The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 05/06/03PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North Tuesday, May 6, 2003 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING · 4.1 Case 03-05 Front Yard Setback Variance and Curb Cut Variance to Place the Driveway Closer Than 40 Feet From the Property Line Adjacent to an Intersection, 3853 Hillsboro Avenue North, Susan Pfeilsticker, Petitioner · 4.2 Case 03-03 Site/Building Plan Review, Subdivision of an Existing Lot, and Variance to Lot Area Per Unit Requirement, 5700 Boone Avenue North, Anderson Pattee Realty Services, Petitioner 4.3 Case 02-02 4.4 Case 02-23 Consideration of An Ordinance Amending Chapter Six of the New Hope City Code by Establishing Regulations for Transit Structures on Public Rights of Way, City of New Hope, Petitioner Ordinance No. 03-02, Consideration of An Ordinance Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care Facilities as Conditional Uses in the Industrial Zoning District, and Ordinance No. 03-06, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the New Hope City Code Licensing Dog Kennels and Cat Shelters, City of New Hope, Petitioner 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 5.2 Report of Design & Review Committee - May 15, 8 a.m. Report of Codes & Standards Committee 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 6.2 Miscellaneous Issues · CouncilAction on March Planning Cases > Navarre development plans - Approved City Center Task Force - Next meeting on May 15 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 4, 2003 Review of City Council Minutes of March 10 and 24, and April 14, 2003 Review of EDA Minutes of February 24 and March 10, 2003 Planning Commission workshops 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. 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. Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. A. If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: Meeting Date: Report Date: 03-05 Susan Pfeilsticker 3853 Hillsboro Avenue North PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope May 6, 2003 May 2, 2003 Front Yard Setback Variance and Curb Cut Variance to Place the Driveway Closer Than 40 Feet From the Property Line Adjacent to an Intersection I. Request The petitioner is requesting an eight-foot variance to the 25-foot front yard setback to allow construction of a garage addition to be placed 17 feet from the property line and a curb cut variance to place the driveway closer than the required 40 feet from the property line adjacent to an intersection, pursuant to Sections 4-3(e)(4)h5, 4-5(f)(4), and 4-36 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. II. Zoning Code References Section 4-3(e)(4)h5 Curb cut proximity to intersection Section 4-5(0(4) Setbacks Section 4-36 Administration - Variances III. Property Specifications Zoning: Location: Adjacent Land Uses: Site Area: Building Area: Planning District: Specific Information: R-l, Single Family Residential On the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Hillsboro and Independence Avenues and south of Northwood Parkway Single family residential in all directions 120' by 86' x 120' x 82' (lot area - approximately 10,080 square feet) Existing home is 24'x 52' 1,248 square feet) and the proposed addition is 23' x 29' (667 square feet) No. 12: The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the Iow-density residential areas in this district are in good to excellent condition. The City will promote housing maintenance and upgrades through encouraging private reinvestment in single-family homes, enforcement of the Housing Maintenance Code, and scattered site renovation and redevelopment efforts. A 1965 "as-built" survey of the original structure has been provided and the applicant prepared detailed plans for this expansion. A five-foot drainage and utility easement exists on the south side yard and west (rear) yard property lines. The proposed addition will not impact the easements. The City Engineer has noted that a significant backyard drainage swale along the south property line drains the backyards of neighboring properties and must remain open. All work with this proposal will occur on the north side of the property and not conflict with the drainage swale. Planning Case Report 03-05 Page 1 5-2-03 IV. Background The property owner at 3853 Hillsboro Avenue North in New Hope wishes to build a garage addition to her existing single-family home and convert the existing garage area into living area. The proposed garage addition will be 23 feet in width and 29 feet in depth. The proposed site is a corner lot located at the intersection of Hillsboro and Independence avenues. The site is zoned R-1. The house is a split- level design and the owner wishes to put the proposed addition on the side lot abutting Independence Avenue. The addition will encroach into the "defined" front yard setback area and the new driveway curb cut will be located closer to the intersection than allowed by code, therefore, two minor variances are required for the expansion. V. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner stated in correspondence that "1 am adding a two car garage to my home at 3853 Hillsboro Avenue. I request a variance for driveway curb cut. New Hope code currently states driveway access on a corner lot should be 40 feet from the lot line. I would like to put my driveway straight off the new addition, 32 feet to curb. The addition I am proposing would not negatively impact the neighbors or any of the surrounding properties. It will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The roofing material will all match, as will the siding material. The proposed structure will not be located in a drainage or utility easement. To comply with code, I have considered other options, such as bringing the driveway out to Independence Avenue. This design was undesirable to me, because I have children, I feel it an important safety issue to be able to see them at play from the house. I also would like to know who is pulling up to the house, and this would not be possible with a side entry driveway." VI. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff had one inquiry from a neighbor. After seeing the plans for the addition towards Independence, he did not have any objection. VII. Development Analysis A. Zoninq Code Criteria Variance The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code. An application for variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, the following criteria have been met: 1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. 2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. Planning Case Report 03-05 Page 2 5-2-03 3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous owner. 4. Additional Criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria: · It will not alter the essential character of the locality. · It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. · It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. · It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district. Front Yard Setback Variance Per the Planner's report, the site is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential, and the lot meets the required minimum lot area and width standards for that district. The R-1 Zoning District establishes the following setbacks: Front Yard 25 feet Side Yard-Interior 10/5 feet Side Yard-Corner 20 feet Rear Yard 25 feet The New Hope Zoning Ordinance defines the lot front as the narrowed dimension of the lot with frontage on a public street. Based on this definition, the front of the applicant's property is along Independence Avenue rather than Hillsboro Avenue, even though the front of the house faces Hillsboro Avenue. Based on these facts, if the new addition is to be located 17 feet from the front property line, which has a 25-foot setback requirement, an eight-foot variance from the front yard setback is required. Previously, based on the house orientation, staff looked at the Independence frontage as a side yard with only a 20-foot setback requirement and eligibility for a three-foot side yard reduction by administrative permit. Under further review of the zoning definition of lot front, it was determined that the applicant will need approval of a front yard variance. The initial review of the side yard reduction does provide some incentive for consideration of the variance from the front yard setback. The house location and design prevents locating the garage elsewhere on the lot. Permitted Side Yard Reduction. Section 4.0326(c) allows, through administrative permit, a reduction in a side yard setback by three feet provided the following conditions are met: 1. Physical constraints of the lot make encroachment necessary to maximize indoor storage on the property which would be prevented by strict compliance with the setback standards. In looking at the applicant's site plan, as well as house design, it appears that the expansion toward Independence is a logical extension of the home. The split level design does not offer opportunities to expand to the south. Additionally, the setback to the south does not offer sufficient space to accommodate the proposed garage addition. 2. The proposed structure will not be located in a drainage or utility easement. In review of the site plan, it does not appear that there is any drainage or utility easements that would be affected by the proposed expansion. 3. The City shall determine that the building will not negatively impact the neighboring or adjacent property. Planning Case Report 05-05 Page 3 5-2-03 The applicant submitted a letter indicating that the proposed addition would not negatively ir--act the neighbors or surrounding properties and would not alter the character of the neighbor, ...od. The roofing materials will all match the existing single family home as well as the siding material. The addition of the two-car garage will provide adequate storing space and parking for the single family home. 4. The same or similar quality materials shall be used in the accessory building as the principal building. Additional exterior appearance or architectural design of the accessory building is similar to the principal building. The applicant intends to blend the attached garage into the design of the principal structure. The applicant indicates they will match roofing material and siding material. In review of the applicant's request, it appears that she has complied with the four criteria for the three- foot setback reduction into a required side yard. This may also provide rationale for front yard variance approval. Curb Cut Variance In addition to the front yard setback variance, the applicant has also requested a variance from Section 4.035(4)(h)(v), curb cut proximity from intersection. This section of the ordinance states that no curb cut or other driveway access shall be located less than 40 feet from the intersection of two or more street rights-of-way. This distance is technically measured from the intersection of the lot lines, not the curb lines. The applicant is requesting a setback of 17 feet from the intersecting lot lines of her lot. At a pre-application meeting, staff met with the applicant to discuss the opportunities for this variance. In examining the City Code, staff felt that this provision may have been overlooked in the most recent Zoning Ordinance update. In looking at updating the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan provided direction and suggested that the City needed to provide greater opportunity for property reinvestment and expansion on existing residential sites. In this light, the City has made building setback adjustments within all zoning districts. Within the R-1 District, both front, side and rear setbacks have been adjusted to increase the building envelope for single-family homes. It was discussed that Section 4.035(4)(h)(v) be preliminarily examined to determine whether there was flexibility or room for adjustment in compliance with this community policy. The proposed regulation, as it currently exists, presents a number of issues that make it difficult for corner lots, as follows: 1. Frequently on corner lots, the property owner uses the garage as a buffer between living space and the street intersection. So frequently, the garage is located toward the side yard abutting the street. 2. With reduced building setback requirements, the 40-foot setback from the side lot line sometimes becomes impractical and difficult to implement. 3. The measurement from the intersecting right-of-way lines, rather than from the curb line, further increases the required setback from the street. Staff believes that the setback could be revised to require a setback from the curb line as a means of preserving traffic visibility at the intersection, but providing a greater building envelope and usable lot area for the corner lot. The City Engineer and Public Works Director were both consulted on this request and their comments are as follows: City Engineer 3853 Hillsboro is located at the intersection of Independence Avenue and Hillsboro Avenue. The driveway accesses Hillsboro Avenue. The property owner has proposed a structure addition and Planning Case Report 03-05 Page 4 5-2-03 Bo modifications to the driveway. The proposed changes in the driveway will move the curb cut on Hillsboro closer to Independence Avenue. It will be closer than currently allowed by code. Consequently, a variance would be required. As we understand the current code, no driveway curb cut is allowed within 40 feet of the right-of-way (ROW) of an adjacent intersecting street. This application would result in a driveway only 17 feet from the adjacent ROW of Independence Avenue. However, the actual distance from the proposed driveway curb cut to the Independence Avenue curb and gutter would be approximately 32 feet. It is estimated that approximately 15 feet of boulevard exists between the Independence Avenue ROW and curb. (15' of boulevard + 17' from ROW to curb cut = 32' separation) The distance could be considered adequate at this intersection and a variance could be granted from an engineering standpoint. It is recommended that the existing code be reviewed and modified if appropriate. The variance could be granted in this instance given the proximity to the intersection of two, Iow-volume, residential streets. However, this variance would be not be recommended in all other cases, particularly adjacent to collector or arterial roads. Public Works The City's current ordinance requires the minimum driveway curb cut distance from a corner lot line, at an intersection, to be 40 feet. The variance, requested for the 3853 Hillsboro Avenue curb cut relocation, would allow a distance of 17 feet. The Public Works Department would support a curb cut variance for the proposed relocation of the driveway as long as it is documented that the applicant is aware of the additional amount of snow that will accumulate at the end of the driveway during snow events. The plowing procedures and the design of the snowplow trucks results in additional snow being deposited on the boulevards after the snowplow trucks make right hand turns at intersections. The closer the driveway cut is to the intersection, thereby reducing the boulevard area, increases the amount of snow at the end of the resident's driveway. For this reason, the Public Works Department would prefer to address each curb cut variance request individually, rather' than revising the City's current ordinance. Even with the current property owner being aware of the accumulation of snow at the end of the driveway, the situation could become an issue with future owners of the property and the City. Taking all comments into consideration, staff is recommending approval of the variance in this request, but is not recommending an amendment to the code so that these requests can be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Development Review Team The Development Review Team discussed this at its meeting on April 16 and was supportive of the request. Comments included: building materials to match existing, provide silt fence details, maintain corner visibility site triangle, and petitioner should be aware that snowplowing activity would dump a large amount of snow in or near the proposed driveway. Design & Review Committee The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on April 17 and was supportive of the request. Plan Description 1. Detailed general specifications for the remodeling/addition project have been provided by the applicant and are attached. Planning Case Report 03-05 Page 5 5-2-03 2. The existing garage space will be remodeled into additional living area. --) 3. The plans state that asphalt shingles and vinyl siding will match existing home. 4. Three windows will be added to the front (east) elevation in the old garage area. A service door and window will be added to the new garage in the rear (west elevation). No windows will be located on the new garage north elevation. E. Plannin,q Considerations Excerpts from the Planner's report have been incorporated into this report. F. Building Considerations The Building Official reviewed the plans and comments have been incorporated into this report. G. Enqineerinq Considerations The engineering comments have been incorporated into the report. A. Police Considerations Reviewed plans at Development Review meeting. B. Fire Considerations Reviewed plans at Development Review meeting. VIII. Summary Staff recommends approval of the two minor variances to allow the expansion of this single-family home, based on the criteria outlined in this report. This is the type of home expansion promoted by the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code update. IX. Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Materials of addition to match existing home. 2. No plantings in the site triangle area. Attachments: Zoning/Address/Topo Maps Petitioner Correspondence Site Plan Floor Plan Elevations Foundation Plan Construction Details 1965 As Built Survey 4/15 Planner Report 4/1 City Engineer Memo and Drainage Map 4/16 Public Works Memo Application Log Planning Case Report 03-05 Page 6 5-2-03 BRETH- 4.124 4125 4116 4.117 4108 I 4.109 4100 4101 4082 4081 4076 4075 4070 4069 4O64 4O63 90(~ 900O 4076 4070 4077 4071 4~4 4065 4058 40-~7 4090 4O95 4084 4069 4078 4081 4O75 4O70 40~S 4O64 4O63 40~6 4O.5? 4052 4051 ST AVE 41ST AVE N ~ol/~ A~ N x / HOP DOD ~ ' ~gL c,~ ~~ 36T~ AVE N 3816 ~ 3B06 3809 ;N~30 3801 3764 ,3757 ,3756 374~ `3748 3741 `3740 3733 3732 3725 3616 3617 38O8 3609 9008 3601 ,/, I am adding a two car garage to my home at 3853 I-lili.qboro Avenue. I request a variance for driveway curb cut. New hope code currently states driveway access on a comer lot should be 40 feet fi:om lot line. I would like to put my driveway straight oft'the new addition, 32 feet to curb. The addition I am proposing should not negatively impact the neighbors or any of the surrounding properties. It will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The 'roofing material will all match, as will the siding material. The proposed structure will not be located in a drainage or utility easement. To comply with code I have considered other options, such as bringing the driveway out to Independence Avenue. This design was undesirable to me, because I have children, I feel it an important safety issue to be able to see them at play from the house. I also would like to know who is pulling up to the house, and this would not be possible with a side entry driveway. Respectfully submitted, Susan Pfeilsticker homeowner ~o 0 0 0 " I :0 I! 't J General Specifications-- Single Family Residence . 1.0 QUALITY CONTROL 1.1 All work shall be performed within accepted standards of quality, and within requirements, specifications and recommendations of the following: Uniform Building Code Local and State Codes and Ordinances American Concrete Institute Building Code American Institute of Steel Construction Manual American National Standards Institute American Plywood Association American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Brick Institute of America Conditioning Engineers American Society for Testing and Materials Handbook for Ceramic Tile Installation Manual of Standard Practice for Detailing Concrete Structures National Concrete Masonry Association National Forest Products Association Timber Construction Manual Western Wood Products Association 1.2 Site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition at all times. 1.3 Building Materials shall be stored as to be protected fi.om damage and excess moisture, and shall be kept in a clean state throughout construction. 1.4 Work shall be accurately constructed square, plumb, and level to required levels and lines, and adequately fastened and anchored to produce a sturdy, rigid system of sufficient strength to support required loads. 1.5 Finish work shall be flee fi.om tool marks, except where specified. 2.0 SITE WORK 2.1 Topsoil shall be stripped from the entire area of construction and stockpiled on site for final grading. Unless otherwise specified. 2.2 Excess soil shall be used on site as is possible. 3.O CONCRETE 3.1 Minimum concrete cover shall be as follows: Footings- 3" bottom and sides Columns and Piers- 1.5" sides Slabs on Grade- 1" top and bottom 3.2 Continuous Reinforcement shall be lapped 24" minimum. 3.3 Reinforcement shall be clean and free of mst and scale. 3.4 Reinforcement bars shall be Grade 40, ASTM A615, Fy--40K PSI. 3.5 Cast in place concrete shall attain Fc=3500 PSI in 28 days with a maximum 5" slump at delivery. 3.6 Openings and edges in concrete shall be saw cut or cast in place. 3.7 Exterior concrete shall be minimum 6% air emrained. 4.0 MASONRY 4.1 Mortar shall be ASTM C270 Type 'M'; 1- Portland Cement- Masonry cement · 2.5- sand; F m = 3500 PSI. 4.2 Grout shall be ASTM C476; 2.5 - Buckshot aggregate 1 - Portland cement; Fm = 2500PSI. 4.3 Unfinished masonry walls shall be protected from moisture penetration into cores. 5.0 WOOD 5.1 Prefabricated wood tress supplier shall assume full responsibility for structural design of installed units, and shall supply detailed shop drawings with calculations signed by a structural engineer, registered in Minnesota, for approval prior to manufacturing. Shop drawings shall show areas of snow shadow loading and shall be reviewed by the project engineer. 5.2 Structural wood, except for prefabricated truss and pressure treated materials, shall be No. 2 Hem Fir or equal, with the following minimum properties: Fb = 1150 PSI Fv = 75 PSI Fc = 245 PSI E = 1,400,000 5.3 Micro-Lam beams shall have the following properties: Fb = 2500 PSI Fc = 400 PSI E = 2,000,000 5.4 Fasteners used with pressure treated wood shall be silicon, bronze or copper, stainless steel Type 304 or 306, or hot dip zinc coated to ASTM standards. 5.5 Lumber and timber connectors shall be as manufactured by Simpson Co. or equal. 6.0 THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION 6.1 Fiberglass sill sealer shall be installed at wood concrete connections. 6.2 Expanded polystyrene (P.S.) shall be Under-R as manufactured by Minnesota Diversified Products Inc. New Brighton, MN. Or equal. 6.3 Spray urethane (polyisocyanurate) insulation shall be as manufactured by Empire Foam Inc. Plymouth, MN. Or equal. 6.4 Head flashing shall be installed at exterior window and door openings. 6.5 Foamed in place urethane shall be Polycel 1/100, as manufactured by Polycel Products Inc. Berkeley, CA, and shall be used to seal cracks and openings at doors and windows and fi.aming gaps up to 1.5". 6.6 Exposed exterior building joints, cracks and seams up to .75" wide and .5" deep deep shall be filled with Mono Sealant as manufactured by Tremco, Cleveland, Ohio.' Foam backing rods shall be used where allowable depth is exceeded. 6.7 Poly vapor barrier shall be installed parallel with flaming where length of fi.aming is grater than width ofpoly. Poly shall be lapped and fixed over two fi.aming members at joints and shall be installed with care to avoid puncture or damage. 6.8 Miscellaneous weather stripping shall be as manufactured by 3M, St. Paul, MN. 6.9 Cellulose insulation shall be Sheltershield, as manufactured by Diversified Insulation, Hamel, MN. 6.10 Bituminous adhered membrane waterproofing shall be Bituthene, as manufactured by W. R. Grace Co., Cambridge, MA. or equal. 6.11 Shingle roofing shall be 3- tab, 240 LB., standard self sealing.asphalt, or equal. 6.12 All valleys and roof pitch of less that 4.5:12 require self adhering water proof membrane. 6.13 Exterior siding shall be .040 thick or greater, vinyl siding installed over Tyvek house wrap. 7.0 DOORS .AND WINDOWS 7.1 Exterior doors shall be insulated steel from Stanley Products or equal. 7.2 Exterior patio doors fi.om Pella unless otherwise specified. 7.3 Interior doors shall be 1-3/8' sold core six panel oak unless otherwise specified. 7.4 Exterior windows shall be fi.om Pella unless otherwise specified. 8.0 FINISHES 8.1 Fire rated 5/8" gypsum shall be installed on exterior face of walls common to garage area and ceilings. 8.2 Interior walls, shall be IA" gypsum drywall. 8.3 Bathroom walls shall be ½" moisture resistant gypsum drywall or cement board. 8.4 Continuous metal bead shall be. installed at exposed drywall comers. 8.5 Exterior and interior stain and paint to be Cabot's or equal. .9.0 ELECTRICAL 9.1 All electric wiring shall be copper 9.2 Fire and smoke alarms will be interconnected 120 volt with battery back up and located in each bedroom and adjacent hallways. CALVIN H. HEDLUND Land Surveyor · Civil Engineer SURVEY FOR: 8901 Lyndale Ave. So. Bloomington 20, Minn. TU 1-2661 JOB NO. DESCRIBED AS: Lot I B±ock 3 NOP~T:~JOO? ~'~...-,._,..--...,.._, 3RD ADDi'.~u" ON, Villsge of 'Jo~'~,',,:' Hope, He rme ~in m---,*~, ' 1.... .,, Fimueseta reserving the drainage and uti!tiy ~ ,,easement as shown., on the recor5 ~late ~ .... ~ \ \ \ .~CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY I hereby certify that onF~.~= 6, £964' I surveyed the property described above and that the above plat is a correct representation of said survey° .' / ~-'b;~ /I' ' tJ- '",' jw(-/ aal¥in H. ~edlund, Minn. R. eg. No.' 5942 · "~-~.-'/~':~' Telephor~e: 952.595.9031~ Facsimile: 952..595.9837 planners~nacplannincj.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: April 15, 2003 RE: New Hope - Pfeilsticker Variance FILE NO: 131.01 - 03.04 BACKGROUND Ms. Susan Pfeilsticker, living at 3853 Hillsboro Avenue North in New Hope, wishes to build a garage addition to her existing single family home. The proposed garage addition will be 23 feet in width and 29 feet in depth. The proposed site is a corner lot located at the intersection of Hillsboro and Independence Avenue. The site is zoned R- 1. The house is a split level design and Ms. Pfeilsticker wishes to put the proposed addition on the side lot abutting Independence Avenue. ISSUES ANALYSIS Zoning. The site is R-l, Single Family Residential. minimum lot area and width standards for that district. establishes the following setbacks: The lot meets the required The R-1 Zoning District Front Yard Side Yard-Interior Side Yard-Corner Rear Yard 25 feet 10/5 feet 20 feet 25 feet The New Hope Zoning Ordinance defines the lot front as the narrowed dimension of the lot with frontage on a public street. Based on this definition, the front of the applicant's property is along Independence Avenue rather than Hillsboro Avenue. Previously, based on the house orientation, we looked at the Independence frontage ar- a side yard with only a 20 foot setback requirement and an eligibility for a three foot side yard reduction by administrative permit. Under the zoning definition of lot front, the applicant will need approval of a front yard variance. Our initial review of the side yard reduction does provide some incentive for consideration of the variance from the front yard setback. The house location and design prevents locating the garage elsewhere on the lot. Permitted Side Yard Reduction. Section 4.0326(c) allows, through administrative permit, a reduction in a side yard setback by three feet provided the following conditions are met: Physical constraints of the lot make encroachment necessary to maximize indoor storage on the property which would be prevented by strict compliance with the setback standards. In looking at the applicant's site plan, as well as house design, it appears that the expansion toward Independence is a logical extension of the home. The split level design does not offer opportunities to expand to the south. Additionally, the setback to the south does not offer sufficient space to accommodate the proposed garage addition. The proposed structure will not be located in a drainage or utility easement. In review of the site plan, it does not appear that there is any drainage or utility easements that would be affected by the proposed expansion. The City shall determine that the building will not negatively impact the neighboring or adjacent property. The applicant in their application has submitted a letter indicating that the proposed addition would not negatively impact the neighbors or surrounding properties and would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The roofing materials will all match the existing single family home as well as the siding material. The addition of the two car garage will provide adequate storing space and parking for the single family home. The same or similar quality materials shall be used in the accessory building as the principal building. Additional exterior appearance or architectural design of the accessory building are similar to the principal building. As mentioned earlier, the applicant intends to blend the attached garage into the design of the principal structure. The applicant indicated they will match roofing material and siding material. In review of the Pfeilsticker request, it appears that she has complied with the four criteria for the three foot setback reduction into a required side yard. This may also provide rationale for front yard variance approval if City staff and the Design and Review Committee agree. Curb Cut Variance. In addition to the front yard setback variance, the applicant has also requested a variance from Section 4.035(4)(h)(v), curb cut proximity from intersection. This section of the ordinance states that no curb cut or other driveway access shall be located less than 40 feet from the intersection of two or more street rights-of-way. This distance is measured from the intersection of the lot lines, not the curb lines. The applicant is requesting a setback of 17 feet from the intersecting lot lines of her lot. At a pre-application meeting, staff met with the applicant to discuss the opportunities for this variance. In examining the City Code, staff felt that this provision was overlooked in the most recent Zoning Ordinance update. In looking at updating the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan provided direction and suggested that the City needed to provide greater opportunity for property reinvestment and expansion on existing residential sites. In this light, the City has made building setback adjustments within all zoning districts. Within the R-1 District, both front and side and rear setbacks have been adjusted to increase the building envelope for single family homes. As such, we do not believe that Section 4.035(4)(h)(v) was examined to determine whether there was flexibility or room for adjustment in compliance with this community policy. The proposed regulation, as it currently exists, presents a number of issues that make it difficult for corner lots, as follows: Frequently on corner lots, the property owner uses the garage as a buffer between living space and the street intersection. So frequently, the garage is located is toward the side yard abutting the street. With reduced building setback requirements, the 40 foot setback from the side lot line becomes impractical and difficult to implement. The measurement from the intersecting right-of-way lines, rather than from the curb line, further increases the required setback from the street. In discussion with the City Engineer and Community Development Director, staff believes that the setback should be revised to require a setback from the curb line as a means of preserving traffic visibility at the intersection, but providing a greater building envelope and usable lot area for the corner lot. Upon staff discussion and review by the City Engineer, staff is recommending that we amend Section 4.035(4)(h)(v) to read as follows: "No curb cut or other driveway access shall be located less than thirty (30) feet from the intersection of two (2) public streets. This distance shall be measured from the curb line of the public street to the driveway edge." This standard shall apply only where we have the intersection of two local streets. Where the local street merges with a collector or arterial street, the following language shall apply: "No curb cut or other driveway access shall be located less than forty (40) feet from the intersections of the two (2) public streets. This distance shall be measured from the curb line of the public street to the edge of the driveway." If the balance of City staff and Design and Review Committee agree with the proposed adjusted language, we believe that the variance for Ms. Pfeilsticker should be approved. 4 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects MEMO Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Actiort/E~lual Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Princtpals: Otto Bonestroo, P.E. · Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E. · Glenn R. Cook, P.E. · Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. · Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. · Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. · Richard E. Turner, P.E. · Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A. Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. · Keith A. Gordon, P.E. · Robert R. Pfefferle. P.E. · Richard W Foster, P.E. · David O. Loskota, P.E. · Robert C. Russek, A.I.A · Mark A. Hanson, P.E. · Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. · Ted K. Field, P.E. · Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E · Mark R Rolfs, P.E · David A. Bonestroo, MB.A. · Sidney P. Williamson, P.E., L.S. · Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A., · Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. Offices: St. Paul, Rochester, Willmar and St. Cloud, MN · Milwaukee, WI Wet)site: www.bonestroo.com TO: FROM: CC: DATE: SUBJECT: Kirk McDonald Vince Vander Top Mark Hanson, Guy Johnson April 1, 2003 3853 Hillsboro Ave., Driveway Variance Our File No. 34-Gen E03-08 3853 Hillsboro is located at the intersection of Independence Avenue and Hillsboro Avenue (see attached map). The driveway accesses Hillsboro Avenue. The property owner has proposed a structure addition and modifications to the driveway. The proposed changes in the driveway will move the curb cut on Hillsboro closer to Independence Avenue. It will be closer than currently allowed by code. Consequently, a variance would be required. As we understand the current code, no driveway curb cut is allowed within 40 feet of the right-of- way (ROW) of an adjacent intersecting street. This application would result in a driveway only 17 feet from the adjacent ROW of Independence Avenue. However, the actual distance from the proposed driveway curb cut to the Independence Avenue curb and gutter would be approximately 32 feet. It is estimated that approximately 15 feet of boulevard exists between the Independence Avenue ROW and curb. (15' of boulevard + 17' from ROW to curb cut = 32' separation). This distance could be considered adequate at this intersection and a variance could be granted from an engineering standpoint. It is recommended that the existing code be reviewed and modified if appropriate. The variance could be granted in this instance given the proximity to the intersection of two, low-volume, residential streets. However, this variance would not be recommended in all other cases, particularly adjacent to collector or arterial roads. We are reviewing this issue further and will provide recommendations for various scenarios for your consideration. One final observation of 3853 Hillsboro relates to drainage. A significant backyard drainage swale along the south property line drains the backyards of neighboring properties. This side of the property must remain open. It does appear that all work will occur on the north side of the property and not conflict. Please call me at 651-604-4790 with questions. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 ~X X o (31 Oo (D Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works April 16, 2003 3853 Hillsboro Avenue Curb Cut Variance The City's current ordinance requires the minimum driveway curb cut distance from a corner lot line, at an intersection, to be 40 feet. The variance, requested for the 3853 Hillsboro Avenue curb cut relocation, would allow a distance of 17 feet. The Public Works Department would support a curb cut variance for the proposed relocation of the driveway as long as it is documented that the applicant is aware of the additional amount of snow that will accumulate at the end of the driveway during snow events. The plowing procedures and the design of the snowplow trucks results in additional snow being deposited on the boulevards after the snowplow trucks make right hand turns at intersections. The closer the driveway cut is to the intersection, there by reducing the boulevard area, increases the amount of snow at the end of the resident's driveway. For this reason, the Public Works Department would prefer to address each curb cut variance request individually, rather than revising the City's current ordinance. Even with the current property owner being aware of the accumulation of snow at the end of the driveway, the situation could become an issue with future owners of the property and the City. 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 03-05 Susan Pfeilsticker 4/8/03 6/7/03 8/6/03 3853 Hillsboro Avenue North 763-542-0969 952-993-6180-W 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 ~ ~'~licant before the time limit expires. Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: Report Date: 03-03 May 6, 2003 May 2, 2003 Anderson Pattee Realty Services - Ron Anderson and Melinda Pattee 5700 Boone Avenue North Subdivision of an Existing Lot, Site/Building Plan Review, and Variance to Lot Area Per Unit Requirement Section 4-35 Section 4-36 Chapter 13 II1. Property Specifications Zoning: Location: Adjacent Land Uses: I. Request The petitioner is requesting subdivision of existing lot into two lots, site/building plan review to allow construction of a new 82-unit senior cooperative building, and variance to the lot area per unit requirement, pursuant to Section 4-35, 4-36 and Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. II. Zoning Code References Administration - Site Plan Review Administration - Variances Subdivision and Platting R-5, "Senior/Disabled" Residential On the southeast quadrant of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue R-l, Single Family, and R-2, Single and Two-Family, Residential, to the north across Bass Lake Road, R-4, High Density Residential to the east and south, R-4 and Industrial to the west across Boone Avenue Site Area: Parcel A: 94,866 including road or 2.29 acres Parcel B: 113,853 including road or 2.61 acres Total Area: 213,719 or 4.91 acres Building Area: Existing building footprint on Parcel A contains 20,459 square feet. Proposed building footprint on Parcel B to be 28,860 square feet. Lot Area Ratios: Parcel B: Building Area: 28,860 square feet 26.2% Green Area: 55,639 square feet 50.5% Paved Area: 25,620 square feet 23.3% Planning District: No. 4; The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically identify this property, however, it is the City's policy to promote private reinvestment and expansion throughout the City. IV. Background Anderson Pattee Realty has requested an application for a subdivision creating two lots for the Chardon Court property. They are also asking for site and building plan review and approval for an 82-unit senior cooperative housing project. The site in question is located at the corner of Bass Lake Road and Boone Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 1 5-2-03 Avenue North. The total site is 4.91 acres. The applicant is proposing to subdivide it into two lots,, cel A being 2.29 acres containing an existing building (Chardon Court), and Parcel B being 2.61 acres with the intent of developing the 82-unit senior cooperative housing project. The site is zoned R-5, Senior Housing Zoning District. The proposed use is a permitted use within this district. City staff has been coordinating with the owner and consultants on this project over the past year and believe this is an excellent project and specifically addresses housing needs cited in the Life Cycle Housing Study. V. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner did not submit a narrative letter on the project; however, they submitted two letters dealing with the specific issues of dirt storage/construction parking and age limit details, as follows: February 26, 2003, Correspondence "In review of the site development plans for the Chardon Court Phase II site in New Hope, Minnesota, located on Boone Avenue and Bass Lake Road, the existing site elevations vs. new elevations for building pad will create an excess of excavation materials. In our preliminary estimate, there could be 8,000 to 12,000 cubic yards of excess materials to remove from the project site of which roughly 4,000 yards will be required for backfill once the building pad is built. Due to the tight site conditions and the concern of adjacent residence it would be advantageous to temporarily relocate the 4,000 cubic yards across the street at the city's site. If the City accepted this option, we would propose placing a silt fence barrier around the excess materials, restoration and seeding after removal of excess materials. If this project started in May 2003, we would estimate temporary placement of materials on adjacent site from June through October 2003. We would also like to request some temporary construction parking on the site across the street to eliminate truck traffic and disruption to Boone Avenue. At the city's convenience, we would like to meet with them to discuss these options once development of the project has progressed." April 29, 2003, Correspondence. "Please accept this letter as my response to your recent request concerning age limitations in our proposed cooperative development on Boone Avenue and Bass Lake Road. Both with regard to zoning regulation compliance, and our proposed Cooperative Corporation documents, there cannot be a percentage greater than 20% of occupants less than 55 years of age. As a practical matter, the Cooperative Association will not approve a purchase by anyone who is not at least 55." VI, Notification A simple subdivision and site/building review/approval do not require a legal notice to be published. Staff recently discovered the density issue, outlined in this report, and will advertise for a public hearing on the variance for the May 27 Council meeting and proper notification will be mailed. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on the variance request at this meeting. VII. Code Analysis Zoning/Site & Buildinq Plan Review - The proposed site is zoned R-5, Senior Housing District. This allows for senior housing as a permitted use provided the following items are addressed: 1. Eighty percent of the dwellings must be occupied by at least one person over the age of 55 years. The applicant has provided documentation requiring that occupancy restriction. Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 2 5-2-03 2. The site is located within 400 feet of public transit. There are transit routes running both along Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue. The transit stops are located in close proximity to that intersection. Internal sidewalks have been extended to the public sidewalks along both Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue. 3. The building provides elevator access to all floors. The applicant has demonstrated through their building plans that elevators will be provided. 4. Twenty percent of the gross area of the site must be left open as green space for passive or recreational open space. The applicant's site plan indicates that over 50 percent of the parcel will remain green space. The site design provides for terraces and patio areas for outdoor enjoyment of the residents, as well as interior elements that complement the senior cooperative living style. Subdivision - The applicant is asking for an administrative subdivision to subdivide Lot 1, Block 1, Charlie Thompson Addition into two separate parcels. An irregular lot line will divide the two parcels, reflective of the need for a shared driveway access than the current configuration and location of the Chardon Court elderly housing project. In light of these conditions and the City's desire for additional infill development, staff feels that the irregular lot line is acceptable provided the petitioner maintains the required setback off the side or shared property line. Within the R-5 District, base lots for multiple family must be at least 15,000 square feet and provide at least 1,000 square feet per elderly housing unit. The entire parcel has a total land area including the Bass Lake Road easement of 4.91 acres or 213,719 square feet. The Chardon Court Apartments contains 129 units and Woodbridge Cooperative contains 82 units, for a total count of 211 units. The total project density is compliant with city standards. The distribution of the lot area per unit, however, is not compliant. Parcel A (Chardon Court) has a total area of 99,866 square feet. This parcel should have an area of 129,000 square feet to accommodate the existing 129 units. Parcel B (Woodbridge Cooperative) has an area of 133,853 square feet for the 82-unit building. The larger Parcel B is reflective of the lower building design and the range of amenities being offered by the building. Two options exist to correct this non-compliant standard: 1. Reconfigure the subdivision to bring Parcel A into conformance with the City Code for lot area per unit. 2. Consider a variance form this provision recognizing: a. That infill development on this parcel is a unique hardship related to lot configuration and placement of the existing building. b. The proposed building is consistent with the City's housing and land use goals for this area of the City, as identified in the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. c. With the exception of the lot area per unit standard, the project is compliant with the performance standards of the New Hope Zoning Code. d. The overall average density of the two lots is below the R-5 District maximum density. The potential for the reconfiguring the lot to bring Parcel A into conformance is difficult due to the size and shape of the Woodbridge Cooperative building. Under these circumstances, staff would recommend approval of the lot area variance for Parcel A. Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 3 5-2-03 Parcel B will have a net lot area of 2.53 acres or 113,853 square feet. This lot could, by ordir'~-qce, serve up to 113 units. Only 82 units are being proposed with this development project, well with ~he R-5 standard. Parcel B is intended to have frontage on both Boone and Bass Lake Road. This raises an issue as to what is the lot front. By definition, lot front is defined as that property line abutting a public street, having the narrowest frontage. This would suggest that the Boone Avenue frontage would be the lot front and change setbacks for the building. However, in reviewing the overall subdivision design, the frontage on Boone is only 42 feet in width and does not offer full 100 foot lot width requirements per the R-5 District standard. The 100-foot width standard is exceeded at the frontage along Bass Lake Road. In light of the extenuating circumstances surrounding this property regarding access and site constraints, staff and consultants would look at treating the Bass Lake Road frontage as the front of the lot and mandating a front yard setback from Bass Lake Road and side yard setbacks from east and west side lot lines. Variance In reviewing the density issue with the applicants, they have agreed to pursue the variance request in accordance with the timetable previously identified. The criteria for the granting of a variance are listed below, and staff feels that the facts noted in the Planner's report support the granting of the variance. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the stdct application of the terms of the Zoning Code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Code. An application for vadance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, the following cdteria have been met: 1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. 2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. 3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous owner. 4. Additional Criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria: 1. It will not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. 3. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. 4. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district. VII. Development Analysis A. Development Review Team The Development Review Team discussed this application on April 16 and was supportive of the project. Comments included: documentation that units will be purchased by persons age 55 and Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 4 5-2-03 Co older, provide sidewalks to Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue, meet lot area per unit requirement, details on retaining wall and guardrails at top, refuse pick up, easement for shared driveway. parking stalls, hammerhead, access road maintenance, water main/sanitary sewer/storm sewer details, landscaping, hydrants, and building sprinkled. Desi,qn & Review Committee The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on April 17 and was supportive of the project and discussed the same concerns as listed above with the applicant. Plan Description Revised plans were submitted as a result of the Design & Review Committee meeting and comments on the application and plans are as follows: 1. Comprehensive Plan - The New Hope Comprehensive Plan designates the site for high-density residential development. The Comprehensive Plan policies promote housing diversity and encourage housing that addresses the City's life cycle housing needs. The proposed senior housing cooperative is an owner-occupied housing option that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan while providing a housing alternative not presently offered within the City. 2. Setbacks - The following setbacks are being proposed for this development application: In the Required Proposed Front Yard Setback - north 30 feet 46 feet Side Yard Setback - east 15 feet 15 feet Side Yard Setback - west 15 feet 15 feet Rear Yard Setback - south 30 feet 37 feet 3nning Consultant's rewew of the required setbacks, the building is fully conforming to ° the R-5 District standards. Site Data Summary- Site Area 110,119 Sq. Ft. Site Area/Unit 1,343 Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft. (%) Building 28,860 26.2 Green Area 55,639 50.5 Bituminous & Concrete 25,620 23.3 Section 4.032(2) establishes the m~mmum floor area per dwelling unit. Prowsion C under this section states that elderly and senior housing within the 1:{-5 District shall have the minimum floor areas as follows: One bedroom - 520 square feet, and two bedroom - 700 square feet. In examining the proposed floor plans for the Woodbridge Senior Cooperative, the smallest one bedroom apartment is approximately 748 square feet in area. The smallest two bedroom is approximately 1,064 square feet in area. These both exceed the standards for both the elderly housing as well as the non-elderly multiple family unit standards. Building Height - Within the R-5 District, the maximum building height is six stories or 72 feet. The proposed building is four stories with a height of approximately 54 feet between grade and top of the roofline. This falls well within the R-5 District standards. Parking and Circulation - The applicant is required to provide for senior housing one space per unit, plus one space per employee maximum shift. The overall site plan illustrates that there will be 83 interior parking stalls and 19 exterior stalls, for a total of 102 stalls. Four (4) ADA stalls will be provided (three underground and one surface). Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 5 5-2-03 Exterior stall dimensions are illustrated on the plan as being 18 feet in length and nine ~,et in width, 24-foot ddve aisles. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance allows for an 18-foot parkir., stall dimension with the submission of a snow removal plan. The plans illustrate on-site snow storage areas and specifically indicates that snow will be removed from all parking lots from curb to curb. With this information, the exterior parking lot complies with city standards. The northern exterior parking lot has been extended to provide a larger turnaround area at its north end per recommendation of the Design & Review Committee. The underground parking areas are all properly dimensioned to city standards. All parking areas will be surfaced and have curb and gutter around the exterior parking areas. Access to both Parcels A and B will be provided via a shared driveway extending from Boone Avenue. The applicant has provided a driveway easement that defines the shared access drive. The easement shall be subject to City Attorney review and comment. The revised site plan illustrates the extension of sidewalks from the building entrance points to the public sidewalks along both Boone Avenue and Bass Lake Road. 7. Emergency Access Drive - The site plan illustrates an emergency access drive at the northeast corner of Parcel B. The access drive is 20 feet wide and is intended to provide fire protection to the east side of the building. Responding to Design & Review Committee recommendations, the applicant has provided: a. Construction details of the grass space design for the access drive. b. No curb cut is proposed at Bass Lake Road to prevent unauthorized use of the access drive. c. Any snow ddfting at the Bass Lake Road curb shall be cleared on each snow removal service. d. Snow will be removed from the emergency access drive when snow depth exceeds five inches. West Metro Fire has reviewed and is in agreement with the emergency access. 8. Loading - The site plan illustrates that there will be a loading and drop off area approximately 40 feet in radius as a cul-de-sac on the east end of the exterior parking lot. This should be adequate to accommodate all the service needs of this use. 9. Refuse Containers - The site plan indicates that all refuse storage shall be stored in the underground parking areas and wheeled out for trash collection. The site plan shows the trash dumpster staging area north of the underground parking entrance and a rendering of two dumpsters. The underground parking area allows for two separate dumpster areas. Based on discussion at the Design & Review meeting the following note was added to the plan, "Dumpsters will be rolled out from the trash rooms within the garage the day of pick up to the temporary staging area then rolled back into garage that same day." 10. Fire Department Connection - The Fire Department connection is located at the front entry of the building. 11. Snow Storage - Six (6) areas on the site are proposed for snow storage: The first two areas are at the end of the hammerhead parking arrangement next to the northernmost parking spot, the third and fourth areas are located on both sides of the underground parking garage entrance and the fifth and sixth areas are located on both sides of the entrance to the visitor parking. The snow will be removed from the emergency access drive and access curb when the snow depth exceeds five inches (5"). Snow ddfting along the emergency access entrance will be removed at each snow removal service. The curb cut that currently exists at this location will be replaced Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 6 5-2-03 Planning Case Report 03-03 with curb and gutter. The plan notes that snow will be removed (curb to curb) from all parking lots. Based on discussion at the Design & Review meeting, one (1) additional snow storage area was added at the north area of the hammerhead turnaround, north of the underground parking entrance and the clearing depth for emergency access area was clarified (5"). 15,595 square feet 4,330 square feet 28 % 12. Signage - The applicant illustrates that they would like to provide two new monument signs to advertise the Chardon CourtJWoodbridge Senior Cooperative. Within the R-5 District, monument signs are allowed for each principal use on a lot, not to exceed 75 square feet in area or 12 feet in height. The primary sign, which will be located at the corner of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue, is proposed to be four feet high and 20 feet long. Total solid face area is 60 square feet. The secondary sign, which is intended to be located along the Woodbridge Cooperative driveway, is intended to be 2.75 feet high and 13.3 feet long, with a solid sign face of 27 square feet. Both these signs comply with the number, size and height restrictions for the R-5 District. Each of the signs meets the minimum 10-foot setback from the property lines. The existing monument sign at Bass Lake Road and Boone will be replaced with a new monument sign identifying both Chardon Court and Woodbridge. The area of solid base of the monument sign will be sixty (60) square feet. The sign will be constructed of a thin stone veneer, thin stone cap, four inch (4") cut metal letters and one (1) decorative light fixture will be placed at each end. The sign will stand four feet (4') tall at the highest point. The Building Official will enforce compliance with the site triangle imposed on corner lots, per the City's zoning code (twenty-five (25') back from the property line - from each corner). The second sign will have an area of solid base of twenty-seven (27) square feet. The second sign will sit an estimated one hundred twenty-five feet (125') from the west property line on the access road to both properties. Although smaller, the directional sign will be constructed with the same materials used with the other monument sign. This second sign will sit two feet eight inches (2.8') tall at its highest point and one (1) decorative light fixture will be placed at each end. At the time of revised plans, the orientation of each monument sign was shifted slightly and a finished metal banner feature was removed from each sign. 13. Exterior Building Materials - The proposed building elevations illustrated the proposed building materials and appearance of the building. It appears that the building will be very attractive with complementary colors and surfaces. The applicant is proposing asphalt shingles as a roof covering. The balance of the building will be of a cement plaster material that is provided in a variety of building textures. The proposed exterior finishes will provide both color and aesthetic appeal to the overall building and a material that will offer a very durable and long lasting surface. 14. Building Elevations - The building, including the underground garage and all living space, is 140,739 square feet. The building is of an irregular shape on the eastern portion of the lot spanning north and south. The building, an estimated 360' x 65', includes four (4) stories and an underground garage. The building is fifty-four feet (54') tall in most places, but is seventy-two feet (72') at it's highest at the main entry point including the chimney. Building materials will be consistent around the structure. The main entryway of the building will have a substantial amount of thin stone veneer as well as cement plaster - color #1' on the upper portion of the building and cement plaster control joints. An arrangement of glass doors and windows are placed on all four (4) floors to complement the peaked building design. The middle three (3) floors have a decorative balcony with a shop finished aluminum guardrail. A pre-finished metal louver will be placed near the peak of the building. All louvers, vents and grills Page 7 5-2-03 are to be pre-finished to match adjacent wall color, unless otherwise noted. A pre-finished m'-'-I cap flashing will be used to line the top of all the building's exterior walls. Two (2) clay pot stxfe chimneys will top off the main entry point to the building. The windows on either side of the main entryway will have a cast stone sill/cap/band, and all other windows will cement plaster one inch (1") projection/band. All window flashing will match the window frames. Pre-fabricated columns will line each side of the main entry. The first level exterior walls will be cement plaster - color #2*. A mixture of siding and cement plaster will cover the upper exterior walls. In addition to the cement plaster, pre-finished cement fiber 6" lap siding will be used. At all lap siding corners, a pre-finished cement fiber trim board will be installed. Fiberglass asphalt shingles will be used for roof materials. The plan specifies that pre-finished scuppers, gutters and downspouts will be provided. * Colors not specified. 15. Construction Entrance - A rock construction entrance will be placed immediately south of the Boone Avenue North entrance to Chardon Court. The curb and gutter will be replaced at this entrance. Also, the plan notes that the General Contractor will be responsible for photographing all buildings/structures on adjacent properties prior to starting construction. The documentation request was made by the Design & Review Committee to ensure that existing conditions were documented prior to construction. 16. Retaining Wall - A retaining wall one hundred and sixty-three feet (163') in length will be installed along the south edge of the property between the apartment garages and Chardon Court's south ddve aisle. The retaining wall begins one hundred and sixty feet (160') from the west property line and extends one hundred and forty-seven feet (147') eastward. The wall will range from six feet eight inches (6'-8") to ten feet one inch (10'-1") in height showing a connection below grade. Twenty-seven (27) Cardinal Dogwood bushes will be placed immediately south and at the bottom of the retaining wall. A four-foot (4') barder will be installed at the top of the retaining wall. The barrier will consist of a four-inch (4") tube steel post filled with concrete and painted, a two-inch (2") tube rail will be placed between the four-inch (4") tubes. A one-half inch (W') square bar will run vertically. The wall will be constructed of six inch (6") masonry block with a cap. Per Building Inspection comments at the Design & Review meeting the following changes were made to the retaining wall: Originally, a four-foot (4') barder was to be installed at the top of the retaining wall. The barder has been revised to include: a four-inch (4") tube steel post filled with concrete and painted, a two-inch (2") tube rail will be placed between the four-inch (4") tubes. A one-half inch (W') square bar will run vertically. The drawing showed six inches (6") of draining aggregate, drain tile, typical geosynthetic reinforcement layer and six inches (6") minimum compacted granular base. This information has been excluded from the revised plans. Three areas of terraced boulder walls will be placed on the site with the landscaping. The walls will be placed on both sides of the underground parking entrance, in front of the main entrance of the structure and south of the building between the neighboring property lines. The revised heights are as follows: Wall Height North of Garage Entrance 3.7' - 4.8' South of Garage Entrance 1.2' - 4.4' Along South Parking Lot 6.8'- 10.1' South Comer of Building 3.1' 17. Lighting - A photometric plan has been submitted. It illustrates that the proposed lighting locations and the foot candle configurations within the site. It appears that all lighting meets the minimum requirements of the New Hope Code, not to exceed one foot candle at the property line. Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 8 5-2-03 In response to comments from the Police Department, additional lighting has been added to the east side of the building. The applicant has provided light fixture detail for a cutoff mini wall pack within their light contours. The wall pack will be used along the east side of the building to provide additional security while avoiding nuisance glare to the adjoining properties. The following lighting will be added to the site: Nine (9) exterior downlights (6" open downlight with specular reflector - 100 W) will be installed, six (6) will be installed in front of the main entrance along the path to the circle drive and three (3) between the main entry and the underground parking garage. Five exterior bollards (8" square bollard - 100 W) will be installed including three (3) between the main entrance and garage and two (2) along the sidewalk north of the parking lot in front of the building. Two (2) exterior wall packs (wall pack with specular reflector, clear polycarbonate lens and composite housing - 70 W) will be installed, one (1) on the front northern portion of the building and (1) on the front southern portion of the building. One (1) exterior wall pack (architectural building-mounted floodlight, RM distribution - 175 W) will be installed over the entrance to the underground parking. One (1) single head pole (die cast cutoff luminaire - 400W) will be placed along the drive aisle in front of the main entrance. One (1) exterior twenty-five foot (25') single head pole (die cast shoebox - 400 W) will be placed at the entrance of the underground parking ramp, approximately sixty (60) feet from the entrance. Two (2) exterior twenty-five foot (25') twin head poles (die case cutoff luminaire 400 W) will be placed at the site. One (1) directly east of the drive circle approximately one hundred and ten feet (110') from the main entrance to the building and the other at the point of the visitor parking along the drive aisle approximately one hundred and seventy feet (170') from Boone Avenue North. Finally, four (4) wall packs (wall pack with specular reflector, clear polycarbonate lens and composite housing - 100 W) will be installed on the rear of the building. Per Design & Review, the lighting plan was revised to show foot candle calculations at the property line. The plan indicates compliance with the City Code standard of one (1) foot candle at the property line abutting residential property. Also, per the Police Department comments, four (4) wall packs (100 W) will be installed on the rear of the building. 18. Landscape Plan - The landscaping is well designed and provides an aesthetic element to the overall site appearance. The applicant has implemented staff recommendations regarding additional landscaping between the south property line and the proposed retaining wall along the south side of the parking area. All plantings appear to meet the required minimum plant sizes. Quantities appear to be fairly generous. The applicant has also proposed to implement the relocation of a number of existing trees on the site to make sure that some of the mature planting stock will be retained to complement the overall landscaping plan. Landscape plan notes indicate that the entire site will be irrigated. Overstory Trees Noted Shown Gleditsia triacanthos 'Skyline' Skyline Honeylocust 2.5" BB 5 5 Syringa reticulata Japanese Tree Lilac Clump 10' BB 1 1 Betula nigra River Birch Clump 10' BB 4 4 Fraxinus Pennsylvania 'Summit' Summit Ash 2.5" BB 3 1 Acer saccharum Su a~le 2.5".