100300 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2000
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:00 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
5.1
5.2
6.
6.1
7.
7.1
7.2
7.3
8.
9.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CONSENT BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING
Case 00-15
Request for a Two-Foot Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement to
Allow Construction of a Two-Car Garage Three Feet From the Property Line,
5307 Pennsylvania Avenue North, Timothy and Arnetta Glum, Petitioners
Petitioners are required to be in attendance
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report of Design & Review Committee
Report of Codes & Standards Committee
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues ':
NEW BUSINESS
Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2000
Review of City Council Minutes of August 28 and September 11, 2000
Review of EDA Minutes of August 28, 2000
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Planning Case:
Petitioner:
Address:
Request:
PLANNING CASE REPORT
City of New Hope
Meeting Date: October 3, 2000
Report Date: September 29, 2000
00-15
Timothy and Ametta Glum
5307 Pennsylvania Avenue North
Side Yard Setback Variance for Construction of Attached Garage
I. Request
The petitioner is requesting a two-foot variance from the five-foot side yard setback requirement to
allow construction of a two-car garage three feet from the property line, pursuant to Sections
4.034(3)(c) and 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
II. Zoning Code References
Section 4.034(3)(c) Setbacks - The Zoning Code states that the side yard setback requirement
on the garage side in an R-1 Zoning District shall be five feet.
Variance . :.
III.
Section 4.22
Property Specifications
Zoning:
Location:
Adjacent Land Uses:
Site Area:
Building Area:
Lot Area Ratios:
Planning District:
Specific Information:
R-l, Single Family Residential
The site is located 90 f~et north of 53rd Avenue on the west side of
Pennsylvania Avenue, four blocks east of Winnetka Avenue.
The site is surrounded by single family homes.
75' x 135' = 10,125 square feet
1,560 square feet (footprint) = 330 square feet detached single garage (to be
demolished)
Proposed attached double garage - 585 square feet
Lot area
Existing buildings and drive:
Existing green:
Proposed buildings and drive:
Proposed green area:
10,125 square feet
33% hard surface
67%
28%
72% (driveway length cut in half)
No. 6; The Comprehensive Plan states that the City will aggressively promote
private reinvestment in the existing single family housing in this Planning
District.
This lot slopes from back yard to the east street frontage and contains a five-
foot wide drainage and utility easement along the back lot line, only. The
applicant has paid for and submitted an "As-Built" lot survey, dated 7/31/00,
that precisely identifies basic information so there is no question as to the
proposed garage and lot line location.
Planning Case Report 00-15 Page 1 9-29-00
IV. Background
The lot was developed in the 1950s and was connected to water and sewer in 1961. The detached
single garage was built in 1963. A large addition (24' x 30') was built on the rear of the home by the
applicant in 1992. Applicant has spoken to the Building Official several times over the years about the
"too-small garage" and drainage behind it. Staff always encourages an upgrade to a double attached
garage for present and future resale value.
The applicant wishes to remove a detached single stall garage, which has fallen into a state of
disrepair, and replace it with a new 19.5 foot by 30 foot attached garage along his south property line.
The new garage complies with City standards for garage floor area and height. However, the proposed
garage will not meet the required five-foot side yard setback standard. The applicant is requesting a
variance to allow a two-foot encroachment in the required five-foot side yard setback (resulting in a
three-foot side yard setback).
V. Petitioner's Comments
The petitioner submitted a narrative that states he plans to take down the old garage and slab, the
concrete patio and old driveway. The yard will be re-landscaped to divert water away from the house to
the south side of the yard and out to the street, which would involve installing a retaining wall and
possibly some drain tile. All exterior materials will match the existing house.
VI. Notification
Property owners within 350 feet of the property were notified and staff received several phone calls
regarding the variance and several neighbors came in to look at the plans. Upon explanation of the
variance and seeing the plans, the neighbors felt the' variance was justified. When the applicant originally
initiated discussions with staff about this request several months ago, the adjacent property owner to the
south contacted the City and expressed concerns about the variance request. However, that property
owner has made no further contact with or comments to the City.
VII. Development Analysis :
A. Zonin.q Code Criteria
1. 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. The hardship
cannot be created by the property owner, and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood.
2. "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.
3. 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:
A. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance.
B. Li.qht and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
C. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street.
D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
Planning Case Report 00-15 Page 2 9-29-00
E. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code.
Development Review Team
The Development Review Team met on September 13 and supported the concept, recommending:
· Submit narrative, describing proposal and details like the rear garage door.
· Submit an interior plan.
· Explore why neighbor is opposed.
· Consider aligning front walls.
· Consider additional landscaping along south side of driveway.
· Expand on drainage advantages of plan.
· Verify siding and roofing materials and style will match.
Design & Review Committee
The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on
September 14 and were generally
supportive of the variance. They did not feel additional landscaping was needed and were
comfortable with the overhead door at the rear of the garage. Confusion was resolved clarifying that
no variance was needed or a retaining wall close to the side lot line. In addition:
Applicant verified that building materials and style will match existing.
· Drainage problems were the focus of most discussion - improvements were needed and a
thoughtful design with more details was needed.
· They discussed the south neighbor's opposition, which may be a philosophical opposition to all
variances, as the neighbor felt "rules should :be followed," according to the applicant.
· Revise driveway to narrow it slightly.
D. Plan Description
Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meetings and provided the following details:
· R-1 Zoning. The site in question is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential. The lot is 10,125
square feet in area with a 75-foot width. Both dimensions are compliant with City standards. The
existing building complies with required R-1 setbacks except the northeast corner of the house
which is set back 9.86 feet from the north lot line, and is less than the required 10-foot side yard
setback.
· Garage size will be 19.5 feet wide and 30 feet deep, for a total of 585 square feet.
· Detached single garage slab, patio, and old driveway will be demolished.
· Rear yard to be re-landscaped to divert water away from house to south side of yard and out to
street.
· New retaining wall, drain tile, and driveway to be installed.
· Roof slope of garage to match house (east to west), but at higher elevation. Garage height is 14
feet 10 inches. ~
Planning Case Report 00-15 Page 3 9-29-00
Doors and windows on new garage will include:
16' front garage door on east elevation
3 - 28" x 15" awning windows on south elevation
8' rear garage door on west elevation
2 - 6'8" x 2'8" personal service doors on north elevation in front and rear corners adjacent to
house
:> Service door into house will be into existing laundry/mud room.
· All exterior materials to match (siding, roof, windows).
· Applicant has shown grading behind the home to a swale around the south side of new garage,
next to a new retaining wall towards the street. A 4-inch drain tile will be included along the south
boundary, as an "insurance" feature.
· Revised plan shows that the corner of the house to the south is 15 feet from the property line, so
there would be a distance of 18 feet between the new garage and the house.
· City maps indicate that the home to the south may be a non-conforming corner lot due to the
location of the structure on the lot, which is built at a 45-degree angle.
· Increase in green area on the lot is shown by the revised site plan. Property specifications,
above, verify a five percent green area increase.
Planning Considerations
Per the Planner's report, the Zoning Code requires at least one of the required parking stalls to be
inside a garage. Additionally, all newly constructed homes must be placed on the lot in a manner
that would accommodate a two-car garage, either attached or detached. The New Hope Zoning
Ordinance does not mandate that a property owner must construct a two-car garage, nor does it
mandate an attached garage.
The property appears to have unique topograpl~y that causes water to drain from the neighboring
southern property into the area of the detached garage and into the northwest portion of the house
on the subject property. The water also drains from the subject property into the neighboring
property to the north. The requested variance would allow an attached garage that would replace
the deteriorated detached garage. In addition, submitted grading and drainage plans show that a
drain pipe would allow water to drain along the south lot line of the subject property to the street,
reducing runoff into the house and toward the neighbor to the north.
The Building Official points out that a number of precedents exist for side yard setback variances of
two feet for garage additions where no drainage and utility easement exists, as in this case. The
Comprehensive Plan encourages private investment in housing, in general, and specifically
highlights this district as having those needs. Staff encourages landowners to take advantage of
modern, reduced building setback standards on all yards, when they consider expansion and
upgrades. The applicant has a front yard opportunity that he wants to enjoy, reducing his driveway
costs and maintenance, while giving him room to regrade behind the home where the old garage
sits. No other practical double garage option exists on the lot, nor is it reasonable to build a
narrower garage, such as 18 feet, since a double door is 16 feet wide.
The Planner states that the Comprehensive Plan contains policies to promote private reinvestment
in the City's single-family housing stock and to examine city development regulations to provide
greater development flexibility for single-family homeowners. Allowing the setback variance for an
attached garage is consistent with these Comprehensive Plan policies. The addition of a two-car
garage is a reinvestment in the neighborhood. The City has historically supported variances that
promoted this type of investment. Exhibit H illustrates past side yard variances for garage
construction.
Planning Case Report 00-15 Page 4 9-29-00
F. Buildinq Considerations
All materials and construction techniques must comply with the Minnesota Building Code, as
agreed. Quality is not addressed in this minimum document and the Commission may want to
discuss the type of materials to be used.
G. Engineering Considerations
The City Engineer has reviewed this property in the past with regard to neighborhood drainage
issues. The attached 1993 drainage review letter from the City Engineer pertains to the Glum lot
and the adjacent north neighbor, concluding that insufficient reason existed for city involvement in a
drainage project.
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans for this garage addition and provided the following
comments:
· We have received a sketch plan describing the improvements proposed by the applicant. The
plans appear to reflect our previous conversations and requirements. The storm water from the
property should be conveyed towards Pennsylvania Avenue. This will be accomplished with
grading, drain tile, and retaining wall.
· The submitted plans do not include any topography or elevations. It is recommended that the
applicant establish a letter of credit or escrow such that we can assure the improvements are
completed as approved. It is further recommended that he have the drain tile and retaining wall
inspected and approved by the City during construction and prior to backfilling and final grading.
We can work with the applicant during construction to make modifications, if required.
· Overall, it appears that the proposed drainage~ improvements would be beneficial to the property
and possibly result in some drainage benefit to neighboring properties. The project should not
be allowed if it would be detrimental to neighboring properties from a drainage perspective. This
does not appear to be the case.
Staff does not feel that a letter of credit is nece~ssary and is usually not required for single family
home construction. These issues can be adequately addressed with the building permit and
inspection process and the City Engineer can coordinate with the Building Official on the drainage
issues.
VIII. Summary
Pending input from neighboring property owners, staff is very supportive of this request, as it is similar
to a number of other requests that have been approved in the past. Economics is not the basis for the
request, as this is an expensive option. A reasonable alternative does not exist. The owner desires to
make another significant investment in his property, which will improve the property and the
neighborhood and improve the drainage situation. The topography of the property has caused drainage
problems in the past and the new garage and drainage improvements will correct the situation.
IX. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the request for a two-foot side yard setback variance to construct a new
attached garage three feet from the property line, subject to the following conditions:
1. The existing detached garage must be completely removed, including the foundation.
2. Grading and drainage issues are subject to City Engineer review and approval.
3. A gutter and downspout must be installed on the west side of the proposed garage to direct water
toward the street.
4. The attached garage exterior building materials must match those of the existing house.
Planning Case Report 00-15 Page 5 9-29-00
5. The driveway must taper beginning at a point 20 feet from the garage and continuing to the street in
order to reduce the driveway pavement area and provide a green area on the south side of the
driveway for water infiltration.
6. If the height of the proposed retaining wall along the south property line is four feet or greater in
height, the design of the wall must be approved by the City Engineer.
Attachments:
Site Location Map
Topo and Zoning Maps
Survey
Site Plan
Petitioner Sketch and Narrative
Site Drainage Plan
Building Elevations
Floor Plan Cross Section
Building Official Exhibit
General Inspector Comments
Research on Past Variances
Planner's Report
City Engineer Comments
Design & Review Recap
1993 City Engineer Correspondence
Planning Case Report 00-15 Page 6 9-29-00
City
of
New Hope
SITE LOCATION
~NGLEFAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-I
SINGLEAND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-?-
MEDIUM DENSITYRESIDENTIAL
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL R-5
RESIDENTIALOFFICE R-O
LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS B-I
RETAIL BUSINESS
AUTO ORIENTED BUSINESS B'~
COMMUNITY BUSINESS B'4
LIMITED INDUSTRIAL [" I
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
FLOOD PLAIN FP
WET LAND W
I~Jorthwest
~' "Ass ciated
'-' Consultants, inc.
. ~ ' j * ' I ' ~ I . '.
t~13' ~16 ~13,,.,: ~14 ,~ :. ~ .......... ' ..... · / . ~
, . ~ ...... · ...... ~,- ...... . ..; · ~ . ~ ; ~e~m~
:: ~,~: ~ ~.~ ~10 .~ , , .......... ~ -... ~ ~ ~
.......... ~ ....... ,~ I~ ...... ~
~ : ' .... ; .... , : ...... : ' . ' . ......
,~ ~,~' ~: ~t ~ :~ :~ , '. : .. :~~
.~.......~ ......., .......... : ......... ~ .....~ · ~ ~ ~ · :, .... ~.-~
~~ : , : ,~, · . , : ·
..~ ....... :~ .................. ~ ........ : ........ :. ' ~24 . ~ . ; ..... .--~
~ ~0; ...... ~0 ...... ' : -~ 18 ~I~ ' ~ .....
..; ...... . ....... ,--- , : ,- ......... ~ . I .
. · ~: : , ~ ~ : ~18
· ~ : ~ ..... ~ .....; , ........ ~ ...... ~ .~12 : ~13 l~r-;~..
~13 ..... : . ~ _ .
i~ -
~/ . , ..........~ ............... ~ ........ ; ........... ~.",' ': ~ :~ .....
~ ~ I ~ ~1 .. ...............
