Loading...
030601 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2001 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 Case 01-01 Request for Conditional Use Permit to Construct a 100' Monopole and 10' x 20' Stone Aggregate Equipment Building, 3401 Nevada Avenue North, Nextel West Corporation a Delaware Corporation and Null & Void, Inc., Petitioners 4.2 Case 99-06 Informal Review of Final Recommendations of New Hope Zoning Code Update 5. COMMI'i'rEE REPORTS 5.1 Report of Design & Review Committee - Meeting March 15, 8 a.m., if necessary 5.2 Report of Codes & Standards Committee 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Miscellaneous Issues 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 2001 7.2 Review of City Council Minutes of January 21 and February 12, 2001 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT - Petitioners are required to be in attendance Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. A~ If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: March 6, 2001 Report Date: March 2, 2001 Planning Case: 01-01 Petitioner: Nextel West Corporation a Delaware Corporation/Null & Void, Inc. Address: 3401 Nevada Avenue North Request: Conditional Use Permit to Construct a 100' Monopole and 10' x 20' Stone Aggregate Equipment Building I. Request The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 100-foot monopole and a 10' by 20', 8-foot high, stone aggregate equipment building, pursuant to Sections 4.039D(3) and 4.21 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. II. Zoning Code References Section 4.039D Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers Section 4.21 Conditional Use Permit III. Property Specifications Zoning: i-1, Limited Industrial Location: On the west side of Nevada Avenue 800 feet south of 36th Avenue Adjacent Land Uses: I-1 properties to the north, railroad tracks and I-2 property to the west (rear) and City of Crystal residential townhouses to the south Site Area: 530' x 526' = 278,780 square feet (6.4 acres) Building Area: 200' x 300' = 60,000 square feet Lot Area Ratios: Green = 66 percent Building = 21 percent Paved = 13 percent Planning District: District #17; The Comprehensive Plan states that the City will promote business retention and in-place expansion of the industrial land uses in this district. The expansion of industrial land uses along Nevada Avenue must be designed in a manner to compatibly coexist with existing residential uses in neighboring Crystal. Specific Information: The property is about one-half developed, with the existing Archives building occupying the north half of the site and the south half of the property remaining vacant with a green slope that dses 26 feet to the Crystal boundary line on the south. No on-site ponding eXists on this site. Available parking meets code and exceeds the needs of the business (44 spaces vs. 20 spaces). Planning Case Report 01-01 Page 1 3/2/01 IV. Background ---.~ Nextel West Corporation has submitted a request to construct a wireless communications tower ar,. ground equipment building at 3401 Nevada Avenue North. The site is currently developed with Archive Corporation owned by Null & Void, which is a company that provides archive service to its clients. The specific proposal is to construct a 104-foot tall monopole tower and a 10' x 20' ground equipment building on the northwest corner of the site. Site access to the existing industrial building is via a driveway connected to Nevada Avenue North. The proposal is to locate the monopole tower and ground equipment building within a 60' x 40' lease area, which is proposed adjacent to the northwest part of the existing building. A separate 20-foot ingress/egress easement is proposed to provide access from Nevada Avenue to the lease area. The periphery of the lease area will be enclosed with a proposed 8-foot tall, cedar, non-climbable fence. The lot was first developed in 1968 and only minor interior remodeling has occurred since that date. The building is set back 190 feet from the front lot line with the front lawn as landscaping. In November 1998, a major expansion to the south was approved by the City Council in Plan Case 98-25. The approvals included a CUP and variance, which expired in November 1999, due to "non-enactment" (no construction). V. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner states in correspondence that they desire "to construct a galvanized steel, four carrier, 100-foot AGL monopole, which would accommodate Nextel Communications and three additional future wireless communications provider's antennas and equipment. Nextel would require a 10' x 20' stone aggregate equipment shelter located at the base of the pole. Nextel proposes to construct an 8-foot (30' x 40') decorative cedar fence surrounding the tower and building. The overall height of Nextel's proposed tower with antennas will be 104-foot AGL. Nexters tower and building will be screened by an 8-foot tall, (30' x 40') decorative cedar fence surrounding the tower on the north, east and west sides of the compound. The lease area Nextel has obtained through a ground lease with the landowner will provide enough ground space for a total of four communications users (Nextel and three additional communications users in the future). The proposed tower will be galvanized steel. The antennas will be of a color and configuration desired by the City of New Hope as to minimize adverse visual effects in order that such facilities harmonize with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. No advertising message shall be affixed to the tower. Nextel will attach nine antennas (three sectors, three antennas per sector) at the top of the tower. The azimuth of Nextel's antennas will be 104 degrees, 224 degrees and 344 degrees. The proposed tower will not require to be artificially illuminated by the FAA. Nextel will comply with and obtain all federal, state and local agency licenses required for the site. The cell site will require a single phase, 200 amp, 208 volt, electrical service and (T-l) telephone utilities for the site. Utilities will be obtained from the site and separately metered. Null & Void Inc. President John D. Jerome has provided written permission for Nextel Communications to represent Null & Void Inc. for the requested conditional use permit. There are no existing structures within Nextel's search area in which Nextel can attach their antennas. Due to the lack of collocation opportunities available in Nextel's search area, Nextel is proposing to construct a 100-foot monopole and 10' x 20' stone aggregate equipment shelter at 3401 Nevada Avenue." The Media One tower is located approximately 1698.20 feet southwest of Nextel's proposed location, and does not have tower space available at the height in which Nextel needs to locate their antennas. The Qwest Wireless tower located at 2900 Nevada Avenue is approximately 3434.20 feet from Nextel's proposed site and does not have tower space available since Qwest's future growth antennas are located on the second porthole designed for the monopole. The Qwest site is therefore at capacity. Both towers are at least 1000' away from Nextel's proposed site which is in accordance with Section 4.039D of the New Hope Code. Planning Case Report 01-01 Page 2 3/2/01 Nextel states that "the setback for the tower to the nearest property line is 75 percent of the height of the tower (75 feet). The setback for the tower to the building is 50 percent of the height of the tower (50 feet). Nextel has provided a collapsibility letter from a registered engineer that any collapse of the tower will occur in a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. Nextel's proposed tower is located 53 feet from the north property line, 45 feet from the west property line and 12 feet from the existing building. Nextel's equipment building is located 35 feet from the north property line and 24 feet from the west property line. Nextel's building is located 10 feet north of the Archive Corporation building owned by Null & Void Inc. The zoning code requires that Tower Manufacturing Drawings be provided by a Certified Structural Engineer and a Registered Architect prior to the issuance of a building permit. Nextel has provided a Certificate of Survey as well as Architect and Engineering drawings signed by a registered Architect and Engineer. Nextel does not have construction drawings available at this time, since Nextel has not yet ordered the tower from the manufacturer. Once Nextel receives zoning approval from the City of New Hope, Nextel will provide the City with construction drawings signed by a registered engineer within 45 days upon receipt of zoning approval. VI, Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified along with the City of Crystal. Staff has received several inquiries about the proposal, but no strong objections. VII. Development Analysis A. Zoning Code Criteda Conditional Use Permit 1. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to provide the City with a reasonable and legally permissible degree of discretion in determining suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health, and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the premises, or on any adjoining roads, and all such other or further factors as the City shall deem a requisite for consideration in determining the effect of such use on the general welfare, public health, and safety. 2. Other general criteria to be considered when determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit include: (The bullet points under each condition are the staff/consultant response as to whether the condition is met or not.) A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City. · The application is consistent with the requirements of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance and the subject site is located in an I-1 Industrial District. The underlying Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation is also industrial. The application is consistent with the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. · The adjacent land uses are industrial buildings and the railroad. An R-4 High Density Residential District is located about 50 feet northwest (and across the railroad tracks) from the subject site. The base of the antenna and the equipment shelter will be screened with an 8-foot tall cedar fence. The railroad bed located directly west of the proposed lease area Planning Case Report 01-01 Page 3 3/2/01 is about 10 feet higher in elevation than the grade of the existing parking lot. The existing topography, elevation of the railroad bed above the lease area site, existing maturr'-'" evergreen trees located along the southeast comer of the Emerald Pointe Apartment property, and existing trees located west of the subject site (within the railroad right-of- way), should provide sufficient screening. The 8-foot tall cedar privacy fence will screen the ground equipment shelter and tower base from view of the general public traveling along Nevada Avenue North. C. Performance Standards. The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in the Code. · City Code ,~4.033(3) Screening and {,4.033(5) Shielding of Lights are the performance standards that are applicable to the site. The proposed 8-foot tall cedar fence complies with the screening requirements of the City Code. · The applicant has indicated that no lighting will be required for the site, therefore, no glare will be associated with the proposal and as such, the application conforms to the City Code. D. No Depreciation in Value. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. · The proposed tower location is in the rear comer area of the lot. The subject site is located within an industrial zoning district. Based upon the location proposed and industrial zoning classification, no depreciation in property values is anticipated due to the introduction of this use. E. Zoning District Criteria. In addition to the above general criteria, the proposed CUP meets the criteria specified for the various zoning districts: The proposed CUP meets the criteria specified by the I-1 Zoning District. · The application is compliant with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and satisfies standards of the I-1 Limited Industrial District. However, it should be noted that the tower lease area is proposed in a location that is currently used for parking and snow storage. The site currently has 44 parking spaces with proof of parking for an additional 54 spaces. In the event that the industrial operation expands, the required number of parking spaces, 20 percent green space requirement, and adequate snow storage will need to be provided elsewhere on site. F. Nuisance. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing or future development in adjacent areas. · This area of the community is virtually fully developed with industrial buildings. As a condition of approval, it is recommended that no outside storage be permitted within the tower lease area. G. Economic Return. · In this case, the subject site is developed with an industrial use and the tower/antenna facility is an accessory use for the site. As such, additional tax revenues will be generated from the tower/antenna facility and therefore will provide additional economic return for the community. Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers 1. The purpose of this section of the Zoning Code is to establish predicable, balanced regulations of the siting and screening of wireless communication equipment in order to accommodate the growth of wireless communication systems within the City of New Hope while protecting the public against any adverse impacts on the City's aesthetic resources and the public welfare. Personal Planning Case Report 01-01 Page 4 3/2/01 - ~ wireless service antennas erected on an antenna tower may be allowed as a conditionally · ~ ~ permitted use within Industrial Zoning Districts if they comply with the following standards: (The bullet points under each condition are the staff/consultant response as to whether the condition is met or not. Nextel has also provided responses to each of these conditions in their attached correspondence.) A. Unless the antenna tower and land is under the same ownership, written authorization for antenna and antenna tower erection shall be provided by the property owner as well as the applicant. · John Jerome, the property owner for Null and Void, Inc. has given written authority (via letter dated November 29, 2000) to Nextel West Corp. to make application for the CUP and has signed the application form as well. B. All obsolete and unused antenna towers shall be removed within 12 months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the City Manager or designate. The removal shall be the joint and several responsibility of the antenna tower owner and landowner. · The property owner and applicant have provided letters (December 5, 2000) indicating that the tower will be removed within 12 months of cessation of operation and that the cost of removal will be the responsibility of Nextel West Corp. C. All antenna towers shall be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. · The tower and equipment shelter plans will be reviewed for compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code prior to issuance of a building permit. D. Structural design and construction plans of the antenna towers shall be in compliance with manufacturer's specifications and shall be vedfied and approved by a registered professional engineer. · The applicant will be required to submit structural plans, prepared by a registered professional engineer, as part of the building permit application. E. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna towers shall be accompanied by any required federal, state or local agency licenses. · The applicant has submitted a copy of the FCC license with the CUP application. F. The City may authorize the use of city property for an antenna tower in appropriately zoned districts in accordance with the procedures of the City Code. The City shall have no obligation whatsoever to use city property for such purposes. · The proposed tower location is on pdvate property, therefore, this item is not applicable to this application. G. Antenna towers shall maintain a minimum setback to the nearest property line of 75 percent of tower height (75' in this case), and a minimum setback from a building in the same lot of 50 percent (50' in this case), of tower height. The setback requirements may be reduced if the applicant provides documentation by a registered engineer that any collapse of the tower will occur in a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. The setback requirements shall not be reduced below the collapse area of the tower or the minimum setback requirements of the base zoning district, whichever is greater. Planning Case Report 01-01 Page 5 3/2/01 · The following setback provisions are applicable to the site: Description Standard Proposal Required tower setback to 75% of tower height (75') 45' from west line property lines 53' from north line Minimum tower setback from 50% of tower height (50') 12' building on the same lot Required accessory building 5' west rear yard setback 24' from west line setback to property lines 5' north side yard setback 34' from north line Minimum accessory building 6' per Building Code (fire 10' setback from buildings on the separation) same lot · The applicant has provided a letter from the monopole tower manufacturer indicating that the tower will not collapse but rather the top 30 feet of the pole will permanently deform until such time that the antennas are not perpendicular to the wind force, and at such time the pole will stop deforming and maintain that position. This being the case, the proposed setbacks are adequate based upon the manufacturer's specifications. H. All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of one thousand (1,000) feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved. · The applicant has provided a map indicating the location of existing towers and demonstrating that the closest tower is located 1,698 feet from the proposed tower location. I. Maximum height of a two antenna array tower shall be 145 feet. A tower providing for three or more antenna arrays may have a maximum height of 165 feet. · The proposal is to construct a 100-foot tall monopole tower (the total structure height above ground level is proposed to be 104 feet, which includes the antennas) that will provide for the applicant's antennas and an additional three wireless carriers. J. Antenna towers shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect the public's health and safety. · The proposed monopole tower does not require lighting pursuant to the certification letter submitted with the CUP application. K. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna tower. · No advertising signs are proposed for the tower. Nextel West Corp. will post a small sign listing contact information, address and telephone number only. L. Antenna towers shall be painted silver or have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise required by federal law. · The applicant has indicated that the tower, antennas and supporting equipment will be painted silver and have a galvanized finish. The exterior of the ground equipment shelter will be aggregate face, concrete panels. M. Antenna towers shall be of a color and configuration as to minimize adverse visual effects in order that such facilities harmonize with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. · The proposal is to paint the tower, antennas and supporting equipment silver. The exterior of the ground equipment shelter will be aggregate face, concrete panels. Planning Case Report 01-01 Page 6 312/01 r N. A secudty fence 8 feet in height shall be provided around the base of the antenna tower. A ' locked anti-climb device shall be installed on all towers extending 12 feet above the ground. · The proposal is to enclose the 40' x 60' lease area, surrounding the tower and equipment shelter, with an 8-foot tall decorative, non-climbable, cedar fence. O. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, whether self-contained or located in a free- standing equipment building, shall be located at the base of the antenna tower and shall be screened from view from residential uses and public right-of-way. · The proposal is to locate the lease enclosure adjacent to the northwest corner of the existing building. The lease area will be fenced as described above. Furthermore, the site is located between two existing industrial buildings and, as such, will be substantially screened from public view by the existing buildings and proposed fence. P. If a new antenna tower is to be constructed, it shall be designed to accommodate at least two antenna arrays including, but not limited to, other personal wireless service companies, local police, fire, and ambulance companies. · The applicant has indicated that there is enough room within the lease area and on the tower to accommodate three additional wireless users. B. Development Review Team The Development Review Team (city staff and consultants) considered this project and expressed support for it. No landscaping is proposed and staff did not feel it was necessary because this installation will be in a paved area near the rear of the property. Two members preferred a galvanized cyclone fence for the equipment screening, but the consensus recommendation was for the 8-foot cedar fence proposed. Clarification and illustration of any existing fire lane or outdoor storage was recommended. Legal easements are described for a 20-foot service vehicle access drive to the tower (pick-up truck) and the tower and enclosure itself (40' x 60'). C. Desi.qn & Review Committee The Design & Review Committee met to review this request and underscored the comments of the Development Review Team and supported the project. Staff informed them of concerns about two problems at several existing towers in the community that staff would like to prevent at this site within the CUP format for this application (and possibly by ordinance change for future requests). 1. Timely maintenance of towers, equipment buildings, landscaping and enclosures. 2. A reliable 24-hour phone contact (responsible party) for the tower installation to respond to and comply with legal orders from the City within 21 days. Snow plowing/storage was discussed at length, because the property slopes to the northwest comer where the tower enclosure will be and which has been used for snow storage. Snow must not be dumped on adjacent land in the future. The applicant speculated that the landowner could change his snow handling practices, which needs to be verified. The Committee requested that the applicant provide additional materials concerning parking lot circulation, fire lanes, alternative snow storage locations, specifications for cedar fencing, FCC license and a letter indicating that the FAA would not require the tower to be lighted. The applicant revised the plan sheets accordingly and submitted all of the information requested by the Committee and staff. D. Plan Description Revised plans and documents include an engineer's "collapse limitation" letter which verifies that the unlikely-potential tower failure radius is 30 feet, which makes the setbacks to the property lines and building conforming. The plan confirms no outdoor storage or fire lane exist on the site and address staff's comments. Planning Case Report 01-01 Page 7 3/2/01 E. Plannin,q Considerations ~ The Planning Consultant's report has been incorporated into this report. F. Buildin,q Considerations If Council approves the CUP, detailed, signed, structural plans and specifications and soil borings will be required to be submitted with the building permit application. All construction must comply with the MN State Building Code. G. Le,qal Considerations City staff would like to discuss a potential code amendment to the tower ordinance with the City Attorney to better address maintenance responsibility concerns. H. En,qineerin,q Considerations The City Engineer reviewed the plans and made the following comments: We have reviewed the plans for the proposed Nextel tower at 3401 Nevada Avenue. The submittal includes signed plans from a registered engineer and documentation verifying the structural capabilities of the tower. The proposed tower will not impact existing drainage patterns. The improvements will not increase storm water runoff. Site access will be via an existing driveway and parking lot. Site circulation and parking will be impacted minimally. We recommend that the Fire and Police Departments review the site circulation and access. We do not see issues with the application as proposed from an engineering perspective. No further comments are offered as part of our review. VIII. Summary The proposed 100-foot cellular tower in the industrial zone meets all standards in the Zoning Code. IX, Recommendation Staff recommends CUP approval for a 100-foot monopole tower and equipment building, subject to the following conditions: 1. The property owner and Nextel West Corp. (and/or its assigns) shall provide the City with the name, phone number, address, and 24-hour responsible party contact information for the antenna site. Said responsible party contact information shall be clearly posted at the site. City inspectors shall have access to the site for the purpose of conducting inspections. 2. The fence, lease area, equipment building, and tower shall be maintained at all times and kept in good repair. In the event that the lease area is not maintained, the City shall notify the contact individuals in writing of maintenance/grounds issues. In the event that the violations are not remedied within twenty-one (21) days, the City may, at its discretion, cause the violation to be corrected and assess all costs to the property owner. 