020601 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2001
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:00 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.1
6.1
6.2
7.
7.1
8.
8.1
8.2
9.
10.
CALL TO ORDER
OATH OF OFFICE
ROLL CALL
CONSENT BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING
Case 00-18
An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Regarding Subdivision and
Platting in Conformity with Changes to Minn. Stat. §462.358, City of New
Hope, Petitioner
COMMI'I-I'EE REPORTS
Report of Design & Review Committee
Report of Codes & Standards Committee
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of October 3, 2000
Review of City Council Minutes of January 8, 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: February 6, 2001
Report Date: February 2, 2001
00-18
City of New Hope
City-wide
Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Regarding Subdivision and Platting in
Conformity with Changes to Minn. Stat. §462.358
I. Request
The City of New Hope is requesting consideration of an Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code
Regarding Subdivision and Platting in Conformity with Changes to Minn. Stat. {}462.358.
II, Zoning Code References
This request applies to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code, Subdivision and Platting.
A. Background
In October 2000, Hennepin County informed the City that they were making three changes to its plat
review process. These changes include:
1) Submittal process, schedule, and response time.
2) Additional required plat review information.
3) Demonstration of the City's response to County comments on the plat and dispute resolution.
This information was submitted to the City Attorney and Planning Consultant for review and
recommendations, and their reports and correspondence are attached to this report. The City needs to
make some minor amendments to the current Subdivision and Platting Ordinance to bring it into
conformance with Hennepin County requirements and with State Statutes.
The Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning Commission routinely reviews new ordinances and
ordinance amendments before being submitted to the full Planning Commission for review and
approval. However, due to the minor nature of the proposed amendments to this ordinance, the Chair of
the Codes & Standards Committee did not feel it was necessary to conduct a Committee meeting prior
to the Planning Commission meeting when these amendments would be considered.
B. Notification
The amendments to this ordinance would be effective on a city-wide basis, so notification to residents
within a specific area is not required. Ordinance amendments also do not require a public hearing or
published legal notice prior to adoption. The ordinance amendments would be effective after they are
approved by the City Council and the ordinance is published.
C. Development Analysis
Hennepin County made three changes to its plat review process. These changes and staff's findings
regarding how they will affect the City's review process are outlined below:
Planning Case Report 00-18 Page 1 2/2/01
Do
Submittal Schedule
The County made three changes to its review schedule. The 30-day review period has been
required for some time. However, the County now requires the City to submit preliminary or initial
plats to the County within five business days of receiving the plans. The City needs to insure that
new plat applications are submitted within this time frame. The City currently submits new plat
applications to the County as soon as they are received and so compliance with this requirement is
not a problem. Plat submittal to the County is the responsibility of the Community Development
Department.
Third Parties
Second, the County will no longer accept plat applications from third parties. The application and
plan materials must come directly from the City. This requirement is also not a problem and the
appropriate City staff will submit the necessary documents to the County.
Additional Plat Review Information
Third, the County made a point to specifically mention that the 30-day review period begins only
after the County receives a complete application. Therefore, the City should amend its preliminary
plat data requirements to coincide with the County's requirements. The information required by the
County is outlined below.
1) A transmittal letter, which includes the city contact person, dates of Planning Commission
and City Council meetings, and when a response from the County is needed.
2) A location map of the site relative to the roadways and local streets.
3) A site plan with scaled dimensions authorized by a registered engineer or land surveyor
showing:
· Date, title, scale, and north arrow.
· All existing and proposed property lines.
· Lot dimensions, right-of-ways, and easements.
· Existing centerline and paved area of the county roadway.
· Proposed development building footprint.
· Parking lot layout, aisle configuration.
· Location of ingress and egress to the proposed platted area including existing and proposed
driveway locations.
· Location of other nearby driveways, streets, intersections, and access points on the county
roadway in the vicinity of the proposed plat. This would include driveways immediately
adjacent to or across from the proposed plat.
· The outlet for and means of disposal of surface water from the proposed platted area.
4) A written description of the current and proposed use of the property including land use type
and specific uses, if known.
5) If the plat is for non-residential uses, include an estimated amount of daily traffic the
development is expected to generate.
Of this data, the City does not require four of the items. These are listed below and the City should
consider adding them to its requirements.
· Parking lot layout, aisle configuration.
· Location of ingress and egress to the proposed platted area including existing and proposed
driveway locations.
Planning Case Report 00-18 Page 2 2/2/01
· Location of other nearby driveways, streets, intersections and access points on the county
roadway in the vicinity of the proposed plat. This would include driveways immediately
adjacent to or across from the proposed plat.
· If the plat is for non-residential uses, include an estimated amount of daily traffic the
development is expected to generate.
Additional Review Information
State statutes now requires that preliminary plats include information regarding the location of the
right-of-way in relation to the existing roadway and plat property lines. This may or may not have
been part of previous plats submitted to the City. This new requirement should be added to the
City's requirements.
Demonstration of City's Response to County Comments
State statute now requires the City to submit to the County a notice of its approval of a plat within
ten business days. This notice must include a statement outlining how the County's comments
and/or recommendation were addressed. Evidence of this statement must accompany all final plats
brought to the County Surveyor for signature. This new condition will require the City to issue a
letter to the County regarding the approval of each new plat.
In response to these changes and comments, the City Attorney indicates that the City needs to
make two changes to Chapter 13 of the New Hope City Code. Specifically, Code Section 13,071(1)
needs to be amended to prevent a minor subdivision of property if it abuts a County or State road.
This circumstance would require County review even if the City considered it a minor subdivision.
Second, Code Section 13.041 must be amended to require authentication by a registered engineer
or land surveyor of all preliminary site plans. The site plans must now include information on
roadways, right-of-ways, layouts and dimensions, if the platted land will abut a County or State road.
Finally, the City needs to implement several changes in procedure relating to review by the County.
Specifically, any preliminary plat abutting a County or State road must be submitted to the County
within five (5) days after receipt by the City, and after County review the City must implement a
notice procedure informing the County as to how its recommendations will be addressed
subsequent to its plat review. If the City does not address County recommendations, the new law
requires the City to meet with the County and explain the reasons for rejection of the County
recommendations. Finally, the City needs to provide a new procedure to indicate the City Clerk's
certification and statement that a preliminary plat was submitted to the County Engineer for review.
The City Attorney has prepared the attached ordinance amendment to the Subdivision and Platting
section of the City Code to address these changes, which is outlined below:
Section 1. Section 13.017(1) is hereby amended to read as follows:
13.017 (1) Exception, Procedural Requirements: The following land divisions are exempted from
the other procedural requirements of this chapter, unless the land abuts any existing or
proposed trunk highway, county road or highway, in which case all other procedural
requirements of this chapter must be followed ~.
Section 2. Section 13.031(4) of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
13.041 (4) Review by Other Commissions or Jurisdictions. Where appropriate or as required by
law, the City Manager shall file copies of the preliminary plat with other city
commissions and/or county and state agencies for their review and comment.
Section 3. Section 13.041(5) is hereby added to the New Hope City Code, to read as follows:
13.041 (5) Preliminary Site Plan. If the proposed plat abuts any existing or proposed trunk
highway, county road or highway, the Owner or Sub-divider shall have prepared and
Planning Case Report 00-18 Page 3 2/2/01
submit, along with the preliminary plat, a preliminary site plan, authenticated by a
registered engineer or land surveyor, including and showing the following information:
13.041(5) (a) Date, title, scale, and north arrow.
13.041(5) (b) All existing and proposed property lines.
13.041(5) (c) Lot dimensions and existing and proposed right-of-ways and easements.
13.041(5) (d) Existing centerline and paved area of any county or state roadway.
13.041(5) (e) Proposed development building footprints.
13.041(5) (f) Proposed parking lot layouts, including aisle configuration.
13.041(5)(g) Locations of ingress and egress to the proposed platted area including
existing and proposed driveway locations.
13.041(5) (h) Locations of other nearby driveways, street intersections, and access points
on the county or state roadway in the vicinity of the proposed plat. This would
include driveways immediately adjacent to or across from the proposed plat.
13.041(5) (i) The outlet for and means of disposal of surface waters from the proposed
platted area.
13.041(5) (j) The following additional written information: a description of the current and
proposed use of the property including land use type and specific uses, if
known; and if the plat is for non-residential use, an estimate of the amount of
daily traffic the development is expected to generate.
F. Summary
Recent changes in the state statutes prompted Hennepin County to reexamine the County's existing 30-
day plat review process. As a result, the County has made three changes that will affect New Hope's
plat review process. Overall, these changes should improve communication between the City and the
County and have no real effect on the City's 60-day review process. Nevertheless, the City should
amend Section 4, Subdivision A of the Subdivision Ordinance to correspond to Hennepin County's data
requirements.
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendment.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance
10/26/00 City Attorney Correspondence, Memorandum and State Statutes
10/24/00 Northwest Consultants Report
10/9/00 Hennepin County Correspondence and Plat/Development Review Process Information
Current City Subdivision and Platting Ordinance
Planning Case Report 00-18 Page 4 2/2/01
02/02/01 09:16 Ffi. X 7634935193 JENSEN & SONDRALL, PA ~ NEW HOPE CH
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-03
ORDINANCE AMENDING
TIr~, NEW HOPE CITY CODE REGARDING
SUBDMSION AND PLATTING IN
CONFORMITY WITH CHANGES TO MINN. STAT. §462.358
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 13.017 (1) is hereby amended to read as follows:
13.017 (1)
Exception, Proc. ea~=.,Requirements: The following [an..d...di~sions are
g~,t..,:e...~! ~ ~ ~p._r~ural re.cLt~irements of this ~~
i~:~;; ~ .'::~::'.:~:.5!;:~:'[-;:~:'._:.;![:!:::!~::%!~:.~d::~ :>iJ:2j~, :.':'.- :. *~..~: ~ ~:~:~ i,,~:. ~~.'..~..~[~ ........ :~¢[:.~ .... !.~!~.~.~
.Section 2.
follows:
Section 13.031 (4) of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as
13.031(4)
Review by Other Comm~.qsions or Jurisdiction_*_. Where appropriate
~i~ii~, the City Manager shall file copies of the preliminary'~l-a~
with other city commissions and or county and state agencies for their review
and comment.
Section 3.
follows:
Section 13.04I(5) is hereby added to the New Hope City Code, to read as
13.041(5)
Prelimina _tV Site Plan. If the proposed plat abuts any existing or proposed
tnmk highway, county road or highway, the Owner or Subdivider shall have
prepared and submit, along with the preliminary plat, a preliminary site plan,
authenticated by a registered engineer or land surveyor, including and
showing the following information:
13.041(5) (a) Date, rifle, scale, and north arrow.
13.041 ('5) (b) All existing and proposed property lines.
13.041(5) (0 Lot dimensions and existing and proposed right-of-ways and
easements.
-1-
02/02/01 09:16 FAX 76349351-~)3 JENSEN & SONDRALL, PA
13.041(s)
13.041 (5) (0
13.041(5) (l)
13.041(5)
13.041(5) (la)
13.041(5) 0)
13.04l(5) (j)
Section 4. Effective
publication.
Existing eenterline and paved area of any county or state roadway.
Proposed development building footprints.
Proposed parking lot layouts, including aisle configuration.
Locations of ingress and egress to the proposed platted areat including
existing and proposed driveway locations.
Locations of other nearby driveways, street intersections and access
points on the county or state roadway in the vicinity of the proposed
plat. This would include driveways immediately adjacent to or across
from the proposed plat.
The outlet for and means of disposal of surface waters from the
proposed platted area.
The following additional written information: a description of the
current and proposed use of the property including land use type and
specific uses, if/mom; and if the plat is for non-residential use, an
estimate of the mount of daily traffic the development is expected to
generate.
Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and
Dated the 12"' day of February, 2001.
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Attest:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
P:'~mu~Cnh ORlim~001 -t/~-ll~livi~ima + P~stting.wpd
GORDON L. JENSEN*
STEV~ A. SONDRALL
MARTIN P. MALECHA
WILLIAM C. STR.AIT~
C. ALDEN PEAR~ON~'
OF ~OUNSEL
LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD
*Rea] I~ Law sPeoalis~
Certified By The
Minnesota S~ate Bar
to~ifi~ A~ N~
JENSEN & SONORALL, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING. STE. 201
BROOKLYN PARK. MINNESOTA 55443-1968
TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193
e-mail law~jensen-sondrall.com
October 26, 2000
Kirk McDonald
Community Development Director
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 554211
Re:
Law Changes Relating to Plat Review Process / Your October 17, 2000 Memo
Our File No. 99.10011
Dear Kirk:
This letter is in response to your October 17, 2000 memo regarding changes to the Hennepin
County plat review process caused by a new amendment to Minn. Stat. §462.358(3)(b).
Also, we received a letter from Vern Genzlinger, an Assistant Hennepin County Civil
Engineer, concerning these changes.
Marty reviewed Mr. Genzlinger's letter and the amendments to Minn. Stat. §462.358. Please
find attached to this letter a copy of his October 25, 2000 memo concerning the changes and
the Minnesota Session Laws setting forth the actual amendments to §462.358.
Marty concludes in his memo we need to make two changes to Chapter 13 of the New Hope
City Code. Specifically, Code Section 13.071(1) needs to be amended to prevent a minor
subdivision of property if it abuts a County or State road. As Marty's memo points out, this
circumstance would require County review even if we considered it a minor subdivision.
Second, Code Section t3.041 must be amended to require authentication by a registered
engineer or land surveyor of all preliminary site plans. The site plans must now include
information on roadways, rights-of-way, layouts and dimensions, if the platted land will abut
a County or State road. Finally, we need to implement several changes in procedure relating
to review by the County. Specifically, any preliminary plat abutting a County or State road
must be submitted to the County within five (5) days after receipt by the City, and after
County review we must implement a notice procedure informing the County as to how its
recommendations will be addressed subsequent to its plat review. If we do not address
County recommendations, the new law requires us to meet with the County and explain our
reasons for rejection oflthe County recommendations. Finally, we need to provide a new
procedure to indicate the City Clerk's certification and statement that a preliminary plat was
submitted to the County Engineer for review.
October 26, 2000
Page 2
I will open up a file relative to the City Code changes and provide you with an Ordinance amendment
concerning Sections 13.071 and 13.041 for adoption by the Council. Please contact me if you would like
to discuss these issues further or have any questions or other comments regarding the content of this letter
or Marty's October 25, 2000 memo.
Very truly yours,
Stev~en"'~. Sondrall
JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A.
Enclosures
cc: Daniel J. Donahue
Marty Maleeha
CNFII0011-07-McDonald Ltr.wpd
TO: SAS
FROM: MPM b~'\
RE: New Platting Requirements
Our File No. 99.10,000
DATE: October 25, 2000
Minn. Stat. §462.358 was recently amended by the addition of several new requirements (copy
of Session Laws attached). These include the following:
The subdivision review process was extended to all plats that include land which abuts
upon any existing or proposed truck highway, county road or highway, or county state-
aid highway.
Comment: I interpret this to mean that all plats, including those which otherwise
might be considered minor subdivisions by the City Code, will need to go through this
process if the land to be platted abuts a county or state road.
Any plat abutting a county or state road is to be presented to the City, and then the City
has five days to submit the plat to the County engineer. The County Engineer will
review the plat only with respect to issues of importance to the County. The County
Engineer then has 30 days after receiving the plat to make written comments to the
City. Cities are prohibited from approving a preliminary plat until the City either
receives comments from the County Engineer, or the Engineer's 30 day review period
expires with no comments being issued. Then, within 10 days after the City approves
the preliminary plat, the City has to submit to the County Board notice of the approval,
along with statement of how the City addressed the Engineers comments or
recommendations. If the City does not make changes to accommodate the Engineer's
recommendations, the City needs to meet with the County to discuss the differences.
This meeting between the County and the City does not extend the 120 day final
approval deadline, and also does not prevent the City from approving the final plat.
Comment: The five day requirement for submitting to the County Engineer is new,
but should be easy enough to incorporate into existing City procedures. The County
Engineer's 30 day time period to respond should be short enough to not cause any
delays in the regular City platting procedure. The City will need to also modify its
procedures so as to notify the County, within 10 days of the preliminary plat approval,
of how the County Engineer's concerns were addressed. The meeting with the County,
if some recommendations were not adopted, appears to be a formality. It has no real
effect on anything, and does not prevent final approval of the plat by the City.
Preliminary site plans are now required as part of a preliminary plat involving county
or state roads. The site plan must be authenticated by a registered engineer or land
surveyor, and show the existing or proposed state or county road, and all existing and
proposed rights-of-way, easements, general lot layouts, and lot dimensions.
Comment: This is new. The preliminary site plan must be authenticated by a
registered engineer or a surveyor, also a heightened requirement. The Citv Code
should be amended to include this as a new requirement for all preliminary plats, so
that the City can avoid the situation of an applicant claiming a complete application
under City Code, when in fact the application is lacking the authenticated preliminary
site plan and is thus incomplete.
4. At the time the plat is filed, the City must file a certificate or other evidence showing
the preliminary plat was submitted to the County Engineer and the commissioner.
Comment: Current law required this with respect to submitting it to the commissioner,
now submission to the County Engineer needs to be added to the certificate.
