030398 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998
' CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
- 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CONSENT ITEMS
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.1 Case 97-31 Ordinance No. 98-04, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code
by Reducing the Rear Yard Setbacks in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts and
Amending the Setback Regulations on Collector Streets and Thoroughfares,
City of New Hope, Petitioner
4.2 Case 96-27 Comprehensive Plan Update
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
· 5.1 Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: March 19 at 8 a.m. (Please allow 2 hours for
meeting, as we anticipate 5-6 applications.)
5.2 Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: March 25 at 7 a.m.
5.3 Report of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - Next Meeting - March 24 at 5 p.m.
6. OLD BUSINESS
6.1 Miscellaneous Issues
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of February 3, 1998.
7.2 Review of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee Minutes of January 8, 1998.
7.3 Review of City Council Minutes of January 26, and February 9, 1998.
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
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 open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by
raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large
number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer
period of time for questions/comments.
5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give
their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your
questions.
7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity
to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal.
8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
A. If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the
planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this
meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting.
B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next
Commission meeting.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 97-31
Request: Ordir~ance No. '98-04, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by
Reducing the Rear Yard Setbacks in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts and Amending
the Setback Regulations on Collector Streets and Thoroughfares
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning: R-l, Single Family Residential, and R-2, Single and Two Family Residential
Petitioner: City of New Hope
Report Date: February 27, 1998
Meeting Date: March 2, 1998
BACKGROUND
1. The City of New Hope is requesting consideration of an ordinance reducing the rear yard setback
requirement for R-1 and R-2 zoned property and amending the setback regulations on collector streets
and thoroughfares, pursuant to Section 4.034 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
'2. In response to numerous variance requests prompted by home improvements or desired home
expansions, the Codes & Standards Committee directed staff to review the City's building setbacks
within the R-1 Zoning District. An initial review of these standards was prepared in July of 1996 by
Northwest Consultants. In November of 1997, Northwest summarized the findings of the 1996 report
and outlined staff recommendations for ordinance amendments.
3. Early recommendations for modifications to the City Code coming out of the Comprehensive Plan
Update Committee also recommend changes to the Zoning Code to encourage reinvestment in
residential properties.
4. The report prepared by Northwest includes a table that provides a comparison of New Hope's R-1 and
R-2 lot area and setback requirements with zoning standards from surrounding communities. The table
indicates that New Hope's R-1 setback standards are consistent with other communities with the
exception of the rear yard setback. New Hope's 35-foot rear yard setback is the most restrictive of the
five surveyed communities.
5. City staff are asking consideration to increase the building envelop of the single family lots to encourage
reinvestment in its housing stock. Per the planner's report, a reduction of the rear setback from 35 feet
to 30 or 25 feet would increase the buildable area of a minimum-sized lot by 8.1 to 16.1 percent.
6. Section 4.034(4)(b) of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance also impacts the building envelop of lots
abutting the city thoroughfares. City staff has identified the required setbacks along street thoroughfares
as being excessive in light of the City's fully developed status.
Section 4.034(4)
(b) Setbacks Alon.q Thorou.qhfares. Heavily used streets designated as collector streets, or
thoroughfares, have special minimum setback needs and requirements:
(i) Along the following thoroUghfares the minimum front setback shall be ninety (90) feet from the
center line of the street or fifty (50) feet from the right-of-way line or seventy-five (75) feet from
the center line of the street, whichever is the greater setback.
27th Avenue North 49th Avenue North Winnetka Avenue
36th Avenue North Bass Lake Road County Road 18 (including
service roads)
42nd Avenue North " West Broadway Boone Avenue North
(ii) Where the side yard is adjacent to one of the above named thoroughfares, the minimum setback
shall be thirty-five (35) feet from the right-of-way line or seventy-five (75) feet from the center
line of the street, whichever is the greater setback.
7. In conversation with the City Engineer, it was determined that the County has required a maximum of
80 feet right-of-way for their major thoroughfares in the City. The 80-foot right-of-way is seen as
sufficient to accommodate fewer traffic lanes and yet provide for boulevards and sidewalks. In most
cases, the full 80-foot right-of-way has been acquired along major New Hope streets.
8. In recognition of the 80-foot maximum right-of-way suggested by both Hennepin County and the City
Engineer, it is staff's recommendation that Section 4.034(4)(b) be amended to reduce the front yard and
side yard setback as follows.
(i) Along the following thoroughfares a minimum front setback shall be seventy-five (75) feet from the
center line of street or thirty-five (35) feet from the street right-of-way line, whichever is the greater
setback.
27th Avenue North 49th Avenue North Winnetka Avenue
36t~ Avenue North Bass Lake Road County Road 18 (including
service roads)
42nd Avenue North West Broadway Boone Avenue North
(ii) Where the side yard is adjacent to one of the above-named thoroughfares, the minimum
setback shall be thirty (30)'feet from the right-of-way line or seventy (70) feet from the center
line of the street, whichever is th~ greater setback.
These changes will expand the building envelop by ten feet in the front yard and five feet in side yards
abutting the street.
9. - In summary, the proposed ordinance makes the following changes:
· Reduce rear lot setback requirements from 35 feet to 25 feet.
· Reduce front yard and side yard setback requirements along collector thoroughfares within the City.
The amendment of these standards will allow for increased home improvements and expansions and
encourage reinvestment in the City's housing stock.
ANALYSIS
1. The Planning Consultant has prepared the enclosed reports on this amendment and will be present at
the meeting to review these proposed changes.
2. The City Attorney has prepared the attached ordinance implementing these changes.
3. The Building Official has prepared the enclosed comments and graphics and is supportive of the
changes.
4. City. staff have prepared the attached research on previous rear yard setback variance requests for your · information.
5. Lastly, the Codes & Standards Committee has studied and reviewed these proposed changes and
supports the ordinance amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 98-04.
Attachments: Public Headng Notice
Ordinance No. 98-04
11/20/97 Planner's Report
12/22197 Planner's Report (excerpt)
Building Official Memo
Research on Rear Yard Setback Variances
NOTICE OF-PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE
· BY REDUCING THE REAR YARD SETBACKS
IN THE R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS AND
AMENDING THE SETBACK REGULATIONS ON COLLECTOR STREETS
AND THOROUGHFARES
City of New Hope, Minnesota
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission cf the City of New Hope,
Minnesota, will meet on the 2"d day of March, 1998, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall,
4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the.purpose of holding a public hearing to
consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code.
Said ordinance will have the affect of reducing rear yard setbacks to 25 feet in the
R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. it will also reduce setbacks along coilector streets and
thoroughfares to 75 feet from the centerline of the street or 35 feet from the street right-of-
way line, whichever is the greater setback.
All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of
being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment.
Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are
available upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the
City Clerk to make arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531-5109).
Dated the 2nd day of February, 1998.
si Valerie J. Leone
'~/alerie J. Leone
City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 11~ day of February, 1998.)
~ Co~cK & SON~)R,~., P.A.
. ATTORNEYS Ar L~W
STEVEN A. SONORALL Edinburgh ExecUtive O~ce Pl~a ce~ ASSIST~T
MICHAEL R. ~FLEUR
MARTIN P. MALECHA 8525 Edlnbrook Crossing SHARON O. DERBY
WILLIAM C. STRAIT* Suite ~203
Broo~ P~k, M~nesota 554~3
- TELEPHONE (612) 42~71
F~ (612) 42~7
January 2'7, 1998
Kirk McDonald
Management Asst.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE: ' Ordinance Amending Rear Yard Setbacks in the 13,-1 and 13,-2 Zoning
Districts
Our File No: 99.49804
Dear Kirk:
Please find enclosed a revised Ordinance No. 98-04 for consideration at the
March 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. The Ordinance was revised in
Section 2 to change 27th Avenue North to Medicine Lake Road, and County
Road 18 to State Highway 169 per our discussion at the last Codes and
Standards meeting.
Also enclosed is a proposed public hearing notice for the March Planning
Commission meeting. This Ordinance could not be considered at the February
Planning Commission meeting because we could not meet the 10-day
publication requirement of Minn.Stat. Chap. 462.
Contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding the enclosed
Ordinance or the public hearing notice.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
slt
Enclosures
cc: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (w/enc)
ORDINANCE NO. 98-04
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE
ZONING CODE BY REDUCING THE REAR YARD
SETBACKS IN THE R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS
AND AMENDING THE SETBACK REGULATIONS ON
COLLECTOR STREETS AND THOROUGHFARES
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 4.034 (3) "Setbacks" of the New Hope City Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(3) Setbacks. Ail setback distances, as listed in the table below, shall be
measured from the appropriate lot line.
Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
R-1 30ii(a) (b)(c) 3~ 25
R-2 30(a) (b)(c) 3,5 25
R-3 30 20 35
R-4 35 20 35
R-5 35 20 35
R-O 35 10(b) 35
' B-1 35(a) 10(b) 35
B-2 35(a) 10(b) 35
B-3 35 10 35
B-4 35 10 35
!-1 50 20 35
i-2 50 10(a) 35
Section 2. Section 4.034(4)(b) "Setbacks Aion.q Thoroughfares" of the New
Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(b) Setbacks along Thoroughfares. Heavily used streets designed as collector
streets, or thoroughfares, have special minimum set back needs and
requirements.
(i) - Along the following thoroughfares the minimum front setback
shall be ninety seventy-five feet from the center line of the street or
fifty thirty-five feet from the street right-of-way line, ....... *-'-~-.'- *".~*
~--'" ~' .... *'-- ""~ -'* ~'~ ~-'---* whichever is the greater setback.
27th Avenue North
36th Avenue North
42th Avenue North
49th Avenue North
Bass Lake Road
West Broadway
Winnetka Avenue
County Road ~18 (including service roads)
Boone Avenue North
(ii) Where the side yard is adjacent to one of above named
thoroughfares, the minimum the setback shall be thirty-five feet
from the right-of-way line or seventy-five feet from the center line
of the street, whichever is the greater.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication.
Dated this day of ,1998.
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
ATTEST:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden ValleY Sun Post on the ~ day of ,
1998.)
N
MEMORANDOI~I
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Dan Sjordal/Alan Brixius
DATE: 20 November 1997
RE: New Hope - R-1 Setbacks *'
FILE NO: 131.00 - 97.14
BACKGROUND
In response to numerous variance requests prompted by home improvements or desired
home expansions, the Code and Standards Committee directed staff to review the City's
building setbacks within the R-1 Zoning District. An initial review of these standards was
prepared in July of 1996. With this report, we have summarized the findings of the 1996
report and outlined staff recommendations for ordinance amendments.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Zoning Map
Exhibit B - R-1 District Plat
Exhibit C - Setback Illustrations
Exhibit D - Front Yard Setback on Thoroughfares
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Setbacks. The following table provides .a comparison of New Hope's R-1 and R-2 lot
area and setback requirements with zoning standards from surrounding communities.
57.75 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 6
PHONE 6 I 2-595-963~ FAX ~ I 2-595-9837
City Min. Min. Setbacks
Lot Lot
Size Width Front Side Side Side Rear Rear
.' (comer) (accessory) (accos~o~)
New 9,500'-- 75 ff... 30 ft. 10 ff. 20 ff. 5 fL 35 ft. 5 ft.
Hope sq.fL
Brooklyn 9,500 75 fL 35 fL 10 ff. 25 fL 3 fL 25 fL 5 ff.
Center sq.fL
Golden 10,000 80 fL 35 fL 15 ft. or n/a 5 fL 20% of 5 ft.
Valley sq.fL 15% of depth
Plymouth 7,000 65 fL 25 fL 8 fL 25 ft~ 6 ft. 25 fL 6 ft.
sq.fL
St. Louis 9,000 75 fL 35 ff. 6 ft. 15 fL 5 ft. 25 ft. 3 ft.
Park sq.ft.
The preceding table indicates that New Hope's R-1 setback standards are consistent well
with other communities with the exception of rear yard setback. New Hope's 35 foot rear
yard setback is the most restrictive of the five surveyed communities.
The City wishes to increase the building envelop of its single family lots to encourage
reinvestment in its housing stock. A reduction of the rear setback from 35 feet to 30 or 25
feet would increase the buildable area of a minimum sized lot by 8.1 to 16.1 percent. While
we would recommend a reduction of the rear yard setback, we would not suggest going
below a 25 foot setback so as to preserve the residential privacy and enjoyment of the rear
yard.
In addition, the City may be considering reducing the 30 foot front yard setback to 25 feet.
This would allow for additional building area on individual lots. Exhibits C-3 and C-4
illustrate this change. In conjunction with the rear yard setback reductions, this could
result in a building pad increase of a minimum sized lot from 16.1% to 31.9%.
Section 4.034 (4) (b) of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance also impacts the building envelop
of lots abutting the City thoroughfares. City staff has identified the required setbacks along
street thoroughfares as being excessive in light of the City's fully developed status.
Section 4.034 (4)
(b) Setbacks along Thoroughfares. Heavily used streets designated as collector
streets, or thoroughfares, 'have special minimum setback needs and
requirements:
2
(i) Along the following thoroughfares the minimum front setback shall be
ninety (90) feet from the center line of the street or fifty feet from the
· ' right-of-way line .or seventy-five feet from the center line of the street,
._- whichever is the greater setback.
27th Avenue North
36th Avenue North
42nd Avenue North
49th Avenue North
Bass Lake Road
West Broadway
Winnetka Avenue
County Road 18 (including service roads)
Boone Avenue North
(ii) Where the side yard is adjacent to one of the above named
thoroughfares, minimum the setback shall be thirty-five (35) feet from
the right-of-way line or seventy-five (75) feet from the center line of
the street, whichever is the greater setback.
In conversation with the City Engineer, it was revealed that the County has required a
maximum of 80 feet right-of-way for their major thoroughfares in the City. The 80 foot
right-of-way is seen as sufficient to accommodate fewer traffic lanes and yet provide for
boulevards and sidewalks. In most cases, the full 80 foot right-of-way has been acquired
along major New Hope streets.
In recognition of the 80 foot maximum right-of-way suggested by both Hennepin County
and the City Engineer, Section 4.034 (4) (b) can be amended to reduce the front yard and
side yard setback as follows. The attached Exhibit D illustrates this amendment
graphically.
(i) Along the following thoroughfares a minimum front setback shall be seventy-
five (75) feet from the center line of street or thirty-five ~35) feet from the
street right-of-way line. whichever is the greater setback.
27th Avenue North
36th Avenue North
42nd Avenue North
49th Avenue North
Bass Lake Road
West Broadway
Winnetka Avenue
County Road 18 (including service roads)
Boone Avenue North
(ii) Where the side. yar~ is adjacent to one of the above named
thoroughfares, minimum the setback shall be thirty (301 feet from the
.- right-of-way line or seventy_ (70! feet from the center line of the street,
- whichever is the greater setback.
The aforementioned changes will expand the building envelop by 10 feet in the front yard
and 5 feet in side yards abutting the street. City staff may wish to discuss whether the
suggested 40 foot front yard setback along these thoroughfares should be reduced further.
CONCLUSION
The Codes and Standards Committee Should review the rear and froni yard standards
within the R-1 Zoning District in order to determine whether they should be reduced as
follows:
· Reduce rear lot setback requirements from 35 feet to 25 feet.
· Reduce front yard setback requirements from 30 feet to 25 feet.
· Reduce front yard and side yard setback requirements along collector
thoroughfares within the City.
The amendment of these standards will allow for increased home improvements and
expansions and encourage reinvestment in the City's housing stock.
pc: Doug Sandstad'
Steve Sondrall
4
City
of'
New. Hope
SI/Cl-[ F,t~lll-T RESIOEKTIN.
SCNIO~ CITIZEN A~SID~NTIAL
RESIDENTIAl. OFFICE
LIMITED HEIGHBORH~O ~USINESS
RETAI~ BUSINESS
AUTO ORIENTEO BUSINESS
COMMUNITY SUSINESS
LIMITEO INDUSTRIAL
GENIAL INOUSTRIAL
WET LAND
Iklorthwest
·
Consultants, inc.
Typical Lot Size/Dimension
Lot ~dth: 85 fl.
Lot Depth: 1t4 ~. I- 1
Lot Area: 9,690 ~q.
EXHIBIT B
I t~~e,~~'' I ;,- ,
· I l~~~.,-'I ;
Ii
; I ,
..;-LG~.. ~'~.~? ;4. ~.~.:-~;~;~, '
~ k ..........~ ....... ~ .........
· E ~ .... . ..-'- . , - .... _ ~.-~,-~'~ ·
~ . : (. -.._...- :.~<:':;:_. -.'~.~ .. I
,. . .:.: ~~
EXHIBIT C
CENTERLINE OF COLLECTOR-- , 90'
, 40' 50"
' * '-- EXISTING FRONT
STREET R'O'W' OR PROPERTY LINE ~xt l
80' R.O~W:_
1"=50'
Existing Front Yard Setback on Collector
CENTERLINE OF COLLECTOR 40' i 35°
STREET R.O.W. OR PROPERTY LINE ~ ! I ~ROPOSED FRONT
1
I YARD SETBACK
I
80' RJ).W. I
I
', I 1 "=50'
Proposed Front Yard Setback on Collector
EXHIBIT D
R-1 District Setbacks
The Codes.and ~tandards Committee also considered making adjustment to the R-1
setbacks at their-December 17th ~eeting.
While not favoring a front yard setback reduction from 30 feet to 25 feet, they were open
to reducing the rear yard setback and setback along thoroughfares.
In considering the reduction of the rear yard setback from 35 feet to 25 feet, they
questioned whether a 10 foot setback reduction was sufficient to accommodate a home
expansion. We indicated that typically the home depth did not consume the entire depth
of the building envelope. As such the 10 foot reduction was a significant expansion of.the
building envelope. To finalize this discussion, the Codes and Standards requested
information on the typical depth of homes in New Hope and whether the.reduction of the
rear yard setback by 10 feet would accommodate a significant expansion of these homes.
If you have information with regard to standard home sizes and dimensions in New Hope
and/or information on past rear yard variance requests, it would be helpful in addressing
this issue.
We would appreciate a response to the preceding items by the-12th of January. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
pc: Kirk McDonald
Steve Sondral
PART II PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACKS IN R-1 & R-2 ZONES
As part of our consideration before reducing cert.~in rear and front yard
building setbacks, it will be helpful to review the 6xisting variety of typical
properties in New Hope. We allow one principal building on all properties,
other than PUD's. Typical graphics and copies of actual lot surveys are
attached. These remarks do not apply to accessory buildings.
Our minimum R-1 lot size, 9,500 sf, and lot width 75 feet, have not
changed in decades. Different neighborhoods that were platted over our last
40 years, have varying street alignments and cul-de-sacs, resulting in true
variety. We do not have any tiny lots or huge lots.
· Average lot size is 9,700 sf, [ in a typical range from 8,800 to 11,400 sf ]
· Average lot width is 78 feet [ in a typical range of 75 to 90 feet].
Please refer to E~hibit "T-i", attached, which illustrates a typical R-1 lot
with a common rectangular home footprint. Exhibit "T-2" is the ssme lot
with an "L"-shaped residence. Illustrated front setbacks are 35 feet, just like
many of our homes. Exhibit "C-1" is a typical cul-de-sac lot with rectangular
home.
Note that the "Buildable Yards" in all 3 exhibits depict the expansion
potential for the principal building [home]. In exsmple "T-2", expansion to
the rear is very limited, even though this lot is 130 feet deep. Many of our
lots are approx. 120 feet deep, yielding no expansion potential to the rear in
the "L-shaped" exsmple. In most cases, the "T-i" sites have staple room for
expansion to the rear. A reduced 25 foot rear yard setback would have little
practical effect on "T-1", but major impact on '"F-2" doubling their "Buildable
Yard"!
Cul-de-sac lots are usually limited in rear yard depth, as evidenced by
"C- 1", showing a basic rectangular home with only 10 feet to expand to the
rear. Any larger home footprint results in even less expansion to the rear.
Note that the generous rear yard area on this cul-de-sac lot does not
compensate for the short rear setback. Both "T-1" and "T-2", with much
smaller rear yard areas have a greater rear setbacks & expansion potential.
A reduced 25 foot rear setback benefits "C-1" greatly !
continued...
My knowlsdge of expansion potential and homeoWner interest suggest the
following:
· The percentage of homeoWners who have, or are likely to have, an
interest in expansion within five years could b~ 15 %. THAT'S 750 !!
· Between 10 % and 25 % of those, above, will have a rear setback
complication, under existing codes. [75-188 homes].
· Are Expansions more common on larger homeS, with higher values and
corresponding household income ? In many cases, these are deeper,
fancier home floor plans or "L"-shaped. If that idea has merit, can it be
predicted that the tiny, rectangular homes in Begin addition have lots of
room to expand, but may do so less frequently because of ~nancial issues ?
· New Hope has approx. 64 cul-de-sacs, with 0 to 6 shallow lots. Perhaps
50 % of the cul-de-sac lots would benefit froTM a rear yard setback
reduction.
· Between 5 % and 10 % of the lots, on streets other than cul-de-sacs, will
benefit from a reduced rear yard serb'ack.
· Reducing the rear setback encourages private investment in homes and
C'reduces government '~eavy-handedness".
· Dwelling expansion slightly increases the ~mount of impervious surface
and runoff.
· A reduced rear setback of 25 feet brings us into alignment with several
nearby cities.
· To some degree, a reduced rear setback may result in fewer accessory
buildings and more principal building expansion. In exhibit "T-2", for
exnmple, a standard garage addition [ 20-24 feet deep] cannot be built
behind the existing garage, under today's code. They could build a
detached rear building, however, without facing a Variance '~assle".
· I have no concern that any R-1 construction will approach the 25 % of rear
yard ratio, which was the subject of a few q.uestions. Our yards are just
too big.
