The URL can be used to link to this page

120198 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1998 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 2. 3. 4. 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6. 6.1 7. 7.1 7.2 7.3 8. 9. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT ITEMS PUBLIC HEARINGS Case 98-24 Request for Planned Unit Development to Allow Second Building on One Lot and a Conditional Use Permit tq Allow a Drive-Through Window at a Newly Constructed Restaurant Building at Midland Shopping Center, 2703-2769 Winnetka Avenue North, Engelsma Limited Partnership/Kraus-Anderson Realty/Taco Bell - TO BE TABLED Case 98-27 Request for a Vadance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition, 9325 31't Avenue North, Werner Langenbach, Petitioner Case 98-16 Consideration An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by Reducing the Lot Area Size for Two Family Dwellings, City of New Hope, Petitioner - TO BE TABLED COMMITTEE REPORTS Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: Thursday, December 17 at 8 a.m. Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: Friday, December 18 at 7 a.m. Report of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - No Meeting Scheduled OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of November 2, ! 998. Review of City Council Minutes of October 26 and November 9, 1998. Review of EDA Minutes of September 28 and November 9, 1998. ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT *Petitioners are required to be in attendance Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land uSe proposal' based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code -and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. A. If the Planning' Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: 98-24 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Request for Planned Unit Development to Allow Second Building on One Lot and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Drive-Through Window at a Newly Constructed Restaurant Building at Midland Shopping Center 2703 - 2769 Winnetka Avenue North 19-118-21-44-0066 B-4, Community Business Zoning DiStrict Engelsma LP/Kraus-Anderson (owner) November 25, 1998 Applicant: Taco Bell December 1, 1998 UPDATE 1. The petitioner is requesting planned unit development to allow a second building on one lot and a conditional use permit to allow a drive-through window at a newly constructed restaurant building at Midland Shopping Center, pursuant to Sections 4.032(2)(e), 4.124(3)(j), 4.036(10)(z), and 4.21 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. At the October 6 Planning Commission meeting, the petitioner requested that this request be tabled so that revised plans could be developed in response to Hennepin County's concerns about moving the curb cut. The Planning Commission tabled the request until the November 2 Planning Commission meeting. 3. At the November 2 Planning Commission meeting, the petitioner submitted correspondence requesting another tabling until the December Planning Commission meeting. Staff met with the petitioners in November to provide comments on a revised concept site plan where the new Taco Bell restaurant would utilize the existing vacant bank building (and drive-thru lane) instead of demolishing that portion of the center and constructing a totally new free-standing restaurant. 4. VVhen staff met with the petitioners in November, they indicated that they would be conducting a neighborhood meeting before they developed more detailed plans and then would return to the Planning Commission. Staff has also indicated to them that they would need to come back to the Design & Review Committee and that a CUP for a drive-thru window wOuld be necessary. (See attached Plan Case minutes from 1978) 5. Staff anticipates that revised plans will be submitted for the December 11 filing deadline for the January Planning Commission meeting and has requested that the petitioner submit written correspondence requesting a tabling until the January 5 Planning Commission meeting. The 120-day time limit for action expires on January 9, 1999. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends tabling this request until the January 5 Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: 11/23 Petitioner Correspondence Site Plan 11/2 Petitioner Correspondence 11/4 Building Official Memo 7/11/78 Planning Commission Minutes 7/24/78 City Council Minutes From: Douglas W. Sinclair 651-776-4618 To: Kirk Mc Donald Date: 11/23/98 Time: 10:47:46 AM Page 1 of 1 tenantservices incorporated - -" 234 kennaed st. paul, mn 55106-6818 November 23, 1998 Mr. Ki~k Mc Donald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Application for Development of a Taco Bell Restaurant Midland Shopping Center · New Hope, MN Dear Kirk:. .... Once again, on behalf of Border Foods, Inc., the applicant, please consider this letter a request that ~ application referenced above be tabled by the City Council until the January meeting. The reason is that we are in the process of considering alternative development plans end will require the additional time to prepare adequate conceptual designs. .. In an effort to create a site plan which would addreee the ieeuea raised I~' the'reaidents, we are'. evaluating a plan which would utilize the existing former bank building with a drive-through laneentranca located to the south of the bank building. The etfect would be to direct the majodty of traffic away from the residential area. We expect plans to be completed and a community meeting to be held in the early part of December. Thank you for your. 'ncerely, Dougla,~. Sin=lair President DW8/ Barbara Schneider, Director of Devaioprnent Border Food~, Inc. Hans Okemtrom, Property Manager Kmus-Anderson Realty Company ' consult, ant to the retail industry Phonez 81E.778-4892 Faxz 612-776-4618 t~nant~aol.eom Alliant Engi?ee. ri.n.g,_ inc. ~] 2 From: Douglas W. Sinclair ~1-770-4018 To: I~rk Mc Do,id O~e: 11/2/98 Time: 4:3~:58 lam tenant services incorporated 234 kennard street; November 2, 1998 4401 Xylon Avenue Notffi New Hope, MN 55428 Application for Development of a Tac~ Bell Restaurant Mk~and Shopping Center New Hope, MN On behalf of Border Foods, Inc., the applicant, please cormider this letter a request that the application referenced aloove be tabled by the City Council until the December meeting. The reason is that we are in the process of cormidedng alternative developnm~ plans and will require the additional time to prepare adequate oonoaptual designs. Thank you for your help in this matter. President Kraus-Anderson Realty Company eonsultant to the f~etail indust~ phOne: 81 o-778-40~fl Fax~ 81 f-778-4818 tonan~l.eom Memorandum To: Kirk McDonald ~l From: Doug Sandstad Date: Nov. 4, 1998 Re: Midland Shopping Center Histbry Para gathered the background material, quickly, for me, on the former bank "drive-up window". Planning case 78-59 was a "Construction Approval" request for First Federal bank at 2769 Winnetka. The attached minutes reveal discussion about a text amendment for bank drive-up windows in commercial zones. Clearly, the intent was to permit a small number of cars to use the window without any significant stacking. Note, also, that the Mayor tried to require traffic engineering, but that failed. It is my recommendation that we require a CUP for the more intense land use resulting from a Drive-Thru window at a fast food restaurant. The 1978 approval is inconsistent with the type and scale of the proposed Taco Bell USe. Cc; file attachments ~'lmnt~ cese 78-58 78-59 78-61 78-65 78-6? 78-69 78-71 78-76 78-81 78-87 78-91 Appt Jcent Roger Grim First Federal Atexsnder Pressman roughen OuSchme Burger King Nystrom Comtruct Ion Lester 8ouBkan James Janoo Country Ctub Market Dr. lying #amen Warr~ Tabor Max Gre~m Artefl L~g Mr. Steak Stevon i ooacson John Eutng Don Gessmon Jerry Mi L ter El Leefl Kr J eger Veughan DuSchone Gear & Brooch Donald Beck C8flcet ted T JmberlBfld Homes Burger King Russet I PBucy J. Uruees Jerry #srrington #aegeruon Bros. Wi tcher hueohorst N.H. Partr~rs Roseuood Address 312& EmJgn Mjdlofld Shopping Ctr 6008 Rhode Istofld 3~00 ! ndepe~e 45th/Wl~tka 7829 Terra Lind8 Dr. 8736-&0 E. Res.crt Rd 8001 Bill Lake Rood 851] #eedou Lake Rd 5800 Boone No. 6057 Suuter Piece 7858 42nd Ave. go. 30~8 Gettysburg 3632 Jordan 42~5 Nevedl 8TM 36th AYe. &~65 Winnetka 3400 Independence 8801 E. Re~. Cea. Rd 8701 #orthuood Pkw 4440 lndepe~e 7009 Bass Lake Road 9000Rockfor~Rood 5805WJnnetka 42flcl/#18 7324 36th Ave. No. #evode Aveo Soo Lifle/Vimetka Soo Lirm/Wiflfletks 9301 Sciatica Ctr Preening Case Index Description Yarleflce Coflotruct t on AJ~ovi| Variance Yarisflce Code ~t c~t~ti~ ~r~at Gor~ Varies S~iet ~e Pe~it Si~ Vittles Virile Ger~ Vorie~e VerJ~e/F~e S~tat Use Pemit St~ VerJ~e ~r~ Votive ~r~e Veri~e Var J ~e ~r8~ VerJ~e Veri~e/F~e ~r~e Vorf~e VerJ~e C~ ~t C~ ~t Vari~e Variince Variance Rezoning Varleflce PUD Concept ARrayer Comtruct ion Approval Construct ion Approval Variance/Perking Sign Sign Var i mace Page29 T-24-78 T-24-78 7-24-78 T-24-78 7-2&-78 T-13-78 ?-13-78 8-14-78 8-14-78 8-14-78 8-14-78 8-14-78 8-14-78 9-11-78 9-11-78 9-11-78 9-11-78 9-11-78 9-11-78 9-11-78 9-11-78 9-11-78 9-11-78 10-03-78 10-03-T8 lO-$-78 10-05-78 10-03-78 10-05-78 10-03-78 10-03-78 lO-O3-78 lo-3o-78 11-06-~8 Council Date DiSDOOItio0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - ~ - JULY I1, 1978 7. The City Manager stated that it was against the ordinance to have a second ground sign if the wall/~n was over ten feet in size. C~mm~ssioner Gustafson recommended denial of Case 78-57 - Request for Variance in Sizeo ters at 7112 Bass Lake Road. C~on~ensen second. In arswer to a question from Mr. Lawrence regarding the reasons for the stipulatio~as to letter' size; Chairman Cameron stated that the Ordinance grew out of many months of study by~e Codes and Standards Committee and the Planning Comm. fssion. This included contact with buslness~Fople and sign people and took into consideration the type of street thc sign faced when the ordinan~w was drafted. The restric- tions had not just been.arbitrarily plucked out of the air. / Commissioner Gustafson noted that the Commission had also consulte~a study, previously been conducted in another area, in an attempt to avoid being arbitrary in t~ablishment of the criteria. Commissioner Anderson noted that a Precedent had been. set f~ the requirement for conformance to the letter size maximum in the Ordinance, particularly along~ass Lake Road. · Voting in favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atch~e~' Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None / _. Motio__n~arrie__d. /SET 8. PLANNING CASE 78-58 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ~ BACK AT 3124 ENSIGN AVENUE - ROGER GRIMM, PETITIONER. Mr. Grimm stated he would like the vari~ance in setback to allow a child's playhouse to be located in the sideyard easement. The playhouse is~)~four posts, the platform size is 8' x 10', the house portion is 6' at the peak and 4' at the eaveg>,WThe size of the house is 7½' x 7½'. The house will be 7' off the ground.. The yard is fenced. / Mr. Grimm stated he had signa~l~res of ten of his neighbors, in~ludang the neaghbo~ who is adjfce~t to the playhouse. In answer t~/questions regarding why he had built the house on stalts, Mr. Grimm an- swered it was to simulate/ tree house. He stated he would have no objection to a requirement in a motion for approval, st~ulating that he would move the house at his ex~.nse af at ever became neces- sarW because of drain~e or utility ease~nts. He noted that if the famalw should ever move, they would take the plaw~use with them. He is still ~iting for a ruling from the Building inspector as to whether he needed/~%airs to the house, or if he could use a moveable ladder as access to the playhouse. He intends to pa~ock the playhouse when thew are not at home. / Commissioner/~ustafson ~,adea motion for approval of a sta~ of enforcement in Case 78-~8, subject to the__ a~reement ~the setitioner, to move the structure at his own expense, if Cit~ staff determines at any future ti~e that the structure creates a drainage problem, utilit~ maintenance problem, or an~ such hin- drance~ the easement. Conwa~ssioner Christensen second. / Com~ssioner Anderson confirmed_~ith Mr. Grimm that the one neighbor who had expressed objection to the ocation was not an adjacent neighbor. /Fotingin favor: London, Bartos, Christensen, Atchlew, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against= None Motion carried. PLANNING CASE 78-59 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CODE AND CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL AT THE MID,ND SHOPPING CENTER - FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN, PETITIONER.. Mr. Paul ]Claverkamp represented the owners of Midland Shopping Center. Mr. Bruce Bednark represented First Federal Savings and. Loan. Thew are requesting construction approval and an amendment to the Code that would allow First Federal to have a drive-up lane, in the RB District. Thew are asking thaC the drive-up facility be considered an accessory use. * Mr. Bednark stated thaC FirsC Federal has anotherfacilitw with a drive-up window very similar to the one proposed. Theg find thaC the usage is very minor, not like a conventional bank, because the trans- actions take longer. Chairman Cameron stated that there were Cwo issues in this oase. Ne noted that Citw Ordinance changes take so~e weeks and while the CoaT~ission might find merit in the amendment to the Code Co allow a drive-up lane, che~ could noC approve construction plans that would include such a window unless the Code were amended. The plans could be approved buC the window could not be used until such time that the Ordinance amendment had been adopted. The Commission cannot approve plans in violation of the Ordinance. Commissioner Anderson questioned whether such windows were prohibited because iC was a window or what? He compared this type of window to the Penny supermarket operation with its drive-up facilities to pick up groceries. pLA~It~ COW~SS~ON ~IUTE$ - 5 - JULY 11, 1978 Nr. Klaverkamp requested that the Commission at least consider the amendment to the Ordinance. First Federal would like to begin construction chis summer and feel it is essential to their operation to have this convenience available for their customers. Discussion followed between Mr. Klaverkamp and Chairman ~umeron regarding the interpretation of acces- sor~ use to an existing business~ the process involved in amending ~ City ordinance, as well as the time involved~ and the fact that the Commission must recommend such a change to the Council. Also discussed was the advisabilitw of single drive-up lanes for savings and'loan operations as &cces- sor~ uses~ the current trend for drive-up facilities in manW business~ and whether =he savings and loan business will change with the recent approval of the draft swstem for Savings and Loans. Mr. Bednark noted that even with the introduction of the draft swstem, the operation was still essen- tially a savings and loan. The draft swstem simpl~ allows the customer to drawn on =he account. He did not see a significant change occurring in the use of the drive-up facilitW. Savings transactions take too 16rig (3-7 minutes). It will he a convenience for the .customer, not a fast means of completing a transaction. The drive-up window would, be open only during regular operating hours. Commissioner Gustafson noted that if hours of operation were a concern of the Commission, this particu- lar facilitw was immaterial as far as the amendment to the Ordinance, sinc6'the Ordinance would if adopted control all such operations, not morelW First Federal. If the Commission felt that hours of operation of drive-up windows should he controlled, this also should he included in the proposed amend- ment. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion to recom,~_~d approval of the followinq language, identified as proposed 4.52 (4). Second by Commissioner Atchley. "One lane drive-up service windows for financial institutions in RB or Industrial Districts, providing the facility is approved as part of the original constru, - tion approval of the building. If a service window is to be added to an existin~ building, or if more than one lane is to be provided, a special use perm/t proce~ dure must b~ used and the facilit7 must he found to meet the criteria of Sections 4.45 (2) or (3) and the Council shall apply such conditions 'as necessar~ to elimi- nate traffic, noise and other nuisance characteristics." In answer to a question from the Chairman, the titW Manager stated that the amendment would he before the Council for final adoption at the first August meeting if it went through without problem. Voting in favor: London, Bargs, Christensen, Atchlew, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson Voting against: None Motion carried. Discussion then was held regarding the construction plans for the proposed First Federal Building. Hr. Jim Hoeller of Albitz Design presented a photo of the prototWpe building. The building will be lo- cated at the~o~th end of the shopping center. It will be a 300 square foot building. Theg plan to have a five foot planting area in front of the building between the sidewalk and the building. Commissioner Christensen confirmed tha~ the petitioner intends to build next to the "Now Bikes" store. The~plan to have a canop~ over the single drive-up lane, about ten feet off the ground. A driver will swing in to the north, and then turn to exit or drive west out of the shopping c~nter. Thew es- timate having approximatelg 4-~ cars an hour, and plan one sign facing south and one sign facing east from the canop~ Bo~h sig~s will be lighted. There will he electrical wall packs on the east, against the structure of =he building. There will be two decorative lanterns, one on each side of the dOor, one decorative lantern on the eas= and one on the north. There will he shrubber~ along the door facing the shopping center, extending into the sidewalk. Live plan~ings will be provided. They plan to 'have up to eight emploweee. Discussion then c~ntered on the parking situation at Midland Center; where there existed adequate spaces for parking; whether essential parking spaces would be lost in allowing for the turning radius in the drive-uo lane; and whether emplogee parking spaces were included in the total parking requirement/provi- sion at the ~enter. There are presentlw 541 spaces provided in the lot for the center. In reference to an earl/er statement, Hr. Bednark noted that theg anticipate 4-~ cars per daW at the drive-up w~ndow, not 4-5 per hour. Discuss/on then covered the a~ess to the center at the north, the proposed parking spaces near this access and whether this parking could he eliminated because of the stacking problems that sometimes occur at this exit? In anMr to a concern expressed bg a citizen, Commissioner Gustafson stated that flashing signs (i.e. time/temperature) were not allowed under the New Hope Sign Ordinance. P~ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 1970 9. Dr. Paul Wrobel, 7901 28th Avenue, expressed concern about the lights of the turning vehicles shin- ing over the fence into his home. He further requested Chat the Commission be sure there was adequate parking space, with this addition, since some existing spaces. ~ould be lost with the additional build- ing and the space required for turning. Mr. Roger Boswell, 2~32 Winnetka, expressed his concern about the additional traffic; the difficulties that now exist with people attempting to cross Winnetka from Terra Llnda; and the difficulty of trwing to turn .north from the exit. Ne added that man~ trucks also use this entrance to the center and was concerned about space when the new building iS'finished. Discussion then centered on the access to the center and the fact thaC the Countw had designed this ac- cess; the total parking requirements of the center; the parking spaces now located at the north end of the center; the possibility of extending the island on Winnetka; the traffic flow in the center itself; and whether the owners had sought any professional advice regarding internal traffic flow. Also dis- cussed was whether the drive-in area should be defined with curbing as well as being striped. The Citg Manager noted Chat inasmuch as the screening to the north of the center had been a problem in the past, perhaps this would be a good time for the COmmission to review Chis problem. During a discussion of this fencing problem, the Chairman suggested that the parties concerned could get together to discuss mutual concerns and solutions. Commissioner Christensen recommended approval of the construction plans in Case 78-59 for First Federa~ Savings and Loan. Commissioner London second. Concensus of the Commission seemed to he that it would be desirable to request that the County take a look at the access to the center and the possibility of extending the island on Winnetka Avenue. Also suggested was that the owners of the center consult a Traffic Engineer in regard to the internal flow, before their appearance before the City Council. Voting in favor: London, Partes, Christensen, ACchley, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Anderson. Voting against: None Motion carried. 