Loading...
PL 11/04/03PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North Tuesday, November 4, 2003 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 Case 03-16 Request for conditional use permit to allow a commercial recreational facility in an industrial zoning district and a variance from the arterial street access requirement, 8801 Science Center Drive, Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway, Inc./CSM Equities, Petitioner 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 5.2 Report of Design & Review Committee - November 13, 8 a.m. Report of Codes & Standards Committee 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Miscellaneous Issues· Temporary signs in boulevard study- accepted and to be reviewed at a work session in January 2004 · Review 2004 Planning Commission schedule 6.2 City Center Task Force - Next meeting on November 6 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of October 7, 2003 7.2 Review of City Council Minutes of September 22 and October 13, 2003 7.3 Review of EDA Minutes of August 25, 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: Report Date: 03-16 November 4, 2003 October 31, 2003 Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway, Inc./CSM Equities 8801 Science Center Drive Conditional Use Permit and Variance I. Request The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a commercial recreational facility in an industrial zoning district and a variance from the arterial street access requirement, pursuant to Sections 4-20.e.5, 4-33 and 4-36 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. II. Zoning Code References Conditional Uses, I-Commercial Recreation Facilities Administration - Conditional Use Permit Administration - Variances Section 4-20.e.5 Section 4-33 Section 4-36 Property Specifications Zoning: Location: Adjacent Land Uses: III. I, Industrial Southwest quadrant of Science Center Drive and Boone Avenue Industrial uses in all directions, R-4, high density residential to the east across Boone Avenue and north of 54th Avenue Site Area: 493,448 square feet (11.3 acres) (from site plan) Building Area: 130,140 square feet (from site plan) Lot Area Ratios: Building Area: 26% (from site plan) Parking: 23% Green Space: 51% Planning District: District #3; The Comprehensive Plan indicates this area as a strong industrial base and in excellent condition. The plan does not specifically identify this property, however, the primary goal within this district is the preservation and enhancement of its industrial land uses. Specific Information: This building is currently vacant, as the tenant that occupied the rear portion of the building recently moved out. The front portion of the building has been vacant for several years. In 2002, Egan Companies considered purchasing and renovating the building, but the property sold to another party. IV. Background Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway has submitted an application for a conditional use permit to operate an indoor carting and corporate entertainment center at 8801 Science Center Drive in New Hope. The Planning Case Report 03-16 Page I 10/31/03 applicant is proposing to relocate an indoor go-cart facility into an existing building within an industrial-- area located on the corner of Boone Avenue and Science Center Drive. The proposed use includes indoor go-cart tracks for children and adults, an on-site restaurant, office and meeting room space. V, Petitioner's Comments Petitioner correspondence dated October 10 states that, "We, Renee Stoddard and Sam Baxter, the CEO and general manager' of Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway of Brooklyn Center, are writing to you in request of your approval for a conditional use permit for a building in New Hope. The building in which we are requesting the permit is located at 8801-8811 Science Center Drive, located on the southwest corner of Boone Avenue and Science Center Drive. We request your approval so that we can relocate Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway from the old Kmart building in Brooklyn Center to your community. We anticipate that our business will enrich the community of New Hope and the surrounding business areas. The corporate and private groups that we attract have improved our current area of commerce. We have proven this in Brooklyn Center and would like to demonstrate our capability in New Hope. In our current location, we have hosted events for Thursday's Child, AASP, the ^rthritic Foundation, Paul Brands 20th Anniversary, and a variety of other beneficial events. Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway has also been asked to host an event for the governor's conference in January! We plan on maintaining the same layout of our current facility in order to suit the whole family's needs. Again, we would offer two different tracks to accommodate those young and grown. The separation of age divisions and tracks only help aid us in our mission of making Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway the safest place to race go-karts in the region. We pride ourselves on our past track safety record and strive to continue in our pursuit in New Hope. Our selection of different karts and barrier systems make our tracks the safest available. Our European engineered barriers also allow us to change the track configuration to always make it exciting and new for our customers." Correspondence submitted October 24 with revised plans includes the following information: "Parking: Thunder Alley occupancy loads may exceed the amount of parking spots we now have, but after being open for almost two years, we know from experience that the parking spaces at the Science Center Drive address will be ample. Most of our large groups use buses and most individuals arrive in groups together. We would be very happy if we fill the front and side parking at any one given time. Sidewalk/Entrance: We feel that adding sidewalks on the south side of the building would not increase safety or accessibility. Along the east side, the problems will exist due to the loading docks. The loading docks would also effect putting an entrance on the south side. Having an entrance on the south side, I feel, would be more of a safety issue for the public and employees of Thunder Alley. But if you feel that there should be one, we have no problem incorporating one of the rear doors as an entrance. Lighting: We will address any lighting issues there may be. I have not been able to visit the site as of yet at night, we will make a visit and show the lighted and non-lighted areas and correct them, if necessary. The landlord is willing to add power packs to the building as well. We will provide an updated lighting plan. Landscaping: I did manage to make it back to the site after the meeting and found that the sidewalk was there along the extended part of the building. It is five feet wide, so I feel that this matter is not an issue. Fuel Storage: The fuel tank we use meets all Minnesota standards on secondary containment. We will install a six-inch deep 8 x 10 platform for the tank to sit on. We will also build a fencing unit around it with three cement steel poles four feet deep and four feet above ground for protection, or an electrician will make sure to meet all codes regarding the electrical including the explosion proof conduit. Due to the amount of power lines running underground, I feel that putting it next to the building on the south Planning Case Report 03-16 Page 2 10/31/03 side would be more feasible. We understand that it would take up two to three parking spots and the vent pipe would need to be 12 feet from above ground and five feet from any building opening. Building Details/Code Issues: We are in the process of determining the type of elevator, and until we have installed access to the second floor, we will not be using it for public use. As the noise levels will be different at every location due to the construction type and ceiling heights, I will try and provide you with the noise decibels provided to us. A contractor will install the ventilation system and we will provide all information supplied to us that will meet all codes. The building has a full sprinkler system and we will also have one fire extinguisher located every 75 feet around the perimeter of the track. We will provide the city of New Hope and Hennepin County Health Department with the necessary information before any construction is done to the snack bar area. The southeast loading dock will be used for storage. I don't see any major use of it after the move is completed; we receive deliveries form UPS about three times a month delivered through the front door. Food is either picked up by myself, or if a big order was made, the US Foods Service truck will deliver to the front door. We don't foresee any major use of the loading docks. If we do, we will try to set up deliveries at a time when we are closed. All of our go-karts are factory assembled and the only alterations that have been made are with the installation of factory provided hand controls. The fuel tanks are factory installed and I believe the information was provided about the fuel tanks. They can hold 2.5 gallons of fuel and we never fill them more than ~ full, or 1.5 gallons. We plan on moving our existing sign and relocate it to the front of the building over the entryway on the north side of the building. We will have a new pylon sign made for the existing pylon near Boone Avenue. The proposed sign on the pylon would be eight feet long and six feet tall lighted. We would also install lighted letters on the east side facing Boone Avenue that would read "INDOOR KARTING" or "THUNDER ALLEY INDOOR KARTING." Hours of Operation: Our hours now are Monday - Thursday 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. Friday 11 a.m. - 11 p.m. Saturday 9:30 a.m. - 11 p.m. and Sunday 9:30 a.m. - 10 p.m. We do have some proposed change in hours of operation. Mondays would change to 5 p.m. - 10 p.m. unless a private group reserves the time prior to the day of event. Saturday hours would change to 10:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. and Sunday would change to 10:30 a.m. to 10 p.m." VI, Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff has received no comments. VII. Development Analysis A. Zonin.q Code Criteria Conditional Use Permit 1. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the city with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, to allow a conditional use permit application, the city may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, similar uses already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and any other factors bearing on the general welfare, public health, and safety from the approval of the conditional use permit. 2. Cdteria for Decision. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. In determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit, the City Council and Planning Commission shall find that the conditional use permit complies with the following criteria. The burden of proof demonstrating compliance with the following criteria shall be the responsibility of the applicant. A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the city. Planning Case Report 03-16 Page 3 10/31/03 B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent present and future anticipated- land uses. C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the code. D. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. E. Zonin.q Distdct Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed use meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts: 1. In Industrial Districts (I): a. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing and future development in adjacent areas. b. Economic Retum. The use will provide an economic return to the community and be commensurate with other industrial uses for which the property could feasibly be used. In considering the economic return to the community, the Planning Commission and City Council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative. 2. Commercial recreation facilities are defined to include cart tracks and are a permitted conditional use within the industrial district. In determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit, the City Council and Planning Commission shall find that the conditional use permit complies with the following criteda (planner's comments pertaining to criteria are in bold). The burden of proof demonstrating compliance with the following criteria is the responsibility of the applicant. A. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official comprehensive municipal plan of the city. The property is guided for industrial use and the proposed use is a permitted conditional use within the industrial district. The applicant will be using an existing building within the industrial district. B. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent present and future anticipated land uses. The proposed use is a permitted conditional use within the industrial district. The applicant will be using an existing building within the Industrial district. C. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in this code. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable performance standards contained in the Zoning Code as a condition of approval, unless waived by the City Council. D. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The use will utilize an existing building within the industrial district and will be completely contained therein. The use should not adversely affect the area. E. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed use meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts. The proposed use is a permitted conditional use within the industrial district. The applicant will be using an existing building within the industrial district. Planning Case Report 03-16 Page 4 10/31/03 F. In industrial districts (I): a. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing and future development in adjacent areas. The applicant indicates that it will provide noise decibels related to the use. In addition, the applicant will install a ventilation system in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. b. Economic return. The use will provide an economic return to the community and be commensurate with other industrial uses for which the property could feasible be used. In considering the economic return to the community, the Planning Commission and City Council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative. The use will provide an economic retum to the community, as it will bring a new commercial recreational use to the city. (staff comment) 3. Specific criteria for commercial recreational facilities include the following: A. Access. The site of the proposed use has direct access to an arterial street as defined in the City Code, without utilizing public streets of a lower traffic handling classification to reach the arterial street. B. Compatibility. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence. C. Liqhtinq shielded. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the right-of-way or from a residential zone or use. D. Surfacing. The entire area other than that occupied by buildings, structures or plantings shall be surfaced with a bituminous or concrete matedal which will control dust and drainage. The material and grading shall be subject to the approval of the city. E. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided and the type of planting material and the number and size of plants shall be subject to the approval of the city. These cdteria are addressed in the following sections of the report. Variance The New Hope Zoning Code contemplates that properties on which go-cart facilities are located shall have direct access to an arterial street. A variance is required to permit continued access to the existing building via Science Center Drive, a neighborhood collector. A variance permits relief from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel or property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration, and the granting of the variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning code. ^ variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, the following criteria are met: 1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property and results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. Planning Case Report 03-16 Page 5 10/31/03 The access issue is a hardship created by the specific terms of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code contemplates that properties on which go-cart facilities are located shall have direct access to an arterial street. Upon review of the application and the contemplated use of the existing facility within the industrial district, traffic issues may better be averted by permitting continued access via Science Center Drive, a neighborhood collector. The city engineer believes that the use will be adequately served by a collector street and that the ordinance should be amended to eliminate the requirement of access via an arterial street. 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. The access issue is specific to this property 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. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous landowner. 4. The application for variance shall also meet the following cdteda: a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality. Permitting continued access to the existing building via Science Center Drive 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. Permitting continued access to the existing building via Science Center Drive 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 public safety. c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. Permitting continued access to the existing building via Science Center Drive 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. Commercial recreation facilities are defined to include cart tracks and are a permitted conditional use within the industrial district. B. Development Review Team The Development Review Team discussed the application on October 15, was supportive of the request, and discussed: parking, sidewalk/entrance, lighting, landscaping, fuel storage, building code issues, loading docks, signage, hours of operation, and the go-carts. C. Desiqn and Review Committee The Design and Review Committee met with the applicant on October 16, was supportive of the request, and discussed the same concerns as listed above with the applicant. Revised plans and narrative were submitted following the meeting. D. Plan Description The revised plans and narrative, including planner and staff comments, are outlined below: Planning Case Report 03-16 Page 6 10/31/03 1. Site Data Summary provided on site plan: SITE SUMMARY Site Building square feet Building coverage Parking 493,448 square feet (11.3 acres) 130,140 square feet 26% 23% 224 stalls 2 handicap stalls (van) 5 handicap stalls 231 total Note: Parking numbers based on actual physical count. 2. Zoning The site is zoned industrial. The purpose of the industrial district is to provide for the establishment of heavy industrial and manufacturing development that require isolation from residential or non-compatible commercial uses. Commercial recreation facilities are defined to include cart tracks and are a permitted conditional use within the Industrial district. 3. Streets/Site Access The site must have direct access to an arterial street without utilizing public streets of a lower traffic handling classification to reach the arterial street. The plans indicate that the site will be accessed via Science Center Drive. Science Center Drive is a neighborhood collector. Boone Avenue is a community collector street. A variance will be required to permit continued access via Science Center Drive. 4. Compatibility The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence. The applicant is proposing to utilize an existing building within the Industrial district. The plans indicate that all proposed modifications to the existing building structure will be internal. 5. Liqhting All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the right-of- way or from a residential use zone. The plans indicate the location of 18 existing external building-mounted lighting fixtures. The type of' existing lighting fixtures are not indicated. The plans do not indicate any proposed lighting for the parking areas or surrounding property. The applicant indicates that it will provide an updated lighting plan. 6. Surfacing The entire area other than that occupied by buildings, structures or plantings shall be surfaced with a bituminous or concrete material that will control dust and drainage. The material and grading shall be subject to the approval of the city. The use is proposed within an existing building on the site that has previously been developed. The site cover currently consists of a building and bituminous drive areas and parking surround by a grassy area. 7. Landscapinq Landscaping shall be provided and the type of planting material and the number and size of plants shall be subject to the approval of the city. The plans indicate that existing landscaping includes maple trees and pine trees. The applicant is not proposing any new or additional landscaping. The amount of landscaping near the front entrance has been reduced, as recommended. Planning Case Report 03-16 Page 7 10/31/03 8. Lot requirements and setbacks for the industrial district are as follows: Industrial Lot Standards Required Existing Lot Area 1 acre 11.3 acres Lot Width 100 feet Complies Impervious Surface 80% 49% (building 26%) (parking 23%) Building Height 6 stories 2 stories Setbacks - front 30 feet Complies - side 10 feet Complies - side corner 30 feet Complies - rear 30 feet Complies 9. Fuel Storaqe The applicant is proposing to install a 550-gallon outdoor aboveground fuel storage tank on the site. The applicant indicates that the outdoor fuel storage tank meets all Minnesota standards on secondary containment and will sit on a six-inch deep 8X10 platform surrounded by a four-foot fence. The plans indicate the location of the fuel tank directly behind the building in the rear parking lot. The applicant states that the location was selected due to underground power lines and that a vent pipe would be 12 feet above ground and five feet from any building opening. The plans indicate parking stalls within eight feet of the fuel tank, including an existing disabled accessible parking stall. The proposed location of the fuel tank and its proximity to the building and parking stalls should be reviewed and approved by the city fire inspector. 10. Parkinq The New Hope Zoning Code does not set forth specific parking standards for commercial recreational use. Uses not specifically referenced are to be determined on an individual basis by the City Council based on factors including national parking standards, parking standards for similar businesses and land uses, size of building, type of use, number of employees, expected volume and turnover of customer traffic and expected frequency and number of delivery vehicles. The plans indicate that the applicant will share the existing parking area surrounding the building with another tenant. The plans depict 228 pai'king stalls (the plans state that there are 231 parking stalls - only 228 stalls are depicted on the plans). The plans indicate seven designated disabled parking stalls including two that will be van accessible. The majority of existing parking is 90-degree angle, excluding three corner stalls. The dimensions of a sampling of the existing parking stalls indicate dimensions of nine feet in width by 18 feet in length. The New Hope Zoning Code requires 90 degree parking stall dimensions of 8'9" X 19 feet. The length of the existing parking stalls is slightly less that that required by the New Hope Zoning Code. The proposed use includes the following elements to be considered when determining parking: USE STANDARD SOURCE APPLICATION PARKING INFORMATION REQUIRED go-cart track 1 per go-cart plus one APA Parking 12 carts 24 stalls (adult) per employee on the Standards 12 employees largest shift go-cart track 1 per go-cart plus one APA Parking 10 carts 10 stalls (children) per employee on the Standards largest shift Planning Case Report 03-16 Page 8 10/31/03 office space 3 stalls plus at least 1 New Hope 3,445 s.f.** 15 stalls stall per 300 s.f. of Zoning Code floor area storage 1 stall per 1,500 s.f. of New Hope 8,077 s.f.* 6 stalls space floor area used as Zoning Code warehouse space kitchen 1 stall for each 80 s.f. New Hope 500 s.f.* 7 stalls facility of kitchen area Zoning Code restaurant 1 stall per 40 s.f. of New Hope 978 s.f.** 25 stalls gross floor area of Zoning Code dining meeting 1 stall per 300 s.f. of New Hope 4,985 s.f** 17 stalls rooms floor area Zoning Code (office/ community ctr) TOTAL 104 stalls 11. 12. indicates square footage is approximate ** indicates information supplied by applicant Existing parking of 228 parking stalls on this site provides ample parking for the proposed use. The parallel parking spaces in front of the entrance have been eliminated, per the recommendations of staff and the Design and Review Committee. The guidelines for designated disabled parking established by the Minnesota State Council on Disability express a ratio of seven designated disabled accessible parking stalls including one "van accessible" parking stall for 228 parking stalls. Each disabled accessible stall must have an adjacent five-foot wide access aisle. The "van accessible" stall must have an adjacent eight-foot wide access aisle. All such stalls must be on an accessible route located as near as possible to an accessible entrance and be appropriately signed. The plans depict seven designated disabled parking stalls in the parking area servicing the site, including two van accessible stalls. The number of designated disabled parking stalls indicated on the plans is adequate. Loadinq The application indicates that all deliveries are anticipated to occur through the front door of the building and that major use of the loading docks is not anticipated. Utilization of the loading docks may interfere with vehicle and pedestrian traffic through the site. Any loading activities that require use of the loading docks should occur at times other than normal business hours. The plans indicate two existing loading docks. The applicant indicates that it does not foresee any "major" use of the loading docks. Use of the loading docks may require that the parking areas located across from such loading areas be eliminated unless the applicant can demonstrate that service vehicles will have adequate maneuverability. Loading berths may not conflict with pedestrian traffic. Industrial uses are required to have one 70-foot loading dock plus one additional three-foot loading dock for each 100,000 square feet or fraction thereof. Loading docks must be 10 feet in width and 14 feet in height. The loading docks serving the site area of adequate width. The height of such loading docks is unknown. Pedestrian Access The plans indicate existing sidewalks in the front of the building (the north side of the building). Existing sidewalks should provide adequate pedestrian access for the proposed use. Planning Case Report 03-16 Page 9 10/31/03 13. Storage The plans indicate that the rear (southerly) loading dock will be used as a storage area. Previous plans indicated a small "flammable" storage space on the rear loading dock. The applicant should clarify whether storage of flammable materials is contemplated for this area. Any storage of flammable materials is subject to the review and approval of the fire inspector. The plans also indicate small storage areas within the office/restaurant portion of the building. Any storage of flammable materials is subject to the review and approval of the fire inspector. 14. Compliance With Laws The facility, restrooms, etc. must be handicapped accessible and ADA compliant. All aspects of the use must comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances and/or rules. 15. Utilities As the use will be housed in an existing building, the site is already served by city utilities. The plans indicate that electrical transformers at the rear of the site are currently under construction by Xcel Energy. 16. Signa.qe The plans indicate that the applicant is proposing to install three signs for the proposed use. Existing signage configuration on the sight was previously approved. Wall signs. The applicant indicates that it will be installing a building sign on the north side of the building directly over the entrance to the use. The size and type of sign are not indicated. The application indicates that the applicant will also install an illuminated sign on the east side of the building facing Boone Avenue consisting of lighted letters that would read "Indoor Karting" or "Thunder Alley Indoor Karting". The size of such lettering is not indicated in the application. Wall signs are permitted within the industrial district. Tenants occupying a corner location are permitted to display identification signs to both street frontages. The total allowable sign area for a multiple occupancy structure shall not exceed 15 percent of the combined wall surfaces on walls that abut streets. No individual tenant sign may exceed 100 square feet in area. Freestanding Signs. The applicant is proposing to construct and install a new pylon sign to replace the existing pylon sign on the northeast corner of the site (the corner of Science Center Drive and Boone Avenue). The application indicates that the sign will be eight feet in length and six feet in height and that it will be illuminated. Freestanding signs are permitted within the industrial district provided: 1) Freestanding signs abutting local, collector or minor arterial streets shall not exceed 100 square feet in area 2) Freestanding signs shall not exceed 30 feet in height. Comprehensive Sign Plan. The building is a multiple occupancy building and the applicant must therefore submit a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building in accordance with the New Hope Sign Code. If there is an existing comprehensive sign plan for the building, the proposed signage must be in conformance with such plan. The effect of said comprehensive sign plan is to allow and require the owner of multiple occupancy structures to determine the specific individual sign requirements for the tenants of the building. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to the following information: 1. Sign location (both wall signs and freestanding signs) 2. Sign area 3. Sign height 4. Scaled building elevations 5. Scaled floor plan that outlines tenant bays 6. Identification of sign design Planning Case Report 03-16 Page 10 10/31/03 17. 18. 7. Sign construction drawings (sections) Refuse The plans indicate a trash receptacle located within the rear loading dock. Floor Plans indicate two tracks, one for kids and one for adults. Both tracks have "pit areas." On the west side of the interior space a "kart repair" and "arcade" area are shown; the arcade will need to apply for the appropriate permits with the city clerk. Restrooms are located in both the "track" and front office areas. The front office lower floor would include four offices, storage, restaurant/kitchen, three meeting rooms, waiting area, gift shop, break room and restrooms. The second level office plan shows two offices, a large meeting room, storage areas, and restrooms. Accessibility issues need to be addressed before this portion of the building is utilized for public use (elevator or alternate). E. Planninq Considerations The planning consultant's report has been incorporated into this report. F. Buildinq Considerations Comments from the building official are as follows: "1 would recommend approval of the proposed Thunder Alley project located at 8801 Science Center Drive, on the condition that all applicable code requirements for this particular occupancy are satisfied. The information provided by the applicant indicates general compliance with most of the Zoning Code requirements. Some issues will still have to be addressed by the applicant at time of building permit application. My biggest concern with the site plan is that there was not a photometric plan supplied by the applicant, as requested by the Design and Review Committee. Pedestrian circulation issues in the parking lot still have to be addressed. There are still many issues that involve various code requirements (building, fire, mechanical, plumbing) that have not been resolved. These issues can be addressed by the applicant's architect prior to permit application." Le.qal Considerations The city attorney will be responsible for preparing, a CUP agreement, if it is determined that said document is necessary. Enqineerinq Considerations Comments from the city engineer about the request are as follows: October 15, 2003 -"We have reviewed the proposed improvements at 8801 Science Center Drive. It appears that no improvements are proposed on the exterior of the building. We have the following comments based on the submitted information: 1. Two-way traffic access must be maintained in front of the building entrance. Proposed landscaping and existing parking stalls will have to be altered to ensure two-way traffic. 2. Sidewalks should be provided along the building to provide efficient, safe pedestrian access to the parking lot. No further items are noted at this time." October 30, 2003 - "We have the following comments based on the submitted information: Planning Case Report 03-16 Page 11 10/31/03 1. Two-way traffic access must be maintained in front of the building entrance. Existing parallel- parking lines must be removed. This will then ensure two-way traffic. 2. Sidewalks may be considered along the building to provide efficient, safe pedestrian access to the parking lot. 3. The existing driveway accesses to Science Center Drive are suitable for the anticipated use." I. Police Considerations Comments from the Police Department were focused on the need for adequate lighting on the exterior of the facility for safety purposes. J. Fire Considerations Comments from West Metro Fire-Rescue District are as follows: "The following will be the requirements for the proposed indoor speedway on Science Center Drive: 1. Horn and strobes shall be provided throughout the space for the purpose of notification to be activated upon water flow from the sprinkler system. 2. A fire alarm pull station shall be required behind front counter, or another constantly attended location. 3. No smoke detection shall be required for an assembly occupancy with less than 300 people. 4. Fire extinguishers shall be located every 75 feet walking distance. 5. For the 550-gallon aboveground storage tank, the following shall apply: · A special hazard permit application shall be approved prior to installation of aboveground tanks. · Tank information shall be provided with application. · Containment for spill protection shall be provided. · Impact protection shall be provided. · Proper signage shall be provided to include "No Smoking," "Danger Flammable Liquids," and an NFPA 704 placard. · An emergency fuel shut off shall be provided labeled. · A fire extinguisher shall be provided at tank for dispensing operations. · Per NFPA 30, an aboveground tank shall be located no less than five feet from any public way or nearest building. The tank shall also be located no less than 10 feet from the nearest property line that can be built upon, including the opposite side of a public way. · Per NFPA 30, all vent piping shall be no less than 12 feet off the ground and five feet from any building opening or lot line." VIII. Summary The applicant is proposing to relocate an indoor go-cart facility into an existing building within an industrial area located on the corner of Boone Avenue and Science Center Drive. The proposed use includes indoor go-cart tracks for children and adults, on-site restaurant, office and meeting room space. Commercial recreation facilities are defined to include cart tracks and are a permitted conditional use within the industrial district. Staff feels that the proposed use is a good re-use of a vacant industrial building, it will bring a new business to the city, it is located on good transportation routes, and the use itself is isolated from residential areas so should not create any nuisance issues or land use conflicts. Planning Case Report 03-16 Page 12 10/31/03 IX. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use and access variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Access to the site shall continue via Science Center Drive. 2. The applicant will provide an updated lighting/photometric plan. 3. All fuel storage issues and any storage of flammable materials shall be subject to the review and approval of the city's fire inspector and building official. 4. Loading and deliveries shall occur at times other than normal operating hours, which the applicant indicates will be Monday 5 to 10 p.m., Tuesday through Thursday 11 a.m. to 10 p.m., Friday 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday 10:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. and Sunday 10:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. 5. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan for review and approval by city staff. 6. The applicant shall submit noise decibel levels related to the use. 7. Approval of all plans and permits by the building official, including addressing the second floor access to assembly room issue. 8. Approval by West Metro Fire and compliance with recommendations stated in October 14, 2003, memo. 9. Approval by city engineer and compliance with recommendations in October 15 and 30, 2003, correspondence. 10. Restaurant/kitchen facilities subject to review/approval of Hennepin County Health Department. 11. Obtain necessary permits/license from city clerk for video arcade. 12. Execute conditional use permit agreement with city to be prepared by city attorney. Attachments:: · Topo/Zoning/Address Maps · 10/10 Petitioner Correspondence · 10/24 Petitioner Correspondence · Vicinity Map · Site Summary/Legend · Site Plan · Floor Plans · Planner's Report · 10/15 and 10/30 City Engineer Comments · 10/14 West Metro Fire Comments · Building Official Comments · Information Staff Obtained From Website · 'Staff Photos of Existing Site/Building · Zoning Code Excerpts/Commercial Recreation Facilities and Arcade License Requirements · Application Log Planning Case Report 03-16 Page 13 10/31/03 9210 56,32 Thru 5600 9201 ~ DR PARK 555O 8748 8700 CENTER EAST 8801 5555 9101 9OOO 5500 P JBLIC ORKS ARAGE 5~Ol 5425 5420 5417 5401 5,1.10 9101 9210 9211 5101 56TH AV: NORTH 55OO RIDGE APART- MENTS ~ 543O NORTH RIDGE CARE CENTER 5300 ~CH CENTER ;~OAD HOSTER~ JR HIGH SCHOOL CHURCH ~_- ~'0~..~r..~ ..... CHRIST HOUSE OF HOPE COOPE HIGH SC / / _~, .f 5930 Earle Brog~ Dnvc Brooklyn Center. MN 55430 Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway, Inc. October 10. 2003 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave N. Minneapolis, MN 55428 Dear City of New Hope: We, Renee Stoddard and Sam Baxter, the C.E.O and general manager of Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway of Brooklyn Center are writing to you in request of your approval for a conditional use permit for a building in New Hope. The building in which we are requesting the permit for is located at 8801-8811 Science Center Drive, located on the south west corner of Boone Ave and Science Center Drive. We request your approval so that we can relocate Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway from the old Kmart Building in Brooklyn Center to your commumty. We anticipate that our business will enrich the community of New Hope and the surrounding business areas. The corporate and private groups that we attract have improved our current area of commerce. We have proven this in Brooklyn Center and would like to demonstrate our capability in New Hope. - In our current location, we have hosted events for Thursda,,'s y ~,mm, rxtxor, thc ~nnrl[iC rounoallon, Paul Brands 20th Anniversary, and a variety of other beneficial events. Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway has also been asked to host an event for the governor's conference in January! We plan on maintaining the samelayout of our current facility in order to suit the whole family's needs. Again, we would offer two different tracks to accommodate those young and grown. The separation of age divisions and tracks only help aid us in our mission of making Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway the safest place to race go-karts tn the region! We pride ourselves on our past track safety record and strive to continue in our pursuit in New Hope. Our selection of different karts and barrier systems make our tracks the safest available. Our European engineered barriers also allow us to change the track configuration to always make it exciting and new for our customers! We invite anyone with any questions to please call us at 763-566-7733. We would be happy to give further explanation of our ideas and plans. We are looking forward to relocating in your community. Sincerely, Renee Stoddard Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway, C.E.O. Thunder m ey Speedway, Inc. October 24, 2003 Indoor 5930 Earle Brown Dr Brookly~ Cenler. MN 55430 New Hope Design & Review Committee 4401 Xylon Ave N. Minneapolis, MN 55428 Dear Sir or Madam: PARKING - Thunder Alley Occupancy loads may exceed the amounl of parking spots we now have htJ1 allot being open Ior almo.'-J Iw¢~ we know from experience that tho parking spaces at lite Science Drive Address will bo ample Most of our Imge group:; u.';u and mosl individuals amve in groups together. We would be very happy if we fill tho front and side parking al any one g~ven t~me SIDEWALK/ENTRANCE- We feel that adding sidewalks on the south side of the building would not increase safely or accessibility. Along the east side the problems will exist due to the loading docks. Putling an enlrance on the south side would also be effected by the loading docks having an entrance on the soulh side I feel would be more of a safety issue for the public and employees of Thunder Alley. But if you feel that there should be one we have no problem incorporating one of the rear door as an entrance. LIGHTING- We will address any lighling issues there may be. I have not been able to visit the site as of yet at n,:Jht, we will make a v~s~t a=,d show lhe lighted and non lighted areas and correct them if necessary. The landlord rs willing to add power packs 1o lite building a~. well. We will provide a an updated lighting plan. LANDSCAPING- I did manage to make it back to Ihe site after the meeting and found that the sidewalk was there along the extended part of the building. It is 5 feet wide, so I feel that this matter is not an issue FUEL STORAGE- The fuel tank we use meets all Minnesota standards on secondary containment. We will install a 6" deep 8x10 platform for the tank to sit on. We will also build a fencing unit around il with lhreo cement steel poles 4 feet deep and 4 feet above ground for proteclion, or an electrician will make sure Io meet all codes regarding the electhcal include the explosion proof conduit. Due to the amount of power lines running under ground I feel Ihat puffing it next to Ihe building on Ihe south side would be more feasible we understand that I would take up 2 to 3 parking spots and the vent pipe would need to be 12 feet from above ground and 5' from any building opening. BUILDING DETAILS/CODE ISSUES- We are in the process of determining Ihe lype of elevator and until we have installed access to the second floor, we w~ll not be using it for public use. As the noise levels will be different at every location due Io lhe construction type and ceiling heights, I will try and provide you with The noise decibels provided to us. The ventilation system will be installed by a contractor and we will provide all information supplied to us that will meet all codes The building has a full sprinkler system and we will also have one fire extinguisher located every 75 feet around the per~meter of the track. We will provide the City of New Hope and Hennepin County Heallh Department with lhe necessary information before any coflstruclion is done Io the snack bar area. The south east loading dock will be used for slorage. I don'l see any major use of il afler the move is completed, we ~ece~ve deliveries from UPS about 3 limes a month delivered Ihru the front door. Food is either picked up by myself' or if a bi.q order wa.~ · Page 2 Odober '~ ' ,-'~. 200:: made the US Foods Serwce truck will deliver to the front door We don't foresee any major use of the loading docks If we (Jo wc will try to set up deliveries at a time when we are closed All of our go-karts are factory assembled and the only alterations that have been made are with the mstallabon o~' factory Drow(~e¢ hand controls. The fuel tanks are factory installed and I believe the information was provided about the fueJ tanks, they can hold 2.5 gallons of fuel and we never fill them more than % full, or 1.5 gallons We plan on moving our existing smgn and relocate it to the front of the building over the entryway on the north sale of tho building We will have a new pylon s~gn made for the existing pylon near Boone Ave the proposed sign on the p~4on would be 8 feet long and 6 feet tall Pghted. We would also install lighted letters on the east s~de facing Boone Ave that would road 'INDO©t,: KARTING' or 'THUNDER ALLEY INDOOR KARTING' HOURS OF OPERATION- Our hours now are Monday-Thursday 11:00 am to 10:00 pm FrKJay 11:00 am-11:00 pm Saturday 930 am-11 00 pm and Sunday 9:30 am-10:00 pm We do have some proposed change m hours of operahon Mondays would change to 5:00 pm to 10:00 pm unless a private reserves the time prior to the day of event Saturday hours would change Io 10:30 am to 11:00 !am and Sunday would chan!,le 10:30 am to 10:00 pm Sincerely, Sam Baxter Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway, General Manager OCCUPANT LOAD Per hllCrllllliollaJ 13uildmg Code 2ouo - Table IoO't ...... Nlaxlnuml Floor Area AIIox~anccs per (}coup:mc5 TIIUNDER ALLEY INDOOR SPEEDWAY Track/Siq}porl/Ai c;idc tt 21)t)s f/()cclll};llll Office .~'t I t~i~sf/Occup;~n~ First Floor McClillg I{O0111S C~ I 5~l/()~clll);llll Rill. Jill J~lll. 102 J{lll. J:O0{] ('OIICCSSIOII ,11 J ~NJ/( )LLIIJ);IllJ AI).JACENT TENANT {IJNO('CIIPIEI)} 5:1.,';( 3si 2')-1. '~ (.}UCiI[);Illis AS.',illlllCd ;il W;IICII()II~,L' ()Ct. llJ);llic?. ()Il NJ;till H()or ;Ill(J ( )lhcc ( k:Ctll);in,._? ()JI ."',','C()ll(J I'J()or Gross Illlcrh)r Area 5 W;Irchousc ,'u 50()sf/( )cClll);Jlll Office ,ti J(xlsr/Occup;iiil 40.72()sf- 0'1.4 ()CCIJJ);IIII~, ¢,.35,"[S1'- _(!5 {, ()CClll);llllS ']'ol;ll 159 00CCllJ);illls Si TE SUNI~4AR¥ tDUILDIN~ SQ. FT. - IDUILIDIN~ COVEP. A~E - PAP. t(IND - 2BI TOTAL NOTE:PAla. IC. IN~, NUlVI:BEta.,D tDADD. O ON ACTUAL PH¥,.GICAL COUNT LE®ENI? 1- - ~X:IS, TIN~, ]~UII_~IN& MC;~UN~ LI~,HT - ~XlS, TIN~, MAPL.~ - ~X:I,GTIN~, PINI~ ~ - ~X:IS,TIN~ P'LA~ AR, P_A lq/ ~ VARIETY' - EXI.~TIN~, Flla, E 14'fI::TR~IdT BOONE AVENUE T BOONE AVENUE Z Z Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacDlanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: NAC File No. Kirk McDonald Anne Marie Solberg / Alan Brixius October 28, 2003 New Hope - Thunder Alley 131.01 - 03.16 BACKGROUND Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway has submitted an application for a conditional use permit to operate an indoor carting and corporate entertainment center at 8801 Science Center Drive, New Hope Minnesota. The applicant is proposing to relocate an indoor go-cart facility into an existing building within an industrial area located on the corner of Boone Avenue and Science Center Ddve. The proposed use includes indoor go cart tracks for children and adults, an on-site restaurant, office and meeting room space. This review is based on the following plan submittals: · Application dated October 10, 2003. · Letter from Renee Stoddard, CEO of Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway, dated October 10, 2003 · Hennepin County Property Information sheet · Site Plan dated October 10, 2003 (revised October 22, 2003) Main and Upper Level Floor Plan (undated) · Letter from Sam Baxter, General Manager of Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway, dated October 24, 2003 · Letter from Aaron Surratt, Fire Inspector, dated October 14, 2003 · Occupant Load Information ISSUES ANALYSIS ,,Zoning The Site is zoned industrial. The purpose of the Industrial distdct is to provide for the establishment of heavy industrial and manufacturing development that require isolation from residential or non-compatible commercial uses. Commercial recreation facilities are defined to include cart tracks and are a permitted conditional use within the Industrial distdct provided that: Streets/Site Acces~ The Site must have direct access to an arterial street without utilizing public streets of a lower traffic handling classification to reach the artedal street. The plans indicate that the site will be accessed via Science Center Ddve. Science Center Drive is a neighborhood collector. Boone Avenue is a community collector street. A variance will be required to permit continued access via Science Center Drive. Compatibility The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence. The applicant is proposing to utilize an existing building within the Industrial district. The plans indicate that all proposed modifications to the existing building structure will be intemal. Li~htin~ All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the right-of-way or from a residential use zone. The plans indicate the location of existing external building-mounted lighting. The type of existing lighting fixtures are not indicated. The plans for not indicate any proposed lighting for the parking areas or surrounding property. The applicant indicates that it will provide an updated lighting plan. Sun'acing The entire area other than that occupied by buildings, structures or plantings shall be surfaced with a bituminous or concrete material that will control dust and drainage. The matedal and grading shall be subject to the approval of the City. The use is proposed within an existing building on a site that has previously been developed. The site cover currently consists of a building and bituminous ddve areas and parking surround by a grassy area. Landscaping Landscaping shall be provided and the type of planting material and the number and size of plants shall be subject to the approval of the City. The plans indicate that existing landscaping includes maple trees and pine trees. The applicant is not proposing any new or additional landscaping. Lot requirements and setbacks for the Industrial Distdct are as follows: Industrial Lot Standards Required Existing Lot Area 1 acre 11.3 acres Lot Width 100 feet Complies Impervious Surface 80% 49% (building 26%) (parking 23%) Building Height 6 stodes 2 stories Setbacks - front 30 feet Complies - side 10 feet Complies - side comer 30 feet Complies - rear 30 feet Complies Page 2 Fuel Stora,qe The applicant is proposing to install a 550 gallon outdoor aboveground fuel storage tank on the site. The applicant indicates that the outdoor fuel storage tank meets all Minnesota standards on secondary containment and will sit on a 6" deep 8X10 platform surrounded by a four (4) foot fence. The plans indicate the location of the fuel tank directly behind the building in the rear parking lot. The applicant states that the location was selected due to underground power lines and that a vent pipe would be twelve (12) feet above ground and five (5) feet from any building opening. The plans indicate parking stalls within eight (8) feet of the fuel tank, including an existing disabled accessible parking stall. The proposed location of the fuel tank and its proximity to the building and parking stalls should be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Inspector. Parkin,q The New Hope Zoning Code does not set forth specific parking standards for commercial recreational use. Uses not specifically referenced are to be determined on an individual basis by the City Council based on factors including national parking standards, parking standards for similar businesses and land uses, size of building, type of use, number of employees, expected volume and turnover of customer traffic and expected frequency and number of delivery vehicle. The plans indicate that the applicant will share the existing parking area surrounding the building with another tenant. The plans depict 228 parking stalls (the plans state that there are 231 parking stalls - only 228 stalls are depicted on the plans). The plans indicate seven (7) designated disabled parking stalls including two (2) that will be van accessible. The majority of existing parking is 90-degree angle, excluding 3 corner stalls. The dimensions of a sampling of the existing.parking stalls indicate dimensions of 9 feet in width by 18 feet in length. The New Hope Zoning Code requires 90 degree parking stall dimensions of 8'9" X 19 feet. The'length of the existing parking stalls is slightly less that that required by the New Hope Zoning Code. The proposed use includes the following elements to be considered when determining parking: USE STANDARD SOURCE APPUCATION PARKING INFORMATION REQUII~F=n go-cart track 1 per go-cart plus APA Parking 12 carts 24 stalls (adult) one per employee on Standards 12 employees the largest shift go-carttmck 1 per go-cart plus APA Parking 10 carts 10 stalls (children) one per employee on Standards ... the largest shift o~ce space 3 stalls plus at least I New Hope 3,445 s.f.