PL 01/07/03 AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 2003
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:00 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
4.1
4.2
5.1
5.2
6.
6.1
6.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
8.
9.
10.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CONSENT BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING
Case 02-23
An Ordinance Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care
Facilities as Conditional Uses in the I Zoning District, City of New Hope,
Petitioner
Case 02-26
Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Dog Day Care Facility in an
Industrial District, 8835 East Research Center Road, New Hope Properties
Limited Partnership and Judy Jo Paskiewicz, Petitioners
COMMrn'EE REPORTS
Report of Design & Review Committee - January 16, 8 a.m.
Report of Codes & Standards Committee - To be scheduled
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
Council Action on December Planning Cases
· PC00-13, Livable Communities
City Center Task Force - 15-member task force appointed by Council on December 9 - first meeting
on January 30
NEW BUSINESS
Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 3, 2002
Review of City Council Minutes of November 25, 2002
Review of EDA Minutes of November 12, 2002
Planning Commission workshops
ELECTIONS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
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.
Al 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:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
Meeting Date:
Report Date:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
January 7, 2003
January 3, 2003
02-23
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
An Ordinance Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care
Facilities as Conditional Uses in the I Zoning District
I. Request
City staff is requesting Planning Commission and City Council consideration of the attached ordinance
establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care Facilities as Conditional Uses in the I
Zoning District. The ordinance contains staff's recommendations for said facilities and is in response to
the interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on said facilities approved by the City Council on
October 14. The Planning Commission may want to table consideration of the ordinance until after
discussing the actual CUP application, which follows on the agenda. The CUP applicant is not in
agreement with several of the recommended conditions. Staff had recommended tabling both items to
see if an agreement on several issues could be reached before presenting the information to the
Commission, but the applicant did not want to table the application.
II. Zoning Code References
Section 1, Section 4-20(e)(16) Animal Kennels and Day Care
II1. Property Specifications
The ordinance amendment would allow animal kennels and day care facilities to be located in the
Industrial (I) Zoning District by conditional use permit.
IV. Background
At the October 14, 2002, City Council meeting, the City Council approved an interim ordinance
establishing a temporary prohibition on all dog kennel and cat shelter licenses in the City. Staff
suggested the moratorium because an application had been received to locate a dog day care facility at
a commercial shopping center and questions were raised about compatibility with other uses in the
center. Staff requested an opportunity to study this issue and make recommendations about zoning
district locations and conditions. The moratorium is effective until April 30, 2003. Please refer to the
attached 10/14/02 Council Request for Action for more information on the moratorium.
Over the past several months appropriate city staff and consultants have met and discussed this matter,
including the Planning Consultant, City Attorney, Animal Control Officer, Acting Building Official, and
other Community Development staff. The enclosed ordinance, prepared by the City Attorney, includes
staff's preliminary recommendations for the location of these facilities.
V. Petitioner's Comments
This is a request by city staff to insert into the Zoning Code a use allowed by conditional use permit in
the Industrial Zoning District.
Planning Case Report 02-23 Page 1 1-3-03
VI. Notification .. -
A public hearing notice was published in the official newspaper regarding this zoning ordinanc,.
amendment. Notices are not required to be mailed to individual property owners, as the amendment would
be applicable to all properties in the zoning district where the use would be conditionally permitted.
VII. Development Analysis
A. Planner's Comments
The Planning Consultant reviewed this issue and prepared the enclosed reports dated November 7
and December 9, so please refer to them as it is not the intent to repeat that information in this report.
B. Animal Control Officer Comments
The Animal Control Officer reviewed this issue and prepared the enclosed October 16 memo, which
deals with maximum number of animals and space per dog.
C. Actin.q Buildinq Official Comments
The Acting Building Official reviewed this issue and provided the attached memorandum and detail
on ventilation requirements.
D. City Attorney Comments/Ordinance
The City Attorney took all viewpoints into consideration and prepared the attached ordinance. The
City Attorney states in correspondence "Basically, I have modified the City Planner's proposed
language for this Ordinance, however, all of the changes are style rather than substantive in nature.
I do have one question relating to Section 4-20(e)(16)(d). Basically, this section requires the kennel
ventilation system to be completely separate from other ventilation systems in a multi-use industrial
building. I think we discussed that issue at our staff meeting. I am concerned that such a provision,
as a practical matter, will economically prohibit an animal kennel or day care from operating in the
Industrial Zoning District. This may be an issue we want to explore further.
Section 2 of the Ordinance, as we discussed, repeals the temporary prohibition on dog kennel and
cat licenses adopted in Ordinance No. 02-12."
The ordinance states that:
Section 1. Section 4-20(e) "Conditional Uses" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by
adding subsection 4-20(e)(16) "Animal Kennels and Day Care" to read as follows:
4-20(e)(16) UAnimal Kennels and Day Care." Subject to the following conditions:
4-20(e)(16)(a). The number of animals kept at the facility shall not exceed thirty (30). The
facility's size must be a minimum of 100 square feet per animal boarded at any one time,
exclusive of office or storage area. The facility must provide one (1) cage or air kennel per
animal.
4-20(e)(16)(b). The facility must provide one (1) handler/staff person per ten (10) animals.
4-20(e)(16)(c). An exercise area shall be provided to accommodate the periodic exercising of
animals boarded at the facility. The exercise area must be 100 square feet in size for each
animal that occupies that area at any one time. Any outdoor exercise area must be fenced,
must have a pervious surface, and must be cleaned regularly.
4-20(e)(16)(d). The facility must have a ventilation system that prohibits the transmission of
odors or organisms between tenant bays or to the outside air. The ventilation system must
be capable of completely exchanging internal air at a rate of 1.00 cfm/square foot of floor
space per area dedicated for the keeping of animals exclusive of offices pursuant to
International Mechanical Code 2000 Edition, as may be amended. The kennel ventilation
Planning Case Report 02-23 Page 2 1-3-03
system must be completely separate and independent of other tenant space within the
building. Kennel air temperature must be maintained between sixty degrees (60°) and eighty
degrees (80°) Fahrenheit.
4-20(e)(16)(e). A sufficiently sized room/cage separate from the kennel areas shall be
provided to adequately separate sick or injured animals from healthy animals.
4-20(e)(16)(f). Wall finish materials below 48 inches in height shall be impervious, washable
materials like sealed masonry, ceramic tile, glassboard, or marlite. Floor finish shall be
sealed concrete. Liquid-tight curbing, at least 6 inches high, shall be installed along shared
walls for sanitary confinement and water wash-down cleaning.
4-20(e)(16)(g). Animal wastes shall be immediately cleaned up with solid wastes being
enclosed in a container of sufficient construction to eliminate odors and organisms. All
animal waste must be properly disposed of daily.
4-20(e)(16)(h). The facility must be appropriately licensed per Section 7-4 of the Code and
all conditions of said Section must be satisfied.
4-20(e)(16)(i). The property owner shall provide the City with at least fourteen (14) days'
notice of the animal kennel/day care intention to vacate the premises and allow a city
inspection of the premises.
4-20(e)(16)(j). The facility must provide sufficient, uniformly distributed lighting to the kennel
area.
Section 2. New Hope Ordinance No. 01-12, "Temporary Prohibition of Dog Kennel and Cat Shelter
Licenses," codified in the New Hope City Code as §1.169, is hereby repealed in its entirety.
E. Codes & Standards Committee
The ordinance amendment was presented to the Codes & Standards Committee at its December
meeting and the Committee was supportive of allowing the use by conditional use permit in the I
Zoning District. There was a good review and discussion of the conditions required in the ordinance.
The Codes & Standards Committee recommends approval of the ordinance.
VIII. Summary
City staff and the Codes & Standards Committee are supportive of amending the Zoning Code to allow
animal day care facilities within the I Zoning District by conditional use permit, subject to certain
conditions.
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment after the Commission has discussed and
agreed to all conditions. If further research or information is requested, staff recommends that the
ordinance be tabled so that additional time can be allotted to address issues in more detail.
Attachments: Ordinance No. 03-02
12/30/02 City Attorney Correspondence
Notice of Public Hearing
12/9/02 Planner's Memo
11/7/02 Planner's Memo
10/16/02 Animal Control Officer Memo
Acting Building Official Memo
10/14/02 Moratorium Ordinance
Planning Case Report 02-23 Page 3 1-3-03
ORDINANCE NO. 03-02 -
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING
COMMERCIAL ANIMAL KENNELS
AND ANIMAL DAY CARE FACILITIES
AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE
INDUSTRIAL "I" ZONING DISTRICT
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 4-20(e) "Conditional Uses" of the New Hope City Code is hereby
amended by adding subsection 4-20(e)(16) "Animal Kennels and Day Care" to read as follows:
4-20(e)(16) "Animal Kennels and Day Care". Subject to the following conditions:
4-20(e)(16)(a.) The number of animals kept at the facility shall not exceed
thirty (30). The facility's size must be a minimum of 100 square feet per
animal boarded at any one time, exclusive of office or storage area. The
facility must provide one (1) cage or air kennel per animal.
4-20(e)(16)(b.) The facility must provide one (1) handler/staff person per ten
(10) animals.
4.20(e)(16)(c.) An exercise area shall be provided to accommodate the periodic
exercising of animals boarded at the facility. The exercise area must be 100
square feet in size for each animal that occupies that area at any one time.
Any outdoor exercise area must be fenced, must have a pervious surface, and
must be cleaned regularly.
4.20(e)(16)(d.) The facility must have a ventilation system that prohibits the
transmission of odors or organisms between tenant bays or to the outside air.
The ventilation system must be capable of completely exchanging internal air at
a rate of 1.00 cfm/square foot of floor space per area dedicated for the keeping
of animals exclusive of offices pursuant to International Mechanical Code 2000
Edition, as may be amended. The kennel ventilation system must be
completely separate and independent of other tenant space within the building.
Kennel air temperature must be maintained between sixty degrees (60°) and
eighty degrees (80°) Fahrenheit.
4.20(e)(16)(e.) A sufficiently sized room/cage separate from the kennel areas
shall be provided to adequately separate sick or injured animals from healthy
animals.
4.20(e)(16)(f.) Wall f'mish materials below 48 inches in height shall be
impervious, washable materials like sealed masonry, ceramic tile, glassboard,
or marlite. Floor finish shall be sealed concrete. Liquid-tight curbing, at least
6 inches high, shall be installed along shared walls for sanitary conf'mement
and water wash-down cleaning.
4-20(e)(16)(g.) Animal wastes shall be immediately cleaned up with solid
wastes being enclosed in a container of sufficient construction to eliminate
odors and organisms. All animal waste must be properly disposed of daily.
4-20(e)(16)(h.) The facility must be appropriately licensed per Section 7-4 of
this Code and all conditions of said Section must be satisfied.
4-20(e)(16)(i.) The property owner shall provide the City with at least fourteen
(14) days' notice of the animal kennel/day care intention to vacate the premises
and allow a City inspection of the premises.
4-20(e)(16)(j.) The facility must provide sufficient, uniformly distributed
lighting to the kennel area.
Section 2. New Hope Ordinance No. 02-12, "Temporary Prohibition of Dog Kennel and
Cat Shelter Licenses", codified in the New Hope City Code as §1.169, is hereby repealed in its
entirety.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Dated this ~ day of ,2003.
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
ATTEST:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the
· day of ,2003.)
2
DOUGLAS J. DEBNER3
GORDON L. JENSEN~
GLEN A. NORTON
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
WILLIAM C. STRAIT:
STACY A. WOODS
OF COUNSEL
LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD
'Real Property Law Specialist
Certified By The
Minnesota State Bar
Association
:Qualified ADR Neutral
~Admined in Iowa
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. ~
BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1~.,
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail law~j ensen-sondrall.com
December 30, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE TO (763) 531-5136
AND BY REGULAR U.S. MAIL
Kirk McDonald
Community Development Director
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope. MN 55428
Re: Animal Kennels and Animal Day Cares
Industrial Zoning Districts
Our File No.: 99.80302
as to Conditional Uses in the
Dear Kirk:
Please find enclosed for consideration at the January 7, 2003 Planning Commission
meeting, proposed Ordinance No. 03-02, An Ordinance Establishing Commercial Animal
Kennels and Animal Day Care Facilities as Conditional Uses in the Industrial 'T' Zoning
District.
Basically, I have modified the City Planner's proposed language for this Ordinance,
however, all of the changes are style rather than substantive in nature. I do have one
question relating to Section 4-20(e)(16)(d). Basically, this section requires the kennel
ventilation system to be completely separate from other ventilation systems in a multi-use
industrial building. I think we discussed that issue at our staff meeting. I am concerned
that such a provision, as a practical matter, will economically prohibit an animal kennel
or day care from operating in the Industrial Zoning District. This may be an issue we
want to explore further.
Section 2 of the Ordinance, as we discussed, repeals the temporary prohibition on dog
kennel and cat licenses adopted in Ordinance No. 02-12.
December 30, 2002
Page 2
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments concerning this Ordinance or the issues raised in
this letter.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney,
City of New Hope
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A.
sas@jemen-sondrall.com
After Hours Extension #147
Enclosure
cc: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (w/enc.)
P:La, ttomey\SAS\Letters\CNH99.80302-001 -Kirk Ltr.doc
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING
COMMERCIAL DOG DAY CARE FACILITIES AS A
CONDITIONAL USE IN THE "I" ZONING DISTRICT
City of New Hope, Minnesota
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota,
will meet on the 7"' day of January, 2003, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon
Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of
an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code.
Said ordinance will have the affect of permitting by conditional use permit the operation of
dog kennels and day care facilities for dogs in the Industrial "I" zoning district. It will include
establishing regulations for the health, care and safety of dogs boarded and or placed in said
facilities.
All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard
with respect to the zoning code amendment.
Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are available
upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make
arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531-5109).
Dated the 9~ day of December, 2002.
s/Valerie J. Leone
Valerie J. Leone
City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 26~ day of December, 2002.)
-1-
DEC'~D-21~ 14:34 NAC 612
elephane: g62.695.ge36 Far.~imile- 852 595 ge37 ..... .MN . 55418
· ' · P"' nner~,,~nacplannl rig.corn
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Alan Brixius/John Glomski
December 9, 2002
New Hope - Animal Kennel Ordinance
131.00 - 02.08
In response to public interest in creating a commercial dog day cam within the City of
New Hope, the City has directed NAC to prepare an animal kennel ordinance that would
.. _ K=nrm;s, nowever, 5ec, on 7-4 of the City Code outlines a
,censing criteria for dog kennels and cat shelters. This code stipulates that these uses
~s°rUeldco~n~ln°~eecld ~~nth;~mth~.e._C,~_C__°mm_ uni!y Business District. Upon stefi~ review, it
th--- ' ' .......... ur=. re=se uses ITom our commercial districts and place
. ,,.e~m. ~.n. ~ne ~n.austnal alstricts wt'~ere they may onerete i,, - ,- ....... -,,-, ·
wrm aajoining land uses ,- ,, - ,,,,-,,= ~,;umpa[lD~e fashion
The attached ordinance proposes to amend the I District to allow animal kennels/dog
cares as a conditional use permit. Specific conditions that are included as part of the
conditional use permit are intended to define the Capacity of the facility as far as the
number of dogs, size of facility per dog, the number of staff people based on a 10
animal count, requirement for a ventilation system, requirements for a sick room that is
separate from other other kennel areas, wall finishes and floor sealing to insure that
waste materials do not penetrate through the wall into adjoining tenant bays. The
ordinance also requires that all solid waste be stored in a manner that eliminates odor
and organisms and are properly disposed of on a daily basis.
In addition to the conditional use permit, the applicants Will be required to receive a
kennel license per Section 7-4 of the City Code, must comply with all Health
Department regulations. The final requirement of the conditional use permit is stipulates
that the property owner shall give the City 14 days notice if the animal kennel intends to
leave the premises to allow final inspection. This gives the City some assurances that
the site is properly maintained and clean up prior to the departure of a use.
In addition to amending the Zoning Ordinance, a number of changes are required to the
City Cede pertaining to the licensing of dog kennels and cat shelters. We have
attached a copy of the City Code that licenses dog kennels and cat shelters. The
following areas would require some change:
Section 7-4.A. 1 would change the reference CB, Community Business to I, Industrial
District.
Section 7-4.A.2 would change the reference to CB, Community Business to I, Industrial
District.
Section 7-4. F would need to change the maximum number of dogs or cats within the
facility from 10 to 30.
In speaking to the applicant's architect (Ron Tupy) on December 9, 2002, he raised the
following questions:
8
Is 100 square feet per dog necessary? The Animal Humane Society only
requires 35 square feet per dog.
Could we reduce the number of required cages to one cage for two or three
animals?
Does the temperature requirement in 4.205(15)(d) prohibit opening the doore of
the building on a warm summer day (80 degrees)?
I will be speaking to Officer Mahan prior to Thursday's Codes and Standards meeting to
offer some answers to the aforementioned questions.
cc: Tom Mahan (763/531-5174)
2
~,~..~ 57'75 Wayzata I~oulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nac~31anning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk Mcdonald
Daniel Licht / Alan Brixius
November 7, 2002
New Hope - Animal Kennels
131.00 - 02.08
The City has recently been recently approached by a business interested in establishing
a dog day care within on a property within the Industrial District. Currently, the Zoning
Ordinance does not allow for this type of use within the Industrial Districts or other
districts as it is not specifically identified. However, Chapter 7 of the City Code
addresses dog kennel operations and states that kennels are allowed within the CB
Zoning District. CB District is a general commercial zoning district that encompasses
most of the major shopping centers. On this basis, the business is now considering
locating in the Post Haste Shopping.
City staff raised concern about the potential impacts that a dog day care or kennel may
have on adjoining commercial businesses within the same shopping center. We have
been asked to review performance standards that would govern the introduction of a
kennel or day care within the City. We have also been asked to identify what zoning
district would be most appropriate for accommodating this type of use. We have met
with City staff and the City's animal control officer to discuss these topics and establish
some broad performance standards.
Attached to this memorandum is a list of potential definitions that define dog day care
kennels, pet shops, veterinarian clinics from other communities. Also outlined is
suggested language that would allow animal kennels as a conditional use within the
City's industrial zoning district with requirements to address the operational
characteristics and land use issues that may have an impact on adjoining businesses or
properties. The attached information is fairly comprehensive and extensive in nature.
City staff believes that the industrial zoning district is most appropriate for this type of
conditional use on the basis of the following:
The lot area and building sizes provide a greater opportunity for the space
needs of the individual dogs.
The industrial area provides for more intense land use mixture. Concerns that
an animal kennel may provide are noise, odors, and sanitation issues that
would be better addressed in the industrial district over the commercial zoning
districts.
The attached information is offered as a first draft and we look forward to potential
changes to suggested language based on staff and community review.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 02-
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING COMMERCIAL
DOG DAY CARE FACILITIES AS CONDITIONAL USES
IN THE I ZONING DISTRICT
The City Council of the city of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 4.205 "Conditional Uses, I" is hereby amended by addin,q tho
following:
4.205 (8) Animal Kennels, Do,q Day Care. Provided that:
4.205(8) (a) All areas in which animals are confined are located indoors and am
properly soundproofed from adjacent properties.
4.205(8) (b)
The number of animals boarded shall not excccd thirty (30). Thc.,
facility must provide 100 square feet per do,q exclusive of office or
storage area. The facility must provide one (1) ca,qe or air kennel
per do,q.
4.205(8) (c) The facility must provide one (1) handler/staff person per ten (10)
do,qs.
4.205(8) (d)
An indoor or outdoor exercise area shall be provided to
accommodate the periodic exercisinq of animals boarded at th~-,
kennel. The exercisin,q area must provide 100 square feet per doff
that occupies that area at any one time. The outdoor exercise amc,
must be fenced, must have a pervious surface, and the area mus[
.be cleaned re,qularly.
4.205(8) re)
A ventilation system shall be desi,qned so that no odors or
or,qanisms will spread between tenant bays or to the outside al,
and will be capable of completely exchan,qin,q internal air at a rate
of at least twice per hour. Air temperature must be maintaine~!
between sixty de,qrees and seventy five de,qrees Fahrenheit (60
75F). '
4.205(8)
A room separate from the kennel areas shall be provided o~'
sufficient size to adequately separate animals that are sick o,
injured from healthy animals,
4.205f8) (,Cl)
4.205(8) (h)
4.205(8) (i)
4.205{'8) (i)
Indoor animal kennel floors and walls shall be made of nonporous
materials or sealed concrete to make it nonporous.
Animal wastes shall be flushed down an existin,cl sanitary sewer
system or enclosed in a container of sufficient construction to
eliminate odors and organisms and shall be properly disposed of at
least once a day.
The appropriate license is obtained from the City Clerk and the
conditions of Section 7-4 of the City Code are met.
All state health department and Minnesota pollution control a,qency
requirements for such facilities are met.
Potential Definitions
What is Dog Daycare?
Definition of Dog Daycare:
An organized, controlled and monitored environment for a group of friendly
dogs to interact and play throughout the day in an enclosed building or
yard. Scheduled activities will depend on the individual daycare owner, but
typically there is a rest period where the dogs may nap during the day,
which may be in individual housing. The purpose of dog daycare is to
provide stimulation, exercise, socialization, and in some cases training for
a dog that might otherwise be left home alone during the day. The owner
of the dog receives peace of mind knowing their dog is being cared for by
experienced professionals and will be just as tired as they are at the end
of a busy day.
What is Dog Daycare?
The definition of Dog Daycare, as described by the Professional Association of Dog
Daycares (PADD), is an organized controlled and monitored environment for a group of
friendly dogs to interact and play throughout the day in an enclosed building or yard.
Lakeville
ANIMAL KENNEL: Any place where three (3) or more domestic animals of one type,
over six (6) months of age, are commercially kept, sold, boarded, bred, or exhibited,
except hospitals, clinics, and other premises operated by a licensed veterinarian
exclusively for the care and treatment of animals.
PET SHOP: A place kept or maintained for the exhibition for sale, or sale or purchase of
live dogs, cats, rabbits or other small animals, or any birds, reptiles or fish. Pet shops
may include incidental animal grooming and adoption activities, but not animal
hospitals, veterinary clinics, or places selling live bait for fishing.
VETERINARY CLINIC: A clinic operated by a licensed veterinarian exclusively for the
diagnosis, treatment, correction, relief, or prevention of animal disease, deformity,
defect, injury, or other physical or mental conditions; the performance of obstetrical
procedures for animals, including determination of pregnancy and correction of sterility
or infertility; and the rendering of advice or recommendations with regard to any of the
above.
New Hope
Dog kennel means any place where four dogs or more over six months of age are
boarded, bred and/or offered for sale, except a veterinary clinic.
Otsego
Veterinary Clinic: Those uses concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and medical
care of animals including animal or pet hospitals.
Kennel: Any lot, premises, dwelling or dwelling unit in which three (3) or more dogs
over the age of six months are kept, harbored, owned or othem/ise possessed, either on
a commercial basis or scale for boarding or breeding, or on a private basis for personal
use, enjoyment or profit.
Crystal
Subd. 4. "Commercial kennel" means any place where dogs or other animals are kept,
and where the business of raising, selling, boarding, breeding, showing, treating, or
grooming of dogs or other animals is conducted. The term includes pet shops, animal
hospitals, kennel and other similar type operations.
Bloomington
Kennel - any lot or premises or portion thereof on which more than four (4) dogs, cats,
or other household domestic animals over six (6) months old are kept or on which more
than two (2) such animals are boarded for compensation or kept for sale.
Pet Shop - any person, whether operated separately or in connection with another
business enterprise, that buys, exhibits, or sells any species of animal.
Memorandum
To:
From:
D~te:
Sub~e~t:
Dan Donahue, Kirk McDonald, Doug Sandstad, Chuck Tatro,
Tom Mahan, Animal Control Officer
October 16, 2002
Proposed dog daycare facility
Steve Sondrall
These are some items for discussion at our meeting on October 18, 2002.
How do we define this operation? Is it a kennel or a service facility? If the owner decides to take
on additional activities, such as training or grooming, do we redefine it?
There should be a maximum number of animals allowed. My research found the following
information. The recommended facility size should allow for 100 square feet (10 xl0 feet) per
dog. This is based mainly on the large breeds and giving them room to move around. It is also
recommended there be a ratio of I handler per 10 dogs. There are successful daycare
businesses that are all indoor. The indoor facility requires more manpower for walking dogs
several times a day or they provide an elimination area indoors. One daycare uses "puppy
perks," which are essentially canine litter boxes. An indoor facility will have to arrange for
ventilation as well, to keep the air fresh and keep down odors with proper cleaning. The
Amedcan Humane Association recommends that the air change completely every 10 minutes.
There are some advantages to an all-indoor facility. The chance of escape due to chewing
through fencing or climbing are eliminated and the climate is controlled year round. The issue of
neighbors complaining about dogs barking outside is also greatly reduced.
The floodng must be impervious to water, udne and fecal matter. It needs to be easy to clean
and able to be sanitized. It needs to hold up to dogs playing on it and frequent cleaning. The
surface should be non-slip and somewhat soft since dogs are playing, romping, and running upon
it. Sealed concrete, linoleum, rubber floodng, recycled tire mats and special carpeting have
been suggested by one online daycare group.
The owner should create a SOP/training manual. This manual should include: method of waste
disposal; selection of clients and their dogs including checking dogs' vaccination, health and
behavioral histories; safety factors that include fire escape/handling, aggressive dogs and
segregating dogs.
CODES AND STANDARDS
DOG DAYCARE
Building codes establish minimum standards determined by model codes and adopted by
the State of MN.
1)
Intent of Building Codes (IBC)
a) The purpose of building codes are to establish the minimum requirements to
safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength,
means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation,
energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards
attributed to the built environment.
2)
Change in Occupancy (section 102.5 IMC)
a) It shall be unlawful to make a change in the occupancy of any structure which
will subject the structure to any special provision of this code applicable to new
occupancy without approval. The building official shall certify that such structure
meets the intent of the provisions of law goveming building construction for the
proposed new occupancy and that such change of occupancy does not result in
any hazard to the public health, safety or welfare.
3)
Requirements of 2000 International Mechanical Code
a) Section 403.3 list types of occupancies and the minimum required ventilation.
The application being considered is categorized as"B" type occupancy and an
industrial building category is"S" type occupancy. The ventilation requirements
differ due to the type of use and safety for occupants and buildings. When a
space has a change in occupancy, it is required to meet all building code
requirements as of the date of revision.
i) Table 403.3 states that as a specialty shop, "pet shop" the ventilation
requirement is one cfm/sq.ft. (see attachment)
b) Tim Loth of Egan Mechanical suggested that the one cfm requirement would be
inadequate in many situations for this type of application.
i) The City would need justification to require a more restrictive requirement
then what the IMC requires.
4)
Cost estimates
a) Egan Mechanical gave some ballpark estimates of ventilation installations.
i) Exhaust system without supplemental heat will cost from $0.75 to $0.90 per
CFM. Considering a 4000 square foot space the estimated cost of installation
is $3000.00 to $3600.00.
ii) The addition of a heating unit will increase to cost from $1.00 to $1.50 per
CFM. Considering a 4000 sq. ft. space, the estimated cost of installation is
$4000.00 to $6000.00.
b) Egan Mechanical recommended the installation of a dehumidifier, (not a code
requirement). They said the problems with this type of use and the summer heat,
that animals will produce an awful odor. To dehumidify the space will decrease
this problem.
c) Egan Mechanical suggested that one CFM per sq. fi. is low for required
ventilation. They recommended 6 to 10 air changes per hour.
i) Formula for changing air changes per hour to CFM's.
(1) Sq. fi. of floor area (X) ceiling height (X) number of air changes (/) 60 (=)
CFM
It is my recommendation to require a ventilation system as established by the mechanical
code. The cost of improvement is not excessive and will allow this tenant to exist in
harmony with existing tenants.
403.2 - TABLE 403.3 VENTILATION
Ventilation supply systems shall be designed to deliver the
required rate of supply air to the occupied zone within an occu-
pied space. The occupied zone shall have boundaries measured
at 3 inches (76 mm) and 72 inches (1829 mm) above the floor
and24 inches (610 mm) from the enclosing walls.
403.2 Outdoor air required. The minimum ventilation rate of
required outdoor air shall be determined in accordance with
Section 403.3.
403.2.1 Recirculation of air. The air required by Section
403.3 shall not be recirculated. Air in excess of that required
by Section 403.3 shall not be prohibited from being
recireulated as a component of supply air to building spaces,
except that:
1. Ventilation air shall not be recireulated from one
dwelling to another or to dissimilar occupancies.
2. Supply air to a swimming pool and associated deck
areas shall not be recirculated unless such air is dehu-
midified to maintain the relative humidity of the area
at 60 percent or less. 'Air from this area shall not be
recireulated to other spaces.
3. Where mechanical exhaust is required by Table
403.3, recireulation of air from such spaces shall be
prohibited. Ail air supplied to such spaces shall be ex-
hausted, including any air in excess of that required by
Table 403.3.
403.2.2 Transfer air. Except where recirculation from such
spaces is prohibited by Table 403.3, air Irunsferred from oc-
cupied spaces is not prohibited from serving as makeup air
for required exhaust systems in such spaces as kitchens,
baths, toilet rooms, elevators and smoking lounges. The
amount of ~'ansfer air and exhaust air shall be sufficient to
provide the flow rates as specified in Sections 403.3 and
403.3.1. The' required outdoor air rates specified in Table
403.3 shall be introduced directly into such spaces or into
the occupied spaces from which air is transferred or a com-
bination of both.
403.3 Ventilation rate. Ventilation systems shall be designed
to have the capacity to supply the llainlmum outdoor airflow
rate determined in accordance with Table 403.3 based on the
occupancy of the space and the occupant load or other parame-
ter as stated therein. The occupant load ufili?~cl for design of
the ventilation system shall not be less than the number deter-
mined from the estimated maximum occupant load rate indi-
cated in Table 403.3. Ventilation rates for occupancies not
represented in Table 403.3 shaLl be determined by an approved
engineering analysis. The ventilation system shall be designed
to supply the required rate of ventilation air continuously dur-
ing the period the building is occupied, except as otherwise
stated in other provisions of the code.
Exception: The occupant Icad is not required to be deter-
mined, based on the estimated maximum occupant load rate
indicated in Table 403.3 where approved statistical data
document the accuracy of an alternate anticipated occupant
density.
