The URL can be used to link to this page

070699 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1999 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CONSENT BUSINESS 4. PUBLIC HEARING * 4.1 Case99-13 Request for a Variance to the Front Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Second Story and an Addition to the Front of the Garage, 8948 Northwood Parkway, Robert & Janet White, Petitioners 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: Thursday, June 17 at 8 a.m. 5.2 Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: Thursday, June 24 at 7 a.m. (if necessary) 5.3 Report of Zoning Code/Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - to be scheduled 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Miscellaneous Issues 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of June 1, 1999. 7.2 Review of City Council Minutes of May 24 and June 14, 1999. 7.3 Review of EDA Minutes of May 24 and June 14, 1999. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8.1 August 3 Planning Commission meeting is National Night Out - Change Date? 9. ADJOURNMENT . Petitioners are required to be in attendance Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will oper~ the.public hearing, asking first for those who. wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large 'number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to .new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. Al If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. PLANNING CASE REPORT City of New Hope Meeting Date: July 6, 1999 Report Date: July 2, 1999 Planning Case: 99-13 Petitioner: Robert & Janet VVhite Address: 8948 Northwood Parkway Request: Request for a Variance to the Front Yard Setback Requirement to Allow ConstructiOn of a Second Story and an Addition to the Front of the Garage I. Request The petitioners are requesting a variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow construction of a second story and an addition to the front of the garage, pursuant to Sections 43034(3) and 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. They are requesting ~o add a six-foot addition to the front of their garage and front entry in order to add a second story addition to their existing house, which is a one-story rambler. The addition would create additional living space for the family of six. I1. Zoning Code References The addition, at the closest point, would be located 24 feet from the front yard property line and the front yard setback requirement in the R-1 Zoning Distdct is 30 feet, therefore a six-foot variance from the 30-foot setback standard is required. The existing home meets all required setbacks (the chimney on the south side of the home is. a permitted encroachment). II1. Property Specifications Zoning: R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District Location: East side of Northwood Parkway, west of Boone Avenue, and between cross streets of Flag Avenue and Northwood Circle Adjacent Land Uses: Surrounded by single family homes, rear yard abuts Northwood Lake Site Area: 10,500 square feet, 0124 acres - 75 feet wide and 140 feet deep Building Area: 2,200 square feet plus 1,100 square feet proposed expansion Percent Landscaped: 80% of lot is landscaped Utilities/Topo: There is a 10-foot wide utility easement with a power pole located in it directly at the rear of the home. There is also a steep slope from the front of the home to the back of the walkout rambler-style home. The topography of the property at the street is 897 sloping to 890 at the rear of the property. Planning District: No. 12, Iow density residential area in good to excellent condition, promotes housing maintenance and upgrades through private reinvestment Planning Case Report 99-13 Page 1 7/2/99 IV. Background .... This neighborhood was developed in the 1960s, with this home built in 1967. Over the years, assorted improvements have been made to the walk-out home on Northwood Lake. It is in fine condition and has gone through one Code Compliance process when it was sold in 1985 to the applicant. In 1994, the Whites obtained a building permit for a major addition to the home, which was not built, because they discovered soil problems behind the home. V, Petitioner's Comments The petitioners indicate in their correspondence that "the purpose of our request is to get relief from the front setback to allow a six-foot addition to the front of our garage and front entry. We are also planning a second level addition to provide additional living space. We have owned and lived in our New Hope home since August of 1985. As a family of six (four children ages 2 - 7), we are faced with two options. A. Move out of our neighborhood and most likely New Hope to a bigger home. B. Add additional living and garage space to our existing home." The petitioners stated that "we have investigated both options over the past few years and weighed the many pros and cons. After much analysis, adding on to our existing home provides us with the most feasible option for our family. Some of the intangible pros include: · Great neighbors (can't control or buy this in a move!) · Wonderful back yard (lakefront is difficult and costly to find) · Established neighborhood with mature trees · Convenient access to everything · Mature city with a "home-town" feel · Great schools As our decision to add on to our existing home grew more clear, we investigated our options of how to gain the space desired for our growing family. Option 1: Build out to the back of our existing structure We discovered this was NOT feasible for many reasons: A. Bad soil conditions: This is the primary reason we Will not build out the back. We had a soil sample taken around 1990 and the core sample showed green swamp grass at 88 inches deep. This was taken approximately 10 feet out from our foundation. The excavators we consulted said we would have to do special footings. This would have been twice the cost and not recommended because of settling concerns. B. Easement limitation: Because of the utility easement, the addition would be limited to 10-12 feet out the back. This limited our options and complicated the tie-in to the existing house because of the roof tie-in and interior floor plan. C. Difficult backyard access: Because of the close side yard (5 foot and 10 foot) and steep decline to the back of our walkout rambler, it would be difficult to get equipment in the back yard. D. Mature tree loss: We have a beautiful maple (3 feet in diameter) behind the garage that would need to be cut down if any addition is put out on the back of our home. Planning Case Report 99-13 Page 2 7/2/99 E. New deck loss: Our deck was rebuilt about seven years ago. It is 24 x 12 behind the house and 14 x 12 behind the garage. A deck is a must with the Northwood Lake view! OPTION 2: Add a level up and extend the garage & front entry This is our only option (as we see it) as it provides the following: A. Better dollar value: We would not need footings for a full addition. It also provides for an easier and more visually appealing tie-in to our existing home. B. No existing losses: No loss of mature trees. No loss of backyard space. No loss of existing deck. C. Increased square footage: The new upper level allows us the desperate need for additional bedroom space for us and our four children. This opens up the main level for daily living space. D. More functional garage & entry space: · Functional entry: Currently our front door entry is only three feet. You walk in the door right into the closet door. Not a welcoming or functional entry for kids, family and friends. · Functional garage: Currently our garage barely fits two vehicles. The only exit/access to the vehicles is the center of the garage. We also have little reom to get from the vehicles into the house. With four children it becomes very difficult to maneuver around shoes, boots, coats, etc. The additional space will provide for a "mud" reom entry and seasonal storage (bikes, shovels, typical garage stuff, etc.). · Functional front porch: Access to the garage, proposed front porch, and front entry is a functional and visually appealing design. · Dimension: Our proposed addition adds dimension and style to a plain rambler." VI. Notification Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments regarding this request. VII. Development Analysis A. Zonin.q Code Criteria The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from strict application of the Zoning Code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. "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. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: Planning Case Report 99-13 Page 3 7/2/99 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. B. Development Review Team This request and the plans were reviewed by the appropriate Department personnel serving on the "Development Review Team" and the plans received favorable review with no recommendations for changes. C. Desi.qn & Review Committee The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioners on June 17 and commented favorably on the expansion plans and the fact that this type of expansion is consistent with what is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Committee confirmed that the building materials of the addition will match the existing, as the petitioner indicated that the entire home would be resided and stated that the front windows would be replaced. There was a minor (1 foot) error on the site plan and the Committee requested that a revised site plan be submitted and requested that the fireplace in the side yard also be noted on the plan. The petitioner submitted a revised site plan as a result of the meeting. D. Plan Description The revised site plan shows that a six-foot addition would be added to the front of the garage to provide access to the new front porch, which will be added in conjunction with the second story addition. The chimney foundation in the southeast side yard has been shown located eight feet from the property line (this is a permitted encroachment). The utility easement is shown at the rear of the home, along with the power pole location, existing decks, and location of the mature trees. The location of the core soil sample is also noted. E. Plannin,q Considerations The Planning Consultant and staff have reviewed the plans/application and support the granting of the variance request for the following reasons: 1) Comprehensive Plan - The Comprehensive Plan contains policies to promote private reinvestment in the City's single family housing stock and to examine city development regulations to provide greater development flexibility for single-family homeowners (see attached excerpts from Comprehensive Plan). Allowing the setback variance for an addition to the White residence is consistent with these Comprehensive Plan policies. 2) Soil Limitation - Extension to the rear of the existing structure is not feasible due to soil limitations. The Whites had a soil sample taken around 1990 approximately ten feet from the house foundation. The core sample showed green swamp grass at 88 inches deep. Special footings would be required for an addition, which would double the cost. Settling would still be a concern even with the special footings. 3) Easement Limitation - A ten-foot wide utility easement runs through the White property behind the rear deck. The utility easement would limit the addition to 10 to 12 feet in depth. This situation would limit addition options and would complicate construction of the addition due to the roof connection and interior floor plan. Planning Case Report 99-13 Page 4 7/2/99 4) Access Limitation - Construction in the back yard would be hampered by difficult access due to narrow side yards (5 feet and ten feet) and a steep slope to the back of the walkout, rambler- style home. 5) Mature Tree Loss - A mature maple with a three-foot diameter would need to be removed if an addition was located to the rear of the house. 6) Deck Loss - An addition to the rear of the house would require the removal of a deck that was rebuilt about seven years ago. The deck is a total of 456 square feet in size and has a Northwood Lake view. 7) Past Practice - The Building Official points out that some front yard variances have been granted by the City in the past (see Development Review Notes and attachment). 8) Zoning Code Update - In follow-up to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the City has just initiated an update of the entire Zoning Code which will be completed in the next nine - twelve months. One of the topics of discussion will be adopting some variations from the existing setback standards to allow for a greater variety of home elevations, designs and curb appeal, including front wall setbacks. 9) Remodeling Planbook - This request is exactly the type of remodeling/expansion/reinvestment improvement that is encouraged in the recently published Remodeling Planbook that was funded by many inner-ring suburban communities, including New Hope. VIII.Summary Staff and the Planning Consultant find that granting a variance to allow a 24-foot front yard setback would enable the VVhites to enlarge their home and garage. This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy to promote private reinvestment in the City's single-family housing stock. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages greater development flexibility for single family homeowners. Unique hardship has been demonstrated with soil limitation, easement limitation, access limitation, mature tree loss, and deck loss. IX. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow a 24-foot front yard setback to accommodate the expansion of the home, subject to the following condition: 1. That the building materials on the exterior of the home addition be consistent with and match the existing home. Attachments: · Address/Zoning/Topo Maps · Planner's Report · Site Plans (Revised) · Elevation · Floor Plan · Petitioner Correspondence · Development Review Notes · Surveyor's Certificate · Original Site Plan · Building Official Attachment · Photos · Comprehensive Plan Update Excerpts · Remodeling Planbook Excerpts · Application Log Planning Case Report 99-13 Page 5 7/2/99 ~ ~, ~ o~ ELEMENTARY % % ~ %~._ '~% SC,HOOL 2~, 5TAL FREE CHU"CH ~= ~ ~ MEt~NON- ~odx¢o~b ~o~b ' .... z ~ G~HSEMANE - ~v~ N' ~ ..... _. ~ . ~ a~n~ Ct~c~~ _ -- .... ~ SONNESYN ..... .__ - ~_~ ~ I-2 ___ ~ ' 'z - --~---- ELEMENTARY ~'. - ---~ .... ~ ~ SCHOOL _ ~TH ~v~ _~ _. ' ....... ~-" ' LUTHERAN ~ .-._ , ~ _ ~' / ,~ -' - ~- ~ - ALLIANCE - - ~ ..... : ' o~' . ~ "-- - -- ~ . - I/ x II 888.5 X I 11 ' ~I~~L~--~ NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS /~ I '~~~ COMMUNITY PLANNING ' DESI(~N MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Cynthia Putz-Yang /Alan Brixius DATE: June 17, 1999 RE: New Hope - White Residence Variance FILE NO.: 131.01 - 99.05 BACKGROUND Robert and Janet White at 8948 Northwood Parkway are requesting a variance from front yard setback standards to allow a six foot addition to the front of their garage and front entry. The existing house is a one-story rambler. If the requested variance is approved, the White family plans to add a second story to their house, creating additional space for the family of six. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Building Elevation Exhibit D - Floor Plan Exhibit E -Application Narrative RECOMMENDATION Based on the information contained within this report, including a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and a finding of unique hardship that prevents compliance with the front yard setback standard, we recommend approval of the variance request to allow a 24 foot front yard setback at the White residence at 8948 Northwood Parkway. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554! PHONE 6 1 2-'595--9636 FAX 6 I 2-595-9837 E-MAiL NAC@WINTERNET.COM ISSUES AND-ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan contains policies to promote private reinvestment in the City's single family housing stock and to examine City development regulations to provide greater development flexibility for single family homeowners. Allowing the setback variance for an addition to the White residence is consistent with these Comprehensive Plan policies. Soil Limitation, Extension to the rear of the existing structure is not feasible due to soil limitations. The White's had a soil sample taken around 1990 approximately ten feet from the house foundation. The core sample showed green swamp grass at 88 inches deep. Special footings would be required for an addition, which would double the cost. Settling would still be a concern even with the special footings. Easement Limitation, A ten foot wide utility easement runs through the White property behind the rear deck. The utility easement would limit the addition to 10 to 12 feet in depth. This situation would limit addition options and would complicate construction of the addition, due to the roof connection and interior floor plan. Access Limitation, Construction in the backyard would be hampered by difficult access due to narrow side yards (5 feet and 10 feet) and a steep slope to the back of the walkout rambler-style home. Mature Tree Loss, A mature maple with a three-foot diameter would need to be removed if an addition wes located to the rear of the house. Deck Loss, An addition to the rear of the house would require the removal of a deck that was rebuilt about 7 years ago. The deck is a total of 456 square feet in size and has a Northwood Lake view. CONCLUSION Granting a variance to allow a 24 foot front yard setback would enable the White's to enlarge their home and garage. This project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy to promote private reinvestment in the City's single family housing stock. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages greater development flexibility for single family homeowners. Unique hardship has been demonstrated with soil limitation, easement limitation, access limitation, mature tree loss, and deck loss. We, therefore, recommend approval of a variance to allow a 24 foot front yard setback. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall .2 ZONING DISTRICT MAP · ITE LOCATION · ~'~ =~' ~=:~:~-*'Pl ~ I~=~?~:~<:::;Ft~''~''=~''~'- .', )1 I:I ]1 --{:I-~%'."~,-'{]:,[. -.'. I--.- J-{--'.;"':~...;~ :- . , ;' q I ..... ~,-~;' ~m.--'~-'-;'~,./..,~.~.'::J_.':~..." ::'~~, .: ._L'.~'::.- ,- ~ .... :J~ ..... '.~. ~1 ~ I~l~:-~'d ~~ .-:~:;':'-~ ~ ["' :'~[~ ~ 'tn~ :_ ?:L ~' ~,~,,~ ~ EXHIBIT EXHIBIT B i EXHIBIT D Single Fam~'l~ Residential Variance Application: PID #: 18-118-21 31 0046 6/09/99 Robert & Janet White 8948 No~hwood Pkwy New Hope, Mn 55427 The Purpose of our request is to get relief from the front set back to allow a six foot addition to the front of our garage and front entry. We are also planning a second level addition to provide additional living space. We have owned and lived in our New Hope home since August of 1985. As a family of 6 (4 children ages 2 - 7), we are faced with two options: 1. Move out of our neighborhood and most likely New Hope to a bigger home. 2. Add additional living and garage space to our existing home. We have investigated both options over the past few years and weighed the many pros and cons. ARer much analysis, adding on to our existing home provides us with the most feas~'ble option for our f~m/ly. Some of the intangible pros include: ' Great Neighbors (cant control or buy thi~ in a move!) Wonderful backyard (Lakefront is difficult and costly to find) · Established neighborhood with mature trees Convenient access to everything · Mature city with a "homo-town" feel · Great schools As our decision to add on to our existing home grew more clear, we investigated our options of. how to gain the space desired for our growing fame. OPTION 1: Build out to the back of our existing structure We discovered this was NOT feasible for many reasons: A. Bad soil conditions: This is the primary reason we will not build out the back We had a soil sample taken around 1990 and the core samp. le showed green swamp grass at 88" deep. This was taken approximately 10 feet out from our foundation. The excavators we consulted said we would have to do special footings. This would have been twice the cost and not recommended because of settling concerns. B. Easement limitation: Because of the utility easement, the addition would be lim~ed to ~0-12' out the back. This llrr~ed our options and complicated the tie-in to the existing house because of the'roof tie-in and interior floor plan. EXHIBIT E C. Difficult backyard access: Because of the close side yards (5 foot and 10 foot) and steep decline to the back of our walkout rambler, it would be diffia~ to get equipment in the backyard. D. Mature tree loss: We have a beautiful maple (3' in diameter) behind the garage that would need to be cut down if any addition is put out on the back of our home. E. New deck loss: Our deck was rebuilt about 7 years ago. It is 24 x 12 behind the house and 14 x 12 behind the garage. A deck is a must with the Northwood lake view! OPTION 2: Add a level up and extend the garage & front entry This is our only option (as we see it) as it provides the foIlowing: A. Better dollar value: We would not need footings for a full addition, h also provide for an easier and more visually appealing tie in to our existing home. 'B. No existing losses: No loss of mature trees. No loss ofbackyard space. No loss of existing deck. C. Increased square footage: The new upper level allows us the desperate need for additional bedroom space for us and our 4 children. This opens up the main level for daffy living space. D. More functional garage & entry space: > Functional entry:. Currently our front door entry is only 3 feet. You walk in the door fight into the closet door. Not a welcomlng or functional entry for kids, farm'ly and Mends. > Functional garage: Currently our garage barely fits 2 vehicles. The only exit/access to the vehicles is the center of the garage. We also have little room to get, from the vehicles into the house. With 4 childrenit becomes very aifflcult to maneuver around shoes, boots, coats, etc. The additional space will provide . for a "mud" room entry and seasonal storage (bikes, shovels, typical garage stu etc. > Functional front porch: Access to the garage, proposed front porch, and front entry is a functional and visually appealing design. > Dimension: Our proposed addition adds dimension and style to a plain rambler. We hope you will consider our plan based on the above information. We would be happy to provide more detail and/or clarification to the above proposal as necessary. Thank you! Robert W. White and Janet M.P. Wlfite lievelollnlelli IBeview ( (tlnlniliee DATE: June 16, 1999 STAFF PRESENT: ADDRESS: 8948 Northwood Parkway PROPERTY ~WNER: Robert & Janet White REQUEST: Front Yard Setback Variance 1_. The Concept is fine; Homeowners desire a major expansion and investment and have few options but to "go up", adding a second story. Since they also need more garage, the only practical expansion for vehicles and storage is towards the street about 6 feet.' Mitigating factors include; 2. Poor soil conditions in the back yard [north] are common in this area, because of the Bassett Creek flood plain. Owner had a soil boring made in 1990 ten feet behind the home and it revealed soft organic soil with swamp grass over 7 feet deep ! 3. Drainage & Utility Easement approximately 10-12 feet behind the home cannot be built upon, by city code. This leaves room for a tiny 8-11 foot addition, in order to keep the footings off the easement. 4. Loss of rear deck on Northwood "Lake"; If they were to build an 8 - 11 foot addition in back, they would have no room foe a deck on the waterfront, because of the easement. 5. Tree loss; Although New Hope has no tree preservation ordinance, we have approved variances when valuable amenities like healthy large trees can be avoided, along with other factors. A healthy 36" maple is close to the back wall of the home 6. Back yard access is poor; The drop-off to the back yard [walk-out basement] and minimum [existing] side yard setbacks make getting construction equipment to the rear a major problem. 7. Precedents; A few front yard variances have been granted by the City in the past. The largest residential front setback variance was approx. 18 feet in a 50 foot setback area on Boone Ave. [36%]. This request is for a 6 foot reduction in the 30 foot minimum [20%]. [Exhibit 'A' shows the block-long topo with Boone Avenue precedent cited.] Another similar 2nd story was added down the street a few years ago, on the desirable Northwood neighborhood. '8. "Non-economic hardship" demonstrated ??; See items 2, 3,4 5 & 6, above. 