** 15 stalls stall per 300 s.f. of Zoning Code floor area storage space ' 1 stall per 1,500 s.f. ~','sw Hope 8,077 s.f.* 6 stalls Page 3 of floor area used as Zoning Code warehouse space kitchen facility I stall for each 80 s.f. New Hope 500 s.f.* 7 stalls of kitchen area Zoning Code restaurant I stall per 40 s.f. of New Hope 978 s.f.** 25 stalls gross floor area of Zoning Code dining mee[i~-~g rooms 1 stall per 300 s.f. ofNew Hope 4,985 s.f** 17 stalls floor area Zoning Code (off'me/ communit7 ctr) TOTAL 104 stalls square footage ;s approximate ** indicates information supplied by applicant Existing parking of 228 parking stalls on this site provides ample parking for the proposed use. The guidelines for designated disabled parking established by the Minnesota State Council on Disability express a ratio of seven (7) designated disabled accessible parking stalls including one (1) "van accessible" parking stall for 228 parking stalls. Each disabled accessible stall must have an adjacent five (5) foot wide access aisle. The "van accessible" stall must have an adjacent eight (8) foot wide access aisle. All such stalls must be on an accessible route located as near as possible to an accessible entrance and be appropriately signed. The plans depict seven (7) designated disabled parking stalls in the parking area servicing the site, including two (2) van accessible stalls. The number of designated disabled parking stalls indicated on the plans is adequate. Loadin,q The application indicates that all deliveries are anticipated to occur through the front door of the building and that major use of the loading docks is not anticipated. Utilization of the loading docks may interfere with vehicle and pedestrian traffic through the site. Any loading activities that require use of the loading docks should occur at times other than normal business hours. The plans indicate two (2) existing loading docks. The applicant indicates that it does not foresee any "major" use of the loading docks. Use of the loading docks may require that the parking areas located across from such loading areas be eliminated unless the applicant can demonstrate that service vehicles will have adequate maneuverability. Loading berths may not conflict with pedestrian traffic. Industrial uses are required to have one seventy (70) foot loading dock plus one additional 30' loading dock for each 100,000 square feet or fraction thereof. Loading docks must be ten (10) feet in width and fourteen feet in height. The loading docks serving the site are of adequate width. The height of such loading docks is unknown. Pedestrian Access The plans indicate existing sidewalks in the front of the building (the north side of the building). Existing sidewalks should provide adequate pedestrian access for the proposed use. Page 4 Storage The plans indicate that the rear (southerly) loading dock will be used as a storage area. Previous plans indicated a small "flammable" storage space on the rear loading dock. The applicant should cladfy whether storage of flammable materials is contemplated for this area. Any storage of flammable materials is subject to the review and approval of the Fire Inspector. The plans also indicate small storage areas within the office/restaurant portion of the building. Any storage of flammable materials is subject to the review and approval of the Fire Inspector. Compliance with Laws The facility, restrooms, etc. must be handicapped accessible and ADA compliant. All aspects of the use must comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances and/or rules. Utilities As the use will be housed in an existing building, the site is already served by City utilities. The plans indicate that electrical transformers at the rear of the site are currently under construction by Xcel Energy. SiQnaQe The plans indicate that the applicant is proposing to install three (3) signs for the proposed use. Existing signage configuration on the sight was previously approved. Wa//signs. The applicant indicates that it will be installing a building sign on the north side of the building directly over the entrance to the use. The size and type of sign are not indicated. The application indicates that the applicant will also install an illuminated sign on the east side of the building facing Boone Avenue consisting of lighted letters that would read "indoor karting" or "thunder alley indoor karting". The size of such lettering is not indicated in the application. Wall 'signs are permitted within the Industrial district. Tenants occupying a comer location are permitted to display identification signs to both street frontages. The total allowable sign area for a multiple occupancy structure shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the combined wall surfaces on walls that abut streets. No individual tenant sign may exceed 100 square feet in area. Freestanding Signs. The applicant is proposing to construct and install a new pylon sign to replace the existing pylon sign on the northeast comer of the site (the comer of Science Center Ddve and Boone Avenue). The application indicates that the sign will be eight (8) feet in length and six (6) feet in height and that it will be illuminated. Freestanding signs are permitted within the Industrial district provided: 1) freestanding signs abutting local, collector or minor arterial streets shall not exceed 100 square feet in area 2) Freestanding signs shall not exceed 30 feet in height. Page 5 Comprehensive Sign Plan. The building is a multiple occupancy building and the applicant must therefore submit a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building in accordance with the New Hope Sign Code. If there is an existing comprehensive sign .plan for the building, the proposed signage must be in conformance with such plan. The effect of said comprehensive sign plan is to allow and require the owner of multiple occupancy structures to determine the specific individual sign requirements for the tenants of the building. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to the following information: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Sign location (both wall signs and freestanding signs) Sign area Sign height Scaled building elevations Scaled floor plan that outlines tenant bays Identification of sign design Sign construction drawings (sections) Refuse The plans indicate a trash receptacle located within the rear loading dock. Conditional Use Permit Commercial recreation facilities are defined to include cart tracks and are a permitted conditional use within the Industrial district. In determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit, the City Council and Planning Commission shall find that the conditional use permit complies with the following cdteda. The burden of proof demonstrating compliance with the following criteda is the responsibility of the applicant. (1) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official comprehensive municipal plan of the city. The property is guided for industrial use and the proposed use is a permitted conditional use within the Industrial district. The applicant will be using an existing building within the Industrial district.' (2) The proposed use is compatible with adjacent present and future anticipated land uses. The proposed use is a permitted conditional use within the Industrial district. The applicant will be using an existing building within the Industrial distric£ (3) The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in this Code. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable performance standards contained in the Zoning Code as a condition of approval, unless waived by the City Council. (4) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The use will utilize existing building within the Industrial district and will be completely contained therein. The use should not adversely affect the area. Page 6 (5) In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed use meets the criteria specified for the vadous zoning districts. The proposed use is a permitted conditional use within the Industrial district. The applicant will be using an existing building within the Industrial district. (6) In industrial districts (I): a. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing and future development in adjacent areas. The applicant indicates that it will provide noise decibels related to the use. In addition, the applicant will install a ventilation system in compliance will all applicable codes and ordinances. Economic return. The use will provide an economic return to the community and be commensurate with other industrial uses for which the property could feasible be used. In considering the economic return to the community, the planning commission and city council may give weight to the sociological impact of a proposed use, both positive and negative. Variance The New Hope Zoning Code contemplates that properties on which go-cart facilities are located shall have direct access to an arterial street. A variance is required to permit continued access to the existing building via Science Center Drive, a neighborhood collector. A variance permits relief from the strict application of the terms of the zoning code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel or property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration, and the granting of the variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spidt and intent of the zoning code. A variance shall not be approved unless a finding is made that failure to grant the variance will result in undue hardship on the applicant, and, as may be applicable, the following criteda are met: 1. A hardship may exist by reason of a physical condition unique to the property that results in exceptional difficulties when using the parcel or lot within the strict application of the terms of this Code. Physical hardships may include lot shape, narrowness, shallowness, slope, or topographic or similar conditions unique to the parcel or lot. Undue hardship also includes inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Economic conditions alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Code. The access issue is a hardship created by the specific terms of the zoning code. The zoning code contemplates that properties on which go-cart facilities are located shall have direct access to an arterial street. Upon review of the application and the contemplated use of the existing facility within the industrial district, traffic issues may better be averted by permitting continued access via Science Center Drive, a neighborhood collector. The City Engineer believes that the use will be adequately served by a collector street and that Page 7 the ordinance should be amended to eliminate the requirement of access via an arterial street. 2. The undue hardship is unique to the parcel or lot for which the vadance is being sought and is not generally applicable to other properties within the same zoning district. The access issue is specific to this property 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 landowner. The hardship or circumstances unique to the parcel or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous landowner. The application for variance shall also meet the following criteria: a. It will not alter the essential character of the locality. Permitting continued access to the existing building via Science Center Drive 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 public safety. Permitting continued access to the existing building via Science Center Drive 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 public safety. c. It is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. Permitting continued access to the existing building via Science Center Drive is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. d. It does not involve a use that is not allowed within the respective zoning district. Commercial recreation facilities are defined to include cart tracks and are a permitted conditional use within the Industrial district. RECOMMENDATION/CONCLUSION The applicant is proposing to relocate an indoor go-cart facility into an existing building within an industrial area located on the comer of Boone Avenue and Science Center Drive. The proposed use includes indoor go cart tracks for children and adults, on-site restaurant, office and meeting room space. Commercial recreation facilities are defined to include cart tracks and are a permitted conditional use within the Industrial district. Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use and access variance subject to the following conditions: 1. Access to the site shall continue via Science Center Drive. Page 8 o o The applicant will provide an updated lighting plan. All fuel storage issues shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Fire Inspector. Any storage of flammable materials shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Fire Inspector. Loading and deliveries shall occur at times other than normal operating hours, which the applicant indicates will be Monday 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Tuesday through Thursday 11:00 a.m. though 10:00 p.m., Friday 11:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m., Saturday 10:30 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. and Sunday 10:30 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan for review and approval by City Staff. The applicant shall submit noise decibel levels related to the use. Page 9 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik- St. Paul, MN- (651)636-1311 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Boneatroo, Ftoaene, Anderilk and Associates, Inc. ia an AfflrmaUve Action/equal Opportunity Employer and Employee owned Principals: Otto G. Bonostroo, P.E. · Marvin L. Sorvalo, P.E. · Glenn Ft. Cook, P.E. · Robot1 G. Schunlcht. P.E. · Jeny A. Bourdon, P.E. - Martc A. Hanson. P.E. Senior Consultmlt$: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. · Joseph C. Anderllk. P.E. · Richard E. Turner, P.E. · Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A. A.~ee¢l~e Principals: Kelth A. (3ardan. P.E. - Robert Ft. Pfeffado, P.E. - Richard W. Foster, P.E. · D~vld O. LosRola, P.E. - Michael T. Raulmann, P.E. · Ted K. Field, P.E. · Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. · Mark Ft. Rolft. P.E. · David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. · Sidney P. WIIliom,~on, P.E.. L.S. * Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A. · Allan Frick Schmldt, P.E. * Thames W. Paterson, P.E. · James R. Maland, P.E. · Miles B. Jenson, P.E. · L. Phllllp Gravel III, P.E. · Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E., tsmael Mortinez, P.E. - Thomas A. b'~/~o, P.EL - Sheldon J. Johnson - Dale A. Grave, P.E. - Thomas A. R0ushar, P.E. · Ro0erl J. Devary, P.E. Offices: St. Paul. St. Cloud. Rochester and Wlllmar. MN · MilwauKee. WI * Chicago. IL Webolte: www.bonostroo.com TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Vince Vender Top Mark Hanson, Guy Johnson DATE: October 30, 2003 SITKIECT: Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway Our File No. 34-Gan E03-32 We have reviewed the proposed improvements at ggO1 Science Center Drive. It appears that no improvements are proposed on the exterior of the building. We have the following comments based on the mbmitted information: Two-way traffic access must be maintained in front of the building entrance. Existing parallel parking lines must be removed. This will then ensure two-way traffic. Sidewalks may be considered along the building to provide efficient, safe pedestrian access to the parking lot. The existing driveway accesses to Science Center Drive are suitable tbr the anticipated use. No further items are noted at this time. End of comments 2335 West Highway 36, St. Paul, MN 55ff3 · 651-636-4600. Fax: 051-636-f3ff Bonestroo Rosene q~ ,qnderlJk & Associates Engineers & Architectz · on~n~, RmN, AnaerliK en~ A~ml, I~ Il Iff ~rM~IVl OtflN.: Br PM~I, ~t. Cloud. ~mr e~ WIIl~. MN · ~a~l. W~ · ~h~o. IL TO.' I(/rk Mc. Donald FROM: ¥]nc= Vander Top CC: Mark Hanson, Ouy Johnson DATE: October 15, 2003 Thunder All=y Indoor Speedway OurFilc No. 34-Oen F.~3-32 We have rev/ewed ~e proposed improvements si ggOl Science Center Drive. I: appears that no improvements are propos=d o~ thc cx~rior of the bu/lding. Wc hay= th= following cor~m~t8 baaccl on thc submitted infommlion: Two-way lrairfic accesa must bc maintained in front of fl~ buildir~ cmrancc. Proposed landscaping and e, xJsUz]~ parking stalls will have to be altered to ensure two.way n'affic. Sidewalks should be provided along thc building to provid~ cfficicm, safc pcdcsWian access to thc parkin~ No fur~er items are not~d at this lime. End of commen~s 2335 Wear Highway 38 · Bt. Paul, MN 55113 · 651.6S6.4600 · Fax: 851-836-1311 \VEH METRO FIRE-RESCUE DISTRICT Sem'ing the' C'ities of · C1),stal °New Hope 4251 Xvlon Ave I'4. New Hope, MN 55428 Voice 612.537.2323 Fax 612.537.5333 October 14, 2003 Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway 8801-8811 Science Center Drive New Hope, Mn. 55428 Re: Fire Code Requirements To Whom It May Concern: The following will be the requirements for the purposed indoor speedway on Science Center Drive: 1. Horn and Strobes shall be provided throughout the space for the purpose of notification to be activated upon water flow from the sprinkler system. 2. A fire alarm pull station shall be required behind front counter, or another constantly attended location. 3. No smoke detection shall be required for an assembly occupancy with less than 300 people. 4. Fire extinguishers shall be located every 75 feet walking distance. 5. For the 550 gallon aboveground storage tank, the following shall apply: · A Special Hazards Permit application shall be approved prior to installation ofaboveground tanks. · Tank information shall be provided with application. · -Containment for spill protection shall be provided · Impact protection shall be provided. · Proper signage shall be provided to include "No Smoking", "Danger Flammable Liquids", and a NFPA 704 Placard. · An emergency fuel shut off shall be provided labeled. . · A fire extinguisher shall be provided at tank for dispensing operations. · Per NFPA 30, an aboveground tank shall be located no less than 5 feet from any public way or nearest building. The tank shall also be located no less than 10 feet from the nearest property line that can be built upon, including the opposite side of a public way. · Per NFPA 30, all vent piping shall be no less than 12 feet. of the ground and 5 feet from any building opening or lot line. Sincerely, .~-- -,f: - on Surratt, F~nspector McDonald Kirk :rom: To: Cc: Subject: Axel Roger Wednesday, October 29, 2003 3:29 PM Sylvester Pam McDonald Kirk Thunder Alley comments I would recommend approval of the proposed Thunder Alley project located at 8801 Science Center Drive, on the condition that all applicable code requirements for this particular occupancy are satisfied. The information provided by the applicant indicate general compliance with most of the Zoning Code requirements. Some issues will still have to be addressed by the applicant at time of building permit application. My biggest concern with the site plan is that there was not a photometric plan supplied by the applicant, as requested by the Design & Review Committee. Pedestrian circulation issues in the parking lot still have to be addressed. There are still many issues that involve various code requirements (building, fire, mechanical, plumbing) that have not been resolved. These issues can be addressed by the applicants architect prior to permit application. (6121395-7000 16121395,1000 -Thunder Alley//Indoor Speedway Page 1 of 2 H r11~1£ IrACI LJTIIr lB ldERG I-IANDI GE EV£NT UBT PARTN rR CiHi pi; PRICING I: 13NTAmT IhIDEJCIR .SP~£D W.4 Y WWE W Welcome to Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway, The Nations largest indoor go-karfing, meeting & entertainment center. If you and your "team" have the need for speed, then we have the place to race that will satisify even the most demanding thrill seeker. Thunder Alley is open to the public 365 days a year! Come in, hang on, and have the ride of your life~ Open all Holidays/// Tracks I Karts I Catering I Specials I Forms J Events J Room/AY Equipment Rental news ,ve CA TERffNG Check out our new catering page and see our entire menu online now!! DON'T MISS OUT... Above on a great opportunity to try out our new track design!! Check out our "Two Enjoy our huge selection of arcade games after you experience our new intense track!! Click NEED A CHANGE OF PACE??? RACE AT THUNDER ALLEY!!!! BACHELOR / BACHELORETTE PARTIES FAMILY EVENTS - BIRTHDAYS CORPORATE EVENTS AND HOLIDAY http ://www.indoorspeed.com/ 10/29/2003 Thunder Alley//Indoor Speedway Page 2 oi:2 Above Track Tuesday Special" PARTIES JUST GOOD FRIENDS AND FUN!!!! LEAGUES FORMING NOVV~ Hours of Operation Monday - Thursday 11:00 AM - 10:00 PM Friday 11:00 AM - 11:00 PM Saturday 9:30 AM- 11:00 PM Sunday 9:30 AM- 10:00 PM Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway 5930 Earle Brown Drive This site is optimized for Internet Explorer and Ne,scapelE~-c~l~sg~J%li~l~s~ &~grience some misallgnment tel: (763)~:~6~i~PD (7733) ' fax: (763) 560-0886 e.maih info@indoorspeed.¢om lG ET id~Cl'°~°~ BI in the layout. Get the current CopyrightC) 2002 Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway http ://www.indoorsp eed. corn/ 10/29/2003 -Thunder Alley//Facilities Page 1 of 3 MrRr'HANDIBE EVENT I,J EiT PARTN r'RBHi I~ I:'ACI LITIF'S Are you looking for something NEW? Are you looking for something FUN? Are you looking for some hands-on ACTION? If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, then we are EXACTLY what you need! Welcome to Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway, the Nation's largest indoor go-karting and meeting entertainment center where you get the choice of two, yes, two tracks! One the family track where families can ride together or second our HUGE 75,000 sq. ft. high performance track. Just under one 1/2 mile raceway. We are the perfect location for an endless amount of celebrations including birthday parties, family gatherings, bachelor and/or bachelorette parties, graduations, scout outings, end-of-year school bashes, company parties, product launches... you name it, Thunder Alley can do it. The facility features the world's finest European karts equipped with 6.5 HP Honda engines, which can reach speeds of up to 40 mph. The state-of-the-art computerized timing equipment adds a competitive edge to the total "race" experience. Two separate tracks are available. One for children and families and one for race enthusiasts. A smaller version of the kart is available on our family track. The European crafted barrier system provides the utmost safety for racers and observers throughout the entire complex. Thunder Alley also has three conference and meeting rooms, a large arcade and sports shop with souvenirs and racing equipment. Full-service catering is also available with a wide variety of menu options and price ranges suitable for any size of party. Furthermore, a themed restaurant and an outdoor patio and meeting room is now available. Check It Out! click on an image to enlarge http ://www.indoorspeed.com/facilities.htm 10/29/2003 Thunder Alley//Facilities Page 2 of 3 http ://www.indoorspeed.comdfacilifies.htm 10/29/2003 -Thunder Alley//Event List Page 1 of 5 EVENT UalT INDDC1R ~PEED WA Y Speed Pick: C o_rpq.~p~e_Ev_ .e_r~t.s Our business suits come with helmets Le~a_gues Thunder Alley Offers: Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway is the Nations largest and most complete karting, meeting and entertainment facility. Let us arrange a company event for your organization to create a "Team Building" experience, or we can custom tailor a package to suit your specific event. NEW! 1/2 day and full day Team Building Events now available Open 365 days a year!. ~, Karts by JB Karts, each equipped with 6.5 HP Honda engines that really get you moving and greatly enhances the racing experience. ~, State of the art timing and barrier systems to keep the racing competitive and safe. No tire barriers at this track! ~- Three meeting and conference areas with AV euipment that will beat a board room or office any day. This helps to enhance a "team spirit". ~* Full-service on-site catering (See our online menu) ~- Convenience of 15 hotels within 1.5 miles of Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway. ~, Large state of the art arcade, air hockey & billiards. ~, Outdoor patio/3 season porch and SAM'S GRILL (outdoor) (Additional indoor resturant opening in October 2003). Easy access from several freeways, large parking area (buses will love this). Tour & Youth group pricing *Comps available. t.' ~¢,~ ~.0 top ~. Celebrate your Birthday in style Let Thunder Alley plan and host your next Birthday Party in racing style! We can custom tailor your party to suit any occasion and our staff can even help arrange the entertainment (catering packages are also available). Pricing//Party rate is based on a group of 8 children or more. $20.00 per child: includes party room for 1 1/2 hours, 4 arcade tokens per child, one Pepsi soft drink per child and two medium cheese pizzas! Package includes approximately two races per child for ages 8 to 12 (must be at least 48" tall) on the Family track, one race for ages 13 to 17 (must be at least 58" tall) on the High Performance track. Additional services available upon request: catering, party supplies, additional game tokens, and entertainment (clowns, karaoke, DJ, etc.) A 50% deposit is required to confirm your booking. The balance is due prior to commencement of the event. You may.d.o a one-time rebook, in.g.o.f .your event for n.o addi.tional char_ge within 90 days of the event with a 14-day notice. A fee of 15% wilt be http://www.indoorspeed.corn/event_list.htm 10/29/2003 Thunder Alley//Event List Page 2 of 3 assessea iT an event is cancelleO 14 uays or more prior to me event. L;ancellatlons wltrl less man a 14-Gay notice are subject to a NU ~t=PUNIJ policy. Deposits may only be used towards the same exclusive event for which it was originally intended. PLEASE - no outside food, beverage or cake may be brought in to our facility. b~CK rO ~op .Do you Now you lack of...) competition ! We're not talking bowling... think you and your friends have got what it takes? can show everyone your drivin9 skills (or and join Thunder Alley in "League" Prepay now and save $45.00 Pay $200. O0 & this will include the$35.00 registration fee. Per pay At least 7 days prior to the start of leagues. (Regular fee is $210. OO plus $35. O0 registration fee- $35. O0/week for 6 weeks) *Thunder Alley's 6-week next session racing league will be starting during the month of August, 2003 ! *Remember - If you have l O people willing to do a League we can accomodate a 6 week League at anytime! *If you choose to pay weekly, a credit card number is needed on file to cover any missed race weeks. Racers are responsible for finding their own substitutes.. Please arrange for your altemate in advance! Call for information on available slots Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday Evenings or Saturday Mornings To qualify for the team league you need at least 10 racers signed up. For those who do not have enough for a team we have the individual league option. There is a $35.00 registration fee per person and a $35.00 league fee per week, for the 6 week league. Races are 40 laps in length. Positions are awarded using a lottery system. Points are earned each race leading up to the Championship Race. *ALL FEES MUST BE PAID PRIOR TO THE FIRST LEAGUE RACE* Point System 1st place - 25 points 2nd place - 21 points 3rd place - 19 points 4th place - 18 points 5th place - 17 points ~th place - 16 points 7th place - 15 points 3th place - 14 points 9th place - 13 points lOth place - 10 points 1th place - 9 points 12th place - 8 points 13th-last place - 5 points Fastest lap - 2 point bonus http ://www.indoorspeed.com/event_list.htm 10/29/2003 ' Thunder Alley//Pricing Page I of 5 HOI~E Ir~.CI LI?I r I; L-'V £NT I'qT PI~CING r' DNTAI:~T PRICING INOODR 5PE£O WA Y Competitive on the track and in the wallet SpeedPick Member Non-Member Corporate Family Gift Certificates Available! [~ Initial membership entitles member to reduced rates and membership weekly specials plus a free race on your birthday. Specials may change on a monthly basis. Member Pricing ONE Member Race High Performance track 13 years of age and up-must be 58 inches tall: $14.50 Package #1 - (1 race) Annual Membership ,. ADULT- 13 years of age and up-must be 58 inches tall: $24.95 Package #2 - (3 races) Annual Membership , ADULT- 13 years of age and up-must be 58 inches tall: $50.00 ,. Renewal Fee//13 years of age and up-must be 58 inches tall: $20.00 . Member Multiple Race Packages: High Performance Track ,. 3 Member Races: $39.00 *save $4.50 ,. 5 Member Races: $61.50 *save $11.00 ,. 8 Member Races: $92.50 *save $23.00 , 11 Member Races (12th free): $127.50 *save $4t5.50 ~--]Packages are per driver may not be shared or traded at any time. Non-Member Pricing http ://www.indoorspeed.corn/pricing.htm 10/29/2003 Thunder Alley//Pricing Page 2 o1~ 3 High Performance Track: Must be 13 years of age and up-must be 58 inches tall. Non-Member Race: $16.50 Non-Member Races: $45.00 *save $4.00 Non-Member Races: $78.00 *save $10.00 Non-Member Races: $110.00 *save $22.00 11 Non-Member Races (12th free): $158.00 *save $40.00 Family Track: 12 years of age and under, must be 48" tall to ride Junior Karts. Non-Member Race: $6.00 Non-Member Races: $16.00 *save $2.00 Non-Member Races: $25.00 *save $5.00 Non-Member Races: $40.00 *save $8.00 11 Non-Member Races: $48.00 *save $18.00 ~---] Juniors 11 to 12 wishing to ride on the High Performance track must attend a 2 hour safety seminar and obtain a certificate to ride on the High Performance track for Junior leagues and at designated Junior times. ~l~__lPackages are per driver may not be shared or traded at any time. ba(i~ to top a, Corporate Events/Hourly Rental Exclusive hourly track rental rates. All packages include 10 Karts and use of room. Approximately 60 rides per hour. Our August & September Special!! Book a party before September 15th, 2003 and complete by September 30th, 2003 and get a free BBQ for 40 people with every 2 hours of regularly priced track rental!!*** BBQ to include: Hamburgers, Hot Dogs, Potato Salad or Cole Slaw, Beans, Chips, Pickles, Buns and Condiments. *Additional charge for extra menu selections. **$7.95 per person extra over 40 people. ~ Monday-Thursday//7am to 6pm $750 per hour , Monday-Thursday//6pm to 10pm $950 per hour , Friday//7am to midnight $750 per hour ~ Friday//6 pm. to midnight $1150 per hour Saturday//10a.m. to 12 noon & 9 p.m. to midnight $950.00 per hour/ Saturday//12 noon to 8 p.m. $1150.00 per hour Sunday//before noon & 8 pm. to 10 pm. $750 per hour ,, Sunday//12pm to 8pm ~q~-,,N n~r hnl Ir http://www.indoorspeed.com/pricing.htm 10/29/2003 -Thunder Alley//Pricing Page 3 of 3 Call our reservations department with any questions. 763-566-7733 Room Rental $50.00- $100.00 per hour/ Patio rental $200.00 per hour ~ A 50% deposit is required to confirm your booking. The balance is due prior to commencement of the event. You may do a one-time rebooking of your event for no additional charge within 90 days of the original event with a 14-day notice prioir to date of the event. A fee of 15% will be assessed if an event is cancelled 14 days or more prior to the event. Cancellations with less than a 14-day notice are subject to a NO-REFUND policy. Deposits may only be used towards the same exclusive event for which it was originally intended. No substitutions, Prices subject to change without notice, A 18% gratuity is added to parties of 8 or more. No outside food or beverages may be brought into Thunder Alley. Family Package *SAVE* Based on 2 adults on the High Performance track and 2 children aged 12 and under (and at least 48" tall) on the Family track. What you get: , 2 High Performance track rides per adult , 2 Family track rides per child ~ 1 Helmet liner per person Total Family Cost: $80.00 Each additional child: $14.00 http ://www.indoorspeed.com/pricing.htm 10/29/2003 Page 1 ot:1 http ://www.indoorspeed.com/ta__images/jpg/kart_3.jpg 10/29/2003 Page Iofl http ://www.indoorspeed.com/ta_images/jpg/facilities_2.jpg 10/29/2003 § 4-2 NEW HOPE CODE _~eans the principal use of land or buildings for the sale. lease, rental or trade o! products, goods, and services, incluSing, but not limited to, the following: (1) Automobile repair--Major means general repair, rebuilding or reconditioning engines, motor vehicles or wailers; collision service, including body, frame or fender straight- ening or repair; overall painting or paint job; vehicle steam cleaning. (2) Automobile repair--Minor means an establishment providing goods or services related to automobiles such as car washes, repair businesses l~m~ted to minor engine repair, fluid changing, tire service and muff]er repair and other uses of similar character, but not including uses defined as a major automobile business or automobile sales. (3) Automobile sales means the use of any building or land area for the display and sale of new or used automobiles, trucks, vans, trailers or recreational vehicles including any major or minor automobile repair or service uses conducted as an accessory use. (4) Hospitality business means an establishment offering transient lodging accommoda- Lions on a daffy rate to the general public, leasable events, meeting or conference facilities and exhibition halls or other uses of similar character including hotels, motels, convention facilities, and hospices. (5) Motor fuel station means a place where gasoline is stored only in underground tanks, kerosene or motor off and lubricants or grease, for operation of automobiles, are retailed directly to the public on premises, and including minor accessories and services for automobiles, but not including automobile major repairs and rebuilding. (6) Office business--General means an establishment located within a building or portion of a building for the conduct of business activities involving predomluantly profes- sional a~im~uistrative or clerical service operations including attorneys, financial advisors, insurance, travel and other uses of similar character. (7) Off]ce business--Clinical means an establishment located within a building or portion of a building providing out-patient health services to patrons, including general medical clinics, mental health providers, chiropractor, dentists, orthodontia, oral surgeons, opticians and other uses of siml]ar character. ( ) ~//~{"~ecreational busine_s~s;means health club, bowling alley, cart track, golf course, billiard (pool) hall, dance hall, skating rinks, firearms range, 6oat r~ntal, amusement rides, campgrounds, private parks, and uses of s~m~]ar character. (9) Restaurant--Convenience means an establishment that serves food in or on disposable or edible containers in individual servings for consumption on or off premises, incluSi,g drive-in restaurants, take out, pick up, or delivery food sales, but not inclut]~.g drive-through facilities. (10) Restaurant~--General means an establishment that serves food in individual portions to be consumed on site, but not including convenience restaurants. CD4:10 ZONING § 4-20 approval of the city engineer. The remaining 25 percent of the outdoor recreation area shall be green space and shall be planted with grass or sod and landscaped. 4. The outdoor recreation area must be free of htter, rubbish and waste. d. S/gns. All signing, information or visual communication devices shall comply with section 3-40 of this Code. e. General conditional use requirements. The relevant provisions of section 4-33 of this Code are met. f. Building and fire code. The site and facility must meet all apphcable provisions of the Minnesota State Building Code and Fire Cede. The city building official and fire department shall inspect the site prior to the issuance of the conditional use permit to determine compliance with this subsection of the Cede. g. State and license regulations. The structure and operation shall be in compliance with all state regulations and shall be licensed accordingly. (f) Lot requirements, building heights, and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in the CB zoning district subject to additional requirements, exception, and modification set forth in this Code. (1) Lot area. No minimum. (2) Lot width. No minimum. (3) Building height. Four stories or 48 feet, whichever is greater. (4) Setbacks. _ Front: Arte. rial or Community Front: Local Collector Side: Interior Street Street (a) Rear Side .Yard Co) 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet 10 feet (b) (a) See subsection 4.3(c)(6)b of this Code. Side: Corner: Local Street 20 feet Arterial or Community Collector Street (a) 20 feet (b) Ten foot side yard setbacks are required except a 20 foot side yard setback will be required where the lot abuts an R-1 or R-2 zoning district. (Ord. No. 02-13, § 4, 10-14-2002) Sees. 4-17--4.19. Reserved. ~I, iadu~a-ial distriet'~ (a) Purpose. The purpose of the I, industrial district is to provide for the establishment of heavy industrial and manufacturing development use which, because of the nature of the product or character of activity, requires isolation from residential or noncompatible commer- Supp. No. 2 CD4:116.1 ZONING § 4-20 _ cia] uses. The I district is also intended to provide for large scale activities of a sociological nature not suited to other districts, but reasonably compatible with the same characteristics suitable for general industrial use. (b) Permitted uses. The following are permitted uses in an I district: (1) Radio and television antenna farm. (2) Research, medical, dental or optical laboratories. (3) Trade school/training schools/specialty schools. (4) Warehouses. (5) Essential services. (6) Governmental and public utility buildings and structures. (7) Building materials/appliance and furniture retail sales. (8) Engraving, printing and publishing. (9) Wholesale business. (10) Manufacturing etc. The manufacturing, compounding, assembly, packaging, process- ing, treatment or storage of products and materials. (11) Automobile major repair. (12) Office business. (13) Cable TV. Limited scope production studio for franchised cable TV company allowing for production of community oriented cable television programming produced by and for members of the CommLlnity Or commercial programming limited to presentation on the cable system serving only New Hope and other member cities of the Northwest Suburban Cable Comm,mlcations Commission. Said use shall require all antennae conform to height limits of subsection 4-3(bX5). Additional antenna height may be permitted by conditional use permit pursuant to those procedures set forth and regulated by section 4-33. Notwithstanding section 4-33, no conditional use permit shall be granted unless a public hearing is held and there is a finding that the additional height is t~hnlcally necessary to serve the New Hope area and that this additional height will have no adverse effect on the area surrounding the studio. (c) Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an I district: (1) Accessory building. Accessory building for commercial uses shall not exceed 30 percent of the gross floor space of the principal building. (2) Parking. Off-street parking as regulated by subsection 4-3(e). (3) Off-street loadinoo. Off-street loadin~ as regulated by subsection 4-3(f). (4) Signs. Signs in compliance with chapter 3. (5) Personal wireless service antennas. Personal wireless service antennas in conform- ance with subsection 4-3(1) of this Code. CD4:117 § 4-20 NEW HOPE CODE (e) Conditional uses, e following are conditional uses in an I district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by sections 4-30tc) and 4-33 and performance standards set forth in section 4-3 of this Code. (1) Open outdoor storage as 'a principal or accessory use. Open outdoor storage as a conditional accessory use, where the open outdoor storage area exceeds 20 percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure provided that: Screening/landscaping. The open outdoor storage area is screened and land- scaped from adjacent residential uses and public right-of-way in compliance with subsection 4-3(d) of this Code. Fencing. A wire weave/chain link security fence shall be required around the open outdoor storage area in conformance with subsection 4.3(d)(3)c of this Code. Open outdoor storage areas intended for the exclusive storage of semitrailers may be exempt from the required security fencing provided the storage area is delineated and the individual trailers are secured. Surfacing. The open outdoor storage area is surfaced with concrete or bitumi- nous. (2) d. Setbacks. The open outdoor storage area shall not be located within any front yard or side yard abutting a public right-of-way. The open outdoor storage shall be set back five feet from all side and rear lot lines and shall not be located within a utility or drainage easement. e. Required space. The open outdoor storage area shall not utilize any required off-street parking, loading areas, or access space, as required by subsection 4-3(f) and 4-3(e) of this Code. f. Hazardous materials. The open outdoor storage area shall not be used for storage of hazardous liquids, solids, gases or wastes. This provision does not prohibit the property owner from obtaining an administrative permit for the outdoor storage of propane or LP gas per subsection 4.20(d)(5) of this Code. g. Refuse and upkeep. The property owner shall keep open outdoor storage areas free of refuse, trash, debris, weeds, and waste fill. Planned unit development, industrial. Industrial planned unit development as regu- lated by section 4-34 of this Code. (3) Restaurants. (4) Motels/hotels. __(5~~o _n~nercial recreation facilities. Commercial recreation, provided that.'--'~ a. Access. The site of the proposed use has direct access to an arterial street as defined in the City Code, without utilizing public streets of a lower traffic CD4:120 ZONING § 4-20 _ (6) b. Compatibility. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence. c. Lighting shielded. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the right-of-way or from a residential zone or use. d. Surfacing. The entire area other than that occupied by buildings, structures or plantings shall be surfaced with a bituminous or concrete material which will control dust and drainage. The material and grading shall be subject to the approval of the city. e. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be provided and the type of planting material and the number and size of plants shall be subject to the approval of the city. Solid and hazardous waste transfer stations. a. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish standards for the development of energy resource recovery-solid and hazardous waste transfer facilities. General provisions. 1. Area. The site must be five acres, or larger. 2. Access. The site shall not be more than one mile from a nine ton roadway. Sites adjacent to State Highway No. 169, or arterial streets, are to be preferred. 3. Development. The site development shall not require msjor slope cutting, filling or off-site utility work. 4. Ownership. The site must be owned by Hennepin County or privately held and currently for sale. 5. Traffic. A thorough traffic Analysis must be made of the existing and anticipated impacts upon streets within the city. This study would be based upon the Goals and Objectives of the 1998 New Hope Transportation Plan. Development shall be consistent with this plan and shall be evidenced by the traffic analysis. 6. Environmental. The site must be well-buffered and have minimal viSUal, activity, and noise impact on residences. 7. Noise. The site must be 1,000 feet from the nearest residence and well buffered from residential areas as to sound pollution, and shall conform with the noise ordinance of the city. 8. Water quality. The site development shall minimize impacts on wetlands, stre~m~, la~es and ponding areas. 