I strongly endorse the concept of reducing rear yard setbacks in the R-1
zone to 25 feet.
cc: Brixius, Sondrall, Cavanagh
attachments [5]
SCALE:
· / ,~ /
" " I I
. .j.. · '...',., ~~ A~
' i i
"- '~ ~' ~T
' ~'~ ~' "X '.
a~ ,~ ~d IoCahOn Of .~11 budXm~s ~he,OOn. an~ all ws~D!o encroachm,.,~,~S. ~f ,t~y. tfom Of on =e~o lan~. that th~S survey was
ct ~ .....~,~ AS sur'.'e)O0 by "~,' t~,S '~ ~ay of ~TC~.. . 19 ~.
Ff ,.' [--., _. ..
po box ~ 9sseo. m~nnesota flS;:.,g .412~425-2181
r ..,, A~ZP', ~ .... . ~ -~ ~ ,,
civil ''
Certificate '\
planning
environmental
land surveying
soil expioratLon
·
For
We hereby certihj, that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land described above
and of the location of all buildings thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land, that this survey was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and thai I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under 'the laws of the State
of Minnesota. As surveyed by me this %C~T~4 ___ day of C~c.-r'~-~%=~. . _, 19 -%(0
· ccr~ti~
p.o. box j. osseo, minnesota 55369 a (612) 425-2181 c~l~,~::f-,.~cl~c:~
January 5, 1998 REAR YARD VARIANCES - 1990 - 1997
PLANNING CASE NAME/ADDRESS REQUEST RESOLUTION #
96-34 Michael & Pamela Terres 24' variance 96-205
3809 Xylon Avenue Expand existing deck to 4- season porch (existing PC & CC unanimous
porch is 21' from rear property line)
96-30 Richard & Patricia Bruins 10' variance 96-178
7251 40~h Avenue Garage addition PC & CC unanimous
Non-conforming corner lot, addition to be' built on
rear (narrow width) of property
96-16 Clifford & Elizabeth Miller 9' variance 96-121
4076 Ensign Avenue Sun room addition PC & CC unanimous
94-28 Robert Funk 6' variance 94-161
4052 Cavell Avenue (Corner lot - conforming property) PC unanimous
Garage addition to rear of existing double garage CC I ,against/1 abstain
93-34 Richard Kleinbaum 7' variance 93-167
8309 Northwood Parkway Add enclosed porch to rear of house PC & CC unanimous
Lot is only 105' deep
93-29 Kuo Moy 10' variance 93-161
7608 48th Avenue Construct 3-season porch onto existing deck PC & CC unanimous
93-24 David Pomije 16' variance 93-123
3233 Gettysburg Avenue Construct master bedroom/bath on rear of house PC I abstain
Pie shaped lot CC unanimous
1983 previous owner granted 7' variance for family
room addition
93-21 Michael Banker 5' variance 93-121
3501 Xylon Avenue Construct porch addition PC & CC unanimous
93-18 Virginia McDurmott 7' variance 93-112
, ~ 4058 Ensign Avenue Add 3-season porch and 2' bay window PC & CC unanimous
92-33 Michael & Arlene Reich 10.5' variance 92-210
2724 Aquila Avenue Construct 4-season porch PC 1 abstain
(Corner lot - conforming) CC unanimous
92-32 Jack & Annette Nabedrick 20' variance at closest point 92-190
9009 42nd Avenue (Corner lot - conforming) PC & CC unanimous
Construct 3-season porch
January 5, 1998 REAR YARD VARIANCES - 1990 - 1997
PLANNING CASE NAME/ADDRESS REQUEST RESOLUTION ft
92-28 Duane Hoff 8' variance 92-177 PC & CC
4164 Ensign Avenue (Corner lot - conforming) unanimous
3-season porch to be added on top of existing
deck
92-02 Michael & Theresa Gray 13' variance 92-35
3433 Gettysburg Ayenue 3-season porch to be added on top of existing PC & CC unanimous
deck
91-35 Robert Lindell 4' variance 91-197
4741 Boone Avenue Construct 3-season porch PC & CC unanimous
House is on major thoroughfare and therefore is
set back 50' on front leaving a smaller rear yard
91-27 Robert Natzel 13' variance at closest point 91-173
7621 48th Circle Expand garage PC & CC unanimous
Irregular shaped cul-de-sac lot
90-21 John Degnan 4' variance 90-152
5206 Quebec Avenue Tear down detached garage and construct double PC & CC unanimous
garage in same location
90-18 James & Marlene Buckstein 5' variance at closest point 90-142
3224 Ensign Avenue Family room addition PC & CC unanimous
90-13 Sandra Wieland 7' variance 90-117
3541 Virginia Avenue Enclose portion of existing deck PC & CC unanimous
~ · COUNCIL
REQUF~T FOR ACTION
.-
Originating Depa[Lment Approved for Agenda Dev~lopmentA~enda Section
City Manager & Planning
~'~ 10-14-96 Item No.
]~'/:KirkManagementMCDonaldAssistant ~~/ 8.1
/
PLANNING CASE 96-34, REQUEST F(~R A VARIANCE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING SCREENED PORCH TO A FOUR-
SEASON PORCH AND A VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, 3809
XYLON AVENUE NQRTH, MICHAEL & PAMEI_A TERI~I::R. PI:TITI(3NI:I~.~
The petitioners are requesting a variance from the rear yard setback requirement to allow expansion of
an existing screened porch t° a four-season porch and. a vadance to expand a non-conforming home,
pursuant to Sections 4.034(3) and 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The petitioners are
proposing to expand an existing 10' x 13' (130 square feet) screened porch, located in the rear yard at
the southwest comer of the home, and convert it to a 20' x 21' (420 square feet) four-season, main
level porch. City code states that the rear yard setback requirement in a Single Family Residential
Zoning District is 35 feet. The proposed porch expansion would be located 11 feet from the rear
yard property line (at the closest point), therefore a 24-foot variance from the 3S-foot rear yard
setback requirement is being requested. The existing home was constructed on this uniquely
shaped cul-de-sac lot in 1962. The existing home does not meet the 3S-foot rear yard setback
requirement, as the existing porch is located 21 feet from the rear property line. That is why a
variance to expand a non-conforming structure is also being requested in conjunction with the
rear yard setback variance.
The property is located on a 9,500 square foot lot on the west side of the cul-de-sac where Xylon
Avenue and 38~ Avenue North intersect. The property is located in an R-l, Single Family Residential,
Zoning Distdct and is surrounded by single family homes on the north/east/south. The rear yard of the
property, where the variance is being requested, abuts up to Northwood Park. The petitioners
state on the application that the request is due to a shallow lot which was originally developed and built
on in 1962. They state that the request should be granted because they would like to invest in the
home and upgrade the current, somewhat confining, living spaces.
ReView: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01
Request for Action PC96-34 Page 2 10-14-96
Staff find that there are s~veral criteria in the Code that may be met with this request:
1. "Undue Hardship" definitely pertain, since the shallow lot depth and origi.n.al home design, approved
by the City, are beyond the control of the petitioner. The original lot was so shallow (83 feet deep at
center) as to prevent any home from being built that complied with zoning setbacks in 1962. If the
normal setbacks are applied to this property (30' front yard and 35' rear yard), only 18 feet
remained for the depth of the home.
2. "Use Compatibility" is maintained with this porch request, as many of the homes in the area already
have porches. No expansion investment is possible for this home without a variance.
3. "Light and Air," "Street Congestion,' and "Public Safety" protections in the code are met with this
request.
4. "Property Values" preservation is met with this investment and such a porch addition would not
alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
The petitioner has submitted details on the porch addition that indicate that the porch will be sided with
12-inch masonite lap siding to match the existing structure and that the shingles (light gray asphalt) will
match those of the existing structure. The one concern that was raised by the staff and the Planning
Commission was the inconsistent roof styles. The existing house has a 4:12 roof pitch and the odginal
porch addition plans showed the porch with a 2:12 roof pitch. The Building Official indicated that a roof
with a 2:12 pitch would normally not have asphalt shingles and suggested that the petitioner consider a
more consistent roof connection, such as a matching slope gable roof. The petitioner was agreeable to
that recommendation and said he would submit revised plans pdor to the Council meeting.
The Planning Commission considered this .request at its October 1 meeting and recommended
approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Building materials of addition to match existing structure.
2. Petitioner consider an upgrade in the roof design and meet with the Building Official to fine tune a
more conventional and attractive roof line.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the petitioner has submitted revised plans with a
revised roof pitch to match the existing house. The revised plans are acceptable to staff, therefore
'condition #2 has been eliminated from the attached resolution.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
~ PLAN DECLARATION
I~I=Y 'II-iAT I .4J~ THE PROP~OWNER
PLAN ~S COM~ ~= <CU~.
. RF~~T FOR ACTION
Originating Depa~;,,~ent Approved for Agenda _ Ai!enda Section
uev~lopment
City Manager & Planning
9-9-96
Kirk McDonald Item No.
]~Y: Management Assistant ]~. . 8.2
PLANNING CASE 96-30, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION, 7251 40TM
AVENUE NORTH, RICHARD & PATRIClA BRUINS, PETITIONERS
The petitioners are requesting a variance from the rear yard setback requirement to allow
construction of a garage addition onto the existing garage, pursuant to Sections 4.034(3)(c)
and 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
The petitioners currently have an attached single car garage on the east side of the home.
They are proposing to construct a 12' x 22.8' (274 square foot) addition onto the garage, which
would expand the existing garage into an attached double garage. City Code states that the
rear yard setback requirement in a Single Family Residential Zoning District is 35 feet. The
proposed garage addition would be located 25 feet from the rear yard property line,
therefore a ten(10) foot variance from the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement is being
requested. * '
The property is located at the southeast intersection of 40~ and Nevada Avenues and the
home was built in 1961 on the comer lot by the developer. These rectangular lots at the end of
· the block were sized so that the homes could be built parallel to the narrow frontage of the lot,
however, the home on this lot was built perpen;dicular to the narrow frontage. The Zoning
Code definition of "Lot Frontage" states that "the front of a lot shall be . . . that
boundary abutting a public right-of-way having the least width." Although the front of the
house faces north, the Zoning Code defines the yard on the west side of the house as the
front yard because the property has a narrower frontage on Nevada Avenue (77.5 feet) than it
has on 40= Avenue North. (117.5 feet). While for all practical purposes it appears that the
MOTION BY ~ SECOND BY
- / -'
/
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-001 ~
Request for Action PC96-30 ~Page 2 : 9-9-96
home owner is expan~ng the garage into the side yard where the usual setback requirement
for an attached garag.e_would be five feet, the City Code defines it as an expansion into the
rear yard where the setback requirement is. 35 feet. This Js what necessitates the 10-foot
variance request.
The lot contains approximately 9,106 square feet and the existing structure meets all setback
requirements except on the south side yard where a four (4) foot variance was approved in
1984 allowing the property owner to construct a 12' x 14' porch six (6) feet from the south side
yard property line. The petitioner states on the application that they want to add the single car
garage addition to the existing single car garage to provide for two-car use and to increase the
value of the home and future saleability. The plans show that the garage addition will match
the style and pitch of the existing garage roof, with fiberglass asphalt shingles to be used.
Siding and front brick will also match the existing structure.
Staff find that several criteria .in the Code may be met with this request, as the garage addition
would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and the fact that the home faces
the side yard is beyond the control of the current owner. The adjacent home to the east was
also built facing the side yard and has a garage wall about fifty (50) feet away from the
proposed new addition. It does not appear that any other double garage options exist on this
lot and the proposed addition is only 12 feet wide and is not oversized.
The Planning Commission considered this request at their September 3 meeting and
recommended approval, subject to the following condition:
1. Exterior construction materials of addition to match existing structure.
Staff recommend approval of the resolution.
I hereby certify that Chis topographic survey of the above described
Lot 2 was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly re~tered Land Surveyor under the law~ pf the. State of Mi~ota.
Date June 26, 1984 Reg. Lo. 11508
t . REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Depa~i~ent Approved for Agenda Develo~ Section
City Manager/,~ t Planning
Kirk McDonald } / 6-10-96 Item No.
By: Management AssistantB~. / 8.1
PLANNING CASE 96-16, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM TIlE REAR YAP~
SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SUN ROOM ADDITION,
4076 ENSIGN AVENUE NORTH, CLIFFORD AND ELIZABETH MILLER, PETITIONERS
The petitioner is requesting a nine-foot variance from the rear yard setback requirement to allow
the construction of a 12' x 18' sun room addition 26 feet from the rear property line, pursuant
to Sections 4.034(3) and 4.22 - New Hope Code of Ordinances. The petitioner's existing "L-
shaped" home is located 38 feet from the rear yard property line. City code states that the rear
yard setback requirement in a Single Family Residential Zoning District is 35 feet. The petitioner
is requesting to construct a 12' deep x 18' long sun porch on the east side (in the rear yard) of
the existing home. The proposed sun room addition would be located twenty-six (26) feet
from the rear yard property line, therefore a nine (~)) foot variance from the thirty-five (35)
foot rear yard setback requirement is being requested.
The property is located on a 9,690 square foot lot (1/5' x 114') and the existing structure meets
all setback requirements. The property is located on the east side of Ensign Avenue, north of the
intersection of 40 1/2 Avenue North. The property is located in a Single Family Residential
Zoning District and is surrounded by single family homes on the north/east/south/west.
Staff feel that several of the criteria may be met with this request, as follows:
· A. "Undue hardship" ma~ pertain since the shallow lot depth and "L-shaped" original home
design are beyond the control of the petitioner, and such a porch addition would not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood.
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
Planning Case 96-16
Page 2
6/10/96
B. "Use compatibility" is maintained with this porch request, as many of the homes in the
area already have porches.
C. "Light and air," "street congestion" and "public safety" protections in the code are met
with this request.
D. "Property values" in the neighborhood should remain stable or increase with the porch
addition.
The topo map shows that there is extensive tree-shrub coverage in the rear yards of the homes
just east of this property to provide a buffer to the addition.
The porch exterior materials would be white enamel frame with windows. One concern that staff
has is the inconsistency of roof styles. The proposed "shed-style" roof pitch (1:12) does not
match the existing "gable-style" (4:12). A more attractive and Consistent roof connection would
be a matching intersecting gable roof. Staff would suggest that the roof pitches should match,
even if the "shed" style roof is not changed to a gable.
The Planning Commission considered this request at their June 4th meeting and recommended
approval, subject to the following condition:
1. Consideration be given to upgrading the-rbof pitch to match the house roof pitch
of 4:12.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
C(~UBi(~IL
) . REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda A/!enda Section
Development
City Manager & Planning
Kirk McDonald 10-10-94 Item No.
By: Management Assistant By:. 8.5
!
PLANNING CASE 94-28 - REQUEST FOR A 6' VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 20' X 20' GARAGE
ADDITION 29' FROM THE REAR YARD PROPERTY LINE, 4052 CAVELL AVENUE
The petitioner is requesting a 6 foot variance to the rear yard setback requirement to' allow
construction of a 20' x 20' garage addition 29 feet from the rear yard property line, pursuant
to Sections 4.034(3) and 4.22 -New Hope Code of Ordinances. The petitioner is proposing
to construct the 400 square foot garage addition on the rear (east) side of the existing garage;
it would be an extension of the existing garage, which is attached to the home. The garage
addition would be located 20 feet from the comer side yard property line, similar to the
existing garage, and meets the side yard setback requirements. The proposed addition would
be located 29 feet from the rear yard property llne and the rear yard setback requirement
in the R-1 Zoning District is 35 feet, therefore, a 6 foot variance from the 35 foot rear
yard setback requirement is needed. The property, which is located at the northeast
intersection of 40 1/2 Avenue North and Cavell Avenue, is located in an R-I, Single Family
Residential Zoning District and is surrounded by R-1 single family homes on the
north/east/south/west. The petitioner states on the application that the addition is needed to
keep boats and cars inside so they are not left outdoors.
The plans show that the garage addition will have lap siding to match the existing structure and
asphalt shingles to match existing..The addition will have one window on the south side to
match the south window of the existing garage, with a service door to the north. No overhead
door will be located on the rear (east) wall. The petitioner indicated that shrubs would be
planted along the street side of the addition and that shutters would be installed on the side
garage windows so that the existing garage and addition would blend with the house.
Review: .a,d_minlstratlon: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
Request for Action PC94-28 : 2 October 10, 1994
Several neighboring p~operty owners appeared at the Planning Commission meeting and voiced
their objections to the-request.. The petitioner resides on a comer lot and the garage abuts the
north side of 40 1/2 Avenue North. The fronts of the homes located on the south side of 40
1/2 Avenue directly face the garage and the proposed addition. The neighbors complained that
the addition will block their views of the rear yards to the north and possibly decrease their
property values because the garage with the addition will have a disproportionate appearance
to the house.
Prior to the concerns expressed by the neighbors to the south, staff felt that this was a routine
request. The 6 foot variance is only a 16 percent reduction from the required setback and is
fairly minimal. Many precedents exist for rear yard R-1 variances under 20 percent. While
it could probably be argued that this is not a unique parcel, remember that the petitioner could
build a 14 foot addition without a variance. The trend to build three and four car garages has
increased in recent years and they do alleviate outdoor storage problems. In addition, the least
controversial yard to have a setback variance is the rear. This situation may be unusual
because of the comer lot location and the fact that the garage is adjacent to the street.
The Planning Commission considered this request at the October 4th meeting and
recommended approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Addition building materials to match existing structure.
2. Shrubs be installed along south side of garage/addition and shutters be installed on
south windows so that addition blends with house.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
- REQUF T FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda ~ertda Section
u~velopment
City Manager & Planning
A 11-8-93
Kirk McDonald l"~ Item No.
__Management Assistant __
by: t:~: i / 8.1
/
PLANNING CASE 93-34 - REQUEST FOR V~ARIANCE TO 3§-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT,
8309 NORTHWOOD PARKWAY (PID #18-'118-21-43-0048) RICHARD KLEINBAUM, PETITIONER
The petitioner is requesting a 7' variance to the 35' rear yard setback requirement to allow construction of
a 14' x 16' porch addition pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code. The petitioner is proposing
to construct a 14' x 16' (224 square feet) porch on the southeast side of the home in the rear yard. The
porch would be located 28 feet from the rear yard property line, therefore a seven {7) foot variance from the
35 foot rear yard setback requirement is needed. The City Code allows open porches and decks as
encroachments on yard setback requirements, however, porches and outdoor living rooms which become
enclosed in and attached to the dwelling subsequent to initial construction of the principal dwelling are not
exempt from yard setback requirements. The petitioner states on the application that the only feasible area
to add a porch is behind the eating area off of the kitchen.
The existing structure was constructed in 1968 and this will be the first addition. The variance request is due,
in part, to the 1967 approval of the "Towers South" plat whicti created this lot with a shallow depth of 105
feet. If the lot contained the average City lot depth of 125 feet, no variance would be required for the porch
addition. Staff finds that the shallow depth of the lot qualifies as reasonable hardship under the Zoning Code
and that the 7-foot variance from the 35-foot requirement is a minor request and consists of a 20% variation
from the code requirements for setbacks.
A natural buffer exists in this area because the nearest home to the south is approximately 54 feet away and
12 feet higher in elevation. Modest fencin9, retaining wall and greenery (lilac bushes) further improve the
buffer. The petitioner has submitted plans confirming that the addition will be architecturally compatible with
the existirig home in style, quality and building materials. The plans show that the addition will have a gabled
roof with asphalt shingles, cedar facia, and masonite siding that will match the existing house. Note from the
plans that a 10' x 6' cedar deck will also be constructed on the west side of the porch. The deck does not
require a variance. The porch and deck will be located on top of 6' x 6' treated posts and sit about 3 feet
off the ground, with the deck having stairs down to the yard.
Review: AdmmmtraUon: ¥inanee:
RFA-O0]
Planning Case 93-34
Page 2
November 8, 1993
The Planning Commission reviewed this request as a consent agenda item at their November 2nd meeting and
recommended approval of the request.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
'~ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY , "~ '~·
SWENSON I'AND SURVEYING'
827 Norwood Street
RONALD J. SWENSON ' Anoka, Minnesota 55303 TELEPHONE
1ED LAND SURVEYOR - '- (612) 427-1020
· Denotes Iron Monuments Found
O Denotes Iron Monuments Set
A~ . Book ~'! Page ~°
'"'~,Yo ~, ~nvo~ .o.
·
~Yz.s. o
0
/ 0
z.- ,..
OR OINN. ~ REPRE~"NTAllVE.
I hereby certify that this is a true and ~ct reDres, er, tat'..on of
a survey of the boundaries cf:
Lot 28, Block 3, TO'~/ERS SOUTH, ,Hennep~n C3unty,
Mi nnesot a ·
It' does purport to show imcrove,ments or encroachments, if
any_. As surveyAd by me this 27th day of September 1993.
.~onald J. Swen$on,~g~ter~ Land Sur'¢oyor
M~nnesota License No. 13297
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda ~enda Section
~-eVelopment
City Manager & Planning
10-11-93
Kirk McDonald Item No.
