030600 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 6, 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 99-21B Request for Development/Final Stage Planned Unit Development Approval,
Rezone from R-1 Single Family to PUD, Side Yard Setback Variance, and
Final Plat Approval of 9 Lots by L & A Homes 7849 and 7829 49t~ Avenue
North, Lloyd and Alice Vagle, Petitioners
* 4.2 Case 99-27 Request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for a Third Building on
an Existing Lot and a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation
Use for the Mosaic Youth Center, 7601 42® Avenue North, YMCA of
Metropolitan Minneapolis and Robbinsdale Area Redesign, Petitioners
* 4.3 Case 00-02 Request for Site and Building Plan Review Approval and Rear Yard Setback
Variance, 3440 Winpark Drive, WinPark Associates LLC, Petitioners
5. ZONING CODE UPDATE - Review second half of General Provisions - Packet sent February 18
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS
6.1 Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: Thursday, March 16, 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 - Next Meeting: Thursday, March 16, at 5 p.m.
7. OLD BUSINESS
7.1 Miscellaneous Issues
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of January 4, 2000.
8.2 Review of City Council Minutes of December 13, 1999, January 10, 24, and February 14, 2000
8.3 Review of EDA Minutes of December 13, 1999, January 10, and February 14, 2000
9. ANNOUNCEMENTS
10. ADJOURNMENT
o 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. T'~-~,,
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 iqvited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer
questions from the Planning Commission.
4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by
raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large
number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer
period of time for questions/comments.
5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give
their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your
questions.
7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity
to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
A'. If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the
planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this
meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting.
B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next
Commission meeting.
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: March 6, 2000
Report Date: March 3, 2000
Planning Case: 99-2'1B
Petitioner: Lloyd & Alice Vagle
Landowner: Lloyd & Alice Vagle
Address: 7849 and 7829 49th Avenue North
Request: Development/Final Stage Planned Unit Development Approval, Rezone from R-
1 Single Family to PUD, Side Yard Setback Variance, and Final Plat Approval of
Nine Lots by L & A Homes
I. Request
The petitioners are requesting development and final stage planned unit development approval,
rezoning from R-1 Single Family Residential to PUD, side yard setback variance, and final plat
approval of nine lots, one outlot 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:
Final Plat - The developer proposes to combine the two existing lots into eight lots, one common
space lot, one outlot, 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.
Variance - With the PUD approval, the petitioner is requesting a one-foot side yard setback
variance on the east property line. The building is located 14 feet from the property line and PUD
regulations require a 15-foot setback.
PUD - 'The project includes eight twinhomes on individual lots surrounded by one common space
lot and one outlot, a public cul-de-sac off 49th Avenue, integrated site design, architecture and
landscaping.
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
Planning Case Report 99~21 B Page 1 3/3/00
Site Area: Gross = 264' x 300' = 87,120 square feet (2 acres)
Winnetka/49th right-of-way = 21,000 square feet (approx.) ~'~.
Plat excluding Wtka/49th r-o-w = 66,000 square feet (approx.)
Cul-de-sac = 12,648 square feet (approx.)
Net Area = 53,352 square feet
Building Area: 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 = 66,000 square feet (approx.)
Building Area = 13,628
Bituminous Area = 13,300 (approx.)
Green Area = 39,072 (approx.)
Hard Surface = 26,928 square feet (42%)
Green Space = 39,072 square feet (58%)
Planning District: This property is located in Planning District #8, which is found in the
center of New Hope. 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. 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.
IV. Background
Lloyd and Alice Vagle are proposing to develop eight twinhome units on the southeast corner of
49t' 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.
At the January 10 City Council meeting, the Council granted a concept stage planned unit
development, rezoning from R-l, Single Family Residential to PUD, and preliminary plat approval
for L&A Homes subject to the conditions outlined in the attached letter dated January 12, 2000.
The applicant is now seeking final approval for the above-mentioned requests.
V. Petitioner's Comments
The petitioner submitted a detailed narrative which was included in the January concept approval
report and which is attached for reference purposes.
VI. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were re-notified about the Development/Final Stage
PUD plans/plat and staff have received no public comments.
Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 2 3/3~00
VII. Development Analysis
~ ~J A. Zoning Code Criteria
Final Plat
The proposed final plat consists of combining the two existing lots into eight (8) lots, one common
space lot, one outlot, and public street right-of-way. The plat illustrates a subdivision of the four
twinhomes into eight 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 94' x 40' - 3,760 square feet
Lots 3 & 4 94' x 38' = 3,572 square feet
Lots 5, 6, 7 & 8 112' x 32' = 3,584 square feet
As per policy, the final plat was submitted to City Department Heads, City Attorney, City Engineer,
Planning Consultant, Building Official, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and
comment. Comments received include the following:
City En.qineer and Buildinq Official
1. Drainage/utility easements 10 feet wide are properly shown on the north, east and south
property line. The five-foot wide drainage/utility easement in Winnetka Avenue shall also be
designated a walkway/trail and the plat needs to be revised to include this detail.
2. The triangular right-of-way at 49th/Winnetka Avenues is properly shown, along with the
additional right-of-way shown on Winnetka and 49~h Avenue.
3. The proposed common Lot 9 and Outlot A must be maintained by the Association. The Outlot
cannot be built upon, by code. Outlot A eases a future redevelopment to the east.
4. Each of the eight dwelling units must have a separate utility connection.
Hennepin County
1. The revised plat indicating no access to Winnetka Avenue (CSAH 156) is acceptable. We
appreciate the City's and developer's cooperation in this matter.
2. The plat does not show any additional path or roadway easement along CSAH 156, as
requested in Review #2053, copy attached. This request is still valid if the City concurs.
City Attorney
1. The plat dedication language needs to be revised slightly. The sentence which immediately
follows the legal description should read as follows (additions underlined): "...Have caused
the same to be surveyed and platted as L AND A HOMES, and do hereby donate and
dedicate to the public for public use forever the avenues and the way for street purposes. And
the easements for drainage and utility purposes, all as shown on the plat." The avenues need
to be included because there is some new street dedication at the comer of Winnetka and
49t~. The additional language also makes clear that the "way" is dedicated for street purposes.
2. There are a number of issues that need to be covered in the Declaration, specifically including
the access for each lot across Lot 9 to get to the street. The Declaration needs to be reviewed
by the City Attorney as a condition of final approval.
3. Title evidence needs to be provided to the City Attorney 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 3 3/3~00
Rezoninq
The change in zoning from R-1 to PUD is a policy decision for the Planning Commissio.
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 Planning
Commission and City Council gave concept approval for the rezoning in January, based
on the following criteria:
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-'I 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.
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.
Goal 3: Promote multiple family housing alternatives as an attractive life cycle housing
option.
Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 4 3~3/00
B. Adhere to the highest community design and construction standards for new construction
and redevelopment projects.
j'
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. 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.
C. Infill development of compatible land uses shall be strongly encouraged.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages medium density residential land use for redevelopment
in this area of the City. In considering the zoning and the development project, the City must
also evaluate project design and density to determine its compatibility with surrounding Iow
density land uses.
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 49t' 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.
Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 5 3/3/00
The site has immediate access to municipal utilities in 49"~ Avenue that have sufficient
capacity to accommodate the 8 proposed residential units. City staff does not foresee a,~''~,
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 49~ 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
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 vadous steps
are:
A) Application Conference. Preliminary discussions.
B) General Concept Plan. Consideration of overall concept and plan.
C) Development Sta.qe 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.
Development/Final Staqe Plan
3. The purpose of the development stage plan is to provide one or more specific and particular
plan upon which the Planning Commission will base its recommendation to the Council and
with which substantial compliance is necessary for the preparation of the final plan.
The purpose of the final plan is to serve as a complete, and permanent public record of the
PUD and the manner in which it is to be developed. It shall incorporate all prior approved
plans and all approved modifications thereof resulting from the PUD process. It shall serve in
conjunction with other provisions of the City Code as the land use regulation applicable to the
PUD.
4. Development Review Team
Appropriate city staff and consultants met to review the concept PUD plans on February 15
and expressed support.
· Revise plans to show cul-de-sac street light, water hydrant shift to north, delete treed
island at north of public street due to Fire Department decision, and make a couple
landscape changes.
5. Design & Review Committee
On February 17, the Design & Review Committee endorsed the project with these
suggestions:
Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 6 3~3/00
· Revise Association document to delete references to "Outlots B, C and D", no longer in
~ the plat.
· Revise plans per Development Review Team comments of February 15, above.
· Improve tree preservation details on grading plan and simultaneously shift new 49th
Avenue sidewalk to street curb edge for the same reason.
· Consider revised storm sewer layout through the middle of the same trees at north of
plat.
6. Plan Comments
The Planner and staff provided the following comments on the development/final stage
plans:
A. Site Design - The development/final stage PUD site design is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The design consists of eight units, one common lot, one Outlot A,
and a public street. 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
perimeter setback for building #8 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 two garages (#6 & #7) that is non-conforming. It appears that the applicant
has made every effort to shift the separations and setbacks of the buildings to conform
with the zoning code. Variances have already been approved for the building separation
requirements. In addition, staff recommends approval of a one (1) foot setback variance
along the east property line. The setback requirement for a single family home would be
10 feet, or five feet on the garage side, therefore, staff feels that the one-foot variance
is acceptable. The adjacent property owner has also indicated that they have no
objection to the one-foot 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) 15.00 feet 14 feet
*Setback Between Buildings 13.00 feet 14.00 feet
14.00 feet 14.00 feet
15.00 feet 14.00 feet
Setback from cul-de-sac 15 feet 30 to 34.47 feet
*These setback requirements are based on the building height.
Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 7 3/3~00
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 architectLr"'~
character of the proposed structures and the overall scheme of the PUD plan."
applicant's survey indicates that 37,977 square feet or 57 percent of the site is green
space. The applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan and schedule that
includes the following:
Key Common Name Qty. Size Root
BJ Broadmoor Juniper 18-24" 3 gal.
GFS Goldflame Spirea 18-24" 3 gal.
SA Summit Ash 2 W' 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.
JSY Japanese Spreading Yew 18-24" 3 gal.
CS Colorado Spruce 3-4' B&B
The petitioner has made several changes, as recommended in the concept plan
approval, including:
· Revised planting schedule.
· Additional landscaping in the southwest corner.
· Plantings in the breaks of the fence along Winnetka Avenue.
· Pin Oaks along the southern fence line.
· Expansion of the tree protection areas around existing trees.
· Six over-story deciduous trees along the west fence line.
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 cul-de-sac to
preserve the existing oak trees, but have been told by the West Metro Fire Department
that this must be removed. See the City Engineer's February 25 memo on an Improved
Tree Preservation plan: it eliminates storm sewer through the north trees, shifts the
sidewalk north of the same trees and adds some two-foot high landscape retaining
walls at north side of Lot 1. These steps should guarantee survival of the northern
cluster of seven mature trees, unlike the earlier plan. The Planner recommends that the
tree preservation plan be subject to the review and approval of the City Forester and
that the applicant replace the plantings in the fence breaks along Winnetka Avenue with
Techny Arborvitae.
F. Fence and Screening - The revised plans call for six-foot cedar (wood) fencing along
the southern, eastern, and western property lines. In general, this fencing should
adequately screen the site from the adjacent uses. The fence along Winnetka Avenue
has been interrupted to reduce visual impact with landscaping at the openings.
G. Pedestrian Access - The applicant plans a sidewalk 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 plan notes a single "standard street light" at the southwest corner of the
cul-de-sac.
I. Homeowners Association - The proposed project illustrates a compact design with
density in 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
Planning Case Report 99-21 B Page 8 3/3/00
use restrictions as part of the PUD approval. This approval will be implemented through
the Homeowners Association Declaration and By-Laws. 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 and Outlot A in an equal
and undivided interest. This ownership pattern insures that each unit maintains a
vested interest in the common area.
· 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.
The applicant has yet to revise the language in the development declarations regarding
the ownership structure of the common areas. They claim staff's recommendation could
make it difficult to purchase insurance. However, staff's recommended ownership
structure is used in similar developments in many other communities without issue.
Staff recommends that the City Attorney make a recommendation on this issue.
VIII.City En,qineer Comments
Drainage/Grading
· In an attempt to save trees in/adjacent to the boulevard of 49th Avenue, the storm sewer and
sidewalk location could be located beneath and adjacent to the existing north curb line of 49th
Avenue. Retaining wall near the northwest and northeast corners of the building of Lot 1 shall
be considered to protect the trees in the lower area adjacent to 49th Avenue.
· The storm sewer extension in the east boulevard of Alice Way south of the cul-de-sac shall be
located in the drainage/utility easement adjacent to the east property line (small radius bends
could be considered).
· Erosion control shall be coordinated with city representatives (periodic cleaning in 49th Avenue
is required).
Utility
· Utility extensions (hydrant/manhole locations) are properly shown.
· Connections/repairs in 49th Avenue shall be coordinated with New Hope Public Works.
Street/Sidewalk
· Street/sidewalk improvement are properly shown based on previous review.
IX. City Attorney Comments
The City Attorney has completed a review of the proposed Declaration of L and A Homes, a
planned community, and provides the following comments:
· Article III, Section l(b) is contrary to current law. Minn. Stat. §515B.3-103(d) requires that
within 60 days after the conveyance of 50% of the units, the unit owners shall elect at least 1/3
of the directors of the association. Article III, Section l(b) needs to be modified accordingly.
· Article VI, Section 3(a) is contrary to the recent changes to Minn. Stat. §515B.3-115(a)(3), in
that the Declarant must now pay 100% for replacement reserves. Section 3(a) needs to be
changed to require the Declarant to pay 100% of the replacement reserves for all units owned
by Declarant.
· Article XIII, rights granted to the City, should be expanded to include the City's right to enforce
restrictions, architectural control, and maintenance provisions in the Declaration.
Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 9 3~3~00
· There are a number of inconsistent references in the document to the name of the
development, it being identified variously as L and A Homes or L & A Addition. See the title/"'"
the Declaration, as well as Article 1, Section 2(d); and Article II, (b) and (e). The name must be
consistent throughout the document, including using "and" or "&", but not both.
· The Declaration makes a number of references to "common area." This term has been
replaced in the statute with "common element," and the references to "common area(s)" in the
following sections should be changed to "common element(s)": Article I, Section 2(h)(two
times); Article V, Section l(a)(iv); Article IX, Section 2 (the heading); and Article IX, Section
10(b).
· One or more words are missing from the following sentences, and as a result the sentences
make no sense: Article VI, Section '10, first sentence; Article IX, ,Section 10(b), last sentence.
· As you are aware, any language restricting this development to senior citizens has been
removed.
· The Oity needs to see the proposed By-Laws and any rules and regulations for the
Homeowners Association.
X. Recommendation
8taft recommends the petitioner on their cooperation with the City throughout this review process.
Pending public comment, staff recommends approval of the final plat and development/final stage
PUD approval, subject to the following conditions:
Final Plat
1. Revise final plat to show "Drainage, Utility and Walkway easement" along west side of Lot 9.
2. Provide one set of mylar, full scale, revised plans and two blueline sets, and three sets of '1 '1" x
17" reductions.
3. Oomply with City Attorney recommendations.
Plans
1. Oomply with Oity Engineer recommendations on grading, drainage, sidewalk, and tree
preservation.
2. Oomply with City Attorney recommendations on Declaration.
3. Make minor modification on landscape plan near fence break.
4. Execute PUD Development Agreement and provide financial security (amount to be
determined by Oity Engineer and Building Official) before application for any building permit.
5. Do not allow use of any structure until final inspection and receipt of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
Attachments: Address/Zoning/Topo Maps
12/8 Petitioner Original Correspondence
Final Plat/Details
Grading/Landscape/Lighting/Plan
Landscape/Lighting Plan Enlargement
Landscape Schedule and Details
Grading Plan Enlargement
Street/Sewer/Water Plan, Enlargement and Details
Erosion Control/Construction Requirements and Details
Street Section
Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 10 3/3/00
Fence Detail and Photos
Units 1 & 2: Front/Rear/End Elevations
Foundation Plan
Floor Plan
Basement Foundation/Cross Section
Units 3 & 4: Front/Rear/End Elevations
Foundation Plan
Floor Plan
Basement Foundation/Cross Section
Units 5,6,7,8: Front/Rear/End Elevations
Foundation Plan
Floor Plan
Basement Foundation/Cross Section
Townhome Marketing
Building Official Exhibit A
Planner's Report/Comp Plan Maps
City Engineer Memo
Hennepin County Plat Correspondence
City Attorney Plat Correspondence
L&A Declaration
2/9 Planner's Memo on Declaration
2/10 Petitioner's Attorney Comments on Declaration
2/28 City Attorney Correspondence on Declaration
1/12 City Correspondence on Concept PUD with conditions
Application Log
Planning Case Report 99-21B Page 11 3/3/00
/iEW
] --i [ .... T---- ~ AVE N F---- ,--T--'---i
:: OF ~ < ' L~ ~ , , ...................
-~ a HIGH SCHOOL ~ ~48TH AVE N 48TH ·
~ F'" '-":
ERAN ~ i t ~ ~_ r
waTE~ .... :~ ~ ~ ~ ~"~ :
TOwE~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... 4 ~ ~ __ __
ELEMENTARY ~/ / : ~ ~ t "," ~ ~ ~ "~
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 property being cOnsidered. The present use of the land at the SE
corner of 49th and Winnetka is vacant and considerably low. The size of the
vacant corner 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 slxuctures.
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 serf-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!
L AND A HOMES o~.oo~.~o.
VVIININ~_ I f%~ ~V L-.
WINNETKA AVE
28055 NO~1H
ALICE ' WAY
- ~44,70 NORTH_
',,
O · ~'~
~. I :
:'" .. ~ TOWN~IP 118, R~GE 21. O 'r~ I Fq ~ V L~. I
(HENNEPIN CO~TY M~ENT) '~
~' ':?'~- ~ ~-- 264.00 S89°58'53"W --
-~- . ' ' ~ ,,~ 4~TH AVE. N.
'~ I ,~ 125.~8 889~58'53"W t
40 40 ~~ -
. .-
,
, ,
~o 40~ ~ ~ I
J ~32'5o'~8"E
- 18,44
~ --- 264.00 S89°58'53"W ...... ~ ,
80
.' ~ ~--,~/, ~ ...
0 30, 6'0 90
SCALE· i iNCH = 30 FF_ZT.
0 - DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND.
O - DENOTES i/2 INCH x t4 INCH iRON MONUMENT
SET WITH A PLASTIC CAP MARKED
-R.L.S, No. 20262.
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHOWN THUS:
NOT TO SCALE
BEING I0 FEET IN WIDTH. AND ADJOINING '-
LOT ,LINES AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES "
UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. ,
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING PLAN
49TH AVE. N.
D FENCE
DETAIL SHEET 3'~'"'~ {i J
j I
,: -INSTALL 6
!i WOOD FF. NC~ OR
)'rES: il TO EXISTING FENCE / APPROVED EQUAL
SEE DETAIL SHEET
TOPSOIL ~ DISTURBED ~ MTN 4" OF TO. OIL AND ~ O~ SOO
NJ. ROCK UULCH ~ TO 8E UNDErlaiN
(4.so2) o~ ~ ~ ~ i~x.y
ROCK MULCH TO ~ 4' DEPTH
I
laULCH INOMIX,IN. TEEES W/WOO0 CHIP I~Jl. CH 30 O 30
NI. GREEN AREAS TO BE IRI~GATED .....
INSTALL 6 FT. HIGH
WOO0 FENCE OR
N~ APPROVED EQUAL
SEE DETAIL SHEET
EDGING TO BE 5' ~ KING' COMMEI~ '~'r'
ORADE OR ,U~ROVED E~JAL..
,3, ROCK MULCH TO BE 4' DEPTH I ~'r,
4. fiNN. APPROVN. OF MULCH TYPE TO BE BY OWNER(S).
5. MULCH INDIVIDUAL TREES W/~OOD CHIP MULCH 50 o ~o ~o
7. ALL OREEN AREAS TO BE IRRIOATED SC.q.E IN FEET
PLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE
K~' COMMON NAME QUANTITY S~ZE ROOT
8J Broodmoor Juniper Juqipe~us Sabina 'Broodmoor' 3 18-24" POT-3 GAL.
GFS Go~dflome Spire(] Spireo i- 'Go~dflame' ~ 18-24" POT-3 GAL.
SA Summit Ash Fraxinus PenflsylvanJca laflceolalata 'Summit' 6 2-1/2" B&B
GS GOLDMOUND SPIREA Spireaj Goldmound 4¢ 18-24" POT-5 GAL.
AH ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA Hydranqea Arborescens 'Annabelle' :~:~ 18-24" POT-5 GAL.
RM ROSE MAGNIFICA Ruqosas 'Magnifico' 22 18-24" POT-3 GAL.
RPW RED PRINCE WEIGELA Wei.qela Florida .32 18-24' POT-5 GAL.
JSY JAPANESE SPREADING YEW Taxus Cuspidata 11 18-2¢" POT-5 GAL.
CS COLORADO SPRUCE. PICEA PUNGENS 12 5-¢' B&B
'PO PIN OAK Quercus Palustris 6 2-1/2"
CB CRIMISON PYGMY BARBERRY Berberis Thunbergi .312~' POT-5 GAl_
OH GOLD HOSTAS Au.qust Moon 12 12-18" I' POT-1 GAL,
GD GOLD DAYLIUES Stella De Oro .30 1:~-1~!" POT-1 GAl_
CJ CHINESE SPREADING JUNIPER JUNIPERUS CHINENSlS 6 18-24" POT-5 GAL.
PLAN
I
SILT FENCE~i'-
SEE DETAIL, C~,
,~[~,s ('r~c~)
!
TYPICAL LANDSCAPING
NO SCALE
· i
GRADING PLAN
, ,I, DETAIL(
40TH AVE. ,
SILT FEN -...--- ~
SEE
,SILT FENCE ~
SEE DETAIL O(.~)
ZO'
LEGEND
"~'~~"~ I 921.0 DENOTES GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION
~' o~ ~.{ ---921.o .... DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
920.57 "
/
020:10
z \
r~
0+15
918.97
0
~ ,~ /'/'
~tP~P P~CEME~
NO
~E 1 CATCH BASIN BOX DETAIL
NO SCA~
~ INV.~916.~
] ~NG N~ R-2~I--A
980
i
910
N~TRO
EROSION CO L NOTES CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENIS ~ , ,~ ~' ~ I - ,~,,'
co,,.po.~¢~.,.~,..p~.,)..,,..-. ~ ~ l,~L2.!~~
'
_
~ · ,~ ,, _~
o~ '~ B BBB lss~..Inc. ~D
R~ C~S~C~ CN~AN~ ~ Hew Ho~t
eccorclance with the "Quality -- ':t I 2~' ~ t CURR AND Gu]'TF_R
~pecification 22tl. Class 5 E~S~NG
ssocletion of Minnesota, 1-1/2' JI~MI~
inane dit( shall be cover~ ~4' T~ MnDOT 2575 ~8~A~ PR~A~, MnDOT ~EC. 2122
seventy~e (:75) pounds ~ ~MIN~S TA~ COAT. MnDOT ~EC. 2557
ilizer 12-12-12 mixture
vage or borrow shall be
ICAL S EET SEC ON B-618 Ct
NO SCA~
~ by the Ci~ Engin~r.
Stondord Plate No. 3134,
each bituminous drainage UPHI~
RL~R -
~h MnOOT S~fic~tion 2551, FAB~C
shall be ~1/4' plan
of ~ penetration of 85/100. DO~HI~
non-weaHn~ mixtures, 5.~
ype 41A w~Hn~ and shoulder ~ POST
le
2555531
C;~ ~gineer at I~st
to callin~ for insp~tion, the MB~ 6' ~
~ith the approv~ plans and
~e can be contact~ by ~S~R~D ~[A UNISSUED ~
INSTALL AS P[R FIL'I~R FABRIC
MANUFACTURER'S RE;COMMENDATIONS
SILT FENCE DETAIL( )
NO SCALE
:em~nt of base material
DROP INLE'r WITH
;nished shaping prior to any ~ ~ ~""~
~struction prior to final
~ereof. of the street base
3ccr~dited testin(~ laboratory
corrected at the Developer's
results shall be directed to
30oratory. Eacf~ test shall
MINIMUM I
COMPOSITE;
AVERAGE
hickness
!
io scM~
· . /7'~ . . . ~,~=~ .....
...............................................
............................ ~ .......................
~D ~ O~L
' ~
~284801 ~284801 ~284801R2.DWG
Andemon CONSTRUC~ON REQUIREME~S 3
Assoc.,Inc. ~D D~AILS o~
~~~'~ L & A Addition
~ ~. ~ ~3 3
r~ ,,~-,z~o New Hope, Minnesota
.f
.f
.f
.f
RI~AR ELEVATION
311~".-
rrrr
[[
[[
,, , -. . -.. -.' , ," , " tl)~1
....... ! ~.-'F- .... ~-4~ .... !~ .-.--~-- ~ ~ .....
M® ~, ,,, .... ,,; ,,,,,.:.,,.... ®El ',1111
........ I ............ 1 ! ............ -~ I ......
,.;... ,[ .. ,11. ..- ,11, - ~,TFT
I I II II
.......... --,I , ' ~IF , III ....... :11' I
'--'-'~- '.'l------~--I'"~ "" , ' ' r"' --I '7 -' ' i
I_ I I I r---I
, ~-' 1" .~ - I.-T~F'= ~ 1~'~ '-I
FOUNDATION PLAN
I. ',.~_ ' --- t
uoJ.WW!O
./ %-. ,/' ~
~ ~. ~,,,
~,_~
~ . x~
· ,uoJewW!O
~ I:-~F."-"-'-',"'-~~I~ / ~ ~ ~ il {~ ~:-'. -' ..... '...'.."-';..":'... :~.
J II ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ lO I IlO III OOIOOllOl I
I~l, ~1li8 ~ ~..~,,- ~, ~
i,, .!, [ .' ...m,,,.
-~ . ~, .-..-
.:..:: .i,:I .. Ii
~ ~ ' '-1t J, ' - ~ '' . ........ ~ : '
~. . i J, - .
, ~ i t . Iii ~ - ~ .............. , : , , r4l
-= ,L- ' -- :.- ~:'= ......
0. ~ ;~'.- "J ' :~ == = ~0 ~o~~
uoJewW!O
kl NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Jason Lindahl / Alan Brixius
DATE: February 29, 2000
RE: New Hope - L and A Homes
FILE NO: 131.01 - 99.13
BACKGROUND ..
At the January City Council meeting, the Council granted a concept staged planned unit
development, rezoning from R-l, Single Family Residential to PUD, and preliminary plat
approvals for L & A Homes subject to the conditions outlined in the attached letter dated
January 12, 2000 and attached to this report as Exhibit A. The applicant is now seeking
final approval for the above-mentioned requests. Staff reviewed these plans for
compliance with the original conditions of approval and our findings are outlined below.
Building Setback
It appears that the applicant has made every effort to shift the separations and setbacks
of the buildings to conform with the zoning code. Variances have already been approved
for the building separation requirements. In addition, staff recommends approval of a one
(1) foot setback variance along the east property line.
Landscape Plan
The applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan and schedule that includes the
following
a. Revised planting Schedule.
b. Additional landscaping in the southwest corner.
c. Plantings in the breaks of the fence along Winnetka Avenue.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6
PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.COM
d. Pin Oaks along the southern fence line.
" e. Expansion of the tree protection areas around existing trees.
f. Six over story deciduous trees along the west fence line.
Utility Plan
The applicant has submitted revised plans indicating a street light in the southwestern
corner of the cul-de-sac and a fire hydrant on the northwest side of the cul-de-sac. In
addition, the Fire Department determined that the treed island at the throat of the cul-de-
sac would prevent fire vehicles from entering the development and therefore recommend
that it be removed. The island has been eliminated from the revised plans.
Homeowner's Association
The applicant has yet to revise the language in the development declarations regarding
the ownership structure of the common areas. They claim staff's recommendation could
make it difficult to purchase insurance. However, staff's recommended ownership
structure is used in similar developments in many other communities without issue.
Nevertheless, staff will consider waving the recommendation if the applicant can produce
evidence that it will make it difficult for them to purchase insurance.
Attachments
Exhibit A: Letter to Mr. & Mrs. Vagle Dated January 12, 2000
Exhibit B: Landscape, Lighting, & Grading Plan
Exhibit C: Erosion Control Notes
Exhibit D: Townhome Layouts
Exhibit E: Street, Sewer, & Water Plan
Exhibit F: Fence Detail
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the development and final staged planned unit development
and final plat for L & A Homes to allow the construction of eight townhome units on the
property located at the southeast corner of 49th Avenue and Winnetka Avenue subject to
the following conditions.
1. The applicant replace the plantings in the fence breaks along Winnetka Avenue
with Techny Arborvitae.
2. The applicant follows the recommendation of staff regarding the ownership
structure of all common areas or produce evidence that following this
recommendation will make it difficult for them to purchase insurance.
3. The applicant complies with all recommendations from the City Engineer, ~-'
pc: Lloyd and Alice Vagle
Doug Sanstad
Steve Sondrall
Mark Hanson
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
Octot:)er 1997
Base Map: 0 1000 2000 3000
Bonest roo Rosene ~-
Anderlik & Associates SCALE IN FEE'T~
City of New Hope GOLDEN VALLEY Plan
Comprehensive
Update
45 Inventoo,
PROPOSED LAND USE
LEGEND
//~/ City Boundary
[" i Low Density Residential
~ ..... Low Density / Medium Density Residentiai
I ....... ; Medium Density Residential
~.~ High Density Residential
~ Commercial
~ Industruial
~ Public & Semipublic
~ Parks & Recreation
---~ Lakes
~ :Vacant
____ Out side City limit
0 0.1 02 Miles
~ source: Northwest Associated Consultants
~: ,~ October 1999
City Comprehensive Plan Update
of
New
Hope
Development Framework
31
Base Map:
· Bone~mo Rosene C 1~__ 000 2000 3000
· Anclerlik & AsSOClate~ SCALE IN FEET~
City of New Hope GOLDEN VALLEY
Comprehensive
Plan
Update
79 Development Framework
0 /; 9/00 15:35 ( -02/03 H0:39
~gineers & Architects ~ ~,~ :'"~'~
. .:.~
· '~'V '
From: ~ H~son, ~in~ V~r Top ,:iii'
~: ~ ..... ,, ,,
~ .. "~.
· The tfi~l~ fight-of-why at 49~inn~tk~ Av,nu, i~ prop,fly ~hown.
":
~ainae~G radin~ ..~ =
· In an atto~t [o ~ave t~'inl~d~nt ~o th, ~ulev~d of 49m Avenuo, ~ store sewer and
sidew~k l~ation could ~:locat~ ~n~ ~d ~j~nt m ~ e~g no~ curb lino of 49~
Avenue. Sm~l ~t~ning w~ n~ ~, no~w~t ~d no~t mmo~ of ~o bnilding of ":.
~ located in tho dmin~g~ufility ~em,nt ~j~ont m ~e ~t pm~y lin, (sm~l radius
~nds could ~ con~idomd).
.
Ufili~ 1;:~.
· Conn~tion~mpai~ in 4~ ~wnue ~h~l ~ coo~inat~ w~th N~w Hopo Public Work~. '"~'..,: '
S~effSidewa .~
· Str~ff~idew~k improw~n~ ~e properly ~hown b~ on pmviou~ r~dew. . :.~.
..
':.~i"'
2335 ~est Highway ~6 · St,.. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-46~ · Fax: 651-636-1311
Transmission
Dm'e: 0Z/25/00 Frown.'. Vtnce V~der Top ,:~.
O~anlzation: New Hope P~ ~ F~ 2 .
F~ Numar: 612.531-5136 OHgl~l ~fl F~ow in MgI: Yes ~ No ~
Subject: L&A Addition ·
I w~nted to fo~ard ~ese comment~ ~ you to 0et your thou0h~, ~1 d ~e ~mmen~ relate to
If we are reafly ~erlou~ ~bo~ sa~n~ ~e tree8 on ~e no~ ~lde of ~e lot, ~em ~re · few ~em~ ~t could '*
be done. All of the item~ ere sho~ on the ~ched pa~e. Compare that p~e to plan that w~ submi~ed,
These items could all be done or indMdu~lly.
~. Con~tru~ the Morro ~wer under the ~outh cu~ ~ 49m Aven~, A ~tch b~sin exists in the
south cu~ ~ 49~ Ave. near Wlnne~. It appeam ~t ~de~ would ~liow the new sto~ ~ewer to
be conne~ed to ~i~ catch ~81n. *~
The Benefit: All excavati~ In the ama ~ ~he tree~ ~ld be ellmih~ted, Would also eliminate the
new flared end In the Iow am~. LonG-te~ m~inten~ce d th~ ~o~ seWem ~uid be Improved by
connectln~ ~re~ly to an existin~ ~h b~in,
The dra~ck: The cu~ and Gu~er alon~ 49~ Ave would h~ve to be remov~ ~nd replaced - an
2. LocMe the ~ldew~lk behind ~e 49~ Ave. curb. This could be done e~t of the existin~ power
pole. This ~uid put pede~n closer to traffic in 49~ Ave. Bend~: No con~tru~ion inbe~een ~e
tree~. The ~idew~lk ~ within the ROW. No si~n~nt dm~ack~. Pedest~ns are moved
closer to traffic In 49~ Ave. .'~i
3. Constru~ Retaining Wails by the no~h corners of ~ 1. Be~fR: ~ls would limit filling within'
the drip line of the ~ees. ~e current grading plan shes filling up to the tree ~un~ on both ~rnem'.
Drawback: Additional cost to constru~ walls.
4. Expand the prote~ed ama around the t~s during con~ion. Ma~e one larger common
area to prevent driving and ~n~ru~ion baleen trees. ~is ~ ~ly legible if the sidewalk is
moved. Benef~ Mlnim~e ~ffic and soil ~mpaetl~ at. nd trees. Drawback: Nothing signaling'
Limits ~nstru~lon movements.
If some or all of these things am done, we wlll r~uce impaM to ~ese trees, These things ce~ainly do n~:
have to be done. I wanted to discuss these ~th you before aubmiffing ~mmen~. G~en the stage of this'
plat and past convemations ~th the applt~nt, ! wanted your inp~ befo~ ~mmittng to these items as
recommendations. Thanks, ~n~ 651-604-4790. ~: ~rk Hanson '::'~,
2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-~ + F~: 651-636-1311 :::
Memo
DATE: .February 24, 2000
TO: Kirk McDonald, City of New Hope
FROM: .Dave Zetterstrom, HennePin County - Transportation Planning
SUBJECT: Final Plat, L & A Homes
The revised plat indicating no access to Winnetka Avenue (CSAH 156) is acceptable. We appreciate
the city's and developer's cooperatiOn in this matter.
The plat does not show any additional path or roadway easement along CSAH 156, as requested in
Review #2503, copy attached. This request is still valid if the city concurs.
Attachment
"October 25, 1999
Kirk McDonald
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Ave. N.
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Proposed Plat - L & A.~Iomes
CSAH 156 SE quad 49~ Ave. N.
Section g, Township 118, Range 2I
Hennepin County Plat No. 2503
Review and Recommendations
Dear Mr. McDonald:
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require county review of proposed plats abutting
county roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments:
· The developer should create a. 10' wide easement for sidewalk and roadway purposes along CSAH 156,
beyond the cur/. ent 40 foot right of way. This action will accommodate any futtire upgrading of the
CSAH 156/49~ Avenue intersection, as well as utilities, snow storage, signs, etc.
· The proposed right mm ingress is acceptable. However, we are concerned about wrong-way exiting
movements here. Appropnate on-site signage must be provided to preclude other uses, and will be
required via the penmt process when construction becomes, imminent. Should these movements
become a problem, the entrance may have to be closed. The site design should allow for this
contingency.
· Al.1 proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit
prior, to beginning .construction. This includes, but is not limited to access, drainage and utility
consumction, traildevelopment, and landscaping. Contact our Permits ~ection at 745-7601 for the
appropriate permit forms.
· The developer must restore all areas, within the county right of way, disturbed during construction.
Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstr~)m at 745-7643.
As a matter of procedure, we request that the City Clerk inform us of the City CoUncil's' action on the right
of way and access provisions.
Sincerely, ..,~ ~
Thomas D. Johnson, P.E.
Transportation Planning Engineer
TDJ:DKZ:jrh -'
cc:Pete Tulkki
Brad Moe
Transportation Department
1600 Prairie Drive l~ecy~led Paper
M~ ~ 553~-~21
(612) 745-7500 F~ (612) 478~00 ~D: (612) 8524760
JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A.
Attorneys At Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, ST~I
BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443~ 29
TELEPHONE (612) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (612) 493-5193
E-MAIL jss~jsspa.com
GORDON L. JENSEN*
WILLIAM G. SWANSON
STEV~ ^. SOND~
~WR~N P. ~C~A February 18, 2000
C. ALDEN PEARSONt
JULIE A. TH~LL
Kirk McDonald
o~ COUNSEL City of New Hope
LO~NS Q. BR¥~w_xrAD 4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: L and A Homes
Our File No. 99.15050
Dear Kirk:
I have examined the final plat for L and A Homes and have the following comments:
1. The plat dedication language needs to be revised slightly. The sentence
which immediately follows the legal description should read as follows
(additions underlined)': "...Have caused the same to be surveyed and
platted as L AND A HOMES, and do hereby donate and dedicate to the
public for public use forever the avenues and the way for street purposes.
and the easements for drainage and utility purposes, all as shown on the
plat." The avenues need to be included because there is some new street
dedication at the comer of Winnetka and 49~. The additional language
also makes clear that the "way" is dedicated for street purposes.
2. There are a number of issues that need to be covered in the Declaration,
specifically including the access for each lot across Lot 9 to get to the
street. Our office needs to review the Declaration before this
development gets final approval.
3. 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.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Certified By The
u~,,~ s~ ~ Assistant City Attorney
Association
tQualified ADR Neutral
cc: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney
CIC NUMBER ~-~.
L and A Homes, a Planned Community
DECLARATION
THIS DECLARATION is made on this day of , 2000, by
Trinity Land Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"Declarant").
RECITALS:
A. Declarant is the owner of certain real property described on Exhibit A
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, being located in the City of
New Hope, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("Property").
B. Declarant desires to create a common interest community on the Property
in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter §I§B (hereinafter
"Act") and to subject the Property to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, and
easements herein set forth.
C. Declarant has caused to be incorporated as a non-profit corporation under
the laws of the State of Minnesota, the L and A Homeowners Association, Inc.
(hereinafter "Association") for the purpose of exercising the powers and duties
hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that the Property shall be held,
built upon, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the Act and to the following
covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements which are for the purpose of
protecting the value and desirability of, and the benefits and burdens of which shall run
with, the Property and shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest
in the Property or any part thereof, and their heirs, successors and assigns.
ARTICLE I
Section 1. Definitions Incorporated. Except as otherwise specified in this
Declaration, the terms used in this Declaration which are defined in the Act shall have
the same meaning as they have in the Act.
~ Additional Definitions. Throughout this Declaration, the following
1
terms shall have the meaning given to the below:
(a) "Association" shall mean and refer to the L and A Homeowners
Association, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, its successors and
assigns.
(b) "Common Elements" shall mean all real property and improvements
thereon owned by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of
the Owners and such other persons to whom the Owners may delegate
this right pursuant to the Declaration. The Common Elements owned or
to be owned by the Association at the time of the conveyance of the first
Unit is legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto.
(c) "Declarant" shall mean and refer to Trinity Land Development, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation, their successors and assigns, if (i) any such
successor or assign should acquire more than one undeveloped Unit from
the Declarant for the purpose of development and the instrument of
conveyance recites that such successor or assign has acquired all of the
rights and obligations of the Declarant, or (ii) such rights and obligations
pass to such successor or assign by operation of law.
(d) "Declaration" shall mean and refer to this Declaration of L & A
Addition as from time to time amended in accordance with the provisions
hereof.
(e) "Eligible Mortgagee" shall mean the holder of a mortgage, which
is a first lien on any Unit.
(f) "Limited Common Elements" shall mean and refer to that portion
of the Common Elements allocated to specific Units in accordance with
Article XII, Section 7 hereof.
(g) "Property" shall mean and refer to that certain real property
described on Exhibit A, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be
brought within the jurisdiction of the Association in accordance with the
provisions hereof.
(h) "Unit" shall mean and refer to any plot of land shown upon any
recorded plat of the Property that is intended to be sold to the ultimate
buyer as separate property. The term "Unit" shall include any
improvements on such plots. "Unit" shall not be construed to mean
Common Area even though Common Area is identified as a lot on the
plat.
2
(i) "Unit Owner" shall mean and refer to (i) the record holder of the
fee simple title to a Unit, other than a contract for deed vendor, or (ii) a
contract for deed vendee of a Unit, whether one or more persons or
entities. A Unit Owner does not include persons who hold an interest in
a Unit merely as security for the performance of an obligation (including
contract for deed vendors).
~ JD.t.~. In the event of any conflict among the provisions
of the Act, the Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation of the Association, the By-
laws of the Association or any Rules and Regulations adopted by the Association, the
documents shall control in the following order of priority: (i) the Act; (ii) the
Declaration, (iii) the Articles of Incorporation, (iv) the By-laws and (v) the Rules and
Regulations. As appropriate, each reference to a masculine pronoun shall include the
feminine and neutral pronoun and each reference to a singular pronoun shall include
the multiple pronoun.
ARTICLE II
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with the requirements of Section 515B.2-105 of the Act, the
Declarant hereby states the following:
(a) The number of the Common Interest Community created hereby is the
number set forth on the first page of this Declaration
(b) The name of the Association is the L & A Homeowners Association, Inc.
The Association has been incorporated pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 317A.
(c) The common interest community created hereby is a planned community.
It is not subject to a master association.
(d) The legal description of the Property included within the common interest
community created hereby (including all appurtenant easements) is set forth on
the attached Exhibit A.
(e) The description of the boundaries of each unit created by this declaration,
including the unit identifier number for each Unit, is set forth on the plat of L &
A Addition, which plat has been filed for recording with the office of the
Hennepin County Recorder and is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
(f) The allocated interests are assigned equally to each Unit. Each Unit shall
one vote in the affairs of the Association. Except as provided in Article V,
Section 3 (relating to the Alternative Assessment Program), each Unit shall
share the Common Expenses equally.
(g) The common interest community created hereby shall consist of 8 units,
all of which shall be restricted to residential use.
(h) No additional units may be created by the subdivision or conversion of
Units.
(i) The use restrictions to which the Units are subject are located in Article
IV hereof. There is no restriction on the sale price of a unit. The amount to be
received upon the condemnation, casualty loss or termination of the common
interest community are set forth in Articles XII, Section 8; IX; and XI,
respectively.
(j) Time shares are not permitted.
(k) Matters relating to Special Declarant Rights are contained in Article III
hereof. Matters relating to the use of the Common Elements are contained in
Article V, Section I hereof. Matter relating to the care and maintenance of the
Common Elements are contained in Article VII, Section 1, hereof. Matters
relating to assessments for Common Expenses are contained in Article V hereof.
Matters relating to Limited Common Elements are contained in Article XII,
Section 7.
ARTICLE III
SPECIAL DECLARANT RIGHTS
Section 1. Period of Declarant Control. Notwithstanding anything in this
Declaration or the Association By-laws to the contrary, the Declarant shall have the
right to control the management and affairs of the Association until the earlier of the
following events:
(a) 60 days after the conveyance of seventy five percent of the Units
to Unit Owners other than the Declarant; or
(b) three years from the date of the first transfer of a Unit to an
Owner other than the Declarant. During this period of Declarant Control,
the Declarant, subject to Article V, Section 2 (b) of the By-Laws, shall
have the sole right to appoint, remove and replace the officers and
directors of the Association.
Maintenance of Sales Offices. Notwithstanding anything herein to
4
the contrary, so long as the Declarant owns an interest in a Unit, the Declarant may ~.~.
maintain advertising signs on any part of the Common Elements and sales offices,
management offices and model units in any Units or in or on any part of the Common
Elements and such sales offices and model Units may be relocated by Declarant from
time to time. There shall be no limit on the number or location of such offices or
model units.
Section 3. Easements in Favor of Declarant. Notwithstanding any provisions
contained herein to the contrary, so long as construction and initial sale of Units shall
continue, Declarant shall have any easement over and across the Common Elements
for the purpose of carrying out its sales activities and for the purpose of completing
the construction of any Units, including without limitation the right of vehicular ingress
and egress, vehicular parking, material storage, and the maintenance of business
offices, signs, model units, and sales offices, and Declarant shall have an easement
for access to such facilities; provided, however, that Declarant shall promptly restore
any damage to the Common Elements by reason of any construction incident to the
foregoing. This Section may not be amended without the express written consent of
the Declarant.
ARTICLE IV
USE RESTRICTIONS
Section 1. Residential Use Only. The Units shall be used for residential
purposes only. No use may be made of any Unit except that of a residence for the
Unit Owner thereof, their families, tenants and social guests. No business or
commercial use shall be permitted on the Property except as specifically provided in
this Declaration and except that the Association may maintain an office on or in any
part of the Property for management purposes.
~ Rental of Units. With the exception of a secured party in
possession of a Unit following a default in a first mortgage, a foreclosure proceeding,
or any deed or other arrangement in lieu of foreclosure, no Unit Owner shall be
permitted to lease his Unit for transient or hotel purposes. For the purposes of this
Section, "transient or hotel purposes" shall be defined as:
(a) rental for any period less than 30 days; or
(b) any rental if the occupants of the Unit are provided customary
hotel services, such as room service for food and beverage, maid service,
furnishing laundry and linen and bellboy service. The Unit Owners of the
respective Units shall not lease less than the entire Unit. Any lease
arrangement shall be required to provide that the terms of the lease shall
be subject in all respects to the provisions of this Declaration, the By-
laws and Articles of Incorporation of the Association and to any rules and
regulations established by the Board of Directors, shall contain the
agreement of the lessee to be bound by the terms of such documents
and shall provide that any failure by the lessee to comply with the terms
of such documents or rules shall be a default under the lease or rental
agreement. All leases shall be required to be in writing and any Unit
Owner leasing or renting a Unit shall, prior to the commencement of the
lease or rental term, deliver to the Secretary of the Association a
complete copy of the lease or rental agreement. Other than the
foregoing, the Unit Owners of the respective Units shall have the
absolute right to lease the same.
~ prohibited Activities. No Unlawful, noxious or offensive activities
shall be carried on in any Unit or elsewhere on the Property, nor shall anything be done
therein or thereon which shall constitute a nuisance or which shall in the judgment of
the Board of Directors cause unreasonable noise or disturbance to others. No residents
or visitors may park in areas not specifically designated for parking by the Association.
~ JJJ~lJ~J~,~[D.[. No Owner shall repair or redecorate the exterior of
a Unit except according to plans and specifications approved in writing by the Board
of Directors of the Association, so that the exterior of all buildings on the Property
shall always be maintained according to a harmonious plan. In addition, no clothing,
sheets, blankets, laundry or other articles shall be hung, displayed or stored outside
the Units (except within the garages which are allocated to the Units), or which may
be visible from the outside of the Units (other than draperies, curtains, or shades of
a customary nature and appearance and in any event subject to the rules and
regulations of the Board of Directors). No Owner shall paint or decorate or adorn the
outside of his Unit, or install outside his Unit any canopy or awning, or outside radio
or television antenna, or other equipment, fixtures or items of any kind, without the
prior written permission of the Board of Directors in its discretion. No Owner of a Unit
shall display, hang, store (except within the garage which is allocated to his Unit) or
use any sign outside his Unit, or which may be visible from the outside of his Unit
without the prior written permission of the Board of Directors. The foregoing
notwithstanding, an Owner shall be permitted to display a sign of not more than three
square feet in area advertising such Owner's Unit for sale or lease. Such sign shall be
located in the yard area between such Owner's Unit and the road in front of such Unit.
Unit Owners must also secure City of New Hope approval for certain repair, awnings,
canopies and signs. Approval by the City does not imply approval by the Board of
Directors, nor does approval by the Boarad of Directors imply approval by the City.
Section 5. Pets. Except as provided herein, no animal of any type shall be
kept in any Unit or in the Common Elements. When deemed appropriate by the Board
of Directors, it may, but shall not be required to, enact rules and regulations permitting
6
the keeping of a specific type of animal in one or more, but not all, Units when special
circumstances are present. An example of the special circumstances contemplated
hereby is the need for a seeing eye dog. The Board of Directors shall also have
complete discretion as to the substance of any administrative rules and regulation
enacted by it regarding the manner in which any permitted animal shall be kept,
provided that the Board of Directors may not, in any case, permit the keeping of any
animal for any commercial purpose. The Board of Directors shall have the right at any
time, to change its rules and regulations relating to special circumstance animals.
Such right shall include the right to prohibit the keeping of any animal of a type
permitted to be kept by previously enacted rules and regulations. Any animal
permitted to be kept shall be kept in strict accordance with the administrative rules and
regulations relating to such animals from time to time approved by the Board of
Directors and in any event shall be kept in a manner so as not to constitute a nuisance
to others.
Section 6. Trash. Trash, garbage and other waste shall be kept only in
sanitary containers located in the Unit garage, and shall be disposed of in a clean and
sanitary manner. The Association may contract with a single provider for the removal
and disposal of garbage, trash and other solid waste from all Units in accordance with
this Declaration. Each Unit Owner shall be obligated to purchase such services from
the provider designated by the Association upon the terms, conditions and rates
negotiated by the Association. In the event that any Unit Owner requests any services
not included within the basic/general charges of the provider, such Unit Owner, upon
written request of the Association, shall reimburse the Association for any charges for
such services, plus all related costs, including interest, attorney fees and administrative
charges of the Association, and if not paid by Owner, such charges shall be a lien
against such Unit Owner's Unit.
Section 7. Storage of Personal Pro.Derty. Except as provided in this
Declaration or as permitted by the rules and regulation adopted from time to time by
the Board of Directors in its sole discretion, no personal property of any kind
whatsoever belonging to any Owner or to any tenant, guest or invitee of such Owner
shall be stored, placed or kept, temporarily or permanently, outside of a Unit of on the
Common Elements. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, no motorized or
non- motorized vehicles, boats, campers, cabs, trailers, recreational vehicles,
snowmobiles, bicycles, tricycles, motorcycles or other types of recreational equipment,
shall be stored except inside a garage. The foregoing notwithstanding an Owner may:
(a) keep personal property in his garage;
(b) park operational automobiles on the driveway allocated to his Unit;
and
7
(c) keep normal and customary lawn and patio furniture and potted
plants (but no play equipment) on any lawn and/or patio allocated to such
Owner's Unit.
~ ~. No Unit Owner shall overload the electrical wiring in a
Unit or operate any machines, appliances, accessories or equipment in such manner
as to cause, in the judgement of the Board of Directors, an unreasonable disturbance
to others.
~ Rules and Regulations. A Unit Owner's use of his Unit and the
Common Elements will be subject to any rules and regulations enacted by the
Association pursuant to Article VII hereof.
~P,~tJDJ3_lJ~ Gardens and Shrubs. Excepts as permitted by the Board of
Directors in its sole discretion, no gardens, shrubs, flowers or other plants shall be
planted by any Owner on any part of the Common Elements.
Section 1 1. Visitor Parking. Except for the driveway allocated to each Unit, all
parking areas in the Common Elements are reserved for guests, invitees and visitors
to the Property and shall not be used by Unit Owners.
~e,_c,~J3~,~ Blocking of Driveways. Under no circumstances shall any Unit
Owner block access to any garage or driveway other than the garage or driveway
serving such Owner's Unit.
ARTICLE V
Section 1. Unit Owners Easements of Common Elements.
(a) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, there shall exist
the following easements in favor of each Unit Owner and appurtenant to
such Unit Owner's Unit over, across and upon the Common Elements:
(i) A non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress to and
from such Unit over and across designated pedestrian or vehicular
passageways or access areas in the Common Elements and to and
from dedicated or public streets, highways, or rights of way;
(ii) A non-exclusive easement to construct, maintain, install,
repair, and replace sanitary and storm sewer, water, gas, electric,
telephone, cable television and other utility lines which may or may
hereafter serve a Unit. Such utility lines shall be initially
8
constructed or installed in locations designated by Declarant. New
or replacement utility lines shall only be constructed at such
locations as may be approved by the Board of Directors of the
Association;
(iii) In the event that any building or other structures originally
constructed by the Declarant or constructed or erected thereafter
as part of any Unit in accordance with this document encroaches
upon any other Unit, or, if any such encroachment shall hereafter
arise because of settling or shifting of the building or other cause,
an exclusive easement appurtenant to said encroaching Unit for
such encroachment and the maintenance thereof shall exist.