TABLE 403.3 _
REQUIRED OUTDOOR VENTILATION AIR
ESTIMATED
MAXIMUM OUTDOOR AIR
OCCUPANT [cubic feet per
LOAD, PERSONS minute (cfm)
PER 1,000 per pe~on] ·
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SQUARE FEETa UNLESS NOTED
Correctionsl facll~fl~
Cells 20 20
Dinin~ haJ~s 100
Guard stations 40
Dry cleaners, laundries
Coin-operated dry cleaner 20 lS
Coin-operated laundries 20 15
Commercial dry cleaner 30 30
Commercial laundry 10 25
Storage, pick up 30 25
F~ucatian
Auditor~umn 150
Classroom S0 IS
Corridors -- 0.10 cfm/fta
Laboratories 30 20
Libraries 20
Locker rooms -- 0.50 cfm/fta
Music rooms 50 15
Smoking loungesb~ 70 60
Training shops 30 20
Food and beverage service
Bars, cocktail lounges 100 30
Cafeteria, fast food 100 20
Dining rooms 70 20
Kitchens (cookin~ 20 15
Hospitals, nursing and
convalescent homes
Autopsy roomsb ~ 0.50 efm/fta
Medical proeexlur~ rooms 20 15
Operating rooms 20 30
Patient rooms 10 25
Physical therapy 20 15
~very and ICU 20 15
tlotels, motels, resorts and
dormitories
Assembly rooms 120 15
Bathroomsb~ ~ 35 cfm per room
Bedrooms -- 30 cfm per room
Conference rooms 50 20
Dormitory sleeping areas 20 15
Gambling casinos 120 30
Living rooms ~ 30 cfm per room
Lobbies 30 15
Offices
Conference rooms 50 20
Office spaces 7 20
Reception areas 60 15
Telecommunication centers
and t~At~ enlxy 60 20
I
(continued)
28
2000 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE®
VENTILATION
TABLE 403.3 - 403.3.1
TABLE 403.3--continued
REQUIRED OUTDOOR VENTILATION AIR
TABLE 403.3--.continued
REQUIRED OUTDOOR VENTILATION AIR
MAXIMUM OUTDOOR AIR
OCCUPANT [cubic feet per
' LOAD, PERSONS minute (cfm)
PER 1,000 per peraon]
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SQUARE FEE'r~ UNI F-_e~e NOTED·
Private dwellings, single and
multiple
Living areas' Based upon
numbcr of 0.35 air changes
bedrooms, pez'hour' or 15
FL-st bedroom: cfm perperson,
2; whichever ts
each additional greater
bedroom: 1
! Kitchcns~ ~ 100 cfin
mtermittcn~ or
25 cfm
continuous
Tofle~ rooms and ~ Mechanical
bathrooms~ exhaust capacity
of 50 cfm
intermittent or
20 cfm
continuous
Garages, separate for -- 100 cfm per car
each dwelling
Garages, common for -- 1.5 cfm/ft2
multiple unitsb
Public spaces
Corn'dom and utilities -- 0.05 cfm/ft2
Elevators~ -- 1.00 cfm/fl2
Locker and dressing roomsb ~ 0.5 cfm/ft2
Toilet roomsb~ -- 75 cfm pcr
water close~
Smoking loun~es~a 70 60
Retail stores, sales floors and
showroom floors
Basement and street -- 0.30 cfm/ft2
Dressing rooms -- 0.20 cfm/ft2
Malls and arcades ~ 0.20 cfm/ft2
Shipping and receiving -- 0.15 cfm/fl2
Smoking loungesb 70 60
Storage rooms ~ 0.15 cf~Vft2
Upper floors -- 0.20 cfm/ft2
Warehouses -- 0.05 cfm/ft2
Specialty shops
Automotive service stafious -- 1.5 cf:m/ft2
Barber 25 15
Beauty 25 25
C]othle~, furaiture -- 0.30 cfi~ft2
Florists 8 15
Hardware, drugs, fabrics 8 15
Pet shops ~ 1.00 cfm/ft2
Reducing salons
Supermarkets I 20 15
8 15
ESTIMATED
MAXIMUM OUTDOOR AIR
OCCUPANT [cubic feet per
LOAD, PERSONS minute (cfm)
PER 1,000 per person]
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SQUARE FEET" UNLE_eS NOTED
Auditoriums 150 15
Lobbies 150 20
Stages, studios 70 15
Ticket booths 60 20
Transportation
Platforms 100 15
Vehicles 150 15
Waiting rooms 100 15
Workrooms
Bank vaults 5 15
Darkrooms -- 0.50 cfm/fi2
Duplicating, printing -- 0.50 cfm/f~
Meat processing~ 10 15
Pharmacy 20 15
Photo studios I 0 15
Sports and amusement
Ballrooms and discos 100 25
Bowling alleys (seating
areas) 70 25
Game rooms 70 25
Ice arenas ~ 0.50 cfm/ft~
Playing floors (gymnasium.~) 30 20
Spectator areas 150 15
Swimming pooh (pool
and deck area) ~ 0.50 efm/ft2
Storage
Repair garages, enclosed
parking garagesd ~ 1.5 cfm/fi2 '
Warehouses ~ 0.05 cfm/~
ForSI: I cubic foot per minute = 0.0004719 ms~/s, 1 ton=908kg,
1 cubic foot per minute ~ ~luare foot = 0.00508 m3/(s · m=),
°C = [(°F) -32]/1.8, 1 square foot = 0.0929 m2.
a. Based upon net floor area. . ~
pcrzmuea oy ~ecuon 403.2.1 is prohibi~i (see Section 403.2.1). '
c. Spaces .unheated ot mu/ntu~ned below 50OF are not covered by these tequLre.
g.
(continued)
_re_ga fl..~_ r .area n~ .exceeding 8.50 square feet and used for the storage of not
mo~e man rout vemc~es or Irucks of I ton maximum capacity.
bic feet per minute per square foot of the floor area being venHh**cL
.Thc sum of the outdoor and transfer air from adjacent spaces shall be suffi-
ment to provide an exhaust rate of not less tban
Transfer air petmitmd ia accordance with Secttoa 403.2.2.
403.3.1 System operation. The minimum flow rate of out-
door air that the ventilation system must be capable of sup-
plying during its operation shall be permitted to be based on
the rate per person indicated in Table 403.3 and the actual
number of occupants present.
2000 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE~
29
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 10-14-02 Ordinances &
Resolutions
.~ Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald By:
ORDINANCE NO. 02-12, AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON
ALL DOG KENNEL AND CAT SHELTER LICENSES IN THE CITY
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the enclosed ordinance, which establishes a temporary prohibition on all dog
kennel and cat shelter licenses within the City of New Hope until April 30, 2003.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
In the past, the City Council has approved moratoriums on certain issues or types of businesses to allow time
to study the issue. Past examples include the study of pawnshops and adult entertainment uses, and most
recently a study on thrift stores.
BACKGROUND
Staff recently received an inquiry about the location of a dog kennel business for the daycare of dogs at the
Post Haste Shopping Center, which is zoned CB, Commercial 'Business. While the dog kennel ordinance
(Chapter 7 of the City Code) allows kennels to be located in a CB Zoning District, the uses listed in the CB
District (Chapter 4 of the Code) make no reference to dog kennels. Staff has some concerns about a dog
daycare/kennel business being located in a shopping center and would like to conduct a short study on this
~ssue and bdng recommendations back to the Council for consideration. Some of staff's concerns include
location next to a restaurant, no requirement for an outdoor dog run or walk space, dog excrement and urine
inside a retail building and similar issues. The Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit process for a
child daycare center, so perhaps a little more scrutiny should be paid to dog daycare centers. The New Hope
Animal Control Officer has reviewed this issue and is in agreement with Community Development staff. While
the City wants to promote a variety of uses at the commercial centers, the uses also need to be compatible
with one another.
Some of the issues staff will be discussing in the study include:
· What Zoning Districts are appropriate for dog kennels.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
'TO:
Request for Action
Page 2
10-14-02
· Should there be a separation or distance requirement from other businesses.
· What regulations should be established for outside exercise and cleanup of waste.
· Should the use be a permitted or conditional use.
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. The moratorium/prohibition is effective through Apdl 30, 2003,
although staff feels that recommendations can be developed in several months. Upon direction from the City
Council, the Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning Commission, in conjunction with the Planning
Consultant, City Attorney and city staff (including the Animal Control Officer) will meet to study different
aspects of this issue.
ATrACHMENTS
· Ordinance Extending Moratorium
· 7/3 City Attorney Correspondence
· Current City Code Excerpts
r)o{'GI ~ J
GORDON L. J£NSEN~
GLEN A. NORTON
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
WII.I.{~M C' STRAIT:
STAC) A. WOODS
OF COUNSEL
LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD
'Real Property Law Spe~iaim
Certified By The
'Qualified ADR Neu~-al
'A~mmed m Iowa
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A.
~4ttorneys ~4t Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING. ST'~01
BROOKLYN PARK. MINNESOTA 55443-_ .68
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail iaw~jensen-sondrali.com
October 1, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE TO (763) 531-5136
AND BY REG~ U.S. MAIL
Kirk McDonald '
Community Development Director
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Ordinance No. 02-12/An Interim Ordinance Establishing a Temporary
Prohibition on All Dog Kennel and Cat Shelter Licenses in the City
Our File No.: 99.80212
Hcase fine enclosed for consideration at the October 14, 2002 Council meeting, proposed
Ordinance No. 02-12, An Interim Ordinance Establishing a Temporary Prohibition on All
Dog Kennel and Cat Shelter Licenses in the City. ~ Ordinance is prepared in response
to your September 25, 2002 e-mail concerning a proposed dog kennel/daycare operation
at the Poste Haste Shopping Center.
I will assume there will be direction by the City Council at the October 14" meeting for a
planning study to consider the appropriate zonlnE districts and land use controls and
regulations for animal daycare centers as well as kennels and cat shelters.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments
Ordinance for consideration at thc next Council meeting.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
JENSF~ & $ONDRALL, P.A.
After Ho~r~ F. ymm~m #147
regarding the enclosed
Enclosure
cc: Valerie Leone (w/enc.)
ORDINANCE NO. 02-12
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY
PROHIRITION ON ALL DOG
KENNEL AND CAT SHELTER
LICENSES IN THE CITY
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 1.169 "Temporary Prohibition of Dog Kennel and Cat Shelter
Licenses" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows:
Section 1.169. "Temporary Prohibition of Dog Kennel and Cat Shelter
Licenses".. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 462.355, Subd. 4. a total City-
wide pro. hibition is hereby imposed until April 30, 2003 on the application
for and z~suance of a dog kennel or cat shelter license under Chapter 8 of
~ C~od.e or for any building and occupancy permits under Chapter 3 of
um t~one, text changes, variances, conditional use permits and rezoning
requests under Chapter 4 of this Code and .subdivision requests under
Chapter 13 of this Code for any construction, use, development or
su~bdi ~vtsion .of all r.~!d_ential, commercial and industrial zoned properties as
a nog Keunei or caz sneiter in the City of New Hope.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Dated the 14'~ day of October, 2002.
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Attest:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the
2002.)
day of
§ 4-15
NEW HOPE CODE
b. Outside sales areas are landscaped and fenced or screened from view o£
neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district.
c. All ligb~in_o shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be
visible f~om the public r/~ht-of-way or from neighboring residences.
d. Areas are asphalt or concrete surfaced.
e. The use does not take up parking space or loading areas as reqmred for
conformity to this Code.
(4) Day care. A stats licensed facility, serving 13 or more persons, provided that:
a. State re~t/on~. The regulations and condit/ons of[M~n,~. Rules Part 9545.0510
through 9545.0670 are satisfactorily met. No facility shall begin operation
without a stats license.
b. Building and fire code. That ali applicable provis/ons of the M/nnesota Stats
Bu/lding Code and F/re Code have been met. That the c/ty building official and
fire department shall inspect the property pr/or to the issuance of the conditional
use permit to detsrmlve ffthis subsection of this Code has been complied with.
(f) Lot requirements, building height~, and ~etbacks. The following minimum requ/rements
shall be observed in the LB zoning distr/ct subject to add/tional requ/rements, exception, and
modification set forth in this Code.
(1) Lot area. 10,000 square feet.
(2) Lot width. 80 feet.
(3) Building height. Three mr/es or 36 feet, whichever is greater.
(4) Setbacks.
Front: Arte.
rial or Com.
munity Col.
Front: Local lector Street Side: Interior
Street (a) Rear Side Yard Co)
20 feet 20 feet 30 feet 10/20 feet
(a) See subsection 4~(cX6)b of this Code.
Side Corner:
Local Street
20 feet
Side: Arterial
or Commu.
nity Collector
Street (a)
20 feet
~) .~u~fOo~, ~de ~ setbacks are required except a 20 foot side yard setback will be
whore the lot abuts an R-! or R-2 zoning district
establishment of commercial and ~ .... ~ ~~ datrict is to prov/de for the
· .,~ v,~ activities which draw
ZON'I~G
§ 4-16
. The following are permitted uses in a CB district:
(2) Municipal ~ovemment and ufilit~ building.
(3) Hospit~iW business.
(4) Office business (commercial, professional and medical).
(5) Personal services Subject to the licensing requirements of chapter 8 of this Code.
(6) Recr~tions! business not eXc2edln..o 10,000 squat2 feet in area.
(7) P,~taurant (cafes, delicatessens, convenience food).
(8) Retail business.
(9) Service business.
(10) Theaters.
(11) Training and specialty schools.
(c) Permitted accessory uses, CB. The following are permitted accessory uses in a CB
(1)
o~C.,cessory b _u~lding. Accessory building for commercial uses shall not exceed 30 percent
me gross floor space of the principal building.
(2) Parking. Off-street parkiag as regulated by subsection dS(e).
(3) Off-street loading. Off-street loadia~ as r~gulated by subsection 4-3(f).
(4) Adult uses--Accessory. Subject to the regulations of subsection 4-3ik) of this Code.
(5) Accessory antmmas. Accessory antennas ia conformance with subsection 4-3CoX6)h of
this Code.
perm2~ oased on the ruced
regula~ by section 4-31 and '~- .... P urns set forth in
· ~ penormanee standards set forth in so, ion 4-3 of this
(1) Personal -~.-~ ....... ' Code_
--------~ ~mms per su~ion 4-3(1) of this Code.
(2) Outdoor sales of seasonal produce subject to the permit requimmenta of chapter 8 of
this Code.
(3) ~Dri__v~._~ service hum. A drive*throuf~ service lane
Stuck/rig. Not ~ than 120 feet of segregat~ automobile stacking must be
the miahnum automobile stacking may be reduced to 60 f~t per lane.
CD4:107
§ 7-2
NEW HOPE CODE
(14) Penalty. Any person violfll~lg R~ly Of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a
petty mi-demeanor provided, however, that violation of the bi~ng ~nlmels provision,
above, by au ,nlm~] owner, or person responsible for any animal, shall be a
(Ord. No. 72-9; Ord. No. 73-3; Ord. No. 73-20; Ord. No. 74-13; Ord. No. 76-12; Ord. No. 76-24;
Ord. No. 80-2, Ord. No. 80-12; Ord. No. 81-5; Code 072684; Ord. No. 89-14; Ord. No. 94-08; Ord.
No. 95-04; Ord. No. 2001-01)
/-See. 7-4. Dog kennels and eat shelte~.~
(a~)'-~wenses for kennel and cat shelter.
(1) Kennel license. No person shall m~i~;~ or operate any kennel without a kennel
license. In no event shall ke~nel licenses be issued unless the property wherein the
kennel is to be situated is z~oned "CB" community buainen dis~ot under chapter 4.
(2) Cat shelter Hcense. No person shall maintain or operate any cat shelter without a cat
shelter license. In no event shall cat shelter licenses be issued unless the property
wherein the cat shelter is to be situated is zoned 'CB" community business dis~-ict
under chapter 4. ~
(b) Application. Applications for a kennel or cat shelter license shall be made upon forms
provided by the city. Any applicant for a dog kennel license shall in addition to paying the
license fee, present to the office of the clerk satisfactory proof that the dogs have received
vaccination for rabies within 12 monthz previous to the application, with rabies vaccine,
modified live virus type, or within three months previous to the application with rabies
vaccine, killed virus type. All dogs kept in kennels shall promptly be vaccinated.
(c) L/tense fees. The license fee for a dog kennel license and a cat shelter license shall be as
proscribed in chapter 14. The license fee for a kennel license shall be in addition to the fees
payable for individual licenses for dogs kept in the kennel.
(d) L/cenfe e~oirat/o;r Each license shall expire on December 31, nm following the
th(e) 7)'ansfembility of bAse. F~ennel licenses and cat shelter licenses shaU apply solely to · named licensee and shall not be transferable to any other person.
.k~n.(f) Number. The rnmTim~m nLunber ofdop permitted by this section to L .......
a licensed cat shelter shall be ten~ by this section to be kept in
(g) SMndards for ~nnd operu~n. Evm-y lr, mmel shall:
(1) Fenced. Be enaloeed or funced in such m*--er so as to prevent the run,~n~ at large or
escape of dogs confined therein;
(2) Clean. Be operated in a clean, healthy, sanitary, and safe condition, and a humane
CD7:8
~T~.~ T ~ § ?-4
(3) Enclosed building. Keep dogs between the hours of sunset and sunrise in an enclosed
(4) Shelter and bedding. When a dog or dogs are kept in an unheated buUdmg provide
such dog or dogs with shelter and bedding as prescribed herein as a nzimm~,~;
a. Protection from the coM. Such building shall include a moisture-proof and
wind-proof structure of suitable size to accommodate the dog and allow retention
of body heat, mede of durable material, with a solid floor raised at least two
inches from the ~reund and with the entrance covered by a flerible w~nd-preof
material or a self-dosing swingi~ door. Such building shall be provided with a
s-mcient quantity of suitable bedding material, consisting of bay, straw, cedar
shavings, blankets, or the equivalent, to provide insulation and protection
ft~i~t cold and dampness and promote retention of body heat.
b. Protection from the #un. Shadefr°mthecLimctraysofthesun, duringthemonths
of June to September, inclusive, shall be provided.
(6) Prevention of public nuisance. Be operated so as not to create a public nuisance
~,, =~.~mm. -~ne aeterm/aation b
Council as to the manner of operation of.n= ke-.-,,.~ :- --~ ...... y th.e
rna .he, Il k.~ .......... ~ ,m.~m m z~M~laO~ [0 an O~'the '
(h) Standards for cat shelter operation. Every cat ~helter ahall:
(1) Fenced. Be e~Josed or fenced in such manner so as to prevent the runn/ng at large or
(2) Clean. Be operated in a dean, healthy, sanitary, and safe condition, and a humane
mAnne$,-;
(3)
Enclosed building. Keep cats between the hours of sunset and sunrise in an enclosed
building,
(4) · · .
the neJfhborhood; ,~nun~ or aowun~ so as to disturb the peace and quiet of
(5) Prevelltion of public rqzimmce. Be opera~ .o as not to create a public nu/aance
~dSasfer rev°cation ofthe licanoe of such cat shalter Thed . .
CD7:9
§ 7-4
NEW HOPE CODE
(i) Kennel and cat shelter control. Both kennels and cat shelters shall be open for inspection
by the city authorities at any time.
Reserved.
(k) Penalty. Violation of any of the provision= of this section shall be a misdemeanor.
(Ord. No. 66-20; Code 072684; Ord. No. 93-02; Ord. No. 94-18; Ord. No. 97-10; [Code]
05/'14/2001)
See. 7-6. Limitations on keeping of animals.
It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and -nl~,~ftt] to allOW, pelq~t, ]ct~ep, il~intain,
ride, he~l, drive or harbor animals wit~, the city, in violatioa of the following regulations:
(1) Dogs. Four or more dogs over six months old, to a li,-it of ten dogs including puppies
under six months old, unless a kennel license is obtained.
(2) Cats. Four or more cats over six months old, to a ]halt of ten cats including kittens
under six months old, n-less a kennel license is obtained.
(3) Fowl. Chickens, ducks, geese, pheasants, turkeys or other domestic, agricultural or
wild fowl ffthe ml-i-,um lot area where the animals are kept does not exceed 54,450
square feet and then no more than six animals are permitted.
(4) W'dd animals. Live wild animals except household pets not exceeding 20 pounds
eont~-ed to a ca~e within a dwelling. All wild n-~,,,,0_- kept per this section shall be
licensed, registered, vaccinated and ~ in accordance with the same regulations
for dogs in suim~tions 7-2(1) and 7-2(2) of this Code.
(5) Hoofed an/mats. Any horses, cows, sheep, goats, pip or any other hoofed n,~i,~als with
the exception of one pot-~ed pig.
(6) Any combination of animals and/or fowl of any age kept in such numbers or under
cond/tions which unreasonably annoy, i~jure, or endan&~r the health, safety, comfort,
repose or welfare of the pubUc or of said an/ranis or fowl.
See. ?-7. Exempt animals.
The prov/m'ons of this Code shall not apply to the foUowing circumstances:
(1) _Ownsrs or ponseesors ofwild an/reals where such nni,~,~ are exhibitod ......
· . m me c~Cy
mum. orar~ ~ U?A.041 provided the following eond/tions are met:
a~ The eninuds are not permanently sheltered, kept or maintained in the city.
(2) Licenesd vetorinnrians treating animals in an animal hcapital or clinic lawfully
locatad in a CB or R-O zonin~ district by cenditienal use.
CD7:10
§ 7-7
(3) Pet scores lawfully located in the CB zoning districts.
(4) Research laboratories lawfully located in the industrial zonin~ di~l:rict keeping and
m~int~inlrl~ mnlmn]a for research purposes on condition that a~ appropriate federal,
state and local licenses and permits to conduct said research have been obtained, all
federal, state and local regulations governing the keeping and maintenance of said
Anima]~ ltl'e complied with and that the animals are maintained in a totally enclosed
facility constructed to comply with the noise regulations of this Code.
(Ord. No. 94-18; Code 5/14/2001)
~D7:LI
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date:
Report Date:
02-26
January 7, 2003
January 3, 2003
New Hope Properties Ltd. Partnership and Judy Jo Paskiewicz
8835 East Research Center Road
Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Dog Day Care Facility in an Industrial District
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting consideration of a request for a conditional use permit to allow a dog day
care facility in an Industrial District. Staff is recommending that the request be tabled because there
are a number of items that need further clarification. The applicant did not desire to table the
application.
II. Zoning Code References
Conditional Use Permit, Dog Day Care
Conditional Use Permit
Section 4.20(e)(16)
Section 4-33
Property Specifications
Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses:
I, Industrial
400 feet west of Boone Avenue on East Research Center Road
I, Industrial to the north, west and east, Open Space/Public (Public Works
facility) to the south
Site Area: Irregularly shaped "near-triangular" lot (240' deep and 509' wide) 88,472 sq.
ft. = 2.03 acres
Building Area: Existing: 120' x 210' = 25,200 sq. ft. - no change proposed
Lot Area Ratios: Building = 28%
Green = 29%
Paved or concrete = 43%
Planning District: No. 3; The Comprehensive Plan states that the primary goal within Planning
District 3 is the preservation and enhancement of its industrial land use,
including 1) Work with existing industries to encourage business retention and
in-place expansion, 2) Redevelop two substandard sites located along the
south side of East Research Center Road to establish sites for new industrial
development, and 3) Promote the proper screening of outdoor storage areas
within the industrial park.
IV. Background/Ordinance
Planner's Report
~New Hope Properties Limited Partnership is proposing to bring K-9 Puppy Day Care Facility into an
industrial building located at 8835 East Research Center Road in New Hope. This facility would be run
Planning Case Report 02-26 Page I 1-3-03
III.
by Ms. Judy Jo Paskiewicz. To facilitate this new tenant at this industrial site, a conditional use permit_
will be required for a dog day care in an industrial zoning district.
Currently, city zoning regulations do not provide for dog kennels or animal day care facilities of this
type within an industrial park setting. A zoning text amendment is being processed in conjunction with
this conditional use permit that will establish commercial kennels and dog day care facilities as
conditional uses within an industrial zoning district.
The proposed conditional use permit was reviewed on December 18 by city staff development review
team and subsequently reviewed by the Design & Review Committee on December 19. Through these
reviews, staff and subcommittee comments were generated and will be included in this review of the
application."
Petitioner's Comments
Comments from the petitioner submitted with the original application include the following:
"This request is a unique opportunity for the City to approve a conditional use permit to allow a doggy
day care facility in the industrial use location on East Research Center Road. This will allow the
proprietor, Ms. Judy Jo Paskiewicz, to provide the community of New Hope, and surrounding
communities, a needed and vital service that it is currently without.
Allowing a doggy day care facility will allow community residents to drop their dogs off at an
environment that will provide physical and mental outlets in the company of other well-socialized dogs.
All supervised within a secure facility. This will provide an enhanced environment for new puppies to
socialize and learn with other older dogs as mentors. It will also provide a great assistance for dogs that
have a hard time being left at home alone all day.
There will be movable partitions to facilitate varied environments from time to time. For instance, there
may be a desire to allow different sized dogs, for their activity levels, to be grouped together or to allow
different activities to go on during the course of the day.
There will be a defined area for the dogs to relieve themselves. The remains will be cleaned up
immediately and disposed of, and the area sanitized properly. This will be facilitated by wiping up the
liquid waste, sanitizing the area and properly disposing of the remnants in a container for such purpose.
The solid waste will be picked up and properly disposed of in a container for such purpose. The
containers will be of a sealable nature with deodorizing elements located within. Upon completed use of
the containers, they will be disposed of properly in the garbage. At the end of the day, the entire floor
area will be cleaned and sanitized one last time for the day.
Hours of Operation. The facility is only a day care provider. Overnight boarding is not a consideration at
this time. Initial hours of operation are projected to be 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Admission Requirements.
1. Proof of current vaccination status is required for day care of each pet.
2. All dogs must pass a temperament test along with a behavioral screening questionnaire. While
the owner fills out the questionnaire, the dog is checked to make sure it can be touched everywhere,
that toys and food can be taken from it if necessary. The dog is then introduced slowly to a few
other dogs in a smaller area to see how it reacts.
3. All dogs must be neutered.
Feedinq. Unless there is a specific health reason why a dog would eat during the day, the dogs are not
fed during the day at the facility. Most dogs only eat once or twice a day. Since they are only at the
facility during the day, they should eat before they come, or after they get home.
Planning Case Report 02-26 Page 2 1-3-03
VI.
VII.
Iniudes. Play styles vary between dogs. Play styles are separated as necessary. While the utmost
attention is taken to insure the safety of all the dogs under care, it is possible that an accident could
occur, leading to injury. Much like children on a playground may get hurt. If this happens, appropriate
treatment actions are taken. The owner of the dog is notified as well.
Illness. Much like a children's day care, if your dog becomes ill while at our facility, steps are taken to
separate the dog and prevent the illness from spreading to other dogs and we will contact the owner to
come and pick up their pet. Asking them to return when it is well again. Also, if an owner knows a pet is
sick, we ask them not to bring it in until it is well again.
Floor Plan and Elevations. Included is a proposed layout identifying the necessary areas within the
operation. The elevations will show proposed signage.
Site Plan. Included is a layout identifying the parking and other site items."
The petitioner also submitted a detailed letter on December 30 with revised plans, which is attached.
Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments.
Development Analysis
A. Zoning Code Criteria
Conditional Use Permit
1. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally
permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the
general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, to allow a conditional use
permit application, the City may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, similar uses
already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon
traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and any other factors bearing on the
general welfare, public health, and safety from the approval of the conditional use permit.
2. Criteria for Decision. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider possible adverse
effects of the proposed conditional use. In determining whether to approve or deny a conditional
use permit, the City Council and Planning Commission shall find that the conditional use permit
complies with the following criteria. The burden of proof demonstrating compliance with the
following criteda shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
A. Comprehensive Plan. 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 Comprehensive
Municipal Plan of the City.
B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent present and future anticipated
land uses.
C. Performance Standard-~, The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance
standards contained in the Code.
D. No Depreciation in Valu~-. The proposed use will not tend to or aciually depreciate the area
in which it is proposed.
E. Zonin.q District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed use meets the
cdteda specified for the vadous zoning districts:
1. In Industrial Districts {I):
a. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse
effect upon existing and future development in adjacent areas.
b..Economic Return. The use will provide an economic return to the community and be
commensurate with other industrial uses for which the property could feasibly be used.
Planning Case Report 02-26 Page 3 1-3-03
In considering the economic return to the community, the Planning Commission and_
City Council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, bo"
positive and negative.
Attached to the previous plan case report is a draft ordinance prepared by the New Hope City Attorney
that outlines the conditions that are deemed appropriate in consideration of this type of use within an
industrial property. Performance standards outlined for this conditional use permit were developed in
conjunction-with the city's Animal Control Officer, the city's building inspectors, and research that was
done in conjunction with keeping and care of dogs and cats. Specific information used included
Minnesota Statutes 346.39 and Minnesota Department of Agricultural Guidelines for the Keeping of
Dogs and Cats. '
Per the Planner's report, "With the completion of an initial draft of the ordinance, staff reviewed the
performance standards once again. A copy of the proposed ordinance went forward to the Codes &
Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission and the ordinance was also forwarded
to the applicant wishing to open the day care. Upon the applicant's review of the code, the following
questions were raised:
1. Is 100 square feet per dog necessary? The Animal Humane Society requires only 25 square
feet per dog.
2. Could the City reduce the number of required cages to allow for one cage per two or three
animals?
3. Does the temperature requirement prohibit the opening of doors of the building on a warm
summer day?
After receipt of the questions from the applicant, staff met again to consider possible changes to the
code. In response to the area requirement per dog, we find that the State Statutes outline shelter size
and limit animal confinement areas to that based on a formula using the animal size. Generally, this is
reflective of confinement areas for individual dogs of 25 to 30 square feet per animal. The square foot
requirement that we have stipulated is a square foot per animal for the entire facility, not exclusive to
just confinement areas, but also including exercise and run areas and feeding areas.
Upon discussion with the Animal Control Officer, it is believed that the 100 square feet per dog overall
is appropriate in that the standard is more in line with minimum requirements for dog runs and exercise
areas which is intended to be the principal use or the care manner for the dog day care facility.
Can we allow for group housing of animals within a single cage or air kennel? State Statutes do
allow for group housing and breeding if the animals are kept in compatible groups and are managed
as a way to prevent endangerment of the health of the animal. This provision may be adjusted if the
Planning Commission determines it is appropriate.
With regard to temperature control and ventilation, Minnesota Statutes 346.39, subdivisions 7 and 8
indicate that confinement areas must be maintained at a temperature suitable for animal involved
and that indoor confinement areas must be ventilated, drafts, odors and condensation must be
minimized. In this respect, the City has established performance standards under the conditional
use permit that are designed in a manner that would achieve these goals. Additionally, the
temperature control elements were based on Department of Agricultural suggestions related to a
Iow temperature and high temperature range that is deemed appropriate for the keeping of animals.
In the proposed ordinance as drafted, we feel comfortable with the performance standards based on
subsequent research and discussion among staff members pertaining to this specific performance
standard. If the Planning Commission chooses to modify that, that is your option, however, in
examining the proposed conditional use permit, the standards that have been drafted in the
proposed ordinance will be used to evaluate the conditional use permit.
Planning Case Report 02-26 Page 4 1-3-03
B. Development Review Team
The Development Review Team reviewed plans for this request on December 18 and offered the
following comments: 1) Concern with dog runs and distance from building, need to mingle with
traffic to get to the dog run to the west; 2) Noise issue with barking dogs; 3) Need more screening
on the rear portion of the property; 4) Hours of operation - 7:30 am - 6 pm, Monday - Friday; 5)
Condition of approval - annual inspection under licensing check by Animal Control Officer; 6) Not
enough parking for morning drop off and evening pick up times - determine amount of parking
needed for building area; 7) Traffic flow; 8) Odor for indoor "potty" area; 9) Square footage per dog
should stay at 100 square feet; 10) Ventilation requirements for this space due to new use; 11) ADA
access in rear of building impedes traffic flow; 12) No outdoor storage shown; 13) Need architects
signature on plans; 14) Site plan does not match the as-built survey in front yard, indicating non-
conforming parking lot violating minimum setback by 8-10 feet; 15) No indication of at least one
restroom per tenant space, as required; 16) Check on signage issues for rear of building; 17) No
dog run in Victory Park area; 18) No shade shown in dog run areas, will be very hot in summer; 19)
Need fence detail; 20) Outdoor drainage flows south, when hosing down dog run near building in
winter, icing will occur and cause hazard in parking lot; 21) Drive aisle to rear of building may be
hazardous for cars with other industrial uses in building; 22) No snow storage shown; 23) Parking
area on southwest corner of property generally contains trucks and trailers for other businesses in
building; 24) Accessibility is a concern as it relates to emergency vehicles and the ramp in the rear
of the building; 25) Non-sprinkled building; 26) No access from front of building, rear entrance only;
27) Ramp entrance at rear of building only, no street level door; and 28) No parking in fire lane.
C. Desiqn & Review Committee
The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on December 19 with many of the same
concerns.
D. Plan Description
Revised plans and a narrative were submitted on December 30 and comments from staff and
consultants on those plans include the following:
Zoning. The site is zoned I, Industrial. Within the industrial zone, kennels and dog day care facilities
will be permitted by conditional use permit provided the associated text amendment is approved by
Planning Commission and Council. The requested conditional use permit is being processed
simultaneously to the ordinance change to accommodate the applicant.
The applicant is proposing to locate within a multi tenant industrial building located at 8835 East
Research Center Road. The applicant is proposing to lease 1,960 square feet of the building
located on the south end of the building. The proposed tenant bay does not extend through the
building providing access from the north parking lot, rather it will require all direct customer access
to travel to the back of the building and enter via an existing door on the south side of the building.