9. Comprehensive plan consistency; We have formalized the goal of encouraging expansion- in-place and reinvestment in our buildings and grounds. We have even pledged to remove unnecessary or obsolete barriers to sound development and land use. 10. Zoning Code modernity: Staff are beginning a complete-redo of the 100 page Zoning Ordinance later this month; One of our topics will be variations from rigid minimum setbacks. Some support exists for a variety of home elevations, designs and curb appeal looks, including front wall setbacks, despite the existing 1960's result with every home at the minimum setback [to save the builder money, among other things].DES 6-11-99 960. 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. Goal 1: Provide a vadety of housing types, styles and choices to meet the needs of New Hope's changing demographics. Policies: A. Through infill development and redevelopment efforts, increase life cycle housing opportunities not currently available within the City (i.e., high value housing, townhomes). B. Promote medium density attached housing to address the needs of an expanding empty nester or independently living elderly population. C. Continue the City's efforts to provide special needs housing for people with various types .of disabilities. /~Goal 2: Maintain and enhance the strong character of New Hope's single family~ residential neighborhoods. ,, Policies: · Promote private reinvestment in the City's single family housing stock. . 8.. ~mir~ Cityhom~:~,'ners.d~vel°~m'~t r~ul~tions to I~'ovid~ greater development fiex~ single family C. Prevent the intrusion of incompatible land uses into Iow density single family neighborhoods. Cit~ of New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update Deve~pment Framework 12 CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by City that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver 99-13 Robert & Janet White 6/11/99 8/10/99 10/9/99 8948 Northwood Parkway New Hope 55427 593-9289 Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. A. Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the City received the application. D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. I. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. Memorandum To: Planning Commission Members From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development Date: July 2, 1999 Subject: Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this' miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on CounciI/EDAJHRA actions. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. June 14 Council/EDA Meetings - At the June 14 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Resolution Approving Amendment and Extension of Metropolitan Council Local Plannin.n Assistance Program Grant Agreement (Planning Case 97-22): Approved, see attached Council request. B. Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement Between the City of New Hope and Hennepin County for Participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program in FY 2000-2002: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Project #612, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for Advertisement for Bids for Construction of the Home at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Project #637, Resolution -Approving Plans and Specifications for Council Chambers Electronic Equipmen. t Ul~;Irade: Approved, see attached Council request. E. Proiect #659, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Fire Station Roof Replacement: Approved, see attached Council request. F. Acceptance of Wetland Inventory and Management Plan and Park Trails Condition Report: Accepted report, see attached Council request. G. Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Multi-Family Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds Relating to the Park Acres Apartments Proiect: Approved, see attached Council request. H. Ordinance 99-04/Planning Case 99-04, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Si.qn Code by Increasing Area Limitation for Signage Fronting on Fraeway_~: Adopted, see attached Council request. I. Ordinance 99-05, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the New Hope City Code Regulating Business Licenses: Adopted, see attached Council request. J. Ordinance 99-061Planning Case 97-26, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 6 of the New Hope City Code Regulating Courtesy Bus Benches: Adopted, see attached Council request. K. Project ;~,74, Motion Accepting Appraisal and Authorizing Staff to Negotiate with Property Owner Regarding Potential Acquisition of Industrial Property Located at 7500 42"" Avenue-: Authorization granted to negotiate purchase of property. 2. June 28 CouncillEDA Meetings - At the June 28 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Project ~=46, Resolution Awarding Contract for the Demolition of House and Garage at 554~ Sumter Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Motion to Approve Waiving the Fees for Sign and Tent Permits for Lions Club Annual Corn Feed to be Held on August 18, 1999: Fees waived, see attached Council request. C.Proiect #620, Resolution Approving Traffic Control Signal Agreement Relating to Hi_qhwav 169 and 49= Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. D.Project ~620, Resolution Approving Traffic Control Si;Inal A¢ireement Relatin.q to Hi.qhwav 169 and Medicine Lake Road: Approved, see attached Council request. E. Project #612, Resolution Awarding Contract for the Construction of Home at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. F. Project #657, Resolution Rejecting Bids for the 42"" Avenue Retaining Wall Proiect: Approved,' see attached Council request. G. Proiect #662, Resolution Approving 1999 Amendment to Master Modification tn Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plans and Makin;I Findinas with Respect Thereto: Approved, see attached Council request. H. Presentation of Feasibility Report for Improvement Project #656 - Golf Course Clubhouse: Accepted report and will seek RFP this fall. Construction may being fall of 2000. I. Proiect #660, Resolution Authorizing Preparation of a Purchase Agreement for the City Purchase of 8808 41't Avenue: Approved subject to soil boring data, see attached Council request. J. Project #637, Resolution Awarding Contract for Council Chambers Electronic Equipment UDarade: Approved, see attached Council request. K. Project #662, Resolution Approving 1999 Amendment to Master Modification to Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plans and Makin~j Findings with Respect Thereto: Approved, see attached EDA request. L. Project #510, Resolution Approving Subordination of Mortgages to New First Mort.qage for New Hope Apartments: Approved, see attached EDA request. M. Project #474, Discussion Regarding Potential Acquisition of Industrial Property Located at 7500 42"" Avenue: Authorization granted to enter into a purchase agreement, see attached EDA request. 3. Codes & Standards Committee - Codes & Standards did not meet in June. 4. Design & Review Committee - Design & Review met to review plans for the front yard variance. 5. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee met in June to review Crystal's Comprehensive Plan update, Golden Valley's General Land Use Plan, and New Hope's plan. 6. Zoning Code Update Committee - City staff and consultants met .on June 29 to start outlinging areas of the Code that need to be modified. 7. Au_~ust Planing Commission - Anticipated applications: A. Kmart B. Cooper High School C. Johnson Van & Storage (U-haul) 8. Project Bulletin - Enclosed are project bulletins regarding 5629 Wisconsin Avenue and the 1999 ~-~ Infrastructure project. 9. Planning Commission Roster - A new member roster is enclosed, separately, with this packet. 10. MiscellaneOus Articles - Zoning News. 11. Miscellaneous Issues: A. City staff continued to work on the following potential developments: 1) Navarre building expansion 2) Cooper gyms 3) Valspar building expansion 4) SuperAmerica 5) Artec building expansion 6) A.C. Carlson plat and rezoning or CUP 7) Potential Keelor Steel expansion Attachments: Local Planning Assistance Grant Agreement Joint Cooperation Agreement 5629 Wisconsin Plans & Specs Council Chambers Equipment Plans & Specs Fire Station Plans & Specs Wetland Inventory Park Acres Apartments Project Ordinance 99-04, Sign Code Amendment Ordinance 99-05, Business Licenses Ordinance 99-06, Courtesy Bus Benches 7500 42'= Avenue Traffic Signal at Highway 169 & 49~' Avenue Traffic Signal at Highway 169 & Medicine Lake Road 5629 Wisconsin Award Contract 42= Avenue Retaining Wall 1999 Amendment to Master Modification to Redevelopment Plans Golf Course Clubhouse 8808 41'~ Avenue Prepare Purchase Agreement Council Chambers Equipment Award Contract 1999 Amendment to Master Modification to Redevelopment Plans (EDA) New Hope Apartments 7500 42'~ Avenue Project Bulletins Miscellaneous Articles Ort~matm~ Depa~-Cment .Approved for .A~enda .A~enda ~uon Communi~ Development ~ Consent 1~99 tt~ ~o. ~i~ McDonald ~ 6.7 R~SOL~TIO~'APPROVING AMENDMENTAND ~T~NSlON OF METROPOLITAN COUNCIL LOCAL P~NNING ASSISTANCE PROG~M G~NT AGREEMENT (P~NNING CASE NO. 97-22) ACTION ~EEQUE~TED Staff requests that the Council approve the affa~ resolution whi~ ap~oves an amendment and e~ension of the Me~opolitan Council Local Planning Assistan~ Pr~ram Grant Agreement. The approval of the ~mement will provide the Ci~ w~h an a~itionai $1,~ for the Life Cycle Housing Study that was complet~ in 1998, in ~njun~ion w~h the CompmhensNe Plan U~ate. 'POLICWPAST P~CTICE In the past the Ci~ has util~ a vade~ of ~nding sour~s, including grants Eom a wide range of agencies, to help ~nd planning studies, housing proje~, business expansions, etc. BACKGROUND . In July 1997, the Ci~ Council approv~ a resolution a~hodzing the appli~tion for a Metropolitan Council Planning Assistan~ Grant for a Li~ Cycle Housing Stu~ in conjun~ion w~h several other cities. . ~e Ci~ was not~ in August 1~7 that the joint appli~tion had r~N~ a grant in the amount of $7,500, Or $1,500 for ea~ of the ~e pa~i~pating ~ies. . In De~m~r 1997, the Ci~ Coun~l appmv~ a msoi~on approving ~e Gent Agreement. . In Mar~ 1998, ~o of ~e ~e ~es dete~in~ not to pr~ wi~ the study. ~e Ci~ Manager request~ that the M~ Coundi ame~ the gent ~ment so that the grant would ~ divided by thr~ claes instead of ~ o~nal ~e c~ies. . In May 1999, the M~ Coun~l ms~ ~ ~e endos~ amendment do. merit, which states that ea~ of the th~ ~dp~ ~ ~11 r~be $2,~ for ~e study, whi~ represents a $1,000 increase over ~ o~inai $1,~ gm~ amour. ,FUNDING ~e total ~st ~ ~ hou~ s~ ~s ~,~ ~r ~, w~ a ~ion ~ing pa~ ~ grant ~nds and the remainder ~i~ ~ ~ Planning and Housing ~nds. ~e add~onal gent ~nding Eom the Met Council will make ~ ~anni~ a~ Ho~i~ ~nd~ available for o~ ~ ~j~. A~ACH~ENT9 . 5/1~99 Met Coundl Co~s~nde~ a~ Ag~ment ~: ........ III I I II ~A~Z ~ COUNc~ ~ .. RF~UE~T FOR ACTION Ort&~g Depart~ent Al)proved for ~e~ ~da ~cuon Communi~ Development Consent 6-14-99 tt~ No. ~i~ McDonald ~ 6.8 RESOLUTION AU~ORIZlNG THE ~ECUTION OF A JOINT C~PE~TION AGREEMENT BE~EN THE CI~ OF N~ HOPE AND HENNEPIN COUN~ FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUN~ COMMUNI~ DEVELOPMENT BLOCK G~NT PROG~M IN FY 2000 - 2002 ACTION REQUESTED Staff re~mmends that the Ci~ Council ~ass the resolution approving the Joint Coo~ration Agreement for the U~an Hennepin Coun~ Communi~ Development BIo~ Grant Pr~mm. POLICY/PAST P~CTICE In the past the. Ci~ has ap~rov~ these agreements on a murine basis eve~ thr~ years. The last joint Cooperation Agreement was approv~ in May 19~ for fis~l yearn 1997-1999. BACKGROUND ~e enclosed resolution approves the execution of ~e U~an Hennepin Coun~ Joint Cooperation Agreement for fis~l years 2000-2002 ~een the C~ of New Ho~ and Hennepin County. The agreement sets fo~h broad shar~ powem for ~ing o~ housing and ~mmuni~ ~evelopment a~ivities. The U.S. Depa~ment of Housing and U~an ~velopment (HUD) r~uires the agreement order for Hennepin Coun~ to qual~ as an u~an ~un~ and ~ the recipient of CDBG and HOME ~nds. A draft gray,line ~py of the ~ent is encio~, whi~ details the revisions to ~e cuffent agr~ment. ~e mo~ signifi~nt ~anges am to in,ease ~e ~mshold for pa~idpafion in the ~nsolidated pool from $50,000 to $75,~0 a~ to ~ a dau~ in S~on VI that g~es c~ea that rea~ meVopolitan entitlement status ~fom Ju~ 16, 1~, the ~oi~ of o~ing o~ of the pr~mm or to defer their status and stay in the ~u~ ~mm. ~ of the~ changes impaas New Ho~. FUNDING Under the Joint ~fi~ Ag~ment, New Ho~ a~omati~l~ is el~ible for CDBG and HOME Program funding. ~ ~ ~r~ment would ~ eff~e O~o~r 1, 1~. A~ACHMENTS · 516/99 Hennepin Coun~ Co~s~nden~ and Agr~ment Onglnaun8 13eparm~nt Appmmt tot ~a ~da ~Uon Communi~ Development ~ Consent ff lt~ No. ~Susan Hen~ 6/14/99 -~'Communi~ Development Sp~.ialist ..~ , , 6.12 RESOLUTION APPROVING P~NS AND SPECIFICA~ONS AND ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ~E HOME AT 5629 ~SCONSIN AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 612) ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting Council approval of a resolution approving plans and s~fi~tions for the single ' family, thr~ ~room a~ssible home to ~ built at 5629 ~s~nsin Avenue No~. ~e resolution also approves the adve~isement for const~ion bids. BACKGROUND On May 10, 1999, the Ci~ Council pass~ a motion approving the three ~droom slab on grade design for the 5629 ~s~nsin Avenue lot. Staff was a~ho~ to finish the s~cifi~tions w~h Equal Access Homes. ~e Council r~uested staff to strongly ~nsider the home'S features and t0 possibly scale back and to only include the basi~. Staff has ~nsult~ with Equal A~ss Homes and has included some items as options on the affach~ s~fi~tions ~r Counol's r~mmendation. Some features of the home ~n easily ~ w~en as o~ons; o~er features are r~uir~ ~use of the ac~ssibil~ nature of ~ home. ~o~ items, as o~in~'by the Disabl~ Veterans Grant, include the. following: ~ver~ en~, ~ ~ window, g~ qual~ fl~r ~vedngs, like ~ramic tile and ~mmercial ~t; a~ la~ tumi~ radiums ~mugho~ ~e home. O~ Rem of question was the whiU~oi tub remus a ~nv~nal ~b. A ~id~l tub may ~ ~e ~oj~ an e~ ~00 but R is quite ne~ssa~ given ~ papular h~N~ s~le. Staff believes ~ h~'s ~ a~al is real implant, t~, and n~ a pla~ to cut drastic comers. Possible options to ~ in~ ~ foiling: d~; sye of ~nd~ (sl~er venus ~sements, or bay remus square); ~ ~ ~t (or limR the amou~ of bd~). ~other Rem to ~ssibly c~ is air ~nd~oning (and ~ in ~il inst~ so ~e home is wi~ and m~y to go). (cont'd.) Request for Action. Page 2 6-14-99 A couple of other considerations include a wider garage (24 X 24 versus 26 X 24) and/or additional garage storage shelving. Since there is space to widen the garage, it may be advantageous to do with no basement on the home. For fast-tracking the project, the City Manager authorized staff to place an advertisement for bids in the June 9 SunPost newspaper. Construction bids are due into city offices by June 23 at 11 a.m. Once the bids are in, the Council can pick and choose from the options. Staff plans to bring the bids back to the June 28 Council meeting for final approval of the contract. FUNDING Community Development Block Grant (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 $37,000 in HOME funds available from the five-city CHDO for a second mortgage and grant (gap financing) assistance. ATTACHMENTS · Map · · Design Plan and Required Specifications/Options · Footprint City of New Hope SPECIFICATIONS FOR "ACCE.C~qtBlJE "SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 5629 WISCONSLN AVE. NORTH The City of New Hope is seeking quotes on the following work to be done in constructing an "accessible" single family home. Page 1 of 7 · Date: 6/6/99 House Square Foot :1510 Foundation: Slab on fgade -Rambler. Garage: 2 stall 576 sq. ft. Bedrooms: 3 Finished Baths: 2 ALLOWANCES Grab bars: (4) M&L S 160.00 Appliance: S Lighting: S SO0.~ Sod & Landscaping $ 0.00 Fireplace: S 0.00 Water Softener S O. OO Brick Materials: S ~ Carpet & Lino. S 6,090.00 By the city Building_ _hermit coats: By tim city except for surcharge of approL S 65.00 Sabeontraetoe n~rmlts: ~ permits StOl apply Mature' Bath: Complete Floor / with abrasive tile ( S 3.50/sq. fL floor tile materials allowance ) include wall file around the tub, 18" high ( S 2.50/sq. fL will tile mm-rials allowance) Shower walls to72' high ( $ 2.50/sq. ft. waft tile material aflowance ) (ceramic floor at mil unde~ vanity area ), Include a four piece ceramic fixture set installed Main Level rail bath: . · Include a three piece ceramic fixture set installed . _ page 2of ~ 5/12 and 7/12 Style: Gable ~ffdlil~: Eight foot walls on main floor [No['aults) Lumber: 2 x 6 exterior wall framing 1/2" OSB Roof Sheathing , 15/32 OSB Wall Sheathing Factory Engineered Trusses with Energy heels Provide pounng insulation for top crs.ofblock Provide "Ice & Water" protection materials for sidewalks and patio areas. Provide 3/4"CDX Plywood backing materials for shower walls. ' ~ Vinyl ( Include building wrap ) SItllll~lt_EIg~: Aluminum ( Continuous soffit vents on the house not the garage ) Brick:. Per plan, $ 410.00/1000 Materials allowance Gu~er~: Front entry area - 8' along garage and 13' across the front ~rch. Downspout to be located at tl~ front n~t corner of tl~ porch ~: Top soil from the site will be ~ for final grading. ~: Asphalt ( 18' wide ) ~: Slab on grade foundation per plan ( 4" slab ova' 4~ sand bss~ ) Provide ~d immll poly layer und~ slab Cem,~nt lhUio ~t ~ swing door ( 10' x 12') C~ment l~tio ~ M~st~ bedroom egress door ( 6' x 10') Sidewalk from front door to driveway 48 inebes wide ~: Imst~ Plywood Grab Bar Backers at Master Roll-in Shower w~lls ~ ~ ~ Imekers at stool areas ~ lmckm for Grab Bars at tub Wr~ oveda~d garage door Ol~'ning and all front elevation windows and doors with 2 x 6 smooth ~ trims. S~t ~ gable louv~ ( non-venting unit ~ ifl~a ) S~ EnttyDr. Thr~holds with a maximum l/2"ri~ above finish~ floor Install W~thergumd Protection at sidewalks, patios,& etrai~s Poly behi~l partitions, soffits,tub cl~ks & stars smn~-ts oa outer walls Compl~a~ truss bracing p~r truss design & also provide Bw'r bracing. Finish Ca .r~ent~: ~n~all custom s~ainless s~e~l cu,--mn r~ a~ sho~r o~ng Set 4 P~ket ~r ~ [m~ll 4 O~ B~ Set A~s N~ ( 4"mimm~ ) Set Linen clomt shelv~ Fo~ou - RI0 2" ~iW ~f~ im~a~ou to 42" de~ ye.icily along imide of bilk ~1 ~ ~e~ br~ ~ulaUou Poiy / 6 ~1 W~Im I/2" C~: (~~,) N~Up ~ T~ ~ / ~!~ ~ 1~3 ~e , page 4 of Plumbing continued Lavator~ faucet / Delta # 520 Stool / Gerber handicap Provide pipe wrap covenngs at the roll under vanity area for both water supply lines and waste pipes. FuH Bath: Tub. Fiberglass one piece stm'ound 60"x 30" Tub and shower valve Delta # 1348 Locate the mb valve nearer the mb edge Lavatory faucet / Delta # 520 Stool / Gerber non- handicap Kitchen: Sink - Stainless s~eel two compartment Faucet Delta # 400 Disposal KitchenAid 1/2 horse power Pipe wrap covering at roll under area Disposrd and Dishwasher hookup Ltundry: Sink Mt~tee # I 8w Stand pipe waste for washer discharge Faucet Moen # 4901 Hook-up cloths washer Pipe wrap coverieg at roil under area *~ ~ote ail faucets figured with chrome *~ cote ali stool, lavatories & tubs are whi~e in color'* Lawe sprinlder system' Provide rous~-m for future Hot Water Heater:. ~0 Galloa STATE ( Natural Oas ) : Ice Maker sula~ liae: No I-Io~ Wa~et Diqaeme~. No ~ waer Ua~ Ye~ Extetio~ wa~r spigots: (Two) frost-proof / aati-siphoe ~ floor dina: No Utilie7 room flo~ dina: Yes (1) page 5 of ? Furnace: 80,000 13TU 80 % Efficiency, down flow - w/th PVC duct system sealed and pitched to an accessible drain area. Outside air balancing required Air Conditioner ( Not Included ~ Vent Dryer / Vent Laundry room / Vent two baths Progranurtable setback Thermostat Provide gas supply / hook up to one appliance ( Dryer ) Veto Kitchen Hood to.the exterior 150 amp service / Wired to code: Locate service box in the garage with the main breaker a max/mum of 48" offthe gal'age floor. Provide electric supply / hook up to two appliances ( Wall oven and separate cook-top ) Furnace winng (1 zone) M/crowave and Wall oven combination wiring Roil-in Shower Bathroom wired with a QT200 Exhaust Fan Laun. Rm. and Main Bath w/red with 70 CFM Exhaust Fans Cabinet front switching for sink light and disposal Cabinet front switching for light and fan over the cook-top. Cabinet front outlet locations (4) Ceiling fan wiring and hanging (1) Dishwasher wiring and Disposal wiring Door bell wiring (including a basic chime unit ) Phone Jacks ( 3 ) / Television Sacks ( 2 ) Include ( 4 ) Ceiling mounted Smoke detectors On~ gara~ door opener outlet Rough in wi~ng rcs future security system Wiring for futura automatic opener at fire door location Bedroom Ceiling Light wiring Cl,~.t Sh~vln~_ · Include a full width upper shelf and an additional lower shelf aplxoximately half the width of the upper shelf at heights to be specified by a homeowner or housing authority ~vc. ( w~ ) , Shower Cartatn itnd' Custom stainless steel ( arched shape ) page 6 opf 7 Custom Cabinets: "Flat Panel" profile door style ( oak ) 30" ~all uppers in kitchen Clad interiors / One pair of Lazy Susans Six pull out shelves Retractable doors at kitchen sink space 2 Bread hoards ( locat~ one high and one low ) 2 drawer sta~ ( loca~ one in the Icit~hen and one in the master hath ) One Linen fac~ frame Master haffu'oom vanity to have an open area 36"wide for roll under access (Master vanity height to I~ custom height per homeowner or housing auth.) Main bath vanity to b~ conventional w~th doors and drawers Drop sink and Perfinsula area 3" ( Note: Actual measuremeat may vary at~.er Elee.aad Cabinetry meetint.) Laundry Uppers Non~ ~ plan Cabinet hardware allowance $ 2.00 ea. *custom heights bas~ cabinetry p~r homex~wner* *Provide extra wide styl~s for c~binet front outlets & switch~s* Kitchen: Custom laminat~ top with self.Igc and 4" back splo. sh Liundry: Custom laminate shelf behind laundry Baths: Cultured Marble vanity tops . .- "Custom one inch hish beck splashes on master vanity top for low mirror installation" Windows: Vinyl Sliders units and Casements units ( Include iow "E' ~iass ) Window Grids: (~ Front elevation Atrium Door. Vinyl swinging door. w / three point lock Frout Dr: Six panel steel Insulated w/one fullview sidelight, self closing hinge and adjust, le threshold Fire Door. Six Panel steel Insulated,self closing ~ and adjustable threshold ( Double bore entry doors for deadbolt and lever handle ) Interior Doon: Flush Oak Trim: t~2' Ba~ and 5/8' Casin$ ( Pre. ton profile in Oak) Otk Capped Wall: ¥~s ~ Between ~1~ t~ and tl~ Yan~ty Door l~rdware: ~hla~ ~ver ~yl~ ! ~ bolts at all entries Liileg Shelves Whit~ M~zlomine - page7of 7 Mirrors: Near vanity width ~ 40" high in master' bath Near vamty width & 36" high in the full bath Eaialiag: - Woodwork: stained, sealed, varnished Walls: Primed & Painted with flat wall palm From porch posts, window wraps and door wraps stained Paint garage door Draintile system: Not required City_ Sewer and Wateff_CflaaefAio~: Include all connections to existing stubs at fdr. lgt.i]~: Steel Paneled Non-Insulated 18' x 76" with low headroom kit Garae_e Doer Opener: (one) 1/2 horse power with 2 remotes Utility_ Trenchi~o_: Lr~clude any costs necessa~ to complete · and electric connections Trash Removal: Contain trash during construction, and remove Interior Cleanun: Professionally Clean ~: Provide if necessm-y per city requirements ~ tnclude- Builder's R~sk / Liability / Workman's Comprehension The followin~ is a list of options to be used as possible additions or deletions to this bid. Please price these items and submit the list along with the base price bic~ l..Whirlpool vs. soakin~ mb in master bathroom $ 2. Air Coed. complete with elec.supply S 3. Air Cond, 'A'coil, com:lenset lines, elec.supply to the exterior S 4. Option all casement windows vs, a combirution of both 6. Option 24" deep sbelvinf inside garage for dry storage. ( Three shelves along a 24' sidewalk total of 72' of shelf) 7, Option extra brick across eont per sq.~ ' S Received by it t ST l Olt ACTION Ort~tnat. tng Depa4"~nent Al~proved for ~e~a ~da ~c~on City Cle~ 6-1.