant step in the right direction and with a cautious approach
the outcome would be welcome by everyone.
Commissioner Buggy revealed that he had written letters to the Sun Post and
the City Council stating that the city did need to do things to find ways for New
Hope to grow and expand. The city is fully developed and there is no vacant
land to construct new buildings to increase the tax base and give residents
new experiences and places to go. If the city only relies on the natural
appreciation of real estate, the city would eventually fall behind and could not
sustain the types of services that residents have come to expect. The Council
was facing difficult issues with regard to the coming budget and how to best
provide services for the residents. He stated he was thrilled to see this type of
thinking and these discussions initiated. There would be room in the concept
plans for all types of businesses, from specialty boutique shops to the thrift
stores. Hopefully, the city can find developers to take the projects forward and
make them financially feasible. In order for people to be excited about living in
New Hope, the city needs to create new excitement and new places for
residents to shop and dine and keep the tax dollars in the city.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O'Brien,
Oelkers, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Hemken
Motion carried.
Landy stated that this information would be presented to the City Council on
December 8. It was expected that the Council would accept the study and
defer further review to a work session early in 2004. Landy thanked the task
force, consultants and staff for all the work put into the study. He reported that
the task force would stay intact and be a resource to the Planning
Commission and City Council, if needed.
Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee met with the
Committee petitioners in November. McDonald added that at this time staff was not aware
Item 5.1 of any new planning applications for January, but would notify the committee
whether or not a meeting would be required on December 18.
Codes and Standards Barrick reported that the Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in
Committee November.
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS Motion was made by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner
Buggy, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of November 5,
2003. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
Commissioner Svendsen suggested that the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Meeting 15 December 2, 2003
workshops reconvene. Mr. McDonald stated he would look into having the Met
Council representative address the Commission.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Landy stated that this meeting was his last meeting as chair. He
thanked the rest of the commissioners, consultants, and staff for all of their
help through the years. He reported that he would remain on the Planning
Commission.
ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
~..~sp~ectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvest~r
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 16 December 2, 2003
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
City Council Minutes January 26, 2004
Regular Meeting City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice
thereof; Mayor Enck called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL Council Present: W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Sharon Cassen, Councilmember
Don Collier, Councilmember
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember
Steve Sommer, Councilmember
Staff Present: Dan Donahue, City Manager
Amy Baldwin, Community Development Intern
Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator
Doug Debner, Assistant City Attomey
Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Daryl Sulander, Director of Finance
Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer
APPROVAL OF Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember
MINUTES Sommer, to approve the regular meeting minutes of January 12, 2004. All
present voted in favor. Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember
Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, to approve the Work session
minutes of January 15, 2004, with a correction to the roll call. Voting in favor:
Collier, Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; Abstained: Enck. Motion carried.
OPEN FORUM There was no one present to address the Council for the Open Forum.
ROTATING VOTES Please note that votes taken on each agenda item are called by the secretary on a
rotating basis; however, the written minutes always list the Mayor's name first
followed by the Councilmembers in alphabetical order.
CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Enck introduced the consent items as listed for consideration and stated that
all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be removed
for discussion.
MOTION Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Consent Items Lenth, to approve all items on the Consent Agenda. All present voted in favor.
Motion carried.
BUSINESS LICENSES Approval of business licenses.
Item 6.1
FINANCIAL CLAIMS Approval of financial claims through January 26, 2004.
Item 6.2
New Hope City Council
Page 1 January 26, 2004
APPOINT AUDITOR Appointment of Malloy, Montague, Kamowski and Radosevich (MMKR) to
Item 6.4 perform the 2003 independent audit and provide technical assistance for the
modification and publication of the 2003 comprehensive annual financial report in
compliance with GASB 34.
RESOLUTION 04-25 Resolution Authorizing Submission of the city of New Hope's review comments
Item 6.5 on the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission's second generation plan.
PLANNING CASE Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Discussion regarding request for
03-07 financial assistance for proposed development of outlot A, Thompson New Hope
Item 8.1 Addition, 8501 54th Avenue North (planning case 03-07).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, indicated staff is
seeking direction from council regarding the request. At this time, staff does not
fred that sufficient information has been provided to justify any financial
assistance and, therefore, is recommending that the council either table or deny the
request.
He explained that at the June 23, 2003, council meeting, the council approved the
final plat of Thompson New Hope Addition at 8501 54th Avenue. The plat
subdivided the existing parcel into two parcels, one containing the existing Red
Wing Foods building, and one platted as an outlot containing 3.24 acres. The
subdivision was processed with the understanding that a future industrial
development would be presented for approval for the outlot parcel. The property
owner was advised that any future development of the outlot would require
extension of utilities to the site. Presently, the property is being marketed, and the
owner's representative is requesting that the city become financially involved with
assisting with the utility extension and storm water issues.
The property owner was not present to address the council.
Mayor Enck commented regarding many other companies that requested financial
assistance for various developments in the past, but were denied as they did not
meet the established criteria. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth referred to the city's
existing pohcy for business subsidies that is in place to guide council's decisions.
Mayor Enck suggested denying the request for financial assistance at this time,
with the understanding that the property owner could approach the city again in the
future.
MOTION Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember
Item 8.1 Collier, to deny the request for financial assistance for proposed development
of outlot A, Thompson New Hope Addition, 8501 54th Avenue North (planning
case 03-07). All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
HOUSING Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Ordinance no. 04-03, an
MAINTENANCE ordinance amending New Hope code section 14.031 by increasing the housing
INSPECTION FEE maintenance inspection fee.
Item 10.1
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, explained that the
ordinance amendment would increase the housing maintenance inspection fee
from $110 to $115. He noted the 2004 budget was based on the increased fee
structure.
ORDINANCE Councilmember Cassen introduced the following ordinance and moved its
NO. 04-03 adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 04-03, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW
Item l0.1 HOPE CODE SECTION 14.031 BY INCREASING THE HOUSING
New Hope City Council
Page 2 January 26, 2004
MAINTENANCE INSPECTION FEE". The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing ordinance was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier,
Gwin-Lenth, Sornmer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained:
None; Absent: None; whereupon the ordinance was declared duly passed and
adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
CITY MANAGER'S Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.2, Motion to schedule a closed
2003 PERFORMANCE meeting on Monday, February 2, 2004, to conduct the city manager's 2003
REVIEW performance review.
Item 10.2
Mayor Enck reported that the council met on January 20 to begin the city
manager's performance review process and to review the city's goals and
· objectives. He noted the entire council was not able to be present at that meeting
and the council decided to re-schedule for February 2 in a closed session. It was
noted that the city manager's performance review is the only item for the agenda.
A summary of the council's actions will be reported on February 9, 2004.
MOTION/SCHEDULE Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember
CLOSED MEETING Gwin-Lenth, to schedule a closed meeting on Monday, February 2, 2004, to
Item 10.2 conduct the city manager's 2003 performance review. All present voted in
favor. Motion carried.
GROUNDWATER Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.3, Resolution authorizing the
APPROPRIATION support of a bill for the purpose of granting legislative approval of a groundwater
Item 10.3 appropriation.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, explained that on January 20 the three-city joint
water commission (JWC) met with the Deputy DNR Commissioner to discuss the
state law concerning water appropriation. The question asked by the JWC was to
finalize the interpretation of the law. Staff of the DNR had said that if the JWC
were to develop its own water source by drilling wells and pumping water to the
extent proposed, an amendment or change to the state law would be necessary.
This was confm-ned by the Deputy Commissioner. Mr. Donahue noted that each
city could drill wells individually but could not do so collectively as it would be
considered a regional effort. Staff is requesting adoption of the resolution to
authorize staff and the JWC to initiate the legislative process; however, the JWC
has not yet made a decision regarding its water supply. Mr. Donahue stated it is
anticipated that the JWC will make a decision by March, 2004.