By:Management Assistant By: 8.1
PLANNING CASE 93-29 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO 35-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENT, 7608 48TH CIRCLE NORTH (PID//08-118-21-32-0071), KUO MOY, PETITIONER
The petitiOner is requesting a 10-foot variance to the 35-fo°t rear yard setback requirement to allow
construction of a 12' x 12' 3-season porch on top of an existing, recently reconstructed deck, pursuant
to Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code. The pot.ch would be located 25 feet from the rear yard
property line on the north side of the home, therefore a 10-foot variance is needed. Open porches
and decks are allowed as encroachments on yard setbacks, but porches and outdoor living rooms which
become enclosed in and attached to the dwelling subsequent to initial construction of the principal
dwelling are not exempt from yard setback requirements. The elevated deck is in compliance and
requires no variance. The porch will have little impact on neighboring properties as the most impacted
home directly to the north is separated by a 230 foot distance, and a grove of trees between the homes
provides a good buffer. The irregular shape of this cul-de-sac lot could be considered as a hardship and
the north rear yard is the only reasonable location for expansion on this lot.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at its meeting on October 5th and the major concern was
the architectural compatibility of the proposed addition with the existing home. While the plans showed
the masonite siding of the addition would match the home, the original plans showed a shed-type
fiberglass roof which was not compatible with the gabled, asphalt-singled roof of the existing home. The
. petitioner agreed to revise the plans so that the roof of the addition would match the existing house. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the request~ subject to the condition:
1. Revised plans be submitted showing the addition to be compatibl~ with existing dwelling, with
gabled roof of asphalt shingles rather than shed-type fiberglass roof.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
,, ,, f/
MOTION BY ~ .... SECOND BY
TO: I.
Review: Administration: Finance:
I II I RFA-O01
r '~ 8713 OUPONT &~ENuE
LAND SU nV[YORS ~~~/~~
~ Survey for: COLCNIAL ~UI~E~S' --
- . ~. ~ ....
., .................. _
..' HTE PLAN DEC~TION '_- ~2~, ' ..-' / ~?. ~:"~~/~"/~_~ c~5'
t CERTI Y THAT I AM THE PPOPFr~Y -
'..%'NER. ( R OWNERS REPRE~;~'~',~'T'TVE & ' ~/ ~, - -
~ ~f~., .' ,.. / / ',./ . ~ ~'
P~posed
Or~de
/
Descrlption: ~'.~~~~ .,'
-~HA GA~S
...~
' ~' --- - ~. ~o - -
we hete~ ee~gy ~mt t~s m a true ~ eortect tepresentat~n oI a survey o~
~u~av~s oI ~e 1~ ~ve de~cv~ ~ ol the locat~n ol all bu~d~gs, g any, thereon
~ ~' vis.lc enc~achment~, ~ ~y, Imm or on,s~'~~ ~ted' ~ :Stn day
ot , June. , 197 7 . y~
~/~ ~' ~ " ~ ,~ =~ ee ..... ~ ......
· REQUEST FOR ACTION
originating Department Approved for Agenda ~. Agqnda Section
L~evelopmem
City Manager ~ & Planning
Kirk McDonald i i / -9-93[]8 Item No.
BY:Management Assistant BY:~ 8.6
PLANNING CASE 93-24 - REQUEST fl~OR VARIANCE FROM THE 35-~OOT REAR YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A BEDROOM/BATH ADDITION, 3233 GETTYSBURG
COURT, PID #19-118-21-23-0081, BILL KRANZ/DAVID POMIJE, PETITIONERS
Petitioner is requesting 'a 16, variance from the 35'foot rear yard setback requirement, pursuant to Section
4.034(3)-New Hope Code, to allow construction of a 28'x18' (504 square feet) master bedroom/bath
addition in the rear yard of the property off of the northwest comer.of existing structure. The addition
will be set back 19 feet from the north rear yard property line at the closest point, therefore a rear yard
variance is being requested. The east end of the addition will be more than 31 feet from the property line
and trees on adjoining properties should help buffer the addition. The petitioner states that the shape of
the lot/location of the house on the lot make it difficult to add an addition and still meet all setback
requirements. Staff concurs that the unique shape of the pie-shaped lot could qualify as a hardship. A
certified survey was submitted by the petitioner prior to the Planni~ Commission meeting, as requested.
The previous owners of the property were granted a small rear yard variance (4 fee0 in 1983, for addition
of a family room.
At the Planning Commission meeting the adjacent neighbor to the west (3229 Gettysburg Court) stated
that he was not opposed to the addition, but had concerns about materials for this addition and the current
swimming pool project being delivered to the petitioner's rear yard over his property, changes in drainage
patterns, and damage to his lawn and he wanted assurances that his property would be restored to its
original condition. The petitioner confirmed that the entire area would be sodded once construction was
completed.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request at their August 3, 1993, meeting and recommended
approval, subject to the following conditions:
1. Architecture/materials of addition to match existing structure.
2. Petitioner's and neighbor's property to be restored to original pre-construction conditions
(including drainage) within 30 days of completion of construction.
Staff recommends, approval .of the resolution.
/
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
POMUE RESIDENCE ,,~
3Z33 GETTYSBURG COURT
NEW HOPE, MN
Scale: 1 "= 30' -0"
I
~(. ~~- REQUEST FOR ACTION
:-
Ortgtnatlng Department Approved for Agenda ~enda Section
Dever6pment
City Manager & Planning..
-9-93 Kirk McDonald Item No.
BY:Management Assistant By: 8.3
PLANNING CASE 93-21 REQUEST BOR VARIA2qCE FROM THE 35-FOOT REAR YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH, 3501 XYLON AVENUE
NORTH, PID #19-118-21-12-0085, MICHAEL R. BANKER, PETITIONER
The petitioner is requesting a 5' variance from the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement,, pursuant to
Section 4.034(3)-New Hope Code, to allow construction of a porch at the (wes0 rear side of the existing
building. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 14'x14' (196 square feet) addition to the existing "L"-
shaped house, which would be located 30 feet from the rear yard property line, therefore a 5-foot
variance is needed. The petitioner states that there is no room for any rear yard addition larger than 8
feet without a variance due to the design/placement of the home. The existing structure meets all setback
requirements, and the topography of the site slopes downward and to the north (6 feet) and east (9 feet)
from the rear southwest comer of the property. The diagonal drop is 15 feet from southwest to the
northeast.
The owner desires a traditional-sized porch of 14 feet, necessitating this variance request. The original
design of this home pushed the rear wall almost 77 feet behind the front lot line, leaving a 44-foot deep
rear yard. Besides the placement of the house on the lot, the unusual topography of the site should be
taken into consideration. Dense screening in the rear of the property will also help to lessen the impact
of the variance.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their August 3, 1993, meeting and recommends
approval subject to the. following conditions:
1. Professional detailed plans submitted prior to the Council meeting
2. Porch design and materials match/blend with existing structure.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY .. (~.~i' ~ SECOND BY
· o:
Re{Jew: Administration: Finance:
I RFA-OOI ~
Originating Department Approved for Agenda ~ A~enda Section
veveropment
City Manager ~ & Planning
I~ 7-26-93
Kirk McDonald ~ Item
B!~anagement Assistant By:.i 8.3
PLANNING CASE 93-18 - REQUEST/F~OR VARIANCE FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-SEASON PORCH, 4058 ENSIGN
AVENUE NORTH, PID//18-118-21-24-0107, VIRGINIA MCDURMOTT, PETITIONER
The petitioner is requesting a 7' variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement to allow
construction of a 3-season porch at the rear of the existing building, pursuant to SectiOn 4.034(3)-New
Hope Code. The petitioner is proposing to construct a I2'x18' (plus a 2-foot bay window for a total of
20' or 228 square feet) 3-season porch on the east side of the existing home in the rear yard. A 13'x17'
elevated deck would also be constructed on the north side of the proposed 3-season porch. The
requested porch and deck would be located approximately 28 feet from the rear yard property line.
The rear yard setback requirement in the R-1 Zoning District is 35 feet. City Code allows open
porches/decks as encroaclxments on yard setback requirements, however, porches and outdoor living
rooms which become closed in and attached to the dwelling subsequent to initial construction of
principal dwelling are not exempt from yard setback requirements. Therefore, a 7' foot variance
from the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement is needed to locate the 3-season porch 28 feet from
rear yard property line. (The elevated deck would be in compliance and requires no variance.)
The hardship for the variance request in this case may be the original placement of the home on the
property. The design of the original home created a short rear yard, as the building is 36 feet deep. The
proposed porch is 18 feet in length plus a 2-foot bay or a total of 20 feet, which is slightly longer than
a standard porch. The combination of a short rear yard and proposed 20-foot long porch have resulted
in a need for a variance because the rear yard is only 48 feet deep. The petitioner has confn'med that
th.e design of the porch and building materials will match the existing structure.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their July 6, 1993 meeting and recommends approval
subject to the following conditions: 1) Owner to sign and date "Site Plan Declaration"; 2) Building
materials for porch to match existing structure.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY SECOND BY t ~
'Review: Administration: Finance:
REQUF~T FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda [ Agenda Section
Development
City Manager & Planninl
McDonald /~ 12-14-92 Item No.
By.Kirk
Management Assistant n~.~/// 8.1
PLANNING CASE 92-33 - REQUEST F A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIR.BMI~.NT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 4-SEASON PORCH, 2724 AQIJILA
AVENIJE NORTH (PID//19-118-21-43--0022), MICHAEL/ARLENE REICH, PETITIONERS
The petitioners are requesting a variance to 35-foot rear yard setback requirement to allow construction
of a four-season porch, pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code. The petitioner is
proposing to construct a 14' x 16' (224 ~uare foot) four-seamn porch on the north side of the existing
home. The porch wonld be lo, ted 24.5 feet (at ¢lose~ point) from the north mar yard property
line and Ci~ Code requit~ a 3~foot rear yard setback, therefore a 10.5 foot variance ~ needed
for construction to proceed. An elevated deck would be constructed on the east side of the porch,
but it requir~ no variance. The deck would be located 19.2 from the east side yard property line and
about 20 feel from north rear yard property line. This is a "non-conforming lot" as the home was
constructed facing the west side yard instead of the ~uth front yard and the code define.~ the front yard
on a corner lot to be the frontage having the least width. This lot was platted with 90 f~t of frontage
on 27th Place North, but in 1969 the home was constructed to fac~ Aquila Avenue. The existing home
is legal and meets all mt. back requirements, even though it is oriented in the wrong direction
(according to City Code). .- -
The petitioner states on the application that as a result of placement of the house on the lot and
spacing on each side of the house they believe the most appropriate location for the porch is on the
'north side of the home with the deck adjacent on the east side. The petitioner further states that the
plan was designed to provide a maximum privacy for both petitioner and neighbors. The porch will
face the side of the garage of neighbor On the n~rth side and the deck in backyard will be parallel to
the house to allow adequate ~pace to property line on the e.a~t. The petitioner intends to provide land-
scaping around tl~ porch and deck as well as along north and east property lines to provide a buffer
from the neighbors if the porch is approved.
Review: Administration: Finance:
Request for Action
Planning Case 92-33
December 14, 1992
Page -2- --
The major hardship with this' request is the orientation of the house. If the home were oriented to face
27th Place it is possible that the addition could be constructed without a variance. The owner is
proposing to build the porch on the north because the perceived rear yard is too small. The petitioner
has put a lot of thought into the development of the plans, the placement of the porch and the impact
on adjacent neighbors. The neighbors directly adjacent to the property on the north and east have both
come in to City Hall to review the plans and have no strong objection to the proposed addition. The
plans show exterior materials and roof pitch of porch will match existing home.
The Planning Commission reviewed this case at their meeting on December 1, 1992, and
recommended approval subject to condition that the exterior match the existing home in roof pitch and
siding.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
o
Z ~ ~.~
u(, ' = ' ~Z,I__
27TH PLACE NORTH
o DI~I. kon ~nu~t Pro~ Iow~ f~f el~.
o ~t~ off~ ~eke Pro~ tod of foundation
x ~o.O ~t. ~i~i~ e~. BENCH MARK:
~ot. m~ ~i~
~o~ ~r~ f~ elw.-
I here~ ~rtify that this il a true end correct representation of e survey of File No.
the ~underiet of t~ e~ve ~i~d Ie~d end of the I~ation of
~A~suav~Ou, mc. ,~ /~ o~~
,v~o~,~ ~n s~4~ ~ '~' ~ i, L.'-' I i,~ "~" ("' .~'.'"'" ~'~
~,UtJI¥~JIL, ~
. REQUEST FOR ACTION
'-
Orlgtnattng Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
City Manager 11-9-92 Development and
Planning '
Kirk McDonald I' / Item No.
By:Management As. sistant By: i~/ 8;-5
/
PI~ANNING CASE 92-32 - REQUEST/FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENT AND A VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-SEASON PORCH, 9009 42ND AVENUE NO.
(PID # 18 - 118-21-21-00 ! 1), SACK AND ANNETTE NABEDRICK. PETITIONERS
The petitioners are requesting a variance to 35-foot rear yard setback requirement to allow
construction of a three-season porch, pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Zoning
Code. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 14' x 14' (196 square foot) three-season porch
on the east side of the existing home. The porch would be located 15 feet (at the closest
point) from the east rear yard property line and City Code requires a 35-foot rear yard
setback, therefore a 20-foot variance is needed for construction to proceed. This is a non-
conforming comer lot residence, as the front yard (per City Code) is the narrowest lot frontage
which abuts Flag Avenue, however the house fronts onto 42nd Avenue (which is defined by the
City Code as the side yard). Therefore, a second variance to expand a non-conforming
structure is also required.
Although this is a sizeable variance request (20 feet), a non-economic hardship exists because
right-of-way along the north side was taken some years ago for the widening of County Road
#9, which made the north side yard setback non-conforming. The home was built facing the
wrong street, as the platted lot was shaped for a home facing west with a large east rear yard.
The existing rear (east) setback is 15 feet compared to the 35-foot requirement. The proposed
porch will be no closer to the ea~ line than the existing home (15 feet)'. Thus although a
non-conforming structure would be expafiding, the degree of the non-conformity would not
be increased. The south 'side yard~ setback is generous with 25 feet.after the addition,
compared to a minimum requirement of 10'.
Revlew: ~lmlnlstratlon: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
Planning Case 92-32
November 9, 1992 C?uncil Meeting
o
The Planning Commission revieWed this case on November 4, 1992, and recommended approval
of a 20 foot variance to the 35 foot rear yard setback requirement to allow the construction of
a three-season porch subject to the following condition:
1. The exterior of the porch to match existing home in roof pitch and siding.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
· , .-,eland Ave. (lmkiyn Park), P. O. Osieo, Minn.
. .
, CASWELL ENGINEERING CC
Registered Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors
._CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
/~ '
. ~ale ~0 '
~ PL~
tR~
-- ~'~ '~ BUILDING INSPECTO~
,~ T~. >, VILLAGE OF NEW HOF
I hereby certify that this is a true and corre~ repremntatio y o t · boundaries of the land described above.
It d~s not purport to show improvement~ or encroachments, if any. As surveyed by me thi~ ~/ sr day of
CASWELL ENGINEERING
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Development
City Manager r'~ & Planning ..
10-12-92 Item No.
Kirk McDonald
By: Management. Assistant By: 8.3
PLANNING CASE 92-25- REQUEST VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-SEASON PORCH AT 4164
ENSIGN AVENUE NORTH (PID #18-118-21-21-0012), DUANE L. HOi~, PETITIONER
The petitioner is requesting a variance to the 35' rear yard setback requirement to allow
construction of a 12' x 14' (168 square feet) three-season porch on the rear of the existing
structure, pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code. An existing deck is located on the
east side of the home which extends beyond the setback limit, as permitted by code, and the
petitioner wishes to construct a three-season porch on top of and with the same dimensions as the
existing deck. The City Code allows open porches and decks as encroachments on yard setback
requirements, however, porches and outdoor living rooms which become closed in and attached
to the dwqelling subsequent to initial construction of the principal dwelling are not exempt from
yard setback requirements. The porch would be located 27 feet (at the closest poin0 from the
rear yard property line and City Code requires a 35-foot rear yard setback, thereofre an g-foot
variance is needed for construction to proceed. The petitioner points out that due to narrowness
of the baclcyard there is limited buildable space on the lot, plus there is an adequate buffer from
the neighbors to the rear.
The Planning Commission considered this request on OcWber 6, 1992, and recommended approval
of the 8-foot rear yard setback variance subject to the following conditions:
1. Exterior design to match the existing home in roof pitch and siding.
2. Owner to subffdt an 'as built' lot survey within 14 days of building permit
application to'verify the changes in the lot size and the home/porch' location.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
TO:
!
Review: Administration: Finance:
I II II RFA-O01
Orlgtnatlng Depa~haent Approved for Agenda A~end.a
manmng
City Manager Development
2-10-92 Item No
B Kirk McDonald .._. 2' / '
Y: Management Assistant ':~Y'F 8.1
PLANNING CASE 92-02 - REQUEST ~FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 35-FOOT REAR YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-SEASON PORCH,
3433 GETTYSBURG AVENUE NORTH (PID #19-118-21-22-0037), MICHAEL/THERF_SA
GRAY, PETITIONERS
The petitioners are requesting a variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement to allow
construction of a 3-season porch, pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code. The 14'
x 16' (224 square foot) 3-season porch will be located on the southwest side of the existing home
in the rear yard. A 30' x 16' (480 square foot) deck presently exists on the southwest side of the
home in the rear yard and the 3-season porch will be built on a portion of the existing deck. The
requested porch would be located (at the closest point) 22 feet from the rear yard property line.
City code allows open porches and decks as encroachments on yard setback requirements, however
porches which become closed in and attached to the dwelling subsequent to initial construction
of the principal dwelling are not exempt from yard setback requirements. Therefore, a 13-foot
variance from the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement is needed to locate the thm¢-.~ason porch
22 feet from the rear yard property line.
The property does have an irregular, four-Sided "pie shape" due to its location on a cul-de-sac,
which makes the rear yard narrow at the southwest corner. There are dense areas of trees to the
west and north that provide a buffer to screen the proch from the homes most impacted. The
existing structure meets all yard setback requirements.
The Planning Commission reviewed this case on February 4, 1992, and approved a 13-foot rear
yard setback' variance due to the irregular shape of the property, subject to the following
COnditions:
· 1. Revised elevation drawings be submitted to clearly illustrate that design of porch and
building materials will be consistent with existing home.
2. Prior to construction an "as-built" survey be submitted to verify setback and lot to be staked
by surveyor at time of building permit application.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01
,Lakeland ,~ve. (Imeidlm Park,), P. O. Os#e, Minn. Phone HA. $-2111
/
C'ASWELL ENGI NEERING CO.
. Registered Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors
-- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
~ca ~e /"~ ~'0'
" ................ Pn,-AT ~LA~PPRgV~ ~.-
V,~L~ Or N~W HOPE
DATE ~
I hereby certify that this ~s a true and correc~ repre~flt tion of a survey of the boundaries cf *hi land desk,bed above
It does not ~urport to shaw improvementl or encroachments. ,f any. As surveyed by me th~s~:~ ~ _~day of
C~SWGL ~.~N~ CO.
File No.~22/T~/~.Sook ~ · Page_ ~7 Minnesota Registration ~o. ~ .....
I III COUNCIL ~ .
. REQUF.~T FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda A~enda Section
Pranning &
City Manager Development
Kirk McDonald ~ 11-12-91 Item No.
By: Management Assistant By:.(J/ 8.3
/
PLANNING CASE 91-35 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 35-FOOT REAR YARD
SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-SEASON PORCH, 4741 BOONE
AVENUE NORTH (plY) #07-118-21-31-0043), ROBERT E. LIN'DELL, PETITIONER
The Petitioner is requesting a variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback requirement to allow
construction of a 16' x 16' (256 square foot) three-season porch, pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of
the New Hope Code. The porch will be located on the west side of the existing home in the rear
yard and an elevated deck will be located adjacent to the porch on the South side. Both structures
will extend out 16 feet from the existing home and will be located 31 feet from the rear proPerty
line.
City Code allows oPen porches and decks as encroachments on yard setbacks, therefore a variance
is not needed for the deck. However, porches which become closed in and attached to the
dwelling subsequent to.initial construction of the principal dwelling are not exempt from yard
setback requirements, therefore a 4-foot variance from the 3S-foot rear yard setback requirement
is needed to located the three-season porch 31 feet from the rear yard property llne,
It is questionable as to whether a hardship exists for the variance, as the proPerty is regular in
shape and does not contain unusual topography. One factor that might be considered is due to
the special 50-foot front yard setback along major thoroughfares (including Boone Avenue), there
.is less area in the rear yard to construct an addition without encroaching on the setbacks. Staff
considers this a minor va_dance and has confirmed that- the building materials for the addition will
match the existing structure.
The Planning Commission reviewed this case on November 5th and recommended approval subject
to the condition that building materials on the addition match the existing structure.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
-to: 9/-/9 ? ..
!
Review: Administration: Finance:
I I RFA-O01 ~
·
.__ nm,~ 11 22tm'cE
.., ,.,,, ~.~...¢.: . . DEC.RATiON
.... :~'" '': '~' ;'%~' ''t
;" '.'.-" ' " "~ '- ~"~'"'~ ' ~1 E PLAN
-- ^, · ~.~' . ·
"' .... ~" '"" ~.T
I ~. IF¥ THAT t AM THE PROPERTY
" REPRESENTATIVE
~ '- .....,-,-,* OWNERS
' "-"~' ' ;~'~IS PLAN IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE:. .
..~:
BUimlNG 'IN ECTOR
~; 'f ._ ~ -~:....... / ...
~ here~'~l~ ~hl~ f~ht8 ts ~.~e a~. co~e~ rep~sen~ion
of a I~'~ ~ ~~rtel of Lo% ,i~ , Block Z ZUBSCK'S
~LII~ ~ A~~... ~ ~l not pu~ ~o
! . REQUF~T FOR ACTION
originating Department Approved for Agenda ~enda Se~lon
manmng /~
City Manager Development
10-14-91 Item No.