3. A copy of the approved CUP application and conditions of approval shall be filed with Hennepin County as required by Minnesota Statute. The applicant shall be responsible to file said documents and provide proof of filing upon completion of tower construction and final inspection. 4. There shall be no outside storage within the antenna/tower lease area site. All equipment, materials, etc., shall be stored within the equipment building. 5. An eight-foot tall, cedar, non-climbable security fence shall be provided around the perimeter of the 40' x 60' lease area. 6. Upon cessation of the use of the cellular antenna site for a pedod of 12 months, the property owner and/or the applicant (or its assigns) shall be responsible to remove all equipment, the tower, fencing, and buildings associated with the CUP application. Planning Case Report 01-01 Page 8 3/2/01 7. Violation of the terms and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit shall be grounds for formal review of the CUP by the Planning Commission and City Council and may result in revocation of the CUP, at which point said permit shall become null and void. 8. Compliance with the MN State Building Code. Attachments: Address/ZoningFropo Maps 2/23 Petitioner's Correspondence 1/2 Petitioner's Correspondence (updated) Property Owner Authorization Tower Removal Letters Collapsibility Letter FAA Letter re: no lighting FCC License/Registration Evidence Revised Plans: Title Sheet General Notes Site Plan Lease Plan Shelter Plan Elevations: Tower Equipment Building Details Fence Plan/Photo Electrical Site Plan & Details Electrical Details Electrical Specifications Certificate of Survey Tower Distance Map Photo of Monopole & Building Planner's Report City Engineer Comments Application Log Planning Case Report 01-01 Page 9 3/2/01 7601 3510 7716 ~STH AVE N WlNPARK DR ~lgl AVE N '.!ETERY ~ ..... Jz Z z Z 1 % 38TH AVF i"¢ . . '- .... 35r'2AVE ~ ,, '"., -..', ' 35TH AYE N. '-r-. ......... ? .... . .... 33=.2 -',/E N ',,._ :~: $~2 · 3 --~ ' ' ~ ' "~ ~: 903. - ' . . 906.4 ~ ~ "' ~ ~-  , /~-~,' ,. ~'~ ~,~_~ Nextel Communications 9401 James Avenue So~th, Suite 180, Bloomington, MN ~ 952 703-7600 FAX 952 703-7690 NEXTEE February 23, 2001 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 FIE: RE: Submittal of Nextel's revisions from the design & review meeting February 16, 2001 in order for Nextel West Corp. to construct a 100' monopole and 10' X 20' stone aggregate equipment building located at 3401 Nevada Ave. North, New Hope, MN 55427. Please find enclosed the following information requested at the New Hope Design & Review meeting held February 16, 2001: 1. Nextel's FAA letter verifying no lighting will be required at the site. 2. Nextel's FCC license and evidence. 3. A revised narrative and drawings reflecting the proposed 8' cedar fence. 4. Revised drawings depicting no refuse storage and screening required. 5. Revised drawings identifying the parking layout and depiction of no existing fire lanes. 6. Revised drawings depicting the snow storage locations. 7. Nextel will provide the City of New Hope with a 24 hour, responsible party contact name and number prior to construction. If you require any further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 612-366- 8944. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, David W. Fischer Real Estate Specialist Nextel Communications MNO200-A Winnetka Cover Letter for Design & Review Revisionslcloc ~,f~ Nextel Communications 9401 James Avenue South, Suite 180, Bloomington, MN 5543 952 703-7600 FAX 952 703-7690 NEXTEL January 2, 2001 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: RE: Nextel West Corp., a Delaware Corporation is requesting approval to construct a 100' monopole and 10' X 20' stone aggregate equipment building located at 3401 Nevada Ave. North, New Hope, MN 55427. Please find enclosed a Conditional Use Permit application for Nextel West Corp., a Delaware Corporation to construct a Wireless Communications Facility at 3401 Nevada Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55427. Nextel's specific request is to construct a 100' AGL monopole (104' AGL overall height with antennas) which will accommodate Nextel Communications and three additional future wireless communications provider's antennas and equipment. Ncxtel will require a iff X 20' stone aggregate equipment shelter located at the base of the pole. Nextel is proposing to construct an 8' (30' X 40' ) decorative cedar fence surrounding the tower and building. Strictly adhering to the New Hope ordinance and requests from the Planning and Zoning Department, the following information is enclosed: REQUIRED SUBMITTAL INFORMATION: 1. Completed Conditional Use Permit Application. 2. Application Check in the amount of Four Hundred Fifty Dollars ($450). 3. Written Description of the Proposed Use and a list of Criteria and Findings outlined in the City of New Hope's zoning code. 4. 10 sets of Drawings: i) Certificate of Survey. ii) Detailed site plans signed by a registered architect and engineer. (Nextel will provide construction drawings within 45 days of the receipt of Nextel's Conditional Use Zoning Approval). 5. A tower collapsibility letter signed by a registered engineer. 6. A photo representing Nextel's proposed monopole and building. 7. A photo and drawing of Ncxtel's proposed 8' decorative cedar anti / climb fence. 8. A map depicting the distance between Nextel's proposed site and the existing towers are at least i000' from Nextel's proposed site as required in the New Hope Zoning Code. 9. The owner's evidence of title ( Copy of the Owner's Warranty Deed). 10. A written authorization letter from the Landowner granting Nextel permission to erect the tower on his property and represent him in the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. l 1. Written verification that Nextel will remove the tower within 12 months of cessation of operation. 12. FAA Letter verifying no lighting will be required. 13. FCC license and registration evidence. MN0200-A Winnetka Zoning Narrative.doc I 14. Nextel will obtain all applicable federal, state and local licenses required prior to an issuance of a building permit for the proposed site. If you require any further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 612-366- 8944. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, David W. Fischer Real Estate Specialist Nextel Communications MN0200-A Winnetka Zoning Narrative.doc 2 RE: Nextel Communications Site # MN0200 - Site Name: Winnetka Dear Mr. Sandstad, This letter is intended to comply with the standard application procedures for a Conditional Use Permit in the City of New Hope. Nextel is requesting approval to construct a galvanized steel, four carder, 100'AGL Monopole and a 10' X 20' stone aggregate equipment shelter located on Null & Void Inc.'s property at 3401 Nevada Ave. N. New Hope, MN 55427. PROPOSED USE The overall height of Nextel's proposed tower with antennas will be 104' AGL. Nextel's tower and building will be screened by an 8' tall, ( 30' X 40' ) decorative cedar fence surrounding the tower on the North, East and West sides of the compound. I have provided a drawing Nextel' s proposed 8' cedar fence provided by Lampert Architects. The lease area Nextel has obtained through a ground lease with the landowner will provide enough ground space for a total of (4) four Communications users (Nextel and three additional communications users in the future). The proposed tower will be galvanized steel. The antennas will be of a color and configuration desired by the City of New Hope as to minimize adverse visual effects in order that such facilities harmonize with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. No advertising message shall be affixed to the tower. Nextel will attach (9) nine antennas ( three sectors, three antennas per sector ) at the top of the tower. The azimuth of Nextel's antennas will be 104 degrees, 224 degrees and 344 degrees. The proposed tower will not require to be artificially illuminated by the FAA. Nextel will comply with, and obtain all Federal, State and Local agency licenses required for the site. The cell site will require a single phase, 200 amp, 208 volt, electrical service and (T-l) telephone utilities for the site. Utilities will be obtained from the site and separately metered. Null & Void Inc. President John D. Jerome has provided written permission for Nextel Communications to represent Null & Void Inc. for the requested conditional use permit. ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS Unfortunately, there are no existing structures within Nextel's search area in which Nextel can attach their antennas. Due to the lack of collocation opportunities available in Nextel's search area, Nextel is proposing to construct a 100' monopole (overall height with antennas: 104'AGL) and 10' X 20' stone aggregate equipment shelter at 3401 Nevada Ave. N, New Hope, MN 55427. The Media One Tower is located approximately 1698.20 feet southwest of Nextel's proposed location. Media One does not have tower space available at the height in which Nextel needs to locate their antennas. The Qwest Wireless tower located at 2900 Nevada Ave. N is approximately 3434.20 feet from Nextel's proposed site and does not have tower space available since Qwest's future growth antennas are located on the second porthole designed for the monopole. The Qwest site is therefore at capacity. Both towers are located at least 1000' away from Nextel's proposed site which is in accordance with Section 4.39D of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. I have provided a map depicting the distance between Nextel's proposed tower and the existing Media One and the Qwest Tower in the area. The setback for the tower to the nearest property line is 75 % of the height of the tower ( 75 feet ). The setback for the tower to the building is 50 % of the height of the tower ( 50 feet). Nextel has provided a collapsibility letter from a registered engineer that any collapse of the tower will occur in a lesser MN0200-A Winnetka Zoning Narrative.doc 3 distance under all foreseeable circumstances. This is in accordance with section 4.039D (3) (g) of the New Hope City Ordinance 97 - 04. Nextel's proposed tower is located 53' from the North property line, 45' from the West property line and 12' from the existing building. Nextel's equipment building is located 35 from the North property line and 24 feet from the West property line. Nextel's building is located 10' North of the Archive Corporation building owned by Null & Void Inc. Nextel's proposed site is located within an I-1 zoning district, which is considered a conditionally permitted use subject to the regulation and requirements of Section 4.21 of the zoning code. The zoning code requires that Tower Manufacturing Drawings be provided by a Certified Structural Engineer and a Registered Architect prior to the issuance of a building permit. Nextel has provided a Certificate of Survey as well as Architect and Engineering drawings signed by a registered Architect and Engineer. Nextel does not have construction drawings available at this time, since Nextel has not yet ordered the tower from the manufacturer. Once Nextel receives zoning approval form the City of New Hope, Nextel will provide the City with construction drawings signed by a registered engineer within 45 days upon receipt of zoning approval. I have provided a list of New Hope's zoning criteria and findings as stated in Section 4.039D (Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers) of the City of New Hope's zoning code. Criteria #1 Unless the antenna tower and land is under the same ownership, written 4.039D (3) (a) authorization for antennas and antennas tower erection shall be provided by the property owner as well as the applicant. Finding#1 Nextel Communications has provided the City of New Hope with written authorization from the property owner granting Nextel West Corp. permission to erect the tower and antennas on the landowner's property. Criteria # 2 All obsolete and unused antenna towers shall be removed within twelve 4.309D (3)( b) (12) months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the City Manager or designate. The removal shall be the joint and several responsibility of the antennas tower and landowner. Finding #2 Nextel has provided written verification that the tower will be removed within twelve months of cessation of operation at the sole expense of Nextel Communications. This issue is also addressed in the lease agreement between Nextel Communications and the Landowner. Criteria ~3 All antenna towers shall be in compliance with the Minnesota State 4.039D (3)(C) Building Code and all other applicable federal state regulations and permit. Finding #3 Nextel Communication's has enclosed an FAA letter verifying that Nextel's tower will not require lighting by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Nextel's Communication towers meet all ANZl/'I'IA/EIA-222E and Uniform Building Code Standards. Nextel Communications towers are designed to withstand the highest wind speeds, snow and ice loads required by all State and Federal regulations. All equipment is self contained within the equipment shelter and will not create any noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The perimeter of the site will be secured with an anti/climb 8' tall decorative, cedar, MN0200-A Winnetka Zoning Narrative.doc 4 fence for security and safety purposes. Nextel Communications will obtain all applicable federal and state regulations and permits. Criteria #4 Structural design and construction plans of the antenna towers shall be in 4.039D (3)(d) compliance with manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. Finding #4 Nextel will provide all necessary tower and foundation drawings signed by a registered engineer within 45 days of an issuance of the Conditional Use Permit approval. Nextel does not currently have construction drawings available because the tower has not yet been ordered from the tower manufacturer. Criteria#5 When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna tower shall be 4.039D (3) (e) accompanied by any required federal, state, or local agency licenses. Finding #5 Nextel will provide the City of New Hope with all necessary federal, state or local agency licenses required prior to obtaining all necessary building permits. Criteria ~6 The City may authorize the use of City property for an antenna tower in 4.039D (3)(f) appropriately zoned districts in accordance with the procedures of the City Code. The City shall have no obligation whatsoever to use City property for such purposes. Finding#6 Nextel Communications would not require City property for the use of a Communications facility. Criteria #7 Antenna towers shall maintain a minimum setback to the nearest property 4.039D (3) (G) line of seventy-five (75%) percent of tower height and a minimum setback from a building in the same lot of fifty (50%) of tower height. The setback required may be reduced if the applicant provides documentation by a registered engineer that any collapse of the tower will occur in a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. The setback requirements shall not be reduced below the collapse area of the tower or the minimum setback requirements of the base zoning district, whichever is greater. Finding #7 Although Nextel's proposed site does not meet the current setbacks outlined in the zoning code, Nextel has provided a collapsibility letter provided by a registered engineer that will demonstrate that the tower collapse will occur in a lesser distance under foreseeable circumstances. This is in accordance with the requirement of the zoning code. Criteria # 8 All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of one thousand 4.039 D (3) (h) (1000') feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved. Finding #8 Nextel's proposed tower site is at least 1000 feet from all existing towers. Nextel Communications has provided documentation depicting the distance from Nextel's site to the existing towers to be at least 1000 feet. This is in accordance with the zoning code. MN0200-A Winnetka Zoning Narrative.doc 5 Criteria #9 Maximum height of a two antenna array shall be one-hundred forty-five 4.039D (3) (i) (145) feet. A tower providing three or more antenna arrays may have a maximum height of one hundred sixty-five ( 165 ) feet. Finding #9 Nextel's proposed monopole will be 100' AGL ( an overall height with antennas will be 104'AGL). The proposed monopole is designed to accommodate a total of four wireless communications carriers ( Nextel Communications and three additional wireless communications providers.) The proposed site is in accordance with the height restriction of the zoning code. Criteria #10 Antenna towers shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law 4.039D (3)(j) or by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect the public's health and safety. Finding #10 Nextel has provided an FAA letter verifying that the FAA will not require Nextel to artificially illuminate the tower. Criteria #11 No advertisement signs shall be affixed to the antenna tower. 4.039D (3) (K) Finding #11 No advertising signs shall be affixed to Nextel's proposed tower. There will be a sign at the site with a Nextel contact number in case of emergency. Criteria # 12 Antennas towers shall be painted silver and have a galvanized finish to 4.039D (3) (I) reduce visual impact, unless otherwise required by federal law. Finding #12 Nextel's proposed tower will be painted silver with galvanized finish to reduce visual impact. Criteria # 13 Antenna towers shall be of a color and configuration as to minimize 4.039D (3) (m) adverse effects in order that such facilities harmonize with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. Finding #13 As previously mentioned, Nexte'l's proposed monopole will be painted silver with a galvanized finish to minimize adverse impact on the surrounding area. Criteria #14 A security fence shall be provided around the base of the antenna tower. 4.039D (3)(n) A locked anti-climb device shall be installed on all towers extending twelve ( 12' ) above the ground. Finding #14 In compliance to the requirement of the zoning code, Nextel has proposed to construct an eight (8') tall, (30' X 40' ) decorative cedar anti / climb fence. Nextel has attached a supplemental drawing attached to the Architect and Engineering drawings submitted with Nextel's submittal information. In compliance with the zoning code, Nextel will install an anti-climb device on the tower. MN0200-A Winnetka Zoning Narrative.doc 6 Criteria #15 Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, whether self contained 4.039D (3)(o) or located in a free standing equipment building, shall be located at the base of the antenna tower and shall be screened from view from residential uses and public right of ways. Finding #15 As mentioned above, Nextel has proposed an 8' tall, (30' X 40' ) decorative cedar fence that will screen the building located at the base of the tower from both residential uses and the public right-of-way. This is in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Criteria # 16 If a new tower is to be constructed it shall be designed to accommodate 4.039D (3) (p) at least two (2) antenna arrays including but not limiting to other personal wireless service companies, local police, fire and ambulance companies. Finding#16 As previously mentioned, Nextel's proposed monopole is designed to accommodate Nextel and at least three additional communications users. Nextel's proposed design is in compliance with the zoning code. Criteria # 17 The conditional use permit provisions of section 4.21 of the zoning code 4.039D (3) (q) must also be satisfied. Finding # 1 7 Nextel will satisfy all required provisions of Section 4.21 of this code. Nextel's findings provided above illustrate that Nextel's proposed site comply with all of the criteria outlined in New Hope's zoning code for Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers. Nextel West Corp. a Deleware corporation, requests the City of New Hope's approve Nextel's request for a conditional use permit to construct a four carrier 10G monopole (104' AGL overall height with antennas) and 10' X 20' stone aggregate equipment building at 3401 Nevada Ave N. New Hope, MN 55427. I appreciate the assistance I have received from the City of New Hope's Office Staff and look forward to working with the City of New Hope to better serve the community with enhanced wireless communications. I hope the information provided will enable the City of New Hope to make a decision regarding Nextel's request for approval of the conditional use application. If you need any additional information, please feel free to call me on my Nextel phone at 612-366-8944 or in my office at 952-703- 5944. Respectfully, David W. Fischer Real Estate Specialist Nextel Communications MN0200-A Winnetka Zoning Narrative.doc 7 NoYember '~9.2000 Doug Sandsmd Building Official City of New Hope ~,~01 Xyion Avenue North New Hope, [VLN' 55428 RE: Proposed Nextel Communications Facility 3401 Nevada Ave. N New Hope. [Vh-N 55427 Please accept this letter as Null & Void Inc.'s authorization for Nextel West Corp., a Delaware Corporation to construct a 100 foot monopole and a 10' X 20' stone aggregate equipment shelter and a 30' X 40 fence compound to be located in the Northwest comer of the Null & Void Inc. proper~y ( PID#: 20-118-21-21- 0001), located at 3401 Nevada Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55427. This is in accordance to Section 4.039D, Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers of the New Hope City Ordinance No. 97- 04. Respectfully, lohn D. lerome President & CEO December 5, 2000 Doug Sandstad Building Official City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Proposed Nextel Communications Facility 3401 Nevada Ave. N New Hope, M2q 55427 I am writing to confu'm that Nextel's proposed I00' monopole at the above referenced location will be removed xvithin 12 months of cessation of operation. The cost for the removal of the tower will be at Nextel Communication's sole expense. This is in accordance to Section 4.039D, Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers of the New Hope City Ordinance No. 97- 04. Chief Executive Officer Null & Void Inc. Nextel Communications 9401 James Avenue South, Suite 180, Bloomington, MN 55431 952 703-7600 FAX 952 703-7690 NEXTE[ December 5, 2000 Doug Sandstad Building Ofticial City of New Hope 440 [ Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Proposed Nextel Communications FaciliE`' 3401 Nevada Ave. N New Hope, IvIN 55427 I am writing to confirm that Nextet's proposed I00' monopote at the above referenced location will be removed within 12 months of cessation of operation. This is in accordance to Section 4.039D, Personal Wireless Service Antermas and Towers of the New Hope CIE,' Ordinance No. 97- 04. Sincerely, //~ Nathan S. Ward Real Estate Manager Nextel Communications Feb 7, 2001 Chuck ~Iohnson Systems DeveloPment Manager NEXTEL 9401 lames Ave South Suite 180 ' Bloor~_'_~gton, MN 55431 P..E: Millerbemd Mfg. Co. Antonna Monopole Structural Integrity, New Hope, MN The lV[illerbewnd Mfg. Co. monopolcs used by Nextel for this project meets or ~c~s ~c ~~~ ofT~-2~ "S~~ St~d~ for St~l ~a Tow~ ~d ~t~ S~o~g S~c~" ~fic~om ~s is ~c r~o~z~ ~~fion for ~e ~ of tow~. ~en d~i~ ~e m~e, ~nd ~d i~ loa~g ~ong wi~ ~e n~, s~, heist md ~lc ofmo~g of &e m~ ~ ~m ~to ~t to det~ine ~e size of~e s~c~ ~~ ~e monopole is desi~ ~ ~st~d ~ le~ 80 ~H ~d ~ s %" ~ck ~a~g of ice on ~e monopolc ~ ~t~a. Mill~d Mfg. Co. ~ 0nly c~n ~1 (AS~ ~72 or A60~, ~ch h~ a ~c~o~ to v~y ~ ~te~ty of~e ma~. ~e ~ c~fi~o~ ~ k~t on file, ~ould a ~py be req~md ~ ~c ~ ~te. ~y AWS-DI.1 ~! Wel~g C~e' q,~]ifled pe~o~el wi~ be ~ d~g ~e wel~ng of&c ~cmm. Weld ~go~ will be ~o~ed by S~-TC-1A q~ified Non-Des~vc T~ P~cl Wi~ ~ pole d~i~ ~d ~~ ~ ~cor~ce wi~ ~c a~vc c~t~ Mill~d ~g. Co. c~ifies ~at ~e mon~ol~ ~ not co,apse. ~ for some reason, · e ~d 1o~ exceeds ~e mon~le c~aohy, ~ pole ~ not ~Jtsps~ but m~ ~e t~ 30' of~e pole ~11 p~~fly defo~ ~ ~ch ~e ~at-~e ~t~ns* ~.not · p~c~ to ~ ~nd f~e, a s~h ~e ~e pole ~11 aop dcf~ ~d m~n~ ~t ~fion. ~ ~ ~ ~fo~6on ~ m~h~ only ~ ~ ~d ev~t wi~ ca~e ~y ~fion~ ~age. MILLERBERND MANUFACTURING COMPANY * P.O, BOX 98 * WINSTED, MINNESOTA 55395 PHONE' (320) 485-2111 * FAX' (320) 455.4420 Mill~tben~d Mtg. Co. ha~ b.ee~ in businms sinco 1933 md mmufact~g monopol~ s~ce 1948. Sinc~ ~at ti~e, ~ous~& ofmonopoi~ have b~lt, slmi!~ to ~s one, ~out ~y ~er coll~sing. ~lI~d h~ been b~d~g ~t~a monopol~ sinc~ 1990. ~ ~ ~, 80 plus ~t~ ~n~oles have b~ b~lt M~om ~y colI~sing. ~u Mve ~y questions or commm~ plebe c~l m~ at (320) 485-2111 R~p~y ~bmi~ fi~t~n, or mpoa was prepm~ ny me o~ Wad=~~, P.