~~ Consent Valerie Leone It~ ~o. ~ ~ 6.t3 MOTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT UPGRADE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 637) REQUESTED ACTION Staff is seeking Coun.cii's acceptance of the plans and specifications so that we may solicit quotations for the work. BACKGROUND The existing media equipment in the Council Chambers used for cablecasting purposes was installed in 1991 and is in need of upgrade. At the March 8, 1999, Council Meeting, the Council authorized hiring Electronic Interiors to prepare the design and specifications and assist with construction administration. The plans and specifications are complete. To remain on schedule with the work taking place during the month of July which would be least disruptive to city meetings, staff would like to' bring the bids to Council for award of the contract as soon as possible. FUNDING The cost of the project is estimated at $120,000. The project will be funded by the C.I.P. and will be repaid, through the annual $10,000 contributions from the Cable Commission over a 12-year period. ATTACHMI~NT$ Plans and Specifications MCYTION BY* ..... ~CONI3 W ., I I t secttOn OtOlO - summary or work i Part I - GE.nEILaL 1.01 WORK COVERED BY CONTRACT DOCUMENTS A. General: These Specifications apply to provisions of the Media Systems completely defined in the Media I Systems Drawings and these Specifications. Building standard material and installation shall be utilized for those building s>'stems defined in other documents which are indicated in these documents for reference or recommendation. Section 16800 - Sound & Video Multimedia Systems provides detailed general I information as well as information on material and installation. B. Provisions: Electrical provisions of power and raceway, and architectural provisions of cabinetry and spaces are provided through other contracts occurring simultaneously. Questions about inclusions, I exclusions, and coordination of"work by others" may be directed to the Consultant. C. Work Included: Provide materials and labor necessary to accomplish the Work indicated on the Drawings and specified herein to assemble the video, audio and control related equipment into operational systems, making ali interconnections, performing all tests and adjustments, and providing documentation as required I for a complete installation. I. Supplier shall install all new equipment, and all equipment provided by the Owner noted as "supply quantity, {0}' in Part 4 - Equipment Schedule, Section 16800 - Sound & Video Multimedia Svstem~ I and provide and install all additional miscellaneous materials and equipment as listed and as defined on the D. rawings and implied in Specifications. ". Media Systems Contractor shall provide all necessary tools, supplies and accessories - all cable, I 'connectors. plates, devices where they are not supplied by the Owner, and labor to assemble and connect same. 3. The building raceway system, including conduit and boxes provided under other contracts, shall be i utilized for installation Of the systems. 4. Where existing or new equipment is not to be reinstalled, it shall be turned over to the Owner. ~ D. System Description of Maior Components: I I. Provide and install all equipment required to upgrade existing Video Presentation system. Equipment to include but not limited to, 3 chip CCD video cameras, camera lenses, pan and tilt mounts, video switchers, video scan doublets, video down converters, computer interfaces, video disttibutlon amplifiers, video LCD projector, mounts, touch panel control system, control system interfaces, I control system programming, cable connectors and hardware as required. NOTE: Remove existing equipment whero specified on drawings or herein. Interface new equipment with existing equipment as specified on drawings or herein. 2. Provide and install all equipment requited for a complete Video Bulletin Board system. Equipment to include but not limited to, Pentium CPU, keyboard and monitor (supplied by owner), bulletin board soR ware, VCRs, VCR conwoi system, computer to VCR control system interface, video switcher, i mounts, cables, connectors and hardware as required. NOTE: Video bulletin board system to be interfaced with existing RF modulator to be transmitted to the local cable company for area distribution. Cable contpany connections to be supplied by others. E. New and Provided Eq~it~ment: Provide and install equipment in Pa~ 4. Equipment Schedule, Section I 16800 - Sound .e, Video Multimedia System~ (except items listed as supply {0}, these shall be installation - or re-connection only). The equipment provided by the Owner will be provided at the site at the Owner's expense. I F. Miscellaneous Materials: Pan 4 - Equipment Schedule, Section 16800 - Sound & Video Multimedia Systems does not include ali items required for a complete installation. Supplier shall additionally provide all necessary components andl accessories not specifically listed in Part 4 . Equipment Schedule, or elsewhere; all specialized cable, connectors, connector ~apters, power supplies, adapters and labor to I assemble and connect to make unit. operational G. Accessories: Media Systems Contractor shall provide all necessary tools, supplies and accessories; all cable, ix)wet supplies, equil .mt. ertl connectors, plates, devices and labor to aasemble and connect same, I H. Additional Resoonsibilitie1: Refer to S~tion 01780 - Closeout Submittals. New Hope City Council Chambers Electronic Media System Upgrade Equipment and Installation Electronic Interiors, Inc. 01010-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF UPGRADES Council Chamber Updates for the City of New Hope Prepared by Electronic Interiors, Inc. Original Issue: June l 1, 1998 Revised: February 27, 1999 Executive Summary. Issued June 9, 1999 This document will summarize a number of upgrade options for the Chamber. The upgrades have been grouped together in modules. Upgrade Cameras: Update three ICCD cameras to three 3CCD cameras Relocate existing lectern camera to position in corner of room in order to lower angle, provide new pan/tilt capability. Relocate nearby center camera position from forward cavity to rear cavity Three new lenses Three new Pan/tilt heads New control system processor New joystick remote control for 3 coverage cameras and existing document camera Misc. materials, par~s and labor Estimate: $ 48,000 Upgrade Presenter Control system: This upgrade would simplify the presenter's task when using the system. Many functions would become automated. This upgrade is based around the same control processor purchased under the Camera Upgrade module, so two price estimates are given New wireless B&W to.uch panel at presenter's lectern Custom programming for touch panel and conu~iler Remove Sony projector and other device remotes New interfaces in order to control: Video projector on/offand input selection Document camera zoom and focus Playb~:k VCR mc~ion Record VCR motion Forwerd/mverse ~ontrol of 35MM slide projector telecine New radio ~ wireless mouse for room-wide use Misc. materials, pros and labor Estimate: $ '/,000 Add Laptop lnterfne~ to Leetern, Rept~ee Lavafiere Microphone Interface for PC laot~s and Powerbeoks, with audio Interface installed in open face of lectern in current consol panel location. Mis~. materials, parts and l~bor Estimate: $1,000 Electronic Interiors, Inc. Page I June 9, 1999 Upgrade Graphics Generator snd Bulletin Board System, Mbe. Control Room items New two cha~nel integrated bulletin board and character generator (PC by City) Reuse Texscan system as title keyer only Remove For. A system Rewire audio for lavaliere and microphone from lectern for manual adjustment Add audio follow video switcher for viewing VCRs in control room. Misc. ma£erials, parts and labor Estimate: $13,000 New Playback VCRa is Control Room Remove three VCRs Replace with three Industrial grade SVI-IS VCRs (VCRs may be able to interface with new bulletin board system for automated playback also) Add one six-hour VHS VCR (for complete meeting recording on one tape) Misc. materials, parts and labor Estimate: S 6,000 Upgrade Video Projector Remove Sony CRT based 350-lumen video/data projector Install LCD based 2100 lumen video/dab projector with 1024x 1280-resolution. Supply a replacement lamp for the video projector. Associated parts and accessories Remove Sony switcher in control room New 4x I input switcher and line doubler interfaced to control system New 6x 1 upstream switcher interfaced to control system Misc. materials, parts and labor Estimate: $ 25,000 Estimated total: $I00,000 Electronic Interiors, Inc. Pa&e 2 June 9, 1999 i coiavc Ongmaung Deparvnent Approved l'or Agenda ~-~"nda_Secuon Community Development Consent / Item No. Byf(irk McDonald BF. 6. l ~, RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR FIRE STATION ROOF REPLACEMENT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 659) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests that the Council approve the attached resolution which approves plans and specifications for the Fire Station roof replacement and orders advertisement for bids. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The direction from the Council in the past has been to take whatever measures are necessary to correct the deficiencies with the Fire Station roof. BACKGROUND At the May 10 Council meeting, the City Council approved a motion directing the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the repair/replacement of the Fire Station roof and also authorized Amedcan Engineering Testing, Inc. to perform testing and documentation work on the roof. AET's work has been completed and plans and specifications have been prepared by the City Engineer. if the plans are approved, bids will be sought for the roof replacement and will be opened on July 21 and presented to the Council for consideration at the July 26 Council meeting. When the New Hope Fire Station was constructed in 1990191, phenolic foam insulation was installed on - top of the metal decking. VVith moisture in the roof system, the phenolic foam insulation has reacted with the metal deck and has resulted in the corrosion of the metal decking. The corrosion was visible in test cuts of the roof performed in the fall of 1998. The test cuts were performed by Roofing Consultants of Virginia, a firm hired by John~ Manville Corp., the phenolic foam insulation manufacturer. In the last nine months, it appear~ that the corrosion of the deck has accelerated as evidenced by an increasing number of rust spots visible on the bottom of the metal decking. The City Attomey has indicated 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 products. These suits purport to represent all building ownem in the United States with phenolic foam insulation installed on roof decks, and seek damages, including an order requiring the removal and replacement of the phenolic foam insulation and remediation of any deck corrosion. The City 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. TO: ........ Request for Action Page 2 6-14-gg Per the attached excerpts from correspondence from the City Attorney, ~the City needs to determine what the cost will be for the repair of the roof before the City can begin to negotiate a settlement with the manufacturer of the defective insulation material that has necessitated the repairs. Therefore, the City may not be able to award a contract immediately after the bid openings. It may be prudent to allow the manufacturer to propose a repair solution in response to the City's settlement request before the City awards a contract independently of a settled legal claim. Based on the time it may take to bring all of the responsible parties together for settlement purposes, a repair solution may not occur until next spring. I believe the report the City has now received from AET dramatically indicates the fire station roof has been structurally compromised. The City Engineer is now in the process of formulating a written opinion concerning the status of the roof using the information submitted by AET. The City Engineer intends to recommend a complete roof replacement. These reports and the contractors' bids will be the basis of our negotiation demands with .the insulation manufacturer. The other involved parties in this discussion will be the architect, general contractor, and roofing contractor that worked on this project." The plans and specifications, which are based on staging the roof replacement project to have the least possible impact on the West Metro Fire Department, will be further explained at the Council meeting. Please refer to the attachments for further information. FUNDING The funding for the repair/replacement of the Fire Station roof will be paid out of the Insurance Reserve Fund and ultimately will be reimbursed to the City from the responsible parties. ATTACHMENTS Resolution · City Attorney Correspondence · Excerpts from Plans & Specs · AET Report · Johns Manville Correspondence ' JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law g52~ EOIN~ROOK CROSSING, STE. 201 BROOKLYN PARK., MINNESOTA 55443-1999 TELErHO~'E (612) 4244811 · TELKFnX (612) 493-5193 Ir-.',IAIL jss(~:jsspa.corn GORDON L. ,IF. NSEN" WILLIAM G. SWANSON STEVEN A. SONORALL M^~t~N e. M^,Eca^ June 8. 1999 C. ALDEN PEARSONt DEAN A. TRONGARDT ~UUE ^. Ta~.L Kirk McDonald Community Development Director oF cou~s~t. City of New Hope t.o~Ns Q. a~¥N~.s-r^o 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Fire Station Roof Replacement Project 659LResolution Approving Plans and Specs Our File: 99.53050 Dear Kirk: Enclosed is a proposed Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement Fdr Bids For Fire Station Roof Replacement Improvement No. 659. This resolution can be considered at the June 14" Council Meeting. As we discussed at the June 8* meeting regarding this matter, we need to determine what our cost will be for the repair of this roof before we can begin to negotiate a settlement with the manufacturer of the defective insulation material that has necessitated the repairs. Therefore, please keep in mind we may not be able to award a contract immediately after the bid openings. It may be prudent to allow the manufacturer to propose a repair solution in response to out settlement request before we award a contract independently of a settled legal claim. Based on the time it may take to bring all of the responsible parties together for settlement purposes, a repair solution may not occur until next spring. I believe the report we have now received from AET dramatically indicates our fire station roof has been stm,zturally compromised..The City Engineer is now in the process of formulating a written opinion concerning the status of the roof using the information submitted by AET. Based on our discussion at the June 8"' meeting,, the City Engineer intends to recommend a complete roof replacement. I'm sure this will meet with initial opposition form the responsible parties. These reports and the contractors' bids will be the basis of out negotiation de'mantis with the insulation manufacturer. The other involved parties in this discussion will be the architect, general contractor and roofing contractor that worked on this project. However, it's my understanding the roofing contractor is no longer in business. Based on these settlement discussions and the possibility of litigation, the roof repair could · ~,~ ~ t.,, ~,- be delayed until next spring. Also, there may be some contractor and materials availability c~ ~ T~ issues that will extend this matter into the next construction season regardless. June 8, 1999 Pag~ 2 Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or the enclosed resolution. Very truly yours', J~NS~'~ SWANSON & Enclosure cc: Dan Donahue Valerie Leone Originating Depa~.,,ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Secuon Developmen: a Parks & Recreation/Public Works June 14, 1999 Planning Shad French/Guy Johnson / // Item No, ACCEPTANCE OF WETLAND INVENTORY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN AND PARK TRAILS CONDITION REPORT REQUESTED ACTION i .Staff is recommending .that the Council accept two reports from the City's engineering firm staff. One is the Wetland Inventory and Manageme. nt Plan. The other is the Park Trails Condition RePOrt. BACKGROUND An inventory of wetlands and their functions was completed in 1998 because wetlands provide several imPOrtant services to the City and its residents: · Wetlands are an imPOrtant part of the storm drainage system in New Hope, and hello to maintain water quality and reduce fkxxting. Large wetlands play particularly signir~ant roles by holding large quantities of water during Sto~T1 events, and by filtering sediments and nutrients (such as phosphorus) that run off with each storm. · WeUands provide food and habitat for wildlife, including a vamlty of bin:Is, amphibians, and mammals. In ~ully- developed cornmunitJ~ weUands and undeveloped patches of uplands nearby provide areas for many animals to rest hide, forage and breed. · Wetlands are attractive natural landscal~S that many residents enjoy for their own qualities, and in contrast to surrounding urban areas. Wellands offer op~rtunit~ to view and learn about wildlife and their habitats, observe seasonal changee, and provide other ae~et~ and educalJonal values. The City completed the wetland inveNtxy ~o ~ undemtand the characte~tios of these resources, evaluate their qual~, and develop priodt~ and stralagies for managing and enhancing its we{lands. The Park Trails Cond~on RePOrt was prepared as guide ~ the City f~ CIP planning purposes over the next few years. The Citizen Advisory Commission held a public rneel]ng to discus~ both of these rePOrts on April 19, 1999. ;UNDIN..~G The ~998-99 CIP contained funding for preparation of these rePOrts. ATTACHMENTS Both rePOrts are attached aa are the minutes from the Citizen Ax~visory Commission meeting of Apri! MCM'ION BY , ~:::OND BY TO: JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorn~s ~t BROOKLYN PAJU~ MI~NK. SOTA $5443-1999 T~L~PHO~ (612) 42~I Z · T~Lt~ ~o~ L. I~SE~' ~'~ j~jssp~.com WILLIA~ G. SWAN~N STEVEN A. ~ND~LL ~.~N P. M~cu~ June 2, 19~ C. ALDEN Comi~ ~vel~nt Di~mr o~ c~ CiW of New H~ ~o.~sO. n~w~,v ~t Xylon Avenue No~ New H~, MN 5~28 Re: $2.2 Mill~n ~nd l~e/Rep~ ~~ L~ ~e~p M~F~y ~ ~k: ~is le~r will confi~ ~r June 2, 1~ ~ wi~ ~b ~i~l~ ~ Te~ McNellis ~ coition wi~ ~e ~rk Acres ~nd l~e mfem~ a~ve. Tabl~ from ~e Ci~ Co~'s l~t ~g to ~e Ju~ 14~ ~g ~ ~e~ mmlu~on au~o~g ~e i~ce of $2.2 Million m m~-~y h~ revenue ~ ~r m~g e~s~g &bt md for re~b~im~on of ~e mw~o~ap~nt ~m. ~ Ci~ C~ ~ly mbl~ ~r m ~t s~ffc~ld ~t wi~ ~ p~ o~r/~vel~r ~ m~q~t ~rmlves wi~ ~e public ~ ~h~ ~e ~~ ~ i~. . S~i~y, ~ Ci~ C~ ~ t~ au~o~ a ~ ~e for ~'$2.2 Mffiion cu~ndy'~ ~ ~ ~e ~vel~r. Sub~ent m ~ Ci~'s auto,don a $t,6~,~ ~ ~ wa ~rov~. ~ ~n ~ ~ ~er ~t ~m ~ ~el~r's ~rov~ ~don ~m ~ M~ H~8 F~ Agemy, ~ ~t w~, ~ ~t of ~ ~on is ~ by ~ S~ ~~ of ~ C i~'s ~~ ~ s~ ~ S~ w~d o~y ~m ~ ~er ~t, ~ ~el~r ~ limi~ ~ly. A~dy, ~e Sram b ~w wffi~ m ~m m ~ ~el~r ~ ~.2 ~ ~v~ay ~e~, however, ~ ~i~o~ $5~,~ wffi ~ of ~ ~. AI~, k~ ~ ~ ~ Ci~ w~ ~ revenue ~ ~ nm ~ ~a~ ~. As a re~lt, ~ Ci~ ~ ~ ~mibai~ ot ~b~i~ w~ver As ~ ~t ~ ~r ~g wi~ ~e devel~r, $76?,5?3 ~m ~ ~ pr~ hm ~n or ~ ~ ~v~ ~ ~ pro~ for m~i~n ~. ~ ~ysb of~ ~nt b a~ m ~ lemr. ~b ~ysb wm pmv~ m m ~ ~ ~vel~r. It ~ my ~~ ~ of ~ ~t ~ro~ ~?~,~? of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ m~g $189,126 ~ ~ p~ ~ m ~mw ml~ m ~ ~vel~r u~n co~ie~ of ~ ~ wo~ m ~mv~ · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~el~r ~ ~e m~ wo~ ~ bi~~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ of w~ays ~r ~, ~~ of ob~ ~ fl~, ~ ~~nt ~ ~ ~ of m~gemmn ~ d~w~en. J'une 2, 1999 · Page 2 The additional dollars exclusive of the rehabilitation costs generated by the bond issue will be used by Reprise Associates Limited Parmership to purchase the Park Acres complex and refinance the existing debt on the property. It is important to note that the Boisclair Corporation will remain as the general partner and continue to act as the operating entity in connection with the day to day affairs of the property. Also note that on a per-dwelling unit basis, the developer is investing $18,721 per unit. Fur~ermore, the project is incapable of supporting itself from its own revenues until the 6~' year of operation subsequent to the bond issuance. This is indicated in the 15 year cash tlow incon~ projections provided to us by the Boisclair Corporation. The dollars to nippon this bond issue will be derived from revenues generated by two other projects of this limited partnership located in Brooklyn Park and Robbinsiale.. I only bring this up to point out that the developer has agreed to cross-coilateralize its three projects to ensure that the bond payments will be made. As a result, it is highly unlikely that there could be a default on the bonds despite the fact the City has absolutely no liability for the payments on the bonds if that unlikely event did occur. Furthermore, the developer's fee ou this project is a defen'ed fee in the amount of $368,827 payable over a I0 year period. This amount is approved and acceptable to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. In fact, the State's bond rehab requirement for this bond issue is only $139,222. The developer is exceeding the minimum bond rehah requirement by over 500%. It is my recommendation that the City Council approve and authorize this bond issue. Obviously, this action supports a strong public purpose and benefit by guaranteeing the maintenance of low and moderate income housing stock within the City operated by a developer with a strong track record for running a good project. Furthermore, the developer has already invested a substantial amount of rehabilitation dollars into this project in a good faith reliance upon the approval of this bond issue based on the City Council's 199/ action authorizing the bond issue. Nothing has really changed since 199'/except for the procedure under which the bonds are to be issued. Please contact me if you have any questions about the content of this letter or the attachments hereto. V~ry truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall Enclosures cc: Daniel .I. Donalme Valerie Leone Jerry Gilligan rune ~, Direotor of'~ Development Fu~ 1 Bond :Keso~on and City of New Hope Rah R~il~tation 4401 X~Ioa Avenue North Dear Mr. McDonald: When our ~2.21vllmon tax exeml~ bond request was authorized by C'n y oFN'~ I-~ope resolution on November ~, 1996 (only $~,6~0,000 was mushy ~llocated by the sts~e) th~ scow ofrel~ilhation tax credits. Unlmown U~ us was the arne,,~ of substantial mucuwal d,~radagon th~ oco.u'red over the y~ars sinoe Pm'k ~ w~s built ~n 1974. Dimmve~ ofsuppo~in~ porn m3d beams ~ structura~ integrity, unobservable to the eye, to a lmtUt the en~eer ,~.imated within-3. ~ yea~ a muaive mucuwal f3ilure woukl occur. ~ purpom ~ m-~t Pad~ An'es life 40 years matdgns BI~ Painter's odin' a.~eu', Io~l~l in ~sad~~r~~. Inmen~ th~otl~ meu oft~e conmon own~ Rxmspt for the l~nd rmo~on ~ ar~ pleased to note we n~ver requested any dh~ct rehab subsidy ~ the CRy ot'Bf~v Hope and we are ~,,-c, od o~the result of our ruha~itatJon ~ knowin8 Park Acres wRl once again po~ complement ks community and the C~ y of New ~ for the long OTTAWA AV~. · ~['. L,OUI8 PA, RY~ IdN SS41&-~)QO, · PI.flDNE~ (81~) g~,- 3,~'1 * PAX: (81G') gRG,807"I Approxinmte~ $I90,000 rehab work remains to be completed (a~phalt, cabinet~, landscaping, appliances, etc.) that will be flmd~ fi'om the l~man~t f~ncin$' vh~n i~ i~ tot~y completed by September 1999. " We respmatgJ~y r~lUeSt thn City Council ~n tffirmati~ action off ~m' rm~d for a final permanent financing bond resolution ~or ~e original $1,650,000 tax exer~ t bonds tlrmdy prel~'timrily spgmved and an ~lditional $$50,000 taxable bonds - S2.2 Million t~ai. We rm~ submit our November 1996. Thank you ~ fo~ your confidence and support. Sincerely, Pr~d~ -. /! ffVIL~GE GREEN. ~oURSE '~'-" ~ ~OLF ST. THERESE NURSING ~' ~,~ . . HOME --. 8,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , .-, ... . ,. ' ---~ZtIlll : '' "": ........ · : ........... ~ ~ ~. '. · ' ~, . ~~ .~ : ~ · ~10 ,~ .......... ~, ..~ ............ .: 8 [~ i8~ ........ ~ ~ ~N,,~ ......... ~ ......... ~ .... ,. ..< t MI8 i : " . ......................... j ,~ ~ ................. Or~maung Depaztment ~p~ for ~e~a Dev~~Uon ~ommuni~ Development & Planning 6-~~ It~ No. ~irk McDonald ~ ~. 