RESOLUTION 04-26 Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its
Item 10.3 adoption: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUPPORT OF A BILL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF A
GROUNDWATER APPROPRIATION." The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier,
Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained:
None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
APPOINT MAYOR Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.1, Resolution appointing a
Item 11.1 Councilmember to serve as mayor effective April 1, 2004, through December 31,
2004, to complete the remainder of Mayor Enck's unexpired term.
Mayor Enck reported that he and his spouse will be moving to Maple Grove in the
near furore and his resignation as mayor necessitates filling his role. He explained
that the seats of Councilmembers Cassen and Collier will be on this fall's election
New Hope City Council
Page 3 January 26, 2004
and the appointment of either person as mayor would not require a special
election..
Councilmember Cassen explained that a special work session was held on January
15 to discuss the process and legalities for filling the remainder of Mayor Enck's
term. She noted four councilmembers as well as the city attorney and city clerk
were present at the meeting. Councilmember Cassen reported that at the
conclusion of the meeting the consensus of the council was to make her the interim
mayor and make the formal appointment at the January 26 council meeting. She
expressed her appreciation to her colleagues for the confidence shown to her;
however, she indicated she has obligations of various committees and
commissions to fulfill. Therefore, she nominated Councilmember Collier to serve
the remaining nine months of Mayor Enck's term.
There were no other nominations from the floor. Councilmember Collier indicated
he would accept the appointment. Mayor Enck noted he has much respect for both
Councilmember Collier and Councilmember Cassen. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth
remarked that the council is fortunate to have two qualified persons capable of
filling the role.
RESOLUTION 04-27 Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
Item 11.1 adoption: "RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBER COLLIER
TO SERVE AS MAYOR· EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2004, THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 2004, TO COMPLETE THE REMAINDER OF MAYOR
ENCK'S UNEXPIRED TERM." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sornmer; and
the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: Enck, Collier; Absent:
None; whereupon the resohition was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by
the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
APPOINT MAYOR Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.2, Resolution appointing mayor pro
PRO TEM tern for 2004.
Item 11.2
Councihnember Gwin-Lenth nominated Councilmember Cassen to serve as mayor
pro tern effective immediately through the remainder of 2004. There were no other
nominations from the floor.
RESOLUTION 04-28 Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its
Item 11.2 adoption: "RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBER CASSEN AS
· MAYOR PRO TEM FOR 2004." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Collier, Gwin-Lenth,
Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: Cassen;
Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted,
signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
CITY Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Exchange of communication
COMMUNICATIONS between members of the city council.
Item 12.1 Mayor Enck
· Enck/Cassen - Motion to join Crystal/New Hope Business Council for $500;
Voted in favor: Enck, Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; Voted against: Collier;
Motion carried.
·Shared a request made by Meadow Lake PTO for a financial donation for
school playground equipment
·Called attention to an article by Nation's Cities Weekly regarding priorities
set by the First Tier Suburbs Council and asked staff to distribute copies of the
New Hope City Council
Page 4 January 26, 2004
article to staff and area frrst ring subUrbs if desired
Acknowledged receipt of a letter from Pastor Sinclair at Hope Chapel stating
their interest in becOming inVOlVed with city activities
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth
· Reminded residents to attend the February 7 "We Care About Kids Day"
event
· Announced the Crime Prevention appreciation dinner is February 9
· Stated her intent to attend the Met Council's state of the region address on
January 30
· EncoUraged the community to contact her to express ideas on ways to honor
Mayor Enck for his years of service
Councilmember Collier
· Congratulated Ken Doresky on Employee of the Quarter award
Councilmember Cassen
· Congratulated Ken Doresky on becoming certified as a housing development
finance professional
· Invited community to attend the chili fundraiser dinner by the Mosaic Youth
Center on January 31 from 4-7 pm at the Crystal Community Center
Councilmember Sommer
· Reported on the productive legislative breakfast held on January 24
ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before
the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope City
Council adjourned at 7:42 p.m.
:ectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
New Hope City Council
Page 5 January 26, 2004
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
City Council Minutes February 9, 2004
Regular Meeting City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice
thereof; Mayor Pro tern Cassen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. She noted
that Mayor Enck will be a few minutes late as he plans to attend the Citizens
Advisory Commission for a brief period.
PLEDGE OF The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL Council Present: W. Peter Enck, Mayor (arrived at 7:10)
Sharon Cassen, Mayor Pro tem
Don Collier, Councilmembcr
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember
Steve Sommcr, Councilrnember
StaffPresent: Dan Donahuc, City Manager
Jerry Beck, Conmmnications Coordinator
Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist
Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Daryl Sulander, Director of Finance
Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer
APPROVAL OF Motion was made by Councilmcmber Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
MINUTES Lenth, to approve the regular meeting minutes of January 26, 2004. Voting in
favor: Collier, Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sonuner; Absent: Enck; Abstained: None.
Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by
Councilmember Collier, to approve the Work session minutes of January 20,
2004. Voting in favor: Collier, Cassen, Gwin-Lenth; Abstained: Sommer; Absent:
Enck. Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth,
seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to approve the Work session minutes of
February 2, 2004. Voting in favor: Collier, Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer;
Abstained: None; Absent: Enck. Motion carried.
OPEN FORUM Mr. Todd Schmeltzer, 6065 Sumter Avenue North, questioned the sump pump
inspection ordinance. Mayor Pro tern Cassen encouraged Mr. Schmeltzer to
schedule a meeting with the city manager and director of public works.
Ms. Juanita Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue North, representing Citizens for Sensible
Government, re-extended the invitation made last November to the Council to tour
the Unique Thrift Store.
Mayor Enck arrived at 7:10 p.rt~
ROTATING VOTES Please note that votes taken on each agenda item are called by the secretary on a
rotating basis; however, the written minutes always list the Mayor's name first
followed by the Councilmembers in alphabetical order.
New Hope City Council
Page 1 February 9, 2004
CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Enck introduced the consent items as listed for consideration and stated that "
all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be removed
for discussion. Items 6.4 and 6.5 were removed for discussion later in the meeting.
MOTION Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember
Consent Items Cassen, to approve all remaining items on the Consent Agenda. All present
voted in favor. Motion carried.
FINANCIAL CLAIMS Approval of £mancial claims through February 9, 2004.
Item 6.2
LIABILITY CLAIMS Acknowledgement of liability claim no. 04-01 (Thomas Hollander).
Item 6.3
RESOLUTION 04-29 Resolution ordering published notice and public hearing to approve the projected
Item 6.6 use of funds in the 2004 Urban Hennepin County community Development Block
Grant Program.
BID/MOWER HEAD Approval of bid from Doyle Equipment Inc. for a boom flail 50-inch mower head
Item 6.7 for $17,998.50.
PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 7.1, Continuation of public hearing -
Item 7.1 Temporary signs in boulevard study, ordinance no. 04-04, an ordinance amending
sections 3-40, 4-2(b) and 4-3(h) of the New Hope code regulating signage for
garage sales and real estate open houses and making garage sales a permitted
temporary use of residential property.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated at its meeting of
October 27, 2003, the Council continued the public hearing until February 9, 2004,
to allow further discussion at its January 20 work session. The Council reviewed
and discussed various aspects of the ordinance on January 20. He stated the major
components of the ordinance regulating garage sale signs and real estate open
house signs are: 1) that the signs may be six square feet in area and no more than
three feet in height measured from the top of the sign to the ground; 2) that they be
set back from the curb a minimum of ten feet or behind a sidewalk, if one exists,
whichever is the greatest distance; and 3) no signs shall be posted more than one
day prior to the garage sale or open house event and must be removed by 10:00
p.m. on the same day of the sale or the open house event. The signs must also
identify the address and dates of garage sales. Signs posted on private property
must have the property owner's permission. No more than three garage sales are
permitted per calendar year. A violation of the ordinance is a petty misdemeanor.
