Loading...
010400 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 2000 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING * 4.1 Case 99-21 Request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Approval, Rezone from R-1 Single Family to PUD, and Preliminary Plat Approval of 9 Lots by L & A Homes 7849 and 7829 49th Avenue North, Lloyd and Alice Vagie, Petitioners 5. ZONING CODE UPDATE 6. COMMI'I-I'EE REPORTS 6.1 Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: Thursday, January 13, at 8 a.m. (if necessary) 6.2 Report of Codes & Standards Committee 6.3 Report of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee 6.4 Report of Zoning Code Update Committee - Second Meeting: Thursday, January 20, at 5 p.m. 7. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 8. OLD BUSINESS 8.1 Miscellaneous Issues 9. NEW BUSINESS 9.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of December 7, 1999. 9.2 Review of City Council Minutes of November 22, 1999 9.3 Review of EDA Minutes of November 8, 1999. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS 11. ADJOURNMENT · Petitioners are required to be in attendance Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The ~'~ Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is in, vited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. Al If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: January 4, 2000 Report Date: December 30, 1999 Planning Case: 99-21B Petitioner: Lloyd & Alice Vagle Landowner/s: Adelyn Luther Gordon (west lot) & Lloyd & Alice Vagle (east lot) Address: 7849 and 7829 49th Avenue North Request: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Approval, Rezone from R-1 Single Family to PUD, and Preliminary Plat Approval of Nine Lots by L & A Homes I. Request The petitioners are requesting concept stage planned unit development approval, rezoning from R- 1 Single Family Residential to PUD, and preliminary plat approval of nine lots, four outlots and a public street by L&A Homes, pursuant to Sections 4.19, 4.20 and Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The petitioner has purchased the Longtin lot (east) and has a purchase agreement on the Luther parcel (west). I1. Zoning Code References The following development applications are necessary to process the proposed development: Preliminary Plat - The developer proposes to combine the two existing lots into eight lots, one common lot, four outlots, and public street right-of-way. Rezoninq - The developer is requesting to rezone the site to PUD to allow the construction of eight twinhome units. PUD - The project includes eight twinhomes on individual lots surrounded by a common space lot with four outlots, an integrated site design, architecture, and landscaping that provides street access on 49th Avenue. II1. Property Specifications Zoning: R-l, Single Family Residential Location: Southeast quadrant of 49th and Winnetka Avenues Adjacent Land Uses: R-4 (Wingate Apartments) north of the site across 49th Avenue, R-1 Single Family Residential to the east, south, and across Winnetka Avenue to the west Site Area: Gross = 224' x 300.5' = 67,112 square feet (1.54 acres) (Note: Total area shown on plat is 66,396 square feet) Public street right-of-way = 12,678 square feet Net = 54,434 square feet Dwelling Units: 8 units Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 1 12/30/99 Building Area: The west lot is vacant and has never been developed. A home and a detached garage exist on the east lot, today. The proposed four structures are one-level twinhomes with basements -- 8 units. Building area/unit will be 1,172 square feet, 1,297 square feet, and 1,350 square feet finished on one level, unfinished basements, and attached double garages. Lot Area Ratios: Per the plat, the hard surface/green area ratios are as follows: Total Area -- 66,396 square feet Building Area - 14,024 Bituminous Area -- 13,999 Green Area = 38,373 Hard Surface = 28,023 square feet (42%) Green Space = 38,373 square feet (58%) Planning District: This property is located in Planning District #8, which is found in the center of New Hope. This area is characterized by its public/semi-public uses and their surrounding Iow density residential neighborhoods. Two apartment complexes and Civic Center Park comprise the southern boundary of this district. A cluster of townhomes and twinhomes abut Winnetka Avenue at 51St Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan encourages maintenance and enhancement of its Iow density areas through private reinvestment, as well as redevelopment programs. This PUD is a private redevelopment proposal. These properties have been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a future development/redevelopment site and are identified on the proposed land use map for Iow/medium density residential development. Specific Information: The west lot (27,000 square feet) has never been built upon and it has a significant northern and eastern cluster of mature oaks and maple trees. The balance is flat with a shallow depression near the northeast corner that holds water seasonally. It is a narrow 90' x 300' lot that many people have discussed developing since the 1960s, but its narrowness has always been the problem. The east lot is almost 50 percent larger at 39,600 square feet. It has a single family home built in the 1950s and a detached garage built in 1984. Previous owners of this lot and the current owner have discussed with staff other potential uses and combining it with the adjacent west lot, primarily because of the 300-foot depth. It has a gravel driveway and many mature hardwood trees. The lot has a slight crown and drains to the west. V. Background Lloyd and Alice Vagle are proposing to develop eight twinhome units on 1.24 acres (net) at the southeast corner of 49th and Winnetka Avenues. The site is currently zoned R-l, Single Family. To facilitate this medium density residential development, the applicant is requesting a change in zoning from R-1 to PUD and a subdivision. The PUD zoning district is being requested to accommodate the change in residential land use and provide flexibility related to project density balanced by architectural, site design and landscaping control. The Planning Commission considered a request for a 12-unit townhome project at this site in November, and recommended approval of the concept/development stage, subject to a number of conditions, including direction from the City Council on density. The Council Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 2 12/30/99 considered the request on November 18 and denied the request for 12 units. The petitioner submitted a revised concept for eight units on the site, which was considered at the November 15 Council work session. The Council was generally supportive of the eight-unit concept, subject to the following conditions: · Maximum of eight units with homeowners association · Four single-storytwinhome units · Maximum retention of mature trees Address snow storage issues · Address setback impacts to abutting property owners The Council indicated that the developer should return to the Planning Commission with the revised plans so that all issues could be thoroughly reviewed. Subsequent to that meeting, the petitioner has met with the City Manager, staff, and consultants to further discuss issues and refine the plan. The developer has submitted plans that they feel address a majority of the issues, given the general parameters established by the Council. The petitioner is only seeking concept approval at this time and will proceed with development/final stage plans if the concept is approved. V. Petitioner's Comments The petitioner states in correspondence that "the present use of the land at the southeast corner of 49th and Winnetka is vacant and Iow. The size of the vacant corner lot doesn't lend itself to traditional residential use, as the county wouldn't allow conventional access onto Winnetka. The second lot east presently has a very old house and detached garage that has been purchased, with plans to remove the structures. Using the suggestions of the City Council and City Manager, we are proposing four twinhomes all one level living designs with basements. These designs make great use of the land and will appeal to the increasing empty nester market. Many designs for this plat were considered, but few options remained. The price of each single unit should start at $165,000, depending on restrictions and amenities that need to be satisfied. There are many beautiful trees on this property and we intend to save as many as possible. The proposed 2-bedroom twinhomes will feature 1,172 square feet, 1,297 square feet, and 1,350 square feet finished on one level. The owner's suite will have two closets and % bath or full bath with whirlpool. The living/dining/kitchen features a vaulted ceiling and sliding door to the back yard concrete patio. The main floor laundry makes the plan perfect for our aging market. The features of the 1,172 finished square foot unit plus a full basement include owner's suite with a walk-in closet and double entry bath. The second bedroom features a sliding door to allow it to be used as den with access to the back yard 8' x 8' concrete patio. There will also be a main floor laundry. The 1,350 square foot unit will feature two baths and three bedrooms. The third bedroom will double as a sunroom/den with a 6' patio door. All eight units will have double garages ranging from 420-480 square feet which allows enough area for trash and recycling containers. The exteriors will be Iow maintenance aluminum soffit and facia, upgraded dutch lap vinyl siding and brick per plan. Roof pitches will feature 7/12 and 9/12 on the front elevations and 5/12 and 6/12 on the main roofs parallel to the street. Each unit will be self-contained in all mechanicals and utilities. Air conditioning will be in the back and utility connections in the front. Gas fireplaces and fireplace chases will be optional. All units will have rear concrete patios. A fence will be placed on the east Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 3 12/30~99 property line between the existing single family home and proposed cul-de-sac. The west side will use a blend of Iow maintenance fence panels and landscaping. Today's labor market has caused us to look at new and improved construction techniques. We are considering a panelized wall system to provide superior quality and less waste by weather and theft. These panels are not to be confused with modular housing, where the house comes finished in two sections. The panels are studs, plates and exterior sheathing only. Several local lumber suppliers are now furnishing these panels custom designed to any plan. We have used the panels in our upper bracket homes, as have many other builders. A local example would be Charles Cudd in Golden Valley. Exterior colors feature beige tones with accent trim off white and brick of the same shades. The roof will be 240# asphalt shingles with a 25-year warranty. With the new street arrangement, the lower density allows the project to remain viable. The property values in the surrounding area do not justify a higher cost per unit. Two single-family homes on this site are not a feasible concept, as the homes would have to sell for $350,000. We are offering additional housing that is affordable and a better use of the land. The City also gains from the improvements by the increase in tax revenues. Many other areas of concern are addressed on the PUD document, site plan and landscape/grading plans. Final construction plans will be submitted at the time of application for building permits. In summary, we feel this proposed project and our experience of over five decades in the construction business is going to enhance the community. With our family-owned and hands-on operation, this should be a pleasant experience for all involved parties." VI. Notification Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff received several calls and office visits regarding the proposed density of the site and had neighbors review the proposed plans. VII. Development Analysis A. Zoning Code Criteria Preliminary Plat The proposed preliminary plat consists of combining the two existing lots into eight (8) lots, one common lot, four outlots, and public street right-of-way. The plat illustrates a subdivision of the townhomes into unit lots. The plat would be known as "L and A HOMES" and the street "Alice Way." The plat includes eight individually owned lots of approximately 3,500 square feet and the plat illustrates "typical lot" dimensions for the twinhomes as follows: Lots 1 &2 112'x32' -- 3,584 square feet Lots 3 & 4 94' x 38' = 3,572 square feet Lots 5, 6, 7 & 8 94' x 40' = 3,760 square feet Drainage and utility easements 10 feet in width are illustrated on the north, east and south boundaries. A five-foot "Drainage, Utility and Walkway easement" is provided along the west boundary. The proposed four Outlots A, B, C and D must be maintained by the Association and include additional easements for water and sewer mains with development stage plans, to follow. Outlots cannot be built upon, by code. Outlots C and D are proposed for existing hardwood tree preservation, and Outlots A and B for facilitation of any future development to the east. Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 4 12/30/99 Each of the unit lots must have a separate utility connection. As per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to City Department Heads, City Attorney, City Engineer, Planning Consultant, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment. Comments received include the following: City En.qineer 1. The two center medians are designated as Outlots C and D. We should discuss whether this is appropriate or not. The City needs to be confident the Homeowners Association maintains the medians. It would be cleaner on the plat if the median areas were designated as right-of- way and the Developers Agreement addressed the maintenance responsibility. 2. The extension of utilities (sanitary sewer/water) will likely occur west of the center medians in Alice Way. Therefore, additional utility easement will be required beyond the right-of-way to accommodate the utilities once their location is finalized. 3. The utility easements along the north, east, and south property lines are properly shown. However, to accommodate the new sidewalk construction being recommended along 49t~ Avenue between Alice Way and Winnetka Avenue, it may be desirable to have the 10-foot wide utility easement along 49th Avenue also be designated as walkway. This would allow portions of sidewalk to be constructed in this to save trees. The 5-foot wide utility/walkway easement along Winnetka Avenue is propedy shown and must be confirmed with Hennepin County. 4. The triangular right-of-way dedication at 49th and Winnetka Avenues can accommodate relocation of the traffic signal at this intersection if turn lanes are added in the future. City Attorney 1. The plat legal description includes real estate out to the middle of Winnetka Avenue, extending to the West line of the North ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of the Southwest ¼, as that line is shown on the plat illustration. So the westerly edge of the plat should not stop at the east edge of the existing sidewalk, as it does now, but instead should extend out to the middle of Winnetka Avenue. That portion of the plat subject to the street easement should then be shown as a street dedication. 2. The City should be sure that no additional land will be needed for street purposes along Winnetka Avenue. It is our conclusion that street semaphores plus any associated electrical equipment cannot be located in a utility easement, but must be in a street easement. So now is the time to make sure the City has enough street easement for any foreseeable expansion of Winnetka Avenue. 3. The northern most 30 feet of the plat, which includes the land used for 49th Avenue, should be labeled as a street dedication. 4. The cul-de-sac should be shown as an outlot on the plat. The cul-de-sac will be either a private roadway, or a dedicated public street. If a private road, the Declaration needs to include easement access from all dwelling units to the public street, and must also designate the cul-de-sac as a fire lane. If a public street, the plat needs to dedicate it as such. In either case, making the cul-de-sac an outlot will greatly simplify its legal description. 5. The City may want to also consider shared driveways to the dwelling units, as this will reduce the total amount of impervious surface, and also make moving the driveways at a later date less likely. 6. We will need to see title evidence before the final plat can be approved, and all owners and mortgages will need to be signatories on the plat. Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 5 12/30/99 Planninq Consultant We are generally satisfied with the lot configuration as shown on the preliminary plat. The applicant has added drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of Lot 9. However, the City Engineer recommends that the easement along 49~h Avenue be relabeled as a Drainage, Utility, and Sidewalk easement. In addition, they have platted the land directly east of the cul-de- sac as outlots. ShOuld the opportunity adse, this will facilitate the redevelopment of the parcel to the east. The applicant has also platted the median areas in Alice Way as OutlOts C and D. The City Engineer recommends that these areas be platted as right-of-way. Finally, the applicant is aware that Hennepin County needs a 10-foot trail and utility easement running the entire length of the site adjacent to Winnetka Avenue and has shown it on the plans. The City Code states that copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commission during its review of the preliminary plat. The Planning Commission will need to make a determination as to whether it wants to review the final plat or not. Due to the non-routine nature of the plat and the fact that several changes need to be made, staff is recommending that the final plat be reviewed by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the development stage plans. Rezoninq The change in zoning from R-1 to PUD is a policy decision for the Planning Commission and City Council based on whether the proposed medium density residential development is consistent with City objectives with regard to redevelopment and housing. The City may approve the zoning request if it finds that the proposed development fulfills the intent of the PUD zoning district and adequately responds to compatibility concerns that may be presented between this project and the adjoining Iow density neighborhood. The City of New Hope considers rezoning decisions to be a policy matter that are warranted only via a positive response to the following criteria: 1. Has the request resulted from a past zoning mistake? The current R-1 zoning is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and is reflective of the past Comprehensive Plan. In this respect, the current R-1 zoning is not a mistake. 2. Has the character of the area changed to warrant consideration of a zoning change? The western half of the property is a vacant parcel. The size and location of the site has raised the question as to the appropriateness of the site for Iow density single family development. The west half of the project site was identified in the New Hope Vacant Land Study of 1989. Due to the Iocational and physical constraints of the site, the study recommended a change from Iow density single family land use to a medium density residential land use. New Hope's 1997 Life Cycle Housing Study identified a community need for attached housing (townhomes, twinhomes, cooperative apartments) that offer Iow maintenance, independent housing opportunities. Consistent with the recommendations of the 1989 Vacant Land Study, the 1999 proposed land use plan identified the project site for Iow to medium density residential land use. This land use type was prescribed to offer some development/redevelopment opportunity for this area of the City. Based on the aforementioned planning efforts, the City may find that conditions have changed that warrant consideration of the zoning change. 3.The proposed action is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 6 12/30/99 The proposed project has a density of 6.4 units per acre. The residential density falls within the medium density residential (range 5 - 10 units per acre). The proposed land use plan guides the subject site for Iow to medium density residential land use. The following goals and policies are supportive of the zoning change: Goal 1: Provide a variety of housing types, styles and choices to meet the needs of New Hope's changing demographics. Policies: A. Through infill development and redevelopment efforts, increase life cycle housing opportunities not currently available within the City (i.e., high value housing, townhomes). B. Promote medium density attached housing to address the needs of an expanding empty nester or independently living elderly population. C. Continue the City's efforts to provide special needs housing for people with various types of disabilities. Goal 3: Promote multiple family housing alternatives as an attractive life cycle housing option. B. Adhere to the highest community design and construction standards for new construction and redevelopment projects. C. Accompany medium and high density development with adequate accessory amenities such as garages, parking, open space, landscaping, and recreational facilities to insure a safe, functional, and desirable living environment. The following Comprehensive Plan policies must also be weighed in considering the zoning change as well as project density and design: Goal 4: A cohesive land use pattern which ensures compatibility and strong functional relationships among activities is to be implemented. Policies: A. Maintain and strengthen the character of individual neighborhoods. B. Prevent over-intensification of land use development, that is, development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities (utilities, parking, access, etc.). C. Investigate remedies to correct or eliminate existing land use compatibility problems. D. Examine requested land use changes in relation to adjoining land uses, site accessibility, utility availability, and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and policies. E. Accomplish transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses in an orderly fashion which does not create a negative (economic, social or physical) impact on adjoining developments. F. Infill development of compatible land uses shall be strongly encouraged. G. Where practical, conflicting and non-complementary uses shall be eliminated through removal and relocation. The Comprehensive Plan encourages medium density residential land use for redevelopment in this area of the City. The Planning Commission is considering the zoning and the development project must also evaluate project design and density to determine its compatibility with surrounding Iow density land uses. Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 7 12/30/99 4. The proposed land use is or will be compatible with present or future land uses of the area. ~"'~' The site consists of two over-sized, underutilized single family lots. The folloWing land uses surround the site: Land Use Zoning North 49th Avenue High Density Residential R-4 South Single Family Residential R-1 East Single Family Residential R-1 West Winnetka Avenue/Single Family Residential R-1 The site Iocational and physical characteristics have raised questions as to the appropriateness of the R-1 zoning. Winnetka Avenue and 49th Avenue are major thoroughfares that separate the site from land uses on the north and west. The introduction of the medium density zoning presents compatibility concerns for the adjoining Iow density residential properties to the east and south. Efforts to mitigate the compatibility issues between the different density residential uses include: a. All building orientation and access from a public street to control traffic and limit site access to the north. b. The buildings are single story design which blends with the architecture in the area, c. The applicant is proposing the use of a fence on three sides of the property to screen the townhomes and to protect the privacy of the adjoining properties. Staff finds that this proposal for medium density townhomes is an appropriate transition or buffer between the R-.4 apartments to the north and the single family homes to the south. 5. The proposed use conforms with all the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is requesting a PUD zoning district to gain design flexibility related to density. This flexibility is not available through a more traditional zoning district. 6. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. The site has immediate access to municipal utilities in 49th Avenue that have sufficient capacity to accommodate the 8 proposed residential units. City staff does not foresee any capacity issues related to utilities or public services for the proposed project. 7. Traffic generated by the proposed use is within the capabilities of the streets serving the property. Winnetka Avenue is a minor arterial and 49th Avenue is a collector street. Both of the adjoining streets have the capability of accommodating the project's traffic generation. Planned Unit Development 1. The purpose of a PUD is to provide for the grouping of land parcels for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, sporadic and unplanned approach to development. It is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of buildings and activities. It is further intended that PUDs are to be characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture, joint or common ~ Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 8 12/30/99 use of parking, maintenance of open space and other similar facilities, and harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. 2. The processing steps for a PUD are intended to provide for an orderly development and progressions of the plan, with the greatest expenditure of developmental funds being made only after the City has had ample opportunity for informed decisions as to the acceptability of the various segments of the whole as the plan affects the public interest. The various steps are: A) Application Conference. Preliminary discussions. B) General Concept Plan. Consideration of overall concept and plan, C) Development Staqe Plan. One or more detailed plans as part of the whole final plan. D) Final Plan. The summary of the entire concept and each Development Stage Plan in an integrated complete and final plan. 3. The General Concept Plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the City showing his basic intent and the general nature of the entire development before incurring substantial cost. This Concept Plan serves as the basis for the public hearing so that the proposal may be publicly considered at an early stage. The following elements of the proposed General Concept Plan represent the immediately significant elements which the City shall review and for Which a decision shall be rendered: A) Overall Maximum PUD Density Range. B) General Location of Major Streets and Pedestrian Ways. C) General Location and Extent of Public and Common Open Space. D) General Location of Residential and Non-Residential Land Uses with Approximate Type and Intensities of Development. E) Sta.qin.q and Time Schedule of Development. F) Other Special Criteria for Development. 4. Development Review Team Appropriate city staff and consultants met to review the concept PUD plans on December 15 and expressed support. It was noted that some building setbacks and separations were code deficient, but could be addressed at the development stage through PUD flexibility. Other details needed at development stage include: completion of landscape schedule, increased quantities of trees, such as burr oak and swamp white oak, foundation planting details with some variety, illustration of a street light, and sidewalk along 49th Avenue. The City Engineer and Public Works also recommended center medians in the cul-de-sac for three preservation and snow storage purposes. 5. Design & Review Committee On December 16, the Design & Review Committee was supportive of the PUD concept and recommended that development stage plans include/address the following issues: consider tree preservation street plan with landscaped 32-foot circle in 90-foot cul-de-sac, extend easements and or outlots along east side of cul-de-sac to enhance future potential development, address building separation issues, clarify fence screening, revise landscaping schedule/details, show street light and contours, revise utilities per City Engineer, add sidewalk on 49th Avenue. Revised plans were not requested, due to the concept stage only request. A revised preliminary plat was requested and submitted. Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 9 12/30/99 6. Plan Comments The Planner and staff provided the following comments on the concept plans (Note that the description of the plans is not as detailed as usual due to the concept stage only request. The focus should be "is this concept appropriate for this site." More specific details on the plans will be discussed at development stage): A. Site Design - The preliminary site design appears consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The design consists of eight units, one common lot, a public street, and Outlots A, B, C and D. The applicant reduced the number of units from 12 to eight. Even with this reduction, the site will have some irregular shaped lots. These irregular shaped lots will not be visible to the naked eye given the addition of common area. B. Project Density - The New Hope Zoning Code states that within a PUD zoning district, the exact density allowable shall be determined by standards agreed upon between the applicant and the City. The preliminary plans call for eight twinhome units on approximately 66,396 square feet of land. Of this area, approximately 12,678 square feet will be platted as public right-of-way. As a result, the buildable area is reduced to eight units on approximately 53,718 square feet or 1.24 acres. This calculates into a lot area per unit of 6,714.75 square feet. The City typically requires twinhomes to have a lot area per unit of 7,000 square feet. Nevertheless, the increased density may be permitted as part of the PUD. C. Setbacks - The proposed twinhome project complies with all required setbacks for a residential PUD with the exception of the following. The plans indicate a 14-foot setback from the building containing units seven and eight while the ordinance requires a setback equal to the height of the building which is 15.5 feet. In addition, the plan indicates a separation between buildings that is non-conforming for three out of the four buildings. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant make every effort to shift the buildings to meet the required setbacks and building separation. Should this prove ineffective the applicant may request a variance. Yard Required Proposed Front (49th Avenue) 35 feet 35.5 feet Rear (South) 35 feet 35.5 feet Side (Winnetka Avenue) 30 feet 30.5 feet *Side (Abutting R-1 Zoning District) 15.5 feet 14 feet *Setback Between Buildings 13.25 feet 14.00 feet 15.00 feet 14.30 feet 15.50 feet 14.46 feet Setback from cul-de-sac 15 feet 30 to 34.47 feet *These setback requirements are based on the building height. D. Landscaping - According to the City Code, "In assessing the landscape plan, the City Council shall consider the natural features of the particular site, the architectural character of the proposed structures and the overall scheme of the PUD plan." The applicant's survey indicates that 37,977 square feet or 57 percent of the site is green space. In general, the applicants have submitted an adequate landscape plan. However, staff offers the following suggestions: · Revise the landscape plan and landscape schedule so they match. The schedule must indicate quantity of plants. Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 10 12/30/99 Key Common Name Quantity Size Root "~ ' BJ Broadmoor Juniper 18-24" 3 gal. GFS Goldflame Spirea 18-24" 3 gal. SA Summit Ash 2-1/2" B&B GS Goldmound Spirea 18-24" 3 gal. AH Annabelle Hydrangea 18-24" 3 gal. RM Rose Magnifica 18-24" 3 gal. RPW Red Prince Weigela 18-24" 3 gal. JS¥ Japanese Spreading Yew 18-24" 3 gal. CS Colorado Spruce 3-4' B&B · Provide additional landscaping at the northwestern and southwestern corners to accent these areas and add to the Winnetka Avenue streetscape. The landscaping in the northwestern corner must conform to the traffic site line standards. · Replace the three planned Colorado Spruce trees along Winnetka Avenue with six over-story deciduous trees. The over-story trees should canopy over the fence and soften its overall appearance while contributing to the visual appearance of the Winnetka streetscape. · Replace the ash trees along the southern property line with oak trees to replace the trees lost during the grading process. These trees should be 2 ¼ to 3 inches in caliper and group to create a more natural appearance. · Provide more variation in the plants and spacing of plants around the building's foundation. · The applicant should detail the planting in the cul-de-sac island. Staff recommends that the applicant plant oak trees in the island to replace trees lost in the grading process. The applicant should also post "No Parking" signs throughout the development. E. Tree Preservation - The applicant has taken several steps to preserve the site's existing trees. First, they added a landscape island at the entrance to the development to preserve the existing oak trees. Second, they relocate the right-of-way to the east to allow the preservation of the existing oak trees directly to the west of the original right- of-way. Even with these efforts, the Planner recommends that the tree preservation plan be subject to the review and approval of the City Forester. F. Fence and Screening - The preliminary plans call for six-foot fencing along the southern, eastern, and western property lines. According to the applicants, the fence along both the southern and eastern sides will be constructed out of wood while the fence along the western boundary will be made out of some type of maintenance-free material. In general, this fencing should adequately screen the site from the adjacent uses. However, the fence along Winnetka Avenue is too long and makes the site appear too dense. Therefore, staff recommends the following: · Interrupt the fence along Winnetka to soften its visual impact. The fence should be broken either in half or in thirds. The breaks could be an actual separation or simply a jog in the fence line. Establish landscape areas on the Winnetka side of the fence in the break areas to soften its appearance and add to the general Winnetka Avenue streetscape. Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 11 '12/30/99 · It is recommended that the applicant must plant vines on the fence adjacent to Winnetka Avenue to soften its appearance and add to the general streetscape along Winnetka Avenue. G. Pedestrian Access - The applicant should indicate on the plans a sidewalk or trail from the existing sidewalk along Winnetka Avenue to the development's entrance. The Homeowners Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of this sidewalk. H. Lighting - The preliminary landscape plan notes call for a 400-watt metal halide shoe box type A light fixture with a 20-foot rudd steel pole set in concrete. However, no lights are indicated on the plan. The light should be indicated on the plan in the southwest part of the cul-de-sac. I. Homeowners Association - The proposed project illustrates a compact design with density requested through a PUD zoning district that would be greater than permitted in a traditional zoning district. To accommodate the project design, the City will require the following use restrictions as part of the PUD approval. This approval will be implemented through the Homeowners Association Declaration and Bylaws. The entire project shall be subject to the condition of PUD approvals which will include: · The City will require that each of the unit lots will own Lot 9 in an equal and undivided interest. This ownership pattern insures that each unit maintains a vested interest in the common area. The Homeowners Association shall own each of the outlots. The Homeowners Association Article IV, Sections 6 and 7 outline the restrictions on outside storage. No changes to these rules may be made without approval by the City. VIII.Recommendation Pending public comment, staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and concept stage PUD approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit revised preliminary plat, final plat, and development/final stage plans that incorporate the recommendations included in the Planner's report and in the correspondence from the City Engineer and City Attorney, as outlined in this report and included in the attachments. Also incorporate other recommendations from Planning Commission, City Council and staff into plat and development/final stage plans. Attachments: Address/ZoningFFopo Maps 12/8 Petitioner Correspondence Preliminary Plat/Details Landscape/Lighting/Grading Plan Grading Plan Enlargement Landscape/Lighting Plan Enlargement Landscape Schedule and Details Street/Sewer/Water Plan, Enlargement and Details Erosion Control/Construction Requirements and Details Street Section Fence Detail Units 1 & 2: Front/Rear/End Elevations Foundation Plan Floor Plan Basement Foundation/Cross Section Pladning Case Report 99-21B Page 12 12/30/99 ~ Units 3 &4: Front/ReaflEnd Elevations Foundation Plan Floor Plan Basement Foundation/Cross Section Units 5,6,7,8: Front/ReadEnd Elevations Foundation Plan Floor Plan Basement Foundation/Cross Section Planner's Report/Comp Plan Maps City Engineer Memo City Attorney Correspondence 11/15/Council Work Session Minutes and 8-Unit Concept Presented 11/8 Council Minutes on 12-Unit Proposal Application Log Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 13 12/30/99 5-----r----fi C~'-'---; i ~ ........ ~ t i _i ?L__L.._L._i ' __, AVl= N '2i L_j i ~ ................ , E .;---4---~ - " ?'"",, ; ' ;~ ' ' 48TH AVE N --~ 48T ................. ..... ,.i ~"' ~ '" .~i' ~'R-2 ~> COOPER ~-' --~ ! !< : f : ~ ~ .......... ~ ........... :c~ HIGH SCHOOL 413TH _AVE N 48TH__ .... 5E OF E~AN ~ : ............ '~ :CH i iX"'., --' __ - WATER . · o~v.. ................ '~ ELEMENTARY / ~ ,.. ~ ........... ~ ............ ~ , · ~ ~ .... ~_~, I~,_.~...:, .~ ~ ; ~ ~.- ; ......... , . 42ND AVE N ROCKFORD RD To: City of New Hope From: Lloyd and Alice Vagle Re: L and A Addition - Common Interest Community Date: 12/8/99 We want to thank you for the recommendations on the use and development of the prope.~rty being considered. The present use of the land at the SE comer of 49 and Winnetka is vacant and considerably low. The size of the vacant comer lot doesn't lend itself to traditional residential use, as the county wouldn't allow access onto Winnetka. The second lot east presently has a very old house and detached garage has been purchased, with plans to remove the structures. Using the suggestions of the city council and the city manager, we are proposing four twinhomes all one level living designs with basements. These designs make great use of the land and will appeal to the increasing empty nester market. Many designs for this plat were considered, but few options remained. The price of each single unit should start at $165,000, depending on restrictions and amenities that need to be satisfied. There are many beautiful trees on this property and we intend to save as many as possible. The proposed 2 bedroom twinhomes will feature 1172 sq. feet, 1297 sq. feet and 1350 sq. feet finished on one level. The owner's suite will have 2 closets and % bath or full bath with whirlpool. The Living/dining/kitchen features a vaulted ceiling and a sliding door to the back yard concrete patio. The main floor laundry makes the plan perfect for our aging market. The features of the 1172 finished sq. feet unit plus a full basement include an owner's suite with a walk-in closet and double entry bath. The second bedroom features a sliding door to allow it to be used as den with access to the back yard 8x8 concrete patio. There will also be a main floor laundry. The 1350 sq. foot unit will feature 2 baths and 3 bedrooms. The third bedroom will double as a sunroom/den with a 6-0 patio door. All 8 units will have double garages ranging from 420 - 480 sq. feet which allows enough area for trash and recycling containers. The exteriors will be low maintenance with aluminum soffit and facia, upgraded dutch lap vinyl siding and brick per plan. Roof pitches will feature 7/12 and 9/12 on the front elevations and 5/12 and 6/12 on the main roofs parallel to the street. Each unit will be self-contained in all mechanicals and utilities. Air conditioning will be in the back and utility connections in the front. Gas fireplaces and fireplace chases will be optional. All units will have rear concrete patios. A fence will be placed on the east property line between the existing single family home and the proposed cul-de-sac. The west side will use a blend of low maintenance fence panels and landscaping Today's labor market has caused us to look at new and improved construction techniques. We are considering a panelized wall system to provide superior quality and less waste by weather and theft. These panels are not to be confused with modular housing, where the house comes finished in two sections. The panels are studs, plates and exterior sheathing only. Several local lumber suppliers are now furnishing these panels custom designed to any plan. We have used the panels in our upper bracket homes, as have many other builders. A local example would be Charles Cudd in Golden Valley. Exterior colors feature beige tones with accent trim off white and brick of the same shades. The roof will be 240//asphalt shingles with a 25-year WalTanty. With the new street arrangement, the lower density allows the project to remain viable. The property values in the surrounding area do not justify a higher cost per unit. Two single-family homes on this site are not a feasible concept, as the homes would have so sell for $350,000. We are offering additional housing that is affordable and a better use of the land. The city also gains from the improvements by the increase in tax revenues. Many other areas of concern are addressed on the PUD document, site plan and landscape/grading plans. Final construction plans will be submitted at the time of application for building permits. In summary, we feel this proposed project and our experience of over 5 decades in the construction business is going to enhance the community. With our family owned and hands on operation, this should be pleasant experience for all involved parties. Thank You! .---NORTH LINE OF NI/4, OF NWl/4, OF SWl/4, SEC. o 49TH AVE. N. o s~:. co~s~o~ sE,,~ S~N,~A~¥ .~EWER264.00 S89058'53"W '~ER,-~ ~NV =913 20 [NV =go9 50 DRAINAGE & UTIL*TY EASEMENT 0 ~u~ w,~ .~_~ ' ,/ i ' / OVERHEAD WIRES o ~ ~' -' .' " ~/" ~ ~'~ I'" -.- _.~ ~', . SINGLE FAMILY " ~~ r RESIDENTIAL - - ~ ' " "l~N62 W~ ' X ~o~ ~ 2~.'00~ S~°58'53"W ~ CONC WAL~ ~ / ,.. ~ ) "-SOUTH LINE OF NI/4, OF NWl/4, OF SWl/~, SEC.8 TYPICAL LOT'~~ ~'R~,/: PROPOSED DR~'/5 RESIDENCE ~-~ ~ .. W'f ]t2X~ 9400  = ELEC. RISER ,' = TEL. RISER .IACi~ ~-~: ~ = ELEC. RISER · ~ PP = POWER POLE o  [] = AIR CONDITIONER AC i I 20 Legal Description: [] ?-he West 264.00 'eel of the North I/4, of tr~e Northwest ~,/4, AC ~' of the South.~est i/4, of Section 8, Township tlS, Range 2!, E~~ ~ Hennepin County. Minnesota. Total Areal=66.596 Bu;Ic;ng Area- i4,024 Bituminous Are<:- 1.3.999 $~een Areo-SB,575 Herd Surface 28,023 4-2% [] Total Area = 66,.396 -- [] ~ C,'een Space 38,373 = 58% AC Total Arec: - 66,596 ~ '. ~' .. . :~ .~.~ to~. ;. - ~., . ,, GRADING PLAN ~ 49TH AVE. N. DETAIL(~) I  .... ~ DET, i SILT FEN _.__ i SEE DETAIl v'~ I ~ I ;''" d SILT FENCE ~ SEE DETAIL~ ) LEGEND ~ 921.0 DENOTES GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION --~,? c ..... DENOTES EXIS~NG CONTOURS LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING PLAI 49TH AVE. N. Curb I;~° 2 ' I 3 4 \ LL 6 FT. HIGH - MAINTENANCE I MATERIAL. . ~:×~ST~NS WOOD INS" ~ WO( 3TES: ~. CONNECT TO EXIS~NG FENCE APF SEE TOPSOIL ALL DISTURBED AR~S WITH 4" OF TOPSOIL AND SEED OR SOD ALL ROCK MULCH AR~S TO BE UNDER~IN WITH ~NOSCAPE FABRIC, D~I~ PRO 5 WEED BARRIER (4.602) OR APPROVED EQUAL. ALL POLY EDGING TO BE 5" "EDGE KING" COMMERCIAL GRADE OR APPROVED EQUAL. ROCK MULCH TO BE 4" DEPTH (~ , NO1 II INSTALL 6 FT. HIGH tt WOOD FENCE OR NOTES: CONNECT TO EXISllNG FENCE APPROVED EQUAL 1. TOPSOIL ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH 4" OF TOPSOIL AND SEED OR SOD SEE DETAIL SHEET, 2. ALL ROCK MULCH AREAS TO BE UNDERLAIN WITH LANDSCAPE FABRIC, DEWI1-F PRO 5 WEED BARRIER (4.602) OR APPROVED EQUAL. ALL POLY EDGING TO BE 5" "EDGE KING" COMMERCIAL GRADE OR APPROVED EQUAL. 3. ROCK MULCH TO BE 4" DEPTH 4. FINAL APPROVAL OF MULCH TYPE TO BE BY OWNER(S). 5. MULCH INDIVIDUAL TREES W/WOOD CHIP MULCH 6. :l~ DENOTES - 400W METAL HALIDE SHOE BOX TYPE A LIGHT FIXTURE W/20 FT. RUUD STEEL POLES SET IN CONCRETE, 7. ALL GREEN AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED PLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE ........ COMMON NAME QUANTITY SIZE I ROOT '~'Y I Broodmoor Juniper Juniperus S(]bino 'Broodmoor' 18-24" POT-3 GAL. GFS I Goldfl(]me Spire(] Spire(] j. 'Goldfl(]me' 18-24" IPOT-3 (;AL. SA I Summit Ash Fr(]xinus Pennsylv(]nic(] I(]nceol(]l(]t(] 'Summit' 2-1/2"1 B&B GS GOLDMOUND 'SPIREA Spireoi Goldmound 18-24"I POT-3 GAL. AH ! ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA Hydr(]n,qeo Arborescens 'Annobelle' 18-24"I POT-3 GAL. RM ROSE MAGNIFICA Rugos(]s 'Moqnific(]' 18-24"I POT-3 GAL. 'Rpw RED PRINCE WEIGELA Weiqel(] Florid(] 18-24"I POT'3 (;AL. JSY JAPANESE SPREADING YEW T(]xus Cuspidoto 18-24"I POT-3 (;AL. [CS I COLORADO SPRUCE ; PICEA PUNGENS 3-4' IB&B Brace deciduous trees over o 4' coliper &: evergreens 7' high or over with the tripod method. NOTCHE~ STAKE TRIPOD MgTHOD NO SCALE 7 F'r ROLLED STEEL POST INSTALL 6 FT. HIGH (MNDOT .3403) OR APPROVED WOOD FENCE or EQUAL (,3) PER TREE O 120' STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN A APPROVED EQUAL MINIMUbl OF 3' INTO GROUND SEE DETAIL SHEET 3 PRUNE DAUAGED BRANCHES SPECIFIED TREE wRAP 16' LONG POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE SET PLANT MATERIAL AT (4-0 MIL) 1 1/2" WIDE STRAPS ORIGINAL DEPTH CUT ALL BINDING AND REMOVE BURLAP DOUBLE STRAND 12. GA WIRE FROM TOP 1/3 DF RDD)T BALL 3'-6' MIN DEPTH MULCH 3' SAUCER PREVIOUSLY EXISTING GRADE 6" DEPTH COMPACTED TOPSOIL 12" MIN ~-- !TY SIZE ROOT PLANTING DETAIL FOR DECIDUOUS TREES 18-24" POT-5 GAL. NO SCALE 18--24" POT--3 GAL. 2-1/2" B&B I I hereby certify that this plan, J DATE J REVISION 18-24" POT-3 GAL.J specification, or report wes prepored I 10/21/99 IBLDG. SIZE, GRADING 18-24" POT-5 GAL. by me or under my direct supervision I lAND SCREENING and that I om a duly Registered Pro--J 12/10/99 J REVISED SITE ' 1 8--24-" _ POT--3 GAL. fessional E~n<3ineer under the Iow~ of I ........ I ~ M.H. 9 Rim 9~45 Inv. 909,~a ~istin~ Wete~ein - ] 17.57 2~ .57 : 06'8L6 ~ ~ / ~4 ~ I ~ Z ~Z / // B 5 11MES'-'I I"-'-"' 1'"7,"'-"~ r PIPE DIAME'I'E:R.._~~~ RIPRAPuo PLACEMENT SCALE ~ 477-1 INLET TYPE 1 CATCH BASIN BOX DETAIl -' NO SCALE RIM=919.5 INV.=916.65 CASTING NEENAH R--2561-A EROSION CONTROL NOTES CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................... oo ...... , u.ooT So.c,~co,,o~ ~8~. .,.,... .o Mo..,,. ,.,~,,,... ,2-,2-,2 ...... . ~ICAL S~EET SEC~ON 9-618 CUR~ ......................................................................... I~H~HHNHH/~ ~ ........ ~ ........ , ............... , .............. , ....... S~AW BALE DROP IN~T SEDIMENT RL~R CONSTRUCTION REQUIREME~ 3 ..... . .o..- ,...-~ ROCK CONS~UC~ON EN~ANC ,~ s*.. ¢ ~, ~. , * , o~* New Nope. Minnesota lineer. ~, 3134, drainage UPHILL ~tion 2331, FILTER Hah FABRIC f 85/100. DOWNHILL ~res, 5./~ qd shouider ~\ POST ~ost ) ~ ~ ~ ~.ction, the IMBED 6 ..... ~ ,Ions and d by DISTURBED AREA UNDISTURBED AREA .- .~. ~ ,?..: ',z~ ( .~.~ INSTALL AS PER FILTER FABRIC MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS ~ ~, '"k · ~, '~' SILT FENCE DETAIL(~ NO SCALE eriai DROP INLET WITH GRATE"-----,-- to any l~ ~ / ~ ~/~ ~! base FF-~-~-~ acted to ~ -- ~l',ll.. ?l, t,. Ihl , ~-'I '1 '~' , ,'l, , ',~~ ...... ~~~ ~ ~~ ........ STRAW BALES STAKED WITH 2 STAKES PER BALE COMPACTED SOIL ~l.~ ' STAKED ........ ~ ~ ~ ~'--, --, , 't ~ ~ ,., STRAW BALE DROP INLET SEDIMENT FILTER(~) NO SCALE .'. ~ lXe CI~AR AL1T]q~IA'TT: .44 ~v~z~ ~ BO~D · BOARD ~NCE D~NL 2X4 ST'RHdOD~S IX$ CAF) 4X4 -- lX6 Ci:Z),4/t ),L~TI~ S~OE:S POST 8' 4X4 ---4 . BO~D ~ B~D ~CE D~ .r .I' .r f REAR ELEVATION ~116j , I~.0" FRONT ELEVATION J j ELEVATIONS T' ' .- ~= r- ',,--,,, ,,,, ---- I, A1 -'] "'-i -- ~ ffff -,.- fl[ -t'- ,~ ff [[ FOUNDATION PLAN ~ · FLOOR PLAN L~ L~ ~ ~ , L! ii! uoJeuJw!O DEC-27-1999 17:07 NAC 612 595 9837 P.B2/11 N COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN " MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Jason Lindahl I Alan Brixiu$ DATE: December 27, 1999 RE: New Hope - Review PUD for L and A Homes FILE NO: 131.01 - 99. t3 BACKGROUND The applicants, Lloyd and Alice Vagle, are requesting Preliminary Plat and PUD approval of an eight-unit twinhome development. The proposed development is located on two existing lots on the southeast comer of 49th and Winnetka. According to their survey, the lots together are approximately 66,396 square feet or 1.52 acres. Attached for Reference: Exhibit A: Preliminary Plat Exhibit B: Engineer Comments from Mark Hanson RECOMMENDATION At this stage, staff is prepared to recommend preliminary plat and PUD concept approval of this project with the following conditions. 1. The applicants make every effort to shift the location of the proposed buildings on the site to meet the required setback and building separation requirements. Should this prove ineffective, the applicant will need to receive a variance. 2. The applicants submit a revised landscape plan and schedule that includes the following: A. Additional landscaping in the site's northwestern and southwestern comers. The landscaping in the northwestern comer must conform to the traffic sight line standards. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE: 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 612-Bg5-96:~6 FAX 612-~95-9837 E-MAIL NAC(~WINTERNET,COM DEC-27-1999 17:07 NAC 61~ 595 985? P.0~/11 B. Replace the three planned Colorado Spruce tr--,,cs long Winnetka ~' Avenue with six over-story deciduous trees. The over-story trees should canopy over the fence and soften its overall appearance while contributing to the visual appearance of the Winnetka streetscape. C. Replace the ash trees along the southern property line with oak trees to replace the trees lost during the grading process. These trees should be 2 % to 3 inches in caliper and grouped to create a more natural appearance. D. Provide more variation in the plants and spacing of plants around the building's foundation. E. The applicant should detail the planting in the cul-de-sac island. Staff recommends that the applicant plant oak trees in the island to replace trees lost in the grading process. The applicant should also post 'No Parking" sign throughout the development. 3. The applicant shall revise the fencing plan for the site to include details on the materials used in construction of the maintenance free fence along Winnetka Avenue. in addition, the applicant must select a method to reduce the visual impact of this fence by choosing one of the following two options: A. Interrupt the fence along Winnetka to soften its visual impact. The fence should be broken either in half or in thirds. The breaks could either be an actual separation or simply a jog in the fence line, Establish a landscape areas on the Winnetka side of the fence in the break areas to soften its appearance and add to the general Winnetka Avenue streetscape. C. The applicant must plant vines on the fence adjacent to Winnetka Avenue to soften its appearance and add to the general streetscape along Winnetka Avenue. 4. The applicant shall indicate on their plans a pedestrian trail or sidewalk from the existing sidewalk along Winnetka Avenue to the site entrance, 5. The applicant shall provide a street light as called for in the plans and it shall be located in the southwestern corner of the cul-de-sac. 6. The Homeowner's Association shall place special restrictions on this development which include: A. The City will require that each of the unit lots will own lot 9 in an equal and undivided interest. This ownership pattem insures that each unit DEC-27-1999 17:07 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04/11 maintains a vested interested in the common are~ The Homeowner's Association shall own each of the outlots. B. The Homeovmers Association Article IV, Sections 6 and seven outline the restrictions on outside storage. No =hanges to these rules may be made without approval by the City. 7. The applicant must comply with all recommendations from the City Engineer. ANALYSIS S. ite Design The preliminary site design appeam consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The design consists of eight units, one common lot, a public street, and outlots A & B. The applicant reduced lite number of units from 12 to eight. Even with this reduction, the site will have some irregular shaped lots. Although, these irregular shaped lots will not be visible to the naked eye given the addition common area. In general, staff offers the following comments regarding the site's design. Project Density Section 4.192 (6) of the New Hope Zoning Code states that within a PUD Zoning District, the exact density allowable shall be determined by standards agreed upon between the applicant and the City. The preliminary plans call for eight twinhome units on approximately 66,396 square feet of land. Of this area, approximately 12,678 square feet will be platted as public right-of-way. As a result, the buildable area is reduced to eight units on approximately 53,718 square feet or 1.24 acres. This calculates into a lot area per unit of 6,714.75 square feet. The City typically requires twinhomes to have a lot area per unit of 7,000 square feet. Nevertheless, the increased density may be permitted as pert of the PUD. DEC-27-1999 17:08 NAC 612 595 985? ~.05/1I Setbacks Yard Required l~roposed Front (49th Avenue) 35 feet :35.5 feet P,.ear (South) 35 feet 35.5 feet Side (Winnet. k~ Avenue) 30 fleet 30.5 feet *Side (Abutting R-1 Zoning District) IS...q feet 14 feet ~Setbaek Between Buildings 13.25 feet 14.00 feet 1S.00 feet 14.30 feet 15.-~0 feet 14.46 feet Setback from cul-de-sac 15 feet 30 to 34.47 feet *These aetbaclc requirements are based on the bulldin~ heio~ As illustrated above, the proposed twinhome project complies with all required setback~ for a residential PUO with the exception of the following. The plans indicate a 14-foot setback from the building containing units seven and eight while the ordinance requires a setback equal to the height of the building which is 15.5 feet. In addition, the plan indicates a separation betv,~:n buildings that is non-conforming for three out of the four buildings. Therefore, st~f recommends that the applicant make every effort to shift the buildings to meet the required setbacks and building separation. Should this prove ineffective, the applicant may request a variance. Landscaping According to Section 4.192 of the City' Code, 'In assessing the landscape plan, the City Council shall consider the naf~ral ~ of the pa~cular site, the architectural character of the proposed stzuctures and the overall scheme of the PUD plan.' The applicant's survey indicates that 37,9?7 square feet or 57 percent of the site is green space. In general, the applicants have submitted an adequate landscape plan. However, staff offers the following suggestions. , Revise the Landscape Plan and Landscape Schedule so they match. The Schedule must indicate quantity of plants. , Provide additional landscaping at the northwestem and southwestern comers to accent these areas and add to the Winnetka Avenue streetscape. The landscaping in the northwestern comer must conform to the traffic sight line standards. , Replace the three planned Colorado Spruce trees long Winnetka Avenue with six over--story deciduous trees. The over-story trees should canopy over the fence and soften its overall appearance while contributing to the visual appearance of the DEC-~?-I~D 17:08 N~C ~1~ ~D~ DS~? P.06~11 Winnetka streetscape. · Replace the ash trees along the southem property line with oak trees to replace the trees lost dudng the grading process. These trees should be 2 % to 3 inches in caliper and grouped to create a more natural appearance. Provide more variation in the plants and spacing of plants around the building's foundation. The applicant should detail the planting in the cul-de-sac island. Staff recommends that the applicant plant oak trees in the island to replace trees lost in the grading process. The applicant should also post "No Parking" sign throughout the development. Tree Preservation The applicant has taken severa) steps to preserve the site's exJsting trees. First, they added a landscape island at the entrance to the development to preserve the existing oak trees. Second, they relocate the right-of-way to the east to allow the preservation of the existing oak trees directly to the west of the original right-of-way. Even with these efforts, we recommend that the tree preservation plan be subject to the review and approval of the City Forester. Pence & Screening The preliminary plans call for 6-foot fencing along the southern, eastem, and westem property lines. According to the applicants, the fence along both the southern and eastern sides will be constructed out of wood while the fence along the western boundary wilJ be made out of some type of maintenance free material. In general, this fencing should adequately screen the site from the adjacent uses. However, the fence along Winnetka Avenue is tOO long and makes the site appear too dense. Therefore, staff recommends the following: A. Interrupt the fence along Winnetka to soften its visual impact. The fence should be broken either in half or in thirds. The breaks could either be an actual separation or simply a jog in the fence line. Establish a landscape areas on the Winnetka side of the fence in the break areas to soften its appearance and add to the general Winnetka Avenue streetscape. C. The applicant must plant vines on the fence adjacent to Winnetka Avenue to soften its appearance and add to the general streetscape along Winnetka Avenue. DEC-27-1999 i?:08 NAC ~lE 595 9857 P.07~ii The applicant should indicate on the plans a sidewalk or trail from the existing sidewalk along Winnetka Avenue to the development's entrance. The Homeowners Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of this sidewalk. Liqhtin_g The preliminary landscape plan notes call for a 400-watt metal halide shoe box type A light fixture with a 20-foot rudd steel pole set in concrete. However, no lights are indicated on the plan. The light should be indicated on the plan in the southwest part of the cul-de- sac. Homeowners Asso_~iation The proposed project illustrates a compact design with density requested through a PUD zoning district that would be greater than permitted in a traditional zoning district. To accommodate the project design, the City will require the following use restrictions as part of the PUD approval. This approval will be implemented through the Homeowners Association Declaration and Bylaws. The entire project shall be subject to the condition of PUD approvals which will include: · The City will require that each of the unit lots will own lot 9 in an equal and undivided interest. This ownership pattem insures that each unit maintains a vested interested in the common area. The Homeowner's Association shall own each of the ouflots. · The Homeowners Association Article IV, Sections 6 and seven outline the restrictions on outside storage, No changes to these rules may be made without approval by the City. Plat We are generally satisfied with the lot configuration as shown on the preliminary plat. The applicant has added drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of Lot 9. However, the City Engineer recommends that the easement along 49th Street be relabeled as a Drainage, Utility, and Sidewalk easement. In addition, they have platted the land directly east of the cul-de-sac as outlots. Should the opportunity arise, this will facilitate the redevelopment of the parcel to the east. The applicant has also platted the median DEC-27-1999 I?:08 NAC 61~ 595 983? P.08~ll areas in Alice Way as outlots C & D. The City Engineer recommends that these areas be platted as right-of-way. Finally, the applicant is aware that Hennepin County needs a ten- foot trail and utility easement running the entire length of the site adjacent to Winnetka Avenue and has shown it on their plans. CC: Lloyd and Alice Vagle Doug Sanstad Steve Sondrall PLANNING DISTRICTS · ,June 1996 Base MaiD: · Bonemmo Rosene 0'~ .... 1000 2000 3000' · Anclerlik & Assoc~ales SCALE IN FEET~ GOLDEN VALLEY City of New Hope Comprehensive t=/an Update 79 De velopment Frame work PROPOSED LAND USE LEGEND ~ City Boundary Low Density Residential ...... ' Low Density/Medium Density Residential ........ : Medium Density Residential ~ High Density Residential ..~,--~ [ ~7~",--;~ Commercial ~ Industruial ~ Public & Semipublic ~ Parks & Recreation ~' Lakes --' Vacant -- Out side City limit O 01 02 Miles Source: Northwest Associated Consultants ~; ,,.__~ u October 1999 L%.q City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update ~ Development Framework 31 ND AVE, N BROOKLYN PARK "JTY RI:), 101 ; FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT SITES Residential Opportunity Commercial Opportunity Industrial Opportunity Commercial / Industrial Opportunity Deteriorating / Blighted Areas Underdeveloped Areas Vacant Areas Source: City of New Hope  October 1997 Base Map: I Bonestroo Rosene 0 1000 2000 3000 Anderlik & Associates SCALE IN FEET~ City of New Hope GOLDEN VALLEY Comprehensive Plan Update Ir~ v~r~foQ/ Bonestroo Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik andAs$ociate$, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo. RE. · Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. · Marvin L. Sorvala, RE. · Glenn R. Cook, RE. · Robert G. Schunicht, RE, · Jerry A. Bourdon, RE. · Rosene Robert ~'. Rosene, RI:., Richard E. Turner. RE. and Susan M. Eberlin, C.RA., Senior Consu,tants ~ A$$ocia£e Principals: Howard A. Sanford. RE. · Keith A. Gordon, RE. · Robert R. Pfefferle, RE. · Anderlik & Associates Richard W. Foster, RE., David O. Loskota, RE.. Robert C. Russek, A.,.A., Mark A, Hanson, P.E. · Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. · Ted K.Field, RE. · Kenneth R Anderson. P.E. · Mark R. Rolfs, P.E. · Sidney R Williamson, P.E., L.S. · Robert F. Kotsmith · Agnes M. Ring · Allan Rick Schmidt, RE. Offices: St. Paul. Rochester, V(/illmar ,and St. Cloud, MN · Milwaukee, WI Engineers & Architects web$ite.-www, bonestroo.com Memorandum TO: Kirk McDonald, Doug Sandstad FROM: Mark Hanson cc: Vince VanderTop SUBJECT: L & A Homes BRA File No. 34-Gen (E99-18) DATE: December 27, 1999 We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the project and recommend the following: · The two center medians are designated as Outlots C & D. We should discuss whether this is appropriate or not. The City needs to be confident the Homeowners Association maintains the medians. It would be cleaner on the'plat if the median areas were designated as right-of- way and the Developers Agreement addressed the maintenance responsibility. · The extension of utilities (sanitary sewer/water) will likely occur west of the center medians in Alice Way. Therefore additional utility easement will be required beyond the right-of-way to accommodate the utilities once their location is finalized. · The unhty easements along the nord-,, east and south p~operty lines are properly shown. However, to accommodate the new sidewalk construction being recommended along 49th Avenue between Alice Way and Winnetka Avenue, it may be desirable to have the 10' wide utility easement along 49th Avenue also be designated as walkway. This would allow portions of sidewalk to be constructed in this to save trees. The 5' wide utility / walkway easement along Winnetka Avenue is properly shown and must be confirmed with Hennepin County. · The triangular right-of-way dedication at 49th and Winnetka Avenues can accommodate relocation of the traffic signal at this intersection if turn lanes are added in the future. MAH/crw 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: &51-&36-13II 12/23/99 16:02 FA~ 612493519~ J $ & S, ATI~KNEYb ~ NEW HOPE CH ~002 JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CRO$SING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARKs MINNESOTA 55443-1999 TELEVnONr- (612) 424-8811 · TI~LEltAX (612) 493-5193 ~mnu. jss~jsspa.com Oomx~ L. Jmgsm~ WILLIA~ O. SWAI~ON c. At~s~ X~Aaso~t December 23, 1 999 JULtE A. THILL OF COUNSEL ~m,~s q. ~Y~ ~ McDonald Ci~ of New H~ ~1 Xylon Av~ No~ New Ho~, ~ 5~28 L ~d A Ho~ ~ F~e No. ~.15050 I have examined the revised preliminary plat for L and A Homes and have the following comments: 1. The plat legal description includes real estate out to the middle of Winnetka Avenue, extending to the West line of the North 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, as that line is shown on the plat illustration. So the westerly edge of the plat should not stop at the east edge of the existing sidewalk, as it does now, but instead should extend out to the middle of Winnetka Avenue. That portion of the Plat subject to the street easemem should then be shown as a street dedication. 