9. Recreation. The site development shall not conflict with existing recre- ational facilities in the city. bo CD4:121 BUSINESS AND AMUSEMENT REGUI~TION; LICENSE PROCEDURE § $-9 Additional alleys. In the event additional alleys are insr~lled in any bowling alley estabhslunent, an amended apphcation shall be filed with the clerk giving the necessary information. (c) Fee. The annual fee for such hcense shall be as prescribed in chapter 14. (d) Granting of license. The council may grant the license after it is satisfied that the owners and operators of the bowling alley are persons of good moral character; that the operation of the bowling alley will be carried on in conform/ty with all the laws applicable thereto; and that the operation of a bowling alley at the place indicated is consistent with the character of the community immediately surrounding the same. The license shall specify the n-me of the person to whom granted, the specific place where the bowling alley is to be located, and the number of alleys authorized. (e) Posting of license. The license shall be kept conspicuously posted in the bowling alley to which it applies; no person shall pest such license upon prenfises other than for those which issued, nor deface nor destroy any such current license or permit. (f) Duplicate license. A duplicate license to replace a lost original, for a different location, the original being surrendered in the latter instance, may be issued by the council at its discretion, under such regtflatiens as it may prescr/be, and by payment of a fee as prescribed by chapter 14. (g) Noise of operation. Any bowling alley establishment located within 300 feet of a district within the city which is zoned for residential use shall provide such acoustical safeguards as will result in the noise incidental to the normal operation of the bowling alley establishment being reduced to a level which will not unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of their homes by the residents of the nearby residential area. (Code 010166) ~ee. 8-9. Pinball machines, video games and pool ta~ (a) License required. No person shall maintain, keep or sell within the city, a pinball machine, video game, or pool table without obtaining a license in accordance with section 8-2, et. al. of this Code. This section shall not apply to pinball machines, video games or pool tables held or kept for private home use and not for commercial use, or are in storage or for sale, and which are not actually in commercial use or displayed for commercial use. (b) License application. In addition to the information required by section 8-2, the pinbal/ machine, video game and pool table license application shall contain: (1) Owner ofproperty. The name and addrees of the owner or owners of property on which the pinball machines, video games and/or pool tables are located. (2) Operator. The name and address of the person or persons who will operate the establishment where the maehlnes, games and/er tables will bo located. CD8:15 § 8-9 NEW HOPE CODE Other businesses. If the licensee owns or opera~es other game rooms or pool hall businesses, the business name and address of said businesses shall be provided as parr of the license application. (4) Owner-operator relationship. A statement as to the contractual relationship between the property owner and hcensee, if not the same; that is employee, lessee, etc. (5) Description. A general description of the proposed operation including the maximum number of pinball machines, video games and/or pool tables located on the property during the license year. (6) Additionsl tables and machines. In the event additional pinball machines, video games or pool tables are kept or maintained on any property, an amended license application shall be filed with the clerk. (c) Fee. The annual license fee for each pinball machine, video game or pool table shall be as prescr/bod in chapter 14. (d) Form ar~ E/~play. Each license shall accurately describe the machine, game or table; show the name of the owner, address where such device is located, the license fee and the period for which a license is granted; and such license shah at all times be conspicuously displayed where such machine, game or table is operated. (e) Gambling prohibited. No person shall perm/t the operation of such a machine, game or table for illegal gambling in violation of any federal, state or local law, regulation or rule. (f) Hours of operation. Any property containing more than five licensed pinball machines, video games, pool tables or any combination thereof may not be open from 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 (g) Manager The licensee shall act as manager, or hire other persons to act as managers, who shall be on duty on the property containing the licensed machines, games and/or pool tables. It shall be the duty of the licensee or his managers to remain on the property during business hours to enforce the provisions of subsection 8-9(h). (h) Code of conduct. The following code of conduct shall be posted in a prominent place on the property containing the licensed machines, games or tables, and shall be enforced by the licensee and managers: (1) Truants from school shall not be permitted to enter or remain on the licensed property; (2) No operator of a b'dliard hall or game room shall permit any person to enter or remain on the licensed property at any t/me in violation of the curfew provisions of sect/on 9-24 of this Code; (3) No person sol/citing to vice or any other unlawful purpose shall be permitted to enter or remain on the licensed Property;, CD8:16 BUSINESS AND AMUSESfENT REGUIatTION; LICENSE PROCEDURE § 8-10 (4) No person selling, transferring, giving, using or in possession of any controlled substance as defined in Minn, Stat. §§ 152.01 through 152.20 shall be permitted to enter or remain on the licensed property or remain in the area directly adjacent to the property; and (5) No person shall be permitted to obstruct or interfere with pedestrian traffic on sidewalk areas directly adjacent to the licensed property, or to harass, threaten or znnoy any other person in the areas directly adjacent to the licensed property. (Code 010166; Ord. No. 82-1; Ord. No. 83-2; Ord. No. 95-3) Sec. 8-10. Roller skating rini~s. (a) License required. No person shall operate a roller skating rink within the corporate limits of the city without first having obtained a license therefor as provided in section 8-2. (b) Application. In addition to the requirements of section 8-2, the application for license shall state that said building shall be of fire-proof construction and comply in every respect with the fire protection laws of the city, and the state, and shall be provided with a sufficient number of fire exits. No license shall be issued under this section unless the council is satisfied that the place to be licensed is properly ventilated and equipped with necessary toilets, washrooms, and such public facilities, and that such place is not likely to become a public nuisance or detrimental to public morals. (c) Fee. The license fee required hereunder shall be as prescribed in chapter 14. (d) Restrictions and regulations. All persons licensed, and all persons required by this section to be licensed shall comply with the following regulations: (1) Illumination. Every roner skating rink shall be illuminated while in public use, and roller skating therein while the lights are extinguished or turned low, or daylight dimmed, as to give improper vision is hereby Prohibited. Parking lots and exits leading to parking lots shall be kept adequately lighted by the licensee at all times when open to the public. The licensee shall provide artificial lights whenever natural light is inadequate. (2) Inflammable decorations and smoking. There shall be no inflammable decorations used upon the prem/~s but all decorations used must be of a fireproof nature, and that the owner and/or operator of said premises shall perm/t no smoking on the skating floor, and only in specific portions of the building designed for such purpose. (3) Alcoholic beverages. No licensee hereunder shall sell or perm/t on the premises any malt or alcoholic beverage of any kind. (4) Curfew. No operator of a roller skating rink shall permit any person to be in or about the licensed premises at any time in violation of the curfew provisions of this Code. CD8:17 § 14.8 NEW HOPE CODE - (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (3) Taxicab certificate license fee. The hcense fee amount for a taxicab certificate of public convenience and necessity as required by subsection 8-5(a) is $25.00 per veh/cle annually. Taxicab drivers license fees. The fee amounts for a taxicab driver's hcense as required by subsection 8-5(c) are a $3.00 application fee plus an annual $5.00 tax/cab drivers license fee. Tobacco products sales license fee. The fee for a tobacco products sales hcense as required in subsection 8-7(c) is as follows: a. Fee amount. The fee amount is $200.00, annually. b. Reduced fee. If any application is made for a license between July I and December 31 of any license year, for a license to be effective during any part of the same period, the fee shall be one-half of the regular hcense fee. No refund shall be made on any license fee where the license is not used, or revoked or forfeited before the end of the license term. Bowling alley license fee. The fee for bowling alley license as required by subsections 8-8(c) and 8-8(t9 is as follows: a. Fee amount. The fee amount is $15.00 ~nnually for each alley located in any one bowling alley establishment. b. Reduced fee. If any application is made for a hcense between July 1 and December 31 of any license year, for a license to be effective during any part of the same period, the fee shall be one-half of the regular license fee. No refund shall be made on any license fee where the license is not used, or revoked or forfeited before the end of the license term. c. Duplicate license fee amount. The fee amount for a duplicate bowling alley hcense as required by subsection 8-8(19 is $10.00. Pinball, video game and pool table license fees. Fee amounts for annual pinball machin_e, video gRme and pool table licenses'as required by subsection 8-9(b) of this Code are as follows: a. Fee amount: $15.00 per location plus $15.00 per device annually. b. Reduced license fee. If any application is made for a license between July 1 and December 31 of any license year, for a license to be effective during any part of the same period, the fee shall be one-half of the regular license fee. No refund shall be made on any license fee where the license is not used, or revoked or forfeited before the end of the license term. Roller skating rink license fee. The fee for a roller skating rink license as required by subsection 8-10(c) is as follows: a. Fee amount. The fee amount is $100.00 annually. b. Reduced fee. If any application is made for a license between July 1 and December 31 of any license year, for a license to be effective during any part of the Supp. No. 3 CD14:12 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 03-16 Sam Baxter/Renee Stoddard 10-10-03 12-9-03 2-7-04 Thunder Alley Indoor Speedway Inc. (8801 Science Center Drive( 5930 Earle Brown Drive Brooklyn Center 55430 763-566-7733 David Yung Esq. CSM Equities 2575 University Ave St Paul, MN 55114 B. C. D. Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. Assign each application a number. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). List the date the City received the application. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) List the deadline under any extension or waiver. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. City of New Hope To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development October 31, 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. October 13 Council Meetinq - At the October 13 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: · Proiect #755, Motion authorizinq staff to neqotiate the potential purchase of 544q Winnetka Avenue based on its appraised value of $220,000: Approved, see attached Council request. · Proiect #756 Motion authorizinq staff to obtain an appraisal of 7601 Bass Lake Road Extension: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #724, Resolution callinq for a public hearin.q on the modification of the restate~ redevelopment plan for redevelopment proiect no. 1; modification of the TIF districts; creation of TIF district no. 03-1 (special law) and adoption of a TIF plan relatinq thereto: Approved, see attached Council request. · Proiect #626, Resolution declarinq costs to be assessed, ratifyin.q the preparation of 3 proposed assessment and callin.q for a ,public hearinq in connection with street infrastructure improvement: Approved, see attached Council request. Proiect #753, Motion to proceed with a written offer to purchase the property at 5500 Winnetka Avenue for staff's recommended purchase price of no more than $200,000: Approved, see attached Council request. Project #677, Council consideration and discussion re.qardin.q a written offer to purchase the fire damaqed four-plex apartment buildinq located at 8113 Bass Lake Road for the property owner's requested price of $286,190.28: Postponed to October 27. Project #677, Consideration of an exemption to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance, amendin.q section 1.50) re.qardinq the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force, for the property located at 8113 Bass Lake Roa~: Postponed to October 27. October 27 CouncillEDA Meetinq - At the October 27 Council/EDA meeting, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: Project #685, Resolution orderinq published notice and public hearinq on sale of 6151 Louisiana Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. · Proiect #718, Resolution approvin.q Metropolitan Council livable communities demonstration account (LCDA) opportunity grant: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #753, Resolution approvin.q purchase aqreement for 5500 Winnetka Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. · PC 03-13, Public Hearing, Motion acceptin.q temporary si.qns in boulevard study recommendations from the Planninq Commission and Citizen Advisory Commission: Council will discuss this item at the January 20 work session and reconvene the public hearing on February 9. · Project #677, Council consideration and discussion reqardin.q a written offer to purchase the fire damaqed four-plex apartment buildinq located at 8113 Bass Lake Road for the property owner's requested price of $296,190.28: Council determined not to purchase the building at this time, see attached Council request. · Project #677, Consideration of an exemption to ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amendinq section 1.5(i) re.qarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force, for the property located at 8113 Bass Lake Road: Council approved an exemption so building could be repaired, see attached Council request. · Motion authorizinq staff to obtain an appraisal of the Eldorado Court Apartments, 7701, 7721, 7741, and 7761 62"d Avenue: Council determined not to proceed with appraisal, see attached Council request. · Project #731, Resolution orderin.q construction of and awardinq contract for the construction of the 9200 49"' Avenue reqional pond: Approved, see attached Council request. · Motion approvin.q storm water analysis for livable communities redevelopment area by Bonestroo & Associates at estimated cost of $16,300: Approved, see attached Council request. · Proiect #727, Resolution relatinq to the decertification of a parcel from tax increment financinq district no. 02-01: Approved, see attached Council request. This item was also on the EDA agenda, as the Council and EDA both need to approve the decertification. · Ordinance 03-21, An ordinance implementinq an electric franchise fee on Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation d/b/a Xcel Enerq¥, for providing! electric ener.cly service within the city of New Hope: Adopted, see attached Council request. · Ordinance 03-22, An ordinance implementinq a .qas enerqy franchise fee on Center Point Ener.qy Minne.qasco, a division of Center Point Ener.qy Resources Corporation, ~ Delaware Corporation, for providin.cl ~las enerav service within the city of New Hop-'-: Adopted, see attached Council request. · Proiect #749, Discussion and update re.qardin.q development proposal for city-owneri I~rol~ertv at 5501 Boone Avenue and direction to proceed with financial/tax increment financinq analysis: EDA approved proceeding with TIF analysis at developer's expense, see attached EDA request. · Project #754, Motion authorizinq staff to meet with representatives of Bear Creek Capital and property owners of 7901 Bass Lake Road and 5539/5549 Winnetka Avenue to negotiate potential property acquisition for redevelopment purposes: EDA approved proceeding with negotiation meetings, see attached EDA request. Codes and Standards Committee - The Codes and Standards Committee did not meet in October. Staff will be requesting to schedule another committee meeting in November or December to discuss the following items: ~ A. Transit Shelters -Two things occurred since the Planning Commission reviewed this matter, 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. City staff will be meeting on a staff level to discuss these issues and reviewing similar ordinances approved by the city of Roseville and will then coordinate a committee meeting. B. Minor Code Amendments - The city attorney has prepared an ordinance addressing minor code amendments previously discussed by the committee. Staff wants the committee to review the final ordinances before proceeding to the full Commission and City Council. C. Miscellaneous - There are several other miscellaneous code issues that staff wants to discuss with the committee in the future. Desi.qn and Review Committee - The Design and Review Committee met in October with Thunder Alley. The deadline for the December Planning Commission meeting is November 7. Committee members will be notified regarding the status of the November 13 Design and Review meeting. Staff expects at least one application for single family garage addition/curb cut variance. Future Applications - Future applications or businesses that staff is currently working with include: · Culvers and office condo project, 42nd and Quebec · St. Joseph's Church residential development · Dakota Growers (Creamettes) expansion · Ryland/East Winnetka · CVS/West Winnetka · AC Carlson new development · Independence Avenue · Collisys-amend CUP · YMCA addition City Center Task Force Update - The task force will be meeting again on November 6. Please review the attached minutes from the October meeting. Livable Communities Study - Staff is working with developers on all four target sites and will update the Commission at the meeting. 2004 Planninq Commission Schedule - Attached is the draft 2004 schedule. Please note that the August (National Night Out) and November (elections) meeting nights will be changed to Wednesday instead of our regular Tuesday meeting night. Also, the 4th of July holiday falls on a Sunday in 2004, so we will need to determine whether the preference would be to hold our meeting on July 6 or 13. Project Updates: · Please see attached development update and map. 10. PlanninqlCouncillEDA Minutes - Enclosed are Council/EDA meeting minutes fo'r your review. 11. If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff. Attachments: 5440 Winnetka Avenue 7601 Bass Lake Road TIF district calling for public hearing 36th Avenue infrastructure improvements 5500 Winnetka Avenue 8113 Bass Lake Road offer to purchase Exemption to temporary prohibition on construction in Livable Communities area 6151 Louisiana Avenue schedule public hearing for sale Met Council opportunity grant for City Center area 5500 Winnetka Avenue approve purchase agreement Temporary signs in boulevard study 8113 Bass Lake Road offer to purchase Exemption to temporary prohibition on construction in Livable Communities area Eldorado Court Apartments appraisal 9200 49th Avenue regional pond Storm water analysis for livable communities area Electric franchise fee Gas franchise fee Decertification of a parcel from TIF district (Council and EDA) 5501 Boone Avenue development proposal update West Winnetka potential property acquisition Draft 2004 Planning Commission Schedule Minutes COUNCIL Rt QUt ST I OR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-13-03 Consent Item No. By: Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist By: MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE THE POTENTIAL PURCHASE OF 5440 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH BASED ON ITS APPRAISED VALUE OF $220,000 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FILE 755) ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to negotiate the potential purchase of property located at 5440 Winnetka Avenue North based on its appraised value of $220,000. 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 PRACTICE City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within the city. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the city's many housing activities, including acquiring properties from willing sellers in areas designated for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan. When a property owner submits a letter of interest to the city, a request 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 seventeen (17) properties in this area. The city is currently negotiating the purchase of 5512 Winnetka Ave N., 5500 Winnetka Ave. N. and requesting that an appraisal be completed for 7601 Bass Lake Road. BACKGROUND On September 22, the Council authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the subject property. Forsythe. Appraisals, Inc, completed the appraisal and determined the property's value to be $220,000. The city received the attached correspondence dated September 10, 2003 from the property owner requesting that the city consider purchasing the subject property. The property is located within the Livable Communities Easl Winnetka Study Area and in Planning Distdct 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 intoseveral lannin districts. PlanningDistdct 6 is the district where the Winnetka, Bass Lake Road MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: h\RFA\PLANNING\Housin \5440\Q - 5440 authorization to ne otiate.doc Request for Action Page 2 10-13-03 and Sumter properties that the city has been pursuing over the past few years are located. Planning D~strict 6 is bordered by Winnetka Ave. N. to the west, C.P. Rail system to the south and the city of Crystal to the e~ and north. The Comprehensive Plan targeted several areas in the city for redevelopment. Recommendations for Planmng 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 Ave. N. between 5340 Winnetka Ave. 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 Ave. N., 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 ten (10) of the seventeen (17) lots along the east side of Winnetka Ave. N. and seven (7) properties along Sumter Ave. N. and in the Bass Lake Road extension 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 Ave. N. and Bass Lake Road. In 2001 and 2002, the Livable Communities Task Force studied redevelopment opportunities within the designated area. In 2002, the Council accepted the task force study. In February 2003, the Council selected developers for each study area site based on proposals, except the west Winnetka site. Staff continues to coordinate with developers in the Livable Communities Area. The Hennepin County Estimated Market Value for the property is as follows: o Hennepin County o Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: $154,000 ($45,000 Land & $109,000 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 attorney 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 negotiate the potential acquisition of this property based on the appraised value of $220,000. If negotiation is successful, staff will return to the Council with a purchase price for consideration including a request to proceed with the preparation of a purchase agreement. At a later date, a purchase agreement would be presented to the Council for consideration. If a purchase of the property is completed, staff would attempt to sell the home to a house mover, demolish the foundation and restore the site to a maintainable condition. The property would then be landbanked in Preparation for future redevelopment of the area. 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. East Winnetka Study Area - Planning District 6 5426 ~ 5420 ; 542! 54]6 , 5417 5410 ¢ 5411 5406 '~ 544)7 ** 5512 5500 ,5531 ' ';~ 7615 5537 ; i 5558 ] ; ': ST RAP ; ;. ......... ,,. .... 5417 ; ~ 5420 f 542.5: ! ; .... ;~-~---L ...... ...... ~ ~ .... **=..__.~;._;~; City-Owned Properties in Comprehensive Planning Distdct 6: 1. 5340 Winnetka Ave. N. 2. 5406 Winnetka Ave. N. 3. 5410/12 Winnetka Ave. N. 4. 5420 Winnetka Ave. N. 5. 5422 Winnetka Ave. N. 6. 5506 Winnetka Ave. N. 7. 5518 Winnetka Ave. N. 8. 5524 Winnetka Ave. N. 9. 5532 Winnetka Ave. N. 10. 5550 Winnetka Ave. N. 11. 5520 Sumter Ave. N. 12. 5530 Sumter Ave. N. 13. 5546 Sumter Ave. N. 14. 5559 Sumter Ave. N. 15. 7603 Bass Lake Road Ext. 16. 7621 Bass Lake Road Ext. 17. 7801 Bass Lake Road 5519 ~ .:: ~ ,.' ~01 , .-' .... ........ ... .,.. : ..= ., ; 7608; ~ .: 5426 ~ 5427 _. COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-13-03 Consent Item No. By: Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist By: MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN AN APPRAISAL OF 7601 BASS LAKE ROAD (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FILE 756) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting that the City Council approve a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 7601 Bass Lake Road for potential acquisition purposes. On September 29, 2003, a letter was received from the owner indicating a desire to sell the property. The property is located within the Livable Communities East Winnetka Study Area. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within the city. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the city's many housing activities, including acquiring properties from willing sellers in areas designated for redevelopment In the Comprehensive Plan. When a property owner submits a letter of interest to the city, a request 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 seventeen (17) properties in this area. The city is currently 'negotiating the purchase of 5512 Winnetka Ave. N., 5500 Winnetka Ave. N. and seeking authorization to negotiate the purchase of 5440 Winnetka Ave. N. BACKGROUND The city received the attached correspondence dated September 29, 2003 from the property owner requesting that the city consider purchasing the subject property. 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 isbordered by Winnetka Ave. N. to the west, C.P. Rail system to the south and the city of C~stal to the east MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:\RFA\PLANNING\Housin \7601\O- 7601 a raisal authorization.doc Request for Action Page 2 10-13-03 and north. The Comprehensive Plan targeted several areas in the city for redevelopment. Recommendations for Plannmc District 6 include the acquisition and redevelopment of sites located along the south side of Bass Lake Roa~ in the Bass Lake Road extension area and along the east side of Winnetka Ave. N. between 5340 WinnetKa Ave. 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 Ave. N., 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 ten (10) of the seventeen (17) lots along the east side of Winnetka Ave. N. and seven (7) properties along Sumter Ave. N. and in the Bass Lake Road extension 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 Ave. N. and Bass Lake Road. In 2001 and 2002, the Livable Communities Task Force studied redevelopment opportunities within the designated area. In 2002, the Council accepted the task force study. In February 2003, the Council selected developers for each study area site based on proposals, except the west Winnetka site. Staff continues to coordinate with developers in the Livable Communities Area. The Hennepin County Estimated Market Value for the property is as follows: o Hennepin County o Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: $145,000 ($48,000 Land & $97,000 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 attorney 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. 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. ATTACHMENT~ · Property Owner Correspondence, 9-29-03 · Location Map, Topographic Map, Planning District 6 - City Ownership Map · Hennepin County Parcel Data · Comprehensive Plan References- Planning District 6 East Winnetka Study Area - Planning District 6 ....... · I[ ; ~. ~" ~ ~~=~E~ Ill l' 5420 ~ / ~"~-~0~"~'~ J ~ ~17 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Comprehensive Planning District 6: ' ..... ............. ........... ~ / ~I J~ ~ ~ ~, i~ 1. 5~0 Winnetka Ave N ' : ~ ~1 1~ ' · ' ' ~ .... : , , ~ ; 2. ~06 Wfnnetka Ave N .......... ~ ~~~~ ~ ; ~ ~,~ ; r... ~ ~ 3. ~10/12 Winnetka Ave N . ; ~ ~ - ~/ ~ . . · . ; ~~7~ ....... ~ ......... ~ : 4. ~20 Winnetka Ave. N. - ~ I / / /~ ~19 ~ ~ ~24 ,: '~":* ;' 5. ~22 Winnetka Ave N · : ; _ ; ~ , ;- -.~ H.. ~: ~, , :: . 506 W~nnetka Ave. N. ~ ~ ~ ] ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~13 : ; ~_~'~'~1'-"~' 7 5518Winnet~Ave.. ~ '"'-4' , ~ : , '" ' ~ ' ' . . .. ,. ~ , , ~ · , , ~ i ~ ~, · 5532 Winnetka Ave. N. ~ ~-_/.8/ ~7] ; ~2/ ~'O,'~/ 10. 5550 Winnetka . , I ~... ~ ~ ~. , *.~._~ , ; _ Ave N . ~ : ?~ ;. .~ :.. .~ , . : , 1. 5520 Sumter Ave N · ~ -~ '~ ~ : / ; / . ; · . ~ ~- ....~ -,,,~a,. ~ ~ ~ ~,: ~13: , 12. 5530 Sumter Ave N ~ ~ 521~ } .~- ~ ~ _-.~.: -...~ ~ - 13. 5~6 Sumter Ave. N. [ ~5212 ~ ~ : ...,. ~ ~ ~ ~: * .> . ~ . 15. 7603 Bass LakeRo . ~ ; i ~ ~ . ~ : , .,. i . , ad E~ , -----..,.. , ,~ ~ · ~, m [ *,- , 16 76 ~ , ~--.~;7~l ~ ~'. ,' ~/ .~" -- ~ ~, __._ 21Bass ~ke Road E~. ~ ~52~ ~ ~"'.. / % x~'~ ~ ~/~/ / , ~7. 7801Bass Lake Road COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-13-03 Development & Planmn.c Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, Director of By: Community Development A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MODIFICATION OF THE RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1; MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1 AND 02-1; CREATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 03-1 (SPECIAL LAW) AND ADOPTION OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 724) .,,REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests Council approval of the attached resolution, prepared by Krass Monroe, the City's redevelopment financial consultant calling for a public hearing on modification to the Restated Redevelopment Plan and existing Tax Increment Plan, to the creation of Tax Increment Distdct 03-01 (Special Law) and to the adoption of a Tax Increment Plan. The public hearing will be held on December 8, 2003. 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 approved similar resolutions relating to tax increment financing districts. BACKGROUND As the City Council is aware, in 2003, the city requested that special legislation be approved by the Minnesota State Legislature to assist with redevelopment activities in the Livable Communities area. On September 22, 2003, the Council approved special legislation enacted by the Minnesota State Legislature on June 8, 2003, governing the use of tax increment financing by the city within a designated area of the city. This was the first step in the process of creating a new tax increment district in the Livable Communities redevelopment areas. The resolution was a legal requirement to make the bill effective. Tonight's action is the next step (see attached schedule) in creating the tax increment financing district. Per the attached Krass Monroe memorandum dated 10/7/03, 'Attached please find a resolution calling for a public hearing on modifications to the Restated Redevelopment Plan and existing Tax Increment Plans, to the creation of Tax Increment District 03-01 (Special Law) and to the adoption of a Tax Increment Plan for the City Council's consideration at its October 13 meeting. The modifications to the Restated Redevelopment Plan and existing Tax Increment Plans clarify the available sources of revenue and reflect increased project costs and Increased bonding authority due to the creation of the East Winnetka/Ryland District. The resolution also addre_._.__sses the creation of a new tax increment distdct for the East Winnetka/~ct and the ad~ MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: hRFA\PLANNING\Livable Communities\Q - Schedule Public Headn .doc Request for Action Page 2 10-13-03 of a tax increment plan. The numbering system for this new tax increment district is different than previou_s districts in that the identifying number (03-01) is followed by the phrase "(Special Law)". This reference necessary to indicate that the tax increment district is created under the City's special legislation adopted b~ the Legislature earlier this year." The resolution states in part: "This Council shall meet on Monday December 8, 2003, commencing at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota, to hold a public hearing on the following matters: (1) modification of the Restated Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment pro.~ect No. 1 (the "Project Area") clarifying the available sources of revenue and reflecting increased project costs and increased bonding authority; (2) modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1 and 02-1 reflecting increased project costs and increased bonding authority within the Project Area; (3) creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 03-1 ('Special Law); and, (4) adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, 469.124 to 469.134, 469.090 to 469.108 and 469.174 to 469.1791, inclusive." As mentioned in previous RFAs, staff would like to extend thanks to the New Hope legislators that assisted with the introduction and passage of the bill, including Senator Ann Rest and Representative Lynne Osterman. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. ATrACHMENTS · Resolution · Krass Monroe Memorandum, 10-7-03 · Krass Monroe Memorandum and Bill, 6-23-03 · Bill Summary · Implementation Schedule/Chronology · Location Map - East Winnetka · Location Map - Area Proposed TIF District ~, .... : ~'-J;-'"'::~- ;~ :.~ ~,~7 .~ , ! ~' ~ ~'';!~''': : I -- '.' ,: / ~ ~ :': ~ '~ ; i Y', ' . I .... : ....... ~' I .... . ..... ' ! ':. ..... '; '.-. ..... -~ ~,---~;-.'..~.~..::~r:...-=_~J · · / 5524 I 5519 : I 5520 ; , · .' '.... ~ · e~ '..' [ r .......... .4 ........ 'x . . . : ~'~ .... '- ........ i ' ..... ~-'--"--- .... --'-"'~'-"~'~- ....._ I ~' 55TH AVE N ' ~, ,~ .--- · '--'--: ~ ' ' ~ " --, f'"-- --"'-~' "--'----- I ~----.--.-,-~' ;. .... .,_ ....... : .r,r~ ~ : , : ' : t :' ...... ~--.-----.':' 5454. 5427 ;~: :' 54 :~{ ': : ~ ---- ..... ' ---~-- : -----,--------t,--...,o~. ~..-,..,...,~.._ _,: L._ ..... : .' ~' : ; 5420 I I- ~----~---- .-7-.----I ( ' ' : : .... ' ."'--'--''' ."7" ..... ...... _ ....... , . 54 ---. , ~ ~ . --. ----.(..~ .... ............ : . .=. , , 5406 , ._~.~? :: - , ....... , 5413: :54145414 .. 541~541~ ,~,~ 541~ ~ 54"1 : : ...... · . ~ ~---.,.--- ~.J ~;. .... ......... '---.----.' -~"' I ~ ~' ¢.r_--- --i ..... ; ~ : ~ ; -" i ". ~' "~' '" "~ I I -- ~ ~l~Jl ; :,. ~ ,..... i ......... ~- .... · L__,...,~' ___,." ~ ..' i .': ~ : ]-- -- :----.,.-f .,_._ ......... j : . " ' ~_" i 2 532,; ~, i' ! ~2 i ~zs ~mi s.~ ~ ....... ; { ; : , --" -..-~ · __: ; :' ti:D, : , ~, . ~ : = I:'~i,[ . )"" - "r-' ........ '~; ........ ~ .... -..' ', , : ~" ' ~1 ' : ; : : . · . ELl; __.......,,._, · ~ . · · -...- . · . · : ) , ~Z4 . , , . ~.~ m: · · ,- _____0~___ . , ; , 5325 · & ¢ ~ · t ! · ~ . .~ . ·. · .~ : --... .% ¢'- ,~....: ; .' ....... ! ; '"-'~ ..... -~, ~ .... .~ ;.7825 , ,.a..:..,.,.,,., : , 530e.; 5313: .: 32 :. 5313: , .5312; -',,,- : t-",----.,~~ %, ': ~A,/ z ~ J' ~ ~ '.-_~.,.--..- *. · : .... .~.~]_ . - ., . · 7~ .... ~.-- ..... , ~ · { ~ [ ,. IM'j .. .: , .~. ,' .~. ~ : I · ' ~ · :5218 , ,.~p~ . ,~,-< .~ ~ : 5318 : ~ ,. ,~ 5306' · '521~ ,~ , ,, -, · ~'-; .-. ; ' =-.- ;,~'~ , , - ------ : .~ -- : ~ : - ~Zl ( ,; ~,, / ~ ( '..,: · ~i~ t ~ : i m~,.~.~ ~, ____ ) · -. '..,.· ~'w· ~ ·' ,.< ,' /'% ~ ~ 7 · ~ --'".-,-,~ - ; · ,5206 · · - : .~- - ~': ., .' ·$ , · · ; · , -, . __,4.~ -,_, r, · 530~ · 301~ ............. ! · ; - . ~ -.,( t ; : : - ~ ,......... ,. ~. · .. .-.~r . ; J,~ . , .~. · ~ ' ~"~ I"~'z I I ~ --' -.. · ,, · .',M~.... ,,.. ¢ . . ' ' -~ ~f'l.~ ; ~ · - · "- "". ' ' ~ ' ~ · ~'- :' ' ')'~r~ : "~,e r)r) '.:r . .-' ! COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depanmen! Public Works Approved for Agenoa October 13, 2003 Johnson B¥.~' . ' / RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED, RATIFYING THE PREPARATION OF A PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH STREET INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT NO. 626 (36TH AVENUE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS) A.oenoa Section Development & Plann~nc Item No 8.3 ,REQUESTED ACTION Staff is recommending that the Council approve a resolution that cleclares costs to be assessed and establishes an assessment public hearing for the 36th Avenue Infrastructure Improvement Project No. 626 at the NovemDer 10. 2003, Council meeting. POLICY/PAST PRACTICF Assessments are Proposed to be levied against benefited, tax-exempt properties, in accon:lance with New Hope's Assessment Policy. BACKGROUND The 36th Avenue Infrastructure Project included reconstruction of 36th Avenue and improvements to sanitary and storm sewer systems and water mains in the area b~etween TrUnk Highway 169 and Winnetka Avenue. Also ~ncluaed in the project was construction of a trail along the street, and the installation of a signal system at the Boone Avenue intersection. On February 25, 2002, the City Council approved a resolution declaring estimated costs to be assessed, and established a public hearing for March 25, 2002, to review the Proposed project and to consider the assessments for the 36th Avenue Infrastructure Improvement Project No. 626. At the March 25 Council meeting, the Council ordered the construction of the project after closing the public hearing. A representative of St. JosePh,s Church attended the meeting and addressed the Council during the public hearing. Using the New Hope Assessment Policy, the city engineer has determined that the total cost for the street Portion of the project along 36th Avenue is $1,488,015.64 and that the assessment rate per foot is $155.65. The 36th Avenue Infrastructure Improvement Project included two tax-exempt Properties; the city of New Hope and St. Joseph's Church. New Hope's assessable footage was 50 feet, for a Proposed total assessment amount of $7,782.50. St. Joseph's Church assessable footage was 570 feet, for a Proposed total assessment amount of $88,720.50. Proposed total assessment amount for the project would be $96,503.00. MOTION BY TO: SECOND BY te~nng Recluest For Action Assessment Hearing Page 2 FUNDING The remain=ler of the cost for the project Js Deing func~ed Dy the Utility Func~, Storm Water Fun~. Three R,vers Park District, Street Infrastructure Funcls, and Municipal State Aid funcls. AI'I'ACHMENTS The engineer's memoranclum and the resolution are attachecl. COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-13-03 Development & Planning Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD & Ken Doresk¥, CD Specialist By: MOTION TO PROCEED WITH A WRITTEN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AT 5500 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDED PURCHASE PRICE OF NO MORE THAN $200,000 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FILE 753) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests Council consideration of a motion authorizing staff to proceed with a written offer to purchase the property located at 5500 Winnetka Avenue North for staff's recommended price of no more than $200,000, $20,000 more that the City's appraisal with the understanding that relocation benefits will be waived. The City Attomey recommends $190,000 and the City Manager believes that the City should pay no more than $200,000. Relocation benefits could be as much as $20,000. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within the city. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the city's many housing activities, including acquiring properties from willing sellers in areas designated for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan. When a property owner submits a letter of interest to the city, a request 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 seventeen (17) properties in this area. The city is currently, negotiating the purchase of 5512 Winnetka Ave. N., seeking authorization to negotiate the purchase of 5440 Winnetka Ave. N., and requesting that an appraisal be completed for 7601 Bass Lake Road. BACKGROUND On September 8, 2003, the Council authorized staff to negotiate the purchase of the subject property. On September 17, staff and the City Attorney met with the owners to discuss negotiation. The owner is requesting $205,000 for the property. The requested amount is based on an appraisal completed on the property in April for refinancing purposes and the owner's opinion of increased value. Forsythe Appraisals, Inc, completed an appraisal for the City, dated August 19 valuing the property at $180,000. Please see the following correspondence submitted by the owner: "Recently the City of New Hope has attained an appraisal of my home at 5500 Winnetka Avenue North, MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:\RFA\PLANNING\Housin \5500\0 - 5500 urchase rice consideration.doc Request for Action Page 2 10-13-0, (PID#05-118-21-00-0003). In this appraisal it compared my home to three other homes in tl3e area, without walkout lots, mine is a complete walkout. The two bedrooms in the lower level are in the back of the home and have full windows which more than meet egress, making this a four bedroom, two bath home. This appraisal gave $5000 for the increased lot size. A number of years ago the City of New Hope approached us regarding putting an alley, at the back of the lot, which would have allowed us to sell the back lots and build an additional home. A home was built on a back lot, without an alley, five houses to the south of me, which means this was possible. With the minimum cost of a buildable lot in the metro area being at least $50,000, this $5,000.00 increase can't be correct. In April of this year I had an appraisal done, for refinancing purposes. This appraisal compared my home to three others, which included walkout lots. This appraisal also put more value on the increased lot size. The appraisal came in at $196,000. Below is an excerpt from the "Minneapolis, St. Paul Business Joumal", dated Sept. 18th, 2003. "Median house price reaches record hiqh in Auqust Twin Cities median home prices set a new record in August, reaching an all-time high of $207,500. That is up $5,500 from July's record-setting median pdce of $202,000 and up 9.2% from $190,000 in August of 2002. The median sale pdce increase was the largest monthly percentage increase since November 2002." With the increase stated above, that puts the adjusted appraised value of my home at $205,016 an increase of 4.6% since April. I feel that a fair value for the home I have lived in since 1958 is $205,000." At the negotiation meeting, the owners were concemed about the following three items in the City's appraisal: · Excess land adjustment. The owners pointed out that their appraisal provides higher adjustments for the land than the appraisal completed by Forsythe Appraisals for the City. Land adjustment is the owner's major concern. Please see the following summary: Private Appraisal 4110103 Sub)ect Property - Land Value 330' x 90' = 29,700 sq. ft. * $65,000 Co__Co_9..~Darable Properties No. I No. 2 No. 3 Size 11,149 s~. ~~ Difference 18,551s .__~.. 21,080 s_s..ff. 13,770 Sit_._.~__e Inferior Inferior Inferior Site AdjDstment + $15,000 + $20,000 + 5,000 Location Avera~ Avera~ Avera~ Location Adjustment 0 0 0 ~raisal 8/19/03 ~- Land Value 330' x._..~90' = 29,700~ $70,000 ~erties No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Siz._.__~_e Difference ~ ~ ~ ~ft. 19,800s~. ~ Site__~_._. Inferior Inferior Inferior ~ustment + $5,000 + $5,000 + 5,000 Location ~~ _~ Location Ad'ustment -- -$2,000 -- -$2000- - - $2,000 Request for Action Page 3 10-13-03 * The land size is the same in both appraisals. Forsythe Appraisals obtains information regarding land size from the attached "Hennepin County Complete Tax Report". Staff can only assume the priva/~ appraisal data was obtained from the same source. Staff believes that the 330' figure extends to t centerline of Winnetka. Staff has researched the section map (attached) that shows the property being 285' in length with an additional 40' extending to the centerline of Winnetka. Although this is the case. each appraisal used the same property size for valuation purposes. Staff has discussed this issue with Forsythe Appraisals. The Hennepin County Assessment web site lists the property as being 285' in length (web site assessment data attached). Greg Callahan, Forsythe Appraisals, Inc. submitted the following correspondence received on October 6, 2003 (attached) regarding the issue, "The subject's lot adjustment is kept at $5,000. This is due to the fact that the subject is located on a very busy street. Also the land behind the dwelling is "land locked" and could not be built on. It is just excess land. There is no access to the rear of the site for another dwelling." Basement Bedrooms. The owners were concemed that the Forsythe appraisal did not count the basement bedrooms in the "Above Grade Room Count" on the appraisal. The bedrooms were taken into account as "Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade". The private appraisal accounts for the basement bedrooms in the same manner, therefore staff does not believe this concern should not be considered. The owner also stated that the walk out configuration of their home was not considered in the appraisal and that their appraisal compared the property to others with walk out basements. Greg Callahan, Forsythe Appraisals stated that he does not make adjustments for walk out basements. Greg Callahan, Forsythe Appraisals, Inc. submitted the following correspondence (attached) regarding the issue, "Regarding basement bedrooms: as noted in the 'grid' section of the appraisal in the area 'Basement Finished Rooms Below Grade", there is credit given for 917 sq ft finished. This is the total finished area in the basement (i.e. two bedrooms, family room and bath). All finished rooms including basement rooms are accounted for in the gdd section. There is a positive adjustment for every comparable including $9,200 for comparable three which has an unfinished basement. The subject's walk-out site is appealing to some buyers and not to others. The direct access outside the dwelling also gives additional access to inside the dwelling (i.e. security). Electrical Service. The owners claim that the electrical service in their home is 100 amp service. The owner's appraisal states that there is a 100 amp service in the home. The only way to verify service would be for the City to send the appraiser back to the home. Greg Callahan, Forsythe Appraisals, Inc. submitted the following correspondence (attached) regarding the issue, "As noted in my inspection, the subject had a 60 amp electrical service. When I asked if this was the only electrical service box in the dwelling, I was told it was. If there was a 100 amp service box in the dwelling, the person (son) I spoke with did not know about it. The City Attorney submitted the following correspondence regarding the negotiation meeting, "This letter is in follow up to the recent meeting we had with the property owner of 5500 Winnetka Avenue North. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the possible acquisition of the property and to review the two appraisals establishing the fair market value of the property. The City had prepared an August 19, 2003 appraisal completed by Forsythe Appraisals, Inc. The property owner submitted an April 8, 2003 appraisal prepared by Jennifer Cavalier of Rapid Appraisals in Maple Grove. The purpose of the Cavalier appraisal was for a refinancing of the property. The Forsythe appraisal established an $180,000.00 fair market value. The Cavalier appraisal indicated the fair market value of the property was $196,000.00. The property owner, per her October 1, 2003 letter, is requesting $205,000.00 for the purchase of the property. This is based on the Cavalier appraisal plus an additional $9,000.00 the property owner feels the property has appreciated in value since April when the Cavalier appraisal was completed. Request for Action Page 4 10-13-05 Both appraisals rely primarily on the comparable sales approach to value. Each appraisal contains three comparable sales with adjustments to the subject property as determined by the respective appraisers. The major difference relates to the value of excess land. The City's appraisal adjusted the comparable sales upward by $5,000.00 due to the fact the subject is situated on an oversized lot. The Cavalier appraisal adjusted the comparables upward from $5,000.00 to $20,000.00. The Cavalier appraisal looked at comparables that had varying degrees of size in comparison to the subject. Both the City appraisal and the Cavalier appraisal considered the subject's size at 29,700 square feet. However, the County records indicate the subject is 90 feet x 285 feet. This would decrease the subject's size to 25,650 feet. The County information then goes on to indicate the subject's size is 26,280 square feet. Therefore, there are varying inconsistencies regarding the size of the subject property. It is my understanding the City appraiser indicated the $5,000.00 increase was reasonable. Also, given the fact the Cavalier appraisal was done for a refinance, said appraisals have a tendency to adjust the subject's value on the high side so that loan value is better justified. Given these circumstances and the range of value placed on the excess land, it would not be unreasonable to consider the excess land at $10,000.00 in value. This would increase the City's appraisal value to $185,000.00. It would not be unreasonable to also increase the City's appraised value for some additional appreciation in value based on time. An additional $5,000.00 for time appreciation may be justified as well. This would place the City's appraised value at $190,000.00. Given the fact the County Assessor has estimated the 2003 market value for the property at $143,000.00, a $190,000.00 purchase price appears fair for this property. In connection with the "walk out" basement claim made by the property owner, please note that the Cavalier appraisal relied on by the property owner also failed to provide any increase in value for this fact. The Cavalier appraisal indicated the property is a two bedroom, single-family home and did not take into consideration the lower level bedrooms or the walk out condition in the appraisal. Finally, our appraisal indicates the property has a 60 amp electrical service. If this is incorrect, an adjustment should be made for the difference in value between a 60 amp service and a 100 amp service. The City's appraiser should be questioned about this fact and possibly our appraisal could be increased based on this fact as well." Staff contacted Forsythe regarding any increase in value if the unit does have a 100 amp service. The appraiser stated that the value should not be increased for the difference in service and that it is a lending issue only. On August 11, the Council authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the subject property. Forsythe Appraisals, Inc, completed the appraisal and determined the property's value to be $180,000. On July 30, the city received the attached correspondence by e-mail from the subject 'property owner requesting that the city consider purchasing the property. The correspondence is dated July 30, 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. 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. Request for Action Page 5 10-13-03 In October 1999, the New Hope Economic Development Authority directed staff to contact resicients along the ' east side of Winnetka Avenue North, between 5430 and 5550 to inquire if there was any interest in voluntaj~ sales of these properties to the city. In March 2002, the Council directed staff to contact twenty (20) resicle, 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 ten (10) of the seventeen (17) lots along the east side of Winnetka Avenue North and seven ('7) properties along Sumter Avenue North and in the Bass Lake Road extension area (attached, please see a map of city-owned properties in Planning District 6). Also, attached please find a summary of purchase prices compared to appraised values. Overall, the City has paid $37,400 over the appraised value for all seventeen (17) properties. In 2000, the city received a Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Grant to study reclevelopment opportunities in the roughly quarter-mile area encircling the intersection of Winnetka Avenue North and Bass Lake Road. In 2001 and 2002, the Livable Communities Task Force studied redevelopment opportunities within the designated area. In 2002, the Council accepted the task force study. In February 2003, the Council selected developers for each study area site based on proposals, except the west Winnetka site. Staff continues to coordinate with developers in the Livable Communities Area. The Hennepin County Estimated Market Value for the property is as follows: · Hennepin County o Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: $143,000 ($48,000 Land & $95,000 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 attorney 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. The property has a lot width of 90 feet and depth of 330 feet measuring a total of 29,700 square feet. The appraiser obtains this information for Hennepin County. Staff feels that the property depth is error at Hennepin County and should be consistent with the other property depths in the area at 285 - 290 feet. The home is a two level rambler. The home was constructed in 1952. Per the appraisal, "the subject property is an average quality two bedroom rambler. The intedor is in average condition and has average appeal. The basement is appox. 