(iv) A non-exclusive easement for the use and enjoyment of
those portions of the Common Area developed for open space and
recreational uses.
(b) The rights and easements in favor of the Units and the Unit
Owners created hereby shall be subject to the following:
(i) The right of the Association, as provided in its Articles and
By-laws, to borrow monies for the purpose or improving, repairing,
and maintaining the Common Elements, or any improvements
thereon, and in aid thereof to mortgage said properties, provided
that any such mortgage shall be approved at a meeting of the Unit
Owners or in writing by the holders of at least 67 percent of the
total votes in the Association (including 67 percent of the votes
allocated to Units not owned by the Declarant).
(ii) The right of the Association to take such steps as are
reasonably necessary to protect the Common Elements against
foreclosure;
(iii) The right of the Association to suspend the voting and
enjoyment rights of any Member for any period during which any
assessment remains unpaid; provided, however, that nothing
contained in this subparagraph (iii) shall be deemed to deny an
owner access to and from his or her Unit;
(iv) The right of the Association to dedicate or transfer all or any
part of the Common Elements to any public agency, authority or
utility (including, without limitation, utilities furnishing gas,
electricity, water, telephone or cable television) or to grant
permits, licenses and easements over such Common Elements for
utilities, roads and other purposes reasonably necessary or useful
for the proper maintenance or operation of the Property, provided
that, except as otherwise provided herein, no dedication or
transfer of an portion of the Common Elements, nor any
easements, license, or permit over or with respect to any portion
thereof shall be effective unless approved at a meeting of the
members of the Association, which approval shall be evidenced by
a written resolution duly attested to by the Secretary of the
Association. All other requirements set forth in the Declaration or
the Act must also be satisfied with respect to any transaction of
the nature therein described.
(c) Any Owner may delegate such Owner's property rights in the
Common Elements to his or her family and his or her tenants who reside
on the Property, subject to all the provisions herein contained.
(d) Nothing contained in this Declaration or in the Articles of
Incorporation or By-Laws of the Association shall be construed as a
dedication of any part of the Common Elements to the public or to public
use.
~ Association's Easement. The Association shall have an easement
over each Unit, including the right of access and entry into any building constructed
as part of a Unit, for maintenance of the exterior of all improvements, for the
maintenance, repair and replacement of water, sewer and other utility pipes, ducts,
and wires and for the purpose of performing any emergency repairs or other duty of
the Association. The Association's use of this easement is subject to reasonable
notice to affected Unit Owners and performance of work at reasonable hours. Notice
from the Association is hereby waived in the event emergency repairs are required.
If work performed by the Association shall damage real or personal property of any
Owner, such loss or damage shall be repaired or replaced by the Association as a
common expense.
Section 3. Limited Common Elements/Utility Easements.
(a) Except as otherwise provided herein, each Owner shall be entitled
to the exclusive use and occupancy of his or her Unit and any Limited
Common Elements allocated thereto in accordance with Article Xll,
Section 7 of this Declaration, to the exclusion of all others; provided,
however, the Property generally and all other Unit Owners shall be
entitled to a visual easement over all such areas, subject to and limited
by the original structures erected thereon by the Declarant. No Owner
10
shall erect or cause to be erected any structure of an sort upon his or her
Lot, or plant any trees or shrubs prior to obtaining the written approval
of the Association.
(b) Each Unit over which a public utility easement has been dedicated,
as shown on the recorded plat of the Property, shall be subject to a right
and easement for underground general utility purposes over that portion
of such Unit which is burdened with such dedicated public utility
easement. Such utility purposes shall include, but not be limited to,
sewer, water, gas, electrical, telephone and cable television purposes,
including the right to build, construct, reconstruct, rebuild, repair,
maintain and operate underground sewer, water, electrical mains and
telephone or television cables, and any surface connections to such
underground mains, along with the right to enter upon, and open the
ground for such purposes providing that all such openings shall be filled
and the surface restored to its former condition.
(c) The utility easements described in subsection (b) of this Section 3,
are and shall continue to be superior to the Limited Common Elements
describes in subsection (a) of this Section 3; provided, however, in the
event that it shall be necessary to install, repair or maintain any utility
facilities crossing an such private yard area, such repairs and
maintenance shall be undertaken so as to cause, to the extent
practicable, minimal interference with the use of such areas, and any and
all damage to driveway, driveway apron surfaces, walkway or yard areas
shall be repaired and the surface fully restored.
~ Easements Perpetual and Appurtenapt. The easements described
in this Article V shall be perpetual in duration and shall be appurtenant to the Units
which are burdened and benefited by such easements.
~ Easements Rights of Associatior~. All the easements created herein
which run in favor of the Association may only be used by the Association in
connection with the exercise of those rights and obligation of the Association which
are more fully described elsewhere in this Declaration.
ARTICLE VI
COVENANT FOR COMMON EXPENSE ASSESSMENTS -
Section 1, ~[dgaj~J~.P, yJL. The Board of Directors shall from time to time, and
at least annually in advance of the beginning of the Association's fiscal year, prepare
a budget of Common Expenses for the Association and shall allocate, assess and levy
such Common Expenses against Units equally. The assessment for Common Expenses
11
shall include all costs incurred by the Association in carrying out the rights and duties
granted to it by this Declaration, the By-laws and Articles of the Association, and the
Act, including, but not limited to the following: property damage and liability insurance;
fidelity bonds; professional fees; maintenance, repair, and replacement expenses;
utilities used in the Common Elements; snow removal; and lawn care. Each
assessment shall be the personal obligation of the Unit Owners. If a Unit has more
than one Unit Owner, each Unit Owner shall be jointly and severally liable for the
assessment. Upon the vote of the Board of Directors adopting a resolution which sets
forth the budget of Common Expenses and the allocation thereof to the Unit Owners,
the amount so allocated to the Unit Owners of each Unit shall, without further
resolution by the Board of Directors, be levied as the annual assessment against such
Unit, payable in equal monthly installments due on the first day of each month during
the period covered by the Budget. Declarant shall be responsible for all Common
Expenses set forth in this Declaration and the By-Laws of the Association until such
a date that the Board of Directors has adopted a resolution which sets forth the first
budget of Common Expenses and the allocation thereof to the Unit Owners. The
Common Expenses shall include those Common Expenses set forth in this Declaration
and the By-Laws of the Association and may include such other amounts as the Board
of Directors may deem proper for the operation and maintenance of the Property and
as permitted by the Act and all laws amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto.
The Board of Directors shall advise all Unit Owners in writing prior to the beginning of
the period covered by the budget as to the amount of the monthly assessments
payable by each of them, and shall, upon request by the Unit Owner, furnish copies
of each budget on which such Common Expenses and the assessment are based to
such Unit Owner and to his First Mortgagee. The total of any budget shall be in the
amount of the estimated Common Expenses for the period covered thereby, including
a reasonable allowance for contingencies and reserves (see Section 2 of this Article
VI), less the amounts of any unneeded Common Expense account balances existing
from the previous period's budget, and less any estimated payments to be received by
the Association from rental, licensing or other payments for the purpose of defraying
the costs of the use of the Common Elements. The total of the budget shall not be
increased more than five percent (5%) annually without a general meeting of the
members of the Association resulting in a majority vote to increase said budget more
than five percent (5%). If a budget is not made by the Board of Directors as required,
a monthly assessment in the amount required by the last prior budget shall be due
upon each monthly assessment payment date until changed by a new budget. In the
event an annual or other budget proves to be insufficient, or in the event of
extraordinary or unforeseen Common Expenses, the budget and monthly assessments
based thereon may be amended, or a special assessment levied, at any time by the
Board of Directors. Any special assessment shall be assessed against each Unit
equally, shall be lien on the Units and shall be enforceable in the same manner as the
monthly assessments. Special assessments shall be payable in installments or lump
sum, all as designated by the Board of Directors. During any period of the Declarant
12
control, the budget shall not be increased by more than five percent (5%) over the
previous year's budget, nor shall any special assessments be imposed without the
affirmative vote of 67% of Unit Owners (other than Declarant) at a meeting called for
that purpose.
~ Reserve Funds. The assessment for Common Expenses shall
include an adequate reserve fund for maintenance, repair and replacement of any and
all improvements which the Association has the obligation to maintain under and
pursuant to this Declaration. Contributions to any reserve funds established by the
Association may not be withdrawn by any Unit Owner.
~ Alternative Assessment Program.
(a) Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary,
when spreading the assessments against the Units, the amount of the
Assessment levied against those Units owned by the Declarant shall be
limited to twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount assessed against
those Units owned by Unit Owners other than the Declarant; provided,
however, that at such time as a certificate of occupancy is issued for any
Unit owned by the Declarant, the assessment for such unit shall be
increased to the amount originally assessed against those Units not
owned by the Declarant.
(b) The alternative assessment program shall commerce with the
adoption of the first assessment roll by the Association and shall
continue until the Declarant has transferred all of the Units to Unit
Owners other than the Declarant.
(c) The Declarant makes no representations regarding the effect of the
alternative assessment program on the level of services for items set
forth in the Association's budget.
Section ~., Payment of Common Expenses. All Unit Owners shall be obligated
to pay the Common Expenses assessed and levied by the Board of Directors pursuant
to Section I of this Article VI. An Owner may not avoid assessment for Common
Expense by failing or waiving the right to use or enjoyment of the Common Elements.
Monthly assessments shall be due as provided in Section 1 of this Article VI and
special assessments shall be due when designated by the Board of Directors. Any
mortgagee acquiring a first mortgage interest from any Owner of a Unit may, as a
condition of the loan, include in the mortgage note or deed a requirement that the
mortgagor, upon execution of the mortgage deed, make a monthly deposit with the
mortgagee of an amount each month sufficient to pay when due and payable all
Common Expenses attributable to that Unit. The mortgage note or deed may further
13
provide that a default in making such deposit shall be a default under the terms of the
mortgage deed. tn the event that mortgagee collects the monthly installments, such
mortgagee shall remit the installments monthly on a current basis to the Association.
~ Assessment Roll. The assessments against all Owners shall be set
forth upon a roll of the Units which shall be available in the office of the Association
or of any managing agent retained by the Association for inspection at all reasonable
times by Unit Owners or their duly authorized representatives. Such roll shall indicate
for each Unit the name and address of the Unit Owners, the assessments for all
purposes, and the amounts of all assessments paid and unpaid.
~ Default in Payment and Collection of Common I:x.~enses. In the
event any Owner does not make payment of a Common Expense assessment on or
before the date when due, such Owner shall be obligated to pay interest on such
assessment from the date due at the rate specified from time to time by the Board of
Directors which shall not exceed the highest rate of interest which may be charged
thereon pursuant to either the Act or the laws of the State of Minnesota. In addition,
such Owner shall be obligated to pay all expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees
incurred by the Board in any proceeding brought to collect any such unpaid
assessment, whether or not an action has been commenced with respect thereto. The
right of a Unit Owner to pay the annual assessment in monthly installments is hereby
made conditional on the prompt payment when due of such monthly installments. In
the event of a default in the prompt payment of the monthly installments, the Board
of Directors may, by written notice given to the defaulting Owner, accelerate the entire
unpaid portion of the annual assessment, whereupon the same shall become
immediately due and payable. Additionally, the Board of Directors shall have the right
to withhold services from any defaulting Owner. The Board of Directors shall have the
right and duty to attempt to recover all assessments for Common Expenses, together
with interest thereon and the expenses of the proceeding, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, in an action to recover the same brought against an Owner, by
foreclosure of the lien on a Unit pursuant to the Act, any statute amendatory thereof
or supplementary thereto, or by another remedy available under the Act or hereunder.
Section 7. Initiation Fee. Each initial purchaser of a Unit from the Declarant
shall pay to the Association an initiation fee in the amount of $200.00. Said payment
is not a deposit or advance payment of assessments which the purchaser is otherwiSe
required in this Declaration to pay to the Association, but rather is a payment to a
working capital fund established by the Association for the initial months of
operations. In the event the total initiation fees (when combined with the collected
assessments) exceed the amount necessary to fund the operation of the association,
then said excess shall be contributed to the reserve funds to be maintained by the
Association.
14
Cost of Damage Caused by Unit Owner.
(a) If any item of maintenance or repair to be performed by the
Association is required because of the willful or negligent act or omission
of any Unit Owner, his family, guests or tenants, the cost of such
maintenance or repair, in excess of net insurance proceeds received by
the Association in connection therewith, shall be added to and become
a part of the next monthly assessment to which the Unit of such Owner
is subject.
(b) In the event an Owner's actions causes any sod or plantings to
die, the Association shall have the right to replace any sod or plantings
that have died, and the cost thereof shall be added to and become part
of the Owner's assessment.
Exceptions for Unequal Assessments.
(a) Any common expenses associated with the maintenance, repair or
replacement of a Limited Common Element undertaken by the
Association may be assessed exclusively against the Unit or Units to
which that Limited Common Element is assigned, on the basis of:
(i) equality;
(ii) square footage of the area being maintained, repaired or
replaced; or
(iii) the actual cost incurred with respect to each Unit.
(b) Any common expense or portion thereof benefiting fewer than all
of the Units may be assessed exclusively against the Units benefited on
the basis of:
(i) equality;
(ii) square footage of the area being maintained, repaired or
replaced; or
(iii) the actual cost incurred with respect to each Unit.
(c) The costs of insurance may be assessed in proportion to value, risk
of coverage, and the costs of utilities may be assessed in proportion to
usage.
15
(d) Reasonable attorney fees and other costs incurred by the
Association in connection with the collection of assessments and the
enforcement of the Declaration, By-laws, Act or Rules and Regulations
against an Owner or occupant or their guests may be assessed against
the Owner's Unit.
(e) Fees, charges, late charges, fines and interest may be assessed as
provided in Section 51 5B.3-116(a) of the Act.
(f) Assessments levied under Section 515B.3-116 of the Act to pay
a judgment against the Association may be levied only against the units
existing at the time the judgment was entered in proportion to their
Common Expense liabilities.
(g) If any damage to the Common Elements or another Unit is caused
by the action or omission of any Owner or occupant or their guests, the
Association may assess the costs of repairing the damage against the
Owner's Unit to the extend not covered by insurance.
(h) If Common Expense liabilities are reallocated for any purpose
authorized by the Act, common expense assessments and installments
thereof not yet due shall be recalculated in accordance with the
reallocated common expense liabilities.
(i) Assessments described in Sections 9 (a) through 9 (g) shall not be
considered as being special assessments.
Section 10, User Fees. The Association may various fees, charges, security
deposits and other requirements. Such fees, charges, deposits and other requirements
shall be applied on a uniform basis and shall not constitute assessments.
ARTICLE VII
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION
Section 1. Rights and Obligations of the Association. The Association shall
have the right and obligation to carry out the following activities:
(a) Maintain and repair the roofs and exterior surfaces of all buildings
on the Property, including, without limitation, any improvements
constructed as part of the Units, including without limitation, the painting
of the same as often as necessary, the replacement of trim and caulking,
and the maintenance and repair of roofs, overhangs, gutters and down
spouts, storm windows, screens, doors, decks and garage doors
16
constituting part of a Unit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Association shall have no responsibility for the repair or replacement of
'broken glass which forms the exterior boundary of a Unit. The
Association shall also maintain and repair of any portion of any Unit
damaged as a result of the roof or exterior surfaces thereof being in a
state of disrepair.
(b) Maintain and repair the private drive, driveways and walkways,
including any portion thereof located on any Unit. The Association shall
be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the water supply system
up to the inlet side of the water meter in each Unit, the underground
sprinkler lines (if any) and the sanitary sewer system up to the foundation
wall of each Unit.
(c) Snow removal from driveways and parking areas located on the
Units. The Association, however, shall not be responsible for the
removal of snow from walkways, Unit steps or patios located on the
Unit.
(d) Maintain the Common Elements and all lawns, landscaping and
exterior areas of the Units, all to the extent the Board of Directors of the
Association deems necessary or desirable.
(e) Maintain and manage any other amenities constructed for use by
Unit Owners.
(f) Adopt and publish administrative rules and regulations governing
the operation and the use of the Common Elements, the use and
occupancy of the Units and the personal conduct of the members and
their tenants and guests thereon and therein, parking, matters of
aesthetics affecting the Community or any part thereof and such other
matters as are necessary or desirable to the harmonious use and
enjoyment of the Property by the Unit Owners, copies of all of which
rules and regulations shall be made available to all Unit Owners.
(g) Exercise all powers, duties and authority vested in or delegated to
the Association and not reserved to the Unit Owners by law or by other
provisions of this Declaration or the Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws -
of the Association.
(h) The Association may obtain and pay for the services of any person
or entity to manage its affairs, or any part thereof, to the extent it deems
advisable, as well as such other personnel as the Association shall
17
determine to be necessary or desirable for the proper operation of the
Property whether such personnel are furnished or employed directly by
the Association or by any person or entity with whom or which it
contracts. The Association may obtain and pay for legal and accounting
services necessary or desirable in connection with the operation of the
Property or the enforcement of this Declaration. The Association may
arrange with others to furnish water, trash collection, snow removal,
sewer service and other common services to each Lot. Any agreement
entered into by the Association for the management of all or a portion of
the affairs of the Association or any other agreement providing for
service by the Declarant or an affiliate of the Declarant shall be of a
duration which does not exceed one year, shall be terminable by the
Association or the other party thereto without cause and without
payment of a termination fee upon not more than 90 days' written notice
and shall be terminable by the Association for cause upon not more than
30 days' written notice.
(i) Lease or purchase and mortgage a Unit, Units or other residential
quarters for management and maintenance personnel. All rental or debt
service paid by the Association pursuant to such lease agreement or
mortgage shall be a general Common Expense;
(j) Determine what shall constitute Common Expenses required for
the affairs of the Association and levy and collect such Common
Expenses from the Unit Owners, all in accordance with Article VI hereof.
(k) Open bank accounts on behalf of the Association and designate
signatories required therefor.
(I) Obtain insurance for the Association or the Community pursuant
to the provisions of this Declaration.
(m) Dedicate or transfer easements for public utilities or other public
purposes consistent with the intended use of the Common Elements over
any part of the Common Elements to any governmental subdivision or
public agency or public utility.
(n) Keep at the registered office of the Association or at such other
place as the Board of Directors may determine, records of the actions of
the Board of Directors, minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors,
minutes of the meetings of the Members of the Association, names of
the Unit Owners and names of any secured parties who have requested
the notice of default as described in Article X of this Declaration and the
18
Unit on which such First Mortgagee holds a mortgage, and detailed and
accurate records, in chronological order, of the receipts and expenditures
affecting the Common Elements. Separate accounts shall be maintained
for each Unit setting forth the amount of the assessments against the
Unit, the date when due, the amount paid thereon and the balance
remaining unpaid.
(o) Prepare or cause to be prepared the annual report referenced in
Article IV, Section (b) of the By-Laws of the Association.
(p) Furnish or cause to be furnished a certificate in accordance with
Section 515B.4-107 (b) of the Act. The Association shall have the
power to establish and collect a fee for such certificates, which fee shall
be in an amount reasonably related to the costs incurred by the
Association in furnishing such certificate.
(q) Obtain the review of the Association's financial statements
required by Section 515B.3-121 of the Act, unless waived by the Unit
Owners in accordance with the provisions of such section.
(r) Maintain, repair or replace (in the event of destruction) any party
wall which constitutes a dividing line between any two Units (provided
that the obligation to repair or replace shall not include any improvements
or furnishings installed by a Unit Owner on a party wall.
(s) Except to the extent such exercise is inconsistent with the specific
provisions of this Declaration or the Act, exercise all other powers
lawfully available to a corporation organized under and pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 317A.
~ Limitation or Authority. Anything herein or in the Declaration to
the contrary notwithstanding, unless specifically authorized herein or in the
Declaration, the Board of Directors shall have no authority, except as may specifically
be granted by the majority (or such higher number as may otherwise be required
hereunder, by the Act or by the Declaration) of the members present in person or by
proxy at a meeting thereof, to do any of the following:
(a) Purchase any Unit except that the Board of Directors may accept
any Unit surrendered to it for unpaid assessments and may purchase a
Unit at any sale held pursuant to foreclosure for unpaid assessments
provided that the Board of Directors shall not, unless authorized by the
members, bid, at any such foreclosure sale, any amount in excess of the
total of the delinquent assessment on account of which the foreclosure
19
sale is being held, any interest thereon and other costs related thereto
which are, pursuant to the Declaration, the Act and hereunder, collectible
from the Unit Owner of such Unit.
(b) Levy or assess as a Common Expense the cost of any capital
improvement or acquisition, other than the repair or replacement of an
existing portion of the Property, unless specifically authorized by not less
than 90 % of the total voting power of the Association.
ARTICLE VIII
ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL
From and after the completion of construction on and sale of any Unit, no
building, fence, wall or other structure shall be commenced, erected or maintained
upon any Unit, nor shall any exterior addition or change or alteration be made to any
Unit until plans and specifications showing the nature, kind, shape, heights, materials,
and location of the same shall have been submitted to an approved in writing as to
quality of workmanship and materials, harmony of external design and location in
relation to surrounding structures, finish grade elevation, and topography by the Board
of Directors of the Association, or by an architectural control committee composed of
three (3) or more representatives appointed by the Board. In the event said Board, or
its designated committee, fails to approve or disapprove such design and location
within thirty (30) days after said plans and specifications have been submitted to it,
such approval will not be required and this Article will be deemed to have been fully
complied with. The prevailing party in an action brought by the Association to enforce
this Article shall be entitled to recover from the other reasonable attorney's fees
together with all necessary costs and disbursements incurred in connection therewith.
ARTICLE IX
INSURANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION
Section 1. Liability Insurance. The Board of Directors of the Association, or
its duly authorized agent, shall obtain a commercial general liability insurance against
claims and liabilities arising in connection with the ownership, existence, use or
management of the Property with such coverages and limits of liability as the
Association shall determine to be necessary, but in no event shall the limits of the
policy be less than $1,000,000.00 covering all claims for personal injury and/or
property damage arising out of a single occurrence. Said policy shall insure the Board
of Directors, the Association, any management agent, and their respective employees,
agents and all persons acting as agents. Said policy shall also insure Unit Owners
(including the Declarant), but only for claims and liabilities arising in connection with
the ownership, existence, use or management of the Common Elements. Said policy
shall also cover claims of one or more insured parties against other insured parties.
20
~ Casualty Insurance on the Living Units and the Insurable Common
Area. Except as such requirements shall be modified by Federal National Mortgage
Association ("F.N.M.A."), or Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("F.H.L.M.C."),
the Association shall keep all Units and all insurable improvements and fixtures of the
Common Elements, if any, insured against loss or damage by fire and other hazards
covered by the standard extended coverage endorsement and by sprinkler leakage (if
applicable), debris removal, cost of demolition, vandalism, malicious mischief,
windstorm, and water damage, as well as other risks customarily covered in similar
projects for an amount equal to the full insurable replacement cost (i.e., 100% of
current "replacement cost") excluding land, foundation, excavation, and other items
normally excluded from coverage. Such insurance to cover all of the Units and all of
the Common Elements owned by the Association (including all fixtures and building
service equipment to the extent they are a part of the Common Elements, as well as
common personal property and supplies), together with such endorsements as may be
required by F.N.M.A., or F.H.L.M.C. Any insurance maintained by the Association and
covering the Units shall not cover betterments or improvements to the Units installed
by the Owners.
Section 3. Terms of Insurance Policies. All insurance policies carried pursuant
to Sections I and 2 of this Article X shall provide as follows:
(a) Each Unit Owner and Secured Party is an insured person under the
policy with respect to liability arising out of the Owner's interest in the
Common Elements or membership in the Association;
(b) The insurer waives its right to subrogation under the policy against
any Unit Owner or member of the Owner's household and against the
Association and the members of the Association's Board of Directors;
(c) No act or omission by any Unit Owner or Secured Party shall void
the policy or be a condition to recovery under the policy; and
(d) If at the time of a loss under the policy there is other insurance in
the name of a Unit Owner covering the same property covered by the
policy, the Association's policy is the primary insurance.
(e) The insurer agrees to issue certificates or memorandum of
insurance, upon request, to any Owner or Secured Party, and the insurer
agrees that the insurance may not be canceled until 30 days after notice
of the proposed cancellation has been mailed to the Association and to
each Unit Owner and each Secured Party to whom certificates of
insurance have been issued.
21
~ Maintenance of Insurance By Owners of Living Units. In the event
the insurance described in Sections 1 and 2 o,f this Article X is not reasonably
available, the Association shall give reasonable notice of that fact to the Unit Owners.
Thereafter, each Unit Owner, by his or her acceptance of a deed therefor, whether or
not it shall be expressed in any such deed or other conveyance, covenant to carry,
maintain and timely pay the premium or premiums on the policy of fire and extended
coverage insurance, with the coverages included in the standard "all risk"
endorsement. Such insurance shall cover, at a minimum, the full insurable replacement
cost of the Unit owned by such Unit Owner, shall be in a form satisfactory to the
Association and, as applicable, F.N.M.A., F.H.L.M.C., or any governmental or private
purchase, insurer or guarantor of any mortgage on a Unit, shall provide that such
policy may not be canceled or substantially modified by any party without at least
thirty (30) days prior written notice to the Association. Each Unit Owner shall furnish
the Association satisfactory evidence of the maintenance of such insurance. The
association may, but shall not be required to, make payments of casualty insurance
premiums on behalf of any Unit Owner; provided, however, that if the Association
does pay such premiums, the amount so paid by the Association shall be immediately
due and payable by such Unit Owner to the Association and may be included in the
Common Expense assessment against such Owner's Unit.
Section 5. Replacement or Repair of Common Elements. All insurance
coverage with respect to the Common Elements shall be written in the name of,
adjusted by, and the proceeds thereof shall be payable to, the Association. Said
insurance proceeds shall be applied and administered by the Association in accordance
with the terms of the Act, and all amendments thereto.
Section 6. Repair or Replacement of Unit: Association as Insurance Trustee.
(a) In the event that any Unit or Units are destroyed or damaged by
causes covered by the insurance referred to in Section 2 or 4 above, all
proceeds of such insurance coverage shall be payable to the Association
as insurance trustee for the Owner (s) of said Unit (s) and the Secured
Parties of record of said Unit (s). Said insurance proceeds shall be
applied and administered by the Association in accordance with the terms
of the Act, and all amendments thereto.
(b) In the event of damage to a Unit, the Association may (i) pay the
deductible as a common expense, (ii) assess the deductible amount
against the Units affected in any reasonable manner, or (iii) require the
Unit Owners of the Units affected to pay the deductible directly.
Section 7. Waiver of Subrogation. To the extent permitted by the standard
Minnesota form of fire and extended coverage insurance with all risk endorsements
22
and to the extent benefits are paid under such policy, each owner of a Living Unit and
the Association do hereby mutually release each other, and their respective officers,
agents, employees and invitees, from all claims for damage or destruction of their
respective physical properties if such damage or destruction results from one or more
of the perils covered by the standard Minnesota form of fire and extended coverage.
~ EJd~. The Board of Directors shall, to the extent such
coverage is available and affordable at what the Board of Directors determines to be
reasonable rates, also provide fidelity bonds providing protection to the Association
against loss by reason of acts of fraud or dishonesty on the party of the Association's
directors, managers, officers, employees or volunteers who are responsible for
handling funds of the Association in an amount sufficient to provide no less protection
than one and one-half (1-1/2) times the estimated annual operating expenses of the
Association, including reserves. Any policy or bond obtained hereunder shall provide
that it may not be canceled or substantially modified (including cancellation for non-
payment of premium) without at least thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the
Association.
Other Insurance.
(a) The Association may maintain such other insurance as the Board
of Directors deems appropriate.
(b) The Owners may maintain insurance for personal benefit in
addition to the insurance carried by the Association.
Section 10. Assessments for Insurance Premiums and Repair Costs in excess
of II~surence Proceeds.
(a) The expense of the insurance and fidelity bonds, if any, maintained
by the Association under this Article IX shall be borne by all members
through the assessments.
(b) The cost of repair or replacement of the Common Area fixtures or
improvements in excess of insurance proceeds and reserves shall be
assessed and paid as provided in Section 6 of this Article X. The cost of
repair by the respective Owner of the Living Unit.
ARTICLE X
RIGHTS OF ELIGIBLE MORTGAGEES;
~ Conflicting Provisions. The following provisions shall take
precedence over all provisions of this Declaration, and in the event of any
23
inconsistency or contradiction, the following provisions of this Article X shall control.
~ Notice of Actions. An Eligible Mortgagee, or its assigns, upon
request, will be entitled to written notification from the Association of:
(a) any default in the performance by the Unit Owner of any obligation
under this Declaration of the By-laws of the Association which is not
cured within sixty (60) days;
(b) any lapse, cancellation or material modification of any insurance
policy or fidelity bond maintained by the Association; or
(c) any proposed action which, pursuant to this Declaration or the
Act, requires the consent of a specified percentage of the Eligible
Mortgagees.
Section 3. Certain Amendments. In addition to statutory requirements for
amendment of this Declaration and By-laws of the Association, unless at least sixty-
seven percent (67%) (or such higher percentage as is required by law or this
Declaration) of the Eligible Mortgagees, or their assigns (based upon one vote for each
first mortgage owned), and of the Unit Owners (other than any sponsor, developer, or
builder including the Declarant) of the Units have given their prior written approval, the
Association shall not be entitled to:
(a) By act or omission, seek to abandon, encumber, sell or transfer the
Common elements (the granting of easements for public utilities or for
other public purposes consistent with the intended use of the Common
Elements shall not be deemed such a transfer.
(b) Use hazard insurance proceeds for losses to any Units or to the
Common Elements for other than the repair, replacement or
reconstruction of such property, except as provided by the Act.
(c) Partition or subdivide any Unit or the Common Elements.
(d) Add or amend any material provision of this Declaration or the
Articles or By-laws of the Association which establishes, provides for,
governs or regulates any of the following:
(i) Voting;
(ii) Assessments for Common Expenses, assessment liens or
subordination of such liens;
24
(iii) Reserves for maintenance, repair and replacement of the
Common Elements;
(iv) Insurance or Fidelity Bonds;
(v) Rights to use of the Common Elements;
(vi) Responsibility for maintenance and repair of the several
portions of the property;
(vii) Expansion or contraction of the planned community
minimum or the addition, annexation or withdrawal of property to
or from the planned community;
(viii) Boundaries of any Unit;
(ix) The interest in the Common Elements;
(x) Convertibility of Units into Common Elements or of Common
Elements into Units;
(xi) Leasing of Units;
(xii) Imposition of any right of first refusal or similar restriction
on the right of a Unit Owner to sell, transfer, or otherwise convey
his or her Unit;
(xiii) Any provisions which are for the express benefit of the
holders of first mortgages on the Units.
Any such addition or amendment shall not be considered material if it is for the
purpose of correcting technical errors, or for clarification only.
Section 4. Additional Rights of Eligible Mortgagees. Any Eligible Mortgagee,
or its assigns, upon request, be entitled to:
(a) inspect the books, records and financial statements of the
Association and current copies of this Declaration, the By-laws of the
Association and the rules and regulations of the Association, as the same
may, from time to time, be amended or promulgated, during normal
business hours;
(b) receive an annual reviewed financial statement of the Association
25
within 90 days following the end of any fiscal year of the Association;
and
(c) written notice of all meeting of the Association and be permitted
to designate a representative to attend all such meetings.
~ priority: Notice of Certain Events. No provisions of this Declaration
or of the By-laws shall be deemed to give a Unit Owner, or any other party, priority
over any rights of an Eligible Mortgagee, or their Successors in interest, pursuant to
their mortgages in the ease of a distribution to the Unit Owners of insurance proceeds
or condemnation awards or settlements for losses to or a taking of Units and/or
Common Elements. In the event of substantial damage to or destruction of any Unit
or any part of the Common Elements, the holder of any first mortgage on a Unit will
be entitled to timely written notice of any such damage or destruction. If any Unit or
portion thereof or the Common Elements or any portion thereof is made the subject
matter of any condemnation or eminent domain proceeding or is otherwise sought to
be acquired by a condemning authority, then an Eligible Mortgagee with a mortgage
on such Unit or Common Element will be entitled to timely written notice of any such
proceeding or proposed acquisition. Upon the request of Eligible Mortgagee, the
Association shall agree in writing to notify such holder, any entity servicing such
mortgage, and/or any other entity having an interest in such mortgage whenever
damage to the Unit covered by such mortgage exceeds $ 1,000.00 and whenever
damage to the Common Elements exceeds $ 10,000.00.
Section 6. No Right of First Refusal. The right of a Unit Owner to sell,
transfer, or otherwise convey the Owner's Unit will not be subject to any right of first
refusal or any similar restriction in favor of the Association.
Section 7. Liability for Association Assessments. Except as specifically
provided in section 51§B.3-116 (b) of the Act, if an Eligible Mortgagee or a purchaser
at a mortgage foreclosure sale obtains title to, or comes into possession of, a Unit
pursuant to the remedies provided in the mortgage or by foreclosure of the first
mortgage or by deed or assignment in lieu thereof, such acquirer of title or possession,
his successors and assigns, shall acquire such title or possession free of any claims,
and shall not be liable, for the share of the unpaid Common Expenses or assessments
chargeable to such Unit which accrued prior to the acquisition of title or possession
to such Unit by such acquirer, except as provided or permitted in the Act. Any unpaid
share of the Common Expenses or assessments shall be deemed to be Common
Expenses collectible from all of the Unit Owners, including such acquirer, his
successors and assigns.
ARTICLE Xl
26
The common interest community created by this Declaration may only be
terminated with the assent given in writing and signed by not less than the Unit
Owners holding eighty percent (80%) of the votes of the Association and eighty
percent (80%) of the Eligible Mortgagees (each mortgagee having one vote for each
Unit financed).
Upon termination of the common interest community, after payment of all the
debts and obligations of the Association, all Units, Common Elements, and Association
property shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
ARTICLE Xll
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Enforcement / Legal Proceedings. If any Unit Owner or his or her
family, tenants or guests shall not comply with the provisions of this Declaration, or
with rules and regulations adopted by the Association, such person(s) shall be subject
to legal action for damages, for injunctive relief, foreclosure of liens, or any
combination thereof, without limitation or election of remedies, which relief may be
sought by the Association or by one or more aggrieved Unit Owners, or both. In any
proceeding arising from an allege failure to comply with this Declaration, or rules and
regulations of the Association, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the
costs of the proceeding and reasonable attorneys' fees as may be determined by the
court. Failure by the Association or by any Unit Owner to enforce any covenant or
restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver to the right to do so
thereafter.
~ ~ey_er3J;zi~. Invalidation of any one of the covenants or
restrictions contained in this Declaration by judgement or court order shall in no way
affect any of the other provisions of this Declaration.
Section 3. ~B~IEI~3~. The covenants and restrictions of the Declaration
shall run with and bind the land. Except as provided herein to the contrary, this
Declaration may be amended by an instrument signed by not less than sixty-seven
percent (67%) of the Unit Owners. Any amendment shall also require the consent of
the City of New Hope and the holders of fifty-one percent (51%) of the Eligible
Mortgagees (based on one vote for each Lot mortgaged), except to the extent a higher
percentage of Eligible Mortgagees is required by Article X hereof. Any amendment
must be recorded.
Section 4. FHANA Ap.Droval. If all or a portion of the Property involves
27
financing through the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veterans
Affairs, the following actions will require the prior approval of the Federal HOusing
Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs until the termination of the
period of Declarant Control: Annexation of additional properties, dedication of Common
Elements and amendment of this Declaration.
Maintenance of Unit Interiors / Improvements.
(a) Maintenance and repair of the interior of any Unit and all other
portions thereof, structural or non-structural, not required hereunder to
be maintained and repaired by the Association, shall be performed by
each Unit Owner and such interior or other portions shall be maintained
in good, clean, attractive and sanitary condition, order and repair
commensurate with first class, residential property.
(b) A Unit Owner may only seek to make internal improvements to his
or her Unit in accordance with the provisions of Section 515B.2-113.
Section 6. Availability of Records. Such records shall be available for
examination by the Owners or Eligible Mortgagees at convenient hours of weekdays.
Any member of the Association shall have the right, upon reasonable notice to the
Treasurer, to review the accounts and financial records of the Association.
Section 7. Limited Common Elements. All portions of the Property other than
the Units are Common Elements. Certain portions of the Common Elements designed
to service a single Unit are, by operation of Section 515B.2-102 (d) and (f) of the Act,
Limited Common Elements allocated for the exclusive use by the respective Units
serviced thereby to the exclusion of other Units. In addition, the driveways or the half
of the driveways adjacent to and serving each Unit are Limited Common Elements
allocated for the exclusive use of the respective Units to the exclusion of the Other
Units. Additionally, the entry area and air conditioning equipment serving each Unit
and the fenced yard and/or the patio/deck area, if any, which are accessible from each
Unit are Limited Common Elements allocated for the exclusive use of such Unit to the
exclusion of the other Units. The air conditioning equipment which is a Limited
Common Element allocated to each Unit shall be maintained, repaired and replaced by
the Owner of each such Unit such Owner's sole cost and expense. All other portions
of the Limited Common Elements shall be maintained as Common Elements under the
pursuant to the provisions of Article VII hereof. The expense of any such maintenance
and repair shall be charged to the Unit as a Common Expense under and pursuant to
the provisions of Article VI hereof.
Section 8. ~. In the event of the taking of any of the Common
Elements by eminent domain or any action or proceeding in lieu of eminent domain
28
such condemnation, or in negotiations, settlements and agreements with the
condemning authority, and each Unit Owner hereby appoints the Association as his or
her attorney-in-fact, irrevocably, for such purposes. If deemed necessary by the
Association, it may obtain the services of a trustee to act on behalf of the Unit Owners
in carrying out any functions under this Section. In the event of a condemnation of
part or all of the Common Elements, the award of proceeds of settlement shall be
payable to the Association. All proceeds payable with respect to any condemnation
of Common Elements shall be applied to the restoration or repair of such Common
Elements remaining after such condemnation or to such other purposes as may be in
accordance with the functions and powers of the Association and the welfare of the
Unit Owners.
If all of a Unit is taken through condemnation, or if so much of a Unit is taken that the
remaining property cannot reasonably be used for a purpose allowed by this
Declaration, then the entire Unit shall be considered condemned and the Unit Owner's
interest in the Common Elements and Association shall be deemed to cease on the
date such condemnation is completed.
If part of a Unit is taken through condemnation, but the Unit can still be used
for a purpose allowed by this Declaration, then there shall be no effect on the Unit
Owner's interest in the Common Elements or the Association.
Any proceeds of any condemnation with respect to a Unit shall belong and be
paid to the Owner thereof and his or her mortgagee, as their interests may appear.
ARTICLE XlII
RIGHTS GRANTED TO THE CITY OF NEW HOPE
Section 1. .CJ.t.y_Eas. e,13:u~. The Common Elements shall be subject to a non-
exclusive easement in favor of the City of New Hope or the purpose of ingress and
egress for police, fire, rescue and other emergency calls, animal control, health and
protective inspections, and to provide to the Owners other public services deemed
necessary by the City of New Hope for the purposes set forth in this Section 1. No
part of the Common Elements may be released from the terms of the easements
described in Section 1 as herein declared without the prior written consent of the City
of New Hope, which consent shall be evidenced by a Resolution adopted by a majority
vote of the City Council. A certified copy of said Resolution shall be recorded in the _
office of the County Recorder of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
29
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this Declaration on the day
and year first above written.
TRINITY LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
a Minnesota corporation
By:.
Lloyd S. Vagle
Its:
President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SHERBURNE)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2000, by Lloyd S. Vagle, President of Trinity Land Development,
Inc., on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
TERPSTRA, BLACK, BRANDELL & JENSEN
Attorneys at Law
913 Main Street
Elk River, MN 55330
612/441-7040
re\data~l&a-decl.
30
EXHIBIT A
Legal Descri.otior]
Lots One (1) through Lot Nine (9~, inclusive, Block One (1), Outlots A, B, C and D,
L & A Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
EXHIBIT B
Common Elements Descriotion
Lot Nine (9), Outlots A, B, C and D, L & A Addition, according to the duly recorded
plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin
County, Minnesota,
COMMUNI?*fPLANNINO ' DESION ' MARK~'T RESt'ARCH ~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Floyd Vaglie
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: 9 February 2000
RE: New Hope - L & A Homes - Homeowners Association Declaration
FILE NO: 131.01 - 99.13
In approving the preliminary plat, the City outlined the following conditions to be included
in the Homeowners Association Declaration:
1. Lot 9 of the L & A Addition should have fee ownership that runs to each of the units
in an equal and undivided interest.
Comment: This has not yet been done.
The outlots along the east property line can be owned solely by the Homeowners
Association to facilitate easy conveyance if the land to the east was ever
redeveloped.
2. Site and building maintenance including snow removal are addressed.
Article Vii, Section 1 appears to adequately respond to this item. Article VII,
Section 1 (c) addresses snow removal.
Maintenance of the center island in the cul-de-sac should be included in the
Association lawn and landscape maintenance, Article VII, Section 1 (d).
3. Limitation on outdoor storage
Article IV, Sections 6 and 7 respond to our concerns regarding this issue.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE BBS ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 I 6
PHONE a12-$gB-9636 FAX 612-59B-gB37 E-MAIL NAC~WINTERNET.COM
l~ 4. Exterior unit treatments including repairs, awnings, canopies and signs identified
in Article IV, Section 4 should recognize the needs for City approval where
applicable.
5. The declaration should include City approval of any future changes or amendments
of the Homeowners Association Declaration as part of the PUD approval.
The aforementioned comments represent the planning issues identified through the PUD
process. The City Attorney will review the revised document as part of the final stage PUD
approval.
pc: Kirk Mc, Donald
Doug Sandstad
Steve Sondrall
2
TOTAL P. 0;3
Terpstra, Black, Brandell & Jensen
Ronatd G. Black ,_~
Klm E. Brandett Attorneys a ~w
Jeffery J. Jensen 913 Main Street
Elizabeth K. Moore Etk River, MN 55330-1508
Brian A. Park (763) 441-7040 ofc
James A. Bum~ardner February 1 O, 2000 (763) 44~090~ fax
John W. Terpstra (retired)
Mr. Alan Brixius J~! .... '~"~'~' i
Northwest Associated Consultants ,
5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 555 VIA FAX #612/595-9857 ONLY
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: New Hope - L & A Homes - Homeowners Association Declaration
Dear Mr. Brixius:
Enclosed please find copies of the relevant pages for the L & A Homes Declaration.
This is provided in response to your memo dated February 9, 2000 to Mr. Vaglie.
Paragraph 1 - No change to the proposed ownership structure.
Paragraph 2 Maintenance of the center island in the cul-de-sac. The center
islands are Outlots C and D. Maintenance is the Homeowners
Association's responsibility, see Article VII, Section 1 (d) on page
17. Outlots C and D, together with Outlots A and B are defined
as "Common Elements" in Article 1, Section 2(b) on page 2, and
by reference to the plat.
Paragraph 3 No changes needed.
Paragraph 4 See page 6 Article IV, Section 4. See last two sentences.
Paragraph 5 See page 27, Article XII, Section 3. See third sentence.
Please let me know if these proposed changes resolve the City's concern.
Sincerely,
TE A, BLACK, BRAND LL & JENSEN
~'R~a..jtald G. Black
encl.
terms shall have the meaning given to the below:
(a) "Association" shall mean and refer to the L and A Homeowners
Association, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, its successors and
assigns,
(b) "Common Elements" shall mean all real property and improvements
thereon owned by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of
the Owners and such other persons to whom the Owners may delegate
this right pursuant to the Declaration, The Common Elements owned or
to be owned by the Association at the time of the conveyance of the first
Unit is legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto,
(c) "Declarant" shall mean and refer to Trinity Land Development, Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation, their successors and assigns, if (i) any such
successor or assign should acquire more than one undeveloped Unit from
the Declarant for the purpose of development and the instrument of
conveyance recites that such successor or assign has acquired all of the
rights and obligations of the Declarant, or (ii) such rights and obligations
pass to such successor or assign by operation of law.
(d) "Declaration" shall mean and refer to this Declaration of L & A
Addition as from time to time amended in accordance with the provisions
hereof.
(e) "Eligible Mortgagee" shall mean the holder of a mortgage, which
is a first lien on any Unit.
(f) "Limited Common Elements" shall mean and refer to that portion
of the Common Elements allocated to specific Units in accordance with
Article XII, Section 7 hereof.
(g) "Property" shall mean and refer to that certain real property
described on Exhibit A, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be
brought within the jurisdiction of the Association in accordance with the
provisions hereof.
(h) "Unit" shall mean and refer to any plot of land shown upon any
recorded plat of the Property that is intended to be sold to the ultimate
buyer as separate property. The term "Unit" shall include any
improvements on such plots. "Unit" shall not be construed to mean
Common Area even though Common Area is identified as a lot on the
plat.
2
laws and Articles of Incorporation of the Association and to any rules and
regulations established by the Board of Directors, shall contain the
agreement of the lessee to be bound by the terms of such documents
and shall provide that any failure by the lessee to comply with the terms
of such documents or rules shall be a default under the lease or rental
agreement. All leases shall be required to be in writing and any Unit
Owner leasing or renting a Unit shall, prior to the commencement of the
lease or rental term, deliver to the Secretary of the Association a
complete copy of the lease or rental agreement. Other than the
foregoing, the Unit Owners of the respective Units shall have the
absolute right to lease the same.
~ Prohibited Activities. No Unlawful, noxious or offensive activities
shall be carried on in any Unit or elsewhere on the Property, nor shall anything be done
therein or thereon which shall constitute a nuisance or which shall in the judgment of
the Board of Directors cause unreasonable noise or disturbance to others. No residents
or visitors may park in areas not specifically designated for parking by the Association.
~ DJ3JLE,~d~:. No Owner shall repair or redecorate the exterior of
a Unit except according to plans and specifications approved in writing by the Board
of Directors of the Association, so that the exterior of all buildings on the Property
shall always be maintained according to a harmonious plan. In addition, no clothing,
sheets, blankets, laundry or other articles shall be hung, displayed or stored outside
the Units (except within the garages which are allocated to the Units), or which may
be visible from the outside of the Units (other than draperies, curtains, or shades of
a customary nature and appearance and in any event subject to the rules and
regulations of the Board of Directors). No Owner shall paint or decorate or adorn the
outside of his Unit, or install outside his Unit any canopy or awning, or outside radio
or television antenna, or other equipment, fixtures or items of any kind, without the
prior written permission of the Board of Directors in its discretion. No Owner of a Unit
shall display, hang, store (except within the garage which is allocated to his Unit) or
use any sign outside his Unit, or which may be visible from the outside of his Unit
without the prior written permission of the Board of Directors. The foregoing
notwithstanding, an Owner shall be permitted to display a sign of not more than three
square feet in area advertising such Owner's Unit for sale or lease. Such sign shall be
located in the yard area between such Owner's Unit and the road in front of such Unit.
Uniz Owners must also secure City of New Hope approval for certain repa!r, awnings,
canopies and signs. Approval by the City does not imply approval by the Board of
.Di,rectors, nor does approval by the Boarad of Direct0rs..imply approval by the City.
~e,.Ct[DQ_E~ Pets. Except as provided herein, no animal of any type shall be
kept in any Unit or in the Common Elements. When deemed appropriate by the Board
of Directors, it may, but shall not be required to, enact rules and regulations permitting
6
constituting part of a Unit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Association shall have no responsibility for the repair or replacement of
broken glass which forms the exterior boundary of a Unit. The
Association shall also maintain and repair of any portion of any Unit
damaged as a result of the roof or exterior surfaces thereof being in a
state of disrepair.
(b) Maintain and repair the private drive, driveways and walkways,
including any portion thereof located on any Unit. The Association shall
be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the water supply system
up to the inlet side of the water meter in each Unit, the underground
sprinkler lines (if any) and the sanitary sewer system up to the foundation
wall of each Unit.
(c) Snow removal from driveways and parking areas located on the
Units. The Association, however, shall not be responsible for the
removal of snow from walkways, Unit steps or patios located on the
Unit.
(d) Maintain the Common Elements and all lawns, landscaping and
exterior areas of the Units, all to the extent the Board of Directors of the
Association deems necessary or desirable.
(e) Maintain and manage any other amenities constructed for use by
Unit Owners.
(f) Adopt and publish administrative rules and regulations governing
the operation and the use of the Common Elements, the use and
occupancy of the Units and the personal conduct of the members and
their tenants and guests thereon and therein, parking, matters of
aesthetics affecting the Community or any part thereof and such other
matters as are necessary or desirable to the harmonious use and
enjoyment of the Property by the Unit Owners, copies of all of which
rules and regulations shall be made available to all Unit Owners.
(g) Exercise all powers, duties and authority vested in or delegated to
the Association and not reserved to the Unit Owners by law or by other
provisions of this Declaration or the Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws
of the Association.
(h) The Association may obtain and pay for the services of any person
or entity to manage its affairs, or any part thereof, to the extent it deems
advisable, as well as such other personnel as the Association shall
17
DISSOLUTION
The common interest community created by this Declaration may only be
terminated with the assent given in writing and signed by not less than the Unit
Owners holding eighty percent (80%) of the votes of the Association and eighty
percent (80%) of the Eligible Mortgagees (each mortgagee having one vote for each
Unit financed).
Upon termination of the common interest community, after payment of all l~he
debts and obligations of the Association, all Units, Common Elements, and Association
property shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of the Act,
ARTICLE XII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
~ Enforcement / Legal Proceedings. If any Unit Owner or his or her
family, tenants or guests shall not comply with the provisions of this Declaration, or
with rules and regulations adopted by the Association, such person(s) shall be subject
to legal action for damages, for injunctive relief, foreclosure of liens, or any
combination thereof, without limitation or election of remedies, which relief may be
sought by the Association or by one or more aggrieved Unit Owners, or both. In any
proceeding arising from an allege failure to comply with this Declaration, or rules and
regulations of the Association, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the
costs of the proceeding and reasonable attorneys' fees as may be determined by the
court, Failure by the Association or by any Unit Owner to enforce any covenant or
restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver to the right to do so
thereafter.
~ ~eSLP,~!J~L. Invalidation of any one of the covenants or
restrictions contained in this Declaration by judgement or court order shall in no way
affect any of the other provisions of this Declaration.
~ ~a3.eJ~Q~Lt. The covenants and restrictions of the Declaration
shall run with and bind the land. Except as provided herein to the contrary, this
Declaration may be amended by an instrument signed by not less than sixty-seven
percent (67%) of the Unit Owners. __Any amendment shall also require the consent of
the City of New Hope and the holders of fifty-one percent (51%) of the Eligible
Mortgagees (based on one vote for each Lot mortgaged), except to the extent a higher
percentage of Eligible Mortgagees is required by Article X hereof, Any amendment
must be recorded.
Section 4. FHA/VA Approval. If all or a portion of the Property involves
27
JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A.
Attorneys At Law
8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201
?'~" BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1999
~._/" TELEPHONE (612) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (612) 493-5193
E=MAIL jss~jsspa.com
GORDON L. JENSEN*
WILLIAM G. SWANSON
STEVEN A. SONDeS-
MARTIN P. MALECHA February 28, 2000
C. ALDEN PEARSONT
]ULIE A, THILL
Kirk McDonald
OF COUNSEL
LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: L and A Homes Declaration
Our File No. 99.29921
Dear Kirk:
I have completed a review of the proposed Declaration of L and A Homes, a
Planned Community, and have the following comments:
1.' Article ~.II,'Sectio'n l(b)is .~n~arY tg,current law.. '~Minn. Stat.. §515B.3-
!03(d) r~qffires, that Within 60 days.after the conveyance of 50% of the
Units, the unit owners s~alt elect a.t least !./3 of the directors of the
association. Artidle III,. Section 1 (b) needs to .be modified accordingly..
2. Article VI, Section 3(a) is contrary to the recent changes to Minn. Stat.
§515B.3-115(a)(3), in that the Declarant must now pay 100% for
replacement reserves. Section 3(a) needs to be changed to require the
Declarant to pay 100 % of the replacement reserves for all units owned by
Declarant.
3. Article XIII, rights granted to the City, should be expanded to include the
City's right to enforce restrictions, architectural control, and maintenance
provisions in the Declaration.
4. There are a number of inconsistent references in the document to the name
of the development, it being identified variously as L and A Homes or L
& A Addition. See the title of the Declaration, as well as Article 1,
Section 2(d); and Article II, (b) and (e). The name must be consistent
throughout the document, including using "and" or "&", but not both.