To accommodate access to the south side of the building, a 45-foot ramp is being proposed to
facilitate movement from the rear parking lot up to the access door. The proposed tenant
arrangement within the building has raised a number of issues pertaining to Building Code
requirements, accessibility and use of the building that is different from that which was originally
approved. These items have all been stipulated by staff and the Design & Review Committee as
being issues that need to be resolved in that it impacts the overall design of the puppy day care.
The city Acting Building Official is preparing a separate report that outlines the needed requirements
that are associated with the building and its occupancy.
Number of Animals. The applicant is proposing to accommodate an enrollment of 30 dogs in a
space of 1,960 square feet. This would average approximately 55 square feet per dog, which the
applicant indicates is approximately 2.4 times what the Animal Humane Society uses for their
Planning Case Report 02-26 Page 5 1-3-03
shelters. By ordinance, the City will require 100 square feet per animal, exclusive of office and_
storage areas. In this respect, the 1,960 square feet could accommodate up to a maximum of 2
dogs. In our review of the city standards, we feel that the standards are adequate and fair and
would recommend that the limited enrollment of the proposed facility be restricted to no more than
20 dogs.
Staffing. By ordinance, the facility must provide at least one handler or staff person per ten animals.
The applicant has indicated in our discussion that they will have two employees there at all times to
allow for supervision of dogs both within the building and those dogs that would be outside in the
outdoor dog runs. In this respect, it appears that the applicant is compliant with this provision of the
proposed ordinance.
Exercise Area. By ordinance, the facility must provide an exercise area to accommodate periodic
exercising of animals. The exercise area must provide 100 square feet per animal that occupies the
area at any one time. Outdoor exercise areas must be fenced and have a pervious surface and
must be cleaned on a regular basis.
The applicant has indicated in their discussion that most of the indoor area will be available for
exercise. The applicant should demonstrate that there is sufficient area per the square foot per
animal requirements that are stipulated in the ordinance within the building exclusive of individual
cages and kennels to facilitate indoor exercising of animals. In addition to the indoor area, the
applicant is proposing a 22 foot by 20 foot or 440 square foot outdoor exercise area immediately
south of the building and a second 25 foot by 40 foot or 1,000 square foot exercise area in the
landscaped portion of the site located to the west of the building. In review of the proposed dog
runs, the following issues were raised by staff and the Codes & Standards subcommittee.
1. The outdoor exercise area south of the building does not indicate a pervious surface is proposed
for this facility. This raises the issue as far as clean up, snow removal and storm water drainage.
Staff and Design & Review Committee's recommendation that if the outdoor dog run south of
the building is to occur, it must have a pervious surface to allow for filtration of both wastewater
and clean up and snow to enter into the ground at this location.
2. Concern was expressed by the Police Department regarding the distance of the western dog run
from the building and the need to mingle pedestrian traffic with other traffic associated with the
south side of the building, specifically trucks, garbage trucks, other employee traffic. This
arrangement is not seen as a positive element.
3. The applicant has not provided a detail as far as the fencing that will be required for any outdoor
dog runs. A detailed fence plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City.
Ventilation System. City ordinance establishes a requirement for a ventilation system designed to
control odors and limit the spread of organisms between tenant bays and outside air. The applicant
has not provided any specific information illustrating how this will be accommodated on the site. This
shall be required prior to approval of the conditional use permit. In addition to the ventilation, the air
temperature must be maintained between 60 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit to control the comfort level
of the dogs and individuals that are going to occupy the building. This may require additional heating
or air conditioning to insure that the proposed warehouse facility will maintain this range of
temperature. To date, no information has been submitted outlining the temperature or
environmental control elements that will be included as part of this development.
Sick Room. A provision of the new kennel day care facility requirement is the provision of a room or
cage separate from the kennel areas of sufficient size to separate animals that are sick, injured or
recovering from the healthy animals. The applicant illustrates a sick room approximately 64 square
feet in area. This satisfies this condition.
Planning Case Report 02-26 Page 6 1-3-03
Wall and Floor Finish Materials. The proposed ordinance requires that wall finish materials below
48 inches in height be impervious washable materials like sealed masonry, ceramic tile, glass
board, or marlite. The floor finish must be sealed concrete with liquid tight curbing at least six inches
in height being installed along shared walls for sanitary confinement of washdown water, and
cleaning. This provision was specifically addressed to insure that we maintain a sanitary condition
within the day care or kennel location and to avoid penetration of wastes, odors, or wash waters
through shared walls into adjoining tenant bays. To date, the applicant has not provided a detail as
to what materials or methods will be used to seal the walls or floors. This information must be
submitted prior to conditional use permit approval.
Animal Waste Control. The proposed ordinance requires all animal waste be immediately cleaned
up with solid waste being enclosed in a container of sufficient construction to eliminate odors and
organisms. The applicant has indicated that they will abide by this requirement with disposal of all
solid waste through the garbage pick up on a daily basis.
Kennel Licensing. As a condition of the conditional use permit, the applicant shall be required to
get a license per Section 7-4 of the City Code. The applicant indicated that she will proceed to
pursue this element on approval of the conditional use permit.
Notice of Vacation. The property owner is required 14 day's notice of the animal kennel or day
cafe's intention to vacate the premises to allow the City final inspection. This requirement is
stipulated to insure that the vacated tenant bay is left in a sanitary and clean condition.
Lighting. The required facility must provide uniform distributed ample lighting for the dog care
facilities.
Parking/Circulation. In addition to the day care performance standards, other issues are also
pertinent to consideration of this conditional use permit. These other conditions include the tenant
bay configuration. The tenant bay that is being proposed to house the day care is not consistent
with the original design which consists of one to seven bays that extended through the building
providing direct access to both the parking lot to the north and the loading bay to the south. The
proposed tenant bay will only have access via the south portion of the building. This raises a
number of concerns for staff related to traffic circulation and the intermixing of customer traffic with
loading areas. The following issues were raised as part of staff review.
1. Section 4.036(4), Accessory Use Parking and Storage, states any space allocated for required
loading berth or access drive so as to comply with the terms of these zoning regulations shall not '
be used for the storage of goods, inoperable vehicles, or snow and shall not be included as part of
the space requirements to meet the off-street parking requirements. What is being suggested as
part of this application is the introduction of both customer traffic and a drop off zone related to the
day care in an area that has historically been used as a loading berth. This is in direct conflict with
this provision of the code.
2. The applicant has indicated that she would like to pursue a day care that would accommodate up
to 30 dogs. Anticipated drop off time would run from 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The proposed site plan shows locations for only two cars to serve the facility on the south side of
the building. Staff is concemed that there is not enough parking for morning drop off or evening
pick up times at this location and that other parking stalls in the immediate facility are located far
enough away from the building as to discourage their use.
3. Metro West Fire also expressed concern regarding accessibility as it relates to emergency vehicles
and the ramp near the rear of the building as far as preserving a safe fire lane and access to
individual tenant bays. In our review of the proposed building and site layout and traffic circulation,
staff has made a strong recommendation that the proposed tenant bay should be a through tenant
bay extending from the north side of the building to the south side of the building. This would
Planning Case Report 02-26 Page 7 1-3-03
provide customer parking at the front of the building, direct on-grade access for customers and_
would preserve the south of the building for the truck loading areas that were originally design~
for the area. The through tenant bay would also provide opportunities to establish a dog run on the
south side of the building per site plan without the need for ramp or additional interference with
other activities that occur on the south side of the building.
Site Survey. The applicant has submitted a site survey as part of their development application that
illustrates the location of the existing building and parking lot. It should be noted that the parking lot
does not meet the required setbacks along the north property line and is not consistent with the site
plan as illustrated by the project architect. In a letter by the project architect, he contends that the
site survey is not an adequate depiction of what exists on the site related to the parking. Our only
comment to that is that this site survey was submitted to us by the applicant and any inconsistencies
between the survey and the site plan should be worked out by the applicant prior to their submission
to insure that we have adequate and accurate depiction of existing conditions.
Signage. The applicant's application requests not only the conditional use for the dog day care but
also an update to the signage plan. A comprehensive sign plan was approved with the original
building that would allow for tenant identification signs on the south of the building not to exceed
eight square feet in area. What is being requested now is a business identification sign on the south
side of the building that would be 40 square feet in area consistent with the tenant identification
signs on the north side of the building.
The applicant is also requesting a change in the freestanding signs that were originally approved
with the plan which included an area identification sign that identified the entire building. The original
sign was intended to be 30 square feet in area and approximately five feet in height. The applicant
wishes to replace that with a monument sign that would have approximately 47 square feet in area
and six feet in height.
The original plan also included a business directory sign that was approximately 26 square feet in
area and extended approximately 10 feet in height. The applicant is now proposing to replace the
directory sign with a freestanding sign that is 100 square feet in area and approximately 27 feet in
height from the top of the sign to grade. Multiple occupancy buildings are governed by Section
3.493 of the New Hope Sign Ordinance which requires a comprehensive sign plan be submitted.
The proposed application for the required freestanding signs appear to be consistent with the
current industrial district requirements. The proposed tenant identification sign is significantly taller
than the original proposal but does fall within the 30 foot maximum height requirement of the district.
In our opinion, the proposed sign plan modifications for the freestanding signs appear to be
acceptable in light of the city's sign performance standards related to industrial sites. With regard to
the wall signage, however, we believe that a number of the building code elements must be
addressed prior to making a determination as to whether signage on the south side of the building
should be permitted and that individual tenant bays should have direct customer access via the
loading area of the building.
Former Buildinq Official Comments
The original building and site plan were approved for one to seven parallel tenant bays (front to
back) with office entry at the north front and loading docks four feet high at the south rear. New
Hope required access at grade for offices and loading docks for every industrial building over 5,000
square feet when this building was built. In 1976, state law established tougher standards for
accessibility. Note that four to five tenants in this building have no access at grade. Staff is
concerned that other changes may have resulted.
The building was constructed as a warehouse. Warehouse occupancy's have a minimal number of
people in the building at any given time, so the requirements for ventilation and exhaust are Iow. By
Planning Case Report 02-26 Page 8 1-3-03
upgrading to a different occupancy with the proposed use, the requirement for additional ventilation
increases.
Acting' Building Official
The applicant has failed to make any recommended changes to the plans. Information in the
property file verifies each bay within this building was accessible from the front doors, and the bays
continued to the rear of the building. See attached letter dated December 30, 1997, from Thomas
William Prokasky, architect, to Randy Kurtz, Fire Inspector, (complete with a plan of the building).
Permits have not been issued to allow alterations of tenant space. The dissecting of tenant spaces
were completed without permits and is illegal. Please note the following State Building Code
requirements.
1. As previously pointed out, section 1341.0411 of the State Building Code doesn't allow a decrease
in accessibility for any structure regardless of the year it was built, copies attached. A discussion
with Curt Wiehle of the State Building Code Division has confirmed the state requirements. The
1997 plans vedfy accessible access to each tenant space.
2. Section 3405 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), current State Building Code, prohibits
change of use in a building without approval by the Building Official. Approval can be obtained if
the building is made to comply with the requirements of the UBC for the division or group of
occupancy of the proposed change, copy attached.
The State Building Code allows for a more restrictive ruling of the building code. A city is not allowed
to be less restrictive in its enforcement of the State Building Code requirements. The ventilation
recommendations are based on the 2000 International Mechanical Code, which is expected to be
adopted by the state in the near future, and the advise from a local mechanical contractor.
West Metro Fire Comment-~
I only have one major concern still, and that is the access we have in the back of that building with
the big wood structure back there. Code requires a 20-foot unobstructed path for apparatus. With
the wood platform, I just want to be sure we have 20 feet between the platform and the parking
area. If we have that, then we will need plenty of signage stating, "No parking anytime, Fire Lane."
The only other thing is that there is plenty of signs telling emergency responders that doggy day
care is in the back of the building. This would keep all emergency responders from driving in circles
to find their business.
VIII. Summary
City staff agree with the following comments from the Planner's report: "In review of the proposed
application and submitted information, we find that much of the information is not complete and should
be submitted to a final determination as to acceptability of the day care facility at this location. A major
issue that has to be addressed is whether the City would allow for the tenant bay in its current
configuration and access through the loading area should be permitted. City staff review has raised a
number of issues pertinent to the intermixing of customer traffic and outdoor loading areas, as well as
traffic circulation around the building, parking concerns, etc. Based on our review, we would
recommend that the CUP and signage applications be continued until February to allow the following
conditions to be addressed:
1. The tenant bay be reconfigured to allow customer access from the north side of the building. This
would improve customer access to existing parking, avoid intermixing of customer parking with
established loading areas and eliminate the need for a ramp for building accessibility.
2. Number of animals will be limited to one dog per 100 square feet floor space.
3. Staffing will be required to be one handler per 10 dogs.
Planning Case Report 02-26 Page 9 1-3-03
4. Outdoor exercise areas shall have a pervious surface. A detail of these areas illustrating surfacing and_
fencing must be provided.
5. Applicant must provide detailed information for intedor climate control including ventilation, heating,
and air conditioning.
6. Applicant must provide detailed information pertaining to wall and floor finishes.
7. Applicant shall identify a trash enclosure and methods for storing and disposal of animal waste.
8. A kennel license shall be required.
9. The applicant shall notify the City of its intent to vacate the premises.
10. The applicant shall provide information on interior light of the dog day care area.
11. Annual inspection by Animal Control Officer.
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the application be tabled.
Attachments:
Address/Zoning/Topo Maps
12/13/02 Petitioner Correspondence and Description of Facility
12/30/02 Petitioner Correspondence
12/30/02 Revised Plans
Site Plan
Lot Coverages
Parking Summary
Floor Plan _
Building Elevations
Monument Sign
Survey
Photos Submitted by Petitioner
1/2/03 Planner's Report
Acting Building Official Memo and Building Code Information
West Metro Fire Comments
Application Log
Planning Case Report 02-26 Page 10 1-3-03
562~
8901 8801
5741 /
~VIC
' %0 PARK I
8748
8700
5632
Thru
8520
56TH AVE N
5550
9101
9000
9101
OENTER
PUBLIC
WORKS
GARAGE
5410
542O
5501
5425
5417
5401
NORTH
,5,5OO
RIDGE
APART-
M ENTS C
54~0
NORTH
RIDGE
CARE
CENTER
,5436
54TH
8501
CE?'T E-~
'CHURCH
OF
'CHRIST
DEC I $ 20O2
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
December 13, 2002
RE: Conditional Use Permit for K 9 to 5 Puppy Day Care at
New Hope Properties on East Research Center Road
To Whom It May Concern:
Please find attached the appropriate documents and fees for the above referenced project.
Please note that in the absence of a final ordinance to review and that the proprietor feels
that the occupancy area factor per dog is excessive, these documents reflect a factor of 55
s.f. per dog. This facilitates her goal of being able to serve 30 dogs max.
She bases her perspective about this on the fact that the Humane Society's dog area is 23
s.f. per dog. Please note that this is a correct number. The number of 35 s.f. that I used
previously was errouneous. So, you can see that the 100 s.f. per dog in the ordinance is
more that 4 times greater than the Humane Society's same use at 23 s.f. per dog. At 55
s.f. per dog, this area is 2.4 times that of the Humane Society's.
Also, please note the owners request for updating the building and site signage as
reflected on the drawings.
If you would like me to provide the narrative in a different, special, additive or ? way,
please just let me know. I would be glad to do so.
If you have any quest~ns regarding this submittal, please contact me at 763-315-3067.
3619 85th Avenue No. BROOKLYN PARK, MN 5544~' ~:-7~'3/315-3067 F: 763/315-1866 eMAIL: rjtarchitects@earthlink, net
K - 9 to 5 Puppy Day Care Facilit
This request is a unique opportunity for the City to approve a conditional use permit to
allow a Doggy Day Care Facility in the Industrial use location on East Research Drive.
This will allow the Proprietor, Ms. Judy Jo Paskiewicz, to provide the community of New
Hope, and surrounding communities, a needed and vital service that it is currently
without.
Allowing a doggy day care facility will allow community residents to drop their dogs off
at an environment that will provide physical and mental outlets in the company of other
well-socialized dogs. All supervised within a secure facility. This will provide an
enhanced environment for new puppies to socialize and learn with other older dogs as
mentors. It will also provide a great assistance for dogs that have a hard time being lc fl at
home alone all day.
There will be movable partitions to facilitate varied environments fi.om time to time. For
instance, there may be a desire to allow different sized dogs, for their activity levels, to be
grouped together or to allow different activities to go on during the course of the day.
There will be a defined area for the dogs to relieve themselves. The remains will be
cleaned up immediately and disposed of, and the area sanitized properly. This will be
facilitated by wiping up the liquid waste, sanitizing the area and properly disposing of the
remnants in a container for such purpose. The solid waste will be picked up and properly
disposed of in a container for such purpose. The containers will be of a sealable nature
with deodorizing elements located within. Upon completed use of the containers, they
will be disposed of properly in the garbage. At the end of the day, the entire floor area
will be cleaned and sanitized one last time for the day.
Hours of operation.
The facility is only a day care provider only. Overnight boarding is not a consideration
at this time. Initial hours of operation are projected to be 7:30 am to 6:00 pm. Mondays
thru Fridays.
December 13, 2002
Page 1
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
December 30, 2002
RE:
12.1902 Design and Review Meeting Comments for Conditional Use Permit
for K 9 to 5 Puppy Day Care at New Hope Properties on East Research Center
Road
Dear Mayor, Planning Commission Members, City Council Members, City Staff and City
Planning Consultants:
At this time, I would like to formally respond to: 1) attached 12118/2002 memo and, 2)
attached 12-19-2002 memo. Also, to provide the attached revised submittal. Also, note
that the 12-18-2002 memo from NAC and the comments dudng the 12-19-2002 Design
and Review meeting duplicates all issues, so I have not duplicated my efforts with them
here.
I plead with readers to note that due to the nature of the subject matter, that it is difficult to
respond professionally to the items which require it, without someone feeling as if their
toes are being stepped on. My only desire is to redirect the record to a more accurate
level. Allowing the City Commission and Council Members to have all the information
necessary to make an informed and best decision in their duties. Please, at least,
recognize that I contend a difference of position with backup to support it. There may be
other data out there that may over-ride what I have found, and certainly, I look forward to
working with it, if it exists.
Introduction:
As a multi-state registered architect, I understand and support the entire desire and
intentions that a City initiates under a City Planning Program. But, only with certain
appropriate limitations, which I believe are in place. Consequently, it is normal for the
Planning Commission and City Council Members to weigh heavily upon the staff's
recommendations and written report with the belief and expectation that all data contained
with in it is appropriate and at a minimum, not misleading. However, in this instance, I beg
your patience with this lengthy letter to carefully discover and decide for yourselves if this
is actually and properly occurring in this case.
While I believe the City is acting in good faith, I also believe that the City, having the
opportunity to review the'Doggy Day Care Project Request for a newly required
~ AR C H I-I:'E C ._T.s:,-
3619 85th Avenue No. BROOKLYN PARK, MN 55443 P: 763/315-3067 F: 763/315-1866 eMAIL: rjtarchitects@earthlink, net
Conditional Use Permit requirement (which is underway in tandem with our request) has
apparently decided to scrutinize this Owner and his building in other directions.
The result of which, is, I believe, that there is an inappropriate level of miss-information
being perpetuated and conveyed to all parties involved with this simple project. I feel it is
my duty to highlight the inequities of these memos to clarify fact from fiction. Simple
issues are being repeated and magnified and are now bulging at the seams, waiting to
burst. Simple process issues and process systems are being microscoped inappropriately.
For example, leading to requests for the Owner to endure unnecessary major remedial
work unassociated with this CUP request in any reasonable manner. All under the
auspices of this City Planning and Review Program and the powers and authorities given
to it. Keep in mind that even this program has appropriate limitations.
I believe that the Design and Review Meeting on December 19, 2002 went well for the
most part. However, not having been given the opportunity to read, before hand, the
Development Review Team's report of 12-18-2002 (apparently prepared only by Mr.
Sandstad), the Design & Review Committee Memo of 12-19-2002, or Mr. Bdxius' memo of
the same date appears to have been a disservice making this letter a necessity. (If I may
boldly suggest the following; Please provide applicants with the same information that the
committee receives prior to meeting. As well as allotting time for that information to be
properly digested as the committee does.) Although, as a professional, my personal
feelings were not hurt, as an architect, we all have difference of opinions. However, I must
say that I was totally blind-sided by several comments and perceptions made during the
meeting. Comments which were based on the memos noted.
I say blind-sided because the meeting seemed to me to be a one-sided persuasion
agenda. I had the impression that every time I said something, that someone felt it
necessary to correct me, for example; on the subject of the ADA being in force in 1976.
And the issue of the "area/dog" was no different. Please advise me how the agricultural
standards and the Animal Control Officer that currently are dictating the marea/dog" are
more perfect than what the Animal Humane Society actually uses. I believe the
credentials of the Animal Humane Society should not be so quickly discarded. I provided
the committee with proof that the Society's number is about 1/4th of the city's at 100 s.f..
With such a large difference, why isn't it of any importance, warranting questions as well
as fair value given to it.
RESPONSES
1. 12-18-2002 Memo Response
I said I would follow up on some items. Those responses are indicated in the submittal
and this letter. Others, I fielded within the meeting. The very awkward part of that
meeting, was that, every comment I fielded, apparently was an inadequate applicant's
response. Apparently, certain determinations were made ahead of any involvement with
the Owner's, Business Operator's or the Architect's input. Take it or leave it, if you will. As
a professional, I respect other people's point of views and opinions on different subjects. I
Page 2
then use that information, as well as mine to make a better, more informed determination
on how to proceed. Obviously, by this I mean only after being willing to carefully consider
all aspects, can the best choice be made for the community.
As an example of an inadequate applicant's response, I offer the following example: I tried
to advise the committee during the meeting that the handicapped issue that was brought
up is not on track with reality. But, my impression was that no one cared to hear it. In fact,
the impression I got was that this comment still stood to be enforced.
I can offer the following information to support its erroneousness, at best: The 12-18-2002
and 12-19-2002 memos specifically (not generally) state that "The building was
constructed to meet the ADA requirements." This is just plain incorrect. This building was
apparently built in 1973, (maybe, but not probably in 1974) according to the plans I have.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was introduced and consequently adopted
through the justice department in 1990. It is obviously impossible that this building could
have been built to meet the ADA in 1974. Or, as you will see below, upgrades made to it
for some twenty years after it's construction.
Indeed, as a side note, if the Justice Department would have ignored the accessible
communities needs, there probably would not even have been an ADA requirement. You
see, the code writing jurisdictions did not want to initiate and create this type (ADA) of all
encompassing code. That's why the ADA is a law administered through the Justice
Department. Originally, code officials could not even field questions about the ADA law.
And they could not legally enforce the ADA since it was not a code per say and was not
within their jurisdiction to enforce. Keep in mind that this is all occurring during the 1990's
and not in the 1970's.
In fact, in 1972 the state passed legislature establishing a state building code division.
And, the first 'handicapped' or 'accessibility' code that the State of Minnesota adopted
(ignoring federally controlled instances for this discussion, since they didn't aPply either)
was in November of 1975. That code was Chapter 1340 of the Minnesota State Building
Code (Also commonly referred to as Chapter 55 within the architectural community). And
of most critical importance, this code was administered until 1996 when the state adopted
their own first version of something resembling the ADA to enforce thru the building codes
division. I would even question if provisions in Chapter 1340 that allow exceptions, would
have exempted the building, or portions of it, at the time from the entire chapter.
If, in fact, the City of New Hope had their provisions in their ordinances, in 1974, as
indicated in the 12-18-2002 memo, dictating measures exceeding the state requirements,
this may have been questionable as far as enforceability. But, I believe, that to be just an
erroneous documentation.
Consequently, as you can see, this building was neither built under, nor governed under
provisions of the ADA law or State 'wheelchair' codes. Wheelchair access to and inside of
the buildings generally were not controlled until 1990. In complete contradiction to what
Page 3
you have been advised of. Granted, since the ADA law and codes were adopted in 1990,
even existing buildings were then and now controlled under those provisions.
However, I feel it is important to stipulate that for a very long time, this building was not
governed by such "ADA" requirements. Even though Mr. Sandstad states such.
Specific Responses to Preliminary Comments
Of the identified four non-compliant items, My lack of signature on my documents is
perhaps the only possible valid item. However, please be advised that the State of
Minnesota does not require these types of plans to be certified as requested. In either
case, I will provide resubmitted signed drawings, as requested.
The remainder of items b thru d are not appropriate.
Item lb; "no sign va#ance filing or fees for prohibited rear wall sign and two ground
signs on the same street frontage"
Response: I was provided data by the city which indicates that "No east or west
side signs permitted" is noted upon the west elevation. However, It also indicates
"limit 5 s.f." on the east side, "limit to 8 (or 9) s.f. ..... "on the west side, "85 s.f.' on
the south side, and "160 s.f."on the north side. At best, there seems to be a
conflict. While I was not provided with additional backup cleady dictating no east or
west signs, I propose that all four sides of the building was allowed signage. In
addition, it is clear that the two ground signs are permitted without question. Finally,
please be advised that in case you do desire an updated comprehensive sign plan
for the record, that information was and is provided within the submittal.
Item lc; It does, at first glance, appear that the site plan and the survey do not
match. However, the fact that the survey only certifies the accuracy of the buildings,
visible encroachments, and the parcels described therein, does not give credence to
suggest that there is an error in the site plan related to parking or plantings. Indeed,
nor can it support labeling the parking lot as 'non-conforming", with out further
research.. In addition, it cannot be used to determine that ". .... plantings appear to
be entirely on the public boulevard and the prohibited variety ...... Remove them, if
confirmed" as indicated in item 2. I confidently suggest, after preparing the site
plan, that it is a dis-service to document this sort of thing. Particularly, since there is
no real suggestive proof that it is so. I believe that if you perform an on-site visit,
you will find my comments to be accurate.
Item ld; I have found a requirement to represent all building tenant bays and have
done so. We have not been requested to show, and I have not found any
requirements to represent all non-related CUP tenant space plan layouts, nor their
toilet location. Consequently, I did not show them and cannot understand how I am
to perceive, in advance, that it is required.
,!tem 2: See response to item lc above.
Page 4
Item 3; N/A
Item 4, paQe 1; The comments that this building was approved for I to 7 parallel
tenant bays is contradictory to the plans from the 1970's I have which show 14 bays
identified. Seven off the front and seven off the back. While I have not been given
written or diagrammatic confirmation to the contrary, I propose these comments as
erroneous and to be ignored.
In addressing the "New Hope required access at grade for offices and loading docks
for every Industrial building over 5,000 s.f. when this building was built." I would ask
you to reread the above sections regarding the relevant ere codes in force at the
time. Please note what was not in force then, and the fact that the city's ordinances
are usually not enforceable if they demand greater levels of requirements than the
state's code. Please consider this, again, to be erroneous.
In addition, the comments suggesting that the owner made violations to the
"accessibility standards" and not providing access at grade. I propose that after all
the foregoing, this cannot be taken as a valid statement. The previous Owner may
of made non-conforming improvements, and then again, they may have been city-
approved improvements. This certainly would not be the first time I have seen that
happen.
At the end of this item, the writer strays off into other parts of the building. Does the
city really want to scrutinize every tenant space, after obtaining the opportunity to
review a CUP for a new tenant's space. If it does, please contact me so that we can
productively resolve these un-related side bar issues without confusing the task at
hand.
Item 4, DaQe 2; I acknowledge the fact that staff has made recommendations of
layout they prefer and the reasoning for them. However, and as I have advised
staff, the Owner is not in a position to violate his lease with his tenants by taking
valuable floor space back from them to achieve a single design option. The 48-foot
wooden ramp is apparently the only option, which will provide the accessible access
that the city now views as having been taken away. Even though, there is
speculation that this may not be true.
The real logic within the submitted design is that the building itself is slowly
undergoing a metamorphosis. Slowly changing from a building which required
docks when constructed 30 years ago, to permitted uses which have a lesser and in
some cases, no dependency on having to operate with a 48" high dock. As such,
currently, less than 113rd of the building tenants even use the dock available to them.
Would the city require the owner to block up the opening to prove this? I expect not.
I cannot understand the snap judgment of calling this an "ill-advised... more
hazardous" design without first understanding the current building situation and
operations, more thoroughly. I believe we all know how current times continue to
Page 5
require a new level of thinking to stay current with the market place to prevent
buildings from going downhill and not returning.
Item 5; The draft ordinance for the ventilation is apparently inappropriate. The air
exchange rate seems to be based upon a code, which is not in force. And, when
the state adopts that code, it will exclude the table, which the air exchange rate is
dedved. So, even when the referenced code is adopted the specific air rate will still
not be in force. Enabling this ordinance with levels of requirements exceeding the
current code, let alone a possible future code, is not enforceable. The Owner
acknowledges the fact that this space would undergo a change from strictly
warehouse to this proposed use. He is prepared to implement a mechanical
system, which the current and appropriate code already governs. However, to
mandate the proposed requirement would be unreasonably costly and not
necessary.
Item 6; I hope you realize that this comment sounds entirely like blackmail. I whole-
heartedly hope that it is not necessary to submit to the mis-guided demands that I
have demonstrated as inappropriate in order to achieve a good faith determination
of an appropriate "area/dog".
1. 12-19-2002 Memo Response.
I will allow the foregoing to respond to all items leading up to the Police comments.
Police Comments:
Item 1: Acknowledged.
Item 2: Acknowledged.
Item 3: Subjective.
Item 4: Acknowledged.
Item 5: Acknowledged.
Item 6: I would respectfully ask the city planners to assist in this determination. As
I see it, the traffic load is fluid. Heavy at peak times, which are undetermined at this
time. But, not requiring specific stalls beyond that provided. However, if the city
wants two or three stalled marked for exclusive use of users, we have done so.
Item 7: Acknowledged.
Item 8: Acknowledged.
Item 9: Please see foregoing discussions, 4= paragraph under Introduction.
..Buildina Inspections:
Item 1:
Item 2:
Item 3:
Item 4:
Item 5:
Acknowledged.
Subjective.
Acknowledged.
Acknowledged.
Please refer to 12-18-2002 memo, item lC response.
Page 6
Item 6: Please refer to 12-18-2002 memo, item 1D response.
Item 7: Please refer to 12-18-2002 memo, item lB response.
Parks & Recreation
Item 1: Acknowledged.
Item 2: Acknowledged, but do not believe this is required as the dogs will not be
there permanently.
Item 3: W® would propose to provide a typical cyclone fence like that shown in the
previously provided photos.
Public Works
Item 1: If not controlled, yes.
Item 2: Subjective.
Item 3: Acknowledged.
Item 4: Acknowledged.
West Metro Fire
Item 1: Acknowledged.
Item 2: Acknowledged.
Item 3: Acknowledged.
Item 4: Acknowledged.
Item 5: Acknowledged.
I freely admit that I do not have any idea what the city's ordinances would have required in
1973. Please advise me if the foregoing can be considered at variance with fact, and
provide me with the documentation supporting it.
Please note the owner's request for updating the building and site signage is reflected on
the drawings. He believes it is appropriate to make this request as an update to the city as
part of this package. As you know, the current signage sizes approved in the 1970's
provides for smaller sizes than the city now allows as standard. The current ground signs
are to be made out of wood and will not endure. The same concepts except showing steel
are requested. This is the owner's desire to update and provide the city with a better
standard than what is clearly outdated. The owner feels making a separate signage
submittal and additional fees is not appropriate or required in this instance.
While the owner acknowledges that upkeep costs money and has put money into this
property to do so, it is one of the better shape buildings in the area. Drive by yourself, to
see. Even, the apartment building to the north has peeling paint. The owner conducts a
business that can not support providing unnecessary sums of money into a 2000 s.f. space
ultimately making it necessary to scale a rent way out of reality, and beyond reach with the
locality for this business operator.
Page 7
You will also find the attached resubmittal with revisions. Please note that the city, in an
inappropriate fashion, is putting the building owner in a position that will ultimately lead to
dropping this request entirely.
