The URL can be used to link to this page

060199 PlanningMemorandum To: Planning Commission Members From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Date: June 1, 1999 Subject: Oath of Office for New Planning Commission Member The City Code states that "the Planning Commission may consist of up to ten members appointed by the City Council. Before taking office, every appointed member shall take an oath to faithfully perform commission member duties." The Planning Commission consisted of nine members up until December 31, 1998, when one member requested not to be re-appointed. The City sought applications for appointment to various commissions from interested residents and received several applications. The Council interviewed the applicants prior to the February 8 Council meeting and formally appointed one new member to the Planning Commission. Due to the fact that there has been no planning/development applications received since January, the Planning Commission did not meet in February, March, April or May. Patricia (Patsy) Green will be sworn in at the June 1 Planning Commission meeting. Please make her feel welcome. 4401 Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612-531-5100 City Hall Fax: 612 ·-5135 New Hope, Minnesota 55425-4898 ' Police: 612-531-5170 Police Fax: 612-531-5174 Public Works: 612-533-4823 Public Works Fax: 612-533-7650 TDD: 612-531-5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531.5175 February 9, 1999 Ms. Patricia Green 5936 W. Meadow Lake Road New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Patsy: The New Hope City Council unanimously selected you to serve on the City's Planning Commission. The Council was impressed with your desire to serve on a city commission. Your term will expire on December 31, 2001 (3-year term). An oath of office will be administered at your first Planning Commission Meeting of Tuesday, April 6, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. You will receive the agenda packet on the preceding Friday, which will be hand delivered to your residence. This will allow you ample time to read over the material and do a little on-site investigation if you so desire. Information regarding an upcoming training opportunity will be provided to you soon. Enclosed for your review is a copy of a recent Planning Commission minutes and "Guidelines for Advisory Commissions and Committees". Should you have any questions regarding the Commission, please contact Kirk McDonald, staff liaison for the Planning Commission, at 531-5119. Again, congratulations! Sincerely, Valerie Leone, CMC City Clerk enc. cc: Kirk McDonald Pam Syivester Family Styled City ~~ For Family Living A CITY OF NEW HOPE APPLICATION FOR COMMISSION pplying for: ( ) Citizen Advisory Commission ( ) Personnel Board ~ Planning Commission ( ) Human Rights Commission 4. What skills do you have that you feel would benefit the Ci~? 5. Why dd you want to serve on this commission?~ ~ 6. What experience have you had that you feel would be pe~inent to this commissary 7. What other civic activities are you involv~n? 8. Have you served on any Ci~ commissions or boards in the past? Date · Unde~ ~he law. vo~ tele~ae aum~r is ~ivate da~. I~ you a~e selected to s~e. yo~ tele=~one ~e Commiaaioner'a liar. The ~r~ae ia so ot~e~ Commiaai~n~a. ci~ o~cia~a, a~ the ~lic will ~ a~le to contact you. There is no co~aequence ~o~ ~e~sing to ~u~ly t~ia 03/96 - 103 2.13, 2.131', 2.132, 2.133, 2.134, 2.135 2.13 PLANNING COMMISSION. 2.131 Establishment. The Planning Commission heretofore established may be abolished by two-thirds vote of all the members of the Council. 2.132 Comoosttion. (1) Number. The Planning Commission may consist of up to ten members appointed by the Council. Before taking office, every appointed member sha~l take an oath to faithfully perform commission member duties. (Code 072684, Ord. 96-1, 97-14) (2) Term. Unless sooner removed by & fOur-fifths vote of the Council, nine of the members shall serve a term of three years, and the person appointed as the tenth member shall serve a term-expiring the first business day of January in the year following the year appointed. All members appointed and qualified shall serve until their successors qualify. (Code 072684, Ord. 96-1) (3) Councilmember May Be Tenth Member. The Council may appoint a member of the Council to serve on the Planning Commission who shall serve a term expiring on the first business day of January in the year following the year appointed. (Code 072684, Ord. 96-1, 97-14) (4) Repealed. (Ord. 89-19, 97-6) 2.133 Purpose. Authority and Duties. The Planning Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the Council. It is hereby authorized and di'rected to carry on City Planning activities end to adopt a plan for the regulation of the future physical development of the City, and to prepare end adopt an official map of &11 proposed alterations of existing lands and public spaces, and the future development of unplatted properties and shall recommend approval or disapproval of subdivisions of land. The Commission shall make a study of future developments of the City, including proposed public buildings, street arrangements and improvements, public utility services, parks, playgrounds, end other similar developments. The results of.all studies made by the Commission, together with the recommendations of the Commission shall be submitted to the Council. The Planning Commission shall upon request of the Councit, make recommendations to the Council reg&rding matters affecting zoning, platting, the making of public improvements and other measures affecting the future or present development of the City. (Code 072684) 2.134 ~-~D.~[.~J2. The Planning Commission shall elect yearly a chairperson, vice chairperson, and a third officer from its membership. Each officer shall hold office until a successor is elected at the first duly called meettng in the succeeding year. 2.135 Meetin;s The regular mont'hly Planning CommiSsion meeting shall be on · such day and time as established by the Council. Any regular monthly Planning. CcNnmtssion meeting may be Canceled for lack of pending planning case applic&tions, 'zoning, pl&tttng, 1&nd development or ordinance '" issues. Special meetings shall be called by the Chairperson not sooner than three days after receipt by the Chairperson of e written request for a special meeting signed by three or more members of the Planning Commission. Special meetings shall require three days written notice to each member and further require compliance with all other .notice _. provisions of Minn. Stat, §471.705(1)(b). (Code 072684, Ord. 85-11, 97-14) 2-9 0726~ 2.136 2.136 Mtnutee. The Commission shall adopt rules for the ~ransactton of buatness~ and shall keep a public record of its resoluttone, motions, transactions and findings. One copy of the minutes of each meeting shall be delivered to the Clerk prior to the next regular meeting of the Council, and the Clerk shall record the same as a permanent record of the City. 2-9A O72684 AGENDA ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 1, 1999 ..... CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. OATH OF OFFICE 4. CONSENT BUSINESS 5. PUBLIC HEARING * 5.1 Case 99-01 Request for a Variance to the Requirement Pertaining to Maximum Size and Number of Wall Signs and to Allow a Larger Size and Number of Wall Signs Than Permitted by the Sign Code, 4300 Xylon Avenue North, Kmart/All Brite Sign, Inc./Master LP Associates Limited Partnership, Petitioners 5.2 Case 98-16 Consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner 5.3 Case 99-04 Consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope Sign Code by Increasing Area Limitation for Signage Fronting on Freeways, City of New Hope, Petitioner 5.4 Case 97-26 Consideration of An Ordinance Amending Chapter Six of the New Hope City Code Regulating Courtesy Bus Benches, City of New Hope, Petitioner 6. COMMITTEE REPORTS 6.1 Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: Thursday, June 17 at 8 a.m. (if necessary) 6.2 Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: Thursday, June 24 at 7 a.m. (if necessary) 6.3 Report of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - Next Meeting: Wednesday, June 9 at 5 p.m. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Miscellaneous Issues 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of January 5, 1999. 8.2 Review of City Council Minutes of April 26 and May 10, 1999. 8.3 Review of EDA Minutes of Apdl 12, 26, and May 10, 1999. 9. COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS 11. ADJOURNMENT · Petitioners are required to be in attendance Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. Al If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 99-01 Request: Request for a Variance to the Requirement Pertaining to Maximum Size and Number of Wall Signs and to Allow a Larger Size and Number of Wall Signs Than Permitted by the Sign Code Location: 4300 Xylon Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21-11-0013 Zoning: B-4, Community Business Petitioner: Kmart/All Brite Sign, Inc./Master LB Associates Ltd. Partnership Report Date: May 28, 1999 Meeting Date: June 1, 1999 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to the requirement pertaining to maximum size and number of wall signs and to allow a larger size and number of wall signs than permitted by the Sign Code, pursuant to Sections 3.51 and 4.93(2)(a) and (c) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. Kmart and a related business, Penske Auto Service, are currently tenants in the building located at 4300 Xylon Avenue North. The building also contains a vacant bay formerly occupied by Old America. It is staff's understanding that Kmart has recently renewed its lease at the site for an additional 10 years. The owners of the property are EBL&S Property Management, Inc. of Philadelphia. The application has been signed by Kmart, the property owners, and All Brite Sign, Inc. 3. The building fronts Xylon Avenue and 42nd Avenue and contains 121,000 square feet. The property is located in a B-4 Community Business Zoning District and the lot area is 12.7 acres. 4. Per the petitioner's correspondence, Kmart is renovating the interior of its stores on a national basis and changing the name and image to "Big K." The "Big K" format includes new features including brighter lighting, wider aisles, more convenient merchandise placement, a pantry department, and coolers stocked with items such as milk, eggs, bread, beverages, cheese, cereal, pasta, paper products, household and pet supplies, and a bigger assortment and wider selection of name brand merchandise. 5. The renovation of the existing Kmart interior space does not involve expanding into the vacant Old America space, although that vacant bay has been utilized for staging purposes during the renovation. In February, the City received correspondence from the property owner stating that they had retained a firm to represent their company in potentially securing a big box user for the site and that several supermarkets have expressed interest in the Kmart Plaza. The correspondence stated that one of the scenarios would require Kmart to give up some of its existing space to accommodate the supermarket, with Kmart building additional space close to Rockford Road. The correspondence stated that several other plans were being discussed to accommodate space needs of this potential additional tenant. No further correspondence related to this issue has been received and the Kmart remodeling has proceeded independent from the vacant site. Building permits in the amount of $200,000 have been obtained for the interior improvements. 6. The specific request before the Planning Commission is for variances to the Sign Code to allow larger signs on the building than permitted by the City Code. The allowed, existing and proposed signage are outlined in the Planner's report as follows: ^. Allowed Signage. The building is a multiple occupancy building because it contains space for md-~ than one business. The total allowable wall sign area for a multiple occupancy structure shall not exceed 15 percent of the combined wall surfaces on walls which abut streets in business or industrial zoning districts. No individual tenant identification sign may exceed 100 square feet in area. ^ tenant occupying a corner location fronting on two streets may display identification signs to both street frontages. B. Existing Signage. The Kmart portion of the building has the following existing wall signs that total 330 square feet in area and exist as current variances: · A Kmart logo sign 126 square feet in size. · ^ Pharmacy sign 57 square feet in size. · A Garden Shop sign 72 square feet in size · A Penske Auto Service sign 150 square feet in size. Kmart also has a freestanding sign along 42nd Avenue that is 16 square feet and complies with freestanding sign standards. The existing Kmart signage is non-conforming with regard to size and number of tenant signs. The signs were approved as part of a previous variance, and as such, flexibility has already been granted beyond ordinance standards. The legal, non-conforming signs may be grandfathered or may be required to be brought into compliance with this application. ~ C. Proposed Signage. The following signage is proposed for the Kmart portion of the building: · Adding "BIG" and a swoop to the Kmart logo sign would increase the area of the sign to 300 square feet. · ^ Pharmacy sign 57 square feet in size is to remain. · A Garden Shop sign 72 square feet in size is to remain. · A Penske Auto Service sign 150 square feet in size is to remain. · Kmart is proposing a new logo for its freestanding sign; however, the height and size of the sign will not be altered. The total square footage of the Kmart wall signs is proposed to be 579 square feet, creating a greater amount of non-conformity with square footage requirements than exists currently. This significantly exceeds the 100-foot maximum wall sign square footage requirement for businesses in multi-tenant buildings. It also exceeds the 250-foot maximum wall sign square footage for an individual business establishment. The vacant tenant bay formerly occupied by Old America will also require additional signage if a new tenant is found. Kmart has no plans to expand into this space. 7, Surrounding land uses and zoning are B-4/Community Business, to the east (VVinnetka Center/City Center); R-I/Gethsemane Cemetery to the south; B-2/Retail Business and R-I/Single Family/Open Space/Public (city facilities) to the west; and R-5/Senior/Disabled Residential (high density) to the north. 8. Kmart is located in Planning District #11 of the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies the City Center as the commercial focal point of the City. The site is identified as being: · disconnected from the two adjacent shopping centers · underdeveloped, with an excess of parking that detracts from the site's appearance; satellite retail or restaurant has been encouraged · partially vacant, leading to concern about the vitality of the commercial land use · a "redevelopment site", and · in need of maintenance. Planning Case 99-01 Page 2 5/28/99 -- 9. A total of 880 parking spaces exist, exceeding the Zoning Code minimum and greatly exceeding the needs of the two tenants. The parking lot was improperly striped some years ago without city approval. The lot is in dire need of repair and restriping to align with the curb cut entrances and meet city standards. The 42nd Avenue street project currently underway has a south driveway change that should be incorporated into the new striping plan. The property owners and Kmart have been receptive to granting the necessary easements for the 42nd Avenue project and to the driveway change. 10. The topography of the site slopes six feet gradually from an elevation of 923 feet at the north to 917 feet at the south. 11. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff has received no comments regarding this request. ANALYSIS 1. Zoning Code Variance A. The purpose of a variance in the Zoning Code 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, shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the vadance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. B. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. C. Additional cdteda to be used in considering requests for a variance include the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: 1. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. 2. Li,qht and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 3. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. 4. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. 5. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 2. Sign Code Variance A. The New Hope Sign Code states that where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the stdct letter of the provisions of this section, the Planning Commission/City Council has the power to vary the requirements of this section in harmony with the general purpose and intent hereof, so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. VVhen considering a variance, the Planning Commission/City Council shall make a finding of fact and grant approval based upon the following conditions: 1. Unique Conditions. That the conditions involved are unique to the particular parcel of land or use involved. 2. Variation Purpose. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved. Planning Case 99-01 Page 3 5/28/99 3. Cause of Hardship. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Sign Code and h not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel. 4. Effect of Variance. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood. 5. Impairment of Light and Air. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 6. Impairment of Police and Fire Functions. That the variance will not impair or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or interfere with the function of the police and fire departments of the City. B. The application was originally submitted in April, but was deemed incomplete by staff because the application was not signed by the property owner and the applicants did not attend the scheduled meeting with the Design & Review Committee. C. The petitioners met with the Design & Review Committee on May 13 to discuss this request. The Planning Consultant stated there was no change to the site to warrant such a large sign and noted that if the "Big K" would be added it would make the sign approximately 75 square feet larger than the existing sign. Committee members inquired about other improvements to the building/site and the local manager indicated that the landlord would resurface/restripe the parking lot and that the mansard would be painted behind where the sign would be changed. Several Committee members did not feel that the sign plan was extravagant, but indicated they wanted the entire building painted and wanted parking lot repairs/restriping to be coordinated with the 42nd Avenue project. The pylon sign was also discussed and the Committee was informed that the new sign would be the same size as the existing sign. D. Kmart has indicated inn its correspondence that "the single most important element to the Big Kmart program's success is enhanced recognition by way of improved, more visible identification. Customers need to know that the Big Kmart is there and that it is different and better. To that end, the company has introduced a new logo change incorporating the use of our existing store front sign. By adding the word "BIG" to existing signage Kmart will signal to shoppers that this is a different store. In 1989 Kmart underwent a new logo change and the ability to use our existing "K" logo at our stores will have a positive impact on our investment. Kmart also believes that discarding 2,000 signs is not productive nor environmentally responsible. We are asking your consideration and support of our new endeavor. Kmart has been a long-standing support to your community and we plan to continue our support for many years to come. To achieve our goals, we are seeking approval to increase the square footage of our existing signage to appropriately identify the store." E. The Planner's report responds to the criteda in the Sign Code for consideration of a variance request, as follows: 1) Unique Conditions. That the conditions involved are unique to the particular parcel of land or use involved. The conditions of the site have not changed. Traffic patterns and land use have not changed, and no major renovations are proposed for the building. 2) Variance Purpose. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved. The only reason for the sign change is a Kmart Corporation decision to change the name of the store. Planning Case 99-01 Page 4 5/28/99 3) Cause of Hardship. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Sign Code and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel. No argument for hardship has been made. 4) Effect of Variance. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public we/fare or injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood. Approval of a sign variance without a significant renovation of the site and without a hardship would establish a precedent that is not in the public interest. F. Kmart has been granted sign variances twice in the past, in 1972 and 1991. Staff has suggested some balancing exterior or site components that would demonstrate the commitment to an upgraded shopping experience or offset the effects of an oversized sign. In the past, the City has attempted to work with Kmart to achieve improvements to the site; however, these improvements have not occurred. While numerous discussions about possible exterior or site improvements have resulted from this filing, no plans have been submitted. The letter recently received from EBL&S states that $100,000 has 'been allocated for "anticipated improvements." G. While the City supports the upgrading of the interior of the store, staff does not feel that a hardship has been demonstrated to meet the Sign Code criteria. At this time, staff recommends denial of the variance because Kmart has not demonstrated a "uniqueness," "a non-economic purpose," or a "positive effect of the variance," as required by code. They have not used the opportunity to argue that the code is too restrictive. This building is multi-tenant and the fact that the City allows only 100 square feet for wall signs in such cases may be worth reconsidering. If Kmart occupied the entire building, they would be allowed a 250 square foot wall sign, reducing the scale of its variance request; however, the number of wall signs would still be a variance for them. H. Another option might be for the petitioner to request a tabling or continuance of the public hearing until July to give them an opportunity to submit plans and firmly commit to site work improvements. I. If the Commission does approve the variance request, staff recommends that it be subject to entering into a site improvement agreement with the City for $100,000 in site improvements, submit the appropriate plans, and post a financial guarantee for the improvements. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information contained in this report, including a finding of a lack of hardship that would justify an additional variance, we recommend denial of the variance request and recommend that all Kmart signs comply with the previously approved sign variance with regard to number, size, and location of signs. Attachments: Topo/Zoning/Address Maps Kmart Standard Correspondence EBL&S Property Management, Inc. Correspondence Kmart Sign Plans: Front/Side Elevations Neon Sections Mounting Brackets Section at Letters Storefront Elevation Right Side Elevation Pylon Detail Existing Pylon Photo New Pylon Photo Existing Wall Sign Photo New Wall Sign Photo Planning Case 99-01 Page 5 5/28/99 5/26/99 Planner's Report Building Official Attachments: Sign Code Excerpts Sign Variance Comparison Building Permits for Remodeling 4/14/99 Planner's Report City Correspondence to Property Owners and Kmart Application Log Planning Case 99-01 Page 6 5/28/99 ....... ~ ....... i ...... ~ ~ ........... OOOP[R HIGH SCHOOL ~ .- ..... ~.- ~-~ ....... ; ~ ' ~ ~ : ~41 ~ ~ 4741 ......... , ~ .... ~_..~ , . ~... ...... ~- !' ~ ...... ?"~'~m; ........ ~: ,' rl ~ B'--'~ .... ...... .,, "- .............................. ~ L..J..L~;.~ ~ , ! ~ ~_~. ~; ' ............... , ........... ~ ................ I ' ~ ....~ ....... ~ ..... ~ .... ~- + .... ~ .-' ~ I ~{ ; ," ~ i ~ ~ : i i- · ~. ~ , = ; r= n,~.:..~.-...~.~: ~..: ....... · s ~i ~ s ,s i~,~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ i~ I ....... : ........ ~ ....:'" ~' -"~ .... T~'~ ~..' /~ .~'' ~ ..... ~ i ; + ~:~ ~ ~ ~8~ ', .? --' ~ '"~ ...... '" ........ ..................... -~ ~ ~- ~ ................................... '" .' "" ' ' '= 'k ~ --" ~ :':.:[ ~RK /~ - , NEW HoPE J / C I ..................................... HALL I POOL FIRE STATION z ~ I ~ .............. ~ ...... ..~ ~ - - _..;a~5'X~"~""': ....................... ZONING DI ~ ~. R-0 "~' ,~ ~ ., ,.+~~ ,o..w.~ - - -~ .... ~---' R-1 Single Fa ~ / ~ ~:4 R-2 Single an R-3 Medium 48TH AVE ~ . 4~TH ~ COOPER ~VE N HOUSE OF HIGH SCHOOL ....~ _~ ~ R 4 High Den . HIGHVIEW D- ~9,:,r~ ~ ~ 'm R-5 "Senior R-t NEW HOPE DEL DR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ...... ~" ~ ~ ' ~ ,~, ..... nuD-n Residenti R-2 ...... ~ R-4~ ~ ~ ~. R-0(PUD) Re B-1 Limited - ,,, ~ ~R-1 B-2 Retail Bu - B-S Auto Ori~ - ' . ~ .... ~O~KAV~ A" -. ~ S - -- T .. . ~ . _.. ~ . ~ _.. ¢ - .. ~"~ Zoning Board of Appeals Ladies and Gentlemen: We are pleased to present to you today an important request that you join with Kmart in bringing (city) a compelling new shopping experience. The 1234 Nowhere Drive Kmart store has long been a cornerstone for (county) shoppers who seek the best in product quality and service. Now in 199~], in the face of growing competition and consumer demand for better prices, service, and convenience, Kmart has made a major capital investment in bringing (city) a completely new shopping concept. This strategy, being introduced throughout the nation, is the Big Kmart high frequency store design. The Big Kmart format includes many new and important features and is designed to helP. shoppers save both time and money. · Brighter lighting ~. Wider aisles · More convenient merchandise placement · A pantry department with stock-up items like milk, bread, beverages, eggs, cheese, cereal, pasta, paper products, household and pet supplies · Bigger assortments and wider selections of name brand merchandise. Kmart is prepared to fund the investment that will make improvements critical to its success in (city). Customers will enjoy the many conveniences and the more attractive shopping environment. Kmart will be better able to assure present and continuing job opportunities and tax revenues. The single most important element to the Big Kmart program's success is enhanced recognition by way of improved, more visible identification. Customers need to know that the Big Kmart is there and that it is different and better. To that end the company has introduced a new logo change incorporating the use of our existing store front sign. By adding the work "BIG" to existing signage Kmart will signal to shoppers that this is a different store. In 1989 Kmart underwent a new logo change and the ability to use our existing "K" logo at our stores will have a positive impact on our investment. K.mart also believes that discarding 2,000 signs is not productive nor environmentally responsible. We are asking your consideration and support of our new endeavor. Kmart has been a long standing support to your community, and we plan to continue our support for many years to come. To achieve our goals, we are seeking approval to increase the square footage of our existing signage by This increase is predicated on the sign code permissible, square footage of , and the necessary 365 square feet of signs on the building face, necessary to appropriately identify the store. We have included with this letter drawings, color renderings, and the variance documents required with our request for approval. We are prepared to meet with the representatives of the Board at the facility, to go over each element of our overall strategy and to review the need for the increased signage, and to provide the Board of Appeals a clear understanding of the long term importance of this store to Kmart. Thank you very much for your attention. Very truly yours, 05/21/1999 13:49 2157904733 E~LSS P~E City o{ New ~ope ~01Xylon &venue North Ney ~ope, NN 55~28-486~ A~Nt Doug Sandstead get 4300 Xyon North Ney Hope, Dear Hr.. Sandsceadz Please be advised ghat the sa of $100,0~ has been allocated by the landlord for improvements on the move referenced property. In addition to ~hese funds, the tenant, KumrCj rill alsO be contribuC~ag si~l£1cantly to the planned are · ~e perkins lot ~i~ be resealed and restriped · ~ere will be '~e ~aacia on the building ~ill be replaced Zf C~re ~s anything else you need in this regard, pl,~ase con,act ~he undersigned. Vice President DAS/tl cc~ M~ke ~l~ckinser, I~ar~ Corpo~a~ion Juatine Baker, Blair SiGn (via ~acst~ile 81~-9~9-8~93) 230 SOUTH BRCMtO 8TRr~, MEZT. AHM, PfllLADL:U)HIA, PA 19102 · (215) 790-47O0 FAX '.215) 790.4732 MX (215) 790.4733 WEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS I I~~ COMMUNITY PIANNING - DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: kirk McDonald FROM: Cynthia Putz-Yang / Alan Brixius DATE: May 26, 1999 RE: New Hope - Kmart Sign Variance FILE NO.: 131.01 - 99.02 BACKGROUND The Kmart at 4300 Xylon North is requesting a variance to allow additional wall signage on the Kmart facade. The building contains Kmart and a related business, Penske Auto Service, as well as a vacant bay formerly occupied by Old America. The buildingfronts Xylon Avenue and 42nd Avenue (Rockford Road). The Design and Review Committee met on April 14th to consider the application, and the Committee's comments are integrated within this report. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Sign Plan Exhibit C - Existing Primary Sign Exhibit D - Proposed Primary Sign Exhibit E - Existing Freestanding Sign Exhibit F - Proposed Freestanding Sign Exhibit G - Sign Variance Comparison Exhibit H - May Letter from EBL & S Property Management, Inc. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information contained within this report, including a finding of a lack of hardship that would justify an additional variance, we recommend denial of the variance request and recommend that all Kmart signs comply with the previously approved sign 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 61 2-595-9636 FAX 61 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WlNTERNET.COM variance with regard to number, size, and location of signs. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Renovations. The application for variance states the request should be granted..."Due to extensive renovation". The City received a letter from EBL & S Property Management, the owner of the property that Kmart occupies, stating that improvements to the property are anticipated (Exhibit H). A minor $30,000 building permit was issued in March for a routine interior shelving and display shuffle; however, no plans have been submitted illustrating significant renovations. In the past the City has attempted to work with Kmart to achieve improvements to the site; however, these improvements have not occurred. Staff are cautious about promises made on this property due to past experience. In 1991 City staff worked on a revised site plan with local employees of Kmart to correct striping/traffic issues while greening up the large parking lot. Unfortunately, City staff were later advised by Robert Bishop of EBL & S Development Corporation that those persons were never authorized to discuss site plan changes, and no changes occurred. Allowed Signage. The building is a multiple occupancy building because it contains space for more than one business. The total allowable wall sign area for a multiple occupancy structure shall not exceed 15 percent of the combined wall surfaces on wells which abut streets in business or industrial zoning districts. No individual tenant identification sign may exceed 100 square feet in area. A tenant occupying a corner location fronting on two street may display identification signs to both street frontages. Existing Signage. The Kmart portion of the building has the following existing wall signs that total 330 square feet in area and exist as current variances: · A Kmart logo sign 126 square feet in size. · A Pharmacy sign 57 square feet in size. · A Garden Shop sign 72 square feet in size. · A Penske Auto Service sign 150 square feet in size. Kmart also has a freestanding sign along 42~ Avenue that is 16 square feet and complies with freestanding sign standards. The Kmart signage is non-conforming with regard to size and number of tenant signs. The signs were approved as part of a previous variance, and as such, flexibility has already been granted beyond Ordinance standards. The legal, non-conforming signs may be grandfathered or may be required to be brought into compliance with this application. Proposed Signage. The following signage is proposed for the Kmart portion of the building: 2 · Adding "BIG" and a swoop to the Kmart logo sign would increase the area of the sign to 300 square feet. · A Pharmacy sign 57 square feet in size is to remain. · A Garden Shop sign 72 square feet in size is to remain. · A Penske Auto Service sign 150 square feet in size is to remain. · Kmart is proposing a new logo for its freestanding sign; however, the height and size of the sign will not be altered. The total square footage of the Kmart wall signs is proposed to be 579 square feet, creating a greater amount of non-conformity with square footage requirements than exists currently. This significantly exceeds the 100 foot maximum wall sign square footage requirement for businesses in multi-tenant buildings. It also exceeds the 250 foot maximum wall sign square footage for an individual business establishment. The vacant tenant bay formerly occupied by Old America will also require additional signage if a new tenant is found. Kmart has no plans to expand into this space. Variance. Section 3.51 of the City Code states that when considering a variance, the City Council shall make a finding of fact and grant approval based upon the following conditions: 3.511 Unique Conditions. That the conditions involved are unique to the particular parcel of/and or use involved. The conditions of the site have not changed. Traffic patterns and land use have not changed, and no major renovations are proposed for the building. 3.512 Variance Purpose. That the purpose of the vadance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved. The only reason for the sign change is a Kmart Corporation decision to change the name of the store. 3.513 Cause of Hardship. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Sign Code and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel. No argument for hardship has been made. 3.514 Effect of Variance. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public we/fare or injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood. Approval of a sign variance without a significant renovation of the site and without a hardship would establish a precedent that is not in the public interest. 3 3.515 Impairment of i_~qht and Air. That the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. No light or air is impaired. 3.516 Impairment of Police and Fire Functions. That the variance will not impair or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or interfere with the function of the po/ice and fire departments of the City. Congestion and function of the police and fire departments is not affected. The conditions of the site have not changed and no hardship exists for granting the variance. 4 City New Hope SINGLE FAMILY RE$1OENTIAL R-I SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R'~' MEDIUM DENSITY RESIOENTtAt- R-$ HIGH OENSITY RE$IOENTIAL R-4 SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL R-5 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE R-O LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS RETAIL BUSINESS AUTO ORIENTEO BUSINESS B-5 COMMUNITY BUS[NESS 8-4 LIMITED INOUSTR[AL FLOOD pLAiN FP WET LAND W ........ rthwest . ?'~:: I ' 'Associated . · -, Consultan[s, inc. .] GOLDEN o~-~ EXHIBIT B B 3.502 ]~a~~..~. Normal maintenance, such as painting, rep~ cleaning, maintaining, electrical wiring andres on site and changing or repai.,'ing fasteners or guy w~ins shall be permitted on any legal .~.~o'~Amortization Sch~ule, Any legal non-conforming sign shall be brought in to compliance with this Code or removed by December 31, 2003. 3.51 V.~81~_!iE~!~. Where there are practical difficulties or urmeces~"y hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this section, the City Council has the power to vary the requirements of this section in harmony with the general purpose and intent hereof, so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. When considering a variance, the City Council shall make a finding of fact and grant approval based upon the following conditions: 3,511 Uniaue Conditions. That the conditions involved are unique to the particular parcel of land or use involved. 