. -
.... ' ~,- j' ........ · ...... /! ........ ~ ....... . ,. ......... ; ..... ,, .. _..~-
~ ; '~ ..' .5242 ' K~ · ~.~-~11,~-~: _,
~.- "-. ' .' , I , : , ' ~:
' "-, '-.. . -" ; ....... ~ ........ ," I : ~
: ~ '' . : ..... '"~ ; ~ i -~-~ ~; ......· ,..' ..... ,~' 5242
· ~ · ~ ~ ' · . . [ ..... ~ )~/
· , · ~, ~ ~ 5~ 5~ ,~ , · .
_ ~ . .= ~ ~ t ......... ~ ; ,. , ,, 6~ , 5~I
: -.. · ~ ~ , ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ; , ..............
~: _, --_ ' _ , , ~18:5~1 ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~~
~ , ~ .. -.. , i · , ~
~ i ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ ( ' ~ ...... ·
,--. ~.' ' ' , ~1~, ~ '~, - ~ ,
..~~... . ~ :.~: ~1 . ~ ....... ~ ............ :~ ............· ... , , ........
.' ~ / ~~' .[ ~n~'~'.~ : ~ _; :~z~z~ '
/~ ~ ' · %~" ~ ~ ~ ~. .......... , ....... , ~ , / "~.
-~ '~ ..-. ~,~ .. .. ; ~: ~ '. ....... . .......
..~ , ~ ,.~ ' ~ :'. ,.. "';;';'"~, .~.. ~ '~ ......
-.. ,. ~/ ~,.' '.... .-- .. : ~ ~ ...... .*-, ~
'...~ t ~ ,' / ~. . . ~ .... ~ ·
.. ~ ~ , ........ ... ~ , , ~ .~17
.. · ~ . ~ ~ ; ..~, ~ ......... ~ ~_ _~~12;
-. .'~ ,.~l~7~. ~ ~* · '5~' ' -
-_ · .,' , - : ~1 ~ * ' ,
..... -,. -...._ .... , ........ , .......... ~ .......................................
t
:
.*
/'
': "~ X 0d6.6 :
oe~lo ~
)X
895.7
~ '?.;,.
WINNETKA .......... ,,.-
ELEMENTARY ....................................... : ............. : --~1~
SCHOOL ...... : ......... . .......... .... ~"~
................. - .............. . ....... ~_~-~--'-:~-~c;:~-::~
Z ..... ,,~ .... : ........................
uJ .......... "~ Z
....... :> ........... ' '~.~'~.1~ ..... ~ ......... ~> .........
~A
.~ ........... . W ........ ~ ................... .
............... % .... ~ .................. ~ ................ . ....
5~b A~E N
50TH AVE N ~
49TH AVE N
~ i' ? -":l ......
48TH AVE N
T-q'"'"!'"""T '-'"F"-T-i "' ' ' .....
" [ ', Z ;'
O". .4-. ?Q.:*
./O,,t i ....
- ~/ , .~,
i-1
ICE
ARENA
Z
CER TIFICA TE OF SURVEY
For: Tim Glum
LOT 9, BLOCK J,
S 89'39'27" £
- - 135. O0 -.
~ ~ 44.3 - '
~ ~ ~ House
~ ~ ~ ~5~o7
/ co~o~e ~
--34.62-- ~ 22.3 .
'
22.3
~ ~
- - tJS. O0 - -
1
· Denotes 1/2 inch iron pipe found.
July 31, 2000
Project No: 00-048
0
Cad File: 00048.dwg
Denotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron pipe
set, marked by license no. 21401.
Merila & Associates
ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING
8401 73RD AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 63, BROOKLYN PARK, MN
PHONE: 763-533-7595 FAX: 763-533-1937
Bearings are based on
an assumed datum.
Scale: 1 'inch = 30 feet
Page 2 of 2 pages
N
CER TIFICA TE OF SURVEY
For: Tim Glum
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 10, Block 3, SUNSET HEIGHTS, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
·
0
NOTES TO SURVEY:
Denotes 1/2 inch iron pipe found.
Denotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron pipe set, marked
by license no. 21401.
Bearings are based on an assumed datum.
This survey has been pre. pared without benefit of a
title commitment po/icy or title opinion, therefore
only easements from the record p/at have been
shown as a part of this survey.
CERTIFICATION:
We hereby certify that this is a true and correct survey of the above described property and that
it was performed by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Land
Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. That this survey does not purport to show
all improvements, easements, or encroachments to the properly, except as shown hereon.
Signed this 31st day of July, 2000. For:. Media & Associates, Inc.
Randy M. MortoJ~, Land Surveyor, Ucense No. 21401
Merila & Associates
ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING
8401 73RD A VENUE NORTH, SUITE 63, BROOKLYN PARK, MN
PHONE: 763-533-7595 FAX: 763-533-1937
REVISIONS:
DRAWN BY:
RMM
PROJECT NO:
OO-048
CAD FILE:
O0048.DWG
PAGE 1 OF 2 PAGES
//7'
f
1
.¢-'.2.. ,,,,,
EXHIBIT D
t?~m,.~ ,y / ,,',.; , ,:t
/\
?\
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
t
/ // /
,O
906.
September 12, 2000
A1 Brixius
RE: Variance for garage to be installed to within 3' of property line (5307 Pennsylvania
Ave. N.)
It is the opinion of Chuck Tatro, General Inspector, that the addition of an attached
garage could enhance the properties on this neighborhood. I feel the location is more
conducive for an attached garage over a detached garage for the following reasons.
The South end of the existing house was built to low for proper drainage away
from the residence. This is causing some deterioration at grade that could be
corrected by the addition of an attached garage.
The neighbor to the South would have a better view from his rear yard. Currently
the only view is a detached garage from'this rear yard.
The addition could enhance better drainage for the properties at 5301 and 5307
Pennsylvania Ave as well as possibly preventing water that currently runs to the
North. The property at 5313 qurrently has a water problem, and any water that
can be diverted from that direction will be helpful to that neighbor also. Any
water that can be directed to the street is a definite improvement. Adding to the
height of the North foundation wall of the garage and creating a swale to direct
the water flow from a portion of 5301 to the street can accomplish this. I would
recommend that the water flow be directed from the rear of the garage to flow
forward or to the East.
EXHIBIT G
SlOE YARD VARIANCES .- 1980 1998
)-13 :Front yard setback (30') Approved PC: unanimous I~or~e
oberl & Janet White Request: 6' variance CC unanimous
)48 I',lollhv/ood Parkway Requesl lo cons~..ruct 6' add!iron to lhe front o~ garage and frorll enl~y
Io accommodale a second story to be Iocaled 24' from finn! properly
line
~-20 ..~ S~de yard selback (5') Approved PC' unanimous Building matenals !o mulch
Ichard 8, Lia[,e Shiva Request: 2' variance CC ulrammous Work oul dlainage ~ssues v~lh ne~ghbol
499 N Meadow Lake Road Requesl Io construct 22' x 26'garage onto exlslmg house ex'tending
2 teal .mtn the side yald selbar-;k
~-29 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC. unanimous 1 O' addn Council approved i2' ~ddtlion. '
:~ll Amoldy Request: ?' variance CC: unammous 12' add,.. Building maler~als lc match.
532 Ensign Avenue Request to consirucl 2*story addi(ion (o home exlending 7' inlo s~de
yard setback
~ou96-28 Norwick k[ SiJeRequest:yard setback1, (5') Approved PC. 6 for Building rrtater~aJS lo ma~ch.
.~ variance t aga~r~sl Roof pinch to be 35112
057 Boone Avenue Reque~l to demolish exlsling I-car garage arid conslrucl new 2 absent Garage dimensions to be 26' yade by 30' IDng
atlached 2-ca~ garage to exlend 1' inlo side yard selback CC. unanimous
eorla Bigelow ~ Side yard setback (5') Approval PC'. unanimous Bu,lding malerials lo mulch exlslJng.
Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous
840 Gettysburg Avenue Requesl lo construct an addihnn Ohio existing grange, extending 2'
in{o side yard. selback
lo§er Griggs ~ Sale yard variance (5') Approved PC' 6 for Reel' & building maier~ais to rna[ch existing sl/uclure
· Request: 1.6' variance I excused
~313 Pennsylvama Avenue Requesl to construct garage on .~id~. og house, wY:ich extends 18' CC. unanimous
. . . il~to stun yard s~etb~ck.
)an!el & I]arbara N(xdbelg ''/ S~de yard (20' come! lot) 8, fronl yard {35') selback ApprOVed 'PC: 5 for Roof & building mate~als fo mulch e~<~sb'ng Struclum.
Request: $' side & 12' front variances I abstain
1243 Flag AvenJe Request to expand garage on aon.confo~min.q struclure CC un,ruinous
lames & Sandra Larsou ~ Side yard setback (5') ~C, ~ Approved 1' PC: unanimous Roof & building mater!ate lo match exlsbng slr~cture.
Request: 2' variance CC- Approved 2' CC: 3 [or
i908 Boone Avenue Request Io add onto g~rage, wh~h would ex'lend 2' inlo sade yard I against
setback.
18q32 S~de yard setback (35' an, ess from indus!ual, along 4~ Avenue) Approved PC' unammous '
~ew CommunitI' Builders Request: 1' variance CC* unammous
1864 E{Ickson Drive Requesl to build new home 1' ~nto s~de yard setback.
15-20 Side yard setba:k (i0') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building mate~.~als to match exislJng slruclum.
~ichmd & Donna Krar~z Request: $' variance 1 againsl Drainage no{ advemely impact neighbors.
~240 Ensign Ct Request to add a family mom to existing home w/th basement. CC: unanimous Lot surve~ be consislenl.
~,~,¢~lch v,~oul.d exlend 5' inl0 Ihe side yald selbecP..
SIDE YARD VARIANCES --- 1980- 1998
5-t0 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC unammous Roof& bu~mg malerJalslo matchexi, sl~ng slructure.
atrick O'M~ara Request: 2' vahance CC. urlammous Exlertd chain hnk fence behveen h3uses
200 39v*' Avenue RequesI Io add bedloorn above garage, v/tach wc, uld exlend 2' mtn
Ihe sale yald
iregory5-02 Davi.~ Request:Stale yard selback3, variance(1 §') Approved cc'PC' unanimousunanim°us Roof & building marshals Io malch existing ,shucture
30.__~_8 3~~ Aven.u__~ Requesl to add ohio exmling home
4-24
- '"~ Sds ymd ~lback (20' comer Iol) Approved PC. unanimous Ro~)f & building materials Io malch ex~slin9 shucture
h, ie Ca(ey Request: 3' variance CC unanimous
052 Decatur Avenue Requesl lo a~ onto ex~stJn9 garage, vrh~ch v:ould extend 3' ~nto side
yard [corner Iol) setback ~.'
4-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - approved 1' PC I' unammous Ro3f & building materials to Match ex,'sling structure.
ames Wiczek I,,'"' Request: 3' vmtance CC - approved 2' CC 2' unammous
104 Oregon Avenue Request to add a 2-sto.,y addit,on, including tuck-under garage and
living area above.
4-08 S~de yard selback (10'} Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials 1o rrelch exlsling '~hucluml --
Ii:hard & Pah~ia Brutus Request; 4' variance 6/5/84 - PC CC' unanimous
251 40~" Avenue Request to constcuct a screened p~rch at rear of house which ~s 6111/84 - CC
technically [he side yard a~rd would extend 4' into side yard.
3 -55
'.O. Dolso~ ~ Sale yald setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Root' & building materials In malch exisling sbuclUre.
Request: ! W variance CC: unanimous
~01. Quebec Avenue Request Io add onto 9arable, ',vhmh WOuld extend 1 ~'inlo setback
.3.*48 Request: 3' variance [_'/~// Roof & building maleAals Io match exis~,'ng slruclum.
oseph Fen-er '~- Side yard setback (5') ~ Approved PC: unanimous
CC' unanimous Stru~ure should be only 20' so ove~ang is 2' from Iai
633 RhrOd0 Island Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 3~ into setback Ihs
;3-35 $~de yard ( I 0') & rear yard (35) setback Approved PC n3 minutes m ~le~ Roof & building materials !o match existing stn~ClUm.
;hades & Phyllis Ho:ton Request: 2' side & 3' rear yard vsriance · ":' CC: unanimous Remove ex~shng shed.
1204 Getlysbu~9 Request to add 3-season porch Io rear of house, which extends 2'
into Ihs side yard and 3, to rear yard.
13-30 Side yard variance (5') ApProVed PC' unammous 2'3" variance, move shed al back of property, take out
Ioseph Buslovmh Request: 2'9" variance -,~ CC: unanimous 1' 1" gl sidewalk, lake care of wate~ p~oblem, ~oik lo
1530 Yukon Avenue Varianoe was glartted 3' yanance i0 1980. after ~urvey b~ neighbor, be does in 30 days
he should have requested 2'3' variance as Ihs sidewalk and a shed
am located on neighbor's property.
13~28
.ar~' & Calol Adams I,," ~de yard variance (10') and front yald variance 130') Approved PC' unanimous Ro~f & building materials to malch exisfing slruclare.
Request: $' side & 5~ front CC: unanimous
i200 Oregon Avenue Request to construcl double garage
13-09 Stde yard selback (10') ....
Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building mater~als In match existing slructu, re.
thomas Gagrto~ Request: 4.25' variance wilh overhanl~ 2.25' from property line, CC.' unanmtous
il)25 Sumler Place Request to consl~ucl an addi~3n onto exisbng home. Council
recommended thai addilion be flush ab~t9 real of house so that
varian:e be less ,Iha. n original plan
SIDE YARD VARIANCES 1980 1998
L04 Side yard setback variances for stairway and win§ walls already Approves' PC 4 for
;ninon Sluhr ccnslrucled 3 aga~nsl
4~35 Wisconsin Avenue CC. 4
1 agmnst
)2 38 ~lback (20' on oolne! Iol) Approved , PC: unanimous Ro3f"*& build~ng malerials Io match existing slmcture.