I certainly hope that after all the efforts involved so far on the part of the Business
Operator, the Owner, Architect, City Staff and City Consultants, that the City will reposition
themselves as to be concerned with the CUP request at hand, and that data related
thereto is provided on a better factual support and related items standard.
If anyone has any questions regarding this letter or this submittal, please contact me at
763-315-3067.
Sincerely Yours,
RJT Architects, Inc./ .-- ~
/
Attachments: 12,,-18-:;~002
drawi~,
memo, 12 19-2002 memo, Drawing Resubmil~Ial Package, Elevation /signage
Approv~ ground signs,
Page 8
HAR~ eJ, JRFA~,E~ ~ ~l,qO~ ~.F.) 43fli,
TOTAL ( ~,4'1;2.1 ,~.FJ IOOfl~
PARJ~IN~ SUMMARY
TOTAL PA~I~ ~TALL~
IHTEI~ALLY LIT
FIXE~ COPt'
S,I~,FL
LIT INITH
¢~b~H~ABLE COPY
NEW HOPE PROPERTIES
F. Rmueb Ceater Rd.
INTERN/'d.L Y LIT
NEW HOPE PROPERTIES
,I~N.
NITH-- 8~Ot-88~1 £ Reaearc~ Ce.let Rd.J
_1
(NIONUNIENT
118"= I'-0"
51GN
-I
II II
II. I1_
F- I
(/~'")PYLON SI~N
~ I/8" : I'-0"
. J(k-f
E. RESEARCH CENTER ROAD
L
NEVV HOPE
PROPERTIES
2~o,-o,, 25,200 S.F.
NEW HOPE PROPERTIES
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
8801-51 E/NSf RESEARCH CENTER RD,
NEW HOPE, MN
K-9 TO 5
PUPPY DAY CARE
RESEARCH CENTER RD. E
NEW HOPE, MN 55428
No. DiIe..LI .IL, Vn/Cn ~~
PLAN
PAI~K, IN~5 ~IJMMAK¥
, DEC 3 0 20O2
SITE PLAN
TENANT
5PAC, E
TENANT
5PAC. E
L.
TENANT
5PAGE
TENANT
~PAGE
TENANT
5PAC, E
-- -- TENANT
T ~PACE
~-~ To ~
TENANT! FMPPI'¢
~P^OEI DA'r CARE
I I-
J 5PAC. E
........ I TENANT ~
( ~, FLOOR PLAN
RAMP
LANDiN~ (1= 12)
FUTUR~
I~LIN AREA
RAMP
CHECK. IN
1~60 5.F. PO~ AREA
/1~60/'55 5F/DOC =
(THIS DESICN
UNDEFINED INTERIOR
EXISTIN¢ ¢~IITHIN THE
I
I
MAX)
AN
AREA
.,.5 PUPPY DAY CARE
NEW HOPE PROPERTIES
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
8801-51 EAST RESEARCH CENTER RD.
NEW' HOPE, MN
K-9 TO 5
PUPPY DAY CARE
RESEARCH CENTER RD. E
NEW' HOPE, MN 55428
FLOOR PLAN
40 5F. S~6,N
,~TAII~D ~"tOOD FA,SC, IA PAJ~L (TYP)
PAINTED ~'1' C,~U
40 5.P. ~6N [ 40 S.F. S16~
RTH ELEVATION
~UTH ELEVATION
k.22/~/~'"; ~o':
~ST ELEVATION
k,.Z/'/~'" ;' 7-g':'
ELEVATION
40 .S,I:. SI6,N ]
D
.5TAIIq~D Fv4:7OD FA.SC, IA PANEL CTYP)
PAINTED (.,.<:::~;A,II~2y ClHU (TYP)
STAINED I'~::~:~D FA~IA PANEL (TYP)
PAINTED S~OTH CNU (Ti'P)
~I[:~ED S.I~.FL
INTE/?.NAL. LY LIT HITH--
FIXED COPt'
~1/4_...~'
I'~X;)D FA~.,IA PANEL f'Pt'P)
5t~OOTH ¢1'4J (Ti'P)
NEW HOPE
2 ~4OeD
INTEP~qALL Y LIT
~I~N. INTERNALLY-
LIT I'~TH
CHAHI~ADLE C C:~c~'
II II
LI I1_
i--
(~PYLON SI6N
"'--¢-i1 ~
(~~_ONUMENT ,SIGN
NEW HOPE PROPERTIES
UMITED PARTNERSHIP
8801-51 EAST RESEARCH CENTER RD,
NEW HOPE, MN
K-9TO5
PUPPY DAY CARE
RESEARCH CENTER RD. E
NEW HOPE, MN rx5428
ELEVATIONS
SIGNAGE
LLI
o
¢.
¢
O
EAST RESEARCH CENTER ROAD
· 'East line of
West 32 rods
. I,(5 8 feet)
,,..
B.T. PARKING LOT
One stor~ concrete block
office-warehouse
25,200 s~.ft.
J
'The West line of ...
the East 495 feet 90.
SE% of SW% Sec.6 '
go?.z 7 .~/'87°]~'~/"~~
Scale: 1"=50 '
Land Area:
88,472.7 sq. ft.
I hereby certify to New Hope Properties Limited Partnership, The Union Central Life Insurance Company and Old Republic National
Title Insurance Company, that this is a true and correct survey of the parcels described hereon:
Lot 1, Block 2, Science Industry Center, more accurately described as follows:
Tract A: That part of Lot 1, Block ?, Science Industry Center, lying North of a line drawn at right angles to the East line
of said Lot 1, from a point therein distant 240 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 1 and lying between the East
line of the West 32 rods of the Southeast Quarter cf the Southw,st Ouarter of Section 6, Township 118 North, Range 21 West of
the 5th Principal Meridian and the West line of the East 495 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said
Section 6, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property.
Tract B: That part of Lot 1, Block 2, Science Industry Cmnter, lying North of a line drawn at right angles to the East line
of said Lot 1, from a point therein distant 240 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 1, except that part thereof
lying between the East line of the West 528.0 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 6,
Township 118, Range 21 and the West line of the East 495 feet of the Southeast Quarter of th- Southwest Quarter of said
Soction 6, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
And of the location of all buildings thereon, and all visible encroachments, any, from
this _~_~__ day of ~, 1997. ~'- __o~.n said lend. Surveyed by me
NOTES:
Survey based on Old Republic Title Insurance Company Commitment
No. HOR926879C dated December 9, 1996. ~ ~ice-~se ~o. 6508
Spur tract easement Document No. 957508 does not affect this property.
40 parking spaces per record.
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE:
January 2, 2003
RE:
New Hope - K-9 to 5 Puppy Day Care FacilitY
Applicant: New Hope Properties Limited Partnership
FILE NO:
131.01 - 02.16
BACKGROUND
New Hope Properties Limited Partnership is proposing to bring K-9 to 5 Puppy Day
Care Facility into an industrial building located at 8835 East Research Center Road in
New Hope. This facility would be run by Ms. Judy Jo Paskiewicz. To facilitate this new
tenant at this industrial site, a conditional use permit will be required for a dog day care
in an industrial zoning district.
Currently, City zoning regulations do not provide for dog kennels or animal day care
facilities of this type within an industrial park setting. A zoning text amendment is being
processed in conjunction with this conditional use permit that will establish commercial
kennels and dog day care facilities as conditional use permits within an industrial zoning
district.
Attached to this report, please find a draft ordinance that outlines the conditions that are
deemed appropriate in consideration of this type of use within an industrial property.
Performance standards outlined for this conditional use permit were developed in
conjunction with the City's Animal Control Officer, the City Building Inspectors, and
research that was done in conjunction with keeping and care of dogs and cats. Specific
information used included Minnesota Statutes 346.39 and Minnesota Department of
Agricultural Guidelines for the Keeping of Dogs and Cats.
With the completion an initial draft of the ordinance, staff reviewed the performance
standards once again. A copy of the proposed ordinance went forward to Codes and
Standards subcommittee of the New Hope Planning Commission and the ordinance
was also forwarded to the applicant wishing to open the day care. Upon the applicant's
review of the code, the following questions were raised:
1. Is 100 square feet per dog necessary? The Animal Humane Society requires
only 25 square feet per dog.
2. Could the City reduce the number of required cages to allow for one cage per
two or three animals?
3. Does the temperature requirement in Section 4.205.15.D prohibit the opening of
doors of the building on a warm Summer day?
After receipt of the questions from the applicant, staff met again to consider possible
changes to the code. In response to the area requirement per dog, we find that the
State Statutes outline shelter size and limit animal confinement areas to that based on a
formula using the animal size. Generally this is reflective of confinement areas for
individual dogs of 25 to 30 square feet per animal. The square foot requirement that we
have stipulated in Provision 4.205.15.A is a square foot per animal for the entire facility,
not exclusive to just confinement areas, but also including exercise and run areas and
feeding areas.
Upon discussion with the Animal Control Officer, it is believed that the 100 square feet
per dog overall is appropriate in that the standard is more in line with minimum
requirements for dog runs and exercise areas which is intended to be the principal use
or the care manner for the dog day care facility.
Can we allow for group housing of animals within a single cage or air kennel? State
Statutes does allow for group housing and breeding if the animals are kept in
compatible groups and are managed as a way to prevent endangerment of the health of
the animal. This provision may be adjusted if the Planning Commission determines it is
appropriate.
With regard to temperature control and ventilation, Minnesota Statutes 346.39,
subdivisions 7 and 8 indicate that confinement areas must be maintained at a
temperature suitable for animal involved and that indoor confinement areas must be
ventilated, drafts, odors and condensation must be minimized. In this respect, the City
has established performance standards under the conditional use permit that are
designed in a manner that would achieve these goals. Additionally, the temperature
control elements were based on Department of Agricultural suggestions related to a Iow
temperature and high temperature range that is deemed appropriate for the keeping of
animals.
In the proposed ordinance as drafted, we feel comfortable with the performance
standards based on subsequent research and discussion among staff members
pertaining to this specific performance standard. If the Planning Commission chooses
to modify that, that is your option, however, in examining the proposed conditional use
permit, the standards that have been drafted in the proposed ordinance will be used to
evaluate the conditional use permit.
The proposed conditional use permit was reviewed on December 18th by City staff
development review team and subsequently reviewed by the Design Review Committee
on December 19th. Through these reviews, staff and subcommittee comments were
generated and will be included in this review of the application.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Zoning. The site is zoned I, Industrial. Within the industrial zone, kennels and dog day
care facilities will be permitted by conditional use permit provided the associated text
amendment is approved by Planning Commission and Council. The requested
conditional use permit is being processed simultaneously to the ordinance change to
accommodate the applicant.
The applicant is proposing to locate within a multi tenant industrial building located at
8835 East Research Center Road. The applicant is proposing to lease 1,960 square
feet of the building located on the south end of the building. The proposed tenant bay
does not extend through the building providing access from the north parking lot, rather
it will require all direct customer access to travel to the back of the building and enter via
an existing door on the south side of the building.
To accommodate access to the south side of the building, a 45 foot ramp is being
proposed to facilitate movement from the rear parking lot up to the access door. The
proposed tenant arrangement within the building has raised a number of issues
pertaining to Building Code requirements, accessibility and use of the building that is
different from that which was originally approved. These items have all been stipulated
by staff and the Design Review Committee as being issues that need to be resolved in
that it impacts the overall design of the puppy day care. The City Building Official is
preparing a separate report that outlines the needed requirements that are associated
with the building and its occupancy.
In the following pages, we have provided our review comments pertinent to the dog day
care and related zoning issues specific to this site.
Number of Animals. The applicant is proposing to accommodate an enrollment of 30
dogs in a space of 1,960 square feet. This would average approximately 55 square feet
per dog, which the applicant indicates is approximately 2.4 times what the Animal
Humane Society uses for their shelters. By ordinance, the City will require 100 square
feet per animal, exclusive of office and storage areas. In this respect, the 1,960 square
feet could accommodate up to a maximum of 20 dogs. In our review of the City
standards, we feel that the standards are adequate and fair and would recommend that
the limited enrollment of the proposed facility be restricted to no more than 20 dogs.
Staffing. By ordinance, the facility must provide at least one handler or staff person per
ten animals. The applicant has indicated in our discussion that they will have two
3
employees there at all times to allow for supervision of dogs both within the building and
those dogs that would be outside in the outdoor dog runs. In this respect, it appears that
the applicant is compliant with this provision of the proposed ordinance.
Exercise Area. By ordinance, the facility must provide an exercise area to
accommodate periodic exercising of animals. The exercise area must provide 100
square feet per animal that occupies the area at any one time. Outdoor exercise areas
must be fenced and have a pervious surface and must be cleaned on a regular basis.
The applicant has indicated in their discussion that most of the indoor area will be
available for exercise. The applicant should demonstrate that there is sufficient area
per the square foot per animal requirements that are stipulated in the ordinance within
the building exclusive of individual cages and kennels to facilitate indoor exercising of
animals. In addition to the indoor area, the applicant is proposing a 22 foot by 20 foot
or 440 square foot outdoor exercise area immediately south of the building and a
second 25 foot by 40 foot or 1,000 square foot exercise area in the landscaped portion
of the site located to the west of the building. In review of the proposed dog runs, the
following issues were raised by staff and Codes and Standards subcommittee.
The outdoor exercise area south of the building does not indicate a pervious
surface is proposed for this facility. This raises the issue as far as clean up, snow
removal and storm water drainage. Staff and Design Review Committee's
recommendation that if the outdoor dog run south of the building is to occur, the
south of the building that it must have a pervious surface to allow for filtration of
both wastewater and clean up and snow to enter into the ground at this location.
Concern was expressed by the Police Department regarding the distance of the
western dog run from the building and the need to mingle pedestrian traffic with
other traffic associated with the south side of the building, specifically trucks,
garbage trucks, other employee traffic. This arrangement is not seen as a
positive element.
The applicant has not provided a detail as far as the fencing that will be required
for any outdoor dog runs. A detailed fence plan must be submitted for review
and approval by the City.
Ventilation System. City ordinance establishes a requirement for a ventilation system
designed to control odors and limit the spread of organisms between tenant bays and
outside air. The applicant has not provided any specific information illustrating how this
will be accommodated on the site. This shall be required prior to approval of the
conditional use permit. In addition to the ventilation, the air temperature must be
maintained between 60 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit to control the comfort level of the
dogs and individuals that are going to occupy the building. This may require additional
heating or air conditioning to insure that the proposed warehouse facility will maintain
this range of temperature. To date, no information has been submitted outlining the
temperature or environmental control elements that will be included as part of this
development.
Sick Room. A provision of the new kennel day care facility requirement is the
provision of a room or cage separate from the kennel areas of sufficient size to
separate animals that are sick, injured or recovering from the healthy animals. The
applicant illustrates a sick room approximately 64 square feet in area. This satisfies this
condition.
Wall and Floor Finish Materials. The proposed ordinance requires that wall finish
materials below 48 inches in height be impervious washable materials like sealed
masonry, ceramic tile, glass board, or marlite. The floor finish must be sealed concrete
with liquid tight curbing at least six inches in height being installed along shared walls
for sanitary confinement of washdown water, and cleaning. This provision was
specifically addressed to insure that we maintain a sanitary condition within the day care
or kennel location and to avoid penetration of wastes, odors, or wash waters through
shared walls into adjoining tenant bays. To date, the applicant has not provided a
detail as to what materials or methods will be used to seal the walls or floors. This
information must be submitted prior to conditional use permit approval.
Animal Waste Control. The proposed ordinance requires all animal waste be
immediately cleaned up with solid waste being enclosed in a container of sufficient
construction to eliminate odors and organisms. The applicant has indicated that they
will abide by this requirement with disposal of all solid waste through the garbage pick
up on a daily basis.
Kennel Licensing. As a condition of the conditional use permit, the applicant shall be
required to get a license per Section 7-4 of the City Code. The applicant indicated that
she will proceed to pursue this element on approval of the conditional use permit.
Notice of Vacation. The property owner is required 14 day's notice of the animal
kennel or day care's intention to vacate the premises to allow the City final inspection.
This requirement is stipulated to insure that the vacated tenant bay is left in a sanitary
and clean condition.
Lighting. The required facility must provide uniform distributed ample lighting for the
dog care facilities.
Parking/Circulation. In addition to the day care performance standards, other issues
are also pertinent to consideration of this conditional use permit. These other conditions
include the tenant bay configuration. The tenant bay that is being proposed to house
the day care is not consistent with the original design which consists of one to seven
bays that extended through the building providing direct access to both the parking lot to
the north and the loading bay to the south. The proposed tenant bay will only have
access via the south portion of the building. This raises a number of concerns for staff
related to traffic circulation and the intermixing of customer traffic with loading areas.
The following issues were raised as part of staff review.
Section 4.036(4), Accessory Use Parking and Storage, states any space
allocated for required loading berth or access drive so as to comply with the
terms of these zoning regulations shall not be used for the storage of goods,
inoperable vehicles, or snow and shall not be included as part of the space
requirements to meet the off-street parking requirements. What is being
suggested as part of this application is the introduction of both customer traffic
and a drop off zone related to the day care in an area that has historically been
used as a loading berth. This is in direct conflict with this provision of the code.
The applicant has indicated that she would like to pursue a day care that would
accommodate up to 30 dogs. Anticipated drop off time would run from 7:30 AM
to 6:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays. The proposed site plan shows locations
for only two cars to serve the facility on the south side of the building. Staff is
concerned that there is not enough parking for morning drop off or evening pick
up times at this location and that other parking stalls in the immediate facility are
located far enough away from the building as to discourage their use.
Metro West Fire also expressed concern regarding accessibility as it relates to
emergency vehicles and the ramp near the rear of the building as far as
preserving a safe fire lane and access to individUal tenant bays. In our review of
the proposed building and site layout and traffic circulation, staff has made a
strong recommendation that the proposed tenant bay should be a through tenant
bay extending from the north side of the building to the south side of the building.
This would provide customer parking at the front of the building, direct on-grade
access for customers and would preserve the south of the building for the truck
loading areas that were originally designed for the area. The through tenant bay
would also provide opportunities to establish a dog run on the south side of the
building per site plan without the need for ramp or additional interference with
other activities that occur on the south side of the building.
Site Survey. The applicant has submitted a site survey as part of their development
application that illustrates the location of the existing building and parking lot. It should
be noted that the parking lot does not meet the required setbacks along the north
property line and is not consistent with the site plan as illustrated by the project
architect. In a letter by the project architect, he contends that the site survey is not an
adequate depiction of what exists on the site related to the parking. Our only comment
to that is that this site survey was submitted to us by the applicant and any
inconsistencies between the survey and the site plan should be worked out by the
applicant prior to their submission to insure that we have adequate and accurate
depiction of existing conditions.
Signage. The applicant's application requests not only the conditional use for the dog
day care but also an update to the signage plan. A comprehensive sign plan was
approved with the original building that would allow for tenant identification signs on the
south of the building not to exceed eight square feet in area. What is being requested
now is a business identification sign on the south side of the building that would be 40
square feet in area consistent with the tenant identification signs on the north side of the
building.
The applicant is also requesting a change in the freestanding signs that were originally
approved with the plan which included an area identification sign that identified the
entire building. The original sign was intended to be 30 square feet in area and
approximately five feet in height. The applicant wishes to replace that with a monument
sign that would have approximately 47 square feet in area and six feet in height.
The original plan also included a business directory sign that was approximately 26
square feet in area and extended approximately 10 feet in height. The applicant is now
proposing to replace the directory sign with a freestanding sign that is 100 square feet in
area and approximately 27 feet in height from the top of the sign to grade. Multiple
occupancy buildings are governed by Section 3.493 of the New Hope Sign Ordinance
which requires a comprehensive sign plan be submitted. The proposed application for
the required freestanding signs appear to be consistent with the current industrial district
requirements. The proposed tenant identification sign is significantly taller than the
original proposal but does fall within the 30 foot maximum height requirement of the
district.
In our opinion, the proposed sign plan modifications for the freestanding signs appear to
be acceptable in light of the City's sign performance standards related to industrial
sites. With regard to the wall signage, however, we believe that a number of the
building code elements must be addressed prior to making a determination as to
whether signage on the south side of the building should be permitted and that
individual tenant bays should have direct customer access via the loading area of the
building.
CONCLUSION
In review of the proposed application and submitted information, we find that much of
the information is not complete and should be submitted to a final determination as to
acceptability of the day care facility at this location. A major issue that has to be
addressed is whether the City would allow for the tenant bay in its currently
configuration and access through the loading area should be permitted. City staff
review has raised a number of issues pertinent to the intermixing of customer traffic and
outdoor loading areas, as well as traffic circulation around the building, parking
concerns, etc. Based on our review, we would recommend that the CUP and signage
applications be continued until February to allow the following conditions to be
addressed:
7
9.
10.
pc:
The tenant bay be reconfigured to allow customer access from the north side of
the building. This would improve customer access to existing parking, avoid
intermixing of customer parking with established loading areas and eliminate the
need for a ramp for building accessibility.
Number of animals will be limited to one dog per 100 square feet floor space.
Staffing will be required to be one handler per 10 dogs.
Outdoor exercise areas shall have a pervious surface. A detail of these areas
illustrating surfacing and fencing must be provided.
Applicant must provide detailed information for interior climate control including
ventilation, heating, and air conditioning.
Applicant must provide detailed information pertaining to wall and floor finishes.
Applicant shall identify a trash enclosure and methods for storing and disposal of
animal waste
A kennel license shall be required.
The applicant shall notify the City of its intent to vacate the premises.
The applicant shall provide information on interior light of the dog day care area.
Chuck Tatro
Tom Mahan
Ron Tupy
Doe Daycare Information
The applicant has failed to make any recommended changes to the plans. Information in
the property file verifies each bay within this building was accessible fi.om the front
doors, and the bays continued to the rear of the building. See attached letter dated
December 30, 1997 fi.om Thomas William Prokasky, Architect, to Randy Kurtz, Fire
Inspector, (complete with a plan of the building). Permits have not been issued to allow
alterations of tenant space. The dissecting of tenant spaces were completed without
permits and is illegal. Please note the following State Building Code requirements.
1. As previously pointed out, section 1341.0411 of the State Building Code doesn't
allow a decrease in accessibility for any structure regardless of the year it was
built, copies attached. A discussion with Curt Wiehle of the State Building Code
Division has confirmed the state requirements. The 1997 plans verify accessible
access to each tenant space.
2. Section 3405 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), current State Building
Code, prohibits change of use in a building without approval by the Building
Official. Approval can be obtained if the building is made to comply with the
requirements of the UBC for the division or group of occupancy of the proposed
change, copy attached.
The State Building Code allows for a more restrictive ruling of the building code. A city
is not allowed to be less restrictive in its enforcement of State Building Code
requirements. The ventilation recommendations are based on the 2000 International
Mechanical Code, which is expected to be adopted by the state in the near future, and the
advise fi.om a local mechanical contractor.
THOMAS WILLIAM PROKASKY · ARCHITECT
3611 LANCASTER LANE NORTH, rz208 · PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441
TELEPHONE (612) 593..0847
December 30, 1997
Mr. Randy Kurtz, Fire Inspector
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: 8825-8831 East Research Center Drfve, plans,
your letter of December 26, 1997 to JGM Agency Inc.
Dear Mr. Kurtz:
This is in reply to your request for plans of 8825-8831. Herewith are
the plans submitted in early 1996 and a copy of the building permit
application dated March 22, 1996. I,m sure Mr. Sandstad has these.
I have also included a plan of the building as a whole for your reference.
To my knowledge these are up-to-date. The tenant in 8851 is making up two
vent hoods with exhaust fans as a tenant item. The owner is undertaking
glass replacement as a maintenance item.
If there is anything else that I can provide please feel free to give
me a ring at the above phone number.
Thomas W. Prokasky ~
Encl: 1-8825-31 plan, 1-8851 plan, 2-general building plan,
1- bldg. permit app. 22MAR96
cc: Jay Mutschler
Hand delivered: 30DEC97
8831 EAST RESEARCH CENTER RD., NE!.! HOPE, MN
!
0
Suites ._.831 East & 8831 West
4' Ht. Dock /~ 4' Ht.D.ock
WAREHOUSE
· ~' OFFICES ~
jl . ' ~ Dimensions are
~[ , ..
~ approximate.,
Door ~ ~ ~ REVISED O~MAR96
_~ 06MAR96
~,. ~" E. E.
8851 EAST RESEARCH CENTER ROAD, NEW HOPE, MN
4' ht.
120'
4' ht. docks
30'
8851
20MAR96
.TWP
*~, ~
Dimensions shown are
approximate.
* This drawing supercedes previous
dated drawings.
ASSEMBLY
I't e~ /
~IVE-~
IN-
ENTRY
120'
., and S~ll !be accessible and shall comply with part
table' 'i~4j'0486.Examples of types of dressing rooms are · ~eServing different genders or distinct and different
)er of R~ctions such as different treatment or examination
~chair ~.~lities.
'""41.0405, Item V: If common or public use
1 :~ imming pools, wading pools, and similar facilities
2 :i ~ provided, at least one accessible means of
4 fY/exit to the water, by ramp or lift, shall be provided
6 ~ording to part 1341.0488 or, the pool shall have a
ditional ~ o depth entry. Hot tubs, spas, and similar facilities
total sea~ ;~gned for more than four persons shall be
ncrease~ =ssible according to the swimming pool
[~irements in this item.
than on~ !. EXCEPTION: Pools used exclusively for diving.
=rmrasts a 41.0405, Item W: If a secured public entry or
...i[~ckpoint requires communication for identification
'mrests ~ ~?assage, the communication system shall provide
.~d by a s.i{ ~ ViSual and audible signals and shall comply with
~e availabl .rt.1341.0470.
~i EXCEPTION: Communication systems
~t office. ~
,art
1341~?~!~tween= a secured main entry and individual
(2) A,i~i:dWelling~ units may be adaptable.
~*~ ADAAG 4.1.5: ACCESSIBLE
~gral to ~I!LDiNGS; ADDITIONS.
lecture~ ' '
~,,,,, 9~dition to an existing building or facility
date at I * ment t cfi n. Each space or
_.~ added to the existing building or facility shall
=,'~1341.0488, and 1341 0510 to 1341 1640 Each
ening sy itions ' ' '
~ther as:ri., hall be located on an accessible route unless
~' ~aPter 1341,
1: Minnesota Accessibility Code
~ the ba
· ermanently instal[ d sistive listening
(1) ~1~ _. an adequate numb;r!~f~lectrica outlets or
· -~? ternu' · · ~ · s
.tang or .~t~.Unplernentary w;nng n~ssary to upport a
work sta~.~b~'; ~ssistive listening system shall be provided.
y statio~e ~inirnum number of receivers to be provided
,n use ar~'~e equal to four percent of the total number of
;, of theft, but in no case less than two. Signage
)mply W~;ving with part 1341.0476 shall be installed in
~11 lead '.~nt locations to notify patrons of the availability
,as orsystem.
if t.m T. AD G
t or publiSh,ted teller machines (ATMs) are provided, each
e kitche~l ~hall comply with part 1341.0464 except if two or
dwellin~'~ are provided at a location, then only one must
item
dgh the I~'r F. XCEPTION: Drive-up-only ATMs are not
~?~equired to comply with parts 1341.0470,
'19): AS~.i!~' ~bparts 2 and 3; and 1341.0484, subpart 3.
;b tems 'i0405, Item U. ADAAG 4.1.3(21): if dressing
'~d fitting rooms are provided for use by the general
(1) AD_.~!ic',I patients, customers, or employees, five
~bly wi~nt, but not less than one, of dressing rooms for
~s shall ~ 'tyPe of use in each cluster of dressing rooms
technically infeasible or otherwise exempted. When --'~
existin.q toilet rooms, telephones or ddnking fountains
serve the addition, they shall be made accessible as
required in this chapter; in the order stated and to the
maximum extent feasible. The alteration to the toilet
rooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the
addition need not exceed 20 pement of the cost of the
addition.
1341.0411 ADAAG 4.1.6: ACCESSIBLE
BUILDINGS; ALTERATIONS.
1341.0411, Subpart 1. ADAAG 4.1.6(1):
General. Alterations to existing buildings and
facilities shall comply with items A to K.
1341.0411, Subpart 1, Item A. ADAAG
4.1.6(1)(a): No alteration shall be undertaken that
decreases or has the effect of decreasing accessibility
or usability of a building or facility below the
requirements for new construction at the time of
alteration.
1341.0411, Subpart 1, Item B. ADAAG
4.1.6(1)(b): If existing elements, spaces, features, or
common areas are altered, then each altered element,
space, feature, or common area shall comply with
parts 1341.0401 to 1341.0405. If the applicable
provision for new construction requires that an
element, space, feature, or common area be on an
accessible route, the altered element, space, feature,
or common area is not required to be on an accessible
route except as provided in part 1341.0411, subpart 2.
1341.0411, Subpart 1, Item C. ADAAG
4.1.6(1)(c): If alterations of single elements, when
considered together, amount to an alteration of at least
85 percent of the square foot area of a room or space
in a building or facility, the entire room or space shall
be made accessible.
1341.0411, Subpart 1, Item D. ADAAG
4.1.6(1)(d): No alteration of an existing element,
space, feature, or area of a building or facility shall
impose a requirement for greater accessibility than that
which would be required for new construction. For
example, if the elevators and stairs in a building are
being altered and the elevators are, in turn, being
made accessible, then no accessibility modifications
are required to the stairs connecting levels connected
by the elevator· If stair modifications to correct unsafe
conditions are required by other sections of the
Minnesota State Building Code, and the stairway is
required to be accessible, the modifications shall be
done in compliance with this chapter unless technically
infeasible.
1341.0411, Subpart 1, Item E. ADAAG
4.1.6(1)(e): In alterations involving public telephones,
all newly installed or relocated public telephones shall
be accessible as provided in part 1341.0405, item Q.
1341-13
CODE 3401
34O5
Chapter 34
EXISTING STRUCTURES
ON 3401 t GENERAL
in existence at the time of the adoption of this code may
.. thek existing use or occupancy continued, if such use or oc-
was legal at the time of the adoption of this code, pro-
ed such continued use is not dangerous to life.
, change in the use or occupancy of any existing building or
shall comply with the provisions of Sections 109 and
; of this code.
For existing buildings, see Appendix Chapter 34. See also Sec-
101.3.
For a comprehensive code and guidelines on the treatment of
e~sting buildings, see the Uniform Code for Building Conserva-
tion.
SECTION 3402 -- MAINTENANCE
All buildings and structures, both existing and new, and all parts
thereof, shah be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. All
devices or safeguards required by this code shall be maintained in
conformance with the code edition under which installed. The
owner or the owner's designated agent shall be responsible for the
maintenance of buildings and structures. To determine com-
pliance with this subsection, the building official may cause a
structure to be reinspected.
SECTION 3403 -- ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS OR
REPAIRS
3403.1 General. Buildings and structures to which additions,
alterations or repairs are made shall comply with all the require-
ments of this code for new facilities except as specifically pro-
vided in this section. See Section 310.9 for provisions requiring
installation of smoke detectors in existing Group R, Division 3
Occupancies.
3403.2 When Allowed. Additions, alterations or repairs may be
made to any building or structure without requiring the existing
building or structure to comply with all the requirements of this
code, provided the addition, alteration or repair conforms to that
required for a new building or structure.
Additions or alterations shall not be made to an existing build-
ing or structure that will cause the existing building or structure to
be in violation of any of the provisions of this code and such addi-
tions or alterations shah not cause the existing building or struc-
ture to become unsafe. An unsafe condition shall be deemed to
have been created ff an addition or alteration will cause the exist-
ing building or structure to become structurally unsafe or over-
loaded, will not provide adequate egress in compliance with the
provisions of this code or will obstruct existing exits, will create a
fire hazard, will reduce required fire resistance, or will otherwise
create conditions dangerous to human life. Any building so al-
tered, which involves a change in use or occupancy, shall not ex-
ceed the height, number of stories and area permitted for new
buildings. Any building plus new additions shall not exceed the
height, number of stories and area specified for new buildings.