~. under my direct supervision a,*~ tn~t t am a duly Registered professional Engm.vr. unde~ ~e laws ot th~ State of Minnesota ..... MILLERBERND MANUFACTURING COMPANY · P.O. BOX 98 * I/VINSTED, MINNESOTA 55395 RHONE (320) 485-2111 · FAX (320) 485-4420 TOTAL P. 03 '"' JOHN E ALLEN AIRS~C£ CONSULTANTS, I~C. / EO. BOX 1008 FERNAND~A BEACH, FL 32035-1008' ~OHN E ALLEN TELEPHONE (904) 261-6523 MARY C. LOWE FA~ to~a~ 277-3651 December 13, 2000 Mr. Rodd Hustad Nexte! Communications 9401 James Ave. South Suite 180 Bloomington, M~ 55431 Dear Rodd: ~,' .... ~ to your request an aeronautical evaluation was conducted near the Winnetka site area, Minnesota (I¢N-0200) for your proposed antenna application. The aeronautical evaluation was conducted in accordance with the standards for determinin~ obstructions to the navigable airspace as set forth in Subpart C of Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. COORDINATES: Latitude 45-01-10.48 N - Longitude 93-22-28.38 W (NORTH AMERICAN DATUM - 1983) HEIGHT: 901 feet AMSL 120 feet AGL 1021 feet AMSL The evaluation disclosed that the proposed site was located 2.50 nautical miles from the Crystal Airport reference point. The proposal as specified does not exceed the standards of Part 77. Notice to the FAA has been provided and the FAA will not require marking and lighting. The nearest private airport, North Memorial Heliport, is located 2.24 nautical miles from the proposed site. The nearest AM radio station, KFX~, is located 801 meters from the proposed site. This station is operating a directional type antenna system with 2 patterns. If there are any questions regarding the evaluation, please do not hesitate to call. ~incerely, p~i~;n~l len ' · SHIPP~4G ON~.Y 905 S. $~ STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH, FL 32034 Nextel Communications 9401 James Avenue South, Suite 180, Bloomington, MN 554 952 703-7600 FAX 952 703-7690 NEXTEE February 22, 2001 City of New Hope Doug Sandstad Building Official 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Mr. Sandstad, Nextel Communications is required to register tower structures with the'FCC and or FAA according to Federal Guidelines; we are also required to apply for an FCC license for each transmitting cell site. We have completed a contour analysis of our existing licensed Nextei Communications site located at 5008 Hillsboro Ave. North, New Hope, MN and have found that the proposed new site, located at 3401 Nevada Ave. North, New Hope, MN, 55427 is well within the 22dbu contour of our existing license. The FCC call sign of this license is WPQQ633. By being within our existing licensed contour Nextel is allowed to operate on the frequencies included in this license, at the site located at 3401 Nevada Ave. North, New Hope, MN 55427. Nextel Communications will apply for a new FCC license once the site at 3401 Nevada Ave. North is constructed. Nextel has included FCC evidence showing the existing FCC Contour Study, FAA Towair Results and a copy of Nextel's FCC License. Sincerely, Bob Stancer Sr. R1= Manager Nextel Communications · RESULTS A routine check of the coordinates, heights, and structure type you provided indicates whether this structure "does or does not require registration. Any "fail slope" result means that your structure requiresFAA notification and FCC registration. If all results are "pass slope", this means that the structure does not require registration, based on the information you provided. WARNING: Because the airport database we use is updated periodically, it does not take into account the most recent airport construction, nor does it include proposed airports. You still must register with the FCC if your structure is located near one of these airports or if the FAA specifically asks you to register - even if you "pass slope" in all instances. Note: Use your Browser's print function to print your TowAir results. THE/NIT/AL INFORMATION ENTERED: I I n · - [1[ ]u..,,,..,. 1..,...,,,,.,. 145° I;'10-' )93~22'28.3 '}~1.7 )30.5 )2?4.6 )POLE PASS SLOPE( I00: I)NO Meters 05778.0 IAIRP R ¢$0 Y41.00 ~93° 21'32,00 ~,CRYSTAL MINNEAPOLIS ~ENNEPIN 264.1 Feet)away & below 995.47998046875 ~slope by 6.19000 Meters (20.3099 Feet) PASS SLOPE(100:I)NO FAA REQ - 4773 02 Meters (! 5659.3 Feet)away & below AIRP R 45° 3' 39.00 ~93° 2 I' 28.00 :CRYSTAL MINNEAPOLIS HENNEPIN MN 264.1 995.47998046875 slope by $.83000 Meters (19.1299 Feet) IPASS SLOPE(100:DNO FAA REQ - 4703.39 Meters (15430.8 ~Feet)away & below !AIRP R [5' 3' 28.00 93~ 20' 56.00 iCRYSTAL MINNEAPOLIS HENNEPIN MN 264.1 995.47998046875 slope by 5.12999 I Meters (16.8299 Feet) ' PASS SLOP£( I OO: I )NO F~ R~Q - 46~0.34 Meters (15125.6 iAIRP R 45°3'26.00 !93'21'0.00 ICRYSTAL MINNEAPOLIS Feet)away & below . HENNEPIN 264.1 995.47998046875 slope by 4.20000 Meters (13.7799 Iofl .......... 2/16/01 2:31 STOC crt MTM. SHELTER PLAN ~0' ~' x ~ I ;~ ~/~~ ~x~ ~ u.~ 14. o.I ~L. ' ll~~/' ~ e~M's[o~g/~ ~, ~ ~===~: ==-~ ........ ~ __~ ~~ ............ ~ .......... ~CO ~g~~ A A~ ~ ~ ~ LEASE PLAN ~ I,/1' ,, t',-r N[W P~.~1~'(~lia N~W PI.A~LJ d 24* N(X113. 24' w! 4~ ~. P~S~S CPS Sl14C CPS $'~C' / / ~ [AS"r ELEVATION 13 wes, ELEV^T,O. 14! Nextel's Proposed 8' Decorative, Cedar Fence 5.t.'~. ...... ~i iljJ ' "'-" ! ,,.,,'"' ;~Iit'~ ';j .l~' ,,,,' ' ~"! I~ :Jilt .J ii! ~?t Ill Iii j~i '~ '"I" ,, , ., ,,,:, ,.,,,, ..,., ,.,:, Iii! ..." ,..; !Iii! ':~ ': :' " ~! ii ~, ,:, :iii, ::: ;:.ii il!~! !i! :J;J [[!J Ii, l,::,,!i~;ll~ Ii,, ~ IIll I Ill [[J · lllli l~l NF, XTF, MN0200 " TKA" WINNE ~;[:E LEASE i Z-: i : ! ~ ?.! .::- i:, ~ i L '::' .= .=-~ ::- AREA DE'TAIL - 0 _'2' rn LL. the ct' NOT]~: A S/BINCHREBA~WA~PREVIOUSLYPLACEDINTHEc£1¢rER ~l <~ NO .o,~._ I ~ ~.lzn'lq)B or Z,ROFOSZO 'mw~ ~- o:' ~o.~" (NAZ) Ca) Z -] LONGmm~ o ~ : Leo ~ ~wA~ ~ ~1 ~ ~- 1) MN0200 Winnetka Search Area ~ ~,~, ~, . . . ~_ '-' ~ 5 ~ i ~* dis~nc* be~ ex~s~g M~m One Tow~ il ' e ~ - · - ~ ~'~ ~ i~ ~ JJ ~ H I ~d~epro~s~NextelCo~mcanoms,te 7[ [1 ~ I~ fl a~,-~locat~at3401NevadaAv*.N. NewHope,~ · Propos~ Nextel Site: ~0200A- Null & Void Inc. h ~ : ' . ~ 1698.20 f~t Longitude: 93-22-29.2 i, . '~ i'~> ~ ExiB~g M~ia One Tow~. ~ I ~-c~ ~ -~: /~ ~ { C~rd~at~' ~-~h ~ ~ ~ /t ~ ~ ~fimde' 45-00-59 4 . , ~o~ - .,.~' --~ Longitud;: 93-2246.7 , // // m2-- ~ . ~- ' . · . . ' :~ ~w ~-'~ ~ ~ The dtsmnce be~e~ ~e ems~g US W~t  ' } o ~ monopolc ~d the propos~ Ncxtl .. ~, ~ ~ ~ i 5 :o~unicatio~ site locat~ at 3401 Neva~ ~ ~ 'x' z" '~' ~ Ave is' _ ~ ~/ ~[ ~ ~ 3434.20f~t 29& Nevada Ave N. ~c~ ,/ ~- ~ ~ . New Hope, ~ 55427 ,,, ~ ,,-~ ~ ,7 ~ // ~ - ~' ~Os v~t~O W Mag 15.00 S~le 1:15.625 (at ~nter) Wed Dec 06 13:32 2000 1000 Feet [ 500 Metem I Nextel Communications 9401 James Avenue South, Suite 180 Bloomington, MN 55431 612 703-7600 FAX 612 703-7690 TYPICAL WHIP ', · '.~ ".~ t~,-~' - .' ANTENNA CONFIGURATION '"' BLOOMINGTON, MN IHIQ~IIt'Ir#WII$? &$$GC:I~&?IIIG CGli4$UI,.?&K?$,.. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 554!~6~ Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 nac@winternet.co PLANNING REPORT TO: New Hope Planning Commission FROM: Alan Brixius / Deb Garross DATE: February 27, 2001 RE: New Hope - Nextel Communications Tower - Conditional Use Permit (CUP) FILE NO: 131.01 - 01,01 INTRODUCTION Nextel West Corporation has submitted a request to construct a wireless communications tower and ground equipment building at 3401 Nevada Avenue North. The subject site is currently developed with Archive Corporation owned by Null & Void, which is a company that provides archive service to its clients. The specific proposal is to construct a 104 foot tall monopole tower and 10' x 20' ground equipment building on the northwest comer of the site. See attached Exhibits D and E for reference to the proposed site and construction plans. SITE ANALYSIS The subject site consists of about 6.4 acres of land located in the southeast part of the City on a property zoned I-1 Limited Industrial. The site is bounded on the west by the Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern Railroad and property zoned I-2, General Industrial. The site is bounded on the north and south by industrial buildings and the east by Nevada Avenue North. Site access to the existing industrial building is via a driveway connected to Nevada Avenue North. The proposal is to locate the monopole tower and ground equipment building within a 60 x 40' lease area, which is proposed adjacent to the northwest part of the existing building. A separate 20' foot ingress/egress easement is proposed to provide access from Nevada Avenue to the lease area. The periphery of the lease area will be enclosed with a proposed 8' foot tall, cedar, non-climbable fence. ZONING ANALYSIS The site is currently zoned I-1, Limited Industrial which allows personal wireless service antenna towers as a CUP provided specific performance standards are met as outlined below:. lof8 .... 1. Unless the antenna tower and land is under the same ownership, written · ~ authorization for antenna and antenna tower erection shall be provided by the property owner as well as the applicant. · John Jerome, the property owner for Null and Void Inc., has given written authority (via letter dated November 29, 2000) to Nextel West Corp. to make application for the CUP and has signed the application form as well. 2. All obsolete and unused antenna towers shall be removed within twelve months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the City Manager or designate. The removal shall be the joint and several responsibility of the antenna tower owner and landowner. · The property owner and applicant have provided letters (December 5, 2000) indicating that the tower will be removed within 12 months of cessation of operation and that the cost of removal will be the responsibility of Nextel West Corp. 3. All antenna towers shall be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. · The tower and equipment shelter plans will be reviewed for compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Structural design and construction plans of the antenna tower shall be in compliance with manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. · The applicant will be required to submit structural plans, prepared by a registered professional engineer, as part of the building permit application. 5. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna towers shall be accompanied by any required federal, state or local agency licenses. · The applicant has submitted a copy of the FCC license with the CUP application. 6. The City may authorize the use of City property for an antenna tower in appropriately zoned districts in accordance with the procedures of the City Code. The City shall have no obligation whatsoever to use City property for such purposes. · The proposed tower location is on private property therefore this item is not applicable to this application. 2 of 8 7. Antenna towers shall maintain a minimum setback to the nearest property line of 75% of the tower height (75' in this case), and a minimum setback from a building in the same lot of 50% (50' feet in this case), of the tower height. The setback requirements may be reduced if the applicant provides documentation by a registered engineer that nay collapse of the tower will occur in a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. The setback requirements shall not be reduced below the collapse area of the tower or the minimum setback requirements of the base zoning district, whichever is greater. · The following setback provision are applicable to the site: Description Standard Proposal Required tower setback to property lines:75% of Tower Height (75') 45' from west line 53' from north line Minimum tower setback from buildings 50% of Tower Height (50') 12' on the same lot: Required accessory bUilding setback to 5' west rear yard setback 24' from west line property lines: 5' north side yard setback 34' from north line Mini'mum accessory building setback 6' per Building Code (fire 10' from buildings on the same lot: se@aration~) · The applicant has provided a letter from the monopole tower manufacturer indicating that the tower will not collapse but rather the top 30' of the pole will permanently deform until such time that the antennas are not perpendicular to the wind force, and at such time the pole will stop deforming and maintain that position. This being the case, the proposed setbacks are adequate based upon the manufacturers specifications. 8. All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of one thousand feet from existing towers at the time the conditional use permit is approved, · The applicant has provided a map indicating the location of existing towers and demonstrating that the closest tower is located 1,698 feet from the proposed tower location. 9. Maximum height of a two antenna array tower shall be 145 feet. A tower providing for three or more antenna arrays may have a maximum height of 165 feet. · The proposal is to construct a 100' tall monopole tower (the total structure height above ground level, is proposed to be 104', which includes the antennas) that will provide for the applicant's antennas and an additional three wireless carriers. 10. Antenna towers shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by/aw or by the FAA to protect the public's health and safety. 3of8 · The proposed monopole tower does not require lighting pursuant to the certification letter submitted with the CUP application. 11. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna tower. · No advertising signs are proposed for the tower. Nextel West Corp. will post a small sign listing contact information, address and telephone number only. 12. Antenna towers shall be painted silver or have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise required by federal law. · The applicant has indicated that the tower, antennas and supporting equipment will be painted silver and have a galvanized finish. The exterior of the ground equipment shelter will be aggregate face, concrete panels. 13. Antenna towers shall be of a color and configuration as to minimize adverse visual effects in order that such facilities harmonize with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. · The proposal is to paint the tower, antennas and supporting equipment silver. The exterior of the ground equipment shelter will be aggregate face, concrete panels. 14. A security fence 8 feet in height shall be provided around the base of he antenna tower. A locked anti-climb device shall be installed on all towers extending 12 feet above ground. · The proposal is to enclose the 40 x 60 foot lease area, surrounding the tower and equipment shelter, with an 8-foot tall decorative, non-climbable, cedar fence. 15. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment, whether self-contained or located in a free-standing equipment building, shall be located at the base of the antenna tower and shall be screened from view from residential uses and public right-of-way. · The proposal is to locate the lease enclosure adjacent to the northwest corner of the existing building. The lease area will be fenced as described above. Furthermore, the site is located between two existing industrial buildings and as such, will be substantially screened from public view by the existing buildings and proposed fence. 16. If a new antenna tower is to be constructed it shall be designed to accommodate at least two antenna arrays including but not limited to other personal wireless service companies, local police, fire, and ambulance companies. 4 of 8 · The applicant has indicated that there is enough room within the lease area and on the tower to accommodate three additional wireless users. 17. The conditional use permit provisions of Section 4.21 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance must also be satisfied. a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official Comprehensive Municipal Plan of the City. · The application is consistent with the requirements of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance and the subject site is located in an I-1, Industrial District. The underlying Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation is also industrial. The application is consistent with the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed use is compatible with its adjacent land uses. · The adjacent land uses are industrial buildings and the railroad. An R- 4, High Density Residential District is located about 50' northwest (and across the railroad tracks) from the subject site. The base of the antenna and the equipment shelter will be screened with an 8' tall cedar fence. The railroad bed located directly west of the proposed lease area is about 10' higher in elevation than the grade of the existing parking lot. The existing topography, elevation of the railroad bed above the lease area site and existing, mature evergreen trees located along the southeast corner of the Emerald Pointe Apartment property and existing trees located west of the subject site (within the railroad right-of-way), should provide sufficient screening. The 8-foot tall cedar privacy fence will screen the ground equipment shelter and tower base from view of the general public traveling along Nevada Avenue North. c. The proposed use conforms to all applicable performance standards of the Code. · City Code provision 4.033 (3) Screening and 4.033 (5) Shielding of Lights are the performance standards that are applicable to the site. The proposed 8' tall cedar fence complies with the screening requirements of the City Code. · The applicant has indicated that no lighting will be required for the site therefore, no glare will be associated with the proposal and as such, the application conforms to the City Code. 5of8 d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. · The proposed tower location is in the rear comer area of the lot. The subject site is located within an industrial zoning district. Based upon the location proposed and industrial zoning classification, no depreciation in property values is anticipated due to the introduction of this use. e. The proposed (;UP meets the criteria specified by the I-1 Zoning District. · The application is compliant with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and satisfies standards of the I-1, Limited Industrial District. However, it should be noted that the tower lease area is proposed in a location that is currently used for parking and snow storage. The site currently has 44 parking spaces with proof of parking for an additional 54 spaces, in the event that the industrial operation expands, the required number of parking spaces, 20% green space requirement and adequate area for snow storage, will need to be provided elsewhere on site. f. Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing and future development in adjacent areas. · This area of the community is virtually fully developed with industrial buildings. As a condition of approval, it is recommended that no outside storage be permitted within the tower lease area. g. The use will provide an economic return to the community and commensurate with other industrial uses that the property could feasibly be used for. · In this case, the subject site is developed with an industrial use and the tower/antenna facility is an accessory use for the site. As such, additional tax revenues will be generated from the tower/antenna facility and therefore will provide additional economic return for the community. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENTS The Design Review Committee met on February 16, 2001 to review the CUP application and proposal. The Committee requested that the applicant provide additional materials concerning parking lot circulation, fire lanes, alternative snow storage locations, specifications for cedar fencing, FCC license and a letter indicating that the FAA would not require the tower to be light. The applicant revised the plan sheets accordingly and submitted all of the information requested by the Committee and City Staff. 6 of 8 RECOMMENDATION The recommendation is to approve the CUP application based upon the materials submitted, subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no outside storage within the antenna/tower lease area site. All equipment, materials etc., shall be stored within the equipment building. 2. An 8-foot tall, cedar, non-climbable security fence shall be provided around the perimeter of the 40 x 60 foot lease area. 3. The fence, lease area, equipment, building and tower shall be maintained at all times and kept in good repair. In the event that the lease area is not maintained, the City shall notify the contact individuals in writing of maintenance/grounds issues, in the event that the violations are not remedied within twenty-one (21) days, the City may, at its discretion, cause the violation to be corrected and assess all costs to the property owner. 4. The property owner and Nextel West Corp. (and/or its assigns) shall provide the City with the name, phone number, address and 24-hour responsible party contact information for the antenna site. Said responsible party contact information shall be clearly posted at the site. City inspectors shall have access to the site for the purpose of conducting inspections. 5. Violation of the terms and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit shall be grounds for formal review of the CUP by the Planning Commission and City Council and may result in revocation of the CUP, at which point said permit shall become null and void. 6. Upon cessation of the use of the cellular antenna site for a period of 12 months, the property owner and/or the applicant (or its assigns) shall be responsible to remove all equipment, the tower, fencing, and buildings associated with the CUP application. 7. Any other conditions recommended by City Staff, other City Consultants, the Planning Commission or others having review authority over this CUP application. 8. A copy of the approved CUP application and conditions of approval shall be filed with Hennepin County as required by Minnesota Statute. The applicant shall be responsible to file said documents and provide proof of filing with the building permit application. 7of8 ACTION REQUESTED A motion to recommend that the City Council approve, deny or conditionally approve the CUP subject to the conditions outlined herein or as amended by the Planning Commission. List of Exhibits: A. Site Location Map B. Application Form C. Application Letter (January 2, 2001 ) D. Site Plan E. Construction Plan Sheets F. Color Photographs of Similar Tower and Equipment Shelter G. Decorative Wood Fence H. Letter from John D. Jerome (November 29, 2000) I. Letter from Nathan S. Ward (December 5, 2000) J. Letter from John D. Jerome (December 5, 2000) K. Search Area Map illustrating location of existing towers L. Letter from Wade Linnertz (February 7, 2001) Tower Collapse Letter M. Copy of Warranty Deed for Subject Site N. Letter from John P. Allen (December 13, 2000) Tower Lighting Exemption O. FCC License PC: Dave Fischer 8of8  Bo~estroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. ~s ~ Afftrmattve Action/EQual Opporlunity Employer Sonest roo EmployeeOwned Pr~cipals:Otto Bonestroo, P.E. · Marvin L. Sorvala. P.E. · Glenn R. Cook, P.E. · Rosi~r~e P,~:~ert G. Schunicht, P.E.* Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. ~ ~ior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E~ · Josel:~ C. Andertik, P.E. · Richard E. Turner, P,E. · Anderlik & Associates S=san M. Eberlin, C.P.A. A~sociate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. · Keith A. Gordon, P.E. · Robert R. Ptefferte, P.E. · R~=hard W. Foster, P.E. · David O. Loskota, P.E. · Rcl~ert C. Russek, A.I.A. · Mark A. Hanson, P.E. o -f~chael T. Rautmann, P.E. · Ted K. Field, P.E. · Kerneth P. Anderson, P.E. · Mark R. Rolls, P.E. · David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. · Sidney P. Williamson, P.E.. L.S. · Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A., · c,,.i,.n~.neers & Architects ~n Rick Schmidt. P.E. Offices: St. Paul, Rochester, Willmar and St. Cloud. MN · Milwaukee, Wt Website: www,bonestroo.com MEMO TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Vince Vander Top CC: Mark Hanson DATE: February 26, 2001 SUBJECT: Nextel Tower @ 3401 NevadaAve. Our File No. 34-Gen E01-03 We have received plans for the proposed Nextel tower @ 3401 Nevada Ave. The submittal includes signed plans from a registered engineer and documentation verifying the structural capabilities of the tower. The proposed tower will not impact existing drainage patterns. The improvements will not increase storm water runoff. Site access will be via an existing driveway and parking lot. Site circulation and parking will be impacted minimally. We recommend that the Fire and Police Departments review site circulation and access. We do not see issues with the application as proposed from an engineering perspective. No further comments are offered as part of our review. 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636.1311 CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by City that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver 01-01 Nextel West corporation a 2/2/01 4/3/01 6/2/01 Delaware Corporation David W. Fischer Nextel Communications 9401 James Avenue S, #180 Bloomington, MN 55431 952-703-5944 Null & void Inc. 3401 Nevada Avenue N New Hope 55427 Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. A. Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the City received the application. D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, tho City will notify tho Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: March 6, 2001 Report Date: March 2, 2001 Planning Case: 99-06 Petitioner: City of New Hope Address: 4401 Xylon Avenue North Request: Informal Review of Final Recommendations on New Hope Zoning Code Update I. Request Staff requests to informally review the final recommendations on the New Hope Zoning Code Update with the Planning Commission. II. Background Over the past 1% years, the City has been working on updating all of the Zoning Code regulations to make them consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan Update, which was adopted in 1999. A Zoning Code Update Committee was formed that included representatives from the Planning Commission, Citizen Advisory Commission, Planning Consultant, City Attorney, and city staff. The Committee met a number of times and reviewed the Zoning Code section by section and reviewed recommendations made by consultants and staff. Throughout this process, as a section was completed by the Committee, it was forwarded to and reviewed by the full Planning Commission. The Zoning Code Committee completed its review in May 2000, and its final recommendations were reviewed with the Planning Commission in June 2000. In August and October 2000, city staff and consultants met with the City Council in three Council work sessions to review the entire Zoning Code and the recommendations for changes. The Council identified issues that it had questions on and/or wanted more research conducted. Staff/consultants met with the Council in a final work session on the Zoning Code on February 20, 2001. The City Council has directed staff and the Planning Commission to proceed with a public hearing on the updated regulations. The City Council has made a number of minor changes to the Zoning Code Update, but many of the changes are either grammatical or for clarification. The Planning Consultant has prepared the attached report dated February 27, which outlines all of the changes that have been made since the Commission last reviewed the Zoning Code Update. The Planning Consultant will be reviewing this report with the Commission. The Zoning Code will proceed to the public hearing as previously presented to the Commission, with the attached changes being incorporated into the code. Staff has established the following preliminary schedule to now proceed with the implementation of the new regulations: March 6 Informally review final Zoning Code changes with Planning Commission. mid-March Publish and mail public hearing notices along with fact sheets about the changes in each Zoning District. April 3 Planning Commission conducts public hearing on Zoning Code changes. April 23 City Council considers recommendations of Planning Commission on Zoning Code changes. Also attached to this report is the original memo from Northwest Consultants outlining the purpose of updating the Zoning Code and describing what the intended goals were for this project. Attachments: · 2/27/01 Northwest Consultants Report · 4/21/99 Northwest Consultants Report · #GI~I'#WI[$? &$$GC:Ii&?I~IG C:G#$~K?&INE?$,, ItNC:, 5775 W~¥~ Boul~¥ar~, $~i~ 555, St. Lo~i$ P~k, ~N ~41~ MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: February 27, 2001 RE: New Hope - Zoning Ordinance Update FILE NO: 131.00 - 00.05 BACKGROUND In August 2000, the Zoning Ordinance Update Task Force forwarded a draft ordinance to the New Hope City Council for their review. Over the past Winter months, the City Council has conducted workshops to review and comment on the draft Zoning Ordinance. Through their review, the City Council has suggested that the following changes be included in the zoning update. City staff has summarized the City Council's changes to assist in the Planning Commission review. CONSIDERED CHANGES Definitions 1. Page 402-1, Section 4.022 (3) (b) Adult Use-Bookstore. Add electronic transmissions and images. Response: Change Adult Use-Bookstore as follows: Adult Use-Bookstore: A building or portion of a building used for the barter, rental or sale of items consisting of printed matter, pictures, slides, records, audio tape, video tape, motion picture film, 0~ ~J~i~ if such building or:"p'~ti~)~ "0f'"a'"bt~iid'ii~'g"i~'"n~t' '0pe~"t0'-'the'~'l~iic generally, but only to one or more classes of the public excluding any minor by reason of age and if substantial or significant portion of such items are distinguished and characterized by an emphasis on the depiction or description of "specific sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas". 2. Page 402-3, Section 4.022 (3) (k) Adult Use - Motion Picture Arcade - Add electronic transmissions and images. Response: Change Adult Use - Motion Picture Arcade as follows: Adult Use - Motion Picture Arcade: Any place to which the public is permitted or invited wherein coin or slug-operated or electronically, electrically or mechanically controlled or operated still or motion picture machines, projectors (~P~iZSd!i6r ~i~:.~~~iiii~~ or other image-producing devices are maintained to show images to vive or fewer persons per machine at any one time, and where the images so displayed are distinguished and characterized by an emphasis on depicting or describing "specified sexual activities" or "specific anatomical areas". 3. Page 402-3, Section 4.022 (3) (i) Adult Use - Motion Picture Theater - Add electronic transmissions and images. Response: Upon re-examining the Adult Use - Motion Picture Theater, City staff felt that no change was necessary in this definition in that it defines a building as a theater rather than activities it contains. 4. Page 4.02-20, Section 4.022 (88) Key - Clarify the term/related to grading/excavation. Response: "Key" is an engineering term as defined in the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. This definition was added to the City ordinance with Section 4.039B, Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Regulation in 1990. A word search of 4.039B does not reveal the term "key". Without a specific reference, this definition was deleted from the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. General Provisions 5. Page 4.03-2, Section 4.031 (7( Partial Destruction - Comment regarding 12 month reconstruction period. The consensus was to leave as written. Response: Council discussed the need to have an appropriate length of time to accommodate unforeseen emergencies or natural disasters. The twelve month time frame was seen as appropriate, in the event of a large storm with wide spread property damage. No change was recommended. 2 6. Page 4.03-9, Section 4.032 (6) (e) Garage and On-Site Parking Space - Council questioned whether one off-street parking space other than garage is adequate for redevelopment purposes, as most new homes constructed with at least a double garage. Do we need to require more off-street parking spaces? Response: The current New Hope standard of requiring two parking spaces per single, two family and townhomes has been adequate in addressing the City's historical development patterns. This standard is also consistent with other suburban metropolitan communities. Plymouth: Single family/two family dwellings - Two spaces per unit Townhomes and multiple family dwellings - 2.5 spaces fee free per unit Crystal: Single family and townhomes - Two stalls per unit (off-street) Multiple family - Two stalls per unit, one must be in a garage :. Brooklyn Park: Single family - At least two spaces per unit Multiple family - At least two spaces per unit Proposed Change: Currently, 15 percent of New Hope's housing stock has single car garages. City staff does support an ordinance change mandating two car garages which would place 15 percent of the housing stock in a non-conforming condition. The following ordinance change does not mandate construction of a two car garage, but does require any new development or redevelopment to plan for the future placement of a two car garage on the lot. The staff is suggesting the following, change: 4.032(6) (e) GaraQes_ ~r'-',,, ,..,,"'-,-,.,,,~"': ..... P,~, ~,,,,~ ~.~¥VGIIII I~ OI lC;all I,.l~;;;~ I ~;;~UII o,-' ,~,~o~'---' ~, =~t,.,,,,~,b,',~ ~,~, ,.,,,~,,,, ,~ ,~- ~- h~d :-,,, sdd~tG~n t~- any ........... · - ..... Eve dwelling unit hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that garage space for at least two (2) vehicles, either attached or detached, can 3 7. Page 4.03-12, Section 4.033(4)(b) Recreation Areas - Question as to why we are reducing area required; general consensus to leave as proposed. Response: The current regulation requires 500 square feet of usable space per unit for multiple family dwelling. The definition of usable open space is open for interpretation and the calculation is difficult to administer. The new regulation proposes that 35 percent of all residential lots be maintained as green open space and it also more precisely defines the recreation area requirements for multiple family land uses. Staff believes the new regulation offers a simpler method for achieving the same goal. 8. Page 4.03-13, Section 4.033(6) District Setback Exceptions - Consider rewriting paragraph "In no case shall the minimum front yard setback exceed thirty feet" for clarification. Response: Section 4.033(6)(a) change to read as follows: 4.033 (6) District Setback Exceptions. 4.033(6) (a) Where adjacent structures within the same block have front yard setbacks -' = ' --- ' mq~.[eo~m ~n]m~, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacent structures. If there is~~!~ one adjacent structure, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and the setback of the 9. Page 4.03-14, Section 4.033(6)(c) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks from Industrial Districts Adjacent to Railroads - Question about 10 foot setback being adequate for fire access. Leave as proposed, Response: The 10 foot setback along with the typical width of the railroad right-of- way provides adequate space for fire access around buildings along the railroad. 10. Page 4.03-14, Section 4.033(6)(e)(i) Building Extensions in All Yards - Question about what "leaders" means. Clarify. Response: Leaders are that portion of the roof gutter system that collects the water from the gutters and carries down the side of the house and into the yard. Section 4.033(6)(e)(i) allows the down spout leaders to extend away from the house and into the side yard. 4 11. Page 4.03-14, Section 4.033(6)(e)(ii) DeckS, Stoops, etc.. in All Yards - Question about decks and stoops being located two feet from property line. Response: The section of addressing decks, stairs, and stoops that provide acc. ess to the ground floor entrance of any house or building. These structures are not allowed to extend above the ground floor of the home. A change to a three foot setback will be made to make this setback consistent with the driveway setback. 12. Page 4.03-15, Section 4.033(7)(a and b) Subdivision of Twinhome, Quadraminium or Townhouse Lots - Why are we eliminating the term "double bungalow"? Response: From a zoning and building code perspective, a twinhome and double bungalows are the same housing type. Both represent a side-by-side two family housing unit having a shared wall. The term twinhome was chosen through the zoning update to define this housing type. No change is recommended. 13. Question/comment regarding the City's authority to require the maintenance/repair of existing fences. Does something need to be added here or is it covered in another part of the code (Section 37). Response: Chapter 3.30 of New Hope's Dwelling Maintenance and Occupancy Code includes Section 3.345(1), Fences and Accessory Buildings that address the ongoing maintenance of fences within the City. No changes are recommended for the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has confirmed that property maintenance item in Chapter 3.30 does extend to commercial and industrial properties. To clarify the understanding that Chapter 3.30 of the New Hope Code applies to all buildings within the City, the City Council may wish to amend the Title of Chapter 3.30 to delete reference to "dwelling". The new title would be N~ii~i~ 14. Page 4.03-19-20, Section 4.034(3)(d)(i and ii) Screen Fencino - Change to "approval of City Council", not Planning Commission. - Response: Sections 4.034(e)(d)(i) and (ii) change to read as follows: 4.034(3)(d) (i) Green Belts. A green belt planting strip shall consist of evergreen trees and/or deciduous trees and large shrubs and shall be of sufficient width and density to provide an effective visual screen. This planting strip shall contain no structures. Such planting strips shall be designed to provide complete visual screening to a minimum height of six feet. Earth 5 mounding or berms may be used but shall not be used to achieve more than three feet of the required screen. The ~"' planting plan and type of plantings shall require the approval of the n,.---:-- ,-.---:--:-- ~it~ii!i~i:l, which shall have before it the recommendations of the ~ia~[~ i~a~isSieni City Engineer or Building Official. 4.034(3)(d) (ii) Screen Fencing. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or steel. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight feet in height or be less than six feet in height. The design and materials used in constructing a required screening fence shall be subject to the approval of the Pl~r;,,g Co, ,m, ,-'~:,o,-'; 6i~ G~!!, which shall have before it recommendations of the ~ii~ii~:iii~i~ii~iii City Engineer or Building Official. 15. Page 4.03-20, Section 4.034(4)(a) Reo_uired Landscaping-General Residential - Comment regarding statement .,. "The planting of large trees is not recommended :. under overhead wires". Should a maximum height be stated or certain type of species? Response: Upon discussion staff recommends no change to the current regulation based on the following reasons: a. The presence and appearance of trees, even those pruned to accommodate power lines is a preferred amenity over not having trees. b. The trees provide some screening of the utility lines. If a change is deemed appropriate by the City Council, the following language is offered: 16. Page 4.03-23, Section 4.034(4)(b)(iv)(ff) and (gg) Landscape Guarantee and Maintenance - Are both of these necessary or could they be combined? Response: With the addition of provision (gg) mandating the life long landscaping of approved landscape plans, the one year warranty becomes obsolete. The City Council may delete provision (fi) from the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends that provision 4.034(4) (b) (iv) (fi) be deleted. 6 17. Pages 4.03-24 and 25, Section 4.034(9)(b) Recreational Equipment and Vehicles - Add ATVs and all types of vehicles, add not visible from street, discuss more restrictions on side and rear yard storage, such as screening and setbacks. Council generally supportive of staff recommendation that entire vehicle must be stored on private property. Response: In review of the recreational vehicle regulation, following items were discussed: a. Expand the definition of recreational vehicles to include campers, boats, ATVs, utility trailers, and snowmobiles. The inclusion of these vehicles can be accomplished through a change in the definition of recreational vehicles. b. If the City allows storage within the driveway area, can we require effective screening from the street? In staff's opinion, it would be difficult to provide screening from the street. c. Staff believes additional performance standards may be included addressing side or rear yard storage. Section 4.022(131 ) change to read: 4.022 (131) Recreational Vehicle. A self propelled or trailored vehicles which is used primarily for recreational-leisure time activities er'~-pur-ceses Section 4.034(9) change to read: 4.034 (9) Exterior Storage. All materials and equipment, except as specifically authorized elsewhere in this Code, shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties o~ except for the following: 4.034(9) (a) Clothes line pole and wires. 4.034(9) (b) Recreational equipment and vehicles. 4.034(9)(b) (i) Recreational equipment and vehicles may be stored in the front, side, or rear yards. 7 4.034(9)(b) (ii) Front yard storage shall meet the following standards: 4.034(9)(b)(ii) (a) Must be on a surface of material that is durable, weather resistant, and suitable to control dust and drainage. Landscaped yard or grass areas are not suitable for storage. 4.034(9)(b)(ii) (b) All front yard storage must be set back fifteen (15) feet from the street curb and storage shall not encroach on any sidewalk. 4.034(9)(b)(ii) (c) Storage shall not occur in a required parking stall. 4.034(9)(b) (iii) The designated storage area shall maintain at .- least a 9'~--(-3)-~iii~ii~t setback from side or rear property lines ~i!~!i!iiiii~?~ii~~iii~m 18. Pages 4.03-33 and 34, Section 4.305(10)(a) Single Family and Two Family Dwellings and Townhouses and Section 4.035 (10)(b) Parking/Multiple Family Dwellings - Is 1-1/4 open parking spaces per unit adequate? City Council raised issue in regard to the future parking need for the City's changing household characteristics such as teenage children living at home, larger extended families sharing a home, more mobile senior citizens, etc. In review of the number of parking regulation options, staff recommends the following: 4.035(10)(a) Single af~'wo-Family Dwellings ~-nd tc, v,'nhc, usea. One enclosed and open sp iipl .... "'-':':---' ......... ' ...... ' :-- '-- ~" one ace, us ,.,, ,~ ~,~,,.,,.~,, ,,=, ~,~,~,, oF-'o,-'~ ,,..,, ~,:,, ~,,, ,~ ,,-,, ~o~-,, --"~::---' '" ...." - ...... ~'--- '"' '---'--~-' except that all structures with existing or potential floor area, as calculated under section 4.036(4)(a) of this Code, in excess of 2,200 square feet shall require one enclosed and two open spaces for parking. 4.035(10)(b) Two-Family Dwellings and Townhomes. One enclosed and one and one-half (1-1/2) open parking spaces per unit. 8 4.035(10)(c) Multiple Family Dwellings. At least one enclosed and one and one- quarter (1-1/4) open spaces per unit. The staff recommendations are reflective of the following reasons: a. The single family homes standard will stay as currently written to address both existing conditions and the parking needs of larger homes that may accommodate greater occupancy. The square footage standard for increased parking is more easily discernable than the number of bedrooms. b. Staff agrees that the development patterns and parking needs of two-family homes and townhomes are similar and should be grouped together. These housing types are generally grouped in a PUD design which frequently do not appropriately account for guest parking. To address this issue, staff is suggesting 2.5 parking spaces per unit for their housing types. c. In staff discussion, it was revealed that in most cases the City's high density multiple family housing has adequate parking supply. Many multiple family -._ sites have under utilized parking lots. d. The proposed staff recommendations should address the parking needs of these various residential uses, while preventing most existing sites from becoming nonconforming. 19. Page 4.03-34, Section 4.035(10)(c) Parking/Senior Citizen, Physically Disabled or R-$ Housing - Is one space for every three units adequate with reduction in age to 55. Younger senior citizens have more vehicles. Response: Staff was asked to check this standard against Chardon Courts. Chardon Courts provides on-site parking for approximately 66 percent of its apartments through a combination of open parking lots and underground parking. Chardon Courts' site plan also illustrates a proof of parking area that may accommodate additional parking spaces if required. City staff discussed the issue of senior citizen housing parking needs and offered the following recommendations: a. 4.035(10)(c)(i) ~Senior_ Citizen Residential Housing. "',.,, ....... ,~ o~,,~,.~ per ...... &l.. ...... :&~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: i:!:::! !:::!:!:::! ! ~:! !:!:~:::i:~'"i i i ! ! ~::'"":'i:!:::~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: i:~:i::: ::~:: ::"i i:::: :: ::::~' '~ ::: :il i :::!::: i(i: 9 20. Page 4.03-40, Section 4.035(10)(f) Parking/School, Elementary and Junior Hiqh and Senior Hi_oh School - Why do we have the same parking standards for elementary, junior and senior high schools? It seems like the requirements for elementary should be less. Is one space for every seven students enough for high schools? Parking at Cooper does not seem adequate. What were the parking numbers in that plan case (research)? What are requirements from other cities? Response: Staff did not change the parking standards for high schools, recognizing that Cooper High School is an existing condition and we did not want to create a non-conforming situation. With the construction of the athletic complex, the City applied a parking standard :_ for stadiums, resulting in a high school/elementary school parking count of 628 stalls. This was adjusted slightly with the City/School District cooperative addition of the high school gyms. The estimated enrollment capacity of Cooper High School is approximately 2,200 students and the estimated enrollment capacity of New Hope Elementary School is approximately 500 students. Based on City standards, the elementary school requires 71 parking spaces. This leaves 557 parking stalls to serve Cooper High School, providing one parking stall per 3.9 students. With a limited land supply, the City must consider the practicality of future high school parking expansion. Staff recommends: 21. Page 4.03-35, Section 4.035(10)(q) Parking/Funeral Parlor- Is this parking requirement adequate? Response: Discussion of this item revealed that the Gill Brothers Funeral Parlor did not present a parking issue. There has not been a problem to date with the use. A change in this parking standard is not recommended. 10 22. Page 4.03-36, Section 4.035(10((u) and (v) Parking/Manufacturing - Change "plus one space for each company-owned truck" to "company-owned vehicle". Response: Section 4.035(10)(u) and (v) change to read: 4.035(10)(u) Manufacturing, Fabricating or Processing of a Product or Material. One space for each five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, plus one space for each company owned truck ~i~e (if not stored inside principal building). 4.035('~ 0)(v) Warehousing, Storage or Handling of Bulk Goods. That space which is solely used as office ancillary to the larger warehouse facility shall provide one space for each three hundred square feet of floor area used as office and one space per each one thousand five hundred square feet of floor area used as warehouse, plus one space for each company owned truck ~ii~!i~ (if not stored inside). 23. Page 4.03-39, Section 4.035(12)(g) Term of Parking Agreement - After discussion, consensus was to leave as written. 24. Page 4.04-47, Section 4.038(3)(a) Christmas Trees - Council would like sales period shortened from 90 to 60 days. Response: The New Hope Building Official has indicated that reducing the Christmas sales period from 90 to 60 days may interfere with the schedule that the YMCA uses for their tree sales. Since there have not been any significant abuses of the current 90 day sales period. Staff would recommend retaining the 90 day standard. 25. Page 4.03-49, Section 4.039B(7)(c) General Exemptions - Eliminate "either". Response: Section 4.039B(7)(c) change to read: 4.039B(7)(c) Rainwater runoff diverted ei{-her' during or after construction, from an area smaller than two (2) acres. 26. Page 4.03-69, Section 4.039C(5) Non-Conforming Sexually Oriented Businesses - Is August 1, 1993 date necessary? We should also discuss the 1992 date. Response: Since the City of New Hope does not have any existing non- conforming adult uses (principal or accessory), this section of the ordinance has become obsolete. Staff believes that Section 4.039C(5) may be removed from the 11 ordinance. 27. Page 4.03-76, Section 4.039E(4)(f) Wetland/ProceduresNariances - Change "The Planning Commission may issue variances from the official controls of the City" to "The City Council may issue variances ..." Response: Section 4.039E(4)(f) change to read: 4.039E(4)(f) Variances. The Plsnn:,n,,,,3 Cc, m,misslc, r; ~ii~iiiii~it may issue variances from the official controls of the City so long as variances do not vary requirements of the Act or the Rules. DISTRICTS 28. Page 4.05-2, Section 4.054(5), Municipal Government and Utility Buildings Delete the word "or" in the first paragraph. .- 29. Page 4.06-2, Section 4.064(5), Municipal Government and Utility Buildings Delete the word "or" in the first paragraph. 30. Page 406.3, Section 4.065(2), Recreation Include reference to "hot tubs and spas". 31. Page 4.06-4, Section 4.065(5)(c), Day Care Change to read: Outdoor play areas are landscaped, ~ and screened from abutting residential properties in compliance with Section 4.0343 of this Code. Additionally, the City Council raised issue as to whether slats in a chain link fence represent screening. The suggestion was that the landscape or screening provisions of the Ordinance be changed to eliminate slats within a chain link fence as a screening device. 32. Page 4.07-2, Section 4.074(5), Municipal Government and Utility Buildings Delete the word "or" in the first paragraph. 33. Page 4.07-3, Section 4.075(4), Group Care Facility Change to read: ~i~i~{ group care facility. A state licensed ~i~!i~!i facility serving seven (7) to sixteen (16) persons provided that the following conditions are met for the protection of the residents of the facility. A change in that section would highlight residential both in the title and in the paragraph. 12 The Council also asked that we check State requirements to confirm that a CUP for group care facilities are necessary and confirm County licensing. In review of this issues, State Statutes allow the City to require a conditional use for any residential group care facility serving seven (7) or more residents at one location. Licensing is required for these facilities. 34. Page 4.08-2, Section 4.084(5), Municipal Govemment and Utility Buildings Delete the word "or" in the first paragraph. 35. Page 4.08-8, Section 4.086(3), Building Heights The City Council asked us to confirm that UBC requires sprinklers in all buildings taller than three (3) stories. Response:According to the City Building Official any building containing more than 15 dwelling units are required to have fire sprinklers. Current market conditions have required multiple family projects to average 36 units to make the project financially practical. These requirements essentially require any multiple story, high density residential building to have fire sprinklers. 