Mr. McDonald concluded by sharing staff's intentions to be very proactive in
communicating the sign code regulations to the community.
Mayor Enck questioned the handling of improperly placed signs collected by staff.
Mr. McDonald indicated the signs are generally not returned to the owner. He
explained the amount of staff time involved for the return of signs. He noted staff
considered establishing a public place to hold the signs, but does not believe it is
feasible due to liability and safety issues. Mayor Enck concurred with staff's
opinion regarding liability issues and possible related problems such as a damaged
sign. He noted if a policy is set to permit owners to collect their confiscated signs,
the city should impose a fee to offset staff time.
Councilmember Cassen pointed out that violations may unintentionally occur after
New Hope City Council
Page 2 February 9, 2004
a large snowfall if there is a large snow bank. She noted the expense of real estate
signs and recommended giving violators an oppommity to correct their mistake by
allowing them to retrieve the sign. She suggested holding the signs for one week at
an area such as the Public Works facility with designated hours for pick-up.
Discussion ensued regarding the options for sign retrieval. The council also
questioned why directional signs are restricted to a maximum size of two square
feet. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, clarified the definition of directional signs.
He stated directional signs are to assist in the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic
as directional or identification signs (such as signage for restrooms and freight
entrances at a commercial property). He explained that the roles for directional
signs for open houses fall under the open house sign category and would be
allowed to be up to six square feet in size.
Mayor Enck opened the floor for comments.
Mr. Paul Solmon, 8321 50t~ Avenue North, was recognized. He supported
clarifying the language as it relates to directional signs.
Ms. Juanita Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue North, was recognized. She stated that she
believed the Citizens Advisory Commission's recommendation for placement of
the signs was five feet from the street rather than 10 feet. Mayor Enck clarified
that the recommendation was 10 feet. Ms. Hoffe agreed that a 10-foot setback is an
improvement compared to the prior 15-foot requirement.
Mayor Enck thanked the audience for their comments.
CLOSE HEARING Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember
Item 7.1 Sommer, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
ORDINANCE 04-04 Lenth, to approve ordinance no. 04-04 and include a mechanism to permit
Item 7.1 sign owners a period of 7 days to obtain confiscated signs back from the city.
MOTION Motion was made by Mayor Enck, seconded by Councilmember Collier, to amend
AMENDMENT Councilmember Cassen's motion to delete the sign retrieval mechanism and
Item 7.1 approve the ordinance as written. Mayor Enck cited liability issues, staff time,
and the illegal sign placement as reasons against the return of signs. Voting in
favor: Collier, Enck; Voted against: Sommer, Gwin-Lenth, Cassen. Motion to
amend failed.
ORDINANCE 04-04 A vote was then taken on the original motion made by Councilmember Cassen for
Item 7.1 Ordinance No. 04-04 with the inclusion of a sign retrieval mechanism:
"ORDINANCE NO. 04-04, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 3-
40, 4-2(B) AND 4-30-1) OF THE NEW HOPE CODE REGULATING
SIGNAGE FOR GARAGE SALES AND REAL ESTATE OPEN HOUSES
AND MAKING GARAGE SALES A PERMITTED TEMPORARY USE OF
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
ordinance was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-
Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained:
None; Absent: None; whereupon the ordinance was declared duly passed and
adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
New Hope City Council
Page 3 February 9, 2004
PUBLIC ItEARING Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 7.2, Presentation of feasibility report
IMP. PROJECT 759 and public hearing for the proposed 2004 infrastructure improvement project;
Item 7.2 resolution ordering construction of the 2004 infrastructure improvement project
no. 759 and preparation of final plans and specifications.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, stated the total estimated cost of the proposed
2004 infrastructure project is $2.8 million. A large portion of the project involves
street reconstruction. He noted due to the prior establishment of the infrastructure
fund and the change to the assessment policy, tax-paying properties will not be
assessed. Under the old assessment policy, residential properties would have been
assessed approximately $100 per front foot equating to a per property assessment
of $8,000. In accordance with the new policy, there are only two assessable
properties: Hope Alliance Chapel for $22,899 and Jaycee Park/City of New Hope
for $10,017.
Mr. Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, reviewed the feasibility report
dated January, 2004. He stated an informational meeting was held on January 13.
The project will involve streets and utilities in the southwest part of the city
including parts of Cavell, Ensign, Flag, Gettysburg, Hillsboro, Independence, 29t~,
30th, 31st, 33fa, 34th, and 34-1/2 Avenues North.
Mr. VanderTop reviewed funding sources as follows: Utility Funds $827,700,
Storm Water Funds $150,700, Street Infrastructure Funds $1,872,183,78, and
Assessments $32,916.22. He stated the plans and specifications will be presented
to council on February 23, with a projected contract award date of March 22 and
construction beginning in May.
Mayor Enck opened the floor for comments. No one in the audience addressed the
Council for the public hearing.
CLOSE HEARING Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember
Item 7.2 Sonmser, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion camed.
RESOLUTION04-30 Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
Item 7.2 adoption: "RESOLUTION ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF THE 2004
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 759 AND
PREPARATION OF FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS." The motion
for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember
Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sonnner; and the following voted against the
same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted~ signed by the mayor which was attested to by
the city clerk.
IMP. PROJECT 767 Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Resolution calling for a public
Item 8.1 hearing on the modification of the restated redevelopment plan and the tax
increment financing plans for redevelopment project no. 1 and tax increment
financing district nos. 80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1, 02-1 and 03-1 (special
law); creation of tax increment financing district no. 04-1 (special law) and
adoption of a tax increment financing plan relating thereto (improvement project
no. 767).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, explained that
adoption of the resolution will provide for a public hearing to be held on April 12,
2004. This is the initial step in creating the second tax increment financing district
in the Livable Communities redevelopment area for the former Frank's Nurse~ ~
site at 5620 Winnetlm Avenue. The first district created was the East
New Hope City Council
Page 4 February 9, 2004
Winnetka/Ryland district.
Mayor Enck extended the city's gratitude to Representative Osterman and Senator
Rest for their efforts last year regarding the special legislation approved by the
state legislature to assist with redevelopment activities in the Livable Communities
area.
RESOLUTION 04-31 Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its
Item 8.1 adoption: "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
MODIFICATION OF THE RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NO. 1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NOS.
80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1, 02-1 AND 03-1 (SPECIAL LAW);
CREATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 04-1
(SPECIAL LAW) AND ADOPTION OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN RELATING THERETO (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 767)."
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by
Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following
voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was
attested to by the city clerk.
CITY MANAGER'S Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Resolution amending city
CONTRACT manager's employment contract for 2004.
Item 10.1
Mayor Enck reported that the council held a closed meeting on February 2 to
conduct the city manager's performance review. He stated the munerical rating
was 5.5 with 7 as the highest, and the council rated the city manager between good
and excellent. The proposal is for a 2% base wage increase and a shift of one-half
of current auto allowance to the base wage to increase his PERA eligible earnings
for retirement benefits.
Councilmember Collier noted that the city manager had no salary increase last
year, and the 2% increase would be calculated prior to the car allowance transfer.
RESOLUTION 04-32 Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its
Item 10.1 adoption: "RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY MANAGER'S EMPLOY-
MENT CONTRACT FOR 2004." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
resolution was seconded by Councilmember Cassen.