I also spoke with Vern Genzlinger, the Assistant County Administrator, and author of the letter
to Dan. He says the County is mainly concerned with entrance/exit issues from the roadways
onto the platted property, and also sufficient right-of-way. He says the County is paying a lot
for right-of-way that could be obtained in the development process, and the County will be
requiring right-of-way dedication for county projects expected within the next two years of the
plat review.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The City should do the following:
1. Amend Code {}13.071(1) so that minor subdivisions are not allowed if the property to
be platted abuts a county or state road.
Amend Code {}13.041 by adding a new Section (5) to add the requirement of an
authenticated preliminary site plan (with the required information on roadways, rights-
of-way, and layouts and dimensions) if the platted land abuts a county or state road.
3. Change City procedures so that any preliminary plat abutting a county or state road is
submitted to the County within five days of the City receiving it.
Change City procedure so that someone notifies the County Board of the preliminary
plat approval, including a statement of how the County Engineer's recommendations
were addressed. If the City did not follow a recommendation of the County Engineer.
City staff will need to meet with the County to discuss why, and what can or should be
done about the issue.
Change City procedure so that the Clerk's certification that accompanies a plat for
filing is expanded to include a statement that the preliminary plat was also submitted to
the County Engineer.
repro\word docs\cnh\platting amdmts memo to SAS
Minnesota Session Laws 2000, Chapter 497 Page 1 ,of 3
Minnesota Session Laws
Minnesota Session Laws - 2000
Key: language. *~,,., '-^,.,,. ,.,,.,,..,.,.,...,.,...-'-'~'~a ,,~',,, lan~uage~ Chanae laneuaae enhancement display._.
Le_oislative histo~' and Authors
CHAPTER 497-S.F.No. 702
An act relating to transportation; authorizing county
review of plats on real property that is bordering
existing or proposed county highways; authorizing
dispute resolution between city and county; amending
Minnesota Statutes 1998, sections 462.358, subdivision'
3b; and 505.03, subdivision 2; Minnesota Statutes 1999
Supplement, section 505.08, subdivision 3.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1998, section 462.358,
subdivision 3b, is amended to read:
Subd. 3b. [REVIEW PROCEDURES.] The regulations shall
include provisions regarding the content of applications for
proposed subdivisions, the preliminary and final review and
approval or disapproval of applications, and the coordination of
such reviews with affected political subdivisions and state
agencies. Subdivisions includinq lands abutting upon any
existinq or proposed trunk hiqhway, county road or hiqhway, or
county state-aid hichway shall also be subject to review. The
regulations may provide for the consolidation of the preliminary
and final review and approval or disapproval of subdivisions.
Preliminary or final approval may be granted or denied for parts
of subdivision applications. The regulations may delegate the
authority to review proposals to the planning commission, but
final approval or disapproval shall be the decision of the
governing body of the municipality unless otherwise provided by
law or charter. The regulations shall require that a public
hearing shall be held on all subdivision applications prior to
preliminary approval, unless otherwise provided by law or
charter. The hearing shall be held following publication of
notice of the time and place thereof in the official newspaper
at least ten days before the day of the hearing. At the
hearing, all persons interested shall be given an opportunity to
make presentations. A subdivision application shall be
preliminarily approved or disapproved within 120 days following
delivery of an application completed in compliance with the
municipal ordinance by the applicant to the municipality, unless
an extension of the review period has been agreed to by the
applicant. When a division or subdivision to which the
regulations of the municipality do not apply is presented to the
city, the clerk of the municipality shall within ten days
certify that the subdivision regulations of the municipality do
not apply to the particular division.
If the municipality or the responsible agency of the
municipality fails to preliminarily approve or disapprove an
application within the review period, the application shall be
deemed preliminarily approved, and upon demand the municipality
shall execute a certificate to that effect. Following
preliminary approval the applicant may request final approval by
http://wxvw.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/slaws/2000/c497.html 10/24/00
· Minnesota Session Laws 2000, Chapter 497 Page 2 of 3
the municipality, and upon sudh ~equest the municipality shall
certify final approval within 60 days if the applicant has
complied with all conditions and requirements of applicable
regulations and all conditions and requirements upon which the
preliminary approval is expressly conditioned either through
performance or the execution of appropriate agreements assuring
performance. If the municipality fails to certify final approval
as so required, and if the applicant has complied with all
conditions and requirements, the application shall be deemed
finally approved, and upon demand the municipality shall execute
a certificate to that effect. After final approval a
subdivision may be filed or recorded.
Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1998, section 505.03,
subdivision 2, is amended to read:
Subd. 2. [PEELIMI~AEY PLAT APPROVAL; ROAD REVIEW.] (a) Any
proposed preliminary plat in a city, town, or county, which
includes lands' abutting upon any existing or established trunk
highway or proposed highway which has been designated by a
centerline order filed in the office of the county recorder
shall first be presented by the citv, town, or county to the
commissioner of transportation for written comments and
recommendations. Whoro an)' pra!iminary plat includar land
abutting upon an al:latins or cstab!ichod county or count)' stato
aid high%:ay, it shall first bo submitted to thc county c..glnccr
for writton car_moats and rocc~r~cnJa5ionr. Preliminary plats i__n
a city or town involving both a trunk highway and a highway
under county jurisdiction shall be submitted by the city or town
to the county highway engineer as provided in paragraphs (b) and
(c) and to the commissioner of transportation and tho county
hi~kway cng!noes. Plats shall be submitted by the city, town,
or county to the commissioner of transportation for review at
least 30 days prior to the home rule charter or statutory city,
town or county taking final action on the preliminary plat. The
commissioner of transportation andros tk~ ~ounty highway
~~~..= ...... .... shall submit the written comments and recommendations
to the city, town, or county within 30 days after receipt
by thom the commissioner of such a plat. Final action on such
plat by the city, town, or county shall not be taken until after
these required comments and recommendations have been received
or until the 30Eday period has elapsed.
(b) Any proposed preliminary plat or initial plat filinG
that includes land located in a city or town bordering an
existing or proposed county road, highway, or county state-aid
hichway that is designated on a map or county highway plan filed
in the office of the county recorder or registrar of titles,
muss be submitted bV the city or town to the county encineer
within five business days after receipt by the city or town of
the preliminary plat or initial plat fi!inq for written comment.c
and recommendations. The county encineer's review shall bo
limited to factors of county significance in conformance with
adopted county Guidelines developed throuch a public hearin~ cz
a comprehensive ptanninq process with comment by the cities and
towns. The ~uidelines must provide for development and
redevelopment scenarios, allow for variances, and reflec%
considera=ion of city or town adopted cuideiines.
(c) Within 30 days after county receipt from the city cz
town of the preliminary plat or initial plat filing, the county
engineer shall provide to the city or town written co,meats
stating whether the pla5 meets county ~uidelines and describin~l
any modifications necessary to bring the plat into conformity
with the county ~uideiines. No city or town may approve .~
preliminary plat until it has received the county enqineer':~
written comments and recommendations or until the county
engineer's comment period has expired, whichever occurs first.
hnp://~xvv~'.revisor, leg.state.mn.us/slaws/2000/c497.html 10/24/00
Minnesota Session La~vs 2000, Chapter 497
Within ten business days following a city's or town's approval
of a preliminary D!at, the city or town shall submit to the
county board notice of its approval, alonc with a statement
addressinq the disoosition of any written comments or
recommendations made bv the county engineer. In the event the
city or town does not amend the plat to conform to the
recommendations made by the county engineer, representatives
from the county and city or town shall meet tc discuss the
differences and determine whether chances to the plat are
appropriate prior to final aoDroval. This recuirement shall ncu
extend the time deadlines for preliminary or final approval as
reguired under this section, section 15.99 or 462.358, or any
other law, nor shall this recuirement prohibit final approval as
required by this section.
(d) A legible preliminary drawing or print of a proposed
preliminary plat shall be acceptable for purposes of review by
the commissioner of transportation or the county highway
engineer. To such drawing or print there shall be attached a
written statement describing; (1) the outlet for and means of
disposal of surface waters from the proposed platted area, (2)
the land use designation or zoning category of the proposed
platted area, (3) the locations of ingress and egress to the
proposed platted area, and (4) a preliminary site plan for the
proposed platted area, if zr.z has be~n ~rs~arcd with dimensions
to scale, authenticated by a registered enqineer or land
surveyor, showinq the existinc or proposed state highway, county
road, or county hiqhway and all existin~ and proposed
riqhts-of-way, easements, ceneral lot layouts, and lot
dimensions. Failure to obtain the written comments and
recommendations of the commissioner of transportation or the
county highway engineer shall in no manner affect the title to
the lands included in the plat or the platting of said lands.
cartificato or othzr c-.'i~_nr~ shall bc rtquir_~_~ ts er upon th~
r^~irtrar of ~it!cr ar tu ~ht submissis.-, cf or thc ob ........ = cf
suck ::ritto.-. ccr.r~cntc an! rtrz.-.~.cndatic.-.r. Thc hcmc ru!o
cortifioato or 0thor c:-id~_nr~_ ts thc county rsrcrdor c-.
registrar of titlzs. A city, town, or county shall file with
the plat, in the office of the county recorder or registrar of
titles, a certificate or other evidence showinq submission of
the preliminary plat to the commissioner or county hiqhway
enqineer in compliance with this subdivision.
Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 1999 Supplement, section
505.08, subdivision 3, is amended to read:
Subd. 3. [PREMATURE REFERENCE TO PLAT; FORFEITURE.] Any
person who shall dispose of~ o_!r lease, ~rc__~r=~ t~ salt any land
included in a plat by reference to the plat before the same is
recorded, shall forfeit to the county $100 for each lot, or part
of a lot, so disposed of~ o__r leased, sr iffcrnd; and any
official, land surveyor, or person whose duty it is to comply
with any of the provisions of this chapter, shall forfeit not
less than $t00 for each month during which compliance is
delayed. Ail forfeitures under this chapter shall be recovered
in an action brought in the name of the county. Notwithstanding
any provisions of this subdivision to the contrary, this
subdivision shall not apply to an offer to sell or lease a unit
in a proposed common interes~ community as defined in chapter
515B.
Presented to the governor May 19, 2000
Signed by the governor May 30, 2000, 2:05 p.m.
Page.3 of 3
http ://w~s,w.revisor. leg.state.mn.us/slaws/2 000/c 4 9 7.html 10/24/00
Citatior~tTitle
MSA § 462.358, Procedure for plan effectuation; subdivision regulations
*70726 M.S.A. § 462.358
MINNESOTA STATUTES ANNOTATED
LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICE POWERS
CHAPTER 462. HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING,
ZONING
MUNICIPAL PLANNING
Page 1
Current through End of 1999 Reg. Sess.
462.358. Procedure for plan effectuation; subdivision regulations
Subdivision 1. Repealed by Laws 1980, c. 566, § 35.
Subd. la. Authority. To protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, to
provide for the orderly, economic, and safe development of land, to preserve agricultural lands, to promote
the availability of housing affordable to persons and families of ali income levels, and to facilitate adequate
provision for transportation, water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks, playgrounds, and other public
services and facilities, a municipality may by ordinance adopt subdivision regulations establishing
standards, requirements, and procedures for the review and approval or disapproval of subdivisions. The
regulations may contain varied provisions respecting, and be made applicable only to, certain classes or
kinds of subdivisions. The regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of subdivision.
A municipality may by resolution extend the application of its subdivision regulations to
unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in any direction but not in a town which has
adopted subdivision regulations; provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have
boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the subdivision of land equal distance
from its boundaries within this area.
Subd. 2. Repealed by Laws 1980, c. 566, § 35.
Subd. 2a. Terms of regulations. The standards and requirements in the regulations may address
without limitation: the size, location, grading, and improvement of lots, structures, public areas, streets,
roads, trails, walkways, curbs and gutters, water supply, storm drainage, lighting, sewers, electricity, gas,
and other utilities; the planning and design of sites; access to solar energy; and the protection and
conservation of flood plains, shore lands, soils, water, vegetation, energy, air quality, and geologic and
ecologic features. The regulations shall require that subdivisions be consistent with the municipality's
official map if one exists and its zoning ordinance, and may require consistency with other official controls
and the comprehensive plan. The regulations may prohibit certain classes or kinds of subdivisions in areas
where prohibition is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the purposes of this section, particularly
the preservation of agricultural lands. The regulations ma>' prohibit, restrict or control development for the
purpose of protecting and assuring access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The regulations may
prohibit, restrict, or control surface, above surface, or subsurface development for the purpose of protecting
subsurface areas for existing or potential mined under~ound space development pursuant to sections
469.135 to 469.141, and access thereto. The regulations may prohibit the issuance of permits or approvals
for any tracts, lots, or parcels for which required subdivision approval has not been obtained.
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
MSA § 462.358, Procedure for plan effecmation; subdivision regulations
Page 2
*70727 The regulations may permit the municipality to condition its approval on the construction
and installation of sewers, streets, electric, gas, drainage, and water facilities, and similar utilities and
improvements or, in lieu thereof, on the receipt by the municipalit3' of a cash deposit, certified check,
irrevocable letter of credit, or bond in an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to assure the
municipality that the utilities and improvements will be constructed or installed according to the
specifications of the municipality. Sections 471.345 and 574.26 do not apply to improvements made by a
subdivider or a subdivider's contractor.
The regulations may permit the municipality to condition its approval on compliance with other
requirements reasonably related to the provisions of the regulations and to execute development contracts
embodying the terms and conditions of approval. The municipality may enforce such agreements and
conditions by appropriate legal and equitable remedies.
Subd. 2b. Dedication. The regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed
subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as streets, roads, sewers, electric, gas,
and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds and similar utilities and
improvements.
In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be
dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreational
facilities as defined and outlined in section 471.191, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space;
provided that (a) the municipality may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant
for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair
market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval, (b) any cash payments received shall be
placed in a special fund by the municipality used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained,
(c) in establishing the reasonable portion to be dedicated, the regulations may consider the open space,
park, recreational, or common areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the
subdivision, and (d) the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land
for the purposes stated in this paragraph as a result of approval of the subdivision.
Subd. 3. Repealed by Laws 1980, c. 566, {} 35.
Subd. 3a. Platting. The regulations may require that any subdivision creating parcels, tracts, or lots,
shall be platted. The regulations shall require that ali subdivisions which create five or more lots or parcels
which are 2-1/2 acres or less in size shall be platted. The regulations shall not conflict with the provisions
of chapter 505 but may address subjects similar and additional to those in that chapter.
Subd. 3b. Review procedures. The regulations shall include provisions regarding the content of
applications for proposed subdivisions, the preliminary and final revie~v and approval or disapproval of
applications, and the coordination of such reviews with affected political subdivisions and state agencies.
The regulations may provide for the consolidation of the preliminary and final review and approval or
disapproval of subdivisions. Preliminary or final approval may be granted or denied for parts of
subdivision applications. The regulations may delegate the authority to review proposals to the planning
commission, but final approval or disapproval shall be the decision of the governing body of the
municipality unless otherwise provided by law or charter. The regulations shall require that a public
hearing shall be held on all subdivision applications prior to preliminary approval, unless, otherwise
provided by law or charter. The hearing shall be held following publication of notice of the time and place
thereof in the official newspaper at least ten days before the day of the hearing. At the hearing, all persons
interested shall be given an opportunity to make presentations. A subdivision application shall be
preliminarily approved or disapproved within 120 days following delivery of an application completed in
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
MSA § 462.358, Procedure for plan effectuation; subdivision regulations ~ ~'" "'~" ' Page 3
compliance with the municipal ordinance by the applicant to the municipality, unless an extension of the
revie~v period has been agreed to by the applicant. When a division or subdivision to which the regulations
of the municipality do not apply is 'presented to the ciD', the clerk of the municipality shall within ten days
certify that the subdivision regulations of the municipality do not apply to the particular division.
*70728 If the municipality or the responsible agency of the municipalits.' fails to preliminarily approve
or disapprove an application within the review period, the application shall be deemed preliminarily
approved, and upon demand the municipality shall execute a certificate to that effect. Following
preliminary approval the applicant may request final approval by the municipality, and upon such request
the municipality shall certify final approval within 60 days if the applicant has complied with all conditions
and requirements of applicable regulations and all conditions and requirements upon which the preliminary.
approval is expressly conditioned either through performance or the execution of appropriate agreements
assuring performance. If the municipality fails to certify final approval as so required, and if the applicant
has complied with all conditions and requirements, the application shall be deemed finally approved, and
upon demand the municipality shall execute a certificate to that effect. After final approval a subdivision
may be filed or recorded.
Subd. 3c. Effect of subdivision approval. For one year following preliminaD' approval and for two
years following final approval, unless the subdivider and the municipality agree otherwise, no amendment
to a comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot
layout, or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved application. Thereafter, pursuant to
its regulations, the municipality may extend the period by agreement with the subdivider and subject to all
applicable performance conditions and requirements, or it may require submission of a new application
unless substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved
application and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement
to submit a new application. In connection with a subdivision involving planned and staged development,
a municipality may by resolution or agreement grant the rights referred to herein for such periods of time
longer than two years which it determines to be reasonable and appropriate.