/dliaro & Jacquehr~e Sheperd Request: 8.4' variance CC: unanimous
~501 2§~ AYenue Requesl lo build 3-season porch onto exksting house 8.4' ~nto 20'
selback re u~L~I to~ comertols leavm~
· .q .... . . ,, I1§'.
',2-29 Side yard vadance (5') Approved PC' unanimous
obeH Yunker 4605 Boone Request; Both parties lequesling 5' variance 1o construct a CC' unanimous
;larlin Kvasnilr.. 4612 Boone oonclote apro~ up to Ihe properly tine at both residences g 4605
Boone requesting variance Io park mcreahonal vehicle on ceroenl
pad to within 3' of propert), line. .
2-21redenck ~aAe ..~ SideRequest:yard sstback3, variant(5') >~ Approved PC' 16abstamJ°r Root' & building malenals Ir) me{ch exisling ~lmclure.
042 Oregon Avenue Request to conslrucl a 2-car detached garag~ Io wllhm 2' of side CC: unammous
yard plopedy line.
2-20 Side yard selback (5') Approved PC: 4 for
~el O~son ~ Request: 5' vedanta '~- Root & building mat~ialslo march ex~stmg slruclure.
3 against Overhang cannot extend over property Ina.
833 3t~ Avenue Requesl Io add onlo ex,sling garage nghl up to Ihe lot line at Ihe CC' unammous
rear coiner o...f ne.w addilkxq.
~;ukhender Nalh "~ ,?,de yard setback (5') _~_ Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building roatenais to match existing structure --
Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous
:~717 30~n Avenue Request Io add :)ntb exis~ng garage, wh~h would exlend 2' dom
ploperly line
iit-52 S~le yard selback (20' on corner) No roinutes in file.
~to.~er & Ja-~ice.Fechner ~ Request: 4'11'" variance
~700 Indel~_ndence .l~u,quest toadd onto exmling garage leavm§ a 15'1" setback along
: 47 Avenue. which requires 20'
i~1-34 Side yard setback (5')
i~evedy Co3pe~ ..~ Request: 4' va~ianoe ~- Approved PC: unammous Roof & building roaten'als lo match'existmg slructu~e.
CC: unanimous
;1~33 Hillsboro Avenue Requesl Io add onto exes'ling garage, which v/oulc extend'l' from
, p[opedy
'~1-27
:-Iarold Lund 'V¢' ~.cle yard selback (5') Approved PC: una;mmous Roof & buikiing malelials Io match existing struclure.
Request: '1' variance CC' unanimous
'16t7 Hitlsboro Avenue Request to add onto ex,sling garage, which woul:l extend 4' lrom
properb/line.
)1-11 Side yard setback (35' along 38v' Avenue) Approved PC' unanimous' Roof & building roatedals Io roatch existng slruclure
(ennelh Kline :i~ Request: 10' variance CC: unanimous
~551 Wisoonsir Avenue Requesl Io Bom'afl ex~stmg garage into living spar_,e and build new
2-car garage, which waulrt exlend 10' rolo Ihs 35' side yard setback
a'ong 36~" kvenu, e
- SIDE YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 - 1998
I-C]2 Side yard selback (10') Approved PC unanimous Roof & building malenals to mulch exisling struclule.
· ank Darien Request: 3' variance CC unanimous
.104 40'~ AYenue Request to add/amity room on [o e~isling haole, which would
extend 3' ~n~o Ihe 10' selback
3 59 Side {20') & rear yard v'allance (35') ..... Approved .PC. unanimous Roof and building matenals !o match ex, sting
I¥~'0n & Belly IKjos ~// Request: 2' side yard & 5..5' rear yard variance CC unanimous slruclure.
§37 Hiltsbo~o Avenue Lot hne ~s somewhal at afl angle Io new garage and half the garage
is over Ihe side setback by 2' and Ihe rear extends inlo Ihe mar
setback by 5.5 leal
0-48
~eph Buslovich ..~ Side yard vaflan:e .(5')"' Approved PC: unanimous Rool' and building materials lomatch ex, shng
Request; 2' variance CC unanimous structure
,530 Yukon Aveque Request to add on to roake a 2-car gmage, wh~ch would be 3' tram
Ihe plopell)' line wdh the overhang r~jhl on I~e property line
Neighbors I~ouse is ~0' Iraq3 line wilh no windows on thai s~de.
0-47 Side yard vananc, e (5' garage) Approved PC unanimous "Roof and building malenals to match exishng
lan~el Hanka Requesl; 2' variance CC. unanLrnous slructure
625 Gettysburg Avenue Requesl to add on large addilJor~, garage and liwng area. which
leaves only _3' from property hn~ al one corne~ o! home.
040 Side yard variance (5'garage) Approved PC' $ for Curb cu! moved by Cily so drive.#ay does not
:.l~oy Meyer Request: 5' variance ! against encroach aa neighb~xing land whe~ paved.
,832 Cavel/Avenue Requesl to keep driveway right up to the property line as it was for CC: unammous
pasl 19 years Wahl to pave driveway and al lhe boulevard it
encroaches onto Ihe neighbols land.
i0:34 Side yard setback (10'} Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match ex, sting sl~ucluro
Jqne J:)huson Request: 2' variance CC' unanimous
~022 Boone Avenue Add a 2' x 5' alcove lo dining mon~. which would exlend oul 2' into
Ihe 10' side yard setback "i, '
i0-27 Side yard selback (35' for majo~ arterial street - 35~' Avenue) Approved PC' unanimous Re,move existini] fence, building materials to mulch
{ny Lindgrer, ~ Request: 4' variance CC' unanimous
YJ0O Jofdan Avenue Want 1o add onto Ihe garage rolo the 35' side yard setbac, k by 4',
~flich would leave 31'
i0-t 3 Side yard selback (10') Appro,,md PC: unafl~mous A removable gateway' seclion be mslalfed in fence to
.ToopedHefman Request: 3' variance CC. unanimous allow for trite protecti3n.
1200 Flag Avenue Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one comer of
each house does nco meet requiremenl
50'-:~'~' Stale'yard selba;k ( lO') Approved PC: unanimous A re~novabla galeway section be instalied m I'ence Io
3ooperlHerrnan Request: S' variance CC: unanimous allow for fire prote~on.
¢208 Flag Averse Houses were built too close together m cul-de-sac & one coroe~ of
each house do~s not meat requirement
kl NORTH~SSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
I '~ CONINIUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Cynthia Putz-Yang /Alan Brixius
September 27, 2000
New Hope - Glum Garage: Side Yard Setback Variance
131.01 - 00.11
BACKGROUND
Mr. Glum wishes to remove a detached single stall garage which has fallen into a state of
disrepair and replace it with a new 19.5 footby 30 foot attached garage along his south
property line. The new garage complies with the City standards for garage floor area and
height. However, the proposed garage will not meet the required five foot side yard
setback standard. Mr. Glum is requesting a variance to allow a two foot encroachment in
the required five foot side yard setback (resulting in a three foot side yard setback.
Attachments:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Site Location
Site Topography
Site Survey
Site Plan
Site Drainage Plan
Building Elevations
Building Inspector Comments
Past Variances
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554.1 6
PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAG@ WINTERNET.COM
RECOMMENDATION
If the Planning Commission and City Council find that the topography of the subject lot is
unique and has created a drainage problem that can best be resolved by granting a
variance from setback standards, we recommend that approval of the variance request to
allow a three foot side yard setback at the Glum residence at 5307 N. Pennsylvania
Avenue be subject to the following conditions:
1. The existing detached garage must be completely removed, including the
foundation.
Grading and drainage issues are subject to City Engineer review and approval.
A gutter and downspout must be installed on the west side of the proposed garage
to direct water toward the street.
The attached garage exterior building materials must match those of the existing
house.
The driveway must taper beginning at a point 20 feet from the garage and
continuing to the street in order to reduce the driveway pavement area and provide
a green area on the south side of the driveway for water infiltration.
If the height of the proposed retaining wall along the south property line is four feet
or greater in height, the design of the wall must be approved by the City Engineer.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan contains policies to promote private
reinvestment in the City's single family housing stock and to examine City development
regulations to provide greater development flexibility for single family homeowners.
Allowing the setback variance for an attached garage is consistent with these
Comprehensive Plan policies.
R-1 Zoning. The site in question is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential. The lot is
10,125 square feet in area with a 75 foot width. Both dimensions are compliant with City
standards. The existing building complies with required R-1 setbacks except the northeast
corner of the house with is set back 9.86 feet from the north lot line, which is less than the
required ten foot side yard setback.
2
Garage Addition. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing detached garage
from the property and replace it with a new attached garage. The proposed garage would
be set back three feet from the south property line. A five foot side yard is required.
Section 4.032(3)(e) requires at least one of the required parking stalls to be inside a
garage. Additionally, all newly constructed homes must be placed on the lot in a manner
that would accommodate a two car garage, either attached or detached. The New Hope
Zoning Ordinance does not mandate that a property owner must construct a two car
garage, nor does it mandate an attached garage.
Variance Criteria. Section 4.221 outlines the purpose for a variance as addressing the
following items:
1. Prevent undue hardship or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the
reasonable use of a specific parcel of property.
A hardship should be unique to the property and may exist by reason of
narrowness, shallowness, shape of the parcel, exceptional topography, or water
condition that may result in exceptional difficulties in the use of the parcel.
In addition, Section 4.222 states that the Planning Commission and City Council shall
make findings that the proposed action will not:
1. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance as described in 4.221
2. Impair an adequate supply oflight and'air to adjacent property.
3. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street.
4. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
5. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the
neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this Code.
The property appears to have unique topography that causes water to drain from the
neighboring southern property into the area of the detached garage and into the northwest
portion of the house on the subject property. The water also drains from the subject
property into the neighboring property to the north. The requested variance would allow
an attached garage that would replace the deteriorated detached garage. In addition,
submitted grading and drainage plans show that a drain pipe would allow water to drain
along the south lot line of the subject property to the street, reducing run-off into the house
and toward the neighbor to the north.
3
The addition of a two car garage is a reinvestment in the neighborhood. The City has
historically supported variances that promoted this type of investment. Exhibit H illustrates
past side yard variances for garage construction.
CONCLUSION
If the Planning Commission and City Council finds that the topography of the subject lot
is unique and has created a drainage problem that can best be resolved by granting a
variance from setback standards, we recommend that approval of the variance request to
allow a three foot side yard setback at the Glum residence at 5307 N. Pennsylvania
Avenue be subject to the conditions found within the recommendation section of this
report.
pc: Chuck Tatro
4
"Engin~ars&Archit~cts
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto Bonestroo, P.E. · Marvin L. Sorvata, P.E. · Glenn R. Cook, P.E. ·
Robert G. Schunicht; P.E. · Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E.
Senior Consultants: Robed W. Rosene, P.E. · Joseph C. AndeHik, P.E. · Richard E. Turner, P.E. ·
Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A.
Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford, P.E. · Keith A. Gordon, P.E. · Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. ·
Richard W. Foster, P.E. · David O. Loskota, P.E. · Robed C. Russek, A.I.A. · Mark A. Hanson, P.E. ·
Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. · Ted K. Field, P.E. · Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. · Mark R. Rolfs, P.E. ·
David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. · Sidney P. Williamson, P.E., L.S. · Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A,, ·
Allan Rick Schrnidt, P.E.
Offices: St. Paul, Rochester, Willmar and St. Cloud, MN · Milwaukee, WI
Website: www.bonestroo.com
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Kirk McDonald
Vince Vander Top
September 29, 2000
5307 Pennsylvania - Tim Glum
File No. 34-Gen E00-17
We have received a sketch plan describing the improvements proposed by Mr. Glum. The plans appear to
reflect our previous conversations and requirements. The storm water from the property should be conveyed
towards Pennsylvania Avenue. This will be accomplished with grading, drain tile, and retaining wall.
The submitted plans do not include any topography or elevations. It is recommended that the applicant
establish a letter of credit or escrow such that we can assure the improvements are completed as approved. IT
is further recommended that he have the drain tile and retaining wall inspected and approved by the City
during construction and prior to backfilling and final grading. We can work with Mr. Glum during
construction to make modifications if required.
Overall, it appears that the proposed drainage improvements would be beneficial to the property and possibly
result in some drainage benefit to neighboring properties. The project should not be allowed if it would be
detrimental to neighboring properties from a drainage perspective. This does not appear to be the case.
cc: Mark Hanson
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 651-636-4600 · Fax: 651-636-1311
Memorandum
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Phil Kern, Administrative Assistant
September 15, 2000
Design & Review Recap - Glum Garage Variance
The Design and Review Committee met on Thursday, September 14 to review the
plans for the garage addition proposed by Tim Glum, 5307 Pennsylvania Avenue N. In
attendance were Commissioners Svendsen, Anderson, Oelkers, and Brauch, Al Brixius,
Vince VanderTop, Sue Henry, Chuck Tatro, and myself.
Consultants and staff reviewed the Development Review notes, and the
Commissioners agreed with most of the recommendations. Of the recommendations,
the Commissioners did not feel additional landscaping was necessary around the
driveway. Oelkers stated that landscaping would draw more attention to the extra
parking stall, and the oak tree in the front yard was sufficient. The petitioners did not
have a problem with the 8-foot garage door atthe rear of the garage.
After a review of the drainage problems by the City Engineer, the petitioner was
brought in to answer some questions from the Commissioners. Here is a summary of
the remainder of the meeting:
· Commissioner Svendsen asked about the future of the existing garage. Mr.
