PL 07/08/03PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North
Tuesday, July 8, 2003
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT BUSINESS
4. PUBLIC HEARING
· 4.1 Cases 03-11
Request for Front Yard Variance to Allow Construction of an Attached
Garage, 4053 Nevada Avenue North, Kurt and Jill Klipstein,
Petitioners
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
5.1
5.2
Report of Design & Review Committee - July 17, 8 a.m.
Report of Codes & Standards Committee
6. OLD BUSINESS
6.1 Miscellaneous Issues
· CouncilAction on June Planning Cases
~ Navarre, 7400 49th Avenue, final plat - Approved
~ St. Joseph Church, 8701 36th Avenue, plat, CUP, site plan review-
Approved
~ Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital, 9200 49th Avenue, CUP, site plan review
- Approved
~ Thompson New Hope Addition, 8501 54th Avenue, preliminary plat -
Approved
~ St. Joseph Church, 8701 36~h Avenue, final plat-Approved
~' Thompson New Hope Addition, 8501 54t~ Avenue, final plat - Approved
~' Ordinance Regulating Second Hand Dealers Licenses - Adopted
6.2 City Center Task Force - Next meeting on July 10
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1
7.2
7.3
Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 3, 2003
Review of City Council Minutes of May 27 and June 9, 2003
Review of EDA Minutes of May 27, 2003
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. The.
Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the
Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code
and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the
surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your
questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the
Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission
will utilize the following procedure:
1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal.
2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the
Planning Commission.
3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer
questions from the Planning Commission.
4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by
raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large
number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer
period of time for questions/comments.
5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give
their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your
questions.
7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity
to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
Al If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the
planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this
meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting.
B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next
Commission meeting.
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: July 8, 2003
Report Date: June 27, 2003
03-11
Kurt and Jill Klipstein
4053 Nevada Avenue North
Front Yard Variance to Allow Construction of an Attached Garage
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting a five-foot variance to the 25-foot front yard setback requirement to allow
construction of an attached garage 20 feet from the front property line, pursuant to Sections 4-5(f)(4)
and 4-36 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
I1. Zoning Code References
Permitted Side Yard Setback Reduction
R-l, Single Family, Lot Requirements - Setbacks
Administration - Variances
Section 4-3(b)(6)c
Section 4-5(f)(4)
Section 4-36
Property Specifications
Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses:
Site Area:
Building Area:
Lot Area Ratios:
Planning District:
Specific Information:
III.
R-1 Single Family Residential
West side of Nevada Avenue, approximately 600 feet south of 42n~ Avenue
Single family residential in all directions
Rectangular lot contains 9,000 square feet
Existing split-level home footprint is approximately 1,009 square feet with a
single-car tuck-under garage
Proposed attached garage addition 590 square feet
Existinq With Proposed Addition
Green area: 7,991 sq. ft.(88.8%) 7,401 sq. ft. (82%)
Building area: 1,009 sq. ft. (11.2%) 1,599 sq. ft. (17.7%)
Paved area: 440 sq. ft. (4.8%) 360 sq. ft. (4.0%)
No. 15; The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this district is one of the older
residential neighborhoods in the city. While housing conditions are generally
good, the homes are smaller and generally have single car garages. Within
the Iow-density residential areas of District 15, housing maintenance and
renovation will be promoted through private investment in the homes.
The single-family residence has an existing tuck under single stall garage with
driveway, which empties into Nevada Avenue. The home and existing garage
currently lie 39.8 feet from the front property line. There is slope that runs
from the north side of the property and down towards the driveway and
Nevada Avenue. There are two significant trees that exist within the front yard
Planning Case Report 03-11 Page 1 6-27-03
IV.
area. The applicant's narrative mentions that these trees limit access to theA
rear yard area. The zoning ordinance requires a 25-foot setback for the
property.
Background
The applicants, Kurt and Jill Klipstein, are proposing to build an attached garage upon property located
at 4053 Nevada Avenue. Variance for the attached garage is required due to the front yard
encroachment. The variance is necessary to provide attached garage space from the home. An
administrative permit must also be issued for the garage proximity to the southerly property line. The
applicants have provided written narrative, existing lot photos, a site plan, and building structural
sketches. The proposed garage addition would provide a 590 square foot double stall garage. Most
trees that currently exist upon the property would be left intact. The following approvals are necessary
for this project to proceed:
1. Variance for front yard setback encroachment.
2. Administrative permit for side yard setback encroachment.
V. Petitioner's Comments
The petitioner submitted revised correspondence after the Design and Review meeting with revised
plans, which stated: "We are requesting a street side and south side setback variance for the addition of
an attached two-car garage. We are asking that this variance be granted on the following:
1. We would like to park both vehicles inside the garage to keep them safe and out of the elements.
2. There is room in the back yard for a two-car garage but there are two trees on the side of the yard
that prevent us from putting in a driveway on that side of the house. The trees are very large and we
would like to keep them.
3. We would like more space in which to keep our trash and recycling bins.
4. We had originally planned on building the garage 24 feet deep, but after meeting with the Planning
Commission, they convinced us to not go so deep and we now feel that 20 feet would be sufficient.
5. Finally, the new roof of the garage coming to just below both bedroom windows will give a second
means of egress in the event of a fire in the upstairs of our home."
Additional correspondence stated:
· "With the suggestions from the Planning Commission, we are not covering up the front entrance as
to keep the physical appearance as close to other resident homes within our block and the new
plans for the attached garage is now 20 feet deep.
· New Hope's forestry expert, Tom Schuster, has viewed the site and said putting the garage in the
rear of the property would mean the removal of two trees would most likely incur damage on a third.
He agreed that the site we had picked would be the best spot for a garage on this lot. He also said it
would be best for the tree near the end of the driveway if we kept a radius of at least the distance
the tree is to the driveway in all directions (this is about nine feet). With this plan we will keep that
distance. Therefore, we are asking that tree preservation be considered for this variance.
The Planning Commission also brought up a concern about drainage on the south side of our lot.
Taking that into consideration, I will dig a trench along the south side 10 inches wide and four inches
deep and lay rubber in it, then cover the rubber with 3/4 inch buff rock to allow water from the back
yard to drain into the street. In addition, I will route our sump pump drain hose to the north side of
our lot instead of draining into the southwest corner the way it has been since we moved in.
The siding and the shingles on the new garage will match that of the existing home.
Planning Case Report 03-11 Page 2 6-27-03
· We have shown our plans to build an attached double car garage to our surrounding neighbors and
asked them to sign a statement stating that they were ok with us building the garage. They all did
sign."
VI, Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no verbal comments.
The petitioner submitted a petition from neighbors with his revised plans stating that they have no problem
with the addition.
VII. Development Analysis
^. Zoninq Code Criteria
Permitted Side Yard Setback Reduction. Notwithstanding subsection 4-3(b)(6)a. 1 and 3 of this code, a
three-foot reduction into a required side yard abutting a street will be permitted for construction of an
accessory building or garage subject to an administrative permit and the following conditions:
1. The physical constraints of the lot make the encroachment necessary to maximize indoor storage
on the property which would be prevented by stdct compliance with setback standards.
2. The proposed structure will not be located in a drainage or utility easement.
3. The city shall determine that the building will not negatively impact the neighboring or adjacent
property.
4. The same or similar quality building material shall be used in the accessory building as in the
principal building. Additionally, the extedor appearance and architectural design of the accessory
building are to be similar to that of the principal building.
Per the planners' report, according to the most recent proposal, the garage would be approximately
20' x 26' and 7' x 10' on the side (590 sq. ft.) At a 20-foot depth, the garage would encroach the 25-
foot setback by five feet, thus leaving a 20-foot setback from the front property line and requiring a
five-foot front yard setback variance. The south side property line would have a setback of three
feet. An administrative permit could be issued for this side yard setback reduction. The architectural
standards of the proposed garage addition would match the building materials used for the existing
residence.
III. Variance Review
The New Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages residential reinvestment. The applicant's attempt
to upgrade their home with a garage capable of holding two vehicles should not be discounted. With
respect to variances, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposal meets the hardship criteria
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Per the Zoning Code, the purpose of a vadance 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
vadance 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
Planning Case Report 03-11 Page 3 6-27-03
inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shal~
not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this
Code.
2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the variance is being sought and is not
generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district.
3. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner
or any previous owner.
4. Additional Criteria. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria:
a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality.
b. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially
increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the
public safety.
c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
d. It does not involve a use which is not allowed within the respective zoning district.
The planner's report addresses these criteria, as related to this request, as follows:
· Does hardship exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property that results in
exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot?
Comment: In review of the applicant's request, we find that the applicant's lot is configured in the
same manner as other lots along Nevada. The house placement and tuck under garage are not
unique to the applicant's house but rather the pattern up and down Nevada Avenue. Alternative
sites to place a garage would include the rear yard or the north side yard. Specific characteristics
of the lot that may complicate providing the garage in the rear yard or north side yard would
include the existence of two trees and topography which may present some difficulty in the placing
of a garage elsewhere on the property.
In looking at the physical conditions, we believe that with grading, the topography issue along the
front yard could be overcome. The existing trees would complicate access to the rear or side yard,
however, based on the applicant's front yard garage proposal, it would appear that one of the
existing significant trees would incur damage when the foundation and footings were dug within the
ddp line of this significant tree. This being the case, staff believes that one of the trees may have to
be removed to accommodate a garage at either of the alternative locations. As a result, tree
preservation is not being achieved through approval of a variance.
In looking at the location of a detached garage at the rear property line, staff has also identified
that any proposed building at that location would be in very close proximity to the attached deck
with driveway running close to the house. This may also represent a difficulty associated with the
rear yard location.
In order for the city to approve the necessary variance, a finding must be made that the
proposed action will not adversely affect the site or surrounding area.
Comment: In review of the proposed front yard variance, staff believes that the introduction of a
20-foot garage in the front yard would alter the site in comparison with the character of the
surrounding residential properties and within the block. Though the proposed garage would stand
out and be different than the homes on both sides of the property, the applicant has reduced the
garage depth from 22 feet to 20 feet.
In addition to the visual change in character within the block, the city engineer has indicated that
the rear yard drainage from the applicant's lot and the lot from the south are directed to the shared
Planning Case Report 03-11 Page 4 6-27-03
property line between the properties and then directed toward Nevada Avenue. Currently, there is
a hedge, a fence, and some storage in this area. Concem exists that the three-foot setback for the
garage along that preperty line might further obstruct the drainage patterns in this area. Drainage
concerns have to be addressed in conjunction with any additional development in this area.
· Would such variance allow the preperty owners any special privileges which would be denied to
other lands and structures?
Comment: In review of the front yard variance, staff is concerned with the precedence that would
be established with this vadance approval. The lot size and configuration of the applicant's lot is
not uniqu, e to this property but is generally the standard through much of New Hope. Approval of a
front yard encroachment for a garage could certainly result in other applications of a similar nature.
Without solid demonstration of hardship unique to this property, it would be difficult to say that
other variances of similar nature would not be appropriate. In this respect, the City Council must
make a determination as to whether this type of vadance is acceptable.
· Is the variance being requested, the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship?
Comment: In review of the application, it would appear that the applicant could install a garage in
either the north side yard or rear yard, however, it would have different implications than a front
yard garage. The rear yard garage must meet the required accessory building setbacks, must
provide a longer driveway, would result in loss of a significant tree, would require some change in
topography to provide the necessary driveway, and it may have an impact on the location of the
deck that is attached to the garage. However, these items can be overcome through proper site
design.
In meeting with the applicant at the pre-application meeting, staff suggested that if a front yard
variance was to be pursued, it should be the minimum action required to provide a garage space.
Staff suggested that perhaps a 20-foot deep garage would be more appropriate, minimizing the
front yard setback intrusion to five feet. In examining the applicant's most recent submittal, a 20-
foot deep garage is being requested.
Development Review Team
The Development Review Team discussed this request at its meeting on June 11 and had some
concerns with the application. Comments included the following: Want to encourage expansion, but
this is a large encreachment on front yard setback; concern about setting precedent, blocking views
of neighboring preperties, blocking front entrance; what is the hardship, consider detached garage
in rear yard, drainage on side/rear yards, could expand 15 feet without variance, city manager not
supportive of original plan and large encreachment into front yard.
Desiqn & Review Committee
The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioner on June 12 and had the same concerns
about the encreachment on the front yard and setting precedent. The Committee discussed a
detached garage at the rear of the preperty, an attached garage on the north side of the house, and
the loss of trees. The Committee said that they could possibly support a five-foot variance, after
receiving additional input from the full Commission. The petitioner agreed to go forward with a
request for a five-foot variance.
Plan Description
In an attempt to address concerns raised at the Design and Review Committee meeting, the
applicants have changed their plans to include:
· A 20-foot garage depth, which reduced the variance to five feet.
Planning Case Report 03-11 Page 5 6-27-03
Shifting the garage to within three feet of the south lot line. An administrative permit may then b~'-
issued for this side yard setback reduction, as stated in Section 4.032(6)(c).
Uncovered the front entrance of the house, providing a more open front door entry.
1. GaraRe Dimensions - The garage would extend 20 feet in front of the existing garage on the
north side near the front door. The garage would have a width across the front of 26 feet.
The garage would have a length of 30 feet on the south side and extend seven feet out from
the existing house on the south side.
The existing garage will be utilized as a workshop and the existing garage door will remain
as a portion of the back wall of the new proposed garage addition.
Elevations:
Front (east): 8' x 16' overhead garage door and rounded top window above, with five feet
of storage on both sides of the overhead door.
North Side: Service door with rounded top window.
South Side: Two small windows.
Rear (west): Service door.
Sidin.q and Shinqles - Petitioner states that the siding and shingles on the new garage will
match that of existing home.
Trees: The site plan shows:
A. A 102-inch circular tree on front property line by driveway.
B. A 128-inch circular tree in center of front yard.
C. A 64-inch circular tree between north side of house and north property line.
D. Two trees in rear yard (south side) of 36-inch and 130-inch circumference.
The city forester provided the following comments on the plans and trees: "On Tuesday,
June 17, I met Kurt Klipstein and looked at the trees in his yard and the impact of building a
garage on the property. It seems to me that the design that would cause the least impact to
the trees is the one that places the new garage directly in front of the existing garage. There
is a mature linden tree on the boulevard, approximately 10 ~ feet behind the curb and 8 ¼
feet north of the driveway. Mr. Klipstein and I talked about the need to stay as far away from
this tree as possible. According to his plan, even if a new garage extended 20 feet from the
front of the house, the garage would still be 21 feet away from this tree. We discussed
placing the garage door as far to the south of the new garage as possible, eliminating the
need to widen the driveway to create a turning radius for the north parking spot of the
garage. Fortunately, building a garage in this location would not require any significant grade
change. If there is any damage to the tree, the extent of the damage may not be known for
several years. In my opinion, the damage to this tree will be minimal if care is taken to avoid
any excessive root damage during the construction process.
While there is room in the back yard for a garage, grading a driveway would require the
removal of two trees north of the home and grading around a large maple tree in the front
yard. Again, in my opinion, the damage to the linden tree on the boulevard would be less
severe than the damage to the maple if a driveway was placed north of the house. When all
trees are considered, I think the best place for the garage is in front of the house as Mr.
Klipstein originally planned. Whether or not the city will give him a variance as another issue
and one that someone else will have to resolve.
Planning Case Report 03-11 Page 6 6-27-03
West Metro Fire was involved in the review of the plans.
VIII, Summary
The planner's report states "In
5. Draina.qe - Specific attention should be paid to the drainage issues on the south side of the
property and the petitioner's plans to deal with that issue.
6. Fence/Utility Easement - The survey shows a six-foot wood fence on the west property line,
a five-foot utility easement on the west property line, and a four-foot wood fence on the south
property line.
E. Plannin,q Considerations
Excerpts from the planner's report have been incorporated into this report.
F. Buildinq Considerations
The building official reviewed the plans and supports the five-foot variance. Final construction plans
and building permit will be subject to his approval.
G. Engineerin,q Considerations
The city engineer reviewed the original plans and made the following comments: "We have
reviewed the proposed residential property improvements including the garage expansion. Please
consider the following comments:
1. A limited drainage area from the applicant's backyard and the neighbor's backyard drains to the
front yard (Nevada Avenue) via the applicant's south lot line. Please see the attached figure.
Stored materials, a hedge and other plant materials already compromise drainage along this
route. The proposed garage expansion will be five feet from the property line. This expansion
will impact the hedge and could further complicate drainage. The garage, itself, will also
contribute storm water to this property line. Coordination will be required with the neighbor to
prevent future issues.
2. Shortening the driveway will reduce the area to park vehicles in front of the garage and increase
the slope of the driveway. The applicant should consider these factors.
3. The setbacks of the existing properties are currently the same. This garage additional will look
different than adjacent properties and impact sight lines to the house fronts of adjacent
properties.
H. Police Considerations
The police department was involved in the review of the plans.
Fire Considerations
examining the requested variance, the City Council is asked to
determine whether a variance is justified based on criteria established by the Planning Commission and
the Zoning Ordinance. In staff's review of the front yard garage, we believe that the building addition
may change the character of the neighborhood, may set precedent for future garage additions, would
have an impact upon drainage on the south side of the lot, and one of the significant trees may be lost
with the garage placement as illustrated on the applicant's submission.
However, the applicant has modified their request to minimize the front yard encroachment and
attempted to respond to the Design and Review Committee comments. In this respect, the shallower
garage is a positive alternative to previous requests. The applicant has provided a revised plan that
offers a garage with less depth and will not cover the front entrance to their home. They have also
proposed a means to deal with drainage along the south side of the lot.
Planning Case Report 03-11 Page 7 6-27-03
IX.
Attachments:
The city promotes renovation and reinvestment in its single family housing stock. In this respect, the--
Planning Commission and City Council will need to determine if the existing site conditions (i.e.,
topography, tree preservation, house placement) on the site warrant variance approval and the variance
is the minimum encroachment required. This report offers two options for considering the variance in
the recommendation section.
Recommendation
In consideration of the variance request, two options are offered.
Denial based on the following finding:
1. There is no physical hardship unique to the property that prevents a garage at an alternate location.
2. The proposed variance would alter the character of the neighborhood.
3. Granting the variance may have negative impact on site drainage.
4. Precedent may be set for future garage variances for residences with similar circumstances.
5. Alternative locations on the site may accommodate a two-stall garage without the variance.
Approval of the variance citing the following findings and conditions:
1. The New Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages residential reinvestment.
2. That existing site conditions (i.e., topography, tree preservation, house placement) present a
physical hardship that warrants variance by preventing a garage from being reasonably located at
an alternative site.
3. The variance is the minimum encroachment required.
4. If approval is granted, the applicant must demonstrate that there will be no negative impact on site
drainage and comply with city engineer recommendations.
5. Comply with building official recommendations.
6. Siding and shingles to match existing house.
Address/ZoningfTopo/Aerial Maps
. Petitioner Correspondence and Petition
Color Photos
Site Plan - Revised
Elevations - Revised
Floor Plan - Revised
Planner's Report
City Engineer Comments and Sketch
Original Plans
Planbook Excerpts
Previous Variance List
Application Log
Planning Case Report 03-11 Page 8 6-27-03
7820
4309
-1-,3ED AVE N
4215
4211
................................ i i 7600 i ;: 7528 i7516!! 7500!
7820 7700
)~: ........... 4G17
< 42.30
4225 ; 4224
4221 1
'. ........... ~ ~ 4220
43RD AVE N
7260 ~ ~
7240 ~"~3J~D ;~gE N
4217 '. ~ 7220
4215! ........... ~:~
........... ~ i 4216i 7200
...~ .............. : ................
.? 4215 : --;
~. r ;: 71ao ~ 714o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~-; .. :~_ - .................
;i 4124 i 4125 i ......................... ~ .... ',"-*-~ ~. -~~r,. ~ ! 71171 7107
7849"01 YMCA ~ ~ ,~e ~ ;" ...................
' ~ ~ ............ ; ~ 4~2o 4~2~ ; ~2o ~
................... ~ : ............................... :-,~-~
)L ~ , , ~ ;~; ~ ........ ~ ........
~ " ~ ~ ~9 ......... . ............ ~~ ....... ~ ~ :.
............ '~ ' ~ 41 ~ ~ ........:: ~ ~ ~ .7 ........... ~ .............. ~ ~ ............. ~. .......~ ~ .........
.. : _ .~ ¢ : ~ .................... ~ ........... , : ~,
.... ../ ................ ~ ~ ~Z7 f~ ............... ~ ..........~ ~ :¢ , ~z.~ ~31 ; '.'.
..................................... ~ ~ ~1; tO:L ........ ~ ......... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~19 ;~
.................................... ' .................................. ~ ~ ......................... ~' .... ~'+3-"'~ ~TH ~ .......... N~ ............................. ~ ~ ~
~ ~ : ~ ~ 7~1 7~I~ ~7~1 ~7~1 ~ ~'~'~""'~'~'~
./ / ~ ................ ~ ' ~ ~3g~3917// /3932/ 3g~.~
...... ~-- .......... ~ ~"3ess~ 3917~ ~ ....... ~-~'~-. '; / ............; ~ ...... ~ .........
~~, '{~ .......... .~ ........ :~~ X.::~'~.<.~'~'/: .:-- / / ~e~ =
~ " ' ~'"'S'~y'"~ ~ 3~_..~./~ ....... ~' ~_"',. % .... ~-"')~..~';~' ...':'"';~-'~
ZONING DISTRICT MAP I
R-1 Single Family Residential
'R-1
R-2 Single and Two Family Residential
R-3 Medium Density Residential
R-4 High Density Residential
R-5 "Senior / Disabled" Residential
R-O Residential Office
R-B Residential Business
LB Limited Business
CB Community Business
I Industrial
Open Space / Public
City Size = 3267.2 Ac. (5.1 Sq. Miles)
:v /.
l
i
II
g37.? -
2;8.2
;
__~x----~l
9I?.5
c
9iB.6
.~--,e (2)
Requested by.'
Kurt & Jill Klipstein
4053 Nevada Ave. No.
New Hope Mn. 55427
Description of request
We are requesting a street side and south side setback variance for the addition of an attached two
car garage.
We are asking that this variance be granted on the following:
1. We would like to park both vehicles inside the garage to keep them safe and out of the
elements.
2. There is room in the back yard for a two car garage but there are two trees on the side of the
yard that prevent us from putting in a driveway on that side of the house. The trees are very large
and we would like to keep them.
3. We would like more space in which to keep our trash and recycling bins in.
4. We had originally planed on building the garage 24' deep, but after meeting with the planning
commission they convinced us to not go so deep and we now feel that 20' would be sufficient.
5. Finally with the new roof of the garage coming to just below both bedroom windows this will
give a second means of egress in the event of a fire in the upstair of our home.
Kurt & Jill Klipstein
4053 Nevada Ave. North
New Hope Minn. 55427
Development of Plans for an attached two car garag
· With the suggestions from the Planning Commission we're not coveting up the front
entrance as to keep the physical appearance as close to other resident homes within our block,
and the new plans for the attached garage is now 20 feet deep.
· New Hope's Forestry expert Tom Shuster, has viewed the sight and said putting the
garage in the rear of the property would mean the removal of two trees would most likely incur
damage on a third. He agreed that the site we had picked would be the best spot for a garage on
this lot. He also said it would be best for the tree near the end of the driveway if we kept a radius
of at least the of the distance the tree is to the driveway in all directions (This is about 9 feet).
With this plan we will keep that distance. Therefore we are asking that tree preservation be
considered for this variance.
· The Planning Commission also brought up a concern about drainage on the south side of
our lot. Taking that into consideration. I will dig a trench along the south side 10" wide 4" deep
and lay rubber in it, then cover the rubber with 3/4 inch buffrock. To allow water from the back
yard to drain into the street. In addition, I will route our sump pump drain hose to the North side
of our lot. Instead of draining into the Southwest corner the way it has been since we moved in.
· The siding and the shingles on the new garage will match that of the existing home.
We have shown our plans to build an attached double car garage to our surrounding
neighbors and asked them to sign a statement stating that they were ok with us building
the garage. They all did sign.
Kurt and Jill Klipstein
4053 Nevada Ave. No.
New Hope Mn. 55427
I have seen the plans for an attach garage for 4053 Nevada, I and I'm ok with Kurt and Jill
going ahead with these plans.
Name Address
N
~J
HY-LAND SURVEYING,
LAND SURVEYORS
8700 Jefferson Highwoy
Osseo, Minnesoto 55369
PHONE (76.3)493-5761
FAX {765)495-5781
NOT[: PROPERTY CORNERS
SET BY DEVELOPERS SURVEYOR
NEW CONCEPTS
ZZ
.39.87
()/ 26.67
4' WOOD FENCE~
- 120.00 -
P.A.
INVOICE: NO.
F.B. NO.
SCALE
276/47
20'
LOT 10, BLOCK 6, ROCKFORD PARK
Signed ~ ~/~2
Mi/ton E:. H~lond, 0262
!
!
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplannincj.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.:
Kirk McDonald
Aaron Jones / Alan Brixius
June 26th, 2003
New Hope - Klipstein - Variance Attached Garage
131.01 -03.09
BACKGROUND
The applicants, Kurt and Jill Klipstein are proposing to build an attached garage upon
property located at 4053 Nevada Ave. N. Variance for the attached garage is required
due to the front yard encroachment. The variance is necessary to provide attached
garage space from the home. An administrative permit must also be issued for the
garage proximity to the southerly property line. The applicants have provided written
narrative, existing lot photos, a site plan, and building structural sketches. The following
is an analysis of the applicant's proposal.
The proposed garage addition would provide a 520 sq. ft. double stall garage. Most
trees that currently exist upon the property would be left intact. The following approvals
are necessary for this project to proceed:
1. Variance for front yard setback encroachment.
2. Administrative permit for side yard setback encroachment.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Survey with proposed garage location
Exhibit B -Applicant Narrative
Exhibit C - Site Location
Exhibit D - Building Elevations
Exhibit E - Engineers Comments
RECOMMENDATION
In consideration of the variance request two options are offered.
Denial based on the following finding:
1. There is no physical hardship unique to the property that prevents a garage at an
alternate location.
2. The proposed variance would alter the character of the neighborhood.
3. Granting the variance may have negative impact on site drainage.
4. Precedent may be set for future garage variances for residences with similar
circumstances.
5. Alternative locations on the site may accommodate a two stall garage without the
variance.
Approval of the variance citing the following findings:
1. The New Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages residential reinvestment.
2. That existing site conditions (ie. topography, tree preservation, house placement)
present a physical hardship that warrants variance by preventing a garage from
being reasonably located at an alternative site.
The variance is the minimum encroachment required.
must demonstrate that there will be no negative
If approval is granted, the applicant
impact on site drainage.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Existing Conditions
The single family residence has an existing tuck under single stall garage with driveway,
which empties into Nevada Ave. The home and existing garage currently lie 39.8 feet
from the front property line. There is slope that runs from the north side of the property
and down towards the driveway and Nevada Ave. There are two significant trees that
exist within the front yard area. The applicants' narrative mentions that these trees limit
access to the rear yard area. The zoning ordinance requires a 25 foot setback for the
property.
Proposed Attached Garage Addition
In an attempt to address concerns raised at the Design and Review Committee
meeting, the applicants have changed their plans to include:
2
1. A 20 foot garage depth, which reduced the variance to 5 feet.
Shifting the garage to within 3 feet of the south lot line. An Administrative Permit
may then be issued for this side yard setback reduction as stated in Section
4.032 (6)(c).
3. Uncovered the front entrance of the house, providing a more open front door
entry.
According to the most recent proposal, the garage would be approximately 20' x 26'
(520 sq. ft.) At a 20 foot depth, the garage would encroach the 25 foot setback by five
feet, thus leaving a 20 foot setback from the front property line. The south side property
line would have a setback of three feet. An Administrative Permit must be issued for
this side yard setback reduction as stated in Section 4.032 (6)(c). The architectural
standards of the proposed garage addition would match the building materials used for
the existing residence.
Variance Review
1. The New Hope Comprehensive Plan encourages residential reinvestment. The
applicants' attempt to upgrade their home with a garage capable of holding two
vehicles should not be discounted.
2. With respect to variances, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposal meets
the hardship criteria of the Zoning Ordinance set within Section 4.36.
· Does hardship exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property that
results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot?
Comment: In review of the applicant's request, we find that the applicant's lot is
configured in the same manner as other lots along Nevada. The house
placement and tuck under garage are not unique to the applicant's house but
rather the pattern up and down Nevada Avenue. Alternative sites to place a
garage would include the rear yard or the north side yard. Specific
characteristics of the lot that may complicate providing the garage in the rear
yard or north side yard would include the existence of two trees and topography
which may present some difficulty in the placing of a garage elsewhere on the
property.
In looking at the physical conditions, we believe that with grading, the topography
issue along the front yard could be overcome. The existing trees would
complicate access to the rear or side yard, however, based on the applicant's
front yard garage proposal, it would appear that one of the existing significant
trees would incur damage when the foundation and footings were dug within the
drip line of this significant tree. This being the case, staff believes that one of the
trees may have to be removed to accommodate a garage at either of the
alternative locations. As a result, tree preservation is not being achieved through
approval of a variance.
3
In looking at the location of a detached garage at the rear property line, staff has
also identified that any proposed building at that location would be in very close
proximity to the attached deck with driveway running close to the house. This
may also represent a difficulty associated with the rear yard location.
In order for the City to approve the necessary variance, a finding must be made
that the proposed action will not adversely affect the site or surrounding area.
Comment: In review of the proposed front yard variance, staff believes that the
introduction of a 20 foot garage in the front yard would alter the site in
comparison with the character of the surrounding residential properties and
within the block. Though the proposed garage would stand out and be different
than the homes on both sides of the property the applicant has reduced the
garage depth from 22 feet to 20 feet.
In addition to the visual change in character within the block, the City Engineer
has indicated that the rear yard drainage from the applicant's lot and the lot from
the south are directed to the shared property line between the properties and
then directed toward Nevada Avenue. Currently there is a hedge, a fence, and
some storage in this area. Concern exists that the three foot setback for the
garage along that property line might further obstruct the drainage patterns in this
area. Drainage concerns have to be addressed in conjunction with any
additional development in this area.
Would such variance allow the property owners any special privileges which
would be denied to other lands and structures?
Comment: In review of the front yard variance, staff is concemed with the
precedence that would be established with this variance approval. The lot size
and configuration of the applicant's lot is not unique to this property but is
generally the standard through much of New Hope. Approval of a front yard
encroachment for a garage could certainly result in other applications of a similar
nature. Without solid demonstration of hardship unique to this property, it would
be difficult to say that other variances of similar nature would not be appropriate.
In this respect, the City Council must make a determination as to whether this
type of variance is acceptable.
Is the variance being requested, the minimum action required to eliminate the
hardship?
Comment: In review of the application, it would appear that the applicant could
install a garage in either the north side yard or rear yard, however, it would have
different implications than a front yard garage. The rear yard garage must meet
the required accessory building setbacks, must provide a longer driveway, would
result in loss of a significant tree, would require some change in topography to
provide the necessary driveway, and it may have an impact on the location of the
4
deck that is attached to the garage. However, these items can be ovemome
through proper site design.
In meeting with the applicant at the pro-application meeting, staff suggested that
if a front yard variance was to be pursued, it should be the minimum action
required to provide a garage space. Staff suggested that perhaps a 20 foot deep
garage would be moro appropriate, minimizing the front yard setback intrusion to
five feet. In examining the applicant's most recent submittal, a 20' deep garage
is being requested.
CONCLUSIONS
In examining the requested variance, the City Council is asked to determine whether a
variance is justified based on criteria established by the Planning Commission and the
Zoning Ordinance. In staff's review of the front yard garage, we believe that the building
addition may change the character of the neighborhood, may set precedent for future
garage additions, would have an impact upon drainage on the south side of the lot, and
one of the significant trees will be lost with the garage placement as illustrated on the
applicant's submission.
However, the applicant has modified their request to minimize the front yard
encroachment and attempted to respond to the Design and Review Committee
comments. In this respect, the shallower garage is a positive alternative to previous
requests. The applicant has provided a revised plan that offers a garage with less
depth and will not cover the front entrance to their home. They have also proposed a
means to deal with drainage along the south side of the lot.
The City promotes renovation and reinvestment in their single family housing stock. In
this respect the Planning Commission and City Council will need to determine if the
existing site conditions (ie. topography, tree preservation, house placement) on the site
warrant variance approval and the variance is the minimum encroachment required.
This report offers two options for considering the variance in the recommendation
section.
pc
Roger Axel
Steve Sandral
Vince Vandertop
Kurt and Jill Klipstein
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
Opper~nlty Emplo~r and E~Io~ ~neD
Principals: O~to G. ~nell~, P.~ · ~n ~, 8~la,
Schuni~L P.E. · ~er~ A. Bourdon, P.E. · Mark A,
Sa~let Consul~nt~; Rebed W. Ro~e~, P.E. · Joieph C. A~afllk, P,E., Rlcha~ E. Turner,
P.E. - Su~ M. Ebatlln, C.P.A.
as~clate Pflnclp,l;: Keffh A. Go.on, P.E. · R~nfl R, ~ede, P.[ - ~chaffi W, F~lor,
P.E. - Dasd O. ~xkola, P,E, · Mlchae~ T. ~mmaQn, P,E. · T~ K, Field, P.E · ~n~th P.
Ande~n, P.E. - Mark R. R~I,, P.E. · David A Bo~g~, M.B.A.· Sld~ p, WIIlla~on, P.E..
ES., AO~e M. RI~, M.8~ · Allen Rick S~dt, P.E. · T~S W, Petemon. P.E. · JemeA R.
Ismael Ma~naz, P.E, · ~oma~ A 5y/ko. P.~ - S~ldon d, dobson · Dale A.
T~maa A. Rouehat, P.E. · Robe~ d, D~,
Offices: Sf, Paul, St. CIo~. Roc~a~t end Wl~mar, MN · Milwaukee, WI · Chl~go, IL
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Vince Vander Top
DATE: June 12, 2003
SUItJECT: 4053 Nevada Avenue - K1/pstein Vmancc
Our File No. 34-Gen E03-19
We have reviewed the proposed residential property impruvemenk~ inclu, ding the garage
expansion. Please consider the following comments:
.~.17" A1 limited ch'ainage area from the applicant's backyard and the neighbor's bacLTard &'al. ns
to thc front yard (Nevada Avenue) via the applicant's south lot Line. Please see the
attached fi~re. Stored materials, a hedge and other pJant materials already compromise
drainage along this route. The pmpnsed garage expansion wi. Il be 5 feet from the
property .line. This expansion will impact the hcdgc and could further complicate
drainage. Thc garage, itself, will also contribute storm water tb this property line.
Coordination will be required with the neighbor to prevent future issues.
2. Shortening the driveway will reduce the area to park vehicles in front of the garage and
increase the slope of the driveway. The applicant sliould consider these factors.
The setbacks of the existing properties am currently thc same. This garage ',u/dition will
look different than adjacent properties and impact sight lines to the house fronts of
adjacent properties.
EXHIBIT E.
9O4
I
906.9
905.
x
x~..~O 8.8
X 905.8
X
9~2
?_.'l;/.,'l:d
WdgS:~O £00~ 9~ 'un£
l£B6S6S~S6:
3~N: WO~
/
/
/
!
/
/
/
\
\
\
..,
I
i
HY-LAND SURVEYING,
LAND SURVEYORS
N
8700 Jefferson Highwoy
Osseo. Idinnesot<3 55.t69
PHONE (763)495-.5761
FAX (763)493-5781
NOTE: PROPERTY CORNERS
SET BY DEVELOPERS SURVEYOR
NEW CONCEPTS
-120.00-
P.A.
INVOICE NO. 25481
F.B. NO. 276/47
SCALE 1'= 20'
LOT 10, BLOCK 6, ROCKFORD PARK
MIItofl E. H)4ofld,i~n. Reg. No. 20262
ill
iii
I-.
Z
Ul
03-05
Susan Pfeilsticker
3853 Hillsboro Avenue
02-21
Joal Slockton
8700 61 ~ Avenue
02-09
Gary & Faith Novitsky
4404 Independence Avenue
01.-08
Timothy Preimesberger
5841 Cavell Avenue
00-15
Timothy & Ametta Glum
5307 Pennsylvania Avenue
99-13
Robert & Janet White
8948 Northwood Parkway
98-20
Richard &Liane Shiva
8489 N. Meadow Lake Road
Jon Amoldy
3532 Ensign Avenue
Doug Norwick
4057 Boone Avenue
RESIDENTIAL SIDE/REAR YARD VARIANCES -- 1980 - TO PRESENT
Front yard setback (25') and curb cut
Request: 8' variance on front and curb cut closer than 40' to
Intersection
Request to construct 23' x 29' attached garage and move driveway
curb cut closer to intersection
Side yard setback corner lot (25') and rear (25')
Request: 9.6' variance on side and 1' on rear
~ct 26' x 28' attached ar_~..[~to side of home
Rear yard setback (-~
Request: 5' variance
Request to construct 15' x 15' 2-story addition to home 20' front rear
~line
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 3' variance
Request to construct a 620 SF expansion onto existing home 7'
~line
Side yard setback (5')
Request: 2' varlanco
Request to construct an attached 2-car garage 3' from the property
line
Front yard setback (30')
Request: 6' variance
Request to construct 6' addition to the front of garage and front entry
to accommodate a second story to be located 24' from front property
line
Side yard setback (5')
Request: 2' variance
Request to construct 22' x 26' garage onto existing house extending
2 feet into the side ard setback
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 7' variance
Request to construct 2-story addition to home extending 7' into side
Side yard setback (5')
Request: 1' variance
Request to demolish existing 1*car garage and construct new
attached 2-car ara e to extend 1' into side yard setback
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC:unanimous
--~-~.'unanimous
CC:unanimous
PC:unanimous
CC:unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC; unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
Building materials to match existing.
Comply with code on plantings in sight triangle.
Building materials to match existing.
Driveway width
Building materials to match.
Work oul drainage issues with neighbor.
Council approved 12' addition.
Building materials to match
Building materials Io match.
Roof pitch to be 3.5/12
Garage dimensions to be 26' wide by 30' long
PC:6 for
1 against
2 absent
CC:unanimous
PC:unanimous 10'addn.
CC: unanimous 12' addn.
PC:unanimous
CC:unanimous
Demo detached garage and foundation.
Su .bruit grading/drainage plan for City Engineer
review.
Gutter & downspout on west side of garage.
Building materials to match house.
Driveway to taper to street,
Retaining wall on south property line.
None
Submit detailed construction plans at time of obtaining
building permit.
Submit detailed.plans for buildin_i.i.i.i.i.i.i~ermit
Building materials to match existing.
RESIDENTI/
96-18 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match existing.