*Real Property Law Specialist , ~ ~ .
Certified By The
Minnesota State Bar .
A g~oci~.ion
'~Qualified ADR Neutral
Kirk McDonald
February 28, 2000
Page 2
5. The Declaration makes a number of references to "common area". This term has
been replaced in the statute with "common element," and the references to "common
area(s)" in the following sections should be changed to "common element(s)": Article
I, Section 2(h)(two times); Article V, Section l(a)(iv); Article IX, Section 2 (the
heading); and Article IX, Section 10(b).
6. One or more words are missing from the following sentences, and as a result the
sentences make no sense: Article VI, Section 10, first sentence; Article IX, Section
10(b), last sentence.
7. As you are aware, any language restricting this development to senior citizens has
been removed.
8. The City needs to see the proposed By-Laws and any rules and regulations for the
Homeowners Association.
Please call me with any questions or comments you may have.
Sincerely,
Martin P. Malecha
Assistant City Attorney
cc: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager
Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney
4401Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612-531-5100 City Hall Fax: 612-531-5136
New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Police: 612-531-5170 Police Fax: 612-531-5174
www. ci. new-hope, mn. us Public Works: 612-533-4823 Public Works Fax: 612-533-7650
TDD: 612-531-5109
January 12,2000
Mr. & Mrs. Lloyd Vagle
8955 194th Lane, Box 504
Elk River, MN 55330'
Subject: Request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development, Rezone from R-l, Single Family
Residential to PUD, and Preliminary Plat Approval of 9 Lots by L & A Homes, Planning
Case 99-21B
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Vagle:
As you are aware, at the January 10 New Hope City Council meeting, the Council approved your request
for concept stage planned unit development, rezoning from R-1 Single Family Residential to PUD, and
preliminary plat approval of nine lots by L & A Homes, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit revised preliminary plat, final plat, and develop.mentJfinal 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 the Planning report and included in the attachments.
If you want the plans considered at the March Planning Commission and City Council meetings, you
should follow the February 4 track on the schedule, as follows:
· February 4, Pre-application meeting at 8:00 a.m. to review your plans.
· February 11, Application deadline at 4:30 p.m.; submit plans and plat; no new application or fees are
necessary.
· February 17, Meet with Design & Review Committee at 8:15 a.m.
· February 25, Submit revised plans by 4:30 p.m., if necessary.
· March 6, Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m.
· March 13, City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Per the comments from the City's consultants, I would recommend that the plat and.development stage
plans include the following changes:
Plat
1. The plat legal description includes real estate out to the middle of Winnetka Avenue, so the westerly
edge of the plat should not stop at the east edge of the existing sidewalk, 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 northern most 30 feet of the plat, which includes the land used for 49th Avenue, should b~
labeled as a st/'eet dedication.
3. The two center medians currently designated as Outlots C and D should be designated right-of-way
and the Homeowner's Association Rules should address the maintenance responsibility.
Family Styled City ~ For Family Living
Mr. & Mrs. Lloyd Vagle ~'~
Page 2 ~ ~
January 12,2000
4. 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.
5. To accommodate the new sidewalk construction along 49th Avenue between Alice Way and
Winnetka Avenue, a 10-foot wide utility easement along 49th Avenue should also be designated as
walkway. This would allow portions of sidewalk to be constructed in this to save trees.
6.' The City 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. Please submit copies of your most recent
purchase agreements to the City.
The preliminary plat should be revised to incorporate these changes and the final plat should include
these changes. Fifteen copies of both the revised preliminary plat and the final plat should be submitted.
Plans
1. Make an effort to shift the location of the proposed buildings on the site to meet the required setback
and building separation requirements and show all setback dimensions.
2. Consider shifting cul-de-sac away from east property line.
3. Indicate a sidewalk on 49th Avenue from Winnetka Avenue to site entrance.
4. Indicate street light in cul-de-sac and provide illumination contours.
5. Make the following revisions to landscape plan:
A. Revise the landscape plan and landscape schedule so they match. The schedule must indicate
quantity of plants.
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 sight line standards.
C. Replace the three planned Colorado Spruce trees along Winnetka Avenue with six over-story
deciduous trees.
D. Consider replacing 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. (Note: Oak trees are the recommendation of the
Planning Consultant, although one of the Planning Commissioners did not agree with this
recommendation.)
E. Provide more variation in the plans and spacing of plants around the building's foundation.
F. Detail the planting in the cul-de-sac island and post "No' Parking" signs throughout the
development.
6. Revise the fenci.ng plan for the site to include details on the materials used in construction of the
maintenance-fr~e fence along Winnetka Avenue. The Mayor has indicated that he would prefer to
see the same type of fencing on all three sides of the property. In addition, 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 area on the Winnetka side of the fence in the break areas to soften its
appearance and add to the general Winnetka Avenue streetscape.
!~/~. & Mrs. Lloyd Vagle
,~, je 2
January 12, 2000
B. Plant vines on the fence adjacent to Winnetka Avenue to soften its appearance and add to the
general streetscape along Winnetka Avenue.
7. The Homeowner's Association Rules should state that each of the unit lots will own Lot 9 in an equal
and undivided interest and that the Homeowner's Association shall own each of the outlots.
The plans should also include all items listed on the enclosed Design & Review Checklist and listed in
the PUD Development/Final Stage sections of the Zoning Code. Some of these items would include
snow storage, trash storage, etc.
If you have questions regarding these items or want to meet to discuss these prior to submitting your
plans, please contact me at 612-531-5119.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Director of Community Development
Enclosures: Design & Review Checklist
Planning Commission Schedule
cc: Dan Donahue, City Manager
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
Alan Brixius,. Planning Consultant
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works
Sue Henry, Community Development Specialist
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Planning Case File 99-21B
CITY OF NEW HOPE
SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG
A B C D E F G H I J
Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City
cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response
number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant
Address by City that required expires expires of under application
Phone information extension extension
was missing or waiver
99-21 Lloyd & Alice Vagle 10/8/99 12~7~99 2~5~2000
8955 194th Lane, Box 504
Elk River 55330
441-7259
718-1697 cell
8-unit plans 2/8/2000 4/8/2000
99-21B received at
City
12/10~99
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
A. Assign each application a number.
B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
C. List the date the City received the application.
D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the
date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.)
J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before
the time limit expires.
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: March 6, 2000
Report Date: March 3, 2000
Planning Case: 99-27
Petitioner: YMCA of Metropolitan Minneapolis and Robbinsdale Area Redesign
Address: 7601 42~d Avenue North
Request: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for a Third Building on an Existing Lot and
a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation Use for the Mosaic Youth
Center
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting Concept Stage Planned Unit Development to allow for a third building (in
addition to the main Y building and the gazebo) on an existing lot and a Conditional Use Permit for a
commercial recreational use for the Mosaic Youth Center and related services, including Annex Teen
Clinic, Point Northwest Temporary Shelter, Robbinsdale Area Redesign, and Fairview Recovery
Systems, pursuant to Sections 4.19, 4.134(6), and 4.21 of the New Hope Code or Ordinances. A zoning
text amendment will be required at Development Stage for the overnight stay facilities.
II. Zoning Code References
Pertinent Code sections include:
· 4.134 B-4 Zone Conditional Uses
· 4.036 Parking and 4.036 {11} Joint parking Facilities
· 4.037(6) Required Loading berths
· 4.19 (PUD) Planned Unit Development
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: B-4, Community Business District
Location: Southwest quadrant of 42nd and Quebec Avenues
Adjacent Land Uses: West: B-3 Auto Oriented (Autohaus) and I-1 Limited Industrial (District #281
and Dura Process); North: 42nd Avenue, B-4 Community Business (Sunshine
Factory); East: Quebec Avenue, B-4 Community Business (Quebec Plaza
Office Bldg.) and I-2 General Industrial (Sheridan Sheet Metal and Sally
Distributing); South: I-1 Limited Industrial (Versa Die Cast )
Site Area: 290' x 1,325' - 2,800 = 381,450 square feet (8.75 acres). The PUD proposal
area equals one acre at south end of lot
Building Area: The existing YMCA building is approximately 70,000 square feet. The Gazebo
approved in 1998 is 1,200 square feet. The proposed Youth Center will have
four floors, with 6,200 square feet per floor, for a total building size of 24,800
square feet.
Lot Area Ratios: The 8.75 acres will include: 44% Green area, 19% Building, 37% Paved
Planning Case Report 99-27' Page I 3/3/00
Planning District: #11; This District includes City Center and the commercial corridor along 42nd
Avenue and includes high density residential, commercial/industrial ~
public/semi-public land uses. The City desires to enhance and revitalize
City's commercial corridor, and pursue a uniform streetscape design along
42nd Avenue. The City will promote development of several sites along 42n~
Avenue.
Specific Information: The Mosaic Youth Center provides a variety of teen-oriented uses, with 88
parking spaces proposed next to the building and additional for Friday and
Saturday events on the existing YMCA parking lot to the north (documentation
is provided to demonstrate the surplus nature of 120-150 parking spaces in
the existing 215 space lot). Semi-truck delivery is not anticipated to the
building, so they have requested a reduced-size panel truck delivery space of
12' x 32' within the context of the PUD. The project area is adjacent to the
south side of a ponding easement and DNR wetland that separates it from the
"Y" building and parking lot. The building will appear to be on a separate
lot, fronting on Quebec Ave. Shingle Creek Watershed approval is required.
IV. Background
The first YMCA building was built in 1976 with a CUP for commercial recreation with 171 parking
spaces. In 1975, a Junior Achievement addition was built. In 1982, the north parking lot was expanded
to the present total of 215 spaces. Quebec Avenue was built as a cul-de-sac at the same time as the
original building in 1976. Later, a Quebec-through street was built connecting to Winnetka Avenje. The
ponding area is original and necessary on both sides of the Quebec roadway.
V. Petitioner's Comments
The petitioners stated in correspondence that "In 1996 the Robbinsdale Area Redesign and District 281
jointed together to administer the Search Institute Asset Survey to all students in grades 6 - i2. The
Search Institute model of youth development holds that there are 40 assets each child should possess
in order to grow up to be a successful, healthy, contributing adult, District 281 students self-reported, on
average, possessing 18 of the 40 assets. The survey gave District 281 and Robbinsdale Area Redesign
a benchmark against which to set improvements goals for youth development.
The results of the asset survey have been analyzed in combination with other statistics on youth health
and welfare to aid Robbinsdale Area Redesign in developing a work plan. Another study which
contributed to increasing the sense of urgency in this project was the Adolescent Health Task Force
report of 1996 which showed that youth ages 14 - 19 were the only age group in our community that
had not shown improvement in their mental and physical health. In fact, recent student data indicates
continued increase in rates of teenage suicide, sexual activity and pregnancy. These disturbing trends
coupled with high rates of mobility of our students have caused Robbinsdale Area Redesign to adopt
"Improved Adolescent Health" as a top priority in its work plan.
The Mosaic Youth Center concept was born out of a forum held by the Robbinsdale Area
Redesign for District 281 high school students. In the forum the students discussed many of
their needs, but were unanimous in only one: the need for a place high school students could
"hang," have fund, exercise their artistic talents, and get some help. The place the students
described is safe, drug free, and most of all their own. In addition to the voices of teens, the community
at large has expressed a great need for supervised teen activities during after school hours for the
District's many dual-income or single-parent families.
The partner organizations (Northwest YMCA, Robbinsdale Area Redesign, Annex Teen Clinic,
and Fairview Recovery Services) seek to redesign needed youth services so that they are
seamlessly delivered in or through the Mosaic Youth Center. Simply put, they want to put the
Planning Case Report 99-27 Page 2 3/3/00
services where the youth are; not send youth to the services. The center is a conveniently located
'~-' ",.facility, attractive to teens because of recreational and social opportunities, where services are co-
~-J located to support the growth and development of adolescents.
The Mosaic incorporates the youth asset building model based on the Search Institute's 40 Assets.
Services delivered at Mosaic, reflecting the asset building philosophy, will be preventive to promote the
potential of our youth. Preventing problems by building "thriving behaviors" in our youth lowers the
economic and emotional cost of removing "at risk behaviors."
Teenagers have a strong need to feel they are accepted and valued by their communities and that the
community gives them a "rite of passage" into full membership.in the community. We believe that teens
participating in the development and operation of the center can find just such a rite of passage into
adulthood. The skills, judgment and emotional maturity required to create and run such a facility are
those we hope to see in our youth, the future leaders of our community.
Our vision for the Mosaic Youth Center is that it will be: "A fun and active place for teens to serve and
be served." Three major programming components of the youth center will be 1) recreation and arts, 2)
community service, and 3) services for youth.
Youth cite a real need for a safe, drug free facility where teens can feel "at home" and in control of their
environment. Because the center must appeal to a wide range of interest, the recreation and activities
proposed encompass sports, games, and artistic expression. The recreation and arts component will
develop opportunities for teens to have healthy options for socializing, adventure, exercise, and
creativity.
Our youth want to make a contribution to their community and be seen as a valuable resource for its
continued growth, prosperity, and quality of life. They believe the Mosaic can be a focal point for
mobilizing young people to provide that service. Some service projects the Mosaic youth leaders are
considering include: peer counseling, teens mentoring or counseling younger children, environmental
cleanup or education projects, and services for seniors and intergenerational cooperative projects.
Many services exist today to serve the needs of adolescents and each provides a valuable service for
teens. The problem is that these services are highly fragmented, lack the ability to share resources, and
offer their services piecemeal to a client who would be better served holistically. A key benefit of the
Mosaic is relocating service providers to the Northwest YMCA's new facility. The partners will link their
case management systems, build new services by integrating their complementary capabilities, and
lower operating costs by sharing assets. The major service components are: 1) health services, 2)
intervention, 3) educational support services, and 4) school-to-work services."
VI. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and several neighboring business owners
came in to review plans. They approved of the plans and had no concerns about the project.
VII, Development Analysis
A. Zoning Code Criteria
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 use of parking, maintenance of open space
and other similar facilities, and harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. Only platted
Planning Case Report 99-27 Page 3 3/3/00
land is eligible for a PUD, so a Preliminary plat must be filed with Development Stage plans. This
will allow the City to correct a faulty legal description. ~-"
2. The processing steps for a PUD are intended to provide for an ordedy 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) Staging and Time Schedule of Development.
F) Other Special Criteria for Development.
B. Development ReviewTeam
The Development Review Team was supportive of the Concept PUD. Suggestions included:
· Contact Shingle Creek Watershed for development adjacent to DNR wetland and preliminary
consideration of the proposed basement elevation. Provide preliminary grading design and
section drawing between the depressed plaza and adjacent pond.
· Submit narrative describing hours of use and restricted loading. Illustrate Fire Lane.
· Provide a sidewalk connection to 42nd Avenue bus line.
C. Design & Review Committee
The Design Review Committee was supportive of the Concept PUD. They repeated the
Development Review Team requests.
D. Land Uses
The Youth Center has been proposed as a product of the Robbinsdale Area Redesign program (for
a further description of this program, see the previous section "Petitioner's Comments." The Youth
Center will have four major components to it: a teen recreation and academic assistance center, the
Annex Teen Clinic, Fairview Recovery Services, and the YMCA Point Northwest Shelter. The
basement level is proposed to be a recreational area containing a lounge area, game room, coffee
bar, and multi-use area. The basement level will also contain YMCA staff offices. The main level
would include the following uses: offices, conference rooms, a computer lab, a library, and an art
studio. The second floor would contain the Annex Teen Clinic, which includes offices, exam rooms,
counseling rooms, and a lab. The third floor would be split between Fairview Recovery Services and
the YMCA Point Northwest Shelter and will consist of meeting rooms, offices, counseling rooms, five
Planning Case Report 99-27 Page 4 3/3/00
sleeping rooms, a lounge area, toilet/shower rooms, and staff offices. The types of proposed uses in
relation to the B-4 Zoning District are as follows:
Commercial Recreational Facilities - The recreational component proposed for the basement
and main floor levels could be classified as a commercial recreation facility exceeding 4,000 square
feet in area. In the B-4 District, this is a conditional use subject to a number of criteria. One of
the criteria is that the proposed use has direct access to a minor arterial street. The proposed
building gains access from Quebec Avenue, a neighborhood collector; however, the entire YMCA
property has frontage on 42nd Avenue, a minor arterial, and the intersection of Quebec and 42nd
Avenues is signalized. Additional lighting and landscaping information is necessary to evaluate
whether these components comply with CUP criteria. Lighting should be hooded and shielded, and
landscaping should be emphasized at the perimeter of the building.
Annex Teen Clinic - Medical uses are permitted in the B-4 District.
Fairview Recovery Services - This use includes counseling and meeting rooms and is a permitted
professional office use.
Point Northwest Shelter - The B-4 District does not include a use description that encompasses
the overnight stay aspect of the Point Northwest Shelter, which would occupy approximately 2,700
square feet on the third floor. Because this use includes sleeping space for up to 10 people, the
closest use description available is a hotel. Hotels are permitted in the B-3 District, but not in the B-4
District. With the update of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance, the City is planning to eliminate the
B-3 District and incorporate the uses allowed in the B-3 District into the B-4 District. If this project
proceeds to the development stage before the Zoning Ordinance is revised, a Zoning
Ordinance amendment should be processed with the PUD application to allow hospitality
businesses, including overnight stay facilities, in the B-4 District.
Allowing an overnight stay use at this location is compatible with adjacent zoning and land uses.
The City has looked at a potential hotel for the redevelopment of its property northeast of the
intersection of Quebec and 42nd Avenues. The property directly west of the YMCA property and
fronting on 42n~ Avenue is zoned B-3. Staff will recommend the ordinance change to add hotels,
motels, and overnight stay facilities as permitted uses in the B-4 District with the development stage
process.
E. Plan Description
For purposes of Concept PUD approval, the Site Plan is reasonable considering building placement
and parking layout. Detailed grading and ponding plans and Shingle Creek Watershed
Commission approvals are not included and will be required before development/final stage
PUD approval is considered. If the City has a favorable response to the project at a conceptual
level, additional plans relating to utilities, lighting, signs, landscaping, and south and west building
elevations will be required at the development stage. The property must also be platted at the
PUD development stage, and it is recommended that the entire lot be platted as one
property. The revised plans include the following details:
1) Setbacks - The site design and building layout meets the required setbacks in the B-4
Zoning District. Those setbacks are as follows: 35 feet in front, 10 feet on sides, and 35 feet in
the rear.
2) Building Design - The revised Concept PUD plans show a basic Site Plan, existing
grades and building slab elevation, 4 floor plans and 2 elevations (north & east). The building will
have three levels with a basement. Each floor will be 6,200 square feet, for a total building size
of 24,800 square feet. The proposed building has three entry doors on the east, north, and west
sides of the building. An emergency exit is indicated on the south side of the building. There will
be sloped lightwell enclosure on the east side of the building facing Quebec Avenue providing
Planning Case Report 99-27 Page 5 3/3/00
natural light to the basement level from the east. There will also be a plaza on the northwest
corner of the building extending from the basement level. This area will be used as an outd,~''~,
lounge area as an extension of the teen recreation activities in the basement.
3) Wetland - A DNR protected wetland is located north of the proposed building. As a
result, the Shingle Creek Watershed District will need to review the plans to determine the
wetland impact of construction. A survey should be provided showing the ordinary high water
level (OHWL) and the 100-year flood level of the wetland. This survey will be required by the
Watershed District and should accompany plans for development and final stage PUD approval.
Proximity of the proposed building to the wetland, the elevation of the basement relative to the
water table, and storm water management for water quality are all topics that will need to be
looked at with this application. The applicant has indicated a potential location for a NURP pond
north of the parking lot at the back of the site if required by the Watershed District.
4) Parking - The site plan illustrates that 88 parking stalls are proposed. Based on staff
calculations, sufficient parking is provided. Four ADA parking stalls are indicated on the plan
adjacent to the main entry, as required. The curb cut at Quebec Avenue is less than 24 feet in
width, meeting the Code requirements. Parking stalls and ddve aisles meet dimension
standards. A continuous curb is provided around the entire parking area. The number of
proposed stalls may need to be reduced in order to revise the loading bay area. If stalls are
eliminated for the loading area, a parking study done by the applicant shows that extra overflow
parking is available at the existing YMCA facility. A sidewalk is shown on the plans connecting
the building with the main YMCA parking lot.
5) Loading Bay - The applicant has written that there are no uses proposed within the
building that would require deliveries by anything larger than a UPS van, so a more developed
loading bay to accommodate large semi-trailers has not been included.
A loading bay is provided on the west side of the building that would allow van delivery; however,
turning a single unit truck around would be very difficult, if not impossible. The applicant should
redesign the loading area to accommodate a single unit truck that is 30 feet long. This would
allow access by food service and beverage trucks that may serve the proposed coffee bar.
6) Sidewalk - A sidewalk is shown that would connect the proposed building to the existing
YMCA building and overflow parking at the existing building. Staff has suggested connecting the
Youth Center to 42nd Avenue via a sidewalk along the west side of Quebec Avenue for
convenient access to the transit stop located at the intersection of 42nd and Quebec Avenues.
Upon further review, The City has found that the boulevard between the existing YMCA parking
lot and east property line is very narrow and tree-lined, making construction of a sidewalk in this
location difficult without losing the landscaping present. As an alternative, the applicant is
proposing an internal sidewalk system for connecting the Youth Center to 42nd Avenue via the
sidewalk next to the existing YMCA building.
7) Snow Storage - The applicant has proposed to store snow to the north of the parking lot
behind the building. This may not be possible given the water quality considerations in and near
the DNR protected wetland. The applicant has indicated that snow storage will be revisited
following the Shingle Creek Watershed approval process. The identification of a snow storage
area will be necessary for development and final stage PUD approval.
8) Lighting and Signs - A lighting plan and comprehensive sign plan are required at the
development stage.
F. Planning Considerations
Excerpts from the Planning Consultant's report have been included throughout this staff report. The
report is included as an attachment.
Planning Case Report 99-27 Page 6 3/3~00
G. Building Considerations
The Architect's signature on the plans is required. Development stage plans must demonstrate
compliance with the Minnesota Building Code.
H. Legal Considerations
Development stage preliminary plat will provide a precise legal description of the YMCA property.
I. Engineering Considerations
The City Engineer has expressed the need for Shingle Creek Watershed approval for the property,
and it is likely that the Watershed will consider the entire YMCA property as one property. No
ponding was required when the YMCA was constructed, and the Engineer feels ponding will be
required for the entire site, not just the proposed building site. Storm water treatment will be
required for all hard surfaces before discharge to existing wetlands or storm sewers, per New
Hope's Surface Water Management Plan.
The Engineer also has a concern that the proposed building may be built on poor soils. A review of
the existing 1955 topography suggests that area beneath the proposed building may include fill over
poor soil. Soil conditions may warrant soil correction or piling improvements to construct the building
as proposed. The soil concerns do not significantly affect the concept stage PUD, but soil borings
should be considered prior to approving development stage PUD plans.
The City Engineer's report is attached in its entirety for your review.
J. Police Considerations
The Police Department has no concerns at this point about the layout and use of the proposed
building. Chief Link had the following comments regarding the Concept PUD request (his memo is
attached in full):
· The Mosaic Youth Center concept appears to be a very good fit for the YMCA and Northwest
suburbs. This facility will bring together several youth services in a more highly coordinated
manner. The programs being offered through this facility, specifically, Point Northwest
emergency housing will very likely benefit the police department when handling various runaway
and/or domestic situations.
· None of the programs are expected to generate a significant amount of calls for service. The
programs have very experienced staff and would likely handle all but the most egregious
problems themselves. Any facility serving youth is likely to generate some calls for service but in
this case I expect few.
· The preliminary concept building plans are not specific enough to express an opinion about the
physical security and safety issues.
K. Fire Considerations
Illustrate the Fire Lane where FD connection will be installed on development stage PUD plans.
VIII. Summary
Staff feels that from a land use perspective, the proposed location is an excellent youth center site. The
proposed Mosaic Youth Center is close in proximity to the existing YMCA building and would be owned
and maintained by the YMCA. The YMCA is an experienced, reputable organization in providing youth
and family services. The property is located away from residential neighborhoods and is compatible with
adjacent land uses, minimizing concerns such as trespass, vandalism, and noise that may be perceived
to be associated with a teen center. The property is centrally located within the City and is located near
a transit route on 42nd Avenue, providing convenient access for New Hope teens. The facility will
provide needed teen services within the City.
Planning Case Report 99-27 Page 7 3/3/00
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Concept PUD for the Mosaic Youth Center, subject to the follow,~ /
conditions:
1. Platting of the property as one lot.
2. Approval of a grading plan by the Shingle Creek Watershed District.
3. A zoning amendment to allow overnight stay facilities in the B-4 District.
4. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a reduced loading area.
5. Submittal of detailed plans for Development/Final Stage PUD
Attachments: Address/ZoningFFopo maps
Site Plan
Proposed Floor Plans
Elevations
Development Review Summary
Redesign Informational Meeting Invitation
Planner's Report
City Engineer Memo
Police Chief's Memo
2/11 Petitioner's Narrative
Planning Case Report 99-27 Page 8 3/3/00
'- · - .... i----~---+---k--i'-'-: ..... i : : ............
......................................... j : ....... ] :
-ADM. ~a~ ~, 'YMCA .... :-.- "" ~':~
~ OFFICE ' ' ...... : .....
.NE SCHOOL ; .: i ....... i ! j
....... : · 402? Z -
COOPER
HIGH SCHOOL :'" 48TH AV-~"--"- , x, / ' ' ' ~ 48TH AVE N
HOPE _---~-¢F ~---~. ~. ............ -" .... < ~ <: '
EW
LEMENTARY ~ ...... ~ ~ ....... . ..... ;
3HOOL C ~ ~ ..... >
~ ..... ~ ~ <-.-~ ............... ~ .....
Z6~ ~N % .... - ............ ~
.... _ .... ~ ...... ~ ~ .....
.... . ....Z .....
- ~
I~A , - ....... ~; >
.r-' ,,.~;Z · "'" · : '
;; ;.; . '..'..
~ A!ST AV~, ~
CE'.'E-E =', -
.Z Z Z
Z ...... < .... ~ ~
.... O ~ z
'- - "'
-= .... ............. -- 'Re --
..... ~.--__ ..~ ~ ........ ~ .......
AV~'
· - v/~ .... % ' -'
....... z~ _. ' '~-" '='~ ~ .... ~LF ~, ~ ,_~:':---:':"("', ":,~
~,. ... ..... :- ,__.~...
..__ ........ .... wISCO ' "---. -' - ...... ' ~
~ .... , ~...'- ~__;
..... , _
. . ..... _...~- ;.~ .' ~ .........
,''. ;....': ~"A~E ~_..~.-,.., .~. ~,...,.. ~ , . eETH EL ~--~. , ......... :-'
%'-r2rL-~--C-''''. ,.-- - ~ ~. "',,~.L" . .- ..~._~ I CEMETERY ~....-¢ ...... ~ -'
- , .... ~ ~ .....-~ ~_;
i)EI ELi)ii)iEST llEI IEW TE&)I
Feb. 15, 2000 Summary
The Development-Review Team [staff level] met on 2-15-2000 to consider the plans for
three project~: "L & A Homes Development Stage PUD", "Simple Simon warehouse-
expansion Phases 1 and 2" and '~rMCA-Mosaic Youth Center PUD".
Staff present included, Link, Johnson, French, Kurtz, Reed, Kern, McDonald and
Sandstad. Consultants Hanson, Brixius and Vander Top attended, also.
Note: Each Petitioner is encouraged to incorporate Committee suggestions into revised
plans and submit 10 sets by Thursday, February 24'h !
PROJECT: YMCA Concept Stage PUD for "Mosaic Youth Center" Building
SITE: 7601 42nd Ave. No.
PROPERTY OWNER: Tom McKinney for the YMCA
PROPONENTS: Melodie Hanson "Robbinsdale Area Redesign Coordinator"
The Team was supportive of the Concept PUD, in general. The project incorporates a 2na
building on the YMCA property, approx. 460 feet sou~h of the existing commercial recreation
facility. Slxeet frontage is to Quebec Avenue [or ~ part of the 'Y" lot.
Development Review Team Suggestions:
· Shingle Creek Watershed Approval is required, because the adjacent ponding area is a DNR
Wetland. Contact Bart Engineering [ } for information.
They will need to determine OHW and 100 year flood elevation to compare with your
grading plan [not yet submitted]. Water quantity and quality ponding may be necessary.
· Lot survey with topo and a grading plan are required.
· Platting is required for all PUD's, but one or more lots is the YMCA choice. I[ multiple lots
are created, building setbacks change and a CUP will be required for shared off-site parking.
· Illustrate "FIRE LANE" at F.D. connection [ automatic fire sprinklers and alarm system
required] and revise parking layout as needed.
· Provide site lighting and submit fixture specs and illumination contours.
· Provide a sidewalk to 42na Avenue [or youthful clients.
· Submit narrative limiting use hours of undersized loading zone.
· Property is excellent location for a one-stop Youth facility. A "fun and active place for teens
to serve and be served" is the vision. A wide range of support services and shelter in one
location would fulfill community needs. A safe gathering place, recreational space,
educational support services, health services, intervention and school-to-work Ixansition
support facilities can be offered under one nice, new office-type building roof in New Hope.
· Complete plans and a matching site plan are not yet available and parking may be adequate.
DESIGN ~~.gb.~...TTEE COUNTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
s.
6.
7.
SUBMIT 10 SETS OF REVISED PLANS BY FEBRUARY 24th
February 16, 2000
In 1996 a Suburban Adolescent Health Task Force report revealed that youth in the
northwest suburbs were not only less healthy than we would hope, they were showing
increased rates of suicide attempts and unplanned pregnancies, among other things. The
Robbinsdale Area Redesign asked local youth what the adult community could do to
better support and nura~e them through their teenage years. Time after time their
answers came down to: help us create a svlace where we feel safe and welcome.
The creation of that place, the Mosaic Youth Center, is closer than ever to becoming a
reality! We have a site, building plans, and an incredible team. The Robbinsdale
Area Redesign, the Northwest YMCA, the Annex Teen Clinic, Fairview Recovery
Services, and Family and Children's Service are combining their forces with local youth
and adults to create a "fun and active place for teens to serve and be served."
We invite you, as a community leader, to attend a special meeting to update you on the
project's progress and to share with you our vision for the future. The meeting will be
held at the Plymouth Ice Arena (map enclosed) on Wednesday, March 8, from 6:30 tO
8:30 P.M. Light refreshments will be served from 6:30.to 7:00 P.M. Please RSVP no
later than March 1 to Melissa Bachman at (612) 749-9561. You may also feel free to
contact Melissa with questions regarding this informational meeting. Thank you for your
ongoing support of youth in our commtmity. Help us build on our and we hope to see you
on March 8.
Sincerely,
Burgette Perkins
Co-Chair, Board of Directors
Mosaic Youth Center Project
Liz Schnell
Co-Chair, Board of Directors
Mosaic Youth Center Project
Robbinsdale Area Redesic, ln · 5624 Nevada Avenue North · Cr~,stal, Minnesota 55428,
(612) 504-9491 · Fax (612) 504-9555
COMMUNITY PLANNING DESlON - HARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Cynthia Putz-Yang / Alan Brixius
DATE: February 28, 2000
RE: New Hope - Mosaic Youth Center
FILE NO: 131.01 - 00.01
BACKGROUND
The YMCA of Metropolitan Minneapolis has submitted a concept plan for a Mosaic Youth
Center. The youth center is proposed to be located at the southern end of the property
owned and occupied by Northwest YMCA. The address is 7601 N 42"'~ Avenue. A PUD
is required because two principal buildings are proposed to be located on the parcel. The
property is zoned B-4, Community Business District. Four partner organizations
(Northwest YMCA, Robbinsdale Area Redesign, Annex Teen Clinic, and Fairview
Recovery Services) would provide youth services in the Mosaic Youth Center. Northwest
YMCA would own the Mosaic Youth Center and lease space to the other partner
organizations and provide facility management services.
A three story building with a basement is proposed. The building has a 6,200 square foot
footprint. The building would have 18,000 square feet of usable space. This project is
being reviewed at a PUD/CUP concept level. If the City has a favorable response to the
project at a conceptual level, additional plans relating to grading, drainage, wetlands,
utilities, lighting, signs, landscaping, and south and west building elevations will be
required at the development stage. The property must be platted at the PUD development
stage. It is recommended that the entire property be platted as one lot.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A Site Location
Exhibit B Site Plan
Exhibit C Floor Plans
Exhibit D Elevations
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5541
PHONE 6 ] 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WINTERNET.COM
Proposed Uses. The basement level would be a recreational area containing a lounge
area, game room, coffee bar, and multi-use area. The basement level will also contain ~
YMCA staff offices. The main level would include the following uses: offices, conference
rooms, a computer lab, a library, and an art studio. The second floor would contain the
Annex Teen Clinic, which includes offices, exam rooms, counseling rooms, and a lab. The
third floor would contain the Fairview Recovery Systems and the Point Northwest Shelter,
which consists of meeting rooms, offices, counseling rooms, five sleeping rooms, a lounge
area, toilet/shower rooms, and staff offices.
Commercial Recreational Facilities. The recreational uses proposed for the
basement and main floor levels could be classified as a commercial recreation
facility exceeding 4,000 square feet in area. In the B-4 District this is a conditional
use subject to a number of criteria. One of the criteria is that the proposed use has
direct access to a minor arterial street. The proposed building gains access from
Quebec Avenue, a Neighborhood Collector; however, the property has frontage on
42"d Avenue N, a Minor Arterial, and the intersection of Quebec Avenue and 42"'~
Avenue N is signalized. Additional lighting and landscaping information is
necessary to evaluate whether these components comply with CUP criteria.
Lighting should be hooded and shielded, and landscaping should be emphasized '...
at the perimeter of the building.
Annex Teen Clinic. Medical uses are permitted in the B-4 District.
Fairview Recovery Systems. This use includes counseling and meeting rooms
and is a permitted professional office use.
Point Northwest Shelter. The B-4 District does not include a use description that
encompasses the ovemight stay aspect of the Point Northwest Shelter, which would
occupy approximately 2,700 square feet on the third floor. Because this use
includes sleeping space for up to 10 people, the closest use description available
is a hotel. Hotels are permitted in the B-3 District, but not in the B-4 district. With
the update of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance, the City is planning to eliminate the
Bo3 District and incorporate the uses allowed in the B-3 District into the B-4 District.
If this project proceeds to the development stage before the Zoning Ordinance is
revised, a Zoning Ordinance amendment should be processed with the PUD
application to allow hospitality businesses, including overnight stay facilities, in the
B-4 District.
Allowing an overnight stay use at this location is compatible with adjacent zoning
and land uses. The City has also looked at redevelopment of the east corner of the
intersection of Quebec Avenue and 42"d Street with a hotel. The property directly
west of the YMCA property and fronting on Rockford Road is Zoned B-3. We
suggest the City add hotels, motels, and overnight stay facilities as permitted uses
2
in the B-4 District.
Setbacks. The minimum required setback standards for the B-4 District are exceeded by
the proposed building.
Side Required Setback Proposed Setback
Front (North) 35 feet 1,800 feet
Side (East) 10 feet 70 feet
Side (West) 10 feet 135 feet
Rear (South) 35 feet 67 feet
Wetland. A DNR protected wetland is located north of the proposed building. The Shingle
Creek Watershed District will need to review the plans for wetland impact. A survey
should be provided showing the OHWL and 100 year flood level of the wetland. Proximity
of the proposed building to the wetland, the elevation of the basement relative to the water
table, and storm water management for water quality are all topics that will need to be .
looked at with this application. The applicant has proposed to store snowon the wetland;
however, this may not be possible given water quality considerations.
Parking. The site plan illustrates that 88 parking stalls are proposed. Based on our
calculations below, a sufficient amount of parking is provided. The number of proposed
stalls may need to be reduced in order to provide enough turning space in the loading
area. If the number of stalls is reduced in the loading bay area, a parking study done by
the applicant shows that extra overflow parking is available at the existing YMCA facility.
The following is an estimate of required parking stalls:
Use Floor Area Required
Parking Stalls
Community Center, Library, etc. 6,000 sq. ft. 37
Professional Offices 12,000 sq. ft. 51
TOTAL 88
Loading Bay. The applicant has written that there are no uses proposed withih the
building that would require deliveries by anything larger than a UPS van, so a more
developed loading bay to accommodate large semi-trailers has not been included.
A loading bay is provided on the west side of the building that would allow van delivery;
however, turning a single unit truck around would be very difficult, if not impossible. The
applicant should redesign the loading area to accommodate a single unit truck that is 30
feet long. This would allow access by food service and beverage trucks that may serve
the proposed coffee bar.
3
A loading bay smaller than the standard required for commercial or industrial uses may be
allowed by a conditional use permit. The standard size is seventy feet in length and ten
feet in width. A smaller loading bay is appropriate in this project because semi-trailer truck
deliveries are not necessary.
Parking Lot Design. The curb cut is less than 24 feet in width. Parking stalls and drive
aisles meet dimension standards. A continuous curb is provided around the entire parking
area.
Sidewalk. A sidewalk is shown that would connect the proposed building to the existing
YMCA building and overflow parking at the existing building.
Staff has suggested connecting the MoSaic Youth Center to 42~ Avenue via a sidewalk
along Quebec Avenue for convenient access to the transit stop located at the corner of
42"" Avenue and Quebec Avenue. Upon further review, we have found that the boulevard
between the existing YMCA parking lot and east property line is very narrow and tree-
lined, making construction of a sidewalk in this location difficult. As an alternative, the
applicant is proposing an internal sidewalk system for connecting the Youth Center to 42°d
Avenue.
Building. The building must contain a sprinkler system.
Lighting and Signs. Lighting and Sign plans are required at the development stage.
CONCLUSION
Staff feels that from a land use perspective, the proposed location is an excellent youth
.center site for the following reasons: The proposed youth center is in close proximity to
the existing YMCA building and would be owned and maintained by the YMCA. The
YMCA is an experienced, reputable organization in providing youth and family services.
The property is located away from residential neighborhoods and is compatible with
adjacent land uses, minimizing concerns such as trespass, vandalism, and noise that may
be perceived to be associated with a teen center. The property is centrally located within
the City and is located near a transit route on Rockford Road, providing convenient access
for New Hope teens. The facility will provide needed teen services within the City.,
If this project proceeds to the PUD development stage, the following will be necessary with
the PUD development stage application:
· Platting of the property, the property should be platted as one lot.
· Approval of a grading plan by the Shingle Creek Watershed District.
· A zoning amendment to allow overnight stay facilities in the B-4 District.
· Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a reduced loading area.
4
· Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of a commercial
~' recreational use on the property.
~" · A redesigned loading bay that would allow for single unit truck deliveries.
· Additional information relating to grading, drainage, wetlands, utilities, lighting,
signs, landscaping, and south and west building elevations
pc: Doug Sandstad
Mark Hanson
5
Bonestroo Bo,~=o, ,~osene, Anderlik and Associates. ~c i$ ~ Affi~arive Actioq/Eq~l ~o~unity Employer
Principals: Otto G. Bones~roo. RE. · Josep~ ~. Anderlik. ER. · Marwn L. Sorvala.
Glenn R. Cook. RE. · Robe~ G. ~c~unic~t, RE. · Jerry A. Bourbon. RE. ·
Rosene Rober[ ~ Rosene. ER.. Richard E. Turner, ER. and Susan M. Eberlm, CRA., Sen,or Consul[ants
~ Associate Princ~Pal~: Howard A. Sanford, RE. · Keith A. Gordon. ER. · Robert R. Pfefferle,
nderlik &
Michael T. Rautmann. ER. · Ted K.F.eld. RE. · Kennet~ P AnOerson, RE · Mark R. Rolfs, RE
SiOney P ~ilhemson. RE., L.S · Robert E Kotsmit~ · Ages M. R~ng ~ ~llan R~ck Schm~Ot.
Ofhces' SL Paul, Rochester. ~lllmar an~ St. CIou~. MN - MiIw~uk~c. ~1
Engineers & Architects ~=~,,,~. ....
To: Kirk McDonald, Doug Sandstad
From: Mark Hanson, Vince Vander Top
Subject: YMCA Mosaic Youth Center
Our File No. 34-GEN
Date: February 29, 2000
Plat
· The above proposal provides for developing the south portion of the YMCA property
(approximately 9 acres) located south of what's known as Old Dutch Pond. The property is
presently unplatted. The area proposed to be developed is approximately one acre. It's
recommended the entire property be platted based on a one or two lot subdivision. The
existing easements for ponding and road right-of-way (Quebec Avenue) shall be properly
shown on the plat. The ponding easement shall reflect the existing topographic and satisfy
DNR/New Hope Surface Water Management Plan requirements.
· Drainage/utility easements (minimum 10' wide) shall be shown along lot lines.
Grading/Drainage
· A grading drainage plan has not been provided. Impacts to the adjacent wetlands and
property to the south is not shown. Therefore it can't be determined whether the impacts are
significant or not and whether the proposal as drawn is feasible.
· Shingle Creek Watershed will likely consider entire YMCA property as one property
(especialiy if the property to the south and north remain one). Storm water treatment will be
required for all hard surfaces before discharge to existing wetlands or storm sewers. Ponding
requirements shall be in accordance with New Hope's Surface Water Management Plan
(NHSWMP)
· A review of the existing 1955 topography suggests the area beneath the proposed building
may include fill over poor soil. Soil conctition.~ may warrant soil correction or piling to
construct the building as proposed. The xve~terly portion of the site appears to be better soil.
· Building elevations shall comply with NHSWMP adjacent to wetlands.
Sanitary sewer/water services are locatecl in the southeast corner of the property from Quebec
Avenue. The utility stubs were constructed when Quebec Avenue was extended in 1990.
Street/Driveway/Sidewalk
· Driveway access is proposed from Quebec Avenue.
· Sidewalk in the west boulevard of Quebec Avenue abutting the YMCA property is
recommended.
2335 west Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
Memo
To: Doug Sandstad, Building Official
From: Gary Link, Director of Police
Date; February 29, 2000
Re: Mosaic Youth Center
The Mosaic Youth Center concept appears to be a very good fit for the YMCA and Northwest
Suburbs. This facility will bring together several youth services in a more highly coordinated
manner. The programs being offered through this facility, specifically, Point Northwest emergency
housing will very likely benefit the police department when handling various runaway and/or
domestic situations.
None of the programs are expected to generate a significant amount of calls for service. The
programs have very experienced staff and would likely handle all but the most egregious
problems themselves. Any facility serving youth is likely to generate some calls for service but in
this case I expect few.
The preliminary concept building plans are not specific enough to express an opinion about the
physical security and safety issues. I serve on the Y.M.C.A. Management Board and Y.M.C.A.
Executive Director Tom McKinney has asked me to participate with them as they develop this
plan. My Community Services Supervisor serves on the Robbinsdale Redesign Board. I am
confident we will have plenty of opportunity for input as this project moves forward through these
groups as well as with City staff.
· Page I
Mosaic Youth Center
"A fun and active place for teens to serve and to be served."
City of New Hope Concept Plan
February 24, 2000
The Mosaic Youth Center Concept
History of the Project
In 1996, the Robbinsdale Area Redesign (See Exhibit A for a description of the origin
and mission of Robbinsdale Area Redesign) and District 281 joined together to administer
the Search Institute Asset Survey to all students in grades 6 through 12. The Search
Institute model of youth development (See Exhibit B) holds that there are 40 assets each
child should possess in order to grow up to be a successful, healthy, contributing adult.
District 281 students self-reported, on average, possessing 18 of the 40 assets. The survey
gave District 281 and Robbinsdale Area Redesign a benchmark against which to set
improvement goals for youth development.
The results of the asset survey have been analyzed in combination with other statistics on
youth health and welfare to aid Robbinsdale Area Redesign in developing a work plan.
Another study which contributed to increasing the sense of urgency in this project was the
Adolescent Health Task Force report of 1996 which showed that youth ages 14 - 19 were
the only age group in our community that had not shown improvement in their mental and
physical health. In fact, recent student data indicates continued increase in rates of teenage
suicide, sexual activity and pregnancy. These disturbing trends coupled with high rates of
mobility of our students have caused Robbinsdale Area Redesign to adopt "Improved
Adolescent Health" as a top priority in its work plan.
The Mosaic Youth Center concept was bom out of a forum held by the Robbinsdale Area
Redesign for District 281 high school students. In the forum the students discussed many
of their needs but were unanimous in only one: the need for a place high school students
could "hang", have fun, exercise their artistic talents, and get some help. The place the
students described is safe, drug free, and most of all their own. In addition to the voices of
teens the community at large has expressed a great need for supervised teen activities
during after school hours for the district's many dual-income or single parent families.
Mission and Vision
The partner organizations (Northwest YMCA, Robbinsdale Area Redesign, Annex Teen
Clinic, and Fairview Recovery Services) seek to redesign needed youth services so that
they are seamlessly delivered in or through the Mosaic Youth Center. Simply put, they
want to put the services where the youth are; not send youth to the services. The center is a
conveniently located facility, attractive to teens because of recreational and social
opportunities, where services are co-located to support the growth and development of
adolescents.
The Mosaic incorporates the youth asset building model based on the Search Institute's 40
Assets. Services delivered at Mosaic, reflecting the asset building philosophy, will be
preventive to promote the potential of our youth. Preventing problems by building "thriving
behaviors" in our youth lowers the economic and emotional cost of removing "at risk
behaviors."
2
Teenagers have a strong need to feel they are accepted and valued by their communities and
that the community gives them a "rite of passage" into full membership in the community.
We believe that teens participating in the development and operation of the center can fred
just such a rite of pa.s,~age into adulthood. The skills, judgment and emotional maturity
required to create and run such a facility are those we hope to see in our youth, the furore
leaders of our community.
Our vision for the Mosaic Youth Center is that it will be:
"A fun and active place for teens to serve and to be served."
3
The Partners
The land and building the Mosaic operates out of will be owned by the Northwest YMCA.
The YMCA will lease space to the other partner organizations and provide facility
management services. Each partner organization is responsible for the operation of its own
programs within the facility and for collaborating with the other parmers to create integrated
services. The YMCA will also contract with the partner organizations to provide youth
workers for the recreation center. A board composed of representatives of the partner
organizations and District 281 youth will set policy and standards for the center. The
partner organizations are profiled below in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Partner/Representative Population Roles Services Provided
Served
Norlhwest YMCA: a) Families a) Braiding owner and n) Recreation
Tom McKinney - E~ecutive ]}ir. b) O~ildren manager management
Chad l. anners - Program Manager c} Teens b) Mosaic Board member b) Youth workers
c) l~scal agent ¢) Facility management
d) Fundrnising d) Point Northwest
tem[~orat}, shelter
Annex Teen L'linic: a) Teens 14 - 17 a) Building tenant a) Health te~ts and
Brian Rms - Executive Dir. b) Adulu 18 - 25 b) Program design and screenings
Note: Family and Cldldrtn's operation b) Wellness check-ups
Serviee will have a subcon~'act c) Mosaic Board member c) Immunizations
relation.~ip with Annex Teen Clinic d) Fundraising d) Sport~ physicals
and provide services through their e) Sexual health
offices, com~eling
f) Mental health
counselin[~
Rob~,~-~dnle Area Rr-~r-'¥,u: a) Families a) Braiding ienant a) Youth icaderslup
Melodic Hanson - LCC Coordinator b) Children b) Program design and development
Melissa Bachman - Youth Center c) Teens operation b) Programming
Coordinator c) Mosaic Board member coordination and
d) Fundra~sing evaluation
c) Community rela6ons
Fairview Recovery Systems: . a) Teens Jn a) Building tenant a) Chemical dependency
Shelly Ba~alla - Outpatient Supra. recovery b) Program design and evaluation
Dustin Chapman - Provider b) Families of operation b) Teen recovery
Relations teens in c) Mosaic Board member counseling
recovery d) Fundraising c) Chemical health
education
4
Programming
The three major programming components of the youth center are taken from the Mosaic
vision:
· "A fun and active place... - Recreation and Arts
· ...for teens to serve... Community Service
· ...and to be served" - Services for Youth
Recreation and Arts
Youth cite a real need for a safe, drag free facility where teens can feel "at home" and in
control of their environment. Because the center must appeal to a wide range of interests the
recreation and activities proposed encompass sports, games and artistic expression. The
recreation and arts component will develop opportunities for teens to have healthy options
for socializing, adventure, exercise, and creativity.
A. Game room with foosball table, pool table, ping-pong table, video games
B. Gathering area including a music / performing arts stage and dance floor
C. Coffee bar for serving snack foods and drinks
D. Art studio for painting, pottery, etc.
Community Service
Our youth want to make a contribution to their community and be seen as a valuable
resource for its continued growth, prosperity, and quality of life. They believe the Mosaic
can be a focal point for mobilizing young people to provide that service. Some of the
service projects the Mosaic youth leaders are considering include:
A. Peer counseling
B. Teens mentoring or counseling younger children
C. Environmental clean-up or education projects
D. Services for seniors and intergenerational cooperative projects
Services for Youth
Many services exist today to serve the needs of adolescents and each provides a valuable
service for teens. The problem is that these services are highly fragmented, lack the ability
to share resources, and offer their services piecemeal to a client who would be better served
holisfically.
A key benefit of the Mosaic is relocating service providers to the Northwest YMCA's new
facility. The partners will link their case management systems, build new services by
integrating their complementary capabilities, and lower operating costs by sharing assets.
The major service components are:
A. Health Services
Health problems of District 281 youth (mental health, high-risk sexual activity,
chemical abuse, and violence) are inter-related and so respond best to a multi-
disciplinary, holisfic approach. Many intervention efforts have found it futile to focus
on just one problem because all are correlated and even causal. Working on one issue at
a time is not a solution. Practitioners have found that attacking the intertwined roots of
the problem is much more effective than dealing with the symptoms. The health
services that will be deliver in or through the Mosaic Youth Center are:
· Preventative health education on such topics as nutrition and life style choices. '"
· Mental health services including individual and family counseling, relationship
counseling, and stress management training.
· Physical preventative health including general physicals, immunizations, minor
acute care, sexuality related health care, and chemical health services.
B. Intervention
For those teens who have left home due to abuse or family strife the YMCA operates
the Point Northwest short stay youth shelter. Point Northwest is one of the YMCA
programs that will be relocated to the Mosaic. The facility will house from eight to ten
youths who are under constant staff supervision for periods of a few days to a week at
a stay. The goal of Point Northwest is get the teens off the street until they can reunited
with their family or other foster care arrangements made.
C. Educational Support Services
Much of the educational process takes place outside th6 school, after school hours.
Homework, studying for tests, and special projects all are typically done outside the
classroom. The Mosaic provides a place where students can congregate, find
a quiet space and get some additional help. Through a combination of school district __
resources, volunteers, and peer tutors students can get help with several potential
educational needs:
· Remedial. Special help to reach grade level performance in a subject.
· Grade level. Preparation for tests or help with homework.
· College level. Advanced work beyond grade level, perhaps for college credit.
6
D. School-w-Work Services
District 281 staff and Mosaic project team members have worked together to identify
ways the experiences gained at the Mosaic can be incorporated into the graduation
standards. The Mosaic will provide several potential school-to-work opportunities for
area teens including:
· Computer based and other media for exploring job and career options and the
technical training or college education required for those jobs. The Minnesota
Career Information System (WICIS) is one example of a resource that would be
available at the Mosaic.
· Special business education waining programs (both classroom and simulations)
delivered in or through the Mosaic.
· Youth operating entrepreneurial businesses in or through the Mosaic. This option
has the added advantage of potentially pwviding operating income for center.
· Youth who tal~.e part in managing the operations of the Mosaic gain an excellent
"hands on" experience in management.
7
The Building
The YMCA location is centrally located in District 281 and has good bus route connections
making it highly accessible to teens. The building is a three story structure (plus full
basemen0, with a 6,200 square foot footprint and has 18,000 usable square feet. The
building exterior will make use of a combination of hard surfaces, such as masonry or
concrete, and a more finished material such as architectural metal wall panel. Exterior
colors will be limiwxl, with mostly neutral tones, while the interiors and any building
elements projecting from the inside will be saturated with color and light. These interiors
will be expressed with large glass areas with the intent of drawing people into the energetic
and lively space.
The main entry is on the east side of the building, facing Quebec Avenue. This entry path
passes through the upper space of a two story lounge area below, allowing views beyond
the lounge into the more dynamic entertainment and recreation focus of the youth center. A
grand stairway invites visitors down to this center of activity, or they can continue into the
main lobby where youth art is displayed and on to the other services and activities found
within. The remainder of the entry level houses the more development focused aspects of
the youth center, i.e., the computer lab, the library, and the art studio. Also on this level
are found some offices, conference rooms, and restrooms, as well as the trash / recycling
room which opens to a small loading area via an overhead door.