2 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS RE~TING TO THE PARK ACRES APARTMENTS PROJECT ACTION REQUESTED ~taff recommends that the City Council approve the enclos~ resolution which authorizes the issuance of $2.2 million in multi-f~mily housin9 revenue bonds for re~ndin9 existin~ debt and to complete the rehabilitation of the to~nhome and apaAment units at Pa~ Acres lo.ted at 8007 ~ass Lake Road. POLICWPAST P~CTICE In the past, the CiW has often issu~ bonds to assist m~lti-f~mily housin9 rehmbilitation and indust~al expansion proje~s. I~ issui~ the bonds, in most ~ses, the C~ is o~iy a~in9 as a conduit in order interest on the bonds is tax exempt and the CiW has no liabiliW with res~ to the payment of the bonds. BACKGROUND This maker was tabl~ by th~ CiW Council at the M~y 24 Council meeting, ~s several ~ncems were raised by the Council. Subs~uent to that m~ting, the C~ A~omey and staff met w~h the owners to review the s~ of the p~, ~e public pu~se, and ~e finandn9 details. ~ ~suRs of that meetin~ are summadz~ in the a~ ~s~nden~ ~om the Ci~ A~omey. In Febma~ ~997, the C~ Cou~l ado~ s msol~ion a~o~n9 a ~ i~ue for the $2.2 million cu~ently ~ing ~ue~ by ~ develo~r. Subs~uent to ~ C~'s a~o~t~n of the $2.2 million, a bond issue in the ~ou~ of $1,6~,~ was approve. ~e reason ~hind ~e smaller amount ~ing issu~ was a resuR ~ ~ ail~ pm~ss by the Minneso~ Housing Fina~ Agent. R~ardless of the amount the C~ a~o~, tF~ State ~n r~u~ ~e amount ~uest~ a~ ~ develo~r, is limit~ accordingly. ~e S~e ~ n~ ~lli~ to allo~te to the develo~r the $2.2 mill~n previously ~uested, however, the remaini~ ~lan~ of $5~,~0 will ~ in the fo~ of t~able ~s. If approve, the City would issue revenue ~ a~ not gene~l obl~ati~ ~nds, ~erefore, the C~ has no ms~nsibili~ or liabili~ for the payment of ~ ~nda. (~nt'd.) ~: ~ _ ~ ' . IIII I I II II II III -- ~~1 Request for Action Page 2 6-14-99 Rehabilitation Work The developer indicated that $767,573 from the bond proceeds has been or will be invested in this property for rehabilitation costs and an analysis of these expenditures is attached to this request. Approximately $578,447 of the work has already been completed and the remaining $189,126 to be spent on rehabilitation will be placed in an escrow account and released to the developer upon completion of the remaining work. The developer indicated that the work remaining includes a bituminous seal coat, landscaping, repair of the walkways under decks, installation of cabinetry and flooring and replacement of some appliances. The developer also indicated at the meeting that there were substantial, unanticipated structural problems that were encountered during the rehab work, as further explained in the attached correspondence, and confirmed by the Building Official. The developer is investing $18,721 on a per-dwelling unit basis. Refinancin.q The additional dollars, exclusive of the rehabilitation costs generated by the bond issue, will be used by Repdse Associates Limited Partnership to purchase the Park Acres complex and refinance the existing debt on the property. Boisclair Corporation will remain as the general partner and continue to act as the operating entity in connection with the day-to-day affairs of the property. Cross Collateralization Per the City Attorney's correspondence, the project is incapable of supporting itself from its own revenues until the sixth year of operation subsequent to the bond issuance. This is indicated in the 15- year cash flow income projections provided by the Boisclair Corporation. The dollars to support this bond issue will be derived from revenues generated by two other projects of this limited partnership located in Brooklyn Park and Robbinsdale. The developer has agreed to cross-collateralize its three projects to ensure that the bond payments will be made. As a result, it is highly unlikely that there could be a default on the bonds despite the fact the City has absolutely no liability for the payments on the bonds if that unlikely event did occur. Furthermore, the developer's fee on this project is a deferred fee in the 'amount of $368,827 payable over a 10-year period. This amount is approved and acceptable to the Minnesota Housing Finance 'Agency. In fact, the State's bond rehab requirement for this bond issue is only $139,222. The developer is exceeding the minimum bond rehab requirement by over 500 percent. Public Purpose It is the City Attomey's and staff's recommendation that the City Council approve and authorize this bond issue. This project supports a strong public purpose and benefit by guaranteeing the maintenance of Iow and moderate income housing stock within the City operated by a developer with a strong track record for running a good project. Furthermore, the developer has already invested a substantial amount of rehabilitation dollars into this project in a good faith reliance upon the approval of this bond issue based on the City Council's 1997 action authorizing the bond issue. Nothing has really changed since 1997 except for the procedure under which the bonds are to be issued. Also, in regard to the adjacent multi-family properties on Bau Lake Road, the developer has indicated that he may be willing to work with the City on these sites in the future, separate from the current ongoing project. The developer and his financial consultant will be present at the Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS · ' Resolution · City Attomey Correspondence · Project Financial Information · 6/9 Developer Correspondence · 5118 Developer Correspondence · Site Maps II I ~m~ Oep~t ~~ for ~e~a ~da ~uon Community Development Ordinances & Ki~ McDonald & // 6-14-99 [t~ No. ~ Phil Kern ORDINANCE NO. 9~/P~NNING CASE 9~, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE SIGN CODE BY INCR~SING AR~ LIMITATION FOR SIGNAGE FRONTING ON FRE~AYS REQUESTED ACTION Staff is recommending that ~e Council approve ~e pm~s~ amendment to ~e Sign Code increasing the area limitation for signage ffon~ng on ff~ways. POLICY/PAST P~CTlCE Pdor to the Sign Code U~ate, complet~ on July 27, 1998, pm~ ownem along Highway 169 were allowed one freestanding sign not in excess of 200 square f~t. Pro~ ownem els~here in the Ci~ were only allow~ a ~ee~anding sign no greater ~an 1~ square f~t in area. Dudng ~e Sign Code Update process, the distin~on be~n pro.es wi~ ff~ay frontage and ~ose wi~out such frontage was inadve~ently omiff~, and the ordinan~ was pas~ only allowing ff~way frontage prope~ies a ~eestanding sign no larger ~an 100 square f~t. BACKGROUND " Staff b~ame aware of ~e problem in Janua~ when ~o tenan~ on a ff~way frontage road appli~ for'a sign ~rmit. The Building Official's ~ review (s~ a~ch~ memo) discover~ ~at the r~uest~ signs. violated the Sign Code, but would have pas~ under ~e previous ~e. In ~e intedm, ~e Ci~ Manager autho~z~ ~e mpla~m~t of ~ ~ 2~ ~uam f~t signs a~ ~uest~ ~at an appropriate code amendment ~ ~nside~ to ~ ~is s~a~on. In add~on, ~e ina~e~ent ~e change has resulted in numerous non~on~ing s~na along Highway 169. ~e C~ AEomey pm~ ~e a~ch~ code amendment to co~ ~ ~. ~e C~ and S~ndards Commiff~ di~ ~e amendment at its March m~fing, and ~ Planni~ ~mi~ion approv~ ~e amendment on June 1, 1999. A~ACHMENTS 6/1/99 Planni~ Ca~ 3/1~99 C~ A~mey Co~nden~ ~4/99 Plan~s Re~ 1/25/99 Building ~al Excepts from ~e pr~ious C~e and ~e u~at~ C~e ~ON ~ , ~~ ~ , I I II I -- COUNCIZ RE UEgT FOR ACTION Or~lnattnt~ Department App~ved for A~enda Aaenda Sect/on Ordinances &- City Clerk Resolutions 6-14-99 Valerie Leone / Item 7o. .A , o.2 ORDINANCE NO. 99-05, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE REGULATING BUSINESS LICENSES REQUESTED ACTION At Council's request, an ordinance amendment has been prepared recjarding business license fees. BACKGROUND License fees were discussed by Council at its work sessions of February 16 and May 17, 1999. Presently, double fees are collected if business license renewals are not made by December 1". Councilmember Collier proposed collecting a triple fee if businesses were not in compliance by January 1". Following debate at the May `1'P" work session, the Council directed staff to collect double fees between December 2 and ,January 3`1"; and collect a 25% fee (minimum of $25) in addition to the double fee for renewal applications received after ,January 31". The City Attorney has drafted an ordinance amendment utilizing a a,O-day period to prohibit any possible complaints of inability to adhere to the deadline due to Christmas and New Year holidays. The extra '10 days will eliminate this possibility. YOu may refer to the City Attorney's May '14 correspondence for further explanation. The deletion of items in 8.021 Section 3 am reflective of the City's past action in `1998 at which time Hennepin County assumed responsibility for environmental health services for food, beverage, lodging, and swimming pool facilities in the City. Due to this transfer, the licensing in `1999 was significantly reduced and resulted in the iuuance of 111 various licenses to 87 license holder~ for $17,249 revenue. FUNDING The additional f~e~ will of~et the edditional administrative costs necessary to process 'late license renewal applic~tion~. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance 99-05 City Attorney correspondence excerpts of work session minutes MOTION BY ~:::O~ BY .... TO: , ,, III RFA.OO 1 ORDINANCE NO. 99-05 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE REGULATING BUSINESS LICENSES The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 8.024 "License Term" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 8.024 License Term. A$1 The t,erm for all licenses issued hereunder shall be one caleb_dar yea, r ,commencing on Sanuary 1" and ~ ~'on of December 3~" r. cr.: ....... ":-- '"~ ' ......... .......... ~, ................. , unless sooner revoked or forfeited. Every license holder wishing to renew a license for the following year must make a renewal application on or before December is of the year preceding the license renewal year. '-- --, ,,,,* '~- -~ ': ..... :- "'-~-'-- ' ~ An extra fee shall ~ imposed against delinquent license renewal ai~plications. Any reoewal application submitted 40 days or tess after the December l" application deadline shall cause the fee for said license as set forth in Chapter 14 to be doubled. A charge equal to 25 % of the original..fee amoung or $25.0Q, whichever is ~eater, shall be added to the dQu~le fee if tl~ renewal application is more than..40 days past due. The additional fees are necessary_ to reimburse the City for its additional administrative costs to process late license renewal application. Section 2. Section 8.021 "Applicatioq' of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as foUows: 8.021 ~. The provisions and procedures set forth below apply to all licenses required in o--...--, on~ on~ on-, OhO onn o ~ Chamer 8 of this Code. Section 3. The following sections of the New Hope City Code are hereby repealed and deletecl in their entirety: 8.05 'Food Handling", 8.03! "License .RequLred", 8.0~2 ~Definitions for Licenses", 8.03~ '~", 8.0~4 "!il~", 8.17 'Lig¢nses for Swimmin_~ Pool~", 8.171 "Licenses Required for Swimming Pools", 8.172 "License Fees. ,~ff,~!illZ~L~", 8.25 'Licenskng for Lodgin_~ Establishments", 8.2~1 'Purooses", 8.252 'State Re_aui~ements for Lodging_ Establishments Adopted", 8.253 "~,lff..~", 8.254 'Fees~, 14.081 "Food Hand]in~ License Fees', 14,096 ~Public Swimmin~ Pool License lee", and 14.100 "Lod~in~ Establishment Fees". ~. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the 14* day of June, 1999. W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the ~ day of , 199 .) -2- --' JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. ~4ttorneys /it £aw 8525 EI)mIROOK CROSSrnG, STE. 20 I BROOKI, YN I~ARIG MINN~:SOTA 5~443-1999 TEL£iqlONE (612) 424-8~11 · TELgFAX (612) 493-5193 Go~o~ L..r£.~sE.~. F.-MAIL jss~jsspa.com WILLIAM (~. SWANSON STEVEN A. $ONDIL~LL MARTIN P MAL~CHA C. ALDEN P~AR~3NT DEAN A. TRONGARD~' IULI£ A. TRILL OF COUNSEL Lo~NsQ. I~RYN~S'r^O May 14, 1999 Valerie Leone City Clerk City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Proposed Ordinance Ameudi~ Chapter 8 of New Hope Cit7 Code Regulating Business Licenses Our File No.: 99.49905 Dear Vah Pursuant to your recent ¢-rnail, please find enclosed a proposed Orclinan~ Amending New Hope Code Chapter 8 Regulating Business Licenses for consideration at the New Hope City Council's May 17, 1999 work session. This ordinance does several things. R amends Chapter 8.024 by increasing the penalty '- provisions for delimluent license applications. I used a 40 clay period to differemiar~ between fl~e double penalty and triple penalty so the New Years Day holiday could be avoided will~ reference to the time computation. In other words, using a 30 day period to dis~i~gui~ between a double fee ami triple fee would put tl~ final clays for the renewal p~od on ~ New Ye, a~ Eve and New Years Day holiday. Someone rr~y complain about their imbility to m~ke the deadline based on said holidays. By giving them 10 ¢x~ra days, we avoid lt~ po~ible complaint. If the Coumil wishes to draw the line at 30 clays, naturally fl~,y are free to do so. I have also incoq~ora~l in this ordinance the changes you request~ in your February 2, t999 memo. Specifically, we have cleler~l the s~:tiom referring to food handling, swimmin$ pools a~l lodging establistm~nts since Hennepin County has now assumed responsibility for these areas as you pointed out in your memo. ! ~ amended Section 8.021 to intricate all city licenses issued umler Chapter 8 are subjo:t ~o tl~ requirements of Chap~r 8. May 14, 1999 Page 2 If you have any questions or comments regarding this ordinance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall J'ENSEN SWANSON & SONDILALL. P.A. Enclosure CN H4ggO~'~01. v~. w~l cotllvclr., StS V. ST 'oa AC'nON Ot~matma De~ent ~p~ for ~e~a ~enda ~cuon Comm~niW Oevelo~ment Ordinances Ki~ McDonald &' ~t~ ~ Phil Kern ~ lo. 3 ORDINANCE NO. 9~06/P~NNING CASE 97-2~, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ~HAP~ER 6 OF THE N~ HOPE Cl~ CODE REGU~TING COURTESY BUS BENCHES REQUESTED ACTION Staff is r~ommending ~at ~e Coun~l a~rove ~e propo~ minor amendmen~ to Chapter 6 of ~e New .Ho~ Gi~ G~e r~ulaUng ~u.esy bus ~n~es. ~e Planning Commi~ion has review~ ~e propos~ amendments and has r~ommend~ approval. POLI~YIPA5T On ganua~ 11, 1999, ~e G~ ~ouncil ap~rov~ ~on 6.16 of ~e ~i~ ¢~e, which establish~ r~ulations for cou~esy bus benches in the public right-of-way. Staff implement~ a ~R adminis~ation process in Apdl, and b~an reviewing applica~ons ~r ~ in May. ~e ~it revi~ pro.ss revealed several problems with the Code ~at r~uir~ revision. BACKGROUND An invento~ of ~u.esy bus ~nches in ~e C~ in ~u~ ~9~ mveal~ 28 a~sing county benches. The info~aUon ga~e{~ during ~e au~ wa~ u~ to develo~ an o~inan~ r~ulaUng ~e ~n~es, which was approv~ in danua~ 1~. I~ A~i ~, s~ develo~ a ~li~ to ~miniat~ ~e ~R allo~on process, .~ which allow~ ~e exiaUng ~ ~e fl~t op~n~ at ~i~ ~r ~eir exisUng ~n~es. All o~er sites in the Gi~ were ~ o~ up ~ any ~ov~ to app~ for ~i~. ~e ~it pro~ result~ in the following ap~li~Uona: · The exis~ng prover a~ ~ ~ ~r 27 of ~ exis~ng 28 ~n~es. · New providem ~en ap~ ~ 42 ~d~onal ~u~esy ~nch ~i~ in distant Io~Uons ~roughout the Oi~. Upon revi~ of ~ ~ pla~ indud~ ~ ~e a~pli~on~, s~ di~Ver~ ~eml problems w~ the existing Code. As a ~ ~~t of ~e Cou~esy Ben~ O~inan~ baa ~n pla~ on hold un~l ~e items at issue are ~. In ~, ~ am ~e ~r~ problems en~uffmr~ ~ ~e cu~ent ordinan~: (~nfd.) M~ON ~ ~~ ~ .... ~: .... I II II I ~A~l Request for Action Page 2 6-14-99 1. Code Regulates Benches Only in the Public Right-of-Way. · The Building Official determined that a majonty of the applications were for sites not located in the public fight-of-way. The Code requires that all courtesy bus benches must be placed in the public right-of-way at least three feet behind a curb and not on a public sidewalk. The public right-of-way, in most cases, includes the area from the back of the curb to the back of the public sidewalk. Since courtesy benches are almost three feet in width, there must be no less than six feet of green space between the curb and sidewalk for a courtesy bench to fit (see "Exhibit A" attached). Of the 27 existing benches, only 11 are located in areas that can accommodate a courtesy bench in the public fight-of-way. · The site plans show 15 of the 27 existing benches located behind the public sidewalks, and thus are assumed to be placed on private property (see "Exhibit B" attached). This raises two complications with the City Code: 1) Only courtesy benches in the public right-of-way are regulated by the conditions of the Code, and 2) the Sign Code states that no off-premise advertising signs may be located on pdvate property. 2. Benchee Located on Sidewalks. Another complication exists with the last of the 27 renewal applications for existing courtesy benches. The application in question is for a bench adjacent to Bass Lake Road, at the intersection with Boone Avenue, located on a nine foot sidewalk (see 'Exhibit C' attached). The Code states that no bench may be placed on a public sidewalk. The intent of this restriction was to not allow benches to be an obstruction in the normal five or six foot wide sidewalk throughout the City. This sidewalk is an exception to the norm with its nine feet in width. Even with the courtesy bench placed along the back of the sidewalk, there is six-and-a-half feet of sidewalk clearance. This is sufficient space for snow cleadng equipment, and allows more room for passage than a standard sidewalk. 3. Location of Bench to Neamet Intemection. The final amendment to the Code concerns the location of benches relative to adjacent intersections. The Code requires that benches be placed at least 20 feet from the intersection of the public right-of-way, rather than the nearest intersection Of streets, Providers have not been able to identify the intersection of the public fight-of-way due to different boulevard widths throughout the City. The Building Official is recommending that the Code be changed to require benches to be placed at least 20 feet from the nearest intersection of streets, which can easily be identified. DETAI,L$ OF AMENDMENTS The City Attorney has prepared amendments to the City Code to resolve the minor Code issues outlined above (see attached ordinance). In ~ummary, here are the changes to the Code: The Code will regulate those benches placed in the public right-of-way or on private property within three feet of the public right-of-way. In order to place a bench on private property, the provider must obtain written permisMon from the property owner;, · Benches may be placed on a publi¢~ sidewalk that is nine feet or greater in width; · Benches must placed at least 20 feet from the nearest street intersection; and · Sign Code Amendment (Section 3.464), allowing courtesy bench advertising signs on pdvate property, subject to Section 6.16 of the Code. ATTACHMENTS · Exhibits A, B, and C · 611/99 Planning Case Report · 5/27199 City Attorney correspondence Communi~ Development ~i~ McDonald MOTION ACCEPTING APP~ISAL AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIA~ ~TH PROPER~ O~ER REGARDING POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF INDUS~IAL PROPER~ LOCATED AT 7500 42~ AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 474) ACTION REQUESTED - Staff requests that the EDA approve a motion a~pting the appraisal f~om SCL Appraisals and authorizing staff to negotiate ~th the pro~ owner of 7500 42~ Avenue Nodh regarding the Ci~'s potential a~uisition of the pro~ for redevelopment pu~oses. ~e Ci~'s appraisal on the pro~ was complet~ on June 11 and will ~ discussed at the EDA mee~ng. POLICWPAST P~CTICE Since the eady 1990s, the Ci~ has taken a numar of actions to a~uire the three industrial, propeRies located at the nodheast comer of 42~ and Que~c Avenues for redevelopment pu~oses. The City acquired and demolished the Ele~ronic Industries building at 7516 42~ Avenue in 1993, and the City acquired and demolished the Foremost building at 7528 42~ Avenue ~een 1993 and 1995. One properly remains to be a~uired at 7500 42~ Avenue. Over the yearn, the Ci~ has had a number of conversations with the pro~ owner, Te~ Jensen, regarding the ~tential a~uisJtJon Of the propeRy by the Ci~ and the C~ has had throe appraisals complet~ on the pro~ in 1992, 1996, and 1997. Ardel Enpineedn9 is a tenant in the building Io~t~ on the s~e. In August 1997, the 'EDA approved a resolution authoring the commen~ment of eminent domain pro~ings to a~uire the prope~ at 7500 42~ Avenue Nodh, b~ the a~ion has not ~en implemented. ~e environmental cleanup and futur· redevelopment of the ~r~ industrial sites I~ted at the nodheast ~mer of Que~c Avenue and 42~ Avenue is iden~ as a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. (~nt'd.) M~ON ~ , ~: .... ~ ........ I II II II II I. Request for Action Page 2 6/1-.. ~9 BACKGROUND The owner of the property has been in contact with the City to inquire about the City's interest in acquiring the property. Ardel Engineering's lease terminated on May 31, as an agreement was not reached between the owner and tenant to renew the lease. Ardel Engineering has relocated to Science Industry Park in the City. The property at 7500 42"~ Avenue is currently vacant and the owner is considering making improvements to the building and marketing the property. Due to the fact that the building is vacant, the City would have no responsibility for relocation costs, The owner has recently obtained a current appraisal of the property indicating a market value of $545,000. The 1998 valuation of the property for tax purposes is $195,000 ($76,000 land/S119,000 building). At the May 10 EDA meeting, the EDA approved a resolution authorizing appraisals and commencement of negotiations to acquire the property. The City's appraisal was completed on June 11 and will be reviewed at the EDA meeting. Staff is requesting that the EDA accept the appraisal from BCL Appraisals and authorize continued negotiations. At the May 24 EDA meeting, the EDA determined not to enter into a Right of First Refusal and Non-Rental Agreement in order to keep the property vacant. Per the City Attorney's previous correspondence, the EDA will need to determine the dollar amount it is willing to authorize as a ceiling for acquisition. All negotiations and any agreements reached would be subject to approval by the EDA. FUNDING Acquisition of the site would be funded with 42'~ Avenue Tax Increment Funds and a vadety of grant funds would be available for site cleanup and redevelopment. ATTACHMENTS · Updated Appraisal · Comprehensive Plan Excerpts BCL PRAISALS 2852 ANTHONY LANE SO., MINNEAPOU$, MIIqNESOTA 55418 (612)7814}605 Fax: 781-7826 RON LACHENMAYER, SPA REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS LESLIE .L (LEE) RACINE, JR., SPA BRAD I{JORKLUND, MAI, SPA CONSULTANTS June 9,1999 The City of New Hope c/o Kirk McDonald 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Re: Appraisal of 13,524 sf Industrial Building Ardei Engineering & Menufactudng; 7500 42nd Avenue North, New Hope, MN Dear Mr. McDonald, In response to your request, I have conducted the required investigation, gathered the necessary data, and made certain analyses that have enabled me to form an opinion of the market value of the fee simple interest of the real property referenced above. Based on an inspection of the property and the investigation and analyses undertaken, I. have formed the opinion that as of June 9, 1999, and subject to the assumptions' and limiting conditions set forth in this report, the subject proper~ has · m·rket value of: FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS $432,000 The appraisal report that follows i~ · Complete Appraisal, meaning it was developed with all relevant and appropriate appmactm$ to v·lue, end it ia written in a Summao/form. The report is intended to be used by you, the city manager, the city council end Mr. Steve Sondrall, New Hope City Attorney, and the opinions of value herein st·ted are understood to be used to support efforts to purchase the real estate. Respectfully submitted, Cert. General Real Property Appraiser Minnesota License ilt4003154 EB/Ib MORE THAN ~0 YEARS FI. II.l. APPRAI, X,4I., SERVICES EEO/AA Summary Appraisal Report-.Complete Appraisal This is a Summary Appraisal Report which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a Summary Appraisal Report. As such, it presents only summary discussions of the reasoning of analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinion of value. Supporting documentation which would be used to expand the reporting format of this document into a Self Contained Appraisal Report is retained in the appraiser's file. PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL & DEFINITION OF VALUE: The purpose of this appraisal is to provide a cun'ent market value estimate of the subject real property so that the client may buy it. Any influence on the subject's value caused by a threat of condemnation is disregarded. Market Value is defined by the federal financial institutions regulatory agencies as follows: Market value is the most probable pdce which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the pdce is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both parties ara well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in th® open market; · (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and (5) the ~ represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or cl'~e fin~rlcirl~ or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. (~ource: Office office Comptroller of me Currency under 12 CFR, Pitt 34, Subpert C.Aplxai~, 34.42 Definitions If].) 