Glum stated that the garage will be removed, including the concrete pad. He
stated that one of the main goals for constructing the new garage was to fix the
poor drainage in the backyard.
· Mr. Glum explained that he is planning a garage at the same elevation as the
house, with a grass drainage swale along the south side of the garage, bringing
drainage from behind the house out to the street.
· Tatro recommended that the garage be raised to the elevation at the property
line, which is approximately two feet higher than the proposed floor elevation of
the garage. The petitioner stated he did not want to do that because that will
raise the drainage swale by two feet, limiting his ability to get drainage to flow
from the backyard to the front. VanderTop agreed that raising the garage
foundation may limit the drainage from the backyard.
· The Commissioners then inquired about how he planned to keep the drainage
swale away from the building, if the elevation at the property line was two feet
higher than the garage just three feet away. The petitioner stated that he would
probably have to put down drain tile, although he would prefer to build two-foot
retaining wall along the south property line. He stated that in previous meetings
he was told he couldn't build a retaining wall on the property line without another
variance, so drain tile was his only option.
· At that point, Bdxius informed the petitioner and the Commissioners that a
retaining wall would not require another variance. He stated that retaining walls
are treated just like fences, and therefore another vadance would not be
required. The petitioner stated that he would like to pursue the retaining wall
option, and the Commissioners agreed that was the best option.
· Commissioner Svendse~~, asked him to submit a detailed nar,~,tive explaining his
plans ?o resolve the dra; ;390 problems. :',.'i~-. Glum was told :hat the drainagc
plan would need to be approved by the City Engineer.
· Svendsen also stated that in the narrative he should explain the process for
removing the existing garage and identify the building materials to be used on
the new garage. He reminded the Mr. Glum that the materials must match the
house.
· The Commissioners then informed Mr. Glum that the variance would much
easier to approve if the neighbors were in agreement with the plan. Mr. Glum
stated that he talked to his neighbor to the south (5301 Penn.) and she didn't
object to the garage plans, she just objected to variances in general. He said
she feels the Code is in place for a reason and variances shouldn't be granted.
· They discussed the location of the garage, and decided it was fine as shown.
The idea of moving the garage back to be flush with the house was dismissed.
· Commissioner Svendsen asked the petitioner if he would be willing to consider
narrowing the driveway after the first parking stall to increase the drainage area.
The petitioner stated that this was not a problem, and would show the revised
driveway on the revised plans. The Committee told Mr. Glum to ignore the
comment on the Development Review memo about additional landscaping.
· Commissioner Oelkers stated that he felt the petitioner was very prepared and
has thought this through. He stated that he liked what Mr. Glum had to say.
· Mr. Glum restated that he would submit revised plans with the retaining wall
concept by September 22. He added that he's no longer in a hurry to get the
variance approved since the construction season is almost over. He is not
planning on constructing the garage un'til next spring.
· Commissioner Svendsen reminded Mr. Glum about the Planning Commission
and City Council meetings, and that he needed to be in attendance at both.
If you have any questions or would like further information regarding this meeting,
please let me know and I can clarify.
· Page 2
Bonestroo
Rosene
. ,nderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
September 13, 1993
O~o G. Bonestroo. RE
Robert W Roseno. RE'
Joseph C. Anderlik. RE,
Marvin L Sorval& PP.
Richard E. Turner, PE.
Glenn R Coot r-
Thomas E. Noyes. RE.
Robert G 5chunicht, RE.
Susan M. Eb~rlin. C.R^.
*5~nior Consultant
Howard A. S~nford, PE
Keith ^. Gordon, IRE
Robert R. Pfefferle, PE
Richa~ ~ ~s~er. ~E
David O. Loskct~, ~
Robe~ C~ Ru~ ~ L. A ' A
Jer~ A. BourOon. FE
Mark ~. Hanson.
Michael [ Rautmann. P.E.
Ted K. Field.
Thomas R. Antron. A.I.A
Donald C. Bur~t
Thomas E. Angus, RE.
Ismael Mamnez. RE.
Michael ~ R~u.
Agnes M. Ring A lC P
Philip J. I:~e. RE
Thomas ~,~ Paterson, PE
Michael C. Lynch, IRE
James R. Maland, PE
Jerry D. Pertzsch. PE
~O~ J. ~nek, RE.
~nneth R Ande~on. RE
Mark R. R~.
Mark A.
Ga~ ~ Morien,
Daniel J. Edge~on.
A Rick ~hmidt.
Philip J. Cas~ll. RE
Mark g. W~Ilis,
Miles B Jansen, PE
L Phitlip Gravel. RE
Karen L W'iemeri. RE
Gary D. Kristofitz, RE.
F Todd Foster. PE
Keith R Yapp, RE
Douglas J Benoit, RE.
5hawn D. Gus/arson. RE
Cecilia Olivier, RE.
Paul G. Heuet. RE
John R Gorder, RE.
Charles A. Enckson
Leo M. Pawelsky
Harlan M. Olson
3ames E Engelhardt
Mr. Daniel Donahue
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Ave. N.
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: 5307 & 5~313 ~venue Drainage
~ff~"~it~ No. 34 Gan
Dear Dan:
I have been reviewing and communicating with the owners of the above referenced
property regarding the improvements being made at 5307 Pennsylvania Avenue (Tim Glum)
over the last five weeks. I am also aware of the recent letter (dated August 20, 1993) from
Roger Griggs at 5313 Pennsylvania Avenue. .:
Within the last week Tim completed the sodding and landscaping in his backyard, which I
recently inspected. I initially became familiar with this area after Tim's addition was
completed and the excess material resulting from his addition had been graded into his
backyard. Although I have communicated numerous times and am very familiar with the
issues raised in Roger's letter, I am comfortable with the grading and direction of
stormwater runoff from Tim's property, with the exception of one location: on the north
side of his house where the existing roof and new roof for the addition come together. I
have suggested to Tim to place a gutter and downspout at this location to direct the roof
runoff to the street and not onto Roger's property. Although Tim implied he would do this,
at the time I inspected the property (September 7, 1993), this work was not done.
In response to Roger's letter, the runoff from Tim's backyard and five other properties is
conveyed overland across Roger's b. ackyard to his north property line (drainage area is
approximately 0.75 acres). Unfortunately, due to the grades across Roger's backyard and
the large oak trees on his and his neighbor's property to the north, the runoff is conveyed
diagonally across Roger's backyard, which is not al.ways desirable. However, runoff from
Tim's property and others, before and after Tim's addition, has always been conveyed in this
manner across Roger's backyard.
I have reviewed possible improvements to redirect the drainage across Roger's backyard.
However, at this time he does not appear to want to make these improvements on his own.
In addition, Roger has implied the runoff from Tim's property has increased due to his
addition. While the runoff has increased, comparing the hard surface on Tim's property to
other properties in the area, Tim's hard surface area is not any greater than other properties
which have constructed similar additions and patio areas.
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600
M.. Daniel Dm.ahue
City of New Hope
Page -2-
September 13, 1593
In summary, the elevation of Tim's backyard has been raised due to the excavation resulting
from his addition. The elevation has been raised near Tim's north line approximately two
feet, which I am sure is viewed by Roger as a detriment to his property. Tim has graded
the major portion of his backyard to drain west, where the drainage/utility easement exists.
It was graded in this manner at our request to prevent runoff from discharging into the
middle of Roger's backyard. Although the runoff will ultimately run diagonally across
Roger's backyard anyway, Tim has directed his runoff to the location where the easement
exists. Obviously, Roger has the option to redirect the drainage on his property, if he so
desires. However, at this time he's stated these types of improvements are not his
responsibility.
As City Engineer for New Hope and reviewing similar backyard drainage concerns, I don't
feel the magnitude of the problem, based on the affected drainage area (approximately 0.75
acre), warrants City involvement. Similar to other requests in the City, we have suggested
improvements to Roger based on survey information taken in his backyard (attached).
Depending on his course of action, I have also offered to place elevation stakes in his
backyard, based on what he wants to do. I ha~e also stated numerous times to Roger that,
through the months of June, July and portions of August, we have had 7"-9" more rain than
usual. I have also explained the runoff from bare soil, which has been the condition of
Tim's yard through most of the summer, will 'be greater than sodded ground. Now that
Tim's yard has been sodded, I would expect the runoff to be less. Granted, the hard surface
and direction of runoff from Tim's yard have changed. However, to deny Tim the
opportunity to improve his property is not realistic, as long as he complies with engineering
standards.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Yours very truly,
BONE~STRO, O, P-4DSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:po
CC:
Roger Griggs
Mayor Ed Erickson
Doug Sandsted
Tim Glum
II
Ii
I!
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Planning Commission Members
Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
September 29, 2000
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. September 11 Council Meetinq - At the September 11 Council meeting, the Council took action
on the following planning/development/housing issues:
A. Resolution Declaring October 16-22, 2000, "Minnesota Manufacturers Week" in the City
of New Hope: Approved, see attached Council request.
B. Resolution Electinq to Continue Participating in the Local Housinq Incentives Account
Program Under the Metropolitan Livable' Communities Act Calendar Year 2001:
Approved, see attached Council request.
C. Resolution Authorizing Hope Village (Bass Lake Road Corridor) Planning Study
Application for the Livable Communities. Demonstration Program: Approved, see
attached Council request.
D. Project #665, Resolution Approving Cost Sharing Agreement Between City of New
Hope and Electronic Industries, Inc. for Property at 7516 42"d Avenue: Approved, see
attached Council request.
E. Project #626, Motion Accepting the Final Report from Benshoof & Associates, Inc.
Regarding Traffic Improvements for 36th Avenue: Accepted report, see attached Council
request.
F. Project #678, Motion Approving Concept House Plan for 4864 Flaq Avenue: Approved
concept plan, see attached Council request.
September 25 Council/EDA Meetings - At the September 25 Council/EDA meetings, the
Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
A. Project #669, Motion Authorizinq Staff to Neqotiate the Purchase of 5420 Winnetka
Avenue: Authorized staff to negotiate with property owner, see attached Council request.
B. Project #676, Resolution Approving Purchase of 5406 Winnetka Avenue: Approved, see
attached Council request.
C. Project #670, Motion Authorizinq Staff to Continue to Neqotiate the Purchase of the
Property at 5532 Winnetka Avenue: Authorized staff to negotiate with property owner, see
attached Council request.
Project #668, Motion Approving Final Payment to RP Excavatinq in the Amount of
$7,500 for the Total Demolition of 6003 West Broadway: Approved payment, see attached
Council request.
4.
5.
6.
Project #692, Resolution ~,pprovin.q Petition and Assessment Aqreement for Hidden
Park Condominiums and Orderinq Improvement: Tabled for 30 days, see attached Council
request.
F. Project #692, Resolution Awardinq Contract for the Construction of 60th Street
Extension: Rejected all bids, see attached Council request. Condo Association did not
approve assessment agreement. Project delayed until spring.
G. Project #692, Resolution AcceptinR Easement for 7506 60t" Avenue: Tabled for 30 days,
see attached Council request.
H. Project #493, Resolution Approvin.q Extension to Land Disposition Aqreement Relatinq
to Development of 5501 Boone Avenue: Approved, see attached EDA request.
Codes & Standards Committee - Codes & Standards did not meet.
Desi.qn & Review Committee - Design & Review met with the petitioner in September.
Zoning Code Update - The City Council will continue its review of the Zoning Code in October.
Proiect Bulletins - Enclosed for your information are project bulletins on Fire Station roof repairs,
7603 Bass Lake Road, 5422 Winnetka, Golf Course clubhouse, Northwood Park Trail & Ballfield
irrigation, Civic Center Park Outdoor Theatre concrete reconstruction & storm sewer work, 4864
Flag Avenue, and neighborhood meeting on sea gull noise at 8201 54th Avenue.
Miscellaneous Proiects/Potential Applications:
We have some potential applications for next month, but nothing for certain. We have been
responding to some requests for information on communication towers. The public hearing on the
Zoning Code will probably not be held until at least December.
Attachments:
Minnesota Manufacturers Week
Local Housing Incentives Account Program
Hope Village Planning Study
7516 42nd Avenue Cost Sharing Agreement
36~h Avenue Traffic Improvements
4864 Flag Avenue Concept House Plans
5420 Winnetka Negotiate Purchase
5406 Winnetka Approve Purchase
5532 Winnetka Negotiate Purchase
6003 West Broadway Final Payment
Hidden Park Condominium Assessment Agreement
Hidden Park Condominium Award Contract
7406 60th Avenue Easement
5501 Boone Avenue (Senior Day Care), Land Disposition Agreement
Project Bulletins
COUNCIL
REi UEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 9-11-00 Consent
/~ Item No.
Kirk McDonald 6.6
Bv: and Phil Kern B,v:
/
RESOLUTION DECLARING OCTOBER 16-22, 2000, "MINNESOTA MANUFACTURERS WEEK" IN THE
CITY OF NEW HOPE.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution declaring October 16-22, 2000, "Minnesota
Manufacturers Week" in the City of New Hope.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
In 1998 and 1999, the City Council recognized a week in October as "Minnesota Manufacturers Week" in
coordination with the State of Minnesota.
BACKGROUND
The State of Minnesota has declared October 16-22, 2000, "Minnesota Manufacturers Week." In addition to
State recognition, the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) is working with cities all
across Minnesota to recognize this week as well.
DTED has made this declaration in an effort to raise the general public awareness of manufacturing's
importance in providing high-wage, high-skill jobs and a stable tax base for our communities. New Hope is
one of these communities that has benefited from the high-skill jobs and a strong tax base thanks to its
manufacturers. Statewide, manufacturers are responsible for the largest single portion of Minnesota's gross
)roduct, and have the largest payroll of any business sector. Staff feels it is important to recognize the
importance of manufacturers in New Hope.