The basement level contains the recreational component of the Youth Center, with a lounge
area (open above to the entry and main floor lobby), game room, coffee bar, and multi-use
area complete with stage and dance floor. The coffee bar will open up onto a below-grade
plaza providing an outdoor area to relax and-interact. There will be YMCA staff offices on
this lower level to facilitate casual but continual youth / adult interaction and supervision.
Also located here are restrooms and the mechanical rooms.
The second floor is the new home for the Annex Teen Clinic, who will occupy the entire
floor. The makeup of the clinic is offices, exam rooms, counseling rooms, and a lab.
The third floor will consist of Fairview Recovery Systems and the Point Northwest
Shelter, with Fairview occupying about two thirds of the floor. Their makeup includes
some group meeting rooms / classrooms, offices, and counseling rooms. Point Northwest
Shelter offers five sleeping rooms that can accommodate two people each, a central lounge /
commons area, toilet / shower rooms, and staff offices.
There are no uses proposed within the building that would require deliveries by anything
larger than a UPS van, so a more developed loading bay to accommodate large semi-trailers
has not been included.
8
Hours of Operation
Figure 2 shows the hours of operation of each of the service areas.
Figure 2
A rea Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. ~n. Sat. Stm.
Recreation 3 pan. - 3 pan. - 3 p.m. - 3 pan. - 3 p.m. - 12 noon - 12 noon -
Center ,, 10 p.m. ,, 10 p.m. 10 pan. 10 p.m. 12 mid. 12 mid. 6 p.m.
Coffee bar 3 pan.- 3 pan.- 3 p.m.- 3 pan.- 3 - 12 noon - 12 noon -
10 p.m. 10 pan. 10 pan. 10 p.m. 12 p.m. 12 mid. 6 p.m.
Annex Teen 12 noon - I - 9 p.m. 12 noon - I -9 p.m. 12 noon - Closed Closed
Clinic 5 p.m. , 5 p.m. , 5 p.m.
Fairview 7:30 a.m. 7:30 a.m. 7:30 a.m. 7:30 a.m. 7:30 a.m. Closed Clo~ed
Recovery .....
4:30 ~0.m. 4:30 pan. 4:30 p.m. 4:30 pan, 4:30 pan.
Point 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours
Northwest
Admin Offices 12 noon - 12 noon - 12 noon - 12 noon - 1'2 noon - 12 noon - 12 noon -
Computer lab I 3 p.m. - 3 p.m. - 3 p.m. - 3 p.m. - 3 p.m. - 12 noon - I2 noon -
Library 10 p.m. 10 p.m. 10 p.m. 10 p.m. 6 p.m. 12 mid. 6 p.m. ,
Staffing
Figure 3 shoWs the number of adult staff working in each of the service areas.
Figure 3
A rea Mon. T-es. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. Sun.
Recreation 5 5 5 5 7 7 3
Center
Coffee bar 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
Annex Teen 4 - 6 "4 - 8 4 - 6 4 - 8 4 - 6" Closed Closed
Clinic
Fairview 8 '8 8 8 8 Closed Closed
Recover~ ,
Point 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Northwest
Admin Offices 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Library
Total staff 28"- 30 28 - 32 28 - 30 28 -'"~2 31 - 33 I 9 I 4
on-site
Service Volumes
(~' Figure 4 shows the average number of clients/students/patients served daily by service
Figure 4
Area Moa, Tues. Wed. Th~. Pti. Sat. Sun.
Recreation 40 40 40 40 150 150 50
Center
Coffee bar 25 25 25 25 50 50 50
Annex Teen 15 - 20 20 - 25 15 - 20 20 - 25 15 - 20 Closed Closed
Clinic
· Fairview 20 20 20 20 20 Closed Closed
Recovery
Point $- 10 $- 10 8- l0 $ - 10 $- 10 $- 10 8 - I0
Northwest
Admin Offices N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Computer lab / 30 30 30 30 20 40 ' 40
Library
Dally Totals 138 - 143 - 138 - 143 - 263 - 248 - 148 -
145 150 145 150 270 250 150 ....
Parking
Figure 5 shows the peak parking periods foreach service area.
Figure 5
Area Mom Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. Sun.
Recreation 5 p.m.' - 5 p.m. - 5 p.m. - 5 p.m. - 6 p.m. - 6 pan. - 3 p.m. -
Center 8 p.m. 8 p.m. 8 p.m. ,8 p.m. 12 mid. 12 mid. 6 p.m.
Coffee bar 5 p.m. - 5 p.m. - 5 p.m. - 5 p.m. - 6 p.m. - 6 p.m. - 3 p.m. -
8 p.m. 8 p.m. 8 p.m. 8 pan. 12 mid. 12 mid. 6 p.m.
Annex Teen 1 p.m.- 5 p.m. - I p.m. - 5 p.m. - I p,m. - Closed Closed
Clinic 4 p.m. 9 p.m. 4 p.m. 9 p.m. 4 p.m.
Fahwiew 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. - 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. - 8 a.m. - Closed Closed
Recovery 4 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 4 p.m. 7:30 p.m. 4 p.m.
Point 4 p.m. - 4 p.m. - 4 p,m, - 4 p.m. - 4 p.m, - 4 pan. - 4 p,m. -
Northwest 8 a.m. 8 a.m. 8 a.m. 8 a.m. 8 a.m. 8 a.m. 8 a.m.
Admin Offices 12 noon - 12 noon - 12 noon - 12 noon - 12 noon - 12 noon - 12 noon -
6 p.m. 6 p.m. 6 p.m. 6 p.m. 12 mid. 12 mid. 6 p.m.
Computer lab / 3 p.m. - 3 p.m. - 3 p.m. - 3 p.m. - 3 p.m. - 12 noon - 3 p.m. -
Librar~ 6 p.m. 6 p.m. 6 p.m. 6 p.m. 6 p.m. 6 p.m. 6 p.m. --
I0
The Northwest YMCA has a total of 225 parking spaces in its existing parking lot. A
parking study conducted during a three week period during the months of December, 1999
and January, 2000 documented actual parking space use versus total spaces available. This
study demonstrates that the current parking facilities at the YMCA has excess capacity that
can be used for the Mosaic Youth Center.
Day of week Mon. Thurs. Sat.
Time of day Avg. % Avg. % Avg. %
count in Capacity count in Capacity count in Capacity
study study study
period period period
9 am 105 47% 106 47% 67 30%
3 p.m. 79 35% 85 . 38% 69 31%
6 p.m. 110 49% 71 32% 53 24%
Additionally, the peak hours for parking for the Mosaic Youth Center are later afternoon
and evening past the peak hours for the existing YMCA facility. We estimate that 20% of
the youth using the center at any given time will be either drop-offs or arrive by bus. Of the
remaining 80% approximately half of those will come in groups of 2 to 4 in a single
automobile. Examination of the hours of operation chart shows that peak recreation center
and coffee bar use occur after peak hours for the service providers also freeing parking
spaces.
Snow removal will be done in the early morning hours between 7:00 and 10:00 a.m. before
the majority of either center staff or youth begin using the facility at 10:00 a.m.
Loading Zone
The building has one loading zone and delivery door that can accomodate a 38 foot straight
truck. Because of the nature of the operations at the Mosaic deliveries will consist largely of
of clinic supplies, office supplies and food and beverages. Access to the loading zone will
be limited to the hours between 6:00 and 10:00 am.
11
Funding
The Robbinsdale Area Redesign has provided $260,000 to date ia start-up funding for the
project. The Northwest YMCA is incorporating the Mosaic into its capital campaign for
· . 2000. In addition to the YMCA's capital campaign the partner organizations will conduct a
coordinated capitol campaign drawing on the fundraising resources of each organization.
The capital campaign goal is $4 million. We will seek funding from both large and small
foundations, corporations and local businesses, local governments, private donors and
community based fundraising events.
Submitted by the Mosaic Youth Center Project Team:
Tom McKinney- Executive Director, Northwest YMCA
Chad Lanners - Program Manager, Northwest YMCA
Brian Russ - Executive Director, Annex Teen Clinic
Melodie Hanson - Coordinator, Robbiasdale Area Redesign
Melissa Bachman - Youth Center Coordinator, Robbinsdale Area Redesign
Shelly Basalla - Outpatient Supervisor, Fairview Recovery Systems
Dustin Chapman - Provider Relations, Fairview Recovery Systems
Prepared by:
Brad Brown
Project Manager
(612) 540-0226
Bradb2 @ aol.com
12
A: Robbinsdale Area Redesign
Exhibit
In 1995, then Governor Carlson enacted the Family Services and Community Based
Collaborative legislation (Minnesota statute 121.8355, Subd. 2) to increase local
community control over integrated services for families and children. The Robbinsdale
Area Redesign is one of those family services collaboratives authorized by that statute. Its
service area is the cities served by Robbinsdale Area Schools: Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn
Park, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, Plymouth and Robbinsdale. Robbinsdale Area
Redesign has funds for grant making to organizations and projects which improve the
health and wen-being of families and children through integrated services.
The duties of a Family Services Collaborative as outlined in statute are:
1. Establish, with assistance from families and service providers, clear goals for
addressing the health, developmental, educational and family-related needs of children
and youth. Use outcome based indicators to measure progress toward achieving those
goals.
2. Establish a comprehensive planning process that involves all sectors of the community,
identifies local needs, and surveys existing local programs
3. Integrate service funding sources so that children and their families obtain services from
providers best able to anticipate and meet their needs.
4. Coordinate families' services to avoid duplicate and overlapping assessment and intake
procedures.
5. Focus primarily on family centered services.
6. Encourage parents, and volunteers to actively participate by using flexible scheduling
and actively recruiting volunteers.
7. Provide services in locations that are readily accessible to children and families.
8. Use new or reallocated funds to improve services provided to children and families.
9. Identify federal, state and local institutional barriers to coordinating services, suggest
ways to remove these barriers.
10. Design and implement an integrated local service delivery system for children and
families that coordinates service across agencies and its client centered. The delivery
system consists of services to children birth to age 18; birth to age 21 for disabled
individuals. The collaborative shall describe the community plan for serving pregnant
women and children from birth to age 6.
13
Robbinsdale Area Redesign Governance
The Robbinsdale Area Redesign is governed by a memo of understanding between
mandated partners and voluntary partners. Mandated partners include: Hennepin County
Community Health and Corrections; ISD 281; Community Action for Suburban Hennepin
(CASH); and Headstart.
The governing body of the Robbinsdale Area Redesign, the Local Collaborative Council, is
made up of 51% parents and youth with the balance being voluntary members including the
City of Crystal, City of New Hope, Annex Teen Clinic, Hennepin County Libraries,
Family and Children's Services, North Memorial Hospital and Community Ahead. The
current representative for the City of New Hope is Maureen Vanek.
Robbinsdale Area Redesign Relationship to ISD 281
1SD 281 is a mandatory partner in the Robbinsdale Area Redesign and serves as fiscal
agent for the collaborative. The Robbinsdale Area Redesign works closely with District 281
on finding and closing gaps in services to children and families.
In addition, school district employees help to generate funds for the Robbinsdale Area
Redesign through their participation in the Random Moments Time Study. This is a federal
entitlement reimbursement program that consists of Medicaid and Foster Care funds. This
entitlement reimbursement is mandated to go to the Family Services Collaboratives for
integrated spending plans.
Currently only county and school district employees are permitted to participate in this
revenue enhancement program. It is anticipated that within the next few years,
municipalities and non-profits will be invited to participate. Many collaboratives have been
asking to add school police liaisons to this program.
14
Exhibit B: The Mosaic Youth Center as an Asset Building Tool
The asset building model of youth development rests on the simple belief that children and
teenagers are most successful when they possess as many of 40 developmental assets as
possible. In simplest terms asset building holds that the more assets a young person has the
more likely they are to practice "thriving behaviors" (good health, strong school
performance, service to others, etc.). Conversely, the fewer assets they have, the greater
the likelihood that the youth will engage in "risk behaviors" (drug and alcohol use, sexual
activity, violence, poor school performance, etc.). Children gain assets from the
supportive, challenging, and nurturing relationships the young person has with the adults
in his/h~ life. The chart below demonstrates how the 5 design principles of the Youth
Center (integrated services, School-to-Career, Arts and recreation, student governance, and
community service) build the 8 asset types (support, empowerment, boundaries and
expectations, time use, educational commitment, values, social competencies, positive
identity) in the Youth Center's participating teens.
To interpret the chart look at the numbers in a cell to f'md which assets apply to that element
of the Youth Center. For example, if you look at the cell intersecting "Support" and
"Integrated Services" you find the numbers "3" and "4". Refer to the list of asset names
and you see that "3" is "Non-parent adult relationships", and "4" is "Caring
neighborhood".
INTERNAL ASSETS:
Asset Type Asset Name & Number
Support 1. Family support
2. Positive family communication
3. Non-parent adult relationships
4. Caring neighborhood
5. Caring school climate
6. Parent involvement in schooling
Empowerment 7. Community values youth
8. Youth as resources
9. Youth serving others
10. Youth feels safe
Boundaries and 11. Family has behavior boundaries for youth
Expectations 12. School has behavior boundaries for youth
13. Neighborhood has behavior boundaries for youth -
14. Youth has positive adult role models
15. Youth has positive peer influence
16. Parents and teachers have high expectations of youth
Constructive Use of 17. Creative activities for youth to take part in
Time 18. Regular participation in clubs or youth organizations
19. Regular participation in religious institutions
20. Youth spends 2 or fewer nights out with no organized activities
15
EXTERNAL ASSETS:
Asset Type Asset Name & Number
Commitment to 21. Motivation. Youth is motivated to do well in school
Learning 22. Engagement. Youth is actively engaged in learning
23. Homework. Youth does at least 1 hour of homework every day
24. Bonding. Youth cares about hi.~her school
25. Reading. Youth spends 3 or more hours per week reading for
Positive Values 26. Caring. Youth places high value on helping others.
27. Equality and social justice. Youth places high value on promoting
equality, reducing hunger and poverty.
28. Integrity. Youth acts on convictions and stands up for his/her beliefs.
29. Honesty. Youth tells the truth, even when it is not easy.
30. Responsibility. Youth accepts and takes personal responsibility.
31. Restraint. Youth believes it is important not to be sexually active or
use drugs and alcohol.
Social Competencles 32. Planning and decision making. Youth knows how to plan ahead and
make choices.
33. Interpersonal competence. Youth has empathy, sensitivity, and
friendship skills.
34. Cultural competence. Youth has knowledge of and comfort with
different races, cultures, ethnic backgrounds.
35. Resistance skills. Youth can resist negative peer pressure and
dangen~us situations.
36. Peaceful conflict resolution. Youth seeks to resolve conflict non-
violently.
Positive Identity 37. Personal power. Youth feels he/she has control over his/her life.
38. Self-esteem. Youth has high self-esteem.
39. Sense of purpose. Youth believes his/her life has a purpose.
40. Positive view of the future. Youth is optimistic about his/her
personal future.
16
Exhibit B Youth Center Desic~n Principles
Integrated School- Recreation IStudent Community
J services to-Career Arts Govemance Service
Asset T~ype Asset Name Involved
Support 3,4 3 3
Empowerment 7 8. I~ 9
Boundaries and 14,16 1 5
Expectations
Time Use 1 g 1 ? 1 8
Educational 2 3 2 1
Commitment
Values 31 2 828,29, 3(::26,27
Social 3232,33, 32,33, 36 32
Competencies 34
Positive Identity 37 37,39, 3~ 37 3§
40
No. of Asset 6 5 7 4 5
Types
No. Asset Names 7 8 9 8 6
]7
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: March 6, 2000
Report Date: March 3, 2000
Planning Case: 00-02
Petitioner: Winpark Associates LL C/Rob Zakheim
Address: 3440 Winpark Drive
Request: PHASE II Site and Building Plan Review Approval and PHASE III Variance for Rear
Yard Setback
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting site and building plan review approval for construction of a one-story
addition onto the west side of the existing building (Phase II) and a variance to the requirement for the
rear yard setback for a future Phase III expansion on the north side of the building, pursuant to Section
4.039A and 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. Within the I-2, General Industrial zone, the
petitioner has begun interior remodeling with the Phase I improvements which did not require Planning
and Council review. Now, they are requesting Site and Building Plan Review Approval for construction
of Phase II, a one-story addition on the front of the existing building that meets all performance
standards. Phase III future expansion approval is requested for a larger addition on the north side of the
existing building and a variance for the rear yard setback on the east side adjacent to the railroad.
Trucking is kept on the south side of the lot, away from the residential to the north.
II. Zoning Code References
· 4.039 Site and Building Plan Review, Phase II, and 4.15 - I-2, General Industry standards
· 4.036 Parking standards
· 4.034(6) Industrial setbacks to railroads, Phase III
· 4.20 and 4.22 Variance, Phase III
III. Property Specifications
Zoning: I-2, General Industrial
Location: Winpark Drive intersects with Winnetka approximately one block south of 36th
Avenue. The property is located on the east side of Winpark Drive as the
street corners to the south and parallels Winnetka Avenue, approximately 650
feet east of Winnetka Avenue.
Adjacent Land Uses: North: R-4 apartments (Emerald Pointe); East: railroad tracks and I-1 limited
Industrial; South: City of Crystal partially developed industrial; West: Winpark
Drive and I-1 Limited Industrial
Site Area: 388,741 square feet or 8.92 acres
Street Frontage/s: 500 feet on Winpark Drive
Planning Case Report 00-02 Page 1 3~3~00
Building Area and
Lot Coverages: Existing Warehouse = 99,159 sq. ft. = 25%, 60% Green, 5% Paved
Addition Phase II = 23,100 sq. ft.,
Total: 122,259 sq. ft. = 31%, 42% Green, 27% Paved
Addition Phase III = 76,518 sq. ft.,
Total: 198,777 sq. ft. '- 51%, 9% Green, 41% Paved
Planning District: #17; The City's goal for this District is to promote business retention and
in-place expansion by providing better compatibility with adjacent residential
neighborhoods, and pursue proper screening of outdoor storage areas.
Specific Information: The Phase II expansion is routine on the primarily flat 8.9 acre lot. Staff is
waiting for an Engineered plan for the grading along the south lot line that has
already begun. (The lot to the south is between 12 and 20 feet higher than
this property, where a retaining wall has been removed.) Parking is more than
adequate for Phase II and Phase III with maximum 10% office use (office and
warehouse percent NOT submitted) - 186 spaces required in this example,
but 267 are proposed. Ponding and drainage plan needs approval of Bassett
Creek Watershed Commission.
IV. Background
The original building was built in 1966 for Minnesota Paints (later named Valspar). In 1974, an addition
was built, resulting in the present sized building. The paint warehouse use continued until eight years
ago, when Valspar vacated and the Creamettes successor, Primo Piatto, used it to store pasta. The
building is plain with no windows in a somewhat remote industrial area. The applicant purchased it last
year and is proposing windows, paint and a single entry door on the new street front elevation on the
west with the Phase II expansion. Future Phase III represents a maximum development of the site and
is not as clearly documented as staff would like.
V. Petitioner's Comments
The petitioner stated in correspondence that they purchased the property in July 1999, which consisted
of a 100,000 square foot concrete block warehouse structure, located on 8.92 acres of land.
They also stated that "Dakota Growers kept the facility structurally sound, but did little to maintain or
enhance the overall appearance and condition of the facility exterior and associated grounds." They
also stated that "After the facility purchase, the principals of WinPark Associates started working with
the City of New Hope and our contractors to resolve several outstanding issues with the building. This
included a long time drainage problem with the adjacent pond to the south and southeast parking area,
addressing substantial vegetation overgrowth, outside storage issues, general facility system
inspections/repairs.
To date, the entire drainage problem has been resolved through the installation of a French drain
system, catch basins and the paving of the truck apron areas. The outside storage area has been
cleaned out, all trees on the property have been pruned, and all overgrowth has been removed. To help
shield the truck dock area from Winpark Drive, a berm was created along the southwest corner
boulevard. Additionally, an ADA parking area was installed, the fire sprinkler system was upgraded to
ESFR, and all facility systems were inspected and all necessary roof repairs performed.
The principals recently reached a definitive agreement with Simon Delivers.com. We are very
excited about this agreement which is a long term commitment on behalf of the parties to place a
Tenant in the 3440 Winpark facility that will compliment the principals of WinPark Associates, the
commercial and residential neighbors and City of New Hope. Simon Delivers.com has committed to
have the Winpark principals expand the existing structure to create its nationwide
Planning Case Report 00-02 Page 2 3~3~00
administrative headquarters, and its model food distribution facility. Simon Delivers.com's goal
,is to become the nation's leading Internet based home food delivery company.
We feel very confident in the benefits this opportunity brings to all parties including:
· Facility utilization by a professional clean use organization
· Creation of expanded employment in New Hope for a broad range technical, administrative, and
warehouse related functions.
Immediate Employment Level 50 office 30 warehouse
Mid-Term Employment Level 75 office 75 warehouse
Long-Term Employment Level 140 office 100 warehouse
· Facility expansion that will improve the overall external site conditions, facility quality and aesthetics.
· Use will compliment surrounding commercial and residential neighbors.
· Establishment of a leading edge Internet technology based company within the City of New Hope.
In conjunction with completing the initial facility improvements and the securing of a long term tenant,
the WinPark principals have outlined the following objectives in a three phase plan that it wishes to work
closely with the City of New Hope to implement.
Phase 1: With the cooperation and approval of the City of New Hope staff, the Principal of WinPark
Associates has initiated the following improvements to further enhance the existing site, and facilitate
Simon Delivers food distribution requirements. It is the goal of the Partners to have interior Phase 1
improvements completed by March 15. These improvements, underway, include:
· ADA enhancements and main level bathroom expansion, installation of new bathroom fixtures and
hardware, grade level facility access parking, ADA door/facility hardware and signage.
· Filling in of three interior loading dock areas and converting these areas to exterior docks.
· The cleaning and sealing of the warehouse floor area.
· Insulating of the warehouse wall areas to help minimize heat loss.
· Installation of additional exterior loading dock doors.
· Upgrading the mezzanine area with updated restroom and break room facilities.
· Upgrading existing HVAC systems.
· Grading of southeast property areas. (Engineered plan being prepared)
· Removal and grading of existing outside storage fenced area.
· Repair of exterior block work and painting of facility in the spring.
Phase 2: With the cooperation and approval of the City of New Hope, immediately initiate an application
to the Planning Commission for the expansion of the existing facility. This expansion would be part of a
projected two-step process. The first step of the expansion would be to construct a new 23,188 square
foot structure on the west side of the existing facility. This first step would begin our goal to completely
encompass the west and north facing areas of the building with a new and aesthetically pleasing
structure. This process would enhance the overall neighborhood, and keep all truck traffic to the south
property area fully shielded and at a maximum distance from the residential apartments to the north
side of the site.
· Construct a west side addition comprised of 23,188 square feet. This addition would be
approximately 27 feet in height, constructed of an attractive concrete pre-cast panel and block
design. An attractive entrance and office area with windows would face Winpark Drive to the west.
·The interior portion would consist of 15,000 square feet of finished office area in the north section of
this addition, and 8,188 feet of warehouse in the south area of this addition.
· Site improvements would include the installation of a retention pond in the northwest corner of the
property, installation of an additional curb cut car entrance for office/warehouse parking on the
northwest property area, installation of paved parking, curb and gutter, and the implementation of a
landscape enhancement plan.
Planning Case Report 00-02 Page 3 3/3/00
· Install an additional water line and fire protection hydrants to the site.
Phase 3: With the cooperation and approval of the City of New Hope, within 24 months of in ,
Planning Commission and City Council approval, initiate a north side facility expansion. This expansion
would be the final step of the projected two-step expansion process. This expansion would entail the
construction of an approximate 75,000 square foot structure on the north side of the existing facility.
This final step would complete our goal to completely encompass the west and north facing area of the
building with a new and aesthetically pleasing structure. This process would further enhance the overall
neighborhood, and continue to confine all truck traffic to the south property area fully shielded, and at a
maximum distance from the residential apartments to the north side of the site. As Simon Delivers
would be making a substantial investment in the facility, the ability for future expansion is very important
.and would be a key point in the long term retention of this company in our community. The WinPark
Associates Principals' goal, is to complete this expansion within 130 days of construction initiation and
have the ability to complete certain site work and add a finished parking area prior to construction of this
addition, if necessary. The north side addition expansion would include:
· Construct a north side addition comprised of approximately 75,000 square feet. This addition would
be approximately 27 feet in height, constructed of an attractive concrete pre cast panel design. An
attractive new northwest corner entrance would become the facility focal point and add additional
curb appeal, as this final expansion truly completes the overall look and balance of the facility as it
relates to the overall site and views from the west and north side neighbors and Winpark traffic.
· The interior portion would consist of an approximately 10,000 square feet of additional finished
office area in the northwest section of this addition, and approximately 63,000 feet of additional
warehouse in the remaining area of this addition.
· Site improvements would include the installation of paved parking, curb and gutter, and the
completion of any required site work and landscaping enhancements.
We have initiated a professional and coordinated effort to prepare all of the necessary plans,
documents and other required information for this approval process. The partners of WinPark, Simon
Delivers.com and our General Contractor Bob Mikulak of DB Development are excited to work closely
with the City of New Hope and its staff. This unique opportunity will allow all parties to achieve mutual
beneficial goals in transforming the tired and work existing 3440 Winpark facility into a rejuvenated and
fresh aesthetically pleasing facility while enhancing and complimenting the surrounding neighbors and
community,"
VI. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified, including the City of Crystal, and staff has
received one call from a Crystal resident on the east side of the railroad tracks with questions about hours
of operation and truck routes.
VII. Development Analysis
A. Zoning Code Criteria
1. Site and Buildinq Plan Review - Phase II site and building plan review approval is required for
building expansions exceeding 10 percent of the existing building, and is routine for this project.
2. Variance
A) The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from strict application of the zoning code where
undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to
the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of
property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship
cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not
Planning Case Report 00-02 Page 4 3/3/00
alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood.
B) "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in
question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official
controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not
created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
C) Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and
the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not:
1) Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance.
2) Li.qht and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
3) Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street.
4) Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
5) Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code.
D) in this application the variance being requested is for a warehouse rear setback adjacent to the
railroad on the east side of the property of one (1) foot instead of the code minimum of 10 feet
for the north Phase III building expansion. The purpose is to not waste property and to
reasonably match the setback of the existing building. Similar variances have been approved in
the past, including one in 1998 for an expansion at Archives Corporation on the east side of the
railroad tracks. Staff does not have a problem with the request, due to the isolated location of
the property and the proximity to the railroad. Although staff is not recommending approval
of the Phase III building expansion until additional details are provided, staff
recommends approval of the variance for the future expansion so that the applicant
knows they can proceed with plans to maximize the development of the site. (Full Phase
III site and building approval would be requested at a later date.)
3. Comprehensive Plan
The Planner's report states that the development and expansion of an industrial use on this site is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. According to the City's Proposed Land Use Map, the
subject property is guided for industrial development. The subject property is zoned I-2, General
Industrial District. The properties to the east, west, and south are all zoned and guided for industrial
use. However, the property directly to the north is an existing apartment building which is zoned and
guided for high density residential use. As a result, Phase III expansion will most likely require
additional screening to ensure the continued compatibility of these uses.
B. Development ReviewTeam
The Development Review Team met to discuss the project on February 15 and was supportive of it.
Suggestions included:
· Provide detailed grading/drainage/ponding plans
· Provide traffic details and counts and trucking hour information
· Provide fire lane, per Fire Department decision
· Increase landscaping at north of Phase III
· Identify, trash enclosure, rooftop screening, signs and revised parking count
· Submit architectural front elevation
Planning Case Report 00-02 Page 5 3/3/00
C. Design & Review Committee
The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on February 17 and supported the proj~
Suggestions included:
· See suggestions above
· Submit plans to Bassett Creek Watershed Commission for review
D. Plan Description
Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meetings that addressed many of the issues with
the Phase II expansion, however, staff recommends that the Phase III expansion needs more
details addressed and is only recommending approval of the Phase II plan at this time.
The plans include the following details:
1) Lot and Building Standards
The subject property meets the minimum lot area, lot width, and building height requirements for
properties in the I-2 District, as follows:
Performance Standard Required Proposed
Lot Area 1 Acre 8.92 Acres
Lot Width 100 Feet 620 Feet
Building Height 3 Stories 1 Story
2) Setbacks
Both the existing building and Phase I expansion are in compliance with the required setbacks
for the I-2 District with the exception of the existing rear yard setback. Nevertheless, the current
application does not alter the existing building's rear yard setback. The charts below compare
the existing and proposed setbacks after Phase II and Phase III construction:
Setbacks for Phase II
Yard Existinq Proposed Required
Front 209 Feet 99 Feet 50 Feet
Side (North) 248 Feet 248 Feet 10 Feet
Side (South) 131.5 Feet 131.5 Feet 10 Feet
Rear* 0 Feet 0 Feet 10 Feet
*Setback for property adjacent to a rail line
Setbacks for Phase III
Yard Existinq Proposed Required
Front 209 Feet 99 Feet 50 Feet
Side (North) 248 Feet 100 Feet 10 Feet
Side (South) 131.5 Feet 131.5 Feet 10 Feet
Rear* 0 Feet 0 Feet 10 Feet
*Setback for property adjacent to a rail line -
3) Parkinq and Circulation
The proposed plan indicates 267 total parking stalls. One hundred and fifty (150) will be
constructed in junction with Phase II. The remaining 116 are shown as future parking for Phase
III. According to the Zoning Ordinance, the existing building and the Phase II expansion needs
96 stalls, while Phase III needs 7'6 stalls. Given the number of stalls shown on the site plan,
staff finds that this site meets the off-street parking requirements as set forth in the City
Ordinance. The applicable parking standards for both Phase II and III are shown in the chart
below.
Planning Case Report 00-02 Page 6 3/3/00
Required Required
(' Us~e Phase II Shown Phase II Phase III Shown Phase III
4_/ Office 1/300 (51) 1/300 (33)
150 116
Warehouse 1/1,500 (45) 1/1,500 (43)
Total 96 150 76 116
Included in the 267 proposed parking stalls are seven disability stalls. This fulfills the
state requirement for disability parking. Given the number of off-street parking stalls required
for Phase II, State Statute requires five of these stalls be designated disability stalls.
While this site fulfills the requirement for disability parking, staff finds that the location of
these stalls provides poor access to the building. Currently, the plan shows two of. these
stalls adjacent to the entrance to Phase I1. The remaining five stalls are in two groups in the
northwest corner of the site adjacent to the stormwater retention pond. These two parking areas
are located on the far side of the parking lot and are 50 feet and 85 feet from the entrance to
Phase III and at least 160 feet from the entrance to Phase I1. Therefore, staff recommends
that a condition of approval require the applicant to relocate three of the disability stalls
directly adjacent to the entrances to Phase I1. The remaining two stalls should be relocated
adjacent to the entrance to Phase III as part of the site plan review for that phase.
Staff finds that the parking configuration and vehicle circulation on site is sufficient with the
following revisions:
A) The disability parking located adjacent to the northern curb cut should be relocated adjacent
to the building as stated above and these parking areas should be eliminated.
B) The applicant should relocate the northern curb cut along Winpark Drive 20 feet to the north
to allow for better access. With this shift in driveway location, additional parking stalls may
be added to the western tier of parking to compensate for the lost parking. This also avoids
having parking back directly into the drive lane for the site's northern access.
C) The parking stall adjacent to the southwestern corner of Phase II is too close to the building
and should be eliminated.
4) Landscapin.q
Staff finds that the landscape plan for Phase II is sufficient with the following revisions, First, the
planting pattern shown along the west side of the Phase II should be extended to the southern
end of the building. Second, the plantings shown in the southwestern corner of the site should
be increased from six to twelve and arranged in a staggered pattern with 15-foot spacing. This
additional screening is necessary to provide adequate screening of the truck loading and trash
compactor area near Winpark Drive.
The landscape plan for Phase III does address many of staff's concerns. However, with the
future grading required as part of Phase III construction, a more detailed review of the
landscaping and screening will be required when Phase III is pursued.
5) Si.qna.qe
The applicant's sign plan appears to be in compliance with the standards for signs in the I-2
District. According to the ordinance, the applicant is allowed a sign that is 15 percent of the front
face of the principal building or 250 square feet, whichever is less. In addition, the sign must be
a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. The applicant's plans call for a 100 square foot
sign. The applicant may wish to relocate and/or realign the sign north of its current location and
parallel to Winpark Drive to increase its visibility.
Planning Case Report 00-02 Page 7 3/3/00
6) Gradinq
The grading plan does not indicate how the site will be altered to facilitate removal of the exist,.,
retaining wall in the southwestern corner of the site. Staff recommends that a condition of
approval require the applicant to submit a revised Grading, Drainage, and Erosion
Control Plan prior to Council action on this application. The revised plan must detail the
grading necessary to remove the existing retaining wall. It should be noted that the grading plan
also does not address Phase III grading.
7) Lighting
The lighting plan for Phase II appears consistent with the ordinance. However, the information
for Phase II is incomplete. Given the elevation difference between the subject property and the
adjacent residential property, the current lighting plan could be an issue during the Phase III site
plan review. More detailed light contours need to be submitted.
8) Trash
The petitioner states that the tenant plans to install two compactors on the south side of the
facility, as shown on the plans. One of the compactors would be for the recycling of paper and
cardboard products, and one compactor would be used for non-recyclable materials.
9) Employee/Commercial Traffic
The petitioner has submitted the following information to help the Planning Commission better
understand the facility traffic activities. Below is a listing of warehouse and office employee head
counts, and truck and van traffic. The following figures are based on headcount and traffic levels
after 18 months.
Facility Employees Shift Schedule Shift Headcount
Office 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 65
Warehouse 2 p.m. - 10 p.m. 20
Warehouse 8 p.m. - 4 a.m. 12
Warehouse 2 a.m. - Noon 95
Commercial Vehicles Shift Schedule Daily Vehicle Totals
Semi-Trailer Trucks 7 a.m. - 4 p.m. 20
Delivery Vans Noon - 6 p,m. 10
10) Encroachment Issues
The petitioner states that further research with our survey company (Harry Johnson) has shown
that the existing Winpark facility encroaches one inch (1") over the property line. WinPark
Associates does have a written easement in its favor from CP Rail allowing for this. Further, Ron
Wilman of CP Rail has indicated that the CP Rail would not have a problem granting an
additional easement, if required. It is the intention of WinPark to construct this future addition
one inch to the west of the existing facility east wall, to insure that we do not encroach on the CP
Rails adjacent property.
11 ) Rooftop Equipment Screeninq
The petitioner has indicated that WinPark plans to have any new rooftop mechanical equipment
installed with a finish that will match the building.
12) Snow Storage
The petitioner indicates that initially snow would be stored on the asphalt areas along the
southeast and south areas of the rear truck dock area. Additional snow would be stored on the
vacant land to the north of the building. After a northside expansion is completed, additional
Planning Case Report 00-02 Page 8 3/3/00
snow storage would take place along the east expanded parking area. At the point where there
? are no available parking spaces to be utilized for snow storage, all excess snow would be
.... ' contracted for off-site removal.
E. Buildin.q Considerations
· Submit the Engineered plan for the southeast grading changes.
· Submit a floor plan for both phases with uses/occupancies noted for required parking and
building code evaluations.
F. Engineering Comments
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and provided the following comments:
1) Grading/Drainage
· The drainage plan shall comply with the requirements of Bassett Creek Watershed and New
Hope Surface Water Management Plan. All surface water drainage (including existing storm
sewedrunoff south of the existing building) shall be directed to the ponding area in the
northwest corner of the property. Calculations shall be provided showing that the ponding
area satisfies requirements for storm water treatment. A ponding easement shall be shown
over the ponding area. A pond maintenance agreement is required to insure the pond is
properly maintained by the property owner.
· The grading/pavement improvements along the south property line shall be properly shown
on the grading plan. Slope restoration based on acceptable engineering standards is
required. Existing building locations and pavement shall be properly shown on the property
to the south (Crystal property/Kevitt Excavating). Potential impacts shall be noted and
explained.
2) Utility
· The existing water connection in Winpark Drive shall be reviewed to ensure it satisfies all
requirements.
· Additional hydrant requirements shall be reviewed with New Hope Fire primarily in the area
located south of the existing building.
3) Site Plan
· The building encroachment along the east property line (abutting CP Rail) shall be resolved.
· The new northerly driveway at the 90° corner in Winpark Drive shall be done so it does not
appear to be an easterly extension of Winpark Drive. The driveway connection shall not
restrict street drainage in Winpark Drive.
· Drainage/utility easements along all property lines shall be required if they are not already
shown on the existing plat.
· Parking lot/turning improvements for trucks shall comply with New Hope and typical
engineering standards.
G. Fire Considerations
The petitioner indicates that the existing facility has a full Wet ESFR and Hi Pile rated fire protection
system. The proposed and future additions would have an approved wet fire suppression system
and smoke/heat vents installed. WinPark Associates has been working closely with Randy Kurtz of
the West Metro Fire Department to address all fire and life safety protection related matters. A fire
lane has been indicated on the south side of the building, as requested.
Planning Case Report 00-02 Page 9 3/3~00
VIII. Summary ~
Staff finds that the petitioner has done a good job addressing a number of issues raised by sL.,
consultants and the Design & Review Committee and is pleased to have a local company retained and
expanding in the City.
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the site plan for a 23,188 square foot expansion to the existing industrial
building located at 3440 Winpark Drive and the variance for the future addition, with the understanding
that the north Phase III addition will be submitted to the Planning Commission at a later date for review/
approval. This recommendation is based on the findings contained in this report and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Submit Engineered plan for Phase I southeast slope grading changes within seven days of Planning
Commission meeting.
2. Relocate three of the disability parking stalls located adjacent to the northern curb cut along
Winpark Drive so they are adjacent to the entrance for Phase II.
3. Eliminate the parking stalls directly adjacent to the northern curb cut along Winpark Drive.
4. Relocate the northern curb cut along Winpark Drive 20 feet to the north to allow for better access.
With this shift in driveway location, additional parking stalls may be added to the western tier of
parking to compensate for the lost parking. This also avoids having parking back directly into the
drive lane for the site's northern access.
5. Eliminate the parking stall directly adjacent to the southwestern corner of Phase II.
6. Extend the planting pattern shown along the west side of the Phase II to the southern end of the
building.
7. Increase the number of plantings form six to twelve in the southwestern corner of the site and
arrange them in a staggered pattern with 15-foot spacing.
8. Compliance with all recommendations from the City Engineer.
9. Enter into Development Agreement and provide financial security (amount to be determined by the
City Engineer and Building Official) before application for building permit.
Attachments: Address/Zoning/Topo Maps
2/11 Petitioner Correspondence
2/25 Petitioner Correspondence
3/1 Petitioner Correspondence
Survey and Notes
Topo/Utility Survey and Notes
Site Plan
Site Data
Landscape Plan and Notes
Grading/Drainage/Utilities
Floor Plan
Elevations
New North Elevation
Light Contours/Schedule
Planner's Report
City Engineer Comments
Application Log
Planning Case Report 00-02 Page 10 3/3/00
BETH EL
CEMETERY
-35-172 AVE ~
.... 0 35~H AVE N
__ 35THA~LE N .....
3~TH PL N
>
~ z. ~ -
--- ~ _..34IU_ ~VE N. S ~
~ - VALLEY PLACE
~ 33RD PLACE R
AVE
x ..................... ~V~ ~. ~
', D~ - '-
....... z ?
----_ ~ ......... ~ .~
' .... %' Z
< ........~_ ........
E
.......... } ' i : :'""-'T'-': ..... . ... T :
~...~'"'~, : .... :'. .~ ~ ~ ; ~>:
X~
X ,o,1~
· 2445 Nevada Ave North
~ Golden Valley, MN 55~27
(612)-512-1000
· Fnx 595-9884
WinPark Associates LLC
February 11, 2000
Mayor, City Couvcil Members & Planning Commission Staff
City Of New Hope
4401 Xylon Ave. North
New Hope, MN 55428
(612)-531-5122 Fax 531-5136
Subject Property: 3440 Winpark Drive
Property ID Number: # 20-118-21 22 0010
WinPark Associates LLC, in July of 1999, purchased the Dakota Growers Pasta Building located at
3440 Winpark Drive, in New Hope, Minnesota. This facility is a 100,000 square foot concrete block ~
warehouse structure, located on 8.92 acres of land. "
This property was very appealing to the Principals, as we have substantial expertise and a proven
track record of purchasing properties in need of updating within the inner ring Western suburbs of the Twin
Cities. Please review the attached reference sheet, which outlines several of our recent projects where we
worked closely with the City and surrounding commercial and residential neighbors to vastly improve these
buildings and neighborhoods.
The current 3440 Winpark facility was vacated by Dakota Growers Pasta in October of 1999. The
previous owners kept the facility structural sound, but did little to maintain or enhance the overall appearance
and condition of the facility exterior and associated grounds. Consistent with our goals to vastly improve the
property and secure a mutually beneficial tenant for our partners and the community, the principals took the
following prompt actions:
Immediate Facility Issues and Improvements: After the facility purchase, the principals
of WinPark Associates, started working with the City of New Hope and our contractors to
resolve several outstanding issues with the building. This included a long time drainage
problem with the adjacent pond to the South and Southeast parking area, addressing
substantial vegetation overgrowth, outside storage issues, general facility system
inspections/repairs.
To date, the entire drainage problem has been resolved through the installation of a French
drain system, catch basins and the paving of the truck apron areas. The outside storage area
has been cleaned out, all trees on the property have been pruned, and all overgrowth has been
removed. To help shield the truck dock area from Winpark Drive, a berm was created along
the southwest corner boulevard. Additionally an ADA parking area was installed, the fire
sprinkler system was upgraded to ESFR, and all facility systems were inspected and all
necessary roof repairs performed.
February 11, 2000
Page 2
Securing a Tenant: The principals have recently reached a definitive agreement with Simon
Delivers.com. We are very excited abottt this a~eement Which is a long term commitment on
behalf of the parties to place a Tenant in the 3440 Winpark facility that will compliment the
principals of WinPark Associates, the commercial and residential neighbors and City of New
Hope.
Simon Delivers.com has committed to have the WinPark principals expand the existing
structure to create it's nationwide administrative headquarters, and it's model food
distribution facility. Simon Delivers.com's goal, is to become the nation's leading internet
based home food delivery companies.
We feel very confident in the benefits this opportunity brings to all parties including:
· Facility utilization by a professional clean use organization.
· Creation of expanded employment in New Hope for a broad range technical,
administrative and warehouse related functions.
- Immediate Employment Level 50 Office, 30 Warehouse
- Mid Term Employment Level 75 Office, 75 Warehouse
- Long Term Employment Level 140 Office, 100 Warehouse
· Facility expansion that will improve the overall external site conditions, facility quality
and aesthetics.
· Use will compliment surrounding commercial and residential neighbors.
· Establishment of a leading edge internet technology based company within the City of
New Hope.
In conjunction with completing the initial facility improvements and the securing of a long
term tenant, the WinPark principals have outlined the following objectives in a three phase
plan that it wishes to work closely with the City of New Hope to implement.
3440 Winpark Drive Facility Improvement & Development Objectives
Phase #1: With the cooperation and approval of the City of New Hope, the Principals of WinpPark Associates
will immediately initiate the following improvements to further enhance the existing site, and facilitate Simon
Delivers food distribution requirements. It is the goal of the Partners to have the Phase #1 improvements
completed by March 15, 2000. These improvements to the existing 100,000 square foot facility shall include:
ADA enhancements and main level bathroom expansion, installation of new bathroom fixtures
and hardware, grade level facility access parking, ADA door/facility hardware and signage.
Filling in of three interior loading dock areas and converting these areas to exterior docks.
The cleaning and sealing of the warehouse floor area.
Insulating of the warehouse wall areas to help minimize heat loss.
Installation of additional exterior loading dock doors
Upgrading the mezzanine area with updated restroom and break room facilities.
Upgrading existing I-WAC systems.
Grading of Southeast property area.
Removal and grading of existing outside storage fenced area.
Repair of exterior block work and painting of facility in the spring
Phase #2: With the cooperation and approval of the City of New Hope, immediately initiate an application to
the Planning Commission for the expansion of the existing facility. This expansion would be part of a
projected two step process. The first step of the expansion would be to construct a new 23,188 square foot
su'ucture on the West side of the existing facility. This first step would begin our goal to completely
encompass the West and North facing areas of the building with a new and aesthetically pleasing structure.
This process would enhance the overall neighborhood, and keep all truck traffic to the south property area fully
shielded and at a maximum distance from the residential apartments to the North side of the site.
· 2445 Nevnda Ave North
· Csold~n VAlley, MN 5~4~7
I (612)-512-1000
· ~ 595-9884
February 25, 2000
Mt. Doug Sandstad
City Of New Hope
4401 Xylon Ave. North
New Hope, MN 55428
(612)-531-5122 Fnx 531-5136
Subject Property: 3440 Winpark Drive
Property ID Number:. # 20-118-21 22 0010
As a follow up to our meeting with planning commission and yourself on Thursday February 17, 2000,
WinPark Associates LLC, has prepared the following information to address your open issues:
Trash Compactors: Simon plans to install two compactors on the south side of the facility, fSee
attached plan for proposed compactor locations.) One of the compactors would be for the recycling of paper
and cardboard products, and one compactor would be used for non-recylcable materials.
Tratli¢ Plan: To help the Planning Commission better understand the facility traffic activities, below
is a listing of warehouse and office employee head counts, and truck and van traffic. The following figures are
based on headcount and traffic levels after 18 months.
Facility Employees Shift Schedule Shift Headcount
Office 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 65
Warehouse 2 p.m. - 10 p.m. 20
Warehouse 8 p.m. - 4 a.m. 12
Warehouse 2 a.m. - Noon 95
Commerciai Vehicles Shih Schedule Daily Vehide Totals
Semi-Trailer Trucks 7 a.m. - 4 p.m. 20
Delivery Vans Noon. - 6 p.m. 10
Encroachment Issues: Further research with our survey company (Harry Johnson), has shown that --
the existing Winpark facility encroaches one inch (1") over the property line. Winpark does have a written
easement in it's favor from CP Rail allowing for this. Further, Ron Wilman of CP Rail, has indicated that the
CP Rail would not have a problem granting an additional easement if required. It is the intention of Winpark to
construct this future addition one inch to the West of the existing facility East Wall, to insure that we do not
encroach on the CP rail adjacent property.
P.02
F~b_~5_O0 17:55
Fcbr~ry 25, 2000
PnEe 2
Signage: WinPark would like to consu'uct a 100 square foot sign along Winpark Drive. in front of thc 3440
Winpark facility. This sign would be 12 feet in length and 8 feet in height. Please review the attached sign
proposal for placement and design detail.
Site Plan Scale: The revised plans have been corrected lo show the proper 1" = 30' or l"=40' s~ale.
Revised Parking Plan: 50% of thc Handicap stalls have been relocated as requested.
The back in notch area has been added to thc future NE parking area and two
stalls eliminated
Thc site parking stall ~ounts have been calculated and re-verified
The stalls next to the Wall hydrant have been shifted, and a fire lane cstab]ished
Landscaping: The plans have been revi~ed to show additional landscaping including clustering along thc
West and North sid~ of the facility.
Lighting Plan: A detailed lighting plnn has been created (See attached Plan) This plan utilizes wall pack
mounted lighting and keeps all lighting levels to less than ~ foot cnndle at the proper~ line.
North Side l~levntion: A North Side Elevation drawing has been prepared. (Please see attached plnns)
Civil Drawings: Attached are updated Topographical, Grading/Drainage, Utility, and pending related
information prepared by om' civil engineer for the 3440 Winpark site.
Rooftop Equipment Screen~g: WirtPark plans to have any new Roof top Mechanical equipment installed
with a finish that will match the building.
Please feel free to contact me if you require any additional information so we can help facilitate a smooth
review process for your staff and the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Robert
Partner WinPark-Azsociates LLC.
Match 1, 2000
Mr. Doug Sandstad
City Of New Hope
4~O1 Xylon Ave. North
New Hope, ~ 55428
(612)-531-5122 Fax $31-~136
Subject Property: 3440 W'mpark Drive
Property ID Number: #20-118-21 22 0010
· -,.~ Per our.'~.rsation, below is the information you requested:
. _.-~-'"--' . ..
'.?_'~"~.7-':.~ ~__~W_~~~ons: Simon anticipates nmning trucks on the weeke.d. Weekend traffic will be on a
R~ "
~tn~l~'T~~k Associates LLC.
Mm'eh !, 2000
Paz~ 2
I have spoken with ~ G~ncral Conm~ctor, and la~ has ins~uoled tho Civil cngi~rs to provid~ fl~ Planning
Stuff ~dlh updai~ Dralflagg and Orading plans f~- t[~ North side e~pansion. He plans lo have the.~ comple~l
by tho end of next week. Regnrdlng the Landscn~ plan, can you ple~c contact Bob Mikulak at §12-919-0937
to discuss what additionnl de, tail is required for thc North Side expnnsion. We nm nlso looking at how wc can
try to provide st more upscale inutge to thc Nogthwest f-arum nmin cntranc~ to thc £acility.
Call with any additional questions.
Sincerely,
l~'tn~r, WinP~k.a~o~i~ LLC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 1, Block 2. W~nnetka Industrial Park. EXCEPT that Ixrt of sold Lot 1. lying West of e line
described os being 650 feet Eost ond porollel to the West line of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 20,
Towrt~hip 118 North, Ronge 21 West of the 5th Principol Ideridion, ~oid 650 feet being meo~ured olong
the North line of said Northwest lJ4 of Section 20, Township 118, Ronge 21, fro~t the Northwest
comer thereof, ond EXCE]~T thot port of Lot 1, Block 2, tffmrtetko Industriol Pork. occording to the
plot thereof on file ond of record in the off'me of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minne~oto
described os follows: Beginning at the Northeo~t comer of said Lot 1; thence Westerly <dong the
North line of sold Lot 1. 654.06 feet to the Westerly line of aoid Lot 1; thence Southerly olong the
Westerly line of said Lot I ond its Southerly extension, 672.50 feet; thence Foeterly, poroile{ with the
North line of soid Lot 1, 65.3.61 feet to the Eoatorly line of eoid Lot 1; thence Northerly oio~g the
eosterly line of sold Lot 1 to the point of beginning, occording to the recorded plot thereof, Honnepin
County, Minnesoto.
(Abstroct property)
Above le<jol description descrtbe~ the same prope~-ty os in~ured in the title commitment prspored by
Lowyers Title insuronce Corporotion. f]e n<~ 14197. doted June 2.3, 1999.
GENERAL NOTES:
1. The beoring system used is bosed on the plot of Wlnnetko Industriol Pork.
2. The Iocotion of the underground utiiitie~ shown hereon, if orty, ore approximots only.
PURSUANT TO IdSA 216D CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT (612) 454--0002 PRIOR TO ANY
EXCAVATION.
3. Subject property is identif'~ed as being in 'Zone C, Arec of Minimol Flooding' on Rood
Insuronce Rote Mop. Community-Ponel No. 270177 0002. effectiv~ dote J~nuory 2. 1981.
4. Zonincj- Presently I-2 (lndustrioi) per City of New Hope.
5. Setbock requirements per City of New
Front = 50'
Reor - ,:35'
Side - 10'
6. Site oreo = 588,741 squore feet = 8.92 ocres.
7. Number of striped porking stolls
0 Totol
of which there ore 0 HonCrk~op
8. AJI field meosurements motched recorded dimensions within the precision requirements of
ALTA/ACSM specifications.
9. This survey wos mode on the ground ond in occordonce with the Minimum Stondord Detoil
Requirements for Lond Title Surveys os odopted by ALTA und ACS;id.
../- I LEGAL DESCRIPTION
I I Lot 1, Block 2, Winnetka Industrial P~ ~£PT that part of said Lot 1, lying West of a line
.... . _j I described as being 650 feet East and parallel to the West line of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 20,
' ~ Township 118 North, Range 21 West of the 5th Principal Ideridlan, said 650 feet being measured along
the North line of sold Northwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 118, Ronge 21, from the Northwest
comer thereof, end EXCEPT thot port of Lot I, Block 2, Wlnnetko Industriol Perk, occording to the
plot thereof on file (3nd of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota
described os follows: Beginning et the Northeast comer of sold Lot 1; thence WesteHy along the
North line of sold Lot 1, 654.06 feet to the Westerly llne of sold Lot 1; thence Southerly (]long the
North line of said Lot 1, 653.61 feet to the Easterly line of said Lot 1; thence Northerly along the
easterly line of sold Lot 1 to the point of beginning, =ccording to the recorded plot thereof, Hennepin
J County, Minnesota.