___~ BB~ 4 4 Ornamental Trees -. Malus 'Red Splender' '[ Red Splender Flowering Crab I 2" I BB ]" 12 [ 12 Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 9 5-2-03 Botanical Name Coniferous Trees Pinus Resinosa Common Name Size IRoot Quantity Noted /,,_,Ual Shown I Norway Pine 16' IBB Shrubs Hydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle' Spirea x bumalda 'Anthony Waterer' Diervilla Ionicera Acer ginnala 'Compactum' Viburnum tdobum 'Bailey Compact' Spiraea x japonica 'Little Princess' Cornus sericea 'Cardinal' Thuja occidentalis 'Techny' Spiraea nipponica 'Snowmound' Euonymus alatus Viburnum cassinoides Weigela florida 'Alexandra' Perennials Annabelle Hydrangea Anthony Waterer Spirea 18" HT 18" HT CONT CONT 41 68 Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle 24" HT CONT 11 3' BB 3 3 CONT 17 17 Compact Amur Flame Compact American Cranberry Little Pdncess Spirea 24" HT 18" HT Cardinal Dogwood 24" DIA 5' HT Techny Arbirvitae Snowmound Spirea Winged Euonymus Witherod Vibrunum CONT CONT BB CONT 18" HT Wine and Roses Weigela 45 32 17 13 41 45 32 17 13 3' HT CONT 1 1 3' HT CONT 4 4 24" HT CONT 3 3 Hemerocallis 'Stella de Oro' Total Items IStellaDeOroDa¥1ily IIGAL CONT 177 97 386 404 The following new landscaping is proposed for the site: Overstory Trees: Two (2) Skyline Honeylocusts and one (1) Japanese Tree Lilac Clump will be placed in front of the northwest portion of the building. Three (3) Skyline Honeylocusts will be planted on the west side of the new building immediately north of the entryway. Four (4) River Birch Clump will be placed on the rear portion of the building along the southwestern area of the site. One (1) Summit Ash will be placed on the southern portion of the site southwest of the retailing wall. Three (3) Sugar Maples will be placed on the northern part of the expansion site and one (1) will be placed east of the turnaround area on the western portion of the expansion site. Ornamental Trees: Twelve (12) Red Splender Flowing Crab trees will be planted on the site: Three (3) will be placed at the northwestern portion of the site, three (3) on the northeast portion of the expansion site, six (6) will be placed on the western portion of the expansion site surrounding the drive circle. Coniferous Trees: Seven (7) Norway Pines will be placed along the south property line of the expansion area. Shrubs: Forty-one (41) Annabelle Hydrangea will be planted on the site: two (2) along the northwest portion of the building, eleven (11) along the northwest bend of the building, twenty- two (22) in the planting area on the western front of the building and six (6) are shown south of the main entry. Sixty-eight (68) Anthony Waterer Spirea are shown on the plan: thirteen (13) are shown directly north of the underground parking entrance ramp and fifty-five (55) are shown directly south of the ramp. Eleven (11) Draft Bush Honeysuckles are proposed, all eleven (11) Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 10 5-2-03 are shown at the southwest corner of the new building east of the drive circle. Three (3) Compact Amur Flames will be planted at the site, all three (3) are proposed to be planted at the very northwest corner of the new building. Seventeen (17) Compact American Cranberry bushes will be planted on the site: twelve (12) lining the rear/eastern portion of the new building, four (4) along the northern edge of the new building and one (1) on the northwest corner of the northern portion of the building. Forty-five (45) Little Princess Spirea will be planted at the site: six (6) north of the underground parking ramp entrance, twenty-seven (27) north of the main entrance and twelve (12) south of the main entrance. Thirty-two (32) Cardinal Dogwoods will be planted at the site: twenty-seven (27) will be placed immediately south of the retaining wall south of the southern drive aisle, five (5) will be placed at the southeast corner of the building. Seventeen (17) Techny Arbirvitae will be planted: three (3) at the northwest corner of the new building and fourteen (14) south of the main entrance. Thirteen (13) Snowmound Spirea will be placed on the site: seven (7) will be placed north of the underground parking entrance, three (3) immediately south of the parking entrance and three (3) immediately south of the main entrance. One (1) Winged Euonymus will be placed at directly south of the main entrance. Four (4) Witherod Vibrunum will be placed at the southwest corner of the new building. Three (3) Wine and Roses Weigela will be placed along the rear of the building. Four (4) LP shrubs are proposed in the bump out area of the north parking lot. The shrubs are not identified in the landscape schedule. Perennials and Annuals: Perennials and annuals are proposed to be planted on both sites of the main entrance. Seventy-seven (77) Stella De Crc Daylily perennials are shown in front of the building. Sod will be placed on all disturbed areas. Seven (7) trees will be moved to accommodate a new sanitary sewer line. Two (2) six inch (6") spruce trees and one (1) nine inch (9") spruce will be moved an estimated one hundred and fifty feet (150') southeast to the southernmost portion of the site. Four ash trees (8", 9" and 11" (2)) will also be moved slightly to the south. A small area of existing vegetation along the southwest portion of the site will remain. A temporary staging area for the machine moved trees is located on the northern part of the site. Revised plans were accepted on April 25. The following changes were completed on the landscaping plan: Per the City Forester's recommendation, the applicant replaced three (3) ornamental trees (Spring Snow Flowering Crab) north of the building's entrance with three (3) overstory trees (Skyline Honeylocust). Aisc, per the Planning Consultant's recommendation, the internal sidewalk was extended to connect to the public Bass Lake Road sidewalk. The orientation of each monument sign was shifted slightly and a finished metal banner feature was removed from each sign. 19. Water Feature/Pedestrian Bridge - A water feature with flag stone paving and two (2) benches are shown in front of the building north of the main entrance. No details were provided for the water feature. Finally, a pedestrian bridge will be constructed over the entrance to the underground parking ramp. The bridge will be constructed with wood posts, rails and pickets. A stone veneer post will be constructed at each end of the bridge. The posts will match the ends of each monument sign. Finally, a decorative fixture will be placed on both sides of the bridge on top of the posts. The bridge will connect the entryway to a private sidewalk connecting to the public sidewalk on Bass Lake Road. Planninq Considerations The Planner's comments have been incorporated into this report. Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 11 5-2-03 Buildinq Considerations The Building Official indicated that the petitioner should provide engineering details for any retaining walls more than four feet high, as well as details for guardrails at the top of the retaining walls at parking areas. Engineering details should be provided if the guardrails are to be used for a stopping device. Leqal Considerations The City Attorney will prepare a Development Agreement for the project. Enqineerin,q Considerations The City Engineer reviewed the plans and provided the following comments: "We have reviewed the revised submitted plans for Woodbridge. Comments offered herein apply to changes, the submitted revisions, and recent project events. Previous review comments may still apply even though they are not repeated in this document. Lot Division Survey `1. Joint easements will be provided for water main, storm sewer, and ingress/egress. The easements appear to adequately cover facilities shared by both properties. 2. The future alignment of Bass Lake Road is being reviewed with Hennepin County planning staff. Plans were forwarded to their office and comments have not been received to date. Their review may include a request for nominal additional easement along the Bass Lake Road Corridor. Such a request will not impact building setbacks. Preliminary Site Plan 3. Parking stall depths are `18 feet. This could be considered acceptable given an approved snow removal plan. 4. A curb cut is not included at the emergency access from Bass Lake Road. This is preferred by Hennepin County Transportation. 5. Snow removal procedures for the emergency access are defined on the plans. Preliminary Gradinq & Draina,qe Plan 6. The construction of the underground parking and other earthwork and construction requirements could impact neighboring structures. It is recommended that the applicant and City document the condition of adjacent structures and foundations, as is feasible, prior to construction. This project will be responsible for any impacts of equipment and vibrations from equipment to adjacent structures. 7. The sideslope on the south side of the building is 3 to `1. Typically, a 4 to `1 slope is required to maintain a reasonable slope for mowing. Additional retaining wall would be required to reduce slope. The impacts of either options should be discussed. Provide engineered design of retaining wall prior to construction. The applicant has requested to store excavated soils (approx. 4,000 CYs) at 550'1 Boone Avenue from June through October. These materials would ultimately be used in the backfilling and restoration of the site. This is acceptable given the following: a. Erosion control is maintained in the stockpile area. b. The temporary pile is left in a neat, uniform manner. The location and height of the stockpile should be reviewed with the Engineer prior to placement. Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 12 5-2-03 c. The City is considering development improvements on this lot. In the event that development begins this summer, the applicant will be required to remove the material. The City will make efforts to coordinate and limit additional work if this occurs. Preliminary Utility Plan 10. The plans depict an eight-inch water main connection to the existing Chardon Court water main loop. The loop would be reconstructed to clear the proposed building pad. A new lead from Bass Lake Road will be constructed in the east side of the building. a. Identify where domestic service enters the building. Include shut off valve on the exterior of the building for fire and domestic services. b. Include a gate valve with Hydrant D. c. The gate valve in Bass Lake Road on the east service line currently leaks. The plans note coordinating with the city's Public Works Department. Identify if it is feasible to work with the applicant's contractor to complete this work. d. The water service for irrigation and for the site water feature must be from the building per plumbing codes and standards. 11. A six-inch sanitary service is shown from the building to Boone Avenue. A new MH 101 is proposed over the existing sanitary sewer. a. Patch the Boone Avenue pavement to match the existing pavement thickness. The patch should be limited to the edge of the parking lane or to the street centerline. Do not terminate patch in a driving lane. 12. Storm sewer will be connected to existing storm along the south property line. Storm water quantity calculations have been submitted. It appears the system will adequately convey a 10- year storm. a. It is recommended that the trench drain near the garage entrance be sized for a 100-year event to that specific subdrainage basin. Flooding impacts should be discussed. b. Review capacity of the eight-inch storm sewer along the south property line. Further reconfiguration may be required including replacement of the eight-inch line. 13. No improvements are shown to meet the City's and Watershed's water quality requirements. It is understood that the applicant will pay a cash fee toward regional improvements in lieu of on site improvements. This fee is based on the cost that would have been incurred by the applicant to construct a pond on site and the value of the land required for this pond. a. A water quality pond for a parcel of 2.5 acres typically has a wet volume of approximately 15,000 CF. b. The cost to construct this pond typically ranges from $20,000 to $30,000. c. The area consumed by this pond could include 8,000 SF. d. The contribution for this property will be dependent on the $/SF used for land value. Obtain a utility construction permit from Hennepin County for work within their ROW. Preliminary Traffic Circulation & Parkinq Plan 15. Snow will be removed from the site per an approved plan. 16. It is noted that an irrigation plan will be submitted for all shrub and sod areas." Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 13 5-2-03 I. Police Considerations The Police Department was involved incorporated into the report. J. Fire Considerations The Fire Department was involved incorporated into the report. VIII. Summary IX. Attachments: in the review of these plans and its comments have ~een in the review of these plans and its comments have been Staff believes that the overall site design is well conceived for this property. The building is an attractive addition to New Hope's existing multiple family housing stock. Based on staff review of the Woodbridge Cooperative application, staff recommends approval of the development applications, subject to the conditions listed below. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the subdivision, site/building review and variance request, subject to the following conditions: 1. Comply with City Engineer recommendations dated April 16 and April 30, 2003. 2. Payment of storm water ponding fee. 3. Approval of plans by Building Official. 4. Approval of plans by West Metro Fire. 5. City Attorney review and comment on all easement and declaration documents to ensure all shared driveways and utilities are properly established and maintained. 6. The proposed snow removal plan for the parking areas and the emergency access drive should be incorporated into the declarations of the driveway easement. 7. Enter into Development Agreement with City and provide performance bond (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). Zoning/Address/Topo/Section/Aerial Maps 4/29 Petitioner Correspondence: Age Limitations 2/27 Petitioner Correspondence: Temporary Dirt Storage/Construction Parking Cover Sheet Site Map Square Footage Summary Unit Type Site Plan/Details Pedestrian Bridge Details Monument Sign Details Lot Division Survey Legal Description Ingress/Egress Easement Preliminary Site Plan Site Data Summary Grading/Drainage Plan Retaining Wall Summary Utility Plan Traffic Circulation/Parking Plan Parking Stall Count Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 14 5-2-03 Snow Storage Landscape Plan/Schedule Retaining Wall Detail Garage Level Plan Floor Plans Partial Roof Plan Exterior Elevations/Notes Building Sections Unit Plans Lighting Plan Luminaire Schedule/Locations Easements: Watermain Driveway Storm Sewer Lighting Details Fire Protection Details Planning Consultant Report City Engineer Memorandums Application Log Planning Case Report 03-03 Page 15 5-2-03 60TH AVE N .IBERTY ~015 PARK 5916 5817 59O8 5~09 ~4a 5857 584O 5849 5~56 i 5957 554al 554~ 5940 5~41 5924 5825 5918 5~17 5~08 58O9 5900 5~01 5856 5~57 5848! 5~4g 5840 5841 5741 8731 8701 PARK 555O .ooPUBLIC WORKS GARAGE .20 CENTER EAST 5417 5713O Thm 5$TH AVE N NORTHI RIDGE APART- I MENTS ~ NORTH RIDGE CARE CENTER )W LAKE 60TH AVE VILLAGE GREEN GOLF COURSE 8130 5~27 5621 5615 58O3 5420 5510 : HOSTERMAN JR HIGH SCHOOL 5436 5437 543O 5431 5426 5427 5420 5421 54,16' 5417 5410 L5411 54O6 5407 55TH AVE N 15430 ~,31 5425 ~,27 54.20 ~21 5416 5417 5410 5411 54O5 5407 5400 5401 Z 4~53 BEGIN PARK ~.~1 54~7 5430 54.11 5426 5427 5420 5421 5416 5417 5410 5411 5406 54O7 5400 5401 HOSTERMAN ~ ,= .... :_.t: ....... ' JR HIGH , SCHOOL ~/INN~rKA. .............. ! .......... ' P..LI::MENTARY~ ................. :---' ..... ;SCHOOL ::--:'.:-..-: '::::: :---'.-:'-~-:':'7' '::"'-:'--: ............... ~~..'-- -~--. '----- ~' I ~!"~:1 .......... ----: ....... ~ __ - ........... :~---, ....... '.- ~~:"-"-: ....~'-'~--~._a.E_~.~_"'b-~--~,---~ .... ~ ......... -: .- _ -_~- -- . ~ .... : .... ,~"-:--'-4~I. PAFilC' ~1~- ..... ~' ....... ,< .......... ', ' , " ..... ,._.__~ .._~ ~ , _~< ; , , : ...... ~__~ .......... :=a ....... '. i~ ', ----7--- ;= ........ ~ .......... ___. L I~' ~ ,, .............· ~i~1~1~---~.--~.._.. ~ .......... ~i~:~:. ...... . .......... ~ ...... , ...... ~ .......... ........ . ..... ~,,_ ......... ,~1- ............ ..... .....,--' "~ ............... : ......... ~ ='i":--': ....... _i~---: , .! ' :'7 .... ',---~ ..... '" .... ; ..... ~. ::_':! .,~',o~ ...., / .... ~17.0 ( / J I / DOC NO 4923~j · ::-'-" 1.22 :95 ,~ DOC NO 4O PAR~ OF LO] ~ ~ (27) DOC NO 492400 EAST (7) 12 (20) (22) (19) (23) DOC NO 2377790 I (46) WEST 284.61 IF PROJ NO 1604 WEST 176.57 (5) (3) Anderson Pattee Realty Services LLC 5728 Kemrich Dr. Edina, MN 55439 April 29, 2003 City of New Hope Arm: Kirk McDonald 4401 Xylon Ave. No. New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Woodbridge of New Hope Dear Kirk: Please accept this letter as my response to your recent request concerning age limitations in our proposed cooperative development on Boone Road and Bass Lake Road. Both with regard to zoning regulation compliance, and our proposed Cooperative Corporation documents, there cannot be a percentage greater than 20% of occupants less than 55 years of age. As a practical matter, the Cooperative Association will not approve a purchase by anyone who is not at least 55. Sincerely, Ronald C. Anderson Pat'tee-Anderson Realty Services L.LC, It's Chief Manager KI;L&US~DERSOI~ CONS'IRUCTION COMP~ I - ST. PAUL DIVISION - 200Grand Avenue - St. Paul MN 55102 Ph: (651) 291-7088 Fax: (651) 290-6120 February 27, 2003 Coldwell Banker 7550 France Avenue South Edina, MN 55435 Attn: Mr. Ron Anderson Dear Ron; In review of the Site Development plans for the Chardon Court Phase II site in New Hope, Minnesota, located on Boone Avenue and Bass Lake Road, the existing site elevations vs. new elevations for building pad will create an excess of excavation materials. In our preliminary estimate there could be 8,000 to 12,000 cubic yards of excess materials to remove from the project site of which roughly 4,000 yards will be required for backfill once the building pad is built. Due to the tight site conditions and the concern of adjacent residence it would be advantageous to temporarily relocate the 4,000 cubic yards to across the street at the cities site. If the city accepted this option, we would propose placing a silt fence barrier around the excess materials, restoration and seeding after removal of excess materials. If this project started in May 2003, we would estimate temporary placement of materials on adjacent site from June through October 2003. We would also like to request some temporary construction parking on the site across the street to eliminate truck traffic and disruption to Boone Avenue. At the Cities convenience, we would like to meet with them to discuss these options once development of the project has progressed. Very truly yours, KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY James D. Beckwith Vice President cc: Fred Katter, Pineapple Management Co. Woodbridge Senior Co-operative New Hope, Minnesota CODE DATA Square Footage Summsr! First 27,S4S s.L Secoad Z?,SS0 s.f. Third 27,$$0 s.f. Fourtls 27,2SS s.r. Total 109,900 s.f. Garnse 30,839 s.f. Usit TIpt Summq, 12 I Bdrm. 28 I Bdrm. * Den 38 2 Hdrm. 4 2 84rm. *Dea 82 Total (Plu Os. GINI Suite) PROJECT LOCATION ~' ':~: , -'~1 ~'! · .... ~,~,; ~ · ~. · ,-~ ~.:~::~;, ::~ ~ITY PROJECT TEAM ~.? ~ .... ~P.-,~'t--~ ........ ' CONTENTS SITE New Hope, MN 1101' FOIl COJlSTRUCTION ~ fl, IT1.1 ,-~ m, 300m ';.. ~ ~ ~ N_orml~r~ Oir .... OI , --- ~, 1~ Ave ~___~. ~-Ooro~v ~ar~ :~ :~ __ > · Park ' ' - ' 61ST Ave N _~ ~ :~ .-'~ · ' ...... ~ 1~ Ave N _ -'o --' ~ -- 'z · ~ '--- -* O: ~. ' ' -- _ ~ .. ~z ~-'.,~ Ave:N o ~ -' ~ ' ~ .;-- - ~'' _ . .' '~' ~ d~ Ave N :~ · u~er~ ~arK :_ ~ ~ Park ~- ~ , - :E ~ ,~_ ~hAveN - Dr ~ Ay4 N 0200'3 Nm~i~ati~n Ave/V 515t Ave SITE Square Footage Summary First Second Third Fourth 27,545 s.f. 27,550 s.f. 27,550 s.f. 27,255 s.f. Total Garage 109,900 s.f. 30,839 s.f. Unit Type Summary 12 Bdrm. + Den 2 Bdrm. 2 Bdrm. + Den82 Total (Plus One Guest Suite) lull II II L / / / .$, / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / I / / J~ t! - ! I I / EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 1, CHARLIE THOMPSON ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL A That port of Lot 1, Block 1, CHARLIE THOMPSON ADDITION. according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies northerly and westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 0 degrees 20 minutes 0.3 seconds West, along the west line of said Lot 1, o distance of 42.81 feet to the beginning of line to be described; thence North 86 degrees 41 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of .36.48 feet; thence northeasterly o distance of 52.05 feet along o tangential curve to the left having o radius of 182.67 feet and a central angle of 16 degrees 19 minutes 34 seconds; thence North 70 degrees 22 minutes 25 seconds East, tangent to said curve, o distance of 188.06 feet; thence northeasterly a distance of $9. 12 feet along a tangential curve to the left having o radius of 40.00 feet and a central angle of 56 degrees 02 minutes $2 seconds; thence North 19 degrees $6 minutes 16 seconds West, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 165. 17 feet; thence Nor'th I degree 41 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 141.54 feet to the northerly line of said Lot I and there said line terminates. PARCEL B That part of Lot 1, Block 1, CHARLIE THOMPSON ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies southerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 0 degrees 20 minutes 03 seconds West, along the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 42.81 feet to the beginning of line to be described; thence North 86 degrees 41 minutes 59 seconds East o distance of $6.48 feet; thence northeasterly a distance of 52.05 feet along a tangential curve to the left having o radius of 182.67 feet and o central angle of 16 degrees 19 minutes J4 seconds; thence North 70 degrees 22 minutes 25 seconds East, tangent to said curve, o distance of 188.06 feet; thence northeasterly a distance of 39. 12 feet along o tangential curve to the left having a radius of 40.00 feet and o central angle of 56 degrees 02 minutes 32 seconds; thence North 19 degrees $6 minutes 16 seconds West, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 165. 17 feet; thence North I degree 41 minutes 51 seconds West o distance of 141.54 feet to the northerly line of said Lot I and there said line terminates. I hereby certify that this is o true and correct representation of o survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of oil buildings, if any, on said land. Dated this 9th day of April, 200,3. REHDER & ASSOCIATES. iNC. PROPOSED INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT A 25 foot easement for ingress and egress purposes over and across that port of Lot 1, Block 1, CHARLIE THOMPSON ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, the center#ne of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 0 degrees 20 minutes 03 seconds West, along the west line of said Lot 1, o distance of 42.81 feet to the point of beginning of center#ne to be described; thence North 86 degrees 41 minutes 59 seconds East o distance of 36.48 feet; thence northeasterly o ~tistance of 52.05 feet along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 182.67 feet and a central angle of 16 degrees 19 minutes $4 seconds; thence North 70 degrees 22 minutes 25 seconds East, tangent to said curve, o ~istance of 188.06 feet; thence northeasterly a distance of 62.94 feet along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 40.00 feet and a central angle of 90 degrees 09 minutes .~4 seconds; thence North 19 degrees 47 *minutes 09 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 108.80 feet centerline terminates. Together with an easement for ingress and egress purposes over and across that pon of said Lot 1, which lies $0.50 feet northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the above described center#ne distant 5.14 feet southerly of its point of termination; thence South 19 degrees 47 minutes 09 seconds East, along said center#ne, o distance of 3?.00 feet and there said line terminates. The side lines of said easement are to be lengthened or shortened to terminate on the west line of said Lot 1. f i'li!::!l, 'Ill!l-. III III!111111~ J J ~ ~ I dlllllllllllll Ii111 I j , ~ ,i, ,,,I ii!l'l! i 'illlilj~ll'l,I II - , i1|.%, ~ Ilh "'~,f:K II I I REFUSE STORAGE INSIDE PROPOSED BUILDING AREA -- 110119 SO. FT. SITE AREA/UNIT BUILDING GREEN AREA 1343 SO. FT.~UNIT (so. FT.) 28860 26.2 55639 50.5 BITUMINOUS & CONCRETE 25620 23.3 I,i I I !!!! !I!!!!!1!11!ll I I I I I lilllllllllllll IIIIIIii11||I1! illll~ll~'l il' 2.; I I I I' RETAINING WALL SUMMARY TOP BOTTOM HEIGHT NORTH OF GARAGE ENTRANCE A gog.o 904.2 4.8' B 909.0 905..3 3.7' C 915.5 909.0 4.5' SOUTH OF GARAGE ENTRANCE D 909.0 904.6 4.4' E 908.5 905.6 2.9' F 907.0 905.4 1.6' G 907.9 904. I $.8' H 907.0 90,3.0 4.0' I 909. 7 907.1 2.6' J 911.5 908.0 $.5' K 904.8 90,3.6 1.2' L 907.4 905.,3 2. 1' ALONG SOUTH PARKING LOT Id 906.8 900.0 6.8' N 908.2 go0. o 8.2' 0 910.1 900.0 10. I' SOUTH CORNER OF BUILDING P 913.0 909.9 $.1' IIIIIIIIIIIIIII , i~llll!llll~ Il" '1 IIIIIIIIIl|l|ll Jlllll~lll'! i I!i~- ~ I ii" I I / II /; 1'1 "-" I I lilllllllllllll Il ll : l IIIIii1111[1|11 il~l~ll~l'! i I!i|1~' i ~ I I' I' I' NORTH 4 0 4 ii ,,, !I ll~liii::: I I~! ':il i / / / / ~lJlf.rIi ![lll![l!!l!. yll Il Ill?iil:l ::.,:.~: l!!!dllllil~l iiili ilii!i ! t q Illl q II q Il iii / ...' LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE KEY COMMON NAME/BOTANICAL NAME SIZE REMARKS HL SKYUNE HONEYLOCUST 2.5" B~B Gleditsia triacanthos 'Skyline' NO v-~,~. JL JAPANESE TREE ULAC CLUMP 10' B&:B ~-sm, Syringe reticulata RB RIVER BIRCH CLUMP 10' Barb Betulo nigm SA SUMMIT ASH 2.5' B~B Fraxinus pennaylvanica 'Summit' ,o v-mmc~ Ski SUGAR MAPLE 2.5' B~B Acer aacchorum ,o v-c~:~ ORNAMENTAL RC RED SPLENDER FLOWERING CRAB 2' B~B Malus 'Red Splender' SC SPRING SNOW FLOWERING CRAB 2' B&rB s'r~am MOlus 'Spring Snow' CONIFEROUS TR~ NP NORWAY PINE 6' EMcB s'rm~m Pinua resinoea AH ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA 18' HT., CONT. m~. Hydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle' ^r m. acc. AW ANTHONY WATERER SPIREA 18' HT., CONT. Spiraea x bumolda 'Anthony Waterer' ,Tm. s,cc. BH DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE 24' HT., CONT. Diervilla Ionicera AT m. S~£C. CA COMPACT. AMUR F1.NdE 3' B&:B me. Acer ginnala 'Compactum' ^Tm. s,rc. CC COMPACT AMERICAN CRANBERRY 24' HT., CONT. Viburnum trilobum 'Bailey Compact' ^Tm. s, rc. DW DONALD WYMAN 24' liT., CONT. me. ~ r.e~s Syfinga x preetoniae 'Donald Wyman' ^T m. acc. LS LITTLE PRINCES SPIREA 18' HT.. CONT. Spiraea japonica 'Uttle Princess' ^Tm. acc. RD Cardinal Dogwood 24' DIA., CONT. me. Comus earicea 'Cardinal' ^Tm. acc. SJ SCANDIA JUNIPER 24' DIA., CONT. me. Juniperus 8abina 'Scandia' AT TA TECHNY ARBORVTrAE 5' FIT., B&:B me. Thuja occidentalia 'Techny' ^~ ~ sprc. SS SNOWMOUND SPIREA 18' HT.. CONT. ~".. Spiraea nipponica 'Snowmound' ^T m. sPrc. WE WINGED EUONYMUS 3' FIT. CONT. .,- Euonymu$ alatus ^r m. s,~c. WI wrrHEROD VlBRUNUM 3' I'FF. CONT me. Viburnum caasinoides ^Tm. acc. WR WINE AND ROSES WE:IGELA 24' HT., CONT. -,. ~ ce, rs Weigela florida 'AJexan¢ira' ATm. s.~c. KF FEATHER REED GRASS 1 GAL, CONT. C. x acutiflora 'Karl Forster' RG RUDBECKIA 'GOLDSTRUM' I GAL, CONT Rudbeckia 'Goldstrum' SD :~'IHIA, DE ORO DAYMLY 1 GAL, CONT. Hemeracallis 'Stella de Ora' WB HOSTA 'Wide Brim' 1 GAL., CONT. Hosto 'WIde Brim' SS SEDUM 'Autumn Fire' 1 GAL, CONT. Sedum 'Autumn Fire' PROPOSED RETAINING WALL AND RAILING I :. il: I [ ~t" '":~ ..1' o III III -'il 't 't IlI, 't _IS_ I IIIIIlI IIII I :,,.: ! I .-.Il I~ i ~ _s ,f F !Il' ~ ~ I'i! '::l 'i li,,I : j li fiji' Ill' · ! i~ l: i~ i J' il! ii'; ! ~ Z ITl ITl ITl Q~IC=FINI~-iE~ r'ET~. ~ I:I.~.~IN~ / F~,~..l~ TNIH ~TC~IE VENEER r..,~ST STO~E e~LJ. / r-.~= / ~ STONE r_.oN'r~o~ JOINT CEI~. I=It~EI~ ~" i.A!= 51DIN~" PI~E-FIN. ~ NOTE~ Ji iii :0 '0 m llllll ~ ':"I[ !I i,, I ~i' ~[ ti, tll!llllllllll!ll!llllllg!lll ,[ llllllllllllllll~llllllllllll . llllllttlllltlll:tlllllllllll i !~ II i t I1 il I' I' Il Il Jlf Iii ' iii I~l I1:1 ~J:l ' : i I [ Woodbddge Senior Housing LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE 8ymb~i Label Qly Catalog Number Description O XB 5 KBS8 100M R5 8 IN SQUARE BOLLARD Lamp File XP13 1 KAD 4O0M R3 DIE-CAST CUTOFF LUMINAJRE 100 WAI'F CLEAR MET.N. HALIDE 94033002.1es XP15 I KAD 4O0M R5S DIE CAST SHOEBOX 400 WA'Ir METAL HALIDE 92040o02.les XP23 2 KAD 400M R3 DIE-CAST CUTOFF LUMINAJRE ONE 400-WATr CLEAR BT-3? METAL HALIDE, HORIZONTAL POSITION. 94040801 .les XD 9 602A (looM) S" OPEN DOWNLIGHT WITH SPECULAR REFLECTOR. 400 WATF METAL HALIDE g2040902.les XWP1 2 TWAC 70M WALL PACK W/SPECULAR REFLECTOR, CLEAR POLYCARBONATE LENS & COMPOSITE HOUSING ONE 10~WATF COATED ED-l? METAL HALJDE, VERTICAL BASE-UP POSITION. LTL9687.1ES XWP2 I WFI_2 175M RM ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING-MOUNTED FLOODLIGHT, RM DISTRIBUTION ONE 70-WATr CLEAR ED- -l? METAL HALIDE, HORIZONTAL POS. 1118338.les XXWP 1 FM44 175M GR3 ACS (TYPE III) EXISTING 6-SIDED LANTERN W/CLEAR PANEL.8 AND TYPE III REFRACTOR. ONE 175-WATr CLEAR ED-17 METAL HALIDE, HORIZONTAL POSITION. It16203.1es XXL 2 FM44 175M GR3 ACS (TYPE III) EXISTING 6-SIDED LANTERN W/CLEAR PANELS AND TYPE III REFRACTOR. 175MH as11155.1es XXP 1 EXISTING DIE-CAST CUTOFF LUMINAJRE 175MH as11155.1es A 4 TWAC looM WAIL PACK W/SPECUlAR REFLECTOR, CLEAR POLYCARBONATE LENS & COMPOSITE HOUSING 250 WATt METAL HALIDE 92042001.les ONE lo0-WATT CLEAR ED-17 METAL HAUDE, HORIZONTAL POS. 1f1835g.les Lumef~s 850O 79OO 52OO 13300 14O00 140OO 1950O 8500 LLF 0.72 0.72 0.72 0,72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 072 0.72 LUMINAIRE LOCATIONS NO. Label X ¥ Z MH Orterttat~on Tilt I XXP -298.3 51.8 22.0 22.0 173.3 0.0 2 XP23 -184.3 52.3 25.0 25.0 -20.8 0.0 3 XP23 -89.0 55.5 25.0 25.0 -gO.0 0.0 4 XD -7.0 87.1 10.0 10.0 70.0 0.0 5 XD -12.7 78.9 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 6 XD -0.6 89.4 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 7 XD 10.1 93.3 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 8 XD 24.9 85.7 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 9 XD 17.6 106.7 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10 XXI. -220.7 200.3 10.0 10.0 156.9 0.0 11 XXL -181.8 121.8 10.0 10.0 -26.6 0.0 12 XB -16.9 257.8 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 13 XB "16.0 245.6 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 14 XP15 -32.1 221.4 25.0 25.0 161.1 0.0 15 XP13 -28.2 131.2 25.0 25.0 -73.0 0.0 16 XB -1.1 155.5 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 17 XB 16.2 191.6 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 18 XB 4.5 127.5 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 19 XD 24.9 139.4 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 20 XD 23.6 161.3 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 21 XD 24.9 183.4 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 22 XWP1 -14.0 283.5 9.0 9.0 -73.7 0.0 23 XWP1 26.8 30.0 g.0 9.0 .48.5 0.0 24 XXWP -102.0 153.5 10.0 10.0 156.3 0.0 25 XWP2 27.5 217.0 9.0 9.0 90.0 0.0 26 A 96.5 277.0 10.0 10.0 90.0 0.0 27 A 96.5 167.5 10.0 10.0 90.0 0.0 28 A 109.8 70.5 10.0 10.0 90.0 0.0 29 A 92.8 -2.0 10.0 10.0 134.6 0.0 NEW HOPE SENIOR HOUSING WATERMAIN EASEMENT A 15 foot easement for watermain purposes over. under and across Lot 1. Block 1. CHARLIE THOMPSON ADDITION. according to the recorded plat thereof. Hennepin Count3'. Minnesota. the centerline of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 1: thence North 0 degrees 20 minutes 03 seconds West. along the west line of said Lot 1. a distance of 137.74 feet to the point of beginning of centerline to be described: thence South 89 degrees 34 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 272.34 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point "A": thence North 2 degrees 37 minutes 39 seconds West a distance of 136.29 feet: thence North 47 degrees 15 minutes 31 seconds West a distance of 44.05 feet: thence North 1 degree 41 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 79.23 feet; thence North 42 degrees 44 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 44.49 feet; thence North 3 degrees 36 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 19.01 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 1 and there said centerline terminates. The side lines of said easement are to be lengthened or shortened to terminate on the west and northerly lines of said Lot 1. Together with a 15 foot easement for watermain purposes over, under and across that part of said Lot 1, the centerline of said easement is described as follows: Beginning at the aforementioned Point ..... A , thence South 45 degrees 31 minutes 10 seconds East a distance of 15.00 feet and there said centerline terminates. NEW HOPE SENIOR HOUSING DRIVEWAY EASEMENT A 25 foot easement for ingress and egress purposes over and across that part of Lot 1. Block 1. CHARLIE THOMPSON ADDITION. according to the recorded plat thereof. Hennepin County. the centerline of said easement is described as follows: ' Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence North 0 degrees 20 minutes 03 seconds West, along the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 42.81 feet to the beginning of centefline to be described; thence North 86 degrees 41 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of 36.48 feet: thence northeasterly a distance of 52.05 feet along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 182.67 feet and a central angle of 16 degrees 19 minutes 34 seconds; thence North 70 degrees 22 minutes 25 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 188.06 feet; thence northeasterly a distance of 62.94 feet along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 40.00 feet and a central angle of 90 degrees 09 minutes 34 seconds; thence North 19 degrees 47 minutes 09 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 108.80 feet centerline terminates. Together with an easement for ingress and egress purposes over and across that part of said Lot 1 described as follows: Commencing at a point on the above described centerline distant 5.14 feet southerly of its point of termination; thence North 70 degrees 12 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 12.50 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 70 degrees 12 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 18.00 feet; thence South 19 degrees 47 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 37.00 feet; thence South 70 degrees 12 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 18.00 feet; thence North 19 degrees 47 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 37.00 feet to the point of beginning. DECLARATION OF DRIVEWAY EASE~ This Declaration is made by NORTHRIDGE PROPERTIES OF NEW HOPE LIMITED PARTNF~SHIP, a Minnesota limited parmc~hip ("Declarant"). the record owner of the par=:l of land legally described on the atUched F, xhibk A ("Tract 1 "), and the record owner of the parcel of land legally described on thc attached Bxhibi£ B ("Tract 2") ~o establish a common drivcway easemen~ for the benefit of Trac~ 1 and Tract 2 (either of such parcels, and the record owner or contract purchaser thereof, being referred w herein by usc of ~ capitalized terms "Lot" and "Owner". respectively). NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant hereby .grants, de~.~ and establish~ a perpetual, ncraexclusive eas~nent for vehicular and pedestriall ~ .ahd,.'. egress and driveway purposes, which shall be appurmnant and nm with the title to ea.,e~ bf"the '.-I~ots and subject to the covenants and charges herein, over, across and upon those porti~ of the mai propcrty legally described on the attached Exhibi! C (the ~Driveway Basem.~t Ar~'), lying within Tract 1 and Trac! 2, respectively. ~<:. ~, .~,. ..i, -"'¢ ~', ; 'C& ::i! .... ~.. i~" ..x~.. F[~.,II~ : '~ ,~. ". (-) lmpro .':: Eiicht!~vemen~ which is con~u'u~ted wie~u the Dri~¢w,,y P.~cment Area a~ ~ oD~i~ori$inal ce~a'-c~ion of the co--moa driveway, or ~ thereafter with the ~t of the Owners, ~h~,]~ comdrme a "Shared Improvement'. The initial co.'traction @~ co~,,,o,, ddv~w,,y ~lull ~o~ be commenced units and until Owners of Tract 1 and Trac~ :2 have agreed in writi~ on ~he plans and specifica~iom for (b) Conslmcdon, Repair, Msi- _*~v~._~ and D~__~n__,~_ion. The ~ of Tr~ I ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ mo~ ~mr, ~n~an~ an~or ~~c~on ~f; ~d, hoover ~ ~ ~rs ~ ~ ~e ~s~ of ~e ~o~ble ~r ~d ~n~ of ~ S~ed ~v~, ~ ~ ~niom, ~ o~c~m aged by ~c ~, ~ ~t ~ ~r of T~ 2 of ~ ~h ~ ~y u~ ~i~ ~mvol~ ~or o~ ap~e evid~ ~t s~ ~ ~ve ~ ~ed. ~~~ ~ ~ ~veway, ~g ~ u~ ~ ~ ol ~ lot ~ w~ ~ ~m~v~ ~ l~. ~ a ~ ~~s,~~ ~ ~y~ ~ ~W or ~e ca~ o~ ~ ~ ~t m~), ~, m s~ event, ~ (c) Repairs of Damage Caused by One Owner and/or Reside~f. If a Shar~ lmprovemen! is damage, d or desu'oycd [hrouxh the a~t of one Owner and/or any r~icient of that Owncr, so as to deprive [he o[hcr Owner and/or rcsidmu of ube other Owner of [he ~ usc and enjoyment of such Shared lmprovcmenl, then [he Owner and/or resident responsible for such damage shall proceed forthwith to rebuild or repair such Shared ~n]~'ovcmem w its original condition or thc condition which existed immedmtely prior to [he damage, withouz cost to thc other Owner. (d) Cha~es ~o Shar~t Improvem~t. In ~ w m=~ ~ omer ~en~ of ~ ~i~fi~, ~d of ~y ~ ~e, ~ o~ or s~ ~v~~ ~~ ~ ~s, ~d ~t ~ ~~ he~m, ~y ~mr ~si~ w m~, ~ ~fi~ W or rebuild a ~t in any ~ w~ ~ui~ ~e e~ion ~ o~er ~I~ of ~y S~ Impwvem~, ~ first ob~ ~e ~en co~t of ~c o~er ~er, ~ ~1 ~ ~]ely ~s~iblc for ~e ~si of ~y such a~ved ex~ion or ~te~fi~. ~ ~Y °~er ~r ~r *is S~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ l~d ~d s~ ~ w m~ ns~ of ~Dw~r ~"~ov~ ~ ~y o~ O~er for neghg~ or ~ acts 2. L~ ~G~. Any ~ w~ ~ a fi~ ~ ~n~b~ ~ m~~ ~m~on or ~~ of ~ ~veway ~nz ~ ~1 ~ve a li~ ~ az ~ m~ of 8 ~t ~r ~ ~m ~ ~ ~ ~d &e ~ of ~ ~on ~, ~1~ ~mble ~om~s' f~, ~ ~e fi~ ~~r or h~ ~r v~ue of ~y ~ ~ who ~r& ~s conve~ or ~ ~~t evi~ his li~ ~or m ~ filing of ~ Nofi~ of L~ ~. 2 ~y ~ fo~lo~ ~ a ~ m~ ~ a ~~ by ~v~~ S~, ~ ~80, of a m~gage on ~ ~ ~ a 6 m~ ~~on ~nod. F~h ~~d~ O~, ~~ofa~ for~or~r f~lm~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~d c~l~ ~w~ of ~e ~ adve~s~t ~ tach ~los~ O~. 3. LIMITATION. No Ownm- or residm~ ~ cause or permiz obstruction of or hzergerence with thc rights in or use of the Driveway Fa.qemm Area by any other Owner or resident. FROM MESSERLi & KRAMER P A (FEI, r ~ 03 14'31/ST. ~'Z6~,~. ~'~' , .... ,,,~,~ 220'.. : DISPUTES. In fl~ cvmt of any dispute concerning any Shared Improvement, or o-~hcr~vizc ailing ou~ of this Declaration or any provision thereof, ~ Owners shall firn try in good faith m sev. le the dispute by mediation under the Commercial Mediation Rules of the Amscan Arbitration Association. If the dispule is noi fully resolved within 30 days of ~he event causing the dispute, the disput~ shah be subnfitted W bmd/ng arbiu'at/on under thc rules of thc American Arbitration Association. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and conclusive on the quest/OhS involved. The fees of the med/ator and arbitrator shall be shared equally by the Owners, bu! each Owner shall pay hi~ own a~omeys' fees and other costs. ~. GENER,i~ PROVlSlONS. (a) Duration. This Declaration shall bind .. ~/~nd~/nure to thc benefit of each Owns, and its r~pective he/rs, succes,~ot~ and ass/g~,.~or a term of 20 ye, ars from the date it/s recorded. Thereaf~, this Declaratialr'/~inll .a~tomaticaUy renew for successive periods of 10 years. '~. (b) Amendment. T!}.,j~,,~Decl~,li,'on .a~." y be afii~de~l wire the wrinen approval of the th~ record Owners, p~fi ,~d~,~, h~,v/"..e~,r, ~, the Owners rdutll coasent in writ/ng to m,~wan~ company ~ ~sUe tixl¢-,msmanc~ coverage on ~ Lo~; or rcquixcd by any institutional lcrgi~ Or~ov~ agency to make, purchase or insure mo~gage loans on ~hc Lots. Any ~t to bc cffcc~ive m~t be recorded with thc Hennepin County .' ;~:~.. (c) Plural. The singttla~ d~aU include the plural, and plund may be rend as singular, wtm'e ~pmpriatc, and unicss thc conrgxt otherwise requires. (d) _Gender. The masculine gend~ may be rind as the femi,in~ gender or tl~ neuter ~ender, where appropr/ate, nnd unless the context otherwise requ/res. (¢) LiabRity. The obl/gations of th~ Owners of the respective Lot~ shaU be joint and s~veral, except wlm'e the context othc-~/se requ/res. (19 Captions. The captions herein arc inserted only for convenience and reference and do not limii the scope of tll/g Declare/on. (g) Sevembilky. Invnlidatio~ of any provision of u'fis Declaration by any arbitrator or Court shall not effect the remainder hereof, which shall continue in full force nnd effect. EXEC~D IN WITNESS HEREOF on this. clay of 2003. NORTHRIDGE PROPF_,RTIF~ OF NEW HOPE LIM1TED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited parmers~p By: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ..,..,..;,. COUNTY OF ) ,,- Pr°vertie~°';;w', z..t~, .~ ." . ,~-: ;} ii h'~e'~~ Patter of Northridg¢ rto_p,cm~ s or lncw Hope Limited P~ip, .a~,'~ limimt r~xnershin on partnership. ..,.:~:~.i!.:!,-. :;.-' J,~:' . ;:.: ,.,... ~ :~' !~:- NoIra'y l~bli¢ .!;?...: .. ;lC .:~' THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFI'ED BY: Me, ss~li & Kramer P.A. fPWA) 1800 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 554O2 FROM MESSERLT & KP.,.A.M, ER EXi~mlT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF TRACT 1 That pan of Lot 1, Block 1, CHARLIE THOMPSON ADDITION, according to the recordcd plat thereof, H~nnepin County, Minnesota, which lies northerly and w~terly of the following de~--ribed lin~: Commencflag at the southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence North 0 degr~s 20 minutes 03 s~e. ond$ West, alozlg the west li~ of said Lot 1, a distance of 42.81 feet to th~ beginning of li~ to be described; ~ North 86 degrees 41 miolltes 59 seconds F~tst a distance of 36.48 feet; thence nonhe, as~rly a distance of 52.05 feet along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 182.67 feet and a central angle of 16 d~grees 19 minutes 34 seconds; thence North 70 dcgr~.,s 22 minnt~s 25 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 188.06 fcct; thence northaasterly a distan~ of :39.12 feet along a tangential cra-ye to the left having a radius of. .4~00 feet and a central angle of 56 dc~c, cs 02 minut~ 32 seconds; thence North 19 degrees 36 minutes 16 seconds West, not tangent to said curve, a distnnce of 165.17 feet; thence Ne~t~' I d~ree 41 minutes .51 s~:onds West a distance of 141..64 feet to the northerly line of said Lot!l and there snid line tcrminntes. l~xl:m~lT B LEGAL DE$CI/IFrION OF T/~CT 2 That part of Lot 1, Block 1, CHARLIE THOMPSON ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hcnnepin County, Minnesota, which lies ~outherly and easterly of the following de~cribe, d line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 0 d~gr~s 20 mintrl~ 03 secon~[8 West, along the west lit~ of ~aid Lot l, a ~ of 42.81 feet to the beginn~n~ of line w be descri~; thence North 86 degre~ 41 minl~_.~ 59 seconds ~ a dib'tall~ of 36.48 feet; thence northeasterly a distance of 52.05 feet along a tangential curve to thc lef~ having a radius oir 182.67 feet ~ad a central angle of lfi d~grces 19 minutes 34 seconds; ttlm~:e North 70 degrees 22 minu~es 25 seconds East, tangent zo said curve, a distance of 188.06 fee~: rhenee northeasterly a distance of 39.1:2 fee~ along a umgential curve ~o the left having a radius oL~0i00 feet and a cea~tral angle of 56 degrees 02 minules 32 s~conds; thence North 19 de .~s'3~ minur~,.s 16 seconds West, not taugent to said curve, a distance of 165.17 feet; theace N~'I d~gr~ 41 rriinu~.s 51 sc-conds West a distance of 14/.54 fee~ ~o th~ northerly line of said Lot. il and there ~id line ~ermlnating. FROM ~IT C DRI~WAY EASE]V~.NT A~F.& A 25 foot easement for ingress nnd cgress ~ over and acwss that part of Lot 1. Block 1. CHARLIE THOMPSON ADDITION. according w the recorded plat thc-moL Hennepin County. the centcrline of which easement is ~bcd as follows: Comm~_i,g a~ the southwest corner of r~icl Lot 1; thence North 0 degrees 20 minut~ 03 seconds Wc~t, along the we. st linc of said Lot 1. a distance of 42.8! feet m the point of beginning of centeriinc to be described; Rtcn~ North 86 degrees 41 minute~ 59 ~.oncls East a distailce of 36.48 feet; ~ northeasterly a distance of 52.05 l~et along a tangential curve to thc left having a radius of 182.6'7 feet nad a central angle of 16 degre~ 19 minutea 34 second~; thence North 70 degrees 22 ntinutes 25 seconds East, tangent to said cra'vt, a distance of 188.06 f~t; thence northeasmtly a distance of 62.~ feet along tangential curve to.~he:lcft having a radius of 40.00 feet and a central angle of 90 c~grees 09 miata:es 34 se~olld~; ~ North 1 ~) d~gre~ 47 minu~s 09 .~.o~ds We~, tangent to said curve, a distance of 1.~.'gOfeeti~nd there centerlme terminates. CONSENT TO DRIVEWAY EA,qEMENT BY MORTGAGEE WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, N.A., a nalioaal banking association, gormerly imown as Norwes£ Bank MinnesoTa, National Association, Mortgagee, the current holder of thaz certain Combiua~on Mor~ge, Securily Agr~neut and F~iure Financing staTem~t execu~d by Northridg~ Propmies of New Hope LimiTed Par~crship, a MiaaCSOrS limited parmership, m favor of City of New Hope, Minae.som, s Minnesota mumcipaJ corporation, dalcd June l, 1996, fdccl Jul), 11, 1996, ~s Document No. 2?22953, in ~he originsl amoullt of I;5,000,000. as assigned w Norwe. st Bank Minnesota, National Association, a national banking association, by assignment dated June 1, 1996, ~ed July 16, 1996, as DocumcDi No. 2724901, which enctlmbe~s ~ properly dc,scribed on Exhibit A and ]~XJlibit B allachcg hereto, docs hereby ccosent to die terms a~d condi~olls of the foregoing Driveway Easemc~. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing iasmunen[ was acknowiedgcd before me this day of by , the - . , 2003, of Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, ~,~,o~muou, on uebalr of the banking a.msociation. Bank Minnesota. Natioual Noiary Public NEW HOPE SENIOR HOUSING STORM SEWER EASEMENT A 15 foot easement for storm sewer purposes over. under and across Lot 1. Block i. CHARLI£ THOMPSON ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof. Hennepin Count'. Minnesota. the centerline of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 1: thence on a bearing of West. along the south line of said Lot 1, a distance of 179.41 feet to the point of beginning of centerline to be described; thence North 0 degrees 05 minutes 33 seconds East a distance of 54.18 feet; thence North 58 degrees 41 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 104.68 feet; thence North 5 degrees 41 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 64.80 feet: thence North 54 degrees 58 minutes 01 seconds East a distance of 91.75 feet and there said centerline terminates. The side lines of said easement are to be lengthened or shortened to terminate on the south line of said Lot I. Together with 15 foot easement for storm sewer purposes over, under and across that pan of Lot 1. Block 1, CHARLIE THOMPSON ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof. Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies southerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence North 0 degrees 20 minutes 03 seconds West, along the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 42.81 feet to the beginning of line to be described; thence North 86 degrees 41 minutes 59 seconds East a distance of 36.48 feet; thence northeasterly a distance of 52.05 feet along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 182.67 feet and a central angle of 16 degrees 19 minutes 34 seconds; thence North 70 degrees 22 minutes 25 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 188.06 feet; thence northeasterly a distance of 39.12 feet along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 40.00 feet and a central angle of 56 degrees 02 minutes 32 seconds; thence North 19 degrees 36 minutes 16 seconds West, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 165.17 feet; thence North 1 degree 41 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 141.54 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 1 and there said line terminates. The centerline of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence on a beating of East, along the south line of said Lot 1, a distance of 271.52 feet to the point of beginning of centerline to be described; thence North 9 degrees 55 minutes 59 seconds West a distance of 115.46 feet and there said centerline terminates. The side lines of said easement are to be lengthened or shortened to terminate on the north and south line of the above described property. FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INT~I~O USE ~ For w~lkwlys, gllzlS or pedez'aian area~ COaGllWCTION ~ Extruded, one-piece aiumbun~ O, 1Bg' walt thick- ness. Top cover ~e a weldment or.lg6' wall ix~'uslon and 0,250' top plate. 42' overall h~ght ~indird. CJo~ed-l;eff EPOM ga~dng is included. FlWSN-- Standard rudsh is dark bronze fDDBJ polyester powder elec- ~mat~calty-eppJied and ovlp-cured, Other colors available as op. OPTICA~ ~r~IEM-- Hydroformed, flme~ anod~d, aluminum upper reflector comMfled Mth spun aluminum anodized flared come mndanl. Cytit~lriciJ lower refle~ors lbo ava~lde. Le~j b clear, 100% vJrgi~ ac~c, I/l' wall ~sh ELECTRICAL ~ __ FGgh IDd'mUrO/od~m and metal hal~ie Ire high power faclO~ baliaa~ 100~ copper wound and factory tested ~or reSable opcrl~o~ Elec~icaJ components ara b-~y-mounted wdh quick-disconnect plug and Ire lcce&dble through bogota of boUerd. Porcelain, verdcaJiy-or'~nted, medium-base puLse-rated ~ocketwi~ copper afloy, nJekll-l)Jated shell t~d center contact. iNStALLATION- Four ~ x I1' anchor bo~ with double nuts · mshe~, IlhJppod IlparaTaly). 4-1/2' bolt c~rcll tlmpllT~ included. USTING~ L/LI4~d (or wgt Iocabons. Listed and labeled m comply wit~ Canldian,ltendlrda (No Opt~onsJ. Af~h~ctufal ~olkin[br Weight 3~&433 lea (fS2.IU ORDERING INFORMATION ~ample: KBS8 JgS R5 laesl:,lN~ KBSB 1£ w,,,.,. II- i NM1 ~ MH ~A ~r ~l~ ~ OWN Whkl 1MI ~ MH ~ ~ ~ ~7~ nm IMM ~ Ti) ~ ~r~ ~ ~ ~k 8bck FO F~ e~[ ONA Nl~ql PC PM~I~Ohi~ ~ OGC Cha~aj ~y ~H~ S~ ~ bm gTE Tln~ w ~ I~,lt~ ADB ~ Sheet~. ~IMTI RPR-1 !-200~ .t. 4: KBS8 8" Square Bollard 1~0~ lmm 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 lOOM 8500 3 .$ g 12 16 0 3 6 $ 12 15 18 21 I~OW )llll o 3 6 'IS 0 3 6 g 12 15 16 21 KBSS~IMII e~a~ umm~ uetmng, M~. ~e2 icl~.r,~nj~ ior ~ or MI mouft0a9 is Itlndard. Die-Gist door hlme has I~ ~r~) and ~ aaa 3SM ~u~ ordor ;~A e~,n~Balla~ i~ coo~lr.~upd lad I~ fl~t~d, USTJNG -- UL 1~2 i~d far ORDERING INFORMATION l KAD j SPOOl Squoq pale I~' arml ICaO ~ ~ ~m ~ ~- amls ~ ~ ~ R~ ~le Ir W~ ~ er ~1 ~ .mlu f~ ~ Ill ~Cl alp Diam. i~ NO~ I ~~,~.dee.L'OI im~ muI h- uig u~a It2. I13 lP4:12ft.2 Weig~ 41 itu flu kg) L~ngth: t?.VZ' 144J Wldm; ti, IA' 144.S cml L 4' ! Depth: 7.1/~4116,1 emi (102 lan) METAL NAZJI~ 100W, 15OW, 175W. ~IIOW, 250W, 320W. 360W, .411W 2~' to 35' Moundn~ 11&1 cml I Example: KAD 4IM I1~ 1~1) II~g4 O~ Quartz ,~rild ~,c~m I3SOW Ca~di~A S£WA 1S0~wr&C~l~Ube ~urt Bi,st (Ne PI.1 NEMA ali. Mk PE.fl~. al. PIS NEM4 aMIt~ek PE IM2V) m NlM& a,M-kck I'f IIwl NS Horn Wis ddeM Ilt2~ ~l KAl) ._aOO_M Arm-mounted Soft Square Cutoff KAD R2 Tlst n~. 11930g~101 3 KAD R4 Tm .o. ~mTmm o ~ 2, 3 d $ ICAD R3 Tecc n~ 119~D40002 e .1 3 .3 x .S Halide imp. 32.000 KAl) R3 IU Te~t no, 1192041.q22 0 .1 3 3 ,d . e I t ~ 4 z ; 1192061101 m Test no. 1163111901 t , I Eiectrir, al P~mor/ ~pj) dmpo~ Input Power Wa~eg~b~ ~O. S~pe~fll uhp ~ blur f~) ~e Vt ~ I~ 410 .~ CExisthg Mon~ng Hiight'~s . . . NewMOumhJg H~ight ~/" L, orrecuofl lictor v FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INTEND[D USE -- Idua! lot I~m~ areas, strait ~9~ w~ CON~U~ON ~ ~e~ d~-cl~ ~ ~mer a~i~ ho~- ofl~ece ~ukr ~onl. FINISH ~ ~n~ ~h ~ ~k btam rDDB) ~mr p~dir sff~e~ed ~ m~c~ lES Full cuM, ~ons ~ (m~ol. ~ I~m~J mqd ~SC if~ m~. cu~m. se~t~ qfllm~ a~ch ~ mol-kss led ~ ~WMe Iud ~erc~oooMe. ~ fmr I~. Coam~m~gl Iml~s~r for t~ ~M. Super ~A P~ hn ~ ~red for ~. ~ mud 3~ imun o~mr S~A ~ofl~BaNlSt b ~ppmr~d Porcdlin. howl, ~o~fie~d, S0c~t ~ cooper ~. ~ckm~p~,~ se~ ~ and ~r ;~ M~m-~e ~c~ ~ ~ l~W & !~. mogul*~e ~aakat md w~ U~WG -- UL !~2 amd hr mt ~ ~d and ]~lfd M . 277 347 Tf Z 14o~m skil ~WMd ONiWmO, 4 Om~oMm w~ifl*tap ~llimlf IllO. J0g. 340. T/TVL Example:. Soft &quare Cu~ff Lighldmm METAL KAUD~ IOOW, 160W, 175W, '20OW. 2SOW. 320W. 3SOW;'460W 20' to 35' Mounting 17.1~". emi II&l cra) ,! DNA NIIwOI 'le~' DSS SmAd~onf ' ', DSC Cborua 'may, OT~ Tmmis, IrMa; ,', Dill BdglK red · ,,. KAD 400M Arm-mounted Soft Square Cutoff ICAD R2 .I .t .1 .d .S 1 KAD P~ Tilt. no. 11~2040~02 ~? ~ I,'TIL~JSIO# t) .1 J ..1 J I ~ 3 d S KAD R4 Test no. 11~1110101 vii W ~ ~ w~pl~ O~mfl TyN IlL euwff, ICAD R4H$ T,. M MI~I ~ i~mp. ~OI) Emod KAl) Jl5S ?est nb 11~111901 i .1 ,2 ,,3 j J · o ,I 2 J ,~ $ J I 'I ~ = Odll~l~lp ?lqII IV, IVlIW, ~ ulmw _1~ off 3e' mou~nIl imighr,, Oi~fl TlfN N, ~ I~,~ on ~ ~ ~ ha.d o~ b%l m~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ere iukk~t DiIril~Mm T~I ¥, IbbtMMounting Helght'~m . . -- New ktot~nTmg Height ~' uo~'Kuofl Pacl~r FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS IN'rEN~ED USE -- Meal fir perUng aries, ~ ~nj. O~I~L S~M -- ~ ~aum ~r~lomed anG ~W IMu~ emir S~A oFionLBIIl~ is Jocal md i~ I~ & IW. mogul-base socket used ORDERING INFORMA ON ~ E~umm ¢~ L, itMMI' MET~. lOOW, I5oW, 17SW.,IOWo (10.2 cPI) IM, S cml I ~ I~ I SPOM Sqmi ~e g · em~ DF O~li ~ ~ I, ~. ~ TI1 POI Dior om~e" ~ I PER ~ ~ meam~li (muadmrdl i~ Im ~ OwN ~iu ' . ~ II ~m ~M W~ M or Ill Ir I~J ~ Me TWt . , H~mbmd q~m WIDO4 Wdl ~ fi' omiI ~ ~ ~ W ~ D~ ~1 ~" ~ ~Pff ~pilm~ DIN eq~ md. ,: ~ ,, NO~ ~V; Vmndif I~ ICAI)WG Wk'e IU~ iCAD 4O0M Arm-mounted Soft SQuare Cutoff k~dal FoeiCald~ KAD R2 T.~ .o. 11s3OnlOl KAl) R3 T~.o. 11~ Cl I Z ! 4 $ ICAD R4 T~ no. 1191110101 0 .1 2 3 · 3 J .... 'ww~ eime MI .lO' MMmllel MMkL KAD R4HS T.t no, l~S~mlOl o ,1 2 .1 · .5 .I I(AD R3 ~ Tm no. '.920q'tS02 I I 1 o ~ z 3 4 S KAD R~'S Test no. 11G3111901 o ! ~ j 4 s I ((~ Moufl~g Height Y Nm Moun~ng Height /m Co~ofl Faczor /,,:, ,..,¥ FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INTEMDB) I~E -- F~r enbanGla, staiJwell3, comdors and o~r ~.mu~-- Roar how~9 ~ ~gged, CO~o~nL die-c~ llUm~- pure. ~ c~r k on~cl - ' ' ~onm. Uv ~ ~je~n O~L~~ ~Mce diddled inflator W diffu~d aiWnum. JIM, ugnt oUW~ ~ cover K mJed and ~s~ ~ iflNbit E~ ~M ~ ~J~ d h~gh MonRoe, h~gh p~r M~r, copper dJ~ ~ ~e q~ housing ~r m~mum he~ di~p~on (~r ~ he~ eva~. abili~, co~u~ Porcelain, horizpn~lly oHen~d mldi~-b~e socket w~ Mc~-pJmd scrM ~lll ~ ~r com~ UL I~ M~. ~ ina 4W p~se ~. Modi~.~e ~mp bcluded ~ IN3TALLATION-- Moum"m unywilJcal sod'ace o,o · o' ~ound ~quire ogttlt box. 8o c.k ~. cce~ ti~ugh g.a&' .Jr~. d slot, Top w~J~no o;;ess throvgh 1/'~ ~hreodad congm[ InlTy. f~rougn-~ring requ~res us of I conduit tel). PhOtOClA$ are field-instllllble. U&'lING-- UL JJstid for wet localMns. IPl~iLilzd. LL~ed and labeled to Comfy with Canadian and M~ican 3tandar0s I~le optional. Height: 10' W~dth: 11-T/? ~9.2cm) Depth: 8-15/16' ~2.7cml Weight: 10 lbs, f4J3Jcg) 1O0M TI! Cutoff Mini.41W/l~.~ Meg ' TWAC OIL Illok OWll white METAL HALJD~ SOW, ?OW, IOOW Exampie:TWAC SOM 128:L~8/ BPI bmw':~."I, ,,.; '. randoM?./"., Jill ~ Phomcle kit flZW eM),J '"'" mO PEru ~"mu~! kJ mi, X0 ~ a??V) '" TW&W6 Wireluor( TWAC Metal Halide WalI-Pak 1*WAC 50M ~ ~ ~.~o TWAC 70M ~,~. ~u,m i " ATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INTENDED USE -- For entrances, stairwells, corridors and other pedestrian areas. CONSTRUCTION-- Rear housing is rugged, corrosion-resistant, die-cast alumi- num. Front cover is one-piece UV-resistant injection molded polycarbonate, internally painted. Captive external hardware is specially treated for corro- sion resistance and includes slotted hex-head end tamperproof fasteners. OPTICAl. SYSTEM -- One-piece die-formed reflector is diffused aluminum. Re- fractor is clear poiycarbonate, providing lES cutoff dis~'ibution and maximum lateral light out,out. Front cover is sealed and gasketed to inhibit the entrance of outside contaminants. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM -- Ballast is high reactance, high power factor, copper wound and 100% factory tested. UL listed. Components ere heat-sinked directly to the cast housing for maximum heat dissipation (For 50 hertz avail- abil~, consult factory.) Porcelain, horizontally oriented medium-base socket with copper alloy, nickel-plated screw shall and center contact. UL listed 660W, 600V and 4kV pulse rated. Medium-base lamp included with fixture. INSTALLATION-- Mount to any vertical surface or to a 4' round squa re oudet box. Back access through gasketed slot. Top wiring access through 1/2' threaded conduit entry. (Through-wiring requires us of a conduit tee). Photocells are field-installable. USTING-- UL listed for wet locations. IP65 listed, listed and labeled to comply with Canadian and Mexican Standards Isee options). Catalug Number Notes TWAC lOOM TBD Itype A Cutoff Mini-WallPaks TWAC METAL HALIDE 50W, 70W, 100W Height: 10' (25.4cm) Width: 11-1/'2' 129.2cm) Depth: 8-15/16' (22.7cm) Weight: 10 lbs. t4.53kg) ORDERING INFORMATION Choose tho boldface catalog nomenclatm'l that best suits your fields offal write it on the appropriate line. Order accessories IS separate catalog numbers Ishippld separately). Example: 'I~NAC 50M 120 LPI TWAC 100M TBD I Wa.,o./l I" TWAC I lamp ~ 120 70M 240~ 100M 277 347 TB1 I SF Single fuse (120, 277, 347V)2 DF Double fuse (208, 240V)2 XHP High power factor ballast EC Emergency circuit3,4 oRS Qua~z restrike system3,4 CR Corrosion-resistant finish (roar housing only) CRT Corrosion*resistant teflon finish (rear housing)5 CSA Listed and labeled to comply wi~ Canadian Standards NOM Listed and labeled to comply with Mexican Standards (Consult factory) PE Photocell L/LP Less lamp Afckitaclarul Cobra leftiuual) DNA Natural aluminum ertl Black OMB Medium bronze OWH White LPI I Lamp included ss standard NOTES: I Optimal mulu-tlp blllnst(12a/20g/240f277V;120/2'/7;347Vfor Clnlda), 2 Not available with multi-tap bluest. 3 Lamp not included. 4 Quartz lamp wattage not to exceed ballast wet.ge rating. 5 alack finish on housing only. 6 Consult factol~ for IvsiJabillty in Canada. RK1 PEa1 lUC1 PEa1 ISA RK1 PEa2 RK1 PEa3 CSA TWAWG O~lllr il nspirltl Cllllog filllfiblr Photocell kit (120V only) Photocell kit (120V only) Photocell kit (208, 240 or 277V) Photocell kit (347V) WJragusrd Outdoor Sheet~: TWAC-M BM - 700 TWAC Metal Halide Wall-P,~k TWAC 50M T.t No. .0 .l .3 ) .25 I 2 $ 4 5 50W Mefal Halide lamp, 8500 rated lumoos. Feotcandk vaues based on 20' TWAC 70M T.t No. LTLS338 70W Metal Halide lamp, 5200 rated lumens. Footcandle values based on 20' mouflbng height, Distnbutmn, cutoff. TWAC 100M C0i7710E7~1' 0~' U11LIZAllON Test No. LTL8359 _.) I ~ 3 4 ]00W Mebd Halide lamp, 8500 rated lumens, Footcandle values based on 20' mounbn~ hmghL Oistnbubon, cutoff. Mounting Height Correction Factor (Multiply the fi= I~vel by the correction factor) r r 1(~ 8 ft. = 6.25 - eft. -6.2s 10 fL= 4.00 10 ft.. 4.00 12 ft.. 2.78 12 ft.. 2.78 12 ft.- 2.78 Sheet #: TWAC-M e1~97 Llthonia Lighting. Rev. 3/02 TWAC-M.PI6 Uthonia Ughting Aa,~ Uek~ GnN,p. ~. Gmdeer ~ One ~ Way, Co.Pars, GA30012-3957 Phon-: 770-922.~00 Fix: 770-918.1209 In CanmJl: I100 ~ Ave. Lacldne, Quebec HB'r 2V3 FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS C01ISTTWCTTOllI--EIIrudad Ilumiflul~ body ~ 1:6.41! ~ Caps is I1~nun'~d ~ I/4' ~ ta Igmmd Itlnl well briskeT. H/t4~ff~/od¥ rOMIL~ ta tar powder. Other arr. J~KaJitl tannrs. Closed cell ~ticona gasket prevems the penes'munn of dust se0mimtld~ Ill&MI,ar m' Illmm~Tone Bnish. ELECTRICAL SVeTEM--IMW led I)~ow mJ~ · high real:I/thcs, I~il~ tOtTIItStOWF Ilelhl,~. Bath hallo&La mit copper wound IM 100% Imc. Horizontal medium.ii,isa porealam sinker ~ ~pper nll0y, nickel- IdW spew llllll ami tinter contact W pulse mead. UL lind ~W. ~,m¥. IKSI'AUATION--IdoowTiiIg pilre in1:ludes provilien lot alTnci~fnlat iJ)da- p~qd~ff~ d ~upc~ Ik~ OpboMI Oickbm~ will moUr~l~9 ava~a~ll ~0r us'rIN&S--UL listed Mr Canadlln Slndam Im ss,I ndard 329. ORDERING INFORMATION Il Diltributh)n WFI2 ~ 100M BP Bi-Pa/ak r~11fHt~ic 1MIW' IfPN Nm~ HPW W~ ~ Na~ EZ Wall Architectural Wall-Mounted ~lndtrd g~imen~io~. EPA: 1.31~ LI2 LJrtgm: T! -I/2 WI Depth: ~ 0veraJf I~gllc I I-,~d M~ welg~ ~ 117..2 J, gt 70, 100, 150, T75W CPIL $CWA Options gV Uplmr visor Ev Eager~ ~ 0dack) FV F. ll dior Bollem vi~r Wire gu. rd #L¥ NedN,~gl louver biacl4 VlntcM bwIr 01Me. J~ hWa vlndll llatd OUtdoor ,, · 4Nm~: WFL2-M BM '- WFI.2 Metal Halide Architectural Wall-Mounted Lighting XFL.2 175M FT Test No. LTM55S 12800 Lomm~s ].0~ Mldmum .I04°Hz ZO3°V 50% Maximum ??'Hx40'V WFI.2 175M GZ 'k~ No. L'I~D 9~00 Lumens ]0~ Ma'blWm 102' fi x 42' V 50~ Ilium a~'Hx 13'V J,Z;I,U 0.1 0.1IQ2, ,,, I a=: o., IO.S u zt ~...~ ,../ Tilt ID MM~ s" . vi I al ILl 11 ]Z U 4S LA Z,2 3.1 21 Zl ~ GD 0,O O O O 30 O,O 0,0 0 O 40 O.O 0.O O 0 0 ~ O,O~O.O 0 0 0 FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INTENDED N~ ~ ~ R~I ~c~. T-~r ~. ~ur 1~ ~c~ ~ ~ for p~. GrouM w~. Im~fd. E~ ~ High P~um h~um ~d Mm~I Halide The~al p~ p~ded ~ ~oaud mhd pa~ b~ hr l~ INST~MON 2 x I ~oa ~t or T-b.r ~ist ewruc~ Cefl~g t~ut 7-1116% U~l~ ORDERING INFORMATION ' H.igl~ ],~fl II.q) NIGH INTENSITY D]SCIMI~' N~n-IC New or Remodel Construct~n Ih4~l lidlde trap NM ~OWMPNI/C/V/MK0 100M IOOM4PIOQ~ 3&S 3S~I.U]Sf0/MED r~ SOvA.UM/DiM~ /g~ 7hvf~I)/O/MED INS IIIOwl. UtOO/ll/ktJm 6" HID LP6H Photometrics · 180' 100' 4343.3 b~ (J) 100W metal halide lamp, .64 a/mb, 7SIX) rated lumens, Test no. LTL.K89 (~L4, (13 1oow mill halide letup, 13 s/mil, II ad lumens, Test no. 168 O'-IG' 14Zg,1 17.g 0 SO ~0 4~ 48 47 47 ~ ~ ~u' 477 0'-4~' :~043 ~J'A I 48 44 4~ 43 43 4~ NM.M ~ P"~---:: Pg r-=_=:. 77S O'-I O' 1I~7 42.4 a 37 34 I~ 34 35 33 tKO IA I~ 1S,d ~7~ I78 lO'-llO' 0,0 O~ 4 ~4 Il ~8 30 3~ ~0 ~ ~I~ ~lJ &S ~lJ !$ ~55 O'-IlO' ~I0.7 '4~.4 S 3~ ~7 Il ~? 2~ 17 ~I l~j I,LI U ILS 170 'l'ma/BNc~ 6 a8 I N~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ I 0o3 7 lO 20 17 ~0 T? 2.D 17 ?S I~ · S Is 784-5787 Ap~ 11,2003 Pmiec~ Woodb~ge Senior Coop, Bass Lake Road and Boone Ave. North New Hope, MN Sco~. of Fire P~on Sp,~nJdem. · National Automatic Sprinkler will provide a fult~ sprinkled building that will ,,.. u.=.~ .r= prurec~on requlmmen! is as follows' undemround ~,.....:_,_ _, ,_ .... '_~ "¥.~.~ .m ,nem3s. vawe a~,eml~ly coming ~ a 6, _-.:,_-._?:..,. .,u,,,~, oy ~em. une vvm~ riser and one-h,-.~-.;-- -.-__ r~rmemng entire buildirm exceole~, =~,._ .~,.,~,,..... '.' . =,, [-_ ~--,,w,~. ,~-r. we[ for ,~..,- -.--- ..-:--___, '-: - - -.-- """~?"~'= "~ m, ~-"eo one standmoe each ,,, ,,,,~ .,,~= a~ms ano a ary systam in affJc. --- 1'z Level will have a des' ndens' of ' - aparlments A -'-' slg___ ~_ ity Light Hazard m aJJ communicalJng space and will have a design density of Light Hazard in all apartments A min' ~,~n~ng apace Pe.d . · rn,_um ofCl~30_sq/a). Conca~_ed Pma: · w~ · ant or Sidewall ~ pKoe While ~/p,,~,~ vql~. ~ will have a deign den~ of Light Haz~.. rd. A minimum of !. 10/2535 sq/ft). 81mi pipe with expos~ heads. Specific application heads for mtlics wfll be used through out. Telel~hone: 9{52.595.9(~38 Facsimile: g52.§95.g837 planners~b~nacpiannlng.c~or,n PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius April 29, 2003 New Hope - Woodbridge Senior Cooperative 131.01 - 03.03 BACKGROUND Anderson Pattee Realty has requested an application for a subdivision creating two lots for the Chardon Court property. They are also asking for site and building plan review and approval for an 82 unit senior cooperative housing project. The site in question is located at the comer of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue North. The total site is 4.9i acres. The applicant is proposing this to subdivide it into two lots, Parcel A being 2.29 acres containing an existing building (Chardon Courts), and Parcel B being 2.61 acres with the intent of developing the 82 units senior cooperative housing project. The site is zoned R-5, Senior Housing Zoning District. The proposed use is a permitted use within this district. Exhibits: A01 CO C1 C2 C3 C4 L1 A B C D E Architectural Site Plan Lot Division Survey Site Plan Grading/Drainage Plan Utility Plan Traffic Circulation/Parking Plan Landscape Plan Photometric Plan Light Detail Driveway Easement Water Main Easement Storm Sewer Easement ISSUES ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan. The New Hope Comprehensive Plan designates the site for high density residential development. The Comprehensive Plan policies promotes housing diversity and encourages housing that addresses the City=s life cycle housing needs. The proposed senior housing cooperative is an owner-occupied housing option that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan while providing a housing altemative not presently offered within the City. Zoning. The proposed site is zoned R-5, Senior Housing District. This allows for senior housing as a permitted use provided the following items are addressed: Eighty percent of the dwellings must be occupied by at least one person over the age of 55 years. The applicant must provide documentation requiring that occupancy restriction. 