Kirk McDonald
By: Management Assistant By:. 8.1
PLANNING CASE 91-27 - REQUEST FOR A 13' VARIANCE TO THE 35' REAR YARD
SETBACK TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF EXISTING GARAGE, 7621 48TH CIRCLE NORTH
(PID #08-118-21-32-0074), ROBERT R. NATZEL, PETITIONER
The petitioner is requesting a 13' variance to the 35' rear yard setback to expand the existing
garage, pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code. A 20'x20'(400 square feet) addition
is proposed on the southwest comer of the house 'off the existing garage, and side yard require-
ments would be met. The lot is irregular in shape with a tapered side lot line and a variety of
easements on the lot making it difficult to add additional garage space anywhere else on the lot.
The Planning Commission reviewed this case on October 8th and recommended approval subject
to the condition that the siding and roofing materials match existing structure.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
· o: .,.
!
Review: Administration: Finance:
I RFA-OOI ~
OWNER, ~ OWNERS REPRESENTAT;
THIS'P~N I~ ~MPL~E AND
REQUF T FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Planning &
City Manager Development
Kirk McDonald, MA ~ 8-13-90 Item No.
By: By:.7 8.2
PIJ~I~ING C~%~E 90-2~ - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING BUILDING AT 5206 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH, JOHN DEGNAN, PETITIONER,
(PID #O8-118-21 22 0057)
The petitioner is requesting a 4-foot variance to the required 35-foot
rear yard setback to allow an addition to the existing home. The
request is pursuant to Section 4.034 (3) of the New Hope Code of
Ordinances.
A single family home and detached garage are currently located on the
property. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing detached
garage and construct an addition that would include a new attached
double garage to be located exactly where the existing detached garage
is located.
The Planning Commission reviewed this case at its meeting on August 7,
1990, and recommended approval.
Staff recommends approval of' the resolution.
MOTION BY
TO:
!
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01
-.= DENOTES PROPOSe) SURFACE DRAINAGE
O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET SCALE: 1 INCH - :50 FEET
· OENOT~ IRON MONUMENT FOUND PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR -- FEET
XlX~.0 OENOTES EX)STING ELE'VA~ON PROPOSED LOWEST FLOOR -- FEET
(000.0) DENOTES PROPOSED m__gVATION PROPOSED TOP OF BLOCK- FEET
WE H~RE~Y C~RTIFY TO DOUI~ $CHOEN ' ~AT ~lS IS A ~UE AND CORRECT
R~~A~ON OF A ~ ~ ~E ~U~t~
~ 6. B~K 5, ~R RI~L ~ COMP~'$ ~ ~~ ADOITION~ ACCORDING
" ~ ~ ~COR~ P~T THERE~,HENN~N C~N~, MINNESOTA.
IT ~ ~T ~RT TO S~W IM~OV~ OR ~CROACHMENTS, ~C~T AS SHOWN. AS
~R~ ~ ME OR UND~ MY DIR~T SUP~VISION ~IS 2~ ~ DAY OF J U ~ ,1 ~
f MINN~OTA UC~SE NUMB~ 19828
' ' ' 'l I'll amesR. Hill inc.
COUNCIL
i . m 0 s? acrxo
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Development
Manager 5 P!-_nning
7- 23 - 90 Itero No.
B~. Kirk McDonald, MA By: ~/
8.
3
PLANNING CASE 90-18 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO REQUIRED 35-FOOT REAR
YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW ADDITION OF A FAMILY ROOM AT 3224 ENSIGN COURT
NORTH, (PID #19-118-21 24 0022), JAMES/MARLENE BUCKSTEIN, PETITIONERS
The petitioner is requesting approval of a 5-foot variance to
required 35-foot rear yard setback for the purpose of constructing a
16' x 14' family room addition. This request is made pursuant to
Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
The petitioner wishes to construct a family room addition at the rear
of the home as the existing family room. is to be remodeled into a
bedroom to accommodate a parent in a wheelchair who is moving into the
home.
The Planning Commission reviewed this case at its meeting on July 10,
1990, and recommended approval.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
Re~iew: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
DOLAN ENGINEERING INC. /~ ~~
ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS
Ht(~HWAY IS 1~ NICOLLET AVENUE ~) ~
" BURNS VILI. E~ MINNESOT~
Certlf[cclte of* Survey For -~.~.-r~ J~'.~.,~ .....
~ . iNSpEcTOR
~EPRESENT~TIVE - -. <
/ ~ COUNCIL II
ACTION
Or~tnatmg Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Development
Manager ...........
6-11-90 Item No.
By: Dan Donahue B~. 8.
PLANNING CASE 90-13 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO REQUIRED 35-FOOT REAR
YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW ADDITION OF A PORCH AT 3541 VIRGINIA AVENUE
NORTH, (PID #19-118-21 11 0030), SANDRA M. WIELAND, PETITIONER
The petitioner is requesting approval of a 7-foot variance to
required 35-foot rear yard setback to allow addition of a porch. This
request is made pursuant to Section 4.034(3) of the New Hope Code of
Ordinances.
The petitioner wishes to enclose a portion of an existing elevated
deck and convert it to a porch. The Building Inspector has confirmed
that the area of the deck proposed to be enclosed has adequate
footings to support such an addition.
The Planning Commission reviewed this case at its meeting on June 5,
1990, and recommended approval.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY ~ SECOND BY
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01
~ot '~ ~nd that ~art ,-~ Lot ~ lvi~ .......... ~ ~ .,
,~.~n fr~ :.he No~hwe~t co.er ~hereof ~o a ooin~ ~n ~h~ ~ur~ , ,.~,
~ of ';Said ~ed !~e, S~uther!y fr~ the Northeast co~r ~
/ '/
.- I" ~,,' ..... ~I
OWNER, OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE & F D [~v~ ~_ '~
j THI~ P~N IS COMPL~E AND ACCURATE: .,
Quality Homes
~,..,_~-~'~-"._ -- .... Scale: 1"" = 20'
~_ PLAN ~PROVE~ ~ ~ ,.,~. ~
' "~' ' '~ECT~R ~/' /'
_. ~ ~u~ ~ ~ / I ....... '~'~
.' ~ / /
"
, ,. ~
..' ~ ~.~. ~, ,
' l// '
'~'~ ~ .~'~,~., '~e ~ .. ./~ ~ ,. z ,'
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development
Date: February 27, 1998
Subject: Miscellaneous Issues
NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with
additional detail on CouncillEDA actions. It is not required reading and is optional
information provided for your review, at your discretion.
1. February 9 CouncillEDA Meetings - At the February 9 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took
action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
A. Project #613, Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain Appraisals on Multiple Family Dwellings at
7601 and 7641 62"d Avenue North: Tabled until February 23. The Council directed staff to try and
negotiate a lower price for the appraisals.
B. Resolution Establishing Findings of Fact for Denial of Variance Request Regarding Fire
Chief's Order to Install Fire Alarm and Smoke Detection System at 7300 49t~ Avenue North
and Denial of Variance: Approved, see attached Council request.
C. Planning Case 98-01, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Off-Site Parking for
8000 Bass Lake Road at 791017914 Bass Lake Road, St. Therese Home, Inc.: Approved, see
attached City Attorney correspondence. The City Council included a fourth condition in the
resolution to revise the license agreement into a recordable form to be filed with Hennepin County.
D. Project #626, Presentation Regarding 36th Avenue Reconstruction (Winnetka Avenue to
Highway 169) Concept Report: See attached Council request. The Council report is available for
review at City Hall.
E. Project #618, Presentation Regarding Dorothy Mary Park; Motion Authorizinq Staff to
Proceed with Neighborhood Meetings: See attached Council request. The Council report is
available for review at City Hall.
F. Proiect #623, Resolution Approving Letter of Understanding Between the Fridley HRA and
the New Hope EDA for the Suburban Remodeling Plan Book Proiect: Approved, except for the
deletion of Item 3 in Letter of Understanding, see attached EDA request.
G. Project #614, Resolution Authorizing President and Executive Director to Enter into a
Redevelopment Contract with Project for Pride in Living, Inc. for Funding of Bass Lake Road
Redevelopment: Approved, see attached EDA request.
2. February 23 Council Meetings - At the February 23 Council meetings, the Council took action on the
following planning/development/housing issues:
A. Proiect #5981Planning Case 97-06, Resolution Vacating Storm Sewer and Utility and
Drainage Easements at 7300-7390 49~ Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request.
B. Planning Case 97-06, Resolution Authorizing Reduction of Letter of Credit for 7300 49=
Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request.
C. Proiect ~6t3, Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain Appraisals on Multiple Family Dwellings at
7601 and 7641 62"" Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request.
D. Proiect #573, Motion Approving Final Pay Request to Anton Construction, Inc. in the amount
of $4,207.25 for 'Rehabilitation at 5212 Winnetka Avenue North: Approved, see attached
Council request.
E. Resolution Approving Transfer of Responsibility for Regulatory Programs and Inspections
Coverina Food, Beveracle, and Lod.qin.q Establishments to Hennepin County: Approved, see
attached Council request.
F. Public Hearing, Resolution Approving Projected Use of Funds for 1998 Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorizing Signature of
Subrecipient Agreements with Hennepin County and Any Third Party Agreements: Approved,
see attached Council request.
G. Project #493, Presentation by CareBreak on Proposed Development and Request for
Council to Consider Transfer of Land at 55~ and Boone Avenues: Approved, see attached
Council request.
H. Proiect #~90, Consideration of Bids for the Public Works Fuel Facility: Approved, see
attached Council request.
I. Proiect #601, Presentation of Concept Report for Swimming Pool Maintenance
Improvements: See attached Council request. Report available for review at City Hall.
J. Projects #627, #629, and #630, PresentatiOn of Concept Plan for Civic Center Park
Improvements: See attached Council request. Report available for review at City Hall.
5. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee did not meet in February. Staff is continuing to work
on the accessory building code amendment and the Sign Code.
6. Design & Review Committee - Design & Review did not meet in February as no applications were
submitted that required review by the Committee.
7. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee met in February with the City Council to
review the work completed by the Planning Consultant and the Committee and ask the Council whether
the Update is proceeding in a direction that the Council is comfortable with for the City's future. A
presentation on the Comprehensive Plan Update will be made to the full Commission at the March
Planning Commission meeting.
8. Proiect Bulletins - Enclosed are project bulletins mailed during February to residents on the demolition
of the Old Fire Station, proposed bile lanes and Project for Pride in Living/Bass Lake Road project.
9. Quarterly Reports - Attached for your information are the fourth quarter reports relative to planning
and development, housing and engineering issues.
10. Other planning/housing/development issues that staff have been working on, that will probably be
considered at the April Planning Commission meeting, include:
A. Winnetka Center upgrades
B. Post Haste Upgrades/Commercial Day Care Center
C. Conductive Containers, Inc. expansion
D. United Hardware expansion
E. Paddock Laboratories expansion
F. SuperAmerica new construction
Attachments: 7300 49~ Avenue Findings of Fact
· St. Therese CUP
36~ Avenue Reconstruction
Dorothy Mary Park Project
Remodeling Plan Book Project
PPL/Bass Lake Road Redevelopment Project
7300 49~ A~enue Easements
7300 49~' Avenue Letter of Credit
7601 and 7641 62r~ Avenue Appraisals
5212 Winnetka Avenue Final Pay Request
Health Inspections
CDBG Funds
CareBreak Presentation
Public Works Fuel Facility
Swimming Pool Presentation
Civic Center Park Presentation
Project Bulletins
Quarterly Reports
COUNCIL
'_ RE UF T FOR ACTION
Originating DepaxLment Approved for Agenda _ A~enda Section
ueve~opmem
Community Development & Planning
? Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald B~. 8.1
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS ~DF FACT FOR DENIAL OF VARIANCE REQUEST
REGARDING FIRE CHIEF'S ORDER TO INSTALL FIRE ALARM AND SMOKE DETECTION SYSTEM
AT 7300 49TM AVENUE NORTH AND DENIAL OF VARIANCE (PLANNING CASE NO. 97-06)
The developers of the property at 7300 49t~ Avenue have petitioned the City for a hearing to request
variance from the Fire Chief's order that they install an automatic fire alarm and smoke detection system
at the subject property. As you are aware, Hoyt Development constructed a large warehouse/office
building at the site in 1997.
The City entered into a separate Agreement (enclosed) with the developer providing for this procedure
as the exclusive method for settlement of this dispute. The enclosed resolution denying the variance
states that the developer/petitioner must either comply with the Fire Chief's order and install the fire
alarm system as directed or they must petition the State Fire Marshal's office for a ruling reversing the
Fire Chief's order and granting the variance. If the developer fails to comply with the final order rendered
pursuant to this procedure, the City could call on the developer's Letter of Credit in an amount equal to
the cost of installation or it may commence an action revoking the Certificate of Occupancy for the
building. The City is protected, therefore, from any failure by the developer to take appropriate action in
accordance with the final outcome from this variance request.
The City Attorney will introduce this item and present the City's viewpoint on this issue. Please review
the enclosed Resolution, which describes the Minnesota State Fire Code, why the developer feels the
Fire Chief's order is unreasonable, the variance process set out in the Fire Code and the Findings of
Fact. Previous correspondence on this issue is also attached. It is anticipated that the developer of the
property will then set forth their case in support of the variance request.
After the presentations, the City Council has the following options:
1. Adopt the enclosed resolution denying the variance;
2. Approve the variance by a motion stating verbally for the record your reasonsfor approval; or
3. Refer the matter back to staff for a written resolution making findings of fact for approval.
Staff recommends approval of the enclosed resolution denying the variance request regarding the Fire
Chief's order to install a fire alarm and smoke detection system at 7300 49"' Avenue North.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-001
FEB-05-98 THU t5:26 P, 02/06 ,,_
February 5, 199A
Kirk McDonald
Director o¢ Community Development
City of New HoDs
4401Xylon Avenue Nor%h
New Hope, MN 55~Z8
RE: Hoy% Variance Requea~ From
Fire Chief Order TO Install
Fire Alarm
Our File: g9.11190
gear Kirk:
Enclosed please Find a proposed "RESOLUTION E~TABL[SHINQ F~NDING$
OF FACT FOE DEN[AL OF VARIANCE RFQUEST REQARD~NG F~EE CHieF'S OEDER
TO [N~TALL FIRE ALARM AND SMOKE DETECTION SYSTEM AT 7300
AVENUF NORTH AND DENIA~ OF VARIANCE" for c~n~ideraCion mt the
FeOruary $, 1SS7 Council 'Meeting.
Basically, the Oeve}opers of this proper~y have petitioned For
hearing %0 request a variance from the Fire Chief's order' ~h&~ ~ey
insba~3 an automatic Fire alarm and smoke de~ec=~on system at the
subjec= ~roperty, A~ we discussed, ~his hearing can be placed on
the a~enda under Planning and DeveloDmant. [ wilt introduce
item ~nd permit ~e Oeve~op~r\Pe~i~ioner ~o se~ ~or~b ~e~r case in
support ge %he variance ~equea%. Oeper~ding on %~e information they
produce a~ ~he meeting, I may submit a short rebuttal to their
case. Depending on the number ~f people that make a presen=a~on
the Council, [ anticipate ~ho hearing wi33 no% exceed 45 minutes.
This procedure ie authorize~ by ~in_sD~n. S~Lt~ §)~9F-Oll Subd. 5. The
Counci~ will then be free %o adopt ~he enclosed resolution denying
~he variance, approve ~he variance by a mo~ion s~a=ing verbally for
%he record their reasons ~or approval o? refer ~he matter back to
.sta~ ~or a wr'iCten resolution making ~indings o~ ~c~
If the Council adopts ~he enclnsed reoolu~ion ~he
DeYeloper\Pe~itloner must e~her comply w~th the F~re Chief's order
FE9-05-98 THU t5 25 P, 03/05 ,
Kirk NcOonalH
February 5, 1998
Page 2.
and install the'~ire &1arm system ~s directed or they must petition
the State Fire Marshal's Office for a ruling reversing 'the Fire
Chief and 9ranttng the variance.
[ wan[ to remind you we have entered i~to a separate October- 7,
!997 Agreement (see copy enclosed) with the Oeve3oper providing for
this procedure as the exc]ueive me=hod for sett]ement
dispute. If the Oeve3ooer fails tO comD]y with the ~ina] order'
rendered pursuant =O =his procedure the City wi~] be free to either
ca33 o~ tbs Developer's letter of credit in ~n amount e~ua3 to the
cost o~ insta3~a~{on o~ it may commence an action .revok~n~ the
Bui3ding'e ~ermanenb Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore, the C~t¥
is protected from any fai3ure by the Deve3oper to take
action in a~cordance with the fins] Outcome from this variance
r~quest. Any reduction in the ~etter o~ credit should take this
matter into consideration. Th~ cost of this system is estimated at
$35,000 to $40,000.
! am a~so attac~ing to this letter a number of documents that
suppoF% the findings made in the enclosed resolution ~or
consideration by ~he City Cour~¢il. P~eaee have the Fire Inspector
review ~he resolution and documents am wet1 Cot possible revision
or ~up~ementa%ion. contact me i¢ you have ar~y other questions or
comments about this matter.
Very truly yours,
Stev~n A. Sondral!
enc]osurMs
cc: Valerie Leone
'- RESOLUTION NO. 98-
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR
DENIAL OF VARIANCE REQUEST
REGARDING FIRE CHIEF'S ORDER
TO INSTALL FIRE ALARM AND SMOKE
DETECTION SYSTEM AT 7300 49TM AVENUE NORTH
AND DENIAL OF VARIANCE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of New Hope, Minnesota (the City) as
follows:
WHEREAS, J.S. Winnetka, Inc. (hereafter JSW) and Hoyt Development
Company (hereafter HDC) are the Developers (hereafter collectively referred to
as Developer) of certain property located at 7300 49th Avenue North identified as
City Development Case No. 97-06, and
WHEREAS, JSW has entered into a June 9, 1997 Site Improvement
Agreement with the City of New Hope (hereafter City) which provides that
Developer will construct a 120,000 sq.ft, multi-tenant warehouse building on the
sub.iect property pursuant to the Developer's site and building plans approved by
City Council Resolution No. 97-80 at its May 1'2, 1997 meeting, and
WHEREAS. said Si{e Improvement Agreement indicates the approval of
[Developer's project is conditioned upon Developer's agreement to provide
acleqL~ate water service and fire protection measures for the building, per the
direction from the Fire Chief and City Engineer, and
WHEREAS, as part of said fire protec~i.'on measures the New Hope Fire
Chief has ordered Developer to install at the property an automatic fire alarm and
smoi<e detection system as authorized under the Minnesota State Fire Code
(MSFC) and the Uniform Fire Code (UFC). The MSFC has adopted by reference
the UFC. The UFC permits and authorizes the Fire Chief to require installation of
the automatic fire alarm and smoke detection system at the property for the
foiiowing reasons:
1. The approved site and building plan permits "high-piled combustible
storage" at the property. The' UFC defines this as material in
closely packed piles more than 15 feet in height or combustible
materials on pallets or in racks more than 12 feet in height.
2. If high-piled combustible storage is permitted there must be a fire
apparatus access roadway provided to within 150 feet of ali
portions of the exterior walls of the building.
3. If all portions of the exterior walls are not accessible as required in
no: 2 above resulting from topographical conditions such as
railroads, waterways or non-negotiable grades this requirement can
be excepted on condition that the Developer comply with the Fire
Chief's order for additional fire protection which may include an
automatic fire alarm and smoke detection system permitted by the
UFC.
4. The subject property does not have the minimum required access
to ali portions of its exterior walls. Specifically, the north and east
portion of the building is not accessible by a roadway due to the
railroad tracks adjacent to the property in that location. To permit
use of the building for high-piled storage the Fire Chief ordered
installation of an automatic fire alarm and smoke detection system,
and
WHEREAS. the Developer contends the Fire Chief's order for an
automatic ~re alarm and sprinkler system is unreasonable and unnecessary and
hereby requests a variance from said order for the following reasons:
1. The authority to order the automatic fire alarm and smoke detection
system is a discretionary power provided to the Fire Chief by the
UFC. The Fire Chief is not unequivocally mandated to require the
alarm and detection systems.
2. The building is already equipped with an Early Suppression Fast
Response Automatic Sprinkler System (ESFR) and as a result the
automatic fire alarm and smoke detection system is unreasonable
and unnecessary.
3. The exterior walls of the property are all accessible by access
roads within 150 feet by virtue of the fact access to the east and
north portions of the building can .be gained through the New Hope
Municipal Ice Arena parking lot, and
WHEREAS, the variance process is set out in Minn.Stat. §299F.011,
Subd. 5. This statute holds the State Fire Marshal may grant variances from the
minimum requirements specified in the MSFC and the UFC if the following facts
have been shown:
1. There is substantial compliance with the provisions of the fire code.
2. The safety of the public and occupants of the building will not be
jeopardized by the variance, and
3. Undue hardship to the applicant will result if the variance is not
granted.
I--iowever, r~3 appeal .for a variance can be made to the State Fire Marshal until
the applicant has first made appliCation to the local governing body and its City
Council has acted on the application for said variance.
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested the City Council to consider at
its February 9, 1998 Council meeting the variance request pursuant to a January
25, 1-,395 letter submitted by Developer's attorney and that said letter shall
c~nstitute Developer's petition for the requested vadance pursuant to the
requirements of both Minn.Stat. §299F.011, Subd. 5 and the October 7, 1997
Agreement entered into between the City and the Developer, and.