~ ~ , (Abstract property)
Above legel description describes the some property as insured in the title commitment prepared by
~ /,,~// Lawyer, Title In,ur~nce Corpor~tion, file no. 14197, d~ted June 23, 1999.
J GENERAL NOTES:
~ 1. The bearing system uaed ia baaed on the plot of Winnetka Industrial Park.
L
T
i 2. The location of the underground utllltle~ shown hereon, if any. are approximate only.
PURSUANT TO MSA 216D CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT (612) 45~-0002 PRIOR TO ANY
EXCAVATION.
3. Subject property Is Identified os being in 'Zone C, Area of Minimal Flooding' on Rood
Insurance Rets Mop, Community-Panel No. 270177 0002, effectlve date January 2, 1981.
4. Zoning= Presently I-2 (Industrial) per City of New Hope.
I
5. Setback requirements per City of New Hope
Front = 50'
Rear = 35'
i Side = 10'
6. Site oreo = 3880741 square feet = 8.92 acres.
a ER
OPTIC
SIGN
7. Number of striped parking atolls
0 Total
of which there ~re 0 Handicap
I 8. All field measurements matched recorded dimensions within the precision requirements of
ALTA/ACSM specifications.
9. This survey was made on the ground and in accordance with the Minimum Standard Detail
Requirements for Land Title Surveys as adopted by ALTA and ACSM.
10. Elevation datum ia based on City of New Hope dora.
Bench mod< location TNH SW Quad Winpork Dr. NW corner site
Elevation = 902.53
Bench mark location TNH Winpork Dr. SW comer site
Elevation = 905.51
~G,&I..i=: 1'--4~'-~'
5lIE
ZONING= ................... INDUS~IAL
LOT 51~:
EXISTIN~ BUILDINg:
UPPE~ LEAL: ..............
~ST ADDITI~:
~AIN LEAL: .............
TOTAL ~UlLDIN~: ............. 1~3,~3 s~.rt.
5UILDING 5ET~A~:
~1~ .................
SHb-b-r TITLE:
SI TE PLAN
ADJACENT PRC
WINPARK
51TE [DATA:
ZONINg: ...... INDLkSTI~IAL
LOT SIZe: 5~,'I41 ~.Ft. / ~.~g
EXI~TI~ ~ILPI~:
UPPE~ LEAL:. 2~ql
~ST ~DBITION:
MAIN LEAL: 3~2~
~ILDI~ ~ETBA~: ~ rL
PA~I~
FO~ WA~N~E: 1/15~
P~I~ P~O~ID~D: 2~(15~) STALLS (~
CU~IN~-~/12I I ~ ~ plan ~ 0
~ILDI~D~IN~E:L i~NTi~:.. To P¢~d(n¢~ ~xl~l~ ~I~
EXI~TIN~ ~E~ Z
51z~: Yarl~
~P 5PLENDER C~B SITE PLAN
Species: ~lu~ x ~b~I~ ~ LANDSCAPE PLAN
51z~: 2 1~'
COL~O G~ ~P~CE ~ ~ B.MtKU~K
Size: 5' R.MIKU~K
~ 5/99
~O PINE
51z~: ID ~al. SHEET
' 051
51z~= 4 ~aL
IMPROVED DEDICATED PUBLIC DRIVE
SBL C~. ---~ SBL'
t_ .._.[] ~'o' , , ~ ,-,
~ ~1 r-~
~
ii ~-- ---.
f j . , ~ m-- --- - X
_~ ___
_.
~; [~ ...... z
~ ~ :: ~ .....
....
,~, 2,o ~, .... --
630 ....
~ite
Calculation Grid: Arbitrary_ Grid
Horizontal Illuminance
rid Name: Arbiuary Grid Grid Origin: (0.00, 0.00) Grid Surfac~
rid Type: Horizontal l~uminance Grid Orient' Grid Hinge: 0
rid Umts: Footcandles Grid Elev.: 0.00 Grid Azimutic 0
~ Area Summary ..
~at. Area Ave Ma~ Min AvedMiq Max/Min StcL Dev.
rbiWaryGrid 0.830 18.326 0.000 Undefined Undefined 2.115
aleul~ion grid
I~.'/$ 47"~ 7'8.75 110725 141.75 1~725 204.751236~ 267.75[ 299"~1 3'30.75t ~362~ 393.75} 425?25 ,~,6.75i48~n.2~ 519.75 55172~! S~2.75 614'!-n
!
03O9
I
555.00 0.12¢ O. lS4 0~61 0~31 1.015 0.93~_ 0~51 0.497 O. S61 l.l~O]O.71S 0.453 0.67'/ 1.101 0.90~ 0.521 0.521 0.a93 ] 1.062
57.~.00 0.211 0.317 0.508 0.782 3.450 2.879 0.679 0.585 ~172 4.064 [ 1.223 0.513 1.027 3.791 2-509 0.6~ 0.627 2~.5 .3.747 0.941
495.00 0.:156 0.7~6 1.573 0.6,~ 13.626 7.473 0~'''~ 0.120 :1.5:13 18.326 I 1.007 0.071 0.70~ 16.51t8 5.130, 0.159 0.16,* 5.3.32 16.30:1 i 0.676
0.0O9 0.0O9 0.000 0.000 0.O90 t 0.0O9 0.000 0.0O9 0.000 0.0O9 0.O90 0.O90 0.000 0.000 0.0~0
0A89
6~67
4.079
0.000
435.00 0.450 l..O00 3.1:~. O. g6~. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0O9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.O90 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
40~.00 0.369 0.:.~ 0.668 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0O9 0.0O9 0.000 0.000 0.0~0
0.0O9 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 I 0.000 0.0~0
375.00
0.371
0.535
0.637
0.019
0.0O9
0.0O9
0.0O9
34,5.00 0.462 0.987 2.895 0.751 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.O90 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0~0
315.00 0.531 1.35~, 6.428 4.171 0.0~0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0~0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
~.00 0.4:~ 0.s:35 1.7~0 0.1~0 0.0o9 0.000 0.0o9 0.0~ 0.000 0.000 0.o90 0.o90 0.~ 0.000 0.~ 0.o90 0.~ 0.0o9 0.00o 0.~
~5.00 0.358 0.a75 0.510 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.0O9 0.O90 0.000 0.000 0.0~0 0.0O9 0.000 0.0O9 0.000 0.0O9 0.0O9 0:0O9 0.000 0.000
~.00 0.392 0.655 0.941 0-(~.9 0.000 0.O90 0.000 0.0O9 0.000 0.000 0.0O9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.O90 0.000 0.0O9 0.000 0.O90 ."
195.00 0.476 1.146 4.762 2.55:3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0(10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.O90 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0(}0
165.00 0.535 1...~0 5.0~. ~739 0.0O9 0.0O9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0O9 0.0O9 0.0O9 0.000 0.000 0.0O9 0.0O9 O.O(lO 0.0O9 ' 0.000 0.0O9 ...
135.00 0.548 1.352 7.326 0.259 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0(}0 0.000 0.000 0.0~0
105.00 0.313 1_~61 4.661 7.501 6.656 6.879 0.992 0.739 5.096 8~90 1.259 0.332 1 ~-787 8.475 4-883 0.702 0.7:32 5.347 8.036 1.174
75.00 0.4,00 0.828 1.409 1.457 1.637 1.489 0.747 0.632 1.:I41 1.6''~' 0.796 0.439 0.776 1.600 1.331 0.622 0.615 1.3-16 1.574 0.705
0.601 0.658 0.477 0.363 0.469 0.6~ 0.600 0.'-1.4.2 0.4:39 0.585 [ 0.616 t 0.:191
45.00
0.267
0.4:14
0.6O2
0.674
0.718
0.6,~
0.479
0.46O
15.00 0.1T~ 0.24-2 0.:121 0.356 0.:158 0.322 0.296 0.304 0.315 0.:116 0.286 0.269 0.288 0.313 0.308 0.291 0.290 0.292 0.277 0.217
COMMUNITY PL.A~NINO ' DE$1ON - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Jason Lindahl/Alan Brixius
DATE: February 29, 2000
RE: New Hope - 3440 Winpark Drive (Simple Simon Foods)
FILE NO: 131.01 - 00.02
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Robert Zakheim of Winpark Associates, LLC, is requesting site plan
approval for a 23,188 square foot expansion to the existing industrial building located at
3440 Winpark Drive. The plans also call for removal of an existing retaining wall along the
southern property line to expand the area for truck traffic. The subject property is zoned
I-2 General Industrial District.
The proposed expansion would be located on the west side of the existing building and
consist of approximately 15,000 square feet of office space and 8,188 square feet of
warehouse. The plans indicate that the building will be constructed out of precast concrete
panels but do not provide any further architectural details.
The existing industrial building is 410' by 240' or approximately 98,400 square feet. The
existing lot is approximately 8.9 acres. The building was vacated by Dakota Growers
Pasta in October of 1999. The applicant's current proposal is the first of a two-phased
expansion. The second phase calls for an additional 75,000 square feet on the north side
of the existing building. This would include approximately 10,000 square feet of office
space and 65,000 square feet of warehouse. The current plans include the second phase
of expansion; however, they are incomplete and therefore staff is only prepared to review
the plans for phase one. Staffs initial review indicates that phase two will require 10 foot
rear yard setback variance to match the placement of the existing building. According to
the applicant, phase two is scheduled for 2002.
Attachments
Exhibit A: Site Plan
Exhibit B: Topography & Utility Survey
Exhibit C: Landscape & Sign Plan
Exhibit D: North Elevation
Exhibit E: Lighting Plan
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
ANALYSIS
Direction of Comprehensive Plan
The development and expansion of an industrial use on this site is consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan. As mentioned above, the site's current land use is industrial.
In addition, according to the City's Proposed Land Use Map, the subject property is guided
for industrial development.
The Subject property is zoned I-2, General Industrial District. The properties to the east,
west, and south are all zoned and guided for industrial use. However, the property directly
to the north is an existing apartment building which is zoned and guided for high density
residential use. As a result, second phase expansion will most likely require additional
screening to ensure the continued compatibility of these uses.
Lot & Building Performance Standards
The subject property meets the minimum lot area, lot width, and building height
requirements for properties in the I-2, General Industrial District. The chart below
compares these standards.
Performance Standard Required Proposed
Lot Area 1 Acre 8.92 Acres
Lot Width 100 Feet 620 Feet
Building Height 3 Stories 1 Story
In addition, both the existing building and phase one expansion are in compliance with the
required setbacks for the I-2, General Industrial District with the exception of the existing
rear yard setback. Nevertheless, the current application does not alter the existing
building's rear yard setback. The charts below compare the existing and proposed
setbacks after phase one and phase two construction.
Setbacks for Phase One
Yard Existing Proposed Required
Front 209' 99' 50'
Side (North) 248' 248' 10'
Side (South) 131.5' 131.5' 10'
Rear* 0' 0' 10'
*Setback for property adjacent to a rail line
Setbacks for Phase Two
Yard Existing Proposed Required
Front 209' 99' 50'
Side (North) 248' lO0' 10'
Side (South) 131.5' 131.5' 10'
Rear* 0' 0' 10'
*Setback for property adjacent to a rail line
Grading
The grading plan does not indicate how the site will be altered to facilitate removal of the
existing retaining well in the southwestern corner of the site. Staff recommends that a
condition of approval require the applicant to submit a revised Grading, Drainage, and
Erosion Control Plan prior to council action on this application. The revised plan must
detail the grading necessary to remove the existing retaining well. It should be noted that
the grading plan also does not address phase two grading.
Parking & Circulation
The proposed plan indicates 267 total parking stalls. One hundred and fifty (150) will be
constructed in junction with phase one. The remaining 116 are shown as future parking
for phase two. According to the Zoning Ordinance, the existing building and the phase
one expansion need 96 stalls while phase two needs 76 stalls. Given the number of stalls
shown on the site plan, staff finds that this site meets the off street parking requirements
as set forth in the City Ordinance. The applicable parking standards for both phase one
and two are shown in the chart below.
Use Required Phase I Shown Phase I Required Phase H Shown Phase Il
Office 1/300 (51) 1/300 (33)
150 116
Warehouse 1/1,500 (45) 1/1,500 (43)
Total 96 150 76 116
Included in the 267 proposed parking stalls are seven disability stalls. This fulfills the state
requirement for disability parking. Given the number of off street parking stalls required
for phase one, State Statute requires five of these stalls be designated disability stalls.
While this site fulfills the requirement for disability parking, staff finds that the location of
these stalls provides poor access to the building. Currently, the plan shows two of these
stalls adjacent to the entrance to phase one. The remaining five stalls are in two groups
in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the stormwater retention pond. These two
parking areas are located on the far side of the parking lot and are 50' and 85' from the
entrance to phase two and at least 160' from the entrance to phase one. Therefore, staff
recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to relocate three of the
disability stalls directly adjacent to the entrances to phase one. The remaining two stalls
should be relocated adjacent to the entrance to phase two as part of the site plan review
for that phase.
Staff finds that the parking configuration and vehicle circulation on site is sufficient with the
following revisions:
1. The disability parking located adjacent to the northern curb cut should be relocated
adjacent to the building as state above and these parking areas should be
eliminated.
2. The applicant should relocate the northern curb cut along Winpark Ddve twenty feet
to the north to allow for better access. With this shift in driveway location,
additional parking stalls may be added to the western tier of parking to compensate
for the lost parking. This also avoids having parking back directly into the drive
lane for the site's northern access.
3. The parking stall adjacent to the southwestern corner of phase one is too close to
the building and should be eliminated.
Landscaping
Staff finds that the landscape plan for phase one is sufficient with the following revisions.
First, the planting pattem shown along the west side of the phase one should be extended
to the southern end of the building. Second, the plantings shown in the southwestem
corner of the site should be increased from six to twelve and arranged in a staggered
pattem with 15 foot spacing. This additional screening is necessary to provide adequate
screening of the truck loading and trash compactor area Winpark Drive.
The landscape plan for phase two does address many of staff's concerns. However, with
the future grading required as part of phase two construction, a more detailed review of
the landscaping and screening will be required when phase two is pursued.
Signage
The applicant's sign plan appears to be in compliance with the standards for signs in the
I-2, General Industrial District. According to the Ordinance, the applicant is allowed a sign
that is 15 percent of the front face of the principal building or 250 square feetl whichever
is less. In addition, the sign must be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. The
applicant's plans call for a 100 square foot sign. The applicant may wish to relocate and/or
realign the sign north of its current location and parallel to Winpark Drive to increase its
visibility.
Lighting
The lighting plan for phase one appears consistent with the Ordinance. However, the
information for phase two is incomplete. Given of the elevation difference between the
subject property and the adjacent residential property, the current lighting plan could be
an issue during the phase two site plan review.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the site plan for a 23,188 square foot expansion to the
existing industrial building located at 3440 Winpark Drive. This recommendation is based
on the findings contained in this report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit and receive approval of a revised Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control
Plan prior to council action on this application. This revised plan must detail the
grading necessary to remove the existing retaining well.
2. Relocate three of the disability parking stalls located adjacent to the northern curb
cut along Winpark Drive so they are adjacent to entrances for phase one.
3. Eliminated the parking stalls directly adjacent to the northern curb cut along
Winpark Drive.
4. Relocate the northern curb cut along Winpark Ddve twenty feet to the north to allow
for better access. With this shift in driveway location, additional parking stalls may
be added to the western tier of parking to compensate for the lost parking. This
also avoids having parking back directly into the drive lane for the site's northern
access.
5. Eliminate the parking stall directly adjacent to the southwestern corner of phase
one.
6. Extend the planting pattern shown along the west side of the phase one to the
southern end of the building.
7. Increased the number of plantings from six to twelve in the southwestern corner of
the site and arrange them in a staggered pattern with 15 foot spacing.
8. Compliance with all recommendations from the City Engineer.
9. Compliance with all recommendations from the City Fire Department.
pc: Robert Zakheim
Doug Sanstad
Steve Sondrall
Mark Hanson
02/?.9/00 15:35 [~-03/03 N0:395
From: M~k Han.on, Vincc Vander Top .'~i':
Su~t: 3~ Winp~ Drive
. :~
Date: ~hm~ 29, 2~ ., '";:~
· ..i~
Gradin~rai~ee '~':?
· l~e drainage pl~ shall comply wi~ ~ ~uimmonm of B~e~ C~k W~mhed ~d New "'
Hope Surf~ Water M~gement PI~. ~ ~uff~o w~ dr~ (including existing storm ~..
s,w,ffmnoff ~ou~h of th, ~xi~ting building) ~h~l ~ d~e~ ~ ~e ponding ~ea in the ...:
no~hw~t comer of ~ ~ro~ny. C~eui~tion~ ~h~l ~ ~vid~ ~howing ~at ~e ponding ~.~
ama ~a~i~fie~ mquimm~n~ for ~tom wa~r tr~me~t.' A ~nding ~,m,m shall be shown
over the ~nding ~a. A ~nd mmtenan~ a~ment i~ ~q~i~ to insure the pond i~ ..~;.
pro~rly m~ntalned by th~ property owner.
· The gradin~pawment improvement~ along ~e aou~ pro~ lin, ~hall be properly ~hown
on Ihe ~ading pimp. Slo~ m~tor~tion b~ on acce~ble engin~ring ~t~dards is required.
Existing building loc~on~ ~d pawment ~h~l ~ pm~dy ~hown on the pmpedy to the :':
south (C~sml propc~y~eyi~ Excavating). Pomnti~ imp~ts sh~l ~ nord and cxpl~ncd. ~:~
· The e~i~ting w~er codn~tion in Winp~ ~ve ~hall ~ mvi,~d to ,nsu~ it satisfies all
· AdditiOnal hyd~t mqnimmon[~ ~hall be reviewed wi~ ~ow Ho~ Fire primarily in the area
located sou~ of the existing building.
:.*~t~
Si~ Plan ':'~'~
· 'th, building encro~hm,n~ ~long th, ,~t pm~y li~ (abuRing ~ R~il) shsII ~ resolved.
· The n~w noffimrly ddww~y ~ the 90~ ,omer in Winp~ ~v~ ~hall be {lone so it does not
ap~ar to h, an ~fl~ ~xten~ion of Winp~k ~w. ~o dfiv,way connection shall not
restrict s~t dr~nage in Winp~k Drive. '~"
~hnwn on th~ ~x~ting pl~.
· Pnrking ioffturning imp~wm~n~ for tmck~ ~hlll comply wi~ New Hope and t~ical '"
. .~.
,'.~q.
2335 ~est Highway 36 a St. PaUl, MN 55113,651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311' . :~;
IgJICH 2 · 2000 GE' . . htllr.//~wztartrbUnei:o~lm/buyers~'~e~ ~1~~'~'STAR TRIBUNI
delivers groceries ' '
Local buSiness ' buying
s , more nclude
tStOffS may Simon'Delivers By Beth Thlbodeau basket survey every 90 days for site regularly. Some of the bakery
'OW~$ i: A grocery delivery service that Star Tribune Staff Writer comparison." · goods are from McGlynn's Bakery
'$ .' ~ inc/ude~ produce and baked Delivery is free for online or- and Turtle Bread Company.. If you're thinking ~
:, ~ goods,,mt, to-order meats, Simon Delivers caters to busy ders of $70 or more. If you order Ready-to,eat and ready;to-cook new appliance, infon
~ ' :i organicfood, infantcareitems people.'SimonDeliversisbusy, byphoneorfax,'you'llpay$7.95, mealsandsnacksareP~eparedby Applianc~;comChttp
· eplng' ,~ ~ and pet supplles. $hop and place too. We called the local home gro- ' As an introductory offer, thereis 'aSimonDeliverschef. 'appli
.... i ordersonllneathttp:/houne, cery delivery service several timesno delivery charge'for a custom- Simon Delivers has a l00 per- t'~' '. mayl
thatyou have 'i. ' ' simon and were put on hold, but had the er'S first three orders, Correll said. cent guarantee on quality and. ~[~,~: 'The's
: dust in your base-~ deli~ers.¢om or option to leave a message with the New customers must call Si- freshness, said Correll; "I believe ~' infor~
~at are worth more , order by fax at promise that our call would be mon Deliver's 'customer service the produce is fresher than what ~ as a !~
Some might even ~ 612-971-4991 returned, number for a user name and pass- you'd find in most stores .... It's ' . ~ :' that (
mb invalue. The 'or by phone at A better bet may be to browse word before ordering on the Web not handled by the same number ~ ' ched
; which ones are. 612-971-4900. through Simon Deliver's Web site. site. Ask a customer service repre-of people before youget it" and ' l" ';: peop
t are jewels. Customer It includes food, household sentafive about a $10 trial certifi- it's. kept cold, she said.' ~ . ~, ~i~ol/
's hot: '..~ ' serv/~e hom,s goods, recipes and shopping list.s cate for new customers. .While the delivery area is lim-
Jewelry. BrOoch- are: 8a.m. to of popular items. .ll~e list of products onyour ited topros ofMin.eapolis ana . Edjtgrs,.·ene,,
I necklaces from:: 11 p.m. Mon- Click on "specialS" for lists of first order is saved as your per- surrounding suburbs, ithas picks'. '.:'and ~
}s, from makers !: day #~-ough produce in season and sale prices sonal shoPping list. When you're grown since'Simon Delivers. cony
~d Trifari, sell for T/uwsday, on many items. Simon Delivers ready to order again, sign in and started its service in April. "We're win ~
kets and Upwards · 8 a.m. to accepts coupons. Prices are comr look for your "personal store': to· constantly expanding" the deliv~ Roti,~
:ity shops. Spec-! . 9 p.m. Pr/day, parable to local grocery store : shop from your previous list. ery area, Correli said. and a Whirlpool dist~
es fetch even more: 10 a.m. to 3 p;m. Saturday and prices, according to information ,'The first online order'takes -- To submit an idea for consul'- .., B.T~ , ......
cci, who Sells pfi- 5tollp. m.$unday. DeUveryis onthesite, abOut40minute~,,.Correllsald, eration for Shopping Ba~ please S' " ';' '" ::~
~ork City, recently iimited to certain areas (ZIP codes) "They're comParable to prices "Then, with using the personal fax informat~on, to Buyer's Edge amplesalo'r~sa'
~nestone Trifari '/~ and armmd Mbmeapo//s. at Rainbow," said Deb Correli, shopping list, it takes about 20 at 612-673-4359 Or mail it to 425 Save On cl0~g
atChing earrings for , who works in marketing for the minutes: It's really a timesaver."Portland Au. $., Minneapolis, a sample sale rrbm ~
: ,, company. "And we do a market' New recipes are added to the MN5548B., '~ ,5 p.m; todayin Appl
~e-catchers. Give a , . ' ~. ~ - ~ wholesale or less on
women's scarves , sportswear and oth,
~signsbyEcho and MAKEUP from £1 sizes newborn thro~.
Vlonroe's favorite) pers.~qll find brand
:h purses. Though Bla&Opal/s Brown,as AlisonAlexis,ROSe,soupCity
.~r-$10 category,
~er for collectors of of 1 _ B.T.
~tion. Out-of-lash, or~e ~e~)eFa Apple Valley Comm
will have their day Fa~on Fair'~ Hayes Community t
the desk and $22.50 when 612-897-I0~7.
ag; hang onto post- t Fas~on Fair Plant clearanc{
war-eradesk productive ' .Mostoftheplant
accessories, in- black'women .~.. ~hmbs and trees in,
duding wood or e ~ymdmdow~ Garde~ show'go on
wire inlout bas- blush, lipstick, I from5 to 8 p.m. Bu~
kets~ pen,cji sharp- Zhen cosmetics caters specifi- lipgk~ and a I the $8 a~mission~
m~keuo ~ oci:asionallv check~
CITY OF NEW HOPE -~ ~
SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG ~
A B C D E F G H I J
Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City
cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response
number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Appiicant
Address by City that required expires expires of . under application
Phone information extension extension
was missing or waiver
00-02 WinPark Associates 2/11/00 4/11/00 6/10/00
14859 Richards Drive West
Minnetonka 55345
Robert Zacheim
512-1000
595-9884 fax
Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application.
A. Assign each application a number.
B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone).
C. List the date the City received the application.
D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing, if the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the
date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line.
E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days.
F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days.
G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G
must come before the date in Boxes E and F.)
H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver.
I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.)
J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before
the time limit expires.
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Date: March 3, 2000
Subject: Miscellaneous Issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with
additional detail on CounciI/EDA/HRA actions. It is not required reading and is optional
information provided for your review, at your discretion.
1. January 10 Council/EDA Meetin.qs- At the January 10' Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA
took action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
A. Proiect #670, Motion Authorizinq Staff to Obtain Appraisal of 5532 Winnetka Avenue:
Authorization granted, see attached Council request.
B. Resolution Confirminq Non-Conservation Classification and Authorizin.q Request for
Sale of Tax Forfeited Land PID 05-118-21-33-0081 and PID 05-118-21-33-0083: Approved,
see attached Council request.
C. Project #512, Motion Approving Quote by Cenaiko Expositions, Inc. to Provide Booths
for the 2000 Northwest Suburban Remodelin.q Fair: Approved, see attached Council
request.
D. Planninq Case 99-21B, Request for Concept Stage PUD Approval, Rezone from R-1
Single Family to PUD, and Preliminary Plat Approval of Nine Lots by L&A Homes, 7849
and 7829 49th Avenue, Lloyd and Alice Va.qle: Approved.
E. Motion Authorizinq Staff to Pursue the Acquisition of 4864 Flaq Avenue: Authorization
granted, see attached Council request.
F. Project #662, Discussion Re.qardin.q Cooper Gyms and Tennis Courts Project Bids:
Approved, see attached Council request.
G. Resolution Awardinq Contract to Brauer & Associates, Ltd. for Hidden Valley Park
Master Plan Development: Approved, contract'awarded in the amount of $5,720, see
attached Council request.
H.. Proiect #656, Resolution Awardinq Contract to TSp One, Inc. for Architectural Services
for Golf Course Clubhouse: Approved, contract awarded in the amount of $46,000, see
attached Council request.
I. Proiect #656, Resolution Awardinq Contract to E&V Consultants and Construction
Manaqers to Serve as City's Owner Representative for the Golf Course Clubhouse
Project: Approved, contract awarded in the amount of $23,850, see attached Council request.
J. Proiect #657, Resolution Awarding Contract for Reconstruction of the 42"a Avenue
Retaininq Wall: Approved, contract awarded to Jay Bros., Inc. in the amount of $258,675,
see attached Council request.
· K. Project #626, Motion Acceptin.q Proposal from Benshoof and Associates, Inc. in the
Amount of $5,600 and Authorizin.q Them to,Perform a Peer Review of Concept ano
Feasibility Reports for the 36th Avenue Proiect: Accepted proposal, see attached Council
· request.
L. Project #665, Approval of the Request for Proposal; Motion Authorizin.q Staff to
Proceed with Solicitation of Proposals for Development at 7600-7528 42~d Avenue:
Authorization granted, see attached EDA request.
M. Proiect #669, Motion Authorizing Staff to Ne.qotiate the Purchase of 5550 Winnetka
Avenue: Authorization granted, see attached EDA request.
N. Resolution Approvin.q Section 8 Housinq Assistance Payments Pro.qram Contract No.
C-99-66 for Administration Services Between the Metropolitan Council and the City of
New Hope and Authorizing President and ExecutiVe Director to Execute A.qreement:
Approved, see attached EDA request.
2. January 24 Council Meetin.q - At the January 24 Council meeting, the Council took action on the
following planning/development/housing issues:
A. Project #657, Resolution Acceptin.q Easements for Reconstruction of Retaining Wall:
Approved, see attached Council request.
B. Resolution Accepting Memorandum of Aqreement with Suburban Hennepin Regional
park District Re.qardin.q Golf Course; Approved, see attached Council request.
3. February 14 Council/EDA Meetings - At the February 14 Council/EDA meetings, the
Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
A. Resolution Orderinq Published Notice and Public Hearing to Approve the Projected
Use of Funds in the 2000 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant Program: Approved, public hearing scheduled for February 28, see attached Council
request.
B. Proiect #670, Motion Authorizing Staff to Negotiate the Purchase of 5532 Winnetka
Avenue: Authorization granted, see attached Council request.
C. Proiect #675, Motion Authorizinq Staff to Obtain an Appraisal of 5422 Winnetka Avenue:
Authorization granted for appraisal, see attached Council request.
D. Project #676, Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain an Appraisal of 5406 Winnetka Avenue:
Authorization granted for appraisal, see attached Council request.
E. Resolution Relatinq to a Project on Behalf of Hammer Residences, Inc. and its
Financinq Under the Municipal Housinq Pro.qrams Act; Callinq for a Public Hearing
Thereon: Approved, public hearing scheduled for March 13, see attached Council request.
F. Resolution Callinq for a Public Hearinq on the Givinq of Host Approval for the Issuance
of Revenue Bonds and Adoption of a Housinq Project, and Authorizin.q the Publication
of a Notice of Public Hearinq (St. Therese Project): Approved, public hearing scheduled for
March 13, see attached Council request.
G. Project #665, Motion Approvin.q Proposal in the Amount of $12,300 with Northern
Environmental to Prepare Revised Response Action Plan and DTED Contamination
Cleanup Grant for 7500-7528 42"d Avenue: Approved, see attached EDA request.
H. Project #669, Motion Authorizin.q Staff to Prepare Purchase Aqreement for Acquisition
of Commercial Property at 5550 Winnetka Avenue in the Amount of $308,000:
Authorization granted, see attached EDA request.
I. Project #677, Motion Authorizin.q Staff to Obtain Appraisal of 8113 Bass Lake Road:
Authorization granted, see attached EDA request.
4. February 28 Council/EDA Meetings - At the February 28 Council/EDA meetings, the
Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
A. Proiect #651, Motion Authorizing Staff to Negotiate with Property Owner for Potential
Acquisition of 7603 Bass Lake Road: Authorization granted, see attached Council request.
B. Project #678, Motion Authorizing Staff to NeRotiat- to Purchase the Property at 4864
Flag Avenue: Authorization granted, see attached Council request.
C. Proiect #668, Resolution Approving Purchase of 6003 West Broadway: Approved, see
attached Council request.
D. Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain Appraisal of 4179/4181 Jordan Avenue: Authorization
granted, see attached Council request.
E. Public Hearing - Resolution Approving Proiected Use of Funds for 2000 Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorizing
Signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and Any Third Party
Agreements: Approved, see attached Council request.
F. Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain Appraisal of Eldorado Courts Apartments at
7701/7721/7741/7761 62"d Avenue: Authorization granted, see attached EDA request.
G. Discussion Regarding Concept Redevelopment/Rehabilitation Proiect at 7610 Bass
Lake Road: The EDA was supportive of the concept, see attached EDA request.
5. Codes & Standards Committee - Codes & Standards did not meet.
6. Design & Review Committee - Design & Review met in February with the applicants.
7. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee did not meet in January or February.
8. Zoning Code Update Committee - The Committee met on January 20 to review the second half
of the general provisions of the Zoning Code and on February 24 to review the first half of the
zoning districts. The next meeting is scheduled for March 16.
9. Project Bulletin - Enclosed for your information are a project bulletins 5629 Wisconsin Avenue,
8808 41st Avenue (Habitat for Humanity Project), and Cooper High School gym addition and
tennis court project, and letter regarding Liberty Park.
10. Miscellaneous Issues:
A. City staff continued to work on the following potential developments: 1) Potential utilization of Hosterman site for House of the Open Door
2) SuperAmerica new construction on Medicine Lake Road/Hillsboro - filing expected in
future
3) Continue to discuss Navarre expansion
4) No further action on A.C. Carlson property
5) Avtec application administratively extended until April.
6) 36th and Winnetka site - potential Pilgrim Cleaners
7) 9200 49"~ 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. Miscellaneous Articles - Several excerpts from the Zoning Bulletin are attached for your
information.
Attachments: 5532 Winnetka appraisal
Tax forfeit properties
Remodeling Fair
4864 Flag Avenue
Cooper Gyms and Tennis Courts
Hidden Valley Park Master Plan
Golf Course Clubhouse - Architectural Services
Golf Course Clubhouse - Construction Managers
42® Avenue Retaining Wall
36"~ Avenue Project
7500 - 7528 42na Avenue Request for Proposals
5550 Winnetka Avenue
Section 8 Contract
42"d Avenue Retaining Wall easements
Suburban Hennepin Regional Park
CDBG Funds set public hearing
5532 Winnetka Avenue negotiate purchase
5422 Winnetka Avenue obtain appraisal
5406 Winnetka Avenue obtain appraisal
Hammer Residences bond - set public headng
St. Therese bond - set public hearing
7500 - 7528 42~ Avenue
5550 Winnetka Avenue prepare purchase agreement
8113 Bass Lake Road obtain appraisal
7603 Bass Lake Road negotiate purchase
4864 Flag Avenue negotiate purchase
6003 West Broadway approve purchase
4179/81 Jordan Avenue obtain appraisal
CDBG funds public headng
7701.61 62"d Avenue obtain appraisal
7610 Bass Lake Road concept redevelopment plan
Project Bulletin
Miscellaneous Articles
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Ongtnaung Department Approved for Agenda Agenda SecUon
Community Development Consent
Susan Henry ] ~'~.10-00 Item No.
B~. mmunity Development Specialist By:.,// / 6.15
/
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN APPRAISAL OF 5532 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 670)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of the property located at
5532 Winnetka Avenue North.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE i.
On October 25, 1999, the EDA authorized staff to contact the residential property owners along the
,5400/5500 blocks of Winnetka Avenue North to inquire if they may be interested in a voluntary sale to
the City, as these properties have been sited in the Comprehensive Plan for redevelopment (see letter
attached).
BACKGROUND
In December, the City mailed out the letter of interest to purchase property along the 5400/5500 block of
Winnetka Avenue North. Brian and Carrie Barclay are property owners of the single family home at 5532
~Winnetka Avenue North and they recently responded to the City's letter. Attached please find their letter
of interest to sell to the City. Staff has already indicated to the property owners that because this would
be a voluntary sale, no relocation benefits would be paid. The property owners are curious about the
City's intention. Staff has reiterated this is a voluntary sale and there are no set redevelopment plans at
this time.
In October of 1997, the City considered the purchase of the property at 5532 Winnetka Avenue from the
3revious owner. However, the City declined to pursue the purchase at that time because the home was
linrelatively good condition and there were higher priorities elsewhere. However, given the City's
~redevelopment goals along Winnetka Avenue. it is timely to consider this property once again. --
The property measures 100' x 282' or 28,200 square feet. The 1999 valuation of the property for tax
purposes is $98,000 ($24,000 land/S74,000 building). The home is in good condition, probably one of
the best along Winnetka Avenue. The property owners have indicated that they will hold off on spending
additional dollars on the property if they sell to the City.
(cont'd.)
MOTION BY SECOND BY
RFA-O01 ~
Request for Action Page 2 1-10-00
Staff is requesting Council authorization to get the property appraised. The estimated cost of tt,,.-'
appraisal is $325. Staff would then bdng the completed appraisal back to the Council to determine if the
Council desires to negotiate with the property owner for acquisition of the property.
FUNDING
The subject property is located in an area where TIF funds may be expended; therefore, the appraisal
will be paid for with these funds.
ATrACHMENTS
· Address Map
· Letter of Interest to Sell from the Barclays
· City's Letter of Interest to Purchase
VILLAGE GREEN '
GOLF ,
COURSE:
I__
ST. THERES
NURSING
INTY
N WI ST. RAPHEL
CATHOLIC
)OL ELEMENTARY r~ ~..4- CHURCH
SCHOOL
55 TH AVE N
N ' I~l~CO
.. ~/.~ 4~c :~ ~ ~..- ~ ~
Ongmatlng Depa~t Approved for Agenda ~- Agenda SecUon
Community Development Consent
Kirk McDonald Item
By: and Phil Kern By:./ 6.16
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING NON-CONSERVATION CLASSIFICATION AND AUTHORIZlN(~
REQUEST FOR SALE OF TAX FORFEITED LAND PID 05-118-21 33 0081 and PID
05-118-21 33 0083
ACTION REQUESTED ' ' "
The Resolution requests that Hennepin County place disposition of two tax-forfeit parcels of
land on hold for 90 days for possible sale to the City. In the event the City does not purchase
the parcels, the Resolution requests the County sell the land to adjacent landowners.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
Hennepin County notifies municipalities of tax forfeit property in each respective jurisdiction. The
City is given 60 days to resolve whether it approves the parcels for a public auction or requests
conveyance to the City. The City must respond within 60 days by certified mail if it wishes to
acquire the forfeited parcels. The City has acquired small parcels through this process in the
past.
BACKGROUND
The City was notified by certified mail on December 6 of five parcels in the City which are
classified as tax-forfeited properties. The City has the ability to request authorization to
purchase these parcels from Hennepin County.
Two of the parcels identified are located along Bass Lake Road near Sumter Avenue (see
enclosed maps). One parcel is directly west of the City-owned property at 5559 Sumter Avenue.
This property was purchased by the City for redevelopment and the future realignment of
Sumter Avenue. The parcel is 1000 square feet (10' x 100'), and borders 5559 Sumter to the
west. The second parcel extends to the south from the first parcel and abuts 5537 Sumter,
which has been identified as a future redevelopment opportunity. It too is 10 feet wide, and
continues 80 feet further to the south. The acquisition of both parcels would increase the City's
redevelopment potential in the future. Acquiring these parcels now would also prevent the
current landowners at 5537 Sumter Avenue and 7801 Bass Lake Road from purchasing the
properties, which would make future acquisitions of these properties by the City more
expensive. Combined, the parcels encompass a lO-foot wide property extending from Bass
Lake Road 180 feet to the south. (cont'd)
MOTION BY' , , SECOND
Request for Action Page 2 1-10-00
Approval of the resolution will allow staff to continue working with Hennepin County on the
acquisition of these two small parcels. A formal resolution is necessary before the County will
consider selling the parcels to the City. Following the request by the City, staff will work with
Hennepin County to establish a value for the parcels. Once a value is identified for each parcel,
staff will return to the Council for approval of the final purchase. Hennepin County currently has
values of $100 and $200 assigned to the south and north parcels respectively, totaling $300 for
the acquisition of both. Staff does not expect the values of the parcels to significantly change
with the formal approval process.
The remaining three parcels the City was notified about are located in northwest New Hope
near 58th and Boone Avenues. There is no public purpose for acquiring these parcels, and thus
it is recommended that the City allow these parcels to be put on public auction.
FUNDING
The parcels are located in an area where TIF funds can be utilized for redevelopment and staff
recommends that the two remnant parcels be acquired with TIF funds.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Correspondence from the Assistant City Attorney "
· 12/6/99 Correspondence from Hennepin County
· Site Maps of Sumter Avenue & Bass Lake Road Area
· i o~ ei ~._.L ! : · . ................. .,,~ ....--~ I
°~'~T' °":---I'r"'° · '-'~---: .......... ai · ~'~ ~-- ° I
· ~ , . .r- ~ ' : ' ., .'.'~ -r
-, .*~o ~ ~ f .... "-- '
~. t; ;: ;: ~: ;, t, Ii: ~ : .... · ....... ;a .." '"- ! m
.~...-"--'.----.t--.~--~- ....... ~ i ~ ! . ; ; ~ · .; ,~ ~ :
,: , ' , ~ ' · ! ' ! . %' ' ' i
]~'- ._ :._',.~.:~'" "~ El_..._'.'-: a- ..'..L_.. -~ n: :. ........................ : ; ...... :.. ,- ' ......... L_: .J ......... ............................. - ............ '
i '.~!~. : : ' ~ ................... ; i ! i i ; ; ..... - i / "* i'-' . ~ ~ _I: "'---'- '""~'-""~'":' -'" ' ' ' ' '
; .. ...... , : ] ; ; ~: : ..., ;' ;
; ' : . 14, "' ~"' "' "' ' ; ~ ~ ~i;' I~' '"'' " ; ' : ~11 .~ --
, .~ ...... ~ ,- ............ ~ ~ , ~
· .-. : , ! · f : ; ; ; ~01 , ! ' : --
, . o. : , : : , , I : : . ! ., ~[ : ~ ;
i ' ; , : ~ : t ' · : : , i
............. . ........ .~ ............... , m; ~I. SUhtl~ AVl .
[~-;": .[~l::l,~:~l ~;;I ;;! ~' ~: ;i--=' ~" , ·
'" ' ........ ~ ~"--~."'~.---~ ..... .ii, ~ ~ ; ~ ~ : ~ · m' ·
..... ...................
--;- --i. .... ~ io "i ..... 'T--~rq: ~: ...... i ............ ;.- .......... ~ ' ....... :'- .J~H-I.~t~+~H+I
........................ -' ...... J ' I
AVE N , ~-" '-':'--: ....... ; ............ j I:
:' -: 74t$; i~ : t'H'~.'ttl- It
' -r m m :~Ii , . L~I~. · I-I, t-I. "¢
.!"::='-; ;=~ :=:.:,..-:,-.~.. '-I
· I~ I$ · , --: ;
'~': : '-! it i~ .................... ~'~i,i~:i4"i~-ii .............................
::~..:..... ... .-~_! - ,=_~ ......................................................... :
~ u,~ , -~ IIIH.I~I.~I. MARYLAND AVE N
' '-'_ ...............................
.... roo~- x~- ~ .......... ~T'.-" ,',~ i .....
~ ~ iii
.......................................... ir,,,~
'- ': !-i~:'~2:::-~'- X~- ~ ..................
COUNCE.
RF UEST FOR ACTION
Oz-~matu~ ~epa,~,,ent Approved for ~ ~da ~on
Communi~ Development ~10-00 It~ No.
6.23
~ Kirk McDonald
APPROVING QUOTE BY CENAIKO EXPOSITIONS, INC. TO PROVIDE BOOTHS FOR THE
2000 NORTHWEST SUBURBAN REMODELING FAIR (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 514)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of a motion approving the quote from Cenaiko Expositions, Inc. for the
. rental and set-up of booths for the 2000 Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
The cities of New Hope, Crystal, Robbinsdale, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, and Plymouth have
sponsored the Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair for the p, ast seven years and desire to sponsor the
2000 Remodeling Fair.
BACKGROUND
The cities sponsor the Remodeling Fair to encourage homeowners/residents to upgrade/remodel homes
in these cities. The Remodeling Fair will be held on Saturday, April 8, at the Crystal Community Center
from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. It is anticipated that there will be no cost to host the Fair, as the income
;derived from the sale of the booths for exhibits will pay for advertising, booth rental and consultant
expenses. The cost per booth for exhibitors will be $125.00 and includes an 8' x 10' booth (with
backwall, sidewalls;-skirted table, chairs, and sign).
The cities have solicited quotes from companies for booth set-up and rental and received the following
quotes:
Company Quote
Cenaiko Expositions, Inc. $2,312.12
Broadway Rental $3,062.02
North Amedcan Trade Shows $3,465.00
Staff from the six cities are recommending accepting the Iow quote from Cenaiko Expositions, Inc. in the
amount of $2,312.12. New Hope is again coordinating the receipt/disbursement of revenues/
expenses for the Fair; therefore, the agreement needs to be approved by New Hope even though
it is addressed to Crystal.
MOTION BY , , SF.~OND BY ,, ,
TO:
RFA-O01
FOR ACTION
Originating Depa~i~ent-'----- Approved for Agenda Dev--{~cti°n
Community Development & Planning
Susan Henry B7:1- ,//10-0b"~//
No.
E~. ommunity Development Specialist . 8,2
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PURSUE THE ACQUISITION OF 4864 FLAG AVENUE NORTH
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the motion authorizing staff to pursue the acquisition of the property
located at 4864 Flag Avenue North.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE ...
There are few vacant residential lots available for development in New Hope. If they are vacant, it's
generally due to soil correction issues. This year, the City will pay for pilings to develop the vacant lot at
8808 41st Avenue North in conjunction with Habitat for Humanity. Public sector involvement made the
development possible because of the soil correction costs.
BACKGROUND
iThe subject lot is located at the corner of 49'n and Flag Avenues. The lot has been vacant for years. In
the fall of 1972, a New Hope developer attempted to build a single family home on the site, but
experienced poor soils. Soil boring tests determined that pilings would be necessary to develop the lot.
The City has received calls regarding the lot's development potential over the years, however, when
developers learn of the soil issues, they do not pursue development. The Building Official has estimated
the pilings to cost approximately $20,000, depending on the new home's footprint.
!Staff believes this is an ideal site for a scattered site housing project. Currently, Edina Realty lists the
i property. Staff have been in communication with Edina Realty and they are aware of the City's interest.
'New development on the lot could take shape in a number of ways: the City could sell the lot to a private
developer through a request for proposal process or the City could develop the property. In addition, the
City has grant funds available through the Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing Corporation
i(GMMHC) for a new construction project so that is another p,ossibility.
The lot measures approximately 90' x 125' (11,250 square feet) and is zoned single family. The property
:is surrounded by single family to the east, west, and south; industrial and park property is situated to the
inorth. The subject lot is situated in a nice residential neighborhood with above average New Hope
'property values.
MOTION BY SECOND BY . ,
TO: ,
Request for Action Page 2 1-10-00
Staff requests Council authorization to obtain an appraisal for market valuation and then will conta
Edina Realty to begin the negotiation process. Staff will bring the negotiated sale price back to the
Council for authorization to purchase the property at 4864 Flag Avenue North.
FUNDING
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are available to pay for the lot's appraisal as well
as other site acquisition and prep costs. HOME funds are also available through the five-city CHDO.
ATTACHMENT
· Address Map
,m, [',':'', ' " " . /NEW HOPE
"'" ' " '', [ ATHLETIC
"" I FIELD
., : 2200
- , 49TH AVE N
~; ~---::"~-'::~; --=:: ~ , ~, ~ . ~ . ~s :~,
/; . : ~ ; · ' ....... ~- ' - ....
, , .......... ~ ......... : ..... - .......... ; ~ -
/~ : '~ .... : i ' ~7 , ~ ~ ~ ~'.
/~ ....... L : ~ .... ~ ............ " '"' ·
/t~ ~" ~'.
I: .......
!; : ' ,"':~ '"' ' '
~ ; , ~ ~1 '~ .... ~xx . · ,~.. --,
., ,, ~; ~ .... ,... . ~ ,.
/ ...".... ·~o, ...... . - -... ...~
~11
....- . _ '~ : ....... ,
/ .- .-' '..--, --~ -. > ..... ; ' ~ -' , ,' '..~, · -....' .
/ / . .
/ ¥i~ '.. ~,.' .... - .... ,-.-.-':'~ , ~ :~'~ ~~ ./ .-'_
.-'"" ~=" '" a~'. "" ~t~, ~ ~t~: ........ ~ ...... =-~;'r-A~E .. - ~. '-.--
. , '-, '>:: ~ ; ., ~1 , ~ ~ ~ ..... ..' ~-. ~. '.
"~, "*~' · ...... '.' ''; ....... ~ ' ...... i" , : --' -- ' "'~' ~' ' '
Le~ /" ~ :'"~ '~ : ~ ~' ~e ~ i T: m; ' . ~ ..... ~ .-.;" : ~'~
. ~" ~ ~ ~M t t ~ · Te ~e : ..... r ....... Z .... t ' '; ' ~ ~ '. ~'~
. , .4~: i ' ...............
' ~..-~ L-. t . .~ I ' ~'~- -- ~ - · ~ ...... ~-- '
-'__ _- / ..... J ....... ~ ~ .......... ~ ......... ~ ~ .... 1' ~ -:"' ' ~ ·
4~1 : 4~ , 4~1 · , ~ : 4~ ' I -- .. J~ '~ -~ , ~ , '
' ~ I / ~ 4~ i ~,v. : B, ,~, ;~ N~V~ ~ ; ~ :~ . ~ ~ ..........
........ : ~ , · .
~ / H ~ KI ....... I .... ~ '
REGUEST FOR ACTION
Orlginattng Depm-tment Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Development
& Planning
Parks & Recreation ~ lte~n No.
//
1/10/2000
By:. Shari French By:. 8.3
DISCUSSION REGARDING COOPER GYMS AND TENNIS COURTS PROJECT BIDS (PROJECT 662
REQUESTED ACTIO.N
Staff is recommending that Council accept the bids for the Cooper High School joint gyms and
tennis courts project per the School District staff and Board's recommendation. Mr. Tom .-.
Walerius will be here Monday evening to answer any questions and to share the details.
After reviewing bids with the City Manager, staff strongly-agreed to recommend to the School
District that the upgraded gymnasium flooring as well as the alternate bid for a batting cage be
included in the bid to be awarded. The School Board will act on the bids tonight, Monday,
January 10, 2000 at 7:00 pm including the City recommended floor and batting cage.
The base bids received were all quite similar. The total recommended bids themselves were
quite favorable and lower than the architects expected them to be.
BACKGROUND
In April, the City Council met with representatives of the School District at a City Council Work
session to discuss options to add gyms to Cooper High School, after staff had met with District
representatives earlier in the year to discuss community/school district needs and design
options. The Council was favorable toward the proposal and directed that a public hearing be
scheduled to consider modifying the redevelopment and tax increment financing plans to
include the Cooper High School property in an area where tax increment financing (TIF) funds
could be utilized for community center and recreational purposes.
On June 28~, said public headng was conducted and the Council and EDA approved . .-
resolutions modifying the redevelopment and tax increment financing plans to allow the
expenditure of up to $3.25 million on the Cooper gyms expansion project, which also includes
MOTION BY ,,, SF.,COND BY , ,
the reconstruction of tennis courts on the site with costs being prorated between the two
entities. The approval of the resolutions authorized the use of TIF funds for the project, but did
not commit the City to the project.
in July, the plans were reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Commission
recommended approval of the conditional use permit amendment request to the City Council.
On August 9"', the City Council accepted the recommendation from the Commission and
approved the plans and the CUP amendment request. Staff and the City Attorney then
coordinated with the School Distdct on the appropriate agreements.
One of the issues that the City Council wanted addressed prior to consideration of the Cooper
Gyms Agreement was the ice Arena Rental Agreement. The School District approved an
agreement acceptable to the City on October 4"', and the City Council approved the agreement
on October 11"'.
On October 25, 1999, the City Council approved the final two agreements for the Cooper gyms
project. The agreements outlined the City/EDA's intent to provide Independent School District
No. 281 with a $3,250,000 grant, primarily for the addition of new gyms at Cooper High School.
In consideration for the contribution, the School District will provide the City with priodty use of
the gym facilities.
~m~ D~t ~p~ for ~a ~da ~Uon
Developmen~
& Planning
Pa~s & Recreation It~ No.
1/10~000
~ Shah French ~ 8.4
, /
RESOLUTION AWARDING CON--CT TO B~UER & ASSOC~S, L~. FOR HIDDEN
VALLEY PARK MASER P~N DE~LOPME~
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff m~mmends th~ the C~ Coun~l approve a contm~ with Bmuer & Assodates to develop a
Master Plan for Hidden Valley Pa~.
BACKGROUN~
Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Mr. George Watson, was the planning ~nsultant who worked with
the City on the No~hwood Pa~ proje~ in 1997 and the Civic Center Pa~ Master Plan proje~.
Them am a numar of ~ems in upcoming CIP plans for Hidden Valley Pa~ including tennis cou~
wo~, trails and sidewalk mpla~ment, bddge replacement, hockey dnk replacement, potentially
upgrading all the balffields at the site including those at Sonnesyn S~ool. ~e ballfields are to ."
be considered at ~e time of the 36= Avenue proje~ in 2001.) In addition to the above, staff is
recommending that the Master Plan also include future planning ideas for enhan~ment of the
pond and pa~ landscaping, mpla~ment of the shelter building, addressing the drainage issues
involved with ~e hockey rink, and water quality ponding improvements (as discussed in pa~ in the
Wetland Invento~ Repo~).
The sco~ of wo~ includes ~o meetings with the Citizen Adviso~ Commission, one with the
neighbo~ood (in~uding school sta~ to gather public input ~fom a plan is develo~d. It is
anticipated that a final plan will ~ developed by spnng of 2000.
FUNDING --
The bid for this proje~ is $5,720. Be~een the 1999 Pa~ ClP balance and 2000 Pa~ ClP items
for Hidden Valley Pa~ as o~lin~ above, funding is available for this Master Plan proje~.
A~ACHMENT
The proposed contra~ ~om Brauer & Associates is a~ached.
~ON ~ S~O~ ~ ....