Additions or alterations shall not be made to an existing build-
ing or structure when such existing builcli~g or structure is not in
full compliance with the provisions of this code except when such.
addition or alteration will result in the existing building or struc-
ture being no more hazardous based on life safety, firesafety and
sanitation, than before such additions or alterations are under-
taken. (See also Section 307.11.3 for Group H, Division 6 Occu-
pancies.)
EXCEPTION: Alterations of existing structural elements, or addi-
tions of new structural elements, which are not required by Section
3401 and are initiated for the purpose of increasing the lateral-force-
resisting strength or stiffness of an existing structure, need not be de-
signed for forces conforming to these regulations provided that an
engineering analysis is submitted to show that
1. The capacity of existing structural elements required to resist
forces is not reduced,
2. The lateral loading to required existing structural elements is not
increased beyond their capacity,
3. New structural elements are detailed and connected to the exist-
ing structural elements as required by these regulations.
4. New or relocated nonstructural elements are detailed and con-
nected to existing or new structural elements as required by these regu-
lations, and
5. An unsafe condition as defined above is not created.
3403.3 Nonstructural. Alterations or repairs to an existing
building or structure that are nonstructural and do not adversely
affect any structural member or any part of the building or struc-
ture having required fire resistance may be made with the same
materials of which the building or structure is constructed.
3403.4 Glass Replacement. The installation or replacement of
glass shall be as required for new installations.
3403.5 Historic Buildings. Repairs, alterations and additions
necessary for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation or con-
tinued use of a building or structure may be made without
conformance to all the requirements of this code when authorized
by the building official, provided
1. The building or structure has been designated by official ac-
tion of the legally constituted authority of this jurisdiction as ha~w"~
2. Any unsafe conditions as described in this code are c. r
rected. '-~-'~8t'~[--~
3. The restored building or structure will be no more hazardous ~
based on life safety, firesafety and sanitation than the existing
building.
SECTION 3404 m MOVED BUILDINGS
Buildings or structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall
comply with the provisions of this code for new buildings or stmc-
tures.
SECTION 3405 t CHANGE IN USE
No change shah be made in the character of occupancies or use of
any building that would place the building in a different division
of the same group of occupancy or in a different group of occupan-
cies, unless such building is made to comply with the require-
ments of this code for such division or group of occupancy.
EXCEPTION: The character of the occupancy of existing build-
ings may be changed subject to the approval of the building official,
and the building may be occupied for p..urp~.,, in other groups without
conforming to all the reqnirements of this/x~de for tho~e groups, pro-
3405
1997 UNIFORM I
vided the new or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire
risk, than the existing use.
No change in the character of occupancy of a building shnll be
made without a certificate of occupancy, as required in Section
109 of this code. The building official may issue a certificate of
occupancy pursuant to the intent of the above exception without
certifying that the building complies with all provisions of this
code.
S¥1vester Pam
(l~oer°m:
Subject:
Sun'at Aaron
Tuesday, December 31, 2002 9:52 AM
Syivester Pam
RE: Revised Plans for Dog Day Care
I read through the letter, wow! I only have one major concem still, and that is the access we have in the back of that
building with the big wood structure back there. Code requires a 20 foot un-obstructed path for apparatus. With the wood
platform back there, I just want to be sure we have that between the platform and the parking area. If we have that, then
we will need plenty of signage stating, "No parking anytime, Fire Lane"
The only other thing I can think of is that there is plenty of signs telling emergency responders that doggy daycare is in the
back of building! This would keep all emergency responders from driving in circles to find their businessUU
That's all I have. '"'
Thanks,
Aaron
---Original Message
From: Sylvester Pam
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:24 PM
To: Sun-at Aaron
SubJect: Revised Plans for Dog Day Care
Aaron,
I have revised plans for you to pick up and review. Need an email from you by Thursday am.
Thanks
Pam
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
New Hope Properties Ltd
02-26 Partnership 12/13/02 2/11/03 4/12/03
8835 E Research Center Road
1224 W 96th Street
Bloomington 55431
Ron Tupy
RJT Architects, Inc.
3619 85th Ave N BP 55443
763-315-3067
Judy Jo Paskiewicz
4226 Xerxes Ave N, Mpls 55412
612-529-2481
B.
C.
D.
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
Assign each application a number.
List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
List the date the City received the application.
List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the
date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.)
List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before
the time limit expires.
Memorandum
To.' Planning Commission Members
From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Date: January 3, 2003
Subject: Miscellaneous Issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with
additional detail on CounciI/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. December 9 Council/EDA Meetings - At the December 9 Council/EDA meetings, the
Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
5. Resolution Approving Re-Appointments to Citizen Advisory Commission, Human
Rights Commission, Personnel Board, and Planninq Commission: Reappointed Paul
Anderson and Kathi Hemken of the Planning Commission, see attached Council request.
6. Motion Authorizinq Staff to Obtain an Appraisal of 4000 Winnetka Avenue, the Former
Dura-Process Company Industrial Property: Council authorized obtaining an appraisal, see
attached Council request.
7. Project #719, Resolution Approving the Low Quote from Quest Real Estate, Inc. for th~
Property Management of the Multi-Tenant Office Buildinq Located at 7801 Bass Lake
Road: Approved, see attached Council request.
8. Project #685, Motion to Accept the Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation
CHDO Marketinq and Sales Proposal for 7105 62"d Avenue Accessible/Adaptable
Twinhome, Setting Unit Prices and Limitinq the Sales to Households of Between Two
and Six Persons with a Demonstrated Physical Disability: Accepted proposal, see
attached Council request.
9. PC00-13, Motion Accepting Livable Communities Task Force Report: Accepted as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
10..Project #707, Resolution Approving Cooperation Aqreement Between the Minneapolis
Public Housinq Authority, the New Hope EDA and the City of New Hope for thr,
PPL/Bass Lake Road Apartments Project at 7610 Bass Lake Road: Approved, see
attached Council request.
11. Project #718, Motion Appointin_a City Center Task Force Membere: Council appointed 15
members to the task force, see attached Council request.
12. Ordinance ~02-15, An Ordinance Amendinq New Hope Code Section 14.031 by
Increasinq the Housinq Maintenance Inspection Fee: Adopted new fee increase of $5 to
$110 beginning January 1, 2003, see attached Council request.
13. Discussion Reqardin.q Request by Collyard Group/Waldorf-Nevens, Inc. for City
Assistance for Potential Redevelopment at Ware manufacturing Property, 4300 Quebec
Avenue: EDA requested staff to explore options.
14. Proiect #707, Resolution Approving Initial Agreement Between the Minneapolis Public
Housinq Authority for the PPL/Bass Lake Road Apartments Project at 7610 Bass Lake
Road: Approved, see attached EDA request.
15. Project #707, Resolution Approving Cooperation Aqreement Between the Minneapoli-~
Public Housinq Authority, the New Hope EDA and the City of New Hope for the ppL/
Bass Lake Road Apartments Project at 7610 Bass Lake Road: Approved, see attached
EDA request.
2. December 16 Council Meetinq - At the December 16 Council meeting, the Council took action
on the following planning/development/housing issues:
5. Ord. 02-17, An Ordinance Amendinq New Hope Code Sections 14.042 and 14.027 by
Increasinq Administrative Fees for Zoninq Permits, Subdivision and Plattinq, and Si.qn
Permits: Adopted, see attached Council request.
3. Codes & Standards Committee - The Codes & Standards Committee met in December to
discuss bus shelters, dog daycare, and minor code amendments.
4. Desi.qn & Review Committee - The Design & Review Committee met in December to review the
dog daycare application. The application deadline for the February Planning Commission meeting
is January 10 and the Committee will be contacted regarding the status of any applications
received. It is anticipated that Navarre will be submitting plans.
5. Future Applications - Future applications or businesses that staff is currently working with
include:
a. Variance for single-family home garage expansion -
b. Budget Rental Car CUP and PUD amendment for City Center Shopping Center-
c. 8501 54 Avenue ~ndustnal subdivision request and new construct on -
d. Collisys - PUD amendment to allow second building on site.
e. Chardon Court new construction
f. Navarre expansion
g. Frank's site potential redevelopment
h. Egan companies expansion
i. 42nd & Quebec redeveloping in future: Culvers Restaurant and professional offices
6. Project Bulletins - Enclosed are project bulletins regarding 7901 49~ Avenue and 36"~ Avenue
infrastructure and Hidden Valley park improvements for your information.
7. Miscellaneous Articles - Enclosed for your information is the November issue of Zoning News.
8. If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff.
Attachments:
Planning Commission Re-Appointments
4000 Winnetka
9220 Bass Lake Road Financial Guarantee Reduction
7801 Bass Lake Road Property Management
7105 62nd Avenue CHDO Marketing & Sales
7610 Bass Lake Road Cooperation Agreement
City Center Task Force
Housing Maintenance Fee Ordinance
4300 Quebec Avenue
7610 Bass Lake Road Initial Agreement-EDA
7610 Bass Lake Road Cooperation Agreement-EDA
Administrative Fees for Zoning/Subdivision and Sign Permits Ordinance
Project Bulletins
Zoning News
R.F III T FOR ACTION
Originating Dep~,,,ent Approved for Agenda Agenda SecUon
City Clerk Consent
12/9/O2
Valede Leone Ite~ No.
By: B~. 6.6
RESOLUTION APPROVING RE-APPOINTMENTS TO CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION, FIRE
DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, PERSONNEL BOARD, AND
PLANNING COMMISSION
R[::OUFRT[~D ACTION
Terms of several commission members will expire December 31, 2002. Staff recommends adoption of
the attached resolution re-appointing members who have expressed a desire to continue serving on
various commissions.
Staff will review commission applications on file, and if necessary, advertise open position(s).
Staff has received the following responses concerning re-appointments:
Commission Member Response
Citizen Advisory John Devine Requests re-appointment
(two-year term) Barbara Downs Requests re-appointment
Gary Downs Requests re-appointment
Tad Johnson Declined re-appointment
Chris Lange Requests re-appointment
John Mclntosh Requests re-appointment
.,, Amy Tate Declined re-appointment
Fire District Board of Steven Reed (New Hope rep) Both are willing to continue serving
Directors {two-year term) Phil Carruthers {9th member) until replacements are found
Human RighL~ Gunilla Bjorkman-Bobb Requests re-appointment
(two-year term) Malcolm John Chestnutt Requests re-appointment
Jac, queline Fraeddch Reouests re-appolab~ent
Personnel Board Douglas Andersen Requests re-appointment
(3-year term)
Planning Commission Paul Anderson Requests re-appointment
(3-year term) Kathi Hemken Requests re-appointment
MOTION BY ~ $F.,COND B,y
To:
/
RFA-OOI
t REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 12-9-02 Consent
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald, Director of
Community Development By:
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN AN APPRAISAL OF 4000 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH, THE
FORMER DURA-PROCESS COMPANY INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting that the City Council approve a motion authorizing staff to coordinate with the owner of
4000 Winnetka Avenue North, the former Dura-Process Company industrial property, to obtain an appraisal
for potential acquisition purposes. On Friday, December 6, 2002, City staff was informed that the property was
for sale. The property is located within the City Center study area adjacent to and south of the Robbinsdale
281 School District bus garage property.
.POLICY/PAST PRACTICl;;
City Goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within
the City. The City Council has been addressing the commercial portion of this goal through the City's many
redevelopment activities, including acquiring properties from willing sellers in areas designated for
redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan.
The City is required by law to pay fair market value when acquiring property. Normally, fair market value is
determined from a property appraisal.
BACKGROUND
On Friday, December 6, 2002, City staff was informed that the subject property was for sale. The former
owner passed away recently and the operation was purchased and moved to Eden Prairie, MN. The business
was a somewhat small operation employing an estimated ten (10) people. The property is located within the
City Center study area.
' The property is three (3) acres in size and is adjacent to and south of the Robbinsdale 281 School District bus
garage property. The City has discussed the possibility of acquiring the school district property and the subject
property for future redevelopment purposes. The administrative building has environmental health issues and
the district plans to relocate its administrative operations within two (2) years. The Dura-Process Company
property would be an important parcel for redevelopment of the entire site. The City Council is in the process
of appointing the City Center Task Force to study redevelopment opportunities in the area.
MOTION BY S]~COND BY
TO:
.~quest for Action Page 2 12-9-02
In 1998, the Council passed a resolution approving the City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update. In
1999, the Metropolitan Council approved the Comprehensive Plan Update. In the Plan, the City was broken
i down into several planning districts. Planning District 11 is the distdct where the City Center study area is
located. The school distdct bus garage and the subject property are located just south in Planning District 14.
Due to discussions with the School District 281, the bus garage and subject property have been targeted by
staff for redevelopment consistent with the same goals and recommendations as Planning Distdct 11.
The Comprehensive Plan targeted several areas in the City for redevelopment. Recommendations for
Planning District 11 include: aggressively pursue the renovation and redevelopment of the Winnetka Center
and the Kmart Shopping Center and that the City will pursue redevelopment of marginal sites along 42°d
Avenue.
The Hennepin County Estimated Market Value is as follows:
· Hennepin County
o Taxes payable 2002, estimated market value: $962,000 ($327,000 Land & $635,000 Building)
Staff recommends that the Council authorize staff to coordinate with the owner to obtain an appraisal of the
subject property for potential acquisition purposes. Based on a discussion with an appraisal firm, staff
estimates that an appraisal of the subject property will cost around $3,000. If authorized, staff would solicit
quotes from appraisal firms and request that an appraisal be completed by the firm that submits the lowest
responsible quote. Staff would then bring the completed appraisal back to the Council to consider negotiation.
FUNDING
The subject property is located in an area where TIF funds can be expended. TIF funds would be used for
property acquisition and associated holding costs.
ATTACHMENTS
· Location Map
· Topographic Map
· Section Map
· Hennepin County Parcel Data
4301--4471
........ 42ND AVE N ........
8151
8161
5£MANE
~ERY
4'~4
422O 4215
4148
OF'F1CE ~
SCHOOL
BUS
4]24
7701
4301
YMCA
7"J2S, 7515 ?S(X)i
,,
:
4t24
4116
4108
7801
COUNC~
RE( UEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 12-9-02 Development & Plannin~l
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD
& Ken Doresk¥, CD Specialist By:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOW-QUOTE FROM QUEST REAL ESTATE, INC. FOR PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT OF THE MULTI-TENANT OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 7801 BASS LAKE ROAD
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 719)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting Council consideration of a resolution approving the Iow-quote from Quest Real Estate in the
lump sum amount of $300 per month to manage the multi-tenant office building at 7801 Bass Lake Road. Staff
anticipates a closing of the property to occur on December 16, with the City taking ownership at that time. On
November 12, the Council discussed property management and rental options for the building and requested
that staff solicit quotes from professional management firms and determine the status of leases and interest in
remaining in the building for a pedod of twelve (12) to eighteen (18) months. On October 28, the Council
approved a resolution authorizing acquisition of the property by direct purchase or eminent domain and
directed staff to return to the Council with properbj management and rental options for discussion prior to
property closing.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties withir
the City. The City Council has been addressing this goal through the City's many redevelopment activities,
including acquiring properties from willing sellers in designated redevelopment areas. Over the past few years,
the City has purchased a total of fourteen properties located in Planning District 6 (east Winnetka area) as
referenced in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The City has, at times, assumed operating responsibilities for various properties in between relocating tenants
and site clearing activities. Most recently, staff assumed operating responsibilities during this interim period for
the residential four-plex'apartment buildings previously located at 7601-41 62"" Avenue North. The City
purchased these buildings in 1998 for redevelopment purposes, relocated the tenants, cleared the sites and
landbanked the properties.
BACKGROUND
On November 12, the Council discussed property management and rental options for the building and directed
staff to solicit quotes from professional management firms. Since that time, staff developed a Request for
Quote and solicited quotes from five property manacjement firms, the City Attorney developed a contract for
MOTION BY
· SECOND BY
TO:
Request for A.ction
Page 2 , 12-9-02
services and Evergreen Land Services, the City's relocation consultant met with a number of the tenants to
discuss relocation eligibility and to inquire if tenants wish to stay in the building for 12-18 months
1. Management Contract
The City Attorney developed a contract for services that includes but is not limited to the following (please
see attached contract):
· Leasing: Manager will not provide leasing services, but will enforce all existing tenant leases and
month-to-month rental agreements.
Legal Requirements: Compliance with any legal requirements.
Operation: Manager shall be responsible to maintain the property in good condition and repair to
standards established by owner, at owner's expense.
Maintenance & Repair: Manager shall see that the physical facilities, personal property and grounds
are at all times well maintained and kept in good order and repair and in a proper state of cleanliness,
at owner's expense. Manager shall have authority to hire,-supervise and terminate on behalf of owner,
independent contractors required in the operation of the property. However, all contracts shall require
approval of the owner.
Emergency Maintenance & Repair: Manager shall report to owner full details of any emergency orally
and by letter remitted by the end of the following business day. The contracting limitation shall be
waived for emergency repairs if owner is not reasonably available to grant approval. Manager shall
obtain and maintain records and enforce any guarantees or warranties that may concern owner's real
or personal property included within the property where such records, guarantees, and warranties are
reasonably available to manager. Owner's approval must be obtained before pursing any legal
remedies to enforce said guarantees or warranties.
Employees of Manager: Owner reserves the dght to approve any employees of manager who will be
assigned maintenance duties on the property.
Budgets: The fiscal year for the property shall be from January 1 through December 31 of each year.
Manager shall update and revise in a format to be approved by owner the anticipated budget for the
property no later than thirty (30) days from the date this agreement is executed and every year
thereafter, no later than December 1 of each year. Said budgets shall include the estimated operating
monthly income and expenses of the property for the next fiscal year. After approval by owner in
wdting, budgets shall be used by manager as a guide for the actual operation of the property. Manager
agrees to obtain the pdor written approval for any expenditure or expenditures which would cause any
major budget revisions, except for emergencies. All expenses within approved budget are to be borne
by owner and it shall be the responsibility of owner, provided there is no default by manager, to make
available sufficient funds to manager to meet expenses anticipated in the approved budget.
Collections: Manager shall use due diligence to collect all sums payable by tenants. All sums so
collected shall be delivered to owner no later than one day after the day of collection.
Books, Records and Reports: Manager will establish and maintain an accounting and management
reporting system that will account for all transactions relating to the property. Manager shall provide the
following financial and management reports to owner for the preceding accounting month:
1. Detailed report of all monies collected (identified by tenant or other source) which shall include:
A. Rent bills to tenants;
B. Rents collected;
C. Rents delinquent;
D. Rents prepaid beyond current month, and;
E. Secudty deposits collected.
2. Detailed report of all expenses, capital and operating.
Termination of Contract: This agreement may be terminated and the obligation of the parities
hereunder shall thereupon cease, upon the occurrence of any of the following circumstances:
1. In the event of a bona fide sale or substantial destruction of the property, either party may
terminate this agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party.
Request for Action Page 3
12-9-02
2. If a petition for bankruptcy, reorganization or rearrangement is filed under state or federal
insolvency statutes by or against manager, or manager shall make an assignment for the benefit of
creditors or take advantage of any insolvency act, owner may terminate this agreement upon ten
(10) days written notice to manager.
3. If a petition for bankruptcy, reorganization or rearrangement is filed under state or federal
insolvency statutes by or against manager, or manager shall make an assignment for the benefit of
creditors or take advantage of any insolvency act, owner may terminate this agreement upon ten
(10) days written notice to manager.
4. If manager shall knowingly and materially fail to comply with any ordinance or law of any federal,
state or municipal authority, owner may terminate this agreement upon ten (10) days written notice
to manager.
5. If either party shall default in the performance of any of its obligations hereunder and such default
shall continue uncorrected for thirty (30) days after written notice from one party to the defaulting
party designating such default, the party not in default may terminate this agreement upon ten (10)
days written notice to the defaulting party.
6. In the event the property fails to produce a positive cash flow, owner, in its sole discretion, may
terminate this agreement upon ten (10) days written notice to manager.
Management Quotes
Firm Quote
Quest Real Estate $300
Jen3/Showalter (former owner) $400
Upper Midwest Management Corporation $500
Staff solicited quotes from five (5) commercial property management firms, three (3) firms submitted quotes.
Staff recommends that the Council award a contract to the Iow-quote firm, Quest Real Estate, Inc. to manage
the building, unless the Council desires to award the contract to the current owner/manager Jerry Showalter.
As stated in his RFQ cover letter, Mr. Showalter has owned and managed the building for over twenty (20)
years. Furthermore, he stated that there is a special relationship among tenants in the building and he would
like to see that environment maintained.
Quest Real Estate, Inc. would attempt to operate the building as it currently is maintained. Steven A.
Ludovissie, Director of Property Management submitted the quote. According to the qualifications submitted,
Mr. Ludovissie has personally been responsible for the leasing and property management activities of
portfolios with commercial property totally over 900,000 square feet. Staff contacted four (4) of the five (5)
references provided and all were complimentary.
3. TenantLeases
As requested by the council, Evergreen Land Services, the City's relocation consultant has been meeting with
tenants to determine their relocation eligibility and any desire to remain in the building. At the time of this
report, Evergreen Land Services indicated that two (2) of the tenants were planning to vacate the building
ASAP and the remaining tenants would like to stay in the building for twelve (12) to eighteen (18) months on a
month-to-month basis. Three (3) of the ten (10) current tenants have leases that expire March 31, 2003. All
other tenants are obligated to month-to-month rental agreements. Due to the inability to sublease (relocation
obligation to new tenants) and the current month-to-month flexibility, staff is recommending that continued
month-to-month rental agreements be offered to each tenant. According to the Property Management
Agreement, the agreement can be terminated at which point that the property fails to produce a positive cash
flow. The City would be required to provide the tenants with a ninety (90) day minimum notice to vacate the
property. Evergreen Land Services will provide a detailed memorandum at the time of the meeting regarding
tenants desiring to vacate the building and tenants wishing to remain.
Please see the following cash flow summary:
Request for Action Page 4 12-9-02
Unit Rent Per Month Rent Per Year Lease Term Future Plans as of 1213102
101 $560 $6720 Month-To-Month Remain
110 $435 $5220 Expires 3-31-03 Remain _
111 Empty N/A N/A N/A
120 $360 $4,320 Expires 3-31-03 Remain
121 $445 $5,340 Month-To-Month Remain
200 $210 $2,520 Expires 3-31-03 Vacate
201 $445 $5,340 Month-To-Month Remain
210 $545 $6,540 Month-To-Month Two tenants - One to remain (1/2 Rent)
211 $480 $5,760 Month-To-Month Remain
221 $250 $3,000 Month-To-Month Remain
231 Empty N/A N/A N/A
Total $3,730 $44~760
Estimated Cash Flow
Gross Rent $3,247.50
Operating Expenses (Avg.) $1,885.00
Management Fee $300.00
Cash Flow per month $1,062.50
Operating Expense Summary (2001)
Item Per Month Per Year
Garbage Removal $112 $1,344
Snow Plowing $42 $500
*Cleaning $200 $2,400
Bathroom Towels $24 $288
**Misc. Expenses $144 $1,728
Gas $236 $2,832
Electricity $320 $3,840
Water $45 $540
Insurance $82 $984
Taxes $679 $8,148
Total $1,884 $;~.608
The tenants are responsible for cleaning their own offices.
All utilities are included in rent.
*Cleaning service provided by tenant #121. Tenant 121 is the resident manager and takes care off
cleaning and general maintenance of the building.
**Miscellaneous expenses include minor repairs (plumbing, electrical, doors and locks, tree trimming, light
bulbs, etc.)
On October 28, 2002, the Council approved a resolution to purchase the subject property for $370,000. The
property is a multi-tenant office building, currently occupied by nine tenants. Two office spaces are vacant. At
the October 28 meeting, the Council requested that staff research options to maintain the building's current
use as offices and potentially lease the open units until redevelopment activities begin. The concept being that
the City could generate income from the property and delay relocation of the existing businesses before the
site is required for redevelopment.
Relocation expenses would be required as a component of this acquisition project. Evergreen Land Services,
the City's relocation consultant, has provided the City with a preliminary relocation estimate of $20,000 per
tenant. It has been determined that ten (10) tenants are currently located in the building, therefore assuming
Request for Action
Page 5 12-9-02
all the tenants accept the $20,000 in lieu of payment as opposed to actual expenses, relocation expenses are
estimated to be $200,000. Relocation activities are currently underway.
On July 22, 2002, the Council authorized staff to negotiate the potential purchase of this multi-tenant office
building based on its appraised value of $330,000 as determined by the Shenehon Company.
Based on a meeting with the property owner on April 15, 2002, the City Manager authorized staff to obtain an
appraisal of 7801 Bass Lake Road for potential acquisition purposes. The property is located in the East
Winnetka Livable Communities area and in Planning District 6. This property is included in the east Winnetka
area redevelopment concept plans developed by the Livable Communities Task Force.
In 1998, the Council passed a resolution approving the City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update. In
1999, the Metropolitan Council approved the Comprehensive Plan Update. In the Plan, the City was broken
down into several planning districts. Planning Distdct 6 is the district where the Winnetka, Bass Lake Road
and Sumter properties that the City has been pursuing over the past few years are located. Planning Distdct 6
is bordered by Winnetka Avenue North to the west, C.P. Rail system to the south and the City of Crystal to the
east and north.
The Comprehensive Plan targeted several areas in the City for redevelopment. Recommendations for
Planning Distdct 6 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 Avenue and Bass Lake Road.
On May 24, 2002, the Council hired the engineering firm Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. to determine whether
qualification tests for tax increment eligibility (site coverage, building conditions) can be met in the east
Winnetka area. This study is being undertaken to facilitate redevelopment efforts in the area. SEH has
determined the subject building to be substandard in the DRAFT report. At a future meeting, staff will request
that the Council consider a resolution determining the building to be substandard and included in a Tax
Increment Financing District. The resolution would allow the City to clear the site and still include the property
in a future Tax Increment Financing District.
The property is located at 7801 Bass Lake Road and built in 1969. The property is zoned CB and is used as a
multi-tenant office building. The property measures a total of 14,810 sq. ft. or .34 acres. Gross building area of
the facility is an estimated 6,000 sq. ft., with a net rentable area of approximately 4,313 sq. ft.
Recommendation Summary:
1. If it is determined that enough tenants plan to remain in the building and a positive cash flow is
generated:
A. Award management contract to Quest Real Estate, Inc. in the Iow quote amount of $300 per
month, and;
B. Due to the inability to sublease (relocation obligation to new tenants) and the current month-to-
month flexibility, offer continued month-to-month rental agreements to each tenant.
C. Operate the building on a month-to-month basis until a enough tenants vacate the building that a
negative cash flow is generated and at that time begin the minimum ninety (90) day vacation
process.
2. If it is determined that enough tenants are planning to vacate the property that it will generate a
negative cash flow:
A. Accept Jerry Showalter's management proposal of $400 per month and operate the building for the
minimum ninety (90) days.
Once the building is vacant, the City would request quotes for demolition and site restoration.
Request for Action Page 6 12-9-02
FUNDING
The subject property is located in an area where TIF funds can be expended. TIF funds would be used-for
property acquisition and associated holding costs.
ATi'ACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Location Map
· Topographic Map
· Quotes and Related Material
· Request for Quote including Sample Contract
· Cash Flow Charts
.,' %. ; ,; , ; ,.., ,, ~' ~ -'.
i %,%, -_. .: ~-- t ; · ; ~ : ·
7~01'"" ~ ..... ~--: '~ -- 7810 ! -: ! -
- : ..... ~. , -...:., I i ~ l I, ~ 5$TH AVE
... ........ , O · O ' ... .... · :..- ........ .: · O .., : -
· , ~ · F. ...... & ; .- ~ 76
: ... ~ ...... ;e~ ,~ ,: : , , ,~.~:,~: 15 : :
; f~.,,~ : .,., .. ,.) r,, :. r,. ..:;f;S:37 '.' ; ~r~,~ ~. '- i r~ ii:. r~ r [ :
: , · .' ;. ; .~ · : ,". , · , --- 7~01
....... ~ ~ .'. ;_._ ..... --'. & ..............~ {. __..;~.. .... .:....-...._...J
.... ......_.._._ ,....... . : ; ~ ~: . . .
; , ,~,~.~-'~ 5531 ~ / c~xA ."-"--"~ i .... .: ....... ~-'
z. ; ~.fl.-~6 L ~, ~ ~ I ~ ~ · em.
: ,~ 4. ~ ..... ,' '"~'.'AO , ~'*: r~ ~ /~ ""~'---0 : Iv'
t . : ~,~1 : ' I II,~g · : ~ . '[
~ : - .. .- .., .... 7~OB..
· ._ ....... ___. -_: O IH AVE N .
........... : ~ ', ~-.--- -- :
~ : , 5500 , 5443 · ~ , ~ , : T
· · : ~ ; , ' {' . "--.i ,,..---. --..--,--,
-........_,,.~....----.. ! ~ ; ~ . · .. ;
---.- ,d .....,.~ : ' ' '° - ' cJ
5426 ; 5,427 ] ~ .....--...~ . ~_ ;,. ~. , u2; ; ~,~ , : ~ .,,
:- : r KJ'~J ; ~ .,~.. :;gl"'; . . ~r.---------..~ ..... .~ t....._ j
.......... "--------', ~ ,,,"'-~'~ ; ;;)q.,'/ ~'" : r.,j~)~ '* ~L"~"/ ' MI': ,.--. *: , ; --
5420 : ,f421 ; £ ..... · ._...__..__.~ .,. :. , : . /0(;~ ; 54.?.,5 ,, ;
: i ; r,j,j~) ? ;:'Z"_"~ ............ : ,--, ..... ~.~ " , ~ ! I I
: v~r.. i ..... '"""'"",-~---,L..,,, : .----*----- ....... .....
· ~ { ~,l~lA t -- ~0~..4,! I' , --11 ~' --.-,M..*.~ ..,.__,.,,...
. ; · ...mr. o '' "~; : . %k....,--,. , ' -: '
gJ,-~ :: .... ~ L , ; ,,~q',,a ~; ;]414 ; ~dll~ ~ ~ ~)416 ; I~..-~ ; : _ ."
:' ': ~ ~06 :------ :1-- :------- .--- .... .:,~.a :...._., .~. ibJ; ....
! · t z ~ r ' : I, · bq'"1'l%/ t
· ~ · -',,v. ....... .-J .------ .......... _'_1 ,_ .. , : , S.340
--"' f I ~Jl :vs~ ~rv,t ; ~,~A, ';&Ill .... ~ - - ;. ~. .....
~ . , ~ ,.,-r. av , ia"l~l ~...: ~ ~44~1 · · ,~.... ,"' .... '%'
' : , ~, .,~,,;IW : ; : : :' . : "'"" :"-'~'-- -,---,---/ ':
.. : .... .----:_:~- ......,,... .~ / 5~24 , .5Z~1 '.. : 5342 ;. 53:~ :.L I J: ....... .'"'" ......
.... ~ ~ ~' ............... ~ ~ · I f~)' ~
, .. ~ ~ ,~:_, 5313 · ., _ ._b.J.. ...... ~ ........· ~ 533! ,
, ~ ,~. 5307. .. 5312,. K'~o .,~. 5I.~, _~_s~? ~ . -_ , ..
! ,_...... \:. /~ ~%. : ~.....,......~ ; k~.)_ , ; ; ,.~aio
· ' o ~o~m ':'. : : ~'"--; t ' i ' _ ; ~ ~'. ""-,,.--.-- ..'
i ~e,~,. c ', ~.,T-~. ., ; -.. : ~., : [-_--""---..--f--_ ..... ~. ,..__...__~ .... :-
] ;~-,o ; ~ ...'r,/'% . ' ~ r.-:, m~A.. ) : 5318 : ~ , ~ r.,~.,, ~ "'",.
· L~- -- -- - --.- I. V', / / O: %, MI , ) ,. ) ~ .
~ ;-'q~t~ ,tm :. -..... /~[ ~;-,,... : :r .--.-...,.,,,, .... --I ~._ : :
: i .... .~ I~ .~ -, ,dW, ; --; ." ~'_ /', / ,.' glee ; _~'qt"l~/ :
' ~... - . P · '.,-TI. '.. : r% · ~;~ .I "si . wi4. ) ~ .' , e,,,----
; ~ '~'""? ~l .'m~---~,.~ ~ ~.~' %,,. $ r% : j ),. t %-" -- '----....,'
t REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 12-9-02 Development & Planning
Item No.
