The URL can be used to link to this page

110601 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6, 2001 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 7. 7.1 7.2 7.3 8. 8.1 8.2 9, 10. CALL TO ORDER OATH OF OFFICE ROLL CALL CONSENT BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Case 01-11 Case 01-12 Case 01-16 Case 01-17 Request for Ordinance No. 01-10, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code Regulating Accessory Signage in the R-B, L-B, C-B, and I Zoning Districts, City of New Hope, Petitioner Request for Ordinance No 01-11, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.039D of the New Hope City Code Regulating Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers, City of New Hope, Petitioners Request for Ordinance No. 01-08, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing Administrative Permit Fees, City of New Hope, Petitioners Request for Ordinance No. 01-09, An Ordinance Amending the Voting Requirements for Zoning Code Text or District Changes, City of New Hope, Petitioners COMMITTEE REPORTS Report of Design & Review Committee - Meeting November 15, 8 a.m. (if needed) Report of Codes & Standards Committee OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues Council Action on June Planning Cases · PC01-09, Multi-Tenant Building at 9220 Bass Lake Road, Approved · PC01-07, Charter School, Petitioner withdrew prior to Council meeting Livable Communities Grant Update 2002 Planning Commission Schedule - Discuss January, July, August, and November meetings NEW BUSINESS Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 10, 2001 Review of City Council Minutes of October 8 and 22, 2001 ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT 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: Petitioner: Address: Request: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: November 6, 2001 Report Date: November 2, 2001 01-11 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North Ordinance No. 01-10, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code Regulating Accessory Signage in the R-B, L-B, C-B and I Zoning Districts I. Request City staff is requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the attached ordinance, which amends the New Hope Sign Code and brings it into conformity with the recently updated New Hope Zoning Code. II. Zoning Code References The attached ordinance amendment references the following sections of the New Hope Sign Code: Section 3.48 "Residential Office District" Section 3.49 "Commercial and Industrial Zoning District" II1. Background The Planning Commission and City Council approved an update of the Zoning Code in April of 2001. Part of the update made changes to the titles of certain zoning districts and combined certain zoning districts. For example: Some of the R-O (Residential-Office Districts) were changed to a new R-B (Residential-Business) designation. · The B-1 and B-2 Business Districts were consolidated into a new L-B (Limited Business) District. · The B-3 and B-4 Business Districts were consolidated into a new C-B (Community Business) District. · The I-1 and I-2 Industrial Districts were consolidated into a single I (Industrial) District. As a result of these changes, some of the current references in the Sign Code (which refer to districts in the Zoning Code) are incorrect and need to be modified. The purpose of this ordinance amendment is to make the necessary minor "house keeping" changes to the Sign Code so that it compliments the updated Zoning Code. IV. Petitioner's Comments Staff requested that the Planning Consultant review the Sign Code and make recommendations for changes, in conjunction with the City Attorney and staff, after the Zoning Code update was approved by the City Council. Planning Case Report 01-11 Page I 11/2/01 V. Notification No public notice is required, for changes to the Sign Code, as it is not part of the Zoning code. VII. Development or Code Analysis Per the enclosed Planner's report, staff has found a few sections of the Sign Ordinance that need to be updated for consistency with the revised Zoning Ordinance. An update is needed in Section 3.48 to include the Residential-Business District. Section 3.48 "Residential-Office and Residential-Business Districts." Signs are accessory to permitted and conditional uses in the R-O and R-B Zoning Districts. The following signs are permitted within the R-O and R-B Zoning Districts: 3.481 All signs outlined in Section 3.46 of this Ordinance. 3.482 Residential Signs. All signs outlined in Section 3.47 of this Ordinance. 3.483 Business Signs. Business signs as regulated in Section 3.49. Another update is needed in Section 3.49 to include the L-B, C-B, and I Districts and eliminate the obsolete districts. Section 3.49 "Commercial and Industrial Zoning District." Signs are accessory to permitted and conditional uses in the~ '~ 4,, -~ ~'~, _v~n ~,'~ _~ ,~., ,~-~, ~,""'~,~ ,~-o~ L-B, C-B and I Zoning Districts. Only the following signs are permitted in these zoning districts, unless otherwise specifically provided for in this section. VIII. City Attorney Comments/Draft Ordinance Per the attached correspondence from the City Attorney, enclosed is a proposed Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code Regulating Accessory Signage in the R-O, L-B, C-B and I Zoning Districts. The changes made by this Ordinance are in follow up to the recommendations made by the City Planner and discussed at the Codes & Standards August 9 meeting. The Ordinance is a simple house- cleaning item. It conforms the Sign Code to the new titles given various zoning districts created by the recent Zoning Code update. Specifically, the City now has a new Residential Business District that needs to be included in Section 3.48 of the Sign Code. Also, the former Business and Industrial zoning classifications indicated in Section 3.49 are changed to the new L-B, C-B and I zoning classifications from the Zoning Code update. The draft ordinance states: "The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 3.48 "Residential Office District" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 3.48 "Residential Office and Residential Business Districts." Signs are accessory to permitted and conditional uses in the R-O and R-B Zoning Districts. The following signs are permitted within the R-O and R-B Zoning Districts: Section 2. Section 3.49 "Commercial and Industrial Zonin.q District" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 3.49 "Commercial and Industrial Zoninq District." Signs are accessory to permitted and conditional uses in the B-!, B 2, B-3, B '!., ! ! ~nd ! 2 L-B, C-B, and I Zoning Districts. Only the following signs are permitted in these zoning districts, unless otherwise specifically provided for in this section." Planning Case Report 01-11 Page 2 11/2/01 IX. Codes & Standards Committee The Codes & Standards. Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission has discussed and reviewed this proposed ordinance amendment and recommends approval of the amendment to the full Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance No. 01-10 8/13 City Attorney Correspondence 6/12 Planner's Memo Sign Code Excerpts Memo to Codes & Standards Planning Case Report 01-11 Page 3 11/2/01 ORDINANCE NO. 01-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE SIGN CODE REGULATING ACCESSORY SIGNAGE IN THE R-B, L-B, C-B AND I ZONING DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 3.48 "Residential Office District" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.48 Residential Office and Residential Business.. . District~. Signs are accessory to permitted and conditional uses in the R-O affOR..-__B :Zoning Districts. The following signs are permitted within the R-O ~_._R.:B Zoning Districts: Section 2. Section 3.49 "Commercial and Industrial Zoning District" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.49 Commercial and Industrial Zoning District. Signs are accessory to permitted and conditional uses in ..... - ,, ,-,-,-, ,-,-.,, ,-,--,, ~- ..... -~.LB, CB and I Zoning Districts. Only the following signs are permitted in these zo~g districts, unless otherwise specifically provided for in this section. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the ~ day of ,2001. W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the P:',.~uemeT',C~h ~ sot Io. oni,~mmdiaS Si~ Code. vqsi ~dayof ,2001.) -1- GORDON L. JENSEN* NICOLE M. RITLAND~' STEVEN A. SONDRALL WILLIAM C. STRAIT'[' STACY A. WOODS OF COUNSEL LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD *Rcal Property Law Specialist Certified By The Minnesota State Bar Association ?Qualified ADR Neutral JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968 TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mail law~jensen-sondrall.com Augustl3,2001 Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 SENT BY FAX TO: (763) 531-5136 AND BY REGULAR MAIL Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code Regulating Accessory Signage in the R-B, L-B, C-B and I Zoning Districts Our File No.: 99.80110 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code Regulating Accessory Signage in the R-B, L-B, C-B and I Zoning Districts. The changes made by this Ordinance are in follow-up to the recommendations made by the City Planner in his June 12, 2001 memo discussed at our August 9, 2001 meeting. The Ordinance is a simple house-cleaning item. It conforms the sign code to the new titles given various Zoning Districts created by our recent Zoning Code update. Specifically, we now have a new Residential Business District that needs to be included Section 3.48 of the Sign Code. Also, the former Business and Industrial zoning classifications indicated in Section 3.49 are changed to the new L-B, C-B and I zoning classifications from the Zoning Code update. The City Planner's requested change to Section 3.461(2) of his June 12~' memo has already been made. A review of Section 3.461 (2) indicates the commercial, industrial and multiple family dwelling definition is already correctly referenced as 4.022(57). Therefore, the enclosed Ordinance does not make any changes to Section 3.461(2) of the Sign Code. August 13, 2001 Page 2 Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter or the enclosed Ordinance. Very truly yours, _- St~ven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope JENSEN & SONDRALL. P.A. sas@jensen-sondrall.eom After Hours Extension # 147 Enclosure CC: Valerie Leone, City Clerk, City of New Hope (w/enc.) Ken Doresky, Community Specialist, City of New Hope (w/enc.) Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants (w/enc.) Doug Sandstad, Building Official, City of New Hope (w/enc.) CNH99 80110-001-Kirk Ltr wpd 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facs~rnile: 952.595;983? Louis ParK, MN 55416 planners@nacplann~ng-corn MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE: Kirk McDonald Cynthia Putz-Yang / Alan Brixius June 12, 2001 New Hope - Sign Ordinance Update 131.00 - 01.03 We have found a few sections of the Sign Ordinance that need to be updated for consistency with the revised Zoning Ordinance. The first update is needed in Section 3.461(2). The first sentence should be revised to indicate that multiple family dwellings are defined in Section 4.022 (57) rather than Section 4.022 (95) as follows: (2) Commercial, Industrial and Multiple Family Buildings. Numerals identifying street addresses for commercial and industrial buildings, including multiple family dwellings defined in Section 4.022 (95) (57) of this Code, shall be a minimum of six (6) inches high and shall comply with the other requirements of Sub-section (1) above. All such buildings having multiple street addresses shall be required to identify rear door entrances in the same manner as main entrances. The second update is needed in Section 3.48 to include the Residential Business District. 3.48 Residential Office and Residential Business Districts. Signs are accessory to permitted and conditional uses in the R-O and R-B Zoning Districts. The following signs are permitted within the R-O and R-B Zoning Districts: 3.481 All signs outlined in Section 3.46 of this Ordinance. 3.482 Residential Signs. All signs outlined in Section 3.47 of this Ordinance. I1[ III I 3.483 BuSiness Signs. Business signs as regulated in Section 3.49. The third update in needed in Section 3.49 to include the LB, CB, and I Districts and eliminate the obsolete districts. 3.49 Commercial and Industrial Zoning District. Signs are accessory to permitted and conditional uses in the B-l, C-2, ~-3, ~4, :-I ,=,---~,,., :-2 LB, CB and I Zoning Districts. Only the following signs are permitted in these zoning districts, unless otherwise specifically provided for in this section. These am the only changes we have found related to the Zoning Ordinance update, unless City staff or the City Council wishes to revisit the performance standards for signs. 2 3.446 3.447 3.448 3.449 3.450 3.451 3.452 3.46 mew of. or be corn61sed with an}' ~ control sag'~- sig'nal or device, or ~stcad or co.se S~ which ~e related to a business or se~'~ce ~ch ~e pre~ses on w~ch ~e s~ ~s located. B~mess or advemsmg s~s which arc painted d~ctty upon a wall su~ac:. Po~ble si~. b~ers, pe~. gbbo~, s~e~e~, s~gs of hghl bulb~, stunners. s~l~ devices ~e not pe~ncd exc~ as provided m Sccnon 3.492 of m~s Code si~ ~a~ are rocked or posted on ~ees, ~ences, u~hw poles, or o~er such supports ~e no~ pe~ned, excep~ when a~ched m ~ ou~eld ~ence o~a ballfield ~d onemed field and spec~tor sea~. Roof si~ as defined m secuon 3.422 (20) of ~s Code. Billbo~d s~gns as defined in secnon 3.422 (6) of~ Code. Ail o~er signs not expressly pe~ined by ~is Si~ Code. Pe~ined Si~s. ~e s~gns identified m secnon 3.46 are exempl ~om pe~n requirements m all zoning d~smc~. 3.461 ~.461 (1) Identifiable Address. Residential Building. Every pnncipal building shall be identified with its legal street address m numerical form. The numerals shall be at least three (3) roches in height, and either contrasUng m color from the prmmpal building, made of reflective material or illuminated. The numerals shall be readable from the nearest adjacent roadway serving the premises. Should the building numerals not be visible from the roadway, an address post displaying the idemificannn numerals of the same minimum height shall be placed adjacent to the cinveway an such a manner as to be readable from the roadway. Commercial, Industrial and Multiple Fami{v Buildings. Numerals identify, cng street addresses for commercial and mdusmal buildings, including muh,ple family dwellings defined in section 4.022 (57)(b), (d), (e) and (g) of this Code. shall be a minimum ofsTM (6) inches in height and shall comply with the other requirements of Subsection (1) above. All such buildtngs having multiple street addresses shall be required to identify rear door entrances in the same manner as main entrances. ................................................. (Code 5/14/2001.) 3.462 Flags and Memorial Signs. Flags or emblems of a national, federal or state government, or memorial signs thereof, displayed on private property. 3.463 Signs Required bv Law. Legal notices, address numerals and other signs required by law or governmental order, role or regulations, provided that the content and size of the sign flo not exceed the requirements of such law, order, rule or regulation. 3.464 Public Convenience and D~rectional Signs. Small signs, not exceeding two (2) square feet in area, displayed on private property for the convenience of the public, cncludlng but not limited to, directional or identification signs for restrooms, freight enwances, garage and rummage sales and parking lot siguage. Garage and rummage sale signs shall show, 3 - 42 o726~ 3.,:73 (5) Special Eve~ Si~na~,c. Sub)ect t~ the provisions of scctio~ 3.492 (6~ of this Code. 3.474 Multiple F~mi}v ResidenUal $i-°=a-~e. Sign.s aeee.nsor?' 'to multiple family rcsidenual buildings and complexes are pcrmlned as foUows: 3.474 (1) Area Idenu'fication. Ea:h multiple family development shall be perrmtted one (1 ~ area identification sig~, comer lots are permitted two (2} sl_~as if each sLma ~s facing a separate sweet. The Area identification signs shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area. l~reestandmg movement si.-~las shall not exceed twelve (12) feet m height and ~hal! be loc. amd at the entrance of the lot. 3.474 {2) Directional/Information Signs. Multiple :family development d:recUonal informaUon signs are pertmtted to direct traffic within the site and provide Mormation lt~rtnining to the building's ownership, rvnnngement and operauon. Individual directional signage may not exceed nine (9) square feet in area. No ilb~minmion of the sign is permitted other man the general house illummauon. 3.474 Special Event Signage. Subject to the provisions of section 3.492 (6) of this Code. 3.475 Home Ocm:padons. A residential umt with an approved home occupauon requiring customer or chent visits to the home is allowed one idenfificauon si~n for thc home occupation. Said sign _~hal] not exceed two (2) square feet in size or six (6) f~ct in height. ~~i-~' ~Residenfial Office District. Signs arc accessory, to pertained and conditional uses in thc R-O ~' Zoning Dismct. The following si~s are pertained within the R-O Zomng District: 3.481 All signs identified in section 3.46 of this Code. 3,482 Residential Signs. All signs identified in section 3.47 of this Code. 3.483 Business Signs. Business signs as regulaL,~_ in section 3.49 of this Code. ,~ Commercial and lndus~ai Zonin~ District. Signs arc =_ee~sory to permitted and conditional /' uses in the B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1 and I-2 Zoning Dismcts. Only the following signs are ~' permi~___~_ in these zoning disu'icts, unless otherwise specifically provided for in this section. 3.491 All signs identified ia r~ion 3.46 of mi~ Code. 3.492 Individual Business Establi.~hment Si~-ns. Signs accessory to a single occupancy business or mduswy shall comply with the foUowing regulations: 3.492 (1) ~: 3.492(1) (a) Not more than two (2) wall signs per building. 3.492(1) (b) The mrai area of all wall signs .~hall not exceed the lesser of fifteen (15) percem of the front face of thc pnncipai commercial or indusmal building or two hundred fifty (250) square feet. 3.492 {2) ~lli~ill$.i~Jll~. Not more than one (I) freestanding sign shall be permitted on any lot abutting local, coUector or minor aneriai street. 3-45 0~6~ 3.492C2) {a) Y-restoring sigms abumng local, coll~=nr or ~or ~ ~ ~ ex~ one h~dr~ (1~ s~ i~t m ~. 3.492(2~ ~) Fr~s~dmg si~ abu~g a ~way or ~way ~nmge road ~1 3.492(2~ (c) Fr~g si~ ~ ~ot ex~ ~' (30) i~t m heist, ford. 3.492 (3) A~ or C~opv Si~ ~ ~Y ~ P~ or o~e~~e ~xed to ~ible a~g or ~Y ~ fo~ows: 3.492(3) (a) ~fion. Si~ ~ ~ i~ to ~e (1) si~ per ~opy f~cia/ron~g onto ~ s~t. 3.492(3) ~) Height. ~e c~opy si~ ~h~ll not p~j~t a~ve or ~low ~e physic~ ~io~ of ~ a~gs or ~opy 3.492(3} (c) Use. Si~ ~ o~y denom ~ ~ ~d ~ss of ~e business conducted ~e~ ~or a product or pr~ue~ pr~ or sold or semite rendered ~e~m. 3.492i3) (d) ~- A~g ~d ~opy si~g~ ~1 not ~xc~ (16) s~e f~t ~ a~. A~g ~ ~Y si~ge ~1 ~ mclud~ m ~e~a~g ~e ~~ si~ ~ of ~e ~sible w~l si~. 3.492 (4) ~. 3.492(4} (a) Mit~imtrrn Window Area. In no event shall the sizt: of the mtenor wmdow signage exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the window area of the one side of the building upon which said signs are displayed. 3.492(4) (b) ]~'g/~l.~glg. An mtenor window sign may be ilb,minated. 3.492(4) (c) Tempo, rarv Advenism£ Sim. Advemsmg sign.s that are mmnded for mnporary display only, may be affixed w a window provided that the sign me, a conforms with the formula allowance outlined in fids subsection. The allowable sign area for a window advertising si~n is m addition w the loml tm'mined wall sign area as reLmla~l in section 3.492 (1) of this Coda. Window simms other than for advertising, such as business identification, or any sign which is per-~-enfly affixed w a window, shall constitute a dual purpose sign and thus be re.larval under both the above and the provisions of section 3.492 (1) of this Code. 3.492 Signs Accessory to Gas Sales in Coniunetion with Automobile Service Stations or Convemence Stores. Thc following signs accessory to automobile service stations ami convenience stores with gas sales are pertained in addition to the signs pertained under section 3.492 of this Code. 3.492(5) ia) Gasoline and Price Sign. One (1) si~n (single or double faced) per frontage on a public s=e~, sm~ble for apprising persons of the w~l sale price per gallon. The area of such price sign shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet on either side. Each such sign shall be affmed w the s~andard of a ~round 3-~6 0~6~ Memorandum To; From: Date: Subject: Codes and Standards Committee Erin Seeman, Community Development Intern June 26, 2001 Sign Ordinance Update The Codes and Standards Committee is requested to discuss the Sign Ordinance Update prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants. There are a few sections of the Sign Ordinance that need to be updated for consistency with the revised Zoning Ordinance. I have enclosed the pertaining sections of the Zoning Code where the changes need to be made, as well as the updates to be made as suggested by Northwest Associated Consultants. These are the only changes that have been found relating to the Zoning Ordinance update, unless anyone wants to revisit the performance standards for signs. I have attached the revised ordinance prepared by the City Attorney. Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: November 6, 2001 Report Date: November 2, 2001 01-12 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North Ordinance No. 01-11, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.039D of the New Hope City Code Regulating Personal Wireless Service antennas and Towers I. Request City staff is requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the attached ordinance amendment, which amends the New Hope Zoning Code to require signage on personal wireless service antennas and towers to identify the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information. II. Zoning Code References The attached ordinance amendment references the following sections of the New Hope Zoning Code: Section 4.039(D)(2) "Personal Wireless Service Antennas" Section 4.039(D)(3) "Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers" Section 4.039(D)(4) "Commercial and Public Radio and Television Transmitting Antennas, and Public Utility Microwave Antennas and Related Antenna Towers" III. Background Over the past several years staff has become concerned about the maintenance at some of the personal wireless antenna and tower sites in the City and the ability to contact the appropriate responsible party. With the increasing number of requests to construct towers in the City, staff is recommending that the City formally amend the code to require appropriate signage be posted at each site. Staff has included this requirement as a condition of approval on the last two tower requests and at · that time informed the Commission and Council that a recommended minor code amendment would be forthcoming. This amendment will officially incorporate the requirement for signage in the Zoning Code. IV. Petitioner's Comments Staff requested that the Planning Consultant review this issue and make recommendations for changes, in conjunction with city staff and the City Attorney. V. Notification Amendments to the Zoning Code require a public hearing and the enclosed notice was prepared by the City Attorney and published in the official newspaper. No mailings or other notification to property owners is required because this amendment would be effective citywide where communication towers are allowed. VI. Development or Code Analysis Per the Planner's report, Section 4.039D of the City Code outlines the standards for the placement of personal wireless telecommunication towers within the City. While processing applications for this type Planning Case Report 01-12 Page 1 11/2/01 of use, staff has noticed the need for clarification of the advertising/sign standard in this section of the,,--~ code. Recently, staff has added a condition to these approvals requiring the applicant to add a sign with both emergency and maintenance contact information. Rather than continue to add this request as a condition of approval, staff recommends that the City amend the Zoning Ordinance to include this standard. To implement this recommendation, the following language should be added to the sections of the code listed below. Section 4.039D(2)(f) should be amended as follows: (Si~na~e) No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. The ownedoperator of the antenna shall place a sign, not to exceed two (2) square feet, on the associated ground equipment. This siqn shall identify the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information. Section 4.039D(3)(k) should be amended as follows ('Si_clnacle) No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. The owner/operator of the tower shall place a siqn, not to exceed two (2) square feet, on the fence surrounding the associated ground eqUipment. This sign shall identify thc. owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information. 3. Section 4.039D(4)(d) should be amended as follows: (Si.clna(:le) No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. The owner/operator of the tower shall place a sign, not to exceed two (2) square feet, on the fence surroundinq the associated ground equipment. This siqn shall identify the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information. VII. City Attorney Comments/Draft Ordinance The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.039D of the New Hope City Code Regulating Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers. The Ordinance adopts the language recommended in the City Planner's memo concerning signage and the need for information to determine a contact person for emergency and/or maintenance purposes. The draft ordinance states: "The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.039(D)(2) "Personal Wireless Service Antennas" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 4.039(D)(2)(f) to read as follows: Section 4.039(D)(2)(f). No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. The owner/operator of the antenna shall place a sign, not to exceed two (2) square feet, on the associated ground equipment. This sign shall identify the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information. Section 2. Section 4.039(D)(3) "Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 4.039(D)(3)(k) to read as follows: Section 4.039(D)(3)(k). No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna tower. The owner/operator of the tower shall place a sign, not to exceed two (2) square feet, on the associated fence surrounding the associated ground equipment. This sign shall identify the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information. Section 3. Section 4.039(D)(4) "Commercial and Public Radio and Television Transmittinq Antennas, and Public Utility Microwave Antennas and Related Antenna Towers" of the New Hope ~;ity Code is hereby amended by adding new subsection 4.039(D)(4)(d) to read as follows: Section 4.039(D)(4)(d). No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. The owner/operator of the antenna shall place a sign, not to exceed two (2) square feet, on the fence surrounding the associated ground equipment. This sign shall identify the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information." Planning Case Report 01-12 Page 2 11/2/01 VIII. Codes & Standards Committee The Codes & Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission has discussed and reviewed this proposed ordinance amendment and recommends approval of the amendment to the full Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance No. 01-11 8/10 City Attorney Correspondence Public Hearing Notice 8/18 Planning Consultant Report Zoning Code Excerpts Codes & Standards Memo Excerpts from 2001 Plan Case Reports re: Signage Planning Case Report 01-12 Page 3 11/2/01 ORDINANCE NO. 01-11 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER'4.039D OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE REGULATING PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE ANTENNAS AND TOWERS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.039(D)(2) "personal Wireless Service Antennas" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 4.039(D)(2)(f) to read as follows: Section 4.039(D)(2)(f). No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. The owner/operator.of the antenna shall place a sign, not to excee_d .twoi.(2). square feet,' on the assoCia~ted_gro.und equipment~ This' sign. shall identify the"owner',Of .the t6wer and emergency ag._dmaintenance cOntact information. Section 2. Section 4.039(I))(3) "Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 4.039(D)(3)0c) to read as follows: Section 4.039(D)(3)(k). No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna tower. The owner/operator of the tower shall, place a sign, not to exceed two (2).square feet, on the fence surrounding the associated ground equipment. This' §ign shall identify the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information. Section 3. Section 4.039(D)(4) "Commercial and Public Radio and Television Transmitting Antennas, and Public Utili[y Microwave Antennas and Related Antenna Towers" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding new Subsection 4.039(D)(4)(d) to read as follows: Section 4.039(D)(4)(d). No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna.. The owner/operator of the tower shall Place a sign, not to exceed two (2) square feet, on the fence surroUnding the associated ground equipment. This sign shall identify the owner of the tower and emergency and maintenance contact information. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. -1- GORDON L. JENSEN* N~COt~ M. Rn't. AN~t SI'EVEN A. SONDRALL WtU. IAM C. STP. Arr~ STACY A. WOODS OF COUNSEL LOREN$ Q. BRYNESrAD *~ea~ Prope~. Law Certified B~ The MmnCSo~ Sr.a~e Bar Associatio= SQualifie~ A~R Neutral Jv NS N & SONORAIm, P.A. Attorneys At Law 852S EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK., MI:~,~ESOTA 5:5443-1968 TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mail law~:jensen-sondrall.com August l0,2001 Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New' Hope, I~N 55428 Re-' SENT BY FAX TO: (763) 531-5136 AND BY REGULAR MAIL Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.039D of the New Hope City Code Regulating Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers Our File No.: 99.80111 Dear Kirk: In follow up to our August 9, 2001 Codes and Standards Meeting, please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.039D of the New Hope City Code Regulating Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers. Basically, the Ordinance adopts the language recommended in the City Planner's June 18,2001 memo concerning signage and the need for information to determine a contact person for emergency and/or maintenance purposes. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter or the proposed Ordinance. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. sas~icn sen-sond~ll.com After Hours Extrusion #147 Enclosure CC: Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. (w/enc.) Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, City of New Hope (w/enc.) Doug Sandstad, Building Official, City of New Hope (w/enc.) Valerie Leone, City Clerk, City of New Hope (w/enc.) CNH99.8011 i-0014~irk Ltr.vqxl NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY REQUIRING MAINTENANCE AND OWNERSHIP SIGNAGE FOR WIRELESS SERVICE ANTENNAS AND TOWERS CiW of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 6~ day of November, 2001, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the affect of amending New Hope City Code Sections 4.039(D)(2)(f), 4.039(D)(3), 4.039(D)(3)0c), 4.039(D)(4) and 4.039(D)(4)(d) to require the owner and/or operator of wireless service antennas and towers to place small signs on the antennas and towers or associated equipment indicating the name and contact information of the persons responsible for maintenance and operation of the antenna, tower and equipment. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are available upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531-5109). Dated the 82 day of October, 2001. s/Valerie J. Leone Valerie $. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 10t~ day of October, 2001.) GORDON L. JENSEN* NICOLE M. RITLAND'I' STEVEN A. SONDRALL WILLIAM C. STRAIT'}' STACY A. WOODS OF COUNSEL LORENS Q. BRYNESTA-D Ce~.ificd By ~he JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968 TELEPllONE (763) 424-8811 · TEt,EFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mail law(~)jensen-sondrall.com October 3, 2001 The New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post 10917 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attn: Meridel Re.' Notice or' Public ttearing Our File No. 99.80111 SENT BY FAX ONLY TO: (952) 392-6871 Dear Meridel: Enclosed is a Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance Amending New Hope Zonh:g Code by Requiring Maintenance and Ownership Signage for Wireless Service Antennas attd Towers in the City of New Hope for publication on the 10"' day of October, 2001, in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post. Please forward your affidavits of publication and statement in the usual manner. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. sa.~Nnsen-sm~rall.eom Al~er Itours Extension//147 Enclosure cc: Valerie Leone, City Clerk, City of New Hope (w/enc.) ¢/' CN|ItF).80I 11-002-Sun P~$t Ltr.wpd &SSGC~b&'IrI~IG 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 Louis Park, MN 55416~_.~, planners@nacplanning.con PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Jason Lindahl/Alan Brixius DATE: June 18, 2001 RE: Amendment to Communication Tower Ordinance FILE: New Hope - 131.00 - 01.04 BACKGROUND Section 4.039D of the City Code outlines the standards for the placement of personal wireless telecommunication towers within the city. While processing applications for this type of use, staff has noticed the need for clarification of the advertising/sign standard in this section of the code. Recently, staff has added a condition to these approvals requiring the applicant to add a sign with both emergency and maintenance contact information. Rather than continue to add this request as a condition of approval, staff recommends that the City amend Zoning Ordinance to include this standard. To implement this recommendation, the following language should be added to the sections of the code listed below. Section 4.039D.2.f should be amended as follows: fSi_ona,qe) No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. The owner/operator of the antenna shall place a si.qn, not to exceed two (2) square feet, on the associated ,qround equipment. This si.qn shall identify the owner of the tower and emer,qency and maintenance contact information. Section 4.039D.3. k should be amended as follows: fSi.~naQe) No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. The owner/operator of the tower shall place a sign, not to exceed two (2) square feet, on the fence surrounding thn associated ,clround equipment. This siqn shall.identify the owner of the tc-;.'cr and emer,qency and maintenance contact information. Section 4.039D.4.d should be amended as follows: fSi_(3na~e) No advertisin,q messa.qe shall be affixed to the antenna. The owner/operator of the tc'"c.~r shall place a si,qn, not to exceed two (2) square feet, on the fence surroundin,q tho associated .qround equipment. This si,qn shall identify the owner of the tc-;~r and CC: emergency and maintenance contact information. Doug Standstad Steve Sondrall 5q4,'2001 4.039C(4) (b) 4.039C(4)1a)(i) Compns: no more that, ten (10) percen! of th: floo: area of thc es~ablistzment ua wb.ich ~t ~ located. 4.039C(4)(a) (ii). Comprise no more ~an twen~' (20) potent of ~c gross ~ct~p~ cf ~ cn~c b~mcss op~uo:. 4.039C~4)(a)(ii~) ~oz ~voivc or include ~y ac~vi~ cxccpz ~: sat~ or rcn~ o~ merchandise. Adulz usc-accesso~ ~II bc ~smctcd ~om ~d pro.bit access ~o ~o~ by ~c physical scpa~uon o~ su~ izc~ ~o~ ~ of genc~l pubh: access. ~mcss o~er s~ll ~c cvc~ redouble p~cau~on ~o ~ access ro ~ors. 4.03qO'4)(b) (i) Movie Rentals. Display areas shall be restricted from general vtew and shall be situated m such fashion as to prohibit access and v~sibih~' to minors, thc access of which is in clear view and under thc control of the persons responsible for the operation. 4.039C(4)(b) (ii) ~. Publications classified or qualifying as adult uses shall not be accessible to minors and shall be covered with a wrapper or other means to prevent display of any material other than thc publication title. 4.039C(4)(b)(iii) Other Use. Adult uses-accessory not specifically cited shall comply with thc intent of this section subject to the approval of the Csty Council. 4.0300.4) (c) Adult usc-accessory shall be pmhibimd from both internal and external 4.039D Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers. "% 4.039D (1) Purpose and Intent. Thc purpose of this section is to establish predictable, balanced regulations for the slung and screening of wu'eless commumcation cqurpment m order to accommodate the growth of wireless communication systems withi, the City of New Hope while protecting the public against any adverse impacts on thc City's aesthetic resources and the public welfare. 4.039D (2) 4.039Dt 2) (a) Personal Wireless Service Antennas. Personal wireless service antennas crecaed on an a.,~.., support s~'ucture may be allowed as a perrmned secondary use m all zoning dismcts by adrmnistrauve permit and provided they comply with the following standards: · Unless the antenna/antenna support structure and land is under the same ownership, wnnen authonzatinn for antean- erection shall be provided by the property owner as well as the apphcant. 4.039D(2) (b) 4.039Dt2) (c) In commercial and industrial zoning districts, thc antcn-a support sn'ucmre must be rwent3' (20) feet in height or greater. Within residential zoning districts, the support sn'ucturc ,~,s~ be thirty-six (36) feet in height or greater. The antenna shall not extend beyond the height of the ente--, support structure by greater ?hn~j twenty (20) feet. 4.03 4.03 0D¢2) (e) 4.059D(2) (g) 4.039D(2) (b) 4.03 9D(2 ) (i) 4.039D(2) O) The antenna support su-uctu:: and antetma shall be in comphance v.-ith th." Mumesota State Building Code and all other apphcabte federal and stat.' regulauons and perffuts. oo The su-ucnn'al desi.ma and mounting plans of the antenna on the exzsung antenna support structure shall be in comphance v,-ith manufa¢~er's spccificauons and shall be verified and approved by a regzste~d professtonaI engineer. No advemsmg message shall be affxxed to the antenna. ~3 Antennas shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by the Federal Aviation Adrn!ni~tranon (FAA) to protect the pubhc's health and safety. When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna shall be accompamed by an)' required federal, state, or local agency licenses. Transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment which is not self-contained shall be housed within the existing antenna support su'ucmre whenever possible. Self-contained transmitting, receiving and sWitching equ~ennent shall be located at the base of the antenna and screened fi.om view from residential uses and public rights-of-way. All obsolete and unused antennas shall be removed within twelve (12) months of cessation ofoperanon at the s~te, uzfless an exemption is granted by the CiD' Manager or designate. The remora! shall be the joint or several responsibility of the utili .ty or commumcation provider and land owner. 4.03912)(2) Antennas shall be of a color and configuration as to minimize adverse visual effect. Antennas mounted to the side of an antenna support structure shall be of a matching color in order that such facilities harmonize with thc character and environment of the area in which they are located. 4.03OD(3) Pe~ona] Wireless Service Antenna Towen. Personal wireless service antenna~ erected on an antenna tower may be allowed as a conditionally pertained use within Industrial zoaing districts, provided they comply with the following standards: 4.03912a. 3) (a) Unless thc antenna tower and hud is under thc same owncrsh~le, wnncn authorization for antenna and antenna tower erection shall be provided by the property owner as well as the applicant. 4.039D(31 (b) 4.03n~'3) (e) All obsolete and unused antenna towers shall be removed within twelve (I2) months of cessation of operation at the sim, unless an excmpUon is grated by the City Manager or designate. The removal shall be the joint and several respons~ihty of the antenna tower owner end land owner. All antexma towers shall be in comp~ce with thc Mumcsota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permrts. n.039DO) (d) 4.039 D¢3) (e) 4.030D1'$) (0 4.039D(~) (=) 5xru:rural desxg'a and co,wa:non pla~ of the antenna towers shall be w. comphance with manufacturers speci~¢aUons and shall be verified and approved by a regzster~d professmnal engineer. W~;n apphcable, proposals to erect new antenna towers shall be a:compamed by any reqmred federal state, or local agency hcenses. The Ci.ry rna)' authorize the use of City property, for an antenna tower m appropriately zoned cLismcts m accoraa,~ce with the procedures of t~e C:~' Code. The C~ty shall have no obhgauon whatsoever to use C~D' properw for such purposes. Antenna towers shall maintain a minimum setback to the nearest propers.' hoe of seventy-five (75) percent of tower height and a r,,mimum setback from a building m the same lot of fLqy (50) percent of tower height. The setback reqmrements may be reduced if the apphcant provides documentanon by a registered engineer that any collapse of the tower will occur m a lesser al, trance under all foreseeable c~c. omctances. Tl~e setback requirements shall not be reduced below the collapse area of the tower or the minimum setback requirerr~nts of thc bssc zomug dismct, whichever is greater. 4.039D(3) (h) All antenna towers shall maintain a ~inimum st'paragon of one thousand (1,000) feet from eX~stmg towns at the tune the conditional use permit is approved. ~ 4.059DI3) (i) Maximum height of a two antenna array tower shall be one hundred forty-five (145) feet. A tower providing for three (3) or more antenna arrays may have a maximum height of one hundred sixty-five (165) feet. 4.039D(3) 0) (~39D~3) ~) 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. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna towe_L.