,,,
I III I ~~ ~
FOil ACTION
Ag~nd~ S~cuon
Or~g~.attng Department Approved for Agenda Development
Parks & Recreation Item No.
1/10~2000
B~. Shari French ~ 8..5
./
RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT TO TSP ONE, INC. FOR ARCHITECTURAL
SERVICES FOR GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT # 656)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is recommending that Council award the contract for architectural and engineering
services for the Golf Course Clubhouse project to TSP One, Inc.
BACKGROUND
The City's golf course clubhouse, located at 8130 Bass La~(e Road, predates the City purchasing
the golf operation in 1971. The building is in need of replacement. The problem areas include:
windows, doors, HVAC system, non-accessible bathrooms, plumbing, wiring, floor, landscaping,
walkways and parking lot.
On February 8, 1999 the City Council approved the hidng of Ankeny Kell Architects, P.A. to
develop a feasibility study to look at a new clubhouse. A design team was formed comprised of
the architects; City Engineer, City staff, and two residents, one representing the Citizen Advisory
Commission and the other representing community golfers. The design team met a number of
times over the course of the spring. On May 17, 1999 the amhitects presented a preliminary
report to Council at a work session. On June 28, 1999 Council accepted the feasibility study and
directed staff to continue with the process of planning for this project. In fall of 1999, six
architectural firms were invited to submit proposals for their services for this project. Three firms
submitted proposals. Two firms were interviewed and the staff interview team selected TSP One,
Inc. to recommend to Council for architectural services for this project.
It is anticipated that the planning for this project will begin immediately in January 2000 with
construction to begin in late summer. The project is anticipated to be completed by spring of
2001.
MOTION BY , , , SECOND BY ,
I I RFA-O01 ~
TSP One, Inc. is the same firm that performed the architectural and engineering services for the
City Hall remodeling project in 1998 which dealt with the mold problem and remodeling of the
Administration and Community Development departments.
FUNDING
A contract has been negotiated with TSP One, Inc. that states that the City will pay a lump sum of
$46,000 plus reimbursable expenses (whose total will not exceed $5,000). This is equal to 9.2%
of an assumed construction cost of $500,000.
Funding for this project is recommended to be a revenue bond to be paid back over twenty
years from Golf Course eamings. The budget for this project totals $600,000 for all anticipated
costs.
ATTACHMENTS
The contract for architectural services is attached. This contract has been reviewed by the City
Attorney. Also attached is TSP's request for proposal for this project.
ItF UImT I OR ACTXON
Orlgtnattng Depm'Unent Approved for Agenda Agenda Sect/on
· Development
& Planning
Parks & Recreation Item No.
/ 1/10/2000
By:. Shari French ~_..- 8,6
RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT TO E&V CONSULTANTS AND CONSTRUCTION
MANAGERS TO SERVE AS CITY'S OWNER REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE GOLF COURSE
CLUBHOUSE PROJECT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT # 656)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City hire E&V Consultants and Construction Managers to act as
owner's representative on the Golf Course Clubhouse Project (#656). E&V has taken on this role
for the City on a number of projects including the Pool Concessions project (#601C), the City Hall
project of 1998 (#608), and the Public Works remodeling p. roject of 1997 (#542).
BACKGROUND
The City's golf course clubhouse, located at 8130 Bass Lake Road is in need of replacement.
The problem areas include: windows, doom, HVAC system, non-accessible bathrooms,
plumbing, wiring, floor, landscaping, walkways and parking lot.
On February 8, 1999 the City Council approved the hiring of Ankeny Kell Architects, P.A. to
develop a feasibility study to look at a new clubhouse. A design team was formed comprised of
the architects, City Engineer, City staff, and two residents, one representing the Citizen Advisory
Commission and the other representing community golfers. The design team met a number of
times over the course of the spring. On May 17, 1999 the architects presented a preliminary
report to Council at a work session. On June 28, 1999 Council accepted the feasibility study and
directed staff to continue with the process of planning for this project. In fall of 1999, six
architectural firms were invited to submit proposals for their services for this project. Three firms
submitted proposals. Two firms were interviewed and the staff interview team selected TSP One,
Inc. to recommend to Council on January 10, 2000 for architectural services for this project.
It is anticipated that the planning for this project will begin immediately in January 2000 with
construction to begin in late summer. The project is anticipated to be completed by spring of
2001. E&V will assign Cheryl Badinger to be the project manager. She is the person who
)resented E&V on the Public Works prolect in 1997 and the City Hall proiect in 1998. She is
MOTION BY .... SF..,COND B%' ....
RFA-O0~
also serving as owner's representative on the Pool Concessions project dght now. She has a
good deal of experience wit the City and with the engineering/architectural firm recommended for
this project, TSP One, inc.
FUNDING
E&~s lump sum fee is a not-to-exceed pdce of $23,850.00 for the project through the anticipated
completion date of May 31, 2001. Any time spent beyond May 31, 2001, which is approved by
the City, would be billed at an hourly rate as stated in the contract. Time sioent by E&V on this
project would reduce time and money spent by the City on the engineering/architectural firm.
ATTACHMENTS
The attached contract contains a Team Responsibilities Chart which describes E&V's role in this
project. This contract has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
FOR ACTION
I r U ST
~ -------- Agenda Section
Cmgtnattng Depa, ~t ~p~ for ~
Public Wo~ 03-~ 0-00 Develo ~nt a
It~ No.
Gay ~ohnson ~ ~
RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTACT FOR RECONSTUCT]ON OF THE 42~ AVENUE
RETAINING WAkL. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 657)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff requests approval of a resolution awarding the contract for the reconstruction of the 42"d
Avenue retaining wall to Jay Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $258,675.00.
BACKGROUND
In February of last year, the City Council authorized the City Engineer to work with Hennepin
County staff members in preparing plans and specifications for the replacement of an existing
modular block retaining wall on 42~ Avenue between Oregon and Quebec Avenues, with a
cast-in-place retaining wall. The retaining wall is necessary to provide an acceptable roadway
width and protect the existing abutting uses. The existing modular wall was constructed in 1988
and has deteriorated greatly over the last few years. The retaining wall is no longer structurally
sound.
The Council approved a Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for this project at the
March 22, 1999, Council meeting. That agreement stated that the County would limit its
participation to 50% of the cost for a modular block wall, or a financial contribution towards a
cast-in-place wall that would not exceed $70,000.
This project was bid in June of last year. At that time, the City Council elected to reject the Iow
bid of $271,549.00 feeling that more competitive bids could be received later in the year. The
project was re-bid on December 8, 1999.
The City has received easement from the property owner at 7401 42"~ Avenue. The property
owner at 4124 Quebec Avenue has verbally agreed to grant the easement.
MOTION BY .... SECOND BY ,
RFA-O01
I:RFA',Pubwork$',657 Retaining Wall Plans Contract Apl~OVal 1-10-00
Request for Action
Awarding Contract for Retaining Wall Reconstruction (IMP 657) ~
January 10, 2000 _/
Page 2
FUNDING
The proposed funding for this project is with the Road & Bridge Fund and Hennepin County's
$70,000 contribution.
ATTACHMENTS
Attached, please find the engineers recommendation, a letter documenting the verbal easement
agreement, and the resolution.
RF, UEST FOR ACTION
Orlgtnattng Depa~ t~ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Public Works 01-10-00 'Development & Planning
Item No.
By:. Guy Johnson By:. 8.8
MOTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM BENSHOOF AND ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $5,600.00 AND AUTHORIZING THEM TO PERFORM A PEER REVIEW OF
CONCEPT AND FEASIBILITY REPORTS FOR THE 36TM AVENUE PROJECT
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 626)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is recommending that Council accept a proposal from Benshoof and Associates, inc. in
the amount of $5,600.00, and authorize them to perform a 'Peer Review" of the 36· Avenue
Project.
BACKGROUND
The Capital Improvement Program includes reconstruction of 36~ Avenue in 2001. The
proposed project addresses infrastructure issues along 36th Avenue between T.H. 169 and
Winnetka Avenue. Council reviewed the Concept Report in April of 1998 and City staff held
informational meetings with area residents on August 17, 1998, and January 27, 1999. On
April 26, 1999, Council authorized staff to prepare the Feasibility Report for this project.
At its meeting z3n December 13, 1999, the City Council authorized City staff to select a Traffic
Engineering Firm to review the existing 36~ Avenue Concept Report, the Feasibility Report, and
certain existing and future transportation issues. The intent of the traffic engineer's review is to
evaluate the existing conditions as well as the impact of the proposed future improvement
options addressed in the Concept and Feasibility Reports. The results of this review will
support creation of a letter of recommendations that are based on the Council's concerns that
any improvement to the street is for the benefit of New Hope residents, and not for the ..
convenience of commuters coming from other communities, and that any changes to 36~
Avenue must still preserve the residential character of the neighborhood.
MOTION BY ,,, SF, COND BY
TO:
I:Rfa~Pubworks~626 Accept Peer Review
RF'A-OOI ~
Request for Action
Awarding Contract for Peer Review (imp. # 626)
January 10, 2000
Page 2
Request For Proposals for the Peer Review were sent out in December and two were returned.
The other proposal received was from the SRF Consulting Group in the amount of $10,000.00.
Benshoof & Associates, Inc. is an experienced firm and has been involved with other street
projects in New Hope.
The schedule of the proposed project is:
· Peer Review, accept Feasibility Report and schedule Public Hearing February 14, 2000
· Public Hearing/Authorize Plans and Specifications March 13, 2000
· Approve Plans and Specifications June 2000
· Receive Bids/Schedule Assessment Headng August 2000
· Assessment Hearing September 2000
· Award Contract October 2000
· Begin Construction March 2001
· Substantial Project Completion October 2001
· Final Project Completion (Bituminous Wear Course) June 2002
FUNDING ..
Proposed revenue sources for the 36"~ Avenue Improvement Project are Special Assessment
Bonds, Minnesota State Aid, Water/Sewer Utility Fund, and Storm Water Utility Fund.
ATTACHMENTS
A copy of the proposal is attached.
I: Rf,t~Pu13,m3n~626RFP361hAve
~ EDA
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating D~~t ~p~d for ~e~a ~da S~Uon
Commun~ Development EDA
1-10-00
Kirk McDonald Item No.
~nd Phil Kern ~ 4
APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL; MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED
WITH SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 7500-7528 42ND AVENUE
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 665)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting approval of the Request For Proposal for the City-owned propedies at 7500-7528
42"a Avenue. With EDA approval, staff will distribute the request for proposals to real estate developers.
POLICWPAST P~CTICE
The request for proposal will be used to solicit development proposals for the Ci~-owned pmpedies. All
proposals submiEed to the City will be reviewed and shared-with the EDA. The EDA will then have the
abili~ to enter into a leEer of intent if a proposal is desirable to the Ci~.
BACKGROUND
The Ci~ has acquired three pmpedies at 7500, 7516, and 7528 42nd Avenue due to groundwater
contamination caused by Electronic Industries, the former owner of 7516 42"a Avenue. In August 1999,
. the City acquired the third parcel at 7500 42"~ Avenue and demolition was completed at this properly in
I December. All three sites have been cleared, and staff is working with the MPCA and Electronic
'Industries on possible methods to expedite the contamination clean up on the three pmpe~ies.
The Ci~ is working to submit a grant appli~tion to the Depadment of Trade and Economic
Development in March to fund the costs of the contamination clean up. The State has over $2 million
available for Bmwnfield projects that result in the redevelopment of contaminated land. In order to
receive consideration for funding, several steps need to be completed. Fimt, Phase I and Phase II
environmental examinations have to be conducted to identi~ the levels of contamination. The ne~ step
calls for a Response Action Plan (~P) to be filed with the MPCA. Finally, a specific development must
be identified for the contaminated land following clean up with estimates of additional economic impact
the development will have on the ama. This impact includes jobs, wage rates, and added tax ~paci~.
The Ci~ has completed the Phase I and Phase II examinations, and staff is currently working with the
(conrd.)
~ON ~ S~O~ ~
Request for Action Page 2 1-10-00
MPCA on a revised RAP. The last step the City needs to address is the identification of a potential
development for the property. The request for proposals will produce potential developments for the site,
which will be used in the DTED grant application. With a potential development for the site, the City will
be more accurately able to identify the economic impact of redevelopment.
Staff expects the RFP and grant application process to produce several options for the City in terms of
the development of this property. The EDA will be allowed to select the development it would like to see
at this property from the proposals submitted. Staff, consultants, and the MPCA have determined that the
soil and groundwater clean up process will take approximately six-to-nine months. Development would
be able to begin following the completion of this process, which could be as soon as spdng 2001.
The request for proposal identifies the City's desire for a maximum use of the property with a high market
value, pedestrian-friendly development. While several potential uses were identified, the RFP
encourages all proposals to be submitted to the City, with the exception of strip malls and auto-orientated
businesses, such as gas stations and repair shops. The RFP sets a deadline of February 25, 2000, for
final submission of proposals.
ATTACHMENTS
· Request for Proposal
· Site Maps
· 42nd Avenue Redevelopment Costs & Expected Revenues
CITY OF NEW HOPE
REQuEST-FOR PROPOSALS
7500-7528 42nd AVENUE NORTH (ROCKFORD ROAD)
FOR DEVELOPMENT
Section One: Introduction
The City is requesting proposals for the development of 7500-28 42"~ Avenue North
(Rockford Road). The project will involve the development of this 2.42-acre vacant lot,
located on 42nd Avenue at Quebec Avenue. The property is part of New Hope's limited
industrial (I-1) zoning district, but the City plans to rezone the property to the B-4
Community Business District.
New Hope is a fully developed suburban community located just west of Minneapolis.
With only nine undeveloped parcels of land remaining in New Hope's commercial and
industrial zones, opportunities for development are at a premium in this area.
Therefore, the City is requesting proposals that will maximize the use of this property.
Section Two: Information about the property
The City purchased the three parcels (7528, 7516, and 7500 42"d Avenue) that make up
the 2.46 acres over the past 10 years to prepare the site for redevelopment. The
properties were used for industrial purposes, and City envisioned a different land use for
these properties along its most busy central thoroughfare, 42nd Avenue. The properties
along 42"~ Avenue are located in the City's most intense commercial zoning district.
The City intends to apply the same zoning district to this property.
The City first acquired property along 42"d Avenue in 1990 after learning of groundwater
contamination in the area. After significant testing by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, it was determined that the soil and ground water were contaminated by
solvents discharged from the industrial use at 7516 42na Avenue. The City moved
quickly to acquire this property and begin the clean-up process as soon as possible. By
1996, the City was able to acquire the second of the three parcels in the project area,
7528 42°u Avenue. This site was cleared as well, leaving only one operational industrial
property in the contaminated area. This property was acquired in August 1999, and the
warehouse on the site was demolished in December 1999.
With all three properties under common ownership, the City and MPCA are prepared to
expedite the soil and groundwater clean-up process. The City is working with the former
tenant at 7516 42"~ Avenue to development plans for the excavation of all the
contaminated soils and the subsequent replacement with clean soil. The City is also
working with the MPCA on this process. The excavation and soil replacement process
will incur significant costs, and the City is working on a DTED Brownfield grant to recoup
a large portion of the costs associated with making the lot developable.
The City intends to have an accelerated soil clean-up process take place in the summer
of 2000. With the involvement of the MPCA and the former tenant, the city is ensured
that the clean-up process will meet all the standards of the MPCA. The site will be free
of contaminants according to the requirements of the MPCA before it is passed over to
a future developer.
Once the soil corrections are complete, the City will conduct an appraisal on the
property to determine the market value of the entire parcel. Based on an estimate from ~.~
a professional appraiser, the City estimates that the market value will be around $8 per
square foot, or approximately $850,000. The property is located in a tax increment
financing district.
The surrounding uses are indicated on the attached zoning map. The area directly
north and to the south of the project area is a major center of employment in the City,
and a multiple family residential complex is located to the northeast. West of the project
area is New Hope's City Center area, the largest commercial district in the City.
In 1999, the City invested over $2,500,000 in a large-scale streetscape treatment of 42"d
Avenue to the west of the project area. The streetscape included the addition of planted
medians, boulevard trees, reconstructed sidewalks, and general roadway
improvements. This property has 320 feet of frontage along 42"~ Avenue, and is located
one mile east of Highway 169 in the New Hope City Center area. In 1992, a traffic count
along 42nd Avenue two blocks east of this site indicated a daily traffic rate of 28,000
vehicles. The site is also visible from Winnetka Avenue, which had daily traffic flows of
14,000 vehicles.
Along with the 42n~ Avenue Streetscape, the new Walgreens Development one block
east of this project area continues the revitalization of New Hope's City Center area.
Walgreens began construction in December 1999 on a new freestanding retail store at
the intersection of Winnetka and 42"d Avenues. The Walgreens development
complements the 1999 redevelopment of the freestanding Kmart store two blocks east
of the project area at 42"~ and Xylon Avenues. Kmart made significant upgrades to the
interior and exterior of its store in a comprehensive remodeling project scheduled to
continue in 2000 with the addition of green spaces and overall parking lot -.
improvements. Other improvements in the area include the rehabilitation of Winnetka
Center in 1998, where exterior improvements were made to the entire site. Winnetka
Center is located on Winnetka Avenue just north of 42nd Avenue.
Section Three: Proposal Cdteria
The City has a keen interest in maximizing the use of this property and fulfilling a
community need. The City would like to see a high market value, pedestrian-friendly
development that blends with the existing uses and the streetscape improvements along
42"~ Avenue. The City envisions a development with architectural character and modem
urban design features. --
The site will be rezoned to the B-4 Community Business District. It is important to note
that the City will not pay any realtor fees or commissions in the event of the sale of the
property. Some potential develol~ments that the City would encourage include, but are
not limited to, a restaurant, movie theater, or other similar service businesses. The City
is not interested in a retail strip-mall type development, as there is an abundant supply
existing in the City. The City is also discouraging auto-orientated businesses, such as
repair shops and gas stations.
Section Four: Timeline
The City will consider all proposals. The City will be submitting a grant application to the
Department of Trade and Economic Development in April, and select proposals will be
included with this application. The soil clean-up work is expected to start in the summer
of 2000. Negotiations as to the sale of the property and the City building plan approval
process would also begin in the summer of 2000. The City will have the property
appraised and may negotiate a Letter of Intent after the Economic Development
Authority has reviewed the proposals. The schedule for clean-up will take approximately
six-to-nine months, allowing construction to begin in the spring of 2001.
Section Five: Proposal Content
RESPONSES MUST BE IN THE ORDER AND FORMAT PRESENTED BELOW.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IF DESIRED, MAY BE INCLUDED IN ITEM 7.
1. Proposed project
A. Briefly explain your proposal.
B. Please include the following items and how they relate to your proposal. If
exact figures and explanations are not possible, please estimate using similar
developments already in operation elsewhere.
1) Type of use/product
2) Size of development (square feet)
3) Number of employees
4) Hours of operation
5) Traffic/parking needs -.
6) Expected noise levels
7) Preliminary site diagram
2. Firm Organization
A. How many years has your firm been established as a professional
developer?
3. Professional Organization
A. How many people are employed in your firm and summarize their areas of
expertise.
4. Experience
A. Please list some of the major development projects your firm has completed
in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.
B. List projects similar in size and use to the project you are currently proposing.
5. References
A. List references for your five most recently completed projects.
6. Scope and Cost of Services
A. List the additional work tasks that you think are necessary to prepare the
property for development
B. List estimate cost of development, including land preparation costs.
7. Additional Pertinent Information
A. Provide any additional pertinent information about your firm or your proposal.
8. Certification of Information Provided
A. The information provided herein is to the best of my knowledge accurate and
can be accepted by the recipient first named above as true representation of:
Company:
Address:
Title:
Date:
Section Six: Proposal Submission
Submit four (4) copies of your proposal to:
Kirk McDonald
Director of Community Development
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Proposals must be received by February 25, 2000, at 4:00 PM CST.
Proposals ~nust be submitted in an envelope with the words "Proposal for 7500 42"d
Avenue" clearly marked on the outside of the envelope. Information must be complete.
The City of New Hope reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. Faxed
proposals are not acceptable.
Enclosures:
· Copy of 1/8~ Section map for the site
· Zoning map of City Center area
4
Cit CenterZonin Ma
Project Site to be rezoned to B-4 Community Business
7500, 7516, & 7528 42nd Avenue
NEW HOPE
ii, R2
· *'" ~) --- . 46TH AVEN
PA~ ~
* ~ .
~A~ : ''**
~R-O "
DevelopmeaC
Uade~a
.... 41ST
G~HSEMANE -- -
CEM~E.~ SC~L __ - ........
......... ~ .... R~I
~scO~. ' ",.~
EDA
C~trtnttna. Dm~a~cm~t . Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
mmulmy i~sv~rTTent,
1/10/00 EDA
Susan Henry Item No.
By: Community Development Speciali ~t By:. 5
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE THE PURCHASE OF 5550 WINNETKA
AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 669)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff has received the appraisal report for the vacant commercial property currently for sale at
5550 Winnetka Avenue North. Staff requests authorization by the EDA to negotiate on the basis
of the appraisal with the property owner.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
In the past, the EDA has directed staff to pursue the acquisition of vacant commercial and
available residential property that is located in areas of the City that the Comprehensive Plan
has identified for potential redevelopment.
BACKGROUND
At the October 25, 1999, meeting, the EDA discussed the property located at 5550 Winnetka
Avenue North and staff was authorized to order an appraisal. The commercial property, located
at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road, has
been vacant fbr the past several months. Formerly known as Ed's Donut Shop, the property is
located in an area identified by the Comprehensive Plan for future redevelopment.
BCL Appraisals recently completed the appraisal. The appraisal came in at $280,000, taking
into account the various approaches to value. In addition, the value of immovable trade fixtures
in the building is estimated at $5,600, according to the report. In total, the report stated a value
of $285,600, including the immovable trade fixtures. The property is located in a B-2, Retail
Business, Zoning District. The property contains 20,700 square feet (.47 acres), and the 1,300
square foot, one story masonry structure on the site was constructed in 1975.
(cont'd.)
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
RFA-O01 ~
Request for Action Page 2 1-10-00
The property is currently owned by Kiva New Hope Corporation. The current asking price f~'~,
the property is $450,000. The property owners state this value because of the previous lease
agreement held on the property (with a rental amount of $3,200/month). However, a copy of the
lease that would support this statement was requested and not provided to validate the asking
price. The 1999 value for tax purposes of the property is $160,000 ($126,000 land/S34,000
building).
The property owners have stated there has been interest in the property; however, no response
has been offered because of the City's interest in acquisition at this time. City staff have been in
recent communication with the property owner. There is quite a disparity between the property
owner's asking price and the appraised value; therefore, staff is not overly optimistic the City
will be successful in negotiations. However, staff would like the opportunity to meet with the
property owner, present the recent appraisal, and determine if negotiations can proceed.
Staff feels the subject is a key piece of property for future redevelopment of the Bass Lake
Road/Winnetka area, as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan outlines an
aggressive strategy for enhancing the COmmercial character along Bass Lake Road.
Recommendations include:
· Expand the commercial land use patterns along Bass Lake Road to increase the land area
for commercial redevelopment.
· Assemble and redevelop smaller commercial sites, to create longer commercial lots for
contemporary retail, service, and office uses.
In addition to this vacant commercial property, staff has been in recent communication with a
couple of property owners along the 5400-5500 Block of Winnetka Avenue regarding a potential
voluntary sale to the City. The residential property owners were in receipt of the City's recent
letter indicating an interest in acquiring property as it becomes available.
FUNDING
If acquisition proceeds, the property is located in an area where TIF funds can also be
expended for redevelopment activities.
A'I'I'ACHMENTS
· BCL Appraisal Report
/ ~,--~,~ ~ EDA I
Originating Department ~p~ for ~e~a ~da ~on
EOA
CommuniW Development
1-10-99 Item No.
~irk McDonald
RESOLUTION APPROVING SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROG~M
CONTACT NO. C-99-66 FOR ADMINIST~TIVE SERVICES BE~EEN THE METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL AND THE CI~ OF NEW HOPE AND AUTHORIZING PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT
ACTION REQUESTEB
Staff recommends that the EDA approve the enclosed Resolution Appro~ng Section 8 Housing
Assistance Payments Program Contract No. C-99-66 for Administrative Se~i~s Be~een the
Metropolitan Council and the Ci~ of New Hope and Authoring President and Executive Director to
Execute Agreement.
POLICWPAST P~CTICE
~lt has been the policy of the Ci~ in the past to provide S~ction 8 Program administrative se~ices to
Iow/moderate income residents in New Hope and several neighboring cities.
BACKGROUND
The Ci~ has contracted with the Metropolitan Council for the past 20 yearn to administer the Section 8
Housing Assistan~ Payments Program on a Io~1 level. The ~ntract is revised periodi~lly when the
reimbumement rate to the Ci~ from the Met Council (through HUD) increases. The main contract was
last amended in .1994. Subsequent to that time, several amendments were approved by the EDA
authorizing the Ci~ to provide Section 8 Program administrative se~ices to several surrounding
~mmunities, which results in additional mimbumements to the Ci~ for the services provided. The Ci~
of New Hope employs a full-ame Section 8 Housing Repmsen~ave to administer this program and
mimbumemen~ from ~e Met Council/HUD cover all costs of the pmgra~position. The Ci~ currently
administem 233 New Hope Section 8 contracts and 92 ~ntmcts from other cities, for a total of 325
contracts.
A revised Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program Contract for Administrative Se~ices was
approved by the Metropolitan Council on December 15, 1999, a~er input was received from the cities
with Section 8 programs and their respective housing reps. The revised ~ntmct ~lls for an increase in
;the ongoing administrative fee that will be retroactive to June 1, 1999, as follows:
(cont'd.)
~ON ~ ,
~: .......
Request for Action Page2 1-'10-~
1. The administrative fee available to the City for regular vouchers will increase from $20.74 to $24.26
/- per unit/month for basic administrative services (an increase of $3.52).
4. ~. The administrative fee available for the City for portability vouchers will increase from $18.59 to
$19.40 per unit/month (an increase of $2.81).
Of the 325 contracts administered by the City, 311 are regular contracts and 14 are portability contracts.
The increased reimbursement to the City in 2000 will be approximately $13,500 and the retroactive fee
paid to the City for 1999 will be approximately $7,000. The 2000 HRA budget anticipated an increase in
revenues from the Metro HP, A in the amount of $12,500 to balance the budget, so the increased
reimbursement is greater than anticipated.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Correspondence
· Contract
· Excerpts HRA Budget
I:tF UEST FOR ACTION
' Orlgmattng Depeuh,,ent Approved for Agenda A~enda Section
Public Works 1-24-00 Consent
By: Guy Johnson ~// 6.6
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING EASEMENTS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALL, CITY
PROJECT NO. 657.
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is recommending that the Council pass a resolution accepting easements needed to complete the
reconstruction of the retaining wall along the south side of 42~ Avenue between Oregon and Quebec
Avenues. The easements have been received from the following properties:
7401 42nd Avenue North, (Jori R. and Sheila M. Horkey, owners).
4124 Quebec Avenue North, (Timberland Partners IX, LLP, owners)
BACKGROUND
In February of last year, the City Council authorized the City Engineer to work with Hennepin County staff
members in preparing plans and specifications for the replacement of an existing modular block retaining
wall on 42"~ Avenue between Oregon and Quebec Avenues, with a cast-in-place retaining wall. The
retaining wall is necessary to provide an acceptable roadway width and protect the existing abutting uses.
The existing modular wall was constructed in 1988 and has deteriorated greatly over the last few years.
The retaining wall is no longer structurally sound.
In order to accomplish the reconstruction of the retaining wall it is necessary to acquire easements from
these two properties. The owners of these properties will grant the City of New Hope permanent easements
on their properties.
The Council approved a Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for this project at the Mamh 22,
1999, Council meeting. That agreement stated that the County would limit its participation to 50% of the
cost for a modular block wall, or a financial contribution towards a cast-in-place wall that would not exceed
$70,000.
FUNDING
The proposed funding for this project is with the Road & Bridge Fund and Hennepin County's $70,000
contribution.
ATTACHMENTS
A copy of the permanent easements, the resolution, and a cover letter from the City Attorney is attached.
MOTION BY SECOND BY ........
I:Rfa~PuDwon~657 Resolution Accepting Easements. 1-24-00
Originating Depa~t~mt Appr~zd for Agenda Agenda SecUon
/ Consent
Parks & Recreation Item No.
1/24/2000 6.8
By:. Shari French By:.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT VVITH SUBURBAN HENNEPIN
REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT REGARDING GOLF COURSE
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is recommending that Council accept the memorandum of agreement with the Suburban
Hennepin Regional Park District regarding the golf course and direct the Mayor and City
Manager to sign.
BACKGROUND "-
In November of 1998 City staff was notified that the Suburban Hennepin Regior{ai Park District
was intending to develop a new executive nine hole golf course at Eagle Lake Regional Park,
located at Zachary Lane and Bass Lake Road in the City of Plymouth. City staff, Mayor and the
Citizen Advisory Commission Chair expressed concerns to Suburban Hennepin Regional Park
District staff and Board regarding the loss of business New Hope expects to experience due to
this development of a new public course in such close proximity.
After a number of meetings at the staff level between both organizations, the attached
Memorandum of Agreement was developed. This agreement has been reviewed by the City
Attorney. This agreement was approved unanimously by the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park
District Board of Directors at a December 1999 meeting. It is staff's opinion that this agreement is
a remarkable one showing support by Suburban Hennepin Regional Park Distdct for the City of
New Hope and the City's concerns regarding New Hope's golf course operation once Eagle
Lake's course opens in 2001.
The memorandum calls for a number of things including a mitigation by Suburban Hennepin
Regional Park District of the financial impact on New Hope's course. A five year average of
rounds played at the New Hope Village Golf Course (35,665) will be used as a base for the
formula re: purchase of golf rounds from New Hope by Suburban Hennepin Regional Park
MOTION BY SF..,COND BY'
TO:
District, if a loss of at least 3% of rounds is experienced. Rounds would be purchased at the
conclusion of a golf season at the adult greens fee rate for that season for use by Suburban
Hennepin Regional Park District in the subsequent season.
This agreement will be in effect beginning the first full season in which the Eagle Lake facility
opens and for at least one additional year thereafter. This agreement terminates automatically
when the number of rounds played at the New Hope course in any year after the second year of
the agreement is equal to or greater than the number of rounds played at the New Hope Golf
Course in 1998 (40,488 rounds).
There is a stipulation in this agreement regarding percent of playability at the New Hope course.
In the event that the New Hope Golf Course is not available for play for 90% or less of its normal
season, defined as the average number of operating days for the five most recent years
regardless of cause, the Park Distdct will not be required to purchase greens fees for that year nor
will that year be included in the five-year average for future greens fee purchase calculations.
Playable days averaged 179 over the past five years. 90% of this figure would be 161 days.
Staff plans to work with Suburban Hennepin Regional Park Distdct staff to provide improved golf
opportunities through joint and cooperative programming efforts as discussed in this agreement.
ATTACHMENTS
Attached is the Memorandum of Agreement from Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District as
well as data regarding playable golf days and rounds played by year for the past ten years at the
New Hope Village Golf Course. -;- .
PLAYABLE GOLF DAYS BY YEAR
rt ROUNDS PLAYED BY YEAR
/'~'~ AT NEW HOPE VILLAGE GOLF COURSE
(Dated 11/19199)
Year Playable Days Rounds Played
1999 187 37,285
1998 185 40,488
1997 175 36,351
1996 154 29,839*
1995 192 33,910
1994 192 37,735
1993 177 35,562
1992 182 37,865
1991 173 38,690
1990 195 - 40,474
'1996: Year of construction (opened shortened course in late May; #9 opened
for play in August)
1995-1999 average: 179 playable days (90% = 161)
1995-1999 average: 35,665 rounds played
1990-1999 average: 181 playable days (90% = 163)
1990-1999 average: 36,820 rounds played
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
JOINT MARKETING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (the District) intends to develop a
golf facility at its Eagle Lake site; and
WHEREAS, the City of New Hope (City.) currently operates a par 3 golf course called the New
Hope Golf Course: and
WHEREAS, the Park District is desirous of providing improved golf opportunities through joint
and cooperative programming efforts:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Park District and the City agree to do the following:
1. Participate in joint purchasing programs for supplies and equipment as well as equipment
sharing if feasible.
2. Coordinate league schedules to avoid overlap and duplication with the current City schedule
having priority.
3. Develop joint registration and programming for junior leagues and lessons.......
4. Promote and market both facilities through literature distribution, Web site links and joint
advertisements.
5. To mitigate the financial impact of the Eagle Lake facility on the New Hope Golf Course, the
Park District:
a. will not offer senior leagues or senior discount rates:
b. will, in the event that the New Hope Golf Course experiences a reduction in rounds from
the five most recent years' average in any year commencing with the first year of
operation of the Eagle Lake facility, purchase golf rounds from the New Hope Golf
Course according to the following formula:
Reductions from five-year average Rounds purchased
3% to 4.9% 750
5% to 6.9% 1,000
7% to 9.9% 1,250
10% or more 1,500
The rounds would be purchased at the conclusion of a golf season at the adult greens fee
rate for that season for use in the subsequent season. In the event that the New Hope
Golf Course is not available for play for 90% or less of its normal season, defined as the
average number of operating days for the five most recent years regardless of the cause,
the Park District will not be required to purchase greens fees for that year nor will that
year be included in the five-year average for future greens fee purchase calculations.
c. This agreement will be in effect beginning the first full season in which the Eagle Lake
facility opens and for at least one additional year thereafter. This agreement terminates
automatically when the number of rounds played at New Hope Golf in any year after the
second year of the agreement is equal to or greater than the number of rounds played at
New Hope Golf Course in 1998.
City of New Hope Henne. pin Park~
Mayor ~
City Manager Sec~tary to ~ Board
Msl: AGREEMENTS/Eagle Lake Agreement with New Hope
Origmaur~ :Depaxlzaent Approved t'or,~geada A~enda Secuon
Community Development Consent
Kirk McDonald &"¥~-14-00 Item
By: Phil Kern By:./J 6.5
/
RESOLUTION ORDERING PUBLISHED NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE THE
PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS IN THE 2000 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting that the City Council set a public hearing for the allocation of the 2000 Urban ..., ..
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) funds for February 28, 2000.
In order to meet the requirements of the CDBG program, staff has prepared for a public headng notice
to be published on February 16, 2000, subject to Council approval of this resolution...
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
The Federal CDBG Program requires that municipalities hold a public hearing on the projected use of
funding. In the past, the City Council has established the date for the public hearing and requested staff
to publish a notice of public headng in the newspaper.
BACKGROUND
Hennepin County notified the City in January of its funding award for the 2000 CDBG funding cycle. The
City received $162,344 in funding to be available on July 1, 2000. The City is able to allocate this
funding to programs that meet the requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). Hennepin County has set a March 17, 2000, deadline for all cities to declare the programming of
its respective funds. As a result, the City Council must allocate New Hope's funds at its February 28
meeting. At that same meeting, the Council must hold a public hearing on the allocation of the funds.
A copy of the public headng notice to be published on February 16 is attached for your review. It
includes the staff recommendations for funding to be presented on February 28.
MOTION BY SF.,COND BY ,
TO:
RFA-OOI ~
Originating Depa,~ ,kppmved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development Consent
Item No.
Susan Hen~ 2-14-00
BYCommunity Development Specialist By:. 6.6
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE THE PURCHASE OF 5532 WINNETKA AVENUE
NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 670)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to negotiate the purchase of the property
located at 5532 Winnetka Avenue North.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
On October 25, 1999, the EDA authorized staff to contact the residential property owners along the
5400/5500 blocks of Winnetka Avenue North to inquire if they may be interested in a voluntary sale to
the City, as these properties have been sited in the Comprehensive Plan for redevelopment.
BACKGROUND
At the January 10, 2000, meeting, staff was authorized by Council to obtain an appraisal of the property
located at 5532 Winnetka Avenue North. Staff has received the appraisal, and now wishes to present to
Council (see attached). Forsythe Appraisals appraised the property at $132,000. Staff believes this is an
accurate value, given today's market, and wishes to pursue the property given Council's goal of
redevelopment for Winnetka Avenue. The 1999 valuation of the property for tax purposes is $98,000
($24,000 land/S74,000 building). The property measures 29,200 square feet. The 1,600 square foot
rambler is in average condition, according the appraisal report.
If staff is successful in negotiation, staff would return with a purchase agreement for the property at a
future Council meeting. Given the home's good condition, this may be a home that is moved and
relocated, as the City did with home at 5340 Winnetka Avenue this winter.
In December, the City mailed out the letter of interest to purchase property along the 5400/5500 block of
Winnetka Avenue North. Bdan and Carrie Barclay are property owners of the single family home at 5532
Winnetka Avenue North. Staff has indicated to the Barclays that because this would be a voluntary sale,
no relocation benefits would be paid. The Barclays are in agreement with this.
FUNDING
The subject property is located in an area where TIF funds may be expended.
ATTACHMENTS
·Map
·Forsythe Appraisals Report
MOTION BY SF.,COND BY'
TO:
RFA-O01 ~
VILLAGE GREEN
GOLF I ,-
COURSE ~ ~ -- ,
I
ST. THE. RES -
NUR$1N;
~ a L.._
)L ~'e '~z. ! ST. RAPHEL
ELEMENTARY
~';t4. CATHOLIC
SCHOOL e;~ ' ELM CHURCH
GROVE ~
5~ T~ gVE
q4~ ~t~ ST
N, ', ~
53 RD
t U ,ST I OR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development ~ Consent
Itezn No.
Susan Henry -14-00
BY~ommunity Development Specialist !~. 6.7
/
MOTION AUTHORI7ING STAFF TO OBTA1N APPI~ISAL OF 5422 WINNETI~ AVENUE NORTH
(IMPROYEMENT PROJECT NO. 6~5
R~U~ST~D ACTION
Staff rec0mmen~s approval of a motion aut~odzin9 staff to obtain an appraisal of ~e pvope~ Io~te~ at
5422 ~i~netka ~vonue No~.
POLICY/PAST P~CTICE '-
On October 25, 1999, the EDA authorized staff to contact the residential prope~ ownem along the
~00/5500 blocks of Winnetka Avenue No~h to inquire if they may be interested in a volunta~ sale to
the Ci~, as these prope~es have been sited in the Comprehensive Plan for redevel~ment.
BACKGROUND
In December, the Ci~ mailed out the le~er of interest to purchase pmpe~ along the ~00/5500 block of
Winnetka Avenue No~h. Greg Caron, estate administrator for Eugene Caron, recently responded to the
Ci~'s leEer. Their prope~ is Io~ted at ~22 Winnetka Avenue No~h. A~ached please find their le~er of
interest to sell to the Ci~. Staff will indi~te to the prope~y owner that because this would be a volunta~
sale, no relocation benefits would be paid.
The subject prope~ measures 285' x 70', for a total of 19,950 square feet. The 1999 valuation of the
prope~ for tax purposes is $79,000 ($19,500 land/S59,500 building). By obtaining an appraisal, staff
can find out a current fair market value. The estimated ~st of the appraisal is $325. Staff would then
bring the completed appraisal back to the Council to determine if the Council desires to negotiate with
the prope~ owner for acquisition of the prope~.
Given the City's redevelopment goals along Winnetka Avenue, it is timely to ~nsider this propeAy. Per
Council direction, staff is cu~ently 'talking with various prope~y owners along Winnetka Avenue. The
potential prope~ies am Io~ted nearby the subject propeAy.
FUNDING
The subject prope~ is Io~ted in an area where TIF funds may be expended; therefore, the appraisal
will be paid for with these funds. -
A~ACHMENTS
· Address Map
~: .
App~d for Agenda ~,gerida Section
Originating D~partm~t
Consent
Communi~ Development -
0 It~ No.
Susan Hen~ - - 6.8
~ommuni~ Development Specialist ~ ~
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN APP~ISAL OF ~06 WINNET~ AVENUE NORTH
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 676)
REQUESTED ACTION,
Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of the property located at .......
5406 Winnetka Avenue North,
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE '.
On October 25, 1999, the EDA authorized staff to contact the residential property owners along the
5400/5500 blocks of Winnetka Avenue North to inquire if they may be interested in a voluntary sale to
the City, as these properties have been sited in the Comprehensive Plan for redevelopment.
BACKGROUND
In December, the City mailed out the letter of interest to purchase property along the 5400/5500 block of
Winnetka Avenue North. Sandra and Gordon Sibbet own the single family home located at 5406
Winnetka Avenue North and they recently responded to the City's letter. Attached please find their letter
of interest to sell to the City. Staff will indicate to the property owner that because this would be a
voluntary sale, no relocation benefits would be paid.
The subject property measures 285' x 70', or 19,950 square feet. The 1999 valuation of the property for
tax purposes is $71,000 ($19,500 land/S51,500 building). By obtaining an appraisal, staff can find out a
current fair market value. The estimated cost of the appraisal is $325. Staff would then bring the
completed appraisal back to the Council to determine if the Council desires to negotiate with the
property owner for acquisition of the property.
Given the City's redevelopment goals along Winnetka Avenue, it is timely to consider this property. Per
Council direction, staff is currently talking with various property owners along Winnetka Avenue. In June -'
of 1999, the City acquired the property located at 5340 Winnetka Avenue. The subject property is two
lots to the north of 5340 Winnetka Avenue North. Staff is currently negotiating with the property owner of
5410/12, which is situated directly adjacent and to the north of 5406 Winnetka Avenue.
(cont'd.)
MOTION BY ,, S~,CON~ ~ , ,
R.F'A-O01
Request for Action Page 2 2-14-00
FUNDING
The subject property is located in an area where TIF funds may be expended; therefore, the appraisal
will be paid for with these funds.
A'I'rACHMENTS
· Address Map
· 227/00 Letter of Interest to Sell from the Sibbets
. --.,., .~?,.' 7~ao ~ ',, ............. -; ~ ~ ....................
/~ ',.. "--.. : ! se00 ~'"" i"-
· . i ~: ,'
~- "' ' .... : i il; _ ?eeo
eom,/"" -, "'.-.. i I--~ i 7eto !
· '% '""~ ...... '.'~ ~ t ~'" ; ............. : ........ 4._
· , - .:_.. .... ....... :___. ....
" ~'" ~','~',m~sbp ~6tH ave....N..du..'!_~.
~' . ................... .: ~ ....... ~.~.. ........... T.--er---~ ......... ; o '~-- -
I i ! ' : ~ '; ......... ~ '' .......... : : ~ '! '
· ~:~ ,sI ,. _ : ~ .... ; ~.~.!,.~: : .
:' --:-::l,~ !i;;; !i oa,.37 : ~ ==4. ! , ~. . , -- 73(:
~ ! ~630 i : no,,~ ~ ,.., . , , ; .:, . : .,
; i._ "--_..i :' : ,' I ....... -" ; ......... ~' ;, .... ;' r':-.; ' .:-.' -.' .-:-'; -
t ..... ~.., .L,..--'.. .... 4 ---- '" ' ; · ; '
I ' ss32 ~ 5531 I i 5630 ~ ..... : '~ . --
____ . ; · : , ' .---
~ ' ' '. ........... .~ ',- ..... -. ---'-. .... ~ .... ~ : ..... J,-,~,~,~? ,,--::!:
................. : : ;. ~ ~ . : . .
" 7944)
· ' - " ~' 'l~' . '-': ' ·
, . :.; ..... ....
~ : i .........., ........ · .........I
.~ .................... , .... : ~ ; ; : .:
...... ~ i 5443: -5444:5437 ~ :'5434 i ~ ~ , 5434:
'~~i '~ ~'~l~i ..... ' '' ' : ...... '' ........ '
.; :- .......... : ................ ~ , ....... .r ' , ; _
........ , ....... ~.~ ....... : ..... : ! ...... ~ ........ ~ ~s7 ~,~m ~.433 !_.i .43+: .433i ~ a43=1
· - .... ~ ........ , ' ' '~-'..--'-;~ ....... : ~ I ~
~ ! 5431 i ! 5434 : [431 ! ' :--~ , ..r.: ..... ~ ...... · ,. ........
.... ~._ ......... U ...... ~ ........ , : ..... ~ .... : ~429 -:la. Il 542~ ;a4~ :,.~i 5430 "542~ ~ ~ MaO _
................... : ! : :--.: : ' i '
..... ~ .......... · ........ : ...... . e ' * · , o '
.;. ............. j. ........ _' ............ ..* ................. ., .......
...... :' ...... . ...... t ....... -." ~ , ' .. --1 ~'~ .......
i4~o, .4. :... a4~o ~.a4, i :'i4-~ '~-"'~';,"'. ........ :,,,.
~--,-. . . ~ . ,,,.-,v i 5413 .u_
....~ .... ~_~ ......... ~.--.~' ~ . . ,L,J: ~,4 ! ,4,3 i~i ,4,01 ~,3,
"'" '" ...... ............... : ....... ' ..... ......
..... ~_ ..... ~-.,; ....... ~ ...... ~ , ,.,oe.2i ,4~ ,.ml!~: ~ ~
. . : . ,.,,~, ;~'- ~ ............... ; .
~4oo: 540~ , 14o0 . I401 i ........ -'i~): ...........;'"J ~' ..... ' .... ~
..... ~ ......... : ..... '-: ......... :i ~ ~ ~ ~i .4,= ~, !-~i .~oo ~o,
....................................... 1 ~ ~ '. . '.
· j .......... i-- ...... : :- .................
:. ~ i'"~3~i: . . ,,.,.
' ~' ..... ' ....... ': ........ ~- ........ .'- ........ !b.J: .................. IL~!! ......... "-
: j~; :-_,. ,_O~ ....... ; ........
, , ...... .....
~' /- L ...... ' ........ ' .
5201 : " ..... ' .' ' --.:
'1'
RF. IrI T FOR ACTION
Originating Depa~Luent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Development
Community Development & ,planni,ng
2~ Item No.
BYKirk McDonald By: 8.1
RESOLUTION RELATING TO A PROJECT ON BEHALF OF HAMMER RESIDENCES, INC. AND ITS
FINANCING UNDER THE MUNICIPAL HOUSING PROGRAMS ACT; CALLING FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING THEREON
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff requests that the Council approve the attached resolution which establishes a public hearing date
of March 13, 2000, to consider a proposal whereby the City of Wayzata would issue a revenue bond on
behalf of itself and the cities of Maple Grove, Minnetonka, New Hope, Plymouth, and St. Louis Park, to
allow Hammer Residences, Inc. to undertake projects in each of these cities. New Hope is included m
the project because one of its residences is located in New Hope at 4009/11 Jordan Avenue North.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
In the past, the City has cooperated with a variety of agencies to provide a variety of housing
opportunities in the City, such as Tasks Unlimited, Habitat for Humanity, Westminster Corporation, etc.
Some of these projects have included financial assistance, including the issuance of bonds and in
conjunction with other municipalities.
BACKGROUND
The projects involve the acquisition, construction, equipping, and furnishing of residential facilities for the
developmentally disabled and the refinancing of existing mortgage, indebtedness in connection with the
existing reSidential facilities, together with the rehabilitation of each facility. The New Hope portion of the
project consists of mortgage indebtedness refinancing in connection with the existing facility located at
4009/11 Jordan Avenue North and rehabilitation. The City of Wayzata will issue a revenue bond
~ursuant to a joint powers agreement, to finance the development in the principal amount not to exceed
$2,500,000.
(conrd.)
MOTION BY SECOND BY* ,,,
TO:
RFA-O0 / ~
Request for Act/on Page 2 2-14-00
The action before the Council is to call for and schedule a public hearing on this request for the March
'13 City Council meeting, at which time the request will be described in more detail.
The petitioner has completed the appropriate City application form and submitted a deposit to cover any
consultant expenses incurred. The apl:)lication and documents have also been reviewed by the City
Attorney and the Bond Counsel for th.--. City. A review of the property file indicates that there are no
outstanding code or city ordinance issues with the property located in New Hope. The application is
being submitted by Norwest Investment Services, Inc.
ATTACH M E NTS
· Resolution
· Notice of Public Heating
· Program Description
· Correspondence from Bond Counsel
· Correspondence from Norwest Investment Services, Term Sheet and Property Description
(Financial Statements available at City Hall)
Ongmaung Depax'czaeat Appm~d t'or .~.¢eada A~enda Sect. ton
Development
Community Development & Planning
2-14-00 ' '
Item No.
BY'Kirk McDonald ~ 8.2
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE GIVING OF HOST APPROVAL FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS AND ADOPTION OF A HOUSING PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING
THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (ST. THERESE PROJECT)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff requests that the City Council approve the attached resolution which establishes a public hearing
date of March 13, 2000, to consider a Housing Program proposed by St. Therese Home, Inc. and a
~3roposed Joint Powers Agreement providing for the issuance of revenue bonds by the City of Elk River,
Minnesota, in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000 to finance housing facilities including approximately
$6,000,000 to be used by the Corporation for the financing and refinancing of senior housing and
nursing improvements at 8000 Bass Lake Road.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
In the past, the City has cooperated with a variety of agencies to provide a variety of housing
opportunities in the City and some of these projects have included financial assistance, including the
issuance of bonds. In 1977, the City issued revenue bonds on behalf of St. Therese in the amount of
$13,375,000 and the outstanding balance on those bonds is now $3,100,000.
BACKGROUND
St. Therese Nursing Home has submitted an application requesting approval of a resolution of the City
Council authorizing a joint powers agreement with the Cit~ of Elk River for the issuance of tax exempt
revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000, including $6,000,000 for the New Hope portion
of the project, which would be used to finance renovation to St. Therese Center and Residence, refund
the outstanding 1977 bonds, fund a debt service reserve fund, and pay issuance costs. The major
improvements at St. Therese would include repair of elevators, heating ventilation and air conditioning,
apartment roof repair, replacement of kitchen equipment, improvements to accessible ramp, energy
management system, and providing fire protection (sprinkling) for the main floor resident rooms along
with the kitchen and chapel in the care center. The improvements are described in more detail in the
attachments. The remaining portion of the bonds would be used for an unrelated project in Elk River.
MOTION BY., _ SF.,COND BY
TO:
RF' -OOI
Request for Action Page 2 2-14-00
~iie care center (nursing home)has 302 licensed beds and has operated since 1968. The assisted living
facility (apartments) has 220 units and was constructed in 1979. St. Therese employs 535 employees in
the City. The application states that St. Therese is a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and is exempt from
the payment of federal income taxes and that since their inception both the care center and resi(~",ce
have been exempt from real estate taxes.
City staff and consultants met with representatives of St. Therese regarding the submittal of this
application, and the issues discussed are outlined in the attached correspondence from the City
Attorney. Some of the issues discussed included the Joint Powers Agreement, impact on New Hope's
bank qualification for other bonds the City may need to sell for projects this year, and the issue of real
estate taxes or a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreement. The first two items do not appear to be
major areas of concern, however, the taxability issue generated some interesting discussion, and the
City Manager will be discussing this issue further with the City Council. Hennepin County currently has a
market valuation of $11,000,000 on the apartments, which would result in a tax payment to the City of
approximately $55,000 per year.
The action before the Council is to call for and schedule the public hearing on this request for the March
13 City Council meeting, at which time the request will be discussed in more detail. The petitioner has
completed the appropriate City application form and submitted the appropriate fees. The application and ...
documents have been reviewed by the City' Attorney and Bond Counsel for the City.
A'R'ACHMENTS
· Resolution Calling for Public Hearing
· Public Hearing Notice
· Draft Housing Program
· Draft Joint Powers Agreement
· St. Therese Application (Auditor's Report available at City Hall)
· Proposed Financing
· 2/4 City Attomey Correspondence
· Bond Counsel Correspondence
Orlgmatw.~ Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development EDA
Kirk McDonald // / 2-14-00 Item No.
BYi& Phil Kern ~// 4
MOTION APPROVING PROPOSAL IN/ THE AMOUNT OF $12,300 WITH NORTHERN
ENVIRONMENTAL TO PREPARE REVISED RESPONSE ACTION PLAN AND DTED
CONTAMINATION CLEANUP GRANT FOR 7500-7528 42ND AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 665)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting that the EDA approve a motion authorizing Northern Environmental to prepare a
revised Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and assist with the preparation of a DTED Contamination Cleanu 3
Grant for the City-owned properties at 7500-7528 42"d Avenue.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
In the past, the Council has authorized staff to work with Northern Environmental as the environmental
consultant with the contaminated properties at 7500-7528 Quebec Avenue. Northern Environmental has
~rovided consulting assistance with the demolition of all three buildings at this site and completed soil
testing for the City and Electronic Industries.