By~ Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist By':
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE NORTHWEST COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION CORPORATION (NCRC) CHDO
MARKETING AND SALES PROPOSAL FOR 7105 62ND AVE. N. ACCESSIBLE/ADAPTABLE TWlNHOME
SETTING UNIT PRICES AND LIMITING THE SALES TO HOUSEHOLDS OF BETWEEN TWO AND SIX
PERSONS WITH A DEMONSTRATED PHYSICAL DISABILITY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 685)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting a Council motion for the following three 7105 62'~ Avenue North related items:
1. Accept the Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation's (NCRC) marketing and sales proposal;
2. Set the sales price and financing for both units, and;
3. Limit'the sales to households of between two and six persons with accessibility needs.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICi;;
City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within
the City. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the City's many
housing activities, including partnering with the NCRC to develop accessible housing for the disabled.
Inthe past, the purchase pdce of City-developed properties has been determined from property appraisals. In
addition, marketing of the City's accessible housing has normally started during construction to accommodate
any potential modifications. Also, the NCRC CHDO has secured HOME funding and provided technical
assistance including marketing and sales of the City's Scattered Site Housing Program projects. Finally, the
Council has limited sales to households that meet minimum guidelines, such as household size.
BACKGROUND
On November 25,.2002, the Council authorized staff to obtain appraisals of the twinhome units for the purpose
of sales price and marketing consideration. Staff recommends a Council motion for the following twinhome
related items:
1. Accept the NCRC marketing and sales proposal (see attached proposal):
The NCRC offers marketing and sales services to participating communities. Due to the large amount of
staff time involved in the sale of CHDO assisted properties, staff is recluestinc, i that the Council accept the
.,, SECOND BY
'TO:
Request for Action
Page 2 12-9-02
NCRC marketing proposal to begin marketing the property in December using qualified real estate brokers
and title company under contract with the NCRC. The fee for all services, including ad placement will not
exceed 6% of the sales price. Real estate fees have been included in the project budget. The proposal is
as follows:
· Organize and implement a pro-sale effort at a location to be determined with City staff.
· In conjunction with the City of New Hope, NCRC will market the properties through advertisements in
the local City newsletter, the Sun Post and at least one publication serving the disabled.
· Based on previous conversations held by New Hope staff, meet with the Courage Center to determine
avenues for reaching the disabled population.
· Post information on City's website.
· Work with City staff to send promotional flyer to local apartment complexes.
· Placement of a "For Sale" sign in the front yard of the unit marketed.
· Press releases will be sent to key minority publications, in particular Insight, La Prensa, and Asian
American Press. _
· Highlight sheets of the property will be distributed to local realtors, the Community Resource Center
operated by the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC), New Hope City Hall, Tasks
Unlimited, Northwest Hennepin Human Services, Courage Center and Community Action for Suburban
Hennepin (CASH). All highlight sheets will include the fair housing logo.
· Hold one open house on a date to be determined with City staff.
· Solicit applications from prospective applicants by January 2003.
· Screen all prospective buyers, and select most appropriate buyer, based on current screening criteria,
including:
o income eligibility;
o presence of disabled in the household;
o household size of 2-6 persons and;
o preference for New Hope residents, and residents of NCRC service aroa.
· Ensure the preparation of all documents for a closing, including HOME and other subordinated
mortgages, and schedule such closing. Provide Hennepin County with all necessary documents three
weeks prior to closing.
· Responsibilities of the City of New Hope:
o determine sales price for the home;
o hold necessary public hearing to approve sale;
o assist in website posting, and marketing in City's newsletter;,
o forward to realtor or Executive Director any contacts made to City Hall regarding interest in the
property;
o provide contacts with the Courage Center;
o provide requested documents on County HOME checklist to NCRC to forward to County three
weeks prior to closing.
Set the sales price and financing for both units.
In the past, the Council has set the sales price of City housing project consistent with the appraised value.
The following values have been established by appraisal:
~-APpraisals __
Avenue North .-Accessible Unit ~
, .uo o-, Avenue North - Ad._~.~.~.a. ble Unit _[ 6151 L~uisiana
__Ap_praise~ Value: ~"8~ __~_p~c~ Value: $~,~_._.~_~
HOME funds can be used for development gap funding and/or down payment assistance. Due to the high
cost of developing the twinhome and in an effort to reduce the development gap all HOME funds for the
project have been designated for development. To meet the affordability guidelines and to secure the
Request for Action
Page 3 12-9-02
City's investment in the home, staff is recommending that a second mortgage be instituted similar to
financing structure at 4864 Flag Avenue North. The second mortgage would be a forgivable thirty-year (_30)
$20,000 loan ($18,000 assigned to the New Hope EDA and $2,000 assigned to the NCRC) at /o
compounding interest and a graduated repayment structure. The NCRC has the ability to provide a $2,000
loan per project based on demonstrated need. The repayment amount would decrease over the thirty-year
(30) period. If the owner sold the property, they would be required to repay one hundred percent (100%) of
the loan plus interest for the first five (5) years, seventy five (75%) plus interest during years six (6) through
ten (10), fifty percent (50%) plus interest during years eleven (11) through fifteen (15), twenty five (25%)
plus interest dudng years sixteen (16) through twenty (20), fifteen percent (15%) dudng years twenty (20)
through twenty five (25) and ten percent (10%) plus interest during years twenty six (26) through thirty
(30). Please see the attached repayment schedule. This is the same structure utilized for the third
mortgage at 4864 Flag Avenue North. This structure is intended to recapture the City investment with a
modest return in the event that the property is sold, therefore preventing the seller from gaining any
unreasonable profit. If the City were to leave this investment in the project unsecured, the owner could sell
the property and retain these dollars as profit. Recaptured funds could be used for future affordable
housing projects under the City's Scattered Site Housing Program.
Staff is recommending the following sales price structure.
Recommended Financing
7105 62"0 Avenue North - Adaptable Unit 6151 Louisiana Avenue North - Accessible Unit
First Mortgage $165,000 First Mortgage $165,000
Second Mortgage Loan ($18,000 $ 20,000 Second Mortgage Loan ($18,000 $ 20,000
EDA & $2,000 NCRC) EDA & $2,000 NCRC)
Total $185,000 Total $185,000
3. Limiting the sale of the homes to households demonstrating a physical disability.
In the past, the Council has limited household size for the purchase of the City's Scattered Site. Housing
Program. Appropriate household size was one of the qualifying criteria for the rehabilitation project at 7901
49"~ Avenue North. In this case, staff is recommending that the Council limit the sale of this
accessible/adaptable project to households demonstrating a physical disability and limit the household size
to between two (2) and six (6) persons. Demonstrated physical disability requirements and proper
household size would be incorporated into marketing documents. Although further limiting the sales will
reduce the qualified pool of applicants, staff is of the belief that any extra effort necessary will be justified.
Staff and Councilmember Cassen recently met with Courage Center staff to discuss accessible housing
activities in the City and will use Courage Center staff as a resource for identifying potential buyers.
On September 23, 2002, the Council awarded a construction contract for this project to the Iow-bidder, BCB
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $343,652. The foundation has been completed and framing is underway.
On August 14, 2000, the City purchased 7105 62nd Avenue North from a willing seller for $103,000. The
original intent was to rehabilitate the existing home under the City's Scattered Site Housing Program. Upon
further inspection, City staff found that the home's foundation was failing. Based on the high cost of repairing
the foundation, on March 26, 2001, the Council directed staff to remove the existing house and proceed with
the development of a new accessible twinhome in partnership with the Northwest Communities Revitalization
Corporation (NCRC). To accommodate a twinhome on the site, the property was rezoned in Apdl, from R-l,
Single Family Residential to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential. The home was sold to a house mover,
removed and the site restored.
On November 13, the Council directed staff to seek proposals from professional design firms for the
development of accessible twinhome plans and specifications. Staff solicited quotes from fifteen (15) design
firms for the project. On January 28, 2002, the Council awarded the design proposal to Project for Pride in
Request for Action Page 4 12-9-02
Living, Inc. (PPL) for the Iow-quote amount of $8,000. On July 22, the Council approved the house plans and
directed staff to solicit bids for the project.
The Council directed staff to develop a design that would front the units on separate streets (site is located at
the northeast comer of 62nd Avenue North and Louisiana Avenue North) and stay within the character of the
neighborhood. Also, the Council requested that staff work with a designer to place the attached garages in
such a way that would soften garage dominance of the street frontage that is often seen in new construction.
In addition, the Council directed staff to design one unit as fully accessible and one as adaptable.
PPL successfully incorporated the Council's requested design elements without the use of any zoning
variances. The final design shows one unit fronting 62nd Avenue North and the other fronting Louisiana
Avenue North. As with the surrounding homes, the twinhome is a one-story design. And as requested, the
garages do not dominate the site frontage, but are of adequate size. Finally, one unit was designed as fully
accessible and one as adaptable. The adaptable unit has many of the same features as the fully accessible
unit, and if needed, could be modified to fully accessible at a later date.
Landscaping of the property will take place separately from the house construction. The Council approved the
landscape plan on September 23, 2002. Staff plans to seek quotes for landscaping during the winter. Finally,
staff is in the process of obtaining the necessary materials to formally split the lot. The City's Zoning Code
Update allows for administrative approval to divide a base lot of a two family dwelling, which is part of a
recorded plat, if the division will permit individual private ownership of a single dwelling unit within such a
structure, provided that the newly created property lines will not cause any of the unit lots or structure to be in
violation of the New Hope Zoning and Subdivision Code. This property meets all the administrative approval
requirements, therefore staff will follow the lot split process in this manner.
Staff recommends approval of this motion.
FUNDING
This project is located in an area where TIF funds can be utilized. CDBG funds were used to acquire the
property, remove the foundation and prepare the site. CHDO HOME funds in the amount of $60,500 have
been secured for this project.
ATTACHMENTS
· Location Map
· NCRC Marketing Proposal
· Appraisal - 6151 Louisiana Avenue North (Accessible Unit)
· Appraisal - 7105 62"~ Avenue North (Adaptable Unit)
· Second Mortgage Repayment Schedule
· Budget
x x,
D~
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 12-9-02 Development
& Planning
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald By:
MOTION APPOINTING CITY CENTER TASK FORCE MEMBERS(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #718)
REQUESTED ACTION
This matter was tabled at the November 25 Council meeting and the City Council requested that this matter be
:)laced on this agenda.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
The City Council has appointed task forces in the past to study specific issues, such as the 42"d Avenue
Streetscape project and Livable Communities Task Force.
BACKGROUND
This past summer and fall, the City has been accepting applications for the City Center Task Force. At the
November 12 City Council meeting, staff represented applications to the City Council that had been received
to date from residents and businesses indicating an interest in serving on the City Center Task Force. The
Council accepted the applications and referred this matter to its November 18 work session and directed staff
to place this item back on the Council agenda for November 25. The Council tabled this item on November 25.
and requested that the item be placed on this agenda. All applications received to date have been previously
provided to the City Council.
The Council has taken the following actions regarding the formation of a task force and the potential
redevelopment of the City Center area this past year:
· A~)ril 15 Council Work Session - Council discusses redevelopment opportunities and directs staff to
continue coordinating with Brookstone, Inc. and the city's financial consultant on the potential
redevelopment of the City Center area. The Council directed staff to start the groundwork for the formation
of a task force and coordinate with the planning consultant on the drafting of some specific redevelopment
goals for the City Center area.
__ (cont.)
MOTION BY
SECOND BY
TO:
'Request for Action
Page 2 12-9-02
May 13 Council Meetinq - Council approved a resolution supporting an application to the Metropo~.
Council for a planning grant to assist with the funding of a study for this area (staff was informed this
summer that the grant was not funded, but staff plans on reapplication in spring 2003).
May 20 Council Work Session - The City Council reviewed, modified and approved City Center
Redevelopment Goals, which are attached.
· July 22 EDA Meetinq - EDA approves Letter of Intent to work collaboratively with Brookstone, Inc. on
potential redevelopment of City Center area, in conjunction with task force.
Auqust 19 Council Work Session - Council determines to extend application deadline and discussed the
size of the task force and cdteda for persons serving on the task force. Recommendations received from
the Council to date regarding task force criteria include the following:
Suggest 15 members, including:
3 residents, not business owner or properly owner in New Hope except maybe a homeowner.
3 business owners
I property owner, such as commercial, industrial or apartment
I property manager, such as shopping center, apartment, etc.
I from prior 42"~ Avenue Committee
1 from Planning Commission
1 from Citizens Advisory Commission
I from District 281
1 faith based
1 from non-profit
~ past or present Council member
15 total
A proposed work program and timeline were developed in conjunction with the grant application and
excerpts of the program are attached. Staff is recommending the same work program, pending further
input from the Council, task force and general public. Staff is recommending that the City Center Task
Force start meeting in January, after the Livable Communities Task Force has completed its work and
recommendations, so that staff is not coordinating two separate task forces at one time. The Livable
Communities Task Force hosted a neighborhood open house on November 19 and will be presenting
recommendations to the City Council on December 9.
FUNDING
Initially, the City Center .Task Force will be funded with funds budgeted in the 2002/2003 Economic
Development Authority budget, as the city's funding application to the Metropolitan Council for another
planning study grant was not funded. Staff will be submitting another grant application next spring.
.ATTACHMENTS
· Articles Soliciting Applications
· Task Force Goals
~, Tai~ ank-annge of in-p!,,-- -,----~,,- 4, Detmnine the dmsi~s necmtn, m
+ Reduce r. he ~ of ze~ spa= to
a scale that is n.,ppo~
~ to the commm:ial ~
pom~ of e:e ~.. Gms.
~d~ ~ ~
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 12-9-02 Development & Planning
Item No.
By: Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist By:
RESOLUTION APPROVING COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC
HOUSING AUTHORITY, THE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF
NEW HOPE FOR THE PPi/BASS LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT AT 7610 BASS LAKE ROAD
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 707)
ACTION REQUESTED ' ~ '-
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving the Cooperation Agreement
between the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, New Hope Economic Development Authority and the City
of New Hope for the PPL/Bass Lake Road Apartments project at 7610 Bass Lake Road.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within
the City. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the City's many
housing activities, including partnering with different agencies and organizations on housing projects.
Inthe past the Council approved a similar agreement as part of the PPL Bass Lake Court Townhomes project.
As the Council is aware, projects of this size require a vadety of funding partners and usually require the
expertise of an experienced development agency, such as PPL. Often times, other jurisdictions and agencies
approve funding, contingent upon the City's consent and project participation.
BACKGROUND
Staff is requesting Council and EDA approval of the attached resolution prepared by the City Attorney
approving the Cooperation Agreement with the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority for the PPL rehabilitation
project at 7610 Bass Lake Road (11 unit rehabilitation). This project is being handled in the same manner as
the previous PPL redevelopment project, the Bass Lake Court Townhomes. Please see the following
comments offered by the City Attorney regarding the requested action:
"The Cooperation Agreement indicates the City, in its capacity as the taxing authority, will not assess real
estate taxes against the four MHOP units within the development for the entire 40-year exemption period. In
lieu of real estate taxes, the Owner will pay the EDA a PILOT. This amount will be calculated as 5% of the
"Shelter Rent" as that term is defined in the Agreement. Shelter Rent is approximately 30% of the income of
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Request for Action
Page 2 12-9-02
the occupants of the four MHOP units. As a result, the rental payment will be quite Iow. The EDA will be
O required to pay the PILOT to the County for distribution to the various taxing bodies as if it were the actual real
estate tax payment.
Other provisions of the Agreement will require the City to provide the MHOP units with basic City services as
provided to all other properties in the City and to cooperate in the successful development and operation of the
housing units. This means vacating streets if necessary, granting reasonable deviations and variances from
the building and zoning codes, accepting dedication of interior streets within the development, if any, and
providing sidewalks, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers leading to the development area. Most of
these things the City has already done, is in the process of doing or is not applicable to this development.
Keep in mind, this Agreement contains boiler plate language used on all such projects by the MPHA. It has not
been drafted specifically for the subject development."
On May 13, 2002, the EDA approved a redevelopment and loan agreement with PPL for partial funding and
participating in 7610 Bass Lake Road Redevelopment Project.
Staff recommends approval of this resolution.
FUNDING
The total cost of this project is approximately $1.32 million. The financing is a combination of a traditional bank
mortgage, investments from the City of New Hope an.d Hennepin County HOME and AHIF funds. Four
affordable units will be paid for by the Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program (MHOP), which was
created to increase the supply of rental housing outside of the central cities.
The City's portion of funding for the project is as follows:
Total loan: $223,000 (30 year 0% interest deferred loan with a balloon payment due June 1, 2032).
Sources:
o $ 78,000 CDBG, and;
o $145,000 EDA.
At the November 11, 2001 Council work session, the Council elected to fund the project in this manner.
Included in the total amount is $5,000 to be used match funding for playground equipment. At that time, PPL
ensured the Council that $5,000 could be raised to match the City's contribution.
Staff has made it clear to PPL and the NCRC that the amount of EDA funding for this project is firm and will
not increase.
.A'i'rACHMENTS
· Resolution
· City Attorney Correspondence
· Location Map
· Cooperation Agreement
COUNCIL
RIDQUI ST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 12-10-0[ Ordinances &
Resolutions
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald B),:
ORDINANCE NO. 02-15: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 14.031 BY
INCREASING THE HOUSING MAINTENANCE INSPECTION FEE
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a motion adopting the enclosed Ordinance Amending New
Hope Code Section 14.031 by Increasing the Housing Maintenance Inspection Fee, which was prepared by
the City Attorney. Staff recommends that the publication of the ordinance take place at the end of December
so that the fee increase will be effective January 1, 2003.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
The Council reviews fees on an annual basis and the general philosophy of the City is that the fees collected
should cover the majority of the cost of the service provided for the fee.
BACKGROUND
The City requires a housing maintenance inspection for the sale of all single and multiple family dwellings. The
fee currently charged is $105 per dwelling unit for the initial inspection and first re-inspection for single and
two-family residences, condominiums and townhomes. Multiple residences with three or more units are also
currently charged a fee of $105 for the first unit in each building and $15 for each additional unit. Any dwelling
unit that requires additional inspections is currently charged a fee of $45 per hour, with a one-hour minimum.
The City conducts approximately 340 housing maintenance inspections per year.
During budget discussions this year, the Council discussed several minimal fee adjustments and the housing
maintenance inspection fee was one area that was reviewed. Based on the quality of the inspection services
~rovided and based on the fees that are charged in other metro area cities, it was determined that a minimal
~ncrease in the housing maintenance inspection fee was justified. The City Council gave direction to staff to
increase the fee for the inspections by $5, from the current $105 to $110. The initial inspection fee per unit
(co~t.)
MOTION SECOND
BY BY
TO:
Request for Action Page 2 12-10-01
was increased in 1997, from $75 to $85 per unit, in 2000 from $85 to $100, and in 2001 from $100 to
$105. The fee for additional inspections was increased in 1997 from $40 to $42 per hour, and in 2000
from $42 to $45 per hour. Based on these facts, the City Council and staff both support a minimal
adjustment in the housing maintenance inspection fee.
The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed ordinance amendment, which increases the initial/first re-
inspection fee from $105 to $110 per unit. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment.
The ordinance increasing the fee is effective upon its passage and publication. Due to the fact that the
fee needs to be revised in some informational brochures describing the housing maintenance inspection
program, staff recommends that the ordinance be published and the fee increase become effective on
January 1, 2003.
ATrACHMENTS
· Ordinance No. 02-15
· City Attorney Correspondence
EDA
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 12-9-02 EDA
Item No.
By: By:
DISCUSSION REGARDING REQUEST BY COLLYARD GROUPANALDORF-NEVENS, INC. FOR CITY
ASSISTANCE FOR POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AT WARE MANUFACTURING PROPERTY, 4300
QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff requests that the Economic Development Authority discuss the attached request by the Collyard Group,
who is working with Waldorf-Nevens, for possible city financial assistance for the potential renovation of the
Ware Manufacturing building at 4300 Quebec Avenue North. Staff recommends authorization for staff to meet
with Collyard Group and Waldorf-Nevens and the financial consultant to conduct a preliminary analysis of the
financial implications of the project and options available to assist this business.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICI~
When city staff receives requests for financial assistance, they are submitted to the EDA for consideration. In
the past, the City has assisted a number of businesses with expansion, renovation and redevelopment
projects using a variety of financing tools.
BACKGROUND
'Ware Manufacturing has made announcements that it is closing its facility in New Hope and building a new
facility in South Dakota and the property has been for sale for the past six months. Staff is disappointed to see
Ware Manufacturing leave the City, and the City assisted Ware in the past with Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds (IDRBs) for equipment/machinery purchases.
Staff has been contacted by and conducted a meeting with the Collyard Group, representing Waldorf-Nevens,
Inc., regarding its potential interest in acquiring and renovating the building. Staff requested that they provide a
background letter stating their intentions and request and stated that the information would be presented to
the EDA for discussion. The Collyard Group has submitted the attached correspondence, which includes the
following background data and request:
· Waldorf-Nevens, Inc. wishes to formally declare its interest in the City of New Hope and requests the New
Hope City Council, staff and financial consultant to work with Waldorf-Nevens in determining what
(cont.)
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Request for Action Page 2 12-9-02
alternatives the City of New Hope has to provide for: tax increment financing, improvement grants, city
backed Iow interest improvement loans, tax rebates and/or other financial assistance to facilitate Waldorf-
Nevens in redeveloping 4300 Quebec Avenue North, known as the Ware building (and establishing a new
laundry plant).
Waldorf-Nevens, Inc. is the result of the merging of the Nevens Company established in 1895 in
Minneapolis and the Waldorf Cleaning Company, which opened for business in 1945 in northeast
Minneapolis.
Presently, Waldorf-Nevens has grown into four retail stores, with the market's largest home/office delivery
service (nine routes) and approximately 60 full and part-time employees of diverse odgins and varied
skilled positions.
· At an annual revenue of approximately $4 million, this fast growing company is in need of establishing a
proficient laundry plant that will be its flagship facility servicing personal, institutional, hospitality, restaurant
and health care clients (2'major hospitals).
· This new facility must look as good as the results it produces. Therefore, extedor beautification as well as
intedor functional renovation will be required of the property we have selected as our redevelopment site.
· Waldorf-Nevens is recognized as one of Minnesota's finest laundry and dry cleaning companies.
· We approach the City of New Hope for assistance in improving the property at 4300 Quebec Avenue
North. This building will need considerable improvement to accommodate the creation of 50 new jobs, the
world's finest laundry technology and a new upscale facade. We kindly request the City of New Hope to
consider providing $1 million to $1.8 million of financial assistance to redevelop this location.
· Waldorf-Nevens has engaged the Collyard Group, LLC to assist .them in a comprehensive search and
analysis of its real estate needs. Consequently, on behalf of Waldorf-Nevens we have performed vadous
studies and consulted with design/engineering firms specifically acquainted with Waldorf-Nevens physical
requirements to conclude that the Ware building, within the City of New Hope, is a possible site for our
client.
· We ask the City of New Hope to indicate the approximate level of financial assistance the City may be able
to offer Waldorf-Nevens for the redevelopment of 4300 Quebec Avenue North.
· Please accept our invitation to visit our current facility in Edina, meet the Zahhos Management Team and
join us to discuss our vision for the development of a first class facility in New Hope.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the EDA authorize staff to coordinate with the company and financial consultant and contact the
Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development to explore options for potential city financial assistance.
FUNDING
Funding for the analysis could be paid for with EDA funds or incorporated into project costs, if the development proceeds.
Staff recommends that if the EDA is interested in pursuing this request, the applicant provide a deposit to assist with
consultant costs.
ATTACHMENTS
· 12/2 Collyard Group Correspondence
· Newspaper Article
· Map of Property
201
47 I AVE N
W 4&t7
~ M4e
4~40 4641
463Z 4633
4~.4 4425
4~1~ 4~!7
MOO 4601
r ~
j 484~ ~
4840 ,4441
48~2 4433
4~24 4~25
,4~le 4817
/2 AVE N
)AVON
4224
4220 4215
4401
4301
4210 4211
47~$
473O
4700
42ND AVE N
4~41
4617
4~01
4732 4733
4724 472~
471e 4717
47~ 470~
47O0 4701
~ 4644
4~32 4441
4824 4433
4~16 4~25
440~ 4~17
4533
4532
4~24 482.~
451B 4517
4508 450e
4800 4801
47TH A'
Z
4-6TH AVE
45TH
IIIlllllllllll
FRED
SIMS
PARK
43~D
43RD AVE
4216 I 7200
7180
7140
RE( UEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 12-9-02 EDA
Item No.
By: Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist By:
RESOLUTION APPROVING INITIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC HOUSING
AUTHORITY AND THE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE PPL/BASS LAKE
ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT AT 7610 BASS LAKE ROAD (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 707)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends that the EDA approve the attached resolution approving the Initial Agreement between the
Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and New Hope Economic Development Authority for the PPL/Bass Lake
Road Apartments project at 7610 Bass Lake Road.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICI;;
City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within
the City. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the City's many
housing activities, in .cluding partnering with different agencies and organizations on housing projects.
In the past, the City has been requested to approve similar agreements in multi-partner redevelopment
projects. As the EDA is aware, projects of this size require a variety of funding partners and usually require the
expertise of an experienced development agency, such as PPL. Often times, other jurisdictions and agencies
, approve funding, contingent upon the City's consent and project participation.
BACKGROUND
Staff is requesting EDA approval of the attached resolution prepared by the City Attorney approving the Initial
Agreement with the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority for the PPL rehabilitation project at 7610 Bass Lake
Road (11 unit rehabilitation). Please see the following comments offered by the City Attorney regarding the
requested action:
"The Initial Agreement basically indicates the EDA is willing to participate with the MPHA and PPL in the
proposal process to HUD for funding of the MHOP units. It also requires the EDA to enter into a Housing
Development Agreement with the MPHA and PPL that will, among other things, establish design specifications
for the units, confirm amenities in and around the development and require PPL to execute a Regulatory and
Operating Agreement and provide Declaration of Restrictive Covenants relating to the operation of the units.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Request for Action Page 2 12-9-02
The main responsibility of the EDA under the Initial Agreement will be the maintenance of an applicant waiting
list and the administration of grievance procedures for the MHOP units. As you know, these lists and
procedures have or are being developed by the Metropolitan Council. The EDA's responsibility for these
issues can be satisfied by delegation to the Met Council, as we did in the 1998 project with PPL."
On May 13, 2002, the EDA approved a redevelopment and loan agreement with PPL for partial funding and
participating in 7610 Bass Lake Road Redevelopment Project.
Staff recommends approval of this resolution.
FUNDING
The total cost of this project is approximately $1.32 million. The financing is a combination of a traditional bank
mortgage, investments from the City of New Hope and Hennepin County HOME and AHIF funds. Four
affordable units will be paid for by the Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program (MHOP), which was
created to increase the supply of rental housing outside of the central cities.
The City's portion of funding for the project is as follows:
· Total loan: $223,000 (30 year 0% interest deferred loan with a balloon payment due June 1, 2032).
Sources:
o $ 78,000 CDBG, and;
o $145,000 EDA.
At the November 11, 2001 Council work session, the Council elected to fund the project in this manner.
Included in the total amount is $5,000 to be used match funding for playground equipment. At that time, PPL
ensured the Council that $5,000 could be raised to match the City's contribution.
Staff has made it clear to PPL and the NCRC that the amount of EDA funding for this project is firm and will
not increase.
A'R'ACHMENTS
· Resolution
· City Attorney Correspondence
· Location Map
· Initial Agreement
EDA
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 12-9-02 EDA
Item No.
By: Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist By:
RESOLUTION APPROVING COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC
HOUSING AUTHORITY, THE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF
NEW HOPE FOR THE PPL/BASS LAKE ROAD APARTMENTS PROJECT AT 7610 BASS LAKE ROAD
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 707)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends that the EDA approve the attached resolution approving .the Cooperation Agreement
: between the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, New Hope Economic Development Authority and the City
of New Hope for the PPL/Bass Lake Road Apartments project at 7610 Bass Lake Road.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within
'the City. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the City's many
housing activities, including partnering with different agencies and organizations on housing projects.
In the past the EDA approved a similar agreement as part of the PPL Bass Lake Court Townhomes project.
As the EDA is aware, projects of this size require a vadety of funding partners and usually require the,
expertise of an experienced development agency, such as PPL. Often times, other jurisdictions and agencies
approve funding, contingent upon the City's consent and project participation.
BACKGROUND
Staff is requesting Council and EDA approval of the attached resolution prepared by the City Attorney
approving a Cooperation Agreement with the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority for the PPL rehabilitation
project at 7610 Bass Lake Road (11 unit rehabilitation). This proJect is being handled in the same manner as
the previous PPL redevelopment proJect, the Bass Lake Court Townhomes. Please see the following
comments offered by the City Attorney regarding the requested action:
"The Cooperation Agreement indicates the City, in its capacity as the taxing authority, will not assess real
estate taxes against the four MHOP units within the development for the entire 40-year exemption pedod. In
lieu of real estate taxes, the Owner will pay the EDA a PILOT. This amount will be calculated as 5% of the
'Shelter Rent" as that term is defined in the Agreement. Shelter Rent is approximately 30% of the income of
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Request for Action Page 2 12-9-02 "
the occupants of the four MHOP units. As a result, the rental payment will be quite Iow. The EDA will be I
required to pay the PILOT to the County for distribution to the vadous taxing bodies as if it were the actual real
estate tax payment.
Other provisions of the Agreement will require the City to provide the MHOP units with basic City services as
provided to all other properties in the City and to cooperate in the successful development and operation of the
housing units. This means vacating streets if necessary, granting reasonable deviations and variances from
the building and zoning codes, accepting dedication of interior streets within the development, if any, and
providing sidewalks, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers leading to the development area. Most of
these things the City has already done, is in the process of doing or is not applicable to this development.
Keep in mind, this Agreement contains boiler plate language used on all such projects by the MPHA. It has not
been drafted specifically for the subject development."
On May 13, 2002, the EDA approved a redevelopment and loan agreement with PPL for partial funding and
participating in 7610 Bass Lake Road Redevelopment Project.
Staff recommends approval of this resolution.
FUNDING
The total cost of this project is approximately $1.32 million. The financing is a combination of a traditional bank
mortgage, investments from the City of New Hope and Hennepin County HOME and AHIF funds. Four
affordable units will be paid for by the Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program (MHOP), which was
created to increase the supply of rental housing outside of the central cities.
The City's portion of funding for the project is as follows:
· Total loan: $223,000 (30 year 0% interest deferred loan with a balloon payment due June 1, 2032).
· Sources:
o $ 78,000 CDBG, and;
o $145,000 EDA.
At the November 11, 2001 Council work session, the Council elected to fund the project in this manner.
Included in the total amount is $5,000 to be used match funding for playground equipment. At that time, PPL
ensured the Council that $5,000 could be raised to match the City's contribution.
Staff has made it clear to PPL and the NCRC that the amount of EDA funding for this project is firm and will
not increase.
ATrACHMENTS
· Resolution
· City Attomey Correspondence
· Location Map
· Cooperation Agreement
COUNCIL
R ( UEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 12-16-02 Ordinances &
Resolutions
Item No.
By': Kirk McDonald By':
ORDINANCE NO. 02-17, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTIONS 14.042 AND 14.027
BY INCREASING ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FOR ZONING PERMITS, SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING AND
SIGN PERMITS
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a motion adopting the enclosed Ordinance Amending New
Hope Code Sections 14.041, 14.042 and 14.027 by Increasing the Administrative Fees for Zoning Permits,
Subdivision and Platting and Sign Permits, which was prepared by the City Attorney. Staff recommends that
the publication of the ordinance take place at the end of December so that the fee increase will be effective
January 1, 2003.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
The Council reviews fees on an annual basis and the general philosophy of the City is that the fees collected
should cover the majority of the cost of the service provided for the fee.