-~ 4.039D(3) (!) Antenna towers shall be painted silver or have a galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise required by federal law. 4.0391~ 3) (m) Antenna towers shall be of a color and confi_mu'ation as to minimize adverse visual effects m order that such facilities harmonize with the chara:ter and environment of the area m which they are located. 4.03o1~'3 ~ (n) 4,ri?OD(3) (o) A security fence eight (8) feet m height shall be provided around the base of the ante~* tower. A locked anti-cLimb device shall be installed on all towers extending twelve (12) feet above the ground. Trausmittmg. receiving and switching equipment, whether self-contained or located m a free-standing equipment building, slmll be located at the base of the antenna tower and shall be screened from view from residential uses and public fights-of-way. 5,14,'~001 4.0S9D(3) (P) 4.os ~D(] ~ (q) 4.03PD(4) 4.039D(4) (a) If a new antenna tower ~s to be constructed it shall be desl.~ned to accommodate at least ~wo (2) antenna-=n-a.vs mclucLml;, but ~o: iu-ruted to. other personal ~reless service compames, lo=al pohce, fire. ~ud zmbul~n:e compames. The conditional usc permit provisions of'Section 4.33 of' t2us Code must also be satisfied. Commercial m~d Public Radio andTeievision Tmnsmittin- Antennas and ?ubh; L;dhtx' Microwave Antetmas and Related Antenna Towers. Such antennas shall be considered a condnionaliy perrraned use within the I-1 and I-2 Dismcts o£the CiT' and shall be subject to the regulauons and requirements of Section 4.33 of this Code. Commercial and public l'adio and television transmitting, pubhc utility microwave antennas and ~ntenna towers shall also comply with the following standards: Thc applicant must demonstrate by certification of a registered eh;racer tha! any antenna support structure is structurally capable of supporting the antenna and related equipment and complies with the Minnesota State Buildmtl Code. 4.039D(4} (b) Antennas located in an existing structure shall not extend more than rwcnD' (20) feet above the height of the smicture to which they arc attached. 4.03g1~'4) (c) Antennas at.ached to a tower shall comply with the tower provisions set fort~ in Section 4.039D(3) of this Code. ~ Memorandum To: From: Date: · Subject: Codes and Standards Committee Erin Seeman, Community Development Intern June 26, 2001 Amendment to Tower Ordinance The item in question is regarding section 4.039D.2.f. of the City Code that outlines the standards for the placement of personal wireless telecommunication towers within the City. Staff has noticed the need for clarification of the advertising/sign standard in this particular section of the code. To implement the changes that staff has requested regarding the approvals requiring the applicant to add a sign with both emergency and maintenance contact information the City must amend the Zoning Ordinance to include this standard. I have included the Section of the Zoning Code that is to be amended, and also the memo prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants that includes the language that should be added to the Zoning Code. Staff is happy with the 24-hour human contact order. One topic of discussion regarded the maintenance of the properties and whether the City should maintain if the owner does not, and then assess the property owner. I have attached the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney. COUNC~ RE( UEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 03-12-01 Development & Planning /.} Item No. By: Kirk McDonald ; By:~/// 8.1 / PLANNING 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 COPORATION A DELAWARE CORPORATION AND NULL & VOLD, INC., PETITIONERS REQUESTED ACTION !The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 100-foot monopole and a 10' × 20', 8-foot high, stone aggregate equipment building, pursuant to Sections 4.039D(3) and 4.21 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The Planning Commission considered this request at its October 3 meeting and recommended approval, 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. (cont'd.) ! I:rfa\ 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, tire, 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 ~n(3 comply w~tn legal oraers trom the (.;~ty w~tnm ;~1 (3ays. 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. 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. Planning 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. Legal 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 Cor~siderations 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 10()-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, aclclress, ancl 24-hour responsible party contact information for the antenna site. Sa~a responsll31e party contact information shall be clearly posted at the site. City inspectors shall nave access to the site for the purpose of conducting ~nspections. 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 period of 1.2 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 " COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 05-14-01 Development & .~ Plannincj Item No. -_ By: Kirk McDonald By: 8.1 / PLANNING CASE 01-04, REQUEST FOR (~ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 70-FOOT GALVANIZED STEEL MONOPOLE, EQUIPMENT PLATFORM, AND EQUIPMENT WITHIN A 25-FOOT BY 30-FOOT LEASE AREA, 3940 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH, SPRINT PCS AND PADDOCK LABORATORIES, PETITIONERS REQUESTED ACTION The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 70-foot galvanized steel monopole , equipment platform, and equipment within a 25-foot by 30-foot lease area, pursuant to Sections 4.039D and 4.21 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The Planning Commission considered this request at its May 1 meeting and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit detailed, signed plans and soils data with building permit application. All plans must be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. 2. Submit revised easement documents (south side) before final building inspection, and use, of tower. 3. Provide three new six-foot coniferous trees north of the construction area to replace existing. 4. Maintenance of the fence, tower, adjacent landscaping, equipment and sign will be the responsibility of tower owner. Compliance wit.h written repair or maintenance orders from the City for a problem with the tower site must be complete within 21 days, or the work can be authorized and assessed to the land owner. 5. No storage or equipment may exceed the height of the fence. 6. Comply with City Engineer recommendations. 7. Submit performance bond (amount to be determined by Building Official and City Engineer) to cover new landscaping, restoration and other site improvements, except tower and equipment. The enclosed resolution approves the request subject to those conditions and staff recommends approval of the resolution. (cont'd.) /I/ I I:da~ 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 rights-of-way. · To screen the equipment area, the applicant will relocate three existing trees and install a perimeter chain link fence with decorative cedar boards. The Police Department recommends that the cedar boards be placed one to two inches apart to insure adequate visibility within the fence enclosure for secudty reasons. The applicant's fence design must comply with this staff recommendation. 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. · This tower will be capable of accommodating future co-location of one additional carrier. Q. The conditional use permit provisions of Section 4.21 of this Code must also be satisfied. · The application meets the provision of Section 4.21 of the City Code. B. Development Review Team On April 11, the Team met to consider this CUP request and supported it. They suggested that the applicant 1) Clarify the ground cover inside the entire fence enclosure; 2) Remove three small conifer trees in the area of the enclosure and provide three new, healthy six-foot conifers to the north of the area; 3) Space cedar fence boards one-inch apart for security, so the Police Department will be able to see the interior of the enclosure from all sides, day or night; 4) Identify the sign verbiage for the 24-hour phone number and mail address of responsible maintenance, person. C. Desiqn & Review Committee On April 12, the Committee supported the CUP, repeating Development Review Team comments. D. Plan Description Revised plans were submitted as a result of the two city meetings. Revisions included: 1. Ground cover inside the enclosure will be a weed barrier membrane and three inches of rock. 2. Cedar fence boards will be spaced one-inch apart. 3. Responsible party maintenance sign language is provided. The only item not addressed is the landscaping. The plans propose relocating the three trees, but replacement is recommended due to tree health. Planting of three new trees is a condition of approval. E. Planninq Considerations The Planning Consultant's report and recommendations have been incorporated into this report. F. Buiidinq Considerations At the time of building permit application, soils data and signed structural plans will be required to ensure compliance with the State Building Code. G. Leqal Considerations City staff would like to discuss a potential code amendment to the tower ordinance with the City 'Attorney to better aclaress maintenance responsibility concerns. H. Enqineering Considerations Planning Case Report 01-04 Page 8 4/26/01 The City Engineer reviewed the plans and made the following comments: 1. We have received .revised plans for the proposed Spdnt PCS tower at Paddock Labs at 3940- Quebec Avenue. The submittal includes signed plans from a registered engineer and documentation verifying the structural capabilities of the tower. 2. The proposed improvements will not increase storm water runoff. Storm water quality requirements for the site were met with the site improvements completed in 1998. 3. Existing curb and gutter will be removed and replaced. The replacement curb and gutter must match the existing curb type and maintain the existing drainage pattern. 4. Site access will be via an existing parking lot. Site circulation and parking will be impacted minimally. 5. Underground cable will be installed along the existing NURP pond to the tower site. It is recommended that some financial assurance be established to assure restoration along the pond is completed and erosion is controlled. 6. No further comments are offered as part of our review. Additional staff/consultant comments regarding access/easement issues include: 1. The applicant's plan illustrates two easements across the Paddock Laboratories property. The first is a 20-foot access easement that runs down the middle of the existing drive lane. The second is a 10-foot utility easemeht that runs around the perimeter of the parking lot from Quebec Avenue to the cell tower site. 2. Staff recommends that with the approval the City grant the 15-foot drainage and utility easement along the south side of the property, as agreed in 1998, and applicant or property owner submit three revised surveys to illustrate the change and evidence of easement recording at Hennepin County. I. Police Considerations Police Department recommendations were incorporated into this review. J. Fire Considerations West Metro Fire had no comments on these plans. VIII. Summary The proposed 70-foot cellular tower in the industrial zone meets all standards in the Zoning Code. Monopole cellular tower requests are becoming more routine and staff will be recommending several minor changes to the ordinance later this year. Staff feels the petitioner has done a good job submitting detaile(~ plans. IX. Recommendation Staff recommends CUP approval for the 70-foot tower with a single antenna array at the top with a future co-locate potential array at 50 feet above grade, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit detailed, signed plans and soils data with building permit application. All plans must be in compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. 2. Submit revised easement documents (south side) before final building inspection, and use, of tower. 3. Provide three new six-foot coniferous trees north of the construction area to replace existing. 4. Maintenance of the fence, tower, adjacent landscaping, equipment and sign will be the responsibility of tower owner. Compliance with written repair or maintenance orders from the City for a problem Planning Case Report 01-04 Page 9 4/26/01 0x26 I2) 3/4"¢ A325 BOLTS L3x3x3/8" 3" LONG STAIR TREAD 10 5/16x2'- 6" yl" B.B WITH ABRASIVE NOSING PL 3/8x2 1/2x8" WITH (2)' 3/4"¢ BOLTS STAIR .D.ET. AIL I SCALE: 3/4 =1 -0 PLAN VIEW Sprint Maintence Engineer 9801 W. Higgin$ Rd. Rosemonf, I1. 60018 (847) 584-5682 Site ID t~MS54XC748D Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: November 6, 2001 Report Date: November 2, 2001 01-16 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North Ordinance No. 01-08, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Establishing Administrative Permit Fees City Code by I. Request City staff is requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the attached ordinance amendment, which amends the New Hope City Code by establishing administrative permit fees. II. Zoning Code References The attached ordinance amendment references the following sections of the New Hope City Code: Section 4.312 "Procedure" Section 14.041 "Zoning Permit Fees" III. Background When the Zoning Code update was adopted, an administrative permit process was established to allow certain plan review approvals at city staff level to eliminate red tape and the need for applicants to go through the Planning Commission and City Council approval process. At the time the administrative permit process was adopted, no fee was established for the application, plan review/approval, and inspection process. Staff desires to establish a reasonable minimum fee to cover some of the costs involved with the processing of such a permit. The Zoning Code update also addressed only the issue of the initial permit and did not make references to any future amendment to said permit; therefore, staff is recommending that this clarification be added to the Code with this ordinance amendment. The City Attorney and staff consider these minor changes to the code as housekeeping items. IV. Petitioner's Comments Since the Zoning Code update was approved, staff has developed Administrative Permit forms for residential and commercial/industrial properties and several permits have been issued. Staff became aware that no specific fee had been established at the time the Zoning Code update was adopted for the processing of an administrative permit. Staff requested to review and discuss this issue with the Planning Consultant and City Attorney and the recommendations are included in the attached proposed ordinance amendment. V. Notification This ordinance amendment includes minor revisions to Chapter 4 of the City Code, which is the Zoning Code, and Chapter 14 of the City Code, which establishes fees. Amendments to the Zoning Code portion of the City Code require a public hearing and the enclosed notice was prepared by the City Attorney and Planning Case Report 01-12 Page 1 11/2/01 published in the official newspaper. No mailings or other notification to property owners is required--,-,. because the amendment would be effective on a citywide basis. VI. Development or Code Analysis The first two sections of the code amendment simply add the term "or amendment" to the administrative permit section to cover cases where there is an initial application and then an amendment to the plan at a later date. The second section also clarifies that the fee is established by ordinance in Section 14 of the City Code, not by resolution. The majority of the permit fees for the City are detailed in Section 14 of the City Code and adopted by ordinance. The third section of the code amendment establishes three fees, as follows: · Administrative Permit for Permitted Home Occupation $25.00 · Administrative Permit Residential (except Home Occupation) $50.00 · Administrative Permit Commercial/Industrial $100.00 The type of administrative permits that are issued are listed in the attached spreadsheet and excerpts from the Zoning Code. Residential Administrative Permits would include situations where an application was made for the expansion of a nonconforming single-family dwelling or the reduction of a side yard setback for an accessory building. Commercial and Industrial Administrative Permits could include applications for the outdoor sales of seasonal products, drive-through service lanes, outdoor dining, limited retail sales, and outdoor storage of propane or LP gas. Each of these items would include the following staff time: explanation of the process and plans necessary, review and approval of the plans, discussions with the applicant, possible review of revised plans, and field inspections to make sure the work is done correctly. Staff feels that the recommended fees are minimal and reasonable when the staff time and' office overhead involved to process such an application is taken into account. Staff is prepared to give a more detailed breakdown of the staff costs involved if the Commission wants that information. VII. City Attorney Comments/Draft Ordinance The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed proposed Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing Administrative Permit Fees. This Ordinance is generated by a discussion concerning these fees at previous staff meetings. Section 4.312(1) and (2) indicate administrative permit fees shall be set by City Council resolution. These sections have been changed to indicate the permit fees are established by the City Code and set forth in Section 14.041, along with other zoning permit fees. The Ordinance states that all residential administrative permits-shall be $50 with the exception of a permitted home occupation permit. The permitted home occupation permit shall be $25. Administrative permits in the Commercial and Industrial Districts shall be $100. The draft ordinance states: "The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.312 "Procedure," subsection 4.312(1), of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:: 4.312(1). Application for or an amendment to an administrative permit shall be filed by the property owner or designated agent with the Zoning Administrator on forms to be provided by the City. Section 2. Section 4.312 "Procedure," subsection 4.312(2), of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.312(2). The application for or an amendment to an administrative permit shall be accompanied by a fee set out in Section 14.041 of the Code .... *"~'~;~'"'~ by "';*', '"' ..... ;' :)c--,-~u*;,--, ^~,-,,~,--,*;,-,,,- ~,-. .... '~; ..... ;*" "~"~" ~' .........;'~ by '- ~ ......,,~,,.',-~,~,,~ ~,,, ,-,:,,, r, ..... :' rccc!ut!o,,. Planning Case Report 01-12 Page 2 11/2/01 Section 3. Section 14.41 "Zoninq Permit Fees" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsections 14.041(1)(h), 14.041(1)(i), and 14.041(1)(j), to read as follows: 14.041 (1) Basic 14.041(1)(a) 14.041(1)(b) 14.041(1)(c) 14.041 (1)(d) 14.041(1)(e) 14.041(1)(f) 14.041(1)(g) 14.041 (1)(h) 14.041 (1)(i) 14.041 (1 Fee Amount Minor residential conditional use $75.00 All other conditional use $225.00 $250.00 Zoning amendments (District or Text) Variances, single family residential All other variances Planned Unit Development Site and Building Plan Review Administrative Permit Residential (except home occupation Administrative Permit Permitted Home Occupation Administrative Permit Commercial/Industrial $75.00 $175.00 $500.00 $150.00 $50.00 $25.00 $100.00 14.041(2) 14.041(3) Zoning Deposit. Estimated actual cost to the City as defined by 4.306(3) of this Code as determined by the City Manager Supplemental Zoning Deposit (As Required). Estimated actual cost to the City as defined by 4.306(4) of this Code as determined by the City Manager. ................. Ord. 79-11, 83-14, 88-4, 89-23, 90-2, Code 5/14/2001) VIII. Codes & Standards Committee The Codes & Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning Commission has discussed and reviewed this proposed ordinance amendment and recommends approval of the amendment to the full Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance No. 01-08 8/13 City Attorney Correspondence Public Hearing Notice Codes & Standards Memo Administrative Permit Applications: Residential Commercial/Industrial Spreadsheet: Administrative Permit Areas Excerpts from Zoning Code Pertaining to Administrative Permits Planning Case Report 01-12 Page 3 11/2/01 ORDINANCE NO. 01-08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT FEES The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.312 "Procedure", subsection 4.312 (1), of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 4., 12 (1) Application for or an amei~dme-n~ t0 an administrative permit shall be filed by the property owner or designated agent with the Zoning Administrator on forms to be provided by the City. Section 2. Section 4.312 "Procedure", subsection 4.312 (2), of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.312 (2) The application for.O~a~ ~~n~'itt~.~'~l~!ni~.trafi~,'ePe~t shall be accompanied by a fee set out in Secti0n :14.041 .ofthi~ 's C0dca~ cstabllshcd by Section 3. Section 14.041 "Zonin~ Permit Fees" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended, by adding subsections 14.041(1)(h), 14.041(1)(i), and 14.041(1)(j), to read as follows: 14.041 Zoning Permit Fees. Fees for the zoning permits required by Sections 4.303 and 4.306 are as follows: 14.041.(1) (a) Minor residential conditional use $75.00 14.041(1 ) (b) All other conditional use $225.00 14.041 (l) (e) Zoning amendments (District or $250.00 Text) 14.041(1) (d) Variances, single family residential $75.00 14.041 (1) (e) All other variances $175.00 14.041 (1) (f) Planned Unit Development $500.00 14.041 { 1 ) (g) Site and Building Plan Review $150.00 -1- .4 ,i _41i3i3-i¢) $5'0.00 (e~ceP! Home Oc~upafioO " ~4}Q~4.~'(D(i)e pe~t ..... $25.00 Pe~ed Home OccUpation ]4,6~'i(i)~0) X~~t~V~t $100.00 co~ercia~dusffifl 14.041 (2) going Deposit. Estimated actual cost to the Ci~ as defined by 4.306(3) offs Code as dete~ined by ~e Ci~ M~ager. 14.041 (3) Supplememal Zoning Deposit (As Required). Estimated actual cost to ~e Ci~ as defined by 4.306(4) offs Code as dete~ined by ~e Ci~ M~ager. ...................... (Ord. 79-11, 83-14, 88-4, 89-23, 90-2, Code 5/14/2001) Section 4. publication. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and Dated the ~ day of ,2001. W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the __ 2001.) day of GORDON L. JENSEN* NICOLE M. RITLAND~' STEVEN A. SONDRALL WILLIAM C. STRAIT']' STACY A. WOODS OF COUNSEL LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD *Real Property Law Specialist Certified By The Minnesota State Bar Association 'l'Qualified ADR Neutra/ JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 2 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1 TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mail law~jensen-sondrall.com August 13, 2001 Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 SENT BY FAX TO: (763) 531-15136 AND BY REGULAR MAIL Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing Administrative Permit Fees Our File No.: 99.80108 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code by Establishing Administrative Permit Fees. This Ordinance is generated by a discussion concerning these fees at our August 9, 2001 meeting. Basically, Section 4.312(1) and (2) indicate administrative permit fees shall be set by City Council resolution. These sections have been changed to indicate the permit fees are established by the City Code and set forth in Section 14.041, along with other zoning perm it fees. As we discussed, all residential administrative permits shall be $50.00 with the exception ora permitted home occupation permit. The permitted home occupation permit shall be $25.00. Administrative permits in the Commercial and Industrial Districts shall be $100.00. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding the content of this letter or the enclosed Ordinance establishing these administrative permit fees. lxuly yours, Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. sas~jcnsen-sondrall.com After Hours Extension #147 Enclosure cc: Valerie Leone, City Clerk, City of New Hope (w/enc.) Ken Doresky, Community Specialist, City of New Hope (w/enc.) Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants (w/eno.) Doug Sandstad, Building Official, City of New Hope (w/enc.) CNH99 80108-00 I-Kirk Llr.wpd NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE .AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT FEES City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 6th day of November, 2001, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the affect of establishing administrative permit fees for residential, commercial and industrial administrative permits including permitted home occupation permits. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are available upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531-5109). Dated the 8th day of October, 2001. s/Valerie J. Leone Valerie J. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the l0th day of October, 2001 .) -1- (JORDON L. JENSEN* NICOLE M. RITLANDI' STEVEN A. SONDRALL WILLIAM C. STRAITf STACY h. WOODS OF COUNSEl. LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 20F BROOKI.YN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-196b TEI.EPilONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mail iaw~tjcnsen-sond rail.corn October 3, 2001 The New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post 10917 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 SENT BY FAX ONLY TO: (952) 392-6871 Altn: Mcridcl Notice of' l'uhlic Ilcaring ()m' File No. 99.8111118 l)ear Meridel: Enclosed is a Notice q/' Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Administrative Permit Fees in the City of New Ih)pc for publ cation on the 10'" day of October. 2001. in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post. Please forward your affidavits of publication and statement ill the usual manner. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope JENSI£N & SONI)RALL, P.A. Al'let Itoms Extension ~147 Enclosure cc: Valerie Leone, City Clerk, City of New Hope (w/enc.)v/' ('NIt99 8(llO8-{~ll~Sun Post I.;r wpd Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Codes and Standards Committee Erin Seeman, Community Development Intern June 28, 2001 Administrative Permit Fee With the approval of the updated Zoning Code this year we have included the new Administrative Permit. The Community Development Department has developed a permit, one for the Industrial/Commercial areas and one for Residential areas. With a permit, there must be a fee. We have developed a round number fee of $100.00 for the Industrial/Commercial areas and $50.00 for Residential areas. The exception is the home occupations, which were not previously documented; we developed a fee of $25.00. I have attached the spreadsheet of the uses of the home occupations and the entire Administrative Permit section of the Zoning Code Update. We are looking for guidance in the fees. Comments from the staff Codes and Standards meeting include that the fee is very reasonable. I have attached the draft of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to add to chapter 14. ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATION -RESIDENTIAL- )epartment of Commonirv Deveiopmem Job Address Property Owner Builder Occupant flf Different) Address ~if different than above - include CJI3'. State. Zip) Phonc Address (include CiW. State. Zip) Phone FAX Address 0nclude Ci~'. State. Zip) Phone FAX Zoning District Home Business- Please Provide a Copy of Federol. State. or Count' License or Certificate if Necessa~'. Type of Structure: ~r Please circle one of the following: Single Family Home Duplex Townhomc Apartment Please circle typ.~ Home Business i Expansion of Non- Detached Sideyard Personal Wireless Other of request: ! Conlorming Buildings Setback Service Antenna Describe work. iValue of work including labor: $ Property. Owner's Signature: Date: ~t~ff I}'.~e Only A Building permit is required for this type of work: Yes No **Required Plans** Detailed description of necessary, info to submit with filing as follow~- Required plans and documents: 1. Lot survey, any scale, or accurate site plan (Scale !"-20' or I'-30'). 2. Floor plan and section view of propot~l building (Scale i/4"-I '). 3. Narrative description of proposed work. signed by landowner. 4. Home business proposal with specific information on entrances, parking, traffic, equipment, signs, lighting, etc. Signature of Zoning Administrator: Date: F'FF Home Business: S25.00 All Other Residential: S50.00 *Permit Fee: *State Surcharge: .S0 Fees Due Upon Application: Signature of Date: CD Director: ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPLICATION .COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL- Job Address ProperXy Owner BuiLder Tenant Zoning District Value of work including latmr: $ Please circle Wpe Drive-Thru Lone ; of request: -~ ; Address fir different than above - include CID'. State. Zip) Phone Address (include Cit3'. State.. Z~p) Phone FAX Address (include CiW. State. Zip) Phone FAX Type of Structure: ~ Please circle one of the following: ........... ~;;;i; .... ~ Res....raot '; ~,nk : G. sS,,,-- Outdoor Storage or ; Outdoor Dining [ LP Storage or Sales ~ Retail Sales Sales ' ' i Describe work. Property Owner's Signature: Date: Tenant Signature Date: ~tnff TT~e Only A Building permit is required for this type of work: Yes No **Required Plans** [ Detailed description of necessary info to submit with filing as follows- Required plans and documents: 1. Lot survey (any scale) or accurate site plan (Scale !"-20' or !'-30'). 2. Floor plans and section view of existing and proposed building (Scale !/4"'-1'). 3. Narrative description of proposed work, signed by tenant. 4. Shipping. trucking, lot-striping proposal with specific information on entrances, parking, traffic, equipment, signs, lighting, err. Signature of Zoning Administrator: Date: Signature of CD Date: Director: *Permit Fee: ! 00.00 *State Surcharge: .50 100.50 Fees Due Upon Application: ...... ..Administrative Permit Areas T~(~)~.~, R-1 R-2 R-3 R.4 R.~ ~~~) R-B LB cB I EXpansion of a non-conforming single family building per 4.~31 (10) (a) of this Code X AcCesso~ building side yard setback reduction per Section 4.032 (6) (c) of this Code X X X X X X X ~F~iii,a ~ ~ii~ ~ ~ii~ ~.~ (~) ~ i~i~ x x x x x x x x x x Code X X X X X ~Gi~i~i ~;~G~i ~ ~iiiii~ ~iiai~O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X X family building per 4.031 (10) (a) of this Code X 4.031 (10) (a) of this Code X X X ~i855; ~i~ OJ ~O~i ~Sa~i~ ~Ubj~i i° i~ Pe;~ii requirements of Chapter 8 of this Code X X X X conditionally permitted commercial use within the R-B District ~uias0~ ~i~i,g, A&C%sO~ x ~J~6-th~5~gh S6~J&~ La~{ ~c~{S0~ JO ~ ~r~iited X x x or conditionally permitted or conditionally permitted business or use ~aJe 0~ prs~e 0~ L~ g~s ACc~ss~ io aui0m0biie x x se~ice station ~id~0~ ~aj~s and diSpJ~y, aCceSs~ x O~id65~ ~i6~ Of ~mp~n~ 5~ LP gas, ~c6{{6~ x x I 4.31 ~ 'TI~ purpose of this ~ is to e. smblish'~rtgutari°ns and procedures/or tl~;~ng and ta:a~si~ of ~ allo~l by administrative p~rmit, and of;matLers 'requizing the .approval of the .Zoning Administrator ~.-ith the goal of protecting'tl~ health, saf~y, and we..tfm'v of 4,312 4.:.3.I2.{1) Application fi2r-an adzvinL~-afive pm-mit shall be filed by the property owner or. de..sigmmd agent'with 1:be Zoning Administrator on-forms to beprovidod by tbe'C~. Tn, applimfion dnll-t~:at:ompani~ byat~ as ~rablis~ed by City Council r~sotntion..Applications .for:amm~ding pemfirs shall be accompani~ by a f~ as ~.~tablislm:t by .City .Council resolution. The Zoning Adminiswator. ShalI:.t,Vi~:fl~applization and relat~l matmfials and shall d~nnin,-:wl-~th~'~por, al is in compliance with ail applimbl, .,valnation~:~, .:cod~,-orflkmnc~s. and applicable perfonmnce smndards':aet':fatth in rhk Title. Th~ Zoning Administrator shall t~ry':~:.:~~t, '.:in .writing, of :an incomplete application :,.fithin.::?I~n-!:(10) .days .of flae dam of submission. The Zoning Adminimamr ~aall~:mnsid~r;Possibl~advm'r~ ~fects of the proposed events or acfiv' .~-~ 2Judgment:shall be based upon ~ut not limimcl to) the following:ifaetor~: 4.312(4) (n) Compliance with.and.etf~t:iUPontI~ Compreahemive Plan and public facilifiesPlans. ~1312(4) The estabUsbment,':~i~~,e::ior::operation of tl~ us=, evrmt or activity will:::nor~bo:d~Sme, mal w or ~ulanger the public hmith, saf~j;i:or.,.W,lfam. ~.3~2(4) (e) The e. stabli~hm~nt of!iilh,'~q~;..:event or.activity wffi not conflict with existing~3tseSiand.=will.~nmimpede the..normal and orderly developm~nt;~and.imptovement of nrrrounding prop*ny for uses pe. rmi~;~':the..district. ~.312(4) (d) Adequate public ~}:a~.;Se~cesare availablo or can be rmsonably 'PrOV~'~i~:~mmodat=:tbe ~ .event or activity which is pmpose~ 4.31-1 4~312~4) {e) it is ltx:aI~ and to thc-p~ffomaalu~ ~mndard.~ as outlin~ ~ Section .4.03 and all otlmr ..applicable provisions of this Code. TI~ Zoning .Admini.mamr shall ~ a d~z. rminatiou an approva or denial of tlac adminismfivcpcnnit within sixty (60) ~ from tl~ date of submission of a complete application. ~12.~(6) A wringn ;pr. miit .shall :.la: ::.lamed 'to the '.applicant when a detexm~rinn:.0f-comPlian~::bas:~ made..$p~Mk: conditions to assure compliance :With .applicablc .::~valuation cram-ia, codes, ~, .and.ttm.~lltandardS~s Cod~.sl,.all be allaehe~ to the Unresolved dispums .as :;10'::.i~i~~tiv, :application .of .the requixr, m~ts of thi_~ paragmph:.~hall:i~:.mbj~.t.to appeal as defmgzl by Section 4.305 of this Cod~. ~~t. The inform~ii:~ifiar?ll:administmtivc mit shall include: A copy of thc approve! sim':;:plan?tOr:lti~.;;propm~ or ~"m:bUflt' ~ which ~mly.~~:~g::~n~ ~.:~e.s~, ~iu~ ~~ ~ ~?~:~p~g'~d .~v~g :~, ~ w~ch ~mly ~~~:;:p~~ :~~ ~~, An amurate floor plan, .w~:i~iifi;;iiilhe;iijudgm~nt of 'tt~ '.'Zoning Administrator, such a.!lMan;!iia:ii:.~:i~i;tOi~pmiaex!y mrahmt~ location of th~ ,vent and'tt~::lffi'~~;;~:availabl,.eamanc~s :'and (. 4.31-2 4.3t3 {4~ l.rfformation idcntifieA ~n S~ction 4.356 of this Code. as ma}' ~ applicable. pcriormav~ Standards. Ail usei, cvcnL~ crt m::fiv~ies allowed by administrarivt Imrmit.shall.conform.m.thcappti,abtc s33ndards outlin~ in th, zoning district in ~ch sut. b u~, :,vent'or a::rivJvj.is propos~ ~3/~ Admini-suati°n and :r:lrffor~u'aemt. 4.315 .ti) '4:315i:(2) Thc Zoni~ .Adminim'ator shall k~'p a-record of app~ti~ and adminiswative'~its- Enfoncmeml of.::thc;;provisions ~:of'Ihis :paragraph shall be in acconiam~ with':'S~tion 4.301:ot=:t~s-lCo(tc. "Violation of an issucd pconk or of. flc:pwvisiom 0f::fhis::sccfion also shall bc grounds for denial of fumrc'Immitapplications. NOnaperm~ Armrovnl~. In .cas~ :.where :ithe':Zcnfmg Administrator is given ~;.~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~.:ou~'~ :~ 4.354 of ~s ii;~ii~r~i.~:ia:pcrmit approval.:through the::~s::pmce~s, outlin~d in"S~ction 4.3 ]-3 4.053 (7) ~,ccesso~' ~nt~nnas. Accessory antennas in corfformance $ccUon 4.032(6)(h) of this COde. ~L054 :,l[I-~i~l~..~=;t~IlP'iI'' Thc.following.arc uses by administrative pcm~ in:.ti~.~,,1.;Dimia. ;~.an a~minim'ag~ permit based on t~ proc~urcs sci Eor~iiln:~amt~:re~dazed:bylScction4-31 :and hs~'pcrfonnancc standards se~ forth in Sectiou.:4:O3.of' this Code. ExpanSion .of ::a :'lxm-cx~orming ~ i=amily Imrildinl per 4.03'!{~i0) (a), of/gOs: Code. ~ :ibuflding' ::Side ...3rard .::~ .z=duction per Section 4;032(6)(~) .of:.this:Code. 4;0~:;(3) Pc, rsoml :w~ scrvic=an~'ma~!pcr Section 4.0~D of fils.Code. 4:054~::(4) Pcnn~ed'home..occupa~:i~i!iSe. a'tion-a!03?(3) of this Cocic. Muai.cipal.....:.Go..~~a~tCl~;~!.',_~i'B.Uildings. Municipal gov~,....cnt, publiCly~:;:communications, :and public urin, y welfare of ~h~ communi~':Provid~ ;:that. ~:and :sido'ya~_'~ i~ents~:are .met. 4.055 Conditional Uses. R-I. Thc foUowing arc conditional uses in an R-I District. (Requh-cs conditional usc permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Sections !;303.'and 4.33 tbepcrfo~i~dS iiSet~onh in Sections .4.03 4.055 (1) Public. ~ztucational and Reli~ous Buildings. Pubhc or semi-public recreational buUdings and neighborhood or community centers; public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools; and rchgious institutions such as church~s, chapels, temples and synagogues provided that: 4.055(1) (a) 5ilic. Xa~. Side yards shall be double that r~quired for thc district, but no greater than thirty feet. 4.05-2 4.O63 ¢6) 'Rooms. ~ or'renting of rooms to not more than 4.0fi3:./7) ~cces~ry Antetmas. Acco~ anieamas i~ canformanc~ v.~ith Section 4,032(6)0a) of.this Code. T.t~.pv~,drrfini~ive'.~pe, nnk~ ";..The'~fol~wing'ate uses by adminLctm6ve pe, nnit in~;:R~2DL_~rict. {,Rex/air, an adminim-~ pa-afix'based an the pmeeclures r~ea for~;;;~ :and:.rogulat~ bySe4:fion 4:31 asxl tJ~./xn'foxman~ stand, ds set forth in :of tiffs Code. ~.xpansion of a .:non-wnforming-:single family or .two family tmild~g'P~r.4, 031(I0)(a) af.tliis:Cod~. wirele~s:sea-vi~:~memia~:i/x~rlSection.4:039D of this Code. home occupatkms;Pe.r::!~.4;037(3).of this Code. ~~:i!/b) lax~.'¥mmt:ii/hebmd2iiil;ii~i~iiSicOmplete!Y m. closed a:permam~:smamu-e:,i~t~ii;ii~?~.:S~oragc. 4.065 Conditional Uses. R-2. The following axe conditional uses in an R-2 District. ('Rex/uix~ conditional use p~rmit bas~ upon procoSums set forth in and mgulatexl by S~edO~i~3~m~cl..-4:33 thepm'fomtnn~ii~'i~s~t;ifo~':!:in'Secxions..4.03 4.06-2 4.075 Expansion .of :.:a ::non-conforming two family building per ~;03100Xa) of. this Code. · building :sid~-.-yard :=sett~k 'zeduction per Section 4:032(63(c) of. this .Co&. Mum'dpaI .... G.o..v..~:~a~.~U. tRi~Y_]~~s. Municipa] govmalm=~'!publiclyz=g~:.commnnlc_~Hon$, ::and public :utility welf'ar= cd=the.communi.~.;,;prov~-i:that: C°mmtibili_ty' ":~nd- '::~:'~--tba~ie~;:iiiiii:.:~:.i!iConformity ':with ,'the Conditionnl Uses. R-3. The following are conditional uses in an R-3 District (Requi~ a conditional use permit ~ upon procedu~ set forth in and regulated by Sections ~'i ~fl.:i~33 and th~.-~~.i:~ ::set :forth in'Section 4.03 4.07-2 4.085 4.084 (I) 4 :Expansion o£ a non-conform~ng :two family ~ par 4.031(10Xa) of th/s Cod~. .. Ac~ssory building side yard sgthack reduction per Sec..don 4.032(6)(c) of this Code. Pcrsoml.'-wixv. l~s am'vice artmnnas 1~' Sccdon 4.039D of this U. od~. Permitted home occutmrio~'pm'.S~ion 4.037(3) of thi~ Code. Munic. i/ng:Q~c~x~g;~d~.U.tRi~-..:Buil~a- mm~ici~a2 govemmem,.:publiC!y:.,~,ulat~:cammnni~rions, and public utilit3' lmildings a~'stmmzms'~-if°r;tl~':hmlt:h' safer)' and general ~elfam.af the~comm~;-;:provided '.that: ~:0S4(5) (a) ~.084(5) Co) nauir.n~tt'Enciosed.. ::i~qui~'mant:iscomplctely caclosext in a permanent atmctm~::with::n°.outskic.storage. Conditional Uses. R-4. Thc following are conditional uses in an "R-4' District: (Raquir~ a conditional use permit based upon procedmv, s set forth in and regulated by Sex~ions:.!~303 and 4.33, the ~onnanc~i.stant~t~Ss.:set~forth'in Section 4.'03 4.085 (1) Public. l=ducariona! and Reii_t, ious Buildin_~s. Public or semi-public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community centers; public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schools; and religious institutions such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues provided that: 4.085(1) (a) Side Y~. Side yards shall be double that required for thc district, but no gnntcr than thirty feat. 4.08-2 Off=~qrreet Loart/ng. 1,.eerPAfiOnal :r-,adlities. Swirtmfi~g .poOl, 'tennis cc~trts a. Dd other rccxeational-:f~'-~vhich are'operated for the enjo3rment and C~DV~_-n~llCe Of:t,be:-:'~sideJIts ~ fl~'Pz'jJlcip3] US.~-, arid ~ ~lllit~~- :TOO].llOOSe., 8heCl-~or ~ buiJding for storage of:doznestic..~ ::azlCl-.non~ :rccr"=*ional eqmipmcnt. ~i~;i:~latedlby3ecfiOii:~'"3t :.~.thc:performance standards set forth in Accessot~::~:btfilding~:~::/~ard.::se~:.:re, ducuon :per $cclion 4.095 Conditional Uses. 114...~d!i~ll~ingi;~i;i;~iiitition~ ~Uses" in::art 1t[-5 District: ....~:':':':"~i~i~;::''"" .............................. ' ................... 4:233.:~itl~:~~~:;Set'~tOlith:';iA' -'-'. ....... ".'.'.' .......... "':: .:.' · .... '~:tiorl'~. 03 · a~~!:?i,i 4.095 (1) ~':Ten/i':~if"~A'::i':$ii~ility, ~i;ii~!~CarC:lq. aCilih/, but not including hospitals, clinics, or ~imilar institutions as dffme, xt by 4.022 of this code provided that: 4.09-2 4.105 4:104 :F_,xpansion of a non-conforming, two 4.03I(10)(a) of this Code. family building per :r~lu:fion .per $~ction Personal .wireless s~rvim.~'per Secaion 4.039D of this Code. Permilzedhomc..occupafim~::perScction 4.037{3) of this Code. welfare::~f:ti~ :~~..:PwxP21e~:l'.that: 4:t04(5)-:(b) ~-qu. [t~m~t':~nclo-~I- ;'i;~.. uipme-m:-iis complcmlY catcloscd'in a..pcnnai~t:~~ii~.~ith..,nO:.ou~ifle.'storage. Conditional Uses. R-O. Thc foUowmg am conditional uses in a_n R-O District: (Rcquiz~ a conditional usc permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by ScctionSi~4~3:-i:anfl!:~[~33::.., fliC'iPcff°~Ce~a~'is~t:~forth :in Scmion 4.03 4.105 (1) Public. F_ziucational and Religious_ Buildin,,s: . Public or semi-public recreational buUdings and neighborhood or communit~ centers; public and private educational institutions limited to elementary, junior high and senior high schooh; and religious institutions such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues provided that: 4.105(1) (a) Side Yards. 'Side yards shall be double that required for the district, but no greamr than tlmty feet. 4.10-2 4,1't3 'Tool lzmae~ ~.shed .and/ar'similar building for ~crra~.e of.'dome~csuppI~ and.-non-commerchl z~-reafional equipme, nt. ~%eees~rr~_' ,Antemms, :A,cc~sory .'mltemm~ in conformance with r;24.032(6)(h)::°f ~hi_~::Co~. Adult ':Use .Ace~S°~:' :Subj~:t'to 'tie z::~dlations of Section ~ ,039;:C::Of ~tlfis::Code.. ~~.~i:r~Ul,ate. dby:.!$ecfion:;!4.~liiand:~i~ormance .standards set forth ~!!!S~;~¢~OB:iOf:titis';:Code' Accessory ii:btiilding .:::i',tifle ..~ ::.,~t.b~k :reduction '.pea' .Section 4/032 (6)(c):: Of:this :'~. pCrSonal.~zizr, le. ss :~scrVic~ .az~n.uas..!~Per:SeCl:ion 4.039.1) of ~ CO~. 4.11-2 4:114(5) Nois~. ':'i~::~ :::tan:, .ord--' 'board im~.rcom and winaow:..p~.m~'..~,n.~:e~si~dand.loca~d ~ such a ~n~ :~ :'.m :::m~ ::~. :-~ :.~ .~ m adj~m ~~:.of v~cl~::on :.~.~. zL'll4(5):(e) Driw, tin~u~ se_wicewimiows'andsmckin~ lan~s mu= b~ scr~t~:t::f~m adjaLuing.:~e, sid~Jla I 'us~. Hour~ of'~rlon. :'' '.:..'lWn~ :':hours of op~mlion 'may b~ limii~..as'n~sa~ to:.n~i~-:tl~:.nUisan~ facior such as waffic~,"nois~,':or illmg~s.that the dri~te;.