2. The site is located within 400 feet of public transit. There are transit routes running both along Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue. The transit stops are located in close proximity to that intersection. Internal sidewalks have been extended to the public sidewalks along both Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue. 3. The building provides elevator access to all floors. The applicant has demonstrated through their building plans that elevations will be provided. Twenty percent of the gross area of the site must be left open as green space for passive or recreational open space. The applicant's site plan indicates that over 50 percent of the parcel will remain green space. The site design provides for terraces and patio areas for outdoor enjoyment of the residents, as well as interior elements that complement the senior cooperative living style. Subdivision. The applicant is asking for an administrative subdivision to subdivide Lot 1, Block 1, Charlie Thompson Addition into two separate parcels. An irregular lot line will divide the two parcels, reflective of the need for a shared driveway access than the current configuration and location of the Chardon Courts elderly housing project. In light of these conditions and the City's desire for additional infill development, we feel that the irregular lot line is acceptable provicled they maintain the required setback off the side or shared property line. 2 Within the R-5 District, base lots for multiple family must be at least 15.000 square feet-- and provide at least 1.000 square feet per elderly housing unit. The entire parcel has ~ total land area including the Bass Lake Road easement of 4.91 acres or 213.719 square feet. The Chardon Court Apartments contains 129 units and Woodbridge Cooperative contains 82 units, for a total count of 211 units. The total project density is compliant with City standards. The distribution of the lot area per unit, however, is not compliant. Parcel A (Chardon Courts) has a total area of 99,866 square feet. This parcel should have an area of 129,000 square feet to accommodate the existing 129 units. Parcel B (Woodbridge Cooperative) has an area of 133,853 square feet for the 82 unit building. The larger Parcel B is reflective of the lower building design and the range of amenities being offered by the building. Two options exist to correct this non-compliant standard: Reconfigure the subdivision to bring Parcel A into conformance with the City Code for lot area per unit. 2. Consider a variance from this provision recognizing: ac That infill development on this parcel is a unique hardship related to lot configuration and placement of the existing building. The proposed building is consistent with the City's housing and land use goals for this area of the City, as identified in the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. With the exception of the lot area per unit standard, the project is compliant with the performance standards of the New Hope Zoning Code. The overall average density of the two lots is below the R-5 District maximum density. The potential for reconfiguring the lot to bring Parcel A into conformance is difficult due to the size and shape of the Woodbridge Cooperative building. Under these circumstances, staff would recommend approval of the lot area variance for Parcel A. Parcel B will have a net lot area of 2.53 acres or 113,853 square feet. This lot could, by ordinance, serve up to 113 units. Only 82 units are being proposed with this development project, well within the R-5 standard. Parcel B is intended to have frontage on both Boone and Bass Lake Road. This raises an issue as to what is the lot front. By definition, lot front is defined as that property line abutting a public street, having the narrowest frontage. This would suggest that the Boone Avenue frontage would be the lot front and change setbacks for the building than what was previously described at staff meetings. However, in reviewing the overall subdivision design, the frontage on Boone is only 42 feet in width and does not offer full 100 foot lot width requirements per the R-5 District standard. The 100 foot width standard is exceeded at the frontage along Bass Lake Road. in light of the extenuating circumstances surrounding this property regarding access and site constraints, we would look at treating the Bass Lake Road frontage as the front of the lot and mandating a front yard setback from Bass Lake Road and side yard setbacks from east and west side lot lines. Setbacks. Using the aforementioned lot front description, the following setbacks are being proposed for this development application: Front Yard Setback- North Side Yard Setback - East Side Yard Setback - West Rear Yard Setback - South ..Required Proposed 30 feet 46 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 30 feet 37 feet In our review of the required setbacks, the building is fully conforming to the R-5 District standards. Dwelling Unit/Floor Area. Section 4.032(2) establishes the minimum floor area per dwelling unit. Provision C under this section states that elderly and senior housing within the R-5 District shall have the minimum floor areas as follows: one bedroom - 520 square feet, and two bedroom - 700 square feet. In examining the proposed floor plans for the Woodbridge Senior Cooperative, the smallest one bedroom apartment is approximately 748 square feet in area. The smallest two bedroom is approximately 1,064 square feet in area. These both exceed the standards for both the elderly housing as well as the non-elderly multiple family unit standards. Building Height. Within the R-5 District, the maximum building height is six stories or 72 feet. The proposed building is four stories with a height of approximately 54 feet between grade and top of the roof line. This falls well within the R-5 District standards. Landscape Plan. Exhibit L1 represents the site landscape plan for the proposed senior cooperative building. The landscaping is well designed and provides an aesthetic element to the overall site appearance. The applicant has implemented staff recommendations regarding additional landscaping between the south property line and the proposed retaining wall along the south side of the parking area. All plantings appear to meet the required minimum plant sizes. Quantities appear to be fairly generous. The applicant has also proposed to implement the relocation of a number of existing trees on the site to make sure that some of the mature planting stock 4 will be retained to complement the overall landscaping plan. Landscape plan notes-- indicate that the entire site will be irrigated. Exhibit C2, Grading and Drainage Plan, provides a summary of retaining wall heights. A number of the retaining walls exceed four feet in height, wit the tallest being 10.1 feet. The applicant must provide engineering specifications for all retaining walls in excess of four feet in height for review and approval of the City Engineer and Building Inspector. Guard rails will be required along the top of retaining walls at the north parking lot. Cross section details for the guard rails have been provided for City approval. Refuse Containers. The site plan (Exhibit C1) indicates that all refuse storage shall be inside the building. In review of this, we raise the issue as far as how the refuse containers will be accessed by garbage trucks. The height of the garage level is illustrated to be approximately nine feet eight inches. The garage door has a height of seven feet and the bridge over the driveway is only eight and one-half feet in height. This raises question as to how vehicles will access the garbage area or how will the applicant propose to take the refuse containers outside for access by garbage trucks. This information should be provided by the applicant. Parking and Circulation. The applicant is required to provide for senior housing one space per unit, plus one space per employee maximum shift. The overall site plan illustrates that there will be 83 interior parking stalls and 19 exterior stalls, for a total of 102 stalls. This appears to be an adequate parking supply. Exterior stall dimensions are illustrated on the plan (Exhibit C4) as being 18 feet in length and nine feet in width, 24 foot drive aisles. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance allows for an 18 foot parking stall dimension with the submission of a snow removal plan. Plan C4 illustrates on-site snow storage areas and specifically indicates that snow will be removed from all parking lots from curb to curb. With this information, the exterior parking lot complies with City standards. The northern exterior parking lot has been extended to provide a larger turnaround area at its north end per recommendation of the Design and Review Committee. The underground parking areas are all properly dimensioned to City standards. All parking areas will be surfaced and have cum and gutter around the exterior parking areas. Access to both Parcels A and B will be provided via a shared driveway extending from Boone Avenue. The applicant has provided a driveway easement that defines the shared access drive. The easement shall be subject to City Attorney review and comment. The revised site plan (Exhibit Cl ) illustrates the extension of sidewalks from the building entrance points to the public sidewalks along both Boone Avenue and Bass Lake Road. The site plan ('Exhibit Cl) illustrates an emergency access drive at the northeast corner of Parcel B. The access drive is 20 feet wide and is intended to provide fire protection to the east side of the building. Responding to Design and Review Committee recommendations, the applicant has provided: Construction details of the grass space design for the access drive (see Exhibit C~). No curb cut is proposed at Bass Lake Road to prevent unauthorized use of the access drive. Any snow drifting at the Bass Lake Road curb shall be cleared on each snow removal service. Snow will be removed from the emergency access drive when snow depth exceeds five inches. Loading. The site plan illustrates that there will be a loading and drop off area approximately 40 feet in radius as a cul-de-sac on the east end of~the exterior parking lot. This should be adequate to accommodate all the service needs of this use. Exterior Building Materials. The proposed building elevations illustrated on Exhibits A3.1 outline the proposed building materials and appearance of the building. In review of the applicant, it appears that the building will be very attractive with complementary colors and surfaces. The applicant is proposing asphalt shingles as a roof covering. The balance of the building will be of a cement plaster material that is provided in a variety of building textures. The proposed exterior finishes will provide both color and aesthetic appeal to the overall building and a material that will offer a very durable and long lasting surface. Lighting. A photometric plan has been submitted as Exhibit E-1. It illustrates that the proposed lighting locations and the foot candle configurations within the site. It appears that all lighting meets the minimum requirements of the New Hope Code, not to exceed one foot candle at the property line. In response to comments from the Police staff, additional lighting has been added to the east side of the building. The applicant has provided Exhibit B, Light Fixture Detail, for a cutoff mini wall pack within their light contours. The wall pack will be used along the east side of the building to provide additional security while avoiding nuisance glare to the adjoining properties. Signage. The applicant illustrates that they would like to provide two new monument signs to advertise the Chardon Court / Woodbridge Senior Cooperative (see Exhibit A01). Within the R-5 District, monument signs are allowed for each principal use on a lot, not to exceed 75 square feet in area or 12 feet in height. 6 The primary sign, which will be located at the comer of Bass Lake Road and Boone- Avenue, is proposed to be four feet high and 20 feet long. Total solid face area is 6,. square feet. The secondary sign, which is intended to be located along the Woodbridge Cooperative driveway, is intended to be 2.75 feet high and 13.3 feet long, with a solid sign face of 27 square feet. Both these signs comply with the number, size and height restrictions for the R-5 District. Each of the signs meet the minimum 10 foot setback from the property lines. CONCLUSION It appears that the overall site design is well conceived for this property. The building is an attractive addition to New Hope's existing multiple family housing stock. Based on staff review of the Woodbridge Cooperative application, we would recommend approval of the development applications subject to the following conditions: Subdivision Approval of the subdivision plans dated 9 April 2003, revised 24 April 2003 subject to the following: Either adjustment to the lot areas to provide 1,000 square feet per unit for Parcel A or pursuit of a variance from the lot area per unit standard. Staff review suggests that hardship exists to warrant consideration of a variance. ., City Attorney review and comment on all easement and declaration documents to ensure all shared driveways and utilities are properly established and maintained. Site Plan Approval of the site plan and development plans dated 4-11-2003 subject to the following: .. The applicant must demonstrate the 80 percent of the dwellings to be occupiecl by at least one person over 55 years or older. City Building Official and City Engineer approve the construction details for all retaining walls over four feet in height as well as all guard rail construction details. Applicant demonstrate how garbage pick up will be handled on site. The proposed snow removal plan for the parking areas and the emergency access drive should be incorporated into the declaration of the driveway easement. · ~pr 30 ~003 4: 14PM BONESTRO0 ROSENE 8NDERLIK GSl~3GI311 p.~ Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & ~Rrchitects MEMO BoneBtreo, RoNne, Anderllk end Aeeeelatea, Inc, la an Affirmative Action/Eq~l Opportunity Employer end Employee Owned PrlnctpM~: Otto G. Bonestroo. P.E. · Marvin L. Sowala, P.E - Glenn R Cook. P.E - Rot)art $chunichl. P.E, - Jarw A. Bourclon, P.E. · Mark A. Henson. P.E Senior Consultants: Robert W, Ro~ene, P.E. - Joseph C. Arm~Hik. P.E - Richard E Turner, P.E. - Susan M. El~din, C.P.A. Auo¢late Prl~lpal.e: Keith A. Oorclon, P.E. - Robert R. Pfefferte, P.E. · Richard W~ Foster, P.E. o David O. Loskota, P.E.. · Michael T. Reutmann. P.E. - Tm~ K. Field, P.E · Kenneth P Anderson, P.E. · Mark R. Rolts, P.E. · David L.S. o Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A. · Allan Rick Schmielt. P.E. · Thomas W. Paterson, P.E. · dam~,! R. Maland, P.E · Miles B. Jansen, P.E. · L. Phlllip Gravel III, P.E. · Daniel J. El~gMton, P.E. - Ismaal Martmez, P.E. - Thomas A. Syfko, P.E. · Shalclon J. Johnson · Dale A. Grove, P.E. - Thomas A. Rougher, P.E. · Robert J. Dave,/, Offi~;ea: $1. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester anti Wiilmar, MN - Milwaukee, WI · Chicago, IL Wetieil~': www.bonestroo.co~ TO: FROM: CC: DATE: SUBJECT: Kirk McDonald Vince Vander Top Mark Hanson Guy Johnson April 30, 2003 Woodbridge Senior Cooperative Our File No. 34-G-en E03-04 We have reviewed the revised submitted plans for Woodbridge. Comments offered herein apply to changes, the submitted revisions, and recent project events. Previous review comments may still apply even though they are not repeated in this document. Lot Division Survey (Sheet CO) Joint easements will be provided for water main, storm sewer, and ingress and egress. The easements appear to adequately cover facilities shared by both properties. The future alignment of Bass Lake Road is being reviewed with Hennepin County planning staff. Plans were forwarded to their office and comments have not been received to date. Their review may include a request for nominal additional easement along the Bass Lake Road Corridor. Such a request will not impact Building setbacks. Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet C1) 3. Parking stall depths are 18 feet. This could be considered acceptable given an approved snow removal plan. A curb-cut is not included at the emergency access from Bass Lake Road. This is preferred by Hermepin County Transportation. Snow removal procedures for the emergency access are defined on the plans. 2335 Waat Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 o Fax: 651-636-1311 ~pp 30 2003 4: 14PM BOMESTRO0 ROSEME 8MDERLIK GS163G1311 p.~ Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan (Sheet C2) The construction of the underground parking and other earthwork and construction requirements could impact neighboring structures. It is recommended that the applicant and City document the condition of adjacent structures and foundations, as is feasible, prior to construction. This project will be responsible for any impacts of equipment and vibrations from equipment to adjacent structures. The sideslope on the south side of the building is 3 to 1. Typically, a 4 to 1 slope is required to maintain a reasonable slope for mowing. Additional retaining wall would be required to reduce slope. The impacts of either options should be discussed. 8. Provide engineered design of retaining wall prior to construction. The applicant has requested to store excavated soils (approx. 4000 CYs) at 5501 Boone Ave from June through October. These materials would ultimately be used in the backfilling and restoration of the site. This is acceptable given the following: a. Erosion control is maintained in the stockpile area. b. The temporary pile is left in a neat, uniform manner. The location and height of the stockpile should be reviewed with the Engineer prior to placement. c. The City is considering development improvements on this lot. In the event that development begins this summer, the applicant will be required to remove the material. The City will make efforts to coordinate and limit additional work if this occurs. Preliminary Utility Plan (Sheet C3) 10. The plans depict an 8" water main connection to the existing Chardon Court watermain loop. The loop would be reconstructed to clear the proposed building pad. A new lead from Bass Lake Road will be constructed in the east side of the building. a. Identify where domestic service enters the building. Include shut off valve on the exterior of the building for fire and domestic services. b. Include a gate valve with Hydrant D. c. The gate valve in Bass Lake Road on the east service line currently leaks. The plans note coordinating with City Public Works Department. Identify if it is feasible to work with the applicant's contractor to complete this work. d. The water service for irrigation and for the site water feature must be from the building per plumbing codes and standards. 11. A 6" sanitary service is shown from the building to Boone Avenue. A new MH 101 is proposed over the existing sanitary sewer. a. Patch the Boone Avenue pavement to match the existing pavement thickness. The patch should be limited to the edge of the parking lane or to the street centerline. Do not terminate patch in a driving lane. 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113. 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 , ~pp 30 2003 4: 14PM BOMESTRO0 ROSEME 8MDERLIK G51~3~1311 p.4 12. Storm sewer will be connected to existing storm along the south property line. water quantity calculations have been submitted. It appears the system will adequately convey a 10-year storm. a. bo Storm It is recommended that the trench drain near the garage entrance be sized for a 100-year event to that specific subdrainage basin. Flooding impacts should be discussed. Review capacity of the 8-inchstorm sewer along the south property line. Further reconfiguration may be required including replacement of the 8-inch line. 13. No improvements are shown to meet the City's and Watershed's water quality requirements. It is understood that the applicant will pay a cash fee toward regional improvements in lieu of on site improvements. This fee is based on the cost that would have been incurred by the applicant to construct a pond on site and the value of the land required for this pond. a. A water quality pond for a parcel of 2.5 acres typically has a wet volume of approximately 15,000 CF. b. The cost to construct this pond typically ranges from $20,000 to $30,000. c. The area consumed by this pond could include 8,000 SF. d. The contribution for this property will be dependent on the $/SF used for land value. 14. Obtain a utility consU'uction permit from Hennepin County for work within their ROW. Preliminary Traffic Circulation & Parking Plan (Sheet C4) 15. Snow will be removed from the site per an approved plan. Landscape Plan (Sheet L1) 16. It is noted that an irrigation plan will be submitted for all shrub and sod areas. If you would like clarification of these comments, please call me at 651-604-4790. 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113 o 651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 ~G 2JF 24' r-- 27H 12 !. _12" CENTER ROAD WEST SCIENI E CENTER DR 4, PARK 52ND AVEI N ,.,. ~ ~ -,,~.26u~ PKWY PARK 18" UJ UJ 36" CEN' JB PUBLIC 5" JB ,,,,= 12" 42A&Jf RIDGE APART- NORTH RIDGE CARE CENTER lB 56TH N t2" HOSTERMAN JR HIGH SCHOOL 55TH AVE L'~ 1~" ~_ _ .. _ w~ __- . -- ~.. ,,, ~ z 12'- LINE RE COMP,~Y,~.i. 5.,- .... 1 %_-- ~ _-- ~ F'RO~ BASS TO BASS CREEK BASS CREEK FRO/~ PLYMOUTH -- (67 Acres) 56' PLYMOUTH BASS CREEK SC-P1.6 T SC-P3. I 6 WEST CENTER DR $2N0 Pt~SUC WATER,,. $C-P4.. I0 .Z dO~ ,,~ 'x3 C3.01 C3.01A 65' PERMANENT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT/' TEMPORARY CONST. EASEMENT 06-118-21-0003 (5601 BOONE AVENUE NORTH) TEMPORARY --CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ;2= DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY South 167.97 feet of eost 6,37.46 feet of northeost 1/4 of southwest 1/4, olso outlot 1 ond eost 142.46 feet of outlot 2 Science Industry Center Ex. Rood, occording to records of Hennepin County, Minnesoto. PROPO P RMAN NT RAINA AN UTI ITY A M NT A permanent drainage and utility easement over, under, and across the west 65.00 feet of the above described property. (17,583 S.F.) PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMEN'~ A temporary construction easement over, under, and across the west 65.00 feet of the north 169.01 feet and the west 115.00 feet of the south 120.00 feet of the above described property. (22,2.34 S.F.) EASEME~NT SKETCH/DESCRIPTION-5601 BOONE AVE N ~ aonestroo ~ ~IG; Rosene NEW HOPE, R~; Ander/ik & Associates STORM POND CONSTJCHARDON COURT DEVELOPMENT 5601BOONE_EO 1 .DWG APRIL 2003 COMM.34-GEN Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestn~o, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. ts an Affirmatrve Act~on/EClual Opoon'untty EmDIoyer and Employee Owned Pnnctpals:Otto Bonestroo, P.E. * Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E..Glenn R. Cook, P.E. · Rotrert G. Sctlunicttt, P.E. · Jerry A. Bourbon, P.E. Semor Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. · Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. · Richard E, Turner, P.E. · Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A. Assoczate Pnnctl~als: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. * Keith A. Gon:lon, P.E. · Roberl R. Ptefferfe. P.E. · Richard W. Foster, P.E. · David O. Loskota, P.E. · RoDert C. Russek, A.I.A · Mark A. Hanson, P.E · Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. · Ted K. Field, P.E. · Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E · Mark R. Rolls, P.E . David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. · Sianey P. Williamson, P.E.. L.S. · Agnes M. Ring, MBA., · Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E. Offices: St. Paul, Rochester, Willmar and St. Cloud, MN · Milwaukee, WI Website: www. Donestroo.com MEMO TO: FROM: CC: DATE: SUBJECT: Kirk McDonald Vince Vander Top Mark Hanson Guy Johnson April 16, 2003 Woodbridge Senior Cooperative Our File No. 34-Gen E03-04 We have reviewed the submitted plans for Woodbridge and offer the following comments/recommendations for consideration: Lot Division Survey (Sheet CO) The two properties will share water main and storm sewer service. It is recommended that these utilities be covered under a joint easement for the benefit of both properties similar to the ingress and egress easement. This is not required for the sanitary sewer services as the services for both parcels will be separate. The area of both parcels combines is 4.91 acres. This is below the 5 acre threshold requiring Shingle Creek Watershed review. The City will review storm water requirements consistent with the Surface Water Management Plan. 3. Correct the area note for Parcel B including highway area. It is recommended that the future alignment of Bass Lake Road be reviewed with Hennepin County planning staff. Additional easement may be advised to "square off" the highway easement described per Document No. 2377790. This easement may facilitate future Bass Lake Road improvements in conjunction with other corridor improvements in the future. It is anticipated that this easement would not alter building setbacks as shown in this submittal. Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet C1) 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 Parking stall depths should be increased to 19 feet. Increase the depth of the hammerhead for the north parking lot. Sidewalk connections from the site to Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue could be considered. A sidewalk from the north parking area to the site sidewalk could also be considered. The curb radius for the access to the south parking lot could be increased to 10 or 15 feet. A 5-foot radius limits the turning radius. o Clarify the curb-cut (or lack of curb-cut) at the emergency access from Bass Lake Road. Review with Hennepin County Transportation regarding need for a driveway/emergency access permit. Define maintenance needs for the emergency access. In particular define snow removal procedures if applicable. Snow removal could conflict with hydrant D and adjacent property fence. 10. Provide loading capacity of emergency access road material per manufacturer specifications. Preliminary Grading, Drainage, & Utility Plan (Sheet C2) 11. Clarify existing water main configuration for Chardon Court. Please refer to existing record plans for Chardon Court (attached). 12. The plans depict a 6" water main loop around the building with an 8" connection to Boone Avenue. The existing 6" line immediately east of Chardon Court will be relocated. a. Clarify the intent of the 4" line on the west side of the building. If this is a domestic service line, include a 4" gate valve on the line on the exterior of the building. This will allow the service to be shut off if necessary without impacting fire service. b. Likewise, identify location of 6" and 8" gate valves for isolation purposes. Include valve on each service line at the street and on each hydrant lead. The gate valve in Bass Lake Road on the east service line currently leaks. Public Works will coordinate the repair of this valve with water main work on this site. We assume that an 8" line is required for fire service to this building. If a 6" line is adequate, the looped water main could be connected with existing Chardon Court water main and the new connection in Boone Avenue eliminated. Clarify the fire service line diameter requirement. Clarify the water service for irrigation and for the site water feature. Service must be from the building per plumbing codes and standards. 13. A 6" sanitary service is shown from the building to Boone Avenue. A new MH 101 is proposed over the existing sanitary sewer. a. Include an outside drop for the sanitary service. b. Accurately depict the construction impacts on Boone Avenue including pavement and curb replacement. Identify traffic control measures. 2335 West Highway 36, St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 ° Fax: 651-636-1311 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. c. The existing sanitary sewer is VCP and not PVC. Protect VCP from breaking during new manhole construction. Storm sewer will be connected to existing storm along the south property line. Storm water quantity calculations have been submitted. It appears the system will adequately convey a 10-year storm. a. It is recommended that the trench drain near the garage entrance be sized for a 100- year event to that specific subdrainage basin. Flooding impacts should be discussed. b. The existing CB near the garage entrance of Chardon Court must be protected. This CB has flooded in the past in major events and with flushing maintenance of the existing hydrant to the west. An additional CB should be added on the east radius of this driveway to minimize drainage to the existing CB. c. Certain storm sewer stubs will be abandoned or removed. The service provided by these stubs is not clear. Review removal of these stubs. d. Storm sewer and water main will be constructed along the east lot line near an existing building on an adjacent property. It appears the depth of the storm sewer could be reduced to minimize potential impacts to the adjacent building. Make adjustments to minimize impacts. e. Some drainage will flow onto the property to the south along the south face of the building. This drainage should be directed to the existing catch basin on the adjacent property to minimize impacts to the neighboring property. No improvements are shown to meet the City's and Watershed's water quality requirements. It is understood that the applicant will pay a cash fee toward regional improvements in lieu of on site improvements. This fee is based on the cost that would have been incurred by the applicant to construct a pond on site and the value of the land required for this pond. a. A water quality pond for a parcel of 2.5 acres typically has a wet volume of approximately 15,000 CF. b. The cost to construct this pond typically ranges from $20,000 to $30,000. c. The area consumed by this pond could include 8,000 SF. d. The contribution for this property will be dependent on the $/SF used for land value. Obtain a utility construction permit from Hennepin County for work within their ROW. Obtain a MPCA NPDES construction permit as required for erosion control purposes. The construction of the underground parking and other earthwork and construction requirements could impact neighboring structures. It is recommended that the applicant and City document the condition of adjacent structures and foundations, as is feasible, prior to construction. This project will be responsible for any impacts of equipment and vibrations from equipment to adjacent structures. Include curb replacement along Boone Avenue in the area of the construction entrance. The applicant has requested the use of 5501 Boone as a material storage area. A construction entrance and erosion control will also be required at that site. Curb and gutter replacement will also be required for that construction entrance. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 21. Provide additional detail for the railing at the top of the retaining wall. Railing shot~,_ prevent vehicles from going over the wall. Plans signed by a registered engineer will be required for the wall prior to construction. 22. The sideslope on the south side of the building is 3 to 1. Typically, a 4 to 1 slope is required to maintain a reasonable slope for mowing. Additional retaining wall would be required to reduce slope. The impacts of either options should be discussed. Preliminary Traffic Circulation & Parking Plan (Sheet C3) 23. The snow storage areas shown are small and may be insufficient. A plan to remove snow from the site should be discussed. Landscape Plan (Sheet L1) 24. Provide a standard detail for the boulder retaining walls including typical height, boulder size, backfill material etc. 25. It is noted that an irrigation plan will be submitted for all shrub and sod areas. If you would like clarification of these comments, please call me at 651-604-4790. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636.4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 B. C. D. Appli- cation number 03-03 B Applicant Name Address Phone Ron Anderson & Melinda Pattee Anderson Pattee Realty Servcs North Ridge Properties 5700 Boone Avenue North 952-944-8500 H 763-535-0607-w 763-536-9311 ~x Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG D Date Applicant was sent notice that required information was missing C Date application received by City 4/11/03 Date 60- day time limit expires 6/10/03 Date 120- day time limit expires 8/9/03 G Date Applicant was notified of extension H Deadline for City action under extension or waiver Date City approved or denied the application Date City sent response to Applicant 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. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: Meeting Date: Report Date: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope May 6, 2003 May 2, 2003 02-02 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Chapter Six of the New Hope City Code by Establishing Regulations for Transit Structures on Public Rights of Way VI. III. IV. Request City staff is requesting Planning Commission and City Council approval of the attached ordinance amending the language in the New Hope City Code to permit and regulate transit structures, which include courtesy benches and transit shelters, in the right-of-way. Zoning Code References Section 6.16 Transit Structures (Shelters/Benches) in Right of Way Property Specifications Zoning: All Zoning Districts Background In early 2002, staff was contacted by and met with a representative of Outdoor Promotions, which is a company based out of Colorado. The company installs bus shelters free of charge to cities in exchange for the revenue generated from the advertisements that are posted on the inside and outside of the shelters. Outdoor Promotions has done work in areas such as San Diego and Las Vegas, and are currently working on about 18-24 possible contracts in the Twin Cities metro area. The cost is about $10-12,000 per shelter built by Outdoor Promotions and the City chooses the style and color from a wide range of designs. Outdoor Promotions would like to work with Metro Transit and local communities on this project. All maintenance on the shelters is done by Outdoor Promotions twice per week and whenever needed, if the transit routes change the shelters can be moved, and they perform a transportation analysis, and determine the sites in cooperation with the City. Outdoor Promotions would need to establish a contract with the City, as well as go through a permit process, lease agreement/easement, and become a partner with staff to decide upon sites, which has already taken place preliminarily. Outdoor Promotions made a short presentation at the April, 2001 Codes & Standards Committee meeting and representatives from Public Works, the City Attorney, and Planning Consultant and city staff were in attendance. The Committee was generally supportive of the program and felt it would be a cost-effective way to improve transit stop amenities in the City. The issue was then brought to the City Council in June 2002, and the Council directed staff to continue working with Outdoor Promotions. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed this matter at several meetings during the last six months of 2002 and the first part of 2003. In November, a presentation was made to the Citizens Advisory Commission. A public open house will be held in May by the CAC regarding the potential location of the shelters, per the direction of the City Council. Planning Case Report 02-02 Page 1 5-2-03 At this time, the city does not currently have any standards regulating the placement of private ~,. Jor transit shelters. Recognizing the public service that the shelters serve, and the fact that currently, MTC cannot financially add more shelters to the city or maintain them, discussions began about amending the current Courtesy Bench ordinance to include transit shelters to allow further discussion with Outdoor Promotions. V. Petitioner's Comments This is a request by city staff, consultants and Outdoor Promotions to amend the City Code to allow transit structures (shelters/benches) in the right-of-way. VII. Notification A public hearing notice is not required to be published in the official newspaper regarding this ordinance amendment, as the amendment is not part of the Zoning Code. Notices are not required to be mailed to individual property owners, as the amendment would be applicable to all properties in the zoning districts where the use would be permitted. VII. Development Analysis A. Staff Perspective The City Code was amended in 1999 in conjunction with an application to install courtesy benches in the city. City has now been directed by the City Council to continue to work with Outdoor Promotions. It is the recommendation of staff, consultants and the Codes & Standards Committee to amend the Courtesy Bench ordinance to allow transit shelters as a permitted use. The combination of these two items in the ordinance would be considered Transit Structures. Staff has been working on the ordinance, which dates back to August 2002 when the first draft was developed. Outdoor Promotions and the City Attorney have reviewed the revisions. B. Codes & Standards Committee The Codes & Standards Committee has discussed this issue on numerous occasions and the City Attorney has completed changes to the ordinance that were recommended. The Committee was supportive of the recommendation to use the Courtesy Bench ordinance, and just the language to address the issue of transit structures. The proposed ordinance is attached for Planning Commission consideration. The Codes & Standards Committee recommends approval of the ordinance. C. Planner Comments The Planning Consultant has reviewed this matter numerous times. The issues that were reviewed by the Planner, and the changes recommended by him to the Codes & Standards Committee is as follows: · Section 6.168(1) "Location" requires at a setback of at least three feet from the back of the curb. There does not appear to be a prohibition on encroachment onto an existing sidewalk. Encroachment onto a sidewalk could raise issues of pedestrian snow removal. · If the structures are not to encroach onto existing sidewalks, then the transit structures will extend onto private property. Section 6.163(7) requires written consent from the property owner for placement of any transit structure on private property within three feet of the public right-of- way. · Section 6.168(1) "Location" requires a minimum clearance of six feet from the back of the transit structure to any structure or landscaping along or near any sidewalk to provide for sidewalk snow plow clearance. Planning Case Report 02-02 Page 2 5-2-03 Fo · Section 6.161 "Purpose" explains that the transit structures with advertising signs are to be placed within three feet of the public right-of-way. · Section 6.168(2) states that the maximum length for a shelter is 13 feet. The template we received from the City includes a transit structure that is 15 feet in length. Section 6.16.C.3.b, Codes and Standards asked that additional clarification be provided for the advertising signage that is accessory to these transit shelters. Based on the description in 3.b, it appeared that only two signs might be permitted on the transit shelters. In discussions with Outdoor Promotions, the Colorado-based company, it is our understanding that at the end of each transit site, there will be triangular shaped kiosk available for three different sign faces. This design feature should be incorporated into the Code. · Provision 6.16.D.3.b. Per staff discussion and discussion with Codes & Standards, it was determined that the transit shelters should be located off any public sidewalk. To be consistent with this new policy, Provision 3.b should delete the phrase "less than nine (9) feet in width" and read as "on public sidewalks or on private sidewalks or trails without consent of the property owner." This would not allow for any transit shelters on an existing sidewalk. With those minor changes, the Planning Consultant believes that the ordinance is in proper condition to bring forward to public hearing at the Planning Commission's next available meeting. Le.qal Considerations The City Attorney has reviewed this matter numerous times. Most of the changes to this ordinance were language changes from "Courtesy Benches" to "Transit Structures." The issues outlined in the City Planner's memo, and the changes recommended by the City Attorney and the Codes and Standards Committee are as follows: · Section 6.16(b)(3), language has be added indicating advertising signage on shelters may consist of a single advertising panel not to exceed 22 square feet in surface area. The panel shall be affixed to the end wall of the shelter and perpendicular to the roadway curb or edge viewable from one or both ends of the shelter. Section 6.16(c)(7), language has been added indicating consent from a property owner for placement of a structure on private property must take the form of a recordable easement or license agreement. Further, the easement or license agreement must also include a release of liability for the benefit of the City from placement of the structure on the owner's property in a form acceptable to and approved by the City Attorney. Section 6.16(h)(1), language has been added indicating transit structures may not be installed on any existing sidewalks or trails. This sectionals goes on to indicate a structure may be installed behind the curb and in front of an existing sidewalk or trail if there is sufficient room to accommodate the structure, taking into consideration a 3-foot setback will be necessary from the back of the curb and a 6-foot clearance will be required behind the structure to any landscaping or other structure to permit sidewalk snow clearance. Section 6.16(h)(2), language has been added indicating the maximum length of the structure can be 15 feet. Section 6.16(h)(3), language has been added indicating the surface in front of the structure to the back of the curb must extend across the entire width of the transit structure and provide for a 5-foot by 8-foot landing area designed to accommodate disability access to buses, including a chair lift landing space. Per the City Planner's memo, the City Attorney does not see how the City can build in any flexibility to permit a transit structure to be incorporated into adjoining retaining walls or other structures and still maintain a 6-foot clear zone behind the back of a structure for sidewalk Planning Case Report 02-02 Page 3 5-2-03 purposes. The City Attorney believes that the incorporation of the structure into a retainin,~-wall or other structure would probably result in the transit structure being placed on private pr,. ~,rty behind the sidewalk, therefore, the City Attorney believes that the private property owner consent requirement by easement or license agreement would resolve this issue. With those minor changes, the City Attorney believes that the ordinance is in proper condition to bring forward to public hearing at the Planning Commission's next available meeting. VIII. Summary City staff and the Codes and Standards Committee are supportive of amending the Zoning Code to allow transit structures (courtesy benches and shelters) within all zoning districts of the city as a permitted use. The next steps of the project will be finalizing the contract with Outdoor Promotions and deciding on specific locations for the transit shelters in the city. The Citizens Advisory Commission will be inviting those in the community who would like more information on the project, or who may be immediately affected, to an open house on May 19, 2003. The City Council will then decide how to proceed with the project, finalizing the contract and deciding upon sites. IX. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendment. Attachments: Ordinance Amendment City Attorney Correspondence Planning Consultant Memo Proposed Agreement Planning Consultant Memo and Site Plans for Six of the Proposed Sites List of Preliminary Locations and Map Background Information on Outdoor Promotions and Product Line Photos of Typical Shelters Planning Case Report 02-02 Page 4 5-2-03 LANGUAGE CHANGE TO NEW HOPE CODE REGARDING TRANsrr SHELTERS AND/OR BENClq~-~ 6.16 6.16(a) 6.16(b) (1) (~) 6.16(c) (1) (~) ,,,-, ........ r~__.~, ....Transit S'tmcnir~ {Sheltcrs/Ben_ch~) in Right of Way": Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate the placing and mainten~nr-e of · - ....... t,_..~._. Wami£ shelters snd benches ~ ly ..... : ..... ~..afler coUective referred ro nE "Transit Su'uctures") in public fights-of-way and on pri~ate property i.f thc imtr=h Transit Stru~ie is within three (3) feet of ~he public right-of-way, t/~d~s-Tr~u.~it Su'uemres wiihout advertising signs located on priva~ [to. ny more ~han ~ (3) fee[ from r. he public right-of-way are exempt from the provisions of sections 6.14 through 6.150 of this Code but ar~ subject to nil other applicable sections of flUs Cod~. Pm'mit Required. It is ualawfifl for a person m place a ~..::.-:. · ~" :::" ~,...., ~.rausit ~c~.~,~in a public right-of-way or on private ~ wi~n three (3) feet of the public right-of-way without ftrst obtahfing a l~rmit as provided in this section. This section shsl] apply to all cxisting ~,. ....... P-:::h:: Tramit Structures as wcll as those installed after the adoption hereof. The permit once issued shall be annually served. Permits for t/eacda~s-Transit.Structures will be gnmmt only on existing alld approved MTCO uansi~ roums a~ dcsj~srexi MCTO bus stops within ~ City. or, condition ~l~ac ~he l~-Tra~it Sln~mre [o~ation is no£ prohibimd by s~c~...~. 1440) of this Code and the location satisfie~ th~ r~quirem~ms of section 6.148 of Chis Code. Permits and Al~licad~' Applica6on for p~mits sl~tl be made r~ the City Ma~er, or ~ City Mamger's clesign~e. Th~ application shall contain thc followin~ scale drawiag showing the size and locazion of the ~sp-tbs~~ relative ~o all other objects on ~ propen7 i~luding the layout of applicable adjacent roadways, imersectiom, traffic sigmge, sidewalks, trails, utility poles, fences and oth~- objects in flac vieiaity; demilexi plans and sp~ifi~tions of each proposed beat4~Transk Stmcm _re/nclud/ng the ~.cneral nau~ of advertisin~ mau~r, if any, m be pos-~t r. hem:~. -.ad ~ s c c ted s f-n w- ~ Total surfacc mca im~ilM-~.us~ for advertisim, si_~,~e ~not se-cxcccd 12 square feet using the front, or seating side surface only of thc bench back. Advertising matcml may not exceed thc Icngth of ~e bench. '' ' e · . .. [, · 6.16~d) (1) (~) current general liability Certificate of Insurance from an insm'ance company, rar~I ",. or berm- by A.M. Best Company and authorized to do business in the Sram of Minnesou~, mining ~ city as additional insured in the mlnimllm alllOUnt of $600,000 for any and all c~ms arising out of the use or existence of thc Cc::,'~y SU-ucmr~,, and approved by thc City Manager. The ccrtilicam shall provide for automatic nofi_C-mafion of the City with a mlniml~n 30 days adv:~nee notice iii the evenI of cancellation; a graphic showing gae public wanspor~afion bus service which serves the proposed Gem~ey-lkar~a-_Transit Smic~re and rim specific bus stop loc. at/on, if applicable; aa executed hold harmless agreemen~ from the permitme, approved by the City Manager, protectin__g the City from any and ali claims arising out of the usc and cxis~nce or ~e~-C,o~m~4~~; wrinen consent from the property owner for placemm of any beaeh-~ on private property within ~ree (3) f~et of thc public right-of-way. Thc property owner shall be deemed W ~ thc pcrs~ or entity shown ~s such on ~h~ He~-pin Coumy tax records. The consent must be in ~he form of a v4v. or~__bl¢ ease, m~e. Rt_or U~msc am'eemem sl]nwin~ the vermi~e to ~e the orooenv for ',t,c-a~ion of a Trmlsir Structure. Th~ easement .or liccn~e a__er~'m_ _~_t ~m~ also re]~_a the Ciw ~oa; any l/ab/I/F? for file 1)l~ea~enr of the TrnneR Sll'llCtll_~ 011 I~,!'va~ ~iO~.~,W in a fozm a~c~.i~ble tO ~nd~aVD~'~vcd_bv Ihe CiW A~rtnrw. Conditions Governing Lsstnn_~ of Permit~. This subse~ion governs the issuance of a permit for a-Gemies~.~m~T~it Sm~cture. Permit for Ea~Tr'an~_r Stru~0Ft' A separam permit is required for each C,e~iesp-]~li~~, but r~newah may b~ gtanied for more than one location on the basis of a single application provided the City Manager is satisfied all the information required by rigs section has been supplied for each C-eenesy t~'a~ptoposed tt~_,~lt~' _.Tn~fer; New Permit. If a ~F.12~it Stmaxtte for which a pcrmit lm issued is sold or title or conlrol thereof is uansfcrred or assi?~l, a new permit loc, m/an. No pennk may be/srued for fl~e i~s~aIlalion ~~ ~ ~ ~h mm~ ~ ~ fo~o~g pl~: (a) ~ a ~k m~ u~n w~ ~ ~ h~ co~c~ or ~ ~ com~ a ~b~ s~t ~fim~on pwj~ ~mmn~y · ) ~ a ~ s~ ~ ~ ~ f~t h ~ or ~ ~y ~m si&w~ or 2 6.16(e) 6.16(f) 6. 6Ca) (d) (1) (d) At any location whcr~ Omc disumc~ fi'om cbc face of thc curb to th~ edg~ of thc fight-of-way is less than eigh£ feet aha sidewalk or trail is locau~d thereto; At any location more r~n 50 fee~ from lhe nca_,-est point of/mersecrion with a s~-'~ unless thc CiD' Mamgcr so authorize; Other locations which thc City Manager determines would porm~ially restrict pedestrian u'affic, pose a snow and icc ConLrol problem, obsumct vehicular Lrah~ or otherwise be detriments! to ihe ptlblic safety. Permit Fees. Fees for Cc~.=$y ~r-~.=~.a-~J:allsit Si~'ueture~ .~hnlI bc as set out in Chapter 14 of th/s Code. Insurance Requirer~nt~. Permit holders ~hn~l deliver W and keep on file with the City Clerk a current general liability Certifi~ of Iusurance meeting the requir,m~cms of Sect/on 6.143(4) of this Codc. Thc insurance shall bc ma/nm/ned in its original amount by ri~ permit holder at his or her expense at ail ~ during the period for which the permit is in effect. When two or more permits are issu~l to one person one insurance policy may be/th-Il/shed W cover ~wo or mo~ Ccu,-~::,. P%,'~;.~:,,~ansit Srrucmrci, and the policy shall be of a type wh/ch coverage/s auum~a~cally restored upon occurrence of any accide~ or loss from wh/ch lhbili~ may herea~r accrue. Permhs: Appwval sna Iss,mnc~,. If the Ciiy Mnr~g~r is married that all of the conditions enumerami in rigs Section have been me~ and thai the erection and maimmmaace of the ~Transi/Simcture ar the proposed location will not resUici pedesUian u'affic or oth~'wis~ ix: de~ ~o public safevy, hs-~e Cir/ ~~..shall approve the application. ...Revocation of Permi__t. The City Manager may rcvokc or deny rcncwal of any permit for fa/lure m com~ly with ~hc provisions of this Code, the Zoning Code, for mt~'presenrntion of material facts in the or/g/hal al~lical/on' for failure to maintain thc · . u~um louu: Oll wmc/1 D/e ' · · -------~,,- ~,~u.~t ur ior any reason which w oeca grounds for denial of the original appUcation, ould have and ]Malnt~m ~ne_--. mininmm~ ofsix (6) feet from,,. ........ *?~Purthcr. d~-rc shall be a structure or hna~,,,i,,,, al .... u~ .mcx .o.r mc ~am~sh-Trami£ Strucltn.e to any -------.~,-~ ,,~ ur ,~ar any sidewalk eo provide for sidewalk sno~, plo~ 6.16{i) {2) $i~e. Si~ limitations on._:,__._.::... / _~-~-~: T~mit $~ucnm~ a~ ~ follows: bench bei~t: 42 inches maximum_; ,shelter. heiSt: 9 feet maximum_; bench width: 30 inches maxim.m: .~helter width: 5 feet maximum: a_nd bench lezml:h: 7 fcet maximum: .~he_l_L¢~' _Im~o~h: 15_fcetmaximum. Com'tmction. A ~'f-lkaet~-~~shall be installed and maintained on a durable, level surface including, but not limited to, concrete, bomanite or decorative back. Thc durable surface shall extend six incbe$ on bolla ends and in back of thc ~. l%rther, the durable surfa~ in front of the bead~T~it ~[~]~]gR=Inmt extend to tile back of the curb acms~ the entire wi_'~h or_the Tran-~it SUucvare. A five ($) foot by eight (8) foot hndln~, ~ desion~_ W a~nmmod~r? d/aah/l/tv access to bus~s, in~lvdimr a chair lift lnndln~, srm~ m-~t also be provide~. The C~mt~y-lk~Transit Stmemr~ shall be of sufficient weight or shall be secured in a manner to minimize th~ pommial of a=cid~mal tipping or w~ll,-m. No ~ tkn~l~llL~liIBL~shall be fastm~, secured, or anchored to City pro.ny. Material.~. A ~____~ ---~-""~' Transit Slructure _~h,ll be r,m~md of durable materials including but not limited to coacretr, wood, steel, plastic, or combination thereof, with co]ori limited to while, gal'thtol~ of stlbdue, d gl'e~, grays, browll~, r~dillh-browlls, and golds. Permit Display. Each C..-...-~y ~...,~?,~Tran.~it Sw,~,'-~-e shall display thc permit number m a ~us place. "" Con~tiom. It h tbe respomibfliry of the pemfit~ to m-int~in each bem~Tramit ~ a safe condition and to ~ bmetler,-Traastt_~mres neat. clean and in usable colldition. The penzgtme shall keep the ~T~artsit Smicture '~d beaeti-kise-frce of ia: and mow and accessible. ~ of.'lgama~Tr~'=it Sm~enq~-. Noti~.. Upon the revocation or expiration of any pc,~it without r~n,wal, the permiuee shall remove Ihe ~elmm~-Bem~-T~it Suuctn~_ lvamptly. The pennittee shall also be required ua remove the concr,~ slab and reseed the slab area at ~ cost if so direc~ by the City Mamgcr. Thc City Manager may remove the beae~'rmnsit Smmun. e after ten days mailed notice to the permitme a~d thc cost of removal, inchdh~ rcmoval of r. hc shb r-a resoddinfl of th~ slab area, slLull be ~ by tbe ~. fails to pay the costs within sixty (60) days after mmivi~ notice from ~hc City ~, lira l~mtl-Tr:mdt Slrm-m~ ~ha~! become the property of the City, but the pmmim~ shall mmin liable for tbe cost of removal, mstomion sad s~ora~ of 4 (~) beaeb.Transit Sa'ucture. No permit or renewal shall bc granted to thc permittee tmtfl all such costa a~e paid in full. Summary RcmovaL A ~'~,e~Reh-Tz-ansit Strucucre placezJ in the public r/ght-of- way in ~be City, cez~wary to thc provisiozis of this Section, may be s, mmnrfly removed by the City Manager, pursuant to Minnesota STatutes, Section ]60.27, Subdivision 6. Rel~istral/on of Permits Obtained frolB Other P__na_d Auth _mit/eg. When a ~ ~~J~_=is placed m the City w/thi~ the limits of a street or roadway subject ro thc coatrol of a mad authority or. her than thc City as defined m Miaacsota Statutes, Secticm 160.02, the pcrsoz~ placiag thc beaeh-Tr'ansit Structure sh:d! foe proof of permi.sion from thc other road authority with the CRy ~. P:~,m~,my~C~, Ordl~mr~.401 l:l.~ m Codg Rc Com'~y ~ ~),do~ 5 DOUGLAS $. GOROON L. GLEN A. STEVEt4 A. $ONDIt.~.L WILLIAM C. STRAIT: OF COLn~$F.L JENSEN & SO!NrDRALL, P.A. ,4ttorney$.4t Law 8S25 EDINBROOK CROSSING, ~T£. 21] 1 BROOKLYN PARK,. MIN~T.~OTA 5.6443-I 968 TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TEl,El:AX (763) 493-5193 e-mail lnw~jenseo-sondrall.ca m ^pr 2oo3 VIA FACSIMILE TO (763) $31-$136 AND BY REGULAR U.S. MAIL Kirk McDoaald Community Development Director City of New Hol~ 440I Xylon Avem~ North New Hop~, MN 55428 Re: Proposed Transit Structure Ordinance Our File No. 99.401~2 Please fred cacloscd for consideration at the April 8, 2003 Codes and Standards Meedn. revised language relating m New Hop~ Code Section 6.16 et al., regulating structures in thc right-of-way. Basically, thc ene. loscd revisiom convert the Ordinaz~e to the City's new numbering format. Also, it incorporaes the changes z~ama~d by the City Phnner in his Mard~ 18, 2003 n~mo. Concerning the City Plaaaer's memo, his reco,-,-~ded cbaag~ ar~ incorporated as follows: On page 2, under Subsection 6.16(¢)(7), I have added language indicating consent from a property owner for placement of a slrucmre on private prolr,,..ny must take the form of a recordable eazeme~ or license agreement. Funl~r, the easement or ]igease ~ lllust also illclude a release of liability for the benefit of the City f~an placeme~ of the structure on the owner's pmpen'y in a form acceptable w and approved by tim C/ty A~rney. On page 3 in Section 6.16(h)(1), I have added language indicazing transit structures rosY n°t be installed on any existing sidewalk or trail. This section also goes on m ind/cal~ a strtlgtLlre may be h:istal]ed behJad the curb =nd m front of an exisl/ag sidewalk or wail if ther~ i~ suf~i~t room to accommodam the structure, ~ into consideration a 3-~oo~ set back ~ be necassa~ from tl~ back of the ah-b and a 6-foot clearance ~ be reqttiml behind d~ ~'uctn~ to any landscaping or other s~ctm~ to permit sidcwa~ snow plow clearance. In Section 6.16(h)(2) on page 4, I have added language iz~licating the maximum length of the smmutm can be l 5 feet. April 3, 2OO3 Page 2 NmaJly, on page 4 m Section 6.16(h)(3), I have added language indicating the surface m front of the structure to the back of ~he curb must extend across thc cnti~ wid~ of flue wansit su'ucmr~ and provide for a S-foot by 8-foot lending area designed to er. commodore disability access to buses, including a chair I believe these four imrns resolve the issues pointed out m thc City Planner's March 18, 2003 memo. One fmel it.~n: I don't sec how we can build in any flexibilily to permit a transit su'ucmre to be incorporated into adjoining retaining walls or orbcr stmctm'es and still maintain a fi-foot cie, ar zone behind thc back of a sumcture for sidewalk purposes. Maybe tl~ Co~ and St~uclards CommitI~,e can dcvclop some language m address this issue, however, any flexibility you may incorporate mm the language will certainly reduce the mount of clearance b~hlnrl ~he $~'e for si~walk pur~o.~es if a sumcum: is permiued to be insl~llcd m an ar~a m front of a sidewalk. I believe ~he incorporation of rh~ s~rucl~-e into a reining wad or other slrucmre would probably ~sult in ~ wansit slrucuwe being plaaed on privat~ ffroper~ behind the sidewalk, therefore, I believe our privar~ pro~rty owner ~s~ r~quirement by eas~l~mn~ or license a~t would resolve ~ issue. Conr~:t me if you bav¢ eny que~ons or commcms regarding this letter or the revised Ol'din~rlce language included h~-cin. Very rally yours, Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope J~s~ & So~yo~.~., P.A. sas~.lc~sc~'~all.cmn Afar FIours Extm~oa #147 Enclosure Erin Seeman, Connmmity Development Inlm-n, City of New Hope (w/eric.) Alan Brixius, New Hope City Planner, Northwest Associated Cousultanls (w/eric.) .[~P' NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. · '~ ~ Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners,.~'nacplanning.¢om MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius April 14, 2003 New Hope - Proposed Transit Shelter Ordinance 131.00 - 02.11 On April 8, 2003, the New Hope Codes and Standards subcommittee of the Planning Commission reviewed the April 3, 2003 draft of the transit shelter ordinance. The City Attorney went over the greatest changes requested through staff review. Those changes were seen to be acceptable by the Codes and Standards subcommittee. The following additional changes were requested: In Section 6.16.C.3.b, Codes and Standards asked that additional clarification be provided for the advertising signage that is accessory to these transit shelters. Based on the description in 3.b, it appeared that only two signs may be permitted on the transit shelters. In discussions with Outdoor Promotions, the Colorado-based company, it is our understanding that at the end of each transit site, there will be triangular shaped kiosk available for three different sign faces. This design feature should be incorporated into the Code. Provision 6.16.D.3.b. Per staff discussion and discussion with Codes and Standards, it was determined that the transit shelters should be located off any public sidewalk. To be consistent with this new policy, Provision 3.b should delete the phrase "less than nine (9) feet in width" and read as "on public sidewalks or on private sidewalks or trails without consent of the property owner." This would not allow for any transit shelters on an existing sidewalk. With those minor changes, we believe that the ordinance is in proper condition to bring forward to public hearing at the Planning Commission's next available meeting. pc: Erin Seeman Steve Sondrall TRANSIT SHELTER ACREEMENT Outdoor Promotions, Inc. ('For Ctty of New Hol~e Internal Use Only.) This Transit Shelter Agreement (the 'Agreement') is made and entered into this ~ day of ,2002 by and between the CITY OF NEYv' HOPE, a Minnesota municipal corporation ('the "City'), and OUTDOOR PROMOTIONS, Inc., a Colorado Corporation ('Outdoor Promotions').s WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City desires to implement a program (the "Transit Shelter Program") pursuant to which illuminated transit shelters will be installed and maintained in compliance with this Agreement at certain bus stop sites to be identified from time to time by the City, Transit Authority, and Outdoor Promotions; and WHEREAS, Outdoor Promotions is in the business of irmtalling and maintaining illuminated transit shelters and it has submitted its proposal to the City to provide its services with respect to the Transit Shelter Program; and WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the services of Outdoor Promotions with respect to the Trar~it Shelter Program upon the terms, covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above premises and the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein, the City and Outdoor Promotions hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE I: AUTHORIZATION The City hereby authorizes Outdoor Promotions to make reasonable and lawful use of the City rights-of-way at its sole cost and expense to in,stall, repair and maintain a minimum of (__) transit shelters at active bus stop sites to be identified from time to time by the City pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE II: SCOPE OF WORK AND SERVICES PROVIDED 1. Basic Services. Outdoor Promotions shall furnish, install, repair and maintain safe, clean and attractive illuminated transit shelters with revenue generating advertisements in compliance wifft this Agreement. In connection therewith, Outdoor Promotions shall provide all materials, supplies, equipment, serviccs and pcrsonnel at its sole cost and expense without any cost or expense to the City, All transit shelters shall'. (i) be ADA compliant, (ii) be installed within one hundred eighty (180) days of the Outdoor Promotions Municipal Contract City's issuance of the applicable permits and licenses, (iii) be erected in order of panel advertisement sales, (iv) contain lighting to illuminate the inner area of each shelter from dusk to dawn; and (v) be equipped with one bench and one trash receptacle to be serviced twice weekly by Outdoor Promotions. The design of the transit shelters shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to construction. Outdoor Promotions may subcontract for pro}cci management, site preparation, installation and maintenance of the transit shelters. The names of such subcon~ractor,~ shall be provided to the City upon request. Outdoor Promotions shall also have iht, ril~ht of first refusal to install and maintain additional transit shelters within the City beyond those provided in the current Transit Shelter Program. 2. Maintenance. The transit shelters shall be maintained a minimum of twice weekly with such maintenance to include sweeping, cleaning, emptying trash receptacles, picking-up litter/debris about the shelter, snow removal, ice management, and removing graffiti. Shelters and sidewalks shall be power-washed at least once each month, weather permitting. 3. Repair and Replacement. Outdoor Promotions shall at its own cost and withil~ forty-eight (48) hours of receipt of notification thereof from the City, repair or repl,~ce any damaged or defaced shelters or individual parts thereof. 4. Advertising. tia~h transit shelter installed by Outdoor Promotions shall contain two panels for advertising displays measuring no more than 48" wide and 72" hil~h, either positioned to form a triangle or placed back-to-back on one-way streets. Where the sidewalk is detached and is situated behind the shelter, a third panel will be added on the back of the triangle for the City's use for public service announcements. Such displays shall be used solely for advertising materials and/or City approved public service armouncement~. Outdoor Promotions shall usc its best reasonable efforts obtain revenue-generating advertisements for the two (2) advertising display panels that face the street on each transit shelter. When display panels are available, the City has the opportunity to utilize up to 10% of them for public service announcements. Under no circumstances shall any advertising display contain indecent or vulgar pictures, graphics or language or include advertising for any alcohol or tobacco products. Outdoor Promotions further agrees not to display advertising relating to contraception, pornography, politics or religion. Outdoor Promotions agrees to remove within fortv- eight (48) hours after receipt of the Ci~'s written notification requesting such removal, any advertisements which the City in its reasonable discretion deems to be offensiYt:, or in conflict with the City's health, safety and weHare concerns. Locations. Outdoor Promotions shall erect transit shelters at those locations that are mutually agreed upon by the City and Outdoor Promotions. Ail transit shelters shall be erected on public rights-of-way or private property with written authorization Outdoor Promotions Municipal Contract Page 3 from the City or property owner(s) and shall be subject to all rules, regulations and ordinances governing the use of such rights-of-way. Prior to erecting any such shelters at any locations, Outdoor Promotions shall secure any necessary approval and/or zoning variance that may be required from any governmental entity. ARTICLE III: PAYMENTS TO THE CITY In consideration of this Agreement, Outdoor Promotions shall pay the City a monthly amount equivalent ~o eight (8) percent (%) of the gross advertising revenues received by Outdoor Promotions from advertisements displayed on all transit shelters installed pursuant to this Agreement. After the third (3) year of the Agreement, payments shall begin to the City in the form of additional transit amenities, cash or mainten,,nce services. Payments shall be made with respect to revenues received thirty (30) day after the close of the month. Outdoor Promotions shall maintain adequate books and records showing revenues received with respect to the transit shelters. Such books and records shall be available to the City for inspection anytime during normal business hours upon forty-eight (48)-hours' prior written notice thereof to Outdoor Promotions. All books and records shall be retained by Outdoor Promotions for a minimum of five (5) years. Except with respect to the monthly fee payable to the City pursuant to Article IV hereof, Outdoor Promotions shall have the right to retain all revenues generated from the advertising displays on all transit shelters. ARTICLE IV: INSURANCE Outdoor Promotions shall procure and maintain at its own cost the following insurance coverage: a) b) wWorkers .c. ompensation insurance in accordance with the Minnesota orkmens Compensation Act. Commercial general liability insurance with minimum limits of $150,000 per person and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Co,m..pr.eh. ensive automobile liability insurance with minimum limits for boddy mIury and property damage of $150,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence. The foregoing insurance coverage shall be procured and maintained with insurers that are reasonably acceptable to the City. The liability insurance polices shall be endorsed to include the City as an additional insured. MAR--2?