36. Page 4.09-2, Section 4.094(3), Municipal Government and Utility Buildings Delete the word "or" from the first paragraph. 37. Page 4.10, Add Chapter 4.10, R-O Zoning District 38. Page 4.11-2, Section 4.114(3), Municipal Government and Utility Buildings Delete the word "or" from the first paragraph. 39. Page 4.11-3, Section 4.114(5), Drive Through Lanes Add a provision: (f) Hours of Operation. The hours of operation may be limited as necessary to minimize the nuisance factor such as traffic, noise, glare. (g) Add performance standard to control lighting and glare. The City Council still wants hours of operation to be left in on various land uses to control night time operations. The aforementioned changes will be applicable in the RB, LB, and CB zoning districts. 40. Page 4.11-6, Section 4.115(1)(b) Re-write this provision to insure that retail businesses must occupy the first floor of a multiple story building. Mixed use occupancy may be allowed on any floor above the first floor. This provision is intended to insure that we have street level 13 businesses, but also allows for office or other uses that may be appropriate on the second story. 41. Pages 4,15-2 and 3, Section 4,154(3), Drive Through Service Lanes Add a provision (f) that regulates the lighting and glare from drive-through service lanes. The lighting and glare provision included this section should be carried through to the Central Business District drive through service lanes as well. Response: The following ordinance language is offered to address this issue: Section 4.154( 3 )(f) ~iiii~ii~iii!~iiiiii~~iii!~iiii~ii~i~iii!~;iii~i~e~:~?i;~at 42. Page 4.15-3, Section 4.154(3) Retain the provision that limits the hours of operation. 43. Page 4.15-4, Section 4.154(4)(j), Outdoor Dining :.. Delete this provision. The City Council does not want to prohibit the outdoor preparation of food. 44. Page 4.15-6, Section 4.156(3), Building Height The City Council wants us to re-evaluate the recommendation for four story buildings within the Limited Business Zoning District. This building height is an increase over previous B-1 District standards. It was thought that perhaps three story B-1 District standard would be more appropriate. Response: City staff recommends reducing the "LB", Limited Business District building height from four stories to three stories. 45. Page 4.16-6, Section 4.164(5)(f), Valves This provision should be expanded to require all valves to be locked when not in use. 46. Page 4.16-10, Section 4.165(5)(b), Sanitation Change City to County. 47. Page 4.16-10, Section 4.165(5)(e), Convenience Store with Gasoline Keep the hours of operation requirements for convenience store with gasoline. 14 48. Page 4.16-10, Section 4.165(6), Motor Vehicles Sales, Service, Leasing, Rental and Repair The City Council inquired as to whether we could regulate the number of American flags at an automobile sales lot. I believe at the meeting Steve Sondrall indicated that we have no opportunity to regulate the number of flags. 49. Page 4.16-14, Section 4.165(7)(c), Surfacing and Drainage Include requirement for concrete curbing around the entire paved area for car washes. 50. Page 4.16-15 Add a footnote (b) to side interior side yard setback. 51. Page 4.20-7, Section 4.205(6)(b)(ii) Change "Highway No. 18" to "State Highway No. 169". 52. Page 4.20-11 In footnote (c) under setbacks, change "front" setback to "~_~? and side yard : - requirements. 53. Page 4.25-1, Shoreland District Delete SD abbreviation. 54. Page 4.25-2, Section 4.253(1), Shoreland Permit Required This section should reference Hennepin County and the Watershed'Districts review as required by law. 55. Page 4.25-6, Section 4.256(2)(a), High Water Elevations In this section, there are two elevations cited. The first is at least three feet above the highest water level or two feet above the ordinary high water level whichever is higher. The Council questioned whether the two height elevations contradict one another and whether one reference would be more appropriate. Response: I have checked this standard with the DNR and received the following explanation. The ordinary high water level is a DNR set elevation for a lake based on a study of historic high water levels for that lake. If this study has not been completed then the lake is without a formal OHWL. Without a formal OHWL, the City is required to provide a three foot separation from the highest known water elevation for the site. 15 The City Engineer has indicated that no formal OHWL has been established by the DNR for New Hope Lakes. The City Stormwater Management Plan has established ~-' high water levels for the City lakes. Based on this information, we are recommending that the current ordinance remain unchanged. 56. Page 4.26-1, Flood Plain District Delete FP abbreviation. ADMINISTRATION 57. Page 4.30-1, Section 4.303(1), Planning Commission Delete "their" from the last sentence so that the last sentence will read "recommendations from the City Manager or designated representatives". 58. Page 4.30-7, Section 4.306(1) In the first sentence, change "the" to "this" in reference to modification or special :- consideration under this Zoning Code. 59. Page 4.30-8, Section 4.307, Enforcement Change to read: Zoning Code shall be administered and enforced by the institute in the name of the City of New Hope any appropriate actions or proceedings against a violator. 60. Page 4.31-1, Section 4.312(4)(c) In this statement, add the word "not" as follows: The establishment of the use event or activity will Si conflict with existing land use ... 61. Page 4.34-1, Section 4.341 PUD, Intended Purpose The Council directed staff to include some reference to providing affordable, life- cycle housing to the purpose of the PUD. Response: Policies supporting affordable housing, life cycle housing and housing diversity are identified in the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. The PUD purpose criteria already identifies that the implementation of the policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan are integral to the application and approval of the PUD. In this respect, the inclusion of a specific policy on housing diversity is not required. If the Council wishes to include a purpose statement on housing diversity and affordability, the staff would recommend the following statement be included in 16 Section 4.012, the Purpose Statement of the entire Zoning Ordinance rather than just the PUD Section. iiii~ ~~ ~ ~i~i~i~ ~ ii~ ~ii~i~ ~i~:,~e c°~munitY; i,. 62. Page 4.34-5, Section 4.343(1), Purpose Change to read: It is the intent of this section i~ to establish special requirements for granting a conditional use permit for residential PUD projects which are in compliance with the density, permitted and conditional uses of the specific base district including dwellings, offices, institutional uses of one or more buildings in relation to the overall design and integrated physical plan in accordance with the provisions and procedures as prescribed in Sections 4.30, 4.33, and 4.34 of this Code. 63. Page 4.34-6, Section 4.343(4)(c), Number and Building Length Delete in the second line "containing a townhouse". 64. Page 4.36-1, Section 4.363(3) This should be changed to read "hardship or circumstances unique to the property or lot has not been created by the landowner or any previous owner". OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Screening with wire weave fences and slats. The Council expressed concern with the use of wire weave fencing with slats for screening the Bright Start Day Care playground at the Poste Haste Shopping Center site. The concerns related to appearance and maintenance of this screening fence. In discussion staff is hesitant to totally prohibit this type of screening option. In areas where screening is particularly sensitive, the City staff can take a proactive approach to discourage the wire weave fences and promoting alternative screening through site plan review, variance requests, or conditional use permits. In commercial and industrial areas, the wire weave fence generally offers better security and less maintenance than alternative fence materials. Additionally, Section 3.30 of the City Code allows the City to require proper fence maintenance on commercial and industrial properties. Prudential Site. The City Council must discuss the appropriate zoning classification for the Prudential Warehouse site at the corner of Highway 169 and Bass Lake Road. The site is zoned "R-O", Residential Office and contains a very Iow intensity office and 17 warehousing use. The site abuts a single family neighborhood to the north and receives site access from Gettysburg Avenue. The building is currently for sale. Any change in land use raises land use compatibility issues related to the adjoining single family neighborhood, site access, and traffic from a more intense land use. The Comprehensive Proposed Land Use Plan shows the site as a commercial land use. The Zoning Ordinance Task Force in examining this site under the new Zoning Ordinance suggests a land use change to a medium density residential land use and a "R-3", Medium Density Residential Zoning District. The City Council chose to retain the current R-O, Residential Office Zoning District as an option for this site. The R-O District was again added as Section 4.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. pc: Steve Sondrall 18 NNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY PLANNING DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald / Dan Donahue FROM: Alan brixius DATE: 21 April 1999 RE: New Hope - Zoning Ordinance Update Proposal: Revised FILE NO: 802 BACKGROUND With the completion of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan, the City is now in the position to update its zoning regulations as a means of implementing its planning goals. This update is also necessary because the existing regulations have not been comprehensively updated since their adoption in the 1970's. The following proposal outlines zoning issues and a work program for updating the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. ISSUES Based on NAC's involvement in the City's Comprehensive Plan and our on-going involvement with New Hope's planning and zoning administration, we have identified the following areas of the Zoning Ordinance as requiring attention in the ordinance update: 1. Format. The cun'ent Zoning Ordinance format is confusing and difficult to use. We would propose to reformat the Zoning Ordinance to address the following items: a. Organize and consolidate complementary or similar topics or standards within the ordinance. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM b. Consolidate information within the zoning districts including land uses, lot size, setbacks, building height to simplify access and understanding of each district standards. c. Eliminate the rollover land uses between zoning districts. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies strategies to promote reinvestment in the City's land use. Recognizing that New Hope is a fully developed City, the Zoning Ordinance update will investigate opportunities to promote in-place expansion of buildings and site improvements, including but not limited to: a. Setback standards b. Lot area and lot area per unit standards c. Parking standards d. Green space requirements e. Density standards for redevelopment target areas f. I-1 special performance standards 3. Through the zoning update, the City will examine current land use issues present in the City: a. Redevelopment densities and performance standards b. Outdoor storage c. Home occupations d. Accessory buildings e. Administrative approvals f. Business hours of operation The aforementioned list of issues is not all inclusive, rather it provides initial direction and understanding for the anticipated changes. Additional issues will be identified and responded to through the work program. WORK PROGRAM Process The following process will be followed in updating the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Project Start Up and Organization 1. Meeting with City planning, legal, public works, building and housing inspection staff to identify issues, concerns, conflicts or enforcement problems pertaining to the existing Zoning Ordinance. More than one meeting may be appropriate to 2 discuss the various ordinances. This discussion will provide NAC with insight on regulation issues that were not identified in the Comprehensive Plan planning process. 2. The project start up will also involve defining the review process for the new material. We would anticipate a Zoning Ordinance Update Committee will be established as the contact group that will conduct the preliminary review and editing of the updated Zoning Ordinance. (The Committee may consist of the Codes and Standards Subcommittee or the Comprehensive Plan Task force, or an entirely new Committee.) The City should determine how the project will be assigned. Through the start up meeting, we can define the project review process. 3. A Planning Commission workshop session would be scheduled to identify current zoning issues or ordinance concerns that will require attention in the Zoning Ordinance Update. First Draft Regulations NAC will undertake a comprehensive review of the City's entire Zoning Ordinance and evaluate the effectiveness of the existing regulations as they relate to the new Comprehensive Plan goals, land use issues and enforcement concerns identified by City staff. NAC will prepare a first draft of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. In developing the first draft of development regulations, NAC will work with Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, to insure that the proposed format is consistent with the City Codes and to insure the new regulations have a strong legal foundation. 1. First Draft Review. The first draft ordinance will be sent to City staff for review. Work sessions with staff will be conducted to edit the ordinance per the staff review comments. To expedite the review process, the first staff workshop will consist of overview of the entire first draft ordinance for format and content. This overview will identify areas of the draft ordinance that are complete and satisfactory as well as areas requiring additional work. Subsequent meetings will be conducted with staff to address topics and ordinance language that require greater attention. 2. Presentation to Zoning Update Committee and City Council. Once the ordinance is processed through staff review, it will be sent to the New Hope Zoning Ordinance Update Committee and City Council for review and comment. NAC will attend the committee meetings to solicit input from these various groups. NAC will summarize the committee comments and present both the first draft regulations and a comment summary to the City Council at a workshop. The Council workshop will provide direction for needed revisions or additions to the first draft ordinance. 3 Second Draft Regulations Based on the outcome of the Council workshop, NAC will prepare a second draft of the development regulations along with a summary of the proposed changes. 1. Second Draft Review and Presentation. The second draft of the Zoning regulations will again be reviewed and edited by the City Attorney and City staff. Prior to public hearing, the second draft will be presented and reviewed with the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. 2. Informational Meeting. The City may wish to include informational meetings for the public prior to a public hearing at this stage of the work program. 3. Public Hearing. Following the second draft review, NAC will present the second draft development regulations to the Planning Commission at public hearing. Upon action by the Planning Commission, NAC will present the second draft to City Council along with any recommended changes resulting from the City staff review, Planning Commission review, or public testimony. Final Draft Regulations NAC will prepare a final draft of the development regulations consistent with the conditions of approval by City Council. Summary Ordinance NAC will prepare a final draft of the development regulations consistent with the conditions of approval by City Council. PROJECT SCHEDULE Based on the work program outline the total update of the New Hope Zoning Regulations is anticipated to take nine months. Assuming a start up date of 1 April 1999, the project completion would occur in December 1999. 4 PROJECT PERSONNEL Alan Brixius, a .Principal of NAC, will be the primary staff person assigned to updating the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Brixius has been involved in New Hope's planning since 1983 and most recently was involved in drafting the 1998 New Hope Comprehensive plan. This provides him with a unique historical perspective for the project. Mr. Brixius will be responsible for the majority of ordinance production work and the public meetings. Daniel Licht and Troy Hagen, Planners with NAC, will be the primary support staff people assigned to assist Mr. Brixius in research and preparation of the New Hope Zoning Regulations. PROJECT BUDGET Based on the work program, the following budget was prepared for updating the New Hope Zoning Regulations: Project Start Up and Organization $1,200 Consultant Draft of the Zoning Text $8,500 First Draft Review/Editing/Summary $3,700 Second Draft Review/Editing/Final Draft $2,500 Ordinance Summary $ 500 $16,400 Contingency $ 600 TOTAL $17,000 The budget does not include ordinance reproduction costs. NAC will provide reproducible copies of the first and second draft ordinance for staff review. Additional copies for distribution shall be the responsibility of the City. NAC will provide the City with one reproducible paper copy of the final Zoning Ordinance and a copy on diskette in word processing software compatible with the City and City Attorney. 5 PROJECT BUDGET Based on the work program, the following budget was prepared for updating the New Hope Zoning Regulations: Project Start Up and Organization $1,200 Consultant Draft of the Zoning Text $8,500 First Draft Review/Editing/Summary $3,700 Second Draft Review/Editing/Final Draft $2,500 Ordinance Summary $ 500 $16,400 15% Contingency $2,460 TOTAL $18,860 The budget does not include ordinance reproduction costs. NAC will provide reproducible copies of the first and second draft ordinance for staff review. Additional copies for distribution shall be the responsibility of the City. NAC will provide the City with one reproducible paper copy of the final Zoning Ordinance and a copy on diskette in word processing software compatible with the City and City Attorney. At this point, the number of public meetings has not been defined. The project budget does not include public meetings with the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee, Planning Commission or City Council.. We propose to charge a fiat rate of $150 per person per meeting for meeting attendance. CONCLUSION Upon' your review, we are available to meet and discuss the proposal and make any adjustments that you decide appropriate. Please call me with any questions. 5 · ADMINISTRATION Administration ~-~ Administration and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and related supportive ordinances are equally as important as the development of the plan itself. In' essence, unless the plan and related development tools are constantly referred to and utilized in combination, as well as long range community decision-making, the efforts spent in their development become futile and wasted. BUDGETING AND FINANCE The Comprehensive Plan recognizes New Hope as a fully developed, mature community. The plan recommendations emphasize the need for continuing land use maintenance, redevelopment and provision of quality public services. Under this circumstances, concerns have been expressed with regard to expanding future public expenditures. In response to this issue, the City will continue to implement the following strategies: 1. Continue the City's proactive public facilities maintenance programs to avoid significant disrepair or breakdown. 2. Maintain a five year Capital Improvement Plan that identifies needed public capital improvements, assigns costs and schedules implementation based on project priority and funding availability. 3. Continue the City's long standing practice of assessing benefitted property owners for public infrastructure improvements. 4. Pursue intergovernmental cooperation for sharing public services and facilities, to avoid duplication and economize on City investments. 5. Promote the maintenance, modernization and expansion of local land uses to preserve the expand the City's tax base and revenues. 6. Pursue available state and federal grants and aids as appropriate to facilitate community improvements and programs. COMMUNI'I'Y SERVICES Through good communication with the public and responsiveness to residents' needs, the City administration has been cited as a community strength. High quality resident service will continue to be the standard for City operations in the future. City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Upd=t= Development Framework 71 Administration f ORDINANCES ~ As a means of implementing the stated land use goals for New Hope, the City will investigate the following potential changes to City ordinances: 1. Zoning Ordinance. a. Within the residential zoning districts, the City will investigate alternative performance standards for accommodating in-place expansion or alteration of existing housing units in an effort to promote private reinvestment. Items to be considered for change may include standards for lot size, setbacks, building height and accessory buildings. b. Within commercial and industrial zoning districts, the City has already undertaken zoning changes to promote in-place expansion. The City will continue to pursue efforts that promote expansion, reuse or modernization of the City commercial and industrial sites. Items to be considered for change may include standards for lot size, setbacks, green space and parking standards. ~ · 2. Housing Maintenance Code. The New Hope Housing Maintenance Code has been an invaluable instrument for the City in addressing housing conditions of single family and apartment housing units. However, medium density housing types such as twinhomes and townhomes which have switched from owner occupancy to rental occupancy often escape the inspection required by the Housing Maintenance Code. As cited in the Land Use Plan, the medium density residential areas are most commonly in need of maintenance or repair. The City will pursue ordinance changes that will more effectively bdng the medium density housing under the New Hope Housing Maintenance Code. 3. Sign Ordinance. The City is presently updating its Sign Code as a means to assisting local businesses. In the Sign Code update, the following objectives are being pursued: a. The Sign Code update is intended to become more business friendly and competitive with the signage offered in adjoining cities. b. The Sign Code format and language is attempting to become easier to use and understand.  Ci~ of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Ur~_~_te Development Framework 72 Administration c. The Sign Code update promotes content neutral regulations and more uniform City-wide regulations for ease of interpretation and enforcement. 'RESIDENTIAL MAINTENANCE/REDEVELOPMENT The enhancement of the City's existing housing-stock is a primary goal of the City. In working towards this goal, the following efforts will be undertaken. 1. The City will continue to aggressively implement the rehabilitation and redevelopment programs identified in the New Hope Housing Action Plan as a means of renovating existing housing stock. 2. The City enforce its Housing Maintenance Code at point of sale to insure code compliant housing. 3. The City will participate with other cities in the Housing Remodeling Fair that disseminates information on housing repairs, remodeling, and alterations in an effort to promote private reinvestment in the City's housing stock. 4. The City will provide and maintain high quality public infrastructure and services as a means of protecting housing values. 5. Larger scale redevelopment efforts will be pursued as funding permits. Collaborative efforts with other jurisdictions, housing agencies, or private sector interests will be sought to reduce the financial burden of redevelopment on the City. COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE/REDEVELOPMENT The business retention and expansion of New Hope's commercial and industrial land uses is seen as a priority in maintaining a strong tax base. In fulfilling this objective, the following efforts will be implemented: 1. Investigate changes to the development regulations that will allow the for in-place expansion of the City's commercial and industrial land uses. 2. Pursue the acquisition, assembly and redevelopment of small marginal commercial sites in an effortto attract larger contemporary retailers or service providers. City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Development Framework 73 Administration 3. Cooperate with the private property owners in the renovation and redevelopment of the City's shopping centers. 4. Amend the sign regulations to allow New Hope sign opportunities to be competitive with adjoining communities.  Cib/of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Urnde__f' Development Framework 74 Memorandum To: Planning Commission Members From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Date: March 2, 2001 Subject: Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on CounciI/EDA/HRA actions on Community Development related issues or other City projects. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. February 12 Council Meetinq - At the February 12 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: · Resolution Orderin.q Published Notice and Public Hearing to Approve the Projected Use of Funds in the 2001 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project 692, Resolution Approvin.q Plans and Specifications and Orderin.q Advertisement for Bids for Public Water Main and 60th Street Extension (Hidden Park Condominium Drainaqe Improvement: Approved, see attached Council request. · Ordinance No. 01-03, An Ordinance Amendinq the New Hope City Code Re_clardin.q Subdivision and Platting in Conformity with Chanqes to Minn. Stat..~462.358: Adopted, as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. February 26 Council Meetinq - At the February 26 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: · Project #699, Motion Authorizing Staff to Negotiate the Purchase of 7901 49th Avenue: Authorization granted, see attached Council request. · Public Hearinq - Resolution Approving Projected Use of Funds for 2001 Urban Hennepin County CDBG Proqram and Authorizinq Execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and Any Third Party Agreements: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #678, Resolution Approving Plans & Specifications and Advertisement for Bids for Construction of Pilin.qs at 4864 Fla.q Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. · Proiect #678~ Resolution Approvin.q Plans & Specifications and Advertisement for Bids for Construction of Home at 4864 Flaq Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. · Projects #676 and 664, Resolution Rescinding Award of Contract to Bauer Contractinq, Inc. for Demolition of House and Gara.qe at 5406 and 5410-12 Winnetka and Awardinq Contract to Sauter & Sons, Inc.: Rescinded contract to Bauer Contracting and rejected all bids. Demolition of structures will be rebid. 3. Codes & Standards Committee - Codes & Standards did not meet. 4. Desi.qn & Review Committee - Design & Review met in February to review the Nextel communication tower plans. Following the April application deadline on March 9, staff will notify Committee members whether or not a meeting is necessary on March 15. Staff is anticipating an application for a conditional use permit for outside storage from Tioga Air Heaters. They have a contingent purchase agreement on the building located at 9201 International Parkway. Staff has also been working with Auto Zone, a retail auto parts store, who may be purchasing the 36th & Winnetka gas station site, demolishing the existing building and constructing a new retail store. 5. Zonin.q Code Update - The City Council and staff discussed the final recommendations at a work session on February 20. Council was supportive of the changes/recommendations of staff. The Planning Commission will have an informal review at the March meeting, and the public hearing will be held at the April 3 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. 6. Proiect Bulletin - Enclosed for your information is a project bulletin regarding 5420 Winnetka Avenue. 7. Planninq Commission Member List - A revised Planning Commission Member List is enclosed separately. 8. GTS Training for Planninq Commissioners ' The Government Training Service brochure is attached separately. Please review and let Pam Sylvester know if you desire to attend any of the workshops. There are funds in the Planning Budget to cover the cost of the workshop for Planning Commissioners. 9. Miscellaneous Articles - Enclosed is an excerpt from Zoning Bulletin and the January issue of Zoning News. 10. Livable Communities Grant- As discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting, the City has received a Livable Communities Planning Grant from the Met Council to study the Bass Lake RoadNVinnetka Avenue area. Northwest Consultants is currently drafting a proposal to assist the City with the implementation of the study. When the proposal is received, it will be reviewed by city staff and then shared with the Planning Commission and submitted to the City Council for approval. The proposal will outline a number of activities that will be undertaken with the grant; one of which will be the formation of a committee to study this area. Several members of the Planning Commission will be asked to serve on the committee and Commissioners Oelkers, Svendsen and Green have indicated an interest in serving on the committee. Attachments: 2001 CDBG Public Headng Notice Hidden Park Condo Drainage Improvements 7901 49~ Avenue CDBG Program 4864 Flag Avenue 5406, 5410-12 Winnetka Avenue Project Bulletin Miscellaneous Articles COUNCIL · REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agen0a Section Community Development 2-12-01 Consent H~ Item No. Kirk McDonald and 6..5 ~ 13: '--"-"- RESOLUTION ORDERING PUBLIS E AND PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE THE PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS IN THE 2001 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. -----'--' ACTION REQUESTED_ Staff is requesting that the City Council set a public hearing for the allocation of the 2001 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) funds for February 26, 2001. In order to meet the requirements of the CDBG program, staff has prepared a public hearing notice to be published on February 14, 2001, subject to Council approval of this resolution. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The Federal CDBG Program requires that municipalities hold a public hearing on the projected use of funding. In the past, the City Council has established the date for the public hearing and requested staff to publish a notice of public hearing in the newspaper. BACKGROUND Hennepin County notified the City in January of its funding award for the 2001 CDBG funding cycle. The City received $163,680 in funding to be available on July 1, 2001. The City is able to allocate this funding to programs that meet the requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Hennepin County has set a March 9, 2001 deadline for all cities to declare the programming of their respective funds. As a result, the City Council must hold a public hearing on the allocation New Hope's CDBG funds at the February 26 Council meeting. The City Council has a number of options regarding how these funds are allocated, within certain guidelines, and the City has received funding requests from a variety of organizations (see attached spreadsheet). These requests were reviewed with the City Manager and staff's recommendations are included in the public hearing notice. These recommendations will be reviewed and discussed in detail at the public hearing and the City Council can make whatever changes it determines appropriate. All agencies submitting requests will be notified about, and invited to attend, the public hearing. Also, due to the short time frame between the publication date for the legal notice and the public hearing, the City Manager authorized staff to publish the notice in the February 14 edition of the SunPost newspaper. ATTACHMENTS. · Public Hearing Notice · CDBG Requests Spreadsheet MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 2001 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Notice is hereby given that the City of New Hope, in cooperation with Hennepin County, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, is holding a public hearing on February 26, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, Minnesota. The public hearing is on the housing and community development needs and the City's proposed use of the 2001 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program proposed planning allocation of $163,680. In addition, between July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002, it is estimated that no program income from previously funded CDBG activities will be available to the City. The City of New Hope is proposing to undertake the following activities with 2001 Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds starting on or about July 1, 2001. Activity Bud.qet Child Day Care $7,130 Senior Transportation $13,441 Youth Services $1,981 Community Action for Suburban Hennepin $2,000 Housing Rehabilitation $60,000 Scattered Site Housing $79,128 $163,680 For additional information on the priorities, proposed activities, level of funding and program performance, contact the City of New Hope at 763-531-5119 or the Hennepin County Office of Planning'& Development at 952-541-7080. The public hearing is being held pursuant to MN 471.59. COUNCIL t REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Planning & Community Development 2-12-01 Development , Item No. ' 8.1 By: Kirk McDonald, Director By: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR PUBLIC WATER MAIN AND 60TM STREET EXTENSION IMPROVEMENT NO. 692 (HIDDEN PARK CONDOMINIUM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT) ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Resolution approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Public Water Main and 60th Street Extension Improvement No. 692 (Hidden Park Condominium Drainage Improvement). POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the City has completed projects involving public and pdvate improvements if there is an assessment agreement in place with property owners agreeing to pay the cost of the private improvements. In July 2000, the Council passed a similar resolution to proceed with solicitation of bids on this project, however a contract was never awarded due to the fact that the Hidden Condo Homeowners Association was not successful in obtaining the necessary votes to approve the assessment agreement. BACKGROUND In July 1999, the manager of the Hidden Park Condominiums Owners Association sent the Cit~v correspondence regarding its desire to improve the ddveway on the south end of the property known as 60"' Street. The driveway is a private easement over the south portions of the single-family residential properties located at 6003 West Broadway and 7406 60m Street. The driveway serves as a secondary entrance/exit to the condominiums and the easement agreement requires Hidden Park to maintain it, i.e.: snowplowing, sweeping, patching, etc. The ddveway has always had poor drainage, which has created a variety of problems for all persons using the road. The correspondence requested that the City assist with the improvements to the street and drainage system, plan and design the improvements, and assess the association accordingly. The City Engineer prepared cost estimates, plans and specifications for the project. Public Works determined that if private storm sewer improvements were made, it was recommended that a public water main loop be constructed in conjunction with that project. It was also recommended that an additional street light be installed on the south side of the driveway. With the City's acquisition of 6003 West Broadway for (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I:rta\ Request for Action Page 2 2-12-01 redevelopment and the condo association's willingness to be assessed for improvements, staff found that the timing may be appropriate to proceed with improvements in this area. The water main improvements were proposed to be financed by New Hope's Water Fund while the private drainage/driveway improvements and street light were proposed to be the responsibility of Hidden Park Condominiums (68 units). The estimated cost per unit in 2000 was $1,132 ($77,000+68). The plans and specifications were approved and bids sought, however, a contract was not awarded due to the unsuccessful vote at the Homeowners Association meeting. All bids were rejected and the Association indicated that they would like to proceed with the project in 2001. In December 2000, the City received the enclosed correspondence from the manager of the Hidden Park Condominium Owners Association, who indicated that they would like to proceed with the project this year and stated "we are confident that we will succeed in a re-vote." The Association vote is scheduled for April 4 at the Annual Meeting and they have requested that the City solicit bids so that the project costs will be available for that meeting. Staff established the following tentative schedule to try and get the project accomplished this year. February 12 Put project back on City Council agenda and again request Council to approve plans and specifications and authorize staff to seek bids. February 13-28 Solicit bids from contractors. February 28 Open bids. March 5 Present bid information to Hidden Park Condos. March 12 Present bid information to City Council; table action on bids to April 9 Council meeting. April 4 Homeowners Association vote. April 9 Take bids back to Council. If Homeowners Association votes in favor of project, City Council approves assessment agreement and awards contract to lowest responsible bidder. If Homeowners Association votes against project, reject all bids. If project proceeds, start construction around the first part of May. The City Engineer has prepared the enclosed plans and specifications and they are essentially the same as the plans approved last year. The proposed improvements still include: · Pdvate driveway improvements including curb and gutter · Drainage improvements along the private drive · City water main improvements and connections Minor revisions from last fall including Hennepin County traffic control requirements have been incorporated. The cost estimate has also been revised to account for the minor revisions and material price adjustments. The cost estimate is as follows: Request for Action Page 3 2-12-01 Private Driveway/Drainage $76,500 Street Light 2,550 Water Main 30,000 Total $109,050 The water main improvements are proposed to be financed by New Hope's Water Fund while the private drainage/driveway improvements and street light are proposed to be the responsibility of Hidden Park Condominiums (68 units). The estimated cost per unit is $1,162.50 ($79,050+68 units). An alternate to rebuild the south parking lot is also included in the bid package. The estimated cost for this alternate is an additional $21,225 or $312/unit. It should be noted that a 25 percent adjustment for indirect costs is built into the amount to be assessed to the Condo Association to pay for administrative, engineering and legal costs. The City Attorney has prepared the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids. If the Condo Association is successful with its vote on the .~roject, staff would return to the Council in April with a petition and Assessment Agreement from the tAssociation and make a recommendation on the contract award. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · City Attorney Correspondence · City Engineer Correspondence and Plans & Specifications · Correspondence from/to Homeowners Association · Site Map  Bor~s~rO0 Bonestroo, Rosene, Arl~lerJik and Associates. Inc. ts an Affirmative ~ctzon/E~ual Opportuhlty Principals: Oc~o G. Bon~stroo, P.E · M~rvl~ L $orvala PE · Glenn E Eoo~ PE U Engineers & Architects ~'c~ ~ .~u~ ~ · ~ ~ ~,~ ~ . ~.~.. ~.~o~ .~ · ~ ~ ~o.~ ~ . Memorandum To: Kirk McDonald cc: Steve Sondrall From: Vince Vander Top Subject: Hidden Park Condominiums/6003 West Broadway Water Main/Private Driveway Improvements Project No. 692 Our File No. 34-00-121 .Date: February 5, 2001 Plans and specifications for the proposed project improvements were developed last fall. Bids were received from contractors and considered by the Condo Association and the City Council. A contract was not awarded and rebidding the project is now considered. The proposed improvements still include: · Private driveway improvements including curb and gutter · Drainage improvements along the private drive · City water main improvements and connections Project plans and specifications have been prepared and are ready to be rebid. Minor revisions from last fall including Hennepin County traffic control requirements have been incorporated. The cost estimate has also been revised to account for the minor revisions and material price adjustments. The project plans and cost estimate are attached. The cost estimate is summarized as follows: Private Driveway/Drainage $76,500 Street Light 2,550 Water Main .30,000 Total $109,050 The water main improvements are proposed to be financed by New Hope's Water Fund while the private drainage/driveway improvements and street light are proposed to be the responsibility of Hidden Park Condominiums (68 units). The estimated cost per unit is $1,162.50 ($79,050/68 units). An alternate to rebuild the south parking lot is also included in the bid package. The estimated cost for this alternate is an additional $21,225 or $312/unit. Attachments 2335 W~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651~636.4600, Fax; 651-63&-!311 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION ~ ~pproved for Agencla Agenaa Section Originating Department Consent Community Development Item No. 2-26-01 By: Kirk McDonald & Ken Doresk)/ By: // 6. 6 / MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ~IEGOTIATE THE PURCHASE OF 7901 49th AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 699) ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to negotiate the potential purchase of the property located at 7901 49tn Avenue North. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The City Council has been acquiring scattered site properties on a voluntary basis for rehabilitation/ redevelopment purposes. BACKGROUND in July 2000, due to its deteriorated state and property maintenance code violations, the City Manager directed staff to contact the property owner of 7901 49t~ Avenue North to inquire if the owner would be interested in a voluntary sale of the property to the City for rehabilitation/redevelopment purposes. This is an absentee landlord/rental property situation. In December 2000, City staff received a letter from Joseph Kaminski, owner, indicating an interest in the City purchasing the property. The City Manager then authorized staff to proceed with an appraisal of the property. Per Hennepin County tax records, the 2000 valuation of the property for tax purposes is $93,000 ($25,500 land/S67,500 building). Griffith Appraisals, Inc. performed an appraisal of the property in which the estimated market value of the home was determined to be $99,000 ($30,000 land/S69,000 building). The property is located at the southwest corner of 49t~ and Winnetka Avenues. The property measures 10,597 square feet and has a lot width of 80 feet and a lot depth of 132 feet (see attached survey). The house is a one-story ranch with 1,092 sq. ft. of above grade living area and an additional 710 sq. ft. finished area in the basement. The home was constructed in 1967. The appraisal states that it is average in overall quality for the area and poor to fair in overall condition for its age. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for .Action Page 2 2-26-01 City staff is interested in acquiring this property for rehabilitation because Jt is located on a busy collector street and is highly visible to the community. Jrt the past, the City has received complaints about the lack of maintenance on the property. Staff's intent would be to acquire the property with CDBG funds and coordinate with the CHDO, GMMHC or Habitat for Humanity on a significant rehabilitation of the property, including new siding, roof, etc., and then sell to a first-time homebuyer. If staff is successful in negotiation, staff will return with a purchase pdce to be approved by the Council and then proceed with the preparation of a purchase agreement, which would also be presented to the Council for approval. Staff has indicated to Mr. Kaminski that because this would be a voluntary sale, no relocation benefits would be paid. FUNDING CDBG would be the funding source for acquisition. ATTACHMENTS Appraisal Report · Property Owner Correspondence · Location Map · Survey · Hennepin County Tax Data · City Correspondence ........ ' ............ 50TH ~,-V~ N ...... -.. . ........ -~ .... -. -'. ~,..:.-..' ~ ·8119 .48~5;__; ~ :--_ ...... $0 ' ;Z! ;~-'~ !~ : ~ i~¢) '. ...... . ........ ...... : ....... !' '---~-"~ ; e'~m : ....~,. ~ .......................... I ! ...... ; ...... : -~4e ~ ,~ :484! ; 4941 · 0 . ,.~ ---- ~ ..... · .... :'-.... ~4~~~ , : .~ ....... ~. '~ ,--~e ':' , / . · ~:~"-" L//,~': #4o ~ ...... 4 ; ............. ,. ,~...:.._ ,; ,....,^'?r, ; 4ez~ i : .............................. ,~..~-- ,,~..~.. ~,,'~, ,~ ,~s$ .... ,.~.., 4e~e ......... . ~-:~;.- :-. ........ .,'~,-',.. · ~-.,,.' ~eoe /~.. ~.., "'. ....... ~ ' ...... ~-%~, i ..... , ..... · ., : .' ......... ~ i~ ":''; . '. ,~ .~ ! ~' . i .,m :r- ,, . ; ....,~. .......................... .' -..--.- .-'_.' --..*~'.-'._-'.... ........... ael ,,e H ........ ; .... ~ ~ : I ' ~ ; : · . 4858 ;' ........... ',mm ,4e4e :~":'~'f :'"~e~Z',':.~'~ · . : ! :'' ' : . ' : i . ' ? · ; : : , . ' ' .. ....~ .... ~ .. . : ................ ' r .................... ~ '' -* --: ...... ~---'t ....... ? ...... : :';~-' 'i'~' i . · . .-~ --'.- --', .......... , ............. ;"- .. 2~ 7~2! ', ~' ................ . ." ........... ' ~ ~ -'~ '; ~ t ~ ' ~ * ~ ; ~. ,~ ! ~ ~ ~ '' ', , : ; ~-~ ~;;*'~ ;FC ~ *~ .~ ~ '~ *~ · ~ ' · ' -t- · . ....... ~_~ · ~ ............. ~ ....... ~ ........ : : .. , ~ ". .~.~.. ,'~ . . ~~47~ 4741: ,,-~ 4,,~ ;, : --: ~ ~-' : -.., ~ :-- PARK ~ ....... ~ .......: L ....... ~ .. .~ ;~,. ~ /~0;~.~ '~1ol : 4~ : ~ ................ ~ ........... ' ,~ ,~. ~ , . ~ : · ~ ~'~ : ~ : ~ 4~4 ~ 4~ ;Z L ....... ~ ........ : ....... ~ ...... ~ , ~.---_:: :- .~ ..... ~. ....... ~ ...... ~ 47 1~2 A~ N ~ : / ~ ~".:_:"]- · · ~ ~ .... , ..... ~ . ~ i ~ ~: ~, ~ _~ ~ ; ~ · ' l"'t "i'l' ' ' / : ~ . m . : . . ~ l: ' - ~' ' ' I ~, · ..:_. .. ~,~ , ~,_.~ ~7 ......... ~'- -~ - ~ .......... - I : ; ~ ....... ~ .... ~ ' · ~ ~ I~ ~ ; ~ /~/~~. -~ , .~. . '~ ........ ~ / ~ ' ~ · ~ ' , · ' , ~.%.:~._. :.. . .... ~ ..... ' ~ ...... L ..... ' _._. ' "--" ;~s '<~ '~ ;~'-- -~ / COUNCIL uriginazlng Public Hearing Community Development Item No. 2-26-01 ~ ~ Mc~natd ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARIN~ - RESOLUTIO~ APPROVING PROJECTED USE OF_~ FOR 2001 URBAN ~ENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK G~NT PRO~M AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBREClPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting that the City Council approve the attached Resolution Approving Projected Use of Funds for 2001 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorizing Execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and Any Third Party Agreements. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The Federal CDBG Program requires that municipalities hold a public hearing on the projected use of funding. The City must formally request that its funding be applied to specific programs. This request is then forwarded to Hennepin County, where approval is given for the disbursement of funds to each program. BACKGROUND 'The City has been notified that it will receive $163,680 in 2001 in CDBG funding for use between July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2002. This amount is a $1,336 increase from the 2000 CDBG funding of $162,344. The formula for determining the CDBG allocation is based upon population, incomes at or below poverty level and overcrowded housing units. The funds will be allocated to qualifying programs proposed by City staff and public service agencies, as well as, approved by the City Council and Hennepin County. The following County housing and community development priorities are to serve as a guide when considering the use of CDBG funds to address local needs. The County will consider the relationship of proposed projects to the County priorities in their evaluation of prOjects for CDBG funding. High priority activities include: · Affordable Housing Rental housing, rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing and homeownership assistance for families with incomes below 50 percent of median income. Rental housing for elderly and physically disabled persons with incomes below 30 percent of median income. Permanent supportive housing for persons with mental illness. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: 2-26-01 Request for Action Page 2 o Public Services/Facilities Public services and/or facilities to assist families and seniors to maintain and/or increase self sufficiency and independent living, and to assist youth and their families with counseling services, cns~s intervention services and recreational activities. ° Neighborhood Revitalization Neighborhood revitalization activities that address issues of substandard/blighted property in scattered site and defined area redevelopments and that provide affordable housing on 20 percent of the units. No more than three activities can be undertaken in one community and each activity should have a budget of at least $7,600. When funds are committed jointly with other participants (cities) to carry out a single activity, these limits do not apply. Communities are strongly encouraged to develop joint initiatives to address mutual needs by consolidating their resources. The authorizing statutes for the CDBG program require that each funded activity meet one of the three national objectives: benefiting Iow and moderate income persons, preventing or eliminating slums and/or blight and meeting urgent needs. The statute also states that each grantee must ensure that at least 70 percent of the expenditures during the program year must be used for activities benefiting very Iow- and iow-income persons. Beginning in program year 2000, each city is limited to a 15 percent cap on public services. For more than a decade participating communities had the flexibility of using up to 20 percent of their CDBG planning allocation to fund public service activities even though the countywide cap established by HUD is 15 percent. The problem with continuing this flexibility is that HUD calculates compliance with the 15 percent cap based on total public service expenditures at the end of the program year. It has become increasingly difficult for the County to provide this flexibility and at the same time ensure compliance with the HUD cap. The following activities are the program requests received and the recommended funding amounts from staff: Activity Funding Requested Recommended Budget PSA - Child Day Care $7 130 $7,130 PSA - Senior Transportation $13 441 $13,441 PSA - Youth Services $9 000 $1,981 PSA - Community Action for Suburban Hennepin $2 000 $2,000 PSA - PRISM, Senior Transportation $5 000 $0 PSA - Fathers and Families $1 500 $0 PSA - Robbinsdale Area Redesign $3 000 $0 Public Service Activity Total $41,071 (15% PSA Max) = $24,552 Other- Housing and Rehabilitation $60,000 $60,000 Other - Scattered Site Housing $79,128 $79,128 Total Other $139,128 $139,128 Overall Total $180,199 $163,680 Child Day Care The Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association (GMDCA) is an ongoing joint-city public service activity that the City has sponsored in previous years. $7,130 is the specific amount requested from the GMDCA. The amount requested in 2000 was $15,000 and the City funded $7,130. The request this year is based on last years funding level. The CDBG funds are used to provide assistance to New Hope iow-income families who need help in meeting their child care needs. Hennepin County considers childcare services a high priority public service activity. Request for Action Page 3 2-26-01. Senior Transportation Senior Transportation is an ongoing joint-city activity that the City has sponsored in previous years. $13,44 s the specific amount requested from each city by the Five-Cities Transportation Project. The program assists the Iow- and moderate-income elderly population in their transportation needs. Hennepin County considers transportation service a high priority public service activity. Family Hoperl'reeHouse Youth Services Family Hope/TreeHouse youth services is an ongoing joint-city activity that the City has sponsored in previous years. This year the City received a request from Family Hope Services for $9,000 to support transportation and outreach costs for the TreeHouse Program serving at-risk youth and families. Due to the 15% public service funding cap, staff is recommending a fUnding level of $1,981. In 2000, the City used the same basis for funding TreeHouse, giving less than requested, based on the 15 percent cap. Funding for this activity will be conditionally based upon Family Hope Services income documentation provided to the City of clients served. Hennepin County considers youth services a high priority public service activity. Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH) CASH is an ongoing joint-city activity that the CitY has sponsored in previous years. The City received a funding request from CASH in the amount of $2,000 to support homeownership programs, foreclosure prevention, tenant/landlord counseling and housing education services for Iow- and moderate-income citizens. This is a $500 increase from the amount requested and funded in 2000. Hennepin County considers housing counseling services a high priority public service activity. People Responding In Social Ministry (PRISM) The PRISM Elder Express senior transportation program is proposed as a joint-city activity. The City has not received a funding request for this activity in the past. PRISM is requesting $5,000 to provide operating support for their Elder Express transportation program. PRISM is already budgeted to receive $7,000 in funding from the "Special Programs" fund of the City's 2001 General Fund Budget to provide emergency financial assistance for homeless prevention, food shelf, clothes closet, case management and other services. This CDBG request is in addition to their current funding from the General Fund. Hennepin County considers transportation service a high priority public service activity. Fathers and Families The Fathers and Families program is proposed as a joint-city activity. The City has not received a funding request for this activity in the past. Fathers and Families is requesting :$1,500 to support programs designed to create and enhance the role of father in full parenthood and full partnership in parenting their children. Income documentation would be required. Hennepin County considers youth and family services a high priority public service activity. Robbinsdale Area Redesign The Robbinsdale Area Redesign (RAR) program is proposed as a joint-city activity. The City has not received a funding request for this activity in the past. Robbinsclale Area Redesign is requesting $3,000 to hire a dedicated fund-raiser for the Northwest suburban communities (Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, Plymouth and Robbinsdale). If $3,000 is raised from each City PAR will match dollar for dollar, $21,000 for a total of $42,000 for the hiring of a fund-raiser. The major emphasis for fundraising will be on continuing existing housing supports and identifying expansion of housing support networks and stabilizing families. Secondary emphasis will be placed on promoting economic empowerment, successful healthy families and children and improved juvenile crime statistics. At this time, Hennepin County is unable to determine a priority level for this activity. HUD would need to evaluate the proposal to determine if it would be an eligible use of funds. Also, this activity would need to meet income beneficiary guidelines. Request for Action P~ge 4 2-26-01 Housing Rehabilitation This is an ongoing activity that has been sponsored in previous years. Funds are made available to assist tow- income persons in making basic repairs to homes that they own. In 2000, the County assisted five New Hope clients, two projects were started and a total of five are in progress. There are currently nine New Hope households on the waiting list. This program is a good way to get funds to New Hope residents for redevelopment without a great deal of staff time. The program is administered by Hennepin County. Hennepin County considers physical housing defects a high priority activity. Scattered Site Housing This is an ongoing activity that has been sponsored in previous years. The scattered site housing program is designed to improve the City's housing stock while providing livable housing options for Iow- and moderate- income families. Under the program, the City Council has the authority to purchase blighted properties throughout the City. The homes are then either rehabilitated or demolished to accommodate new construction. The housing units are then sold to first-time homeowners who meet the Iow- to moderate-income guidelines. Hennepin County considers physical housing defects and homeownership a high pdority activity. Staff has sent the enclosed letter and public hearing notice to all agencies requesting funding informing them of the public hearing. Staff will make a brief presentation on the requests and after receiving public input from any agencies in attendance or residents, staff recommends that the Council close the public hearing, make any modifications to the recommended funding amounts and approve the resolution. A spreadsheet showing requests and funding levels from previous years is attached for your reference. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · Public Hearing Notice · 2001 CDBG Allocation by Community · CDBG Status and Funding Distribution Spreadsheet · Public Headng Notice Letter to Requesting Agencies · Agency Requests , ,~-,,., i :~, "'., //' NEW HOP£ '~-""-: .................... ~ :.NN "- / ATHLETIC ! :: '. ; ~ i ~ ~ / FIELD t ..' '... ........... : ........... =._l ......... ....... "__~_ .... , /"- ~: .'. ...... i. ....... i ; ...... ¢ ...... .4.',.,' .... ~ ~, .......... · " ~ /: : . .... .... , ....... !; ...... .~ ........ ~..,,c! ........ .__: ..... ; J /~':.. · : ' ~ ' ' , / /;o; '4~'.~ 4~,~": ;~," .."=.~ 'i ?r':G~": "':-.,- ' / I. : , ....... ~ ....... IZ~ i ...... ~! .... ..-'""""' , / /" .' ,..;4&12 4B4, ,'~.,4832 .' · : , 48~: 484e: ,' ..... i- '(/):'" · I ! ; : ........~._ ~&L/, '. ~ ' 4817 " ~ ,- ,' 4~4 ~ :~,;4";>_,~ .......... ; ......... ~ .... '.. / "' / '- ' '"~i 4a24 !4433 2 "-', .,..,. '. ." · '.' "-. : ........ ' . -~ ' : .,,K~.. . ~ ! _' .,' .~-~ .--. I.,.. ! · · ' I ,/ ..-" "- ~ ! ~ t~..~, ...... ; ...... ', ~;- ', " .-' - i ; ' · . · "-.. .-." .- · .. , ......... . 4BiO; ,.._. -.. . . I / ..." , ,' . -,, ~ ,/ .' /-'-. '.,,..','" . :-',"-,_': " ,'4m7: ,. (~.,.,~q ( _,,,/ -.. :, .-.. ..,,..._'... ~ /""" _-i,~"~,',... ".,~£...'t, ',. '~) '-. " : ..... , ..... t, ..... '.- .... .- '. - ! / _..~c,~,' "-. '~ 7--...,.. ' .. ....... ': ; ~ ~ ~.~ :~ '-'-, ."J"..~.~ '. '.-' \ [ ~?M'....."'...,..,~. .., ,l~e. , ~~ ,8,8 .~ .~,, .. . -'-'~,:. - I ..~'~'"(..'": -". :'___1, ~.l~ .... ; : -- ~ ,~ , ~ · t ' ~, ' '.--- ' ." · ~- ' '"" "' %. ~ ._. _..'''; ' '" 4'74~".,' .: ~"740 :. ...... -:. ......... ~. .... t ,.~ i .... ;.. --" . .-' ~7~4 / ~ ~ :47~ .~ · , . ti, J.~Tu ~q~c' ..- · ,..~ .' - ' . ...... ~. ~ .... -': , '-r~,. , nWL-- . ." -..,· .o""". '~,, ,'~ '~4;...'7~"... -'.o .... '° 4"~,~'"""' ". ' 4"73~ .' , ..... 4,~,~I t,. r,.. .............. ! ~,."~" ":° ........ ,,. ' .... ' . '~ ' '.. ~.~t,'" .... ,,,.,.. , .,~,4. _.. . · .:, t~,-.~: o, ~,1.,,1~ 2' J ~ ' /" '~ . ~ ; ..... .. ·: i ~,.. j ,, . : . ,..r. ~ . ' \ .~'':. ....." . , ' -- ,..''' . . ~ · · ., . , ,,,ms.... : .._ .. ...., ....,. , .: ~,[I:, l~! I~ .~ , _,..... . .. ~ · o,. , \ ~ . , · ? , ---.;_..~ ......... . ., .. -- 4740.4748', ',. ..... 4,1it .... ~ ~ ......... .., . ,,,. : .j' : ~ : . __,. , i~, . . ...(........_.:___L, .... ;.,- ,. 471'/~ "" :,...,,~;~ : ~-",i?~4 .'-;'.~-, ; ! I~: ~ N: 0 ~ ~ , ~; ~ ~ '~ · ,.'~-/'17 I ,____, ,- ,. ,~' , , : ',~ , ; ~ ~ ~: ,~l ~, ~. l;l~ ~. ta · '*" % '~.. & ' ~" ~ ' ' , ~ I ~ "" ' · I. ~ ' '.. ~ 1 47118 471I .,.'-_/,~M~ ........ -~ ....... 4-- ; . . a, t,; ~. II), th. ~ .. 470e: . _.. , · . 47~e , :, 4'708 , 4721 · ,a"7,1 ),,.) ~.. · ?m,, -: : i -' .' ~ i*a': L....._...I- ,., .,.. , REQUEST FOR ACTION ~ ~ Agenda Section Originating Department Approved for Agenda Development Community Development & Plannin~ //~ Item No, 2 -26- 2001 8. ! B · Kirk McDonald & Ken D~ Bv: v / _ RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS~AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PILINGS AT 4864 FLAG AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 678) ACTION REQUESTED., Staff is requesting Council approval of a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Advertisement for Bids for Construction of Pilings at 4864 Flag Avenue North. The proposed work is for the construction of pilings to be installed on City-owned property at 4864 Flag Avenue North in preparation of the construction of a single-family, three-bedroom home to be built on the lot. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE For City-owned property where pilings are needed for the construction of a single-family home, staff seeks quotes from piling contractors. BACKGROUND In April 2000, the City purchased 4864 Flag Avenue North, from a willing seller. The lot was undeveloped due to poor soils, similar to the lot at 8808 41s~ Avenue North (Habitat for Humanity site). In September 2000, the Council approved this site for a CHDO (Community Development Housing Organization) project and approved a concept house plan for the Flag Avenue site with the understanding that pilings would be required to develop this site. Over the past several months, city staff has been finalizing the house construction plans and coordinating with the City Engineer on piling plans. Bonestroo & Associates has completed the attached plans and specifications for the pilings on the property to support the house structure and Bonestroo will be overseeing the piling installation on behalf of the City. The plans call for the installation of twenty 10-inch diameter cast-in- place concrete piles at an estimated length of 60 feet. Estimated cost of the pilings is $20,000 - $25,000. The specifications include the same provisions to protect nearby structures as where used on the Habitat project. Construction bids are due into city offices by March 21 at 11:00 a.m. Once the bids are received and opened, staff will bring the bids back to the Council at the April 9 meeting to consider award of the bid. (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 02-26-01 FUNDING Staff has always intended and proposes that the City utilize available scattered site housing CDBG funds to pay for the installation of the pilings. Staff recently learned that according to Hennepin County, in order to utilize CDBG funding for the installation of pilings, the City is required to transfer ownership of the property to another entity before the house construction can proceed. (This is the same scenario that had to be used in the Habitat project.) CDBG funds can only be used for items classified as "site improvement activities." If the City were to install pilings and proceed to develop the property with a single-family home, the pilings would not be considered a site improvement, but as part of the overall development and, therefore, ineligible for CDBG funding, as CDBG funds cannot be used for new construction. Therefore, in order to utilize CDBG funds for the pilings, staff is recommending that Development Agreements be approved in the future that: 1. Would convey the property to the CHDO for $1.00 after piling installation (similar to Habitat) and 2. The CHDO designate the City as the developer of the property. The City would be responsible for all construction expenses and would receive the revenue from the proceeds of the sale of the home. The scenario has been approved by Hennepin County and the CHDO has agreed to act as the third party entity to assist with this project. The City Attorney would prepare the appropriate Development Agreements and they would be presented to the Council for approval prior to the award of contracts. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · Plans and Specifications · Lot Survey · Location Map COUNC~ % REQUEST FOR ACTION ~~~'~-~proved for Agenda Agenda Section Originating Department Development Community Development r~ x ~,l ~,~ ~? Item No. 2-26-01 8.2 By: Kirk McDonald & Ken Doresk¥ By: / RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOME AT 4864 FLAG AVENUE NORTH, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 678 ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting Council approval of a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Advertisement for Bids for Construction of Home at 4864 Flag Avenue North. The plans call for construction of a single-family, two-story, three-bedroom home to be built on City owned property at 4864 Flag Avenue North. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE For projects where bids are expected to exceed $75,000, city staff seeks closed bids from which the lowest responsible bid is brought back to the Council for award consideration. BACKGROUND in April 2000, the City purchased 4864 Flag Avenue North, from a willing seller. The lot was undeveloped due to poor soils, similar to the lot at 8801 41s' Avenue North (Habitat for Humanity site). In September 2000, the Council approved a concept house plan for the Flag Avenue site and approved the project to be developed in )artnership with the five-city CHDO. The attached recommended house plan is the same basic plan that was used for a previous CHDO housing project at 6067 West Broadway and approved in a conceptual form in September. The plan was modified to a slab on grade design for the accommodation of pilings that will be necessary to develop the property. Highlights of the plan are as follows: · The home measures 1,605 square feet and includes three bedrooms and a double, attached garage. · Due to the need for pilings, this house would not have a basement. Therefore, the plans show a laundry area on the second floor of the home. · Per the City Manager's request, the garage has been enlarged from the initial to 24'x22' to 24'x24' to account for extra storage space. The extra storage space was requested due to the lack of a basement. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 2-26-0'~ The front bay on the home was eliminated due to the increased number of pilings that would required tc accommodate the bay and the associated costs. Construction bids are due into city offices by March 21 at 11a.m. Once the bids are received, staff will bring the bids back to the Council at the April 9 meeting to consider award of the bid. The house will front onto Flag Avenue and have a 30-foot front yard setback, which is consistent with the neighborhood and meets current zoning code setbacks. The setback on the south garage side yard is five feet, which meets current code. The setback on the north comer side yard is 30 feet, which also meets the current code. Therefore, the location of the house on the property meets all the current setback requirements. FUNDING CDBG funds were or will be used to pay for the land acquisition and for the installation of pilings and predevelopment work. HOME funds will be available from the five-city CHDO for a second mortgage. The proceeds from the sale of the home will be used to fund new construction. Please see detailed preliminary budget attached. Staff is anticipating the house construction bids to be approximately $145,000. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · Advertisement for Bids · Plans and Specifications · Budget · Survey · Plot Plan · Location Map · Preliminary Budget INC. , u,~.o,,,~o us,' o~' ?~ PLANNING & DESIGN. INC. × DRAINAGE & TY EASEM ' HY-LAND SURVEYING, P.A. LAND sURVEYORS ProDosec~ lop of B~oc) INvO;Cf NC ~.. ~ Propose~ ~ra~e Floo' 0sse: u,-nesot: S556~ ProPose~ Lowest F~oo' ;TE~'~ 493-576 C De~otes ~ro~ Monu~e~' ~ Denotes ~urloce Dro,noOe j C~- Or NEw ~F 49TH AVENUE NORTH 892.00 c.~re~ B~ APRON ~- C~ ' ~4 8gJ , . , . . ~A~K . ~ ~ 9 ~,* 892 'e 892 5E ag3 e,2 6, ~ X X X 894 4B 8~ 83 894 96 DOw~ BC [0~ CO~ 6 wDrNC EOB lOB DRY, 896 ~9 j , 895 7g 89 7 25 .56-- ~ wO rNC 895 64 ~g~ =~ ~ ~ wO 896 996 ~ LOT 41. BLOCK .~. ZL~EC~"S ROLLING HILLS ADDITION ' ~ ..... ~9 ~o 2D262 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Departmen'~--'---- ' Approved for Agenda Agenda Section CommUnity Development 2-26-01 Development & Planning Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By: RESOLUTION RESCINDING AWARD OF CONTRACT TO BAUER CONTRACTING, INC. FOR DEMOLITION OF HOUSE AND GARAGE AT 5406 AND 5410-12 WINNETKA AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO SAUTER & SONS, INC. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 676 AND 664) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests Council approve a Resolution Rescinding Award of Contract to Bauer Contracting, Inc. for Demolition of House and Garage at 5406 and 5410-12 Winnetka and Awarding Contract to Sauter & Sons, inc. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The City Council has the authority to rescind a contract if the contractor fails to perform the specified work. BACKGROUND At the January 22 Council meeting, the City Council approved a Resolution Awarding Contract for the Demolition of House and Garage at 5406 and 5410-12 Winnetka Avenue to Bauer Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $9,849. Bauer was the Iow bidder on the specified work. Staff stated at that time that there were concerns about the contractor performing the work for the bid price, however, Bauer assured the City they could complete the work. Over the past month, despite numerous attempts by staff and consultants, Bauer has failed to provide the City with a signed contract and appropriate bonds and insurance to perform the demolition work. Staff wants to proceed with the demolition of the structures as soon as possible and does not feel that Bauer has performed in a responsible manner. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City rescind the contract with Bauer Contracting, Inc. for the demolition. The second lowest bidder was Sauter & Sons, Inc., who bid the job at $15,800. Sauter has performed work for the City in the past and is a responsible contractor. Sauter has been contacted and indicated they would perform the work and are currently determining whether they can complete the work for the bid price or not, due to the fact that landfill prices may have increased. They will notify the City Engineer prior to the Council meeting as to if they will perform the work for the bid of $15,800 or not. MOTION SECOND BY BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 2-26-01 If Sauter & Sons, Inc. informs the City it will complete the work for the bid price, staff recommends awarding them the contract and approve the attached resolution. If Sauter & Sons, Inc. informs they City that it will not complete the work for the bid price, the attact~ed resolution will need to be modified at the Council meeting to rescind the award to Bauer, reject all bids, and direct staff to seek new bids on the demolition. FUNDING The demolition activities will be paid for with tax increment financing funds, as the east side of Winnetka Avenue (5400 and 5500 blocks) is a designated area where TIF funds may be expended. A'I'rACHMENT$ · Resolution · City Attorney Correspondence · City Engineer Correspondence · 1/22 Council Request Excerpts · Location Map Project #696 Bulletin #1 PROJECT BULLETIN 5420 Winnetka Avenue North Overview In February 2001, the City of New Hope purchased 5420 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 intends to demolish the existing structures and land bank the property. Pre-demolition activities are underway. Once the water and sewer lines are capped, city staff will seek bids for demolition. It is anticipated the demolition will take place within the next couple of months. 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 priodty 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, please contact the New Hope Police Department if you notice any suspicious activity on the property. 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. 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 2/16/01 Z.B. Ja,~uary 25. 2001 -- Page 5 Page 6 -- January 25, 2001 Z.B. owned an eight-unit aparlment building directly south of the gas slalion in a appn~val, Stilnloll told Sell the land required a drainage system. Consequenlly, residential dislrict. The original Francois gas slalion was 35 feel from Ibe soulh- Sell cleared an area of hind formerly used for agricullural purposes and began ern properly line. which was the rear Iol line of the properly. The Thompson conslrncling two relenliou basins. The counly phmning commission then proved Ihe subdivision phms. building was also 35 feet from the line. In 1996, Fnmcois applied fi~r permission Io replace ils existing slrnclure Sell leslified he developed Ihe idea of creafiug anolber lake on Ihe properly wilh a much larger gas slalion aud slore, extending closer Io Ihe Iol liues of and transferriug Ihe fistfing lind camping activities there in Ihe suum~er of 1997. ttowever, Ihe surveyor was not relained unlil December 1997, and Ihe sur- properly. The Madison Phm Commission approved the proposed buihling, con- dilioned on a 20-fool-wide rear yard. Subsequenlly, Ihe Madison Zoniug Ad- veyor leslified he was not aware o1', nor inwflved in, Ihe phm Io develop Ihe miuislralion allowed Fnmcois Io deem ils rear yard Io be Ihe area easl o1' ils area around one of Ihe relenlion basins for camping or fishing, ltowevcr, Sell new building. The zoning adminislrator and the Madisou Deparlmenl of Phm- leslified be inslalled water lines and began constructing driveways lo serve Ihe campsiles around the relenfion basin in lale summer 1998. Sell mainlained he ning also approved a 10-fl~ol side yard to Ihe soulh, allhough Ihe phm approved used one of Ihe relenlion basins as a pay lake fi~r fishing and the area amuud il by Ihe commission provided fi~r a 14-fl~ol side yard. for "primitive camping" during summer and fall 1998. Thompson sued, and Ihe court ruled the cily should nol have allowed n 20- New zoning regnlalions were passed in 1998, and Sell's properly became fi~ot rear yard when the applicable ordinance required a 30-G~ol selback. The court affirmed on sevend olher poinls. part of an agricullural dislricl. While Ihe bail shop and Ihe original pay fishing and camping were exempt as preexisling uses, any further developmenl re- Thompson appealed, claiming a 154oo1 side yard was required and gas qnired a condilional nse permil, stalions were nol allowed in "continuous commercial zones." Under Ihe appli- cable ordiuances, a 15-foot side yard was not reqnired for Ibe new slalion. The The counly zoning iuspeclor issued a slop-work order for any I'urlber de- ordinance provided "Iai yard shall be provided where a side lot line coincides velopmeul of Ibe area aronnd Ihe relenlion basin. Sell applied I'or a comlili.nal use permil for Ihe developmenl, which was denied, with ... an adjacenl resideuce dislricl. Such yi~rd ... shall be equal iu dimen- sion Io the minimum side yard ... required ... I't~r a residential use ~pposile ... Sell sued, and lhe conrt ruled in l'aw~r of Ihe Iownship z~ning b~msd the a4iacenl residential Iol." appeals. II found Ihe relenfion basin was originally conslruclcd for th'ainage The minimum side yard for a residential dislricl was five feel. Ilowever. and the public campiug and fishing arouud Ihe basin did uol qualify as ptcex- isling uses. Thompson pointed oul Ihe minimum side yard I'~r a Iwo-slory, eigld-unil aparl- Sell appealed, menl building in Ibe tlislricl was 15 feel. 