10. PLANNING ~SE '78-60 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN FRONTYARD SETBACK AT 6008 RHODE ISLAND''N PRESSMAN, PETiTiONER. / ......... ER The petitioner was not in attendance. · Cs°io~eSrS~cne~eGuUSsteafonSOdn made a motlon to tabl. Case 78-60 until, th, meet~_ .~W~of August l, 197~. Co,~nis- Mr. Gordon Miller, 6017 Rhode Island, stated he was present inga/'rdto this case. The Chairman informed h2~. t. hat the matter.~ould be the first item on the agenda on, gust 1, and that additional notices would not De sent. Mr. Miller wall be contacted if the pe~c~ withdraws his request. ~tt~n~ ~a~a~ir.· NI~o~deon, Sartos, Chrlscensen, Atch/~ Cameron, Gu,af son, Gundershaug, Anderson M~tion carried. 11. PETITIONER. ~ PLANNING CASE 78-61 - REQUEST FOR GARAGE~IANCE AT 3400 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE - VAUGHAN DU SCHANE, JR. doubl, g.r.g., we. s.. ng the variant, to n=~ co go watch ten £~C of the south properCg line (approxi~atel~ 2S feet from the street). ...... ' . ~iccle of the backward green space as possible. There are A,so two l~-ac DUSM~ would hate tO lose. - - _ = ~ed veh/cles in the drivewa~ would project into the boule- upat on in the .pet., it --~or of the garage will match the house. ~~ con e.c rned .a.bo Cu su?h .ncroschmenc into the '~~ therefor along time. Theg were concerned about set- rom cM resl~encla~ ~tr~te. Hr. Jeff!; C~ardelli, 3409 Nillsboro Avenue, expressed his concern for additional detached garages, since the other homes in ~he area had attached garages. Ne was concerned wXth the looks of the area a~d preserving the qualitg of the neighborhood. If everyone buil¢ extra buildiags che~ might as well have alleys. Counct1Htnutes .5. July 24, 1978 unc~lman Otten questioned whether the elevated playhouse was · petitioner Co ' · o the building inspector The said that the exact structure is st, ll pending the appro_.y~t_heb_ui~ding.~n~e~ · building inspector will look at the structure~ approval of-the setbaCK variance. No one else appeared in regard to thisPl~g Case. m ............. ~ac~~K.~_'an_.ce.sareo.uest~ undo? Case_ No~ 78-58. subject' to the s cture meetinq the approval of the oui)oinq inspector as to the p'e~roblem~ utili aintenance proo~em~ ur ,~ ~ - .... ' Vottn ~~favor: Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Otten, Plufka Vo~against: None · Molion declared carried~ 7. Planning Case No. 78-59. request from First Federal Savings and Loan/Midland Shopping Center for.amendment to zoninq cqde and construction ~l'an .Qrp_~[ to permit construction of a building at the northeast corner of the current center [cont~on wall with Now Bike), with the provision for a drive-up window, was considered by the Council. The building will be just over 3,400 square feet, finished in brick and stucco. Under the existing code, no auto service of any type is permitted in the RB district. Mr. Paul Klaverkamp .represented Midland Shopping Center. He noted that First Federal had been a tenant in the center for a number of years. Their lease is now coming to an end, and they want more space. This is the reason for the proposal to build onto the end of the shopping center. The existing First Federal space would be ~eleased to another tenant. An amend- ment to the ordinance is needed to allow the drive-up window. Mr. Klaverkamp said that First Federal states they will have four to five cars a day using the drive-up window. Mr. Klaverkamp stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, they had been asked to redevise the traffic flow at the access point. He said the plans had been revised with the removal of one line of parking. Mr. Klaverkamp said that the~arkino is not needed at the north end of the center. This should provide adequate majeurer~bility. The usage of the drive-up window will be so minimal as to not be considered an important factor in the way of t~affic. He stated that it was the trend for banks or savings and loans to have drive-up windows. Discussion held as to whether the parking at the ~enter was, in fact, adequate, with it being noted that the spaces to the rear of the building were really not very practical. However, additional parking has not been needed at the center. Discussion then followed as to traffic organization within the center. Obstacles in the access lane, such as posts, etc., made it necessary to drive across the parking spaces. The cars using th~ proposed drive-in facility wouldalso be driving across this limited access lane to get back out of the drive-in facility. It was noted that traffic movement was more important than a few more parking spaces. Mr. Klaverkamp said that there was no flexibility as to changing the access point from Winnetka Avenue--this being a county road. The County does not want to change the median, but the access could be changed--which would preclude a left turn. Discussion then continued relative to the internal traffic pattern at Midland Center and the resultant problems. Mr. Klaverkan~wos asked to retain a traffic engineer to properly layout the internal traffic flow for the entire center. It vt as noted that whtle the savings and loan company might not have a high volume of drive- up traffic, a future tenant might very well have considerable traffic of this kind. It was also noted that the operation of the savings and loan company might change so as to encourage m ore of this type of traffic. It was pointed out that if there was considerable traffic to the drive-up window, a stacking lane would be needed to the rear of the building. Tile possibility of opening access to the store via the rear of the center was also mentioned by Council. Mr. Bruce Bednark of First Federal spoke on the need for the drive-up to provtde.:the convenience to their customers and remain competitive. Council Mtnutes -6- July 24, lg78 Mr. Klaverkamp then stated that the Midland Center would be willing to work out the traffic problem, but would appreciate construction plan approval at this time. Mr. Bednark pointed out that they would need to know whether they could have the drtve-up window as part of the construction plan approval. He again stated that they only anticipated four or five cars ~ day using the window. He inquired whether the concern was with this traffic or with the traffic flow of the entire center. Further discussion centered on trucks parked behind the center precluding a smooth flow of traffic and the fact that the parking to the rear was not used by employees. .Motion. by Councilman Plufka, second by Councilman Otten instructing the City..Attorney to p:e~are an amendment to the zoning code providing for the drive-up window in the RB district for hearinq before the Planninq Commission. Voting in favor: Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Otten, Plufka Voting against: None .M~tion declared carried. Councilman Plufka asked whether the petitioner would be agreeable to granting construction plan approval to First Federal Savings and Loan, making them aware that occupancy of the building will be conditioned upon presentation of a complete traffic Y-low and parking study acceptable to the City and the Midland Shopping Center and its tenants. In determining what that parking arrangement and traffic flow should be, an unacceptable comment will be that "we can't do this because First Federal construction is under way." Further discussion followed as to the difficulty in getting traffic to approach the drive- up window from the north, the existing traffic patterns, and whether construction could start before location of the drive-up window was firm. ~1o:~£~ by Mayor Erickson, second by Council~voman ~okr granting construction ~lan a~roval for ~he First ~e~eral buildin~ to loca~e at th~ northeast ~_8_e_~ prooosed under Planninq Case No. 78-59 with the understandinq.~9_t._th__e~CA_n_te[_?__n.e~i.!]. .i~m_e_U_i_a_tely_.cretain a traffic enqineer to look at the traffic flow. Councilman Crick expressed concern with granting app)~val prior to a traffic flow study. Mr. Klaverkamp gave a verbal committment that he would immediately proceed with"the traffic study as requested by the Council. Upon inquiry, Mr. Klaverkamp said that they would be talking to the neighbor as to the fencing concern. Dr. ~robel, 7901 28th Avenue North, said that the experience he has had to date with the shopping center has been less than acceptable. He said that his ghrubs adjacent to the fence had been damaged by dumping of snow and salt laden materials. He said he had submitted a claim for $325. The fence was damaged; they did fix it. However, the insurance company had only offered SlO0 for the shrub damage, so the claim had not been settled. Or. Wrobel also asked that a perimeter curbing be put inside the shopping center to prevent cars from running into any kind of fence that might be constructed. Or. Wrobel also mentioned that snow is ~iled On the corner'resulting in icing of the sidewalk. It also blocks the view of people leaving the shopping center. He said he wobld like assurance that these things will be looked into and corrected. Mr. Klaverkampwas informed that there should be no snow storage at the northeast corner of the shopping center site. Dr. Wrobel also asked that his claim for shrub damage be honored. Mr. Klaverkamp said he had no knowledge of this matter but that the insurance company should be handling it. Council pointed out that this was a civil matter and not something with which the Council should become involved. .Vote was then taken on the motion to grant construction plan approval as follows: Voting in favor: Erickson, Hokr, Otten, Plufka Voting against: Enck Mgtion declared carried. Councilman Enck asked that the record show that he opposed the motion on the premise that the traffic flow should be resolved prior to granting approval for the First Federal building. ~1~11 Minutes -7- July 24, 1978 o future because of damaqes that have been caused in the past, plus the fact that there will be additional use of that corner by the additional shopping center tenant. Voting in favor: Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Otten, Plufka Voting against: None Motion declared carried. No. 78-61, request frOm Vaughn DuSchane, 3400 Independence Avenue North, for a ~ermit construction of a new detached qaraqe within l0 feet 9f thestreet, was by the Council. Mr. Vau explained to the Council that he presently has a single attached garage on the .ide of his residence. He is presently proposing to build a detached two car garage at ~ck, east side of the lot. A variance is needed because he will have mo~'e than 700 feet of area, and the setback from south property line is to be l0 feet. The sideyard setback be 20 feet. The new garage will vent to 34th Avenue. The attached . garage will be ~ed. _. Upon inquiry, Mr. me said that the new garage is needed for storage of cars and boat. It will not be used home occupation. It was noted that if a car on the boulevard. Upon further discussion, Mr, if he had to set it back 20 feet in the driveway to the prOposed garage, it would be encroaching ne said he was not sure that he would build the garage the side street. Mr. DuSchane said that the exterior o siding and color. No one appeared in regard to this planning Motion by Councilman Enck, second by on Lot 6, that the garage be s 20 feet .existing structure. Voting in favor: Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Otten, Voting against: None Motion declared carried. The Payor announced a five minute recess. Meeting called back to order. The Mayor announced that the ~ltc heari No. 344 (Fleetwood Estates) was called to order. :he garage would match the house, as to roof style, ~se. Plufk~ to approve variance fo~.oversize .ndence Avenue North, with 'the stT~blation and Water Improvement The CtlLy Manager presented an affidavit showing publication in the New -Plymouth Post of the "Notice of Public Hearing for Proposed Sanitary Sewer and Water No. 344 (Proposed Fleetwood Estates Plat)", dated July 13 and goth, 1978; which affidavit was approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the City Clerk-Treasurer. The ler then presented an affidavit evidencing mailed notice to the owners of the property enefit by the making of the proposed improvement; which affidavit was examined, approved ~rdered' placed on file in the office of the City Clerk-Treasurer. Mr. Gene Anderson, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc., appeared to explain the of the improvement; this being the extension of sanitary sewer and water to serve the Fleetwood Estates Addition. He gave the total estimated cost of the improvement at The proposed assessments range frOm $500 per unit up to $3,500 per unit depending on they need only extension of services or whether they need extension of the laterals as well a~ services. 'All persons present who desired to do so were then afforded the opportunity to express their views or state any objections they might have to the making of the proposed tmprov.ement. No one appeared. The City Manager advised that the developer Mt. Gabriel, was wholeheartedly in favor of the improvement. Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 98-27 Request for a Variance to the Side Yard Setback Requirement to Allow Construction of a Garage Addition 9325 31st Avenue North 19-118-21-32-0058 R-1 Single Family Residential Werner Langenbach November 25, 1998 December 1, 1998 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to the side yard setback requirement to allow construction of a garage addition, pursuant to Sections 4.034 and 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. The petitioners are requesting to construct a 20-foot wide x 22-foot deep hobby garage that would be attached on the west side of the existing house. The home is located on a corner lot and they are requesting a 10-foot variance from the 20-foot side yard setback requirement so that the side wall of the garage would be located 10 feet from the side yard property line. 3. The petitioners indicate in their correspondence that they desire to store two Model A Fords in this garage and that these cars are only driven about a dozen times per year and no driveway or curb cut is proposed. The existing house placement and the existing trees on the lot limit garage locations. 4. The property is located on the southeast corner of Independence Avenue and 31st Avenue North and the lot contains 11,250 square feet (90' wide and 125' deep). The home was built in 1969 and complies with the R-1 setback requirements as follows: Front Yard (north) Two-car attached garage is located 30 feet from the front property line, the house is located behind the garage and is 55 feet from the property line. Side Yard (east) Attached garage is located 5 feet from the east side yard property line. Rear Yard (south) The existing house is located 43 feet from the rear yard property line. Corner Side Yard (west) The existing house on the side where the "hobby garage" is proposed to be located is 30 feet from the side yard property line. 5. There is a five-foot drainage and utility easement on the east (side yard) property line and on the south (rear yard) property line. There is a 12-foot x 16-foot (192 square feet) utility shed located at the rear southwest corner of the property. 6. The property is located in an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District and is surrounded by single family homes. 7. The property is located in Planning District #16 of the Comprehensive Plan, which noted the single family homes are in good to excellent condition and promotes housing maintenance through private investment. In general, attached garages like the one proposed have consistently higher dollar value than detached garages. 8. The existing curb cut will remain on 31" Avenue. No ddveway is proposed or allowed by the code for a second garage. The hobby vehicles would occasionally need to be ddven over the yard and curb cut to Jordan Avenue. Six parking spaces exist now on the property (2 indoor/4 open) and two additional enclosed spaces will result from the hobby garage construction. 9. The topography of the property is nearly flat, tipping to the west, with a vadety of trees in the front, side and rear yards. 10. The petitioner states in the application that he is "submitting a variance request for 10 feet so I can build an addition to my house and this addition will be a hobby garage to store my Model A Fords. This garage will be located at the west end of my existing house and the size will be 20 x 22 feet. I have lived at this house since 1969, the year I had this house built. The reason I chose to build this garage on the west end of my house is because this is the best location due to the configuration of house and lot. The other locations available would be to the south side of my house and would dramatically reduce the size of my back yard and block off the window to my formal dining room. This proposed garage location is set back far enough so it will not interfere with any corner traffic. The construction of this garage is designed to blend into the house shape, roof pitch, windows, siding and roof shingles. In fact it will not look like a garage from the north or west side, i.e., 31" Avenue on north side and Independence Avenue on the west. The garage doors will be located on the south side of the building facing trees and bushes. The purpose of this garage will be to store my Model A Fords. Both my wife and myself have a strong interest in the Model A Ford automobile. I did the restoration on two of my Model A's. We belong to several Model A clubs and this is where we find most of our fdends. We drive these cars a lot locally and normally take several long trips each year with our Model A friends. The main driving car is parked in our garage all the time and the other two will be stored in the proposed garage and driven about a dozen times a year only during warm weather. I don't drive these Model A's during the winter or any time there is snow on the streets. I contacted all the neighbors that live on the border of my property and told them of my plans to build a hobby garage attached to my house. Each of these neighbors have given a green light to this project. I received a signed letter from three of the neighbors that live directly across the street from where this garage is to be built giving their consent to this garage." 11. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified and staff have received no comments regarding this request. ANALYSIS 1. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from stdct application of the zoning code where undue hardships prevent reasonable use of property and where circumstances are unique to the property, A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of property or because of exceptional topographic or water conditions. The hardship cannot be created by the property owner and if the variance is granted, it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or unreasonably diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 2. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is, due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. planning Case 98-27 Page 2 11/25/98 3. Additional criteria to be used in considering requests for a variance includes the following and the Planning Commission/City Council shall make findings that the proposed action will not: A. Consistent With Purpose of Variance. Be contrary to the purposes of a variance. B. Light and Air. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. C. Street Connections. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. D. Public Safety. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. E. Property Values. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to intent of City Code. 4. "Exhibit A" illustrates the property and the "buildable yard" allowed by the Zoning Code compared to the proposed garage addition. Note that the 20-foot wide garage has 10 feet that will set within the legal setback and 10 feet that will be outside the setback. 5. Corner R-1 lots, not on a major street, are required to have a 20-foot side yard setback. The front y, ard for zoning/setback purposes, is defined as the narrowest street frontage, which in this case would be north. 