Leona Bigelow Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous
3840 Gettysburg Avenue Request to construct an addition onto existing garage, extending 2'
inlo side yard setback.
92-31Roger Griggs Request:Side yard variance1.8' variance(5') Approved PC: 16excusedfOr Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
5313 Pennsylvania Avenue Request to construct garage on side of house, which extends 1.8' CC: unanimous
into side yard setback.
88-13 Side yard (20' corner lot) & fronl yard (35') setback Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Daniel & Barbara Nordberg Request: 5' side & 12' front variances 1 abstain
3243 Flag Avenue Request !.o expand garage on non-conforming structure. CC: unanimous
88-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - Approved 1' PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
James & Sandra Larson Request: 2' variance CC - Approved 2' CC: 3 for
5908 Boone Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 2' into side yard 1 against
setback.
88-02 Side yard setback (35' across from industrial, along 49~ Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous
New Community Builders Request: 1' variance CC: unanimous
4884 Erickson Drive Request to build new home 1' in!o side yard setback.
85-20 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Richard & Donna Kranz Request: 5' variance 1 against Drainage not adversely impact neighbors.
3240 Ensign Ct. Request to add a family room to existing home with basement, CC: unanimous Lot survey be consistent.
which Would extend 5' into the side yard setback.
85-10 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Patrick O'Meara Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous Extend chain link fence between houses.
8200 39m Avenue Request to add bedroom above garage, which would extend 2' into
the side yard.
Gregory85-02 Davis Request:Side yard setback3, variance (10') Approved cc:PC: unanimOUSunanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
7308 39~ Avenue Request to add onto existing home
Alvie84-24Carey Request:Side yard setback3, variance(20' coCa, er lot) Approved cc:PC: unanimOUSunanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
4052 Decatur Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 3' into side
yard (corner lot) setback.
84-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - approved 1' PC: 1' unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
James Wiczek Request: 2' variance CC - approved 2' CC: 2' unanimous
4104 Oregon Avenue Request to add a 2-story addition, including tuck-under garage and
living area above.
84-08 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Richard & Patricia Bruins Request: 4' variance 615/84 - PC CC: unanimous
7251 40Ih Avenue Request to construct a screened porch at rear of house which is 6/11/84 - CC
technically the side yard and would extend 4' !nfo side yard,
83-48
Joseph Forrer
4633 Rhode Island Avenue
83-35
Chades & Phyllis Horlon
3204 Geltysburg
RESIDENTIAL SIDE/REAR YARD VARIANCES -- 1980 - TO PRESENT
Approved
Approved
83-55 Side yard setback (5')
P.O. Dotson Requeat: 1%' variance Approved PC: unanimous
2701 Quebec Avenue to add onto extend I ½' into setback. CC: unanimous
Side yard setback (5')
Requeat: 3' variance
add. which would extend 3' into setback.
Side yard (10') & rear yard (35) setback
Request: 2' side & 3' rear yard variance
Request to add 3-season porch to rear of house, which extends 2'
3' to rear yard.
83-30 Side yard vaHa,ce (5')
,Joseph Buslovich Request: 2'9" variance Approved PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
3530 Yukon Avenue Variance was granted 3' variance in 1980, after survey by neighbor,
he should have requested 2'3" variance as the sidewalk and a shed
63-26 Side yard variance (10') and front yard variance (30') Approved PC: unanimous
Larry & Carol Adams Request: 5' aide & 5' front
to construct double~
83-09 yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous
Thomas Gagnon Request: 4.25' variance with overhang 2.25' from property line. CC: unanimous
6025 Sumter Place Request 1o construct an addition onto existing home. Council
recommended lhat addition be flush along rear of house so that the
be less than ori ing~.~plan.
Side yard setback variances for stairway and wing walls already
constructed.
Vernon Stuhr Approved
5635 Wisconsin Avenue
Robed Yunker, 4606 Boone
Martin Kvasnik, 4612 Boone
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Side yard setback (20' on corner lot) Approved
William & Jacqueline Sheperd Requeat: 8.4' variance
8501 28~' Avenue Request to build 3-season porch onto existing house 8.4' into 20'
11.8'.
variance (5')
Requeat: Both parties requesting 5' variance to construct a
concrete apron up to the property line at both residences & 4606
Boone requesting variance to park recreational vehicle on cement
within 3' of ~ line.
(5') Approved
Frederick Starke Request: 3' variance
4042 Oregon Avenue Request to construct a 2-car detached garage to within 2' of side
line.
PC: unanimous
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Approved
CC: unanimous
PC no minutes in files
CC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: 4 for
3 against
CC: 4 for
ainst
unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
PC: 6 for
I abstain
CC: unanimous
Structure should be only 20' so overhang is 2' from lot
line.
Roof & building materials lo match existing structure.
Remove existing shed.
2'3" variance, move shed at back of properly, take out
1 '1" of sidewalk, lake care of water problem, work to
be done in 30 days.
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Roof 8, building materials to match existing structure.
Roof & building materials 1o match existing structure.
Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
RESIDENTI,~
...... I_,~1 I I~L ..,~n. jl-/r~.r-J~,r~ T~,.~i,.~L~ VANIANUI::~5 --- 1980 - TO PRESENT ~
82-20 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Joel Olson Request: 5' variance 3 against Overhang cannot extend over property line.
8833 31" Avenue Request to add onto existing garage right up to the lot line at the CC: unanimous
rear corner of new addition.
81Sukhender-58 Nath SideRequest:yard setback3, variance(5') Approved cc:PC: unanimOUSunanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
8717 30"~ Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 2' from
property line.
81-52 Side yard setback (20' on corner) No minutes in file.
Roger & Janice Fechner Request: 4'11"' variance
4700 independence Request to add onto existing garage leaving a 15'1" setback along
47'" Avenue, which requires 20'.
81-34 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Beverly Cooper Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous
3433 Hillsboro Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 1' from
: properly line.
81Harold-27 Lund Request:Side yard setback1, variance(5') Approved cc:PC: unanimOUSunanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure,
4617 Hillsboro Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 4' from
property line.
81Kenneth-11 Kline SideRequest:yard ~elback10, variance(35' along 36~h Avenue) Approved cc:PC: unanimOUSunanimous Roof & building materials to match existing slructure.
3551 Wisconsin Avenue Request to convert existing garage into living space and build new
2-car garbage, which would extend 10' into the 35' side yard setback
along 36"' Avenue.
81-02 Side yard ~-eiback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure.
Frank Dahlen Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous
7301 40t" Avenue Request to add family room on to existing home, which would
extend 3' into the 10' setback.
80-59 Side (20') & rear yard variance (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing
Myron & Betty Kjos Request: 2' side yard & 5.5' rear yard variance CC: unanimous structure.
3837 Hillsboro Avenue Lot line is somewhat at an angle to new garage and half the garage
is over the side setback by 2' and the rear extends into the rear
setback by 5.5 feet
80-48 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match exisling
Joseph Buslovich Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous structure.
3530 Yukon Avenue Request to add on to make a 2-car garage, which would be 3' from
the property line with the overhang right on the property line.
Neighbors house is 10' from line with no windows on that side.
80-40
Elroy Meyer
5832 Cavell Avenue
80-27
Roy Lindgren
3600 Jordan Avenue
RESIDENTIAL SIDF-JREAR YARD VARIANCES -- 1980 - TO PRESENT
Approved
80-47 Side yard variance (5' garage) Approved PC: unanimous
Daniel Hanka Requeet: 2' variance
3625 Gettysburg Avenue Request to add on large addition, garage and living area, which CC: unanimous
Fine at one comer of home.
Side yard variance (5'garage)
Request: 5' variance
Request to keep driveway right up to the property line as it was for
past 19 years. Want to pave driveway and at the boulevard it
encroaches onto the nei~bors land.
80-34 Side yard setback (10')
Linne Johnson Request: 2' variance Approved PC: unanimous
CC: unanimous
3022 Boone Avenue Add a 2' x 5' alcove to dining room, which would extend out 2' into
the 10' side yard setback
Side yard setback (35' for major arterial street ~ Avenue)
Request: 4' variance
Want to add onto the garage into the 35' side yard setback by 4'
leave 31' '
80-13 Side yard setback (10')
Cooper/Herman Request: 3' variance Approved PC: unanimous
4200 Flag Avenue Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one corner of CC: unanimous
meet requirement
Side yard setback (10')
Request: 5' variance
Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one corner of
not meet retirement
Approved
PC: 6 for
1 against
CC: unanimous
CC; unanimous
80-12
Cooper/Herman Approved PC: unanimous
4208 Flag Avenue CC:unanimous
Roof and building materials to match existing
structure,
Curb cut moved by City so driveway does not
encroach on neighboring land when paved.
Roof and building materials to match existing structure
cisting fence, building materials to match
A removable gateway section be installed in fence to
allow for fire protection.
gateway section be installed in fence to
allow for fire protection,
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
03-11 Kud & Jill Klipstein 6~6~03 8~5~03 10/4/03
4053 Nevada Avenue N
New Hope 55427
763-537-6931
Ao
B.
C.
D.
Eo
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
Assign each application a number.
List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
List the date the City received the application.
List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the
date in Box C, If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.)
List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before
the time limit expires.
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission Members
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director
June 27, 2003
Miscellaneous issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with
additional detail on CounciI/EDA/HRA actions on Community Development related issues or
other city projects. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review,
at your discretion.
June 9 Council/EDA Meetings - At the June 9 Council/EDA meetings, the Council took action on
the following planning/development/housing issues:
· PC03-01, Request for Final Plat Approval for Property to be Known as Paulsons Prairie
7550-7600 49th Avenue: Approved, subject to conditions as recommended by staff/
consultants/utility companies and Council requested submission of separate "Consent and
Joinder," see attached Council request.
· PC02-12 and 03-04, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Parish Community of St.
Joseph to Subdivide Parcel, Site/Buildinq Plan Review, and CUP for Church Expansion
and Shared Parkinq, 8701 36th Avenue: Approved, as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
· PC03-06 Request for CUP and Site/Buildinq Plan Review, 9200 49th Avenue: Approved as
recommended by the Planning Commission, and Council requested approval by the Shingle
Creek Watershed.
· PC03-07, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Thompson New Hope Addition, 8501
54th Avenue: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission.
June 23 Council/EDA Meetinq - At the June 23 Council/EDA meetings, the Council took action
on the following planning/development/housing issues:
· PC02-04, Resolution Authorizinq Release of Financial Guarantee for Olson General
Contractors Development at 9201 52"d Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Resolution Imposing a Fee for Issuance of Revenue Bond,=: Approved, see attached
Council request.
· Resolution Authorizinq Application for the Livable Communities Demonstration
Account (LCDA) Development Grant Proqram for the Hope Village Livable Communitie,,-
Redevelopment Area: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Project #685, Motion Approvin.q Final Payment to BCB Construction for Completion of
City Contract for the Construction of the City-Owned Twinhome Located at 7105 62"d
and 6151 Louisiana Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
Project #748, Motion Authorizinq Staff to Obtain Appraisal of 5512 Winnetka Avenue:
Approved, see attached Council request.
Ord. No. 03-13, An Ordinance Establishinq a Park Dedication Requirement and/or Cash
Payment in Lieu of Land Dedication: Adopted, see attached Council request.
Resolution Callinq for a Public Hearing on Issuance of Revenue Bonds: Approved, see
attached Council request.
Public Hearinq: Resolution Givinq Preliminary Approval to Issuance of Multifamily
Housinq Refundinq Revenue Bonds: Approved, see attached Council request.
Public Hearin.q: Project #665, Resolution Vacatinq an Easement for a Public Alley and
Authorizinq the Preparation, Execution and Recordinq of Documents Relatinq to th~
Same: Approved, see attached Council request.
PC03-04, Request for Final Plat Approval for Property to be Known as Parish
Community of St. Joseph, 8701 36th Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
PC03-07, Request for Final Plat Approval for Property to be Known as Thompson New
Hope Addition, 8501 54th Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
Resolution Approvin.q Short Form Aqreement with HDR Enqineerin.q for Environmental
Acoustical Services: Approved, see attached Council request.
Project #728, Resolution Awardinq a Contract and Orderinq Construction of Relocation
of Utility Pipelines at the Navarre Corporation Site: Approved, see attached Council
request.
Ord. No. 03-16, An Ordinance Amendinq New Hope Code .~8-33 Re.qulatin.q Second Hand
Dealers Licenses: Adopted, see attached Council request.
Ord. No. 03-12, An Ordinance Extendinq Ban on Development in all Four Livable
Community Task Force Study Areas: Adopted, see attached Council request.
Project #665, Joint Development Proposal Concept Consideration and Authorization tn
Prepare a Purchase Aqreement for City-Owned Property at 7500-28 42n'~ Avenu.=.:
Approved, see attached EDA request. Staff directed to prepare purchase agreement subject to
approval of plans by Planning Commission and City Council.
Project #749, Discussion Re.qardin.q Development Proposal for City-Owned Property at
5501 Boone Avenue and Direction to Proceed: Approved, see attached EDA request. Staff
directed to continue coordination with PPL.
Project #734, Discussion Reqardin.q Development Proposal for City-Owned Property at
4317 Nevada Avenue and Private Property at 4301 Nevada Avenue,: Council did not
support the concept due to the density and subsidy request.
Motion Acknowled.qin.q Expiration of Letter of Intent with Brookstone, Inc. and
Agreement to Continue Coordination on Informal Basis: Approved, see attached EDA
request.
Codes & Standards Committee - The Codes & Standards Committee did not meet in June. Staff
will be contacting the committee and try to schedule a meeting in July or early August to discuss
the following issues:
A. Si.qn Study - The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission review and clarify
the regulations pertaining to garage sale and real estate signs. Staff and the consultants will
prepare an outline of issues to be addressed and present to the committee for review before
the study proceeds. The Council has also requested that a public meeting be held by the
Citizens Advisory Commission on this issue to let residents express their opinions. (This is the
same process utilized when the screening of trash enclosures was studied.) Staff will be
developing a timeline in the near future to incorporate all elements of the study.
B. Transit Shelters - This issue may have to be reviewed again by the committee. The review of
the proposed transit shelter locations by property owners at the May Citizen Advisory
Commission went fine. However, two things occurred since that time which have delayed staff
taking the ordinance and agreement to the Council:
1) Outdoor Promotions has contacted staff and said they want additional changes in both
the ordinance and the contract.
2) U.S. Bench strongly opposes giving up its sites for shelters and wants the city to
pursue "sharing the sites" to accommodate both benches and shelters at the sites.
C. Minor Code Amendments - The city attorney has prepared an ordinance addressing minor
code amendments previously discussed by the committee. Staff wants the committee to review
the final ordinance before proceeding to the full Commission and City Council.
D. Miscellaneous - There are several other miscellaneous code issues that staff wants to discuss
with the committee in the future.
Desi.qn and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee met in June to review
plans for the residential garage variance. The deadline for the August Planning Commission
meeting is July 11. Pre-application meetings were held with the following applicants and it is
anticipated that they will be filing applications: gas station/car wash at 36th Avenue and Highway
169 for a minor subdivision and Sinclair Station redevelopment at Medicine Lake Road and
Highway 169. Committee members will be notified regarding the status of the meeting.
Future Applications - Future applications or businesses that staff is currently working with
include:
· Alfa Muffler at Winnetka/Medicine Lake Road
· 42nd & Quebec redeveloping future: Culvers Restaurant and professional offices
· Collisys - PUD amendment to allow second building on site
City Center Task Force Update - The task force met on June 12. Minutes from that meeting are
attached. The next meeting will be held on July 10.
Livable Communities Study - City staff continues to work with Ryland on the East Winnetka site
and with Boisclair Corporation on the golf course site and both developers have submitted revised
plans. A financial analysis has been prepared on both sites. Staff/consultants are continuing to
coordinate and negotiate on terms of agreement and submitted grant applications to the
Metropolitan Council June 30 for development funds on to assist with acquisition/relocation/
demolition costs. The special legislation the city requested to create the Livable Communities tax
increment financing district was approved. Staff will be presenting an update to the Commission
on all of these issues in August or September after more preliminary details have been finalized.
8. Thrift Store Study - The City Council adopted an ordinance regarding second hand dealers at its
meeting on June 23 and the moratorium will expire on June 30, 2003. Licensing of existing
businesses will not be required until January 2004.
9. Project Bulletins - Attached is a project bulletin regarding 7610 Bass Lake Road.
10. Project Updates:
Navarre Corporation - construction to start in July.
Plymouth Hei.qhts Pet Hospital - closing on property to take place in July and construction to start
thereafter.
St. Joseph's Church - construction to start in August.
Woodbridqe - construction to start this fall.
11. If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff.
Attachments:
Navarre final plat
Olson bond release
Fee on revenue bonds
Livable Communities Grant Program
7105 62nd Avenue final payment
5512 Winnetka appraisal
Park dedication fee ordinance
Set public hearing on revenue bonds (St. Therese)
Multifamily Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds (Anthony James Apts)
Vacation of alley easement
Final plat Parish Community of St. Joseph
Final plat Thompson New Hope Addition
HDR Engineering agreement
Navarre utilities relocation
Ordinance regulating second hand dealers
Ordinance extending construction ban in Livable Communities areas
City Center Task Force Minutes
Project Bulletins
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department
Community Development
Kirk McDonald. Director
Approved for Agenda
6-9-03
Agenda Section
Planning &
DeveloDmen!
Item No.
8.1
PLANNING CASE 03-01, REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY TO BE KNOWN AS
PAULSONS PRAIRIE, 7550-7600 49TM AVENUE NORTH, NEW HOPE LLC/NAVARRE CORPORATION,
PETITIONER
REQUESTED ACTION
The petitioner is requesting final plat approval of Paulsons Prairie to combine three parcels into one, pursuant
to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The Planning Commission and City Council considered
the preliminary plat request in March and recommended approval, subject to conditions. The enclosed
resolution approves the final plat, subject to conditions, and staff recommends approval of the resolution.
.POLICY/PAST PRAC'TICF
The City Council has approved final plats in the past if they comply with the requirements of the Zoning Code.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting final plat approval of Pauisons Prairie to allow combine three parcels into one to
allow construction of a 111,000 square foot office/warehouse building with links to the existing building. The
appropriate drainage and utility easements are shown on the plat. The property is zoned I Industhal and
contains 5.9 acres. Please refer to the attached excerpts from the original staff report for more details on the
request.
The Planning Commission considered the preliminary plat request at its March 4 meeting and recommended
approval, subject to conditions, including agreeing to waive review of the final plat. The City Council considered
the Preliminary plat at/ts March 10 meeting, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit revised Preliminary Plat that incorporates recommendations from City Attorney (3/5/03 and 2/28/03
correspondence) and City Engineer (2J26/03 correspondence regarding plat) and the NRUP pond utility
easement.
2. Approve waiver of review of final plat by Planning Commission.
MOTION
BY
TO:
SECOND
BY
03-01 final
Request for Action
Page 2 6-u-03
As per routine policy, the final plat was submitted to city department heads, City Attorney, City Enginee:.
Planning Consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment. Comments recei~
include the following:
City Enqineer:
Please refer to attached June 3, 2003, correspondence. A listing of easements to be
vacated is needed and the final plat approval will be subject to the recommendations
from the City Engineer.
City Attorney:
Please refer to attached June 4, 2003, correspondence. Most of the items listed are
routine and the final plat approval will be subject to the recommendations of the City
Attorney.
Plannin,q Consultant: Please refer to the attached May 27, 2003, report which finds the final plat compliant
and recommends approval.
No other comments were received on the final plat.
Staff recommends approval of the final plat, subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer and City
Attorney.
A'i'rACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Final Plat
· Location Maps
· City Engineer Comments
· City Attorney Comments
· Planner's Comments
· Excerpts from the Original Report
· Preliminary Plat
I
I "w~ · ~ I" /%\-- ~ I
,_, , :~,. x o. ~.. ~.- ,
I
QUEBEC_ I '""'"*"""" ,..T.,, I..* "-~"' ~ ....... ~"- '
AVENUE"
... I..
,
! : .~ :.
...
R ,( UF_,ST FOR ACTION
Originating Depa~ment Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 06-23-03 Consent
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald By:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE FOR OLSON GENERAL CONTRACTORS
DEVELOPMENT AT 9201 52ND AVENUE NORTH (PLANNING CASE 02-04I
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution releasing the financial guarantee for the Olson
General Contractors development at 9201 52'" Avenue North (Planning Case 02-04). The city engineer and
building official have confirmed that all improvements associated with the project have been completed.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
Itis 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
improvements have been completed.
BACKGROUND
In March 2002, the City Council approved a PUD amendment to allow the construction of a new 19,200 square.
foot multi-tenant industrial building at 9211 52'" Avenue for Olson Construction (Planning Case 02-04). A
financial guarantee in the amount of $180,000 was submitted to insure that specific site improvements were
completed, including utilities, grading, paving and landscaping. Construction took place during the second half
of 2002 and into 2003. In November 2002, the City Council authorized reducing the financial guarantee from
$180,000 to $18,000, due to the fact that most of the improvements were completed.
The city engineer and building official recently inspected the property and noted that all improvements have
been completed to the city's satisfaction. The property owner indicated that all winter kill plantings would be
replaced on June 18 or 19. Based on the comments from the city engineer and building official, staff
recommends release of the financial security. The enclosed resolution approves release of the financial
security, and staff recommends approval of the resolution.
..A'I-rACHMENT$
· Resolution
· City Engineer Memorandum
· Bond Release Form
· C~ondence
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
hrfa/olanning/plannino/Q&R release guarantee
COUNC'~
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agencla Section
Community Development 6-23-03 Consent
Kirk McDonald, Community
Development and Item No.
By: Dali Sulander, Finance By:
RESOLUTION IMPOSING A FEE FOR ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution Imposing a Fee For Issuance
Revenue Bonds.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
The past policy of the city has been to charge reasonable fees to cover consultant expenses related to the
Issuance of Industhal Development Revenue Bonds, for exploring tax increment financing proposals, etc. The
city previously has not charged a fee for the refunding/refinancing of revenue bonds. The city desires to
implement a policy for this action that is consistent with the fees charged for other development applications.
BACKGROUND
The city routinely receives requests for the refinancing/refunding of previously issued revenue bonds. The city
has become aware that a number of cities charge a fee for this transaction. At the June 2, 2003, City Council
work session, the City Council directed staff to implement a reasonable fee for said transactions. The director
of finance and community development have been coordinating with the city's bond consultant on this matter
and the bond consultant has prepared the attached resolution for consideration.
The resolution states that:
· The city of New Hope is authorized to issue revenue bonds for various entities pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes.
· Currently the city charges applicants for the issuance of such revenue bonds a nonrefundable fee of $500,
and a refundable fee of $5,000 to be applied to expenses of the city, which refundable fee is returned to
the applicant when the city is satisfied that all such expenses have been paid by the applicant, or if such
fee is used by the city to pay any expenses, then any balance remaining is returned to the applicant.
· A number of cities upon the actual issuance of such revenue bonds impose a fee based upon the principal
amount of the revenue bonds issued.
The resolution concludes by stating:
MOTION BY
SECOND BY
TO:
hRFA~olanning\Q-revenue bon(:l fee
Request for Action Page 2 6-23-03
That it shall be a condition of the issuance by the city of revenue bonds pursuant to Minnesota StatL- ,,
which are issued after the date of this resolution, that upon the issuance of such revenue bonds the city be
paid a fee equal to .5% of the principal amount of the revenue bonds, and that such fee shall be in addition
to the fees currently charged by the city.
Staff recommends that the fee be deposited in the Economic Development Authority account and be utilized
for development/redevelopment purposes.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
A'I-I'ACHMENTS
· Resolution
· June 2 Work Session Minutes
· Same City of Plymouth Policy
MINWPOLLI
~lV YmUC
D~NI~J~
I~NDON
I)1~ MO~S
DOKSEY fit WHITNEy LLP
SUrT~ 1500
50 SocrrH SOOTH $'rs.swr
MINN~LFOLI$. MINN~OT& 55402-1498
'I'aL~P#OJgl: (612) 340-2600
Fax: (612) 340-2868
www. dorsaylaw, cam
Mr. Dan/el Domh~
CityMam~r
City o/'N~v HOPc
4401 Xylon Avmue North
Nc~v Hope, MN 55428
Re: Issuan~ F~ for Revenue Bonds
Dear Mr. Danahue:
rent- ' The. City of New Hope is authorized to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds
al ~ousmg projects under Minneso~ Statutes rn....,_ ,~.,,-, . _ .for m ulfifamily
and ~---'-'- ...... , -,,~-roz~., aaa for manmactm-in ·
uc, umcat= aaa omer pro~ects owned by tax ~-,----- ...... g projects
.- .-.-,.-~,~ -~uupmnt or~nizafions trader .Minn~ota
Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165. Over thc past 2~ years the City hn= issued a number of
these types of bonds for various projects in thc City.
In issuing thc bands the City is a~intI as a conduit, and while the bonds are issued in the
name of the City, the City has no liability for paymmt of th= Bonds. The b=ctt to thc owner of
thc project financed by ..~e bonds is the ability to obtain a lower interest rate, the savin~s of
whioh more than offset me increased costs ora bond issue.
Thc City's pre, seat policy is to charge an applicant for the revenue bonds a fcc of $$00
and thc applicant is required to pay all City out-of-pocket costs for such things as publication
= form,,,,. ,,,--~d ~)u uiv pnncloal anlOtmt ,,;'~,- ~----,- ',',' ,. · ..
requiring thc pawnen! of ali ""- .... ~, --_,~ ~,~,~a. ires tee is in addition to
whi' ..... ..,-- . ,.~,y ~o~ aaa expenses. ~ome cities impose a one time front fee
mi= OIllerS r~=[ arc mol~ ~'eolli~lt ~ o/',1,., ~,,....;./_._t. _ . .. . . tlp ,
- --,,~ ~,,~ ~=u~u ~ ~',-~espoUs) ~nposc an annual
fcc payablc dung thc term or,he bonds. Th~s fee ~s ~n~ded to cover city sra~timc and costs
and prov[dc ~evenue to a dry, and is
owner of thc pro~ec~, factored ~nto the cos~ ofobta~ng thc financing by the
- 512J40Z$43 ' ~0'05
DORSEY & WHITNEy LLP
Mr. Danicl Donahue
June 19, 2003
Page 2
. At its meeting on June 23'd the City Council will consider adopliu a resol '
~m~_~l~s, a _f~.. pa_Fable upon/ssuaace ot'the r~veau, boads ~' ¢,~ ---,-'- - .~ . · ution ~ha_t _w/Il
~nas. While the fee amount char~ b,,th ,."~------:-- ~;_:.,~o u-um.p.nncipai amount of thc
. . . --~ ~, e ~,,~,~ v~a~ ~ 08ec1 1'1 '
of line with ~ssuan~e fee~/mo ,, .,_. :..,-_ __~ prop ee ~s ~erally not out
rO~Xi b,, cl,~,~ m mu m~l'o area.
imposing a fee t~ will "'~'1" to °~'- --~'-'"" .- .-:,~ ,...~rmcu mere tha~ the City is consider/m, -.r~, ~ ,, ~,,~ r~maamg oon~. They did not object to the fee.
J*PG:c.b.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please give me a call
cc: Steve Sondrall
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION IMPOSING A FEE FOR
ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS
WHEREAS, the City of New Hope is authorized to issue revenue bonds for
various entities pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C and Minnesota Statutes. Sections
469.152 to 469.165: and
WHEREAS currently the City charges applicants for the issuance of such revenue
bonds a nonrefundablc fee of $500, and a refundable fee of $$,000 to be applied to expenses of
thc City, which refundable fee is returned to the applicant when the City is satisfied that all such
expenses have been paid by the applicant, or if such fee is used by the City to pay any expenses
then any balance remaimng is returned to the applicant; and '
WHEREAS, a number of cities upon thc actual issuance of such revenue bonds
impose a fee ba~ed upon the principal amount of the revenue bonds issued;
NOW, TttF. REFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New
Hope, that it shall be a condition of the issuance by the City of r~venue bonds pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C or Sections 469.1:52 to 469.165 which are issued after the date
of this resolution, that upon the issuance of such revenue bonds the City be paid a fee equal to
.5% of the principal amount of the revenue bonds, and that such fee shall be in addition to the
fees currently charged by the City.
2003.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope on this 23~ day of June,
Mawr
Attest:
City Clerk
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agencla Agenda Section
06/23/2003 Consent
Community Development Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald and Erin Seeman By:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION
ACCOUNT (LCDA) DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM FOR -T-HE ~HOPE VILLAGE LIVABLE
COMMUNITIES REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is requesting that the Council approve a resolution authorizing an application to be filed with the
Metropolitan Council for a Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) Demonstration Grant program
for funds to be used for redevelopment of the Hope Village Livable Communities Study Area. The funding
would primarily be used for the acquisition, demolition and relocation costs of the remaining properties on the
Winnetka Avenue East site, as well as Bass Lake Road Apartments and Park Acres North site.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
The City in the past has received grants for housing and planning studies from the Metropolitan Council. This
. will be the first grant submission for development funds. The City's participation in the Livable Communities
program and various redevelopment projects that New Hope has undertaken in the past will strengthen this
application.
BACKGROUND
A planning grant was received by the Metropolitan Council through the Livable Communities Demonstratio~
Account (LCDA) for planning, market, and feasibility studies for redevelopment of the Livable Communities
area in December of 2000. The sites are identified within a half-mile radius from the intersection of Bass Lake
Road and Winnetka Avenues.
A task force was established to study potential redevelopment in September of 2001. They had met over the
course of 18 months to develop preliminary concepts for each of the four target sites. Staff has had several
meetings with the financial consultants, as well as the selected preferred developers.
The second stage of the Livable Communities process is to apply for development funds for the appropriate
developments that will be suitable for the said funds. Since the grant must be submitted by June 30, taking
intoconsideration that the Council does not meet in July until the 28, staff is asking the Council to approve the
submission of the application prior to the completion of the grant. Staff is currently working with the City's
Planning, Financial and Engineering consultants to complete the grant application. Staff has also met with the
.Metropolitan Council Sector Representative, Robin Caufman, to review the proposal and to receive preliminary
'feedback. No action will be taken with the Proposals from the developers without consent from the City
Council.__._...~
MOTION BY
SECOND BY "
'TO:
Request for Action
Page 2
06-23-2003
The grant will consist of three phases:
1. Winnetka Avenue East - Ryland Homes
2. Park Acres North - Boisclair Development
3. Bass Lake Road Apartments - Boisclair Development
Although the development plans and agreements have not been approved for any of the sites at this time, the
amount requested in the grant proposal will be utilized primarily for the remaining acquisition, demolition and
relocation costs for the three sites. The proposals are being included to demonstrate that the city is moving
forward on the redevelopment area by illustrating the steps that have been taken with each of the preferred
developers of the sites. If a collaborative agreement is not reached with one of the selected developers, it is
recommended that another developer be selected in the future.
The selection to make Winnetka Avenue East the first priority at this point is because the city has control over
most of the property. The Park Acres North site consists of primarily iow to-moderate-income apartments.
The decision to make this priority two would allow those that may be displaced by the development on the
Bass Lake Road apartments site more apt to find an available apartment within the project, possibly reducing
the amount of relocation costs. The final phase of this application would be the Bass Lake Road Apartments
site.
It would be possible to apply for more funding in later years for future phases of this project such as the
Winnetka Avenue West area and/or the Frank's Nursery site.
.FUNDING
The financial and planning consultants, as well as city staff, have been reviewing the numbers associated with
the project. The amount of the grant submission has yet to be identified. The costs that will be part of the
final submission will include acquisition, demolition and relocation costs for the Winnetka Avenue East, Park
Acres North and Bass Lake Road Apartments site in excess of 3 million dollars. The city's planning and
financial consultants will be assisting city staff with the completion of the grant application over the next two
weeks and more specific financial details will be available after submission on July 30.
,,A'I-I'ACHMENTS · LCDA Demonstration Grant Program Guidelines
· Resolution
Livable Communities Demonstration Account 2003 Schedule
2003 Available Funding: $8.2 Million
CATEGORY 1:
Week of Apr//28
June 2
August 18
August 27
CATEGORY 2:
Opportunity Grants- up to $300,000
~osaJs
Hold workshop for grant applicants (combined for opportunity anct
A lications due local resolution of su ort due Jul 7
Staff team evaluates ro osals and makes lundin recommendations
Community Development Committee considers
ations and takes action on staff
Metropolitan Council awards opportunity grants
Development Grants- $7.9 million plus any dollars not
awarded in Category 1
Week of April 28
,ne 30
Hold workshop for grant applicants (combined for opportunity and
September to mid- Livable Communities .
November '-- I ,.J,,..,: .... Advisory Committee condu ·
~ ~ ~=ommencls func in a , cts Step
~,_ _ _ ~ -- _____ ~ vat__d,. ~ 2 evaluation and
uecember 1 / Community Development Corem/tree considers and ta-"~es
lundin re~omm~-d~tions act/on on
December 10 Metropolitan Council awards cteve/opment grants _~
:MetropoHtazz Coz:cfi
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT
of the Livable Communities Fund
Funding Available in 2003:$8.2 Million
Purpose: Gm.[. am available to assist communities with new development or redevelopment activities in
all portions of the region as an incentive to accomplish the following, as appropriate to the project location:
1. Create connected places that support auto, pedestrian, and bike travel ancl are linkecl to transit where avadabte.
or build capacity for future transit.
2. Balance residential, commercial, workplace, and public/green spaces within and acl)acent to the s,te
3. Maximize the ctevelopment potential of existing infrastructure, buildings, facilities and clevelopment centers.
particularly along existing transportation comdors.
4. Expand housing choices to increase life-cycle and affordable housing options, especmlly close to lobs.
5. Foster distinctive community places, inclucling respecting local cultural and natural features, and promoting
community identity.
6. Consider the natural environment, including restoring natural features ancl managing stormwater.
Categories: Applicants will choose one of two categories in which to apply for each project, depending
on the stage of project's development.
('Types of elgJible uses are ~lect tmre for each category; attactmo is more mfmmatmn on eligible uses, smecuon cmena ann revmw process)
Category 1: Opportunity Grants - up to S300,000 in grants of S30,000 to $75,000
Goal: Assist communities in developing project-specific and site-specific land use plans for rd acts
oote. nl. al for evolving to the development cateno-,, =,..;~., ............ P ') that show
;, .x. ~.,,~,~,,0 u:,== include Prepanng master plans; conducting design
workshops; developing design standarcls; market studies; ~eveloping zoning and land use implementation tools
such as overlay zones, special zoning disthcts.
Application Deadline: June 2 Award Date: August 27
Category 2: Development Grants - $7.9 million plus any dollars not awarded in Category 1
Go. al! A. ss,s.t communities with projects that ere re-" ..............
Inc?uae nam costs such as site assam . . .-~,y ~,_w,,..~e reaay wimin a year for construction, i' '
sidewalks, structured perkin bly, acqulmtion, demolition an;] removal of obsolete builclJn ; nE ~gmble uses
Application ~feadline: Ju~'30 - gs ew streets and
Eligible Applicants: Application for opportunity and development grants is open to cities Participating in the Local
Housing Incentives Program of the Livable Communities Act, on behalf of Proposals in their communiPes: or
metropolitan counties on behalf of projects located in LCA participant communities.
Applications Per City: Cities submitting more than six aDplications~or opportunity and development grants
combinec~-...must prioritize them.
Livable Communities Demonstration Account
of the Livable Communities Fund
Application Information and Funding Criteria
for
Category 2: Development Grants
Eligible Uses of Funds: Grant funds may be used for project and site costs, infrastructure an0 construction costs--
hard costs such as site assembly, acquisition, demolition ancl removal of obsolete buildings; new streets anc~
siaewalks, structured parking. Funded Project components must direct/y contribute to completion of a i~uil! or
finished project, and reflect the goals and principles of the demonstration Program. Funclecl components will De
evaluated in the context of individual Projects.
Ineligible Uses of Funds: City's administrative overhead, project coordination, activities prior to the start of the
grant Project; travel expenses; legal fees; local permits, licenses or authorization fees; costs associated with
preparing other grant Proposals; operating expenses; comprehensive planning costs; and Prorated lease and salary
costs. Also ineligible: All eligible uses for Category 1, Opportunity Grants.
Amount of Awards: No minimum or maximum award levels for Projects has been established. The Metropolitan
Council reserves the right to award less than the available funding in the grant cycle.
Targeting of Funds: At least 30 percent of available funds will be targeted to cities located in the 0eveloping POrtion
of the region. This is intended to encourage Projects in the developing cities of the region, which have been
unclerrepresented among LCDA-funded Projects in previous years.
Application Process: Submit 30 copies of the application and required attachments to:
Linda Milashius
Metropolitan Council
Meats Park Centre
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN. 55101
· ..and send one ema/I copy of the application to li~nda, milashius~me~c.smte.mn.u,,
Staff will send confirmat/on of application's receipt. The application --
http://www-metrocouncil.org/grants/]cda/demoapp.doc is available online at
Questions? Please direct quastJons related to the application and review Process to Linda Milashius
at Ji~nda-milashius~me~c.~ta~e.m, u_ or 651.602.1541. For other questions, please contact your city's sector
representative (see list of sector--representatives
Eligibility Criteria at www'metrocouncil.org/planning/assistance/sectorreps.htm ).
· The Proposal involves new development, redevelopment or infill development addressing the program
purposes. Proposals may contain mixed-use or residential uses.
· Proposed project is located within the Counci/-identified developed area, developing area or a rural growth
center.
· The Metropolitan Council has under review, or has reviewed and accepted applicant community's
comprehensive plan.
· The community's comprehensive plan amendments for the submitted proposal, if necessary, are completed
or under review by the Metropolitan Council.
· Proposed project helps achieve one or more of the affordable and life-cycle housing goals aclopted by the
applicant city (or the city in which the Project is located if the applicant is a county) under the Local Housing
Incentive program of the Livab/e Communitias Act.
· APplication is comp/eta.
Step One: Staff Evaluation Process
A staff team will evaluate eligible proposals using the Step One evaluation cntena and guiaelines t~elow.
Step One Evaluation Criteria - 30 possible po/nt$
The extent to which the proposal will accomplish the following LCDA I~rogram goals, as al~l~l/caDle to the s/le
location, geographic IocaFOn an;l community:
· Deliver reinvestment and revitalization through connected Patterns of redevelopment, aclaptive reuse, or
development; OR deliver more connected development patterns in developing areas or rural growth centers
· Balance residential, commercial, workplace, and public/green spaces within and ad.~acent to the s~te using
connected development patterns.
· Consider existing infrastructure, buildings, facilities and development centers, particularly along ex,sting
transportation comdors.
· Expand housing choices in the site area or adjacent to it.