--~ ~4:48 P~ C~PIERNOT 1~0~452698~ P. ~ · Outdoor Promotions Municipal Contract In addition, Outdoor Promotions shall provide a Letter of Credit from Wells Fargo Bank in the amount of $10,000.00 as security for its obligations under this Agreement. The City may draw upon this Letter of revolving credit to reimburse itself Ior any repair, replacement, or maintenance cost incurred as a default of Outdoor Promotions. ARTICLE V: INDEMNIFICATION Outdoor Promotions shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, representatives and employees from and against all liability, claims, demands and expenses (including court costs and reasonable attorneys fees), on account of any injury, loss or damage, arising out of or in connection with the performance by Outdoor Promotions of its services pursuant to this Agreement, if such injury, loss or damage is caused by the negligent acts, errors or omission~ of Outdoor Promotions, a subcontractor of Outdoor Promotion~, or any officer, employee, agent or representative of Outdoor Promotions. Such indemnity shall not apply to any iniury, loss or damage that is cal. lsed by negligent acts, errors or omissions of the City, its agents or employees. ARTICLE Vi: CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES The City shall provide Outdoor Promotions with all available information that is relevant to the Transit Shelter Program together with the necessary guidance and direction to achieve the Program's obiectives. In consideration of the City's use of transit shelters at no cost, the City hereby assures access to and use of the nearest electrical power and waives all permit and use fees for each transit shelter covered by this Agreement. Provided that each transit shelter complies hilly with the provisions of this Agreement and all applicable provisions of the City's Municipal Code, all necessary permits for the installation and/or maintenance of the transit shelters shall be granted by the City. The process for obtaining such permits shall be expedited by all city departments to assure that shelters are installed within one hundred eighty (180) days. transit shelters upon thirty (30) days' written notice thereof to the City in the event that any municipality, state, federal or other governmental authority hereafter imposes any rules, regulations or laws which Outdoor Promotions determines to have the effect of materially diminishing the value of such transit shelter for advertising purposes. ARTICLE VII: REMOVAL OF SHELTERS Outdoor Promotions shall within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice from the City remove any transit shelter that is located at a discontinued bus stop. In addition, outdoor Promotions shall relocate any transit shelter within thirty (30) days after its receipt of written notice to do so by the City as a result of redevelopment or traffic hazards. Any such relocation of a transit shelter shall be to a location mutually agreeable to both parties. Outdoor Promotions shall also have the right to remove any Outdoor Promotions Municipal Contract Page ARTICLE VIII: ALTERATION OF SERVICES In the event that the City desires at any time to alter or change the nature or character ot the services to be provided by Outdoor Promotion~ hereunder and such alteration or change materially increases the coats and expenses to be incurred by Outdoor Promotions or reduces the advertising revenues which can be generated by Outdoor Promotions, such alterations or changes shall not be effective until the City and Outdoor Promotions have mutually agreed to and executed an amendment to this Agreement, which amendment may include an adjustment to the City'~ fee under Article IV hereof. ARTICLE IX: TERM This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a period of ten (10) years from the date first written above; provided, however~ that the City may revoke Outdoor Promotions' right to use or occupy any portion of any street, alley, right-of-way or other City property. Any such revocation shall not substantially reduce the total number of transit shelters then existing under this Agreement. Outdoor Promotions shall have the option to extend this Agreement for up to two (2) additional five (5) year terms. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Outdoor Promotions shall not have the right to exercise an extension option while an uncured default by it exists with respect to fids Agreement. Outdoor Promotions may exercise each five (5)-year extension option by providing written notice of such exercise to the City within sixty (60) days prior to the end of the then current term of this Agreement. ARTICLE X: TERMINATION Upon any default or breach of this Agreement by either Outdoor Promotions or the City and if such default or breach continues for a period of thirty (30) days after receipt by the breaching party of written notification thereof, the non-breaching party may terminate this Agreement. Should Outdoor Promotions fail 3 times in any year to deliver maintenance, repair and replacement, a.nd advertising services as specified, .City Council may find it in default and terminate th~s Agreement at Outdoor Promotions sole cost and expense. Upon termination of this Agreement, Outdoor Promotions shall remove all transit shelters installed by it pursuant to this Agreement, within thirty (30) days of termination. ARTICLE XI: ASSIGNMENT Outdoor Promotions shall not assign or transfer its rights, duties and obligations under this Agreement, in whole or in part, without first obtaining the written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, provided, however, that the City's con.sent shall not be required with reBpect to any assignment by Outdoor MAR--27--03 84:4! PM C,PIERNOT 15054526982 Outdoor Promotions Municipal Contract t~oc 6 Promotions to any person or entity which controls, is controlled by, or under common control with Outdoor Promotions or which merges with or into Outdoor Promotions or acquires substantially all of the assets of Outdoor Promotions. ARTICLE XII: NONDISCRIMINATION Outdoor Promotions, its agents, employees, contractors and subcontractors shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, religion or disability in connection with its services provided pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE XIII: ENTIRE AGREEMENT The parties acknowledge and agree that the provisions contained herein constitute the entire agreement between the parties and that all representations made by any officer, agent or employee of the respective parties, unless included herein, are null and void and of no effect. No alterations, amendments, changes or modifications to this Agreement shall be valid unless contained in a written agrecment executed by both parties. ARTICLE XIV: NOTICE Any written notice to be given under this Agreement shall be sent postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, return-receipt requested, addressed as follows: City Of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Attention: Kirk McDonald Outdoor Promotions, Inc. 5724 S. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80525 Attention: Gary Young ARTICLE X-V: BINDING EFFECT/GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. M~R--2?--O~ 84:42 PM C. PIERNOT 1~054526982 P. 09 Outdoor Promotions Municipal Contract Pase ? IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement by their respective officers or agents who are duly authorized to bind the party for which their signature appears. City of New Hope, Minnesota OUTDOOR PROMOTION$, Inc. Name: Mayor Title: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was subscribed, sworn to, and acknowledged before me this day of , 2000, by as the of Outdoor Promotions, Inc. My commission expires: .... (SEAL) Notary Public Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.c°m MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: Kirk McDonald Cynthia Putz-Yang /Alan Brixius February 26, 2003 New Hope Transit Structure Concepts 131.00 - 02.11 We studied installing transit shelters at six locations provided by the City. For each location we have provided a plan showing existing conditions and a concept plan. The constraints of each location are summarized in the upper right corner of each concept plan. We have found that in each of the cases there is not sufficient distance between the back of the street curb and the property line to locate the transit shelter without encroaching onto an existing sidewalk. If encroachments onto existing sidewalks are to be avoided, the structures will extend onto private property. The following is a list of issues we have found: Section 6.168(1) "Location" requires at a setback of at least three feet from the back of the curb. There does not appear to be a prohibition on encroachment onto an existing sidewalk. Encroachment onto a sidewalk could raise issues of pedestrian safety and snow removal. If the structures are not to encroach onto existing sidewalks, then the transit structures will extend onto private property. Section 6.163(7) requires written consent from the property owner for placement of any transit structure on private property within three feet of the public right-of-way. Section 6.168(1) "Location" requires a minimum clearance of six feet from the back of the transit structure to any structure or landscaping along or near any sidewalk to provide for sidewalk snow plow clearance. In the case of location #2, Southbound Zylon Avenue N. before Rockford Rd., there is a retaining wall ten feet from the back of the street curb; therefore, it is impossible to maintain a six-foot clear zone in this location without a dramatic change to the existing retaining wall. Section 6.161 "Purpose" explains that transit structures with advertising signs are to be placed within three feet of the public right-of-way. In the case of location #3, Westbound Rockford Rd. on the west side of Quebec Ave., locating the structure within three feet of the right-of-way causes the structure to encroach onto the existing sidewalk by two feet. Section 6.168(2) (revised) states that the maximum length for a shelter is 13 feet. The template we received from the City includes a transit structure that is 15 feet in length. 0 Z.-I m --I 0;;0 --mm 0 Z ITl Ill : : ~o h I'11,-I m -H O~ -~ m 0 Z m Z X 0 z m z m Z 0 0 0 rtl-! z rn 39' Z--I z rn -4 ~C~ O~ · -4 rn O Z ITl m m 0 0 Z il 0 > 'n 0 ~ _.0.. ~ z (I) 113 0 o~ ~., m--i z ITl 0 z ITl c: z 0 0 ~l~m I or- -.t -,I r'rl Z-.I 171 '-I O~ Ill Z m '13 .-I Z ' 0 ~ om ~> o m ~ Z NE' VAbA ~V~. 0 ZZ m I! Z--I m .-I O~ · -I m 0 Z rtl ITl (/) D3 0 Z < ~,~°~ ri] 0 Z m Z m 'q'l -.! m 0 0 rn gz ) 1 I I I 39' 25-~00 24' 40' 31' T i 3 0 m~m --q "'~ rq 26+' ITl .-~ (33 0 Z I'll Z m rtl m 0 o z rn ,I 8, OO Iq o~a Ci~ of New Hope Preliminary Shelters Sites at Bus Stops. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ~ ~8. ,ICl. 11. '12. 13. 1~, 1,5. NOTE: For safety of vehicles and pedestrians, bus stops ought to be placed and maintained on the farside of intersections. Northbound Zylon Avenue N. across from City Hall Southbound Zylon Avenue N. before Roc'l~ford Rd. (Wells Fargo Bank) Westbound Rockford Rd. westside of Quebec Ave. Westbound Rockford Rd. westside of Nevada Ave. (Valvoline Station) Northbound Winnekta Ave. at Medicine Lake Rd. (Alpha Muffler) Southbound Winnekta Ave. at 32nd (Apartment Complex) Southbound Winnekta Ave. at Terra Linda Rd. (Shopping Ctr.) Northbound Winnekta Ave. at 36th (Auto Zone) Southbound Winnekta Ave. at 36th (Shopping Ctr.) Northbound Winnekta Ave. at 42nd (westside of McDonald's) Southbound Winnekta Ave. at 42nd (Educ. Svc. Ctr.) Northbound Winnekta Ave. at 49th farside (move bus stop) Southbound Winnekta Ave. at 49th (Private Easement) Northbound Winnekta Ave. at Bass Lake Rd. fMidas Muffler) Southbound Winnekta Ave. at Bass Lake Rd. (Citgo Station) Southbound Boone at 54th Ave. N. (move stop to Feeding Children Intl.) Southbound Boone before 49th (Commercial zone) 18. Westbound 36th Ave. N. before Maryland Ave. N. (Right-of-way?) 19. Eastbound 36th Ave. N. Nevada Ave. N. (Right-of-way?) 20. Westbound Medicine Lake Rd. after Boone Ave (before school sign) 21. Eastbound Bass Lake Rd. at Winnekta Ave. N. (east of Sinclair Station) promotions, inc. Transit Amen~b~'~,ov)op, April 19, 2003 Mr. Kirk McDonald Director, Community Development City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Re: Transit Shelters at Metro Transit Bus Stops. Dear Mr. McDonald: We are a business new to New Hope, seeking a partnership at no expense to the city, to improve transit amenities. Outdoor Promotions, Inc. brings to New Hope over 1~ 'vear~, of experience building successful partnerships with cities (References provided), h~ addition to New Hope, we continue to work with many of your neighboring cities t~ Include: Robbinsdale, Roseville, Hopkins, Shoreview, and Saint Paul. Bus stops are an important yet neglected connection between citizens and use of public transit. The Federal Transportation Research Board (Report 46, 1999) documents that in 4 of 5 cities the bus shelter is the most important amenity to citizen use of public transit. Outdoor Promotions, Inc. seeks to build a partnership with New Hope to improve bus stops with safe, weather-protecting, and well-maintained shelters. We provide tund ing for concrete shelter pads and walkways to make bus stops ADA compliant. We illuminate each weather-protecting shelter to make it a safe, comfortable environment. And, we provide trash receptacles and weekly maintenance to make bus stops cleaner for citizen riders. Mr. McDonald, Outdoor Promotions, Inc. is very interested in developing a strong partnership with the City of New Hope to provide your citizens with an improved transit amenities program. We look forward to meeting with you and citizens of New Hope on May 19, 2003. Respectfullv, ~ Craig Piernot Contract Development 5724 $. Cofle~Te Avenue. Fort Collins. CO 80525 · 970.266.0979 · FAX: 970.225.1560 © © · · · Transit Amenities a. Shelters at bus stops b. Bike racks/lockers, benches, schedule displays "amenities do, in fact, promote transit ridership." Transportation Research Board Report 46, 1999 .I Shelter & Amenity Design Standard Figure IV-a bus .qlcltcr Thi.; 'lylX. A transil .StOl-~ is II':tsh l't:ccptaclC / I(x':,led on the far .side (fi'Iht. ir~lc~rs~'lion, at least nth This p;mict nol im'ludcs a bus pullout. I~upmg ~ / / ' ' but many Tylx, A slops will. ~ ~~.:..:. ~;..." '..,, · ~ ~1 ..... '.,:"1 I 1".'.7.: :'-~ bm stop si~ ~ ' and light f~ture _ _ ~ lY, kssenger loading pad minimum - 85' maxhnumT~ .~( f~¥( 11 s Figure IV-b / ~ll ' ' , · ,, . / /~ l) [~d~'stri'm activity.lnd con~ / '1 ' ~ ' ' '~- / ~ /e ~ , ti<msant the provision of I/ ~ ~ trash ' ~ '~ i CtlStomcr facililitx% such as bike ~~ mc~p~cle rocks and a trash ~ceplacle ~, bike racke / ' ~.- ,,;..,,. ,.. ~', "4 of 5 case studies cite the bus shelter with walls, roof and seating as the amenity most likely to induc more trip e s." Transportation Research Board Report 46, 1999 Benefits for Your City a. Improve services for citizen riders b. Increase amenities beyond those from Metro Transit c. Vendor provided weekly trash collection & Maintenance d. Vendor responsible for maintenance & relocation of amenity e. Well maintained weather protecting shelters induce more trips f. No cost to your city Connection to Metro Transit a. Designed bus stops b. Capital budget for additional shelters 1. Bus stop sign changes 2. Shelter & fixed route changes (Roseville) c. Operations budget for shelter maintenance Public/Private Partnership a. Your City and Outdoor Promotions 1. Address citizen rider needs at bus stops 2. Eliminate the fiscal responsibility for bus stops b. Supporting public transit improvement 1. Allows vendor to occupy the right-of-way to support public transit 2. Sign ordinance change to permit shelter advertising c. Improved city control of public transit amenities Experience and Expertise a. 18 years in transit, 2.5 years in the Twin Cities b. Developed programs in Colorado., Wyoming, California c. Consultation with other large program developers d. ~City references eo State Transit Association membership outcloo~ promotions, inc. CASTA Letter Wednesday, May 9, 2001 Purchasing Department City of Fort Collins 256 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 To the Director: I ~m aware that thc City of Fort Collins is considering a proposal by Outdoor Promotions, Inc., of Fort Collins, for continuing a relationship that has been in place for a period of time. We have found Gary D. Young, the principal in this company, to be a solid member of the transit community in our region - supporting activities and events of the Colorado Association of Transit Agencies (CASTA). Our organization is an association of transit providers, which speaks to the general public and to policy makers in our state. Mr. Young has, by his personal involvement and his company's support of transit activities, shown an exlraordinary commitment to transit in Colorado. He has actively supported and been personally involved with local transit agencies in funding initiative campaigns; has been a prima~ supporter of CASTA's Colorado Fall Transit Conference, which brings transit managers and decision makers in the region together for training and long-term community and legislative planning; and has been a primary supporter ofthe Colorado Statewide Bus Roadeo. The Roadeo brings actual transit drivers of the state together in a competition, which helps them hone their professional skills, and provides a method of recognizing their special contribution to effectively moving Colorado people via transit. I have seen first hand the result ofthe work and efforts of Outdoor Promotions, ln~. in ..... completion of contracts with the city in which I live. There is nothing in my hometown experience that leads me to believe that the City of Fort Collins can expect anything less than the very best this company has to offer in any endeavor it undertakes. Our organization is proud of its membership, and firms such as Outdoor Promotions, lnc., who lake that membership as a personal and corporate commitment. I mn sure you will find that same commitment in this firm's approach to their long-term customer service, as well. Sincerely, David R. Scott · · Partnership w th Outdoor Promotions, Inc. ao Provides needed benefits for citizen riders b. In.duces more trips with weather protecting shelters c. Eliminates fiscal responsibility for transit amenities d. Enables the ci!y to.control bus stop amenities e. Creates a public/private partnership with the benefit of transit improvement [oor Promotions will not display advertising that ridicules or discriminates against an individual, group or We will not promote tobacco or alcohol products, pornographic material, and controversial or immoral issues. Your municipality will have the authority to approve all advertising and request the removal of any adver- tisement that is controversial. All locations will be constructed to meet ADA require- ments, including the construction of wheelchair ramps and additional walkways to connect to the existing sidewalk. outdoor ~~ promotions, inc. Craig Piernot 5724 S. College Ave. Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (970) 266-0979 fax: (970) 225-1560 Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: Report Date: May 6,2003 May 2,3004 02-23 City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue Nodh Ordinance No. 03-02, An Ordinance Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care Facilities as Conditional Uses in the Industrial Zoning District, and Ordinance No. 03-06, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the New Hope City Code Licensing Dog Kennels and Cat Shelters Section 1, Section 4-20(e)(16) Section 2, Section 4-20(b)(13) Section 3, Section 1-5(j) Section 1, Section 7-4 I. Request City staff is requesting Planning Commission and City Council approval of the attached Ordinance No. 03-02, an Ordinance Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care Facilities as Conditional Uses in the Industrial Zoning District, and Ordinance No. 03-06, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the New Hope City Code Licensing Dog Kennels and Cat Shelters. The ordinances contain 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. II. Zoning Code References Conditional Uses/Animal Kennels and Day Care Permitted UsesNeterinary Clinics Temporary Prohibition of Dog Kennel and Cat Shelter Licenses Dog Kennels and Cat Shelters II1. Property Specifications IV. The ordinance amendments would allow animal kennels and day care facilities to be located in the Industrial Zoning District by conditional use permit. 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 original moratorium was effective until April 30, 2003. In November/December of 2002, appropriate city staff and consultants met and discussed this matter, including the Planning Consultant, City Attorney, Animal Control Officer, Building Official, and other Community Development staff. An ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney with staff's preliminary recommendations for the location of these facilities. The original ordinance was reviewed by the Codes & Standards Committee in December and presented to the Planning Commission for consideration at the January 7 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission raised a number of issues that needed to be addressed in more detail and the Commission tabled action on the ordinance and referred the matter back to the Codes & Standards Committee. Planning Case Report 02-23 Page 1 5-2-03 VI. VII. Since the January Planning Commission meeting when this issue was last discussed, the Pla,'~ing Consultant has conducted a survey of other metropolitan communities pertaining to their regular. , of animal kennels, examined the application of the kennel ordinance to pet stores and veterinary clinics, and has also further refined our suggestions for performance standards related to the creation of a conditional use permit for animal kennels and animal day care facilities. The Codes & Standards Committee has met on several occasions since the first of the year to review information and provide input on the ordinance. In the interim period, the City has also had discussions with Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital regarding the purchase of city-owned property at 9200 49th Avenue for the construction of a new facility and they attended a committee meeting and provided input into the ordinance. The City Council also took steps to extend the moratorium for an additional two months, until June 30, 2003, so that the Planning Commission could take final action on this issue. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed the final ordinance recommendations at its April 8 meeting and the City Attorney incorporated the final recommendations into the attached ordinances. The ordinances allow the use in an Industrial Zoning District by conditional use permit, modifies the kennel license ordinance to conform to the new ordinance, and lifts the moratorium on the use. Staff is recommending that the Commission move forward on this issue and approve the ordinances. 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. Notification A public hearing notice was published in the official newspaper in January regarding this zoning ordinance amendment. Notices are not required to be mailed to individual property owners, as the amendment would be applicable to all properties in the zoning districts where the use would be conditionally permitted. A second public hearing notice was not published on this matter for the May 6 Planning Commission meeting, however, the City Attorney is recommending and will publish a second notice effective for the May 27 City Council meeting to insure that proper notification is provided. Staff recommends that the Commission proceed to take action at this meeting, and the formality of the public hearing can be handled by the City Council on May 27. This is a routine back-up plan that has been used in the past if a public hearing notice deadline is overlooked by staff/consultants. Development Analysis A. Planner's Comments The Planning Consultant reviewed this issue and prepared the enclosed reports dated November 7, December 9, and February 26, so please refer to them, as it is not the intent to repeat that information in this report. B. Leqal Considerations The City Attorney prepared correspondence which states: "In follow up to the Codes & Standards meeting, I have made the requested changes to Ordinance Nos. 03-02 and 03-06 for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting. Those changes are as follows: Ordinance No. 03-02 An Ordinance Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care Facilities As Conditional Uses in the Industrial "1" Zoning District. · 4-20(e)(16)(a) - this section was amended to provide the size of the facility would be based on 75 square feet for dogs and 20 square feet for cats and other animals. · 4-20(3)(16)(c) - this section was amended by removing the reference to "pervious surface" as a requirement for the outdoor area. Added to the section was the requirement for a three-foot Planning Case Report 02-23 Page 2 5-2-03 vegetative buffer and the requirement all animal waste be appropriately treated before entering a storm sewer or storm water pond. · 4-20(e)(16)(d) - this section was amended by referencing Chapter 1346 of the Minnesota State Building Code. · 4-20(e)(16)(f) - this section was amended by permitting the floor surface to be approved impervious surface as well as sealed concrete. Ordinance No. 03-06 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the New Hope City Code Licensing Dog Kennels and Cat Shelters. · 7-4(b) - this section was amended by removing the words "cat shelter." · 7-4(f) - this section was deleted. There will no longer be a maximum number of animals that can be boarded at these facilities. · 7-4(g)(3) - this section was amended to provide animals must be kept indoors between the hours of 9 p.m. through 6 a.m. · 7-4(g)(4) - this section was amended to indicate at least one employee needs to be present at the facility during normal business hours." The City Attorney prepared the attached Ordinance No. 03-02 which states: "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: 4-20e)(16) Animal Kennels and Day Care. Subject to the following conditions: 4-20(e)(16)(a) The facility's minimum size must provide for seventy-five (75) square feet per dog and twenty (20) square feet per cat or any other 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) Related ancillary services including training, grooming and food and accessory sales may be conducted or provided at the facility. 4-20(e)(16)(c) An exercise are 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 three-foot vegetative buffer, must be cleaned regularly, and any animal waste must be appropriately treated before it is allowed to enter any storm water pond or sewer. 4-20(e)(16)(d) The facility must have a ventilation system that prohibits the transmission of odors or organisms between tenant bays. 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 Chapter 1346 of the Minnesota State Building Code, as may be amended, these requirements can be met by the submission of an air exchange analysis, acceptable to the City from a Minnesota licensed contractor or engineer confirming compliance with said standards, otherwise, the facility ventilation system must be completely separate and independent of other tenant space within the building. Facility 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 facility 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 Planning Case Report 02-23 Page 3 5-2-03 concrete or other approved impervious surface. Liquid-tight curbing, at least six inches -~qh, 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 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) day's 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. 4-20(e)(16)(k) Exemption. Veterinary clinics that board ten (10) or fewer animals and pet stores are exempt from this conditional use permit requirement. Section 2. Section 4-20(b) "Permitted Uses" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding new subsection 4-20(b)(13), "Veterinary Clinics," to read as follows: 4-20(b)(13) Veterinary Clinics. Provided the clinic boards without treatment ten (10) or fewer animals in a 24-hour period. Section 3. Section 1-5(j), "Temporary Prohibition of Doq Kennel and Cat Shelter Licenses" of the New Hope City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. The City Attorney also prepared Ordinance No. 03-06 to conform the Licensing ordinance in Section 7 to the new provisions in Ordinance No. 03-02. Ordinance No. 03-06 is attached for your reference. C. Codes & Standards Committee The ordinance amendment was presented to the Codes & Standards Committee at its April meeting and the Committee was supportive of allowing the use by conditional use permit in the Industrial Zoning District. There was a good review and further 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 Industrial Zoning District by conditional use permit, subject to certain conditions. The attached ordinances represent the conclusion of several months of work pertaining to animal day cares and kennels. Staff believes that the performance standards that have been prepared are reasonable and the ordinance requirements have been shared with the owner/operator of a veterinary clinic for further input. IX. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendments and the lifting of the moratorium currently in place. Attachments: Ordinance No. 03-02, Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care Facilities as Conditional Uses in I District Ordinance No. 03-06, Amending Chapter 7 Licensing Dog Kennels and Cat Shelters 4/30 City Attorney Correspondence 2/26 Planner Report 1/7 Planning Case Report 1/7 Planning Commission Minutes City Council Moratorium Ordinances Planning Case Report 02-23 Page 4 5-2-03 ORDINANCE NO. 03-02 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISmNG COMMERCIAL ANIMAL ~LS AND ANIMAL DAY CARE FACILITIES AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL "I" ZONING DISTRICT Thc City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: S~:tion 1. Section 4-20(¢) "Conditional Uses" of the New Hope City Code is lmreby amende~ by adding subsection 4-20(e)(16) ".Animal Ke~mels and Day Care" to read as follows: 4-20(e)(16) Animal Kennels and Day Care. Subject to the following conditiom: 4-20(e)(16)(a.) The facility's minimum size must provide for seventy-five (75) sqna~e feet per dog and twenty (20) square feet per cat or any other animal boarded at any one time, exclusiv.e,of office o~' storage area. The facility must provide one (1) cage or air kennel per 'animal. 4-20(e)C16)Co.) Related ancillary se~c~ including training, grooming and food and accessory sales may be conducted or provided at the facility. 4.20(e)C16)(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 enoh animal that occupies that area at any one time. Any outdoor exercise area must be fenced, must have a 3-foot vegetative buffer, must be cleaned regularly, and any animal waste must be appropriately treated before it is allowed to enter any storm water pond or sewer. 4.20(e)C16')(d.) The facility must have a ventilation system that prohibits the transmission of odors or organi~m~ between tenant bays. The ventilation system must be capable of compietdy 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 Chapter 1346 of the Minnesota State Building Code, as may be amended, these requirements can be met by the submlmion of an air exchange analysis, acceptable to 'the City from a Minnesota licemed contractor or en~neer confirming compliance with said standards, otherwise, the facility ventilation system must be completely separate and independent of other tenant space within the building. Facility air temperature must be maintained between sixty degrees (50°) and eighty degrees (80°) Fahrenheit. 4.20(e)(16)(e.) A sttfflclenfly sized room/cage separate from the fncility areas shall be provided to adequately separnte sick or injured atttmnls from healthy anlnlals. 4.20(e)(i6)(f.) WaLl finish materials below 48 inches in height shall be impervious, washable materials like sealed masonry, ceramic tile, glassboar~ -~ or marlite. Floor finl.qh shall be sealed concrete or other approved impervious surface. Liquid-fight curbing, at least 5 inches high, shall be installed along shared walls For sanitary conf'mement and water wash-down C~f~mirt~. 4-20(e)(16)(g.) Animal wastes shall be inlraediately cleaned up with solid wastes being enclosed in a conr2iper o£ sufficient construction to ~limiqate odors and organisms. All animal waste must be properly disposed of daffy. 4-20(e)06)01.) The facility must be appropriately licensed per Section 7-4 of this Code and all conditions of sam Section must be satisfied. ~-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 premiss. 4-20(e)(16)(j.) The facility must .provide sufficient, uniformly distributed fighting to the kennel area. ' 4-20(e)(16)(k.) gxemption. Veterinary clinics that board ten (10) or fewer 9nim~ils and pet stores are exempt from this conditional use permit requirement. Section 2. Section 4-20Co) "Permitted Uses" o~ the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding new subsection 4-20(I))(13), ".Veterina~ Clinics", to read as follows: 4-20(b)(13) Veterinary Clinics. Provided the el*-fc boards without treatment ten (10) or fewer animals in a ~4 hour period. Section 3. Section 1-5(j), "Temoor~ Prohibition of Do~ Kennel and Cat Shelre- Licenses" of thc New Hope City Cod~ is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordi.,n~-e shall be eff~ive upon its passage and publication. Dated this day of ,2003. W. Peter Enck, Mayor ATTI~ST: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (l%blishcd in thc New Hope-Golde~ Valley Sun-Post the. day of ,2003.) 2 ORDINANCE NO. 03-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE LICENSING DOG I~.N'NELS AND CAT ~q]~.I.TERS The City Council of the City of N~w Hope ord~in.~: Section 1. Section 7-4 "Dog kennels and cat shelter~" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7-4. AnimalOeg M~__enneis. Animal Day Car,,-~..=_~ cat (a) ldcense_reauir_ed: fa.- t. .... ~ .,~., ~' .... ' '~ ..... No l~rson ~ ~ or operam any animal kenu~l or animal d~y cam facili~ for dogs, ~ or c_rm~hi~a, ion of both without a k~.~4-1icc~e. In ~ Cvcllt ~h.lJ ~ liccns~ be issued unlcss ~ property wherein tt~ kcz~l or ~ is tn tx: situated is zoned "ICE" industrial.~m.--..~ t~.ess district under ctmptcr 4. Co) Application. Applications for an animal kcnnel,..~ ~ animal day cam license shall be matte upon forms provided [~y the city. Any ,~ .n,-,,.-'.. -- .-o.1 ;4:; ..,.I 1;,.~. ' . (c) License fees. The license fee for ~==.ag~-deg '-"~: ::: :~:!~;__or_animal day care license shall be as prescribed in clmp~r 14. (d) License expiration. Each license shall expire on Dcccmb~ 31, next following the issuance of the license. (e) Transferability of license u......., ,: ........ .~ .... ~.~,.~. ~ IiCellSeS $.h_all apply solely to the named licensee and shall not be transferable to any other person. (g) Standards for ......... operation. Every keaael/~W= shall: (1) Fern:ed. Be enclosed or fenced in Such _m.q, ner so ~ to prevent the ~ at large or escape of do~~ ecmf-~d therein; (2) Clean. Be operated in a clean, healthy, sanitary, and safe CO]J~fiOll, and a hi]marie manner; (3) Enclosed building. Ket~ d~asaWmaIs between the hours of ~,.~,.. ......... ~'~ ,,.~..~"'""~-o 9:00 ~.m. to 6.00 a.m in aa enclosed builaing; (4) Emnlovees. The fac[litv' must provjd~ at !carat on_, (1) hm)dler/stmff per, on at the faeilj ...... --=':~-' """'""-'-'"~, 1.~'.'-',,.,.'~' ,~.-,..,.* (~) Prevention of disturbing the. peacm. Be cared for, maintained and handled in a manner which shall prevent noises, barking, 2 fiEhfin~, or howl/hi so as to disturb th~ peace and quiet of the neighborhood. (6) Prevention of public nuisance. Be opiated so as not to create a public nuisance. , ~a)~ Failure to operate the licemed k-eaaeq/ac_/li.tx as provided here-nd~,r ,~h.!l constitute grounds for revocation of the license of such ~=~.~. The d=tcrmin.tion by the counc~ as to the manner of operation of any ~ in relation to any of the said matters shall be presumptive . pwof thereof. (h~ Pertain. be a misdemeanor. Violation of any of the provisions of thi.~ section shall Section 2. publication. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and Dated this~ day of ,2003. ATTEST: Valerie Leone, City Clerk W. Peter l~nck, Mayor (Published in the New Hope-~olden Valley Sun-Post the 4 dayof ,2003.) IDOUGLA.~ J. D ,F. BNER~ ST^CY ^. WOODS OF COU~$;.L JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 ]~DINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOI~,YN PARK, MINNF.$OTA 55443-1968 TgLE~'~IO~£ {763) 424-8811 s TELgFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mail law(~jensen-sond rail.corn VIA FACSIMILE (763)531-5136 AND REGULAR MAIL April 30, 2003 Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Animal Shelter and Licensing Ordinances Our Files: 99.80302 and 80306 Dear Kirk, In follow up to the Codes and Standards meeting, I have made thc requested changes to Orclinanee Nos. 03-02 and 03-06 for consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting. Those changes are as follows: Ordinance 03-02 An Ordinance Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care Facilities As Conditional Uses In the Industrial "1" Zoning District. 4-20(e)(16)(a)- this section was amended to provide the size of the facility would be based on 75 sq. t~ for dogs and 20 sq. fi for cats and other animals. 4-20(e)(16)(c)- this section was amended by removing the reference to "pervious surface" as a requirement for the outdoor area. Added to the section was the requirement for a 3 foot vegetative buffer and the requirement all animal waste be appropriately treated before entering a storm sewer or storm water pond. 4-20(e)((16)(d)- this section was amended by referencing Chapter 1346 of the Minnesota State Building Code. 4-20(e)(16)(f)- this section was amended by permitting the floor surface to be approved impervious surface as well as sealed concrete. Ordinance No.03-06 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the New Hope City Code Licensing Dog Kennels and Cat Shelters. 7-4Co)- this section was amended by removing the words "cat shelter". April 30, 2OO3 Page 2 7-4(0- this section was deleted. There will no longer be a maximum number of animals that carl boarded at these facilities. 7-4(g)(3)- this se. et/on was amended to provide animals must be kept indoors between the hours of 9 p.m. through 6 a.m. 7-4(g)(4)- thi.q section was amended to indicate at least one employee needs to be present at the facility during normal business hours. Please contact me if the referenced changes do not accurately reflect the discussions or recommendations made at the Codes and Standards meeting. Very trttly yours, Steven A. $ondral/, City Attorney, City of New Hope JF3~St~N & SONDRALL, P.A. Afl~* I,i~Jx I~'mMIo~ #i47 P:~%~°mcY%SAS %Leners~..AvR99 .~0:1064XiZ.Ki~ lu'.do~ '~' ~" '~-~ Telephone: 952.51~5.9~31~ Facsimile: g52.§95.9~;37 I:)ianners!E]nac~31anr3incj.com MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius February 26, 2003 New Hope - Animal Kennels 131.00 - 02.08 BACKGROUND Over the last four months, the City has been examining an ordinance amendment that would allow for animal kennels and animal day cares within its industrial zoning district. Staff has prepared a number of draft ordinances that related to the potential impacts of kennels within an industrial area. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the only application for a dog day care was withdrawn, giving the City additional opportunity to re-evaluate its dog kennel performance standards within its zoning classifications. A number of questions were raised as to whether the proposed ordinance would apply to pet stores and veterinary clinics. Since the Planning Commission meeting, we have conducted a survey of other metropolitan communities pertaining to their regulation of animal kennels. We have examined the application of the kennel ordinance to pet stores and veterinary clinics and we have also further refined our suggestions for performance standards related to the creation of a conditional use permit for animal kennels and animal day care facilities. PET STORES In staff discussion of whether pet stores should be included in the conditional use for animal kennels and day care, it was discovered that according to Building Code, pet stores have a different user classification and as such, different Building Code performance standards would apply. Additionally, it was determined that the land use implications of a pet store are quite different than the receipt and boarding of animals that will be found in an animal kennel. Within the current regulations, pet stores would- be considered a retail use that would be allowed in any of the commercial zoning classifications. The Building Code will apply standards based on a retail occupancy of the building. In this respect, it is staff's recommendation that the animal kennel ordinance not be applicable to pet stores. VETERINARY CLINICS In our discussion as to whether the performance standards outlined for animal kennels should apply to the veterinary clinics, the following findings were made. The Animal Control Officer contacted the veterinary clinic and discovered that the clinic on Winnetka Avenue provides boarding for approximately ten animals. The limited scale of this boarding and requirement that the veterinarian be properly licensed through the State of Minnesota, we believe provides adequate protections that go beyond what would be required for a commercial animal kennel. In this respect, we are proposing that veterinary clinics that board less than ten animals on site would be exempt from the requirements for an animal kennel conditional use permit. COMMUNITY SURVEY At the request of the City, we have contacted several cities regarding how animal kennels operations are treated within their zoning classifications. To our surprise, we find that many of the cities contacted do not have specific criteria outlined for animal or dog kennels, but most required a conditional use permit within their various districts. The following findings are offered. Anoka: Apple Valley Anoka reviews animal kennels as a site plan review on a case-by- case basis. They are only permitted in the industrial district. Dog kennels are allowed by conditional use permit in their general business district. Burnsville Burnsville allows animal kennels as a conditional use in their commercial districts. Eagan Hospitals and clinics operated by a licensed veterinarian exclusively for the care and treatment of animals are exempt from the kennel section. Eagan requires all kennels to be licensed within the City. The City of Eagan also requires conditional use for kennels in an industrial or general business districts. See attached Exhibit A. 2 Minnetonka Plymouth The City of Minnetonka has provided us with their animal control regulations that govern commercial kennels. See attached Exhibit B. Veterinary clinics, pet supply sales, grooming and kennels are permitted uses in all commercial office, neighborhood commercial, community commercial, and city center commercial zoning districts. The City of New Hope is also interested in the possibility of relocating the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital to a site within New Hope, located at 49th Avenue and Highway 169. In our initial meetings pertaining to the pet hospital, we have forwarded a copy of the draft ordinance to Dr. Pierce Fleming for his comments related to performance standards and their application to an animal kennel. His comments have been attached as an exhibit to this memorandum. See attached Exhibit C. DRAFT ANIMAL KENNEL ORDINANCE The attached draft animal kennel/day care ordinance (Exhibit D) proposes to introduce these uses as a conditional use within the I, Industrial District in New Hope. In review of these proposed uses, the following items have been addressed as performance standards within the code: Provision A provides an exemption from conditional use permit for veterinary clinics that board ten or fewer animals and pet stores. Provision B establishes a limit on the number of animals kept at a facility not to exceed 30 and also requires that the facility provides at least 75 square feet per animal, exclusive of floor area for office, storage, and accessory services. The facility must provide one cage or air kennel per animal to allow for proper separation of animals. The 75 square feet per animal is a reduction from staffs original recommendation of 100 square feet per animal. Upon further review with Dr. Fleming, we feel that this standard is acceptable under the conditions that are outlined in Provision B. Provision C. The original ordinance had a required staffing ratio per animal. We are suggesting that this be removed from the conditional use permit and be taken into the City's animal licensing requirements. Replacing this staffing requirement is a provision that identifies that animal kennels may include related ancillary services including training, grooming, food, and accessory sales. Provision D mandates that exercise areas provide to accommodate periodic exercising of animals boarded at the facility must be at least 100 square feet in size for each animal that occupies the area at any one time. This square foot per animal ratio was offered by the New Hope Animal Control Officer and is found to be acceptable in light of the space needs for active animals. This provision also requires that any outdoor exercise area must be fenced and have a pervious surface and must be cleaner-- regularly. Provision E outlines the ventilation requirements for a kennel or day care facility. The ventilation system must be capable of completely exchanging air at a rate of one cfm per square foot of floor space dedicated to keeping animals, exclusive of offices, pursuant to International Mechanical Code 2000 Edition. Within this provision, we have added the following provision: The applicant may provide air exchange analysis from a Minnesota licensed contractor or engineer and demonstrate that the ventilation system will effectively implement the aforementioned standards or the kennel ventilation system must be completely separate and independent from other tenant space within the building. This provision also mandates that the kennel temperatures be maintained between 60 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Provision F mandates the provision of a room or cage separate from the other kennel areas to provide for the separation of sick or injured animals from healthy animals. Provision G outlines the wall treatments that are required to insure that the walls and floor are impervious and washable to insure the proper sanitation within the kennel area. Provision H outlines the performance standards for the disposal of solid waste from the animal kennel. Provision I outlines the need to have uniform distributed lighting throughout the kennel area. Provision J requires that the conditional use also receive an appropriate license per Section 7-4 of the City Code. Provision K indicates that at least 14 day notice is required if the kennel or day care is going to vacate the premises to allow City inspection of the premises. This provision is intended to allow the City to be assured that sanitary conditions exist once the kennel has departed the premises. CONCLUSION The attached ordinance represents the conclusion of four months of work pertaining to animal day cares and kennels. In reviewing the ordinance, it is recognized that the performance standards that are being outlined here represent standards that are not typically found in other communities based on our research, but do provide necessary protections to insure the adequate protection of both the animals as well as adjoining tenants that may be affected by the introduction of a dog kennel or dog day care within a multi tenant building. We believe that the performance standards that have been prepared are reasonable. If there are any further questions or modifications, please let me know at your convenience. pc: Steve Sondrall Chpt 6 6.38 Page 1 of I 'E$OTA Sec, 6.38, Kennels. Subd. ]. Defined. For the purpose of this se~Jon, the term "kennel" means any place, building, tract of land, abode or vehicle, wherein or whereon a total o~ four or more dogs or cats or combination, over six months of age, are kept, kept for sale, or boarded. Subd. 2. License required. It is unlawful for any pe~on to operate or maintain a kennel without ~ license therefor ~om the clt~. Subd. 3. Exception. Hospitals and clinics operated by licensed v~terinarians exclusively for the care and treatment of animals are exempt from the provisions of this se~Jon. Subd. 4. Zoning. No license shall be issued to a pe~on ~r operation of a kennel in a zoning distrJ~ where such operation is not permi~ed or otherwise allowe~ under the zoning chapter of the Ci~ Code. (Code ~983, ~ 6.38, eft. ~-1-83; Ord. No. ~2, 2nd series, eft. 4-27-84) Cross reference(s)--Dog and cat regulation and dog licensing, ~ I0. Ii; keeping, transposing, treatment, housing of animals and fowl, ~ ~0.12; trapping of animals and fowl, ~ 20.~3. Cily d E~g~n ~ 2003 h~) ;//www~ ~-eag~:..n~__.US/l~oli :c~/~im_a.!%~con_u._ _o!/Ch~_63 8. btm EXHIBIT A Page I of 15 Mike Dan'ow From: To: Sent: Subject: "Edward Davis" <edavis@ci.minnetonka.mn.us> <mdarrow(~nacplanning.corn> Friday, February 21,2003 1:24 PM Commercial Kennels in Minnetonka Dear Mr. Dan'ow: I have pasted the copy applicable code for commercial animal care below. Edward Davis, Planning Intern City of Minnetonka (Planning Department) 952-939-8293 (voice) 952-939-8244 (fax) SECTION 925. ANIMAL CONTROL REGLTLATIONS. 925.005. Definitions. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the words and phrases below are defined for the purpose of this section as follows. 1. "At large" regarding a dog, means being off the property of the person owning, harboring or keeping the dog and not under restraint. 2. "Authorized city personnel" means the chief of police, the health authority, their designees, and other personnel assisting in the enforcement of this chapter. 3. "Commercial kennel" means a place where more than the allowed number of animals are kept for the business of boarding for a fee, for the business of breeding for sale, or for some other profit-making purpose, unless the profit-making purpose qualifies as an accessory home occupation under the zoning ordinance. 4. "Farm animal" means cattle, mules, sheep, goats, swine, ducks, geese, turkeys, chickens, guinea hens, horses, rabbits, llamas, ostriches, emus, and other animals typically maintained in a farm setting but not in an urban setting. "Large farm animal" means a farm animal over 100 pounds. "Small farm animal" means a farm animal weighing 100 pounds or less. 5. "Maltreated animal" means one that has not been given adequate food, water, or shelter as specified in section 925.080 or that has been subjected to the conduct prohibited by Minn. Stat. ? 343.21. 6. "Multiple animal location" means a place other than a commercial kennel where more than the allowed number of animals are kept. 7. "Owner" means a person owning, keeping, harboring or acting as custodian ora dog or other animal. All adult occupants of the property where the animal resides or is kept is considered an owner or owners. 8. "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership or corporation. 9. "Premises" means a building, structure, shelter or land where a dog or other animal is kept or confined. 10. "Potentially dangerous animal" means an animal that: EXHIBIT B Page 2 of 15 a. when unprovoked, inflicted bites that broke the skin on a human or domestic animal; b. when unprovoked, chased or approached a person who was on public property in an apparent attitude of attack indicated by such things as snarling and bared teeth: or c. has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. "Potentially dangerous animal" does not include an animal taking action that was: d. directed toward a person or animal who was willfully trespassing, committing another ton, committing a crime, or attempting to commit a crime, on premises occupied by the animal's owner; e. provoked; or f. done to defend or protect itself or a human being within its immediate vicinity from an unjustified attack or assault. 11. "Public nuisance animal" means an animal that: a. is maintained in a manner that violates section 925.080(2); b. by virtue of number or types of animals maintained, is offensive or dangerous to the public health, safety or welfare; or c. has been the subject of a violation of this chapter more than two times in a 24-month period. 12. "Under restraint" regarding a dog means being: (a) at heel beside a person having custody of it and obedient to that person's command; (b) within a private motor vehicle of a person, owning, harboring or keeping the animal; or (c) controlled by a leash not exceeding six feet in length. 13. "Veterinary hospital" means a place for the treatment, hospitalization, surgery, care and boarding of animals and birds, under the direction of one or more licensed veterinarians. 14. "Wild animal" means any of the following: a. front-fanged venomous snakes, including the viperidae and elapidae families of snakes, such as rattlesnakes and cobras; b. snakes over 8 feet in length; c. reptiles that have the physical ability as an adult to cause substantial bodily injury as defined in Minn. Stat. ? 609.02, subd. 7a, to humans and/or domestic animals, such as python snakes and crocodilians; d. animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies, except domestic animals such as cows; e. mammals that as a breed are considered wild by nature because of breeding, history, character, habit, or disposition; and f mammals that have at least 25 percent of their heritage from mammals specified in subparagraph e, ab°ye. "Wild animal" specifically includes such animals as a wolf, fox, skunk, raccoon, mink, bobcat, deer, and monkey, but does not include a fish, bird, ferret, hamster or gerbil. (Amended by Ord. #2002-13, adopted May 20, 2002) 925.010. Enforcement. 2/24/2003 Page 3 of 15 The provisions of this chapter will be enforced by the chief of police, ~the health authority, and desi~mees, with the assistance of other ~personnel when appropriate. 925.015. Right of Entry. Authorized city personnel have the right to enter upon a premises at reasonable times for the purpose of discharging their duties imposed by this chapter when there is reasonable belief that a violation of this chapter has been committed. 925.020· Impounding Animals. 1. Authorized city personnel may seize and impound an animal found to be in violation of this chapter. These personnel may enter onto private property to seize and impound animals when: a. they have a reasonable and immediate concern for the animal's health, safety or welfare; b. they have a reasonable and immediate concern for the health and safety of human beings or other animals as a result of the animal's continued presence on the property; or c. they have reasonable cause to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred or is occurring and that seizure is necessary to prevent further violation, but only after a reasonable effort has been made to contact an occupant of the property. 2. A person must not interfere with authorized city personnel impounding an animal, nor refuse to surrender an animal to these personnel. 3. The animal owner is responsible for costs for the impounding and housing of an impounded animal. 925.025. Impounding Strays. 1. Authorized city personnel may seize and impound an animal found at large on public property or claimed to be a stray by the occupant of the premises upon which the animal is found. 2. An impounded stray animal displaying a need for medical care may be taken to a veterinarian for emergency treatment. The owner of the animal is responsible for payment of expenses incurred as a result of the veterinarian's treatment. (Amended by Ord. #2002-13, adopted May 20, 2002) 925.030. Impounding Facility. 1. The council will designate a place as an animal impounding facility for keeping animals that are impounded by the city. 2. Each month the impounding facility will give to the city a written report showing the animals impounded, the duration of the impoundment, and the method of disposal for each animal. 925.035. Redeeming Animals. Upon the impounding of a dog or other animal, the city must promptly notify the owner personally or by mail, addressed to the owner's last known address. Il'the owner is unknown, the city must post a written notice at the city hall and two other public places in the city describing the dog or other animal. The notice must state where the animal is impounded and that it can be redeemed within five business days after the date of the notice by payment of: a) the required impounding fee established in chapter 710 and b) the cost of boarding 2224/2003 Page 4 of 15 for each day the dog or other animal is confined. No dog may be released unless properly inoculated for rabies. The impounding facility may not release an animal until it has received authorization to do so from authorized city personnel. (Amended by Ord. #2000-14, adopted July 10, 2000) 925.040. Disposition of Animals. If an impounded animal is not redeemed within five business davs after the required notice, authorized city personnel may give the animal away or direct the impounding facility to dispose of the animal in a humane manner. 925.045. Rabies Vaccination Required. 1. A person who owns, harbors, or keeps a dog or cat over six months old within the city must have the dog or cat vaccinated by a licensed veterinarian with an anti-rabies vaccine that is currently effective. 2. A vaccination certificate is valid only for the dog or cat and owner to which it was issued. A person must not use a rabies vaccination certificate for a different dog or cat than the one for which it was issued. (Amended by Ord. #2002-13, adopted May 20, 2002; amended by Ord. #2000-14, adopted July 10, 2000) 925.050. [Repealed]. (Repealed by Ord. #2000-14, adopted July 10, 2000) 925.055. Tags. A person who owns, namors, or keeps a dog over six months old within the city must securely attach an identification tag or plate to the dog's collar so that it can be readily seen. The tag or plate must contain the name and home telephone number of the owner or other person who is keeping the dog. The identification tag or plate must be worn by the dog at all times when it is offthe owner's or keeper's property. (Amended by Ord. #2000-14, adopted July 10, 2000) 925.060. [Repealed]. (Repealed by Ord. #2000-14, adopted July 10, 2000) 925.065. Commercial Kennel Licenses and Multiple Animal Permits.--~ 1. A person who owns or operates a commercial kennel or a multiple animal location must obtain either a commercial kennel license or a multiple animal permit and comply with applicable requirements if the person owns, keeps, or allows the keeping of more than the following j number of animals over the age of six months on his or her premises: a. two dogs; or b. five cats; or c. five animals that consist of a combination of cats and dogs (but no more than two dogs). A commercial kennel license or a multiple animal permit may be used to exceed the maximum number of large farm animals alloWed by section 925.115 only under the circumstances cited in section 925.115(2). 2. An application for a commercial kennel license or multiple animal permit must be submitted to the police department accompanied by the fee established in section 710. For the initial application, the 2/24/2003 Page 5 of 15 applicant must also submit an acknowled~m'nent form signed by at least one 3fthe property owners of each parcel within 200 feet of the land where kennel will be established. The form must state that the applicant has notified the property owners of the application and that they may contact the city with any comments they might have within 15 days after receiving the notice. Ifa property owner refuses to sign the acknowledgment form, the applicant may sign and submit an affidavit to that effect. 3. A license or permit may not be issued until at least 15 days has expired after the last person was notified under subpar ~agraph 2 above. If an objection is lodged against the granting of the license or permit, at least two employees appointed by the city manager will review the application in addition to the employee normally assigned this responsibility. A license or permit may be issued after an inspection reveals that adequate safeguards are present to protect the surrounding neighborhood from nuisances and to ensure compliance with this chapter. A license or permit may not be issued if the location does not comply with the applicable health and maintenance standards set forth below. The license or permit may include conditions that authorized city personnel deem reasonably necessary to protect public health and safety and to protect people in neighboring property from unsanitaD, conditions, unreasonable noise and odors, and other unreasonable annoyances. Authorized city personnel may require the Iicense or permit holder to have each animal identified by an attached durable tag, embedded micro-chip, or other reasonable means. The license or permit may be reasonably modified by authorized city personnel if necessary to respond to changed circumstances. The modification will be effective 10 days after the mailing of written notice by certified mall to the holder. The holder may challenge the modification by requesting a hearing in accordance with city code section 700. 4. A Iicense or permit will be issued for a maximum of one year and will expire on May 31 of each year. A license or permit may be revoked because of a violation of this chapter, or another relevant law, ordinance or regulation. The procedure for revocation will be that specified in section 700.035. (Amended by Ord. #2002-13, adopted May 20, 2002; amended by Ord. #2001=6, adopted March 19, 2001) 925.070. Veterinary Hospital License. A veterinary hospital must not operate in the city without a license issued by the police department. The license fee is established in section 710. A license may be issued only after an inspection reveals that the hospital complies with the health and maintenance standards set forth below. A license will be valid for a maximum of one year and will expire on December 31 of each year. 925.075. Inspections. Authorized city personnel may go onto the premises of licensed kennels, permitted multiple animal locations, and veterinary hospitals at reasonable times to inspect for compliance with this chapter and other relevant laws and regulations. A violation of those laws not corrected within 10 days after notice will be grounds for revocation of the 2/24/2003 Page o of 15 license or permit. (Amended by Ord. #2002-13, adopted May 20, 2002) 925.080. Health and Maintenance Standards. 1. All animals - animal health standards. The owner of an animal kept in the city must comply with the following standards. a. An animal kept outdoors or in an unheated enclosure must be provided with adequate shelter and bedding to protect it from the sun, rain, snow, and temperatures below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. b. The shelter must include a moisture proof and windproof structure of suitable size to allow the animal to stand in an upright position and to lie down stretched out so that no part of its body need touch the sides of the structure. The structure must be made of durable material sufficient to allow retention of body heat with a solid floor raised at least two inches from the ground and an entrance covered by a flexible windproof material or self-closing swinging door. The structure must be provided with sufficient quantity of suitable bedding material consisting of hay, straw, cedar shavings, blankets or the equivalent to provide insulation and protection against cold and dampness and to promote retention of body heat. The structure must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair. c. In lieu of the requirements of paragraphs a and b, an animal may be provided with access to a barn with a sufficient quantity of loose hay or bedding and protection against cold and dampness. d./fan animal is confined by a chain, the chain must be so attached that it cannot become entangled with the chains of other animals or other objects. A chain must be of a size adequate to restrain the animal involved and must be attached to the animal by means of a well fitted collar. The collar must be large enough to allow free breathing but small enough to avoid being easily pulled over the animal's head. A chain must be at least three times the length of the animal as measured from the tip of his nose to the base of his tail. e. A female dog in season must be confined indoors or in a secure enclosure so that she will not be in contact, except for intentional breeding purposes, with another dog or create a nuisance by am'acting other animals who engage in continued barking, yelping or howling. f. An animal must be provided with sufficient food and water to meet adequate nutritional requirements. 2. All animals - maintenance standards. An owner or an animal kept in the city must comply with the standards below. Before commencing an action to enforce compliance with these standards, enforcement personnel must give an owner notice of a violation and a reasonable opportunity to comply. a. An owner must maintain an animal and the area where it is kept so that no odor that offends the senses of a reasonable person is detected, for more than one day, offthe property where the animal is kept. b. An owner must maintain the property where the animal is kept so that there is no erosion, and no drainage of water contaminated by the animal, onto adjacent properties or into wetlands. 2/24/2003 Page 7 of 15 c. The owner must manage the feces and other bodily wastes from the animal in a timely and sanitary manner that prevents health frisks and prevents odors that are prohibited under paragraph (a) above. 3. Commercial kennels/veterinary hospitals. In addition to the standards established under paragraph 1, commercial kennels and veterinary hospitals must comply with the following standards. a. Housing facilities must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair. Indoor housing facilities must be adequately ventilated and have ample light, either natural or artificial. b. An enclosure must be of sufficient size to allow each animal to turn around fully and to stand, sit and lie in a comfortable normal position. The floors of the enclosure must be constructed so as to prevent injury to the animal's legs and feet. c. The temperature for indoor housing facilities must not be allowed to fall below 50 degrees Fahrenheit for dogs not accustomed to lower temperatures. d. Disposal facilities must be provided to minimize vermin, infestation, odors and disease hazards. e. Adequate storage and refrigeration must be provided to protect food supplies against contamination and deterioration. f. The premises, cages, enclosures and housing facilities must be clean and disinfected as often as is necessary to maintain clean and sanitary conditions at all times. g. Animals must be fed at least once a day with clean, wholesome food, sufficient to meet the normal nutritional requirements for the animal's age, size and condition. h. Clean potable water must be made available to all animals at least twice daily for periods of not less than one hour. i. Feeding and water receptacles must be kept clean and sanitary at all times. j. Animals housed in the same primary enclosure must be maintained in compatible groups. Non-adult animals must not be housed in the same primary enclosure with adult animals other than their mothers. k. An animal exhibiting a vicious disposition must be housed separately. 1. Females in season must not be confined in the same enclosure with males except for breeding purposes. Animals used for breeding must be of compatible size and only one male and one female may be mated at one time in a single enclosure. m. Animals affected with clinical evidence of infections, contagious or communicable disease must be separated from other animals in a manner to minimize the chance of further infection. An effective program for the control of insects, ecto parasites and other pests must be established and maintained. 925.085. Prohibitions. 1. An owner must not cause or permit his/her dog to run at large within the city limits, including within a public park, except as otherwise allowed by this code. Being "at large" means being off`the property of the person owning, harboring or keeping the dog and not: (a) 2/24/2003 Page 8 of 13 at heel beside a person having custody of it and obedient to that person's command; Co) within a private motor vehicle of a person owning, harboring or keeping the animal; or (c) controlled by a leash not exceeding six feet in length. 2. An owner must not cause or permit his/her dog to be on a public beach or school grounds, even if under restraint, except for dogs that have been specially trained and certified to perform tasks to assist people, such as handicapped assistance, police canine duties, or search and rescue. 3. A person must not abandon an animal within the civy. 4. A person must not keep, own, harbor or otherwise possess a public nuisance animal, which is one that~ a. is maintained in a manner that violates section 925.080(2); b. by virtue of number or types of animals maintained, is offensive or dangerous to the public health, safety or welfare; or c. has been the subject of a violation of this chapter more than two times in a 24-month period. 