Subd. 4. Repealed by Laws 1982, c. 415, § 3, eff. March 16, 1982.
Subd. 4a. Disclosure by seller; buyer's action for damages. A person conveying a new parcel of
land which, or the plat for which, has not previously been filed or recorded, and which is part of or would
constitute a subdivision to which adopted municipal subdivision regulations apply, shall attach to the
instrument of conveyance either: (a) recordable certification by the clerk of the municipality that the
subdivision regulations do not apply, or that the subdivision has been approved by the governing body, or
that the restrictions on the division of taxes and filing and recording have been waived by resolution of the
governing body of the municipality in this case because compliance will create an unnecessary hardship
and failure to comply will not interfere with the purpose of the regulations; or (b) a statement which names
and identifies the location of the appropriate municipal offices and advises the grantee that municipal
subdivision and zoning regulations may restrict the use or restrict or prohibit the development of the parcel,
or construction on it, and that the division of taxes and the filing or recording of the conveyance may be
prohibited without prior recordable certification of approval, nonapplicability, or waiver from the
municipality. In any action commenced by a buyer of such a parcel against the seller thereof, the
misrepresentation of or the failure to disclose material facts in accordance with this subdivision shall be
grounds for damages. If the buyer establishes a right to damages, a district court hearing the matter may in
its discretion also award to the buyer an amount sufficient to pay all or any part of the costs incurred in
maintaining the action, including reasonable attorney fees, and an amount for punitive damages not
exceeding five per centum of the purchase price of the land.
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
MSA § 462.358, Procedure for plan effecmation; subdivision regulations
Page 4
*70729 Subd. 4b. Restrictions on filing and recording conveyances. In a municipality in which
subdivision regulations are in force and have been filed or recorded as provided in this section, no
conveyance of land to which the regulations are applicable shall be filed or recorded, if the land is
described in the conveyance by metes and bounds or by reference to an unapproved registered land survey
made after April 21, 1961 or to an unapproved plat made after such regulations become effective. The
foregoing provision does not apply to a conveyance if the land described:
(1) was a separate parcel of record April 1, 1945 or the date of adoption of subdivision regulations
under Laws 1945, Chapter 287, whichever is the later, or of the adoption of subdivision regulations
pursuant to a home rule charter, or
(2) was the subject of a written agreement to convey entered into prior to such time,
(3) was a separate parcel of not less than 2-1/2 acres in area and 150 feet in ~vidth on January I, 1966,
or
(4) was a separate parcel of not less than five acres in area and 300 feet in width on July 1, 1980, or
(5) is a single parcel of commercial or industrial land of not less than five acres and having a width of
not less than 300 feet and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel into two or more lots
or parcels, any one of which is less than five acres in area or 300 feet in width, or
(6) is a single parcel of residential or agricultural land of not less than 20 acres and having a width of
not less than 500 feet and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel into two or more lots
or parcels, any one of which is less than 20 acres in area or 500 feet in width.
In any case in which compliance with the foregoing restrictions will create an unnecessary hardship
and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision regulations, the platting
authority may waive such compliance by adoption of a resolution to that effect and the conveyance may
then be filed or recorded. Any owner or agent of the owner of land who conveys a lot or parcel in violation
of the provisions of this subdivision shall forfeit and pay to the municipality a penalty of not less than $100
for each lot or parcel so conveyed. A municipality may enjoin such conveyance or may recover such
penalty by a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Subd. 5. Permits. Except as otherwise provided by this section all electric and gas distribution lines
or piping, roadways, curbs, walks and other similar improvements shall be constructed only on a street,
alley, or other public way or easement which is designated on an approved plat, or properly indicated on
the official map of the municipality, or which has otherwise been approved by the governing body. When
a municipality has adopted an official map, no permit for the erection of any building shall be issued unless
the building is to be located upon a parcel of land abutting on a street or highway which has been
designated upon an approved plat or on the official map or which has been otherwise approved by the
governing body, and unless the buildings conform to the established building line. This limitation on
issuing permits shall not apply to planned developments approved by the governing body pursuant to its
zoning ordinance. No permit shall be issued for the construction of a building on any lot or parcel
conveyed in violation of the provisions of this section.
*70730 Subd. 6. Variances. Subdivision regulations may provide for a procedure for varying the
regulations as they apply to specific properties where an unusual hardship on the land exists, but variances
may be granted only upon the specific grounds set forth in the regulations. Unusual hardship includes, but
is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
MSA § 462.358, Procedure for plan effecmation; subdivision regulations Page 5
Subj. 7. Vacation. The governing body of a municipality may vacate any publicly owned utilit3'
easement or boulevard reserve or any portion thereof, which are not being used for sewer, drainage,
electric, telegraph, telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same
manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways under a home rule
charter or other provisions of law.
A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of
establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on the recorded plat as
"boulevard reserve",
Subd. 8. Plat approval under other laws. Nothing in this section is to be construed as a limitation on
the authority of municipalities which have not adopted subdivision regulations to approve plats under any
other provision of law.
Subd. 9. Unplatted parcels. Subdivision regulations adopted by municipalities may apply to parcels
which are taken from existing parcels of record by metes and bounds descriptions, and the governing body
or building authority may deny the issuance of permits or approvals, building permits issued under sections
16B.59 to 16B.75, or other permits or approvals to any parcels so divided, pending compliance with
subdivision regulations.
Subd. 10. Limitations. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a municipality to regulate
subdivisions or to regulate all subdivisions which it is authorized to regulate by this section.
CREDIT(S)
1991 Main Volume
Laws 1965, c. 670, 3~ 8, elf Jan. 1, 1966. Amended by Laws 1971, c. 842, I[ 1, eft June 5, 1971; Laws 1973, c. 67, 3~ 1; Laws
1973, c. 176, 3~ 1; Laws 1975, c. 98, ~ 1; Laws 1976, c. 181, 3~ 2: Laws 1978, c. 786, ~ 16, 17, eft April 6, 1978; Laws 1980,
c. 560, ff 6: Laws 1980, c. 566, 3~ 25 to 33; Laws 1981, c. 85, ~ 7, eff May 5, 1981; Laws 1982, c. 415, ff 2, elf March 16,
1982; Lmvs 1982, c. 507, 3~ 23, eft March 23, 1982: Laws 1985, c. 194, 3~ 24; Laws 1986, c. 444: Laws 1989, c. 196, ~ 1;
Laws 1989, c. 200, ~ 1; Laws 1989, c. 209, art. 2, ff 1.
2000 Electronic Update
Amended by' Laws 1995, c. 254, art. 1, 3~ 90, eft. June 2, 1995; Laws 1995, c. 254, art. 3, 3~3~ 6, 7.
<General Materials (GM) - References, Annotations, or Tables>
HISTORICAL NOTES
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
2000 Electronic Update
! 995 Legislation
Copyright (c) West Group 2000 No claim to original U,S, Govt. works
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 nac@winternet.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Jason Lindahl / Alan Brixius
DATE:
October 24, 2000
RE:
Hennepin County Plat Review Process Changes
FILE: 131.00 - 00.07
BACKGROUND
Recently, Hennepin County informed the City that they were making three changes to their
plat review process. These changes include:
Submittal process, schedule, and response time.
Additional required plat review information.
Demonstration of the City's response to county comments on the plat and dispute
resolution.
This memo will review each of these changes and analyze howthey could affect the City's
review process.
ANALYSIS
As mentioned above, Hennepin County made three changes to their plat review process.
These changes and staffs findings regarding how they will affect the City's review process
are outlines below.
Submittal Schedule
The county made three changes to their review schedule. Their 30-day review period has
been required for some time. However, the county now requires the City to submit
preliminary or initial plats to the county within five business days of receiving the plans.
This will cause the City to designate a staff person to insure that new plat applications are
submitted within this time frame.
Second, the county will no longer accept plat applications from third parties. The
application and plan materials must come directly from the City. As mentioned above, this
will require the City to designate a staff person to deliver the new plat application and plan
material to the county. Staff should be trained as to when and to whom to submit these
plans to at Hennepin County.
Third, the county made a point to specifically mention that the 30-day review period begins
only after the county receives a complete application. Therefore, the City should amend
their preliminary plat data requirements to coincide with the county's requirements. The
information required by the county is outlined below.
A transmittal letter which includes the city contact person, dates of Planning
Commission and City Council meetings, and when a response from the coUnty is
needed.
location map of the site relative to the roadways and local streets
A site plan with scaled dimensions authorized by a registered engineer or land
surveyor showing:
Date, title, scale, and north arrow
All existing and proposed property lines
· Lot dimensions, rights-of-way, & easements
· Existing centerline and paved area of the county roadway
· Proposed development building footprint
· Parking lot layout, aisle configuration
· Location of ingress and egress to the proposed platted area including
existing and proposed driveway locations
· Location of other nearby driveways, streets intersections and access points
on the county roadway in the vicinity of the proposed plat. This would
include driveways immediately adjacent to or across from the proposed plat
· The outlet for and means of disposal of surface water from the proposed
platted area.
A written description of the current and proposed use of the property including land
use type and specific uses if known.
If the plat is for non-residential uses, include an estimated amount of daily traffic the
development is expected to generate
Of this data, the City does not require four of the items. These are listed below and the
City should consider adding them to their requirements.
Parking lot layout, aisle configuration
Location of ingress and egress to the proposed platted area including existing and
proposed driveway locations
Location of other nearby driveways, streets intersections and access points on the
county roadway in the vicinity of the proposed plat. This would include driveways
immediately adjacent to or across from the proposed plat
If the plat is for non-residential uses, include an estimated amount of daily traffic the
development is expected to generate
Additional Review Information
State statutes now requires that preliminary plats include information regarding the
location of the right-of-way in relation to the existing roadway and plat property lines. This
may or may not have been part of previous plats submitted to the City. This new
requirement should be added to the City's requirements.
Demonstration of City' Response to County Comments
State statute now requires the City to submit to the county a notice of its approval of a plat
within ten business days. This notice must include a statement outlining how the county's
comments and / or recommendation ware addressed. Evidence of this statement must
accompany all final plats brought to the County Surveyor for signature. This new condition
will require the City to issue a letter to the county regarding the approval of each new plat.
The City should designate a staff person for this task and train them as to when and to
whom this letter should be issued.
Summary and Recommendation
Recent changes in the state statutes prompted Hennepin County to reexamine the
County's existing 30-day plat review process. As a result, the county has made three
changes that will affect New Hope's plat review process. Overall, these changes should
improve communication between the City and the county and have no real effect on the
City's 60-day review process. Nevertheless, the City should amend Section 4, Subdivision
A of the Subdivision Ordinance to correspond to Hennepin County's data requirements
and designate a staff person to perform these new tasks and train them as to when and
to whom they should deliver this new information.
Henner . Oo . ,gnty
Mr. Daniel Donahue
City Manager
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Ave. N.
New Hope, MN 55428
October 9, 2000
Dear Mr. Donahue:
Recent changes in the state statutes governing plat reviews (MS 462.358) have prompted Hennepin County to re-
examine the county plat review process. As we did this, it became apparent that information about the county
guidelines and procedures and the changes to the statutes would be helpful to cities and developers who regularly
submit plats to us.
Many of the statute changes are aimed at improving communication and cooperation between cities and counties
so that the objectives of both agencies can be accommodated. New areas that the statutes now address:
· Submittal process, schedules, and response times
· Additional plat review information required
· Demonstration of the city's response to county comments on the plat and dispute resoluti°n
Submittal Schedules
The 30-day review period has been a requirement for some time, however the new wording states, "Any
proposed preliminary plat or initial plat filing .... must be submitted by the city or town to the county
engineer within.fiVe business days after receipt by the city or town .... "
Submission by the city is important to ensure completeness of the submission, provide consistency in the
process, and to assure good communication. For this reason, for all plat reviews, the county will no
longer accept plat submissions from third parties - the submissions must come from the city directly.
It should be noted that the 30-day review period only starts when the county receives a complete submittal.
As part of the plat review process, the Transportation Planning Division will be implementing a confn'mation
system that informs the city that the submittal was received and if any vital information is missing.
Note: Prior to a formal submittal, county staff will continue to examine concept layouts or preliminary
site plans. As in the past, cities, developers, consultants or property owners can submit this type of
draft information. The benefit of an early review is that many issues can be identified and possibly
resolved prior to the formal plat review process (often. speeding up any subsequent reviews).
The Hennepin County Transportation Deparmaent has a plat review committee that meets every Tuesday to
consider plats, concept site plans and access requests. The county goal is to respond to the city dining the week
following the review by the plat committee. If extended discussion is required with city staff or developers, or
special analysis must be performed, the full allowable 30-day review period may be required. We realize that
city staff must be responsive to schedules that include Planning Commission and City Council meetings and
they also are under deadlines mandated by state statutes.
Transportation Department
1600 Prairie Drive
Medina, MN 55340-5421
(763) 745-7500 FAX: (763) 4784000 TDD: (763) 478-4030
Recycled Paper
ira-. ~amci ~onanue
October 9, 2000
Page 2
Additional Review Information
Statutes now require that preliminary plat submittals need to include information regarding the location of
the roadway with respect to the existing road right-of-way and plat property lines. This is an important
addition since a number of our past reviews have found that the assumption that the county roadway is
centered in the road right-of-way is not always the case. The attached informational brochure contains a
checklist for plat submissions to the county.
Demonstration of City's Response to County Comments
The statutes nov,' stipulate that the city must submit to the county a notice of its approval of the plat, within
ten business days, along with a statement addressing the disposition of the comments and recommendations
made in the county's plat review letter. This is important to maintain communication so the county knows
the outcomes of its comments. Evidence of the city's response will be required as part of the review
process, and this evidence must accompany any final plats that are brought to the County Surveyor for
signature. The County Surveyor's office may have to delay the recording process for a final plat if this
· documentation is notprovided~
Please examine the timeline and the attached plat review process included within the attached brochure. We have
included extra copies of the brochures for your use for distribution to developers, consultants, and property owners
who may have questions regarding the county's review process. We would appreciate it if you would also
circulate this information among your engineering and planning staff members.
If you have any comments or questions, please call the staff members in our Transportation Planning Division;
Tom Johnson (763) 745-7630 or Bob Byers (763) 745-7633. Tom and Bob are willing to discuss any of these
items with you or with your staff. We hope this information assists in future reviews, and we look forward to
working with you.
~tor, Public Works
and County Engineer
Attachment - County Plat Review Process Brochures
c: Jim Grube - Director, Transportation Department
Bonestroo, Rosene, & Andeflik -'Mark Hansen
~ Information on the
Hennepin County
Plat / Development Review
Process
September 2000
Hennepin_C..9._unty
'l~ 'The Goal of this Brochure i
This brochure was developed to clarify how the
,county plat review process works, who is
responsible for submittals to the cmmty, and what
type of response schedule can be anticipated.
Minnesota State Statutes MS 505.02, 505.03 and
462.358 stipulate that cities need to submit plats to
the county. These statutes also specify what items
of information must be submitted and what time
schedules apply.
I 'l
Who Should Submit Plats ?
For formal plat reviews, the county does not
accept plat submissions from third parties - the
subntissions must come front the city directly.
City submission is important to ensure completeness
of the submission, provide consistency in the
process, and to assure good comnmnication.
Prior to a formal submitlal, county staff is very
willing to examine concept layouts, prelinfinary site
plans, or sketch plans. Cities, developers, project
consultants, or property owners can submit this type
of draft information. The benefit of an early review
is that many issues can be identified and possibly
resolved prior to the formal plat review process
(often speeding up all subsequent reviews).
[ Where are Plats Submitted ? I,
Plats shouhl be submitted to:
ltennepin County
Transportation Planning Division
1600 Prairie Drive
Medina, MN 55340-5421
Questions or comments can be directed to:
Dave Zetterstrom, Permits Coordinator
(763) 745-7643
Bob Byers, P.E., Senior Transportation Planner
(763) 745-7633
Pete Tulkki, County Surveyor's Office
(612) 348-3131
Plat Submittal Checklist
To be complete, plat submittals to the county
should include a transmittal letter and two (2)
sets of legible plans that include the following
information:
L] The transmittal letter should include the city
contact person, the dates of upconfing city
actions such as Planning Commission or City
Council meetings, and when a response is
needed from the county.
o Pt location map of the site relative to area
roadways and local streets.
o A site plan map with scaled dimensions
authenticated by a registered engineer or land
surveyor showing:
· Date, title, scale, and north arrow
· All existing and proposed property lines
· Lot dimensions, right-of-ways, & easements
· Existing centerline and paved area of the
county roadway (which is not always
centered in the right-of-way)
· Proposed development building footprints
· Parkinglot layouts, aisle configuration
· Locations of ingress and egress to the
proposed platted area including existing
and proposed driveway locations.
· Locations of other nearby driveways,
street intersections and access points on
the county roadway in the vicinity of the
proposed plat. This would include
driveways immediately adjacent to or
across from the proposed plat.
· The outlet for and means of disposal of
surface waters fi'om the proposed platted area
c~ A written description of the current and
proposed use of the property including land
use type (commercial, industrial, residential,
etc.) and specific uses (discount store,
convenience center, etc.) if known.
rn If the plat is for non-residential uses, include
an estimate of the amount of daily traffic the
development is expected to generate.