82% finished. The floor plan and size of the dwelling are typical for the area." The owners have indicated that they will be in attendance at tonight's Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council consider offering the owner up to $200,000 for the property. The owner's requested price of $205,000. Based on the excess land and some appreciation based on time (private bank appraisal), the City Attorney believes that a $190,000.00 purchase price would be fair for the property ($10,000 more than Forsythe appraisal). The City Manager believes that the City should pay no more than $200,000. Relocation benefits could be as much as $20,000. The preparation of a purchase agreement would be the next step in the City acquisition process. Once prepared, a purchase agreement would be presented to the Council for consideration. If a purchase of the property is completed, staff would study the possibility of selling the home to a house mover or demolishing the home. The property would then be landbanked in preparation for future redevelopment of the area. The owner has indicated that there is an unsealed well on the property. Well abandonment will be the responsibility of the property owner. Staff has indicated to the property owner that because this would be a voluntary sale, no relocation benefits would be paid. The property owner would be required to sign a relocation waiver. Request for Action Page 6 10-13-03 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. ATTACHMENTS · Property Owner Correspondence, 10-01-03 · Property Owner's Appraisal, 4-10-03 · Forsythe Appraisal, 8-19-03 · City Attorney Correspondence, 10-6-03 · ForsytheAppraisal Correspondence, (Received 10-10-03) · Property Owner Correspondence, 7-30-03 · Location Map · Topographic Map · Section Map · Planning District 6 - City Ownership Map · Hennepin County Parcel Data · Hennepin County Information Provided by Appraiser- Hennepin County Complete Tax Report · East Winnetka Property Data · Comprehensive Plan References - Planning District 6 East Winnetka Study Area - Planning District 6 . . ~ ~ ~; ~ ,~ · , . ~ ~ ~ ....... ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ :. -~ ~'---~ .... ~ ~27, . .. . - . 5420 : ~2~ ~ J ~ ~ ~26 ;:~ ~. ~ ~ ' ~7 --~;F! i" ;~-"-~:--, C City-Owned Prope,ies ,. "-~-}O /'~55"5~ ~ ~ ... j ~ ~. ~ °mprehensivePlanningDistnct6:~ .......... J~..~ ~ i ~ /. , ~ ; i ..... ~_ ~/////////////~ _. , ~ ¢ ~ -. ., . .. ~ .... ~ ....... ' ~ ~I ¢~) ~ ~ ~. )~ 1. 5~0 Winnetka Ave ~ ~ .,.,:., ~, __.,_. . .N. . ~; ~ ~ .. } 2. ~06 W;nnetka ........... ~ ~ ~ , ~-~.~. , . Ave. N. . ~ ~ :. ~ , , ~ 3. ~10/12W~nnetkaAve N ~ ......." " 5 ~Winn .N. - , , . ~7~ . . · · · · .~ ; , 4 ~20 W ~ -.~ ...... · . · Innetka Ave ~ : · : ~ ~ : ~24, ~1 : : ~ ==~. etkaAve. N. ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - : .';;=~ H ~ _ ~,~: ~. ~auowmnetkaAve N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~i~ ~ ...... ~ ........ ~ . · · ~ .; ~ ~; ~ ~_.~ ~ ; ~8~ ~: .. 7. 5518 Wmnetka Ave N ~ ~ .; ~, m ; ~ --..~ ~ .. ~ , 8. 5524 Wlnnet , ~. , , = ~ ~ --~ 'O' kaAve. N ;' '~ : ~ / ~'-- / ~ ~-- i .- t ~/ ~ ~o~ winnetka Ave. N · . .... ~__ · ~. · etka Ave ~ ~ -... %. f ~-..~ / ~ .~ ...... . ;.. · N. 'i ~ 7~ ;% ,. ~ . ~. ~ ,.._ .. __ : ~ ~ 1. 5520 Sumter Ave N j ~5 ....J ",,.~,'. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~13 j' :~_ 12. 5530 Sumter Ave~ N~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~t~-. , ¢ "-.~ :' -. ~ r-- 13. 5~6 Sumter A . ; { az]~ , ~. ~ . .: i , ...: -.., ; ye. N. ~ ~---'~ ~ ~'~"-,' / ~ ~:, ~7 ~ :; 14. 5559 Sumter Ave ~ ~ 5212 [ ~ ~ - ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.,. f ?" 15. 7603 Bass ~ =~-~, ~ ~ '~- ~; 7~I '~',. / ~ i ~ / _'f ;~' 16. 76~1 Bass Lake Road . ~ ~:~.~ ~ i "~ : ~X~ f ~/ ~ ] . 17. 7801 Bass Lake Road COUNCIL I EQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-13-03 Development & Planmn.c Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD & Ken Doresk¥, CD Specialist By: COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING A WRITTEN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE FIRE DAMAGED FOUR-PLEX APARTMENT BUILDING LOCATED AT 8113 BASS LAKE ROAD FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUESTED PRICE OF $286,190.28 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 677) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests Council consideration of a motion authorizing staff to proceed with a wdtten offer to purchase the fire damaged four-plex apartment property located at 8113 Bass Lake Road for the property owner's requested price of $286,190.28. Ultimately, the owner is seeking $365,000, but will be receiving $78,809.72 in an insurance settlement, therefore is requesting the difference of $286,190.28 from the city. The requested total of $365,000 is $26,000 more than the appraised value of $339,000 completed by Forsythe Appraisals on August 7, 2003. The property is currently vacant and uninhabitable, therefore relocation benefits would not be applicable in this transaction. Staff contacted Evergreen Land Services for an estimate of relocation benefits (memo attached). Although Evergreen made some assumptions, if income was a factor each tenant would receive approximately $13,350 ($13,350 x 4 = $53,400), if income was not a factor each tenant would receive $1,800 ($1,800 x 4 = $7,200). According to City staff at least one of the four units was used for Section 8. The Council considered this request on September 9, and directed staff to continue negotiating with the owner. The Council expressed interest in purchasing the property, but was not supportive of the requested sales price. The Council indicated a willingness to pay an amount equal to the appraised value including the insurance settlement. Also, for that pdce, the Council stated that they would allow the owner to salvage any material inside the building. The owner has submitted the attached correspondence dated September 22 indicating his unwillingness to negotiate the requested price. The property owner has asked that if the requested terms are not acceptable to the Council, that an exemption be considered to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force adopted on July 28, 2003. The request for an exemption to Ordinance 03-17 is being presented at tonight's meeting as a separate item. POLICY/PAST PRACTICF City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within ~Council has been address..~.~ the residential_portion of this oal throu h the ci's man MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 10-13-03 housing activities, including acquiring properties from willing sellers in areas designated for redevelopment Ln the Comprehensive Plan. The city is required by law to pay fair market value when acquiring property. Normally, fair market value is determined from a property appraisal. BACKGROUND On June 20, 2003, the four-plex at 8113 Bass Lake Road burned and staff posted the property uninhabitable. Up to this point, the City Manager authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property, furthermore the Council directed staff to negotiate a potential purchase of the property, considered and rejected the owner's asking price and directed staff to continue negotiations. On September 9, the Council directed staff to continue negotiating with the owner. The Council expressed interest in purchasing the property, but was not supportive of the requested sales price. The Council indicated a willingness to pay an amount equal to the appraised value including the insurance settlement. Also, for that price, the Council stated that they would allow the owner to salvage any material inside the building. The City's inspection staff stated that allowing the owner to salvage material inside the building would not only benefit the owner, but would lessen any demolition costs. Their opinion was that the fixtures would have nominal value. The owner has submitted the attached correspondence dated September 22 indicating his unwillingness to negotiate the requested price. The correspondence states: "Your counter offer of 8113 Bass Lake Road is not acceptable. You cannot purchase a 4-plex anywhere in surrounding cities for less that $365,000. With the fix up dollars put into this property, i.e. new roof, doors, windows, cabinets, flooring etc, the value of this property would increase close to $400,000. Enclosed you will find the latest sales in New Hope/Crystal. If the city does not want to purchase the property at $365,000 - $78,809.72 + $286,190.28, then I ask the city to grant a variance to the moratorium as this would create an undue hardship to myself." As stated, the property owner has asked that if the requested terms are not acceptable to the Council, that an exemption be considered to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force adopted on July 28, 2003. The request for an exemption to Ordinance 03-17 is being presented at tonight's meeting as a separate item. At the September 22 Council meeting, the Mayor asked staff to research the disparity between the County's assessed value of $212,000 and the appraised value of $339,000. Staff discussed the issue with the Hennepin County Assessor's Office, the value listed on Hennepin County's web site is the 2002 value for taxes payable 2003. The 2003 value for taxes payable 2004 is $292,000. The Assessor did say that rental values are increasing quickly at a rate of 20% per year. Please see the attached tax assessment data for 2002 and 2003. PROS & CONS Pros: 1. Property can be acquired for less than the appraised value: Although the total price desired by the owner is $365,000, $26,000 more than the appraised value, the asking price from the city would be $286,190.28, $52,809.72 less than the appraised value. The difference of $78,809.72 would be obtained by the owner through an insurance settlement. No relocation benefits: Staff contacted Evergreen Land Services for an estimate of relocation benefits. Although Evergreen made 'some assumptions, if income was a factor each tenant would receive approximately $13,350 ($13,350 x 4 = $53,400), if income was not a factor each tenant would receive $1,800 ($1,800 x 4 = $7,200). Future redevelopment site: The property is located in Planning Distdct 4 of the city's Comprehensive Plan and the plan states: "the medium density four-plex units located along Bass Lake Road display poor building condition. Renovation or redevelopment is recommended for these sites." The property is Request for Action Page 3 10-13-05 located in an area identified by the Livable Communities Task Force for future redevelopment. Replacement affordable housing has been proposed for the site to replace housing lost at the Boisclair condominium building proposed to be constructed at the Bass Lake Road apartment site located immediately west of the city's golf course clubhouse and the New Hope golf course. Cons: Requested purchase price: The owner is requesting that he net $365,000, $26,000 more that the City's appraised value. The actual asking price from the City is $286,190.28, $52,809.72 less than the appraised value. The difference of $78,809.72 would be obtained by the owner through an insurance settlement. Building Permit Moratorium: The property has been damaged by fire and is located in the building permit moratorium area. An estimated 75% of the building was damaged by fire, smoke and water. According to the building official, the building can be rebuilt if an exemption to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force, is approved by the Council. 3. Moratorium exception: If the Council does not purchase the property and denies the moratorium exception legal action could be taken against the City. 4. Condemnation: According to the City Attorney, condemnation could be difficult. The City Attorney feels that without a project in place, the public purpose requirement would be challenging. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND On June 20, a fire occurred at the subject property. An estimated 75% of the building was damaged by fire, smoke and water. According to the building official, the building can be rebuilt. The property is located in the southwest quadrant of the Livable Communities Redevelopment Area. On July 3, the city attorney mailed a letter to the owner of the subject property (see attached) describing his options. On July 8, staff met with Wade Klick, property owner who verbally indicated to city staff that he was willing to explore a possible sale of the subject property to the city. Based on Mr. Klick's request, the city manager authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property. Forsythe Appraisals, Inc, completed the attached appraisal and determined the property's estimated market value to be $339,000 in repaired condition. The owner then requested that the city consider purchasing the property for $286,190.28. Ultimately, the owner is seeking $365,000, but will be receiving $78,809.72 in an insurance settlement, therefore is requesting the difference of $286,190.28 from the city. The requested total of $365,000 is $26,000 more than the appraised value of $339,000. On August 28, the owner submitted correspondence describing this request. The property has a lot width of 80 feet and depth of 240 feet measuring a total of 19,200 square feet. Each unit is 899 sq. ft., therefore the building has 3,596 sq. ft. gross living area. The building was constructed in 1960. The appraisal states that it is being made "subject to completion of repairs". The Hennepin County Estimated Market Value for the property is as follows: · Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: $212,000 ($60,000 land & $152,000 building) 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. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the subject property is located in Planning District 4. The distdct is of mixed use with every land use present except I, Industrial. The property is a four-plex rental unit and is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential. The property is surrounded by R-l, single-family residential to the west, R-3, Medium Density to the east and south and faces Bass Lake Road to the north. The Comprehensive Plan states, "the medium density four-plex units Request for Action Page 4 10-13-03 located along Bass Lake Road display poor building condition. Renovation or redevelopment is recommend_ec~ for these sites." On June 23, the Council approved Ordinance 03-12 extending the temporary prohibition of all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force. The ban inclucles the application for and issuance of building permits under Chapter 3 of the City Cocle (excluding permits for routine maintenance and repairs), text changes, variances, conditional use permits and rezoning recluests 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 is effective for one additional year, until July 31, 2004. On July 28, 2003, the Council passed a motion approving Ordinance 03-17 correcting minor typing errors in the original Ordinance No. 02-09: An intedm ordinance establishing a temporary prohibition on all construction and development within four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force. No building permit applications were affected by these minor errors. Although this extension would permit the city to deny any requests for building permits (excluding routine maintenance 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 that desire 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 attorney to prepare findings of fact. On September 23, the Council approved the findings of fact. On January 9, 2002, staff received a request to explore the potential purchase of 8115 Bass Lake Road, the single-family home located directly adjacent to the subject property. The owner was a member of the Livable Communities Task Force and through her involvement submitted the request. While considering the proposal, on January 28, the Council directed staff to contact the two (2) four-plex owners to the east, veterinary clinic to the west and the apartment complex to the south to inquire about the potential purchase and redevelopment of all the sites. At the time, the veterinary clinic was not interested in acquiring 8115 Bass Lake Road for expansion purposes, but did indicate that they may be interested in moving to a new facility in the Livable Communities redevelopment area. The Park Acres Apartments located to the south was interested in residential redevelopment of the combined properties at this location. Currently, the developers of Park Acres are proposing the Livable Communities golf course site residential redevelopment project and replacement rental housing project that would utilize the subject property. And finally, the two (2) four-plex owners did not respond. On March 11, 2002, the Council passed a motion to not pursue the potential purchase of 8115 Bass Lake Road. The Council declined the purchase citing: no plan was in place, the Livable Communities Task Force had not completed the redevelopment study, the lack of city-owned property in the area and unwillingness of some neighboring property owners to consider redevelopment. In May 1999, the previous owner of the subject property contacted the city requesting consideration of financial assistance to improve the property. The EDA did not think that the property was worth city investment and directed staff to inquire if the owner would be willing to sell the property for redevelopment purposes. The owner responded in February 2000 that they would be interested in exploring a potential sale of the property to the city. On February 14, the EDA authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property. An appraisal of the property was completed on February 29 by BCL Appraisals, Inc. listing the estimated market value at $171,000. On March 27, the EDA authorized staff to negotiate a potential purchase of the property for the appraised value. Staff could not reach a successful negotiated purchase price and according the Hennepin County records the property sold in August of 2000 to the current owner for $177,000. 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 and 2002, the Livable Communities Task Force studied redevelopment opportunities Request for Action Page 5 10-13-03 within the designated area. In 2002, the Council accepted the task force study. In February 2003, the Councii selected developers for each study area site based on proposals, except the west Winnetka site. Staff continues to work with the developers on revised plans, including an affordable rental housing plan intended to replace affordable units that may be lost at the site adjacent to the golf course. The subiect property is included in the affordable rental unit replacement plan. 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, clue to several discrepancies in previous appraisals. On May 22, staff and the city attorney 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. Forsythe completed this appraisal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council strongly consider the acquisition of this property for the owner's requested purchase price of $286,190.28 for the following reasons: The owner's price is firm. Although the total price desired by the owner is $365,000, $26,000 more than the appraised value, the asking price from the city would be $286,190.28, $52,809.72 less than the appraised value. The difference of $78,809.72 would be obtained by the owner through an insurance settlement. The property is vacant and uninhabitable, therefore relocation benefits would not be applicable. Staff contacted Evergreen Land Services for an estimate of relocation benefits. Although Evergreen made some assumptions, if income was a factor each tenant would receive approximately $13,350 ('$13,350 x 4 = $53,400), if income was not a factor each tenant would receive $1,800 ($1,800 x 4 = $7,200). According to City staff at least one of the four units was used for Section 8. The property has been damaged by fire and is located in the building permit moratorium area. An estimated 75% of the building was damaged by fire, smoke and water. According to the building official, the building can be rebuilt if an exemption to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force, is approved by the Council. The property is located in Planning District 4 of the city's Comprehensive Plan and the plan states: "the medium density four-plex units located along Bass Lake Road display poor building condition. Renovation or redevelopment is recommended for these sites." The property is located in an area identified by the Livable Communities Task Force for future redevelopment. Replacement affordable housing has been proposed for the site to replace housing lost at the Boisclair condominium building proposed to be constructed at the Bass Lake Road apartment site located immediately west of the city's golf course clubhouse and the New Hope golf course. If the owner's requested price is approved, a purchase agreement would be presented to the Council for consideration. If a purchase of the property is completed, staff would demolish the remaining structure and restore the site to a maintainable condition. The property would then be landbanked in preparation for future redevelopment of the area. 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 Request for Action Page 6 10-13-03 TIF special legislation was passed. Staff is coordinating with Krass Monroe, the city's financial consultant_to facilitate the necessary steps for implementation. ATTACHMENTS · Property Owner Correspondence including Attachments, 9-22-03 · Property Owner Correspondence, 8-28-03 · Insurance Claim Information · Appraisal · City Attorney Correspondence, 7-3-03 · Location Map · Topographic Map · Aerial Map · Ordinance 03-17 · Building Permit Moratorium Area Map · Replacement Housing Concept Plan · Hennepin County Parcel Data 2003 & 2004 · Evergreen Land Services Memorandum, · Comprehensive Plan References - Planning District 4 Z ~ 5~2,4 ~N &120 55.30 HOSTERMAN JR HIGH SCHOOL I011 : · ~ ' · · Building Permit Moratorium Area ~ ..... '~ .: 043o i 0431 i } ~3o -~s431 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-13-03 Development & Planning Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD & Ken Doresk¥, CD Specialist By: CONSIDERATION OF A EXEMPTION TO ORDINANCE 03-17, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTI()N 1.5(I) REGARDING THE TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON ALL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT ~WITHIN THE FOUR STUDY AREAS IDENTIFIED BY THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES TASK FORCE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8113 BASS LAKE ROAD (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 677) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests Council consideration of this property owner's request for an exemption to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force adopted on July 28, 2003. The property owner has requested an exemption to the ordinance if the Council does not approve the purchase of the subject property for the owner's requested pdce of $286,190.28. A separate agenda item regarding the ~otential pumhase of the subject property is being presented at tonight's meeting for consideration. The Council considered the purchase of this property on September 9, and directed staff to continue negotiating with the owner. The Council expressed interest in purchasing the property, but was not supportive of the requested sales price. The Council indicated a willingness to pay an amount equal to the appraised value including the insurance settlement. Also, for that price, the Council stated that they would allow the owner to salvage any material inside the building. The owner has submitted the attached correspondence dated September 22 indicating his unwillingness to negotiate the requested price. The property owner has asked that if the requested terms are not acceptable to the Council, that an exemption be considered to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force adopted on July 28, 2003. POLICY/PAST PRACTIC~ Inthe past, the City Council has approved moratoriums to allow time to resolve relevant issues. Exemptions to this moratorium can be considered on a case-by-case basis by the City Council. Building permits for routine maintenance and repair are excluded from Ordinance 02-09. Up to this point, one (1) exemption has been requested and denied. The owner of 5434 Winnetka Avenue North requested an exemption for a 396 sq. ft. home addition. On August 26, the Council denied the property owner's request and directed the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact. On September 23, the Council approved the Findings of Fact. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:\RFA\PLANNING\Housin \8813\Q - 8113 ordinance exem tion.doc Request for Action Page 2 10-13-0S BACKGROU..~p_ND On June 20, 2003, the four-plex at 8113 Bass Lake Road burned and staff posted the property uninhabitable. An estimated 75% of the building was damaged by fire, smoke and water. According to the building officia!. the building can be rebuilt. Up to this point, the City Manager authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property, furthermore the Council directed staff to negotiate a potential purchase of the property, considered and rejected the owner's asking price and directed staff to continue negotiations. The owner has submitted the attached correspondence dated September 22 indicating his unwillingness to negotiate the requested price and requesting an exemption to Ordinance 03-17 if the purchase is not approved. A separate agenda item regarding the potential purchase of the subject property is being presented at tonight's meeting for consideration. The September 22 correspondence states: "Your counter offer of 8113 Bass Lake Road is not acceptable. You cannot purchase a 4-plex anywhere in surrounding cities for less that $365,000. With the fix up dollars put into this property, i.e. new roof, doors, windows, cabinets, flooring etc, the value of this property would increase close to $400,000. Enclosed you will find the latest sales in New Hope/Crystal. If the city does not want to purchase the property at ,$365,000 - $78,809.72 + $286,190.28, then I ask the city to grant a variance to the moratorium as this would create an undue hardship to myself." On June 23, the Council approved Ordinance 03-12 extending the temporary prohibition of all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force. The ban includes 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 is effective for one additional year, until July 31, 2004. On July 28, 2003, the Council passed a motion approving Ordinance 03-17 correcting minor typing errors in the original Ordinance No. 02-09: An interim ordinance establishing a temporary prohibition on all construction and development within four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force. No building permit applications were affected by these minor errors. Per Council direction, staff sent the subject ordinance information to all affected property owners. Although this extension would permit the city to deny any requests for building permits (excluding routine maintenance 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 that desire 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 attorney to prepare findings of fact. On September 23, the Council approved the findings of fact. 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 and 2002, the Livable Communities Task Force studied redevelopment opportunities within the designated area. in 2002, the Council accepted the task force study. In February 2003, the Council selected developers for each study area site based on Proposals, except the west Winnetka site. Staff continues to work with the developers on revised plans, including an affordable rental housing plan intended to replace affordable units that may .be lost at the site adjacent to the golf course. The subject property is included in the affordable rental unit replacement plan. As stated previously, on June 20, 2003, a fire occurred at the subject property. An estimated 75% of the building was damaged by fire, smoke and water. According to the building official, the building can be rebuilt. The property is located in the southwest quadrant of the Livable Communities Redevelopment Area. Request for Action Page 3 10-13-03 On July 3, the city attorney mailed a letter to the owner of the subject property (see attached) describing his options. On July 8, staff met with Wade Klick, property owner who verbally indicated to city staff that he v willing to explore a possible sale of the subject property to the city. Based on Mr. Klick's request, the manager authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property. Forsythe Appraisals, Inc, completed the attached appraisal and determined the property's estimated market value to be $339,000 in repaired condition. The owner then requested that the city consider purchasing the property for $286,190.28. Ultimately, the owner is seeking $365,000, but will be receiving $78,809.72 in an insurance settlement, therefore is requesting the difference of $286,190.28 from the city. The requested total of $365,000 is $26,000 more than the appraised value of $339,000. On August 28, the owner submitted correspondence describing this request. 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. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the subject property is located in Planning District 4. The district is of mixed use with every land use present except I, Industrial. The property is a four-plex rental unit and is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential. The property is surrounded by R-l, single-family residential to the west, R-3, Medium Density to the east and south and faces Bass Lake Road to the north. The Comprehensive Plan states, "the medium density four-plex units located along Bass Lake Road display poor building condition. Renovation or redevelopment is recommended for these sites." RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council consideration of the owner's request for an exemption to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force as adopted on July 28, 2003 and that if denied, the City Attorney be directed to prepare findings of fact for consideration at the October 27, 2003 Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS · Property Owner Correspondence, 9-22-03 · Ordinance 03-17 · Building Permit Moratorium Area Map · Property Owner Correspondence, 8-28-03 · City Attorney Correspondence, 7-3-03 · Location Map · Topographic Map · Replacement Housing Concept Plan · Comprehensive Plan References - Planning Distdct 4 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenaa Section Community Development 10-27-03 Consent Item No. By: Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist By: RESOLUTION ORDERING PUBLISHED NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING ON SALE OF 6151 LOUISIANA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 685) 'ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests Council approval of the attached resolution to publish notice and set a November 10, 2003 public hearing date for the sale of 6151 Louisiana Avenue North. The unit currently being sold is the south/accessible unit (please see attached survey certificate). .POLICY/PAST PRACTICE City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties withir the city. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the city's many housing activities, including partnering with different agencies and organizations on housing projects and selling those projects to Scattered Site Housing Program eligible buyers. State law requires that a public hearing be held for the sale of public property. BACKGROUND Attached please find a memorandum from the Paul Siqurdson, Counselor Realty recommending that a public hearing be conducted for the sale of 6151 Louisiana'Avenue North. Also attached please find a purchase agreement for the property. On September 8, 2003 a public hearing was held for the sale of 7105 62"" Avenue North, the south/accessible unit. A closing was held on September 9. The closing for the south/accessible unit isexpected to occur in November. On August 14, 2000, the city purchased 7105 62nd Avenue North from a willing seller for $103,000 for residential redevelopment purposes. 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 ~als of each unit to determine the sale_prices. On December 9, the Council a_p..proved the marketin.,q..p_J~ MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 10-13-03 and sale prices. On January 27, 2003, the Council approved the mortgage structure for the property. Dur~g the spring, staff completed an administrative lot split of the property per City Code. On June 23, the COL J approval a motion authorizing final payment to BCB Construction, Inc. for completion of the City contract tot the construction of this twinhome. On July 9, staff held an open house for the property. On December 9, the Council approved the Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) marketing plan and sales prices for the units. The sales price is $185,000 for each unit consistent with the appraised value. Again, the subject unit for this request is the accessible unit at 6151 Louisiana Avenue North. The household has been determined to be eligible by Hennepin County. The prospective buyer, a first-time homebuyer, has cerebral palsy and has extreme mobility impairment. The buyer's personal care assistance will be residing at the property. Staff feels that the household is an excellent match for the accessible unit. Sale Information 6151 Louisiana Avenue North - Accessible Unit 7105 62"0 Avenue North - Adaptable Unit (Sold! First Mortgage $157,500 First Mortgage $157,500 Hennepin County HOME Second $ 27,500 Hennepin County HOME Second $ 27,500 Mortgage/Down Payment Assist. Mortgage/Down Payment Assist. Total/Appraised Value $185,000 Total/Appraised Value $185,000 The prospective buyer has indicated that they will be in attendance at the public hearing on November 10. Staff anticipates that a closing will occur in November. Staff recommends approval of this resolution. FUNDING This project is located in an area where TIF funds can be utilized. CDBG funds were used to acquire the property, remove the foundation and prepare the site. CHDO HOME funds in the amount of $60,500 have been secured for this project for down payment assistance. Construction costs will be funded by the sale of the property. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Survey Certificate 3. Location Map 4. Counselor Realty Correspondence, 10-6-03 · Purchase Agreement · Marketing Plan · Public Hearing Notice LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS ~Ol ~rd Avenue Nor~ (~3) Fez No. "~sd~ !. C,~OZ. JAMES ,qDDFFION. ]4ennepin "q~mml lo the mconied plm ,~._.~ .__ ' .-'--",~'~. nmnepin Coumy Ag..,.--. Imim im lke ~., r-..~ ..... --.W' r/m~ nor~ of the ~nrv-.;-- ~,--~L--:' :. o NOTE: INVOICE NC. ~,1314 F~.NO COPY C£~ SCALE: ~" = 30 tor IXC~ ~y ~t~ Ex~t~ Emyotmo~ ~tes ~l~e ~ to r~lo of .~ tetts ~ ~ ~t~t~ Mt N ~ffi with ~rove~ ~ ~ ~tMe emc~otm~ 1~ of ~f ~TY O~ NEW HOPE 62ND ,AVE Council REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department ' Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-27-03 CONSENT Item No. By: Amy Baldwin, Community Development Intem B)/: RESOLUTION APPROVING METROPOLITAN COUNCIL LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT (LODA) OPPORTUNITY GRANT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 718) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests that the City Council approve the enclosed Resolution Approving Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) Opportunity Grant (Improvement Project No. 718) POLICTY/PAST PRACTIVF The City Council has approved similar grant agreements with the Metropolitan Council in the past for planning studies and housing improvement projects. BACKGROUND At the May 13, 2002, Council meeting, the City Council approved a resolution authorizing city staff to make application to the Metropolitan Council for- a Livable Communities Opportunity Grant to cover the consultants costs of in-depth planning, market, and feasibility studies for redevelopment of the City Center and School District area. The sites are identified within a half-mile radius from the intersection of 42nd and Winnetka Avenues. On August 27, 2003, the Metropolitan Council approved the application for funding in the amount of $55,500, with a $55,500 match from the city. The Metropolitan Council has forwarded the enclosed grant agreement to the city for approval and execution. The city's match will consist of funds that have already been spent or budgeted for the planning study in the 2003/2004 EDA budget. Goals of the project include creating a sense of place in the community at the City Center area and providing a variety of housing choices by redeveloping underutilized land to increase densities and provide more efficient use of land. The agreement stipulates that the grant activities be completed by June 30, 2004. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:~RFA~PLANNING\City Center Area\Q & R-met council grant accept.cloc Request for Action Page 2 FUNDING Zhe funding requirements outJ~ed..~.the grant agreement are as follow~: Recommended Grant: $55,500 Funding Match (EDA): $55,500 Staff recommends approval of the resolution. ATrACHMENTS · Resolution · Metropolitan Council Correspondence · Grant Agreement 10-27-03 Grant No. SG-03-103 ~OPOLITAN L/VABLE COMMUNITIES ACT L/VABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT "OPPORTUNITY GRANTS" CATEGORY GRANT AGREEMENT THIS GRANT AGREEMENT is made and entered into bv the Metropolitan Council ("CounciI"~ and the City of New Hope ("Grantee"). WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.251 creates the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, the uses of which fund must be consistent with and promote the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Development Guide adopted bv the Council; and . WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes sections 473.251 and 473.253 establish within the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund a Livable Communities Demonstration Account and require the Council to use the funds in the account to make grants or loans to municipalities participating in the Local Housing Incentives Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 or to metropolitan-area counties or development authorities to fund the initiatives specified in Minnesota Statutes section 473.25, paragraph (b), in participating municipalities; and WHEREAS, the Council makes Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds available as "Opportunity Grants" to fund local initiatives to develop project-specific and site-specific land use plans for projects that show potentia,l for evolving to the development stage; and WHEREAS, the Grantee is a "municipality" participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 or a metropolitan-area county or a "development authority," as defined in Minnesota Statutes section 473.253, subdivision 2, and submitted an application for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds in response to the Council's request for applications; and WHEREAS, at its August 27, 2003 regular meeting, the Council awarded Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds to the Grantee for the project described in the Grantee's application for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in this agreement, the Grantee and the Council agree as follows: I. DEFINITIONS 1.01 Definition of Terms. For the purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this Paragraph have the meanings given them in this paragraph unless otherwise provided or indicated by the context. (a) "Development Authority" means a housing and redevelopment authority, economic development authority, or port authority. Page I of 6 Pages (b) "Metropolitan Area" means the seven-county metropolitan area as defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121. subdivision 2. {c) "Municipalin.'" means a statutory or home rule charter citv or town participating ~n the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254. or a county in the Metropolitan Area. (d) "Participating Municipally.'" means a statutory or home rule charter city or town which has elected to participate in the Local Housing Incentive Account pro.am and negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the Municipality pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.254. II. GRANT FUNDS 2.01 Total Grant Amount and Matching Requirement. The Council will grant to the Grantee a total sum of $55,500.00 which shall be funds from the Livable Communities Demonstration Account of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund. Notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, the Grantee understands and agrees that any reduction or termination of Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds made available to the Council may result in a like reduction to the Grantee. The Grantee shall match on a dollar-for-dollar basis, the total grant amount identified in this paragraph. 2.02 Authorized Use of Grant Funds. The total grant amount made available to the Grantee under this agreement shall be used only for the purposes and activities described in the Grantee's application for Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds. A summary of the Grantee's application which identifies eligible uses of the grant funds is attached to and incorporated into this agreement as:Attachment A. If the provisions of the Grantee's application are inconsistent with other provisions of this agreement, the other provisions of this agreement shall take precedence over the provisions of the application. Grant funds must be used to fund the initiatives specified in Minnesota Statutes section 473.25, paragraph (b), in a Participating Municipality. Grant funds must be used for costs directly associated with the specific proposed activities and are intended to be used for "hard costs" rather than "soft costs." Ineligible uses include: administrative overhead; activities prior to the date of the grant award; travel expenses; legal fees; permits, licenses or authorization fees; costs associated with preparing other grant proposals; operating expenses; comprehensive planning costs; and prorated lease and salary costs. If consistent with the application, the Grantee may use the grant funds to make deferred loans (loans made without interest or periodic payments), revolving loans (loans made with interest and periodic payments) or otherwise make the grant funds available on a "revolving" basis for the purposes of implementing the project activities described in Attachment A. The Council shall bear no responsibility for cos~t overruns which may be incurred by the Grantee or others in the implementation or performance of the project activities described in Attachment A. The Grantee agrees to remit to the Council in a prompt manner: any unspent grant funds; any grant funds which are not used for the authorized purposes specified in this paragraph; any interest earnings described in paragraph 2.05 which are not used for the purposes of implementing the project activities described in Attachment A; and any "revolved" funds describ~l in paragraph 2.05 that are not used by the Grantee to implement affordable and life-cycle housing initiatives pursuant to paragraph 2.05. The Grantee must complete all major components of the grant project as proposed and for which the Council made its grant award and perform any special conditions stated in Attachment A, Page 2 of 6 Pages or the Grantee must return to the Council the entire grant amount specified in paragraph 2.01 of this agreement. 2.03 Budget Variance. A variance of ten percent (10%~ in the amounts allocated to various eligible uses identified in Attachment A shal/ be considered acceptable without further documentation or Council approval. Budget variances exceeding ten percent (I0%) may require approval of the governing body of the Metropolitan Council. Notwithstanding the ag.,2regate or net effect of any variances, the Council's obligation to provide grant funds under this agreement shall not exceed the maximum grant amount specified in paragraph 2.01 of this agreement. 2.04 Disbursement Schedule. The Council will disburse the grant funds to the Grantee in accordance with the grant fund disbursement schedule contained in Attachment B. which is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. The Council will make disbursements only upon receipt of a written disbursement request from the Grantee's authorized agent or representative. 2.05 Interest Earnings and Revolved Funds. If the Grantee earns any interest or other income from the grant funds received from the Council under this agreement, the Grantee will use the interest earnings or income only for the purposes of implementing the project activities described in Attachment A. If the Grantee uses the grant funds on a "revolving" basis or otherwise receives revolved funds from the project activities described in Attachment A, the Grantee must: (a) use the revolved funds to implement similar eligible projects that will help the Grantee meet its affordable and life-cycle housing goals and implement the purposes of Minnesota Statutes sections 473.25, 473.254 and 473.253; or (b) return the revolved funds to the Council for use with other eligible projects. The Grantee shall report to the Council any revolved funds received by the Grantee and the Grantee's uses of those revolved funds. 2.06 Effect of Grant. Issuance of this grant neither implies any Council responsibility for contamination, if any, at the project site nor imposes any obligation on the Council to participate in any pollution cleanup of the project site if such cleanup is undertaken or required. III. ACCOUNTING, AUDIT AND REPORT REQUIREMENTS 3.01 Accounting and Records. The Grantee agrees to establish and maintain accurate and complete accounts and records relating to the receipt and expenditure of all grant funds received from the Council. Notwithstanding the expiration and termination provisions of paragraphs 4.01 and 4.02, such accounts and records shall be kept and maintained by the Grantee for a period of six (6) years following the completion of the project activities described in Attachment A or six (6) years following the expenditure of the grant funds, whichever occurs earlier. For all expenditures of grant funds received pursuant to this agreement, the Grantee will keep proper financial records including invoices, contracts, receipts, vouchers and other appropriate documents sufficient to evidence in proper detail the nature and propriety of the expenditure. Accounting methods shall be in accordance with generally accepted accounting Principles. 3.02 Audits. The above accounts and records of the Grantee shall be audited in the same manner as all other accounts and records of the Grantee are audited and may be audited or inspected on the Grantee's premises or otherwise by individuals or organizations designated and authorized by the Council at any time, following reasonable notification to the Grantee, for a period of six (6) years Page 3 of 6 Pages following the completion of the project activities described in Attachment A or six (6~ years following the expenditure of the grant funds, whichever occurs earlier. 3.03 Report Requirements. The Grantee will provide to the Council one or more written reports which report on the status of the prOject activiues described in Attachment A and the expenditures of the grant funds. The reporting schedule and the content of the written reportl, sl are identified m Attachment C, which is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. 3.1M Environmental Site Assessment. The Grantee represents that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or other environmental review has been or will be carried out. if such environmental assessment or review is appropriate for the scope and nature of the project activities funded by this grant, and that any environmental issues have been or will be adequately addressed. IV. AGREEMENT TERM 4.01 Term. This agreement is effective upon execution of the agreement by the Council. Unless terminated pursuant to paragraph 4.02, this agreement expires June 30. 2004. 4.02 Termination. This agreement may be terminated by the Council for cause at any time upon fourteen (14) calendar days' written notice to the Grantee. Cause shall mean a material breach of this agreement and any amendments of this agreement. If this agreement is terminated, the Grantee shall receive payment on a pro rata basis for project activities described in Attachment A that have been completed. Termination of this agreement does not alter the Council's authority to recover grant funds on the basis of a later audit or other review, and does not alter the Grantee's obligation to return any grant funds due to the Council as a result of later audits or corrections. If the Council determines the Grantee has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement and the applicable provisions of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, the Council may take any action to protect the Council's interests and may refuse to disburse additional grant funds and may require the Grantee to return all or part of the grant funds already disbursed. 4.03 Amendments. The Council and the Grantee may amend this agreement by mutual agreement. Amendments, changes or modifications of this agreement shall be effective only on the execution of written amendments signed by authorized representatives of the Council and the Grantee. V. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.01 Equal Opportunity. The Grantee agrees it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local civil rights commission, disability, sexual orientation or age and take affirmative action to insure applicants and employees are treated equally with respect to all aspects of employment, rates of pay and other forms of compensation, and sel~tion for training. 5.02 Conflict of Interest. The members, officers and employees of the Grantee shall comply with all applicable state statutory and regulatory conflict of interest laws and provisions. 5.03 Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Council and its members, employees and agents from and against all claims, Page 4 of 6 Pages damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees. arising out of or resulting from the conduct or implementation of the project activities funded by this grant. Claims included in this indemnification in~aa~without limitation, any claims a.~erted pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA). Minnesota Statutes chapter 115B. the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation. and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 9601 et seq.. and the federal Resource Conservation and Recover3., Act of 1976 (RCRA) as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 6901 et seq. This obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemmtv which otherwise would exist between the Council and the Grantee. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the termination of this agreement. This indemnification shall not be construed as a waiver on the part of either the Grantee or the Council of any immunities or limits on liability provided by Minnesota Statutes chapter 466, or other applicable state or federal law. 5.04 Acknowledgments. The Grantee shall acknowledge the financial assistance provided by the Council in promotional materials, press releases, reports and publications relating to the project activities described in Attachment A which are funded in whole or in part with the grant funds. The acknowledgment should contain the following language: Financing for this project was provided by the Metropolitan Counci! Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund. Until the project activities funded by this agreement are completed, the Grantee shall ensure the above acknowledgment language, or alternative language approved by the Council's authorized agent, is included on all signs located at project or construction sites that identify project sponsors or entities providing financial support for the project. 5.05 Permits, Bonds and Approvals. The Council assumes no responsibility for obtaining any applicable local, state or federal licenses, permits, bonds, authorizations or approvals necessary to perform or complete the project activities described in Attachment A. 5.06 Contractors and Subcontractors. The Grantee shall include in any contract or subcontract for project activities appropriate contract provisions to ensure contractor and subcontractor compliance with all applicable state and federal laws. Along with such provisions, the Grantee shall require that contractors and subcontractors performing work covered by this grant comply with all applicable state and federal Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations. 5.07 Stormwater Discharge Requirements. If any grant funds are used for urban site redevelopment, the Grantee shall at such redevelopment site meet or require to be met: (a) all requirements of federal and state law relating to stormwater discharges including, without limitation, any applicable requirements of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 122 and 123; and (b) any additional requirements of the Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to All Metropolitan Water Bodies (1992) including, without limitation: (I) the requirement to utilize the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's urban best management practices entitled Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas; and (2) the requirement that all stormwater must be pretreated by facilities designed to provide pollutant removal efficiencies Page 5 of 6 Pages equal to or greater than those observed in wet-detention basin facilities designed in accordance with the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP~ desi~ criteria. 5.08 Attachments. The following are attached to this a~eement and are incorporated into and made a part of this agreement: (a) Attachment A - Summary. of the Grantee's application for Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds, as approved by the Council (b) Attachment B - Grant Fund Disbursement Schedule (c) Attachment C - Written Report Submission Schedule 5.09 Warranty of Legal Capacity. The individual signing this agreement on behalf of the Grantee represents and warrants on the Grantee's behalf that the individual is duly authorized to execute this agreement on the Grantee's behalf and that this agreement constitutes the Grantee's valid, binding and enforceable agreements. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantee and the Council have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. This agreement is effective on the date of final execution by the Council. Approved as to form: Associate General Counsel METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By Date Elizabeth J. Ryan, Director Housing and Livable Communities SG03103 CITY OF N~W HOPE Its: _. Date Its: /] ~/~ ~ z.~ Date 09/03 Page 6 of 6 Pages ATTA CHM'ENT A APPLICATION FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT GRANT FUNDS This attachment comprises this page and page A-I and contains a summary of the proposed prqiecl identified in the Grantee's grant application which was submitted in response to the Council's notice of availability of grant funds. The summary reflects the Grantee's proposed prqiecl as approved by the Council on August 27. 2003, and may reflect changes in t~rO. lect funding sources. changes in funding amounts, or minor changes in the proposed project that' occurred subsequent to the application submission. The Grantee's grant application is incorporated into this grant agreement by reference and is made a pan of this grant agreement except as follows. If the Grantee's application or any provision in the grant application conflicts with or is inconsistent with other provisions of this agreement or the project summary, contained in this Attachment A, the terms, descriptions and dollar amounts contained in this grant agreement and the project summary contained on page A-1 shall prevail. ' LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT OPPORTUNITy GRANT APPLICATION FORM 2003 Instructions: Submit form and attachments by 4:30 p.m. on June 2, 2003. Use font size 11. Use of bulleted lists is encouraged. Do not arta~ a cover~hcet or use any graphic ~mages on top of the _ application form. Limit application .to 5 pages plus attachments, for a total of 8 pages. Pro ect Information: project Name: Applicant (Oovermncntal Unit): New Hope Ci.ly Center Redevelopment Area City of New Hope Address (s~ct bounda.qcs or Major intersection): Project Location (city): New Hope ½ mile radius around Winnetka and 42" Avenues Office Usc Primary Project Contact: Name: Title: Address: Phone: Authoi~ed official(s) - (names and titles for contract execution) Kirk McDonald Community. Development Director 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 763-$31-S196 763-.531-5136 eseeman~.ci.new-hope.mn.us W. Peter Enck, Mayor Daniel J. Don=hue, City Manager Erin Seeman Community Development Intern Project Summary In the space provided, smnmatize the issues you will address and your objectives and plans for the subject site. (Limit 20 lin~) New Hope City Center is a 32.2-acre siic cha,~d by a number of shopping centers that were conslructed in the 1960's and early 1970's along with many indusWial u~ including thc school disWict administration building md bus garage, which arc out of character with the commercial .focal point of thc area. The age and condition of ~he land uses are marginal and reflect declining physical conditions, vacancies, an incompatible tenant mix and commercial land use patterns. Without redevelopment efforts these areas will continue to deteriorate. Recently redevelopment opporumities have presented themselves with the potential closing of Kmart, the merger 3f Marquette and Wells Fargo banks which currently has three sites in the redevelopment area, and the environmental conditions of the school district adminisUation building. A severe mold problem creating air quality issues was discovered in 2002. The school district has decided to correct thc issues enough to use thc The city sees a need for ~ comprehensive redevelopment suategy for the area to address the aforementioned nee&. The funds would be used to prepare a master plan and redevelopment strategy to address the '~:n'uning back" of retail and the reduction in the amount of impervious surface. The creation of the master plan would :levise a more traditional downtown design. This design would include a vital commercial core providing additional housing diversity including the addition of medium and high-density residential land use types integrating site design with adjacent developm~t. This would include increasing thc amount of green space while linking to a comprehensive trail and sidewalk system and transit stops in the redevelopment area. The city a'ould like to create a sense of place that is an exciting and atwactive destination. ATTACHMENT B GRANT FUND DISBURSEI~LENT SCHEDULE The total grant amount specified in paragraph 2.0] of this agreement shall be disbursed to the Grantee for uses consistent with this agreement according to the following schedule: The Council will disburse grant funds in response to written disbursement requests submitted by the Grantee and reviewed and approved by the Council. Written disbursement requests shall indicate the project activity funded by this agreement, the contractor(s)/vendor(s) to be paid, and the time period within which the prqiect activity was or will be performed. Disbursements prior to the performance of a project activity will be subject to terms and conditions mutually agreed to by the Council's authorized agent and the Grantee. Individual disbursement requests should specify the project or activity to be funded and identify dollar amounts by project or activity. Subject to verification of a written disbursement request and approval for consistency with this agreement, the Council will disburse a requested amount to the Grantee within fifteen (15) business days after receipt of a written disbursement request. ATTA CHM'ENT C WRITTEN REPORTS AND SUBMISSION SCI-[EDULE Beginning three (3) months after the Grantee initially receives ~ant funds, the Grantee shall submit to the Council written quarterly reports which shall contain at least the following elements: · A summary of grant funds received and expended to date. including a description of the purposes or uses for which the ~ant funds were expended: and · A statement of expected grant fund expenditures within the next quarter. The Grantee's final written quarterly report shall be submitted within two (2) months following the expenditure of all grant funds by the Grantee and shall contain a certification by the Grantee's chief financial officer that all grant funds have been expended in accordance with this agreement and the provisions of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. The Grantee also shall complete and submit to the Council a Monitoring and Evaluation Report which will assist the Council in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the Livable Communities Demonstration Account program. The contents, format and completion date of the Monitoring and Evaluation Report will be determined by the Council. This reporting requirement and the reporting requirement of paragraph 2.05 shall survive the termination or expiration of this agreement. AUTHORIZED AGENT The Council's authorized agent for the purposes of administering this agreement is Janice Gustafson or another designated Council employee. The written report(s) submitted to the Council shall be directed to the attention of the Council's authorized ageflt at the following address: Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634 Met opol!tan Cmmc/l Buildm~o comrnurUr~e~ ~ work September 15, 2003 Kirk McDonald Community Development Dzrector Ci.ry of New Hope M01 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Opportuni .ty Grant Application: Ci.ty Center Redeveiopmen! Dear Mr. McDonald: I am pleased to inform you that your proposal for a 2003 Lzvable Communities Demonstration Account, Opportunity Grant has been chosen to receive a grant award. On August 27, 2003, the Metropolitan Council reviewed and accepted the Cornmumtv Development Comm~tte~ recommendation to fund your proposal for the C~ty Center Redevelopment project in the amount of $$$.$00. A draft contract w/l/be prepared for the city's review in the near future. Attached is a copy of the application evaluation, which includes the recommended funding amount. If you have questions about your city's grant award, please feel free to call Elimbeth Ryan. 651-602-i 6 i $ or Joanne Barron, 65 !-602.13g$. Congratulations on your successful Livable Communities Demonstration Account Oppormmty Grant application. Peter Be]] Chair cc: Caren D~w~-, IX-puty P~giomfl Adrami~tor. Metropolitan Council Elizabeth Ryan, Director, Housing and Livable Communities Joanne Barron, Planning Analyst Attachment ww~'.metrocounc/Lorg 230 E~t lq/th Street · St. ~ M/nn~ota B5101-1626 . [851) ~02-1~'-- o Metro/~o L/ne 602.1ann anZ~s~O~umm~ ' ~uo ltax~02'lS50 * TITZ91-0~O4 Applicant: New Hope Recommended Funding Amount: $$5.500 Project Name: New Hope Ci.ty Center Redevelopment Area Project Description This is a 32.2-acre site characterized by a number o£shoppmg centers that s~ere constructea m tile )060's and earl), 1970's. Recently redevelopment opportunities have presented themselves with tile potential cJosm~ of Kmart, the merger of Marquene and wells Fargo banks which currently has three s~tes m the redevelonmem area, and the environmental conditions o£the school disl:rlct admlmstranon bu~]dm..c. Funds would be used to prepare a master plan and redevelopment strate.~., to address the "pruning back" of'retail aha the reduction itl tile amount o£imperv~ous surface· The creation of the master plan would devise a more tradmona] downtown. deslgn. Th~s design would include a v~ta] commercm] core providing addmona] housing d~vers~n' Funding Requested/Funding Recommended Total Requested: $55.500 Total Recommended: $55.500 Amount Requested $9,000 $10,000 $20.000 ____._._ $7,500 $5.000 Amount Recommended Development Timeline: Use of Funds $9.000 [ Phase II workplan - feasibility analysis, refine concepts. prehminarv development guidelineS, etc. $10,0001 Phase III workplan - implementation stratemes' amendments, workshops ' $20.000 I Financial feasibility analvs~s $4.000 I Project facilitation"~ $~.~7.~,,0~0 /,,S~ormwater des' and ,nfrastructure analvs,s $5.000 /Planm_E.nu c~t' Start Date: Mid 2002 Anticipated Completion Date: Dec. 2003 2003 LCDA Opponunin.' Grants Ranking by Criteria Ci .ty/Project Name:., New Hope Criteria: I Existing Connected f infra. Balance of RafllOn[ Patterns ~ Structure Uses High ~X MH ~ X X Medium 4 Transit Connections Overall Ranking-: .~IEDII'M-ITIGH Housing ; NallJral ( ommuml~ Choices Resonrcen (.omml/menl PartnrrstllD~ X X X X X Comments: Criteria Excellent potential for reuse of·Id K-man szte and associated shopping center area to create more connected panems Good potential to redevelop and revitalme the area. City ,has ~ect on 42'~ Ave. which would be enhanced bv accomohshment of thzs ormec? 2 I * ..Substantial oppormmry for reuse of erastmg mfa'asn'ucmre. , ...... ~t· ~,~ .~ ~ , .~ ._, ~___ o_~. m ~and scsie back retail. merit co· ~s location~ ......... P uld enhance route ndership. ~ / · Excellent potential for main, ~, .... ~.~ -~' ----____ ~' dR;nC'~n~th°'u'seh'°ldstudym~c~i'La];s%l~nativeh°usmgch°icesneeded Proe¢ ~ ~--~ .___~ ,J t will create a x artery of types that currenth. · ' ann aaamon of ublic involvement with comultant mee~owners, roundtables and ~houses. 9 * P.ubJic partic!pation process may be replicabJe - model for many suburbs facin~ similar redevelopment issues· --------- ~d what other communities have d ' - l 0 one to le - · very timely, am from their models. · K-mart might close, banks are consolidating, and school ~ start so ci can be read with a lan that coordma- ., d?!rict administration is relocating _ great time to get a head s les all olde o orturtit]es created W~th these chan~es. houid ensure ilities. that every street should have sidewalks on both sides, and focus on being explicit about pedestrian and COUNCIL RE( UEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-27-03 Consent Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD & Ken Doresk¥, CD Specialist B),: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR 5500 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FILE 753) ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends approval of a resolution to purchase property located at 5500 Winnetka Avenue North for the agreed upon purchase price of $200,000, in accordance with the attached purchase agreement prepared by the city attorney. The resolution approves the purchase agreement subject to execution of the purchase agreement by the seller and subject to receipt of the waiver of relocation benefits by the seller. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within 'the city. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the city's many housing activities, including acquiring properties from willing sellers in areas designated for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan. The city has been acquiring properties on a voluntary basis in the Winnetka/Bass Lake Road/Sumter Avenue area for potential future redevelopment purpoSes. Over the past several years, the city has acquired a total of 17 properties in this area. The city is required by law to pay fair market value when acquiring property. Normally, fair market value ~s determined from a property appraisal. After the Council authorizes staff to negotiate the purchase of a property on the basis of an appraisal, staff meets with the property owner. If a mutually agreeable purchase ~nce is agreed upon, staff returns to the Council to seek. approval of the purchase price. If the Council approves the purchase price, a purchase agreement is prepared by the city attorney and presented to the Council for final approval. BACKGROUND On October 13, 2003, the Council approved a motion authorizing staff to proceed with a written offer to )urchase the property located at 5500 Winnetka Avenue 'North for $200,000. Attached, please find the purchase agreement prepared by the cty attorney. Both the "Purchase Agreement" and the "Acknowledgement and Waiver By Owners" form are expected to be signed by the property owner by the time of this meeting. On September 8, 2003, the Council authorized staff to negotiate the purchase of the subject property. On Se..~.~.mber 17, staff and the ci a~ty..~.~.~., met with the owners to discuss negotiation. The owner was MOTION BY SECOND BY 'TO: Request for Action Page 2 10-27-03 requesting $205,000 for the property. The requested amount was based on an appraisal completed on the property in April for refinancing purposes and the owner's opinion of increased value. Forsythe Appraisals, Inc. completed an appraisal for the city, _dated August 19 valuing the property at $180,000. At the negotiation meeting, the owners were concerned about the following three items in tne city's appraisal: · Excess land adjustment. The owners pointed out that their appraisal provides higher adjustments for the land than the appraisal completed by Forsythe Appraisals for the city. Land adjustment is the owner's major concern. Please see the following summary: Private Appraisal 4/10/03 Subiect Property - Land Value 330'x 90' = 29,700 sq. fl. * $65,000 Comparable Properties No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Size 11,149 sq. ft. 8,620 sq. ft. 15,930 sq. ft. Difference 18,551 sq. ft. 21,080 sq. ft. 13,770 sq. ft. Site Inferior Inferior Inferior Site Adjustment + $15,000 + $20,000 + 5,000 Location Average Average Average Location Adjustment 0 0 0 Forsythe Appraisal 8119103 Subject Property - Land Value 330' x 90' = 29,700 sq. ft. * $70,000 Comparable Properties No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Size 10,125 sq. ft. 9,900 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. Difference 19,575 sq. ft. 19,800 sq. ft. 20,700 sq. ft. Site Inferior Inferior Inferior Site Adjustment + $5,000 + $5,000 + 5,000 Location Location Ad'ustment -$2,000 -$2,00~ -$2,000 * The land size is the same in both appraisals. Forsythe Appraisals obtains information regarding land size from the attached "Hennepin County Complete Tax Report." Staff can only assume the private appraisal data was obtained from the same source. Staff believes that the 330' figure extends to the centerline of Winnetka. Staff has researched the section map (attached) that shows the property being 285' in length with an additional 40' extending to the centerline of Winnetka. Although this is the case, each appraisal used the same property size for valuation purposes. Staff has discussed this issue with lengthF°rsythe(webAppraisalS'site assessmentThe Hennepindata attached).C°unty Assessment web site lists the property as being 285' in Basement Bedrooms. The owners were concerned that the Forsythe appraisal did not count the basement bedrooms in the "Above Grade Room Count" on the appraisal. The bedrooms were taken into account as "Basement and Finished Rooms Below Grade." The private appraisal accounts for the basement bedrooms in the same manner, therefore, staff does not believe this concern should be considered. The owner also 'stated that the walk out configuration of their home was not considered in the appraisal and that their appraisal compared the property to others with walk out basements. Greg Callahan, Forsythe Appraisals, stated that he does not make adjustments for walk out basements. Request for Action Page 3 10-27-03 Electrical Service. The owners claim that the electrical service in their home is 100 amp service. T. be owner's appraisal states that there is a 100 amp service in the home. The only way to verify set. ; would be for the city to send the appraiser back to the home. On August 11, the Council authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the subject property. Forsythe Appraisals, Inc, completed the appraisal and determined the property's value to be $180,000. On July 30, the city received the attached correspondence by e-mail from the subject property owner requesting that the city consider purchasing the property. The correspondence is dated July 30, 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 divided 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 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 10 of the 17 lots along the east side of Winnetka Avenue North and seven properties along Sumter Avenue North and in the Bass Lake Road extension area. Attached please find a summary of purchase prices compared to appraised values. Overall, the city has paid $37,400 over the appraised value for all 17 properties. In 2000, the city received a Metropolitan Council LivabJe 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 and 2002, the Livable Communities Task Force studied redevelopment opportunities within the designated area. In 2002, the Council accepted the task force study, in February 2003, the Council selected developers for each study area site based on proposals, except the west Winnetka site. Staff continues to coordinate with developers in the Livable Communities Area. The Hennepin County Estimated Market Value for the property is as follows: · Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: $143,000 ($48,000 Land & $95,000 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. Request for Action Page 4 10-27-03 The property has a lot width of 90 feet and depth of 330 feet measuring a total of 29,700 square feet. The appraiser obtains this information for Hennepin County. Staff feels that the property depth is error at Hennepin County and should be consistent with the other property depths in the area at 285 - 290 feet. The home is a two level rambler. The home was constructed in 1952. Per the appraisal, "the subject property is an average quality two bedroom rambler. The interior is in average condition and has average appeal. The basement is approximately 82% finished. The floor plan and size of the dwelling are typical for the area." RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution to purchase this property for the following reasons: · This is a 300' deep lot and matches up with the other deep lots the city has acquired to the north and south of the property. · The property is located within the Livable Communities study area and the recently developed concept plans show this property as part of a future redevelopment project. · Over the past few years, the city has acquired 16 properties in the East Winnetka Livable Communities Area. · Relocation benefits would not be applicable in this purchase. · The purchase price was negotiated. If a purchase of the property is completed, staff would study the possibility of selling the home to a house mover or demolishing the home. The property would then be landbanked in preparation for future redevelopment of the area. The owner has indicated that there is an unsealed well on the property. Well abandonment will be the responsibility of the property owner. This property was not considered substandard in the Redevelopment Eligibility Report completed by Short, Elliott and Hendrickson in 2002, therefore, a resolution determining the building substandard and including it in a future tax increment financing district will not be necessary. FUNDING The subject property is located in an area where TIF funds can be expended. TIF funds would be used for property acquisition and associated holding costs. Dudng 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. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · Purchase Agreement · City Attorney Correspondence · Property Owner Correspondence, 7-30-03 · Location Map · Section Map · Hennepin County Parcel Data · Hennepin County Information Provided by Appraiser - Hennepin County Complete Tax Report COUNCIL . Acr o Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-27-03 Public Hearing Item No. By: Kirk McDonald B)/: PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING CASE 03-13, MOTION ACCEPTING TEMPORARY SIGNS IN BOULEVARD STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION REQUESTED ACTION This is a public hearing to consider recommended changes to the sign code and zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission and Citizen Advisory Commission have completed the Temporary Signs in Boulevard Study and the report and recommendations are enclosed in the attached three-ring notebook that you received with your Council packet. The two commissions did not agree on all aspects of the recommendations, primarily the signage setback requirements, therefore, staff and consultants have not prepared a final ordinance for approval pending final direction from the City Council. Staff recommends that the Council approve a motion accepting the report and defer a detailed discussion to an upcoming work session. Staff recommends that the Council table the public headng until the November 24 Council meeting so that this matter can be discussed at the November 17 work session, with final recommendations to be considered on November 24 (or a timeline as determined by the City Council). POLICY/PAST PRACTICE Ithas been the past policy and practice of the City Council to refer these types of issues to the Citizen Advisory Commission and Planning Commission for study and recommendations. BACKGROUND Per direction from the City Council and city manager, the Inspections Division of the Community Development Department, along with the Police Department, has tried to be more proactive on enforcement issues over the 3ast several years. When inspectors started enforcing the garage sale sign ordinance this spring, several residents became upset about the enforcement and attended a City Council open forum. The Council discussed this matter at a work session and directed staff and commissions to study the issue. The Council also indicated its support for the ordinance and enforcement, but stated that it felt the ordinance could be clarified by giving a specific distance from curb for signs (such as 15 feet) rather than using the term "boulevard." It also requested that the matter of how long a sign can be posted also be studied. (cont.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: hRFA\commdev\DlannJna\O-nc.r~.~.'l A f~,mn elnn ~ ,~.i,, gn y Request for Action Page 2 10-27-03~,. The Citizen Advisory Commission took public comment at its meetings on August 18 and September 15 and the Codes and Standards subcommittee of the Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance at its meeting on August 28. The CAC and Codes and Standards subcommittee made recommendations to the Planmnc Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed this report at its Noveml~er 4 meetrng an~ recommended forwarding the report to the City Council. Staff has gathered ordinances and information from other cities on this matter and the planning consultant and city attorney have prepared reports on this matter, and the information is compiled in the attached notebook Also included are all of the public comments that the city has received on this matter, along with news articles, etc. The notebook includes all minutes and public comments taken at the CAC meetings and the Planning Commission meeting, as well as recommendations for the ordinance. ATrACHMENTS · Public Hearing Notice · Staff Report · Temporary Signs in Boulevard Study · Minutes ('Section 7) COT. TNCTL t EQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Community Development By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD & Ken Doresk~, CD Specialist By: Approved for Agenda 10-27-03 Agenda Section Development & Planr Item No. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING A WRITTEN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE FIRE DAMAGED FOUR-PLEX APARTMENT BUILDING LOCATED AT 8113 BASS LAKE ROAD FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUESTED PRICE OF $296,190.28 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 677) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests Council consideration of a motion authorizing staff to proceed with a written offer to purchase the fire damaged four-plex apartment property located at 8113 Bass Lake Road for the property owner's new requested price of $296,190.28. Per the attached correspondence dated October 14, if a decision is made prior to the next scheduled Council meeting the owner will accept his original asking price of $365,000, otherwise he would be seeking $375,000. Regardless of when the decision is made, his insurance settlement of $78,809.72 will not change, therefore he is requesting the difference from the city. The new requested total of $375,000 is $36,000 more than the appraised value of $339,000 completed by Forsythe Appraisals on August 7, 2003. The property is currently vacant and uninhabitable, therefore relocation benefits would not be applicable in this transaction. Staff contacted Evergreen Land Services for an estimate of relocation benefits (memo attached). Although Evergreen made some assumptions, if income was a factor each tenant would receive approximately $13,350 ($13,350 x 4 = $53,400), if income was not a factor each tenant would receive $1,800 ($1,800 x 4 = $7,200). According to City staff at least one of the four units was used for Section 8. The owner will be present at the Council meeting and staff requests that he be given an opportunity to speak to the Council. On October 13, a consensus was not reached among the three attending CouncUmembers, therefore the item was tabled until the next available meeting when the full council could consider the item. On September 9, the Council directed staff to continue negotiating with the owner. The Council expressed interest in purchasing the property, but was not supportive of the requested sales pdce. The Council indicated a willingness to pay an amount equal to the appraised value including the insurance seffiement. AJso, for that price, the Council stated that they would allow the owner to salvage any material inside the'building. The owner has submitted the attached correspondence dated September 22 indicating his unwillingness to negotiate the requested pdce. The property owner has asked that if the requested terms are not acceptable to the Council, that an exemption be considered to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Force adopted on Ju~y 28, 2003. The request for an exemption to Ordinance 03-17 is being presented ~ht's meetinc item. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: :\RFA\PLANNING\Housi~ 1\8113\Q - 3 consideration 3.doc Request for Action Page 2 10-27-03 POLICY/PAST PRACTICE City goal #2 is to pursue the _maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within the city. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the city's mare housing activities, including acquiring properties from willing sellers in areas designated for redevelopment m the Comprehensive Plan. The city is required by law to pay fair market value when acquinng property. Normally, fair market value is determined from a property appraisal. BACKGROUND On October 13, 2003 the Council discussed this item and tabled it until tonight's meeting. During the meeting. the Council discussed future redevelopment plans for the area or lack thereof. As the Council is aware, the subject area is located in the city's Met. Council Livable Communities study area. The Boisclair Corporation was selected by the Council as the preferred developer for the redevelopment site located adjacent to the golf course to the west. Redevelopment of the five apartment buildings adjacent to the golf course with an upscate condominium project would result in the loss of several affordable rental units. To mitigate this loss, the Boisclair Corporation has been working with staff to propose an affordable rental replacement project on the south side of Bass Lake Road, north of their Park Acres Apartment project. The proposed project would incorporate the subject property. Staff has been coordinating with the developers to present a proposed project to the Council for consideration. Plans have been developed (see attached), the developer has applied for housing funds from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and staff has preliminarily studied financial feasibility of the project. Staff is planning to bring a detailed proposal along with the Ryland Homes proposal to the Council for consideration at the November 3, Council work session. At the time of the meeting on October 13, the owner of the subject property was requesting $286,190.28 from the city for the property. The owner is now requesting $10,000 more that his original request. Correspondence was submitted on October 14 (attached) detailing this new development. The correspondence states: "1 received your notice to be present at the city council meeting on October 13, 2003. The purpose of me flying in from Chicago was to present the factual information regarding the 4-piex at 8113 Bass Lake Road in New Hope. I brought the latest 4-Plex closings in New Hope and Crystal the last of which had a $375,000 selling price. When we first sat down to meet with the city it was to rebuild my building. You wanted me to wait until the city council reviewed an appraisal of past sales even though you have one of the top selling Real Estate Agents in your area on the council staff. At that time I notified you that $365,000 was firm. The council tabled their decision to the meeting on October 14, 2003. Two of the council members wanted to buy the building; one of the members did not and was willing to let me rebuild my building. The council did not ask anything of me in the meeting and asked the city attorney if it mattered if they tabled the decision again. This meeting was a complete waste of my time. My insurance company is upset because they have to pay for the vacancies in the building. I am upset because I have a building with no heat on, which is subject to freezing boilers, pipes, washers, etc. If this takes an additional two weeks to decide, I would now sell this building for $375,000 - my insurance company's payment. The insurance company is waiting to start construction on fixing the building back up to a standard greater that the comparable buildings that sold for over $380,000. Please let me again point out that I do not care if the city wants to buy the building or give me a variance to rebuild the existing building, but before further damage occurs, I would appreciate a decision from the city. If this decision can be made in the next week through a special session, I would still be willing to sell the building at $365,000." On June 20, the four-plex at 8113 Bass Lake Road burned and staff posted the property uninhabitable. Up to this point, the city manager authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property, furthermore the Council directed staff to negotiate a potential purchase of the property, considered and rejected the owner's asking price and directed staff to continue negotiations. Request for Action Page 3 10-27-03. On September 9, the Council directed staff to continue negotiating with the owner. The Council expre.~- d interest in purchasing the pro~)erty,' but was not supportive of the requested sales price. The Council inc~ica~eC a willingness to pay an amount equal to the appraised value including the insurance settlement. Also. for that price, the Council stated that they would allow the owner to salvage any material insicle tl~e builcling. The city s inspection staff stated that allowing the owner to salvage material inside the building would not only benefit the owner, but would lessen any demolition costs. Their opinion was that the fixtures would have nominal value. The owner has submitted the attached correspondence dated September 22 indicating his unwillingness to negotiate the requested price. Furthermore, the property owner has asked that if the requested terms are not acceptable to the Council, that an exemption be considered to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force adopted on July 28, 2003. The request for an exemption to Ordinance 03-17 is being presented at tonight's meeting as a separate item. At the September 22 Council meeting, the mayor asked staff to research the disparity between the county's assessed value of $212,000 and the appraised value of $339,000. Staff discussed the issue with the Hennepin County assessor's office, the value listed on Hennepin County's web site is the 2002 value for taxes payable 2003. The 2003 value for taxes payable 2004 is $292,000. The assessor did say that rental values are increasing quickly at a rate of 20% per year. Please see the attached tax assessment data for 2002 and 2003. PROS & CONS Pros: · Property can be acquired for less than the appraised value: Although the new total price desired by the owner is $375,000, $36,000 more than the appraised value, the asking price from the city would be $296,190.28, $42,809.72 less than the appraised value. The difference of $78,809.72 would be obtained by the owner through an insurance settlement. No relocation benefits: Staff contacted Evergreen Land Services for an estimate of relocation benefits. Although Evergreen made some assumptions, if income was a factor each tenant would receive approximately $13,350 ($13,350 x 4 = $53,400), if income was not a factor each tenant would receive $1,800 ($1,800 x 4 = $7,200). .Cons: · Future redevelopment site: The property is located in Planning District 4 of the city's Comprehensive Plan and the plan states: "the medium density four-plex units located along Bass Lake Road display poor building condition. Renovation or redevelopment is recommended for these sites." The property is located in an area identified by the Livable Communities Task Force for future redevelopment. Replacement affordable housing has been proposed for the site to replace housing lost at the Boisclair condominium building proposed to be constructed at the Bass Lake Road apartment site located immediately west of the city's golf course clubhouse and the New Hope golf course. Requested purchase price: The owner is now requesting that he net $375,000, $36,000 more that the city's appraised value. The actual asking pdce from the City is $296,190.28, $42,809.72 less than the appraised value. The difference of $78,809.72 would be obtained by the owner through an insurance settlement. Building Permit Moratorium: The property has been damaged by fire and is located in the building permit moratorium area. An estimated 75% of the building was damaged by fire, smoke and water. According to the building official, the building can be rebuilt if an exemption to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force, is approved by the Council. Request for Action Page 4 10-27-03 · Moratorium exception.' If the Council does not purchase the. property and denies the moratorium exception legal action coUld'be taken against the city. · Condemnation: According to the City Attorney, condemnation could be difficult. The City Attorney feels that without a project in place, the public purpose requirement would be challenging. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND On June 20, a fire occurred at the subject property. An estimated 75% of the building was damaged by fire, smoke and water. According to the building official, the building can be rebuilt. The property is located in the southwest quadrant of the Livable Communities Redevelopment Area. On July 3, the city attorney mailed a letter to the owner of the subject property (see attached) describing his options. On July 8, staff met with Wade Klick, property owner who verbally indicated to city staff that he was willing to explore a possible sale of the subject property to the city. Based on Mr. Klick's request, the city manager authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property. Forsythe Appraisals, Inc, completed the attached appraisal and determined the property's estimated market value to be $339,000 in repaired condition. The owner then requested that the city consider purchasing the property for $286,190.28. The owner is now seeking $375,000, but will be receiving $78,809.72 in an insurance settlement, therefore is requesting the difference of $296,190.28 from the city. The requested total of $375,000 is $36,000 more than the appraised value of $339,000. The property has a lot width of 80 feet and depth of 240 feet measuring a total of 19,200 square feet. Each unit is 899 sq. ft., therefore the building has 3,596 sq. ft. gross living area. The building was constructed in 1960. The appraisal states that it is being made "subject to completion of repairs". The Hennepin County Estimated Market Value for the property is as follows: · Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: $212,000 ($60,000 land & $152,000 building) · Taxes payable 2004, estimated market value: $292,000 (Obtained from County Assessor) 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. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the subject property is located in Planning District 4. The district is of mixed use with every land use present except I, Industrial. The property is a four-plex rental unit and is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential. The property is surrounded by R-l, single-family residential to the west, R-3, Medium Density to the east and south and faces Bass Lake Road to the north. The Comprehensive Plan states, "the medium density four-plex units located along Bass Lake Road display poor building condition. Renovation or redevelopment is recommended for these sites." On June 23, the Council approved Ordinance 03-12 extending the temporary prohibition of all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force. The ban includes 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 is effective for one additional year, until July 31, 2004. On July 28, 2003, the Council passed a motion approving Ordinance 03-17 correcting minor typing errors in the original Ordinance No. 02-09: An interim ordinance establishing a temporary prohibition on all construction and development within four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force. No building permit applications were affected by these minor errors. Request for Action Page 5 10-27-03 - Although this extension would permit the city to deny any requests.for building permits (excluding rou-~, maintenance and repair) within the-described areas, it would not prevent any property owner from approach,, the city with a request to exempt a property or proposed improvement from the moratorium. Property owners that desire to make substantial home improvements have the option of requesting an exemption to the ordinance before the City Council. Up to this point, one 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 attorney to prepare findings of fact. On September 23, the Council approved the findings of fact. On January 9, 2002, staff received a request to explore the potential purchase of 8115 Bass Lake Road. the single-family home located directly adjacent to the subject property. The owner was a member of the Uvable Communities Task Force and through her involvement submitted the request. While considering the proposal. on January 28, the Council directed staff to contact the two four-plex owners to the east, veterinary clinic to the west and the apartment complex to the south to inquire about the potential purchase and redevelopment of all the sites. At the time, the veterinary clinic was not interested in acquiring 8115 Bass Lake Road for expansion purposes, but did indicate that they may be interested in moving to a new facility in the Livable Communities redevelopment area. The Park Acres Apartments located to the south was interested in residential redevelopment of the combined properties at this location. Currently, the developers of Park Acres are proposing the Livable Communities golf course site residential redevelopment project and replacement rental housing project that would utilize the subject property. And finally, the two four-plex owners did not respond. On March 11, 2002, the Council passed a motion to not pursue the potential purchase of 8115 Bass Lake Road. The Council declined the purchase citing: no plan was in place, the Livable Communities Task Force had not completed the redevelopment study, the lack of city-owned property in the area and unwillingness of some neighboring property owners to consider redevelopment. In May 1999, the previous owner of the subject property contacted the city requesting consideration of financial assistance to improve the property. The EDA did not think that the property was worth city investment and directed staff to inquire if the owner would be willing to sell the property for redevelopment purposes. The owner responded in February 2000 that they would be interested in exploring a potential sale of the property to the city. On February 14, the EDA authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property. An appraisal of the property was completed on February 29 by BCL Appraisals, Inc. listing the estimated market value at $171,000. On March 27, the EDA authorized staff to negotiate a potential purchase of the property for the appraised value. Staff could not reach a successful negotiated purchase pdce and according the Hennepin County records the property sold in August of 2000 to the current owner for $177,000. 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 and 2002, the Livable Communities Task Force studied redevelopment opportunities within the designated area. In 2002, the Council accepted the task force study. In February 2003, the Council selected developers for each study area site based on proposals, except the west Winnetka site. Staff continues to work with the developers on revised plans, including an affordable rental housing plan intended to replace affordable units that may be lost at the site adjacent to the golf course. The subject property is included in the affordable rental unit replacement plan. 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 attorney 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. Forsythe completed this appraisal. · Request for Action Page 6 10-27-03 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the C~uncil strongly consider the acquisition of-this property for the owner's requestec purchase price of $296,190.28 for the following reasons: The owner's price is firm. Although the total price desired by the owner is now $375.000, $36,000 more than the appraised value, the asking price from the city would be $296,190.28. $42.809.72 less than the appraised value. The difference of $78,809.72 would be obtained by the owner through an insurance settlement. The property is vacant and uninhabitable, therefore relocation benefits would not be applicable. Staff contacted Evergreen Land Services for an estimate of relocation benefits. Although Evergreen made some assumptions, if income was a factor each tenant would receive approximately $13,350 ($13.350 x 4 = $53,400), if income was not a factor each tenant would receive $1,800 ($1,800 x 4 = $7,200). According to city staff at least one of the four units was used for Section 8. The property has been damaged by fire and is located in the building permit moratorium area. An estimated 75% of the building was damaged by fire, smoke and water. According to the building official, the building can be rebuilt if an exemption to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force, is approved by the Council. The property is located in Planning District 4 of the city's Comprehensive Plan and the plan states: "the medium density four-plex units located along Bass Lake Road display poor building condition. Renovation or redevelopment is recommended for these sites." The property is located in an area identified by the Livable Communities Task Force for future redevelopment. Replacement affordable housing has been proposed for the site to replace housing lost at the Boisclair condominium building proposed to be constructed at the Bass Lake Road apartment site located immediately west of the city's golf course clubhouse and the New Hope golf course. If the owner's requested price is approved, a purchase agreement would be presented to the Council for consideration. If a purchase of the property is completed, staff would ~iemolish the remaining structure and restore the site to a maintainable condition. The property .would then be landbanked in preparation for future redevelopment of the area. ,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. ATTACHMENTS · Property Owner Correspondence, 10-14-03 · Replacement Housing Concept Plan · Property Owner Correspondence & Attachments, · 9-22-03 · Property Owner Correspondence, 8-28-03 · Insurance Claim Information · Appraisal · City Attorney Correspondence, 7-3-03 · Topographic Map · Aerial Map · Hennepin County Parcel Data 2003 & 2004 Evergreen Land Services Memorandum, 10-7-03 Comprehensive Plan References - Planning District 4 COUNCIL ' REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-27-03 Development & Planning Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD & Ken Doresk¥, CD Specialist By: CONSIDERATION OF A EXEMPTION TO ORDINANCE 03-17, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1.5(I) REGARDING THE TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON ALL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FOUR STUDY AREAS IDENTIFIED BY THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES TASK FORCE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8113 BASS LAKE ROAD (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 677) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests Council consideration of this property owner's request for an exemption to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force adopted on July 28, 2003. The property owner has requested an exemption to the ordinance if the Council does not approve the purchase of the subject property for the owner's requested price of $286,190.28. A separate agenda item regarding the )otential purchase of the subject property is being presented at tonight's meeting for consideration. The Council considered the purchase 'of this property on September 9, and directed staff to continue negotiating with the owner. The Council expressed interest in purchasing the property, but was not supportive of the requested sales price. The Council indicated a willingness to pay an amount equal to the appraised value including the insurance settlement. Aisc, for that price, the Council stated that they would allow the owner to salvage any material inside the building. The owner has submitted the attached correspondence dated September 22 indicating his unwillingness to negotiate the requested price. The property owner has asked that if the requested terms are not acceptable to the Council, that an exemption be considered to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force adopted on July 28, 2003. .POLICY/PAST PRACTICF In the past, the City CounCil has approved moratoriums to allow time to resolve relevant issues. Exemptions to this moratorium can be considered on a case-by-case basis by the City Council. Building permits for routine maintenance and repair are excluded from Ordinance 02-09. Up to this point, one (1) exemption has been requested and denied. The owner of 5434 Winnetka Avenue North requested an exemption for a 396 sq. ft. home addition. On August 26, the Council denied the property owner's request and directed the City Attorney ~f Fact. On September 23, the Council a_~p_proved the Findings of Fact. MOTION BY SECOND BY 'TO: I:\RFA\PLANNING\Housin \8813\Q - 8113 ordinance exem tion 2.doc Request for Action Page 2 10-27-03 BACKGROUND On June 20, 2003, the four-p!ex at 8113 Bass Lake Road burned and staff posted the property uninhabitable An estimated 75% of the building was damaged by fire, smoke and water. According to the building officia:. the building can be rebuilt. Up to this point, the City Manager authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property, furthermore the Council directed staff to negotiate a potential purchase of the property, considered and re.