Motion was made by Councilmember Sonmaer to amend the motion by
approving the car allowance transfer but denying the increase to the city
manager's base wage. Councilmember Sommer noted his motion is not reflective
of the performance review, but is based on the city's budget restraints and today's
economy. Motion failed for lack of a second.
The vote was taken:on the original motion made. by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth,
and the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth; and
the following voted against the same: Sommer; Abstained: None; Absent: None;
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted,, signed by the
mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
G.O. TAX Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.2, Resolution stating the intent to
INCREMENT BONDS reimburse certain project costs from the sale of general obligation tax increment
Item 10.2 bonds, series 2004A. '
New Hope City Council
Page 5 February 9, 2004
Mr. Donahue, City Manager, explained that items 10.2 and 10.3 relate to the
project for the East Winnetka Redevelopment area. He stated the council must pass
a resolution that enables the city to recover and pay for part of the redevelopment
with future bond proceeds. The city must state before the fact that certain
qualifying expenditures will be eligible for the future tax increment bond proceeds.
The resolution contained in item 10.3 schedules the sale of the general obligation
tax increment bonds to occur on March 22. The proceeds from the bond sale will
fund the acquisition, relocation and site preparation development costs for the
parcels in the East Winnetka Redevelopment area (TIF District 03o01).
RESOLUTION 04-33 Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
Item l0.2 adoption: "RESOLUTION STATING THE INTENT TO REIMBURSE
CERTAIN PROJECT COSTS FROM THE SALE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 2004A." The motion
for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember
Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer and the following voted
against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was
attested to by the city clerk.
G.O. BONDS Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.3, Resolution calling for the sale of
Item 10.3 general obligation tax increment bonds, series 2004.
RESOLUTION 04-34 Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
Item l0.3 adoption: "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE SALE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 2004." The motion for
the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Cassen,
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck,
Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same:
None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city
clerk.
WEST METRO Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.1, Discussion regarding West
BOARD Metro Fire-Rescue Board Membership.
MEMBERSHIP
Item 11.1 Mayor Enck stated a councilmember must be appointed to replace him as council
representative on the West Metro Fire-Rescue District Board of Directors from
April 1 through December 31, 2004.
Councilmember Sommer and Councilmember Cassen both expressed an interest in
serving on the Board.
Mayor Enck cited benefits of councilmember longevity in order to be familiar with
the history of the West Metro Fire-Rescue District.
MOTION Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember
Item ll.1 Cassen, to appoint Councilmember Sommer to complete Mayor Enck's
remaining 2004 term on the West Metro Fire-Rescue Board of Directors.
Voted in favor: Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; Voted against: Enck.
Motion carried.
REQUEST FOR Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.2, Consideration of request by
DONATION Meadow Lake PTO for Donation towards playground equipment.
Item 11.2 '
Mayor Enck coramended the Meadow Lake PTO for pursuing the replacement of
New Hope City Council
Page 6 February 9, 2004
playground equipment. He explained that the city contributed $3,000 to each of the
four elementary schools in the early 1990's to elementary schools to be used
towards improvements to outdo°r play areas. Due to budget restraints, staff does
not support funding at this time.
Councilmember Sommer concurred that the city cannot afford such donations
during these economic times.
MOTION/DENY Motion was made by Mayor Enck, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, to
REQUEST deny providing a donation to Meadow Lake PTO due to the city's budget
Item 11.2 restraints. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
CONSIDER Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.3, Consideration of interview
INTERVIEW DATES date(s) for council candidates.
Item 11.3
The council discussed the interview process for the eight councilmember
candidates and agreed to a 20-minute interview format with standardized
questions. The city clerk was dixected to schedule interviews the evenings of
February 18 and 19. The council scheduled February 26 to conduct a second
interview with the finalists if determined necessary.
COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Council input on city
Item 12.1 communications.
The council recommended that the next "In the Pipeline" utility insert focus on the
changes to the sign code ordinance.
CITY Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.2, Exchange of communication
COMMUNICATIONS between members of the city council.
Item 12.2 Councilmember Cassen
· Reported that she attended the 21st annual Crime Prevention Fund Board
banquet tonight and commended the Police Department on two recognition
awards: 1) National Night Out award for 9t~ place out of 400 cities with
populations between 15,000-30,000 and 2) D.A.R.E. program award by the
Minnesota D.A.R.E. Board for New Hope's 15a year of supporting the
program in coordination with School District 281
· Announced that a fundraiser for defibrillators is planned at the New Hope
Bowl on May 15 from 10 am - 4 pm; and a bike rodeo is scheduled for May
5.
· Reported that she met with the property owner of 3940 Ensign whose home
sustained fzre damage on December 7. She indicated the phone transcripts
confirm that the fire department responded in 11 minutes rather than 25
minutes as alleged by neighbors. On behalf of the homeowner,
Councilmember Cassen conveyed appreciation to the fzre personnel for their
services.
CONSENT ITEMS Mayor Enck introduced for discussion the consent items which were removed,
REMOVED Item 6.4, Resolution ratifying the 2004 labor agreement with Law Enforcement
L.E.L.S. AGREEMENT Labor Services, Local #273.
Item 6.4
Councilmember Cassen stated the LELS contract covering police sergeants and
police captains equates to a 2.3% increase which is the same as the amount
approved for Local 49 and non-union employees. She pointed out that the earlier
action for the city manager's increase was for a 2% salary increase that is below
the increases received by the other employee groups. Councilmember Cassen
commended Sherry Draper, Director of Administration, for her efforts with the
negotiation process.
New Hope City Council
Page 7 February 9, 2004
RESOLUTION 04-35 Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
Item 6.4 adoption: "RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE 2004 LABOR AGREEMENT
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, LOCAL #273." The
motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by
Councilmember Collier, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following
voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was
attested to by the city clerk.
CABLECASTING Mayor Enck inl~:oduced for discussion Item 6.5, Resolution approving contract
SERVICES with Northwest Community Television for cablecasting services.
Item 6.5
Councilmember Collier inquired why channel 95 is less clear than the other cable
channels. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth indicated she serves on the cable
commission and will bring this issue to the attention of the commission.
RESOLUTION 04-36 Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
Item 6.5 adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH
NORTHWEST COMMUNITY TELEVISION FOR CABLECASTING
SERVICES." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer;
and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None;
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the
mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before
the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope City
Council adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submiqed,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
New Hope City Council
Page 8 February 9, 2004
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
EDA Minutes January 26, 2004
Regular Meeting City Hall
CALL TO ORDER President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order
at 7:43 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: W. Peter Enck, President
Sharon Cassen, Commissioner
Don Collier, Commissioner
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Commissioner
Steve Sommer, Cormnissioner
APPROVE MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Gwin-
Lenth, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 12, 2004, with a
correction to the last paragraph on page 1. All present voted in favor. Motion
carried.
IMP. PROJECT 751 President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Resolution authorizing execution
Item 4 and delivery of a contract for private redevelopment by and between the New Hope
Economic Development Authority and the Ryland Group, Inc. (improvement
project no. 751).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the resolution
approves the development agreement with Ryland Group, Inc. for the East
Winnetka redevelopment site in the Livable Communities study area. He noted the
highlights of the agreement were previously reviewed at the January 20 Council
work session. This agreement will facilitate the construction of 171 to 179 new
market rate townhomes and condominium units in the East Winnetka Livable
Communities area and address life cycle housing goals outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan. Once the development agreement is approved, the next step
would be authorizing acquisition of the remaining properties so that they can be
delivered to the developer, per the agreement. Jim Casserly from Krass Monroe is in
attendance to review the details with the EDA
Mr. McDonald stated the Council has been discussing the details of this
development for over a year with Ryland Homes and the development agreement
finalizes all details on the contract portion of the development. The developer will
initiate the planning process in February and present plans to the Planning
Commission and City Council the first part of March. It is anticipated that there will
be some changes to the plan as it proceeds through the planning review and public
comment process. Construction of model homes will take place in April. The City
Council selected Ryland Homes as the preferred developer for this site at the
conclusion of the Livable Communities study, due in part to the quality of the
construction of its homes.