WHEREAS, at the February 9, 1998 meeting the City Council, in
considering this petition, had before it all relevant sections of the MSFC, UFC
and ~,'~inn.$tat. §299F.011, ail relevant City files pertaining to this request and
specifically all memoranda and correspondence from the New Hope Fire Chief,
Fii'e Inspector, City Attorney, and Director of Community Development and
Building Official regarding this matter, all correspondence, memoranda and
rGports received from Developer, all verbal presentations made by the City Staff,
C~tv Consuitants. the Developer and Developer's consultants at the February 9,
1998 meeting, all resolutions and Council minutes relating to this planning case
and the City Council's own knowledge, recollections and observations of the
subiect property, and
WHEREAS, in consicleration of the Developer's variance request to be
relieved from the Fire Chief's order to install an automatic fire alarm and smoke
c~emction system at the subject property this Council hereby makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The adjacent parking lot of the New Hope Ice Arena is not an
acceptable fire apparatus access road as that term is defined by
the MSFC and UFC. An acceptable road must not be impaired by
vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other
factors that could limit access. The Ice Arena parking lot is
impaired by vehicle congestion. Further, access to the subject
property is impaired by a fence surrounding the parking lot. It would
also require the Fire Department to lay its hoses across working
railroad tracks and the snow, weather conditions and topographical
conditions between the Ice Arena and the subject property would
make access hazardous to the north and east end of the subject
property via the ice Arena parking lot. As a result, all of the exterior
walls of the property are clearly not accessible by a fire apparatus
access road to within 150 feet.
3
2. The ESFR automatic sprinkler system is triggered by heat and not
smoke. A slow smoldering fire at the bottom of a rack or pile of
high-piled storage will not be detected early by the ESFR system.
However, the likelihood of early detection will be increased if the
automatic fire alarm and smoke detection system is required since
said system is triggered by smoke. Therefore, the combination of
the two systems is necessary for the greatest protection of the
occupants of the building and the safety of the public. This is
especially true in light of the fact the building is not 'equipped with
an adequate fire apparatus access roadway. The combination of
high-oiled combustible storage approved for the property at the
Developer's request and the lack of the access roadway to the
north and east exterior wails of the property renders an early
response by the New Hope Fire Department to a fire at this building
a necessity and not a luxury.
3. The Developer has not established an undue hardship except for
an economic hardship. The additional cost to the Developer for
installation of the automatic fire alarm and smoke detection system
is justified by the increased protection afforded the public and
occupants of the building required by the lack of an adequate fire
appara[us access road. Further, the Developer knew it would be
subject to this cost in that the approval of site and building plans for
this project were subject to his agreement to install the automatic
fire alarm and smoke detection system as ordered by the Fire
Chief.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the foregoing recitals and findings of fact contained in the herein
resolution, all written and verbal information presented by the City Staff and
Developer at the February 9, 1998 hearing and the City Council's own
knowledge, recollections and ot)servafions regarding the subject property, this
City Council hereby concludes as follows:
1. The Developer has not met its burden of showing its requested
variance should be granted as required by Minn.Stat. §299F.011,
Subd. 5.
2. That the New Hope Fire Chief's order directing the installation of
the automatic fire alarm and smoke detection system is reasonable,
necessary and not in excess of the discretionary authority granted
him under the MSFC and the UFC.
4
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of New Hope that:
That Developer's request for a vadance from this Order is hereby
DENIED. Developer is ordered to install the automatic fire alarm and smoke
(~etection system as ordered by the New Hope Fire Chief subject to a reversal of
that order by the Minnesota State Fire Marshal under authority of Minn.Stat.
§299F.0'1 '1.
Dated: February 9, 1998.
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
A~est:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
5
?, 04/05
FEB-05-98 THU 15:25 : - .....
· P. 03/04
'~: ' ~; L NOV I 2 lggT
This Agreemen~ is made ~,hls ?,CF- ¢lay of Oc'cober, 1~97
between JO Winnetka, IKI(~. ( "J~W" ), Hoyl~ Development Oom~any ("NDO")
ind ~he Cl~y Of New Hone ("¢it¥").
lo~ed at 7300 4~h Avenue North, New Hope, NinneGo~a, alee known
as City Development Ogee No. 97-0~, and J6W ha~ previously entered
WHE~EA~, ~h¢ deYelopmen~ con~i~ of one ~om~erc~al/fndus~r~al
office/warehoUse Du~ldl~g consisting of approximately I~0,000
square fee%, arid
,. WHER~Aa, [he City has reeulred ~n · ~ha,. bu~,ld~ng'
WHEELS,- dSW and HDC da not agree , with. ,the'
in%erpre~a%iOn nf G~d utc se~ons ~nd ~on~nd ~he tn.~ll~S~on
a ~re alarm ~nd smoke .de~ection system in the building
NOW, ~EREFORE, ~n ~on~dera~on of ~e foregoin;, ~d other
City of New Hope agree as
provided for tn M~~ S~9sr,oll, Su~. 5. ....
.2. Ourtn~ ~he ~nueno7 of ~he &p~ml,.~hm C(ty will
FEB-05-98 T}{U 15:25
- OCT-2' -7 ~ON 13:45 ,.. P, 04/04
Harshal ufl~ec ~l_glq,~ ~9F.011, Subd. ~.
4. The decision o¢ ~o appeal proces~ 8ha~l be b~nd{n9 upon
the parties, ~it~er party w~lt have ~he opportun~y ~o pursue
prov~de~ by ~he Admin~m~ra~e Pr'oc~ureS ACt ~ld aDy r~ghts
~er4ve %herefrOm.
~. j~ W~nneCka In~. ~,,nd Hoyt DeveiOp~ C~any agree
1997 I~rovjmen~ Aeruemen~,
&. d~ W~nnetka inc. and Hoyt ~velop~t O~anY ehall
indemn~y ~nd hold the C~ty ha~le$~ rr~ afly claim, 1oas, or
d~aee au~:al~eB DY :~e building, ~nmlud~ng ~d¢ly ~n~ury or death
to a~y ~r~on, d4rectly attributable to the laGK of a fire alarm
and recsonaOle attorme~'m
WU~R~OR~, the parties agree to the a~v8 ter~ ~ tfldicate~
by the a~na:urea belnM of their authorized
4401 Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 612.531.5100 City Hail Fax: 612-53~-5136
New Hope, Minnesota 55428.4898 Police: 612.531.5170 Police Fax: 612.531.517~
' Public Works: 612-533.4823 Public Works Fax: .612-533-7650
_- TDD: 612-531-5109 Fire'Dep't. Fax: 612.531.5175
February 4, 1998
Mr. Brad Hoyt
Hoyt Development Company
13400 '15"~ Avenue North, Suite F
Plymouth, MN 55441
Subject: Building Code Complianc® and Land Use Approval Zoning Letters
Dear Mr. Hoyt:
Enclosed are your requested Building Code Compliance and Land Use Approval Zoning Letters. Two
odginal copies of each letter are being sent to you; one set for your files and one Set for you to forward
to State Farm Life Insurance. As you know, only temporary Certificates of Occupancy have been issued
for the two tenants currently occupying the property.
There are three outstanding issues that require a resolution before the City will issue a permanent
Certificate of Occupancy for the two occupied tenant bays as follows:
1. The old telephone pole and catch basin located on the' north end of the shared driveway must be
removed;
2. The waste steel stored on the roof must also be removed; and
3. The metal soffit and trim at the southeast entry must be repaired (sheetrock currently exposed).
The Building Official notified your contractor, Mr. Callaway, of these issues in reports provided to him on
October 15 and October 17 of last year. It is Mr. Callaway's responsibility to contact our Building Official
after these issues are resolved for a final inspection. Perman. ent Certificates of Occupancy will be issued
after our inspection indicating compliance with the inspection reports previously provided.
There are two additional outstanding issues that the City is not linking to the Certificates of Occupancy at
this time as follows:
1. The Fire Chief's Order to install a fire alarm and smoke detection system; and
2. Correction of the drainage pond construction issues set forth in the City Engineer's November 14,
1 997, memo.
These items are tied to your Letter of Credit by the Development Agreement and the separate
agreement relating to the vadance petition for the fire alarm installation issue. However, the Building
Code Compliance letter has been revised to disclose all of these issues upon the advice of the City
Attorney.
-'~,'~1 ,/'~~, For Family Living
Family Styled City '~,'~i
CITY OF NEW HOPE
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 98-01
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF-SITE PARKING
FOR 8000 BASS LAKE ROAD AT 7910/7914 BASS LAKE ROAD
(PID #06-118-21-41-0029, #06-118-21-41-0027,
#06-118-21-41-0026, #06-118-21-41-0025)
SUBMITTED BY ST. THERESE HOME, INC.
WHEREAS, the applicant, St. Therese Home, Inc., has submitted a request identified as
Planning Case No.98-01 for a conditional use permit to allow shared
parking at 7910/7914 Bass Lake Road, pursuant to Sections 4.036(11)(12)
and 4.21 of the New Hope Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Planning Case No. 98-
01 on February 3, 1998, found that all' conditions required by the New Hope
Zoning Code for the conditional use permit have been satisfied by the
applicant, and recommended approval of the planning case request subject
to all conditions as set forth in the City Staff Report dated January 30, 1998;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council on February 9, 1998, considered the report of the City staff,
findings and recommendations :of the Planning Commission, and the
comments of persons attending the City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and concludes that the applicant has satisfied
all conditions required by the New Hope Zoning Code for issuance of the
requested conditional use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope that
the conditional use permit to allow shared parking at 7910/7914 Bass Lake
Road, as submitted in Planning Case No. 98-01, is approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. Lease/license agreement to be filed with Hennepin County and a
certified copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the City Clerk
within 60 days of approval.
2. If the lease/license agreement is terminated, the off-site parking will be
replaced with on-site parking within 150 days.
3. Change the address on the license agreement to state New Hope,
Minnesota, instead of Crystal.
4. Revise the license agreement into a recordable 'form to be filed with
i-lertnepin County.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this
9th day of February, 1998.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
FE8-08-98 FRI 11:56 ' P, 02/04.
February 6, 1998
Kirk McDonald
City of New Hope
{401 Xylon Avenue Norttl
New Hope, MN 55428
~t. Theresa Home, Inc.
Our File No. 99.15046
Dear Kid<:
An issue has arisen as to whether the License Agreement between Osborne Prepares
and St. Theresa Home, Inc. relating to employee .~a.~king off the St. Theresa site, is a
recordal31e document
! have reviewed the .~reement. In order for l~e document to be recorded, two ~ems
need to be addressed. First, ~ signature~ on the dm~umerft mu~t be nelarized.
Second. the document must contain the name and address of the ~ who dm.fled
the document. I have ~ a page containing the nota~tion blank~, and a place
for the "drafted ~ information, ff this page is completed and attached to the
Agreement as the third page (aRer the signature page and before the Exhibit page~),
the document shoulO De rec, orclal~le. Note ~et if Torrens or registered' property is
involved, the Agreement will need to be approved, by the Examiners of Title before it can
be recorded.
Let me know If you have any que~ohs on this.
Sincere,y,
Ma.tin P. Ma!ec.h.a
Assistant City AffOmey
~EB-06'--98 FRI 11:57 ' P. 04/04
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing was acl(nowledged before me this day of ............
199 , by and ,
the and .,
of ...,a
under the laws of . on behalf of the
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this ~ day of _.
· 199 , by and .....
the and ,
of , a
under the laws of , on behaff of the
Notary Public
This Document Drafted By:
COUNCIL
I;tF T FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Public Works ~ 2-9-98 Development & Planning
Item No.
Jeannine Clancy By:. 8.3
PRESENTATION REGARDING 36"~ A~NUE (WINNETKA AVENUE TO TRUNK HIGHWAY
169) CONCEPT REPORT- IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 626 -.
The Capital Improvement Program includes reconstruction of 36"~ Avenue (Winnetka Avenue to
Trunk Highway 169) in 2000. In December 1997, the City Council authorized preparation of a
concept report for this project, which included a pa. vement evaluation of the existing asphalt· In
summary, the concept report recommends that:
· This section of street not be included in the 1998 sealcoat program. The pavement
evaluation indicates that the pavement surface has deteriorated to a point that sealcoating
is no longer feasible. A limited amount of patching should be done in order to keep the
ddving surface in a suitable condition.
· An option for the cross section of the street be selected after additional meetings with the
City Council and after meetings with the neighborhood. While many options exist, some of
them are not financially feasible for the City.
· That the impact of changing the cross section of the street at the intersection of 36"~ Avenue
and Boone Avenue be determined and the most appropriate form of traffic control (four way
stop versus traffic signal) be agreed upon.
· That a warrant study be completed at the intersection' of Hillsboro Avenue and 36"~ Avenue
to determine the most appropriate form of traffic control.
· That a determination be made regarding the scope of.the drainage improvements and
financing for these improvements.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01
Request for Action
Project 626 - Concept
February 9, 1998 '
Page 2
· That a determination be made regarding aesthetic improvements to the street including, but
not limited to, placement of overhead utilities underground or construction of streetscape
amenities.
· That the watermain in 36"~ between Boone Avenue and Decatur Court be replaced.
· That staff contact MnDot and the City of Plymouth to determine the feasibility of widening
the bridge across TH 169 to better accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists:
The City Engineer will present the report to the Council on Monday evening. In order to provide
Council with an opportunity to review the impacts and feasibility of each option described in the
report, staff requests that this project be further studied at a council worksession.
Originating Dc-pa I~uent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Public Works 2-9-98 Development & Planninc, I
/ Item No.
By: Jeannine Clancy By:. 8.4,
PRESENTATION REGARDING DOROT/H/Y MARY PARK; MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO
PROCEED WITH NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS (PROJECT 618)
The 1998 Capital Improvement Program includes $140,000 for improvements to Dorothy Mary Park.
Some of the improvements being considered are replacement of the dock, reconstruction of the steps
which provide an entrance off of 60 '~ Avenue North, and drainage improvements.
Parks\Recreation and Public Works staff as well as representatives from the City Engineers office
recently toured Dorothy Mary Park and inspected current drainage problems, the condition of
improvements such as the steps, trails, dock and benches, and the condition of natural amenities such as
the woods and the pond. Since the park covenants require that the City maintahl and beautify the park m
a natural and wild state, the City Engineer's office also reviewed pre-development and historical maps to
determine the composition of the park before settlement. The City Engineer's office has prepared a
concept report which discusses these issues and is attached.
Many alternatives exist to address the park issues. Because there are a variety of options that the City
could pursue, staff is recommending thai a neighborhood meeting be held before any design work begins.
This would give staff the opportunity to meet with neighborhood residents and representatives of the
Citizen's Advisory Commission to discuss the history of the park and its current condition, and develop a
common vision and broad goals for management of the park. After options for park improvements are
develope~ with the neighborhoof:l. 's input, a presentation would be made to the Citizen Advisory
Commission and City Council.
Shem Buss, a landscape architect from Bonestroo, will present the report to the Council on Monday
evening.
Staff requests that the following motion, be made: "Motion authorizing staff to proceed with neighborhood
meetings regarding Dorothy Mary Park.=
MOTION BY Sl!~COND BY
TO:
Review: AdminiStration: , Finance:
REQUF T FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
EDA
Community Development
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald By:. 4
RESOLUTION APPROVING LETTER (~-"/UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE FRIDLEY HOUSING i
AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORIT/Y AND THE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY FOR THE SUBURBAN REMODELING PLAN BOOK PROJECT (IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 623)
At the November 10, 1997, New Hope Economic Development Authority meeting, th® EDA discussed
and was receptive to New Hope's participation in the Suburban Remodeling Plan Book Project. A
number of inner-ring suburban communities are participating in the project which would result in a plan
book with remodeling/expansion ideas for several different styles of homes being made available to each
city for use by residents. A request for proposals for architects to prepare the plan book was sent to a
number of firms and Robert Gerloff Residential Architects was selected to complete the project. The
maximum cost for each participating city is $5,000 and New' Hope's portion would be paid out of the EDA
budget. The city of Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority is coordinating the project on behalf of
the participating cities, including the contract with the architects and invoicing each city.
The Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority has ag~:eed to enter into a contract with Robert
Gerloff Residential Architects to produce the content of the remodeling plan book focusing on typical
housing styles in fully developed suburbs. Enclosed is a Letter of Understanding, a copy of the draft
contract between the Fridley HRA and Gerloff and an invoice for $5,000. Fridley is requesting that each
participating jurisdiction initiate the process to formally approve participation in the project and the
enclosed resolution approves the Letter of Understanding.
The contract amount is $60,000. Up to 18 cities may participate in the project, but it is anticipated that no
les~ than 12 cities will participate and contribute to the cost of the contract. The funds from participating
cities will be deposited with the Fridley HRA, who will execute the contract and pay on the contract from
the deposited funds. Any unused funds would be reimbursed to the participating cities on a pro-rata
basis.
(cont'd.)
it?
! --
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
Re,:- LeSl fcr Action Page 2 2-9-98
The. ~u,~:>ose of the Letter c~'~ Understanding is for each city to agree on certain terms with the Fridley
H~,.:~ ~-e.~,:alding the use of the $5,000. The purpose of the contract with the architects is to produce the
o,.'>r'~e.~r~t of the plan book. Each city will be responsible for publishing/duplicating their own plan book.
Thc. _et~ er of Understanding specifically contains the following understandings:
1. -'he 2,ity agrees to pay S5,000 to the Fridley HRA to be held on account to pay for the contractual
services.
2. :'he 3ity acknowledges that the Fridley HRA is administering the contract on behalf of several cities
and that the publishing and production of the plan book will.be an additional undertaking to be
~:ompleted in cooperation with the cities.
3 'Fhe Cty agreed to defend, indemnify, and hold Fridley HRA, it officers and employees, harmless
Ir'orr any liabiiity claims damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney
fees resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission of the Fridley HRA, its officers and
emp:io,jees, in administration of the contract.
4 -!he HRA agrees to administer the contract in consultation With the cities at meetings regularly
established by the cities' representatives. This may include, but is not limited to, requesting
addticnal services, rewewing the architects work performance,' and specific direction regarding
;~reparation of the plan book.
5 '~-he Fridley HRA agrees to refund any unused portion of the cities' payments in a manner as
--~utJa ly agreed to by the cities and that the use of the funds is for the purposes as described in this
~.ett~;r of Understanding
6 :'he HRA acknowledges that the City is entitled to use the content of the plan book; however, the
:3ity agrees to work in consultation with the cities identified.in publishing the plan book.
The Letter of Understanding has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
St~f~ r~,.:cmmends approval of a Resolution Approving Letter of Understanding Between the Fridley
I~o~,s. in!.: ~nd Redevelopment Authority and the New Hope Economic Development Authority for the
S~.~o,,.~rban Remodeling Plan Book Project (Improvement Project No. 623).
', ik REQUF T FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
EDA
Community Development
~ Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald By:. 5
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PRE AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A
REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT WITH PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING,. INC. FOR FUNDING OF
BASS LAKE ROAD REDEVELOPMENT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 614)
At the October 27, 1997, EDA meeting, a presentation was made by city staff and Project for Pride in
Living, Inc. regarding a concept Proposal for the redevelopment of the multi-family dwellings located at
7302-7316 Bass Lake Road. The project involves the redevelopment of the eight four-plexes located at
the site and the construction of new townhomes. A total of 34 units would be created with 14 existing
units being rehabilitated and 20 new units being constructed. A variety of financing sources would be
utilized, including tax increment financing funds from the City. The EDA unanimously supported the
project and directed staff to proceed on the project with PPL. Since that time, a neighborhood meeting
has been conducted and several meetings with city staff have taken place.
The next step in the process is the approval of a Redevelopment Contract outlining the responsibilities of
the City and PPL. Said contract is necessary so that PPL can demonstrate the City's commitment to the
project to other funding agencies. The contract, which has been reviewed and revised by the City
Attorney, states that the City will have final approval on the plans.
The City Attorney will review the contract with the EDA and PPL will also be present at the meeting to
make a presentation and answer any questions the EDA may have. Also enclosed is a summary of the
Redevelopment'Contract by PPL, a project bulletin and the most recent concept site plan that is being
sent to property owners in the area, a summary of the planning issues prepared by PPL in response to
the City's Planning consultant's report. Lastly, a summary of the development agreement planning
issues and a report from the City's Planning Consultant are also attached.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
/
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
~ ~OUIYU, IL
O~m~ Depment ~pmved for ~enda ~enda Section
Community Development Con sen
Item
~: Kirk Mcdonald ~ 6.4
RESOLUTION VACATING STORM SEWER AND UTILI~ AND D~INAGE ~SEMENTS AT 7300-
7390 49~'AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 598/P~NNING CASE 97-06)
In the spring of 1997, the City began a vacation proceeding for ~o easements at the 7300-7390 49~"
Avenue site, which is pa~ of Five Thousand ~nnetka 2"" Addition. One of the easements involved
vacating 10 feet of the 20-foot wide easement along the southeast border of the prope~y so that the
building could be constructed 10 feet from the prope.y line. The second easement vacation involved
vacating a po.ion of the storm sewer easement running noAh/south through the propeAy, due to the fact
that a potion of the building was located over the storm sewer pipe and easement.
Per the a~ached correspondence from the City Afforney, the City has obtained and recorded permanent
replacement easements for the relocated storm sewer pipe and for a rededication of the drainage
(ponding) easement along the no.herly pa. of the prope~y. It is now appropriate for the City to
complete the original vacation proceedings. The enclosed resolution, which was prepared by the City
Attorney, completes the vacation proceedihgs.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MORON' BY SECO~ BY --
R~: ~tra~on: F~ce:
O~ma~g Deposit ~p~ for ~enda a..~a~ Section
CommuniW Development Co ns en t
Kirk McDonald Item No.
~: ~: 6.6
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REDUCTION OF LE~ER OF CREDIT FOR 7300 49TM AVENUE' NORTH
(P~NNING CASE NO. 97-06)
The Ci~ has held a Le~er of Credit in the amount of $101,700 on the 7300 49~ Avenue development for the
installation of public improvements and on-site amenities. This amount was held to insure that specific
improvements were made, including relocation of the 30-inch sto~ sewer, water capaci~ pond/easements,
installation of landscaping and for restoration/erosion control. The majori~ of the improvements have been
completed and the developer has requested a reduction in the Leffer of Credit.