3.512 Vari~¢e Purnose. That the purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the business involved. 3.513 Cau~ of Hardshiu. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Sign Code and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest, in the parcel. ~ 3.514 Effect of Variance. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements to the neighborhood. 3,515 lmvairment of Light and Ai~. 'I'nat the variance will not hnpair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent'property. 3.516 lmnairment of Police and Fh'e Functions. That the variance will not impair or substan__tially in,'ease the congestion of the public streets, ot interfere with the fum:tion of the police and fire departments of the City. 3.52 ~evlew lsr~__~ and Tnt'ormntlon_~ Reoulrementa. Sin A_n~_lic'ation. The Applicant must complete and sub~ 3.521 Application for approval by the Ci~ _.._..------~_ _. _ .... 3.522 Permit Issued if Auolica' ' ' t'de~. TI~ City Building Official, ....... upon the filin~ or--for a permit, shall examine such plans, specifications and _~~~,t~atn and the pt~fises upon which it is proposed to ere~ the sign. If it - 17- Sigm Variance Comparison C 1972 Ver~uce; 1991 Pro~o~l; ~ I 1999 Proposal- 258 sq. ft. 220 ~. fo. ~ ' I 8~ I I~ No Sign ? - 1972 Vari~ce; 1~1 l~r~l~al; 1999 Proposal; 330 ~q. ft. 419 ~. f~. (1 ~) (~ ~) ~ 429 sf +2~Z (3 signs) ~35 ~. ft. 135 ~. f~ 150 sf I ~i~ I ~i~ (Penske) 1 Ground PERMIT D NEW HOPE 4401 Xylon Avenue North PERMIT TYPE: New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Permit Number: 0 (612) 531-5127 Date Issued: 0 4~/..~ 9 / 9 SITE ADDRESS: \ 4300 XYLON AVE N LOT= BLOCK: M&B SECTION 18 RANGE 21 P.I.N.: 18-118-21-11-0013 DESCRIPTION: INTERIOR,BATH RMDL Buiid£ng Permit Type COMMERCIAL Build£ng Work Type REMODEL Census Code 437 ALT. NONRES. REMARKS: INTERIOR REMODEL & ADA BATHROOM REM . FEE SUMMAR~ VALUATIO Base Fee $442.00 $.00 Plan Rev£ew $287.30 3461~.~.~._._.~ Surcharge $17.50 2083 $.OO Total Fee $746.80 Total Fee $746.80' ACTOR: ~ {OWNER: - Appl£cant - ~J K MART COMP ~j 310o w BIS BEAVER RD ~1 TROY MI 48084 (248)637-1096 ~~'~TH~E~IT IS 8RAMTEO UT~OI~THE EXPRESS CONOITI~NS THAT SAID OWNER OR AG TO WHOM ZT IS GRANTED, AND CONTRACTORS, ~6ENTS, WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES SH COMPLY IN ALL.RESPECTS. WZTH THE OROIN~NCES OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE. I~ISSUED BY: SIGNATURE ~F . PERMIT ' IEW HOPE · 9 ue North PERMIT TYPE: 8 u [ L O [ ~ ~ / ~sota 55428 Permit Number: 013224 Date Issued: 05 4 9S / / 4300 XYLON AVE N LOT: BLOCK: M&B SECTION 18 RANGE 21 P.I.N.: 18-118-21-11-0013 DESCRIPTION: BALANCE ON REMODEL Building Permit Type COMMERCIAL Building Work Type REMODEL Census Code 437 ALT. NONRES. FEE SUMMAR~ LUATION $170,000 Base Fee $1,245.00 3240 $.00 Surcharge $85.00 2083 $.00 Total Fee $1,33 00 Total Fee $~.330.00 RACTOR: - Applicant - ~ OWNER: /RUSSELL CONSTRUCTION 5394993~ K MART 102 E PHILLIPS 3100 BIG BEAVER RD ST CONROE TX 77301 ~ TROY MI 48084 ~ (409) 539-4993 ~. (248)643-1000 THIS PERMIT I$ 6RANTED UPON THE EXPRESS CONDITIONS THAT SAID OWNER OR A( TO WHOM IT IS GRANTED, AND CONTRACTORS, AGENTS, WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES SI COMPLY IN ALL RESPECTS WITH THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE. APPLICANT PERMITEE SIGNATURE v - / ISSUED BY: SIGNATURE COMMUNITY PLANNIN(3 DESI(3N MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Design and Review Committee FROM: Cynthia Putz-Yang / Alan Brixius DATE: April 14, 1999 RE: New Hope - Kmart Sign Variance FILE NO.: 131.01 - 99.02 The Kmart at 4300 Xylon North is requesting a variance to allow additional wall signage on the Kmart facade. The building provides three tenant bays and contains Kmart, Penske Auto Service, and a vacant bay formerly occupied by Old America. The building fronts Xylon Avenue and 42"d Avenue (Rockford Road). · The building is a multiple occupancy building because it contains'more than one business. · The total allowable wall sign area for a multiple occupancy structure shall not exceed 15 percent of the combined wall surfaces on walls which abut streets in business or industrial zoning districts. No individual tenant identification sign may exceed 100 square feet in area. A tenant occupying a corner location fronting on two street may display identification signs to both street frontages. · The Kmart building has the following existing wall signs that total 330 square feet in area: · A Kmart logo sign 126 square feet in size. · A Pharmacy sign 52 square feet in size. · A Garden Shop sign 66 square feet in size. · A Penske Auto Service sign 86 square feet in size. · The Kmart signage is non-conforming with regard to size and number of tenant signs. The legal, non-conforming signs may be grandfathered or may be required to be brought into compliance with this application. · The following wall signs, totaling 204 square feet, are proposed to be added to the 775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 I 6 PHONE (5 I 2-595-9636 FAX 6 I 2-595-9837 existing Kmart logo sign: · A "BIG" sign, 141 square feet. · A swoop as part of the Big Kmart sign, 63 square feet. · The total square footage of the Big Kmart sign is proposed to be 330 square feet, creating a greater amount of non-conformity with square footage requirements. · The total square footage of all wall signs on the Kmart building is proposed to be 534 square feet. This significantly exceeds the 100 foot maximum wall sign square footage requirement for businesses in multi-tenant buildings. It also exceeds the 250 foot maximum wall sign square footage for an individual business establishment. · The front facade of the Kmart store is approximately 11,660 square feet in size. The proposed 534 square feet of wall signs would represent only 4.6 percent of the front facade. This is well below the guideline of wall signs not exceeding 15 percent of the front face of a building. · A variance must be evaluated based upon unique conditions, variation purpose, cause of. hardship, effect of variance, and impairment of light and air. · Kmart is also proposing to change its freestanding sign; however, the height and size of the sign will not be altered. The sign is just under 12 feet tall and is 20 square feet in size. The sign complies with freestanding sign standards. 2 4401 Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612-531.5100 City Hall Fax: 612 __ ~-515~ New Hope, Minnesota 55428.4898 Police: 612-531.5170 Police Fax: 612-531-517~ Public Works: 612-533-4823 Public Works Fax: 612-533.7650 TDD: 612.531.5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531-5175 April 19, 1999 Mr. Edward Lipkin Mr. Dennis Reinhardt Mr. Kevin Gillette EBL&S Development Corp. Kmart All Brite Sign, Inc. 20 S. Broad St., Me7.zannine 4300 Xylon Avenue North 5223 Lakeland Avenue North Philadelphia, PA 19102 New Hope, MN 55428 Crystal, MN 55429 Subject: Sign Vadance Application Dear Messrs. Lipkin, Reinhardt and Gillette: As you are aware, the City received your sign variance planning application on April 8, 1999.':After conferring with the City Manager and City Attorney, the City is deeming your application incomplete for the following reasons: 1. One of the City Code requirements is that the applicant complete the pre-application meeting process, which includes attending a meeting with the Design & Review Committee (a sub-committee of the Planning Commission), according to the Planning Commission schedule which is' attached to the application (copy enclosed). The Design & Review Committee meeting for May filings was Thursday, April 15. The Committee was schedule to meet with representative from Kmart and All Brite Sign, Inc., at 8:45 a.m. No representatives for the filing were present at the meeting. 2. The City requires that the application be signed by the property owner and the submitted application was only signed by Kmart and the sign company. I would recommend that you re-submit the application for consideration at the June 1 Planning Commission meeting and take the following steps: 1. Have the application signed by the property owner. I am enclosing a photocopy of the submitted application with Mr. Lipkin's letter. Please add your signature to the application and return the application with the original signature to the City by May 7, the application deadline for June filings. 2. Representatives from Kmart and All Bdte Sign, Inc., should plan on attending the next Design & Review Committee meeting, which is scheduled for Thursday, May 13. We will tentatively schedule to meet with you that morning at 8:15 a.m. I would strongly recommend that Kmart and/or the property owner submit a written narrative addressing why the variance is being requested, based on the enclosed Sign Code criteria, and explain in writing what improvements are planned for the interior of the store and .whether any extedor improvements to the site are planned (such as parking lot improvements). While the City wants to cooperate with Kmart on its upgrades and wants the operation to be successful, the City also would like to have some commitment regarding further improvements to the site and those commitments may have an impact on the variance application. Family Styled City ~ For Family Living February 26, 1999 Mr. Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428-4898 Dear Kirk: Ed Lipkin forwarded to me your letter dated February 12, 1999 with respect to the Kmart on Xylon Avenue in New Hope, Minnesota. The Landlord has retained Grubb & Ellis to represent the company in securing a big box user for this site. Grubb & Ellis have spoken with several supermarkets who have expressed sincere interest in locating in the New Hope area and, in particular, the Kmart Plaza. One of the scenarios would require Kmart to give up some of their existing space to accommodate the supermarket. Kmart would in turn build additional space close to Rockford Road. Several other plans are being discussed to accommodate space needs of this potential additional tenant. Ed and I look forward to visiting with you, the Mayor and the City Manager upon our next visit to Minneapolis. Please call me if you have any questions or require any additional information. · Sincerely, Howard M. Levy Vice President HML/dcd ;~c: Edward B~ Lipkin ' - " ' · Russ McGinty' 230 SOUTH BROAD STREET, M~:77ANINE, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 * (215) 790-4700 FAX (215) 790-4732 FAX (215) 790-4733 4401 Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612-531-5100 City Hall Fax:612.531/~36 · New Hope, Minnesota 55428.4898 Police: 612-531-5170 Police Fax: 612.537.~_/4 Public Works: 612.533-4823 Public Works Fax.' 612-533.7650 TDD: 612.531-5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531-5175 January 29, 1999 Mr. Robert Bishop, Jr. Regional Property Manager EBL & S Property Management, Inc. P.. O. Box 8039 Lexington, KY 40533 Subject: Future Plans for New Hope Kmart Site Dear Mr. Bishop: I am writing this letter in follow-up to our November meeting in New Hope. At that time, the Mayor, City Manager, and myself shared with you our concerns for the future of the Kmart property. We were pleased with your proposed plans for upgrading or redeveloping this site. You indicated that you would be communicating to the City about potential improvements in the first part of 1999. The City is still very interested in seeing improvements at the Kmart site. As we near the end of.January, the City has not received any correspondence from you regarding plans to upgrade or redevelop the site. We did receive a request from Kmart to review plans for a new building sign, which will require a variance from the City Code. As we approach the Planning Commission and City COuncil for a variance, we are aware of their concerns about the future of this site. Communicating your future plans to the City could be helpful as we discuss the sign variance request with the Planning Commission and City Council, since both groups have expressed an interest in seeing the site improved. I think it would be helpful if you, as the property owners of the site, would communicate your position on these issues to the City in conjunction with the sign variance request. The Mayor, City Manager, and myself would like to meet with you again the next time you are in Minneapolis to continue our discussion as to your future plans for the site. Please let me know when you will be in the area so I can coordinate a meeting with the aforementioned parties. I can be contacted at (612) 531-51 19. I look forward to receiving your response to this letter. · Sincerely, " i "'"~ .',~--~'-~,..~x.~' Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development CC: Dan Donahue, City Manager Family Styled City ,~c~ .~ For Family Living 4401Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612.531.5100 City Hall Fax:612.531.5136 · New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Police: 612.531.5170 Police Fax: 612-531-5174 Public Works: 612-533-4823 Public Works Fax: 612-533-7650 TDD: 612.531-5109 Fire Dept. Fax: 612.531.5175 October 12, 1998 Mr. Robert Bishop, Jr. Regional Property Manager EBL & S Property Management, Inc. P. O. Box 8039 Lexington, KY 40533 Subject: Future Plans for New Hope Kmart Site Dear Mr. Bishop: It is my understanding that EBL & S Property Management, Inc. manages the New Hope Kmart Plaza for O'Fallen Associates, therefore, this correspondence is being directed to you. If my understanding is in error, please inform me about who the appropriate contact should be for the City. I am writing in follow-up to the message that I left with your office last week. I did receive your voice mail message and appreciate your returning my call. I understand that you will be contacting me later this week. The purpose of this letter is to identify some of the'issues the City Manager would like to discuss with you and/or the owners of the property. As you may or may not be aware, the City of New Hope has spent the last year; developing a City Center Master Plan and Streetscape Project for the streets adjacent to and in close proximity to the Kmart site. Per the enclosures, the concept plans are two-fold: 1) focusing on street and public streetscape improvements along 42"d Avenue, Xylon Avenue and 45"~ Avenue, and 2) developing a concept plan for the potential upgrading or redevelopment of the "City Center" area, which includes the Kmart property. This study involved numerous meetings with residents, property managers and property owners. Mr. Dennis Reinhardt was in attendance at several of the meetings. The City Council is now in the process of determining whether to proceed with the improvements. The City Council has become very concerned about the future of the Kmart store and site in New Hope. The site has become even more of a concern now that the Old America space has been vacated. Before the Council proceeds with any street/streetscape improvements in this area, they have charged the City Manager with the task of finding out exactly what is on the drawing board for the Kmart site. The City considers that it has always had a good working relationship with Kmart officials and would like to keep the lines of communication open as the City considers improvements in its commercial area. Family Styled City '~~ For Family Living Mr. Robert BishoP, Jr. Page 2 October 12, 1998 Several Issues we would like to discuss include: 1. Does Kmart have a long-term lease on the property? We have heard that there is a 10-year lease. Could you vedfy that? 2. If there is a 10-year lease, are there plans to remodel and upgrade the store? Will the remodeling include any site improvements, including parking lot improvements. 3. What is the long-term prognosis for the Old America space? Will it remain a separate commercial space or is it intended to become part of the Kmart store? 4. If Kmart remains in the City, the City wants to see the store and site improved. Would Kmart be receptive to working With the City to achieve that goal? What are your expectations from the City to make this happen? 5. If Kmart does not have long-term plans for the site, the City may be interested in acquiring the property for redevelopment purposes. Would the owners of the property be receptive to that idea? The City Manager and I would very much like to cOOrdinate a conference call with you and the owners of the property this week, if possible, to discuss these issues, as we need to report back to the City Council by October 19. Please contact me at 612/531-5119 as soon as possible so that I~can coordinate a conference call between the aforementioned parties. Kirk McDonald Director of Community ~velopment Enclosure: Streetscal~ Plans cc: City Council Dan Donahue, City Manager CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG a b C D E F G h I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by City that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver EBL&S Dev. Corp. 99-01 Edward Lipkin 6/7/88 8/6/98 20 S. Broad St, Mezzanine 4/8/99 4/19~99 6/18/99 8/17/99 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Dennis Reinhardt Kmart 4300 Xylon, NH 55428 Kevin Gillette All Brite Sign, Inc. 5223 Lakeland Ave N Crystal 55429 Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. A. Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the City received the application. D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notiCe that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within '10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. · I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 98-16 Request: Consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings Location: City-Wide Zoning: R-2, Single and Two Family Residential Zoning Districts Petitioner: City of NeW Hope Report Date: May 28, 1999 Meeting Date: June 1, 1999 UPDATE 1. The City is requesting reconsideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings, pursuant to the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The ordinance amendment was initially approved by the Planning Commission on January 5, 1999, but was referred back to the Commission by the City Council due to new information. 2. This issue arose during the summer of 1998 when the City purchased a single-family home on Wisconsin Avenue, demolished the structure, and started considering options for redevelopment. Due to the fact that the property is located in an area designated by the Comprehensive Plan for R-2 zoning, one of the options the City has considered for the site is a zero-lot line twinhome. Over the course of late summer and fall, the City has examined the lot area and width standards within the R-2 Zoning District for twinhomes. This evaluation was conducted to determine if some adjustment in the twinhome lot size would expand the City's opportunities for utilizing twinhomes as a scattered site redevelopment housing option. 3. The attached January 5 planning report outlines some of the background research associated with this study and an analysis of the proposed lot size changes. This report noted two study objectives: A. Expand the opportunities to utilize twinhomes as a scattered site redevelopment housing option within New Hope. B. Maintain and protect the character of the City's existing single family neighborhoods. 4. The Planning Commission, on January 5, approved the ordinance decreasing the R-2 lot size to 6,000 square feet per unit (12,000 square feet total) and increasing the lot width to 90 feet. The vote was not unanimous and one Commissioner questioned the impact this would have on all the R-2 lots located in the City. 5. Staff requested on January 11 that the Council postpone its review of the ordinance until research was completed as to how the ordinance would affect all existing R-2 properties. Subsequent to the January 11 Council meeting, staff proceeded to gather data on the number of lots that would become non- conforming by the ordinance. The survey of properties is attached. 6. The existing lot research found the increase in lot width, as recommended by the Planning Commission, would result in 64 lots becoming r~on-conforming. This information was presented to the City Council in light of its consideration of the ordinance amendment. 7. Staff recommended three options to the Council for action: 1) Refer back to the Planning Commission; 2) Make no change in the current ordinance; or 3) Adopt the ordinance amendment with the 6,000 square foot lot area reduction while maintaining the 75-foot width standard. On February 22, the Council chose the first option, to refer the ordinance amendment back to the Planning Commission for further review. ANALYSIS ~... 1. The proposed code text amendment to change the R-2 zoning standards for twinhomes involves two components, lot size and lot width. The research done by staff and the Planning Consultant indicate that New Hope has unusually Iow requirements for lot width while maintaining higher than average lot size requirements. This prompted the Codes & Standards Committee and the Planning Commission on January 5 to recommend that the City Council amend the zoning code to reduce the lot area requirements to 12,000 square feet and increase the lot width standard to 90'. 2. In the initial ordinance review, the issues that raised the most concern for the Codes & Standards Committee and the Planning Commission was allowing twinhomes to be "crammed onto smaller lots." The Codes & Standards Committee stressed the importance of maintaining the integrity and appearance of New Hope's residential neighborhoods. In the event of a reduction in lot area as proposed, the Committee recommended the lot width requirement be increased in order to insure that twinhomes were not built on lots that were too small. Therefore, the 90-foot lot width minimum was set to accompany the 12,000 square foot lot area ordinance amendment. 3. At the Planning Commission meeting on January 5, one Commissioner expressed a concern that this increase in lot width could have harmful effects on R-2 property owners. The concern was properties that currently meet the requirements of the Zoning Code in terms of lot width could become non- conforming under the 90-foot standard. In other words, any lot with more than 75 feet but less than 90 feet in width would become non-conforming as a result of the code change. Research by staff indicated that 64 lots in New Hope would become non-conforming if the lot width requirement was increased. This could have significant consequences for property owners, as any remodeling, rebuilding, or property change would require that the lot be brought into conforming status with the City Code. Thus, property owners could not maintain a twinhome on a parcel less than 90 feet in width. 4. Subsequent to the time during which the code amendment was discussed, city staff proposed the development of a single family handicapped accessible home on the city-owned property on Wisconsin Avenue. After meeting with the neighbors, reviewing the types of homes in the neighborhood and reviewing the lot width of that particular property, it was staff's feeling that a twinhome would be too large for the site. The City Council is in agreement with this recommendation and staff is currently preparing plans and specifications for that site, therefore, a code amendment to facilitate development on this site is no longer of immediate concern. 5. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed this issue at its March 25 meeting. Due to the fact that the City will be undertaking a comprehensive review of its Zoning Code during 1999, the Committee recommended that the Planning Commission take no action in regards to the R-2 lot size code text amendment at this time. It was discussed by the Committee that any necessary changes could be incorporated into the update of the entire Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION The Codes & Standards Committee and staff recommend that the City not revise Section 4.035(2) of the New Hope City Code to reduce the lot size and increase the lot width requirements to 12,000 square feet and 90 feet, respectively, at this time. Staff and the Committee recommend that no further action be taken on the amendment at this time and that the issue be re-examined during the update of the Zoning Code, which will take place over the next 6-9 months. Attachments: 2~22 City Council Request for Action, including attachments 2~22 Excerpt of City Council minutes 1/5 Planning Case Report Planning Case 98-16 Page 2 5/28/99 ~ma~g ~p~ent ~ ~pm~d for ~enda ~enda Secuon ~ommumw uevelopmem 2~22~99 Ordinances & Resolutions.. Kirk McDonald oRDINANCE 99-02 (PC ~98-16), AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE CI~ CODE SECTION 4.035 BY REDUCING THE LOT AR~ SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR FAMILY DWELLINGS, Cl~ OF NEW HOPE, PETITIONER Ci~ staff are requesting consideration of an ordinance amendment that would reduce the lot area size requirements for ~o family dwellings. This issue arose last summer when the City purchased a single-family home on ~sconsin Avenue, demolished the structure and staAed considering optiohs for redevelopment. The prope~ is currently zoned R-l, Single Family Residential, but due to the fact that the prope~ is located in an area designated by the Comprehensive Plan for potential R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential zoning, one of the options being considered for the site was a zero-lot line ~inhome. (It is sta~s intent to finalize a development plan for that prope~ with the Council, once a decision has been made on this ordinance change, so that construction can proceed this summer. Staff is now of the opinion that regardless of any code amendment, the site may be too small for a ~inhome, and that a single-family home may be be~er suited for the site.) The prope~ on Wisconsin has a lot width of 75' and a lot depth of 180' and has a total lot area of 13,500 square feet. Under the current zoning code regulations, an R-2 lot is required to have a width of 75', but must have a total lot area of 14,000 square feet. Therefore, even if the prope~ were rezoned to R-2, it would still be 500 square feet sho~ of meeting the zoning requirements for an R-2 lot. R-1 lots also require a 75' frontage and the prope~ies to the noah and south of this site are 75' in width, therefore, the option of obtaining additional frontage from the adjacent lots is not feasible. Staff also is not favorable to requesting a variance for a Ci~ housing project. These circumstances prompted staff and the Planning Consultant to examine the lot area and width standards within the R-2 zoning district for ~inhomes. Request For Action Page 2 This evaluation was conducted to determine if some adjustment in the twinhome lot size would expand the City's opportunities for utilizing twinhomes as a scattered site redevelopment housing option, while still maintaining and protecting the character of the ' City's existing single family neighborhoods. The enclosed July Planer's report provides a comparison of New Hope's twinhome lot sizes with neighboring communities and reveals that New Hope's twinhome lot size of 7,000 square feet per unit was larger than neighboring communities. The result of that research was a recommendation to reduce the lot area per unit to 6,000 square feet (regardless of whether a twinhome is built on Wisconsin Avenue or not.) In reviewing this information with the Codes 8, Standards Committee of the Planning Commission, the Committee recommended that they could support the lot size reduction to 6,000 square feet only if the lot width requirement was increased from 75' to 90'. The reason the Committee supported the increased lot width was their concern for maintaining the integrity of single family residential neighborhoods and not wanting to allow twinhomes to be located on small lots in the City. The increased lot width would not allow a twinhome to be built on Wisconsin Avenue. At the January 5"' Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission approved the enclosed ordinance decreasing the twinhome lot size to 6,000 square feet per unit (12,000 square feet total) and increasing the lot width to 90'. The vote was not unanimous and one Commissioner questioned the impact this would have on all the R-2 and twinhome lots located in the City. At the January 11"' Council Meeting, staff requested the ordinance be tabled until that research could be completed. Subsequent to that meeting, staff has gathered data on all the R-2 and twinhome lots in the City (see attached information.) Staff discovered that increasing the twinhome lot width to 90' would make a number of existing R- 2 and twinhome lots in the City non-conforming. There are approximately 132 R-2 and twinhome lots in the City. 24 lots are under 75' in width and are non-conforming. If the lot width is increased to 80', an additional 40 lots would become non-conforming. If the lot width is increased to 90', an additional 24 lots become non-conforming. In short, if the lot width is increased to 90', an additional 64 lots become non-conforming. In light of this additional research, staff cannot support the recommendation of the Planning Commission and would recommend that the Council consider the following options: 1. Refer back to Planning Commission 2. Make no change in the current ordinance 3. Adopt the enclosed revised ordinance, which reduces the lot area to 6,000 square feet, but maintains the 75' width standard Staff recommends option numbers two or three, as staff does not believe the Planning Commission wants to review this issue again. JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law . " 852~ EDINBROOK CROSSING. ST£. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443- t 999 TELEPHONE (612) 424-8811 * TELEF.~X (612) 493-5193 GORDON L IENSEN* WiLLiAM (~. SY, ANSON STE~,EN A SONDRALL NIART[N P, MALECHA C. ALDEN PE.aRSONr February 15, 1999 DEAN A. TRONGARD~ J<LrE ~. T.~LL Kirk McDonald Co~uni~ Development Director os COL'SSSL Ci~ of New Hope LO~NS Q. BRYNESTAD 4401 Xylon Avenue No~ New Ho~, MN 55428 Re: ~o~sed Or--nee ~en~S R-2 Lot S~, Requkemen~ Our F~e No.: ~.~ Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed a revised ordinance relating to R-2 lot s~e requiremenu. ~e enclosed ordinance was revised pursuant to ~e infomtion disused at ~e Febmau 1, 1999 stuff meet~g on ~is topic. Basically, ~e enclo~d ord~ce mends S~tion 4.035(2) of ~e New Ho~ Ci~ Code by reducing ~e lot area for ~o-f~ly smcmres from 7,~ to 6,~ square feet. As we discussed in our Febmau I, 1999 m~t~g, ~e proposed ord~ce considered by ~e Pla~ing Co~ission at im J~uau 5a m~ting would m~e 67 R-2 lorn non-conforming. ~is would result from a lot wid~ increa~ kom 75 to ~ feet as previously proposed. Unfomnately, ~e Pla~g Comssion did not have ~is infomation when it acted on · e pro~ ordin~ce at i~ lanuau 5~ m~t~g. I sus~ct ~e Pla~ing Co~ission would not have token a favorable ~sifion on ~ ord~ce mendment which would render 67 lorn wi~ ~e Ci~ nonmonfomg. As a result, stuff felt it would ~ a go~ idea to provide ~e Ci~ Co~cil wi~ an alternative ord~ce to ~e one recomended by ~e Plying Co~ssion for consideration by ~e Ci~ Council at im Febmau 22~ meeting. ~e enclo~fl ordin~ce ~mm increased development on R-2 zoned pro~r~ wi~out render~g 67 e~st~g lorn ~ nonmonfomiW wi~ ~e orfl~ce. Please contact me if you have ~y questiom or co~enm regarfl~g ~is le~r or ~e enclo~d ordinance. Veu ~ly yours, Steven A. Sondrall JENSBN SWAN~N ~ $OND~LL, P.A. Enclosure c,,,~ 8~ ~ cci Valerie ~one ~,~s~ a. Al Bfixius ,,'~~,~"~-~,~' '~ '~,fi~ ADa N~t~ O INANC. No. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CITY CODE SECTION 4.035 BY REDUCING THE LOT AREA SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.035(2) "Lot Area Per Unit" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Lot Area per Unit. The lot area per unit requirement for townhouses, multiple family dwellings and planned unit developments shall be calculated on the basis of the total area in the project and as controlled by an individual and joint ownership. Other minimum areas are: Single Family 9,500 square feet Two Family "~ ..... 6,000 square feet Townhouse/Ouadraminium 5,000 square feet. Multiple Family 3,000 square feet* 'Elderly Housing and/or Physically Handicapped 1,000 square feet *4,000 square feet in a R-3 District, Section 2. Section 4.035(8)Co) "Minimum Area and Width" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (b) Miriimum area and Width. The following are minimum unit lot requirements for double bungalow, quadraminium, or townhouse subdivisions: Double Bungalo_~/_ Ouadraminium Townhouse Lot Area %000 6,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. fi. Lot Width 1/2 the base lot 50 ft. 20 ft. street frontage Section 3. Effective l~te. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the _,, day of .~ '199_, W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the day of , 1999.) ORDINANCE .NO. 99- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CITY CODE SECTION 4.035 BY REDUCING THE LOT AREA SIZE REQL'IREMENT FOR TWO F.-LMILY DWELLINGS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.035(1) "Purpose" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as fotlows: (1) 1%. rp0se. This section identifies minimum area and building size requirements to be provided for in each zoning district as listed in the table below: District Lot Area Lot Width ~ R-1 9,500 sq. ft. /,'~ feet ~'"xx 2'/z stories R-2 9,500 sq. ft. (x~~, I~ 2% stories R-3 I0,000 sq. ft. 3 stories R-4 15,000 sq. ft. 4 stories R-5 15,000 sq. ft. 4 stories R-0 15,000 sq. ft. I00 feet 3 stories B-1 10,000 sq. fi. 80 feet 2 stories B-2 1 acre I00 feet 3 stories B-3 rga n/a 3 stories B-4 rga n/a 3 stories 1-1 1 acre 150 feet 3 stories 1-Z 1 acre 100 feet 3 stories Section 2. Section 4.035(2) "Lot Area Per .Unit". of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Lot Area Per Unit. The lot area per unit requirement for townhouses, multiple family dwellings and planned unit developments shall be calculated on the basis of the total area in the project and as controlled by an individual and joint ownership. Other minimum areas are: Single Family 9,500 square feet Two Family ~'-'--77-.~66,000 square feet~.~) Townhouse/Ouaflraminiu~n--~,000 square feet Multiple Family 3,000 square feet* Elderly Housing and/or Physically Handicapped 1,000 square feet *4,000 square feet in a R-3 District. Section 3. Section 4.035(8)(b) "Minimum Area and Width" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Minimum area and Width. The following are minimum unit lot requirements for double bungalow, quadraminium, or towrthouse subdivisions: Double Bungalo ¢,. Ouadraminium T.ownhouse Lot Area 7,000 6,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 1/2 the base lot 50 ft. 20 ft. street frontage Section 4. Effective Date, This Ordinance shall be 'effective upon its passage publication. Dated the day of , 199__. W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the day of , 1999.) MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Troy Hagen / Alan Brixius DATE: 3 February 1999 RE: New Hope - R-2 Study FILE NO: 131.00 - 98.04 BACKGROUND As part of the New Hope residential redevelopment efforts, the City has investigated reducing the lot area requirements for twinhome lots. The intent of this study was to: 1) expand the opportunities for using twinhome lots as a scattered housing redevelopment option; and 2) through increased density provide a greater financial return on the City's redevelopment investment. Through the evaluation of this zoning text amendment, concerns were expressed with regard to protecting existing single family neighborhoods from the intrusion of twinhomes. In response to these issues, the following elements were identified: 1. The lot width for twinhomes may be increased from the R-2 District standard of 75 feet to 80 feet. The increased width was seen as a means of accommodating the wider twinhome units, garages, driveways and providing appropriate setbacks from adjoining properties. After discussions with the Codes and Standards the lot width recommendation was increased further to 90 feet. 2. It was recognized that the introduction of twinhomes into a single family neighborhood would typically require a rezoning from R-1 to R-2. The rezoning would involve a public hearing and review process that would allow the City to determine the appropriateness of twinhome redevelopment on a site by site basis. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 612-595-9636 FaX 6 I 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC~WINTERNET.COM At the Planning Commission meeting concerns were expressed that increasing the lot width would result in numerous existing twinhome lots becoming non-conforming The non-conforming lot classification would change the use and expansion opportunities for these dwelling units. In response to-this concern, residential data was collected that illustrates the implications of the propOsed.zoning changes (see Exhibits A and B). This information was not previously available to the Codes and Standards Committee or Planning Commission prior to their recommendation. ANALYSIS Lot Area Exhibit A ranks all of New Hope twinhome lots by base lot size. Under the current required lot size of 7,000 square feet per unit, 82 twinhome lots are non-conforming based on lot area. The proposed amendment to reduce the lot area per unit for twinhomes to 6,000 square feet will bring 44 existing non-conforming lots into compliance with the new City standard. in this respect, the reduced lot area per unit serves to expand the City's use of twinhomes as a scattered site redevelopment option and reduces the number of existing non- conforming twinhome lots within the City. Both of these features benefit the City's housing maintenance efforts. Lot Width Exhibit B ranks all of New Hope's twinhome lots by width. Under the current R-2 lot width standard of 75 feet, there are 26 nonconforming twinhome lots. Increasing the lot width to 80 feet would make 40 additional lots non-conforming and a lot width would result in 67 additional lots becoming non-conforming. While an increased lot width would serve to address some land use compatibility issues for new twinhome development, it would negatively impact existing twinhomes and would reduce the number of lots City-wide where scattered site twinhome development may occur. In light of the new information, the City Council has three options to consider pertaining to twinhome lot standards. 1. Option 1. No Action. Leave the requirements for lot size and lot width as they exist at 7,000 square feet per unit and 75 feet, respectively. 2 2. Option 2. Follow the Planning Commission recommendation which would establish the twinhome lot size at 6,000 square feet per unit and will increase lot width to 90 feet. 3. Option 3. Reduce the twinhome lot size to 6,000 square feet per unit and leave the lot width standard unchanged at 75 feet. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the new information made available to staff, staff recommends Option 3 based on the following: 1. Option 3 expands the opportunities to utilize twin homes as a scattered site redevelopment housing option within the City of New Hope. 2. Option 3 would reduce the number of non-conforming twinhome lots. 3. The appropriateness of a twinhome on any scattered site redevelopment property is determined on a site by site basis through the City's redevelopment efforts and the need for a rezoning to accommodate a twinhome. These features provide single family neighborhoods some protection and involvement in the decision- making process. pc: Doug Sandstad Sue Henry Steve Sondrall 3 N __~~_~ NOf~tI-IWESt A:~$OCIAtE0 CC) NSLJ~_tANt~ MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan 8rixius / Troy Hagen DATE: 29 Oecember 1998 RE: New Hope - R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District Study FILE NO: 131.00 - 98.04 Over the course of late summer and fall, the City has examined the lot area and width standards within the R-2 zoning district for twinhomes. This evaluation was conducted to determine if some adjustment in the twinhome lot size would expand the City's opportunities for utilizing twinhomes as a scattered site redevelopment housing option. A July 21, 1998 planning report outlined the background research associated with this study. This report noted two study objectives: 1. Expand the opportunities to utilize twinhomes as a scattered site redevelopment housing option within New Hope. 2. Maintain and protect the character of the City's existing single family neighborhoods. The July report provides a comparison of New Hope's twinhome lot sizes with neighboring communities. This comparison revealed that New Hope's twinhome lot size of 7,000 square feet per unit was larger than neighboring communities. The result of this research was a recommendation to reduce the lot area per unit to 0,000 square feet. In reviewing this information with the Codes and Standards Committee, it was determined that an increase in lot width from 75 feet to 90 feet should accompany the proposal to reduce the twinhome lot size. i=HONE 6 I ~..5<:j!5.ge3e FAX 6 I 2-595-9837 E.MAiL. NAC~WINTERNET COM These changes should accomplish the previous cited objectives in the following ways. 1. The reduced lot area will allow a twinhome on a 12.000 square feet I:ase expanding ol2portunities for scattered site redevelopment. 2. The increased lot width is intended to 12revent crowding a ~,vi~nome ~nto ~arrcw iots. The recently constructed City twinhomes required minimum 80 foot Ici to accommodate the Duilding and necessary setDacks, This indicated that current 75 foot lot width was insuff'rcient. Additionally, in conversation ,,wth residents along Wisconsin Avenue, their greatest concern was the street s~de appearance of the twinhome building. Weighing this information, the Cocies and S[andards Committee recommended a minimum lot width of 90 feet for t'win~ome units. 3. Another protection for single family neighbo~oods is the need to rezone prope~ies from R-1 to R-2 to accommodate twinhome development. The rezoning process involves a public hearing at the Planning Commission and a final decision by the City Council. In recognizing the need for rezoning, it should be noted that the proposed lot area and width changes alone will allow twinhome development in areas currently zoned R-l. CONCLUSION The City Attorney has prepared a draft ordinance that outlines the proposed changes to the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. The zoning changes were recommended for approval Dy the Codes and Standards Committee and offered to the Planning Commission for further evaluation. pc: Steve Sondrall Doug Sandstad 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonaid FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 4 November 1998 RE: New Hope - Wisconsin Avenue Rezoning ancl Twinhome Performance Standards FILE NO: 131.00 - 98.05 The meeting we had on October 28th with the residents of Wisconsin Avenue was very promising with respect to our objectives for both the R-2 rezoning in the area, as well as reducing the lot area standards pertaining to ['winhomes. I believe that the residents at that location were favorable to an R-2 zoning recognizing that if it did not increase [heir taxes, it gave them some flexibility in the use of their property that would not have otherwise be available. They al~o recognized that in the midst of higher density zoning, that an R-2 Zoning District would be compatible and acceptable for their properties. There was specific concern expressed though with the placement of a twinhome on the newly purchased property by the City. The concern basically stemmed from the narrowness of the lot. ,At 7,5 feet in width, the introduction of a twinhome at this location may not be compatible. C~ was expressed a~ far as proper setbact( from adjoining properties, aa well as the visibility of the building from both the street side and adjoining properties related to the rear yard. In this respect, it may be advisable for the City to consider introduction of a single family home onto this site. if this option is considered and pursued, it would be my strong recommendation that we look at a housing design that is compatible and similar in character with the existing homes on the block. 57'75 WAYZATA BOUI.~'VARCI. SUITE 555 .~7. I,.OI,JIS I~ARK, MINNESOTA 554,1 PHONE 612-595-~636 FAX 612-595-~a3'',1' E-MAIl NACI~WlNTE~NE'I',COM I would al~o ~.~eet ihat we go ahead and pursue the change in performance standards for twinhomea within the R-2 District The 6,000 square foot per unit seems to be reasonable ~ was accept~le to the residents within Wisconsin Avenue. One element that we may also want to include in the suggested changes would be a twinhome lot having a minimum tot width of 80 feel An 80 foot lot would have sufficient width to provide proper setbacks from adjoining properties and still accommodate a standard twinhome design. Increasing the lot width to 80 feet would limit the application of twinhomes on other redevelopment sites throughout the City. This would limit the redevelopment potential of the narrower 75 foot lots that do exist within the community. This increased lot width standard for twinhornes may not be acceptable to the City Council in view of our scattered site redevelopment project objectives. By increasing the performance standards, we are reducing our potential investment opportunities by introducing twinhomes on other scattered site redevelopment projects. Please call me if you have any questions regarding these comments. 2 TOTal- P. 04 N MEMOI:~ANDUM TO: K]~ McOonalcl FROM: Je~ey 0ATE: 21 July lgCj~ RE: New HoI3e - Tw~nl'l~'ne FILE NO: 131.0Q - 98.04 BACKGROUND The City I~aa very ~:essfull¥ ~,'tilizecl tw~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ai~ ~ in its 3. I~"uctur~. A~ density increases', so do the demands placad on City services, City so. ica c..apacity and street ~pacity must ~e evaluated pno¢ Io any increase in density. One positive outc=me of more dense devetopmenl is lower c. ap~tat infrastructure costs per ~ousi~(:j unit. If it is ~ouncI t~at t~e concept of developing twini~omes on single ~amily lot sizes appropnate, a fum~er evaluation ~n occur. It ~s sta~s opinion ~at some reauc~on required lot size for ~innome umt. i$ wa~ant~. ~e C~ Council an~ Commission should make a deracination on what level of densi~ is appropriate ~iven existing neigh~m~ ~ara~er. I~ the following so. ions of this repo~, staff w~ll the Ci~s ~t r~ulations, provide a ~mparison wi~ other cities an~ offer amending ~ent ~in~ome performance CURRENT REGULATIONS The following are the lot areas and width standards eetal~lished in the New Hope Zoning Ordinance for residential uses: 4.03,~ (1) District Standards: R-1 g,500 sq.fi, 75 t'eat R-2 g,5(X) sq.fi, 75 feet R-3 10,000 sq. fi, 80 feet R-4 15,000 sq. fi, 1(30 feet R-5 15,(X}0 sq. tt, 100 feet (2) Lc~ Ama Per Unit. The k:~ ami pet' unit ~ t~ t~se$, multiple family dwellings and plar~..~d unit developments ~tlall be calculated on glo basis of the total, area in tile ~ and a~ controlled by an individual and joint ownership. Qtl1~' minimum area~ are: Single Family g,500 sq. ft, Tewnhou~e $,000 sq. fi, Multiple Family 3,000 SCl, fi.' Elderly Housing end/or Physically Handicapped 1,000 sq, fi, · 4,0(X3 square feet in an R-3 District. 2 Subdivision of Ooulzle 8unqalOW~ OUaqraminium or Townhouse Lots. The sulzdivisiort of I~ase lots containing cloulzle I:::}ungalows, quedramin~u-ms, or townl'loue$ t° permit individual private ownership of a single (N,,elling unit w~tt'l~n such a st~'ture is acceptaizle u~n approval by t~e City Council, I~ut is c~ntincjem c~n the following requirements: .,',a)Meet Zoning Requirements. Prior to a doutzle bungalow, quaclramir~ium, or townnouse sul~cliw$~on, tl~e base lot. must meet ail the requirements of the zoning clistrict. (b) Minimum area and Width. The following are minimum unit lot requirements for cloulDle bungalow, quaclraminium, or town~ouse subdivisions: Double Bunaalow ~ T_g. yf./2jh_~ Lot Area 7,000 sq.ft. 5,000 $q. ft. 5,0OO sq.ft. Lot Wicltl't',& the I~ase lot 50 feet 20 feet street frontage (c) Principal Structure. There shall De no more than one principal structure on a base lot in all residential districts. The principal structure on a unit lot created in a double I~angalow, quadraminium, or townhouse sulzdivision will t:~ the I:x~ion of the attached dwelling existing or constructed on the platted unit iota. Uncler current regulations, a twinhome unit w~uld have a minimum lot size standard of 14,(:X:X:) square feet. The 14,0(X) square fo~ ~ lot has not presented a problem for development of vacant land. However, it limits ~e use of twinhomes as a redevelopment tool in areas developed ~ a'neller single family lot size standards. If it is deten'nined that it is appropriate to dave,, twines on single family lot sizes, staff' off'e~ the following: COMPARISON WITH OTHF.~ COMMUNITIE~ The chart belew pmvidee · ceml:~i~zn of New Hope's twin,oma lot sizes with other area communities. New Hepe'l twinl'mme lot area reduirarnent$ ra~k al ate of the largest of all communitle~ ~'veyed witll 7,000 square feet ~ unit requital. IVlest of the cornmun~ ~ k;t area r~luirementa of 4,000 to 6,250 squ~re feet 13er unit, with 60 to 100 fcx~ lot ~ The recNimd lot width in New Hope ie 75 feet, well within the average range, Of the 11 ¢~zmmunitiea surveyed, only Broekl~ Park and Minnetonka have more stnngent requirementa, 3 II I I I ' II II I City 7or~ing ~. Lot Widtll Lan¢l Area ~er Total Lot Area Oist~ct ~:Nvetling ~eCluire~l New Hope R-2 75 feet 7.0(30 sq,ft. 14.000 sq. ft. St. Lou~$ Pa~ R-2 I~y pen"nit (3nly must ~ave 600 sq.ft. R-3*" 60 feet 4,00(3 lq.ft. Columl3ia Heights R.2 60 feet 4,200 sq. ft. 8.400 SCl. ft. Rol313insdale R-2 80 feet 4,800 SCl.lt. 9.600 sCl,ft, PIymouth R.MF' go feet 5,000 ~¢t.lt. 10,000 sq.ft. Napkins ~.2° 100 feet ' 8,000 SOl.ft. 12,0(:}(} lq.ft. multi family district R-3 3,500 sCl. lt. 7,000 sCl.ft. Brooklyn Center R-2 75 feet 8,2043 scl.ft. 12,400 lq.ff. for a comer lot R-2 90 feet 6,2043 sq.ft. 12,4043 sCl.lc. Crystal R-2 100 feet 8,250 SCl.ff. 12,500 sCl.fi. Golden Valley R-2 100 feet ~,250 sq.ft, 12,500 lq.lt. Mai)lo Grove R.3° 85 feet 7,0430 ~cl. ft. 14,000 SCl,ff. Brooklyn Perk R-4· 120 feet 8,100 ~.ff. 18,200 lq.ft. l~omes built a~er 1980 l~-4" 5,400 SCl.lt. 10,800 sCl.ff. MinnetonKa 1~-2 None rlq~im4 12,5430 SCl.ff. 25,00(3 lq. lt. I III I ' ° I:)eaetea zeai~ alatrl~ equivalent te the ~ingle/twe-family maidenttal district (R-2 in New · ' In St. ~ Pa~tr~ Fl-2 i~ ~ ~gle family ~ ~ am 1~/permit only. In Plt~, ~le R-3 ~ i~ El Nc-family district, ancl the 10irirrteterl iistecl al)eve in R-3 am for its The figum~ altache~ # Exhibit A illuatrata visually tile minimum let requirements of New Hope as compared wilt1 ~ average of ail ¢ommunitie~ s~,g'vayed. A~ i$ apparent by ~e exl~ibit, tl~e primary difl~ bet,yeah tl~ twa let~ are ti'reit relative I~uildal31a area restrictiona. The minimum New Hope yard is nam3w and lertg, tllu~ creating ctifficuitie$ wi~ tt~ widlll of ti'to beinl'x~. Conversely, t~e average let is restricted in its clep~. The question .~at st~ould be answereq then is I~ow wide and deep of a lot is needed for a twinl~ome structure? 4 An examination of ;)roe;active sincjfe fa~i'ly, lot reclevelo;ment areas within New Ho~e fou~ ~e a~erage lot sizes within ea~ resp~ive area ~o ~e ~i~erent ~an t~at r~ir~ ~n~er :~e existing Ordinan~. The map a~ac~e~ as ~x~ibit 8 ~dent~es t~e areas exa~i~e~. ~e ~a~ ~el~ lists o~ results, Redevelopment Minimum Aver'age Lot Arla Areas Lot Wldtl~ LOt Wldth Area A gO 95 13,300 Area B gO 95 13,300 Area C 85 es ~e,200 Area C)' 85 g~ '1'3,300 Area E gO gO 12,~00 AVERAGE 90 9S 13,300 Art analysis of current rwiniqome sites within New Hope was also performed to determine what lot sizes actually exist for twinlnomes witlnin New Hogs. Of the twintqc~ea of duplexes reviewed, the majority ha¢l lot areas of leas ~an 14,000 ~lUare feel The average lot size for said developments was 12,960 square feet, with some units built on lots of as little as 8,000 square feet. OPTION~ FOR AMENDING THE CURRENT TWINHOME PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The following analysis ie provided to allow City officials a basis upon wflich to determine appropriate zoning ~an<ll~"<le al related to twi~e~. To an~ the question on tl~e appropriate lot ama and ~ 1~ twinhome~, the following diacuseed is offered: 1. Widttt. An identified goal of New Hope is to encourage single family residential r~ant int~ ~e. Since many single family Iota within the City have widtlla of ~ feet, the allowarlce of suc~ wiotlle fa' twinl'tomee ia necessary to encourage twi~ development on existing single family Iota. The existing requirement ¢~ 7S ~ lot widths does allow fa' ~ redevelopmanL :Several out~ result from ~ll lot widths. a. Lower infra~te coats. With narrow lots, less street, w~t~' a~¢l s~ver main lines need to be constructed per I'~using unit, thue decreasing costs. Aestlletic ~aracter. With narrow lots, ~he likelihood of highly ws~te garages increases clue to 0uildaDle area restrictions, More dense development. By placing a twinhome where a $ir~gle family ~ome was, we are doubling density, As a result, externalities suc~ as an increase in traffic, noise, service demands and t~e tike occur. City officials find ~ese outcomes acceptable, the City should either maintain 75 foot minimum lot width. 2. Lot Area. The current area required for twinhome development in a R-20ismct ~s 14,(XX) square feet. Based upon the minimum lot size and the lot width of 75 feet as is currently required, a lot d~pth of 189 feet would be neap:led. Sucl~ dimensions are not reflective of most (all) single family lots within New Hope. Most single family lots are 85 to 90 feet wide with areas of 13,300 square feet. Because of t~e existing squa~'e foot requirements, most single family lots do not qualify for twinnome redevelopment. The examination of existing twinl'tome developments found a lot area of 12,~=0 to ~ av~age. A reduction of the minimum requirement would greatly in.ease the potential for twinl'tome redevelopment of single family lots. Staff I~elieves that lot areas of 10,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet is sufficient for twint'tomea in most cases, as is evideflced 13y lot area requirements in Robbinsdale, Plymoutl't, Hopkins, Crystal and many other communities. CONCLUSION A policy decision must I=e made in regard to the eppro~iataness of twinhomes on single family lot sizes- If found to I~ allele, a decisiorl ca~ pe made r~arding the acceptat~le lot area for' twinl't~me developmant.*l. Ul:X~ decisio~ of this fact~, a Zoning Ordinance amendmef'tt ca~ aul~quantly I~ prepared for c.~'tsidaratio~'~. Steve 6 Figure I Figure 2 New Hope · Minimum Stlndlr;l~ $~rveye~l Comm~.ttie~. .... 75 I'eet .--- Exhibit A - Comparleon Flguree MARKET VALUE=. "'- :' ~"; .... '" "'' ~' ' ASSESSED ..':' .; :'y..:,~ y . ....:. - .~ ~-.~ _ ~' ~::r~" ' :- - ~'' ~ Exhibit B - Potential Redevelopment Areas R-2/Double Bungalow Survey SORTED BY LOT WIDTH ** Widths on pie shape lots are different at places on the property. Therefore, the lot width is listed below at several different portions of each property: at the street, at the minimum front-yard setback, and the average width for the lot. ** Lot area = Average Depth * Average Width WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH AVERAGE APPROXIMATE ADDRESS (at street) (at building) (lot average) DEPTH LOT AREA 9411-15 Bass Creek Circle 46 70 95 120 11400 9379-81 Bass Creek Circle 46 65 140 210 29400 9401-03 Bass Creek Circle 47 70 110 136 14960 9389-91 Bass Creek Circle 48 70 100 121 12100 9329-31 Bass Creek Circle 49 68 110 190 20900 9314-21 Bass Creek Circle 51 70 99 137 13563 9201-05 29th Ave 51 76 120 135 16200 9207-09 41st Ave 57 72 85 115 9775 4143-45 Jordan 59 68 80 160 12800 4137-39 Jordan 59 75 90 173 15570 4131-33 Jordan 59 75 90 240 21600 9213-17 29th Ave 60 72 88 187 16456 9369-71 Bass Creek Circle 61 70 95 210 19950 4173-75 Jordan 62 70 82 145 11890 4101-03 Jordan 64 74 88 230 2~)240 3579-81 Independence Ave 65 95 120 132 15840 3573-75 Independence Ave 68 75 73 130 9490 4125-29 Jordan 68 72 90 400 36000 4167-69 Jordan 70 73 80 146 11680 9220-24 29th Ave 70 82 96 140 13440 4009-11 Jordan 70 90 110 240 26400 3543-45 Independence Ave 71 73 81 150 12150 9339-41 Bass Creek Circle 71 75 80 191 15280 3515-17 Hillsboro Ave 72 80 102 122 12444 4149-51 Jordan 72 72 85 148 12580 3546-48 Independence Ave 75 75 75 130 9750 3550-54 Independence Ave 75 75 75 130 9750 3558-60 Independence Ave 75 75 75 130 9750 5614-18 Rhode Island Ave 75 75 75 134 10050 3561-63 Independence Ave 75 75 75 137 10275 3555-57 Independence Ave 75 75 75 140 10500 3549-51 Independence Ave 75 75 75 143 10725 4808-09 Oregon 75 75 75 143 10725 4100-02 Jordan 75 100 100 120 12000 3801-03 Oregon 75 75 75 160 12000 9213-15 41st Ave 75 75 75 166 12450 4800-01 Oregon 75 75 75 166 12450 9349-55 Bass Creek Circle 75 75 75 195 14625 9359-61 Bass Creek Cimle 75 75 75 200 15000 ~-'~ 4107-09 JoVan 75 75 75 235 17625 4113-15 JoVan 75 75 75 260 19500 4119-23 JoVan 75 75 75 364 27300 4073-75 Gettysbu~ 75 75 75 492 36900 4083-85 Gettysbu~ 75 75 75 492 36900 3567-691ndependenceAve 76 76 76 134 10184 ,4106-08 JoVan 76 76 76 150 11400 '4161-63 JoVan 76 78 80 150 12000 3825-27 Oregon 77 77 77 150 11550 3809-11 Oregon 78 78 78 148 11544 3817-19 Oregon 78 78 78 148 11544 3833-35 Oregon 78 78 78 155 12090 3973-75 Oregon 78 78 78 156 12168 3963-65 Oregon 78 78 · 78 159 12402 3841-43 Oregon 78 78 78 160 12480 3849-51 Oregon 78 78 78 165 12870 3957-59 Oregon 78 78 78 165 12870 3901-03 Oregon 78 78 78 169 13182 3949-51 Oregon 78 78 78 173 13494 3909-11 Oregon 78 78 78 174 13572 4118-20 JoVan 78 102 102 136 13872 3917-19 Oregon 78 78 78 178 13884 3941-43 Oregon 78 78 78 181 14118 3925-27 Oregon 78 78 78 183 14274 3537-39Independence Ave 78 78 78 185 14430 3933-35 Oregon 78 78 78 185 14430 4117Gettysbu~ 80 78 75 128 9600 3540-42Independence Ave 80 90 85 120 10200 9421-23 Bass Creek Cimle 80 80 80 128 10240 9229-25 29th Ave 80 90 90 128 11520 4155-57 JoVan 80 81 82 146 11972 4033-35 JoVan 80 92 100 142 14200 4025-27 JoVan 80 90 105 148 15540 4109Gettysburg 82 82 82 115 9430 9431-33 Bass Creek Cimle 82 81 80 138 11040 9213-17 30th Ave 82 82 82 170 13940 9201-05 30th Ave 82 82 82 170 13940 9125-29 30th Ave 82 82 82 170 13940 9113-17 30th Ave 82 82 82 170 13940 9137-41 30th Ave 83 83 83 170 14110 4601-4609 Xylon Ave 83 83 83 200 16600 3535-37 Hillsboro Ave 84 82 75 143 10725 4179-81 JoVan 84 84 85 155 13175 2853-57 Flag Ave 84 84 84 165 13860 2817-21 Flag Ave 84 84 84 173 14532 2901-05 Flag Ave 85 85 85 165 14025 2841-45 Flag Ave 85 85 85 165 14025 2829-33 Flag Ave 85 85 85 165 14025 4017-19 JoVan 85 85 86 192 16512 9441-43 Bass Creek Circle 90 92 93 120 11160 3576-80 HillsboroAve 90 90 90 168 15120 5801-03Winnetka Ave 91 91 91 148 13468 5805-07Winnetka Ave 91 91 91 148 13468 5809-11Winnetka Ave 91 91 91 148 13468 4130-32 JoVan 92 90 88 144 12672 9155 36th Ave/3588 Hillsboro 92 92 92 168 15456 4124-26 JoVan 95 88 85 150 12750 2913-17 Flag Ave 95 95 95 170 16150 9201-03 41stAve 96 96 96 115 11040 4112-14 JoVan 96 96 96 130 12480 4041-43 JoVan 96 99 100 170 17000 9309-11 Bass Creek Cimle 97.5 97.5 97.5 110 10725 3525-27 Hillsboro Ave 100 94 78 145 11310 4136-38 Jordan 100 100 85 143 12155 5827-29 Winnetka Ave 100 100 100 130 13000 5833-35 Winnetka Ave 100 100 100 130 13000 5841-43 Winnetka Ave 100 100 100 130 13000 7817-19 45 1/2 Ave 100 100 100 133 13300 7816-18 45th Ave 100 100 100 133 13300 6073-81 Louisiana Ave 100 99 98 166 16268 5853-55Winnetka Ave 101 101 101 130 13130 9232-36 29th Ave 102 102 102 138 14078 5800 Boone Ave 110 110 110 126 13860 9135-37 36th Ave 112 112 112 125 14000 9145-47 36th Ave 112 112 112 125 14000 8117-19 28th Ave 120 120 120 118 14160 8201-03 28th Ave 120 120 120 118 14160 8101-03 28th Ave 120 120 120 119 14280 8109-11 28th Ave 120 120 120 119 14280 7909-11 28th Ave 120 120 120 120 14400 7917-19 28th Ave 120 120 120 120 14400 8001-05 28th Ave 120 120 120 120 14400 8009-11 28th Ave 120 120 120 120 14400 5530-5532 Nevada Ave 128 128 128 120 15360 17901-09 51st Avenue 128 128 128 150 19200 ;2900-04 HillsboroAve 137 137 137 102 13974 2.816-20 HillsboroAve 137 137 137 105 14385 2900Winnetka Ave 140 140 140 155 21700 4001-03 JoVan 156 156 156 135 21060 5813 Winnetka Ave 165 165 165 125 20625 3564-68 Hillsboro Cou~ 168 168 168 92 15456 2912 Hillsboro/9225 30th Ave 170 170 170 172 29240 7900-08Winnetka 176 176 176 105 18480 R-21Double Bungalow Survey SORTED BY LOT SIZE ** Widths on pie shape lots are different at places on the property. Therefore, the lot width is listed below at several different portions of each property: at the street, at the minimum front-yard setback, and the average width for the lot. ** Lot area = Average Depth * Average VVidth WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH AVERAGE APPROXIMATE ADDRESS (atstreet) (at building) (Iotaverage) DEPTH LOTAREA 4109Gettysbu~ 82 82 82 115 9430 3573-75Independence Ave 68 75 73 130 9490 4117Gettysbu~ 80 78 75 128 9600 3546-481ndependenceAve 75 75 75 130 9750 3550-54Independence Ave 75 75 75 130 9750 3558-60Independence Ave 75 75 75 130 9750 9207-09 41st Ave 57 72 85 115 9775 5614-18 Rhodelsland Ave 75 75 75 134 10050 3567-69Independence Ave 76 76 76 134 10184 3540-421ndependenceAve 80 90 85 120 10200 9421-23 Bass Creek Cimle 80 80 80 128 10240 3561-63Independence Ave 75 75 75 137 10275 3555-57Independence Ave 75 75 75 140 10500 3549-51Independence Ave 75 75 75 143 10725 4808-09 Oregon 75 75 75 143 10725 3535-37 Hillsboro Ave 84 82 75 143 10725 9309-11 Bass Creek Cimle 97.5 97.5 97.5 110 10725 9431-33 Bass Creek Cimle 82 81 80 138 11040 9201-03 41st Ave 96 96 96 115 11040 9441-43 Bass Creek Cimle 90 92 93 120 11160. 3525-27 Hillsboro Ave 100 94 78 145 11310 9411-15 Bass Creek Cimle 46 70 95 120 11400 4106-08 JoVan 76 76 76 150 11400 9229-25 29th Ave 80 90 90 128 11520 3809-11 Oregon 78 78 78 148 11544 3817-19 Oregon 78 78 78 148 11544 3825-27 Oregon 77 77 77 150 11550 4167-69 JoVan 70 73 80 146 11680 4173-75 Jordan 62 70 82 145 11890 4155-57 JoVan 80 81 82 146 11972 4100-02 Jordan 75 100 100 120 12000 3801-03 Oregon 75 75 75 160 12000 4161-63 JoVan 76 78 80 150 12000 3833-35 Oregon 78 78 78 155 12090 9389-91 Bass Creek Cimle 48 70 100 121 12100 3543-45Independence Ave 71 73 81 150 12150 4136-38 JoVan 100 100 85 143 12155 3973-75 Oregon 78 78 78 156 12168 3963-65 Oregon 78 78 78 159 12402 3515-17 Hillsbom Ave 72 - 80 102 122 12~.,!.,! 9213-15 41st Ave 75 75 75 166 12450' 4800-01 Oregon 75 75 75 166 12450 3841-43 Oregon 78 78 78 160 12480 !4112-14 Jordan 96 96 96 130 12480 4149-51 Jordan 72 72 85 148 12580 4130-32 Jordan 92 90 88 144 12672 4124-26 Jordan 95 88 85 150 12750 4143-45 Jordan 59 68 80 160 12800 3849-51 Oregon 78 78 78 165 12870 3957-59 Oregon 78 78 78 165 12870 5827-29 Winnetka Ave 100 100 100 130 13000 5833-35 Winnetka Ave 100 100 100 130 13000 5841-43 Winnetka Ave 100 100 100 130 13000 5853-55 Winnetka Ave 101 101 101 130 13130 4179-81 Jordan 84 84 85 155 13175 3901-03 Oregon 78 78 78 169 13182 7817-19 45 1/2 Ave 100 100 100 133 13300 78 i6-18 45th Ave 100 100 100 133 13300 9220-24 29th Ave 70 82 96 140 13440 5801-03 Winnetka Ave 91 91 91 148 13468 5805-07 Winnetka Ave 91 91 91 148 13468 15809-11 Winnetka Ave 91 91 91 148 13468' 3949-51 Oregon 78 78 78 173 13494 9314-21 Bass Creek Circle 51 70 99 137 13563 3909-11 Oregon 78 78 78 174 13572 2853-57 Flag Ave 84 84 84 165 13860 5800 Boone Ave 110 110 110 126 13860 4118-20 Jordan 78 102 102 136 13872 3917-19 Oregon 78 78 78 178 13884 9213-17 30th Ave 82 82 82 170 13940 9201-05 30th Ave 82 82 82 170 13940 9125-29 30th Ave 82 82 82 170 13940 9113-17 30th Ave 82 82 82 170 13940 2900-04 Hillsboro Ave 137 137 137 102 13974 9135-37 36th Ave 112 112 112 125 14000 9145-47 36th Ave 112 112 112 125 14000 2901-05 Flag Ave 85 85 85 165 14025 2841-45 Flag Ave 85 85 85 165 14025 2829'33 Flag Ave 85 85 85 165 14025 9232-36 29th Ave 102 t02 102 138 14076 9137-41 30th Ave 83 83 83 170 14110 3941-43 Oregon 78 78 78 181 14118. 8117-19 28th Ave 120 120 120 118 14160 8201-03 28th Ave 120 120 120 118 14160 4033-35 Jordan 80 92 100 142 14200 3925-27 Oregon 78 78' 78 183 14274 !8101-03 28th Ave 120 120 120 119 14280 8109-11 28th Ave 120 120 120 119 14280 2816-20 Hillsboro Ave 137 137 137 105 14385 7909-11 28th Ave 120 120 120 120 14400 7917-19 28th Ave 120 120 120 120 14400 8001-05 28th Ave 120 120 120 120 14400 8009-11 28th Ave 120 120 120 120 14400 3537-39 Independence Ave 78 78 78 185 14430 3933-35 Oregon 78 78 78 185 14430 2817-21 Flag Ave 84 84 84 173 14532 9349-55 Bass Creek Circle 75 75 75 195 14625 9401-03 Bass Creek Circle 47 70 110 136 14960 9359-61 Bass Creek Circle 75 75 75 200 15000 3576-80 Hillsboro Ave 90 90 90 168 15120 9339-41 Bass Creek Circle 71 75 80 191 15280 5530-5532 Nevada Ave 128 128 128 120 15360. 3564-68 Hillsboro Court 168 168 168 92 15456 9155 36th Ave/3588 Hillsboro 92 92 92 168 15456 4025-27 Jordan 80 90 105 148 15540 4137-39 Jordan 59 75 90 173 15570 3579-81 Independence Ave 65 95 120 132 15840 2913-17 Flag Ave 95 95 95 170 16150 9201-05 29th Ave 51 76 120 135 16200 6073-81 Louisiana Ave 100 99 98 166 16268 9213-17 29th Ave 60 72 88 187 16456 4017-19 Jordan 85 85 86 192 16512 4601-4609 Xylon Ave 83 83 83 200 16600 4041-43 Jordan 96 99 100 170 17000 4107-09 Jordan 75 75 75 235 17625 7900-08 Winnetka 176 176 176 105 18480 7901-09 51 st Avenue 128 128 128 150 19200 4113-15 Jordan 75 75 75 260 19500 9369-71 Bass Creek Circle 61 70 95 210 19950 4101-03 Jordan 64 74 88 230 20240 5813 Winnetka Ave 165 165 165 125 20625 9329-31 Bass Creek Circle 49 68 110 190 20900 4001-03 Jordan 156 156 156 135 21060' 4131-33 Jordan 59 75 90 240 21600 2900 Winnetka Ave 140 140 140 155 21700 4009-11 Jordan 70 90 110 240 26400 4119-23 Jordan 75 75 75 364 27300 2912 H illsboro/9225 30th Ave 170 170 170 172 29240 9379-81 Bass Creek Circle 46 65 140 210 29400 4125-29 Jordan 68 72 90 400 36000 4073-75 Gettysburg 75 75 75 492 36900 4083-85 Gettysburg 75 75 75 492 36900 Impacts of Reducing Lot Size Requirements Lots to Remain Non- Lots to Remain Conforming, under Conforming, over 14,000 12,000 SF (30, 23%) SF (58, 44%) Lots to Become Conforming (44, 33%) City Developed Twinhomes , ............. Lot Size per Width pe'r Length per Lot Area Lot Width Lot Length dwelling dwelling dwelli,n~ 5009 Winnetka 19,200 SF 128 It. 150 lt. ~ 9,000 - 10,200 SF 60 - 68 it. 150 ft. 6073 Louisiana 16,268 SF 96-100 ft. 166 lt. 7968 - 8300 SF 46 - 50 ft. 166 ft. Cit_Y Developed Home at 6073 Louisiana {near 62"d Avenue) L O ' U I Lot A S 46-50 ft. X 166 ft. I 7968 SF A N " A 9 Lot Size 1 6 96-100 ft. X 166 ft. 0 f .................................................... 16,268 SF .................................................. 0 A t f V t E N U Lot B E 50 ft. X 166 ft. 8300 SF (-. 166fl-), Scale: I inch = 20 feet Ci.ty Developed Twinhome at $009 Winnetk~ $1'~ AVENUE NORTH ~ 6Oft-) ~' 68ft--), L,,,ot A Lot B 60 ft. X 150 ff. 68 fi. X i50 ff. 9000 SF 10,200 SF Lot A and Lot B W 128 ff. X 150 ft. I 19,200 SF N I N ? N Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet : ,~ , ~ S 0';05'57'' W ,' s~c ~ 75.00 5629 Wisconsij~ / : ,, L0t~dth = 75 feet / ~ Lot Depth = ~ 80 feet ,' x Cot Ar~a ~ ~ 3~500 S~ -I 75,0 J I o o,-. : ~ .~ ~ , 480.0 " 75.'00" ~ J S 0°05 57"W i ~ ~ Avenue. He stated Hennepin County is willing to assist in this project as part of the County's agreement to participate in New Hope's 42~ Avenue Streetscape Project. Design and construction costs are proposed to be equally shared for the retaining wall work. These funds would be in addition to Hennepin County's commitment to the 42"" Avenue Project. Mr. Dona. hue reported that staff is recommending a cast-in-place concrete wall rather than a modular masonry retaining wall. However, the cost difference is significant. Mr. Hanson, City Engineer, stated the County is willing to pay up to up to $70,000 for their share of the retaining wall. He stated the location is a difficult area for a modular block wall and since the City is required to maintain it, staff would prefer the cast-m-place wall. He commented on the design and architectural advantages to a cast-in-place wall. Mr. Hanson indicated the City would need to secure easements from property owners on the east and west side of the bridge. Councilmember Collier commented that over time a cost savings would be realized with less maintenance issues resulting from a poured-in-place wall. Councilmember Cassen encouraged staff to work with the 42~ Avenue landscape architect so the retaining wall design will blend with the overall 42"d Avenue design theme. MOTION Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Item 8.2 Thompson, directing the City Engineer secure easements and to prepare preliminary plans and specifications for replacement of 42"d Avenue North (CSAH 9) Retaining Wall (Project No. 547). All present voted in favor. Motion ca~ied. ORDINANCE 99-02 Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Ordinance No. 99-02 (Planning Item 10.1 Case 98-16), An Ordimmce Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings, City.of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Kirk McDonald explained that staff is requesting consideration of an ordinance amendment that would reduce the lot area size requirements for two family dwellings. This issue arose last summer when the City purchased a single family home on Wisconsin Avenue, demolished the structure and started considering options for redevelopment. The property is currently zoned R-l, Single Family Residential, but due to the fact that the property is located in an area designated by the Comprehensive~ Plan for potential R,2, Single and Two Family Residemial zoning, one of the options being considered for the site was a zero-lot line twinhome. Staff is now of the opinion that regardless of any code amendment, the site may be too small for a twinhome, and that a single family home may be better suited for the site. The property on Wisconsin has a lot width of 75' and a lot depth of 180' and has a total lot area of 13,500 square feet. Under the current zoning code regulations, an R-2 lot is required to have a width of 75', but must have a total lot area of 14,000 square feet. Therefore, even if the property were rezoned to R-2, it would still be 500 square feet short 9f meeting the zoning requirements for an R-2 lot. R-I lots New Hope City Council February 22, 1999 Page 6 also require a 75' frontage and the properties to the north and south of this site ar 75' in width, therefore, the option of obtaining additional frontage from the adjacent lots is not feasible. Staff also is not favorable to requesting a variance for a City housing project. These circumstances prompted staff and the Planmng Consultant to examine the lot area and width standards within the R-2 Zoning district for twinhomes. This evaluation was conducted to determine if some adjustment in the twi~ome lot size would expand the City's opportunities for utilizing twinhomes as a scattered site redevelopment housing option, while still maintaining and protecting the character of the City's existing single family neighborhoods. A recent report prepared by the City Planner provides a comparison of New Hope's twinhome lot sizes with neighboring communities and reveals that New Hope's twinhome lot size of 7,000 square feet per unit was larger than some neighboring communities. The result of that research was a recommendation to reduce the lot area per unit to 6,000 square feet (regardless of whether a twinhome is built on Wisconsin Avenue or not.) In reviewing this information with the Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning Commission, the Committee recommended that they could support the lot size reduction to 6,000 square feet only if the lot width requirement was increased from 75' to 90'. The reason the Committee supported the increased width was their concern for maintaining the integrity of single family residential neighborhoods and not wanting to allow twinhomes to be located on small lots in the city. The increased lot width would not allow a twinhome to be built on Wisconsin Avenue. Mr. McDonald stated at the January 5'~ Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission approved the enclosed ordinance decreasing the R-2 lot size to 6,000 square feet per umt (12,000 square feet total) and increasing the lot width to 90'. The vote was not unanimous and one Commissioner questioned the impact this would have on all the R-2 lots located in the City. At the January 1 ph Council Meeting, staff requested the ordinance be tabled until further research could be co. mpleted. Subsequent to that meeting, staff has gathered data on all the R-2 lots in the City. Staff discovered that increasing the R-2 tot width to 90' would make a number of existing R-2 lots in the City non-conforming. There are approximately 132 R-2 lots in the City. 24 lots are under 75' in width and are non-conforming. If the lot width is increased to 80', an additional 40 lots would become non- conforming. If the lot width is increased to 90', an additional 24 lots become non- conforming. In short, if the lot width is increased to 90', an additional 64 lots become non-<unforming. In light of this additional research, staff cannot support the recommendation of the Plarming Commission, which was made without the further detailed research, and would recommend that the Council consider the following options: 1. Refer back to Planning Commission 2. Make no change in the current ordinance 3. Adopt the enclosed revised ordinance, which reduces the lot area to 6,000 square feet, but maintains the 75' width standard Mayor Enck pointed out that increasing the lot width to 90' would increase the number of non-conforming properties. He suggested asking the Planning Commission to review the ordinance amendment again, Councilmember Cassen supported the 90' minimum lot width for R-2 properties New Hope City Council February 22, 1999 Page 7 stating there needs to be sufficient room for garages and storage. She noted she would agree to the 6,000 square foot minimum lot requirement but feels an 80-foot tot width should be the minimum. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, stated the Planning Commission and staff are trying to encourage redevelopment in the City. He noted increasing the lot width requirement may be counterproductive. Councilmember Collier suggested making no change to the ordinance. He commented that he would support a smaller lot size in situations where a wider lot exists. He noted it is poor .public policy to take action which would result ~n substantial non-conforming properties. MOTION Motion was made by Councilmember Thompson, seconded by Councilmember Item 10.1 Collier, to refer the proposed ordinance amendment back to the Planning Commission for further review. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. CONSENT ITEMS Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 6.8, Motion authorizing Staff to Obtain REMOVED Appraisal for 8109 62~ Avenue North. Item 6.8 Cotmcilmember Collier questioned the City's benefit by acquiring the property, and spoke against seeking appraisals for every property offered for sale to the City. He suggested allowing the private sector to accommodate the transaction. Mr. Dan Donahue, City Manager, emphasized that the City's main interest in acquiring the property would be to provide a trail connection from 62~ Avenue to Dorothy Mary Park. He stated the estimated cost of the appraisal is $325. Councilmember Cassen expressed support for the appraisal. She memioned she was surprised that the 1998 valuation of the property was $87,000 ($32,000 land/S55,000 building). C6uncilmember Thompson concurred with Councilmember Collier's comments. He indicated he would not oppose the appraisal but would be reluctant to approve the purchase without a greater amount of review. MOTION Motion was made b~t Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Cassen, Item 6.8 authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal for 8109 62~ Avenue North. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. OTHER BUS~ Mayor Enck noted that commission candidate interviews were held this evening Coramission preceding the regular council meeting. Appointments Motion was made by Councilmember Cassen, seconded by Councilmember Thompson, to appoint Steven Reed to serve as the citizen representative on the West Metro Fire-Rescue Board of Directors. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The Council re-affu'med the decision made at a recent work session to appoint Cai Monroe and Winnie Kramer to the Human Rights Commission. Teambuilding The Council directed the City Manager to schedule a teambuilding session with Don Salverda. New Hope C~ty Council February 22, 1999 Page 8 CITY OF NEW HOPE ~.-.. PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 98-16 Request: Consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings Location: City-Wide Zoning: R-2, Single and Two Family Residential Zoning Districts Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: December 30, 1998 Meeting Date: January 5, 1999 UPDATE 1. The City is requesting consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings, pursuant to the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. This issue arose this summer when the City purchased a single-family home on Wisconsin Avenue, demolished the structure, and started considering options for redevelopment. Due to the fact that the property is located in an area designated by the Comprehensive Plan for R-2 zoning, one of the options the City has considered for the site is a zero-lot line twinhome. 3. Over the course of late summer and fall, the City has examined the lot area and width standards within the R-2 Zoning District for twinhomes. This evaluation was conducted to determine if some adjustment in the twinhome lot size would expand the City's opportunities for utilizing twinhomes as a scattered site redevelopment housing option. 4. The attached July 21 planning report outlines some of the background research associated with this study. This report noted two study objectives: A. Expand the opportunities to utilize twinhomes as a scattered site redevelopment housing option within New Hope. B. Maintain and protect the character of the City's existing single family neighborhoods. 5. The July report provides a comparison of New Hope's twinhome lot sizes with neighboring communities. This comparison revealed that New Hope's twinhome lot size of 7,000 square feet per unit was larger than neighboring communities. The result of this research was a recommendation to reduce the lot area per unit to 6,000 square feet. In reviewing this information with the Codes & Standards Committee, it was determined that an increase in lot width from 75 feet to 90 feet should accompany the proposal to reduce the twinhome lot size. 6. The Community Development Intern has also prepared the attached memo describing background information, discussions that have taken place with the Codes & Standards Committee, and an overall analysis of the code change. Please take time to review this information. 7. At a meeting held December 18, the latest revised ordinance was reviewed by the Codes & Standards Committee and the Committee recommended that the ordinance be forwarded to the entire Planning Commission for public hearing. Several minor changes have been made to the ordinance since December 18, as the City Attorney and Planner discovered that the proposed changes impacted several other sections of the Zoning Code. 8. A legal notice was placed in the official newspaper of the City stating that a public hearing would be held at the October 6 Planning Commission meeting. Due to the fact that the Codes & Standards Committee only reviewed this issue briefly in September, the public hearing was continued until the November Planning Commission meeting. Due to the fact that the Codes & Standards Committee did not meet in October, the matter was continued from the November Planning Commission meeting to the December meeting. The Codes & Standards Committee met and discussed this issue at its November 24 meeting. They requested that staff complete additional research and bring this item back to the Committee for further discussion in December. Therefore, the issue was continued from the December to January meeting. This amendment would be effective on a city-wide basis, therefore, no legal notices were mailed to specific areas. Copies of this report were sent to the two property owners adjacent to the city-owned property at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue, due to their interest in this particular code amendment. ANALYSIS 1. Per the Community Development Intern's memo, the proposed code text amendment to change the R-2 zoning standards for twinhomes involves two components, lot size and lot width. The research done by staff and the Planning Consultant indicate that New Hope has unusually Iow requirements for lot width while maintaining higher than average lot size requirements. For the purposes of assisting future redevelopment efforts, both public and private, the Codes and Standards Committee recommends amending the zoning code to allow a twinhome to be built upon a lot with 12,000 square feet and a width of 90 feet. 2. For the Codes & Standards Committee, the issue that raised the most concern was allowing twinhomes to be "crammed~ onto smaller lots in the City. The Committee stressed the importance of maintaining the integrity and appearance of New Hope's residential neighborhoods. New Hope's current lot width requirements are much lower that neighboring cities, and it is lot width that gives the appearance of over utilizing a site. Using the lot at 5629 Wisconsin, for example, a home built on a 75 foot wide lot would be ten feet from both adjacent property lines. The Committee identified that the recommended 90 foot lot width was the smallest lot on which New Hope should allow a twinhome to be built. 3. In looking at the practicality of a 90 foot lot width requirement, it seems that this is reasonable considering the City's redevelopment goals. The surrounding communities average 95 feet for their lot width requirements. In order to set reasonable standards for New Hope, however, the City must also focus on its existing redevelopment areas. While other cities require lot widths of around 95 feet, the average lot width in New Hope's redevelopment areas averages 90 feet. Therefore, the Codes and Standards Committee decided to set the New Hope standard at a lot width that was reasonable taking into consideration the City's existing lot sizes. 4. The lot size requirement, based on a 90 foot wide lot, was recommended to be 12,000 square feet. New Hope's neighboring communities average lot sizes are between 12,000 and 13,000 square feet. The inventory of the City's redevelopment area indicates that New Hope's average lot sizes are around 13,300 square feet. The existing twinhomes in New Hope average a lot size of 12,960 square feet. In summary, New Hope's current requirement of 14,000 square feet for a twinhome far exceeds the standards of other communities, the existing twinhomes lot sizes, and the lot sizes of the City's redevelopment areas. A lot size requirement of 12,000 square feet would create more development possibilities in the City's target areas. 5. In most cases, this change will affect city projects in the targeted redevelopment areas. In November the Codes and Standards Committee identified that it is in fact the City that does most of the residential redevelopment projects in New. Hope. If the City desired to build a twinhome in the targeted redevelopment areas, it would be required to rezone the property prior to building a new home, as is the case with the lot at 5629 VVisconsin. Thus, the City will retain the authority through the rezoning process to judge the appropriateness of a twinhome on a case-by-case basis. Planning Case 98-16 Page 2 12/30/98 6. As the Planner's report indicates, these changes should accomplish the previous cited objectives in following ways: A. The reduced lot area will allow a twinhome on a 12,000 square foot base lot expanding opportunities for scattered site redevelopment. B. The increased lot width is intended to prevent crowding a twinhome onto narrow lots. The recently constructed city twinhomes required minimum 80-foot lot width to accommodate the building and necessary setbacks. This indicated that the current 75-foot lot width was insufficient. Additionally, in conversation with residents along Wisconsin Avenue, their greatest concern was the street side appearance of the twinhome building. Weighing this information, the Codes & Standards Committee recommended a minimum lot width of 90 feet for twinhome units. C. Another protection for single family neighborhoods is the need to rezone properties from R-1 to R-2 to accommodate twinhome development. The rezoning process involves a public headng at the Planning Commission and a final decision by the City Council. In recognizing the need for rezoning, it should be noted that the proposed lot area and width changes alone will allow twinhome development in areas currently zoned R-1. 7. In follow-up to the recommendations made by the Codes & Standards Committee at its December 18 meeting, the City Attorney has prepared the enclosed revised Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035 by Reducing the Lot Area Size Requirement for Two Family Dwellings for consideration at the January Planning Commission meeting. 8. The ordinance will now require a 90-foot lot width and a 12,000 square foot area requirement for two family dwellings in the R-2 Zoning District. After reviewing the ordinance in light of the proposed changes, both the City Attorney and the City Planner felt changes were necessary to 4.035(1) and (8) as well. Per the City Attorney's correspondence, the changes made to 4.035(1) establish, a minimum 90-foot lot width for the R-2 and R-3 Zoning Districts. It was felt a change was necessary to R-3 to remain consistent with the proposed R-2 change. In other words, it didn't make sense to leave the R-3 District at a smaller minimum lot width than required in the R-2 District. As a result, both were increased to 90 feet. Regarding the change to 4.035(8)(b), a change was made to be consistent with the change to 4.035(2). In other words, the 7,000 square foot lot area minimum was reduced to 6,000 square feet in Section 4.035(8)(b) also. Further, Section 4.035(8) makes reference to quadraminiums. No reference to such a structure was made in 4.035(2). Therefore, quadraminiums have been included in 4.035(2) as it relates to minimum area requirements. 9. It is recommended that the City revise Section 4.035(2) of the New Hope City Code to reduce the lot size and increase the lot width requirements to 12,000 square feet and 90 feet, respectively. RECOMMENDATION The Codes & Standards Committee and staff recommend approval of the ordinance. Attachments: 12/29 City Attorney Correspondence Proposed Ordinance 12/29 Planning Consultant Report 12/24 Community Development Intern Memo 12/11 Codes & Standards Memo 11/19 Codes & Standards Memo 11/4 Planner's Memo 7/21 Planner's Report Planning Case 98-16 Page 3 12/30/98 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 99-04 Request: Consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Increasing Area Limitation for Signage Fronting on Freeways Location: City-Wide PID No.: Zoning: All Zoning Districts Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: May 28, 1999 Meeting Date: June 1, 1999 BACKGROUND 1. The City is requesting consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Establishing Standards for Free Standing Signs in Section 3.492(2) - New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. In 1998, the City completed a comprehensive review and revision of the Sign Code. The review included revising the restrictions on free standing signs throughout the City. Excerpts from the Sign Code as approved by the City Council on July 27, 1998, are enclosed. 3. The existing code reads as follows: Section 3.492(2) "Freestanding Signs." Not more than one (1) freestanding sign shall be permitted on any lot. (a) Freestanding signs shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area. (b) Freestanding signs shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height. The interpretation of this code states that no signs within the City may exceed 100 square feet, regardless of location along differing classifications of streets. For example, a property owner along Highway 169 has the same restrictions on total sign area as a property owner on Winnetka or Boone Avenues. 5. Prior to the 1998 Sign Code update, property owners along freeway frontage were allowed signs that did not exceed 200 square feet. This was an oversight when the code was revised. As a result of the update, several signs have become non-conforming and new property owners are only allowed to construct 100 square foot signs. Administratively, the City Manager has subsequently approved the replacement of several signs 200 square feet in size and has requested that the code be modified. 6. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed this issue at its March meeting and reviewed the attached reports on this matter from the Planning Consultant and the Building Official. ANALYSIS 1. The ordinance, as recommended by the Codes & Standards Committee, should read as follows: 3.492(2) Freestanding Signs (a) Freestanding signs on local, collector of minor arterial streets shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area. (b) Freestanding signs that abut the freeway or the freeway frontage road shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area. (c) Freestanding signs shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height. ~.. 2. The Codes & Standards Committee agreed with this text amendment and recommended the attached ordinance as prepared by the City Attorney. The proposed ordinance amends the Sign Code and allows property owners with freeway frontage two hundred (200) square feet for a freestanding sign. 3. The Building Official, Planning Consultant, and City Attorney support the proposed ordinance amendment and correspondence from each is attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Codes & Standards Committee recommend approval of the text amendment to Section 3.492(2) of the Sign Code. Attachments: Revised Ordinance 3/12/99 City Attorney Correspondence 2/4/99 Planner's Report 1/25/99 Building Official's Report Excerpt from Section 3.456 (3) (c) of the pre-1998 Sign Code Excerpt from Section 3.492 (2) of the 1998 Sign Code Update ORDINANCE NO. 99- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE SIGN CODE BY INCREASING AREA LIMITATION FOR SIGNAGE FRONTING ON FREEWAYS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 3.492(2) "Free Standing Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Freestanding Signs. Not more than one (1) freestanding sign shall be permitted on any lot abutting a local, collector or minor arterial street. (a) Freestanding signs abutting local, collector or minor arterial streets shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area. (b) Freestanding signs abutting a freeway or freeway frontage road shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area. (-15-) (c) Freestanding signs shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the __ day of ,199 W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the __ day of , 199 .) -1- JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. 7 Attorneys At Law ~-~ 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. ~ 01 BROOKLYN PARK, i~aI1NNESOTA 55443-1999 TELEPHONE (612) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (612) 493-5193 GORDON L. JENSEN* WILLIAM {3. SWANSON STEVEN A. SONDRALL MARTIN P. MAL£CHA C. ALDEN PEARSON* March 12, 1999 DEAN A. TRONGARD"[' JULIE A. THILL Kirk McDonald oF CO~SEL Community Development Director [O~E~S Q. ~¥~_SraD City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Sign Code Revision Relating to Area Limitation for Freeway Signage Our File No.: 99-40098 Dear Kirk: In follow up to your March 3~a e-mail, please fred enclosed a proposed Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Increasing Area Limitation for Signage Fronting on Freeways for consideration at the March 25, 1999 Codes and Standards meeting. Basically, the enclosed ordinance modifies section 3.492(2) of the sign code pursuant to the suggestions by the Building Official and City Planner in their respective memos. Specifically, a new subsection (b) was added to provide for a 200 foot area for signage fronting the 169 frontage road and/or State Highway 169. Subsection (a) was amended to expressly apply to signage on local, collector or minor arterial streets. The old subsection (b) was renumbered to subsection (c). If you have any questions or comments regarding the proposed ordinance, please contact me. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall ~sss~ sw^sso~ & sosv~[~-, P.A. Enclosure cc: Al Brixius Doug Sandstad Valerie Leone ~'Re~l Prope~y Law Specialist Certified By The P:'~tmmey\SAS~Lllt~\CNH4~0984}l-Kirk Ltr.w~l Mim'~,,~ota Stat~ Bar Association '~,ualifled ADR Neutral N~~.c_C NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY PLANNING DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Troy D. Hagen / Alan Brixius DATE: 4 February 1999 RE: New Hope - New Sign Ordinance - Omission FILE NO.: _ 131.00 - 99.01 On 30 June 1998, the City of New Hope updated their Sign Ordinance'. Prior to this date, the Sign Ordinance contained provisions that treated sign area for freestanding signs based upon the functional classification of the abutting street, as follows: Section 3.456 (3)(c): All ground signs shall conform with the maximum sign area, and maximum sign height contained in the following table: Street Classification Maximum Area Maximum Structure Height Collector 40 square feet 15 feet Minor Arterial 75 square feet 20 feet Principal Artedal 200 square feet 30 feet The updated Sign Ordinance strived to provide for a simpler more equitable treatment of commercial properties by establishing one freestanding sign area standard regardless of street functional classification. In making this change, we mistakenly interpreted that each industrial site abutted a local street. The updated Sign Ordinance reads as follows: Section 3.492 (2)(a): Freestanding signs shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area. Recently, two property owners located along Highway 169 inquired about maximum sign area for new or replacement signs. Historically, the City has treated businesses along Highway 169 as abutting a principal 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 16 PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@ WlNTERNET.COM arterial, therefore, allows sign area of 200 square feet. Under the current sign ordinance, the maximum area allowed would be 100 square feet. The new regulation had made their existing signs nonconforming. The Building Official has suggested revisions to be made to address the issue of sign size for lots along Highway 169 or the freeway frontage street consistent with past treatments. The revised provision would read as follows: Section 3.492 (2) Freestanding Signs. (a)Freestanding signs on local, collector or minor arterial streets shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area. (b) Freestanding signs that abut the freeway or the freeway frontage road shall no exceed 200 square feet in area. (c) - Freestanding signs shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height. * Bold indicates additions Our office would support the comments made by Mr. Sandstad. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. pc: Steve Sondrall Doug Sandstad Memorandum To: Kirk McDonald ~'~,,//~ From: Doug Sandstad Date: January 25, 1999 Re: New Sign Code - Omission I am working with two freeway property owners, today, "VICOM" and "OILDYNE" [former Champion Auto bldg.], regarding new or replacement ground signs. Both asked what the maximum size permitted was, since they planned on 150 sf and 200 sf, respectively. Our brand new sign code 3.492 (2) allows only 100 square feet for a permanent ground Sign'! After I was informed that the existing Champion Auto sign was 200 sf, it was clear that we had inadvertantly slashed the former ground sign maximum in half, making several signs illegal. I immediately spoke with A1 Bfixius and you, to compare our recollections on this part of our sign code reworking. Our concensus is that we increased the size for rental/lease signs on the freeway to 150 sf and felt that our 250 sfwall sign would suffice for churches along the freeway, but we did not focus our attention on commercial-industrial signs already in place larger than 100 sr. We intended to eliminate the ground sign size / based upon roadway classification principle, in the interest of having fewer, simpler, standards. We certainly had a goal of maintaining or relaxing sign restrictions, throughout the process. At no time, did we intend to toughen standards from our previous sign code. It is my recommendation that fixing this amounts to an editorial correction that we should forward to appropriate parties, with the insertion of one sentence, as follows: 3.492 (2) a Insert the phrase "on local, collector or minor arterial streets" after the words "Freestanding signs". 3.492 (2) Add a new subitem "b" "Freestanding signs that abut the freeway or the freeway frontage road shall not exceed 200 square feet in area." Renumber item 3.492 (2) b as 3.492 (2) c. Existing freeway commercial-industrial large signs will continue to be legal with this non-controversial correction. Please advise. Metal ELectrically Illuminated Signs. Signs constructed of me=al and illumlnat~d by any.means requiring internal wiring or electrically wired accessory fixtures attached to a metal sign shall maintain a free clearance to grade of nine feet. Accessory lighting fixtures attached to a non-metal frame sign shall main=din a clearance of nine feet to ground. In the event that a metal sign structure or accessory fixture herein described is grounded by the use of a grounding conductor run with the circuit conductors and said structure or fixture is also grounded by being bonded to a grounding electrode at the sign site, no clearance to grade shall be mandatory. Location of Metal Signs. No metal ground sign shall be located within eight feet vertically and four feet horizontally of electric wi=es or conductors in free air carrying more than forty-eight volts, whether or not such wires or conductors are insulated or otherwise protected. Maximum Sign Area and Heiqht. All ground signs shall conform with the maximum sign area, and maximum sign height provisions in relation to the street classification, as contained in the following table: Street MaXimum Area MaXimum Structure Classification (Sq. Peet) ... Height (Peet) Collector 40 15 Minor Arterial 75 20 Principal Arterial 200 30 (Ord. 76-17, 79-14, 81-4) (d) Street Classification and Application. Street classification shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Five Year Transportation Plan for the City of New Hope. The level at which the sign control system applies is determined by the street classification, as outlined in Subsection 3.465 (3)(c), which directly abuts =he subject property. In the case of subject property direc=ly abutting more than one road, each designated by a differen~ road type, the less restrictive classification shall apply in determining sign area and height. Sign Height Application. Sign heigh~ is determined by the vertical distance between the highest part of the sign structure and the Council-approved grade of the site adjacent to its base. In those cases where the main floor elevation of the building is more than 36f above, or below, the average street curb elevation along the frontage, actual sign heigh~ is determined by the grade of the road (average curb elevation) from which the sign gains its principal exposure. (f) Sign Area Application. Sign area for ground signs applies to only one face of a two-faced ground sign, or two faces of a four-faced sign, etc. (g) Location to Property Lines. No ground sign shall be loca%ed closer than ten feet to any property line. 07268~ JUL-01-98 ~D 14:27 · FaX NO, 4255~87 P, 15/22 DirectionaI/Infarmation Signs. Multiple family development dircctioml/intormadou sigm are permitted m clirecr wafftc within Re site and provide information pertaining ~o the buil'ding'$ ownership, mamganenr and operation. Individual direclional $i/nage may not cxc~cd nine (9) square feet in area. No illumination of the si~n/s permitted oth~ than thc general house iIlumination. (3) Special Event Signale. Subject to the pwvisions of section 3.492 (6) of this Code. 3.4?$ Home Occu0ati0ns. A residential unit with aa approved home occupation r~luiring customer or client visits ~o the home is allowed one identification sign for the home occupation, Said sign shall not exceed two (2) square f~t iii size or six (6) feet in height. 3.48 R_~_ den_ti~! Office 13tstri~. Signs are accessory to permill~d and conditi_~.] uses in the R-O Zoning District. Thc following signs are permitted within the R-O ~Onlng Di311'ict: 3,481 All ~i?.~ idcutificd in section 3.46 of this 3.48~ R~sidontial Si_pus. All signs identified in section 3.47 of OffS Code. 3.483 ~. Bus'ness signs as regulated in section 3.49 of thi.~ Code. 3.49 Commgrr4n! nnd !ndg~__~'~fl Zenln~. District. Si~ ~ a~~ to ~~ ~ coMMo~l u~ ~ te ~1, ~2, ~3, ~, I-1 ~ 1-2 ~nlng D~. O~y ~e followi~ si~ ~e ~R~ in ~ ~ning ~C~, ~ o~i~ ~~Iy provi~ for ~ &h ~on. 3.491 Ali signs identified in section 3.46 of this Code. 3.492 Individual Bwiness Estab,,ll.hment $i.=m. Sig~s accessory to a sin~lc occupaac7 business or imlust~ shall comply wia the fol]owins re~ons: (1) ~: (a) Not more than two (Il) wall signs per building. (b) The total area of ail wall signs shsll not exceed thc lesser of fli~een (15) perc~t of th~ front faoc of tim principal commercial or indusifial building or two hundred fifty (250) .square feet. (2) Fr__e~m~din_~ Si_~ns. Not more than one (1) fr~ si~n shall be pormittexl on any lot. - 10- JUL-01-98 NED 14:28 F~ NO, 4255867 P, 16/22 (a) Freestanding signs shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet (b) Fr~standing signs slmll not exceed r2flr~ (30) feet in i~eight. (3) Awning or Canopy $i_~s. Letters may be paillted or other,vise affixed to any permissible awning or canopy as follows: (a) Locati0_n. Signs shall be l{mltzd to one (1) sign per canopy fascia ~ondng onto a street. (b) Heitht. The canopy sign shall not project above or below the physical dimensions of the aw~inSs or canopy fascia. (c) Use. Si~n~ shall only denot~ thc name and addr~ of thc business conducted therein and/or a product or products produced or sold (d) Maximum $i_e~.a~_c_. Aw~i,,S and canopy siguagc shall ~t cxc~ si~n (16) ~e f~t ~r si~. A~ing ~ ~py ~ge ~ ~ iucl~ ~ ~~g ~e ma~ si~ ~ of ~e ~i~sible wail si~. (4) Window Si~s. (n) Maximum_Window Aren. In no event ehnll the size of the interior window signage exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the window area of the one side of the building upon which said signs are displayed. (b) Illuminated Signs. An inlerior window sign may be ill-rain, ted. (c) ~rarv Advertisi~. ~. Advertising sj~t,.n.~ that are intended for temporary display only, may be affixed to a wimiow provid~l that thc siL~ll area COlXtbrms with the formula allowance outlined in thi, subsection. Thc allowable sign area for a window advertising siin is in addition to thc total permitted wall sign area as regulated in section 3.49'2 (1) of thi.~ Code. Window $i~ other rh~n for advertising, such as business identification, or any s~gn which is permanently affixed to a window, shall ~ a thud ptuposc sign ~nd thUS be regulated under both the above and the provisions of section 3.492 (1) of this Code. -11- CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 97-26 Request: Consideration of An Ordinance Amending the Chapter 6 of the New Hope City Code Regulating Courtesy Bus Benches Location: City-Wide PID No.: Zoning: All Zoning Districts Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: May 28, 1999 Meeting Date: June 1, 1999 BACKGROUND 1. The City is requesting consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope City Code by allowing courtesy benches on private property and sidewalks in Section 6.14 - New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. On January 11, 1999, the City Council approved Section 6.14 of the City Code regulating the placement of courtesy benches in the public right-of-way. Th'e ordinance set in place standards for which courtesy bus benches must comply with in the public right-of-way. It also established a permit system in which bench providers must submit plans to the City and receive formal approval to locate benches on public property. 3. The permit review process revealed a problem unforeseen during the ordinance development process. The ordinance established that no benches may be placed on sidewalks, and that the front of the courtesy bench must be at least three feet from the back of the adjacent curb. The existing code reads as follows: Section 6.141 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate the placing and maintenance of Courtesy Benches in public rights-of-way. Benches located on private property are exempt from the provisions of sections 6.14 through 6.15 of this Code but are subject to all other applicable sections of this Code. Section 6.144 "Conditions Governing Issuance of Permits." This subsection governs the issuance of a permit for a Courtesy Bench. (3) No permit may be issued for the installation of Courtesy Benches, on approved transit routes in the following places: (b) on a public or private sidewalk or trail Section 6.148 "Installation and Maintenance" (1) Location. Courtesy Benches shall be installed parallel with the curb, sidewalk or trail, and set back at least 3 feet from the back of the curb. The interpretation of this code states that courtesy benches must be placed in the public right-of-way, and not on a sidewalk, at least three feet from the curb. 4. During the application review process, staff discovered that few places in the City allow adequate room in the public right-of-way to meet these conditions. Most boulevards in the City do not allow enough green space between the curb and sidewalk for a courtesy bench. Of the 27 existing benches in the City, only 11 met the requirements of the new ordinance. 5. It was discovered that 16 of the 27 existing benches were actually placed on private property behind t~-~. sidewalk. In many locations throughout the City, private property is the only location for courte., benches in accordance with the Code requirements. The courtesy bench code did not regulate benches on private property as it was thought the advertising nature made it a Sign Code issue. It is now an issue, however, as the majority of the permit applications are for benches located on private property. 6. The Codes & Standards Committee discussed the issue of amending the courtesy bench code at its May meeting and reviewed the attached report on this matter from the Building Official. ANALYSIS 1. Staff and the Codes & Standards Committee discussed an amendment to regulate courtesy benches on private property within three feet of the public right-of-way, as well as those previously included in the ordinance. The amendment would allow courtesy benches to be placed behind the sidewalk with the consent of the property owner in situations where there is insufficient space in the public rig ht-of-way. 2. Staff and the Committee also considered the amendment as it relates to benches placed on public sidewalks. One application for a permit shows a courtesy bench located on the sidewalk adjacent to the eastbound lane of traffic on Bass Lake Road east of Boone Avenue. In this location, there is a nine-foot sidewalk in the public right-of-way and a retaining wall abutting the sidewalk. Since the courtesy bench still allowed over six feet of passage on the sidewalk (sufficient for snow plowing equipment), the Committee felt it was justifiable to allow a courtesy benches to be located on sidewalks nine feet wide or greater. 3. The Codes & Standards Committee agreed with this text amendment and recommended the attached ordinance amendment as prepared by the City Attorney. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Codes & Standards Committee recommend approval of the text amendment to Section 6.14 of the City Code. Attachments: 5/27/99 City Attorney correspondence Section 6.14 of the City Code 5/6/99 Building Official's report Three site plans from application process Planning Case 97-26 Page 2 5/28/99 JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. --, Attorneys At Law ~ 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55443-1999 TELEPHONE (612) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (612) 493-5193 GORDON L. JENSEN* E-MAlL jss~jsspa.com WILLIAM G. SWANSON STEVEN A. SONDRALL MARTIN P. MALECHA C. ALDEN PEARSON) DEAN A. TRONGARD'[' JULIE A. THILL May 27, 1999 OF COUNSEL LORENS Q. BRYNESTAD Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: 1999 Amendment to Courtesy Bus Bench Ordinance Our File No. 99.49906 Dear Kirk: Enclosed is the proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 6 of the New Hope City Code Regulating Courtesy Bush Benches discussed at the May 27, 1999 Code and Standards Committee meeting. This Ordinance is for consideration at the June 2~ Planning Commission meeting. Basically, the Ordinance makes the changes as recommended in Phil Kern's May 21, 1999 Memorandum and Doug Sandstad's May 6, 1999 Memorandum. Specifically, Sections 1 and 2 of the Ordinance indicate courtesy benches on private property within three (3) feet of the public right-of-way will be regulated and subject to the permitting process. Section 3 requires written consent of the property owner for benches located on private property as part of the application process. Section 4 permits the location of benches on a public sidewalk, if the sidewalk is nine (9) feet or more in width. This specifically addresses the bench location at the corner of Bass Lake Road and Boone Avenue attached as an exhibit to Sandstad's May 6"' Memorandum. Also, Section 6 of the Ordinance requires a six (6) foot clearance from the front of the bench to the back of the curb for any bench located on a public sidewalk, nine (9) feet or more in width. Sections 5 and 7 of the Ordinance also make changes as requested in Sandstad's May 6th. Memorandum. I did not incorporate a change to Section 4.034(5)(a) as recommended in Sandstad's Memorandum. An amendment to this Section would require a public hearing, preventing this Ordinance from being considered at the June 2aa Planning Commission meeting. Also, after reviewing this Section, I am not sure the change, as recommended, is necessary. *Real Property Law Specialist Certified By The Minnesota Sla~ Bar Association 9Qualified ADR Neua'al May 27, 1999 Page 2 Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding the content of this letter or the attached Ordinance. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Enclosure cc: Valerie Leone, City Clerk Phil Kern, Community Development Intern Doug Sandstad ORDINANCE NO. 99-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE REGULATING COURTESY BUS BENCHES The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 6.161 "Purpose" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.161 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate the placing and maintenance of Courtesy Benches in public rights-of-way ~ · Benches located on private property '~ are exempt from the provisions of sections 6.14 through 6.150 of this Code but are subject to all other applicable sections of this Code. Section 2. Section 6.162 "Permit Required" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.162 Permit Required. It is unlawful for a person to place a Courtesy Bench in a public right- of-way without fkst obtaining a permit as provided in this section. Section 3. Section 6.163(7) of the New Hope City Code is hereby renumbered Section 6.163(8) and a new 6.163(7) is hereby added to read as follows: 6.163 (7) n~ 6.163 (-7-)I~ such other information the City Manager may require. Section 4. Subsection (b) of Section 6.164(3) "Location" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.164(3) Co) on a public ! or private sidewalk or tra~ , Section 5. Subsection (f) of Section 6.164(3) "Location." of the New Hope City Code is ~ hereby amended to read as follows: 6.164(3) (t3 within 20 feet of anyo,~, ....... ,is,,:-'- ............................. ,,, -,,j ,,w,~,~: or other locations as the City Manager may determine which impede safety by obstructing the vision of pedestrians or motorists; Section 6. Section 6.168(1) "Location" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.168 (1) Location. Courtesy Benches shall be installed parallel with the curb, sidewalk or trail, and set back at least 37 feet from the back of the curb. Further, there shall be a minimum clearance of six (~ feet from the back of the bench to any structure or landscaping along or near any sidewalk to provide for sidewalk snow plow clearance. Section 7. Section 3.464 "Public Convenience and Directional Signs" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.464 Public Convenience and Directional Signs. Small signs, not exceeding two (2) square feet in area, displayed on private property for the convenience of the public, including but not limited to, directional or identification signs for restrooms, freight entrances, garage and rummage sales and parking lot signage. Garage and rummage sale signs shall show, clearly imprinted, the name and address of the person erecting the sign, or responsible for the same. Garage and rummage sale signs shall not be erected more than five (5) days before or maintained more than one (1) day after the sale to which the sign relates. Open house signs shall not be erected more than one (1) day before or maintained more than one (1) day after the open house event. 2 Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the ~ day of ,1999. W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the __ day of ,1999.) ORDINANCE ,NO, 99-01 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER SIX OF TIlE NEW HOPE CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR COL'RTESY BENCHF. S ON PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section l. Section 6.14 "Courtesy Benches" through Section6.150 "Registration of Permits Obtained from Other Road Auth0riti~" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: 6.14 Courtesy Benches. 6.141 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate the placing and maintenance of Courtesy Benches in public rights-of=way. Benches located on private propert~ are exempt from the provisions of sections 6.14 through 6.150 of this Code but are subject to all other applicable sections of this Code. .. 6.142 Perrrlit Required. It is unlawful for a person to place a Courtesy Bench in a public right-of-way without first obtaining a permit as provided in this section. (1) This section shall apply to all existing Courtesy Benches as well as those inatalled after the adoption hereof, The permit once issued shall be annually renewed. (2) The permit period shall be May I to April 30 annually. (3) Permits for Benches will be granted only on existing and approved MTCO transit routes at designated MCTO bus stops within the City, on condition that the bench location is not prohibited by section 6.144(3) of this Code and the location satisfies the requirements of section 6.148 of this Code. 6.143 Permits and A_~_ lication. Application for permits shall be made m the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee. The application shall contain the following information: (1) scale drawing showing the size and location Of the Courtesy Bench relative to all other objects on the property includin$ the layout of applicable adjacent roadways, intersections, traffic signage, sidewalks, trails, utility poles, fences and other objects in the vicinity; -1- (2) name, address and phone number of applicant; (3) detailed plans and specifications of each proposed bench including the general nature of advertising matter, if any, to be posted thereon and total surface area intended as signage not to exceed 12 square feet using the front, or seating side surface only of the bench back. Advertising material may not exceed the length of the bench. (4) currem general liability Certificate of Insurance from an insurance company, rated "A" or better by A.M. Best Company and authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota, naming the city as additional insured in the minimum amount of $600,000 for any and all claims arising out of the use or existence of the Courtesy Bench, and approved by the City Manager. The certificate shall provide for automatic notification of the City with a minimum 30 days advance notice in the event of cancellation; (5) a graphic showing the public transportation bus service which serves the proposed Courtesy Bench and the specific bus stop location, if applicable; (6) an executed hold harmless agreement from the permit~ee, approved by the City Manager, protecting the City from any and all claims arising out of the use and existence of the Courtesy Bench; (7) such other information the City Manager may require. 6. I44 Conditions Governinglssuance of Permits. This subsection governs the issuance of a permit for a Courtesy Bench. (1) Perinit for Each Bench. A separate permit is required for each Courtesy Bench, but renewals may be granted for more than one location on the basis of a single application provided the City Manager is satisfied that all the information required by this section has been supplied for each proposed Courtesy Bench. (2) Transfer: N~w Permit. If a Courtesy Bench for which a permit has been issued is sold or title or control thereof is transferred or assigned, a new permit shall be required. (3) ~. No permit may be issued for the installation of Courtesy Benches, on approved transit routes in the following places: .2- (a) on a transit route upon which the City has constructed or intends to construct a public street beautification project commonly known as a "streetscape" project; (b) on a public or private sidewalk or trail, (c) in an alley; (d) at any location where the distance from the face of the curb to the edge of the right-of-way is less than eight feet and sidewalk or trail is located therein; (e) at any location more than 50 feet from the nearest point of ., intersection with a street unless the City Manager so authorizes; (f) within 20 feet of any street right of way corner or other locations as the City Manager may determine which impede safety by obstructing the vision of pedestrians or motorists; (g) other locations which the City Manager determines would potentially restrict pedestrian traffic, pose a snow and ice control problem, obstruct vehicular traffic or otherwise be detrimental to the public safety. (4) P..~gIiLF. I~. Fees for Courtesy Benches shall be as set out in Chapter 14 of this Code. 6.1415 Insurance Rea_uirerrle~lts. Permit holders shall deliver to and keep on file with the City Clerk a current general liability Certificate of Insurance meeting the requirements of Section 6.143(4) of this Code. The insurance shall be ~ in its original amount by the permit holder at his or her expense at all times during the period for which the permit is in effect. When two or more permits are issued to one person one insurance policy may be furnished to cover two or more Courtesy Benches, and the policy shah be of a type which coverage is automatically restored upon occurrence of any accident or loss from which liability may hereafter accrue. 6.146 Permits: A_ng_ royal and Issuance. If the City Manager is satisfied that all of the conditiom enumerated in this S~tion have ~ met and that the erection and maintenance of the Courtesy Bench at the proposed location will not restrict pedestrian traffic or otherwise be detrimental to public safety, he shall approve the application. -3- 6.147 Revocatiotl of Permit. The City Manager may revoke or deny renewal of · any permit for failure to comply with the provisions of this Code, The Zoning Code, for misrepresentation of material facts in the original application, for failure to maintain the Courtesy Bench, because the bench is considered a safety hazard, because the bench tocation is no tonger served by public transportation, because the transit route on which the bench is located has or will be included in a "streetscape project" or for any reason which would have been grounds for denial of the original application. 6.148 Installation and Maintenance. (1) Location. Courtesy Benches shall be installed parallel with ~e curb, sidewalk Or trail, and set back at least 3 feet from the back of the curb. Further, there shall be a minimum clearance of six feet from the back of the bench to any structure or landscaping along or near any sidewalk to provide for sidewalk snow plow clearance. (2) Size. Size limitations on Courtesy Benches are as follows: (a) height - 42 inches maximum; (b) width - 30 inches maximum; and (c) length - Seven feet maximum. (3) Construction. A Courtesy Bench shall be installed and maintained on a durable, level surface including, but not limited to, concrete, bomanite or decorative brick. The durable surface shall extend six inches on both ends and in back of the bench. Further, the durable surface in front of the bench must extend to the back of the curb. The Courtesy Bench shall be of sufficient weight or shall be secured in a maRner to rninirl~.e the potential of accidental tipping or vandalism. No Courtesy Bench shall be fastened, secured, or anchored to City property. (4) Materials. A Courtesy Bench shall be constructed of durable materials including but not limited to concrete, wood, steel, plastic, or combination thereof, with colors limited to whites, earthtones of subdued greens, grays, browns, reddish-browns, and golds. (5) t~tHiI~iZI~. Each Courtesy Bench shall display the permit number in a conspicuous place. (6) Conditions. It is the responsibility of the permittee to maintain each bench in a safe condition and to keep benches neat, clean and in usable condition.. The Permit'tee shall keep the Courtesy Bench and bench base free of ice and snow and accessible. (7) Advertising Matter, Advertising matter may be displayed only on the front (roadway side) surface of the back. rest of a Courtesy Bench and shall not exceed 12 square feet in surface area. Advertisements of obscene, immoral, indecent or illegal matter is prohibited on all Courtesy Benches. No advertising matter on any Courtesy Bench may display the words "Stop", "Look", "Drive In", "Danger", or any other word, phrase or symbol, reflective material or illumination device which might interfere with, mislead or distract traffic. Any political advertising displayed on a Courtesy Bench shall be subject to the time restrictions for such advertising or political signs as set out in Section 3.465 of this Code. 6. t49 R~rooval of Be~ches. (1) Notice. Upon the revocation or expiration of any permit without renewal, the permittee shall remove the Courtesy Bench promptly. The permittee shall also be required to remove the concrete slab and reseed the slab area at its cost if so directed by the City Manager. The City M~nager may remove the bench after ten days mailed rtotic~ to the permit~e~ and the cost of removal, including removal of the slab and resodding of the slab area, shall be paid by the permittee. If the permittee fails to pay the costs within 60 days after receiving notic~ from the City Manager, the bench shall become the property of the City, but the permittee shall remain liable for the cost of removal, restoration and storage of the bench. No permit or renewal shall be granted to the permittee until ail such costa are paid in full. (2) Summsrv Removnl. A Courtesy Beuch placed in the public right- of-way in the City, contrary to the provisions of this Section, may be summarily removed by the City Manager, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.27, Subdivision 6. 6.150 Re_~istr~,~ion of Permits Obtained from Other Road Authorities. When a Cour,~y l~nch is placed in the City within the limits of a street or roadway subject to the control of a road authority other than the City as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 160.02, the person placing the bench shall file proof of permission from the o~het road authority with the City .5. S~:tion 2. Section 14.06 "Public Street and Pro_l~rtv Fevn_~" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection 14.068 "Cour~v Bench F~" to read as follows: 14.068 Courtesy Bench Fee. The initial permit and renewal fees for Courtesy Benches required by Section 6.144(4) of this Code shall be as follows: (l) Initial permit fee: $50.00. (2) Annual renewal fee: $25.00. Section 3. Section 1.10 "Daf'tuitions" of the New Hope Code is hereby amended by adding.subsection 1.134A "Courts,w_ Be~lch" to read as follows: 134A Courtesy Benches is a bench meant for the convenience of the public waiting to board regularly scheduled mean~ of public transportation at a location deemed appropriate per the provision~ of Section 6.14 of this Code. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon passage and publication of this ordinance. Dated this I. Ich day of January . 1.999. Mayor ATTEST: l),/.Z. ~ Valerie L~o~~, ~ity Cleft (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun Post on the 3Fa day of February , 1999.) FROM: Doug Sandstad & Phil Kern DATE: May 6,1999 RE: Text Amendment - Courtesy Bus Bench & Sign Code We have reviewed the 73 applications and plans for Courtesy Bus Bench permits [CBBP] and discovered a ghtch: We cannot approve approximately 50% of the applications for.existing ber~ches, because they are on private property. As you recall, our brand new code allows CBBP on public rights-of- way, only. Not until measurements were made by the applicants did this become clear. If we were to proceed with enforcement of the untried ordinance, we would slash the pedestrian access to benches in the City of New Hope. Clearly, this was not the intent of staff, who initiated CBBP discussions. Nor, do we beheve it is the desire of the resident and business public. One solution involves a text amendment to the new code that would allow CBBP on pubhc right.of-way or nrivate land within 3 feet of the public right-of-way, wit.h the written cons..ent of the landowner. Attachment "A" illustrates the condition and three advantages to such a bench placement 1. Note that the most convenient public access to a bench is when it fronts on the sidewalk, rather than backing up to it. 2. This location has public safety advantages, since the bench user is further removed from vehicular traffic. 3. Note, also, that this example is too narrow to permit any bench on the public boulevard. [~/[inirnum 3 feet required from curb to bench.] A text amendment could be inserted into 6.141 Puroose "or on adjacent private_land within 3 feet of the right-of-way, with written consent of the landowner." The second sentence would need a qualifier insertion to say" "Benches without any sign"... A zoning cross-reference may be desirable, ff a private property CBBP will be a "Permitted Encroachment" in any yard {4.034 {5}al. Balance of code is in Chapter 6, "Streets & Public Areas". Continued... Another text amendmenti should change 6.144 (3} f to "within 20 feet of a street intersection" or other locations... This recognizes existing conditions that function quite well and distinguishes it from the zoning "Sight triangle". The sign code would have to be amended to clarify that a CBBP [with 12 square foot sign] is a Permitted Use in all zoning districts. We suggest adding a sentence to 3.465 public Convenience and Directional Signs [Permitted Signs exempt from sign permit requirements in all zoning districts]. "Courtesy bus benches with a valid New Hope permit are allowed one sign, not to exceed 12 feet, per City Code 6.14". We are copying A1 Brixius for comment. Cc; NAC, Al Brixius Steve Sondrall attachment "A" file " Courtes~ Bus Bench Proposal Courtesy Bench Option U. $. BENCH CORP. 3300 Shelling Ave. MINNEAPOLIS. MINN. 55406 Memorandum To.' Planning Commission Members From-' Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Date: May 27, 1999 Subject: Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on CouncilIEDAJHRA actions. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. May 10 Council/EDA Meetings - At the May 10 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Planning Case 99-06, Motion Approving Proposal by Northwest Associated Consultants to Update the New Hope Zoning Code in the Amount of $17,000: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Project #.612, Motion Approving the Three Bedroom Concept Design and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Single Family Accessible Home to.be Built at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Ordinance No. 99-02, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 of the New Hope Code Relating to the Adoption of the Minnesota State Building Code: Approved, see attached Council request and ordinance. D. Project #648A, Assessment Hearing for Improvement Project No. 648A West Area .(t999 Infrastructure Improvement Project): Approved, see attached Council request. E. Project #648A, Resolution Awarding Contract for the Construction of Improvement Project No. 648A West Area (t999 Infrastructure Improvement Project): Approved, see attached Council request. F. Project #659, Motion Directing City Engineer to Prepare Plans and Specifications for Repair/ Replacement of Fire Station Roof: Approved, see attached Council request. G. Project #659, Motion Approving Proposal from American Engineering Testing, Inc. in the Amount of $5,600 for Testing and Documentation Work on Firs Station Roof and Golf Course Maintenance Building: Approved, see attached Council request. H. Annual Review of Conditions of Approval to Allow Athletic Facility Expansion at Cooper High School and Consideration of Request to Hold Relay for' Life Event Approved, see attached Council request. i. Project #474, Resolution Authorizing. Appraisals and Commencement of Negotiations to Acquire 7500 42r~ Avenue: Approved, see attached EDA request. J. Discussion Regarding Request for Financial Assistance for Potential Rehabilitation Project at 8113 Bass Lake Road: Staff to continue discussions with owner regarding rehabilitation and/or acquisition/demolition, see attached EDA request. 2. May 24 Council/EDA Meetings - At the May 24 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Project #653, Resolution Approving Purchase of 5340 Winnetka Avenue: Approved, attached Council request. B. Proiect #660, Resolution Authorizing Preparation of a Purchase Agreement for the City Purchase of 8808 41't Avenue: Tabled, Council requested additional information on the soil correction process. C. Proiect #657, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Bidding for the 42"d Avenue Retaining Wa!l: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Multi-Family Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds Relating to the Park Acres Apartments Proiect: Tabled, see attached Council request. E. Proiect #.474, Discussion Regarding Ol~tion Agreement on Property at 7500 42"d Avenue: Pursue purchase of property without option agreement. 3. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee met in May to discuss courtesy benches, SuperAmedca, and the Zoning Code update. 4. Design & Review Committee - Design & Review met in May to review plans for the Kmart sign variance. 5. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee will be meeting on June 9 to review Crystal's Comprehensive Plan update, as well as review what has been happening with New Hope's plan. 6. Project Bulletin - Enclosed is a project bulletin regarding the1999 infrastructure improvement project. 7. Miscellaneous Issues: A. City staff continued to work on the following potential developments: 1) Navarre building expansion 2) CUP for daycare center at 3701 Winnetka 3) Valspar building expansion 4) SuperAmerica 5) Avtec building expansion 6) A.C. Carlson plat and rezoning or CUP Attachments: Northwest Consultant's Proposal for Zoning Code Update 5629 Wisconsin Avenue Concept Design/Plans & Specs Minnesota State Building Code 1999 Infrastructure Project Fire Station Roof Cooper High School - Relay for Life Event 7500 42r~ Avenue Appraisal 8113 Bass Lake Road Rehab Project 5340 Winnetka Avenue Purchase Agreement 8808 41 '~ Avenue Purchase Agreement 42"~ Avenue Retaining Wall Park Acres Apartments 7500 42"~ Avenue Option Agreement COUNCIL ~ BEQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~Lment Approved for Agenda Agenda Secuon Community Development Consent Item No. ByKirk McDonald 1~. 6.4 MOTION APPROVING PROPOSAL BY NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS TO UPDATE THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,000 (PLANNING CASE NO. 99-06) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests that the City Council approve a motion approving the attached proposal by Northwest Associated Consultants in the amount of $17,000 to update the New Hope Zoning Code. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The City has utilized Northwest Associated Consultants as a professional planning consultant for many years and has been proactive in keeping the city ordinances up to date. Northwest Consultants has coordinated with the City on numerous planning studies in the past and most recently coordinated with the City on the 1998 Sign Code update and Comprehensive Plan update. BACKGROUND Now that the Comprehensive Plan update has been completed, one of the next steps is to update the zoning regulations as a means of implementing the planning goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The update is also necessary because the existing regulations have not been comprehensively updated since the 1970s. Lastly, the update of the Zoning Ordinance portion of the City Code will be a starting point to comprehensively update all sections of the City Code over the next several years. The proposal by Northwest outlines specific areas that need attention, including: 1. Format - The cun'ent format is confusing and difficult to use and will be reformatted to organize and consolidate complementary or similar topice, consolidate all information pertaining to a specific zoning district in one section, and eliminate the roll-over land uses between zoning districts. 2. Strate,qies to promote reinvestment - Recognizing that New Hope is a fully developed city, the update will investigate opportunities to promote in-place expansion of buildings and site improvements, including setback standards, parking requirements, and density standards for targeted redevelopment areas. (cont'd.) , MOTION BY SECOND BY ~ // Request for Action Page 2 5.~g~ 3. Examine current land u. se issues - Some of these issues will include redevelopment densities/ performance standards, outdoor storage, accessory buildings, hours of operation, and administrative approvals. The work program would be similar to the Comprehensive Plan, where a working committee would be established including members of the Planning and Citizen Advisory Commissions and city staff, along with the City Attorney and Planning Consultant. A preliminary meeting would be held to discuss areas of concern, additional meetings would be conducted to review the first and second drafts, an informational meeting and public hearing would be held, and a final draft of the regulations would be prepared consistent with the conditions of approval by the City Council. The City Attorney would put the ordinance update in final form. F. UNDING Staff did not solicit competitive quotes for the Zoning Code update, because competitive quotes are not required for professional services and because of Northwest Consultants familiarity with the City's regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, which ultimately will reduce project costs. Also, the initial proposal submitted by Northwest was in the amount of $18,860, and after staff requested that they fine tune the proposal, the cost estimate was reduced to $17,000. There are funds budgeted in the 1999 Planning/inspections/EDA budgets for the Zoning Code update. Attachments: 4/22/99 NAC Zoning Code Update Proposal Odginal Cost Estimate Excerpts - Comprehensive Plan Administration iTANTS MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 22 April 1999 RE: New Hope Zoning Ordinance Update FILE NO: 802 Per your request, I am submitting the Zoning Ordinance update proposal with an adjusted budget. Please note that the adjustment represents a 10 percent reduction in project cost. The original work program and budget was designed specifically for New Hope zoning update. In review of the work program against the New Hope Zoning Ordinance, I believe that it is a true representation of the work and process necessary for updating the City's development regulation. The odginal budget amount of $18,860 represents a discounted price compared to similar work we have dona in other cities which ranges from $20,000 to $30,000. I felt comfortable with the discounted price due to my familiarity with the City through the Comprehensive Plan and our daily contacts. This familiarity will reduce project costs. The original project cost does not allow for any significant cost reduction,, however, ! have reduced the project contingency from $2,460 to $600, resulting in a total project cost of $17,000. Please call me if you have any questions. 5'775 WAYZATA BOULEVARO, SUITE ~$.~ ST. LOUIS PAtaK. MINNESOTA ~54 ! 6 PHONE 612-59.~-9~36 FAX 612-595-9~37 E-MAIL NAC(~WINTERNET COM N MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald / Dan Donahue FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 21 April 1999 RE: New Hope - Zoning Ordinance Update Proposal: Revised FILE NO: 802 BACKGROUND With the completion of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan, the City is now in the position to update its zoning regulations as a means of implementing its planning goals. This update is also necessary because the existing regulations have not been comprehensively updated since their adoption in the 1970's. The following proposal outlines zoning issues and a work program for updating the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. ISSUES Based on NAC's involvement in the City's Comprehensive Plan and our on-going involvement with New Hope's planning and zoning administration, we have identified the following areas of the Zoning Ordinance as requiring attention in the ordinance update: 1. Formal The current Zoning Ordinance format is confusing and difficult to use. We would propose to reformat the Zoning Ordinance to address the following items: a. Organize and consolidate complementary or similar topics or standards wrzhin the ordinance. ,'5775 WAYZATA BOUL. E:VARO, SUITE: S55 ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNE:SOTA 5541 PHONE: 5 I 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 E:-MAIL NA'(:(~.)WlNTE:RNET COM .- ~/ b. Consolidate information within the zoning districts including land uses, lot '., size, setbacks, building height to simplify access and understanding of each .,' district standards. i c. Eliminate the rollover land uses between zoning districts. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies strategies to promote reinvestment in the City's land use. Recognizing that New Hope is a fully developed City, the Zoning Ordinance update will investigate opportunities to promote in-place expansion of buildings and site improvements, including but not limited to: a. Setback standards b. Lot area and lot area per unit standards c. Parking standards d. Green space requirements e. Density standards for redevelopment target areas f. I-1 special performance standards 3. Through the zoning update, the City will examine current land use issues present in the City: a. Redevelopment densities and performance standards b. Outdoor storage c. Home occupations d. Accessory buildings e. Administrative approvals f. Business hours of operation The aforementioned list of issues is not all inclusive, rather it provides initial direction and understanding for the anticipated changes. Additional issues will be identified and responded to through the work program. WORK PROGRAM Proce~ The following process will be followed in updating the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Project Start Up and Organization 1. Meeting with City planning, legal, public works, building and housing inspection staff to identify issues, concems, conflicts or enforcement problems pertaining to the existing Zoning Ordinance. More than one meeting may be appropriate to 2 discuss the various ordinances. This discussion will provide NAC with insight on regulation issues that were not identified in the Comprehensive Plan planning process. 2. The project start up will also involve defining the review process for the new material. We would anticipate a Zoning Ordinance Update Committee will be established as the contact group that will conduct the preliminary review and editing of the updated Zoning Ordinance. (The Committee may consist of the Codes and Standards Subcommittee or the Comprehensive Plan Task force, or an entirely new Committee.) The City should determine how the project will be assigned. Through the start up meeting, we can define the project review process. 3. A Planning Commission workshop session would be scheduled to identify current zoning issues or ordinance concerns that will require attention in the Zoning Ordinance Update. First Draft Regulations NAC will undertake a comprehensive review of the City's entire Zoning Ordinance and evaluate the effectiveness of the existing regulations as they relate to the new Comprehensive Plan goals, land use issues and enforcement concerns identified by City staff. NAC will prepare a first draft of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. In developing the first draft of development regulations, NAC will work with Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, to insure that the proposed format is consistent with the City Codes and to insure the new regulations have a strong legal foundation. 1. First Draft Review. The first draft ordinance will be sent to City staff for review. Work sessions with staff will be conducted to edit the ordinance per the staff review comments. To expedite the review process, the first staff workshop will consist of overview of the entire first draft ordinance for format and content. This overview will identify areas of the draft ordinance that are complete and satisfactory as well as areas requiring additional work. Subsequent meetings will be conducted with staff to address topics and ordinance language that require greater attention. 2. Pre~entation to Zoning Ulxlate Committee and City Council. Once the ordinance is processed through staff review, it will be sent to the New Hope Zoning Ordinance Update Committee and City Council for review and comment. NAC will attend the commiffee meetings to solicit input from'these various groups. NAC will summarize the committee comments and present both the first draft regulations and a comment sumrrlaty to the City Council at · workshop. The Council workshop will provide direction for needed revisions or additions to the first draft ordinance. 3 Second Draft Regulations Based on the outcome of the Council workshop, NAC will prepare a second draft of the development regulations along with a summary of the proposed changes. 1. Second Draft Review and Presentation. The second draft of the Zoning regulations will again be reviewed and edited by the City Attorney and City staff. Prior to public hearing, the second draft will be presented and reviewed with the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee, Planning Commission and City Council, 2. Informational Meeting. The City may wish to include informational meetings for the public prior to a public hearing at this stage of the work program. 3. Public Healing. Following the second draft review, NAC will present the second draft development regulations to the Planning Commission at public hearing. Upon action by the Planning Commission, NAC will present the second draft to City Council along with any recommended changes resulting from the City staff review, Planning Commission review, or public testimony. Final Draft Rsgulations NAC will prepare a final draft of the development regulations consistent with the conditions of approval by City Council. Summary Ordinance NAC will prepare a final draft of the development regulations consistent with the conditions of approval by City Council. PROJECT SCHEDULE Based on the work program outline the total update of the New Hope Zoning Regulations is anticipated to take nine months. Assuming a start up date of 1 April 1999, the project completion would occur in December 1999. 4 PROJECT PERSONNEL Alan Bdxius, a Principal of NAC, will t:)e the primary staff person assigned to updating the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Brixius has been involved in New Hope's planning since 1983 and most recently was involved in drafting the 1998 New Hope Comprehensive plan. This provides him with a unique historical perspective for the project. Mr. Brixius will be responsible for tine majority of ordinance production work and the public meetings. Daniel Licht and Troy Hagen, Planners with NAC, will be the primary support staff people assigned to assist Mr. Brixius in research and preparation of the New Hope Zoning Regulations. PROJECT BUDGET Based on the work program, the following budget was prepared for Ul~..ating the New Hope Zoning Regulations: Project Start Up and Organization $1,200 Consultant Draft of the Zoning Text $8,500 First Draft Review/Editing/Summary $3,700 Second Draft Review/Editing/Final Draft $2,500 Ordinance Summary $ 500 $16,400 Contingency $ 600 TOTAJ. $17,000 The budget does not include ordinance reproduction costs. NAC will provide reproducible copies of the first and second draft ordinance for staff review. Additional copies for distribution shall be the responsibility of the City. NAC will provide the City with one reproducible paper copy of the final Zoning Ordinance and a copy on diskette in word processing software compatible with the City and City Attorney. 5 ADMINISTRATION Administratio~n Administration and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and related supportive orclinances are equally as important as the development of the plan itself. In' essence, unless the plan and related development tools are constantly referred to and utilizecl ~n comDination, as well as long range community clecision-making, the efforts spent in the,r clevelopment Become futile and wasted. BUDGETING AND FINANCE The Comprehensive Plan recognizes New Hol:~ as a fully develol:~:l, mature community. The plan recommendations emphasize the need for continuing land use maintenance, redevelopment and provision of quality public services. Under this circumstances, concerns have been expressed with regard to expanding future public expenditures. In response to this issue, the City will continue to implement the following strategies: 1. Continue the City's proactive public facilities maintenance programs to avoid significant disrepair or breakdown. 2. Maintain a five year C~ Improvement Plan that identifies needed public capital improvements, assigns costs and schedules implementation based on project priority and funding availability. 3. Continue the City's long standing practice of ~ benefitted property owners for public infrastructure improvements. 4. Pursue intergovernmental cooperation for sharing public services and facilities, to avoid duplication arid economize on City investments. 5. Promote the mainteriance, rnodemization and ex&ansion of local land uses to preserve the expand the City's tax base and revenues. 