A'I-I'ACHMENT
· Resolution
MOTION SECOND
BY BY
TO:
g ~O0.doc
CITY OF NEW HOPE
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department
Community Development
By: Susan Henry
Community Dev. Specialist
Approved for Agenda
9-11-00
By: ~
Agenda Section
Consent
Item No.
6.7
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING
INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
CALENDAR YEAR 2001.
I;~EOHESTI=D ACTION
City of New Hope Community Development staff is requesting the Council approve a resolution electing to
participate in the Metropolitan Council's Local Incentive Account Program for the Year 2001.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
Since 1995, the Council has approved the attached resolution to renew a mutual commitment to
affordable and life-cycle housing in partnership with the Metropolitan Council and the Livable Communities
Act.
The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA) was enacted in 1995 to address the development and
maintenance of affordable and life-cycle housing in the metropolitan area. As part of the LCA,
municipalities negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals based on current indexes and benchmark
goals set by the Metropolitan Council. In 1996, the City of New Hope identified goals and methods of
achieving those goals through the development of the Housing Action Plan. One reason the City of New
Hope should elect to participate with LCA includes access to monies for housing development and clean-
up of polluted sites for business. Currently, the City has an application into Metropolitan Council offices for
predevelopment grant funds for the Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue North area. This is an area
designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a key area for redevelopment.
In order for the City to be eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities
Act in calendar year 2001, the City must participate in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program.
Resolution
Correspondence
MOTION BY
SECOND BY
TO:
. /'
, COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originatin§ Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development ~ 9-11-00 Consent
Item No.
Kirk McDonald
By: and Phil Kern B,v: 6.8
/
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HOPE VI/LLAGE (BASS LAKE ROAD CORRIDOR) PLANNING STUDY
APPLICATION FOR THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting that the Council approved a resolution authorizing an application be filed with the
Metropolitan Council for a Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) Program grant to further study
the feasibility of redevelopment of the Bass Lake Road area. The total project cost has been estimated at
$160,000, and the amount of the grant request is $120,000. Staff is recommending that the City allocate 25%
of the project costs in grant matching funds, not to exceed $40,000.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
The City in the past has received grants for housing and planning studies from the Met Council. The City's
participation in the Livable Communities Program. and the scattered site projects that New Hope has
under-taken in the past will strengthen this application..
BACKGROUND
The application is for funds to cover the consultant costs of in depth planning, market, and feasibility studies
for redevelopment of the Bass Lake Road Corridor. In June, staff submitted a Phase I application to the Met
Council for the project. The Phase I application was approved in August and the Met Council has invited the
City to submit a Phase 2 final application for the Hope Village project. The Hope Village area is identified as
an area approximately one-half mile north and south of Bass Lake Road with Boone Avenue as the western
border and the City of Crystal to the east. Several areas within this project area are identified as target
redevelopment sites in the Comprehensive Plan. A few of the sites that will be subject to the advanced
planning, market, and redevelopment feasibility studies include the Hosterman School property, the
Winnetka/Bass Lake Road single-family redevelopment area, and several multiple family properties along
Bass Lake Road. The application will also cover costs associated with the neighborhood meetings with
property owners in the area to encourage and discuss ways the City can further assist with private
redevelopment projects.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
I · I~ ]:A\ PI~ nn/nn\C3-liu~ nnrw~ ,-~
Request for Action
Page 2 9-1i-00 ·
The City has taken an active approach to redeveloping this area. The Bass Lake Court Townhomes were
completed by PPL in 1999 with the assistance of the City. Currently, the City owns nine properties in the
Winnetka Avenue/Bass Lake Road area, which are all being landbanked for future redevelopment. The
purpose of the planning and market studies is to identify viable options for redeveloping the entire area. If the
City's grant application is accepted, the feasibility studies will begin early in 2001.
Originally, the Met Council was requiring municipalities to commit to a 1:1 match for grant funding, but this
requirement was withdrawn in August. The application no longer requires matching funds. The Met Council
stated, however, that commitment of funding by a municipality will increase its chances of receiving funding.
Staff has projected that the entire planning and feasibility project will cost around $160,000, including previous
planning studies of the Hosterman site, Bass Lake Road/Winnetka Avenue redevelopment studies, and
staff/consultant expenses to prepare the grant application. Staff feels that a commitment of 25% in matching
funds will be sufficient to show the City's commitment to the project and increase the chances of receiving
grant funding. In any event, this commitment of funding will only apply if the City receives the grant funding.
To-this point, the City has spent over $12,000 on planning studies for the project. This resolution would allow
up to another $28,000 to be expended as needed should the $120,000 in grant funding be received from the
Met Council. Under the original grant application guidelines, the 1:1 matching fund requirement would have
limited the grant request to $80,000 with $80,000 in funding from the City. The change allows the City to ask
for an additional portion of the funding without having to supply the additional matching funds.
FUNDING
The $12,000 already expended for project planning expenses have been paid with EDA funds and pooled TIF
funds. Staff is recommending that the additional $28,000 in matching funds be allocated from the EDA fund
account.
ATTACHMENTS '~ · August 25, 2000, Correspondence from Met Council stating Phase I Application was approved
· LCDA Program Guidelines
· Map of StudyArea
. /Attachment
LAND USE AND DESIGN GUIDELINE5 FOP.
L]:VABLE COMMUNZT]:E5
Livable communities ore oriented toward a transit- and pedestrian-friendly environment in
neighborhoods with o mix of uses essential to daily life of the residents including housing,
workplaces, shops, parks and civic uses. In accomplishing these things, livable communities
foster o sense of place and community, where interaction and participation in the
community can occur.
Livable communities provide a variety of housing types and costs to accommodate peoples'
life-cycle changes and to suit their changing circumstances. They incorporate higher-
density housing that pays attention to building form and scale.
In a livable community, land uses are compact and connected, encouraging walking and
transit use. Such areas accommodate both the car and the pedestrian; for example
recognizing that people will drive to a destination, but once they are there, they can walk
or take transit.
The following three land use design principles will be used in the evaluation of development
proposals under 5election Criteria A: "Extent to Which the Proposal Represents a Model
of Integrated Land Use" (p. 19).
Principle 1: Make Development Compact
· Connect rather than separate uses, to allow for functional relationships between them.
· Build mid- to high-density, with attention to the design and relationships of structures
to each other.
· Provide infill or retrofit land uses that result in more compact development.
Projects should attempt to achieve overall housin9 densiti~ of at least ? units per
acre ~o support transit use.
V I.I BRARY~COMMU~DV~.CA20~.~..~ 0303001¢da crheria 8-20.99 doc27
Principle 2: Mix Uses
Include shoppir~g, workplaces, schools, civic facilities, parks and other public spaces, and
a variety of housing types and costs.
ConneCt uses to transit, providing people with a wa), to get around other than driving
alone.
Projects should attempt to achieve a mix of different types o£ development clustered
within ~ mile walk or within 40 to 160 acre neighborhoods; housing and neighborhood-
scale businesses that are oriented to transit and the pedestrian; tour or more types
of neighborhood-scale uses plus housing.
Principle 3: Design for People
· Locate shops and other uses within walking distance of each other, and within walking
distance of transit.
Design streets for pedestrians, not just cars. Orient businesses and other structures
to the street for pedestrian accessibility, and provide convenient parking. This creates
safe, pleasant walking environments.
· Provide places for people to gather--parks and other public open spaces, a central place
or neighborhood center that provides a focus for activities.
· Use design to make places safer, create amenities and improve livability.
Pedestrian infrastructure connecting all land uses, with short, direct walhing routes
that are well Ii~. Zn parMng lots, consider pedestrian crossings.
ProJects should consider including roadway in£r~structuce that emphasizes walhing,
tcansit and bicycle t~avei while accommodating ca~s. Desirable features include blocks
sca/ed to ped~ian t~av~' s~ts that a~e
wide, p~d~t~ion c~ossin~s o~ accommodated through
to ~h~ t~onsit stop and to major d~tinotions, with c~nter is/ands.
Projects should attempt to achieve site and building design where building setbacks are
short, £ovoring pedestrian use; and where shared packing is located beside or behind
buildings.
V LIBRARY~COMMI.,~NDV'~LCA2000,,0.1030Oicda crltm& 1-20.99 doc 28
ProJects should consider including Several of the following elements: Public gathering
places, parks and open space, pedestrian-scale lighting, canopies with outdoor retail or
cafes, transit benches or waiting areas, natural and historic £eotures incorporated into
the development.
Guidelines for Planning Processes
· Use an open process involving residents, property owners, developers, businesspersons,
and others with an interest in the future of the subject area.
· Employ visual models of planning proposals and alternatives.
· Address design issues, and use design professionals in the process.
· Develop specific zoning and planning tools, and mechanisms to ensure plan
implementation.
Examples That Apply the Land Use and Design Principles:
Intensification of land uses in nodes along transit corridors, combining workplaces,
residences, retail and entertainment options: allowing people to live, work and shop in an
area without a car, and enabling transit riders to conduct daily business at the beginning
or end of their trip.
Application of design concepts (e.g. orientation of buildings to the street and to each
other, attention to building form, placement of garages, etc.) that results in
developments that use land more efficiently:and make walking among uses easy.
Commercial/retail uses on lower levels of buildings with offices or opnrtments above.
Ways to successfully emphasize pedestrian circulation while also accommodating the car
such as shared parking arrangements; structured parking; direct, convenient pedestrian
walkways.
Redevelopment or infill projects that are linked to their surroundings through similar .or
compatible scale, architectural features, or other means.
A mix (rather than in separated areas) of single-family and, townhouses and other
attached and multifamily housing, affordable to a wide range of families and individuals.
Developments that successfully incorporate or re-introduce public spaces (parks, public
squares, plazas) and pedestrian access and circulation.
V \LIBP-ARY~COMMUND~,~LCA2000X0303001cda entena $-20-~9 doe 29
Meadow Cake
Redeve~pment I - '
Apartments Si~
. ~
--- , :Express&Local]- ::~fdAvenue_i~:- '- ._
~ ~ . .:4~.' i e,,Ro.tes I ....... -- :: :-' .'
: , ,'. Streelscape& J :~ :~" :- l-
"~ ..... :"::' ,:~' · ; Sidewalk NeedsJ · ....... : .. J .........
'" .... ,~:::--'- .l=::.:
' "'"'~:-...:. ':'" :'=--t.T- .
- ' ' ..7.
Un~velo~d Prope~yI ...," J I
. _ : *Proximity to Raii~at .'"""
len! -%
NAC
Hope Village Issues Map
~ Redevelopment SHes
~ Study Area
Park~ & Recreation / % · City Limits
Likes ..' '... Railroad
Area
of
lmercst
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 9-11-00 Consent
Kirk McDonald
Item
No.
By: and Phil Kern By:// 6.9
RESOLUTION APPROVING COST SH~RING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF NEW HOPE AND
ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES, INC., FOR PROPERTY AT 7516 42ND AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 665).
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting that the City Council approve a resolution authorizing an agreement on behalf of City of New
Hope with Electronic Industries (El) to complete the contamination investigation at 7516 42"" Avenue North.
Under the terms of the agreement, the City would act as the recipient of grant funding from the Department of
Trade and Economic Development (DTED) and El.would be responsible for contributing the matching funds.
I POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
The Council, in the past, has authorized the Mayor, City Manager, and City Clerk to enter into agreements
involving grant requests on behalf of the City.
BACKGROUND
In June, the City was awarded a grant from DTED to complete the contamination investigation at 7516 42n~
Avenue North. At that time the City Council authorized the Mayor to execute the necessary grant agreements
with DTED to receive the funding. The City received the grant contracts from DTED in July, but has been
waiting to execute the agreements and return them until an agreement was reached with El to pay the
matching funds.
The proposed cost for the remaining contamination investigation was estimated not to exceed $50,000 by
Northern Environmental in March 2000. The grant from DTED will cover 75% of this amount, or $37,500. The
remaining amount, not to exceed $12,500, is the responsibility of the grant recipient. In this case, the City of
New Hope is the grant recipient on behalf of El. The purpose for secudng the grant funding is to expedite the
investigation and clean up of the property. The benefit to the City of an accelerated clean up is the
marketability of the site to potential developers. Electronic Industries has the ultimate responsibility for the soil
=and groundwater contamination clean up, and the grant funds will help them investigate the site at a faster,
pace than in the past.
Cont'd.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Request for Action
Page 2
9-11-00
This agreement does not bind us in any way to perform the ultimate clean up of the site nor does it transfer any
responsibility for the clean up from Electronic Industries. Electronic Industries remains the responsible party
for clean up of this site. However, it will allow us to determine an action plan to accelerate the clean up if we
decided to go forward with the plan after it is prepared. It is my understanding grant money may be available
for location clean up of the site after an approved plan is established.
On July 26, staff met with the owner and environmental manager for Electronic Industries, as well as the
MPCA Project Manager for the site. The City informed El of the grant award and discussed the conditions of
cooperation with Electronic Industries. The attached agreement was reached and will be formalized with
approval of this resolution. Upon approval by the City Council, the City and El will execute the agreement. At
that time, the grant agreements between New Hope and the State of Minnesota accepting the funding from
DTED will be completed.
ATTACHMENTS · Resolution
· September 5, 2000, City Attorney Correspondence
· Cost Sharing Agreement Between the City of New Hope and Electronic Industries
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Depa~ ~,,,ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Public Works September 11, 2000 Development & Plannlr
Item No.
By: Guy Johnson ~ 8.1
MOTION ACCEPTING THE FINAL REPORT FROM BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR 36TM AVENUE NORTH" (IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT 626)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is recommending that the Council formally accept the report prepared by Benshoof &
Associates, Inc., for 36~h Avenue improvements, and affirm the actions contained within the
report as agreed at the July 31s~ work session.