There are ~o major areas of concern that need to be addressed which are linked to the Le~er of Credit:
I
1. Pond Construction - Per the Ci~ Engineer's November 14 correspondence, four items related to the no~h pond
were not constructed according to the plans approved by the Ci~. The Ci~ Engineer is recommending
retaining $30,000 until the identified issues are resolved.
2. Fire Alarm Issue - Per the Ci~ AEorney's Februaw 17 correspondence, he is recommending that $40,000 be
held until the fire alarm variance issue is resolved.
Based upon the recommendations of the Ci~ AEorney and Ci~ Engineer, staff is recommending a reduction in the
LeEer of Credit as follows:
Original Leffer of Credit Amount $101,700.00
Amount to be held for pond issues 30,000.00
Amount to be held for fire alarm issues 40,000.00
Total Amount of Recommended Reduction $ 31,700.00
Staff recommends thai the Leffer of Credit be reduced b~ $31,700, from $101,700 to $70,000.00.
The enclosed resolution authorizes the reduction and staff recommends approval of the resolution.
M~ON BY SECO~ ~
TO:
~: ~s~on: F~e:
.i
· ~ COUNCIL
REQUF~T FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development Consent
2~8 Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald By:. 6.8
MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN APPRAISALS ON MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AT
7601 AND 7641 62NO AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 613)
Staff have received the enclosed correspondence from the owner of the two four-plexes at 7601 and
7641 62nd Avenue stating their desire to sell the two properties and inquiring if the City has an interest in
the property. Both buildings have four two-bedroom apartments and were constructed in 1960. The
current market value of each property is $117,000 ($26,000 land and $91,000 building). Per the General
Inspector, both buildings are in deteriorating condition and would require substantial rehabilitation. The
two properties are located on either side of the building/property recently purchased by the City at 7621
62nd Avenue. The market values of the properties are identical to the property recently purchased by the
City.
Staff is requesting authorization to obtain an appraisal on each of the two properties to determine the
market value of the properties and to determine how the market value compares to the property recently
purchased by the City. If and when the appraisals are completed, at some future date staff would
present the results to the Council to determine an appropriate response to the owners inquiry. The
appraisals would not be for public disclosure and are protected information under the Minnesota Data
Practices Act.
Staff obtained two quotes for the appraisals as follows:
Firm' Quote
BCL Appraisals $900 ($450 per building)
Herman Appraisal Services $1,950
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01
Request for Action . Page 2 2-2~..~
These quotes were considered by the City Council on February 9 and staff recommended accepting the
Iow quote from BCL Appraisals. The City Council tabled this matter and directed staff to contact BCL
and request consideration of a reduction in the proposed fee. Due to the fact that BCL has already
completed an appraisal on the adjacent property, the Council questioned whether there wouldn't be
some duplication of work for the appraisals on the other two buildings.
Staff contacted BCL and, per the enclosed letter, they have agreed to reduce the cost to $300 per
building or $600 total for appraisals on both buildings. The appraisals will be paid for with EDA, TIF or
scattered site housing funds.
Staff recommend approval of a motion approving the revised quote submitted by BCL Appraisals in the
amount of $600.
cOV cm
REQUF T FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development 2-23-98 Consent
Kirk McDonald ~ ,'"~ Item No.
By: By:~/// 6.10
MOTION APPROVING FINAL PAY REQIg/EST TO ANTON CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $4,207.25 FOR REHABILITATION AT 5212 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 573)
This is the final pay request from Anton Construction, Inc. for the rehabilitation of the single family home
at 5212 Winnetka Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 573). All work has'been completed except
for some very minor items that cannot be completed until spring and the Building Official has issued a
Certificate of Occupancy. The City is retaining a $450.00 escrow to insure completion of the remaining
items this spring. The appraisal of the rehabilitated property has been completed and marketing of the
property is currently in process.
The final pay request is in the amount of $4,207.25 and staff is recommending approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Completion of IC-134 requirements by the. Minnesota Department of Revenue.
2. Escrow in the amount of $450.00 be retained for exterior items that cannot be completed until
spring.
The original contract amount was $84,595 and $56,145 was paid for the first pay request, leaving a
balance of $28,450. The second pay request was in the amount of $28,450, but only $23,792.75 was
paid so that a 5% retainage on the project could be retained. This final pay request will release that
retainage, except for the escrow amount.
Staff recommends approval of a motion approving the final pay request subject to the conditions stated.
MOTION BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01
I COUNC/L
RF., UF T FOR ACTION
Orlginat. tr~ Department Approved for A~enda A~enda Sect/on
Community Development Co~se~t
2-23-98
Kirk McDonald Item No.
By: By:. 6.11
RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSFE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REGULATORY PROGRAMS
AND INSPECTIONS COVERING FOOD, BEVERAGE AND LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS TO
HENNEPIN COUNTY
At the January 12 City Council meeting the Council considered options for health inspection services' for New Hope
and directed staff to coordinate an agreement whereby Hennepin County would assume these responsibilities for
the City. Subsequent to that meeting the following actions have taken place to achieve that goal, as follows:
1. A letter was sent from the City Manager to the Minnesota Department of Health informing them of the City's
desire to relinquish control over municipal environmental health inspections. The state will delegate the
responsibility to Hennepin County.
2. Appropriate City staff met with HennePin County at the end of January to discuss how and when the changes
would be taking place and established March 1, 1998, as a target date for the transfer of responsibilities. Due to
the fact that New Hope had already collected license fees for 1998, the County was agreeable to be flexible in
this area and meet with staff later in the year and pro-rate the fees so that the City can recover its costs
associated with collecting the fees and then relinquish the remaining funds to the County.
3. City staff also met with the Department of Agriculture to discuss what responsibilities they will assume.
To complete this process of transferring responsibilities, the Minnesota Department of Health has sent the City the
attached Supplementary Agreement. The agreement was referred to the City Attorney for review and he has
p~epared the enclosed resolution transferring the inspections responsibilities to Hennepin County and authorizing
the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Supplementary Agreement and to take all other necessary steps to
facilitate the transfer of responsibilities.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
i
REQUEST FOR ACTION
_
Originating Depazbhent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Community Development
2-23-98 Public Hear!ng
Kirk McDonald & )/3 Item No.
By: Jacquie Cavanagh By:.f/ 7. !
PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS' FOR 1998 URBAN
HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND
AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND
ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS
This is. the annual Public Hearing for the use of Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grand (CDBG) funds. The City has been notified that it will receive $162,931 in 1998 (July-1, 1998 to
June 30, 1999) CDBG funds if qualifying programs proposed by'the City staff and residents are
approved by the City Council and Hennepin County. This amount is a $4,931 decrease from the 1997
funding of $167,862. The formula for determining the planning allocation is based upon population,
incomes at or below poverty level, and overcrowded housing units.
The following County housing and community development priorities are to serve as a guide when
considering the use of CDBG funds to address local needs. The County will consider the relationship of
proposed projects to the County priorities in their evaluation of. projects for CDBG funding. The priorities
include:
Housing
Rental and Supportive Housing - planning, site acquisition, related infrastructure for development of new
units and rehabilitation of existing units for Iow income households (less than 50% of median income).
Home ownership - planning, site acquisition, related infraStructure, down payment assistance for Iow
income first-time home buyers and rehabilitation of existing units occupied by Iow income households.
community Development
Neighborhood redevelopment/revitalization, senior centers, removal of~architectural barriers/ADA
compliance, lead-based paint abatement, and planning activities to address housing and community
revitalization needs.
MorION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
RFA
Page 2
February 23, 1998
Public Services
Services to senior citizens, disabled persons and youth; child care assistance and transportation
services.
No more than three activities can be undertaken in one community and each activity should have a
budget of at least $7,500. When funds are committed jointly with other participants (cities) to carry out a
single activity, these limits do not apply. Communities are strongly encouraged to develop joint
initiatives to address mutual needs by consolidating their resources. _.
Communities may initially use up to 20% of their CDBG planning allocation to ~und public services.
Proposals that exceed 20% will be reduced. Once all proposals have been submitted, county staff will
determine if the 1998 program has exceed the HUD required 15% cap on public services. If the 15%
cap has been exceed county-wide, communities budgeting over 15% of their allocation may have to
make reductions.
The following activities are the program requests proposed by staff:
Activity Budget
Child Day Care $15,000
Senior Transportation 12,311
Youth Services 5,275
Micro Business 15,000
Housing and Rehabilitation 30,000
Scattered Site 85,345
$162,931
Child Day Care
This is an ongoing joint-city activity that the City has sponsored in previous years. This is the specific
amount requeSted from the Minneapolis Day Care Association and $3,000 of the GMDCA funds are
committed to the Adventure Club. Staff is also investigating whether some of these funds can be utilized
for the Detached Worker Program. This use is considered a public service activity.
Senior Transportation
This is also an ongoing joint-city activity that the City has sponsored in previous years. This is the
specific amount requested by the Five-Cities Transportation Project. This is also considered a public
service activity.
Youth Services
This year the City received a request from Family Hope Services for $8,500 to support transportation
and outreach costs for the Tree House Program serving at-risk youth and families. This is considered a
joint-city public service activity. Due to the 20% public service funding cap, staff is recommending a
funding level of $4,275. (20% of $162,931 = $32,586; $15,000 for Day Care + $12,311 for Senior
Transportation + $5,275 for Youth Services = $32,586).
RFA
February 23, 1998
Page 3
Micro Business
This is for the second year of funding for the Enterprise Facilitation P~:ogram, a pilot project micro
business program with the City of Crystal, the Hennepin County Department of Jobs and Training, and
Metro HRA. Hennepin County has indicated that the cities could fund their portion of the program with
CDBG funds. This is considered a joint-city activity.
Housing Rehabilitation
This is an ongoing activity that has been sponsored in previous years. Funds are made available to
assist Iow income persons in making basic repairs to homes that they own.
Scattered Site Housing
This is an ongoing activity that has been sponsored in previous years. Funds are made available for site
acquisition, rehabilitation of existing units, related infrastructure improvements and first-time home
buyers assistance for Iow income households.
The City also received a funding request from Community Action for Suburban Hennepin in the amount
of $4,000.
Detailed program requests are enclosed that explain how the funds will be used for each of the
proposed programs. Pending input from the public, staff recommends closing the public hearing and
adopting the resolution.
REQUF~T FOR ACTION
originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Devel o preen t
City Manager ~ & Planning
(", ,,/ 2-23-98 Item No
By Dan Donahue s3n,~
: . 8.1 '
pRESENTATION BY CAREBREA~ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL TO CONSIDER TRANGFER OF LAND AT 55th AND BOONE (PROJECT NO. 493)
Three years ago CareBreak requested and had received approval to develop a 25,000 square
foot adult daycare center on land owned by the City at 55"~ and Boone. At that time, financing
could not be arranged and the development ne~er went forward. The organization has now
reformulated their plans and would again like to ask the City Council to consider transferring the
property to them for the development of a senior adult daycare center.
Deb Rose will be at the council meeting to represent CareBreak and'present the concept plan
and the request for the property.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Depa~t~ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Public Works 2-23-98 Development & Planninc_:_:j
By:.~ Item No.
By: Jeannine Clancy 8.2
/
CONSIDERATION OF BIDS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS FUEL FACILITY
(Project 590)
The City of New Hope operates a fuel facility located at-Public Works. This facility provides
fueling services for all Public Works, Police, Fire and administration vehicles and equipment.
The fuel facility includes three underground storage tanks (USTs) for storage and dispensing of
fuel and one elevated propane storage tank. Approximately 65,500 gallons of fuel is dispensed
each year.
By December 22, 1998, the City must either comply with new State and Federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulations or discontinue use of the facility. Basically, the
underground storage tanks must be upgraded to meet spill, overflow, and corrosion protection.
The City Council has directed staff to prepare plans and specifications and to accept bids for
removal of the existing system, installation of two 10,000 gallon fuel tanks, and installation of a
new fuel dispenser system. The alternate bid is for a fuel management system which consists
of gas cards or keys and a softwar~ program to track consumption. The bids were opened on
December 23, 1997. The following bids were received:
Contractor I Ba~e Bid Amount Alternate Total
'American Tank Services. Inc. $9513408 $7.775.00 i $102.909.08
MN Petroleum $1071875.00 $178.09 : $108.053.09
Ceres Environmental $1071973.75 $8.500.00 ; $116.473.75
Pumo & Meter Service. Inc. $108.295.00 -$21015.00 ' $106.280.00
Zahl'EauiDment ComDanv $120.788.25 -$300.00 ~ $120.488.25
Earth B'umers. Inc. $129.118.00 $7.900.00 i $137.018.00
J & D Enterprises of Duluth $145.814.00 $10.000.00 [ , $155.814.00
Engineer's Estimate $122,670.00
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
Fuel Facility ~~
Project 590
February 23, 1998 ~ .
Page 2
Staff also conducted a trial run of use of the School District Fueling Facility. During this trial
period, twelve city vehicles fueled at the school facility. The findings of this thai run are in the
attached memorandum and summarized as follows:
· Police personnel will be impacted the least by fueling at the School District Facility.
· The Fire Department will have some inconvenience when fueling their large pieces of
equipment due to the size of bays and the reliability of one of the pumps.
· The Public Works vehicles averaged a 15 minute stop due to the off site location, the road
speed of some of the equipment, and problems encountered with the dispensing equipment.
Staff has requested that Bonestroo revise the cost analYsis of the fuel facility options. The
revised cost analysis assumes the actual 'low bid plus 25 percent for engineering, legal and
contingency costs. The analysis also revises the cost identified as time utilized by employees
to fuel off site. The cost comparison is attached and essentially shows that:
· Constructing a new system at Public Works has the lowest cost over a 10 year pedod;
although, the cost is comparable (within 4%) of using a private vendor.
· The cost of a new facility at Public Works would break even with the cost of the School
District fuel facility in 5.0 years.
· The cost of a new facility at Public Works would break even with the cost of using a private
vendor after 9.5 years.
The options before the Council are as follows:
1. Adopt the resolution awarding the bid to American Tank Services for the base bid plus th®
alternate for the fuel management system. If Council agrees to this, the project would begin
in the Spring and be completed by the Summer. Funding is available in the Central 'Garage
Replacement Fund.
2. Direct staff to negotiate with a Private vendor for fueling services. An agreement identifying
costs would be considered by Council at a future date. In addition, specifications would
need to be prepared to remove the city's existing fuel facility and a 500 gallon elevated tank
purchased to Store fuel for small engine equipment.
3. Direct staff to negotiate with the School District for fueling services. An agreement
identifying costs would be considered by Council at a future date. Again, specifications
would need to be prepared to remove the city's existing fuel facility and a 500 gallon
elevated tank purchased to store fuel for small engine equipment.
Fuel Facility
Project 590
February 23, 1998
Page 3
From an operations and efficiency standpoint, staff recommends that the City maintain its own
fueling facility. However, staff recognizes that this project does require a capital investment on
the part of the City, and there is liability associated with underground fuel facilities. If Council
does not feel that the fueling facility is an appropriate capital expenditure, staff would prefer to
further investigate a private facility as opposed to entering into an agreement with the School
District.
G:Requests\590AP
PROJECT BULLETIN
Project No. 543
_ Demolition 0fthe Old Fire Station
at 4300 Zealand Avenue North
Overview
The City of New Hope is proceeding with the demolition of the old New Hope Fire Station at 4300
Zealand Avenue. This building housed the New Hope Fire Department until they moved into their new
building at 4251 Xylon Avenue in 1991. Since that time, the old Fire Station has been used primarily
for storage of city equipment and as a storage facility for NEAR, a local food shelf agency. Due to the
condition of the building, its continued use is no longer feasible.
The project will include the removal of the existing building, including slabs and foundations, and
removal of the bituminous parking area on the west side of the building. The driveway from Zealand
Avenue to the new Fire Station will be maintained, but will have a reduced width. The area now
occupied by the Fire Station and the adjacent parking area will be restored to turf. At this time there
are no definite plans for the site. The trees on the site will be protected during the demolition.
In preparation for this project, the communication systems have already been removed from the
building. The civil defense siren that had been located on the roof of the old building has been
relocated to a pole just east of the building.
Prior to its demolition, the building will be used for training by the New Hope Fire Department. Several
training exercises are scheduled, but all will be confined to the office and dorm areas of the building.
All heaters, lighting fixtures, and asbestos-containing floor tile will be removed and properly disposed
of before the training exercises begin. After each training, exercise, the building will be properly
secured.
Project Schedule
The New Hope City Council awarded the contract for the building demolition in the amount of
$32,191.75 to DKH Excavating at the January 26 Council Meeting. The contract allows for the
demolition contractor to begin work on March 16 and requires that the building demolition be
completed by April 17. Once the demolition is accomplished, the site will be restored to turf by
May 15.
Construction Hours
Standard construction h°urs'will be between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Monday through Friday,
and 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on Saturday.' All work, including mobilization of equipment, will take place
during these time periods.
Contact Persons
If you have questions or concerns during the demolition project, please direct your calls to Vince
VanderTop, Project Inspector, at 604-7490 or Tom Schuster, Contract Manager, at 533-4823 ext. 13.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
2/2/98
4401 Xylon Avenue North City Hall: 812-531-5100 City Hall Fax: 612-531-5136
New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Police: 612-531-5170 Police Fax: 612-531-5174
Public Works: 612-533-4823 Public Works Fax: 612-533-7650
_ TDD: 612-531-5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531-5175
February 5, 1998
PROPOSED BIKE LANE PROJECT PUBLIC MEETING
Dear New Hope Resident:
I am writing to invite you to attend a public meeting regarding proposed bike lanes' on Boone Avenue,
sections of 49th Avenue, and sections of Quebec Avenue in New Hope.
Backaround
The City of New Hope 1995 Transportation Plan identifies the need and recommends that the City
encourage the use of the bicycle as a mode of travel for recreational as well as other types of trips.
The Transportation Plan included potential locations for bike lanes and bike paths.
Every year, the City sealscoats a section of its streets. Sealcoating is a necessary maintenance
activity in which oil and rock are applied to the asphalt surface of the street. Sealcoating extends the
life of the pavement and also helps add traction to the pavement surface. This year, the City is
scheduled to sealcoat a portion of its collector streets. Since the placement of oil and rock will cover
the existing pavement markings, an opportunity exists to stripe certain streets in the sealcoat area for
bike lanes.
Bike Lane Locations
Streets that are scheduled to be sealcoated and are identified as potential bike lane locations include
the following:
· Boone Avenue (Medicine Lake Road to 62"d Avenue)
· Quebec Avenue (49~ Avenue to 42nd Avenue)
· 49th Avenue (Boone Avenue to TH 169 and Winnetka Avenue to Quebec Avenue)
The enclosed map better illustrates these locations.
Options
Some of the options currently being considered are as follows:
Boone Avenue (Medicine Lake Road to 62"d Avenue):
· Option 1: Provide pavement markings and signs that would restrict parking to one. side of the
street. Bike lanes would exist on both sides of the street. Given the locations of schools and
parks, consideration is being given to prohibiting parking on the west side of Boone between 62nd
Avenue and 36~h Avenue. Parking would be prohibited on the east side of Boone between 36th
Avenue and Medicine Lake Road.
· Option 2: Continue to allow parking on both sides of Boone Avenue. The pavement would be
marked and signs installed to designate parking lanes and bike lanes.
· Option 3: Make no changes to the pavement markings and signs.
Family Styled City ~ For Family Living
New Hope Resident
Page 2
February 5, 1998
49th Avenue (Boone Avenue to TH 169 and Winnetka Avenue to Quebec Avenue):
· Option 1: Continue to prohibit parking on the south side of 49"' Avenue. The pavement would be
marked and signs installed to allow parking on the north side of 49"' Avenue and bike lanes on
both sides of the street.
· Option 2: Make no changes to the pavement markings and signs.
Quebec Avenue (49"' Avenue to 42"d Avenue):
· Option 1: Continue to prohibit parking on the east side of Quebec Avenue. The pavement would
be marked and signs installed to allow parking on the west side of Quebec Avenue and bike lanes
on both sides of the street.
· Option 2: Make no changes to the pavement markings and signs.
Cost and Funding
If approved by Council, the cost of the bike lane project (estimated at $20,000) would be paid for
through the City's capital improvement and operating budgets. There would be no special
assessments levied against adjacent properties for this project.
Meeting Information
The Citizen Advisory Commission will discuss this topic at a meeting on February 26, 1998, between
6:00 and 7:30 PM. The Commission will listen to public input on this topic and make a
recommendation to the City Council. If you wish to comment about this proposal but cannot attend
the meeting, you may call City Engineer Mark Hanson at 604-4838 or Project Engineer Vincent
VanderTop at 604-4790. You may also write to the Citizen Advisory Commission at 4401 Xylon
Avenue North, New Hope, MN 55428. -
This letter has been sent to those residents who directly abut Boone Avenue, sections of 49th Avenue
and sections of Quebec Avenue. If you know anyone else who may wish to attend the meeting but did
not receive this letter, please invite them to come along.
Thank you for your interest in this project.
Sincerely,
City Manager
cc: Citizen Advisory Commission Members
City Council
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
Course
Works
Road
- 'o
o
5*th Avenue N
I
i LEGEND
Transpori:ction P!cn
Bikeways in 1998
Seo! Coot Project
: Figure 2
I
:
4.2nd
Rockford
I
:
:
it
I Avenc~e
~ 0 1050 H 2100
_ ] ,,~o~e in feet
I ~ jJ]~ Bonestroo
-~ flosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engfneer~ & Architects
St. Paul. Milwaukee
December 1997
K: ~54~54216~54216FO2.0WG
PROJECT NO. 614
Bulletin #1
_ Project for Pride in Living (PPL)
Bass Lake Road Housing Development
Overview
This is to inform you about the progress of the Project for Pride in Living (PPL) Bass Lake Road
housing development. The development is on schedul® and will be submitting applications in
mid-February for mortgage funds.