5. A person must not own, keep, or have in his/her possession an animal that unreasonably causes annoyance or disturbance to another person by frequent howling, yelping, barking, or other kinds of noise. This paragraph may not be enforced unless the noise has continued for a 10-minute period and unless the person has been given notice of the level of noise deemed to be a violation and an opportunity to comply. 6. A person must not permit an animal under his/her care, custody or control to damage another person's lawn, garden or other property. 7. A person must not injure, harass, or interfere with a police canine in the lawful performance of its duties, or attempt, permit or cause the same. 8. An owner of an animal must not fail to restrain the animal from inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily injury on a person at any place or on a domestic animal off the owner's property, except in the circumstances specified in section 925.005(10), paragraphs d, e, and f. 9. A person, except police officers in the lawful performance of their duties using a police canine, must not cause or encourage an animal to engage in unprovoked attacks upon human beings or domestic animals. 10. A person must not own, possess, harbor, or train an animal for the purpose of fighting with other animals. (Amended by Ord. #2002-13, adopted May 20, 2002) 925.090. Confinement in Motor Vehicle. 1. A person must not cause or allow an animal to be placed or confined in a motor vehicle without adequate ventilation when the atmospheric temperature, humidity, and sun rays can be reasonably expected to cause suffering disability or death. Evidence that the animal is suffering from heat stress is prima facie evidence of a violation of this section. 2. This section does not prohibit the transportation of horses, cattle, sheep, poultry or other agricultural livestock in trailers or other vehicles designed and constructed for that purpose. 2/24/2003 Page 9 of 15 3. Authorized city personnel who find an animal in a motor vehicle in violation of this section may break and enter into the vehicle if ~necessary to remove the animal. Neither the personnel nor the city will be liable for vehicle damage that results. An animal removed must be taken immediately to the animal impounding facility to be evaluated by a licensed veterinarian. The personnel must leave within the vehicle a written notice giving their name and position and the address where the animal may be redeemed. The owner of the animal is responsible for all medical and housing expenses incurred. 925.095. Wild Animals. 1. A person must not keep, own, harbor or otherwise possess a wild animal within the city, except as provided in paragraph 2 below. A wild animal is any of the following: a. front-fanged venomous snakes, including the viperdae and elapidae families of snakes, such as rattlesnakes and cobras; b. snakes over 8 feet in length; c. reptiles that have the physical ability as an adult to cause substantial bodily injury as defined in Minn. Stat. ? 609.02, subd. 7a, to humans and/or domestic animals, such as python snakes and crocodilians; d. animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies, except domestic animals such as cows; e. mammals that as a breed are considered wild by nature because of breeding, history, character, habit, or disposition; and f. mammals that have at least 25 percent of their heritage from mammals specified in subparagraph l(e) above. "Wild animal" specifically includes such animals as a wolf, fox, skunk, raccoon, mink, bobcat, deer, and monkey, but does not include a fish, bird, ferret, hamster or gerbil. 2. Wild animals may be brought into the city for the purpose of entertainment, education or display only by the following: a. a zoo operated by a governmental agency or a tax-exempt, non-profit corporation; b. the department of natural resources; c. other similar public educational or charitable organization; d. a circus; or e. a city-licensed pet shop. An organization listed above may bring a wild animal or animals into the city under this paragraph only after obtaining a permit from authorized city personnel. A permit may be granted only if the applicant can and does comply with the standards contained in paragraph 3 below and pays the permit fee specified in section 710. No organization covered by this paragraph may have wild animals within the city on more than 7 days in a consecutive 12-month period, except that an organization listed above that has a wild animal within the city on the effective date of this section may continue to keep that animal as long as it lives if the organization obtains a permit from the city and complies with the standards specified in paragraph 3 below. 3. An organization that has obtained a permit under paragraph 2 2/24/2003 Page 10 of 1 $ above must comply with the following standards at all times that it possesses a wild animal within the city. a. A non-governmental o~anization must have liability insurance to cover potential personal injury or property damage caused by the animal(s), in an amount of at least $300,000 per person per occurrence. b. The animal(s) must be kept in a locked cage or other secure enclosure at all times when the public is allowed to be near them. c. The cage or enclosure must be constructed of sufficient materials so that a person, including a child, cannot put a finger, hand, or another portion of the body into the cage or enclosure so that the animal(s) could touch it. Alternatively, structural bamers may be used to keep the public away from the cage or enclosure. d. Only personnel with adequate training or experience in handling wild animals may have contact with the animal(s) while in the city. e. The animal(s) must be transported to the display location in the city in a secure enclosure sufficient to prohibit potential contact with humans or other animals, except the personnel identified under subparagraph (d) above. f. No sale of a wild animal(s) may occur, nor may orders for the sale of wild animals be taken. g. The display location must be inspected by authorized city personnel before the wild animal(s) may be brought into the city. h. Authorized city personnel must be allowed to periodically inspect the display location during reasonable hours while the animal(s) is/are in the city. i. Ifa wild animal bites a person, the animal must be forfeited immediately to authorized city personnel for rabies testing. (Amended by Ord. #2002-13, adopted May 20, 2002) 925.100. Rabies; Animal Bites. 1. A dog or animal displaying symptoms of being rabid may be seized at any place or time and will be confined in the city impounding facility at the expense of the owner, until found to be free from rabies. 2. Ifa dog or other animal appears to be diseased, vicious, dangerous, rabid or has been exposed to rabies, and the dog or other animal cannot be impounded without serious risk of personal injury, the dog or other animal may be killed, if reasonably necessary for the safety of a person or persons. 3. When a dog or other animal has bitten a person and the skin has been broken or the services of a doctor are required, the owner or custodian of the biting animal and the person bitten or his/her parent or guardian must report the incident to the Minnetonka police dePartment within 24 hours of the bite. The dog or other animal must be confined for a period of not less than l0 days in a veterinary hospital or on the owner's premises, as determined by the authorized city personnel. These personnel may refuse to permit confinement on the owner's premises if the animal has previously been found repeatedly at large or if the 2/24/2003 Page 11 of 15 animal does not have a currently effective rabies inoculation. If donfinement on the owner's premises is permitted, the animal may not be lowed offthe premises or in contact with people or other animals during the confinement period, except for medical purposes. If the owner fails to comply with these restrictions, authorized city personnel may enter onto the property, seize the ammal, and remove it to a veterinary hospital. The owner is responsible for all costs of confinement incurred under this section. As a condition of releasing a confined animal, authorized city personnel may require that the animal's owner take the animal for an examination by a veterinarian and may require the owner to follow any recommendations from the veterinarian regarding the animal's training or behavior. The authorized personnel must notify the owner of these requirements in writing. Failure to comply with a requirement is a violation of this code, punishable as a misdemeanor and/or as a civil violation. 925.105. Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Animals. 1. Dangerous animals. A person who owns, keeps, possesses, or acts as a custodian for a dangerous animal as defined by state law must comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. ?? 347.50 through 347.54. 2. Potentially dangerous animals..A person who owns, keeps, possesses, or acts as a custodian for a potentially dangerous animal must do the following: a. maintain the animal under restraint by use ora leash not exceeding six feet in length at all times when the animal is offthe owner's premises; and b. when the animal is on the owner's premises, confine the animal within a fenced enclosure sufficient to keep the animal from leaving the enclosure, or maintain the animal on a leash or chain not exceeding six feet in length. 3. Notice of determination. Upon a determination by authorized city personnel that an animal is either dangerous or potentially dangerous as defined by state law or this ordinance, the city must provide notice of this determination to the animal's owner by serving the owner personally or by registered mall. The notice must describe the animal deemed to be dangerous or potentially dangerous and must identify the person making the determination. The notice must inform the owner of the right to appeal the officer's determination within 10 days after receipt of the notice. Immediately upon receipt of the notice the owner must comply with the state law requirements for muzzling an animal designated to be dangerous and confining it in an enclosure, ffno timely appeal is received by the city, the owner of the animal must comply with the requirements in state law and/or this ordinance within a reasonable time established by authorized city personnel. 4. Hearing. If the owner timely appeals the determination that the animal is dangerous or potentially dangerous, a heating must be held within 15 days after the city receives the appeal. Pending the outcome of the appeal, the owner must comply with the state law requirements for muzzling an animal and confining it in an enclosure. The hearing wilI be held before a city hearing officer appointed under city code section 2/24/2003 Page 12 of 15 1310.035. The heating will be held in accordance with city, code section 1310.035(3). The hearing officer must make written findings of fact and reach a conclusion whether the animal is dangerous or potentially dangerous as defined by sate law or city ordinance. The findings and conclusions must be made within 10 working days after the hea~ing and must be served on the owner personally or by registered mail. The decision of the hearing officer is final but may be appealed by a writ of certiorari to the district court. If the heating officer upholds the determination made by authorized city personnel, the owner of the animal must comply with the requirements in sate law and/or this ordinance within a reasonable time established by authorized city personnel. 5. Stopping an attack. If authorized city personnel are witness to an attack by an animal upon a person or another animal, the personnel may take whatever means the personnel deems appropriate to bring the attack to an end and prevent further injury to the victim. 6. Notification of changes. The owner of an animal designated as dangerous or potentially dangerous must notify authorized city personnel in writing if the animal has died, is to be relocated from its current address, or is to be given or sold to another person. The notification must be given in writing at least 14 days before the change of address or ownership, or within 14 days after the animal's death. The notification must include the current owner's name and address, any relocation address, and the name and address of any new owner. 925.110. Forfeiture of Ownership Rights. 1. The ownership rights of a person owning the following types of animals may be forfeited to the city pursuant to the procedure in this section: a. a public nuisance animal; b. a wild animal; and c. a maltreated animal. In addition, the ownership rights of other animals owned by the same owner may be forfeited if he/she has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to properly care for or control the animal in order to prevent it from becoming a public nuisance animal or a maltreated animal. 2. Authorized city personnel must notify the owner or apparent owner of the animal sought to be forfeited that the city intends to forfeit his/her ownership rights. The notice must be served on the owner personally or by registered mall. The notice must be in writing and state the reasons why forfeiture is sought, including a summary of applicable incidents. The notice must sate that the owner has a right to request a hearing before a hearing officer appointed under city code section 1310.035 within 10 days after receiving the notice. A failure to request the heating will constitute an admission of the facts alleged in the notice, and the animal will be deemed forfeited to the city. 3. If the owner requests a hearing, the hearing will be held within 15 days after the city receives the appeal. The hearing will be held in accordance with city code section 1310.035(3). The hearing officer must make written findings of fact and reach a conclusion whether the allegations are mae and whether the animal will be forfeited to the 2/24/2003 · Page 13 of 15 city. The findings and conclusions must be made within 10 working days oafter the heating and must be served on the owner personally or by registered mall. The decision of the hearing officer is final but may be appealed by a writ of certiorari to the district court. 4. After receiving the forfeiture notice and during the forfeiture proceedings, the owner must keep the subject animal confined within his/her home or within a secure covered enclosure. If the owner fails to do so, or if there is an immediate threat to public health or safety or to the animal's health or safety, authorized city personnel may immediately impound the animal and keep it at the impound facility until a forfeiture determination has been made. 5. If the animal is deemed or ordered forfeited, the owner must immediately give the animal to authorized city personnel, and a failure or refusal to do so is a misdemeanor. Authorized city personnel may use reasonable force and go onto private property to take the animal into custody. 6. Authorized city personnel will determine on a ease by case basis whether forfeited animals may be destroyed or given to new owners who will adequately care for and control the animal. 925.115. Farm Animals. 1. A person who keeps or allows the keeping ora farm animal outside of the principal structure on property in the city must comply with the following: a. The parcel of property where alarge farm animal is kept must be at least one acre in size, not counting wetlands and undeveloped land not usable for pasture. The parcel of property where a small farm animal is kept may be smaller than one-half acre, but the number of small farm animals allowed must be reduced proportionally, rounded down to the nearest whole number. When determining the size of the property under this paragraph, and paragraph b below, only one parcel of land can be included. Parcels of land cannot be combined to meet the minimum area unless those parcels are already combined under one property identification number. b. The maximum number of farm animals allowed are: category number large farm animals over six months in age one per acre small farm animals over six months, except fowl five per half acre small farm animals that are fowl of any age five per half acre A person may exceed the maximum numbers of small farm animals only by obtaining and complying with a multiple animal permit. c. A farm animal must not be kept or maintained on a regular basis on the front yard of the property, as defined by the zoning ordinance. d. A farm animal that is kept outside must be provided a shelter structure of appropriate size, that is accessible to the animal at all times. The shelter structure may not be located closer to the boundary line of adjacent occupied property than it is to the pfineipai structure on the animal owner's property, but not less than 10 feet. 2/24/2003 Page 14 of 13 e. The farm animal must be contained on the property by the use of a fence or other appropriate device. f Crowing roosters are not allowed if the crowing can be heard off the property, of the owner. g. A farm animal must not be kept on residentially-zoned property if it is being used as part of a commercial purpose, whether or not the commercial use occurs on the residentially-zoned property. This provision does not apply to a property that is being used for agricultural purposes and that qualifies for the agricultural property tax classification established in Minn. ghat. ? 273.11. h. The ground or floor of the area where a farm animal is kept must be covered with vegetation, concrete, or other surface approved by the Minnetonka health authority, so that it can be, and is, sufficiently maintained to adequately dissipate offensive odors, in compliance with section 925.080(2)(a)and (c). 2. The following provisions apply to property in the city where a farm animal was kept outside the principal structure on the effective date of this ordinance (June 5, 1999) and was kept there regularly from the date of ordinance introduction (July 27, 1998) until that date. Such property is called a "pre-existing property". a. The owner of pm-existing property who does not comply with the standards in paragraph l(a) - (e), may continue in that manner only by obtaining a multiple animal permit and complying with the required conditions, except as otherwise provided below. The multiple animal permit will specify the maximum number of animals allowed based on the number and size of animals kept when this ordinance was introduced. The owner of pre-existing property has the burden of establishing the number of animals kept at that time. Any new shelter or fence must comply with the zoning ordinance standards. b. In an action seeking enforcement of the maintenance standards in section 925.080(2), the owner of pre-existing property may provide as an affirmative defense that he/she is implementing the reasonable management practices that have been required and approved by the health authority. c. The owner of pre-existing property may replace animals that die or are otherwise removed from the property, up to the maximum number allowed by the permit, as long as there has been no finding or admission of a violation of city ordinances relating to the keeping of the animals. d. The pre-existing rights may continue only as long as the pre-existing property is not reduced in size and as long as there has been no finding or admission of a violation of city ordinances relating to the keeping of the animals. e. The permit and the pre-existing rights authorized above are personal to the owner of the pre-existing property and cannot be transferred to anyone else. (Amended by Ord. #2002-13, adopted May 20, 2002) 925.120. Penalty. A violation of section 925.020(2), section 925.080, section 925.085(7), (8), (9), and (10), section 925.090, section 925.095, and section 2/24/2003 Page 15 of 15 925.105(1) and (2) is a misdemeanor. Unless otherwise desi~maated, a Oviolation of any other provision in this chapter is a petty misdemeanor. However, a violation preceded by two or more violations of a of the chapters petty misdemeanor provisions within 12 months of the present violation is a misdemeanor. 2./24/2003 Page I of 1 Mike Dan'ow From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "psf" < psfleming{~attbi.com> 'Mike Darrow" <rndarrow@nacplanning.com> <abdxius~nacplanning.com> Sunday, February 23, 2003 7:12 AM Re: Dog Kennel Draft Ordinance Gentlemen, I presented the recommendations to my kennel manager who has investigated several kennels and is familiar with American Boarding Kennels (ABK) recommendations. Comments: We agree that the reduction of 100 sq ff to 75 sq ff per dog is more reasonable. Of course, so much depends on how that space is allotted. We think one handler/staff person per 10 dogs is reasonable and adding one per 10 dogs, as recommended, is excessive. That makes 3 people for 10 dogs which is unnecessary if animals are exercised in a thoughtful and efficient (i.e. not all the dogs are exercised at the same time. You use shifts for exercise). Adding an extra person who won~ be busy a lot of the time adds financial burden onto the kenneVday care center. Ventilation: I understood the exchange rate of twice an hour. I don't understand the new recommended change: "Thc 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." Does this mean the same thing? I don~ see anything per hour or time measurement. ABK recommends at least 6-8 exchanges of air per hour for kennels. That's our feedback, for what it's worth. Please email or call if you have further questions. Pierce Fleming Pl.vmouth Heights Pet Hospital -- Original Message -- From: Mike Darrow To: Psfieming~_attbi.com; abrixius(-~_.nacoiannin.q.com Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:44 AM Subject: Dog Kennel Draft Ordinance Dr. Fleming, Alan Bdxius asked me to e-mail you the attached draft ordinance / memo for your review. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mike Darrow, Planner Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555 St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 2/24/2003 EXHIBIT C 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 A venue 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 I 1-3-03 VI. Notification - A public hearing notice was published in the official newspaper regarding this zoning ordinance 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. Actinq 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) "Animal Kennels and Day Cam." 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 Doq 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 f'mish 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 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)0.) 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 §I. 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 ~lephone: ~.s~5.gea8 Far..nimile- 852 5 · · 95.8837 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 care within the City of New Hop. e, the City has directed NAC to prepare an animal kennel ordinance that would .... n~nnem, however, section 7.4 of the · pcens[ng criteria for doo kenneh, ,,,.,~ ,.~, ..,..-,,--- -.-.-. . City Code outlines a ...... . ,'., ,..-,. o,,mt=r~ I DIS co ' would be allowed only within the CB n,.,,,,,,.,, ,...;,.. ;,.._.. .... ?. ?t!pulates that these uses is recommended that we rem,',,,-. ,~-~-' ..-._.,,_,.,,_,,,._x_,~u=,r,=s, u;strlct..Upon staff review, it them in the indus ' · · "" "''~=_.''=== ~rom our commercial districts and lace trial districts whom the · P ........ y may operate In a mom compatible fashlo wrm aajoming lano uses. ' ' n The attached ordinance proposes to amencl the I District to allow ' ceres as a conditional uae '"'-ri'n;* "---'~- ........ ammai kennels/dog ..... . r-- ,~. ~p~=r. arlc conaRions tile! are includ conomonal use permR are i,.,,=,,,.~., ....,__.: .... ed as part of the number of does size of ~,::";'~: -"'"-~-u., ~lne me capacity of the facility as far as the separate from other other ken--' ......... ~ nts for a sick mom that is · ~,m amos, Wall/Inisnas and fie · · _w_a?e materials do not penetrate thm,,,.,~. ,~. .... .: .... ,or. sea. hng to Insure that ominance also re--~.~o ~.-,, ..,, --,:- ;.'_?~" ..,= .w-,~, ]mo aajommg tenant bays The and organisms an;';'re'--~r~;;;"v .~?_~?__w~_~_e. me s~r~., i,n a man,er that eliminates odor P P x ~,~p.~.a or on a aaily DaSiS !n ,d~.iti.,o? to the conditional use permit, the applicants will be re Kennel license per ~ectio ?J .~ .,_ ...... quired to receive a uapartmentregulations Th:.~'..~._~'__~~_ _~q/_.~ocle, m...u, st ~.mply with all Health that the property owner'~.-,, -'~-~' mWu!:~mom orme ..conditional use permit is stip atas the site is ,',,------' ....... ' ,,:,-, ,trope;Ion. ;his gives me Cih, s"'-' ............. a ...... -,, up pHgr [o me Cleparture of a use. In addition to amending the Zoning Ordinance, a number of changes are required to the City Code pertaining to the licensing of dog kennels and cat shelters. We have attached a copy of the City Code that licenses clog 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, Inclustrial District. Section 7-4.A.2 would change the reference to CB, Community Business to I, Inclustrial 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: 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? ces the temperature requirement in 4.205(15)(d) prohibit opening the doors of · building on a warm summer ciay (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) ~ NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. · ~'~ Telel~hone: 952.595.9(~36 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 i:)lanners~'E~'nacDlanning.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 iclentify 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. 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 ./ust 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 friend/y 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 otherwise 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: Date: Subject: Dan Donahue, Kirk McDonald, Doug Sandstad, Chuck Tatro, Tom Mahan, Animal Control Officer October 16, 2002 Proposed dog daycare facility Steve Sondrell 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 reseamh 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 parks," 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. CITY OF N~t/HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 7, 2003 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALLTO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof;, Chairman Landy celled the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL CONSENT BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING PC02-23 Item 4.1 Present: Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Svendsen Absent: Oelkers Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Pamela Sylvaster, Recording Secretal¥ There was no Consent Business on the agenda. Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, An Ordinance Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care Facilities as Conditional Uses in the I Zoning District, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated that staff originally had recommended that this issue be tabled due to the fact that the applicant for the CUP had issues with the ordinance. Late this aftemoon, the applicant delivered a letter withdrawing the CUP application. Staff recommends that the Commission consider the ordinance at this meeting. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed this issue in December and was recommending approval. The applicant may look at another building in the City in the future and does support this use in an I Zoning District. McDonald explained that the petitioner had opened a dog day care in the 8801 East Research Center Road building this summer and was shut down by the Animal Conl]-ol Officer and General Inspector because the use was not allowed in the I District. Staff informed them lhat the use was allowed in the CB, Community Business District. When the applicant submitted plans three months later for the Post Haste Shopping Center, staff felt this use would not be a good match due to the fact that it would be located adjacent to a day care center and a restaurant. Staff asked the City Council to impose a moratorium to allow staff and the Planning Commission ample time to study the issue and make recommendations. After several meetings on a staff/consultant level, a draft ordinance was written and presented to the Codes & Standards Committee for review. Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant. indicated that this issue had gone through a number review processes and the ordinance had been shared with the architect that was working with the subject property. The architect raised a number of additional questions. The performance standards in the ordinance were recommended by the city's Animal Control Officer, including allowing 100 square feet per dog. The Animal Control Offcer also raised issues with regard to odors, ways to maintain a sanitary condition within the building, air circulation/ventilation, and cleanup. Extensive research was completed prior to writing ~ draft ordinance, not only by the Animal Control Officer, but also by the consultants to validate the performance standards as Proposed. Brixius stated that subsection (a) controls the size of the facility, and limits the facility to a maximum of 30 dogs. A minimum of 100 square feet per dog, excluding office and storage area, must be contained in the building. The fac!l/ty must provide on~ cage or air kennel per dog. The pro~ect architect mmntained ti'mt the Animal Humane Society was using a smaller floor spa¢ -' per dog ratio, 25-35 square feet as a comparison. Research indicated that. based on the statutes for dog kennels and keeping of doge/ca~s, regulations set up by the Minnesota Department of Agnculture for Dogs and Cats Best Management Practices, it appeared that the floor space ratio was based on confinement areas for dogs, such as cages or kennels for separating individual dogs, and was based on a specific formula for confinement not overall floor space. The 100 square feet per dog included any confinement space, plus run areas, plus other ancillary space necessary for the maintenance of these animals. The square footage requirement also allows the City some control on the number of dogs at any given facility. The second element the architect raised issue with the requirement of one cage or air kennel per animal The statutes do allow for the intermixing of dogs in these confinement spaces, provided that they are compatible breeds and temperament. The Planning Commission should discuss this requirement to determine if it could be less resthctive. Item (b) provides for one handler/staff person per ten dogs, per the Animal Control Officer's recommendation. Item (c) provides 100 square feet per dog in the outside exercise area that would occupy that area at any one time. The outdoor exercise area must be fenced, have a pervious surface, and be cleaned regularly. A big concern was that someone might just want to fence part of the parking area and utilize that as the outdoor dog run. Staff was concerned with interrupting the parking and c/rcuiation area with regard to traffic control and fire access to the building, as we/I as sanitation and cleanup, and how the area would be maintained. Public Works expressed concern with drainage and the possibility of contaminants draining into the storm water ponds if the dog run would be allowed on a portion of the parking lot. The pervious surface would allow for percolation of water into the ground and day care staff would be responsible for picking up the solid waste. Item (d) was one of the most onerous conditions inserted into the ordinance. The ventilation system must be capable of exchanging internal air at a rate of 1.00 cfm/square foot of floor space. This' was identified by the building inspectors and a mechanical contractor, who felt that an even higher exchange rate would be appropriate. The ventilation system must be completely separate and independent of other tenant space within the building. The City does not want odors to Permeate other tenant bays. The temperature control is stipulated by state statutes and the 60-80 degree range was taken from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture Best Management Practices. Item (e) provides for sufficiently sized room/cage separate from the kennel areas to separate sick or injured animals from healthy animals. Item (0 deals again with sanitation issues, such es wall finish materials below 48 inches in height, floor finishes, liquid-tight curbing to be installed along shared Walls for sanitary cordinemant of water wash-clown cleaning. A concern of staff was that the existing kennel ordinance only allowed kennels in the COmmercial business disthct. The potential odor and seepage from this use would not be appropriate adjacent to other commercial businesses. Item (g) deals with animal wastes which should be cleaned up immediately, kept in an enciosed container sufficient to e/iminate odors, and disposed of da~. Planning Commission Meeting 2 January ?, 2003 Item (h) requires the business to obtain a kennel license. Item (i) states that the property owner shall provide the City with at least 14 days notice of the animal kennel/day care's intention to vacate the premises and to allow the City ample time to inspect the premises. Item O) provides for proper lighting of the building. Brixius stated that these items had been shared with the applicant. After the Design & Review meeting, the applicant was asked to provide his contact at the Animal Humane Society so that person ancl the city's Animal Control Officer could discuss the square footage re(~uirement; however, that information was never received. Commissioner Svendsen indicated that at the Design & Review meeting the Committee understood the 100 square feet in Item (a) was inclusive of the exterior dog run. For item (b) he suggested that the ordinance recluire a minimum of two staff/handlers. Regarding item (d), he explained that the 2000 International Mechanical Code stated that autopsy rooms only require '~ cfm per square foot. A cluestion was raised whether the ordinance included veterinary clinics and boarding of dogs and how the ventilation was regulated for those uses. Brixius replied that this ordinance included boarding of dogs, and that vetennary clinics were allowed in the Residential-Business District. He also stated that additional services for dog care, such as grooming, might be done in conjunction with dog day care. Those services could be ancillary to the day care use as long as they did not consume any of the space requirements associated with the keeping of animals. Specifically, this ordinance does not address boarding of animals at vetennary clinics. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, stated dog kennels were regulated under Chapter 7, licensing, of the City Code, but Chapter 7 did not apply to vet clinics. For clarification, an animal at the vet clinic for several days for a medical situation was not the same as keeping an animal for an owner who was out of town for a few days. Brauch indicated that if the City allowed a dog day care use, then the ordinance should be structured so that the business would be profitable. Svendsan pointed out that the Mechanical Code requirements would need to be met. Brixius indicated that staff looked at what the Best Management Practices were that would be associated with good care of the animals. The primary concern was for the businesses adjacent to the dog day care use and that they would not be negatively impacted. Brixius added that if the Commission wanted to reduce the square footage per dog, the number of handlers, etc. that could be accomplished, but not the features that affected other tenants in a multi-tenant building. Svendsan questioned whether there should be a specific amount of distance to a food establishment. Brixius responded that restaurants ara allowed in an industrial district, but the dog day care uses. would likely be located in industrial buildings. Svendsen initiated discussion on the Proper district for vet clinics, pet stores, and the ancillary uses. It was pointed out that the draft ordinance would not allow a vet clinic to board a dog unless the vet clinic was located in an indusl~-ial district. Sondrall suggested that the day care use could be a conditional use in the R-O and R-B Districts, with a stricter limitation on the number of dogs. Planning Commission Meeting Barrick initiated discussion on pet shops and the fact that animals were kept overnight. Brixius noted that this was a retail use and the animals ware owned by the shop keeper, ff pet shops were to be considered the same as a dog kennel, than pet shops would need to be located in an Industrial Zoning 3 January 7, 2003 MOTION Item 4.1 PC02.26 Item 4.2 Planning Commission Mseting Voting in favor:. Voting against: Absent: Motion Pase~l. District. This ordinanos m. erely deals with dogs. not all the other pets tyPiCally found in a pet store. McDonald interjected that many good points were offered throu~- lis discussion, and that the moratorium was in effect until ADril 30. He recommended that this ordinance be tabled and studied furtr~er including issues such as pet shops, the licensing ordinance, veterinary clinics, boarding of clogs, and anci/iery uses. A more comprehensive report could be develol~.,~:l and Presented to the Coles & Standards Committee. Barrick suggested that other citias' ordinances be reviewed es well. Brixius added that other cff~es al/ow boarding at veterinary ciinics, and stated he felt that would be appropriate as long as the boarding was ancillary to the vet cJinic. A suggestion was made to utilize the Minnesota Department of Agriculture regulations rather than rewriting al/those regulations into the New Hope Code. Sondra/I explained that it was ltte policy of Itte city cocle and staff to have a set of ordinances that were specific and so staff did not need to refer to other locations for regulations. It was also helpful for staff to enforce the regulations if they were all found in one place that WOuld be convenient for staff and the applicant to analyze. Also, staff would need to be continually reviewing the regulations of some other agency to/nsure that those regulations were not changing detrimentally to what the City may want to see. Sondrall stressed that through the conditional use permit, the City tried to eliminate any discretion on the part of the governing body in making a determination whether the conditions of the CUP were being complied with or not. A .q.uestion was raised regarding ancillary services at the dog day care facility. Bnxlus noted that accessory care services could be included in the ordinance, such as grooming and training, Providing that the services did not reduce the floor area recluirement for active play. Brauch indicated that from a business standpoint, the anciliery services COuld be as important as the Primary business. There being no one in the audience to address the Commission the public hearing was ciosed. Motion by Commissioner Svenclsen, seconded by Commissioner O'Brian, to close the public hearing. Ail in favor. Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Hemken, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to table Planning Case 02-23, Ordinance 03-02, An Ordinance Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care Facilities as Conditional uses in the I Zoning District, City of New Hope, Petitioners. Anderson, Barrick, Brauch, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Svendsen None Oelkers Chairman Landy inlroduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow a DOg Day Care Facility in an Industrial Dislzict, 8835 East Research Center Road, New Hope Properties Limited Partnership and Judy Jo Paskiewicz, Petitioners. o uog oay care facility. 4 January 7, 2003 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 04-14-03 Ordinances & Resolutions Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By: ORDINANCE NO. 03-07, AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING MORATORIUM ON DOG KENNEL AND CAT SHELTER LICENSES IN THE CITY REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the enclosed ordinance, which extends the moratorium on dog kennel and cat shelter licenses within the City of New Hope for an additional two months (until June 30. 2003). POLICY/PAST PRACTICF 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, adult entertainment uses, and a study on thrift stores. Occasionally, the moratoriums are extended in order to allow more time for study or to allow for the adoption of new regulations. BACKGROUND At the October 14, 2002, City Council meeting, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 02-12, An Interim Ordinance Establishing a Temporary Prohibition on All Dog Kennel and Cat Shelter Licenses in the City. The ordinance was adopted to provide time to study the issues related to commercial animal day care operations and to determine what zoning districts were appropriate for that use. The moratorium is currently effective until April 30, 2003. The Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning Commission and other appropriate city staff and consultants have studied this issue over the last several months. Initial recommendations were presented to the full Planning Commission in January, however, the Commission referred the matter back to the subcommittee for further study. The Codes & Standards Committee studied the issue further, revised the original recommendations to address some of the Commission's concerns, and will be presenting the recommendations to the full Planning Commission at its May 6 meeting. It is anticipated that the recommendations will be presented to the City Council on May 12. If the recommendations are adopted at that time,____staff will be recommending that the moratorium be lifted. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:rfa/planning/ordinances/Q.clog kennel extension Request for Action Page 2 04-14-03 The intent of this ordinance extending the moratorium is simply to keep the moratorium in effect until t,,e time that the new regulations are approved by the City Council. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. ATrACHMENTS · Ordinance No. 03-07 Extending Moratorium · 3/12/02 City Attorney Correspondence · Ordinance No. 02-12 Establishing Moratorium · 10/1/02 City Attomey Correspondence ORDINANCE NO. 0~-07 AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING MORATORIUM ON DOG KENNEL AND CAT SHF. I.TER LICENSES IN THE CITY The Ci~ Coungii of th~ City of New Hope ordaim: Section 1. Section 1-50) "Tem0orar~ Prohibition of Dog Kennel ~nd Cai Shelmr IAcenses~ of the New Hope City Code is hereby ~raded W read as follows: Se.~on 1-$0). Temporary Prohibition of Dol~ K~-el =.rl C_s~_ .~hel~.r IAcense~. Pm-suani to Minn, Stat. Section 462.355, Subd. 4 a total Ci~-widr pwhibi~on /s hereby kn.nosed until ~une 30, 2003 on the application for sna issuan~ of a dog kcn_r!el or cat shd~cr liccmc under Chatner 8 of ~his Code or for any building and occupancy permits unck-r ChalX~ 3 of ~ Code, t~xr nh=ngeS, vari=nees, coIIdifiollal llse p~l'lllils alld rezoninE reqilesls 1311der Chap~ 4 of this Cod~ and subdivision r~ques~ under Chapter 13 of ~hi.~ Cod~ for any c. ommicfion, use, developm~t or subdivision of all resid~i~, ¢~ial and indusuial zoned properties as a dog kennel or cat shelmr in the City of New hope. Sectioll 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upcra its passage .nd Dat~lfll~!4th, dayof, . April ,2003. W. Peier Enck, Mayor Al~es~: Valcrie Leom, Ciiy Cl~rk (Published in ~hc New Hope-Goldem Valley Sun-Post tim 2OO3 0 day of DOUGLAS J. D~Ej(~ G~ A. NORTO~ ~rtrvEN A. WILLI~ C. SI'RAn': JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys ,,It Law 852~ Eot~m~OOK CRO~S~tG. ~. 201 BROO~ F~ M~A 5~3-1968 TELEPHO~ (763)4~81 ] · TE~.EF~ (763) 493-5193 ~Jnil iaw~ ensen~ondrnll.com March 12, 2003 VIA FACSIMn,~, TO: (763) 531o'136 AND BY REGULAR U.~. M_An, Kirk McDonald Community Development Director Civ~ of New Hope ~401 Xylon Aveoue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Ordinance Extending Moratorium on Dog Kem~ and Cat ,~h,,It~r Lieemes inthe City Our ~ No.: 99.8030"/ Please find m~closed for consideration at a ~ Council meeting proposed Ordinance No. 03..07, Bxteudl.g ~he Moratorium on Dog Ke~uel and Ca~ Shelter Licenses in the City. As wc discussed, this moratorium is schcdtded m expire on April 30, 2003. Thc cnclosed Or,'fimnce would extend that date until June 30, 2003. Contact me if you have any quc~tions or ccnnmems regarding the enclosed Ordinn,,ee. Very rally yours, St~e,n A. Sondrall, City Attorney, C~ty of New Hope JSNSSN & SO~rDRAI, I,, P.A. Enclosure Val~rie ~ (w/~.) ORDINANCE NO. 02-12 AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ESTABLISIHNG A TEMPORARY PROI41RITION 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 Keno~! an_d Cat Shelte, Licenses" of the New Hope City Code is h¢/eby added to read as follows: Section 1.169. "Temporary Prohibition of Dog i~enn~l and Cat Sheltei Liceases". i .... _._____ Pursuant to M nn. Stat. · .... ____ Section 462.355, Subd. 4. a total wine prohibition is herebv imn,~sed ,..m ....a, ,,, ....... _ . _ .~ r- -,,ua ~'~y,u .J~, ,~Vtl.9 OH tile a Ii ' for and Issuance of a do k . pp cation .-._ .~ . . _ .g... ennei .or cat shelter license under Chapter 8 of tins cone or ;or any t)unamg ann occupancy n,,rmlts und-- ,-,t. ,~ ~,~ -,,u=r t~napter ,~ of this Code and subdivision requests under Chapter 13 of this Code for any construction, use, development or subdivision of all residential, commercial and industrial zoned properties as a dog kennel or cat shelter 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 Enek, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the 2O02.) _ day of STEVEN A. SOND~LL WII.I I~ ~ ~TRAIT: ~] AC~ A. W~D~ OF COUNSEL LORENS Q. BRYNF..STAD JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys/it Law ~52~ El)IN'BROOK CRO$$1NC CE. 201 BROOKLYN ])ARK. ]~]iNNESOTA 55443-1968 TELEPHONE (763) 424-881 ] · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mnil inw@jensen-sondrall.com October 1, 2002 VIA FACSIMILE TO (763) $31'$136 AND BY REGULAR U.S. MAn. 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 Re,,g Pro~e~y Law ~ahfi~xl ADR Neutral Please fmc enclosed for consideration at the October 14, 2002 Council meeting, proposed Ordinance No. 02-12, An Interim Ordinance Establishing a Temporary Prohibition on ~Ill Dog Kennel and Cat Shelter Licenses in the City. This 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 zoning districts and land use controls and regulations for animal daycare centers as well as kennels and cat shelters. Please contact me ff you have any questions or comments regarding the enclosed Ordinance for consideration at the next Council meeting. y yours, Steven A. Sondrall JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Enclosure cc: Valerie I,cone (w/cnc.) Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director April 25, 2003 Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on Council/EDA/HRA actions on Community Development related issues or other city projects. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. April 14 Council/EDA MeetinRs - At the April 24 Council/EDA meetings, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: · PC01-01, Resolution Authorizinq Release of Financial Guarantee for SpectraSite Communications Tower at 3401 Nevada Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #685, Resolution Awardinq Contract for Landscapin.q at 7105 62nd Avenue to Fair's Nursery for the Low Quote Amount of $7,116: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #741, Motion to Proceed with a Written Offer to Purchase the Property at 5506 Winnetka Avenue at the Property Owner's Requested Price of $222,000: Authorization to proceed with purchase, see attached Council request. · Discussion Re.qardinR Potential Acquisition of 7115 62nd Avenue and Consideration of a Motion to Obtain an Appraisal of the Property: Council determined to not pursue this property. · Project #734, Motion to Proceed with a Written Offer to Purchase the Property at 4317 Nevada Avenue at the Property Owner's Requested Price of $83,000: Authorization to proceed with purchase, see attached Council request. · Project #743, Resolution Callinq for a Public Hearin.q to Approve Sale of City Property at 9200 49th Avenue to Plymouth Heiqhts Pet Hospital: Approved, see attached Council request. · Ordinance #03-07, An Ordinance Extendinq Moratorium on Doq Kennel and Cat Shelter Licenses in the City: Adopted, moratorium extended until June 30, 2003, see attached Council request. April 28 Council/EDA Meetinq - At the April 28 Council/EDA meetings, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: · Project #734, Resolution Approvin.q Purchase A.qreement for 4317 Nevada Avenum Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #741, Resolution Approvin.q Purchase Aqreement for 5506 Winnetka Avenum Approved, see attached Council request. 10. Attachments: · Project #743, Resolution Approving Purchase Aqreement with Plymouth Heiqhts Pet Hospital for Sale of 9200 49thAvenu;: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #729, Resolution Authorizing an Exclusive Neqotiation Period Between the New Hope EDA and the Ryland Group, Inc. for the Winnetka Avenue Area: Approved, see attached EDA request. Codes & Standards Committee - The Codes & Standards Committee met on April 8 to finish discussions on the dog kennel and transit shelter ordinances. Design & Review Committee - The Design & Review Committee met in April to review plans for the residential variances and the Woodbridge Senior Cooperative building. The deadline for the June Planning Commission meeting is May 9 and staff expects a CUP request for outside storage for Automotive Concepts, redevelopment plans for the Sinclair station on Medicine Lake Road, and plans for Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital. Committee members will be notified regarding the status of the meeting. Future Applications - Future applications or businesses that staff is currently working with include: · St. Joseph's Catholic Church (sale of land/plat for residential development) · 42"d & Quebec redeveloping future: Culvers Restaurant and professional offices · 8501 54th Avenue industrial subdivision request and new construction · Collisys - PUD amendment to allow second building on site City Center Task Force Update - The task force will be meeting on May 15. Minutes from the April bus tour are attached. Livable Communities Study - The Council selected preferred developers for the East Winnetka, Golf Course and Franks sites and staff is currently coordinating with the developers on revised plans. Once revised plans are received, they will be presented to the City Council and, if acceptable, a detailed financial analysis will be completed in preparation for submitting a development grant application to the Metropolitan Council this summer. Thrift Store Study - The City Council considered the recommendations from the Planning Commission on the thrift store study at its March 17 work session and agreed with the recommendations to develop regulations to license these types of businesses. Staff will be drafting regulations in the next month and present to the Council for consideration/adoption so that they can be implemented before the moratorium is lifted. The moratorium is currently in effect until June 30, 2003. Project Bulletins - Attached is the project bulletin regarding 36th Avenue Infrastructure and Hidden Valley Park Improvements. If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff. 3401 Nevada tower site 7105 62°d Avenue landscaping contract 5506 Winnetka Avenue 7115 62nd Avenue 4317 Nevada Avenue 9200 49th Avenue Dog Kennel & Cat Shelter moratorium extension 4317 Nevada Avenue purchase agreement 5506 Winnetka Avenue purchase agreement 9200 49th Avenue purchase agreement Exclusive negotiation agreement with Ryland Group Inc. City Center Task Force minutes Project Bulletin COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 04-14--03 Consent Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE FOR SPECTRASlTE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 3401 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH (PLANNING CASE 01-01 ) REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution releasing the financial guarantee for the SpectraSite communications tower constructed at 3401 Nevada Avenue North (Planning Case 01-01). The Building Official has confirmed that all improvements associated with the project have been completed. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE It is the policy and past practice of the City to require a financial guarantee for specific site improvements/ amenities to insure that improvements are completed and to release the financial guarantee when the ~mprovements have been completed. BACKGROUND At the March 12, 2001, City Council meeting, the Council approved a conditional use permit for the construction of a 100-foot monopole and equipment building at 3401 Nevada Avenue North (Planning Case 01-01). The conditions of approval included landscaping, fencing, no outdoor storage and that a "responsible party" contact information sign be posted at the site. A financial guarantee in the amount of $6,000 was posted to insure that all improvements were completed. The financial guarantee expires on May 9, 2003, and staff recently inspected the site to determine if all the improvements had been completed. The Building Official has confirmed that all improvements have been completed and staff is recommending the release of the security. The enclosed resolution approves the release of the financial guarantee and staff recommends approval of the resolution. ' A'I-i'ACHMENTS · Resolution · Bond Release Form MOTION BY SECOND BY 'TO: I:rfa/101anning/planning/Q&R release guarantee COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 4-14-03 Consent Item No. By: Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist By: RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPING AT 7105 62"~ AVENUE NORTH TO FAIR'S NURSERY IN THE LOW-QUOTE AMOUNT OF $7,116 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 685) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting Council consideration of a resolution awarding a contract for landscaping at 7105 62"~ Avenue North (Accessible/Adaptable twinhome) to Fair's Nursery in the Iow-quote amount of $7,116. POLICY/PAST PRACTICF For projects where quotes are solicited, staff normally recommends awarding a contract to the firm who submits the lowest responsible quote. BACKGROUND On September 23, 2003, the Council approved a landscaping plan for the accessible/adaptable twinhome project at 7105 62nd Avenue North and authorized staff to seek quotes to complete the landscaping. Also, at that meeting, the Council awarded a construction contract for this project to the Iow-bidder, BCB Construction Inc. in the amount of $343,652. Construction of the twinhome is near completion. Staff solicited quotes from fourteen (14) landscaping firms for the project. The following two (2) quotes were received: Contractor Quote · Fair's Nursery $7,116.00 · Wrobleski's Landscaping $8,558.50 On August 14, 2000, the City purchased 7105 62nd Avenue North from a willing seller for $103,000. The onginal 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). MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page Tom Schuster, City Forester, developed the attached landscape plan, specifications and cost estimate. Nme ;ting trees on the site will be saved and are incorporated into the landscape plan, three (3) Elms on the side of the property and additional trees to the south and north. The landscaping plan will include the following; two (2) Redmond Lindens on the northwest corner of the site, two (2) River Birch - one of the northwest corner of the site and northeast corner of the site, one (1) Black Hills Spruce on the northwest corner of the site, four (4) Taunton Yews, two against the east side of the north unit and two along the north side of the north unit, one (1) Tinkerbelle Tree Lilac at the rear of the north unit, eleven (11) Common Purple Lilacs along the western property line, six (6) Dwarf Korean Lilacs along the west and east side of the north unit, five (5) Compact European Viburnum, two along the east side of the south unit and three along the north side of the north unit, seventeen (17) Draft European Viburnum along the foundations of both units, ten (10) Magic Carpet Spireas in front of the entry of both units, eighteen (18) Royal Standard Hostas along both units, 1210 yards of sod, 140 feet of Valley View Edging and 18 cubic yards of mulch. Watering will be the responsibility of the landscaping contractor for the first 60 days or until the property sells, whichever comes first. Final grading is the responsibility of the home contractor. The City Forester has reviewed the quotes and recommends awarding the contract to Fair's Nursery, the Iow- quote firm. In the past, Fair's Nursery has completed work for the City in a responsible manner. The staff estimate and budgeted amount for landscaping was $8,000. The Iow quote from Fair's Nursery is $7,116. Staff anticipates that construction of the twinhome and landscaping will be completed by June 30. Staff expects to begin marketing the property in April. Staff recommends approval of this reSolution. 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. Construction costs would be funded by the sale of the property. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · Location Map · Quote Results · Landscape Plan, Planting Schedule and Specifications · Contract · Budget 62ND AVE N *:: ;* ~ '. n-n-m-m-m~ /[ ! t.. ! COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 4-14-03 Development & Plannin¢ Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD & Ken Doresk¥, CD Specialist , By: MOTION TO PROCEED WITH A WRITTEN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AT 5506 WINNETKA .AVENUE NORTH AT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUESTED PRICE OF $222,000 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 741) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests Council consideration of a motion authorizing staff to proceed with a written offer to purchase the property located at 5506 Winnetka Avenue North for the property owner's requested price of $222,000 with the understanding that relocation benefits will be waived. POLICY/PAST PRACTICF City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties withir the City. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the City's many housing 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. The City has been acquiring properties on a voluntary basis in the Winnetka/Bass Lake Road/Sumter Avenue area for potential future redevelopment purposes. Over the past several years, the City has acquired a total of sixteen (16) properties in this area. BACKGROUND On April 1, staff met with Mrs. Carlson and two of her sons to discuss negotiation of this potential property purchase. The owners were not in agreement with the appraised value of $205,000. Based on the owner's concerns, Griffith Appraisals updated the appraisal and increased the estimated market value to $212,000. The owners have sUbmitted a letter requesting $222,000 for the property. At the April 1 negotiation meeting, the owners had a number of concerns about the appraisal including; .5 bath and heated garage not considered, electrical service clarification and a disagreement regarding the condition listed as average (-$25,000 adjustment relative to the comparable properties listed in "good" condition on the first appraisal, updated to -$15,000). Attached, please find photos that were submitted by the owners to ~rovide a visual condition description of the home's interior (color photos are available in the City's Community ~taff contacted Griffit~ these issues and the ~ MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: : · Request for Action Page 2 4-14-03 During this negotiation, the owners have conceded on two (2) items. Initially, the owners were requesting i~9,000 for the property. The owners are now asking $222,000, $10,000 more than the appraised value-and 00 less than their original asking price. Also, the owners were originally requesting that after closing they be allowed to remain in the property for up to ninety (90) days rent free. They have since decided to not pursue this request. Please see the following comments submitted by the owners describing their request (correspondence attached): "1 am sending you this letter regarding the settlement offer of $205,000 that was raised to $212,000 because of errors found in the appraisal completed on my property. The settlement offer I am willing to accept is $222,000. Below is a list of reasons which I feel justifies the higher amount: · The $25,000 deduction in comparison houses on appraisal is excessive. My house is good condition, not average as stated. · My house has 2 mother-in-law apartments with full baths. · My house has a newer Boyd's custom kitchen with newer flooring. · My house has had both main level bathrooms redone with ceramic tile and new fixtures. · My house has newer flooring on main level of the house. · On the appraisal it stated that the house was older in d~cor, please see attached photos. Once you see the photos I have provided, I am confident that you will agree with my opinion stated above regarding the d~cor and condition. I have thoroughly enjoyed my 50+ years of living in my home in the City of New Hope." Please see the following comments submitted by the City Attorney describing the negotiation (correspondence attached): meeting "As is our usual practice, we discussed with the owner the March 11, 2003 appraisal valuing the property at $205,000, prepared by Griffith Appraisal, Inc. We also explained to the owner the process used by the City concerning acquisition of properties under our Scattered Site Housing Program. The owner and her sons had serious concems regarding the appraisal and its $205,000 value for the property. They were also very knowledgeable regarding the City's activity in acquiring other properties in the area and specifically were very knowledgeable concerning the process the City used to acquire the LaBorde property located at 5524 Winnetka Avenue. Regarding our appraisal, they were concerned that the appraiser had not taken into consideration an additional half bath on the main level, two electrical services provided to the property, the heated garage at the property and the appraiser's 'condition' adjustment to the market value price of the property. Specifically, concerning this condition adjustment, the appraiser reduced the value of the subject property in comparison to the comp properties by $25,000, reasoning that the comp properties were in superior condition to that extent. As we discussed, an appraiser's opinion is subjective in nature, but is based on his knowledge and experience as to what he has seen, witnessed or observed in the market place." (As stated previously, an updated appraisal was submitted increasing the value to $212,000 and the condition adjustment was decreased to -$15,000.) Furthermore, the City Attorney stated, "Another issue we need to address with respect to this property is the owner's request that she be allowed to remain in the residence 90 to 180 days after the closing of the property. She apparently needs a sufficient time after the closing to deal with the 50+ years of personal property and belongings located at her residence. She apparently needs this amount of time to sort through, box and move her belongings to whatever new residence she ultimately moves to. We informed her we had not permitted a tenancy by the owner subsequent to the closing date, however we would discuss this situation with the City Council along with her concerns about the appraisal." (As stated previously, the owners are no longer pursing this request.) Based on the owner's concerns regarding the appraisal, Griffith Appraisals has updated the appraisal and Request for Action Page 3 4-14-03 provided a new estimated market value of $212,000. Please see the following comments submitted by the appraiser regarding the concerns (correspondence attached): .~-- "Per your request, I am addressing several issues and questions regarding the appraisal of the referenced property. Enclosed is a new appraisal in which I have corrected some areas and reconsidered the value of the property. Within the body of the report are the corrections of the upper bathroom count and an explanation of my opinion regarding the electrical service and the effect on value. The subject is considered to be average in overall condition for its age showing a dated d~cor that has been relatively well maintained. The comparable sales were not inspected inside, however, it is my professional opinion based on an exterior inspection of the comparable sales and a reading of the MLS listings, that the comparable sales have superior updating to the subject. The heated garage is duly considered, however, has little material effect on the overall value of the subject." After taking all the issues into consideration, staff supports a purchase of this property for the owner's requested price of $222,000. The main issues are as follows: · No Relocation Benefits - The owner has agreed to waive relocation benefits. o The owner will be required to sign the City's standard relocation waiver form. · Asking Price - The relatively Iow difference ($10,000) between the asking price ($222,000) and updated appraised value ($212,000). o At times, the City has paid more than the appraised value for property. Most recently in 2002, the City paid $10,000 more than the appraised value for the LaBorde property located in the Livable Communities East Winnetka Area at 5524 Winnetka Avenue North. The appraised value for the LaBorde property was $175,000 and the City paid $185,000 with the same understanding that relocation benefits were waived. Please see the attached list of properties that have been acquired in the East Winnetka Area and their associated purchase price. · Owner Concessions - The owners have dropped the following items from their original request: o At the April 1 negotiation meeting, the owners requested $229,000 for the property. They have since reduced their request $7,000 to $222,000. o Aisc at the negotiation meeting, the owner requested that she be allowed to remain in the residence rent free for 90 to 180 days after the closing of the property to allow for sufficient time after the closing to deal with the 50+ years of personal property and belongings located at her residence. The owner is no longer pursuing this request. On March 24, the Council passed a motion authorizing staff to negotiate the potential purchase of the property located at 5506 Winnetka Avenue North based upon its appraised value of $205,000. On February 24, the City Council approved a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 5506 Winnetka Avenue North for potential acquisition purposes. Correspondence from the owner requesting that the City consider purchasing the property was received. The correspondence is dated February 19. The property is located within the Livable Communities East Winnetka Study Area and in Planning District 6. 