Review Process Schedule
The statutes provide the county up to 30 calendar days
for review after receipt of the plat. This 30-day review
period only starts when the comity receives a complete
plat submittal. As part of the review process, the
county xvill confirm the receipt of the plat with the city
and .provide notification if any vital information is
missing. Cities must submit a plat to the county witMn
5 bushtess days after it is received by the city. There
are other time points xvithin the review process that
govern the review schedule (see below).
' ' ~ ' ; Prallmlna~ plat Submitted to City.
'E~si;,,," 'i ...... i - i ~ ! .. { .... ' ....
: ~ :Preliminary plat Submit by Cty to Coun
: * ! ] ' ' ~ iPrellmlnaryplatRecelve~lbyCounty
i! ~'i ~' ' ' i .....
iv.,.~. !' '! i
! h": "L-I! ~ '
I ;PlatRevlewCommffiee$2
D.t~ ~ · .... ~(i~needed) ..... ="
. ~ , ..~_ .~. · ....... [ .... : .....
~ .~2.~,~ ; ~ ~ ': ...............
· I .... },. [ .C! '..; .[.:'.'.'.2:': .~.'.: .... i , i '
~ =' .... I , ....
; :. : Cl~Co~n5 tak,~gnOpplat.. _
i'/ '-; .................... ; ................... ; ............
~ d~p~S~Hon ~fcommentsto
v -~'
. ' .Cou~urv~yor cheeks'If Coun~
~ . .c~m~.e~~[*~Ponse ~as submiRed
. ~Coun~ Surveyor approve~ FIRol P
H~w are Plats Evaluated ?
County staffevaluates proposed plats for a number
items that affect county roadways. Some examples
review items include;
Safety Issues · Confommnce with entering sight distance guideli
· Unusual weaving & merging maneuver conflict.,
· Turn lane / auxiliar5, lane needs
Access Management · Proposed driveway and street entrance complian
with county access spacing guidelines
· Oppommities for access reorientation and / or
consolidation
· Driveway design, throat lengths
Right-of- }}'ay Needs · Anticipated future roadway section
· Right-of-way needs for ttma lanes / auxiliary lane
· Other needs (pedestrian / bike accommodations)
Operational Elements · Intersection capacity analysis
· Turn lane / auxiliary lane design configurations
· Traffic control needs
· Potential on-site circulation impacts ?
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations
· Is roadway designated as part of a city bike plan o
the County Bicycle System Plan ?
Miscellaneous Items · Drainage needs (road and / or site ?). Any
encroachments within roadway right-of-way ?
· Proposed grading impacts
13.00
SUBDMSION AND PLATTING
13.01 PURPOSE AND GENERAL.
13.011
Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to make certain regulations and requirements for the
subdivision and platting of land within the City of New Hope pursuant to the authority contained
in Minnesota Statutes 462.358, which regulations the City Council deems necessary for the
health, safety and general welfare of this community. It is also the purpose of this chapter to
safeguard the best interests of the City of New Hope and to assist the subdivider in harmonizing
his interests with those of the City at large.
13.012
13.013
Scope. The provisions of this chapter relate to any division of a tract of land into two or more
parcels by platting, replatting, conveyance, registered land survey, or other means.
Approvals Necessary for Subdivision Plats. Before any plat shall be recorded or be of any
validity, it shall be referred to the City p)anning Commission and approved by the City
Council of New Hope as having fulfilled the requirements of this chapter.
13.014
13.015
Conditions for Recording. No plat of any subdivision shall be entitled to record in the
Hennepin County Recorders Office or have any validity until the plat thereof has been
prepared, approved, and acknowledged in the manner prescribed in this chapter.
Building Permits. No building permits will be considered for issuance by the City of New
Hope for the construction of any building, structure or improvement to the land or to any lot
in a subdivision as defined herein, until all requirements of this chapter have been fully
complied with.
13.016
Conflict. Whenever there is a difference between minimum standards or dimensions specified
herein and those contained in other official regulations or resolutions, or provisions of the City
Code, the highest standards shall apply.
................................................. (Code 072684)
13.017 Exceptions: Lot Consolidation., Minor Subdivision.
13.017 (1) Exception, Procedural Requirements: The following land divisions are exempted from
the procedural requirements of this section.
13.017(1) (a)
Land divisions which are part of a recorded plat, if the division is to permit
the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot or the combination of
recorded platted lots to form no more than two (2) lots. Newly created lots
shall conform to the design and performance standards of the New Hope
Subdivision and Zoning Code.
13.017(1) (b)
Simple division of a single lot which is part of a recorded plat to create no
more than two (2) lots provided the newly created property line will not
cause the remaining portion of the lot or any structure thereon to be in
violation with the New Hope Zoning and Subdivision Code. To qualify, the
parcel of land shall not have been part of a minor subdivision within the last
five (5) years.
13.017(1) (e)
Requests to divide a base lot of a two family dwelling or a quadraminium
which is part of a recorded plat if the division will permit individual private
ownership of a single dwelling unit within such a structure, provided the
13 - 1 072684
newly created property lines will not cause any of the unit lots or structure
to be in violation of the New Hope Zoning and Subdivision Code.
13.017 (2) Information Requirements. The following information shall be submitted along with
the application for lot consolidation or minor subdivision.
I3.017(2)(a)
Survey Certificate. Certificate of survey prepared by a registered land
surveyor which includes:
13.017(2)(a) (i) Original and proposed lot boundaries.
13.017(2)(a) (ii) Location of existing structures on the site.
13.017(2)(a) (iii) Original and proposed legal description.
13.017(2) (b)
Property Description and Submission Information. The date and supportive
information detailing the proposed subdivision shall be the same as required
for a major subdivision as described in Section 13.04 of this Code.
Exception, as stipulated in writing, may be granted by the City Manager.
The City Manager may require additional information deemed necessary in
the review of the proposed subdivision.
13.017(2)(c)
Design Standards. The subdivision shall conform to all the design standards
as specified in Section 13.05 of this Code. Any proposed deviation from said
standards shall require the processing of a variance request.
13.01.7 O) Application, Processing and Recording.
1.3.017(3) (a)
Application. Upon receipt of a subdivision application, required information
and fees, the City Manager or his designated representative, shall have ten
(10) business days to decide if the application is exempt pursuant to the
exemptions of 13.017 (1)(a) through (c) of this Code.
13.017(3) {b)
Processing. If the requested land division is in full conformance with the
performance standards of the New Hope Zoning and Subdivision Code the
City Manager shall approve the subdivision.
13.017(3) (e)
Recording. The applicant shall be notified of the lot consolidation or minor
subdivision approval in writing. Said document of approval shall be
submitted with the certificate of survey to the Hennepin County Recorder.
...................................... (Ord. 89-17)
13.02 RULES AND DEFINITIONS.
13.021
Rules. For the purpose of this chapter, words used in the present tense shall include the future;
words in the singular shall include the plural, and the plural the singular; and the word shall
is m~ndatol'y and not discretionary.
13.022 Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, certain words and terms are hereby defined as
follows:
13.022 (1) Alley. Alley is a public right-of-way which affords a secondary means of access to
abutting property.
13 - 2 072684
13.022 (2)
13.022 (3)
Block. Block is an area of land within a subdivision that is entirely bounded by
streets, or by streets and the exterior boundary or boundaries of the subdivision, or a
combination of the above with a river or lake.
Boulevard. Boulevard is the portion of the street right-of-way between the curb line
and the property line.
13.022 (4)
13.022 (5)
13.022 (6)
City. City is the City of New Hope.
City Council. City Council is the governing body of the City of New Hope.
Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive plan refers to the group of maps, charts and
texts that make up the Comprehensive long-range plan of the City.
13.022 (7)
13.022 (8)
13.022 (9)
13.022 (10)
DesiRn Standards. Design standards are the specifications to land owners or
subdividers for the preparation of plats, both preliminary and final, indicating among
other things, the optimum, lY~inimRm or maximum dimensions of such items as fights-
of-way, blocks, easements and lots.
Easement. Easement is a grant by a property owner for the use of a strip of land for
the purpose of constructing and ~naint~ining drives, utilities, including, but not limited
to, sanitary sewers, water ~nain.% electric lines, telephone lines, storm sewer or storm
drainage ways and gas lines.
Final Plat. Final plat is a drawing or map of a subdivision, meeting all of the
requirements of the City and in such form as required by Hennepin County for the
purpose of recording.
Lot. Lot is a portion of a subdivision or other parcel of land intended for building
development or for transfer of ownership.
........................................... (Code 072684)
13.022 (11) Outlot. Outlot is a lot remnant or parcel of land left over after platting, which is
intended as open space or other future use for which no building permit may be issued.
................................... (Code 072684, Ord. 89-16)
13.022 (12)
Owner. Owner includes the plural as well as the singular, and where appropriate shall
include a natural person, partnership, firm association, public or quasi-public
corporation, private corporation, or a combination of them.
13.022 (13) Parks and Playgrounds. Parks and playgrounds are public land and open spaces in the
City of New Hope dedicated or reserved for recreation purposes.
13.022 (14)
Percentage of Grade. Percentage of Grade, on street center line, means the distance
vertically (up or down) from the horizontal in feet and tenths of a foot for each one
hundred feet of horizontal distance.
13.022 (15)
Pedestrian Way. Pedestrian way is a public right-of-way or private easement across
a block to provide access for pedestrians and which may be used for the installation
of utility lines.
13.022 (16) Plannine Commission. Planning Commission is the Planning Commission of the City
of New Hope.
13 - 3 072684
13.022 (17)
13.022 (18)
13.022 (19)
13.022 (20)
13.022 (21)
13.022 (22)
13.022 (23)
13.022 (24)
13.022 (25)
13.022 (26)
13.022 (27)
13.022 (28)
13.022 (29)
~. Prel~ plat is a tentative drawing or map of a proposed
subdivision meeting requirements herein enumerated.
Protective Covenant. Protective covenants are conu'acts entered into between private
parties and constitute a restriction of the use of all private property within a
subdivision generally intended for the benefit of the property owners and for providing
mutual protection against undesirable aspects of development which would tend to
impair stability of values.
Setback Line. Setback line is a line within a lot designated on the preliminary plat
between which, and the adjacent street, the erection of an enclosed structure or portion
thereof is prohibited.
Street. Street is a public right-of-way affording primary access by pedestrians and
vehicles to abutting properties, whether designated as a street, highway, thoroughfare,
parkway, road, avenue, or boulevard.
Streets - Principal Arterial. Principal arterial streets are those highways used for high
volumes of traffic, and serving as the major links between the major sub-areas of the
region.
Streets - Minor Arterial. Minor arterial streets are those used primarily for heavy
traffic, and serving as thoroughfares between the major subdistricts of the community.
Streets - Collector. Collector streets are those that carry traffic from minor streets to
the major system of arterials, including the principal entrance streets of residential
districts.
Street - Minor. Minor streets are those which are used primarily for access to
abutting properties.
Street - Marginal Access (Service Road). Marginal access (service road) streets are
minor streets which are parallel and adjacent to thoroughfares and highways, and
which provide access to abutting properties and protection from through traffic.
Street - Cul-de-sac. Cul-de-sac street is a minor street with only one outlet and having
an appropriate terminal for the safe and convenient reversal of traffic movement.
Street Width. Street width is the shortest distance between lines of lots delineating the
streets right-of-way.
Subdivider. Subdivider is a developer, and is any individual, finn, association,
syndicate, co-pannership, corporation, trust or other legal entity having sufficient
pwprietary interest in the land sought to be subdivided to commence and maintain
proceedings to subdivide the same under this chapter.
Subdivision. Subdivision is a described tract of land which is to be or has been
divided imo two or more lots or parcels, for the purpose of transfer of ownership or
building development, or, if a new street is involved, any division of a parcel of land.
The term includes resubdivision and, where it is appropriate to the context, relates
either to the process of subdividing or to the land subdivided.
............................................. (Ord. 77-5)
IB - 4 072684
13.022 (30) Subdivision Bond. Subdivision bond is security approved by the City to assure the
City that improvements and utilities will be actually constructed and installed in
accordance with City specifications and requirements, as expressed in a contract and
by this Code and City regulations. Such security may be by cash deposit, savings
account or certificate of deposit assigned to the City, by letter of credit, corporate
surety bond or other bond with surety and conditions satisfactory to the City.
........................................ (Ord. 77-5, 78-17)
13 - 5 072G84
13.03 PROCEDURE.
13.031
13.031 (1)
13.031 (2)
Filing. Ten copies of the preliminary plat shall be submitted to the City Clerk. The
required filing fee as prescribed in Chapter 14 shall be paid and any necessary
applications for variances from the provisions of this chapter shall be submitted with
the required fee before the proposed plat shall be considered officially submitted. The
proposed plat shall be placed on the agenda of the first Planning Commission meeting
after ten days from the date of being officially submitted. The plat shall be considered
officially submitted when all of the information requirements are complied with.
Hearing. The City Clerk shall set a public hearing for the next regular meeting of the
planning Commission. The planning Commission shall conduct the hearing, and
report its findings and make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of said
hearing shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the
hearing and written notification of said hearing shall be mailed at least ten days prior
to the hearing to all owners of land within three hundred fifty feet of the boundary of
the property in question.
13.031 O)
Technical Assistance Reports. After the public hearing has been set, the City
Manager shall instruct the staff to prepare teetmieal reports, (where appropriate) and
provide general assistance in preparing a recommendation on the action to the City
Council.
13.031(4)
Review by Other Commissions or Jurisdictions. Where appropriate, the City Manager
shall file copies of the preliminary plat with other city commi.qsions and or county and
state agencies for their review and comment.
13.031 (5) Report to Council. The planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the
City Council within thirty days following the close of the public hearing.
13.031 (6) City Council Action.
13.031(6) (a)
Time Limitations. If all requirements of this chapter and as additionally
imposed by the Planning Commi.qsion are complied with, the Council shall
act upon the preliminary plat within one hundred twenty days of the date on
which it was officially submitted. If the recommendation of the Planning
Commission has not been received in time to meet the requirement, the
Council may act on the preliminary plat without such recommendation.
13.031(6) (b)
Preliminary Plat. If a preliminary plat is not approved by the City Council,
the reasons for such action shall be recorded in the proceedings of the
Council and transmitted to the applicant. If the preliminary plat is approved,
such approval shall not constitute final acceptance of the layout. Subsequent
approval will be required of the engineering proposals and other features and
requirements as specified by this chapter, to be indicated on the final plat.
The City Council may require such revisions in the preliminary plat and final
plat as it deems necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and
convenience of the City of New Hope.
13.031 (6) (c)
Time Limit on Preliminary Approval. If the preliminary plat is approved by
the City Council, the subdivider must submit the final plat within one
hundred days after said approval, or approval of the preliminaxy plat shall be
15 - 6 072684
considered void, unless a written request for a time extension is approved by
the City Council.
13.032 Final Plat. After the preliminary plat has been approved, the final plat shall be submitted for
approval as follows:
13.032 (1)
Approval of the Planning Commission. Copies of the final plat shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation, unless this
requirement is waived by the Planning Commission during their review of the
preliminary plat.
13.032 (2)
Approval of the City Council. Twelve copies of the final plat shall be fried with the
City Clerk for distribution to the City Council, appropriate City Staff, telephone,
power and gas companies at least twenty days prior to a Council meeting at which
consideration is requested. During the said twenty days, the City staff shall examine
the final plat and prepare a recommendation tO be submitted to the Planning
Commission and to the City Council. Nature of approval, disapproval, or any delay
in decision of the final plat will be conveyed to the subdivider within ten days after the
meeting of the City Council at which such plat was considered. In case the plat is
disapproved, the subdivider shall be notified in writing of the reason for such action
and what requirements shall be necessary to meet the approval of the Council, if
accepted, by resolution, which resolution shall provide for the acceptance of all
agreements for basic improvements, public dedication and other requirements as
indicated by the City Council.
13.032 O)
Filing of Final Plat. If the final plat is approved by the City Council, the subdivider
shall record it with the Heunepin County Recorder within one hundred days after said
approval or approval of the final plat shall be considered void. The subdivider shall,
immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible
tracing of the final plat showing evidence of the recording. No building permits shall
be issued for construction of any structure on any lot in said plat until the City has
received evidence of the plat being recorded by Hennepin County.
13.032 (4)
Copies of Filed Plat and Revised Topographic Map to City. Within thirty days after
approval by the City Council of the final plat, subdivider shall submit to the City Clerk
twelve copies of the final plat as filed, drawn on substantial paper, at a scale of not
less than one inch equals one hundred feet, together with revised copies of the City
tOpography map pertaining to the platted area, certified by a registered engineer or
surveyor to be a correct representation of the platted area in accordance with the new
design grades and elevations.
13-7 0~6~
13.04 DATA REQUIRED FOR pRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS.
13.041 ~- The Owner or Subdivider shall prepare and submit a preliminary plat,
together with any necessary supplementary information. The preliminary plat shall contain the
following information:
13.041 (1)
13.041(1) (a)
13.041(1) (b)
13.041(1) (c)
13.041(1) (d)
General Provisions.