6. Pursue available state and federal grants and aids as appropriate to facilitate community improvements and programs. COMMUNITY SERVICE~ Through good communication with the public and responsiveness to residents' needs, the City administration has been cited a~ a community strength. High quality resident service will continue to be the standard for City operations in the futura. .... , Administretion ORDINANCES As a means of implementing the stated land use goals for New Hope, the City will investigate tl~e following potential changes to City ordinances: 1. Zoning Ordinance. a. Within the residential zoning districts, the City will investigate alternative per~~ starx:Lards for accommodating in-place expansion or alteration of existing housing units in an effort to promote private reinvestment. Items to be considered for change may include standards for lot size, setbacks, building height and accesso~, buildings. b. Within commercial and industrial zoning--districts, the City has already undertaken zoning changes to promote in-place expansion. The City will continue to pursue efforts that promote expansion, reuse or modernization of the City commercial and industrial ares. Rems to be considered for change may include standards for lot size, setbacks, green space and parking standards. 2. Housing ~ Code. The New Hope Housing Maintenance Cod· has been an invaluable instrument for the City in addressing housing conditions of single family and apartment Ilouling units. However, medium density housing types such as twiniqomes and t~ which have switched from owner occupancy to rental occu~ often escape the in~oectJon requi~ by ~ Housing Maintenance Code. As cited in the Land Use Plan, the medium density residential areas are most commonly in need of maintenance ~ repair. The City will pumue ordinance ct"~ngea that will rm3'e effectively bring lhe medium density housing under the New Hope Housing Maintenance Code. 3. Sign ~.' The City is presently updating its Sign Code as a means to a~.~isting Iocel buein##~. In the Sign Code update, the following objectives are ing a. The Sign Code update is intended to become more Ixminess friendly and competitive with the aignage offered in adjoining cities. b. The Sign Code format and language is attempting to become easier to use \%/ Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Secuon Community Development ~ C:nns~rlt ", !' Item No. ~ .Susan Henry ..._ t' / 5-10-99 =n/Community Development Specialist =~Y; · / ,,. ..6.5 MOTION APPROVING THE THREE BEDROOM CONCEPT DESIGN AND TO AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY ACCESSIBLE HOME TO BE BUILT AT 5629 VVISCONSIN AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 612) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting Council approval of the three bedroom concept design and to have Equal Access Homes finish the plans and specifications for the single family accessible home to be built at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North. BACKGROUND At the .March 8, 1999, City Council meeting, the Council authorized staff to enter into an agreement with Equal Access Homes for design concept services in the amount of $1,100 for a single family handicapped accessible home to be built at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North. The $1,100 amount includes three design concepts and finished plans and specifications for the chosen design. For the past several weeks, city staff has been working with Equal Access Homes to design a single family home that is fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. Equal Access Homes has developed three designs for the City's consideration. The three options for consideration include: (A) slab on grade accessible two bedroom; (B) slab on grade accessible three bedroom; and (C) full basement accessible three bedroom. Attached find the three designs, floor plans, and associated costs. After reviewing the plans, staff believes Option B, the three bedroom slab on grade, is the best option. The three bedroom design will allow for more storage, since this is a slab on grade and will be without a basement. The design allows a for little wider garage. In addition, the home should be more marketable as a three bedroom. Attached is a footprint of Option B on the lot, in comparison with neighboring properties. A proposed project budget for the three bedroom design is also attached. (cont'd.) MOTION BY , TO: Request for Action Page 2 5-1 Once plans and specifications are complete, staff will return to the Council for approval and then wilt ' proceed with the bidding process. FUNDING CBDG funds will be utilized to pay for design services. The proceeds from the sale of the home will be used to fund new construction. In addition, the City has $36,000 in HOME funds available from the five- city CHDO for a second mortgage and grant (gap financing) assistance. ATTACHMENTS Map Design Options/Plans A,B,C Option B Project Budget Option B Footprint on Lot I ST. THERESA NURSIN~ N ~' ~ ,' WINNETKA 55~,~ JR HIGH SCHOOL _~ [LEM~TARy ~ ~;~o SCHOOl. COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development Consent 5-1 O-99 Item No. By: Kirk McDonald By:. 6.9 ORDINANCE NO. 99-02, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE NEW HOPE CODE RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 of the New Hope Code Relating to the Adoption of the Minnesota State Building Code. The ordinance amendment was prepared by the City Attorney in conjunction with the Building Official and is a routine procedure for all municipalities in Minnesota who enforce the State Building Code. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE Per the City Attorney, the City is required by state statute to adopt and enforce the Minnesota State Building Code. This code was last updated in 1987. BACKGROUND In March the Building Official provided the City Attorney with a draft ordinance format provided by the State Building Code Division with standard code amendment adoption language. Both the mandatory and optional chapters of the State Building Code have changed in recent years. The Building Official also recommended that the City adopt a modest building permit fee increase, as recommended by the State, based on the new 1997 Uniform Building Code. Permit fees have not been increased since 1994, and typical cost increases would be as follows: Total Valuation Old Fee New Fee $1 to $500 $22.00 $23.50 $501 to $2,000 $22.00 + $2.75/hundred over $500 $23.50 + $3.05/hundred $2,001 to $25,000 $63.00 + $12.50151,000 over $2000 $69.25 + $14.00/$1,000 $25,001 to $50,000 $352.00 + $9;00151,000 over $25,000 $391.25 + $10.10/$1,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $580.00 + $6.25/$1,000 over $50,000 $643.75 + $7.0015t ,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $695.00 + $5.00/$1,000 over $100,000 $993.75 + $5.60151,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $2,855.00 + $4.25/$1,000 over $500,000 $3,233.75 + $4.75/$1,000 $1,000,000 and up $4,855.00 + $2.75151,000 over $1,000,000 $5,608.75 + $3.65151,000 (cont'd.) 7'-- ' ,.=co,= ,, I RFA.O01 Request for Action Page 2 5-1 The City Attorney utilized the information provided to him and prepared this ordinance for consideration. Per the attached correspondence, the ordinance incorporates, by reference, the 1998 Minnesota State Building Code and the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code as the City's building code. It further incorporates the various mandatory and optional chapters of the Minnesota State Building Code for application and enforcement in the City. The ordinance designates the Building Official as the individual in charge of building code administration as required by statute, and it designates the Community Development Department as the city department charged with building code enforcement. Lastly, it makes a number of changes to Chapter 14 relating to building permit, inspection, and plan check fees. These fees are set out in the Uniform Building Code as recommended for the various items and functions. It is the opinion of the City Attomey and Building Official that the fees recommended by the UBC, which is part of the State Building Code, are appropriate. The ordinance would be effective upon publication. ATTACHMENTS · Ordinance No. 99-02 · 5/3 City Attorney Correspondence SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. A orn s At Law BR~ P~ MINNESOTA S~43-1999 TELEPHONE (612) 42~811 · TELEF~ (612) 493-5193 Go~ L. l~s~' ~-~IL jss~jsspa.com W[L~AM G. SWAN~N STEVEN A. SOND~LL MARTIN P. C. ALDEN ~AR~Nt May 3, 1999 DEAN A. TRONGARDt ~rk McDo~ld Co~u~ ~velop~nt Dir~mr OF COVSS~L Lo=~s Q. ~v~mno CiF of New H~ ~1 Xylon Avenue No~ New Ho~, MN 5~28 Re: 1~ Bufl~ C~ ~endmen~ ~ F~ No.: ~.4~ De~r Kirk: Please find enclosed for consideration at the May 10, 1999 Council meeting a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 3 of the New Hope Code relating to the adoption of the Minnesota State Building Code. Basically, this ordinance incorporates by reference the 1998 Minnesota State' Building Code and the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code as the City's building code. It further incorporates the various mandatory and optional chapters of the MSBC for application and enforcement in the City. The ordinance designates the building official as the individual in charge of building code administration as required by statute. It designates the Community Development Department as the depa~h,ent in the city charged with building code enforcement as well. Finally, it makes a number of changes to Chapter 14 relating to building permit, inspection and plan check fees. These fees are set out in the Uniform Building Code as recommended fees for the various items and functions. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this ordinance. Very truly yours, $~v~n~A.Sondrall IENSEN SWANSON & $ONDRALL. P.A. Enclosure cc: Doug Sandstad ~ ,-. s~i~= Valerie Leone By The Stale ORDINANCE NO. 994)2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE NEW HOPE CODE RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Sections 3.211 "Historical Summary", 3.213 "A0_oendices Excepted", 3.221 "Codes Adopted by Reference" and 3.222 "Ootional Provisions of MSBC Made Ma _~_atorv in Cit~ Buildin_~ Code" of the New Hope City Code are hereby repealed in their entirety and Section 3.212 "Adopted Code and Rules on File" is hereby renumbered Section 3.223 and amended to read as follows: 3.223 Adooted Code and Rules on File. One copy of the l~°:J 1997 UBC and one copy.of the Minnesota State Building Code, effective as of ,ec.~,-,:.~-y I?, :~°7 October 5~ 1998, each marked as the Official Copy are f'fled for use and examination by the public in the office of the City Clerk as provided by Minnesota Statutes §471.62. Section 2. Section 3.21 "State Buiidin~ Code Adopted" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.21 State Building Code Adopted. The Minnesota State Building Code identified as MSBC and established pursuant to ~ §16B.59 through 16B.-7-,37_$. and published in Minnesota Rules Chaoters 1300 through 1370 a~ntJ_ inco_r~ratino_ the Minne_sota Plumbin~ Code and the Minnesota Ermrzv Code, Chapters 4715 a ~ncl~ 7670 respectively of Minnesota Rul¢~ is hereby adopted by reference and shall be administered ~ enforce~t as the Building Code of the City. The MSBC is hereby incorporated in this Code ~ as if set out in full ~ including the followino specifications in _~_~3.211 throu_~h 3.~24 of thi~ code. 3.211 Mandatory Enforcement Provisions. The following chapters of Minnesota Rules shah be enforced and adminjgtered without chanqe bv the City as man4_a_tory_ 0rovisions of the Minrm$ota S~te Buil_din~ Code: 1. Chapter 1300 - Minrm~$ota S_m__~ Build_in? Cc4" 2. Cha_oter 1301 - Building Official Cerfifi_c-atign 3_. Chat~ter 1302 - State Building Construction Atmrova!s 4. Chapter 1305 ,'-.',,,, zeld]~) Adoption of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (hereafter UBC)..The adoption .of this chapter specifically includes UBC Appendix Charters: (i) 3,Division I "Detention and Correctional Facilities"; (ii) 12, Division II "Sound Tram, mission Control";, (iii) 15. "Reroofmg": (iv) 16. "Division I, Snowload Design" ~ 29 "Minimum Plumbing. Fixtures"; and (vi/ 31. Division II. Membrane Structures 5. Chapter 1307 - Elevators and Related lDevices 6_. Charter 1315 - 1996 National Electrical Code (NEC) 7_. Chapter 1325 - Solar Ener_zv Systems 8_.. Cha~ter 1330 - Fallout Shelters 9. Chapter 1335 - Floodvroofm~,: Retaliations 10. Chavter 1340 - Facilities for the Handicap_oed 11._~. Chapter 1346 - 1991 Ulaiform Mechanical Code (U1VIC) 12. Charter 13:[~0 - Manufactured Homes 13. Chapter 13(g) - Prefabricated Buildings 14. Charter 1361 - Industrialized/Modular Buildings 15. Chanter 1370 - Stgl'rn Shelters (Manufactured Home Parks) 16. Chanter 4715 - Minnesota PlumbinR Code 17. Charter 7670 - Minnesota Ener~ Code 2 3.212 O~_ tional Enforcement Provisiom Adovted. 1_., The following chapters of Minnesota Rules, representing optional provisio0s of the Minnesota State Building Coc}e as provided in Chapter 1300.2900, are hereby adopted, by the City without change and shall be. elfforced and administered by the City as a part of the State Building Code for the City_: a. Chapter, 1335, - Floodproofing; Sections 1335.0600 through 1335.1200 2~. The following Appendix Chapters of. the 199'/ Uniform Building Code, representing optional vrovision$ of the Minnesota State Building Code as provided in Chapter t305.0020 of Minnesota Rules, are hereby adopted by thc City and shall, be enforced and administered by the City without change: aB UBC Appendix Chapter 33 - Excavation and Grading .Section 3. Section 3.22 "Additional Provisions" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding new subsectiom 3.221, 3.222 and 3.224 to read as follows: 3..21 A~lditional Provisions. 3.221 Application. Administration. and Enforcement. The application, administration, and enforcement of the Minnesota State Buildin~ Code in the City shall be in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 16B and Minnesota Rules Chapters 1300 and 1305. The City Council. uursuant to Minnesota Statutes 16B.65, shall auvoint a Building Official who shall attend to all aspects of Buildin~ Code adgtinistratiou. The City's C0mmumty Development Department shall be authorized enforc, emerlt aReng¥ of the City. 3.222 ~. The applicant for a permit re_attired by this chapter shall also pay a ~trcharge as prescribed bv Minnesota Statutes 16B.70, and Chapter 14.of this Code. 3.224 ~. AH cod{,secti,qm in, COV. tlict or incomistent with the provisiom of New Ho_r~ Code ~_~3.20 through 3.223 and New Hope Code .~3.111 are hereby repealed~ Section 4. Section 3.111 "Buildin~t. Plumbin~t. HVAC and Grading Permit~" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.111 Building, Plumbing. HVAC and Grading Permits. Building, plumbing, heating, ventilating and air conditioning, and grading permits shall be issued, impections conducted, and fees collected as prescribed by rT_;,~.-- ~,..:,.--- t~.~ Minn. Stat. §16B.62, Chapter 1 of the 1997 UBC, and Minnesota Rules 1305.0106 and 1305.017 as adopted pursuant to Section 3.12 of this Code. In addition, issuance of plumbing permits are conditioned upon the following: Section 5. Section 14.021(1) "Buildimt Permit Fee Amount" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 14.021(1) Buildin~t Permit Fee Amount. Based upon value of improvement for which permit is requested: Total Valuation Fee Amount (a) $1.00 to $500.00 $22.~'~ $23.50 (b) $501.00 to $2,000.00 $22.t~ $23.50 for the f'trst $500.00 plus · ,, -,c $3.05 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2;000.00 (c) 2,001.00 to $25,000.00 ~ $69.25 for the f'trst $2,000.00 plus ),., ~t~ $14.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 (d) $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $'_.52.-.t~-. $391.25 for the f'trst $25,000.00 plus,~)a.~'~.... $10.10 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 (e) $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $5~.~ $643.75 for the fa'st $50,000.00 plus $6&4 $7.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 4 (f) $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 ,?,°95.ff3 $993.75 for. the first $100,000.00 plus $5.ff3 $5.60 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00 (g) $500,001.00to$1,000,000.00 ~ $3.233.75 for the first $500,000.00 plus ~-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.~5 $4.75 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00 (h) $1,000,000.00 and up ~ $5.608.75 for the fh'st $100000000 plu e.~-,~ $365 fo , , . S ,~ ..... r each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof. Section .,6. Section 14.021(2) "Plan Check alxl !ml;~ctior~ Fee Amou, nt~ of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 14.021(2) Plan Check and Insl;~ctior~ Fee Amount. (a) Plan checks: 65 % of the building permit fee. Co) Inspections out~ide of normal business hours (minimum charge - two hours) ~ $47. O0 per hour. (c) Reimpecfion fee assessed under provisions of Section 305(g) of the UBC. ~ $47.00 per hour. (d) ~om for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge - one-half hour) ~ $47.0Q per hour. (e) Additional plan review required by changes, additions, or revisions to approved plans (minimum charge - one-half hour) ~ $47.00 per hour. LO For use of outside consulters for plan checkine and im_t~ctions, or both - agtual cost. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. / Dated the 10' day of May, 1999. W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the ~ day of , 1999.) COUNCIL Originating Depa~huent Approved for A~enda Agenda Section Public Works (~) 05/10/99 Public Hearing Item No. t~: Guy Johnson By:. 7. / RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ~OR gMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 648A- ~ST AR~A (~ 999 infrastructure improvement Project) R~:QU~:STGD ACTgON Staff is recommending that Council pass a resolution to adopt the proposed assessments for Improvement Project No. 648A-West Area. POLICY/PAST PRACTICI~ Assessments are proposed to be levied against benefited properties in accordance with New Hope's Assessment Policy and the increased market value of the land as a result of the improvement. BACKGROUND Informational meetings involving staff members and affected residents occurred on December 2, 1998. On December 14, 1998, the City Council authorized the City Engineer to prepare a feasibility report for the proposed improvement project. On January 25, 1999, the City Engineer presented a feasibility report to the City Council regarding the proposed 1999 Infrastructure Improvement Project. The feasibility report describes the proposed reconstruction of water mains, storm sewers, curb and gutter work, driveway approaches, and streets. Council approved Plans and Specifications on February 22, reviewed bids on April 12, and scheduled a public hearing for May 10, 1999. The City Clerk has notified property owners in the project area of the proposed assessments. The proposed project includes the following, with improvements to Gettysburg Circle as an alternate proposal: * Construction of water mains on 59=, 60~', Hillsboro, and Gettysburg Avenues. · Construction of storm sewers, drain tile, and backyard drainage piping throughout the project. · Replacing all surmountable curb with B-618 concrete curb, and construction of concrete driveway approaches. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: I: RFA~Pubworks~48Rescgu'donAdol~~ Adoption of Assessments Improvement .Project No. 648 May 10, 1999 Page 2 · Reconstruction of all streets in the project area. · Reconstruction of the intersection at Gettysburg Avenue and 59"~ Avenue to address traffic flow issues. · Off street parking and trail improvements in Liberty Park. If Council proceeds with the proposed project, construction will begin on May 24, 1999. FUNDING The lowest responsible bid was $943,556.90 by Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. The Iow bid is nearly identical to the engineer's estimate. In accordance with New Hope's assessment Policy, the breakdown of revenue sources to offset the project costs are: · Proposed Assessment Amounts $ 325,393.00 · City Property Assessment Amounts · . 65,327.00 · Minimum City Project Costs 788,726.00 Total Minimum Project Costs (with Gettysburg Circle) $1,179,446.00 Proposed revenue sources for the City's Project Costs are City Bonding, Storm Water Utility Fund, and Water/Sewer Utility Fund. ATTACHMENTS A map of the area is attached. Also attached is a memorandum showing the proposed amount for each of the revenue sources. In addition, it compares the estimated cost in the preliminary report to both the engineer's estimate and the lowest responsible bid. Different options for Gettysburg Circle construction and a second assessment option .is also presented in the memorandum. A resolution adopting the assessment for proposed Improvement Project No. 648 is attached. I: RFA~PuI:~mlI~48ReaOl ' ' t~ L~B£RTY i - LEGEND ARE.~ 80UNO,ad~nf o AREA INCLUDED ]~ Bonemtroo Ro~ene ' ~ Anderlik & STREET IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 6 l~]lAm$°ciates FEASIBILTY REPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS K:\ 54\.]4815\5¢815FOT.DWG NOVEMBER 1998 COMM..3498815 REQUEST FOR ACTION ~~g DepoSit ~p~d for ~e~a ~da ~c~on Public Works .~ 05/10/99 Development & Planning ~~~ [t~ No. Guy Johnson ~ 8. t RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ~8A-~ST AR~ (1999 Infrastm~ure Improvement Proje~) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests approval of a resolution awarding the base bid, plus the alternate, to the Iow and responsible bidder, Thomas and Sons Constru~ion Company, in the amount of $~3,556.90. BACKGROUND The 1999 Street Infrastm~um Proje~ includes: · Reconstm~ion of 60~ Avenue ~n Hills~ro and the east side of Libe~ Pa~ · Reconstruction of Hillsboro Avenue ~een 60~ and 59~ Avenues, including Hillsboro Circle. · 59~ Avenue be~een Inde~nden~ and Ge~sburg Avenues. · Ge~sburg Avenue ~een 60~Avenue and Bass Lake Road. · Off-street pa~ing and trail improvements in Li~ Pa~. · Reconstm~ion of the inteme~ion at Ge~sburg and 59~ Avenues to address traffic flow issues. · Constm~ion of new water main and sto~ sewer pi~. · Geffysburg Circle is includ~ in as an alternate. The proposed proje~ sch~ule is: · Assessment Public Hearing May 10, 1999 · Award Co~ra~ (at Council m~ting) May 10, 1999 · Begin Constmaion May 24, 1999 M~ON ~ $~O~ ~ ~: , Request for Action ~ Awarding Contract for Project No. 648 --~ May 10, 1999 Page 2 FUNDING Thomas and Sons' bid for construction of the project was $943,556.90. if the Gettysburg Circle Alternate is not included, the total proposed project cost would be reduced by an estimated $102,441.15. In accordance with New Hope's Assessment Policy, the breakdown of revenue sources to offset the project costs are: · Assessment Amounts $ 325,393 · City Property Assessment Amounts 65,327 · Minimum City Project Costs 788,726 Total Minimum Project Costa $ '!,'179,446 Proposed revenue sources for the City's Project Costs are City Bonding, Storm Water Utility Fund, and Water/Sewer Utility Fund. ATTACHMENTS A memorandum is attached that reviews some of the options for the project. The memorandum also reviews the status of the easements necessary for the storm sewer work. The attached resolution awards the contract for the construction of Improvement No. 648A** ~ I I I I CO~C~ RF UEST FOR ACTION ~,. ~ma~ DepoSit ~p~ for ~e~a ueve~pment- ~da ~cuon Community Development & Planning Kirk McDonald 5~9 Pa~s & Recreation Item No. ~had French ~ 8.2 MOTION DIRECTING CI~ ENGINEER TO PREPARE P~NS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR REPAI~ REP~CEMENT OF FIRE STATION ROOF (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 659) ACTION REQUESTE~ Staff is requesting that t~ C~ ~u~l a~ve a motion di~ ~ ~ Engi~r to prepare plans a~ s~~Ons ~r the m~iflm~a~meN of ~ mf m M ~ ~n lo,ted at 4251 Xylon Avenue No~h. BACKGROUND ~n ~ N~ Ho~ Fire St~on w~ ~n~ in 1~1, ~ ~am insul~on was ins~l~ on top of the metal ~. ~ m~m ~ ~ r~f s~em, ~e ~enolic foam in~l~n ~s ma~ ~ ~ metal ~ and has ~uE~ in ~ ~mosion ~ ~e meal ~ng. ~e ~osion was visible ~ t~t ~s of ~e r~f ~o~ in ~ MIl ~ 1~8. The test c~s were ~do~ed by Roofing Consultants of ~rginia, a fi~ hired by Johns Manville Co~., the phenolic foam insulation manufa~urer. M.~ lam six of mst s~ts visib~ on t~ ~ ~ the metal ~i~. A ~ ~, consisting of the City Manager, Building ~cial, City Engineer, CiW AEomey, Fire Chief, Finan~ Dim~or, Pa~s & Rec Dire~or and Community Development Dim~or has ~n foxed to address this issue. ~e C~'s ~nsu~ e~i~d~ fi~, ~ne~ a~ ~m~, ~o ~s n~ i~o~ in the odginal ~nst~, ~ ~ e~ a~~ mpam a~ r~f mpla~m~ to ~ve ~ s~n in ~r~ion ~ ~ Bu~ ~al. ~ ~limin~ ~usion, per the a~ached memo from the City Engineer, m ~m ~ r~f ~ ~ ~ ~iMi~ ~11 ~ m~me~. ~e pmlimina~~~ ~st to replace the 16,0000 ~uare foot roof is approximat~ $2~,~ and does not include engineering, testing, legal or administrative costs. The C~ AEo~y ~ i~~ ~ ~ da~ a~ion su~s, which am now consolidated and filed in U.S. District Cou~ in Boston, Mast., ~ ~n brought ~ainst Johns Manvil~ Co~. in ~n~on ~ ~e phenolic foam ~. ~ese suits pu~o~ to represent all building owners in the United States with phenolic foam insulation ins~lled on roof decks, and seek damages, including an order r~uidng the removal and mpla~ment of the phenolic foam insulation and remediation of any deck co~osion. ~e C~ is inves~gaU~ ~er to join ~e class a~ion su~ or ~k a~ o~ain ~s ~ I~al mm~y for the mpla~nt or m~ir of ~ ~. ~ON ~ S~O~ ~ ~: , Request for Action Page 2 5-10-9~'~ FUNDING through the insurance i,e~erve fund. I.~bnatelyl- ~ i3~M~ t0 repair or r~'plac~ file roof would be reimbursed to the Cry t~ o~ ~. ~h~ ~tamtr~or 2. The bonding ~.ompany for the general contractor (there is a $1,629,300 performance bond on this project), and/or 3. Them~acturer Oflhe product (who has already agreed to pay for a portion of the repairs) ATTACHMENTS · 4/26 Memo from Jerry Pertzsch · 4/27 Press Release repair Solution.doc Page ' Re: Repair Options To: Kirk McDonald, Shari French, City of New Hope File No: 34-99-106 From: JerryPertzsch Date: April26,1999 Project Name: New Hope Fire Station Roof Repairs Remarks: Project Background When the Fire Station was constructed in 1990 to 1991, phenolic insulation was installed on top of the metal decking. With moisture in the roof system, the phenolic insulation has reacted with the metal deck and has resulted in corrosion of the metal decking. The corrosion was visible in test cuts of the roof performed on September 30, 1998 and October 1, 1998. The test cuts were performed by Roofing Consultants of Virginia, a firm hired by John Mansville, the phenolic insulation manufacturer. Doug Sandstad observed some of the test cuts. In the last six months or so, it appears that corrosion of the deck has accelerated as evidenced by an increasing number of rust spots visible on the bottom of the metal decking. The plans for the building call for 3 inches of dgid insulation on the fiat roof areas and also the slope roof areas, i.e. areas covered with standing seam metal roof. Therefore, at this time, it is assumed that the phenolic insulation is installed in all areas of the roof. i Bonestmo, Rosane, Anderlik and Associates, inc. C3 SL Paul Offlca: O MIIwluk# Office: O Rocheit/r Office: Q WIIImlr Ofltce: · O St. Cloud 2335 West Highway 36 1516 West Mequon Roacl 2222 Hwlt S2 North 205 ~4h Street SW 204~ 8~1 St. North S1. P~tJlt MN 55113 Mequc~, Wt S3092 R~x:h#ter, MN 55901 Wilmar, MN 5&201 St. CIQuCI, MN Se3O3 Phone: S51.636-4600 Phone: 414-241.4,4~4 PhQne: S07.252.2100 Phone: 320-214..9557 Phone: 320-251-4553 Fax: 551-636-1311 Fax: 414-241-4901 Fax: 507-282-3100 F=v: 32G.214-G458 Fax: 32Q-251.4252 Kirk Mcdonald- Repair $o!ution.doc Repair Solution Doug Sandstad and I have discussed possible repair options. After evaluating the options, there is only one repair solution that will restore the integrity of the building and address the long term concerns. The proposed solution will address the load carrying capacity of the roof and replace the phenolic insulation with an insulation that will not cause corrosion of the metal decking. With the corrosion of the existing metal decking, there is also a concern that some corrosion may have started on the top of the members supporting the metal decking. While this is not anticipated to be severe, it should be addressed to minimize the potential for future corrosion and staining. 2 Bonestmo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associate..4, Inc. St. Plul OfflGl: ~ MMyiukee Off. e: O Rochester O~te: 0 ~lllrnir Office: O St. Cloud 0~¢I: 2335 Welt Highwey 3~ 15t6 We~t Mequ~n RM~I 2222 I-Iwy 52 NM~ 206 St~ ~ SW 200~ ~t~ St. North St. Paul, MN 55113 Mlq~n, W~ 53092 Rm, MN ~901 WlllmM, MN ~201 St. Clou~, MN 5~303 Phone: ~51-~36-4~00 Phane: 4t4-241-446~ Phone: ~07-2~2-2100 Phone: 320-214-9557 Phone: 320-251-4553 Fax: 651-636.1311 Fa;~: 414-241-4801 Fax: 507-282-3100 Fax: 320-214-~158 Fax: 320-25%~252 The solution involves the following steps: · Remove existing roof membrane, insulation and metal deck · Clean existing weld attachments off the top of the metal deck supports, i.e. steel joists, beams, etc. · Clean any corrosion off the top of the steel members supporting the metal deck · Paint the top of the steel members supporting the metal deck · Install a new metal deck · Install new insulation and roof membrane The roof on the entire building will need replacement. In order to maintain the structural integrity of the building during roof replacement, limits will be placed on how big of an area that the contractor can have removed at any one time. This sequencing will need to be coordinated with the City to minimize the impact on the fire station operations. Advantages The proposed solution will address the following concerns: · Entire metal deck that was in contact with the phenolic insulation will be replaced · Corrosion on top of steel support members will be identified and addressed · New insulation and roof membrane will be installed Oisadvantage~ The only disadvantage to this repair solution is that some of the off'~.,e staff will need to be relocated for a short period of time, less than a week, during the repairs. The relocation is only necessary from the time that the removal of the metal decking begins until the new metal decking is attached to the steel supports. 3 Bonesimo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. 2335 We~t HIgt~y 3~ 1518 Wilt I~Joll ~ 2222 ~ 52 Norllt 2~ 81lI ~ ~ 200~ ~th St. Ne~'tfl Phone: 85t-636.4600 Phone: 414.241.44~ Ph~te: 507-252-2100 I~le: 320-214..~5='7 Phc:me: 320-251-4553 Fix: 651.636.1311 F~-: 414-241-4~01 Fix: ~07-2~2-3100 Fl=: 320-214-~15~ Fix: 320251-8282 Estimated Costs The estimated costs are based on a roof area of approximately 16,000 square feet. The costs are for the construction cost only and do not including engineering, testing, legal and other administrative costs. Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Roof Membrane and insulation tear off/replacement 16,000 SF $7.00 $112,000 Tear off existing metal deck 16,000 SF 1.50 24,000 Touch-up paint on steel joists 16,000 SF 1.00 16,000 Install new metal decking 16,000 SF 1.00 16,000 Move offices Lump Sum 5,000 5,000 Replace suspended ceiling 6,000 SF 2.50 15,000 Paint exposed deck (interior) 10,000 SF 0.75 7,500 Subtotal $195,500 Overhead and profit (10 %) 19,500 Contingency (15%) 32,500 Total Estimated Conetruction Cost $247,500 Additional Inveeflgative Te~flng I have discussed the project with Dan Larson of Amedcan Engineering Testing (AET). Dan was familiar with the problem caused by phenolic insulation on top of metal decks. Dan said that they could do the following investigative work: · Condition study to document visible conditions ~ · Ultrasonic thickness of metal deck · Destructive cuts on top to view metal deck 4Bon(~;,~4, Rosene, Anderllk and Associates, Inc. ~ St. Ptul Office: ~ MIIwauk~ C)fftce: ~3 Rocltester Office: 13 WIIImar Office: O SL Cloud Office: 2335 West Highway 38 1516 West Mequen Roacl 2222 Hwy 52 N~xlh 20~ 54~ Street SW 20~ 8t}~ St. North SL P~ul. MN ~113 Mequ~n. WI 530~2 R~le~ter, MN ~gO1 ~, MN 5~201 St. Cle~I. MN 56303 Phone: ~51.435..45~0 Phone: 414-241-4465 Phone: 507-282-2100 Phone:. 320..214-~557 Phone: 320-251-4553 Fax: ~1..536-1311 FI0c 41,1-241-4901 Fax: 507-282-3100 Fix: 320..214-&h58 Fax: 320-251-6252 I I I The costs for doing this work would be approximately $5,000 which would include the field crew, lift and contractor to due the test cuts and patches. This information would not aid us in determining the corrective action to take but may be useful for any legal proceedings related to the project. -fB~nestn)o, Rosene, Anderlik and Assm~aMs, Paul Me.e: ~ MIIwaiukee Ofllce: C3 Rochestlr Office: 0 W1flmlr Office: I~ St. Cloud 233S We~ HM~way 36 151e We~t Mequefl Road 2222 J-kc/52 Nenh 205 Sm Strum SW 20Ge 8th St. NMm Paul, MN 5S113 Miquon, WI 53002 Rochester, MN 5~40t W1llnll', MN 56201 St. Ck~d. MN M303 Phene: 651.43e..,1~00 F~.c,,-,~: 414..241-44~ Ph(xte: 507-282-2100 PtNNle: 320-21~ Phone: 320-251,.4553 F~: 65t-436-1311 Fix: 414-241-4901 Fax: ~07-282-3t00 F~: 320-214-9454 Fix: 320-2S1-42S2 Engineering Effort We anticipate that the preliminary engineering effort for the project will include the following steps: 1. Review background information for project 2. Prepare memo with proposed solutions and estimated costs 3. Review options with City Staff The estimated effort and associated fees for these tasks are: Task Principal Project Cledcal Manager Review Information 4 4 Prepare memo 12 2 Review options w/ 4 8 City Staff Total 8 24 2 Hourly Rate $84.50 $84.50 $34.00 Labor Fee $678 $2,028 $68 Total Labor $2,/72 Expenses $150 Total Fee $2,922 The above estimate includes the report and some meetings with City staff. Additional meetings, etc. for 6Bonesttoo, Rose.e, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. Q St. Paul Office: i~ MihvBuKOC Office: Q Rochester Office: ~) Wlllflmr Office: Q St. Cloud Office: 2335 W~t I. fl~l~vey 35 IS18 Weet Mequen Ree4 2223 I.hvy S2 Nen~ 20~ 51h Street SW 20~3~ ~t~ St. ~ St. Paul. MN 5Sl15 Me~Nen. Wt 53092 Rochester, MN S5~3t W"~. MN 5~201 St. Cleu¢l, MN 563(33 Phone: ~S1.4;3~4600 Phee, e'. 414-241-~,4~ Pt~ne: 507-2~2o210~ Pt,,eae: 320-214-~S? Pl,4ne: 32.0-2S1-4553 Fax: 6~1-43&131'1 Fax: 414-241.4~01 Fax: 507-252-3100 Fax: 32~-214-94~ Fax: 320-25t-~252 Repair lution.doc pagi any legal proceedings are not included in the estimate. The engineering for the design and construction is not included in the above fee. The design and construction services would be provided in accordance with our contract. The fee would be based on either on an hourly basis or on the standard fee curve. Cc: Steve Sondmll, City Attorney Dan Donahue, City of New Hope Doug Sandstad, City of New Hope Mark Hanson, BRA Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. St. Paul Ofllge: O MIIwlukN Offle, e: C) Roghe~t~r Of Rge: Q Will.ir OfRe, e: O St. Cloud Office: 2335 wear Highway 34 1516 W~I Mequmt Ro~l 2222 ~ 52 NerlR 205 5th ~ SW 200~ ~'~ St. Nmlfn St. Pmal, MN ~5113 Mequen, WI 53092 Rocilaxter, MN 55901 WIIMlar. MN ~201 St. Cloud, MN 56303 Phone: 551-636-4600 Pt',,G,-~: 414-241.44~ PYmne: 507-282-2100 Pftene: 320-214-9557 Phone: 320-251-4553 Fax: 551~_'-m--_ 13t 1 Fax.' 41424t-4901 Fix: 507.282-3100 Fax: 320-214-8458 Fix: 320-251-6252 PRESS RELEASE NEW HOPE FIRE STATION ROOF 4/27/99 A roofing insulation known as phenolic foam, was used as part of the construction of the New Hope Fire Station in 1990-91. The City has been recently advised by the manufacturer of the phenolic foam roofing insulation used at the fire station, Johns Manville Corp., that the use of the insulation can cause corrosion of the metal roof decking. Testing was performed by Roofing Consultants of Virginia, the manufacturer's representative, on September 30 and October 1, 1998. Although test results have not yet been shared with the City, the City's preliminary conclusion is that a corrosion problem of the metal decking does exist and may impact the entire fire station roof. It has been discovered that two class action suits, which are now consolidated and filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, Mass., have been brought against Johns Manville Corp. in connection with the phenolic foam product. These suits purport to represent all building owners in the United States with phenolic insulation installed on roof decks, and seek damages, including an order requiring the removal and replacement of the phenolic insulation and remediation of any deck corrosion. This product was manufactured and sold between January 1989 and March 1992. The Ci,h/is investigating whether to join the class action suit or seek and obtain its own legal remedy for the replacement or repair of the roof. The City's consulting engineering firm, Bonestroo, Rosene, Andeflik, and Associates, who was not involved in the original construction, is currently exploring appropriate repairs and/or roof replacement to resolve the situation. City staff will be presenting this information to the City Council at the May 10"' City Council meeting and requesting authorization to have plans and specifications prepared to remedy the situation. For more information, contact Dan Donahue, City Manager, at 531-5112. ~~ COUNCIL ~ Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda SecUon Community Development ~ Development .... & Pls:Ain~ 5-10-99 Item No. ByKirk McDonald !