2. The City should be sure that no additional land will be needed for street purposes along Winnetim Avenue. It is our conclusion that street semaphores plus any associated electrical equipment carmot be located in a utility easement, but must be in a street easement. So now is the time to make sure the City has enough street easement for any foreseeable expansion of Winnetka Avenue. 3. The northern most 30 feet of the plat, which includes the land used for 49~' Avenue, should be labeled as a street dedication. 4. The cul-de-sac should be shown as an outlot on the plat. The cul-de-sac will be either a private roadway, or a dedicated public street. If a private road, the Declaration needs to include easement access from all dwelling · ~ eom, t~, s~,.,~ units to the public street, and must also designate the cul-de-sac as a fire Mirror. sma S,m,. liar '~Oaaliflad ADR Nemral 12/23/99 16:03 FAX 612493519~ J 5 & S, A~I'0RNB¥~ . ~B~ BOP£ C~ ~003 Kirk McDonald December 23, 1999 Page 2 lane. If a public street, the plat needs to dedicate it as such. In either case, tasking the cul-de-sac an outlot will greatly simplify its legal description. $. The City may want to also consider shared driveways to the dwelling units, as this will reduce the total amount of impervious surface, and also make moving the driveways at a later date less likely. 6. We will need to see title evidence before the final plat can be approved, and all owners and mortgages will need to be signatories on the plat. Be sure to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha Assistant City Atton~y cc: Daniel $. Donahue, City Manager Steven A. $ondrall, City Attorney 4~01 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, ~$OTA 55428 ,( City Council November 15, 1999 Work Session 6:00 p.m.. City Hall CALL TO ORDER The New Hope City Council met in work session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Mayor W. Peter Enck called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Peter Enck, Mayor Sharon Cassen, Councilmember Don Collier, Councilmember Pat LaVine Norby, Councilmember Mark Thompson, Councilmember Staff Present: Dan Donahue, City Manager Sherry Draper, Human Resources Manager Daryl Sulander, Chief Financial Officer CITY'S CONTRIBU- Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11,1, Discussion Regarding City's TION FOR HEALTH Monthly Contribution for Health Benefits Program. BENEFITS Item 11.1 Ms. Sherry Draper, Human Resources Manager, reviewed the projected year 2000 insurance rates if the City joined the LOGIS group compared to rates if the City continued as a separate group. She also explained the history of the City's contribution towards employees' health insurance programs. MOTION Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by COuncilmember Item 11.1 Collier, to authorize increasing the monthly contribution from $420 to $435 per month. Voting in favor. All. Motion carried. ~AN~G CASE--~"'t Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.2, Consideration of Planning Case f' 99-21 99-21, Planned Unit Development at 7849/7829 49t" Avenue North. Item 11.2 '~-.. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, reviewed the letter submitted to the City from ~ "~ Lloyd and Alice Vagle concermng the development discussed at the November 8 Council Meeting. The developer's original concept was for 12 units and now he is asking whether the Council would be receptive to eight units (two twin homes and one four-unit)..--.---- Discussion ensued regarding the rezoning and the impact to abutting property owners, street setback, snow storage issues, distance between driveways, public versus private street, the feasibility of homeowners' association, landscaping and retaining mature trees. Councilmember Cassen emphasized that the City's life Cycle study identified the need for this type of housing. MOTION Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Item 11.2 Collier, to support an eight-unit development if a homeowners' association is established or a six-unit development if there is no homeowners' association. The Council did not favor the November 11a' concept plans but expressed support for twinhomes. Concern was expressed regarding snow storage, street City Council Work Session November 15, 1999 Page I setback, and maximum retention of mature trees. Voting in favor: All. Motion, can'ied. Mr. Donahue indicated all issues would be thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Commission if the developer chooses to submit a proposal. PRELIMINARY Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 11.3, Review of Preliminary. Budget BUDGET for Year 2000. Item 11.3 The Council asked Mr. Dunahue to convey its appreciation to staff for the informative meeting/tour at Public Works last week. Discussion ensued regarding sidewalk snowplowing services and whether the City should purchase a new trackless plow. The City Council agreed to cease the sidewalk snowplowing program beginning the 2000-2001 winter, and directed the City Manager to inform impacted property owners this winter of the City's intentions for the following year. The Council reviewed the existing ordinance regarding property owners' responsibilities concerning snow removal on sidewalks of abutting properties. It was the consensus of the Council to amend the proposed budget by removing funding for the DARE van replacement. The Council advised staff it will reconsider this purchase in the 2002 Capital Improvement Program. It was noted that the garbage truck was also removed from the CIP. Funding for the two full- time positions (IT Coordinator and Media Specialist) was approved. Mr, Daryl Sulander, Chief Financial Officer, concluded the budget work session by reviewing the f'mal figures of the proposed budget for year 2000. Mr. Donahue reminded the Council of the budget public hearing scheduled for December 6, 1999. AD,IOURNNIENT As there was no further business for the City Council for its Work Session, the New Hope City Council adjourned at 8:1'7 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Valerie Leone City Clerk City Council Work Session November 15, 1999 Page 2 612). BID/SEWER Approval of Bid and Authorization to Purchase Sewer Televising Services from TELEVISING Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. - $10,080. pLANNING CASE } Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.1, Planning Case 99-21, Request for 99-21 // Concept Stage Planned Unit Development, Rezone from R-I Single Family  Residential to PUD, and Preliminary Plat Approval of 13 Lots by L & A Homes, 7849 and 7829 490" Avenue, Lloyd and Alice Vagle, Petitioners. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, explained that Lloyd and Alice Vagle are proposing to develop 12 twinhome/townhome units on two existing lots located at the southeast comer of 490" and Winnetka Avenues. The site is currently zoned R-l, Single Family. To facilitate this medium density residential development, the applicant is requesting a change in zoning from R-I to PUD and a subdivision. The PUD zoning district is being requested to accommodate the change in residential land use and provide flexibility related to project density and provision of a private street that would not be available through a standard zoning district. He reported New Hope's 1997 Life Cycle Housing Study identified a community need for attached housing that offer low maintenance. Mr. McDonald reported that the proposed development includes approval of the following: Preliminary Plat - The developer proposes to combine the two existing lots into 12 lots and one common lot or outlot. Rezoning - The developer is requesting to rezone the site to PUD to allow the construction of 12 townhome units. PUD - The project includes a cluster of lots with an integrated site design that provides a private access road, new landscaping and some architectural amenities. Next, Mr. McDonald stated the Planning Commission considered the request at its November I Planning Commission Meeting and, after receiving public input, voted to approve the concept request, subject to a number of conditions including having the City Council give direction on the density for the site. Mr. McDonald provided site specific information and stated the site is 224' x 300.5' or 67,117 square feet (1.54 acres) and surrounding land uses include R-4 (Wingate Apartments) north of the site across 49'~ Avenue, R-I Single Family to the east, south, and across Winnetka Avenue to the west. The west lot is vacant and has never been developed. One home (1,100 square feet) and a detached garage (900 square feet) exist on the east lot. The proposed four structures are one level, with basements: : two twinhomes (4 dwelling units) plus two four-unit townhomes (8 dwelling units) - 12 units. Building areas/unit will be 1,297 square feet for twinhome units and 1,172 for townhome units. A small double garage is attached to each unit. He noted the applicant has revised the building and site plans according to recommendations made by the Design and Review Committee. This has resulted in an improved building appearance. Mr. McDonald emphasized that the Council should focus on two issues: 1) whether a rezoning to PUD is appropriate for this site; and 2) if rezoning is appropriate, determine the reasonable density for the site. New Hope City Council November 8, 1999 Page 3 He stated property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified of the proposed development and staff received several phone calls. Some neighboring property owners attended the November 1't Planning Commission Meeting and ~,~ expressed opposition to the proposed development. Additional information regarding the preliminary plat, rezoning request, and general concept plan were also reviewed by Mr. McDonald. Mayor Enck called for comments by his colleagues and noted the issues before the Council are rezoning and the development concept. Councilmember Cassen noted the development may be too large for this site. She compared the square footage per unit for townhomes versus twinhomes (5,000 square feet and 7,000 square feet respectively). She asked staff to conduct research and inquire of standards within other communities. She also pointed out the need for additional parking. Councilmember Pat LaVine Norby arrived at 7:40 p.m. Counciimember Thompson inquired of the market value and tax payments of the proposed development. At the direction of the Mayor, Councilmember Thompson withdrew this question. Councilmember Thompson expressed support for the project but commented that it has a crowded appearance that may be improved by constructing fewer units. Councilmember Thompson initiated discussion regarding accidents at the 49'~/Winnetka intersection. Mr. McDonald stated both adjoining streets have the capability of accommodating the project's traffic generation. The applicant is proposing a private 1 g-foot wide one-way street to serve the subdivision. Hennepin County will only authorize a "right-in" access from Winnetka Avenue. Councilmember Collier expressed concern regarding the traffic configuration and the removal of many mature trees. He suggested modifying the proposal by reducing the units to nine. Mr. Mike Vagle, builder or the proposed development, was recognized. He indicated he has considered lesser units but did not feel it would be economically feasible as the cost per unit would have to increase with a lower density. He also reported on the impact fewer units would have on homeowners association dues. Mr. Vagle assured the Council that one-level housing (with basements) is very appealing to the empty nester market. .- Councilmember Cassen inquired of proposed costs. Mr. Vagle stated the units will be quality construction and will be very competitively priced with a range of $165,000 to $180,000 depending on the size of the unit. Counciimember Norby pointed out that she lives in this area and believes traffic noise will be a disadvantage to the development. She also expressed concern regarding the density of the project and the high accident rate on the intersection of 49~/Winnetka. Mayor Enck asked the City Engineer to elaborate on the additional roadway space for the County on the east side of Winnetka Avenue. ~'~ New Hope City Council November g, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Mark Hanson, City Engineer' stated the County is asking for a 10-foot wide easement on the east side of Winnetka which would permit a total roadway width of 90 feet to accommodate any future upgrading (turn lane) at the Winnetka/49'h Avenue intersection. Mr. Hanson noted that for proper s~eet alignment the same area would be necessary on the north side of49~ Avenue. He stated the easements would be addressed with the platting process. Mayor Enck concurred with staff that the current R-I zoning is consistent with the . surrounding neighborhood and is reflective of the past Comprehensive Plan. In this respect, the current R-I zoning is not a mistake. The second issue is whether the character of the area has changed to warrant consideration of a zoning change. He noted a zoning change may be appropriate as it is unlikely that someone would desire to build a single family home with a driveway exiting onto Winnetka. Ms. Alice Vagle, petitioner, addressed the Council. She noted she lived in New.Hope during the 1960s and wishes to return to the City and live in the proposed development. She maintained that high quality insulation used on new construction will buffer traffic noise. She also pointed out that reducing the proposal to 10 units 'would leave open space requiring additional upkeep and result in a lower property market value. Ms. Vagle emphasized that the bus stop on the corner is considered an amenity. She noted she envisions a nice development and encouraged the City Council to support their request. Mayor Enck opened the floor for public comment. Mr. Leo Eiden, 7803 49th Avenue North, was recognized. He spoke in opposition to constructing multiple dwelling properties within a residentially zoned district. He questioned whether the Council had already taken a position to approve the project. The Council assured Mr. Eiden that the development is conceptual only and nothing has been approved by the City at this point. No one else addressed the Council regarding the Planning Case. The Council debated the density and zoning classifications. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, clarified that if the zoning district remains unchanged then only single family properties will be allowed at the site. However, rezoning to a PUD zoning district would allow flexibility for a higher density. With a PUD staff would negotiate with the developer on site designs including open space and a private street. Mr. Sondrall stated the recent Comprehensive Plan identifies the project site for Iow to medium density residential land use. .. Councilmember Cassen indicated she prefers 10 units rather than 12 but is unprepared to make a decision without additional information. She noted there have been changes to the character of the area and townhouses would serve as a buffer to residential area. MOTION Motion was made by Mayor Enck, seconded by Councilmember Thompson, to PLANNING CASE rezone to PUD but restrict the proposed development to a maximum of six units. 99-21 Item 8.1 Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen amending the motion to permit up to 10 units. Motion failed for lack ora second. New Hope City Council November 8, 1999 Page 5 The vote for the original motion made by Mayor Enck was taken: Voting in favor: '~l Thompson, Enck, Collier; Voting against: Norby, Cassen. Motion failed (a 4/5 vote is required to approve rezoning). __r~ .Mayor Enck thanked the petitioners for their interest in New Hope but explained that the Council vote did not support rezoning at this time. 1MP. PROJECT 665 Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.2, Resolution Awarding Contract for Item 8.2 Demolition of City-Owned Building at 7500 42~ Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 665). Mr. McDonald stated bids were opened November 3, and the low bid was submitted by Kevitt Excavating, Inc. for $26,037. RESOLUTION 99-176 Councilmember Norby introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Item 8.2 "RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR DEMOLITION OF CITY- OWNED BUILDING AT 7500 42n° AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 665)". The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Cassen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Norby, Thompson, whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. IMP. PROJECT 653 Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 8.3, Resolution Awarding Contract for Item 8.3 the Sale and Removal of House at 5340 Winnetka Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 653). Mr. McDonald reported that Stubbs House Movers, Inc. is willing to pay the City $2,800 to purchase the property and remove the house. RESOLUTION 99-177 Councilmember Cassen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Item 8.3 "RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE SALE AND REMOVAL OF HOUSE AT 5340 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 653)'. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember Collier, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Enck, Cassen, Collier, Norby, Thompson, whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. OTHER BUSINESS Presentation by Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar. Mayor Enck reported Item 12.1 that this discussion was held under "Open Forum" at the beginning of the meeting. COMMUNICATIONS · Mayor Enck encouraged Council and residents to urge legislators to adopt ltem 12.2 legislation enabling cities to utilize automated photography of traffic violations · Mayor Enck reported that he recently sent letters to area businesses regarding potential ordinance permitting the use of phosphorous-free fertilizers only · Mayor Enck, Councilmember Cassen, and Councilmember Collier plan to artend the AMM Meeting on November 17 · Mr. Donahue reminded the Council of the next budget work session scheduled the evening of November i 5 New Hope City Council November 8, 1999 Page 6 Memorandum T~ Planning Commissioners Fron~ Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Phil Kern, Administrative Assistant ~ December 29, 1999 Subject: Zoning Code Committee - Revisions to Sections 4.0 - 4.034 As you are aware, the Zoning Code Update Committee, consisting of members of the Planning Commission, Citizen Advisory Commission, City staff, the Planning Consultant and the City Attorney,-has been established to oversee the comprehensive update of the Zoning Code. The Planning Commissioners serving on the Zoning Code Update Committee are Roger Landy, Adam Kramer, Kathi Hemken, and Patsy Green. The update of the Zoning Code is being conducted by request of the City Council. You may recall that one of the top recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan was to revise the Zoning Code to help facilitate the implementation of some of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Additional information for the purpose of the update can be found in the attached proposal from Northwest Consultants and excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan. The general process to update the code will be that the Committee will review the Code and discuss revisions at its monthly meetings. Following each Committee meeting, the Code and proposed revisions will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Any major areas of concern or disagreement within or between the Committee and Commission can be so noted for further research and discussion at a later date. After a preliminary review of the entire Zoning Code has been completed, the City Council will discuss the proposed revisions and the major discussion items at a joint worksession with the Zoning Code Committee and Planning Commission. At its first meeting on December 2, the Committee reviewed Sections 4.0 - 4.034 of the Zoning Code. This part of the Code deals with the General Provisions of the Zoning Code, which can be applied to any zoning district. The attached memo from the Planning Consultant outlines the proposed changes recommended for this section. Many of the changes to the Code are simply revisions in format, but there are several policies that have been changed. These items are outlined in the Planning Consultant's memo. Minutes from the meeting are also attached. The Planning Consultant will be present at the meeting to lead the discussion on this information. The Zoning Code Update Committee will meet again on January 20 and it is anticipated that the information covered at that meeting can be reviewed by the Planning Commission at its February meeting. Attachments: Planning Consultants memorandum Minutes from 12/2 Committee meeting Zoning Code Update Proposal approved by Council and excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan IT ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM TO: New Hope Planning Commission FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 29 December 1999 RE: New Hope Zoning FILE NO: '131.22 BACKGROUND With the COmpletion of the' New Hope ComPrehensive Plan, the City is updating its zoning reguiat!ons as a means of implementing the futuredevelopment objectivesoutlined in the While the'Compreh,ensive Plan established a :'biueprint and strategies that-guide COmmunity growt, h, the Zoning Code is a mechanism for the plan implementation, the City zoning laws are intended to protect the public healthl safety and welfare of the community · through the establishment of minimum regulations governing development and land use. The'Zoning Code focuseS on the following areas: ' '. . . : 1. Protection of land 'use areas through the creation of-zoning districts that segregate incompatible land uses. 2. . Promote ordeHy development and redevelopment. 3. Provide adequate .light, air, open space and convenient access to properties through the establishment of lot sizes and setbacks. 4. Prevent congestion of public right-of-way through regulations pertaining to street access, on-site parking, on-site loading, etc. 5. Prevent over crowding or over utilization of a property by regulating buildings, yards, density. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595_-9837 E-MAIL NAG@ WlN':FE'RNET.COM 6. Protect natural environmental areas through development regulations pertaining to drainage, shoreland, floodplain and landscaping. 7. Provides for the administration of the Zoning Code. In updating the New Hope Zoning Code, the City staff has attempted to respond to the following objectives. 1. Making the ordinance more user friendly for City staff, Advisory Committees, City Council and the local residents. In an effort to provide ease of use, we have modified the Zoning Code format to create sections of the ordinance to address similar topics. For example, all performance standards that pertain to buildings were combined into a section, lot and yard standards were also combined under a separate section. We will also compartmentalize the individual zoning districts to eliminate roll over land uses and to address the lot area and setbacks within each zoning district. This should provide for easier dissemination of information to residents having questions pertaining to specific zoning districts. The Zoning Ordinance is frequently amended and adjusted. To facilitate future amendments, we changed the page numbering to reflect the various sections of the Zoning Code. This allows future amendments without changing the page numbers of the entire Zoning Code. 2. Make administration of the Code simpler and more efficient. In this respect, the zoning update includes more administrative approvals and less conditional use permits for minor projects. This procedure while still requiring City review will reduce time and cost to local property owners and reduce need for Planning Commission and City Council reviews. 3. Promote redevelopment and private reinvestment in the community. As a fully developed community, the New Hope Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the need to maintain and enhance the City's existing land uSes and local property values. Consistent with this City-wide objective, the zoning update attempts to provide opportunities for redevelopment and reinvestment through adjustments in lot area, green space and setback standards. The New Hope Zoning Task Force initiated its review of the draft updated Zoning Ordinance on December 2nd. At this meeting, the Task Force review extended to page 4.03-31. This report attempts to describe the changes within the updated Zoning Ordinance. Within the draft ordinance, the omissions and changes have been highlighted to aid in the Planning Commission's review of t.he ordinance. We have also identified the topics that the Task Force discussed. Please find attached to this report pages 4.01-1 through 4.03- 30 of the proposed updated Zoning Ordinance for your review. ORDINANCE SUMMARY SECTION 401 - TITLE AND APPLICATION This section of the New Hope Zoning Code establishes the general ground rules for applying the City zoning regulations. The only change to Section 401 is the addition of Section 4.019A Comprehensive Revision. SECTION 402 - RULES AND DEFINITIONS This section will be completed at the end of the Code review to provide a comprehensive list of definitions. SECTION 403 - GENERAL PROVISIONS The general provisions section of the New Hope Zoning Code establishes development performance standards applicable to all land uses and development within the City. 4.031 - Nonconforming Rules The big changes in this section is sub-section 4.031 (9), 4.031 (10), and 4.031 (11 ) which outline terms under which a non-conforming buildings may be altered or expanded. We are recommending establishing administrative approvals for the expansion of select non-conforming buildings where the structure non-conformity relates to building height or setback and the expansion will not increase the degree of non-conformity. The administrative permit reduces the time and expense to the resident, compared to the current conditional use permit. 3 4.032 - General Building Requirements 4.032(1)(a) Garages and Tents as Dwellings. The Task Force suggests that this provision clarify that the temporary use of a camper trailer or recreational vehicle as living quarters must occur on private property. 4.032(2)(a) The minimum floor are. as for single family and two family homes have been reduced to 1,000 square feet of habitable floor area. The previous minimum floor area did not refer to habitable floor areas and allowed attached garages to comprise required floor area. 4.032(4) and 4.032(5) Building widths and building heights were moved into Section 4.032, General Building Requirements. 4.032(5)(c) Rooftop equipment standards were added. 4.032(5)(d) Aviation obstruction standards were added per Metropolitan Council requirements. 4.032(6)(c) For accessory buildings, we are recommending allowing a three foot reduction in side yard setbacks by administrative permit rather than variance. 4.032(6)(g) Side yard air conditioners are proposed to be permitted for all homes subject to stated conditions. This change is intended to establish equity for all homes in the City and eliminate the need for future variances. 4.033 - Lot and Yard Requirements The lot areas, widths and setback standards are being moved to the zoning districts for ease of use. 4.033(4) Open Space. This section of the ordinance was revised to simplify the required open space requirements. 4.033(4)(b) The current regulations exempt elderly and disabled occupancy buildings from providing recreational space. Task Force discussions indicated the need for some outdoor recreational area associated with these dwelling types. We have adjusted the ordinance language to include an outdoor recreation area standard for elderly and physically disabled occupancy buildings. 4 4.033(5) Setbacks. A number of the exceptions to the district setbacks are being eliminated or revised to reflect current development trends. 4.033(6)(d) Sight triangle setbacks were moved into this section. 4.033(7) Subdivision of twinho, mes, quadraminium or townhome lots. This section was amended to reduce the lot size for twinhome unit lots to 6,000 per unit. this is consistent with past research pertaining to twin home development. The lot size reduction is still pending zoning district discussions with the Task Force. 4.034 - Performance Standards 4.034(3) Fencing and Screening. Provisions were eliminated to avoid redundancy with the sight triangle setback standards. 4.034(3)(a)(iii) and 4.034(4)(a) These provisions were amended to address the placement of fences in easements. 4.034(4)(b)(ii) We have removed some of the landscaping spacing requirements. 4.034(4)(b)(vi) We are recommending a change in maximum grade to 3:1 for turfed slopes and we have added a provision to require long term landscape maintenance. 4.034(4)(b)(iv)(gg) A landscape maintenance provision was added to address the replacement of dead plants. GENERAL DISCUSSION ITEMS The Task Force discussed the need for additional regulations pertaining to the storage of recreational vehicles in residential neighborhoods. City staff is preparing additional ordinance language pertaining to this topic for review by the Task Force at their next meeting. NEXT MEETING The next Task Force meeting is scheduled for January 20, 2000. At this meeting, we hope to finish our review of the General Provisions. Specific topics that will be discussed will include parking standard reductions and home occupations. These topics have been evaluated in the past. The Task Force will begin zoning district review in February. As the TaSk Force proceeds, the Planning Commission will be forwarded draft ordinance sections for its review. pc: Kirk McDonald Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall 6 4.00 ZONING 4.01 TITL~ AND APPLICATION. 4.011 Title. This Zoning Code shall be known as the "New Hope Zoning Code" except as referred to herein, where it may be known as "this Code". 4.012 Purpose. The intent of this Zoning Code is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community and its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing development and use. This Code divides the City into use districts and establishes regulations in regard to location, erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration and use of structures and land. Such regulations are established to protect the use areas; to promote orderly development and redevelopment; to provide adequate light, air and convenience of access to property; to prevent congestion in the public right-of-way; to prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating land, buildings, yards and density of population; to provide for compatibility of different land uses; to provide for administration of this Code; to provide for amendments; to prescribe penalties for violation of such regulations.; and to define powers and duties of the City staff, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, the Planning Commission, and the City Council in relation to the Zoning Code. 4.013 Comprehensive Municipal Plan. It is the policy of the City of New Hope that the enforcement, amendment, and administration of this Code be accomplished with due consideration of the recommendations and policies contained in the Comprehensive Municipal Plan as developed and amended from time to time by the Planning Commission and City Council of the City. The Council recognizes the Comprehensive Municipal Plan as the Policy for regulation of land use and development in accordance with the policies and purpose herein set forth. 4.014 Restrictive Interpretation. Where the conditions imposed by any provisions of this Code are either more or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by other ordinance, rule or regulation of the City, the ordinance, rule or regulation which imposes the more restrictive condition, standard, or requirements shall prevail. 4.015 Minimum R~uirements. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Code shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety and welfare. 