~. Proposed name of subdivision; names shall not duplicate
or closely resemble names of e~isting subdivisions within Hennepin County.
Location of Boundary Lines. Location ofboundary lines in relation to known
section, quarter section or quarter- quarter section lines comprising a legal
description of the property.
Names and Addresses. Names and addresses of the owner, developer and
the designer or surveyor making the plat.
Scale. Scale (and bar scale) of plat, not less than one inch to one hundred
feet.
13.041(1) (e) Da N~. Date of preparation and northpoint.
13.041 (2) Existing
13.041(2) (a)
13.041(2) (b)
Conditions.
Boundary Line. Boundary line of proposed subdivision, clearly indicated.
Zoning Classifications. Existing zoning classifications for and within and
abutting the subdivision.
13.041(2) (c)
Acreage and Dimensions. A general statement on the approximate total
acreage and dimensions of the lots.
13.041(2) (d)
Previously Platted Streets, Other Details. Location, widths and names of all
existing or previously platted streets or other public ways, showing type,
width and conditions of improvements, if any, railroad and utility
rights-of-way, parks and other public open spaces, permanent buildings and
structures, easements and section and corporate lines within three hundred
and fifty feet beyond the uaet.
13.041(2) (e)
Sewer, Water Main and Other Details. Location and size of existing sewers,
water m~in.% ctaverts or other underground facilities within the tract and to
a distance of three hundred and fifty feet beyond the tract. Such data as
grades, invert elevations, and locations of catch basins, manholes and
hydrants shall also be shown.
13.041(2) (f)
Adjoinin~ Land. Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided
land, within three hundred and fifty feet, identified by name and ownership,
including all configuons land owned or controlled by the subdivider.
13.041(2) (g)
Topographic Drain. Topographic data, as shown on the City topographic
map. Water cottraes, marshes, wooded areas, rock outcrops, power
transmission poles and lines, and other significant features shall also be
shown. The City topographic map shall be used, and shall be furnished by
13 - 8 072684
the City to the subdivider at the subdivider's cost. Topographic maps shall
include all areas within three hundred and fifty feet of the tract.
15.041 O)
~$.041($) ia)
Proposed Design Features.
Street Layout. Layout of proposed streets showing the fight-of-way
widths, centerline gradients, typical cross sections, and proposed names
of streets. The name of any street heretofore used in the City or its
environs shall not be used unless the proposed street is a logical
extension of an already named street, in which event the same name
shall be used.
13.041 (3)
Alleys, Pedestrian Ways, Easements. Locations and widths of proposed
alleys and pedestrian ways and utlility easements.
13.041(3) (e)
Improvements and Storm Water Runof-[ Typical cross-sections of
proposed improvements upon streets and alleys, together with an
indication of the proposed storm water runoff, showing drainage from
other areas that contribute storm waters to proposed plats.
13.041(3) (d)
Street and Alley Centefline Gradients. Approximate center line
gradients of proposed streets and alleys, and adjoining streets, if any.
13.041(3) {e)
Sewer Lines and Water Main.q. Locations and size of proposed sewer
lines and water main.q.
13.041(3) (f)
Lots and Blocks. Layout, numbers and pre 'inninary dimensions of lots
and blocks.
13.041(3) (g)
Building Setback Lines. Minimum front and side street building setback
lines.
13.041(3) (h)
Setback on Curved Lot. When lots are located on a curve, the width of
the lot at the building setback line.
13.041(3) (i)
Other Dedicated Areas. Areas, other than streets, alleys, pedestrian
ways and utility easements, intended to be dedicated or reserved for
public use, including the size of such area or areas in acres.
13.041(3)
Water Supply. Water mains shall be provided to serve the subdivision
by extension of an existing community system. Service connections shall
be stubbed into the property line when feasible and all necessary fire
hydrants shall also be provided. Extensions of the public water supply
system shall be designed so as to provide public water in accordance
with the standards of the City of New Hope.
13.041(3) (k)
Sewage Disposal. Sanitary sewer maim and service connections shall
be installed to serve all the lots in the subdivision and shall be connected
to the public system.
13.041(3) O)
Surface Water. Provision for surface water disposal, drainage, and
flood control.
13-9 0~6~
SupplemenuuW Information. The following supplementary information
requirements shall be complied with where they are deemed appropriate and
necessary by the City Manager.
13.041(4) (a)
Proposed Use of Lots. Statement of the proposed use of lots stating type
of residential buildings with number of proposed dwelling units and type
of business or industry, so as to reveal the effect of the development on
traffic, fire hazards, and congestion of population.
13.041(4) (b)
Soil Survey. An accurate soil survey of the subdivision prepared in
accordance with City specifications.
13.04t(4) (e)
Proposed Zoning Chan~e.s. If any zoning changes are contemplated, the
proposed zoning plan for the areas, including dimensions, shall be
shown. Such proposed zoning plan shall be for information only and
shall not vest any rights for the applicant.
13.041(4) (d)
Potential Adjacent Subdivisions. Where the subdivider owns property
adjacent to that which is being proposed for the subdivision, the Planning
Commission shall require that the subdivider submit a sketch plan of the
remainder of the property so as to show the possible relationships
between the proposed subdivision and the future subdivision. In any
event, all subdivisions shall be shown to relate well with existing or
potential adjacent subdivisions.
13.041(4) (e)
Potential Resubdivision Lots. Where structures are m be placed on lots
which could be resubdivided for further development, the preliminary
plat shall indicate placement of structures so that the lot may be further
subdivided.
13.041(4)
Plan for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. A plan for soil erosion and
sediment control both during construction and after development has
been completed. The plan shall include gradients of water ways, design
of velocity and erosion control measures, and landscaping of the erosion
and sediment control system.
13.041(4) (g)
Plan for Vegetation Protection and Preservation. A vegetation
preservation and protection plan that shows those trees proposed to be
removed, those to remain, the types and locations of trees and other
vegetation that are to be planted.
13.041(4) fa)
Other Information. Such other information as may be requested by the
City Staff, Planning Commission, or City Council.
13.042 Final Plat. The owner or subdivider shall submit a final plat together with any necessary
supplementary information.
13.042 (1)
Contents. The final plat, prepared for recording purposes, shall vbe prepared in
accordance with provisions of Minnesota Statutes and Hennepin County and City
regulations. The final plat shall be displayed on a twenty by thirty inch sheet at a
scale of one inch equals one hundred feet and shall contain the following information:
13 - 10 072684
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Planning Commission Members
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
February 2, 2001
Miscellaneous Issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with
additional detail on CounciI/EDAJHRA actions on Community Development related issues or
other City projects. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your
review, at your discretion.
1. January 8 Council Meetin.q - At the January 8 Council meeting, the Council took action on the
following planning/development/housing issues:
· Project #514, Resolution Approving A.qreement with Cenaiko Expositions, Inc. to
Provide Booths for the 2001 Northwest Suburban Remodelinq Fair: Approved, see
attached Council request.
· Proiect #670, Resolution Awarding the Contract for the Sale and Removal of House at
5532 Winnetka Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Public Hearing Continued - Amended Resolution Establishinq Findin.qs of Fact
Relatinq to Revocation of CUP to Allow Outdoor Storaqe and/or Rental of Vehicles at
4904 Winnetka (PC99-14): Approved, see attached Council request and resolution.
2. January 22 Council Meeting - At the January 22 Council meeting, the Council took action on the
following planning/development/housing issues:
· Projects #676 and 664, Resolution Awardin.q Contract for the Demolition for House and
Gara.qe at 5406 and 5410-12 Winnetka: Approved, see attached Council request.
· Project #696, Resolution Authorizinq Conveyance and Reacquisition of Property
Adjacent to 5420 Winnetka Avenue from the State of Minnesota: Approved, see attached
Council request.
· Proiect #700, Motion Authorizinq Staff to Neqotiate the Purchase of 5510 Sumter
Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request.
¸3.
Codes & Standards Committee - Codes & Standards did not meet. Staff discussed
recommendations for modifications to the subdivision ordinance, per Hennepin County and the
City Attomey prepared the ordinance.
Desi.qn & Review Committee - Design & Review did not meet in January due to the fact that
there were no applications for February requiring review by the Committee. Nextel
(communication tower) should be ready to submit an application for the March meeting. Following
the March application deadline on February 9, staff will notify Committee members whether a
meeting is necessary. Due to a scheduling conflict with the TwinWest State of the City
Coffee Break on Thursday, February 15, (the regular Design & Review meeting date) staff
would like to reschedule the meeting to Friday, February 16, if that date is acceptable to
commissioners.
Zonin.q Code Update - The City Council and staff will be discussing the final recommendations
at a work session on February 20. Staff will informally review the recommendations with the
Planning Commission at the March meeting, and the public hearing will be held at the April
Planning Commission meeting. A large number of legal notices will need to be mailed prior to the
public hearing with a brief explanation of the changes being proposed.
Sonsin Reco.qnition - Bill Sonsin will be recognized by the City Council at the beginning of the
February 26 meeting. All Planning Commissioners are invited to attend.
State of the City Coffee Break - New Hope will be hosting the TwinWest State of the City
Coffee Break on Thursday, February 15, at 7:30 a.m. You are invited to attend.
Proiect Bulletin - Enclosed for your information are project bulletins regarding 5406, 5410-12
Winnetka and 5532 Winnetka Avenue.
Livable Communities Planninq Grant - The City has been notified that it will be the recipient of a
Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account Program grant to further study
the feasibility of the redevelopment of the Bass Lake Road corridor area. The grant funds, in the
amount of $60,000, will be matched by the City to cover costs of in-depth planning, marketing, and
feasibility studies for the "Hope Village" area and to conduct neighborhood meetings with property
owners to determine how residents would like to see this area potentially redeveloped. The "Hope
Village" area is identified as an area approximately one-half mile north and south of Bass Lake Road
and extending to Boone Avenue on the west and the Crystal city border on the east. It is anticipated
that a committee will be formed later this year to assist with the grant activities and that several
members from the Planning Commission will be asked to serve on the committee, similar to the
Comprehensive Plan andZoning Code update committees.
Attachments:
Remodeling Fair Booth Contract
5532 Winnetka Avenue
U-Haul Revocation of CUP
5406, 5410-12 Winnetka
5420 Winnetka Avenue
5510 Sumter Avenue
Project Bulletins
Miscellaneous Article
.OUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
/
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 1-08-01 Consent
· /~ Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald ' 6.16
MOTION APPROVING QUOTE BY CENAIKO EXPOSITIONS, INC. TO PROVIDE BOOTHS FOR THE 2001
NORTHWEST SUBURBAN REMODELING FAIR (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 514)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of a motion approving the quote from Cenaiko Expositions, Inc. for the rental and
set-up of booths for the 2001 Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
The cities of New Hope, Crystal, Robbinsdale, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, and Plymouth
have sponsored the Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair for the past eight years and desire to sponsor the
2001 Remodeling Fair.
BACKGROUND
The cities sponsor the Remodeling Fair to encourage homeowners/residents to upgrade/remodel homes in
these cities. The Remodeling Fair will be held on Saturday, April 7, at the Crystal Community Center from 9:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m. It is anticipated that there will be no cost to host the Fair, as the income derived from the
sale of the booths for exhibits will pay for advertising, booth rental and consultant expenses. The cost per
booth for exhibitors will be $125.00 and includes an 8' x 10' booth (with backwall, sidewalls, skirted table,
chairs, and sign).
The cities have solicited quotes from companies for booth set-up and rental and received the following quotes:
Company Quote
Cenaiko Expositions, Inc. $2,312.12
Hubbell/Tyner $3,080.00
Staff from the seven cities are recommending accepting the Iow quote from Cenaiko Expositions, Inc. in the
amount of $2,312.12. New Hope is again coordinating the receipt/disbursement of revenues/expenses
for the Fair; therefore, the agreement needs to be approved by New Hope even though it is addressed
to Crystal.
MOTION SECOND
BY BY
TO:
COUNCIL
FOR ACTION
RE( UEST
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 1-08-01 Consent
? Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald By: 6.22
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE SALE AND REMOVAL OF HOUSE AT 5532
WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 670)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is requesting Council approve a resolution awarding contract for the sale and removal of house and
detached garage at 5532 Winnetka Avenue North to Otting House Movers in the amount of $10,200.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
For city-owned properties where the City is selling the home and having it removed from the site, staff seeks
quotes from building movers and recommends selling the home to the highest bidder.
BACKGROUND
The City purchased this property in November for $140,000. The 5400 and 5500 blocks on the east side of
Winnetka are identified in the Comprehensive Plan for redevelopment and the City has been acquiring
properties on a voluntary basis. Due to the fact that house is in fairly good condition, staff felt that the home
could be sold and removed from the property. Staff obtained quotes from the following contractors:
Contractor Bid
Otting House Movers $10,200
Swift Housemovers 8,285
Lunak House Movers 1,700
The high bid was submitted by Otting House Movers in the amount of $10,200. Upon the City's receipt of
payment and certificate of insurance, a bill of sale will be awarded to Otting House Movers, and the contract
states that the structures must be removed from the property by February 15, 2001. After the house has been
removed from the site, quotes will be sought for demolition/removal of the remaining foundation and for site
restoration.
Staff recommends awarding the quote to Otting House Movers.
A'I'rACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Contract and City Attorney Correspondence
· Sale and Removal Specifications/Quote
· Location Map
MOTION SECOND
BY BY
TO:
' . ' ,~417...__.;
,' ~0 7aO0 ~--' ~ ~.~4 ."'
......, : ; f~ ~- i - - ...... :
' il; ' ?ooo : ....
,' " ........... !m; !~ i ............. i ........ ,; ..~, ~..
'. _ ~ Jljl'il'~ill~ k l156TH AVE N~
....... : ..~.~?-~..., ................. ~.:. - ..... 'r'-';."'-': ..... . ;_--
....... : - .~-. :',,. "."'...: ...-..---"---': ~. ";,'~i.'".:;--
: ..... · :-- ;. ,.~M, : : gg,,1. : ~ i,. · -; ~ 7,]01
· : JJl;I4~ .' ~. .~. -, , ~ · .. ;
---.i~i ......... i_._L., i' "2L-7"; .~>~z~. .~'~:'.~-.--,-'.~'.--':-'-[-
.. ................... ~ ; , .......... , I~: Iii. ,~>--;: · ! ~a~
dULl,) ; ..............: : __ , ~, r,,: r,, ..... , I _ -.-:.-.. I v, , ,.
; -...-... _- w, .-' ,' ,,~ ~ : ; . ?~o~, I PARK
· "" : ,55TH. , N
....... ;
' ........... ' ........... ' .........
! ; .. ....... ~ ~ ,, r. ....... 1" ........
~ ................. ., ., : : . ;
- ' : ~ ~ ,4(-., ; ., -..~---- : ·
5431 : ' '- ....... : .... C:."-:: ........ ' ...... I ....... ~ ,.,
........ r ..... ~ ........ : MU iLU M~ ;s(u ',,,~i M3o , s~2e ·
. ..q , ' , '.~ ' , ~' ' uric]er
~.Zl ~ ....... s ~'"'~ ......... ~ .......... ~ ~_~ ...................... ~ , .
· : .......~ ........ ~477-~:~!-- ' ,,,,., : :.~.:..~ .,.~ : .... ~ Conslderahon
5421 . : --.~ ....~ ........ ~ ....... : .....· '- ............... ; --_ _
...... ~ . _s422~? s,123~ STRAPHAEL DR.
54,11 ~ .4.' .-.-"2~.._~.~....~.. /.....~c2~...: i .........r ....~ . ' .............. ' ; ...... '~ ........ ', · '
5411 ~ .-.-.- ............... - ..... ~ ...... : .............. 4 ~ ........ __.~ ·
: ~s4~2~-.~'Mlo-~' -'-~ In,: ~,44 i _-~,a: '. ~e ' ~xl ' ~,,
...... ~ //~/'~ .. /'~ ~l'~lJ .i--il ~ . ,,.r~,~ ~__ .F~,,w ~1--1: ,w-T~"v I ~ ....
S40". M ,,,,, ....... ~i-- ........ ~ .... -', ...... . ....... ~.. ........ 5.1
....... ~ : s4ee;:~; s406! s4Ge[..,~: s4os~ MOe:.4;: 5410 '....... [ .
~ . · t ..~,,J". ..... ~ ....... ;-J.I.. ...... ,. ..... '-I ' · ...... : ' "'~
~ · ' ..... i .; : ~ . . , ~ ....... .'
....... : , ~401) 1 ~"4~1 :(/): MOl) .' ,5401 ~U')i ~400 ~ ,~101 ~ ! Mi:X) :
.: .~ ~-. ~.~ .._..... -~.:.. ........................ .~ ......... .~ ,. ....... ~ .......... ; ........
...... ,~-'~'~-,.....,'"~, ~ , ~ , S3,,T')' . 5,1M. ~ , . ,,x'q,~ . ____ ·
· ~- ~ / - ' .................. ~" ........ · -" ..... --' - ........ f~ .......
· . _ ~ ..... '"~--~ r- ....... .~- ........ LI.J:. ........ ~. ....... 4~.,, .........