'l'hompstm also claimed gas shflions were allowed in Ihe dislricl only if the districl "as one dislricl ot in combina- DECISION: A~rmed. lion wilb ouler c~mm~ercial or mamsl'acluring dislricls, exlends conlimumsly SeWs nsc of Ihe area aronnd Ihe basin did nol qualil'y as a prcexisliug usc. fi~r al leasl 500 feel on one side o1' a slreel." Thompson argued Ihe SeWs vendor license fi~r 1998 did nol Iisi paid fishing as a u~e .1 lhe pre- requirement was nol reel because Acew~od Boulevard bisecled lhe raises I~r Ihal year. Also, an adverlisemenl slaled paid lishing began in spring business slrip. 1999, Occasional fislfing iu the basin prior lo Iht dale o1' Ihe uew ordinance did DECISION: A~rmed. not eslablish a preexisting, nonconG~rming use. Fiually, any campsiles Sell The ordinance plainly and unambiguously required the nfinimnm side yard may have had around Iht basin were nol in compliance wilb drinkiug and wasle waler laws and he riffled !o show any business records regarding paid camping, for "a" residenlial use, nol "lhe" residential use as il aclually exislcd on sile. Under Ihe ordinance, slreels were included in zoniug dislricls. Cousequeully, Ciltltiot~: Sell v. Adamx ~m'n.vhip Bo~ml ql'Zoning Appt't~l.v, ('oltrl t~l'Al~pt,ttl.v Thompson could nol chfim lhe slreel splil Ibe dislricl. ~l'Ohio. 2mi Al~p. Dist.. l)ttrke Coltlll)', No. 00-(~1-1.51,~ Citntion: ER. Thot~l~.Vtm Bttildt'r,~ I~w. s~ City t~'Madi.vo~ Zonit~g Board ,~'t't' tll.¥o: Cil¥ t~'Kt, llt, ritlg i'. ~ltlltlt' Ottldoor Adi'erli.vit~,~ Ira'.. 525 N. E. 2d ~.~6 (19~7). Apl~eals, Court t~l'Aplwals t~' Wiscon,~in. Di.~t. 4, No. 0t)-04~9 see also: Nekoo.~a Papers Inc. s,. Boanl oJ'Revieu', 336 N. ~2d J84 f 198J). .vet' al.vo: Beck s'. SI,'inglield 7bsr~.vhil~ Board t~l' Ztmitl.~ Al~lwt~ls. 624 N.E. 2d 286 {1993). see also:. W~t~tke.vha State Bank v. Village t~l' ~de.s', 525 N. $E2d III) fl994). ~ Neighbor lights gas slalion expansion Ordinance ~ Rental hnuse deemed motel WASttlNGTON (12/08/00) ~ i)ianovich owned a single family h.me in a WISCONSIN ~11/30/00) --- Franc~fis .wned and ~peraled a gas ~lali.n ired dislricl zoned Re~o~l Residential. The z,~ning ~rtlinance all.wed "dwcllin?~," convenience slore in a commercially ~,ned area. T. R. 'l'h,mpx.n Buihlcr~ Inc. JANUARY 200 ! AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act "'.._ '-.~...: ~' By Stuart Meck, FAICP The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized : ,.~,,~',,, Persons Act of 2000 bars a governmentjgom ,'". ;~;';¢. -~ ~. -:: imposing a land-use regulation in a manner , ........ ., ,~ ,.~y that =eats a religious assembly or institution . .~ , .~ .... =.~ :.._ i~:.! on "less than equal terms" with a nonreligious ii !~ ~=~-'~" il !: demonstrate that RFRA would "identify and counteract state laws likely to be unconsumnonal bemuse of the, r treatment of rehg,on. :~ ;:: ~ i...~ ~.~ 7' The Court pointed out that RFRA's legislative history omi=ed ....... , ..... ! -~.'3 ~-- - "examples of any generally applicable laws passed because of :" religious bigotry" that would warrant remedial legislation. The -:~,5 ~'7'~ ~; -~-'- -;-5. "~-' Court noted that modern day zoning regulations do impose a *_-..,,>~,-' ~:; 'i..74. ~, =..~ '~t} substantial burden on a large class of individuals, but, as laws of ..... ~ ~ fi! } : ~ general application, the burden that zoning imposes is no greater ::"" ' - '~-' ~ ...... ~ ~ on religious institutions, nor axe people burdened because of their ....... -~-5.~ 'Z':-.,: ·: i ' ~*~"~'" ~,;~ * ..... ~: i!..~ ~.~:~ ~' :.-~ - ' i religious beliefs. .... ---~_.--.LL...--~.' -~' - ~, :' - ~- ~., ~ RLUIPA is Congress' response to the Supreme Court's implicit _ _ - _~=, .:-~-_~7i_ ~_. :-._: =~=~--' --' challenge to enact a better law that would pass constitutional -=- -7.-.: -7 . ~ ~,imo, muster and not impede on the Court's authority. In contrast to RFP, A, which did not specifically mention zoning, RLUIPA is Regulating churches, synagogues, and mosques through clearly directed at "land-use regulation," which it defines as "a zoning and landmark designation will become much more zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that difficult under a new federal statute enacted last September. The limits or restricts a claimant's use of land .... ' Religious exercise is controversial law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized defined broadly to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), prohibits federal, state, and compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief," and that local government, with certain exceptions, from imposing or extends to the use, building, or conversion of real property for implementing any land-use regulation that places "a substantial religious exercise. burden" on religious activity. When a government's land-use regulations are challenged by The law, sponsored by Senators Orfin Hatch (R-Utah) and a person, religious assembly, or institution, RLUIPA allows a Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), is intended to replace the federal defense to the "substantial burden" provision. To fend offa Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which the claim, the government must show that the imposition of the U. S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 1997. In that burden is both in furtherance ora compelling governmental decision, City ofBoerne v. P.F. Flores, the Supreme Court held that interest and is the least restrictive means for furthering that Congress had exceeded its enforcement authority under the interest. The law bars a government from imposing a land-use Fourteenth Amendment to justify what the Court believed to be an regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or intrusion into its prerogatives to interpret the Constitution. institution on "less than equal terms" with a nonreligious Congress had enacted RFRA in an attempt to undo an earlier assembly or institution. It also forbids a government from Supreme Court decision holding that the application of neutral imposing or implementing land-use regulations that either laws of general applicability to religiously motivated conduct was totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction or not subject to a "compelling government interest" test to rationalize unreasonably limiting assemblies, institutions, or structures their use. The Court contended that Congress had failed to within a jurisdiction. tLLUIPA allows a government to avoid the law's preemptive feed them would likely have been an RFRA violation. A federal force by changing, modit34. 'ng, or eliminating the policy or practice district court in Chicago concluded that the rezoning ofa properD.' that burdens religious exercise or by exempting the religious that a Hispanic congregation had intended to purchase to a exercise altogether from the policy or practice. The law also allows classification that prohibited its use as a church was a sufficient successful litigants to recover attorneys' fees. In addition, the federal allegation of a substantial burden under RFRA to prevent the claim government can inidate lawsuits on its own. fi'om being dismissed. The rezoning had been initiated by a Chicago alderman representing the ward in which the property the A Tough Burden for Local Governments church wanted to purchase was located. In introducing RLUIPA, Senator Hatch contended that the The Washington Supreme Court, interpreting RFRA, held that a legislation does not provide a religious assembly with immunity proposed landmark designation that would have prevented a Seattle from zoning regulation. 'If the religious claimant cannot church from making significant exterior or interior changes without demonstrate that the regulation places a substantial burden on city approval---unless the changes were necessitated by changes in sincere religious exercise," he said, "then the claim fails without the church liturgymwould burden the free exercise of religion. further consideration.' The senator also stated that if the religious Local governments did not always lose under RFRA. The claimant can demonstrate a substantial burden, then the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld enjoining a family from placing a government must provide a strong justification for the regulation massive Christmas tree light display on their property, and directing under the law's standards. In a discussion of the legislation on the them to substantially reduce the display, as well as the volume of Senate floor, Senator Kennedy darified that the law does not any accompanying sound. The court concluded that this simply extend to the ability ofst:~tes and local governments to enforce fire was not an issue of religious freedom, but the mere question of the and building codes, and similar measures as they apply to child care continuation of a nuisance. In Philadelphia, the city issued a stop- centers, schools, or camps run by religious organizations, work order for construct:ion ora church, which, after having received a building permit, was found to be in noncompliance with Running Afoul of RLUIPA the city's off-street parking regulations the city had miscalculated What kind of land-use regulations might run afoul of RLUIPA? the requirements for parking and discovered its error. The federal While the legislation does not single out specific approaches, the district court, in supporting the city, ruled that the church had law's sponsors introduced accounts and testimony into the "utterly failed to show that anyone's freedom of religion was Congressional Record about local land-use practices and their affected let alone "substantially burdened" by the requirement. impact on religious exercise. These included situations where A federal ruling that involved Chicago Heights, a southern churches were limited in the number of worshipers who could suburb of Chicago, held that the refusal of the city to deny a special attend services, where there were limitations on hours of church use permit for a church to locate in a former department store in a operation, where a special use permit to allow a congregation of commercial district along a main traffic artery did not violate Orthodox Jews to remain in a residential zone (the members RFRA. The city preferred to see commercial development at the were elderly and walked to services) was denied because of site. The federal court said the city's decision did not affect religious neighborhood concerns about property values, and where there exercise--just the locadon of a church. were cosdy fees for conditional use permits for churches in order to feed the homeless and hungry. Some Pros and Cons, and What to Do One Chicago area attorney testified before a House of Not surprisingly, RLUIPA, which puts local land-use practices Representatives subcommittee that 22 of 29 zoning codes in as they affect religious activity under a microscope, has its Chicago's northern suburbs only allow churches through special advocates and detractors. The law's sponsors were clearly trying use permiq and not as-of-right, handing local governments to get local governments to loosen up zoning regulations that discretionary authority over what kinds of churches can locate affect religious institutions' ability to locate or expand. "At the there. A representative of Jewish organizations told the core of religious freedom," says Senator Hatch, "is the ability for subcommittee that Orthodox synagogues often are required to assemblies to gather and worship together. Finding a location to have a specific number of parking spaces--based on the number do so, however, can be quite difficult when faced with pervasive of seats in the sanctuary--even though Orthodox Jews do not land-use regulations." drive on the Sabbath. Hatch pointed to congressional testimony on the difficulty An appraisal of land-use decisions under the now-invalidated that churches have in obtaining development approval. One RFRA, tided "Land Use Controls and RFP, A: Analysis and example included a case where a city refused to allow a Latter Predictions," by Professor Kenneth Pearlman of Ohio State Day Saints congregation "to construct a temple simply because University's graduate planning program, was published in a Fall it was not in the 'aesthetic' interests of the community." 1997 symposium issue of the law journal Nexus on the Boerne case. Smart Kaplow, a real estate and land-use attorney in Baltimore, It identified a variety of practices that courts determined posed a Maryland, contends that RLUlPA ~was a response to a legitimate substantial burden to religious exercise. The analysis could offer some indicadnn of how cases involving RLUlPA might shake out. For example, a federal district court in Richmond, Virginia, O T H E R R E S O U R ¢ E S: found that a limitation on the number of homeless persons a church could feed and a limitation on the times the church could www.riuipa.com Pearlman, Kenneth, and Meck, Stuart. "Land-Use Controls and RFRA: Analysis and Predictions." Nexus Stuart Meck is principal investigator fbr APA 's Growing Smartsm Vol. 2, No. 2 Fall 1997. project, a multiyear qcj~rt to draft the next generation of model Schwab, Jim. "Court Nixes Religious Freedom Act." planning and zoning legislation fbr the U.S. and acting editor of Zoning New$; August 1997. Land Use Law & Zoning Digest. 2 concern. In the era ofmegachurches and changing beliefs in where RE UlPA will "'federalize'an area institutions should locate, churches, .synagogues, and mosques have had a difficult time locating in many communities." As a consequence of the new law, Kaplow states flady, "the idea which is inherently a matter of local that a house of worship has to pass muster through a special exception or a conditional use process is dead. Houses of worship need to be concern, without a demonstrated need able to locate as-of-right in most, if not all, zoning districts." If zoning rules are loosened for developed areas, Kaplow to remedy patterns of discrimination asserts, the pr:/Ctice of siting large new churches on sites in rural and semi-rural areas served by wells and septic tanks where land is at the local level." cheap may taper off. Because it will be easier to build or expand churches and other houses of worship in relatively built-up urban -- N£w Yo~: Cl-rv M^¥o~ RUDO~-~'~ Glt.'l.~x~ areas, they "will seek to remain in population centers, rather than use greenfield locations." Kaplow also says that the restrictions on landmarking in the law will have little practical impact in the area where he practices because most houses of worship are relatively new and do not have historic significance. Michael Dav~dson Under RLUIPA, churches that might have met with opposition j%m communi~y planners, such as this storejgont church in Chicago (above), and "mega" churches like this one in Naperville, Illinois (left), may find it easier to circumvent important development standards. ~herne Matthcw~ New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is one of a number of board of directors has appropriated funds to potentially pursue a elected officials who has been sharply critical of the law. In a letter direct challenge of the law. APA also has joined a coalition of to New York Senator Daniel Moynihan sent shortly after the bill nine governmental interest groups to track RLUIPA cases and was introduced in July 2000, Giuliani maintained that there was develop a legal and legislative strategy. "no clear justification" for the law, arguing that it would While the legislative intent of the law was not to exempt '"federalize' an area which is inherently a matter of local concern, religious land uses from local zoning and historic landmarking without a demonstrated need to remedy patterns of discrimination regulations, says Autumn Pierson, assistant general counsel for at the local level." In contrast to the views of Hatch, Giuliani the National Trust for Historic Preservation in Washington, interpreted RLUIPA as giving exemptions to religious institutions D.C., "we think that this is what is going to happen in "from reasonable local regulation, potentially allowing them to practice." "The National Trust would contend," stresses ignore densi .ty, height and setback, parking and other zoning Rierson. "that a historic preservation ordinance does not requirements, as well as historic preservation statutes." This could, substantially burden religious exercise under existing U.S. he argued, "significantly burden local neighborhoods." Supreme Court jurisprudence." Giuliani called the burden-shifting provisions "a potential recipe Pierson advises that local governments should be careful yet for endless litigation in the federal courts at taxpayer expense, flexible. "The local government should have a good, solid, Disputes over land-use issues have generally been the responsibilin.' defensible record upon which it bases its land-use and historic of the state court systems. It should remain that way." preservation decisions in order to respond appropriately to claims of The American Planning Association (APA) opposes RLUIPA discrimination against religious institutions." Pierson says "local because it believes the law effectively preempts local land-use governments should do everything within their authority-- authority. "While religious liberty, is an important value." savs preferably in writing~to reasonably accommodate the inherent JeffSoule, .~lCp, policy, director for APA in its Washington, D.C., special needs of religious institutions. For example, a local office, "land use by religious institutions should not be held to a government should offer alternative parking arrangements where separate and preferred standard that is different than the feasible, or work with religious institutions and preservationists to standard for any other land use. RLUIPA is poorly conceived devise alternative architectural designs. The bottom line, however, is and, under the guise of religious liberty., creates a special, that religious institutions must apply for variances and conditional privileged land-use status for religious groups." Soule says APA's uses like eve .ry other historic propetty owner." 3 Like APA and the National Trust, the National Association of What should local governments do? "Take the law seriously," Counties (NACO) opposes the law, says Stephanie Osb°rn, urges NACO's Stephanie Osborn. "We think it's going to take NACO's assistant legislative director in Washington, D.C., some time for the courts to interpret the lab'." Ultimately, ~because it allows religious organizations to circumvent local land- predicts Osborn, "we believe the law will be struck down as use rules. For the first time, this law would allow a class of land use, unconstitutional." the religious land use, to evade local regulations." NACO is operating an RLUIPA clearinghouse, keeping track of litigation N Illws BR~gFS involving the new law, and is one of the participants in the coalition working with APriL RLUIPA "doesn't address a specific form of discrimination,' Internet-Based Adult Businesses Osbom points out. "If the Congress is trying to legislate the Bill of Zoning officials have long considered the property value impacts Rights, then the courts have required that there be a clear legislative of adult bookstores, nude dancing, and novelt)' shops. The history of the discrimination and that the law be specifically drafted proliferation of adult-oriented internet businesses nob' raises to remedy that type of discrimination." Osborn contends the concern over home occupations and the laws by which they are legislative history of the law didn't reveal any purposeful governed. discrimination against religious activity. She contrasts RLUIPA to Internet sex operations offer everything from books, videos, other federal laws such as those dealing with voting rights, where and novelties to membership or fee-per-use services. Congress created a legislative history where the need to remedy Membership privileges can include access to photos, chat rooms, discrimination was dearly demonstrated, and live videos. Once more, these businesses can flourish The law's critics also are concerned that RLUIPA's mere existence virtually anywhere with Internet access. will allow religious institutions to rattle their sabres if they cannot getA 2000 Florida case, Voyeur Dorm. comv. City of Tampa, has the land-use approval they want or find the local regulatory regime raised concern about the number of Internet sex businesses that an inconvenience, as opposed to a vehicle of true discrimination, have applied for or received official business permits. The The prospect of litigation, says the National Trust's Autumn abbreviated facts of the case are as follows: five unrelated women Rierson, will have a "chilling effect" on local governments when they reside in a single-family house with 30 video cameras located in make routine landmarking and related land-use regulatory decisions, various rooms. For a monthly fee, Internet viewers monitor the and then cave in on approvals when threatened with a lawsuit, daily activities of the women-some of which are sexual in nature. Critics also point to the conundrum created by the broad definition The neighbors became aware that a sexually oriented of"religious exercise" that includes private religious convictions that business was operating on the premises when the owners of are not linked to any central system of beliefs, residing only in the Voyeur Dorm.com applied for a business permit. Upon mind of the believer. With this federal definition in place, a local submission of the application, the city zoning coordinator government could find its land-use regulations hampering a personal denied the permit and the women were advised to cease ideology that it could not have known existed, operation at that location. The case worked its way through the zoning review board and city council to the U.S. District Court. A Settlement Under RLUIPA Attorneys for Voyeur Dorm.com argued that the business RLUIPA has only been in effect for a few months and a handful of should not be classified as an adult use because it had not caused lawsuits have been filed: in the City of Grand Haven and Ann any "secondary impacts," such as prostitution, drug-related Arbor Township, Michigan; Long Branch, New Jersey; Los problems, offensive signage, noise, late-night operations, or a Angeles, and Chicago. The Grand Haven suit was settled in late decrease in property values. The court stated that, "So long as Decembe~ between the plaintiff, Haven Shores Community the adult use ordinance affects only categories of business Church, and the city. The church had challenged Grand Haven's reasonably believed to produce at least some of the unwanted zoning ordinance under the U.S. and Michigan constitutions and secondary effects, the city must be allowed a reasonable RLUIPA because it barred the church from locating in a storefront opportunity to experiment with solutions to admittedly serious property in a B-1 business district where "places of assembly"--but problems." The statement was supported by a 1996 finding in not churches or other religious uses--were already permitted. The the U.S. Supreme Court (City ofRenton v. Playtime Theaters, church brought the suit last March, and in September ir was Inc.), which says "a city's interest in protecting the quality of amended to include the RLUIPA claim. Under the consent urban life from the secondary effects of adult businesses serves a judgment approved by a federal judge, Grand Haven agreed ro substantial government interest." Nate Hutcheson allow the church's "outreach center" as a permitted use in the B- 1 district, and conceded that the current zoning ordinance provisions prohibiting churches or other religious uses in the B-I district Zomng News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning A~sociation. "would not survive review" under RLUIPA assuming the act is Subscriptions are available for $55 (U.S.) and S?i~ (foreign). Frank S. So, Executive Director; valid. Under the agreement, the church still must apply for permits William IL Klein, Di ....... f Research. and other certifications, and, if the submissions comply with z~,,nx N,,o, is produced at APA. Jim Schwab and Michael Davidson, Editors: Sh ..... applicable health, safety, and construction codes as well as the A ....... g, Barry Bain. J ..... Cteland, Fay Dolnick, Nate Hutch ..... Sanjay J .... Megan Lewis, Angela Metros, Mm'wa Morris, Reporters; Sherrie Matthews, Assistant Editor; Lisa zoning code, the city will issue the required authorizations. B ..... A pro-RLUIPA group, the Washington, D.C.-based Copyright ©2001 byAmerican Planning A~sociation, 122 S. Michigan Ave.. Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning A~sociation also h~ offices at 1776 Massachusetts Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which litigates cases ^,e.. t~.W.. W,~hinVon, ~C 200~6: ~w. pianni.g.org involving the application of zoning laws to religious groups ~Ul righ .... ed. No pa, of this publicati .... y be reproduced .... i|ized i ....fo .... by and whose attorneys represented the church in the Grand any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by an}; information Haven case described above, has established a web site .... g~ and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning A.~.ociation. devoted to the new law. The site, www. rluipa.com, contains Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber a listing of pending RLUIPA litigation, and ~o~ postcons 4