Mr. Jim Casserly, Krass Monroe, was recognized. He indicated the only unresolved
issue relates to how Ryland Group structures its purchase agreements and the
number of days they would like for due diligence. He explained the city's process of
selling debt to enable funds for property acquisitions. The city is committed to the
New Hope EDA
Page 1 January 26, 2004
acquisitions and may structure its debt on repayment of the principal in a different
manner depending on the scheduled payment of tax increment financing. Mr.
Casserly reported that the bond sale will occur on March 22. The developer is
willing to change its date from April 15 to March 31. He noted the city would prefer
March 15 and will continue to try and resolve the timing issues with Ryland.
Mayor Enck pointed out omissions/corrections needed within the contract.
The EDA discussed interest rates and the payment schedule for property taxes and
special assessments.
Discussion reverted back to the contract. Mr. McDonald recommended the EDA
approve the contract subject to minor adjustments. Mr. Casserly assured the EDA
that none of the issues discussed tonight would negate the agreement.
EDA RESOLUTION Commissioner Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
04-02 "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A
Item4 CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE
RYLAND GROUP, INC. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 751)." The
motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner
Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted
against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the president which was attested to
by the executive director.
IMP. PROJECT 724 President Enck introduced for discussion Item 5, Resolution authorizing the
Item 5 acquisition of certain property within the city of New Hope for the purpose of
redevelopment (improvement project 724).
Mn Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, explained that the
resolution was prepared by the city attorney authorizing the acquisition of 14
properties in the east Winnetka redevelopment area. The resolution includes
condemnation for all 14 properties currently not owned by the city.
Mr. McDonald explained that over the past 8 years the City has been acquiring
property in the subject area in anticipation of future redevelopment. The first
property that the city acquired in the area was 7621 Bass Lake Road in 1995.
In 1998, the Council passed a resolution approving the city of New Hope
Comprehensive Plan Update. The Comprehensive Plan targeted several areas in the
city for redevelopment. Recommendations for the subject area include the
acquisition and redevelopment of sites located along the south side of Bass Lake
Road, in the Bass Lake Road extension area and along the east side of Winnetka
Avenue North between 5340 Winnetka Ave. and Bass Lake Road.
In 2000, the city received a Metropolitan Council Livable Commumties Grant to
study redevelopment opportunities in the roughly quarter-mile area encircling the
intersection of Winnetka Ave. N. and Bass Lake Road. In 2001 and 2002, the
Livable Communities Task Force studied redevelopment opportunities within the
designated area. In 2002, the Council accepted the task force study. In February
2003, the Council selected developers for each study area site based on proposals,
except the west Winnetka site. Staff continues to coordinate with developers in the
Livable Communities Area.
New Hope EDA
Page 2 January 26, 2004
As directed by the Council at the November 3, 2003, Work Session, staff has been
coordinating with the remaining owners in the subject area to complete the
acquisition of property. Also, staff has coordinated with Evergreen Land Services,
the city's relocation consultant for payment of relocation benefits to all remaining
sellers.
At the January 20 Council Work Session, staff presented a detailed review of
acquisition status in the subject area. Even though the resolution includes all
remaining properties that the city has not yet closed on to insure delivery of the
property to the developer on a timely basis, purchase agreements ancot negotiation
is underway on a number of the remaining properties. Mr. McDonald emphasized
that eminent domain will only be necessary for properties where purchase
agreements are not negotiated. At this point, staff is negotiating purchase
agreements with most of the property owners.
Commissioner Cassen questioned the status of 5519 Sumter Avenue North. Mr.
McDonald stated the city recently sent a letter to the property owner to try to reach a
mutual agreement.
Mr. Bob Sable, 5242 Quebec Avenue North, questioned the legality of acquiring
private property through eminent domain. He also advised that the task force was
supportive of single family homes as part of the plan.
It was noted that the city can acquire residential property as well as commercial
property through eminent domain proceedings. Mayor Enck commented that
although the townhouses are not single-family homes, they will be individually
owned.
EDA RESOLUTION Commissioner Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
04-03 "RESOLUTION AUTItORIZING TItE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN
Item 5 PROPERTY WITHIN TItE CITY OF NEW ItOPE FOR TItE PURPOSE OF
REDEVELOPMENT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 724)." The motion for the
adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Cassen, and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen,
Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None;
Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by the executive
director.
IMP. PROJECT 760 President Enck introduced for discussion Item 6, Resolution approving purchase
Item 6 agreement and relocation benefits 5400 Winnetka Avenue North (flnprovement
project 760).
Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, stated the city's purchase
offer will now consist of the appraised value and a relocation payment determined
by the city's relocation consultant. The relocation cost estimate is $56,250 for this
property, but will be adjusted when the property owner moves and completes the
purchase of another property (actual closing costs will be used proportionate to the
purchase price of the subject property).
He reported that Steve Carlson from Evergreen Land Services, is in attendance at
the meeting to answer any questions related to relocation payments.
Ms. Carol Cline, 5400 Winnetka Avenue North, addressed the council. She
expressed her displeasure of being forced out of her home, but stated she
understands the city's reason for the redevelopment.
New Hope EDA
Page 3 January 26, 2004
Mayor Enck empathized with Ms. Cline and commented that even leaving one's
home on a voluntary basis can be difficult.
EDA RESOLUTION Commissioner Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
04-04 "RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND
Item 6 RELOCATION BENEFITS 5400 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 760)." The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier,
Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained:
None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director.
IMP. PROJECT 755 President Enck introduced for discussion Item 7, Resolution approving purchase
Item 7 agreement and relocation benefits 5440 Winnetka Avenue North (improvement
project 755).
Mr. Steve Carlson, Evergreen Land Services, explained the aspects of mortgage
differentials and how the city would have to buy down rates if a homeowner had to
enter into a mortgage at a higher rate than their existing mortgage rate.
EDA RESOLUTION Commissioner Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
04-05 "RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND
Item 7 RELOCATION BENEFITS 5440 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 755)." The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier,
Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained:
None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director.
IMP. PROJECT 723 President Enck introduced for discussion Item 8, Discussion regarding 7615 Bass
Item 8 Lake Road (New Hope Alano), purchase price, relocation benefits, and request to
purchase city-owned property at 7601-41 62ad Avenue North (improvement project
723).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated over the past year,
staff has met with the New Hope Alano Group to discuss the potential acquisition of
their property and relocation options. Staff last met with Alano on December 22,
2003. Staff requests EDA discussion and direction regarding the 7615 Bass Lake
Road (New Hope Alano) purchase price/appraised value, relocation benefits and
request to purchase city-owned property at 760141 62nd Avenue North. He stated
New Hope Alano Group is willing to accept the $415,000 appraised value and the
estimated relocation benefits of $35,000.
Mr. McDonald reported that Alano's main concern is relocation. They would like to
relocate as close as possible to their current location. Over the past several months,
staff has met with Alano and presented many relocation options. Staff strongly
recommended that they coordinate with the developer of the proposed office
condomimum units at 42~a and Quebec Avenue North. Alano has seriously
considered this option, but feel that city assistance in addition to the purchase price
and relocation estimate would be required. Alano is recluesting that the city consider
selling them the city-owned property at 7601-7641 62na Avenue North to construct a
new facility.