BACKROUND '
The current Capital Improvement Program includes the reconstruction of 36th Avenue. A
Concept Report for the project was presented to the Council in February of 1998. Staff held
informational meetings with area residents in August of 1998 and January of 1999, and on April
26, 1999, Council authorized the preparation of a Feasibility Report. Before the Feasibility
Report was to be presented, the Council instructed staff to retain a traffic-engineering firm to
review the 36~h Avenue Concept Report, Feasibility Report, and certain existing and future
transportation issues. On January 10, 2000, Council accepted a proposal from Benshoof &
Associates, Inc. The "request for proposal" required that the review conducted by BenshoOf
and Associates, Inc., result in a report that contains recommendations for the design of 36~h
Avenue. These recommendations were required to be based on:
· Traffic and pedestrian safety and movement efficiency.
· Improvements to the street that would be for the benefit of New Hope residents and
not necessarily for the convenience of commuters from other communities passing
through New Hope.
· The need for the final design of 36~ Avenue to preserve the residential character of
the neighborhood.
At its work session of July 31, 2000, the City Council reviewed the recommendations from
Benshoof & Associates. The consensus of the City Council for the conceptual design was
the two-lane option with no raised medians with a semaphore signal at Boone and 36'"
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Request for Action
Accepting the Benshoof & Associates Report
September 11, 2000
Page 2
Avenues. Also, the consensus of the City Council was that construction should commence in
year 2002 to be completed within that construction season. The Council directed staff to
develop the program and budget accordingly.
The report makes the following recommendations for 36th Avenue:
· That the road be 32 feet wide, with the exception of the TH 169 to Jordan Avenue
intersection, the Boone Avenue intersection, and the Winnetka Avenue intersection.
These intersections would remain wide enough for either four lanes, or four lanes
with a left turn lane.
· That the road includes two, 11 feet wide, striped driving lanes, each with a 5 foot
curb reaction lane.
· That the road contains 6 foot parking cutouts where homes front on 36th Avenue.
· That the right-of-way accommodate a 10 foot trail from TH 169 to Boone Avenue on the
south side and 5 foot sidewalks for the remainder of the south side and the entire north
side.
· That the boulevard width varies up to 18 feet depending on road, trail/sidewalk, and
right-of-way width.
· That the road includes a traffic control signal system at Boone Avenue.
Representatives from the State Aid office of MN/DOT have reviewed this design and agree that
the two-lane design conforms to State Aid standards for the 2020 projected traffic volumes,
when including a signal system at Boone Avenue.
The proposed schedule for the project is: · Authorizing the Preparation of a Feasibility Report
· Accepting the Feasibility Report & Schedule Public Hearing
· Public Hearing & Authorizing Plans & Specifications
· Approve Plans & Specifications
· Receive Bids
· Award Contract
· Begin Construction
· Substantial Completion
· Final Project Completion (Bituminous Wear Course)
FUNDING
O~ober2000
Janua~ 2001
Mamh 2001
May 2001
October 2001
Janua~ 2002
March 2001
October2002
June 2003
Proposed revenue sources for the 36"~ Avenue Improvement Project are Minnesota State Aid,
Street Infrastructure Fund, Water/Sewer Utility Fund, Storm Water Utility Fund, and Hennepin
County Parks Trail Fund.
ATTACHMENTS.
A copy of the report is included in your packet.
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development
9-11-00 Development & Plannin9
By: Susan Henry ~ Item No.
Community Development Specialist
B,v: 8.2
MOTION APPROVING CONCEPT HOUSE PLAN FOR 4864 FLAG AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 678)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is requesting a Council motion to approve the concept house plan for the vacant site at 4864 Flag
Avenue North. Staff will return with specifications and more information at a later date, before seeking bids.
BACKGROUND
In April, the City purchased the vacant lot at 49th and Flag Avenues North from a willing seller. The property
has soft soil problems and will require the installation of pilings prior to development, a similar situation to the
lot at 8808 41st Avenue North (Habitat site). The cost for piling installation depends upon the home's new
footprint, but is estimated at $20,000 to $25,000. At this time, staff is requesting approval of the home plan so
that piling preparations can begin.
The attached recommended house plan is the same ..plan that was utilized for the new single family home
constructed by the City at 6067 West Broadway several years ago, with several minor modifications. Staff ~s
recommending utilizing the same plan because the two-story style will fit into the neighborhood and will save
the expense of developing an entirely new plan. Staff wants to point out the following highlights or
modifications to the plan:
· The home measures 1,616 square feet and includes three bedrooms and a double, attached garage.
· Unlike the house constructed on West Broadway, this home would not have a basement because it would
be constructed on pilings. Therefore, the plans have been modified to move the laundry area from the
basement to the second story bathroom area and the mechanical fixtures (furnace, etc.) have been moved
to the first floor.
· Due to the fact that there is no basement for storage area, the City Manager recommends that the garage
size be enlarged to 24 x 24, instead of the 24 x 22 shown on the plan.
· Staff recommends the home placement on the north side of the lot with the garage to the south (see
attached site plan A). The property to the south has the garage on the north, therefore, the garages would
be located adjacent to each other. This would allow the house portion to overlook the park and wetlands
across 49t" Avenue.
MOTION SECOND
BY BY
TO:
Request for Action
Page 2 9-11-00
Several windows have been added on the left elevation of the home, as the lack of windows on that
side is one of the few changes staff desired to make after the home on West Broadway was
completed.
The house placement on the lot is based on the proposed revised setbacks in the Zoning Code
Update. The 30-foot front yard setback from Flag Avenue is standard and would match the setback
of the adjacent structure, however, the 25-foot comer side yard setback to 49~ Avenue is the
proposed new setback (current setback 30 feet) and it is anticipated that the Zoning Code Update
will be completed prior to the construction of the home.
· The site cannot provide an accessible home due to the fact that pilings are required for the new
development. For pilings, it is necessary to have the smallest footprint possible due to cost
considerations, which is another reason staff recommends a two-story home.
FUNDING
Predevelopment costs can be paid for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. There are
also HOME dollars available for the project, through the local Community Development Housing
Organization (CHDO). New construction costs are mainly paid for by the proceeds from the sale of the
home.
A preliminary project budget is attached. The target beneficiary for this project will be a first-time home
buyer at a Iow to moderate income level.
ATTACHMENTS · House Plan
· Site PlanA
· Survey
· Preliminary Project Budget
ZIYZ-Z
FLAG
COUNCIL .
· REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 9-25-00 Consent
Department
Item No.
By: Susan Henry By: 6.4
Community Development Specialist
/
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NE(~OTIATE THE PURCHASE OF 5420 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #696)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends authorization for staff to negotiate the purchase of the property located at 5420 Winnetka
'Avenue North.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE "
On a willing seller basis, the City is acquiring property along the 5400/5500 blocks of Winnetka Avenue North
and the Bass Lake Road extension area. The especially deep lots along Winnetka Avenue are currently
underutilized.
BACKGROUND
Recently, staff received the attached correspondence from the property owner of 5420 Winnetka Avenue
North, Steve Luedke, regarding a possible interest to sell his home to the City of New Hope. City staff ordered
an appraisal to establish a current market value of the home. The attached Griffith Appraisals Report, dated
September 14, 2000, states a value of $93,000. The value for Taxes Payable 2000 is $66,000.
,The subject property contains a home, measuring 780 square feet, and a detached double garage. The
property measures 8,715 square feet. The appraisal report states the home is in fair to average overall
condition for its age. The appraiser stated in his report that a survey of 14 resales of the same properties in the
immediate area from 1997 to the present found an average appreciation rate of 16.37%.
There are two other Council actions on the agenda pertaining to this area. One is the purchase agreement for
5406 Winnetka Avenue North and second is a motion to negotiate for the purchase of the property located at
(cont'd)
MOTION SECOND
BY BY
TO:
Request for Action
Page 2 9-25-00 '---.
5532 Winnetka Avenue North. As you may recall, the City already owns the properties at 5340 Winnetka
(south of the site) and 5422 Winnetka (property directly adjacent and north of subject). Also, the City owns the
former Donut Shop commercial site located at 5500 Winnetka Avenue North. In addition, the City closed on
September 21 on the properties located at 5410/12 Winnetka Avenue (properties directly adjacent and south of
subject).
FUNDING
The subject property is an area where designated tax increment funds (TIF) may be expended.
ATTACHMENTS · Map
· September 14, 2000, Griffith Appraisals, Inc., Report
· Letter of Interest
F
CATH
CHUF
....... i : ! 55TH . 6_VJ~..,_ ~ City-Owned
....................
- . : ~ ~ ,,~... : ; ,, :~_.' ·
~.4~l · ' '- ........ ,~' ";-'::'-~" ....... ' ...... t ....... , ~ Property
........ r ...... ~ ........ : Mu i LUi M2~ :~u ':,.,i ~4so: ~ ·
llnder
5427'
.................... ........ ~ I , .~-: : .
.......
· ' ' ' ' ' ' ,-DR' orin Piocess
....5421 · ?/' '"~'--- ~2"~'"':J'~ ......... ~;~ ............................. ST RAPHAEL
· ~-,'~; ,,. :~<7...~.......~C~.~: ! ......... , .... -~ .- ....... .- ...... , ................
' ....
· '--22,;' · . ' .-.,<..~..-'c._--- ;, ... ~t~, : .;r~: · ,
~,w:.i.,.,~
· ~ ; · _ '
/ ~ COUNCIL
" REQUEST FOR ACTION
ginating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 9-25-00 Consent
Department //~
~ Item No.
By: Susan Henry
Community Development Specialist By: 6.
/
RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF 5406 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT #676)
R_EQUESTED ACTION
Staff is requesting Council approval of the attached resolution approving the purchase of the property located
at 5406 Winnetka Avenue North.
..POLICY/PAST PRACTICF
On an available and willing seller basis, the City is purchasing property along the Bass Lake Road Extension
and the 5400/5500 blocks of Winnetka Avenue North for redevelopment purposes. For the time being, the City
isJand banking the property.
BACKGROUND
On June ,?.6, 2000, the Council passed a motion for staff to negotiate for the purchase of 5406 Winnetka
Avenue North based on two completed appraisals ($100,000 and $112,000). At that same Council meeting,
staff was authorized to purchase the property for up to $110,000. Staff is pleased to announce an acceptable
pnce point has been reached with the property owners, Gordon and Sandra Sibbet, of $105,000. Please find
the Purchase Agreement and Addendum attached. The terms are standard for properties of this type. A
dosing will take place in early October.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· City Attorney Correspondence
· Exhibit A: Signed Purchase Agreement and Addendum
· Site Map
MOTION SECOND
I BY BY
TO:
ST. F
CATH,
CHUF
City-Owned
Property
Property
Under
Consideration
or in Process
COUNCIL
/ I
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 9-25-00 Consent
Department
/~ Item No.
By: Susan Henry By: / 6.6
Community Development Specialist /
'MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY
AT 5532 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #670)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is requesting Council approval of a motion authorizing staff to continue to negotiate for the purchase of
the property located at 5532 Winnetka Avenue North.
POLICY/PAST PRACTIC~ :
!Staff follows official Council action when negotiating a purchase price for a piece of property. This is normally
based on a city-ordered appraisal.
BACKGROUND
At the July 24, 2000, City Council meeting, staff presented a city-ordered appraisal dated July 20, 2000, in the
amount of $148,000. The appraisal was ordered because the property owner contacted the City in June with a
renewed interest in selling to the City. Previous negotiations earlier in the year were based upon a city-ordered
appraisal of $132,000. This appraisal was completed on January 19, 2000. At the July 24 Council meeting
' staff received direction from the Council to negotiate with property owner Carrie Barclay on the basis of the
$132,000 appraisal.
Even though the recent appraisal shows a higher market value, Council consensus was that $148,000 was too
much to pay for the property. Subsequently, staff returned to the property owner with an offer of $132,000. Ms.
'Barclay said she felt her property was worth the $148,000, especially given rising market values, and said she
could not accept the City's offer of $132,000. Unfortunately, staff was not able to negotiate further with Ms.
Barclay as Council stated not to exceed a $132,000 purchase price.
-------- (cont'd)
MOTION SBCOND
BY BY
TO:
Request for Action
Page 2 9-25-~,; ....
Recently, Ms. Barclay was in contact with city staff as well as Council members. She has stated she is
still interested in selling her property to the City. Ms. Barclay is asking the Council to reconsider her
property. This time, Ms. Barclay's position is that she is willing to compromise on a purchase price
somewhere between the two appraisals. Ms. Barclay acknowledges she will save on realtor fees and
closing costs if she sells to the City. Therefore, she is willing to accept a compromising sale price.
Because this is an important real estate along the 5500 Block of Winnetka Avenue, staff recommends
the Council reconsider the offer for Ms. Barclay's property. Staff recommends a purchase price in the
area of $140,000, which is the mid-point between the two appraisals.
If the Council authorizes staff to continue to negotiate, staff will again meet with the property owner to
determine if both parties can agree to a compromise purchase price. If an agreement is reached, staff
will return to the Council for formal approval of the Purchase Agreement. Also, due to the good condition
and high cost of the home, it would be staff's intent to try and sell the home for moving purposes, rather
than demolish the structure, which would help to reduce the City funds expended for acquisition.
FUNDING
If staff were successful in negotiating the purchase of the property, the acquisition would be paid for with
designated tax increment financing (TIF) funds.