~gh::S~rvice :lane lighting .shall c~mp!y:.~ :~.a:O3~:i:(5)':of :thi~-Code. ~::iifformaticm~:.zlm:Ioc~ion ~zi:t3rpc of Acc~s::m'the ~ are'ai:~::pm~dexJ .on!y'.via'.~h~ principal 4.11-3 4A14(6) Tae .dining ama is sm, ceded from view from adja~era residential uses i~ accordance with Sec-don 4.CFM(3) of thi~- Code. Ail tiglaring 'be hooded and di~ed away from adjacent r~;a~r;u] uses in aecorflanee w~th Seca. ion 4.034(5) of this ~Tne:aPPlicam.~es that pedem'ian circulation is not di_~mptedaSa:rezrfll oftbe outdoor dining area by providing tbe;t-ono~g: t~m~:~r dining, area.'shaI1 be seg ~re~ed from ~.. h;pefle~a, rt :circulation by means of ~:.::"./fen'e2mg," 'bonards, ropes, p~mings;' ::.:or ::oth~.methods, and shall be mbject::m'.zeView::and aPProval by the Ch'y Council. a:I;I4(o")(O 'fi]') Minimamclear~passage:'zone for pedestrians at:'the.'Perimete~Of::the restatrmm ~ be al least, five-~(5):;t'e~-.:.a/itbisut interference'from padmd :mOtor:,vehieles, :.tmllard& tr~s, .tree gaz~;':i:~:Curbs;'!i::i:~aY~, ::::.trash ~n:ccptaeJ~s, m'eeti~gb~;i~pa~:metem~'::or:thelike. ~ry?ca%py~:of:tmes;:.nm~.llas.or other ~i:~~g!iinto!:tlae::pedestrian clear ~}i~O~~trian'.:~le .~ha'U :have a ~iiii'im~ii;~~;'!of:iseven':(-7) feet :.above ~i?~i:!azi:ai'is "anfa~eXl?!~/~th:!ii~ete' bimminou s or d~~iii~rsor'~i:maYi;ilm~st~!~!Ofai:deck-with wood or Clean, 'attractive, .and 4.11-4 or attaah~ furniture must "be approved as lmm of the admmisrrame p~mit appimtion. 4.J ~4(6) O) Additional off, street part-lng- shall be required pursuant to tla~ :.r~luit'stntmts s~t'fonh in S~ction 4.036 of this Code based on.ti~ ~attltional se~ng area provided by the omdoor dining.area. ;4.114(6) Red'use ..:cOmers. are .-providext for self-se~'ice outdoor diniag::areas...:~Sudt containers shall be'place, zt in a manner which:;:do~:~.not dimxpt'~atrian.circutation, and must be dedgnedit°Preveatt:sPillage:and blowing tiaer. ROoftop .dlnlng:::fa~liti~s-~ahall :.bC..p~ lrrrovided thc5' me~t;i:alt.:applicable.-.Contlifirms .as listed bemin and in ad'diti~n: Provideipennanem :walls af fencing around thc .p~riph~.,::.0f :'the .dining area at a mi,limum i?l~ght;.of::42"iinchex to ensure the Anypermanent:stmcmrea, including divider walls;trellis;~work,;.:.etc.:i,be.'included as.'part of th~hiil~ii~-:.wliklh:.they :are locar.~ and am mbj~ct;ito:::th~::building:'height limitations as;~eil:i;hi!}r~'fion 4.]I6(3) of this Code. The .:.submitt~l)iplans ?for a ::rooftop ~dlnlng ~:~C:.~O~ ::w~ ~mS and 4.115 Conditirm~! Uses. :R"~. The foUowing are conditional uses m a R-B District: (Requires a Conditional Use Permit based upon procedures set forth in and ~ by s~-.tiom ~i~i~ai-~.:~3 iland:.th~Ormanee,:standards sa forth in 4.115 (1) that: 4.11-5 fo/thjn.:mid:r~flat~ bySc~uon 4.31 and U~ pe, normance Sectkm.~4~03 of:this Cod=. ~ wittier.ante, hms l~r $~*.~ion 4.039D(2) of this Cod~. Outdoor :sales :,of smsoml produce subject to th~ lr~mnit requiremmrs .of' ~. 8 of this Code. Drive:Thro~.'S~vim '~I~.~. /:A :drive. through service lane accessory:.w.:any;p~mit~l or::conditional!y:pcrmirmd lmsine~ or u~:::Shall!bc :allowCcl on!y 'ff';thc ;fOUoWing -:additional crit=ria arc c~ulation:or.~ i~:~t~~:pa~Icing spa~. 4.1540) (f) Hours. Hours of operation shall bc limited as necessary to minimize thc effect of nuisance factors such as traffic, noise, and glare. 4.15-2 musttatrz th~ drive through':~ la~ li~fing and shah comply with .~::tion 4.034(5) of this Code. tmd~.a'conditional'nm peJmit :subject 'W tho follo,,'ing conditions: :aPPlicant shall be ~ :W submit a ~it~ plan and oth~r..~':i~ffommtion demonstmrlng the location and type:.of:all::tablos,.:.~,~nsen~tael~,.and wait rations. including.table wa~tlng:sorvic~. Of ::;th~ :~lmal .:::customer ~floor ::ama 'wRhin tM principal subj~i!~ii~V~i?~a:approva~'b~ 4.15-3 4.154(4)(0 (iii) ~ ~ of tree~, umbrellas or othe ~ ~ ex,,riding in~ the ~ c. leax pa.v,a~'z~ne or pedevxian aisle stzaII have m~mum Clearance of'~ve.n CO f'eet.atmve Thc. dining :ama 'is surfaced with concrete, bituminous or d~..omfive.:;pav~2s:or :may:.:consist of:a creek with wood or oth~ttooring'.~ that provides a clean, ama~xe, and ~iOn~:th~;;"a~r~i~gi~iproviCled by'the outdoor a~.gi:ar~a. m'i'~~~iii~.:~2.':iinches:;m eusure ::the 4.15-4 (iii) as ~.~:~ 4.032(5) offs C~e. ~n and'~rSt°ra_t'~L:i~:az~i:~oD' useprovided that: 4.15-5 A;i1~iii~) :Pe, rsonaI.;~le, ssant~-~asl~rSexnion-4i039D of this Code. ~.'!NOt ;1~ ~;iO~:'?~."tWcr~ (120) feet Of sU-~e, gat~ ;automobi~';:~i;;must'ibc:pmvid~ :for :~ ~i~,:::~::~:::~~e'::~~ may ~c~ 4.16-2 4.164(3) fi') Hour~. Hours of operation shall be Limited as necessao.' to minimize the effect of nuisance factors such as traffic. noise, and glare. A 'ilighting .and .phomm~t~ :.plan will be ~quir~ that ilTusu~tes .that :drive. :.throug~ Aervice )a-~ lighting shall comply.with Seetin 4.034(5) of:this Code. Outdoor Dining. 'lu:ees~..Outdoo~ Oirdng as an accesso~' usc for-resmmams-, :drive-in, .and convenience food establishments, under a.:conditional us=pc, milt: subject: to. th~ :r-ollowing conditions: ..The ::.applica~ ::shallbe:!:~ired ':to :.~tbmiI a site plan and Oth=;~:i~on.:;~~g the location and pjpo::cff::~li:::tables;-;ii~.~_l~g~._ ~1~, .:aml 'wait stations. ~?tOIlO~g: subJ~t:imi~.~i::i~di:apProval by-ttm':;.City 4.16-3 4.~ 84(4)(f) l/i) ~imimum ct~ar.-~e zan~ far atthe perim~r:of th---r~smurant shall be least five (5):/ee~ without inmrf~t~ce from parked'mowr vch/ele~, bollards, gat~, :curbi,-,:.stairway~, trash ~:cpta~les, street lights,'.pafl~g mct~rs, or tl~ canopy of roms, umbrellas or other smxam~:¢~.inm the txx~6an e~ar paim~.zan,:or;pedearian aisle shall have a r~h~imtrm..:dmran~ of s~v~n CO f~ above .The .~ :arm is :.SUrfaced ':with 'concrete, bimminou~ or ~veypav~rs ,.~r.:.may ::!~ .crf,a :~ '.with 'wood or oth~ floor~ mam~ that:proVid~a, clean, amactivt, and funaional'.'~rfac,. this: section.-;.:HoW~a~r;~~vableOr:~!y :fixed or.'anaeh~d fumim~ ;i~must':ii~:iiapprov~ .:as :part 'of .'th~ hased'onth~ na~i~;~:~!:provided by the outdoor dining:al~. R~fuse.::conlainers .are~p~icleXl ;~;!for ::::self-servi~ outdoor dining.areas. Such cOfi~.il;ahallil~:;placed lin a ~manner which ;do~s'm:~ diSmpt.~~/.cimutation, and must :be dezi~ W :p~ever~ :'~.~g~i;.a~ :;bloWinglittcr. 4.16-4 4.! 64(4)(I) (ii) Any gemmncm swacmrcs, including divider ~-~.wod~, ~:. be ~ ~'~ of ~ ~~ ~.~eh ~' ~ ~ ~d ~ ~bj~m :~. ~ng ~t ~ons ~.~:~ ~ 4.1~) of~s C~. (iii) thc proposM .-omzioor dining is to ocettr is subject ?to ..r~vicw ::by :the Oxy Building Iaspcc~. ).~Ie/.~hc-.will 'dmarminc whether the.i~.~bUilgi~'/.:iis:.:su~ctmallY c~pablc of ba~lrmg ~ ~wci~ of pc.r~ns and twen.ty~fi,..~. :!i125 )~ifcc. t:~:Of~ ~.~;i :!:-:!~to_rage ;.of any ~:iclnd 'lis ~'i _hlt_~iiiin~:said: open.:.~ ::iiiax~:~:~luipm ent incidental 'to tl~i:~e~:itani~i:'::::.'~t~m~ii~ki~gareas.must be .~tback Setl~:!~ BUildi~,"~i?!ii~.S~gc~nks~shall bc:r,~tbacklfwm driveways, 4.16-5 pubUc ~hts-of-way and .nd~ propc,tu~. $cmcnir~ must b~ c~n,sl~:t~ i~t such 'a way asto pc, n'nit access b) ~ vchkl~ a.ud avoid intcr/ercnce with fi,rc~£bting on-thc site. Y. al.v~. Alt tSni~y vaJv~ of:~iu~ storage ta~ks shall be ~nclosed and havo lo~],-ing'd~vic.~ ~ be locked when no~ 4.164(5) (i)Tank S~. Storage tanks shall not exceed 1,000 gallon water capacity. facilities provide:that: 4.16-6 4.203(8) (d) n.2o3(8) right-of-way. ~ outdoor storage shalJ be r~t back f'P~e (5) fa ~'om all ~ and:rea~ .lot ~ and shall non tx' loc. a~ wffh~n a u~51ity oz' dxaJx~o~ e. as~meaL ~. 3'ne op~ outdoor a~oz-age arm ~ be suffac~ with concreto or bituminous. ~...A. wire w~v~/r.~m.,~ ~ secu~ry f~nc: sh~]! be mquir~ ::around :.:tl~ :.opoa .~outdoor ~orag~ arm in confommn~'Whh Section 40340)(¢) of this Coc~. Open ouutoor.~m~ag¢ armslint~'nd~tforth~ ~zclusive sr~-ag~ of semi-~'may .be.::exe~pt-ifrom .tl~--r~luimd s~uriry fencing :.;provided ~th~ ::~mm-a~ :~m~a :is de. lin~ and the uses and.public .rights, af. waY'/:iin.:accordan~ with the provisions .of:Sec6on n:203(8) Rai~l-,~;~. :;.:Th¢i,iOP~:,:ouldoor storage arm shall '.not utiliz~ any .-requ~.~,Off.~::;~g, !lonalng are, as, or access space, .as. mquimdi~ilS~on.4,03$ 'and 4.036 of this Coda. gluTnrclous Materiai~.:.;i~i:~'i:~r. storag~ area shall not:be-used,for.~:O~i~~s:i~ds, .solids, ga.~¢s or wasms,!:i .::3'his:i~'i:~i:~;~ibit ~ the':p~ :owner fmm.:~:~Obtaining..:an ~'~~el;;ipetmit '~for :the-outdoor storage ofpropar~ or:~:~!gaz;~:/Se~on .4~204~5) of :this Code. open :outdoor storagc:i~iareas ::ifree' of.refuse, 'traslz, .debris, weecla, and waste Jill. ~naI wiraless.antennas perS~Oni~;039D~) o~ thi~ Code. ~tdoor..':::rmlos of::::seasoml'i:iiiii~'/;:;:subject !'.to tl~ permit 4.20-3 4~204 lZemi! Sales. Limized_ Rr, mil sa. tea of products mamifacmreA or( proces~ an thc sit:, provided tJaat the sates arr. a not cxc~cl thirD' (30). ~t e~f thcgross floor area of ti~ prineiIml tmildmg. Outdoor:Sat~'and Di-.~Plav-.~z~ry_. Opma or outdoar ~rvice, sal~'~d'~n~ as:an .accessory. us$-lrrrovid~:l that: bimminous. paiiX~;ii! !::it~:!~:;:iYaM:ii~:;;iifitle;jyarcl :.abutting ,:;public atm., 4.20-4 4.205 4,204(5) {e) 4~204~5) Eaai:iag- A wire weave/chain 'link security f,,.nee shall be mquin~ arram~ all stomg,~ tanks. The location of the f~ace shall be as per tt~ Uniform l:irv Code. Storage sites shall be accessible by service and ~u-ncy' ve. hieka. 4:204.(5) ~rarning 'gi?m:_?e. A .waroha~ .aign shall ~ ~ for aigna~ :.my'.'m.:~ ~:~;{4) :s~ :f~ ~ may ~ ~ Conditional Uses. I. The following am conditional uses in an I District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon precedures set forth in and regulated by Sections g.B03.:.and.4j33 and performance standards set forth in Section 4.03 of this Code. 4.205 (1) O~n Outdoor Storage ax a Princinal or Accessory. Use. Open outdoor storage as a conditional accessory use, where the open outdoor storage ama exceeds twenty (20) percent of the gross floor ama of the principal structure provided that: 4.205(1) (n) Screening/I~ndscaping. The open outdoor storage axea is screened and landscaped from adjacent residential uses and public right-of-way in complinnce with Section 4.034 of this Code. 4.205(1) (b) ~,agiilg. A wire weave/chain link security fence shall be requix~ around the open outdoor storage area m conformance with Section 4.034(3)(c) of this Code. Open outdoor storage areas intended for the exclusive storage of semi-trailers may be exempt from the required security fencing provided the storage area is delineated and the individual trailers am secured. 4.205(1) (O ,~lfac,,iag. The opcn outdoor storage area is surfaced with concrete or bituminous. 4.20-5 Planning Case: Petitioner: Address: Request: PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: November 6, 2001 Report Date: November 2, 2001 01-17 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North Ordinance No. 01-09, An Ordinance Amending the Voting Requirements for Zoning Code Text or District Changes I. Request City staff is requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the attached ordinance, which amends the New Hope Zoning Code so that it is in conformity with recently passed new state legislative changes. Many cities in the metro area have made similar code changes in the last six months. I1. Zoning Code References The attached ordinance amendment references the following sections of the New Hope Zoning Code: III. IV. Section 4.303(13) Section 4.303(13)(a) Section 4.303(13)(b) Background "Votes Required" "Residential District Amendments" "Other Zoning Amendments" · The state legislature recently adopted a new law eliminating the 4/5ths "super majority" requirement for cities to amend its Zoning Codes, with one exception. Changing a residential zoning district to either a commercial or industrial district is now the only exception which still requires a 4/5ths vote of the Council. Specifically, the City can now amend its Zoning Code with a simple majority vote unless the zoning code amendment changes a residential zoning district classification to either a commercial or industrial classification. In that case, a 4/5ths vote of the Council is still required. However, the new amendment specifically limits a 4/5ths vote only to that situation. In the past, any zoning code text amendment required a 4/5ths vote, including district classifications of any nature. The effect of this change will be to make it much easier for the City to change its Zoning Code because in the majority of cases, only a simple majority vote will be required. Petitioner's Comments City staff became aware of this change in legislation after the session adjourned and requested that the City Attorney review this matter and make recommendations regarding amendments to the New Hope Zoning Code. Notification Amendments to the Zoning Code require a public hearing and the enclosed notice was prepared by the City Attorney and published in the official newspaper. No mailings or other notification to property owners is required because this amendment would be effective citywide. Planning Case Report 01-17 Page 1 11/2/01 VI. Development or Code Analysis The existing Zoning Code states that approval of any zoning code text or zoning map amendment (a rezoning) requires a 4/5ths vote of the City Council and that approval of a conditional use permit, variance, or site plan approval requires a vote of a majority of a quorum of the City Council present for the vote of passage. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code to comply with the new state legislation state that the approval of a zoning code text or zoning map amendment, which changes all or part of an existing residential zoning district classification to either a commercial or industrial district shall require a 4/5ths vote of the full City Council. With the exception of an amendment to a residential zoning district, any other zoning code text or zoning map amendment or request for approval of a conditional use permit, variance, or site plan review shall require a vote of a majority or a quorum of the City Council present for the vote of passage. Please refer to the Planner's memorandum for further information. VII, City Attorney Comments/Draft Ordinance The draft ordinance states: "The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.303(13) "Votes Required" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.303(13)(a) "Residential District Amendments." Approval of a request for an amendment of this Chapter (text and/or map) which changes all or part of an existing residential zoning district classification to either a commercial or industrial district shall require passage by a 4/5ths vote of the full City Council. Section 4.303(13)(b) ,,r.,....,~;,;,,,,~ ,,..,~ D,,,,~,~, ~/~, ...... ,~/,-, ~;*-, ",-,,, D~,,,~ .... Other Zoninfl Amendments." A With the exception of an amendment to a residential zoning district described in §4.303(13)(a) of this Code, any amendment to this zoning code or any request for approval of a conditional use permit, variance or appeal on site plan review shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of a quorum of the City Council present for the vote for passage." VIII. Codes & Standards Committee The Codes & Standards Committee of the New Hope Planning.Commission has discussed and reviewed this proposed ordinance amendment and recommends approval of the amendment to the full Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance No. 01-09 8/10 City Attorney Correspondence Public Hearing Notice 7/27 City Attorney Correspondence and Minnesota Session Laws-2001 10/31 Planning Consultant Report Codes & Standards Memo Current Zoning Code Text Minnesota Planning Article Planning Case Report 01-17 Page 2 11/2/01 ORDINANCE NO. 01-09 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING. THE VOTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING CODE TEXT OR DISTRICT CHANGES The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 't. Section 4.303(13) "Votes Required" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.303(13)(a) "Residential District Amendments". Approval of a request for an amendment of this Chapter (text and/or map) which changes all or .part of an existing residential zoning district classification to either a commercial or industrial district shall require passage by a 4/5ths vote of the full City Council. Section 4.303 (13)(b) ""'--,..,,,,,~,,,,~,,,~,-'-' ...... ',_,o~'-- Pcrau~," ", ,~, ,,~,,~,~, ...........,,,,~, oro,,,.°:'- Plan Review Other Zonine Amendments". ~ With the exception of an amendment to a residential zomg district described in § 4.303(13)(a) of this Code, any amendment to this zoning code or any request for approval of a conditional use perm/t, variance or appeal on site plan review shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of a quorum of the City Council present for the vote for passage. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the __ day of ,2001. W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the ~ 2001.) - day of -1- GORDON L. JENSEN* NICOLE M. RITLANDJ' STEVEN A. SONDRALL WILLIAM C. STRAITt STACY A. WOODS OF COUNSEL LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD *Real Property Law Specialiat Cerlified By The Minnesota State Bar A~sociation ~'Qualified ADR Nct~tra[ JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 2.P~''' BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-196,. TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mail iaw~jensen-sondrall.com August 10, 2001 Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 SENT BY FAX TO: (763) 531-5136 AND BY REGULAR MAIL Re: Proposed Ordinance Amending the Voting Requirements for Zoning Code Text or District Changes Our File No.: 99.80109 Dear Kirk: In follow up to my July 27, 2001 letter and our August 9~ Codes and Standards meeting concerning voting requirements to amend our zoning code, please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance Amending the Voting Requirements for Zoning Code Text or District Changes. Basically, as I pointed out in my letter, the legislature recently adopted new law eliminating the 4/Sths "super majority" requirement to amend our zoning code with one exception. Changing a residential zoning district to either a commercial or industrial district is now the only exception which still requires a 4/Sths vote of the Council. The enclosed Ordinance changes our City Code to reflect this new state law legislative change. Please contact me if you have any questions concerning this letter, my July 27, 2001 letter or the enclosed Ordinance. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. sas~liensen-sondrall.com After Hours Extension # 147 Enclosure Valerie Leone, City Clerk, City of New Hope (w/enc.) Ken Doresky, Community Development Director, City of New Hope (w/enc.) Erin Seeman, Community Development Intern, City of New Hope (w/enc.) CNH99.80109-001 -Kirk Ltt.wpd NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ELIMINATING "SUPER MAJORITY"VOTING REQUIREMENT FOR ZONING CODE TEXT OR DISTRICT CHANGES Ci_ty of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 6th day of November, 2001, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the affect of amending the voting requirements of New Hope City Code Sections 4.303(13)(a) and 4.303(13)(b) to a simple majority for all zoning text and district boundary changes with the exception of changing a residential district to a commercial or industrial district. A change from a residential district to a commercial or industrial district will still require a 4/5ths vote of the City Council. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are available upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531-5109). Dated the 8th day of October, 2001. s/Valerie J. Leone Valerie J. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the l0th day of October, 2001 .) -1- (}ORDON l,. JENSEN* NICOI.E M. [~,ITI,ANDJ' STEVEN A. SONDRALI. WILLIAM C. ,C;TRAIT+ STAt'Y A. WOODS OF (?OUNSEL I.ORENS Q. [:~RYNESTAD JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law October 3, 2001 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSIN(L STE. 201 BROOKI,YN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1968 TELEPIIONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5193 e-mail la~v~jensen-sondrall.com The New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post 10917 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attn: Meridei SENT BY FAX ONLY TO: (952) 392-6871 Nolice of Put)lie ltearing Our File No. 99.80109 I)ear Meridel: Enclosed is a Non'ce of Public Hearin,e to C~msider Ordimmce Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Eliminating "Super Ma joriO," Votin,e Requirement for Zoning Code Text or District C/I{III,~'US in the City of New llope for publication on the lift` day of October, 2001, in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post. Please fi)rward 3,our affidavits of publication and statement in the usual Inanner. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall. City Attorney, City of Nexv Hope JENSEN & $ONDRAI.L.P.A. ~;as(~lcn ~cn-'iond rail corn Alter Itours Extension g147 Enclosure cc: Valerie Leone, City Clerk, City of New Hope (w/enc.)'v/ GORDON L. JENSEN* NICOLE M. R}TLAND~r STEVEN A. SONDRALL WILLIAM C. STRAFr+ STACY A. WOODS OF COUNSEL LOKENS Q. BRYNESTAD *Re~l Prope~y Law Spe~ialm Certified By The M,nne~o~a State B~ +O~alified ADR Neutral JENSEN & SONDRALL. P-A. Attorneys At La,' 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKL~ .'~ PARK. MINNESOTA 55443-1908 TELEPHONE (763) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (763) 493-5103 e-mail law(~- j ensen-sondrall.com Jul3' 27. 2001 Erin Seeman CommuniW Development Intern City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope. MN 55428 Re: Amendment to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 2 Our File No.: 99.10011 Dear Erin: Thank you for forwarding to me a copy of the Minnesota Session Laws Chapter 207-H.F. No. 1310. As you highlighted, Section 13 &those Session Laws deal with an amendment to Minn. Stat. Section 462.357. I have reviewed the Session Laws dealing with this Amendment and have determined a significant change has been made to the City's ability, to amend its zoning code. Specifically, the City can now amend its zoning code with a simple majority, vote unless the zoning code amendment changes a residential zoning district classification to either a commercial or industrial classification. In that case. a four-fifths vote of the Council is still required. However the new amendment specifically limits a four-fifths vote only to that situation. In the past, any zoning code text amendment required a four-fifths vote. including district classifications of any nature. The effect of this change will be to make it much easier for the City to change its zoning code because in *~-o -'--:~-:"' .c ...... - ' · ....... -a .... ~ ........ c. nly., s~mplc major,v,' vote ,,;'ill be required. Again, thank you for bringing this important legislative change to my attention. Please contact me if you have any other questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney, City of New Hope JENSEN 4~. SONDRALL, P.A. sastwicn~n-.qondrall.com After Hours Y~xtension # 147 CC: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, City of New Hope Dan Donahue, City Manager, City &New Hope Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, City of New Hope Minnesota Session Laws 200t. Chapter 20' mrp. Minnesota Session Laws Minnesota Session Laws - 2001 Key: 1 ......... 1..~ ,~,~,~,~ ,,,.,~, lanauaee Chan~e laneuaee enhancement display. Leeislative history and Authors CHAPTER 207-H.F.No. 1310 An act relating to construction; giving the suate building official final authority for interpreting the State Building Code and prescribing its enforcement; regulating construction-related fees; requiring municipalities to submit annual reports on construction-related fees; providing for adoption of certain amendments to the mechanical code; limiting certain municipal building code ordinances; clarifying certain terms; modifying provisions relating to construction warranties; limiting certain waivers of rights; modifying provisions relating to zoning ordinances; amending Minnesota Statutes 2000, sections 16B..61, subdivisions 1, 2; 16B.62, subdivision 1; 16B.63, by adding a subdivision; 326.90, subdivision 1; 327A.01, subdivision 2; 327A.02, subdivisions 1, 3; 462.353, subdivision 4; 462.357, subdivisions 2, 5; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 16B; 462. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 16B.61, subdivision t, is amended to read: Subdivision 1. [ADOPTION OF CODE.] Subject to sections 16B.59 to 16B.75, the commissioner shall by rule establish a code of standards for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, and repair of buildings, governing matters of structural materials, design and construction, fire protection, health, sanitation, and safety, including design and construction standards regarding heat loss control, illumination, and climate control. The code must conform insofar as practicable to model building codes generally accepted and in use throughout the United States, including a code for building conservation. In the preparation of the code, consideration must be given to the existing statewide specialty codes presently in use in the state. Model codes with necessary modifications and statewide specialty codes may be adopted by reference. The code must be based on the application of scientific principles, approved tests, and professional judgment. To the extent possible, the code must be adopted in terms of desired results instead of the means of achieving those results, avoiding wherever possible the incorporation of specifications of particular methods or materials. To that end the code must encourage the use of new methods and new materials. Except as otherwise provided in sections 16B.59 to 16B.75, the commissioner shall administer and enforce the provisions of those sections. The commissioner shall develop rules addressinq the plan review fee assessed to similar buildings without significanl modifications includin~ provisions for use of buildin~ system~; as specified in the industrial/modular pro~ram specified 5n section 16B.75. Additional plan review fees associated with similar plans must be based on costs commensurate with the 1 of 6 07/23/2001 10:5(} AM Minnesota Session Laws 2001. Chapter 207 direct and lnGlrect co ' I, __------- -- -^~ -~-~ - 16B.6 Sec. ~7 Minnesota Statutes 2000, subdivision 2, is amended tc read: Subd. 2. [ENFORCEMENT BY CERTAIN BODIES.] Under the direction and_supervision of the commissioner, the_provisions of the code relating to electrical installations shall be enforced by the state board of eiec~ricity, pursuant to the Minnesota Electrical Act, the provisions relating to plumbing shall be enforced by the commissioner of health, the provisions relating to high pressure steam piping and appurtenances shall be enforced by the department of labor and industry. Fees for inspections conducted by the state board of eiectricit~' shall be paid in accordance with the rules of the state board of electricity. Under direction of the commissioner of public safety, the state fire marshal shall enforce the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code as provided in chapter 299F. The commissioner, in consultation with the commissioner of labor and industry, shall adopt amendments to the mechanical code portion of the State Building Code to implement standards for process piping~ [EFFECTIVE DATE.] This section is effective the day followin~ final enactment. Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 16B.62, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subdivision 1. [MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT.] The State Building Code applies statewide and supersedes the building code of any municipality. A municipality must not by ordinance or through development a~reement require buildin~ code provisions regulatin~ components or systems of any residential sLructure that are different from any provision of the State Buildin~ Code. A municipality may, with the approval of the state building official, adopt an ordinance that is more restrictive than the State Building Code where ~eolo~ical conditions warrant a more restrictive ordinance. A municipality may appeal the disapproval of a more restrictive ordinance to the commissioner. An appeal under this subdivision is subject to the schedule, fee, procedures, cost provisions, and appeal rights set out in section 16B.67. The State Building Code does not apply to agricultural buildings except with respect to state inspections required or rulemaking authorized by sections 103F.141, 216C.t9, subdivision 8, and 326.244. All municipalities shall adopt and enforce the State Building Code with respect to new construction within their respective jurisdictions. If a city has adopted or is.enforcing the State Building Code on June 3, 1977, or determines by ordinance after that date to undertake enforcement, it shall enforce the code within the city. A city may by ordinance extend the enforcement of the code to contiguous unincorporated territory not more than two miles distant from its corporate limits in any direction. Where two or more noncontiguous cities which have elected to enforce the code have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is authorized to enforce the code on its side of a line equidistant between them. Once enforcement authority is extended extraterritorially by ordinance, the authority may continue to be exercised in the designated territory even though another city less than four miles distant later elects to enforce the code. After the extension, the city may enforce the code in the designated area to the same extent as if the property were situated within its corporate limits. A city which, on June 3, 1977, had not adopted the code may not commence enforcement of the code within or outside of its jurisdiction until it has provided written notice to the commissioner, the county auditor, and the town clerk of each town in which it intends to enforce the code. A public hearing 2 of 6 07/23/2001 10:50 Ah Minnesota Session Laws 2001. Chapter on the proposed enforcemen~ mus~ be held not less than 3C days after the nc~ice has been provided. Enfc~cemen~ of the code by the city outside cf i~s ~ur~sdiction commences on the first da~' of January in ~he year fo!lowin~ the notice and hearing. Municipa!i~ies ma}' provide for ~he issuance of permlts, inspection, and enforcemen~ within their ~urisdictions by means which are convenient, and lawful, lnciudin~ by means of contracts with other municipalities pursuan5 to section 471.59, and with qualified individuals. The other municipalities or qualified individuals may be reimbursed by retention or remission of some or all of the buildin~ permit fee collected or by other means. In areas of the state where inspection and enforcement is unavailable from qualified employees of municipalities, the commissioner shall ~rain and designate individuals available to carry out inspection and enforcement on a fee basis. Nothing in this section prohibits a municiDa!itv from adoptin~ ordinances relating to zoning, subdlvislon, or plannin~ unless the ordinance conflicts with a provision of the State Building Code that regulates components or systems of any residential structure. Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 16B.63, is amended by adding a subdivision to read: Subd. 5. [INTERPRETATIVE AUTHORITY.] To achieve uniform and consistent application of the State Building Code, the state building official has final interpretative authority applicable to all codes adopted as Dart of the State Building Code except for the plumbing code and the electrical code when enforced by the state board of electricity. A final interpretative committee composed of seven members, consisting of three building officials, two inspectors from the affected field, and two construction industry representatives, shall review requests for final interpretations relating to that field. A reGuest for final interpretation must come from a local or s~ate level building code board of appeals. The state building official must establish procedures for membership of the interDretativm committees. The appropriate committee shall review the request and make a recommendation to the state building official for final interpretation within 30 days of the request. The statm building official must issue an interpretation within ten business days from the recommendation from the review committee. A final interpretation may be appealed within 30 days of its issuance to the commissioner under section 16B.67. The final interpretation must be published within ten business days of its issuance and made available to the public. Municipal building officials shall administer all final interpretations issued by the state building official until th~ final interpretations are considered for adoption as part of the State Buildin~ Code. Sec. 5. [16B.665] [PERMIT FEE LIMITATION ON MINOR RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS.] A municipality as defined in section 16B.60, subdivision 3, or a town may not charge a permit fee that exceeds $15 or ~ percent of the cost of the improvement, installation, or replacement, whichever is ~reater, for the improvement, installation, or replacement of a residential fixture appliance that: (1) does not require modification to electric or service; (2) has a total cost of $500 or lesS, excluding the cost the fixture or appliance; and (3) is improved, installed, or replaced by the home ownez or a licensed contractor. Sec. 6. [16B.685] [ANNUAL REPORT.] Be~innin~ with the first report filed by April 1, 2003, each municipality shall annually re~ort by April 1 to thn 3 of 6 07/23/2001 10:50 AM Minnesota Session Laws 2001. Chapter 207 department, in a format DrescrIJ the department, all collected Dy the construction and development municipality from developers, Duiiders, and suDcontractors. The report must include: (1) the number and vaiuation of units for wkich .fees were paid; (-----~) the amount of buildinc permit fees, plan review fees, administrative fees, en~fees' infrasTrucTure fees, and other construction and deveioDment-related fees; and (3) the expenses associated with the municipal activities for which fees were collected. Sec. 7. MinnesoTa Statute~ 2000, section 326.90, subdivision I, is amended tc read: Subdivision 1. [LOCAL LICENSE PROHIBITED.] Except as provided in sections ~ 326.90, subdivision 2, an___~d 326.991, a political subdivision may not require a person licensed under sections 326.83 to 326.991 to also be licensed o__~r pay a registration or other fee related to iicensure under any ordinance, law, rule, or regulation of the political subdivision. This section does not prohibit charges for building permits or other charges not directly related to licensure. Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 327A.01, subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. [BUILDING STANDARDS~] "Building standards" means the structural, -~-~ -~ .... ~--~ ~ lit ~ ~ ~ thc hcma buildin~ industry for thc gccgrapkic araa in which dwcllin~ is situated State Building Code, adopted by the commissioner of administration pursuant to sections 16B.59 to 16B.75, that is in effect at the time of the construction or remodeling. Sec. 9. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 327A.02, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subdivision 1. [WARRANTIES BY VENDORS.] In every sale of a completed dwelling, and in every contract for the sale of a dwelling to be completed, the vendor shall warrant to the vendee that: (a) during the one-year period from and after the warranty date the dwelling shall be free from defects caused by faulty workmanship and defective materials due to noncompliance with building standards; (b) during the two-year period from and after the warranty date, the dwelling shall be free from defects caused by faulty installation of plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling systems due to noncompliance with building standards; and (c) during the ten-year period from and after the warranty date, the dwelling shall be free from major construction defects due to noncompliance with building standards. Sec. 10. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 327A.02, subdivision 3, is amended to read: Subd. 3. [HOME IMPROVEMENT WARRANTIES.] (a) In a sale or in a contract for the sale of home improvement work involving major structural changes or additions to a residential building, the home improvement contractor shall warrant to the owner that: (1) during the one-year period from and after the warranty date the home improvement shall be free from defects caused by faulty workmanship and defective materials due to noncompliance with building standards; and (2) during the ten-year period from and after the warranty date the home improvement shall be free from major construction defects due to noncompliance with building standards. (b) In a sale or in a contract for the sale of home improvement work involving the installation of plumbing, electrical, heating or cooling systems, the home improvement contractor shall warrant to the owner that, during the two-year 4 of 6 07/23/2001 10:50 AM Minnesota Sessmn Laws 200 l, Chapter 20- period from and after the warranT}' date, the home improvement shall be free from defects caused by the faulty instalia~lon cf the system or systems due Tc noncoms!lance witk building standards. lc) In a sale or in a conTrac~ for the sale of an}' home improvement work not covered by paragraph (a! or (b) , the home improvement contractor shall warrant to the o~er that, durin~ the one-year period from and after the warranty date, The home improvement shall be free from defects caused by faulty workmanship or defective materials due to noncompliance with buildin~ standards. Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 462.353, subdivision 4, is amended to read: Subd. 4. [FEES.] A municipality may prescriDe fees sufficient to defray the costs incurred by it in reviewing, investigating, and administering an application for an amendment to an official control established pursuant to sections 462.351 to 462.364 or an application for a permit or other approval required under an official control established pursuant to those sections. Fees as prescribed skal! must be by ordinance and must be fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the actual cost of the service for which the fee is imposed. A municipality shall adopt management and accounting procedures to ensure that fees are maintained and used only for the purpose for which they are collected. If a dispute arises over a specific fee imposed by a municipality related to a specific application, the amount of the fee must be deposited and held in escrow, and the person aggrieved by the fee may appeal under section 462.361. An approved application may proceed as if the fee had been paid, pendin~ a decision on the appeal. Sec. 12. [462.3531] [WAIVER OF RIGHTS.] Any waiver of rights of appeal under section 429.081 is effective only for the amount of assessment estimated or for the assessment amount a~reed to in the development a~reement. An effective waiver of rights of appeal under section 429.081 may contain additional conditions providing for increases in assessments that will not be subject to appeal if: (1) the increases are a result of requests made by the developer or property owner; or (2) the increases are otherwise approved by the developer or property owner in a subsequent separate written document. -~ Sec. 13. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 462.357, subdivision 2, is amended to read: Subd. 2. [GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.] (a) At any time after the adoption of a land use plan for the municipality, the plannin~ a~ency, for the purpose of carryin~ out the policies and ~oals of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance and submit it to the ~overnin~ body with its recommendations for adoption. (b) Subject to the requirements of subdivisions 3, 4, and 5, the ~overning body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a majority vote of all its members. The adoption or amendment of any portion of a zonin~ ordinance which chan~es all or par~ of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a two-thirds majority vote of all its members of the ~overninq body. (c) The land use plan must provide ~uidelines for the tim~n~ and sequence of the adoption of official controls to ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the land use plan. Sec. 14. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 462.357, subdivision 5, is amended to read: Subd. 5. [AMENDMENT; CERTAIN CITIES OF T~E FIRST CLASS.] 5 of 6 07/23/2001 10:50 AM Minnesota Session Laws 2001. Ciaapter 207 The provisions of this suDdi~:is:i:~R~:~!~l~:'te citic~ the adoption or amendment of ant' portion of a zonlnc o~dinance which chances all or Dart of the exisulnC classi ........ cf from residential to either commercial cr industrial a property located in a cit~7 of the first class, except a ci~>' cf ~he first class in which a different process is provided through the operation of the city's home rule charter. In a city to which this subdivision applies, amendments to a zoning ordinance shall be made in conformance with this section but only after there shall have been filed in the office of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situate within 100 feet of the to~al contiguous descriptions of real estate held by the same o~er or any party purchasing any such contiguous property within one year preceding the request, and after the affirmative vote in favor thereof by a majority of the members of the governing bod}' of any such city. The governing body of such city may, by a two-thirds vote of its members, after hearing, adopt a new zoning ordinance without such written consent whenever the planning commission or planning board of such city shall have made a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of not less than 40 acres, within which the new ordinance or the amendments or alterations of the existing ordinance would ~ake effect when adopted, and shall have considered whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes and alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent impractical, and such planning commission or planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably related to the overall needs of the community, to existing land use, or to a plan for future land use, and shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance, changes or alterations, of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily newspaper of general circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks prior to such hearing, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and recommendations in writing. Sec. 15. [EFFECTIVE DATE.] (a) Sections 5 and 11 are effective January 1, 2002. (b) Sections 8 to 10, 13, and 14 are effective the day following final enactment. (c) Section 12 is effective August 1, 2001, and applies to contracts entered into on or after that date. Presented to the governor May 25, 2001 Signed by the governor May 29, 2001, 11:35 a.m. 6 of 6 07/23/2001 10:50 AM HOUgLNG. REDEVELOPMENT. PLANN'ING. ZONqANG governing body in the form of conservation easements under chapter 84C where the governing body considers preservation des/ruble and the transfer of ment rights from those areas to areas the govermng body considers more a for development. No regulation may prohibit earth sheltered construction as section 216C.06, subdivision 2, relocated residential buildings, or manufactured built in conformance with sections 327.31 to 327.35 that comply with all other ordinances promulgated pursuant to this section. The regulations may surface, above surface, and subsurface areas of the municipahty into districts or: of suitable numbers, shape, and area. The regulations shall be uniform for each kind of buildings, structures, or land and for each class or kind of use throu district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other district~,t ordinance embodying these regulations shall be known as the zoning shall consist of text and maps. A city may by ordinance extend the application zoning regulations to unincorporated territory located within two miles of its any direction, but not in a county or town which has adopted zoning re provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have boun than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the zoning of land on its sid.e, ¢ line equidistant between the two noncontiguous municipalities unless a town or in the affected area has adopted zoning regulations. Any city may thereafter such regulations in the area to the same extent as if such property were situated its corporate limits, until the county or town board adopts a comprehensive regulation which includes the area. Subd. la. Certain zoning ordinances. A municipality must not enact, enforce a zoning ordinance that has the effect of altering the existing density, requirements, or manufactured home setback requirements in any manufactured park constructed before January 1, 1995, if the manufactured home park, constructed, complied with the then existing density, lot-size and setback requiremen Subd. lb. Conditional uses. A manufactured home park, as defined in sec~ 327.14, subdivision 3, is a conditional use in a zoning district that allows the ' ' tion or placement of a building used or intended to be used by two or more Subd. lc. Amortization prohibited. Except as otherwise provided in this subd~.'~. sion, a municipality must not enact, amend, or enforce an ordinance providing for .~. elimination or termination of a use by amortization which use was lawful at the time, its inception. This subdivision does not apply to adults-only bookstores, adults-o..~ theaters, or similar adults-only businesses, as defined by ordinance. Subd. Id. Nuisance. Subdivision lc does not prohibit a municipality from an ordinance providing for the prevention or abatement of nuisances, as defmed./~ section 561.01, or eliminating a use determined to be a public nuisance, as defined in section 617.81, subdivision 2, paragraph (a), clauses (1) to (9), without payment.of compensation. · --'""'- . Subd. 2. General requirements. At any time after the adoption of a land use plan for the municipality, the planning agency, for the purpose of carrying out the policies" and goals of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance and submit'it m the governing body with its recommendations for adoption. Subject to the require- ments of subdivisions 3, 4, and 5, the governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a two-thirds vote of all its members. The plan must provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls to ensure planned, order, ly.I and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the plan. Subd. 3. Public hearings. No zoning .ordinance or amendment thereto shall il adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the governing body. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days prior to the day. of the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before thc day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and pro e situated partly within 350 feet ,~ *~ ............ . p rty wholly or · ~- ,,,~ property [o wmcla tide amendment relates. For thc purpose of pang mailed appropriate recorcls t, .aetc nouCe and a hst of thc ow attested to bv the responsi~- r~rc~'eedings. 'The failure to 'm me notice shall not inv. comply with this subdivision Subd. 4. Amendments. the governing bodx', the pla,~ defined in the zoning ordm shall be referred to the pla~ not be acted upon the planmng agent' on thc the date of reference of ti Subd. 5. Amendment: subdivision apply to crees c different process is providec c~' to which this subdivis~o~ in conformance with th~s se~ of the city. clerk a wnne descriptions of real estate s~ real estate held by the sa property, within one year pr thereof by a majority, of ti- governing body of such cit~ adopt a new zoning ordin: commission or planning bo; o~' the city or of an area of the amendments or altera adopted, and shall have cox affected by such changes an unpractical, and such plann to whether in its opinion reasonably related to the o, plan for future land use, ar ordinance, changes or alte~ gix'en in a daily newspaper successive weeks prior to purpose of such hearing, ar findings and recommendatk Subd. 6. Appeals and merits may be taken by conditions imposed by the the following powers with (1) To hear and decicl order, requirement, decisio~ enforcement of the zoning (2) To hear requests instances where their stri~ circumstances unique to Iht variances only when it is c stxrit and intent of the or( granting of a variance me~ u~, ff used under condi' landowner is due to circun' e~. and the variance, if gr~ NOt'-O~-200~ ~:48 NRC 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, ~uite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 962.695.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 'planr~ers@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius November 1, 2001 New Hope - Ordinance Amendment to Modify Voting Procedures to be Consistent with MN Statutes 131.00 This last Spring, Minnesota State Legislature enacted a new statute which applies to municipal voting on zoning ordinance amendments in both text and maps. This new provision now mandates that municipalities use a majority vote of all its City Council members as opposed to a super majority vote in the adoption of an amendment to a zoning ordinance or changes to existing classifications on a zoning map. A super majority or four-fifths majority vote is still allowed where a residential zoning classification is changed to either commercial or industrial zoning classification. Since the State provides the enabling legislation for municipalities to adopt zoning regulations, all cities' zoning regulations must still be consistent with State Statutes. In this respect, the City of New Hope must review its zoning ordinance to make sure that the voting requirements that it applies locally are consistent with these new rules. Section 4.303(13) identifies the votes required for the various development applications within the City. Section 4.303(13)(a) reads as follows: 4.303(13)(a) Amendments. Approval of a request for an amendment of this chapter, (text,' and/or map) shall require passage by a four-fifths vote of the full City Council. NOU-B1-2001 14:48 NAC 612 595 983"7 P.0J/03 · To be consistent with State Statutes, the following amendment is suggested. 4.303(13)(a) Amendments. Approval of a request for an amendment of this chapter, (text, and/or map) shall require passage by a majority vote of the full City Council, except where the amendment involves changing zoning map classification from a residential district to either a commercial or industrial dislfi~ then passage shall require a four-fifths vote of the full City Council. With this change, the New Hope Zoning Ordinance shall be consistent with State Statutes regarding the voting requirements for any amendments to the text or maps of the City Zoning 'Ordinance. If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. pc: Steve Sondrall 2 TOTAL P.EI3 Memorandum To~ From: Date: Subject: Codes and Standards Committee Erin Seeman, Community DeveLopment Intern August 1, 2001 Elimination of the "super majority" in some zoning cases The Codes and Standards Committee is requested to discuss the change in the State's law regarding voting in zoning cases eliminating the "super majorit¢'. This new law significantly changes the City's ability to amend the zoning code. The new law states that the City can amend its zoning code with a simple majority vote unless the zoning code amendment changes a residential zoning district classification to either a commercial or industrial classification. The law previously stated that in order to pass a zoning text amendment a "super majority" (4/5) vote was required. I have attached the text of the new law, and the letter from Steve Sondrall, the City Attorney, addressing the issue. The City Attorney thinks that our ordinance should now reflect what was passed in the legislature. He has prepared the changes in an attached ordinance. 4.3 MINIS~TION - GENERA 4.301 5/14/2001 Development Application Procedures. Certain applications of the Zoning Code require study and action by the City Gouncil, the Planning Commission, City Manager, City staff, the applicant, and various experts, in varying combinations dependent upon the nature of the non- standard use or proposed use or change. These include proposed conditional use permits, variances, site plan reviews, Zoning Code text or map amendments, and appeals on zoning questions. 4.302 Decisional Process. The City Council acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals under Minn. Stat. Sections 462.354,462.357 (6), 462.359 (4) and 15.99 shall make the decisions within the legislative and executive framework of the City on applicable development applications. 4.303 Application Procedure. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute~s 15.99, a Zoning application for a zoning text or map amendment, conditional use permit, variance and/or site plan review shall be processed in accordance with the following procedure: 4.303 (1) Plannine Commission. All zoning applications shall first be presented to the Planning Commission, together with appropriate comment and recommendations from the City Manager or designated representatives. 4.303 (2) Application. Applications shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator or any staff persons designated by the City Manager on an official application form of the City, accompanied by a fee as outlined in Chapter 14. The application shall also be accompanied by detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the proposed change, development, oruse~ The number of copies to beprovided and any additional data shall be determined by the City Manager. Applications must be complete before they are accepted. A complete application must include the following information: 4.303(2) (a) A City application form(s) relating to the request signed by all persons with an interest in the subject property affected by the request. A copy of an Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title or other approved documentation of interest shall also be submitted with the signed application form(s); 4.303(2) (b) 4.303(2) (c) 4.303(2) (d) All supporting information required by this Code and/or outlined in Section 4.35 of this Code and application documents included with the City application forms; Payment of all fees associated with the applicable application(s); A pre-application meeting shall be required by City staff at which the appropriate application procedures, requirements and applicable Code provisions relating to the request will be reviewed and explained. : 4.303(2) (e) An application will be deemed complete unless the applicant receives written notice within ten (10) business days exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays of its submission indicating it is not complete and indicating what information is missing. This notice shall be considered given by its deposit in the U.S. Mail, fzrst class postage prepaid, addressed to any listed applicant at the address given on the application form. In the event the applicant fails to provide an address on the application form, this notice requirement for incomplete applications shall be deemed waived by the applicant. 4 - 156 4.303 (3) 4.303 (4) 4.303 (5) 4.303 (6) 4.303 (7) 4.303 (8) 4.303 (9) 5/14/2001 Further Data. The Council, Planning Commission and City staffmay request additional information from the applicant concerning the application ormay retain expert opinions at ~he expense of the City, or may require as a condition of proceeding with its consideration of any matter, that the apphcant finnish expert opinion and data at the expense of the applicant. City Manager's Report. The application shall be processed under the direction of the City Manager for a report and recommendation and initially presented to the Planning Commission. A preliminary draft of the City Manager's report with comments and/or recommendations and such applicant furnished supporting data as the City Manager deems necessary or desirable shall be given to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting at which said report and recommendations are to be presented. The final report and/or recommendations of the City Manager are to be entered in and made part of the permanent written record of the Planning Commission, and forwarded to the Council. Notice of Hearing. For applications involving zoning amendments, conditional use permits, and variances, the City Manager shall set a date for a public hearing. Notice of such hearing shall be published in conformance with Chapter 1 of this Code and individual notices shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing to all owners of property, according to the records available to the City within three ht;ndred fifty (350) feet of each parcel included in the request, as provided in Chapter 1. Notice Not Received. Failure of the City to send, or a property owner to receive notice shall not invalidate any proceedings under this Code. Hearing. After receipt of the report of the City Manager, the Planning Commission shall consider the application at its next regular meeting unless the filing date of the application falls within fifteen (15) days of said meeting, in which case the application shall be placed on the agenda and considered at the regular meeting following the next regular meeting. Presentation of Application. The applicant or a representative of the applicant shall appear before the Plaaaning Commission in order to present the case for the application and to answer questions concerning the request. Failure of the proponent to appear at either the Planning Commission or Council consideration of the matter shall constitute grounds for rejection of the application. The Planning Commission and the Council may each require sworn testimony and a verified transcription of the proceedings at the expense of the City. The applicant shall have the same privilege of presenting sworn testimony and may provide for a transcript of the proceedings at the expense of the applicant. ; Recommendations of Plannine Commission. The Planning Commission shall recommend such actions or conditions relating to the application as deemed necessary or desirable to carry out the intent and purpose of this Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Such recommendation shall be either in the minutes or by written resolution, and accompanied by the report and recommendation of the City Manager, and forwarded to the City Council. 4 - 157 4.303 (10) 5/14/2OOl Record Before Council. The City Manager shall place the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the City Manager, on the agenda for the next regular Council meeting after Planning Commission action, orthe expiration of sixty (60) days after the first consideration by the Commission, whichever is earlier. Such repons and recommendations shall be entered in and made part of the permanent written record of the City Council meeting. 4.303 (11) Council Review. The City Council shall act upon an application after it has received the report and recommendation from the Planning Commission and the City staff. A response shall be provided within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date a completed application is submitted for consideration. This time limit automatically incorporates the sixty (60) day extension to the response deadline set out in Minnesota ..Statutes Section 15.99, Subd. 3 (g). The extension is necessary to provide adequate time for public hearings and appropriate design and environmental review. All applications will require the applicant to accept this one hundred twenty (I 20) days timeline for City Council action. If, upon receiving the repons and recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Manager, the City Council desires further consideration, or finds that inconsistencies exist in the review process, data submitted or recommended action, the City Council may, before talcing final action, refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with a statement detailing the reasons for referral. This procedure shall be followed only one (1) time on an application, except for a good cause. The Council .may refer an application back to the Planning Commission if it determines that changes m the application after Planning Commission recommendation require such action, or such referral may be waived by the Council. 4.303 (12) 4.303(13) (a) 4.303(13) (b) Council Action. Upon receiving the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the City Manager, the City Council may, at its option set and hold a public hearing if deemed necessary and shall make findings of fact and impose any condition on approval which it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and shall make its decision as to the application, Unless a longer period of time is approved in writing by the applicant, City Council action will occur within one hundred twenty (120) days after submission by the applicant of a completed application as provided by Section 4.304(2) of this Code. Votes Required. ._..___ Amendments. Approval ora request for an amendment of this Chapter (text and/or map) shall require passage by a 4~5tbs vote of the full City Council. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and/or Site Plan Review: A request for approval of a conditional use permit, variance or appeal on site plan review shall require the affn-mative vote ora majority ora quorum of the City Council present for the vote for passage. 4.303 (14) Notice to Applicant. The City Manager shall notify the applicant of the decision of the Council in writing, including any relevant resolution and findings which may have been passed by the Council. 4.303 (15) Filing of Notice of Action. A certified copy of any Conditional Use Permit shall be fried with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. A certified copy of any Zoning Code amendment, conditional use permit or variance authorized shall be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder. 4 - 158 4.304 5/14~001 4.303 (16) Reconsideration. Whenever an application has been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application affecting substantially the same property shall not be Considered again by the Planning Commission or City Council before the expiration of six (6) months from the date of its denial and any succeeding denials. However, a decision to reconsider such matter may be made by not less than 4/5ths vote of the full City Council at any time, or under Robert's Rules of Order. 4.303 (17) Termination of a Zoning Approval. If the work or use authorized by an approved zoning application has not been implemented within a year after final Council approval, the said approved application shall automatically terminate unless a petition for extension of time to implement the use or complete the work pursuant to the approved application has been granted by the City Council. Petition for extensions shall be made in writing and filed with the City Manager at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the approved application. There shall be no charge for the filing of a petition for extension. The petition shall include a statement of facts explaining the circumstances necessitating the extension. If a petition for extension is filed, the Council may terminate or modify the approved application for non-use, after a hearing or hearings held in the same manner as for the original consideration of the application, including notice to the applicant and their successor in interest, ff any. If after a hearing, the Council determines that the basis for approval of the original application no longer exists, in whole or substantial pan, the Council may terminate or modify the authority or use previously approved under the zoning application. Performance Aereement. Except in the case of non-income producing residential property, upon approval of a conditional use permit, variance, site plan and/or administrative permit, the City may require the applicant to enter into a performance agreement prior to the issuing of building permits or initiation of work on the proposed improvement or development. Said agreement shall guarantee conformance and compliance with the conditions of the approval and the codes of the City. The performance agreement shall be prepared and approved by the City Attorney and shall contain, but not be limited to, the following terms and conditions: 4.304 (1) Performance Bond. The performance agreement shall require the applicant to provide financial security to assure compliance with the agreement and conditions of the approval. The security may be in the form ora surety bond, cash escrow, certificate of deposit, irrevocable letter of credit, securities or cash deposit. The security shall be in an amount determined by the City Engineer or Building Official under the direction of the City Manager, and approved by the Council, to cover estimated costs of labor and materials for the proposed improvements or development. The project can be handled in stages with prior approval of the City. 4.304 (2) Bond Release. The City shall hold the security until completip, n of the proposed improvements or development and a certificate of occupancy indicating compliance with the application approval and Building Code of the City has been issued by the City Building Official. 4.304 O) Bond Forfeiture. Failure to comply with the conditions of the application approval and/or the ordinances of the City shall result in forfeiture of the security. 4 - 159 Minnesota Chapte~ American Planning Association VOL 19 NO 8 AUGUST 2001 The session is over; what happened? .Y c ..Y CA LSSO. in b°wever, the adoption or Now that the legislature has finally ~ amendment of any portion of a zoningf gone home for the year, here is a ~ ordinance which changes all or part brief wrap-up of some of the legisla- [ of the existing classification of a zon- tion that passed. /ing district from residential to either ! }:' 7~*'' "~ "" :;:~ "'..'.-'..'...'..'..:--5 /commercial or industrial requires a HF 1310 (Chapter 207) has many (.,two-thirds majority vote. ~/ §strips provisions related to building codes, but it also includes a number of pro- This law also changes rezoning pro- OEA's web site on sustainability ........ 8 visions of more general interest to planners: a) Cities are prohibited from adopt- ing code provisions or development agreements that are more stringent than comparable provisions of the State Building Code. It requires de- velopment fees to be commensurate with costs, that cities submit annual reporting of those costs, and that fees be used for the purpose for which they were collected. ~ prohibited from requir-~'~ mga super-majority for most rez~/ cedures for first class cities, where consent petitions of neighboring own- ers are no longer required unless a rezoning is from residential to com- mercial or industrial. Cities must allow the continuation of legal non-conforming uses and must allow them to be repaired and main- tained unless the non-conformity or occupancy is discontinued for more than one year or is destroyed to an extent greater than 50 percent of its market value (Chapter 174, HF 1507). Your Planning Odyssey is just beginning Come and join us as we explore the strange and wondrous world of planning at the 29th annual Minne- sota State Planning Conference - Mission 29. The conference will be held at the Breezy Point Resort in Breezy Point, Minnesota from Sep- tember 12-14, 2001. Conference programs have been mailed and early registrations are due by Au- gust 24th. The conference features sessions on urban centers, sub- urbs, cities, towns and the natural environment. Educational sessions include the GTS "Planning Basics" course as well as professional de- velopment sessions. And, all of this takes place in the beautiful natural environment surrounding Pelican Lake. So, pack your bags and get ready for three days of education, recreation and relaxation. This mis- sion is too important to miss!! Need a registration form? Call Cindy Carlsson at 651-229-0587 or go to www. mnapa.com. Job Postings ......................................... 8 Events ................................................... 12 The municipal consent taws were changed to "clarify" review/approv- al timing, the role and authority of the Commissioner of Transporta- tion, the make-up of the appeals board, and purpose of the law. For example, the commissioner now has the authority to approve free- way layouts while local govern- ments approve the arterial projects; an appeal board will be set up and an appeal process undertaken if dis- agreements arise (Chapter 191, HF 1973). Feedlot provisions (Chapter 128, SF 1659) change definition of the "established date of operation" for agricultural nuisances to limit the effect of cf, rtain changes in owner- ship, temporary cessations of crop- ping activities, adoption of new technologies, or changes in the type of crop produced. The omnibus State Departments bill (Special Session Chapter 10) included the following: a) Funding for Minnesota Planning and specific appropriations and pol- icy language regarding the follow- ing (Art. 1, Section 11): continued on page 2 Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development November 2, 2001 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. October 8 Council Meeting - At the October 8 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: · Project #692, Resolution Declarin.q Cost to be Assessed and Calling for a Public Hearin.q on Proposed Assessment in Conjunction with 60t~ Street Extension, Drainage and Watermain: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #678, Resolution Awarding Contract for Landscapin.q at 4864 Fla.q Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. · Resolution Declaring October 22 - November 23 as "2001 Minnesota's Manufacturin_q and Technology Month" in the City of New Hope: Approved, see attached Council request. · An Ordinance Establishing a Housing Improvement Area for the L'Esperance Owner's Association, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §428A: Adopted. Council deleted meter replacement requirement, see attached Council request. 2. October 22 Council Meeting - At the October 22 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: · Project #678, Resolution Orderin.q Published Notice and Public Hearing on Sale and Development of 4864 Fla.q Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. · PC01-03, Resolution Authorizing Reduction of Financial Guarantee for Tio.qa Air Heaters Site Improvements, 9201 International Parkway: ^pproved, see attached Council request. · PC00-11, Resolution Authorizing Reduction of Financial Guarantee for Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc. Site Improvements, 9101 Science Center Drive: Approved, see attached Council request. · Project #692, Motion Approving Final Pay Request of ~;7,808.60 to Don Zappa & Son Excavatin.q for Hidden Condo Drainage/Private Drive Improvements: Approved, see attached Council request. · 2000 New Hope Census Data Presentation: Presentation by Carlos Espinosa, a student intern, who worked in the Community Development Depar[ment for the past year on a special school project through Armstrong High SChool and Macalester College. See attached information. Project'#665, Resolution Authorizin.q Contamination Cleanup Grant Application to the Department of Trade and Economic Development for City-owned Properties Located ~. 7500-28 42nd Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. Project #665, Resolution Authorizin.q Tax Base Revitalization Account Application to ' . nd e' the Metropolitan Council for City-owned Propertms Located at 7500-28 42 Avenu . Approved, see attached Council request. Proiect #665, Motion Declining to Take Action on the Offer to Purchase City-owned Properties Located at 7500-28 42"d Avenue, One of Which was the Former Electronic Industries Site: Motion to decline was approved, see attached Council request. October 30 Council Work Session - At the October 30 Council work session, the Council discussed the following Community Development issue: · Discussion Re.clardin.q Ordinance Amendments to the New Hope Liquor Code Reclardin.q Increasin.q the Number of On- and Off-Sale Licenses and AmendinR Fees and License Requirements: Council did not make any decision on this issue at this time. See attached request. Codes & Standards Committee - Codes & Standards met in September to discuss the following items, which will be considered at the November Planning Commission meeting. · Administrative permit fee · Cell tower signage · Sign Ordinance changes (to be consistent with modified Zoning Districts) · Legislative change in "Super Majority" votes for Zoning Code Amendments The Committee met again in October to continue discussion on the following issues: · Charter Schools · Amendment to allow bulk packaging of liquor to accommodate Simon Deliver's request. These issues will be considered at the December Planning Commission meeting. 5. Desi.qn & Review Committee - Design & Review did not meet in October as no new applications were received for the November meeting. The application deadline for the December Planning Commission meeting is November 9, and staff will notify the committee and other commissioners about the status of applications after that date. Staff is aware of one application for a mini-storage facility that might be filed. 6. Livable Communities Grant - The second meeting of the task force was held on October 3. The discussion focused on "smart growth" principles and the visioning process for upcoming meetings. The task force broke into small groups to brainstorm on strengths and weaknesses in the project area. The third meeting was held on October 25 and information was presented on demographics, housing, transportation and crime in the project area. The committee was presented with land use principles and then small groups were given blank maps of the Hosterman site and told to envision what might be there in the future. The next meeting is scheduled for November 15. Enclosed are the meeting notes and materials from the October 3 and 25 meetings. 7. Project Bulletins - Enclosed is a project bulletin for 4864 Flag Avenue and an open house invitation for 4864 Flag Avenue. 8. Miscellaneous Article - Enclosed for your review is an excerpt from Zoning Bulletin. 9. Council Minutes - Minutes from the October 8 and-22 meetings are enclosed for your information. 10. 2002 Planning Commission Schedule - Enclosed is a preliminary 2002 Planning Commission schedule. The Commission should discuss the January meeting date and whether you would prefer to have the meeting on Wednesday, January 2, or the following Tuesday, January 8, as the Council does not meet until January 14. Staff is recommending that the meeting be held on January 8, if that is agreeable with the Commission. 11. If you have any questions on any of these items, please feel free to contact city staff. Attachments: 60th Street Extension Drainage & Watermain 4864 Flag Avenue Landscaping Contract Minnesota Manufacturing and Technology Month L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area 4864 Flag Published Notice on Sale of Home Tioga Air Heaters Avtec Finishing Systems Hidden Condo Drainage Final Pay Request Census Presentation DTED Cleanup Grant Met Council Cleanup Grant 7500-28 42nd Avenue Offer to Purchase Livable Communities Task Force Materials Project Bulletins Miscellaneous Article Council Minutes Originating Depa~ment Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Consent Commun~ ~eve~opment ~ 0/8/0~ ~ Item 6.4N°' ~ Kirk McDonald RESOLUTION DEC.RING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON =ROPOSED ASSESSMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH 60TM STREET EXTENSION, D~INAGE AND WATERMAIN (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 692) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests ~at the City Council adopt the enclosed Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Calling for a Public Hearing on Proposed Assessment in Conjunction with 60~ Street E~ension, Drainage and Watermain Improvement No. 692. The resolution establishes a public headng date of November 13. POLICY/PAST P~CTIC~ In the past, the City has completed projects involving public and private improvements if there is an assessment agreement in place with prope~ owners agreeing to pay the ~st of the private improvements. When the project is completed it is routine procedure to schedule a public heating and assess the final project costs against the benefiting prope~ owners. BACKGROUN.p The Hidden Pa~ Condo Association petitioned the City for this improvement. At the Februa~ 12 Council meeting, the Ci~ Council approved plans and specifi~tions for this project and authorized staff to seek bids. Bids were opened, reviewed by the Association, and the Ci~ Council awarded the contract for the work at the April 9 Council meeting to Don Zappa & Son Ex~vating, the Iow bidder, ~th a base bid of $81,720.55. The construction wo~ has now been ~mpleted. The total proje~ cost is $98,315.06, including indirect ~sts, and the breakdown of costs is as follows: $56,707.15 Driveway and sto~ sewer construction $21,994.90 Wate~ain ~nst~ction $19.663.01 Indirect costs $98,315.06 Total (~nt.) TO: 10-8-~.- Request for Action Page 2 ' ' Staff and the City Engineer are recommending that the City pay $22,560.31 for the watermain costs and, ~' City share of indirect costs and that the remaining $75,784.74 be assessed to Hidden Park. The resolution calls for a November 13 public headng and the City Attorney will publish notice of the hearing in the official newspaper. The City Clerk will mail notice of the public hearing to the 68 condominium owners within this project. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Calling for the Public Hearing on November 13. FUNDING The City's portion of the project will be paid for from the Water Utility Fund. ATTACHMENTS · City Attorney Correspondence and Resolution · Notice of Hearing · 10/2 City Engineer Memo · Site Map · Drainage/Private Drive Improvement Plans OF COtJ~r~c LORENS Q- BRYNF..qlAD JENSEN & SOI i)RALL' Attorneys A t Law ' 8525 ED1NBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROO}a-Y~ p~' .m~, Mi,~,~ESOT,~ 554 1~-1968 T£r ~p}~oS£ (763) 424-8811 · TELEF~X (763) 493-5193 e-mail law~jensen-sondrall-¢om October 2, 2001 Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: SENT BY FAX TO: {763) 531-5136 AND BY REGULAR MAIL Hidden Park Condominium Assessment Procedure Our File No.: 99.11255 Dear Kirk: In follow up to my September 28, 2001 letter and the City Engineer's October 2, 2001 memo concerning assessable costs to Hidden Park, please find enclosed a revised Resolution for consideration at the October 8, 2001 Council meeting. As we discussed on the telephone, the total project co~t is $98,315.06. This includes the following costs: 1. Driveway and storm sewer construction - $56,707.15 2. Watermain construction - $21,944.90 3. Indirect costs - $19,663.01 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS - $98,315.06. It is my understanding the City Engineer is recommending the City. pay $22,560.31 for the watermain costs and its share of the indirect costs. It is recommended the remaining $75,784.75 be assessed to Hidden Park. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding the enclosed Resolution or this letter. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondmll, Ci~. Attorney, City of New Hope J~*,,ISEN & $ONDRALL. P.A. ~as.Fr te~s~n-~ondrall.com Enclosures cc: Valerie Leone, City Clerk. City of New Hope RESOLUTION NO. O1- RESOLUT/ON DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC I-IEARiNG ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT IN CONNECTION WITH 60TM STREET EXTENSION, DRAINAGE AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. 692 WHEREAS, contracts have been let for the construction of the 60~ Street Extension, Drainage and Watermain Improvement No. 692 in the City; WHEREAS, the total cost of said improvements is $98,315.06; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk, with the assistance of the City consulting engineer, has prepared an assessment roll for the 60~h Street Extension, Drainage and Watermain Improvement No. 692, and said proposed assessment roll is on file with the City Clerk and open to public inspection. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: 1. The City Council hereby determines that the City shall pay $22,560.31 of said cost, exclusive of the amount it may pay as a property owner, and the sum of $75,784.75 shall be assessed against benefitted property owners based upon benefits received without regard to cash valuation and pursuant to the April 18, 2001 Hidden Park Condominium Petition for Public Improvemem and Assessment Agreement. 2. The Clerk shall publish notice that this Council will meet to consider the propos.ed assessments on November 13, 2001 at 7 o'clock p.m. at the City Hail, 4401 Xylon Avenue North of said City of New Hope, Minnesota. The published notice shall be in substantially the form set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto. 3. A copy of the notice in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto shall be mailed to the owners of each parcel of property described in the assessment roll. 4. Said notice attached as Exhibit A hereto shall be published by the City Clerk in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing and the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B shall be mailed by the Clerk to the owners of each parcel described in the assessment roll. -1- 5. The owner of an3' pro~rty so assessed ma3', at an3' time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pa3' the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the crate of payment, to the Finance Director or AsseSsment Clerk. except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of the assessment. At any time thereafter, the owner may pay to the Finance Director or Assessment Clerk the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made on or before November 14 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. Adopted by the City Council this 8~ day of October, 2001. W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk -2- EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF HEARING ON ASSESSMENTS FOR 604 STREET EXTENSION, DRAINAGE AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. 692 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: TIME AND PLACE AND GENERAL NATURE OF IMPROVEMENTS: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet in the City Hall at 4401 Xylon Avenue North in the City of New Hope, Minnesota, on the 13~ day of November, 2001 at 7 o'clock p.m. to consider the proposed assessments for 60~h Street Extension, Drainage and Watermain Improvement No. 692 heretofore ordered by the City Council. The general nature of the improvement is as set forth in the April 18, 2001 Hidden Park Condominium Petition for Public Improvement and Assessment Agreement. ASSESSMENT ROLE OPEN TO INSPECTION: The proposed assessment roll is on file with the City Clerk and open to public inspection. AREA PROPOSED TO BE ASSESSED: The area proposed to be assessed consists of every lot, piece or parcel of land benefitted by said improvement, which has been ordered made and is as follows, in the City of New Hope, Minnesota: ADDRESS: 6051 West Broadway - Apts. 101 through 306 6015 West Broadway - Apts. 101 through 306 6013 West Broadway - Apts. 101 through 306 6007 West Broadway - Apts. 102 through 306 TOTAL AMOUNT OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT; The total amount proposed to be assessed is $75,784.75. RIGHT OF APPEAL: Pursuant to the April 18, 2001 Hidden Park Condominium Petition for Public Improvement and Assessment Agreement, the owners of property to be assessed have waived their right to appeal the assessment to the district court of Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081. Owners may appeal to district court A-1 LIMITATION ON APPEAL: DEFERMENT ASSESSMENTS: OF MAILED NOTICE: pursuant to Minnesota Statute,:, Section 429,081 an)' arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious actions of the City in connection with this project bY making an objection at the hearing and by serving notice cf the objection upon the Mayor or Clerk: of the City within 30 clays after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within 10 days after service upon the Mayor or Clerk.. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of the assessment based on the waiver of appeal set out in the referenced Assessment Agreement. Objections to the regularity of these proceedings not received at the assessment hearing in the manner prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061 are waived, unless the failure to object is due to a reasonable cause. Under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195, the City may, at its discretion, defer the payment of assessments for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. The procedure for applying for such a deferment is set forth in New Hope Code {}1.60 et. al., a copy of which is available upon request at the office of the City Clerk. The notice of this hearing mailed to property owners contains additional information. DATED: October 9, 2001. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL s/ Valerie Leone City Clerk A-2 AVE N ",KE~CI<Y JERS~ 7101 A~EN LOUISIANA AX 8 ~ lllllllWllllllllffllllllllll ,.,., I1 ° i .? ../ "::~ CCL~N'CIL REQUEST FOR ACTION ~ Agenda Section Originating Department Approved for Agenda Consent Community Development Item No. By: Ken Doresky, Community ~/. //) 10-08-01 6.5 Development Specialist By: /',/' RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRA~T FOR LANDSCAPING AT 4864 FLAG AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 678) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting that the Council approve a resolution awarding a contract for landscaping at 4864 Flag Avenue North to Fair's Nursery and Landscaping in the Iow quote amount of $7,552.50. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE Landscaping is normally included in residential projects developed by the City. Staff develops a landscape plan and specifications from which quotes are solicited. Staff normally recommends awarding contracts to the lowest responsible quote. BACKGROUND On April 9, 2001, the Council approved a landscaping plan for 4864 Flag Avenue North including authorization for staff to seek quotes on the project. The landscaping plan was amended to accommodate site issues at the south end of the property and to provide for proper drainage. The elevation change between 4864 Flag Ave. N. and the adjacent southern property, 4856 Flag Ave. N. necessitated the addition of an estimated 100 sq. ft. retaining wall. The retaining wall will run an estimated thirty (30) feet along the length of the garage and vary in height from four (4) to two (2) feet. A grading plan was created by the Assistant City Engineer to provide adequate site drainage. Finally, the southern property owner agreed to remove several buckthom hedge plants that are currently located on the 4864 Flag Ave. N. property. The City agreed to replace the buckthorn hedges with six (6) Holmstrup Arborvitae that will be planted in the same general location, but on the southern property owner's lot. Maintenance of the Holmstrup Arborvitae will be the responsibility of the southern property owner. Staff has worked with the owners of 4856 Flag Ave. N., Bernie and Lori Weber to accommodate the landscaping changes and resolve property line issues. Staff marked the property line, from which the Weber's agreed to remove items located on the 4864 lot, including, the buckthorn hedges, a basketball goal and a portion of their driveway. City Ordinance requires pavement no closer than three feet from a neighboring property line. Pavement along the lot line will be removed to comply with the City Ordinance. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request fc- Action Page 2 .. 1. 0-0~:~;~ The sidewa!k along the northern end of the property was replaced to correct an existing ponding problem. sidewalk was replaced prior to grading to ensure the proper grading elevation. Additional cement worF'"h tht site was completed under the Schirmer's Concrete, Inc. contract for work at the West Metro Fire Station on per unit cost basis. The City Engineer, City Forester and Community Development staff worked closely to amend the landscapin! plan to include the estimated 100 sq. ft. retaining wall and grading plan, as well as, resolve property elevatior issues and property line issues with the south property owner. On September 17, 2001, quote request packets were sent to fourteen (14) landscaping contractors. Ir response to the landscaping quote request for the subject property, the City received the .following four (4 quotes: Contractor Fair's Nursery & Landscaping Wrobleski's Landscaping Talberg Lawn & Landscaping, inc. Weber's Multiple Subcontracting Quote $7,552.50 $7,770.85 $8,555.74 $9,757.20 Staff recommends awarding the contract to Fair's Nursery & Landscaping in the Iow quote amount o $7,552.50. Fair's Nursery & Landscaping has done work for the City in the past and has been responsible This quote is above staff's initial estimate of $5,060.00 presented to the Council in April, but including th~ additional items, this quote is below staff's adjusted estimate of $7,920.00. The completion date for thi,, contract is October 31, 2001. Staff recommends approval of this resolution. FUNDING The proceeds from the sale of the home will be used to fund the landscaping of the property. attached project budget. Please see ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · Location Map · City Forester Memorandum · Landscaping Plan · Planting Schedule and Estimate · Grading Plan · Retaining Wall Specifications · Contract · Quote Results · Project Budget -. // NEW HOPE """ .......... ' .... - ...... i !%'"' I ATHLETIC ~'",.. '"', "0~ ! i ~- ;~. i i ,A '. . . ..... ' " ............... ~ ........................ '~g.'--- 49TH AVE N ........... ~-- ~ ......... '-'~'-: ":-'~., i";.;;,-:'~'q;~ i,h' " ~:-~;' i '" ~' i ~ ~ ~ : ,: .......... ,~: ..... 4 ~; .... -.~ i ~i ! '~" ~!; :~'i ...... '-- - -. -~' / , .......... ........... I : I ~ I ' "'~ ~"--' ' ; : ...... :- ...... ::~': .... · '~ U'); ......... , I!,4es2 ,. 4e~: , .,;.;:; ,m4~ '2:: ". 4e32 .4aT., ' I ; : : ,L,.J ;'~ 'J..~ ' :.,-..., :,, ,.4 ~' ..6+,,,:::..~',-,,*-,.. "..f ~i~': ; ...... ~...-...:-:-..:.-_':,~%-...., .,.,". -, .'Iv'< :,"~' ">:: ', ; ~. 4801 ', 4~1 ~v~. .... "'4, '. ' ' 'A'J~, ' ""- · ~'' ~ .... ' ' ' '-- ~" "' ' ' '.' __ ' ~,, '~ ' ~ · .,,~ ':'-'.-.' ', .... ...-'-. .~ ...... ;. ~ ..... !. , ~-: ~: ~i I~ · ".~ '.. ,.--""', _: .\-" ~ ~ 4725 '.. ~ 4724 : 4771 : ._ ....... '"r ...... "-'--.. ..... :' ' _,. ~ :. ~j · -- 47 - $ ....... ,-- . ~ · : , ,. 17. , .... -' ~ .......... ' ' - ~ .o.- -. / ...................... .~ ~ , ., . ...,. o :: ..... -'." L i4'~'~ ! i 470~147"Zl i 47iI~2 AtVE:_ N .. ..... ; i I ,: ; ---,w i ',t~'q~'g ; , , .,-,., ./'"%^%,,"i ,0, ; i~ : i,~ , _~' ; ...... -';-~. '::': .... '-:_' ...... ' ......... : : .... ~ : I"IL)L~~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ W47t 4-/~"1 AVl:" kl ':' ....... ,,~,~, / . . .: ....... Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Ken Doresky Tom Schuster October 1, 2001 Landscaping at 4864 Flag Avenue I have reviewed the pdce quotas you have received for the landscaping work to be done at 4864 Flag Avenue. I am familiar with the three Iow bidders, Fair's Nursery, Wrobleski's Landscaping, and Talberg Lawn and Landscaping, Inc. All three have done acceptable work for New Hope within the past two years. I am not familiar with the fourth and highest bidder, Bernie Weber. Mr. Weber's bid was ambiguous and contained several math errors. For that reason, I feel that it should be rejected from consideration. The iow bidder for 4864 Flag was Fair's Nursery. Fair's did the work at the house at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue built in 1999 by the City of New Hope. Mark Hasse was their rep~tative on that job and I found him to be cooperative and easy to work wi~. He is listed as the representative for Fair's on their bid for the work on Flag Avenue as well. I would recommend that we enter a contract with Fair's Nursery for the landscaping work at 4864 Flag Avenue. F'LA G ,~ ~M -'.864 Flag Avenue North Planting Scheduie Revised 9-6-01 Key Quantity Common Name Botanical Name S~ze Est~matecl Estlmata0 Unit Price Pnce BHS 3 _Rmck Hills Spruce Picea glauca clensata 6' B&B $280 $840 AM 3 Amur Maple (clump) Acer gmnalla 'Flame' 7' B&B $300 sg00 HA 8 Holmstrup Thuja occiclenat~aiis #7 cont. $60 $480 Arborvitae "Holmstrup' DRS 10 Dart's Red Spirea Spirea x bumalcla 'Dart's #5 cont. S30 $300 Red' BJ 6 Arcadia Juniper Jumperus sabina #5 cont $30 $180 'Arcadia' MW 5 Minuet Weigela Weigeta florida 'Minuet' #5 cont. $30 $150 Sod 1175 yd Scl. ydS. $2 $2350 40 ff. Valley V'~ew Eclg~ng $2.501ft $100 6 yds. Mulch Harclwood chips Cubic yds. $20 $120 100 Sq. Retaining Wall Keystone or approved $25 $2,500 Ft. est. eclual .- Total (Estimated) $7,920 HY-LAND LAND Proposed ~'ou o' 81OC~ ProposeCi C, orag¢ Floc' Proposec LoweSt Floo' Type of BuUo~nc: - N ~C 892.00 891.98 891.86 Z. ~C 892.64 892.00 891.99 894.48 SURVEYING, P.A. sURVEYORS 55369 7631 493-576 SET Bv DIV[LOpERS SURV[YC~ '-.B ['" SCAa ~ "= Denotes Iro~ MO Denotes WOOO ina= Se'. For ~. xCOvOt~On Denotes £xist~n(~ [~e~ot~or Denotes ProDosea Denotes Surface Dro,noge 5cc ~ i w: xO00.O NEW HOPE 49TH ,~892.02 c~ s ~-r ~ ~E TIc AVENUE NORTH 89~ 42 uJ 26 -10" u.J (.~ U3Z aLU o~ 89~ 892.55 892.88 893.12 893. I _~.? ~ ;;;.;:-;,.;--,. 894.63 894.67 ~;4,-.-.~,~,, 125.56 897.79 ,I.96 895.4a 895.39 898.5~ 897.07 ~i~895.64 89,',.5~ -'/'DP 0,~ I~I'ALI.- ~cl~. I~ 896. r7 895.57 LOT 41, BLOCK 3. ZUBECK'S ROILING HILLS ADDITION Milton [. H)4ond. Mm .~g.' ..... 2 COUNCIL · REQUEST FOR ACTION · "-'=---~riginating Department Approved for Agencla Agenaa Section Community Development 10-8-01 Consent Item No. By: Kirk McDonald and Erin Seeman B)t: 6.6 / RESOLUTION DECLARING OCTOBER 2:~- NOVEMBER 23 AS "2001 MINNESOTA'S MANUFACTURING AND TECHNOLOGY MONTH" IN THE CiTY OF NEW HOPE REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution declaring October 22 - November 23 as "2001 Minnesota's Manufacturing and Technology Month" in the City of New Hope. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In 1998, 1999, and 2000, the City recognized a week in October as "Minnesota Manufacturers Week" in coordination with the State of Minnesota. BACKGROUND The State of Minnesota has declared October 22 - November 23 as "2001 Minnesota's Manufacturing and Technology Month." In addition to State recognition, the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) is working with cities all across Minnesota to recognize this month as well. DTED has made this declaration in an effort to raise the general public awareness of manufacturing's importance in providing high-wage, high-skill jobs and a stable tax base for our communities. New Hope is one of these communities that has benefited from the high-skill jobs and strong tax base thanks to its manufacturers. Statewide, manufacturers are responsible for the largest single portion of Minnesota's gross product, and have the largest payroll of any business sector. Staff feels it is important to recognize the importance of manufacturers in New Hope. A'n'ACHMENT · Resolution · Correspondence and News Release MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: i I '----Trade & -7- Econormc Development Bus~n~S$ & Communit'F Development September 8.2001 Greetings! Minnesota Governor Jesse Yentura has declared October 22 - November 23 as 2001 Minnesota's Manufacturing and Technology Month. This is the eight annual recognition for over 9,300 Minnesota manufacturing businesses that contribute to local economies through high wage jobs. businesses and community development. The Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) joins with the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. Minnesota Technology, Inc., and Manufacturing Technology of Minnesota in hosting this month long industry celebration. An integral part of Governor Ventura's Big Plan is to recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of our manufacturing and technology base, which are important and dynamic parts of Minnesota's prosperous economy. This base has a proud history of significantly contributing to Minnesota's economic strength, success and high quality of life. Manufacturing represents our State's second largest payroll with $19 billion in wages in 1999. It produced $31 billion for the State's economy and is the third largest share - 18.1% of our gross product. It contributed nearly $251 million in corporate income taxes, which was more than any other business sector and represented about 30% of total corporate taxes collected. Enclosed is a guide to assist to you with planning a recognition event honoring manufacturing or technology businesses in your community. Should you have any questions, please contact Gerry Wenner at DTED at 651-297-1844 or 800-657-3858. Sincerely, Rebecca Yanisch Commissioner www. dted.state.mn.us Minnesota Department of Trarle and Economic Developmcnl 500 Metro Square · 121 7th Place East "St. Pa/al, Minnesota 55101-2146 · USA 651-297-I291 · 800-657-3858 · FAX-652~-5287 · TTY/TDD 800-627-3529 ~t Governor Ventura Declares October 22-November 23 Minnesota Manufacturers and Technology Month Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 FOR IMMEDZ/t TE RE£E~4SE Contact: Gerry Wenner 651/297-1844 Gerald. Wenner~state. mn. us St. Paul - Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has declared October 22-November 23, as 2001 Minnesota Manufacturers and Technology Month. This is the eighth annual recognition for over 9,300 Minnesota manufacturing businesses that contribute to local economies tlu'ongh jobs, business and community development. Last year, hundreds of Minnesotan manufacturers were acknowledged during luncheons, plant tours, local celebrations and other activities. Participation is likely to grow this year as local developers, companies, business and civic leaders across the state become involved in this special statewide event. "Right now, manufacturing companies in Minnesota employ more than 430,000 people, and that ntunber is expected to reach 472,000 by 2008," said Governor Ventura. "In addition, manufacturing in our state provides the second largest total payroll of any business sector, providing about $19 billion in wages to working Mirmesomns." "Manufacturers and Technology Month provides opportunities to recognize both large and small manufacturers across Minnesota," said Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development Commissioner Rebecca Yanisch. "Fostering statewide rural economic diversity is a major initiative of this administration, and Minnesota's manufacturers have played, and will cominue to play, an important role in achieving this economic development goal." Minnesota manufacturers see better business conditions on the horizon, according to a survey conducted by DTED and the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. About 80 percent expect to see employment increase or stabilize at current levels during the second half of 2001. Local officials or organizations that would like to recognize a business or businesses with a ~,overnor's certificate of commendation during Mirmesota Manufacrarers and Technology Month should call Judy Parker, DTED, at (651) 296-5022 or 1-800-657-3858. If you want to plan an event honoring local manufacturers, please contact Marilyn Ruhberg a! the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, (651)292-4650; 651/292-4656 (fax). REQUEST FOR ACTION ~ Agenaa Sect,on urigina~ng uepa~u,,=nt Public Hearing Community Development ~ Item No. By: Ken Doresky, Community~ 10-08-01 7.1 ~ecialist PUBLIC HEARING: AN ORDINANCE E/STABLISHING A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA FOR THE L'ESPERANCE OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. §428A (IMPROVEMENT =ROJECT NO. 695) ACTION REQUESTED This is a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance establishing a Housing Improvement Area for the L'Esperance Owners Association, 7924-8020 51st Avenue North. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within the City. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the City's many housing activities, including consideration of creating Housing Improvement Areas for condominium associations, in 1997/98, the Council adopted an ordinance establishing a Housing Improvement Area for the Sandpiper Cove Townhome Development near 42nd and Boone Avenues. The creation of this district allowed the owners of the thirty-six owner-occupied townhomes to make significant repairs and improvements to their properties, in an amount of approximately $600,000 and pay off the debt by assessment. BACKGROUND On July 23, 2001, the Council approved a resolution scheduling a public hearing to consider the establishment of a Housing Improvement Area for the L'Esperance Owners Association, 7924-8020 51st Avenue North. Over the past year and a half, City staff has been working with representatives of L'Esperance Owner's Association on the creation of a Housing Improvement Area to finance needed improvements to the properties. On August 28, 2000, the Council directed staff to continue coordinating with L'Esperance Owner's Association on the creation of a Housing Improvement Area for two buildings located at 7924-8020 51st Avenue North. The properties are located on the north side of 51st Avenue North, just west of Winnetka Avenue. There are two buildings included in the Owner's Association (7924-7934 and 8008-8020) and each building contains six units for a total of twelve units. The proposed Housing Improvement Area does not include the third building, 7908-7918 51st Avenue North, located directly to the east of 7924-7934. The third building is a rental property and has no association ties to L'Esperance. The City Attorney and the Finance Director have come to the MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 . 10- conclusion that the thir~ building would not be eligible for" inclusion due to its current statu.~ as a r,e~,~ property. Zoning of the subject properties is R-3, Medium Density Residential. The buildings were constru~ctee in 1962 and are noted in the Comprehensive Plan for declining building and. site conditions. The Owner's Association has submitted materials for consideration of a Housing Improvement Area including a petition signed by eleven of the twelve owners and a list of proposed improvements with cost estimates. The estimate submitted to complete the project is $250,000.00, including the maximum 25% administration fee to. be adjusted. The proposed project would include roof replacement, insulation, gutter replacement, new windows, doors, electrical upgrades, fascia and soffit repair, improved sheet rock fire walls, new railing, front overhangs, plumbing line replacement, fencing, tree removal, new basement fixtures, drain tile and parking lot re-paving and seal coat. Upon review of the proposed improvements with staff, the Public Works Department recommended that water meter relocation also be included in this project. Staff first met with representatives from the Association on Monday, August 6, 2001, and requested clarification on the specifications, additional requirements and a firm cost estimate. During the time that staff has requested project clarifications and additions along with a firm cost estimate, the Council has continued this public hearing four (4) times. On October 1, staff met with representatives from the Association who submitted the requested clarifications. The Association has agreed to provide an as-built survey and assume the cost, separate from this assessment proposal. The Association was not receptive to many of staff's requests including landscaping, attic scuttles, separate electrical service and water meter relocation. The Association plans to remove all the foundation plantings along both buildings and replace them with planters, river rock and pavement. The planters and rock are to be provided separate from this assessment. The existing Russian Olive boulevard trees are proposed to remain. Relocated attic scuttles to improve attic access will not be included. Separate electrical service will only be provided if required by the State of Minnesota Electrical Inspector. Finally, the Association was not receptive to staffs request to relocate the water meters so that each meter will be located in the individual units for servicing purposes. Currently, meters for the units are located in the end units. City Code section 5.048(5) requires a separate water service per house or building. Staff is not requested that each unit have a separate service, only that the meters be moved to each individual unit. The cost to relocate the water meters and provide separate electrical service is included in the overall project cost, but the Association has requested that if these items are not required that the assessment be adjusted accordingly. Although garages were not originally proposed in this request, staff worked with and encouraged the L'Esperance Owner's Association to include garages in the proposal. Staff developed a number of concept plans for the construction of six double car garage buildings on the property. Without a survey to use as baseline data, the concepts developed by staff were very rough. Due to the layout of the buildings and the size of the properties, each concept would have required variances for approval including: inadequate visitor parking, accessory garages in the front yard, front and side yard setbacks and too many curb Cuts in the allowable area. Staff recommended that the Association hire a design firm and a survey firm to determine exact dimensions and alternative designs. The following two plans were considered: The City's Planning Consultant, NW Associated Consultants and staff were supportive of one concept plan (see attachment: Concept Garage Plan 1) that would have provided garages, visitor parking, an open front yard area and the least number of variances. The Association members were not agreeable to this plan, due to the layout of the garages. The concept Plan (see attachment: Concept Garage Plan 2) supported by the Association was unacceptable to the City. This concept plan was unacceptable due to the number of variances required, including: inadequate visitor parking, number of curb cuts, accessory garages in the front yard and possible front yard setback problems. Due to the lack of a survey and acceptable site plan, staff was unable to determine the exact amount of variances needed with this proposal. The other issue regarding the addition of garages was the associated cost. Without garages, staff is recommending that the Council consider a twenty (20) year repayment pedod at 7% interest. With the addition ' '~'o~/ 10-08-01 ~.. ~¢~.auest for Action Page 3 . ~//' mendatiOn tO the Council to conslaer a thirty (30) year repayment ~ : s, staff would support a recom :. f ara es in Plan 2, (see /,/.: o_! ga!ag.e.soz ,.. ...., Th,,ir ¢.ontractor estimated that the ad_d_lti_o.n. OT__g~ ;_~...~.,,. Concept Garage gp:rr~;ea;js;°e;~-r;;~;) ~v;;ld:ncrease the project cost by ,157,;~41, no, mu,u,~,-, survey work. If the Council would like staff to continue coordinating with the Association on the development of an acceptable garage plan, and if the Association is still interested in the addition of garages, staff will continue this discussion. If the Association is agreeable, staff would estimate that an acceptable garage plan could be presented to the Council within the forty-five (45) day comment period, before an assessment agreement is presented for consideration. The City Attorney has commented that if all property owners were supportive of a garage plan developed during the forty-five (45) day period, then adoption of the ordinance could proceed as scheduled. As the Council is aware, the City has in place a variety of funding programs for the rehabilitation of single family homes and apartments, however, it has been more difficult to find funding mechanisms for the rehabilitation of owner-occupied multiple family units, such as townhomes and condominiums. Several years ago the State Legislature passed legislation allowing municipalities to create housing improvement distncts. The steps to establish a Housing Improvement Area are outlined below by the City Attorney. · Initially, the Council would need to adopt an enabling ordinance specifically defining the improvement area or areas and specifically indicating the necessary improvements to be made within the area. The City cannot adopt this ordinance on its own initiative. Before such an ordinance can be considered, there must be a petition by at least 25 percent of the owners within the proposed area requesting the enabling ordinance. · Before adoption of the enabling ordinance, the City would need to conduct a public hearing. At the hearing and within the ordinance, the Council would need to make findings that the necessary improvements will not be made if the housing improvement area is not created and making the improvements within the area is needed to maintain and preserve the area's housing units. Further, the enabling ordinance will allow the City to impose a fee against the benefiting property owners to pay for the cost of the improvements. · The property owners within the improvement area also have veto power over the ordinance. In other words, if 35 percent of the property owners object to the ordinance after its adoption, it will not take effect. As a result, the effective date of the ordinance must be at least 45 days after its adoption by the City Council. During that 45-day interim period, the property owners, after all receive notice of the ordinance and its contents within five days of its adoption, can file an objection to the ordinance with the New Hope City Clerk. If 35 percent of the owners object, the ordinance is void. · If the ordinance is not vetoed, property owners can individually object to their inclusion in the improvement area or the imposition of fees against their property. The objection procedure works similar to the special assessment challenges found in Chap. 429. Aisc, the City will need to hold a second public hearing before it can collect fees or specially assess properties for payment of the improvement costs. Again, this works like the special assessment procedure found in Chap. 429. The Association has informed staff that if the Ordinance is adopted, that they would like to begin rehabilitation activities this fall with window replacement and other items and complete the-project during the spring of 2002. Staff recommends approval of thiS ordinance subject to the submission of an as-built survey of the property to be completed by the Association during the 45-day comment period. FUNDING This Housing improvement Area proposal would be funded internally with EDA funds and repaid through an assessment agreement with the L'Esperance Owner's Association. ATTACHMENTS · Ordinance Request for Action Page 4 · Notice to the L'Esperance Owner's Association · City Attorney Correspondence · Location Map · Topographical Map · Zoning Map · L'Esperance Request Letter · L'Esperance Owner's Petition · Project Cost Summary · Proposed Improvements and Cost Estimates · City Code Section 5.048, Supply from One Service · City Correspondence Requesting Additional Information 8-14 · City Correspondence Requesting Additional Information 8-28 · City Correspondence Requesting Additional Information 8-31 · City Correspondence Requesting Additional Information 9-11 · Garage Concept Plan 1 · Garage Concept Plan 2 · Garage Cost Estimate (Plan 2) · Comprehensive Plan Reference · City Attorney Correspondence, 3-27-97- Housing Improvement Area Summary · Minnesota State Statute, 428A. 11 - 428A.21 ORDINANCE NO. 01-12 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A HOUSING IMPROVE~fENT AREA FOR THE L'ESPERANCE ToWNHOME DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. 428A The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 1.81 "L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: 1.81. "L'Esperance Housin_~ Improvement Area". The City of New Hope (hereafter City) hereby establishes pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chap. 428A a housing improvement area over the. property commonly known as the L'Esperance Townhome development which is legally described in Section 1.813 of this Code. 1.811 ".Recitals". The City hereby makes the following recitals in support of its action to establish the herein housing improvement area: The City is authorized under Minn. Stat. §~28A.11 through 428A.21 'to establish by ordinance housing .improvement areas within which 'housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed within the area. The City has determined a need to establish the L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area as defined herein, in order to facilitate certain improvements to the property all in accordance with the Housing Improvement Act. The City has consulted with the L'Esperance Owners Association and with the residents in the L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area regarding the establishment of said housing improvement area and the housing improvements to be constructed and financed under this ordinance. 1.812 "Findings". The City hereby makes the following findings in support of its action to establish the herein housing improvement area: The City Council finds that, in accordance with Minn. Stat. ~,428A~'12, owners of at least twenty-five percent (25 %) of the housing units within the housing improvement area have fried a petition with the City Clerk -1o requesting a public hearing regarding establishment of such improvement area. 2. The City Council has on August 13, 2001 and by adjournment thereafter conducted a public hearing, duly noticed in accordance with Minn. Stat. §428.13, subd.2, regarding adoption of this ordinance at which all persons, including owners of properVJ within the housing improvement area were given an opportunity to be heard. 3. The Council finds that, without establishment of the housing improvement area, the Housing Improvements (as hereinafter defined) could not be made by the homeowners association for, or the housing unit owners in, the L'Esperance Townhome development. 4. The Council further finds that designation of said housing improvement area is needed to maintain and preserve the housing units within such area. 1.813 "Housin~ Imt~rovement Area Defined~- The L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area is hereby defined as that area of the City legally described as follows: hmi~ing Lots 1 through 6, Block 1, Soukups Addition Lots 1 through 6, Block 2, Soukups Addition Ouflot A, Soukups Addition Hennepin County, Minnesota. 1.814 "Housine Imvrovements Defined". For the purposes of §§1.81 through 1.819 of this Code, the term "Housing Improvements~ shall mean those improvements to the housing units and common areas within L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area as set out in the preliminary Contract Specifications prepared by One Way Remodeling Services for the L'Esperance Owners Association as follows: Replacement of roofing on all twelve units, including removal of all old shingles, installation of 25-year 3 tab shingles on all twelve units, repair of roofs where needed, removal of old and installation of new gutters and installation of new insulation. Installation of 5/8 Fire Code rock on trusses between units at time of new roof installation. Replacement of 116 window units with vinyl tilt sash replacement windoWs in existing jams, including removal and disposal of old window sashes. -2- o 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Replacement of 48 basement window uni~ with vinyl sliders inqluding disposal of old windo.ws. Install 36 pair of plastic window shutters. Replace all front and back entry doors and jams with pre-hung steel doors and storms using existing door hardware, including disposal of old doors and painting of ne~' doors per pre-approved door allowance. Install new fascia and soffit system on all units, including continuous venting and Rap exterior trim. Install custom rod iron railing on steps between all units (5 feet per 2 units). Install vinyl siding on overhangs over all entryway units (.042 gauge). Upgrade electrical service to 150-amp service on all units including grounding outlets, replacing outside GFI's as needed and installig_g flood lamps with automatic shuttoffs. Install new plumbing waste including: line between buildings and to the street, a) Removal and disposal of old line; b) Removal and repair of broken 6" PVC sewer line at 8012 building; c) Removal and repair of bad joint at 7928 building; arid d) Repair of other trouble areas as shown on video of system. Install 6 foot fence between buildings (110 feet total), and repair or replace fence around dumpster enclosures on existing concrete slab. Removal of trees in front of building causing problems with sewer system. Install interior drain tiles with sump pumps and replace basement f'/xmres in units as needed. Move and bury overhead electriCal service to each unit as. prO. Posed by Excel .Energy. -3- 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Move water meters from end um.~s and install separate water meters in each unit. Seai coat and/or re-pave parking lot. Install smoke alarms in each bedroom in ail units. Reconstruct attic scuttles in the hallways of each unit. Removal of undesirable landscaping and replacement of new landscaping as mutually agreed between the City and the L'Esperance Homeowners Association. 1.815 "Housin-o Improvement Fee". The City may, by resolution adopt.e'_d 'in accordance with the petition, hearing and notice procedures required under Minn. Stat. Chap. 428A known as the Housing Improvement Act, impose a fee 0n'.~e ho~sing units within the L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area, at a rate, .~. _tm or amount sufficient to produce revenues required to provide the Ho~'_m.g Improvements (hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Improvement Fee"), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Section. 1. Any Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed on the basis of the total cost of the Housing Improvements to be financed by the Housing Improvement Fee, divided by the number of housing units in the ho_~.ing improvement area as of the date of any fee resolution. 2. Any Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed and payable for a period no greater than twenty (20) years after the first installment is due and payable. 3. Any Housing Improvement Fee shall be prepayable in full or in part by.ag, y housing unit owners within thirty (30) days after the effective date of the resolution setting the Housing Improvement Fee, provided that a partial prepayment must be at least twenty-five percent (25 %) of the total fee for that unit. After such 30-day period, the unpaid portion of any Housing Improvement Fee and accrued interest shall be prepayable only in the full 8iIlOUnto The resolution imposing any Housing Improvement Fee shall provide :that any fee (or portion thereof) not prepaid by the housing unit owner sha~l.....be deemed to include simple interest on unpaid housing improvement Co~'at a rate of 7 % per annum. o Any Housing Improvement Fee shall be collected at the same time arid in the same manner as provided for payment, and collection of ad valoi'em taxes, in accordance witi~ Minn. Stat. {}428A.05. As set forth in Mihn. Stat. §428A.14, the Housing Improvement Fee is not included in the calculation of levies or limits on levies imposed under any law or charter. o Any Housing Improvement Fee shall not exceed the amount specified in the notice of public hearing regarding the approval of such fee; provided, however, that the Housing Improvement Fee may be reduced after approval of the resolution setting the Housing Improvement Fee, in the manner specified in such resolution. The Housing Improvement Fee shall include the City's actual cost for legal, engineering and administrative expenses to administer this improvement area, but these costs shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25 %) of the actual construction costs for the improvements referred to in §1.814 of this Code. 1.816 "Issuance of Bonds". At any time after a contract with L'Esperance Owners Association for construction of all or part of the housing improvements has been entered into or the work has been ordered, and the 30-day period '/for prepayment of the Housing Improvement Fee has expired as described in {}1~815 hereof, the Council may issue bonds in the principal amount necessary to f'mance the cost of the housing improvements that have not been prepaid together with costs of issuance of the bonds. Such bonds shall be issued pursuant to and in accordance with Minn. Stat. §428A.16 of the Housing Improvement Act. 1.817 "Annual Reports". On August 15, 2002 and each August 15'~ thereafter until all Hous'ing Improvement Fees derived in the Housing Improvement Area are fullY paid, the L'Esperance Owners Association (and any successor in interest) shall submit to the City Clerk a copy of the Association's audited financial statements. L'Esperance Owners Association (and any successor, in interest) shall also submit to the City any other repons or information at the times and as required by any contract entered into between that entity and the City. 1.818 "N..otice of Right to File Obiectiom". Within five (5) days after :'the adoption of §§1.81 through 1.819 of this Code, the City Clerk is authorized/nd directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the L'Esperance I-Iotisiug Improvement Area: a surranary of these Code sections; notice that owners ~bject -5- to the p-rgiS°~.ed Housing Lm. pr6vement Fe6 h~v¢:~ right to veto this ordinance if owners~, of at lcast, thirty'fiYe-'Percent (35%)"Of '.the'housing units within th~", L,Espera~-'i-ioUSing lmpro.~'~m~nt Area file' an'objection with the City Clerk before th-e-effectioe da/e 6f this brdinfih~e; and notice that a copy of this ordinance is on file:With the City_ clerk for publid ifi~pdction: 'Sections 1.81 through 1.819 of this Code ihall be effec, fi4e' f°-.r~Y-five (45) days after their passage and publication. 1.819 ~.Amendment'. This ordinance may .be amended by the Council upon compliahce with the public he~:ing and notice requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. ~428A. 13, subd. 2 of the Housing Improvement Act. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective 45 days after its passage and publication. Dated the 8t~ day of October, 2001. W. Peter Enek, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the ~ 2001.) day of NOTICE TO L'EsPERANcE ASSOCIATION PROPERTY OW?qERS REGARDING L'ESPERANCE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE NO. 01-12 On Monday, October 8, 2001, the City Council of the City of New Hope adopted Ordinance No. 01-12 establishing L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§428A. 11 through 428A.21 (The Housing Improvement Act). Owners of more than twenty-five percent (25 %) of the housing units in the L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing regarding the ordinance. The public hearing on this ordinance was held on August I3, 2001, and continued to October 8, 2001. The ordinance was adopted after the close of the public hearing on October 8, 2001. Within five (5) days after adoption of the ordinance, the City is required under the Housing Improvement Act to mail this notice to owners of each housing unit in the affected area. Following is a summary of Ordinance No. 01-12 and some important information about your rights as an owner of a housing unit in the L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 01-12 Affected Area: The ordinance establishes the L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area, which is the area legally described as Lots 1 through 6, Block 1, Soukups Addition; Lots 1 through 6, Block 2, Soukups Addition; Outlot A, Soukups Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Housing Improvements: The ordinance specified the "Housing Improvements" that will be constructed in the L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area and financed with the Housing Improvement Fee. Those improvements are defined as follows: Replacement of roofing on all twelve units, including removal of all old shingles, installation of 25-year 3 tab shingles on all twelve units, repair of roofs where needed, removal of old and installation of new gutters and installation of new insulation. Installation of 5/8 Fire Code rock on trusses between units at time of new roof installation. Replacement of 116 window units with vinyl tilt sash replacement windows in existing jams, including removal and disposal of old window sashes. -1- 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Replacement of 48 basement window units with vinyl sliders including disposal of old windows. ~' Install 36 pair of phstic window shutters. Replace all front and back entry doors and jams with pre-hung steel doors and storms using existing door hardware, including disposal of old doors and painting of new doors per pre-approved door allowance. Install new fascia and soffit system on all units, including continuous venting and Rap exterior trim: Install custom rod iron railing on steps between all units (5 feet per 2 units). Install vinyl siding on overhangs over all entryway units (.042 gauge). Upgrade electrical service to 150-amp service on all units including grounding outlets, replacing outside GFI's as needed and installing flood lamps with automatic shuttoffs. Install new plumbing waste line between buildings and to the street, including: a) Removal and disposal of old line; b) Removal and repair of broken 6" PVC sewer line at 8012 building; c) Removal and repair of bad joint at 7928 building; and d) Repair of other trouble areas as shown on video of system. Install 6 foot fence between buildings (110 feet total), and repair or replace fence around dumpster enclosures on existing concrete slab. Removal of trees in front of building causing problems with sewer system. Install interior drain tiles with sump pumps and replace basement fixtures in units as needed. Move and bury overhead electrical service to each unit as proposed by Excel Energy. Move water meters from end units and install separate water meters in each unit. -2- '/ 17. 18. 19. 20. Seal coat and/or re-pave parking lot. Install smoke alarms in each bedroom in all units. ' Reconstruct attic scuttles in the hallways of each unit. Removal of undesirable landscaping and replacement of new landscaping as mutually agreed between the City and the L'Esperance Homeowners Association. Housin~ Iml}rovement Fee: The ordinance provides that the City may impose a fee on housing units in an mount sufficient to produce revenue required to provide the Housing Improvements. The fee will be set by a separate City Council resolution after a noticed public hearing which will be held in the future, but the ordinance lays out the ground on how the fee will be determined. Those rules are summarized as follows: The fee must be imposed based on the total cost of the Housing Improvements to be financed with such fee, divided by the number of housing units in the L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area as of the date of the fee resolution. The fee may be prepaid in whole or in part within thirty (30) days after the effective date of the resolution setting the fee; provided that if only a portion is prepaid, the prepayment amount must be at least twenty-five percent (25 %) of the total fee for that unit. If the fee is not prepaid, it will be payable over a period of twenty (20) years, with interest at a rate of 7 % per annum. However, the unpaid portion of the fee plus accrued interest is prepayable any time after the 30-day period referred to above. · The fee will be collected at the same time and in the same manner as property taxes. The total fee for each unit may not exceed the amount specified in the notice of public hearing for the resolution i%nosing the fee. The fee will include the City's actual costs for legal, engineering and administrative costs paid on this project, but said costs will not exceed twenty-five percent (25 %) of the total costs to construct the housing improvements. Issuance of Bonds: The ordinance provides that the City may issue bonds under the Housing Improvement Act to finance the Housing Improvements. The bonds may be issued any time after the City has entered into a contract with L'Esperance Owners Association for construction of the improvements, and the 304ay period for prepayment of the Housing Improvement Fee has lapsed. -3- ~: The ordinance requires that L'Esperance Owners Association submit audited financial statements to the City each year while there are bonds outstanding.. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS Housing unit owners subject to the Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto the ordinance and the fee resolution after it is adopted, if owners of at least thirty-five percent (35 %) of the housing units within the L'Esperanee Housing Improvement Area. File an objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of the ordinance or the resolution. The key dates are as follows: Ordinance Adopted: October 8, 2001 Ordinance Published: October 17, 2001 Effective Date of Ordinance: December 3, 2001 Deadline to File Veto Objections: December 3, 2001 If the ordinance is not vetoed, you will receive a notice indicating the public hearing date to consider the resolution establishing the Housing Improvement Fee against your housing unit. You will also receive a notice describing the total fee for your unit, your right to veto the fee and procedures for doing so and details on how to prepay the fee if the fee resolution is not vetoed. FURTItER INFORMATION A copy of Ordinance No. 01-12 is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection. If you have questions about the L'Esperance Housing Improvement Area, contact the City Community Development Coordinator at (763) 531-5119. Dated: October 8, 2001. ' B2D1 6~ / 6,T21 4956, / .5147 8312 ,4057 To ~o 8DO~ 7924 51 ST AVE N 4956 50TH AVE N 4.972 4957 4948 l 494.1 4948 782O 49TH Ol oeo I o o AVENUE x ;20.c NORTH ~ ~ :O O O ~ I 51 ST ~ ) ~.VENUE NORTH 020.2 August 11, 2000 Kirk Mc Donald New Hope City Council City of New Hope aa61 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Mn 55428 Dear Kirk. We are writing to you as an association to request your assistance in a matter of great importance to us. As residents of the City of New Hope. L'F. sperance Owners Association members take pride in where we live. However. the condition of our townhomes is deteriorating at a rate with wllich we cannot k~ep up. We understand the City of New Hope takes pride in the condition of its resisdential properties. We want to be proud of our townhomes and to have them be an attractive and pleasant enhancement to this City. At various levels of urgency, our homes desperately need new roofs, gutters and downspouts applied, windows. Doors, Drain Tiling applied in each basement and New Blacktop Paving for one of our two Parking lots and Sealcoating for the lot we had done a couple years ago. So we have been keeping up with regular maintenance. Our assets n_oht now are about $8000.00 which is not enough to cover the work we need to have dane. We figure the total ammount for all improvements would be about $I25.000. The improvements we are requesting your assistance with are vital and would benefit us as well as the City of New Hope. The property would be more attractive and pleasing with new Roofs, Gutters and Downspouts, Blacktop Paving, Windows and Doors. We hope that by receiving this letter you will see our serious concern and dedication to this subject. Once again we ask you to carefully consider the possibility of assisting us with the special funding so improvements can be made. Respectfully, President of L'Esperance Owners Association, Rita Kolodjski And residents of the L'Esperance Owners Association L'Esperance Project Cost Summary 1. One Way Remodeling $177,293.00 2. Drain Tile $ 12,400.00 3. Paving $ 7,900.00 4. Smoke Detectors $ 229.28 5. Misc. Items $ 2,177.72 Total $200,000.00 * 25% Maximum Administration Fee Total $ 50,000.00 $250,000.00 * Administrative fees including legal, engineering and staff time to be adjusted, but not to exceed 25% of the total project cost. COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Consent Community Development By: Ken D°resky, Community 10-22-01 Development Specialist By: 6.4 RESOLUTION ORDERING PUBLISHED NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING ON SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 4864 FLAG AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 678) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests Council approval of the attached resolution to publish notice and set a public hearing date for the sale and development of 4864 Flag Avenue North to the Northwest Communities Revitalization Corporation (NCRC), Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). POLICY/PAST PRACTICE City goal #2 is to pursue the maintenance and redevelopment of commercial and residential properties within the City. The City Council has been addressing the residential portion of this goal through the City's many housing activities, including partnering with different agencies and organizations on housing projects. At times, third party development agreements are necessary for obtaining project funding. BACKGROUND On March 26, 2001 the Council approved a development contract and sale of 4864 Flag Avenue North to the NCRC CHDO. In order to utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for the installation of pilings, the City was required to transfer ownership of the property to a third party entity. The NCRC CHDO agreed to act as this third party entity in the development agreement. Also, Hennepin County agreed that this scenario would fulfill the necessary requirements to obtain the CDBG funds in question. It has been determined by the City Attorney that the sale of this property to the NCRC CHDO required a public hearing that was not held when the Council approved this sale and development agreement on March 26, 2001. State law requires that a public hearing be held for the sale of public property. Therefore, procedurally it ~s necessary to hold this public headng. Staff has accepted purchase applications for the home and is expecting to complete the sale to a qualified family under the City's Scattered Site Housing Program shortly. Due to the fact that the NCRC CHDO will be the official seller of the real estate at 4864 Flag Avenue North, a public hearing will not be required for this third party sale. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Staff recommends approval of this resolution. Page 2 ~22-01 FUNDING. CDBG funds were used to pay for land acquisition, piling installation and predevelopment work. HOME funds are available from the CHDO for a development grant and down payment assistance that will be secured in a second mortgage. The majority of City EDA dollars in the project will be secured through a third mortgage. The proceeds from the sale of the home will.be used to fund the construction. A'I-rACHMENTS · Resolution · Location Map · City Attorney Correspondence · Public Headng Notice · City Attorney Correspondence, 03/21/01 · DeveloPment Agreement COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION "-'"-- Original~ng Department Approved for Agenda Agencla Section Community Development X~) 10-22-01 consent Item No. // 6.5 By: Kirk McDonald By: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REDUCTION OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE FOR TIOGA AIR HEATERS SITE IMPROVEMENTS, 9201 INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY (PLANNING CASE 01-03) REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the enclosed resolution authorizing the reduction of the financial guarantee for the Tioga Air Heaters site improvements at 9201 International Parkway (Planning Case 01-03). POLICY/PAST PRACTICE It is the policy and past practice of the City to require a financial guarantee for specific site improvements/amenities to insure that improvements are completed and to release or reduce the financial guarantee when the improvements have been completed. BACKGROUND Tioga Air Heaters, Inc. submitted a financial guarantee in the amount of $60,900 to insure that specific site improvements would be completed. The improvements included pavement/aggregate, curb and gutter, pond/site grading, culvert/pond, outlet/rip rap and landscaping/restoration. The City Engineer and Building Official have reviewed the site and reported that some of the improvements have been completed and are recommending that the financial guarantee be reduced to an amount of $27,600. The enclosed resolution reduces the financial guarantee from $60,900 to $27,600 and staff recommends approval of the resolution. A'I-I'ACHMENTS · Resolution · City Engineer Correspondence · Building Official Memo MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Bonest oo Rosen u-lderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Bone$~,mo. Ro~ele, Aml#thk and ,~. ~d E~Io~ ~ P~o~als:~o B~mO. P.~- · Ma~n L. So~ P.E. · Gle~ R. C~. P.E. · floDe~ G. S~. P.E. · ~e~ A. ~. P.~ 5en~r ~: Ro~e~ W. Ro~. P.E. · ~ C. ~e~ik. P.E. * ~c~ E. Turner. °.E · S~:n M. E~I~. C.P~- ~oOate p~als: Howa~ A. S~to~. P.E. · ~ A. Go,on. P.E. · Ro~ R. Pleflede. P.E. · ~c~ W. Foyer. P.E. · Dasd O. Losk~a. P.E.'-~ C. R~ek. ~I.A. · M~el T. Ra~. P.E. · T~ K. Dasd ~ ~mo. M.B.A. · Std~y P. Wilba~ P.E.. LS. · Ages M. R~. M.B.A.. · Nlan ~ S~dt. P.E. ~ces: St. Pa~. R~sler. Wiltmar and St. ~. MN - Milwaukee. WI MEMO TO: FROM: CC: DATE: SUBJECT: Kirk McDonald, Doug Sandstad Vince Vander Top Mark Hanson Guy Johnson October 15, 2001 9201 International Parkway, Tioga Air Heaters Our File No. 34-Gen E01-05 A portion of the site improvements for Tioga has been completed. The Pavement/Aggregate and Curb and Gutter have been constructed. The Pond/site grading, culvert/pond outlet/rip rap, and landscaping/restoration remain. The ori~nal bond for this project was $60,900. $27,600 based on the following: Pond/site grading Culvert/Pond Outlet/Kip Rap Curb and Gutter Pavement/Aggregate Landscaping/Restoration Subtotal + 50% Increase Bond Amount after reduction It is recommended that the bond be reduced to Lump Sum Lump Sum Completed Completed Lump Sum $12,000 $ 1,400 $5,000 $18,400 $9,200 $27,600 2335 West Highway 36 %St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 COL~,iCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION ~ Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-22-01 Consent Item No. 6.6 Kirk McDonald By: By: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REDUCTION OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEE FOR AVTEC FINISHING SYSTEMS, INC. SITE IMPROVEMENTS, 9101 SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE (PLANNING CASE 00-11) REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the enclosed resolution authorizing the reduction of the financial guarantee for Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc. site improvements at 9101 Science Center Drive (Planning Case 00-11). POLICY/PAST PRACTICE It is the policy and past practice of the City to require a financial guarantee for specific site improvements/amenities to insure that improvements are completed and to release or reduce the financial guarantee when the improvements have been completed. BACKGROUND Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc. submitted a financial guarantee in the amount of $121,800 to insure that specific site improvements would be completed. The improvements included parking lot, curb and gutter, landscaping and restoration, storm sewer, pond excavation and grading, and outlet structure/pipe/rip rap. The City Engineer and Building Official have inspected the site and reported that a majority of the improvements have been completed and are recommending that the financial guarantee be reduced to an amount of $20,000. The enclosed resolution reduces the financial guarantee from $121,800 to $20,000 and staff recommends approval of the resolution. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · City Engineer Correspondence · Building Official Memo MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Bon $troo Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects ~d E~ ~d P~n~al$: ~o ~mo. P.E. · Ma~n L. S~. P.E. · Gle~ R. C~k. P.E. · Senior ~s: Ro~eff W. Ro~. P.E. -~ C. ~edik. P.E. · R,~ E. ~ u~r. P.E · S~an M. E~n. C.P.A. ~s~ale p~ls:Howard A. S~fo~. P.E. *~ ~ Gom~. P.E. · Ro~ R. Pleflene. P.E · R~ W. F~ler. P.E. - Dasd O. ~la. P~E · Ma~ A. H~on. P.E. · M~el T. Ra~nn. P.~. SiO~ P. W~b~on P.E.. L.S * A~s M. R~ M.B~. * Nlan R~ Sc~. P.E. · Dan E~n~. P.E.. · Tom Petered. P.E. · P~ ~vel. P.E. - D~e Grove. P.E. * J~m M~a~. P.E. · S~lly Jo~on · Is~el Ma~z * Milos Je~e~ P.E. -' Tom Ro~r. P.E. · Tom Sy~o. P.E. O~ces: St. Pa~. Roc~ster. Wilier and St. ~. MN · Milwaukee. WI · Gra~lake. IL TO: FROM: CC: DATE: SUBJECT: Kirk McDonald, Doug Sandstad Vince Vander Top Mark Hanson Guy Johnson October 15,2001 Avtec Finishing Systems Our File No. 34-Gen E98-26 The majority of site improvements are complete. Restoration of disturbed areas and erosion control work remain. The original bond amount was $121,800. It is recommended that this amount be reduced as follows: Lump Sum Landscape/Restoration Lump Sum Erosion Control Subtotal 50% Increase Reduced Bond Amount If you have questions, please contact me at 651-604-4790. $12,000 $1,500 $13,500 $ 6.5oo $20,000 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113. 651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 COUNCIL RI QU] ST FOR ACTION -"-'--~riginating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development 10-22-01 Consent --~ Item No. 6.7 By: Kirk McDonald By: MOTION APPROVING FINAL PAY REQUEST IN AMOUNT OF $7,808.60 TO DON ZAPPA & SON EXCAVATING FOR HIDDEN CONDO DRAINAGE/PRIVATE DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 692) REQUESTED ACTION Staff is requesting that the City Council approve a motion approving the final pay request in the amount of $7,808.60 for the Hidden Condo drainage and private drive improvements. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE It is routine policy to present the final payment to contractors for improvement projects to the City Council for approval. BACKGROUND The Hidden Park Condo Association petitioned the City for this improvement. At the February 12 Council meeting, the City Council approved plans and specifications for this project and authorized staff to seek bids. Bids were opened, reviewed by the Association, and the City Council awarded the contract for the work at the April 9 Council meeting to Don Zappa & Son Excavating, the Iow bidder, with a base bid of $81,720.55. The City Engineer has submitted the attached letter stating that the contractor has satisfactorily completed all work on the project and is recommending final payment at this time. The appropriate IC-134 withholding forms have been submitted. The final contract amount of $78,652.05, or approximately 3.75% under the original contract amount due to minor differences between estimated quantities bid and actual quantities used. The final payment is in the amount of $7,808.60. The assessment hearing for the project is scheduled for the November 13 Council meeting. FUNDING The City's portion of the project (watermain) is being paid for from the Water Utility Fund and the costs for the private drive and drainage improvements are being assessed against the benefiting property owners. A'I-DACHMENTS · City Engineer Correspondence, · Final Pay Request, · Maps MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: JBonestroo Rosene 11Anderlil~ & Associates Engineers & Architects October 10, 2001 City of New Hope Attn: Mr. Kirk Mc Donald 4401 Xylon Ave. N. New Hope, MN $5428 Re: 6003 W. Broadway Drainage/Water Main/Private Drive City of New Hope City Project No. 66g Our File No. 34-00-121 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: Transmitted herewith are five (5) copies of Request for Payment No. 4th & Final along with the required-signed Minnesota Withholding Form IC-134 for the above-mentioned project. The work on this project has been satisfactorily completed and we recommend payment at this time. The final amount is approximately 3.75% under the original contract amount, due to some minor differences between estimated quantifies bid and actual quantifies used. Should you have any questions regarding this project, please feel free to call me. My direct line is 651-604-4790. Very truly yours, BONESTROO, ROSEN-E, ANDERI.TIC & ASSOCIATES, INC. Vince Vander Top VTWsrl Enclosures Schuster-JKI^CityFinalLetter.docI:L34~3400121 \Word\Work_In_Progrcss~Schuster..JKI^CityFin alLettcr.doc 2335 1~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311 ;OUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION OriginalJng Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Development Community Development & Planning Item No. By: Ken Doresky, Community 10-22-01 8.1 Development Specialist B~t: 2000 NEW HOPE CENSUS DATA PRESENTATION ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests that the Council hear a presentation on 1970-2000 'New Hope Census data findings by Carlos Espinosa, an Armstrong High School student intern. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE One of the pdority goals of the 2001 City Plan is to analyze and respond to the changing demographics and diversity of the City. From time to time, the City works with student interns on City related projects. BACKGROUND In October 2000, Carlos Espinosa approached the City proposing that he complete a student project studying Census data in the City from 1970-1990. Espinosa was required to complete a project for a program at Armstrong High School entitled, "Mentor Connection" in which he was enrolled. Espinosa's initial study of 1970-1990 Census data was completed in May 2001. In April 2001, Espinosa proposed to expand the 1970- 1990 Census study by comparing the existing data with recently released 2000 Census data. Espinosa's proposal was to compare age, race, population, language and household data from 1970-2000 including specific requests from City Departments. This data expansion project was facilitated through the Scholars of Distinction in Applied Geography (SODIAG) program sponsored by Macalaster College. Both the. City and Macalaster College contributed a $500.00 stipend to Espinosa for this two hundred (200) hour expanded intern proiect. In addition to the $500.00 stipend, the City contributed a workspace, computer, telephone and access to City Hall facilities. To complete this project, Espinosa has prepared a PowerPoint presentation detailing his findings. On October 8, 2001, Espinosa made a presentation to the Human Rights Commission. On October 15, 2001, Espinosa made the same presentation to the Citizens Advisory Commission. He will also be presenting his findings to the Livable Communities Task Force on October 25. (cont.) MO'nON BV S -COND m, TO: Request for Action Page 2 10-22-01 The end result of this project provides the City with a census data study that can be used as ref~ ~ce material. Also, this project has allowed for the City to partner with Armstrong High School, Macalaster College and most importantly Espinosa himself, who plans to enter college studying human geography. FUNDING . A $500 stipend to fund half of the total two hundred (200) hour intern program was provided to Espinosa for this project from the Planning budget. Also, the City contributed a workspace, computer, telephone and access to City Hall facilities. ATTACHMENTS · 2001 City Plan · New Hope City Report Article · 2000 Census Data Presentation · Hennepin County Census Fact Sheets · 2000 New Hope Data Profile from Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council 2001 City Plan City Mission To deliver quality public services to all citizens, property owners, and organizations within the City in a prudent and efficient manner. Vision of the Future The j~llowing principles will guide the future develoF ment and redevelopment of the City of New Hope: The City is viewed as an "Urban Village" and will promote social and human values that are both supportive and equitable. 2. Essential services will be continued, enhanced, and sm:amlined. 3. The City is future-oriented, visionary, and values long-term benefits. 4. Citizens will have input on service devdopment and service outcomes. The City strives to maintain the 'cultural values' of the ~Urban Village" in its broadest City planning interpretation. 6. Citizens within the City are safe and secure. 7. Programs and services are benefit, cost, and results directed. The City will provide an information .~y~tem that mcet~ the communication needz of citizem, elected officiak, and City staff. Priority Goals V To afldnwa the City's increasing financial prwaurm. To pursue the mv. intenance and rcdcYelopment of commercial and residential properties within the City of New Hope. To update the City's long-term infrastructure plan. To analyze and respond to the changing demographics and diversity of the City..~. To improve communication with (from) the. public. To maintain and best utilize the Ciry's information systems and technologies. To continue to provide a positive and safe work environment for the City's employees. To maintain good communication and teamwork among Council and staff. To increase cimm engagement in the community. To increase awareness of environmental and water related issues. LOcal student studies demographic changes in New Hope Have vou ever wondered how New Hope's population has changed over the las: 10 .years? Armstrong High School senior. Carlos Espinosa. has made a stud,,' of it. "So far I have found that New Hope's population is a little smaller, a little older, and more diverse than it was in 1990," Espinosa said. Espinosa is completing the project for a Minnesota Alliance for Geo?aphic Education (MAGE) pro_mm coordinated by Macalaster College. He became interested in the prozm'am after he met Bob Marcotte. the director of MAGE. and his associate Tom Egan through a mentoring program at Armstrong. Once the New Hope project has been successfully completed, Espinosa will be considered a Scholar of Distinction in Applied Geo~aph.x'. Espinosa, who is also an intern for the city, began his census project in Januar>.' compiling demographic information about New Hope from the 1990 Census including population, age, income, race, language usage, and head of household statistics. Over the past few months, he has been compiling comparable information from the 2000 Census as the information became available from Hennepin County. He will complete his research and submit a report to the City Council in October. Espinosa's research to date indicates that: · New Hope's population has declined 4.5 percent in the last 10 years. New Hope's population in 1990 was 21,853, compared to 20,873 today. · New Hope's median age has increased slightly since 1990. The median age in 1990 was 34.5 years, compared to 38.3 years today. · New Hope is a more diverse community than it was 10 years ago. In 1990, 93.8 percent of New Hope's population was white. In 2000, 85 percent of New Hope's population is white, 5.7 percent of the population is black or African American {up from 1.8 percent), 3.4 percent of the population is Hispanic (up from 0.8 percent), 3.2 percent of the population is Asian (up from 2.8 percent), and the remainder of the population is made up of other ethnic groups. Thanks, Carlos, for giving us a little insight into who we are as a community! Espinosa plans to continue to study geography in college. A Demographic Study of New Hope: Changes in a Northwest-Suburba'n ntome Senior at Robbinsdale Armstrong High School This project all started last year with a class called IVlentor Connection [] Through Mentor Connection T met Bob IVlarcotte and Tom Egan who are the organizers of the S.O.D.]:.A.G. program A project was required for both programs, and ! wanted to do something involving geography that would benefit one of the cities around me. ! contacted both New Hope and Plymouth, but w. hen New Hope showed more interest, ! proposed to the c~ty a plan for a census project. They were very interested in what ! wanted to do, and welcomed me into their office for a year during which ! have finiShed the census report you are about to see. Introduction to Project · Since 1970 the United States Census Bureau has divided New Hope North-South into five "tracts" of land. · Information from each tract helps to internally breakdown data that would ot. herwise only be available county or city w~de. · While New Hope has. been evalu, ated as a city or as part of He. nnep~n Cou. nty, ~t has never been analyzed ~nternally w~th census data. Map of New Hope Tracts $ 2nd A,,,o N 215.01 (CO ~O 215.02 215.03 42~ &~ l~' L 215.04 New Hope's population has decreased approximately 10% since 1970 primarily because of shrinking family sizes and the increase in "empty nesters." New Hope may continue to lose population for a few y. ears to come, but eventually may stabilize and perhaps even increase as a result of redevelopment. Population Comparison Population of New Hope and Surrounding Cities 1970-2000 30 DO 00 -- -~- New Hope P lym o uth -- Brooklyn Park L_,~~ __/ /..~ ,~, Go Id en Va Iley O0 ~ -- --"-~ ~ t' I -~--Crystal ~~ ~ __~ Brooklyn Center ~00 Robbinsdale ~oo - ~ 1970 1980 1990 2000 70000 6O000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 Hain Point #2 While 3 out of the 5 tracts have lost population .since 1.970, .one tract has actually gained population and another has stabilized. Eventually, those tracts that have lost population may stabilize and even gain people as a result of redevelopment and larger minority families moving into the area. I Population Change by Tract 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Population Change for New Hope Census Tracts: 1970-2000 --~--. 215.01 --m-- 215.02 [] 215.03 ~ .... 215.04 ,~, 215.05 1970 1980 1990 2000 215.01 215.03 L 215.04 215.O5r~ 2~1½Ave N ~ L~e Reed) t #3 · New Hope's population as a whole is becoming older. New Hope's median age has been climbing rapidly in the last 30 years, and now it is the second oldest among neighboring cities. Data Median Age for New Hope and Surrounding Cities 1970-2000 43 38 33 i28 23 18 1970 1980 1990 2000 + Golden Valley 42.7 --a-- New Hope 38.3 --A-- Robbinsdale 37.6 .... ~--~ Crystal 37 )K Plymouth 36.1 --e-- Brooklyn Center 35.3 A Maple Gro~e 34.4 O Brooklyn Park 31.9 · ' t#4 · New Hope's age distribution has changed substantially over the last 30 years. New Hope has gone from a youth based city to a city whose primary population is over 24 years old. Factors such as smaller family sizes and an increase in "empty nesters" may account for this change. ribution 1970 0 IU_ IV ale Ferrule 0 E! tv'al e · Female t#s · The age of residents is not evenly distributed throughout the city. · A large proportion of people age 65 and older live along the Bass Lake Corridor (Tracts 215.01 and 215.02) [] Tracts 215.03, 215 04 and 215.05 contain small proport!ons of peopie over 65 but have more people ~n the 45 to 64 age range. · As a resu. lt, New Hope may become older on average ~n the next 5-15 years, and the southern areas of the city will have a larger retired and elderly population than at th~s point in time. 2000 Age Distribution ,~1~ ........ Tracts 215.03, 2~5.04, · Tracts 215.0:~+215.02 and 2~5.05 Median Age I 40 ~30 i20 10 0 Median Age Change Between 1980 and 2000 215.01 215.02 215.03 215.04 215.05 n 1980 E1 1990 ~ 2000i 215.01 215.02 215.03 215.04 215.05~ , Main Point #6 · Of all New Hope tracts, tract 215.03 has the largest percentage of children under 18 residing within its boundaries. While that fact may remain consistent in years to come because of the presence of Cooper High School, the number of children under 18 could rise in all tracts as more minority families move into New Hope. Residents Under :[8 Tracts 215.01 and 215.02 ~~ (17.3-19.7% under 18~ Tract 215.03 (22.9-24.7% under 18 Tract 215.04 (20.9-21.3% under 18' Tract 215.05 (21.7-22.2% under 18' t#7 [] In contrast with the other tracts, tract 215.02 has a very large percentage of single female parents (with children under 18). Single Female Parents Tract 215.01: 23.7% 2~s.o~~ Tract 215.02: 43.8% 215.02 Tract 215.03: 25.1% Tract 215.04: 17.8% Tract 215.05: 21.6% 215.03 215.04 215.05 Main Point #8 · New Hope's racial makeup is changing. While the White majority population has declined, the minority populatio, ns in New Hope have grown along w~th the rest of the IVlinneapolis-St. Paul area. ation Between 1990 and 2000: The White population has declined 8.8%; from 93.8% to 85% 1990 New Hope Race Distribution Asian and 2.0% Asian Armrican indian and Alaska Native .5% B~ack 2000 New Hope Race Distribution White 85% Native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander (8 persons) 0.0% 3.4% er .2% Race Information Between 1990 and 2000: The Black population has increased 3.9%; from 1.8% to 5.7% 1990 New Hope Race Distribution , 8% 2,0% Asian Arrerican Indian and Alaska Native .5% 2000 New Hope Race Distribution White 85% Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander (8 persons) 0.0% 3.4% ,, ?. ation · Between 1990 and 2000: The Hispanic population .8% to 3.4% has grown 2.6%; from 1990 New Hope Race Distribution Asian and Two Ol 2.0% Asian American Indian and Alaska Native .5% Black 2000 New Hope Race Distribution White 85% Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander (8 persons) 0.0% 3.4% .2% Race Information Between 1990 and 2000: The Asian population has increased .4%; from 2.8% to 3.4% 1990 New Hope Race Distribution 2000 New Hope Race Distribution o Native Hawaiian and Asian ~ other Pacific Islander ~ ~ (~ ~rso,~)0.0% American '" and Alaska Native / ~ I ~17,:~ ~ ~ ~Hispantc 3404 2.0% ~ / x Other .2% Black ~.7% Race Information Between 1990 and 2000: The American Indian and Alaska Native population has declined .3%; from .8% to .5% 1990 New Hope Race Distribution ~ \ / ~ An~rican Indian 2000 New HOpe Race Distribution Asian ~ Native Hawaiian and ~., :!;.~,. (C~[p~rrFsoanCsif)ic01.~l~o/noder .50/0 ........ / R",,. ~ ~i:::l ~ '..~ -'-H~an~ 3,4% Two or Mor~~e 850/0 ~. 2.0% ,~ / '~ Other. 2% Black ~7% ~ ,,, ation · Between 1990 and 2000: The population of those who classified themselves as some Other race increased .19%; from .01% to .2% 1990 New Hope Race Distribution 2000 New Hope Race Distribution Asian American Indian and Alaska Native .5% Two or White 85% 2.0% Black Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander (8 persons) O. 0% Hispanic 3,4% Race Information · ~'ote that in 2000 a new category was added: 2% of New Hope's population identified themselves as part of "More than One Race" Asian 2000 New Hope Race Distribution Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander' (8 persons) O. 0% Arrerlcan Indian and Alaska Native .5% Hispanic 3.4% Two4 2.0% White 85% Other .2% #9 [] The minority populations in New Hope will grow in the coming years just like the region and the rest of the country. Northern New Hope may continue to be more diverse because of it's close proximity to minority populations in Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center. · rmation Error New St. Paul Race Information percentage of persons who are White · Tract 215.01 (83.4% White' · Tract 215.02 (75.5% White) · Tract 215.03 (86.9% White) · Tract 215.04 (90.8% White' · Tract 215.05 (86.8% White) - · In 1990, approximately 39% of those who spoke an Asian language in the home could not communicate in English very well. This was a large number when corn pa red to other la ng uage groups (Spanish= 1.5%, Other= 10%), and should be considered again when the language data from the 2000 Census comes out in 2002-2003. uage Data ~ 600 o 500 r~ 400 o 300 I.,., ¢~ 200 E 100 z 0 Non-Native Ability to Speak English in 1990 [] Total number of non native language speakers · Speak English Very Well · Speak English Well [] Speak English Not Well or Not at All Additional Information [] More 2000 Census data will be coming out in the future. Information on such s.ubiects as language, income, and ancestry wll released over the next 2 years, with the complete 2000 Census report available in 2003. [] Also, the information released in the next 3 years will be broken down into even smaller sections of land .call.ed "blocks." These. census blocks w~ll g~ve even more precise information than the county or tract divisions available at this point in time. ion · New Hope has changed substantially in the last 30 years. It has gone from a youth based, mostly single race city, to a city whose primary population is over 24 and more diverse. · In the next 5-15 years, New Hope may become older on average, but during that same time, new families will contribute to a younger more diverse future for New Hope. [] New Hope will be shaped by the characteristics of its future population. Conclusion [] Census information can give an accurate picture of the current state of the nation's population, and using that information can provide a better understanding of the places in which we live. · As shown in this report, not only is census data good for looking at the current situation it is also good for predicting the future of a state, county, or even a wonderful .city in the northWestern suburbs of ~inneapol~s by the name of New Hope. * Hennepin County Census Fact Sheet 1-page 3 Office of Planning & Development cUmted States ensus 2000 Census 2000 Fact Sheet. #1 Page 3: Census population by ci~', 1970-2000 Census population by Hennepin County city, 1970 - 2000 City iBIoomington !Brooklyn Center tBrooklyn Park rChamplin [Chanhassen I(part) ~Corcoran g7o! z;so 81,970'! 81,831 35,173! 31,230 26,230 i 43,332 4,704; 9,006 40 8 86,335 28,887 56,381 16,849 1,6561 4,252 5,1991~ 23,788] Population Density 20001 Change !°/o Change 2000 [990-2000it990-2000 85,172 -1,163i -1.3% 29,172 285i 1.0% 67,388 11,0071 19.5% 22,193 5,344i 31.70/0 0 0 n/a 5,630 431i 8.3% 22,698 -1,0901 -4.6% 4,686 294i 6.70/0 3,853 200i 5.5% 54,901 15,590! 39.7% 47,425 1,355] 2.9% 2,393 26[ 1.1% 442 345[ 355.7% 20,281 -690[ -3.30/0 2,544 1,094[ 75.40/0 729 115i 18.7°/o 332 63[ 23.4% 2,463 512[ 26.20/0 17,145 611[ 3.70/0 3,236 414i 14.7°/o 1,842 -1421 -7.20/0 570 166[ 41.1°/o 50,365 11,629I 2,088 83t 368 -17t 4,005 909l 14,235t 2,400.51 3,672.0 2,586.1 2,713.9 ;~ 0.0 157.41 3,929.3! ICrystal 30,925! 25,543 i ~ I IDayton (part) 2,631'. 4,000 ~ 4,392:, 200.1 i iDeephaven 3,853 3,716i 3,653i 1,646.4i !Eden Prairie 6,938 16,263 i 39,311 i 1,695.1 ': !Edina 44,046 46,073 i 46,070[ 3,011.5 ~ !Excelsior 2,563 2,5231 2,367I 3,822.9 i , !Fort Shelling 624 223/ 971 69.6! [Golden Valley 24,246 22,775[ 20,9711 1,982.3! !Greenfield 973 1,3911 z,45ol 124.5 IGreenwood 587 653i 614 ! 2,098.21 iHanover (part) 96 2481 269 [ 160.9 !Hassan 917 1,7661 1,951 120.81 5Township2 !Hopkins 13,428 15,336t 16,534[ 4,205.9 lIndependence 1,993 2,640 i 2,8221 99.3 !Long Lake 1,506 1,7471 1,9841 2,177.1 iLoretto '340 297i 4041 1,948.7 IMaple Grove 6,275 20,5251 38,736 [ 30.0% 1,532.3 !Maple Plain 1,169 1,421 i 2,0051 4.1% 1,875.4 IMedicine Lake 446 419 [ 385I -4.4% 2,133.2 !Medina 2,396 2,623I 3,0961 29.4% 156.7 [Minneapolis 434,400 370,9511 368,3831 382,618 3.9% 6,970.4 I of 2 9/26/01 12:26 Hennepin County Census Fact Sheet l-page 3 iMinnetonka 35,776 38,683 48,370 51,301 2,931 6.1% 1,890.0 IMinnetonka IBeach IMinnetrista 586: 575 573: 614! 41 7.2% 1,186.5 iSaint Anthony !(part) 2,878: 3,236 3,439 4,358 7,572i- 9,2801 9,634i 9,435 919 -199 26.7% 166.9 6,886 3,203.8 !Mound ' INew Hope i 23,180 23,087 21,853 20,873 -980 -4.5% 4,098.6 iOrono 6,787 6,845 7,285 7,538 253 3.5%1 468.9 iOsseo ~ 2,908 2,974 2,704 2,434! -270 -10.0% 3,179.7 iPlymouth i 18,077 31,615 50,889 65,8941 15,005 29.5% 2,002.0 iRichfield ; 47,231 37,851 35,710! 34,439: -1,271 -3.6% 4,994.0 iRobbinsdale 16,845i 14,422, 14,396! 14,123 -273 -1.9% 5,076.1 iRockford (part) ~ 166 380. 440i 144 -296! -67.3% 468.7 iRogers2 544 652i 698[ 3,588 2,890 414.0°/oi 715.1 386 7.3%i 5,619 5,2781 5,664 857! 1,180j 1,873 42,931 43,787i 44,126 5,917i !Saint Bonifacius !Saint Louis Park 693 339 685 48,883 58.7% 0.8% 3,333.1 1,756.5 4,122.51 IShorewood 4,223 4,646 7,400 1,483 25.1% 1,393.5 !Spring Park ' 1,087 1,465 1,571 i 1,717 146 9.3%1 4,724.3 ITonka Bay 1,397 1,354 1,4721 1,547 75 5.1% 1,622.0 IWayzata [ 3,700 3,621 3,8061 4,113 307 8.1% 1,292.6 -16 544 526 IWoodland 496I 480 -3.2% r 1960,080 !941,41111,032,431 !1,116,200 I 525,6801 570,460' 664,048. 733,582 tHennepin tCounty 83,769 840.7 2,005.3 iSuburban Total 69,534 10.5% 1,462.1 11 2000 population density per square mile of land. 12 Rogers has increased in area and Hassan Township has decreased in area since 1990. OPD Home Henneoin County Census Home Fact Sheet ! Home <Back Forward> 2 of 2 9/26/01 12:26 PM · Hennepin County. Census Fact Sheet 2-page 2 Census 2000 Fact Sheet.#2 Page 2: Change in Non-White population by city. ]990-2000 Office of Planning & Development cUmted States ensus 2000 Changes in Non-White population in Hennepin County cities 1990-200C Non-White and Hispanic/Latino Percent change in Non-White and population changes :1990-2000 -5,000 Brooklyn Park B [o omington Brooklyn Center Richfield E den Prairie Plymouth Saint Louis park Hopkins New Hope Crystal Maple Grove M in netonk a E dina Robbinsdale Charnp Ii n Golden Valley Saint Anthony (part) Dayton (part) Mound Corcoran Excelsior Ro gar s* Minn etrista W ay zata Osseo G r eenfiel d Medina Saint 8onifacius Or ono Deephaven S hot ew ood Spring Park L~ng Lake I nd epa nd enc e Maple Ptain Hassan Tow nship* Greer*~ ood 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 ~ 60,564 ~r j 114,315 ~ 6,084 ~ 5,822 ~ 4,795 I 4,068 / 3,764 I 3,168 / 2,490 I 1,81.3 I 1.,653 m i,605 I 1.,554 I 1,532 i 1,065 1822 1797 I 266 1.51 128 127 1.10 109 96 87 72 61 60 :55 153 149 147 43 41 39 28 27 21. Hispanic/Latino population 1990-20~ -100. 0% GreemCield Fort Sneliing Hopkins Eden Prairie Brooklyn Park G r eenw oo d Mi n netr ista Saint B onifacius Brooklyn Center Charnplin Richfield Saint Anthony (part) Osseo Medicine Lake Robbinsdale Hassan Tow nship* Spring Park Excelsior Co rc ora n Plymouth Long Lake Dayton (part) New Hope Saint Louis Park Crystal Bloomington Maple Grove Edina Minnetonka Way z ate Maple Plain Medina Independence Minneapolis Woodland Deephaven 0. 0% 100.0% 200. 0% lll~ll 908.3% ! 508.3% l 400.0%1~ II 2 2.' 233. 228.~ . 220,0 206.5% 194.3% 190.4% 190.0% 175.6% , 175.0% 170.9% 158.8% , 153.6% 148.6% 147.7% 146.7% 146.4% 142.5% 1-38.2% 1-34.3% 132.5% I 119,8% 118.6% ~ 100,4% 92.596 91.6% 90.3% 76.5% 73.0% 71.4% 68.1% 1 0£2 9/26/01 12:29 PM I-iennepin County Census Fact Sheet 3-page 3 Census 2000 Fact Sheet.#3 Office of Planning & Development cUmted Stales ensus 2000 Cit~ Bloomington Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Champlin Chanhassen &(part)**PART) Corcoran C~stal Dayton (part) Deephaven Eden Prairie Edina Excelsior Fort 5nelling Golden Valley Greenfield Greenwood Hanover (part) Hassan Township Hopkins ]ndependence Long Lake Loretto Maple Grove Maple Plain Medicine Lake Medina Hinneapolis Hinnetonka Hinnetonka Beach Ninnetrista Mound New Hope Orono Osseo Plymouth Page 3: Total Pop. 0-4 5-17 18-30 31-39 40-54 55-64 65-84 85+ % ! 8 %, 85,172 4,532 13,028 13,797 11,115 19,744 9,598 11,856 1,502 20.6% 15 29,172 1,957 5,353 5,495 3,874 5,612 2,374 3,997 67,388 5,477 13,953 13,212 10,885 15,430 4,646 3,587 5,585 3,231 4,440 755 510 25.1% 15 198 28.8% 5 5,156 1,104 60 33.6% 3 - n/a 5,630 409 1,433 654 847 1,599 433 242 13 32.7% 4 22,698 1,493 3,598 3,842 3,733 4,839 1,989 2,959 245 22.40/0 14 4,686 356 1,075 653 775 1,229 376 207 15 30.50/0 4 3,853 262 914 244 464 1,127 426 387 29 30.50/0 10 54,901 4,309 12,410 8,004 9,067 14,718 3,716 2,461 216 30.50/0 4 47,425 2,546 8,292 4,348 5,145 11,319 5,010 9,181 1,584 22.90/0 22 2,393 128 339 515 339 524 181 284 83 19.5°/o 15 442 - 10 88 68 263 13 0.00/0 62 20,281 1,115 3,057 2,353 2,714 4,872 2,192 3,426 552 20.60/0 19 2,544 215 644 339 436 605 208 89 8 33.80/0 3 729 34 155 52 86 235 97 67 3 25.90/0 9 332 11 84 43 45 108 24 14 3 28.60/0 5 2,463 184 626 225 443 638 239 101 7 32.90/0 4 17,145 989 2,371 4,301 2,619 3,307 1,075 1,803 680 19.6°/o 14 3,236 222 752 274 450 928 345 249 16 30.1°/o 8 1,842 109 345 251 278 482 170 174 33 24.60/0 570 51 116 74 115 116 37 56 5 29.3°/o 10 50,365 3,735 11,754 6,997 8,428 14,039 3,370 1,946 96 30.80/0 4 2,088 141 463 298 326 495 132 159 74 28.90/0 11 368 17 60 50 45 109 48 32 7 20.90/0 10 4,005 270 1,021 338 559 1,160 380 260 17 32.20/0 6 22,193 1,862 0 382,618 25,187 58,982 105,526 60,826 74,579 22,640 28,504 6,374 22.00/0 9 51,301 2,725 9,148 6,686 6,369 13,928 5,280 6,338 827 23.1% 14 614 37 142 50 48 211 68 51 7 29.2% 9 4,358 311 966 376 605 1,319 460 296 25 29.3% 7 9,435 558 1,694 1,355 1,619 2,519 845 774 71 23.9% 9 20,873 1,298 3,157 3,625 2,880 4,111 2,097 2,762 943 21.3% 17 7,538 453 1,609 608 1,019 2,299 874 626 50 27.4% 9 2,434 121 352 452 306 490 187 414 112 19.4% 21 65,894 4,595 13,271 10,117 9,942 17,147 5,835 4,679 308 27.1% 7 I of 2 9/26/01 12:35 PM ' Hennepin County Census Fact Sheet 3-page 3 Richfield 34,439 2,080 4,891 6,824 5,127 Robbinsdale 14,123 941 2,127 2,359 2,282 Rockford (part) 144 11 17 18 23 Rogers 3,588 523 690 578 923 Saint Anthony (part) 5,664 239 883 615 573 Saint Bonifacius 1,873 203 349 346 364 Saint Louis Park 44,126 2,657 5,622 9,814 7,185 Shorewood 7,400 526 1,813 551 1,008 Spring Park 1,717 54 10S 337 212 Tonka Bay 1,547 96 288 129 222 Wayzata 4,113 197 597 528 483 Woodland 480 25 110 29 38 County Total 1,116,200 73,261 194,241 220,513 169,292 7,117 2,767 4,947 686 20.2% 16 3,021 916 2,024 453 21.7°/o 17 43 15 17 19.4%o 11 530 155 174 15 33.8% 5 1,250 530 1,319 255 19.8% 27 386 104 113 8 29.50/0 6 9,126 3,244 5,332 1,146 18.8% 14 2,294 622 563 23 31.6°/o 7 313 148 310 238 9.3% 3! 490 186 127 9 24.80/0 8 956 495 701 156 19.3%b 20 154 67 53 4 28.1°/o 11 250,762 85,773 104,679 17,679 24.00/0 11. 