Loading...
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