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 distdct where the Winnetka, Bass Lake Road and Sumter properties that the City has been pursuing over the past few years are located. Planning District 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 Request for Action Page 4 4-14-03 Planning District 6 include the acquisition and redevelopment of sites located along the south side of Bass Oe Road, in the Bass Lake Road extension area and along the east side of Winnetka Avenue North b'~tween 5340 Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road. As referenced in the Comprehensive Plan Update, tt~e recommendation to redevelop this area is intended to alleviate poor housing conditions, improve access onto Winnetka and Bass Lake Road and more fully utilize the land. In October 1999, the New Hope Economic Development Authority directed staff to contact residents along the east side of Winnetka Avenue North, between 5430 and 5550 to inquire if there was any interest in voluntary sales of these properties to the City. Since that time, the City has purchased nine (9) of the seventeen (17) lots along the east side of Winnetka and additional properties along Sumter Avenue North and in the Bass Lake Road extension area (attached, please see a map of city-owned properties in Planning District 6). In March 2002, the Council directed staff to contact twenty (20) residents in Planning District 6 to again inquire if there was any interest in voluntary sales of these properties to the City. The City has received additional interest from a number of property owners about potential sales. This property owner's request was received after the March 2002 interest letter was distributed. In 2000, the City received a Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Grant to study redevelopment opportunities in the roughly quarter-mile area encircling the intersection of Winnetka Avenue North and Bass Lake Road. In 2001 & 2002, the Livable Communities Task Force studied redevelopment opportunities within the designated area. In 2002, the Council accepted the task force study. In February 2003, the Council selected developers for each study area site based on proposals, except the west Winnetka site. The Hennepin County and Griffith Appraisals Estimated Market Values are as follows: · Hennepin County o Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: $167,000 ($48,000 Land & $119,000 Building) · Griffith Appraisals, 3-11-03 (Updated) o Estimated Market Value: $212,000 ($55,000 Land & $157,000 Building) The property is located at 5506 Winnetka Avenue North. The property has a lot width of 80 feet and depth of 292 feet measuring a total of 23,360 square feet. The house has 1,668 sq. ft. gross living area. The home was constructed in 1953. The appraisal states that the subject property is average in overall condition for its age. The owners have indicated that they will be in attendance at tonight's Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION Based on concessions by the owner, relatively Iow difference between the appraised value and asking price and the fact that relocation benefits would not be applicable, staff recommends that the Council authorize staff to proceed with a written offer to purchase the. property located at 5506 Winnetka Avenue North for the property owner's requested price of $222,000. The preparation of a purchase agreement would be the next step in the City acquisition process. Once prepared, a purchase agreement would be presented to the Council for consideration. If a purchase of the property is completed, staff would study the possibility of selling the home to a house mover or demolishing the home. The property would then be landbanked in preparation for future redevelopment of the area. The owner has indicated that there is an unsealed well on the property. Well abandonment will be the responsibility of the property owner. Staff has indicated to the property owner that because this would be a voluntary sale, no relocation benefits would be paid. The property owner would be required to sign a relocation waiver. Request for Action Page 5 4-14-03 FUNDING The subject property is located in an area where TIF funds can be expended. TIF funds would property acquisition and associated holding costs. be used for A'I'rACHMENTS · City Attorney Correspondence (4-4-03) · Property Owner Correspondence and Photos (4-7-03) · Griffith Appraisals Correspondence (4-3-03) · Updated Appraisal · Hennepin County Parcel Data · Location Map · Topographic Map · Planning District 6 - City Ownership Map · East Winnetka Area Acquisition Information · Comprehensive Plan References - Planning District 6 East Winnetka Study Area- Planning District 6 · ~; :. 54.26 ; 5427 ~ 5420 ~ 54.21 i .... ~ .... ...; 5,4,10 .~ 5411 ; 54,0; ; 5407; 55O6 5500 5446 544O 5454 ? ::: , i 7615 ~ ~,' ... ~ :,', , .... .,; :' ; : .... .-.' j...__ ; ~; r~¢ r~ , · . ! 55'm' AVEN, -~Z..4;~ ;'; ,"~", ...-'-"'-? .... '-1 ,--'----~'----' t '-'"-: ~"-"--' : ..... ~, ~- ..... '-" .... ,~--: , . "~,,,. ; · 4-;-.~.- ?---_~=:+. ..... ,--...-_- ~ ._ _: 5427 .:. ; s4.2e i 5427 ~ ~: 7soc. ~ 54.?.s ! i' .... · ~ ...... ~__..._._j ._.. .... .~.._..._ ; · ,'-' 'ST RA A L' ..- ..... ;: ..... ;._____, DR. City-Owned Properties in Comprehensive Planning District 6: · 531g . .. : ; -. ~ ; 5324:5,~1 ,. : L.'-.-' '" ,~ ~-. ;-; "; :'"-----?--------~",~ ....... j .,' '"' , : ; , ,' _L~' · "-~, ,; _o i ,5307: .: 5312: 5319 :,'~: ..-..-. '-., ~..A~ : ;--.-.--:_J ~ ~; · --... ~ ; ~-.~. ¢ .- "m,. '-----.,, ..... ~ J-- '.. -. ..' "..-; .,s ' I . · ~1.7~ , / ". " - ; ,~!.~_! - ., · : , · ,: .,.: ... _-, ~..?~-..,.. /~£ . . '<-:,. ~507 ? 5212 ¢ .~_ ..-" -., ,;' ?'; J ~.,' .%. "..3i ": "-?....., .,,,,, -,',-,,-,.,, ,,-,' ? .,--- / .... -~ et :- ' '-. ! /".'.V '~'.- '! ; i ; · ir i,,j,,~ ,,i -: . %. "'% d i . em. I,J~dr,,j.& I I ,~ q.. · '..; , ' ' " >' "' "" J "' 1. 5340 Winnetka Ave. N. 2.. 5406 Winnetka Ave. N. 3. 5410/12 Winnetka Ave. N. 4. 5420 Winnetka Ave. N. 5. 5422 Winnetka Ave. N. 6. 5518 Winnetka Ave. N. 7. 5524 Winnetka Ave. N. 8. 6532 Winnetka Ave. N. 9. 5660 Winnetka Ave. N. 10. 6520 Sumter Ave. N. 11. 5530 Sumter Ave. N. 12. 6546 Sumter Ave. N. 13. 5559 Sumter Ave. N. 14. 7603 Bass Lake Road Ext. 15. 7621 Bass Lake Road Ext. 16. 7801 Bass Lake Road COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 4-14-03 Development & Planning Item No. By: Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist By: DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF 7115 62ND AVENUE NORTH AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO OBTAIN AN APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting City Council discussion regarding the opportunity to acquire 7115 62n° Avenue North and consideration of a motion to obtain an appraisal of the property for negotiation purposes. A letter dated March 7, 2003 has been received from the property owner indicating a desire to sell the property. 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 acquiring properties from willing sellers in areas designated for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan. When a property owner submits a letter of interest to the City, a request ~s ~resented to the City Council for authorization to complete an appraisal. The City is required by law to pay fair market value when acquiring property. Normally, fair market value is determined from a property appraisal. The City has been completing scatted site homeownership housing redevelopment projects in this area for a number of years. Since 1990, the City has removed one (1) dilapidated single family home, constructed two (2) accessible twinhomes and completed one (1) sin le famil home rehabfllt nd . . . g Y "ation project at the intersection of 62 Ave. N and Louisiana Ave. N. Overall, the City has increased density at this intersection by three (3) units. BACKGROUND The City has received the attached correspondence from the property owner at 7115 62n° Ave. N. requesting that the City consider purchasing the property. The correspondence is dated March 7, 2003. The property is located in Planning Distdct 6 of the Comprehensive Plan Update. 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 District 2 is located in the northeast portion of New Hope. It is bordered by Winnetka Avenue to the west, Brooklyn Park to the north and Crystal to the south and east. Land uses within this area include single family residential, medium density residential, high density residential and comm..._..__ercial. Accordi~rehensive Plan_.~._pdate, the following recommendations are offered for MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Planning District 2: Page 2 4-14-03 Planning District 2 contains older, lower value single family neighborhoods. This district needs specific attention to maintain and enhance the condition and value of this Iow density housing stock. The City will continue to enforce its Point of Sale Housing Maintenance Code, however, more aggressive scatted site redevelopment is recommended within District 2, as well as larger scale area redevelopment for deteriorated or under-utilized sites. The Iow density residential area located along 62"d, between West Broadway and Louisiana Avenue, consists of large deep lots with small single family homes. This site presents an opportunity to pursue area redevelopment to introduce more contemporary medium density housing options into District 2. As stated previously, the City has been completing scatted site homeownership housing redevelopment projects in this area for a number of years. The residential lots located from 7105-7315 62'''~ Avenue North are 240 feet deep and recommended for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Since 1990, the City has removed one (1) dilapidated single family home, constructed two (2) accessible twinhomes and completed one (1) single family home rehabilitation project at the intersection of 62n'~ Ave. N and Louisiana Ave. N. Overall, the City has increased density at this intersection by three (3) units. In 1990, the City purchase and completed the rehabilitation of 7109 62'~ Avenue NoAh, one (1) lot east of the 62"~ and Lousiana Avenues intersection. As a pad of this project, the existing 240' deep lot was split and the rear portion retained in anticipation of further redevelopment in this area. In 1994, the City purchased the rear portion of 7105 62nd Avenue North (adjacent to 7109 62nd Ave.) to facilitate the development of the accessible CHDO twinhome fronting Louisiana Avenue North. The purchase of the rear portion of 7105 62n~ Avenue NoAh and the landbanked rear portion of 7109 62"~ Avenue North created a new lot fronting Louisiana Avenue North. The property was platted, rezoned to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) and in 1996, 6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue NoAh, an accessible twinhome CHDO project was completed on the site. On March 26, 2001, the Council directed staff to remove the existing house at 7105 62nd Avenue NoAh and proceed with the development of an accessible twinhome on the lot in partnership with the CHDO. This newest accessible twinhome project lies directly north of the previously completed accessible twinhome at 6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue NoAh. During the Zoning Code adoption in April 2001, the site was rezoned to R-2, medium density residential. The existing home was the sold to a house mover and removed from the site. Currently, this newest twinhome is nearing completion. Staff expects that the twinhome will be completed and sold in the summer of 2003. On March 19, Community Development staff including the Building Official and General Inspector performed a condition inspection of the property. It is inspector's opinion that the house is not a candidate for rehabilitation and should be demolished. Please see the following inspection staff comments: 1. Property built in 1951. 2. Positive features: · Larger than average lot- 16,000 Sq. Ft. (66.6' X 240'). · Newer furnace and central air conditioning. · Newer roof on the house. 3. Negative Features: · Insufficient storm windows and doors. o Most windows are single glazed and not energy efficient and in some cases may not be operable and need replacement. Rear door is not energy efficient and needs replacement due to age and wear. · Appliances are old and need replacement. Request for Action Page 3 4-14-03 · Exterior is wood shiplap type siding with deterioration. · Appears that exterior walls are not adequately insulated · No basement - crawl space. 4. Roof Covering · Asphalt shingles on a pitched roof approximately 5/12. Newer shingles have been installed on the house. Signs of leakage on the interior ceilings, walls and the exterior soffit and fascia from previous roof. 5. Attic · Single story home. A furnace is installed in the attic and the ceiling is insulated with batt insulation to approximately R-19. There are signs of leakage on the interior ceilings and walls. 6. Exterior structure surfaces/siding · Exterior is shipiap wood siding. Soffit and fascia are wood and have many areas that have rotted due to shingle leakage. 7. Extedor Doors · Rear door is wood and in poor condition. 8. Basement · Foundation shows signs of deterioration. · Crawl space not observed at this time. 9. Site Improvements · Gravel driveway, concrete walk to front stoop (old concrete not in good condition). 10. Heating System · New heating system and central air installed in 2001. 11. Plumbing System · Connected to water supply. Note - a well exists on the property and will be required to be located and sealed. · Water piping consists of steel piping and some copper. The steel pipes are possibly leaking. · Waste piping consists of old cast iron pipe in need of repair/replacement and some plastic additions. · A cesspool possibly exists on the property. 12. Interior · Interior walls and ceilings area drywall, have water damage, cracks and contain lead paint. · Sheet flooring is deteriorated and contains asbestos. · Doors are warped and do not properly latch. · Floors appear uneven. · Kitchen cabinets are old and deteriorated. · Bathroom contains cast iron tub. The floor in the bath is in poor condition. 13. Electrical · New electric service on the exterior of the house, original wiring exists in the interior of the house. 14. Detached Garage (Hazardous building- must be removed) · Detached garage has a concrete floor in poor condition. Exterior walls are close to grade and are severely rotting. Garage is held together with cables, has a deteriorated roof and should be torn down. · Shingles on the garage are old and curled and the roof has numerous signs of leakage from the interior including deteriorated roof sheathing. The Hennepin County Estimated Market Value for the property is as follows: · Hennepin County o Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: $105,000 ($42,000 Land & $63,000 Building) RECOMMENDATION Due to the Comprehensive Plan Update recommendations, lot configuration, previous redevelopment activities in the area, poor condition of the property and Iow valuation staff recommends that the Council seek to Request for Action Page 4 4-14-03 purchase and landbank this property in anticipation of future redevelopment of the area. Staff recommends tt the Council authorize staff to obtain an appraisal of this property. The estimated cost for an appraisal is If the appraisal is authorized, staff will bring the completed appraisal back to the Council to consider negotiation. Staff has indicated to the property owner that because this would be a voluntary sale, no relocation benefits would be paid. The property owner would be required to sign a relocation waiver. 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. A'I-rACHMENTS · Correspondence from Property Owner (3-7-03) · Location Map · Topographic Map · Zoning Map 1/8 Section Map · Aerial Map · Building Analysis Report & Photos · Hennepin County Parcel Data Comprehensive Plan References- Planning District 2 , ~ 6056 ~ .... ~-~7~ 6032 ~ ~ ---~ --'~'--~ i' . '.. 59TH AVE N COUNC~ '__q REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 4-14-03 Development & Planning Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD & Ken Doresk¥, CD Specialist By: MOTION TO PROCEED WITH A WRITTEN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AT 4317 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH AT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUESTED PRICE OF $83,000 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 734) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests Council consideration of a motion authorizing staff to proceed with a written offer to purchase the property located at 4317 Nevada Avenue North for the property owner's requested price of ,$83,000. The home has been vacant for several months, therefore relocation benefits would not be applicable with this potential acquisition. The offsite owner has agreed to sign the City's standard relocation benefit waiver form. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within the City. The Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the City's many housing 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 February 11, staff and the City Attorney met with the owner, David Curry to discuss the potential acquisition of the subject property. The owner was not in agreement with the appraised value of $61,000. The Estimated Market Value as determined by Hennepin County for taxes payable 2003 is $105,000. Mr. Curry was concerned about the disparity between the appraised value and Hennepin County's estimated market value. As a result of the February 11 meeting, Mr. Curry stated that he would research rehabilitation costs for consideration of all options. He stated that he would contact staff to meet a second time to discuss negotiation. On April 4, staff and the City Attorney met again with Mr. Curry to discuss a possible sale of his property to the City. At this second meeting, Mr. Curry again pointed out the disparity between the appraised value ($61,000) and the Hennepin County Estimated Market Value ($105,000). The appraised value is lower due to the large condition adiustments ($60,000 - $70,000/ made by the appraiser. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:\RFA\PLANNING\Housin 4317 Q-4317 urchase r/ceconsiderafion.doc Request for Action Page 2 4-14-03 After the first negotiation meeting, staff requested that the appraiser provide a written explanation as to why the appraised value of $61,000 was less than the County's Estimated Market Value. Ple,,a. se see the f~0wln(~ comments submitted by the appraiser (February 18, 2003 correspondence attached): 'The New H._.J Citi~ Assessor (Hennepin County) stated that the subject property's interior has not been inspected since 1988 This would explain the disparity between the two values, since most of the subject's deferred maintenance ~s inside the house." At the time of the initial negotiation meeting on February 11, the 2003 Hennepin County Estimated Market Value was not available. The owner presented the 2003 Taxable Market Value of $86,600 for discussion purposes. The Taxable Market Value is only a portion of the overall Estimated Market Value. As stated previously, the 2003 Hennepin County Estimated Market Value of the property is $105,000. As a result of the second negotiation meeting, Mr. Curry has submitted correspondence requesting $83,000 for the property. Mr. Curry also submitted a rehabilitation estimate totaling $34,427 (April 8, 2003 correspondence attached). The correspondence states, "We have had two meetings, Feb. 11, 2003, and April 4, 2003 discussing the appraisal by Gdffith Appraisals for the property at 4317 Nevada. Their appraisal is not consistent at all with the Hennepin County Valuation. The County's market value for 2003 (taxes payable 2004) is $116,000 and Griffith's is $61,000. In his appraisal he contends there is approximately $70,000 of depreciation because of needed repairs. I have been in the homebuilding and remodeling business since 1969. I gave my subcontractors a list of needed repairs and I am enclosing it with this letter. The estimated repairs are in the $35,000 range upon completion of these repairs. I would estimate the market value to be in the range of $125,000 - $135,000 per Griffith's comps. Less 6% selling fee would net me approximately $117,500 - $127,000 less the $35,000 the range of $82,000 - $92,000. With the housing market as it has been these prices could be Iow. If we would average the County value of $116,000 & Gdffith's $61,000 we would be at $88,500. I would be doing a considerable amount of the work myself which would lower my cost of repairs, but these estimates are my cost & therefore there wouldn't be much room for profit on my end. There are several individuals interested in buying this property from me ~n the mid-S80,000 range, but I would have to finance them and I am more interested in having a quick closing. The City would not have to spend any money in relocation costs, which I understand can run from $12,000 to as much as $15,000. I spent $6,000 to move the tenant out in October of 2002 and the house is now vacant. Based on all the above considerations, I think a price of $83,000 would be a fair price for both the City and me. This would be sold in "as is condition". I hope this is agreeable to you and the City Council as this is an exceptional lot." The City Attorney prepared the following summary of the negotiation meetings (April 9, 2003 correspondence attached): "This letter will summarize the outcome of our April 4, 2003 meeting with David Curry regarding the acquisition of his property at 4317 Nevada Avenue North. Basically, Mr. Curry has offered to sell his property to the City for $83,000. His position for this offer is set forth in his April 8, 2003 letter, a copy of which was faxed to me. At our meeting with the property owner we discussed the Griffith appraisal, establishing the fair market value of this property at $61,000. We also reviewed the most recent information from the County concerning its estimated market value for this property. The County Assessor believes the property has an estimated market value of $105,000 and $116,000 for taxes payable in 2003 and 2004 respectively. Obviously, Mr. Curry believes this information should result in a higher appraised value. As you know, our appraiser supports his valuation based on a severe adjustment to the market value of the property based on/ts condition. Specifically, our appraiser reduced the market value of the property to the comparable properties in his appraisal by $60,000 to $70,000 due to the properties condition. Mr. Curry argues Request for Action Page 3 4-14-03 in his April 8th letter rehab costs for this property would be in the $35,000 range or 50% of the adjustment e by our appraiser to estimated market value. - ........... Obviously, appraisal of property is subjective in nature. In my February 14th letter, I reasoned a $75,000 offer to acquire this property would not be unreasonable. One could also conclude $83,000 is a reasonable number based on the County's 2003 estimated market value of $116,000 less Mr. Curry's estimated $35,000 rehab costs. The City can certainly rely on Hennepin County's information concerning market value to upwardly adjust our offer from the $61,000 appraisal value received from Gdffith Appraisal, Inc. The City Council will need to decide if the property owner's $83,000 offer is an amount they are willing to pay. Given the fact the property is vacant and no relocation costs will be required is a benefit for acquisition of this property at this time." On January 27, 2003, the Council authorized staff to negotiate the potential purchase of the property based upon the appraised value of $61,000. On November 25, the Council authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property. Based on the Council's request, staff completed a Code Compliance Inspection of the property and a supplemental Building Analysis Report. Staff then forwarded the inspection materials to the appraiser for consideration. Aisc on November 25, the Council requested that staff to contact the adjacent north (4301 Nevada Ave. N.) and south (4415 Nevada Ave. N.) property owners to determine if they were interested in exploring the possibility of voluntarily selling their homes to the City for future redevelopment purposes. On November 7, 2002, the City received the attached correspondence from the owner of 4317 Nevada Avenue North requesting that the City consider purchasing the property. The property was a rental property for many years and is now vacant. Staff has been communicating with the owner for some time regarding potential City interest in the property. The City considered acquiring this property in 1996, but did not pursue the pumhase due to the fact that the property was occupied. 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. The subject property is located in Planning District 10 - east central New Hope bordered by the rail system to the west and north, 42"d Avenue to the south and the City of Crystal to the east. Recommendations for Planning District 10 include: (a) promote property maintenance through private reinvestment, the City's Dwelling Maintenance Code and Scattered Site Housing Program, and (b) actively pursue the redevelopment of the poor condition, Iow-density residential land along Nevada Avenue between 42nd Avenue and 45th Avenue. Over the past several years, the subject property has had numerous code violations. Most recently in March 2002, the City received a property maintenance complaint at the property. At that time City staff inspected the property and issued orders to correct the violations. The Hennepin County and Griffith Appraisals Inc. Estimated Market Values are as follows: · Hennepin County o Taxes payable 2003, Estimated Market Value: $105,000 ($38,000 Land & $67,000 Building) · Griffith Appraisals, 12-31-03 o Estimated Market Value: $61,000 ($42,000 Land & $19,000 Building) The property is located at 4317 Nevada Avenue North. The property has a lot width of 69.5 feet and depth of 130 feet measuring a total of 9035 square feet. The house has 1,061 sq. ft. gross living area. The basement is unfinished. The home was constructed in 1938. The appraisal states that the subject property is poor in overall condition for its age. As stated previously, on November 25 2002, the Council directed staff to contact the adjacent north ('4301 Request for Action Page 4 4-14-03 Nevada Ave. N.) and south (4415 Nevada Ave. N.) property owners to determine if they would be interested in exploring the possibility of voluntarily selling their homes to the City for future redevelopment purpose~.s... Staff has recently been informed that the owner of 4301 Nevada Avenue North passed away. Staff recei~ a call on Monday, Apdl 7 from GSR Development, Livable Communities Area preferred developer for the Frank's Nursery site, regarding this issue. Apparently, the developers have a family connection to the owner of 4301 Nevada and informed staff that the owner passed away and that there may be an interest in selling the property for redevelopment. The owners told GSR that the City had requested to purchase property in the area for redevelopment. GSR indicated that they may attempt to work on the acquisition of both 4301 Nevada Avenue North and 4415 Nevada Avenue North, and then come to the City with a development proposal for owner-occupied town homes on the site. Staff conveyed to the developers that the City would be interested in working with them on an owner-occupied residential redevelopment project in this area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve a purchase price of $83,000 for the following reasons: · The New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update recommends redevelopment of the poor condition, Iow- density residential land along Nevada Avenue North between 42"d Avenue North and 45th Avenue North. The subject property is located at 4317 Nevada Avenue North. · The owner has approached the City with an offer to willingly sell this property and acknowledged that relocation benefits would not be applicable. The house has been vacant for some time and the owner has not been generating any income from the property. · The 2003 Hennepin County Estimated Market Value for the property is $105,000, $44,000 more than the appraised value and $25,000 less than the asking price. · The property is in very poor condition and would be a candidate for demolition and redevelopment. · Due to the property's poor condition, the property can be acquired for a reasonable price. · Staff has been informed by GSR Development that they are interested in completing a residential redevelopment project that would utilize the subject property and the adjacent properties to the north and south. GSR Development indicated to staff that the owner of 4301 Nevada Avenue North had recently passed away and the property may be available for acquisition. · CDBG funds designated for the City's Scattered Site Housing Program are available for acquisition. If acquired, the following options could be considered for redevelopment: · GSR Development owner-occupied townhome development utilizing both adjacent properties to the north and south. · Northwest Communities Revitalization Corporation (NCRC), Community Housing Redevelopment Organization (CHDO): HOME funded affordable single-family home redevelopment project. · Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC): Affordable single-family home redevelopment project. · Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity (TCHFH): Affordable single-family home redevelopment project. · Landbank the property for future redevelopment purposes. The preparation of a purchase agreement would be the next step in the City acquisition process. Once prepared, a purchase agreement would be presented to the Council for consideration. If a purchase of the property is completed, staff would study the possibility of selling the home to a house mover or demolishing the home. The owner has indicated that there is an unsealed well on the property. Well abandonment will be the responsibility of the property owner. Although the property has been vacant fro several months, the owner will still be required to submit the City's standard, "Acknowledgement and Waiver By Owners" form waiving relocation benefits. Staff has indicated to the property owner that because this would be a voluntary sale, no relocation benefits would be paid. The property owner indicated that he would like to have the transaction completed as soon as possible. FUNDING CDBG funds are available for property acquisition. Request for Action Page 5 ATTACHMENTS · City Attorney Correspondence, 4-9-03 Property Owner Correspondence & Rehabilitation Estimate, 4-8-03 · Appraiser Correspondence, 2-18-02 · Location Map · Topographic Map · Property Owner Correspondence, 11-7-02 · Appraisal, 12-31-02 · Hennepin County Proposed Property Tax for 2003 (provided by owner) · Hennepin County 2003 Notice of Valuation and Classification (provided by owner) · Hennepin County Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2003 · Comprehensive Plan References 4-14-03 -- . o ~4510 442..5 4309 AVEN 470~ ;211 7700 4~00 47" : -'?~ "?-,'F"--' 4732 473.~ 4725 , 4724 472~ 4777 :- 4%'¥' :,TT? =.Z 4709 ~ ,70~ ,70~ :1. >_ 4701 4700 4701 ~ ~ ~ ......................... ........ - .............. -"1 47TH AVE N 4r~? 4656 46s7-- ............................. 4549 ; 464B ,~>49 : · .... ~T ..... ;:., :~-."~-, "- ~ ~ : 4419 43,3 4~ ......... - 4.]17 ......... ;.-.; . 4221 ~ ;'" ~ ! 4217 i 73OO -'" ? .<: 4625 'C). 4616 : ~ .4~ ' ' ............... ' ~ 46TH A~ N ' 4516 :- 45TH -~ ............... : A~ N ..... ~ · ~24 43RD AVE N 4230 42.24 ~ ...... ~ 7244) 42.20 ~ i 7220 4218 i 7200 i 4.3RD X~,~E N : 7117~ ?107 '' COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 4-14-03 Development & Plannin9 Item No. By: Kirk McDonald B)/: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE SALE OF CITY PROPERTY AT 9200 49TM AVENUE NORTH PROPERTY TO PLYMOUTH HEIGHTS PET HOSPITAL (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 743) REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution calling for a public hearing to approve the sale of city property at 9200 49t" Avenue North to the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital. The public hearing would be conducted at the next City Council meeting on April 28. Quest Real Estate has submitted the enclosed Purchase Agreement to the City on behalf of Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital proposing to purchase the property for an amount of $81,000 and staff is recommending approval of that offer. POLICY/PAST PRACTIC~ In the past, the City Council or Economic Development Authority has approved proposals for development on city-owned sites and authorized the sale of city property for development purposes. BACKGROUND In June 1997, the City of New Hope purchased this vacant 2.8 acre industrial site because the property was identified in the New Hope Surface Water Management Plan as a future site for a water quality pond to hel~ ~mprove the water quality of the large wetland north of, and adjacent to, the site. The City acquired the property to have control over the future development of the site and has been interested in a potential joint- cooperative development where a development could occur in conjunction with the installation of a water quality pond. The 1997 appraisal on the property indicated a value of $282,000, but the appraisal was discounted due to the poor soils on site. The City purchased the property for the adjusted appraised value of $195,000 and the City Engineer has estimated that the City would need to utilize one acre of the site for ponding improvements, leaving approximately two acres available for development. Over the past several years, the City Council has discussed several potential developments for this site, but no development proposal has moved forward due in part to the poor soil conditions on the property. In 2000, a permit application for the water quality pond excavation was approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and DNR, however, the permit has lapsed. It is the City Engineer's opinion that the permit could easily be renewed. It is staff's desire to move forward with some type of development on this property and to complete ponding ~unction with or after the develo_..pment. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: hrfa\l~lanning~improvement I=rojects~Q-9200 set I~h sale of prod Request for Action Page 2 4-14-03 Consideration of Proposals/Direction to Staff At the February 10 EDA meeting, the EDA considered three proposals for this site and indicated an in, ~st in two of the proposals for the site, including the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital proposal. At that time,"-Quest Real Estate submitted a letter on behalf of the pet hospital stating, "This letter shall serve to express our interest in purchasing the vacant parcel of land located at 9200 49t" Avenue North in New Hope for construction of a pet hospital. My client, the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital, has been operating very successfully at 3401 North Highway 169 in Plymouth for over 20 years. The clinic employs approximately 25 people including five doctors and is well known for the high quality of medical services it provides. However. due to significant business growth, the owners are seeking to expand their facility but are constrained by the size of their lot. In order to accommodate their current and future space requirements, they are interested in acquiring approximately two acres of undeveloped land in the immediate area. The referenced property appears to be very compatible to my client's needs. The location of the subject property and its proximity to their existing facility would be very desirable for serving their established client base. In addition, the size of the site at 2.9 acres is nearly one acre larger than the amount of land required by Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital should the City of New Hope be interested in retaining part of the site for use as a drainage or water retention pond. The larger site size would provide an excellent natural buffer between the proposed clinic and the adjacent buildings and allow for the preservation of many of the existing trees. The proposed structure would consist of a single story, "state of the art" pet hospital and boarding facility totaling approximately 7,000 square feet in size. In an effort to address the significant problems with adverse soil conditions, the building would be constructed on a concrete pad and incorporate pilings, if required. The building would most likely be positioned on the west side of the property to provide space for parking in front and to the east side of the structure. The architectural design of the building could easily compliment the surrounding residential and office land uses. For example, the roof would be pitched with a brick exterior fa(;ade. Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital is a proven, financially strong business engaged in a rapidly expanding service of caring for pets within the community. Obviously, the availability of the property and cost are critical concerns for my client and they are prepared to move forward very quickly on purchasing and developing the subject parcel of land should an agreement be reached. We are seeking a formal response from the City of New Hope regarding their interest in entering into an agreement with Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital for the "Option To Purchase" the above referenced property within the next 90 to 120 days. This would allow us the opportunity to establish a mutually agreeable price and provide the City of New Hope with comprehensive architectural plans and specifications." The EDA directed staff to continue coordination with Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital representatives and a more detailed proposal was submitted and discussed at the March 10 EDA meeting. The proposal stated, "This letter shall serve to express the continued interest of my client, Mr. Fleming, in purchasing the parcel of land at 9200 49th Avenue North in New Hope for construction of a pet hospital. We were pleased to learn the EDA and City Council members of New Hope have indicated an interest in our initial development proposal and would like to pursue the matter in more detail. As such, I have enclosed the following information: 1. A background narrative on Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital 2. A proposed site plan prepared by Paul Meyer Architects, Inc. 3. A proposed image sketch also prepared by Paul Meyer Architects, Inc. 4. An eStimate from Dobszenski & Sons, Inc. for soil correction and site preparation work at the subject property including cover letter from Scott Builders, Inc. dated February 28, 2003 5. A memorandum I prepared summarizing the estimated costs contained in the information received from the contractors. As previously discussed, the property consists of approximately 124,086 square feet and Mr. Fleming is interested in purchasing about two-thirds of the front portion of the parcel or about 80,848 square feet. The City of New Hope would retain the balance of the property for the development of a drainage pond or water Request for Action Page 3 4-14-03 enntion area. Based on the enclosed estimate we received from Dobszenski & Sons, Inc., the cost for ecting the existing soil conditions and preparing the site for development is significant. Although Mr ing views this property as an ideal location for a pet hospital, the site has some development considerations and economic limitations. Consequently, in order to construct a first class facility, Mr. Fleming is seeking to acquire the property "as is" from the City of New Hope for $61,500 for the exclusive purpose of constructing a pet hospital. We anticipate the cost for soil correction and site grading work could be as high as $262,000. The proposed total price for acquiring and preparing a "buildable" site is $323,500 or $4 per square foot. Currently, Plymouth Heights Pet is serving over 6,000 active patients including more than 700 New Hope families and represents a valuable asset to the community. In addition, Mr. Fleming is prepared to move expeditiously on his development plans." The EDA indicated a strong interest in pursuing this proposal and directed staff to continue to meet with the pet hospital representatives. The EDA indicated that they would like to see the offer for the property increased from $61,500 through the negotiation process. Neqotiations City staff and the City Attorney recently met to further discuss this proposal with Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital and the City Attorney summarized the meeting in the attached April 4 correspondence. The summary states, "Basically, Mr. Fleming and his development consultants informed us that time was of the essence in connection with this potential purchase and development of this property. Therefore, it is imperative to him that we reach an acceptable purchase pdce for the property to permit him to develop a reliable budget for the overall development costs for this property. Pursuant to the City Council's direction, Mr. Fleming is willing to increase his purchase price by $20,000 and pay the City $81,000 for approximately two-thirds or 80,848 square feet of the property. It is my understanding that this would leave the City a sufficient area to develop its regional storm water pond in the back half of the property. We now need to consider if this $81,000 is a reasonable purchase offer in light of the unfavorable soil conditions on the property, the anticipated developer's cost to correct those problems, the fact we are not assuming any liability for the soil conditions and will transfer title based on an "as is" transaction and a number of other factors which are fairly well known concerning the history of this property. An approach to use in considering the reasonableness of this offer should include a consideration that when we acquired the property for a $195,000 purchase price, the entire parcel was intended for use as a regional storm water ponding site. The idea to develop a portion of the site came at a later date when it was determined the City's regional storm water management plan objectives could be accomplished by using only a portion of the site, leaving a residual area for development. As noted, however, the soil conditions on the property worked against development of this site. We may have paid a premium for the property based on these facts, but we believed acquisition of the site was necessary to meet the storm water objectives. We can now look at this site and conclude any purchase by a developer is a reimbursement to our initial cost, since the site was fully dedicated originally to the storm water management objectives of the City. If the current Offer was accepted, one could conclude the cost of our storm water management objectives has been reduced accordingly. Also, storm water costs will further be reduced by the generation of new real estate taxes resulting from a development that was never intended when the City originally acquired the property. I would defer to the finance director to provide information concerning the generation of new real estate taxes the proposed pet hospital/clinic would generate on that site. In conclusion, the pet hospital seems to be a very good development for the property. Mr. Fleming is willing to work with the City to provide all of the necessary construction easements and access easements to permit the City to undertake the storm water ponding project and to access the pond after its construction. It appears this development would be a "win/win" situation for all parties involved." City staff reviewed this offer with the City Manager, who was in agreement that the offer be presented to the City Council. Request for Action Page 4 4-14-03 - Purchase Aqreement In follow-up to the negotiation meeting, Quest Real Estate submitted the attached corresponder., and Purchase Agreement, which is outlined as follows: "In conjunction with our recent meeting, I have enclosed a proposed Purchase Agreement on the parcel of land at 9200 49th Avenue North in New Hope for construction of a pet hospital. We believe the proposed purchase pdce is equitable based on the amount of soil correction work that appears necessary and risks Mr. Fleming assumes by purchasing the property in "As Is" condition. The City of New Hope benefits with the addition of a new business and the associated new tax revenue generated for the City. The sale also enables the City of New Hope to proceed with their plans for construction of a drainage pond or water retention area on part of the site. Please note that in accordance with the Purchase Agreement, the City has ten (10) days to accept the offer from the date it is presented on April 14, 2003, or until April 24, 2003. Time is cdtical factor for Mr. Fleming, as such, it will be up to him as to whether he is interested in extending the date for acceptance beyond April 24, 2003. We request that you present our proposed Purchase Agreement to the Economic Development Agency and/or City Council for consideration at their next scheduled meeting on April 14, 2003. We appreciate the opportunity to present our latest proposal to the City and wish to thank you and the other city staff members for the assistance provided in this matter." The City Attomey reviewed the Purchase Agreement and provided the following comments: "1 have had a chance to review the Purchase Agreement submitted by Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital concerning their acquisition of the City's property located at 9200 49th Avenue North. Basically, the Agreement adequately sets forth the understanding of the parties. The only changes I would like made to the document relate to time limits for compliance with certain items. Specifically, in paragraph 8, it may take the City 30 days to provide evidence of title. Therefore, in the first sentence of paragraph 8, I would like the 15-day period amended to 30 days. I would also recommend that the Buyer be provided 30 days to examine evidence of title indicated in the last sentence on page 8 under paragraph 8. Aisc, in paragraph 10, the Seller is required to provide various documents to the Buyer within 10 days of the execution of the Agreement. Again, I would like that time requirement extended to 30 days as well. In paragraph 11(1) on page 8, the deadline for removing contingencies in the Purchase Agreement should be changed to July 30, 2003. In other words, the Buyer will have until 5:00 p.m. on the day before the closing to exercise the contingencies indicated in paragraph 11. With the above changes made to the Purchase Agreement, I would recommend that we enter into this Agreement contingent upon the City Council's determination that the $81,000 purchase price is acceptable." Public Hearinq/Resolution Staff has indicated to Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital representatives that a public hearing would be necessary to sell the property and that the public hearing could be held at the next Council meeting on April 28, if the enclosed resolution is approved. The resolution states that: · The City of New Hope (the City) is the fee owner of certain real estate known as 9200 49th Avenue North, New Hope, (hereafter Property) legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Brandell Industrial Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital (hereafter PHPH) has presented the City with a purchase agreement (attached as Exhibit A) to buy approximately 80,848 square feet of the Property, in accordance with the terms stated in the purchase agreement, for the purpose of developing and constructing a veterinarian clinic/pet hospital on the Property. Request for Action Page 5 4-14-03 Subject to the changes in the purchase agreement recommended by the City Attorney, the City Councit hereby determines it is in the best interests of the City to sell the Property to PHPH pursuant to the terms of the attached purchase agreement after a public hearing is held to consider public testimony on said sale as required by Minn. Stat. ,~469.029(2). The City's obligation to sell the Property to PHPH per the attached purchase agreement will still be dependent on PHPH's execution of a Development Agreement with the City for a veterinarian clinic/pet hospital subsequent to compliance by PHPH with the City's planning process per Chapter 4 of the New Hope City Code. That the sale of the Property at 9200 49th Avenue North to Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital per the terms of the attached Purchase Agreement (Exhibit A) shall be considered at a public hearing to be held at the April 28, 2003, Council meeting and that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of the proposed sale of the Property to Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital in accordance with the terms of said purchase agreement attached as Exhibit A. Zoning The property is zoned I, Industrial and is located on the north side of 49th Avenue approximately 600 feet east of Highway 169. Industrial zoned properties are located to the north, east and west, with a wetland to the southwest and R-1 single family homes to the southeast, across 49th Avenue. Two well-designed buildings are located on either side of this site, with a three-story brick office building located to the west and Englund Graphics located to the east. The property is located in Planning District No. 3 and the Comprehensive Plan indicates the primary goal within this district is the preservation and enhancement of its industrial land uses, and specifically suggests promoting industrial infill development of the remainin vacant arcels on Bass Ro . th . . g P Lake ad and 49 Avenue. Pet hospitals and vetennary clinics are not currently listed as permitted or conditional uses m the I District, however, staff and consultants are currently working on a modification to the code to allow animal day cares in the I District and the Planning Consultant is agreeable that this use would also be appropriate for that Zoning District. The code amendment to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in May will recommend that veterinary clinics be allowed in the Industrial Zoning District as a permitted or conditional use, depending on the number of animals boarded. Representatives from Plymouth Heights have provided assistance to staff with recommendations on the regulations. Taxes Hennepin County has assumed preliminarily that the market value of the completed project will be $1,000,000, as follows: $ 320,000 land ($4.00 per square foot x 80,000 sq. ft.) 680,000 building (7,000 sq. ft.) $1,000,000 The property would be classified as commercial/industrial and the $1,000,000 market value would generate approximately $38,669.10 in taxes based on 2003 rates. Subtracting the $10,000 new state tax brings the amount down to about $28,000. Forty percent of that amount goes to fiscal disparities. Of the roughly $18,000 remaining, the split among three jurisdictions would generate approximately $6,472 taxes annually for the City. The property is currently tax exempt. TIF District Per the attached memorandum from Krass Monroe, this property was included when the Navarre Economic Development Tax Increment Financing District was created and staff inquired as to whether any increment would be generated from this project. Unfortunately, a pet hospital does not qualify for an economic development district, therefore, if this project proceeds, Krass Monroe is recommending that this parcel be decertified from the TIF District. Request for Action Page 6 4-14-03 '. Pondinq The original funds to purchase this site came from the Storm Water Fund and staff is recommending. Ct the proceeds from the sale of the property be returned to that fund. Staff is recommending that the City pursue the regional ponding improvements this winter, after construction of the pet hospital facility. The City Engineer has preliminarily estimated the cost of the ponding improvements to be $135,000. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION Based on all of the information presented, staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution and proceed with the sale of the property for development. The advantages to the City include: · The development meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. · A new business will be relocated to New Hope and bring additional employment opportunities to the City. · The City will achieve both storm water ponding and development objectives. · A current tax-exempt parcel will become taxable. The developer has increased the offer on the property and is assuming some of the risk with the soil conditions. · The developer is willing to work cooperatively with the City throughout the process. Overall, staff feels that this is a very good proposal for this site. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · 4/9 City Attorney Correspondence · 4/4 City Attorney Correspondence · 4/7 Quest Real Estate Correspondence · Purchase Agreement · 3/19 Krass Monroe Memo · 3/10 EDA Minutes · 3/3 Quest Correspondence · Plymouth Heights Narrative · Site/Sketch Plans · Correction/Construction Cost Estimates · 1/19 Quest Correspondence · Maps · City Engineer Pond Cost Estimate oo : J 5100 , ..'-- .... - "-'--" !ProDert~_ ~ Size . - ~ i i .,- ; 1920149'~AvenueN. : 284Acres = i. i ..-. -.- .... . -.... ' ' .: ........... · ; 5o~o i : ~,olu ;. : '" · .... ~ . ."' -- ,., , _0__~ ~ . .~. . .~,. . . ., . . ,, =_ ~. !~ ~.' ......~...:.~...' '.":-L '.. '. ' ~ · ~ : ID: "-'~'1.- .. ?." ,'.... . · · __ . . ~ : ' ,J . - ..,:....-.. :.....' . . : . ~ i~ , ~ · ...:~.:..,:. -...~:. ,.~.-.. . · ". ..,j;, ~ ;.., . '~: . , ~-..... ...- . . . .,"----- .............. ,-- , *. ---, ~ . ,, . _,.. · ,,~ · . ; --_ ,~ .......... f ::T-'i . ~ ~:... ~ . . . . ~.', - ! .... .--.~._~.~:_,~ ,.. . .;.::.. ...,. . ; -- ! ." y- . ~.- ;:,-..-..~.......'.... ! -- ~ ! ~.'..' ~ : · . . .- ,......'., .:~..'~ ,, · : '.. : I : --;.:'-': ~ -.-' 1.-. '- ...'.:'~: :': - __ ' ,f . .. . -- ~.,.~_:.;. . -_.-........ .~:' , - ~ . ,~ .... . .... =~ -. ! ! . . ./:...: S : i :-*.. -.----------P'/'/'/'/'//,J .:.. ":,. I ; *h *" ';- ~''~ '.'~' ,..-~-~":' "' ' ' ~'~B/ ~ 44a5; ~ ~ ' " ' .... ...,. :.: . · ....._. , , .~ ~ ,~-.,~ ~ ,--...._. .... ' ~ '.%. . · ! ~ ~ : · '""--'~'~---,. · J ~ : I 6 ~ 4~77f · .~ ~ {j./,.,,.,,..., -- : : .~ 4840 . f ,, · :' ............ . · - , !'1~34,4865 , · ' rtl . .. · · · . ~'., · · ,,' ....-r-----, ~-- , :~-; ~ , ~ .',~,.'-'~.L ,-----...~ : · · - · -,.;..r~..,-. -. - · ..-... ."'---,,,-- · __ . ; . ~_, , ,..-,. · t __ . . _~ ..... _ ....-..,. . , 12: . , . ./'-.---,~., . __ · : .... ,.- ...,? . ~ l=l ; -__ ~.~ · ~. , 4449 ~ ,~ ;__......._; .' · · · - .... ..~.-':-..,':-.-' ! ~_...~; r ~,~.,~ , .... ,.-~----...~ ..'~ , . · ~ .;,:.:~.,-.',;:...~-. .~ , ~ .~ ~ ;~-,.-=,._.~ ~" ~r~f ~ ..',,~,~--.,.' - __: '- · ' ..... . --. .. ~.. : '~",~...-~.~'~' ; : ~ ~'""' ~ : ,~_'-~'"'i'"---~ '",--.'-~,'~'--. .'""~'~ ' ~ ,,Le,,,, ~,4~.X~ ...... . :?.. , , , ~_.; I' ~ . 4B41 . , , ~ · . · : ; ,~/. [ ~Z 4e32 ~ ........ .... ........ , ~ 4~, ; . · { · .-~. ~ ...... · ... . .~ . 4841 · . . . ~ ,. . , ~.,.- / .. ~ ~~~~. ~., , ~ ~. ,. · ~ /. , ~ ~4~4 . .,, .,- ~oo~.*. ....... ,.. ~-~, ,~' ';,. ~,..'~ ~f~ .f , ~,_ ~:~ ,, ;. ., .- · .. :.-.-' ../ ...~, _\ ?,,~_'~ ~' ~ ~;,.~ ,; ~ .:..~-__--,~ ~;~, .., ..,,,.'4~: .d,-~..~.... -,~-,,~, ..,~-% ~ ,~ ~: ,,e'~, ~.~ ? / t _.-..' ',. ~"...'"a~ '-...., ~. '.., - 4?24 ...... .. '~,Q..'~ ~ .. ,y ~ .- -'-/.'l~,,._ ...,.... i J ~ , .~ f -- I ~ ~-; ~ ~ "' ,' -,'--.-" '- · '' ' - -- -- .~4"~, '~ , , { '~ ~ ~ '~" ,, ."-" ~" " : ", .~,. ~. 't , ~0 ,-. ,. ~. ,~, j;[{ ,.,. ... -. t ., . ., ,,. : , .--.,...~:,~tI~ .~.~ .,,,-.- , ,. . ..... .. .-... 4aoi; j,,,~,._.. _,,.~~.j..... .¢ e_ ..~ ~ · ~ ! ~ ~1~1,/'~' ..;.'". ~,, -w/.,. ',., ,.' '.... COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 04-14-03 Ordinances & Resolutions Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By: ORDINANCE NO. 03-07, AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING MORATORIUM ON DOG KENNEL AND CAT SHELTER LICENSES IN THE CITY REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the enclosed ordinance, which extends the moratorium on dog kennel and cat shelter licenses within the City of New Hope for an additional two months (until June 30, 20O3). POLICY/PAST PRACTICF 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, adult entertainment uses, and a study on thrift stores. Occasionally, the moratoriums are extended in order to allow more time for study or to allow for the adoption of new regulations. BACKGROUND At the October 14, 2002, City Council meeting, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 02-12, An Interirr Ordinance Establishing a Temporary Prohibition on All Dog Kennel and Cat Shelter Licenses in the City. The ordinance was adopted to provide time to study the issues related to commercial animal day care operations and to determine what zoning districts were appropriate for that use. The moratorium is currently effective until April 30, 2003. The Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning Commission and other appropriate city staff and consultants have studied this issue over the last several months. Initial recommendations were presented to the full Planning Commission in January, however, the Commission referred the matter back to the subcommittee for further study. The Codes & Standards Committee studied the issue further, revised the onginal recommendations to address some of the Commission's concerns, and will be presenting the recommendations to the full Planning Commission at its May 6 meeting. It is anticipated that the recommendations will be presented to the City Council on May 12. If the recommendations are adopted at that time, s_._~taff will be recommendin..,q.t.hat the moratorium be lifted. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:rfa/planning/ordinances/Q.dog kennel extension Request for Action Page 2 04-14-03 intent of this ordinance extending the moratorium is simply to keep the moratorium in effect until the time t~it the new regulations are approved by the City Council. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. ATTACHMENTS · Ordinance No. 03-07 Extending Moratorium · 3/12/02 City Attorney Correspondence · Ordinance No. 02-12 Establishing Moratorium · 10/1/02 City Attomey Correspondence COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 4-28-03 Consent Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD & Ken Doresk),, CD Specialist By: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR 4317 NEVADA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 734) ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends approval of a resolution to purchase property located at 4317 Nevada Avenue North for the agreed upon purchase price of $83,000, in accordance with the attached purchase agreement prepared by the City Attorney. The purchase agreement is expected to be signed by the owner at the time of this meeting. 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 acquiring properties from willing sellers in areas designated for redevelopment m the Comprehensive Plan. The City is required by law to pay fair market value when acquiring property. Normally, fair market value ~s determined from a property appraisal. After the Council authorizes staff to negotiate the purchase of a property on the basis of an appraisal, staff meets with the property owner. If a mutually agreeable purchase ~rice is agreed upon, staff returns to the Council to seek approval of the purchase price. If the Council approves the purchase pdce, a purchase agreement is prepared by the City Attorney and presented to the Council for final approval. BACKGROUND On April 14, 2003, the Council approved a motion authorizing staff to proceed with a written offer to purchase theproperty located at 4317 Nevada Avenue North for $83,000. Attached, please find the purchase agreement prepared by the City Attomey. Both the "Purchase Agreement" and the"Ac'Know~eagement' ' and Waiver By Owners" form are expected to be signed by the property owner by the time of this meeting. The property owner indicated that they would like to have the transaction completed as soon as possible. Staff anticipates that a closing could occur in May or June. On February 11, staff and the City Attorney met with the owner, David Curry to discuss the potential acquisition of the subject property. The owner was not in agreement with the appraised value of $61,000. The MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 4-28-03 Estimated Market Value as determined by Hennepin County for taxes payable 2003 is $105,000. Mr. CurB, jconcerned about the disparity between the appraised value and Hennepin County's estimated market e. As a result of the February 11 meeting, Mr. Curry stated that he would research rehabilitation costs for consideration of all options. He stated that he would contact staff to meet a second time to discuss negotiation. On April 4, staff and the City Attorney met again with Mr. Curry to discuss a possible sale of his property to the City. At this second meeting, Mr. Curry again pointed out the disparity between the appraised value ('$61,000) and the Hennepin County Estimated Market Value ('$105,000). The appraised value is lower due to the large condition adjustments ($60,000 - $70,000) made by the appraiser. After the first negotiation meeting, staff requested that the appraiser provide a written explanation as to why the appraised value of $61,000 was less than the County's Estimated Market Value. Please see the following comments submitted by the appraiser: "The New Hope City Assessor (Hennepin County) stated that the subject property's interior has not been inspected since 1988. This would explain the disparity between the two values, since most of the subject's deferred maintenance is inside the house." As a result of the second negotiation meeting, Mr. Curry submitted correspondence requesting $83,000 for the property. On January 27, 2003, the Council authorized staff to negotiate the potential purchase of the property based upon the appraised value of $61,000. On November 25, the Council authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property. Based on the Council's request, staff completed a Code Compliance Inspection of the property and a supplemental Building Analysis Report. Staff then forwarded the inspection materials to the appraiser for consideration. Aisc on November 25, the Council requested that staff to contact the adjacent north (4301 Nevada Ave. N.) and south (4415 Nevada Ave. N.) property owners to determine if they were interested in exploring the possibility of voluntarily selling their homes to the City for future redevelopment purposes. On November 7, 2002, the City received the attached correspondence from the owner of 4317 Nevada Avenue North requesting that the City consider purchasing the property. The property was a rental property for many years and is now vacant. Staff has been communicating with the owner for some time regarding potential City interest in the property. The City considered acquiring this property in 1996, but did not pursue the purchase due to the fact that the property was occupied. 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. The subject property is located in Planning District 10 - east central New Hope bordered by the rail system to the west and north, 42n" Avenue to the south and the City of Crystal to the east. Recommendations for Planning District 10 include: (a) promote property maintenance through private reinvestment, the City's Dwelling Maintenance Code and Scattered Site Housing Program, and (b) actively pursue the redevelopment of the poor condition, Iow-density residential land along Nevada Avenue between 42"~ Avenue and 45"~ Avenue. Over the past several years, the subject property has had numerous code violations. Most recently in March 2002, the City received a property maintenance complaint at the property. At that time City staff inspected the property and issued orders to correct the violations. The property is located at 4317 Nevada Avenue North. The property has a lot width of 69.5 feet and depth of 130 feet measuring a total of 9035 square feet. The house has 1,061 sq. ft. gross living area. The basement is unfinished. The home was constructed in 1938. The appraisal states that the subject property is poor in overall condition for its age. The Hennepin County and Gdffith Appraisals Inc. Estimated Market Values are as follows: Request for Action Page 3 4~28-03 · Hennepin County o Taxes payable 2003, Estimated Market Value: · Gdffith Appraisals, 12-31-03 o Estimated Market Value: $105,000 ($38,000 Land & $67,000 Building,L- $61,000 ($42,000 Land & $19.000 Building) As stated previously, on November 25 2002, the Council directed staff to contact the adjacent north (4301 Nevada Ave. N.) and south (4415 Nevada Ave. N.) property owners to determine if they would be interested in exploring the possibility of voluntarily selling their homes to the City for future redevelopment purposes. Staff has recently been informed that the owner of 4301 Nevada Avenue North passed away. Staff received a call on April 7 from GSR Development, Livable Communities Area preferred developer for the Frank's Nurser), site, regarding this issue. Apparently, the developers have a family connection to the owner of 4301 Nevada and informed staff that the owner passed away and that there may be an interest in selling the property for redevelopment. The owners told GSR that the City had requested to purchase property in the area for redevelopment. GSR indicated that they may attempt to work on the acquisition of both 4301 Nevada Avenue North and 4415 Nevada Avenue North, and then come to the City with a development proposal for owner- occupied town homes on the site. Staff conveyed to the developers that the City would be interested in working with them on an owner-occupied residential redevelopment project in this area. Staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution to purchase this property for the following reasons: · The New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update recommends redevelopment of the poor condition, Iow- density residential land along Nevada Avenue North between 42"°Avenue North and 45th Avenue North. The subject property is located at 4317 Nevada Avenue North. · The owner has approached the City with an offer to willingly sell this property and acknowledged that relocation benefits would not be applicable. The house has been vacant for several months and the owner has not been generating any income from the property. · The 2003 Hennepin County Estimated Market Value for the property is $105,000, $44,000 more than the appraised value and $25,000 less than the asking price. · The property is in very poor condition and would be a candidate for demolition and redevelopment. · Due to the property's poor condition, the property can be acquired for a reasonable price. · Staff has been informed by GSR Development that they are interested in completing a residential redevelopment project that would utilize the subject property and the adjacent properties to the north and south. GSR Development indicated to staff that the owner of 4301 Nevada Avenue North had recently passed away and the property may be available for acquisition. · CDBG funds designated for the City's Scattered Site Housing Program are available for acquisition. If acquired, the following options could be considered for redevelopment: · GSR Development owner-occupied townhome development utilizing both adjacent properties to the north and south. · Northwest Communities Revitalization Corporation (NCRC), Community Housing Redevelopment Organization (CHDO): HOME funded affordable single-family home redevelopment project. · Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC): Affordable single-family home redevelopment project. · Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity (TCHFH): Affordable single-family home redevelopment project. · Landbank the property for future redevelopment purposes. Per Council direction on Apd114, staff will explore a possible sale of the property to GSR Development and the feasibility of passing on any demolition and site restoration costs to the developer. Aisc, staff will approach the West-Metro Fire-Rescue District fire regarding a possible training opportunity and subsequent demolition and restoration. The owner has indicated that there is an unsealed well on the property. Well abandonment will be the responsibility of the property owner. Request for Action FUNDING )BG funds are available for property acquisition. Page 4 4-28-03 A'I-rAC H M E NTS · Resolution · Location Map · Purchase Agreement · Acknowledgement and Waiver Form COUNCIL I REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 4-28-03 Consent Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD & Ken Doresk¥, CD Specialist By: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR 5506 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 741) ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends approval of a resolution to purchase property located at 5506 Winnetka Avenue North for the agreed upon purchase price of $222,000, in accordance with the attached purchase agreement prepared by the City Attomey. The purchase agreement is expected to be signed by the owner at the time of this meeting. 