New Hope EDA
Page 4 January 26, 2004
Staff is seeking Council direction on Alano's request for financial assistance to
relocate to the office condominium development at 42na and Quebec Avenues North
and their request to purchase the city-owned property at 7601-7641 62~a Avenue
North.
The EDA expressed concern regarding the sale of the property on 62~d Avenue as it
may restrict a future project at that site. The importance of not deviating from the
1998 comprehensive plan was also pointed out.
The EDA discussed the 42nd/Quebec Avenue site as a possibility for the New Hope
Alano. Parking needs for Alano as well as for nearby restaurants were discussed.
Mr. Fred Boyes, representing New Hope Alano, was recognized. He stated he has
been involved with New Hope Alano for 28 years. He mentioned they recently
remodeled and would not voluntarily have chosen to relocate. He acknowledged the
city's redevelopment efforts, and stated he has been pleased with the assistance
provided by the city. He noted they have considered 15 properties so far.
The EDA recommended that Alano submit a detailed request for potential
assistance needed to relocate in a new facility at 42na and Quebec.
MOTION Motion was made by Commissioner Sommer, seconded by Commission Owin-
IMP. PROJECT 723 Lenth, authorizing staff to proceed with the purchase of 7615 Bass Lake Road,
Item 8 and requested more information from the Alano Group regarding a potential
relocation to the 42ha/Quebec site. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
IMP. PROJECT 733 President Enck introduced for discussion Item 9, Resolution authorizing approval of
Item 9 a term sheet between the New Hope Economic Development Authority and Armory
Development II, LLC for the redevelopment of the former Frank's Nursery
Property, 5620 Winnetka Avenue North (improvement project no. 733).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the city has been
discussing a potential redevelopment with Armory Development at the 5620
Winnetka Avenue site for over a year. A tax increment financing analysis has been
completed and staff/consultants have been negotiating with the developer over the
p~ist month on proposed terms of agreement with the city to assist with financing. If
the EDA is supportive of the project and the city assistance, staff recommends
approval of the term sheet. The next steps would include initiating the creation of a
TIF district, approval of a development agreement and starting the planning
approval process for the townhome development.
President Enck noted he had viewed a similar townhome development at 77th and
Lyndale and was concerned with the limited parking (one-stall garages). He noted
the EDA has not yet seen definitive plans from Armoa2t Development.
Mr. Jim Casserly, Krass Monroe, explained that the entire site can be controlled by
one contract. He stated it is a very straight forward proposal with up front assistance
of $400,000 and the balance in the form of a revenue note. He stated 35% of
increment generated by the new value will be pledged to repayment of the revenue
note. He stated this project will generate a positive amount of increment, and
because of the new legislation the city is able to use the proceeds for other
redevelopment projects.
Mr. Doug Hoskin, Armory Development II, LLC, was recognized. He stated of the
44 units, 14 will have single garages and 30 will accommodate two vehicles. He
explained that all garages are only one-car wide but some will be deep enough to
New Hope EDA
Page 5 January 26, 2004
accommodate two vehicles. He noted there will be a small area for visitor parking,
and visitors or extra vehicles can be parked in the driveway spaces.
Discussion ensued regarding unit prices, storm water issues, density, and green
space.
Mr. McDonald reminded the EDA that the issue before them tonight is approval of
the term sheet. He reported that a site plan will be provided at a later date.
President Enck opened the floor for comments. Karen Nolte, 8232 Northwood
Parkway, was recognized. She inquired regarding the square footage of the units.
Mr. Hoskin reported that the units will range from 1150 square feet to 1940 square
feet.
EDA RESOLUTION Commissioner Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
04-06 "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF A TERM SHEET
Item 9 BETWEEN THE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND ARMORY DEVELOPMENT II, LLC FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT
OF THE FORMER FRANK'S NURSERY PROPERTY, 5620 WINNETKA
AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 733)." The motion for
the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Gwm-
Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the
same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by
the executive director.
IMP. PROJECT754 President Enck introduced for discussion Item 10, Update on potential
Item 10 redevelopment by Bear Creek Capital and CVS Pharmacy (improvement project no.
754).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the city has been
coordinating with Bear Creek CapitaFCVS Pharmacy over the past eight months
regarding a potential redevelopment at the southwest quadrant of Bass Lake Road
and Winnetka Avenue. The redevelopment would be in two phases, with the first
phase involving the construction of a CVS Pharmacy store and ancillary retail
development. The first phase would include the acquisition by CVS of three parcels
in the area: a residential property at 5539/5549 Winnetka and a commercial property
at 7901 Bass Lake Road. Appraisals of all three parcels were completed in October
2003, and at the October 27 EDA meeting, the EDA authorized staff to meet with
the developers and the property owners to facilitate the potential property
acquisition.
Mr. McDonald reported that a successful meeting, facilitated by the city, Was
recently conducted between the property owners of 5539/5549 Winnetka and the
developer and correspondence has been exchanged outlining the terms of a purchase
contract.
Regarding the 7901 Bass. Lake Road, Mr. McDonald stated Sinclair Corporation has
not been willing to meet with representatives of the city or the developer up to this
point. The attorney representing Sinclair requested additional information on the
project, which the city provided, and they are in the process of having their own
appraisal completed. Sinclair has indicated that they would meet with the developer
and city once the appraisal is done. More recently, there has been some direct
negotiation between the developer and Sinclair. City staff has indicated it would
much prefer that the developer acquire the property voluntarily on a willing seller
New Hope EDA
Page 6 January 26, 2004
basis.
Mr. McDonald stated CVS has indicated that this is its first choice for development
in the New Hope area. Also, CVS has begun to actively market its development to
other commercial users and are close to reaching an agreement with a casual dining
establishment as part of the ancillary development.
Once the property acquisition process is better defined, a more detailed site
planning process will begin, which will include a review of the area storm water
analysis and discussions with adjacent property owners, including District 281.
It is the intention of CVS to start construction this spring if the property can be
acquired and other approvals received. Mr. McDonald commented that if the
redevelopment would proceed, the city would want to examine the potential of
creating a new tax increment financing district to capture the increased value of the
redevelopment for use on other redevelopment projects in the Livable Communities
area.
The EDA thanked Mr. McDonald for the update.
ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Sommer,
to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope
EDA adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
New Hope EDA
Page 7 January 26, 2004
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
EDA Minutes February 9, 2004
Regular Meeting City Hall
CALL TO ORDER President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order
at 9:11 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: W. Peter Enck, President
Sharon Cassen, Commissioner
Don Collier, Commissioner
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Commissioner
Steve Sommer, Commissioner
APPROVE MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Gwin-
Lenth, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2004, as
amended. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
IMP. PROJECT 765 President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Resolution approving purchase
Item 4 agreement and relocation benefits - 5538 Sumter Avenue North (improvement
project no. 765).
President Enck noted that all items on the EDA agenda relate to the redevelopment
for the East Winnetka Redevelopment area. Direction from the EDA for negotiation
and purchase was provided at prior meetings. The resolutions will approve the
actual purchase agreements.
Commissioner Cassen questioned the closing date for the 7609 Bass Lake Road
property. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, stated staff will work with the property
owner on a mutually acceptable closing date in April or May.
Mr. Paul Solmon, 8321 50t~ Avenue North, inquired whether the purchase prices are
public information.
President Enck responded that the purchase prices and relocation packages are
public information. He provided Mr. Solmon with the written staff reports.
EDA RESOLUTION Commissioner Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
04-07 "RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND
Item 4 RELOCATION BENEFITS - 5538 SUMTER AVENUE NORTH
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 765)." The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Cassen, and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-
Lenth, Sommcr; and thc following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None;
Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted,
signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director.