' * I~ r ; QI4,'l~ ~ ' ~ : ; · li,M~. ,.-. ........ '.
: " "--' N ' · ' 18 5325:1:~ ~ · ., , · .
· , JJJ: ,, _ ,' ...... .= : ~ t .,-,,~ .-S321 ,::::)! S324 ~ s32S' ~.-
· j ~, ~ . : ..... . .............. 'i.,.,/j ...... · : .
I I~' . , . r ', --,' ................ I .
· , . .~. _ .-r-: ;,.,-: ..........
: .... ""'-~ !~ /S307 i .' 5312~ ~31t:~-'; 533,0 · 5311 I ; 5318, , 531" ; [ ......
- ',. ,r ,~) -" ~ ;; ....... '_. ; "--& .... ~ ' ' ' "' I ' ,,..~
· · .. , . '-~.,, ; , .....
· " ~ '~, ~ q'-- · ' · .' I .' . · '
· - ~ '~.- - · : i ~ ~ S313 ' : 5324 , 5313, , 5312: , 53t3 ; l._.
..... ' ...... '-- '"'l .... 'b-- ...... ,.. · ' '~ I ~ · -- ·
COUNCIL
REi UEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department
Community Development
Kirk McDonald
By:/)
Approved for Agenda
1-08-01
Agenda Section
Public Hearing
Item No.
7.1
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - AMENDED RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF FACT
RELATING TO REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STOI::~GE
AND/OR RENTAL OF VEHICLES AT 4904 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (PLANNING CASE NO. 99-14)
ACTION REQUESTED
This is a continuation of the October 23, 2000, public headng to consider the revocation of the conditional use
permit to allow outdoor storage and/or rental of vehicles at 4904 Winnetka Avenue North. Prior to October 23
the headng was continued from August 14, 2000. Due to the fact that the conditions of the original
conditional use permit have not been complied with, staff recommends that the CUP for the rental of
U-Haul vehicles at this property be revoked and that the attached resolution be approved.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
The City Council routinely approves zoning requests subject to conditions that the applicant is required to
meet. In situations where the applicant does not comply with the approved conditions, the City Council has the
authority to conduct a public hearing and consider revocation of the zoning request.
BACKGROUND
At the September 27, 1999, Council meeting, the City Council approved a conditional use permit to allow
outdoor storage and/or rental of vehicles at 4904 Winnetka Avenue North for the U-Haul business operated by
Johnson Van & Storage. The approval was granted subject to a number of conditions, including the installation
of landscaping, completion of certain building improvements, limited outdoor storage area, etc. The applicant
failed to comply with most of these conditions in a timely manner. The deadline for the installation of the
landscaping (July 1) had passed and no action had been taken on other matters. Due to the applicant's non-
compliance, on July 13, 2000, the-Building Official issued a citation and informed the business owner and
property owner that the City Council would consider a revocation of the conditional use permit because the
conditions of approval had not been met.
(cont'd.)
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
Req~,~'ot f~-.~,ction Paae 2
At the July 24 City Council meeting, the Council adopted a resolution calling for a public hear'rog for the Augus'~
14 Council meeting to consider revocation of the conditional use permit due to non-compliance with the
conditions. At the August 14 public headng, the property owner, United Properties, indicated that the
landscaping was in the process of being completed and that they were working with their construction
department on alternative methods of ADA access. The tenant indicated that they would either confine their
storage area to the approved site plan or apply for an amendment to their CUP to expand the area for storage.
The City Council continued the.public headng until the first meeting in January to allow additional time for
these items to be comPleted and indicated that if the conditions were not complied with, that the CUP would be
revoked.
The two items of the CUP that have not been complied with are:
Confined stora.qe area.
The original CUP limited the outdoor storage space for U-Haul rental to 1,200 square feet in a clearly
defined area shown on the site plan. The owner of the business has not confined the storage to the
approved area. In October, the tenant of the Johnson Van & Storage space submitted an application and
the appropriate fees to amend the current conditional use permit to expand the storage space area. Due to
the fact that they were proposing to utilize some of the existing parking areas for additional storage and
due to the fact that another tenant had moved into the building and there were some parking/emergency
vehicle access issues, staff determined that the plans and application were incomplete and requested that
the property owner submit a parking and storage plan for all the tenants in the building. Staff met with
United Properties and discussed the tenants request. A revised plan was not submitted. Since that time,
the business owner has not confined the storage area to the approved area.
ADA Access
Due to the fact that the property owner is aware that the CUP for the retail portion of the business may be
revoked due to the fact that the storage space area has been exceeded, ADA access has not been
installed. The owner did submit correspondence and a flyer on a vertical wheelchair platform lift that was
proposed to be installed to provide disability access, however, the preliminary plan was not approved by
the Building Official.
Staff sent correspondence to the business owner and property owner informing them of the continuation of
this hearing and has indicated that revocation of the CUP would be recommended. The Council should be
aware that the CUP is only for the storage of the U-Haul rental vehicles and does not impact the Johnson Van
& Storage business. Therefore, if the CUP is revoked, Johnson Van & Storage would be prohibited from
renting U-Haul vehicles, but the main business could continue.
The City Attorney has prepared the attached resolution and exhibits on this matter and staff recommends
approval of the resolution.
A'I-FACHMENTS
1. Resolution and Exhibits
2. City Attorney Correspondence
3. City Correspondence re: Public Hearing
4. City Correspondence re: Incomplete Application
/g:~'/~0 16:55 FAX 7~3493519S JENSEN & SON~RALL, ~A ~ ~" ~u~ ~ ~'''
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
AMENDED RESOLUTION ESTABLISItlNG
FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO REVOCATION
OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE AND/OR
RENTAL OF VEHIC~.,ES AT
,1904 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows:
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled and held on Augtlst 14, 2000 and twice
continued to October 23, 2000 and January 8, 2000 before the New Hope City Council to consider
the revocation of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for thc outdoor storage and/or rental
of vehicles at 4904 Winneflca Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Augt,.~t 14, 2000 public hearing was duly published in the New
Hope/Golden Valley Sun-Post on August 2, 2000 and that mailed notice, by certified mail, return
receipt requested, was mailed to Jolmson Van & Storage, MINCO Northwest Corporation and
United Properties (hereafter collectively known as "Owner/Occupant") on July 27, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Owner/Occupant was represented at the August 14, 2000 public hearing
by Ellen Morton, senior property manager for United Properties and Vernell Gillespie, owner of
Johnson Van & Storage; and
WFiF~RE~, the Owner/Occupant requested a continuance to October 23, 2000 to address
thc unsatisfied conditions of the CUP stated in the Resolution No. 2000-113 attached hereto as
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Owner/Occupant requested a second continuance of the public hearing
to January 8, 2001 to address unresolved issues relating to required conditions of the conditional
use permit granted for the subject property per Resolution No. 99-148 attached hereto as Exhibit
B; and
~AS, mailed notice of the continued hearing to January 8, 2001 was sent to Vernell
Gilles-pie, Ellen Morton and American Realty Advisors, agents for MINCO Northwest
Corporation on October 24, 2000 mad December 21, 2000, however, the October 24, 2000 letter
inzo~tly indicated a hearing date continuance of January 11, 2001 necessitating a need to mail
the December 21, 2000 notice to correct the error on the hearing date from January 11~ to January
8~, 2001; and
.,/~/00 16:56 FAX 7634935193 JENSEN & SON~RALL, PA . ~=n =or~ ~a
WItEREAS, at the August 14, October 23, 2000 and January 8, 2001 public hearings this
City Council had before it the entire City file regarding the CUP for the property, all statements
made by interested parties bearing on this CUP including statements from New Hope's
Community Development Director, a December 26, 2000 memo from the Building Official,
attached hereto as lSxhibit C and its own personal knowledge, recollections and opinions
concerning this CUP; and
PROCEDUR..A_I, HISTORY
WttEREAS, Johnson Van & Storage, Vernell, Gillespie and MINCO Nm-thwest
Corporation applied ibr and received a CUP to allow outdoor storage and/or rental of vehicles at
4904 Winnetka Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, said CUP was granted per Resolution No. 99-148, attached hereto as Exhibit
B, adopted by this City Council at its Sept=tuber 27, 1999 meeting; and
WltlgREAS, the request for this CUP was submitted under New ltope Planning Case
99-14. As part of this planning case, the Owner/Occupant included a site plan, attached hereto
as Exhibit D, indicathag the manner in which 4904 Winnetl~ Avenue North would be improved,
modified and altered to satisfy the zoning code requirements to permit the City Council to approve
the CUP; and
WHERIgAS, Resolution No. 99-148 provided among other things that the CLIP was
subject to the completion and compliance with the performance requirements of the site plan as
submitted in New Hope Planning Case No. 99-14;
W'll~EA~, the site plan. attached herew as Exhibit D requires the Owner/Occupant to
comply with the following conditions to maintain its CUP:
1. Construct an ADA access ramp on the west or from of the building;
2. Confine the storage area for the U~haul trailers to 1,200 square feet as shown on
the sit= plan; and
FIND.INGS OF FACT
WltlgREAS, the New Hope Community Development Director, Kirk McDonald stated
at the August 14, 2000, October 23, 2000 and January 8, 2001 public hearings regarding the CUP
for 4904 Winnetlm that he and the City's Building Official have made numerous inspections of
4904 Winn~tlca and as of the date of this public hearing found the Owner/Occupant has failed to
satisfy the following required conditions relating to the CUP:
1. The ADA access ramp shown and required by the submitted site plan on the from
or west of the building is not constructed as of January II, 2001;
-2-
/27/00 16:56 FAX 7634935193 JENSEN & SON~RALL. PA ~ hE, ~ur~ ~ ~ ....... .
2. The U=haul u-after storage is not confined to the 1,200 square foot storage area as
5hewn on the site plan. This continues to occur as of January 8, 2001
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope
as follows:
1. That this City Council hereby determines that Owner/Occupant has failed to comply
with the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage and/or rental
of vehicles at 4904 Winnetka Avenue North issued under New Hope Planning Case 99-14 and
approved by Resolution 99-148.
2. Specifically, Owner/Occupant has failed to comply with thc following temps and
conditions required by the submitted site plan and/or Resolution No. 99-148:
a. Failed to construct the ADA required access ramp shown on the site plan.
b. Failed to confine U-Iiaul trailer storage to the 1,200 squm'e foot area
designated on the site plan.
3. The Owner/Occupant was granted an extension to January 8, 2001 at the October
23, 2000 Council Meeting to comply with the conditions of the CUP stated in paragraph 2, and
that Owner/Occupant continues to violate these conditions despite promises to remedy the
violations by th~ extended deadline dates previously grained to them.
4. That based on the continuing unresolved violations of the required terms and
conditions of the conditional use permit, the City Council hereby declares the CUP for storage
and/or rental of vehicles at 4904 Winnetka Avenue Norfl~ issued under Planning Case 99-14
immediately REVOKED.
5. That the Owner/Occupant is hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from
using the property at 4904 Winnetlm Avenue North for the storage and/or rental of vehicles.
6. That the City Mar ger is hereby authorized and directed to take any and all action
nex~ssary to enforce thi.n CUP revocation and to serve on the Owner/Occupant personally or by
certified mail a certified copy of this r~olution ordering Revocation of the CUP for outdoor
storage and for rental of vehicles at 4904 Winn~a Avenue North.
Dated the 8t~ day of January, 2001.
Attest:
W. Peter Enc. lc, Mayor
-3-
16:57 FAX 7634935193 3ENSEN & SONDRALL, PA ~ hit
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
'?T/O0
16:57 FAX 7654935193
0F HEW HOPE
FRX HO. = 76555151~6 07-27-0~ I2~I~P P.O2 -
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-1 ~ 3
R~SOLUTION CALL[NG FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
IL~VOCATION O1~ CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE
AND/OR RENTAL OF VEHICLES AT
4904 WINN'E~& AVENUE NORTH
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows:
WHEREAS, ]olmson Van & Storage, Veraell Oillespie and MINCO Norlhwcsl
Corporation applied for and recuived a conditional use petrel, (hereinafter "CUP") to allow for
outdoor storage and/or rental of vehicles for property located at 4904 Winnetka Avenue North.
New Hope, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the described CDP was granted pursuant to New Hope Resolution No. 99-
148 duly adopted by the New Hope City Council at its meet/rig on September 27:1999 (copy of
resolution attached as Exh/bit A); and
~AS, the request for said CUP is identified as New Hope planning case 99.-14 and
required by New }tope Code §§4.122(2) and 4.21; and
WHEREAS, the CUP was grantcxi with the following conditions:
All signage to bc reviewed and approved by staff.
If refuse storage is moved outdoors in the furore, scr~n~ug details to bc submitted.
Screening on west property lhte to be completed by July 1, 2000, per the submitted plan.
along with irrigation system.
Lot striping (in white) to be completed by November 30, including installation of "visitor"
and "disability access" signs, per the plan.
Property owner to submit written commitment that landscaping will be maintained and
r~laccd, as n~c~sary.
~rHEILEAS, thc sim plan (attached hereto as Exhibit B) submitted as part of tim CUP
application requires the construction of an ADA ramp identified on the west or front of the
building; and
WHEREAS, New Hope Code §§ 4.233(5) and 4.363 require the applicam's for a CUP
pay the engineering, legal and aflminisrrarive costa incurre. A by the City to process and ent0rce the
CUP terrrm and conditions; and
-1-
16:57 FA~ 763
[:IT¥ DF' HEkl HOPE
JENSEN &
,~/HEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
CITY OF NEW HOPE
REsoLUTION NO, 99-
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING cASE NO. 99-14
REQUEST FOR A cONDITIONAL uSE pERMIT TO ALLOW oUTDOOR
STORAGE AND/OR RENTAL OF VEHICLES
AT 4904 wINNETKA AVENUE NORTH
(PID #08-11B-21-23'0004)
sUBMiTTED BY JOHNSON VAN & STORAGE/VERNELL GILLESPIE!
MINCO NORTHWEST coRPORATION
. Store eJemell Giitespie/MINCO Northwest
,~ ~nnlir.~ S, JOhnSOn Van & _, ...,a_g~ir,~,c
u,~ ~,~.~...__n.t., _ -..,..miRed a request ~u~,,,, .... vehicles, pursuant
Corporation, nave ~u~,
conditional use permit to aliow outdoor storage and/or rental of
to Sections 4.144(,2) and 4.21 of tl~e New Hope Code; and
the planning CommiSsion ileld a public hearing on plannin9 Case No. 99-14 on
August 4, 1999, found that all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code
for the conditional use permit have been satisfied by the applicants, and
recommended aPProval of the planning case request subject to att conditions aS
set forth in the City staff Report dated July 30, 1999; and
the City Council on August 9. 1999, considered the' report of the City staff, findings
and recommendations of the planning Commission, and tt~e c[~rnments o[ persons
attending the City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS. the City Council hereby finds and concludes that the applicant has satisfied ali
conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code lot issuance of the requested
conditional use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hopo that the
conditional use permit to allow otltdoor storage ancllor rental of vehicles, as
submitted in Planning case No. 99-14, is approved subject m the following
conditions:
1. All signage to be reviewed and approved by staff.
2. tf refuse storage is moved outdoors in the future, screening details to be
submitted.
3. Screening on ~Nest property line to be completed by July 1, 2000, per
submitted plan. along with irrigation system.
4. Lot striping (in white) to be completed by November 30, including installation
of "visitor" and 'disability access' signs, per the plan.
5. Property owner to submit written commitment that landscaping will be
maintained and replaced, as necessary.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hop~, Henneptn County, Minnesota. this 27~' day
of September,
Mayor
Attest. _ 4. ,C/-~'~ '
City Clerk
16:58 FAX 7634935193 JENSEN & SON~RALL, FA ~ h=. ~ur~ ~= ~---
DF HEW HOPE FRX HO.: 76~5515156 ~?-27-00 12:2~P
WHEREAS, the applicants have failed to meet certain conditions of the CUP granted by
resolution no. 99-148 as part of planning case 99-14 as follows:
1. The screening on the west property line has not been completed by July 1, 2000 as
required;
2. The ADA ramp identified on the site plan tins not been constructed;
3. Applicants have not coniined tlmir outdoor storage, of U-haul trailers to the 1.200 square
foot area as shown on the site plan;
4. Billing invoices of $404.50 for enginrzring, legal and administrative expenses for expert
consultants incurred by the City have ~mt been paid by the applicants; and
5. Certain building ct, dc issu:s relating to the property as set forth in thc City Building
Official's January 3, 2000 letter (attached hcreto as Exhibit C) remain unresolved.
NOW, THERF~FORF~, ]BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The City Counetl hereby orders that a public hearing be conducted at its August 14,
2000 meeting to consider the revocation of the CUP granmfl applicants for the outdoor storage
and/or rental of vehicles at 4904 Winnetka Avenue North granted by resolution no. 99-148. A~
the hearing, applicants' failure to meel conditions of the CUP will be considered in detenr, lnir~g
to revoke the CUP.
2. The City Manager is hereby directed to notify the applicants of saki August 14,
2000 public hearing pursuant to the notice requirements of New Hope Code §§ 1.40 through
1.432.