PPL has proposed to renovate the four-plexes into two unit, two-story buildings, for a total of 14
four-bedroom units. Breckenridge will remain as the occupant of the eighth f. our-plex. A new
garage would be built between each four-plex. Twenty three-bedroom townhouses would be
built at both the north and south ends of the site. These would have tuck-under garages.
Thirty-four units would be created: 14 rehabilitated and 20 new. There are 28 units on the site
right now. Initially, eight of the units would be reserved for families on the Minneapolis Public
Housing waiting list and four units would be for families on the New Hope waiting list. These
twelve units would consist of six three-bedroom ahd six four-bedroom units. Rent for the market
rate units will be approximately $660 for the three-bedroom and $740 for the four-bedroom, with
tenants paying their own utilities. Two handicapped accessible units would also be created. The
plan is to begin construction this fall and be finished in the spring of 1999.
In December, PPL hosted a tour of buildings this nonprofit corporation has built and is
managing, followed by a lunch and a discussion with the project architect. Another design
meeting with the neighbors will be held this spring.
Site Plan
There has been one minor change in the concept site plan, which is attached. Due to the need
to maintain two ways to enter and exit the site, the office building land has been excluded
because it is loCated on the west side of the drive. In addition, clustering the townhouses in this
way allows for joint garages for each cluster, which reduces the amount of pavement needed
for driveways and increases the lawn.
A new storm sewer will serve the site, which should eliminate problems adjoining neighbors
have had with runoff from these buildings.
Contact Person
For more information contact:
Chris Wilson, PPL Project Manager 874-3314
Steve Cramer, PPL Executive Director 874-8511
Lisa Kugler, PPL Development Consultant 827-2189
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
531-5100
2/6/98
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Fourth Quarter 1997 Report
The Planning Commission reviewed the following cases during the fourth quarter:
MOA' No. of Cases Notices Sent
October 5 99
November 0 0
December 3 0
Month ReqUest Number Approved Denied Withdrawn Tabled
Oct. Vadance 2 2
CUP 1 1
Ord. 2 2
Nov. None 0
Dec. Ord. 2 2
Comp. Sign Plan 1 1
TOTALS 8 '8
Year To: Date Approved Denied W'ffJidrawn Tabled
Comp Sign Plan/Amend. 3
Ordinances 10 2
Plat
Site/Bldg Plan Review
Variance 4
Comprehensive Plan 1
CUP 4 1
YEAR TO DATE TOTAL 24 3
PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
1. Improvement Project #611, Primo Piatto Request for IDRB - At the October 13 City Council
meeting, the Council granted preliminary approval for a request from Primo Piatto for Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds.
2. Planning Case 97-19, Request for CUP for Outdoor Storage Trailer, 2751 Winnetka
Avenue - At the October 7 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved a CUP for
an outdoor storage trailer for the Value Village Thrift Store, which relocated to the Midland
Shopping Center in December, subject to several conditions. The City Council concurred with
the Planning Commission's recommendations at its October 13 meeting.
3, Planning Case 97-20, Request for Variances at 5600 Highway 169 and 6621 International
Parkway - At the October 7 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended
approval of a side yard setback variance for each property so that a building connection could
be constructed. At the October 13 City Council meeting, the Council approved the request as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
4. Planning Case 97-21, Request for Variance for Second Driveway Access at 2865 Quebec
Avenue - At the October ~7 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended
approval of a side yard setback variance to allow a second driveway for handicapped access
purposes, subject to several conditions. The City Council concurred at its October 13 meeting.
5. Ordinance #97-151Planning Case 96-31, An Ordinance Establishing a Shoreland Permit
Overlay District - At the October 7 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
recommended approval of an ordinance amending the New Hope City Code by establishing a
Shoreland Permit OverlaY District, subject to flexibility in several areas. The City Council
adopted the ordinance at its October 13 meeting. The ordinance was sent to the DNR for review
and comment and the DNR did not respond during the fourth quarter. This issue will be finalized
in 1998.
6. Resident Guide & Business Directory - At the October 13 EDA meeting, the EDA approved a
proposal by the McNulty Group/Planet Publications to produce a Resident Guide and Business
Directory. This was a major undertaking during the fourth quarter in cooperation with New Hope
businesses. A kick-off event was held and the ad sales at the end of December exceeded
budget estimates. City staff also spent a great deal of time preparing the city edit for.the new
publication, which will be distributed to residents and businesses in February/March 1998.
7. Ordinance 97-031Planning Case 96-04, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Code by
Establishing Pawn Shops as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District - At the October 27
City Council meeting, the Council adopted this ordinance as recommended by the Planning
Commission and repealed the moratorium.
8. Ordinance 97-2/Planning Case 96-04, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the New
Hope City Code by Establishing Licensing Regulations for Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal
and Second Hand Goods Dealers - The City Council adopted this ordinance at its October 27
meeting.
9. Summary of Ordinance 97-2 Eetablishing Pawn Shop Licensing Regulations - At the
October 27 City Council meeting, the Council approved posting a summary of Ordinance 97-2
City Hall and the Ice Arena.
10. Planning Case 94-15, Release of Security for Kimball Addition - At the October 27 City
Council meeting, the Council approved the release of security for the Kimball Addition. Due to
the fact that the developer had an outstanding balance with the City for expenses incurred
during the project, the City deposited the security check and refunded the balance to the
developer.
11. Planning Case 97-03, Final Plat Approval for Saint Therese Addition - During the first
quarter of 1997 the Planning Commission and City Council approved the Preliminary Plat for
Saint Therese Addition. Staff continued coordination with St. Therese during the second and
third quarters on the final plat. At the October 27 City Council meeting, the Council approved the
final plat of Saint Therese Addition, subject to several conditions. Right-of-way and perimeter
easement issues were resolved in conjunction with the plat approval.
12. Ordinance 97-28, An Ordinance Deleting New Hope Code Sections 8.11 through 8.117
Regarding Christmas Tree Sales - At the October 27 City Council meeting, the Council
adopted Ordinance 97-28 due to the fact that Christmas tree sales were included in the newly
adopted ordinance pertaining to outdoor produce sales.
13. MHFA Capacity Building Grant Program Application - At the November 10 City Council
meeting, the Council authorized submittal of a Capacity Building Grant Program Application
which could finance a portion of the housing component of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
The maximum amount of the grant was $2,500.
14. Suburban Remodeling Planbook Project- In October/November, staff discussed with the
EDA a cooperative effort of inner-ring suburban communities to develop a remodeling planbook
to be used by residents in the remodeling and expansion of their homes. The cost to the City to
participate was $5,000; and the EDA approved participation in the project at its November 10
meeting.
15. Metropolitan Council Local Planning Assistance Program Grant Agreement - During the
second quarter, the Council authorized staff to submit a grant application to the Metropolitan
Council in the amount of $20,000 for consulting expenses that would be incurred to update the
Comprehensive Plan. The application was completed and submitted in mid-July. A the. end of
August the City was informed it would receive a grant of no less than $8,190. At the November
24 Council meeting, the Council authorized execution of the grant agreement, which describes
funding disbUrsements and reporting procedures.
16. Planning Case 97-23, Comprehensive Sign Plan - At the December 2 Planning Commission
meeting, the Commission approved a comprehensive sign plan for the building at 5201
Winnetka Avenue, including wall signs and revisions to the existing ground sign. The Council
concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation at its December 8 meeting, and
requested that additional fencing/landscaping improvements be completed on the north and
east sides of the building in the spring of 1998.
17. Ordinance No. 97-291Planning Case 97-29, An Ordinance Repealing the Lot Coverage
Requirement for I-1 Zoned Property - The Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning
Commission reviewed this issue dudng the fourth quarter and recommended approval of an
ordinance repealing the lot coverage requirement at the December 2 Planning Commission
meeting. The City Council, at its December 8 meeting, adopted the ordinance as recommended.
18. Ordinance No. 97-301Planning Case 97-28, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City
Code by Permitting Placement of Air Conditioning Units in Sideyards - The Codes &
Standards Committee of the Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance during the fourth
quarter in conjunction with a previous variance request. The Committee recommended approval
at the December 2 Planning Commission meeting, subject to several conditions being met. At
the City Council meeting on December 8, the Council'failed to adopt the ordinance amendment
on a 1 to 3 vote. The Council indicated they would prefer to keep the present ordinance in place
and review vadance requests on a case-by-case basis.
19. Re-Appointment of Planning Commissioners - At the December 8 City Council meeting, the
Council re-appointed Commissioners Landy and Oelkers for three-year terms expiring
December 31, 2000. Two Commissioners indicated that they did not wish to seek re-
appointment due to work and family commitments.
20. Candidate Interviews for City Commissions - Due to the fact that there were two openings
on the Planning Commission, the City Council conducted interviews prior to the first Council
meeting in January. The new Commissioners will be sworn in at the February meeting.
21. Planning Case 97-06, 7300 49= Avenue, Hoyt Development - Construction plans for this
office/warehouse facility was approved during .the second quarter of 1997, construction was
completed dudng the third and fourth quarters, with several unresolved issues. At the October
27 City Council meeting, the Council approved a replacement easement from Kalway
Construction Company, the new owner of the property at 7300 49th Avenue. Another issue is the
installation of an automatic fire alarm and smoke detection system. The City Council required
and approved a variance agreement with the developer at its November 24 meeting, because
tenants were allowed to move into the building prior to the resolution of the Code requirement.
22. Enterprise Facilitation Demonstration Project - During the second and third quarters, staff
continued to coordinate with Hennepin County Department of Jobs & Training regarding a
potential demonstration project with New Hope and Crystal to encourage business development
and expansion in the two cities. At the November 24 EDA meeting, the EDA approved
participation in the program and authorized the utilization of CDBG funds in the amount of
$15,000 allocated for this program. At the December 8 City Council meeting, the Counci!
approved a one-year contract with Hennepin County Department of Training and Employment
Assistance which states that New Hope will act as the fiscal agent by accepting revenues and
disbursing expens_es for the program. At the same meeting, the Council approved, an agreement
between the Crystal/New Hope Collaborative and the Sirolli Institute, who will be providing
fundraising presentations, technical support, training of committee members, hiring and training
a facilitator and community certification.
23. Proposal by Project for Pride in Living (PPL) for Redevelopment at 7302-7316 Bass Lake
Road - At the October 27 EDA meeting, a presentation was made by PPL for redevelopment of
multi-family dwellings at 7302-7316 Bass Lake Road. The EDA was generally supportive of the
concept proposal. A neighborhood meeting was conducted in November and PPL also met with
City staff and consultants on the project. This will be a major redevelopment project for 1998.
24. Health Inspection Services - At the November 24 Council meeting, staff discussed with the
Council the health inspection services currently being provided by Crystal's health inspectors.
Staff requested direction on providing this service either by hiring another health inspector or
using the services provided by Crystal or Hennepin County. The Council tabled this issue for
discussion at the next meeting. The option of having the County provide the services was further
researched during the fourth quarter and staff will be outlining all options for the Council in
January.
25. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee met during the fourth quarter to continue or
initiate study of the DNR Shoreland Management regulations, licensing of second hand goods
dealers which is a continuation of the pawn shop ordinance, lot coverage requirements in the I-1
District, air conditioning units in side yards, real estate sign regulations, R-1 accessory buildings
and setbacks, shopping center parking requirements, and bus benches.
26. Design & Review Committee - The Design & Review Committee did not meet during the fourth
quarter because there were no applications that required review by the Committee.
27. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Comprehensive Plan Update Committee,
consisting of several members from the* Planning Commission, Citizens Advisory Commission
and city staff, was organized dudng the second quarter of 1997. The C(~mmittee began its
review of the draft Planning Inventory and conducted a tour of the entire City identifying
residentJal/commercial/industrial areas in need of redevelopment during the third and fourth
quarters. The Committee will continue making changes to the plan and present this information
to the City Council sometime during the first quarter of 1998 for its recommendations. The
Committee will continue meeting until the plan is completed.
28. TwinWest New Hope/Crystal Business Council - Dudng the fourth quarter, staff continued
coordination with the New Hope/Crystal Business Council, which was initiated by TwinWest last
year. The purpose of the Council is to enhance business relationships with the local community,
to provide access to the business community on local issues, and to encourage economic
vitality through business retention and job creation. The Council holds monthly meetings and is
comprised of business members from both Crystal and New Hope..
29. Business Link Newsletter - The Management Assistant, Community Development Specialist,
and Building Official have been publishing/distributing the New Hope Business Link newsletter
on a quarterly basis for the past two years. The fall issue was mailed in November and
spotlighted Liberty Diversified Industries.
30. Winnetka Shopping Center - The City continued to communicate with the management for
Winnetka Shopping Center regarding potential uses for the vacant SuperYalu space and met
with SuperValu and Winnetka Center representatives in mid-June. Staff has responded to a
number of inquiries about the space.-Staff also met with developers inquiring about the
acquisition/rehabilitation of Post Haste Center during the fourth quarter.
31. Potential Development with Upper Midwest Management Corporation - Shortly after the
City closed on the acquisition of the property at 9200 49"~ Avenue, city staff met with
representatives of Upper Midwest Management Corporation regarding a potential cooperative
development of-the site. Upper Midwest Management Corporation owns the office building
adjacent to this site and is interested in a potential twin office building. Staff is coordinating with
architects representing Upper Midwest Management Corporation on the potential development
of a concept site plan for the property.
32. 42nd & Quebec Redevelopment - During the second quarter, the appraisal for the Ardel
Engineering property at 7500 42"a Avenue was updated to facilitate future negotiations on the
acquisition of that site. Staff continued to have discussions on this during the fourth quarter. The
temporary parking lot construction in cooperation with the Sunshine Factory was completed and
Phoenix Manufacturing finalized their rent payments to the City.
33. Job Fair - New Hope is participating in the 1998 Commute West Job Fair hosted by Plymouth
and staff is attending meetings to plan and organize for the March event.
34. Miscellaneous Development Activities -
· Potential Archives Expansion
· Potential West Pac Expansion
· Potential Collisys Expansion
· St. Therese Nursing Home Expansion
· CareBreak New Construction
· Ponderosa Inquiries
It was a busy quarter with many planning and development objectives met, with a major focus on
the Resident Guide/Business Directory, the Enterprise Facilitation Program and the Comprehensive
Plan Update.
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Fourth Quarter 1997 Report
The New Hope HRA continues to be busy with the management of housing programs and redevelopment
activities in the City.
Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
Currently, the section 8 Rental Assistance Program is providing assistance to 307 New Hope and
surrounding area Iow income families. This is somewhat higher than the number families that were being
served in September. During this same time period in 1996, New Hope was providing assistance to 281
families, so overall the program is serving more families in 1997 as in 1996.
The breakdown is as follows:
October 193 110 303
November 194 114 308
December 191 116 307
The number of housing inspections has decreased compared to the same time pedod in 1996. During the
fourth quarter of 1996, a total of 68 inspections were completed.
A breakdown of housing unit inspections for the fourth quarter is contained in the following table:
Fourth Quarter 40 19 59 330
In May 1997, the EDA approved the Second Amendment to the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
Program Contract for Administrative Services. The contract amendment allows the city of New Hope to
administer an additional 23 Section 8 contracts for the city of Osseo. Osseo lost the individual that
administered its contracts and Metro HRA contacted New Hope to inquire if the City was interested in
assuming additional contracts. Metro HRA is responsible for all inspections for the additional contracts and
the New Hope Housing Representative handles the administrative component of the contracts. The
amendment allowing administration of the contracts provides additional revenues for the program and will
help to insure that the program for Iow/moderate income residents is maintained.
Community Development Block Grant Program
Housing Rehabilitation Program -- Hennepin County manages the Housing Rehabilitation Program for
the City and maintains a waiting list. The funds assist Iow income persons in making basic repairs to
homes that they own. The City Council approved three Deferred Loan Repayment Agreements this
quarter.
Scattered Site Housing Proiects
During the fourth quarter, the City continued to pursue several projects that will be funded by CDBG,
MHFA, HOME, EDA and city funds. Projects that use these funds include the following:
· 5212 Winnetka Avenue North At the end of July, the City Council awarded the contract for
rehabilitation to Anton Construction, Inc. in the amount of $84,645.00. Staff held a pre-construction
meeting with the contractor to review contractual documents, schedules and the work to be completed.
The project began with demolition of the~ garage and interior/exterior features of the home in late
August. At the same ti_me, the City Council approved a quote from Tim's Tree Service to remove a large
cottonwood that had caused significant foundation damage. In order to gain access to the backyard, the
contractor completed the tree removal during demolition of the garage. Rehabilitation was nearly
completed dudng the fourth quarter, with punch list items remaining. At the December 8 Council
meeting, the Council approved the landscaping plan, which will be installed in the spring of 1998. On
December 22 the Council approved a quote in the amount of $350.00 from BCL Appraisals for an "as
is" market value appraisal to determine the selling price of the home. An open house will be conducted
in February and the property will be marketed for sale to a first-time home buyer.
· 9116 31't Avenue North - At the end of July, the City Council also approved the purchase of this
property for inclusion in the City's scattered site housing program. In addition to other significant repairs,
the property suffered severe water damage caused by drainage from adjacent properties and
insufficient grading. In order to correct the problem, the City Engineer developed a backyard storm
sewer system. The Council approved the Iow quote by Dave Perkins Contracting as part of the
rehabilitation during the fourth quarter. During the third quarter, staff developed detailed plans and
specifications for the home. At the October 13 City Council meeting, the Council approved plans and
specifications and authorized advertisement for bids. A project bulletin was mailed to nearby residents
on October 24. Bids were opened on November 3, and since only one responsive bid was received and
it was significantly higher than the projected budget, the Council rejected the bid at its November 10
meeting. At the same meeting, the Council approved revised plans and specifications and authorized
advertisement for rebidding the project. At the November 24 City Council meeting, the Council
approved a quote from Crystal Tree Service for tree removal in the amount of $1,331.25. At the
December 8 Council meeting, the Council awarded the contract to Flag Builders in the amount of
$59,200.00. Rehabilitation will start in the first quarter of 1998.
· 7813/7819 Angeline Drive - Staff is continually evaluating sites for inclusion in New Hope's scattered
site housing program and staff is interested in trying to negotiate for purchase of these adjacent
properties. After the properties are acquired, it would be staffs intent to utilize the site for construction
of an accessible twin home, similar to the twin home buildings previously built by the City.
· 7911 60 1/2 Avenue - In September the City was contacted by the property owner inquiring whether or
not the City would be interested in purchasing his property through the scattered site housing program.
After completing a code compliance inspection and evaluating the property, it was found that the house
was in good condition and marketable on the open market. The City Council declined to purchase this
property at its October 13 meeting.
· 5629 Wisconsin Avenue - The City was contacted by the property owner stating his intent to sell the
property and inquiring whether or not the City would be interested in purchasing the property. The
General Inspector completed an inspection in AuguSt and determined that there were several items in
need of repair to meet minimum housing standards, along with several other major repairs required to
bring the house into code compliance. The City obtained quotes to complete an appraisal of the
property, and the City Council authorized BCL Appraisals to complete the appraisal of the property at its
October 13 meeting. The City would be responsible for relocation costs associated with purchasing this
property. The estimated ~fair market value" of the property proposed on the appraisal was $57,000.00.
City staff met with the property owners on December 12 and the owners agreed to sell the property for
$45,000.00 and would donate $12,000.00 to the City. At the December 22 Council meeting, the Council
approved the utilization of Evergreen Land Services to relocate the tenants residing in the home. At the
same meeting, the Council approved a quote from Hy-Land Surveying'in the amount of $475.00 for a
boundary survey of the site. The purchase agreement was also approved at the December 22 Council
'meeting. The closing on the property took place on December 31.
HOUSING PROGRAMS/FUNDING
· MHFA Community Rehabilitation Fund Application - On July 16 the cities of New Hope and Crystal
submitted a joint application for MHFA's Community Rehabilitation Fund Program. The purpose of the
program to provide funds for acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, and/or new construction of single
family homes. New Hope and Crystal applied for a combined amount of $95,635.00. At the end of
September, the City received a letter from MHFA stating the joint New Hope/Crystal proposal was not
eligible for funding in 1997.
· MHFA Community Fix-Up Fund - The City Council approved a resolution for New Hope, in
conjunction with the city of Crystal and Park National Bank, to apply for the MHFA Community Fix-Up
Fund. Early this year, Park National Bank received a letter from MHFA accepting the proposal. The
funds allow middle income (maximum gross annual income is $65,895) home owners within designated
areas access to funds for home improvements, including "value added" improvements (i.e., a room
addition). Park National Bank continues to review New Hope/Crystal applications for eligible
participants. The funds allow middle income homeowners access to below market interest rate loans for
home improvements.
· MHFA Minnesota City Participation Program - The MCPP is a program through the MHF~, in which
the MHFA sells mortgage revenue bonds on behalf of participating cities to meet locally identified
housing needs. The proceeds from the bonds provide below-market interest rate mortgage loans for
Iow and moderate income first-time home buyers. The 1997 the MCPP program began in April and
ran for eight months. During the first six months, participating cities/counties have exclusive use of
their individual allotment. Dudng the final two months, the individual allotments go into a statewide
pool that is available to all MCPP participating cities/counties. In January 1997 the City, in
conjunction with Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, applied for the 1997
MCPP program. On April 17 the County received approximately $8,493,000 in MCPP first-time home
buyer funds for 1997. The County administers the funds for New Hope. The funds were committed
by the end of June. Applications for the 1998 MCPP funds will be sent to cities in early 1998.