BACKGROUND
The City requires a basic zoning fee for all planning applications, such as conditional use permits, variances
planned unit development, building plan review, zoning amendments, and subdivision and platting. Staff is
aware that the City Council has been reviewing the 2003 budget and, therefore, took the initiative to survey
surrounding cities with regard to planning and development fees. New Hope's fees had not been increased for
many years and staff is now recommending increasing the fees as follows:
.Basic Fee Amount Current Proposed
Minor residential conditional use $ 75 $150
All other conditional use $225 $325
Zoning amendments (District or Text) $250 $400
Variances, single family residential $ 75 $150
All other variances $175 $325
Planned Unit Development $500 $800
Site and Building Plan Review $150 $325
Administrative permit residential (except Home Occupation) $ 50
Administrative Permit-Permitted Home Occupation $ 25
Administrative permit-Commercial/Industrial $100
(cont.)
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Request for Action
Page 2
12-16-02
Basic Fee Amount
Subdivision & Platting base application
Minor subdivision
Sign Permit- Permanent permit
Sign Permit - Temporary permit
Comprehensive Sign Plan
Current Proposed
$225 $400
$100 $200
$ 35 $100
$ 25 $ 50
$100 $200
The city's sign permit application fee is far below the amount charged by surrounding communities, therefore,
staff recommends increasing that fee as well.
The Community Development Intern prepared the attached memorandum researching fees charges by New
Hope. The research shows that New Hope fees charged for planning/development applications are below the
average. The fees charged are intended to cover some of the staff time spent on preparing reports, reviewing
plans, conducting meetings with applicants, etc. Deposit amounts are intended to cover consultant costs and
all consultant charges are passed through to the applicant.
The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed ordinance amendment, which increases the planning/
development, platting, and sign permit fees. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment.
The ordinance increasing the fees is effective upon its passage and publication. Due to the fact that the fees
need to be revised in some informational brochures for the planning application packet, staff recommends that
the ordinance be published and the fee increase become effective on January 1, 2003.
ATTACHMENTS
· Ordinance No. 02-17
· City Attorney Correspondence
PROJECT NO. 699
PROJECT BULLETIN
7901 49th Avenue North
Overview
The City of New Hope is overseeing the completion of a single-family home rehabilitation project at 7901
4 th .
9 Avenue North. The C~ty is currently marketing the home for sale.
The City would like to invite you to attend an open house on Friday, December 6, from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.
to view the project. An additional open house will be held on Saturday, December 7, from I to 3 p.m. The
City completed this project in partnership with the Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation,
Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO).
This single-family home has 1,092 square feet of finished living area and features three-bedrooms, an
attached garage, and a full bath. The basement is unfinished. Additional features include a new furnace
refrigerator, dishwasher, range and disposal.
The sales price of the home is $164,900 with $4,050 of down-payment assistance available to
program-qualifying household. $2,000 of additional assistance is available for those who demonstrate
need. For sale information, please contact B.J. Wdght, Best Value Real Estate at 763-533-5933.
The City will maintain the site until the home is sold. As a neighboring property owner, if you notice any
suspicious activity on the property, do not hesitate to contact the New Hope Police Department at 911
anytime, day or night.
· Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, 763-531-5137, e-mail
kdoreskv~ci.new-hope.mn.l_~.~, or
· Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 763-531-5119, e-mail
.kmcdonald~,,ci. new-hope, mn. u~.
The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents and businesses in the area that may have
impacted by this project. Neighboring property owners will continue to receive periodic updates as thl
redevelopment process proceeds.
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428
11-26-02
Open House
Friday, December 6, 3:30 - 5:30 p.m.
7901 49th Avenue North, New Hope
Citv of New Hope
Marketed by the
Northwest Community
Revitalization Corporation
Contact George Garnett,
Executive Director, at
763-533-4061
The City of New Hope would like to invite you to attend an open house to view the
City's latest scattered site housing project at 7901 49th Avenue North. The City
rehabilitated this home in partnership with the Northwest Community Revitalization
Corporation (NCRC).
This single-family home has 1,092 square feet of finished living area and features three
bedrooms, an attached garage, and a full bath. The basement is unfinished. Additional
features include a new furnace, refrigerator, dishwasher, range and disposal.
The sales price of the home is $164,900 with $4,050 of down-payment assistance
available to a program qualifying household. $2,000 of additional assistance is available
for those who demonstrate need. For sale information, please contact B.J. Wright, Best
Value Real Estate at 763-533-5933.
The home is located at the southwest comer of 49th Avenue North and Winnetka
Avenue North, please see reverse side for a location map. The home will also be open
on Saturday, December 7, from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this project or the open house, please
contact Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, at 763-531-5137,
I lB
[ II
I II
I Il
~l.~'
I .~'
il ii
~l ii
il :1!
~1.11
~1.11
il.LI!
ii ~.!'
IIi1_!
l~l'! BI,
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PROJECT BULLETIN
PROJECT BULLETIN #6
36TM AVENUE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
HIDDEN VALLEY PARK IMPROVEMENTS
City ProJect Nos. 626 & 710
Project Status: Work on the 36th Avenue Infrastructure and the Hidden Valley Park Improvement Projects
has stopped for .the winter. This project bulletin is intended to inform residents of the project status and to
describe work yet to be completed next spring.
36~ Avenue: The roadway opened to traffic on Wednesday, November 27m. All of the curb required in
the project has been installed. Sidewalks and driveways along Boone Avenue have also been installed.
Because of the late point in the season and the cold weather, it was decided that all remaining concrete
work east of Boone Avenue would be put off until next spring. Driveway approaches in this area have
been temporarily paved for the winter to provide owners of these properties a hard surfaced approach.
This pavement will be removed and permanent driveways and concrete aprons installed next spring after
the sidewalks have been installed. Until that time, the sidewalks will be gravel. This gravel must be dry or
frozen to support our snow removal equipment. With this in mind, we will maintain the walks and remove
snow from them as well as possible. Sod has been placed along the boulevards west of Boone Avenue.
Restoration of those boulevards east of Boone Avenue ceased when the ground became too frozen to
work it effectively.
Hidden Valley Park: Wet soil conditions prevented many of the park improvements from being completed
this fall. AJI of the rough grading has been done and base materials are in place for the hockey rink,
gazebo, and all of.the hard courts. Sod was placed on the ball fields west of Sonnesyn School and was
thoroughly watered earlier this fall. Even though work in the park has ceased for the year, the park is still
considered a construction site, and as such will remain closed until all work is completed. Please note:
the hockey rink at Hidden Valley Park is not completed. All events that would have been
scheduled at the Hidden Valley Park rink will be held at the hockey rink at Northwood Park on the
corner of Boone Avenue and Northwood Parkway. An office-type trailer will be delivered to the site
and will serve as a warming shelter at Northwood Park for the season. Since there is no parking lot close
to the rink at Northwood Park, rink users will be parking on residential Streets in the area.
Upcoming Work: Next spring the remaining driveways and sidewalks will be installed. The boulevards
will be restored and the necessary landscaping will be completed. The wear course, the final layer of
blacktop, will be applied to the street. Allowing the base course of bituminous to go through the winter
season allows engineers and City staff to detect any soft spots or settling of the subgrade below the street
surface. Any needed repairs can then be made 'before the wear course is applied, resulting in a better
final product. Next spring at Hidden Valley Park, the hockey rink, hard courts, and trails will be paved, and
the associated rink boards, fencing, and nets and goals will be installed. An irrigation system will be
· installed in the soccer field and turf establishment and landscaping will be completed. The gazebo will be
completed, and the remainder of the regional trail along the west side of Boone Avenue will be installed. It
is expected that the park will be open for use again by mid summer.
Contact Persons · ·
If you have questions or concams during the street and utility improvement project or the park project,
please direct your calls to one of the following:
Jason Quisberg
Project Site Inspector
Tom Schuster
Dale Reed
Guy Johnson
Shad French
Vince VanderTop
Contract Manager
Operations Manager
Director of Public Works
Director of Parks and Recreation
Project Engineer
(651) 604-4938
(763) 592-6763
(763) 592-6772
(763) 592-6766
(763) 531-5152
(651) 604-4790
For after hours or weekend emergencies, please contact the New Hope Police Department at
(763) 531-5170. '
Dec. 12, 2002
NOVEMIER 2002
AMERICAN
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
Common Problems
with Zoning Ordinances
~ John B. Bredin
local go emments zoning ordinance ,s an important part
of its land development policy implementation. Zoning
ordinance provisions--indeed, entire zoning ordinances--are
often adapted as much as pouible from existing ordinances
because of this importance and the relatively long legal and
political history of zoning in the U.S. While this efficiency uses
existing language tested both in the courts and in practice, it
also ren& to perpetuate errors in procedure and substance. This
does not mean that all zoning ordinances and ordinance
provisions should be drafted completely from scratch, but only
that existing and proposed language must be read critically. The
ordinance should conform to law, faithfully implement the local
government's land-use policy, and be reasonably understandable
to the citizens and landowners affected by it and to the officials
who enforce it.
The drafter should always know
why he or she is using
particular language, and not
parrot it solely because an
existing ordinance or model
uses the same language.
Clarity of Language
Them are some general concerns that one must anticipate in
drafting or editing a zoning ordinance, l.~al~ is a much-reduced
problem now that law $chooh emphasize drafting in plain language,
but it still occasionally slips into modern ordinances and
a~. endments. The dra~et should alwaya know why he or she is
using particular language, and not parrot it solely became an
existing ordinance or model roes the same language. V~
language should be avoided both to deter legal challenges and to
make the ordinance a practical guide to which development and
activities are permitted or not permitted. On the other hand, broad
language in purpo$e statements is not only acceptable but necema~
The numb~'iug ~ystem of a zoning code should be kept consistent,
and the a~ignment of new ~zction or chapter numbers to
amendments should be done with this goal firmly in mind. It
should be dear to the reader which citations are internal (to other
provisions in the zoning oMinance), to other ordinancea of the
jurisdiction, and to the enabling ~tatutes.
l)~mitiom are one area where dmfdng mistakes can have far-
reaching effecu. Key team should be defined. Similarly, tram of
art in the zoning and land-me fidd should be tmxl and defined
consistently with the general practice instead ofcxmdng an
idiosyncratic definition that confim= trained use~ mc. ah as officials,
developers, and attorneys. The indmion ofaulmamti~ regulatory
provisions in definitions should be avoided; otherwise, reading the
substantive chapteas of the ordinance alone would be inadequate to
determine the appficable regulations.
Categorizing Uses
Use categories have problems similar to those of definitions:
They should be dear, use common terminology where possible,
and avoid including substantive provisions. Use categories
should be relatively broad definitions that group together
similar uses of similar impact, rather than long enumerations of
particular businesses and activities. For example, "retail sales" is
preferable to "clothing stores, shoe stores, haberdashers, grocery
stores, drug stores,' as retailers of the same store size tend to
have the same impacts. The size of retail sales uses (for
example), which is relevant to impact, can be addressed in other
aspects of zoning districts such as dimensional standards.
The permitted and special uses in the various u~ districts
should be set forth in a table, rather than in long lists of the
uses for each district. A single table is not only dearer to read
than separate lists; it allows users to compare at a glance the uses
for each district. While single-use districts serve a vital purpose
(for example, heavy industrial districts to separate high-nuisance
uses), replacing strict separation of residential and commercial
(retail and office) uses with one or more mixed-use districts,
where the residential and commercial uses are of compatible
scale and impact, should be considered.
Some zoning ordinances appear to base the list of uses
permitted in a given use district, with or without conditions, on
existing uses. This becomes obvious when one or a few of the
uses do not wilt' with (not necessarily that they are incompatible
with) the other permitted or conditional uses. When lisdng the
uses permitted in a use district, the question that should be
asked is, "What uses do we want built or commenced there in
the future?"/fit is decided that a given use should be
encouraged in the district, then it should be a permitted or
·.. about this article.
Join us online!
During December 9-20, go online to participate in
our 'Ask the Author' forum, an interactive feature
of Zoning News. John Bredin will be available to
answer questions about this article. Go to the APA
website at www. planning.org and follow the links to
thc "Ask the Author" section. From there, just
submit your question~ about the ardde using an c-
mail link. The author will reply, posting the answers
cumulatively on the website for the benefit of all
subscribers. This feature will be available for selected
issues of ZoningNews at announced dines. After
each online discussion is dosed, the answers will be
saved in an online archive available through the
APA Zoning News webpages.
conditional use. But if ir is not desired that an existing me be
duplicated in the district, but only that preexisting instances be
protected, this should be addressed in the nonconforming uses
provisions and not in the list of permitted or conditional uses.
Some ordinances rely too much on special and/or conditional
uses. Most land uses should be as-of-fight, subject to compliance
with dear and objective standards and criteria for that particular me
category or zoning district. Discreti6nary approvals should be
reserved for unique uses that defy regulation by objective standards.
The murine employment of special uses, especially without (or with
few) standards or criteria, opens up both individual zoning
decisions and the zoning ordinance provision itself m constitutional
challenges as being arbitrary and capricious. Even where such a
challenge would not neczzaa~y succeed, the uncertainty m
landowners and citizens alike created by discretionary and/or
standardless zoning mriew should be avoided.
A related issue of discretion arises in the area of variances.
Every state has established a standard, usually stated expressly in
the enabling statute, for when a variance may or may not be
granted. The near-universal standard requires the existing
regulation to effect an ~undue hardship" upon the landowner
unless the requested variance is granted. While zoning
ordinances almost always include this variance standard, not all
boards of adjustment or boards of zoning appeal adhere
consistently m the standard when making decisions. Instead,
many apply a greater degree of discretion. This is more a
.problem of implementing the zoning ordinance, rather than of
~ts content, but a local government can indicate to its officials
that it wants the standard followed by including language
staring that the standard must be strictly adhered to and that
any variance not founded upon the standard is void.
Issues of Discrimination
Another substantive legal problem in the establishment of use
districts arises from permitting only or mostly single-family
detached houses on large lots, with homes on smaller lots,
townhomes, duplexes, and apartment buildings either not
permitted or severely restricted in number and location. Local
officials and existing residents may adopt such a policy in order
to preserve the existing character of the community as they
perceive it. However, such policies may be deemed excinslonary
zoning and therefore a violation of the equal protection dame
of the federal and state constitutions. While it is admittedly not
easy to challenge a zoning ordinance as exclusionary, local
governments have been found to have violated the constitution
on such a basis (Dews v. Sunnyvale, (N.D. Tex., July 31, 2000)).
An unsuccessful challenge can still came a local government
great expense and damage to its reputation. This is above and
beyond the fact that exdnsionary zoning is bad public policy. If
overgeneralized beliefs about the residents of smaller houses,
townhomes and duplexes, and apartment buildings, which often
form. the underlying impetu~ for exclmionary policies, were ever
true m some earlier dine, they make little sense in light of
today's demographic changes. The day~ should be long past
when a respected public official can state that apartment
buildings are Wa mere parasite" to detached homes. (Village of
Euclid v. Araber Realty' 272 U.S. 365 (1926), quoting State v.
City of New Orleans, 154 La. 271,283; 97 So. 440, 444.)
Similarly, some zoning ordinances restrict or prohibit
manufactured and modular housing. The legal foundation
often cited for this restriction is that the local building, fire, and
John Bredin i~ an attorney in Chicago who foeu~ on land vae and zoning.
2
plumbing inspectors cannot see inside the walls, floors, and
ceilings of the structure before it is completed at the facton;
which is usually in a different jurisdiction. Often, however~ the
reason for the restriction is that existing landowners perceive all
non-scratch-built housing as inferior and believe that allowing it
to be sited in their neighborhood will negativeh, affect their own
land values. The flaw in this perception is that ~nuch of this
nontraditional housing is nontraditional in construction
method only; there is litde difference between a modular house
and a tract house constructed equally en masse but onsite.
In response to the inspection concern, the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development has implemented a national
building code and inspection program for manufactured housing.
Also, several states (about 20) have protected manufactured
housing in their zoning enabling legislation, providing either that
local ordinances cannot discriminate between manufactured
housing and other homing, that manufactured housing must be
allowed in single-family residential districts on the same basis as
other homing or, at a minimum, that manufactured homing not
be excluded from the jurisdiction (that is, it must be a permitted
me in some residential zone). These laws typically provide that a
manufactured dwelling, to be protected, must be on a permanent
foundation, have at least a minimum (that is, not flat) roof pitch,
be sided or covered in certain materials and not others, and other
aesthetic prescriptions intended to make manufactured housing
equivalent to traditionally built housing. Even where the state has
not extended such protection, it is good policy to follow the lead
of these statutes in zoning ordinances and either accept
manufactured and modular homing on an equal footing with
traditionally built dwellings or at least provide some residential
districts where manufactured housing may realistically be built
(that is, where they are a permitted me not subject to undue
restrictions or requirements).
Some jurisdictions still have unduly restrictive provisions on
home occupations. There is a substantial difference among the
impacts of an author writing in a den in a home, a hairdresser
with a dozen or so clients seen in the living room each day, and
a mechanic who rebuilds old cars in his garage. Yet many
ordinances treat all home occupations as suspect, either
prohibiting or strictly regulating all without distinction. This
approach is especially problematic in the information age, where
many people perform some (if not most) of their work from
home by. computer, telephone, and fax. Generally, home
occupations that are true accessory uses to a primary
dwelling use, do not involve nuisances (noise, dust and dirt,
vibrations, fumes, etc.), and have neither employees nor
customers visiting the home workplace should be permitted
absolutely. The licensing and regulation of home occupations
with employees or customers on premises, which must still
be accessory to a primary dwelling use, should be reasonably
tailored to regulate the impact of the employee or customer
traffic. This can be done by limiting the number of
employees, the number of customers that may visit in a day,
and the hours during which the business is open to
customers and deliveries. Needless to say, home occupations
that, by their size or scope, are no longer accessory to a
primary residential or dwelling use, and occupations that
constitute a nuisance, may and should be prohibited.
Standards and Procedures
It should be clear in reading the bulk and dimensional
standards applicable in a district if the standards apply to all
uses in the district or only to the predominant use. For
example, does the lot-size standard in a residential zone apply
to permitted nonresidential uses such as churches and
schools? In older areas with an established pre'zoning pattern
of'development, averaging measures like height and
setbacks--requiring the average of the existing front-yard
setbacks (for example) along a particular block or Frontage,
rather than using a single preset figure--should be
considered, to make new development compatible with
existing structures in size and location.
Generally speaking, bulk and dimensional standards should
reflect the scale of development that the local government
desires for a given district. Downzoning an area with the goal
having more control over individual development proposals by
J- JJJJJJJJ JJJJJJJJ -I -i
JJJJJJlJJ j
Cluster
Dwelling
Detached
Dwelling
Duplex
Manuf. Home
Park
Manufactured
Home,
Residential.
Design
Multi-Dwelling
Structure
units)
P
P -[-
P
jjjjJ.,,-
JJJjJ,
I
IJJJJJjj'l-
JJ I ,
Home
Occupation
TRoeA
Home
Occupation
TypeB
AAAAAAAAAAA
sJslsl sisls/slslslsls, GreupHome, I S I SI S/S~i~jj_ I,_)
i General
'P - '2
sA == specialaCcess°ry Rt0;]__ muhif-amily residential CC = community commercial
P = pertained FIM CR = regional commercial
CN1 = ne~borbood conungnial Iowdetmty IBP = industrial business park
RS = single-family residential CO = commercial office district IL = industrial light
FISO = mixed office district CN2 = neighborhood commercial high density 1(3 = industrial 8ener~
'Numbers refer to square-foot lots CD = downtown commerciai OS = open .?~
requiring a variance or zoning amendment raises the same issues
of excessive discretion, due process ~arbitrary and capricious"
challenges, and citizen and landowner uncertainty that were
mentioned previously in the context of special uses and
variances. Similarl); height, floor area ratio (EA.R.), and densin.
limits higher than what is actually intended for an area, or even'
what the infrastructure of that area can bear, can lead to false
expectations for landowners and developers. Also, the individual
standards (height, setback, FA.R., etc.) for a particular district
should be consistent with one another in shaping development
to the desired pattern. When the regulations giveth with high
Fdt.lLs or density limits but then taketh away with the height
and setback standards, confusion and challenges result.
Basic parking provisions should be established in a clear
table, as with use districts. The parking table should use the
same use categories as the use district tables, and care should be
taken when use categories are created, eliminated, or modified
that the parking requirements are amended appropriately. More
substantively, parking regulations should be flexible, allowing
for shared parking and the provision of required parking offsite
where appropriate. Parking requirements for bicycles and other
nonautomotive modes of transportation should also be
considered. Administrative procedures should be spelled out in
the ordinance. It should be clear for each kind of permit or
approval who receives notice of an application, how, and when,
who may contribute information or testimony, when heatings
are required and when written submissions may be used, which
officials or bodies make recommendations and which make
decisions, when a supermajority vote (for example, two-thirds or
three-fourths) is required, how recommendations or a decision
are announced and to whom, and how and when a decision may
be appealed. Even where it is not expressly required by statute or
judicial precedent (as it is in many states), zoning decisions
should be required in writing and state the legal and factual
bases for the decision. Conflict of interest provisions with teeth
are an excellent idea to give the administrative process both the
perception and the reality of fairness. All these requirements
must be consistent with any express requirements of the
enabling statutes. But where the statute has few specific
requirements, it must serve as a beginning point for local
governments to establish the necessary details ofadministrarive
procedure rather than as encouragement for local governments
m make their own procedural provisions vague and general.
NEWS BP. JEFS
'Vasectomy', Zoning
Cities across Massachusetts have initiated zoning strategies to
limit the number of incoming children, viewing them as a
financial strain on local school districts. Specifically, they are
making it more difficult for a family with children to afford
buying a home. Many of the communities see the burden placed
on the local schools by an excessive number of children as a
fiscal problem that can be addressed with zoning. The zoning
ordinance amendments to limit families with children have been
labeled %asectomy zoning.'
Essentially, communities are reducing the number of new
children by targeting young families because young families
with children usually require lower-cost housing, which does
not generate significant property taxes. Cities in Massachusetts
have adopted such zoning initiatives as refusing multifamily
housing developments, increasing the minimum lot size in
residential zoning districts to. three acres, and limiting the
4
number of housing permits issued per year. By requiring a large
minimum residential lot size, the3· force developers to build
larger, more expensive, houses to compensate for the higher land
value. Empty nesters or married couples without children are
usually more likely to be able to afford homes above the median
price. Ci.ry officials in Plymouth, Massachusetts, a cin' of
52,000, estimate that a home would need to be value~t at
$475,000 to garner the necessary tax revenue to educate a child
in the local school system. On tl~e other hand, communities
nationwide traditionally have relied on commercial and
industrial property taxes to make up much of the difference.
John Lenox, director of Planning and Development in
Plymouth, describes the result of the zoning measures taken
there as not excluding families, but attempting to balance the
housing opportunities available. The primary measures taken are
phased residential development, a cap on building permits
issued, and a building permit cap exemption for age-restricted
housing. ~We welcome family housing," says Lenox, although
he also says that the community realizes it must pay its bills.
Lenox adds that Plymouth has just as many young families as it
did in the 1980s. The zoning changes that some would classify
as vasectomy zoning took place in the late 1980s and, to a
greater extent, since 1995.
Another method of accomplishing the same objectives, in
addition to amending the zoning code, has been to interpret
certain zoning language differendy to accomplish attracting
empty nesters. For example, ~senior citizen housing" can be
interpreted exclusively as a retirement home or as a housing
development with a minimum age restriction of 55. Such 55+
housing developments fall into the category of age-restricted
housing. Lenox says these zoning measures may not be as
appropriate in every community.
The context in Massachusetts is important. Massachusetts
already has typical home prices more than twice the national
average. The cost ofhomeownership in much of the state is
already so high that the intent of vasectomy zoning is largely
accomplished without such provisions. According to the
Citizens' Housing and Planning Association, almost two-thirds
of Massachusetts residents live in communities where a family
earning the local median income could not afford their
community's median-priced home. In the Boston metropolitan
area, only 19 of 127 communities have homes that the typical
family in the area can afford with 90 percent financing.
Nonetheless, many school districts in Massachusetts see a
significant problem in the fiscal cost of school overcrowding.
Several communities have chosen vasectomy zoning measures as
a primary solution to this problem, triggering criticism from
numerous public policy analysts, who see such zoning as foolish
because it runs the risk of driving young professionals and
young families to other states. Josh Edwarth
~Jniag Nfl~ is · monthly nev4le~er published ~ &e ~i~ P~ni~ ~tmn.
Su~p~ ~ i~ ~r S~ (U.S.) ~ S82 (~i~). W. Pa~ Farmer, ~cP, ~utive
Di~ WiH~ ~ ~ein, ~, Divot
~a~ ~:~ at ~ J~ ~.b, .~, ~d Mi~I D,vi~n ~ito~.
~tOl~l~mP~n~t~n Ills Mi~
A~., N.W.. W~on. ~ 2~; ~.p~mng.og
~n. ~.,,~n m ~ts~ ~ me ~n
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 3, 2002
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 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
CONSENT BUSINESS
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers,
Svendsen
Hemken
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant,
Aimee Gourlay, Livable Communities Task Force Facilitator,
Erin Seeman, Community Department Intern, Pamela
Sylvester, Recording Secretary
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC00-13
Item 4.1
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Review and Discussion of
Livable Communities Task Force Study Area Development Proposals and
Recommendations, City of New Hope, Petitioners.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, stated that city staff
was requesting to review and discuss with the Planning Commission the
Livable Communities Task Force study area development proposals and
recommendations. The comments and recommendations from the Planning
Commission would be forwarded to the City Council at its December meeting.
The City received a Livable Communities grant from the Metropolitan Council
in 2001 to study redevelopment opportunities in the Bass Lake
Road/Winnetka Avenue area. Since September 2001, a city-wide task force
studied redevelopment concepts, solicited proposals from interested
developers, made comments and recommendations on developer proposals
and, in November, conducted a city-wide open house. Members of the task
force are in attendance to confirm that the information presented is
representative of the task force. Staff is requesting feedback from the
Commission on the development proposals for each of the four study areas.
McDonald introduced Aimee Gourlay, the facilitator who worked with the task
force, and stated she would be available to answer questions.
McDonald pointed out that the Commission should review and respond to the
proposals in concept form only; this presentation was not meant to be a
detailed review of each proposal. One of the conditions of the Metropolitan
Council was that the grant be concluded by the end of this year, which is the
reason that the Planning Commission and City Council are reviewing these
proposals now. The Ci!y Council would meet with the individual developers for
a more detailed review at a work session early next year. It is anticipated that
the Council would either select a developer to work with on each site or
provide other direction to staff. McDonald stressed that any specific
development proposals would be brought back to the Planning Commission
for a very detailed review.
Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that this study was initiated
through a Livable Communities grant funded partially through the Metropolitan
Council. The Livable Communities grant focused on redevelopment and
creation of urban environments in the metropolitan area, specifically the Bass
Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue area. The features emphasized in the grant
include tight efficient land use patterns, high density or alternative housing
types, life cycle housing, creation of neighborhoods, linking of jobs with
neighborhoods, pedestrian and transit friendly developments. The target area
was a one-half mile radius of the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue
intersection. Specific target sites were generated through the task force. The
West Winnetka Study Area included the Hosterman and Winnetka
Elementary schools, some single-family lots and commercial properties along
Bass Lake Road. The West Winnetka area was identified without knowing the
future of the Hosterman school site, therefore, the task force looked at
redeveloping the entire area. The Bass Lake Road Apartments area included
marginal properties with a number of concerns as far as land use and
operational complaints in the area. The East Winnetka study area included
single family homes situated on deep lots along Winnetka Avenue. The single
family homes in the Bass Lake Road extension area was included in this study
area as well. The city has been active in the acquisition of properties in this
study area in the last several years. The task force identified the Northeast
Winnetka area, which included Wincrest Apartments and Franks Nursery.
Brixius reported that the process began approximately one and one-half years
ago with the selection of a task force, which was an advisory committee for
the City Council, supervised the process, provided direction to staff in the
development of the concept plans, and reviewed the development proposals.
The task force consisted of approximately 40-45 members from the Planning,
Citizens Advisory, and Human Rights commissions, Personnel Board, City of
Crystal, School Board, residents and business owners. Staff included
members from the Community Development, Administration, Public Works,
Police, and Parks & Recreation departments. Consultants on the task force
included the Planning Consultant, City Engineer, Financial Consultant, and
Facilitator. Issues in each area were identified with strengths and
weaknesses. Visioning statements were prepared that were the backbone of
the concepts developed. At each task force meeting, after a brief presentation
on the study area, the task force met in small groups to develop a concept
plan for the land use in that area and these concepts were then shared with
the entire group and the entire group came to a consensus on the concept
plan for the area. Staff developed more formal concept plans for each area
from the visioning efforts of the task force. The task force stated what it liked
or disliked about each of the concept plans and chose which of the plans
would be presented to developers. A financial analysis was completed on
each of the areas. The analysis indicated that in most cases the densities on
the concept plans were lower than what would be financially feasible based on
the tax increment. A developers' packet was prepared including each of the
project sites. The packet included information on the concept plans, what the
task force desired as part of the land use, and gave some flexibility to the
developer as far as the densities that were originally illustrated in the concept
plans.
The developers' round table was conducted in May with approximately 40
developers showing interest in the various sites. Developers were asked to
submit a Request for Qualifications, and those developers were then asked to
submit a Request for Proposal with concept plans for each of the areas. Eight
developers submitted proposals. Staff reviewed the plans and then presented
the developers proposals to the task force for review and recommendations.
These concept plans were then presented at a neighborhood open house and
staff received comments from neighbors.
Brixius stated that the task force identified strengths and weaknesses of each
area. Strengths of the residential areas included range of housing types,
Planning Commission Meeting 2 December 3, 2002
elderly housing supply and identifying good neighborhoods. The design that
was preferred was friendly close communities, interior neighborhoods were
emphasized in all of the concepts, local street access, community gathering
areas, churches, local shopping opportunities, transportation, and easy
access to major roads. Other elements included great location inside the
freeway loop, lot potential, long term residents, view of Bass Lake Road, and
the golf course. The weaknesses identified included poor traffic flow,
residential street access, dangerous intersection at Winnetka/Bass Lake
Road, and lack of bike/walking trails. Some of the design elements seen as
weaknesses included lack of parks, land use was not the best, and street
lighting. Redevelopment elements included eyesore properties, lack of city
enforcements, and the Hosterman site questionable. The willing seller
philosophy would be an issue if some properties did not become available for
redevelopment and the City did not pursue eminent domain. Residential
concerns included Iow income housing, need for condos and townhomes,
crime and section 8 apartment buildings. Commercial elements included the
lack of a good restaurant, two gas stations on one corner, neighborhood
businesses, lack of business tax base, more viable commercial layout, safety
issues, and industrial properties adjacent to residential along 54th Avenue.
After identifying the strengths and weaknesses, specific visioning statements
were developed. A community meeting place at one of the school sites or a
coffee shop concept within walking distance was proposed. Many people
expressed concern with Iow income housing, and range of housing
affordability. There were conflicting ideas on senior housing. One level condos
or apartments were identified as desirable for empty nesters. The task force
was split on introducing commercial into the study area. Most were against the
big box type arrangement and preferred something that would provide a
destination type business, such as a grocery store or quality restaurant.
Aesthetically pleasing site design was preferred including green or open
space, landscaped areas, streetscape design, and limited building heights.
Transportation was a major concern and included items such as pedestrian
friendly design, mass transit, preserve a higher functional classification of
streets, traffic volumes, realignment of streets, and access points.
The task force's current vision for redevelopment enforces the City's past
efforts in that some of the areas needed immediate attention. Other
opportunities could improve drainage in the area, improve the image of New
Hope, offer intergenerational appeal, provide land use housing and amenities
that would be attractive to a wide range of individuals. One item stressed was
that any redevelopment would help to pay for itself. The task force identified
the Franks Nursery site as another study area.
Brixius stated that after completing the aforementioned issues, the task force
reviewed each study area.