6. VVhile the adjacent home to the south is set back 30 feet from Independence Avenue, compared to the propoSed 10-foot garage setback, the two structures are separated by 55 feet because of the rear yard depth. The two homes are perpendicular, oriented to different streets. The effect of a "protruding building" as you look down Independence Avenue is less obvious than it would be for adjacent parallel homes on a straight road. 7. The lot is a normal corner lot, 90 feet x 125 feet, but the home is an L-shaped split entry with a front garage that reduces the size of the back yard. Garage expansion is not possible because of the five- foot setback and front entry location. Placement of the original home is part of the existing hardship. If the builder had moved the home west to the minimum 20-foot Setback, a large garage expansion would be possible without a variance, per "Exhibit B." 8. Precedent is another consideration and many side yard setback variances have been approved in the R-1 Zone in the past. Per the attached documents, most have been 5 - 30 percent variances, however several represent 50 percent variances. This request has resulted in staff analyzing some existing buildings in the R-1 Zone that are similarly placed, by error perhaps. The ordinance that was approved earlier this year regarding setback reductions did not address comer lot setbacks on arterial streets. Perhaps this is an issue the Commission/Council will want to address in the future. 9. Note that the neighboring property owners have also submitted letters supporting the request. 10. Staff believes that all of these factors can be taken into Consideration to support the variance. Design & Review 1. The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner and discussed the possibility of combining the garage and shed, but this would require a size variance also. The revised code limits accessory building and garage areas to a combined total of 1,400 square feet, with no individual garage exceeding 1,000 square feet and no shed exceeding 400 square feet. The property owner also wants to maintain the shed for storage purposes. The Committee was supportive of the variance request because they felt one of the biggest concerns was site lines, which is not an issue in this case because of the numerous trees on the property. The petitioner submitted a revised site and floor plan as a result of the meeting. The revised*plans include the following details: Planning Case 98-27 Page 3 11/25/98 A. The front north elevation of the building will be located behind the brick chimney and the exterior siding and shingles will match the existing house. The front elevation will have a window and look like a house addition. B. The side west elevation will be similar to the front, wit~ one window, and siding to match existing. The roof pitch will also match the existing house. C. The south elevation will have two single overhead garage doors. A pedestrian door will be located on the east side. D. Exterior lights have been added, per the request of the Committee. E. The petitioner has indicated that the addition will have frost footings so that the area could be utilized as a house addition in the future. For the present time, no interior access is planned between the existing house and the addition. F. The petitioner has denoted the floor plan of the existing home on the site plan to show why he does not want to locate the addition on the rear of the property. G. The petitioner has also indicated existing and proposed landscaping on the site plan. New trees and shrubs are indicated on the west side of the addition, as requested by Design & Review, to soften the look of the addition from Independence Avenue. RECOMMENDATION Pending the comments received from Commissioners and neighboring property owners, staff recommends approval of the request, subject to the following conditions: 1. Clarify new landscaping on west side of addition. 2. Building materials to match existing structure. 3. No business use of addition unless code compliant. Attachments: Address/Topo/Zoning Maps Petitioner Correspondence Certificate of Survey Revised Site Plan Front Elevation West Elevations Neighborhood Map/Correspondence Building Official Exhibits A & B Side Yard Variance Research Application Log Planning Case 98-27 Page 4 11/25/98 _ ~. ...... ~ 3~ ~ ~m.~ ., ,.~,~.. ,.. ... ~,.-.. .... . ..... . ........ - ~ ~~' : -... ~ -, .... ,~ ,,, ,~',,,,"~ .'....-. ~'., , ..... ~ ~'. ~ : ~ ~, s ~;~ ~'-. "'~."~-..~.4~'....-' '-.+,.- ...... ~ ......... ~.!~_ ...... A~ ......... ~.. ......... ~ , ~ ~ .~ . .. ,/ . .. ..~ .~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ..... ~_. .~ ~ ....... :~ ~--.-[dA~CEE~_. ~ '~ .... ~." ,- ,-- ~'~ ~ ~ ...... ~ ......... - ~ ......... 41ND~~CE CI~ ~ ~ .~ ~..~ ~e:.~ .-' "' . .... . . ~--.~..--~.- ~ ..... ~ ........... _ · ..... ~ ~ ,. · ~. .~ ~.' . . ~ . , : . ~ ~ ~ , . ~ ..... ~ ..................~ .... · . -. ...... ~ ................ ~ ~ : ...... : ~TH A~ N ............................................ ;--~ ~: ~ ~'- .......... ~ ~ ..... ~ ..... : ...... :.....' :-.-~- .~ ,.. ~.~.. ~_ '--..:-- ~ ,...-..~ .., .,.., ...... ~ ..... , ~ . .. ..... . -.~ ...... ~ ,, : ~ ....~ ..... .~" ~ PA~K ~0: ' ' .... - (CO RD ~0" 70) ~H A~ N ' GOLDEN VALLEY B-3 WERNER & JAN LANGENBACH 9325 - 31ST AVE. NORTH NEW HOPE, MN 55427 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST I am submitting a Variance Request for ten feet so I can build an addition to my house at the above address. This addition will be a hobby garage to store my Model A Fords. This garage will be located at the west end of my existing house and the size will be 20 x 22 feet. I haVe lived at this house since 1969, the year I had this house built. The mason I chose to build this garage on the west end of my house is because this is the best location due to the configuration of house and lot. The other locations available would be to the south side of my house and would dramatically reduce the size of my back yard and block off the window to my formal dining room. This proposed garage location is set back far enough so it will not interfere with any comer traffic. The construction of this garage is designed to blend into the house shape, roof pitch, windows, siding and roof shingles. In fact it will not look like a garage from the north or west side, ie 31 st Avenue on north side and Independence Avenue on the west. The gm:age doors will be located on the south side of the building facing trees and bushes. The purpose of this garage will be to store my Model A Fords. Both my wife and myself have a strong interest in the Model A Ford automobile. I did the restoration on two of my Model A 's. We belong to several Model A clubs and this is where we fred most of our friends. We drive these cars a lot locally and normally take several long trips each year with our Model A friends. The main driving car is parked in our garage all the time and the other two will be stored in the proposed garage and driven about a dozen times a year only during warm weather. I don't drive these Model A's during the winter or any time there is snow on the streets. I contacted all the neighbors that live on the border of my property and told them of my plans to build a hobby garage attached to my house. Each of these neighbors have given a green light to this project., I received a signed letter from three of the neighbors that live directly across the street from where this garage is to be built giving their consent to this garage. Respectively Submitted., ~Verner Langenbaeh 7708 Lakeland Ave. (Brook. lyn Fad~), P. O. Osseo, Minn. CASWELL ENGINEERING CO. Registered Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors j.. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Scale Pl~one HA. 5-211~ File No.~B~)ok.._~_.~_.~_'~_Page 7 ~ Minneso;a R~'egistratlon No. ~,~,,~P ' /~ I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the 'a~ ~,4~bed above. It does not pI to show ' ' ~.rport 'mproYements or encroachments, if any. As surveyed by me this day of ih~i"/ 8 1998 ~0.0 ' ~005~ _t==:i Z -i ITl rn 0 I11 C~ 0 z Neighbors Bordering the Property of WERNER & JAN LANGEN'BACH 9325 - 31st AVE N NEW HOPE, MN 55427 544-0097 MIKE & LISA MOES 9324-31st AVE N. 541-5314 DOUG & LORI GROSS 3065 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 545-6643 LARRY & JUDY LATZ 3057 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 546-5642 LENARD GROSNACHT 3049 INDEPENDENCE AVE N 541-4994 JUDY YESNES 3040 INDEPENDENCE CIRCLE N 544-0581 DWAYNE & LISA DORAU 9315-31¥t AVE N 525-1345 9'5~ V- $ I ~ A.~ A( REQUEST FOR VARIANCE for WERNER & JAN LANGENBACH 9325- 31st AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MN 55427 November 4, 1998 To Whom It May Concern, Our neighbor Wemer Langenbach, has told us of his plans to build an addition to the west side of his house. This addition will be a hobby garage 20 x 22 feet and will be used to store his Model A Fords. Wemer told us that a variance is required and that part of this variance is based on neighbor approval. He has pointed out where this hobby garage will be constructed on his property. As neighbors of Wemer and Jan Langenbach, we do not have any objections to their building this hobby garage. Respectively Submitted, Yav0 e-xtI) vc e A .At REQUEST FOR VARIANCE for WERNER & JAN LANGENBACH 9325 - 31st AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MN 55427 November 4, 1998 To Whom It May Concern, Our neighbor Wemer Langenbach, has told us of his plans to build an addition to the west side of his house. This addition will be a hobby garage 20 x 22 feet and will be used to store his Model A Fords. Wemer told us that a variance is required and that part of this variance is based on neighbor approval. He has pointed out where this hobby garage will be constructed on his property. As neighbors of Wemer and Jan Langenbach, we do not have any objections to their building this hobby garage. Respectively Submitted, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE for WERNER & JAN LANGENBACH 9325 - 31st AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, MN 55427 November 4, 1998 To Whom It May Concern, Our neighbor Wemer Langenbach, has told us of his plans to build an addition to the west side of his house. This addition will be a hobby garage 20 x 22 feet and will be used to store his Model A Fords. Wemer told us that a variance is required and that part of this variance is based on neighbor approval. He has pointed, out where this hobby garage will be constructed on his property. As neighbors of Wemer and Jan Langenbach, we do not have any objections to their building this hobby garage. Respectively Submitted, L ? , ! Exhibit B front "1968 NORMAL SITE DESIGN" Garage [ No Variance] ~/ exf t6 1,000 ! ! Exhibit A SIDE YARD VARIANCES 19~ 98-20 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match. Richard & Liane Shive Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous Work out drainage issues with neighbor. 8489 N. Meadow Lake Road Request to construct 22' x 26' garage onto existing house extending ~ 2 feet into the side yard setback .96-29 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous 10' addn. Council approved 12' addition. Jon Amoldy Request: 7' variance CC: unanimous 12' addn. Building materials to match. 3532 Ensign Avenue" Request to construct 2-story addition to home extending 7' into side yard setback 96-28 Side yard setback (,5') Approved PC: 6 for Building materials to match. Doug Norwick , Request: 1' variance 1 against Roof pitch to be 3.5/12 4057 Boone Avenue Request to demolish existing 1-car garage and construct new 2 absent Garage dimensions to be 26' wide by 30' long attached 2-car garage to extend 1' into side yard setback CC: unanlrr, ous 96-18 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Building materials to match existing. Leona Bigelow Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous 3840 Gettysburg Avenue Request to construct an addition onto existing garage, extending 2' into side yard setback. 92-31 Rid,= yard variance (5') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Roger Griggs Request: 1.8' variance 1 excused 5313 Pennsylvania Avenue Request to construct garage on side of house, which extends 1.8' CC: unanimous into side yard setback. 88-13 Side yard (20' corr, er lot) & front yard (35') setback Approved PC: 5 for Roof & building materials t° match existing structure. Daniel & Barbara Nordberg Request: 5' side & 12' front variances I abstain 3243 Flag Avenue Request to expand garage on non-conforming structure. CC: unanimous 88-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - Approved 1' PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. James & Sandra Larson Request: 2' variance CC - Approved 2' CC: 3 for 5908 Boone Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 2' into side yard I against setback. 88-02 Side yard setback (35' ac~,ss from industrial, along 49~ Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous New Community Builders Request: 1' variance CC: unanimous 4884 Erickson Drive Request to build new home 1' into side yard setback. 85-20 Side yard ~etback (10') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Richard & Donna Kranz Request: $' variance 1 against Drainage not adversely impact neighbors. 3240 Ensign Ct. Request to add a family room to existing home with basement, CC: unanimous Lot survey be consistent. which would extend 5' into the side yard setback. 85-10 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Patrick O'Meara Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous Extend chain link fence between houses. 8200 39~h Avenue Request to add bedroom above garage, which would extend 2' into the side yard. 85-02 Rid,= yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Gregory Davis Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous 7308 39"' Avenue Request to add onto existing home SIDE YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 - 1996 2 84-24 Side yard setback (20' corner lot) Approved PC: unanimous Alvie Carey Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous 4052 Decatur Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 3' into side yard (comer lot) setback. 84-11 Side yard setback (5') PC - approved 1' PC: 1' unanimous Roof & building materials to ma[ch existing structure. James Wiczek Request: 2' variance CC - approved 2' CC: 2' unanimous 4104 Oregon Avenue" Request to add a 2-story addition, including tuck-under garage and living area above. 84-08 Side yard setback (lp') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match exls~.ii~g structure. Richard & Patricia Bruins Request: 4' variance 6/5/84 - PC CC: unanimous 7251 40"~ Avenue Request to construct a screened pomh at rear of house which is 6111184 - CC technic-.3!!y the side yard and would extend 4' into side yard. 83-55 Side yard setbaCk (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to i~a;,ch existing structure. P.O. Dotson Request: 1 ~A, variance CC: unanimous , 2701 Quebec Avenue Request to add onto garage, which would extend 1%' into setback. . 83-48 Side yard setback (5') Approved PC: unahimous Roof & building materials to ma[ch existing structure. Joseph Forrer Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous Structure should be only 20' so overhang is 2' from lot 4633 Rhode Island Avenue Req,_,e-_! to add onto garage, which would extend 3' into _~e!b_n. ck. line. 83-35 Side yard (10') & rear yard (35) setback Approved PC no minutes in files Roof & building i~-~a~erials to .,a~ch exi~;~ structure. Charles & Phyllis Horton Request: 2' side & 3' rear yard variance CC: unanimous Remove existing shed. 3204 Gettysburg Request to add 3-season porch to rear of house, which extends 2' into the side yard and 3' to rear yard .......... 83-30 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unani~,ous -2'3" variance, move shed at back of property, take out Joseph Buslovich Request: 2'9" variance CC: unanimous 1'1" of sidewalk, take care of water problem, work to 3530 Yukon Avenue Variance was granted 3' variance in 1980, after survey by neighbor, be done in 30 days. he should have requested 2'3" variance as the sidewalk and a shed are ._v,c_~t~ on ne~hbor's property. 83-26 Side yard variance (10') and front yard variance (30') Approved PC: unanlrr.~us Roof & building materials to ma[ch existing structure. Larry & Carol Adams Request: $' aide & 5' front CC: unanimous 5200 Orc--~on Avenue Requeet to construct double gara~le. 83-09 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unani~-,ous Roof & building materials to ma[ch existing structure. Thomas Gegnon Request: 4.25' variance with ove~ang 2.25' from property line. CC: unanimous 6025 Sumter Place Request to construct an addition onto existing home. Council recommended that addition be flush along rear of house so that the ,' ,. variance be !e_~e than original plan. 83.04 Side yard setback variances for stairway and wing walls already Approved PC: 4 for Vernon Stuhr constructed. 3 against 5635 Wisconsin Avenue CC: 4 for 1 against SIDE YARD VARIANCES 82-38 Side yard setback (20' on comer lot) ApprOved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. William & Jacqueline Sheperd Request: 8.4' variance CC: unanimous 8501 28~ Avenue Request to build 3-season porch onto existing house 8.4' into 20' setback required for comer lots, leaving 11.8'. 82-29 Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous Robert Yunker, 4606 E~oone Request: Both parties requesting 5' variance to construct a CC: unanimous Martin Kvasnik, 4612 Boone concrete apron up to the prOperty line at both residences & 4606 Boone requesting variance to park recreational vehicle on cement pad to within 3' of p~operty line. 82-21 Side yard se_~,ack (5') Approved PC: 6 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Frederick Starke Request: 3' variance I abstain 4042 Oregon Avenue Request to construct a 2-car detached garage to within 2' of side CC: unanimous yard property line. 82-20 Side yard se!~,-_-ck (5') Approved PC: 4 for Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Joel Olson Request: 5' variance 3 against Overhang cannot extend over property line. 8833 31" Avenue Request to add onto existing garage right up to the lot line at the CC: unanimous rear corner of new addition. 81-58 Side yard setback (5') ApprOved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure~ Sukhender Nath Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous 8717 30~ Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 2' from property line. 81-52 Side yard setback (20' on comer) No minutes in file. ' Roger & Janice Fechner Request: 4'11 "' variance 4700 Independence Request to add onto existing garage leaving a 15'1" setback along 47~ Avenue, which requires 20'. 81-34 Side yard set_hack (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure: Beverly Cooper Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous 3433 HillsborO Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 1' from property line. 81-27 Side yard se,'_~-_-ck (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure; Harold Lurid Request: 1' variance CC: unanimous 4617 HillsborO Avenue Request to add onto existing garage, which would extend 4' from prOperty line. l 81-11 Side yard seth~c.k (35' along 36th Avenue) Approved PC: unanimous ,- Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Kenneth Kline Request: 10' variance CC: unanimous 3551 Wisconsin Avenue Request to convert existing garage into living space and build new 2-car garage, which would extend 10' into the 35' side yard setback alon~! 36~ Avenue. SIDE YARD VARIANCES --- 1980 - 1996 4 81-02 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof & building materials to match existing structure. Frank Dahlen Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous 7301 40"' Avenue Request to add family room on to existing home, which would extend 3' into the 10' setback. 80-59 Side (20') & rear yard variance (35') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building mai. edals to i¥~a{ch existing Myron & Betty Kjos., Request: 2' side yard & 5.5' rear yard variance CC: unanimous structure. 3837 Hillsboro Avenue Lot line is somewhat at an angle to new garage and half the garage ~s over the side setback by 2' and the rear extends into the rear setback by 5.5 feet ~ 80-48 . Side yard variance (5') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building mate.rials to ma;.c~% exi$[ir~9 Joseph BuslOvich Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous structure. 3530 Yukon Avenue Request to add on to make a 2-car garage, which would be 3' from the property line with the overhang right on the property line. Neighbors house is 10' from line with no windows on that side. 80-47 Side yard variance (5' garage) Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to ma~ch existing Daniel Hanka Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous structure. 3625 Gettysburg Avenue Request to add on large addition, garage and living area, which leaves only 3' ~or~ property line at one comer of homo. 80-40 Side yard variance (5'garage) Approved PC: 6 for Curb cut moved by City so driveway does not Elroy Meyer Request: 5' variance I against encroach on neighboring land when paved. 