1The Hennepin County portion of Chanhassen is commercial/industrial property. OPD Home Hennepin County Census Home Fact Sheet 3 Home <Back Forward> 2 of 2 9/26/01 12:35 PM NEW HOPE DATA pROFILE 2000 All information is the most current available, and sources are listed. June 2001 POPULATION · In 2000, the population of New Hope was 20,873 according to the United States Census 2000. · The population in 1990 was 21,853, so there was a negative growth rate of -4.5% between 1990-2000. · New Hope is the seventh largest city in the northwest area, and the fourteenth in Hennepin County. (Metro Council) NATALITY (MN Center for Health Statistics) · New Hope had 252 live births in 1999. · Of the 252 births, 54 (21%) were to unmarried women. · Of the 252 births, 16 (6%) were to teenage mothers. There were 10 births to women ages 18-19, 5 births to women ages 15-17, and 1 to a woman under age 15. CHILDREN AND CHILD CARE · In 2000, the population under age 19 in New Hope was 4,860 or 23.3% of the total population. (U.S. Census 2000) · In 2000, there were 1,298 children age 0 to 5. (U.S. Census 2000) The total number of children in New Hope under the age of 14 was 3,718 in the U.S. Census 2000. This is considered the number of children in need of, or eligible for, childcare or adult supervised after school activities. · In March of 2001, New Hope had 4 licensed childcare centers, 48 licensed family childcare homes, and 2 pre-schools. (Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association) SENIORS · In 2000, the percentage of people age 65 years and older in New Hope was 17.8% (3,705), an increase of 3.5% since 1990. (U.S. Census 200O) · The projected population for the year 2010 is 3,969. (Metro Council) · The median age of people in New Hope in the 2000 Census was 38.3 years. RACE AND ETHNICITY , In the United States Census 2000, people in New Hope identified themselves as: 86.7% White, 13.3%' Non-White, and 2.1% as two or more races. , The 13.3% of Non-White people breaks down as follows: 1,207 (5.8%) Black/African American, 97 (less than 1%) American Indian/Alaskan Native, 669 (3.2%) Asian, 8 (less than 1%) Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 364 (1.7%) identified themselves with some other race. · In 2000, 3.5% of people in New Hope identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino (of any race). HOUSING · In 2000, there were 8,665 households in New Hope with an average 2.29 persons per household. (u.s. Census 2000) · The number of households with individuals under age 18 was 2,489 or 28.7%. The number of households with individuals age 65 and over was 2,140 or 24.7%. (u.s. Census 2000) · 56.1% of the housing units in New Hope were owner-occupied, and 43.9% were renter-occupied in the U.S. Census 2000. · There was a vacancy rate in the homeowner market of .1%, and a rental vacancy rate of .9% on average in 2000. (U.S. Census 2000) · In 2001, the median market value for a single family home in New Hope is $144,000, up from $117,000 in 1999. (Hennepin County Assessor's Office) As of December 2000, New Hope had a total of 2,200 rental units. There were 12 studio apartments with an average rent of $557; 1,064 one-bedroom units with an. average rent of $650; 1,048 two-bedroom units with an average rent of $764; and 55 three-bedroom units with an average rent of $991. Since December 1999, there was an averaged 8% increase in rent, and a decrease of 34 units overall. (Spectrum Apartment Search) EMPLOYMENT (Metro Council econorrdc census, will be done again in 2002) · In 1997, there were 13,667jobs in New Hope. · The projected number of jobs in the years 2000 and 2010 are 14,100 and 14,700, respectively. INCOME AND POVERTY (Census 2000 data will be available in 2002) · One indicator of the level of poverty is the rate of eligibility for free and reduced lunches in schools. To qualify, a family must earn less than 185% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. For example, in 2000, 185% of Federal Poverty was $31,543 for a family of four. In 2000, Robbinsdale School District, which serves New Hope, found 23% of its students eligible for free or reduced lunch. (MN Dept. of Children, Families and Learning) The median household income in New Hope was $36,096 in 1989, an 11.8% decrease since 1979 (in constant 1989 dollars). · In 1989, 6.5% (1,353) of New Hope residents were living below the poverty line. The number of people in poverty in New Hope increased by 44.6% from 1979 (936) to 1989 (1,353), while the overall population of New Hope decreased by 5.3% during that same time period. · In 1989, 5.3% (1,040) of all Caucasians lived in poverty, 59.1% (218) of all African-Americans, 3.0% (19) of all Asian-Americans, 31.5% (57) of all Native Americans and 15.6% (28) of all Hispanics. · In 1989, 6.8% (142) of seniors in New Hope lived in poverty. · In 1989, 48.2% (107) of all female headed-households in New Hope with children under age five were living in poverty. ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE (1999-2000 data will be available Fall 2001 from the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development) · Between December 1998 and December 1999, New Hope experienced a decline in the number of people who received economic assistance. There were 1,167 families receiving economic assistance in 1999, compared to 1,248 in 1998. However, the number of families receiving MFIP increased from 135 to 140, a 3.7% increase. The number of individuals receiving MFIP also rose from 358 to 377, an increase of 5.3%. As of December 1999, New Hope had 1,576 unique individuals receiving economic assistance, down from 1,676 in 1998. This is 10% of all recipients of economic assistance in the northwest area. There were 229 individuals receiving Food Stamps, a decline of 14.6%, and 19 individuals receiving General Assistance. There was a 5.8% decrease in the number of people receiving Medical Assistance, from 1,637 to 1,542. Individuals receiving Minnesota Supplemental Assistance declined by a significant 40.9% from 171 in 1998 to 101 in 1999. This report is a periodical publication of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. It contains the latest statistids on demography, housing, income/poverty, economic assistance, and community services. Data were collected from the following sources: Apartment Search Bureau of the Census Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association Hennepin County Assessor's Office Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development Metropolitan Council Minnesota Department of Economic Security * Some data cannot be updated due to thefrequenc, v of their data collection, particularly Census data. Please write or email inquiries to: Northwest Hermepin Human Services Council C/o Statistical Fact Sheets 7601 Kentucky Avenue North, Suite 101 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55428 (763) 493-2802 Phone (763) 493-2713 Fax E-mail: info(&nwhhsc.org REQUEST FOR ACTION ~ ~ Agenda Section ~ Approved for Agenda Originating Department Development & Planning Community Development~ Item No. By: Ken Doresky, Community ~ 3¢/) 10-22-01 8.2 Development Specialist · RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ATION CLEANUP GRANT APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 7500-28 42ND AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 665) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting that the Council approve a resolution authorizing an application to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED), Contamination Cleanup Grant Program. The grant funds would be used to complete the contamination cleanup process at City-owned properties located at 7500- 28 42nd Avenue North, one of which was the former Electronic Industries site. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the Council has formally authorized staff to apply for redevelopment grants. On April 24, 2000, the Council authorized staff to apply for a DTED Contamination Investigation and Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Development Grant for this site, which was funded. BACKGROUND Electronic Industries, Inc. began operating a printed circuit board manufacturing plant at 7516 42nd Avenue North in 1965. In the fall of 1983, it was determined that an underground storage tank, used for chemical settling prior to discharge to the City's sanitary sewer line had corroded to the point that it had lost its integrity. Once the tank was removed, visible soil discoloration and strong solvent odors were noted, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) directed Electronic Industries to perform a subsurface investigation. Subsequently, in 1984, Electronic Industries and the MPCA entered into an agreement for Electronic Industries to investigate cleanup of the site. Due to the limited resources of Electronic Industries and the high cost of soil and groundwater testing, the investigation was moving at a very slow pace. In 1992, the City condemned the Electronic Industries as a health hazard, purchased and demolished the property. In order to facilitate the cleanup and prepare for redevelopment of the contaminated site, in 1995 the City purchased and demolished the adjacent property to the west, 7528 42nd Avenue North. In 1999, the City acquired and demolished the adjacent property to the east, 7500 42nd Avenue North. The City initiated the DTED grant process in order to expedite the cleanup of the site and market the property for commercial redevelopment. In the sprin(~ of 2000, the City applied for and received a Contamination MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for/~,ction Page 2 10-22-dl Investigation and Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Development Grant from DTED to determine the ext~ 'of contamination, develop a RAP and prepare for the submission of the folloW-up DTED cleanup grant. The contaminant, tricholoethene (TCE) has a higher density than water and consequently sinks through the groundwater. The local water table lies approximately ten (10) feet below the land surface at the site and a buried stream channel underlies the area of the release. The bulk of the contaminant is believed to have collected in discrete puddles at the uneven bottom of the buried channel, approximately twenty (20) feet below the land surface. The presence of the puddles at the bottom of the channel and below the water table continue to release TCE to the groundwater flowing laterally through the channel. Also, recent investigation has found that TCE has migrated through the clay layer into the lower aquifer. At the time the contamination was discovered in 1984, the MPCA identified Electronic Industries as the responsible party. With this designation, Electronic Industries became legally responsible for the investigation and cleanup of the contaminants. By the eady 1990s, the MPCA and Electronic Industries developed a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) that identified the stages and timeline for the site cleanup. This RAP called for the site to be gradually cleaned over a span of 20-30 years. Now that the additional site investigation is complete and the extent of actual contamination is known, the initial 20-30 year cleanup plan is inadequate and would take many more years to complete in its present state. Past investigalJon of this site had found the contaminant to be within the upper aquifer and overlying soil. A shallow recovery well has been in place on the site for many years intended to capture the contaminant and remove the contaminant from the site. The clay layer below the upper aquifer was believed to be impermeable. During this most recent investigation phase, it was determined that the contaminant has permeated through the underlying clay layer into the lower aquifer. This movement of the contaminant to the lower aquifer is a new development for the site that will, at a minimum, require the installation of a groundwater recovery well to remove and treat groundwater within the lower aquifer and limit the migration of the contaminant. Many options and associated costs were evaluated for the cleanup of this site including: Preferred Alternative: Permanganate injection into the upper and lower aquifers and the installation of a deep water recovery well: This option would involve injection of permanganate into the upper aquifer. It has been found that this chemical neutralizes the TCE contaminate. Each injection is estimated to cost $8,500.00. Several injections may be required to oxidize the TCE in the upper aquifer. If permanganate is successful in reducing TCE concentrations in the upper aquifer, injection into the lower aquifer would be proposed at an estimated ten times the' cost of the upper aquifer injections. Although permanganate injection into the lower aquifer may help reduce TCE levels, the clay above the lower aquifer would not be affected by the injection. TCE remaining in the clay above the lower aquifer will act as a continuing source of TCE in the lower aquifer necessitating a deep water recovery well. A recovery well would serve to remove and treat groundwater within the lower aquifer and limit migration of the contaminant. The MPCA supports this alternative and will issue the necessary documents to allow development of the property once this plan is completed. o Estimated cost: $324,218.10 · Continuation of present system (No additional action): The current system involves the operation of two recovery wells, as well as a soil vapor extraction system and an air sparging system in the perched groundwater. This system has been in place for several years, collectively removing approximately 7,000 pounds of TCE. This system does not address the levels of TCE in the clay or the lower aquifer. · On-site Iow temperature thermal desorbtion: This technology involves dewatering the upper aquifer, excavating the soil down to the base of the clay underlying the upper aquifer (approximately thirty-two (32) feet below the surface) and treating the contaminated soil on-site. The water removed during the '~ 10-22-01 Request for Action Page 3 excavation would also need to be treated prior to being discharged. This treatment would not address the levels of TCE in the lower aquifer. A groundwater recovery well would need to be installed to treat contaminated groundwater in the lower aquifer and to prevent migration of the contaminant. o Estimated cost: $3,242,885.00 · Deep soil mixing: Deep soil mixing is accomplished by mixing the soil in-situ with a large diameter eight (8) foot auger. Hot air is injected in the auger and vaPors are extracted through a shroud covering the auger. The air is then treated with carbon. The area would be dewatered and the cleaned soil excavated. Following the excavation of the cleaned soil, the large diameter auger would be used to break up the clay and mix hot air in with the soil. Again, the vapors would be extracted through a shroud over the auger and treated with carbon. A groundwater recovery well would need to be installed to remove and treat groundwater within the lower aquifer and limit migration of the contaminant. Also, permanganate injection would be recommended in the lower aquifer. o Estimated cost: $2,976,670.00 · Landfill: Two landfills, located in Oklahoma and Ontario would be used to dispose of the TCE contaminated soil. Soil with TCE concentrations of less than 500 rog/kg would be sent to Oklahoma for disposal. Soil with TCE concentrations greater than 500 rog/kg would be sent to Ontario for disposal. Dewatedng and water treatment would be necessary. This treatment would not address the elevated levels of TCE in the lower aquifer. A groundwater recovery well would need to be installed to treat contaminated groundwater in the lower aquifer and to prevent migration of the contaminant. o Estimated cost: $7,593,673.00 Incineration: Incineration is the most expensive of the treatment options. Incineration consists of excavation of the soil and transporting the soil to an incinerator. The upper aquifer groundwater would need to be removed and treated dudng excavation. This treatment would not address the elevated levels of TCE in the lower aquifer. A groundwater recovery well would need to be installed to treat contaminated groundwater in the lower aquifer and to prevent the migration of the contaminant. o Estimated cost: $14,690,743.00 The DTED Contamination Cleanup Grant program was established by the 1993 legislature to provide funds to cleanup contaminated sites and provide a greater opportunity to convert contaminated property into a marketable asset. The main objective of this program is to serve the best interests and needs of communities by removing pollutants from sites within those communities in order to provide developable land and reduce the potential threat to public health and the environment. The removal of contaminants also contributes to the economic welt-being of communities by providing new jobs and increasing the tax base on sites that were previously polluted and unproductive or not producing at their highest potential. In order to be funded for this cleanup grant it is expected that the site will be improved with buildings or other improvements, and that these buildings or improvements will provide a substantial increase in the property tax base or will be used for an important publicly owned or tax exempt facility. Redevelopment plans and developer commitments are often a requirement to receive funding for this program. The City began soliciting development proposals for this property in the winter of 2000. Staff initially sent several Request for Proposal (RFP) packets to developers to solicit interest in the development of the site. Staff has recently received one proposal for the development of a senior housing complex on the site. According to the City's Comprehensive Plan, the future land use designation for the site is commercial and the site is currently zoned CB, Commercial Business, therefore senior housing is not an acceptable proposal. Staff is planning on updating the RFP and soliciting additional development proposals for the site. Specifically, staff will target brownfield developers who have experience redeveloping contaminated sites. Due to the fact that the City is not in receipt of a signed purchase agreement and no plans are currently in place for the site, DTED may choose to not fund cleanup activities for the site at this time. If the grant is not funded this round, staff will aggressively pursue developers in order to have a more firm development plan in place for the spring 2002 DTED cleanup grant application. Reque~,t for Action Page 4 ~' 10-22-dl Also, in the event that the grant is not funded, staff will return to the Council at a future date to again re Dst authorization to apply for the spring 2002 round of DTED cleanup grant fUnding. The attached resolution will authorize an application to the DTED Contamination Cleanup Grant program to implement the RAP developed for City-owned properties located at 7500-28 42nd Avenue North, one of which was the former Electronic Industries site. Staff recommends approval of this resolution. FUNDING The DTED Contamination Cleanup Grant can pay up to 75% of the cost of cleaning up the contamination. Electronic Industries has agreed to provide the 25% match. The total estimated cost to implement the RAP is $324,218.10. Clay investigation costs incurred by Electronic Industries have been included in the overall project cost at the request of Electronic Industries in the amount of $7,762.00. Electronic Industries would be responsible for providing $82,995.02 in matching funds. Also, the City is applying for a companion cleanup grant through the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account to supplement the DTED grant funding. The City is planning to apply for 25% of the total project cost through this Met Council grant program. If the grant is awarded, a cost sharing agreement with El will be forthcoming. The City is not responsible for contributing funds to implement the RAP and complete the site cleanup. DTED Cleanup Grant (50%) $165,990.05 Met Council Grant (25%) $ 82,995.03 Electronic Industries Match (25%) $ 82,995.02 Total Cleanup Cost $331,980.10 ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · Location Map · Preferred Alternative Memorandum · Frontline Environmental Alternative Report · Proposed RAP Project Site (to scale) 7500, 7516, & 7528 42nC Avenue TF ~ROJ 1606 (5) 7528 u 7516 7500 ,ffMT 0¢ LOT S (7) RD) : O MW-1 O MW-5 NoHh X F4 (No Warn') Area of Elevated Levels of TCE FI'4 (~,?0o) X Treatment Shed · Fl3 'X O MW-8 X F6 (~) ('No Wst~) Leeend X F1 = Geoprob¢ Location O MW = Momtor/ng Well Location O RW = Recovery Well LocaUon X F5 = Shallow Geopmbe Point (TCE) in ppb 'X Fl5 · ,~(100) ~ (19o) X x ~ X FI2 ~ · (3~0,000) (15,0oo) ~ XF7 ('No W~.~r) X F5 X F9 (4:~) XI~ 42nd Avenue Scale I Inch = 40 Feet Electronic Industries, Inc.. 7516 42nd Avenue North New Hope. Minnesota Frontline Environmental Figure 1 TCE Distribution in the Perched Groundwater During the Sept. 2000 Push Probe Investigation Dr~wn by R~vi~,~a n.. _ 9/20/01 Way O MW-1 O MW-5 Area of Elevated Levels of TCE Treatment S~ ('No W~t~) O MW-8 X F4 (No Wster) X F6 (1~) ~/~F15 XF7 (No Wat~) X F5 (11o) X F9 (43) XF8 42nd Avenue Le£end X FI = Geoprobe LOCation O ,MW = Monitoring Well Location O R W = P.~covery Well Location X F5 = Shallow Geoprobe Point (TCE) in ppb Scale 1 Inch Electronic Industries, Inc. 7516 42nd Avenue No~th New Hope, Minnesota Frontline Environmental Figure 2 Perched Groundwater Injection Area Drawn by I Re,'iewed By I Date: KI~ ~ 9/2 0/01 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development Development & Plannin.o Item No. By: Ken Doresky, Community ~) 10-22-01 8. 3 Development Specialist By RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TAX BASE REVITALIZATION ACCOUNT APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 7500-28 42ND AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 665) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting that the Council approve a resolution authorizing an application to the Metropolitan Council's Tax Base Revitalization Account. The grant funds would be used to complete the contamination cleanup process at City-owned properties located at 7500-28 42nd Avenue North, one of which was the former Electronic Industries site. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the Council has formally authorized staff to apply for redevelopment grants. On April 24, 2000, the Council authorized staff to apply for a Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) Contamination Investigation and Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Development Grant for this site, which was funded. BACKGROUND in order to supplement environmental remediation grant funds applied for through DTED, as presented in the previous RFA, staff is requesting that the Council approve this resolution authorizing an application to the Metropolitan Council's Tax Base Revitalization Account also intended to fund the cleanup of 7500-28 42nd Avenue North, the former Electronic Industries site. These funds may be used consistent with DTED guidelines to provide a portion of cleanup funding for contaminated sites. DTED staff has suggested that the City may have a better chance of obtaining cleanup funding for this site if more than one organization is funding the project. The City is a participant in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA) was enacted in 1995 to address the development and maintenance of affordable and life-cycle housing in the metropolitan area. As part of the LCA, municipalities negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals based on current indices and benchmark goals set by the Metropolitan Council. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: 10-22-01 Request for Action Page 2 Participation in the LCA allows the City access to funds for housing'development and Other community development activities. Currently, the City is working with two grant programs accessed through the LCA. The Livable Communities grant program to study the Bass Lake RoadANinnetka area and the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) site investigation and clean-up grant program for environmental remediation at 7500-28 42nd Avenue North are both grant programs accessed through participation in the LCA. The Metropolitan Council's Tax Base Revitalization Account grant is accessed through participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. The City initiated this grant process in order to expedite the cleanup of the site and market the property for commercial redevelopment. In the spring of 2000, the City applied for and received a DTED Contamination Investigation and Remedial Action Plan (RAP) DeveloPment Grant to determine the extent of contamination, develop a RAP and prepare for the submission of the follow-up DTED cleanup grant. The Metropolitan Councils Tax Base Revitalization Account application is in conjunction with the current DTED cleanup grant application. The Metropolitan Tax Base Revitalization Account provides for funds to clean up contaminated land in areas that have lost commercial/industrial activity to make it available for economic redevelopment, job retention and job growth. The account is coordinated with complementary programs at the MN Pollution Control Agency and DTED. In the event that this grant in conjunction with the DTED grant is not funded, staff will return to the Council at a future date to again request authorization to apply for the spring 2002 round of grant funding. The attached resolution will authorize an application to the Metropolitan Council's Tax Base Revitalization Account program in conjunction with the DTED cleanup grant application to implement the RAP developed for City-owned properties located at 7500-28 42nd Avenue North, one of which was the former Electronic Industries site. Staff recommends approval of this resolution. FUNDING The DTED Contamination Cleanup Grant can pay up to 75% of the cost of cleaning up the contamination. Electronic Industries has agreed to provide the 25% match. The total estimated cost to implement the RAP is $324,218.10. Clay investigation costs incurred by Electronic Industries have been included in the overall project cost at the request of Electronic Industries in the amount of $7,762.00. Electronic Industries would be responsible for providing $82,995.02 in matching funds. The companion cleanup grant offered through the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Livable Communities Tax Base Revitalization Account would supplement DTED grant funding. The City is planning to apply for 25% of the total project cost through this Met. Council grant program. If the grant is awarded, a cost shadng agreement with El will be forthcoming. The City is not responsible for contributing funds to implement the RAP and complete the site cleanup. IDTED Cleanup Grant (50%) Met Council Grant (25%) IElectronic Industries Match (25%) Total Cleanup Cost 15165,990.05 ~$ 82,995.03 iS 82,995.02 [$331,980.10 ATTACHMENT · Resolution · Location Map COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development Development & Planninc. l Item No. By: Ken Dore. sky, Community 10-22-01 Development Specialist By: 8.4 MOTION. DECLINING TO TAKE ACTION ON THE OFFER TO PURCHASE CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 7500-28 42ND AVENUE NORTH, ONE OF WHICH WAS THE FORMNER ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES SITE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 665) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests Council approval of a motion to decline an offer to purchase City-owned properties located at 7500-28 42nd Avenue North, one of which was the former Electronic Industries site. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The City Council considers land use development proposals for City owned property based upon the City's Comprehensive Plan. Proposals are considered on a case-by-case basis. BACKGROUND As the Council knows, 1983 it was discovered that Electronic Industries located at 7516 42nd Avenue North had polluted the site with the contaminant, tricholoethene (TCE). Consequently, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) directed Electronic Industries to perform a subsurface investigation of the site. Due to the limited resources of Electronic Industries and the high cost of soil and groundwater testing, the investigation was moving at a very slow pace. In 1992, the City condemned the property as a health hazard, purchased and demolished the building. In order to facilitate the cleanup and prepare for redevelopment of the contaminated site, in 1995 the City purchased and demolished the adjacent property to the west, 7528 42nd Avenue North. In 1999, the City acquired and demolished the adjacent property to the east, 7500 42nd Avenue North. The City began soliciting development proposals for this property in the winter of 2000. Staff initially sent several Request for Proposal (RFP) packets to developers to solicit interest in the development of the site. Staff has recently received one proposal for the development of a senior housing complex on the site. According to the City's Comprehensive Plan, the future land use designation for the site is commercial and the site is currently zoned CB, Community Business. After reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and reviewing the proposal with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Planning Consultant, City Engineer, Building Official, Communi~ Development Director and staff concluded that senior housinc~ would not be the MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: 10-22-01 Request for A¢icn Page 2 highest and best use of this particular site. The site is surrounded by 42nd Avenue to the south, railroad tracks to the east, industrial sites to the north and commercial sites to the west. Interstate Development Company has proposed to purchase the City-owned properties located at 7500-28 42nd Avenue North. The purchase offer is $150,000.00 per acre for an estimated 2.5 acres for a total amount of $37'5,000.00. In March of 2000, the property was appraised for $1,009,000.00 ($9.00 sq. ft) assuming cleanup. Interstate Development Company based their offer on similar purchases in the Twin Cities Metro Area and research into the New Hope senior housing market. Interstate proposes to develop the site into a 75 unit, senior rental housing development. Rezoning would be necessary. Due to the contamination of the site, the MPCA can regulate the type of development allowed on the site. Normally, the MPCA regulates sites by deed restrictions. Initially, when staff contacted the MPCA regarding their position regarding a senior housing development proposal for the site, the MPCA was quick to dismiss this type of land use. After further thought, the MPCA notified the City that it would consider residential land use of the site subject to, but not limited to the following conditions: · Specific language for the deed restriction would need to be developed and recorded on the deed before the property was sold to the housing developer; The site could have at-grade development only (no basements or parking garages); Any sub-grade work (e.g. utilities) would need sealing from contaminant vapors; · The City would be responsible for drafting up the deed restrictions and submittal to MPCA and Attorney General's Office for review and approval. Staff is planning to update the RFP and solicit additional development proposals for the site. Specifically, staff will target Brownfield developers who have experience redeveloping contaminated sites. Aisc, staff is currently seeking clean-up grants from the MN Department of Trade and Economic Development and the Metropolitan Council to clean the site and market the site for redevelopment. Staff recommends a motion to decline taking action on this offer to purchase City-owned properties located at 7500-28 42nd Avenue North, one of which was the former Electronic Industries site. FUNDING Interstate Development Company has proposed to purchase the site for $375,000.00 subject to the following contingencies: · Buyer's environmental assessment of the property, which approval shall be in the buyer's absolute and sole discretion; · Buyer's investigation and approval of the physical condition of the property; · Buyer obtaining financing in an amount and under terms sufficient to allow buyer to develop the property as contemplated by it, it its sole direction; · Buyer obtaining approval of all government agencies on proposed building plans and specifications at buyer's expense; · Buyer obtaining approval of all government agencies for rezoning and use permits at buyer's expense; · Seller to provide certification that soil and groundwater contamination issues have been resolved; · And that this agreement be contingent upon final plat approval. ATTACHMENTS · Location Map · Zoning Map · City Correspondence · Purchase Offer · Comprehensive Plan, Commercial Redevelopment · Appraisal -----' 7_'_Z .-; ";L':_-7~ '%' -- "- :-_- -: . . ' ........ ~.,.~, '~1 .... ~ '"- -.- - i-- - ~_ - '-:~;;:~'~ ...... -~ - I -' - - .-.,¢~ :.-.:~,_ -_.-:_ .. -_ · .%. _%;. "I;.- . - " -. ;;:: ~t .... :-:t "i'- % . '%.. '-'-"t-':" "/ -:,~ · - '-"! ~'-_zE.-,~l ~,~,. "~ ~ .'_--'Z~" il ' ; "' -"- ONING DISTRICT MAP ..... ~-.,.,~,,~-,.,,,~ ...... ?,.,~¢~_,/.4~,..,;.,-..~ Single Family Residential . ~mmmmm~m;~ ~.,.,~;,,~,~..~ R-2 Single and Two Family Residenti; ......... ~.' ~1.=.-:':! ' .r=" · R-4 High Density Residential R-5 "Senior / Disabled" Residential ~ R-0 Residential Office R-B Residential Business LB Limited Business CB Community Business Industrial Open Space / Public City Size = 3267.2 Ac. (5.1 Sq. Miles Interstate Development Company. L.L.C. 19224 Embers Avenue Farrr'in--cn°n' MN 5502-~ '612-63t,-038C' September 7th. 2001 Kirk McDonald Ciw of New Hope Di~ctor of Community. Development 4401 Xyion Avenue North New Hope. MN 55428 Dear Mr. McDonald: Interstate Development Company is proposing to purchase the pamel of p~. located at 7500 42nd Avenue North. The proposed purchase price shall be $150.000 per acre for the estimated 2.5 acres. This comes to an estimated value of $375.000.00. We have come to the decision to offer this amount based off of our recent purchases of similarly zoned land in the Twin Cities Metro Area along with our research into the New Hope senior rental market. lmerstate Development Company proposes to develop the site located at 7500 42nd Avenue North into a Senior Housing Development. Because of the intended usage for this site. we will be seeking the cities cooperation to obtain zoning for High Density. Residential or a PUD on this site. Due to economics, we will be seeking to build approximately 75 rental units on this site. This offer is conditional upon the verification of the pamel sizes, city approval of proposed site plarus, approval of financing_ and any other conditions set forth m the enclosed purchase agreement. As purchasers of this property, it will be our goal to work in concert with the ¢iw of New Hope to help alleviate the immediate senior rental housing shortage of the New Hope area. Please contact me to discuss this offer. I can be reached at 612-636.,6380. 1/8 Section Map_ Project Sit~ (to scale) 7500, 7516, & 7528 42"° Avenue BROOKLYN PARK COMMERCi REDEVEI.-OPME TARGET ARE~ GOLDEN City of New Hope .mae 19~8 Ba~e Map: Amletik & ~e~ SCALE IN FEET ,45 Comprehensive Plan Upcia;{ Development Framewo~ BCL APPRAISALS 2852 ANTHONrig' LANE SO., MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55418 RON LACHEN'MA~, SRA LESLIE J. 0'-~:) RACINE, .IR., SRA BRAD BJORKLUND, MAI, SRA (612)781-0605 Fax: 781-~a26 REAl= ESTATE APPRAISERS & CONSULTANTS March 6, 2000 The City of New Hope c/o Phil Kern 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Re: Market value appraisal of vacant commercIal zoned land (~ Northeast comer Rockford Road & Quebec Avenue North, New Hope, MN Dear Mr. Kern: In response to your request, I have estimated the market value of the real estate. The following report, per your request, is restricted in the manner m which ~t explains the clata, reasoning, and analyses that were used to develop the opinion of value Th~s report contains statements of my findings only. Rased on an inspection of the property ancl a complete ~nvestigation and analyses undertaken, I have formed the opinion that as of March 3 2000. and subject to the assumptions' and hrnlt~ng conditions set forth in this report, the fee simple interest of the real property has a market value as follows- ONE MILLION NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS $1.009.000 or alternatwely NINE DOLLARS PER SQUARE FOOT OF LAND $9.00/SF MORE TI'tAN 80 YE,4R3 PUD.. APPRAISAL SERVICES EEO/Ad COUNCIL REQUEST FOR AC' 'ION ~ ~ A~ved for Agenda Community McDonald Development KirkJJ B)/: 10-30-01 By: DISCUSSION REGARDING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE NEW HOPE LIQUOR CODE REGARDING INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ON- AND OFF-SALE LICENSES AND AMENDING FEES AND LICENSE REQUIREMENTS Agenda Section Work Session Item No. REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests that the City Council review and discuss the staff recommendations regarding changes to the New Hope Liquor Code. The changes are included in the attached proposed ordinance amendment, which was prepared by the City Attorney. The ordinance increases the number of on-and off-sale licenses and makes changes to fee and license requirements. The ordinance is in follow up to the Council's previous direction to staff to make changes dealing with on-and off-sale licenses at the same time. If the Council is agreeable to these changes, staff recommends that the ordinance amendments be placed on the November 13 regular Council agenda for consideration and approval. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE tn the past, the New Hope Liquor Code has limited the number of on-and off-sale licenses and required a large monetary investment for restaurants with liquor. In an effort to encourage business retention and to promote more commercial development and redevelopment in the City, the City Council has directed staff to recommend modifications to the ordinance. BACKGROUND OFF-SALE LICENSES At the September 9 Council meeting, representatives from Simon Delivers, 3440 Winpark Drive, made a presentation to the City Council regarding the potential to apply for an "off-sale" liquor license to allow delivery and sale of beer and wine in conjunction with their grocery delivery business. The Council directed that this matter be discussed at a Council work session. Following the presentation, the applicants submitted a completed application form and fees to the City for a license. This matter was discussed by the City Council at a Council work session on September 17. At that time, the majority of the council favored expanding the number of off-sale licenses available in the City, subject to certain criteria, such as expanding employment opportunities, business retention, promoting redevelopment, etc. The Council directed staff to prepare recommendations for consideration by the City Council. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 10-30-01 City staff and consultants, including the City Clerk, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Attorney, and Planning Consultant, met to discuss this issue on September 28 and also reviewed the mi with the City Manager. At the October 4 Council work session, a draft resolution outlining criteria for off-sale licenses was presented for Council review. The resolution stated that off-sale applicants must meet certain criteria, such as business retention, expand employment opportunities, promote redevelopment, etc. The majority of the Council was agreeable to the criteria and recommended that the number of off-sale licenses be increased from three to six. These changes have been incorporated into the attached ordinance amendment and resolution prepared by the City Attorney. ON-SALE LICENSES The Council directed staff to also review and make recommendations to the on-sale requirements in the ordinance. The same staff/consultant committee met to review the following on-sale issues: · Number of licenses · Investment requirement Number of Licenses The current ordinance allows four on-sale liquor licenses and staff is recommending that this number be increased to six. One of the four licenses is currently not issued. It is staff's feeling that expanding the number of on-sale licenses to six will allow additional quality restaurants to locate in several locations in the City, including the Winnetka/Bass Lake Road, 42"a/VVinnetka, and Midland Shopping Center areas. Investment Requirement The current investment requirement for an on-sale license is at least $1 million dollars, excluding land value. Staff is recommending that the requirement be reduced to $500,000 and include the land value. Staff has researched some land values and market values of properties in New Hope and adjacent cities and feels that the $500,000 value would allow for a quality facility and still encourage restaurants to locate in the City. A shopping center site would be considered on the proportional share of building/land size. Miscellaneous Lastly, staff is recommending that the fee for the off-sale 3.2 beer license be increased from $50 to $100. The fee has not changed since 1984 and the City can easily justify the increase based upon the time the Police Department spends on compliance checks, etc. One hundred dollars is the maximum fee allowed by the State. All of these recommendations have been incorporated into the attached ordinance and resolution. If the Council is agreeable to these changes, staff recommends the following schedule: · November 13 Council meetinq - approve liquor ordinance modifications · November 26 Council meetinq - consider Simon Delivers application and potentially approve subject to Zoning Code Amendment · December 4 Planninq Commission meetin,q - Planning Commission approves minor Zoning Code amendment allowing bulk packaging · December 10 City Council meetinq - City Council approves minor Zoning Code amendment Simon Delivers is aware of the proposed schedule and is hopeful that they will be allowed to sell liquor, if approved by the State also, in time for the holiday season. The new 3.2 beer license fee would also be applicable to all such licenses considered in December for 2002. ATTACHMENTS · City Attorney Correspondence, Ordinance and Resolution , · Planning Consultant Memo re: Investment Requirement · Planning Consultant Memo re: Zoning Code Amendment · Police Department Memo to Justify License Fee Increase · Simon Delivers Correspondence · Market Values JENSEN & SONDRALL, PA -, h'E~ BOPt. Gn ~,~v~,.. ~. 10/25/01 10:53 FAX 7634935193 STACY A. WOODS Ov COUNS.