· Consider the natural environment, including restoration of natural features, reduction.in impervious surfaces.
management of stormwater.
· Include processes to ensure successful outcomes, such as community participation ancl support, appropriate
and effective regulatory tools, e.g. zoning codes, design standards, development standards.
These gui;lelines will be applied to proposals following evaluation end scoring on the selection critena, anE prov;gect
as information for the Step 2 selection Process.
· Has applicant community responded or is responding to recommendations cited in the Council's review of the
comprehensive plan?
· If a Proposal or related Project has been Previously funded through a Livable Communities Demonstration
Account development or opportunity grant, have grant funds been expended or progress made?
Step Two: Livable Communities Advisory Committee Evaluation and Selection Process
The Livable Communities Advisory Committee will evaluate and score Proposals according to the selection criteria
and make funding recommendations to the Metropolitan Council through its Community Development Committee.
The advisory Committee includes 17 members with expertise in government, development, finance, transportation.
planning ancl clesign, and housing. _
To be recommended by the advisory committee for funding, Proposals must score 70 or more points (of 100) on the
selection criteda (not including housing incentive points as described
supported by a two-thirds vote of the committee, below in 'housing performance sconng-), or be
Proposals will be evaluated in the context of the site. geographic area and community. This will recognize the unique
and diverse characteristics of Projects' location and geographic location in the region.
Step Two Selection Criteria _ 100 PosSible points, including up to 30 points carried over from Step 1 staff
evaluation Process.
Whether and how the project applies the followin r
location and current deveto,~,, ...... g P inciples, in th
Step I evaluab'on procesS ,-ossib,= pu~ms, ius u= *,, an .... g g phc
,"',,-,,~ puL'rem- 30n .i,,,..._.._. , - ,-u,,mxr pt its ed ra i
P ~' '" ,'~, points carne;y over from
· Creates a connected place. For eXample:
~ Provides Ol:~or,.s for Walking, using transit, biking anti clriving;
Interconnected streets, some safe to cross on
~ Sewices and daily nee~ near housing, foot;
jobs, ~mnsi~
Relates but/dings to the street, creating street frontage inviting to I~edestnens;
PhysiCal layout that makes Walking. biking anti using transit safe anti D/easant alternatives to driving;
Connects Walkways. INitking lots. groenways and ~eveloDments with short cprect routes;
Provi~les safe am:l convenient connections to rogione/ancl local trails;
Provicles convenient Parking behind or to the siae of buildings or uncfergrouncl.
· Mixes land uses. For example:
Resu~ ~n multipurpose destinations that locate a mix of uses aPProDnate to the s~te--nous~ng. WOrKo~ace$
shopping, sct~cois, civic centers, paflXs and Dubhc tacilities;
Ciuslers diverse, com~emefltary uses together:
Includes side-43¥.sicle or vertically fntegrated mfxecI uses - ~.e. housing on uDDer floors w~tn relaJt/serv~ces/smaJ
busfnesses Oeiow, or offices adore retaiJ;
Connects rather than ~soiatas uses to altow functional releboflsnlos Petweefl them;
Retrofits single-use commercial and retail developments into walkaPle, mlxeO.use Places:
Creates diverse mixed-use areas t)y adchng housing to job-rich areas, or locating jobs in Places within waiKmc
distance or an easy t)ike or transit commute of residentml areas.
· Provides housing choices. For example:
=~ includes housing opt~Ons---s~ngle-famlly homes, townheuses, condom~mums and apartments m a vat,ely et
styles and pnces--.to meet the needs of people of different ages. incomes and life stages:
~ Mixes different housing prices and styles In tho same block, or integrated in the same cleveiopment rather trtan
separated by tyPe--ideally to ~nclucle 20 percent affordaPle housing (rental at 50 percent of meO~an raceme or
less. ·
ownership at 80 percent of median income or less) in market-rate I',ous~ng on a s,te
=~ Ensures reedy access to open space ~n compactly-developed places and creates a sense of I~nvacy m homes
and yards I~y providing private spaces (e.g. Patios or t)aiconies) or semi-private spaces (e.g. courtyarcls.
garclens);
=~ Focuses affordable housing near or easily accessible to jol3s.
· Fosters distinctive community place(s). For example:
:~ Optimizes connactivlty rather than Duiiding tn isolation from surrounding build,nas and nmghl3ornoo0s;
:~ Includes public gathering Pieces and focal Points, e.g Parks. plazas, put)lic t)uildings;
~ Respects local natural cultural and natural enWronmantaI features;
c~ Fits buildings to the neighl~orhood context through use of design details that echo other 13uiicimgs wn the area or
link to the history or cultural identity of the community;
~ Uses gateways and key locations to promote community identity and sense of place.
· Protects and enhances natural resources. For example:
=~ incorporates ecologically sensitive stormwater management including draining, filtering anct retaining storm
water in innovative ways that ma3omrze use of natural systems;
Preserves or restores existing trees and other natural vegetation including trees and wildflowers;
Taps natural resources to create community amenities, e.g. restoration of buried creeks eno wetlands:
Provides green sPaces for recreation and scenic value.
· Includes processes to ensure successful outcomes: Local vision and leadership;
Partnerships among government, private for-profit and nonprofit sectors.
Community Participation and support;
Plans appropriate to the market or demonstrated market support;
APpropriate and effective regulatory tools, e.g. zoning codes, design standards, development stanclards.
· Is replicable:
c~ Potential for the project or its key component(s) to be replicated in other locations in the same
community or other communities.
2. Developability and Readiness _ 20 points
· Grounded in manet realities with developer interest or commitment.
· implementation tools in place.
· Funding commitments in place to ensure construction within a year or two.
3. ApPropriateness of funding request- 20 points
· Components(s) for which funding are requested reflects LCDA program goals anc~ principles.
· AND contribute(s) directly to implementing the project.
Other Evaluation Factors (no points assigned)
· The But. For Test - LCDA funds are neectecl as a catalyst to make the pro.~ect happen, or to ~rovioe a
element of the project.
· Maximum benefit- proposal aclclresses the criteria under (1), Step Two selection criteria, m ways that
maximize the site or Iocabon potential.
· Geographic distribution ofl~roject$ - throughout region
· Loc. ab'on type - cleveioped, cleveloping, ancl rural growth center communities
Housing Performance Scoring
FolloVang evaluation, scoring ancl preliminary ranking of applications by the Livable Communities Advisory
Committee, staff will assign up to ten additional housing incentives IDOints to each applicant's ~rel~mfnary score The
housing incentives I~oints are determined by converting a community's housing performance score from a 100-porn!
scale to a ten-point scale.
Project rankings may change as a result of adding the housing incentives I~oints. However, the a0v~sory committees
funding recommendations do not necessarily directJy correspond to the numerical rankings.
A Proposal will be 'held harmless' in the ranking process (the proposal will either improve its ranking or will not t~e
lowered in the rankings) if the Proposal inc/ucles or proposes new affordable housing, or affordable housing Is Iocatec~
within the project site/area. The definition of afforclable housing used is consistent with how the Council clefines
afforclable ownership and rental housing in implementation of the Livable Communities Act.
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Depa~ment Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 6-23-03 Consent
By: Ken Doresky, Community Item No.
Development Specialist By:
MOTION APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT TO BCB CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR COMPLETION OF CITY
CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CITY-OWNED TWINHOME LOCATED AT 7105 62ND AND
6151 LOUISIANA AVENUES NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 685)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing final payment in the amount of $26,670 to BCB
Construction, Inc. for completion of City contract for the construction of the City-owned twinhome located at
7105 62n° and 6151 Louisiana Avenues North.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
Before final payment is made for City contracts, the request is brought before the Council for approval.
BACKGROUND
On September 23, 2002, the Council awarded a construction contract for this project to the Iow-bidder, BCB
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $346,926. Also, at that meeting, the Council approved a landscaping plan
for the accessible/adaptable twinhome project at 7105 62n~ and 6151 Louisiana Avenues North and authorized
staff to seek quotes to complete the landscaping.
The City's Building Official and General Inspector have inspected the project and recommend that final
payment be issued subject to the contractor submitted proper paperwork and completing minor construction
items.
Two change orders are required for the project. Please see the following change order summary:
* Change Order #1 was the result of a design error. The laundry rooms were required to be resized slightly to
accommodate the installation of a washer and dryer. The cost to resize the rooms was $535. Due to the timing
required for repair, the City Manager authorized approval of the change order on December 18, 2002. Please
see the attached memorandum and correspondence regarding the repair.
~e Order #2 items are as follows:
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
I:\RFA\PLANNING\Housifl \~5 final a me
- nt ·
Request for Action Page 2 6-23-03
* Basement doors for each unit: $240 - Added as a result of the Council selecting Option #1 Delete
Finished Basement, 9-23-02. '
· Dividing wall thickness: $302 - Increased wall thickness from 8"-12" per Building Code.
· Bay window footings: $360 - Added cantilever walls under bay windows per Building Code.
· Brass sewer cieanouts: $60 - Added per request of previous Building Official.
· Bond adjustment: $953 - Due to the several options considered on 9-23-02, the contractor was unsure
of the exact bond amount and included an allowance in the bid of $6000. Actual amount was $6,953.
From this point forward, staff will not accept a bid with a bond allowance.
Due to the code related nature of the majority of these items, the City Manager approved these items as
needed. The cost of the change orders ($2,450) compared to the project contingency ($13,877) was only 18%
of the total contingency. The remaining contingency dollars will be used to balance the final budget ('final legal
bills, etc.). Staff expects that a majority of the contingency will remain unspent and would be available for use
in other projects.
Payment Summary:
Item
Contract I Date A,~ount
. 9-23-02 $346,926
Change Order #1' 12-18-02 $53~
Change Order #2 ** 6-23-03
Total $1,915
'-'-'--- $349,376
~ment $322,706
$26,670
,.,C_°_n!!_n_ en .~u_mma
~% of Contract.)___
Ch~ Orders $13, 877
Contin en Remainin - ~~ $2,450
$1 1,427
On August 14, 2000, the City purchased 7105 62nd Avenue North from a willing seller for $103,000. The
original intent was to rehabilitate the existing home under the City's Scattered Site Housing Program. 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).
On November 13, the Council directed staff to seek Proposals from Professional design firms for the
development of accessible twinhome plans and specifications. On January 28, 2002, the Council awarded the
design proposal to Project for Pride in Living, Inc. in the iow-quote amount of $8,000. On July 22, the Council
approved the house plans and directed staff to solicit bids for the project. On September 23, the Council
awarded a construction contract to the Iow-bidder, BCB Construction, Inc. in the amount of $346,926. On
November 25, the Council authorized staff to obtain appraisals of each unit to determine the sale prices. On
December 9, the Council approved the marketing plan and sale prices. On January 27, 2003, the Council
approved the mortgage structure for the property. During the spring, staff completed an administrative lot split
of the property per City Code.
Landscaping of the home is scheduled for completion in June. Staff will schedule an open house shortly.
Marketing of the home is underway.
Staff recommends approval of this motion contingent on the contractor submitting the required paperwork and
completing minor construction related items.
FUNDING
This project is located in an area where TIF funds can be utilized. CDBG funds were used to acquire the
Request for Action
Page 3 6-23-03
property, remove the foundation and prepare the site. CHDO HOME funds in the amount of $60,500
been secured for this project. Construction costs will be funded by the sale of the property.
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 will be funded by the sale of the property.
A'I'rACHMENTS
· Location Map
· Final Payment Invoice
· Sworn Construction Statement
· Budget
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department
Community Development
By: Ken Doresky, Community
Devel~ By:
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FILE 748)
Approved for Agenda
6-23-03
Agenda Section
Consent
Item No.
OBTAIN APPRAISAL OF 5512 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting that the City Council approve a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 5512
Winnetka Avenue North for potential acquisition purposes. A letter has been received from the property owner
indicating a desire to sell the property. The property is located within the Livable Communities East Winnetka
Study Area.
pOLICY/PAST PRACTICF
City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential Properties within
the City. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the City's many
housing activities, including accluidng 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 is
presented 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 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 planning to close on 5506 Winnetka Ave. N. in July.
BACKGROUND
The City has received the attached correspondence from the property owner at 5512 Winnetka Avenue North
requesting that the City consider purchasing the property. The correspondence is dated June 1, 2003. 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.
' O? ON aY
SECOND BY
TO: "'
Request for Action Page 2 6-23-~,,.
The Comprehensive Plan targeted several areas in the City for redevelopment. Recommenclatior~ for
Planning District 6 include the' acquisition and redevelopment of sites located along the south side of ~ .,ss
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. 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.
Since purchase solicitation letters were distributed, the City has purchased nine (9) of the seventeen (17) lots
along the east side of Winnetka Avenue North (5524 Winnetka closing scheduled for July) and seven (7)
properties along Sumter Avenue North and in the Bass Lake Road extension area. Over the past few years,
the City has acquired a total of sixteen (16) properties in the area (attached, please see a map of city-owned
properties in Planning District 6).
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
selectecl developers for each study area site based on proposals, except the west Winnetka site.
The Hennepin County Estimated Market Value for the property is as follows:
o Hennepin County
o Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: $105,000 ($45,000 Land & $60,000 Building)
On April 14, 2003, the New Hope City Council directed staff to consider utilizing services of a firm other than
the appraisal firm that had been completing many residential property appraisals for the City, due to several
discrepancies in previous appraisals. On May 22, staff and the City Attomey met with Forsythe Appraisals,
Inc., to discuss possible appraisal services. Forsythe Appraisals has considerable experience in completing
appraisals and acquisition activities for governmental agencies in redevelopment areas. At this time, staff will
utilize the services of Forsythe Appraisals, Inc. In the past, Forsythe has completed appraisals for the City and
performed in a responsible manner.
Staff recommends that the Council authorize staff to obtain an appraisal of this property. The estimated cost of
the appraisal is $350. 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. During the 2003 State Legislative Special Session, the
City's TIF special legislation was passed. Staff is coordinating with Krass Monroe, the City's Financial
Consultant to facilitate the necessary steps for implementation.
ATTACHMENTR
· Correspondence from Property Owner (6-1-03)
· Location Map, Topographic Map, Planning District 6 - City Ownership Map
· Hennepin County Parcel Data
· Comprehensive Plan References - Planning Distdct 6
East Winnetka Study Area - Planning District 6
· 54,,30 543!
5426 ~ 5427
5420 ' 542!
5416 ~ 5417
5406 :~ 5407"
ST Cia-Ow. ed P,o,..iesin
:
, " ": - . Comprehensive Planning District 6:
....... ~..~ -. ~~~.~,
2 : : ~ ~ .
..... :_. .~ ~ ~..~~._.;~ .~; 1. 5~0Win~tkaAve. N.
~l ,~; -,~ , --- ~,' 2. ~ Winnetka Ave. N.
~ 4. ~20 Winnetka Ave. N.
" - .... ; ~ ~ 5. ~ Winnetka Ave. N.
: ~ ~ ~, ~ ; 3 . ~ .... ~ .... ,~ 7. 5518 Winnetka Ave. N.
; ~ ~ ~ ] ~ t--~ ~ ;. ~{. ~ =Q~ 8. 5524 Winnetka Ave. N.
~ ; ~ , ~; / ~"-; ' ' ~ ' g. 5532 Winnetka Ave. N.
~ ~ o ~ e~ ~ ; ----: , ~i 10. 5550 Winnetka A~. N.
~- ~' ~ A , ~ ~ ~.- ,' ~: 11. 5520 Sumter Ave. N.
..... : .. , . : ~ 12. 5530 Sumter Ave. N.
~/~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ; ,' ·
~ : ..... .~:~' ~ · = ~ .-' ~13 · ' 13. 5~6 SumterA~. N.
~~ ; ~18 ~ ~v~ ~ : _"-~ : -- .~ ?' 14. 5559 Sumter Ave. N.
~---~ 5 f-'~-,./I ~ ~ '"~-. ~' ~ ~ ~5. 7503
]..._ ~ m . ~ / ~ _ :. ; ~ Bass~ke~dE~.
· ~lz , ~ i "~ - ~ ~ ~ ~-, · · 16. 7621 Bass~keRoadE~.
~ ..... ,. ,~. '.,~2'-. r b, ~, --,, · .
:___ ~_ .... ~ , _~... , .,, ~.- _ = ; 17. 7801 Bass~keR~
~ ~ '- : ~- -..~' Y '.- ~.- ': ~; : ' ' 55~ - Cl~ing in July 2003
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 6-23-03 Ordinances &
Resolutions
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald By:
ORDINANCE NO. 03-13, AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND/OR
CASH PAYMENT IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the enclosed ordinance prepared by the city attorney establishing a park
dedication requirement and/or cash payment in lieu of land dedication. The research into this topic and review
of other ordinances has been a combined effort of the Community Development, Finance and Parks and
Recreation departments and all three department heads are recommending approval of the proposed
ordinance.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
, Although many cities in the metropolitan area have established park dedication requirements and/or payment
in lieu of land dedication in the past, the city of New Hope never incorporated such a requirement. The city ~s
in the process of discussing some significant upcoming new development and redevelopment, there will be
future needs in the parks and on trails associated with new development, and recent state budget cuts will
tmpact the amount that can be expended on said facilities. Taking these factors into consideration, staff ~s
recommending that the Council establish a new park dedication requirement and/or cash payment in lieu of
land dedication, which would be effective for future developments.
The adoption of the ordinance also addresses several of the priority goals in the City Plan, including:
· To address the city's increasing financial pressures.
· To pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within the city of
New Hope.
· To update the city's long-term infrastructure plan.
BACKGROUND
City staff has been discussing the concept of proposing a park dedication requirement over the last several
years. With all the potential redevelopment opportunities in the future, along with some upcoming new
residential development, staff felt this was the appropriate time to present a proposed ordinance to the City
Council.
MOTION BY
,, SECOND BY
TO:
I RFA\PLANNING FEE
: ORDINANCES\Q-PARK DEDICATION '
Request for Action Page 2 6-23-03
In 2002, the community development intern completed a survey and report of park dedication fees and/or land
dedication requirements from other metropolitan cities. The report and survey are attached for reference
purposes.
Earlier this spdng, representatives from the three departments met with the city manager and city attorney to
discuss this matter. The city manager was supportive of the idea and the city attorney prepared a Proposed
ordinance for New Hope after reviewing ordinances from other cities. The preliminary ordinance was
presented to and discussed by the City Council at the June 2 Council work session. The Council was
supportive of the idea and directed staff to finalize the ordinance. Staff met again subsequent to the work
session to discuss several remaining issues. Enclosed is the final draft copy of the ordinance prepared by the
city attorney.
Several highlights of the ordinance or minor revisions made subsequent to the work session, as outlined in the
correspondence from the city attorney, include:
Subsection 4 of the ordinance provides for a cash payment by developers in lieu of a land dedication. The
cash payment is self-explanatory and based on land valuation. However, the fee is "capped" on residential
property based on the proposed number of dwelling units within the development. The only change made
on the enclosed ordinance is a "not to exceed" valuation for multiple family dwellings of three or more
units. We agreed that $5,000 per acre should be incorporated into that Section and that change has been
made in the enclosed ordinance.
In Section I of the ordinance, the city attorney made this fee applicable to lot divisions as well as
subdivisions and plats. However, the statutory authority to require park dedication is found in Minn. Stat.
,~462.358, Subd. 2(b). The state statute extends our authority only to subdivision. There-~'rore, it is
questionable whether we have the authority to require a park dedication on a lot division as opposed to a
subdivision or replat. The city attomey recommends the city keep this issue in mind in the future when
considering administrative lot splits as opposed to requiring a subdivision or replat of a properly. It is
possible a park dedication requirement could be challenged on an administrative lot split.
There was discussion at our meeting concerning the city's ability to require a cash payment and decline
land dedication. Section 3 of the ordinance allows the city to do this very thing. Section 3 indicates the
Council will consider whether land is needed in a Proposed location for the dedication, whether the
proposed land is suitable for the intended use and whether a cash payment would be more beneficial to
the development of the park system. Therefore, the city is in control whether it wants to accept land or a
cash payment. Also, see Section 1 of the Ordinance. The second to the last sentence of Section 1
indicates the dedication requirements will not be satisfied if the city reasonably determines land proposed
for dedication is unsuitable for public recreational use. Again, the city is in control as to whether it will
accept land or require a cash payment.
Excerpts from the ordinance are as follows:
"Dedication Required." - As a condition of approval of any plat, replat, subdivision or lot division allowing
development of land for residential, commercial, industrial or other uses, a reasonable portion of the land
to be divided must be dedicated to the public or preserved for public uses as parks, playgrounds, trails or
open space. This requirement applies to plats, replats, subdivisions or lot divisions that (i) create at least
one additional lot or provide for at least one additional dwelling unit, or (ii) combine lots for the purpose of
development involving changes or missed land uses or the intensification of uses, or (iii) consist of a
planned unit development. The dedication requirements are not satisfied if the city reasonably determines
that the land proposed for dedication is unsuitable for public recreational use.
Request for Action Page 3 6-23-03 _
· "Amount Required." - The amount of land required for dedication is based upon the gross land area t(. ..,
subdivided. Generally, 10 percent of the gross land area to be subdivided must be dedicated for residential
subdivisions and five percent for commercial and industrial subdivisions.
"Cash Payment in Lieu of Dedication." The city may require a cash payment in lieu of land dedication. In
determining to require payment or dedication, the Council will consider such factors as whether the land is
needed in the proposed location, whether the proposed dedication is suitable for the intended use and
whether a cash payment would be more beneficial to development of the entire park system.
"Amount of Cash Payment." - The cash payment in lieu of dedication is determined by the fair market
value of the undivided land. The cash payment is determined by applying the appropriate percentage to
the fair market value. The maximum cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be calculated as follows:
Single family dwelling:
Two Family dwelling:
Multiple family dwellings (3 or more):
acre
Commercial and/or Industrial subdivisions:
$1,500 Per unit
$ 750 per unit
$ 500 per unit not to exceed $5,000 per
$2,500 per acre
"Park and Open Space Fund." Cash payments in lieu of dedication are payable at the time of final
subdivision approval. The payment must be placed in a special fund established by the city to be used
solely for the purposes of acquisition, development or improvements of parks, playgrounds, trails, open
space or as otherwise provided by Minnesota Statutes.
~Partial Dedication." The city may accept a dedication of land in an amount less than that specified and
require a cash payment equivalent to the balance of the dedication requirement.
'.'.Credit for Private Land." A credit of up to 25 percent of the dedication requirements may be awarded for
park and open space that is to be privately owned and maintained by the future residents of the
subdivision.
The ordinance would be effective upon publication and is intended for future development/redevelopment
projects, such as the Livable Communities area sites and future St. Joseph Church residential lots. Staff does
not feel it appropriate to apply the ordinance to recently approved developments or where negotiations are
currently in process on projects, including the following:
· Woodbridge Senior Cooperative
· Navarre Corporation expansion
· Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital
* · 42"d and Quebec developers (Culvers and office condos)
(* city-owned lots)
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
A'I-rACHMENTS
· Ordinance 03-13
· 6/10 City Attorney Correspondence
· Survey and Background Information
· 6/2 Work Session Minutes
ORDINANCE NO. 03-13
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A
PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND/OR
CASH PAYMENT IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 13-7 "Required Improvemenr~" of the New Hope City Code is hereby
amended by adcitng new subsection 13-7(i) "Park Dedication" to read as follows: '
.Section 13-7(i) "Park Dedication".
a)
or lotdivisionallowin deve o e t-ofl d or es~de rial commercial industrial
or other uses or co b' tion ereofa e o le rtion ofthe land to be divided
must be dedicated to the ublic or reserved for u 'c uses as arks la rounds
trails or o n s ace. 's re uire e t a lies to lats re ars subdivisions or lot
roads uti 't'e sro water 'areas or ' · ar utilities and :----rov
· ' ' cments.
" o t Re 'red". e ount ofl d re uired for dedication is based u n the
~Dark or othe,- rec_reatif---' . _
ses as a result ota royal
streets and other ublic ' roveme ts servino the-,ror------ but excl-
u the value
added-b~ all other existing imlarovement~ to the !and. The cash payment is
determined bv avvlvm~ the avvrovriate percentage s~ted m subsection 13-70)(2) to
the fair market value as determined by the Assessor. T~e maximum cash payment
in lieu of land dedication shall be calculated as follows:
ao
do
Sinele family dwellinit: $1.500.00 r)er unit
Two familv dwelling: ~;750.00 per umt
Multiple family dwellinns (3 or more): $500.00 per umt not to exceed
$5,000.00 per acre
Commercial and/or Industrial subdivisiom: ~2~500.00 per acre
"Park and Open Space Fund". Ca.~h vavments in lieu of dedication are payable at
the time of final subdivision apt)royal. The t)avment must be placed in a special
fund established by the City to be used solely for t~e purposes of acquisition,
develot)ment or improvement of parks~ playl~-oun~_ds~ trails~ open space or a~
otherwise provided by Minnesota Statutes.
"Partial Dedication". The City may accepl~ a dedj~t_iop of land in an amount les:;
than that st)ecified in subsection 13-7(i)(2) and requi~ a cash payment equivalent to
the balance of the dedicatiola reouirement. The t)artia! ca~ payment is determine~l
bv subt~actin~ the perce~taRe of !a~d actually dedi. cated from the percentage of lanai
reouired to be dedi¢oted n~der subsection 13-7(i)(2)~ n~nd applying the resultin,:
perceataee to the fair market value of the PrOposed ~ubdivisio~n'
.~Credit for Private [and". A credit of up to 25 % of the dedication requirements
may be awarded for park and open space t~at is to be privately owned aaa
maintained by ~e furore resider~ts of the subdivSsion. A credit will not be awarded
_uMess the followin~ co~di_tio0s are met:
ao
bo
co
t)rjvate open space may not be occupied by non-recreational buildings an,)
must be available for the use of al~ the residents of the proposed
reauired buildinR setbacks will not be incl-d,,d in computation of privat,,
use of the t)rivate open st)ace re.st be restricted for vark. vlavground, trai
o ~=ce ses b recorded coy at i with the land in
fay o o ers of wi ' e subdiv's'o d ii cannot be
defeated or ~!iminat_ed without the con~eot Of the City Council.
the l~civate ot)en space will be of a size, shnne~ location, tot)oatavhy and
ab." o afl s s o c ' uni ue features which
are ~mtmrta~.t tO be preserved: anti
2
eo
the private open space must reduce the demand for public recreational
facilities or ublic o n s ace occasio ed b develo merit of the
Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Dated the ~ day of ,2003.
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Attest:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
(Published m the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the
2003.)
3
.. day of
DOUGLAS J. DEBNER:
GORDON ~ JENSEN~
GLEN A. NORTON
STEYEN A. SONDR~LL
ST^CY A WOODS
OF COUNSEL
LORENS Q, i~RYNESTAD
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A.
Attorneys ~It Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING. ST..01
BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA $5443-1968
TELEPHONE (763) 4244811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5l 93
e-mail iaw~jensen-sondrail.com
June 10, 2003
VIA FACSIMILE TO: (763) 531-$136
AND BY REGULAR U.S. MAIL
Kirk McDonald
Conmmuity Development Dircc:or
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re:
Ordinance No. 03-13, Establishment of a Park Dedication Fee
Our File No. 80313
Dear Kirk:
Please find enclosed proposed Ordinance No. 03-13, An Ordinance Establishing a Park
Dedication Requirement and/or Cash Payment in Lieu of Land Dedication. It is mx'
understanding this Ordinance will be considered by the City Council at its June 23, 200§
Council meeting.
Thc enclosed Ordinance incorporates the issues we discussed at our June 6~ staff meeting
as follows:
Subsection 4 of the Ordinance provides for a cash payment by developers
in lieu of a land dedication. The cash payment is self-explanatory and
based on land valuation. However, the fee is "capped" on residential
prope.,~../ b*~ed on the pro?set number of dwellin~ units within the
development. The only change made on the enclosed Ordinance is a
"not to exceed" valuation for multiple family dwellings of three or more
units. We agreed that $5,000.00 per acre should be incorporated into
that Section and that change has been made in the enclosed Ordinance.
In Section 1 of the Ordinance, I have made this fee applicable to lot
divisions as well subdivisions and plats. However, our statutory
authority to require park dedication is found in Minn. Stat. § 462.358,
Subd. 2(b). The State statute extends our authority only to subdivisions.
Therefore, it is questionable whether we have the authority to require a
park dedication on a lot division as opposed to a subdivision or replat, l
recommend we keep this issue in mind in the future when we are
considering administrative lot splits as opposed to requiring a subdivision
or replat of a property. It is possible a park dedication requirement could
be challenged on an administrative lot split.
June I0, 2003
Page 2
There was discussion at our meeting concerning the Cit3,'s ability to require a cash payment and
decline land dedication. Section 3 'of the Ordinance allows the City to do this ver~' thin~.
Section 3 indicates the Council will consider whether land is needed in a proposed loc~tion f~r
the dedication, whether the proposed land is suitable for the intended use and whether a cash
payment would be more beneficial to the development of the park system. Therefore, the Citx'
is in control whether it wants to accept land or a cash payment. Also see Section 1 oI' thc
Ordinance. The second to the last sentence of Section 1 indicates the dedication requirements
will not be satisfied if the City reasonably determines land proposed for dedication is unsuitable
for public recreational use. Again, the City is in control as to whether it will accept land or
require a cash payment.
I believe these points address the issues we discussed in our meeting. Please contact me ii' you need
any further clarification concerning the Ordinance or the issues discussed in this letter.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney,
City of New Hope
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A.
sas@jensen-sondrall.com
After Hours Extension #147
Enclosure
CC.'
Dan Donahue, City Manager (w/enc.)
Daryl Sulander, Finance Director (w/enc.)
Shari French, Park and Rec Director (w/enc.)
Valerie Leone, City Clerk (w/eric.)
P: ~Alli~q~ey~SAS~Letlcrs~CNH99.803 t 3..4]01~Kidc
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director
Shari French. Parks and Recreation Director
Erin Seeman, Community Development Intern
April 22, 2003
Park Dedication Fees
in my reseamh on park dedication fees, I came across many types of surveys, the most current
being from late 2001. There is no general way that any city structures their fees.
For residential, it is usually a compilation of a percentage (5-10% of the land value in cash or
land), a dollar amount for a fixed type/number of dwelling units, or a fixed rate per acre averaging
$30-65k per acre. The average of all cities with per unitJacre fees was $1388, gathered from data
from an Ingraham & Associates survey in 2001. The survey had an average assumed single-
family density of 2.5 units per acre. For all practical purposes, I also used the AMM fee survey
that is completed every two year; the most recent copy is from late 2001. As a means to
compare, I used the following "marketplace" cities New Hope is often compared to as well as
those around New Hope, and others in the immediate area that do not fit in that category. The
following are the results:
City Residential
"Marketplace Cities"
Brooklyn Center
Crystal
Fddley
Hopkins
New Bdghton
Soulh Saint Paul
West Saint Paul
White Bear Lake
N/A
Cash or land equal to 10% of land ama
$1,500/Iot Plet/subdivision $750/Iot lot split
~5(X) single family/$5(X) two families/S200
per unit twinhornes or apartments
Cash or land equal to 10% of land
N/A
In progress
$500 single family/S1,000 two family
Cites around New Hope
Crystal
Golden Valley
Robbins~ale
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Plymouth
Cash or land equal to 10% of land ama
?
2 acres of land per 100 lots or dwelling
units
N/A
$1500 ~ unit
$1500 per unit
Miscellaneous other Cities
Blaine
Coon Rapids
Minnetonka
$1,379 per unit
$1,117 per unit
$550 per lot single fatuity
For commercial and industrial properties, it is also a compilation of a percentage (5-10% of the
land value in cash or land),-a dollar amount for a fixed type/numper of dwelling units, or a fixed
rate per acre averaging $3000-100k per acre, with a large gap. The average of all cities with per
unit/acre fees was $3,924 for commerdal and $3,438 industrial per acre gathered from data from
an ingraham & AssoCiates survey. Using the same A/VIM survey and cities for park 0edlcation
fees, the following are the commercial and industrial results:
City Commercial Industrial
"Marketplace Cities"
Brooklyn Center
Crystal
Fddley
Hopkins
New Bnghton
South Saint Paul
West Saint Paul
N/A N/A
Cash or land equal to 5% of land area Cash or land equa~ to 5% of land area
$1,500/iot plat/subdivision $750/Iot lot split $.023 per square foot
S500 single farnily/$500 two famillas/$2005% of land value
per unit twin homes or apartments
NIA NIA
N/A
N/A
In progress
White Bear Lake $500 single family/S1,000 two family
Cities around New Hope
7% of land value or 2.500 per acre
Crystal N/A
Golden Valley ? N/A
2 acres of land per 100 lots or o~velling2 acras of land per 100square feet
Robbinsdale units
Brooklyn Center N/A
N/A
Brooklyn Park $1500 per unit $4,800 per acre
Plymouth $1500 per unit
Miscellaneous Other Cities
per acre of a fraction thereof
Blaine $2,864 per acre
Coon Rapids $3.350 per acre $2,511 per acre
Minnetonka $2,400 per acre $3,350 per acre
$3,000 per acre
I have also included the surveys, as wall as a copy of the Lakeville city ordinance regarding park
and trail dedication requirements. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Attachments: As Stated
c,~
Todd
Iee
763 M2-4
~huck SIHer
Residenh=! DedlCdlion
2002 riles unless holed
I _2,~..__~.
10% o/laflcl vllue =$SO.O00 ~
~oposed 2003 rlel
cash4a~ z Io 10% M Bpl~asidod
value. 20. Ic~ese.empl $SQQ
casMan~ = Io 6% of la~d v~ue
2QQ3 riles
I~Ol~sed ~o~ 2003
$
$ 3.100
1800 per Iol
$ 2.000
$ 2,S00
$ 1,840
$ 65O
$ 1.82s
$ 2.40c
PARK DEDICATION RATES
DECEMBER 2002
(Rates are for 2002 unless noted)
Multi F
I/ufld
1.700
$ 2.400
C°mflu fcls I/hldUllrlil
Cosh,lafld = Io 10% el market
volu4
per uflil
c'Blh o~ land eClui Io S% of land
S I,~7
$8.000 I~cre
Iroi file
propose 2003 roles
I.e40
roles Includes I
~U03 rios
S
$
I,S4~
1.62S
2.40(]
5% of o~l)rishsd vllue
Coflinercfol
$ 5,00
1347 (1000
I.SQ0
I
$
may reduce 2003 roles for Cfi
I~.O00 m as k)w al 0%
H~d ll2O(lO00sf Mdg)
2003 mos ~) hc:~eoM by I0%
15%
mlximum file wis lei Io Ivold
J~le
g~.~'824-2574
I~c~x)sed 2003 r~des
$ 035
S 2.3OO
S 1,60G
$
~0.$1~S
PARK DEOICAIION RAIE$
DECEMBER 2002
(Rates are fo~ 2002 unless noted)
Per calma Cemmerical indusl~al
"~ yees expected in
devel(q)mem
5% of k~l acreage
S40.0G0 per acre
I IO0.OOo per iae
cas'land z Io 5% of cUnent
mattel value of uniml~oved Jor~
NA
$ 6,40C
$ 4.470
Attachmen! 1: Blaine Survey
CITY SINGLE
FAMILY DUPLEX TOWN MULTIPLE
HOME FAMILY COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
· And. over $1.700 N/A $1.700 $1 700 10
$ I, 700 $ I, 700 $1,700 $1,700 $5,000 $3,400
Bloominglon $3,600 $3,100 $3, 100 $2,400 $38711,000 sf $25811000 sf
Brooklyn Park $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $4,600 $4,800
Burnsville $ 1,64 ? $1,660 $1,5 ! 5 $1,504 $6,500 $4,000
Chaska $1,600 $1,600 $!,225 $97'5 $9,000 $9,000
Coon Rapids $ I, 1 ! ? $950 $950 $760 $3,350 $3,350
Collage Grove $1,000 $750 $750 $750 4% FMV 4% FMV
Eagan $ I, 733 $1,731 $1,589 $1,598 $5,468 $4,875
Edina 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
Eden Prairie $2.300 $2.300 $2,300 $2,300 $1~1600 $6.600
· Fridley $1,500 $750 $2'50 $750 $1,000 $1,000
Inver Grove I-leighls $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $1,500 $3,950 $2,950
Lakeville $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $5,400 $3,200
Maple Grove $2,400 $2,400 $2,400 $2,400 $6,500 $4,800
Maplewood $1,020 $1,728 $810 N/A 9% FMV , ,. ~ go& FMV
Minnelonka $550 $500 $550 $500 $2,;i~X)' '" $~,~)00
Oakdale $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,200 $2,200
Plymoolh $2,300 $2,300 $2,300 $2,300 $6,400 $6,400
Prior Lake $1,685 $1,685 $ !,685 $ !,685 $3,550
Richfield .NIA NIA NIA NIA N/.At $3,550
Rosemounl $1.800 $1.800 $1,800 $1,800 ' :. I~IA **
Roseville $500 $400 5% Iolal .acr~. a
Shakopee $2,200 $400 . ; .
s,. ,oo s Park $2.200
Woodburv e, .^A ~uuu $900
e.,ouu 1 $900 ' · ,zOO
""
Eagan. Parks and Trail Dedicalion Fees added for comparalive purposes. Appears to be one of few Ihal keeps the fees separale.
Prior Lake- Comml Ind- 10% gross land area for parkland dedicalion. Land musl be dry upland wilh slopes less then 10%
Richfield* Cily has no parks or trail dedicalion fee. They are considering Such an ordinance.
Note: Residenlial dedication fees are calculaled per unit. Commercial and Induslrial fees are calculaled per acre unless otherwise noled
Shaded area means entry is variable; can nol be calculaled inlo MSA
Pk/Tr Fees
Combined
Y
N- Fees NIA
Y
None
Y
Y
NIA
Y
'Apple Valley
'A,lefl IMIs
'SICkW
'8rocldyn Pork
'Ch~mp#n
'Chmfl~4en
'Collage Grove
'Cfytld
'Oeyton
'Ecllfll
'Elk River
'Fofccn Holghte
10% ed land or $650 per u'dl al couflcill
discretion
cash or Ired up Io 10% ed lend vedum'er#
hid rale IMf lype of dwelkJO unit
vaue/lma Valuta
Clash or la~d equal to
vllue/mel, recroiliml fee 4~ $150
a4t~Ch~l ot del~ch~ff dwi#lng
cash,lend. Io 8% of Im,,J vdue/we~
c~h m IlnO equM io 10% o~ lind kef
flone
'01
Single F
1150
Mum F
250O
tee7
40o
IlO0
1470
Pooe I of 3
C°mfnerclaL'lflduotrbl
Pork Plennhe Ond Doilgn
1510 Ccnlo AVe.
55414 (612) 377-2500
CommerCial
cosh or Ired up to 10% allend
valu~ama. IxecI rule per I
420 (1000 e f.