· Metropolitan Livable Communities Act - The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act was enacted
in June 1995 by the State Legislature in an attempt to address housing issues in the metropolitan
area. The Act also establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, which consists of three
accounts designated to help improve communities and neighborhoods. The funds in these accounts
can only be accessed if a City elects to participate in the Livable Communities Act. The City
participated in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act fpr the 1996 year, and passed a resolution
in October 1996 agreeing to participate in 1997. In September, the City Council approved a
resolution to continue participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for the calendar year
1998.
CO-OP Northwest
· 1996 HOME Grant - In 1995 the CHDO hired PPL to act as coordinator for the 1995 HOME grant
applications. In April 1997 PPL completed and submitted the 1995 HOME application to Hennepin
County for $200,000.
Out of the grant, New Hope received $90,000 to convert a duplex into a residential style group home
facility. New Hope has also received $13,500 in home funds to help finance the construction of a
single-family home at 6067 West Broadway.
· 1996 HOME Grant - The CHDO received $100,000 in HOME funds for 1996. In October the CHDO
· board approved two New Hope proposals requesting a total of $31,500 in HOME funds. The first
request is for $21,500 for the property at 5212 VVinnetka Avenue; $9,000 in funds will be for a second
mortgage, $10,000 as a rehabilitation grant to the City, and $2,500 for soft costs.
The remaining $10,000 was used for the 6067 West Broadway project and was added to the $13,500
in 1995 funds. $5,000 in additional funds went toward a second mortgage and $5,000 toward a grant
to the City.
· 1997 HOME Grant - In 1997 the CHDO received $157,200 in HOME funds. On July 10 the CHDO
board approved budgets for 1997. New Hope's proposals included an allocation of $53,370 for two
single family rehabilitation projects.
· 1998 HOME Grant - to be submitted during the first quarter of 1998 in conjunction with CHDO.
CareBreak - The City Council and EDA approved Third Party Agreements and a Land Disposition
Agreement with Hennepin County at the November 10 meetings. These agreements relate to the use of
CDBG funds for a future potential project.
Homeward Bound - During this quarter, staff continued discussions with several parties regarding the
potential re-use of this site.
Planners Group - During the fourth quarter, City staff continued to participate in the CO-OP Northwest
Planners Group, which coordinated or planned the following activities:
· Remodeling Fair - In April 1998 the CO-OP Northwest cities will sponsor the 6th annual Northwest
Suburban Remodeling Fair to again be held at the Crystal Community Center. The purpose of the
Fair is to encourage homeowners to stay in the City and upgrade/remodel their existing homes.
Seventy-five vendors and approximately 2,500 people attended the Fair in 1997. New Hope
coordinates registrations, collects revenues and disburses expenses. Events of Distinction will again
assist with the coordination of seminars and doorprizes for the Fair. Planning for the 1998 Fair was
started in November.
· Landlords' Forum - A Landlords' Fo~'um was held in November.
Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMMHC) - At the November 24 EDA meeting,
staff presented information to the EDA regarding the GMMHC Homeownership Resource Center program.
Staff has been working with the cities of Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Robbinsdale and
Hennepin County to formulate a program which would provide a. one-stop approach to assist homeowners
with their housing needs. Each of the five cities is invited to become a sponsor of the Center and commit
$5,000 to the program for 1998. Commitments for funding would also come from the McNight Foundation,
Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County and GMMHC. The EDA was generally supportive of the program.
Multi-Family Housin¢~
· Sandpiper Condominiums During the fourth quarter, staff continued to cooperate with
representatives of the Sandpiper Condominiums regarding possible city financial assistance to rehab
the complex. An ordinance was drafted establishing a Housing Improvement Area and the adoption of
the ordinance is on hold until an engineering analysis of the improvements to be made is completed. It
is anticipated that the engineering analysis will be completed and the ordinance considered at a
January Council meeting.
· Project for Pride in Living Redevelopment/Bass Lake Road -The City continued to coordinate with
PPL and Distdct 281 on the potential redevelopment of the four-plex units at 7302-7316 Bass Lake
Road during the fourth quarter. A neighborhood meeting was conducted on October 22. A concept
proposal was presented to the EDA on October 27 and the EDA unanimously supported the project.
City staff and consultants also met with PPL representatives during the fourth quarter.
7621 62"'~ Avenue - Staff was contacted by the owner of this four-plex during the third, quarter in~uidng
whether or not the City would be interested in pUrchasing this property. At the October 13 City Council
meeting, the Council authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the property. BCL Appraisals determined
the appraised value of the four-plex to be $127,000; the owner was asking $139,000. At the November
10 City Council meeting, the Council authorized staff to negotiate with the property owner for purchase
of the property. In accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act, the City is required to pay relocation
costs, therefore, a relocation expert will be hired to assist with relocation services. TIF funds would be
used for property acquisition, relocation expenses and redevelopment of the property. At the December
22 City Council meeting, the Council authorized the use of Evergreen Land Services to relocate the
tenants residing in two of the four apartments in the building. At the same meeting, the Council
approved the purchase of the property.
Community Development Specialist - Stephanie Olson left the Community Development Specialist
position with the City in November and advertisements were placed to fill the position.
With new and on-going single and multi-family housing projects, it was a very busy quarter for staff.
Respectfully submitted,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/
Community Development Coordinator
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Fourth Quarter 1997
Scattered Site Housing
Projects:
5559 Sumter Avenue Vacant
7621 Bass Lake Road Vacant
6067 West Broadway New construction
5530 Sumter Avenue Vacant
5212 Winnetka'Avenue Rehab continues with punch list items to be completed. 12/8 Council approves landscaping plan
Open house and marketing of property to take place during 12/22 Council approVes quote for "as is"
first quarter in 1998. appraisal
9116 31st Avenue 10/13 Council approves plans and 11/3 Bid opening 12/1 Bid opening
specifications and authorizes 11110 Council rejects bid 12/8 Council awards contract to Flag
advertisement for bids 11110 Council approves revised plans Builders - $59,200
10/24 Project bulletin mailed and specifications and authorizes
advertisement for bids
11/24 Council ,approves quote from
Crystal Tree Service for tree removal
7813/7819 Angeline Drive No progress on potential acquisition
7911 60 % Avenue 10/13 Council declines potential
purchase
5629 Wisconsin 10113 Council authorizes staff to obtain 12/22 Council approves utilization of
an appraisal Evergreen Land Services for relocation
service
12/22 Council approves quote from Hy-
Land Surveying for boundary survey
12122 Council approves purchase
agreement
12/31 Closing on property
CareBreak Facility 11/10 Council approves 3rd Party
Adult Day Care Agreement
5501 & 5425 Boone Avenue 11/10 EDA approves 3rd Party
Agreement
11/10 EDA approves Land Disposition
Agreement
Homeward Bound Facility Continued coordination on potential uses
4741 Zealand Avenue
CDBG Single Family Rehab 10127 Council approves Deferred Loan 12/8 Council approves Deferred Loan
Program Repayment Agreement Repayment Agreement
12/8 Council approves 3% Interest
Deferred Loan Repayment Agreement
MHFA Fix-Up Fund program in effect
Minnesota City Participation Program in effect
Metropolitan Livable 1998 Participation Resolution approved I I
Communities Act in September I I '
Metropolitan Council Continued cooperation on a number of development, planning
and housing issues
CHDO Continued participation in all activities
Landlords' Forum held in November
Started planning for 1998 Remodeling Fair
GMMHC I 11/24 EDA discussion on Home
I
Ownership Resource Center Program
Multi-Family Housing
Financial Assistance
Sandpiper Condominiums 10/13 Continue public hearing 11110 Continue public hearing I 12/8 Continue public hearing to 1/12/98
12/2 Staff met with Sandpiper Cove
representatives
Vinland Center On-going discussions re: potential joint project
No progress during this quarter
7621 62"d Avenue 10/13 Council authorizes staff to obtain 11/10 Council authorizes staff to 12/22 Council approves utilization of
an appraisal negotiate purchase with property owner Evergreen Land Servicesfor relocation
services
12122 Council approves purchase of 4-
plex building
Project for Pride in Living . 10122 Neighborhood meeting 11/6 Tour by neighbors of other PPL
10/27 Present concept proposal to projects
Council
ENGINEERING PROJECTS
Fourth Quarter of 1997 Report
Progress took place on the following major engineering/construction projects dudng October, November and
December:
1. Project #437 & 486, 36th Avenue Street Improvements from Winnetka to Louisiana Avenues - All
work was essentially completed in the fall of 1996 except for restoration and minor punch list items which
were completed in the spring of 1997. The wear course laid last year on Winnetka was corrected last
summer with New Hope sharing in the funding. At the September 8 City Council meeting, the Council
established October 13, 1997, as the public hearing on assessments for this project. At the October 13
Council meeting, the Council adopted the proposed assessments. The fi'nal cost on the project was $3.2
million which was shared with the cities of Crystal and Plymouth and Hennepin County.
2. Project #.498, Northwood Lake Drainage -. Dudng the second quarter, the Council approved plans and
specifications and authorized advertisement for bids. The Council awarded the contract to Ames
Construction with five alternates in the amount of $1,023,249.60. Construction started in mid-July on the
storm sewer, ponding and park improvements. Initial work included the removal of the existing outlet
structure and culvert under Boone Avenue. Boone Avenue was closed for one day so that a bypass culvert
could be constructed. After the bypass was constructed, traffic lanes were shifted to the east to provide
area to construct the outlet structure. Pilings 45 feet deep were installed to support the new outlet structure
and new storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines were constructed. Construction then focused on the outlet
structure and channel excavation. All of the grading, ballfield reconstruction and site restoration was
completed. Pedestrian bridges were completed during the third quarter and Boone Avenue reconstruction
began after the new box culvert was functioning. Project bulletins were mailed to residents in October and
November to keep them informed on the progress of the project. At the December 8 City Council meeting,
the Council approved Change Order #1 in the amount of $45,310.14, which brought the contract total to
$1,068,559.74. Work was completed for 1997 and sod, seed and plantings not installed will be completed
in the spring of 1998.
3. Project #508, Flag Avenue Backyard Drainage - At the October 13 City Council meeting, the Council
accepted permanent storm sewer easements from three property owners affected by the improvement
project.
4. Project #536, Ice Arena Expansion - At the December 22 City Council meeting, the Council approved a
change order to the ice arena contracts in the amount of $8,945.00.
5. Project #$42, Public Works Remodeling Project - Construction was completed during the third quarter
and the Department moved back into their remodeled/expanded offices. At the October 13 City Council
meeting, the Council approved Change Order #1 in a deduct amount of $3,572.04 and Change Order #2
in the amount of $33,868.44. At the December 8 Council meeting, the Council approved Change Order #3
in the amount of $14,858.18.
6. Project #543, Demolition of Old Fire Station - The City Council approved plans and specifications and
authorized advertisement for bids at its December 8 meeting. The building will be demolished during the
first quarter of 1998. The warning siren and other utilities to the site were also relocated during the fourth
quarter.
7. Project #547, 42nd/Xylon Avenue Intersection Upgrade - During the third quarter, the City continued
coordination with Hennepin County and Gethsemane Cemetery on this project. Driveway relocation and
landscape plans have been submitted by the architect for the cemetery for along the 42'd Avenue
boulevard. Hennepin County has included the project in their 1998 ClP. The County has also determined
its cost participation at $410,000.00. The City Engineer prepared a Concept Report and presented it to the
Council at its September 8 meeting. At the December 8 City Council meeting, staff updated Council on the
progress and requested authorization to proceed with landscape design services. Several landscape
design firms were interviewed and Dahlgren, Shardlow & Urban was selected to develop plans and
specifications in the amount of $56,483.00. An advisory group was formed consisting of City Council, staff,
Planning Commission, Citizens Advisory Commission, business and property owners. The Feasibility
Report was prepared during the fourth quarter. Funding sources for the project will consist of Municipal
State Aid program, Joint Water Commission, Hennepin County, TIF funds, and the Road and Bridge fund.
8. Project #55'1, Louisiana Avenue & 3'1st Circle Street Improvements - All work is completed on this
project. At the September 8 City Council meeting, the Council established October 13, 1997, as the public
hearing on assessments associated with the street improvements. At the October 13 Council meeting, the
Council postponed action on the assessment until the October 27 meeting due to the fact that one
business owner questioned the front foot basis for the assessment. Staff reviewed the assessment policy
and recommended no change to the Council at its October 27 meeting. The Council concurred with staff's
recommendation. At the December 8 City Council meeting, the Council discussed the assessment appeal
for Bruce Paddock, and at the December 22 meeting, the Council authorized a reduction in the --
assessment.
9. Project #556, Begin Park Playground Equipment - Final punch list work was completed during the
fourth quarter and black dirt/seeding will be completed in the spdng of 1998.
10. Project #567, 1997 Street Improvement Project - Dudng the first and second quarters of 1997, the
Council approved plans and specifications and ordered advertisement for bids for Areas 1 and 2, which
included: Area 1) - 59~ and Hillsboro; Area 2) - near Hosterman School (56"~ and Zealand). The Council
rejected the bid for Area 1' and awarded the bid for Area 2 to Ryan Contracting in the amount of
$1,071,713.00. A neighborhood meeting was held with property owners and a pre-construction meeting
was conducted. Construction started at the end of June and the street and utility phase (through base
course) of the project was completed in September and all work scheduled for 1997 was completed
except for punch list items. All of the turf restoration in the project area also was completed. The
bituminous wear course will be placed in the spring of 1998. Project bulletins were mailed to impacted
property owners dudng the construction process. At the August 25 City Council meeting, the Council
approved Change Order #1 in the amount of $4,085.00 for restoration of storage area and the provision of
sump pump connections, bringing the contract total to $1,075,798.28. At the October 13 Council meeting,
the Council approved Change Order #2 in the amount of $3,054.00, which brought the contract total to
$1,078,852.28. Another project bulletin was mailed on October 24 updating residents of the project status.
11. Project #579, Sidewalk Improvements - During the first quarter of 1997, the Feasibility Report was
presented to the Council. Approximately 5,230 lineal feet of sideWalk and 130 pedestrian ramps were in
need of reconstruction. The 1997 project included sidewalks on Winnetka and Boone Avenues. Funding
for the sidewalks was paid for with New Hope's Municipal State Aid Allocation and CDBG funds, which
could be used for the replacement of existing sidewalks and ramps that meet ADA requirements. Several
improvements were proposed by the Police entrance at City Hall, which were funded through the City Hall
Capital Improvement Program. Dudng the second quarter, the Council approved plans and specifications
and ordered advertisement for bids. The City Council awarded the contract to West Star Curb in the
amount of $248,710.10 at the May 27 Council meeting. A pre-construction meeting was conducted in June
and a project bulletin was mailed to impacted property owners. Construction began in June and all
sidewalk replacement, pedestrian ramps and turf restoration was essentially completed by the end of
September. At the December 8 Council meeting, the Council accepted a temporary easement from one
property owner in order for the contractor to remove a retaining wall and complete grading of the property.
A project bulletin was sent to impacted residents in October. By the end of the fourth quarter, all contract
work was completed including punch list items.
12. Project #583, Backyard Drainage Project - At the April 28 City Council meeting, the Council ordered
preparation of plans and specifications for the project for priorities 1-4. The City Council approved plans
and specifications and ordered advertisement for bids at the June 9 Council meeting. At the July 28 City
Council meeting, the Council awarded the bid to Jay Bros., Inc. in the amount of $88,675.00. One area of
the project was funded with Park CIP surplus monies and the balance of the project was funded out of the
Storm Water Utility Fund. A pre-construction meeting was conducted on August 11 and a project bulletin
was mailed to affected property owners on August 25. Construction was completed during the fourth
quarter and final easements were prepared.
13. Project #585, Crystal 1997 Street Project (J.R, Jones) - Street construction was completed during the
fourth quarter and the wear course will be placed in 1998.
1-4. Project #590, Public Works Fueling Facility - A presentation was made to the City Council at its meeting
on October 27 regarding the pros and cons of reconstructing the present fuel facility versus utilizing the
School District facility and/or pdvate vendors. Council directed staff to further explore all options available.
15. Project #595, 42~ Avenue Building Demolition/Parking Lot Construction - During the first quarter,
Phoenix Manufacturing vacated the City-owned building. The City had previously determined that after
Phoenix vacated the building that the building would be demolished for future development. During the
second quarter, contracts were completed on well abandonment, asbestos and light ballast removal. At
the May 12 City Council meeting, the Council approved the plans .and specifications for demolition and
authorized advertisement for bids. The plan included alternates for two different sized parking lots. Bids
were opened on June 51 At the June 9 City Council meeting, the Council awarded the contract for
demolition to F.W. Gartner & Co.~ in the amount of $44,484.30. Funding for demolition was from the 42nd
Avenue Redevelopment TIF funds. At the same meeting discussion ensued regarding a temporary parking
lot to be utilized and paid for by the Sunshine Factory. The Council directed staff to prepare a lease
agreement for parking lot construction and maintenance of the property. A project bulletin was mailed on
June 23 to adjacent property owners. The building was demolished in July and the parking lot was
constructed. At the September 8 City Council meeting, the Council approved plans and specifications for
the landscaping of the City-owned property and authorized advertisement for bids. At the September 22
Council meeting, the Council approved the quote from Wrobleski's Lawn Service in the amount of -
$8,311.25 for the landscapi .n.g. The.work was.com, pie, ted ~,y. the end of October. At the December 22 City
Council meeting, the Counci~ accep[ed the Properly aemolifion project and authorized final payment to the
contractor in the amount of $7,625.92. The total contract amount was $99,529.48, which was 16.47
percent over the odginal contract amount. The Sunshine Factory will be paying for the parking lot expense
overage and the City will pay for the building demolition overage, dUe to poor soil conditions.
16. Project #606, City Hatl Roofing Project - At the August 25 City Council meeting, the Council approved
plans and specifications and. authorized advertisement for bids. The City Council awarded the contract to
All Systems Roofing, Inc. in the amount of $48,500.00 at its September 8 Council meeting. Work was
completed in December.
17. Project #608, City Hall Mold Removal - At the December 8 City Council meeting, the Council authorized
staff to contract with TSP/EO$ Architects and Engineers to define the scope of work to be completed in
order to eliminate the mold problem at City Hall. The cost estimate for this work was $6,000.00. Additional
costs estimates for the actUal clean-up and rebuilding were discussed. A committee was formed to give
input to remodeling and remediation plans. Clean-up/reconstruction will begin during the second quarter of
1998.
18. Project #617, Bile Lane Feasibility -A bike lane evaluation report was submitted by Bonestroo to city
staff for review. Options were presented to the Citizens Advisory Commission in December.
19. Project #618, Dorothy Mary Park Improvements -A preliminary report including issues and options was
submitted during the fourth quarter.
20. Project' #626. 36"' Avenue improvements - A presentation was made to the City Council at its December
8 meeting re~arding the reconstruction of 36"~ Avenue from Winnetka to Highway 169. Council directed the
City Engineer to prepare a concept report detailing the surface evaluation and recommendations on a
maintenance plan or street overlay during the next several years. It is anticipated that the concept report
would be available in January 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
ENGINEERING PROJECTS
Fourth Quarter 1997
437 & 36th Avenue Street Improvements 10/13 Council adopts assessment
486 policy
498 Northwood Lake Drainage 10/9 Project bulletin mailed 11/26 Project bulletin mailed 12/8 Council approves Change
Order #1 in the amount of
$45,310.14
Work on project substantially completed during fourth quarter
508 4224 Flag Backyard Drainage 10/13 Council accepts permanent
easements from 3 property owners
536 'Ice Arena Expansion 12/22 Council approves Change
Order in the amount of $8,945
542 Public Works Remodeling 10113 Council approves Change 12/8 Council approves Change
Order #1 in the amount of Order #3 in the amount of
<$3,572.04> and Change Order #2 $14,858.18
in the amount of $33,868.44
543 Demolition of Old Fire Station Warning siren and utilities at site relocated 12/8 Council approves plans and
specifications and authorizes
advertisement for bids
547 42ndlXylon Avenue Intersection Landscape design firms interviewed and 12/8 Presentation to Council and
Upgrade tours of their projects too place motion to proceed with streetscape
design concepts with DSU
Feasibility Report prepared
551 Louisiana Avenue & 31st Circle 10/27 Council adopts assessment ' 12/22 Council authorizes reduction
Street Improvements policy of special assessment Levy
#14102 (Paddock)
556 Begin Park Playground Equipment Punch list items completed
567 '97 Street Improvement Program 10/13 Council approves Change Contractor completed all scheduled work.
Order #2 in the amount of $3,054 Final wear course to be constructed in 1998.
10/24 Project bulletin mailed
579 1997 Sidewalk improvemen'i ~0/10 Project bulletin mailed 12)8 Council accepts temporary
Project easement from property owner
All contract work completed,
including punch list items
583 1997 Backyard Drainage Construction completed during fourth '
Improvements quarter and easements prepared.
585 Crystal 1997 Street project Street reconstruction completed;
wear course to be placed in 1998.
590 Public Works"Fueling Facility 10/27 Presentatio~ to council I ....
I
595 7528 42'~ Avenue Demolition Building demolition, parking'lot constructi0~ 12122 Council authorized final
and landscaping completed payment on project
606 City Hall Roofing .... I Work completed in December
I
608 City Hall Mold Removal Committee formed to discuss 12i8 Council awardS'contract tO
remediation/remodeling ideas TSP/EOS to develop scope of work
617 Bike Lane Feasibility Study Bike lane evaluation report submitted CAC reviews options
618 Dorothy Mary Park Preliminary reports ~ubmitted
626 36~h Avenue Streetscape 12/8 Presentation to Council on
street improvements and
authorization to prepare concept
report