5832 Cavell Avenue Request to keep driveway right up to the property line as it was for CC: unanimous 3ast 19 years. Want to pave driveway and at the boulevard it encroaches onto the neic, lhbors land. 80-34 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous Roof and building materials to match existing structure Linne Johnson Request: 2' variance CC: unanimous 3022 Boone Avenue Add a 2' x 5' alcove to dining room, which would extend out 2' into the 10' si~e yard setb~_ck 80-27 Side yard setback (35' for major arterial street - 36"' Avenue) Approved PC: una~ii~,~us Remove existing fence, building materials to match Roy Lindgren Request: 4' variance CC: unanimous 3600 Jordan Avenue Want to add onto the garage into the 35' side yard setback by 4', which would leave 31' 80-13 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous A removable gateway section be i,~s~alled in fence to Cooper/Herman Request: 3' variance CC: unanimous allow for fire protection. 4200 Flag Avenue Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one comer of .. each house does not meet requiremont 80-12 Side yard setback (10') Approved PC: unanimous A removable gateway section be installed in fence to Cooper/Herman Request: 5' variance CC: unanimous allow for fire protection. 4208 Flag Avenue Houses were built too close together in cul-de-sac & one corner of each house does not meet requirement CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by City that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver 98-27 Werner Langenbach 11/6/98 1/5/99 3~6~99 9325 31,t Avenue North New Hope 55427 544-0097 Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. A. Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). C. List the date the City received the application. D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. F. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. G. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval pedod applies to the applicatior~; (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) H. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. I.. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) J. List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 98-16 Request: Consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by Reducing the Lot Area Size for Two Family Dwellings Location: City-Wide Zoning: R-2, Single and Two Family Residential Zoning Districts Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: November 25, 1998 Meeting Date: December 1, 1998 UPDATE 1. The City is requesting consideration of An Ordinance Amending New Hope City Code Section 4.035(2) by Reducing the Lot Area Size for Two Family Dwellings, pursuant to the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. This issue arose this summer when the City purchased a single-family home on Wisconsin Avenue, demolished the structure, and started considering options for redevelopment. Due to the fact that the property is located in an area designated by the Comprehensive Plan for R-2 zoning, one of the options the City has considered for the site is a zero-lot line twinhome. 3. During the investigation of potential redevelopment options, New Hope's lot size standards for R-2 properties were compared to the standards of other metro area cities. 4. The Planning Consultant has prepared the attached report which compares the R-2 lot size requirements in New Hope with those in other cities and staff feels there is justification to reduce the lot size requirements. Staff is recommending that the R-2 lot size per unit requirement be reduced from 7,000 to 6,000 square feet. The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed ordinance making that change. Additional supporting documentation from staff is attached. 5. A legal notice was placed in the official newspaper of the City stating that a public hearing would be held at the October 6 Planning Commission meeting. Due to the fact that the Codes & Standards Committee only reviewed this issue briefly in September, the public hearing was continued until the November 2 Planning Commission meeting. Due.to the fact that the Codes & Standards Committee did not meet in October, the matter was continued from the November 2 Planning Commission meeting to this meeting. 6. The Codes & Standards Committee met and discussed this issue at its November 24 meeting. They requested that staff complete additional research and bdng this item back to the Committee for further discussion in December. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this matter be tabled until the January 5 Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: Ordinance Amendment City AttOrney Correspondence Public Hearing Notice 7/21 Planner's Report 7/16 Building Official Memo 11/19 Codes & Standards Memo ORDINANCE NO. 98. AN ORDINANCE A~iENDING NEW HOPE CITY CODE SECTION 4.03.q(2) BY Ia~nUCING ~ LOT AREA $~ZE FOR TWO IrAMrr.y DW~TJ~nN'C~ The City Council of the City or New Hope ordafm: Section 1, Section 4.035(2) 'Lot Arm 1~ Unit~, of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Lot Aren Per Unit. Th~ lot area per unit requirement fur townh__.ouses, multiple family dwellings and plnnnnt unit developments shall 1~ ~ on tl~ I~sis of the total area in tl~ project and as cnntmlled by an individual andjoim ownn~ip. Otf]~ mini~m~m ~ al'8: Two Family Townl~ome ~,000sqmr~f~et~aR-3Dtmi~ Section2. Effectiv~hte. ThioOrdimnceshiibeeffectiveupoaitnpesmgeand publication. W. Pant gas:k, Ma~or V~ Lmne, C~ ~ 1998.) ~IVlN A, SOI~OIALL J'ENSEN SWANSON* & SONDRALL, P.A. Septsmber 18, 1998 Kirk ~Deuld · 4401 Xyloa Avenue 8.~s lm~mux~ ~ Srz. zoz Tz~DIOI,'I (&12) ~ll · TR.f~,~x (612) 4YJ..Si ~j Our File No.: 99A97 V~ tmZy yo~r~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY REDUCING LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN R-2 ZONING DISTRICT City_ of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 6th day of October, 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 Amending New Hope Code Section 4.035(2) by reducing the lot size requirements for two family residential structures from 7,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet. 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 10th day of September, 1998. s/Valerie J. Leone Valerie J. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 23r~ day of September, 1998.) N MEMORANDUM TO': FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Jeffrey $chaumanrVDaniel Licht/Alan Bdxius 21 July 1998 -' New Hope - Twinhome Perfon~ance Standards 131.00 - 98.04 BACKGROUND The City hal very succas~fully utilizlcl twinhomll II the I:X'lfl~ld houli~ type in its scattered-site redevelopment efftxll. ~ ~ I'mve resulted in the elimination of tureligl~tecl_pmperties and provided new I'Kx.ming Ol~=Cz~unitie~ in tim City. In looking to the , City staff believee that ltm current zaning, stanclard~ far twinhem~s may prevent the use of this housing type in tile mdevelo~ of ImellM' single family Iotl. e ~t.~. ~111 ~ By ik~ng ~ el lirlgll flmily size consistent ~ C~ ~. By i~q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~N r~e~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~~ m ~ ~el~ i~. 5'275 WAYZATA OOUI,.EVARO. 'SUITE 55S ST.: I.OUII PARK. MINNE~IO'I'A 5~4 I 6 ~HONE ~ I ~-~G~-ee3e FAX · I ~.~es.ge37 e-MAI~ NAC~WINTERN[T.COM Infrastructure. As density increases, so do the demands placed on City services. City service capacity and street capacity must be evaluated pdor to any increase in density. One positive outcome of more dense development is lower capital infrastructure costs per housing unit. If it is found that the concept of developing twinhomes on single family lot' sizes is appropriate, a further evaluation can Occur. It is staff's opinion that some reduction in required lot size for twinhome units is warranted. The City Council and Planning Commission should make a determination on what level of density is appropriate given existing neighborhood character. In the following sections of this report, staff will identify the City's current regulations, provide a comparison with other cities and offer options for amending current twinhome performance standards. CURRENT REGULATIONS The following are the lot areas and width standards established in the New Hope Zoning Ordinance for residential uses: 4.0,35 (1) District Standards: R-1 9,500 sq.ff. 75 feet R-2 9,500 sq.ft. 75 feet R-3 10,000 sq.ft. 80 feet R-4 15,000 sq. ff. 100 feet R-5 15,000 sq. ft. 100 feet (2) Lot Area Per Unit The k3t area per unit requirement for townhouses, multiple family dwellings and planned unit developments shall be calculated on the basis of the total~ area in the ix'eject and as controlled by an individual and joint ownership. Other minimum areee are: Single Family Tw~ Family Townhou~e IVlultiple Family Elderly Housing and/or Physically Handicapped 1,000 sq.ft. *4,000 square feet in an R-3 District. 2 Subdivision of Double Bun0alow. Ouadraminiurrl or Tow~house Lots. The subdivision of base lots containing double bungalows, quadraminiums, or townhoues to permit individual private ownership of a single dwelling unit within such a structure is acceptable upon approval by the City Council, but is contingent on the following requirements: (a) Meet Zoning Requirements. Prior to a double bungalow, quadraminium, or townhouse subdivision, the base lot must meet all the reqUirements of the zoning district. (b) Minimum area and Width. The following are minimum unit lot requirements for double bungalow, quadraminium, or townhouse subdivisions: Double BunqatQw Lot Area 7,000 sq.ft. 5,000 sq.fl. 5,000 sq.ft. Lot Width ~ the base lot 50 feet 20 feet street frontage (c) Principal Structure. There shall be no more than one principal structure on a base lot in all residential districts. The pdncipat structure on a unit lot created in a double bungalow, quadraminium, or townhouse subdivision will be the portion of the attached dwelling existing or constructed on the platted unit lots. Under current regulations, a twinhome unit would have a minimum lot size standard of 14,000 square feel The 14,000 square foot twintx3me lot has not presented a problem for development of vacant land. However, it limits the use of twinhomes as a redevelopment tool in areas developed at smaller single family lot size standards. If it is determined that it is appropriate to develop twinhomes on single family lot sizes, staff offers the following: COMPARISON WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES The chart below provides a oompadson of New Hope's twinhome lot sizes with other area communities. New Hope's twinhome lot area requirements rank a~ one of the largest of all communitlee m,a'veyed witll 7,000 square feet per unit required. Most of the communities have lot area requiramants of 4,000 to 6,250 square feet per unit, with 60 to 100 foot lot ~ The reqtJred lot width in New Hope is 75 feet, well within the average range. Of the 11 communities surveyed, only Brooklyn Park and Minnatonka have more stringent requirements. 3 TWlNHOME LOT SIZE COMPARISON CHART City Zoning Lot Width Land Area Per Total Lot Area District Dwelling Required New Hope R-2 75 feet 7,000 sq.ff. 14,000 sq.ft. St. Louis Park R-2 by permit only must have 600 sq,ff, open R-3** 60 feet 4,000 sq.ff. 8,000 sq.ff. Columbia Heights R-2 60 feet 4,200 sq.fl. 8,400 sq.ff. Robbinsda'le R-2 80 feet 4,800 sq.ff. 9,600 sq.ff. Plymouth R-MF* 90 feet 5,000 ?.ft. 10,000 sq.ff. !Hopkins R-2* 100 feet 6,000 sq.ff. 12,000 sq.ff. multi family distdct R-3 3,500 sq.ff.. 7,000 sq.ff. Brooklyn Center R-2 75 feet 6,200 SCl.ff. 12,400 sq.ff. for a comer lot R-2 90 feet 6,200 sq.ft. 12,400 sq,ft. Crystal R-2 100 feet 6~250 SCl.ft. 12,500 sq.ft. Golden Valley R-2 100 feet 6,250 sq.ft. 12,500 sq.ft. Maple Grove R-3' 85 feet 7,000 SCl.ft. 14,000 sq.ft. Brooklyn Park R-4* 120 feet 8,100 sq.ft. ' 16,200 sq.ff. homes bUilt after 1980 R-4* 5,400 sq.ft. 10,800 sq.ft. Minnetonka R-2 None required 12,500 sq.ft. 25,000 sq.ff. AVERAGE 95 feet 6,450 sq,~fL 12,900 SCl.ff. Denotee zoning district equivalent to ~ single/two-family residential district (R-2 in New Hope) In 8L Loui~ Park. R-2 i~ strictly single family and twinhomes are by permit only. In St. Lou~s Park, ~te R-3 Dialrk:l ia i~ two.family district, and the pammetem listed above in R-3 are for its twinlleme~. The figtxee attached a~ Exhibit A illustrate visually the minimum lot requirements of New Hope as compared with the average of all communibee surveyed. Aa is apparent by the exhibit, the primary difference between the two Iota are their relative buildable area restrictions. The minimum New Hope yard is narrow and long, thu~ creating difficulties with the width of the twinhome. Conversely, the average lot ia restricted in its depth. The question .that should be answered then is how wide and deep of a lot is needed for a twinhorne structure? 4 An examination of prospective single family lot redevelopment.areas within New Hope found the avers .ge lot_sizes within each respective area to be different than that required under the existing Ordinance. The map attached as Exhibit B identifies the areas examined. The chart below lists our results. Redevelopment Minimum Average Lot Area Areas Lot Width Lot Width Area A 90 95 13,300 Area B 90 95 13,300 Area C 85 95 16,200 Area D 85 95 ~1'3,300 Area E 90 90 12,600 AVERAGE 90 95 ~ 13,300 An analysis of current twinhome sites within New Hope was also performed to determine .w~_..,a_t !o_t ~si~.?s ac~_. a!.~ .exJ?t. f.or twinho~..as ~thin New Hope. Of the twinhomas or duplexes ,.evt .ew.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.~.., me. major~/nm3 lot areas ot mss man 14,000 square feet. The average lot size mr sa~a cevelopments was 12,960 square feet, with some units built on lots of as little as 8,000 square feet. =. OPTIONS FOR AMENDING THE CURRENT TWINHOME PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The following analysis ia provided to allow City officials a basis upon which to determine appropriate zoning standards as related to twinhome~. To answer the question on the appropriate lot area and width for twinhomee, the following discussed is offered: Widtlt. An identified goal of New Hope is to encourage single family residential rede~ant into twinhomee. Since many single family Iot~ within the City have widths of 8S feet, the allowance of such widths for twinhomee is necessary to anccxJra~ twinhonm development on existing single family lots. The existing requirement of 75 foot lot widths does allow for such redevelopment. Sevarai outcome~ result from small lot widths. Lower infrastructure costs. With narrow lots, less street, water and sewer main lines need to be constructed per housing unit, thu~ decreasing costs. 5 Aesthetic character. With narrow lots, the likelihood of highly visible garages increases due to buildable area restrictions. Co More dense development. By placing a twinhome where a single family home was, we are doubling density. As a result, externalities such as an increase in traffic, noise, service demands and the like occur. If City officials find these outcomes acceptable, the City should either maintain the 75 foot minimum lot width. Lot'Aree. The current area required for twinhome development in a R-2 District is 14,000 square feet. Based upon the minimum lot size and the lot width of 75 feet as is currently required, a lot depth of 189 feet would be needed. Such dimensions are not reflective of most (all) single family lots within New Hope. Most single family lots are 85 to 90 feet wide with areas of 13,300 square feet: Because of the existing square foot requirements, most single family lots do not qualify for twinhome redevelopment. The examination of existing twinhome developments found a lot area of 12,960 to be average. A reduction of the minimum requirement would greatly increase'the potential for twinhome redevelopment of single family lots. Staff believes that lot areas of 10,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet is sufficient for twinhomes in most cases, as is evidenced by lot area requirements in Robbinsdale, Plymouth, Hopkins, Crystal and many other communities. CONCLUSION A policy decision must be made in regard to the appropriateness of twinhomes on single family lot sizes. If found to be appropriate, a decision can. be made regarding the acceptable lot area for twinhom® developments. Upon decision of this factor, a Zoning Ordinance amendment can subsequently be prepared for consideration. pc: Steve Sondrall 6 Figure I New Hope - Minimum Standards Figure 2 Surveyed Communities. Average Minimum Standards 75 feet ----- $~lle = 1:50 Exhibit A - Comparison Figures MARKET VALUES ASSESSED IN 1995 Aree E HOMESTEAD PROPEXTZE$ ONLY OAT& ami Oeveloomem Exhibit B - Potential Redevelopment Areas TO: KIRK McDONALD AL BRIXIUS, NAC ]~ FROM DOUG SANDSTAD DATE: JULY 16, 1998 RE: EXISTING TWINHOMES EXES IN NEW HOPE I haVe reviewed basic land area data for156 of our twinhomes or duplexes. The approgimate minimum lot size for ~ of a dwelling [some are not platted as "zero lot line"] was found to be 4,000 sr. In this case, the land is zoned R-3, but has two separate twinhomes on it. In other neighborhoods, unit lot sizes [actual or perceived] range from 4,800 to 8,000 sr. Six of the 11 clusters of twirthomes have at least one lot area under the 7,000 sf threshold in today's code. Two are PUDs. Perhaps a dozen were foun~i to have been built on 75' or 77 'wide lots. All had garages except for the Oregon Avenue cluster of 32 dwelling units, where 50% have built a detached garage in the rear yard of the narrow lots. I believe that a minimum lot area/unit of 5,000 to 6,000 is sufficient fOr a twlnhome in many cases. Naturally, they tend not to be isolated. They tend to be on the edg~ of a neighborhood or clustered. Two existing twlnhomes are alone, on comer lots, another few are pan of a pa/r, while most are in larger developmeq, ts up to 24 structures. We may want to consider an appeal to a different housing market, one that desires a smaller yard, but a nice dwelling with a maintenance free-exterior, which is one metro- area trend. These are not solely "empty nesters", either. Singles, first time buyers and professionals who travel a lot like this type of housing. Zoning Requirements for. Twinhomes/Two-Family Residential Updated and Verified: June 26, 1998 New Hope R-2 ??? 7,000 S.F. '14,000 S.F. St. Louis Park R-2 by permit only. must have 600 $.F. open R-3** 60' 4,000 S.F. -'8,000 S.F. Columbia Heights R-2 60' 4,200 S.F. 8,400 S.F. Robbinsdale R-2 80' 4,800 S.F. 9,600 S.F. Plymouth R-MF * 90' 5,000 S.F. 10,000 S.F. Hopkins R-2 * 100' 6,000 S.F. 12,000 S.F. multi-family district R-3 3, 500 $.F. 7, 000 S.P. Brooklyn Center R-2 75' 6,200 S.F. 12,400 S.F. for a comer lot R-2 90' 6,200 S.F. 12,400 S.F. Crystal R-2 100' 6,250 S.F. 12,500 S.F. Golden Valley R-2 100' 6,250 S.F. 12,500 S.F. Maple Grove R-3 * 85' 7,000 S.F. 14,000 S.F. Brooklyn Park R..4 * 120' 8,100 S.F. 16,200 S.F. homes built 1980 R-4 * 5,400 S.F. 10,800 S.F. none iMinnetonka R-2 required 12,500 S.F. 25,000 S.F. * denotes zoning district equivolent to the single/two-family residential district (R-2 in New Hope) **In St. Louis,Park, R-2 is strictly single-family and twinhomes are by permit only. In SL Louis Park, the R-3 district is its two-family district, and the parameters listed above in R-3 are for its twinhomes. Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Codes & Standards Committee Kirk McDonald, Director of Communi..ty Development Phil Kern, Community Development Intern November 19, 1998 R-2 Lot Size (Planning Case 98-16) The purpose of this discussion is to amend the current zoning code with regards to the R-2 lot size requirements for twinhomes. Preliminary. discussions have raised questions Concerning the current zoning code requirements for development in the R-2 Zone, causing staff to research and develop potential changes to the City Code. Such changes could allow more flexibility for twinhome developments in the R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential District. The Planning Consultant, in his 7/21/98 report, explains why changing the lot size requirements would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Of the potential redevelopment areas, 80% have lot sizes smaller than the current requirement. This will make the variety of options in the scattered site housing program and private redevelopment limited in the future. Staff would like to discuss potential options for a zoning code text amendment. · The discrepancy in the R-2 lot size requirements between New Hope's current ordinance and those of neighboring cities was discovered when staff started researching possible redevelopment options for 5629 Wisconsin Avenue. In early discussions, a twinhome was being considered at this 'site, however the zoning code prohibited this redevelopment option due to the size of the lot. Staff then proceeded to survey surrounding communities and found that New Hope's requirements are much higher than most cities. On October 28, 1998, City staff held a meeting with the residents in the 5629 Wisconsin Avenue neighborhood. At that meeting, only one property owner had concerns about the concept of a twinhome. At this point, the City ia still considering either a twinhome or a single-family home at this site. Regardless of the decision on this issue, staff would need to separately present a rezoning for 5629 Wisconsin Avenue at a later date. The City Manager ha~ indicated he wants the Codes & Standards Committee to consider amending the R-2 lot size requirements for the entire City, especially after reviewing the requirements from other cities -for R-2 properties. A number of changes have been made recently to the standards in other districts and it may be time to modify the standards for the R-2 District. Staff is requesting that the Committee consider amending the standards based on the Planner's Report. After consideration has been given to the standards on a City-wide basis, then the specific redevelopment of rezoning at 5629 Wisconsin can be discussed at a future meeting. City staff h,~s mat .with the Planning Consultant and City Attomey to discuss this issue and the consensus of those present was to reduce the R-2 lot size requirements from 7,000 square feet per unit -for two-family dwellings to 6,000 square feet per unit. The City Attomey has prepared the attached draft ordinance making this change. This issue was placed on the agenda for the September 24"~ meeting, but was only discussed bdefly. Attachments: 9118/98 City Attorney Correspondence and Ordinance 7/21198 Planner's Report (Twinhome Lot Size) 7/16/98 Building Official Report 6/26/98 Surrounding community survey Memorandum To:. From-. Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development November 25,1998 Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on Council/EDA actions. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. 1. November 9 Council/EDA Meetings - At the November 9 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Proiect #603, Resolution Confirming Non-conservation Classification and Authorizing thA EDA to Request the Purchase of Tax Forfeited Land at 7819 Angeline Drive: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Proiect ~600~ Resolution Amending Resolution No. 98-50 Establishing Special Asse~_~ment Fee for the Sandpiper Cove Housing Improvement Area: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Planning Case 98-23, Request by Petitioner to Table Request for a VaHanca in the Fence Height Requirement to Allow Construction of a 10-Foot Sound Barrier/Fence, 8201 54~ Avenue: Tabled to December 14, see attached letter. D. Planning Case 98-25, Request for Site/Building Plan Revisw/Approval and a Variance to the Rear Yard Setback Requirement for Building Expansion, 3401 Nevada Avenue: Approved, as recommended by the Planning Commission. E. Proiect 1~46, Discussion Regarding Potential Acquisition of 5546 Sumtar Avenu,=: Council rejected counter offer of $110,000 and stay with the appraised value of $94,000. F. Project f~01C, Discussion Regarding Bid for Feasibility Study of Existing Pool Conce_~sion . Buildin~ Council directed staff to reject the proposal from TSP/EOS and proceed with the feasibility of utilizing E&V Consultants & Construction Managers and rebid the project this winter from current specs. See attached Council request. G. Prolect ~48, Presentation Regarding Proposed 1999 Infrastructure Improvements; Motion Accepting the Concept Report Concept report was. accepted and authorization granted to hold public information meetings. See attached Council request and report. H. Project ~547, Presentation of Feasibility Report for Proposed Improvement; Resolution Providing for Public Hearing on Proposed Improvement (42"' Aven,_~ Xylon Avenue, 45~ Avenue, Streetscape and Utility Improvement Prolect}: Council accepted the feasibility report. See at~ached Council request and report. I. Proiect #59?, DiscusSion Regarding Development of City-Owned Property at 9200 49~ Avenue: EDA authorized staff to negotiate with Gary Nordness for purchase of the property. See attached request. J. Proisct #645, Discussion Reglardin, Ai~Draissl of Regent Apartments at 7136 60~ Avenue. 6027 Louisiana Avenue and 7124 Lombardy Lane: EDA authorized staff to develop planning options for the property and conduct a financial analysis. K. Proisct ~603, Resolution Requesting the Purchas® of Tax Forfeited Land at 7819 Angeline Drive: Approved, see attached EDA request. EDA authorized funding up to $5,000. .2.' November 23 CouncillEDA Meetings - At the November 23 Council/EDA meetings, the CounciFEDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Planning Case 98-18, Resolution Approving Easement Maintenance Agreement for Brandell Fourth Addition: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Project #651, Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain Appraisal of 7603 Bass Lake Road: Authorization granted, see attached Council request. C. Resolution Accepting Resignation of William Keefe from the New Hope Plannin.a Commission and Extending Appreciation for His. Service: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Project #652, Motion Authorizing Staff to Negotiate With the Property Owner of 6113 West Broadway: Authorization granted, see attached Council request. E. Proiect #646, Resolution Approving Purchase of 5546 Sumter Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request, seller accepted original offer of $94,000. F. Proioct g,/,93, Motion Directing Staff to Prepare Redevelopment Contract for Senior Outreach Services, Inc. for the Development of an Adult Daycaro Facility on a Portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Science Industry Center 3"~ Addition: Council directed staff to work with Senior Outreach Services, see attached Council request. G. Proioct W614, Resolution Approving Addendum to Bass Lake Court Townhome Project: Approved, see attached Council request. 3. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee met in November to discuss home occupations, courtesy benches, and R-2 lot size. 4. Design & Review Committee - Design & Review met in November to review plans for the garage vadance. 5. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee will remain in tact to review plan updates for neighboring cities. New Hope's plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council and is being · distributed to neighboring cities. 6. Project Bulletin - Enclosed are project bulletins regarding the apartments at 7601/7621/7641 62n~ Avenue and Dorothy Mary Park improvements. 7. Miscellaneous Issues: A. The City has received the enclosed correspondence from Avtec Finishing Systems requesting that their planning application be kept open until May 1999. This letter from the petitioner was necessary with regard to the 120-day time limit which would expire November 7, 1998. The City Manager has administratively approved the extension. B. City staff continued to work on the following potential developments: 1)' CareBreak building and plat on Boone Avenue 2) Na'0arre building expansion 3) Taco Bell at Midland Center Attachments: 7819 Angeline Drive Sandpiper Cove Housing Improvement Area 8201 54' Avenue Warehouse 5546 Sumter Avenue Potential Acquisition Swimming Pool Concessions Ama 1999 Infrastructure Improvements 42" Avenue Streetscape Project 9200 49~ Avenue Development Regent Apartments, 7136 60~ Avenue, 6017 Louisiana, 7124 Lombardy Lane 7819 Angeline Drive Bmndell Fourth Addition 7603 Bass Lake Road Bill Keefe Resignation 6113 West Broadway 5546 Sumter Avenue Purchase Development of Adult Daycare Facility Bass Lake Court Townhome Project (PPL) Project Bulletins Avtec Finishing Systems Correspondence IVJ 13' T ACTION or~naur~ ~ Community Development B~coSUSan Henry . mmunity Development Specialist RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CLASSIFICATION AND AUTHORIZING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORI~ TO REQUEST THE PURCHASE OF TAX FORFEITED LAND AT 7819 ANGEMNE DRIVE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 603) Recently, the Council was informed the pmparty at 7819 Angellne ~ wa~ for~ited to.the State of Minnesota for nonpayment of taxe~. At the October 12, 1998, meeting, the Council approved a resolution to convey the property to the city at no charge. Since that time, staff ha~ learned the City will need to pay for the appmi~ value of the ~ if the pmbetly b intended to be resold. Since the intent of the I;~roparty will involve a t~cattered site dev~ project and eventually resold, staff recommends approving the attached ~ to proceed with Ihe purchase of 7819 Angell~ Drive. The resolution states the City will pay no more than $5,000 for the property. MOTION BY RFA-001 WINNETKA ELEidENTARY SCHOOL q'4K,~4rt q44~ ST. RAPHEL CATHOLIC . CHuRcH ltl tT ? FOR ACTION Community Development l~/'l(irk McDonald 11-09-98 Item No. 6.10 RESOLUTION AMENDING NO. 98-50 ESTABLISHING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FEE FOR THE SANDPIPER COVE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT' NO. 600) The Sandpiper Cove townhome unit impmvernents have now been completed and all appropriate approvals have been given by the Building Of tidal. In March, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98-50 establishing an annual special assessment fee of $1,697.54 against each townhome unitWithir the complex ($16,667.00 total per Unit). The assessment wa~ based on estimated project cost of $600,000.00. The resolution provide~ that the City shall reduce the special assessment fee if the total actual cost of the project is less than $6(X),000.00, including a 15 percent administrative charge payable to the City. The' total project cost of the home improvements, including the 15 percent administrative charge, was completed at a cost of $567,228.00. Therefore, * the total asseSSment per housing unit should be reduced to $15,756.00 per unit and the annual fee per housing unit should be $1,604.82 based on a per annum intersst rate of eight percent with a 20-year term, The City Attorney ha~ prepared the enclosed ~, which .amen~ the previous resolution and reduces the assessment. The Townhome Association ha~ extended b appreciation to the City Council for its support of thle project. The project made significant improvements to the townhome complex and the owners are very pleased with the re~ults. Staff recommends approval of the IU UEST II'OR ACTZON Community Development I Develo .pmant BY'Kirk McDonald By:. . ' PLANNING CASE 98-23, REQUEST BY PE~TITIONER TO TABLE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IN THE FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 10-FOOT SOUND BARRIER/FENCE, 8201 54TM AVENUE NORTH, CNH ARCHITECTS, PETITIONER At the October 12 Cotmca moating, tho Couflcil tabled a rotNeat by CNH Architects for a variance to the fence height requirmeflt to allow the coflstnJctiofl of a 10-foo~ sound barrier/lance at tho M~ .~vanue Distribuflo~ Center located at 8201 Mm Avenue. per the mque~ of the peUtioner. The peffUoner requested a tab#ng until the November 9 Counci meati~ to enow tho npplcant tiao to ro4vatuato the to move forward with a modillod prOIMlat that wmJM oflltaneo lbo noleo ~ ~ 1) additional engineering studies are finalized, 2) a moating with atnff/~ lo eofltiJctod rugaf~ a potential noise ordinance verianco, afld 3) a netgltbethood moolfng le mmkfcMt Tho pelflioner anticipetes that it COuflcil off tboir orlgiflat roquoot bo Inblod accordingly. Tho pelJlJonor has submitted the eflcioaecl letter pertaining to thle ruqueat and it waiving tho IJrnolb~ mo~, for Counci acliofl off their original planning application, al outlined by Minnold:~ Statu~.. Staff recommends that tho Council approve a motion tabling thio matter until tho December 14 Council meeting. MOTION BY SECOND m' RIPA-O01 dAMES R. WAI..$TON ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.E. October 23, 1998 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION and FIRST CLA~ MAIL [~r. Kirk McDonald Community Dev. Director City of New Hope 4401 Zylon Avenue North New Hope, biN 55428 Re: City of New Hope Pinning Case No, 98*23 Variance SI' Avenue Dbtribution Center Our l~ No. 31 .S~0~ Dear Mr. McDonald: The New Hope City Council tabled the above-mfermraxl variance request to allow construction of a ten foot noise barrier at the S4"' Avenue Distribution Center. The matter was r~sch~iuled to Novm~r 9a to allow the applicant time to r~.~lu~ the f~ibility of consuuction plato in relation to mgin~ring studi~ md City oniinanc~ On b~qlaffof the ~?._?y .o~, ~,_..,~.. ~ ~b.' .~ o~ na m.~.o _..i,tent ,,,in o.. di,~ion with yo. m,~a womo ennaace rae nolee mitigation as soon e We me~ with-City mff and ~tnm ~ a nobe or~a~ce v~ince; Aa ~plic~m requastiz~ City approval of the Amended Proposal i= ..ubmitted; 4, A g~i~ meetinf prior to any City meetings ia noticed and conduct~ It is anticipated that the items referenced above could be accomPlished within ~our to six weeks. Therea. fl~', a modified proposal could be submitted for Planning Commlf~ion review. · P_lease'advise the City Council accordingly on the ~ of this mat~. L~*t me know you .n~,.a representativ~ to attend the November 9~' City Council mec~f. Suite 3}0. Dakota Financial Center 1060 Dakota Drive, tao,d_~ H__~*,; M,_'_-~__-~,_~a S$1?n 'Telephone 6S1.90S.?000 · Facsimile 6SI.40S.377S * E-mil wabtonlawlum.state.net Mt. KkkM~ October 23, 1998 Page 2 Finally, be advised that with respect to applicants pending height variance application (Case No. 98-23), the requirements of Minn. Stat. Sec. 15.99 are waived for the pending application only, and for a time period equal to the time the applicant has requested this matter to look forward to formulating an equitable long-term resolution of this matter. JRW:tlt cc via JAMES 1~ WALSTON Mr. Ron Shiner, Northwemm Mutud Life Ins. Co. Mr. leffLmoe, JBL Companies Mr. Quinn S. Huts~ CNH Architects -/ aZg esv vOa ACr O or uur 's anent for ~veio~ent Commun~ ~velo~ent & Planni~ It~ No. DISCUSSION RE~DING ~~L~CQUISmON OF 5~ SUeR AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ~) · Staff r~uest to di~ss ~ ~e C~ Council ~e ~tenfial ~uis~on of ~ .siam family Io~t~ at 5~ Sumter Aven~ No~. At the Awust 10 Coundl m~, ~ C~ Coundl a~~ ~ to o~in an ap~i~l of ~e single family pm~ ~ 5~ S~er Av~ N~. St~ ~~ an a~i~l ~ ~~nden~ had ~n re~iv~ ~m ~e ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~ ~ C~ to ~ ~ ~um to purchase their pm~. ~e ~o~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ i~~ ~ Ba~ ~ke Ro~ and Sumter Avenue and ~ C~ ~u~l has indi~t~ an i~em~ 'in ~uid~ s~e~ s~e ~o~ies in that ama for ~m ~ev~o~e~ ~~. ~ C~ aim~ ~ ~ve~ pm~ies in that neigh~~, has demolish~ the s~~ a~ is la~ ban~ng ~ ~ ~r ~m ~evelopment. Staff indi~t~ to the pm~ o~ ~at ~u~ ~ w~ ~ a volu~a~ ~M, ~ relation ~nefits would ~ paid. The ~99~ valuation of ~ pm~ ~ $7~,~ ($19,~ la~, ~,~ ~ilding). As of Septem~r 1998, there was $2,0~.16 in Mv~ s~ a~men~ ~ainst ~ pro~. Fore,he Appmi~l~ ~m~ ~ a~ of~ ~ on A~ 24, 1~, a~ ~ ~Uma~ ~ir market value of ~ pm~ a~in9 ~ ~ appm~l ~ $~. At ~ ~em~r 14 Council m~ting, t~ C~I a~~ ~ to ~e ~ ~M ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~m Luveme and June Petemon. ~ ~ ia I~ in an ama ~m ~F ~ ~n ~ ex~ a~ staff indi~t~ that a~uis~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ pa~ ~m ~F ~ CD~ ~.. On ~o~r 9 ~ ~m~ ~ S~aliM, ~mmun~ ~~ Di~ a~ C~ Affomey met ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ his I~al ~un~. ~ ~ m~fi~, ~ C~ m~esentatives indi~t~ th~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~a~ pd~ to ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~,~ a~i~l with a waiver of m~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~y~ aa ~ ~~, mai e~te t~es prorat~ to ~ d~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~1 d~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~e ~. ~e ~er a~ hie I~ ~ d~ ~ ~~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ i~~ ~y ~ ~ke the o~r under ~n~, (~nt'd.) ~:. R~qu~t for Action Page 2 Subsequent to the meeting, the property owner's attomey contacted the City Attorney and stated that although they do not have a formal appraisal for the property, they have identified several properties that seem comparable and the average price received was close to $110,000 (print-out enclosed). The attorney stated that he was authorized by the property owner to offer their home to the City for the sum of $110,000. Additionally, they are requesting that the City waive or pay the outstanding special assessments against the property. They would like to close the transaction as soon as POssible, but be permitted to remain in their home until December 31, 1998. The City Attorney notified the property owners counsel that this matter would be considered at this Council meeting. Staff is requesting Council direction on these nogotiatiorm, I:wt essentially ii recommending that the City hold firm to'the original offer of $94,000, based on the following fa(~: 1. The offer is based on a current appraisal of $94,000. 2. The offer seems reasonable when you take into account that the 1998 valuation of the property is $78,000. 3. The property owner and his legal counsel have offered no detailed data or appraisal to substantiate their counter offer. For the above reesorm, staff resommencii that the Council approve a moUon declining the counter offer of $110,000. ItI U T I OR ACTION Pa~ and R~a~n I 11/9~ ID~elop~nc & Plannint DISCU~I~ RE~DI~ BID OR F~IBIU~ 8~DY OF ~$~NG ~L CONCESSION BUI~ING (S~MMI~ ~ CONCESSIONS ~*IMPRO~MENT PR~ECT ~. ~1C) On 4/13/98 the City Council accepted a concept relxxt for ~imming pool improvements. The local neightxxhood, the swim dub, and the Citizen ~ Comm~ all reviewed Improvement project 601A which calls for the manufacture ~td installMion only of ~ new stainless steel gutter system for the 34 year old facility was awarded on June 22~ to Global Sl:~c~alty at a price of $73,610.00. Improvement project 601B included ADA improvemen~ to the main pool, diving boards and drop ~licle, painting the main pool; completion of the gutter replacement work not included in 601A; new sand fiiter~ for the large pool; and ventilgd(m of the two equipment buildings. It allo inclucl~ bathhcxme entry improvements. Thil project wa. awarded to LS Black Conit/?.x~x~ by Council on Auguit 10, 1998. The ~ bidwM $518,49i.15 in totM, with I~rt of I~t~ work not ~ to the pool but to be done at the north wiMer tower and bhe fire stMion. The ~ ama portion of the bid tt:r 6018 w~ rejected because the Iow bid ~eerned high to staff and engineera at $390,9'14.79. Project 601C, the conceMion~ area, was bid again. Again the Iow bid, $403,669.48, was rejected. Project 601C i~ f~r concession area improvements including a new building, site irrigation, ~ ~ fencing, removing volleyball court and ~ light~. The engineer ,peculate~ ~ the value of the concession building construction ~ estimate. MOTION BY To move.fonvard, staff recommended at the 9/1~ Council meeting that the City take the ~ opportunity to ask E&V Consultants and Construction Managers to review lite project plans and possibly act aa con~n managers. Council concurred. Dudng the course of discu~iona with Council regarding the concession stand project, a resident suggested that the City simply remodel the existing facility and make it accessible for all users. A bid was sought from TSP/EOS, the architectural firm working on the City Hall remodeling project. Their proposal for services fee is .$4,400.00. It is staffs opinion that the money that would 'be expanded for this evaluation of the existing facility may not be well spent. It is anticipated that the architects will again tell us that the facility is not worth remodeling and that the accessibility is~uaa are impossible to remedy.to the City's satisfaction in it's present situation. It may be more prudent to scrutinize the Mz.e, configu~, and coM of the proposed new conceas, ion building (value engineering) rather than investing dollars into the existing building. The issue~ with the existing concessions area include but are not limited to: · It is not accessible to persons with disabilities from the pool side because of the stepe leading clown from the deck aa well as the queuing fence at the concession serving window. At this lime, anyone with issuee of accesalbire/must leave the pool and acce~ the ~ stand from outalde the IX~ fencing and then re-entor to join the mat of ttte ix~ol patrons. If a ramp were to edded from the cleck leval to the conceaaions level, much of lhe seating ~oace would be Ioat to the ramp. The existing building location and elevation are poor and outdated. Significant development including the parking Io~ bathhouse, tennis courl~, and play lama all magnJfl~a--tion of drainage and access iaauee. Simply rnodJfyi~ the existing building and not eddm~ing elevation and location would allow the existing drainage and access issues to remain. Although theee issues may be improved by modifying the · The mechan~:al system ia need of updating including items such as the water heater and verdilation. 