Dated the 24th day of July ,2000.
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Attest;
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
/
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Secuon
Deve lopmen~
Community Development 01/22/01 & Planning
Department item No.
By: Ken Doresky, ! By: 8.1
ecialist i
RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF HOUSE AND GARAGE AT 5406 AND 5410-12
WINNETKA (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FILES 676 AND 664)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting Council approve a resolution awarding the contract for the demolition of three single-family homes, two
detached garages, two sheds and other site features on City-owned property at 5406, 5410 and 5412 Winnetka Avenue
North to Bauer Contracting, Inc., the Iow bidder, in the amount of $9,849.00.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
The City routinely solicits quotes for the demolition of City-owned residential properties and usually recommends awarding
the contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
BACKGROUND
On December 6, 2000, demolition bids were sent to 17 demolition contractors.
In response to the demolition bid request for the subject properties, the City received the following six bids for total
demolition of the properties located at 5406, 5410 and 5412 Winnetka Avenue North.
Contractor Quote
Bauer Contracting, Inc. $9,849
Sauter & Sons, Inc. $15,800
Don Zappa & Son Excavating, inc. $19,480
Veit & Company $20,400
Kevitt Excavating $23,042
USD-Minnesota $25,400
(continued)
SECOND BY
TO:
I:RFA~otann,ng~l-ip664.clo¢
1
Recluest for Action Page 2
Due to the large discrepancy in the bids received, staff delayed a recommendation on awarding this contract until tn
Council meeting and recluested assistance from the City Engineer to determine if the Iow bidder was clualified to complet
the work. The City Engineer has been in contact with Bauer Contracting and, per attached letter, understands that Bau~
can complete the work.
Staff is recommending award of the contract to Bauer Contracting, Inc. at this time in the amount of $9.849.00, but wan,,
to make the Council aware of several minor change orders that may be forthcoming on this demolition project:
1. ~ - The Contractor has indicated they may move one or more of the houses off of the site if they cs
be pre-sold. The City has indicated that this could be considered as a change order at a future Council meeting
the moving could be completed in a timely manner with no additional cost to the City.
2. Performance Bond - The City specifications required the contractor to submit a performance bond if the total bi
exceeded $10,000. Due to the fact that this bid did not exceed $10,000, no performance bond was required. Sta
is recommending that the City require the contractor to obtain said bond to insure that the work is completed an
that the City pay for the additional cost of the bond. The minor additional cost would also be processed in th
future as a minor change order and the total cost will still be substantially less than the second lowest bid c
$15,800.
FUNDING
All demolition costs will be paid for with tax increment financing funds.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Contract and City Attorney Correspondence
· Demolition Specifications/City Engineer Correspondence
· Location Map
REQUEST FOR ACTION
~ Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
originating Department
Development
Community Development 01/22/01 & Planning
Department ~ item No.
By: Ken Doresky, By:C"~ 8.2
Community Development Svecialist
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE TO AND REACQUISITION OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO 5420
WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FILE 696)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting that the Council approve this resolution authorizing conveyance to and reacquisition of property
adjacent to 5420 Winnetka Avenue North from the State of Minnesota.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
'l'he City has been acquiring property along the 5400/5500 blocks of Winnetka Avenue North on a voluntary basis over the
past several years for redevelopment purposes.
BACKGROUND
Most of the properties in the 5400 and 5500 blocks on the east side of Winnetka have a depth of 300 feet. In the fall of
2000, when the City Council authorized staff to pursue the acquisition of 5420 Winnetka, it was discovered that the back
3art of the parcel was a separate tax forfeit parcel and the Council directed staff to pursue acquisition from Hennepin
County. The City Attorney has been coordinating with Hennepin County on this matter and has prepared the attached
resolution and documents on this issue.
Per the City Attorney's correspondence, evidently the City acquired this property in 1965 from the State as a tax forfeiture
and was restricted to using the property for street purposes only. If the City desires to utilize the property for future
development purposes, the City needs to reconvey and reaquire the property from the State through a private sale. The
resolution reconveys the property back to the State and then authorizes the City Manager to take all the necessary steps to
reaquira the property for $6,500.00 which is the sale pdce Hennepin County has agreed upon.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution, as this is a key piece of property for future redevelopment in the area.
FUNDING
Acquisition costs will be paid for with tax increment financing funds.
(Continued)
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
/
I: RFAXplanmng~.~o664.ao¢
COUNCIL
5436 5437
54.30 5431
5426 5427
542O 5421
5416 5417
5410 5411
54O6 5407
5400 5401
5436 54.17
5430 54,31
54.26 5427
5420 54.21
5416 5417
54.10 54.11
I
i
E: ~.~. [ 5437
54~1q 5429
5426 5427
5436 54.17
54,34 ~
5430 5429
7606 5425
D
5420 5419
5416 5413
= 5408 5409
.' 54O0 5401
534e 5529
5~42 5325
I 5336 5321
i ~ ~17
5324 5313
5201
5312
COUNCIL
AC? OS
~ ~pproved for Agenda Agenda Sect]on
Originating Department
Development
Community Development 01122/01 & Planning
Department ~ Item No.
By: Ken Doresky, By://// 8.3
Community Development Soecialist
/
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE THE PURCHASE OF 5510 SUMTER AVENUE NORTH
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 700)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to negotiate the potential purchase of the property located at 5510
Sumter Avenue North.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
The properties in the Bass Lake Road/Sumter Avenue area have been sited in the Comprehensive Plan for
redevelopment. The City Council has been acquiring scattered site properties on a voluntary basis in that area for
redevelopment purposes. The City owns several properties in that area, has demolished the properties and is land
banking the properties for future development.
BACKGROUND
City staff received a letter from Brandi Collins, 5510 Sumter Avenue indicating an interest in the City purchasing her
property as it is currently for sale on the open market. The City Manager authorized staff to proceed with an appraisal of
the property. Staff indicated to the owner that once the appraisal was completed, it would he presented to the Council and
a determination would be made as to whether to proceed with negotiations or not.
This property is located five lots south of Bass Lake Road and one lot north of 55a Avenue North on the east side of
Sumter Avenue, near the intersection of 55a and Sumter Avenues. The City has previously acquired five properties in this
neighborhood, as denoted on the attached map, and demolished the homes. While this property is not essential for
redevelopment of the Bass Lake RoadlSumter Avenue comer, it could easily be incorporated into a future redevelopment.
Per Hennepin County tax records, the 2000 valuation of the property for tax purposes is $70,000 ($25,000 land/S45,000
building). The property measures 10,400 square feet and has a lot width of 80 feet and a lot depth of 130 feet.
The house is a one story rambler with 682 square feet of gross living area and there is a detached double garage on the
site. The home was constructed in 1953 and the appraisal states that it is in average condition, with some deferred
physical maintenance.
¢Continued1
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
t.22.0~~
Page 2
Recluest for Action
If staff is successful in negotiation, staff will return with a purchase price to be approved by the Council and then proceec
with the preparation of a purchase agreement, which would also be presented to the Council for approval.
Staff has indicated to Brandi Collins that because this would be a voluntary sale, no relocation benefits would be paid.
FUNDING
The property is located in an area where tax increment funds can be expended and TIF would be the funding source for
acquisition and demolition.
ATTACHMENTS
· Appraisal Report
· Property Owner Correspondence
· Location Map
F555o ~
5551
5552
5524'
5518 55O9
5512 5501
5506
55O0 5443
5446 5437
5440 5429
.54,34 5427
5422 5423
5420 5417
5412 5410 5413
54O6 1--
5409
540O 5401 U':
5525
5519
7800 7600
7610
~ ~ I1~ 56TH AVE
7615
7601
5520
0
55TH AVF N
5444 5437
5458 54~3
5428 5429
5426 5427
5456 5457
5434 ,5455
543~ 5429
7606 5425
ST RAPHAEL
5420 5425
5414 5415
5406 5409
54OO 5401
553O 5557
552~, 5331
5318 5525
5512 5319
5420 5419
5416 5415
5408 54O9
5542 5525
~38 5521
5524. 5~1~
~18
~12
7550
ELM
ST.
GROV_
55OO
PARK
5436
DR.
5418
5501
CATF
CHUF
Project #664, #676
Bulletin #2
PROJECT BULLETIN
5406 Winnetka Avenue North and
541015412 Winnetka Avenue North
Overview
The City of New Hope has purchased 5406, 5410 and 5412 Winnetka Avenue
North. These properties were purchased through voluntary sales from willing
sellers. The City purchased the properties and will land bank the properties for
future residential redevelopment purposes. The City has contracted with a
demolition contractor for the demolition and/or removal of the structures. The
structures should be demolished and removed from the site by March 15, 2001.
In 2001, the City will initiate a planning process for potential future residential
redevelopment of these sites. Neighboring property owners will be invited to
participate in this process. The City will mail future bulletins to inform you about
the schedule for this process.
Site Upkeep
The City of New Hope will maintain the sites. During the winter months, the
driveway and sidewalks will be cleared on a Iow priority basis. City staff will be
checking the sites and the Police Department will be observing these properties
on a daily basis through regular patrols of the neighborhood. As a neighboring
property owner, please contact the New Hope Police Department if you notice
any suspicious activity on these properties.
City Contacts
If you have questions or concerns, please contact Ken Doresky, Community
Development Specialist, at 763-531-5137 during regular City Hall business
hours, 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. For suspicious activity, please contact the New
Hope Police Department by calling 911 anytime during the day or night.
The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents and businesses in the area
that may be impacted by the removal of these structures. Thank you for your
cooperation. Future bulletins will be sent to keep you updated on the status of
these properties.
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428
01/23/01
PROJECT BULLETIN
Project #670
Bulletin #2
5532 Winnetka Avenue North
Overview
The City of New Hope has purchased the property at 5532 Winnetka Avenue
North. The property was purchased through a voluntary sale from a willing seller.
The City purchased the property for future residential redevelopment purposes
and will land bank the property. As an alternative to demolishing the home, the
City elected to contract with a house moving company to move the home and
garage off the site. In the coming weeks, the moving company will be preparing
the house and garage for transport. The house and garage should be moved off
the site by February 15, 2001.
After the house is removed from the site, the City will contract for demolition of
the basement, foundation and garage pad. It is expected demolition will take
place this winter depending on weather conditions. In 2001, the City will
continue the planning process for future development of the site.
Site Upkeep
The City of New Hope will maintain the site. During the winter months, the
driveway and sidewalks will be cleared on a Iow priority basis. City staff will be
checking the site and the Police Department will be observing the property on a
daily basis through regular patrols of the neighborhood. As a neighboring
property owner, if you notice any suspicious activity on the property, please
contact the City at the numbers listed below.
City Contacts
For questions or concerns, please call Ken Doresky, Community Development
Specialist, at 763-531-5137 during regular City Hall business hours, 8:00 a.m. -
4:30 p.m. For suspicious activity, please contact the New Hope Police
Department at 911 anytime during the day or night.
The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents and businesses in the area
that may be impacted during this project. Thank you for your cooperation. Future
bulletins will be sent to keep you updated on the status of the property.
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428
1-10-01
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 3, 2000
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
The New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due
call and notice thereof; Chairman Sonsin called the meeting to order at 7:00
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Anderson, Brauch, Green, Hemken, Kramer, Landy, Oelkers,
Sonsin, Svendsen
None
Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, Steve
Sondrall, City Attorney, Pamela Sylvester, Recording
Secretary
CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PC00-15
Item 4.1
Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Request for a Two-Foot
Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a
Two-Car Attached Garage Three Feet From the Property Line, 5307
Pennsylvania Avenue North, Timothy and Arnetta Glum, Petitioners.
Mr. McDonald stated that'the petitioner was requesting a variance to the side
yard setback requirement:to allow the construction of a two-car attached
garage three feet from the property line. The Zoning Code states that the side
yard setback requirement on the garage side of a single family dwelling in an
R-1 Zoning District shall be five feet, which is why a variance would be needed.
The property is located in a single family residential neighborhood, and the site
is 90 feet north of 53rd Avenue on the west side of Pennsylvania Avenue. The
site is surrounded by single-family homes, and measures 75 feet by 135 feet
for a total of 10,125 square feet. There is an existing single detached garage
on the site measuring 330 square feet, which would be demolished, and the
proposed double attached garage would contain 585 square feet. The hard
surface area of the site would be reduced from 33 percent to 28 percent with
the reconstruction of the driveway size and location. The site is located in
Planning District No. 6, and the Comprehensive Plan states that the City would
aggressively promote private reinvestment in the existing single family housing
stock in this District.
McDonald explained that the lot slopes from the back yard to the east street
frontage and contains a five-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the
back lot line only. The applicant submitted a new "as-built" survey that identified
buildings and lot lines. The lot was first developed in the 1950s and the single
garage was constructed in 1963. The applicant added a large addition to the
rear of the home in 1992. The applicant now would like to remove the detached
single car garage, which has become dilapidated, and replace it with a new
19.5' x 30' attached garage along the south property line. The new garage
would comply with city standards for floor area and height; however, the garage
would not meet the five-foot side yard setback. Therefore, the applicant was
requesting a variance to place the garage three feet from the property line.
McDonald continued by saying that the petitioner submitted a narrative that
stated he planned to demolish the existing garage and slab, the concrete patio,
and existing driveway. The yard would be re-landscaped to divert water away
from the house to the south side of the yard and out to the street. A retaining
wall and drain tile would be installed. The exterior materials would match the
existing house.
Property owners within 350 feet of the site were notified and the City received
several calls. Several neighbors came in to look at the plans, and after
reviewing the plans, felt the variance was justified. The property owner most
impacted by the variance on the south side of the property had called City Hall
to express concern when the application was initially discussed, however, no
comment has been received since the legal notice was published.
McDonald stated that the purpose of a variance was to permit relief from strict
application of the Zoning Code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use
of the property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship
may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the property. The
hardship cannot be created by the property owner. If the variance would be
granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or
unreasonably diminish or impair property values. Additional criteria would
include public safety issues, street connections, light and air, and property
values.
City staff and consultants met to review the plans and supported the concept.
The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and was supportive of
the variance. The Committee did not have an objection to the overhead door at
the rear of the garage and it was confirmed that no variance would be
necessary for the retaining wall proposed at the property line. The focus of the
discussion was on the drainage problems, and the Committee requested that
the applicant submit a more detailed drainage plan. There was some
discussion on narrowing the driveway slightly.
McDonald stated that the .existing house was in compliance with the setback
requirements except for the northeast corner of the house which was set back
9.86 feet from the north lot line, as shown on the survey. The new garage
would contain 585 square feet. The existing garage, slab, patio, and driveway
would be demolished. 'Fhe yard would be re-landscaped and regraded to
redirect drainage. A new retaining wall and drain tile would be installed along
the property line. The roof slope of the garage would match the house, but at a
higher elevation. There would be an eight-foot garage door at the rear, a
double garage door at the front, two service doors on the north elevation, three
windows on the south elevation, and a service door from the garage into the
house. The applicant proposed that all exterior materials would match the
existing house. On the drainage plan, the applicant showed grading behind the
house to swale around the south side of the new garage, next to the new
retaining wall toward the street. A four-inch drain tile would be installed
between the retaining wall and the garage.
McDonald reported that the Planning Consultant had reviewed the plans and
stated in correspondence that the property appeared to have unique
topography that caused water to drain from the neighboring southern property
into the area of the detached garage and into the northwest portion of the
house. The water also drained from the subject property into the adjacent
property to the north. The requested variance would allow an attached garage
to replace the existing detached garage, and the submitted grading and
drainage plans showed that a drain pipe would allow the water to drain along
the south lot line to the street, which would reduce the runoff into the house and
toward the property to the north. McDonald added that research on setback
variances had been included with the packet showing similar requests, and it
indicated the Planning Commission and City Council had granted a number of
minor setback variances in the City for the construction of attached garages.
McDonald indicated that there appeared to be no other location for a double
garage on the property. A narrower garage was not a feasible option. The
Planner also mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan contained policies to
Planning Commission Meeting 2 October 3, 2000
promote private reinvestment in the City's single-family housing stock and
allowing the setback varian~;e for an attached garage would be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan policies. The addition of a two-car garage would be a
reinvestment in the neighborhood, and the City has supported variances that
promote this type of investment.
McDonald reported that the City Engineer had reviewed the plans and he had
stated the drainage plans were fine. The City Engineer recommended that a
letter of credit be established, however, the City does not typically request a
letter of credit for single-family home construction. Those issues are handled
through the building permit process; therefore, staff is not recommending a
letter of credit.
McDonald reiterated that, pending input from the neighborhood, staff was
supportive of the request due to the fact that it was similar to a number of other
requests that had been approved in the past. There does not appear to be a
reasonable alternative. The owner would be making another significant
investment in the property, which would improve the property and the
neighborhood, and improve the drainage situation. Staff recommended
approval, subject to the conditions listed in the planning.report.
Mr. Timothy Glum, 5307 Pennsylvania Avenue North, came forward to answer
questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Svendsen extended appreciation to the petitioner for including
the suggestions of the Design & Review Committee in the revised plans.