286 (1000 Holel: 143
~mm Ired ulue orM md JOY,
0500
lek maAel
3000
Park Dedication Sun/e, - October '01
'FenmnOlOn
'tiMIh~ol
(.illhllaflcI =10 12 5% ol I~nd vll~ of Ixld
rill pm Icrl OI land Avl $30.OOWIcro 1500
cMh Ofl BqUl Io 10%
~50
Ixed Me PM tyl)e of dwd#no un#
625
't. Wood
clih af land equil lo 5% M land
CaihAand -to 10% M lano value/item
CMh of Ired equal W 10% d Ired vafu~
CelMind olo 10% M lind velu~lal
1020
50011ot
ISM)
'Nodhldd
'Oakdlle
'Phrmoulh
Fixed rile per I
cat (y I~nd IquM Io 10% M ltd
vllu~lee, ecldiflonM IIn~ if denl#y Il
over 2 un#$ I Ik;fe
Mum F
S/un#
I~O0
IS(X)
3125
1050
750-610
5001U
13-Ia%acre
I000
2OO0
Commercbl/Indulblal
cMh (x ImxI equal io 5% ~
vMue/Mea md/of Ixecl rote
Icfe M I~1. ippW value
of O~ land 4
Ixed ml per acri d llnd
C~h MIIr, d equi Io 5% M and
vague/MM
cMh~ "to 10% ol lind
(commwcil) (x 2% (Indue~lal)
Park Planning and Deil0n
1510 Como Ave
Idlnneq)dll. kin 5S414 (412) 377-2500
Co~mercl
ISM)
3050 2050
5400
0150
2400 14200
48OO
unimproved
e~leued vdue
22oo 2zM)
Ixed r'Me per ~.re of bnd
°n IVerdOe vldul °l l)~l)~llm h 6'100 61OO
Plym(xJth. up Io 10%
)
'Rochmll
'Savage
'$hmevjew
'South SI Paul
'Sl Cloud
'I,'VICQflIi
- October '01
Fl~d ~il! I)~ ICtl Q~ ll~d - 1/25 d in acre pm'
cish~ -Io 10% (~laud vllue m IJmld
acm. Jun 4% lo · 10% mmdmum
hed ~ed Pot Icrc of ISrKi $4,000 11Cm
Averqe olr Ii chi wa
omo clime with per un# of
MUll F
1200
788
C°m~erchtklndulbt~l
cash Gr ~ equal Io 5% ol lind
rlOrjl
1510 ~o Ave. S.E.
Mlnnelpai~. MN 5S,414 (612) 377-2500
Commercbl
3~5
1400
70OQ 7OOO
61,014 11,4#
Pooe 3M3
PARK DEDICATION
RESIDENTIAL .
CITIES 0 - 2.500
Exco~or ~
Long LaKe nf
Wooalancl nf
CITIES 2.500 . 10.000
An:len HiM
Corcoran
Falcon He~gl~s
Fan~ngmn
Forest LIRe
Ham LiRe
Hugo
LiWe CanaDa
MIl~tornedi
New Prague
New~n
Nohvo~cl Young A
Oak Grove
Oak Par~ Helgllts
Orono
Osseo
Rockforcl
Snomwoe~
$~nng Lake Para
St. Anthony
St. Franc~
S~, PIUI Park
VlCtO~l
Watertown
WayZatl
oepenoent on imoun! of lots
10e/e Of vltue of p/ooefty
1,000/und
mnW12.5% Mone~elseO on
312.50/multi
3.300/Iot up to 10%
1.000Aot
8% mm.
500AeterlO1~lellllln~l~l
cash m lleU Of ind l.~Otor~t
450 er ?~/e of II/KI ~lul u~ Io 2.000
_crTIF.~ 10.000
AnoVa
.'. Channaaaen
C~ka
Columml Hmght~
162
Moun~s
Norl~ Sr Paul
I:)nor LaKe
West St Paul
cmE~ OVER 2O.OO0
Amxe yew/
10~ WhO er 20.00(~l~ =ash m keu
1 ,~W
~x lO~k
1,117W
I,~ W or i~ ~lc. * 1S~und
1,4~l ~ 1,407~ 1,3~
~r ~ ~n 810.13
1,~t ~m 7~l WI
1.~
PARK DEDICATION
COMMERCIALIUSlDUSTRIAL
CrT]ES 0.2.50O
Lnng
CITIES 2.500 . ~o.aao
~ 2.~
~n 1
E~ ~ 87~
~m ~ke nf
H~o
~ na
~h~ 7%
3.~
No~ You~ A
Omno
~eo
~o~
St. ~ul ~
Wate~
C~rT~F..~ 1o.ooo
F~or La~e
RoMnloun!
CITIES OVER 20.000
myer (~we I. Igts.
~ of mllxet v~ue of Mna
3.O(X)/~cm Inaus. 2,40l~acm
mmmemmj
4.SOO~m or truman thereof
vim ~ or 4% of
~ mna
181
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department
Community Development
By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD
& Daryl Sulander, Director of
Finance
By:
Approved for Agenda
6-23-03
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE
Agenda Section
Consent
Item No.
BONDS
ACTION REQUESTEr}
Staff is requesting Council consideration of the attached resolution (resolution and attachments to be
submitted by the time of the City Council meeting) prepared by the Dorsey and Whitney, one of the City's
financial advisors authorizing calling for a public hearing on the issuance of refunding revenue bonds. Staff
recommends approval of the resolution.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within
the City. In the past, the Council has scheduled public headngs to address this type of request.
BACKGROUND
Staff is requesting Council consideration of the attached resolution (resolution and attachments to be
submitted by the time of the City Council meeting) Prepared by the Dorsey and Whitney, one of the City's
financial consultants authorizing calling for a public hearing on the issuance of refunding revenue bonds.
St. Therese Nursing Home, 8000 Bass Lake Road has requested that the City assist in permanent financing
and issue refunding bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended.
Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, requires that prior to the issuance of the
refunding bonds, this Council approve the refunding bonds after conducting a public headng. The attached
resolution will schedule a public hearing to issue the refunding bonds on July 28, 2003, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., at
the City Hall.
ATTACHMENT~
· Resolution
· Notice of Public Hearing
· Certificate
· Correspondence
· Location Ma
"MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
I:\RFA\PLANNING\Housinc~\St. Therese\Q - Schedule P'"~blic Headn, Refundin¢ Bonds.doc
8431
5850
l
5813
ST. THERESE
NURSING
HOME
57,3~ 5732
HOST~RMAN
JR HIGH SCHOOL
................... 551'1"1 AVE N
~436 5437 ,5436 5437
~"'"'~'~i .............
5430
5.4~6 :~427 ~2~ ~27
5420 ~21 . Z~5420;~21
54TH AVE N
57t6
570O 57O4
!i'z
5524 5519 ~520 7621 . - 7e01
5518 5.*00 : 5510 .......
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
6-23-03 Public Heann~
Kirk McDonald, Community Item No.
Development and
By: Dar~l Sulander, Finance By:
PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS
REQUESTED ACTION
This is a public hearing. Staff is recommending approval of the enclosed resolution prepared by the city's bond
counsel Giving Preliminary Approval to Issuance of Multifamily Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds. After a
brief presentation of the request and the taking of any public comments, staff recommends that the Council
close the public headng and adopt the resolution.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
The city has approved the issuance of multifamily housing refunding revenue bonds in the past to assist with
housing development projects.
BACKGROUND
At the May 27 Council meeting, the City Council approved a resolution scheduling a public hearing on this
matter.
The city has received a request from representatives of Broadway LaNel, a Limited Partnership, a Minnesota
limited partnership, that the city issue refunding bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended
to refund the Multifamily Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds (Broadway LaNel Project), Series 1993 of the
city, which were used to refund bonds issued to finance the acquisition and construction of Anthony James
Apartments, a 73 unit rental housing development owned by the Partnership and located at 6100 West
Broadway in the city. Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, requires that prior to
the issuance of the refunding bonds, this Council approve the refunding bonds after conducting a public
hearing.
The city received the attached June 16, 2003, correspondence from Paul Brewer, president of LaNel Financial
Group, stating: 'Broadway LaNel, a Limited Partnership, the owner of Anthony James apartments located at
6100 West Broadway in New Hope, respectfully request that the city issue refunding bonds under Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 462c as amended to refund the Multifamily Revenue Bonds (Broadway LaNel Project) Series
1993."
MOTION BY
SECOND BY
TO:
hRFA~olanmng~ousing~Anl~ony Jame~tQ-13~refun~mg bc3m~
Request for Action Page 2 6-23-03
The city's bond counsel from Dorsey and Whitney has indicated that the action tonight is for preliminary
approval and that final approval would be requested later this summer.
The resolution states, in part, that:
'The city has received a request from representatives of Broadway LaNel, a Minnesota limited partnership.
that the city issue refunding bonds under Minnesota Statutes, to refund the Multifamily Housing Refunding
Revenue Bonds (Broadway LaNel Project) Series 1993 of the city, which were used to refund bonds
issued to finance the acquisition and construction of Anthony James Apartments, a 73 unit rental housing
development owned by the Partnership and located at 6100 West Broadway in the city. On June 23, 2003.
the City Council held a public hearing on the issuance of the refunding bonds at which hearing all persons
who appeared were given an opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposed issuance of the
refunding bonds.
On the basis of the information given the city to date, preliminary approval is hereby given to the issuance
of the refunding bonds, in an amount not to exceed $2,810,000, to provide tax-exempt financing to refund
the Series 1993 Bonds. The adoption of this resolution shall not be deemed to establish a legal obligation
on the part of the city or its council to issue or to cause the issuance of the bonds. All details of the bonds
and the provisions for payment thereof shall be subject to final approval of this Council prior to their
issuance. The bonds, if issued, shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon
any property of the city, except the revenues to be received from the operation of the development and
owner thereof specifically pledged to the payment thereof, and each bond, when, as and if issued, shall
recite in substance that the bond, including interest thereon, is payable solely from said revenues and
funds specifically pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt or pecuniary liability of
the city within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation.'
Under the consent agenda items on this agenda is a resolution imposing a fee for the issuance of revenue
bonds. The Proposed fee is .5% of the principal amount of the revenue bonds. It is staff's understanding that if
the resolution is adopted prior to the public hearing that the fee is applicable to this request. It is staff's
understanding that the intent to charge the fee has been communicated to LaNel Financial Group and that
they have no objection to the fee.
After the public comment portion of the hearing is concluded, staff recommends approval of the resolution.
ATTACHMENTR ~
· Resolution
· Correspondence from LaNel Financial
· Notice of Public Hearing
· Maps
62ND AVE N ; , ~
6032 '
6024
· ~ .' ........ : 60~5
60~6 ~
60J9 ~.,
COUNCIL
FOR ACTION
Originating Department
Community Development
By: Ken Doresky, Community
Develo
Approved for Agenda
6-23-03
Agenda Section
Public Hearin,
Item No.
PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION VACATING AN EASEMENT FOR A PUBLIC ALLEY AND AUTHORIZING
THE PREPARATION, EXECUTION AND RECORDING OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SAME
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 665)
_ACTION REQUESTEFt
This is a public hearing regarding the vacation of a public alley easement. Staff is requesting Council
consideration of the attached resolution Prepared by the City Attorney authorizing the vacation of the public
alley easement at the City-owned site located at 7500-7528 42'= Avenue North and authorizing the
Preparation, execution and recording of documents relating to the same. The easement is no longer
necessary and vacation of such easement will aid in the redevelopment of the parcels.
~POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential Properties with
the City. The Council has been addressing the commercial portion of this goal through the City's
development activities, including coordinating with potential developers for the sale and development of City-
owned property. In the past, the Council has authorized the vacation of public easements on City-owned
property.
,BACKGROUND
On May 27, 2003, the Council scheduled a public hearing to initiate the Process for vacating a public alley
easement at the City-owned site located at 7500-7528 42"~ Avenue North. Staff is requesting Council
consideration of the attached resolution prepared by the City Attorney authorizing the vacation of this public
alley easement and authorizing the Preparation, execution and recording of documents relating to the same.
The easement is no longer necessary and vacation of the easement will aid in redevelopment of the parcels.
The City Attorney has researched the legal descriptions for all Properties affected by this easement vacation.
According to the June 5 City Attorney correspondence, 'Previously it was believed that the alley easement was
situated one-half on the Ware Manufacturing property and three smaller lots on the south all owned by the
City. Now that complete legal descriptions for all of the Properties involved in this matter have been gathered
and reviewed, it has become clear that the alley easement sits entirely on the three Properties owned by the
Therefore, once the entire the 'easement will revert to those
MOTION BY
SECOND BY
TO:
industnes~O - Easement Vacation - Public Hea ~.doc
Request for Action
Page 2 6-23-03
owned by the City."
As stated in the May 16 City Attorney correspondence, "Generally, the process for vacating a public alley
easement is started by pdvate petitioners. Here, however, we do not have private petitioners, but rather the
City is initiating the process itself." The Resolution approved May 27 supplanted the private petition and set a
public hearing. The City Clerk served notice of the public hearing as specified in City Code § 6-9. Staff has not
has received any comments on the proposed alley easement vacation.
Per City Attorney correspondence dated June 10, 'The next step in the process is for the City Council to hold
a public hearing on the vacation of the alley." The hearing should be open for any comments from the public.
Also, the attorney stated, "Once the public hearing is complete, the City Council may then consider the
Resolution. As this vacation is occurring upon the City's own motion, at least 415ths of the City Council
must vote for the Resolution."
Furthermore, the City Attorney stated, 'The recording of the Notice of Completion is all that is required to
actually complete the vacation of the alley. It is possible that a future purchaser may also want the Resolution
recorded. However, there is no reason for the City to spend time and money on this time. If a future purchaser
so desires, it will be sufficiently easy to record the Resolution at that time."
On March 10, 2003, the EDA directed staff to continue coordination with Retail Site Development Services
(RSDS) for development of the subject property. RSDS's development proposal was for two uses: a Culvers
restaurant on the westem portion of the site and three (3) office condominium buildings (seven (7) separate
ownership units) on the eastern portion of the site. Staff has continued to coordinate with RSDS and will
present a revised proposal to the EDA at tonight's meeting for concept consideration and further direction.
The City has been working for many years to initiate the environmental cleanup process and subsequent
commercial redevelopment of this site. 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/RSDS came later in the process and staff suggested
they coordinate with the office condominium developer, which they have done.
Cleanup activities have started. The first and second rounds of subsurface permanganate injections into the
shallow ground water on the former Electronic Industries (El) site were completed in May and June. Five
rounds of injections, spaced at 30-day intervals, were funded by DTED and Hennepin County and are
planned. Subsurface testing will also occur monthly to measure the effectiveness of the injections in reducing
the contaminant levels to levels acceptable to the MPCA for site closure. Also, a new groundwater remediation
well was installed on the Gill Brother's Funeral Home site in preparation for new remediation equipment at the
site. El has successfully negotiated an agreement with Gill Brothers for this work, and have obtained a building
permit. MPCA site closure for the El site is conditioned on the installation and operation of the new
remediation system at the Gill Brothers site. Once constructed, the existing remediation system on the former
El site will be decommissioned and removed from the site. If all activities proceed as expected, staff
anticipates that environmental remediation will be completed by the fall of 2003 and the parcels will be ready
for development.
As stated previously, staff will present a revised development proposal including both a Culver's Restaurant
and Office Condominiums to the EDA at tonight's meeting for concept consideration and further direction.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
Pro)ect Site (to scale)
7500, 7516, & 7528 42"~ Avenue
]'r oROJ 1606
7528
75./.6
(8)
(?)
t;S. 4
7500
(6)
42~ ~n~ (ROCKFOR
ilL? lll*~8'~nl'1~
COUNCIL
REQUF T FOR ACTION
Originating Department
Community Development
Kirk McDonald, Director
Approved for Agenda
6-23-03
Agenda Section
Planning &
Development
Item No.
PLANNING CASE 03-04, REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY TO BE KNI AS
PARISH COMMUNITY OF ST. JOSEPH, 8701 36TH AVENUE NORTH, CHURCH OF ST. JOSEPH,
PETITIONER
R~EQUESTED ACTIOH
The petitioner is requesting final plat approval of Parish Community of St. Joseph to subdivide one parcel into
two, pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The Planning Commission and City Council
considered the preliminary plat request in June and recommended approval, subject to conditions. The
enclosed resolution approves the final plat, subject to conditions. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
In the past, the City Council has approved final plats if they comply with the requirements of the Zoning Code.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting final plat approval for subdivision of the property of Parish Community of St.
Joseph to allow for the eventual residential development of Outlot A. The subject site is located southwest of
Boone and 36"' Avenue North. The site is currently a metes and bounds description and is required by
ordinance to be platted. The appropriate drainage and utility easements are shown on the plat. The property is
zoned R-l, Single Family Residential. The plat consists of Lot 1, Block 1, which is an 8.9 acre parcel
containing the existing and Proposed church addition and a 2.42 acre Outiot A which is planned to eventually
be developed into residential lots, and 1.3 acres of right-of-way. Please refer to the attached excerpts from the
original staff report for more details on the request.
The Planning Commission considered the Preliminary plat request at its June 3 meeting and recommended
approval, subject to conditions, including agreeing to waive review of the final plat. The City Council approved
the Preliminary plat at its June 9 meeting, subject to the following conditions:
1. Comply with City Engineer recommendations on plat.
MOTION
BY
TO:
SECOND
BY
I\RFA\PLANNINGtPLANNiNG~Q&R.St. Josel3h 03-04 final plat
Request for Action
Page 2
6-23-03
Comply with City Attorney plat recommendations.
Comply with City Planner plat recommendations.
Preliminary plat is to be revised to show a five-foot utility easement along the southern lot line as
well as a utility easement over the looped water main to the south of the building.
As per rourine policy, the final plat was submitted to city department heads, City Attorney, City Engineer,
Planning Consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment. Comments received
include the following:
City Enqineer:
Please refer to attached June 19, 2003, correspondence. Subsequent to Council
approval of the building expansion, staff started to review in more detail the
alignment of the public storm sewer in the ravine, the configuration of the regional
pond and the alignment of public water main along the south property line. The final
location of this infrastructure will dictate the final configuration of the drainage and
utility easements on the plat. It is recommended that staff continue to review and
design the location of these public facilities. After the design is completed, the
easements can be shown to the proper dimensions. The final plat approval will be
subject to the recommendations from the City Engineer.
City Attorney:
Please refer to attached June 17 & 18, 2003, correspondence. Evidence of title has
been submitted by the applicant. At the time of this correspondence, the title work
had not been submitted. In addition, according to the correspondence, "The City's
approval of this proposed final plat should be conditioned upon the City Attorney's
receipt of an acceptable proof of parking." Final plat approval will be subject to the
City Attorney's recommendations.
.Plannino Consultant:
Please refer to the attached June 17, correspondence. The applicant was asked to
provide a ten foot utility easement for a loop water main running from Boone Avenue
North to 35th. The other option was to run the main down Boone and around the
southern lot line. The applicant should make their intentions known. Final plat
approval will be subject to the City Planner's recommendations.
No other comments were received on the final plat.
Staff recommends approval, of the final plat, subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer and City
Attorney.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Final Plat
· Location Map
· Zoning Map
· City Engineer Comments
· City Attorney Comments
· City Planner Comments
· Preliminary Plat
t
!
'Il
Il
Il
!Il
I
II
COUNCIL
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 6-23-03 Planning &
Development
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald, Director By:
PLANNING CASE 03-07, REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY TO BE KNOWN AS
THOMPSON NEW HOPE ADDITION, 8501 54TM AVENUE NORTH, DAVID THOMPSON/RED WING
PROPERTIES LLC
REQUESTED ACTION
The petitioner is requesting final plat approval of Thompson New Hope Addition to subdivide one parcel into
two, pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The Planning Commission and City Council
considered the preliminary plat request in June and recommended approval, subject to conditions. The
enclosed resolution approves the final plat, subject to conditions, and staff recommends approval of the
resolution.
,POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
In the past, the City Council has approved final plats if they comply with the requirements of the Zoning Code.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting final plat approval for Thompson New Hope Addition to divide one existing lot into
two parcels, to be known as Lot 1 and Outlot A, pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances
The purpose of the subdivision is to allow for the future sale and development of Outlot A.
The subject site is located at 8501 54= Avenue North. The site currently has a metes and bounds legal
description and the City Code requires that any division of such site be platted. The preliminary plat of the site
includes one lot (Lot 1, Block 1 Thompson New Hope Addition) on which there is an existing office/warehouse
building and one outlot (Outlot A) which is cun'enfly not improved. The appropriate drainage and utility
easements are shown on the plat. There are no additional improvements proposed to the site except
implementation of proof of parking.
The site is currently zoned I (Industrial). Office and warehouse uses are permitted used within the Industrial
District. Section 13 of the New Hope City Code requires that division of any tract of land with a metes and
bounds legal description be pla~ed. The site consists of 7.824 ac~es. The proposal is to divide the site into two
MOTION SECOND
BY BY
TO:
I\RFA\PLANNING\PLANN~R.Redwin 03-07final lat '-'"'"--
Request for Action Page 2 6-23-03
parcels consisting of 4.04 acres (Lot 1) and 3.24 acres (Outlot A). Outiot A will not be developed at this
time. Please refer to the attached excerpts from the original staff report for more details on the request.
The Planning Commission considered the preliminary plat request at its June 3 meeting and
recommended approval, subject to conditions, including agreeing to waive review of the final plat. The City
Council approved the preliminary plat at its June 9 meeting, subject to the following conditions:
1. Comply with City Engineer recommendations.
2. Comply with City Attorney recommendations.
3. Dedication of proposed right-of-way for 54"~ Avenue North as indicated on the preliminary plat.
4. Dedication of drainage and utility easements as indicated on the preliminary plat.
5. Two ('2) additional disabled accessible parking spaces must be provided for existing parking,
including one (1) van accessible disabled accessible parking space.
6. Implementation of proof of parking to increase available parking to ninety-one ('91) parking spaces
as indicated on the preliminary plat. Such parking shall include four (4) total disabled accessible
parking spaces eight ('8) feet wide with a five (5) foot wide access aisle including one (1) van
accessible disabled accessible parking space eight 8) feet wide with an eight (8) foot wide access
aisle.
7. At the time proof of parking is constructed, landscape, grading and drainage plans shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City Council.
8. Submittal of a grading and drainage plan subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
9. Elimination of the parking space that currently encroaches into Outlot A.
10. An easement for access over Outlot A to benefit Lot 1, Block 1 Thompson New Hope Addition must
be recorded as a separate document.
11. All bituminous not used for the access easement over Outlot A must be removed as indicated on
the preliminary plat.- -
12. Submittal of capacity calculations for the storm water drainage pond illustrated on Outlot A
including plans indicating the path of runoff for Lot 1 to such Proposed drainage pond. Any grading
required to implement such drainage pond shall require a grading and drainage plan subject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer.
13. An easement for the storm water drainage pond with capacity for both Lot 1, Block I and Outiot A
must be recorded.
14. The preliminary plat is subject to review and approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed District.
15. Removal of the building identification signage currently located on Outlot A in accordance with City
Code requirements. Traffic directional sign to remain.
As per routine policy, the final plat was submitted to city department heads, City Attorney, City Engineer,
Planning Consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment. Comments received
include the following:
City Attorney:
Planninq Consultant:
Please refer to attached June 17, 2003, correspondence. Ingress and egress
easements are to be recorded with separate documentation. Drainage and utility
easements appear to be in accordance with previous reviews. The final plat approval
will be subject to the recommendations from the City Engineer.
Please refer to attaChed June 17 & 18, 2003, correspondence. The City Attorney is
requesting a Commitment for Title Insurance, review of ingress and egress
easements, Declaration of Covenants, easement dedication and adequate proof of
parking. Evidence of title has been submitted by the applicant. The final plat
approval will be subject to the recommendations of the City Attorney.
Please refer to the attached June 18, 2003, report whiCh finds the final plat to.be in
Recluest for Action Page 3 6-23-03
substantial compliance. The final plat should be revised to reflect that all drainage_
and utility easements shall be dedicated by the City of New Hope. In addition, thef
are several conditions of the preliminary plat approval that have been cited again as
final plat conditions. The final plat approval will be subject to the recommendations
of the City Planner.
No other comments were received on the final plat.
Staff recommends approval of the final plat, subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer and City
Attorney.
A'I'rACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Final Plat
Location Map
· Zoning Map
· City Engineer Comments
· City Attorney Comments
· City Planner Comments
· Excerpts from the Original Report
c~
c)
c)
j REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 6-23-03 Consent
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald By:
RESOLUTION APPROVING SHORT FORM AGREEMENT WITH HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ACOUSTICAL SERVICES
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving a short form agreement
with HDR Engineering, Inc. for environmental acoustical services in the amount of $4,730 to perform noise
monitoring tests and analysis of 47th and Quebec avenues. At the June 16 Council work session, the Council
reviewed a report from SEH Engineering stating that the noise test results presented in the HDR reports
reflect an accurate assessment of the situation and meet or exceed the requirements of the MPCA. The City
Council directed that HDR be contacted for a proposal to conduct a final round of noise testing in conjunction
with Twin City Poultry and that proposal is attached. The resolution approves that proposal.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
The city routinely utilizes professional consultants to prepare reports and analyze specific issues.
BACKGROUND
Per the attached excerpts from the "Overview and History" section of the June 16, 2003, report from Short
Elliott Hendrickson, Inc.:
· The original noise analysis was performed by HDR in response to neighborhood complaints, which
centered on a new industrial resident, that of Twin City Poultry located at 4630 Quebec Avenue North. This
neighborhood, which surrounds an industrial area, is bounded by 48~ Avenue, Oregon Avenue, Rockford
Road, and Winnetka Avenue.
· Having moved in during May 2002, TCP placed refrigeration units atop this location. The heightened noise
levels which accompanied the installation and subsequent operation of these refrigeration units was, and
remains, the primary source of noise complaints throughout the neighborhood, with additional mention
made of pick-up and delivery semis (diesel trucks) creating noise while idling overnight, or during times of
pick-up or drop-off.
· On June 20, 2002, TCP addressed this noise issue with a letter to the residences in the surrounding
neighborhood. This letter specifically mentions the noise issue, TCP's recognition of it, and an assurance
that TCP was addressing the problem by hiring of acoustical engineers to examine sources and solutions.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
I:RFA~olanning~Q-HDR no~se TC Poultry-2
Request for Action Page 2 6-23-03
· The city contacted the Environmental Acoustics Division of HDR Engineering, Inc. in August of 2002 for a
proposal and subsequent noise analysis quote regarding the noise issue. A scope of services was
supplied and a testing process agreed upon by the city and HDR Environmental Acoustics Division. This
proposal also included a stipulation for testing noise post installation of mitigation devices, presumably
after results have been gathered and results tabulated should noise be found to be in violation of state and
local guidelines.
· Testing was then commenced on August 30, 2002, unannounced and in three locations, those closest to
TCP and in the surrounding neighborhoods. Testing occurred between the hours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m.
· In September of 2002, a report was then delivered to the city detailing testing process, times and locations
and results and recommendations. This report revealed that TCP, while operating dunng the ovemight
hours and without prior knowledge of testing schedule, was in slight violation of Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency nighttime noise standards. In the final HDR Report Recommendations, it was concluded
that noise emission information be gathered from the refrigeration units atop TCP so that noise mitigation
procedures be developed to bring them into compliance.
· During the month of September 2002, TCP then hired O'Neill Engineered Systems, Inc. for measurement,
specification and installation of acoustical jackets for the units on the roof. This work was completed by
TCP by the end of October 2002.
· As per odginal scope of work as provided by HDR to the city, HDR Environmental Acoustics then
completed a second noise test on November 11 and 14. Again, this test was unannounced, during the
hours of 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. and at the same three-receptor sights as previously selected.
· This test included post mitigation noise results and further spectral analysis of any remaining noise. This
post installation noise test revealed that TCP was now in full compliance as those guidelines set forth by
the MPCA, and those as adopted by the city of New Hope.
· On December 13, 2002, the city issued an open letter to residences in the vicinity of TCP, a letter that
details the HDR report, TCP's actions towards final mitigation (final acoustical jacket installation completed
by the end of October), and HDR's final results conceming noise compliance.
· Due to continued complaints from residents in the area, in May 2003, SEH Acoustics and Sound was
contacted by the city of New Hope to conduct an independent review of an environmental noise
assessment as provided by HDR Engineering, Inc.
· The June 16, 2003, SEH report states that 'It is the opinion of SEH Acoustics and Sound Division that all
tests performed by HDR meet or exceed those requirements as published by the MPCA, and that the
noise results presented in the HDR reports reflect an accurate assessment of the situation as it stands with
Twin City Poultry in compliance with both those standards as published by the city of New Hope, and those
of the Minnesota Environmental Protection Agency."
The City Council directed staff to contact HDR for a proposal for one additional round of noise testing that
would include coordination with Twin City Poultry on the tuming on/off of roof-top compressors and testing the
sound levels from several locations at the same time. Staff contacted Twin City Poultry and it is agreeable to
· coordinating with the city on this testing procedure. HDR submitted the attached Proposal in the amount of
$... to perform the tests.
Staff recommends approval of the proposal.
Request for Action Page 3 6-23-03
The Council also directed staff to send the results of the SEH report to residents and the attached letter
mailed to residents.
FUNDING
Due to the fact that this is a business development issue, staff is recommending that the cost for the testing
and analysis be funded out of the EDA budget. There are adequate funds budgeted in the 2003 EDA budget
for consulting services to cover this expense. The previous HDR tests were also funded out of the EDA 2002
budget.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution -
· HDR Environmental Acoustics Proposal: Correspondence and Agreement
· Correspondence to Residents
June 19;-2003
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Community Development Director
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Twin City Poultry Noise Study
Dear Mr. McDonald,
Thanks for the opportunity to offer HDR's environmental acoustics services to the City of
New Hope. The following is a proposal for noise monitoring and data analysis services based
on our recent conversations.
Scope of Services
Task I - Monitoring
HDR proposes to measure noise emissions from rooftop cooling equipment, simultaneously at
three selected residences. HDR will measure hourly overall noise levels expressed as L 10 and
L50 for comparison with MPCA noise regulations. Based on our conversations, HDR's
proposal is based on the following assumptions.
IIDR will coordinate the monitoring activities with Steve Cohen at Twin City Poultry
(TCP).
Noise monitoring will occur after 11:00 pm on a warm summer night.
Monitoring locations are 4641 Rhode Island Ave North, 4624 Rhode Island Ave
North, and 4625 Oregon Avenue North.
New Hope will notify residents that HDR staffwill be on their property at night.
HDR will notify New Hope Police Department (763-531-5170) of our plans to
monitor at night.
HDR will collect one hour of data at each location for comparison with MPCA noise
regulations. HDR will not collect spectral data, but rather will focus on overall noise
levels and a comparison of noise levels with and without all TCP cooling equipment
operating.
HDR staff and equipment availability may influence the scheduling of the nighttime
noise monitoring.
· Noi~e.4nalysisfor New Hope
6/19/2003
Page 2 of 3
This task includes costs for mobilization, round trip travel, monitoring, mileage, management
and equipment use.
Task 2 - Data Analysis and Report Preparation
HDR proposes to analyze the noise monitoring data. The analysis will compare monitoring
data collected with and without TCP cooling equipment operating, and also evaluate
compliance with MPCA noise regulations.
HDR will prepare a letter report after the measurements and data analysis have been
completed. The report will contain noise monitoring data that HDR collected, a summarv of
the analysis and interpretation of that data, and may include graphics created during 'our
analysis.
Task 3 - Project Management and Administration
This task includes a small budget for basic project management activities. Among these are
lmt]atmg new records in our accounting system, invoicing, technical and financial
management, and ensuring record keeping procedures are followed.
Task 4 - Meetings and Coordination
This task assumes a maximum of two 2-hour meetings with associated preparation and follow
up, and coordination via the telephone.
HDR Project Staff
HDR proposes to utilize Tim Casey, Mike Parsons and Beth Regan as the technical team, with
clerical and administrative assistance for report preparation and invoicing. The following
table presents the proposed budget for this scope of services.
1 5 5 5 0
2 2 6 0 2
3 5 0 0 3
4 7 0 0 0
Total Hours 19 11 5 5
Labor Subtotal $ 2.375 $ 880 $ 500 $ 375
l.nbor $ 4,130
Kx~penses $ 600
Total Co~ $ 4.730
Fax i7~31 ~91.~4 t3
w~nn~ f~rnlc.corn
Noise Analysis for New Hope
6/19/2003
Page 3 of 3
HDR proposes these services at a cost not to exceed $4,730 on a time and materials basis.
HDR will invoice City of New Hope only for actual labor and direct expenses.
Attached are two contracts and HDR's terms and conditions. Please sign and date both
contracts and return them to my attention. HDR will sign both contracts and return a fuih,
executed copy to City of New Hope. Please call me with questions or comments at
(763) 591-5450. HDR is employee owned, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide our
environmental services to New Hope.
Sincerely,
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Timothy G. Casey, QEP
Environmental Acoustics Program Manager
Enclosure
6190 Golmm HtlJs Dffve
Mffwwaooi~s. MN 5MI6-1518
F~ I/rill ~91.5413
COUNCE.
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originaiing Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development June 23, 2003 Development &
Public Works Planmng
By: Kirk McDonald Item No.
Guy Johnson By:
RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACTOR AND ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF RELOCATION OF UTILITY
PIPELINES AT THE NAVARRE CORPORATION SITE (IMPROVEMENT NO. 728)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff requests approval of a resolution ordering the necessary construction to relocate the city's sanitary sewer and
storm water pipes that run through the Navarre Corporation expansion site and of a resolution awarding the contract to
the iow and responsible bidder, Veit & Company, Inc., in the amount of $280,490.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
In the past, the city has Undertaken similar public utility relocation projects to assist with business retention and
expansion projects. This project would meet several of the industrial goals and policies identified in the city's
Comprehensive Plan, including:
· Retain and expand New Hope's industrial land uses to insure a diverse tax base and local employment
opportunities.
· Continue to facilitate the in-place expansion of existing industries.
· Redevelop industrial sites that display building deterioration, obsolete site design, and/or land use compatibility
issues.
BACKGROUND
Staff has been coordinating on the Navarre expansion project for the past year. At the June 10, 2002, EDA meetin,.
staff presented a proposal from Navarre Cor~.L~Oration to relocate Ahrens Trucking from its current Ioc,-~tinn =t ?~nn ,~
Avenue to city owneo property at 9200 49"' Avenue to facilitate a large expansion at the Naval;' ;;ie-. ~'~;~E~)~A
directed staff to coordinate with both parties. Initial terms of agreement ware reached and discussed at the August 12,
2002, EDA meeting, and on September 9, the City Council and EDA approved a number of agreements regarding this
project. At the October 28, 2002, EDA meeting, staff informed the Council that the bids on the Ahrens Trucking
relocation portion of the project came in very high and wanted to determine the interest in proceeding with the Navarre
~)ortion of the project. The EDA directed staff to proceed with the Navarre expansion project. Navarre has committed
to constructing at least a 100,000 square foot two-story office/warehouse building, the materials and shape of which
would mimic the existing facility. Navarre anticipates its New Hope employment would increase by 80 people upon
completion of the facility and would increase to 100 people over time.
-
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
I:rfa~PubWorks~003~728 Navarre U~lilies Award Bid
Request for Action Page 2
6-23-03
In order to facilitate a possible expansion of the Navarre Corporation complex to the lots west of its current site,
relocation of sanitary sewer and storm water infrastructure were necessary. The city currently has a 21-inch sanitary
sewer trunk line that flows from the Angeline Drive and Quebec Avenue intersection to the 49"~ Avenue and Quet~ec
Avenue intersection. There is also a storm water pipe that flows south to north through the lots in question. The
proposed realignment of the utilities would shift the pipelines through the property to the west edge of the property.
The paperwork regarding eminent domain proceedings to acquire the Ahrens Trucking property was filed with the
courts on December 20, 2002. Navarre Corporation filed an application and plans for its PUD/building construction on
January 10, 2003, and they were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council on March 4 and 10, 2003,
respectively.
FUNDING
A preliminary estimate, earlier this year, for relocating the utilities was $250,000. A later updated engineer's estimate in
January 2003, projected the cost at $266,000. Six contractors submitted bids for the proposed construction. The bids
for construction costs ranged from a high bid of $364,731.00 to Veit & Company, Inc., bid of $280,490. Of the
$280,490.00, $235,869.60 is for relocating the city's sanitary sewer and storm-water trunk mains to the west side of
Navarre's expansion site and for relocating the sanitary sewer service at the current Navarre building. The remaining
$44,620.40 is for extending the city's public sanitary sewer pipe east towards the last property prior to the railroad
tracks. Funds are available in the city's Utility Fund for this extension of the city's sanitary sewer. Navarre Corporation
will be responsible for the cost to fund the utility infrastructure relocation and their service relocation, and will be
reimbursed by the city through Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds.
The city attorney has prepared the attached correspondence concerning the Private Redevelopment Contract the EDA
has with New Hope, LLC, also known as the Navarre Corporation, concerning payment for the relocation of the utility
pipelines in connection with its property redevelopment at 7600 49~ Avenue North. "The Private Redevelopment
contract requires New Hope, LLC and Navarre Corporation to pay its cost. Navarre will be reimbursed these costs
upon completion of the Redevelopment Contract and the work required thereunder from the new tax increment
generated in the TIF District. The New Hope EDA and the city will provide Navarre with a "revenue" note in an amount
not to exceed $450,000 which will include these utility relocation costs. Interest on this note will commence on the date
of the certificate of completion of the project. Please refer to Section 3.4 of the Contract on page 13 for the actual
language relating to the note.
Therefore, Navarre will be paying the costs up front for the work to be performed by Veit. Navarre will then be
reimbursed for these costs pursuant to the terms of the revenue note and the Private Redevelopment Contract from
TIF."
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· 6/16 City Engineer Correspondence
· 6/18 City Attorney Correspondence
· Excerpts from Redevelopment Contract
· Excerpts from Plans
! ' --/L.12.i
48TH AVE N
49TH AVE N
N
F
iMl"i-102
COUNCIL
Originating Department
Community Development
Kirk McDonald
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Approved for Agenda
6-23-03
Agenda Section
Ordinances &
Resolutions
Item No.