4.016 Permits Controlled. No permits shah be issued, and no structure shall be erected, converted, enlarged, reconstructed or altered, used or occupied, and no structure or land shall be used for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the provisions of this Code. 4.01-1 4.017 Prohibition of Uses Not S.m~cifically Authorized. Whenever in any zoning district a use is neither specifically permitted nor denied, the use shall be considered prohibited. In such case the City Council or the Planning Commission, on their own initiative or upon request, may conduct a study to determine if the use is acceptable and if so what zoning diStrict would be most appropriate and the determination as to conditions and standards relating to development of the use. The City Council, Plm!ning Commission or property owner, upon receipt of the staff study shall, if appropriate, initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code to provide for the particular use under consideration or shall find that the use is not compatible for development within the City. 4.018 Authority. This Zoning Code is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by the Municipal Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.351 to 462.363. 4.019 ~,9alilhil~. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City that the several provisions of this Zoning Code are separable in accordance with the following: 4.019 (1) Invalid Provision. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of this Zoning Code to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provisions of this Zoning Code not specifically included in said judgment. 4.019 (2) Adjudication of Invalid Application. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge invalid the application of any provision of this Code to a particular property, building, or other structure, such judgment shall not affect the application of said provision to any other property, building, or structure not specifically included in said judgment. 4.01-2 4.03 GENERAL PROVISIONS 4.031 Non-Conforming Buildings, Structures and Uses. 4.031 (1) l~Xp..0_~. It is the purpose of this section to provide for the regulation of non-conforming buildings, structures and uses and to specify those requirements, circumstances and conditions under which non-conforming buildings, structures and uses will be operated and maintained. The Zoning Code establishes separate districts, each of which is an appropriate area for the location of uses which are permitted in that district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts that non- conforming buildings, structures and uses not be permitted to continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this section that all non-conforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity. 4.031 (2) Gmdfather Clause. Any structure or use lawfully existing on July 5, 1979, shall not be enlarged, but may be continued at the size and in the manner of operation existing upon such date except as hereinafter specified or, subsequently amended. 4.031 (3) Remedial Work. Nothing in this Code shall prevent the placing of a structure in safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the Building Official providing the necessary repairs shall not constitute more than fifty percent of fair market value of such structure. Said value shall be determined by the City Assessor. 4.031 (4) Moving of Non-Conforming Structures. No non-conforming building, structure or use shall be moved to another lot or to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was constructed or was conducted at the time of this Code adoption unless such movement shall bring the non-conformance into compliance with the requirements of this Code. 4.031 (5) Reversal of Non-Conformity. When any lawful non-conforming use of any structure or land in any district has been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any non- conforming use. 4.031 (6) Reduction of Non-Conformity. A lawful non-conforming use of a structure or parcel of land may be changed to lessen the non- conformity of use. Once a non-conforming structure or parcel of land has been changed, it shall not thereafter be so altered as to increase the non-conformity. 4.03-1 4.031 (7) Partial Destruction. If at any time a non-conforming building, structure or use shall be destroyed to the extent of more than fifty percent of its fair market value, said value to be determined by the City Assessor, then without further action by the Council, the building and the land on which such building was located or maintained shall, from and after the date of said destruction, be subject tO all the regulations specified by these zoning regulations for the district in which such land and buildings are located. Any building which is damaged to an extent of less than fifty percent of its value may be restored to its former extent provided reconstruction is completed within twelve months of said damage. Estimate of the extent of damage or destruction shall be made by the Building Official. 4.031 (8) Discontinuance. Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued for a period of six months, I~JI.I.t, JVV II1~ WIILL~II IIULI~ II,Jill ~ ~LILIItOI.L/.,~.4~ d~llL t, Jl 1.11~ ~.~IL~, any future use of said structure or land shall be made to conform with the provisions of this Code. 4 :v.J x Blank. ,,11 [11/] ¥1 . l'll.)lllllll III~IIIItUIIlllII,,~U [/1 I1 IJIlll~.llll[ UI [JLIIUI ........................... (Code 072684) ................... (COde 072684, Ord. 93-01) 4.03-2 4.03-3 4.03-4 4.032 General Building Requirements 4.032 (1) Dwelling Unit Restriction. 4.032(1) (a) Garages and Tents as Dwellings. No garage, tent or accessory building shall at any time be used as living quarters, temporarily or permanently. Camping trailers or recreational vehicles may be used for temporary living quarters ~iii~:i!~~ for periods not to exceed one (1) week. 4.032(1) (b) Basements as Living Quarters. Basements and cellars may be used as living quarters or rooms as a portion of the principal residential dwelling, provided they meet the applicable regulations of the Building Code. 4.032(1) (c) Recreational Use~. Tents, playhouses, or similar structures may be used for play or recreational purposes. 4.032 (2) Minimum Floor Area Per Dwelling Unit. 4.032(2) (a) One, two family dwellings and townhou~$. The minimum ~~ilfloor area for these types of buildings shall be as follows: Single Family Dwelling ff;-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-~ i~ii~ square feet Two Family Dwelling and Townhouse 17050 i~iii~ square feet 4.032(2) (b) Multiple dwelling units. Except for elderly housing, living units classified as multiple dwellings shall have the following minimum floor areas per unit: Efficiency units 500 square feet One bedroom units 600 square feet Two bedroom 750 square feet More than two bedroom units - an additional 100 square feet for each additional bedroom. ........................... (Code 072684) 4.032(2) (c) Elderly (Senior Citizen) and/or Physically ~ ~i~:~i.:I-Ious[ng. Living units classified as elderly (senior citizen), physically tnmdieapp~ ~~!i~r R-5 housing 4.03-5 units shall have the following minimum floor areas per unit: Efficiency units 440 square feet One bedroom 520 square feet Two bedroom 700 square feet ................... (Code 072684, Ord. 88-19) 4.032 (3) Maximum Unit Typ~. 4.032(3) (a) Efficiency Apamnents. Except for elderly (senior citizen or R-5) housing, the number of efficiency apartments in a multiple dwelling shall not exceed five percent of the total number of apartments. In the case of elderly (senior citizen or R-5) housing, efficiency apartments shall not exceed twenty percent of the total number of apartments. 4.032(3) (b) Three (3) or More Bedroom Apartments. The number of dwelling units containing three (3) or more bedrooms in a multiple dwelling containing eight (8) or more units shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the total number of apartments within a single building. ................... (Code 072684, Ord. 93-01) 4.032(5) (b) (i) Belfries 4.032(5) (b) (ii) Chimneys or flues 4.032(5) (b) (iii) Church spires 4.032(5) (b) (iv) Cooling towers 4.032(5) (b)(v) Cupolas and domes which do not contain useable space 4.032(5) (b) (vi) Elevator penthouses 4.032(5) (b) (vii) Flag poles 4.032(5) (b) (viii) Parapet walls extending not more than three feet above the limiting height of the building. 4.03-6 4.032(5) (b) (xi) Water towers. 4.032(5) (b) (x) Necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances. 4.032(5) (b)(xi) Poles, towers and other structures for essential services. .................. (Code 072684, 88-8) 4.032(5),(b) (xii) Personal wireless service and commercial broadcasting antennas not exceeding twenty (20) feet above the roof of the antenna support structure. 4.032(5) (b) (xiii) Antenna towers. ................................. (Ord. 97-4) 4.032 (5) (c) F_,xcapilon Lhni~s. "' ..........-' ioof aquipincn~ &NU ~J~,.~l U&I~.J. ~~{~'"" ..:...:......::.- :...:.:...... :.-..:ii 4.03-7 4.032 (6) Accessory. Buildings, Uses and Equipment. An attached garage or attached accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building. Attached garages and attached accessory buildings shall meet all required building setbacks of the applicable zoning district. Detached garages and accessory buildings must comply with the location, setback, size and area restrictions of this section. ............................. (Ord. 98-5) 4.032(6) (a) Permitted Locations and Setbacks. Accessory garages and buildings, both attached and detached, are permitted in side yards and rear yards. Detached structures are also subject to the following setback conditions: 4.032(6)(a) (i) side yard interior 5 feet 4.032(6)(a) (ii) side yard abutting a street 20 feet 4.032(6)(a) (iii) side yard abutting a collector or arterial street 30 feet 4.032(6)(a) (iv) all rear yards - accessory buildings 5 feet 4.032(6)(a) (v) all rear yards - garage 10 feet .......... (Previous (a) deleted, Ord. 98-5) 4.032(6) (b) Prohibited Locations. No garage or accessory building shall be located in any front yard or a drainage and utility easement. ............... (Previous (b) deleted, Ord. 98-5) 4.032(6) (c) Permitted Side Yard Setback ~~. Notwithstanding §4.032(6)(a)(ii) and (iii) of this Code, a three (3) foot ~~ into a required side yard abutting a street will be permitted for construction of an accessory building or garage subject to the following conditions aiid ....... '-: 4.032(6)(c) (i) The physical constraints of the lot make the encroachment necessary to maximize indoor storage on the property which would be prevented by strict compliance with setback standards. 4.03-8 4.032(6)(c) (ii) The proposed structure will not be located in a drainage or utility easement. 4.032(6)(c) (iii) The City Council shall determine that the building will not negatively impact the neighboring or adjacent property. 4.032(6)(c) (iv) The same or similar quality building material shah be used in the accessory building as in the principal building. Additionally, the exterior appearance and architectural design of the accessory building are to be similar to that of the principal building. .......... (Previous (c) deleted, Ord. 98-5) .......... (Previous (d) deleted, Ord. 98-5) 4.032(6) (d) Area Limits, General. Accessory building and garage area in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts shall be limited to a combined total area of 1,400 sq. ft. Also, no individual garage shall exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area or exceed 15 feet in height. No storage type building shall exceed 400 square feet of floor area or exceed 12 feet in height. Construction of storage type accessory buildings or garages ~i}iChapter 3 of this Code. ........................ (Ord. 98-5) ........... (Previous 09 deleted, Ord. 98-5) 4.032(6) (e) Garage and On-Site Parking Space. Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwelling shall be required to provide an off-street parking space for at least 1 automobile per dwelling to be housed in addition to any garage space to be used. Every dwelling unit hereafter erected shall be so located on the lot so that garage space for at least 2 vehicles, either attached or detached, can be located on said lot. ........................ (Ord. 98-5) 4.032(6) (f) Limit on Numbers. Every lot in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts shall be limited to no more than 2 accessory buildings, including an attached garage. ........... (Code 072684, Ord. 84-3, 98-5) 4.03-9 4.032(6) (g) Air Conditioners. Accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers (ground mounted) which generate noise shall be located in rear yards '-o~,,~-'-: .... ~'- ...... ~ '---"~:--o,,.,~,,~;- ,,,~."--- Air conditioning cooling structures or condensers ~!~i~ located within a required side yard ,~ ,~ ~,l~,~w ,~ ,,~ ~,,,~ se. chon may ..... "-- coiitiiiti¢ and -,ay bei~plav~-- -~-- ~ at~ucti~- a iucat,u, provided the following conditions are met: 4.032(6)(g) (i) The cooling structure or condenser shall not produce noise levels contrary to §§9.423 and 9.424 of this Code. 4.032(6)(g) (ii) The cooling structure or condenser shall be screened by landscaping, fencing, or other means rendering it concealed from view from adjacent property. 4.032(6)(g) (iii) The cooling structure or condenser shall not lie within a required drainage and/or utility easement. ...... (Code 072684, Ord. 84-3, 92-17, 98-5) 4.032(6) (h) Accessory. Antenna.q. Accessory Antennas shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVROs, short-wave dispatching antennas and amateur short- wave radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Accessory Antennas that are accessory to the principal use of property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: 4.032(6)(h) (i) i~og_kt. A ground mounted accessory antenna shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height from ground level. 4.032(6)(h) (ii) Yards. Accessory antennas shall not be located within the required front yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street, except for wall mounted antennas less than twenty- 4.03-10 four (24) inches in dimension, wall mounted to a principal building and the setback encroachment does not exceed two (2) feet. 4.032(6)(h) (iii) Roofs. If vegetation or obstructions interfere with satellite signals at a location in any allowable placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. 032(6)(h) (i) 4. v Setbacks. .............. '- - -' ............ S-uf.,QO~ ti iltll~ll Iltl ti tggl, L, II~.;LI. gu ~i~1,gl. Il t[3111 l{:l. IL}I LIIK;; IL/OI Olll.y O~ ~.,UII%.IILIUIII:gl ItI~IG lJ{~lllll[. Accessory antennas shall not be located within five (5) feet of any lot lines of adjoining lots or within a drainage or utility easement, 4.032(6)(h) (v) lt~l~g_,l~lll~. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory antenna requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural components data for the accessory antenna, including details of anchoring. The Building Official must approve the plans before installation. 4.032(6)(h) (vi) Lightning Protection. Each accessory antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of New Hope. 4.032(6)(h) (vii) Electrical Code. Accessory antenna electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of New Hope. ....... (Ord. 84-3, 88-8, 97-4) 4.032(6)(h) (viii) Color/Content. Accessory antennas shall be of a neutral color and any lettering or scenes contained on said device qualifying it as a 4.03-11 sign shall be subject to the regulations of sections 3.40 through 3.485 of the New Hope Sign Code. 4.032(6)(h) (ix) ~. The provisions of this section shall be applicable to all accessory antennas erected after April 7, 1988. All such structures existing prior to this date shall be addressed as legal non-conforming llSes. ........... (Ord. 88-8, 97-4) ........................ (Ord. 98-5) 4.033 Lot and Yard Requirements. 4.033 (1) Pu ~rpose. This section identifies minimum yard spaces, exceptions, and areas to be provided for in each zoning district. 4.033 (2) Minimum Lot Area Requirements. lot, yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimension so as to make such lot, yard or open space less than the minimum required by this Code, and if an existing yard or other open space is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. No required open space provided about any building or structure shall be included as a part of any open space required for another structure. aid Baildha~ Size R¢~ulatlons. the Disti-ict Lot Al-ca Lot-Width Building .u,vvv sq. ,. ~ ~ 4.03-12 4.033 (3) Platted and Unplatted Property. 4.033(3) (a) Platting Required. No building shall be constructed on unplatted property, except for the addition of accessory structures or additions to existing buildings.. Platting is required in all instances where Industrial Development Revenue Bonds or Tax Increment Districts or like governmentally sponsored financing is involved. 4.033(3) (b) Detailed Data Required. Any person desiring to improve property shall submit to the Building Official a survey or acceptable scale drawing of the premises and information on the location and dimensions of existing and proposed 4.03-13 structures, location of easements crossing the property, encroachments, and any other information which may be necessary to insure conformance to this Code. 4.033(3) (c) Future Streets. All buildings shall be so placed that they wi~ not obstruct future streets which may be constructed by the City in conformity with existing streets and according to the system and standards employed by the City. 4.033(3) (d) Principal Building. Except in the case of Planned Unit Development as provided for in Section 4.19 of this Code, not more than one principal building shall be located on a lot. The words "principal building" shall be given their common, ordinary meaning; in case of doubt or on any question of interpretation, the decision of the Building Official shall be final, subject to the right of appeal as provided in Chapter 1. For purposes of this Code, all shopping centers shah be interpreted as having more than one principal building, thus requiring that they be handled under Section 4.19, Planned Unit Development. 4.033 (4) ~ Open Space, '+:via'toy tu) 'vi I, · ~' m I . ~v~-y ..... "~'--"- ~' ...."'-' -' .... '":-- lllUltllYlU lIillllly UWUIaLLili~ 4.03-14 4.033 (4)~) Recr~tion Areas. ~ch multiple f~Hy bulldog or complex of two or more buBdMgs con~g eight (8) or mo~ dwe~g uMts sh~ Mclude visu~y defm~ or fenc~ active ~r~tion ~s. Sdd ~s n~ not be confi~ous. The s~e of the r~r~fion ~ sh~ be ~ exclu iv ofp~g loa~g ~-' ..... ~-- -' ............................ (Ord. 4.03-15 I-2 50 5-0(~ 4.033 (~ District Setback Exc~tions. 4.033(6) (a) ~e~ adja~nt st~c~s wit~ the s~e block haw front y~d setbacks dfffe~nt from thos~ ~uff~, the front y~d minimum setback sh~ be the average of the adjacent st~cmres. If there is ~y on~ adjacent st~cm~, the front y~d m~um setback sh~ be the avamge of the setback ~d ~ ~tback of ~e adja~nt st~cmra, h no case sh~ the ~um front y~d setback exc~ t~y f~t. '-' ~j ~. ,~ oa o~ie s~d~ of ~he o~d~,~ ~id five f~ oii th~ ................... (~id. 79-11, 84-3) 4:034 (4) ~p~iM Exc~ofions ~o Setback S~ndards. ~ ............. '-=- adjacent .......... ' ..... ' UIU~[II~ UUVU U~lll~llt ................... tu,-. ~J-~, 84- 4.03-16 4.033(6) lb) Setbacks _ "~ ....... 2'-~ .... ..................................... ~. ~ariiy-med Streets designated as~!i~ needs and requirements: 4.033(6).¢) (i) Along the the minimum front setback shall be seventy- five feet from the center line of the street or thirty-five feet from the street fight-of-way line, whichever is the greater setback. Medicine l. ake Road 36th Avenue North 42nd Avenue North 49th Avenue North Bass Lake Road West Broadway Winnetka Avenue State Highway 169 (including service roads) Boone Avenue North 4.033(6)(b) (ii) Where the side yard is adjacent to one-of above nmuvu tuu~vu~m,uva, ::?: ~I the minimum setback shall be thirty feet from the fight-of-way line or seventy feet from the center line of the street, whichever is the greater setback. ............... (Ord. 79-11, 84-3, 98-4) ' ~4(4) '-' '~-'~- -' ..... ' ............ ' .... " ....... ~ ................... ~'},U~I [~,,) OGLUaL.,IL3 aL tile; IIILGI3U_,A~LIUII UI ~..~Dll.ttlll IIIUIUUI:IIIICI. IG3 al. lit! iii ~y,,mtCtglCtpll [u/ ctuuvv~ ~tliu ia,,,uau ,,r:,nt-m-way~ aiid tllG LI~%,~I~ ~ii UIG II[IIL-UI-W~Ey Uil tilG ,_ .... 'L_ _',_ 1: .__ -'._ &eh UU ~ bULUdL~-e~, lille; Ill ~ UI tllG qUIJ. UltJuilt~ IUIIII~-,A~ Oy tllG · omw..,y ,lgm:-u--way ~iid "-- $t£~i -:-' ......... · :0-34~(-c) '-" "" ..... '- ............................. '--" '-- - IIIIG UltmWll llUlli ,a LWU liUiiLll$ 111~ 4.03-17 4.033(6) (c) Side and Rear Yard Setbacks for Industrial Districts Adjacent to Railroads. In either the General Industrial District or Limited Industrial District, the minimum side or rear yard setback from the lot line of the side or rear yard of the parcel adjacent to a railroad fight-of-way shall be ten (10) feet. 4.033(6) (e) Permitted Encroachments. This subsection is not intended to effect or make nonconforming any existing building, structure or use. Accordingly, the following provisions shall pertain to new construction only. ~~!ii~i( 4.03-18 following structural elements or equipment shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements: 4.033(6)(e) (i) Building Extensions In All Yards: Chimneys, hues, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves, gutters, and the like provided they do not project more than two feet into a yard. 4.033(6)(e) (ii) De,.cks, Stoops, etc. In All Yards: Terraces, steps, decks, stoops or similar features provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure or to a distance less than two feet from any lot line. 4.033(6)(e) (iii) In rear yards: Recreational and laundry drying equipment, arbors and trellises, balconies, breezeways, open porches, decks, detached outdoor living rooms, garages, and air conditioning or heating equipment. Porches, outdoor living rooms which become closed in and attached to the dwelling subsequent to initial construction of the principal dwelling shall not remain exempt from yard setback requirements. .............. (Ord. 79-11, 84-3) 4.033 (7) Subdivision of Dotible Btingalow ~~!:: Quadramir~um, or Townhouse Lots. The subdivision of base lots containing donbte bungakr~ ~~:~, quadraminiums, or townhouses to permit individual private ownership of a single dwelling unit within such a structure is acceptable upon approval by the City Council, but is contingent on the following requirements: 4.033(7) (a) Meet Zoning Requirements. Prior to a double bungalow ~~, quadraminium, or townhouse subdivision, the base lot must meet all the requirements of the zoning district. 4.03-19 4.033(7) Co) Minimum Area and Width. The following are minimum unit lot requirements for ,~u-o,~ o.,,~,,~,w ~ 'e, quadraminium, or townhouse subdivisions: ~,~i~{~.5..'.~..:.'.."..":2i~-:...'..'..~ Twinhome Quadraminium Townhouse Lot Area -7-;O00-~l:n~. 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 ~ii}i~}i}}~ii square feet Lot One-half the 50 ft. 20 feet Width ~~iiibase 4.033(7) (c) Principal Structure. There shall be no more than one principal structure on a base lot in all residential districts. The principal structure on a unit lot created in a ~,,,o,~ ~,,.,,~;,.~,~ ~~, quadraminium, or townhouse subdivision will be the portion of the attached dwelling existing or constructed on the platted unit lots. 4.033(7) (d) Conformity to Existing Setbacks. The principal structure on the base lot shall conform to the established setbacks and yard requirements of the zoning district. 4.033(7) (e) Accessory. Uses. Permitted accessory uses as defined by the zoning districts are acceptable provided they meet all the zoning requirements. 4.033(7) (t) Individual Public Utilities. Separate public utility services shall be provided to each subdivided unit and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 4.033(7) (g) Platting Required. The subdivision shall be platted and recorded in conformance to all other requirements of the New Hope Platting Code, specifically including the providing of a Subdivision Bond. ........................... (Ord. 84-3) 4.03-20 4.034 performance Standards. 4.034 (1) PuL'pose, The performance standards established in this section are designed to encourage high quality development by providing assurance that neighboring land uses will be compatible. The performance standards are also designed to prevent and eliminate those conditions that cause blight. All future development in the City shall be required to meet these standards. The standards shall also apply to existing development where so stated. The Building Official shall be responsible for enforcing these standards and may require the submission of information showing compliance or non- compliance with the standards. 4.034 (2) Conformance to Standards. Before any building permit or certificate of occupancy is approved, the Building Official shall determine whether the proposed use is likely to conform to the performance standards. The developer shall supply additional data about the proposed use (such as equipment to be used, hours of operation, method of refuse disposal, type and location of exterior storage, etc.), where required to do so by the Building Official. It may occasionally be necessary for a developer or business to employ specialized consultants to demonstrate that a given use will conform with the performance standards. ........................... (Code 072684) 4.034 (3) Fencing and Screening 4.034(3) (a) General Provisions. ..... ~ .....~ .......' ' -~' .... (2) ~,.,UIII[51 IUIIII~i.I U,y LIIU iiit6£SeC, iiOii ux twu ~uc.~t~ Oi- LU~ ~nt~ui-wa.y Of & 311~1.11 UU .[11 [,IIU IUIIII UI ~ LII~tlI[IK;; WlLII 4.034(3)(a) (i) The required screening provisions as specified in subsection (d) of this section, shall supersede, where applicable, the provisions of this Subsection. 4.03-21 4.034(3)(a) (ii) All posts or similar supporting instruments used in the construction of fences shall be ~-~ faced inward toward the property being fenced, unless symmetrical. 4.034(3)(a) (iii) No fence shall obstruct natural drainage. 4.034(3)(a) (iv) The height of a fence, in the case of grade separation, shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. 4.034(3)(a) (v) In the case of a comer lot with the building front oriented to the side yard abutting a street, fences over forty-two (42) inches may not encroach into either the required front yard setback or the required side yard setback abutting a street. 4.034(3) (b) Residential Fencing and Screening. Subject to the general provisions of this section: 4.03-22 4.034(3)(b) (i) Fences shall be at least five (5) percent open for passage of air and light. Fences not meeting this design standard will be treated as walls and will be required to meet building setbacks. 4.034(3)(b) (ii) Short Fences. Fences forty-two (42) inches in height or less may be located on any part of a lot. 4.034(3)(b) (iii) Tall Fences. Fences up to eight (8) feet in height may be located within the required side and rear yard setbacks of a lot which is behind the required front yard building setback as def'med by ~ilL.:gi~.,.i.:~.gig ............. g'""~l'"'~i~!.:~i~ili~ ............................................... 4.034(3) (c) Commercial and Industrial District Fences. Subject to the general provisions of this section: 4.034(3)(c) (ii) Commercial and industrial fences may be erected up to eight (8) feet in height. Fences in excess of eight (8) feet shall require a conditional use permit. 4.034(3)(c) (iii) Fences which are primarily erected as a Security measure may have projecting arms on which barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven (7) feet above the ground on condition that the arms and barbed wire do not encroach onto or over public right-of-way or property lines of adjacent property. 4.034(3)(c) (iv) Commercial and industrial fencing may be located within the required side and rear yard setback of a lot which is behind the required front yard building setback as def'med by 4.03-23 4.0B4(3) (d) Rcquire~cl Fencing and Screening. Where any business or industrial use (i.e., structure, parldng or storage) abuts prol~rty zoned for residential use, that business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of the residential.prop~n~y. Screening sBa]! also be provided where a business or industry is across the street from a residential zone, but not on that side of a business or industry considered to be tho front (as determined by the Building Official). All the fencing and screening specifically required by this Code shall be subject to (a), above, and shall consist of either a fence Or green belt planting strip as provided for below: 4.034(3)(d) (i) Green Belts. A green belt planting strip shall consist of evergreen trees and/or deciduous trees and large shrubs and shall be of sufficient width and density to provide an effective visual screen. This planting strip shall contain no structures. Such planting strips shall be designed to provide complete visual screening to a minimum height of six feet. F. arth mounding or berms may be used bUt shall not be used to achieve more than three feet of the required screen. The planting plan and type of plantings shall require the approval of the Planning Commission, which shall have before it the recommendations of the City Engineer or Building Official. 4.034(3)(d) (ii) ~cll:~[,F._.e, acJ~. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or steel. Such fence shall provide a solid screening effect and not exceed eight feet in height or be less than six feet in height. The design and materials used in constructing a required screening fence shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission which shall have before it recommendations of the City Engineer or Building Official. (Code 072684, Ord. 81-7, 82-17, 92-01) 4.03-24 4.034 (4) ],~tnlltc, api~. 4.034(4) (a) Required Landscaping - General Residential. The lot area remaining after providing for off-street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveways, building site and/or other requirements shall be landscaped using ornamental grass, shrubs, trees or other acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used in landscaping. Fences, ~~, or trees placed upon utility easements are subject to removal if required for the maintenance or improvement of the utility. ~':...~~i~~~i (The planting of large trees is not recommended under overhead wires). 4.034(4) Co) Required Landscaping - Semi-Public and all income producing property uses. Prior to approval of a building permit, all of the above uses shall be subject to a mandatory Landscape Plan requirement. Said Landscape Plan should be developed with an emphasis upon the following areas: The boundary or perimeter of the proposed site at points adjoining another existing or proposed site or sites: the immediate perimeter of the structure or building at points of its placement on the site; and the public boulevard areas at points of interface with streets or sidewalk areas of the city. All landscaping incorporated in a Landscape Plan shall conform to the following standards and criteria: ..................... (Code 072684) 4.034(4)Co) (i) Minimum Plant Sizes. All plants must equal not less than the following minimum sizes: ili !:'i ii iii i i Potted/Bare Root BalledfBurlapped Shade Trees 1-3/4" dia. 2" (Russian Olive, Hawthorn, etc.) Boulevard Tree 2.5" (Deciduous Trees) Evergreen Trees - 3-4 feet 4.03-25 Tall Shrubs and 3-4 feet 3-4 feet Hedge material (evergreen or deciduous) Low Shrubs: Deciduous 3 gallon 3 gallon Evergreen 18-24 inches 24-30 inches Spreading evergreen potted 18-24 inches Type and mode are dependent upon time of planting season, availability, and site conditions (soils, climate, ground water, man-made irrigation, grading, etc. *Ail ....' ............ '- ..... 2- LIII:U.I 4.034(4)Co) (ii) Spacing. 4.034(4)Co)(ii) (aa) Trees shall not be placed closer than five feet from the fence line or property line and shall not be planted to conflict with public planting. 4.034(4)Co)(ii) (bb) Where plant materials are planted in two or more rows, plantings shall be staggered in rows unless otherwise approved by the City. 4.034(4)Co)(ii) (cc) Deciduous boulevard trees shall be planted not more than forty feet apart. 