'rrm ~ ~ haa told ,~afl' that the prese~ sewing window~ and staff door do not me~ code aa they are opan to the elmnent~ and are without screens, they are r~ aacum comaining no mai locking mechanim~m. The equipment in the facility doesn't all rebel code including the microwave and the freezer unita. · There is insufficient room for food storage and the space used for food preparation and serving is not utilized well at all. · The non-food.contact surfaces don't meet NSF Standards. The 3 compartment sink needs to be replaced with a three compartment sink with integrally mounted drainboard on each end. · The walls in the sewing area ne~cl to be COvered with a matedal that is easily cleaned such as what was done in the ice arena concessions area. · New equipment is needed including an ice machine, a hand washing station, slop sink for cleaning. · If staff is going to enlarge the operation and offer a greater vadety of foods, the space needs to be enlarged with more efficient use of space. Staff recommends that the bid from TSP/EO$ for the feasibility study be rejected. Staff further recommends that E&V Consultants and Construction Managers' be hired to value engineer the project according to specs already written by the City Engineer. Once that process is completed, the project can be bid again this winter for construction of a new facility to begin in Auguet 1999. The new facility would answer the issues outlined above with the most important one being accessibility. RF UE T FOR ACTION or matmS Public Works & Item No. 8..5 Appn,ved for.Aeen Guy Johnson PRESENTATION REGARDING PROPOSED 1999 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 648; MOTION ACCEPTING THE CONCEPT REPORT The City Engineer ha~ developed a concel~ report for a ~ 1999 Infrastructure Improvement Program and will make a presenta~on to the Council on his findings. A copy of the report is attached. The prolx~ed project Area 1 is north of Ba~ Lake Road and divided by Boone Avenue into a west and east area. The west area coNains infrastructure improvements to: · 60a'Avenue (Between Hilisboro and Boone Avenue~) · Hillsboro Avenue (Between 60a and 59a Avenue~, including Hillsboro Circle) · 51~' Avenue (Between Independence and ~burg Avenue~) " · Gettysburg Avenue (Between 80"' Avenue and Ba~ Lake Road, including Gettysburg c;r e) These streets were bid a~ part of the 1997 InlYastructure Project.' They were not constructed at that time and were placed back on the Capitol Improvement Program for 1999 construction. The east area- contains inffastnx~um improvements to: · Meadow Lake Road We~t * Aquila Avenue · · Meedow Lake Place · Meadow Lake Road ~ · Xylon Avenue · 58a Avenue . Yulrzxt Avenue MOTION BY T~. RF'A-O01 Request for Action 1999 Infr~tmctum Improven~nt~ November g; 1968 Page 2 Some of the improvements considered include: · New water main for 59' Avenue, Hillsboro Avenue, Gettysburg Avenue, and 60' Avenue. · Additional storm sewer and improvements to existing storm sewer in both the west and east areas. · Trail improvements in both Liberty Park and Meadow Lake Park in the west and east · SuE)grade/Base, Curb, and Bituminous improvements to the streets in both west and east Some of the recommendations, contained on Page 3 of the repork include: · Conducting Public Inform~ Meetings with residents and property owners. A meetir~ is tentatively schadu~ f~r December 2, 1998. · A Council review of both the current assessment policy and the Proposed options contal~ in the reporL · A review of thi~ report, Mong with input g~hemcl M Public Inform~ Meating~, at the Dec~ber 14, 199~, Council meeting. (A ~ as to whether or nc~ to authorize staff to proceed with a Feasibility Report would be ~ on that information.) A Feasibility Report can be requastad for the wast area, the east area, or ~ areas. A Feasibility RepoR could be ready for pmasntaflon to the Council on December 28, 1998, or January 11, 1999. A pro~ projec~ ~'lech.iM i~ incluclad on Page 13 of thi~ report. Staff recommend~ a motion to accept the Concept Report and authorize staff to hold Public Information Meating~.._for Project 648. Report For I Infrastructure Improvements West Area: Gettysburg, HiHsboro' 59a, and 60~ Avenues East Area: Meadow Lake Road and Aquila, Xylon, Yukon, and 58a Avenues New Hope, Minnesota November, 1998 City Project No. 648 FHe No. 34-98-815 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects BACKGROUND PROJECT AREA The Street Improvement Project Area is shown in the Location Plan on Page 4. In general, the Area includes those streets north of Bass Lake Road, east of Independence Ave, south of 60~ Ave and Meadow Lake, and west of the Village Green Golf Course. Ensign Ave., Decatur Ave., Cavell Ave.~ and Boone Place are not included in the Project Area.' For the purposes of this Report, the project area has been divided into two-~reas: · WEST AREA - All streets west of Boone Ave. including 60~ Ave. · EAST AREA - All streets east of Boone Ave. The West Area was reviewed and improvements were bid as pan of the 1997 Street Project. Council elected to not proceed with construction at that time. Instead, the project was placed on the CIP for 1999 construction in conjunction with the area East of Boone Ave. T~e City may elect to proceed with both the West and East Areas as one or separate projects. The recommendations presented in this report summarize the results of the findings and provide information for Council's consideration. Project costs and financing amounts are estimates. Appendices located at the back of this report document the specific information for the project. Infrastructure Improvement Project 5 ! ! SCII CENTER DE CENTER -llillJ Ill 56TH AVE N EL.E~t~ARY SCHOOL 54~ A'V[ N ! LOCATION PLAN NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 1999 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CONCEPT REPROT K:\,34\34815\g7-Sl'-Ol.OIilG N~ 1998 COMM. 549~815 1Boneotroo Aeeoel&teo ! ! I I I I I ! ! ! ! PROJECT SCHEDULE A recommended project schedule is as follows: ~~y Report Public Information Meeting Authorize Feasibility Report Present Feasibility Report Public Hearing/Order Plans & Specifications Approve Plans & Specifications Receive Bids/Award Contract Assessment Hearing/Award Contact Start Construction Construction Completion Not Including Final Wear Course Complete Construction November 9, 1998 December 2, 1998 December 14, 1998 January 11, 1999 February 8, 1999 February 22, 1999 March 22, 1999 April 26, 1999 May 3, 1999 October 30, 1999 June 15, 2000 As aoted, the project schedule proposes to construct the final bituminous wear course..~n 2000. Infrastructure Improvement Project., 13 FOR ACTION Public Wort~ Guy Johnson 11-9-98 Agenda Section :& Item No. 8.6 The City ErlgJrteer lXeleN~d the CoN:=ept-Report for th~ propoled 42~ Avenue StmeBIntemecUon Improvement~ ~ Septem _.her 8, 199~e report recommended street and storm sewer impmvement~ for 42n" Avenue 13etween Avenue and W~nnetkm Avenue, vwm.~ ~.~..,M ............. tO _ -- ..~ ......... .~ ~ ,~r Ag"" AV~I1U~ OT include Winrmtka Avenue, Xylon Avenue, .~" ~v. nu~, m.. ~,..-.-- ........... elm ,,,..,.. ~. ........ ~- and i~ to be constructed in ~t~rd. ~ um Boone Avert. to Wlnnetlm Av~:lI =P~ n ~uflon directing stiff to prepare an September 28, 1998, mooting, a~;jxeu . nter _ _ ...... ,.,___., ,_.. a+--,, m~d Storm Sewer Project No. 547 (New Hope Ce.. ~=ngineering peam~m/r~ml~_-.- ,~--~. ~-_ _ _,_,_., _...~ ;. attm:hed and will be pmsentea Streetm:aPe Improvement~). A copy mine c~rnpmmu ,-~,,, - , -- mchitl~ It hll II10 been revmwea wnn rmnrmp-, ,-,~,,,,~ o-- ........... nue landlcape .......... . ...,r.~,,4 ,~em~. nmrmflv ownerl, and the 42m Ave MOTION BY _ SECOND BY PRESENTATION OF FEASIBILITY FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT NO. 547; RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBUC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT NO. 547 (42"' AVENUE, XYLON AVENUE, 45TM AVENUE STREET, STREETSCAPE, AND UTILITY IMPROVE~ ~ R~cltm~t for Action 4~ Avenu~ X~fon Avenue, 46~ AvenUe Street, Street_cape, and Utility Improvement~ November g, 1~ Page 2 Part 1 42"e Avenue Improvements $2,433,000 Part 2 Xylon Avenue, 45· Avenue, Civic Center Park Improvements ~ Total: $4,338,000 mose estimates did not inducle afl of .,., ,...-,- ___. ......... ,,,-y.;. noway_ er, in many cases i ' . -,- wv, ~ =-vmloneo Dy. all parties !dentifie~ the cost for the additio~ work a · _._ . ..The.summary below .'om estim~es given previously nd those items whose cun'ent esamate has increased Additional Coet $156,600 50,000 68,100 80,000 $674,700 Ballfield Regarding, Civic Center Park Bury Overtmad Utir~es (NSP cost estimate) KMart Driveway Rlcen~lmctk~ 42"' Avenue Overlay (Zealm~ to Boone) ~R~ Curl~. iclewalk (Ncxth ~ 42~ Avenue) _r'azcrvi.<el~r 42'"" Avenue (Per Hennepin County) _Pond (4s Avenue uoone Avenue pond and storm stuffer Storm Sewer Ovemize (42= Avenue.~ to Xylon Avenue) Totll: The additional coet of $674,700 ie included in the project total stated above, $4,338,000. proposed project schedule i~ summarized on Page 10 of the relx~t. Report For I ! ! 42nd Avenue, Xylon Avenue, 45a Avenue Street, Streetscape, and Utility Improvements City Project No. 547 New Hope, Minnesota File No. 34-98-186 November, 1998 Bonestroo Rosene I:m ~U~detlk & P, ssoclates Engineers & ,~rchltects Introduction ! ! ! ! ! I ! I I ! I t I I The City of New Hope, in the fall of 1997 and though the winter of 1997-1998, formed a task f°rce to review streetscape improvements in the City Center area as recommended in the Concept Report for 42na Avenue Street/Intersection Improvements dated September 1997. Through that effort, a Streetscape Master Plan dated June 1998 was prepared and presented to the City Council in the summer of 1998. The Streetscape Master Plan reviewed improvements for all of 42"a Avenue, portions of Winnetka Avenue (40th to 45th Avenues), 45th Avenue (east of Winnetka Aveflue) and Xylon Avenue (42no to 46t~ Avenue) as shown on Figure 1 - New Hope City Center Streetscape Framework Plan. The Framework Plan. was divided between Phase I and Future Phases. This report presents the proposed improvements for Phase I. The Phase I Street Improvements are shown in a general way on Figure 2 and in more detail on Figures 3 through 21 located at the back of this report. For purposes of this report, the Phase I Improvements have been divided into two parts as follows: Phase I - Street, Streetscape, and Utility Improvements Part 1 42"a Avenue Part 2 Xylon Avenue/45~ Avenue/Civic Center Park As noted, Part 2 references Civic Center Park. The improvements for Civic Center Park include regrading the two (2) existing ballfields north of the hockey rink in accordance with the Civic Center Park Master Plan. The Civic Center Preliminary Master Plan was developed in the spring of 1998 in conjunction with the Citizen Advisory Commission and is shown on Figure 22 located at the back of this report. The more detailed improvements are shown on Figure 23. The regrading of the ballfields' can most efficiently be done in conjunction with the Phase I Improvements for Part 2- Xylon Avenue and 45~ Avenue. 42~ Avenue, Xylon Avenue, 45a Avenue 4 .Street, Streetscape, and Utility Improvements FIGURE 1 ~t~ A~ N N ~V UQ4~X Z ~ ~d >0 0 t 1. - .. 111 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: · The feasibility report be reviewed by City Council/Staff and schedule a publi,. hearing for DeCember 14, 1998.. The estimated cost for Phase I Street, Streetscape, and Utility Improvements are as follows: Part I -42nd Avenue Improvements $2,433,000 Part 2 - Xylon Avenue/4$m Avenue/Civic Center Park Improve-r~ents $1,905,000 Total Phase I $4,338,000 City Staff/Task FOrce members meet before the public hearing (proposed date, December 14, 1998) to review in detail the streetscape improvements presented in this feasibility report. The City evaluate the Phase I Improvements and determine to what extent Pan 1 and 2 should be constructed as one or two projects. It should be noted New Hope's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) provides for reconstructing 36~h Avenue from Winnetka Avenue to T.H. 169 in the year 2000. Therefore, the reconstruction of two east-west collector streets such as 42~ Avenue and 36~ Avenue should not occur in the same year. The design improvements for Part 2 (Xylon Avenue and 45"' Avenue) are focused on the existing land uses on the west side of Xylon Avenue and the high-density residential uses on 45~a Avenue. Therefore, if the commercial land uses east of Xylon Avenue and south of 45ta Avenue at Winnetka Avenue were to redevelop in the fumxe, improvements proposed for Pan 2 would not be impacted~ In fact, its hoped the improvements proposed for Part 2 will encourage redevelopment of the commercial areas in the near future. 42~ Avenue, Xylon Avenue, 45a Avenue. Street, Street$cape, and Utility Improvements The relocation of the driveways serving K-Mart and New Hope Center have been reviewed in a general way with representatives from each property. The different options for the driveway layout serving both properties on 42nd Avenue must be further reviewed and agreed too. The pond improvements on the north side of 45ta Avenue recommend expanding the pond easterly onto a portion of the open space owned by Winnetka Manor. The pond expansion, in conjunction with the storm sewer improvements in 45t~ Avenue, will reduce the flooding in the Iow point of Xylon Avenue north of 45th Avenue and in the low point of 45ta Avenue west of Win_.netka Avenue from a 5- year storm event to approximately a 50-year storm event. The pond improvements are in accordance with New Hope's Surface Water Management Plan approved by Shingle Creek Watershed. The storm sewer improvements in 42na Avenue from Winnetka Avenue to the Iow point in 42aa Avenue east of Xylon Avenue will increase the storm sewer capacity from the low point in 42aa Avenue from less than a 5-year event storm to greater than a 10-year event storm, which is the recommended standard for collector streets. The storm sewer improvements will also better utilize the additional storm sewer capacity constructed in the middle 1970s east of Winnetka Avenue as part of the Old Dutch Pond Improvements south of the YMCA. The pond construction on the west side of Gethsemane Cemetery, adjacent to Boone Avenue is in accordance with New Hope's Surface Water Management Plan approved by Bassett Creek Watershed. The pond improvements will provide storm water retention and water quality improvements for Northwood Lake. The pond improvements are in accordance with the Development Agreement between New Hope and Gethsemane Cemetery dated January 1994. The pond improvements are included with Part I and must be reviewed with the adjacent residential property owners. 42~ Avenue, Xylon Avenue, 45a Avenue 8 Street, Streetscape, and Utility Improvements The easement negotiations with Gethsemane Cemetery must be finalized for both the street and pond improvements in acccirdance with past discussions/agreements. The street improvements and participation by Hennepin County for 42nd Avenue must be finalized and docUmefited in a Joint Powers Agreement between New Hope and Hennepin County. The project schedule provides for receiving construction bids and assessing the project in accordance with this report based on constructign bids plus estimated indirect costs before awarding the construction bid to a contractor. The burying of overhead electric, telephone, and cable TV is being reviewed and negotiated with NSP. The agreements with each agency must be reviewed and finalized. The ornamental street lighting once constructed is to'be malntalnext by NSP similar to other street lighting in New Hope. The design of the street lighting in accordance the Master Streetscape Plan, its construction and financing is proposed to be negotiated with NSP. ! The construction phasing in general way assumes 42~ Avenue will be open to traffic, however, reduced from two lanes of traffic in each direction to one. The widening and burying of overhead electric to the south would occur first. Once completed traffic would be switched to the south side of. 42~ Avenue to complete the north portion. The reconstruction of 45~ Avenue and the ballfield regarding would occur simultaneous with 42~ Avenue. The reconstruction of Xylon Avenue to 45~ Avenue would not occur until the bituminous base is completed in 45°s Avenue and the swimming pool is closed in the middle of August. 42'~ Avenue, Xylon Avenue, 4Y~ Avenue Street, Streetscape, and Utility Improvernent~ 9 The proposed project schedule for Phase I is summarized below. Present Feasibility Report/Schedule Public Hearing Public Hearing/Authorize Plans/Specification Approve Plans/Specifications Review Bids/Schedule Assessment Hearing Assessment Hearing Award Contract Begin Construction Substantial Completion Final Completion (Bituminous Wear Course/Restoration) November 9, 1998 December 14, 1998 January 11, 1999 February 8, 1999 March 8, 1999 March 22, 1999 May 1999 October 1999 July 2000 The City shall review the additional maintenance cost to maintain the improvements proposed herein. The annual maintenance charge shall be reviewed and determine to what extent it should be passed on to the benefiting property. I 42~ Avenue, Xylon Avenue, 4§a Avenue Street, Streetscape, and Utility Improvtment~ 10 FEASIBLE, NECESSITY, AND COST EFFECTIVENESS This project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and is in accordance with New Hope's Comprehensive Plans Utilities/Streets and the Streetscape Master Plan for New Hope City Center. The project is necessary to properly maintain existing collector streets and the safe flow of traffic including sidewalks for pedestrians. The utility improvements for watermain are required to properly maintain trunk watermains in accordance with the Joint Water Commission. The storm' water improvements are requirexi and in accordance with New I-g~pe's Surface Water Management Plan approved by the Bassett Creek and Shingle Creek Watersheds. The streetscape improvements are in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Streetscape Master Plan for New Hope's City Center to encourage quality commercial development. The project is cost effective-based on existing conditions and acceptable reconstruction standards for street, streetscape, and utility improvements. I 42~ Avenue, Xylon Avenue, 45~ Avenue Street, Street$cape, and Utility Improvements 11 DISCUSSION Part 1 - 42na Avenue Improvements Street Existing 42r street in the street width a westboun¢ exists). Sid pavement. ] AVenue. The propose to Winnetka Cemetery. ] new traffic ~ comer of V~ proposed th; relocated dr back of Ney :lriveway or ~ntrance will proposed sw this report. Existing 42"a Avenue (Winnetka Avenue to Boone Avenue) was constructed as a concrete paved street in the early 1970s. A bituminous overlay was constructed in the early 1990s. The existing street width provides for two (2) lanes of traffic in each direction except at Xylon Avenue (where a westbound right turn lane exists) and at Winnetka Avenue (where an eastbound left turn lane exists). Sidewalk exists along each side of the road separated by a 1.5' - 2.0' wide bituminous pavement. Figures 25-27 located at the back of this report show the existffig street layout in 42"a The proposed street improvements provide for a center left turn lane at Xylon Avenue extending to Winnetka Avenue. The street widening will occur to the south, on land owned by Gethsemane Cemetery. In addition, an eastbound right turn lane would be provided at Winnetka Avenue. A new traffic signal is required at Xylon Avenue while the existing traffic signal in the southwest comer of Winnetka Avenue will be relocated to accommodate the right turn lane. It's also proposed that the existing driveways serving K-Mart and New Hope Mall be relocated. The relocated driveway serving K-Mart on 42~ Avenue would be reconstructed to also serve the back of New Hope Mall as shown on Figure 4. However, two options exist for relocating the driveway on K-Mart property, which is shown on Figure 2. Gethsemane Cemetery's main entrance will also be relocated such that it is opposite Xylon Avenue north of 42ad Avenue. The proposed street section and layout for 42a~ Avenue is shown in Figures 3-6 located at the back of Streetscape improvements provide for two (2) landscape center medians located east and west of Xylon Avenue and Winnetka Avenue respectively. The widening to the south will also provide an 8-foot wide landscape boulevard between the street and sidewalk/trail. Landscape boulevard improvements will be provided on the north side of 42~ Avenue however, not to the extent as Ge south side (the street design assumes the existing north curb line and sidewalk will. not be 42'~ Avenue, Xylon Avenue, 45ta Avenue 12 Street, Streetscape, and Utility Improvements relocated). The boulevard and center median areas will be irrigated to properly maintain the planted areas. A bituminous trail 8 feet wide on the side of 42nd Avenue will be constructed west of Xylon Avenue to Boone Avenue in accordance with New Hope's Transportation Plan while a 5-foot wide sidewalk will continue east to Winnetka Avenue. The concrete sidewalk on the north side of 42nd Avenue will be reconstructed from Boone Avenue to Winnetka Avenue in its existing location. Streetscape improvements include colored concrete crosswalks, retainer/planter walls, ornamental streetlights, and plantings. The proposed streetscape improvements are shown on Figures 7-8 located at the back of this report. utmty Utility improvements provide for burying all overhead electric by NSP, US West, and Cable TV. Storm sewer improvements are also included which provide for upgrading the existing storm sewer in 42n~ Avenue between its low point near Xylon Avenue to Winnetka Avenue. Pond improvements axe proposed on Gethsemane Cemetery property immediately west of Boone Avenue north of 40~ Avenue if it were extended. The pond improvements are proposed to be constructed in accordance with the Development Agreement between New Hope and Gethsemane Cemetery prepared in 1994. The existing vault manholes, which include water shut off valves in Winnetka Avenue at 42" Avenue, are proposed to be removed and new valve box extensions constructed. The water valve improvements will be financed by the Joint Water Commission. The proposed utility improvements for 42''a Avenue are shown on Figures 9-11 located at the back of this report. Part 2 - Xylon Avenue/45~ Avenue/Civic Center Park Improvements Street Existing Xylon Avenue and 45* Avenue were reconstructed in 1979. The existing street width for each street for the most part is 44 feet wide except in Xylon Avenue north of 45* Avenue where its 30 feet wide and at 42~ Avenue where it widens to 48 feet. Although the 44 feet width provides for a drive lane and parking lane each direction, parking on Xylon Avenue and 45~ Avenue is restricted. Therefore, the existing street widths are excessive. Sidewalk presently exists on bo. th sides of Xylon Avenue and 45~ Avenue except on the west side of Xylon Avenue north of 45~ Avenue where sidewalk does not exist. 