Bass Lake Road Apartment Site
The Bass Lake Road Apartment site contains 3.6 acres, and if the area was
enlarged to the north to include four additional single-family homes, it would
contain 5.1 acres. There are currently six apartment buildings on the site. The
concept elements for this site would include an attractive streetscape design,
realign Yukon Avenue, better golf course access, and soil conditions. Several
concepts were developed: Option A) 19-38 three-story townhomes with
underground parking; Option B) 32-64 three-story townhomes with
underground parking that included the four single family homes to the north of
the site; Option C) 64-unit three-story condominium development with
underground parking; Option D) four-story apartment building that included the
four single family homes to the north of the site. The financial consultant
indicated that a greater density would provide the least deficit.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 December 3, 2002
The City received four proposals from developers for this study area as
follows: 1) Metro Plains A: 38 townhomes in the form of two three-story
buildings with attached two-car garages and containing 2,000 square feet per
unit. Parking would be in the attached garage or driveway space. The site
area would contain 3.6 acres. Amenities would include a path, pond, gazebo,
and patio. Unit pricing would be $175,000 - $250,000. Total project cost would
be $15 million, with a developer investment of $5.9 million and gap of $9.1
million. City assistance requested would be $9.2 million. The gap was a critical
concem on this project. 2) Metro Plains B: 100 market rate apartments
including one and two-bedroom units, some with a den. There would be
underground parking and some surface parking available. The site area
contains 3.6 acres. Amenities would include paths, porches, community reom,
gazebos and ponding. Rent for the units would be from $900 to $1,300 per
month. Total project cost would be $15 million, with a developer investment of
$12.5 million and gap of $2.5 million. Tax revenue would be $115,000 per
year and city assistance requested would be $2.5 million. This project
received some high marks from the task force. 3) Ron Clark Minnstar
Builders: 88 townhome units in eight buildings. Units would contain 1,585 -
2,014 square feet and the end units would be two stories high and the interior
units would be three stories. There would be garage parking, tandem and
surface parking available on a total of 5.9 acres (including eight single family
properties to the noah of the site). Amenities would include patios and decks,
with vinyl siding, shakes, and stone or brick on the exterior of the buildings.
Units would sell for $165,000 - $200,000. No information was available for
project costs or financing. The task force felt the density of this proposal was
too great and was reluctant to include the eight properties to the north.
4) Boisclair: This proposal was for 137 life cycle apartments in a four-story
building. Sizes would range from 500 square foot studio units to 1,300 square
foot three-bedroom units with nine-foot ceiling heights. Parking would be on
two levels with some surface parking available. The site would contain 4.5
acres and utilize four of the single-family homes to the noah of the existing
site. Amenities would include a fitness center, outdoor swimming pool,
business center, balconies, and orientation to the golf course. Exterior building
materials would include asphalt shingles and standing seam metal roof, brick
at grade, Hardie board above grade. Rents would range from $725 to $1,300
with 20 percent of the units affordable. Project cost would be approximately
$15.7 million with a $3 million developer investment. The task force felt the
developer's investment on this project was much too Iow. The developer
indicated it would work with the City with regard to its investment in the project.
Brixius noted that the task force evaluated each of the developers' proposals
and the Boisclair project received the highest rating as far as site design,
density, presentation, land use, orientation/access to golf course, and street
alignment. The specific recommendations from the task force included:
greater financial investment by developer, prefer owner occupied, more
upscale, improve golf course alignment, questioned the need for studio
apartments, questioned the need to take additional single family homes to the
north of the site, and there were mixed opinions on building height. Some task
force members liked the Metro Plains B proposal.
It was determined the Planning Commission would comment on the proposals
after the introduction of each study area. Public comments would be taken at
the end of the presentation of all four areas.
Commissioner O'Brien stated he preferred owner-occupied townhome units
rather than replacing apartments with apartments and the potential for many
of the same problems in 25 years as exist today. He stated he felt the Metro
Plains A proposal was best. Homes overlooking a golf course would be higher
priced and should bring down the gap.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 December 3, 2002
Commissioner Oelkers stated he liked the Boisclair proposal, but did not
appreciate the fact that the City would need to provide such a large
investment. The concept was good, however, it should be owner-occupied
senior coop units or condos.
Discussion ensued on changing the footprint of the Boisclair project with
single level townhomes and the possibility of reducing the gap. Oelkers
interjected that there was a demand for small townhome units, for single
people or couples that winter in the south as well as have lake property up
north. He stated he was concerned with the marketability and the cost to the
City. A smaller number of units would be desirable, but the cost to the City
was too great on the Metro Plains A proposal.
Brixius added that comments from the open house indicated that the Ron
Clark townhome project was preferred over the Boisclair proposal. Barrick
questioned whether or not the comments from the open house preferred the
owner occupied townhomes as opposed to the apartments. She indicated that
when the task force discussed that project, the members liked the project
itself but preferred owner occupied units.
Svendsen interjected that this was the premium area out of the four study
areas due to the proximity to the golf course and the water view, and the task
force desired to have upscale housing.
West Winnetka Site
The total site area for West Winnetka contains 35 acres and included the
Hosterman and Winnetka Elementary school sites, some single family lots,
and some commercial properties, including the Sinclair station and Lyndale
Garden. The task force was aware that acquisition and demolition of both
schools drove up the cost of the project significantly. Several options were
developed for this site. Option A) retained both schools and developed the
balance of the property with 68 - 136 three-story townhomes with underground
parking and 36,000 square feet of commercial space at the intersection of
Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. Streets would be aligned along Bass
Lake Road with a signalized intersection at Xylon/Yukon/Bass Lake Road.
Option B) removed both of the schools and called for the development of 230
four-story apartment condominiums with underground parking, 22 single level
townhome units, 60 - 120 three-story townhome units with underground
parking and 36,000 square feet of commercial space at the corner. Storm
water drainage had been an issue in this area, therefore a pond would be
introduced with a gazebo amenity. Pedestrian connections would be provided
throughout the area. Option C) reduced the density with 97 - 194 three-story
townhomes with underground parking, 15 detached townhomes, 33
townhomes with detached garages and 36,000 square feet of commercial
space at the corner. Option D) called for the development of a 30-lot single
family subdivision on the western portion of the Hosterman site. Additionally,
the plan called for 52 - 104 three-story townhomes with underground parking,
22 townhomes with attached garages and 36,000 square feet of commercial
space at the corner. Brixius added that with each of the options an overlay
was provided on the site map to either keep Winnetka Elementary School or
remove the school, which would provide additional redevelopment options. All
concepts included some commercial although there was discussion among
the task force members on whether or not the City could support commercial
at this intersection.
Brixius reported that two proposals were received for this area and neither
proposal included the school sites. 1) Brookstone: the proposal included
15,000 square feet of retail business and 15,000 square feet for a niche
grocery store. This was responsive to what the task force originally outlined.
Parking provided for 150 stalls with some oriented toward the street and the
Planning Commission Meeting 5 December 3, 2002
balance behind the building. The site area would contain 3.8 acres, including
the Sinclair station and Lyndale Garden with some intrusion onto a portion of
the School District property. Two access points were proposed. Exterior finish
would be masonry, brick and some stucco treatment. Unit price would be
between $11 and $15 per square foot. Total project cost would be
approximately $3.9 million. No developer investment or gap was identified.
Subsequent to the original proposal, Brookstone notified staff that an ALDI
grocery store was the specific user for the space. The grocery store would be
the initial phase of the project with the additional retail space following. The
consensus of the task force was that the small grocery store concept was not
appropriate. 2) Paster/KKE: proposed a similar concept except that the
retail/service building area expanded to 44,200 square feet. The site would
contain 4.743 acres and would utilize additional properties. There would be
220 parking spaces at the rear of the building with three access points.
Proposed amenities included a plaza, pond and sidewalk. Exterior finish would
be masonry. Unit price per square foot was $15 to $18 per square foot. Total
project cost was proposed at $8 million with the developer investment of $6
million and gap at $2 million. City assistance requested would be $2 million or
higher depending on acquisition costs. The task force felt the street front of
the original proposal was not very imaginative and the developer submitted a
revised plan showing additional treatments for the building. The task force
indicated it preferred the Paster development, although was not too excited
about either proposal. Specific recommendations of the task force included
agreement that the deficit was too large in both proposals, concern about the
viability of retail on that comer, would prefer greater density with residential or
mixed use, some members thought commercial was okay, many felt the site
was dependent on adjacent redevelopment, liked the rear parking and green
streetscape, concerned about the ALDI image and might prefer a different
grocery store. Suggestions for improvement included one access on Bass
Lake Road, access must be safe on both Bass Lake Road and Winnetka,
coordinate on a signal at Xylon, and provide a median strip on Bass Lake
Road.
Discussion ensued on the eventual possibility of acquisition of the two School
District properties and the commercial properties on Bass Lake Road. The
School District had indicated it would land bank the two properties, therefore,
the proposals received only utilized a small portion of that land.
O'Brien questioned whether or not the two existing businesses were
interested in selling. Brixius referred to recent correspondence from the
Sinclair station that had been passed out at the meeting indicating an interest
is working with the City by expanding the existing gas station to a convenience
store.
Discussion was initiated on the possibility of condemning the School District
property. Mr. Sondrall, City Attomey, responded that if the School District was
simply land banking the property, it may be possible that it would be subject to
condemnation, but one governmental authority generally could not condemn
property of another governmental authority as long as the governmental
authority that owns the property was using the property for public use at the
time. If the property was not being utilized, then there would be a possibility for
acquisition through eminent domain. Sondrall stated that had been done in the
past when it was proven that the property was not in use by the School
District. It was noted that there were representatives from the School District
at the initial task force meetings. Developer proposals did not include the
school property as the task force felt that was a lower priority area and money
could be better spent in other areas.
Oelkers stated he felt strongly that money should be spent on 42"d and
Winnetka avenues rather than at Bass Lake Road and Winnetka. It was
Planning Commission Meeting 6 December 3, 2002
mentioned that the School District and the City should be working together on
these types of projects.
Northeast Bass Lake Road
This site consists of nine acres of land and is occupied by Wincrest
Apartments and Franks Nursery. During the study of these two sites, it was
determined by the task force that it would be too cost prohibitive for
acquisition/demolition/relocation of the apartments, therefore, the task force
later suggested rehabbing the apartments and redeveloping the Franks site
only. Concepts developed included: Option A) retaining and upgrading of
Wincrest Apartments, construction of a new 24,000 square foot commercial
building, and upgrading the pond on the northern portion of the apartment site;
Option B) construction of a 156-unit apartment building with underground
parking; Option C) retention and renovation of the existing apartments and an
independent redevelopment of the Franks site for high density residential.
The City received two proposals for the Frank's property. 1) Metro Plains
proposed 36 rental townhomes with two and three bedrooms and attached
tuck under garages. Parking would be located in the driveway with additional
surface parking stalls. The site contains 3.17 acres. Proposed access points
would be at Winnetka and Sumter avenues. Amenities would include tot lot,
community building, picnic area, gazebo and sidewalks. No exterior finish
materials were provided. The unit prices for the two-bedroom units would
range from $750 to $850 and for three-bedroom units from $900 to $1,000.
The total project cost would be $5.9 million and would utilize MHFA Iow
income housing tax credit. The developer investment would be $5.48 million
with gap at approximately $420,000. Annual tax revenue was proposed to be
$31,000 and city assistance would be $420,000. The task force
recommended owner-occupied units and there was concern with the access
on Winnetka. 2) GSR: proposed 56 owner-occupied townhomes ranging in
size from 1,200 to 1,500 square feet with one-and two-car garages. Parking
would utilize the garage stalls, tandem and surface stalls. The site area would
be 3.17 acres, with one access proposed on Winnetka and one access on
Sumter. No amenities were shown. Exterior finish would be stone, cedar and
maintenance free siding. Unit prices would range from $160,000 to $200,000.
The total project cost would be from $5.8 to $6.4 million and the developer
would fund the entire project. Proposed tax revenue would be approximately
$70,000 to $90,000. No city assistance was required. The developer had
begun negotiations for the purchase of Franks. There may be some interest
by Franks to sell, however, the sale price continues to escalate. Therefore,
there may be a request for city assistance in the future. Brixius stated that
while the proposals were not for commercial redevelopment, the task force
preferred the GSR proposal. Some members were concerned with density,
but the owner occupied units were preferred over rental units. The task force
felt the density was appropriate and appreciated the higher tax base.
Suggestions for improvement included putting the GSR senior housing on the
Franks site and this project on the East Winnetka site. Some members
preferred reducing the density and adding amenities such as a park and two-
car garages. Two access points were also questioned. Comments from the
neighborhood open house indicated preference for the GSR proposal due to
owner occupied units.
Svendsen mentioned that the Metro Plains proposal for lesser density may
have been acceptable if it had been for owner occupied units. O'Brien
concurred with the lower density on the site. A question was raised on whether
the market could support the sales prices for the townhomes at that location.
Discussion ensued on the ages of people expected to live in this building and
the response was that probably younger individuals/families would occupy
these units due to multi levels, and concern was raised on the lack of parks or
green space for children to play. The Metro Plains proposal, with less density,
Planning Commission Meeting 7 December 3, 2002
did provide green space.
East Winnetka Area
This area currently includes single family residences along Winnetka and in
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 puffing 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 55th Avenue and 50 single
loaded townhome units with underground parking to the north between Bass
Lake Road and 55~h 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 room, 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 northem 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 close 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) Ryland 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
Planning Commission Meeting 8 December 3, 2002
unit. The middle units would be two stories. The original proposal came in with
an internal street system off of 56th Avenue. The task force was concerned
with townhomes adjacent to single family homes, the practicality of
upper/lower units, and the quality of the units.
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, garden and gazebo. The homes
would be vinyl sided with limited brick. Starting price 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 townhomes are a carriage concept and three
stories in height with rear garages and parking. Proposed would be 76 urban
three-story townhomes, 78 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. Ryland 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.
Brixius 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
Concems were expressed on the alley access and lack of green space for
these developments. Oelkers strengly .favored the Rytand A proposal with
some adjustments. He also pointed out that the proposed housing would
definitely not be considered Iow income, because to qualify 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 preperties 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 preposed 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 55th 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 55th Avenue, came forward. He furnished the
Commission with a petition signed by all the neighbors on 55th 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 55th 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 55th 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
Barrick added that when the original proposals were submitted, the task force
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 force and still be financially 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
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to
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,
Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: Hemken
Motion passed.
Brauch, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers,
Chairman Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the
City Council on December 9.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee did not meet in
November. McDonald reported that staff was aware of several large projects
that may be ready for consideration early next year.
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
McDonald reported that the Codes & Standards Committee would be meeting
on December 12 to discuss the dog kennel moratorium and bus transit
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
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Brauch initiated discussion on the thrift store study from last
month and stated he had visited several of the thrift stores and consignment
shops in the area. He stated there was a distinct difference between the two
types of second hand stores that take merchandise in as contributions either
directly or indirectly, compared to stores that purchase product from
individuals, such as the consignment shop or a Play It Again Sports shop. He
stated he felt there should be a differentiation there because the rationalization
on the licensing was the added police patrolling that would be required. Brixius
interjected that it was difficult to make a land use distinction for these
businesses and the only difference was the processing of merchandise on
site. Businesses that exchange product for a monetary value may be better
classified under the pawn shop ordinance. The City ,Attorney commented that
there is a business license for pawn shops. ,A business license was proposed
for a thrift store that receives donated goods. A distinction would need to be
established for a discount store, or a consignment shop selling second hand
goods, or a thrift store selling donated goods. It may come down to a
management issue of the store. The size of the shop might be taken into
consideration as part of the licensing aspect, but not a land use aspect. It was
suggested that there be no license for a business that takes in merchandise
for a value. Brauch maintained that he felt that licensing of consignment
stores was not necessary due to fact that additional police patrols would not
be necessary, which was the main reason for licensing of thrift stores. There
should be no license for a store where there is a monetary exchange for the
goods brought in. The cost for the license may also be cost prohibitive for the
small stores. McDonald stated he would relay this information to the City
Council prior to its discussion on this matter at a work session. It was pointed
out that the thrift store moratorium had been extended until June 30, 2003.
McDonald reported that the applications for the City Center Task Force had
been presented to the City Council but no appointments had been made yet.
Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner
Barrick, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of November 6,
2002. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed.
Svendsen initiated discussion on whether the City could provide speakers on
topics of interest to the Planning Commission, such as tax increment
financing, on a quarterly basis for training purposes. McDonald stated that
staff would look into this matter and provide a list of suggested topics. Other
members of the Commission concurred.
There were no announcements.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjoumed at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester '/~;~
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 12 December 3, 2002
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
November 25, 2002
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
ROTATING VOTES
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION
Consent Items
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.
The City Council and all present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The pledge was led by Boy Scout Troop 67 (Jim Olson, Scout Master).
Council Present:
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Sharon Cassen, Councilmember
Don Collier, Councilmember
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember
Council Absent: Pat Norby, Councilmember
StaffPresent:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator
Nichole Korth, Crime Prevention Officer
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Maureen Vanek, Community Oriented Services Supervisor
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember
Collier, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2002; and
Work Session Minutes of October 21, November 4, and November 18, 2002.
All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
· Maureen Vanek and Nichole Korth presented a plaque received from the
National Association of Town Watch (NATW) for New Hope's outstanding
participation in the "19th Annual National Night Out" (NNO) crime, drug, and
violence prevention program.
· Dwight Gorder, Hope Alliance Chapel, requested modifications to the
Highway 169 sound wall. Mayor Enck directed the City Manager to research
the feasibility and follow up with Hope Alliance Chapel. Councilmember
Cassen suggested reviewing wall color options also.
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.
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 6.7 and 6.9 were removed for discussion. Item 6.5 was
deleted from the agenda at staff's request.
Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. All present
voted in favor. Motion carried.
New Hope City Council
Page 1
November 25, 2002
FINANCIAL CLAIMS
Item 6.2
RESOLUTION 02-163
Item 6.4
RESOLUTION 02-164
Item 6.6
IMP. PROJECT 685
Item 6.8
RESOLUTION 02-165
Item 6.10
RESOLUTION 02-166
Item 6.11
RESOLUTION 02-167
Item 6.12
IMP. PROJECT 718
Item 8.1
TRAFFIC SAFETY
AWARD
Item 10.1
RESOLUTION 02-168
Item 10.1
New Hope City Council
Page 2
Approval of Financial Claims Through November 25, 2002.
Resolution Approving the Purchase of Additional Portable Radios for the 800
MHz Communication System in the Amount of $2,632.12.
Resolution Approving Extension of Conditional Use License Agreement with
Hennepin County for Use of the County's Electronic Proprietary Data Base
(EPDB).
Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain an Appraisal of Each Twinhome Unit Under
Construction at 7105 62nd Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 685).
Resolution Authorizing Reduction of Financial Guarantee for Paddock
Laboratories Development, 3940 Quebec Avenue North (Planning Case 02-08).
Resolution Authorizing Councilmember Participation in the City's Health
Insurance Benefit Plans.
Resolution Accepting Easements for 36th Avenue Street Improvement Project
(Project No. 626).
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Motion Appointing City Center
Task Force Members (Improvement Project No. 718).
Mayor Enck acknowledged receipt of additional task force member applications.
He noted the Council needs an oppommity to review the applications and
recommended continuing the item until the meeting of December 9, 2002. The
City Council agreed to consider the appointments at the December 9 council
meeting.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Resolution Accepting a Traffic
Safety Award.
Ms. Maureen Vanek, Community Oriented Services Supervisor, explained the Safe
& Sober Challenge that is administered by the State of Minnesota. She indicated
this is the fourth consecutive year that New Hope has received the award. For
second place, the city will receive a $2,000 grant. Ms. Vanek attributed receipt of
the award to the quality of the grant application/report and the following activities:
DWI arrests, speeding violations, seat belt and child safety seat violations, seat belt
usage surveys; and educational efforts directed toward youth in the community.
Mayor Enck questioned the procedures for seizing a vehicle.
Mx. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, briefly cited Minnesota Statutes 169A
regarding "driving under the influence" (DWI) law and how driving offenses can
lead to confiscation of the individual's vehicle.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A TRAFFIC SAFETY AWARD".
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, and the following voted
November 25, 2002
MORATORIUM
EXTENSION
Item 10.2
ORDINANCE 02-14
Item 10.2
FIRE DEPARTMENT
EQUIPMENT
Item 11.1
against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Norby; whereupon the
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was
attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.2, Ordinance No. 02-14, An
Ordinance Extending the Temporary Prohibition of Businesses Engaged in the
Retail Sales of Second Hand Merchandise Regulated by New Hope Code Section
1.66.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, explained that the
ordinance will extend the moratorium until June 30, 2003, to allow adequate time
for the Council to study the report and recommendations.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following ordinance and moved its
adoption: "AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY
PROHIBITION OF BUSINESSES ENGAGED IN THE RETAIL SALES OF
SECOND-HAND MERCHANDISE REGULATED BY NEW HOPE CODE
SECTION 1.66." 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; and the
following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Norby;
whereupon the ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the
mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.1, Resolution Supporting the
Acquisition and Funding of Replacement Aerial Apparatus and 800 MHz Radio
Equipment for West Metro Fire-Rescue District.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, reported on the condition of the f~re
department's 1973 aerial track and the need for its replacement. This item as well
as the purchase of the 800 MHz radios require funding support by both the cities of
New Hope and Crystal.
The 800 MHz radio equipment is required because Hennepin County Sheriff's
Radio is switching their operations from the VHF band to the 800 MHz band. The
Board of Directors of the fire district approved purchase of this equipment at their
November meeting.
The fire district is appealing to both cities of Crystal and New Hope for additional
funding to pay for these two purchases. The funding requested would be above and
beyond the regular operating budget of the district. The estimated cost for New
Hope is $480,000. Mr. Donahue stated the New Hope City Council discussed the
capital equipment request at its work session of November 18 and concluded that it
was in the best interest of the city and citizens to fund the equipment through
certificates of indebtedness.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth questioned the interim coverage for the aerial truck
and the anticipated timeline for delivery of the new track.
Mayor Enck explained that West Metro Fire-Rescue District is a mutual aid
member and would receive assistance from neighboring communities when an
aerial track is required.
Mr. Donahue reported that it will take approximately six to nine months to
manufacture the aerial mack.
New Hope City Council
Page 3
November 25, 2002
RESOLUTION 02-169
Item 11.1
CONSENT ITEMS
REMOVED
IMP. PROJECT 734
Item 6.7
MOTION
Item 6.7
PLANNING CASE
02-05
Item 6.9
RESOLUTION 02-170
Item 6.9
COUNCIL
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 12.1
Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ACQUISITION AND
FUNDING OF REPLACEMENT AERIAL APPARATUS AND 800 MHZ
RADIO EQUIPMENT FOR WEST METRO FIRE-RESCUE DISTRICT."
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, and the following voted
against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Norby; whereupon the
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was
attested to by thecity clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion consent items removed, Item 6.7, Motion
Authorizing Staff to Obtain an Appraisal of 4317 Nevada Avenue North.
Councilmcmber Cassen noted the disrepair of the houses at 4301 and 4317 Nevada
Avenue North. She noted the large lots containing relatively small homes. She
suggested sending letters to the abutting property owners expressing the city's
interest in purchasing the homes on a voluntary basis.
Mayor Enck concurred and noted if the city could purchase all three properties
(4415, 4317, and 4301 Nevada Avenue North) for redevelopment, the city could
construct three twin homes. Another option cited was to subdivide the properties
and construct four single-family homes.
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 4317 Nevada Avenue North.
All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 6.9, Resolution Authorizing Release of
Financial Guarantee for Holy Nativity Church Expansion, 3900 Winnetka Avenue
North (Planning Case 02-05).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the resolution
releases the financial guarantee. The release is contingent upon payment of
administrative expenses associated with the building expansion. He reported Holy
Nativity Church is contesting the fees relating to creation of the storm water
policy. The Church has issued a check for the disputed amount, and negotiations
will be held at a staff level.
Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF FINANCIAL
GUARANTEE FOR HOLY NATIVITY CHURCH EXPANSION, 3900
WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (PLANNING CASE 02-05)." 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, and the following voted against the same: None;
Abstained: None; Absent: Norby; whereupon the resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Exchange of Communication
between members of the City Council:
Mayor Enck
· Acknowledged receipt of a letter from a resident supporting the recent
curbside collection cleanup day
New Hope City Council
Page 4
November 25, 2002
COUNCIL
COMMUNICATIONS
(continued)
Item 12.1
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Enck (continued)
· Inquired of Hennepin County's policy regarding placement of group homes
(Mr. Donahue noted this has been scheduled as a furore work session item)
· Received a thank you note from Meadow Lake 5th Grade Enrichment
participants for his class involvement last week.
· Reported that Masonic Homes sent a letter in response to staff's request that
they take steps to resolve the parking problems on Boone Avenue
· Exchanged dialogue during the council meeting with a boy scouts Josh
Owens, Andy Shriver, and lan Adams
Councilmember Cassen
· Invited residents and Boy Scout Troop 67 to participate in the food and toy
drives sponsored by the City of New Hope (contxibutions accepted until
December 12 at city hall)
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth
· Reported on the completion of the city-owned home at 7901 49th Avenue
North and announced that an open house would soon be scheduled for the
public
Councilmember Collier
· Extended condolences to the family of Fred Tunks
City Manager Donahue
· Advised that he and the Mayor will be meeting with Senator Ann Rest on
November 26 to discuss the city's needs and the 2003 legislative year
· Announced that the budget hearing is scheduled for December 9, 2002 (6:00
p.m.) and the meeting to consider adoption of the budget is December 16,
2002 (7:00 p.m.)
Reported that City Hall will be closed November 28 and 29 for the
Thanksgiving holiday
Reminded the Council to RSVP for the Holiday Party to be held December 12
Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, 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 7:59 p.m.
~..~ectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
New Hope City Council
Page 5
November 25, 2002
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
Approved EDA Minutes
Regular Meeting
November 12, 2002
City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVE MINUTES
IMP. PROJECT 728
Item 4
New Hope EDA
Page 1
President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order
at 8:31 p.m.
Present:
W. Peter Enck, President
Sharon Cassen, Commissioner
Don Collier, Commissioner
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Commissioner
Absent: Pat LaVine Norby, Commissioner
Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to
approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2002. Voting in favor:
Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth; Voting Against: None; Absent: Norby;
Abstained: None. Motion carried.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Resolution Authorizing the
Acquisition of Certain Property within the City of New Hope for the Purpose of
Redevelopment (Improvement Project No. 728).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated before the EDA
are two resolutions: one resolution authorizes the acquisition of property for
redevelopment and one resolution approving a contract for private redevelopment
between the EDA and Navarre Corporation/New Hope, LLC. He briefly reviewed
the initial project that was proceeding until two months a~o when bids came in too
high for construction of the trucking facility at 9200 49'~ Avenue. Mr. McDonald
stated the EDA's previous direction to staff was to continue to work with both
Navarre Corporation on their project and with Ahrens Tracking for an alternate site.
Mr. McDonald reported that Navarre Corporation needs to be in their new building
near the end of year 2003. In order to facilitate spring construction activities, the
utilities need to be in place by February. This would require the relocation of
Ahrens Tracking to another property on a temporary basis until a permanent
location is obtained.
Mr. Jim Casserly, Krass Monroe, was recognized. He reported that the resolutions
were prepared with the assistance of the city attorney. The second resolution
describes the development program, the objectives, and previously established
goals. The specifics of the plan regarding the property acquisition are outlined near
the end of the resolution.
Ms. LaDonna Ahrens, Ahrens Tracking, was recognized. She requested the EDA to
use their authority to ensure that the fmal resolution of the Navarre and Ahrens
situation does not result in the economic hardship nor the f'mancial demise of
Ahrens Tracking. She expressed the company's willingness to relocate but must be
fairly compensated so that they won't be put out of business. She emphasized that
the location is an integral factor for the success. Ms. Ahrens reported on the
difficulty of finding a comparable site at an affordable price. In conclusion, Ms.
November 12, 2002
New Hope EDA
Page 2
Ahrens conveyed that Ahrens Tracking needs "replacement value" of their property
in order to survive the loss of their proper~d.
At President Enck's request, Ms. Ahrens explained her disappointment regarding the
negotiation process with Navarre Corporation and the abrupt term/nation of
negotiations.
Mr. Robert Glasgow, representing Navarre Corporation, was recognized. He
disputed some of the sequence of events as reported by Ms. Ahrens. He noted
Ahrens Trucking requested a larger facility than their present building as a
relocation incentive. The construction cost was $740,000 but Ahrens did not want to
exceed $700,000. Weather conditions increased the contract price and the project
went from $65,000 overage to $200,000 overage.
Mr. Glasgow noted negotiation efforts with Ahrens Trucking have taken place
during the past two years, and Navarre had hoped to reach a mutual settlement. He
stated Navarre Corporation is anxious to obtain approval to move forward. He noted
a construction deadline of September 1, 2003. He pointed out that in addition to the
$340,000 purchase price offer for Ahrens Trucking property, Navarre has incurred
$80,000 in related negotiation expenses.
President Enck inquired whether Navarre Corporation is agreeable to all the terms
of the contract. Mr. Glasgow responded affmnatively.
Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, stated if the city proceeds with condemnation of
the 7600 49th Avenue property, the city is required to pay fair market value and
relocation costs. The city would be reimbursed for these expenses by Navarre
Corporation.
Discussion ensued regarding a property appraisal of the Ahrens Trucking property.
Mr. Sondrall, City Attorney, commented on the estimated expense of $5,000 for an
appraisal and that an appraisal did not seem necessary since negotiations were
proceeding well. He also commented that the offer on the table exceeded the
property's market value.
The EDA was advised that the property's taxable market value is $160,000 and the
offer by Navarre Corporation was originally $300,000 and later increased to
$340,000. Ahrens Trucking is requesting $400,000 for the property.
Councilmember Cassen empathized with Ahrens Trucking. However, she pointed
out the difficulties presented to businesses that want to expand in fully developed
cities. She referred to the city's comprehensive plan that promotes the retention and
expansion of industrial/office/warehouse businesses in the City to promote
employment oppommities and expand the tax base. She also commented that the
Navarre Corporation's redevelopment of 7600 49th Avenue North would be the
highest and best use of the property.
Councilmember Cassen suggested locating a temporary site for Ahrens tracking so
that a spring construction date could be considered for their new facility.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth expressed disappointment that the two parties were
unable to reach a settlement. She suggested taking steps to hold options open for
Ahrens Trucking.
President Enck advised that the city-owned property at 9200 49ta Avenue is still an
option for Ahrens Trucking. He explained that the change is that Navarre
Corporation is no longer a part of the 9200 49t~ Avenue project. He joined staff and
the other EDA members in advocating that Ahrens Trucking remain in the City.
November 12, 2002
EDA RESOLUTION
02-10
Item 4
IMP. PROJECT 728
Item 5
EDA RESOLUTION
02-11
Item 5
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Don Ahrens, Ahrens Trucking, was recognized. He contended that even with
the offer of $340,000 there are too many variables. He expressed the need for a
specific timeline. He noted the difficulty and time-consuming process to locate an
acceptable replacement property.
Mr. Jim Casserly indicated an eminent domain proceeding would take three to four
months. He noted it is in everyone's best interests to sell/purchase the property on a
voluntary basis.
Mr. Casserly briefly reported on tax implications of condemnation proceeding
awards.
It was noted that Commissioner Collier is refraining from participating in the
discussion, as he is a member of an investment club that owns Navarre stock.
President Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
"RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REDEVELOPMENT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 728)". 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, Gwin-Lenth, and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained:
Collier; Absent: Norby; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted, signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 5, Resolution Authorizing Execution
and Delivery of a Contract for Private Redevelopment, by and Between the New
Hope Economic Development Authority and New Hope, LLC (Improvement
Project No. 728).
President Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
"RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A
CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT, BY AND BETWEEN
THE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND NEW
HOPE, LLC (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 728)". 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,
Gwin-Lenth, and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: Collier;
Absent: Norby; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted,
signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director.
Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to
adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope
EDA adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
New Hope EDA
Page 3
November 12, 2002