ORDINANCE NO. 03-16: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 8-33 REGULATING
SECOND HAND DEALERS LICENSES
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached ordinance prepared by the city attorney
amending the section of the New Hope Code regulating second hand dealers licenses by adding additional ~
The City Council reviewed and discussed this issue in detail at the March 17, 2003, Council
session and directed staff to Proceed with preparing an ordinance requiring business licensing for second
hand merchandise dealers, as recommended by the planning study and Planning Commission. The Council
agreed to leave the moratorium in place until June 30 to allow time for staff to prepare such an ordinance.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
The City Council has adopted similar ordinances in the past to license and regulate specific types of
businesses, such as pawn shops, etc.
BACKGROUND
At the March 11, 2002, New Hope City Council meeting, city staff indicated a concern to the Council about the
~ncreasing number of thrift and second-hand merchandise stores locating in the city. Staff had discussed the
issue internally for several months and had considered recommending the implementation of a moratorium
and planning study on these types of establishments. Staff indicated that some stores of this type had raised
concerns due to health and welfare issues and that some complaints had been received regarding these types
of establishments. The City Council was in agreement with staff regarding these issues and took the following
actions at the March 11 Council meeting:
· Approved a Resolution Authorizing a Planning Study to Consider Regulations for Businesses Engaged in
the Retail Sale of Second-Hand Merchandise.
· Adopted an Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting All Businesses Engaging in Retail Sales of Second-Hand
Merchandise Within the City of New Hope.
The adopted ordinance imposed a temporary prohibition of businesses engaged in the retail sale of second
hand merchandise within the city that were not currently open to the public for business as of March 11, 2002,
to allow the f time to authorize a to review the Proliferation of these kinds of stores within the
MOTION BY · .... SECOND BY
TO:
Request for Action .... Page 2 6-23-03
land use regulations or zoning controls may be necessary to regulate these businesses. A business e% ~ed
in the sale of second hand merchandise is defined as any person, partnership, firm or corporation whose
regular business includes selling or receiving tangible personal property (excluding motor vehicles) previously
used, rented, owned or leased and whose gross sales exceed fifty (50%) percent of its total sales from the
sale of second hand tangible personal property. The moratorium was originally effective through August 13,
2002. Due to the fact that the study was not yet completed by that date, at the July 22 Council meeting, the
Council extended the moratorium through December 31, 2002, and subsequently extended the moratorium to
June 30, 2003.
The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed this report at the November 6, 2002, Planning Commission
meeting and recommended forwarding the report to the City Council. The Codes and Standards subcommittee
of the Planning Commission, along with consultants and staff, discussed this issue over the past six months
and presented the report to the full commission. The Commission approved the recommendations on pages
17 and 18 of the report, except that they recommended that recommendation 5f regarding the provision of
accessible changing rooms be eliminated. They also recommended that any business license fee established
should take into consideration the additional Police Department patrols that may be required for these
establishments. Owners of commercial properties and thrift store establishments were provided with a copy of
the report prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Three-ring binders containing the report and all
background material were previously distributed to the City Council.
This report and recommendations were presented to the City Council at the November 12, 2002, City Council
meeting and the Council directed staff to schedule a work session during the first part of 2003, so the report
could be discussed in detail at that time. The Council conducted a work session on March 17, 2003, and
directed staff to proceed with the preparation of an ordinance incorporating the recommendations of the
report.
The city attomey prepared the attached ordinance and comments in correspondence related to the ordinance
state:
"Basically, this ordinance incorporates into our existing pawn brokers, precious metal dealer and second hand
dealer license the recommendations made for the thrift store issues set out in the city planner's September
2002 report. Specifically, refer pages 17 and 18 of the NAC report. The recommendations made by the city
planner made in paragraph 5 on pages 17 and 18 of his report are incorporated into the enclosed ordinance
as follows:
The city planner developed additional conditions for thrift stores to second hand dealers relating to the
receipt and disposal of merchandise at their stores. These new conditions are incorporated into our
existing ordinance by adding a new subsection 8-33(n)(6) regarding conditions for approval of a license.
These new conditions are found in section 3 of the ordinance. Basically, all transactions must occur
indoors. No outdoor drop off areas will be allowed. Further, no outdoor storage of any kind will be allowed.
Refuse dumpsters and trash containers are specifically regulated and all locations where clothing sales
occur must provide at least one accessible changing room and restroom facility.
Since we already have a second hand dealers license, the exemption to the license had to be modified.
Please refer to Section I of the enclosed ordinance for the modifications. Basically, I have removed six
second hand dealer transactions that were previously exempted from the second hand dealers license and
made them subject to the license requirement. Those transactions are the sale of second hand books and
magazines, the sale of second hand clothing, the sale of kitchen and laundry appliances, the sale of
second hand furniture, sales by charitable organizations of merchandise received for no compensation,
and bulk sales from merchants, manufacturers and wholesalers. However, these transactions now
requiring a license will still be exempt from most of the general license restrictions found in section 8-33(o).
The general restrictions apply mainly to pawn shops and would not be applicable to the second hand
Request for Action
Page 3 6-23-03
dealer transactions now made subject to the license requirement. Also, these transactions are exempted
from the business manager requirement found in section 8-33(e) and the investigation and billable
transaction fees found in section 8-330). In other words, these previously exempted transactions now
subject to a license requirement will only need to pay the application fee and license fee since the
investigation of these businesses are not necessary and the billable transaction fees only apply to pawn
brokers.
· In section 2 of the ordinance, I have repealed the license exemption to the second hand dealers license
that will now be subject to this ~hybrid" second hand dealers license.
Section 4 of the ordinance deals with the license fees for second hand dealer licenses or thrift stores. The
ordinance now makes a distinction between basically pawnbroker licenses and thdft store licenses.
Specifically, if a second hand dealers license is exempted from the general license restrictions, the annual
fee for such a license will be $300 and the nonrefundable-application fee is $200. As you can see by our
existing code, if a full-blown Pawnbrokers license is required, the annual fee is $2,500 and the application
fee is $500. Again, the thrift store license will not be subject to the investigation fee or the billable
transaction fees.
This ordinance will become effective after it is published. If the ordinance is adopted on June 23, it will be
published on July 3. As we discussed, existing thrift stores subject to the ordinance should be contacted
informing them of the necessity to obtain a license. This could be handled in two ways. First, existing stores
could be required to immediately apply for a license. The fee could be prorated to account for a partial license
year and they could be given an appropriate "grace" period to comply with any new license requirements. As
we discussed, the new requirements for a changing room or restroom facility may be a problem for existing
stores. We discussed compliance with any new requirement should be deferred to the next license year or
January 2, 2004. The other option would be to defer the license requirement for existing stores until the 2004
license year with the understanding full compliance with the new requirements will be necessary at that time.
Of course, the new requirements will be applicable to all new store applications effective upon passage and
publication of the ordinance."
The main excerpts from the ordinance state that:
"License Required." No person, firm or corporation shall conduct or operate the business of pawnbroker,
precious metal dealer and second hand dealer without having first obtained a license therefore as herein
provided; or in violation of any of the Provisions herein contained. No pawnbroker, precious metal dealer and
second hand dealer license may be transferred to a different location or a different person. A separate license
is required for each place of business. A person may be issued multiple licenses if there has been compliance
with this code and all other county, state and federal laws for each license. The following transactions shall be
required to obtain a second hand dealers license but shall be exempt from the general license restrictions set
forth in section 8-33(o) of this code, except those restrictions set out in sections 8-33(o)(9) through (15). The
following transactions subject to the second hand dealers license shall also be exempt from the business
manager requirement in section 8-33(e) and the investigation and billable transaction fees in section 8-33(j) of
this code:
1. The sale of second hand books or magazines.
2. The sale of second hand clothing or linens. This does not apply to the sale of second hand sporting goods
~equipment. Further, dealers of second hand bedding must comply with Minn. Stat. §§325F.25 through
·325F.34.
3. The sale of second hand kitchen or laundry appliances.
4. The sale of second hand furniture.
5. Sales by charitable organizations that take second hand goods for no compensation.
6. A bulk sale of Property from a memhant, manufacturer or wholesaler having an established place of
business or of goods sold at open sale from bankrupt stock.
Request for Action Page 4 6-23-03
UConditions for Approval of License." - The following conditions must be complied with before a location -
be eligible for a second hand dealers license:
(a) The receipt or transfer of all used goods to the second hand dealer shall be conducted entirely within the
building or tenant bay. Outdoor drop off areas shall not be allowed.
(b) Outdoor storage of merchandise of any kind shall not be permitted.
(c) All refuse containers, dumpsters and trash handling equipment shall be approved by the city, maintained in
good repair and shall comply with the following conditions:
· The extedor walls or fence treatment of the trash enclosures shall be similar or complementary to the
extedor finish of the principal building.
· Trash enclosures shall be located in the side or rear yards and meet the applicable setback
requirements.
· Trash enclosures shall be accessible for pick up and hauling vehicles.
· The trash enclosures shall-fully screen trash receptacles from view of adjacent properties and public
dghts..of-way.
(d) All locations where clothing sales occur shall provide at least one (1) accessible changing room and
restroom facility.
"Pawn Brokers Precious Me al Dealers and Second Hand Dealer License."
(a) A nonrefundable application
fee
(b) A nonrefundable investigation
fee (including manager
(c) Annual license fee
~ble transaction fee:
_.__...(~ Modem transaction
.~..Man ual transaction
$500, except second hand dealers license exempt from section
8-33(o) license restrictions shall pay a $200 nonrefundable
~tion fee.
Actual cost of investigation not to exceed $10,000. If investigation
solely conducted in Minnesota, the investigation fee shall be $500.
$2,500, except second hand dealers license exempt from section
~ license restrictions shall.p__.~ a $300 annual license fee
$2
The planning consultant reviewed the final ordinance and states "1 have reviewed the city attorney's letter and
ordinance amending New Hope City Code Section 8-33 regulating second hand dealers licenses. Based on
my review, we concur with the city attomey's changes to the Proposed ordinance. We believe that the second
hand dealers license should embrace all the previous exemptions that were excluded from the license
requirement. However, we do not believe they should be held to the same level as a pawn shop related to
investigation, billable transaction fees, management requirements. In this respect, the draft ordinance by the
city attomey is acceptable from our standpoint.'
Lastly, in referring to the attached November 6 and December 3, 2002, Planning Commission minutes, the
Council should be aware that subsequent to the approval of the recommendations in November, at the
December meeting one of the commissioners recommended that consignment shops be exempted from the
ordinance requirements. Staff indicated that they would make the Council aware of that viewpoint. After
discussing final ordinance details with both the city attorney and planning consultant, it was their
recommendation not to exempt consignment shops from the ordinance requirements and the attached
:Ordinance is applicable to all second hand dealers, including consignment shops.
A copy of the Proposed ordinance was sent to all applicable businesses in the city. Staff recommends approval
of the ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 03-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 8-33
REGULATING SECOND HAND DEALERS LICENSES
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 8-33(c) "License Required" of the New Hope City Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Section 8-33(c)
"License Required". No person, firm or corporation shall conduct
or operate the business of pawnbroker, precious metal dealer and
second hand dealer without hav/ng first obta/ned a license therefore
as hereto provided; or m violation of any of the provisions hereto
contained. No pawnbroker, precious metal dealer and second hand
dealer license may be transferred to a different location or a different
person. A separate license is required for each place of business. A
person may be issued multiple licenses if there has been compliance
with tiffs code and all other county, state and federal laws for each
license. ·
e f~ low actio shall be re uired to obtain a
seco d deal rs ice e but s I be exe t from the enera]
lice e restfictio set forth ' Sectio 8-33 o of th/s Code exce t
those stncuo set out m Sections 8-33 o 9 throu h 15. The
follow' actions sub'ect to e second d dealers license shall
also be exe .t from the business e re uirement ia Section 8-
3 e d e ' vesti ation and bil able transact'o fees in Section 8-
(1) e sale of seco d d boo o 'es'
/2) T~.e~al~_/~fsec d d co ' or Y e . 's does not a I to
~ es eof eco dhands o ' oodse ' ent. F er dealers
ors d bed ' ustc Iv w' ' .Stat. 3 5F. 5
(3) e sale f second d 'tchen or laun ' a liances.
(4) The sale of secolld h~nd furniture~
(5) S esb c ' be or ' rio at take second hand oods for no
(6) ~ crc ufacturer or wholesaler
· sta 'hed acco b 'es or of oodssoldato nsale
Section 2. Section 8-33(d) "Exemptions to !.it. ense Requiren~t~l" of the New Hope
City Code is he'by amended by rep~g subsections 8-33(d)(2)(b),(c),(d),(e),(i) and (m) in
their entirety and renumbering the remaining Sections of 8-33(d)(2) accordingly.
Section 3. Section 8-33(n) "Conditions for Approval of License" of the New Hope
City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection 8-33(n)(6) to read as follows:
Section 8-33(n)(6)
The following conditiqps must be coInplied with before a location
shall be eligible for a secopd hand dealers license:
(a) The receipt or rrannfer of all used goods to the second hand
dealer shall be condu_cted entirely within the building or-tenant
bay. Outdoor drop off areas .~ha!] not be allowed.
(b) .Outdoor storage of merchandise of aBy ki~d shall not be
oermirted.
(c) ,All refuse containers~ du~psters ap_nd trash handling eouwment
shall be aporoved bv the City, maintain~ed in gogd repair and shall
coaioly with the followin~, condhio~:
(1) The exterior walls or fence treatm~ent of the trash
,~nclosures shall be similar or complementary to thc
exterior finish of the vrin¢ival building.
(2) Trash enclosures shall be located in the side or rear yard,:
and meet the anolicable setback requirements.
(3) Trash enclosures shall be accegsible for pick up and
haulme vehicles.
The trash enclosures shall fully screen trash receptacle.~
from view of adiacent vromrfles a~d public rights-of-way.
locatio w e cio ' sales occur shall rovide at least one
accessible cbant~iol~ room and restroom facility.
Section 4. Section 14-8(26) "Pawn Brokers, Precious Metal Dealers a___nd Second Hand
Dealer License" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 14-8(26) "Pawn Broker~ Precious Metal Dealers and Second Hand Dealer
,License".
(a)
Fee
A noa¢randable Application
(b) A nora-~and~ble Invest/gation
Fee (including Manager investigation)
$500.00, excevt second hand dealers license
~em~t from Section 8.33(o) license
restrictions shall pay a $200.00
nonrefun~ble aoolic~_~on fee.
Actual Cost of investigation not to exceed
$10,000.00. If investigation solely
conducted in Minnesota, the investigation fee
· ~hnll be $:500.00
2
(c) A~,ual License Fee
(d) Billable Transaction Fee:
(1) Modem Tra~action
(2) Manual Transaction
$2,500.00~ except second h:~nd de~ers
l, icense exempt riom_ Sectio~ 8-33(o) licens~
,resirictions sha_ll pay a ~;300.00 annual
license fee.
$2.00
$3.00
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
publication.
Dated the 23'~ day of June, 2003.
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Attest:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the
2003.)
P:~Mme,/~::nb ~meu~:~fmmm m-t6.dnc
_ day of
COLrNCTL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Depadment Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 6-23-03 Ordinances &
Resolutions
By: Kirk McDonald, Director of Item No.
Communib/DeveloDment By:
ORDINANCE NO. 03-12: AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING BAN ON DEVELOPMENT IN ALL FOUR LIVABLE
COMMUNITY TASK FORCE STUDY AREAS
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the enclosed ordinance extending the ban on development in all four Livable
Community Task Force study areas. This ordinance was originally adopted on August 21, 2002, with a July 31,
2003, termination date. City staff is requesting a 12-month extension to July 31, 2004.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
In the past, the City Council has approved moratoriums on certain issues to allow time to resolve those issues.
BACKGROUND
The enclosed ordinance would extend the temporary prohibition of all construction and development within the
four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force. The ban would include the application for
and issuance of building permits under Chapter 3 of the City Code (excluding permits for routine maintenance
and repairs), text changes, variances, conditional use permits and rezoning requests under Chapter 4 of the
Code and subdivision requests under Chapter 13 of the Code for any construction, use, development or
subdivision of all residential and commercial zoned properties in the subject areas. The prohibition would be
effective for one additional year; until July 31, 2004.
Although this extension would permit the City to deny any requests for building permits (excluding routine
rnamtenance and repair) within the described areas, it would not prevent any property owner from approaching
the City with a request to exempt a property or proposed improvement from the moratorium. Property owners
thatdesire to make substantial home improvements have the option of requesting an exemption to the
ordinance before the City Council. Up to this point, one (1) exemption has been requested. Michael
Tomaszewski, owner of 5434 Winnetka Avenue North requested an exemption for a 396 sq. ft. addition to the.
west portion of his home. On August 26, the Council denied the property owner's request and directed the City
Attomey to prepare Findings of_Fact. On September 23, the Council approved the Findings of Fact.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
h\RFA\PLANNING\Ordinances~Q, ord 03-12 lc area moratorium ext.doc
Request for Action
Page 2 6-23-03
In 1998, the Council passed a resolution approving the City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update. In
Od999, the Metropolitan Council approved the Comprehensive Plan Update. In the Plan, the City was broken
own 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. 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.
Since purchase solicitation letters were distributed, the City has purchased nine (9) of the seventeen (17) lots
along the east side of Winnetka Avenue North (5524 Winnetka closing scheduled for July) and seven (7)
properties along Sumter Avenue North and in the Bass Lake Road extension area. Over the past few years,
the City has acquired a total of sixteen (16) properties in the East Winnetka Area.
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. Staff
continues to coordinate with developers in the Livable Communities Area.
Staff recommends approval of this ordinance.
_ATTACHMENTS
· Ordinance No. 03-12
· Ordinance No. 02-09
· City Attorney Correspondence
· Location Map
Hope Livebl~ Commun~
EDA
RE( UEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department
Community Development
By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD
& Ken
Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
6-23-03 EDA
Item No.
JOINT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONCEPT' CONSIDERATION AND AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE A
PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 7500-7528 42ND AVE. N. ('IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 665)
..ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting concept consideration and authorization to prepare a purchase agreement with the
developers for the attached joint development proposal for the City-owned site at 7500-7528 42n~ Avenue
North. The proposal is for two uses: a Culvers restaurant on the western portion of the site and three (3) office
condominium buildings (eight (8) separate ownership units) on the eastern portion of the site. Staff
recommends that the City follow the same sale process as when the property at 9200 49th Avenue North was
sold to the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital. The steps are as follows:
1. EDA consideration of development concept, purchase price and direction to prepare a purchase
agreement.
2. EDA consideration of purchase agreement, subject to zoning/development approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
3. Development approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential Properties within
the City. The EDA has been addressing the commercial portion of this goal through the City's many
development activities, including coordinating with potential developers for the sale and development of City-
owned property. In the past, the EDA has provided concept development approval and directed staff to
prepare purchase agreements for the sale of City-owned property to private developers.
BACKGROUND
On March 10, the EDA directed staff to continue working with Retail Site Development Services (RSDS) on a
joint development proposal for the City-owned site at 7500-7528 42n~ Avenue North. The proposal is for two
uses: a Culvers restaurant on the westem portion of the site and three (3) office condominium buildings (eight
(8) separate ownership units) on the eastem and northern portion of the site. Staff has continued to work with
the developers on the items raised at the March 10 EDA meeting. The developers have addressed the
followin, EDA concerns.
'MOTION BY
SECOND BY
TO:
h\RFA\PLANNING\Electronic Indust~ 2.doc '-- '--
Request for Action
Page 2
6-23'-u,.
Purchase Price - The developers are offering a combined $510,000 for the site, or $4.62 sq. ft~ 'he
total land area is 109,899.1 sq. ft. or 2.52 acres. Staff, including the Director of Finance believes mat
this is a reasonable sales price for the property taking into account the location, contamination issues
and development restrictions imposed by the MPCA (no residential). According to the Director of
Finance, the City considered paying $6 per square foot for the Robbinsdale School District 281
property located at the southeast comer of 42r~ and Winnetka Ave. N. Although the subject location is
good, it is not as highly desirable as the school district site and has restrictions, therefore staff believes
the $4.62 sq. ft. is reasonable. An appraisal completed on 4-22-02, lists the "as remediated" market
value at $730,000. The Hennepin County Assessor's Office estimated land value at $600,000.
Brokerage Fee - RSDS, the developer's representative initially proposed a brokerage fee of $40,000 to
be paid by the City. Per the EDA's request, the brokerage fee has been eliminated from the proposal.
Stormwater Ponding - Due to the groundwater contamination on the site, off-site ponding is required
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The City Engineer has calculated that the fee payment for
regional water quality improvements for the site will be $47,100. The City Engineer's recommendation
is consistent with the Storm Water Management Plan. The total fee represents the cost that would be
realized to construct a pond and the value of land occupied by the pond. Please see the attached City
Engineer memorandum. The developers have agreed to pay this fee and have included the payment in
the attached Letters of Intent.
Site Plan - The proposed site plan has been modified to address EDA concerns:
o Screening of the north industrial property: The developers have moved one (1) office
condominium building (two (2) units) along the north property line intended to provide screening
of the site and 42"~ Avenue North from the industrial property to the north.
o 42"d Avenue North Ingress/Egress: The developers have stated that the access to 42"d Avenue
North would be one (1) curb cut with a right-in, fight-out arrangement. Hennepin County will
require review and approval of an access permit onto 42n~ Avenue North and would presumably
require and approve the fight-in, right-out arrangement. A median exists in the 42"~ Avenue
North roadway. Staff is supportive of one (1) curb cut with a fight-in, right-out arrangement.
Overall the curb cuts will be reduced from two (2) that Previously existed along 42"~ Avenue
North to one (1). One (1) access is proposed on Quebec Avenue North.
o Green area: Due to the contamination on the property and the MPCA's desire to limit infiltration
on the site, green area must be kept to a minimum. Landscaping, including sod will be placed
around the office units. Landscaping will be a component of the restaurant exterior. Landscape
islands will be placed in the parking lot. The majority of the contamination is in the center area
of the site. The center area of the site is where the parking lot is located. The location of the
parking lot is ideal, based on the fact that a majority of the contamination is located in that area.
o Parking: A preliminary review of the proposed parking indicated that it is adequate for the site
and combined uses.
Proximity of units to railroad line: The office condominium developer has not indicated any
concerns regarding the proximity of the units to the rail line. The units would be in compliance
with the Commercial Business (CB) side yard set back of 10'.
Owner's association: The office units would have association documents and bylaws similar to
that of a residential development association.
Platting: The development team will be responsible for platting the property.
,.c<cq.'~quest for Action Page 3 6-23-03
On March 4, 2003, staff received the original joint development proposal from RSDS for the City-owned site at
7500-7528 42"~ Avenue North. As mentioned previously, staff presented the proposal to the EDA on March 10.
The EDA directed staff to continue working with the developers. Staff met with the developers on April 7, May
23 and June 6.
The City has been working for many years to initiate the environmental cleanup process and subsequent
commercial redevelopment of this site. 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. Cuiver's restaurantJRSDS came later in the process and staff suggested
they provide a joint development proposal with the office condominium developer which they have done. Staff
has been in contact with DTED regarding the revised proposal. DTED indicated that they did not have any
issue with the addition of a Culver's restaurant at the site and it will not affect the cleanup grant.
RSDS has submitted Letters of Intent on behalf of each developer. An excerpt of each Letter of Intent is as
follows:
Letter of Intent: Culverts Restaurant (Attached, please see the entire Letter of Intent)
"John Seibert of JCS Development, Inc. has asked Retail Site Development Services to represent him in his
search for a Cuiver's restaurant site in the New Hope area. This letter shall serve to confirm JCS
Development, Inc.'s intent to purchase a site on the northeast comer of 42'= and Quebec Avenues as defined
on the attached plan and under the terms and conditions outlined below.
REAL PROPERTY: Seller will sell to Buyer a 55,500(+-) square foot parcel (buildable) which is of adequate
size to construct a building of approximately 4,500 square feet with a minimum of 70 parking stalls ('Real
Property"). Seller represents that is will require proper cross easements for parking and access across Real
Property.
PURCHASE PRICE: Buyer shall pay to Seller the sum of $380,000.00 for the Real Property. Upon execution
of the Agreement, Buyer shall deposit with the City of New Hope a non refundable fee in the amount of
$500.00. In addition, a "Refundable Fee" of $2,500.00 will be submitted by Buyer to Seller upon execution by
both parties of an Agreement. Seller shall provide an accounting of all expenditures from the Refundable Fee
fund and Buyer will be billed monthly. The Buyer shall have 120 days after execution of the Agreement to
waive all conditions therein and close on the Property.
CONDITION OF REAL PROPERTY: Seller shall represent that all utilities are available and adequate at the
property line. Buyer acknowledges that they will be responsible for a storm sewer fee that will not exceed
$23,550.00. Seller further represents and warrants that the Real Property is zoned and suitable for
development of a Culver's drive-thru restaurant with up to 120 seats.
ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS: Seller shall make representations as to the present and proposed environmental
conditions of the Real Property with respect to the presence of any hazardous substances or unsuitable soils
in or about the Real Property. Seller shall also provide VIC Assurance Letters and VPIC Assurance letters
stating that a Culver's restaurant can be constructed on the site and that no further action is required.
Letter of Intent: Frey Development, Inc. (Attached, please see the entire Letter of Intent)
"Bernie Frey of Frey Development, Inc. has asked Retail Site Development Services to represent him in his
search for a Culver's restaurant site in the New Hope area. This letter shall serve to confirm Frey
Development, Inc.'s intent to purchase a site on the northeast corner of 42"~ and Quebec Avenues as defined
Request for Action
Page 4
on the attached plan and under the terms and conditions outlined below.
REAL PROPERTY: Seller will sell to Buyer a 52,400(+-) square foot parcel (buildable) which is of adequate
size to construct eight office condominium units with 55 parking stalls ('Real Property"). Seller represents that
is will require proper cross easements for parking and access across Real Property.
PURCHASE PRICE: Buyer shall pay to Seller the sum of $130,000.00 for the Real Property. Upon execution
of the Agreement, Buyer shall deposit with the City of New Hope a non refundable fee in the amount of
$500.00. In addition, a *Refundable Fee" of $2,500.00 will be submitted by Buyer to Seller upon execution by
both parties of an Agreement. Seller shall provide an accounting of all expenditures from the Refundable Fee
fund and Buyer will be billed monthly. The Buyer shall have 120 days after execution of the Agreement to
waive ali conditions therein and close on the Property.
CONDITION OF REAL PROPERTY: Seller shall represent that all utilities are available and adequate at the
property line. Buyer acknowledges that they will be responsible for a storm sewer fee that will not exceed
$23,550.00. Seller further represents and warrants that the Real Property is zoned and suitable for
development of an office condominium project.
ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS: Seller shall make representations as to the present and proposed environmental
conditions of the Real Property with respect to the presence of any hazardous substances or unsuitable soils
in or about the Real Property. Seller shall also provide VIC Assurance Letters and VPIC Assurance letters
stating that an office condominium project can be constructed on the site and that no further action is required.
Attached, please find previous correspondence dated 10-28-02 from JCS Development, Inc. of Culver's
restaurant stating, *1 am proposing to develop a 120-seat Culver's Restaurant in New Hope, MN. It will be a
quick service restaurant specializing in burgers and frozen custard. The development will be 52,000 sq. ft.
There will be 60 employees - 5 salary employees ranging in salary from $25K - $40K depending on
experience, 8-12 other full time employees and the remaining part-time employees paid houdy ranging from
$6/hr to $12/hr. The hours of operation will be from 10:30 am - 10 pm seven days a week."
Also attached, please find previous correspondence dated 1-24-03 from Frey Development, Inc. of the office
condominiums stating, *Please consider this correspondence as notice of our interest in developing an office
condominium project on the east half of the subject parcel. Our project is part of a mutual proposal with JCS
Development, Inc. JCS Development will construct a 120-seat Culver's restaurant on the west half of the
parcel.
Our concept would involve the construction of seven (increased to eight with current proposal) office
condominium units. These units would be individually owned. This concept is similar to a residential townhome
project where the owner owns the land beneath their unit as well as their pro-rata share of the common area.
A unit can range from 1,300 to 3,000 square feet. Each unit would have a private entrance, individual signage,
custom designed interior plus the convenience of parking at your front door.
Many small businesses owners desire the benefits of owning their own business space but financially they
cannot afford to build or purchase a single user building. This type of development provides small business
owners that opportunity. Typical users may include professional offices, medical offices, financial offices and
manufacturing representatives. The number of employees that occupy each space will vary depending on the
· use. A 1,500 sq. ft. unit will typically provide enough space for a staff of 6 to 8. Individual signs at each
"entrance will identify each unit. A monument sign identifying the project will be installed along 42"~ Ave. N.
Parking provided will be based on the City of New Hope's parking ordinance. Hours for a typical user are 8:00
to 5:00."
Site Status
Diversified Environmental, the City's environmental consultant has submitted the following information
~.~uest for Action
regarding status of the site.
Page 5 6-23-03
· Environmental Restrictive Covenant: The MPCA requires that the City prepare an environmental restrictive
covenant (filed with the property deed) relating to future use and development of the subject property. The City
Attorney and Diversified Environmental prepared a draft of the covenant. The covenant will be shared with the
developer and sent to MPCA and the State Attomey General's office for review and comment. Once
comments are received, staff will to present the covenant to the Council for consideration in August.
As currently drafted and mandated by the MPCA, the covenant will prohibit any future residential uses. The
MPCA has no concerns relating to the uses proposed by the current interested developers. The covenant lists
future triggering activities that will need review and approval of the MPCA, as well as lists future triggering
activities that will need review and approval of the RCRA group of the MPCA, as well as the City, prior to any
construction activities. These activities include excavation and dewatering in certain areas, monitoring well
sampling construction and access, active soil vapor venting under all buildings, maintenance of pavement
cover, snow storage and direction of all runoff into storm sewers. Monitoring and mitigation plans will need to
be submitted to MPCA when site plans are firm. The City will be responsible for development and
implementation of these monitoring and mitigation plans.
2. Cleanup activities at the El site: Cleanup activities (subsurface permanganate injections into the shallow
ground water) have started. The first two rounds of neutralizing chemical injections and testing took place in
May and June. Testing results relating to the effectiveness of the first round of injections are expected by mid-
June. Three additional rounds of injections and testing, spaced at 30-day intervals, were funded by DTED and
Hennepin County and are planned·
Plans for permanganate injection into the deeper aquifer, which underlies both the El site and the Gill Brothers
site, are being reviewed. The currently approved MPCA plan contains requirements for over 100 injection
points; the plan is being reviewed to determine whether fewer injection points can be utilized to inject larger
volumes of permanganate but retain cleanup effectiveness. If this plan is revised and approved by both MPCA
and the City, there is potential for considerable cost savings.
3. Cleanup activities at Gill Brothers site: Deeper groundwater contamination (leaching from the El site) is
present at the Gill Brothers site, and MPCA has directed El to install new ground water remediation equipment
at this site. The new recovery well has been installed, and its discharge pipe tied into the existing sanitary
sewer. The concrete slab for the new remediation building is scheduled to be poured in June, with installation
of the new remediation building expected to be completed by the end of June. Staff expects that this
remediation system will be fully operational in July.
Additional Background
On May 27, 2003, the Council scheduled a public hearing to initiate the process for vacating a public alley
easement at this site. The easement is no longer necessary and vacation of the easement will aid in
redevelopment of the parcels. At tonight's Council meeting, a public hearing is being conducted to consider
the alley vacation.
On January 13 2003, the Council approved a cost-sharing agreement with the Responsible Party (RP),
Electronic Industries to facilitate the RP cleanup match funding and outline cleanup responsibilities. Electronic
Industries is in the process of obtaining a building permit for the new remediation system and scheduling
remediation activities.
On April 8, 2002, the City Council approved resolutions authorizing staff to apply for cleanup funding from
DTED and Hennepin County for the City-owned site at 7516 42nd Avenue North, the former Electronic
Industries site. On July 23, the Hennepin County Board approved funding for the project in the. amount of
$31,125. In June, DTED approved $217,860 for the project. On July 22, the Council passed a resolution
formally authorizing the DTED grant agreement. On August 12, the Council passed a resolution formally
Request for Action
Page 6 ~'_o~. ~
authorizing the Hennepin County grant agreement.
As mentioned previously, the City initiated the grant process in order to expedite the cleanup of the site and
market the property for commercial redevelopment. In the spring of 2000, the City applied for and received a
Contamination Investigation and Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Development Grant from DTED to determine the
extent of contamination, develop a RAP and prepare for the submission of the follow-up DTED cleanup grant.
The RAP was completed during the fall of 2001. The City was funded by DTED in the amount of $217,860,
Hennepin County in the amount of $31,125 and Electronic Industries is responsible for $82,995 (25% match).
The total cleanup costs are estimated at $331,980. At the time of grant submission, the City had received a
proposal for the office condominiums. Using this development proposal, DTED rated New Hope's application
as #1 in the State due to the economic development and job creation potential. Culvers/RSDS came later in
the process and staff suggested that they provide a joint development proposal with the office condominium
developer which they have done.
At the time the contamination was discovered in 1984, the MPCA identified Electronic Industries as the
responsible party. With this designation, Electronic Industries became legally responsible for the investigation
and cleanup of the contaminants. By the eady 1990s, the MPCA and Electronic Industries developed a
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) that identified the stages and timeline for the site cleanup. This RAP called for the
site to be gradually cleaned over a span of 20-30 years. Now that the additional site investigation is complete
and the extent of actual contamination is known, the initial 20-30 year cleanup plan was determined
inadequate as it would take many more years to complete in its present state.
On February 11, 2002, the Council authorized staff to obtain a property appraisal update for 7516 42nd
Avenue North, the former Electronic Industries site for the cleanup grant proposals. Also, the Council
authorized staff to obtain an appraisal update of all three accumulated sites, post-cleanup (7500, 7516 and
7528) to be used for discussions with developers regarding the potential sale and redevelopment of the
property. The accumulated site appraisal was completed on April 22, 2002 and lists the remediated value at
$730,000.
Also on February 11, in order to continue activities toward the cleanup and redevelopment of this site, the
Council approved an updated Request for Proposals (RFP) for the site and authorized staff to distribute the
RFP. The Council approved a similar effort in February 2000. At that time, staff distributed the proposal
information to thirty-eight (38) potential developers. The second time, a specific effort was made to target
Brownfield developers as RFP recipients. Staff sent the updated RFP to one hundred and eighty-five (185)
developers, many with significant Brownfield redevelopment experience. In addition, staff sent the RFP to the
original list developed in 2000,~ for a total of two hundred and twenty-three (223) recipients. The attached
development proposal was received as a result of the RFP effort approved in the spring of 2002.
Staff coordinated with the Hennepin County Assessor's and Property Tax Offices to obtain a preliminary
estimate of taxes for this proposal. The Hennepin County Assessor's Office provided an estimated overall site
value with the improvements and environmental remediation at $1.8 million. Using 2003, tax rates, the
Property Tax Office estimated that overall property taxes would be $71,000 with the City's share being roughly
$12,000 per year.
The Sunshine Factory currently has an agreement in place with the City for parking on the site. That
agreement can be terminated at any time with a sixty (60) day notice. Currently, staff does not believe that the
cleanup activities will interfere with parking on the site. When redevelopment activities near, staff will request a
meeting with the Sunshine Factory to discuss future parking and to terminate the agreement. Staff has notified
"the Sunshine Factory that cleanup grants were funded for the site and that at some point in the near future
parking on the site would no longer be permissible.
Cleanup activities have started. The first two rounds of contamination neutralizing injections and testing took
place in early May and June. The site cleanup should be completed by fall 2003. Redevelopment activities
could begin shortly thereafter.
,O~luest for Action
Page 7 6-23-03
The property is zoned CB, Community Business. The site is properly zoned for both components of this
proposed development. Due to the joint development, shared parking and access and individual ownership of
the office uses, the City Planner has indicated that a PUD would be appropriate in this case.
Although the Council is considering the institution of park dedication fees at tonight's meeting, staff does not
believe that this proposal would be subject to those fees due to the fact that the City has been working with the
developers for the past several months. Other developments that have started prior to the institution of the
park dedication fee that do not require payment include: Woodbridge Senior Cooperative, Plymouth Heights
Pet Hospital and St. Joseph Catholic Church.
FUNDING
The City purchased the three properties including the contaminated property entirely with TIF funds.
Acquisition and demolition costs for all three properties equaled $1,091,709.
The DTED Contamination Cleanup Grant can pay up to 75% of the cost of cleaning up the contamination.
Electronic Industries has agreed to provide the 25% match. The total estimated cost to implement the RAP is
$324,218. Clay investigation costs incurred by Electronic Industries have been included in the overall project
cost at the request of Electronic Industries in the amount of $7,762, increasing the total cost to $331,980.
Electronic Industries is responsible for providing $82,995 in matching funds. DTED has approved $217,860 in
cleanup funding. Additional funding in the amount of $31,125 has been approved by Hennepin County. The
City is not responsible for contributing funds for site cleanup.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the development concept and recommends that the EDA direct staff to prepare a purchase
agreement with the developers. Staff, including the Director of Finance is supportive of the purchase price. If
the EDA directs staff to proceed, staff will bring a purchase agreement back to the EDA for consideration at a
later date.
..A'I-I'AC HMENTS
· Location Map
· Letter of Intent, Culver's Restaurant
· Letter of Intent, Office Condominiums
· Site Plan
· JCS Development, Inc., Correspondence, 10-28-02
· Frey Development, Inc., Correspondence, 1-24-03
· City Engineer Correspondence, 4-28-03
· EDA Minutes 3-10-03
· Diversified Environmental Correspondence, 6-11-03
i';= i-i ~' , : :. . .__
~ .... ~.~o' ~ : ........ ----~: ' ~--'
4- · ~ ~ ~ ~ l
~ ~ :. ,~ ' ~ --.,
~ 4211 ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ t 4217
~' ; ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~
.. . ~--~ ~~~~. : ~- ~ : ~
~ ; ~ ; i 4111 , r ......
,~U~L ~ I ~ i ~--~ ;~,~ '.--.,
· '.'~:..'.~.vl~ ~ } : ~ ~ 1~;~, ~ : ~
.... .: -..~ · , , · ~. O. ~ .
~,.. · , ~ , ~ .- .. , . ~ .~,
,~..,.-..~:,,~.,~ ~,/~,~ ~,~ ~ -- .=~,
. f -~,~ .~. ..~.'~ ~ / %,'"~". ~ ~. * .
' ' ," / i ~ ; ~:~171 '~--~
-"~-_~~-' ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ I ~ : ~.-'~
~ ; ~;z,~. x I ,'~-q _39 alg,...<'~X~'.,.
EDA
R QU] ST FOR ACTION
Originating Depa,i,,,ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 6-23-03 EDA
By: Kirk McDonald and Item No.
Ken Doresk¥ By:
DISCUSSION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR CITY OWNED PROPERTY AT 5501
BOONE AVE. N. AND DIRECTION TO PROCEED (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 749)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting EDA discussion and direction to proceed regarding the attached development proposal
from Project for Pride in Living, Inc. (PPL), for the City-owned site at 5501 Boone Ave. N. The proposal is for
the construction of one seventy (70) unit residential building including thirty-five (35) owner-occupied
condominiums and thirty-five (35) affordable rental units.