IMP. PROJECT 766 President Enck introduced for discussion Item 5, Resolution approving purchase
Item 5 agreement and relocation benefits - 7609 Bass Lake Road (improvement project no.
766). ~
EDA RESOLUTION Commissioner Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
04-08 "RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND
EDA Meeting February 9, 2004
Page 1
Item 5 RELOCATION BENEFITS - 7609 BASS LAKE ROAD (IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 766)." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was seconded by Commissioner Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: -Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and
the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None;
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the
president which was attested to by the executive director.
IMP. PROJECT 757 President Enck introduced for discussion Item 6, Resolution approving purchase
Item 6 agreement and relocation benefits - 7643 Bass Lake Road (improvement project no.
757).
EDA RESOLUTION Commissioner Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
04-09 "RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND
Item 6 RELOCATION BENEFITS - 7643 BASS LAKE ROAD (IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 757)." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was seconded by Commissioner Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and
the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None;
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the
president which was attested to by the executive director.
IMP. PROJECT 723 President Enck introduced for discussion Item 7, Resolution approving purchase
Item 7 agreement and relocation benefits - 7615 Bass Lake Road (improvement project no.
723).
EDA RESOLUTION Commissioner Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
04-10 "RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND
Item 7 RELOCATION BENEFITS - 7615 BASS LAKE ROAD (IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 723." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
seconded by Commissione~ Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereofi Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin~Lenth, Sommer; and
the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None;
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the
president which was attested to by the executive director.
ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Sommer, seconded by Commissioner Gwin-
Lenth, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The
New Hope EDA adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
t~ectfully
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
EDA Meeting February 9, 2004
Page 2
-- -- -- HJ. UON L_ -T- -- --r- -- -m- -- --r-- --
3flN3AV HZ~,cj
dYR NOIlVOO9 'J~ I
3nN3AV
VNJ-qNN~
3N¥'1 N~lnJ. I
~ NOLLY.L$ IISNY~LLJ //
~ /
~. /
. -. ,...:= ~= >~ /
/
' .~_~ ~ ~ / ....
/
/
--~~ ____1 ........... £ ....J_ J £ & l
,o~'=xavaNnoe oJ. NOLLVONnOJ avia I T ]- 'l - - T' - - - T- 1
.~-~o ~o ~o~ o..o,,~o..o~.o~i~ I¢
,gg:NOEVaNnOJ ONIOlln8 oi i II '---
II
,o~=~ano ~o ~ow o~ NO~VaNno~ ~a,s
.g~=~no ~o ~ov~ oz NO~VaNnO~ ~NO~
NVqd InN]Ay b
33e3nO 3~N3AV aNVqSI 3QOH~ ~ 3flN~V ONVqSI 3aOH~
9VAOR3~/NOIIVA~3S3~d 33~1 '[-~1
NVnd ]dVOSQNVn '~-q
NVqd 3dVOSaNVq 'L-q
sqlvz~a 7-0
II
sqJvz3a L-a ~ -' :ill ;8~ 'V'd 'DNI~N N~
NVqd 3OVNOlS ~ 133WIS '6 I~ N WB3~IO
~ NVqd XIIqlIn X~VNI~Iq3~d 'g e e e ~ ii I1 ~ ' ,
z NVqd Allqlin A~VNl~lq38d 'Z J~l ~m L_._ I
=~ NVqO ONIOVU9 *~VNl.lq~d 'G VIOS3NNI '3dOH M
~ NVqd 311S X~VNl~lq3~d 'g
m 133HS 83A00 X~VNI~I93~d L I
z X3ON1133HS N33
t
~ .. 0,,,= ~n.~ ~k~ .~.."
'ON '93~ ~ ; ~ ~'~ ~ ('~
~ -
NOSNVq '0 NHOP J
/
'1SV3 V~I3NN~
~o ~Did ~gj bulpJosaj uodn pqgA amosaq Usgs uo~]dlJoSap i~al
'DIOSaUU~ 'XlunoO uldauuaH
fold papJooaJ aql oI 6u!p~oooo 'L6 'ON 'S'TB '0 aNY
~ ~ _>~' ~/~
'O~OSaUU[~'Xluno
'Joadaq~ fold papJooaJ aql oI 5urpJoaoo 'ISV3 VNI3NNIM 'i
AINO S3SOd~nd l~]dX~VNl~lq3~d UOj NOtldl~DS3O ]V93q
7g
3]svqIvAv s3iznli~ ,
-'" ,o,.o,~'] ...o, .,, .,, ,,,,~ ,o,,~,...~,. ~.,~, o oo, /-l-I-I=/-/-/-/././
'1~
~ ~ aNVqSI
ONV~ _ __ __ _~__~
SS~OOV NOI~O~SNOO LV NOI~O3LO~d qO~NOO NOISO~ / ~ ......
~1 9Lgz tv~ mi
~N3dX3 SaOlOY~3 3~ I - ~-- L
IY ~3~OJB3d 38 ~YHS &N3~IO3S ~00NI~Y~ ~
~OlH~ AB a3am~3a SV ONId3~S ~S -
· s-~,. t [:
'lN~3 ~YJNIV~ a3oa~ ~o .g'0 039B~3SS~Wd - 3ON3J 191S I
30~d NI NIV~3~ llYHS S]~SY]~ ~NOO ~ ~ -- / / ~ / -- ~ /
~..,, ~ ~ ~ / I~/ '
SI V3aV 3~ N3~ N3~ NIY~3B NYO YgaY ~ o~ .: ./
3~N3AV Nlgg ~
~-m ~]HS 3fiNnY ~3NN~ ('~) ~N~ ~-~ ~HS I '
1~ ~,v~o 33s
3NV3 N~L [ ~oo ~uon
"~) ~on z3s$s- /
/
/
/
/
/
/
.... V 13381S /
/
II I ~ I ~1 ~ I I I · zs~ .o ~.~ I
// ~ I I~~ ~ ~ /
/i 6~ /
I iii I~l~~ ~1 I /
~ a31~ns 3NN~V
~---~I-~X-DI .....
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo~z
(mVAINa) 3003 lib = ~ Il ~-
(ZYAIB4) 39BYiNnO. m ~ I II ~ S ~
- o~ = s,w~,~o II
9~ = 3VN~NI {I I{
...... NOUVOOn NOIS ss]uaav WNOmlaav = ~ ~ Il Ii ..