~ected the owner's asking price and directed staff to continue negotiations. The owner has submitted the attached correspondence dated September 22 indicating his unwillingness to negotiate the requested price and requesting an exemption to Ordinance 03-17 if the purchase is not approved. A separate agenda item regarding the potential purchase of the subject property is being presented at tonight's meeting fo; consideration. The September 22 correspondence states: "Your counter offer of 8113 Bass Lake Road is not acceptable. You cannot purchase a 4-plex anywhere in surrounding cities for less that $365,000. With the fix up dollars put into this property, i.e. new roof, doors. windows, cabinets, floodng etc, the value of this property would increase close to $400,000. Enclosed you will find the latest sales in New Hope/Crystal. If the city does not want to purchase the property at $365,000 - $78,809.72 + $286,190.28, then I ask the city to grant a variance to the moratorium as this would create an undue hardship to myself." On June 23, the Council approved Ordinance 03-12 extending the temporary prohibition of all construction ancl development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force. The ban includes 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 is effective for one additional year, until July 31, 2004. On July 28, 2003, the Council passed a motion approving Ordinance 03-1'7 correcting minor typing errors in the original Ordinance No. 02-09: An interim ordinance establishing a temporary prohibition on all construction and development within four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force. No building permit applications were affected by these minor errors. Per Council direction, staff sent the subject ordinance information to all affected property owners. Although this extension would permit the city to deny any requests for building permits (excluding routine maintenance 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 that desire 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 attorney to prepare findings of fact. On September 23, the Council approved the findings of fact. 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 and 2002, the Livable Communities Task Force studied redevelopment opportunities within the designated area. In 2002, the Council accepted the task force study. In February 2003, the Council selected developers for each study area site based on proposals, except the west Winnetka site. Staff continues to work with the developers on revised plans, including an affordable rental housing plan intended to replace affordable units that may' be lost at the site adjacent to the golf course. The subject property is included in the affordable rental unit replacement plan. As stated previously, on June 20, 2003, a fire occurred at the subject property. An estimated 75% of the building was damaged by fire, smoke and water. According to the building official, the building can be rebuilt. The property is located in the southwest quadrant of the Livable Communities Redevelopment Area. Request for Action Page 3 10-27-03 On July 3, the city attorney mailed a letter to the owner of the subject property (see attached) describing his options. On July 8, staff met with Wade Klick, property owner who verbally indicated to city staff that he v - willing to explore a possible Sale of the subject property to the city. Based on Mr. Klick's request, the manager authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property. Forsythe Appraisals, Inc, completed the attached appraisal and determined the property's estimated market value to be $339,000 m repaired condition. The owner then requested that the city consider purchasing the property for $286.190.28.. Ultimately, the owner is seeking $365,000, but will be receiving $78,809.72 in an insurance settlement, therefore is requesting the difference of $286,190.28 from the city. The requested total of $365,000 is $26,000 more than the appraised value of $339,000. On August 28, the owner submitted correspondence describing this request. 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. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the subject property is located in Planning District 4. The district is of mixed use with every land use present except I, Industrial. The property is a four-plex rental unit and is zoned R-3, Medium Density Residential. The property is surrounded by R-l, single-family residential to the west, R-3, Medium Density to the east and south and faces Bass Lake Road to the north. The Comprehensive Plan states, "the medium density four-plex units located along Bass Lake Road display poor building condition. Renovation or redevelopment is recommended for these sites." RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council consideration of the owner's request for an exemption to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force as adopted on July 28, 2003 and that if denied, the City Attomey be directed to prepare findings of fact for consideration at the November 10, 2003 Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS · Property Owner Correspondence, 9-22-03 · Ordinance 03-17 · Building Permit Moratorium Area Map · Property Owner Correspondence, 8-28-03 · City Attorney Correspondence, 7-3-03 · Location Map · Topographic Map · Replacement Housing Concept Plan · Comprehensive Plan References - Planning District 4 COUNCIL Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-27-03 Development & Planning Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, Director of CD & Ken Doresk¥, CD Specialist By: MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN AN APPRAISAL OF THE ELDORADO COURT APARTMENTS 7701, 7721, 7741 AND 7761 62ND AVENUE NORTH ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting that the City Council consider a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 7701, 7721, 7741 and 7761 62"d Avenue North, the Eldorado Court Apartments for potential acquisition purposes. On October 15, 2003, a letter was received from the owner requesting that the city consider purchasing the four, seven-unit apartment buildings. Although the city has many other potential redevelopment projects proceeding at this time, staff wanted to present this matter for consideration due to the fact that the owner desires to sell the property. The city owns several nearby parcels, and the long-term goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to redevelop the south side of 62n= Avenue west of the intersection with West Broadway. 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 acquiring properties from willing sellers in areas designated for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan. When a property owner submits a letter of interest to the city, a request is presented to the City Council for authorization to complete an appraisal. The city is required by law to pay fair markel value when acquiring property. Normally, fair market value is-determined from a property appraisal. BACKGROUND The city received the attached correspondence dated October 10 from the property owner requesting that the city consider purchasing the subject property. The subject property, the Eldorado Court Apartments, consists of four seven-unit buildings located at 7701, 7721, 7741 and 7761 62"6 Avenue North. The owner discussed ifhiSthedesirecity hadt° sellan withinterestOneinOfthetheproperty.City inspectors and it was recommended that the owner contact city hall to see This property was last discussed by the city on February 28, 2000, (see attached minutes). At that time, the property was available for sale and the EDA directed staff to obtain an appraisal of the property. The property then s.__.__old to the current owner before the city_had a chance to obtain the a_p..~raisal and consider ac~ MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 10-27-03 Information provided to the Council at that time from Colliers Towle is attached. In 1998, the city acquired thr~e~aCartment buildings ('7601, 7621 and-'7641 62"¢ Avenue) one lot east of the subject site. The properties remain landbanked for future redevelopment. One additional privately-owned smal! apartment building at 7661 62"0 Avenue lies between the city-owned property and the subject property. The owners comments dated October 14, 2003, are as follows: "This letter is in response to the city of New Hope's interest in the potential purchase of my apartment buildings located at 7701-7761 62"~ Avenue North. There is a total of 28 one-bedroom units with an average rent of $575 per month. As I am looking forward to retirement within the next few years. I would be open at this time to discuss the possible sale of my property. When I originally purchased the property it was in a very run down condition. Since then, I have made many improvements to the building such as remodeling many apartments, installation of new energy efficient windows and cleaning up the drug traffic and problem tenants. I feel that there is still much more to be clone. One of the reasons that I have been putting off the sale of the property is that it cashflows extremely well even with a high vacancy rate. I understand that the city of New Hope would offer a free appraisal of the property. Regardless of an appraisal, I feel that I must receive what i determine to be a fair market value of my property. At this time I am asking the sum of $1,568,000. If the city indicates to me that they are willing to continue to discuss the possible sale, I would still be open to an independent appraisal. If not, I will continue to make improvements to my property to make it a safe, efficient and a nice place to live and not be a blight on the community. I have personally invested a lot of time and money on Eldorado Court Apartments to improve the buildings even though I still have a lot more work to do." The city's general inspector reviewed, the property's maintenance record and provided the following comments: "Eldorado Apartments was purchased by the current owner two or three years ago. It is a substandard complex of four buildings with seven one-bedroom units in each building. The units have Iow rental rates, due in part to the fact that the complex does not have garages. The owner has installed new windows in one building, and has repaired many plumbing leaks. He has repaired a portion of the fence on the south property line and rebuilt the dumpster enclosures. Two buildings share a dumpster area so there are two. Buildings are in fair to poor condition, parking lots are in fair to poor condition. The owner told me there is a fairly high vacancy rate at this time which could be in the city's favor should the city decide to purchase." The city's director of police reviewed the property's record and stated that the number of police calls to the complex is fairly routine for a multiple family dwelling with 33 calls in 2001, 42 calls in 2002, and 35 calls thus far in 2003. 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 2 - bordered by Winnetka Avenue to the west, Brooklyn Park to the north and Crystal to the south and east. The Planning District 2 recommendation regarding property along 62°d Avenue North is as follows: Request for Action Page 3 10-27-03 The Comprehensive Plan targeted several areas in the city for redevelopment. Recommendations for Planmnc District 2 state: "The medium ~le~sity housing located along 62"~ Avenue, between Winnetka and We~ Broadway, has been identified as a redevelopment target area. The poor building and site condibon$ associated with this medium density use are negative influences on the Iow density neighborhood to the south. Aggressive area redevelopment is suggested. Due to the limited size and configuration of the site, it ~s recommended that a reduction in density from its present condition be made. Medium density residential land uses consisting of twinhomes or townhomes with attached garages would be an appropriate option. The Hennepin County Estimated Market Value for the property is as follows: O O o o 7701 62nd Avenue North - Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: $ 250,000 7721 62"0 Avenue North - Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: $ 250,000 7741 62"0 Avenue North - Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: $ 250,000 7761 62"d Avenue North - Taxes payable 2003, estimated market value: $ 250,000 $1,000,000 Staff recommends that the Council authorize staff to obtain an appraisal of this property. The estimated cost of the appraisal is $4,000. If the appraisal is authorized, staff will bring the completed appraisal back to the Council to consider negotiation. If the Council is interested in pursuing this matter, maybe consideration should be given to requesting that the property owner split the cost of the appraisal with the city. FUNDING The subject property is located in an area where TIF funds can be utilized. ATTACHMENTS · Property Owner Correspondence, 10-10-03 · Location Map · Topographic Map · EDA Minutes, 2-28-00 · Colliers Towle Information from 2000 · Hennepin County Parcel Data · Comprehensive Plan References City.owned _ _. ~ 62ND AVENUE NORTH ~,III'WTfl'~'ITr~ I t I~'r1T~"111 ~-f/1'Il'ltl I I tmrl't~=l~l-ffl'tt'~"H'tl'l'f'l'lffft'~'l'! t~ ! f-I-~-i tt-~-~fl'~'- 5736 5732 5716 ,_~ COUNCIL e - R QUEST FOR ACTION Originating DepartmentApproved for Agencla Agencla Section Public Works q~ ? October 27, 2003 Development & Plannin Item No. By: Gu)/Johnson By: / J RESOLUTION ORDERING CONSTRU OF AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE 9200- 49th AVENUE NORTH REGIONAL POND - IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 731 REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests approval of a resolution ordedng construction of and awarding the contract for the construction of the regional pond at 9200 - 49th Avenue North to the Iow and responsible bidder, Veit & Company, inc., in the amount of $169,403.50. This is the total pdce for the regional pond ($120,348.00), the channel through the wetland ($24,200.00), and the sediment pond ($24,855.50). The engineer's estimate for the project was $3O4,OO0. BACKGROUND As the City Council is aware, with the development of the 9200 - 49th Avenue property, staff has recommended that the city proceed with the construction of a regional storm water pond at that site. The Council approved plans and authorized staff to advertise for bids on September 8, 2003. The city has acquired both temporary and permanent access easements for the construction and maintenance of the pond through the development, approval and land sale process. The improvement is made up of a new regional water quality pond and a sediment pond that are part of the city's 1996 Surface Water Management Plan, and a channel through the wetland,. The awarding of the sediment pond portion of the project is contingent on the participation of the Collisys company. Collisys is considering improvements to their property. A portion of the sediment pond cost would be the responsibility of theCollisys company if they decide to complete their water quality requirements for the pending improvements atthis time. Bids were received from eleven firms with Veit & Company, Inc., the Iow bidder. FUNDING The city's construction cost for this project would be $144,548.00, plus $6,730.50 for its portion of the sediment pond if Collisys Proceeds with the sediment pond. The Collisys cost would be $18,125.00 if sediment pond were constructed. Funding for the city's portion of this project would come from the Storm Water Fund. A'I'i'ACHMENTS The engineer's memorandum and the resolution ordedng the Project and awarding the contract are attached. MOTION BY - SECOND BY TO: ~ Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates - Engineers & Architects October 17. 2003 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of New Hope ,M01 Xylon Ave. N. New Hope, MN 55428-4898 9200 49th Avenue Pond Improvements Projec! City Project No. 597 File No. 34-98-820 Recommendation of Contract Award Bids were opened for the Project stated above on Thursday, October 16. 2003. at 1:30 P.M. Transmitted herewith are ten (I0) copies of the Bid Tabulation for your information and file. Copies will also be distributed to each Bidder. There were a total of eleven (11) Bids. The following summarizes the results of the Bids received: Low //2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #I0 #11 Contractor Veit & Company, Inc. F. F. Jedlicki, Inc. Eureka Construction, Inc. Jay Bros., Inc. Amt Construction Co., Inc. Sum-am Construction, Inc. Doboszenski & Sons, Inc. Kevitt Excavating Engineer's Estimate Visser Scraper Service,/.,LC VP Enterprises of MN, Inc. S.R. Weidema, Inc. Bid Amount $169,403.50 $179,106.00 $183,905.00 $190,491.84 $195,644.00 $206,601.00 $219,543.50 $241,822.00 $305,000. OO .. $362,867.50 $572,935.00 $769,900.00 The low Bidder on the Project was Veit & Company, Inc. with a Base Bid of $169,403.50. This compares favorably to the Engincer's Estimate of $305,000.00. These Bids have been reviewed and found to be in order. The bid was separated into thre~ parts: Part #1 - Pet Hospital Pond - This is the primary pan of the project including the water quality pond at 9200 49e Avenue identified in the Surface Water Managerr~nt Plan. Part #;2 - Collisys Pond - This is a sediment pond ~djacent to the CoIlisys Property a~ 4990 T.H. 169 Service Road. This pond is identified in the Ci~'s Surf~e Water Management Plan. This pond will provide a regional~ water quality benefit, as well as, address the water quali~y needs of the Collisys property. Collisys is currently planning future improvements to the eastern portion of their lot, which abuts the pond and wetland. 2335 l~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 Part/t3 - Wetland Channel - This channel will enable water from 40* Avenue and ad. iacem propemes to flow to and from the proposod ponds. The low bid is summarized as follows: Part # Description Bid Amount gl Pet HospitatPond $120.348.00 #2 Collisys Pond $ 24,855.50 #3 Wetland Channel $ 24.200.00 Veil & Company Bid $169.403.50 City staff is currently reviewing the Collisys Pond improvement with the properly owner Past conversations have indicated that the property owner will participate in the expense of the pond construction with the understanding that future water quality requirements for the property would bc satisfied. If Collisys does not panicipate in the construction cost. Part //2 could be deleted from the project award. We will continue to review this option with Veil and Collisys. All of the above Contractors have proven they are capable of performing the work associated with this type of Project. The low bid and the number of bids indicates the competitive nature of the bid. If the City Council wishes to award the Project to the low Bidder, then Veil & Company, Inc. should be awarded the Project on the Base Bid Amount of $169,403.50. Veil is currently completing similar excavation work as pan of the Navarre project at 7550 49~h Avenue. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-.44790. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Vincent T. Vander Top, P.E. Enclosures COUNCIL RE( UEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 8, 10-27-03 Development & Planning Public Works Item No. By: Kirk McDonald & By: Guy Johnson MOTION APPROVING STORM WATER ANALYSIS FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES REDEVELOPMENT AREA BY BONESTROO & ASSOCIATES AT ESTIMATED COST OF $16,300 REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests that the City Council approve a motion approving a storm water analysis for the proposed development projects in the Livable Communities Redevelopment Area by Bonestroo & Associates at an estimated cost of $16,300. This is one of the key items that is needed before a site plan is finalized for the East Winnetka development, and staff/consultants believe it would be more economical to address a number of other projects in the planning stages at the same time with this analysis. The cost for the analysis would be spread among the appropriate development/improvement projects, with the goal of passing the cost for the study on to the appropriate developer. POLICY/PAST PRACTICI= The City Council has approved similar studies in the past to address storm water quaiity/quantity planning Issues. BACKGROUND Per the attached memorandum from the city engineer, storm water infrastructure will influence redevelopment in the Bass Lake Road corridor. It is important that the city understands the influence as it will, ultimately, ~mpact the economic feasibility of each development. We recommend that the storm water system be modeled and studied such that the impacts of redevelopment are understood and shaped into an acceptable end product from a storm water perspective. In 1996, the city completed the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). This plan was based on existing land use and infrastructure. The redevelopment will change conditions and require an update to the SWMP. Three reasons to update the plan can be cited: · Redevelopment must meet water quality requirements of the city and Shingle Creek Watershed. · Runoff from new development must be controlled to prevent flooding of new and existing properties. · Existing flooding issues may be corrected in conjunction with redevelopment infrastructure. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: hRFA\commclev\ lannin ~livable communities\Q-storm water anal is · Request for Action Page 2 10-27-03 Study Scope The city engineer has prepared the attached scope of work describing the tasks necessary to study the redevelopment area. It is the goal of the study, to complete a report describing storm water improvements on a regional basis. This report would serve two functions: The report could be presented to Shingle Creek Watershed as an amendment to the existing SWMP. This would enable the city to redevelop in accordance with the amended SWMP potentially preventing the need for a detailed storm water review of each specific redevelopment area by the Watershed. The report would lead to the identification of regional storm water improvements such as new trunk storm sewers, water quality ponds, and water retention areas. Each redevelopment area would contribute a "fair share" toward this regional system with the construction of actual infrastructure or the contribution of fees. The attached scope of work describes five tasks at a total cost of $16,300. Additional work such as cost estimates, site planning, and design could be done after this study and would be coordinated with each developer. Other Infrastructure The city will need to evaluate impacts to other infrastructure such as water supply, sanitary sewer, and transportation. Other future studies could include: · Model the water supply system to assure fire protection flow rates to all redevelopment areas. · Review increases in sanitary sewer flows and bottlenecks in the collection system to assure adequate capacity. · Map the Bass Lake Road corridor including existing and potential future right-of-way to assure adequate property for future transportation improvements and access management. These other studies will occur in the future as development proposals continue to be discussed and evaluated. It is, however, important to review the storm water infrastructure at this time because of the influence on the redevelopment acreage. Not only does new storm water infrastructure require construction dollars, storm water infrastructure such as ponds can occupy significant amounts of land. This reduces the acreage amount available for housing units, which, strongly influences the economics of redevelopment. For this reason, and the impending redevelopment of the East Winnetka property, we recommend that the storm water study be completed now. The argument can be made that transportation infrastructure also requires land and, similar to storm water infrastructure, removes land from the redevelopment equation. However, it is not anticipated that the Winnetka Avenue or Bass Lake Road right-of-way near the East Winnetka redevelopment area will change significantly. Some changes will be required near the intersection; however, this can be addressed during the development review. More significant right-of-way changes are anticipated along Bass Lake Road between Boone Avenue and Winnetka Avenue, which is adjacent to other redevelopment areas. FUNDING The attached scope of work will analyze issues related to the following potential developments: · East Winnetka · Franks · CVS/West Winnetka · Site adjacent to golf course · Woodbridge · 5501 Boone · Thompson Addition/54th Avenue /,I I J I i I i I'J"] ' [;~v~: I~1 I 1 I i II I ~J COUNCIL Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-27-03 Development & Plannln9 Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, Director of By: Community Development RESOLUTION RE~TING TO THE DECERTIF/CATION OF A PARCEL FROM T~ INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 02-01 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 727) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests Council approval of the attached resolution, prepared by Krass Monroe, the city's redevelopment financial consultant decedifying 9200 49~ Avenue Nodh from Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District No. 02-01. A resolution must be considered by both the EDA and the City Council to finalize the decedification. Per the a~ached co~espondence from Kress Monroe, the resolution should be approved by the EDA first, and then by the Ci~ Council. Therefore, when the Council considers this item on the Council agenda, it is recommended that the Council meeting be suspended and the EDA meeting called to order with consideration of the resolution. POLICY/PAST PRACTICF City goal ~2 is to pursue the maintenan~ and redevelopment of commercial and residential prope~ies withir the city. In the past, the Council has approved similar resolutions relating to tax increment financing districts. BACKGROUND On September 9, 2002, a public hearing was conducted relating to the creation of TIF District No. 02-01 related to the Nava~e Co~omtion expansion project and mlo~tion of the Ahmns Trucking facility to the the~ city-owned prope~y at 9200 49m Avenue No~h. As the Council is aware, Ahmns Trucking did not mlo~te to 9200 49~ Avenue No~h. The EDA eventually sold the prope~ to a separate business, the Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital for the construction of a new pet hospi~l on the site. The rear potion of the prope~y will be retained by the ci~ and used for sto~ water management purposes. The TIF District that was created for the Nava~e/Ahrens project was an economic development district, which is for warehouse type development. The Pet Hospi~l is not a quali~ing use in this ~pe of district, therefore, it is recommended that the pardi be removed fo~ the district. Per the a~ached correspondence from Krass Monroe, the resolution should be approved by the EDA fimt, and then by the Ci~ Council. The approval of this resolution will officially dece~i~ the subject parcel from Tax Increment Financing District No. 02-01. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 10-27-03 The Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital located on the subject parcel and the Navarre expansion projects are bot~ under construction. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. A'I-rACHMENTS · Resolution · Krass Monroe Memorandum, 10-7-03 · Location Map ZZZZ & COUNCIL Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section i Finance ,/'"'\ October 27, 2003 Ordinances & Resolutions Item No. By: Dan/I E. Sulander By: ,/ 10.2 ORDINANCE NO. 03-21, AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING AN ELECTRIC ENERGY FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION D/B/A XCEL ENERGY. FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC ENERGY SERVICE WITHIN THE CiTY OF NEW HOPE REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests Council selection and approval of the flat fee rate table and adoption of the ordinance enacting electric utility franchise fees within New Hope. BACKGROUND Over the past several months, city staff and the city attorney have drafted and presented for Council consideration, the ordinances renewing the franchise agreements with the natural gas and electric utility companies. To this point in time, the City has not exercised its authority to collect the franchise fees allowed under these ordinances. Staff recently met with representatives of both utilities to review the potential revenue which would be generated at different rates and through different fee types, (fiat fee vs. gross revenue). Discussions at the Council work session on July 21,2003 and the subsequent Council meetings on August 11th and 25th directed staff, through the city attorney's office, to notify the utilities of the City's intent to implement the fees later this year. The August 18, 2003 notification letter is attached for your reference. The attached franchise fee rate table presents the estimated annual revenue for the natural gas and electric franchise fee. The proposed rate sets the residential classification at $1.50 per month. Non-residential rates vary from $4.50 to $36.00 per month for electric accounts. This rate structure would generate ]'ust under $249,000 per year The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission permits the utility company to pass this fee and an administrative charge, onto their customers within the city, therefore, an increase in the monthly electric bill will occur. For comparison: the percentage of electric franchise fee revenue raised from the residential classification accounts is 62%, and is close to the 65% of the property taxes collected from New Hope single family homes and apartmenl classifications in the property tax system. The preliminary 2004 budgets proposed for the General Fund and Economic Development Authority Fund, as accepted for discussion at the September 8th Council meeting, use this rate structure for estimated revenue amounts. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: hRFA\Finance\Franch~se Fee~Q-A~opt Oct 27 2003 Request for Action Electric Utility Franchise Fee Ordinance Page 2 RECOMMENDATION To provicte the funding for the programs and service level as presented in the 2004 preliminary Duoge:, the attacneC ordinance for electric utility franchise fees using the rate structure based on $1.50 per month per account tee ~s recommencled for approval. ATTACHMENTS Notification letters to both utility companies Proposed Ordinance No. 03-21 Franchise fee rate table ORDINANCE NO. 03-2 AN ORDINANCE IMPLE~iENTING AN' ELECTRIC ENERGY FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY. A MINNESOTA CORPORATION D/B/A XCEL ENERGY, FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC ENERGY SERV'ICE WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE THE CITY OF NEW HOPE DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter 14 "Fees. Charees and Financial" of the Neu' Hope City Code is herebx amended by adding Subsection 14-51 "Electricity Franchise Fee" to read as follows: 14-51. "Electricity Franchise Fee". (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the followin,.z meamngs: ~ (1) City. The City of New Hope, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. (2) Code. The City of New Hope Municipal Code (3) Company. Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation d/b/a Xcel Energy, its successors and assigns. (4) Franchise Agreement. The franchise agreement between the City and Company pursuant to City Ordinance 91-19. (5) Notice. "Notice" means a writing served by any party or parties on any other party or parties. Notice to Company shall be mailed to the Regional General Manager thereof at 1518 Chestnut Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403. Notice to City shall be mailed to the City Clerk at 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota 55428. 0o) Purpose. The New Hope City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services within the City. Pursuant to the Franchise Agreement the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on Company. (c) Franchise Fee Statement and Schedule. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on Company commencing with the January 2004 billing month, and in accordance with the following fee schedule: Customer Classification .Amount per Account per Month (S I Residential Small Commercial & Industrial - Non-Demand Small Commercial & Industrial - Demand Large Commercial & Industrial Public Street Lights Municipal Pumping - Non-Demand Municipal Pumping - Demand $1.50 per momh 54.50 per month S9.00 per month $30.00 per month 54.50 per month $4.50 per month $4.50 per month (d) Account Fee. This fee is an account based fee and not a meter-based fee. in the event that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter, but only one account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have 'more than one account, each account shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question arises as to the proper fee amount for any account, the highest possible fee amount shall apply. (e) Pqvment. Franchise fees are to be collected by the Company and submitted to the Citv as follows: January - March collections due by April 30. April - June collections due by July 31. July- September collections due by October 31. October - December collections due by January 31. (f) Record Support for Payment. The Company shall make each payment when due and, if requested by the City, shall provide a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total made to account for any non-collectible accounts, refunds or error corrections. The Company shall permit the City, and its representatives, free access to the Company's records for the purpose of verifying such statements. (g) Payment Adjustments. Payment to the City will be adjusted where the Company is unable to collect the franchise fee. This includes non-collectible accounts. (h) Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission allows the Company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse the Company for the cost of implementing and administering the fee. (i) Dispute Resolution. If either party asserts that the other party is in default in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the parties must promptly meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may jointly select a mediator to facilitate further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this mediator. Ifa mediator is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days after first meeting with the selected mediator, 2 either party, mav commence an action in District Court to interpret and enforce this ordinance or for such other reliefpermined by l_aw. (j) Effective Date qfFranchtse Fee. The effective date of this Ordinance shall be after its vublicatzon and sixty (60) days after the sending of a'nnen notice enclosing a cop3' of this adopted Ordinance to Company by certified mail. Collection of the fee shall commence as provided above. (k) Relation to Franchise Agreement. This ordinance is enacted in compliance with the Franchzse Agreement shall be interpreted as such. If a provision of this ordinance cannot be reasonable interpreted to avoid conflict with the Franchise A~eement, this ordinance will control. (1) Review. The City Council shall review this ordinance every two years in whatever manner the Citx Manager then determines to be appropriate, including, but not limitefi to, review by the City Council m either a work session or a regular session. Failure to review this ordinance shall not in any way invalidate or limit it. (m) Permit Fees. The franchise fee shall be payable to the City by the Company in lieu of permit or other fees othenvise imposed on the Company in relation to its operations as a public utility in the City so long as the following requirements are met: ' (1) The Company applies for any and all permits, licenses and similar documentation as though this provision did not exist. (2) The Company requests the fee to be waived at the time of application. Section 2: Effective Date. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein. 2003. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 27tI' DAY OF OCTOBER ATTEST: W. Peter Enck, Mayor Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the 6th day of November, 2003.) CITY OF NEW HOPE GAS AND ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE' RATE TABLE Effective January 1, 2004 Customer Classifications Residential Corn - A Com/Ind - B Com/Ind - C SVDF - A SVDF - B LVDF TOTAL Natural Gas Monthly Monthly Annual Number of Charge per Franchise Fee Franchise Fee Accounts Account Amount Amount 5,012 $ 1.50$ 7,518.00 $ 90,216.00 189 $ 3.00$ 567.00$ 6,804.00 179 $ 6.00$ 1,074.00 $ 12,888.00 244 $ 20.00 $ 4,880.00 $ 58,560.00 38 $ 30.00 $ 1,140.00$ 13,680.00 10 $ 40.00 $ 400.00$ 4,800.00 2 $ 60.00 $ 120.00$ 1,440.00 5,674 $ 15,699.00 $ 188,388.00 Customer Classifications Residential Small C & I Small C & I - Dema Large C & I Public Street Lights Muni-pumpnig Muni-pumpnig-Der~ TOTAL Number of Accounts 8,606 546 275 78 11 8 2 9,526 Electric Monthly Monthly Annual Charge per Franchise Fee Franchise Fee Account Amount Amount $ 1.50 $ 12,909.00 $ 154,908.00 $ 4.50 $ 2,457.00 $ 29,484.00 $ 9.00 $ 2,475.00 $ 29,700.00 $ 36.00 $ 2,808.00 $ 33,696.00 $ 4.50 $ 49.50$ 594.00 $ 4.50$ 36.00 $ 432.00 $ 4.50 $ 9.00 $ 108.00 $ 20,743.50 $ 248,922.00 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Finance E. Sulander By: Approved for Agenda October 27. 2003 Agenoa Section Ordinances & Resolutions Ilem No. 10.3 ORDINANCE NO. 03-22, AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A GAS ENERGY FRANCHISE FEE ON CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO, A DIVISION OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, FOR PROVIDING GAS ENERGY SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests Council selection and approval of the flat fee rate table and adoption of the ordinance enacting natural gas utility franchise fees within New Hope. BACKGROUND Over the past several months, city staff and the city attorney have drafted and presented for Council consideration, the ordinances renewing the franchise agreements with the natural gas and electric utility companies. To this point in t~me, tl3e City has not exercised its authority to collect the franchise fees allowed under these ordinances. Staff recently met with representatives of both utilities to review the potential revenue which would be generated at different rates and tl3rough different fee types, (fiat fee vs. gross revenue). Discussions at the Council work session on July 21, 2003 and the subsequent Council meetings on August 11'h and 25'h directed staff, through the city attorney's office, to notify the utilities of the City's intent to implement the fees later this year. The August 18, 2003 notification letter is attached for your reference. The attached franchise fee rate table presents the estimated annual revenue for the natural gas franchise fee. The proposed rate sets the residential classification at $1.50 per month. Non-residential rates vary from $3.00 to $60.00 per month for natural gas accounts. This rate structure would generate jUSt over $188,000 per year The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission permits the utility company to pass this fee and an administrative charge, onto their customers within the city, therefore, an increase in the monthly natural gas bill will occur. For comparison: the percentage of natural gas franchise fee revenue raised from the residential classification accounts is 49%, roughly the equivalent of the property taxes collected from New Hope single family homes classifications in the property tax system. The / 2004 budgets proposed for the General Fund and Economic Development Authority Fund, as accepted for discussion at the September 8th Council meeting, use this rate structure for estimated revenue amounts. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:RFA~Finance~Francttise FeetQ-Adopt Oct 27 2003 Request for Action Natural Gas Utility Franchise Fee Ordinance Page 2 RECOMMENDATION To provi0e the funding for the programs and service level as presented in the 2004 prehm~nary Duclget. the attacnec ordinance for natural gas utility franchise fees using the rate structure based on $1.50 Der month De; account fees ~s recommended for approval. A'I'I'ACHMENTS Notification letters to both utility companies Proposed Ordinance No. 03-22 Franchise fee rate table ORDINANCE NO. 03-22 AN' ORDINANCE IMP£EMENTING A GAS ENERGY FRA~NCHISE FEE ON CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO. A DIVISION OF CENTERPOINT ENERG3' . RESOURCES CORP., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, FOR PROVIDING GAS ENERGY SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE THE CITY OF NEW HOPE DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter 14 "Fees, Charges and Financial" of the New Hope City Code is herebx amended by adding Subsection 14-52 "Gas Franchise Fee" to read as follows: 14-52. "Gas Franchise Fee". (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the following meanings: (1) City. The City of New Hope, County of Hennqoin, State of Minnesota. (2) Code. The City of New Hope Municipal Code (3) Company. Centerpoint Energy Minnegasco, a division of Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp., a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns. (4) Franchise Agreement. The franchise agreement between the City and Company pursuant to City Ordinance 03-08. (5) Notice. "Notice" means a writing served by any party or parties on any other party or parties. Notice to Company shall be mailed to CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco, V.P., Regulatory & Supply Service, 800 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2006. Notice to City shall be mailed to the City Clerk at 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota 55428. (b) Purpose. The New Hope City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services within the City. Pursuant to the Franchise Agreement the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on Company. ~ (c) Franchise Fee Statement and Schedule. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on Company commencing with the January 2004 billing month, and in accordance with the following fee schedule: parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days after first meeting with the selected mediator. either party may commence ~ action in Dismct Court to interpret and enforce this ordinance or for such other relief permitted bv laxv. (j) Effective Date of Franchise Fee. The effective date of this Ordinance shall be alter zts publication and sixty (60) days after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted Ordinance to Company by certified mail. Collection of the fee shall commence as provided above. (k) Relation to Franchise Agreement. This ordinance is enacted in compliance with the Frm~chisc A~eement shall be interpreted as such. If a provision of this ordinance cannot be reasonable interpreted to avoid conflict with the Franchise A~eement, this ordinance will control. (1) Review. The City Council shall review this ordinance every two vears in whatever maturer the Citx Manager then determines to be appropriate, including, but not iimitefi to, review by the City Council m either a work session or a regular session. Failure to review this ordinance shall not in any way invalidate or limit it. (m) Permit Fees. The franchise fee shall be payable to the City by the Company in lieu of permit or other fees otherwise imposed on the Company in relation to its operations as a public utility in the City so long as the following requirements are met: The Company applies for any and all permits, licenses and similar documentation as though this provision did not exist. ~ (2) The Company requests the fee to be waived at the time ofapplication. Section 2: Effective Date. This ordinance takes effect as provided herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIl THIS 97th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2003. ~ ATTEST: W. Peter Enck, Mayor Valer/e Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the 6th day of November, 2003.) ~' '"q~ Fret, cbOe Fee Onlmance ,3.doc Customer Classification .amount per Account per Month (S} - o~ Residential Commercial - A ("Com A") Commercial / Industrial - B ("ComAnd B") Commercial / Industrial - C ("Com/Ind C") Small Volume, Dual Fuel A ("SVDF A") Small Volume, Dual Fuel B ("SVDF B") Large Volume, Dual Fuel ("LVDF") S 1.50 per month 53.00 per month S6.00 per month 520.00 per month 530.00 per month $40.00 per month $60.00 per month (d) Account Fee. This fee is an account based fee and not a meter-based fee. In the event that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter, but only one account, on}v one fee shall be assessed to that account. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one account, each account shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question arises as to the proper fee amount for any account, the highest possible fee amount shall apply. (e) Pa. vment. Franchise fees are to be collected by the Company and submined to the City as follows: January - March collections due by April 30. April - June collections due by July 31. July - September collections due by October 31. October - December collections due by January 31. (f) Record Support for Payment. The Company shall make each payment when due and, if requested by the City, shall provide a statement summarizing how the fi'anchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total made to account for any non-collectible accounts, refunds or error corrections. The Company shall permit the City, and its representatives, free access to the Company's records for the purpose of verifying such statements. (g) Payment Adjustments. Payment to the City will be adjusted where the Company is unable to collect the franchise fee. This includes non-collectible accounts and customers on ~aranteed fixed pricing program (No Surprise Bill program) through the term of their contract (contracts currently run from October to October). (h) Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission allows the Company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse the Company for the cost of implementing and administering the fee. (i) Dispute Resolution. If either party asserts that the other party is in default in the performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the panics must promptly meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may jointly select a mediator to facilitate further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this mediator. Ifa mediator is not used or if the EDA REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-27-03 EDA Item No. By: Kirk McDonald, Director of OD & Ken Doresk¥, CD Specialist By: DISCUSSION & UPDATE REGARDING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR CITY OWNED PROPERTY AT 5501 BOONE AVE. N. AND DIRECTION TO PROCEED WITH FINANCIAL/TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ANALYSIS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 749) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting EDA discussion and direction to proceed with a financial/tax increment financing analysis relating to the attached development proposal from Project for Pride in Living, Inc. (PPL), for the city-owned site at 5501 Boone Avenue North. The current proposal is for two separate residential buildings on the site, one 41-unit market rate condominium building and one 35-unit affordable rental apartment building. The original proposal was for the construction of one 70-unit residential building including 35 owner-occupied condominiums and 35 affordable rental units. Staff believes the proposal is worthy of sedous consideration and further analysis because it addresses the following development objectives. 1. Utilizes the entire site (previous proposals have only utilized a portion of the site). 2. Provides 41 units of market rate condominium units, filling an identified housing type need in the city. 3. Meets the CDBG eligibility requirements, enabling the city to retain the $100,000 of CDBG funds it utilized to acquire the property. 4. Provides potential extra off-street parking for the Masonic/North Ridge Complex. 5. Replaces some existing rental units in the city which Will be lost with redevelopment of new units. 