Staff believes the proposal is worthy of sedous consideration because it addresses the following development
objectives.
1. Utilizes the entire site (previous proposals have only utilized a portion of the site).
2. Meets the CDBG eligibility requirements, enabling the City to retain the $100,000 of CDBG funds it
utilized to acquire the property (and this issue must be resolved by October 2003).
3. Provides potential extra off-street parking for the Masonic/North Ridge Complex.
4. Replace some existing rental units in the City which will be lost with redevelopment of new units.
5. Pays the City market value for the property, less soil correction costs.
Ifthe EDA is agreeable, staff would like to proceed to work with PPL to better define the project and to present
a more detailed proposal later this summer.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within
the City. The EDA has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the City's many housing
activities, including coordinating with potential developers on the sale and development of City-owned
property.
BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2003, staff received the attached development proposal from PPL for the City-owned site at 5501
Boone Avenue North. The proposal is for the construction of one seventy (70) unit residential building
including thirty-five (35) owner-occupied condominiums and thirty-five (35) affordable rental units. Staff
previously met with PPL on April 28 and June 11 regarding this I:)roposal.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
h\RFA\PLANNING\Housin \5501 Boone\Q - PPL Deveio ment Pro osal.doc
Request for Action Page 2 6-23-03
oThe EDA acquired 5501 Boone Avenue and a portion of the property
.eminent domain proceedings, with the intent to convey the property at 5425 Boone Avenue in 1993, through
to CareBreak for the construction of an
adult day care facility on the site. The total acquisition cost was $376,764 and the City used $100,000 in
CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds towards a portion of the acquisition. In 1995, the City
approved a plan for the construction of an adult day care center on the site and approved a rezoning of the
property from I-1 to R-5, subject to the project proceeding. The project did not proceed, the rezoning did not
take effect, and the land was not conveyed to CareBreak.
In 1997, the City executed a Land Disposition and Third Party Agreement with Hennepin County. The Third
Party Agreement shifted the responsibility/authority for developing the site from the City to the EDA. The
LandDisposition Agreement states that the property must be utilized for the development of an adult day care
facility or some other "CDBG eligible" use. If the property is not utilized for a 'CDBG eligible" use, the CDBG
funds must be repaid to the County or a portion of the land's sale pdce must be paid to the County. In 1999,
Minnesota Masonic Homes, Inc. purchased the North Ridge Care Center and CareBreak was impacted by the
acquisition. In 2000, a three-year extension was granted on the Land Disposition Agreement. The
extension expires in October 2003. CareBreak since indicated that they would not be Proceeding with the
development of an adult day care center on the site. The EDA needs to find a suitable use for this property
and ideally it would be a use that qualified under CDBG guidelines so that those funds could remain in the
project. Staff has contacted Hennepin County and determined that this development, as proposed would
quality as CDIBG eligible.
The PPL Proposal is as follows: The Proposal is for one seventy (70) unit residential building including thirty-
five (35) owner-occupied condominiums and thirty-five (35) affordable rental units.
?roposed DevelopmentJPdcing:
~/For Sale Units
18
8
9
Rental Units
17
9
9
~nits - 70_(_35 ownem~
ce
j s82o
~ .... '-,,,,,o ~'*~u s . ri. $1,036
~: Underground parking will be provided for 94 vehicles. Surface parking spaces for 102 vehicles
(including 63 off-street surface parking spaces to accommodate North Ridge's overflow parking needs). Each
unit will have at least one underground parking space and some of the larger units will have access to two
spaces.
_.Desian Element.~: Although the exact configuration of the building has not yet been determined, the
preliminary design is for a 3-story building with two separate wings (or possible two buildings), one side for
renters and the other for owners. The two sides of the building will share a common lobby, elevator and
management office. Each side will have its own community room on the main level. Universal design
techniques will be employed so that units can be made accessible for people with disabilities.
Si~te Characteristics: The development will, in its design, incorporate the storm water retention pond. in a way
that will create an amenity for the site. Although this site is surrounded primarily by industrial/Manufacturing
uses and is adjacent to the Public Works salt dome, we feel that these challenges can be overcome through
careful planning and analysis and believe that it is appropriate for the Proposed use given the Proximity to
Request for Action
Page 3 6-23-03
other high-density residential uses, access to transit, and its proximity to sources of employment, shop~-qg,
parks, and schools.
Mana.qement: PPL would manage the rental component of the project, the Homeowner Association will
ultimately be responsible for selecting a management company for the ownership units.
Marketinq: PPL will pre-sell 50% of the for-sale units prior to the start of construction. During construction
there will be an on-site marketing office with information on the units, financing options, and down-payment
and closing cost assistance.
Homeownership Financinq: Development costs for the for-sale units will be covered by proceeds from the sale
of units. Actual sales prices for the homeownership units will be determined by the appraised value. Additional
assistance may be available to close affordability gaps and will be secured by subordinate mortgages.
Rental Financin.q: Funding sources for the rental portion of the project are proposed to include tax-exempt
mortgage financing, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit proceeds, State and County deferred loans, and possibly
other public/private funds.
Land Price: PPL intends to buy the land for the appraised value minus the soil corrections (this will be
considered by the funders as a contribution by the City). It is envisioned that the City's CDBG contribution will
stay in the project and the City would recover its investment.
Current Status: Maxfield Research is currently completing a market study. Also, design modifications can be
incorporated into the plan.
Summary: We (PPL) feel that this development will support the City's redevelopment efforts in a number of
ways: by enabling the City to fulfill CDBG requirements, by assisting the City recoup its investment and by
providing quality affordable replacement housing for units that may be displaced near the New Hope Golf
Course."
The Council last discussed this site on June 10, 2002. At that time, LivingWorks Ventures was proposing to
construct a 12-unit supportive housing facility for people with disabilities on this property. The Council
acknowledged the many benefits of the proposal, but due to the fact that it did not utilize the entire site, the
Council suggested that LivingWorks Ventures find a more suitable development site and voted to not proceed
with the project. The June 10, 2002 Council minutes are attached.
On February 11, 2002, the EDA discussed the LivingWorks Ventures concept proposal and directed staff to.
update the property appraisal and contact other agencies for interest in the site in combination with
LivingWorks. As stated previously, no additional agencies were interested in the property at that time,
therefore the Council voted to not proceed with the project. The appraisal was updated by Patchin Messner &
Dodd and the market value of the property as of Apdl 16, 2002, was estimated at $662,000, based on two
important conditions:
1. The property is zoned R-5 "Senior/Disabled" Residential
2. The site is not affected by unstable soil conditions
The purchase price that PPL is offering is consistent with the appraised value of $662,000, but discounts the
purchase price by $285,236 for soil correction and $100,000 for CDBG funds in the project, therefore PPL is
offering $276,764, the original City expense. The soil correction cost and CDBG funds will be considered 'City
Contribution" to the project in funding applications completed by PPg
Staff coordinated with the Hennepin County Assessor's and Property Tax Offices to obtain a 'preliminary
estimate of taxes for this proposal. Please see the following table showing estimated taxes using 2003 tax
rates:
Request for Action
Page 4
6-23~'
Ownersh_~ Units
18
8
9
Rental Units
35
Total City Taxes
Unit Value & Size
3 bdrm-$157,500
4 bdrm-$185,000
$100,000 per unit
Overall Taxes Generated ~s Generated
$701 per unit
$847 per unit
$78,542 per all units
$2, P?? per unit
$2,675 per unit
___.___$10.467
$5.6O8
$7.623
$26,155 per all units i $26,155
i
$49,853i
Ponding has been completed on the northern portion of the site. Ponding requirements could be satisfied
using the existing pond. According to the City Engineer the pond was sized to serve both the Public Works
facility and 5501 Boone Avenue North. Final ponding requirements would need to be resolved.
The property is currently zoned I, Industrial..Surrounding zoning includes: Industrial to the north and south,
public space to the west (Public 'Works-facility), R-5, 'Senior/Disabled" Residential to the east and R-4 High
Density Residential to the southeast. Rezoning to R-.4 or similar high-density zoning would be required to
facilitate this proposal and would be consistent with the surrounding zoning. As stated previously, in 1995, the
City approved a plan for the construction of an adult day care center on the site and approved a rezoning of
the property from I-1 to R-5, subject to the project proceeding. The project did not proceed and the rezoning
did not take effect.
Staff recommends that the EDA direct staff to continue working with PPL on this proposal for the following
reasons:
· The PPL proposal is a CGBG eligible use and Hennepin County would allow the City to retain the
$100,000 in CBG funds utilized for original land acquisition. If a CDBG eligible project is not solidified
by October 2003, the City will be required to pay back the CDBG funds to the County.
· PPL will purchase the property for the City's original purchase expense. PPL is not asking the City to
donate the land.
· The proposal includes thirty-five (35) ownership units, providing additional life-cycle housing options
per the City's Life Cycle Housing Study Prepared in 1997.
· The thirty-five (35) affordable rental units will assist in the replacement of the sixty (60) existing
affordable units that may eventually be displaced at the Livable Communities Area redevelopment site
adjacent to the City's Golf Course. Affordable rental replacement units will be looked upon favorably by
the Metropolitan Council in upcoming grant applications.
· Estimated City taxes of $50,000 per year will be generated by this development based on 2003 tax
rates. Currently, the property is tax exempt.
· The Proposed use is compatible with the zoning of the property to the east and rezoning of the property
would be justifiable.
· The ProPosal includes an additional sixty-two (62) off-street surface parking spaces intended to be
leased to Northridge Care Center to alleviate their parking Problem and parking issues along Boone
Ave. N.
FUNDING
Total acquisition cost was $376,764. The City used $100,000 in CDBG funds towards a portion of the
acquisition.
874~
9401
ml
PUBLIC
WORKS
GARAGE
mi
91ol
NORTH
HOSTERMAN
JR HIGH SCHOOL
RIDGE
APART-
,~, ,-'a~3~' '. ~"-~4~" AVE N . ~:~3~-=a~.~" -~,
~,1117
e~21 MO1
SaM) IsOI
8~Ot
Jt
/
l
/
,,, ?
?
f/
EDA
RE( UEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department
Community Development
By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD
& Ken
Approved for Agenda
6-23-03
Agenda Section
EDA
Item No.
DISCUSSION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR CITY OWNED PROPERTY AT 4317
NEVADA AVE. N. AND PRIVATE PROPERTY AT 4301 NEVADA AVE. N. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
734)
.ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting EDA discussion and direction regarding the attached development proposal from Master
Civil & Construction Engineering, inc., for the City-owned site at 4317 Nevada Ave. N. and the private property
at 4301 Nevada Ave N. The development proposal is for the replacement of two (2) existing single-family
homes with twelve (12) units of market-rate townhomes. Also, the developer is desirous of acquiring the
property to the north, 4415 Nevada Ave. N. for the construction of six (6) additional units.
Staff is supportive of pursuing this proposal in more detail and have indicated to the developer that the next
appropriate steps are:
1. Present concept to EDA for feedback.
2. Deposit the appropriate fees with the City to cover outside consultant expenses.
3. Have Financial Consultant meet with City staff and developers discuss project in more detail and
prepare financial analysis and recommendations.
The developer is agreeable to paying the appropriate fees for a consultant financial analysis.
POLICY/PAST PRACTiC~=
City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential Properties within
the City. The EDA has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the City's many housing
activities, including coordinating with potential developers on the sale and development of City-owned property
in areas designated for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan. The EDA often directs staff to coordinate
with potential developers and the City's financial consultant to investigate feasibility of redevelopment.
.BACKGROUND
On May 22, 2003, staff received the attached development Proposal from Master Civil & Construction
GSR Livable Communities for the Frank's
MOTION BY
SECOND BY
TO:
h\RFA\PLANNINGI ~4317~Q-
Request for Action
Page 2 6-23-03
Nursery site) for the City-owned site at 4317 Nevada Ave. N. and the private property at 4301 Nevada AV~.
The development proposal is for the replacement of two (2) existing single-family homes with twelve (12) [,..,~s
of market-rate townhomes. Also, the developer is desirous of acquinng the property to the north, 4415 Nevada
Ave. N. for the construction of six (6) additional units. The developer agreed to pay the appropriate fee to
explore the proposal with Krass Monroe, the City's Financial Consultant.
On Apdl 28, the Council approved the purchase of 4317 Nevada Ave. N. for the agreed upon price of $83,000.
The Council approved the purchase of the property for residential redevelopment purposes. Currently, staff
and the City Attorney are coordinating with the owner of 4317 Nevada Ave. N. to remedy title issues and close
on the property. Staff expects to close on the property in July or as soon as the owner can remedy title issues.
On November 25, the Council authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the 4317 Nevada Ave N. Also on
November 25, the Council requested that staff to contact the adjacent south (4301 Nevada Ave. N.) and north
(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 residential redevelopment of the combined properties. Up
to this point, staff has not had direct contact with either owner.
The properties are currently zoned R-l, Single Family Residential. Surrounding zoning includes: R-4 High
Density Residential to south and west, R-1 Single Family Residential to the north, Open Space/Public to the
east (Fed Sims Park) and R-1 and R-4 to the southeast. Rezoning to R-4 or similar high-density zoning would
be required to facilitate this proposal and would be consistent with the surrounding zoning.
On Apdl 7, Master Development informed staff that Mr. Doug Gossard, partial owner of 4301 Nevada Ave. N.
recently passed away. Apparently, the developers have a family connection to the owners of the property.
Family members told the developers that the City had requested to Purchase property in the area for
redevelopment. Master indicated to staff that they would attempt to work on the acquisition of both 4301 and
4415 Nevada Ave. N., and then come to the City with a development proposal for owner-occupied townhomes
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. On May 15, staff met with the developer to
discuss a preliminary plan.
On May 22, 2003, staff received the attached development proposal and site plan. The proposal is as follows:
"Thank you for taking the time to meet with our team from Master Development Services and our partner
Armory Development. As you know, we have an interest in developing property in the City of New Hope and
continue to look for opportunities that benefit all parties.
Based on our meeting on May 15, 2003, Master requested a revised plan from our architect. From that plan,
we have developed our financial pro-forma. The revised plan that has been developed only reflects
construction on the parcel of land owned by the Gossard family, 4301 Nevada Ave. N. and the parcel the City
is acquiring, 4317 Nevada Ave. N. (The Developer's plan would include private acquisition of the Gossard
property in exchange for a new townhome unit for Mrs. Gossard.) While we would welcome the opportunity to
acquire the third parcel, there does not seem to be an interest in selling from the current owner at this time.
The revised plan would allow the development to proceed this calendar year and would be comprised of 12
units of market-rate townhomes that range from 1300SF-1700SF. We expect the price points for these units to
be approximately $165,000-$215,000. While a zoning change would be necessary due to the City's current
zoning code, the project would meet all the necessary setback and site requirements. If at some time in the
"future, the third parcel would become available, we could build an additional 6 units of housing.
At this time, the development team would like to proceed on the project but anticipate the need for City
assistance in the process. Due to the cost of land acquisition, demolition and site work, we would need an
anticipated $200,000.00 in City assistance. This cost reflects the development team purchasing the City-
owned parcel for $86,000.
Request for Action Page 3 6-23-03
We believe the proposed project has tremendous value for the City and the surrounding neighborhood. The 12
~units of housing can be expected to produce approximately $30,000 per year in property taxes compared to
'~'the current property taxes of $2,500.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and review our proposed plan and to develop a design
development and financial plan that works for all parties."
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"~ 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
42r= Avenue and 45"' Avenue.
Staff is supportive of pursuing the redevelopment of these properties with this development proposal, but
would like to review the requested City assistance with Krass Monroe, the City's Financial Consultant. Staff
recommends that the EDA authorize staff to pursue this matter further and meet with Krass Monroe and the
developer to discuss financial implications of the project. The developer has agreed to pay the standard City
financial analysis fee. After review, staff would retum to the EDA for further direction.
FUNDING
At this point, staff is considering three options to fund the potential gap request:
1. CDBG: CDBG funds will be used for the acquisition of 4317 Nevada Ave. N. The CBDG funds could be
contributed to the project if the developer were to complete one of the units as affordable to households at
80% median income or below ($56,500 family of four). Total CDBG funds in the project could reach
$100,000 with demolition and site restoration costs. The City could declare the building as a blighted
structure and contribute the CDBG funds to the Project without requiring that one of the units be
affordable. Staff will vedfy the proper use of CDBG funds with Hennepin County.
2. TIF: Staff will also investigate the possibility of extending the 42n~ Avenue North TIF district to include the
subject properties.
3. Loan: Staff will investigate loan and mortgage options for repayment.
ATTACHMENTS
· Location Map
· Topographic Map
· Zoning Map
· Development Proposal, May 22, 2003
· Site Plan
· Comprehensive Plan References
4425
440!
43O9
'W£ N
4700
463O
460O
4550 :
· 474~ , 4749
474-~ '
-,7~
· 47~' ' 4732 4713
4725 ..............
............ 4724 472~
47~ 4,o, ~i
4~7 4656 4657 --~ .............
4641
4625 '0,
· .~ ....... ;__ __
~f7
4601
4549
4541
4533
4525
4517
'~' :;';; ...... .-::'- ii;
' 4548 ............
~ 4540
: 4532 4533
4524 · 4525
4500 ' 4509
471H AVE' N
: ,,5m :.- .............. ~: 45TH ' : AVE N'
;- ...................... 2~L~'.;, ......................................
· 4424
43RD
' 4230..
4224
......... : 7240
· 4220
: 7220
' 42~6 ! 7200
4215
7140
t 4~'T~'-'~' -'' 4225
....... -;- -.--' 4221
--' ~ ; 4217
i L..,_ ' 421.~ -
: ................. :'~-'*'--.: ~40~i **""'~:-, .... .**
'L.
~flSTER
Lsq'
TI.~H~E ~ 612.
' /
ILl
1
u~rr c
I
EDA
Originating DepaJ~[hent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 6-23-03 EDA
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald By:
MOTION ACKNOWLEDGING EXPIRATION OF LETi'ER OF INTENT WITH BROOKSTONE, INC. AND
AGREEMENT TO CONTINUE COORDINATION ON INFORMAL BASIS
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends that the Economic Development Authority approve a motion acknowledging the expiration
of the Letter of Intent with Brookstone, Inc. and agree to continue coordination with them on an informal basis
for the potential future redevelopment of the City Center Area.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
In the past, the Economic Development Authority has approved letters of agreement to coordinate with
specific developers on specific sites.
BACKGROUND
At the July 22, 2002, New Hope Economic Development Authority meeting, the EDA passed a resolution
approving a Letter of Intent to work collaboratively with Brookstone, Inc. on the potential redevelopment of the
City Center area. The Letter of Intent included the following key points:
· The Letter of Intent requires no payment from the city to the developer and simply states that the two
parties agree to work together over the next 12 months to develop plans, in conjunction with a task force
for the potential redevelopment of the City Center area.
· The New Hope Economic' Development Authority hereby grants Brookstone, Inc. an exclusive dght to
negotiate with the city for the redevelopment of all or a portion of the City Center area for a period of 12
months, based upon moving forward collaboratively on the attached timeline and work Program.
· It is understood that if the parties are reasonably satisfied at the end of one year that the Letter of Intent
may be extended or a formal agreement entered into, if appropriate.
· The specific goal for redevelopment will be a broadly based mixed use project, including a variety of
housing types and mixed use commercial, and to establish an inviting pedestrian friendly, village
environment that has a strong gathering place attraction.
· Both parties agree that they will work together in a collaborative manner, but have distinct responsibilities
within the joint venture effort.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
! RFA~planmng~ity ~
: ' center~q-t)rookstone Loft ex,mm
Request for Action Page 2 6-23-03
· It is understood and agreed that the city will take financial responsil:~ility to initiate the items included in the
workplan.
It is understood that Brookstone will be responsible for providing input on planning and financial matters,
will have no direct financial responsibility and will be paid no fees for their effort.
Since the Letter was executed, the City Center Task Force was appointed and Brookstone, Inc. has served as
an unpaid consultant on the 'staff/consultant team" assisting the task force. Brookstone has provided valuable
assistance in giving the 'developers perspective."
Both Brookstone and city staff are aware that the current letter will expire in July. Both realize that the
redevelopment process will be complicated and involve many parties. While both staff and Brookstone desire
to continue the cooperative working relationship on potential redevelopment opportunities, neither feel it is
necessary to extend the current Letter of Intent.
Brookstone has submitted the attached letter stating: '1 am writing with reference to our June 7, 2002, Letter of
Intent with regard to working together on the redevelopment of 42n~ and Winnetka. I am pleased to have had
the opportunity to work with the city over this period of time and have enjoyed providing input and being a
collaborative part of the efforts to define this project in more exact terms and to create the opportunity for this
major redevelopment to move forward.
I understand that these kinds of Processes are extremely complex and often take longer than anticipated and
wish to continue to work together to bring something to fruition. At this point rather than extending the Letter of
Intent I would simply request a good faith understanding that Brookstone, Inc. will be given the first opportunity
to negotiate with the city on some kind of development position with regard to a part or all of the
redevelopment depending upon its makeup at a future date. It is my very clear understanding that for the
development to be successful it will require the involvement of a number of developers and so my exact future
role is very difficult to pinpoint at this time. I simply want to move forward with flexibility in mind and ultimately
do what is in everyone's best interest.
I would appreciate your response. A simple letter indicating your concurrence would be appreciated and we
can move forward working together in the same manner that we have."
Staff recommends that the EDA approve a motion acknowledging the expiration of the Letter of Intent and
agree to continue to coordinate on an informal basis with Brookstone, Inc. on potential redevelopment
opportunities in the City Center' area.
.A. TTACHMENT.~
· 6/17/2003 Brookstone Correspondence
· Original Letter of Intent and Resolution
· City Center Map
NEW HOPE CITY CENTER STUDYARF~
K-~tart
'.'Ge~:~seman~
//
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
CITY CENTER TASK FORCE MINUTES June 12, 2003
City Hall, 5:00 p.m.
Welcome Mr. Kirk McDonald called the City Center Task Force meeting to order at
5:10 p.m.
Attendance Task Force
Absent:
Consultants:
Absent:
Staff:
Absent:
Brinkman, Friedricksen, Johnson, Haugstad, Landy, Lange,
McKinney, Rodquist, Tiffany, Velazquez
Collins, Mack, Rappaport
Brixius, Gourlay, Hanson, Johnson, Martin, Martens
None
Kirk McDonald, Jerry Beck, Pamela Sylvester, Erin Seeman
None
Update
Mr. Kirk McDonald reported that Mr. Rappaport would be unable to
participate in any upcoming meetings and staff would be asking Mr.
Akarabi, a co-owner of Winnetka Center, whether or not he would be able to
serve on the task force.
McDonald stated that city staff would be preparing development grants to be
submitted to the Metropolitan Council to assist in acquisition, demolition and
relocation costs for remaining properties on the East Winnetka site, Bass
Lake Road Apartments, and the Park Acres North site.
McDonald also mentioned that the city is proceeding with the Culvers and
office condominium project at 42nd and Quebec avenues. The city hopes to
have an all clear letter from the MPCA in the fall of this year.
Ms. Aimee Gourlay stated that the next meeting would be held on July 10
with an open house possibly held in August or September. The Planning
Commission and City Council would then review the plans and information
in October, after which the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code would to
be amended. Late in the year, developers would be selected fOr the site,
followed by a final task force meeting in December.
She stated that at this meeting the task force would review financial
information and give feedback on the concept plans handed out at the May
meeting.
Financial Overview
Mr. Geogg Martin, planner with Dahlgren, Schardlow & Uban, reviewed the
concept plans with the task force. He stated that the pond on the southeast
quadrant could have an impact on the placement of any residential or
commercial buildings. There was some discussion on the property at 42"~
and Quebec avenues and the desire to incorporate streetscape
improvements with that property.
A question was raised as to the definition of stacked fiats, which was
explained to be a one-level apartment style condominium.
Mr. Greg Johnson, financial consultant with Krass Monroe, explained the
financial implications of several scenarios of development. He reviewed
current assessed values compared to proposed redeveloped assessed
values, taking into account the square footages of commercial properties, the
density for residential, and acquisition, demolition, relocation, structured
parking, etc. for each of the concept plans.
Concept A proposed redeveloping 26.1 acres at the northwest comer of the
intersection at 42"~ and Winnetka avenues, including demolition of Kmart,
McDonalds, and Winnetka Center, and construction of 76,000 square feet of
commercial and 373 housing units on the site. This would leave a plus of
approximately $770,000. Concept B consists of 31.5 acres on the same site,
however, it would also include the demolition of the New Hope Mall. The new
development would consist of 268,000 square feet of commercial/office and
373 units of mixed housing units. This proposal would leave a deficit of
approximately $8.3 million. Concept C would also include demolition of all
existing buildings to be replaced with 222,000 square feet of commercial and
512 housing units. The deficit on this concept would be approximately $11
million. Johnson explained that a major expense in concepts B and C was the
structured parking.
Concept A for the southeast quadrant of 42n~ and Winnetka avenues consists
of 16.8 acres and includes the school distdct administration offices and bus
garage. The site would be developed with 42,000 square feet of retail/office
space and 330 housing units. This concept would generate approximately
$3.7 million. Concept B proposed to replace the existing buildings with a big
box retail, 175,000 square feet, as well as some smaller retail/office, 46,400
square feet, along 42n~ Avenue. This concept would result in a deficit of
approximately $3.3 million.
Small Group Feedback
City Center Task Force
Ms. Gouday asked for comments from the small group discussions which
included: consider adding entertainment of some sort, like a theater, a smaller
grocery store like a Kowalski's, focus on creating life cycle housing to draw
young people and retain long-time residents, be future thinking, not immediate
or band-aid fixes, consider moving park and develop density in housing in
current Civic Center Park and keep the pool, do something to create an
identity to New Hope to change the "no hope" image, appealing to young
people is extremely important, people want new housing and retail (Maple
Grove) or redeveloped housing and retail (Golden Valley, St. Louis Park) to
compete, offer proximity to city and life-cycle housing (where we are lacking
according to studies), do development in phases, provide incentive and
money to refurbish New Hope Mall if not tearing it down.
Additional discussion items included: Concept A considering renovating the
New Hope Mall and making it two stodes, keep the transit plaza, no
consensus on big box, upscale grocery store or whole food or ethnic foods.
There was some concem on big box type retail and the possibility of increased
cdme. A question was raised as to whether other retailers would lease space
if there was no big box to draw the public or does New Hope need the big box
to draw people to shop in the other retail stores. The city would need to take
into account whether a grocery was included with a big box retailer, and if so,
would a Kowalski's be interested. The development should target an audience
to live and shop in the area.
The consensus was that there was concern on whether a big box retailer
would be compatible with and benefit the smaller retail/office space. Question
was raised as to what type of smaller retail stores would fit well with a big box
retailer. The task force determined that it would present two plans at the open
house, one with a big box concept and one without.
Discussion ensued on making the new park larger and incorporating housing
at Civic Center Park, since this park is a little farther away from the new
redevelopment area. There was some discussion on incorporating the pool
area with a fitness club to be utilized all year. Staff stressed that Civic Center
Park served the entire community and not just the new redevelopment area. It
was also mentioned that if the land had been donated/dedicated to the city, it
June 12,2003
AdJournment
could only be used for a park. It wes recommended that a stronger connection
be made between the City Center area and the existing pool/park area.
Additional suggestions included extending the northwest redevelopment area
at 42n~ and Winnetka farther east to Quebec Avenue, include more housing
near the transit pln:,~ area and remove some of the retail, make a better
connection to the park, move existing theatre to the new amphitheatre area in
the new park, change pool area to be year round facility with fitness, and big
box entertainment on the southeast comer.
Ms. Gouday suggested another task force meeting in August to review revised
plan prior to the open house.
The City Center Task Force meeting adjoumed at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sytvester
Recording Secretary
City Center Task Force
3 June 12, 2003
7610 Bass Lake Road - 11 Unit Apartment Building Rehabilitation
Back.qround
Rehabilitation activities are currently underway at the l 1-unit apartment building located at 7610 Bass
Lake Road and are expected to be complete by the end of 2003. Eight of the 11 apartment units are
vacant (Flannery Construction, the general contractor, is currently using one of the vacant units as its on-
site construction office). The vacant units will remain unoccupied until rehabilitation work on the building
interior is completed.
As you may be aware, the City has been coordinating with Project for Pride in Living (PPL) on the
and rehabilitation of the subject property. This property was identified in the City's
Comprehensive Plan as a top priority for rehabilitation. To fulfill this goal, the City Council has
pursuing the rehabilitation of this property for the past few years.
An open house was held in August 2002 at New Hope City Hall to discuss the project with neighboring
property owners. No negative comments about the rehabilitation project were received at the open
house.
Projects of this size normally require a variety of funding partners and the expertise of an experienced
development agency, such as PPL. In the past, the City has participated in similar collaborations
PPL, most recently with the successful Bass Lake Court Townhomes redevelopment project located at
7300-7394 Bass Lake Road.
The project at 7610 Bass Lake Road will include complete rehabilitation of the building's exterior and
interior, as well as, several site improvements:
Exterior: The building exterior will be completely renovated, including: painting, repair or
replacement of the sOffit, fascia, gutters and downspouts, exterior and doors, as needed, repair of
brick and mortar, and replacement of roof and all windows.
Interior: The interior work will include updating the existing units in their present configuration.
New cabinets, counters and appliances will be provided in the kitchens. The plumbing and
electrical will be updated. The boiler will be replaced. The walls will be repaired and painted and
new carpet will be installed throughout.
Site Improvements: The landscaping will be improved, a playground added, the drive expanded
and resurfaced, the walkways repaired, and garages constructed for each unit (please see the
attached site plan).
PPL currently has a management office at the Bass Lake Court Townhomes, located less than two
blocks from the subject site. Management of the 7610 Bass Lake Road property will be administered
from the Bass Lake Court Townhomes office. All prospective tenants will be carefully screened: each
must have a good rental history and pass the required credit and cdminal background checks.
(continued on back)
6/13/03
Pr~ectBulletin
Page 2
June 13,2003
The front and rear entrance doors to the property are now locked, and thus are accessible only to
residents and contractors. An intercom system will be added as part of the renovation that will allow
visitors to "buzz" the tenant in the apartment that they are visiting. This system, however, will not be
installed for at least two months.
Site Upkeep
The building is owned by PPL. PPL will maintain the site. As a neighboring property owner, if you notice
any suspicious activity on the property, please contact the New Hope Police Department at 911 anytime,
day or night.
Construction Hours
When needed, construction activities may occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends and holidays. All work will take place during
these hours.
Contacts
If you have questions or comments, do not hesitate to contact one of the following:
· Project for Pride in Living:
Bill Flaig, Project Manager, 612-874-3335, bill.flaig@ppl-inc.org.
Chris Wilson, Development Manager, 612-874-3314, chris.wilson@ppl-inc.org.
Bass Lake Court Property Management Office, 763-531-1908 (Office Hours are typically Tuesdays,
Wednesdays, and Thursdays, from 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.)
· City of New Hope:
Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, 763-531-5137, kdoresky@ci.new-hope.mn.us.
· Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, 763-531-5119, kmcdonald@ci.new-hope.mn.us.
The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents and businesses in the area that may be impacted by
this project. Additional bulletins will be sent to you as the project progresses. Thank you for your
cooperation. Neighboring property owners will be notified as the redevelopment process proceeds.
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428
Jun. 2. 2005 9:28AM BLUMENTALS ARCHITECTURE D BARN No.4544 ~. z ....
JEU)
EXIST. ~UI=='LEX
EXI51'.
TO P-.EMAIN
,4,C..C;. 6PACE
U J/51C.~
~ ~p' e ,B'-~J"
AISLE
CURE~
~1'-~" G=ARAJ~
A~ON
51-lIFT
NEW
22'-~"
-0" ~ATE
SEE DETAIL
E/W
IN
ALL(
UJA4.L
GATE
U J/ENTFR¥
,~ EXl6T.
HIGH I='OINT
I J J/
TO
SITE
EAST
W. ESA55 LAKE
-..(~51TEPLAN
Blumentais/Architecture inc
PROJECT NAME
PPL - 7610 W BASS LAKE RD
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
III I
~ C,N='TNN
JFK
z~6/03/03
N
PRO~ NO.
602-26
E~UE DATE
7/'1/02
SI-IT. NO.
A101
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 3 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
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, Oelkers, O'Brien,
Svendsen
Anderson
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Vince
VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS
There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC02-12 and 03-04
Item 4.1
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for Preliminary
Plat for Parish Community of St. Joseph to Subdivide Parcel, Site/Building
Plan Review, and Conditional Use Permit for Church Expansion and Shared
Parking, 8701 36th Avenue North, Church of St. Joseph, Petitioner.
Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, stated that Church of St. Joseph was
located at the comer of 36~h and Boone avenues. A single family residential
area, known as the Kimball Addition is located directly to the west, an
elementary school to the south, and single family residential across both 36th
and Boone avenues to the east and north, respectively. The application is for
an expansion of the existing church and a preliminary plat that would
subdivide the parcel into one lot and one outlot. The site is zoned R-1 which
allows churches by conditional use permit. The second conditional use permit
requested is for shared parking with Sonnesyn Elementary School. Outlot A is
intended to be sold for a future subdivision off of 35th Avenue. Lot 1 exceeds
the lot area standard. The total area consists of 8.9 acres and the lot width
exceeds 300 feet. A number of issues were raised on the overall plat with
regard to drainage and utility easement. The ponding area would be sized to
handle all of the storm water drainage from the church and would be
constructed in conjunction with the city. Easements are proposed along the
perimeter of the proposed plat. The city requested a five foot utility easement
to be extended along the southem property line. Proper rights-of-way have
been dedicated for both Boone and 36th avenues as part of the subdivision.
Any church expansion is required to obtain a conditional use permit
amendment. The request was for new construction of approximately 15,420
square feet, expanding the total building to a total of 43,501 square feet. The
existing building is 30 years old. The church currently provides four worship
services, one on Saturday night and three on Sunday for approximately 1800
families in the High Hall. The purpose of the expansion is to provide adequate
space for youth activities. Currently, the High Hall is used for multiple activities
and chairs need to be rearranged for each event. A new worship hall is being
proposed to be connected to the existing building on the west to
accommodate seating for 950 people. The proposal for Lot 1 meets all
performance standards for lot area, width and height. The steeple rises above
35 feet, but is not considered roof height. The building meets all required
setbacks. Four access points are being proposed .to access the existing
parking. There was one change in the curb cut on 36t~ Avenue as part of the
36th Avenue improvement project. With the proposed expansion, 317 parking
stalls would be required per code. Proposed stalls on site would be 264 and
adding 106 shared parking stalls at the elementary school would bring the
total to 370. With regard to ADA stalls, eight are required and 12 stalls are
shown on the plan. All parking meets the dimensional requirements of the city.
Brixius stated that the church would be adding additional foundation plantings
around the perimeter of the new sanctuary. The size, type, and number of
plantings should be provided for the entire site. There currently is a major
concern with the grading and storm sewer treatment along the west side of
the property, adjacent to the Kimball Addition. Many mature trees provide a
vegetative screen between the two properties, and upon removal of the trees
during construction, the applicant should replace this screening with over-story
trees to soften the appearance of the building and to restore a portion of the
vegetation.
The elevations of the building indicate that the new addition would
complement the existing structure. The north and east elevations for the
sanctuary would include a mix of concrete panels, stone veneer, metal siding,
metal coping, aluminum curtain walls and glass. The south and west sides
would include a mix of concrete wall, precast concrete panels, metal siding,
metal coping, and glass with prefinished metal louvers. The metal siding is
proposed to be architectural metal copper or powdered coated bronze with
vertical joists that would simulate the neighborhood wood battens. Brixius
stated the police department recommended lighting at the north exist of the
sanctuary addition. All lighting on the site would meet city requirements and
not exceed one foot candle at the property line. The applicant would not be
changing any signage. Fire department access has been provided around the
building, as well as a fire hydrant for water supply on the south side of the
building. A fire department lock box would be required on the southeast comer
or front side of the building.
Mr. Vince Vander Top, assistant city engineer, stated that St. Joseph's Church
has been very responsive to the engineering and public works issues.
VanderTop stated that city staff would continue to work with the church on
several issues. In the city's Surface Water Management Plan, the area behind
and to the southwest of St. Joseph's Church was identified as a regional
ponding area. It is the confluence of several different storm water streams. On
the south end of the property, from Boone Avenue there is a storm sewer that
comes from Hidden Valley Park and flows along the south property line into
the ravine. Water from the area around 35th would also flow toward that
regional ponding area. The water would flow from this pond toward 36th
Avenue and eventually to Northwood Lake. All of this area is part of the
Bassett Creek Watershed system and the improvements are part of the
Surface Water Management Plan and Bassett Creek's 2n" Generation
Watershed Plan. St. Joseph's Church identified a small pond that would take
care of its own site requirements. A preliminary regional pond design has
been proposed, however, there was some concern on the closeness to the
church building and how it related to the future residential on Outlot A. The
regional pond would take care of the church's requirements as well as the
water quality requirements for the future residential area and appropriate
regional requirements. VanderTop stated the church had identified the
infrastructure and the expense of capturing the water from the front parking lot
in a storm sewer and routing it around the building to the storm water pond.
VanderTop indicated that no changes were proposed for the sanitary sewer
service. The water service would be upgraded. In looking ahead to the new
residential development on Outlot A, the city identified the need for a looped
water main connection between 35~ and Ensign and Boone avenues, which is
Planning Commission Meeting 2 June 3, 2003
shown on the plans. This would accomplish an improved water service, allows
the chumh to install a fire hydrant on the south side of the building, and would
loop through the proposed residential area. Without the loop, maintaining
adequate water pressure would be a concern. VanderTop stated that since
the loop would serve future residential properties, there was some concern
this would be a public water main on private property, and the plat should
indicate an easement. The city would coordinate with the church during the
construction of its water main, and construct the public water main along the
south property line easement area.
No transportation issues were cited with the existing accesses. The north
driveway access was reconstructed with the city's 36 Avenue improvement
project.
Brixius stated that a second conditional use permit was for shared parking
with Sonnesyn Elementary School. The proximity of the shared parking must
be within 300 feet of the facility. There would not be a conflict in hours
between the church and school. A recordable document must be submitted
for the shared parking. Brixius stated that a Use and Hold Harmless
Agreement had been received by the city and executed by both parities. The
city attorney indicated that this agreement was not a recordable document.
Another issue was the specific time period for use that extended from May 1,
2004, to May 31, 2010, and what happens after expiration or cancellation by
either party.