42~ Avenue, Xylon Avenue, 45a Avenue Street, Streetscape, and Utility Improvements 13 The proposed street improvements provide for narrowing both Xylon Avenue and 45u~ Avenue to maintain two drive lanes in each direction thus eliminating the parking'lane except opposite City Hall at the police entrance. However, a center turn lane will be provided opposite non° residential driveways both in Xylon and 45os Avenue to provide a protected turn lane. The proposed street section and layout for Xylon Avenue and 45th Avenue are shown on Figures 12- 15 located at the back of this report. Streetscape Streetscape improvements provide for two (2) landscape center medians in both Xylon Avenue and 45t~ Avenue. Sidewalk improvements are also proposed along eac_h, side of Xylon Avenue and 45~ Avenue maintaining a 6' - 8' wide landscape boulevard between the street and sidewalk where feasible. Sidewalk improvements are not proposed along the west side of Xylon Avenue abutting Assumption Cemetery. The sidewalk on the west side of Xylon Avenue from 42aa Avenue to City Hall will be constructed 8 feet wide as a trail connecting with the proposed trail on the south side of 42aa Avenue and the trails in Civic Center Park. An 8' wide bituminous trail on the west side of Xylon Avenue north of Assumption Cemetery will be extended to 46th Avenue. Streetscape improvements include colored concrete crosswalks, retainer/planter walls, ornamental streetlights, and plantings. An overlook area is proposed adjacent to the wetland on the north side of 45th Avenue. A bus stop shelter is proposed on the south side of 45th Avenue at Winnetka Avenue. The proposed streetscape improvements are shown on Figures 16-18 located at the back of this report. Although a center median is shown opposite Norwest Bank in Xylon · Avenue (Figure 16), its presently proposed not to construct a center median at this location. Utility improvements provide for burying all overhead electric in Xylon Avenue (overhead electric does not exist in 45at Avenue) by NSP, US West, and Cable TV. Storm sewer improvements are also included, which provide for upgrading the existing storm sewer in 45t~ Avenue from the low point in Xylon Avenue north of 45ta Avenue to the pond located on the north side of 45~ Avenue east of Winnetka Avenue. Pond improvements include cleaning and dredging. ,Xhe pond to provide retention and water quality improvements. The proposed utility improvements are shown on Figures 19-21 located at the back of this report. 42~ Avenue, Xylon Avenue, 4§ta Avenue Street, Streetscape, and Utility Improvements 14 ! ! ! ! ! ! BallfleM Grading- Civic Center Park In conjunction with the reconstruction of Xylon Avenue and 45~ AvenUl, its also pwposed to regrade the northerly two ballfield in Civic Center Park. The layout and regrading of the ballfields will be done in accordance with the Civic Center Preliminary Master Plan as shown on Figure 22 located at the back of this report. The regrading will require approximately 2'-3' of fill to provide for a level infield area and prol~er drainage. The fill material estimated at 9,000 cubic yard will be provided from the street and pond excavation. A storm sewer extension is proposed to the northwest comer of the park. A looped trail is included from Xylon Avenue to the parking lot north of City Hall. The ballfield regrading for Civic Center Park is shown on Figure 23 located at the back of this report. ! ! ! ! II II 42~ Avenue, Xylon Avenue, 4§a Avenue Street, Streetscape, and Utility Improvements 15 EDA REQUEST FOR ACTION oncmam~ Depaxtmeat Community Development ByKirk McDonald Approved for Aceada A¢enda SecUon EDA 1,,~,~ ' Item No. DISCUSSION REGARDING DEVELOPMEIQT OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 9200 49TM AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 597) Staff requests to discuss with the EDA a p~. develOpment for the~city-owned property at 9200 49"' Avenue North. In June 1997, the City of New Hope purchased this vacant 2.8 acre industrial site from Clarence Brandell. The City acquired the property because a portion of the property i~ identified in the New Hope Surface Water Management Plan aa a future potential site for a water quality pond to help improve the water quality of the large wetland north of, and adjacent to, the site. The City Iw, quired the property to have control ~ver the future development of the eite and i~ intem~ted in · potential joint- cooperaUve development (similar to COnductive Containers, Inc. on Quebec Avenue), where a development could occur in conjunction with the irmtellation of a water quality pond. The City the property for $195,000 and the City Engineer.has estimated that the City would need to utilize approximately one acre of the site for ponding impmvementa, leaving two acres available for development. Over the pasS 16 months, the City has re~N~ several inquirle~ from industrial/commercial businesses and developers who had or have a potential interest in the pmparty, as follows: , Shortly after the city purchased the site, the City was contacted by Upper Midwest Management Corporation, owners of the office building located jusS wast of the site, who indicated that they may be interested in the property for · potential twin office building to match the existing building. They notified the City ~ pass July that they ware no longer interasted in the site. · In March, Larry Johnson, owner of Precision Machine Shop in Hopkins, submitted a Real Estate Purchase Contract to the City with an offer to purchase 1.8 acres of the property for $120,250. Johnson, who.currently leases space for his business, was proposing to conssmct an 8,250 square foot industrial building on the site and the company has six employees. The maximum size of the one-story industrial development for the site would be 20,000 - 30,000 square feet. The EDA took no action on the proposal, aa you indicated the plan did not maximize the site and was not the highest and best use of the property in terms of valuation/real estate taxes that would be generated. ~cc.~t'~.) MOTION BY TO: $~COND BY RrA'O01 Request for Action Page 2 11-09-98 · In May, a realtor from Axiom Realty, representing G&K S~rvices, Inc., a busines~ that processes and leases workplace uniforms, desired to register his client as a pro~tive purchaser of the property. G&K would use ~ site es a ~atalllte facility aa a. drop-off and pick.up site for garments for processing at the company's main plant in Minneapolis, G&K needed approximately two acres of land to construct an office/warehouse building of approximately 15,000 square feet. The EDA was not necessarily receptive to this proposal because it also did not maximize the use of the site. Staff last discussed this property with the EDA at the July 27 EDA meeting and recommended that staff develop a Request For Proposal that outlines what type of-development the City desires for the site, present it to the EDA for approval, and seek RFPs from interested persons. A preliminary draft of the RFP is attached and if the EDA still desires to proceed with. the RFP process, staff will proceed in that .direction. However, staff has recently met on several occasions with Gary Nordness, President of Essence Real Estate Services, Inc., and with the ownem of Contract Hardware Company, Inc., who are interested in negotiating with the City for the purchase of the property and who have presented a concept plan that would maximize development on the site. Contract Hardware Company, Inc. is a major supplier and light manufacturer of door frames, lock sets and related hardware itam~..The company services and supplies major developers, contractors and subcontractors, both locally and nationally with high end quality products. It is a privately held company formed in 1991, and currently the company has three locations and would consolidate all operations at the New Hope site. The company currently employ~ 14 people and would anticipate adding Ul~ to five new employe~ upon complelion of their project. The company is proposing the ~ of a 26,000 square foot office/wamhouee facility on the site and has submitted the attached concel~ plan in order to hopefully move forward in acquiring a portion of the City's site. A typical industrial ofl',~eNtamhouse facility of this ~ generates abou~ ~IO,0(X) in property taxes per year. They have reviewed the soil cortdltio~ on the property and know that a substantial amount of funds will be needed to make soil cormctiens to utilize the site. They are requesting that the City consider subsidizing the project in the form of a land write down for the soil corrections. They also understand the City's de,ire to retain an easement over a portion of the property for storm water quality purposes and are agreeable to cooperating with the City.in that endeavor. Nordnese was involved in the development of manY of the properties in the Science Industry Pa~k area in the 1970 and 1980s. To date, no significant dis~._ssions have taken place on rite purc.h, ese price of the property. Staff is presenting this pmpceal to the EDA beware we feel that it is · good proposal for the property and that instead of procead~ with the RFP procese, perhepa the EDA sttould direct staff to negotiate with ERSI and Contract Hardware Company, Inc. for the purchese of the city-ownad property. Staff recommend~ that the EDA approve a motion directing staff to negotiate with ERSI and Contract Hardware Company, Inc. for their ~ purchase of the city-owned property at 9200 49~ Avenue North. PROPOSED MULTI-TENANT OFFICE/WA REHOUSE 9200 49TH AVE. NORTH NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA finn daniels 49th AVENUE NORTH ~ \ ERICK8ON/~' · A?m. ET~ EDA FOR ACTION Appmv~ for ~eada .~eada Sect. ton EDA 11~~98 Item No. Or~mat. m~ Depaxtment Community Development Kirk McDonald By,Sue Henry DISCUSSION REGARDING APPRAI~ OF REGENT APARTMENTS AT 7136 60TM AVENUE, 6017 LOUISIANA AVENUE AND 7124 LOMBARDY LANE. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 645) At the July 27 EDA meeting, the EDA considered a request from the owners of Regent Apartments for financial assistance for the potential rehabilitation of the three .Ixdlding, 36-unit multi-family _housing complex they own located at 7136 60~ Avenue, 6017 Louisiana Avenue, and 7124 Lomberdy Lane. The improvements the owners discussed with staff and the City Attorney included replacement or repairs of windows, repair of parking lot, roof replacement, installation of perimeter drain file systems, potential repair or replacement of inoperable outdoor swimming pool, some new appliances, intedor work including hallway carpet and carpet replacement in some units, replacement of some kitchen cabinets and floors, repair of leaking air conditioning units, and adding landscaping to the property. ,The City Inspectors have confirmed that the buildings are in need of rehabilitation. Staff also' discussed with the owners the possibility of adding garagea to the site (there ara currently seven garages for 36 units) and discussed improved property management. The total cost of the improvementa without garages is estimated at $180,000 - $200,000. The cost of the garages ia estimated at $225,000. The EDA responded that they would conaider a loan, not a granL The EDA ~ indicated a potential interest in acquiring the property for redevelopment purposes and told staff to convey that to the owners, which staff did. The EDA has targeted the entire 62~ Avenue and West Broadway area as an area for future upgrading and redevelopment. The property is located in an area where TIF funds can be spent that are generated from other districts. ' Subsequent to the July EDA meeting, staff further discussed the potential rehab project with the owners and the EDA comments regarding redevelopment. The ownem submitted a letter stating that the Regent Properties' partners would be interested in exploring the possibility of selling the properties to the City at a fair selling pdce. They inquired if the EDA would be willing to proceed to have the properties appraised and to explore a purchase of the buildings from Regent Properties. At the August 24 EDA meeting, the EDA authorized staff to obtain appraisals of the prol:~rtiea. (cont'd.) MOTION BY TO: RFA-O0! Request for Action Page 2 11-09-98 The buildings have a current market value as follows: 7136 60aAvenue 6017 Louisiana Avenue 7124 Lombardy Lane $48,000 land / $216,000 building = $264,000 $48,000 land I $227,000 building = $275,000 $48,000 land I $216,000 building = $264.000 $803,000 The appraisal of the properties has been completed and the market value of the three 12-unit buildings is $1,000,000 or $27,777.77 per unit (based on 36 units) and the owners have been notified of the appraisal amount. Staff have also obtained an estimate from a relocation cormultant indicating that the estimated cost to relocate the 35 tenants currently residing in'the buildings would be $258,000. In addition, if a major redevelopment were to occur on. this site, the EDA would probably want to consider incorporating the two adjacent single family homes into the project area. The 1998 market valve of the two single family homes is $93,000 (7128 60"' Avenue) and $81,000 (7104 Lomberdy). The preliminary estimate for acquisition and relocation is summarized as follows: Acquisition of Apartments Relocation of Tenants Acquisition of Single Femily Homes (2) Total Preliminary Estimate $1,000,000 258,500 174.000 $1~432,500 The City Manager and Community ~ Director also met briefly with · representative from Lang-Nelson, ownem of the Broadway Village Apertmentl to lite west of these 13mpeftles to inquire if they would potentially be interested in working with the City on · redevelopment project on this site and they did indicate some interest in the proposal. Staff is presenting this information to the EDA so that the EDA' can provide direction to staff as to how to proceed. Staff requests that the EDA consider the following options: ¸, Obtain · preliminap/ redevelopment financial analysis from · pmfaasiorml firm to more cleady identify'project co~s._, calculate the potential tax benefits to the City if a redevelopment would proceed, and inveMigate the creation of a new housing redevelopment tax increment financing district. 2. Authorize staff to negotia~ with the property owners of Regent Apartments for the potential acquisition of the propmly. 3. Decline to proceed to negotiate with the property owners for the acquisition of the property due to the high cost estimate. 4. Decline to proceed to negotiate with the property owners for the acquisition of the property, but direct staff to coordinate with the owners on a potential rehabilitation loan to upgrade the properties. If the EDA.is interested in proceeding with a pOtential redevelopment project, staff recommends Option 1. If the EDA feels that acquisition costs are too high and does not want to proceed with redevelopment, staff recommends Opti¢~n 4. N $~¢. I *COIqCEFT 2 *Vicinity Data* Lots - 5 (3-12 unic apes,-36 unica; 2 R-I homes) Land Area - 3.39 acres Zone, High Density ResidenCial 49 unica [1/3,000] Optional Rezone 147 unica [elderly] "A" $4,051 + 13,117 = 67,168 1.24 + .3 = 1.54 acres 710. R-I Zone ~ R-4 Zone ~, 7z24 l, od~i'.'d7 -..- _.- ,._. [ fz.,V/, :.,., R-4 Zone. I 6017 Loui~i~n~ ,&v. j _~ j , I # 60ch AVENUE NORTH Originating Depa~h~ent Approved for A~enda Agenda Section Community Development EDA ' 1~'~98 Sue Henry /, Item No. By.Community Development ,Specialist l~.~' 6 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HASE OF TAX FORFEITED LAND AT 7819 ANGELINE DRIVE. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 603) Staff has learned the City will need to pay for the appraised value of the property located at 7819 Angeline Ddve if the property is intended to be resold. If the City does acquire the property, the site would be developed into housing and resold to a first-time home buyer. The Hennepin County Auditor's Office will perform the necessary appraisal for the process. The property at 7819 Angeline Ddve has an assessed value of $1,000 and a fair market value of $13,700. The adjacent property, 7813 Angeline Ddve, has an assessed value of $2,000 and a fair market value of $17, 700. The two properties combined have a fair market value of $31,400. Based on this information, staff recommends the City pay no more than $5,000 for the property at 7819 Angeline Drive. The attached resolution requests that the land be 'sold to the EDA by Hennepin County at a private sale if the purchase price is $5,000 or less and authorizes the President and Executive Director to sign the appropriate documents. Staff recommends approving the attached resolution to proceed with the EDA's purchase of 7819 Angeline Ddve. MOT/ON BY. SECOND ~ TO: FOR ACTION · Con~enl; 11'23-98 item No. onamattng Dep~m~t Community Development BY'Kirk McDona. Id RESOLUTION APPROVING EASEMENT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR BRANDELL FOURTH ADDITION (PLANNING CASE 98-18) At the October 12 Council meeting, the City Council approved the final plat of Bmndell Fourth Addition, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that h'berty Property Umited Partnership enter into an agreement with the City agreeing to maintain the drainage easements on the property which are used for storm water ponding and other drainage purpceea. The City Attorney hea prepared said maintenance agreement containing the appropriate terms and conditions and the agreement is attached to this resolution aa 'Exhibit A.' The City Attorney has al~o prepared the attached resolution approving the easement maintenance agreement. ~. Staff recommends approval of the resolution approving the easement maintenance agreement and authorizing execution of the agreement by the Mayor and City Manager MOTION BY TO: RFA.O01 REQUEST FOR ACTION Approved ror Agen~ .