6. PPL's initial proposal paid the city its original EDA investment ($276,764). Ifthe EDA is agreeable, staff would like to proceed to work with PPL on a financial analysis/tax incremenl financing analysis requested for the newly discovered increased soil correction costs. PPL has agreed to pay the city's standard fee requested for financial analysis costs. Representation from PPL will be in attendance at the meeting. 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~'n coordinatin with otential developers on the sale and development of ci~ MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 10-27-03 -~ BACKGROUND On June 23, 2003, the EDA-.expressed coordinating with PPL on the project. Since support for the proposed f~roject and directed staff to cont~r,.. that time, the following actions have occurred: · Market Study - PPL hired Maxfield Research to conduct a market study for the proposed development. The study concluded that demand is sufficient to support the proposed condominiums. Also, the study suggested that PPL split the project into two buildings, one ownership and one rental which they have done. In addition to the separate buildings, PPL has also modified the unit mix. Please see the attached "executive summary." The full report is available for review in the Community Development Department. Design - As a result of the market study, PPL has changed the site plan from one building housing both the condominiums and rental units to two separate buildings. Also, they have added six condominium units for a total of 41. The number of rental units has remained at 35. The attached plans have been revised to show the newly proposed configuration. Unit Mix - The market study suggested changes to the unit mix. Four-bedroom condominium units have been eliminated in favor of fewer bedroom units. Also, per EDA comments on June 23, PPL has added six additional ownership units. The number of rental units has remained the same. Soils Analysis - PPL hired STS consultants to further study to soils at the site. Upon review, STS determined that the soils will require substantial correction (pilings) to accommodate the development. PPL has received several estimates on piling costs and believe that pilings will be roughly $600,000 per building or $1.2 million. The soil correction cost was unknown when the EDA last discussed the subject item. Financial/Tax Increment Financing Analysis Request - PPL has requested that the city consider the use of tax increment financing as an additional funding source to help defray the soil correction costs. PPL has agreed to pay the standard financial analysis deposit used to pay consultant fees. · Funding Applications - PPL has submitted funding applications to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Hennepin County HOME, Federal Home Loan Bank and the Metropolitan Council for the rental portion of the site. On September 8, 2003, the Council approved a resolution of support for the Met. Council Predevelopment Grant Application. · Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) Memoradum - NAC, the city's planning consultant, prepared a preliminary evaluation of the proposed project. Please see attached memorandum. On June 17, 2003, staff received the initial development proposal from PPL for the City-owned site at 5501 Boone Avenue North. The EDA expressed support for the proposed project and directed staff to continue coordinating with PPL on the project. Since that time, staff has met with PPL a number of times on the proposal and PPL has prepared revised plans, studied site conditions and obtained a market analysis. The EDA acquired 5501 Boone Avenue and a portion of the property at 5425 Boone Avenue in 1993, through eminent domain proceedings, with the intent to convey the property 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 Request for Action Page 3 10-27-03 Land Disposition 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 ~'ou~l~ Or a portion of the land's sale price 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 CDBG eligible. Since the EDA discussed the project on June 23, staff met with Hennepin County and PPL to describe the proposal. Hennepin County indicated support for the project, but will be requesting repayment of the CDBG funds. The funds will be allowed to go back into the project once approved. The revised proposal is as follows: Building One Market Rate For Sale Units I Bedrooms/Square Footage t Sales Price 12 I 1 Bedroom + Den (825 sq. ft.) I $130,000 20 t 2 Bedrooms (908 sq. ft.) I $137,500 9 I 3 Bedrooms (1318 sq. ft.) I $160,000 .. Building Two Rental Units 17 9 9 tBedroonis/Square Footage 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Total Units - 76 (41 ownership & 35 rentall Eight rental units are proposed as Section 8 units. Rent $750 $940 $1,060 PPL submitted the following narrative (attached) regarding the revised proposal: "New Proposed Pricing: The pricing has changed somewhat based on the market study and changes in the unit design that are discussed below. The for-sale units will be sold at their appraised value (we expect that between 25% and 50% of the units will be affordable to persons at 80% of the area median income, depending on family size). Modifications from Original: The market study conducted by Maxfield Research (please see summary included) and comments by local housing experts, suggested that we create two separate buildings, one rental and one for-sale, that will look similar from the exterior but will have very different unit configurations. The unit design of the rental building will remain substantially the same but the for-sale building has been reconfigured to create units with fewer bedrooms and a more open floor plan. New Bedroom Mix: The bedroom mix of the for-sale side had changed considerably. Maxfield Research feels that there is not a strong market for four-bedroom condominium units (except in the luxury market) and that in order to meet the existing demand we should create units with less bedrooms. Parking: Underground parking for. 89 vehicles, surface parking spaces for 114 vehicles. We would like to reduce the number of surface parking spaces to increase the amount of green space. Site Characteristics: To accommodate two buildings, it is proposed that the storm water retention pond will be relocated to the center of the site and the buildings will be oriented and the landscape designed to minimize views (and noise) of the Public Works site. We are working with a geotechnical engineer to verify soil conditions and design a foundation system that will be adequate to build on the existing poor soils. Request for Action Page 4 10-27-03 Increased Costs: Foundation system (pilings, etc.) - approximately $1.2 million. Site work (pond relocation, soil compaction, landscape screening, etc.) - approximately $600,000 _ - Funding Requests: We would like the city of New Hope to consider using Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as ar~ additional funding source to help defray construction costs due to the poor soils. We have submitted funding applications to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Hennepin County, the Federal Home Loan Bank and the Metropolitan Council. Selections will be made by the end of the year. We will also submit an application for HOME funding through Hennepin County in the spring. We anticipate construction to begin within six months of securing the necessary funding." On June 10, 2002 the Council discussed a previous proposal for the site. 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 April 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 original purchase price PPL offered was consistent with the appraised value of $662,000, but discounted the purchase price by $285,236 for soil correction and $100,000 for CDBG funds in the project, therefore PPL was offering $276,764, the original city expense. The soil correction cost and CDBG funds was considered "City Contribution" to the project in funding applications completed by PPL. The current attached proforma shows PPL paying $662,000, the appraised value. The final offering price will be determined once the financial analysis is complete. Additional soil correction costs are proposed to be paid for with tax increment financing. 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 2004 tax rates: Ownership Units Unit Value & Size Overall Taxes Generated City Taxes Generated Total City Taxes 12 1 bdrm - $135,000 $1,756 per unit $548 per unit $6,576 20 2 bdrm - $157,500 $1,878 per unit $587 per unit $11,740 9 4 bdrm - $185,000 $2,248 per unit $705 per unit $6,345 Rental Units 35 $100,000 per unit $78,542 per all units $26,155 per all units $26,155 Total City Taxes $50,816 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 Request for Action Page 5 10-27-03 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 cb"nstrcc[ion 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 rezomng die 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 utilize the $100,000 in CBG funds utilized for original land acquisition. · PPL will purchase the property. They are not asking the city to donate the land. Per the EDA's request, the ownership portion of the proposal was increased six units for a total of 41 ownership units, providing additional needed life-cycle housing options per the city's Life Cycle Housing Study prepared in 1997. The proposal has been modified per the Maxfield Research Market Study. The 35 affordable rental units will assist in the replacement of existing affordable units that may eventually be displaced as a result of other redevelopment activities in the city. Estimated city taxes of over $50,000 per year will be generated by this development based on 2004 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 62 off-street surface parking spaces intended to be leased to Northridge Care Center to alleviate their parking problem and parking issues along Boone Avenue. FUNDING Total acquisition cost was $376,764. The city used $100,000 in CDBG funds towards a portion of the acquisition. The original EDA investment as $276,764. .A'I'rACHMENTS · PPL Narrative & Proforma · Maps - Location, Zoning, Plat and Storm Water Improvements · Northwest Associated Consultants Memorandum, 9-4-03 Maxfield Research Market Study- Executive Summary, 7-22-03 (Complete copy available for review in the Department of Community Development) Site & Building Plans - Condominium Building Site & Building Plans -Apartment Building Land Disposition Agreement Hennepin County Correspondence, 6-18-03 Appraisal (Complete copy available for review in the Department of Community Development) EDA Minutes, 6-23-03 City Council Minutes, 6-10-02 Business Journal Article, 8-1-03 Date: Address: Developer: Original Proposal: Original Bedroom Mix: New Proposed Pricing: October 27, 2003 5501 Boone Avenue, New Hope Project for Pride in Living, Inc. 70-units total 35 for-sale condos 35 rental units 35-2 bedroom 17-3 bedroom 18-4 bedroom The pricing has changed somewhat based on the market study and changes in the unit design that are discussed below. The for-sale units will be sold at their appraised value (we expect that between 25% and 50% of the units will be affordable to persons at 80% of the Area Median Income, depending on family size). 1 # ' Approximate Proposed Proposed Unit Type sq. ft. Sale Price' AMI % Max 12 825 80% to lbdrm + den Condo $130,000 Market Rate 20 908 80% to 2bdrm Condo $137,500 Market Rate 9 1318 t 80% to 3bdrm Condo $160,000 Market Rate Monthly Rental Rent** 2bdrm 957 $750 50-60% 3bdrm 1247 $940 50-60% 4bdrm 1537 $1,060 50-60% 2bdrm - S.8 957 $750 30% 3bdrm - S.8 1247 $940 30% 4bdrm - S.8 1537 $1,060 30% s sold at appraised value and rents will be similar to the existing market in New Hope. **Monthly rents are similar to the area market rents. Modifications from Original: The market study conducted by Maxfield Research (please see summary included) and comments by local housing experts, suggested that we create two separate buildings, one rental and · one for-sale, that will look similar from the exterior but will have very different unit configurations. The unit design of the rental building will remain substantially the same but the for-sale building has been reconfigured to create units with fewer bedrooms and a more open - ----floor plan. - New configuration' New Bedroom Mix: Parking: Site Characteristics: Increased Costs: Funding Requests: We have added 6 ownership units bringing the total number of units to 76-units (41 for-sale condos and 35 rental units) ~n two buildings. The bedroom mix of the for-sale side had changed considerably. Maxfield Research feels that there is not a strong market for 4- bedroom condominium units (except in the luxury market) and that in order to meet the existing demand we should create units with less bedrooms. This change has resulted in the following mix: For Sale Rental lbdrm + den 12 n/a 2 bedroom 20 17 3 bedroom 9 9 4 bedroom n/a 9 Total 41 35 · Underground parking for 89 vehicles · Surface parking spaces for 114 vehicles · We would like to reduce the number of surface parking spaces to increase the amount of green space To accommodate two buildings, it is proposed that the storm water retention pond will be relocated to the center of the site and the buildings will be oriented and the landscape designed to minimize views (and noise) of the Public Works site. We are working with a geotechnical engineer to verify soil conditions and design a foundation system that will be adequate to build on the existing poor soils. .. Foundation system (pilings, etc.) - approximately $1.2 million Site Work (pond relocation, soil compaction, landscape screening, etc.) - approximately $600,000 We would like the City of New Hope to consider using Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as an additional funding source to help defray construction costs due to the poor soils. We have submitted funding applications to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Hennepin County, the Federal Home Loan Bank and the Metropolitan Council. Selections will be made by the end of 'the year. We will also submit an application for HOME funding through Hennepin County in the Spring. We anticipate construction to begin within six months of securing the necessary funding. 5501 Boone Ave, New Hope - October 27, 2004 USES Rental (35 units) Acquisition Construction Soil Corrections: Piling/Grade Beams Construction Contingency Per sf construction cost (74,077 s.f.) Per unit construction cost a) Architect's Fee - Design (75%) b) Architect's Fee - Supervision (25%) c) Marketing d) Surveys and Soil Borings e) Payment and Performance Bond Pr( g) Sewer-Water Access Charge h) Appraisal Fee i) Energy Audit j) Environmental Assessment k) Cost Certification/Audit I) Market Study m) Tax Credit Fees n) Compliance Fees o) Furnishings and Equipment p) Legal Fees q) Other - Architectural Reimb, etc. rl ) Other - Holding Costs r2) Other Fees - Specify: Soft Costs Sub Total Developer's Fee Tax Credit Syndication Fees Financing Costs Lease Up Reserve Operating Reserve Total Development Cost Per Unit Cost Per Square Foot Development Cost $331,000 $4,555,621 $602,000 $250,000 $73 $154,503 $150,000 $50,0O0 $2,O0O $15,000 $32,000 $54,625 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 $o $20,000 $3,000 $40,000 $14,000 $5,000 $415,625 $450,000 $22,000 $168,500 $5,000 $80,000 $6,879,746 $196,564 $93 USES Ownership (41 units) Acquisition Construction Soil Corrections: Piling/Gra0e Beams Construction Contingency Per sf construction cost (73.883 s.f.) Per sf construction cost a) Architect's Fee - Design ( 75% of To b) Architect's Fee - Supervision ( 25% c) Marketing d) Surveys and Soil Borings e) Payment and Performance Bond Pr~ g) Sewer-Water Access Charge h) Appraisal Fee i) Energy Audit j) Environmental Assessment k) Cost Certification/Audit I) Market Study m) Tax Credit Fees n) Compliance Fees o) Furnishings and Equipment p) Legal Fees q) Other - Architectural Reimb, etc. rl) Other - Holding Costs r2) Other Fees - Specify: Soft Costs Sub Total Developer's Fee Marketing Financing Costs Lease Up Reserve Operating Reserve Total Development Cost Per Unit Cost Per Square Foot Development Cost $331.000 $4.700.000 $602.000 $250.000 $75 $135.415 5150,000 $50,000 $2,000 $15.000 $32,000 $62.275 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 $o $20,000 $3,000 $40,000 $14,000 $5,000 $423,275 $450,000 $266,382 $168,500 $0 $0 $7,191,157 $175,394 $97 SOURCES Equity: Syndication Proceeds Hennepin Co. HOME/AHIF MARIF New Hope: CDBG New Hope First Mortgage MHFA AHP TIF Total Sources gap $3,114,070 $700,000 $800,000 $100,000 $285,236 $630,000 $241,798 $105,000 $903,642 $6,879,746 $o SOURCES 1 BPJDen (12) @ $130,000 2 BR (20) @ $137,500 3 aR (9) @ $160,000 New Hope HOME Total Sales Proceeds TIF Total Sources gap $1,560,000 $2,750,000 $1,440,000 $0 $540,000 $5,750,000 $901,157 $7,191,157 $o 8701 : 5700 ! : ~ 8511 "~ ~'~ --- : 8431 811X~ ;Z *Z i-~ ........... ;L,,J E333. -'- ·'~. · ....... ~bJ~ ...... :: 5645 · : !~':. ............ :Iai ', ~ ; i ...... ! ~ ...... : : ~2~ ; ~3o i e ,~ " -' m ~ ~: "~ '- ---'" / ~ ___.~ .... , ~ ............ .~ ~ ........ ~ 5615 : ~ : ~ .............. ~: ~11 ', ~ 5~ A~ N ............................................................ ~ : ' c~ ~ NORTH ~ ~ ~.. --.~ ~ HOSTER~AN ~ ........ : ~ ~ : JR HIGH SCHOOL ~ ~ RIDGE ~ PUBLIC ~ ~ ~ '~ WORKS ~ ~ APART- , ~ ~ ME~ / .... '.~ gl01 ". ~ .... NORTH ~ ~. ~:7 ~ ~" ~' ' ;~; ' RIDGE ~z~; ~ ;~, , ~ , . -, ~TH AVE N ........ ....... J Beofle Avinve ho~t~ PPL CONDOMINIUMS . 5501 BOONE AVE N NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 603-12 e12o/o3 t ~lu cture PPL CONDOMINIUMS . 5501 BOONE AVE N NEW HOPE, MINNF.~OTA JLH 603-12 8/20/03 ~31umentals/Architecture inc CONDOMINIUMS..f.f01 BOONE AVE N N._.~ HOPE, MINNESOTA JLH 603-12 8120103 PPL AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS. $$01 NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA BOONE AVE N JLH 603-12 Z~. 8/20/03 Z PPL AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS . 5501 BOONE AVE N _~NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA JLH 603-12 Z~ 8/20/03 PPL CONDOMINIUMS . 5501 BOONE AVE N NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 603-12 8/20/03 PPL CONDOMINiUM~. $$01 BOONE AVE hi ~NEW' HOPE, MiNNi~_OTA JLH 603. e/2o/o3 PPL AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS . 5501 BOONE AVE N N.._~ HOPE, MINNESOTA JLH 603- I ~ 8/20/03 ilumentais inc PPL AFFORDABLE APARTMEI~r$ . NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 5501 BOONE AVE N JLH 603- ! 2 8/2.0/03 ~lumentais /Ar~ite~ure inc ~ / JLH 603-12 PPL AFFORD~ APART~5. 5501 BOONE AVE N N~ HOPE, ~NN~OTA ~ 8/20/03 PPL AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA - $501 BOONE AVE N JLH 603-12 '~' e/:2o/o3 PPL AFFORDABLE APART/V~-h~$..~50'1 BOONE AV~ N NEVV HOPE, MINNF~OTA JLH 603-12 A, 8/~o/o3 PPL AFFORDABLE APARTMEf~T~ . 5501 BOONE AVE N NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA JLH 603-12 ,~ e/20/03 [tn PPL AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS NEW HOPF.. MINNESOTA - 5501 BOONE AVE N J LH 603-12 /~ 8/20/03 EDA Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agencla Section Community Development 10-27-03 EDA Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By: MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO MEET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF BEAR CREEK CAPITAL AND PROPERTY OWNERS OF 7901 BASS LAKE ROAD AND 5539/5549 WINNETKA AVENUE TO NEGOTIATE POTENTIAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 754) .REQUESTED ACTION Staff is requesting that the EDA approve a motion to authorize staff to meet with the property owners of 7901 Bass Lake Road and 5539/5549 Winnetka Avenue in conjunction with representatives of Bear Creek Capital regarding negotiation and potential acquisition of the properties for redevelopment purposes. POLICY/PAST PRACTICF In the past, the EDA has authorized joint negotiations between the developer, property owners, and the city to facilitate potential redevelopment projects. BACKR~UND At the August 25, 2003, EDA meeting, the EDA reviewed correspondence from Bear Creek Capital and CVS/ Pharmacy regarding their continued interest in the sites at the southwest quadrant of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. Bear Creek had requested that the city retain a qualified appraiser to complete appraisals on the three properties, at the expense of the developer. The EDA approved moving forward with the proposal. The developer submitted the appropriate fees to the city and over the past several months Shenehon Company completed the appraisals. When the appraisals were completed, city staff and the city attorney met with the developer to review the appraisals and discuss the next appropriate steps. It was the consensus of the developer and city staff/consultants that the next recommended step would be for both the developer and city representatives to meet together with each individual property owner to determine their interest in cooperating on a potential redevelopment project. Staff is requesting authorization to assist with the coordination of such a meeting and to participate with the developer in a negotiation meeting. Excerpts from the three appraisal reports are attached for informational purposes and complete copies of the appraisals are available at city hall for review. The estimated market values for the parcels are as follows: MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:\RFA\PLANNING\Livable Communities\Q-CVS nego prop purchase.doc Request for Action Property Address 5539 Winnetka 5549 Winnetka 7901 Bass Lake Road Total Page 2 Description Single family home Vacant parcel Service station Market Value $220,000 $245,000 $445.000 $910,000 10-23-03 ~ ~ All three parcels are zoned CB, Community Business, zoning district. The purpose of the meetings with the property owners would be to determine if the properties could be acquired on a willing seller basis or not and to emphasize the city's interest in seeing this potential redevelopment project move forward. The results of those meetings would be brought back and presented to the EDA to determine the future action steps. Information presented to the EDA at the August 25, 2003, EDA meeting stated that: "Bear Creek Capital and CVS/Pharmacy have submitted the attached correspondence regarding their continued interest in the sites at the southwest quadrant of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue." Peter Coyle from Larkin Hoffman has submitted the attached correspondence outlining a revised proposal. The correspondence states "Thank you for meeting with Bill Tippmann and me regarding a redevelopment proposal to construct a CVS/Pharmacy in the southwest quadrant of Winnetka and Bass Lake Road. On behalf of Bear Creek Capital and CVS/Pharmacy, I am writing to formalize their request that the city of New Hope enter into a preliminary development contract relating to this proposed redevelopment and authorize the competition of an appraisal of the affected properties in this quadrant. The redevelopment would, at a minimum, require the purchase and removal of the existing Sinclair gas station and certain residential structures. In addition to the proposed use, the redevelopment would enable the city to site much-needed ponding facilities to alleviate serious drainage problems being experienced by residents. The appraisal would enable the city and Bear Creek/CVS to better analyze the feasibility of this undertaking before committing to the formal process. "CVS/Pharmacy will commit to reimburse the city for the cost of engaging a qualified appraiser, plus reasonable city costs incurred, subject to review of estimates." The city manager, city attorney and community development director met with the representatives and indicated that the revised proposal would be submitted to the EDA for discussion purposes. In the long-term, staff is supportive of a commercial redevelopment in this area that is consistent with the concepts endorsed by the Livable Communities Task Force. FUNDING The applicant has submitted the appropriate fees for appraisal costs and has agreed to reimburse the city for consultant expenses (city attorney, etc.) related to this project. A'I-rACHMENTS · Address/Zoning/Topo Maps · Appraisal Excerpts · CVS Redevelopment Schedule · Previous Correspondence · Concept Plans I:\RFA\PLANNING\Livable Communities\Q-CVS nego prop purchase.doc GOLF COURSE ST. THERESE NURSING I i HOME )OL 5736 5732 5700 5704 5720 5716 5620 5600 7800 55O0 Z 55TH 90t .8 × / \ \ L 4- CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 CITY CENTER TASK FORCE MINUTES October 9, 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, Haugstad, Johnson, Kirchoffner, Landy, Rodquist, Tiffany Akradi, Collins, Erickson, Lange, Mack, McKinney, Velazquez Brixius, Gourlay, Hanson, Johnson, Martens, Martin None Baldwin, Beck, McDonald, Sylvester None Update Mr. Kirk McDonald stated that the task force would be reviewing the feedback from the open house, detailed analysis of each area, implementation strategies, planning tools, and looking at the next steps in the process. Summary of Open House He introduced Amy Baldwin, community development intern, and stated that she would be coordinating meetings and sending out packets. Task force member should contact her for any other information as needed. Mr. McDonald gave a development update on current city projects and informed the task force that the city had received a $55,000 Metropolitan Council planning grant that had been submitted earlier in the year. He reported that city staff had met with representatives of Lifetime Fitness to look at proposed improvements. They will be totally renovating the interior, adding new signage, an outside eating area, and landscaping. Bally's is closed and Lifetime Fitness should be open toward the end of October. Mr. McDonald added that Bahrain Akradi, co-owner of the center, was in agreement with the redevelopment plans for the entire area. He mentioned that the Culvers/office condominium project at 42"d and Nevada avenues had been delayed a couple of months, but was expected to proceed before the end of the year. Ms. Aimee Gourlay, facilitator, reviewed the survey results with the task force. McDonald added that one resident attended the September 22 City Council meeting to speak on the City Center project. The Council thanked the person for coming, but said they had not seen any of the concept plans as of this time. Mr. Geoff Martin, planner with Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, addressed each of the concept plans and the results of the survey. Concept A with grocery showed 77% in favor. Concept B with a large major retailer showed 53% in favor. Concept C with mixed use residential showed 52% in favor. He reminded the task force to be flexible and a couple plans should be recommended to the Council. Design Guidelines Mr. Martin stated that design guidelines would be connected with supporting ordinances, and the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended to include the redevelopment plans. The task force would be expected to recommend ordinances to guide the development and the Codes and Standards subcommittee of the Planning Commission would development the specific ordinances. The redevelopment of the area would most likely be accomplished through the planned unit development (PUD) process, which provides for the integration and coordination of land parcels, as well as the combination or mixture of varying types of residential, commercial, and/or industrial land uses. The PUD is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering lots, buildings and activities, and which promote the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan or serve another public purpose. The PUD process allows deviation from the strict provisions of the code related to setbacks, heights, lot area, width and depth, and yards. Mr. Martin stated that the task force should keep in mind that as the concepts are presented to developers, the developers may negotiate for other uses, such as owner occupied to rental, etc. There may be several developers involved in the total project as some developers specialize in certain types of construction, i.e., commercial or residential. Prior to acquiring any property and relocating tenants, the city would have a solid plan in place. At the last meeting, the task force reviewed several design guidelines for redevelopment. The task force should make recommendations on mixed use, open space, pedestrian ways, a mixture of housing types, and alternative transportation. On concepts A, B, and C, the task force should provide recommendations on streets and access points, general location of center open space and ponding, primary connection between open space and city hall/park, general mix of housing types, and development of public space/streets and private streets. The city would need to work with current owners of the New Hope Center to work out adjacent housing and commercial uses along the main streets. The city would hope to relocate existing businesses into the new development. At the next meeting, the task force will need to formulate the general outline for the framework plan. A question was raised whether or not the streetscape plan would connect the city from east to west and north to south. The response was that the streetscape plan included 42n~ Avenue from Highway 169 to Crystal and along Winnetka Avenue from 45th Avenue to just south of 42"~ Avenue. Mr. Greg Johnson, financial consultant, reviewed current financial information on vadous components of the proposed concepts with several variations. As a whole, the task force preferred concepts A and B. It felt that there was too much housing proposed for concept C, and if there would be no entertainment provided somewhere in the project area, there would be no reason for people to move here. Discussion ensued on what types of entertainment to consider, such as theater, restaurants, and/or sports bars, and what would make a small grocery store move to the area and whether there would be enough support for it. There was also discussion on how a large retailer with or without a grocery attached would fit into the project area, as well as smaller retailers along the perimeter. Mention was made that the ordinance regulating hours of operation may need to be changed to later closing times to entice restaurants and sports bars to locate in New Hope. The city engineer, Mark Hanson, briefly discussed traffic and street improvements that would be required with the project to handle the increased volume of vehicles. City Center Task Force 2 October 9, 2003 Adjournment The public park was discussed and the issue of park maintenance. ,Someone wondered whether the park could be utilized year round. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, November 6, and the task force will be developing language for a comprehensive plan amendment. It is anticipated that concept plans could move forward to the Planning Commission and City Council for review in December. The City Center Task Force meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary City Center Task Force 3 October 9, 2003 City of New Hope Current Development Projects November 2003 Redevelopment Projects and Studies city center Task Force - The City Center Task Force, appointed by the City Council, consists of residents, civic leaders and business owners working with city staff and consultants to study redevelopment opportunities in the City Center area northwest and southeast of the Winnetka and 42nd avenues intersection. The group will craft a master plan for a financially feasible mixed-use development that includes retail, office and residential uses. The process has four phases. The task force is currently in the second phase, which involves the analyzing financial feasibility, selecting and refining the preferred framework plans, reviewing preliminary design guidelines, and conducting an open house for public comment. An open house was held on September 18 and was well attended. A Livable Communities Demonstration Account Opportunities Grant application was submitted this past summer to the Metropolitan Council and the City was notified that fundinq for the $55,500 grant application was approved. The co-owner of the shopping center has started making significant exterior improvements to the center, includin.q new signage, outdoor dining areas, etc. The Bally Total Fitness has been replaced by a Lifetime Fitness in a newly renovated space. Livable Communities Redevelopment Area - The City of New Hope received a Livable Communities Opportunities Grant to study the redevelopment feasibility of the Bass Lake Road corddor area, approximately a one-half mile radius of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. This area consists of 480 acres of residential neighborhoods, commercial businesses and the Hosterman school site. The purpose of the study was to examine opportunities to integrate life-cycle housing, transit improvements, and neighborhood businesses with the existing industrial base and residential neighborhoods in the area. The City Council approved a work plan for the study prepared by the city's planning consultant and authorized the creation of a citizen task force. The task force received information regarding smart growth principles, information on visioning opportunities, demographics, housing, transportation, tax structure, parks and principles in land use planning. The task force formulated its final recommendations in October 2002, based on a number of concept plans. The study was completed in December of 2002 when the final report was submitted to the Metropolitan Council. The proposals were presented to the Planning Commission and City Council, and the Council selected preferred proposals and developers. City staff and consultants have been meeting with the preferred developers and the financial consultants to determine if the concepts are economically feasible. The City received approval of special le.qislation from the 2003 State Legislature to allow flexibility with the creation of a TIF District to assist with the redevelopment in the area. The process to establish the TIF District has been started. Target Areas: Winnetka Avenue East - Ryland Homes was selected as the preferred developer and the City Council has approved preliminary terms of agreement and continues to work on site plan/development contract issues. Construction is expected to start in spring 2004. Winnetka Avenue West - CVS Pharmacy/Bear Creek Capital has submitted a proposal for this site. Property appraisals are complete and neqotiations are in process. Northeast Bass Lake Road - Master Engineering has been selected as the preferred developer and has submitted a preliminary proposal for a townhouse development to be considered in more detail by the City Council in the near future. Bass Lake Road Apartments - Boisclair Development was selected as the preferred developer and staff continues to work with the developer on the proposed redevelopment. In the near future, City Council plans to discuss the project in more detail. Industrial N a.'..,'~,:rs C.orpc?=~c the; City COuncil .in ~ bequn: The eXpansi i, by building links to materials of the corr will also include ext{ expanded parking. of 200. n.-- Tho. cxp=ncion pl---ns for Navarre Corporation, 7_400 49th Avenue, ,.;/ere approved by /larch and the groundbreakinq ceremony was held September 24 and construction has )n will add a new 111,000 square foot office/warehouse building and will be connected the existing headquarters building. The two-story building will mimic the design and pany's existing building and will more than double the size of the complex. The project :nsive landscaping, new storm water pending, a new fire lane around the building, and he expansion will result in 80 to 100 additional jobs to the current New Hope workforce In order to facilitate Navarre's expansion plans west of its current site, a sanitary sewer trunk line and a storm sewer pipe will need to be relocated. The City of New Hope has committed to provide $450,000 in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance to assist with sewer relocation and site improvement costs that will be repaid over seven years. Development Projects Map - Last updated on 10/30/2003 Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital - The City of New Hope sold a portion of the vacant city-owned industrial property at 9200 49th Avenue to Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital for the construction of a new veterinary clinic. Construction activities are in proqress on the proposed 7,000 square foot single story "state of the art" p~'-- hospital and boarding facility. The architectural design of the building will have a residential look, with a pitched roof and bdck exterior fa(~ade. The clinic employs approximately 25 people, including 5 doctors, and is well known for the high quality of medical services it provides. The property was sold at a discounted price, due to the poor soils on the site, and the pet hospital will occupy the front two acres of the site, with the city constructing a water quality pond on the rear portion of the site. Commercial 42nd and Quebec Avenue Culver's Restaurant and Office Condominium Proposal - In March 2003, the EDA directed staff to continue coordination with Retail Site Development Services (RSDS) for development of the property. RSDS's development proposal was for two uses: a Culvers restaurant on the westem portion of the site and three office condominium buildings (seven separate ownership units) on the eastern portion of the site. Approval of a final development proposal and purchase aqreement is anticipated this fall. The city has been working for several years to initiate the environmental cleanup process and subsequent commercial redevelopment of this site. Mid America Financial Plaza - The former Prudential building at 9220 Bass Lake Road is being renovated to a multi-tenant office building and significant interior construction changes are currently underway. The remodeled building will have space for five or six office tenants and features an intedor common space atrium with a water feature and skylights. Extedor site improvements completed in 2002 included new parking areas, a storm water pond, and signage. Sinclair Development - Approval was granted by the City Council in August for a two-phase redevelopment of the Sinclair property at Medicine Lake Road and Highway 169. Construction on phase one, pump islands and canopy, will begin next spring. A new convenience store and car wash are also planned in 2004. HousinR Multiple Family Woodbridge Senior Cooperative - 5700 Boone Avenue - The Planning Commission and City Council considered this proposal in May and approved construction of a four story 82-unit owner-occupied senior cooperative to be built on the vacant property east of Chardon Court. Construction is to start later this fall, with completion in spring 2004. 7610 Bass Lake Road - The city is assisted with this 11-unit apartment rehabilitation project located at 7610 Bass Lake Road. The project is complete and an open house was held October 29th. In 2002, Project for Pride in Living, a non-profit affordable housing developer, successfully purchased the building and structured the project financing. Significant building and site improvements and the addition of garages were completed this summer. Project partners include: Minnesota Public Housing Authority, Hennepin County HOME, Hennepin County CDBG, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, PPL, NCRC and the City of New Hope. Single Family 10. 7105 62nd and 6151 Louisiana Avenue - Construction is complete on a new accessible/adaptable twinhome at the very northeast corner of New Hope. The Council authorized the purchase of this property in the fall of 2000 as part of the city's Scattered Site Housing Program. Rehabilitation of the home was not feasible; therefore, the Council directed staff to construct an accessible twinhome on the site. Federal funds were used to acquire the property and to clear the site. Also, federal funds will be available for down payment assistance. Proceeds from the sale will fund the construction. The adaptable unit has been sold and the accessible unit has an offer pending. 11. 4317 Nevada Avenue - In April 2003, the City Council approved the purchase of the subject property for $83,000. The property was approved as part of the city's Scattered Site Housing Program. Federal funds were used for the purchase and site clearing of the property. The property will be landbanked for future redevelopment. Public 12. St. Joseph's Church - The Planning Commission and the City Council considered plans for the church expansion in June. Construction beqan in Auqust and is currently underway. The request also includes a subdivision of the property to allow future residential development of approximately six lots. The city started a utility project in conjunction with the church's building expansion. The project consists of a new water main along the church's south property line and improvements to the storm water system in this area, which will eventually be tied into a new regional water quality pond. 13. Noise Wall - The Minnesota Department of Transportation's contractor is currently in the process of constructing a noise wall between 36th and 30th avenues along Highway 169. Development Projects Map - Last updated on 10/30/2003 BROOKLYN PARK D . E . F . G . H 13 .- CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2003 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL CONSENT BUSINESS Present: Barrick, Buggy, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen Absent: Anderson, Brauch, Hemken Also Present: Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC03-13 Item 4.1 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Review and Discussion of Temporary Signs in Boulevard Study and Recommendations From the Citizen Advisory Commission and Codes and Standards Committee, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, explained that this discussion pertained to new regulations for garage sale and open house signage. Currently, the ordinance addresses garage sales under public convenience and directional signs, and that small signs not exceeding two square feet can be displayed on private property for the convenience of the public. These signs are required to have the name and address of the person(s) erecting the sign. Garage and rummage sale signs shall not be erected more than five days before or maintained more than one day after the sale. Open house signs shall not be erected more than one day before or maintained more than one day after the open house event. Code language regarding the location of the signs states that except for governmental signs, no sign shall be erected or temporarily placed within a street right-of-way or upon public lands, easements or rights- of-way. Under these rules, a number of violations have occurred and the City Council directed staff to enforce the code, which raised a lot of controversy within the community. It was determined that the rules could be clarified. The Citizen Advisory Commission reviewed the ordinance, took public comments, and made recommendations for changes. The modifications include definitions for bench signs, directional, garage sale and open house signs. Criteria have been outlined for benches, directional, garage sale and open house signage. The CAC made recommendations to change the sign code. Sign area was increased from two square feet to six square feet to allow better visibility from the street, and the sign height should be limited to three feet. Currently, the code requires that the sign display the month/day/year and the address of the event. Discussion ensued regarding including the name of the person(s) having the event, however, the consensus was that a name was not necessary on the sign. Code now states that signs must not be placed in the boulevard right-of-way. The boulevard is the area from the curb back 15 feet to the property line. This has been modified to allow signs to be set back 10 feet from the curb. Brixius added that the building official maintained that a 10-foot setback would be sufficient to avoid traffic visibility issues. Current code maintains that, other than governmental signs, such signs shall not be located on municipal property or on property owned by the school district. The current code states that no signs should be posted on utility poles, fences or trees. No signs should be posted on vehicles or trailers located on the street. Signs posted on property other than the premises on which the sale is conducted shall have the permission of the property owner. This mainly refers to corner properties where several signs could collect on any given day and the property owner should have an opportunity to say whether or not a sign is placed on their yard. Posting of garage sale signs shall be permitted one day prior to the sale, during the sale, and all such signs shall be removed one day after the garage sale is complete. This is a change from the current ordinance, which allows the posting of signs five days prior to the sale and one day after the sale. The first draft of the ordinance recommended three days prior to the sale and the CAC recommended the posting of signs one day before the event. Brixius mentioned that different standards could be considered with regard to open house signs. Six square feet in area was retained as well as the three foot height requirement. Most open house signs are preprinted, therefore, the date could be eliminated. Open house signs may be posted only during the open house event. The balance of the requirements are the same as garage sales. Brixius added that currently all zoning violations are a misdemeanor. It was felt that level of enforcement was too excessive and sign ordinance violations should be addressed as a petty misdemeanor. Any signs in violation of the code may be removed and disposed of by the city. Brixius stated that a zoning ordinance amendment would also be considered. In 2000, when the zoning ordinance was updated, there was a provision for temporary sales related to commercial uses. Staff was recommending reinstating temporary sales, including garage sales, be inserted back into the zoning ordinance. No permit or license would be required, and sales would be limited to no more than three sales per property per year, not exceeding three consecutive days each, and garage sale signs must comply with the provisions of the New Hope Building and Sign Code. Brixius pointed out the graphic included in the packet would be utilized for news releases to provide additional information on where signs can and cannot be placed. Commissioner Svendsen requested clarification on sign height being three feet from the ground to the top of the sign. This height restriction would apply to open house signs as well as garage sale signs. The date requirement would not be required on open house signs. Commissioner Buggy added that open house signs are directional in stature and there was no room for an address. Brixius indicated that requirement could be modified. Commissioner O'Brien questioned whether the 10-foot setback was workable for open house signs. Commissioners Oelkers and Buggy responded that the 10-foot setback was workable at this time of the year, and that during the winter months, the signs would not be seen if placed 10 feet back, which could be behind a snow bank. Generally, open house signs were only up for two to three hours. Brixius stated that the suggested change was for placement in the right-of-way, which does not exist in the current code. Modifications to the recommendations from CAC could be made. O'Brien suggested the 10-foot requirement be modified so signs could be placed closer to the street and the exposure greater for anyone selling their home. Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, stated that any setback imposed should be consistent for garage sale and open house signage. Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the length of time garage sale Planning Commission Meeting 2 October 7, 2003 and open house signage could be posted. Oelkers indicated that one of his for sale signs located 14 feet eight inches from the curb had been removed by a city inspector and questioned where those signs were addressed in the code. Brixius maintained that the right-of-way or boulevard area was considered to be15 feet, and it was now recommended to reduce the sign setback to 10 feet to increase visibility from the street. Oelkers recommended that an open house sign be located five feet from the curb, but not on the sidewalk. His reasoning was that an open house sign was out for a limited amount of time, where a garage sale sign could be out for four or five days. Oelkers indicated that he felt the city was being too governmental on the public right-of-way due to the fact that property owners had to maintain the property. If, for example, a dead tree had to be taken down in the boulevard, the city only paid half of the cost, and if a homeowner wanted to remove a tree in the boulevard, they had to pay the entire cost. Commissioner Svendsen raised the issue of "home for sale or lease" signs. Brixius stated that this type of sign was addressed in another section of the code. The general provisions portion of the zoning code states that these signs cannot be located in the rights-of-way. Sondrall added that the current code does not allow temporary signs in the boulevard or right-of-way. This code amendment would try to clarify exactly where signs could be placed. Commissioner Buggy questioned why the city was prohibiting signage in the public right-of-way. The roadway is public and everyone can use it. He stated he felt that as long as the signs weren't too big, he did not buy into the statement about safety and blocking traffic, as a three-foot sign would not block a car coming down the street. As a realtor, he stated it was difficult to go to several different houses and hope that someone would be home to ask about putting a sign on their lawn. Realtors put the signs in an accessible, visible spot, which many times is in the public right-of-way. Buggy stated he did not understand why public property was so off limits to the small signs. Commissioner Barrick stated that the three-foot height limit had been inserted into the draft so that the signs would not be a traffic hazard. She added that she lives on a corner lot and did not find a problem with open house signs. The signs are professionally made and realtors always pick up the signs. Many times garage sale signs are just left after the sale, and property owners are forced to clean up after others. Barrick maintained that the distance from the curb, whether 10 feet, as recommended, or five feet did not matter to her. Buggy stressed that some intersections were not conducive to signage ten feet from the curb, with landscaping or steep depressions on the other side of the sidewalk. Oelkers pointed out that a three-foot height limitation for the signs would not be as intrusive at some intersections in the city as telephone poles, landscaping and mailboxes that are allowed in the right-of-way, which obstruct traffic. He stressed that he would like to see the setback for these temporary signs at five feet. Landy asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. Ms. Juanita Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue North, approached the podium. Ms. Hoff raised the issue of political signs. Chairman Landy responded that political signs were regulated by the state, as to size, location and the length of time to be posted. She questioned how big a problem garage sale signs were and she added that anyone holding a garage sale wants to place their sign on a busy street. Landy responded that several residents had approached the City Council about the enforcement of this section of the code, and the Council Planning Commission Meeting 3 October 7, 2003 then directed staff and the commissions to study the sign code. He stated, in his opinion, it was a waste of the Commission's time. Brixius interjected that the signage was not the biggest issue as opposed to the maintenance and enforcement of the code. The City Council directed staff to be more proactive in enforcing the code, therefore, all code violations are enforced. At this time, no signs are allowed in the boulevard, and any signage placed there can be removed by staff. Through this study, recommendations are being made to clarify the code and potentially make changes. Mr. Sondrall added that the ordinance was not being enforced just for the sake of the ordinance enforcement. There were problems with signage in violation of the code, either too large or placed improperly. There have been complaints from citizens having signs placed in their yards without permission. Sondrall stated that no particular accident could be cited as a result of diminished visibility due to a sign. The Council had directed staff to take a proactive approach in addressing these issues and as a result have irritated some residents. This study was attempting to clarify the ordinance so that everyone understood the expectations. Once the expectation was understood, the problem would go away. A specific distance should be established so residents and staff know the expectations. Ms. Gennifer Heuisler, 6120 Ensign Avenue North, next approached the podium. She stated she had attended the CAC meetings where public comment was taken, wrote a letter to the City Council, and collected signatures on a petition. Ms. Heuisler stated that she felt the signs should be enforced on a complaint only basis. She felt that there would be a bigger traffic hazard with the signs placed 15 feet back from the curb. Heuisler pointed out that property owners have to maintain the boulevard and the public should be able to utilize the boulevard for three or four days, during the short "garage sale season." It would be difficult for those holding the garage sale to knock on doors to get permission from corner lot property owners. For her garage sale, she stated she spent about $50 on materials for signs and wanted to use them again another year, therefore, she would prefer that the date would not be required on the sign. She stated she felt that it was wrong for inspectors to remove the signs during the garage sale if residents did not know the ordinance was to be enforced. Residents should have been given a chance to move the sign rather than the city inspectors just taking them. If the sign was not removed after the sale, the offender could be fined. She, too, felt that three to five feet from the curb was better than 10 to 15 feet. Heuisler stated that the sign issue, along with other issues, was the impetus for one neighbor to move out of New Hope. She added that she lives on a corner lot and had never had a problem with signs in her yard. She reiterated that enforcement should be on a complaint basis, or don't enforce it at all, and if no enforcement was done, why have the code. If enforced, it should be enforced consistently for everyone. In other meetings, the inspector had indicated that he addressed code violations in between other inspections as he had time. She stated she felt it was not fair to penalize some residents and not others. There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Buggy to close the Public Hearing on Planning Case 03-13. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner Oelkers stated for the record that he felt this study of garage sale and open house signs was a complete waste of time, effort, and money. MOTION Item 4.1 Motion by Commissioner Barrick to approve Planning Case 03-13, Review and Discussion of Temporary Signs in Boulevard Study and Planning Commission Meeting 4 October 7, 2003 Recommendations From the Citizen Advisory Commission and Codes and Standards Committee, An Ordinance Amending Section 3-40 of the New Hope Building and Sign Regulations, City of New Hope, Petitioner, subject to the following change: 1. Section 2.d.ii. Modify open house signs to eliminate the requirement for a date and address of the event. 2. Section 2.d.iii. Change the setback area to five feet for open house signs. 3. Section 2.c.iii. Change the setback area to five feet for garage sale signs. A question was raised as to why a sign could not be posted on a fence and the answer was that this related to someone else's fence, not the property owner. Signs were not allowed on utility poles due to safety reasons. Commissioner Buggy suggested that language be changed in Section 2.c.viii to read that garage sale signs be removed at the close of the sale rather than the next day. Brixius clarified that with the five-foot setback signs could not be placed on a public sidewalk, but rather five feet from the curb or behind the sidewalk. The open house signs should be a maximum of three feet in height. Brixius asked to clarify all provisions: 1. Section 2.c.i. Such signs shall not exceed six square feet in area or three feet in height. The height of the sign shall be measured from the top of the sign to the ground. 2. Section 2.c.ii. Such signs shall show, clearly imprinted, the days of the week of the event and the address of the event. 3. Section 2.c.iii. Such signs shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the back of the curb and not be located on the public sidewalk. 4. Section 2.c.iv. Such signs shall not be located on municipal property or upon property owned by the school district. 5. Section 2.c.v. No signs shall be posted on utility poles, fences or trees. 6. Section 2.c.vi. No signs shall be posted on vehicles or trailers located on the street. 7. Section 2.c.vii. All signs that are posted on property other than the premises on which the sale is conducted shall have permission from the property owner. 8. Section 2.c.viii. Posting of garage sale signs shall be permitted one day prior to the sale, during the sale event, and all such signs shall be removed at close of sale. 9. Section 2.d.i. Such sign shall not exceed six square feet in area or three feet in height. 10. Section 2.d.ii. Eliminate in its entirety. 11. Section 2.d.iii. Such signs shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the back of the curb and not be located on the public sidewalk. 12. Section 2.d.iv. Such signs shall not be located on municipal property or upon property owned by the school district. 13. Section 2.d.v. No signs shall be posted on utility poles, fences or trees. 14. Section 2.d.vi. No signs shall be posted on vehicles or trailers located on the street. 15. Section 2.d.vii. All signs that are posted on property other than the premises on which the sale is conducted shall have permission from the property owner. 16. Section 2.d.viii. Open house signs may be posted only during the open house event. Planning Commission Meeting 5 October 7, 2003 Motion Second Original Motion Design and Review Committee Item 5.1 Codes and Standards Committee Item 5.2 OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Oelkers questioned why a sign could not be placed on school district or municipal property. Brixius stated that language is in the current code. A suggestion was made that provisions 2.c.iv and 2.d.iv regarding municipal property or school district property be removed. Motion by Commissioner Oelkers, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien to amend the provisions as read by Mr. Brixius, except delete provisions 2.c.iv and 2.d.iv. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Barrick, Buggy, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen None Anderson, Brauch, Hemken Commissioner Buggy seconded the original motion made by Commissioner Barrick. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Barrick, Buggy, Landy, O'Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen None Anderson, Brauch, Hemken Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on October 27. Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee did not meet in September. Barrick reported that the Codes and Standards Committee met in August to provide recommendations on the temporary sign issue. Landy reported that the City Center Task Force would be meeting on October 9. Brixius added that the task force would be reviewing comments from the open house, discussing design guidelines, implementation strategies, and outlining the next steps in the process. The Commission briefly discussed the Navarre, Woodbridge, and Sinclair projects. Motion was made by Commissioner Svendsen, seconded by Commissioner Barrick, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 6, 2003. All voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council minutes were reviewed. On behalf of all the commissioners, Landy extended his deepest sympathy to Kirk McDonald on the recent loss of his father. He also announced the city's 50t~ anniversary celebration open house to be held at city hall on Saturday, October 11, from noon to 3 p.m. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:05 p.m. . ~l~ectfully submitted, ~ Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting 6 October 7, 2003 City Council Minutes Regular Meeting CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 September 22, 2003 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OPEN FORUM ROTATING VOTES CONSENTAGENDA MOTION Consent Items BUSINESS LICENSES Item 6.1 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: Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Shaft French, Director of Parks & Recreation Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works Valerie Leone, City Clerk Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Daryl Sulander, Director of Finance Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2003. Voting in favor: Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; Voting Against: None; Abstained: Enck; Absent: None. Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to approve the Work Session Minutes of August 28, 2003. Voting in favor: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth; Voting Against: None; Abstained: Sommer; Absent: None. Motion carried. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Collier, to approve the Work Session Minutes of September 15, 2003. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Ms. Juanita Hoff, 4632 Flag Avenue North, acknowledged that she attended the September 18 Open House for the City Center Redevelopment. She asked questions related to the presentation. 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 6.5 was removed for discussion later in the meeting. Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to approve all remaining items on the Consent Agenda. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Approval of Business License(s). September 22, 2003 FINANCIAL CLAIMS Item 6.2 RESOLUTION 03-136 Item 6.4 RESOLUTION 03-137 Item 6.6 RESOLUTION 03-138 Item 6.7 RESOLUTION 03-139 Item 6.8 APPROVAL/2 POLICE INTERCEPTORS Item 6.9 APPROVAL/POOL PAINTING ltem 6.10 RESOLUTION 03-140 Item 6.11 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Item 8.1 RESOLUTION 03-141 Item 8.1 REVENUE BONDS Item 8.2 Approval of financial claims through September 22, 2003. Resolution approving premises permit renewal application allowing West Metro Fire-Rescue District Relief Association to conduct lawful gambling at New Hope Bowl & Lounge, Inc. Resolution approving time extension requested by Navarre Corporation to file final plat (planning case 03-01). Resolution supporting Three Rivers Park District implementation of trails, greenways and parks in the first tier communities. Resolution supporting PRISM's first annual sleep out for national hunger and homelessness awareness week, November 15 through November 22, 2003. Approval of bid from Superior Ford for two 2004 Ford crown Victoria police interceptors in the amount of $25,141 per vehicle. Approval of Quote for Painting Work to be Done at the Pool by Dolphin Pool and Spa for $11,800. Resolution approving time extension requested by David Thompson to file final plat (planning case 03-07). Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Resolution approving special legislation governing the use of tax increment financing by the city within a designated area of the city. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the city requested that special legislation be approved by the 2003 Minnesota State Legislature to assist with redevelopment activities in the Livable Communities area. The special legislation relates to rules governing the use of tax increment financing by the city and will provide flexibility necessary for the redevelopment of the Bass Lake Corridor. The city must adopt the resolution as the first step in the process. The legislation will then be submitted to Hennepin County for approval and subsequent actions will be required by the city. Mayor Enck commended staff on their involvement in obtaining the special legislation. Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL LEGISLATION GOVERNING THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING BY THE CITY WITHIN A DESIGNATED AREA OF THE CITY". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier; Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of health care facilities revenue bonds (St. Therese Home, Inc Projec0, in one or more series, and authorizing the execution of necessary documents. New Hope City Council Page 2 September 22, 2003 RESOLUTION 03-142 Item 8.2 ELECTRONIC IMAGING Item 10.1 New Hope City Council Page 3 Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Commumty Development, explained that this a resolution providing final approval for the issuance of tax exempt revenue bonds for St. Therese Home, Inc. He stated the public hearing was conducted on July 28. The fn'm of Dorsey & Whimey has been coordinating the application. He reported that debt service on the bonds will be payable solely from payments to be made by St. Therese and the city will not have any liability with respect to the bonds. The city will receive a fee equal to one-half of 1% of the principal amount of the bonds in accordance with the city's policy. Mayor Enck noted the action will permit St. Therese to capture the lower interest rate. Councilmember Cassen announced that she serves on the Board of St. Therese Home, and therefore will be abstaining from the vote. Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF HEALTH CARE FACILITIES REVENUE BONDS (ST. THERESE HOME, INC PROJECT), IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS". 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, Collier; Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: Cassen; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Resolution authorizing the acquisition and funding of an electronic imaging records management system and participation in a cooperative fiber optics network with the Robbinsdale Area School District. Mr. Daryl Sulander, Director of Finance, explained that the request is for approval of a three part project for the acquisition of the Laserfiche electronic records management software as quoted by Cities Digital Solutions, the acquisition of the required equipment for its operation priced by competitive bids coordinated through LOGIS, and the participation with many public entities as coordinated by the Robbinsdale Area School District, in a high speed fiber optics data network to link city facilities with LOGIS, other LOGIS member cities, and many connections into the furore. Mr. Sulander stated the city of New Hope has been a member city of the LOGIS consortium since 1987 for sharing data processing services. The consortium has grown in scope and sophistication over time as the technology and demands for electronic data and now electronic image transmission has become a necessity to conduct business. The cooperative efforts and long-range business planning of the many member cities continues. The city's data network and information systems are an evolving tool in this long-range plan, and the sharing of common fiber optic network segments with the local school district is consistent with the long-standing practice of cooperative efforts. Several of the city's goals support the ongoing investment in technology and the key support functions the network provides to all city departments. The fiber optic network project and the records imaging system project are key parts of the long- range support for these goals. Mr. Sulander emphasized the need to utilize technology for records storage purposes. He reported that the city clerk and IT coordinator have been working together to review several records imaging systems. The city's plan would phase in September 22, 2003 New Hope City Council Page 4 departmental participation, starting slowly with key records from the administration and police departments, and expanding into other departments in phases to build the comprehensive system over time. The preferred software selection is Laserfiche provided by Cities Digital Solutions based on reference checking and user feedback from several cities. This selection will provide the city with the electronic records management system for efficient storage and retrieval. The necessary server and workstation equipment and imtial supplies for the system will be acquired either through LOGIS, or Office Depot, not through the software vendor. The acquisition cost for the software, scanner, licensing and first year maintenance is $33,671.57. Acquisition of equipment (including a system server, workstation, and monitor) is estimated at $20,286. The estimated cost of the cooperative fiber optic data network project is $133,146. Mr. Sulander explained that the fiber optic data network project at the Robbinsdale Area School District is proceeding towards the installation phase of the project. The school district has been working closely with LOGIS and the cities within the school district boundaries to share in the installation, routing, investment, maintenance and ultimate use of the common segments of the fiber optic network. As the project coordinator, the school district has received the construction bids for the installation of the network. The individual segments outside of the school district needs, which would serve city or county facilities, were bid as alternates. The construction period is set for Fall 2003 through early Summer 2004. The project is divided into four segments for the city's network services. The first two segments would 1) connect New Hope city hall to Crystal city hall, and 2) connect Crystal city hall and New Hope to LOGIS through a shared segment. The New Hope cost for the two segments total $31,572, and are the most critical segments for our portion of the project. The other two New Hope segments connect city hall to the golf course and the golf course to the public works facility, which in mm provides the connection from city hall to public works. These segments total $89,574. Staff also proposes a contingency allocation of $12,000. The use of the fiber optic network for our data transmission will provide increased speed and increased volume of data transmission between the city facilities and LOGIS, as well as other governmental facilities and entities, and increased speed and data transmission via the intemet. Both of these needs will become more critical as the new public safety software for the police department comes on line in late 2004 or early 2005, and as the city takes advantage of e-commerce, such as the online pennits. The fiber optic network will replace the data connections between city facilities and LOGIS via the telephone lines, thereby eliminating specific telephone service charges for T1 data lines to LOGIS. Although this is not the main reason for the project, it does provide operating cost savings of $400 to $500 per month. The school district will provide all repairs and maintenance for 24 by 7 service, locates and relocates, and pole rentals through a 20-year agreement. Funding for the data network enhancements has been provided through the CIP on an annual basis since 1996, and without interest earnings credit, the balance accumulated through 2003 is $140,088. The 2004-2005 operating savings would be used to assist in the project funding. He stated additional funding of $40,000 from the 2004 CIP would be required to fully fund the two projects. The council pointed out the benefits of sharing information between facilities. Councilmember Collier noted the on-going cost savings of up to $6,000 per year based on the elimination of the T1 data lines. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth September 22, 2003 RESOLUTION 03-143 Item 10.1 MINNESOTA CITIES WEEK Item 10.2 RESOLUTION 03-144 Item 10.2 CONSENT ITEM REMOVED IMP. PROJECT 755 Item 6.5 MOTION/OBTAIN APPRAISAL Item 6.5 COMMUNICATIONS Item 12.1 New Hope City Council Page 5 questioned the action plan after the agreement expires in 20 years. Mr. Sulander stated a 20-year period would probably exceed the technology. He noted system enhancements may be made during the projected 20-year life cycle, and decisions regarding the system will occur in the furore as necessary. Councilmember Gwin- Lenth noted this project exemplifies cooperation between entities. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION AND FUNDING OF AN ELECTRONIC IMAGING RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND PARTICIPATION IN A COOPERATIVE FIBER OPTICS NETWORK WITH THE ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT". 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 10.2, Resolution proclaiming October 5-11, 2003, as Minnesota Cities Week. The council supported joining cities across the state and the League of Minnesota Cities in declaring October 5-11 as Minnesota Cities Week. Mayor Enck stated the city's 50th anniversary open house is scheduled for Saturday, October 11, which coincides with Minnesota Cities Week. He invited members of the community to attend the open house from noon to 3 p.m. Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION PROCLAIM/NG OCTOBER 5-11, 2003, AS MINNESOTA CITIES WEEK". 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 the consent item that was removed for discussion, Item 6.5, Motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 5440 Winnetka Avenue North (improvement project no. 755). Councilmember Sommer inquired whether the city is utilizing a different appraisal fu-m than in the past. Mr. McDonald confmmed that staff has been working with a different company. Councilmember Cassen noted the current appraisal fu'm is highly recommended. Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 5440 Winnetka Avenue North (improvement project no. 755). All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Exchange of communication between members of the city council. Ma_M.g3~r Enck · Directed staff to call to Hennepin County's attention the high disparity on the 8113 Bass Lake Road property that was purchased in August of 2000 for $177,000 and has a market value of $212,000 and an appraised value of $339,000. · Invited the community to Navarre Corporation's ground breaking ceremony September 22, 2003 ADJOURNMENT scheduled for September 24 at 1:30 pm · Commented that the City Center Redevelopment Open House held on September 18 was well attended; and the Livable Communities Task Force has already accomplished a substantial amount of work. · Invited the community to the 12th annual Mayor's Prayer Breakfast planned for Friday, October 31. Councilmember Collier · Reminded the Council of the September 29 Work Session to discuss the budget Councilmember Gwin-Lenth · Announced that the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission has planned a special meeting to discuss concerns brought forth by cities regarding the draft of the 2na Generation Plan. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth indicated that she and Vince VanderTop will be meeting to prepare a letter outlining New Hope's concerns. Mayor Enck asked Councilmember Gwin- Lenth to notify the council prior to such a meeting. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope City Council adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk New Hope City Council Page 6 September 22, 2003 City Council Minutes Regular Meeting CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 October 13, 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 New Hope City Council Page 1 The New Hope City Council met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Mayor Pro tem Cassen 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: Sharon Cassen, Mayor Pro tem Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember Steve Sommer, Councilmember Council Absent: W. Peter Enck, Mayor Don Collier, Councilmember Staff Present: Jerry Beck, Communications Coordinator Doug Debner, Assistant City Attorney Dan Donahue, City Manager Ken Doresky, Commumty Development Assistant Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works Valerie Leone, City Clerk Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Vince VanderTop, Assistant City Engineer Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2003, and the Work Session Minutes of September 29, 2003. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Barb Lopata, Paula Deckman, and Jo Walter described programs offered by Senior Commumty Services Juanita Hoff, 4632 Flag Avenue North, commented on the proposed city center redevelopment and expressed opposition to the demolition of Unique Thrift Store located within the New Hope Shopping Center. She presented a list containing several names of persons who supported retention of the thrift store at its present location. 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 Pro tem Cassen introduced the consent items as listed for consideration and stated that all items will be enacted by one motion unless requested that an item be removed for discussion. Items 6.9 and 6.10 were removed for discussion later in the meeting. Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to approve all remaining items on the Consent Agenda. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. October 13, 2003 FINANCIAL CLAIMS Item 6.2 IMP. PROJECT 755 Item 6.4 IMP. PROJECT 756 Item 6.5 MOTION/WAIVE FEES Item 6.6 RESOLUTION 03-145 Item 6.7 RESOLUTION 03-146 Item 6.8 PUBLIC HEARING Item 7.1 CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Item 7.1 RESOLUTION 03-147 Item 7.1 RESOLUTION 03-148 Item 7.1 New Hope City Council Page 2 Approval of financial claims through October 13, 2003. Motion authorizing staff to negotiate the potential purchase of 5440 Winnetka Avenue North based on its appraised value of $220,000 (improvement project no. 755). Motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of 7601 Bass Lake Road Extension (improvement project no. 756). Motion to waive fees for ten special event signs for 2003 Cooper craft sale. Resolution approving the participation agreement with the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association for the use of MJNO (multiple jurisdiction network organization) by the police department. Resolution accepting easement for the TH 169 storm sewer project (improvement project no. 717). Mayor Pro tem Cassen introduced for discussion Item 7.1, Assessment hearing for 2003 delinquent weed removal and utility service charges. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, stated there are__ accounts totaling $ in delinquent utility service charges and one account for $218.13 in delinquent weed removal that will be assessed to the property tax rolls. All affected property owners were notified of the hearing. Mayor Pro tem Cassen inquired of the percentage of delinquent accounts that may be rental property. Mr. Donahue reported that he did not have an exact count but ultimately the property owner is responsible for the delinquent utility bills. Councilmember Sommer asked how this year's figure compared to last year. Mr. Donahue reported that last year the city certified $55,080.21 for 124 properties. There was no one present in the audience to address the council. Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR 2003 WEED REMOVAL CHARGES". 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: Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Enck, Collier; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor pro tem which was attested to by the city clerk. Councilmember Sommer introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR 2003 DELINQUENT UTILITY SERVICE CHARGES". 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: Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Enck, Collier; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the October 13, 2003 IMP. PROJECT 724 Item 8.1 RESOLUTION 03-149 Item 8.1 IMP. PROJECT 626 Item 8.2 RESOLUTION 03-150 Item 8.2 New Hope City Council Page 3 mayor pro tem which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Pro tem Cassen introduced for discussion Item 8.1, A resolution calling for a public heating on the modification of the restated redevelopment plan for redevelopment project no. 1; modification of the tax increment financing districts nos. 80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1 and 02-1; creation of tax increment financing district no. 03-1 (special law) and adoption of a tax increment financing plan relating thereto (improvement project no. 724). Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated the resolution will establish a public hearing on December 8, 2003, to consider modification on the restated redevelopment plan and existing tax increment plan. Mayor Pro tem Cassen reported that she and the city manager recently met with Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat to introduce the resolution and to explain the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue area. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MODIFICATION OF THE RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1; MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 80-2, 81-1, 82-1, 85-1, 85-2, 86-1 AND 02-1; CREATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 03-1 (SPECIAL LAW) AND ADOPTION OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 724)." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Enck, Collier; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor pro tern which was attested'to by the city clerk. Mayor Pro tern Cassen introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Resolution declaring costs to be assessed, ratifying the preparation of a proposed assessment and calling for a public hearing in connection with street infrastructure improvement no. 626 (36t~ Avenue infrastructure improvements). Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, stated the 36th avenue reconstruction project is complete. Under the city's new assessment policy, assessments are to be levied against benefited tax-exempt properties. No residential properties will be assessed. The total cost for the street portion of the project is $1,488,015.64 with an assessment rate per foot of $155.65. The project included two tax-exempt properties (the city of New Hope for $7,782.50, and St. Joseph's Church for $88,720.50). Mr. Donahue explained that the public hearing will be held on November 10, 2003. Councilmember Sommer inquired whether the church is aware of the amount of assessment. Mr. Donahue stated discussions have taken place for a couple of years and church administration is aware of the assessment. The city will mail a formal notice notifying the church of the amount and public hearing date. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED, RATIFYING THE PREPARATION OF A PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH STREET INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT NO. 626 (36TM AVENUE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS),,. The motion for the adoption of October 13, 2003 IMP. PROJECT 753 Item 8.3 the foregoing resolution was seconded by CounciLmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Enck, Collier; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor pro tern which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Pro tem Cassen introduced for discussion Item 8.3, Motion to proceed with a written offer to purchase the property at 5500 Winnetka Avenue North for staff's recommended purchase price of no more than $200,000 (improvement project no. 753). Mr. Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, explained that on September 8, 2003, the council authorized staff to negotiate the purchase of the property. The property owner was requesting $205,000, but is willing to accept $200,000. The city's appraisal dated August 19 valued the property at $180,000. The transaction would not involve payment of relocation benefits that could cost up to $20,000. Mr. Doresky reviewed the various appraisals and issues expressed by the property owner. Mayor Pro tem Cassen pointed out that the market dictates the sales price and the county assessor's estimated market value has not kept pace. She also noted that appraisals conducted for refinancing purposes are oftentimes inflated. The council expressed support for purchasing the property at 5500 Winnetka from the willing seller. MOTION TO PROCEED Item 8.3 Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to proceed with a written offer to purchase the property at 5500 Winnetka Avenue North for staff's recommended purchase price of no more than $200,000 (improvement project no. 753). All present voted in favor. Motion carried. IMP. PROJECT 677 Item 8.4 Mayor Pro tem Cassen introduced for discussion Item 8.4, Council consideration and discussion regarding a written offer to purchase the fire damaged four-plex apartment building located at 8113 Bass Lake Road for the property owner's requested price of $286,190.28 (improvement project no. 677). Mr. Ken Doresky, Commumty Development Specialist, explained that staff requests Council consideration of a motion authorizing staff to proceed with a written offer to purchase the fire damaged four-plex apartment property located at 8113 Bass Lake Road for the property owner's requested price of $286,190.28. Ultimately, the owner is seeking $365,000, but will be receiving $78,809.72 in an insurance settlement, therefore is requesting the difference of $286,190.28 from the city. The requested total of $365,000 is $26,000 more than the appraised value of $339,000 completed by Forsythe Appraisals on August 7, 2003. The property is currently vacant and uninhabitable, therefore relocation benefits ranging from $7,200 to $53,400 would not be applicable in this transaction. The Council considered this request on September 9, and directed staff to continue negotiations with the owner. The Council expressed interest in purchasing the property, but was not supportive of the requested sales price. The Council indicated a willingness to pay an amount equal to the appraised value including the insurance settlement. Also, for that price, the Council stated that they would allow the owner to salvage any material inside the building. New Hope City Council Page 4 Mr. Doresky reported that the owner is unwilling to negotiate the requested price. The property owner has asked that if the requested terms are not acceptable to the October 13, 2003 MOTION/POSTPONE DISCUSSION Item 8.4 IMP. PROJECT 677 Item 8.5 FIREWORKS LICENSE FEES Item 10.1 ORDINANCE 03-23 Item 10.1 SAFETY CAMP VOLUNTEERS New Hope City Council Page 5 Council, that an exemption be considered to Ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending Section 1.5(I) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force adopted on July 28, 2003. The request for an exemption to Ordinance 03-17 is being presented at tonight's meeting as a separate item. Mayor Pro tem Cassen questioned the increase of the 2003 estimated market value and 2004 estimated market value ($212,000 and $292,000, respectively). Mr. Doresky reported that the county assessor indicated rental values are rapidly rising at a rate of 20% per year. Based on the 2004 estimated market value and other factors (relocation costs not applicable), Councilmember Gwin-Lenth and Mayor Pro rem Cassen were supportive of purchasing the property for $286,190.28. Councilmember Sommer noted the city's limited redevelopment funds and the lack of a specific plan for this property. He also stated a similar property (8109 Bass Lake Road) recently sold for a much lower price. He indicated he believes the city would be better off to not purchase the property at this time. Mayor Pro tem Cassen recommended postponing action on the item in order to allow for a vote by all five members of the council. Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Cassen, to postpone discussion on items 8.4 and 8.5 to the October 27, 2003, Council meeting. Voting in favor: Cassen, Gwin-Lenth; and the following voted against the same: Sommer; Abstained: None; Absent: Enck, Collier. Motion carried. Mayor Pro tem Cassen introduced for discussion Item 8.5, Consideration of an exemption to ordinance 03-17, an ordinance amending section 1.5(i) regarding the temporary prohibition on all construction and development within the four study areas identified by the Livable Communities Task Force, for the property located at 8113 Bhss Lake Road (improvement project no. 677). The motion contained in Item 8.4 also included action for Item 8.5. Mayor Pro tem Cassen introduced for discussion Item I0.1, Ordinance no. 03-23, an ordinance amending annual fireworks license fee. Mayor Pro tem Cassen indicated this ordinance amendment can be considered a housekeeping item as it relates to the license fee only. In 2002 the city adopted an ordinance regulating the sale of fireworks and establishing an annual license fee of $200. The 2003 Legislature adopted several restrictions limiting a city's ability to regulate "legal fireworks". One of the restrictions is that a city cannot charge a fee greater than $ I00 to businesses that sell fireworks ancillary to their main business. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: "ORDINANCE NO 03-23, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ANNUAL FIREWORKS LICENSE FEE". 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 thereof: Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Enck, Collier; whereupon the ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor pro tern which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Pro tem Cassen introduced for discussion Item 11.1, Resolution Recognizing Safety Camp Volunteers. October 13, 2003 Item 11.1 RESOLUTION 03-151 Item 11.1 CONTRIBUTIONS FOR SAFETY CAMP Item 11.2 Mayor Pro tern Cassen recited the resolution and formally recognized the following volunteers: Andy Bowen, James Halstad, Ben Wagner, Jason Long. Crystal Batta, Justin Crandall, Neal Todd, and Karen Laube. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING SAFETY CAMP VOLUNTEERS". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Enck, Collier; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor pro tem which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Pro tem Cassen introduced for discussion Item 11.2, Acceptance of Contributions for Safety Camp. Mayor Pro tem Cassen acknowledged the following contributions: $500 - New Hope Crime Prevention Fund $500 - Liberty Diversified $200 - Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates $200 - Jensen & Sondrall, P.A. $200 - New Hope Women of Today $100 - Checker Machine $100 - New Hope Lions Club $100 - TIOGA, Inc. $100 - Twin City Poultry The list of services/goods donated include: DJ services for the graduation: Kath Hammerseng - Edina Realty Seven party subs for participants' lunches: Subway Discounted pizzas for participants' lunches: Domino's Pizza It was noted that West Metro Fire/Rescue District Firefighters Relief Association donated $1,250.00, which was officially accepted by Council on May 12, 2003. MOTION/ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS Item 11.2 Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, to accept the contributions for Safety Camp. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. CONSENT ITEM REMOVED SANITARY LIFT STATIONS Item 6.9 Mayor Pro tem Cassen introduced for discussion the consent item that was removed for discussion, Item 6.9, Resolution awarding contract for the renovation of two sanitary sewer lift stations to Ford Construction Company for $9,505. Mr. Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works, explained that the budget only contained $11,000 for this year's improvements. Only one bid was received for the work. Since the bid came in higher than anticipated, the work was scaled back to include renovations to two lift stations rather than three lift stations. He noted the work for the 40-1/2 and Jordan Avenue lift station will be postponed until next year. New Hope City Council Page 6 Mr. Johnson reviewed the scope of the project that consists of the replacement of ladders inside the stations and addition of bypass piping and valves for the two sanitary sewer lift stations. The bypass system will allow the lift station to be operated with a portable generator in the event both of the pumps permanently installed in the lift station fail or lose power at the same time. Similar bypass systems have been installed in eight other New Hope lift stations. Also included in the project is the installation of a platform at the bottom of one of the lift stations. October 13, 2003 RESOLUTION 03-152 Item 6.9 BID/FLOOR COVERINGS AT COMMUNITY ROOM Item 6.10 MOTION Item 6.10 COMMUNICATIONS Item 12.1 ADJOURNMENT New Hope City Council Page 7 The bid by Ford Construction Company for $9,505 will complete the renovations at the 49th Avenue and Erickson Drive lift station and the Bass Creek Circle lift station. Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE RENOVATION OF TWO SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATIONS TO FORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR $9,505". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Cassen, Gwin-Lenth, Sommer; and the following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None: Absent: Enck, Collier; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor pro tern which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Pro tern Cassen introduced for discussion Item 6.10, Approval of quote submitted by Spectra Contract Flooring for replacement of floor coverings in the ice arena community room - $7,802. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, clarified the funding source for the flooring. He stated when the city sold the municipal liquor store a liquor reserve fund was established and designated to fund ice arena and municipal swimming pool improvements. Therefore, the flooring cost of $7,802 will be paid through the liquor reserve fund rather than taxpayer dollars. Motion was made by Councilmember Sommer, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, to approve the quote submitted by Spectra Contract Flooring for replacement of floor coverings in the ice arena community room - $7,802. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Pro tern Cassen introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Exchange of communication between members of the city council. Mayor Pro tern Cassen · Reported on the well attended Open House held October 11 celebrating New Hope's 50th anniversary · Announced that three members of the council will attend a tour of a Ryland Development in Circle Pines on October 16 at 5:30 p.m. · Invited council members to join city staff for the Dorothy Mary Park clean up event on October 14 at 4:45 p.m. · Encouraged residents to attend the New Hope Mayor's Prayer Breakfast on October 31 from 7:00-9:00 am · Congratulated Jeff McFarlane on his retirement - a celebration is planned October 23 Councilmember Sommer · Invited residents to attend one of the upcoming joint water commission open houses (October 14 at Crystal and October 23 at New Hope) .C. ity Manager Donahue · Reported on upcoming meetings/events: October 15 - Twin West Business Council meeting at noon at LDI October 15 - North Metro Mayors' Quarterly Board Meeting at 5 pm at Northland Inn October 16 - meeting with city of Minneapolis regarding water rate negotiations October 17 - Lifetime Fitness Grand Opening celebration October 20 - Council Budget Work Session at 6:00 p.m. Motion was made by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, seconded by Councilmember Sommer, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before October 13, 2003 the Council. All present voted in favor. Council adjourned at 8:24 p.m~ Motion carried. The New Hope City ~gr3~4~ecffully submitted, City Clerk New Hope City Council Page 8 October 13, 2003 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428 EDA Minutes Regular Meeting August 25, 2003 City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVE MINUTES IMP. PROJECT 729 Item 4 MOTION/APPROVE APPRAISAL Item 4 IMP. PROJECT 751 Item 5 New Hope EDA Page 1 President Enck called the meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 8:43 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 Collier, seconded by Commissioner Sommer, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2003. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. President Enck introduced for discussion Item 4, Discussion regarding request by Bear Creek Capital and CVS Pharmacy to authorize appraisal of properties by city at applicant's expense (improvement project no. 729). Director of Community Development, Kirk McDonald, explained that CVS Drag Store has proposed to build a store at the Bass Lake Road and Winnetka intersection. They had earlier requested that the city share the cost of an appraisal with them. They have now revised their proposal so the appraisal would be at their expense. Bill Tipman with Bear Creek Capital came forward. President Enck asked if CVS was interested in the Lyndale property, which is now for sale. Mr. Tipman stated that the Lyndale property is not a part of their phase one. President Enck stated that he hoped they would consider it at this time. Mr. Tipman reiterated that he doesn't believe it would be viable at this time and added that they would like to have the store open by end of 2004. Commissioner Sommer stated his concerns that part of the property proposed for redevelopment is owned by the school district and that Sinclair has long term plans to remain there. He asked where CVS is in discussions with them. Mr. Tipman answered that there is a friendly relationship between the city and school district and if the plan moves forward the District would probably cooperate. President Enck asked for confn-mation that CVS has requested the city to coordinate the appraisal and invoice them. Mr. Tipman responded affirmatively. Commissioner Cassen expressed support for the redevelopment. She noted her desire to see the full picture of what they and other developers would do in relationship to the total development. Motion was made by Commissioner Collier, seconded by Commissioner Cassen, to approve appraisals at the applicant's expense for the commercial property at 7901 Bass Lake Road and the residential property at 5539 Winnetka Avenue North. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. President Enck introduced for discussion Item 5, Resolution authorizing approval of a term sheet between the New Hope Economic Development Authority and Ryland Homes for the redevelopment of the Winnetka Avenue East property (improvement project no. 751). August 25, 2003 EDA RESOLUTION 03-07 Item 5 ADJOURNMENT Mr. McDonald stated that staff and consultants have continued to work with the redevelopers. The city would be paid a land sale price of $12,500 per finished umt. Mr. McDonald illustrated two concept plans. M~'. Jim Casserly, Krass Monroe, was recognized. He stated the term sheet is intended to outline basic terms of what the developer and city are trying to put together. This is not final but is the understanding of both parties, including permits and fees. He asked if there is additional direction tonight from the EDA. It was clarified that the association would be responsible for plowing private drives but not public streets. He stated the plan is to commence in May 2004 and be completed in 18 to 20 months. Mr. Casserly clarified information in the packet and explained that there are three base prices for each model, exclusive of any add-ons that are usually an additional 10 to 15% of price. The EDA discussed pricing. President Enck stated that they meet the assessment the EDA had in mind. Commissioner Cassen made a number of suggestions regarding the base pricing being flexible. She also requested clearer language regarding the mature trees in the area. President Enck stated that tree removal could be subject to staff approval. Commissioner Cassen continued that the area also needs ponding and the plans need more variety. President Enck stated that once the term sheet is approved and staff and Ryland are moving forward, the EDA will have more input. Commissioner Sommer added that more options are better and he encouraged neighborhood site appeal. He also questioned the developer selling twin homes to another developer to sell. President Enck verified with Mr. Casserly that the city would have one contract with Ryland who will have contracts with other builders. All agreed that the development needs variety and must be attractive. Commissioner Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF A TERM SHEET BETWEEN THE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND RYLAND HOMES FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WINNETKA AVENUE EAST PROPERTY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 751)." The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Commissioner Sommer, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, 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 Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Sommer, to adjourn the meeting. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope EDA adjourned at 9:32 p.m. R~. p ectfully~, ubmitted, Eve Lomaistro Human Resources Coordinator New Hope EDA Page 2 August 25, 2003