Brixius stated that staff was recommending approval of both conditional uses
and the plat, subject to the conditions listed in the planning report.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned whether the storm water from the
school's property would flow into the new regional pond. VanderTop replied
that the school had recently reconstructed the north parking lot and added a
new parking lot to the south. Water from the new parking lot flows toward the
Hidden Valley pond. Water from the north parking lot flows into a storm
scepter which discharges into the storm sewer and into the new pond.
Ultimately, all the water would flow into the new pond.
Svendsen wondered about the Kimball Addition water main and was told that
water main terminated at the cul-de-sac.
Mr. John Olson, business administrator for St. Joseph's Church, came
forward to answer questions. He informed the Commission that their architect
had updated information on the fire hydrant, and indicated that the timeframe
on the agreement with the school district for use of the parking lot was
because by the time the agreement expired the church expected to have
additional on-site parking constructed. Commissioner Buggy stated that the
agreement with the school was for Sunday services only and wondered about
parking for Saturday evening or special services or holidays where there
would be a need for additional parking. Olson concurred that Easter and
Christmas may need to be added to the agreement, but attendance on
Saturday evenings was lower and the existing church parking was ample.
Svendsen complemented the applicant on the plans and stated he
appreciated the fact that the church had complied with the suggestions of the
Design and Review Committee. He mentioned the petitioner had
acknowledged they would paint any new and existing HVAC units to match,
and would connect the sidewalk on the north side to 36th Avenue.
Mr. Richard Sturman, BWBR Architects, came forward to correct one
comment about the fire hydrant. The fire inspector recommended moving the
hydrant toward the south parking lot for easier access for the fire department.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 June 3, 2003
Commissioner Brauch questioned where the church could provide additional
parking when the agreement with the school expired. Sturman responded that
the two buildings at the comer of 36th and Boone avenues are currently utilized
for offices and occasional meeting rooms. The master plan of the church
indicated that when the sanctuary construction was completed, additional
funds would be procured to construct additional offices and meeting rooms in
the existing building, the two buildings at the northeast corner would be
demolished. There may be some additional space adjacent to the south
parking lot to allow for expansion as well.
Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attomey, reported that the Use and Hold Harmless
Agreement would not satisfy the city code. He stated he was concerned that
the city approve the development and current parking arrangement, based
upon proposed future parking expansion. In the past, the city has required a
proof of parking type of restrictive covenant that has been placed on the
property that would require the applicant to construct parking at the request of
the city in the event the city concluded parking was a problem and was
needed. This would be associated with a variance for parking at this time with
the proof of parking recorded against the property and to be implemented in
the future, if needed. If the city would accept this document and approve a
conditional use permit for off-site parking to avoid entering into a variance
agreement, then the current document would need to take the form of a
license agreement that would be permanent in nature and would allow the
church to satisfy the parking requirements. Mr. Oison stated that the church
would be agreeable to signing such an agreement.
Chairman Landy questioned whether the parish had secured funds for the
expansion. Olson indicated that the capital campaign had concluded and they
were negotiating with a bank and another financial institution to secure the
loan for the project.
Commissioner Buggy questioned the timeline for selling the outlot for
development. Olson replied that once the plat had been recorded they would
begin to market the property, and hopefully could negotiate a purchase with a
developer sometime this fall.
Landy asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission.
Mr. Brian Gilbert, 3532 Decatur Court, came forward. He asked when the
dead trees and other debris along the west property line would be cleaned up.
Olson stated he was not sure who was responsible for cleaning up the ditch
area, but the church would do whatever it could do. VanderTop indicated that
the ravine between Decatur Court and the church is where the city would be
constructing a storm sewer and connecting to the storm sewer under 36th
Avenue. During that project, the area would be cleaned up.
There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Brauch, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen to
close the Public Hearing on Planning Cases 02-12 and 03-04. All voted in
favor. Motion carried.
Commissioner Oelkers wondered if the future demolition of the buildings at
the corner of 36th and Boone avenues would have any affect on the plat and
was told that it would not, as buildings are not shown on the final plat. The city
attorney stated that the city would require a commitment for title insurance to
insure that the title for the easements the city was requiring were secure.
Planning Commission Meeting 4 June 3, 2003
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to
approve Planning Cases 02-12 and 03-04, Request for Preliminary Plat
for Parish Community of St. Joseph to Subdivide Parcel, Site/Building
Plan Review, and Conditional Use Permit for Church Expansion and
Shared Parking, 8701 36th Avenue North, Church of St. Joseph,
Petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
1. Enter into Development Agreement with City and provide bond for
site improvements (amount to be determined by City Engineer and
Building Official).
2. Comply with City Engineer recommendations on plat and plans.
3. Comply with City Attorney plat recommendations.
4. Approval by Building Official.
5. Approval by West Metro Fire District.
6. Preliminary plat is to be revised to show a five-foot utility easement
along the southern lot line as well as a utility easement over the
looped water main to the south of the building.
7. Submittal of a signed, recordable joint parking agreement between
the church and District 281, subject to the approval of the City
Attorney.
8. Submittal of a tree preservation plan including a listing of the
number, type, and dimensions of replacement trees.
9. Provision of evidence of title or commitment for title insurance
establishing church's ability to convey easements to City.
10. Planning Commission waive review of final plat.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers,
Svendsen
None
Anderson
Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council
on June 9 and advised the petitioner to attend.
PC03-06
Item 4.2
Planning Commission Meeting
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.2, Request for Conditional
Use Permit and Site/Building Plan Review, 9200 49~ Avenue North, Pierce
Fleming/Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital/City of New Hope, Petitioners.
Mr. Ken Doresky, community development specialist, stated the petitioner was
requesting a conditional use permit to allow an animal kennel in an Industrial
zoning district and site/building plan review to allow construction of a new
7,480 square foot veterinary clinic at 9200 49~ Avenue. The site is zoned
industrial, with industrial uses to the north, east and west, and residential
properties to the south across 49~ Avenue. The site area contains
approximately 1.86 acres. The property is currently owned by the city, and the
city is selling the southern 2/3rds of the property to Dr. Pierce Fleming for the
pet hospital. The city will retain ownership of the northern portion of the
property for regional ponding. The lot split of the property would be
accomplished through an administrative permit. The Comprehensive Plan
states that the primary goal in planning district #3 is the preservation and
enhancement of its industrial land uses by promoting industrial infill
development on the remaining vacant parcels on 49th Avenue. The building
area would be 9.7 percent of the lot, the green area would be 66.5 percent
and the paved area would be 24.3 percent.
Doresky reported that in 1997 the city purchased this vacant 2.8 acre
industrial property because the site was identified in the New Hope Surface
Water Management Plan as a future site for a water quality pond to improve
5 June 3, 2003
the water quality of the large wetland north of and adjacent to the site. The city
acquiredthe site to have control over the future development of the site and
had been interested in a potential joint-cooperative development where a
development could occur in conjunction with the installation of a water quality
pond. Over the years, the Council considered several potential developments,
but until now a development proposal had not moved forward due to the poor
soils on the site. Soil correction would be a component of this project and was
taken into account with the purchase agreement.
Last summer the Planning Commission and City Council approved plans to
relocate Ahrens Trucking to this site, however, that proposal did not proceed.
At the April 24 City Council meeting, the Council conducted a public hearing
for the sale of the southern portion of the property to the Plymouth Heights Pet
Hospital. The closing of the property would take place on or before July 31.
Doresky reported that the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital submitted a proposal
to construct a new veterinary clinic and animal kennel. The kennel would be
allowed by conditional use permit in an industrial district. A future city
facilitated storm water pond would be located behind the proposed
development. The pet hospital would like to begin construction this summer
and the city would the construct the regional pond in the winter, because
excavation is easier when the ground in the wetland is frozen.
The petitioner submitted a narrative indicating that controlled drugs would be
kept in two different double lock safes, which would be in a hidden area and
would contain most of the stock of controlled drugs. A smaller safe would be
in the treatment area stocking only what would be needed for short periods of
time. Logs are kept for each safe noting drugs, volume or counts removed
and the initials of those dispensing the drugs. Keys would be available to a
limited number of employees. No chemicals are kept on the premises. After
hours security would include motion detectors and would be monitored by a
24-hour security service. The service would also monitor smoke and heat
detectors. Office hours are Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.,
Saturday, 8 a.m. to noon, and Sunday 5 to 6 p.m. for boarder discharge only.
Current staff includes approximately 30 full and part-time positions.
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and only one
property owner stopped at city hall to review at the plans.
Doresky stated that the purpose of a conditional use permit was to provide the
city with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in
determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare,
public health, and safety. In making this determination the city may consider
the nature of adjoining land or buildings, similar uses already in existence and
located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon
traffic, and any other factors the Planning Commission deemed necessary.
The CUP should comply with the following criteria: 1) That the proposed
action is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, 2) is compatible with
adjacent land uses, 3) conforms with all performance standards contained in
the code, and 4) no depreciation in value. Specific criteria for the industrial
district include: 1) the use would not have an adverse effect upon existing
development, and 2) the use would provide an economic return to the
community.
Doresky pointed out that at the May Planning Commission and City Council
meetings, an ordinance was approved allowing commercial animal kennels
and animal day care facilities as conditional uses in the industrial zoning
district, subject to the 11 criteria listed in the ordinance. An exemption in the
ordinance, states that a veterinary clinic that boards 10 animals or fewer are
Planning Commission Meeting 6 June 3, 2003
permitted uses in this district. Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital intends to board
more than 10 animals at a time.
The Design and Review Committee met with the petitioners and revised plans
were submitted as a result of that meeting.
Doresky stated that the proposed right of way along 49th Avenue measured 35
feet with a five-foot street easement. The 20-foot drainage and utility
easement was reduced to 15 feet including the expanded right-of-way. All
building setbacks comply with the city code. Required parking is 25 stalls and
29 are provided on the ~lan. Two ADA stalls are shown on the plan. The
primary access off of 49"' Avenue is directly across from Erickson Drive and
would be 24 feet wide. The driveway shall be constructed to a nine-ton design
standard to accommodate city access to the regional pond. Snow storage has
been specified on the site plan. A permanent easement description must be
provided for city access to the drainage pond. The portion of the access drive
located within the permanent city easement shall be a green driveway design.
The site plan identifies a 20-foot temporary access easement to the city along
the eastern side of the property. The trash container will be stored in a trash
enclosure and wheeled out on collection day. The enclosure would be a 6-foot
high screen wall with lap siding similar to the building. The gate will be chain
link with slats. The fire department connection would be located on the west
side of the building, approximately 70 feet from the southwest comer of the
building. There would be B612 curb and gutter around the parking lot with a
portion of it tip-out to allow for drainage. Lap siding is proposed around the
entire building with masonry veneer along the building base. The boarding
area at the northern portion of the building is constructed of rock faced
concrete masonry. Asphalt shingles would be placed on the roof. The building
would include a sprinkling system. HVAC units would be painted to match the
building. The plans show a future roof panel over the dog runs on the northern
portion of the building.
The landscape plan shows a total of 112 new plantings on the site. Sod would
be placed along the nine-foot strip on both sides of the entryway and on the
edge of each front parking lot and along 49th Avenue. Prairie grass seed
would be placed on all disturbed areas not receiving sod, and all sod and
planting beds would be irrigated. Several trees would remain undisturbed on
the site. The majority of the undisturbed site is on the southwest portion of the
property. The plan indicates tree protection lines with 32 trees to be retained.
The proposed water main has been relocated to preserve as many trees as
possible. Doresky stated that the planning consultant was recommending the
applicant provide four additional spruce trees to provide a full screening effect
at the northwest property line.
The building elevation displays two wall signs, one near the primary entrance
and another along the western comer of the building. Two wall signs are
permitted provided they do not exceed 250 square feet or 15 percent of the
front building facing. One monument sign with a masonry base and
approximately nine feet in height would be placed near the entrance. A
directional sign would be placed along the internal driveway to direct people to
either the hospital or boarding areas. Both signs meet the 10-foot setback
requirement. Lighting details were provided and show three 30-foot pole lights
around the parking lot perimeter. The lighting plan indicates foot-candle
contours at the property line.
The CUP criteria states that the facility's minimum size should be 75 square
feet per dog and 20 square feet per cat. The floor plan indicates compliance
with the requirement. Based on the proposed 27 dogs and 15 cats, the
petitioner would need to provide a minimum of 2,325 square feet of space and
the plans indicate 3,150 square feet of space provided. The plans show the
Planning Commission Meeting 7 June 3, 2003
building would also provide a waiting room, reception area, records area,
pharmacy, treatment area, four exam rooms, a consultant room, exercise
room, lab, x-ray room, two accessible restrooms, a break room, surgery area,
office, separate feline and canine rooms and a kitchen. The boarding area
would include a boarding reception area, a separate cat area, 12 luxury
boarding suites, and 16 standard suites, with seven dog runs to the rear of the
property.
Mr. VanderTop, city engineer, explained that this site contains poor soils on
the front of the property. The applicant has moved the building back from 49th
Avenue to avoid the poor soils, and yet allow enough room for the city to
construct the regional pond. This application includes a small pond for its own
storm water runoff. Since this property had been reviewed by Shingle Creek
Watershed in the past, a review for this application was not required.
VanderTop would be inquiring of the Watershed to determine if the small pond
was necessary and have the applicant discharge the storm water directly into
the regional pond. The water main along 49th Avenue would be reconstructed
to allow for the pet hospital to stub its water service to this line. The city had
required the driveway access be directly across from Erickson Drive, which is
shown on the plans. There is a sanitary sewer lift station at the southwest
comer of the property that would be maintained. There is a trunk sewer that
runs along the west property line to the lift station at 49th Avenue. The sewer
service for the pet hospital would come out of the building and connect to the
west line.
Doresky stated that staff recommended approval of the request subject to the
conditions listed in the report.
Dr. Pierce Fleming, owner of Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital, 3401 Highway
169, Plymouth, came forward to answer questions of the Commission. Dr.
Fleming indicated that revised plans were submitted showing an additional
kennel had been added and a back door eliminated.
Commissioner Svendsen commented that one parking stall on the west side
was to be eliminated for fire hydrant access. Svendsen questioned whether
the permanent city easement to access the pond was to be shown on the plat.
The city attomey stated that generally the easement would be shown along
with a document number. Brixius interjected that on a final plat grading and
utility easements could be shown and that access easements are recorded
separately and not shown on the final plat. The city would prepare an
administrative lot split for this property. The city would be preparing the
easement description through the parking lot.
Svendsen mentioned that the applicant was to update the plans to show the
men's restroom to be ADA compliant. He reiterated that the driveway
construction for the easement should be a nine-ton design. Clarification was
requested that the curb and gutter would be B612 typical.
Commissioner Brauch asked for clarification on staffing requirements for the
clinic and boarding area. Fleming stated that there are separate duties for the
two areas, but staff was one and the same.
Commissioner Barrick requested clarification on the number of kennels and it
was confirmed that the total would be 28. A question was raised as to the
difference between a luxury suite and a regular suite. Fleming stated that the
luxury suite was larger and included a bed for the animals. The major
difference was in the service, with two walks per day and more exercise time.
Landy asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission.
Planning Commission Meeting 8 June 3, 2003
Ms. Marjode Ostrom, 4885 Flag Avenue, came forward. She asked for
clarification on whether all of the kennels were on the interior of the building
with only the dog runs on the outside. Fleming responded that the dogs would
be outside in the mornings from 8 to 10 a.m. and in the afternoons from 2 -4
p.m. for exercise times. She asked what happened with the dog waste and
was told that it goes in the trash, as well as waste from surgery. She also
inquired of the impact spraying for mosquitoes would have on the dogs.
There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Hemken,
to close the public hearing. All in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION
Item 4.2
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Oelkers, to
approve Planning Case 03-06, Request for Conditional Use Permit and
Site/Building Plan Review, 9200 49~ Avenue North, Pierce
Fleming/Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital/City of New Hope, Petitioners,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioner obtain ownership of the property.
2. Comply with City Engineer recommendations, including those dated
May 28, 2003.
3. Approval of plans by Building Official.
4. Approval of plans by West Metro Fire-Rescue District.
5. City Attorney review and comment on all easements and declaration
documents to ensure pond maintenance access easements on the
property are properly established and maintained.
6. Enter into a Development Agreement with the City and provide
performance bond (amount to be determined by the City Engineer
and Building Official.
7. Correct minor landscaping error and comply with City Planner's
recommendation of additional landscaping (four (4) spruce trees) at
the northwest portion of the property.
8. Submit revised sheets A1.1, A1.2 and the Site/Grading Plan
consistent with the kennel configuration change and rear elevation
change submitted on May 28, 2003.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers,
Svendsen
None
Anderson
PC03-07
Item 4.3
Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council
on June 6 and advised the petitioner to attend.
Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.3, Request for Preliminary
Plat Approval for Thompson New Hope Addition, 8501 54"~ Avenue North,
David Thompson/Redwing Properties LLC, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, community development director, stated that the petitioner
was requesting preliminary plat approval for Thompson New Hope Addition to
divide an existing lot into two parcels, Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. The
purpose of the subdivision was to allow for the future sale and development of
the outlot. The property is located on 54~h Avenue in an industrial zoning
district, with industrial land uses to the east, west, and south and R-l, single
family residential, and R-4, North Ridge Apartments, high density residential
on the north side of 54~ Avenue. The CP Rail system abuts the parcel on the
Planning Commission Meeting 9 June 3, 2003
south. The total site area contains 7.824 acres. There is an existing one story
building on the western portion of the site that contains approximately 65,000
square feet. The lot area ratios for the existing parcel are 58 percent green,
20.6 percent pavement and 20.6 percent building. The city's Comprehensive
Plan indicated that the city's primary goal for Planning District #5 is to promote
and enhance the industrial land uses by working with existing property
owners.
McDonald reported that Redwing Properties LLC was requesting to subdivide
the parcel into one lot and an outloto The property currently has a metes and
bounds property description and city code requires it be platted when
subdivided. Lot 1 has-an existing building on it and the outlot is unimproved
but would provide access and drainage easements for Lot 1. There is a
circular drive on the property. The proposed plat lists a number of notes
corresponding to existing easements, proposed easements and statement of
encroachments.
The petitioner submitted a letter requesting~ platting of the property to facilitate
the sale of the existing building at 8501-54 Avenue. The party expressing the
most interest in the building does not need the excess land. The property
owner has decided to either lease the entire.facility or sell it. In order to not
inhibit the sale of the existing property because of price or the increased tax
burden due to the excess land value, they were proposing an outlot. A
perpetual easement agreement with the east and west ingress and egress to
the site would be provided. Property owners within 350 feet of the property
were notified and no comments were received. The petitioner requested that
the Planning Commission waive review of the final plat.
McDonald stated that the preliminary plat had been submitted to utility
companies and consultants for review and comment. The planning consultant
indicated that the lot area, lot .width, and green space standards exceeded
minimum code standards. The existing building was one-story in height. The
front and side yard setbacks comply with code. The building encroaches
approximately one foot into the rear yard setback and thus is non-conforming.
McDonald mentioned that Waymouth Farms property abuts this property to
the west and there was an existing storm water pond on its site. With the
platting of the property, land would need to be set aside for future storm water
improvements. An easement area was shown on the southern portion of
Outlot A for storm water improvements. The city attorney's comments were
routine in nature.
Total parking stalls required on the site for the existing building is 65 with 51
spaces provided. The petitioner has shown proof of parking for the additional
parking. The city would recommend that the petitioner add two additional ADA
stalls now. No additional landscaping was proposed at this time, however, as
the site develops a landscaping plan should be submitted in conjunction with
demonstration of proof of parking. Upon purchase of the property and
submission of a development plan, the placement of the storm water and
driveway easements may change. There is one building identification sign on
Lot 1 and the existing sign on Outlot A would be removed. Easements 10 feet
wide, centered on rear and other lot lines, have been provided for utilities. The
proposed drive access easement would be a floating easement to allow
development of Outlot A, but would assure the owner of Lot 1 the ability to
maintain traffic flow through Outiot A and Outlot A through Lot 1. Creation of a
storm sewer easement over a portion of existing storm sewer lying on Outlot A
would be required. At time of development of Outlot A, the easement would be
maintained or vacated depending on development. Proposed ponding
easement in southeast comer of Outlot A is subject to change at time of
development of property.
Planning Commission Meeting 10 June 3, 2003
Mr. VanderTop explained that the some drainage on the site flows in a pipe
under the building and discharges to a Iow area on the Waymouth property, at
5300 Boone Avenue. The runoff then was picked up by a private storm sewer
that routed the storm water north on Boone Avenue toward the wetland at
Victory Park. City staff was looking ahead to when the outlot may be
developed from a storm water standpoint. Various options could occur. First, it
would be desirable to take out the storm sewer pipe from under the building.
Currently, staff is not aware of any easements for storm water flowing through
the Waymouth Farms property. If the outlot develops and becomes more
impervious and the rate of water increases, there would need to be some
method to detain that water and provide water quality treatment before it goes
through Waymouth's property. The way the easement is shown on the plat,
allows for a pond to be constructed. At the time of development of the outlot,
the property would have to be replatted and the exact dimensions could then
be determined. The entire lot slopes to the south toward the railroad tracks
and the runoff would need to be rerouted toward the Waymouth pond.
VanderTop reiterated that by configuring the plat in this way there would be
minimal expense to the applicant at this time but yet keep options open for the
future.
Commissioner Svendsen initiated dis.cussion on the railroad spur and whether
or not it goes onto the property. It was confirmed that the spur stops at the
property line.
Mr. Greg McDonald, Collier Towle Real Estate and representative of David
Thompson of Redwing Foods, came to the podium to answer questions of the
Commission. He commented that the ingress sign on the east side of the
property was a directional sign for trucks and requested that the sign be
retained in that location.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned if the Planning Commission needed to
deal with the nine-foot rear yard setback, which makes the property non-
conforming. Brixius stated that the use is a legal non-conforming use and the
subdivision of the lot would not increase the degree of non-conformity.
Svendsen stressed to the petitioner that upon development of the outlot that
the storm sewer would need to be deal with. Mr. Greg McDonald responded
that they would not be the developers, but would instead sell the property to a
developer who would need to complete that requirement. Brixius added that
ponding would be required before any further improvement of Lot 1, such as
expanding the parking, took place. When Outlot A was developed, ponding
would be required. It was mentioned that a cash fee would not be appropriate
in this case, as ponding was required, due to concerns with additional
impervious surfaces and the potential flooding of Waymouth Farms property.
Svendsen pointed out that any developer purchasing Outlot A should be
informed that ponding was required with any development of the property.
$ondrall added that if an easement was shown on the plat, in order to relocate
the easement, a vacation of the current easement would need to take place.
Brauch initiated discussion on the truck traffic over Outlot A. Greg McDonald
explained the purpose of keeping that ingress and that the floating easement
would not hinder the purchase of the property. Sondrall asked for a copy of the
easement document. Brixius explained that, other than grading and drainage
easements, no other easements can be shown on a final plat which is
recorded with Hennepin County. A separate easement document would need
to be submitted and recorded at the same time as the final plat.
Commissioner Oelkers wondered why the property was being platted with an
outlot and the explanation was that a requirement of the city code was if the
property was platted as a lot, water and sewer service needed to be
constructed. Therefore, the owner chose to plat the property as an outlot with
Planning Commission Meeting 11 June 3, 2003
MOTION
Item 4.3
the understanding that it would need to be replatted and the utilities would be
the burden of the purchaser. Sondrall added that the benefit of platting the
property as an outlot was that an outlot could not be developed. Outlots do
stay on the tax roles.
There being no one in the audience to address the Commission, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner Buggy, to
close the Pubic Hearing on Planning Case 03-06. All voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Brauch, to
approve Planning Case 03-07, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for
Thompson New Hope Addition, 8501 54t~ Avenue North, David
Thompson/Redwing Properties LLC, Petitioner, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Comply with City Engineer recommendations.
2. Comply with City Attorney recommendations.
3. Dedication of proposed right-of-way for 54t~ Avenue North as
indicated on the preliminary plat.
4. Dedication of drainage and utility easements as indicated on the
preliminary plat.
5. Two (2) additional disabled accessible parking spaces must be
provided for existing parking, including one (1) van accessible
disabled accessible parking space.
6. Implementation of proof of parking to increase available parking
to ninety-one (91) parking spaces as indicated on the preliminary
plat. Such parking shall include four (4) total disabled accessible
parking spaces eight (8) feet wide with a five (5) foot wide access
aisle including one (1) van accessible disabled accessible parking
space eight 8) feet wide with an eight (8) foot wide access aisle.
7. At the time proof of parking is constructed, landscape, grading
and drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval by
the City Council.
8. Submittal of a grading and drainage plan subject to the review and
approval of the City Engineer.
9. Elimination of the parking space that currently encroaches into
Outlot A.
10. An easement for access over Outlot A to benefit Lot 1, Block 1
Thompson New Hope Addition must be recorded as a separate
document.
11. All bituminous not used for the access easement over Outlot A
must be removed as indicated on the preliminary plat.
12. Submittal of capacity calculations for the storm water drainage
pond illustrated on Outlot A including plans indicating the path of
runoff for Lot 1 to such proposed drainage pond. Any grading
required to implement such drainage pond shall require a grading
and drainage plan subject to the review and approval of the City
Engineer.
13. An easement for the storm water drainage pond with capacity for
both Lot 1, Block I and Outlot A must be recorded.
14. The preliminary plat is subject to review and approval by the
Shingle Creek Watershed District.
15. Removal of the building identification signage currently located
on Outlot A in accordance with City Code requirements. Traffic
directional sign to remain.
Planning Commission Meeting 12 June 3, 2003
Design and Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Codes and Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
16. Waiver of review of the final plat.
Voting in favor:
Voting against:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Barrick, Brauch, Buggy, Hemken, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers,
Svendsen
None
Anderson
Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council
on June 9 and advised the petitioner to attend.
A question was raised as to the type of business Redwing Foods was and the
petitioner answered it was a specialty food wholesaler.
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee met with the
petitioners to review their plans. McDonald added that staff expected a
request for a residential variance to be submitted for the July meeting,
therefore, the Design and Review Committee would be meeting in June.
Hemken reported that Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in May.
McDonald added that there may be several items for the Committee to
discuss later this summer.
Chairman Landy stated that the City Center Task Force would be meeting on
June 12.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned whether the signs on the Mid-America
Financial Plaza building were sized according to the sign code. DisCussion
ensued on the size of the monument Sign for Kapala Glodek Funeral Home.
McDonald stated that staff would check into both sites.
Oelkers initiated discussion on the East Winnetka Livable Communities study
area. A new Aidi development in Brooklyn Park was discussed as well as the
Culver's proposal for 42~d and Quebec avenues.
Svendsen mentioned that McDonalds Restaurant now has a 24-hour drive
through. McDonald stated that city staff would check into the matter.
Motion was made by Commissioner Buggy, seconded by Commissioner
Brauch, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 6, 2003. All
voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council and EDA minutes were reviewed.
McDonald reminded the Commission that the July meeting would be held on
July 8, the second Tuesday of the month. Landy added that the August
meeting would be held on Wednesday, August 6, due to National Night Out on
the regular Tuesday meeting night.
The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Sylvester ' '
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 13 June 3, 2003
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
May 27, 2003
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
ROTATING VOTES
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION
Consent Items
FINANCIAL CLAIMS
Item 6.2
RESOLUTION 03-80
Item 6.4
ORDINANCE 03-04
Item 6.5
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
Dana Alexon, Fire Chief
Roger Axel, Building Official
Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator
Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist
Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Jim O'Meara, Police Captain
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 12, 2003, and
Worksession Minutes of May 19, 2003. All present voted in favor. Motion
carried.
There was no one present to address the Council for the open forum.
Please note that votes taken on each agenda item are called by the secretary on a
rotating basis; however, the written minutes always list the Mayor's name first
followed by the Councilmembers in alphabetical order.
Mayor Enck introduced the consent items as listed for consideration and stated that
all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be removed
for discussion. Item 6.16 was 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 Financial Claims Through May 27, 2003.
Resolution Accepting Easements for the 2003 Infrastructure Improvement Project
No. 721.
Ordinance No. 03-04, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code Section 2-20
Governing the Establishment of the West Metro Fire-Rescue District Board of
May 27, 2003
ORDINANCE 03-10
Item 6.6
RESOLUTION 03-81
Item 6.7
IMP. PROJECT NOS.
709, 712 AND 715
Item 6.8
RESOLUTION 03-82
Item 6.9
RESOLUTION 03-83
Item 6.10
RESOLUTION 03-84
Item 6.11
RESOLUTION 03-85
Item 6.12
BID/CONVEYOR
Item 6.13
QUOTE/PAINTING
PLAY EQUIPMENT
Item 6.14
RESOLUTION 03-86
Item 6.15
PUBLIC HEARING
Item 7.1
New Hope City Council
Page 2
Directors.
Ordinance No. 03-10, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 14 of the New Hope Code
Increasing Housing Maintenance Inspection Fee.
Resolution Approving Agreement Between City of New Hope and the Nordic
Water Polo Club for Rental of Milton C. Honsey Pool Summer 2003.
Motion Approving Final Payment to Kevitt Excavating in the Amount of
$8,335.30 for Demolition and Site Restoration of City-Owned Property at 5518
Winnetka Avenue North, 5524 Winnetka Avenue North, and 5520 Sumter Avenue
North (Improvement Project Nos. 709, 712, and 715).
Resolution Authorizing the Vacation of a Public Alley Easement and Calling for a
Public Hearing to Initiate the Process (Improvement Project No. 685).
Resolution Approving Restrictive Covenants for 7105 62nd Avenue North and
Authorizing the Signing and Recording of the Same (Improvement Project No.
685).
Resolution Approving Hennepin County Satisfaction of Repayment Agreement
and Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Execute Agreement.
Resolution Authorizing City Center Planning Study Application for the Livable
Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) Opportunity Grant Program.
Approval of Bid from Dome Corporation of North America for an Installed
Conveyor System at the Salt/Sand Storage Dome in the Amount of $88,158.
Approval of Quote Submitted by Midwest Electrostatic Refinishers for Painting
Play Equipment at Three Park Sites - $7,700.
Resolution Authorizing Transfer of 2003 Park CIP Funding.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 7.1, Planning Case 03-03, Request for
Subdivision of Existing Lot, Site/Building Plan Review, and Variance to Lot Area
Per Unit Requirement, 5700 Boone Avenue North, Anderson Pattee Realty
Services, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the petitioner is
requesting three things: 1) subdivision of existing lot into two lots; 2) site/building
plan review to allow construction of a new 82-unit senior cooperative building;
and 3) variance to the lot area per unit requirement, pursuant to Sections 4-35, 4-
36 and Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. He stated the Planning
Commission considered this request at its May 6 meeting and recommended
approval, 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
May 27, 2003
easement.
Enter into Development Agreement with City and provide performance bond
(amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official).
He explained that staff, consultants and the applicant discovered the density issue
too late for proper notification and publication in the New Hope/Golden Valley
SunPost for the May 6 Planning Commission meeting, therefore, the public
hearing for the variance is being conducted at the May 27 City Council meeting.
Official publication is not required for the site/building plan review or
administrative subdivision portions of this plarming case.
Staff feels that this is an excellent development proposal for the City, commends
the applicant on their detailed plans and cooperation with staff, and recommends
approval of the requests.
Mr. McDonald stated the property located on the southeast quadrant of Bass Lake
Road and Boone Avenue is zoned R-5, "Senior/Disabled" Residential.
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 offthe 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. To correct this non-compliant
standard, staff recommends approving a lot variance for Parcel A due to the
following:
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.
Next, Mr. McDonald noted the floor plans stating the smallest one-bedroom
apartment is approximately 748 square feet in area and the smallest two-bedroom
unit is approximately 1,064 square feet in area. Both exceed the minimum
standards.
New Hope City Council
Page 3
May 27, 2003
New Hope City Council
Page 4
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.
For senior housing the applicant is required to provide one parking 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 ADA stalls will be provided (three underground and one surface). The
plans illustrate on-site snow storage areas and specifically indicate that snow will
be removed from all parking lots from curb to curb. With this information, the
exterior parking lot complies with city standards.
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.
The site plan illustrates an emergency access drive at the northeast comer 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:
1. Construction details of the grass space design for the access drive.
2. No curb cut is proposed at Bass Lake Road to prevent unauthorized use of the
access drive.
3. Any snow drifting at the Bass Lake Road curb shall be cleared on each snow
removal service.
4. Snow will be removed from the emergency access drive when snow depth
exceeds five inches.
He stated West Metro Fire has reviewed and is in agreement with the emergency
access.
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."
Six 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
drifting 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
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
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").
May 27, 2003
New Hope City Council
Page 5
Two monument signs will be on the property to advertise the Chardon
Court/Woodbridge Senior Cooperative.
The exterior building materials will include asphalt shingles for the roof and the
balance of the building will be of a cement plaster material. The main entryway of
the building will have a substantial amount of thin stone veneer as well as cement
plaster.
All proposed lighting meets the code requirements. Based on comments from the
Police Departments, four wall packs of lighting will be installed on the rear of the
building.
Mr. McDonald stated the site will contain extensive landscaping with a total of
404 plantings. The entire site will be irrigated. There will be a water feature and a
wooden pedestrian bridge. The bridge will connect the entryway to a private
sidewalk connecting to the public sidewalk on Bass Lake Road.
The preliminary utility plan was also reviewed.
The applicant will pay a cash fee toward regional pond improvements in lieu of
on-site water quality improvements. The fee will be based on the cost that would
have been incurred by the applicant to construct on on-site pond and the value of
the land required for this pond (approximate cost $20,000-$30,000).
Mayor Enck concurred with staff's opinion regarding the favorable development
proposal and thanked the applicant for bringing it forth.
Mayor Enck initiated discussion regarding the density of the two parcels and the
variance for parcel A based on the overall density. He suggested adding a
condition prohibiting additional living units at either parcel in the future.
Mayor Enck also suggested a revision to condition number 1 of the resolution to
clarify that engineering recommendations are not limited to the correspondence
dated April 16 and April 30, 2003.
Mayor Enck also inquired regarding soil storage.
Mr. McDonald stated the applicant has requested to store excavated soils at 5501
Boone Avenue North. The details are outlined in the city engineer's memorandum
dated April 30, 2003.
Councilmember Collier pointed out that the city code requires maintenance and
replacement of landscaping plantings. He requested an explanation of a
cooperative development ownership.
Mr. Ron Anderson was recognized and stated he and his wife, Mindy Pattee, are
the co-owners of the Chardon Court site. He introduced the development team. He
explained that a cooperative is somewhat similar to a condominium development,
but the owners own shares of stock in the corporation rather than owning
individual units, and are not required to pay standard closing costs. He stated the
association is similar to a condominium association. The cooperative development
will be a non-profit corporation. He also commented that age limitations, as
outlined in the proposed cooperative corporation articles, require residents to be
age 55 or older (including both spouses of a married couple). He noted the
documents could be amended in the future. The unit prices will range from
$100,000 - $200,000.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth inquired whether there were adverse soil conditions
during construction of Chardon Courts.
May 27, 2003
New Hope City Council
Page 6
Mr. Jim Beckwith, Kraus Anderson Construction, replied that he was involved
during the construction of Chardon Courts and there were no poor soils. He noted
the soil had a high moisture content, but was very compactable and usable.
Councilmember Cassen questioned whether the plan contains adequate parking.
She also inquired whether any units were handicapped accessible.
Mr. Anderson stated the parking requirements are set by the zoning code and have
been met. He stated the units will be handicapped adaptable.
Councilmember Cassen called attention to existing traffic congestion at the
Chardon Court driveway when trying to access Boone Avenue. She suggested
widening the driveway to accommodate a dedicated right and/or left turn lane.
Mr. Anderson noted they hadn't considered changes to the driveway, but it may be
feasible and will be considered.
Mayor Enck directed staff and a traffic planner to work with the applicant to
resolve the driveway issue.
Councilmember Cassen inquired whether there is sufficient drainage or if
additional off-site ponding is needed.
Mr. Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, stated drainage calculations were
submitted. He stated the storm sewer connects to an existing city storm sewer
along the south property line which in mm flows to Boone Avenue and goes south
to the north comer of Boone and East Research Center Road. From that point it
flows to the wetland complex behind Victory Park wetland. He stated from a
flooding standpoint, additional storm sewer is not needed. From a water quality
standpoint, however, this property (as well as any other redeveloping properties) is
required to have a water quality pond. In lieu of constructing a pond on site, the
applicant will contribute cash to build the pond at the existing storm sewer outlet
by Victory Park wetland. He stated this is consistent with the city's surface water
management plan.
Councilmember Sommer requested assurance that the properties will be owner-
occupied and will not revert to rental properties. He noted the current high
percentage of rental properties and the need for owner-occupied housing stock.
Mr. Anderson stated there are no provisions in the by-laws for rental.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth questioned whether there would be a written
agreement between Chardon Court and Woodbridge Senior Cooperative properties
for maintenance and replacement of the monument signs.
Mr. Fred Katter, consultant with Pineapple Management serving as the owner's
representative, was recognized. He commended city staff noting they have been
highly informed and very professional in their work. He stated there are
preliminary easement documents and maintenance agreements covering such
issues as driveways, parking area, and watermains. He stated the same type of
documents will cover signage.
Councilmember Sommer questioned whether each unit will pay separate property
taxes.
Mr. Anderson stated there are provisions within the tax code for deductibility of
interest and taxes. Taxes will accrue on units in the same manner as a
condominium. He explained that a cooperative is a form of ownership. The
May 27, 2003
CLOSE PUBLIC
HEARING
Item 7.1
RESOLUTION 03-87
Item 7.1
ANIMAL KENNELS
Item 10.1
New Hope City Council
Page 7
association fee includes their pro-rata portion of the taxes on the building
according to the square footage that they occupy.
The Council unanimously expressed support for the project.
Mayor Enck opened the floor for comments. There was no one present in the
audience to speak at the public hearing.
It was noted that construction will begin after reaching a 50% pre-sale
requirement. Mr. Anderson noted they anticipate achieving this goal within 60-90
days.
Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember
Gwin-Lenth, to close the Public Hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion
carried.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 03-03,
REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF EXISTING LOT, SITE/BUILDING
PLAN REVIEW, AND VARIANCE TO LOT AREA PER UNIT
REQUIREMENT, 5700 BOONE AVENUE NORTH, ANDERSON PATTEE
REALTY SERVICES, PETITIONER".
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by
Councilmember Sommer subject to the inclusion of two additional conditions: 1)
no additional living units will be allowed in the future; and 2) the applicant will
consider widening the curb cut on Boone Avenue North to allow for dedicated
right and/or left turn lanes.