4:'034(4-)(b)0i) ' .... - ..... ' ...... ' '- -' ..... IJIgU-ILU-AJ- IIUL IIIUIU Ulall llYg> [OJ IU,,~,,L UII 4.03-26 4.034(4)(b)(ii) (dr) Massing of plants where screening is intended, large deciduous shrubs shall not be planted more than four feet on center, and/or, evergreen shrubs shall not be planted more than three feet on center. ·.. (Code 072684) 4.034(4)(b) (iii) Prohibited boulevard/street trees. The following trees are specifically prohibited within the public right-of-way: Abies sp. Fir species Acer negundo Box Elder Acer Saecharinum Silver Maple Ginkgo biloba (female only) Ginkgo Picea sp. Spruce species Pinus sp. Pine species Populus alba (and varieties) White Poplar Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Populus nigra 'Italica' Lombardy Poplar Pseudotsuga sp. Douglas fir species Robina Pseudoacacia Black Locust Salix species Willow Tsuga sp. Hemlock species Ulmus species (non-disease Elm resistant) Understory deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs 4.034(4)(b) (iv) D_e3Jgn. 4.034(4)(b)(iv) (aa) The landscape plan must show a form of designed site amenities, (i.e. composition of plant materials, and/or creative site grading, decorative lighting, exterior sculpture, etc., which are largely intended for aesthetic purposes). 4.03-27 4.034(4)(b)(iv) (bb) All area within the property lines (or beyond, if site grading extends beyond) shall be treated. All exterior areas not paved or designated as roads, parking, or storage must be planted into ornamental vegetation lawns, ground covers, or shrubs unless otherwise approved by the City. 4.034(4)(b)(iv) (cc) Turf slopes in excess of 1:1.5 ~il are prohibited. 4.034(4)(b)(iv) (dd) All ground areas under the building roof overhang must be treated with a decorative mulch and/or foundation planting. 4.034(4)(b)(iv) (ee) All biiildiiigs iiiiist have ~~ ~ an exterior water spigot in a location adequate for providing for landscape maintenance. 4.034(4)(b)(iv) (fO Landscape Guarantee. All plants shall be guaranteed for one full year from the time planting has been completed. All plants shall be alive and in satisfactory growth at the end of the guarantee period or be replaced. (Code 072684, Ord. 89-8, 96~2) 4.034 (5) Glare. Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area, sign, or other structure, shall be arranged to deflect direct light away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets. Direct or sky-reflected glare, whether from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding shall not be 4.03-28 directed into any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in a manner so as not to light adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of property adjacent to the public right-of-way. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one foot candle (meter reading) as measured from the center line of the street. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed ~' .... ~' ........~.~,.,~'-- ~h~ la, JUl 1 ~,,J~.J [ ......... ~ii~i~i~ (meter reading) as measured at or on the adjoining property. 4.034 (6) Dust, Odor and Smoke. The emission of smoke odors, dust and other particulate matter by any use shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota ?ollution Control Standards. 4.034 (7) Noise. Noise shall not exceed the standards in the Noise Provisions of Chapter 9. ........................ (Ord. 79-11, 84-3) 4.034 (8) Refuse. 4.034(8) (a) Except for licensed vehicles in winter storage, passenger automobiles, station wagons and trucks not currently licensed by the state, or which are because of mechanical deficiency incapable of movement under their own power, are parked or stored outside for a period in excess of thirty days, and all other materials stored outside in violation of the City Code are considered refuse or junk and shall be removed from premises in the City. 4.034(8) (b) In all areas the owner of vacant land shall keep such land free of refuse, weeds and waste fill. 4.034 (9) Exterior Storage. 'All materials and equipment, except as specifically authorized elsewhere in this Code, shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, except for the following: 4.034(9) (a) Clothes line pole and wires. 4.034(9) (b) Recreational equipment and vehicles. 4.034(9) (c) Construction and landscaping material currently being used on the premises. 4.03-29 4.034(9) (d) Off-street parking of passenger vehicles and tracks not ex~g a gross weight of 12,000 pounds in R-l, R-2, R-3 ~ and R-4 District. 4.034 (10) Radiation and Electrical Emissions. No activity shall be permitted that emits dangerous radioactivity beyond enclosed areas. There shall be no electrical disturbance adversely affecting the operations at any point of any equipment other than that of the creator of such disturbances. 4.03-30 Zoning Code Update Committee December 2, 1999 Present: Roger Landy, Planning Commission Roger Rubin, Citizens Advisory Commission Rod Sanders, Citizens Advisory Commission Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation Guy Johnson, Operations Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official Sue Henry, Community Development Specialist Phil Kern, Administrative Assistant Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant Pam Sylvester, Recording Secretary Absent: Adam Kramer, Planning Commission Kathy Hemken, Planning Commission Patsy Green, Planning Commission 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Zoning Code Update Committee was called to order by Chair Roger Landy at 5:05 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Discussion of Crystal's Comprehensive Plan Mr. Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, stated that with the completion of the Comprehensive Plan, the City was now in the position to update its zoning regulations as a means of implementing its planning goals. The existing regulations have not been updated since their adoption in the 1970s. The Code would be reformatted to address the following items: 1) organize and consolidate complementary or similar topics or standards; consolidate information within the zoning districts including land uses, lot size, setbacks, building height to simplify access and understanding of each district's standards; and 3) eliminate the rollover land uses between zoning districts. The update would investigate opportunities to promote in-place expansion of buildings and site improvements and the City would examine current land use issues. Brixius added that making the Code more efficient would allow more administrative permits and eliminate the need for residents obtaining conditional use permits and variances for some items currently regulated more severely. Other sections of the Code have been moved from the general provisions to each specific district. McDonald explained that the Committee would be working its way through the Code section by section. There was some discussion regarding the process to keep the Planning Commission informed throughout the process. McDonald recommended that sections of the Code be reviewed by the Committee and then presented to the Planning Commission on a monthly basis so the Commission would not have to review the entire Code at one time and would have an opportunity for timely review and comment on the Committee recommendations. McDonald also suggested a joint work session between the Committee, Planning Commission and City Council once a preliminary re- draft had been completed, similar to the process followed with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Code Update Meeting Page 1 December 2, 1999 Section 4.01 - Title and Application No change other than adding 4.019A Comprehensive Revision, which states that this Chapter is a comprehensive revision of the Code and any act done, offense committed, rights accruing or accrued, liability, or penalty incurred or imposed prior to the effective date of this Chapter is not affected by its enactment. There was some general discussion on how the Code would be changed to make it easier to use. Section 4.02 - Rules and Definitions Brixius stated that this section would be completed last to provide a comprehensive list of definitions. Section 4.03 - General Provisions This section of the Code establishes development performance standards and applies to all zoning districts and development in the City. Section 4.031 - Non-Conforming Buildings, Structures, and Uses. Subsections 9, 10, and 11, which outline terms under which non-conforming buildings may be altered or expanded, were changed. Subsection 9 pertains to alterations and normal maintenance to lawful non-conforming buildings as long as the alteration does not increase the non-conformity of the building or use. Subsection 10 deals with administrative approvals for expansions of lawful non- conforming single- and two-family residential buildings. Subsections 10(a)(i) deals with height, yard setback and lot area and that the expansion would not increase the non-conformity. Section (10)(a)(ii) states that the units may be expanded to improve the livability provided the non-conformity of the structure is not increased. It was mentioned that many of the non-conforming single family units in the City are on corner lots facing the "wrong" street. Section (10)(b) pertains to conditional use permits for non-conforming structures. Section (i) states that expansion of non-conforming buildings by only reason of height and setback are exempt from requiring a CUP, as long as the expansion would not increase the non-conformity. Currently a variance is required and hardship would need to be proven. Section (11) pertains to non-conforming lots and states that lot measurements for lot area and width would need to be within 75 percent of the applicable zoning district standards, and that setbacks are met. Section 4.032 - General Building Requirements Section 4.032(1)(a) Clarification of temporary living quarters - change language to specify on private property. Section 4.032(a) Habitable floor area has been reduced for single- and two-family homes to 1,000 square feet. The current listing of 1,240 and 1,050 included the garage space. Section 4.032(4) - Building width has been moved to this section. Section 4.032(5)(a) - Building height has been moved to this section. Section 4.032(5)(b) Exceptions o the words "mounted on a building" was added to §4.032(5)(b)(vii) flag poles. Section 4.032(5)(c) pertains to rooftop mechanical equipment dealing with height, buffered to mitigate noise, and color clad to match building or screened from view. Existing code does not state specific screening standards. Section 4.032(5)(d) pertains to aviation obstruction standards and was added per Metropolitan Council requirement. Section 4.032(6)(c) pertains to permitted side yard reductions and the fact that they would be allowed via administrative approval. References to §4.032(3)(ii) and (iii) would be changed to read §4.032(6)(ii) and (iii). Section 4.032(6)(d) The square footage had been changed for garages and accessory buildings in 1998, however, the words "Minnesota State Building Code as identified as" were added. Zoning Code Update Meeting Page 2 December 2, 1999 Section 4.032(6)(g) would allow side yard air conditioners if they meet certain requirements, i.e., noise levels, screened, and not in a drainage/utility easement. Currently air conditioners are only allowed in rear yards. This change had been recommended by the Planning Commission previously due to the fact that the newer units are much quieter than units installed years ago in the rear yards. The Committee discussed that the City Council did not previously support this change, but the Committee would like to request reconsideration on this issue. The Committee discussed that it does not seem reasonable to allow some property owners to have side yard air conditioners and not allow other property owners the same consideration. Section 4.032(6)(h)(i) states that "an accessory antenna attached to an antenna support structure may extend five feet above the peak of the roof of the principal building only by CUP." This statement was moved to this section and deleted from setbacks. The word "extend" would be changed to exceed and there was discussion that the entire statement should be clarified. Section 4.033 - Lot and Yard Requirements Brixius stated that lot areas, widths, and setback standards are being moved to the zoning districts for ease of use. Section 4.033(3)(f) pertaining to double front lots was eliminated. Section 4.033(4) dealing with open space was revised to simplify the required open space requirements. §4.033(4)(a) stated that building shall not occupy more than 65 percent of the lot area, resulting in 35 percent open space. There was a lot of discussion regarding "active" recreation areas for multiple dwellings and the fact that it did not apply to R-5 senior or physically handicapped multiple family dwellings. The consensus was to revisit this section and discuss it again at the next meeting. Section 4.033(5) states that all building setbacks have been moved to the applicable districts except as may be required within other sections of the Code. There was some discussion relating to setbacks where a proposed non-residential structure would be located adjacent to a residential district. Section 4.033(6)(b) - The word "thoroughfare" has been changed to reflect arterial and community collector streets, pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan. Brixius noted that sections of the Code dealing with setbacks at the intersections of certain thoroughfares and railroads had been eliminated because these railroad crossings are now controlled. Section 4.033(6)(d) dealing with sight triangle setbacks were added to this section of the Code and eliminated in other areas. Brixius noted that the sentence "Buildings shall not be built upon or extend over easements of record" was added to §4.033(6)(e), per the request of city staff. Section 4.033(7) had a wording change from "double bungalow" to twinhome. The lot size for a twinhome was reduced to 6,000 square feet per unit, which was consistent with research pertaining to twinhome development. There was considerable discussion on the square footage reduction and whether or not current units would comply with this reduced standard. This item would be revisited as the Planning Consultant will present information from other communities. Section 4.033(3)(a)(i) was moved to 4.033(6)(d). It was noted that this section be revised to include the eight foot height minimum where the landscaping would impede visibility in the sight triangle. Zoning Code Update Meeting Page 3 December 2, 1999 Discussion ensued on fencing/landscaping in utility easements. It was determined that a statement be included that any landscaping/fencing within the easement area would be the responsibility of the property owner if the City needed to utilize the easement area. .Brixius noted that §4.034(3)(c) requires fences to be at least five percent open for passage of light and air. Brixius stated that some of the landscaping spacing requirements were deleted as in §§4.034(4)(b)(ii)(dd), (ee), and (fi). Section 4.034(4)(b)(iv)(cc) was changed to read "turf slopes in excess of 2:1 are prohibited." After some discussion on this point, the consensus was to change this to 3:1. §4.034(4)(b)(iv)(ee) maintains that all landscaped areas must be irrigated or have access to an exterior water spigot. Section 4.034(4)(b)(iv)(gg) - Landscape maintenance was added, and states that all plants required as part of a landscaping plan be maintained and kept alive, and that dead plants shall be replaced. The new language was added to address Council concerns on landscaping replacement. Section 4.035(5) was changed to read "one foot candle" rather than four foot candles. There was extensive discussion regarding §4.034(9)(b) recreational equipment and vehicles. This matter had previously been discussed by the Citizens Advisory Commission on several occasions and staff recommended that the issue be discussed by the Zoning Code Committee along with other front yard issues. Staff suggested that the existing language in the City Code regarding parking on the public right-of-way be clarified and strengthened. Rubin, Sanders and Landy indicated their major concerns were safety issues and that they did not necessarily want to prohibit the parking of RVs in front yards, but that they did not think they should extend down to the street. The City Attorney indicated he did not feel this Committee was the appropriate place for the RV discussion because it may overshadow all the other Zoning Code issues. It was determined that the Planning Consultant would complete further research on this issue and present it either to this Committee or CAC. Rubin indicated that if the issue was not going to be addressed by the Zoning Code Committee that he would bring the issue back to the Citizens Advisory Commission. Brixius stated that he would make the changes to the Code as recommended by the Committee. Due to time constraints the Committee would begin the discussion at the next meeting with §4.035 Off- Street Parking. 8. Schedule Next Meeting The date for the next meeting was scheduled for January 20, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. 9. Adjournment The Zoning Code Update Committee meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester Recording Secretary Zoning Code Update Meeting Page 4 December 2, 1999 · COUNCIL RE UF. T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda _Agenda Section Community Development Consent 5-/~ Item No. ByKirk McDonald By:. 6.4 / MOTION APPROVING PROPOSAL BY NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS TO UPDATE THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,000 (PLANNING CASE NO. 99-06) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests that the City Council approve a motion approving the attached proposal by Northwest Associated Consultants in the amount of $17,000 to update the New Hope Zoning Code. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The City has utilized Northwest Associated Consultants as a professional planning consultant for many years and has been proactive in keeping the city ordinances up to date. Northwest Consultants has coordinated with the City on numerous planning studies in the past and most recently coordinated with the City on the 1998 Sign Code update and Comprehensive Plan update. BACKGROUND Now that the Comprehensive Plan update has been completed, one of the next steps is to update the zoning regulations as a means of implementing the planning goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The update is also necessary because the existing regulations have not been comprehensively updated since the 1970s. Lastly, the update of the Zoning Ordinance portion of the City Code will be a starting point to comprehensively update all sections of the City Code over the next several years. The proposal by Northwest outlines specific areas that need attention, including: 1. Format - The current format is confusing and difficult to use and will be reformatted to organize and consolidate complementary or similar topics, consolidate all information pertaining to a specific zoning district in one section, and eliminate the roll-over land uses between zoning districts. 2. Strategies to promote reinvestment - Recognizing that New Hope is a fully developed city, the update will investigate opportunities to promote in-place expansion of buildings and site improvements, including setback standards, parking requirements, and density standards for targeted redevelopment areas. (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY // I RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 5-10-99 3. Examine current land use issues - Some of these issues will include redevelopment densities/ performance standards, outdoor storage, accessory buildings, hours of operation, and administrative approvals. The work program would be similar to the Comprehensive Plan, where a working committee would be established including members of the Planning and Citizen Advisory Commissions and city staff, along with the City Attorney and Planning Consultant. A preliminary meeting would be held to discuss areas of concern, additional meetings would be conducted to review the first and second drafts, an informational meeting and public hearing would be held, and a final draft of the regulations would be prepared consistent with the conditions of approval by the City Council. The City Attorney would put the ordinance update in final form. FUNDING Staff did not solicit competitive quotes for the Zoning Code update, because competitive quotes are not required for professional services and because of Northwest Consultants familiarity with the City's regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, which ultimately will reduce project costs. Also, the initial proposal submitted by Northwest was in the amount of $18,860, and after staff requested that they fine tune the proposal, the cost estimate was reduced to $17,000. There are funds budgeted in the 1999 Planning/Inspections/EDA budgets for the Zoning Code update. Attachments: 4/22/99 NAC Zoning Code Update Proposal Original Cost Estimate Excerpts - Comprehensive Plan Administration COMMUNITY PLANNiNG DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 22 April 1999 RE: New Hope Zoning Ordinance Update FILE NO: 802 Per your request, I am submitting the Zoning Ordinance update proposal with an adjusted budget. Please note that the adjustment represents a 10 percent reduction in project cost. The original work program and budget was designed specifically for New Hope zoning update. In review of the work program against the New Hope Zoning Ordinance, I believe that it is a true representation of the work and process necessary for updating the City's development regulation. The original budget amount of $18,860 represents a discounted price compared to similar work we have done in other cities which ranges from $20,000 to $30,000. I felt comfortable with the discounted price due to my familiarity with the City through the Comprehensive Plan and our daily contacts. This familiarity will reduce project costs. The original project cost does not allow for any significant cost reduction, however, I have reduced the project contingency from $2,460 to $600, resulting in a total project cost of $17,000. Please call me if you have any questions. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM N COMMUNITY PLANNING DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald / Dan Donahue FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 21 April 1999 RE: New Hope - Zoning Ordinance Update Proposal: Revised FILE NO: 802 BACKGROUND With the completion of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan, the City is now in the position to update its zoning regulations as a means of implementing its planning goals. This update is also necessary because the existing regulations have not been comprehensively updated since their adoption in the 1970's. The following proposal outlines zoning issues and a work program for updating the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. ISSUES Based on NAC's involvement in the City's Comprehensive Plan and our on-going involvement with New Hope's planning and zoning administration, we have identified the following areas of the Zoning Ordinance as requiring attention in the ordinance update: 1. Format. The current Zoning Ordinance format is confusing and difficult to use. We would propose to reformat the Zoning Ordinance to address the following items: a. Organize and consolidate complementary or similar topics or standards within the ordinance. 5775 WAYZATA 'BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 I 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.COM b. Consolidate information within the zoning districts including land uses, lot size, setbacks, building height to simplify access and understanding of each district standards. c. Eliminate the rollover land uses between zoning districts. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies strategies to promote reinvestment in the City's land use. Recognizing that New Hope is a fully developed City, the Zoning Ordinance update will investigate opportunities to promote in-place expansion of buildings and site improvements, including but not limited to: a. Setback standards b. Lot area and lot area per unit standards c. Parking standards d. Green space requirements e. Density standards for redevelopment target areas f. I-1 special performance standards 3. Through the zoning update, the City will examine current land use issues present in the City: a. Redevelopment densities and performance standards b. Outdoor storage c. Home occupations d. Accessory buildings e. Administrative approvals f. Business hours of operation The aforementioned list of issues is not all inclusive, rather it provides initial direction and understanding for the anticipated changes. Additional issues will be identified and responded to through the work program. WORK PROGRAM Process The following process will be followed in updating the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Project Start Up and Organization 1. Meeting with City planning, legal, public works, building and housing inspection staff to identify issues, concerns, conflicts or enforcement problems pertaining to the existing Zoning Ordinance. More than one meeting may be appropriate to 2 discuss the various ordinances. This discussion will provide NAC with insight on regulation issues that were not identified in the Comprehensive Plan planning process. 2. The project start up will also involve defining the review process for the new material. We would anticipate a Zoning Ordinance Update Committee will be established as the contact group that will conduct the preliminary review and editing of the updated Zoning Ordinance. (The Committee may consist of the Codes and Standards Subcommittee or the Comprehensive Plan Task force, or an entirely new Committee.) The City should determine how the project will be assigned. Through the start up meeting, we can define the project review process. 3. A Planning Commission workshop session would be scheduled to identify Current zoning issues or ordinance concerns that will require attention in the Zoning Ordinance Update. First Draft Regulations NAC will undertake a comprehensive review of the City's entire Zoning Ordinance and evaluate the effectiveness of the existing regulations as they relate to the new Comprehensive Plan goals, land use issues and enforcement concerns identified by City staff. NAC will prepare a first draft of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. In developing the first draft of development regulations, NAC will work with Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, to insure that the proposed format is consistent with the City Codes and to insure the new regulations have a strong legal foundation. 1. First Draft Review. The first draft ordinance will be sent to City staff for review. Work sessions with staff will be conducted to edit the ordinance per the staff review comments. To expedite the review process, the first staff workshop will consist of overview of the entire first draft ordinance for format and content. This overview will identify areas of the draft ordinance that are complete and satisfactory as well as areas requiring additional work. Subsequent meetings will be conducted with staff to address topics and ordinance language that require greater attention. 2. Presentation to Zoning Update Committee and City Council. Once the ordinance is processed through staff review, it will be sent to the New Hope Zoning Ordinance Update Committee and City Council for review and comment. NAC will attend the committee meetings to solicit input from these various groups. NAC will summarize the committee comments and present both the first draft regulations and a comment summary to the City Council at a workshop. The Council workshop will provide direction for needed revisions or additions to the first draft ordinance. 3 Second Draft Regulations Based on the outcome of the Council workshop, NAC will prepare a second draft of the development regulations along with a summary of the proposed changes. 1. Second Draft Review and Presentation. The second draft of the Zoning regulations will again be reviewed and edited by the City Attorney and City staff. Prior to public hearing, the second draft will be presented and reviewed with the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. 2. Informational Meeting. The City may wish to include informational meetings for the public prior to a public hearing at this stage of the work program. 3. Public Hearing. Following the second draft review, NAC will present the second draft development regulations to the Planning Commission at public hearing. Upon action by the Planning Commission, NAC will present the second draft to City Council along with any recommended changes resulting from the City staff review, Planning Commission review, or public testimony. Final Draft Regulations NAC will prepare a final draft of the development regulations consistent with the conditions of approval by City Council. Summary Ordinance NAC will prepare a final draft of the development regulations consistent with the conditions of approval by City Council. PROJECTSCHEDULE Based on the work program outline the total update of the New Hope Zoning Regulations is anticipated to take nine months. Assuming a start up date of 1 April 1999, the project completion would occur in December 1999. 4 PROJECT PERSONNEL Alan Bdxius, a Principal of NAC, will be the primary staff person assigned to updating the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Brixius has been involved in New Hope's planning since 1983 and most recently was involved in drafting the 1998 New Hope Comprehensive plan. This provides him with a unique historical perspective for the project. Mr. Brixius will be responsible for the majority of ordinance production work and the public meetings. Daniel Licht and Troy Hagen, Planners with NAC, will be the primary support staff people assigned to assist Mr. Brixius in research and preparation of the New Hope Zoning Regulations. PROJECT BUDGET Based on the work program, the following budget was prepared for updating the New Hope Zoning Regulations: Project Start Up and Organization $1,200 Consultant Draft of the Zoning Text $8,500 First Draft Review/Editing/Summary $3,700 Second Draft Review/Editing/Final Draft $2,500 Ordinance Summary $ 500 $16,400 Contingency $ 600 TOTAL $17,000 The budget does not include ordinance reproduction costs. NAC will provide reproducible copies of the first and second draft ordinance for staff review. Additional copies for distribution shall be the responsibility of the City. NAC will provide the City with one reproducible paper copy of the final Zoning Ordinance and a copy on diskette in word processing software compatible with the City and City Attorney. 5 PROJECT BUDGET Based on the work program, the following budget was prepared for updating the New Hope Zoning Regulations: Project Start Up and Organization $1,200 Consultant Draft of the Zoning Text $8,500 First Draft Review/Editing/Summary $3,700 Second Draft Review/Editing/Final Draft $2,500 Ordinance Summary $ 500 $16,400 15% Contingency $2,460 TOTAL $18,860 The budget does not include ordinance reproduction costs. NAC will provide reproducible copies of the first and second draft ordinance for staff review. Additional copies for distribution shall be the responsibility of the City. NAC Will provide the City with one reproducible paper copy of the final Zoning Ordinance and a copy on diskette in word processing software compatible with the City and City Attorney. At this point, the number of public meetings has not been defined. The project budget does not include public meetings with the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee, Planning Commission or City Council.. We propose to charge a fiat rate of $150 per person per meeting for meeting attendance. CONCLUSION Upon your review, we are available to meet and discuss the proposal and make any adjustments that you decide appropriate. Please call me with any questions. 5 ,,, · ADMINISTR_ATIOFJ Administration Administration and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and related supportive ordinances are equally as important as the development of the plan itself. In' essence, unless the plan and related development tools are constantly referred to and utilized in combination, as well as long range community decision-making, the efforts spent in their development become futile and wasted. BUDGETING AND FINANCE The Comprehensive Plan recognizes New Hope as a fully developed, mature community. The plan recommendations emphasize the need for continuing land use maintenance, redevelopment and provision of quality public services. Under this circumstances, concerns have been expressed with regard to expanding future public expenditures. In response to this issue, the City will continue to implement the following strategies: 1. Continue the City's proactive public facilities maintenance programs to avoid significant disrepair or breakdown. 