A'I-I'ACHMENTS
· Map of 5400/5500 Block of Winnetka Avenue NOrth
· January 2000 Forsythe Appraisal Report (Excerpts)
· July 2000 ForSythe Appraisal Report (Excerpts)
~.' ~ ;-.. ........ :i, ~l~; : :; iII.~ti' ............. ,' ........ ' ~: '::
~v /, ~ , . ~-- . ~ ~ ....... ~ . . --:
/ , ~: ~ ~ : ~ ~: :
'-.. ; ---: . , ~ . ; . __
',,',.~,~~~. ~ ~~~L~ .......
' ; ~~i '"-'~. ..... ~ ..... ~ ,~ ~ ..... ~- -. :: ~ ' ,
....... : · ~:.~ ~ ;. _~ :,~ ~. . ~H, · : ~--
' -- '- ' ~ ' ~ ; ~ ~ I ~ ' I 11 ' ' -- /~1
; ~ '. ' ~ .........~ r ~ ' ~ "~ ,-- ~. r~_:..:_: :' :- '-; --
.... , .~ ......... . ~ ~ ~~~~~~ . -
· ~ ............ ~~ ...... .-~~~-~: ...... ~ ~~ ,~ ~T~
/
; ; · ~ .......... _' ~. ~. ~" .
I
· ; ................ · / ; , , : ..~_..~'"'~ ~
~' i ' '* -- , · t '
...... ~ ~ ...... ~ ........ ~~ :~[~ ~ ':~ ~
. , ~ .. ........q ........... ~ ....................... ~ ~ - .
~ .................. ' .......~ I · .~ ~: - . ~on~d~rat~on
...... , :. ~ , ~ ~' ~ . ~ ~: 1~ ' ~ ~ or in ~ro*~
~1~: .... y. .... '5'~ ........ q : ....... : .... ~.gl ;i'~r: ...... : -hR
i ........ ~L~. ~~ ~, ~ ~~c ..... ~_: ......... . .
; ..... ~ ' ~, . . ~ : : ~ J ~[ ...... '. .
i ' ' ~ ........ ~ ..................... i ~ ~- .....
~11 , ~"- ........ : ..... . ......... ~ · : , ' -
. ~.~.. ..... ~ , .~. .~ ...... , . ~
~ .... ~ ........ ~ .- ........... r. ...... ~.Z." ...... ' ........~:. ~ .......:, .'
..................... ' .......... ' ! ...... ......
,~--- ~ ~'. - o~ ~
.~.~...~.~.~ ......... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' - ...
.......· ' ....... ' ~. ....... ...... ~ ~ ......... ~ .......... ~'; ................... 1~' ........... ......... ~. 'i ~;
· ~, ~,.; , ...... ,: ' i--~- ~ ~0, ........ ~ .......... ~, ~'
, , . ,,... , ....... . ...... ............... .
-..,.,.. ~ .~ ............. ~ ;;;/ , ...... , ......... ; ~ ......... ,i ....... ~3 t ,-'
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Depaxtment Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 9-25-00 Consent
Item No.
By: Susan Henry By: 6.7
Community Development Specialist
I
MOTION APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT'TO RP EXCAVATING IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,500 FOR THE
TOTAL DEMOLITION OF 6003 WEST BROADWAY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #668)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff requests Council approval of final payment in the amount of $7,500 to RP Excavating for the demolition
project at 6003 West Broadway. "
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
Final payments on construction and demolition projects are presented to the City Council for approval.
BACKGROUND "
On July 24, 2000, the Council awarded the demolition contract for the property at 6003 West Broadway to RP
Excavating in the amount $7,200. Once the demolition was completed, staff requested that the contractor
perform some additional work to remove the fencing on the property, thus the minor change order of $300, for
a total bill of $7,500. The fence removal was necessary for the upcoming drainage/water main improvements.
for the future grading of the site for the new home construction, and to improve the appearance of the property
in the interim.
The bulk of the demolition work was accomplished in August, with some final site work completed in early
September.
The site has been properly cleared and restored, per the bid specifications. The City Engineer reviewed the
site and recommended final payment. Staff recommends final payment to the contractor at this time.
(cont'd.1
MOTION SECOND
BY BY
TO:
hRFA\ .....
Request for Action
Page 2
FUNDING
Demolition costs will be paid for with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
ATTACHMENT · City Engineer Correspondence
· RPX Inc. Invoice
9-25-~
COUNCIL
/"' REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Depar[ment Approved for Agenda Agenaa Section
Community Development 9-25-00 Development and
// Planmn?
Item No.
B)/: Kirk McDonald By: 8.1
RESOLUTION APPROVING PETITION AND ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT FOR HIDDEN PARK
CONDOMINIUM AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 692)
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Resolution Approving Petition and Assessment
Agreement for Hidden Park Condominium and Ordering Improvement. The City has received a petition and
Assessment Agreement signed by the Hidden Park Condominium Association, and a petition and easement
from the property owner at 7406 60th Avenue supporting the project.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
In the past, the City has completed projects involving public and private improvements if there is an
assessment agreement in place with property owners agreeing to pay the cost of the private improvements.
.BACKGROUND
At the July 24 Council meeting, the City Councii' approved plans and specifications and ordered~
advertisement for bids for the public water main and 60t" street extension improvement at Hidden Park
Condominiums. Per the attached correspondence from the City Attorney, Project No. 692 for the construction
of a water main, storm sewer, and reconstruction of a driveway, is ready for further consideration by the City
'Council. The Project will be assessed on the basis of a petition by the owners. The City has received a
Petition and Assessment Agreement signed by the Hidden Park Condominium Owners Association, and has
also received a written petition from the property owner at 7406 60~" Avenue. So 100% of the abutting
property owners have petitioned for the Project.
The City will be paying the cost of the water main loop, and the Condominium Owners Association has
agreed to pay the cost of the storm sewer extension and the driveway reconstruction. Out of total Project
costs of $100,674.18, the City will pay $27,599.87, and the Condominium Owners Association will pay
S73,074.31. The property at 7406 60th Avenue will not be paying any of the cost, but has given the City a five-
foot utility easement necessary for the Project, and will also be losing a row of hedges and a tree.
MOTION SECOND BY
BY
TO
hRFA\ .....
Request for Action
Page 2
9-25-00~
In July 1999, the manager of the Hidden Park Condominium Owners Association sent the Cit~
correspondence regarding their desire to improve the driveway on the south end of the property known as 60'''~
Street. The driveway is a private easement over the south portions of the single-family residential properties
located at 6003 West Broadway and 7406 60TM Avenue. The driveway serves as a secondary entrance/exit to
the condominiums and the easement agreement requires Hidden Park to maintain it, i.e., snowplowing,
sweeping, patching, etc. The driveway has always had poor drainage, which has created a variety of problems
for all persons using the road. The correspondence requested that the City assist with the improvements to
the street and drainage system, plan and design the improvements, and assess the association accordingly.
The Assessment Agreement states that the special assessment of $73,074.31 will be levied over a period of
ten years at an interest rate of seven (7) percent per annum, with the first installment to be payable with real
estate taxes due in 2001. The owner has waived all objections to the assessment.
If the Council wishes to proceed with Project No. 692, the enclosed Resolution, which accepts and approves
the Petition and Assessment Agreement from the Condominium Owners Association, and should be passed
by the Council first. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Petition and Assessment Agreement
· City Attorney Correspondence
· Original Cost Estimate
· Plans
· Previous Correspondence
1 RF,~~T FOR ACTION
Originating Depaz~c~uent Approv,~ for Agenda A~cnda Sect. ion
Development
Public Works Se~ber 25, 2000 & Planning
Itc~n No.
By: Guy Johnson By:. 8.2
RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 60TM STREET
EXTENSION, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 692
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff requests approval of a resolution awarding the contract to the Iow and responsible bidder,
G. L. Contracting, in the amount of $77,989.35.
BACKGROUND
The Drainage/Water Main/Private Drive Improvement Project involves the connection of water
main from 60'h and Quebec Avenues with the water main on 60m Avenue and West Broadway,
through the Hidden Park Condominiums. This connection will complete a loop of the water
main in the area, which is preferred for improving circulation, ensudng continuous water supply,
and for fire protection. Improvements to the storm water collection system in the area is also
involved in the project. In order to accomplish the water main and storm water work, the
ddveway to Hidden Park Condominiums and a portion of their parking lot will be excavated.
This project includes restoration of the condominium's parking lot impacted by the water main
extension, and reconstruction and upgrades to the private drive connecting the parking lot to
West Broadway. The Hidden Park Condominium Owners Association has agreed to fund the
drainage and private drive improvements through an assessment agreement with the City. The
City will finance the water main improvements.
One alternate, involving reconstruction of the condominium's parking lot in the area of the water
main extension, was included on the bid sheet. If accepted, the Hidden Park Condominium
Owners Association would have funded this alternate. The Association has decided not to
proceed with the $17,139.25 alternate.
Construction is expected to begin the week of October 2, 2000. The utility work and the base
course of asphalt will be completed in November. The asphalt wear course and site restoration
will occur next spdng.
~4OTION BY SF,~OND BY ,
TO:
Request for Action
692 Award Contract
September 25, 2000
Page Two
FUNDING
Proposed revenue sources for the project are:
Water Utility Fund
Assessments to Condominiums
Total
$22,079.90
$55.909.45
$77,989.35
There were four bids received for this project. The bids are as follows:
G. L. Contracting
Hardrives, Inc.
North Valley, Inc.
Municipal Contracting Services
$77,989.35
$81,576.75
$84,853.00
$86,807.20
ATTACHMENTS
A copy of the bid sheets, the letter from the City Engineer recommending contract award, and
the resolution are attached.
· COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 9-25-00 Development and
/~ Plannin,e
Item No.
B)/: Kirk McDonald B~: 8.3
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING EASEMENT FOR 7406 60'm AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 692)
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution, which accepts an easement for
7406 60~" Avenue North to facilitate the utility improvements in that area of the City.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
It is routine policy for the City Council to accept easements that are required to accomplish a utility
improvement project. :
BACKGROUND
At the July 24 Council meeting, the City Council approved plans and specifications and ordered
advertisement for bids for the public water main and 60t? street extension improvements and directed staff to
)roceed with an Assessment Agreement and easement documents for the project. Staff indicated at that time
that the existing easement is 20 feet wide and the construction of the new water main will cause the need for
a 25-foot wide utility easement. Staff indicated that a new easement would be needed from the property
owner at 7406 60~* Avenue. The City has been successful in acquiring the necessary 5-foot permanent utility
easement from the property at 7406 60~" Avenue.
The enclosed resolution accepts the easement and staff recommends approval of the resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
· Resolution
· Easement
· City Attorney Correspondence
· Maps
MOTION SECOND BY
BY
TO
l:RFA\~lanmno/n-inRC~?
- EDA
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 9/25/00 EDA
Kirk McDonald ~/~ Item No.
By: and Phil Kern By:// 4
/
RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION TO LAND DISPOSITION AGREEMENT RELATING TO
DEVELOPMENT OF 5501 BOONE AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 493).
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff recommends that the EDA approve a resolution that extends the Land Disposition Agreement with
Hennepin County relating to the development of 5501 Boone Avenue North. The Agreement would allow
the EDA a three-year extension until October 2003. to convey the property to Senior Outreach Services
~ Inc. (CareBreak) for the construction of an adult daycare facility.
POLICY/PAST PRACTICE
In 1993, the EDA used $100,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to acquire the
property located at 5501 Boone Avenue North and"a portion of the property at 5425 Boone Avenue for
purposes of cooperating with CareBreak for the construction of an adult daycare facility on the site. As a~
condition of using CDBG funds, the EDA entered into a Land Disposition Agreement with Hennepin
County limiting the development of the site to an adult daycare facility. All amendments to land disposition
agreements are directed to the EDA for approval.
BACKGROUND
The EDA acquired 5501 Boone Avenue and a portion of the property at 5425 Boone Avenue in 1993. The
EDA used $100,000 in CDBG funding for the acquisition with the intent that the property would be
conveyed to CareBreak for an adult daycare facility. Hennepin County approved the use of funds for this
purpose, but required the EDA to enter into a Land Disposition Agreement. The Agreement states that the
. property must be conveyed for the development of an adult daycare facility by September 2000. If the
(Cont'd.)
MOTION SECOND
BY BY
TO:
h RFA\Plannina\O-I P4.q.R ,',inc_
Request for Action
Page 2 ~-25-00
conditions of this Agreement are not met by the stated deadline, the EDA will be required to repay the
$100,000 of CDBG funding used for the acquisition or may request an extension of the agreement.
In August 1998, the EDA approved a resolution declaring preliminary intent to convey the property to
CareBreak for an adult daycare facility. The EDA and Senior Outreach Services, Inc. proceeded with the
conveyance of the property until the process was interrupted in February 1999. At that time, Minnesota
Masonic Homes, Inc. purchased the North Ridge Care Center. CareBreak, which was affiliated with the
North Ridge Care Center, was affected by the acquisition and the process of conveying the property was
halted in 1999.
In December 1999, Minnesota Masonic Homes, Inc. reached an affiliation agreement with CareBreak.
As stated in the attached correspondence from Minnesota Masonic Homes, the organization still intends
to pursue the development of a CareBreak Adult Day Services facility at 5501 Boone Avenue. At this
time, Minnesota Masonic Homes is preparing its strategic plan and thus examining the function of the
adult daycare services. The organization has requested an extension until the strategic plan review is
completed and it can focus its resources on the development of the CareBreak facility.
In August, City staff provided a written request to Hennepin County for a three-year extension to the
Land Disposition Agreement to allow Minnesota Masonic Homes and CareBreak to further prepare for
development of the site. Hennepin County staff has stated support for the request and will recommend
that the County Board approve the extension (see attached correspondence). With approval of this
resolution by the EDA, staff expects that the County will extend the agreement to October 2003.