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 acquiring properties from willing sellers in areas designated for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan. The City has been acquiring properties on a voluntary basis in the Winnetka/Bass Lake Road/Sumter Avenue area for potential future redevelopment purposes. Over the past several years, the City has acquired a total of sixteen (16) properties in this area. The City is required by law to pay fair market value when acquiring property. Normally, fair market value ~s determined from a property appraisal. After the Council authorizes staff to negotiate the purchase of a property on the basis of an appraisal, staff meets with the property owner. If a mutually agreeable purchase price is agreed upon, staff returns to the Council to seek approval of the purchase price. If the Council approves the purchase price, a purchase agreement is prepared by the City Attorney and presented to the Council for final approval. ,BACKGROUND On April 14, 2003, the Council approved a motion authorizing staff to proceed with a written offer to purchase the property located at 5506 Winnetka Avenue North for $222,000. Attached, please find the purchase agreement prepared by the City Attorney. Both the "Purchase Agreement" and the "Acknowledgement and Waiver By Owners" form are expected to be signed by the property owner by the time of this meeting. The property owner indicated that they would like to close on the transaction in July. On April 1, staff met with Mrs. Carlson and two of her sons to discuss ne~lotiation of this potential property MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:\RFA\PLANNING\Housin 5506 Q- 5506 urchase a eement consideration Request for Action Page 2 4-28-05 purchase. The owners were not in agreement with the appraised value of $205,000. Based on the owner's cerns, Griffith Appraisals updated the appraisal and increased the estimated market value to $212.000:- owners submitted a letter requesting $222,000 for the property. At the April 1 negotiation meeting, the owners had a number of concerns about the appraisal including; .5 bath and heated garage not considered, electrical service clarification and a disagreement regarding the condition listed as average (-$25,000 adjustment relative to the comparable properties listed in "good" condition on the first appraisal, updated to -$15,000). The owners submitted photos of the home's interior (color photos are available in the City's Community Development Dept.). Staff contacted Griffith Appraisals regarding these issues and the appraisal was updated. During this negotiation, the owners conceded on two (2) items. Initially, the owners requested $229,000 for the property. They are now asking $222,000, $10,000 more than the appraised value and $7,000 tess than the original asking price. Also, the owners originally requested that after closing they be allowed to remain in the property for ninety (90) to one hundred and eighty (180) days rent free. They have since decided to not pursue these requests. After taking all the issues into consideration, staff supports a purchase of this property for the owner's requested price of $222,000. On March 24, the Council passed a motion authorizing staff to negotiate the potential purchase of the property located at 5506 Winnetka Avenue North based upon its appraised value of $205,000. On February 24, the City Council approved a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 5506 Winnetka Avenue North for potential acquisition purposes. Correspondence from the owner requesting that the City consider purchasing the property was received. The correspondence is dated February 19. The property is located within the Livable Communities East Winnetka Study Area and in Planning District 6. 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 District 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 District 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 District 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. As referenced in the Comprehensive Plan Update, the recommendation to redevelop this area is intended to alleviate poor housing conditions, improve access onto Winnetka and Bass Lake Road and more fully utilize the land. In October 1999, the New Hope Economic Development Authority directed staff to contact residents along the east side of Winnetka Avenue North, between 5430 and 5550 to inquire if there was any interest in voluntary sales of these properties to the City. Since that time, the City has purchased nine (9) of the seventeen (17) lots along the east side of Winnetka and additional properties along Sumter Avenue North and in the Bass Lake Road extension area (attached, please see a map of city-owned properties in Planning District 6). In March 2002, the Council directed staff to contact twenty (20) residents in Planning District 6 to again inquire if there was any interest in voluntary sales of these properties to the City. The City has received additional interest from a number of property owners about potential sales. This property owner's request was received after the March 2002 interest letter was distributed. In 2000, the City received a Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Grant to study redevelopment opportunities in the roughly quarter-mile area encircling the intersection of Winnetka Avenue North and Bass Request for Action Page. Ar ~ 4,28-03 Lake Road. In 2001 & 2002, the Livable Communities Task Force studied redevelopment opportunities within the designated area. In 2002, the Council accepted the task force study. In February 2003, the ~C.o. uncii .. selected developers for each study area site based on proposals, except the west Winnetka site. ~ The Hennepin County and Gdffith Appraisals Estimated Market Values are as follows: · Hennepin County o Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: · Griffith Appraisals, 3-11-03 (Upclated) o Estimated Market Value: $167,000 ($48,000 Land & $119,000 Building) $212,000 ($55,000 Land & $157,000 Building) The property is located at 5506 Winnetka Avenue North. The property has a lot width of 80 feet and depth of 292 feet measuring a total of 23,360 square feet. The house has 1,668 sq. ft. gross living area. The home was constructed in 1953. The appraisal states that the subject property is average in overall condition for its age. If the Council approves this purchase, staff will schedule a closing and attempt to sell the home to a house mover, demolish the foundation and restore the site to a maintainable condition. Once the site is cleared, the property would be land banked in preparation for future redevelopment of the area. The owner has indicated that there is an unsealed well on the property. Well abandonment will be the responsibility of the property owner. Staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution to purchase this property for the following reasons: · This is a 300' deep lot and matches up with the other deep lots the City has acquired to the north and south of the property. · The property is located within the Livable Communities study area and the recently developed concept plans show this property as part of a future redevelopment project. · Over the past few years, the City has acquired sixteen properties in the East Winnetka Livable Communities Area. · Relocation benefits would not be applicable in this purchase. · The owner has conceded on two items, including lowering their asking price $7,000 and not requesting to remain in the home rent free after closing for a period of up to one hundred and eighty (180) days. This property was not considered substandard in the Redevelopment Eligibility Report completed by Short, Elliott and Hendrickson in 2002, therefore a resolution determining the building substandard and including it in a future tax increment financing district will not be necessary. 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. A'I-rACHMENTS · Resolution · Location Map · Purchase Agreement · Acknowledgement and Waiver Form · Planning District 6 - City Ownership Map COUNCIL ' ! REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 4-28-03 Public Hearin.e Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By: PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH PLYMOUTH HEIGHTS PET HOSPITAL FOR SALE OF 9200 49TM AVENUE NORTH PROPERTY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 743) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests that the City Council conduct a public hearing regarding the sale of a portion of the city-owned property at 9200 49th Avenue to Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff requests that the Council approve the enclosed resolution, which approves the attached purchase agreement with Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital for the sale of the 2900 49th Avenue North property. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the City Council has conducted similar public hearings for the sale of city-owned properties for appropriate development purposes. The sale and development of this property is consistent with the priority goals stated in the City Plan and meets several if the city-wide, commercial and industrial goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan, including protect property values and maintain a strong tax base, promote private re~nvestment, attract new businesses that are complementary to existing businesses and promote high quality construction. One of the goals of Planning District #3 of the Comprehensive Plan, in which this proper't4yg~tS~ located, specifically states "promote industrial infill development of the remaining vacant parcels on Avenue." BACKGROUND At the April 14 City Council meeting, staff presented a revised purchase agreement for this site in the amounl of $81,000 by Quest Real Estate on behalf of Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital. The City Council was in agreement with the offer and passed a resolution calling for this public hearing to approve the sale of a portion of the city property at 9200 49"~ Avenue North to Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital. A public hearing notice was published in the official newspaper. Quest Real Estate, Inc. has submitted the attached Purchase Agreement and made the minor changes requested by the City Attomey in previous correspondence. Quest has also collected the earnest money check payable to Premier Title in-the amount of $1,000 and they will be submitting to the title company to hold, as per the Purchase Agreement. Representatives from Quest Real Estate and Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital will be in.~..~attendance at the headn.~, to answer any questions. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:RFA~planning~improvement\Q.9200 49 Request for Action Page 2 4-28-03 The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed resolution approving the Purchase Agreement. The re, s~ution states that: ( · The City of New Hope is the fee owner of certain real estate known as 9200 49th Avenue North, New Hope, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Brandell Industrial Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Pierce Fleming, owner of the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital, has presented the City with a Purcl~ase Agreement to buy a portion of the property consisting of approximately the south 80,848 square feet for the purpose of developing and constructing a "state of the art" 7,000 square foot veterinarian clinic/pet hospital at the property. The City Council held a public hearing at its April 28 meeting after duly published notice to sell the property to Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital in compliance with Minn. Stat. §469.029(2) and at said hearing the City Council considered all information presented by the public, Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital and its own opinions and knowledge regarding the property and the proposed sale of the property to Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital. The City's obligation to sell the property to Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital per the Purchase Agreement is conditional upon Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital's execution of a Development Agreement with the City for a veterinarian clinic/pet hospital subsequent to compliance by Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital with the City's planning process per Chapter 4 of the New Hope City Code. For real estate tax purposes, the proposed facility has an estimated preliminary market value of $1,000,000. The development Willbe classified as commercial/industrial for tax purposes and it is believed it will generate approximately $38,669 in taxes based on 2003 rates. It is estimated the City's portion of the new taxes generated by the development will initially be $6,472 annually. Currently, the property is tax exempt. The City Council hereby determines the City's interests will be best served if the Purchase Agreement for the sale of the property to Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital is hereby approved permitting Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital to prepare and submit to the City a development plan for the property as described above. The resolution further states: That the Purchase Agreement for 9200 49"' Avenue North with Pierce Fleming and the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. That the City Manager and city staff are authorized and directed to take whatever actions are necessary or advisable to fulfill all of the City's obligations required by the Purchase Agreement to sell and convey fee ownership of the property to Pierce Fleming and/or the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital per the terms of the Purchase Agreement. Additional background information on this property and project from previous Council/EDA meetings is attached for your information, and it is not staff's intent to repeat all of that information in this request. The closing on the property will take place on July 31,.2003, or sooner, should the parties mutually agree. It is anticipated that Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital will be preparing development plans for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council over the next several months. After taking comments at the public hearing, staff recommends that the City Council close the public hearing and .approve the resolution. Request for Action Page 3 4-28-03 NDING funds originally used to purchase this site came from the Storm Water Fund and staff is recommending that the proceeds from the sale of the property be returned to that fund and in the future, use the proceeds towards the construction of a regional storm water quality pond on the site. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · City Attorney Correspondence · Public Headng Notice · 4/22 Quest Correspondence · Revised Purchase Agreement · 4/14 RFA and Background Correspondence/Maps EDA REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agencla Section Community Development 4-28-03 EDA Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION PERIOD BETWEEN THE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE RYLAND GROUP, INC. FOR THE WINNETKA AVENUE AREA (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 729) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests approval of the attached Resolution by the EDA authorizing an Exclusive Negotiation Period Between the New Hope Economic Development Authority and the Ryland Group, Inc. for the Winnetka Avenue Area. The resolution is in follow up to direction provided at the April 21, 2003, City Council work session and recommended by the city's financial consultant. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The EDA has entered into similar agreements in the past regarding redevelopment projects and the East Winnetka redevelopment project is one of the goals of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND The City Council previously named Ryland, Inc. as the "preferred developer" for the East Winnetka redevelopment area. The City desires to now enter into an exclusive negotiation agreement with Ryland and to utilize Krass Monroe, P.A. to assist with the negotiation process as discussed at the April 21 City Council work session. The city's financial consultant has prepared the attached resolution to move forward on these issues. The resolution states that: · The East Winnetka area is an approximately 25-acre parcel of land which is bounded by Winnetka Avenue to the west, Bass Lake Road to the north and existing single-family housing on the east and south. · The site was historically used for single-family residential purposes and, while intending to maintain its residential use, the City plans to redevelop the site to contain a mix of single- and multi-family housing types. · Following the request for proposals by the City and consideration of the proposals received, The Ryland Group, Inc. was chosen as the City's tentative developer/builder for the site. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:RFA\PLANNING/LIV COMM/O-Ryland 90 clay agreement Request for Action Page 2 4-28-03 · l~Dn its proposal, Ryland proposes to invest additional time, expertise and money to continue to work with the ity to refine the site plan and examine the economic feasibility of development on the site. · Ryland has requested that the City provide a 90-day exclusive negotiation period with Ryland with respect to development of the site. The EDA hereby finds that the redevelopment of the site promotes the objectives as outlined in its Restated Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. I established pursuant to M~nnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 et seq. The resolution further states that: · The EDA hereby agrees that it will negotiate exclusively with Ryland for the development of the site for a period of 90 days from the date hereof, during which period the following actions shall occur: (i) Ryland shall finalize the preliminary site plan with input from city and EDA staff; (ii) Ryland, at its own expense, shall conduct any analysis it deems necessary of the environment and geotechnical condition of the site and perform the economic feasibility, marketing and other analyses contemplated by Ryland's letter to the City dated April 7, 2003; (iii) Ryland shall submit a construction pro forma, review of market values and such other financial information as the EDA may request in order to determine a sales price for the land to be included as a term in a term sheet; and (iv) If Ryland determines that the site is not economically feasible to develop, Ryland shall deliver to the EDA for its unrestricted use at no cost to the EDA all work product, market analysis, architectural and engineering reports, construction budget, research materials and other documentation produced for the site. · The firm of Krass Monroe, P.A. is hereby authorized to assist the EDA in negotiating a term sheet with Ryland and to conduct such tax increment financing and other analyses as the EDA may request. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. FUNDING The cost for Krass Monroe, P.A. to assist with negotiations will be paid from EDA funds and reimbursed by the redevelopment project. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · April 21 Krass Monroe Memo · April 7 Ryland Correspondence CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 CITY CENTER TASK FORCE MINUTES April 10, 2003 City Hall, 5:00 p.m. Welcome The task force left City Hall by bus at 5:30 to tour three development/redevelopment areas in Golden Valley, St. Louis Park and Richfield. Attendance Golden Valley Town Square, Winnetka and Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley Task Force Absent: Consultants: Absent: Staff: Brinkman, Collins, Erickson, Friedricksen, Johnson, Haugstad, Kirchoffner, Landy, Lange, Rodquist, Tiffany Mack, McKJnney, Rappaport, Velazquez, Gourlay, Johnson, Martin, Martens, Slack Brixius, Hanson Kirk McDonald, Erin Seeman, Jerry Beck, Pamela Sylvester Mr. Geoff Martin, introduced tour guides Jeanne Andre, Assistant to City Manager and Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development. The project was constructed on 13 acres of land and included office/retail space, 130+ for sale multi-family townhomes and condominiums starting at $138,000 and 25 affordable rental apartments. The density is 15 units per acre. Parking for the townhomes/condos includes 2 underground spaces per unit and .5 spaces for visitors on the street. The rental units have 1.5 spaces of underground parking per unit. There is also shared parking with the adjacent retail center. The densities were achieved through the PUD process. City involvement included land acquisition, demolition of existing buildings, construction of streets and streetscape, relocation of utilities, soil corrections and environmental remediation. TIF funds were utilized. Other funding came from Met Council, Hennepin County, tax credits from Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, CDBG funds, and a Livable Communities grant. The project was done in phases beginning with the demolition of a grocery store in 1995, forming a task force in 1997, demolition of a strip shopping center in 1999, and another shopping center in 2001. Ninety-three percent of the retail space is leased with the remainder under lease negotiations. The task force liked the residential focus with underground parking and shared parking, as well as the three level retail building. Excelsior and Grand, Excelsior Blvd and Monterey Avenue, St. Louis Park Mr. Martin introduced Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor, who explained St. Louis Park's redevelopment project. The total project area is 125 acres, with the project area for phase 1 and 2 consisting of 15 acres. There is 82,000 square feet of commercial/retail space, 40,000 square feet of office space, and 660 housing units including 600 rental with 18 affordable units, and 60 owner-occupied units. Buildings are set back five feet from the property line. Phase 2 will contain 186,000 square feet of leasable mixed-use development. Buildings are four to seven stories high and will contain offices, retail shops, restaurants on the ground floors and apartments on the upper floors. Underground parking for residential is provided and ramp/street parking is available for the retail and restaurants. The project was accomplished through rezoning and the PUD process. The process began in 1994 and a task force was formed in 1996. Phase 1 construction, called Excelsior & Grand, began late in 2001 with the final phase to be completed in 2005. The end result of the project will house 8 to 10 buildings centered along a 600-foot long town green that runs from Excelsior Boulevard to Wolfe Park, the recreation center and Bass Lake tennis courts. St. Louis Park acquired the sites, all through willing sellers, for approximately $18 million and prepared the sites for development for Woodlake Centre, 66th & Lyndale Avenue, Richfield Adjournment approximately $9 million. Other monies utilized were from EDA, TIF, anc~ LCDA and other grants. The task force was concerned with the fact that there was not much street parking, but it did like the tie in to the city park and other amenities. Martin introduced Bruce Nordquist, Housing Redevelopment Manager, who explained Richfield's project. He stated that the themes the steering committee wanted to hold onto included nature, people, housing, transit, identity, and businesses. The total redevelopment area was approximately 14.5 acres with a mix of land uses. The bank, owner of 2/3rds of the redevelopment site, came to the city with plans to expand its facility. The city purchased 14 single-family homes from willing sellers to increase the size of the redevelopment project. The development provides retail opportunties, 78 rental assisted living units, 38 rental 2-story townhomes and 100 rental apartment fiats above the townhomes. All residential units offer underground parking and a ramp provides 600 parking stalls. Richfield provided $9.5 million in TIF funds and the developer secured private financing. The project was accomplished through PUD rezoning. The developer acquired and prepared the sites for redevelopment and secured private financing. The project took approximately two years from beginning of demolition to completion of construction. Unique aspects of the project include an integrated design, walkable, shared parking for adjacent quadrants, and a sculpture garden. Nordquist emphasized that New Hope hold on to the vision through adversity. The task force felt there was good use of urbanization and liked the courtyard area. It also was impressed with the classic architecture and indoor atrium. It felt the assisted living units would be good for New Hope. The City Center Task Force arrived back at City Hall at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 2 March 4, 2003 PROJECT BULLETIN #7 CITY OF NEW HOPE PROJECT BULLETIN #7 36TM AVENUE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT HIDDEN VALLEY PARK IMPROVEMENTS City Project Nos. 626 & 710 Project Status: Now that spring weather has returned, work on the 36th Avenue Infrastructure and the Hidden Valley Park Improvement Projects has begun again. This project bulletin is intended to describe work yet to be completed this year. 36th Avenue: The roadway has been opened to traffic since last November. All of the curb required in the project has been installed. Sidewalks and driveways along Boone Avenue have also been installed. Sod has been placed along the boulevards west of Boone Avenue. Restoration of those boulevards east of Boone Avenue ceased last fall 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 last fall. All 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 last fall. Construction on the gazebo began late last fall but the gazebo was not completed. Earlier this spring, the tennis court and hockey rink lighting was installed. Upcoming Work: The contractor has indicated that installation of the rest of the sidewalks along 36th Avenue east of Boone Avenue will begin later this month. While this is happening, the temporary blacktop driveways that were installed late last fall along 36th Avenue will be removed to allow for the placement of the sidewalks and concrete driveway aprons. When this is completed, the boulevards will be restored and the necessary landscaping will be completed. After this work has been completed, the wear course, the final layer of blacktop, will be placed on the street, and the appropriate street markings will be applied to the pavement. At Hidden Valley Park, the contractor will begin by paving the hockey rink, tennis courts, and basketball courts. This work is expected to begin later this month. After the hard courts are paved, the trail work will be completed. This will be followed by the installation of the hockey rink boards, court fencing, tennis nets and basketball goals. An irrigation system will be installed in the soccer field and turf establishment and landscaping will be completed throughout the park area. The gazebo will be completed this year, and the remainder of the regional trail along the west side of Boone Avenue will be installed. Until all of this work has been completed, the park will still be considered a construction site, and as such will remain closed. The fence will remain around the park until it is ready for use. It is expected that the park will be open for use again sometime this summer. All of the remaining work, but especially the work in the park, is dependent on favorable weather. Therefore, the actual date of the park reopening cannot be determined at this time. Contact Persons If you have questions or concerns during the street and utility improvement please direct your calls to one of the following: Jason Quisberg Project Site Inspector (651) 604-4938 Tom Schuster Contract Manager (763) 592-6763 Dale Reed Operations Manager (763) 592-6772 Guy Johnson Director of Public Works (763) 592-6766 Shari French Director of Parks and Recreation (763) 531-5152 Vince VanderTop Project Engineer (651) 604-4790 For after hours or weekend emergencies, please contact the New Hope Police (763) 531-5170. project or the park project, Department at April 18, 2003 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 4, 2003 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: Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen Absent: Anderson, Hemken Also Present: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve Sondrall, City Attomey, Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC03-01 Item 4.1 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat Approval, 7550 and 7600 49th Avenue North, New Hope LLC/Navarre Corporation, Petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated that Navarre was requesting development stage planned unit development approval to allow construction of a 111,000 square foot office/warehouse building, links between the buildings over the property line and preliminary plat to combine three parcels into one to accommodate the proposed development. The Planning Commission and City Council approved the concept stage PUD plans in February, subject to several conditions, including the submission of development stage plans, preliminary plat, begin the process for utility easement vacation, and submission of plans to the Watershed District. McDonald stated that the proposed preliminary plat consisted of combining three separate parcels plus a portion of one of the parcels that was a torrens property into one parcel. The total lot area consists of 256,825 square feet or 5.9 acres. Drainage and utility easements are to be provided as required. The City Code states that copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review unless the Planning Commission waives this requirement during review of the preliminary plat. The petitioner submitted correspondence requesting waiver of the review of the final plat by the Planning Commission, and staff recommends waiver of the final plat. The preliminary plat was submitted to city department heads, City Attomey, City Engineer, Planning Consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment. The City engineer's comments included: 1 ) The applicant should submit a list of all existing easements to be vacated along with the platting process, which is in process; 2) The railroad spur easement should be identified and documentation submitted to the City; 3) The north-south drainage and utility easement must be centered over the trunk sanitary sewer, and it ap~pears the easement must be moved five feet west; 4) The right-of-way for 49"' Avenue should be 40 feet from the center line as is consistent with city collector roads, currently it is shown as 30 feet; 5) Drainage and utility easement must be modified in the southwest corner of the property to include the storm sewer, which is a minor modification; 6) Joint ingress and egress easements with adjacent properties must be documented with the agreements. McDonald added that there was a drainage and utility easement on the north side of the 14. 15. 16. Planning Commission Meeting plat 35 feet in width, 30 feet in width on the west side, 10 feet in width on the east side, and 25 feet in width on the front side of the property, not including the right-of-way. The City Attomey reviewed the plan and McDonald stated that most of the comments consisted of routine items. The most significant item was to identify the plat name. Hennepin County does not review plats that do not abut a county right-of-way. The only utility company that responded was Xcel Energy. A representative came to city hall to review the plans and project with staff, however, no written comments were submitted. McDonald stated that staff was recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions in the report, including submission of revised preliminary plat including all recommendations of the City Attorney and City Engineer, and approving waiver of review of the final plat. McDonald reported that the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and discussed a lengthy list of issues compiled from the previous Planning Commission meeting and comments and recommendations from staff and consultants. The applicant submitted revised plans that addressed the majority of those issues as follows: 1. The number of fire hydrants around both buildings was increased to five per the request of West Metro Fire. There are two additional hydrants in close proximity to the Navarre site along 49th Avenue. 2. A sketch was prepared showing the resident driveway locations across 49th Avenue with regard to headlights. 3. Soil boring information would be submitted at the time of building permit application. 4. The wetland delineation had not yet been submitted, but would be required with the Watershed application. Some of this information may not be available until spring. 5. Additional details on the retaining wall were provided and the City Engineer recommended that structural plans from a registered engineer be required prior to construction. 6. Parking lot and pavement section detail were added to the,E)lans. 7. Details on existing driveway apron and sidewalk along 49"' Avenue were added to the revised plans. 8. Additional details on the pond outlet structure have been provided and the final plans would be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. The request for no curbing on the north side was eliminated. Concrete curb was added along the north drive aisle. 10. Information on depth of footings for the new building to be constructed over existing sanitary sewer line would be required at the time of building permit application. 11. The turning radius for trucks at the northeast comer of the existing building has been modified as discussed at the Design & Review meeting. 12. Regarding the loading area on the west side of the new building, truck turning radius data was provided with the revised plans. 13. Curb cut separation on the west property line has remained the same, and the applicant requested a waiver of the 40-foot setback requirement, which would amount to approximately 25 feet. Staff recommends approval within the flexibility of the PUD. "One way only" signage along the north drive aisle has been shown on the revised plans. 28 additional parking stalls have been shown on the revised site plan. The potential future building separation issues would be addressed with March 4, 2003 agreements to be submitted at the time of building permit application and will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 17. Additional details and revisions have been provided for the landscaping/ screening at the top of the retaining wall. 18. Staff did not have an issue with the 20 percent green area requirement due to the fact that the total green area was just slightly under the 20 percent requirement. 19. The discrepancies in the landscape plan/schedule have been corrected. 20. The fire lane is shown on the site plan. There would be five signs posted along the north side of the buildings stating "no parking fire lane." 21. The future parking on the north side of the building was converted to parallel parking and is shown on the revised plans. 22. The floor plan for the 2"d story office in the new building would be submitted at the time of building permit application. 23. Additional lighting details have been provided. A few concerns remain, but the final plans would be subject to the approval of the Building Official. 24. Racking details would be submitted with the building permit application. 25. The Watershed application would be a requirement of approval. 26. Additional details on signage have been provided. McDonald reviewed several additional items regarding the development plans. 1. The final stage PUD would have two lots with two building links built between them as well as shared driveways, parking facilities, linked storm drainage systems and a new NURP pond. The applicant was seeking flexibility in the green space, setbacks, impervious surface coverage, and driveway separation. 2. The access would be from 49th Avenue: the east access point located on the east side of the existing building in a counter-clockwise direction around the buildings and the west access point approximately 15 feet from the residential curb cut off 49th Avenue. A variance of roughly 25 feet would be needed to allow this access area and could be approved within the overall flexibility of the PUD approval. 3. Truck traffic would enter the proposed site from the south off of 49th Avenue. The plan shows a 20-foot wide fire lane to the north of the building which meets City Code. The current plan provides sufficient turning radius for small to mid-sized trucks. Previously there were some questions as to whether additional detail was needed for larger semi- trucks and trailers. The applicant submitted a revised narrative, which stated that United Parcel Service provides shipping/trucking service to Navarre. UPS uses 53-foot trailers with city cab over trailers, which are highly maneuverable. Empty trailers are dropped at the dock for loading and the tractor removes a full trailer for shipping. The bulk of this activity occurs after the first shift when the stalls opposite the dock area are not utilized. The most southerly docks would be limited to short bed truck and van type use so as not to infringe on the drive aisle. Some adjustments may be required, but the City Engineer and Building Official would approve the final plans. 4. The applicant was seeking flexibility in the setback to the east of the proposed site. The setback connection to the adjacent building would be allowed by PUD. The lot area and other setbacks meet City Code standards. 5. The applicant identified curb and gutter around the entire parking lot. The applicant was proposing to create 128 new parking stalls, and the combined parking between the two buildings would be 237. Appropriate ADA parking was identified, subject to final approval by the Building Official. 6. The building materials would be precast concrete panels with a textured surface. Prefinished metal cap flashing would be installed at the top of Planning Commission Meeting 3 March 4, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting the precast panels. There would be an EFIS with prefinished metal cap flashing installed at the top edge of the building. Each floor would have a series of windows of insulated tinted glass in painted aluminum frames. The entry section would be insulated tinted glass. A wall sign would be placed directly above the entry on the south elevation. The center and west comer of the south elevation would feature glass panels similar to the entrance. The north elevation would consist of precast concrete insulated panels with three exit doors. The east elevation would be precast concrete insulated panels and the west elevation would be precast concrete insulated panels with a textured surface. The west elevation would have 12 semi-truck docks along the rear portion of the building and three exit doors. The front portion of the elevation would be glass treatment wrapped around to the front of the building. The applicant was proposing a paved courtyard between the two buildings. 7. Each building would be connected by two links, The links would be removable if the building's use changed. Three roll-up fire doors would be installed on the existing building at the links. The existing exit doors along the building's west elevation would be sealed. The rear link would have two ten-foot overhead doors. One overhead door would provide access to the link from the rear of the building and the other through the link to the courtyard. 8. Native prairie seed mix would be planted at the rear of the building and around the pond. Sod would be placed south of the pond completely around the periphery of the existing building. A total of 289 plantings would be placed around the buildings and the pond. The southwest corner of the building would have a circular planting area. The southeast comer of the new building would mirror the southwest comer of the existing building. The applicant would be required to provide additional screening from on top of the retaining wall. 9. Snow storage is shown in the northwest portion of the site in the pond area. 10. The fire department connection is shown on the west side of the building approximately 50 feet north of the front elevation. 11. In addition to the trash enclosure on the northeast end of the existing building, a new container would be placed at the north end of the site between the existing building and new building. The revised plans do not show a trash enclosure, only a container. The container is located between the buildings directly north of the northernmost building link. McDonald added that staff determined, due to the fact that the container would be between the buildings, an enclosure would not be required. 12. A five-foot concrete sidewalk would be constructed in front of the eastern portion of the building that would proceed eastward toward the center of the two buildings. The proposed new sidewalk links to a ten-foot wide sidewalk in the center bump out area connecting both buildings to the parking lot. The existing sidewalk in the public boulevard area would remain. 13. The existing monument sign in front of the existing building would remain and a new wall sign would be installed on the south elevation of the new building. The sign would be 24 feet by four feet and backlit with neon. Sign materials and colors have not been identified. 14. The retaining wall 340 feet in length would be installed along the west edge of the property between the apartment complex and Navarre. The wall begins approximately 56 feet from the front property line and extends 215 feet northward, then follows the property line west 125 feet. The retaining wall would consist of two tiers. The lower tier would be approximately six feet in height and the upper tier would be approximately six and one-half feet in height, with one foot of each tier buried. A four-foot horizontal planting bed would be installed between the tiers. A landscape screen would be installed at the top of the wall between the property line and the wall. A three-foot wood post with a 4 March 4, 2003 15. metal guardrail would be installed between the landscape screen and the property line. The posts would extend three feet into the ground. The wall would be constructed of eight-inch masonry block. Each tier would have a masonry cap. The Planner indicated that the applicant be required to provide additional screening on the top of the retaining wall. McDonald stated that staff agreed with the planting pattern provided by the applicant, however felt additional landscaping should be provided between the apartment complex to the west and the development. Based on the revised plans, the applicant should plant additional black hills spruce north of both existing garage locations. The applicant was proposing spirea on the retaining wall with an initial height of 18-24 inches. Staff would recommend that all species of shrubs located near the retaining wall be a minimum of 4-5 feet in height and because spirea species reach a mature height of only four feet, the Planning Consultant recommended that a taller plant species be substituted in that area. Additional lighting and contours were provided. Six decorative fixtures would be installed at the front of the building and would match the fixtures on the existing building. Three 400 W HPS wall mounted units would be installed along the west elevation and one at the rear. Concern had been raised on the lighting at the rear of the building and at the pond, and final plans are subject to the approval of the Building Official. McDonald stated that staff was recommending approval of the development stage PUD subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer, review and approval of the Building Official, West Metro Fire, Shingle Creek Watershed, revision of the landscaping plan per the Planning Consultant's recommendations, execution of a PUD development agreement and submission of appropriate financial guarantee for site improvements, submission of other agreements regarding building links, joint parking, ingress/egress, and processing the utility easement vacation requests. Mr. Vince Vander Top, Assistant City Engineer, stated that there would be a trunk sanitary sewer running through the site, which was a major city sewer facility. There would also be a trunk storm sewer that would be reconstructed as part of this project. The construction schedule included the applicant clearing the site of vegetation and completing the preliminary grading. After that time the building construction would begin. While the building footing construction was underway, the City would reconstruct the trunk sanitary sewer. The existing trunk sanitary sewer would need to be protected until such time that the City could relocate it. Building footings would be constructed over the old sanitary sewer while it was still active, therefore, measures would need to be taken to protect it during that process. The City would coordinate with Navarre's engineer to determine when the storm sewer could be reconstructed. The applicant would be responsible for abandoning or removing the storm sewer. Mr. Robert Glasgow, representative of Navarre Corporation at 7400 49th Avenue, came forward to address the Commission. Glasgow indicated that they would cooperate with staff on any details. He stated Navarre's engineer felt the reot system of the blue spruce as recommended to be planted north of the garage would interfere with the geofabric holdbacks and potentially harm the retaining wall. Glasgow indicated that there was one additional hydrant adjacent to the 7300 49th Avenue property that had not previously been pointed out. Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether an easement was required for the NURP pond and this was confirmed, The future parking at the north side of the building was clarified to be 12 parallel stalls and may be paved at the time of building construction. A question was raised whether that would interfere with the drainage from the NURP pond to the existing pond. The City Planning Commission Meeting 5 March 4, 2003 Engineer stated that parking could oCCur in the drainage and utility easement. The most important issue would be to keep the drive aisle Iow enough so that in the event of a super storm, the runoff would overflow in the natural direction to the wetland and not flood Navarre's building or adjacent properties. It was noted the high point of the north drive aisle would be at the property line, therefore, surface drainage would run to the west and east to existing or future catch basins. Svendsen commented that signage should be posted for vans only in the three shorter dock spaces on the west side of the new building. Glasgow indicated that with the single source shipping provider, there were regular drivers and it would be easier to direct them where to go. Signage could be added if required by the City. Discussion ensued on the truck outflow from the west driveway on 49th Avenue and whether the turning radius was appropriate. This item should be clarified. Glasgow interjected that the easterly drive was the same dimension and there had not been any problems in the past. Mr. Bill Sikora, KKE Architects, addressed the ADA parking issue and stated that ADA requires two stalls for every 50 stalls provided, therefore, with the addition of 127 new stalls, five ADA stalls would be required. Due to the fact that there would be a couple additional stalls over the 125, a sixth ADA stall could be provided if required by the City. Svendsen questioned whether or not sprinkling would be provided for all the landscaping. Glasgow responded that the intent was to provide sprinkling in the front areas, not in the prairie grass area by the pond. No sprinkling was planned for the plants in the retaining wall area. O'Brien maintained that sprinkling should be provided in all landscaped areas. Sikora added that typically plantings have a one-year warranty and that the contractor would be responsible for watering until plants were established and for replacing any plants that died. Svendsen initiated discussion on the landscaping on the top of the retaining wall. He expressed skepticism that the guardrail as proposed would keep any children from playing in that area and possibly falling to the hard surfaced parking lot ten feet below. Svendsen stated he understood the petitioner's reluctance to place larger plantings on the top of the wall and compromising the structural capability of the wall, but would like to see consideration given toward the safety concerns of the Design & Review Committee. Oelkers suggested planting a shrub with thoms that would deter children from playing in that area. He was less concerned with the height of the fence, and would rather see more fullness in the plantings. Glasgow responded that they were very safety conscious and would look into alternative plantings. Discussion ensued on whether a variance would be required to waive the trash enclosure requirement due to the fact that the trash container would be located between the buildings. Glasgow interjected that the container was a compactor box. The same type of container is located by the east building. Navarre is considering locating both compactors in the same area between the buildings. Svendsen called attention to the fact that the lighting did not project out to the parking spaces adjacent to the NURP pond on the west side of the parking lot and the 12 new stalls at the rear. Glasgow stated that Navarre would be proceeding on a design/build basis with an electrical contractor and would address this issue with the final building plans. A question was raised on the height of the three-foot fence at the top of the Planning Commission Meeting 6 March 4, 2003 retaining wall and if it was of sufficient height for the larger SUV type vehicles common today. Sikora replied that the fence would be similar to the type found along state highways with the large posts and continuous steel railing. The intent would be to keep vehicles from entering the area. No one in the audience wished to address the Commission, therefore, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner O'Brien maintained that he felt strongly about a sprinkler system for plantings in the retaining wall area and all other landscaped areas of the property and suggested that it be considered in the final plans. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Planning Case 03-01, Request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat Approval, 7550 and 7600 49t~ Avenue North, New Hope LLC/Navarre Corporation, Petitioner, subject to the following conditions: Preliminary Plat 1. Submit revised preliminary plat that incorporates recommendations from City Attorney (315/03 and 2/28/03 correspondence) and City Engineer (2/26/03 correspondence regarding plat) and the NURP pond utility easement. 2. Approve waiver of review of final plat by Planning Commission. Development StaRe PUD 1. SubJect to recommendations of City Engineer (2126103 and 1/29103 correspondence regarding site improvements). 2. Subject to review and approval of Building Official. 3. Subject to review and approval of West Metro Fire. 4. Subject to review and approval of Shingle Creek Watershed District. 5. Revision to landscaping plan on top of retaining wall, subject to approval of staff and City Engineer. 6. Execution of PUD Development Agreement with City and submission of appropriate financial guarantee for site improvements (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). 7. Submission of other agreements regarding building links, joint parking, ingress, egress, etc. 8. Process utility easement vacation requests in conjunction with City. 9. Sprinkler system for front landscaping areas to be noted on plan. Oelkers questioned the one-way drive aisle and whether or not trucks could enter on the west driveway. McDonald stated that there would be one-way signage posted with a "do not enter" sign by the fire lane from the west side. Glasgow responded that most trucks would enter at the east driveway and circulation would be counter-clockwise around the building. There may be some trucks entering at the west driveway as well. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion passed. Barrick, Brauch, Svendsen None Anderson, Hemken Buggy, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers, Planning Commission Meeting 7 March 4, 2003 COMMITTEE REPORTS Design & Review Committee Item 6.1 Codes & Standards Committee Item 6.2 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on March 10 and advised the petitioner to attend. Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met in February with the petitioner. McDonald stated that Mid-America Financial Plaza would probably be filing for a CUP for a school use and parking ramp for the April meeting. Staff expected that Chardon Court may submit plans for a four-story senior cooperative building for consideration at the May meeting. St. Joseph Church would be filing in April or May for its expansion and the church may submit a proposal to split off a section of its property south of the Kimball subdivision to create a new residential subdivision with six lots. Landy reported that Codes & Standards did not meet, but a meeting would be scheduled in April to continue discussion on several issues. Svendsen raised the issue of the proposed development of a pet hospital with boarding on the city-owned property at 9200 49t~ Avenue. McDonald stated that the current zoning was not appropriate for a pet hospital. The dog day care ordinance under consideration was proposing to allow that use by CUP in an Industrial District and it may be appropriate to allow a pet hospital by CUP in an Industrial District as well. Chairman Landy stated that the City Center Task Force would be meeting on March 6 and he would be attending. Motion was made by Commissioner Brauch, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 4, 2002, as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed. Brauch questioned the status of the thrift store study and moratorium. McDonald replied that the City Council would review the thrift store study at a work session in March. Landy reminded the Commission of the upcoming workshop regarding storm water issues and easements on March 11, from 6 to 8 p.m. Chairman Landy announced that he would not be able to attend the May meeting. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attomey, introduced Doug Debner, an associate of his firm. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 8 March 4, 2003 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 City Council Minutes Regular Meeting March 10, 2003 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OPEN FORUM CONSENT AGENDA MOTION Consent Items BUSINESS LICENSES Item 6.1 FINANCIAL CLAIMS Item 6.2 RESOLUTION 03-42 Item 6.5 RESOLUTION 03-43 Item 6.6 RESOLUTION 03-44 Item 6.7 New Hope City Council Page 1 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. Council Present: w. Peter Enck, Mayor Sharon Cassen, Councilmember Don Collier, Councilmember Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember Steve Sommer, Councilmember Staff Present: Dan Donahue, City Manager Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist Shaft French, Director of Parks & Recreation Valerie Leone, City Clerk Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Steve Son&all, City Attorney Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Cassen, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2003. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. There was no one present to ad&ess the Council for the Open Forum. Mayor Enck introduced the consent items as listed for consideration and stated that all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be removed for discussion. Items 6.4 and 6.9 were removed for discussion later in the meeting. Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, to approve all remaining items on the Consent Agenda. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Approval of Business Licenses. Approval of Financial Claims Through March 10, 2003. Resolution Approving Contract with Multi-Services, Inc. for Professional Cleaning Services. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of an Authorized Provider Agreement with the Red Cross for 2003. Resolution Ratifying the 2003 Labor Agreement Between the I.U.O.E. Local 49 and the City. March 10, 2003 RESOLUTION 03-45 Item 6.8 RESOLUTION 03-46 Item 6.10 BID/PORTABLE RESTROOMS Item 6.11 PLANNING CASE 03-01 Item 8.1 New Hope City Council Page 2 Resolution Approving Contract with Outdoors Again for 2003 Mowing Services. Resolution Approving Specifications for the 2003 Crack Repair and Seal Coat Project; Ordering Advertisement for Bids - Improvement Project No. 742. Approval of Bids Submitted for Portable Restrooms for Park Facilities and Authorization to Contract for Season with Portables Plus Sanitation - $2,357. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Planning Case 03-01, Request for Development Stage Planned Unit Development Approval to Allow Construction of a 111,000 Square Foot Office/Warehouse Building with Links to the Existing Building and Preliminary Plat Approval to Combine Three Parcels into One, 7550 and 7600 49th Avenue North, New Hope LLC/Navarre Corporation, Petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, illustrated the property located west of the New Hope Ice Arena. He stated the Planning Commission considered the request at its March 4 meeting and recommended approval subject to several conditions that are outlined in the resolution. Mr. McDonald noted the project is consistent with the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Planned Unit Development (PUD) consists of four pieces of land (two lots and one outlot that will be platted into one lot and one adjacent platted lot). The total area of the plat will be 5.9 acres. The final stage PUD will have two lots with two buildings and "links" built between them, as well as shared driveways, parking facilities and linked storm drainage systems and a new NURP pond. Mr. McDonald stated the city's routine policy is to submit the preliminary plat for review and comment by city department heads, city attorney, city engineer, planning consultant, utility companies, and Hennepin County. He stated most comments related to easement requirements and the need for the plat to have an official name. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to 1) receipt of a revised preliminary plat that incorporates recommendations from the city attorney and city engineer and the NURP pond utility easement; and 2) approve waiver of review of final plat by Planning Commission. Next, Mr. McDonald reviewed the site plan. He stated truck traffic will enter the proposed site from the south off of 49a Avenue. A counter-clockwise circulation on the site is planned. The proposed plan shows a 20-foot wide fire lane to the north of the building which meets city code. Curb and gutter will be placed along the entire parking lot. The parking area complies with city requirements. Snow storage is shown in the northwest portion of the site in the pond area. The fire department connection is shown on the west site of the building approximately 50 feet north of the front elevation. In addition to the trash enclosure on the northeast end of the existing building, a new container will be placed at the north end of the site between the existing building and the new building. All the building materials will match the existing building. Each building will be connected by two links (one at the front of the buildings and one at the rear). The links will be removable if the building's use changes. Three roll-up fire doors will be installed on the existing building at the links. The existing exit doors along the building's west elevation will be sealed. The rear link will have two ten foot by ten foot overhead doors. One overhead door will provide access to the link from the rear of the building and the other through the link to the courtyard. Mr. McDonald reviewed the utility and landscaping plans. He noted an imgation system is included. A retaining wall 340' in length will be installed along the west edge of the property between the apartment complex and Navarre Corporation. It will consist of two tiers and be constructed with eight-inch masonry block. A landscape screen will be installed at the top of the wall. A three-foot wood post March 10, 2003 New Hope City Council Page 3 with a metal guard rail will be installed between the landscape screen and the property line. Mr. McDonald noted the Planning Commission had concerns regarding the landscaping proposed at the top of the retaining wall. It was recommended that the petitioner and staff reach an agreement on acceptable landscaping for this area. Mr. McDonald reviewed the lighting plan and commented that six decorative fixtures will be installed to match those on the existing building. Mayor Enck questioned the irrigation plan. Mr. McDonald stated the plan calls for sprinkling to be provided for all landscaping except the retaining wall area. He noted the Planning Commission as a whole did not recommend the retaining wall plantings to be irrigated. Mr. Bill Sikora, KICE Architects, was recognized. He pointed out the retaining wall sketch is a concept drawing only. He stated typically retaining walls are not designed until later in the construction document phase. He pointed out their willingness to work with staff to reach consensus on the most effective shrubbery to use for screening. He reported that the reluctance to include the retaining wall plantings with the irrigation system is due to the possibility of irrigation failure (to shut off) and potential damage to the retaining wall structure. He stated the plantings typically have a one-year warranty during which time the contractor is responsible for watering. He stated the root systems of the plantings should be established after one year and should receive adequate moisture from the abutting soils. Mayor Enck pointed out that the city code requires on-going maintenance of landscaping. Mr. Sikora acknowledged the requirement and noted the existing landscaping at Navarre is well cared for. Councilmember Cassen questioned whether the curb cut could line up with Quebec Avenue. Mr. Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, stated that option was considered, but was not pursued due to the size of the building and limited truck maneuverability. He also noted it would have required purchase of private property. Mr. VanderTop stated this issue could be examined more closely if desired by the Council. Mr. Sikora pointed out another consideration for the location of the driveway was based on the gradelines. He illustrated topographical drawings and stated there would be a four-foot grade difference from the street to the parking lot resulting in a steeper driveway~pproach. Councilmember Cassen commented regarding the long 356' wall proposed for the west side. She noted the wall will be exposed to the abutting property and inquired of optious for an improved appearance. Mr. Sikora recommended the plantings of vines and larger or greater variety of shrubs. Councilmember Sommer acknowledged the efforts and thorough review by the planning commission. He expressed his appreciation that curb and gutter is planned along the north side. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth initiated discussion regarding the metal guardrail and signage for the fire lane. Mr. Sikora stated the height of the rail is intended to align with vehicle bumpers. Mr. McDonald confir'med that the fire lane will be designated with signage and a March 10, 2003 RESOLUTION 03-47 Item 8.1 CONSENT ITEMS REMOVED - - OFF BROADWAY MUSICAL THEATRE Item 6.4 New Hope City Council Page 4 yellow painted curb. Councilmember Sommer inquired of the building height on the west side. Mr. Sikora stated the precast line will be 25 feet but the actual building will be 30 feet high. Councilmember Sommer recommended the posting of "no idling tracks" signs to prevent disturbances to the adjacent apartment complex. Mr. Robert Glasgow, representative of Navarre Corporation, was recognized. He explained the track operations stating a UPS track drops a trailer and then exits the site. He stated the tracks do not have refrigeration units and do not need to be kept idling. He also noted there is sufficient parking area if needed by trucks. Mr. Glasgow also pointed out that the docks are 13 feet lower and will act as a sound barrier. Mayor Enck indicated staffwill take note of Mr. Glasgow's comments. Mr. Glasgow also reported that the plat name is Paulson's Prairie. Councilmember Collier disclosed that he owns stock in Navarre Corporation and therefore will be abstaining from voting on the item. Mayor Enck thanked Navarre for choosing to expand in New Hope. Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 03-01, REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 111,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH LINKS TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO COMBINE THREE PARCELS INTO ONE, 7550 AND 7600 49TM AVENUE NORTH, NEW HOPE LLC/NAVARRE CORPORATION, PETITIONER". 