BACKGROUND
The City has acquired three properties at 7500, 7516, and 7528 42''~ Avenue for commercial
redevelopment due to groundwater contamination caused by Electronic Industries, the former owner of
7516 42nd Avenue. In August 1999, the City acquired the third parcel at 7500 42nd Avenue and
demolition was completed at this property in December. It is staff's recommendation that clean up on the
site be expedited to facilitate redevelopment. Staff is working to prepare an application for the DTED
Contamination Cleanup Program to cover the costs associated with site cleanup.
This motion will allow staff to use the consulting services of Northern Environmental to complete a
revised Remedial Action Plan with the MPCA for the site cleanup in order to submit the grant application.
When the contamination on site was discovered in 1983, the MPCA entered into discussions with
Electronic Industries, the property owner responsible for contamination, on a method of cleanup. (cont'd.)
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
RFA-O01 ~
Request for Action Page 2 2-14-00
The process to remove contaminants from polluted sites involves a RAP to be agreed upon between the
MPCA and the party responsible for the pollution. In 1984, the MPCA and Electronic Industries agreed
to a RAP for remediation of the site contaminants. This plan involved removal of the soil and
groundwater pollution by a soil vapor extraction (SVE) remediation system. This system extracts the
pollutants from the soil and groundwater by exposing them to air, then filtering the pollutants at
groundlevel. It is a long-term solution that requires the above-ground site equipment to be in
place on the site for approximately 20-30 years. Doug Bergstrom from Northern Environmental
described this process as ~removing the water from a swimming pool with an eye dropper."
In order to expedite the soil and groundwater cleanup process, staff is recommending that the City work
with the MPCA and Electronic Industries to develop a new RAP. Staff recommends that the site be
excavated to remove the contaminants and polluted soils and filled to allow redevelopment. Since
the MPCA and Electronic Industries already have an approved plan in place, the City will need to show
both parties that it is beneficial to develop a new plan for removing the site contaminants. In staff
meetings, the MPCA has indicated that it would recommend a new plan and Electronic Industries also
was interested in eliminating its obligation to the site by revising the RAP. Electronic Industries is
currently paying the operating costs for the SVE system, which will be operating for at least another 20
years. It is expected that Electronic Industries will contribute to the costs of site cleanup not covered by
grant proceeds if received. ..
DTED funding is available for projects of this nature and the City has completed the necessary steps to
date to request funding. In July 1999, the Council authorized staff to proceed with Phase I and II
environmental assessments of the contamination, which were completed by Northern Environmental in
September. In January 2000, the EDA authorized staff to solicit development proposals for the site.
Proposals are due by February 25, and staff will present the proposals to the EDA in March. DTED has
advised that all proposals with developments ready to proceed will receive first pdodty in the funding
cycle. The last major portion of the DTED grant requirements is the development of a RAP and approval
from the MPCA.
Staff is recommending that the City contract with Northern Environmental for the development of the
RAP and preparation of necessary materials for the grant application.
FUNDING
The proposal of $12,300 from Northern Environmental would be paid with 42"d Avenue TIF funds, to be
reimbursed at a later date from the proceeds of the land sale and/or with grant funds.
ATTACHMENTS
· Northern Environmental proposal
· Site maps of 7500-7528 42~ Avenue
Originating Departm~t ~p~d for ~ ~da ~on
EDA
Communi~ Development ~ It~ No.
14-00
~ Kirk McDonald ~ 5
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PR~PARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION
OF COMMERCIAL PROPER~ AT 5550 WINNET~ AVENUE NORTH IN THE AMOUNT OF
$,308,000 (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 669) ,
REQUES~D ACTION
S~ff recommends ~at the EDA approve a motion dimc~ng s~ff to prepare a pumhase agreement
for the acquisition of ~e commemial prope~ located at 5550 Winnetka Avenue No~ in the amount
of $308,000. Pumuant to the dire~ion of the Ci~ Manager, s~ff and ~e Ci~ Affomey have roached ..
a negotiated pumhase pdce on the Donut Shop, contingent upon approval by ~e EDA.
POLICY~AST PRAC~CE
The Ci~ has acquired commercial propeaies in the past for redevelopment pu~oses and this
pmpe~ is identified in ~e Comprehensive Plan Update for commemial redevelopment.
BACKGROUND
At the October 25, 1999, meeting, the EDA discussed the pm~ Io~ted at 5550 Winnetka
Avenue Noah and s~ff was authogzed to order an appraisal. The ~mmemial pmpe~, Io~ted at
the southeast quadrant of the intemection of Winnetka Avenue and Bass Lake Road, has been
vacant for the past seve~l months. Formerly known as Ed's Donut Shop, the prope~ is located in
an area identified by the Comprehensive Plan for future redevelopment.
BCL Appraisals completed the appraisal and established a fair market value of $280,000, taking into
account the vadous approaches to value. In addition, the value of immovable trade fi~ures in the
building is estimated at $5,600, according to the repoa. In to~l, the repoa s~ted a value of
$285,600, including the immovable trade fixtures. The prope~ is located in a B-2, Retail Business,
Zoning DistHct. The pmpe~ contains 20.700 square feet (.47 acres), and the 1,300 square foot,
one sto~ mason~ structure on the site was constructed in 1975.
At the Janua~ 10 EDA meeting, staff presented the appraisal to the EDA and requested
authod~tion to nego~ate for ~e acquisition of the prope~, which the EDA authorized. At that time,
staff repoaed that the pmpe~ was cuxently owned by Kiva New Hope Co~omtion and the cu~ent
asking pdce for the pmpe~ was $450,000. The prope~ ownem s~te this value bemuse of the
previous lease agreement held on the prope~ (with a renal amount of $3,200/month). However, a
copy of the lease that would suppoa this statement was requested and not provided to validate the
asking price. The 1999 value for ~x pu~oses of the prope~ is $160,000 ($126,000 land/$~,000
M~ON ~ ~ ~~ ~
~: ....
Request for Action Page 2 2-14-00 .
building). Staff indicated that due to the large disparity between the property owner's asking price
and the appraised value; staff was not ovedy optimistic the City will be successful in negotiations.
However, staff indicated we would like the opportunity to meet with the property owner, present the
recent appraisal, and determine if negotiations can proceed. Staff feels the subject is a key piece of
property for future redevelopment of the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka area, as identified in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan outlines an aggressive strategy for enhancing the commercial
character along Bass Lake Road. Recommendations include:
· Expand the commercial land use patterns along Bass Lake Road to increase the land area for
commercial redevelopment.
· Assemble and redevelop smaller commercial sites to create longer commercial lots for
contemporary retail, service, and office uses.
Pursuant to the direction of the EDA, staff pursued negotiations and presented.the owners with an
offer of $280,000. The owners counter-offered with $336,000, which was substantial drop in their
original asking pdce. The counter offer is outlined in the attached e-mail to the City. Per the attached
City Attorney's correspondence, staff and the City Attorney were subsequently authorized by the
City Manager to increase the City's offer to $300,000. In a phone conversation with the property
owners on January 28, they offered to split the difference with the City and sell the property for
$308,000. Staff indicated that we felt this was a reasonable compromise and would present the offer
to the EDA with a recommendation for approval, but that a Purchase Agreement would not be
prepared until after approval by the EDA. "
Per the City Attorney's correspondence:
· A review of the BCL appraisal indicates this is a somewhat unique property. The appraisal only
included one comparable sale that was similar to this property. This comparable sale was a
BOSA Donut Shop in 1994. The subject property was also a BOSA Donut Shop. This
comparable sale indicates the value of the subject property is approximately $282,000. It was
the sale most heavily relied upon by the appraisal. Unfortunately, a 1994 sale is somewhat stale.
· The owners paid $210,000 for the property in 1988. To ardve at their market value, the property
owners took a simplistic approach and simply applied a 4% appreciation rate to the property
over the last 12 years. By doing this, they arrived at a market value equal to their original
counter-offer proposal of $336,000. The actual rate of market value appreciation of the last 12
years for properties similar to the subject is about 2% according to information received from the
City's appraiser. To facilitate a settlement on market value, we used a 3% appreciation rate,
splitting the difference between the rate used by the property owners and the City's appraiser. A
3% rate of appreciation over the last 12 years establishes a $300,000 market valuation based on
the owner's reported 1998 purchase price of $210.000.
· The City must now consider whether it wishes to accept the owner's current $308,000, or
continue to negotiate for a lesser pnce. One desirable aspect of this property is that it is currently
vacant. Given this situation, a purchase at this time would permit the City to avoid all issues and
costs surrounding relocation benefits to a bus~ness tenant occupying the property. Also, the
property contains business fixtures valued at approximately $5,400 that would be included in the - -
purchase transaction. So far, the value of these fixtures have been ignored in the purchase
discussions.
FUNDING
The property is located in an area where TIF funds can be expended and the initial acquisition and
demolition would be paid for with TIF. The long-term goal would be to acquire other properties in the
area to assemble a larger parcel for commercial redevelopment and then request proposals. Staff
has developed a spreadsheet estimating the cost of acquiring three other adjacent parcels in the
area, demolishing the buildings, selling the land for redevelopment, and the projected taxes that
could be generated. If the EDA proceeds with this acquisition, staff would recommend that the next
Request for Action Page 3 2-14-00
property pursued be the 20/20 Eye Care located at 7809 Bass Lake Road. The acquisition/
redevelopment costs could also be supplemented by a variety of grant applications. The concept ~-"
plans prepared for the redevelopment of this area identify commercial redevelopment at this
· intersection.
A'Fi'ACHMENTS
· 1/12 City Correspondence
· 1/18 Owner's E-mail
· 1/27 City Attorney Correspondence
· 2/4 City Attorney Correspondence
· Maps/Site Data/Comprehensive Plan Information and Concepts Appraisal
Memorandum
T= Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
~ Phil Kern, Administrative Assistant
Da~ January 31, 2000
Subja=l: Donut Shop - Winnetka/Bass Lake Road Commercial Redevelopment
Per your request, attached is information about the Donut Shop and its adjacent
properties at the intersection of Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue.
In summary, here is a brief table of the information attached
Size of Parcel Current Zoning Market Value
5550 Winnetka 20.281 sf B-2 $160,000
5540 Winnetka 13,500 sf R-1 $95,000 ...~
7809 Bass Lake Road 15,400 sf B-2 $110,000
7801 Bass Lake Road 14,700 sf B-2 $199,000
The properties are all eligible for expenditure of TIF funds. The area is identified in the
Comprehensive Plan as a commercial redevelopment target. In 1999, the City
completed a planning study on a larger area of Winnetka and Bass Lake Road that
highlighted these parcels for commercial redevelopment.
If you need any further information on these properties, please let me know.
Attachments:
· Maps of the area
· Redevelopment spreadsheet
· TIF Map
· Redevelopment Study as completed by NAC
· Comp. Plan references
t 5550 Winnetka
20,281 SF
(~9)
- - (82)
7809 7801i ~81)
BLR BLR
: 14,700 B ~3)
~ 5540 Winnetka
, (ZZ)
13,500 SF
(
~ ........ ~---~ ...................................
- (e~)
,: .... ~ t~> ~
0 m OB> ~'
~. . :' :.'. ~ '. '
,.....~
I
qEDEYEI. OPM, NT L ~
!
SSTH AVF.
EDA ,
II I
RF., UEST FOR ACTION
'Or~mattng Depsu ~ ~~d for ~ ~da ~on
Comm~i~ Development .
2-1~ Itm No.
~irk_ McDonald ~ 6
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN APP~ISAL OF 8113 BASS ~KE ROAD
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 677)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is requesting approval of a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal of the fou~lex Io~ted at
8113 Bass Lake Road. S~ff recently received the enclosed ~ffesponden~ from the owner indicting
an interest in selling the building to the Ci~.
POLICWPAST P~CTICE
IN 1993, the EDA established a loan program directed at maintaining multi-family rental housing and
also has considered the pumhase/demolition/redevelopment of targeted multi-family pmpe~ies in the
Ci~, such as Regent Apa~ments. The new Comprehensive Plan update identifies this pmpe~ as a
potential redevelopment site.
BACKGROUND
In May 1999, the Ci~ received correspondence from the new owner of this pmpe~ requesting
consideration of financial assistance to make improvements to the prope~, including new roof
windows, exterior doors, drain tile, parking area and landscaping. The pmpe~ has no garages and was
previously owned by David Espeland. The EDA responded that they did not know if the financial
investment in the pmpe~ would be wo~hwhile and to inquire if the owner would be interested in selling
the pmpe~, and staff conveyed that response to the owner in coffespondence.
Staff has now received new ~rrespondence from the owner stating that he is interested in selling the
prope~y, with a proposed sale price of $185,000. If the Ci~ is not interested, the le~er states, the owner
will sell the building outright.
(cont'd.)
Request for Action Page 2 2-14-00
The building was constructed in '1958 and has a market value of $136,000 (land $26,000/building
$110,000). There is a twin fourplex building located adjacent to this building (8109 Bass Lake Road) that
is under separate ownership. Both properties are located on the south side of Bass Lake Road, just west
of Lyndale Garden Center, and have a shared access off of Bass Lake Road. These properties have
been designated in the Comprehensive Plan for either redevelopment or substantial rehabilitation.
Estimated cost of the appraisal is $450 and once completed, staff would bring the completed appraisal
back to the EDA for direction.
FUNDING
The property is currently not located in an area where TIF funds can be expended, therefore, EDA or
CDBG funds would be used to pay for the cost of the appraisal.
A'I-rACHMENTS
1/27/00 Correspondence from Owner
5/12/99 City Correspondence
· 5/10/99 EDA Minutes
· 4/24/99 Correspondence from Owner
· Map/Comprehensive Plan Information
il~ ; ".'i : ~ '.-~ ~='-~4.~-~''' ~g ~ / '.~1~. ~.~
' -~ ._ ~ ~, .- ~ ., ~ I ~ ~ ~ u ........ ~ ..........
"%-. H~'~,,. · ..~~ N ................ . .... .._
-.....: .... ~ ~.-. ~ ~ ~. .,,..
~"'-'.~ ..... -~ ~,,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~, ~ ~ a, i?~-' ~ ..... ,~;""
~ ~ ~ , ; L~ - i , ' ' ~ ~ ' , ~---~ -- ~ :~'
x '~ c~" ' ...... . I' ~i --: ....... ~' :o~.
I'~k~ '; ! ..... -!~ !i '."
~;:.:::!~ ,. , . .... ~ :'....__..
~"~? VlL~GE GREEN !~ : ~ ~~'
~' "'~ ';' ST. THERESE
"'"'"~'~ NURSING
~ ,/ = ~ ~m;
HOME
. · : ~
._..~,~. ~
~~ ~ .......... ; .......... :~'-'-' L{O ~*.- .........
( ..... ~.
~ ~ ........ ~ .
~ "~
~ { MIS , : / -.. . : ,
............ ~ ~ ~11 . - ~... -..; ~_ ·
f ' : ~ ~ i
· ---
)STERMAN : '
.' HIGHSCHOOL i ~ ~ i ~ ~.
I
Community Perspectives
· The industrial park is nearly fully developed. Future industrial growth will consist
of in-place expansion and site redevelopment.
· The appearance of outdoor storage areas within the industrial park is an issue.
· Intersection at 49th and Boone is in need of improvement to accommodate the
turning radius of semi-trucks and trailers.
District 6
District 6 contains a variety of housing types from single family to very high density. For
the most part, the high density housing in District 6 is very well maintained. Issues related
to District 6 include:
District 6 Issues
cFoOUr-plexes along Bass Lake Road are in bad condition. These sites should be~'''''',,
nsidered for redevelopment. ~
· Single family homes around Begin Park are on small lots and are in poor condition.
City staff has identified this area as a redevelopment area.
City of New Hope Cornprehen~ive Plan Update
Planning TacOcs
30
Goal 3: Promote multiple family housing altematives as an attrac~i~'e life cycle
housing option. '"~'
Policies:
A. Redevelop substandard multiple family properties that display deteriorated building
conditions, no site amenities, poor site design, or incompatible land use patterns j
when it is judged not economically feasible to correct the deficiencies.
B. Adhere to the highest community design and construction standards for new
construction and redevelopment projects.
C.~pany medium and high density development with adequate accesso~ ..... -.,,
// amenities such as garages, parking, open space, landscaping, and recreational
~,........f..facilities to insure a safe, functional, and desirable living environment. ~
D. Consider mixed land uses as an alternative land use option in planning and
redevelopment of obsolete commercial or industrial sites.
E. Encourage neighborliness through block clubs, block parties or neighborhood
associations.
COMMERCIAL GOALS
Goal 1: Maintain and improve New Hope's commercial areas as vital retail and
service locations.
Policies:
A. Work with local business people to gain an understanding of the changing needs
of the business environment.
B. Promote a full and broad range of office, service, retailing, and entertainment uses
within the commercial areas of New Hope.
C. Attract new businesses to New Hope that are complementary to existing businesses
and will contribute to the customer attraction and business interchange of the local
commercial areas.
D. Promote the redevelopment and expansion of existing businesses within the City
to obtiain a higher level of sales and business attraction.
5
B. Aggressively continue housing redevelopment programs throughout the City.
C. Encourage the private redevelopment of substandard, obsolete or blighted
properties. Public assistance may be applicable where the redevelopment is
consistent with the goals of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan and within the
financial capabilities of the:City.
D./~~nvestigate opportunities for redevelopment or renewal of deteriorating
mu~
_ family sites. ~
E. · Redevelop select, commercial/industrial properties which display deteriorated
building conditions, obsolete site design, incompatible land use arrangements and
high vacancy levels.
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.
FOR ACTION.
Originating DepOt Approved for Agenda .~genda Section
Community Development Consent
2/~ Item No.
l~'Kirk McDonald By: 6.14
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF. TO NEGOTIATE WITH PROPERTY OWNER FOR POTENTIAL
ACQUISITION OF 7603 BASS LAKE ROAD (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 651)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting that the City Council approve a motion authorizing staff to negotiate with the property ....
owners of 7603 Bass Lake Road for potential acquisition of the site through the City's scattered site
housing program.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
The City Council has authorized negotiations in the past on other properties in the area on a scattered
site, voluntary basis and has acquired several properties, demolished and land banked for future
redevelopment purposes.
BACKGROUND
In November 1998, the City received correspondence from the owner of the single-family dwelling at
7603 Bass Lake Road stating that they "are ready to initiate negotiations in regard to the sale of their
property to the City of New Hope." The property is located on the "Bass Lake Road extension" behind
the Alano building, and the City has previously acquired the property west of and adjacent to this site
and demolished the single-family home. The City has also acquired several other single-family
properties in the area along Sumter Avenue. The City Council has indicated an interest in acquiring
other scattered site properties in that area and land banking them for future redevelopment purposes.
At the November 23, 1998, Council meeting, the Council authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the
property. An appraisal was completed and presented to the Council on December 28, 1998. The
appraisal estimated the fair market value of the home at that time at $74,000. The 1998 assessed value
of the property at that time, per Hennepin County, was $63,000 ($21,500 land/S41,500 building). At that
time, the Council authorized staff to negotiate with the property owner. Staff met with the property owner ' --
early in 1999, however, the property owner indicated that they were not ready to sell at that time. Staff
indicated that was fine and asked the property owner to contact the City in the future if they were
interested in selling.
MOTION BY ,, ,
TO:
Request for Action Page 2 2-28-00
£
I nuary this year, staff was contacted by a realtor representing the property owner who indicated they
would be placing the property on the market for sale. lhe realtor indicated that the property owner was
willing to work with the City. but wanted more than $7'4,000 for the property and felt the property was
worth $90,000. Per the City Manager's approval, staff agreed to have the appraisal updated and
communicated this to the property owner. The appraisal update has been completed and the
updated market value is $90,000. If the City is agreeable to paying the appraised value, it appears that
the purchase of the property can be accomplished. This is a key piece of property for redevelopment to
proceed in this area, and the area is identified for redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan.
FUNDING
The property is located in an area where TIF funds can be expended and that would be the funding
source for this acquisition/demolition. Proceeds of the sale of the property for redevelopment will
reimburse the TIF pool in the future. This would be a voluntary sale and no relocation benefits would be
paid.
ATI'ACHMENTS
Site Map
2/9/2000 Updated Appraisal
· 12/15/98 Odginal Appraisal
REQUEST FOR ACTION _
~.~enda Section
Originating Deparlznez~t
Communi~ Development ~// ~ Consent
~/~ 2-2~ - It=No.
Susan Hen~ 00 6.
~Communi~ Development S~ci~!ist
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE TO PURCHASE THE PROPER~ AT 48~ F~G
AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ~78)
REQUES~D ACTION
Staff is requesting a "motion authod~ng staff to negotiate on the basis of the recently ~mpleted'
appraisal for the a~uisition of the prope~ Io~ted at 48~ Flag Avenue No~h.
POLICY/PAST P~CTICE
Once s~ff m~ives wfiffen ~mmuni~fion from a ~lling seller, an appraisal is o~emd to dete~Jne the
currant market value. The appraisal be~mes the basis for negotiating a potential pumhase, pending
Council direction on a~uisition.
BACKGROUND
Over the past yearn, the Ci~ has received numerous inquiries about this pmpe~, which is not
developable in its cu~ent ~ndition bemuse of deep poor soil ~nditions. Within the last several yearn,
several inquiries have been made about moving old houses or manufactured/mobile homes onto the
site. Staff is concerned that the Ci~ may end up with an undesirable building on the site if the prope~
continues to be privately ma~eted and recommends that the Ci~ a~uim ~e pmpe~ to insure that a
quality development take place on this highly visible parcel of prope~.
On Janua~ 10, 2000, the Coundl gave staff authorization to pumue the acquisition of 4864 Flag Avenue
No~h through obtaining an appraisal of the prope~. Gdffith Appraisals ~mpleted the appraisal recently
and estimates the fair market value of the prope~ to be $16,000. The appraised value seems fair, given
the City paid a similar price ($17,500 ~ 9,500 square feet) for the lot at 8808 41s~ Avenue No~h earlier
this year which also needed piling wo~ estimated at $20,000. In May, the lot at 8808 41~ Avenue No~h
will be conveyed to Habitat for HumaniW for a new single family home.
The lot at 4864 Flag Avenue No~h measures 11,250 square feet and is zoned single family. The
prope~ is suffounded by single family to the east, west, and south; industrial and pa~ prope~ is
situated to ~e no~h. Soil boring tes~ have dete~ined that pilings would ~ necessa~ to develop the
lot. The Building Offidal has estimated the pilings to ~st approximately $20,000, depending on the new
home's footprint.
(~nt'd.)
, ,
I ~A~I
Request for Action Page 2 2-28-00
Staff believes this is an ideal site for a new construction housing development. There are several way
the City can develop this lot: (1) There are city dollars available through the Northwest Community
Revitalization Corporation (six-city CHDO). (2) The City also has development dollars available to work
with the Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMMHC); (3) The City could work with
Habitat for Humanity once again, like on the lot at 8808 41= Avenue North; and (4) the City could
prepare the lot for development and put out a Request for Proposals for a new home. If staff is
successful with negotiating a purchase and the lot is successfully acquired, then the actual development
process can be discussed including the pros and cons of each development scenario.
FUNDING
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and six-city CHDO funds are available to use on the
subject property for the acquisition and other site preparation measures. Also, there are Greater
Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing (GMMHC) funds available for new construction.
ATi'ACHMENTS
· Map
· Griffith Appraisal Report
· Letter from Property Owner
. "'"- ~ N'" / NEW HOPE
~- "~ .................... ~ :. X" · / ATHLETIC
~ ', "x ~ ~ ~ ~~ I FIELD
............................ ............. , .... ............ , ................ .
.... ~ ~ /:: .... ..i ........ : ~ ...... ~ ...... ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ..........
/ . I~. ~: ~ ,~-"~'-~' ~:~ ~ ,
.. ~, ~ ~[ ....... ~..-::~---~ ..... . ...
~ · ~ , · ' .. . '.~ · ...
,' ' -: ......... 1 ; I , : · '
,. .- .. ~ ........... . ~1 ~ /-.~ ... . .
~ / ..' /-", '.,-- ', · : , ........ ~ ,'~7: . ~:~
/ ..'
~ / ~+,,:.. -~,%~--.. .., ~,,. , ...... ~ ~ .... ~ .... ~ ~_,~,',",'.., ,,
~ / ~~....~ :Z- .-,. . ,..:=~.~ ~ ~ ~.,... ~..~,~ ,. ,,.
..~,..,~ "...~'. "r-- ..~ ~ : ~- ~ · ~ ~ -..,-" ,.
.~4 "~.,.- ~ ~,. ~ ~,~ ~[,[: ~-.. ..-.
.... '~ .~' '~4~ ...... " · '" '~-- '~ ~ ............... ~ ....... . ........ ' --'"
:~ .-~" '.47M. ......:- 4~-:.:-4~: ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ =; ~,~'~,~ ..
/ ~' : ~ ', ~' , : ; .~ ~ . : ~ [ ~,i~ . ~ : · ~ ..."
~ . ~ ~ ~_ ,-~· ... .... . .. .... . ...... ~ ~ ~, , : ~:~ = .,:>,.--
.,' ' ,'~.-"~:.-'-4~,'. ,n,: ,, -, : ~.-',-'_.
. ~ ~ .- ~ , ~ . : ~ ~ ~ ...... ~ ......... = .... ~ ......... : . ~ ~ ~
", :$~ , _..~ ~' ~ t ~ ' ; ~ --~ m- ~ ~: w~ m, ~ ._ ,-'.'
~,. / ..-~ ; · , 4~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ 4~1 i
,.-~..~ , ~ ~ , : , 471~2 A~ N .-
.. · ~ = .--.. -.- , ........... =-- : 4~
,,~ : ~ ~ / ~ ~ --- . ~: [~ :~ ~.--
RF UEST FOR ACTK N
Ongmatmg Department ~p~ for ~ ~mda ~on
Communi~ Development ~ Consent
, lt~ No.
Susan Hen~ ' '
~ommun~ Development S~ialist ~ 6,16
ESOLUT ON APPEOV N PURCHASE OF 003 WEST 0MPROVEMENT PROJECT
REQUESTED ACTION
S~ff mques~ Council approval of the enclosed resolution appro~ng the purchase of 6003 West
Broadway from B~an and Michelle Lee in the amount of $91,500 for ~e Ci~'s s~emd site housing
pmgmm.
POLICWPAST P~CTICE
In the past, the Council has authorized the purchase of several single family homes in the West
Broadway ama on a s~Eemd site basis for rehabilitation or demolition/new construction pu~oses. This
ama has previously been designated by the Council for redevelopment and is designated as such in the
Comprehensive Plan. This pa~icular prope~ has had a histo~ of ~de violations.
BACKGROUND
On December 13, 1999, Council authorized staff to negotiate the pur~ase of the pmpe~ at 6003 West
Broadway on the basis of an appraised value of $97,000. Subsequent to that meeting, several ermm
were found in the appraisal by staff and the appraisal was revised to $92,000. The 1999 valuation for tax
purposes is $79,000. In Janua~, staff and the prope~ ownem, Michelle and B~an Lee, entered into
discussions with this info~ation. After some time, a purchase pd~ of $91,500 has been negotiated,
which is slightly under the appraised value. The purchase agreement before you is contingent upon your
approval. If approved, the closing will take place on March 3. The remaining Purchase Agreement te~s
are standard for pmpe~ies of this ~pe.
Ci~ staff has identified the subject prope~y as a ~ndidate for purchase by the Ci~ for rehabilitation, or
most likely, replacement with new ~nstruction. The prope~, with a histo~ of zoning and ~e issues, is
situated along the busy West Broadway directly adjacent to single family homes to the no~h and
condominiums to the east. There are drainage issues in the condominium development which ~n be
resolved if the Ci~ a~uires the prope~ at 6003 West Broadway (see a~ched).
(~nt'd.)
MOTION BY SF, COND ~
I I I /~F'A-OOI
Request for Action Page 2 2-28-00
;-C~IDING
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and five-city CHDO funds are available for the acquisition
and other site preparation measures. For new construction, the City can use the proceeds from the sade
of the home to finance hard construction costs.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Purchase Agreement
· Map
· Hidden Park Condo Correspondence/Maps
DATE: Jul3' 9, 1999
TO: Dou9 SancLsC&d
~anm~a l~cbels,
Htctden ~a~k Con~'ut C~dne~S Assn.
' j~: 60~ ~c2:eeC
o~ ~e ~e~, ~ as 60u Steer.
~e p~X~ ~ 60~ sc~e~ ~s ~ ~s near had a~:~a~ ~a~ge "'"
~ has card a ~cAecy o~ p~lm ~o~ aX1 pcao~ ~ing the
~e ~Cy o~ Hew Hope ~-- s~o~ s~s ~ o~. p~e~z, ~t ~ hope
~c ~e ~cy ~ assist u ~n ~Ao ~=o~C p~oJa~c ~ andy
~ost(~e. ~ ~ hop~ ~c ~e 4~ov~ ~ ~e S~C and
sew=s ~ ~e ~ee=~ ~d approval ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~rk in ~he
Sp=~ or S~ of 2000. I m as~n~ ~e C~ =o dssi~ ~d plan
p~o~ and ms.~o ~ ac~z~ngly. I ~k ~f a ~9e plan ~d be
~eaC~ so ~ ~ su~fa~ wace~ is ~~ ~ ~e s~o~ ~a~ns,
~ ~a:~ ~s rode n~zoua ~~nta Co ~e p==pe~y M=
5 ~ars. N~ ~=e ~a~ lyi~, =o0~8, ga=igc doors, bo~lu
I ~n~ion ~e ~ ~m co show ~C ~ have ~Za~od m g=ea~ deal
~o~Mn~8 ~d ~ tony ~ze ~~. I~ ~e C~t~ has ~e ~Cy co
essess o~ h~ezj o~z a 5-~0 Feaz pez~od, ~ ~'~d be ~ ~ze
551-9110 ~f ~U ~ any ~esttona. I look ~o~a~ :o hear~g ~
RF UI T FOR ACTION
'--~'---'---'~-"~~-'- Approved for ~ ~da
Communi~ Development Consent
It~ No.
Susan Hea~ 2-2~00
MOT[ON AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN ~P~]S~ OF 41~9/4181 JOR~ AVENUE NORTH
R~UUb~ I :U AG I ION
Staff re~mmends approval of the motion authorizing s~ff to obtain an appraisal of ~e prope~ lo.ted
at 4179/4181 Jordan Avenue No~h.
POLICWPAST P~C~CE
When staff Io~tes a pmpe~ that is in need of rehabilitation and/or an oppo~uni~ for inte~ention/
purchase, it is brought to the Council's a~ention for the Ci~'s s~ffemd site housing program.
BACKGROUND
The Ci~ has received the a~ached le~er from Steve Tha$, who o~s ~e 'zero lot line' duplex at
4179/4181 Jordan Avenue Noah. That's communi~tion states '1 would like the Ci~ of New Hope to
consider purchasing these prope~ies under your Communi~ Development program. If you have an
interest, please feel free to ~11..." Staff has already indicted to Mr. Tha~ that this will be a volun~
sale and no relo~tion ~nefits will be paid.
The prope~, situat~ at the intersection of Jordan and Ge~sburg Avenues, is in need of rehabilitation,
according to New Hope's General Ins~ctor Chuck Tatro. In a leffer dated November 24, 1999, Tatm
refers to e~erior maintenance n~ded, including roof, windows, siding, and doom (see le~er and photos
a~ached). Ci~ staff has not yet reviewed the interior of the pmpe~.
The lots measure approximately 13,000 square feet. For tax pu~oses, the 1999 estimated valuation of
the prope~ is $;170,000.
Staff believes this pmpe~ has ex~llent potential for the CiW's s~ered site housing program. If
acquired, the duplex ~uld be mhabili~ted by the Ci~ and sold to flint-time home buyem.
The pmpe~ also has ex~llent potential for the possible Io~tion of a new ~ reader board sign on the
rear of the prope~, which abuts 42~ Avenue just east of Highway 169. (conrd.)
M~ON~ , ~O~ , ,
II II
~DING
~nmunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) and CHDO funds are cun'ently available for a city
scattered site rehabilitation housing project. The appraisal will be paid for with CDBG funds. The
estimated cost of the appraisal is $400. The City is in need of several rehabilitation projects to expend
CDBG funds in a timely manner.
ATTACHMENTS
· Map
· Letter from Property Owner
· Survey
· Photos
· Reader Board Sign Location Map
· Correspondence from General Inspector
~-----"""'- ~ - *""""~ -44~ ' ~ ..... :""" '"~'44~ ' ..... : --. ~..., · 4~ '" .W.
. ~ :~ % - . ... ~ ~ .- ~..-~- ~ ~ ~ ; -.
", : · - ~ ~ ·: ...... M '-;
'"'.. CRYSTALFREE CHURCH ~ }~ ~~ :, ,,7; ~-
... ; :. ~ ....~i~;h
· .. . ~ ~ .......... ~ ~'-
:~' ~ ' 4~'
· ,,. ' , .._,.' '..
,~--~:~~ :'- . :
;
[ ; . __ -.~- . '- ........ j ...... : ..... %- ...~-.~ ...
' ~' ~q~ - ~ ; t ' * · · ;~ ' ; ' ' ' '
· ' __:~. /_',~.~t ~~ ~' '-' '~ N ~ ..... ~ * ' ' ~' * ~ ' ' ' '~'*
, - .~.-- AV~ · , . ,
= '..,,. '--. , ·
I
· ;~...~ ~.; ~ . ~ . . , · . ~ · ,
/ .... ;' .... :~," ~-'~'-~ ~' L · ' ......... · r'' ' · , .' '"
..~'" .~., . ' '.-,.0_, -~ -~ -', . .. . : ....... ,' .... ~ ~ .......... Z = .... '
~ b&'~ . .. ~ .' ~v . ~ . : , = ·
· .~ ..~ -" ... . b~ ......... ~ ,~ ' . ;
~ . - . .- ~. - . . ..... ~ . ~ ........ ~ ...... g . . .'
· _. ..-_.- ...'~ .~&~ .. -....~ . ·~$ ~ ..... . ... ~ ........ . ~ ......
/ --'.~:~ ", ? ~" L~~- ~ '~:~ ' ~ ' ' ..... '~'~ ...... ,'' ~ t '-- ....
,..:~ '.__. ~' · ,.' -' -' ~~; V"W ' ~ · l~'
/ ', ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ................. ~. _; ~ ~. ..-- ....... ;~: ...... ; .... ,~: .......
""-.~/', '"~' ~ ...... · ................ ~'. ~ :~ ~ ' :Z'~
/ '" .. " ..-~'" ~ _,~' ~ ' ........................... ~ ,:~, ....... ,' ............ ~ , I' ......~ ~'- .....
, ...._~., . ~ , .__ .~, ~, ~. ,
, , ., ,~. ~ , . . ~~, } ...... ~ ~ .............. : ....
~ ~ . ~~ ~ .~ ....... ~ . ; . . ~ ~ : '-'
, .. ~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~ · . · ~ ,~; ~.~. ~ · . , ·
~ M~ ~. ~ ' '. ~ ': -'"' : ''. ~". , ~,'"~ ...... ~ ~ ........ ~' - ~ , .......
~' ~ ;. "_...-~? ~.~'~ ~ ~ .'B, _~'~, '-..'~ .... n ~-'~ ....: ~ --
FOR: '11
Loc,,+,-,,: j.,.,/.,, Ay,. ~. , N,,., /-lop-. e,la.
co. lt. fO .-
A ·
"
,). ,/ _. ,..,..,..
· . p (~/
C 37.83 o~.
·. R. 14.5. ~ /
~ I hereby ~r~ify ~t this is a true ,nd ~e~ repre~n~a~ion of a survey of
~ ~ ~E~ILA-HANBEN, lng. I t~ ~undari~of the a~ve de~i~d land and of the lo~tion of all buildings.
~ ~ En~in~,. $u~y~;. $itl PI~ J ii any. thereon, and all visible enrichments, if any. Iiom or on ,id land.
ooklyn ~ntlr, MN 5~30 Minnemn~, MN
~b NO.
Possible location of
city reader board sign
RF UEST FOR ACTION
Or~~ Department Approved for A~enda A~enda Secuon
p Public Headng
Community Development -28-00 Item No.
Kirk McDonald
~ and Phil Kern By: 7.1
PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION APPRO(/ING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 2000 URBAN
HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING
SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY
AGREEMENTS
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting that the City Council al~prove the proposed use of funds for the 2000 Urban Henne :)in
CoUnty Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and authorize the signature of the
subrecipient agreement with Hennepin County and any third party agreements.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
The Federal CDBG Program requires that municipalities hold a public headng on the projected use of
funding. The City must formally request that its funding be applied to specific programs. This request is
then forwarded to Hennepin County, where approval is given to the disbursement of funds to each
program.
BACKGROUND
The City has been notified that it will receive $162,344 in 2000 in CDBG funding for use between July 1,
2000 to June 30, 2002. The CDBG funds will be allocated to the qualifying programs proposed by the
City staff and residents and approved by the City Council and Hennepin County. This amount is a $859
decrease from the 1999 CDBG funding of $163,203. The formula for determining the planning allocation
is based upon population, incomes at or below poverty level, and overcrowded housing units.
The following County housing and community development priorities are to serve as a guide when
considering the use of CDBG funds to address local needs. The County will consider the relationship of
proposed projects to the County priorities in their evaluation of projects for CDBG funding. The priorities
include:
MOTION BY.,
SECOND BY
TO:
RFA-001
Request for Action Page 2 2-28-00-.
Housing
Rental and Supportive Housing - planning, site acquisition, related infrastructure for development of new
units and rehabilitation of existing units for Iow income households (less than 50% of median income).
Home ownership - planning, site acquisition, related infrastructure, down payment assistance for Iow
income first-time home buyers and rehabilitation of existing units occupied by Iow income households.
Community Development
Neighborhood redevelopment/revitalization, senior centers, removal of architectural barriers/ADA
compliance, lead-based paint abatement, and planning activities to address housing and community
revitalization needs.
Public Services
Services to senior citizens, disabled persons and youth; child care assistance and transportation
services.
No more than three activities can be undertaken in one community and each activity should have a
budget of at least $7,500. When funds are committed jointly with other participants (cities) to carry
out a single activity, these limits do not apply. Communities are strongly encouraged to develop "'
joint initiatives to address mutual needs by consolidating their resources.
Communities may initially'use up to 20% of their CDBG planning allocation to fund public
services. Proposals that exceed 20% will be reduced. Once all proposals have been submitted,
county staff will determine if the 2000 program has exceeded the HUD required 15% cap on
public services. If the 15% cap has been exceeded county-wide, communities budgeting over
15% of their allocation may have to make reductions.
The following activities are the program requests proposed by staff:
Activity Budget
Child Day Care $15,000
Senior Transportation 12,722
Youth Services 3,247
Community Action for Suburban Hennepin 1,500
Micro Business 15,000
Housing and Rehabilitation 60,000
Rental Housing Acquisition 54,875
$162,344
Child Day Care
This is an ongoing joint-city activity that the City has sponsored in previous years. This is the specific
amount requested from the Minneapolis Day Care Association.. This use is considered a public service
activity.
Senior Transportation
This is also an ongoing joint-city activity that the City has sponsored in previous years. This is the
specific amount requested by the Five-Cities Transportation Project. This is also considered a public
service activity.
2-28-00
Request for Action Page 3
~,C°mmunity Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH)
The City received a funding request from CASH in the amount of $1,500 to support homeownership
programs, tenant information and education services. The City has received requests from CASH in the
past and funded the program for the first time in 1999. Recognizing the importance of the services
provided, staff is recommending funding again this year.
Youth Services
This year the City received a request from Family Hope Services for $8,500 to support transportation
and outreach costs for the Tree House program serving at-risk youth and families. This is considered a
joint-city public service activity. Due to the 20% public service funding cap, staff is recommending a
funding level of $3,247. (20% of $162,344 -'- $32,469; $15,000 for Day Care + $12,722 for Senior
Transportation + $1,500 for CASH + $3,247 for Youth Services -- $32,469.) In 1999 the City used the
same basis for funding Treehouse, giving less than requested, based on the 20 percent cap. Funding
for this activity will be conditionally based upon Family Hope Services documentation provided to the City
of clients served.
Micro Business
This is for the third year of funding for the Enterprise Facilitation Program, a pilot project micro business
program with the City of Crystal, the Hennepin County Department of Jobs and Training, and Metro ..~..
HRA. The purpose of the program is to encourage the start-up of new or the expansion of existing
businesses. Hennepin County has approved funding of this program in the past, as it was identified as a
medium priority for the County. In 2000, the County staff is recommending that Micro Business be
reassigned as a Iow pdority for the County, indicating that funding for this program may be denied. The
New Hope City Manager has sent a letter to the County objecting to this priority level ranking change
and requesting reconsideration because the creation, retention, and expansion of businesses are an
important function for redeveloping communities. (This letter is attached for your review.) Staff is
preparing documentation to accompany the request indicating that this program is important to the City
and should receive funding in 2000. If the County does not approve the request, the City will be allowed
to reassign the $15,000 intended for this program. This is considered a joint-city activity.
Housing Rehabilitation
This is an ongoing activity that has been sponsored in previous years. Funds are made available to
assist Iow-income persons in making basic repairs to homes that they own. In 1999, seven households
in New Hope either completed or initiated home improvement projects using this program. There are
currently four households with applications pending or on the waiting list for funding. In the past, this
program has received $30,000, but staff is recommending that this amount be increased to $60,000 in
2000 due to the number of households on the waiting list and the increased interest from homeowners in
rehabilitation projects. This program is a good way to get funds to New Hope residents for
redevelopment without a great deal of staff time. The program is administered by Hennepin County.
Rental Housing Acquisition
Staff is recommending that the Council allocate the remaining funding, $54,875, to the Rental Housing
Acquisition Program. In the past, the City has allocated its largest portion of funding into the Scattered
Site Housing Program. When CDBG funds are used in the Scattered Site Housing Program, the sale
proceeds are recycled back into the CDBG accounts. With the completion of the rehabilitation projects
at 9116 31st Avenue and 5212 Winnetka Avenue in the past two years, the City currently has a balance
of over $275,000 in its Scattered Site Housing program accounts. Staff is concerned that the current
funds need to be expended in a timely manner and want to expend the current funds before adding
additional funds to this program. Therefore, staff is recommending that the funding traditionally reserved
for this program be programmed into Rental Housing Acquisition for the 2000 funding cycle. The funds
Request for Action Page 4 2-28-00
in this program could be used for acquisition with any of the potential multiple-family housing project~
within the City (such as 7610 and 8113 Bass Lake Road).
The Council has the authority to approve the recommendations of staff as to the allocation of 2000
CDBG funding or to reallocate the funds based on public comment or the judgment of the Council. The
programming of funds at this time does set in stone the use of the 2000 CDBG funding. The funds may
be reprogrammed at a later date for different uses at the discretion of the City Council and Hennepin
County. --
· Resolution ___
· CDBG Status and Funding Distribution
· Copy of Public Headng Notice
· Letter from City Manager re: Micro Business
· Hennepin County Memo on the 2000 CDBG Program
2000 CDBG ALLOCATION
TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITIES
1998 CDBG Funding $162,931 1998 Allowed Spending $32,586
1999 CDBG Funding $163,203 1999 Allowed Spending $32,640
2000 CDBG Funding $162,344 2000 Allowed Spending $32,469
1998 1999 2000
Current' Current Proposed
Type Activity Request Funded Balance Request Funded Balance Request Funding
PSA Child Day Care $15,000 $15,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $7,288 $15,000 $15,000
PSA Senior Trans. $12,311 $12,311 $0 $12,753 $12,753 $12,753 $12,722 $12,722
PSA Treehouse $8,500 $5,275 $0 $10,000 $3,387 $3,387 $8,500 $3,247
PSA CASH $4,000 $0 $0 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500
ED Micro Business $15,000 $15,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
HRA Housing and Rehab $30,000 $30,000 $0 $30,000 $30,000 $15,846'* $60,000
HRA Rental Housing Acq. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54,875
HRA Scattered Site $85,345 $85,345 $189,302' $85,563 $85,563 $85,563 $0
TOTALS $162,931 $163,203 $162,344
* Includes proceeds from sales of previous housing projects.
** These funds are all committed to private rehab projects, but have yet to be expended.
[Date]
~ EDA
t FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development Item No.
BYkirk McDonald By:. 2-28-00
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN APPRAISAL OF ELDORADO COURTS APARTMENTS
AT 7701/7721/7741/7761 62ND AVENUE NORTH
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is requesting that the EDA authorize an appraisal of the Eldorado Apartments located at 7701/
7721/7741/7761 62nd Avenue North. Estimated COst of the apPraisal for the four-unit complex by BCL
Appraisals is $3,200.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
In the past, the EDA has authorized the appraisal o7 multi-family apartment complexes that the City may
have an interest in redeveloping. In the last several years, appraisals have been authorized/completed
on three of the fourplexes located just east of this site (which the City acquired and demolished) and on
Regent Apartments. The Eldorado Apartments are located in an area designated for future
redevelopment in the Comprehensive Plan.
BACKGROUND
A realtor has notified City staff that the Eldorado Apartments are for sale and in the process of being
marketed and has inquired if the City has an interest in the property. Staff indicated to the realtor that
this information would be presented to the EDA for discussion and direction. If the EDA has interest in
potentially acquiring the property for redevelopment purposes, staff recommends that the first step
would be to obtain an appraisal of the property.
Eldorado Apartments consist of four seven-unit, split-entry, two-level brick buildings located at 7701,
7721, 7741, and 7761 62nd Avenue North. The property is located in an R-3 Medium Density Residential
Zoning District on the south side of 62'a Avenue. The City has previously acquired three fourplexes east
of this site and demolished the buildings for redevelopment. One fourplex east of the site remains to be _-
3urchased and there have been some discussions in the past with the owner. A six-unit townhome
building is located west of these apartments at the corner of 62n~ and Sumter. The combination of this
site with the City's property would create a much larger and marketable parcel for redevelopment.
MOTION BY . , SECOND BY .....
TO: ....
I I RFA-OO 1 ~
Request for Action Page 2 2-28-00
/ The four buildings were constructed in 1962 and are in average condition, according to the Building
,i~ i~)fficial. No garages are located on the site. Each of the four properties measures 92.5 x 167 feet and
contains approximately 15,500 square feet. In total the parcels contain about 62,000 square feet. The
estimated market value of the property for taxes payable in 2000 is $140,000 per property ($28,000
land/S112,000 building) or a total of $560,000. The realtor has indicated the current asking pdce is
$880,000.
The Comprehensive Plan states that 'the medium density housing located along 62"d Avenue, between
Winnetka Avenue and West Broadway, has been identified as a redevelopment target area. The poor
building and site conditions associated with this medium density use is a negative influence on the Iow
density neighborhood to the south. Aggressive area redevelopment is suggested. Due to the limited site
and configuration of the site, it is recommended that a reduction in density from its present condition be
made. Medium density residential land uses consisting of twin homes or townhomes with attached
garages would be an appropriate option." A map has been prepared by staff identifying development
activities in the 62~ Avenue/West Broadway area over the past seven to eight years.
The realtor marketing the site has also prepared background material on this property and may be in
attendance at the meeting.
If the EDA authorizes the appraisal, staff would have the appraisal completed and then present it to the
Council for further direction and possible negotiation with the owner.
FUNDING
Estimated cost of the appraisal of the site is $3,200 by BCL Appraisals and would be paid for with TIF
funds. Acquisition could also be initially funded with TIF and recouped through the re-sale of the
property.
A'I-rACHMENTS
· Site Maps
· Letter to Realtor/Map of Area Development Improvements
· Comprehensive Plan Information and Maps
· Realtor Information
°°
~?t .0
\
. ~ ~ ~ -~'. /__ ~ .-~' ~1 · ...~
~. ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ % ~.~ ~-'~ ~- ._. ......... -- .....
. ; ........ ~ .... ~. M /~ ~ , .- ~.~~. ~.~ ~. . ......... t--.~
: ~ I "~ '-~ .... "' ~ ....~ t~ ~.~~i ~'~ ~41 ' ~'
I
; ........ ' ~M ~ '~' ~ '~1 ; ~ ~ ....
. ., ~.--~~,~:_.
..... ~ · ~,-_ ....... ~
~ -~,~ ~ ~.-. ~. ~= . ,~ ........ J 7~ , m
. , _ . N ~ .. , . ....
o, I :-: i,,, .~ ...,.~ i · , · ,
0 ~
, . -.___., . , ~. . ~ ; , .
. ~ . ~ } , ~ · ~- .s . . ;~ ·
........ ,, .. , ._ ......, . _
~ .. ,~,. ~ ~,~, ~ .-, , ...~.~ .~. ~, . _
t ..... ~ .~ _ · .... ~. ~ _
· · ~ ---. · ~ · I ' - -..' ~ ~- I .... '~ ~
· I ~ I~ ~v ~ , ~ ~ t ~ ~ : ·
, " ~: '. · '~ , · i~' ·: · ': ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ' :t10~' , I
_ ............. _ -..
; , ~ ~ ~ ~- ...... ~ ~-'
, , · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .....
. -- ~ ~ . - . ~ .
,, ~ ~ ~ · - · ,
.~ ~ I ~ = ~ ..--- ~
' ~ ,'" ' -"~ [~ , ' ........ '
.' I~ ·-"~:.'" <!~~ ; ...... : :-o '
. I-=-', - ' .. ~ , ~ · ;3~ , ~
' : -': ' ~ ~ 0 ~ .... L ............. :
· '' ! ~= o o ; ....... , .... : = I~_~_ ~ ................ :
- o ~ · mO_ · .
.-' I'1~ ~m , . e -- , .... ~ ...... ,
' ':--; ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ; I ,
..:'~'-'.--eI o [ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ........... ......... ~.
~.' ;m, ~ : o : ~6~ : m
~.-.' ;Ii & 0~ ~ t , ............... :..,:
:e: ....... ~': ' '~ ~ ~ ....... ~ ...... ~1 ....
:~i ~ ' : . ' ~ · ' ~ .
:m~-"-~'--~ : N , ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~S~n . ~ ~
--' ~ ' ; ' : · ; '-- i ~ w ~
:-I....~.~_.: ............ ;: : , : ' ~ ?~m ~1 ~"
· ~o~. ~ ~ I 2 ~ - ' ' .................................. *=~.-.--' ............ ~ I ....
;i :: ~m ·.
- - . ~ ~ ~
J , i~; O ~ ~ ~
' "' T~---2; ' ~ I
·
tg~um dens~y housing i.~'fia] issues
Community Perspectives
· Small site, poor site design.
· Building vacancies.
· Land use compatibility issues.
Multiple family land use along 62nd Avenue presents an opportunity for
redevelopment due to the following conditions:
· Poor building conditions and site maintenance.
· No amenities, no garages.
· Outdoor storage problems.
City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning Tacbc$
27
Plannin~
PLANNING DISTRICT 2
District 2 is located in the
northeast portion of New Hope.
It is bordered by Winnetka
Avenue to the west, Brooklyn
Park to the north, and Crystal to
the south and east. Land uses
within this area include single
family residential, medium
density residential, high density
residential and commercial. The
following land use
recommendations are offered for
Distdct 2.
1. Planning District 2 contains older, lower value single family neighborhoods. This
district needs specific attention to maintain and enhance the condition and value
of this Iow density housing stock. The City will continue to enforce its Point of Sale
Housing Maintenance Code, however, more aggressive scattered site
redevelopment is recommended within District 2, as well as larger scale area
redevelopment for deteriorated or under-utilized sites.
2. The Iow density residential area located along 62nd, between West Broadway and
Louisiana Avenue, consists of large deep lots with small single family homes. This
site presents an opportunity to pursue area redevelopment to introduce more
contemporary medium density housing options into District 2.
,he medium density housing located along 62nd Avenue, between Winnetka
Avenue and West Broadway, has been identified as a redevelopment target area.
The poor building and site conditions associated with this medium density use is a
negative influence on the Iow density neighborhood to the south. Aggressive area
redevelopment is suggested. Due to the limited site and configuration of the site,
it is recommended that a reduction in density from its present condition be made.
Medium density residential land uses consisting of twin homes or townhomes with
attached garages would be an appropriate option.
.City of New Hope Coml3rehensive Plan Update
Development Framework
83
EDA I
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Origmattng Department Approved for Agenda Agenda SecUon
- EDA
community Development
2-28-00 Item No,
By:Kirk McDonald By:.