~. 8.3 MOTION APPROVING PROPOSAL '" FRO AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,600 FOR TESTING AND DOCUMENTATION WORK ON FIRE STATION ROOF AND GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE BUILDING (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 659) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting that the City Council approve the attached proposal by Amedcan Engineering Testing, Inc. for testing and~dOcumentaff0n Work on the Fire Station Roof and Golf Course Maintenance Building. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE Only one quotation was obtained for this investigative work because it is a 'professional services' service and multiple quotes are not required. This could also be considered an emergency situation and the City wants to act as quickly as possible to correct the situation. BACKGROUND Per the Apdl 26, 1999, memo from Bonestroo & A~ociates regarding the phenolic foam issue on the Fire Station roof, it has. ~ recommended that additional testing and investigative work be completed for tloc, umentation purposes. The City Attomey has recommended that the additional documentation wo.~ be useful to assist with the resolution of this matter with the parties involved. Amedcan Engineering Testing, Inc. has provided the attached proposal in the amount of $5,600 to complete the work. The propoeal include~ lhe following: Fire Station 1. Review of original project drawings and other available information. 2. Condition survey ~ ¢lecament existing condition of steel roof deck and supporting structural members. 3. Three test cuts through the roof system to expose the top of the metal roof deck. 4. Ultrasonic thickness testing of random metal roof deck locations. 5. Prepare a rel3Ort of our findings. Maintenan .ce Bu.ildin(3* 1. One test cut through the roof system to expose the insulation and determine whether it is phenolic. 2. Prepare a report of our findings. - ~,~,.., ,~./ Request for Action Page 2 5- (*The Golf Course Maintenance Building is being included in the proposal because the specifications for'~ thatroof also.bUilding) roof called for phenolic boardstock and staff feels it prudent to have testing done on that Further details on the work to be performed are outlined in the proposal. FUNDING and~~ _for, the ~:lditional testing and i:t~:mme~lta~k~l wilLIm,~b~ ultlrna~ly will be rei~ to lhe City from the resettle, of the tn~umnce Reserve Fund ATTACHMENT~_ · Amedcan Engineering Testing, Inc. Proposal · Apdl 26 Bonestroo Memo COUNC,~ ~ REQUEST FOR ACTION Ortgma~ Department Approved for ~e~a ~da ~c~on Community Development ,~ Petitions & 5- Requests R~m No. ~Kirk McDonald ~ // 9,1 ANNUAL REVIEW OF CONDITIONS O~ APPROVAL TO ALLOW ATHLETIC FACILI~ EXPANSION AT COOPER HIGH SCHOOL AND CONSlDE~TION OF REQUEST TO HOLD RElY FOR LIFE EVENT ACTION Staff requests that the Ci~ Council conduct its annual review of the odginal conditions of approval to allow the athletic facili~ expansion at Cooper High School and consider a r~uest tO hold a "Relay For Life" event. POLICY/PAST The Conditions of Approval for ~e Condiaonal u~ Pe~ to allow ~e expansion of athletic facilities at Cooper High School approv~ in 1995, s~ ~at ~e pa~es ackno~ge ~at ~nd~ons may change in the future in a manner not ¢ontemplat~ by ~em at ~is time ... ~erefore, ~e pa~es agr~ that the Condiaons of Approval shall be review~ at least annually and ~erea~er may ~ amend~ wi~ ~e con~nt of the Council and the School Board." ~ile the Ci~ Council has not focally review~ these conditions on an annual basis for the last several yearn, the Ci~ Manager has dete~in~ that they should be reviewed at th~s time and in conjunction with the r~uest for a s~cial event. BACK~ROUND Per the a~ached info~ation, ~e Ame~n Caner Socie~ is coo~inaang wi~ Robbinsdal~Cooper High School on hosting an overnight 'Relay For Li~' commun~ event to ~i~ awareness of caner and to raise funds for cancer research and ~u~aon. The l~hour team event would ~in at 7:00 p.m. on Friday, August 6, and end at 8:00 a.m. on Sa~ay, August 7, at ~e Robbin~al~oo~r High School ~a¢k. Teams of 8-15 members take tums walking or ~nning du~ng ~e l~ur event. ~r~ ~ ~11 ~ ~mish~ for pa~icipant~ and music, dancing, and o~er ente~ainment will ~ provid~ ~roughout ~e night. At 9:30 p.m. on Friday night, the group will ~ lighang lumina~es and pa~¢ipants will ~mp at ~e s~e. The School District is requesting to leave one light s~nda~ I~ all night ~r ~e event. The School Dis~ has grant~ ~rmission and is now seeking Ci~ approval for ~e event. The aEach~ condiaons and ~e S~ool Dis~s "Athlea~Physi~l Edu~on Complex Management Plan" states that "s~ial non-~hool even~ will r~uire Ci~ of N~ Ho~ s~ff approvaL" Staff r~uests that the Council consider ~is ~uest in ~njun~on wi~ ~e overall annual review of ~nd~ons. A~ACH~ENT~ · Ame~can Caner Socie~ Co~esponden~ · CUP Conditions 1 st Annual RELAY FOR LIFE Community Event on August 6 7 1999 EVENT 13 hour team event to raise money for the American Cancer Society, brining the cancer control message into the community. WHEN and Be~nning at 7:00 p.m. on Friday, August 6th and ending at 8:00 a.m. WHERE on Saturday, August 7th at the Robbinsdale-Cooper High School track. WHO Teams of 8-15 members take tums walking or running during the 13 hour event. Teams are made up of fellow employees, family members, organizations, or neighborhoods. Individuals and groups smaller than teams may also participate. T-SHIRTS Relay for Life t-shirts are given to team members who raise $100 or more. FOOD Plenty of fr~ food for participants. ENTERTAINMEbrr Music, dancing, and other entertainment throughout the evening. OVERNIGHT T~m~ may pitch tents and g~ay up all night (a huge slumb~ ARRANGEMENTS p~'y!). Staying ow,-might and m~ing n~w Imople make tl~ event very unique. LUMINARIES The small bags with lit candles honor/memorialize friends, family, , neighbota and coworkers who have battled cancer. The names of the honoreea are written on the outside of the bags and serve as a reminder of why we are committed to the fight against cancer. The "Lights of Life" are placed around the track and a special luminary fighting ceremony will take place. Luminaries may be purchased for a lminimtml $5.00 donation. BENEFITS It's fun ..... It brings people together ..... It can be used as a stall'development event! .... A huge fundralser for a 8r~at cause ..... Learn about the American Cancer Society programs and ~rvicea. Information will b~ available on prevention, treatment, patient ~.rvice~ and education for all groups! HOW Contact Lisa Blumb-Stordahl, Special Events Coordinator, American Cancer Sooiety at (651) 6324370. AMERICAN )CANCER SOCIETY ).l.(u'c.~t [)u',~s~on. Inc. April 23, 1999 Dear Mayor Enck and Members of the Council, I have met with Barb Lehman, Athletic Director for Robbinsdale-Cooper High School, and she is bringing before you a request for a variance to your lighting ordinance, on behalf of the American Cancer Society. As you may be aware, the American Cancer Society's signature event is called Relay for Life. It is an overnight community event to raise awareness of cancer in our community and to raise funds for cancer research, education programs and services provided to cancer patients. Everyone has been touched by cancer in some way. As a 1984 graduate of Robbinsdale-Cooper High School, when I was given the opportunity to start another Relay, I wanted to bring it "home" to be able to share in such a rewarding and meaningful activity. I feel this is an exciting opportunity to bring the community together for a great cause, and a lot of fun! I have attached a brochure listing all fifteen of the Relays scheduled for the Twin Cities this year. As a Parks Advisory Commissioner in the City of Brooklyn Park, I fully understand the obstacles facing an event such as this, and I assure you, we maintain very high standards and take the neighbors into consideration every step of the way. A slight variance to your lighting ordinance to allow one standard to remain lit all night is requested to allow the Relay for Life to be held at Robbinsdale-Cooper athletic field. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lisa Stordahl Special Events Coordinator Attachments 651-644-1224' Voice Mail 612-925-6330 · F,4~Y612-644-2819 Serving Ramsey, Anoka, and Wa.~hington Counties, and the Metropolitan Communities of Dakota County NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE 94-14 REQUEST FOR COND[T[ONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW/APPROVAL TO ALLO~/ EXPANS[ON OF SCHOOL USES IN R-1 ZON[NG DISTRICT, [NDEPENOENT SCHOOL O[STRLCT 281 PETITIONER · COND[T[ONS OF APPROVAL 1. Purpose. The purpose of this document is to set out proposed conditions of approval for Petitioner's application on expanded conditional use permit to allow construction of an athletic stadium at Cooper High School. Cooper High School has a common address of 8230 47th Avenue North, New Hope. 2. N~e..d for ConditionS. Cooper High School is situated in tbs middle of a single-family residential zoning district. [t is boarded on'the south by 47th Avenue North, on the north by 49th Avenue North, on the west by Zealand Avenue North, and on the east by Virginia Avenue North. These streets are constructed to a residential standard. New Nope City Code requires non-residential school traffic to be channeled to a "collector type" street (i.e. 70' minimum ROW and 44' minimum street width). The referenced streets do not meet these standards. Cooper is currently considered a legal non-conforming use. When it was built the City Code did not require a collector street standard for streets serving Cooper. The conditional use requirements were passed at a later date (specifically 1979). As a result~ Cooper is "grandfathered" as a leg&l non-' conforming use despite daily traffic counts from non- residential school traffic exceeding desirable vehicle trips for residential street design. City Code does. not permit the expansion of legal non- conforming uses. Due to traffic problems the City proposes to grant the Conditional Uss Permit requested by the District contingent upon the District's acceptance of the following Conditions of Approval. 3. Conditions of Aooroval. The following conditions shall apply to the City's approval of Petitioner's CUP application: a. The Cooper athletic facility design plan shall be subject to review by the City Engineer as to compliance with the City Code and shall include, but not be limited to, the following requirements: F 1) The field shall be moved approximately 120' north and 20' east of its proposed location. 2) The field shall be lowered approximately 7'. 3) Home bleachers shall be located on west side of field (2,000 seats, 16 rows); visitor bleachers shall be located on east side (500 seats, 10 rows). 4) The dry detention basin located north of the football field shall be eliminated to allow the discuss and shot put event to be located in this general area. The Shingle Creek Watershed requirements for storm water quality shall be satisfied as set out in its September 8, 1994 watershed recommendations item 12-8 provided that the City shall not share in the cost thereof. 5) The existing north-south storm sewer through Cooper High School to 4gth Avenue North shall be given to the City and a 20' wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over it. The City will update and modify the existing storm sewer as required and extend it to the new low point in 47th Avenue North. 6) The excess material resulting from lowering the field, relocating the parking lot and reconstruction of 47th Avenue North shall be used to construct a berm on the west and north side of the field, Consideration should also be given to redirecting the discuss area to the east to allow additional material to be placed north of the field. b. The problem of nonresidential traffic generated by the school~ referred to above, shall be resolved as follows: 1) Cooper's existing parking lot located immedfately north of the New Hope Elementary School shall be relocated north to allow 47th Avenue. to be extended between Del Drive and Zealand Avenue. A 56' wide right-of-way shall be dedicated through the parking lot between Del Drive and Ze&land. The southerly ROW line will be located approximately 50' north of the New Hope Elementary School building. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated west of Zealand Avenue abutting New Hope Elementary School and Highview School to provide a full 66' wide right-of-way. (The existing right-of-way is 60' wide west of Zealand Avenue). 2) Zealand Avenue shall be cul-de-sac opposite 4757 and 4765 Zealand Avenue (45' radius offset to east). Ad.ditional right-of-way (60' radius) will be dedicated'by school district. The residential portion of Zealand Avenue north of the cul-de-sac will access 49th Avenue while the southerly portion serving Highview School, Homeward Bound, and the westerly exit to Cooper's parking lot shall access 47th Avenue. A cul-de-sac shall not be provided on the southerly portion. The City will properly maintain the southerly portion of Zealand Avenue to Cooper's parking lot. 3) Zealand Avenue's east curb line shall be relocated 10' to west, sidewalk shall also be relocated allowing for 8' wide boulevard on east side of Zealand Avenue. 4) The City of New Hops and School District shall equally share in the cost of the improvements Zealand Avenue, 47th Avenue, and Cooper's 47th Avenue parking lot. The estimated project cost is $600,000 to $700~0OO. If actual costs exceed $?00~000, it is understood that the new costs shall require approval of both the New Hope City Council and the Board of the School District. The cost to update, modify and extend the north-south storm sewer between 47th Avenue and 49th Avenue across Cooper High School shall be New Hope's responsibility, 5) The School District shall have the option of financing its share of these street and parking lot improvements by petitioning the City for said improvements pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chap. 429. The Ctty will assume construction and financing responsibility for the street improvements. The School District's allocated and agreed upon share of said costs will be assessed ag&inst their property and paid over time subject to an interest rate mutually acceptable to the parties and a term f of up to ten (10) years, as determined by the School District. c. The School District shall comply with all provisions of its proposed June 21, 1994 Traffic Management Plan prepared by A]lan K]ugman of Westwood Professions] Services, Inc., attached hereto as Exhibit A. addition to the ~rov~s~ons of sa~d ~lan, ~e r~~ ~ ~~~ ~~i~on Of the ~~~~,' ..... ~~u~5~F"w~ 11 be based on ~'x~mum crowd capacity, Fewer attendants may be permitted if a sign1 ftcant ly smaller crowd ant ici pat ed. i ~~7+~u~e.. ~~6~Tet't'c~ystcal Educlt ~~an~ea~ ~~rittonal Plan prepared by R. Whi{ey" Johnson, Project Director, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The School District further agrees to amend the plan relating to the following ~ssues: 1) Snow Storage. Snow storage in Lot C wi11 be accomplished at the south rather then the north end. 2) No~ae. The School District also agrees to submit a Noise Impact Statement to address noise related concerns if deemed necessary by the City. 3) Litter. The School Dtstr~ct also agrees to publish a telephone number for neighborhood comolalnts relating to litter problems after facility events. The School Btstrtct agrees to respond to al complaints ~n an appropriate manner. 4) Factlltv U~aa~. The athlettc facil'tty wil1 b® limited to only Cooaer events as follows: ~) four (4) varsity h~e football g~es plus any ~at-season c~pet ~ t t on; seven (7) variety h~e soccer 9~es plus any ;oat-season coa~et i t ion; 4 iii e. The Design Plan proposed by the School D~str~ct shall comply with ~11 condit~onnl use permit stnnd~rds. These shall include, but not be l~mited to, the follow~ng: 1) Add~t~onnl bus parking spaces shall be provided, if needed, as determined by the City, after one year of operation. ~) All l~ght~ng on-S~te shall be nrrnnged to not reflect onto adjacent property. 3) All s~gnnge on-site ~h~11 comply w~th the New Hope Comprehensive ~ign Code. f. The ~chool District further acknowledges nnd agrees comply w~th its revised plnn to u.pgrnde the athletic f~ci11[y submitted ~s p~rt of Plnnntng C~se 94-14. · dd~tton to the conditions stated here~n, these plnns include, but are not l~mtted to, the following: 1) Add~tionnl screening nt the west end of the parking lot. Potential p~rking sp~c~s for ~ more buses. 3) Relocation of the per~meter fence to nn ~ed~t~ly north of the f~eld to provide more open space. 4)Location of trnsh receptacles ~ndic~t~d on the plnn, 5) A deftned schedule of s~te ~mprovements for New Hop~ El~ent~ry ~chool including the follow~ng: ~) p~rk~ng lot upgrade ~ncludin~ senloo~t~ng nnd ~urbing by ~ptember, 1g~7; it) storm water dr~nn~e nnd def~crenc~es resolved by ~eptember, 1997; ~ iii) the fields west of New Hope Elementary do not properly drain. It is recommended New Hope Park & Recreation Department and the School District review the use of the fields west of New Hope Elementary and evaluate if f' reconfiguring the fields is beneficial because it is expected excess material from the football/soccer field and street/parking lot improvements could be disposed of in this area to allow the fields to be properly graded to drain. g. The CUP shall be subject to annual review by City staff. The School District shall also execute all necessary documents, to dedicate street right-of-ways and utility easements discussed herein. The $chool District also acknowledges it must comply with all requirements of the Shingle Creek Watershed Oistrict and all other governmental entities, if any, having jurisdiction over this upgrade project. 4. Effect of Agreement. The foregoing Conditions of Approval, '~s set forth in paragraph 3 above, shall constitute a general framework for the proposed City/School Oistrict Plan. The City Council's October 10, 1994 approval of the Conditional Use Permit, and the signatures below, are contingent upon the acceptance of the Conditions of Approval by the Board of the School District. The parties &cknowledge that conditions may change in the future in a manner not contemplated by them at this time. Therefore, the parttee agree that the CondJtione of Approve1 shall be reviewed at '?ealt- ann~tty and thereafter may be amended with the consent of the City Council and the School Board. Date: .~~:~'~ INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 281 CITY OF NEW HOPE Kal of School Erickson, Board Zndependent School District [ts Mayor No. 281 7 NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE 94-1~ AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SZTE APPROVAL TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF SCHOOL USES IN R-1 ZONING DZSTRICT, ~NDEPENDENT SCHOOL D[STRZCT 281 PETITIONER WHEREAS, Independent School District 281 in New Hope Planning Case 94-14 petitioned the City for an expansion of its Cooper High School facility located at 8230 47th Avenue North in the City of New Hope to allow construction of an athletic stadium, and WHEREAS, pursuant to New Hope Resolution No. 95-50 adopted at the March 13, 1995 Council meeting, the City approved the requested CUP and Site Plan subject to Conditions of Approval dated March 27, 1995 entered into between the City of New Hope, and Independent School District 281, and WHEREAS, among other conditions, the Conditions of Approval in paragraph 3(d)(4) limits the usage of the athletic stadium as follows: 4) Facility Usage. The athletic facility will be limited to only Cooper events as follows: i) four (4) varsity home football games plus any post-season competition; ii) seven (7) varsity home soccer games plus any post-season competition; iii) any legitimate daytime school activity; iv) the spring graduation ceremony; v) it is expressly agreed that no exclusive Armstrong High School events will be held at the Cooper facility, and WHEREAS, in consideration for enhancing the cooperative relationship 'between the City and Independent School District 281 relative to issues such as use of the expanding New Hope [ce Arena for school district activities, the parties deem it desirable to amend the Conditions of Approval relating to the Cooper Athletic Stadium usage. NOW THEREFORE, the City of New Hope and Independent School District 281 hereby agree to an amendment to the subject Condition~ of Approva] as follows: AMENDMENT TO REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF SCHOOL USES IN R-1 ZONINQ DISTRICT, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 281, PETITIONER 1. Paragraph 3(d)(4) of the Conditions of Approval of the Reauest for Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Site/Building Plan Review Approval to Allow Expansion of School Uses in R-1 Zonin~ District, Independent School District 281, Petitioner is hereby amended by deleting the prohibition of Armstrong High School events at the Cooper High School athletic stadium in subsection (v). Armstrong High School events will be allowed at the Cooper athletic stadium only in the event emergency situations prevent Armstrong events from being held at the Armstrong High School athletic stadium. Emergency situations shall be defined as circumstances outside of the control of the School District such as electri'cal outages or Acts of God which render the Armstrong athletic stadium not useable. 2. The amendment to paragraph 3(d)(4)(v) shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The similar Cooper High School use prohibition of the Armstrong athletic stadium shall be amended by the i Plymouth City Council to permit Cooper High School use of the Armstrong facility in emergency situations. b. Prior to any Armstrong High School use of the Cooper athletic facility, the School District shall provide the City with as much notice as reasonably possible of the intended use and the reasons giving rise to the emergency situation necessitating Armstrong's use of the Cooper facility. c. That either the Mayor, City Manager or the Manager's designated representative consents to the Armstrong High .School use of the Cooper athletic stadium after consideration of the reasons giving rise to the emergency. It is further agreed City consent will not be unreasonably withheld. 2 Dated: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 281 CITY OF NEW HOPE Bev~l,~O'Connor, Chairman of School W. Peter Enck, Board ~ndependent School District Its Mayor No. 281 Thomas Boll in, Superintendent uan~el J. Donahue, Inclependent School District No. Its City Manager 281 3 Onginatl.ng Depa, t. ment Approved for Agenda Agenda SecUon Community Development 'V'"N EDA 5-10-99// Item No. ByKirk McDonald By:. 4 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPRAISALS AND COMMENCEMENT OF NEGOTIATIONS TO ACQUIRE 7500 42N° AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 474) ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends that the EDA approve the attached resolution authorizing the necessary appraisals and the commencement of negotiations to acquire the property located at 7500 42"~ Avenue for redevelopment purposes. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE Since the early 1990s, the City has taken a number of actions to acquire the three industrial properties located at the northeast comer of 42~ and Quebec Avenues for redevelopment purposes. The City acquired and demolished the Electronic Industries building at 7516 42"~ Avenue in 1993, and the City acquired and demolished the Foremost building at 7528 42r~ Avenue between 1993 and 1995. One property remains to be acquired at 7500 42"~ Avenue. Over the years, the City has had a number of conversations with the property owner, Terry Jensen, regarding the potential acquisition of the property by the City and the City has had three appraisals completed on the property in 1992, 1996, and 1997. Ardel Engineering is a tenant in the building located on the site. In August 1997, the EDA approved a resolution authorizing the commencement of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property at 7500 42"~ Avenue North, but the action has not been implemented. The environmental cleanup and future redevelopment of the three industrial sites located at the northeast comer of Quebec Avenue and 42"~ Avenue is identified as a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. (cont'd.) MOTIO. BY -~/~'~-~-(..{ Sff, COh'D BY ~/L. Request for Action Page 2 5-10-99 BACKGROUND_ The owner of the property has recently been in contact with the City again to inquire about the City's interest in acquiring the property. Ardel Engineedng's lease will terminate on May 31 and an agreement was not reached between the owner and tenant to renew the lease. Ardel Engineering is in the process of vacating the building and is relocating to Science Industry Park in the City. The property owner is in the process of marketing the property. Due to the fact that the building is being vacated, the City would have no responsibility for' relocation costs. Per the City Attorney's correspondence, it appears that now is an opportune time to recommence discussion with the property owner regarding the EDA's purchase of 7500 42"" Avenue. The opportunity presents itself due to the pending vacation of the property by the current tenant, Ardel Engineering, by June 1. The enclosed resolution authorizes the EDA to obtain an updated appraisal of the property and commence negotiations with the property owner for acquisition of the property as of June 1, when the property officially becomes vacant and unoccupied. This will allow the City to avoid payment of tenant. relocation expenses, which has been the policy for acquisition of all properties initiated by an owner's request to sell to the City or EDA under the scattered site acquisition policy. The owner has recently obtained his own appraisal of the property indicating a market value of $545,000. Once the City has its appraisal on the property updated, the EDA will need to determine the dollar amount it is willing to authorize as a ceiling for acquisition. The owner has also indicated that he wants to be reimbursed for lost rent dudng the month of June in the event he agrees to keep the property vacant, so there should be some discussion concerning the amount of a non-refundable payment to the property owner in consideration for his agreement to keep the property vacant during the negotiation pedod. Lastly, the City Attorney points out that the attorney for the property owner has become his law partner, since last dealing with the property owner in 1997, and the EDA should be aware of and discuss this issue. ATTACHMENTS Resolution · 5/5 City Attorney Correspondence Site MaP , Lease Termination Letter · Comprehensive Plan Excerpts JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. /lttorneys At Law ~-.~ 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, S, ~. 201 Baoo~a.Y~ PA,Ut, MINNESOTA 55443,1999 TELEI~ltONE (612) 424-8811 · ?~LEFAX (612) 493-$193 GOaDOhl L. ]£N$£1~* E-MAIL jss~jsspa.com W~LUAM a. SW^NSON STErEs A. SOND~LL May 5, 1999 M^R?IN P. MALECI-IA C. ALDEN PEAR.SON~' DEAN A. TRONGARDq' ~vu£ A. T~LL Kirk McDonald Community Development Director City of New Hope or COVNS~-L 4401 Xylon Avenue North Lo~Ns Q. B~V~n:_SrAD New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Acquisition of Property at 7S00 - 42~ Avenue North Our File No.: 99.11111 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed for consideration at the EDA meeting on May 10, 1999 a proposed resolution Authorizing Appraisal and Cormnencement of Negotiations to Acquire 7500 - 42"~ Avenue North. Nomithstanding your February 25, 1999 letter to the property owner, it appears this is now an opportune time to recommence discussion with the property owner regarcling the EDA's purchase of 7500 - 42~ Avenue North. Basically, the opportunity presents itself due w the pending vacation of the property by the current tenant Ardel Engineering. It is my understanding Ardel Engineering is moving its operations to another location within the city as of the end of this month. As a result, the property at 7500 - 42"~ Avenue North could be vacant as of June 1, 1999. The enclosed resolution authorizes the EDA to obtain an updated appraisal of the property and commence negotiations with the property owner Terry lensen for the acquisition of the property as of lune I, 1999 when the property officially becomes vacant and unoccupied. As you know, this will allow the City to avoid payment of tenant relocation expenses which ~ been our policy for acquisition of all properties initiated by an owner's request to sell to the City or EDA under our scattered site acquisition policy. I~ i~ my undemanding the owner has recently obtained his own appraisal of the property indicating a market value of $545,000. The enclosed resolution will require some discussion by the EDA concerning our opinion on market value and the dollar amount they are willing to authorize as a ceiling for acquisition discussion. We previously attempted to acquire this property for $344,000. This was based on our latest appraisal from BCL Appraisals dated May 28, 1997. Also, I note in my file that the City received a letter from the atWmey for the property owner on April 23, 1993 offering to sell the properxy for $325,000 subject to 8 conditions (see copy enclosed). However, conditions 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 made the 1993 offer to sell unacceptable tothe EDA. I believe the 1993 offer was made c~,, ~, by the owner due to our recent acquisition of the foremost property a~ that time. Mi~ ~ May 5, 1999 Page 2 It is my further understanding that the owner wants to be reimbursed for lost rent during the month of Sune in the event he agrees to keep the property vacant. As a result, there will need to be some discussion concerning the amount of a non-refundable payment to the property owner in consideration for his agreement to keep the property vacant during the negotiation period. I have left a blank space in the resolution for this item as well. I believe the owner has informed us his monthly rent for the proper~ is approximately $4,900. I also want to make it clear that the attorney for the property owner is my law parmer. However, in 1993 and 1997 I was not in a partnership with the owner's attorney. This situation should be discussed at the EDA meeting as well. If you have any questions or comments regarding the enclosed resolution or the information contained in this letter, please contact me. Ve/~..truly yours, Steven A. $ondrall JENSEN SWANSON Re SONDRALL,-P.A. ' Enclosures cc: Daniel J. Dona. hue Valerie Leone CN H 11111 -O l-Kirk Ltr. ~ ~meve o='re,° ..ff '..,. ¥~co~ (POne Ploce , Community Perspectives District 13 District 13 includes the residential neighborhoods surrounding Cooper High School. District 13 Issues · Land use compatibility issues with regard to the high school and adjoining neighborhoods generally relate to students leaving school (trespassing, loitering). · Reuse of the Homeward Bound facility in a manner that would be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. · Some scattered site single family redevelopment or rehabilitation is needed for select sites in District 13. · Apartments located at Xylon Avenue and 45th Avenue face flooding and settling problems due to its proximity to adjoining wetland/ponding area. District 14 District 14 is a single family area located east of Winnetka. Distdct 14 Issues · Development of the vacant site at the of 49th Avenue ar~ Winnetka Avenue. · Deep single family lots along 49th Avenue may offer some opportunity for future redevelopment. District 15 District 15 consists of the industrial area along Quebec Avenue. District 15 Issues In-place expansion of existing_industries, ! at the n~~ c~3mer ~ Quebec Avenue ~ 42nd Avenue. J j.. )ce/of New Hop. ~,~ ~,~ u~ , .............. ,, , Community Perspectives · Identification of the future land use of the Quebec Avenue/42nd Avenue site related to the City's 42nd Avenue image. District 16 This planning district includes areas of single family, multiple family and commercial land uses. Infrastructure improvements for the northern portion of the district are scheduled for year 2002. District 16 Issues · Scattered site single family redevelopment is needed for select sites throughout District 16. A concentration of candidate sites are located along the west side of Nevada Avenue between 42nd Avenue and 45th Avenue. · The apartments south of Fred Sims Park have had problems with stormwater drainage and lacks amenities. · ' Fred Sims Park needs to provide a parking and vehicle turn around area. · Stormwater ponding at the Oregon Avenue146th Avenue intersection presents problems for traffic and street maintenance. District 17 District 17 encompasses the New Hope's City Center described as the commercial focal point of the community. District 17 Issues · Street and stmetscape improvements are needed along 42nd Avenue, 45th Avenue and Xylon Avenue. These im4xovements are intended to improve both the function and appearance of these streets. · Xylon Avenue/42nd Avenue/Oett'tsemarle Cannery entrance intersection should be aligned and improved to facilitate improved traffic movement and safety at the Xylon intersection. a. . tnCST Foa Ac'rxos Originating Department ~p~ for ~e~a ~enda ~cUon EDA Community Development ' Item No. 5-10-99 ~Kirk McDonald ~ 5 DISCUSSION REGARDING REQUEST FOR ClAL ASSISTANCE FOR POTENTIAL REHABILITATION PROJECT AT 8113 BASS ~KE ROAD ACTION REQUESTED Staff has re~ived the enclos~ co~esponden~ ~om the new o~er .of the fou~lex pro~y located at 8113 Bass Lake Road requesting ~nsideration of financial assistan~ to rehabilitate the building and site. Staff requests to discuss this request w~h ~e EDA and get dir~ion on how to proud. POLICY/PAST P~CTICE In 1993, the EDA established a loan program dim~ at maintaining multi-family rental housing. The program is dire~ed at those pm~ies w~h the greatest ne~, and basic improvements such as roof/window repla~ment, wi~ng, heating and mechani~l repaim ca~ a higher funding p~ority, as opposed to amenities. Financing is Provid~ by the EDA in the fo~ of a Iow interest loan to leverage private funds and no.ally a 50/50 matching of funds is r~uir~ for eligible proje~s. One project has been completed under this policy; in 19~-95 the 48 units (4 12-unit buildings) at New Hope Apa~ments were renovated. BACKGROUND This request comes from the new owner of the fou~lex pro~y lo.ted at 8113 Bass Lake Road. The building was previously owned by David Es~land. ~e building was constm~ in 1958 and has a market value of $136,~0 (land $26,~0~uilding $110,000). The building has a brick e~e~or, but is in need of substantial repaim, including roof and window repla~ment, rain guEem, e~e~or doom, drain tile, a boiler and general inte~or u~rading. ~e pa~ing ama n~ds resuffacing, additional landscaping is needed and no garages are available on the site. The owner has estimated the proje~ cost at $15,000, however, staff estimate it will ~ at least ~i~ that amount. ~ere is a ~in fou~lex building located adja~nt to this building (8109 Bass Lake Road) that is under separate ownemhip. Both prope~ies am Io~t~ on the so~h side of Bass Lake Road, just west of Lyndale Garden Center, and have a shared ac~ss off of Bass Lake Road. (cont'd.) Request for Action Page 2 5-10-9! These properties have been designated in the Comprehensive Plan for either redevelopment substantial rehabilitation. Staff is pleased that the new owner wants to cooperate with the City potential improvements to the property. Staff is requesting direction from the EDA as to whether or not is interested in pursuing a rehabilitation project at this site in cooperation with the new owner. If the ED determines to proceed, staff would recommend taking the following steps: 1. Staff meet with property owner to determine what improvements would be included in the project ar get firm cost estimates. 2. Approach the owner of the adjacent building to see if they would participate in the project. 3. Have the City's financial consultant review the owners financial records (at the owner's expense) determine if they have the capability to repay the loan. Once these steps were completed, staff would come back to the EDA with a complete project overvi~ and request direction to proceed with the necessary loan documents. Attachments: Correspondence from owner Site Maps Comp Plan Excerpts Rehab Loan Guidelines Steven A. Martinetti 8113 Bass Late Road,/lpt. 2 New Hope, MN 55128 April 24, 1999 Mr. Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, M1N' 55428, Dear Mr. McDonald, I am the owner ofa fourplex apartment building located at 8113 Bass Lake Road in New Hope. You may already be familiar with this property (the eyesore it is). I plan on making significant improvements and want to make it among the best rental properties in New Hope. Among the improvements will be a new roof, rain gutters, windows, exterior doors, and paint inside and out. In addition, the lower apartments will likely need to be drain tiled (I am currently attempting to correct the grade, but if this is not successful in stopping the water problem, drain tile is the next step). Finally, the parking area will need to be resurfaced and the area relandscaped. While I am anxious to complete these improvements, my funds are quite limited. I am very interested in any financial assistance the City of New Hope may have available. I am having the roof and windows estimated, and will forward these as you request. I (roughly) estimate the entire project at somewhere near fifteen thousand dollars. I appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you soon. You may call me at my daytime (work) phone, (612) 348-2156, or you may leave a me, sase at (651) 777- 7490. Thanks again, Steve Martinetti Owner / Resident Manager · ,. .. . .. ~ ..... .~ .. E .lJl~ '°"~ ...... ~ ~ ........Ill' ,i~:l~ .ill; :1~ l, ." t ~.'m,~ !~ ~,, '_'i~ ..... ~--.= .... I--~-:...~ /" ' N ...... ~ ' '~ '~ ~-" . /" ',,P~K ~ ~ ~:' ~",mL.-'"~.;I ~ ~ / ~',,-~'*,.~, / "' I--* ...... ~ ~.,.,,.,,,~-" -¢~-"., !// GOLF I ~ '111 -." '~ ST. THERESE .~/~ ~ NURSING ~ ,-: , ,' ~~ HOME ; ~- ~;'-' ~ ~ , -... .. :~ ~ ............ ~ ~ ':' ,,.... ~ . ~ ~ ~ i i ~ .' ~ " '' ...... ~- . . .- ~. .............................. ~ : , · .... ............................. ~ ....................... ~ ........ T ' ' / ' ................. ' ~OSTERMAN, JR HIGH SCHOOL ~ I i , ' <3 12.5 910.3 L.,.,~n <3 <3X <3 <3 3 43 901.8 densi~ resid~l ~re~ / ~e t i r~e~op~ sr ~u~er Argue / ~ss s~-~u~s ~ Medium ~ns~ re~ve~op~e ~unO '~ ;~ ~ssues m ~ In~s~ol r~eiop~n? ~, C~motish exJ~ng __ In place industrial issues ,Dminoge issues Irregular Oty boun~ry Community Perspective 5 · The industrial Park is nearly fully developed. Future industrial growth will consist of in-place expansion and site redevelopment. · The appearance of outdoor storage areas within the industrial park is an issue. · Intersection at 49th and Boone is in need of improvement to accommodate the turning radius of semi-trucks and trailers. Distdct 6 District 6 contains a variety of housing types from single family to very high density. For the most part, the high density housing in District 6 is very well maintained. Issues related to District 6 include: District 6 Issues c FoOUr-plexes along Bass Lake Road are in bad condition. These sites should nsidered for redevelopment. · Single family homes around Begin Park are on small lots and are in poor condition. City staff has identified this area as a redevelopment area. City of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Planning Tac~cs 30 Goal 3: Promote multiple family housing alternatives as an attractive life cycle housing option. Policies: A. Redevelop substandard multiple family properties that display deteriorated building conditions, no site amenities, poor site design, or incompatible land use patterns when it is judged not economically feasible to correct the deficiencies. B. Adhere to the highest community design and construction standards for new construction and redevelopment projects. nmpany medium and high density development with adequate accesso~- --.~ ities such as garages, parking, open space, landscaping, and recreational ~cilities to insure a safe, functional, and desirable living environment. D. Consider mixed land uses as an altemative land use option in planning and redevelopment of obsolete commercial or industrial sites. E. Encourage neighborliness through block clubs, block parties or neighborhood associations. COMMERCIAL GOALS Goal 1: Maintain and improve New Hope's commercial areas as vital retail and service locations. Policies: A. Work with local business people to gain an understanding of the changing needs of the business environment. B. Promote a full and broad range of office, service, retailing, and entertainment uses within the commercial areas of New Hope. C. Attract new businesses to New Hope that are complementary to existing businesses and will contribute to the customer attraction and business interchange of the local commercial areas. D. Promote the redevelopment and expansion of existing businesses within the City to obtain a higher level 'of sales and business attraction. B. Aggressively continue housing redevelopment programs throughout the City. C. Encourage the private redevelopment of substandard, obsolete or blighted properties. Public assistance may be applicable where the redevelopment is consistent with the goals of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan and within the financial capabilities of the City. D.....--'~lnvestigate opportunities for redevelopment or renewal of deteriorating m~-~ ~ _ family sites. ~.. E. Redevelop select, commercial/industrial properties which display deteriorated building conditions, obsolete site design, incompatible land use arrangements and high vacancy levels. Goal 4: A cohesive land use pattem which ensures compatibility and strong functional relationships among activities is to be implemented. Policies: A. Maintain and strengthen the character of individual neighborhoods, l B. Prevent over-intensification of land use development, that is, development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities (utilities, parking, access, etc.). C. Investigate remedies to correct or eliminate existing land use compatibility problems. D. Examine requested land use changes in relation to adjoining land uses, site accessibility, utility availability, and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and policies. E. Accomplish transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses in an orderly fashion which does not create a negative (economic, social or physical) impact on adjoining developments. F. Infill development of compatible land uses shall be strongly encouraged. G. Where practical, conflicting and non-complementary uses shall be eliminated through removal and relocation. City of New Hope Apartment Loan Program EDA Resolution NO. 93-13 In September of lg93, the New Hope Economic Development Authority established a loan program directed at maintaining multi-family rental housing. The program appeals to the City's over 3,839 multiple rental units and focuses on three fundamental areas. First, it assists owners in obtaining necessary capital for property rehabilitation and upkeep. Secondly, it provides safe and descent housing opportunities at affordable prices for residents now and into the future. Lastly, by targeting public resources in areas of greatest need the program reverses property deterioration; thereby improving overall property values and enhancing public safety within the community: Policy Guidelines 1. In view of limited public financial resources, the program provides minimal assistance to the greatest number of projects, with foremost attention to those properties in the greatest need. Basic need improvements such as: roof replacement, widng and heating or other mechanical repairs carry a higher funding priority. 2. Loans shall remain the preferred financing vehicle as opposed to grants or equity investments. A 50~50 matching of funds is a normal requirement for eligible projects. 3. No funding is provided which, directly or indirectly, is used for fees by the owner or related parties (including construction management fees, developer fees, use of "contingency funds," fee shadng, etc.) 4. At least two bona fide bids, from non-related parties, are required for each item that is a part of an overall program of rehabilitation. 5. No funds are provided to address defaulted mortgages or to bring taxes current. 6. In cases involving substantial financial stress, appropriate participation by the lender and equity owner is required for City investment. Participation may take the following forms: debt forgiveness, additional equity investment, interest rate reduction, loan term extension, payment deferrals, management fee reduction, reduced cash flow distribution, or other good faith efforts on behalf of the leader and property owner. 7. Public funds will only be provided in those instances in which they are essential to rehabilitation of the project. Public funds will not be provided when the pdmary result of that provision would be to merely raise the profitability of a building. 8. Public funds will not substitute for pdvate funding that may reasonably be raised in / the private market. 9. Each financial assistance agreement will contain an accelerated repayment provision in the event of property .sale, or other significant changes in circumstances. 10. Funds will not be provided to allow the owner to displace moderate income residents and attract higher income tenants. EDA rehabilitation funds may not but utilized in such a way that relocation statues and payments are triggered. 11. Funds will not be provided for Projects that would result in Dower property tax payments, unless such projects meet other City objectives. 12. No funding will be considered for approval without pdor objective financial analysis of the project, along with an independent recommendation as to the amount and type of proposed funding. Additional Information For additional information or clarification on this program contact the following individuals: Kirk McDonald Director of Community Development City of New Hope (612) 531-5119 Susan Henry Community Development Specialist City of New Hope (612) 531-5137 Ongmaung Depar~ent Appmv~ for ~genda Agenda 5ecuon Community Development --,, Consent Susan Henry 5-24-99 item No. l~YCommuni~ Development Specialist By:. 6,6 RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF 5340 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #653) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests Council approval of the enclosed resolution approving the purchase of 5340 Winnetka Avenue North from Irene Bauer. BACKGROUND The subject property, located at the intersection of Winnetka and 54"' Avenue, measures 45,561 square feet. The back half of this lot, as well as many of the lots on the east side of Winnetka Avenue on up to Bass Lake Road, are underutilized. The property is located in area deemed as blighted and in need of redevelopment. At the December 28 New Hope City Council meeting, the City Council approved and directed staff to have an appraisal completed of the property located at 5340 Winnetka Avenue North. Gdffith Appraisals completed an appraisal and estimated the fair market value of the property to be $100,000. The 1998 valuation of the property for tax purposes is $82,000 ($24,000 land/S58,000 building). On January 25, 1999, the Council approved staff to negotiate with the property owner based on the appraisal. On February 11, City staff met with Irene Bauer, property owner, and her son, Don, to negotiate a possible City purchase. At this meeting, a consensus was met between the City's $100,000 appraisal and Ms. Bauer's $102,000 stated appraisal. Following this meeting, staff received correspondence from Ms. Bauer asking for $110,000. Ms. Bauer stated her lot is oversized and again was asking for more money than what the appraisal stated. At an Apdl work session, the Council again considered the acquisition of the property. This time the Council looked at the property as it relates to other lots on the east side of Winnetka Avenue north to Bass Lake Road. This entire area has been designated in the Comprehensive Plan for future redevelopment. At the work session, the Council authorized staff to continue to negotiate for the property up to $102,000. Staff then met with Ms. Bauer and agreed upon a sale pdce of $102,000. Ms. Bauer has reviewed and signed the attached purchase agreement. MOTION BY' , ~ND BY Request for Action. Page 2 5-24-~_ This is the City's first Ol~portunity to work with a willing seller along Winnetka Avenue. City staff is considering rehabilitation of the home by utilizing plans from the newly released Planbook. The home could be a showcase home located in a visible location. FUNDING Acquisition costs for the property will be paid for with TIF or CDBG. If the Council is interested in rehabilitation of the property, there are HOME and CDBG funds available from the five city CHDO. ATTACHMENTS · Property map · Resolution · Purchase Agreement with Pdvate Sewer Addendum 2, S, 000 COUNcIz, I 9y uzs? AC'T O ongmaung Department ~p~ ~or ~e~a Dev~~~uon Community Development & Planning Susan Hen~ It~ No. ~ommuni~ Development S~ialist ~ 8. ~ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PREPA~TION OF A PURC~SE AGREEMENT FOR THE CI~ PURCHASE OF 8808 41sT AVENUE NORTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 660 REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests Council approval for the Ci~ to prepare a purchase agreement for the pur~ase of 8808 41= Avenue No~h in the amount of $17,500 for a Habitat for Humani~ proje~. BACKGROUND Since last summer, Ci~ staff have ~n wo~ing with a Habitat for HUmani~ ~nta~ in ho~s for a New Hope project in 1999 Ci~ staff identified several ~tentiai lots for new constm~ion and concluded, in conjunction with Habitat, the vaunt lot at 8808 41st Avenue No~h is most appropflate. The vacant lot at 8808 41= Avenue measures 9,5~ square f~t and has an assessed market value of $6,000 for tax purposes. ~e lot is not buildable "as is~ ~use of soil ~nditions. The lot contains some significant soil problems and requires pilings, a~rding to 1980 soil boflngs. Soil correction and/or piling work is estimated be~n $15,000 and $20,000, ac~rding to ~o quotations received by the Building O~cial. This lot has ~en vaunt for yearn ~use of the lots' signifi~nt soil issues. Discussions have taken pla~ w~h pm~ owner, Wally Omwe, about a ~tential Ci~ purchase for' quite some time, and there had ~n a signifi~nt gap ~n the pro~ owner's asking price and the City's position. ~e pro~ o~er stat~ the fair manet value to ~ $38,500, ba~ing no soil co~ection. Staff has stress~ the sales p~ must mfle~ the soil co~e~ion, as the lot is not buildable in its current state. In Febma~, a C~ appraisal wa~ o~er~ on the lot to dete~ine a mom accurate negotiation ~int. At the April 14 wo~ ~sion, Coundl gave staff approval to negotiate with the pm~ owner on the basis of the City-order~ ap~i~al of $15,0~. Ci~ staff went to the pro~ o~er, Mr. Omwe, with this amount who still fee it was too I~ for overall manet ~nditions. Mr. Or~e was still asking for $20,000. (conrd.) M~ON ~ ..... ~~ ~ , ~: ...... Request for Action Page 2 5-24~. City staff went to the City Manager with this information. The City Manager gave authorization for staff to negotiate up to $17,500. Mr. Grewe has since accepted this offer verbally over the telephone. FUNDING., Acquisition and site preparation/soil correction work would be paid for with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Once the lot is ready for construction, it would be turned over to the Habitat for Humanity organization for $1.00 for new construction. They would construct a new single family home. The Twin Cities Habitat builds a new home for an average cost of $45,000. The City may need to negotiate with Habitat and/or locate the funding necessary to build a single car garage as Habitat does not normally build garages on their projects. ATTACHMENTS Site Map 414 Avenue North Lot Appraisal 1980 Soil Bodng · Soil Correction Estimates ,.. . ~ ' ~ ,',.' --' ,;' . ~ ,,! . 41~ ~ 414! .414 ~ : -...' ,., .... ,_" . -~-~'-.. ~ .......... -,Z: -.-. ,~ . : ../.,,~ !to ~, 4t~4, :- ~t~ '~..: 4,t~4 ' .......... ~ ..... :'"-- .' - ':: ~ ': ...... "{ /~'~' ~' : .~li , M ° ~' ~t:-' :~ .~ ,~ :-- . /. "" ~ · t . .~ '. , . '. ,sum, : 41oe. i 41(3l. 41oe; · 41ol :, .... -I .... '~ ......... . ........... · . I}! ..... ~ i ........ ', ..... , .... 4Me= 4mO:Mi :4MO~ Mi ' :"~o, .~i 4,oo: 4~O~iZ'4~0,_... ' ..... : ....... 'ZL .... : ...... J ~ ' . C.~ .... 14all.. · . , 44~1 id., 4c12 4(~l:Vm,41}l{i~'... '. .....~: : ....... 0 · · .Z' · ...... ~LU ~ ..... ~. ~ . .~e ...... ~ ""'~; ...... i ...... iLu! .... :407? >- 40~, I(.40~ '-' :.-.: 2:40,,i ; 40,1,407~! ,40,,i ..... ;(! ...... C"444~ ~. .... !'2444 i'!'.~'i ! 207¥'4~": ~':'- ~ 40,,'. ',~0 i- ..... ! ; 400~ ........ -' ~ I,.- · .- * '° ~ - ' .... · ........ -' ' ' '2 .... ~ ~ ......... I~'. ..... 4 ~' ...... 'r ' '-: : ....... '~ ltl:- ' ] .... ~ .............. ....... '- ............. ~ ...... . . _.i .... : ! ..... 2 .... 2 · ,.,, ', .., i q.,: . . . , ~ · . : ~ · ! ~ , , ..o.:~~ ~.. ..... ~1I.I.I;I.I,G,~ G, : ' :, " ' ' ' :l: ' , .41 I , , 402S ~' ......... . " I' ! s : ~ ~-' : ! ; i ..... ,"' ·.,..,6,1 . I I.{;! l,:. :l , . ~ , :... ; · . · . , , ? , .:~ : ~ 40~0 ', T4400 :, '" ..!.. - ..... : ............... : .... ' ~ ~' ................. "-~ ..... · '4o,3 · ..,-4ooo..,- . .---.;" ,: . T ,,; .: ,,,, )' _4) '"~. ~ ' ~/m".:.-'' ira; I; ~ il,, dmj , frei jO I !l ,m ~...,.o.r;.:', . ',,,,,.. ,. · 44)QI ... . ~ 2' .......... .., .... ~ ...., :#.'/~' ~:'..'.. "- -' ',--'- -: -,.-, -, ,; .:.......,,<,, -", '.. .'~ . "'. .' /'.. ' .° .... .4"'1,,,: '"'I ............. , .: .... }.~ ...... .' ~,v,/',. ,' , ,- . ,-,. ---. :. =, ,, ,,, , ' · · d..~,.. · ~J,. "I , IN, ~ ~ , :! :~) ~ .~m ~.. · Jl~' . · '"I ' ,ess? ';..· '~' ' ~". ' \'Y'/.~ '"~.-' ;- ~'r ..... :.' ...... -' ~ .... ~-. ~ -' ~."5.'-, "4~,." ~ ' · ' , .a;.~, .'i~e .~ ~,~" ...,smm4,...~ {ti st ! i~ .:~p..:. ~'...:.,~,. '.., , ~/4' · .3s~"'"". ' ,,:.:'_:~ \4,-.., II, I[, __:~ :- ..-' $.llm:& ', \ '-. ~ ' ~4 . ~10~' ', - .,,:-"~ ' ~ ........... .~', .,,' ~' '~., . .... '3~ ---- ":' :'" '"./' ~ ~1~. ~. ' ': "" · ,3m, .;'.-'"m~ ". ~ ..... , , ,' ,.'" '4r/ ." ... , ._: . ....,.. ,,,.. ,, .. 31~7' · .· .- . , t '. "'"'i.,"-..,:::,.... · ,. . . _, ~ "...-'-::'-'~ -'"'"'~" "'"""'"' ~ ....... "'4P'" '"" ~-/~" ,'-"- 4.'1. _,~., '314i'-' :'-: -" ; ~ ;. IXI{,..,II'</t"JWUUU ,_, i / .,,, .. '.. /--2r _ ..' :-' ~ '.. ~ ', ~. ...' tr-~A~)i'/ , ,.., ..::~ ,. ., .--_::__ i-"~r~r,, ;;~: · ~',,' ' '....N....".... .... ~ ,..,nv . 4;~ ....... ~..,..4~/,i,-,... '..--/ ~-.. , ' , , ~ .. * .. | , . ,,' ',.,... ~ --~ , .313Z'.. ." ,NIT ,. ..-' · .1110 , ..,,4m~,, .,~. , ... · . ;. ,,,,v., . .ti~ . '- ~t .... :,.,, .....,4', · -,39,' · 3124 ' " .."'" t"~,~K, ~ ~ "" ~i"~l , . '-,~' ' ' , : ; ..... ...:~ ,"mT,J · -Cc ,"~',.':-L ,,1111' · '""' ~' - . · ~ , ','7" .. , ~.~.;;.. ~ ~ ','~11 _... mmmL .,.....; -'---- ""~/' 4'.' 3':~' if. I~11 ,. . ... . _ · ,m,' . W · -.. ..., .' ~,~ . ~ . ! : ~ .' .., .... ~'Ja~._.... ..... . -._ ,- '. LK ' o ~.."~? "..':_' ",""~.: ! OK _ '-..... .,,,7 I Prove'rig Qaality Appraisa~ for Basy L~nd~rs DATA SUMMARY Clam: C~y of N~w B~ Borr~r: C~ ~ N~ Ap~: ~ V. ~ _ 222 F. AST LITlq~ ~ABOAD, ST. PAUL, ~A 55117 (6~1) 4~-9~01 PAX: (6~t) 4M-9732 AS IATES, Inc. P.O. Box ~5 2~2 Mo,ro~ $t~t A~ok~, Mi~sot~ 553~3 Sep~e~be~ 16, 1980 Oss~o, ~esoca 55369 ' ~: Soil ~ortn~ A~ our d~rec~, Sub~e~anean ~n~eer~nS, [n~. ~e a so~ locac~ou ~ &re at,chad. ~so enclosed ts che ~ol of the auger boreho~e ye ~ cascholes both .b~ cbc deep orS~c so~ls e~sc ac c~. loc. ~cer m obse~ed as ~ as 3.8 feec ~1~ c~ ~ o~s~ soils obse~ed Co a depth o~ 20.7 feec are aoc s~cable support. Cousc~cl~ of a exude ~y Feoideace aC C~s loc ~e of p$Xes ~fl~n l0 ~eeC or ~re SaCo C~ e$lc ~ ch7 refer c~ ooil bofln8 los! Co a p~ c~cr~cor for ~.eo~ci lenfch, a~er and ~ h~e ~1 r~ ~ ~ o~rc ~ cbt pilu. ~e hs~nc'~l~r . ah~d ~c~r be ~s$~d co ~ ~~enc of c~ fr~e ~ aa a shb" or ~ My. prehr ~o m pree~c ebbs o~perc~ by c~ ~ade p$1es. ~ve co c~c~ d~ ~c~~ ac c~a loc. ~ cec~qM of ~r~ C~ XoC for c~c~c~ by sc~pp~ soXle ~d rep~ C~ ~ c~acced ~ d~e hoc appear co ~ ~sXble for c~a ot~e ~eum of ~ =r~ depth of oz~ ~11 ~ c~ ~Sh ~cer cable. ad]ac~c pro~r~ ~ ~c~r, ic ~d ~ ~ff~c~c co ver~ ~re r~d ~ C~ wear. ~o, c~acciou of ao~ bel~ ~car ~ffic~C if ~c ~etble. For ~~s ~f ~t~ t~ ~nc leal of a b~ 'aC c~s lot, XC Xo ~or~nc ~ M ~ ~esc ~eo~ble ~ ucer ehva~, AC Ch a~ez ~re~h, t~o~d nUz ~ Xo~d at 2.8 bec (e~cXon 905.2 ~eec), AC ~ o~r * * * * fLe'wyi ~s neat ot ptob~eee ~d adJusc the basement o~ you: proposed house accotd~nl~y. Yours ~rl E. ~deriou-, P. ~1e ~ SO7,03 ATLAS FOUNDATION CO. . Formerly Atl~ PtI~ 1)rip,nit ¢o.. I~.!~ . Box 117 Ro~er~. MN 55374 ¢612] 428-22~ I P'a~: (612) 47,8-4754 Date: December 16, 1998 FACSIMIL~ TRANSMISSION - Please deliver this proposal to: Name: Doug Sa~lsua~, B%til~i~g Official Con. any: CZ~ OP ~ ~PE, ~ P~ 9: 531-B136 Fr~: Da~ Pe=erson We ~ve r~eiv~ yo~ le==er ~ed Dec. 8, 1998 ~ a~s ~ uo EeCi~=e C~ co8c of Fo~Ci~ P~i~ for ~ p~s~ 8c~cc~e on che ~ refer~c~ ~roJecC. Me ~sc r~ you ~C ACl~ fo~acion Co. d~s ~= perfom S~c=ural ~g~eerin~ ~r could be su~o~ ~ 20 =o 25 F~ui~ Pile ~=h desi~ no= ~end deep ~h ~o pr~rl~ ~uaKe pile c~ci=ieS, a~ wi=h 40 ~ Piling ~d we aseu~ =~= ~ere is 25 Pile, =he cos= ~o wo~d be ap~r=i~=ely S14,500.00. ~ noi~ ~ v~raui~ ~ ~ ~c~ wi~ a ~i~ Pile sya=em. If =hie ie ~=oler~le, ACla. c~ ~Call a "~lical Pier" sys=em. for ~ es=i~ S20,000.00 =o $~0,000.00 ~n~ng ~ ac=u~ s=~c~e loa~. In addi=i~ =O ~e "~" f~=i~, ~ all~ce sh~d ~ ~de for ~ade ~ ~=~c=i~, speci~ i~pec=ions, ~ca~io~ ~ ~eyin~. Sh~d y~ ~ve ~y ~e~=ionn pleaee c~=ac= ~ aC y~ e~liesc con~~cl. ZP ~ZS ~~ISSI~ IS ~ BY: ~ ~~LY ! Vice ~aid~t · TELEPHONE 427-4330 (Am~ CMM 6i2) .~'~ ._ ~-/~ L. H. BOLDUC Co. Inc. 649 WEST GARFIELD P.O. SOX 815 ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 December 30, !998 City of New ~ 4401 Xylon Ave. N. New Mope, MN 55428-4898 Re: Estimated Piling Cost - Residence @ 8808 41st Ave. N., New Hope, MN Attmn%ion: Doug Sandstad, Building Official (531-5122) Gent leben: Having received your letter of Decemt~r 8, 1998 requesting a~ estia~te to furnish and drive timber piles to suppor~ a pz~ residence at ~he abov~ referenced location, we sutmnit the following cc~lents. 1. Soil boring infozmation is not ad~te to accurately estimate pile lengths, but if we assume approximately 20' - 25' of penetration into sandy clay, a 40' pile leng~.h would be required. 2. For a 30' x 26' house with 22' x 22' attached garage, we estimate approximately !9 piles would be required. 3. Using these quantities, we est/mate a pile foundation cost of approximately $13,000. 4. Our work does not i~cl~e design, test_trig, excavation, sitework access, layout, riel engineering, building ~emait fees or bond premi~s. Should you have any ackli~l questions or cc~ments, please contact this office. Sincerely, L.H. BOLDUC CO., INC. G, Werness, President ~GW:sk FOUNDATION SERVICES BASED ON EXPERIENCE. INTEGRITY. MODERN EQUIPMENT & TECHNOLOGY \ coc vczz, Ongtnat. lng Dep~ ~ent ~p~d for ~e~a ~da ~cuon Public Wo~s 5-24-99 Development & Planning RESOLUTION APPROVING ~NS AN~ECi~[CAT[ONS AND AUTHORIZING ~OR THE 42~° AVENUE RETAINING ~ALL, iMPROVEMENT ~RO~CT NO, 657 REOUEST~D ACTION Staff is recomm~din9 that Council pass a r~solutio~ a~ptin9 plans and s~ci~tions ~ropos~d r~iacement o~ the existin9 retainin9 wail a[o~9 the such s/de o~ 42~ Avenue ~n Oregon Avenue a~d Oue~c Avenue. BACKGROUND On Febma~ 22, ~ 999, Ci~ Council autho~z~ the Ci~ ~ngin~r to wo~ w~h Henne~in Count~ staff members in ~repagn9 plans and s~ec~tio~s for the re~[acement of the e~istin9 modular block retainin9 wail o~ 42~ Avenue ~een Or. on and Oue~c Avenues, with a retainin9 wall. Th~ r~tainin9 wall is ~ssa~ to provid~ an a~ptabie roa~ay wi~h and prot~ the ~xistin9 ab~Hin9 uses. ~e ~xistin9 modular wail that was construed in ~ 988 has deteriorated and is no longer stm~uraili sound. The Council a~rov~ a C~rative Agreement with H~nnepin Coun~ for this project at Mar~h 22, ~ 999, Council m~tin9. ~ai agreement stated that the County wo~id lim~ its ~a~iciDation to 50% o~ ~ ~t for a m~uiar bl~ wal[, or a financial cont~b~ion towards a M~ON ~ S~O~ ~ Request for Action 42"~ Avenue Retaining Wall Project No. 857 May 24, 19gg Page 2 FUNDING Estimated costs for site work items: It.em Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Sidewalk removal 3,200 SF $ 4.00 $12,800 and replacement Site Restoration 1 Lump Sum $ 9,000 $ .. 9,00a Total $ 21,800 The preliminary estimated cost of project is: Wall Type Area Unit PHce Wall Cost Sitework Total COSt , Cost Cast-in-place 3,800 SF $ 53.50 $203,200 $ 21,800 $ 225,000 concrete The project will be funded through the Road & Bridge Fund and Hennepin County's $70,000 contribution. ATTACHMENTS A memorandum from the City Engineer, a rendering of the new retaining wall, and the resolution are attached. IIIIIIII I CO~C~ Or~g Department Appt~ed t~or A&enda A~enda SecUon 0rdinances & Res. City Manager 5-24-99 Item No. By:. Dan Donahue By:. [o.2 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS RELATING TO THE PARK ACRES APARTMENTS PROJECT In 1997 the City approved a bond issue of $1,650,000 to Park Acres Apartment Project. Per their May 18"' correspondence (attached), they. are requesting, an additional $550,000 for a total of $2.2 million. According to our City Attorney, the bonds were sold but they were never issued so .the money was held in an escrow account. The odginal bond issue was going to be combined with a separate bond issue that Boisclair was coordinating with Brooklyn Park. Apparently that effort did not occur, and now they are coming back and asking the City to re-issue new bonds. Part of the money will be used to refinance an old loan and $800,000 will be used for remodeling and rehab of the complex. Mr. Boisclair will be present at the Council Meeting to answer any questions from the Council. DEVELOPING QUALITY INVESTMENTS IN REAL ESTATE May 18, 1999 Daniel Donahue Re: Reprise Associates L.P.'s City Manager Park Acres City of New Hope Permanent Bond Financing 4401 Xylon Avenue North Resolution Request New Hope, Minnesota 55428' Dear Mr. Donahue: In behalf of Reprise Associates Limited Partnership, the purchaser of Park Acres located at 8007 Bass Lake Road, family multi housing facility we are requesting the City of New Hope's reSOlution adopting the permanent financing originally intended by the City's preliminary tax exempt bond resolution of November 12, 1996. Since the City's resolution and subsequently securing the $1,650,000 tax exempt allocation from the State Finance Division's January 1997 bond pool we have been conducting the properties' necessary rehabilitation. Now virtually complete, Park Acres improvements total $800,000. Some of the improvements are detailed below: Park Acres Rehabilitation Work Bituminous Repair New Boilers Cabinet Replaced Window Replaced Appliances Replaced Structure Replaced Carpentry Floors Replaced Site Lighting Upgraded New Siding Carpet Replaced 3005 OTTAWA AVE. * ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416-2206 · PHONE: (612) 922-3881 · FAX: (612) 922-3071 Unfortunately however, due to the unforeseen substantial structural replacement cost we underestimated our financing needs in November 1996 and therefore, in addition to the $1,650,000 tax exempt bonds already approved, $550,000 taxable bonds are respectfully requested for the City of New Hope Sune 1, 1999 permanent financing resolution - $2.2 Million total. Park Acres permanent financing is a fixed rate FNMA credit enhanced first mortgage. A junior mortgage shall be privately placed by Piper Saffray to only sophisticated individuals that would sign an investor letter and would be required to meet minimum net worth and liquidity requirements. As you may recall, we are retaining affordability with the renewal of the Section 8 subsidy contract and are also quali .lying under the Section 42 Low Income Tax Credit program. Except for underestimating our financing needs necessitating our request for an additional $550,000 taxable bonds, our permanent financing set to close on or before June 15th minors the underwriting assumptions that were the basis for your January 16, 1998 Preliminary Feasibility Determination Letter. Paramount Financial Group, 3825 Columbus Road S.W., Building F, Granville, Ohio 43023, committed to purchase the tax credits and will provide $930,000 equity to complete the sale. As Reprise Associate's Limited Panner it will own 90% of the assets and Boisclair Corporation, the Managing General Panner, shall own 10% and remain the property manager. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Reprise Associates Limited Partnership, by Chief Man~8~ cc: Stefanie Galey, esq. EDA t I RF URST FOR ACTION Originating Depa, Ulient Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Community Development ~ EDA 5-24-99 Item No. ByKirk McDonald By:. // 4 DISCUSSION REGARDING OPTION AGREEMENT ON PROPERTY AT 7500 42"D AVENUE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 474) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests to discuss with the EDA entering into an option agreement with the owner of the property at 7500 42"~ Avenue North to guarantee that the property remains vacant dudng the month of June. . POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the EDA has entered into option agreements on vadous parcels of property for redevelopment purposes. BACKGROUND At the May 10, 1999, EDA meeting, the EDA approved a resolution authorizing appraisals and the commencement of negotiations to acquire the industrial property located at 7500 42"d Avenue North. As you are aware, the owner has inquired if the City is interested in acquiring the property due to the fact that the lease was not renewed with the tenant, Ardel Engineering, the lease will terminate on May 31, and the building will be vacated. The fact that the building will not have a tenant as of May 31 will save the City a substantial amount of funds due to the fact that relocation expenses will not need to be paid. Evergreen Land Services estimated that relocation costs for a business such as this would be a minimum of $100,000. The redevelopment of this property is identified as a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. The owner has had his own appraisal recently completed indicating a market value of $545,000. The resolution that was approved by the EDA had the paragraph deleted which discussed paying the owner a non-refundable fee to guarantee that the property remains vacant dudng the month of June until the City's appraisal was completed and until negotiations were completed. The City Attorney recommended deletion of that paragraph because the City was unaware what was acceptable to the (cont'd.) MOTION BY S~COND BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 5-24-99 owner. The owner has indicated that he has several parties interested in the property and would like the City to make an offer on the property. The owner has been informed that the City will not make an offer on the property until the (~ity's updated appraisal is completed. The appraisal will not be completed until the first part of June. The owner has indicated that he is willing to keep the building vacant dudng the month of June if he is paid a fee of $4,200. The owner has indicated that the current tenant is paying $4,900 per month in rent and that if the building is renovated, he would expect to lease it for approximately $5,900 per month. The owner has also pointed out that he is paying ongoing insurance coverage for the building. The City Attorney has prepared the attached option agreement authorizing payment to the owner a non- refundable fee in the amount of $4,200 to guarantee the property remains vacant during the month of June on the condition that said fee is applicable to the purchase price of the property in the event that the acquisition of the property is successful. Staff requests that the EDA give this agreement some consideration, as staff is concerned that the opportunity to acquire the property for redevelopment purposes may be lost. With the City's appraisal being completed in June, a determination should be able to be made during June as to whether an agreement can be reached on the purchase price or not. ATTACHMENTS · City Attorney Correspondence · Agreement 5/10/99 Resolution · Site Map Project No. 648 Bulletin #1 999 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Overview As you are aware by the work already started on Hillsboro Avenue, the City of New Hope is proceeding with the 1999 street/utility improvement project in the area north of Bass Lake Road and west of Boone Avenue. The project includes: Phase 1: · reconstruction of 60t~ Avenue between Hillsboro and Gettysburg Avenues; · reconstruction of Hillsboro Avenue between 59"~ and 60th Avenues; · reconstruction of Hillsboro Circle. Phase 2: · reconstruction of Gettysburg Avenue between Bass Lake Road and 60t~ Avenue; · reconstruction of Gettysburg Circle. Phase 3: · reconstruction of 59"' Avenue west of Gettysburg Avenue. Included with the street reconstruction will be the replacement of water mains in the area and upgrades to the storm water collection system in the neighborhood. In recent years this neighborhood has experienced numerous failures of the water mains and problems with the storm water drainage system. These improvements are intended to correct these situations and eliminate the need for future street excavations. Aisc included in the project is the improvement of trails within Liberty Park. Some trail segments will be eliminated to improve user safety, and others will be extended to provide access to the ballfield. Part of the improvements to Gettysburg Avenue will include providing a parking lane along the east side of the street adjacent to the basketball court in the park. Proiect Schedule The New Hope City Council awarded the contract for 1999 Infrastructure Improvements to Thomas and Sons Contracting, Incorporated at the May 10 Council meeting. The contractor started construction on the project May 18 and is estimated to complete the street and utility phase of the project in late October. The restoration work, including sod and application of the base course of bituminous, will be completed in the fall. The bituminous wear course will be placed in the spring of 2000. Construction Hours Standard construction hours will be between 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. 5/20/99 1999 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Property Access While short term street closures may occur, access to all homes will be restored at the end of each work day. If for some reason access cannot be restored at the end of the work day, the Public Works Department will be coordinating with the New Hope Police Department to allow for on-street parking in the area for that night. Driveways The project includes driveway apron replacement. The driveway apron will be approximately 8 feet behind the curb and gutter and will be constructed in concrete. If you are interested in additional concrete driveway reconstruction, you can contact the street contractor at (6'12) 428-2229. If you are interested in bituminous reconstruction, contact the Project Engineer. School The City has notified the School District of this project. It is the City's intention to maintain access for all neighborhood school buses. Mail Service Temporary mailboxes for Phase 1 have been located at 60th Avenue and Hillsboro Avenue. This was coordinated with the U.S. Postal Service.' The City has also notified local newspapers of this change. The location of temporary mailboxes for future phases has yet to be determined. Garbage Access will be maintained for garbage service. The contractor will make arrangements with the haulers to ensure garbage pickup. Sprinkler Systems The City's intent is to minimize disruption to lawn sprinkler systems. However, curb and gutter replacement, storm sewer construction, and water services will impact some systems. Please call the Project Engineer if you have a sprinkler system on your property. He will discuss the potential impact to your system. Sump Connections Some residents have requested sump pump connections to the storm sewer. The City will provide a connection point, if feasible. Please contact the Project Engineer if you may be interested in this type of connection. Temporary Water Service Dudng the water main replacement, water service will be provided to each home via a temporary water service. This above ground line will be located along the boulevard. Access to driveways will be provided across the temporary service. It is expected that temporary service will be necessary for several weeks until the permanent service is restored. You will receive a notice and hook-up procedure when you are required to switch to the temporary service. Page 2 1999 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Should you encounter any problems with this temporary service please contact either Larry Ramler, Project Superintendent, at 559-2922, Rob Dietman, Utility Foreman, at 867-6t90 or the New Hope Police Department's non-emergency number at 531-5170. Additional project bulletins will be mailed updating you on the progress of the project. Proiect Contacts Please contact Vince or Tom with project concerns or questions. · Vince VanderTop Project Engineer- (651) 604-4790 · Tom Schuster Contract Manager (6t2) 533-4823 ext. 13 In case of an emergency contact: · Larry Ramler Construction Superintendent (6t2) 559-2922 · Rob Dietman Construction Foreman (6t2) 867-6190 · New Hope Police Dept. (612) 531-5170 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Page 3