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, Gwin- Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: Collier; Absent: None; 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 6.4, Resolution Approving Agreement Between City of New Hope and Off Broadway Musical Theatre. Mayor Enck called attention to the city's financial crisis and expressed concern regarding the $7,000 expenditure for the musical production. Ms. Jeanne Tracy, President of Off Broadway Musical Theatre, was recognized. Mayor Enck inquired of Ms. Tracy's opinion regarding fundraising activities or the possibility of ticket sales to subsidize the musical. Ms. Tracy called attention to the OBMT's 30+ year history with the City of New Hope and expressed gratitude for the city's past support. She noted that charging admission to performances may be difficult logistically. She explained that their organization seeks contributions for capital purchases rather than actual operating expenses. She acknowledged their intent to mail letters to New Hope businesses seeking contributions. Ms. Tracy pointed out that several people volunteer over 7600 hours each summer to make the musical a success. The volunteers include March 10, 2003 MOTION Item 6.4 IMP. PROJECT 699 Item 6.9 RESOLUTION 03-48 Item 6.9 CITY COMMUNICATIONS Item 12.1 COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Item 12.2 New Hope City Council Page 5 board members, orchestra, and actors. She stated the play brings benefit and good will to the community, and the Board is open to other funding options in order to ensure continuance of the musical. Ms. Shah French, Director of Parks and Recreation, introduced herself and reviewed attendance statistics and projected additional expenses incurred if admission were charged for the play. Discussion ensued regarding the well-attended musical performances, budget cuts and £mancial difficulties faced by the city, and fund-raising challenges. It was noted that the city eliminated its contribution for the Duk Duk Daze fireworks from the 2003 budget. A recommendation was made for the city to equally assist nonprofit groups with fund-raising efforts such as through advertisements on channel 16. Ms. Connie Lillibridge, OBMT Board Member, was recognized. She acknowledged the worthiness of the Women of Today and the New Hope Lions Club. She stated the OBMT offers community volnnteerism and educational oppommities. She also pointed out that the musical is a culmination of a summer- long effort and should not be compared to a half-hour fireworks display. Mayor Enck directed the OBMT Board to work with city staff to explore funding options during the next two-week period. Motion was made by Mayor Enck, seconded by Councilmember Cassen, to postpone action on the OBMT contract until the March 24, 2003, Council meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 6.9, Resolution Ordering Published Notice and Public Hearing on Sale of 7901 49'h Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 699). Councilmember Cassen noted a partial agreement was included in the agenda packet. She commented that she believes there may be errors in the agreement which require correction prior to the sale. Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION ORDERING PUBLISHED NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING ON SALE OF 7901 49TM AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 699)'. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Conncilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed a~rt adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Council Input on City Communications. Furore communication items were reviewed by Council. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.2, Exchange of Communication Between Members of the City Council. Mayor Enck · Thanked Senator Rest for the March 8th Community Meeting. Announced that her next meeting is scheduled for March 15 at Crystal City Hall. He noted Representative Lyrme Osterman is holding a town hall meeting on March 22 at New Hope City Hall. · Commented on Minneapolis' endeavor to utilize residents to report on code March 10, 2003 ADJOURNMENT violations (illegal parking of recreational vehicles, weed complaints, abandoned vehicles, ere) and suggested the idea be explored by the Citizens Advisory Commission for New Hope. Councilmember Collier · Suggested placement of an article in a future Business Link newsletter to remind property owners of the ordinance requiring the clearing of sidewalks in front of properties after snowfalls. He observed many sidewalks were shoveled in front of residential properties but not at the commercial properties after last weekend's snowfall. City Manager Donahue · Reminded the council of March 17 work session · Solicited two councilmembers to serve on the Joint Water Commission Task Force (Councilmembers Sommer and Gwin-Lenth were appointed) Invited the council to participate in the Planning Commission work session on March 11 (6-8 pm) to learn about water management issues. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth · Congratulated Mayor Enck as the TwinWest Bravo Award recipient. Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no flutter business to come before the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope City Council adjourned at 8:21 p.m. Resp.ectfully submitte~l, Valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope City Council Page 6 March 10, 2003 City Council Minutes Regular Meeting CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 March 24, 2003 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OPEN FORUM CONSENT AGENDA MOTION Consent Items FINANCIAL CLAIMS Item 6.2 LIABILITY CLAIMS New Hope City Council Page 1 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, which was led by Boy Scout Troop 534 with Scout Masters George Abide and Tony Bangasser. Council Present: W. Peter Enck, Mayor Sharon Cassen, Councilmember Don Collier, Councilmember Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember Steve Sommer, Councilmember Staff Present: Dan Donahue, City Manager Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works Valerie Leone, City Clerk Kirk McDonald, Director of Commumty Development Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2003. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Paul Solman, 8321 50th Avenue North, requested assistance with backyard drainage problems and water main replacement on 502 Avenue. Mike Kosloske, 3248 Independence Avenue North, recommended adoption of an ordinance requiring residents to clear snow from fire hydrants. He also called attention to the indoor storage/screening requirement of garbage and recycling containers and suggested an exception to the requirement during the winter months when garage space is at a premium and rodents are less likely to cause problems with trash. 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 6.8 were removed for discussion later in the meeting. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, to approve all remaining items on the Consent Agenda. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Approval of Financial Claims Through March 24, 2003. Acknowledgement of Liability Claim No. 03-05 (Noel Neuman). March 24, 2003 Item 6.3 SIGN PERMITS Item 6.4 RESOLUTION 03-50 Item 6.5 BIDS/RECREATION SUPPLIES Item 6.6 RESOLUTION 03-51 Item 6.9 RESOLUTION 03-52 Item 6.10 PUBLIC HEARING Item 7.1 CLOSE HEARING Item 7.1 RESOLUTION 03-53 Item 7.1 IMP. PROJECT 741 Item 8.1 New Hope City Council Page 2 Motion to Approve Waiving the Fees for Temporary Sign Permits for New Hope Lions Club Annual Pancake Breakfast to be Held on April 6, 2003. Resolution Establishing Additional 2003 Fees and Charges for Park and Recreation Programs. Approval of Bids Submitted for Summer Recreation Shirts, Balls, Equipment and Supplies; and Authorization to Purchase - $11,103.14 Total. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for Replacement of Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Control Panels; Ordering Advertisement for Bids - Improvement Project No. 735. Resolution Approving Contract with Trugreen Chemlawn for 2003 Weed Spraying Services. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 7.1, Resolution Approving Sale of 7901 49t~ Avenue North to Carl Robinson and Emily Longaecker (Improvement Project No. 699). Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, reported that state law requires that a public hearing be held for the sale of public property. He noted that on March 10 Councilmember Cassen had raised a number of issues concerning the purchase agreement and since that time all items have been acknowledged by the buyers including the wet basement, water damage to roof, walls and ceiling, and a lead paint addendum. Mr. Doresky reported that a closing date has been scheduled for April 22, 2003. He reviewed the project cost summary. Mayor Enck remarked regarding the significant renovation that took place at the property and thanked Mr. Doresky for his efforts. The council congratulated and welcomed Emily Longaecker and Carl Robinson to the city. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Collier, to close the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING SALE OF 7901 49TM AVENUE NORTH TO CARL ROBINSON AND EMILY LONGAECKER (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 699)". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Motion Authorizing Staff to Negotiate the Potential Purchase of 5506 Winnetka Avenue North for its Appraised Value of $205,000 (Improvement Project No. 741). Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, stated on February 24, March 24, 2003 MOTION Item 8.1 BACKYARD DRAINAGE AND WATERMAIN ISSUES IMP. PROJECT 721 Item 8.2 New Hope City Council Page 3 2003, the council authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of 5506 Winnetka Avenue North for potential acquisition purposes. The appraisal has been completed and lists the property's estimated market value at $205,000. The City has been acquiring properties in the area over the past few years. Staff is seeking authorization to negotiate acquisition of the property. 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. Mayor Enck opened the floor for questions. Mr. Noel Neuman, 8340 50th Avenue North, questioned the city's intentions for the property. Mayor Enck explained that following the Livable Communities Task Force study of redevelopment oppommities, the council recently selected a development proposal for housing units such as one-level townhomes. Ms. Jennifer Graves, 8311 50th Avenue North, was recognized. She questioned the status of legislation regulating train whistles. She noted the nearby tram tracks makes the area less desirable for housing. Mayor Enck reported that federal statutes pre-empt local laws and the city is still waiting for federal legislation. Next, Ms. Graves inquired regarding the seagull and noise issue. Mayor Enck conceded that a couple of summers ago the city explored a labor intensive seagull abatement project that was unsuccessful. Ms. Graves reported that she arrived late for the council meeting and wondered of the response given to Mr. Solman regarding the water issues at 50th Avenue. Mayor Enck ruled Ms. Graves out of order since the water issue is unrelated to Item 8.1 but agreed to respond to her inquiry following the conclusion of Item 8. I. Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, to authorize staff to negotiate the potential purchase of 5506 Winnetka Avenue North for its appraised value of $205,000 (Improvement Project No. 741). Ail present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Enck reported that decisions relative to backyard drainage projects are made by the city council. He provided history of the street infrastructure report completed by GoodPointe Technology. Mayor Enck also explained the infrastructure fund that was implemented to replace the assessment process. The backyard drainage projects are funded by the water utility fund and projects can only be undertaken as funding is available and if there is a location for the water. He reported the cost effectiveness of replacing the cast iron pipes with ductile iron pipes only during street replacement projects. Lastly Mayor Enck stated the long- range plan will be periodically adjusted by GoodPointe and it is possible that 50th Avenue could be added at a later date. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Resolution Ordering Construction of Street Infrastructure Improvement Project No. 721 and Resolution Awarding Contract for the Construction of Street Infrastructure Project No. 72 I. Mr. Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, reported that the 2003 street infi:astmcture project includes: March 24, 2003 RESOLUTION 03-54 Item 8.2 · Mill and overlay of blacktop of Erickson Drive Water main improvements at 49th Avenue and the TH 169 frontage road · Street improvement and lane reconfiguration at 49th Avenue and TH 169 frontage road Mr. VanderTop also reported on the two alternate bids. Alternate 1 includes storm sewer improvements at 59th and Wisconsin Avenues, and Alternate 2 includes storm sewer improvements at Decatur Avenue and Northwood Parkway. He recommended awarding Alternate 1 contingent upon the acquisition of the easements necessary to complete the improvement. The engineer's estimate for the base bid plus the two alternates was $289,000 and the low bid submitted by Northwest Asphalt was $258,708.35. Mr. VanderTop explained that the original project included the rehabilitation of a portion of Zealand Avenue west of New Hope City Hall and a portion of Nevada Avenue just north of 42nd Avenue. After consultation with GoodPointe Technology, Zealand Avenue was removed from the project because of its history of water main breaks. It has been decided that the proper maintenance for Zealand Avenue would be total reconstruction at a later time rather than a mill and overlay at this time. The work on Nevada Avenue was removed from the project after consultation with representatives of the City of Crystal. It has been determined that there will be cost savings and efficiencies in the construction by delaying this work until 2006 when it can be coordinated with a project planned by the City of Crystal. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth questioned the plans for sediment removal of the pond (alternate 1). Mr. VanderTop explained that the goal will be to create a small pond at the end of the ravine, but this may be difficult due to the existence of trees. He stated the pond would be excavated to remove sediments. Permanent easements would be necessary for public works to access the area and maintain a long-term solution. The pond base would be existing soils and riprap would be placed to control the embankment of the pond. Councilmember Sommer inquired of the distance of the resurfacing on 49th Avenue and suggested adding the curb and gutter for the 9200 49~ property. Mr. VanderTop stated the resurfacing will end just east of Erickson Drive. He supported Councilmember Sommer's recommendation regarding the property across from Erickson Drive and noted he would explore it. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption and noted alternate number 1 is contingent upon acquisition of necessary easements: "RESOLUTION ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF STREET INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 721 AND RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT NO. 721". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. New Hope City Council Page 4 March 24, 2003 VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION PROGRAM Item 10.1 RESOLUTION 03-55 Item 10.1 DONATION POLICY Item 10.2 RESOLUTION 03-56 Item 10.2 Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Resolution Approving a Volunteer Recognition Program for the City of New Hope. Mr. Donahue, City Manager, stated the state auditor requires the city to have a policy in place to recognize its volunteers. Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING A VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION PROGRAM FOR TIlE CITY OF NEW HOPE". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.2, Resolution Setting Donation Policy for City of New Hope. Mr. Donahue, City Manager, stated the policy addresses how donations from the city are limited to organizations authorized to receive public funds including community non-profits and other civic organizations. Again, the state auditor requires the city to have a formal policy in place. Councilmember Cassen inquired whether the requests for donations have substantially increased over the years. Ms. Shari French, Director of Parks and Recreation, replied that the requests have remained quite consistent during the past 10 years. Local schools in which New Hope children are students traditionally request prizes for their annual carnivals. The city provides ten daily pool passes or a dozen golf passes. Other community groups have requested the donation of small safety related items. There is minimal out of pocket expenses for pool and golf passes as the city owns the facilities. Councilmember Cassen questioned whether limitations are addressed. Mr. Donahue pointed out that there has not been an excessive demand for donations. Ms. French advocated that the donations promote good will and public relations. She also pointed out that the pool has not been at patron capacity for a number of years so by giving a free admission to a child it also draws a parent who would be a paying customer. Councilmember Collier concurred and noted the donations may have a value but are not an actual budgetary expenditure. Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION SETTING DONATION POLICY FOR CITY OF NEW HOPE". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. New Hope City Council Page 5 March 24, 2003 OFF BROADWAY MUSICAL THEATRE Item 11.1 RESOLUTION 03-57 Item 11.1 2003 LEADERSHIP/ TEAMBUILDING RETREAT Item 11.2 MOTION/ACCEPT REPORT Item 11.2 CONSENT ITEMS REMOVED - PUBLIC SAFETY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE SYSTEMS Item 6.7 Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.1, Resolution Approving Agreement with Off Broadway Musical Theatre. Mayor Enck initiated the conversation by pointing out that last fall the City had included $7,000 in the 2003 budget for the musical. Due to the budget crisis, staff was asked to meet with OBMT to explore funding options. Ms. Shaft French, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated staff met with OBMT staff on March 13 and discussed budget issues and fund raising plans. The proposal includes a $2,000 payment from the city and fund raising activities by OBMT for the balance. If necessary, OBMT will charge admission to the performances. Ms. French acknowledged agreement of conditions 1-4 as outlined on the March 20 memorandum submitted by OBMT. Ms. French reported that the summer musicals have been in existence for 33 years of which OBMT has provided for the past 21 years. Ms. Deb Rapacz, Off Broadway Musical Theatre Board Member, indicated that the board has sent 500 letters to local businesses and charitable contributors. She reported that donations can be mailed to: OBMT, 3721 Louisiana Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota 55427. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth inquired regarding the additional royalty fees. Ms. Rapacz stated their goal is to remain a free theatre. However, if the theatre charges admissions, it will be necessary to pay an additional royalty fee to Rogers and Hammerstein. She expressed her gratitude that the OBMT has been able to reach an amicable agreement with the city. Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH OFF BROADWAY MUSICAL THEATRE". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.2, Motion Accepting Final Report by Janet Polach Relating to the 2003 Leadership/Teambuilding Retreat. Mr. Donahue, City Manager, stated every two years the city council meets with senior management for a facilitated planning session. He reviewed the list of priorities and stated the plan will be in place for the next two years. Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, to accept final report by Janet Polaeh relating to the 2003 Leadershipfreambuilding Retreat. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion the Consent items which were removed: Item 6.7, Resolution Authorizing the Funding for the Replacement of Public Safety Hardware and Software Systems Supplied by LOGIS and Approving the One-Time Payment Option in 2003. Councilmember Cassen questioned whether the three-payment option would be prudent due to the projected budget shortfall. New Hope City Council Page 6 March 24, 2003 RESOLUTION 03-58 Item 6.7 SWPPP Item 6.8 MOTION/ACCEPT SWPPP Item 6.8 COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Item 12.1 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Donahue, City Manager, reported that the city's finance officer has reviewed the options and the cash reserves. It is his recommendation that the city pay the one time payment of $188,918. Mayor Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FUNDING FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE SYSTEMS SUPPLIED BY LOGIS AND APPROVING THE ONE-TIME PAYMENT OPTION IN 2003". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 6.8, Motion to Accept the City's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). Councilmember Cassen questioned whether the cost of the program is known for year 2003 as well as the cost for subsequent years. She noted the city is presently complying with many of the requirements. Mr. Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works, stated the annual reporting cost is estimated at $3,000-$4,000. He stated staff is trying to track the data in-house through the use of Excel spreadsheets. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, to accept the city's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Exchange of Communication Between Members of the City Council. Mayor Enck Requested reviewing the city's snowplowing policy for cul-de-sacs and determine associated costs Councilmember Collier · Encouraged residents to attend the Remodeling Fair on April 5 Councilmember Gwin-Lenth · Invited persons to attend the Cross Cultural Dialogue on April 10 at 6:30 p.m. at Simon Delivers, 3440 WinPark Drive City Manager Donahue · Reminded the Council of the Emergency Management Session to be held on April 7 with the Crystal City Council; sponsored by West Metro and Hennepin County Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, 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 8:40 p.m. ctfully submiged, Valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope City Council Page 7 March 24, 2003 City Council Minutes Regular Meeting CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 April 14, 2003 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OPEN FORUM CONSENTAGENDA MOTION Consent Items BUSINESS LICENSES Item 6.1 FINANCIAL CLAIMS Item 6.2 RESOLUTION 03-59 Item 6.4 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. Council Present: W. Peter Enck, Mayor Sharon Cassen, Councilmember Don Collier, Councilmember Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember Steve Sommer, Councilmember Staff Present: Dan Donahue, City Manager Jerry Beck, Commumcations Coordinator Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist Sherry Draper, Director of Adminislxation Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works Valerie Leone, City Clerk Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Collier, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of March 24, 2003, with clarification on March 24 minutes, and Work Session Meeting of March 17, 2003. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Ms. Gunilla Bobb (representing Northwest Hennepin Human Services Commission and the New Hope Human Rights Commission) provided background regarding the Northwest Regional Human Rights Coalition Art Poster Contest and reported on this year's winning entries. The City Council acknowledged the students' creativity displayed through the posters. 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. Item 6.10 was moved for discussion later in the meeting. Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, to approve all remaining items on the Consent Agenda. All present voted in favor. Motion carded. Approval of 2003 Business Licenses. Approval of Financial Claims Through April 14, 2003. Resolution Authorizing Release of Financial Guarantee for SpectraSite Communications Tower at 3401 Nevada Avenue North (Planning Case 01-01). New Hope City Council Page 1 April 14, 2003 RESOLUTION 03-60 Item 6.5 IMP. PROJECT 656 Item 6.6 BID/POOL HEATER Item 6.7 RESOLUTION 03-61 Item 6.8 WIRING/POLICE GARAGE DOORS Item 6.9 RESOLUTION 03-62 Item 6.11 CONVEYOR SYSTEM Item 6.12 RESOLUTION 03-63 Item 6.13 INSURANCE PREMIUMS Item 6.14 STATUTORY LIMITATIONS Item 6.15 IMP. PROJECT 741 Item 8.1 New Hope City Council Page 2 'Resolution Approving Agreement with the New Hope/Crystal/Plymouth Swim Club for Use of Milton C. Homey Pool for Summer Practices. Motion to Accept Improvement Project No. 656 (Golf Course Clubhouse Project) and Approve Final Payment. Approval of Quote for Pool Heater Replacement Submitted by Aqua Logic, Inc. for $26,454. Resolution Authorizing Transfer of 2003 Pool CIP Funding. Approval to Replace Wiring for Police Garage Door Openers - Not to Exceed $1,780. Resolution Ordering Construction of and Awarding Contract to Allied Blacktop for $103,730 for Construction of the 2003 Crack Repair and Seal Coat Project (Improvement Project No. 742). Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Order Advertisement for Bids for an Installed Conveyor System at the Salt/Sand Storage Dome. Resolution Supporting Legislation to Provide Improved Funding Options for City Street Improvements. Approval of Insurance Premiums for General Liability, Property Damage and Worker's Compensation for the Period April 20, 2003 through April 20, 2004. Motion to Accept Statutory Limitations of $300,000 for Individual Claimant Recovery for Insurance Provided by League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Motion to Proceed with a Written Offer to Purchase the Property at 5506 Winnetka Avenue North at the Property Owner's Requested Price of $222,000 (Improvement Project No. 741). Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, explained that on April 1, staff met with Mrs. Carlson and two of her sons to discuss negotiation of this potential property purchase. The owners were not in agreement with the appraised value of $205,000. The owner's concerns about the appraisal included these issues: a half bath and heated garage were not considered, electrical service clarification and a disagreement regarding the condition listed as average. Based on the owner's concerns, Griffith Appraisals updated the appraisal and increased the estimated market value to $212,000. The owners have submitted a letter requesting $222,000 for the property. Mr. Doresky stated during the negotiation the owners conceded on two items. Initially, the owners were requesting $229,000 for the property. The owners are now asking $222,000, $10,000 more than the appraised value and $7,000 less than their original asking price. Also, the owners were originally requesting that after closing they be allowed to remain in the property. They have since decided to not pursue this request. The property is located at 5506 Winnetka Avenue North. The property has a lot width of 80 feet and depth of 292 feet measuring a total of 23,360 square feet. The April 14, 2003 MOTION Item 8.1 7115 62na AVENUE Item 8.2 IMP. PROJECT 734 Item 8.3 New Hope City Council Page 3 house has 1,668 sq. ft. gross living area. The home was constructed in 1953. Mr. Doresky stated based on concessions by the owner, the relatively low difference between the appraised value and asking price and the fact that relocation benefits would not be applicable, staff recommends that the Council authorize staff to proceed with a written offer to purchase the property located at 5506 Winnetka Avenue North for the property owner's requested price of $222,000. The subject property is located m an area where TIF funds can be expended. TIF funds would be used for property acquisition and associated holding costs. Mayor Enck pointed out that this is not the first occurrence that this particular appraiser missed factors resulting m an inaccurate appraisal. Councilmember Cassen concurred with employing a different appraiser for future appraisals. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth questioned the likelihood of moving the house off the property. Mr. Doresky expressed uncertainty as it may be difficult to move a house of this size that has had many additions. Mr. Brad Carlson, son of Mary L. Carlson, was recognized. He stated the City Council has valid concerns (regarding the appraiser) and offered photographs to illustrate the interior of the house to confirm it is m "above average" condition. He stated the house has two mother-m-law apartments with full baths and a newer Boyd's custom kitchen with newer flooring. Mayor Enck thanked Mr. Carlson and reported that photographs were already provided to the Council. Ms. Mary L. Carlson, owner of 5506 Winnetka Avenue North, announced that she has been a New Hope resident for 50 years and is a strong advocate for New Hope. She stated she has enjoyed living in New Hope and expressed appreciation for all the services including police, fire, and education. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, authorizing staff to proceed with a written offer to purchase the property at 5506 Winnetka Avenue North at the property owner's requested Price of $222,000 (Improvement Project No. 741). All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Discussion Regarding Potential Acquisition of 7115 62na Avenue North and Consideration of a Motion to Obtain an Appraisal of the Property. Mr. Donahue, City Manager, stated staff recommends not proceeding with the purchase at this time due to efforts and resources being pursued on redevelopment projects in other areas of the city. The Council accepted staff's recommendation and declined discussion regarding Item 8.2. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.3, Motion to Proceed with a Written Offer to Purchase the Property at 4317 Nevada Avenue North at the Property Owner's Requested Price of $83,000 (Improvement Project No. 734). Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, stated on February 11 and April 4, staff and the City Attorney met with the property owner of 4317 Nevada, April 14, 2003 New Hope City Council Page 4 David Curry, to discuss the potential acquisition of the subject property. The owner was not in agreement with the appraised value of $61,000. The Estimated Market Value as determined by Hennepin County for taxes payable 2003 is $105,000. Mr. Curry was concerned about the disparity between the appraised value and Hennepin County's estimated market value. Mr. Doresky stated at staff's request, the appraiser provided a written explanation as to why the appraised value of $61,000 was less than the County's Estimated Market Value. It was noted that the New Hope City Assessor (Hennepin County) stated that the subject property's interior has not been inspected since 1988. This would explain the disparity between the two values, since most of the subject's deferred maintenance is inside the house. As a result of the second negotiation meeting, Mr. Curry has submitted correspondence requesting $83,000 for the property. Mr. Doresky explained that last year the Council directed staff to contact the adjacent north (4301 Nevada Ave. N.) and south (4415 Nevada Ave. N.) property owners to determine if they would be interested in exploring the possibility of voluntarily selling their homes to the City for future redevelopment purposes. Staff has recently been informed that the owner of 4301 Nevada Avenue North passed away. Staff received a call on Monday, April 7 from GSR Development, Livable Communities Area preferred developer for the Frank's Nursery site, regarding this issue. Apparently, the developers have a family connection to the owner of 4301 Nevada and informed staff that the owner passed away and that there may be an interest in selling the property for redevelopment. The owners told GSR that the City had requested to purchase property in the area for redevelopment. GSR indicated that they may attempt to work on the acquisition of both 4301 Nevada Avenue North and 4415 Nevada Avenue North, and then come to the City with a development proposal for owner-occupied town homes on the site. Staff conveyed to the developers that the City would be interested in working with them on an owner-occupied residential redevelopment project in this area. Mr. Doresky reported on staff's recommendation to approve the purchase price of $83,000 and stated CDBG funds are available for property acquisition. Councilmember Cassen advised that a price of $83,000 appears fair. She pointed out that property values typically increase and an accurate value cannot be gathered if the property owner doesn't permit the assessor to view the interior of the home. Councilmember Sommer pointed out that GSR Development will be approaching the owners of 4301 and 4415 Nevada for a possible purchase. Therefore, he suggested the city permit GSR Development to directly purchase this property (4317 Nevada) as well. Councilmember Cassen emphasized that the city has no formal plans and has not determined what type of development is best for this area. She commented that if GSR were to purchase these few properties, it would be a small development similar to the townhomes at 49t~/Winnetka. She recommended exploring all options. The Council discussed measures that could be taken to secure the house if the city purchases the property but postpones demolishing the home. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, advised that there would be advantages if the city owned the property as the city could facilitate and control the property use. He Apfil14,2003 MOTION Item 8.3 IMP. PROJECT 743 Item 8.4 New Hope City Council Page 5 also pointed out costs related to redevelopment projects. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin- Lenth, authorizing staff to proceed with a written offer to purchase the property at 4317 Nevada Avenue North at the property owner's requested price of $83,000 (Improvement Project No. 734). Voting in favor: Enck. Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth; Voting against: Sommer. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.4, Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing to Approve Sale of City Property at 9200 49t~ Avenue North to Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital (Improvement Project No. 743). Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, provided background of the property. In June 1997, the City of New Hope purchased this vacant 2.8 acre industrial site because the property was identified in the New Hope Surface Water Management Plan as a future site for a water quality pond to help improve the water quality of the large wetland north of, and adjacent to, the site. The City acquired the property to have control over the future development of the site and has been interested in a potential joint-cooperative development where a development could occur in conjunction with the installation of a water quality pond. The 1997 appraisal on the property indicated a value of $282,000, but the appraisal was discounted due to the poor soils on site. The City purchased the property for the adjusted appraised value of $195,000 and the City Engineer has estimated that the City would need to utilize one acre of the site for ponding improvements (at a cost of $135,000), leaving approximately two acres available for development. At the March 10 EDA Meeting, the EDA directed staff to continue negotiations towards the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital proposal. Mr. Fleming, owner of Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital, is willing to increase his purchase price by $20,000 and pay the City $81,000 for approximately two-thirds or 80,848 square feet of the property. It was noted that the cost for correcting the existing soil conditions and preparing the site for development is significant. Mr. McDonald stated the council needs to consider if this $81,000 is a reasonable purchase offer in light of the unfavorable soil conditions on the property, the anticipated developer's cost to correct those problems, and the fact that the city is not assuming any liability for the soil conditions and will transfer title based on an "as is" transaction. An approach to use in considering the reasonableness of this offer should include a consideration that when the city acquired the property for a $195,000 purchase price, the entire parcel was intended for use as a regional storm water ponding site. The idea to develop a portion of the site came at a later date when it was determined the City's regional storm water management plan objectives could be accomplished by using only a portion of the site, leaving a residual area for development. As noted, however, the soil conditions on the property worked against development of this site. The city may have paid a premium for the property based on these facts, but staff believed acquisition of the site was necessary to meet the storm water objectives. The city can now look at this site and conclude any purchase by a developer is a reimbursement to the initial cost, since the site was fully dedicated originally to the storm water management objectives of the city. If the current offer was accepted, one could conclude the cost of our storm water management objectives has been reduced accordingly. Also, storm water costs will further be reduced by the April 14, 2003 RESOLUTION 03-64 Item 8.4 MORATORIUM Item 10.1 New Hope City Council Page 6 generation of new real estate taxes resulting from a development that was never intended when the city originally acquired the property. In conclusion, Mr. McDonald stated the pet hospital seems to be a very good development for the property. Mr. Fleming is willing to work with the city to provide all of the necessary construction easements and access easements to permit the city to undertake the storm water ponding project and to access the pond after its construction. It appears this development would be a "win/win" situation for all parties involved. Staff has advised Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital representatives that a public hearing would be necessary to sell the property and that the public hearing could be held at the next council meeting on April 28, if the council adopts the resolution. It is estimated that the development would generate $6,500 in annual taxes for the city. Also, the property must be decertified from the Tax Increment Financing District as a pet hospital does not qualify for an economic development district. Mayor Enck questioned the access to the pond. He also inquired regarding cost efficiencies if the pond was created at the same time the developer is making soil corrections. Mr. McDonald indicated permanent easements would be obtained through the parking lot. Mr. McDonald stated he would explore the Mayor's suggestion with the City Engineer. However, he noted the City Engineer had previously advised staff that it would be easier to accomplish the pond improvements next winter when the ground is frozen. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth questioned the timing of the landscaping and assurance that the landscaping would not interfere with the easement. Mr. McDonald stated staff will recommend delay of the landscaping until the easement is obtained. Councilmember Sommer inquired whether Griffith Appraisal was the appraiser of the 9200 49~ Ave property. Mr. McDonald recollected that it was BCL Appraisers. Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE SALE OF CITY PROPERTY AT 9200 49TM AVENUE NORTH TO PLYMOUTH ItEIGI-ITS PET HOSPITAL (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 743)". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Collier, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Ordinance No. 03-07, An Ordinance Extending Moratorium on Dog Kennel and Cat Shelter Licenses in the City. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the current moratorium expires April 30 and staff suggests extending it two months or June Apfil14,2003 ORDINANCE 03-07 Item 10.1 GAS FRANCHISE Item 10.2 ORDINANCE 03- Item 10.2 New Hope City Council Page 7 30, 2003. This would allow the moratorium to remain in place until the new regulations are approved by the City Council. It is anticipated that the recommendations will be presented to the City Council on May 12. If the recommendations are adopted at that time, staff will recommend that the moratorium be lifted. Councilmember Sommer introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 03-07, AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING MORATORIUM ON DOG KENNEL AND CAT SHELTER LICENSES IN THE CITY". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was seconded by Councilmember Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the 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 10.2, Ordinance No. 03-08, An Ordinance Granting CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco, A Division of Minnegasco Energy Resources Corp., A Delaware Corporation, Its Successors and Assigns, a Nonexclusive Franchise to Construct, Operate, Repair and Maintain Facilities and Equipment for the Transportation, Distribution, Manufacture and Sale of Gas Energy for Public and Private Use and to Use the Public Ways and Grounds of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, for Such Purpose; and Prescribing Certain Terms and Conditions Thereof. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, reported that the current franchise will expire on June 30, 2003. The ordinance basically grants permission for the gas company to construct, operate, repair and maintain gas facilities on public grounds and public right-of-way. Mr. A1 Swintek, CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco, was recognized. He shared the following statistics regarding CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco's service to the city: · 50 years of safe and reliable services to the city of New Hope. · $4,507,739 dollars of capital invested in the city for gas mains, services, meters, and regulators · 391,299 feet of gas main and 5,343 meters and regulators serve the city's residents and businesses · $70,826 paid in personal property taxes to benefit the city (year 2002) · 333 miles of gas main and service lines surveyed for gas leaks in New Hope this past year (2002) using new OMD (optical methane detector) infrared technology. Mr. Swintek thanked the City Council, City Manager Dan Donahue, and Assistant City Attorney Doug Debner, for their assistance with the franchise agreement. Councilmember Sommer introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 03-08, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO, A DIVISION OF MINNEGASCO ENERGY RESOURCES CORP., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF GAS ENERGY FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE USE AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND GROUNDS OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA, FOR SUCH PURPOSE; AND PRESCRIBING CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was April 14, 2003 CHILD ABUSE & PREVENTION MONTH Item 10.3 RESOLUTION 03-65 Item 10.3 ARBOR MONTH Item 10.4 RESOLUTION 03-66 Item 10.4 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM Item 11.1 New Hope City Council Page 8 seconded by Councilmember Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereofi Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the 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 10.3, Resolution Proclaiming April, 2003, as Child Abuse and Prevention Month in the City of New Hope. Mayor Enck commented regarding the importance of child abuse prevention. Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING APRIL, 2003, AS CHILD ABUSE AND PREVENTION MONTH IN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.4, Resolution Proclaiming the Month of May, 2003, as Arbor Month in the City of New Hope. Mayor Enck noted the city has received the "Tree City USA" designation for nine consecutive years. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF MAY, 2003, AS ARBOR MONTH IN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.1, Resolution to Implement City- Wide Retirement Incentive Program- May 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, explained that items 11.1 and 11.2 deal with the budget issues and loss of revenue faced by the city. He stated the retirement incentive plan will provide incentives for retirement eligible employees. Ms. Sherry Draper, Director of Administration, explained the goal of the plan is to reduce personnel through voluntary retirements. She reviewed the considerations taken into account when the plan was formulated include: different PERA retirement plans, different leave plans, different employee groups, and a balance between employee expectations and city affordability. The eligibility criteria for employees in the Police PERA is 50 years and 20 years of service; and the criteria for employees in the Coordinated PERA is 55 years and 10 years of service. Ms. Draper shared that 16 employees are eligible for the retirement incentive plan. The incentive includes a lump sum payment, increased payout of accrued leave time and enrollment in a post employment health care savings plan. She illustrated the estimated dollar value of the retirement package for a police officer ranging from $23,000 to $28,000 depending on the retirement date (December 31 or Aprill4,2003 RESOLUTION 03-67 Item 11.1 CONSULTANT/ COMBINING POLICE SERVICES Item 11.2 New Hope City Council Page 9 September 30, respectively). The financial impact to the city, based on 16 retirements would be approximately $300,000 compared to the annual salaries of $800,000 for an overall approximate savings of $500,000. Staffproposes funding the retirement incentive plan through the leave reserve fund and the general fund. Ms. Draper noted it would be unlikely that all eligible employees would take advantage of the incentive. She speculated that four employees may take advantage of the retirement incentive, and if too few retire it is possible that the city will need to reduce the work force through other options such as layoffs. Mayor Enck commended staff on formulating a fair plan. He commented on the significant loss of state aid anticipated for this year and next year. The Council directed staff to emphasize to employees that there will not be another plan with a higher value offered at a later date. Councilmember Sommer questioned whether the plan is a sufficient enticement to retirement-eligible employees. Ms. Draper responded that it will depend on each employee's personal situation. It may be more attractive to those who are eligible for a full retirement than for those who are only eligible for an early, reduced retirement. Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION TO IMPLEMENT CITY-WIDE RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM - MAY 1, 2003 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2003". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.2, Resolution Authorizing Hiring of Consultant to Assess Potential for Combining Police Services. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, stated in order to meet the city's expected revenue cuts, staff is recommending reviewing the areas where costs are the most significant such as the police department. He stated the city spends approximately 46% of its budget on public safety. At issue is how to deal with the loss of personnel, loss of revenue, and yet maintain services. One option is to consider combining services with neighboring communities. Mr. Donahue stated based on previous discussions with the city council, he recommends that the city hire a consultant to review the police services and determine whether there are opportunities to coordinate or consolidate police services with the city of Crystal. He estimated a total cost of a complete analysis to be between $18,000-$25,000. However, he noted the first phase which would determine if additional study is warranted would be approximately $5,000. Councilmember Cassen pointed out the need to determine if consolidation would result in cost savings or at least limit future increased expenses. She noted the ultimate goal is to maintain services, but it may not be possible to retain all existing services if New Hope remains independent. Councilmember Collier stated he is not opposed to exploring combimng police April 14, 2003 RESOLUTION 03-68 Item 11.2 CONSENT ITEMS REMOVED - IMP. PROJECT 685 Item 6.10 RESOLUTION 03-69 Item 6.10 New Hope City Council Page 10 services, but he would prefer to approve a plan before authorizing consultant costs. Mayor Enck commended the police chiefs of New Hope and Crystal for their input to date on the issue. He stated during previous discussions it was noted that assistance fi.om an outside resource may be necessary to reach an acceptable resolution. Mr. Donahue conceded that a Request for Proposal prepared by staff would be the preferred route, although such an endeavor is not possible due to time constraints. He confirmed that the agreement would include an "opt out" clause at certain stages if both cities desire to terminate the analysis. Councilmember Cassen pointed out that the process would be handled similar to a feasibility study. Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF CONSULTANT TO ASSESS POTENTIAL FOR COMBINING POLICE SERVICES". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: Collier; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion the Consent items which were removed: Item 6.10, Resolution Awarding Contract for Landscaping at 7105 62nd Avenue North to Fair's Nursery for the Low-Quote Amount of $7,116 (Improvement Project No. 685). Councilmember Sommer suggested the city sod the property and allow the new owners to install landscaping (shrubs/trees) at their own expense. Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, explained that the landscaping plan for this project was approved by council in September of 2002. He conveyed his willingness to modify the plan if so desired by council. Mr. Doresky pointed out that due to the large size of the structure, the neighborhood had requested landscaping screening on the west side of the property. Lilac trees were proposed along the western property line. Mr. Doresky noted the low bid submitted by Fair's Nursery was $900 less than staWs estimate. He stated the landscaping expense would be funded through the sale of the home. Councilmember Cassen commented on the importance of an attractive redevelopment project to both the city and neighborhoods. She noted that buyers are usually fa:st-time homebuyers and may have very little discretionary funds. She also pointed out that the city requires extensive landscaping on commercial re- development. Mayor Enck and Counclmember Gwin-Lenth both recollected the council made a commitment to the neighborhood to install appropriate landscaping to act as a buffer. Councilmember Collier suggested undertaking a landscaping assessment on a case-by-case basis for future projects. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPING Apfil14,2003 CITY COMMUNICATIONS Item 12.1 COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Item 12.2 ADJOURNMENT AT 7105 62r~° AVENUE NORTH TO FAIR'S NURSERY FOR THE LOW- QUOTE AMOUNT OF $7,116 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 685).". 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 thc following voted against thc same: Sommer; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Council Input on City Communications. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.2, Exchange of Communication Between Members of the City Council. Mayor Enck · Announced the 10th Annual Golf Tournament Sponsored by the MN Masonic Homes at the New Hope Golf Course on September 3 · Encouraged residents to share their identity when writing to city council members so that a response or clarification of matters can be made when appropriate. · Suggested a future In the Pipeline publication address volunteer opportunities. Councilmember Gwm-Lenth · Questioned whether the city can assist Off Broadway Theatre's fundraising by publishing an article in the Pipeline. Councilmember Sommer · Questioned whether the city can assist the New Hope Lions Club and Women of Today with fireworks fundraising efforts by publishing an article in the Pipeline. Communication Coordinator Jerry Beck · Responded to the fore-mentioned inquiries and emphasized that the "In the Pipeline" is a city publication that should focus on city services and events. He reported that the Duk Duk Daze Committee has made arrangements to provide the city with flyers sized to fit inside the utility bills. City Manager Donahue · Reported that the April 21 work session will include his 2002 performance review and an update on the Livable Commtmities Proposal. · Commented on many activities planned for Thursday, May 1 including the Police Department's Volunteer Recognition event, the Joint Water Commission Governance Subcommittee, and the Board of Appeal & Equalization Meeting. Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Collier, 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 8:55 p.m. R~2~ ectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope City Council Page 11 Aprill4,2003 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 EDA Minutes Regular Meeting Febmary 24, 2003 City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVE MINUTES IMP. PROJECT 737 Item 4 EDA RESOLUTION 03-01 Item 4 ADJOURNMENT New Hope EDA Page I President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 8:44p.m. Present: W. Peter Enck, President Sharon Cassen, Commissioner Don Collier, Commissioner Mary Gwin-Lenth, Commissioner Steve Sommer, Commissioner Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Sommer, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 10, 2003. Voting in favor: Enck, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer. Voting Against: None; Absent: None; Abstained: Cassen. Motion carried. President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Resolution Finding Need to Acquire Title and Possession of Property at 7600 49th Avenue North Prior to Commissioner's Award, Approving the Appraisal of Damages Resulting from the Taking and Ratifying and Authorizing All Steps Taken by Staff to Acquire the Property (Improvement Project No. 737). Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, stated adoption of the resolution by the EDA approves the $335,000 appraised value to ensure acquisition of the fee title to the property on or before May 31, 2003. This action is necessary to permit Navarre Corporation's building expansion project to be completed during the 2003 construction season. Commissioner Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption "RESOLUTION FINDING NEED TO ACQUIRE TITLE AND POSSESSION OF PROPERTY AT 7600 49TM AVENUE NORTH PRIOR TO COMMISSIONER'S AWARD, APPROVING THE APPRAISAL OF DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE TAKING AND RATIFYING AND AUTHORIZING ALL STEPS TAKEN BY STAFF TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 737)". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: Collier; Absent: None; 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 Gwin- Lenth, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carded. The New Hope EDA adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Res,pectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk Febmary 24, 2003 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 EDA Minutes Regular Meeting March 10, 2003 City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVE MINUTES IMP. PROJECT 743 (formerly #597) Item 4 New Hope EDA Page 1 President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 8:22 p.m. Present: W. Peter Enck, President Sharon Cassen, Commissioner Don Collier, Commissioner Mary Gwin-Lenth, Commissioner Steve Sommer, Commissioner Motion was made by Commissioner Sommer, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2003. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Discussion Regarding Updated Proposal and Continued Interest by Quest Real Estate, Inc./Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital on City-Owned Property at 9200 49th Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 743). Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated in follow up to the February l0th discussion staff and consultants have met again with representatives of the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital. He stated they have submitted a more detailed proposal. Staff requests that the EDA provide direction to staff as to how to respond to this updated proposal and to Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital's continued interest in the city-owned property at 9200 49th Avenue. Mr. McDonald stated the other potential development for this property was Amcon Construction, but they have not pursued the matter further as of this date. Mr. McDonald cited the most recent correspondence submitted by Quest Real Estate, Inc., on behalf of Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital, which states that "This letter shall serve to express the continued interest of my client: Mr. Fleming, in purchasing the parcel of land at 9200 49th Avenue North in New Hope for construction of a pet hospital. We were pleased to learn the EDA and City Council members of New Hope have indicated an interest in our initial development proposal and would like to pursue the matter in more detail." Mr. McDonald stated the applicant has submitted a background narrative on Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital, a proposed site plan prepared by Paul Meyer Architects, Inc., and a proposed image sketch, an estimate from Dobszenski & Sons, Inc. for soil correction and site preparation work at the subject property. Mr. McDonald stated Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital is seeking to acquire the property "as is" from the City of New Hope for $61,500 ($4.00/square foot for the property less soil correction costs). He noted the city would retain one-third of the site for a storm water pond. He commented that Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital currently serves over 6,000 active patients including more than 700 New Hope families and represents a valuable asset to the commtmity. Mr. McDonald expressed support for the project as the applicant, Mr. Fleming, is prepared to move expeditiously on the development plans. He stated if the EDA is interested in pursuing Mr. Fleming's proposal for purchasing and developing the subject March 10, 2003 property, they would provide an "Option Agreement" on the property for a maximum term of no more than ninety days. This would allow sufficient time for them to review documents, prepare plans and obtain the necessary approvals before closing on the property. Mr. McDonald stated the developer would like a tentative agreement from the EDA at this time before they incur additional expenses. Mr. McDonald stated staff is supportive of the development and recommends meeting with the city's financial consultant to discuss the financial implications of the project and taxes that would be generated by the project. He stated representatives of the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital are in attendance and are available to answer questions. President Enck questioned whether the developer could use the pond for part of their green space requirements. Mr. McDonald responded affirmatively. The EDA expressed support for the project. Commissioner Cassen disclosed that she has had past business experiences with Mr. Ludovissie of Quest Real Estate. She also mentioned that she is a pet hospital customer, but there is no conflict of interest. Commissioner Cassen questioned the accessibility of the pond by the city. Mr. McDonald stated the city would require a 20-foot wide access easement between 49th Avenue and the pond. IMP. PROJECT 740 (formerly #665) Item 5 Mr. McDonald pointed out that the property is zoned I-1, Industrial, and pet hospitals and veterinary clinics are not currently listed as permitted or conditional uses in the I District. However, staff and consultants are currently working on a modification to the code to allow animal day cares in the I District and the Planning Consultant believes this use would also be appropriate for that Zoning District. Commissioner Sommer expressed support for the project but acknowledged concern regarding the sales price. He mentioned the city purchased the property six years ago for $195,000, and a higher sales price would recoup some of the city's expense. President Enck pointed out that tonight's action is only the beginning of the process. The EDA unanimously expressed support for the project and directed staff to work with Quest Real Estate on behalf of Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital. President Enck introduced for discussion Item 5, Discussion Regarding Joint Development Proposal for City-Owned Property at 7500-7528 42na Avenue North, the former Electronic Industries Site (Improvement Project No. 740). Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, stated staff is requesting EDA discussion and direction regarding a joint development proposal from Retail Site Development Services for the city-owned site at 7500-7528 42na Avenue North. The development proposal is for two uses: a Culver's restaurant on the western portion of the site and three office condominium buildings (with seven separate ownership units) on the eastern portion of the site. He stated the intention of the presentation is to inform the EDA of the proposal and to seek direction for further action. He stated representatives from both parties are in the audience. New Hope EDA Page 2 Mr. Doresky stated the City has been working for several years to initiate the environmental cleanup process and subsequent commercial redevelopment of this site. He reviewed costs of $500,000 for the 7540 42~a Avenue property (purchase price of $450,000 plus demolition costs of $50,000); and $71,000 for 7516 42aa March 10, 2003 Avenue (purchase price of $40,000 plus demolition costs of $31,000); and $482,000 for acquisition of 7500 42nd Avenue North. The total cost for the three properties was $1.1 million. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, clarified that these costs were not paid by property tax dollars but rather by the redevelopment tax increment district. Mr. Doresky stated in conjunction with cleanup funding grant applications submitted during the spring of 2002, the Council approved a Request for Proposal (RFP) process for the site. As a result of the RFP, the City received a proposal for the office condominium component of the current proposal. Using the office condominium proposal in the cleanup grant applications, the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) rated New Hope's application #1 in the State of Minnesota due to the economic development and job creation potential. DTED subsequently approved a fully funded grant in partnership with a Hennepin County approved grant. Culver's Restaurant/Retail Site Development Services came later in the process and staff suggested they provide a joint development proposal with the office condominium developer. He reviewed a preliminary site plan showing a Culver's Restaurant on the western portion of the site and the office condominiums along the railroad tracks on the east side of the property. He stated the proposal states: "RSDS will serve as the coordinator of the New Hope project with Dexter Marston acting as the contact person. Dexter Marston is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Minnesota. RSDS's fee will be $40,000 for the services related to the New Hope project. The services include: providing buyers for the site (JSC Development (Culver's) and Frey Development (Office Condominiums)) and overseeing the project through City approvals and closing. The City will be responsible for this fee and should include this cost with their other expenses when determining the value of the land. At this time I expect that the two prospective buyers will represent themselves in negotiations for the site. If either party chooses to have RSDS represent their interests during the negotiations, the City of New Hope will be informed of that change." Mr. Doresky stated staff is supportive pursuing the redevelopment of this site with this development proposal, but has some concern about the fee being requested. Staff recommends that the EDA authorize staff to pursue this matter further and meet with the City's f'mancial consultant and the developer to discuss the financial implications of the project. Staff would propose that the City and the developer split the cost of the financial analysis 50/50 on this site, due to the fact that it is City owned. Staff will then return to the EDA for further direction. Discussion ensued regarding the RSDS's proposed fee of $40,000. It was noted that the city has never paid this type ora fee in the past. President Enck expressed concern about three separate buildings. He also expressed his reluctance to approve a $40,000 real estate service fee. Commissioner Cassen pointed out if an agent is representing a buyer/developer, they typically are the ones to pay for the real estate commission; however, it is negotiable. She commented that the $40,000 fee should go into the project cost and if Mr. Marston is representing the developers then he could negotiate it with them. Commissioner Cassen was supportive of the development and layout with three separate buildings for office condominiums. Commissioners Collier and Sommer also expressed support for the project. Commissioner Sommer commented that he likes the ownership option for small businesses. New Hope EDA Page 3 March 10, 2003 ADJOURNMENT President Enck acknowledged agreement to the concept but provided the following concerns regarding the configuration: excessive curbcuts, poor traffic circulation, the three office buildings back up to the railroad tracks with no access to the rear, and lack of green space. He also noted the need for a property owners association similar to a townhome association. The EDA was supportive of staff working with the developers, but clarified that the EDA objects to payment ora $40,000 fee. Mr. Donahue interjected that a current planning study of the 42na Avenue area includes an office analysis that will determine if there is a need for office space. Mr. McDonald stated the information may be available within two months. Commissioner Cassen noted that Frey Development may have already conducted a survey. Mr. Bernie Frey, Frey Development, was recognized. He stated the office condominiums are geared for smaller businesses that may desire to own rather than lease property and cannot financially afford to purchase property and construct a single user building. He stated a unit size can range from 1,300 to 3,000 square feet and the typical users are professional offices. He reported on the successfulness of past projects. He pointed out that a building with three units is the most appealing environment as the middle unit has a balcony and each of the side units has side windows. He stated the average price is $125-130 per square foot. There would be an office association similar to townhome association agreements. Mr. John Seibert, President of JCS Development Inc., was recognized. He stated they are very interested in the site for construction of a Culver's Restaurant. He asked the EDA to reconsider its position on the realtor fee due to the uniqueness of the Situation. He noted the city is selling the property and the seller normally pays a realtor commission. The EDA directed staffto proceed to work out issues with the developers. Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Sommer, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope EDA adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope EDA Page 4 March 10, 2003