~- ~ ~ '9NlNaVd ON ATNO S3101H~ AON3O~3~3 = ~ 3RN2AV 0383fl0
3O~OUd o~ ~ I
~ III
01. OL ~s N33~19 YNJ. 3NNIM S31/iOH C]N¥-I,LW N¥9cl 9¥AOBI3W A.~JVNIPl193~lci
3RN3A¥ V)U.3NNIM I /
aNYS NJ.IM TII~I M011] / ON¥S ~J. IM Tlfl_-I M0'I8 aN¥$ i-LLIM Tirol / ONYS NJ. IM Tlf~J M0'I8 al~'$ I-ILIM TII~J ..,
&' ~3A, i35 A~¥ZlhrVS / 3rlN3AV ¥~d.3NNI/R :~ ~t:3f~35 Ab'VJLINVS ] · ~3/~'4S AIJ¥11N¥$/ ~' b]3/~3S A~YIIN¥S MO98 31' :a38R3S A~4VJ. INVS
ONU. SrX3 JO ,~;/ONO9¥ X'IVA~3C]IS ONU. SIX3 .JO ,g~:: 0NLLSIX3 ..mO ,/t,t
3AOR3~ O.L ,L,LIO~
/
/
/
I
_~ I __j I
~ Ir---,,' j____
00/_2
'3dON 6~3N JO ,LIlO 3HJ..,kB 03~1Vd38 38 OJ. ]~.j ~--~
NOLLOFIELLSNOO .L33~LLS aNY A.LIgLLI9 ,LB Q3B~FLL$1Q SNOLLO3S .L33~115:3.LON
'3dOH M3N JO .,LLIO ,LB J
(]399¥.LSNI 38 Ol NIVM3OIS :~ B~AO ~313?tl~J3d O3SOdO~Jd .'~
I
3dON M3N ;JO AJ. IO ~B.(S355300¥
AYM3AI~J(] 9Nlafl'lONI) Cl3AOlq3~l 38 O.L $3~JrlLOrI~LLS/$31~IOH 99¥ ;3J.ON L___
b'--JM3S AUVJ. IN¥S oNmmslx3
3dOH M3N JO .LLIO .Lg ('.L~3 'SYO ONLL$[X3
.kJ. IO AB (]3AOiq3~ 38 O.L 3~lv $3XOBqlYrl aNY S3ON3~ 99¥ :3.LON J
M/~I M. NFIO::) N HIIM C]NnOBOB3ONfl (33.lVOO93~J 3B OJ. 3B¥ J J
SIHgl9 ':DINm0393 '3NOHd '398v0) $3U.19LLfl C]NflOaO 3AOSY 'llV ::3.LON -- --
,, /ON,,S~ ~o .~,~ o.,,s,x~ ~o ,~
(ZIt~ lOaN.)
(~LJ~ LOON.) 3OYBOBn$ O3J. OYd~qoo
(t~ ]~Z-t[~ tOaN~) ]s~no3 ]sv~ snoNl~nzlB
'S'i'N (Sl33~S OlgB~d) NO~O3S
]~Az d3u~aon-lc~ tOaNn) 3s~noo av~ SnONI~nLIB .z/t-t~JJJ NO~O3S 9VOl~
· Band a3dNn ~/JJJJ ~ (~LJ[ ZOONn) 3OWOGns
(~'Lg~ &O~N~) ~vo~ ~V~ S~NI~I~ JJ J
~
M/~ / ' ~ ' ~1~
'
:~ON
N3~no
·
....... ~'~'
(]~vgs oL ~ON) VV NO~O~S
~dO_ · 8.dO ~-S (39vos o~ iON) J'..~., :J' ;:~,..~.J
.g~
~.;~.:~ :~ ~' ~ ~:;~:,--:~'~,:~5: ~.'~
I
I I I
~no · B~no gLgB I I I I 'AVM~I~O JO 3als NOV3 ~ a3~1~o3~
~ ~.~' 'u.~ o~Y-Y NOED]S 'NIH ,O'Z ,g ~.:
(]lV~S 01 iON) NOUdY
S3NI9 AlU3dO~d Ol
~no
~ ~ m 'A~3
'~m~
NOEVA~]~
~ONV~N~ efts
oos oos :~.
Pti 9-S INO~ IN3~RNOH
ONI~IRB AB AaVA
lOd g~ - YlO3~ X ~nxYl/M~ NO~N~V~
~Od ~ SISN2NIHO S~a2dlNRP/~3dlNRP N33a9 V3S
~Od ~F X VSOa/3SO~ ~ A3NV3N
,0 ~=. ~
lOd V~VMfl8 X V3V~IdS/V381dS 13daVO OlOVH SH ,
iOd RJ ,~1~ SSI~, VNEn3~ VONI~S/O~ ~IN SSIH IH az~ ~i ~3s
~Od ~ valuo33 v~3~l~/Vq3Ol~ o]a YAVP Mr ~ ~30a
,Od~ VOINOdVP y3YaIdS/V3,dS ~l~ 3S3NVdVP SP
lOd ~ sIgVIN3OIO00 yrn~/3Yl~aoa,v 38090 13gal. ~3H VD
lOd ~n8091~ ~N~nB~/X~B2BNYBO NVDIB3~V ~OVd~O0 AO
lOd S.VINOZIaOH SA~3dlN.P/.3dlNnr dlH3 DRY. re t-(~Od ~') ~3daVO OIOVH, V~Y.A8 V3ValdS/Y3aldS ~d~O ~
IOOB/2ZIS S3~VN 9~OINVIO8/NO~O0 X2N
S~nlNI~OONO0 39VII~3H-39nO3HOS ZNVgd ~OOa3d
... O~ ~SOd
¢-~SUnBN~, Slna3Nm 'aVA SO~NYOYI~ Y~,O390 / "~~ --
r rs ~-m ~ ~-rs o[-(~od ~) 3sou ~O~3UU
91ViDq 9NIZNVqd
~ ~-ao~ [-vz~ ~-v~ J l ~? / _ Bn~HS ~3NIVINO0
: SONIZNV Id ZN RNO
~g-Md ' S~3~0 Ag O3NOIS3Q NO~YOI~I
SNOEVO0~ ONV S3~ 33~ aO~ ~d 33~ AaO~S~O 33S (ONIHI~ NO ONION]d]O) s8~n8 aO SIN~d Sial ~ O~NV~d
HOq~H NOOa a3ONfl O3Sh ONE33HS AqOd NOYq8 ~9 aNOd aNnoav SNOEVO09 33~ ao~ NVqd 33~ ABOISa~O 33S
(a3dog~3Q AB N3SOHO 3B Ol 3~)
· mnon~luoa aq II1~ ~p~ qni* m qolnm 'sluOld ~0 133HS NO 91Y130 IlS
ZOd g~ ,VIQNYOS, YNIGYS sna3dlNnr/a3dlNnf VIQN~OS rs -.'d'~ os ~o ,..~..u~., o~
lOd ~,SS3ONlad 3~19, YOlV"fl8 Y3V~ldS/Y3~ldS SS30NI~d 3~19 S9 'a=*~s ~J"SJnN Jo3
S2~OH 30VIaBVO-39flQ3HOS INVqd S3ION 3dVOSQNV9 za I33HS 33S
SONIZNV d ONOd
- ~ ~ ................ ~=-~ .......... ~_~_~ .... ~ I
/
iI
/~/ ~
~ I I , , ....... ~ "l "l "l "l "t ~ " ," o, ...... , ..,*.//~/ I /
"'' "" ' .:L }~ I " ,
......... ~ ..... ~ l~ ..... L~-~$ L~] - -~ L~-~S ]~T~ .... ~-- _ _ Al .u,,. ....... . ., ..... '~v
3flN~V ~flS ~ '~ ~.. _ j ~~
....._.... ....... , ,
m
I
,} ~NI I~BIN
~i J' ~__~r ....................... : ,
/
Z r-H-D-D-H-r S~Nn NV'id 'lOa/NOO 'I:IA:I'I a~lRtO'l B-O
I [.O-,0 · NOIIYA313 3AI.L¥13I:II I.O-,O · NOIIYAIlt ~]AIIVllU! I.O-,O · NOI.LYA31t 3AIIVl3UI I.O-,O * NOIIVA:]'I3 tAIIV'I~IUI (.O-,O · NOII¥&]I:i ]AI/¥13UI (.0-,O · NOIIYA~]I::I qAIlVlqUI
~P r /INn H J. INn O l~Nn D 1INn H llNfl
1INn
/
~,'.'C :,'., ' "~: "~",'~ '~ ..... *-" I'~"";'~!"! t,
r., } ...... l .... ..
~ ~ 'q tl · ...................
................ :...:.: . :._.: _ ~ ::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ....
~ i'H99HP $11Nn - NV'ld 'IOUl'NOO UO0'I:I aNOO3$
ITl
Z
Z I I t I
I