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. 03-02, An
Ordinance Establishing Commercial Animal Kennels and Animal Day Care
Facilities as Conditional Uses in the Industrial"I" Zoning .... District.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the ordinance
establishes commercial animal kennels and animal day care facilities as
conditional uses in the Industrial Zoning District. The ordinance amendment also
repeals the current moratorium on this issue since new regulations are being
adopted.
Mr. McDonald explained that at the council meeting of October 14, 2002, 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. The ordinance amendment was prepared after seeking
input from the planning consultant, city attorney, animal control office, building
official, and community development staff.
Mr. McDonald reviewed the proposed ordinance outlining conditions that must be
met when considering approval of an animal kennel and animal day care. He stated
veterinary clinics that board ten or fewer animals and pet stores are exempt from
the conditional use permit requirement.
May 27, 2003
Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, pointed out that pet stores cannot serve as
animal day care facilities as they are not permitted in an industrial zoning district.
Councilmember Sommer commended the Planning Commission's extensive of the
subject.
Councilmember Cassen questioned whether the current facilities meet the
guidelines.
Mr. McDonald responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Cassen asked whether breeding was permitted on residential
properties.
Mr. Sondrall noted he does not believe this is prohibited as long as there are no
more than three dogs on the premises.
Councilmember Cassen asked staff to research the city code to determine if the
breeding issue was adequately addressed. Mr. McDonald agreed to review this
matter.
Discussion ensued regarding the definition and restriction of wild animals and
farm animals in the city.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth questioned whether the ordinance should address the
need to separate ill or injured animals from the healthy ones at an animal day care
facility.
Mr. Sondrall commented that it is a "consumer beware" situation for pet owners. It
is not the city's responsibility to monitor the facility and determine the health
status of animals.
Mr. McDonald pointed out that the commercial animal kennels and animal day
care facilities are permitted through the conditional use permit process. This will
allow the city council the opportunity to review the plans prior to approval.
ORDINANCE 03-02
Item 10.1
Councilmember Cassen introduced the following ordinance and moved its
adoption: "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 motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance
was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer;
and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None;
whereupon the ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the
mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
LICENSING KENNELS
AND SHELTERS
Item 10.2
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.2, Ordinance No. 03-06, An
Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the New Hope City Code Licensing Dog
Kennels and Cat Shelters.
ORDINANCE 03-06
Item 10.2
New Hope City Council
Page 8
Councilmember Collier introduced the following ordinance and moved its
adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 03-06, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 7 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE LICENSING DOG
KENNELS AND CAT SHELTERS". The motion for the adoption of the
foregoing ordinance was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, 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
May 27, 2003
STATE BUILDING
CODE & FIRE CODE
Item 10.3
ORDINANCE 03-09
Item 10.3
NATIONAL AQUATIC
WEEK
New Hope City Council
Page 9
adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.3, Ordinance No. 03-09, An
Ordinance Conforming the New Hope Building Code and Fire Code to 2003
Amendments to State Building and Fire Code.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the ordinance
modifies the city code to conform with the 2003 amendments to the state building
and state fire codes.
Mr. Roger Axel, Building Official, was recognized. He illustrated the International
Building Code (IBC), the International Residential Code (IRC), and the Guideline
for the Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (GREB). On March 31, 2003, the State
of Minnesota officially adopted the International Building Code (IBC), the
International Residential Code (IRC) and the Guideline for the Rehabilitation of
Existing Buildings (GREB). The International family of codes is a cooperative
effort of the three model code organizations that has taken many years to
complete. The purpose of the code is to provide minimum standards to safeguard
life, health, property and the public welfare. The State's goal is to have buildings
throughout the state safe for all building occupants and emergency responders. The
State of Minnesota has amended the IBC and the IRC to suit specific local
requirements. The City of New Hope has adopted by reference the Minnesota State
Building Code (MSBC) which incorporates the IBC, IRC, and GREB.
Mr. Axel explained that the ordinance also includes adoption of chapter 1306 of
the Minnesota Rules relating to special fire protection systems.
Mr. Dana Alexon, Fire Chief, stated one of the provisions being amended within
the fire code relates to recreational fires. He explained that recreational fires or
backyard fireplaces/firepits are small fires for recreational purposes only. He stated
West Metro Fire-Rescue District has allowed recreational fires since the District
was formed. The ordinance increases restrictions on the recreational fires such as
the requirement that they be extinguished by 11:00 p.m. and the prohibition of
burning of rubbish.
Mayor Enck questioned the usage ofbarbeque grills.
Mr. Alexon stated the city fire code restricts the use of grills or fireplaces on
apartment balconies or patios within fifteen feet of any structure. Mr. Aiexon
described various types of retail outdoor fireplaces.
Councilmember Sommer expressed concern regarding the 11:00 p.m. curfew for
recreational fires. Mr. Alexon noted the provision is typically enforced on a
complaint basis as recreational fires often result in loud gatherings that disturb the
neighborhood. He stated the regulation was previously set at 10:00 p.m.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following ordinance and moved its
adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 03-09, AN ORDINANCE CONFORMING
TItE NEW HOPE BUILDING CODE AND FIRE CODE TO 2003
AMENDMENTS TO STATE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE". 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 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 10.4, Resolution Proclaiming the
Week of July 13-19, 2003, be Designated as National Aquatic Week in the City of
May 27, 2003
Item 10.4
RESOLUTION 03-88
Item 10.4
STATE BUILDING
AND FIRE CODE
Item 10.5
New Hope.
Mayor Enck noted the many activities that take place at the New Hope pool, and
expressed support for National Aquatic Week.
Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF JULY 13-19,
2003, BE DESIGNATED AS NATIONAL AQUATIC WEEK IN THE CITY
OF NEW HOPE". 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 10.5, Summary of Ordinance No. 03-
09, An Ordinance Conforming the New Hope Building Code and Fire Code to
2003 Amendments to State Building and Fire Code.
ORDINANCE 03-09
Item 10.5
Mayor Enck pointed out that the summary ordinance provides a shorter version for
publication purposes.
Councilmember Sommer introduced the following ordinance and moved its
adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 03-09, AN ORDINANCE CONFORMING
THE NEW HOPE BUILDING CODE AND FIRE CODE TO 2003
AMENDMENTS TO STATE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE". The motion
for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance 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 ordinance was
declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by
the city clerk.
TOBACCO
COMPLIANCE
CHECKS
Item 12.1
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Appearances by Tobacco
Licensees Regarding Consequences for Failing Compliance Checks.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, explained the recent tobacco violations and
applicable penalties in accordance with 8-7. He stated five of 24 businesses failed
the tobacco compliance checks that were conducted on April 21, 2003.
Mr. Donahue reported that the City Clerk has notified all affected licensees of their
tights to attend the council meeting regarding the alleged violations. Licensees
may admit or deny the allegations. If they fail to appear at the meeting, their rights
to contest the allegation of the illegal sale and the scheduling of a heating will be
waived.
He stated Police Captain Jim O'Meara is in the audience if the Council has any
questions for the Police Department relating to the compliance check process.
Mayor Enck individually called upon representatives of the following businesses
to admit or deny allegations of the illegal sales:
New Hope Smoke Shop, 2767 Winnetka Avenue North
Quick Stop & Tobacco, 7141 42na Avenue North
Perfect Car Wash, 9400 36th Avenue North
Food N Fuel, 7231 42na Avenue North
Snyder's, 2705 Winnetka Avenue North
New Hope City Council
Page 10
Mr. David Brodie, Attorney representing New Hope Smoke Shop, was recognized.
He stated his client, Sabry Wazwaz, admits to the illegal sale that took place at the
May 27, 2003
Item 10.4
RESOLUTION 03-88
Item 10.4
STATE BUILDING
AND FIRE CODE
Item 10.5
ORDINANCE 03-09
Item 10.5
TOBACCO
COMPLIANCE
CHECKS
Item 12.1
New Hope City Council
Page 10
New Hope.
Mayor Enck noted the many activities that take place at the New Hope pool, and
expressed support for National Aquatic Week.
Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF JULY 13-19,
2003, BE DESIGNATED AS NATIONAL AQUATIC WEEK IN THE CITY
OF NEW HOPE". 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 10.5, Summary of Ordinance No. 03-
09, An Ordinance Conforming the New Hope Building Code and Fire Code to
2003 Amendments to State Building and Fire Code.
Mayor Enck pointed out that the summary ordinance provides a shorter version for
publication purposes.
Councilmember Sommer introduced the following ordinance and moved its
adoption: "ORDINANCE NO. 03-09, AN ORDINANCE CONFORMING
THE NEW HOPE BUILDING CODE AND FIRE CODE TO 2003
AMENDMENTS TO STATE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE". The motion
for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance 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 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 12.1, Appearances by Tobacco
Licensees Regarding Consequences for Failing Compliance Checks.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, explained the recent tobacco violations and
applicable penalties in accordance with 8-7. He stated five of 24 businesses failed
the tobacco compliance checks that were conducted on April 21, 2003.
Mr. Donahue reported that the City Clerk has notified all affected licensees of their
rights to attend the council meeting regarding the alleged violations. Licensees
may admit or deny the allegations. If they fail to appear at the meeting, their rights
to contest the allegation of the illegal sale and the scheduling of a hearing will be
waived.
He stated Police Captain Jira O'Meara is in the audience if the Council has any
questions for the Police Department relating to the compliance check process.
Mayor Enck individually called upon representatives of the following businesses
to admit or deny allegations of the illegal sales:
New Hope Smoke Shop, 2767 Winnetka Avenue North
Quick Stop & Tobacco, 7141 42~a Avenue North
Perfect Car Wash, 9400 36t~ Avenue North
Food N Fuel, 7231 42ad Avenue North
Snyder's, 2705 Winnetka Avenue North
Mr. David Brodie, Attorney representing New Hope Smoke Shop, was recognized.
He stated his client, Sabry Wazwaz, admits to the illegal sale that took place at the
May 27, 2003
New Hope Smoke Shop. He explained the circumstances of the illegal sale and
history of the licensee. Mr. Brodie pointed out the financial hardship created by a
$250 fmc and 3-day suspension to a small business operation. He suggested the
council deviate from its standard practice and impose the maximum fine of $500
allowed by city code and require store employees to attend any training offered by
the city. He also noted the licensee is willing to purchase an age verification
device.
The Council contended that it has consistently imposed the fines to licensee
holders that failed compliance checks including smoke shops. Mayor Enck noted
pending legislation relating to uniform fines. The Council expressed a willingness
to review the fine structure at a future time.
The following licensees also addressed the council and admitted to the illegal
sales: Salman Abu-Sara (owner of Quick Stop & Tobacco, 7141 42nd Avenue
North); Randy Rau (owner of Perfect Car Wash, 9400 36th Avenue North); Tom
Tollefson (representing Food & Fuel, 7231 42nd Avenue North). There was no one
present representing Snyder's Drug Store, 7805 27th Avenue North.
Captain Jim O'Meara reported that the same police officer and juvenile conducted
the tobacco compliance checks at all the businesses. He explained that the juvenile
carries an identification to present to the cashier. If the juvenile is asked to state his
age, the police department's policy is for the juvenile to provide his tree age.
Mayor Enck explained the past practice of enforcing the date of the suspension on
the same day of the week as the day of the violation. Each business representative
was provided an official Notice of Tobacco Fine.
MOTION/FINES
Item 12.1
Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to fine New Hope Smoke Shop $250 fine + 3-day suspension effective
12:01 a.m. Monday, June 9, 2003 through 11:59 p.m. Wednesday, June 11,
2003. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember
Collier, to fine Quick Stop & Tobacco $250 + 3-day suspension effective 12:01
a.m. Monday, June 9, 2003 through 11:59 p.m. Wednesday, June 11, 2003. All
present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember
Collier, to fine Perfect Car Wash $500 + 5-day suspension effective 12:01 a.m.
Monday, June 9, 2003 through 11:59 p.m. Friday, June 13, 2003. All present
voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to fine Food & Fuel $500 fine + 5-day suspension effective 12:01 a.m.
Monday, June 9, 2003 through 11:59 p.m. Friday, June 13, 2003. All present
voted in favor. Motion carried.
Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, to fine Snyder's Drug Store $1,000 + 10-day suspension effective 12:01
a.m. Monday, June 9, 2003 through Wednesday, June 18, 2003. All present
voted in favor. Motion carried.
CONSOLIDATED
POLICE SERVICES
Item 12.2
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.2, Resolution Directing the City
Manger to Enter into an Agreement with PAS Associates to Perform Phase I
Feasibility Study to Assess the Potential For Consolidated Police Services for the
Cities of Crystal and New Hope.
New Hope City Council
Page 11
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, stated in April, the city councils of Crystal and
May 27, 2003
New Hope City Council
Page 12
New Hope passed a resolution directing city staffs to develop a Request for
Proposal and obtain proposals from qualified consultants to conduct a feasibility
study. Four proposals from consultants willing to conduct such a study were
received and analyzed. At its work session of May 19, the City Council reviewed
the proposal submitted by PAS Associates, of Washington, D.C.
Mr. Donahue stated the following factors led to the exploration of consolidated
police services: state of the economy, changing demographics, technology, loss of
revenue, mandates, "do more with less", and high cost of public safety.
He stated phase 1 of the study will determine if further study to actually merge
services is warranted. Phase 2 will only occur if the city councils of New Hope and
Crystal direct staff to proceed.
Mr. Donahue stated the reasons for the study are to determine if further study to
actually merge services is warranted, preservation of police services in the face of
unprecedented budget cuts, and operate police department more effectively
(meeting goals) and more efficiently (greatest benefit for the dollar).
Next, the scope of the work was reviewed:
An examination of the goals and objectives of each police department and the
performance measures set up to determine progress in accomplishing these
policy directions (are we doing what we said we would do?)
· An assessment of the current and projected law enforcement service demand
in each city.
· An assessment of current department administration, operations, staffing, and
management (to understand each department's operating environment)
· White paper that explores the pros and cons of consolidation of the
departments; and identifies possible alternatives.
· A cost benefit analysis of consolidation and alternatives
· A plan of action to implement recommendations
Mr. Donahue explained that the study will be inclusive and will involve police
personnel, public, staff, union, and elected officials. It is anticipated the study will
be completed within six to eight weeks. The cost for this phase of the study is
$20,000 that will be equally shared by both cities. The study has eight phases and a
total of 51 tasks.
Mr. Donahue provided background of PAS and noted it has carried out over 500
police management audits.
Councilmember Collier noted the complexities of the legislature's action and
related budget cuts. He expressed concern about the uncertainty of actual cost
savings and noted he does not believe the fire department merger resulted in great
savings. He suggested reviewing proposed budget scenarios before pursuing such a
study. Councilmember Collier also commented that he has received phone calls
from residents who are willing to pay higher taxes to retain the New Hope Police
Department in its present configuration.
Councilmember Sommer concurred with Councilmember Collier that reviewing
proposed service cuts would have been helpful. He pointed out that the study does
not mean a merger will occur, but it will help the council make an informed
decision.
Councilmember Cassen stated it would be difficult to assess potential savings
without completion of the study.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth expressed appreciation for her colleague's questions
May 27, 2003
and noted the need to proceed with caution. She supported asking "hard" questions
and seeking information through a professional consultant.
RESOLUTION 03-89
Item 12.2
Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANGER TO ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH PAS ASSOCIATES TO PERFORM
PHASE I FEASIBILITY STUDY TO ASSESS THE POTENTIAL FOR
CONSOLIDATED POLICE SERVICES FOR THE CITIES OF CRYSTAL
AND 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, 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.
CONSENT ITEMS
REMOVED
REVENUE BONDS
Item 6.16
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion the Consent Items which were removed,
Item 6.16, Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on the Issuance of Multifamily
Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, stated the city has received a request from
Broadway LaNel to issue housing refunding revenue bonds. The action would
refinance the bonds that were issued in 1993 to Anthony James Apartments at
6100 West Broadway. Mr. Donahue stated the resolution will set the public
hearing for June 23, 2003. He noted although the city's name would be on the
bonds, there is no obligation or risk to the city.
RESOLUTION 03-90
Item 6.16
Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REFUNDING REVENUE
BONDS". 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 thereofi Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the
following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None;
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the
mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
COUNCIL
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 12.3
New Hope City Council
Page 13
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.3, Exchange of Communication
Between Members of the City Council.
Mayor Enck
· Commented regarding the status of the noise complaint at 4630 Quebec (Kirk
McDonald reported that the city is in the process of hiring SEH Consulting to
review the noise reports conducted by HDR Engineering).
Councilmember Sommer
· Commented on preliminary f'mdings of the Joint Water Commission
Governance Task Force regarding a water supply system
Councilmember Cassen
· Requested the Communications Coordinator to remind property owners to
mow boulevards, trim tree branches that extend into the right-of-way, and
clear sidewalks of debris.
Councilmember Collier
· Noted the need to also remind pet owners to clean up after their dogs
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth
· Congratulated Intern Erin Seeman on her college graduation and commended
her for outstanding work at New Hope
· Reported that she will attend the annual meeting of the Association of
Metropolitan Municipalities on May 29
City_ Manager Donahue
· Advised Council of a work session on June 2 to discuss legislative action and
preliminary budget
May 27, 2003
ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember
Gwin-Lenth, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come
before the Council. All present voted m favor. Motion came& The New Hope
City Council adjourned at 10:04 p.m.
Re~spectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
New Hope City COuncil
Page 14
May 27, 2003
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
June 9, 2003
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
ROTATING VOTES
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION
Consent Items
BUSINESS LICENSES
Item 6.1
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, Commumcations Coordinator
Doug Debner, Assistant City Attorney
Ken Doresky, Commtmity Development Specialist
Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Gary Link, Director of Police
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Daryl Sulander, Director of Finance
Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer
Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember
Sommer, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2003, with one
correction, and Worksession Minutes of June 2, 2003. All present voted in
favor. Motion carried.
Ms. Susie Schneider, '5911 Virginia Avenue North, 1) requested a licensing and
inspection program for rental properties; 2) questioned the legality of MTC buses
exiting Winnetka Avenue and using the area of 59th and Virginia Avenue as a turn
around; and 3) pointed out the slow construction activity taking place at 7920 60th
Avenue North.
Please note that votes taken on eac.h agenda item are called by the secretary on a
rotating basis; however, the written minutes always list the Mayor's name first
followed by the Councilmembers in alphabetical order.
Mayor Enck introduced the consent items as listed for consideration and stated that
all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be removed
for discussion.
Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, to approve all items on the Consent Agenda. All present voted in favor.
Motion carried.
Approval of 2003 Business Licenses.
New Hope City Council
Page 1
June 9, 2003
FINANCIAL CLAIMS
Item 6.2
LIABILITY CLAIMS
Item 6.3
RESOLUTION 03-91
Item 6.4
RESOLUTION 03-92
Item 6.5
RESOLUTION 03-93
Item 6.6
BID/SEWER
INSPECTION
Item 6.7
PLANNING CASE
03-01
Item 8.1
RESOLUTION 03-94
Item 8.1
PLANNING CASES
02-12 AND 03-04
Item 8.2
New Hope City Council
Page 2
Approval of Financial Claims Through June 9, 2003.
Acknowledgement of Liability Claim No. 03-11 (Terri Jones).
Resolution Approving Agreement with the Mach 3 Flyer Swim Team for Use of
Milton C. Honsey Pool for Summer Practices.
Resolution Approving Agreement with the Minnesota Masters Swimming
Committee for Rental of Milton C. Honsey Pool for Summer 2003.
Resolution Requesting Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Fund its
Capital Improvement Program with a Hennepin County Ad Valorem Tax Levy.
Approval of Sanitary Sewer Inspection Bid from Pipe Services Corporation for
$11,112.62.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Planning Case 03-01, Request for
Final Plat Approval for Property to be Known as Paulsons Prairie, 7550-7600 49th
Avenue North, New Hope LLC/Navarre Corporation, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the petitioner is
requesting final plat approval of Paulsons Prairie to combine three parcels into one
to allow construction of a 111,000 square foot office/warehouse building with
links to the existing building. The Planning Commission considered the
preliminary plat request in March and is waiving review of the final plat due to the
simple nature of the plat. The project will commence in July, 2003.
Councilmember Cassen called attention to the city attorney's recommendation to
require a separate "Consent and Joinder" signed by Navarre Corporation's lender.
She inquired whether this document had been submitted to the city attorney's
office.
Mr. Doug Debner, Assistant City Attorney, stated the document has not been
received yet. He noted, however, the council can adopt the resolution subject to
approval of the "Consent and Joinder" document by the city attorney's office.
Councilmember Collier disclosed that he owns Navarre stock and, therefore, he
will abstain from voting on the item.
Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption subject to receipt of separate "Consent and Joinder" document:
"RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 03-01, REQUEST FOR
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY TO BE KNOWN AS
PAULSONS PRAIRIE, 7550-7600 49TM AVENUE NORTH, NEW HOPE
LLCfNAVARRE CORPORATION, PETITIONER". 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 thereofi 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 8.2, Planning Case Nos. 02-12 and 03-
04, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Parish Community of St. Joseph to
Subdivide Parcel, Site/Building Plan Review, and Conditional Use Permit for
Church Expansion and Shared Parking, 8701 36t~ Avenue North, Church of St.
Joseph, Petitioner.
June 9, 2003
New Hope City Council
Page 3
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the petitioner is
requesting preliminary plat approval for Parish Community of St. Joseph to
subdivide parcel, site/building plan review, and conditional use permit for church
expansion and shared parking. He stated the property is located on the southwest
quadrant of 36m and Boone Avenues. The existing building is 28,082 square feet
and the proposed new construction is 15,420 square feet for a total of 43,501
square feet.
Mr. McDonald stated the Parish Community of St. Joseph is requesting a
conditional use permit and preliminary plat approval for the purpose of expanding
the existing church structure with a new sanctuary and an eventual residential
development of a proposed outlot. The proposed sanctuary addition will
comfortably accommodate 950 people. A conditional use permit is needed in order
to expand a church use in the R-1 district. The site is currently a metes and bounds
description and must be platted to comply with city code.
The applicant intends to subdivide and plat property in order to sell Lot 2 for
residential development. The sale of property is part of the financial package for
the construction of the new worship center.
Mr. McDonald illustrated the proposed design and building elevations. He
reviewed the exterior building materials and landscaping plan. He stated the site
has 267 existing parking spaces and an agreement with the adjacent property
owner, school district 281, will be entered to increase the parking capacity to 370
stalls. He noted the plans include a water main extension through the property to
facilitate a fire hydrant south of the church and a looped connection to the future
residential subdivision.
Mr. Vince Vandertop, Assistant City Engineer, commented that the church staff
and architect have been very cooperative. He reviewed the regional storm water
issues and watermain issues. He stated a drainage and utility easement is provided
over the ravine area along the west side of the property. This will protect the
existing natural drainage route and enable the city to construct a storm sewer in the
ravine to eliminate current erosion issues. He explained the applicant's option of
constructing a water quality pond south of the church or contributing an equivalent
fee towards the construction of a regional ponding area undertaken by the city. He
stated the sanitary sewer connection will not change.
Mr. VanderTop and Mr. McDonald responded to questions from the Council
regarding the project.
Mr. John Olson, Administrator of The Parish Community of St. Joseph, was
recognized. He introduced Richard Stuerman with BWBR Architects. Mr. Olson
confu-med that the church would be obtaining a formal agreement with the school
district for off-site parking. He stated the house would be demolished near the end
of the project when the youth programs are moved to the south end of the High
Hall. Mr. Olson called attention to the requirement of eight overstory trees on the
west side. He explained that they will likely delay installation of the trees until the
pipe is constructed.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, inquired of the extent that the water pressure
would be improved by a looped water main.
Mr. VanderTop stated it will definitely help the properties in the immediate area of
35t~ and Ensign but he could not speculate whether it would improve water
pressure for more distant properties.
Councilmember Cassen inquired whether the church has a developer interested in
June 9, 2003
RESOLUTION 03-95
Item 8.2
PLANNING CASE
03-06
Item 8.3
New Hope City Council
Page 4
the residential subdivided lot.
Mr. Olson indicated that they do not have a developer at this point.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NOS. 02-12
AND 03-04, REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR
PARISH COMMUNITY OF ST. JOSEPH TO SUBDIVIDE PARCEL,
SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR CHURCH EXPANSION AND SHARED PARKING, 8701 36T"
AVENUE NORTH, CHURCH OF ST. JOSEPH, 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, 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 8.3, Planning Case 03-06, Request for
Conditional Use Permit and Site/Building Plan Review, 9200 49th Avenue North,
Pierce Fleming/Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital/City of New Hope, Petitioners.
Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, stated the petitioner is
requesting a conditional use permit to allow an animal kennel in an Industrial
Zoning District and site/building plan review to allow construction of a new 7,480
square foot veterinary clinic at 9200 49'h Avenue North. He stated the Planning
Commission considered this request at its June 3 meeting and recommended
approval subject to the conditions outlined in the resolution. The subject property
is located on the north side of 49th Avenue approximately 700 feet east of Highway
169. He reviewed the background of the property. The closing of the property will
occur on or before July 31. The petitioner has stated that controlled drugs will be
kept in two different double lock safes and will be accessed by a limited number of
staff. He stated section 4-20(e)(16)(j) exempts veterinary clinics from the
conditional use requirement if they board ten or fewer animals. Plymouth Heights
Pet Hospital will have space to board up to 28 dogs so the conditional use permit is
required.
Mr. Doresky reviewed the building plans, landscaping, signage, and lighting as
outlined in the planning report. The primary access to the facility will be off 49th
Avenue across from Erickson Drive. The driveway will be a nine-ton design
standard. The design standard is necessary to accommodate city access to the
regional pond on the north side of the site.
Mr. Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer, discussed the proposed water
quality pond. He stated the city will be responsible for constructing the regional
pond and an access to the pond beyond the proposed parking lot. A temporary
easement has been provided along the eastern property line to facilitate
construction access. An access easement must be provided through the pet hospital
driveway and parking lot allowing the city to access the regional pond. The
applicant will pay a proportional fee toward the construction of the regional pond.
Dr. Pierce Fleming, Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital, was recognized.
Mayor Enck expressed the council's appreciation to Dr. Fleming for his
involvement in assisting staff with the recent ordinance pertaining to animal day
care facilities.
Dr. Fleming responded to questions from council. He stated the clinic utilizes
Sharps containers for disposal of needles and the containers are collected by a
June 9, 2003
RESOLUTION 03-96
Item 8.3
PLANNING CASE
03-07
Item 8.4
RESOLUTION 03-97
Item 8.4
New Hope City Council
Page 5
veterinary service. He stated the disposal of surgical wrappings and materials is
handled as general trash. The entire building perimeter will be used for an animal
walking area. There are seven mas in the rear that are completely enclosed
(including the top) with chain link fence.
Mayor Enck advised that review of plans by Shingle Creek Watershed should be
added as a condition of approval.
Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption with the inclusion of condition munber 9 (Submit plans to Shingle Creek
Watershed for approval): "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE
03-06, REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW, 9200 49TM AVENUE NORTH, PIERCE
FLEMING/PLYMOUTH HEIGHTS PET HOSPITAL/CITY OF NEW
HOPE, PETITIONERS". 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 8.4, Planning Case 03-07, Request for
Preliminary Plat Approval for Thompson New Hope Addition, 8501 54th Avenue
North, David Thompson/Redwing Properties LLC, Petitioner.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated Redwing
Properties LLC is requesting preliminary plat approval for Thompson New Hope
Addition to divide one existing lot into two parcels, to be known as Lot 1 and
Outlot A, at 8501 54t~ Avenue North. He stated the Planning Commission
reviewed the request at its meeting of June 3 and recommended approval subject to
several conditions. The Planning Commission agreed to waive review of the final
plat.
The site currently has a metes and bounds legal description and the city code
requires that any division of such site be platted. The preliminary plat of the site
includes one lot (lot 1, block I Thompson New Hope Addition) on which there is
an existing office/warehouse building and one outlot (outlot A) which is currently
not improved but will provide access and drainage easements for lot 1, block 1
Thompson New Hope Addition. There are no additional improvements proposed
to the site except implementation of proof of parking.
The property owner intends to sell the facility at 8501 544 Avenue North (lot 1).
Most interested parties do not need the three acres of expansion land to the east of
the existing building. Creation of the ouflot will facilitate the sale of the property at
8501 54* Avenue North.
Mr. McDonald stated the appropriate drainage and utility easements are shown on
the plat. A future ponding easement for future improvements on the property is
also shown on the plat. Mr. McDonald commented that a shared ingress/egress
easement is provided for the driveway that currently serves lot 1 but is located on
the outlot. He stated the easements will be reconfigured when the property (outlot
A) is developed in the future.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 03-07,
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THOMPSON
NEW HOPE ADDITION, 8501 54TM AVENUE NORTH, DAVID
THOMPSON/REDVtrING PROPERTIES LLC, PETITIONER". The motion
for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember
June 9, 2003
ALARM SYSTEM
REGISTRATION
Item 10.1
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 10.1, Ordinance No. 03-05, An
Ordinance Establishing a Registration Process for Private Alarm Systems.
Mr. Gary Link, Director of Police, utilized a power point presentation and
explained the proposed registration process for private alarm holders. He pointed
out that the Police Department has responded to an average of 900 false alarm
calls each calendar year for the past five years. The approximate annual cost for
the Police Department to respond to these false alarms is approaching $7,000.
The purpose of the ordinance is to encourage the effective use of alarm systems.
Mechanical malfunctions and operator error account for the vast majority of false
alarms. This ordinance requires that alarm system equipment meet established
industry standards and specifies the duties of alarm users, alarm installation
companies, and alarm monitoring services. The requirements of the ordinance are
intended to make certain alarm systems are mechanically reliable and increase user
proficiency in an effort to reduce the number of false alarms.
Alarm systems are effective devices in notifying emergency services that a
problem exists, however, mechanical malfunctions and improper operator use lead
to the expenditure and waste of shrinking resources for police and fire services.
The ordinance includes provisions for the assessment of fees for excessive false
alarms and alternative service levels if correction of the alarm problem does not
OCCur.
Mr. Link stated per council direction, the New Hope Police Department and West
Metro Fire-Rescue District have incorporated provisions for both emergency
services into the proposed ordinance. Also, recommendations from the False
Alarm Reduction Association and the National Burglar and Fire Alarm
Association model ordinances have been incorporated.
Information about the ordinance proposed to become effective July 1, 2003, has
been communicated to residents and businesses through the Police Department
TIPS newsletter, the utility Pipeline, the City Report, Business Link, city website,
and Post Publications.
Mr. Link stated the proposed annual registration fee of $25 will cover
administrative costs as well as the property owner's first three free false alarm
calls within a 12-month period.
Mayor Enck asked whether the same ordinance was presented to the city of
Crystal. Mr. Link stated Crystal already has an ordinance in place that slightly
differs from New Hope's. He noted that he has communicated and shared New
Hope's proposed ordinance with Crystal Police Chief Algyer.
Discussion ensued regarding the annual registration fee, consideration of a one-
time registration fee for single-family properties, higher percentage of calls to
commercial properties compared to residential properties, the benefits of advance
registration process, reduction of repeat offenders with implementation of false
alarm fee system, type of software to track data, and the advantages of clarifying
responsibilities of alarm companies and alarm users.
New Hope City Council
Page 6
Mayor Enck emphasized the importance of Crystal adhering to an identical
ordinance since West Metro Fire-Rescue serves both cities. Staff was directed to
June 9, 2003
COMMISSIONS
LANGUAGE
Item 10.2
G. O. CERTIFICATES
OF INDEBTEDNESS
Item 10.3
RESOLUTION 03-98
Item 10.3
PUBLIC PURPOSE
EXPENDITURE
POLICY
Item 10.4
New Hope City Council
Page 7
consider the council's suggestions, consult Crystal staff and council, and re-submit
the proposed ordinance to the New Hope City Council in the near future.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.2, Ordinance No. 03-14, An
Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 of the New Hope City Code Regulating the
Various Commissions Established to Advise the City Council.
Mayor Enck directed staff to furnish chapter 2 with the proposed text amendments
shown within the existing code.
The City Clerk agreed to provide this information to the council and to re-submit
the ordinance amendment at a future meeting.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.3, Resolution Relating to $500,000
General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2003;
Authorizing the Issuance, Awarding the Sale, Fixing the Form and Details, and
Providing for the Execution and Delivery Thereof and Levying Ad Valorem Taxes
for the Payment Thereof.
Mayor Enck noted the debt will finance the New Hope share of the aerial ladder
apparatus and 800 mhz radio equipment for West Metro Fire-Rescue District. The
2003 certificates of indebtedness will be repaid over a five-year period from 2004
to 2008. The new debt will not raise taxes, as it will replace expiring debt service
from thc current property tax levy.
Ms. Christy Myers, Public Financial Management, Inc., was recognized. She
explained that Evensen Dodge recently merged with Pubic Financial Management,
Inc. (The PFM Group).
Ms. Myers reported that three bids were received for the $500,000 General
Obligation Equipment Certificates. The best bid was received from United
Bankers Bank for a true interest rate (TIR) of2.2011%.
Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION RELATING TO $500,000 GENERAL
OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS,
SERIES 2003; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, AWARDING THE SALE,
FIXING THE FORM AND DETAILS, AND PROVIDING FOR THE
EXECUTION AND DELIVERY THEREOF AND LEVYING AD
VALOREM TAXES FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF". The motion for the
adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, and the following voted against the same:
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 10.4, Resolution Approving a Public
Purpose Expenditure Policy for the City of New Hope.
Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, stated the Public Purpose Expenditure Policy
formalizes many of the practices that city staff has engaged in that have been
authorized by the city council. The state auditor encouraged many cities to prepare
a Public Purpose Expenditure Policy to aid representatives of the city in the
determination of when public funds may be spent for a public purpose.
He explained that the policy describes valid public purpose expenditures in the
following areas: training and development programs, safety and health programs,
employee and volunteer recognition programs, refreshments, and community and
June 9, 2003
RESOLUTION 03-99
Item 10.4
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 12.1
COUNCIL
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 12.2
New Hope City Council
Page 8
customer outreach.
Mr. Donahue pointed out that under his contract, the city council has previously
authorized him, as city manager, the ability to expend city dollars in situations that
he deems to be in the best interest of the city. He cited an example of such an
expenditure was last year when he purchased steak dinners to public works
employees after they performed 12 hours of snowplowing services. He pointed out
that the excessive snowfall required the public works staff to work perform in an
exceptional manner.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUBLIC PURPOSE
EXPENDITURE POLICY FOR 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 12.1, Council Input on City
Communication.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.2, Exchange of Communication
Between Members of the City Council.
Mayor Enck
· Read letter from Amy Saviage thanking the city for the bike rodeo - shared a
photo of her daughter, Amy, with her new bicycle purchased with a gift
certificate she won at the rodeo.
· Shared medical problems experienced by Bob Rappaport and his valuable
contributions to the City Center Task Force; suggested the owner of the
abutting center serve as Bob's replacement- unanimous support
· Suggested the city consider a "no gun" policy for city parks and city facilities;
and research what steps other cities have taken
· Requested an update on Twin City Poultry (4630 Quebec) noise issue - Kirk
McDonald reported that the city recently signed the contract with Short Elliot
Hendrickson to review the noise reports; will try to expedite the process and
have information available at the June 16 work session.
· Reported that he will be attending a U of St. Thomas collaborative event to be
held at Paddock Laboratories on June 10.
· Advised of an invitation for councilmembers to attend a Dialogue with the
ISD 281 Government Advisory Council on June 16 from 5:30-6:30 pm
· Shared an invitation to attend meetings sponsored by the Robbinsdale Area
Redesign Family Service Collaborative and the Alliance for Families and
Children in Hennepin County on June 12 and June 13 from 7:45-10:00 a.m. at
House of Hope Lutheran Church.
Councilmember Collier
· Advised staff that McDonald's Restaurant at 42nd/Winnetka is operating its
drive-up window 24 hours (Mr. McDonald will advise McDonald's regarding
the need to apply for an administrative permi0.
City Manager Donahue
· Updated council regarding proposed agenda items for the June 16 work
session
· Advised council of an applicant for the Human Rights Commission (directed
city clerk to schedule an interview on June 16 or 23)
Councilmember Cassen
· Inquired of an anticipated date to discuss licensing of rental properties (Mr.
Donahue suggested adding the topic to the June 16 work session)
June 9, 2003
ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember
Cassen, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before
the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope City
Council adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
New Hope City Council
Page 9
June 9, 2003
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
EDA Minutes
Regular Meeting
May 27, 2003
City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVE MINUTES
WEST WINNETKA
REDEVELOPMENT
Item 4
MOTION
Item 4
SECTION 8 HOUSING
CONTRACT
Item 5
President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order
at 10:05 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 May 12, 2003. All present voted in
favor. Motion carried.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Motion Approving Sharing of
Appraisal Cost with Bear Creek Capital for Potential West Winnetka
Redevelopment Project.
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated this item is in
follow up to the brief presentation made at the May 19 City Council work session
by Bear Creek Capital regarding a potential redevelopment in the West Winnetka
area of the Livable Communities area. He stated the City Manager is recommending
that the EDA approve a motion approving sharing of the appraisal costs or
approximately $7,500. He stated details are yet to be worked out regarding the
selection of the appraisal fnma and would be coordinated with Bear Creek Capital in
the future. The City Manager recommends that the City share in the "up front" costs
with the understanding that the City's investment would be recuperated if the
development moves forward.
President Enck noted the cost of the appraisal should be borne entirely by the
developer as part of the proposal.
Commissioner Sommer also expressed reluctance of providing city funds towards
an appraisal as it appears unlikely that the project will move forward as the school
district is not interested in selling any of its property at this time.
Commissioner Collier recollected that the EDA previously agreed that the
immediate focus would not include the West Winnetka area.
Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Sommer,
denying the sharing of appraisal cost with Bear Creek Capital. All present voted
in favor. Motion carried.
President Enck introduced for discussion Item 5, Resolution Approving Second
Amendment to Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program Contract No. C-
99-66 for Administrative Services Between the Metropolitan Council and the City
of New Hope and Authorizing President and Executive Director to Execute
Agreement.
EDA Minutes
Page 1
May 27, 2003
EDA RESOLUTION
03-05
Item 5
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, explained that this item
formalizes the contract amendment that was discussed at the EDA meeting of April
28, 2003. The contract amendment will shift the 128 Maple Grove client contracts
to Metro HRA staff effective July 31, 2003. The city's section 8 housing
coordinator will continue to manage 335 contracts.
Commissioner Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
"RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM CONTRACT NO. C-99-
66 FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES BETWEEN THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF NEW HOPE AND
AUTHORIZING PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE AGREEMENT." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
resolution was seconded by Commissioner Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth,
Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None;
Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted,
signed by the president which was attested to by the executive director.
Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Gwin-
Lenth, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The
New Hope EDA adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
Res~pectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
EDA Minutes
Page 2
May 27, 2003