~t. LOL~,m q. BRYNES'f,,,:, JENSEN & SONDRALL, P.A. ,4ttorne~s At Law .. , 8525 EoPamooK C~OSS~¢, STg. 201 BROO~ ~ ~OTA 5~1968 ~HO~ ~) 4~811 s TELEF~ (T~) 493-5193 ~m~ law~je~n~a~com October 25, 2001 Kirk McDonald '- Community Development Di:mct~ SENT BY FAX City of N~rHope TO: (763) 531-5136 4401 Xylon Avenue North AND BY REGULAR MAIL N~w Hope, lViN 55428 Proposed Ordinance Amendment to the Blew Hope liquor Code Onr File Bio.: 99.40108 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed for consideration at the next New Hope City Cotmcfl work session a proposed Ordinance Amending the New Hope Liquor Code by Increasing the Nu~nber of Off-Sale and On-Sale Licenser and Amending Fees and License Requirements. As we hay= discussed in the various staff meetings on this topic, the maximum number of both on-sale and off-sale ]iccnses is being increased to six_ Also, the initial in.vestment for a Class 1 restaurant license is being reduced to $500,000.00. Further, land value will also bc lakcn into consideration m determining the initial invei,,,,ent amount for compliance with the $500,000.00 requirement. I removed the reference to a cost year since the Ordinance p~-,its the City Council to amend the $500,000.00 number in their discretion when they feel a change m cnn~'ucfion costs have warranted the amendment As a result, the conslruction cost year serves no purpose and has never been used in thc past to calculate corrfpl/arice with this minimum investment requiremcrlt Thcrcforc, I thi.k it should be excluded from the Ordinance. Finally, the lir.,e~ fee for an off-sale 3.2% beer license is increased to $100.00. As you know, this fee has been $50.00 for many years and was due to be increased. I am also calclosin~ a proposed Resolution scthng forth some policy considerations for this new Ordinance. This Resolution basically follows the proposed Resolution provided to us by the City Planner on this topic. 10/25/01 10:54 FAT 7834935193 jF.~$F~" $O.N-UiC*~a., Y~ ",'~ ~ .... Octob~ 25, 2001 Page 2 questions or oomrncn~s regarding thc Ordm.~cc or thc Resolution, please do not hesitate to Hyou have gontac~ me. Very truly yours, Smvcn A_ Sondrall, City AUomey, City of New Hope .~-.~ & s ~I~AM.,, P.A. ~',~m sen~ oudr~ll, com After l'lums ~ ~14'/ ~..nclosurcs Valcric Leone, City Clerk, City of New Ho~e (w/eric.) Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Cansultant~, lac. (w/eric.) Oql~9.do 10 ~X~2-Mr. Dmald l. ar.w~d .Wr.,NSF~ & SONDRALL, PA ., h'E~ ~0_~ ~.~, 10/~$/01 10:54 FAX 763493519~ ORDINANCE NO. 01 - ,, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE LIQUOR CODE BY INCREASING ~ NUMBER OF OFF-SALE AND ON-SALE The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: ~. Sectior~ 10.411 "N~mb_er.of On Sale Li .census" of the New Hope City Code is h~cby amend~ to r~I as follows: 10.411 "Number of On S. ale Licenses". The ma~i~]rm number of on sale intoxicating liquor licenses which shall be issu~I by thc City is f, eur.~'~. On Sale Wine Licenses shall be limited to thc numb~ of qualify~g r~s~auranr~ as dcfm~l in Section I0.02. S.e. ction 2. Section 10.412 "Number of Off Sale Liccns~" of the Nmv Hope City Code is h~reby amended to read as follows: 10.412 "Number of OffSale Licenses". Th~ mnximum xm.mbcr ofoffsale licenses which shall be issued by thc City is fhrces-'~. Sect. ion 3. Section 10.039(1)(a) "Initial Investment" of the N~-w Hope City Code is h~reby amend~ to read as follows: Section 10.039(1)(a) Initial Investmem. Aa applicant for a "Restaurant, Class On~", license mu.~ inifinlly invest or propose to inw:st in the business a lnninim,~m f~.% site d~vclo~E]lt, lll~liti=, flI~iihin~, ~ ~lld COllSt~cfioa COSTS ~ ~.~.,' "" ................ ~,,~,,,~.,,,,,, -..,,o~,. Thc required .'_~!_~.~"'st]~l~ili_.. amount shnll be pcriodically adjust~cl upward or downward by amendment to ti, i., section to reflect changes in consUuction costs as r¢flcct~l in commonly acccpmd consuucfion cost indices. In the case of multi-purpose buildings such as shopping centers, motels, hotels, and the lik~, only thnt portion of thc la~.~~uildin~ directly am'ibu{abl¢ to thc preparation, hnndlin~, storing or serving of food and liquor shall t,c considered in -1- event that a lice. use is proposed for an e~ sn-ucrure, the fair mark=t value for real estate mx purposes, c. xal~ivc, af l~g val,~., as determined by the C/ty Assessor in the y~ar the licease is fir~ issued, maY 'fie used in place of ~ ~ conSn'u~ion costs in determining whcth=r thc initi~! inVCS[2~lel:l~ r~luirement'has be~n satisfied.. An appli~ml holding a leasehold int~st in property may also usc the fair market value of the property for real eslale lax purposes as determined by thc City Assessor in the year the licanse is first issued for deterrvi~i~ whether the initial inv~ r~quir~..nt hs_~ been _~_~sfied. Thc.Council may provide for an independent appraisal at applicant's cxp~nse, as an aid in dct~rmini%~ the valu~ of said praise. In the event this recluirem~mt as to investrnenl is not complied with within one year from thc date of issuance ofth¢ licems¢, the license may be revoked or suspend~t. ~. Section 14.121 (2) 'OffSale' of thc New Hol~ City Code is hereby amended W read as follows: Sexrfion 14.121 (2) "_Off Sale".: ~. F_.ff¢¢fiv¢ Date. Thi~ Orrli~.nce .~h~ll be effe~ive upon i~ passage and publi~a~on. · Dated the ~ day of ,2001. W. Peter ]i/nc.k, Mayor Valerie Leone, City Clerk (l%blish~ in tlm New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post th~ 200t.) day of -2- 10/25/0i 10:54 FAX 765493519~ RESOLUTION NO. 01~ RF_~OLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CRITERIA FOR EXPANDING THE NIJ'MB~ OF LIQUOR LICENSF~ BE IT RESOLVED by thc City Council of the City of New Hope as follow~: Ve'Jffi~_.~, thc 2000 New Hope Comprehensive Plan establishes thc following goals and policies for the City's commercial land uses: Goal 1: Maintain aufl improve New Hope's commercial areas as vital re,~il and service locations. Policies: · Promote a full and broad range of office, service, retailing, and entertainment uses within the commercial a_mas of New Hope. · Attract new businesses to New Hope that ate colTlplgmgntal'y w existing businesses and will contribute to the customer attraction and business interchange of the local commercial areas. Promote the redevclopme~ and expansion of existing businesses within the City to obtain a higher level of sales and business attraction. Goal2: Redevelop commercial sites that display building deterioration, obsolete site design, laud use compst~ility issues mad a high level of vacancies. Policies: Blend c. ommer~j~ redevelopment which is of a slmii~l: size ~ 8¢ale with existing businesses And which is supportable by available m~rkets. Tltmugh redevelopment efforts, pursue retail And service providers that would complement the existing commercial land uses and/or contribute to the accumulative attraction of New Hope's commercial areas. WI~~, consistent with the aforementioned Comprehensive l~lan commercial goals and policies, the City of New Hope is investigating cxp~nd~ng the range of compatible and complemeuiaty land uses within its commercially ~nd industrially zoned areas W improve the market viability of these exist/nE commercial and industrial sites. -1- 10/25/0.l 10:§4 FAX ?634935.1. g3 , NOW, TH'~.~~, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope as follows: That Sections 10.411 and 10.412 estabTi.~hing the maximum nmnber of "on-sale" and "off- sale" licenses should be amended w in~e the number of licenses provided thc additional licenses satisfy the following criteria: ae Any new application must satisfy all of the performance st~nd~rcls of Chapter 10 of the New Hope Code, _Re~ollafion of the Sale and. Consumvfion of Intoxicating_ Liquors an.d. $.2% Malt Liquor. Any site for a m'w application is properly zon=d and is in full conformRnce with the zoning re~tlafions of Chatncr 4 of the New Hope Code. The proposed new license will serve to promote economic development or redev¢lopment investm~.'nt within the C/ry. Guidelin~ shRll include, but not be limited W, the following: The minimum exclusive liquor store size for an off sale license sl~all be on~ thousand (1,000) square f~t in floor area. bu The business will help to fill v~cies in existing shopping centers or bca potemial mnant in a commercial red~relopm~nt project. Thc business will serve to expand local ertlployment opportunities and/or help in business r~nfion. The business will improve local shopping opportunities, will complement adjoining retail facilities, and promote a high level of business inun'changc. e. The business will help retain local shopping dollars within th~ City. The proposed application shall not require any d/rect public financial assistance from thc City. Dated the . day of ,2001. At. st: :Valerie l.~xne, City Clerk W. P~e.r Enck, Mayor #GI~?HWI~$1r &$$GC:II&I'-IIIG C:GI~t$~IL. lr&INII'S,, IlNIC:, 5775 Wayzata Boulevard. Suite 555. St. Louis Park.. MN 55416 TelephOne: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk Mcdonald FROM: Jason Lindahl/Alan Brixius DATE: October 15, 2001 RE: Amendment to the Initial Investment for Class One Restaurants Section of the City Code. FILE: New Hope - 131.00 - 01.10 BACKGROUND To implement the Comprehensive Plan's goals regarding economic development, redevelopment, and revitalization of the City's commercial and industrial areas, the City has decided to expand the number of both on-sale and off-sale liquor licenses. Additionally, the city staff is recommending changes to the on-sale performance standards to encourage the pursuit of liquor licenses and promote investment within the City of New Hope. To this end, City Staff is recommending changes to the to the Initial Investment requirements for Class One Restaurants in Section 10.039(1)(a) of the City Code. These revisions are detailed in the following paragraph. Initial Investment. An applicant for a "Restaurant, Class One," license must initially invest or propose to invest in the business a minimum of $I ,OO0,O00.OO, $500,000.00 exctudir~ includinq land costs, but ~ncludin,3 all fees, site development, utilities, furnishings, fixtures and construction costs based upon -1-995 2001 construction costs. The required amount shall be periodically adjusted upward or downward by amendment to this section to reflect changes in the construction costs as reflected in commonly accepted construction costs indices. In the case of multi-purpose buildings such as shopping centers, motels, hotels, and the like, ortly that portion of the building and land directly attributable to the preparation, handling, storing or serving of food and liquor shall be considered in determining the value of the investment. For multi-tenant buildinqs, the total land value assigned to a restaurant shall be equal to the percentage of floor space the restaurant occupies within the multi-tenant building. In the event that a license is proposed for an existing structure, the fair market value for real estate tax purposes, e'x-~'4t~f includinq land value, as determined by the City Assessor in the year the license is first issued, may be uSed, in addition to any new buildinq or site improvements, in place of construction costs in determining whether the initial investment requirement has been satisfied. An applicant holding a leasehold interest in property may also use the fair market value of the property for real estate tax purposes as determined by the City Assessor in the year the license is first issued for determining whether the initial investment requirement has been satisfied. The Council may provide for an independent appraisal at the applicant's expense, as an aid in determining the value of said premises. In the event this requirement as to investment is not complied with within one year from the date of issuance of the license, the license may be revoked or suspended. Please review these changes and direct staff as to how to proceed. CC: Doug Standstad Steve Sondrall INiOI~?IAWI~$1' &$$OCI&?I~O COI~I$1¢Ii, lr&IN?$, liNC, 5775 Wayzata Boulevard. Suite 555. St. Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.983~7 Louis Park. MN 55416 planners~'nacDlann~ng-comr MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius October 17, 2001 New Hope - Simon Delivers Off-Sale Liquor License 131.01 -01.10 Simon Delivers would like to obtain an off-sale liquor license for the purpose of selling intoxicating liquor, wine and beer, along with its food delivery service in the City of New Hope. The City Attorney has looked at this issue and documented his findings in a September 15, 2001 letter to the City. It appears that to obtain an off-sale liquor license, the New Hope Code and State Statutes would require that an exclusive liquor store be established on site to allow for the issuance of the permit. By exclusive liquor store, this would require that part of the building be separated from the balance of the grocery sales with a separate entrance and separate delivery service to accommodate the liquor store. The City Attorney also indicates that it would require Simon Delivers to establish a separate liquor store that would permit customers to actually come to the store and purchase alcoholic beverages. I have a chance to speak with Mr. Sondrall to determine what in the Statute requires the provision for walk up sales. He indicated that based on his interpretation of Code, that store would refer to an on-premise sale of merchandise. I believe that Mr. Sondrall is accurate in his depiction of this and as such, we have to now look at what would be permitted within the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate such a facility. Simon Delivers' site is zoned I, Industrial, which allows for the warehousing facility that allows for the present use. In looking at Section 4.204, Administrative Permits, provision 3 allows for retail sales of products manufactured or processed on the site provided the sales area does not exceed 30 percent of the gross floor area of the building. This provision would allow retail sales, however, as described, an amendment would be necessary to address products that were not specifically manufactured or processed on site. In conversation with Mr. Sondrall, we believe that this section could be modified to accommodate Simon Delivers by stating: "retail sales of"l~roducts manufactured, processed, or received in bulk and packaged for redistribution, packaged on site provided the sales area did not exceed 30 percent of the gross floor area of the building." With this amendment, we believe an administrative permit could be approved to accommodate Simon Delivers. In discussion with City staff, a number of conditions that we looked at being assigned to this approval would be the expansion of the Simon Delivers' building to include third phase of development, adequate parking, and the establishment of an entrance for walk in hquor sales. Finally, in my discussion with Mr: Sondrall related to this topic, he indicated to me that the Minnesota Liquor Control Board must approve Simon Delivers operation for off-sale license. He indicated that beyond the zoning issues, the Liquor Control Board needs to resolve issues pertaining to age verifications, delivery arrangements, and the segregation of grocery and liquor sale deliveries as part of the licensing approval. pc: Steve Sondrall 2 Memo To: Gary Link, Director of Police From: Captain Dave Rudolph -"~ Date: 10/15/01 Re: Calls For Service and Related Costs For Providing Police Services to 3.2 Beer Sales Locations Information provided is based on 1999 and 2000 statistics for the 5 licensed locations. In 2001, one of the locations (Perfect Car Wash, 9400 36"~) surrendered their beer license. In 2001, Twin Cities Avanti (Mobil Mini-Mart) added two licensed locations - 7231 42"~ and 7117 Bass Lake Rd. The following are estimated costs for providing police services to businesses that were licensed to sell 3.2 beer in 1999 and 2000 (off-sale): The five licensed locations had a total of 322 calls for service. The average time (from CAD records) spent on each call was 21.26 minutes. The average hourly rate for response personnel used for this calculation (including fdnge) is $28.92. Total approximate personnel costs for providing police services to these licensed businesses was $3,299.63. Compliance checks for all liquor and beer establishments are conducted twice a year by Officer Marry Williams. The expenses for conducting these checks are for overtime, purchase of alcohol at businesses that complete an illegal sale, and use of a City vehicle. Annual Expenses for Compliance Checks: Ove~me Buy Money Vehide Costs Expended $828 $48 I $14 Total: $890 Grant funds from the State were provided in 2001, and will be provided again in 2002 to cover the cost of these compliance checks. There is no assurance that the grant funding will be available beyond next year. Liquor Establishments - On-Sale Calls For Service - 1999 and 2000 Hunan Buffet 24 Applebee's Sunshine i New Hope Factory I Bowl Winnetka Cinema 92 78 87 ~ 36 Total calls for service in 1999 and 2000 - 317 Liquor Stores - Off-Sale Calls For Service - 1999 and 2000 Y-Not's i Star Liquors I Winnetka Liquors 47 ! 17 I 6 Total calls for service in 1999 and 2000 - 70 3.2 Beer Sales Locations - Off-Sale Calls For Service - 1999 and 2000 Bonker's Tom Thumb I Citgo Mini- Super America I Perfect Car MartI Wash , 39 37 t 38 101 t 107 Total calls for service in 1999 and 2000 - 322 OFF-SALE SITES - 1999 ..- BONKERS TOM THUMB CITGO SA PERFECTCAR WASH] ALARMS/UNSECURED AREA 3 2 10 5 SUSPICIOUS 2 2 5 6 MISC PUBLIC 2 1 1 4 CHECK ~',~LFARE 2 1 3 1 1 .. MEDICAL 1 1 1 ... ~,CCiDENTS 1 1 DOMES~CS 1 1 LOCKOUTS 2 1 1 4 11 DETOX 1 TRAFFIC 2 1 5 2 4 JUVENILE WARN 1 2 2 , 1 2 IPUBLIC PEACE OTHER NON-CRIME 1 1 1 3 1 WARRANTS 1 1 UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION I LIQUOR VIOLATION 1 1 1 ~TOBACCO VIOLATION 1 [ROBBERY 1 1 ~BURGLARY THEFT 1 1 12 6 PROPERTY DAMAGE 1 1 ,ASSAULT FORGERY 2 iWEAPONS OFFENSE NARCOTICS 1 TOTALS 20 10 27 40 47 Phone: 763-6§6-§60! Fax: 763-666-§6§& October 17, ZOO1 Mr. Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development City of New Hope 4401 Xyton Avenue North New Hope, MN Dear Kirk: The purpose of this letter is to follow up on our telephone conversation yesterday regarding the desires of $imonbelivers.com, Inc. ('Simonbelivers") to construct an exclusive liquor store within its existing facility at WinPark. As you know, this desire would be consistent with the application filed by $imonDelivers on behalf of Simon's Liquor Store, Inc. for a liquor license in the City of New Hope. Obviously, there are a variety of considerations which we must take into account as we move forward with our business desires to have an exclusive liquor store as part of 5imonDelivers' growing business in the City of New Hope. ObviousJy, there are several paths that we must go down with regard to opening this business. While we must obtain regulatory approval from both the City and 5tare of Minnesota, we must also have a facility which we can open for business once these regulatory ~ssues have been resolved. As we discussed, 5imonbelivers is willing to take the f~nancmal rusk associated with being denied a hquor license by the City of New Hope or the State of Minnesota in conjunction with the construction we wish to commence ,mmediateJy. Tn fact, we have had inspectors from the State of Minnesota's Department of Public Safety out for site visits in conjunction with this construction. Zt would be of great benefit to $~monDelivers' business to begin operatmns once the reguJatory hurdles have been cleared. Mr. Kirk McDonold October 17, ?001 Poge Two If you hove on}? questIons regordln9 this correspondence, pleose do not hes~tot¢ conTocTm_c me at 763-656-5638. $inccrely~~'~ Pc ~r}~F~. 5oori ~¢nerol Counsel $imonDelivcrs.com, PCS/Ikw Market/Land/Building Values of Restaurant Spaces in Area Business/Address Market Value 2000 Taxes Land Building Misc. Winnetka Coi~-~ons $4,212,000 $192,664.01 $1,200,000 $3,012,000 80x145i (11,600 SF) Walgreens space Spec. Assess. Total bldg area 3540 Winnetka Avenue $3,573.27 =42,544 SF Midland Center $2,123,000 $96,137.82 $1,652,000 $471,000 21,000-~§j=-~ Cinema Caf~ space 2749 Winnetka Avenue Total bldg area = 70,502 Hunan Buffet $374,000 $15,314.47 $255,000 $119,000 7112 Bass Lake Road Tin Alley Grille $763,000 $31,862.42 $351,000 $412,000 6830 56"' Avenue Crystal Famous Dave's $950,000 $41,576.50 $949,200 $1,000 ......... 7825 Vinewood Lane Spec. Assess. Maple Grove $18,215.31 Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar $743,100 $32,089.82 $743,100 12725 Elm Creek Blvd. Spec. Assess. Maple Grove $17,161.59 Red Lobster $933,000 $38,338.07 $605,000 $328,000 8900 Golden Valley Rd Golden Valley Livable Communities Task Force October 3, 2001 1. Welcome and Introductions Community Development Director Kirk McDonald opened the meeting at 5:10 p.m. and thanked attendees for coming. He pointed out that Ms. Aimee Gourlay and Mr. Al Brixius would be in charge of the meeting agenda. He reminded Task Force members that the City had received a grant from the Metropolitan Council for the study area in the vicinity of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue. It would be the responsibility of the Task Force to develop a plan for the future. Facilitator Aimee Gourlay explained the process that would be used to begin the discussion. She stated she would explain the role of staff at the meetings, definition of consensus, visioning for the future, and brainstorming strengths and weaknesses of the community. Ms. Gourlay stated that there were a number of questions raised at the informational meeting and that city staff was gathering information, which would be written out and copied for the next meeting. A question was raised regarding the future of the Hosterman site and swimming pool. Gourlay explained that there might be questions such as this that would be better suited to answer at a future meeting. A list will be kept of all questions and will be addressed when appropriate. 2. Discussion Role of New Hope City Staff - Staff will be on hand to provide information when needed and to listen and learn from members of the Task Force. Consensus - What does it mean? It was decided that a consensus was something that could be supported by everyone. In the event that there was not a consensus, the majority would rule with major objections listed. "Smart Growth" Principles - Planning Consultant Al Brixius stated that the Task Force would be starting with a blank slate. The Task Force would need to determine what issues needed to be identified and what the objectives are that need to be accomplished. The Task Force should establish visioning goals for the future. It should utilize existing streets, storm/sanitary sewer systems in place, etc. and then look beyond the neighborhood to the whole community of New Hope. Smart Growth objectives include: · Promoting public participation and involvement in the planning process · Providing for affordable housing objectives and life cycle housing opportunities · Integrating housing near job centers · Creating livable communities through efficient and creative development, compact and higher density residential land uses, diversity of housing, mixed-use development, transit and pedestrian friendly design, in-place infrastructure, and preservation of open space. Development of Task Force Ground Rules - Ms. Gourlay initiated discussion on ground rules that the Task Force would follow, which include participation by everyone, listen respectfully, don't debate, look for why and understand, if miss meeting talk to others to see what happened, read minutes prior to meeting, turn off electronic devices. Task Force members should discuss the process and ideas with other members of the community. Minutes from meetings will be posted on the city's website and will be available at city hall and in the police department for after hours pick up. Visitors are welcome to attend meetings, however, the Task Force will retain the same membership. 3. Developing the Task Force Vision for Opportunities in the Project Area The Task Force broke into small groups for the visioning process. Groups were to discuss what they would like to see in the project area, what they would like to see people doing in the area, how the people would interact with each other, and economic activity. Results of the visioning included: · Community gathering place · Variety of housing - senior, upscale, variety - need information on demographics, income, etc. · Businesses- quality restaurants, professional offices, destination businesses · Open space- trails, lots of aesthetic appeal · Traffic- no high traffic businesses operating late at night, mass transportation, improve bus service · Specific sites for redevelopment · Neighborhood association · Create revenue · Intergenerational appeal, improve image of New Hope · Drainage issues Mr. Bob Wittman, representative of School District 281, explained that most of the Hosterman school is being leased to District 287 for special programs. The New Hope/Crystal/Plymouth swim clubs jointly operate the swimming pool. City athletic programs utilize the outdoor fields. The Winnetka Learning Center is an adult learning facility with many different programs for seniors and adult education and family literacy programs. Mr. Brixius stated that once the Task Force completes the land use plan, staff would invite developers to review it to see what the market looks like and whether or not the proposed uses would be feasible. Task Force Brainstorm of the Strengths/Weaknesses of the Project Area The Task Force broke into small groups to brainstorm the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the project area. These ideas will be presented at the next meeting. Discussion Communicatinq with the Community - Ms. Gourlay encouraged Task Force members to talk with their neighbors about the project area and get ideas to bring back to the group. Cameras - The assignment given to Task Force members was to take a camera home with them and take photographs of buildings, housing, parks, etc. that they would like to see integrated into the project area. Cameras are to be returned to city hall by October 10. Other Developments in New Hope - Mr. Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director, gave a report on a potential rehabilitation site at 7610 Bass Lake Road. He stated that Project for Pride in Living (PPL) has been looking at this site to purchase, rehab, and manage. Financing would be through several organizations, including the City of New Hope. McDonald asked Task Force members to drive past this site and give input on whether they would support the city's involvement in rehabbing the property, as the City Council desired Task Force input on this proposal being that it was located within the study area. Adjournment The Livable Communities Task Force meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary Livable Communities Meeting Page 2 October 3, 2001 Livable Communities Task Force October 25, 2001 1. Recap of October 3 Meeting Community Development Director Kirk McDonald opened the meeting at 5:10 p.m. and explained what the Task Force would be accomplishing at this meeting. Aimie Gourlay, consultant, stated that at the last meeting the discussion included "smart growth" principles and the visioning process for upcoming meetings. The task force broke into small groups to brainstorm strengths and weaknesses in the project area. 2. New Hope Information/Statistics Demoqraphics - Carlos Espinosa, a student intern, presented 2000 Census information to the Task Force. Housinq - Mr. Al Brixius, Planning Consultant, reviewed housing information. He stated that most of the single-family homes in the project area were built in the mid-1950s. The apartments were built in the early to mid-1960s. Estimated market values for the project area range from $56,500 to $209,000, with the average of $132,750. He explained that affordable housing is defined as households earning 80% of the region's median income. The IRS has set the affordable housing value at $134,250. Comparison of the average sale price figures for homes in the project area of New Hope, show that most of the owner-occupied homes are affordable. According to a recent survey, rental housing in the City is also affordable. Transportation - City Engineer Mark Hanson explained the differences in road classifications in the City and the purpose of each classification. He also discussed the transit system and pedestrian trail service. The average daily traffic counts were explained. Hanson explained issues related to traffic design and aligning roadways. When county road projects proceed, neighboring cities also have to be contacted. Funding for New Hope's roadways is paid for with state aid account, Hennepin County, federal/state funding, and local assessments. Crime - Director of Police Gary Link explained the activity classification descriptions of crimes. He stated that multiple housing density doesn't matter as much as the management of those units. At times there may a particular apartment complex with a greater foreign population that, due to cultural differences, may not understand what behavior is allowed here. More education for this population group is needed to correct some unacceptable cultural behavior differences. 3. Small Group Discussion The Task Force broke into small groups for the visioning process. Each group was given an area map of the Hosterman site, Zealand to Winnetka and 54th to Bass Lake Road. Each group was to utilize the photographs provided and draw on the map their vision of the area, including housing, commercial/industrial, parks, roads, etc. These visions were shared at the end of the meeting, and most groups had basically the same ideas for single family (townhomes) and multiple family housing, a retail/office area on Bass Lake Road, parks, a pond, plantings, and aligning roadways. Prior to the next meeting, the Planning Consultant will compile several concept plans incorporating parts of all the Task Force's plans. 6. Adjournment The Livable Communities Task Force meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary .. PrOJECt NO. 678 · PROJECT BULLETIN 4864 FLAG AVENUE NORTH Overview The City of New Hope is overseeing the completion of a single-family home at 4864 Flag Avenue North. The City is currently marketing the home and a sale is expected to occur shortly. The City of New Hope would like to invite you to attend an open house on Thursday, November 8, from 3 - 5 p.m. to view the City's latest scattered site housing project at 4864 Flag Avenue North. An additional open house will be held on Sunday, November 11, from 2 - 4 p.m. The City developed this project in partnership with the Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation, Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). This single-family home consists of three bedrooms, an attached garage, one full bath, one half bath, and measures 1605 square feet of living area. Additional features include kitchen appliances, washer and dryer, and central air conditioning. Due to the installation of pilings, this home has no basement, but was designed with a large garage. The new house will be sold to a qualified first-time homebuyer. Construction Hours Constructi°n activities are near completion. Construction activities may occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., Monday through Friday. No weekend work is anticipated. Site Upkeep The City will oversee the contractors as the site nears completion. The City will maintain the site until a closing occurs. As a neighboring property owner, if you have any concerns or notice any suspicious activity on the property, please contact the New Hope Police Department at 911 anytime, day or night. City Contacts If you have questions or comments about the project, please contact Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, at 763-531-5137 or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 763- 531-5119. The City appreciates the cooperation of area residents and businesses that may be impacted by this construction project. Additional bulletins will be sent to you as the project progresses. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428 10/26/01 Z.B. September 25,200! -- Page 3 7 Page 2 Scplcmbcr 25, 21}{ll Z.B. ---~'~s! Amendment'-- Adult business owner claimed city ordinance was _u!~Oi~litu&ion~al WASI IINGT()N (0~106101) The l.akew~)~)d City Council crealed a lask force lo aualyze adull enlcrlainmcnl uses wilhin ils oily. The task lbrce couducted 10 o[ II rattlings; Ihe Inaj~n'ily were closed I~ Ihe public. The lank Ii}acc Ihen dial'lcd a [ep{}rl, which discussed Iht adull cnlerlainmenl's effects on sociely, including crone, worsened public hcahh, and decreased properly values. Based {m the ~cp{n'l, Iht oily passed an ordiuance regulaling Ihe operation o1' adull cabamls. Among Ihe reslriclions, Ibc otdiuauce [egulaled Ibc distance ~lwccu Ibc cnlcflaiucrs and palmus, hours of opcralion, and lighting conditions. Al Ihe lime die ordinance was passed, Clark operaled an adult business, iuclmling an'adull cabarcl. Clark made several changes Io his business lo com- ply wilh Ibc ordinance. The [csll'iclit}llS required Clark lo reduce sealing capac- ily aud Ibc number of enlerlaincrs perfomfiug at any oue dine. As a resuli, his business began Iosiug lut~ney and was fi~rced lo close. Clack sued Iht oily, allcgiug violali{m of his couslilulional righls. The courl ge~ulcd Iht cily's request for a .}udgmenl wilboul a Irial. Claik appealed, arguing Ihe ordinance violated bis conslilulional guarantee lo free speech and Ibc Opeu Public Meeliugs Acl {OPMA}. I}ECISI{}N: Reversed and relurned to Ihe lower court. The lask Ira-ce violaled Ihe open meeting law, so the report upon which Ibe oily celled Io pass Ibc ordinauce was invalid. Therefi}re, Ibe case was relurued Io Ibc h~wcr COUl'l lo decide Ibc Firsl Amcndmeul issue. The OPMA required all public meeliugs of a governmental body be open lo die public. Because mosl of Ihe lask fi}ace's meetings were nol open lo Ihe public, Ibc [epo[I Ibc lask fl~rce wrote during closed meetings was null and wild. A oily could mdy regulate nude dancing if lhere was a substanlial govem- nleul inlcrcsl lo do so. The lask fl}ace's eeporl was the only evidence offered lo ~gue Ibc ordiuancc furlhered a subslanlial govemn~enl iuterest. Because lhe [cporl was inwdid, Ihe oily bad Io provide solne other evidence proving the ordiuance furlheeed a siguificanl government interest. Oration: Bri~m Clark ~ City qf Lakewoml, 9'~' U.S. Circuit Court tg'Appeals, No. 99-35453 (2001). The 9th .Cin'uit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, CaliJbrnia, Guam, lhiwaii, Maho, Montana, Nevada, O~gon, and Washington. aee Mso: Org. to Preserve Agricultural ~,nds v. Adams CounO~ 913 R2d 793 {1996). aee also: U.S. ~ O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). Nuisance -- Property owners sought to develop a stock car racetrack IOWP '8/15/1)1) - The National Callle Cm~gress (NCC) owued property planned industrial zoned area of Waterloo. It applied for a special permit 1o convert the property from a greyhound racetrack lo a stock car racetrack. The cily's planning, programming, and zoniug commission held public meetings Itl discuss tile concerns of Ihe city resideuts with regards to the race- track. The zoning commission also considered iuft~rmation relating Io the noise the track would generate as well as the impact of Ihe racetrack on Ihe cily's economy. The Zoning Commission then sent a report with the noted concerns to the Board of Adjuslment. The board granted NCC's special permil, subject to restrictions on hours of operation and the addition of sound barriers and mufflers. The board then sent the application to the Waterloo City Council for re- view and final approval. After another public hearing and subsequent sound sludies, the matter was sent back to the board. The board considered lhe com- ments from Ibe public, as well as the additional studies, and unanimously reaf- firmed the grant of the special permit. The residents of Waterloo sued to have the special permit denied, claiming the board did not properly consider nuisance concerns. Additionally, the resi- dents argued the city's zoning ordinance was unconstitutional. The court dismissed tile residcnls' case and approved the grant. The residents appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Walerloo's zoning ordinance did not require the board Io consider nuisance concerns, nor was il tulcouslilulit~ual. The Walerloo zoning ordiuance only required Ihe board to ensure Ihe spe- cial permi! safeguarded Ihe health, safety, and welfare of the residents. It did not create a duty It} determine il' the racelrack was a nuisance. Additionally, ordinances were presumed constitutional. Because the resi- dents did not negate every reasouable basis upon which the ordinance could be sustained, the presumption of constitutionality was not overcome. Citation: Dehmey v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Waterloo, Court of Appeal of lou'a, No. 1-349/00-1034 (2001). see also: Cychme &md and Gravel Co. ~: Zoning Board of Adjustment, 351 N.W. 2d 778 (1984). see alsgt;D~idlml~L~.L Wolj]; 555 N. W. 2d 454 (1996). ? L"'"'~-~~7(3~() i )' "~ove Shack ,pplied for a building permit to renovale a warehouse iulo relail premises. Love Shack failed to disclose its inlenlion to usc the premises as an adull book store, lo which certain zoning restrictions wmdd have applied. The New Y{~l'k Cily l)el~arlmcn! ol Buildings (I)()B) did IIOt know until the iii(ruth aflcr il had apl)l't~vcd Ibc ;tppli¢',diou thai Ibc prcufiscs were to be used ( Parc 4 .~cj)tcnlher 2~, 2001 h)r an adull bo.k .sh)rc. Thc I)()B was iu charge (}I' enforchlg a city zoning rc~uhllJ()u i)rohil)ilhlg adLdl c%labli~hlncnt~ fr(mi ()pcrating wiihin fi(X) f~l ()l J Jet adult cMaJ)li~hlllclil~. I)()B n()lil'icd l,(Jvc 5hack Ihcy w~r¢ iU violation of Ibc zoning resolution J)CCiILI~ Iht I)OB had issucd 2i i)~fnlJl four Illoulhs earlier h) a Iopl~ss bar, which had u()l ycl ()p~nml. Thc I(JpJ~ss hat was wilhifl 500 l~l of l,(w~ Shack. i,ovc ~hack coulcndcd IJicy w~fc nol Jn vJt)Jalioll of Ih~ 500-Jk)ol fuJ~ caller Ih~ t)lilc[ cMahJJ~hlncnl had I1~)1 ~1 opened when Ihey w~[c graliled limit pcruJil. Thc I)()B claimml Iht 5()()4k)ol rul~ iuclud~d businesscs Ihal had ~l'aul~d i)crluil~ bill had nol y~l ()pcnml f.r hu%iu~ss. Thc DOB SOll~hl a c()url o[dcl', ch)sing down Ihe ()p~ralion of Love Shack bcCallSC il vioJal~d Ih~ zonJug rcsolulJon. Tile courl d~ni~d IbC nioli(m. Thc i)()B al)l)mil~d. 'i'h~ zoning I-~soJlllit)u i)rohil)iling adull eslabJishmenls wilhin 500 J~el of on~ all(dll~r iucludml adtlll ~Llsincs~CS Ihal had nol op~n~d, bul had been Im)~ml f.r a Jalcr opcning. lJccail~ IJlc i)()B cr~alcd illltJ ~llJ'orc~d Ibc r~gnJalJon, IJl~ Jlllefpf~lalJo~ of IJi~ Zl)llhig ()rdhlanc~ given by Ih~ DOB was mdill~d lo &f~re,ce as long as Ih~ iulcl'pr~hlliuu was uoj JrralJoliaJ or nll[~ag()lla~J¢. Th~ DOB's inl~rpr~lalJou Wil~ llol ilTatJoliaJ ~)[ unl'~agonabJ~. 'J'h~ JowRr COll[l JllCOffcclJ~ s~bslJlul~d ()wu L'()IlilUl)U gCll~ J'or Ihal of Ili~ DOB. Il would also haw I)~n unfair h) gFaul L()v~ Shack's p~rlllil i)v~r DOB's ol)jcclioll hccaLis~ JA)V~ Shack obhiilled file pernlil hy false pretenses. Because vi.laliml uf Iht zoning rcsolulion caused harul lo Ihe gcnend public, the DOB's i~ ILICM Io ~Jlul tJowll Love Shack was granlcd. ( 'tilth,a: 'l'bc City qfNcw York it Love Shack, Superior Coltrt t~[Ncw App. Div., I" Dept., No. 4053 [2001). s~',' .I.~o: Matter qf Gaim.s it New ~.'k State Division Of Housing ~ Ri'tJ('ll'lll, 9ON. E2d 545. NnnconhJrming Usc -- Land owner maintained a junkyard I'ENNSYI.VANIA (08/15/01) --- Baer operated an aulo repaidrestoralion and a bus/van Iransporl business on hind where Ihe businesses were nol permitted I)nrsuanl to a 1983 zoning t)rdiuance, iluwever, Baer was entitled to maintain the businesses as pre-existing nonconfi)mfing uses, as they had been started by Bacr's parents prior lo 1983. In 1999, Ihe zoning enfi~rcemem officer issued Baer two eufi)rcemem no- rices. One notice alleged violation of a zoning ordinance prohibiting mainte- nance of a junkyard without a pcrmil. Thc other notice alleged violalion of a zoning ordinance prohibiting expansion of uoucoul~)rufiug uses without ap- prowd of Iht Zoning ttcaring Board (ZHB). Bacr admitted Ihcrc were apl)roxilnalely ten nmi-registered, inoperable, and Z.B. September 25, 2001 -- Page 5 dismantled vehicles on his property. However, Baer contended the presence of autos, auto parts, and lites was not a junkyard, bnt ralher an addition lo his pre- existing nonconfi)rming business. Baer further asserted the expansion of his business was negligible and thus did not require special exception approval. The zoning enfl)rcement officer leslified Ihe conditions on the property included vehicles surrounded by high weeds, piles of tires, and assorled metal parts. The ZHB subsequently fi)und junkyard conditions existed on Ihe prop- erly in violalion of the zoning ordinance. ZHB also fi)und Baer in violation of the second notice. ZHB based lhe violation oo Baer's testimony Ihere had been an increase in Ihe number of vehicles on his property and his business had increased gradually since 1983. Baer appealed ZHB's decision lo Ihe courl of common pleas, which af- firmed ZHB. Baer appealed, arguing the jnnkyard was necessary lo the operation of his business. He also conlended Ihere was a lack of evidence it) supporl ZHB's finding Ihal expansion of his business was delrimenlal Io Ihe pnblic health, sal~ly, and welfiire. DECISION: Aflirnled. Baer's usc of Ihe properly ct)ns!ilulcd a junkyard in violation of the zoning -rdinance. Additionally, Baer was m)t entitled lO expand his business wilhom a special approval pcrmil. Pennsylvania law im)lcclctl sonic pre-existing noncouformities. However, the law was m)t Jneanl h) bc expanded h) allow fi)r Baer's accumulation of junk. Addilit)nally, the z.uiug ordinance placed Ihe burden on Baer to prove the expansion of his business was nol detrimenlal l() ihe public heahh, salary, or welfare of Ihe city. Because Bear provided no supporting evidence, he failed to meel his burden. Citation: Baer s~ Zoning Healing Board of Quincy ~m'nship, Common wealth Court of Pennsyh,ania, No. 1708 C D. 2~0 (2~1). see also: Constantino ~ Forest Hills Borough, 563 A.2d 953 (1989). see also: Chanters 3m,nship ~ ~H. Martht Inc. 542 A.2d 985 (1988). Nonconforming Use ~ Fire station's proposed site was on farm land OREGON (08/08/01) ~ Clackamas Counly approved the placement of a lire station on land zoned fi)r exclusive farm use (EFU). The fire slafion replaced a stalitm located on a non-EFU zoned land. The fire district of Ihe proposed site, however, served both fund and urban areas. The proposed station's placement on EFU land and ils plan to provide service to urban areas inslcad t)f only rural areas caused Keicher to appeal Io the Land Use Board t)f Appeals (I.IIBA). Thc pcrlincnl pt)rlit)n of thc zt)uing ordillallcc staled, 'Tire service facilities Ira)riding rural fire Im)lcclion scz'x ices" could be established in any area zoned for cxcltisivc l'.~ln usc.