2 INTEREST VALUED: Fee Simple EFFECTIVE DATE OF VALUE: June 9, 1999 DATE OF REPORT: June 9, 1999 APPRAISAL DEVELOPMENT AND REPORTING PROCESS: In preparing this appraisal, the appraiser:. · Inspected the subject on May 25, 1999. · Gathered rental, expense, vacancy and cost information, as well as sale data on comparable land and buildings in the subject's and competing neighborhoods. · Discussed perceptions and components of value for the subject and other industrial properties in the area with the owner, tenant, buyers, sellers and brokers. · Completed the Sales Comparison, Cost, & Income Approaches to Value, and reconciled their opinions into a final value estimate assuming no on-site contamination exists. · Developed an opinion of value that is reflective of any stigma affecting the subject cause¢ by on-site ground water and soil contamination. Review of MPCA files (on the adjacent real estate to the west where the contamination originated from as well as others) and market analysis of sales of contaminated property aided this process. HISTORY OF THE REAL ESTATE APPRAISED The subject has been owned by Terry Jansen since the mid 1970's. For the past 13+ years, the building has been occupied by Ardel Engineering and Manufacturing. However, it is now vacant. Ardel left the building effective June 1, 1999. The move is reported to be over a concern caUsed by the City of New Hope's posturing to purchase the building, and an expired lease. In-so. far as is known, the building is not being offered for sale by the owner. Effects (if any) caused or related to the city's posturing to purchase the subject (by condemnation or other matters) are ~disregarded in the estimate of market value. In 1983, a ruptured settling tank for various industrial solvents was discovered on the adjacent property to the west. Later tests showed groundwater and soils under the subject, and in the immediate vicinity were contaminated by trichloroethylene (TCE), dichloroethylene (DCE), chromium, copper and lead. Them are presently 15 monitoring wells in the area, and measures are undemmy to clean up the contaminants. Pollution levels have dropped most notably nearest the source, but apparently the contamination levels are no longer being 'effectively reduced in plume areas away from the former "hot spot" where the remediation equipment is located. Higher levels of contaminants apparently still exist under the subject building to a depth of about 15 feet. Because of the pollution, the subject is stdcken by a pollution stigma. While affects on value possibly attributed to the city's efforts to purchase the subject are disregarded, the pollution stigma is not. In the least concern (assuming the building itself has economic value and the contamination isn't deemed to affect its physical use), most prudent buyers would seek to fully inform themselves of the subject's contamination, and would seek some type of indemnification for themselves, or protection from being held responsible for the costs to clean up the property. Part of the indemnification process, which hasn't been done yet, is the property owner's responsibility to register the site with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency with the intent of HISTORY OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISED cont. obtaining documents such as an "Off Site Determination Letter," a "No Association Letter," or possibly a "No Action Letter." The costs to obtain such documentation is in this appraisers opinion, the pollution stigma that affects the market value of the subject. LOCATION DESCRIPTION The subject is located in the City of New Hope, a second tier westerly suburb of Minneapolis with a current population of about 21,715. New Hope is approximately seven miles northwest of Downtown Minneapolis. The community is pdmadly residential in character. There are scattered industrial districts and one major concentration of commercial buildings focused at the intersection of 42nd Avenue North (C.S.A.H. ~91Rockford Road) and Winnetka Avenue (C.S.A.H. #156). Most development in New Hope has taken place since 1960. New Hope has a council/manager plan B form of government that provides good quality municipal utilities and services. Essentially all of the city streets ara *paved, have concrete curb and gutter, street lights and service by sanitary sewer and water. The entire city is located in School Distdct ~281. MTC bus routes serve most of the City including a route on 42nd Avenue North. Major transportation to the City is provided by Highway #169 along the westerly City limits; also by Rockford Road, Bass Lake Road (C.S.A.H. #10), Medicine Lake Road (26th Avenue/C.S.A.H. #70), and Winnetka Avenue. These county roads provide good community access within the city. The subject is located on 42nd Avenue. No unusual municipal or economic influences are observed that would unduly affect the value of real estate in New Hope. The market is healthy, and the overall economy is good. Vacancy is Iow (c.3%) in the industrial market. New leases and listings on older warehouse & manufacturing space in the market area range from a blended rate of $3.751sf to $4.251sf. The Zoning' Map shows the nature of uses in the immediate neighborhood. The abutting site to the north is improved with · larger sized industrial building. West ara two vacant industrial lots owned by the City of New Hope. South of the subject, across 42nd Avenue, is a three story office building. East of the subject across the Soo Line Railroad tracks is a funeral home and an apartment complex. A commercial corridor exists along 42nd Avenue west of Quebec Avenue. The hub of the ¢orrid~ is found at the intersection of 42nd and Winnetka about two blocks west. An industrial corridor exists along Quebec Avenue, both north and south of 42nd Avenue beginning about a block away from the intersection. LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND TAX INFORMATION Legal Description: The East 100 feet of the South 350 feet of Lot 5, Auditors Subdivision #324, Hennepin County Minnesota except road and alley. Parcel Identification Number:. 17-118-21-22-0006' Real Estate taxes (non-homestead): $6,004.00 Assessor's Market Value: $105,000 Land + $224,000 Building = $329,000 Total 4 SITE DESCRIPTION Location: 7500 42nd.Avenue North, New Hope; in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The zip code for this area is 55427. Size: 100' x 350' = 35,000 square feet. Easements: 7.5' wide sanitary sewer easement along the entire east property line, and a 5' wide storm sewer easement along the north 227.5' of the east property line. Streets: The south edge of the site has 100' of frontage on 42nd Avenue North. 42nd Avenue is a divided four lane road. It has a 90 foot dght of way in front of the subject, is asphalt paved, with concrete cur'os, gutters, and sidewalks. The pavement is in good condition. The sites northern edge has 100 feet of frontage on an alley. The right-of-way for the alley is 20 feet. Utilities: All municipal utilities are located in the neighborhood and are available to the subject property. These include city water and sewer, electricity, telephone and natural gas. Topography and Soils: The site is generally level and open. There is one tree near the northwest comer. The soils are comprised of a glacial ddff intertayed with mixed sands, silts, clays, and gravel; They are stable and appear to be free of peat or soft soils which would render the site to be difficult to construct a building on. The water table is about 10-15' below the surface. Groundwater and soils below the site are known to be contaminated with trichloroethylene ('I'CE), dichloroethylene (DCE), chromium, copper and lead. The contamination has been caused by an off-site source, upgradient of the site. Measures are presently underway to clean up the contaminants off-site. Zoning: The current zoning map shows the property to be zoned I-2, General Industrial. Access: The site is accessed by vehicular traffic through one cur'o cut on West bound 42nd Avenue, and also through the rear alley. identity: The identity of the subject is industrial. It is located on industrially zoned land in an industrially developed corridor that lies west of and parallel to the Soo Line Railroad Tracks. IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION Size - (100' x 60') + (99' x 76') = 13,524 sf GBA. Age - Front half of bldg. (100' x 60,) constructed in 1961. Rear half of bldg. (99' x 76') added in 1971. Average actual age of just over 32 years. Foundation & Frame - Concrete block extedor walls, metal (webbed) roof joists with "1" beams and support posts. Roof - Flat; metal decking & dgid insulation sealed with a composition of pitch and gravel. Clearspan height -- 12' in front manufacturing area, 16' in rear;, add 2' for roof joists to equal total wall height in respective areas. 14' average clearspan height, 16' average wall height to roof deck. 5 IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION oont: Finish- Viny~ tile floors, wood panel walls, suspended penal ceiling, and recessed florescent lights in 1,200 sf front office area. 615 sf shop office has infedor finish. Slide by windows in front, fixed pane industrial sash windows on building sides, two 14' tall overhead drive through garage doors. Mechanical - GFWA furnace in main office w/central air. Four suspended hot air blower units in manufacturing areas. 1,200 ampere electric to building. Other - Two fixture bathroom in front office, with adjoining four fixture bath accessed from manufacturing area. On-site improvements include 3,780 sf asphalt paving and 14,196 sf crushed rock paving. Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment - Not incJuded in appraised value. Items removed or to be removed by tenant include air filters and air conditioner in warehouse areas, 3 ton crane and % ton crane, 400 amp electric to serve 3 ton crane, and all electrical Bus-.tdbution Ducts. Condition - Average overall. 18 year effective age of a 40 year economic life. HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and best use is defined as the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteda the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum profitability. As vacant, the subject is zoned I-2, General Industrial. Heavy industrial and manufacturing uses that require isolation are allowed, but light industrial buildings (office/warehouses) are the pdmary developed use of this zoning designation in this market area. The lot size minimum is one acre. The size of the subject at 35,000 square feet is less than one acre. A vadance would be needed to develop the site, or assemblage would need to occur. With vacant industrial land lying to the west of the subject, assemblage is quite possibly, more likely. An assembled ownership with the adjacent sites to the west would create about a 112,000 square foot parcel. This size of an industrial site could be readily developed with an industrial building improvement that is common in this area. NI municipal utilities ere available to the site, and access is reasonable. Semi- trucks could access the property from Quebec, and autos could access it from 42nd Avenue. However, ground water end soil contamination of the subject remain to be · problem that will deter development. Due to contamination that has migrated to the subject from the old Electronic Industries building that used to lie adjacent to the subject, the subjects soils and ground water are polluted. City and state officials, lenders, contractors, and labor unions are reticent to allow construction where contamination might adversely affect health, safety and value. Clean-up measures usually occur, and contaminated sites like the subject are rarely developed until either · "leffer of closure" or a "no action leffer" are produced by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Even though the contamination on the subject is not the responsibility of its owner, a "no action leffer' is still necessary. After the subject property owner voluntarily participates in a program to 6 HIGHEST AND BEST USE ¢ont: achieve a "no action letter", does testing over a period of months, achieves satisfactory results about the level of his own property's contamination, and pays for MPCA staff time, a letter of "no action" is likely to result. New construction might then occur. Economic conditions are favoreble for industrial building constnJction (on non-polluted sites, or · . those sites that have been cleaned up to MPCA standards). Within the industrial market, vacancy is Iow (lowest in new buildings) and rents are dsing. Mortgage financing is readily available to qualified borrowere with a 20-25% (of value) down payment, interest rates between 7-8%, and · loan term of 15 yeere. Balloon payments may be installed in the amortization period at perhaps five or ten yeare. The maximally productive use of the site, considered as vacant, is to assemble it with adjacent ones to the west, start clean up measures, and cooperete with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to obtain either a letter of closure or a no action. When a no action leffer is issued, ' industrial building development could ensue. As improved, the buiiding is a permitted use of the I-2 zoned site, but it is legal non-conforming in such issues as the size of the lot, parking, and landscaping. The non-compliances have been brought about by changes in zoning since the building was constructed. Physically, the building shows much detedoretion. Most is incureble (long and short lived). A few items might be cureble though such as leaking skylights and a crack between the building additions. These would at least keep a tenant happy, and in the building. Aspects of the building also reflect functional obsolescence which is a loss in value resulting from defects in design. Although the building itself is constructed with average quality materials which function adequately for its use, the building is a blt large for the site. Parking space for employees is tight, and maneuvering space for trucks is limited. Similar condition buildings with more parking and maneuvering room for semi trucks generate more rent. Although the subject and the industrial market does not suffer from economic obsolescence, the building is stricken by a pollution stigma. Disregarding this problem for a moment, there is a healthy market for this type of building (buildings exist, vacancy is fairly Iow at about 3%, and those for sale - the supply - are matched by their demand). Values are increasing at an annualized rate of 7%. Most buildings of the subject's size are owner occupied. Presently, market rents for similar warehouse space is between $3.00 to $4.251sf warehouse & $7.00 to $9.00/sf office, triple net. The building should be able to generate rents within this range (all-be-it at the lower end) if it were optioned to a lease. The pdor tenant in fact admitted to paying · blended rate of $4.25/sf for the new (and slightly better than the subject) space they move into, and had they stayed in the subject, something close to this amount should have been negotiated. At any concem, the recent presence of a successful business in the building, and several sales shows that there is · market for buildings like the subject. Furthermore, it is expected there should be a viable market for the subject in the foreseeable future. However, the subject still has contaminated soils and groundwater under the building. With the subject building being in reasonable physical condition, one that is amenable to occupancy, and functional enough to dedve rent, and the contamination is below grade and not thought to affect the health and safety of the buildings probable users (Jr the neighbors for that HIGHEST AND BEST UaE ~:ont: matter, if not, the subject tenant and neighbors would have been moved out), there is remaining economic life in the property as it is improved. The highest and best use is for the continued use of the building. However, the pollution stigma that affects the site should be addressed, and cured. At this point, it hasn't. The subject's ground water and soil contamination will deter most buyers from purchasing the site, and most lenders from providing a mortgage until the property owner obtains either an "Off Site Source Letter" or a "No Association Leffer" from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The costs to obtain such letters (and also the associated costs of hiring an environmental consultant to conduct a Phase I and Phase il Environmental report of the subject) should be deducted from the market value estimate of the subject as uncontaminated. However, there should be a considerable cost savings for what might othen~vise be spent because much information contained in the Phase I and II reports conducted on the adjacent site (Electronic Industries) could be readily reviewed and applied to the subject. The fees charged by an environmental consultant would therefore be less. The MPCA though would still charge $90/hr to review the environmental reports when they write the no association or off-site leffers. It is doubtful a aNn Action' leffer would be wfiffen unless the contamination was gone. Demolition of the building and removal of the soil under it, is thought to be the fastest way to get a 'No Action' letter wriffen. I I COf. JNC~..,_, ' ' 1 o. Acr o Communi~ Development Consent ~Sue Hen~ 6-28-99 -~'Communi~ Development Sp~ialist RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTACT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF HOUSE AND GA~G~ AT 5546 SUMT~R AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROdECT REQUESTED ACTION Staff is requesting the Council approve a resolution awarding the contra~ for the demolition of ho~se and garage at 5~6 8umter Avenue No~h to Fa~ Const~ion in the amount of ~8,495. POLIGWPAST P~GTIGE Per the Ci~ Council's a~ion on Ap~l 26, demolition bids were sent to ~ 5 demolition contractor. Staff normally recommends a~proval of the lowest res~nsible bidder. BACKGROUND In response to the demolition bid.request for the s~bje~ pro~, the Ci~ re~ived the following t~ree bids for total demolition of the prope~ lo.ted at 5~ Sumter Avenue No~h: Contractor ~a~ Constm~ion $8,495 ~ev~ E~vating, Inc. $9,585 Don Zappa and Sons, Inc. $9,8~0 The Iow bid was subm~ by Fa~ Constm~ion in the amount of $8,495. ~e Minnesota Pollution Co.mi Agen~ and the National Emission Standard for H~ardous Air Pollutants require that all as~stos~ntaining mate~als ~ removed ~om a building p~or to demolition. ~is will ~ ac~mplish~ by Fa~ Const~ion, as not~ in the demolition s~cifi~tions. FUNDING All demolition ~sts will ~ paid w~h tax in~ement ~nds (TIF). A~ACHMENT~ · Resolution and C~ Affomey Co~es~nden~ · Demolition S~tion~id ResuRs · Map M~ON ~ , , ~~ ~ ,,, ~: ........... I I I 78oo 7&~o UNT¥ el I~O&O I0 · ... ST. ~AP~EL ~ CATHOLIC -- EL~ CHURCH · A~ ' .~._ COUNCR, Origmatlnll Depm~ent ~p~ ~r ~ ~da ~Uon Community Development ~ Conseqt It~ No. 6-28-99 ,,~i~ McDonald 6.8 / MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVING THE FEES FOR SIGN ANO TENT PERMITS FOR LION'S CLUB ANNUAL CORN FEED TO ~ HELD ON AUGUST ~ 8, 1999 ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests that the Ci~ Council approve waivin~ the fees for Si~n and Tent Pe~its for the Lion's Club annual corn f~ to be held on August ~ 8, ~ 999. POLICY/PAST P~CTIC~ Don Ande~on of the Lions has requested that the CiW waive fees for the ne~ssa~ ~rmits required for the yea~y Lion's Corn Feed. T~.Ci~ has routinely waiv~ these fees in the past. BACKGROUND ~e Lion's Club adve~ises on nine signs throughout the CiW for ~o weeks p~or to the corn feed. A Special H~ard Pe~t is also obtained from the Ci~ to ere~ the tent for the corn fe~. Costs for the ~its are as follows: Sign Pe~its - tem~ra~ ~om August 4 - August ~ 8, 1999 9 signs ~ ~25.00 = $225.00 S~cial H~ard Pe~t- August ~8, ~ 9~- 4:~- 9:~ p.m. ~125.00 $350.00 A~ACHMENT~ · Sign Pe~A A~li~tion · S~cial H~ P~t ~pli~tion M~ON ~ , ~~ ~ , ~: ............. Originating Depa~ l~ent Appwved for Agenda Agenda Secuon Public Works ~/~/99 Consent ~/~,~/~. Item No. By: Guy Johnson ~ 6.9 / RESOLUTION APPROVING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO HIGHWAY 169 AND 49TM AVENUE NORTH (PROJECT 620) REQUESTED ACTION Staff is recommending approval of the resolution between the City of New Hope and the State of Minnesota regarding the installation of a new traffic control signal, Emergency Vehicle Preemption, and road signing on Trunk Highway 169 East ramp at 49TM Avenue North. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the City of New Hope has shared the installation and construction costs with Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota for new traffic control signals, street lights, and road signs. For the past eight months, staff members have been working with representatives from the State of Minnesota to determine the estimated cost for up-grading the traffic control signal, street lights, and road signage at this location. The estimated cost for this construction project is $101,150.00. The estimated costs forthis project would be divided in the following manner. · State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation 50% · City of New Hope 50% The Department of Transl~ortation's estimated cost to install the intemonnect between the City of Plymouth's traffic signal on the west side and the City of New Hope's traffic signal on the east side is $8,000.00. The projected cost of the interconnect would be divided in the following manner. · State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation 50% · City of Plymouth 25% · City of New Hope 25% I:RFA/Pubwodcq/Pn3~::t 6208 Traffic Coalfo/~ MOTION BY' SECOND BY TO: ...... I RFA-OOI ~ Request For Action ' T.H. 169 & 49"~ Ave. Signal Light Page 2 The City of New Hope's share of the total construction cost would be 50% of the estimated $101,150 construction costs and 25% of the estimated $8,000 for the interconnect fee. An additional 8% would be necessary to cover the City of New Hope's share of the engineering and inspection costs for the Department of Transportation. City of New Hope's. Estimated Construction Costs: · 50% of $101,150.00 $ 50,575.00 · 25% of $8,000.00 $ 2,000.00 · 8% of $52,575.00 $ 4, 206.00 · City of New Hope's Estimated Cost $ 56,781.00 Upon execution of this agreement, the City of New Hope will provide the State of Minnesota with a cash advancement of $56,781. The City of Plymouth will also be required to advance funds tothe State for their portion of this project on the west side. The City of New Hope would be responsible for the cost to supply electrical power to the signals, the monthly electrical service cost, and the cost of future maintenance for the signals on the east side. NSP estimated the monthly electrical charges to be $100.00 per month. The estimated cost of an annual maintenance agreement is $150.00 per month. FUNDING Funding for this project is available in the Road and Bddge Fund. ATTACHMENT~ Copies of the agreement and resolution are attached. I:RFA/Pul~works/Pro~ 620B Traffic Cor4mt Signal -' SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorn~. s At Law 8525 EO~K C~O, S~. 201 BR~ PAR~ MINN~A 5~43-1999 TELErHONr (612) 424-8811 * TELEr~ (612) 493-$193 ~a~S L. JENSEN* K-MAIL Jss~jsspa.com W~u,M o. sw,,~, June 22, 1999 STEVEN A. SONDEALL MARTIN P, MA~A C. ALaN ~Nt DEAN A. ~ONGAE~ ~uu~ A. ~ Daniel J Donahue New Hope CiW Manager 4401 Xylon Avenue No~h OFCOU,~ New Hope, MN 55428 ~RENS Q. BRYN~AD RE: Traffic Signal Agreement Highway 169 and 49~ Avenue Our File No. 99.11226 '~ Dear Dan: ~ r~vi~d ~r~m~nt h~ b~n r~c~iv~d from th~ Minn~ot~ D~a~mont of lran~po~ation rolatin~ to tho Citi~ of ~w ~op~ and ~l~mouth joinino with MnDOI in a co~t-~h~rin~ ~r~m~nt for n~w traffic ~i~nal~ at ~i~hwa~ 1 ~0 and 40~ ~v~nu~ ~o~h. ~w ~o~'~ ~o~ion of tho co~t will tomato to th~ ~ional light ~t 1 $0 ~nd 4~~, whil~ Plgmouth'~ ~o~ion of th~ co~t will rolato to th~ at 1 $0 ~nd Schmidt [ak, ~o~d. signal light The propos~ Agreement will require the City to pay to the State 50 percent of the installation of the 49m Avenue Signal, 25 percent'of the cost of an interconnect between the 49~ Avenue Signal and the Schmidt Lake Road. Signal, and an engineering and insp~tion fee of eight percent of the foregoing, with the City of Plymouth paying an identical share of the " costs of the Schmidt ~ke Road Signal. The State of Minnesota will pay the costs not paid by the Cities of Plymouth and New Hope. The New Hope cost is estimat~ at ~56,781. In addition to the above, the City will be requir~ to provide an adequate el~trical power supply to the se~ice pad or pole of the 49~ Avenue Signal. The CiW will have ongoing maintenance costs, plus the cost of supplying the electrical power for the signal. This Agreement was originally before the Council in early March of this year~ with some unresolved issues relating to indemnification and insurance. The State has now agreed to include in the Agreement provisions extending indemnification from the contractor to the Cities, and ~ ~ s~a~, requiring the contractor to carry liability insurance that covers the Cities. A~ Daniel J. Donahue June 22, 1999 Page 2 '. The Council needs to be aware, however, that the Agreement includes language to the effect that if the contractor certifies to the State the contractor's insurance premium costs for the project, the Cities (New Hope and Plymouth) will reimburse this cost to the State. We presume the State will in turn reimburse the contractor for the insurance expense. The effect of the Agreement is that if the Cities insist on the contractor being required to carry insurance, the Cities will have to pay the cost of that insurance. You should note that this language has been in Hennepin County contracts with the State for some time, and Hennepin County personnel confirmed that the State has never itemized and passed on the insurance cost to the County. But the language is there, and can be enforced. On the whole, it is our conclusion that the City is better off with the contractor insured, even if the City has to pay the cost of that insurance. MnDOT is planning to let the bids for this contract on July 25, so this Agreement will need to be approved at this Council meeting to avoid the possibility of delaying the project further. Please place this matter on the Council agenda. If the Council decides to approve the project, the enclosed Resolution authorizes the signing and implementation of the Agreement. Be sure to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, M~rtin P. Malecha Assistant City Attorney Enclosure cc: Guy Johnson, Public Works (w/enc) Valerie Leone, City Clerk (w/enc)/' Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney COUNCIL . Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Secuon Public Works 6/28/99 Consent ,./~ Item No. By: Guy Johnson ~ ,' 6.10 RESOLUTION APPROVING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO HIGHWAY 169 AND MEDICINE LAKE ROAD REQUESTED ACTION Staff is recommending that Council pass a resolution between the City of New Hope and the State of Minnesota regarding the installation of a new traffic control signal, Emergency Vehicle Preemption, and road signing on Trunk Highway 169 East ramp at County State Aid Highway No.70 (Medicine Lake Road). POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the City of New Hope has shared the installation and construction costs with Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota for new traffic control signals, street lights, and road signs. Over the past eight months, staff members have been working with representatives from the City of Golden Valley, Hennepin County, and the State of Minnesota to determine the estimated cost for up-grading the traffic control signal, street lights, and road signing at this location. The estimated cost for this construction project is $101,650.00. These costs would be divided among the four different public entities in the following manner: · State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation 50% · Hennepin County 25% · City of Golden Valley 12.5% · City of New Hope 12.5% I:RFA/PuI~works//O20A Traffl~ ConSol Signal MOTION BY SECOND BY I RFA-O01 ~ °o Request For Action T.H. 169 & Medicine-Lake Road Page 2 The City of New Hope's share of the total construction cost would be 12.5% of the estimated $101,650.00. An additional 8% will be necessary to cover the City of New Hope's share of the engineering and inspection costs for the Department of Transportation. · 12.5% of $101,650.00 $12,706.25 · 8% ors 12,706.25 $ 1,016.50 · City of New Hope's Estimated Cost $13,722.75 Upon execution of this agreement, the City of New Hope will provide the State of Minnesota with a cash advancement of $13, 722.75. Hennepin County and the City of Golden Valley will also be required to advance funds to the State for their portion of the proiect. The City of New Hope would be responsible, along with Golden Valley, for half of the cost to supply electrical power to signals and half of the cost for future maintenance. The City of Golden Valley will receive monthly bills for the power supply and electrical service fees, and will be deemed responsible for all future maintenance. Golden Valley will then invoice the City of New Hope for 50% of all incurred costs. FUNDING Fun(ling for this project is available in the Road and Bddge Fund. ATTACHME~IT:~ Copies of the agreement and the resolution are attached. I: R FNPubwonV~e20A Traffic Control Signal JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys/it Law 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING, ST~. 201 BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA S5443-1999 T~L£PiiONE (612) 424-8811 · TELEFAX (612) 493-S193 GORDON L. SENSEN* g-MAIL Jss(~jsspa.com W~LU^~ O. SW^~SON June 22, 1999 STEVEN A. $ONDRALL MARTIN P. MALECHA C. ALDEN PEARSON? DEAN A, TRONGARD'{' ~uu~A. ra,-- Daniel J Donahue New Hope City Manager 4401 Xylon Avenue North OF COUNSEL LO,ENsQ. B,¥NEST, O New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Traffic Signal Agreement Highway 169 and Medicine Lake Road Our File No. 99.11227 Dear Dan: ~ Similar to the proposed traffic signal at Highway 169 and 49~ Avenue North, the Minnesota Department of Transportation is requesting Hennepin County and the Cities of New Hope and Golden Valley join in a cost- sharing agreement relating to a new traffic signal at Highway 169 and O Medicine Lake Road. {~ The proposed Agreement will require the City to pay to the State 12.5 percent of the installation of the signal, and an engineering and inspection fee of eight percent of the City's share. The City of Golden Valley will pay an identical share of the costs. The State of Minnesota and Hennepin County will pay the costs not paid by New Hope and Golden Valley. The .. City cost is estimated at $13,722.75. New Hope and Golden Valley will '~ .. also equally pay the cost of providing electrical power to the signal base. In : addition, the New Hope and Golden Valley will equally divide the ongoing maintenance expense, plus the ongoing cost of providing electrical power to the signal. As with the project at 49~ Avenue, this Agreement was before the Council in early March of this year, with the same issues relating to indemnification and insurance. Similar to the 49u' Avenue Agreement, this Agreement now includes language extending indemnification from the contractor to the Cities, and requiring the contractor to carry, liability insurance that covers the Cities. And as with the 49m Avenue Agreement, this Agreement contains .,~.~,..~..a, provisions relating to the City's obligation to pay the cost of insurance for C.~m fnd By Minnem~ Stale Bat ; tQuaJifed ADR Neutral Daniel J. Donahue June 22, 1999 Page 2 the contractor, if the contractor certifies that cost to the State. In this case, though, the City of New Hope's proportionate share will be much less, arguably no more than 25 percent of the contractors certified insurance expense. And like the 49~ Avenue Agreement, it is .our conclusion that the City is better off with the contractor insured under this Agreement, even if the City has to pay a share of the cost of that insurance. MnDOT is also planning to let the bids for this contract on July 25, so this. Agreement will likewise need to be approved at the June 28 Council meeting to avoid the possibility of delaying the project further. Please place this matter on the Council agenda. If the Council decides to approve the project, the enclosed Resolution authorizes the signing and implementation of the Agreement. Be sure to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha Assistant City Attorney Enclosure cc: Guy Johnson, Public Works (w/enc) " Valerie Leone, City Clerk (w/enc)-'- Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney l COUNcE. REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depar~ent Appn:~*d t'or Asenda A~enda Secuon Community Development C(3nserLt Item NO. Henry ~ 6-28-99 6.15 RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOME AT 5629 WISCONSIN AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 612) REQUESTED ACTION City staff requests Council approval of the attached resolution awarding the construction contract to Michlitsch Builders for the home at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North. At this time, staff recommends approval of the base bid in the amount of $118,900. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE Sealed bids are required for purchases exceeding $25,000, and bids must be advertised by the City Clerk in the City's legal newspaper, the SunPost, and publicly opened and approved by Council resolution. In addition to the legal notice, the City must prepare instructions to bidders and general specifications for sealed bids. As a statutory city, contracts and bids must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. BACKGROUND At the June 14 meeting, the Council approved the resolution approving plans and specifications for the single family three bedroom-accessible home planned for 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North. The resolution also approved the advertisement for construction bids. Two responsive base bids, as well as options, were accepted June 23 at 11:00 a.m. at New Hope City Hall by staff:. Firm Base Bid Ootions Michlitsch Builders $118,900 $8,045 + brick Martin Joseph Construction 152,662 6,140 (cont'd.) RFA.O01 Request for Action Page 2 8-28-99 Staff recommends approval of the bid from Michlitsch Builders, the lowest bidder, in the base bid amount of $118,900. Michlitsch Builders has built for the City in the past (the twin accessible home on Louisiana) and does quality work. The bid is lower than the original estimated cost of the. project. Two other firms, Equal Access Homes and Mike Wilder Construction, submitted bids; however, they did not include a bid bond. Therefore, these bids are not considered responsive by staff. The advertisement for bid specified a bid bond of five percent. At the June 14 meeting, there was Council discussion about pulling a few specifications out and listing them as options. Since then, some items (rough-ins for lawn sprinkler system and security system) have been written as options. The garage sheetrock cannot be written as an option because it is a requirement for ~ of the garage with this style of home. The tub is written out as an option. The home will be marketed over the next couple of months as construction begins. Once construction is underway and the City has located a buyer, staff will return to Council to consider the options further. FUNDING The proceeds from the sale of the home will be used to fund new construction. In addition, the City has $37,000 in HOME funds available from the five-city CHDO for a second mortgage and grant (gap financing) assistance. CDBG funds were utilized for the acquisition of the property and demolition of the former dilapidated single family home on the site. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution · City Attorney Correspondence · Map · Bid Results · Plan and Specifications · Footprint · Budget 3 BR~ Aec~ ssible Home 75.0 : ) 0 Or~tr~r. mg D, epa~Lu, lent Approved for A~eada ,~eada Secuort Public Works 6-28-99 Consent Item No. By: Guy Johnson By:. 6. ]. 6 RESOLUTION REJECTING B~DS FOR THE 42"~AVENUE RETAINING WALL PROJECT (NO. 657) REQUESTED ACTION Staff is recommending that the Council reject the bids for the replacement of the retaining wall along the south' side of 42'~ Avenue, between Oregon Avenue and Quebec Avenue. BACKGROUND On February 22, 1999, the City Council authorized the City Engineer to work with Hennepin County staff members in preparing plans and specifications for the replacement of an existing modular block retaining wall on 42~ Avenue, between Oregon and Quebec Avenues, with a cast-in-place retaining wall. The retaining wall is necessary to provide an acceptable roadway width and protect the existing abutting uses. The existing modular wall was constructed in 1988 and has deteriorated over the last few years. The Council approved a cooperative agreement with Hennepin County for this project at the .March 22, 1999, Council meeting. That agreement stated that the County would limit its participation to 50% of the cost of a modular block wall, or financial contributions towards a cast-in-place will that would not exceed $70,000. I:Rfa~ul~vo~'~5742~1Avlltul R~ Wli Oiacu~sioa MOTION BY S~.COND BY Request For Action 42"~ Ave. Bids Page 2 The City Engineer estimated that the cost of this project would be $227,300.00. On June 23, the following bids were submitted by Lakeland Nurseries Inc. and Jay Bros. Inc. for the reconstruction of the 42~ Avenue retaining wall: ComoanY Bid Amount · Lakeland Nurseries $ 310,775.00 · Jay Brothers $ 271,549.00 FUNDING The Iow bid is approximately 20% over the City's Engineer's cost estimate. Staff feels that this is partially due to contractors being busy with the large number of construction projects in the metropolitan area. The two bids are not favorable from a cost standpoint. Staff also feels that the bids would be more competitive if the project was re-bid at a later time. The City's projected cost at this time, additional funding sources would have to be considered in addition to the Road and Bddge Fund. ATTACHMENTS The bid proposals and resolution are attached. I:Rfa~=ul~tKxk~5742ncl Av~raz~ R~ablin~ ~ ~ Ongtnattng Depa, U~ent Approv~t for Agenda Agenda SecUon Community Development Public Hearing 6-28-99 [te~ No. " BY~rk McDonald ~ 7. ! PUB[,IC HEARING - RESOLUTION APPROVING 1999 AMENDMENT TO MASTER MODIFICATION TO REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS AND MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 662) ACTION REQUESTED Staff request that the City Council approve the enclosed resolution which approves the 1999 Amendment to Master Modification to Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plans and making findings with respect thereto. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE The resolution statee that the modification serves the odginal goals and purposes of the City and HRA by providing recreational facilities available for use by the public which will be of benefit to all residents of the City. The 1999 Amendment authorizes the expenditure of tax increment revenues dedved from Tax Increment Districts to pay for said facilities. The resolution states that the proposed development to be undertaken, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future and therefore the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. The resolution further states that the financing plans will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development of the area. PROCESS At the Apdl 26, 1999, Council meeting, the City Council established a public hearing date of June 14 in conjunction with the amendment to the plan. Due to the 30.day notice proviaion required for the County and School District, the public hearing date wee changed to June 28. (cont'd.) MOTION BY ..... ~ BY , TO: ,, · ,' ' Request for Action Page 2 6-28-99 Two resolutions are involved in the amendment process: 1. The EDA Resolution Approving the 1999 Amendment and Requesting Approval of the City Council should be approved prior to the public hearing before the City Council and before the adoption of the City Council resolution. The EDA is recommending the "Master Modification" to the City Council, therefore, it is appropriate that the EDA act first on its resolution recommending changes to the City Council. 2. After the EDA action, the City Council should conduct the public heeling and, pursuant to the recommendation of the EDA, adopt the City Council Resolution after the public headng is closed. Since the EDA is requesting City Council approval for these amendments, the .City Council meeting should be suspended prior to the public hearing on this matter. The EDA meeting should be called to order and the EDA Resolution requesting approval for the amendment by the City Council should be passed before consideration of the amendment at the public hearing called before the City Council. The Council meeting can then be reconvened, the public hearing can be conducted and closed, and the City Council Resolution approving the amendment should then be passed. BACKGROUND In July 1998, the City Council and EDA considered a resolution to modify the TIF District to include the Cooper High School property in an area where TIF funds could be expended for purposes of financing the construction of gyms on the site. The City of Plymouth previously approved TIF funds for the construction of gym facilities at Armstrong High School. The resolution to add Cooper to the T1F District was not approved by the Council in 1998 and the general direction given was for the School Distdct to develop more complete plans and cost estimates. Over the past year, representatives from the School District and Cooper have been meeting with city staff to determine the type of facilities that would best meet City and School District needs and still keep costs at a minimum. On Apdl 19, 1999, the City Council conducted a work session to discuss this subject and the School Distdct presented three options* to the Council and requee, ted consideration of TIF funding to finance the project. The Council was supportive of the project and directed staff to publish notice for the public headng. The o~ion, that the Council generally supported at the Council work session in April was Option 2, which allows for two full-size basketball courts, two regulation volleyball courts striped over the basketball courts and two fixed bteachem, two rows high on each end, with total seating for 200. Option 2 also included a 530 square foot storage area and access to existing restrooms in the school. The gyms would be located on the north side of the building and would be accessible to the public through a corridor between the existing school building and new gyms. The plans also cell for the replacement of the existing five tennis courts on the north side of the building, with the School District funding the rebuilding of the five existing courts and the City funding the construction of two additional courts. Total estimated cost for the construction of the new gyms, including site improvements, fees, testing and contingency is $2,768,000. Total estimated cost for seven' tennis courts is $354,000. This TIF plan amendment under consideration would allow for the use of tax increment funds in an amount up to $3,250,000 from the Districts to pay all or a portion of the costs of the construction of the recreational facilities at Cooper High School. Representatives from the School Distdct will be present at the public headng to answer questions about the project and plans. Request for Action Page 3 6-28-99 The proposal is that the City would fund the development cost and the School Distdct would own and maintain the property. The City and School Distdct would enter into an agreement for joint usage of the gym space, with the gyms being available for public use in the evenings, on weekends, and during the summer months. An agreement would also be entered into regarding the use of the tennis courts. It is important to remember that the purpose of this public hearing ia only to consider whether the Cooper High School property should be included in an area where TIF funds can be spent. It is not a commitment to spend funds. If the resolutions are approved by the Council and EDA, the next steps in the process will include the following: 1. Prer~aration of a Development A,qreement between the City and the School Distdct detailing who is responsible for what costs, who will manage the construction project, etc. 2. Pre~)aration of a Facilities Usa.qe A.qreement detailing who can use the facilities and when they can use them. 3. Submitting detailed plans and obtaining3 the ar~m'opdate plannin.q/develol~ment ar)oroval8 from the Planning Commission and City Council (a conditional use permit is required for the gyms addition). All of these items would be brought back to the Council for consideration in the future. As the Council is aware, the State Legislature recently enacted a prohibition on spending tax increments to construct or renovate facilities used for recreation and other community center type facilities. The new law is effective for expenditures made or binding contracts entered into after January 1, 2000. It is the City's intent to have a contract executed with the School Distdct pdor to that date, with construction anticipated to take place in 2000. The City has received no comments on the public hearing notice from Hennepin County. FUNDING The 1999 Amendment would allow the use of tax increment funds in an amount up to $3,250,000 from the D!.st, ricts to pay all or a portion of the costs of the construction of the recreational facilities at Cooper High School. ATTACHMENTS · City Council · 1999 Master Modification Amendment · Public Headng Notice/TIF Map · City Attorney Correspondence · Notices to Hennepin County/District 281 · Plans/Cost Estimates · Apdi 1999 Work Session Minutes · League Bulletin Excerpt re: TIF funds JENSEN SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. .Attorneys At L~w 8525 Eo~aooK CaOSS~G, ST~. 201 BROOKLYN PAI~ MINNESOTA S~445-1999 TELE~HO~r. (612) 424-8811 · T~LrFAX (612) 493-S193 Goaoo~ L. l~s~* E-MAIL jss~jsspa.com WILLIAM G. SWANSON STEV£N A. SONDRAI. J. MARTIN P. C. AL.OEN DEAN A. TRONGARDT May 2.5, JUtJE A. 'l'bllLl. Kirk McDonald O~ ~s Q. n~vsr~r^o Communit~ ~ve[~nt Dk~r Ci~ of New H~ ~I Xylon Avenue No~ New H~, MN C~ Co~H M~~n m R~eve~ent ~ - C~r G~ ~oj~ ~ Fb No,: ~.11~1 ~ ~rk: ~is le~r will con~ our May ~, 1~ ~l~hom conve~on reg~d~g ~e C~r Gym ~oj~t ~ our n~ to ~nd ~e r~evelop~nt p~ ~ ~ ~c~nt ~ncing pl~ ~ ~t ~ doll~ w ~ ~nt on ~e g~ proj~t. At ~e Ap~ 26~ C~il ~g we ~ a re~iufi~n ~l~g for a J~ 14~ public he~g ~ co~on wi~ ~e ~~nt m ~e pl~. ~e m a 30 ~y no~ provision r~u~ for ~ C~ ~ ~h~l Dh~ct, ~e ~blk h~g ~ m ~ c~g~ ~ae ~ of J~ ~. ~ C~ ~ ~1 Dis~ct ~ve ~dy ~iv~ no~ of ~e J~ ~ ~b~ AIM eml~ ~ ~ foHow~g ~lu~om ~t ~ n~ to ~ M~ by ~e Ci~ -. C~ ~ ~ ~A at ~e~ m~gve ~s on J~ ~: 1. Ci~ C~ ~iufion A~mv~g 1~ ~~nt m M~r M~ifi~on to ~el~nt ~ ~ T~ ~nt F~S PI~ ~ M~g F~gs 2. EDA ~h~on Approvi~ 1~ A~nt to M~r M~ifica~on to R~vel~nt Pl~ ~ T~ ~cre~nt F~g Pl~ ~ R~g ~e A~mv~ of ~e Ci~ Co~. ~M eml~ b ~ I~ A~nt m~ re~m~ m ~ ~e ~m~ ~mh~o~. ~ay ~, 1999 ~ P~e ~ ! Please contact rne if you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this letter, the enclosed resolutions or the 1999 Amendment. Velours, . Steven A. Sondrall $~:NSEN SWANSON & ~ONDRALL, P.A. Enclosures cc: Dan Donahue Valerie Leone Jerry Gilligan CNH I lgql-Ol-Ki~ I.lr, ~l ' RI U T FOit ACTION Or~lnatm~ Deparonent ~p~ for ~e~"a ~da ~on Pa~s and Recreation June 28, 1999 Plannin8 & Develo~men~ Shah French lt~ No. PRESENTATION OF F~SIBILI~ REPORT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6~ - GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE REQUESTED ACTION Staff is r~ommending that Council a~pt the feasibili~ re~ for the 'GoW Coume Clubhouse. BACKGROUND ~e Ci~'s goW ~u~ clubhouse, I~t~ at 8130 Ba~ Lake Ro~, p~ates ~e C~ purchasing ~e o~ration in 19~1. ~e building is in n~ of m~ia~ment. ~e problem areas include: window, doom, HVAC system, non-a~ssible bathr~ms, plumbing, ~dng, fl~r, lands~ping, wal~ys and pa~ing lot On Febma~ 8, 1999 the C~ Coun~l appmv~ the hidng of amh~ Ankeny Kell Arbiters, P.A. to develop a feasibili~ study to look at a new ~ubhou~. A design team was fo~ ~mPds~ of the amh~s, Ci~ Engin~r, C~ staff, and ~ residents, one mpre~nfing the Ci~en A~isow Commission and the other repre~nfing ~mmun~ go~m. ~e des~n team met a num~ ~ times over the ~ume.of the spdng. On May 17, 1~ ~ a~~ pm~nt~ a pmliminaq reda to Coun~l at a wo~ session. Some con,ms were ex~ ~a~i~ ~il~ ~ a~ soil ~nd~ons at the s~e. ~is re~ and the re~ ~om ~e C~ Engi~r a~m~ to ~m~ ~o~ ~n~s. ~ ~un~l ~11 ~, the soil ~nditions am ~ffer ~e ~ ~ ~ ~s ~ ~ ~1 ~d~ s~ th~ ~ sAe is ~pa~ of suppling spre~ f~fings (~1 ~u~ ~~) a~ e~o~ina~ me,urea shou~ not ~ n~ssaq. Staff ~ommends that Coun~l ~ider this proj~ to ~ built dudng the off-season ~inning in O=o~r of 20~. S~ ~11 ~ ~ moving to the ne~ pha~ of this proj~ ~ Coun~i so dir~s. FUNDING Funding for the ~1~ s~ ~me ~m GoW Coume retain~ earnings. Staff r~mmends that any constm~ion cos~ ~ ~ ~ a revenue bond to ~ paid ba~ over ~en~ Yearn ~om GoW Coume earnings. A~ACHMENT8 ~e feasibil~ re~ is a~ as is ~e C~ Engine,s m~ r~a~ing soil ~nd~ons. M~ON ~ ~~ ~ ~: ......... COUNCff., REQUEST FOR ACTION Or~matm& De~tment Approved t'or Age~da Devc~~tSecUon Community Development & Planning ' 6-28-99 Susan Henry Item ByCommunity Development Specialist By:. RESOLUTION. AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF A PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY PURCHASE OF 8808 41sT AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 660) REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests that Council accept the resolution authorizing preparation of a purchase agreement for the city purchase of the vacant lot located at 8808 41't Avenue North. Attached find a soil boring report from Braun Intertec about lot soil conditions. BACKGROUND The vacant lot at 8808 41=t Avenue has been identified as staffs number one choice for the City'S first Habitat for Humanity project. The lot measures 9,500 square feet and has been vacant for a number of years because of soil problems. At the May 24 City Council meeting, city staff was asked to order a current soil boring on the lot. The bodng report is expected to arrive on Friday and will be handed out and discussed at the Monday night meeting. Piling corrections are estimated at approximately $15,000. Estimates for pilings were requested in December 1998 and quotes received at that time are still in effect. Staff would like to proceed with negotiations with the property owner, Wally Grewe. Staff believes the opportunity might be lost if the process doesn't move along. Mr. Grewe wanted $20,000 and a February 1999 city-ordered appraisal set the lot's value at $15,000. In May, after considerable discussion, staff and Mr. Grewe met mid-point at a $17,500 purchase price. If the lot is acquired by the City and the project moves ahead, staff will set up a development agreement with the Habitat for Humanity organization for construction of a new single family home with a garage. Staff will bring the purchase agreement and development agreement to the Council for approval. 