DISCUSSION REGARDING CONCEPT REDEVELOPMENT/REHABILITATION PROJECT AT 7610
BASS LAKE ROAD
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff requests to discuss with the EDA a concept proposal for the redevelopment/rehabilitation of the 11-
unit apartment complex at 7610 Bass Lake Road in conjunction with Project for Pride in Living (PPL), the
Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (NCRC) and a variety of funding agencies. Staff would
like to determine if the EDA has an interest in collaborating with the City of Crystal for a similar project in
that City, whereby the projects in both cities would be submitted to funding agencies for consideration
under a single funding request.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
In the past, the City has participated in similar collaborations, most recently with the Bass Lake Courl
Townhomes Project. As the EDA is aware, projects of this size require a variety of funding partners and
usually require the expertise of an experienced development agency, such as PPL. Housing
redevelopment has been designated as a high pdodty of the City Council and this property is identified in
the Comprehensive Plan for redevelopment or rehabilitation.
BACKGROUND
The Northwest Community Revitalization Corporation (also known as the Community Housing
Development Corporation/CHDO) and PPL have approached the City and inquired about multiple family
properties in need of rehabilitation for a potential collaborative project. Staff has previously identified the
7610 Bass Lake Road property as a high priority. Previous attempts to coordinate a rehabilitation project
with the owners have not been successful and a portion of this project would involve acquisition and
rehabilitation of the property. Representatives from PPL and the NCRC will be present at the meeting to
discuss this concept proposal and the general parameters of the project. The concept of the project has
recently been discussed by the CHDO and the City of Crystal.
(Cont'd.)
MOTION BY ~ SECOND BY .....
TO: ,
Request for Action Page 2 2-28-00
~-' ~ROJECT DESCRIPTION
~-~he following project description has been provided by PPL:
PROPOSAL:
This collaborative project consists of two separate sites: one at 7610 Bass Lake Road in New Hope and
the second at 5111-5211 56~ Avenue North in Crystal. The New Hope site contains an apartment
building which would be renovated. The Crystal site contains four quadraplexes which would be
demolished and replaced by 12 new three and four bedroom townhomes.
DEVELOPERS
The development partners are Project for Pride in Living (PPL) and the Northwest Community
Revitalization Corporation (NCRC).
PPL is a nonprofit community development corporation which has 27 years of experience rehabilitating
and building new housing. PPL has built over 900 units and owns and manages over 500 units in the
Metro Area, including 34 in New Hope. PPL's property management division maintains PPL's long term
commitment to the community, providing professional services and access to support for residents who
need it. PPL also developed and now manages over 50,000 square feet of commercial space and
operates four businesses which provide job training for hard-to-employ adults.
NCRC is a regionally focused nonprofit community development corporation providing affordable
housing for Iow and moderate income residents of the northwest metro area. For the past five years,
NCRC has been developing and providing financing for the redevelopment of over 30 units of scattered
site housing. The corporation represents a unique collaboration of the six cities of Brooklyn Center,
Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Maple Grove, New Hope, and Robbinsdale.
WHAT IS PROPOSED?
In New Hope, the plans entail the renovation of the existing 11-unit apartment building. The building
exterior will be completely renovated, including painting, the repair or replacement of the soffits and
fascia, the provision of a new roof, gutters, and downspouts, and the repair or replacement of the
windows. The landscaping will be improved, the drive expanded and resurfaced, and garages added for
each unit. Interior work will include updating the existing units in their present configuration. At a
minimum, new cabinets and counters, new carpeting, updated electrical, and wall repair and painting will
be provided.
In Crystal, the existing buildings would be demolished and new larger rental townhouse units with
garages would be built. The site would be reconfigured and a connection made to the adjacent park.
All 24 units would have market rate rents varying from $600 to $1000 depending on unit size. The units
would be rented to families earning less than 60% of the area median (e.g. $38,000 for a family of four).
Seven of the units (3 in New Hope, 4 in Crystal) would have rents subsidized for lower income families.
Five of those seven units (2 in New Hope, 3 in Crystal) would be reserved for residents on the
Minneapolis Public Housing waiting list and the other two (and any of the five not filled by people on the
first list) would be used for New Hopeor Crystal residents.
PPL currently has an on-site management office at their other property less than two blocks from the
proposed New Hope site and about a half mile from the Crystal site. A full time site manager lives and is
employed there. All prospective tenants will be carefully screened: each must have a good rental history,
adequate income to afford the rent, and no cdminal background.
Request for Action Page 3 2-28-00
FINANCING
The total cost of this development is approximately $4.6 million. The financing is proposed to be _~
combination of a $1.6 million equity investment, a mortgage and construction financing from the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, investments from the cities of New Hope and Crystal, and other
grants and loans from Hennepin County HOME funds, the Family Housing Fund, and the Metropolitan
Council. The seven affordable units are paid for by the Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program,
which was created to increase the supply of rental housing outside of the central cities. The attached
preliminary Development Proforma shows a $350,000 funding contribution from the New Hope EDA.
TIMELINE
Acquire properties, design new units and rehab work,
secure financing Feb. 2000 - Feb. 2001
Neighborhood, City and Planning Commission review Feb. 2000 - Feb. 2001
Finish purchase of all properties February 2001
Start rehabilitation and construction April 2001
New residents move in December 2001
CURRENT RENTERS
Renters at the time of purchase of the buildings will receive assistance in finding a new place to live and
help with the moving expenses. Tenants wishing to move back into the rehabbed or new units would be
welcome to do so provided they meet PPL's screening requirements. The rehab part of the project may
be able to be phased so as to disrupt only a portion of the tenants in that building.
ADVANTAGES TO THE COMMUNITY
This development will provide reinvestment in the area's aging housing stock by an owner committed to
maintenance and a long term relationship with the community. The improved appearance and stability of
the new and rehabbed units will add to the surrounding area's value and livability.
These units will provide an opportunity for young families or single parents to stay in this community or
become part of it. This development represents the next step in PPL's continued commitment to the
strength and stability of New Hope and Crystal.
A preliminary site plan of both properties is attached.
FUNDING
This property is currently not located in an area where TIF funds can be expended, therefore, EDA funds
would need to be used for the New Hope portion of the project in conjunction with CDBG funds that are
proposed to be programmed for multiple family property rehabilitation.
ATTACHMENTS
· Site Maps
· PPL/NCRC Correspondence
· Narrative Project Description
· Agency Description
· Preliminary Development Proforma
· Site Plans
· Comprehensive Plan Excerpts
L~ .,0
New Hope Site
7610 Bass Lake Road
~:'
~ .....
11 ~
..~
·
CRYSTAL
Crystal Site
New Hope Site 5111-5211 56t' Avenue
7610 Bass Lake Road c
3l~, ~mlfY
~L ~. ~
New Hope ,c.~. ' '
City Hall ~ ....
T~tis
ever
~ C~stal .
· . - , City Hall '
$~ ' ,
PROJECT FOR PRIDE II ~ LIVING. INC.
1925 Chicago Avenu, ~ South
Tele~e (612) 8744 512
F~{~X i~ ~,r
~ 872-8~5
Februm y 22, 2000
l~. I~ i; McDonald
City of New Ho~
~01 X lion Av~ No~
New H~ )~, ~nnesom 55428~898
Re: Re tevelopm~t of 7610 B~s L~ RoM
De~ M r. Mc~n~d:
~ :'ou for the opportun/ty to d/scuss the redevelopment of 7610 Bass Lake Road
with ye u and the New Hope Economic Development Authority. We arc enthusiastic
about ti ~ project te~m aS it iS cun~fly taking .~h~ne, particularly the collaborative
particil= ation by the Cities of New Hope and Crystal.
Please :ind attached some information on our organizations, a project description, ...
develot ment proforma, and conceptual plan drawing for dislribution to your City
Counci/EDA. We look forward to presenting this information publicly at your next
EDA ~r ccting. Please feel free to contact us if you have questions or would like further
inform~
Sincere ly,
· McCormick
Vice PI esident.pf~l~ousini and Development
Project for P/~.e in Living /
,~eorge Cramett
· Execut ve Director
North~ est Commtm|ty Revitalization Corporation
Enclos =es
cc: Ch.'is Wilson, PPL
Give me a fish and I eat for a day; teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
/
" PROP( ~SAL:
This colIaborative consists of two sites; on 7610 Bass
project
separate
one
Lake Road in New Hope and the second on/il 11-5211 56m Avenue North
in crYstal. The New Hope site contains an apartment building which
would be renovated. The CrYstal site contains four quadraplexes which
would be demolished and replaced by twelve new three and four bedroom
Wwnhomes.
DE,El ,OPEl/S:
The development panners are Project for Pride in Living (PPL) and the
Northwest CO-OP Community Revitalization Coxportion (NCRC).
PPL is a nonprofit community development corporation whioh has 27
years of experience rehabilitating and building new homing. PPL has
built over 900 units and owns and manages over 500 units in the Metro
Area, including 34 in New Hope. PPL's property management division
maintains PPL's long term commitment to the community, providing
professional services and access to support for residents who need it. PPL
also developed and now manages over 50,000 square feet of commercial
space and operates four businesses which provide job trslnlng for hard-to-
employ adults.
NCRC is regionally focused nonprofit community development
corporation providing affordable housing for low and moderate income
residents of the northwest metro area. For the past five years, NCRC has
been developing and provirllng financing for the redevelopment of over 30
units of scattered site housing. The corporation represents a unique
collaboration of the six cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, CrYstal,
Maple C-rove, New Hope, and Robbinsdale.
WI/Al IS PROPOSED?
In New Hope, the plans entail the renovation of the existing twelve unit
apartment building. The bu/lding exterior will be completely renovated,
including painting, the repair or replacement of the soffits and fascia, the
provision of a new roof, gutters, and downspouts, and thc repair or
replacement of the windov~s. The landscaping will be improved, the drive
expanded and resurfaced, and garages added for each unit. Interior work
w/Il include updating the existing units in their present configuration. At a
winlrnum, new cabinets and counters, new carpeting, updated electrical,
and wall repair and painting will be provided.
In Crystal, the existing buildings would be demolished and new larger
rental townhouse units with garages would be built. The site would be
reconfigured and a connection made to the adjacent park.
All twenty-four units would have msrket rate rents varying from $600 to
$1000 depending on unit size. The units would be rented to families
e~'ning less than 60°,4 of the area median (e.g. $3g,000 for a family of
four). Seven of the units (3 in New Hope, 4 in Crystal) would have rents
subsidized for lower income families. Five of those seven units (2 in New
Hope, 3 in Crystal) would be reserved for residents on the Minneapolis
Public Housing waiting list and thc other two (and any of the five not
t~lled by people on the first list) would be used for New Hope or Crystal
residents.
PPL currently has an on-sim management office at our other property less
thnn two blocks from the proposed Hew Hope site and about a bslFmile
from the Crystal site. A full t~me site manager lives and is employed
there. All prospective t~nsnts will be carefully sareenecl: each must have a
good rental hi~ory, adequate income to afford thc rent, and no criminal
background. ..
The total cost of this development is appmxlmately $4.6 miHion. The
financing is proposed to be a combination ora $1.6 million equity
investment, a mortgage and construction financing from the l~i~nesota
Housing Finance Agency, investments from the Cities of New Hope and
Crystal, and other grants and loans from Henuepin County HOME funds,
the Family Housing Fund, and the Metropolitan Council. The seven
affordable units are paid for by the Metropolitan Homing Opportunities
Program, which was created to increase the supply of rental housing
outside of the central cities.
Acquire properties, design new units
and rehab work, secure financing ......... Feb. 2000 - Feb. 2001
Neighborhood, City, and Plarming
Commission review ................ Feb. 2000 - Feb. 2001
Finish purchase of all property ................. Feb. 2001
Start rehabilitation and construction ..............Apr. 2001
New residents move/n ...................... Dec. 2001
Renters at the time of purchase of the buildings will receive assistance in
finding ii ~lew place to live and help with the moving expense~. Tenants
wishing to move back into the rehabbed or n~w units would b~ welcome
to do so provided thc',/meet PPL's scr~mi~g requirements. Thc rehab part
of the project may be able to be phased so as to disrupt only a portion of
ADVAI ti'AGES TO THE CONINII. F~TY:
This development will provide reinvestment in the area's aging housing
stock by an owner committed to maintenance and a long term relationship
with tho commnnity. The improved appearance and stability of the new
and rehabbed units will add to the surrounding area's value and livability.
These units will provide an opportunity for young families or single
parents to stay in this community or become part of iL This development
represents thc next step in PPL's continued commit, merit to the strength
and stability of New Hope and Crystal.
Project for Pride in L V ng, Inc.
PPL's IVl'~on is to assist low- and moderate-income to become self-sufficient by
addressing their job, housing, and neighborhood needs.
PPL directly s~ ~rvss over 2,000 participants Project for Pride in Living ('PPL) was formed in 1972
and indirectly assists thousands more In out of a des/z= of the founders to help people help
themselves. In its early years, ??L served low-
Minneapolis an cl Saint Paul through 14 pro- incx)me ~%milies in south 1V[inrteapolis by r~novatinE
grams relating [o jobs and training, housing, homes with homeowner's assistance. Since then,
suicled by an ~ntr~prtm~rial spirit, PPL has ;own
neighborhood development, and seif-sufrk and services provided have expanded to meet more
ciency, of the needs of the community it s~es. PPL not
only delivers services to meet the current needs of its
participants, but also helps build lens-term skills a~d
values needed for a lifetime ofsel£-sut~iciency. This
impact is maltipli~d as PPL's pm;ams, participants
and properties become symbols of hope in the com-
munity. PPL has become a widely-respected, strons
and stable orsanization whose mJs-
sion is aligned with today's social
concerns and chart§es.
Give me a fish and I eat for a day;, teach me lo fish and I eat for a lifetime.
FEB-22-O0 HED 16:13 ?PL HO~ING/D~VL F~ NO. 6128728~95
~BASS ~ F'R~ECT
~Prel]mina~ Development Pr~a
~on
3.09 T~ 30,~
3.14 Co~on II ~ 0
500,000
3ceecl$ 1,600~000
! Fund . , 200~000
~OIdE
MHFA 275,000
Prepared by: PPL, February 23, 2000
· ~EI) 18:1~ PPL ItOI~ING/I)EVI. 1:~ NO. 8128728995 ?. 09/10
e,~t,;T~ t,r0
t~I,,I:)IFO
PROJECT NO. 662
BULLETIN #1
PROJECT BULLETIN
COOPER HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM ADDITION
AND TENNIS COURTS PROJECT
Background
In August 1999, the City Council approved plans for the construction of two new gyms and
related facilities at Cooper High School in cooperation with School District 281. On January 10,
2000, the School District awarded bids for a joint City/School District project for Cooper High
School, located at 8230 47th Avenue North. The City and School District have approved an
agreement regarding development costs and facility usage for the construction of two additional
gyms, as well as the remodeling and expansion of the tennis courts. These agreements outline
the terms and conditions under which the City and School District will participate in the project.
Proiect Description
Construction will commence in February for the gymnasium addition at the north end of the
existing Cooper High School Gymnasium Complex. The building addition will extend into the
location of the existing hockey rink. That hockey rink will be removed and will not be replaced.
The building addition is approximately 182 feet x 111 feet and will include:
Gymnasium, storage rooms, concessions area, restrooms, and corridors.
· Exterior wall height of 30 feet - similar to that of the existing gymnasium.
· Exterior masonry wall system similar to that of the existing building.
Removal and disposal of unsuitable foundation soils and placement of imported compacted
fill.
· Rerouting of existing buried utilities at the building addition area.
· Main building entrance will be located on the west side of the building adjacent to the
parking lot.
The project also includes:
· Reconstruction of the five existing tennis courts.
· Construction of two additional tennis courts immediately west of the five existing tennis
courts.
· Reconstruction of the sand volleyball court.
· Reconstruction of the baseball field infield to address drainage problems.
· Replacement of the baseball field backstops and installation of new scoreboards.
· Addition to the parking lot immediately west of the gymnasium addition.
· Construction of a trail around the perimeter of the building and leading to the ballfields. .-
FundinR
In June 1999, the City Council and Economic Development Authority approved a resolution to
modify the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District to include the Cooper High School property in
an area where TIF funds could be expended for the purpose of financing the construction of the
gyms on the site. The City of Plymouth previously approved TIF funds for the construction of
gym facilities at Armstrong High School. The City of New Hope will provide the School District
with up to $3.25 million, primarily for the addition of the new gyms at Cooper High School. The
School District, in turn, will provide the City with priority use of the gym facilities during the
evenings, weekends, non-school days, and summer months.
2/7/00
· Cooper High School Gymnasium and Tennis Courts Project
Proiect Schedule
.~ ~, The project construction schedule, subject to weather and other construction issues, is as
follows:
· Week of February 7 Contractor brings in sitework equipment
· February 11, 3:00 p.m. Official ground-breaking ceremony
· Vicinity of February 14 Contractor commences earthwork operations at building
addition area and existing utility relocation proceeds
· February - August Building construction commences and proceeds to late August
· After May 1 Tennis court reconstruction and additional work commences with
mid-August completion
· After June 9 Baseball infield drainage modifications proceed
Construction Hours/Cleanup
Construction may occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturday. All work, including mobilization of equipment, will
take place during these time periods. The contractor will periodically cleanup the site and
remove debris.
Construction Traffic
The route for construction truck and equipment traffic is via Winnetka Avenue to 47th Avenue to
the west entrance of Cooper High School and exit on that route except the alternate route
permitted for the tennis court work. Tennis court reconstruction trucks and equipment will utilize
Winnetka Avenue to 47th Avenue to Virginia Avenue. A map is attached showing the
construction traffic route location.
Contacts
Contractor
The general contractor for the project is CM Construction Company of Burnsville, Minnesota.
The office phone number is 612-895-8223.
School District
Robbinsdale Area Schools has a telephone number that provides a recorded message with the
construction project schedule highlights as provided by the general contractor. You may also
leave a message with questions or concerns pertaining to the project on that hotline number:
612-504-8988.
City
If you have questions or concerns during the Cooper High School improvement project, please
direct your calls to the Shad French, Director of Parks & Recreation, at 612-531-5152 or Kirk
McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 612-531-5119.
Ground Breakinq
A ground breaking ceremony will be held on Friday, February 11, at 3 p.m. outside the hockey
rink on the north side of the school.
Future Bulletins
These project bulletins are being provided to residents on behalf of the School District and the
City. Future bulletins will be sent to update you on the construction progress.
City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428
ym. Tennis
~ ........................................................... ~:.~' '::~
, Prima~ project access route to building
- - Seconda~ project access route to tennis cou~ N
re~nst~ction work only
PROJECT NO. 660
Bulletin No. 1
8808 41st Avenue North
Habitat for Humanity - New Construction
Overview
As you probably are aware, the City has been working with the Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity
organization for the past year-and-a-half about a potential project site in New Hope. Several
potential sites around the City were identified for new construction, and it was concluded the
vacant lot at 8808 41st Avenue North with 9,500 square feet was most appropriate, despite soil
correction issues. The City purchased the property from a willing seller and recently closed on
the property.
On October 7, 1999, the City hosted a neighborhood meeting in concert with Habitat to discuss
the 8808 41st Avenue North project concept with residents. Very few residents attended the
meeting. The City proceeded forward with Habitat for Humanity on finalizing a development
agreement and house plan for the lot.
On December 13, 1999, a public hearing was held on the sale of the property to Habitat for
Humanity as well as the development agreement for the new home. The Council unanimously
approved the project. According to the development agreement, Habitat for Humanity will
construct a single family home of 1,300 square feet with three bedrooms and an attached
garage of 440 square feet (see site plan on the back side of this project bulletin). The lot's soil
issues will be remedied with pilings. Once the pilings are installed, the City will turn the lot over
to Habitat and new construction will begin. It is anticipated the piling work will begin in the
spring of 2000. The City will be sending out project bulletins throughout the construction
process informing residents of the latest details.
Site Contact Persons
If you have questions or concerns, please call Susan Henry, Community Development
Specialist, at 612-531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 612-
531-5119. The Habitat for Humanity contact person for the project is Ryan Karis, Land
Development Manager, at 612-331-4090 ext. 612.
The City of New Hope and Habitat for Humanity appreciates the cooperation of all residents in
the area that will be impacted by construction during the project. Thank you for your
cooperation.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
1~3~99
CITY OF' NEW HOPE ,
I
I 3o
z/////
////~ .o.~ '~
~ ~.o.~.
~.o,~ ' /~ :
~/~,o~ / ' No. 6800
/ . //////
DRIVEWAY
-
~oe, l~ /
-76.0~
41ST AVENUE N.
LOT 5, BLOCK 5, BARRETT'S TERRACE
PROJECT NO. 612
Bulletin No. 5
5629 Wisconsin Avenue North
Update
Construction will be complete in January on the three-bedroom, single-family, accessible home
built on the lot at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North. On December 13, 1999, the City Council
approved the purchase agreement for the sale of the home. The home buyer met all the
eligibility criteria set out by the City. The new homeowner and her family intend to move into
their home in late January. Prior to the closing date, an open house will be held on Thursday,
January 13, 2000, from 4 until 6 p.m. The open house is intended for the neighborhood and
various partners involved in this scattered site housing project. Landscaping for the lot will be
accomplished in the spring of 2000 by the City of New Hope.
Background
The City of New Hope purchased the property at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North in late
December of 1997, as part of the City's scattered site housing program. In August of 1998, the
City demolished and cleared the site to make way for the new home. After looking at a
twinhome versus single family design for the lot, the single family, accessible home design was
selected by the City in the fall of 1998 after concurring it was the best fit for the narrow lot.
Construction on the home began in July of 1999. The 1,510 square foot home is fully
accessible for individuals with disabilities.
Site Contact Persons
If you have questions or concerns, please call Susan Henry, Community Development
Specialist, at 612-531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 612-
531-5119.
The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents in the area that were impacted by the
construction during this project. The City is especially pleased with how well the new home fits
into the neighborhood. Thank you for your cooperation.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
12/30/99
4401Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612.531-5100 City Hall Fax: 612~1-5136
New Hope. Minnesota 55428-4898 Police: 612.531-5170 Police Fax: 61L~.i~'i'-517-:
www. c£new.hope, mn. us Public Works: 612-533-4823 Public Works Fax: 612-533-7~55
TDD: 612-531-5109
January 28,2000
Dear Liberty Park Neighbors,
The City of New Hope has budgeted capital improvement funds to purchase new playground
equipment in 2000 for Liberty Park.
The City is in the planning process and your input on the needs of the park as its users is
valuable to the City at this time. Perhaps you know of special needs or issues that should be
addressed by the City when planning for the new park equipment. The budget is limited, so the
City would like to spend the available funds wisely with your guidance.
On Thursday,' February 17th at 7:00p.m., there will be a meeting at the Public Wo.r. ks Facility,
5500 International Parkway. In attendance will be a City Engineer's representative, Sherri Buss;
Citizen Advisory Commission representative, Brenda Fromm; Park/Street Supervisor, John
Blasiak; a representative from the Police Department; Shad French, Director of Parks &
Recreation; myself; and your Liberty Park neighbors. We'll discuss the needs of the park and its
users. I expect that we'll meet for around an hour and a half.
I sincerely hope that you'll consider attending, as your input is extremely valuable to the City.
The City really would like to plan the park playground around the needs and issues of its
neighbors. If you have questions, or cannot make the meeting but wish to offer comments,
please call me at 612-531-5196. If you know of anyone who may wish to attend but did not
receive this letter, please invite them to the meeting as well.
Phil Kern
Administrative Assistant
Shad French
Director of Parks and Recreation
CC: City Council Members
Citizen Advisory Commission Members
Family Styled City "~ For Family Living
~¥~, ~ [ ~,~,
Page 4 -- December 24, 1999 Z.B. '. Z.B. December 24, 1999 -- Page .~
enjoys a vested property right. Additionally, the natural expansion of a non- to evaluate future renters or buyers prior to their lease or purchase. The chang~
conforming use is a constitutional right protected by the due process clause, was a simple remedy aimed at keeping irresponsible persons from being al
Once it was determined a nonconforming use was in existence, an overly tech- lowed to operate businesses having a history of attracting persons apt to caust
nical assessment of the use could not be utilized to stunt its natural develop- trouble or persons with criminal natures.
merit and growth. Nor could a change in instrumentality defeat the purpose or A change in zoning from permitted to conditional did not disqualify a fu
existence of a nonconforming use. ture buyer or lessor of property from operating the business in the same man
Clanton introduced modern technology into his topsoil business. This was ncr as the previous operator. The only difference was the would-be purchasei
not a new use. Although 75 percent of the dirt used to make the topsoil was must get prior approval from the planning commission to operate the business.
from neighbors, Clanton had brought dirt onto his property from other loca- as opposed to being able to operate the business as a matter of course withoul
tions in the past. Although Cianton dried the topsoil and bagged it before trucking gaining such approval under a permissive use.
it off the property, such a process did not constitute a new use. Walters in no way was deprived of the use and enjoyment of his property,
Finally, although Nutra Soils Inc. rather than Clanton conducted the top- nor was he denied the economic benefits of his land. He was still able to oper-
soil business, a nonconforming use, once established and not abandoned, runs ate his businesses on the properties. Mere speculation as to the difficulty in
with the land, and this right was not confined to any individual or corporation, selling or renting the properties was not a taking.
Citation: Clanton v. London Grove Township Zoning Hearing Board, Finally, there was a strong public interest in the amendment. In determin-
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 2304 C.D. 1998 (1999). ing the validity of zoning regulations, the public interest must be weighed against
see also: Pappas v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 589 A.2d 675 (1991). ' the right of the individual owner. Drug selling, gambling, loud music, assaults,
see also: Silver v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 255 A.2d 506 (1969). and homicides ali contributed to the increased crime rate in areas containing
game rooms and nightclubs within residential neighborhoods. On the other
hand, Walters could point to no evidence showing his property would diminish
City changes certain uses from 'permitted' to in value.
Citation: Walters v. City of Greenville, Court of Appeals of Mississippi, No.
MISSISSIPPI (I 1/16/99) -- Walters owned various parcels of property in 1998-CC-01243-COA (1999).
~3reenville that he used for lounges, taverns, poolrooms, game rooms, video
see also: Board of Aldermen of Town of Bay Springs v. Jenkins, 423 So. 2d
arcades, or other businesses. All uses were historically "permitted" uses. How-
1323 (1982).
ever, due to neighborhood complaints and testimony from a police officer who
patrolled near one of the properties, the Greenville Planning Commission rec- ~ of~W.P. Bridges, Senior, 139 So. 2d 660 (1962). .
ommended that the areas be changed from "permitted-use" areas to "condi- '~'~' ~ ~x~ ~ ~
tional-use" areas. Supposedly, such businesses attracted drug dealers; encour- ~ Communication Tower~n local authorities consider the quality of
aged gambling, loud music, and crime; and caused serious loitering and park- x,,.....~eless sem~g a permit?
lng problems. NEW JER~/19/99) -- AT&T and the borough of Ho-Ho-Kus entered
Walters sued, claiming he suffered a substantial loss in the character, use, into a lease for property on which AT&T planned to build a wireless communi-
permitted use, intended use, and value of his real property, ultimately arguing cations facility. The lease was contingent upon the company acquiring all re-
the change in the ordinance constituted a taking of his property, quired zoning variances, special use permits, and building permits.
DECISION: Affirmed. Although the site was located in an R-2 residential zone, it was actually
Thc zoning change was valid and no taking occurred, part of two larger lots that contained the Department of Public Works' salt
Before property was reclassified from one zone to another, there must have storage barn and accompanying fencing, a motor vehicle fueling area, a public
been proof that either (I) there was a mistake in the original zoning, or (2) the recycling center, and open storage for municipal equipment. The lots did not
character of the neighborhood had changed to such an extent as to justify re- contain any residences. Two sides of the lease site bordered public roads, while
zoning and public need existed for the rezoning, a third abutted the New Jersey Transit railroad line.
DifferT~-~ersons, including a police officer, testified the character of the AT&T applied to the borough's zoning official for variances necessary to
neighborh(._~had deteriorated to the point of fostering cri~ne and troublesome construct three buildings, a 125-foot monopole with antennae reaching as high
activities. The justification for the proposed amendment was that the zoning as 127 feet, and a six-foot-high barbed wire fence. The proposed monopole
· ch~ange would help curb crime and trouble by allowing the planning commission would support 27 antennae in a 360-degree array. Mai ntenance ,ersonnel w~l~t '
Page 6 ---{,.._ 24, 1999 Z.B. Z.B. December 24, 1999 -- Page 7
visit the site approximately once a month, but it would otherwise be unmanned, of wireless services. There were gaps if remote users in certain areas were
The zoning official denied the application. AT&T amended ils application, bul unable to connect with the land-based national network or maintain a connec-
the application was again denied, tion capable of reasonably uninterrupted conversation. Since AT&T presented
AT&T brought its original and amended applications before the Zoning evidence of possible gaps, the issue of whether wireless communications were
Board of Adjustment. After two-and-a-half-years and 44 public hearings, the prohibited had to go to trial.
board voted to deny the application. The board memorialized its decisiou in a Citation: Celhdar Telephone Company v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the
36-page resolution which stated, "The public interest which will be served by Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, United States Court of Appeals for the Third
the proposed monopole is not substantial, as the quality of cellular service Circuit, No. 98-6484 (1999).
already being provided within the Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus is adequate... The
see also: Sprint Spectrum L.P. v, Willoth, 176 E3d 630 (1999).
public good being served is not compelling. Due to the nature of the structure,
see also: Cellular Telephone Company v. Zoning Board, 24 E Supp. 2d 359
no conditions can be imposed that would reduce the impact, and on balance the
negative considerations outweigh the benefits to be obtained." (1998) (lower court case).
AT&T sued, and the court decided in favor of the borough without a trial.
Nuisance m City claims additional boat traffic is a nuisance
The court stated the board's denial did not have the effect of prohibiting per-
sonal wireless services, was supported by substantial evidence, and was based FLORIDA (11/17/99) ~ Windward Marina L.L.C. applied for a final revel-
on a proper application of state zoning laws. opment order to construct a dry-dock marina near the mouth of Destin Harbor.
AT&T appealed. AT&T argued local authorities were barred from consid- The city of Destin and the Destin City Council based the denial of the develop-
ering quality of service issues when deciding whether to permit wireless corn- ment order on a determination that the proposed development would be in-
munications facilities. It also claimed that the denial of the variances had the compatible with surrounding uses in that it would, given its location, create a
effect of prohibiting wireless communication services because there were sig- boat navigation safety hazard at the mouth of the harbor.
nificant gaps in service. Windward sued, claiming nothing in the city's comprehensive plan placed
DECISION: Affirmed in part, and reversed and returned to the lower a developer on notice that the amount of boat traffic generated by a proposed
court in part. development would be a factor in determining whether a proposed develop-
The local officials could consider the quality of wireless service already ment was consistent with surrounding uses and the comprehensive plan.
The city argued that boat traffic fell under the "traffic generation" compat-
available. HoweVer, because there was evidence of significant gaps in service,
the issue of whether the denial had the effect of prohibiting wireless communi- ibility criteria. Additionally, the city's comprehensive plan stated that compat-
cation services had to go to trial, ibility was also dependent upon whether the proposed use would result in
"nuisances."
Local officials must, at a minimum, consider whether wireless service ex-
ists before determining whether rejecting a proposed wireless facility would DECISION: Affirmed.
have thc effect of prohibiting such service. Decisions to grant or deny vail- Although traffic generation only referred to land-based traffic, the city had
ances from local zoning ordinances generally require local officials to balance the authority to deny the development order based on its determination that the
thc interests affected by the decision. A finding that existing service was rein- proposed development would create a significant navigation safety hazard at
tively poor could tip the scale in favor of granting a variance that might other- the mou. th of Destin Harbor.
wise be denied. So, local authorities were not barred from considering existing Under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Devel-
service quality, opment Regulation Act, it was clear "traffic," when used alone in a
However, in assessing overall quality, the Board never specifically deter- municipality's comprehensive plan, applied only to land-based traffic. How-
mined whether there were gaps in the current service. Local officials must ever, the term "nuisance" included certain harms, such as the impact a particu-
ensure that neither their general policies nor their individual decisions prohib- iar land use might have on the safety of the public as a whole, even though the
ired or had the effect of prohibiting wireless services. This meant more than determination of what constituted a "nuisance" in any given circumstance was
simply ensuring that personal wireless services were available somewhere within often dependent upon the facts.
the relevant jurisdiction, it was not possible to defiue all "nuisances." To make a statute sufficiently
Local zoning policies and decisions had the effect of prohibiting wireless certain to comply with constitutional requirements, it was not necessary to
communication services if they resulted iu "significant gaps" in the availability furnish detailed plans and specifications of the acts or cond**c* ~r~)hibited
Page 8 -- December 24, 1999 Z.B.
Language giving a definite warning when measured by common understand-
ing and practices was sufficient.
Citation: Windward Marina L.L.C. v. City of Destin, Cot, rt of Appeal of
Florida, First District, No. 98-4665 (1999).
see also: Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion, 604 So. 2d 452 (1992).
see also: Ala_.c.~hua Cot~nty v. Eagle's Nest Farms Inc., 473 So. 2d 257 (1985).
Was family member an employee under zoning
ordinance~..~/
"lqEW HAMPSHIRE (! 1/30/99) - Sundberg operated a welding supply busi-
ness from a mobile home. De Winter owned land abutting Sundberg's prop-
erty. The properly on which the business was located was part of a "rural/
agricultural" zoning district. However, the business was operated as a "cus-
tomary home occupation," a permitted use in a rural/agricultural zoning district.
The town's zoning ordinance stated a customary home occupation was a
permissible use in rural/agricultural zones if the business was located within
the same structure as the proprietor's residence and employed no more than
two people.
The selectmen of the.town sent a letter notifying Sundberg that the busi-
ness no longer qualified as a customary home occupation because it employed
more than two people.
Sundberg appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and was twice de-
nied. The board found that the business employed Sundberg, Kristin Sundberg,
and an "unnamed driver."
Sundberg sued, claiming Kristin Sundberg was not an employee because
she did not receive a salary. The court reversed the board's decision.
De Winter appealed; contending the welding-supply business did not qualify
as a customary home occupation.
DECISION: Reversed,
Kristin Sundberg was an employee under the ordinance.
There was ample support in the record for the board's finding Kristin
Sundberg was an employee of the family business. Although "employ" was
not defined in the zoning ordinance, the plain meaning of the word "employ"
was "to use or engage services of... also: to provide with a job that pays wages
or a salary or with a means of earning a living." Because the term "employ" as
used in the zoning ordinance did not require one to receive a salary, the board
acled reasonably when it concluded Kristin Sundberg was an employee because
she provided services to the business and was a resident of the mobile home.
Citation: Sundberg v. Greenville Board of Adjustment, Supreme Court of
(-~ew Hampshire, No. 98-079 (1999).
· see also: Brennan v. Winnipesaukee Flagship Corp., 446 A.2d 1175 (1982).
'see also: Healey v. Town of New Durham, 665 A.2d 360 (1995).
_~fi._~,~,ary I0, 2000 Z.B. Z.B. January 10, 2000 -- Page
without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of the zone plan an,
NE~.W..~}L~SEY (12/7/99) -- Shell Oil Company leased property in Little Ferry zoning ordinances of the borough.
~'-for a gas station, which it sublet to the station's operator. Financial Services Financial Services sued, and the court affirmed the board's decision. Th~
LLC wanted to sublet an existing structure on the property from Shell Oil, court concluded the proposed use was neither a permitted nor a conditional us,
renovate it, and conduct a cbeck-cashing business. The property fronted on
and Financial Services failed to satisfy the criteria for a use variance.
Route 46 and was located in an area zoned "B-H Highway and Regional Bust- Financial Services appealed. It argued a check-cashing business was a ust
ness Zone."
The gas station was located on a nonconforming lot. The lot was nat only accessory to the gas station, which it contended was a permitted use in tht
zone.
almost 46,000 square feet below the required minimum area, but also had in-
sufficient depth, and the structures of the gas station violated both front- and DECISION: Affirmed.
rear-yard setback requirements. The check-cashing facility was not an accessory use to the gas station.
Financial Services, with Sbe[l's consent, first sought a building permit to The plain language of the ordinance made it clear a check-cashing business
allow remodeling of an existing 540-square-foot building to house a check- was not an accessory use, nor was it a conditional use, nor was it a use thaI
cashing business and an ATM machine. At the time, the station operator used could exist on the subject lot with the current nonconforming principal use.
the building for storage, although it was originally designed for a food mart. The proposed business was not only not subordinate to the gas station use
The zoning board of adjustment granted a variance to permit use of the bu. ild- and of minor significance, but it was also not a use that had any common,
ing as a food mart. However, the operator sold food snacks from a kiosk that habitual, or long-standing association with a gas station. Its failure to qualify
was also used for other conventional gas station purposes, as an accessory use made it a principal use.
The borough's construction official denied the application. The official The gas station was also a nonconforming use in the zone. The zone per-
concluded the zoning ordinance prescribed the proposed mixed uses on the mitred gas stations only as a part of regionally oriented shopping centers. Oth-
same building lot. Financial Services then applied Io the board of adjustment erwise, gas stations were expressly prohibited uses. The station was not part of
for permission to use the building as a cbeck-cashing business, a shopping center. Therefore, it was a prohibited use and, consequently, a non-
Financial Services, in its testimony before the board, described the pro- conforming use. It was also the principal use on the lot.
posed use as "a non-bank bank." Financial Services noted check-cashing bust- Given the station's nonconforming, principal use status, the ordinance pro-
nesses were licensed and regulated by the state. It described the operation as a scribed a second principal use on the same property.
financial convenience store for people who could not afford to wait the typical Citation: Financial Services L.L.C.v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the
"clearing" period to access their money. It also stated the operation would al- Borough of Little Ferry, Superior Court of New Jersey, App. Div., No. A-99-
low people without checking accounts to pay their bills. Financial Services 98T1 (1999).
represented its business, which went under the name Money Stop and cashed
many different kinds of checks but generally not personal checks due to the seealso: CharlieBrown v. Chatham Board of Adjustment, 495A.2d 119(1985).
potential they might not be collectible, see also: Kran~er v. Board of Adjustment of Sea Girt, 212 A.2d 153 (1965).
The board also heard testimony from planning and traffic experts. Finan-
cial Services' traffic expert, who conducted traffic counts, essentially found no Ordinance -- Was landowner a resident occupant under the ordinance?
detrimental impact from the traffic the proposed business would generate. He
MAINE (12/3/99) -- Secor maintained his property for many years as a lc-
found five proposed parking spaces would adequately serve the Money Stop
gaily nonconforming two-family dwelling. Secor used the ground floor dwell-
customers, lng unit when he visited Maine, and leased the second floor to tenants. Two
Financial Services' planner essentially Concluded the proposed use was
consistent with the zone and reflected compatibility with the borough's master other individuals shared the space when Secor visited Maine, but resided pti-
plan goals of encouraging new commercial business on major thoroughfares, marily on the third floor of the residence.
The planner analogized the proposed use to either an office or personal service Richert was Secor's neighbor. She became concerned Secor's property was
business but acknowledged its services were not as comprehensive as those being used in violation of the zoning ordinance. This concern resulted from her
provided by a bank. observation of an increased number of automobiles and trashcans on the prop-
The board hired a traffic expert and a planner who directly refuted the testi- erty. Richert reported these concerns to Doucette, the South Portland code en-
forcement officer.
mony of Financial Services' experts. The board then concluded it could not
Page 2 -- January 10, 2000 Z.B.
....... "-~'--~, ~ Z.B. January 10, 2000 -- Page 3
ZonlnR V'mlatio~TLandowner wants to park 18-wheeler in residential zone
.... Whaley the highest and best use of his property. There was a legitimate gov-
............. SOUTH CAROLINA (I 2/6/99) -- Whaley parked his 18-wheel Mack truck eminent interest in limiting traffic and protecting property values and aesthetic
overnight and on weekends at his home in the Crestwood subdivision of qualities in the residential zone. The ordinance did not deny Whaley economi-
Dorchester. After several months had passed, Whaley received a cease and cai use of his land, even though it prohibited him from parking his commercial
desist letter from thc county planning and zoning department that stated park- vehicle on his property.
lng his commercial vehicle in the residential zone was a violation of local ordi- Finally, a use could not be a nonconforming use if it was unlawful at the
nances. He responded to the letter and was given a hearing, time of the amendment of the ordinance prohibiting the use. Additionally, an
At the heating before the county zoning board of appeals, Whaley testified, accessory use was a use so necessary or commonly expected that it could not
he Used the 18-wheeler to drive back and forth to work every day and per- be supposed the ordinance was intended to prevent it. Accessory uses to single-
formed maintenance on the vehicle at his home. The board affirmed the cease family homes in residential areas included home occupations, swimming pools,
and desist letter and Whaley was cited again, tennis courts, and non-commercial greenhouses. As defined in cily ordinances,
Whaley sued, and the circuit court affirmed the decision, parking an 18-wheeler at a residence was not customarily incident to a residen-
Whaley appealed, arguing the ordinance violated the Equal Protection rial zone.
Clause of the U.S. Constitution because there was no rational basis between Citation: Whaley v. Dorchester County Zoning Board of Appeals, Supreme
the legitimate purposes of the ordinance and the classification produced by the Court of South Carolina, No. 25029 (1999).
ordinance. Specifically, Whaley argued that parked commercial vehicles should
not be treated differently from commercial vehicles that drive through a rest- see also: Butler v. Town of Edgefield, 493 S.E. 2d 838 (1997).
dentist area. He also claimed the county selectively enforced the ordinance see also: Borough ofNorthvale v. Blundo, 203 A.2d 721 (1964).
against drivers of 18-wbeelers and the ordinance resulted in a taking. Finally,
he argued that parking his ! 8-wbeeler was a nonconforming or accessory use. Nonconforming Use -- Nonconforming health club wants to expand
DECISION: Affirmed. WASHINGTON (! 2/I 3/99) -- Larson was the general parlner of a partnership
Thc zoning ordinance did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, there that owned a 34-unit apartment complex in the city of Bellevue. The complex
:was no evidence of selective enforcement, thc ordinance did not result in a
was next to an athletic club owned by another partnership, Professional Recre-
taking, and parking thc 18-whceler was not a nonconforming or accessory usc. alton Associates (PRA). The club was a legal nonconforming use in an area
The Equal Protection Clause provides that "No state shall.., deny to any zoned multifamily residential.
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal Protec-
PRA acquired from the Veterans of Foreign Wars contiguous parcels lo-
lion was satisfied if I) the classification bore a reasonable relation to the legis- cared north and northeast of the club.
iative purpose sought to be effected, 2) the members of the class were treated
PRA filed an application for the construction of an underground parking
alike under similar circumstances and conditions, and 3) the Classification rested
garage and surface parking lots for the club. Most of the construction was
on some reasonable basis, located on the parcels acquired from the VFW.
Prohibiting the long-term parking of commercial vehicles in residential
The land use code defined expansion as "construction which increases the
neighborhoods was reasonably related to protecting property values and main- floor area within an existing complex or an existing structure." The former
raining the aesthetic appearance of residential areas. Prohibiting commercial VFW property was beyond the club's then-existing boundaries.
vehicles from parking in streets in residential zones reduced traffic congestion. Bellevue's department of planning and community development reviewed
The ordinance bore a substantial relationship to the promotion of public health, PRA's proposal. The department concluded the existing club could be expanded
safety, convenience, prosperity, and the general welfare of persons who reside onto the parcels acquired from the VFW, subject only to the conditional use
in single-family residential areas of the county, permit process. It issued a conditioned recommendation of permit approval.
Also, the ordinance was not selectively enforced. Although Whaley showed Larson appealed the department's decision to Bellevue's hearing examiner.
I I photographs of other large commercial vehicles in the immediate area that The hearing examiner affirmed the department's decision.
were notrs',b)ect to any enforcement action at the hearing, he failed to establish Larson sued and the court affirmed the hearing examiner's decision.
any pu~_~ul discrimination on the part of the planning and zoning officials. Larson appealed, contending the Bellevue laud use code allowed the ex-
Thirdly, the ordinance did not result in a taking. A zoning classification pension of a nonconforming use only within the "boundaries" of an existing
.was not an unconstitutional, compensable taking simply because it denied complex or structure. Specifically, he argued the exvansion ora nonrnnf~rmin,,
Page 2 -- Februav] 10, 2000 Z.B.
. ..~..~ (~---~r..._...._.~. ( Z.B. February 10, 2000- Page 3
//~alult~m~tainment ~7~ City amends unconstitutional licensing and zoning
NEVADA (01ll4/00) ~ Baby Tam & Co. Inc. appealed the removal ora per- However, the front land for lots 2-9 was wetland and unsuitable for resi-
manenl injunction enjoining the city of Las Vegas from denying Baby Tam a dential construction. The upland that could be built upon was a considerable
license to operate an adult bookstore. The city was enjoined as long as the distance from the street. The soil conditions caused certain of the proposed lots
city's bookstore licensing and zoning ordinance failed to provide for prompt to be shaped like a boomerang, an "L," an arch, and a labyrinth. To reach
review of licensing denials by a judicial officer, projected houses on these lots from the public way, it would be necessary to
In accordance with the court order, the city added a new section to its zen- build bridges over the wetlands. For six of the lots, the bridges would have to
lng and licensing ordinance. The new section stated: "(A) The Director shall be almost 2,000 feet long.
issue or deny the bookstore license to the applicant within thirty days from Because of the soil difficulties, the plan stated access would instead be
receipt of a complete application and fees upon compliance with the require- achieved by extension of an existing private way. As planned, the extension
meats of this Section and any applicable provisions of Title 6 of this Code. (B) did not conform to width, subbase, drainage, or sidewalk requirements of the
Failure of the Director to approve or deny the license application within the rules and regulations of the board. Although the developer's engineer con-
thirty days shall result in the license being granted." ceded building a wetland approach would be an environmental and economic
After the new sections were added, the city asked the court to remove the calamity, he believed it was theoretically possible.
injunction. The court granted the city's request. The planning board refused to endorse the plan, and the developer sued.
Baby Tam appealed. The developer argued the state subdivision law allowed an owner to receive a
planning board endorsement on a plan of land that did not show a subdivision.
DECISION: Reversed and returned to lower court. Under the law, if a plan divided a tract of land into two or more lots, each with
The ordinance was still unconstitutional because it failed to provide an
adequate time limit for decisions, a frontage on a public way equal to that required by zoning law, it did show a
subdivision. Gates argued thc board's duty was only ministerial because a plan
Section (B) said thc director had to act "within the thirty days." Thc usc of either had the requisite frontage or it did not.
"the" identified the 30 days as the period referred to in Section (A). The court ordered the board to endorse the plan, and the board appealed.
Under (A), the 30 days began after "the receipt of a complete applica-
tion and fees upon compliance with the requirements of this Section and DECISION: Reversed.
any applicable provisions of Title 6 of this Code." Other applicable provi- The board was not required to endorse the plan.
sions of the ,.ode referred to health standards, zoning, and fire and safety A principal goal of the subdivision control law was to ensure efficient
laws. There was no time limit for the satisfaction of these requirements, hicular access to each lot in a subdivision. If the plan showed efficient vehicu-
Consequently, the 30 days within which the director must act could be in- lar access was not a practical possibility, the board should deny an ANR
definitely postponed. This possibility made the ordinance unconstitutional endorsement.
under Ihe First and 14th Amendments. Under prior decisions, there were two categories of access to public ways.
One category was "could be better, but manageable," and the other was "illu-
Citation: Baby Tam & Co. Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of sory." The first category warranted an endorsement, while the second did not.
Appeals, No. 99-16809 (2000). The elevated lengthy and errant mutes (for example, the mute to lot Il had
The 9th Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, four changes of direction) to the public roadway made access illusory.
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Deciding the adequacy of the proposed private roadway was the purpose
behind the subdivision control law. The wetland frontage did not have practi-
see also: FW/PBS Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990). cai, safe, or efficient access. Consequent[y, the plan showed a subdivision and
see also: Baby Tam & Co. Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 154 F.3d 1097 (1998). the ANR was correctly withheld.
Citation: Gates v. Planning Board of Dighton, Appeals Court of
Subdivision -- Developer claims plan does not require board approval Massachusetts, No. 98-P-428 (2000).
MASSACHUSETTS (01104100) -- Gates wanted to divide his property into see also: Gifford v. Planning Board of Nantucket, 383 N.E. 2d 1123 (1978).
12 lots. Gates submitted an "approval not required" (ANR) plan to the Planning see also: Poulos v. Planning Board of Braintree, 597 N.E. 2d 417 (1992).
Page 6 -- January 25, 2000 Z.B. Z.B. January 25, 2000 m Page 7
Commission to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications network
purchased a lot zoned for office use. The previous owner used it as both a
residence and a floral shop. Glass planned to use the lot as an office for its in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area.
antique business, which would organize antique buying trips for individuals Southwestern transmitted wireless communications by radio at a frequency
and dealers who wanted to purchase antiques overseas. In transacting its busi- provided by the FCC. According to its license, Southwestern was obligated to
ness, Glass would not deliver, store, or show goods at its office. Glass would provide wireless telecommunications services to its customers.
use the office only to arrange the buying trips and conduct the accounting func- Southwestern applied to the board for a conditional use permit to construct
a 150-foot monopole communications tower. The board approved the condi-
tions associated with them. Also, Glass had more than adequate parking for its
three employees, tional use permit subject to interference restrictions.
Prior to the approval, the board enacted a zoning regulation amendment
When Glass bought the lot, the three other lots near it in the zone were used
as a Wildlife Federation office building, a parking lot, and a multiple-tenant stating communication towers and antennae could not operate in a manner that
office building. After purchasing the lot, Glass learned the prior owned failed interfered with public safety communications. The regulation gave the county's
to secure the necessary permits and the property could not be used as an office zoning administrator authority to determine when interference existed and, af-
without meeting certain buffer requirements imposed on office properties abut- ter proper notice and hearing, to force the antenna site to cease operations.
ting residential zones. Before adopting the regulation, the board was aware of FCC authority and
regulations in the area. The county had a telephone conference with local FCC
Glass alleged it did not know or have reason to know when it bought the lot staff and apparently concluded the FCC could not resolve interference issues
that either the current or proposed use was in violation of local ordinances. It as quickly as the county wanted. Public hearings were held where Southwestern
filed an application requesting variances, and other wireless communications providers gave written statements about
The board denied the variances and Glass sued, alleging the variances sought the regulation. The providers argued the board was outside its authority, since
were essentially identical to those granted to Lot 22, which was directly across the regulatory authority regarding this aspect of wireless telecommunications
the street, services was exclusively reserved to the FCC.
DECISION: Reversed, and returned to the board. After the regulation was adopted, the FCC wrote to the board and stated the
Glass was entitled to the variances, regulation was illegal. It also advised the board of the FCC procedures already
The board's findings referenced its prior decision regarding Lot 22, but in place for handling public safety interference complaints.
only to the extent it could not assess the board's Lot 22 decision based on the Southwestern sued, and the court determined federal law invalidated the
submitted material. Apparently, the board did not render a decision with find- interference regulation.
ings and conclusions in granting the variances for Lot 22. However, the record The board appealed.
indicated Lot 22 was essentially identical to Glass' lot. Both lots were approxi- DECISION: Affirmed.
mately the same size, in the same zone, and adjoined the same residential dis- The FCC had exclusive jurisdiction over radio frequency interference and
trict. The two variance requests were essentially identical to those granted to the zoning regulation and conditional use requirement were invalid.
Lot 22. Both properties sought variances to eliminate the 10-foot buffer and Under the Telecommunications Act, the only local zoning authority pre-
the five-foot separation requirement, served regarded the placement, construction, and modification of facilities.
The board was not required to grant a variance merely because it granted a Congress intended federal regulation of radio frequency interference issues, so'
similar variance for the same type of property in the same district. However, the condition and regulation were void. A patchwork of varied local regula-
where the fact situations were exactly the same, the decisions should be as well. tions across the country would prevent a functional national telecommunica-
Citation: Through the Looking Glass Inc. v. The Zoning Board of Adjustment tions network.
for the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, Court of Appeals of North Citation: Southwestern Bell Wireless Inc. v. Johnson County Board of
Carolina, No. COA99-69 (1999). County Commissioners, lOth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 98-3264
.~'" . ....... . ~ ...~. (1999)~
~"~ommunications To Zoning authority creates regulations The lOth Circuit has jurisdiction over Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico,
~rding emergenc~sra'dio frequency interference ~ Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.
KANSASt[2/27/99) -- The board of county commissioners had planning and see also: Helm v. Louisville Two-Way Radio Corp., 667 S. W.2d 691 (1984).
zoning ~ .grity in the unincorporated portions of Johnson County. South- see also: Broyde v. Gotham Tower Inc., 13 E3d 994 (1994).
western Bell Wireless Inc. held a license from the Federal Communications