2. Maintain a five year Capital Improvement Plan that identifies needed public capital improvements, assigns costs and schedules implementation based on project priority and funding availability. 3. Continue the City's long standing practice of assessing benefitted property owners for public infrastructure improvements. 4. Pursue intergovernmental cooperation for sharing public services and facilities, to avoid duplication and economize on City investments. 5. Promote the maintenance, modernization and expansion of local land uses to preserve the expand the City's tax base and revenues. 6. Pursue available state and federal grants and aids as appropriate to facilitate community improvements and programs. COMMUNITY SERVICES Through good communication with the public and responsiveness to residents' needs, the City administration has been cited as a community strength. High quality resident service will continue to be the standard for City operations in the future. City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Development Pramawork 71 Administration ~'~ ORDINANCES As a means of implementing the stated land use goals for New Hope, the City will investigate the following potential changes to City ordinances: 1. Zoning Ordinance. a. Within the residential zoning districts, the City will investigate alternative performance standards for accommodating in-place expansion or alteration of existing housing units in an effort to promote private reinvestment. Items to be considered for change may include standards for lot size, setbacks, building height and accessory buildings. b. Within commercial and industrial zoning districts, the City has already undertaken zoning changes to promote in-place expansion. The City will continue to pursue efforts that promote expansion, reuse or modernization of the City commercial and industrial sites. Items to be considered for change may include standards for lot size, setbacks, green space and parking standards. 2. Housing Maintenance Code. The New Hope Housing Maintenance Code has been an invaluable instrument for the City in addressing housing conditions of single family and apartment housing units. However, medium density housing types such as twinhomes and townhomes which have switched from owner occupancy to rental occupancy often escape the inspection required by the Housing Maintenance Code. As cited in the Land Use Plan, the medium density residential areas are most commonly in need of maintenance or repair. The City will pursue ordinance changes that will more effectively bring the medium density housing under the New Hope Housing Maintenance Code. 3. Sign Orcanerme.' The City is presently updating its Sign Code as a means to assisting local businesses. In the Sign Code update, the following objectives are being pursued: a. The Sign Code update is intended to become more business friendly and competitive with the signage offered in adjoining cities. b. The Sign Code format and language is attempting to become easier to use and understand. City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Development Framework 72 Administration c. The Sign Code update promotes content neutral regulations and more uniform City-wide regulations for ease of interpretation and enforcement. RESIDENTIAL MAINTENANCE/REDEVELOPMENT The enhancement of the City's existing housing stock is a primary goal of the City. In working towards this goal, the following efforts will be undertaken. 1. The City will continue to aggressively implement the rehabilitation and redevelopment programs identified in the New Hope Housing Action Plan as a means of renovating existing housing stock. 2. The City enforce its Housing Maintenance Code at point of sale to insure code compliant housing. 3. The City will participate with other cities in the Housing Remodeling Fair that disseminates information on housing repairs, remodeling, and alterations in an effort to promote private reinvestment in the City's housing stock. 4. The City will provide and maintain high quality public infrastructure and services as a means of protecting housing values. 5. Larger scale redevelopment efforts will be pursued as funding permits. Collaborative efforts with other jurisdictions, housing agencies, or private sector interests will be sought to reduce the financial burden of redevelopment on the City. COMMERCIAL MAINTENANCE/REDEVELOPMENT The business retention and expansion of New Hope's commercial and industrial land uses is seen as a priority in maintaining a strong tax base. In fulfilling this objective, the following efforts will be implemented: 1. Investigate changes to the development regulations that will allow the for in-place expansion of the City's commercial and industrial land uses. 2. Pursue the acquisition, assembly and redevelopment of small marginal commercial sites in an effort to attract larger contemporary retailers or service providers. City of New Hope CompreY~nsive Plan Updat, Development Framework 73 Administration 3. Cooperate with the_ private property owners in the renovation and redevelopment of the City's shopping centers. 4. Amend the sign regulations to allow New Hope sign opportunities to be competitive with adjoining communities.  Cit~ of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Development Framework 74 Memorandum To: Planning Commission Members From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Date: December 30, 1999 Subject: Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on Council/EDA/HRA actions. It is not required reading and 'is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. December 13 Council/EDA Meetin.qs - At the December 13 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Resolution Declarinq January 8-9, 2000, "Boxing Days" in the City of New Hope: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Project #514, Resolution Approving Agreement with Events of Distinction to Assist with Coordination of 2000 Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Resolution Approving Renewal of Contract for Production of City Newsletter, Summer Bulletin, and Annual Report: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Resolution Approving Re-Appointments to Citizens Advisory Commission, Human Ri.qhts Commission, Personnel Board, Planninq Commission, and Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council: Approved, see attached Council request. Paul Anderson, Kathi Hemken, and Adam Kramer were all re-appointed to the Planning Commission. E. Project #653, Resolution Awardinq Contract for Demolition of the Home and Garaqe at 5340 Winnetka Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. F. Project #668, Motion Authorizin.q Staff to Neqotiate to Purchase the Property at 6003 West Broadway: Authorized staff to negotiate, see attached Council request. G. Project #612, Public Hearing - Resolution Approvin.q Sale of 5629 Wisconsin Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. H. Project #660, Public Hearinq - Resolution Approving Development Contract and Sale of Habitat for Humanity, Inc. of 8808 41st Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. I. Planninq Case 99-24, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Limited Retail Sales in an Industrial Zoninq District for Products Manufactured or Processed on the Site, 4301 Quebec Avenue: Approved, see attached Council resolution. Council added Condition #5 regarding green area with landscaping on south property line. Refer to Council minutes for more information. J. Project #597, Discussion Re.qardin.q Proposed Development for City-owned Property at 9200 49th Avenue and Authorization for Staff to Neqotiate on Potential Sale of Property: Authorized staff to negotiate, see attached EDA request. 2. Codes & Standards Committee - Codes & Standards did not meet. 3. Desi.qn & Review Committee - Design & Review met to review revised plans for L&A Homes eight- unit townhome development at 49thNVinnetka Avenues. 4. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee did not meet in December. Attached is a letter sent to Maple Grove regarding its Land Use Plan, which was reviewed by the Planning Consultant. 5. Zoning Code Update Committee - The Committee met on December 2 to review the first section of the Zoning Code. The next meeting is scheduled for January 20. 6. Elections -. Elections for Planning Commission officers will be conducted at the January Planning Commission meeting (see separate attachment). 7. Proiect Bulletin - Enclosed for your information is a project bulletin regarding the demolition of the Ardel Engineering building at 7500 42"d Avenue. 8. Miscellaneous Issues: A. City staff continued to work on the following potential developments: 1) Met on 49th & Winnetka housing development 2) Keelor Steel expansion - filing expected in future 3) SuperAmerica new construction on Medicine Lake Road/Hillsboro - filing expected in future 4) Continue to discuss Navarre expansion - expect filing in January or February 5) No further action on A.C. Carlson property 6) Avtec application administratively extended until April. 7) 36th and Winnetka site - several inquiries received 8) 9200 49th Avenue - staff is working with a local business on the potential acquisition of City property and construction of a 30,000 square foot building 8. Planninq Commission Roster - Attached separately is the current roster of Planning Commission members. (attached to election information) 9. Miscellaneous Articles - The November issue of Zoning News is attached, as well as excerpts from the Zoning Bulletin, for your information. Attachments: Boxing Days 2000 Remodeling Fair Contract for Production of City Newsletter Commission Re-Appointments 5340 Winnetka Demo Contract 6003 West Broadway Negotiate Purchase Public Hearing on Sale of 5629 Wisconsin Public Hearing on Sale of 8808 41st Avenue 4301 Quebec Revised Resolution 9200 49th Avenue Proposed Development Maple Grove Land Use Plan Project Bulletin Miscellaneous Articles COD'NCZ[, Ot'~~ De33azl:z~t A,~pm~d for.~.~eada .~e~da Secuon Community Development Consent 12-13-99 Phil Kern ~ Itea'~ No. Administrative Assistant RESOLUTION DECLARING JANUARy"'8-9, 2000, "BOXlNG DAYS" IN THE CITY OF NEW HOPE. ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution deClaring January 8-9, 2000, "Boxing Days" in the City of New Hope. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The City has been supportive of its business community and efforts to raiSe public awareness about the importance of recycling. BACKGROUND In 1998, the City passed a resolution in support of Liberty Diversified Industry's (LDI) "Boxing Days" recycling event. LDI, one of the City's largest employers, sponsors the program to collect cardboard from City residents for recycling purposes. In the past, the event has been publicized in New Hope's City Report and on the 42nd Avenue readerboard sign. With the support of the Council, the City will again assist LDI with public announcements. The event will take place on Saturday and Sunday, January 8 and 9, 2000. The City Manager has approved the usage of the City Hall parking lot for the event. LDI has contracted for several dumpsters to be located in the parking lot for cardboard drop-offs. A local boy scout troop will provide staffing for the event. Residents of New Hope will be encouraged to bring their cardboard from the holiday season to the City Hall parking lot to be recycled. LDI judged last year's "Boxing Days" as a success, with over 3200 pounds of cardboard recycled at the New Hope City Hall drop-off location. ATTACHMENT 11/23/99 Correspondence from LDI MO'ZION BY. S~.,COh'D BY TO: Liberty Diversified Industries 5600 N. Highway 169 · Minneapolis. MN 55428-3096 · (612) 536-6600 · FAX (612) 536-6665 · www. liberty0iversified.com November 23, 1999 Mr. Kh'k McDonald Community. Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Kirk: I was pleased to receive Phil Kern's phone call last week md(eating that New Hope would again be participating m Boxing Days. Because Chrisunas and New Year's fall on weekends this year, we have chosen to hold Boxing Days on one weekend only- January. 8 and 9, 2000. The hours will be from 9:00 a.m-4:00 p.m. each day.. If you would like further information for publication m your city newsletter or on your ciD' cable program. please contact Kristin Scoa at 536-6623. We will be inserting flyers m the Golden Valley-New Hope SunPost We will need to drop a container at the City Hall parking lot at 4401 Xylon Avenue North. We would like the container placed on the east side of the parking lot (next to Xylon Avenue, centered between the parking lot entrance and exit). If you will sign this letter at the bottom and return it to me via fax (612-536-6812), I will forward it to our waste hauler. Sincerely, Semor Account Executive Cc Kristin Scoa Ann Miller Larry. Brauch '- I herebty4jive permis~o~to chop a dumpster at the New Hope City Hall site on the dates listed above. Date RF UI T FOR ACTION Originating Depa, I.~ent Approved for A~enda A~enda Section Community Development Consent  Item No. B~. Kirk McDonald BY:'1 6.5, RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMEN~//WITH EVENTS OF DISTINCTION TO ASSIST WITH , COORDINATION OF 2000 NORTHWEST SUBURBAN REMODELING FAIR (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 514 REQUESTED ACTION !Staff requests approval of the resolution approving the Letter of Agreement with Events of Distinction to assist with the coordination of the 2000 Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE A consultant has been utilized in the past to assist with workshops and solicitation of door prizes from exhibitors. BACKGROUND The five CO-OP Northwest Cities (New Hope, Crystal, Robbinsdale, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park), Plymouth, and Northwest Hennepin Human Service desire to join together to sponsor the annual Remodeling Fair to encourage homeowners/residents to upgrade/remodel existing homes in our cities. The Remodeling Fa/rs of the previous seven years have been very successful with over 70 exhibitors and approximately 2,500 attendees. The Fair is scheduled to be held on Saturday, April 8, 2000, at the Crystal Community Center on Douglas Drive. The objectives of the NW Suburban Remodeling Fair are to provide homeowners with: 1) remodeling ideas/techniques; 2) advice on working with remodeling professionals; 3) information on city requirements; 4) financing altematives/programs by local banks; and 5) examples of interesting remodeling projects. The Remodeling Fair will include exhibits provided by professionals in the field of remodeling and home improvements and workshops that provide information/advice on various remodeling and home improvement topics. The Police, Fire and Building Inspections Departments from the six cities will also have informational booths at the Fair. - (Cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: ' RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 12-13-99 Staff from the six cities will be responsible for a majodty of the tasks associated with the Fair, including exhibitor registration/confirmation/booth assignment, marketing, facility set-up, and refreshments. The six cities again desire to hire a consultant to assist with the planning/scheduling of workshops and the solicitation/procurement of door prizes from exhibitors. Staff from the six cities desire to enter into an agreement with Evens of Distinction, the same consultant that has been used in the last several years for these services. Events of Distinction has submitted a quote in an amount not to exceed $3,000 to perform these tasks. This firm does an excellent job coordinating with the cities on the Fair and their pdce is considerably less than quotes submitted by other consultants in pdor years. New Hope is again coordinating the registrations for the Fair and the receipt/disbursement of revenues/expenses for the Fair; therefore, this agreement needs to be approved by New Hope even though it is addressed to Crystal. It is anticipated that there will be no cost to the cities to host the Fair, as the income dedved from the sale of booths for exhibits pays for advertising and consultant expenses. Attachments · Resolution · Letter of Agreement ~ COUNCIL Origina~ Demu u.ent ~p~ for ~a ~m~ ~uon Communi~ Development Consent 2-13-99 lt~ No. ~usan Hen~ ~ 6.7 'RESOLUTION APPROVING RENEWAL OF CONTACT FOR PRODUCTION OF CITY NEWSLE~ER, SUMMER BULLETIN, AND ANNUAL REPORT. REQUESTED ACTION The enclosed resolution has been prepared by the Assistant Ci~ AEomey approving the renewal of the ~ contract with ScoE Shore d/b/a Lure Design for production of various ci~ print publi~tions for the Year : 2000. Staff recommends approval. POLICWPAST P~CTICE The contract for city print projects is reviewed and renewed on an annual basis. Sco~ Shore has beer working on ci~ publi~tions for the past several years. The contact with Shorn was last renewed at the December 28, 1998, Council meeting, for the Year 1999. BACKGROUND Lure Design has done a satisfacto~ job with ci~ print production projects over the past several yearn. The only change from last year's contract is updating the dates for the 2000 completion schedule. Shore has informed staff he does not intend to raise his rates at this time. The contract with Shore will include of a wide range of print production projects. The City Repod publication is published and distributed to residents six times per year. In addition, the contract includes one edition of the Parks and Recreation Summer Activities Bulletin and one edition of the Ci~'s Annual 'Repo~. The major responsibilities of the production fi~ are to take a~icles prepared by city staff and layout the newsleEer, inse~ photos, and deliver the newsle~er to the printer. The printer takes ~re of mailing out the newsle~ers. ~UNDING An appropriate amount for the production, printing, and mailing of the City Repo~, Summer Activities Bulletin, and Annual Repo~ is budgeted for 2000 in the Unallo~ted Fund of the Ci~ Budget. A~ACHMENTS ·Resolution ·City AEomey Co~esponden~ ·Contract M~ON ~ S~O~ ~ . ~U'~T FOR ACTION Originating Dc, perUnent ,N~praved for ~ ~ ~cuon City Clerk 12-13-99 Consent " Valerie Leone It~ No. / RESOLUTION APPROVING RE-AP~INTMENTS TO CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, PERSONNEL BOARD, P~NNING COMMISSION, AND NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL Terms of several commission members will expire December 31, 1999. Staff has received the following responses from present members: Commission Member Response Citizens Adviso~ John Devine Requests re-appointment lone-year term) Brenda Fromm Requests re-appointment Tad Johnson Requests re-a~pointment Chris Lange Requests re-appointment Carole Nelson No response (decline re-appt) Roger Rubin Requests re-appointment Erika Runge Declined re-appointment Rod Sanders Requests re-appointment Thomas Schmidt Requests re-appointment Human Rights Irene Gomez-Bethke Declined re-appointment at this (two-year term) time Personnel Board Douglas Andersen Requests re-appointment (3-year term) Planning Paul Anderson Requests re-appointment (3-year term) Kathi Hemken Requests re-appointment Adam Kramer Requests re-appointment No~hwest Hennepin Human Jeff Bangsberg Requests re-appointment Services Council (2-year term) Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution re-appointing members who have expressed a desire to continue serving on various commissions. Staff will adve~ise vacancies and ask the City Council to conduct interviews the early paa of 2000. M~ON ~ .... S~O~ ~ I I II [ ~A~1 ~ COUNCIL Origmattng Depa, h,~nt Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development Consent Susan Henry ~ 12-13-99 Item No. ~ommunity Development Specialist ~// 6. ]. z~ RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRA(~T FOR DEMOLITION OF THE HOME AND GARAGE AT 5340 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 653) REQUESTED ACTION Staff is requesting the Council approve a resolution awarding the demolition contract for 5340 Winnetka Avenue North to RP Excavating in-the amount of $4,300. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE For demolition projects estimated under $10,000, staff obtains several bids and recommends awarding the contract to the lowest, responsible bidder. BACKGROUND As an alternative to complete demolition, the home was moved off of the lot by Stubbs Building Movers, Inc. in early December. The City can now prepare for demolition of what is remaining on the subject property (foundation, garage, fencing, driveway, etc). Staff has received the following five bids: Contractor Bid RP Excavating $4,300 Kevitt Excavating 4,825 Veit and Company 5,700 Ceres Environmental 7,200 Lloyds Construction 13,475 The Iow bid was submitted by RP Excavating in the amount of $4,300. The City Attorney will prepare the appropriate contract for the partial demolition. FUNDING Demolition costs will be paid for with tax increment funds (TIF) as well as proceeds from the sale of the home ($2,800) to Stubbs Building Movers, Inc. A'I'rACHMENTS · Resolution · City Attorney Correspondence I·Demolition Specifications/Bid Results · Map MOTION BY SECOND BY' TO: ' ~ : , ~MO: ..' :; ~ . , ~ : ~ i,' : ' · ' : i ' : ~,; ' ' , : ..; : ; ', r?- · : ..... J. . : · ! _ .2 ....... -' ; .... : · ..... · . _ !/~. "--.' ' l ..... -.-..M.o.,..... ~° .... : .' ;; ..... .:- ."'-- ',, ..... ~'"'--i I_ - ~1~ , ~1 J . ~ , . B liE. ........... r ' 7 ' ' ' ' ~ , ~1 { ' ~I : : 7~ ~ : . ; ................ : ........... ~ ~ ..... ~ ...."~' --~ : .... J _~l , .................. ;. . ..-.. ..... ,,a:--, . · : . ~ ~ ..... ; ? ..~,- -~ ~ ..... ........................ ~ ~ : ...... : .... ~ ........... .~~.~" -: .~ ... ~1 : : ' I ' ' ~ ~ ~'Z:~ '~ ' ; ~ : ~ : ' : :~'~ ' ' - ' i : '~. ~ .......... · ..... - ........ ~ : · · t i , · ...... , . , ....... ~ ........ . ...... ~ ~ ....... ~ ........, ~- .......... ..... ~t ..... J .......: ~ ~ · · L~'~L-: ; ~M: ~--: : --~i --"'" ....... , : . . ~1~ ~ , .. : · : .... a ~ ........ ...... ~, .............. , ~ M~O; k~ .~. . . ~. ~ : _ . ~.. ; ~ ..... .~. ,~ ...... ; ..... ~, _ · ~1 i ~ M , ' ..............~'~ ~: ~,~= ~ W'~i~.- .'' ........ -- ............. ; . ~ . M i~ I~ i .... '1~' : ' "~ '- -- : · -- .~ ; ~ ,--~ ~, ~,. .~ .- ...... ~. ~ . '.. ~.. · ~ · ~ ~, ~ . ~ ; ~1~ ' / .... M .... · ~ ............ :~: ' I ~ : ~4 f ~e ~ : ~ - ,~ ,~, ....... ~:. .... · ~ .-- ~--~ ..... ' ~ ~ ~ ~m · ~ ~ ~W: ' · ; "---.... . i : ' -~ ~ ~ ~ , 0 , ~ · t~,~ - r ..... ~ ..... ~. _ .~. . : ~ . ~ . w~ . , . j ~ ........ : ... · ~. ....... ~ ...... (~ -.-- .. ,a . . · ......... , _ : -..../~, ~2;~tt:~ ~ ~7: -..- ..... : :~-:"% · : '"i ' ' "~ ~ ---" ~ ...... · ...... ' '~ ' ~.:~ . ' ~' ~la' ; ~; ~13: ,,.. . ~ ......a ' ~~ ~. ' ' .,--,--- ~ ' ~ , ~I :W~ , F ~ -. __ . ~; ~/ %.. ~ . ~.. · ~-.; .. ....... .... i . : ~ '. ~1~ ' ~. m. - : · ~-4 ' ~ ..... .. ....... . ~ .,,~. . ~- ~, ~ .~,,~ ... , , ~ I I -:' % - - I ~..' -e · . - , - , .. ~- I i - , . - :~__ , m ~ . ? . -~ , : --._ .. .. ~ '~ ,~ . · . )~''., -~ ~ ,~ ........ ,-_. · - . · ~,. '. ~ ,-..~, ~,..r'-. .'~ . .="~. ""'.- "-...-.:~i '% '.-, · ." r.~, ~-~/,.--.. .....- ,~ ~ ~, % ~ a.,,~,'_'~._ "..../~/~_-,.=/~,~r~::=-.q ~.~ · ~ ~. '.. , ~.' ~r --.. '- , ~; ~, ~-. ~ ~; ~1 . - ..... ' % · ~/ - ~ , , ~ - · '6. --. . : . $121 ~ ~ " '-. · ~.' ~' '~ J:~ '~;~'' ~ , , ---- ~ ..... ~ ' ".. '. ' ~', · ~C~t ~'. ; ~'~ ~ I ' ' ! j . . ,/ .~ -- ~ . ,~. W ....... ,. · ~ - . · · ~. '~ ~, ; ' .. ~ .. ( ! ; -. -... ~'.. ~..' ~/~~.. ~- ~.~ .... .j : ~ ~ ~, : ~ · . ~¢~/__ ~ ~ .. : - . ; , e~M -.. ~.. / ~/~: · ... ~. -~ . . -~ . ~-," ,-~. -..L COUNCIL RF, m ST I OR AC'nOS ~~ D~t~ ~p~ for ~ ~da ~cUon Communi~ Development [ Consent Susan Hen~ ~ 12-13-99 It~ No. ~ommuni~ D~velopment Specialist L~~ -- 6.15 :MOTION AUTHORIZlNG STAFF TO NEGOTIATE TO PURCHASE THE PROPER~ AT 6003 WEST ' BROADWAY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ~668) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting approval of a motion authorizing staff to negotiate the purchase of the property located at 6003 West Broadway, based on the appraisal recently completed. I PAST POLICY/PRACTICE Once staff receives into city offices written communication from a willing seller, an appraisal is ordered to determine the current market value. The appraisal becomes the basis for negotiating a potential 3urchase, pending Council direction on acquisition. BACKGROUND Michelle Lee, property owner, has written to the City inquiring if the City would be interested in 3urchasing 6003 West Broadway. Ms. Lee recently acquired the property back via contract for deed. Initially, staff directed Ms. Lee to the Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMMHC) because the City has some funds available for housing development. However, GMMHC and Ms. Lee Idid not reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion. City staff and Ms. Lee have had initial conversations regarding a possible sale to the City and staff believes there is good potential to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion. With the approval of the City Manager, staff has completed an appraisal for the property located at 6003 West Broadway. Griffith Appraisals completed the appraisal recently and estimates the fair market value of the property to be $97,000. The 1999 valuation for tax purposes is $79,000 ($19,500 land/S59,500 'building). The property is situated along the busy West Broadway directly adjacent to single family homes to the '~orth and Hidden Valley condominiums to the west. In addition, the Broadway Village multiple family -esidences sit east and across the street. The subject property has a history of zoning and code issues. MOTION BY , SECOND Request for Action Page 2 12-13-99 Them are drainage issues in the condominium development that can also be corrected if the City is successful in acquisition. Hidden Valley condos has verbally agreed to work with the City on drainage issues and contribute financially to any improvements made. The subject home consists of three bedrooms and measures 1,100 square feet. The home has some deferred maintenance issues; however, they do appear to be mainly cosmetic. If this property at 6003 West Broadway is purchased, staff would need to evaluate the property to determine if rehabilitation or demolition/new construction is most appropriate. FUNDING Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and five-city CHDO funds are available to use on the subject property for the acquisition and other site preparation measures and the City needs to identify another scattered site housing project quickly or some of the funding may be lost. A'I-rACHMENTS · Map · Homeowner Correspondence · Griffith Appraisal Report Hidden Park Condo Correspondence/Maps COUNCIl, ItF UES? FOR ACTION Or~tnattr~ Depat'tment ~p~ ~r ~ ~da ~cUon Public Communi~ Development  usan Hen~ ~12~9 It~ No. ommuni~ Development Specialist · , 7.2 PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION APPROVING SALE OF 5629 WISCONSIN AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 612) REQUESTED ACTION: Staff requests Council approval of the aEached resolution approving the sale of 5629 Wisconsin Avenue : No~h to Susan J. Hogland. POLICY/PAST P~CTICE: Staff ma~ets ci~ pmpe~y for sale through various publi~tions and agencies for a stated length of time. Pending an established deadline, buyer appli~tions am reviewed and a buyer is selected by the staff. The buyer must meet income requirements, be pm-approved for a loan, and complete home buyer eduction classes. ~ ~ACKGROUND: On November 22, the Ci~ Council authorized publi~tion of notice and holding of a public hearing regarding the sale of 5629 Wisconsin Avenue No~h. This is the public hearing to authorize and approve the sale. The City Attorney has prepared a Purchase Agreement which has been signed by Susan Hogland, a qualified buyer, and the purchase is contingent upon approval by the Ci~ Council. The Purchase Agreement states that the Ci~ will sell the home to Ms. Hogland for $127,500. The buyer is in process for qualifying for an FHA first mo~gage. Approval is also in process for the se~nd mo~gage in the amount of a $15,000 HOME second mo~gage. The Ci~ will be paying 1.5 points on the first mo~gage amount of $112,500. Other ci~ costs for the sale of the subject home should be minimal. If Ms. Hogland does not qualify for the fimt and/or second mo~gage for some reason, the Purchase Agreement attached will become null and void. Ms. Hogland plans to be in a~endance at the public hearing on Monday evening. M~ON ~ , S~O~ ~ ., ~A~1 Request for Action Page 2 12-13-99 The City purchased the property at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North as part of the scattered site housing program. The existing structures were removed and a new home with attached garage were constructed on the site, in an effort to improve the neighborhood and provide homeowner'ship opportunities. The construction of the home will be completed by or shortly after the end of the year, except for the landscaping, which will be escrowed for and completed in the spring. FUNDING CDBG funds were utilized to purchase the property, demolish the existing structure and for site improvement costs. The proceeds from the sale of the home cover the majority of the construction and closing costs. A second mortgage is being provided by the 5-City CHDO for this project. The City also received a contribution in the amount of $4,500 from the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors for this project. ATI'ACHMENTS · Resolution · City Attorney Correspondence · Purchase Agreement COUNC ItF., UEST FOR ACTION Ongmat. tng Department Approved for Agenda Publ~c.c.~e~da SecUon Community Development Hearing 12-13-99 Susan Henry 4~ Item No. ~ommunity Development Specialist ~ 7.3 PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND SALE OF 8808 41't AVENUE NORTH TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 660) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting Council approval of the resolution approving the development agreement and sale of the City-owned property at 8808 41st Avenue North to the Habitat for Humanity organization. BACKGROUND On May 24, 1999, the City Council authorized staff to prepare a purchase agreement for the purchase of 8808 41st Avenue North in the amount of $17,500 for a Habitat for Humanity project. The property required extensive title investigation; however, the City has signed an Agreement to purchase the property at 8808 41st Avenue North from Wallace Grewe, and should be closing on that purchase very soon. The City decided to purchase the parcel for a Habitat for Humanity house. Both the City's and Habitat for Humanity's obligations under the development agreement are contingent upon the City obtaining title from Mr. Grewe. There are no forseeable difficulties with this transaction by the City. The ~ contingency clause in the development contract adequately protects the City. City staff has been working on the proposed development agreement and final house plans with the Assistant City Attorney's office and the Habitat organization. The development agreement is comprehensive, and covers the installation of support pilings by the City, the subsequent sale of the property to Habitat for Humanity for a nominal sum, and the construction of a house and garage on the site by Habitat for Humanity by the end of October of 2000. The final house plan will be attached to the development agreement signed by the City and Habitat for Humanity. Please find the proposed house plan attached. City staff and Habitat personnel have agreed to a slab on grade, three bedroom home of approximately 1300 square feet, with an attached two car garage of 440 square feet. The proposed home will look similar to the photo in your packet, with an [attached garage. The home design should fit into the neighborhood nicely; a site plan attached reflects lPlacement of the home in relation to the adjacent properties. A color photo and final drawings for the proposed home will be available Monday evening and Habitat for Humanity representatives will be on hand to answer questions. MOTION BY ...... SF,~OND ~ , TO: RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 12-13-99 The vacant lot at 8808 41st Avenue North has sat vacant for years because of the lots' significant soil issues. City staff are pleased with this partnership with Habitat for Humanity to develop the lot once the piling work is completed in late winter/early spring. FUNDING Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds will be used to pay for the acquisition and pilings. Habitat will eventually reimburse the City for the piling work with their HOME dollars. The City will sell the lot to the Habitat for Humanity organization for $1.00, who will then construct a new single family home. A'i'i'ACHMENTS · Resolution · City Attorney Office Correspondence · Development Agreement · Photo · Site plan · Floor plan · Map · ,,0 41~'7 ' ~ 41~"1t - ..,..' ..,--...m ' ; ' , .