.ATI'ACHMENT$
· Resolution
· Amendment No. 1 to Agreement, Contract No. A20867
· 9/19/00 City Attorney Correspondence
· 9/8/00 Hennepin County Correspondence
· 8/31 City Correspondence
· 8~28~00 Minnesota Masonic Homes Correspondence
· Original Land Disposition Agreement
· Site Map
PROJECT NO. 659
BULLETIN NO. 1
FIRE STATION ROOF REPAIRS PROJECT
Two years ago, the manufacturer of the foam roof insulation used at the Fire Station, Johns
Manville Corporation, advised the City of New Hope that the insulation (phenolic) can cause
corrosion of the metal roof decking, if it gets wet. Testing was performed to show the levels of
corrosion. Johns Manville Corporation will now be repairing or replacing the problem areas on
this roof.
Proiect De~criptiorl
A couple of relatively small areas of the fiat roof decking at the Fire Station will need to be
completely replaced due to corrosion. Most of the roofing, however, will only require removal
and replacement of insulation. The project will create noise as the corroded steel decking is
wire-brush cleaned. The Fire Station staff is expected to be able to continue to office at the
facility during this remediation, however, from time to time vehicles may need to be moved
around depending on the work area involved for a particular day.
Proiect ~chedulp
The project will begin on Monday, September 11, and take approximately three weeks to
complete. This schedule depends on weather conditions and other construction issues.
Pro.iect Schedulf~
Construction may occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends and holidays. All work, including the mobilization of
equipment, takes place during these stated time periods. The contractor will periodically clean
up the site and remove debris. There will be some storage of materials on site.
Contact Per~on.~
Co. atr_ac, t~: The general contractor for this project will be Roofing Contractors of Virginia.
C_E~: If you have questions or concerns during the Fire Station Roof Project, please direct your
calls to Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development (763-531-5119) or Shari French,
Director of Parks & Recreation (763-531-5152).
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
9/7/00
PROJECT BULLETIN
Project #651
Bulletin #2
7603 Bass Lake Road
Overview
The site is in the process of being cleared at 7603 Bass Lake Road. The City
purchased the property with the intent to demolish the home and garage. The
property will be land banked for future redevelopment.
Site Upkeep
The City will maintain the site during the fall and winter months.
City Contacts
If you have questions or concerns, please call Susan Henry, Community
Development Specialist, at 763-531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Community
Development Director, at 763-531-5119. /-
The City appreciates the cooperation of all businesses and residents in the area
that may be impacted by the construction during this project. Thank you for your
cooperation.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
9/12/00
Project #675
Bulletin #2
PROJECT BULLETIN
5422 Winnetka Avenue North
Overview
Recently, the site was cleared at the city-owned lot of 5422 Winnetka Avenue
North. The City purchased the property with the intent to demolish the home and
garage. The property will be land banked for future redevelopment.
Site Upkeep
The City will maintain the site during the fall and winter months.
City Contacts
If you have questions or concerns, please call Susan Henry,
Development Specialist, at 763-531-5137, or Kirk McDonald,
Development Director, at 763-531-5119.
Community
Community
The City appreciates the cooperation of all businesses and residents in the area
that may be impacted by the construction during this project. Thank you for your
cooperation.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
9/12/00
PROJECT NO. 656
BULLETIN #1
PROJECT BULLETIN
NEW HOPE VILLAGE GOLF COURSE
CLUBHOUSE
Background
A design team was formed in the spring of 1999 to develop a concept plan for a new clubhouse for
the New Hope Village Golf Course, located at 8130 Bass Lake Road. In January, the City Council
appointed TSP One, Inc. as the architect to design the new facility. In February, the Council
approved concept plans for this project. In March, schematic designs were approved and
architects were directed to write plans and specifications. In May, plans and specifications were
approved and bids were let. In June, the Council awarded the project to the Iow bidder, The
Builders, Inc.
The existing clubhouse predated the City's purchase of the golf course in 1971 and was in poor
condition. Work began on the new clubhouse project right after Labor Day. The new facility is
expected to be ready for occupancy by spring of 2001. A revenue bond will fund most of the
project, with the golf course paying off the bond over a 20-year period through revenues collected
from course operations.
Project Description
The new, completely accessible clubhouse will be approximately 2,600 square feet in size. The old
facility was about 900 square feet in size. The new building is one story in height and will be
located in approximately the same location as the old but, of course, will take up a larger footprint.
The new design includes an area that will seat up to about 50 people. This will offer a fireplace, a
concessions area, and a pro shop area. The building will also contain an office, food preparation
area, storage rooms, and bathrooms. On the east side of the new clubhouse will be a canopied
picnic area offering a sink as well as two gas grills. The project also includes a new trash
enclosure, which will be placed in the northwest area of the parking lot. The main entrance will be
located on the south side of the building adjacent to the parking lot. At this time, the parking lot will
not be improved, as funding does not yet allow for that.
Project Schedule
The project construction schedule, subject to weather and other construction issues, is as follows:
· Week of September 11
· Week of September 18
· Week of September 18
· First part of October
· Second part of October
· November and December
· Building completion
· Landscaping
Building demolition and site preparation
Hauling in of additional soil and sub grade preparation
Concrete footings and foundation are to follow
Fencing of the construction area
Structural steel and exterior framing
Masonry, roofing and building enclosure
Exterior and interior finishes
End of December 2000
Spring 2001
9/14/00
NEW HOPE VILLAGE GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE
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
Major deliveries that are scheduled for the next few weeks on this project include:
· Delivery of imported soils first part of September
· Concrete and masonry block
· Delivery of building materials such as wood, and trusses
Contacts
· Contractor: the general contractor for the project is The Builders Inc. The contact person
and phone number are Mark Gorski at (763) 545-3217.
· City: if you have questions or concerns during the Golf Course Clubhouse improvement
project, please direct your calls to Cheryl Badinger at (763) 545-1355, from E&V
Consultants, the City's representative on this' project, or Shari French, Director of Parks &
Recreation, at (763) 531-5152.
Future Bulletins
These project bulletins are being provided to residents on behalf of the City. Future bulletins will be
sent to update you on the construction progress.
Please note that the golf course will be open for play during this period of fall construction
as long as weather allows. A trailer has been rented for purposes of providing a temporary
clubhouse. It is ramped for improved accessibility. Portable toilets have also been rented
for this interim period.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
PROJECT BULLETIN #1
PROJECT BULLETIN
NORTHWOOD PARK TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
& BALLFIELD IRRIGATION PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 681 & 674
In the next few weeks, the City of New Hope will be making improvements to the asphalt
trails on the west side of Boone Avenue in Northwood Park, and will be installing an
irrigation system for the ball fields on the east side of Boone Avenue.
Trails Overview
The trail work includes removing or reclaiming the existing pavement, grading as
required, repaving, and other miscellaneous site improvements. Since all of the trails on
the east side of Boone Avenue were replaced as part of the park renovation project in
1997, all of this year's trail work will occur on the portion of the park west of Boone
Avenue. There are many trail sections in this part of the Park that have settled and are
badly cracked.
While equipment is working on any particular trail, that trail will be closed. Immediately
after the existing pavement is removed or reclaimed, the base material will be rolled and
compacted and the trail can once again be used. The Park trails will remain in this
unpaved condition until the installation of the new pavement occurs early in October.
Paving should take only a few days. Trails can be used almost immediately after being
paved.
During the project, there may be some equipment parked in the north end of the parking
lot on the west side of Boone Avenue. The contractor will also access the trails from the
north end of the parking lot.
Irrigation Overview
An irrigation system will be installed in the two softball fields and the soccer field on the
east side of Boone Avenue. By irrigating these fields, the quality of the turf will be
greatly enhanced and the playability of the fields improved. The area used for the Duk
Duk Daze amusements, between the softball field and Boone Avenue, will be equipped
with a spigot. Therefore the carnival will not damage any part of the irrigation system,
and yet staff will have a method to water this turf without bringing additional irrigation
equipment to the site.
The water service that will supply the irrigation system is located under the sidewalk
along the east side of Boone Avenue. A portion of the sidewalk will have to be removed
in order to connect to the existing water service. The sidewalk will be closed during this
time. The fields will not be usable this fall while the irrigation system is being installed.
It is expected that the softball and soccer fields will be ready for play next spring, as
usual.
Sept. 18, 2000
Project Schedule
The New Hope City Council awarded the contract for the Northwood Trail Improvement
Project to Hardrives Inc. at the August 28 Council meeting. At that same meeting
Council awarded the irrigation contract to Aqua Engineering. Work on these projects is
expected to begin the week of September 18. Both projects will be completed by the
end of October.
Construction Hours
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 7:00 p.m. on Saturday. All work, including mobilization of
equipment, will take place during these time periods.
Contact Persons
If you have questions or concerns during these projects, please direct your calls to the
Project Engineer, Vince VanderTop, at (651) 604-4790 or Tom Schuster, Contract
Manager, at (763) 533-4823, ext. 13.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Phone: 531-5100
PROJECT BULLETIN #1
PROJECT BULLETIN
CIVIC CENTER PARK OUTDOOR THEATRE CONCRETE
RECONSTRUCTION AND STORM SEWER WORK
CiTY PROJECT NO. 693
Overview
The City of New Hope is replacing the stage and seating area at the outdoor theatre in
Civic Center Park, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, this fall. The existing concrete and the
surrounding asphalt (under the bleachers) has settled over time. This settlement has
caused the existing concrete to crack in several areas making it a safety concern, as
well as making its maintenance more difficult. The settling can be partially attributed to
poor drainage in the area.
In order to accomplish this project, the bleachers will be temporarily moved. Once the
existing concrete and asphalt are removed, the site will be regraded and drain tile will be
installed in the area to improve the drainage situation. The new stage and seating area
will be constructed with the same dimensions as the existing area. When the
construction is completed, the bleachers will be placed back in their original location.
Access to the project area will be from the north end of the City Hall parking lot.
Improvements to drainage in this area will include extending storm sewer piping from
the free skating area in the park east to the theatre area.
Project Schedule
The New Hope City Council awarded the contract for the replacement of the concrete
stage area of the theater in Civic Center Park to Hardrives Inc. at the August 28 Council
meeting. At the same meeting they awarded the storm sewer work to Dave Perkins
Contracting Inc. Work on the project is expected to begin the week of September 18.
The entire project will be completed by the end of October.
Construction Hours
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 7:00 p.m. on Saturday. All work, including mobilization of
equipment, will take place during these time periods.
Contact Persons
If you have questions or concerns during the concrete replacement project, please direct
your calls to the Project Engineer, Vince VanderTop, at (651) 604-4790 or Tom
Schuster, Contract Manager, at (763) 533-4823, ext. 13.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Phone: 531-5100
Projects~693~Project Bulletin#1.doc
Sept. 18.2000
Project No. 678
Bulletin #2
PROJECT BULLETIN
4864 FLAG AVENUE NORTH
Overview
On September 11, 2000, the New Hope City Council approved a concept home
plan for the vacant lot at 4864 Flag Avenue North (see reduced elevations and
site plan which are enclosed). The new home will measure 1,616 square feet
and include three bedrooms and a double, attached garage. The home will be
placed on the north side of the lot, while the garage will be situated to the south
side of the lot. This will allow the home portion to overlook the park and wetlands
across 49th Avenue.
Prior to the new home construction, the City will oversee the installation of
pilings. This activity will occur within the next couple of months. Pilings are steel
pipes, which will support the home's foundation. The City will be in contact with
the adjacent property owners about the pile-driving schedule when the time gets
closer for the work. The impact should be minimal for the neighborhood; given
the fact the City had experience with a similar project at 8808 41st Avenue North
(Habitat site) eadier this year.
When construction is completed, the property will be landscaped. There will be
adequate landscaping to buffer the new home from 49th Avenue.
The target beneficiary for this new construction housing project will be a first-time
homebuyer.
Site Upkeep
The City will maintain the site during the fall and winter months.
City Contacts
If you have questions or concerns, please contact Susan Henry, Community
Development Specialist, at 763-531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Community
Development Director, at 763-531-5119.
The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents and businesses in the area
that may be impacted by the construction during this project. Additional bulletins
will be sent to you as the project progresses. Thank you for your cooperation.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
9/20/00
4401 Xylon Avenue North
'New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898
www. ci. new-hope, mn.us
City Hall: 763-531-5100 City Hall Fax:
Police: 763-531-5170 Police Fax:
Public Works: 763-533-4823 Public Works Fax:
TDD: 763-531-5109
763-531-513~
763-531-57
763-533- 765C
September 21, 2000
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTICE
WHO:
WHAT:
WHEN:
WHERE:
WHY:
CONTACTS:
REMINDER:
The City of New Hope is coordinating a neighborhood meeting to
discuss the sea gull noise issue in the vicinity of the warehouse
located at 8201 54th Avenue. A representative of the Department of
Natural Resources Wildlife Division will be present along with the
property owner and representatives from the City.
The purpose of the informational meeting is to discuss this nuisance
issue with residents and to talk about several solutions or actions
that could be taken, in cooperation with the neighborhood, to try and
resolve the issue by next spring.
Wednesday, September 27, at 6:00 p.m.
Weather permitting, the meeting will be held outside on the south
side of Begin Park near 54th Avenue.
If it is cold or raining, the meeting will be held inside the warehouse
at 8201 54th Avenue.
The New Hope City Council has directed city staff to coordinate with
the property owner/manager, neighborhood residents and other
appropriate agencies to try and find solutions to this problem.
If you cannot attend the meeting but have questions or comments,
please contact Kirk McDonald, New Hope Community Development
Director, at 531-5119.
If residents have concerns about noise in your neighborhood, please
contact the following persons:
8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Doug Sandstad
Building OffiCial/Noise Control Officer
531-5122
4:30 p.m. - 8:00 a.m.
New Hope Police Department
911
Family Styled City ~ For Family Living