Svendsen reiterated that the existing garage and foundation would be
removed, a grading plan was submitted showing the drainage, the retaining
wall and drain tile plans demonstrate how the water would be directed toward
the street, a narrative was-supplied stating that building materials would match
the existing house. The Design & Review Committee had discussed sloping at
the north side of the driveway to go around the oak tree in the front yard.
Svendsen asked for clarification on the elevation of the ground between the
retaining wall and the garage and whether or not the ground would be swaled
or left fiat and rely on the drain tile to remove the water. Glum stated a small
swale would be utilized and the drain tile would be centered in the area and
covered with landscape rock. Glum confirmed that gutters would be installed
on the garage. Svendsen thanked the petitioner on providing a certificate of
survey with the application.
Commissioner Oelkers questioned what type of landscaping would be
accomplished between the garage and the retaining wall. Glum responded that
river rock would be used. Oelkers suggested that Glum work with the Building
Official on the installation of the drain tile. Glum stated that he planned to put
river rock around the drain tile, put netting over it, and then rock over the top of
that to the end of the retaining wall.
Commissioner Hemken asked whether there would be a firewall between the
house and garage and Glum confirmed there would be a 5/8" firewall installed.
Hemken questioned why a rear garage door would be installed. Glum replied
that with the reduced side yard he would need wider access to the back yard.
Additional landscaping would be completed where the old garage was, such as
sodding.
There was some discussion on reducing the width of the garage to avoid the
need for a variance; however, the consensus was that an 18-foot wide garage
would be too narrow for two vehicles.
Chairman Sonsin asked whether anyone in the audience wanted to address
the Commission.
Planning Commission Meeting 3 October 3, 2000
Ms. Sue Alger, 5301 Pent"sylvania Avenue North, came forward and stated
she was the property owner on the south. Alger asked for clarification on the
retaining wall location and the drainage concerns on the properties. Oelkers
responded that the location of the retaining wall would be entirely on Glum's
property and explained the problems with the drainage of the water on Glum's
property and the adjacent properties to the north and south. The retaining wall
would extend approximately 12 feet past the rear of the new garage. Algers
requested clarification on why a variance would be allowed and Chairman
Sonsin explained the purpose of setbacks on a property, situations where a
variance was appropriate, and the reinvestment principals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Kramer pointed out that if a retaining wall had not been proposed he would
have a concern with the rainwater coming off the roof of the garage onto the
neighboring property. The retaining wall should contain that runoff from being a
problem for the property to the south.
Hemken questioned whether there would be additional landscaping or
something else that the petitioner could do that would make her more
comfortable with the demolition of the old garage and the construction of a new
garage. Algers responded that she had not thought that through at this time.
MOTION
Item 4.1
Motion by Commissioner Svendsen, secOnded by Commissioner Landy, to
approve Planning Case 00-15, Request for a Two-Foot Variance to the
Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Two-Car
Attached Garage Three Feet From the Property Line, 5307 Pennsylvania
Avenue North, Timothy.~and Arnetta Glum, Petitioners, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The existing detached garage must be completely removed,
including the foundation.
2. Grading and drainage issues are subject to City Engineer review
and approval. No letter of credit required.
3. A gutter and downspout must be installed on the west side of the
proposed garage to direct water toward the street.
4. The attached garage exterior building materials must match those
of the existing house.
5. The driveway must taper beginning at a point 20 feet from the
garage and continuing to the street in order to reduce the driveway
pavement area and provide a green area on the south side of the
driveway for water infiltration.
6. If the height of the proposed retaining wall along the south property
line is four feet or greater in height, the design of the wall must be
approved by the City Engineer.
Voting in favor: Anderson, Brauch, Green,
Oelkers, Sonsin, Svendsen
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Hemken, Kramer, Landy,
Sonsin stated that the City Council would consider this planning case at its
October 9 meeting and asked that the petitioner attend that meeting.
Design & Review
Committee
Item 5.1
Svendsen reported that the Design & Review Committee had met with the
petitioner in September. McDonald noted that the application deadline was
October 13 for the November meeting and no pre-application meetings were
Planning Commission Meeting 4 October 3, 2000
Codes & Standards
Committee
Item 5.2
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
scheduled at this time.
Landy reported that the Codes & Standards Committee had not met. McDonald
reported that the City Council was continuing its review of the Zoning Code and
gave a short update on the progress.
Svendsen pointed out that there were a lot of cement trucks utilizing 36t~
Avenue as a thoroughfare to Highway 169 for the Highway 100/36th Avenue
project in Crystal and wondered if that was an approved route. McDonald
stated he would check with the Director of Public Works on whether the
truckers had permission to utilize 36th Avenue through New Hope.
Kramer initiated discussion on the townhome project at 49th and Winnetka and
the fact that there were a lot of weeds and dirt piles that made the whole site
look junky. McDonald stated that he would contact the developer. Discussion
ensued on the quality of construction of the townhomes.
Oelkers commented on the proposed floor plan for the city-owned property on
Flag Avenue. He stated he felt an updated floor plan with a basement would
sell faster.
Motion was made by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner
Svendsen, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 11, 2000.
All voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Council/EDA minutes were reviewed.
McDonald reported that elections would be held on November 7, the next
regular meeting night, and a meeting could not be held. If a meeting would be
required for November, it Was the consensus of the Commission to hold the
meeting on Wednesday, November 8.
The Planning Commission' meeting was unanimously adjourned at 7:47 p.m.
~, ectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Meeting 5 October 3, 2000
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 55428
January 8, 2001
City Hall, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
OATH OF OFFICE
Item 3.1
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
OPEN FORUM
ROTATING VOTES
CONSENTAGENDA
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
Don Collier, Mayor Pro tem
Sharon Cassen, Councilmember
Mary Gwin-Lenth, Councilmember
Pat LaVine Norby, Councilmember
Staff Present:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist
Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
City Clerk Valerie Leone administered the oath of office to Mayor W. Peter Enck,
and Councilmembers Sharon Cassen, Don Collier, and Mary Gwin-Lenth.
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember
Collier, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2000.
Voting in favor: Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth. Abstained: Enck, Norby. Motion
carded. Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by
Councilmember Collier, to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of December
18, 2000. Voting in favor: Enck, Cassen, Collier. Abstained: Norby, Gwin-
Lenth. Motion carried.
Mr. Henry Roberts, 4632 Hillsboro Avenue North, was recognized. He spoke
against the recent tax increase due to the conversion of special assessments to a
dedicated street infrastructure fund.
Mr. Melvin Ohman, 4021 Nevada, also spoke against the tax increase. He
commented that his market value has increased dramatically over the past six
years.
Mayor Enck thanked the gentlemen for their comments.
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 6.15 was removed for discussion later in the meeting.
New Hope City Council
Page 1
January 8, 2001
MOTION
Consent Items
BUSINESS LICENSES
Item 6.1
FINANCIAL CLAIMS
Item 6.2
RESOLUTION 01-01
Item 6.4
RESOLUTION 01-02
Item 6.5
WEED INSPECTOR
Item 6.6
RESOLUTION 01-03
Item 6.7
RESOLUTION 01-04
Item 6.8
RESOLUTION 01-05
Item 6.9
RESOLUTION 01-06
Item 6.10
BOARD OF REVIEW
Item 6.11
RESOLUTION 01-07
Item 6.12
RESOLUTION 01-08
Item 6.13
RESOLUTION 01-09
Item 6.14
RESOLUTION 01-10
Item 6.16
IMP. PROJECT 681
Item 6.17
RESOLUTION 01-11
Item 6.18
Motion was made by Councilmember Norby, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to approve all remaining items on the Consent Agenda. All present
voted in favor. Motion carried.
Approval of Business Licenses for 2001.
Approval of Financial Claims Through January 8, 2001.
Resolution Appointing City Attorney.
Resolution Appointing Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates as City
Engineer for Sewer, Water, Street, Storm Sewer Projects, and General Work.
Appointment of Assistant Weed Inspector for 2001.
Resolution Re-Appointing City Manager as Director to the HRG Board for a Term
Expiring December 31,2001.
Resolution Appointing New Hope - Golden Valley Sun Post as Official
Newspaper for City of New Hope.
Resolution Designating Marquette Bank N.A. as Depository for Payroll Account
and General Funds of the City of New Hope.
Resolution Designating Depositories for Funds of the City of New Hope Relative
to Investments.
Approval of May 3, 2001 (7:00 p.m.) as Date for Local Board of Review.
Resolution Approving Master Group Contracts Between Medica and the City of
New Hope for Medical Insurance.
Resolution Establishing 2001 Compensation Plan for Non-Union Employees.
Resolution Ratifying the Labor Agreement for 2001 - 2003 Between Law
Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. and the City; Authorizing Mayor and Manager
to Sign. __ -
Resolution Approving Agreement with Cenaiko Expositions, Inc., to Provide
Booths for the 2001 Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair (Improvement Project
No. 514).
Motion to Accept Improvement Project No. 681 (Northwood Park Trails - West
Side) to Hardrives Inc. and Approve Final Pay Request in the Amount of
$17,378.20.
Resolution Authorizing Execution of Grant Agreement Between the City of New
Hope and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Drug Policy and
Violence Prevention, for a Justice Training Partnerships Grant.
New Hope City Council
Page 2
January 8, 2001
RESOLUTION 01-12
Item 6.19
RESOLUTION 01-13
Item 6.20
RESOLUTION 01-14
Item 6.21
RESOLUTION 01-15
Item 6.22
PUBLIC HEARING
Item 7.1
Resolution Authorizing Change Order to TSP One Architectural Contract by
Increasing Contract Amount (City Project No. 671).
Resolution Accepting Easements for 1997 Backyard Drainage Project, City Project
No. 583.
Resolution Accepting Easement for 1999 Infi'astructure Project, City Project No.
648.
Resolution Awarding the Contract for the Sale and Removal of House at 5532
Winnetka Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 670).
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 7.1, Public Hearing Continued -
Amended Resolution Establishing Findings of Fact Relating to Revocation of
Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outdoor Storage and/or Rental of Vehicles at
4904 Winnetka Avenue North (Planning Case No. 99-14).
Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, stated this is a
continuation of the October 23, 2000, public hearing to consider the revocation of
the conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage and/or rental of vehicles at
4904 Winnetka Avenue North.
He explained that the CLIP was originally granted in September of 1999 subject to
a number of conditions including the installation of landscaping, completion of
certain building improvements, limited outdoor storage area, etc. The applicant
failed to comply with many conditions in a timely manner. Due to the fact that the
conditions of the original conditional use permit have not been complied with, staff
recommends that the CUP for the rental of U-Haul vehicles at this property be
revoked.
Mr. McDonald acknowledged that a representative from U-Haul is in attendance at
tonight's hearing.
The Council asked the City Attorney to explain the timeline for requiring removal
of the vehicles if the CUP is revoked.
Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, indicated that five to ten days appears
reasonable; but that staff would coordinate these details with the property owner.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth inquired whether the owner could apply for a CUP at
a later date.
Mr. Sondrall con£mned that this is possible after a certain-period of time has
passed.
Mr. Gordon Bobbe, representative of U-Haul, indicated the equipment is owned by
U-Haul and relocation can be expedited; however, he requested a minimum of 10-
20 days in order to accommodate area customers who have already booked
equipment rental.
Mayor Enck assured him that staff would work with them to reach a reasonable
deadline.
The City Attorney pointed out that there was an error in the original notice stating
a public hearing date of January 11 rather than January 8, 2001. He stated a
corrected notice was mailed to both the property owner and tenant.
New Hope City Council
Page 3
January 8, 2001
CLOSE HEARING
Item 7.1
RESOLUTION 01-16
Item 7.1
ACTING MAYOR
Item 10.1
RESOLUTION 01-17
Item 10.1
CIVIL DEFENSE
BOARD
Item 10.2
RESOLUTION 00-18
Item 10.2
BCWC
REPRESENTATIVE
Item 10.3
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember
Norby, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "AMENDED RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS OF
FACT RELATING TO REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE AND/OR RENTAL OF VEHICLES
AT 4904 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (PLANNING CASE NO. 99-14)".
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Norby; and the
following voted against the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: None;
whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the
mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Resolution Appointing Acting
Mayor.
Councilmember Norby suggested rotating this position annually among members
of the Council. It was noted that Councilmember Norby served as Acting Mayor in
1999 and that Councilmember Collier served in year 2000.
The Council unanimously recommended the appointment of Councilmember
Sharon Cassen to serve as Acting Mayor for year 2001.
Councilmember Norby introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBER CASSEN AS
ACTING MAYOR". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was seconded by Councilmember Gwin-Lenth, and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth, Norby;
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 Appointing a
Councilmember to the Civil Defense Board.
It was recommended that the Acting Mayor hold this position on the Civil Defense
Board.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBER CASSEN TO
THE CIVIL DEFENSE BOARD". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
resolution was seconded by Councilmember Norby, and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Gwin-Lenth;
Norby, 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 10.3, Resolution Appointing Vince
VanderTop as New Hope's Representative to the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission.
Mayor Enck pointed out that a change in state law now prohibits city employees
from serving as watershed representatives. Presently, Guy Johnson is serving as
the City's Representative and Dan Donahue is serving as the Alternate
Representative.
New Hope City Council
Page 4
January 8, 2001
RESOLUTION 01-19
Item 10.3
WATERSHED
REPRESENTATIVES
APPOINTMENTS TO
WEST METRO FIRE
BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
Consent Items
Removed-
2001 PARK & REC
FEES
RESOLUTION 01-20
Item 6.15
The Council unanimously supposed the appointment ofVince VanderTop.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION APPOINTING VINCE VANDERTOP AS NEW
HOPE'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION". 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; Norby, 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 initiated discussion regarding the other watershed positions which are
expiring January 31,2001.
Councilmember Gwin-Lenth volunteered to serve as the Alternate Representative
on the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission; and Sharon Cassen
agreed to serve as Alternate Representative on the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission. The Council agreed to re-appoint Mark Hanson as
Representatie on the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission.
Motion was made by Mayor Enck, seconded by Councilmember Collier, to:
Appoint Counciimember Gwin-Lenth to serve as Alternate
Representative on the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission
> Appoint Councilmember Cassen to serve as Alternate Representative on
the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
Re-appoint Mark Hanson as Representative on the Shingle Creek
Watershed Management Commission.
All present voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mayor Enck sought nominations for Council representation on the West Metro
Fire Board of Directors. He stated Councilmember Norby and he have held the two
positions with terms that expired December 31, 2000.
Councilmember Norby spoke highly of the Board and expressed the merit of
rotating this position. Subsequently, she nominated Councilmember Collier.
Motion was made by Councilmember Norby, seconded by Councilmember Collier,
to appoint Councilmember Collier and re-appoint Mayor Enck for two-year
terms as Council Representatives on the West Metro Fire Board of Directors.
All present voted in favor. Motion carried. -- -
Mayor Enck reported that a citizen appointment is also necessary as Jerry Pedlar is
not seeking re-appointment as a citizen representative on the Board.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion the item that was removed fi.om the Consent
Agenda: Item 6.15, Resolution Establishing 2001 Fees and Charges for Park and
Recreation Programs.
Councilmember Collier reminded the community of the availability of confidential
f'mancial scholarships for park and recreation programs. He pointed out that
donations from civic organizations make the scholarship funds possible.
Councilmember Collier introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption: "RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2001 FEES AND CHARGES
New Hope City Council
Page 5
January 8, 2001
CONTRIBUTION
Item 12.1
MOTION
Item 12.1
COMMUNICATIONS
Item 12.2
ADJOURNMENT
FOR PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAMS". The motion for thc adoption
of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Casscn, and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen,
Collier, Gwin-Lenth; Norby, and the following voted against thc same: None;
Abstained: None; Absent: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Acceptance of Contribution of
$200 from New Hope Women of Today for the Parks and Recreation Department
Scholarship Fund.
The Council expressed appreciation to the Women of Today for their on-going
commitments to the community.
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Gwin-
Lenth, to accept the contribution of $200 from New Hope Women of Today for
the Parks and Recreation Department Scholarship Fund. All present voted in
favor. Motion carried.
Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 12.2, Exchange of Communication
between members of the City Council.
Motion made by Mayor Enck, seconded by Councilmember Collier,
supporting endorsement of CriMNet system and fimding. Approved.
> Distributed report on results of Mayors Task Force on Housing (two notable
items relating to New Hope - sustainable streets and remodeling plan book)
Acknowledged e-mail from Maurice Mickelson regarding snowplowing
services
Invited members of Council to join him and City Manager at the January 9th
Government Advisory Council with School District 281
Dedication of Cooper Gyms will be held January 9 at 2:30 p.m.
Counciimember Collier
Updated Council on issues discussed at January 6th
legislators and northwest area councilmembers and staff
Councilmember Norby
> Remarked that crows are becoming problematic
City Manager Donahue
meeting with local
Teambuilding session with Council and senior staff will be held January 13
Council afYumed that they would support holding work sessions on third
Monday of each month
Future work session topics include f'malization of zoning code and discussion
on inflow and infiltration findings
City Manager's performance evaluation for 2000 will be conducted February
Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember
Collier, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come
before the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope
City Council adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Valerie Leone
City Clerk
New Hope City Council
Page 6
January 8, 2001