--'v. -'~.-;"".' 41SI : · [ s~ .... ' ...... l ~ .....-.-; - " ! · i ' , ! " ' '~"~, ' ' · 4140. 4140. 4140: '- ' :"' ' · I " i ~ ' ' : ;" '"';:" I ' 414,1 · ? 4140 ~ 4,14.1. ,4,140 ~ .- ,...- ,. ,..: ,_-- . ' : ; : , ... ' ,, | ........ ~. ........... , ,.., ~ , . ,',,m iz L'4m 4mi .-,m. ,'...., ..,, ?,.-..,~ , ~ ;! · , ..' . .- ....,,~ ~J". . ~ ~' _ ..: ..... ,':z,,. -.-'. '-' · - '412S:b.I~. 4124~ 41JS[._.T4124. _ .... t ..... ; .... .~ :'~;;, · .,~,'.; , Il e e,t ,mi ~m~.e ;m, :.- · · I, , ~T~ , .,,,,~- t .... . . · ,,,,,. ,,,,.,,,,;~..,,,, . t: il. I ~ ..... ' "' -' ........ ' i ....;41~1~"..,' .............................. : ' ~ · J' - 41ST AVE N -.¥410~; ; 4 I~: 41~; ;4101:,....a ............ ! : ...... .~ ; ........ , ..... ---- -;~: .4111)~ 4J; :~i ~: ' :": 4101 .C.~.I 41~0, 4101 !~' 41~: ' . · ; ~ · , : ~' ... ; ............. . · ~ ........ . ...... ~. .... (,~.. ..... · , . I : . . .. '~. ~--' ~ 'Z ;4C~ ' ~ ,. :, ~J~ · · . ........ ,,. . ~J,J. . ._ 41J~. , : ^ .'- ~11 :ih., ~ ~'l :~_,J~ ~ i ...' .- ...... · -' .... 1 ....... i ...... ~l.~ i ..... .~ '"~, ~,,,,. , .. ,d,,Pd"l~ : dd~"~J,I ,dfl"]t'~. ~, ~.,.j~, .4JJ?-ff ~ ........ i s. ...... . ltl. · . ,,~,j,,, . : -,-~.v. -,..~.,~, · qVd'~ I '"~J, : ' .,,.,mm · ' : _~ '.* ~ · "! ..... , t ....... '" ...... j t ..... : ,~.,,.,. ' ',~.j~ ' ," .,,mm,. .' ~: ' .: I · , .... _' '..' .....$ !-- ......... --; : ..... .: '''~ :---- "': . .."~ . · · i . ; : · ~,..,-,~ . ,..~,,m. , ; i ....... " : ....... r'-' :'---~ ;s-. · ......... -4, ...... ,e.. ...... .,. : ...... : ..-:: ....... .,,.~,, . ~ ..... ~ ............. , : ........ 40122 ' " AVE N' · I · : ' · ' ; J · · -:.8: .- 8. o .~,8,~.B:~.~,~;,~,..R: --. . ,.- ,,- ~0: . , . , . . . I ' ' ' ' ' ' o:o o:J J. J: ....... ~J;J:ll.I..J'l;I;,~ J. . ~ ........... , ;~j~ ..-. -'~ ........ ..-'-...: ..... 1_...~.. ..... .~ ' ............. 1'~ , .................. ~, 402S ; ; ........ '* ,,o':t ' · % ..,,,: : .,. , · : · :-eu, ; , .... .- ..,' '; .-"'",96"J' -',l;J:J~§! J~ ~ il~- :J :J 'l !J il !J :,1; ". J 4m. ~ ..dim .. ~, .!...'- .... : ............ :. .... ' , ..... ,. ......... . .... ; .' ...~. .... ,._.:. ~ '.[ . .... . ~ ... . .... .1' . . , ,,' ,....., ............. ' · ' ' /'° . °' '.1~. '~ · · ,.~,~, : ' ~ ~ ~ ri_... .'~..". l,. J, · ~i,' 'J~ ¥. \. -.,,w ~ ' z ........ '-.--,------~. .... . · ~ . · . '-. . · . .. ' : , · .- .. : .... ,- ..........- .... : ~ . '-.' '""..*~. k:.....,,m,..-,. ,,,,..-x.,., ~ a...: a, =, ,~ .-_ ~ .-o ....-. '.e.,;:., .., · . '- - '..~".~ '. '. , ' · .. 4~..-._Nv. '"~....,,,,,..~_'i. _ . I I: I J.. 1~ ,I !1 ,J,,j .. ... 3m~.:,%,~;:.. · - .' ,....~.~-:/.% .- ,~..... ~. -... .. · ..,,,... -' ~'.~ ~ - -Jif? ;-. . ~' ' ~ ~.'~/ :'"~J~' · I : · , · t ~. -- < ~" / ,~, ". · ." ' . ' ". k~= ' -' ~" T' '* ~" ....... ? .... ,.... z / N" '. .' .' " ~.'~. '..- i,,._~ '~ ..- .3~t2" "~". '. _...' ~ \~/~'.. " ~ ~ /~t\ ', ':.-S.'~ "~ '-":---"---: ~ .... -" '~b. ~ ";-- "'-' · "~ , ~;t. ~.. . · · ~ · .~ .~.. ..'~., .; ._-- .' ~;~.. ! . -.. ' '-... · ' : ~ J ~ ....... · ~r s.. .'d~ /~ll~ "-.. · .- . ' ', ~ - i ' '' ' \ "z~,,.,. ~ .... ' '. ., ~.; INUI~/I"JWUUIJ _ :. ',t'-/ · ~"~ "',~ ~'~ '. '..-'" DAVY t~!amo '..~_.': ... '.. /,r.' .., .' ~ '~ .~1~- . , ...~ ~ ~ /t-u'~l~, ~' ' 'I'/ ..'~ · . ~, ' ,u · .~' ~-- '.' ,.,-'° · ~ .~j ~,-.,-,----.-.... · ~.N/ ' · '"'.' ~i · il'; -3a~', ..' ~.lelt ', :. --_:_. '. . .~..,, .' -,t'/,~, '-,, ':'.! · , .-~/. 4,~. · ' . ~ _,.4~ ' '.'~' \ ... ' ' "--'." ' .'::' 1~ .<, ~ ' - '~) ,,--'~- ", ~ i:~ai~ t ..... ' ~ ' - -- ' ' ,' , ' CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 99- 194 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 99-24 REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW LIMITED RETAIL SALES IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED OR PROCESSED ON THE SITE AT 4301 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH (PID #17-118-21-22-0004) SUBMITTED BY NIELSEN'S EQUIPMENT & DESIGN, INC. AND D & L REAL ESTATE HOLDING LLC WHEREAS, the applicant; Nielsen's Equipment & Design, Inc., has submitted a request identified as Planning Case No. 99-24 for a conditional use permit to allow limited retail sales in an Industrial Zoning District for products manufactured or processed on the site, pursuant to Sections 4.154(1), 4.144(6) and 4.21 of the New Hope Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Planning Case No. 99-24 on December 7, 1999, found that all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for the conditional use permit have been satisfied by the applicant, and recommended approval of the planning case request subject to all conditions as set forth in the City Staff Report dated December 3, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City Council on December 13, 1999, considered the report of the City staff, findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the comments of persons attending the City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and concludes that the applicant has satisfied all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for issuance of the requested conditional use permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope that the conditional use permit to allow limited retail sales in an Industrial Zoning District for products manufactured or processed on the site, as submitted in Planning Case No. 99-24, is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Cladfy sign setback from property line or accept as existing condition. 2. General cleanup of any debris on property, extend fence at southwest corner, and repair lawn damage. 3.Paint entire building exterior and upgrade office roof within nine months. 4.Complete interior remodeling, including accessible restrooms and parking signs ("Customer" and "Disability"), before requesting a final inspection. 5. Install green area with landscaping on south property line in lieu of fence extension, and consider future green area improvements on north property line when parking area improvements are made (plan to be reviewed/approved by city staff). Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 13"' day of December, 1999. Mayor Attest: ~'~ ~ City Clerk EDA ~un~ Depa.-tment Approved ~r ~a ~ ~on Communi~ Development EDA Ki~ McDonald 12-13-99 It~ No. ~nd Phil Kern ~ DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR Ci~-OWNED PROPER~ AT 9200 49TH AVENUE AND AUTHORI~TION FOR STAFF TO NEGOTIATE ON POTENTIAL SALE OF PROPER~ (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ~597). ACTION REQUESTED S~ff requests to discuss wi~ the EDA a potential development on ~e Ci~-owned pmpe~ at 9200 49m Avenue and au~o~zation to negoaate the potential sale of pmpe~. PAST P~CTICE In the past, staff has presented all maxem relating to the futura development of this pamel to the EDA. The EDA has taken the approach to review all proposals and au~o~ze staff to negotiate on select proposals. BACKGROUND In June 1997, t~e Ci~ of New Hope pumhased this vaunt 2.8 acm indust~al site from Clarence B~ndell. The Ci~ acquired the pmpe~ because a potion of the pmpe~ is iden~ed in the New Hope Su~ace Water Management Plan as a futura potential site for a water quali~ pond to help improve the water quali~ of the large wetland no~h of, and adjacent to, ~e site. The Ci~ acquired the prope~ to have control over the future development of the site and is interested in a potential joint~oopemtive development (similar to Conductive Con~inem, Inc. on Quebec Avenue), where a development could occur in conjunction with the installation of a water quali~ pond. The 1997 appraisal on ~e pmpe~ indicted a value of $282,000, but the app~isal was discounted due to the poor soils on site. The Ci~ pu~hased the pmpe~ for the adjusted appraised value of $195,000 and ~e Ci~ Engineer has estimated that ~e Ci~ would need to utilize approximately one acm of the site for ponding improvement, leaving ~o acres available for development. ;In November, Ci~ s~ff was approached by ID Sewices, a New Hope based manufa~u~ng company ~cuffently Io~ted at ~10 Winne~a Avenue. ID Se~ices has been Io~ted in New Hope since it began 'providing eng~ving se~ices for businesses and adve~isem in 1971. The company has expanded i~ se~ices into Canada and Europe since 1986 and continues to maintain its headqua~em hem in New Hope. The cu~ent Io~aon of the building at ~10 Winnetka has been maximized in te~s of use, and the company is looking for a new Io~on to build a la~er operation. ID Sewices is proposing to build a 31,400 square foot building on the Ci~wned prope~ at g200 4g~ Avenue. The building will be used p~ma~ly for (conffd.) M~ON ~ S~O~ ~ , ,. ~: ..... III I I I ~~ ~ Request for Action Page 2 12-13-99 manufacturing and warehousing its products and as office space for its operation. They have hired Olson General Contractors, Inc., a local contractor' to development a preliminary concept plan for the site, which has been submitted to the City and is included in the attachments. ~ The EDA last discussed development at this Site in January following a proposal from Contract Hardware to build a 26,000 square foot warehouse/manufacturing building on site. At that time, the EDA was considering the sale of the property "as is" to Contract Hardware without making the necessary soil improvements. The negotiations for an agreed upon sale pdce did not result in terms that were acceptable to both the City and Contract Hardware, and the proposal was withdrawn. At that time, the EDA instructed staff to continue working on correcting the soils on site for future development and making the necessary ponding improvements. Staff has worked with the City Engineer to identify the area needed for the construction of a water quality pond and the steps needed to correct the soils on site. The City Engineer has identified that the soils in the area of the water quality pond are good condition and can be used to replace the poor soils in the developable area. Taking this into consideration, staff determined that it would be more cost-effective for the City to correct the soils at the same time as it excavates for the water quality pond. Staff has been working with Timberland Properties to the west for the past nine months to obtain a necessary easement for the construction of the water quality pond and has not been successful. At this time, staff has instructed the City Engineer to devise an alternate plan for the water quality pond making the easement with Timberland Properties not necessary. Collins Electrical, located at 4990 Highway 169, has indicated an interest in participating with the City on a ponding project so that they can pursue additional development on their property. In October, the City Engineer submitted a grant application to the MetroEnvironmental Partnership Program of the Metropolitan Council to pay for the costs of the water quality pond construction, with the City paying for soil correction costs. The City will be notified in late December or early January whether or not the project will receive funding. If the project is selected, staff expects the ponding and soil improvements can begin in the spring of 2000. This schedule works well with ID Services, as they would like to begin construction during the summer of 2000. After the soil and ponding improvements have been completed, the entire lot will be sold to ID Services with the City retaining a ponding easement over approximately one acre of the northern portion of -. the property. The remaining 1.85 acres will be available for ID Services to develop. The 1997 appraisal indicates that with corrected soils the property has a market value of $282,000, or $2.30 per square foot. Subtracting the one acre used for the ponding improvements, the Value of the developable portion of the property is calculated to be approximately $185,000. Staff is pleased to work with a company that has been based in New Hope for over 25 years on the potential development of this property. ID Services has 65 employees, with hourly pay averaging $13.10 per employee. It is estimated that this expansion will allow for the addition of 20-30 new employees over the next five years. In terms of rewards for the City, the business will add approximately $35,000 - $40,000 to the tax roles per year, of which $8,000 - $10,000 will be directed to the City of New Hope. The development will also retain existing jobs in the City of New Hope and provide the infrastructure for the additional employment opportunities in the next five years. ID Services will be maximizing the site with a use that does not include heavy traffic or all-night operations, Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to negotiate with ID Services on the purchase and development of this property. Representatives from ID Services will be present at the meeting. ATTACHMENTS · 12/6/99 Correspondence from ID Services · Preliminary Site Plan and Front Elevation · Site ponding diagrams submitted by the City Engineer · 1/6/99 City Engineer's memo on the costs of soil and ponding improvements · 1999 MetroEnvironmental Partnership Grant Application Halls&Company Date: December 6, 1999 To: Economic Development Authority of the City of New Hope From: Christine and Elert Johnson Re: Background information on Identification Services, Inc.. Identification Services, Inc. was started in the basement of Chris Johnson's New Hope home in 1971. It was known as CM Johnson Engraving. The primary clients were computer manufacturers and uniform shops. In 1976 the company had grown too large for the basement and it was time to move. Chris looked for an appropriate location close to her home in New Hope. The 3410 Winnetka Building was just the place. Ten years later in 1986, Chris decided to buy the 3410 Winnetka Building with her husband. Chris has a strong dedication to the community, including volunteering for the Twin West Chamber of Commerce and District 281 Schools. She has raised all three of her children here. They are all now involved in the business. Chris continues to maintain controlling interest in Identification Services, Inc. In the past 10 years, the company has grown five fold. We have expanded into the advertising specialty market, serving companies in the United States, Canada and Europe. The company plans on continuing to expand in this market as well as entering into the medical membrane switch market. In an effort to continue to grow and service our customers, we are looking for a larger building. We have really enjoyed being in the City of New Hope and want to continue to grow our company here. We anticipate rapid growth over the next five years, approximately doubling, our current size. We estimate adding 15-20 people within the next 3 years and another 5-10 people in the following 2 years. These positions are higher end manufacturing jobs. Our average pay is $13.10 per hour and 75% of our work force is full time. We offer a full range of benefits, including health, dental, life and disability insurance, vacation and personal time, 401k plan and flex time. Most of our positions involve intense use of computers and manufacturing equipment. We train employees in all facets of our business, including computer training, accounting, sCreen-printing, engraving and fabrication. div of Identification Services, Inc E-mail info~idline.com 3410 Winnetka Avenue North Phone (800)779-5612 (612)544-7326 Minneapolis. MN 55427-2094 Fax (800)779-0450 (612)542-1819 asi/59080 · ppal l 10766 ID Line Wise Line asi/47850 · ppal l 11778 We continue to be involved in the community and are involved in a special work program with Cooper High School for disadvantaged kids. We are very excited about the success rate we have had with these ldds. The land at 494 and Erickson is ideal for our expansion site. We are looking forward to working together with the City of New Hope to construct a building, which will make an excellent addition to the city. Thank you for your time and consideration. div of Identification Services, Inc E-mail info~idline.com 3410 Winnetka Avenue North Phone (800)779-5612 (612)544--7326 , Minneapolis. MN 55427-2094 Fax , (800)779-0450 (612)542-1819 asi/59080 · ppa/l10766 ID Line Wise Line asi/47850 · ppa/l l1778 :~ 4401Xylon Avenue North City Halh 612.531-5100 City Hall Fax: 612-531-5136 New Hope, Minnesota 55428.4898 Police: 612.531-5170 Police Fax: 612-537'~4 www. ci. new-hope.mn, us Public Works: 612.533-4823 Public Works Fax: 612-53~-'~ ~50 TDD: 612-531-5109 December 10, 1999 Mr. Bob Waibel City Planner City of Maple Grove 9401 Fernbrook Lane Maple Grove, MN 55311-6180 Subject: Comments on the Maple Grove Comprehensive Land Use Plan Dear Bob: This letter is in response to your NoVember 18 correspondence regarding the state-mandated review of the Maple Grove Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The City of New Hope has received the plan and provides the following comments: · Maple Grove's significant population and household expansion will impact transportation systems shared with New Hope. Freeway systems such as 1-494, 1-694, and Highway 169 will face increased commuter traffic demands and greater congestion. Commuters avoiding freeway congestion and meter ramp delays will shift to local streets as alternative travel routes including New Hope's local, arterial, and collector streets (i.e., Bass Lake Road, Winnetka Avenue, Rockford Road, and Boone Avenue.) · Maple Grove's Land Use Plan also indicates significant commercial growth in the southwest corner of the city and within the general mining area in eastern Maple Grove. The plan indicates the possibility of a regional shopping mail at one of these two sites. Maple Grove's commercial growth will influence the retail market environment in the northwest Metropolitan Area and will have an impact on the marketing and redevelopment of commercial areas in New Hope. · The Metropolitan Council, MnDOT, and Hennepin County must be cognizant of the regional transportation demands that will be produced by this growth. Particular attention must be given to the traffic impact on the older established communities that adjoin Maple Grove, and their limited physical and financial ability to accommodate street expansions that will be needed to respond to increases in local traffic. · The amount and rate of growth occurring in Maple Grove will have an impact on New Hope with regard to traffic and future economic development efforts. New Hope is interested in learning what strategies will be implemented that will serve to mitigate the traffic concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to review the plan and please contact me at 531-5119 if you have any comments or questions. Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development cc: Dan Donahue, City Mana9er Roger Landy, Chair New Hope Comprehe~nAive~Plan Review Committee Planning Case File 99- 0 ~' I~amily Styled City 'l~&~ For Family Living PROJECT NO. 665 BULLETIN NO. 1 PROJECT BULLETIN 7500 42nd Avenue Overview In August, the City of New Hope acquired the property at 7500 42nd Avenue for redevelopment purposes. This property was the home of Ardel Engineering. Prior to the acquisition, Ardel Engineering relocated to Science Center Industry Park. The building will be demolished in December, with site restoration taking place in the spring of 2000. In the past few years, the City acquired the two adjacent properties at 7516 and 7528 42nd Avenue for commercial redevelopment and to accelerate the clean up of ground water contamination on a portion of the properties. The acquisition and demolition of the Ardel site will enable the City and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to move forward with cleaning up the site. The City will address the soil clean up beginning in the summer of 2000. Schedule The City sought bids for the demolition of the building in October 1999. On November 8, the City Council awarded the demolition contract to Kevitt Excavating from Crystal. Kevitt has scheduled demolition to begin on December 8. The project will include the removal of the existing building, including slabs and foundations, the retaining wall along 42na Avenue and removal of the bituminous parking area around the building. Prior to its demolition, the West Metro Fire Department will use the building for training on December 7. In November, the New Hope Police Department was able to conduct training sessions in the building. All fixtures and asbestos-containing materials will be removed and properly disposed of before the Fire Department training exercises begin. Future Plans At this time, the City has no set plan for the specific redevelopment of this property. In the future, the City will be requesting proposals from developers interested in the site. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these properties for future commercial redevelopment. The City intends to rezone all three properties, 7500, 7516, and 7528 42nd Avenue, from industrial to the B-4 Community Business District, which will allow for a variety of commercial uses. Construction Hours Standard construction hours will be between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday. All work, including mobilization of equipment, will take place during these time periods. Contact Persons If you have questions or concerns, please Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 531-5119 or Doug Sandstad, Building Official, at 531-5122. The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents and business owners in the area that may be impacted by the redevelopment of this property. The City will keep you informed about any future activities that are to take place on the site. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 12/6/99 NOVEMBER 1999 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Utility_ ._.r ere-,ula'ion circumstances led to price spikes throughout the Midwest in June 1998. Although blackouts did not occur and service to and zoning: retail consumers was maintained, uncertainty grew about how An Illinois Case Study reliablr power would be suppliedunder thenewwholesale market. The public was left with the perception that the Midwest faced a future of power shortages and needed new By Jane Collins generating facilities. Second, Commonwealth Edison, the public utility serving In 1997, ,when the Illinois legislature approved deregulation of Northern Illinois, issued a press release on June 5, 1998, the state s electric utility system, it precipitated a host of new . identifying 14 sites along its transmission lines crisscrossing land-use and environmental issues that local governments now McHenry and Lake counties where new generating facilities must resolve. Because similar issues are arising in states across could interconnect. Ten of these sites were listed as "A," where the U.S. as a consequence of utility deregulation, this issue of connections would be less cosily; four were "B" sites, further Zoning News features a case study of how this trend is affecting from demand centers, with higher connection costs. planning practice in Illinois. Some of those B sites lay in agricultural zoning districts in McHenry County, in areas designated as "agricultural" or "ag/ Arrival of Wholesale Power rural" in the county's 2010 land-use plan. Although McHenry is While legislators made extensive provisions for public utilities to the state's fastest-growing county, it has been consistent in sell or transfer their assets, they provided no guidance on where implementing its plan, particularly in protecting prime new generation facilities should be sited. They also did not agricultural soils. Courts have upheld the county's denial of land foresee a new, nonutility generator that appeared in Illinois in uses deemed incompatible with its plan. 1998: wholesale merchant power generators. The first wholesale merchant power generator seeking to Two events foreshadowed wholesalers' arrival in northern operate in McHenry County was Indeck Pleasant Valley L.L.C.. Illinois. First, a power panic caused by highly unusual It petitioned for a conditional use to operate a single-cycle Sourcc: Energy Information Administration ~ Restructuring Legislation Enacted [] Comprehensive Reguiatory Order bsued:  ~"~ ["-'1 Legislation/Orders Pending~' ~5 [] Commission or LegisJative investigation Ongoing~ :Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware. Illinois, Maine. Maryland. ~None. Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey., New Mexico. Ohio, 'Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida. Georgia. Hawaii, Idaho, Oklahoma, Oregon. Pennsylvania. Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia. Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota. South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, :Michigan. New York. and Vermont. Washington. West Virginia. Wisconsin, and Wyoming. peaker plant in an agricultural district. This type of plant would McHenry County, requires onlv that "the conditional use is generate electricity by operating natural gas-fired turbines that reasonably in the interest of public welfare." would exhaust the heat and water vapor rather than recapturing A special use request presents a fundamental conflict for them for further cycles or co-generation, and would operate decision makers: It allows a use beneficial to the public but only during periods of peak power demand. In responding to potentially detrimental to its immediate neighbors. The the petition, the county had three choices: legislature acknowledged this when it granted special use · Treat the plant as an industrial land use, requiring a rezoning authority to counties in 1998: "'Special uses' may include but are not limited to public and quasi-public uses affecting the to industrial; public interest, uses that may have unique, special, or unusual · Amend the county's plan and zoning ordinance by setting impact upon the use and enjoyment of neighboring property, standards for this new land use in certain zoning districts; and planned developments." · Allow the petition to be heard for the plant's construction and operation in an agricultural district. Weighing the Public Benefit During three months of hearings, the McHenry County zoning McHenry County allowed Indeck to pursue its conditional board of appeals (ZBA) wrestled with that basic inquiry: Would use request under the "utility facility, non-exempt" the construction and operation of a wholesale merchant power classification. Borrowed from Illinois's Public Utility Act prior plant fulfill a particular need at that particular site (provide a to its 1997 amendment, this classification applies to the public benefit) and, if so, would the detriments from the plant's nondistribution facilities of a public utility, which are not construction and operation to those nearby outweigh such a exempt from a local government's zoning authority, benefit? McHenry County traditionally had applied this classification The petitioner argued that, because the count), is the fastest- to a nonmunicipal sewage or water treatment facility serving growing in Illinois and. experiences power shortages during peak clustered/planned development in unincorporated areas, demand times, the plant would fill a local need. An expert hired available in all zoning districts. The county overruled questions by residents living near the proposed site disputed this claim, concerning its ability, as a county without home-rule authority, noting that the county does not have its own transmission to apply this classification to a nonutility for which the amended system, so that power generated anywhere in the Public Utility Act makes no provision, and began hearings last Commonwealth Edison system in northeastern Illinois would March. serve the entire system, flowing toward those areas where the load is highest--south and east of McHenty County. Authority and Purpose Until 1998, when the legislature explicitly granted non-home- Matters Get Complicated rule counties the authority to grant special uses., McHenry As the hearings progressed, much of the debate was carried into County had relied on statutory authority given to municipalities local papers and meeting rooms throughout the county. Facts to issue permits for uses that "because of their unique became obscured by special interests and local politics. The characteristics cannot be properly classified in any particular McHenry County Economic Development Corporation, a district or districts." The county currently lists 22 conditional private lobbying group, municipal economic development (special) use classifications, commissions, and some of the county's largest industries Unlike a text or map amendment, a special use does not advertised their support for a peaker plant. Meanwhile, the require changing the underlying zoning. Rather, a special use municipal councils into whose planning areas the proposed site gives a landowner "permission to use his property in a manner fell all voted to object. Opponents collected petition signatures contrary to the ordinance and that will serve the public from more than 4,000 county residents. convenience." (York v. Village of Wilmette, 148 Ill.App.3d 108, As the hearings stretched out through June, the ZBA 101 II1. Dec. 288, 498 N.E.2d 712 (lst Dist. 1986).) But it is considered the potential detriments from the plant's also distinguishable from a variance that "grants relief to an construction and operation. These included air and noise owner from the literal requirements of the ordinance where pollution, groundwater withdrawal, and impacts on the area's literal enforcement would cause undue hardship." high-quality wetlands, as well as the issue of compatibility with A special use should fulfill a necessary or beneficial the county's land-use plan. Because the wholesale plant would purpose. The Illinois Supreme Court, in Kotrich v. County of be a new, substantial source of air pollution, it is subject to the DuPage (19 Ill.2d 181, 166 N.E.2d 601 (1960)), defined it federal Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, part of the as "a means of providing for infrequent types of land uses Clean Air Act (CAA). which are necessary and desirable but which are potentially To implement the CAA in Illinois through a state incompatible with uses usually allowed in residential, implementation plan, the U.S. Environmental Protection commercial and industrial zones. Such uses . . . cannot be Agency (EPA) has delegated its authority to the Illinois categorized in any given use zone without the danger of Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and Pollution excluding beneficial uses or including dangerous ones." Control Board. As part of the implementation plan, the IEPA issues construction and operating permits to new or modified sources of air pollution. The petitioner received a construction Jane L. Collins is an attorney licensed to practice in Illinois and permit in March 1999, in which it chose to limit its operating Wisconsin. She served as co-counsel with Steven J. Cuda, an time to 1,500 hours a year per turbine. attorney in Woodstock, lllinois, representing Create Awareness of While the petitioner's experts characterized the plant's Responsible EnvironmentalPlanning Group (CARE) in the potential to produce 235 tons a year as insignificant, objecting hearings before the McHenry County Zoning Board of Appeah on neighbors noted that the county is designated as a severe ozone the matter described in this article, nonattainment area, and the plant's nitrogen oxides emissions, 2 concentrated during the hottest, most ozone-prone months, Will McHenry County and other jurisdictions faced with would be detrimental to the county's air quality. They took merchant power plant proposals ask the legislature to clari~ special note of the conditional nitrogen oxides (NOx) waiver in what it anticipated when it approved deregulation, and whether the six-county severe nonattainment area, questioning whether it foresees a regional need for additional generation capacity? If such a waiver protects the public health. The waiver temporarily such a need is identified, what kind of facilities might best suspends the CAA requirement that a new source not exceed 25 address that need without overbuilding and without sacrificing tons per year of NOx emissions without providing an offset in environmental quality and public health? How will these such emissions somewhere else in the affected region, counties want the legislature to address this issue? Similarly, the petitioner promised that it would meet state Until such a regional approach is undertaken, will local noise pollution limits for an industrial land-use noise source governments continue to address the land-use and broadcasting to a residential area. Expert testimony and data environmental issues raised by wholesalers in an ad hoc fashion? from both