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 handed off to the Habitat for Humanity organization for one dollar. ATTACHMENTS · Map · February 1999 Lot Appraisal · 1999 Braun Intertec Soil Boring - Summary Report · 1980 Hakanson Anderson Soil Boring · Soil Correction Estimates from Atlas Foundation & L.H~ Boldouc Co.~ Inc. MO'ZION BY III II COt~CiZ, RF UEST FOR ACTION Ongmaung Deparm=ent Approved for A¢enda A¢enda Sect, ton City Clerk Resolutions & . 6-28-99 0rdinances, Va/erie Leone Item No. By:. ay:. RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT UPGRADE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 637) REGIUESTED ACTION Staff recommends that the Council consider and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. .BACKGROUND Plans and specifications were approved by the City Council at its meeting of June 14, 1999. The City is utilizing the services of Electronic Interiors to assist with the design, specifications, bidding, and construction process of this project. The bid opening is scheduled to take place on Monday, June 28. Eiids will be tabulated and distributed to Council at the Council Meeting. It is anticipated that the work will occur in late July. FUNDING The cost of the project is estimated at $120,000. The project will be funded by the C.l.P. and will be repaid through the annual $10,000 contributions from the Cable Commission over a 12-year period. ATTACHMENT~ Resolution MOTION ~Y $~::ONO BY TO: ' RE b'E T FOR ACTZON c~-tflnatmg ~eparunent ~p~ ·. ~DA Community Development lt~ 6-28-99 ~Ki~ McDonald RESOLUTION APPROVING 1999 AMENDMENT TO MASTER MODIFICATION TO REDEVELOPMENT P~N8 AND TM INCREMENT FINANCING P~N8 AND REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE Cl~ COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ~2) ACTION Staff requests that the EDA approve the enclosed re~olution which approves the Master Modification to the Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans and requests the approwl of the Ci~ Council. This resolution should be Jdopted prior t~ the ~i~ Council public heJdng and prior to the adoption of the Oouncil resolution. POLICY/PAST P~OTIOE The resolution states that the modification se~es the odginal goals and pu~ses of the Ci~ and H~ by providing recreational facilitie~ available for use by the public which will ~ of ~nefit to all residents of the City. The 1999 Amendment authorizes the ex~nditure of tax increment revenues dedved from Tax Increment Distrims to pay for said facilities. BACKGROUND In July 1998, the Ci~ Council and EDA considered a resolution to modi~ .the TIF Distdct to include the Cooper High School pro~ in an ama where TIF ~nd~ ~uld ~ ex~nd~ for pu~ses of financing the constm~ion of gyms on ~e site. The C~ of Plymo~h previously approved TIF funds for the conmmmion of gym facilities at A~strong High School. The re~olution to add Cooer to the TIF Distrim was not approved and the general diremion given was for the School Distdm to develop more complete plans and ~st e~timate~. ~er ~e pa~t year, representatives from the School Distd~ and Cooper have ~en meeting wRh ~ staff to dete~ine the ~ of facilitie~ that would ~t m~t Ci~ and School Distdm needs and still k~p ~s~ at a minimum. On Apdl 19, 1999, the Ci~ Council ~ndumed a wo~ session to discuss thi~ subje~ and the School Distd~ presented three options to the Council and requested consideration of TIF ~nding to finan~ the projem. The Council wa~ suppo~ive of the proje~ and diremed staff to publish noti~ for the public hearing. Please refer to additional detail~ in the Ci~ Council R~uest For A~ion. ., (cont'd,) ~: , , Request for Action Page 2 6-2b-=~9 FUNDING The 1999 Amendment would allow the use of tax increment funds in an amount up to $3,250,000 from the Districts to pay all or a portion of the costs of the construction of the recreational facilities at Cooper High School. ATTACHMENT · Resolution · City Attorney Correspondence , 1999 Master Modification Amendment .. · TIF Distdct Map RF. UE T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for A~enda A~enda $ecuon EOA Community Development 6-28-99 Rem No. ByKirk McDonald RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBORDINATION OF MORTGAGES TO NEW FIRST MORTGAGE FOR NEW HOPE APARTMENTS (iMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 510) ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests that the EDA approve the enclosed resolution approving the subordination of mortgages .to a new first mortgage for New Hope Apartments located at 7200-7260 43~ Avenue North. POLICY/PAST PRACTICE In the past, the City Council and EDA have been supportive of financing programs and tools for rehabilitation efforts directed at helping maintain the single and multi-family housing stock in the City. BACKGROUND Per the attached correspondence from the City Attorney, in 1994 the EDA made two loans, totaling $117,350, to New Hope Apartments for basic rehabilitation of its four building apartment complex located at 72.00-7260 43'~ Avenue North. The rehabilitation work was subsequently completed, and New Hope Apartments has been making regular loan payments ever since. The EDA's loans were secured by a Second Mortgage and a Third Mortgage on the property, which were second and third in priority behind the First Mortgage. Throughout the process, city staff worked with Dave Stewart of Paragon Real ' Estate Investments, as the representative of the owners of the apartment complex. Mr. SteWart recently approached city staff regarding the refinancing of the existing First Mortgage. The New First Mortgage will be in the amount of $1.194 million, of which approximately $1.101 million will go to pay off the existing First Mortgage. Of the remaining loan proceeds, approximately $50,000 will be consumed by loan application and related costs and the City Attorney has documentation from Dave Stewart to support this. Mr. Stewart also has stated that the remaining $44,000 will be spent on further improvements on the property, including installing new hot water boilers at a cost of approximately $22,500. MOTION BY ~"0~ RY , Request for Action Page 2 6-28-99 The EDA loans for this property were initially approved for rehabilitation to help maintain the housing stock in the City. That rehabilitation was completed and property owners have made regular loan payments since that time. If the subordination is approved, the EDA will be in the second and third priodty positions behind the New First Mortgage, which is the same position as the EDA is in now. The dollar amounts of the New Mortgage confirm that the refinancing is not designed to allow the property owners to take equity out of the property, at the potential expense of the EDA. VVhile the EDA could insist on geeing paid off now, this project appears to be working well and fulfilling its odginal goals. The EDA has ample basis for agreeing to subordinate their Second and Third Mortgages to the New First Mortgage. The refinancing is scheduled to be completed by the middle of July. Staff recommends that the EDA approve the enclosed resolution, which approves the subordination. ATTACHMENTS: · Resolution · City Attorney Correspondence J ss s SWANSON & SONDRALL, P.A. Attorneys At Law 852S EDINBROOK CROSSING, STL 201 BR~ PnR~ Mmn~OTn 5~43-1999 TgLg~flOng (612) 424-8811 · T~LEr~ (612) 493-5193 E-MAIL oo~n L. ~s~' jss~Jsspa.com WILUAM O. SWAN~N STEVEN A. SOND~LL MARTIN P. MA~CHA c. n~s ~, June 21, 1~ D~ A. TRO~ARO~ JUUE A. ~1~ OF COUNSEL t.oR~NsO, n~YN~.~^o Daniel J. Donahue EDA Executive Director 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: New Hope Apartments Our File No. 99.11118 Dear Dan: In 1994 the EDA made two loans, totaling $117,350, to New Hope Apartments for basic rehabilitation of its four building apartment complex located at 7200-7260 43rd Avenue North. The rehabilitation work was subsequently completed, and New Hope Apartments has been making regular loan payments ever since. The EDA's loans were secured by a Second Mortgage and a Third Mortgage on the property, which were second and third in priority behind the First Mortgage. Throughout the O City staff worked with Dave Stewart of Paragon Real Estate Investments, process, as the representative of the owners of the apartment complex. .(~ Mr. Stewart recently approached City staff regarding the refinancing of the existing ~' , First Mortgage. The New First Mortgage will he in the amount of $1.194 million, -' of which approximately $I. 101 million will go to pay off the existing First Mortgage. Of the remaining loan proceeds, approximately $50,000 will be consumed by loan application and related costs. We have been provided documentation from Dave Stewart to support this. Mr. Stewart also has stated that the remaining $44,000 will be spent on further improvements to the property, including installing new hot water boilers at a cost of approximately $22,500. The EDA loans for this property were initially approved for rehabilitation to help maintain the housing stock in the City. That rehabilitation was completed. The property owners have made regular loan payments, so there are no complaints in that regard. If the subordination is approved, the EDA will be in the second and third priority positions behind the New First Mortgage, which is the same position as the · ,,~ ~ u. s~.i. EDA is in now. And the dollar amounts of the New Mortgage confirm that the Ceruf~l ~ The Mirme~m Stye Bat tQ~f~I ADR Neu~M Daniel J. Donahue June 21, 1999 Page 2 refinancing is not designed to allow the property owners to take equity out of the property, at the potential expense of the EDA. While the EDA could insist on getting paid off now, this project appears to be working well and fulfilling its original goals. The EDA has ample basis for agreeing to subordinate their Second and Third Mortgages to the New First Mortgage. The refinancing is scheduled to be completed by the middle of July. Approval of the subordination would be most timely if it happened at the Sune 28, 1999 EDA meeting. If the EDA decides to approve the subordination, the enclosed Resolution can be passed at the June 28u' meeting. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha Assistant City Attorney Enclosure cc: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development (w/eric) ~' Valerie Leone, City Clerk (w/eric) Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney .-..- EDA Or~mat. tr~ Dep~nt ~p~ for ~e~a ~ ~on EDA Communi~ Develo~ent . 6-28-99 tt~ No. ~ McDonald ~ 6 DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL ACOUISITION OF INDUS~IAL ~ROPER~ LOCATED AT 7500 42~° AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT ~ROJECT NO. 474) ACTION REQUESTED Sta~ requests to u~ate the EDA on the negotiations with the pro~ owner of 7500 42~ Avenue have the EDA dete~ine if they want to enter into a purchase aoreement, subj~ to ~ndRions, with the pro~ owner or not. pOLICY/PAST P~CTICE Sin~ the easy 1990s,. the CJ~ has taken a n~m~r of a~ions to n~u~re the three indust~ai lo.ted nt the no~hen~t ~mer of 42~ nnd ~ue~c Avenues for redevelopment pu~oses. The C~ty a~ired and demolished the Ele~ronic Indust~es buildin9 at 7516 42~ Avenue in 1993, and the C~ty acquired an~ demolished the Foremost build,n9 st 7528 42~ Aven~e ~een 1993 nnd 1995. One pro~ remains to ~ a~uir~ at 7500 42~ Aven~e. Over the yearn, the C~ has had a number of conversnt~ons w~th the pro~ owner, Te~ 3ensen, regard}no the potential n~}sitJon of the prope~ by the CJ~ and the Ci~ has had three appraisals comp[et~ on the pro~ in 1992, 1996, and 1997. Ardel En9in~nO was a tennnt ~n the b~ild~n9 Io~t~ on the are. In August 1997, the EDA approved a resolution a~tho~zin9 the ~mmen~ment of eminent domain pro~edinOs to acquire the prope~y at 7500 42~ Avenue, b~ the a~ion has not ~n implemente~. ~e environmental cleanup and future ~mmercinl redevelopment of ~e thr~ indust~nl sites Io~t~ at the no,beast ~mer of Ouebec Avenue and 42~ Avenue is iden~ ns n goal of the Comprehensive ~lnn. ~e u~rndino of the 42~ Avenue infrnstm~um and the improvement or ~eveJopment of pro~ies ab~Jng 42~ Avenue has been a high p~o~ of the C~ over the past de.de. BACKGROUND The owner of the ~o~ has ~n in conta~ wRh the C~ to inquire a~ the Ci~'s interest a~ui~n9 the pro~. ~de[ Engin~nO's lease te~inat~ on May 31, ns an no~ment was not reached be~n ~ ~r and tenant to renew the lease. Ardel EnOinee~n9 ass relo~t~ to Indust~ Pn~ in the C~. ~e pro~ st 7500 42~ Avenue is cu~ently' vaunt nnd the owner coaside~n9 makin9 improvements to the bu{Idin9 nnd ms.erin9 the pro~. Due to the fn~ that the bu~idin9 is vaunt, the C~ would have no responsibili~ for relo~tion costs. The owner has recently ob~ln~ a cu~nt appraisal of the Wo~ indi~tln9 a market value of $~,000. M~ON ~ ~~ ~ , ,, Request for Action Page 2 6-~._.99 At the May 10 EDA meeting, the EDA approved a resolution authorizing appraisals and commencement of negotiations to acquire the property. At the May 24 EDA meeting, the EDA determined not to enter into a Right of First Refusal and Non-Rental Agreement in order to keep the property vacant. The City's appraisal was completed by BCL Appraisals and presented to the EDA at the June 14 EDA meeting. The appraisal indicated a market value (as allegedly polluted) of $432,000. (The estimated value without pollution stigma was $448,000, with a $16,000 deduction for pollution stigma.) The City originally became involved in acquiring the properties due to the contamination of ground water by Electronic Industries, formedy located at 7516 42"" Avenue. Electronic Industries was identified as the "responsible party" for the contamination and has cooperated with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on an approved cleanup plan, which is currently in process. On June 14, the EDA accepted the appraisal and authorized staff to negotiate with the owner and make an offer of $432,000. The City Attorney has prepared the attached June 22 correspondence summarizing 'the meeting. The property owner indicated that the offer of $432,000 was not acceptable, but that he was willing to compromise on his appraisal of $545,000 (a difference of $113,000). The property owner indicated he would sell the property to the City for $482,000, which is $,50,000 more than the City's appraisal and $63,000 less than his appraisal. The offer is also subject to the City implementing the condemnation resolution, which would be of tax benefit to the property owner. Staff indicated that this counter offer would be presented to the EDA for consideration. The owner has. indicated to staff that he has had offers on the property in excess of $500,000, but that he will await the decision of the EDA at this meeting. He has stated he is willing to sell to the City for the indicated amount because of the benefits of condemnation. There are a number of factors that the EDA needs to take into consideration as it makes a determination as to whether the City acquires the property or not, including the following: 1. Lona Term Planning .and Redevelopment Goals of the City - This site is cleady identified in the Comprehensive Plan for redevelopment and the City has already acquired two of the three parcels. 2. Relocation Expenses - As the City Attorney indicates, the building is currently vacant and this obviously would be an opportune time to acquire the property so that relocation expense payments to a building tenant could be avoided. Relocation consultants have stated that those payments to a tenant from this type of building could be as high as $100,000. 3. Ground Water Contamination Issues - As the City Attorney indicates in his correspondence, the major concern with the acquisition of this property is the potential soil/ground water contamination issues existing at the site due to its adjacent proximity to the former Electronic Industries property. A purchase agreement on this property should not be signed until a Phase 2 environmental study is done due to the potential contamination issues. This could cause a delay in finalizing a deal with the property owner. Possibly, language could be incorporated into a purchase, agreement permitting the EDA to void its offer and be reimbursed any earnest money paid in the event the environmental study is not favorable to permit development of the site in accordance with the EDA's or City's plan. 4. Differences Between Aporaisels - The City Attomey indicates in his correspondence in detail what he feels are the flaws in the property owners appraisal, However, he indicates that the appraisal process is not an exact science and is highly susceptible to manipulation based on the subjective opinion of the appraiser making the report. He indicates that the BCL Appriasal supports a market value for this property of $457,000 based on the income approach to value. This is based on an estimated potential net income rate of $4 a square foot. It was the City's understanding that the property owner was receiving $4.25 per square foot. If the $4.25 rate is accurate, BLC indicated to Request Page 6-28-99 for Action 3 the City Attorney that the income approach would establish a market value at $487,000, rather than $457,000, as indicated in the report. In other words, based on the income approach to value, the City Attorney indicates that the purchase pdca of $482,000 requested by the owner may not be unreasonable assuming a 'no action, letter can be obtained from the MPCA concerning ground water and soil contamination at the site. This purchase pdce may also be justified if relocation costs to the EDA remain at zero by virtue of the property being vacant at this time. 5. Differences in Market and Taxable Values - Per the attached memo from the Administrative Assistant, the market value of the property listed in an earlier Request For Action was listed as $195,000. The BCL appraisal lists the market value as $329,000. Staff contacted the Appraiser's office to cladfy this discrepancy. The County indicated that because the property is believed to have ground water contamination, the taxable value is discounted by the County. Therefore, in 1998, the property had a market value of $329,000 but was only taxed at a value of $195,000. The assessor also gave the 1999 figures - the market value is listed as $379,000 and the taxable value'remains at $195,0O0. 6. Environmental Teats and Timeline - Northern Environmental provided the City with an outline of what the environmental testing would entail. The MPCA requires that two phases of environmental testing be done to potentially contaminated sites. The Phase I investigation determines what pollutants may exist, and what testing should be done in Phase 2. This process takes approximately two weeks at a ballpark cost of $2,000. Phase 2 actually takes soil samples and tests them to find the extent of the pollution. Due to the intensive laboratory work, the Phase 2 generally takes three- four weeks, and costs anywhere from $5,000-$7,000. All combined, the environmental testing on this site should take approximately six weeks and costs around $9,000-$11,000. The process can be done quicker at a higher cost. 7. Available Brownfield Grants - The Administrative Assistant has identified a cOuple grant programs that the City may be eligible for to cover some of the costs of this project. · DTED Contamination I.nveetlaation & Cleen-up This grant is for all sites that are contaminated, and is pretty wide open for eligibility. It will pay for land acquisition, demolition, cleanup, and most other costs. It will pay up to 75% of the costs, provided the City match with the .remaining 25% of the project costs. The MPCA has already investigated the site at 7516 42~ Avenue and found contamination, so the City should qualify for this grant. DTED gives strong emphasis to projects, though, that have a future concept for the use of the property. They want to see that jobs will be created and the tax base will be revitalized. DTED Redevelopment Grant - DTED has $4 million in a grant program for cities and counties each year for redevelopment projects on a one-to-one city match. Two million dollars is available for each application date. The purpose is to pay for predevelopment costs and get unused or underused land back into the local tax base. The program will pay *for any land acquisition, demolition, infrastructure improvement, and site preparation costs. In order to be considered, the project must be ready to go, and begin shortly after the award date. Therefore, the City would need to own the land and have plans worked out with a developer. The developer would need to submit a letter of commitment to the project, and the City Council would need to pass a resolution stating they will do the project if the grant is approved. The grant process gives weight to projects that increase the tax base, improve the land use, and creates jobs. It must be shown that the project will have a positive impact on the surrounding area. The grant application can score better if the project meets TIF requirements and includes contamination clean-up. It appears this site would fit quite well with the requirements for the Redevelopment Grant. Request for Action Page 4 6~'~99 8. Costs of 42'"* Avenue .Redevelopment -Per the attached spreadsheet prepared by the Administrative Assistant, the City has purchased and demolished the industrial properties adjacent to 7500 42'" Avenue. Those properties were acquired and cleared for a total cost of $569,709. If the City were to acquire the Ardel property for $482,000 and demolish for $40,000, the total investment in these three properties would be $1,091,709. The total area available for redevelopment is 105,528 square feet, or 2.42 acres. The site would be marketed for development and the City would solicit proposals from developers for the property. BCL Appraisals estimates that if the entire parcel were rezoned to 8-4 Community Business the City could expect to receive approximately $8 per square foot, or $844,224.for the entire parcel. If the development on this property were equal in value to the neighboring Sunshine Factory, the City would receive about $15,000 in tax revenue each year, Over a 20-year pedod, this would result in $300,000 of increased City revenue. The City currently receives approximately $1,500 a year from Ardel Engineering in tax revenue, which amounts to $30,000 over a 20-year pedod. Thus, purchasing this property, rezoning, and selling the three lots would result in $270,000 in added tax revenue over the next 20 years, provided the development is equal in value to the Sunshine Factory. Combining the tax revenue with the sale proceeds of the property, the City would have a positive balance of $22,516 for the project. FUNDING If the Council decides to proceed with the purchase of this property, initially the purchase would be 'funded with internal funds. Eventually, those funds would be repaid either upon the sale of the property and/or with grant funds.. Staff requests that the EDA take all of these factors into consideration when determining whether to acquire the property or not. ATTACHMENTS · June 22 City Attorney Correspondence · Administrative Assistant Memo/Spreadsheet .. · Comprehensive Plan Excerpts · Excerpts BCL Appraisal 4_2.nd Av nu R dev Io n Total **Added Tax Appraised Capacity of Property Size of 1998 Tax Value Acquisition Demolition Total City Land Value · Parcel (SF) Valuation Cost Cost Cost at B-4 Commercial (Before (~ $8 SF) Development Purchase) (over 20 yrs) 7528 42nd Avenue 40,128 SF $50,000 $433,000 $450,000 $48,545 $498,545 $32.1,024 7516 42nd Avenue 30,400 SF $33,300 $238,000 $40,000 $31,164 $71,164 $243,200 7500 42nd 35,000 SF $379,000 $432,000 $482,000 $40,000 $522,000 $280,000 Avenue All Three Parcels 105,528 SF 2.42 Acres $462,300 $1,103,000 $972,000 $119,709 $1,091,709 $844,224 $270,000 Combined ** Added Tax Capacity is future tax revenues based on a development equal to that in value of the Sunshine Factory minus current tax reven~es. The Sunshine Factory contributes $15,000 in taxes to the City every year. Over a 20 year period, this added value equals $300,000. Ardel currently generates $1,500 in tax revenue per year, $30,000 over 20 years. ($300,000 - $30,000 = $270,000) Total Revenues: $1,114,224 (Land Value + Added Tax Capacity) Total Cost: $1,091,709 Balance for the City_: $22,516 G:\Managers~ern~Property ' 6/23199 6/23/99 ~ PROJECT NO. 614 Bulletin ~ Project for Pride in Living' (PPL) Bass Lake Court Housing Redevelopment Schedule All construction, including road work and final landscaping, is on schedule for completion by August 1. The renovated buildings and some of the townhouses will be finished earlier, however, the new road and landscaping must be completed before people can move in. The big black dirt pile will go on top of the areas that will get new sod after all the utilities are installed underground. Restoration and landscaping are the last items to be completed; so the pile of black dirt will stay there through June and into part of July. Backyard Drainage: Fences came down last month and the new storm sewer inlets were installed. While the contractor is responsible for maintaining the sod until it is property rooted, it is best if each homeowner takes responsibility to make sure that the sod is watered. It is important to care for new sod properly dudng its first season. New sod needs to be taken care of during its first season, so the roots bind firmly into the soil. · Water every d~y, for at least 10-15 minutes during the first two weeks; really give it a good soak but don't saturate it (you shouldn't see puddles of water). · After the first two weeks, water less often but taper off gradually, don't go from watering every day to once a week, go to every 2-3 days, as needed. · Stay off the sod for the first two weeks. Don't walk on it, place objects on it, or mow it: · Let grass get high before mowing; don't mow for at least two weeks or longer if you can. Use the high setting on your mower;, you want to give it a haircut, not a shave. · Keep it well watered for the entire summer, if there are dry pedods dudng the summer, make sure you water so the soil stays moist. The new boundary fence will be installed during the last week of July. The Grand Openina The City of New Hope and Project for Pride in Living cordially invite you to attend the grand opening celebration on: Thursday, July 29 from 4:30 to 7:00 p.m. Ribbons will be cut, refreshments served, tours of the new homes will be offered. Please come and receive our thanks for your patience, participation, and cooperation. Proiect Contacts Rental information 612-874-3340 Chds Wilson, PPL Project Manager 612-874-3314 Lisa Kugler, Development Consultant ~ 612-827-2189 Gabs Valentino, Watson-Forsberg, Site Superintendent 612-817-5382 Veto Palm, Watson-Forsberg, Project Manager - 612-544-7761 Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, City of New Hope · - 612-531-5119 City of New Hope, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428 6~8~99 PROJECT BULLETIN ~ CITY OF NEW HOPE PROJECT BULLETIN #2 1999 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT City Project No. 648 Project Status The 1999 Infrastructure Project is proceeding despite wet weather this summer. So far, the work has been occurring on phase one consisting of 60= Avenue, Hillsboro Avenue and Hiilsboro Circle. The water main on these streets has been replaced and is being tested to assure that it can maintain water pressure. Once the water main meets the necessary standards, installation of the storm sewer and drain tile on these streets will begin. As soon as this utility work is completed the street will be put back together to the point that residents living on these streets can easily get to and from their homes. If the weather cooperates, this may be accomplished in the next few weeks. Unfortunately, the weather the last few weeks has been unusually wet, causing construction delays and the job site to be quite muddy and hard to get through. Thank you for your patience and cooperation with the inconveniences associated with construction. The contractor has started to mill the bituminous (grinding the blacktop) from Gettysburg Avenue and Gettysburg Circle. This is done in preparation for water main replacement in these streets. The milling was done at this time because a machine was available allowing the work to be done last week, even during the wet weather. Although a portion of Gettysburg Circle and Gettysburg Avenue have been milled, no other construction activity will be occurring on these streets until all utility work is completed, the streets are completely passable, and storm water can be collected from Hillsboro Circle, Hillsboro Avenue, and 60~ Avenue. In the mean time, traffic can ddve and park on the milled sections of Gettysburg Avenue as if it were a gravel road. Upcomina work Once phase one streets, 60~ Avenue, Hillsboro Avenue, and Hillsboro Circle, are completely passable, the construction work will shift to phase two, Gettysburg Circle and Gettysburg Avenue. There will be a time, however, when work will be occurring on streets in both phases at the same time. The final phase, 59t~ Avenue, will be constructed only when utility work is completed on phase two, Gettysburg Avenue. This work was originally scheduled to begin in early July but has been pushed back by recent weather delays. Contact Person~ If you have questions or concems during the street and utility improvement project, please direct your calls to Vince VanderTop, Project Engineer, at (65t) 604-4790 or Tom Schuster, Contract Manager, at (6t2) 533-4823, ext. 13. City of New HoPe 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Phone: 531-5100 June 15,1999 ",, ~ / PROJECT NO. 612 Bulletin No. 3 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North Overview The City of New Hope purchased the property at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North in late December of 1997, as part of the City's scattered site housing program. In August of 1998, the City demolished and cleared the existing structures to make way for a new home. In October of 1998, a neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the options for redevelopment. One option city staff presented was a twinhome on the property. While most in the area were receptive to the twinhome concept, there were several concerns about its appearance and fit on the available narrow lot. Respecting these concerns, city staff decided not to pursue a twinhome. Instead, staff is looking at a single-family home design option. Sinale-Family Accessible Home Staff has presented concepts to the City Council for a single-family, accessible home for the city-owned lot at 5629 Wisconsin. The City has identified this accessible housing need and addresses the need as opportunities arise. In the past, the City has built accessible twinhomes at 6073-6081 Louisiana Avenue and 7901-7909 51't Avenue. On May 10, 1999, the Council approved concept plans and authorized staff to finish the specifications for a three-bedroom, single-family accessible home design. Please see an elevation of the concept plans on the reverse side of this bulletin. Bids will be accepted through June 23. A construction firm will be awarded the bid at the June 28 City Council meeting. Construction will begin in July. Additional bulletins will be sent to you throughout the summer. Site Upkeep The City is responsible for ensuring the site will be mowed and maintained during the summer and fail months. Contact Persons If you have questions or concerns, please call Susan Henry, Community Development SpeCialist, at 531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 531-5119. The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents in the area that may be impacted by the construction during this project. The City will keep you informed about any future activities that are to take place on the site. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 6/15/99 0°05'5 7" W 75.00 3 BR~. · I .. 75.0 0 0 480. " S 0'05'57'~ W AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION So You' re Gonna Revise n,exible and many of its standards unbending.Moreover, while a substantial number of these standards have been codified the -- '-~onlngOrdinance! and sanctified by years of use, community leaders are not always Part One sure of the origins, reasons, utility, and impacts of certain development standards in the ordinance. The ordinance rewrite generates new constituencies. Groups By Leslie S. Pollock, AJCP appear that favor the existing development patterns and believe that the status quo ought to be preserved, telling city officials that the Wrhen the mayor and city council announce it is time to strength of the present ordinance has made such development revise the zoning ordinance, they unleash a process patterns. Other groups come forward asking for modifications to that will involve consideration of issues that at first blush, serve the needs of one constituency or the other. Some appear totally unrelated to zoning. Persons who believe they constituencies ask for more controls while others ask for fewer. are well versed in the zoning ordinance will invariably discover that some assumptions or premises about the '~o Zoning RovJsJoll Procoss ordinance are not true and that the unintended consequences How does one balance these conflicts? How does one determine of certain zoning requirements are legion. Even the zoning what standards to keep and what standards to change? How administrator--typically the person most knowledgeable does the community make the ordinance more flexible yet still about the intricacies of the ordinance--can always find predicTable--as is often the cry--and continue protecting the something new and disquieting, as little-used provisions are ever-present issue of local property values? Every community examined, dissected, and discussed, approaches an ordinance revision in a manner best suited to the issues faced by the community, the politics of the moment, and the resources available. Some communities jump head-first into Zoning does much more than "regulate the process. Most, however, think the zoning revision process through and decide that they would be best served by a basic land use." The detailed policies and five-step process: standards contained in the ordinance · Put someone in charge. effectively structure the community's policy · Identify what is wrong with the ordinance. in many other areas, including urban , Agree upon the scope of changes necessary. design, housing, environmental quality, · Redraft the ordinance. property value, traffic, and transportation. · Review and adopt the ordinance. The strength of this process is that it can involve people who This issue of Zoning News explores issues related to who is in are interested or concerned, it approaches the ordinance revision charge of revising the ordinance, assessing the state of the in a sequential manner and builds consensus on proposed present ordinance, and determining the necessary changes. Next changes, and it keeps the process focused. month's issue moves'readers through the process of a zoning redraft, including current approaches and techniques for the Who Is ill Chaeejo? ordinance outline and organization, administrative provisions, Zoning is a key municipal function, and it is obvious that the district structure, development standards, definitions, and mayor and city council will be in charge of an ordinance reviewing and adoption, revision. But who will shepherd the revision on irs way to final The scope and implications of the revision are rather approval? First, the city council may want to retain control and significant, given that zoning does much more than "regulate actively participate in all facets of the process. Alternative land use." The detailed policies and standards contained in the candidates for this role are the plan commission, zoning board ordinance effectively structure the community's policy in many of appeals, or zoning commission. State statutes may also give other areas, including urban design, housing, environmental guidance in this decision, as may local traditionl quality, property value, traffic, and transportation. Moreover, it If the community is open to considering options, several does this in a degree of detail that makes the policies of the observations might be useful. First, the zoning revision is comprehensive plan resemble community design as if done with essentially a policy process, and the group charged with the a blunt instrument. The zoning revision usually comes after a revision should have a policy orientation. Second, such a comprehensive plan update, and it is often during that update revision cuts across many areas of expertise, including law, that community leaders working to secure support of the plan planning, architecture and urban design, real estate, and point out that the policies in the plan are flexible. The zoning construction, amounting to more than an adjustment of ordinance is just the opposite, with many of its policies regulatory provisions. Third, a revision will involve various constituencies with different issues and concerns. The Three key issue-based analyses should be performed to process might become controversial, so the group should be complement the issues addressed by the constituencies, ~ skilled and comfortable' leading an open public process, including a review of the relationship of the comprehensive Pl~'fi Probably the most appro'priate gro.ups, given these to the zoning ordinance, a technical review of the structure and observations, are the plan or zoning commissions constituted consistency of the zoning ordinance in light of current best especially for this purpose, practices, and an analysis of zoning change actions over the past The assignment of staff to the revision group is critical. The five years to gain a sense of key problems. Such analyses should process is too demanding and too important to be assigned to look at the pattern of variations, text, and map amendments. an individual who is overloaded with other duties. Persons Among the .typical scope of issues to be addressed or working in the zoning revision should have available adequate investigated are: planning or zoning department personnel to carry out the .necessary research and conduct additional meetings. Even if the · The utility of the current ordinance organization. Does the city decides to use a consultant in the revision process, provision ordinance clearly specify who is responsible ~br various for adequate and knowledgeable support staffwho know the application reviews and approvals? Is that responsibility ordinance is essential, assigned to the most appropriate board, commission, or staff position? Broad-based public input is difficult at · The relationship of district structure to the comprehensive plan. Do the purposes and standards of each zoning district relate the early stages of zoning revision, to applicable policies of the comprehensive plan? People find zoning an easy issue to talk · The adequacy of current administrative structure. Can applicants easily identify who to see or what to apply for about when it impacts individual when they have a zoning problem or need? Do the reviews property or a single neighborhood, but and approvals happen in a timely manner? its often complex structure and detail · The utility of current development standards. Are current parking, landscape, environmental, and similar requirements make it a topic that does not hold a easily applied, and do they have the desired results? high degree of interest. · The currency and/or lack of definitions. Are terms defined in a contemporary manner, and are all major terms used in the ordinance clearly defined? What ts $I~reng w[~ · The scope of ordinance interpretations. Does the ordinance Our Present Ordinance? clearly specify district requirements and the related approval You cannot fix the zoning ordinance unless you agree on what is process, or does the applicant often depend upon staff broken. Therefore, a careful and complete listing of problems interpretation of such requirements? and issues is an important task. This list is best developed · through a program of community input that reaches out to the · The relationship ofzoning bulk standards to the development key members of the "zoning constituencies," including city staff; being constructed. Do the height and yard regulations the plan commission and z~oning board of appeals; the city encourage or discourage a desired type of development? Does council; the real estate community, including sales, it result in buildings of desirable scale and design? construction, design, and finance; and the activist community, including representatives from homeowners associations, civic This material should be prepared and summarized in a form betterment leagues, and community-based organizations, that can be presented to key decision makers, the zoning board, Broad-based public input is difficult at the early stages of plan commission, or city council for review and confirmation, as zoning revision. People find zoning an easy issue to talk about well as made available to the participating public. This list when it impacts individual property or a single neighborhood, essentially represents the first summary statement of the but its often complex structure and detail make it a topic that problems or conditions that need to be resolved or addressed does not hold a high degree of interest. Therefore, it is best to through any zoning ordinance revision, and can help to focus structure working groups of representatives from the the community and the group charged with the zoning revision constituencies listed above to keep a routine check on issues on the scope of changes to be addressed. from various perspectives. Obviously, it is important to keep the community informed through the media and community What changes Are Necessary? outreach mechanisms, but a zoning update is much different The value of such a list is that it can be used to determine the from a comprehensive plan update, and in its initial stages changes that should be made to the zoning ordinance through usually fails to attract broad-based participation, the revision process. The scope of these changes can be thought of as proposed zoning policy. Comprehensive planning is often thought of as a policy exercise and zoning is often viewed of as a Leslie S. Pollock is a principal consultant of Camiros Ltd., a regulatory exercise. Yet, there is as much or more policy planning and zoning consulting firm with offices in Chicago, development inherent in the zoning process as within the Denver, and Indianapolis. He has prepared numerous zoning comprehensive planning process. The need for policy at the ordinance revisions for communities across the country and is zoning level may not be evident at tirst. However, if zoning is a currently assisting Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada, with the book of rules, then why are such rules set, and by whom? preparation of a new Unified Development Code. Zoning is not a general regulatory measure, but a highly specific 2 Tho Anonymity of Uso: location of the safehouse from every document in the possessi~ Battered Women's Shelter of the city. The city clerk retains all documents: no other cit' ) A Colorado community found itself in a bind recendy when a department, employee, or elected official may do so. However,'/ local battered women's shelter a. pplied for a permit to undergo a battered women's shelters are not exempt from posting and building expansion. City planners became concerned when they notification requirements. The Planning Advisory Service will learned that the community's development review process make these ordinances available to PAS subscribers. required public notification of property owners within 200 feet Michael Davidson of the development, it was conceivable to shelter administrators that such notification would generate unwanted public exposure and jeopardize the safety, of shelter residents. The ordinance could offer .no protection of the use, ~ff~~ports prompting the city to seek legal counsel. Officials decided that nearby property, owners would still be notified of the . development, but the facility would be identified as a boarding or rooming house with an office rather than as a battered State Property Rights Laws: women's shelter. The city's ordinance had defined this type of Tho Impacts of Those Laws use as permitted in the district. A director on the shelter's board acted as theapplicant. Although the city was sympathetic to the on My Land concerns of shelter administrators, the notification requirements Harvey M. Jacobs. Lincoln Institute oflLand Policy, 113 Brartle of the ordinance had to be honored. "We were obligated to get St., Cambridge, MA 02138. 1999. 32pp. $14 (25percent due process," says one city planner. City administrators do not discount for i0 or more). $3.50 shipping and handling on first expect any objections from adjacent property owners, copy, $.50for each additional copy. Property rights laws in some form have been enacted in 26 states in the past decade, so this assessment of their City planners became concerned when impacts is a timely one for planners. The author suggests that, for the most part, their feared impacts have not they learned that the community's materialized. A compensation law adopted by Mississippi in development review process required 1994 has not produced a single cause of action. The author attributes this to the lack of an organized constituency based public notification of property owners, on real grievances, saying that most laws simply result from the advocacy ora lawmaker in tune with the ideology of property rights. The report breaks down property rights Another Colorado community is protecting the location of statutes into four categories involving assessment of new these facilities through a Battered Women:s Homes provision in regulations for impact on property rights, compensation, its ordinance. The city council exempts battered women's conflict resolution, and other approaches, and then analyzes homes from any public review, including but not limited to a the track record of different kinds of laws in Kansas, public hearing. Within 30 days of receipt of a completed Mississippi, Florida, and Arizona. application for the establishment of a battered women's home, the planning director sets a date for a closed administrative Bettor Site Design: review of the applicati'on with plan~ning department staff and A Handbook for Changing the applicant. Development RUles in The ordinance of a third community in Colorado contains a Your Community Safehouses; Protection of Location provision. Thirty-one days Prepared fbr the Site Planning Roundtable by the Center for following the approval of a special use permit for a safehouse, Watershed Protection, 8391 Main St., Ellicott City, MD 21043. the city clerk removes or excises all information concerning the August 1998. 210pp. $35. Pulling together under one cover the resources gathered in this volume to address land-use impacts on stormwater runoff Zoning ,%(ews i ...... hly newsletter published by thc American Planning Association. and water quality is an impressive feat. This thorough and Subscriptions are available for $55 (U.S.) and $75 (foreign}. Frank S. So. Executive Director; William R. Klein. Oi ....... fReaeatch, practical handbook is designed for use by planners, developers, zo,,i~/v~ i, p~u~ at ~. Ji~ Sch,~b ~ ~aa~ m,~ron. ~ro~; S~,o, A,m~o~ engineers, and building officials. It provides a set of 22 Batty Bain. Jerome Cletand. Fay Dotttidt. Sanjay Jeer, Megan ~ Matya Morrm Bec. ki Retzlaff, Reporters; Cynthia Cheski..~sistant Falitov, Lisa Barton, Design and Production. development principles covering issues like street design, Copyright © 1999 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, parking codes, setbacks and frontages, sidewalks, and other Chicago, [L 60603. The American Planning Association also has offices at 1776 Massachusetts issues affecting impervious surface cover, as well as open space Ave., N.W.. Washington, DC 20036. Ail rights reserved. No partofthis publication may be reproducad or ufilized in any former byany design, buffer systems, and tree conservation. It includes a means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any iflformadon storage variety of references to other resources from local governments, and removal system, without permission in writing fi~m the Amedean Pluming Association. Printed .... cycled 3aper, including 50-70% recycled finer professional associations, and federal agencies. This report is and 1095 po ............... ~ well worth adding to any planning library.