the petitioner and the neighbors' expert, however, Will McHenry County take a closer look at its conditional use demonstrated that the existing ambient sound level is quieter process? Do the increasing numbers of conditional uses the than noise levels the state would allow, county has granted in agricultural zoning districts--from one Underlying all these considerations were the basic questions in 1973 to 12 in 1997--indicate an appropriate application of of whether this proposed industrial land use was appropriate for the flexibility provided by this procedure or a means of a conditional use in an agricultural district, whether this use was circumventing the more stringent standards and higher compatible with the plan's "ag/rural" designation, whether this objection thresholds required for rezoning requests? use would constitute "an entering wedge," attracting similar Planning staff and some board members believe that a uses to the area, and whether approval of this petition would set conditional use provides more control over a particular land use, a precedent, making it difficult to deny subsequent petitions by especially by limiting it to 20 years. Others see the 25 wholesale merchant power generators, conditions attached to the first wholesaler's petition as evidence of a convoluted attempt to make this use fit an ag/rural area for Setting Conditions which it is unsuitable. The state's special use authorization granted to counties in 1998 Meanwhile, the first petitioner has filed a complaint against specified that ~[a] special use shall be permitted only upon the county, claiming that the board's denial was arbitrary and evidence that the use meets standards established for the capricious. As the county moves to vote on the second classifications in the ordinances, and the granting of permission wholesaler's petition, it is caught between two choices: deny and therefore may be subject to conditions reasonably necessary, to possibly be sued again, or grant the second, which would meet the standards." When the McHenty County ZBA confirm the first company's claim that the decision was not concluded its hearings on the wholesale merchant power well-grounded. generator in June, it was faced with three tasks: Residents who live near the proposed sites are straggling with · Deciding whether the petitioner had met its burden of the burden of hiring legal and technical experts, spending time providing "clear and convincing evidence that the standards mustering support for their opposition, and trying to get some of [provided by the county's ordinance] have been met," the highly complex facts out to the general public and elected requiring it to make findings of fact; officials. They feel unprotected by state agencies that have provided air pollution construction permits so readily and who have advised · Writing conditions addressing the particular problems posed them that they must enforce noise standards at the local level. by an industrial plant in an agricultural district, absent any Although legislators in Springfield have said that, under specific standards in the ordinance for this land use; deregulation, "[c]onsumer protection must be in place to ensure · Writing conditions that would protect the neighbors, be that all customers continue to receive safe, reliable, affordable, enforceable by county staff, and be reasonable, and environmentally safe electricity," they seem to have ignored the local environmental and social consequences of what they Although the ZBA did not make specific findings of fact, it set in motion. It has fallen to local governments and agreed that there were no standards specifically addressing this neighborhoods to deal with those consequences. The question proposed land use. The plant would nor provide jobs or significant now is, at what cost? revenues to the county, but that it would require the county m hire experts to assist in its monitoring and enforcement duties. Ultimately, the ZBA sent the petition to the county board with 25 conditions, but without the five votes necessary to recommend Character Development approval. On July 20, the board voted to deny the petition, 15 to in Connecticut 8, finding the proposed location unsuitable. When Connecticut adopted its Village District Act in October Unresolved Policy Issues 1998, State Rep. Jefferson Davis, the bill's champion, wanted to Although the McHenry County board voted to deny the first give the new law at least one year before deciding whether it wholesale merchant's petition for a conditional use, and will should be amended, as some critics had suggested. Davis now soon vote on a second petition from another wholesaler (which tells Zoning News that the towns of Brooklyn, Middletown, and also failed to obtain the required ZBA approval), it has not Canterbury have taken advantage of the act, which is drawing decided what its policy should be toward this new industrial increasing interest from other municipalities. land use. Should it be limited to industrial zoning districts, or-- The act authorizes local zoning commissions to establish if suitable for conditional use permits--require adoption of new special village districts as a way to preserve the character of a conditional use and performance standards? Should these designated area. Supporters hail it as an important planning tool standards be stricter than those provided by the state? that empowers municipalities to regulate construction that does 3 not conform to a neighborhood's character, such as oversized Goodwill's homes or the generic architecture of big box retail Bad Fortune establishments. The law states that "village districts shall protect the distinctive character, landscape, and historical structures of such A Goodwill resale shop found itself the unexpected object of areas and may regulate.., alterations and improvements. · · controversy this past summer when residents of the Cleveland within the district and in view of public roadways, including suburb of Maple Heights opposed its arrival in their but not limited to" the design and placement of buildings, the community. maintenance of public views, and "other elements that the The store leased 10,000 square feet of commercial space in commission deems appropriate to maintain and protect the Turney Durham Mall, whose owners paid to relocate an character of the village district." existing tenant and combine two storefronts into one. Goodwill Despite a slow start, says John Filchak, executive director of planned to operate a New Concept store that would sell new as the Northeast Council of Governments and the act's author, well as used merchandise. Another Goodwill store already serves roughly 40 communities over the past year have shown interest residents on the opposite end of Maple Heights. in creating regulations for a village district. "Some communities Several store opponents feel such a business would attract are still taking a wait and see attitude on the issue." he adds. undesirable commercial uses such as check-cashing "They are not comfortable that the application of the legislation establishments and beeper stores. Maple Heights has already is not in black-and-white terms. That was intentional. There is turned away a tattoo parlor and pool hall. Residents expressed not one single model that is appropriate for every situation, so fears that this type of business will "attract the wrong kind of the legislation was left ambiguous so a community could form people." Several said that the issue is not racial, but they fear regulations that fit their own particular needs." that a resale shop will discourage more desirable businesses such This ambiguity has caused concern among some officials as department stores and family restaurants. over the possibility of lawsuits. Filchak agrees that such Kurt Soroosh, Goodwill's director of sales and operations, repercussions may be inevitable but argues, "Ifa community says Goodwill stores do not change communities but serve its makes a comprehensive visual inventory of the proposed existing residents. He notes that Goodwill stores already serve district's character, and is careful to remain consistent in its upscale Cleveland area communities such as North Olmsted application, it is defensible. If you are going to defend character, and Mentor. this is the way to do it." Cleveland-based Goodwill contends that delays in opening William Warner, planning director for Middletown, agrees, the store will cause financial strain on the organization. "We have taken the time to document acceptable building Goodwill in Cleveland generates half of its $7 million budget types," he says, "so any developers will know in advance what from just 10 stores. The organization applies its revenue toward we expect. We've had no opposition to the district, just adult literacy programs, adult day care, and sheltered workshops support." for the disabled. Others remain hesitant. Hiram Peck, planning director of City officials have grappled with whether the zoning New Canaan, feels that much of what the law allows can be ordinance allows resale shops on the mall's parcel. The Maple accomplished through existing zoning codes and may not be Heights zoning code does not specifically list resale as a worth the extra work that creating a village district entails, permitted use within commercial districts. According to the "There is also a lot of front-end loading and upkeep that is ordinance, there must be a planning commission hearing to necessary to maintain an accurate inventory of character that determine whether the unlisted use is compatible with the smaller towns might not have the resources for," Peck says. zoning. However, Davis points out that smaller communities can use The building inspector in the city's planning and building the resources of regional agencies that usually act as the department granted Goodwill a permit. Goodwill did not apply planning staff on other matters. "A lot of smaller rural towns are for any variances, and other resale shops already existed in interested, as well as urban towns," he says. "There is a lot of Maple Heights. The city council later rescinded the permit on interest in this, and it is growing." Jerome Cleland the grounds that resale was not listed as a permitted use. The council then initiated a study to determine whether the store can be classified as retail. Zomng ;%~ ..... a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Assoc at on The August planning commission meeting was so Sub,criptions are available for $55 (U.S.) and $78 (foreign). Frank S. So. Executive Director; controversial that it had to be relocated to city hall to Wilham R. Klein. D ........ fR .....ch. accommodate the large audience, In September, Goodwill Zon,ng News is produced at APA. Jim Schwab and Mike Davidson, Edi .... Sh ..... appealed to the zoning board of appeals, which reinstated irs Armstrong, Barry Bain. Joseph Bornstein. Jerome Cleland. Fay Dolnick. Andrew Glicksberg. San ay Jeer, Megan Lewis. Matra Morr s, Reporters; Cynthia Chcski. Assistant Editor: Li,a permit because of the precedent set by other resale shops in the B ...... Des,gn and Production. city. But Goodwill's good fortune did not last. In October, the Copyright ©1999 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave.. Suite 1600. council overturned the ZBA's decision, once again denying the Chicago. 1L 60603. The American Planning Association also ha~ offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave.. N.W.. Washington. DC 20036; ww~.planning.org certificate of occupancy. All righ ........ d. No par~ of this publicati .... y b~ reproduced or utilized i .... fo .... b,' Goodwill has not decided whether it will continue to any ....... I ...... i ...... hanical, including ph .....pying ......ding. or by a,~ info .....o'n challenge the city. The fight for the permit has consumed time s~orage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. and resources earmarked for other activities. However, a further Printed .... cycled paper, including 50-70% recyc ed fiber ~ challenge by either Goodwill or the mall may be unavoidable. and 10%, ................ ~ With a lease already signed, Goodwill cannot pay the rent until it occupies the space. Barry Bain k._ ..? November 25, 1999 -- Page 3 .~ Page 4 -- November 25, 1999 Z.B. Z.B. exception. Sunnyside appealed to the trial court, which affirmed the board's exception hearings. After receiving a memo from the corporation counsel, the decision, board voted to reopen the earlier applications in order to receive the corpora- Sunnyside appealed again and argued that the definition of criminal deten- lion counsel's advice. The condominium association was also made a party. The board then held public hearings and voted to deny the healthcare pro- lion center in the city of Lancaster zoning ordinance did not limit its applica- tion to criminals and instead looked at the penal and corrective natme of a fessionals' applications. The healthcare professionals demanded that the board facility, issue an approval of their applications because of the earlier vote. The board DECISION: Affirmed. denied their request. The healthcare professionals asked the board to reconsider. The board re- The board was correct in granting Ihe special exception. The state did not treat juveniles the same as criminals, luveniles committed considered their applications and again denied them. The healthcare professionals then took their case to the court of appeals. "delinquenl acls" instead of "crimes." The slate had a separate court system They argued the board was wrong to deny lheir applications for special excep- with exclusive jurisdiction over juveniles. Also, juvenile delinquents were not housed in criminal facilities unless they were certified as adulls. Finally, jure- tions because the proposed uses were in harmony with the already existing nile facilities fell under the adminislration of Ihe juvenile court and were Ii- offices. Also, olher units and the condominium association should not have censed by the Department of Welfare instead of the Bureau of Corrections. So, been involved. the facility was a governmental facility instead of a criminal delention facility, DECISION: Affirmed. a use permitted as a special exception within the "mixed u~" district. The decision of the board was correct. Once Ihe county persuaded the zoning hearing board lhat the proposed use The exisling offices could not be considered. satisfied the requirements of the ordinance, the court presumed the prolapsed Regardless of the length of lime any of the existing uses had operated in the use was consistent with the health, safety, and general welfare of the commu- complex, they were never legally established and could not be "grandfathered." nity. The chfim Ihat property values would fall was mere speculation. Even so, The only existing legitimate use of Ihe complex was for residential purposes. if a decrease in property values did occur, it would be no different than that Also, because a condominium involves an ownership interest in the undi- usually associaled wilh Ihe conslruction ora communily rehabilitation facility vided whole of the common areas of the building, it was not wrong to require or halfway house, both of which uses were permitted uses in the "mixed use" the participation of the condominium association. Those owners of condo- zoning dislricl, minium units who did not apply for special exceptions still had an interest in Citation: Sunnyside Up Corp. v. City of Lancaster Zoning Hearing Board, thc proceedings by virtue of their shared interest in the common areas. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 514 C.D. 1999 (1999). Citation: Gage v. D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C. Court of Appeals, see also: Eastern Consolidated and Distribution Services Inc. v. Board of Nos. 96-AA-1519, 97-AA-237 (1999). Commissioners of Hampden Township, 701 A.2d 621 (1997). see also: Capitol Hill Restoration Society Inc. v. D.C. Board of Zoning see also: Manor Healthcare v. Lower Moreland Township Zoning Hearing Adjustment, 398 A.2d 13 (1979). Boa~d~JgZ~A~65 (1991). see also: Neighbors on Upton St. v. D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 697 ~ ..~ . ceptio.~X.._~ A.2d 3 (1997). ovecial Ex Group wants to open mental health offices in , condo_m~ Taking - City is sued for allowing construction that aggravated flooding DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (10/14/99)- A group of healthcare professitm~ NEBRASKA (10/I/99) -- Bargmann's property was not within the city's cor- als wanted to open offices in a condominium complex where office use was permitted by special exceplion. Other people were already operating offices in porate limits but was within the city's zoning jurisdiction. It was also within the complex without having obtained certificates of occupancy for commercial the 100-year flood plain of two rivers, ice jams occurred in one of the rivers, purposes. A hearing was held, and the Dislricl of Columbia Board of Zoning forcing the river out of its hanks and flooding Bargmann's property. Adjustment voled to grant the applications. Bargmann sued the city for allowing a highway and a subdivision to be At a hearing on other applications for special exceplions several months built within the flood plain. She claimed these obstructions caused the flood- later, the board told ils slaff to seek advice from the corporation counsel ~m lng to be much worse. Specifically, Bargmann claimed the highway and the whether the healthcare professionals' applications had been properly autho- subdivision were constructed at an elevation above the 100-year flood level rized and whether the condominium association should be a party to special and acted as a dam or levee that caused the floodwaters to accumulate. Page 8 -- November 25, 1999 Z.B. Z.B. November 25, 1999 -- Page 7 There were 28 rezonings in the area and a trend towards higher density use. in an area zoned to allow il, it did nol mean the school building did not have to Construction of the development would not adversely affect the real estate meet state and local fire, building, and other public safety regulations that ap- values of nearby residential properties, and the property was riel capable of plied to all such buildings regardless of their location. In this case, the courtly development as then zoned. Nearby, an apartment building, acenter for troubled simply insisted Ihat Gamier comply wilh building code requiremenls of gen- teenagers, and a nine-story condominium had been built. It was reasonable to eral application, believe the character of the neighborhood had changed. Citation: Josephine County v. Garnier, Court of Appeals of Oregon, CA When deciding public need, the council could consider information ob- A99472 (1999). rained at the hearing, ils own common knowledge, and its familiarity with the see also: Breutmar v. Jackson County, 900 P. 2d 1030 (1995). area. Columbia stated there were only six facilities in the area that offered this see also: Tooker v. Feinstein, 886 P. 2d 1051 (1994). type of living for the elderly and only two were in the city proper. As then  zoned, the properly produced no tax revenue. Rezoning the properly would an school land be rezoned for assisted-living development.'? greatly increase the tax revenue, and this increase should also be considered. Preserving an existing residential area was a valid city goal. An amend- '""-~Igg|SSIPPI (10/21/99} - Columbia Pacific Management inc. submilted an 'merit to a zoning ordinance was not meant to be easy or otherwise the ordi- applicalion to Ihe city zoning division to rezone properly owned by an Episcopal day school. Columbia conlracled Io buy lhe property from lhe school with Ihe hence would be a meaningless scrap of paper. Even so, a decision by a local intention of building a community for independent, elderly people, government board was presumed valid, and the burden was upon the person The city planning board conducled a hearing Io rezone Ihe property from seeking to set it aside to show it was arbitrary and unreasonable. But, it was special use for a school to a planned unit development. At this meeting, the within the court's power Io reverse a rezoning ordinance adopled on insuffi- cient proof. board was given protests signed by more than 365 residents of the community who were opposed m the proposed rezoning, in response, Columbia ciled sev- In the present case, however, substantial evidence was presented by both eral changes it made Io Ihe plans in order to accommodate the concerns of the sides. Thus, the decision must be said Io be at least fairly debatable, which was community, including moving the building away from Ihe road, decreasing the beyond the court's authority to overturn. size of Ihe building, and agreeing lo provide a Iwo-acre hmdscaped buffer be- Citation: Fondren North Renaissance v. City of Jackson, Supreme Court of Iween Ihe building and the road. Columbia :dso claimed the character of the Mississippi, No. 1998-CA-OISlS-SCT (1999). neighb(~rhood had changed due lo condominiums and apartments that bad been see also: Currie v. Ryan, 243 So. 2d 48 (1970). recently built in the surrounding area. The board w~ted to approve the rezon- see also: Saunders v. City of Jackson, 511 So. 2d 902 (1987). lng, and FNR, a local non-pro(il corporalion, appealed Ihe decision lo Ihe cily council. Zoning Bulletin The council approved the decision. FNR appealed again, this time to Ihe circuit court of the county. The circuit court also approved the decision. To order Zoning Bulletin, call (800} 229-2084, or complete and rolum this FNR again appealed. FNR asserted Ihat Ihere was no clear and convincing term to Quinlan Publishing Group, 23 Drydock ^ye., Boslon, MA 022'10-2387, evidence of a change in tile characler ~ff tile neighborlmod or a public need Io or fax (800) 539-8839. justify Ihe rezoning. $99 (plus $5.81 s&h) -- 1 year (24 issues) DECISION: Affirmed, 13 New subscription I;I Payment enclosed The questions of whether the character of the neighborhood was changed 13 Renewal subscription Cl Bill me ZBN9 and whelher Ihere was a pnblic need were fairly debatable and would not be Name overturned by Ibc court. in Mississippi, before a zoning board may reclassify properly from one Organizalion zone to anolher, there musl be proof Iha! either there was a mistake in Ibc Address original zoning or the character of the neighborh~)d changed, creating a pub- Cily. State Zip lic need fi)r rezoning. Courts can only set aside zoning or rezoning decisions thai are arbilrary, Phone Fax illegal, discr?~atory, or withoul a substantial evidentiary basis. A courl has Email no ,aulhorily' }t aside a fairly debatable zoning or rezoning decision. Z.B. (~ -~'~ December 10, 1999 -- Page 5 Page 6 -- December 10, 1999 Z.B. ze a rear-lot line for irregularly shaped lots, the zoning ordinance's intent was to Was four-sided, unsymmetrical lot irregularly shaped.'? assure a minimum average width and consistency. ~'---~4~IA ( ! !/5/99) -- Kirkbride owned a quadrilateral lot, roughly trap- The lot was 60 feet wide only at its front-lot line. The lot could achieve the ezoidal in shape, with a 100.09-foot front line. The lot was approximately 200 minimum width requirement only by treating the south-lot line as the rear-lot feet deep. Because the west lot line was slightly askew, the lot narrowed to a line. in light of the lot's patent lack of symmetry, the board was correct in parallel back lot line of 90.37 feet. The lot was located in a zone where lots determining the lot was irregularly shaped. were required to be at least 6,000 square feet and have an average width of at Citation: Higgs v. Kirkbride, Supreme Court of V~rginia, Nos. 990006 & least 60 feet. 990073 (1999). The county zoning administrator's office approved a preliminary plat subdi- viding the lot. The subdivision created two lois and required the Kirkbrides to see also: Foster v. Geller, 449 S.E. 2d 802 (1994). remove a sunroom porch on their residence to comply with setback regulations, see also: Masterson v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 353 S.E.2d 727 (1987). One of the subdivided lots was a quadrilateral with no parallel sides and no ~ . congruent angles, it had a front line of 60.04 feet. Immediately beyond the ('~pecial Use Permit~)-- Neighbor claims telephone tower is a building in front line, the lot narrowed to less than 60 feet. At 105.16 feet ahmg the west- ~1 zoning ordinance lot line, the south-lot line was set at approximately a 45-degree angle to the southeast, creating a south-lot line of 71.6 feet and an east-lot line of 150.94 NEW YORK (1114/99) --The town of Duanesburg's planning board approved feet. it consisted of more than 6,000 square feet. an application by Cellular One for a special use permit to construct a 250-foot Higgs owned neighboring property. After the zoning administrator approved cellular telephone tower and a related utility building in the town's agricultural the subdivision plat, Higgs filed a petition with the county board of zoning and rural residential district. appeals, challenging the zoning administrator's determination that the new lot A group of taxpayers gave the town written notice on three separate occa- conformed with the minimum width requirements of the zone. He contended sions that the number of antennae on the cellular telephone tower exceeded the the first lot was irregularly shaped, so the zoning administrator could not use number authorized by the special use permit. They claimed this use, along with the south-lot line as the rear-lot line in the measurements determining the aver- artificial lights and reflecting devices on the tower, violated the town's zoning age width of the lot, He further argued calculations in the manner applicable to ordinance. Several months later, they gave the town written notice the cellular irregularly shaped lots gave the lot an average width of only 48. I I feet. telephone tower violated the 35-foot height restrictions for buildings imposed The zoning ordinance stated the rear-lot line was the lot line most distant by the zoning ordinance. from, and most nearly parallel to, the front-lot line. in the case of a triangular The town apparently took no action. Proper sued, seeking a court order to or otherwise irregularly shaped lot, the rear-lot line was a line at least ten feet stop operations at the tower until it fixed its alleged violations of the zoning in length entirely within the lot, parallel to the front line, and at a maximum ordinance. Both Proper and Cellular One asked for judgment without a trial. distance from the front-lot line. The court dismissed the case against Cellular One, and Proper appealed. The board of zoning appeals found the lot to be irregularly shaped. Conse- DECISION: Affirmed. quently, it ruled in favor of Higgs and reversed the zoning administrator's decision. The zoning ordinance provided specific and mutually exclusive definitions Kirkbride appealed to the court. He claimed that because the lot was quad- of "building" and "public utility structures." The tower would logically be a rilateral, it was not triangular or otherwise irregularly shaped. The court agreed public-utility structure rather than a building. This view was reinforced by the and reversed the board of zoning appeals decision, zoning ordinance's authorization of towers in the zone by special use permit. Higgs appealed. Considering the distinction between a special use permit and a variance and DECISION: Reversed. the fact transmission towers were almost invariably over 35 feet high, only a The decision,of a board of zoning appeals could be reversed or modified strained construction of the ordinance would limit towers to the 35-foot height only if it was plainly wrong, restriction and require both a special use permit and a variance. The ordinance provided no defini6on for"otherwise irregularly shaped loC' Also, the permits issued did not contain any limitation concerning the hum- It was clear from the definition of a rear-lot line as the "line which iwa]s the bet of permitted antennae. most dislance from, and most nearly parallel with, lhe front lot line," Ihal lbe Citation: Proper v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Supreme Court of lot did not need to be perfectly symmetrical to have an identifiable rear-lot New York, Appellate Div., 3rd Dept., No. 83841 (1999). line. However, by including a separate provision for determining the length of Z.B. December 10, 1999 -- Page 7 ,, Page 8 -- December 10, 1999 Z.B.  Property owner alleges denial of rezoning application was a series of meetings. The commission initially required two traffic studies, and the county engineer informed TravelCenters of three acceptable alternatives to WASHINGTON (I I/8/99) -- Hansen bought property in Snohomish County. resolve a traffic problem with its site plan. The commission told TravelCenters it would not approve the proposed site plan unless an additional driveway speci- Adjacent properties were zoned both residential and commercial. He submit- fled in the plan was acceptable to the county engineer, the county planners, and ted an application to rezone the property to general commercial, along with a proposed site development plan consisting of four commercial buildings. The the zoning commission. The commission approved the site plan, contingent on a satisfactory reso- application was denied on the grounds it was inconsistent with the design- lution between the county engineer and TraveICenters regarding the traffic review criteria and policies of the Snohomish-Lake Stevens comprehensive impact. TravelCenters asked the commission to either approve the site plan so plan. Hansen reapplied by submitting a new proposal and grading permit ap- plication. These were denied, it could get a zoning certificate or issue a definitive denial. The commission Hansen appealed to the Snohomish City Council, which upheld the rezon- responded by referring to its previous contingent approval of the site plan. TravelCenters sued, seeking a court order to compel the commission to lng denial, approve the site plan. TravelCenters claimed it was entitled to approval and Hansen sued, alleging the denial was a taking, damaged the property, and there was no plain remedy in the course of law because the commission violated his civil rights, fused to issue a definitive denial. The court found the county could deny the rezoning application. Hansen Both sides asked for judgment without a trial. The court granted the appealed, and the decision was again affirmed. The case was returned to the lower court for further proceedings, commission's request. Meanwhile, the county rezoned the property to one single-family home per TravelCenter appealed. five-acre lot. DECISION: Affirmed. The county was awarded judgment without a trial. Hansen appealed, con- Even if the zoning board did not make a firm decision, TraveiCenters could tending the new rezoning allowed only one single-family residence and was a appeal the decision to the township board of zoning appeals. The ruling was taking, sufficiently definitive to constitute an appealable order, requirement, decision, or determination. DECISION: Affirmed. Hansen did not have a right to develop the property under general commer- Citation: TravelCenters of America Inc. v. Westfield Township Zoning cial zoning when it was purchased, so nothing was taken. Hansen owned what Commission, Suprente Court of Ohio, No. 99-908 (1999). he purchased -- a single lot zoned for residential use. The county's regulations see also: Kronenberger--Fodor Building Co. v. Parma, 297N. E.2d 525 (1973). did not take a right Hansen ever owned. Citation: Hansen v. Snohomish County, Court of Appeals of Washington, Zoning Biweekly Bulletin Div. I, No. 43763-1-I (1999). To order Zoning Biweekly Bulletin, call (800) 229-2084, or complete and see also: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. Ct. return this form to Quinlan Publishing Group, 23 Oqtdock five., Boston, MA 2886, 120 LEd. 2d 798 (1992). 02210-2387, or fax (800) 539-8839. $99 (plus $5.81 s&h) -- 1 year (24 issues) see also: Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association, 452 {~ New subscription [~ Paymenl enclosed U.S. 264, 101 S. Ct. 2352, 69 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1981). C} Renewal subscription El Bill me ZeN9 Appeal -- Zoning commission does not issue definitive order Name OHIO (I 1/10/99) --TraveICenters of America inc. operated a travel-related Organization service center, which included a service station, convenience store, and restau- Address rant at a highway intersection, in conjunction with its plan to raze, rebuild, and City State Zip modernize the service center, TravelCenter applied for a zoning certificate from the Westfield zoning inspector. Phone Fax .. The Westfield township zoning commission considered the site plan at a Email