~end~ SecUon ' Conserlt Item No. By:, 11-23-98 ~unf Depemnent Community Development BY"Kirk McDonald MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN APPRAISAL OF 7603 BASS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 651) LAKE ROAD The City has received the attached correspondence from the owner of the single-family dwelling at 7603 Bass Lake Road stating that they '*are ready to initiate negotiations in regard to the sale of their property to the City of New Hope.' The property is located on 'Ba~ Lake Road extension' behind the Alano building, and the City has previously acquired the property west of and adjacent to this site and demolished the single-family home. The City Council hes indicated an interest in acquiring other scattered site properties in that area and land banking them for future redevelopment purposes. Staff is requesting Council authorization to seek quotes for an appraisal of the property, accept the Iow quote, and get the property appraised. The estimated cost of an appraisal on a single-family home is $325.00. Staff would then bring the completed appraisal beck to the Council to determine if the City desires to negotiate with the property owner for the acquisition of the property. The 1998 valuation of the property is $63,000 ($21,500 lend/$41,5(X) building). Staff has indicated to the property owner that because this would be a voluntary sale, no relocation benefits would be paid. Staff recommends ap .1~o_ vel of · motion authorizing staff t9 obtain an appraisal of the property. The appraisal would be paid for with CDBG, EDA or TIF funds. MOTION BIF ,, TO: , .m,m-.. ,v. ~: -,- · ~ .:m_ :l= "<~: _--.. ~ : k ' i-~ i ~$0 ; , !~: ..... ' ......... m -' ' ~"~"~'fl =~ A~ N~lml ~[imm, ~mn ~ .............................. ............. T---~- ~ '--~ ..... ~..2 .... ~ ' . . : ~ 1S~ ~ i c ,: . ~ ......... 3,~.,~, ?~jl ~ W ~.' ........ : z" · ~ 4~ {:~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ . t . : ~'-~,' ', ' ~,, , , ?M I PARK . .. ; · y · . i .... ~ ...... ~...~ ' : ~ A{ N - ...... ~-~ ',-,~ .~ .,-~l ~ ~ : ~ i ~ , * ........ ~ ~ ........ ~ ....... ....... ,~ ........ ~ .~, . ~ I .... ~ ...... ~' ~ ~ ~~L un .............. . I ........ ~''' ~ I I . * ........ 3'2;2-I ; ~, ~; , ~z 810.__I Mil .... ~ ......... ~ ...... 9~ .~, ~.~....~ ........ . ........... , · ,., , ,_ ~ ..~ · ...... ; ...... ~ : .... ~..~. * ..... , - · _ ! ' ~ { ~hml_ .... ~ ...... ,~ ..... - "T ............. ~ ~ .... ..~ .... ~ F'~ . I ~- . ~ ..... i ~/ i REQUEST FOR ACTION Approved for Agend~ Agend~ Section Consent 11-23-98 Item No. . ongmatm¢ Depm-tment Community Development Kirk McDonald RESOLUTION ACCEPTING RESIGNATION OF WILLIAM KEEFE FROM THE NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION AND EXTENDING APPRECIATION FOR HIS SERVICE Bill Keefe has informed the City that he is resigning from the Planning Commission to pursue new challenges in his career and other family commitments. Keefe was appointed to the Planning Commission in March 1996 and has served on the Commission for almost three years. He is requesting that the resignation become effective upon completion of his present term, which is December 31, 1998. Besides serving on the Commission, Bill also served as a member of the Codes & Standards Committee, which is a subcommittee of the Planning Commission that studies and makes 'recommendations regarding changes to the Zoning Code and other portions of the City Code. Several of the more significant ordinances that were developed and/or revised during Bill's tenure include regulation of antenna towers, zoning and licensing of pawn shol~, lot coverage requirement for I-1 Districts, Sign Code update, and the DNR Shoreland Ordinance. The attached resolution accepts Keefe's resignation effictive December 31, 1998, and extends appreciation for his years of service on the Commission. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION i~' ~.,(~ND BY RFA-O01 CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 98- RESOLUTION*ACCEPTING RESIGNATION OF WILLIAM KEEFE FROM THE NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION AND EXTENDING APPRECIATION.FOR HIS SERVICE WHEREAS, WIlliam Keafe was appointed and served On the New ~e Planning Commission from March 1996 through December 1998 and during those' years he also served on the Codes & Standards Committee; and WHEREAS, Keafe hes submitted.his resignation to pursue new challenges; and WHEREAS, Keafe contributed input to several significant code changes .and also served on the Commission during a time period when some significant industrial, 'commercial, and publiclsemi-public development projec~ were proposed and approved. WHEREAS, the City of New Hope accepts Keafe's resignation effective December 31, 1998, with regreta and desires to thank him for hie years of dedicated service and contributions to the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of New Hope hereby accepta the resignation of WIlliam Keefe and extends its appreciation for his dedicate~._ sewico to and interest in the City of New Hope. Adopted by the City*~ of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 23"~ day of November, 1998. Mayor Attest; ~ / / October 28, 19~8 Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave N New Hope, MN 55428 I am writing this letter to notify the City of New Hope that it is my intention to resign from the Planning Commission in December, Ulx)n completion of my ptuent term. As you know, last year I moved away from New I-Iope. This has made it more difficult to stay current on city events, Also, in September, my wife and I had a new baby daughter and I expect this will make it even more ~tto participate in the Planning Commission. ~y request mat ttJe city look into a mailed subscription for the Sun-Post to be mailed to each volunteer. I found the newspaper a good way to stay informed on city iss .nes. I am grateful for the oppommity to have served on the Planning Commission and will gladly volunteer for such an oppoflunity in the hture. Thank you. SincerelY, REQUEST FOR Ac'rION ~t.m~ Det~nmeat Community Development Ai~m~-d for.4~enda Afenda SecUon Development & Planning 11-23-98 Item No. By.cSUe Henry ommunity Development Specialist MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY- OWNER OF 6113 WEST BROADWAY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 652) ' At the ~eptombor 14 Council m..--ting, the City Council autho~zed staff to obtain an appraisal for the gas station/convenience store property located at 6113 West Broadway. ~taff arranged the appraisal with the lowest, responsible bidder: Herman Appraisals. Tho property, loc~tad at tho ImuUwvest intersection of 62'" Avenue and West 8roedwuy, Jo adjacent to three pr~ the City has acquired over the past year. The property is located in an area where tax increment funds can bo utilized. The 1998 tax veluatk)n for the property is $186,000 ($140,000 land/$46,000 building). Tho property wes advertised in eased on the. informadon available, Herman APl:Felsais has estimated that the "es is" market value of the property (including tho business value) is $176,500. Par the appraisers rupert, I~sad on the Ijmitad historical fJnanciel JnformatJofl available, the appraiser wes not able to mndar a meaningfu8 estimate of value for the business operation. The preliminary opinion of'the appraiser regarding the business value for the gas station/convenience store is that its market value is equal to the depreciated value of the hard assets (furniture, fixtures and equipment) and that no 'going concern' value exists. The appraiser states that if, at a future date, additional financial information for the business operation is made available, they will review tho estimated business value, eased on the current information available, the appraiser has conctudod that any value attributable to the subject business resutts from the depreciated value of the herd assets which is considered in the estimated value for the reel estate. Please refer to the attached appraisal for more details. Also, during the a~i investJgatory process, Herman Appraisals Jsarned that the individual approaching the Cay about the potenthd sale, does not hold ofliciel title to the property and County records indicate · different current fee titJe owner. The Cay will need to Jo~ tho property owner if the negotiation procesa continues. Due to ell of the issues pointed out in the appraMI .and due to the wide range between tho advectJsad 'for sale' ~ce and the appraised "market value,' staff is not optimistic that an agreeable purchase price will bo reached on the property. However, staff is requesting that the Coundl authorize staff to moot and try and negotiate, with the property owner. Staff recommends aPlXOVel of a motion authorizing staff to negotiate with the property owner of 6113 West Broadway, based on the appraisal'. MOTION BY SECO~ BY RFA-O01 o 0 aVE. IS'.ANA i BROAD WAY it.~UEST FOR ACTION Orffmaun¢ Deparanent Community Development BY'Kirk McDonald Approved t'or A~enda .4kJenda Sect. ton Development & Plannin;I 11-23-98 Item No. RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE OF 5546 SUMTER AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 646) .. The enclosed resolution appmvas the purchase of 5546 Sumter Avenue North. In August, the City Council authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the single family property after correspondence had been received from the property owner stating that they wanted the City to start the procedure to purchase their property. The property is located at the southeast intersection of Bass Lake Road and Sumter Avenue and the City Council has indicated an interest in acquiring scattered site properties in that area for future redevelopment purposes. The City already owns several properties in that neighborhood, has demolished the structures and is land banking the property. Because this would be a voluntary sale, no relocation benefits would be paid. Tho 1998 valuation of the property IS $78,000 ($19,500 land, $58,500 building). As of September 1998, there was $2,030.!b in levied special assessments against the pmparty. Forsythe Appraisals completed an appraisal of the property and tho astlmatod fair market value of the property according to tho appraisal is $94,000. In September, the Council authorized staff to negotiate the potential purchase of the property from Luvbme and June Paterson. The property is located in an area-where TIF funds can be expended and staff indicated that acquisition and demolition costs would be paid from TIF or CDBG funds. In October, staff and tho City Attorney met with the pmparty owner and indicated that we could recommend a purchase price to the Council based on the $94,000 appraisal with a waiver of relocation costs, the property owner paying all levied assessments, real estate taxes prorated to the date of the sale, and typical closing costs paid by the respective parties. The property owner's legal representative made a counter offer of $.110,000 and requested that the City waive or pay the outstanding special assessments. At the No, ember 9 Council meeting, staff recommended and the Council approved a motion declining the counter offer. (cont'd.) MOTION BY TO: Request for Action Page 2 11-23-98 Subsequent to the last Council meeting, the property owner decided that they were willing to sell the property to the City st the appraised pdos of $94,000 if the City would assume the existing special assessment balance of $2,192.57. The City Manager was agreeable to this offer, subject to City Council approval, and the attached purchase agreement was drafted accordingly by the City Attorney. The one point that remains to be discussed is the property owner's occupancy, of the property. The City Attorney has set a dosing date on December 3~, 1998. The Petersons plan on building a new home and have a lot for their next house, but do not yet have a builder. Their preference would be to remain in the existing house until March 30, 1999, as a tenant after the City purchases the property. If the Council is not agreeable to this option, the Petersons will vacate the property at the time of the closing. They would prefer to make One move (from their existing home into their new home) instead of two moves (from their existing home to an interim location and then into the new home). The City Attorney has drafted the enclosed documents to address whateve.r, option the Council desires, as follows: 1. Purchase A.qreement - The Purchase Agreement does not allow the Petersons to remain in the property after December 30. The City Attorney indicates that the safest and least complicated option for the City is to purchase the property and take possession the day alter closing. 2. Purchase Agreement with Occupancv Addendum - If ~ Council wishes to allow the Petersons to occupy the property after the closing, the Council should approve the Purchase Agreement with the Occupancy Addendum. The Addendum and Occupancy Agreement call for the Petersons to vacate the propert~ by March 30, 1999. In the interim, the Petersons would be responsible for payment of all utilities for the property, required to keep the property insured for liability hazards, and pay the sum of $405.00 as an occupancy fee, which represents the real estate taxes the City ~lJ be paying for the three months the Petersons live at the property. Staff does not intend to demolish the property until the spring of 1999~, so the Council can choose whichever option it prefers. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Approving Purchase of 5546 Sumter Avenue North. If the Council determines to let the Petarsons remain in the property until March 30, 1999, the Occupancy Addendum should also be approved. EDA FOR ACTION Approved for Agenda Agenda ~ecUon EDA 11-23-98. Item No, Community Development ByKirk McDonald MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR sENIOR OUTREACH SERVICES, INC. FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADULT DAYCARE FACILITY ON A PORTION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, SCIENCE INDUSTRY CENTER 3~ ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 493) At the August 8 EDA meeting, the EDA approved a Resolution Declaring Preliminary Intent to Convey Property to Senior Outreach Services, Inc. for an Adult Daycere Facility. The resolution was necessary so that Senior Outreach Services could commence negotiation proceedings with its financing institution, allowing them to prepare a financial plan for the successful completion of the project. The resolution was simply the initial step in the process to a final cooperation agreement to construct the facility. The resolutiori set forth the EDA's willingness to convey a portion of the property at 5501 Boone Avenue North to Senior Outreach Services for an adult daycare facility on a deferred loan/grant redevelopment contract. The entire purchase pdce would be in a deferred loan subject to 100 percent forgiveness in the event all of the conditions of a Redevelopment Contract were satisfied. The conditions included: 1. A thirty (30) year contract term. 2. A reversionary clause which would automatically convey the property back to the EDA in the event the property was not developed and operated as an adult daycere facility on or before November 2000. 3. A second lien or mortgage in the amount of the EDA's $376,764 purchase pdce for the property. This lien or mortgage would be forgiven in the event all conditions of the Redevelopment Contract were met. 4. CareBreek would make an annual payment to the EDA in an amount equal to the portion of real estate taxes the City would receive if the property was fully taxable for real estate purposes. 5. CareBreak would be required to immediately prepare and submit development plans for site and building plan review acceptable to the City. 6. That CareBreak enters into a Redevelopment Contract which incorporates the foregoing conditions and restrictions and any other conditions or restrictions required by the City. (cont'd.) MOTION BY $~"OND BY ~A-O0! .! Request for Acl~n Page 2 11-23-98 At the time the resolution was approved, staff' indicated that a Redevelopment Contract would be brought back to the EDA for consideration in the futura. Subsequent to the date that the resolution was approved, Senior Outreach Services has secured the necessary funding for the project. They have also developed concept site plans for the development of the south half of the city-owned parcels and ara' in the process of developing more complete plans and initiating the necessary applications for the planning/zoning approval process. A representative from Senior Outreach Services will be present at the EDA meeting to further discuss these plans. Staff has also had preliminary discussions with representatives of NorthRidge Care Center on 'potentially developing a temporary parking lot on the north side of the. site for NorthRidge employees. It is anticipated that thia would be a separate agreement with No~thRldge and could be similar to the current arrangement with the Sunshine Factory at 42~ & Quebec Avenues, where a temporary parking lot is constructed on the city-owned property and the cost of constructing the lot would be paid for by the user of the parking lot. The temporary nature of the parking lot WOUld facilitate additional development on the north portion of the property in the future. If the EDA ia agreeable to the concept site plans presented by Senior Outreach Services, the next step in the process would be for the EDA to direct staff to prepare a Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and Senior Outreach Services for this project. Staff recommends approval of a motion directing staff to prepare a Redevelopment Contract for Senior Outreach Services, Inc. for the development of an adult daycere facility on a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Science Industry canter 3'~ Addition. II I I I I I Il ~I1'," ,I EDA ~[TE~T l~OR ACTION Approved ~or Agenda ~genda Sectmn EDA 11-23-98 Item No. Community Development ]~/Kirk McDonald RESOLUTION APPROVING ADDENDUM TO BASS LAKE COURT TOWNHOME PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 614) The enclosed resolution approves an Addendum to the Bass Lake Court Townhome Project Redevelopment Contract. Also attached is the proposed Addendum and correspondence from Steve Cramer, Executive Director of PPL, and Robert Siiverman, attorney for PPL. . The Addendum address the following three issues: 1. PPL has assigned its interest in the project to PPL - Bass Lake Court Umitad Pa~'~ership. PPL remains as the general partner of this limited partnership. Article 6 of the Redevelopment Contract permits PPL to make this assignment of interest and the City was aWare a limited partnerShip would be formed by PPL to carry forward with this project. This is why the contingency.f.~ the assignment was originally included in the Redevelopment Contract. Due to the assignment of interest, the Addendum is necessary. 2. The Addendum will re-characterize the funds the EDA has committed to the project as a grant instead of a loan. In reality, Section 5.4 of the Redevelopment Contract results in total forgiveness of the loan anyway upon completion of the contract. In other words, the loan reverts to a grant on the condition PPL successfully completes the project. As pointed out in the correspondence from PPL's attorney, the current characterization of these funds as a loan rather than a grant adverSely affects the ability of PPL to maximize its financing through the sale of Iow income housing tax credits. 3.. Lastly, the Addendum eliminates the restriction on PPL's use of $500,000 of the $1,400,000 in proceeds the EDA hal committed to the project in tax increment financing funds. The odginal Redevelopment Contract indicates the EDA will commit funds in excess of $900,000 to a maximum of $1,400,000 if land.acquisition costs through a condemnation proceeding results in the need to expend thes~ funds. PPL recently met with the City Manager, City Attorney and Community Development Director to request that this restriction be lifted due to increased project costs. This issue is addr-~,sed in detail in the attached correJponder~e from Steve Cramer. The major reasons for the project cost increases include: MOTION BY TO: , RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 11-23-98 · Significantly more site work related to resolving drainage concerns and the construction of a storm water pond on School District property. · Increased scope of work for rehabilitation of existing fourplexes. · Booming construction market, which has raised prices and decreased interest in small rehabilitation projects. The City Manager and staff are supportive of the request and believe that PPL has tried to contain the project costs to the best of their ability. The enclosed Addendum would remove the restriction and simply commit $1,400,000 of fund~ for any appropriate project purpose, as defined in Section 5.1 of the Redevelopment Contract. Staff recommenda approval of the resolution approving the. Addendum to the Redevelopment Contract. 7601, 7621, & 7641 62"d Avenue North PROJECTS 6131641 Bulletin ~2 Overview As you aware, the City has acquired three four-plex buildings along 62"~ Avenue over the past year at 7601, 7621, and 7641 62~ Avenue..AII of the tenants from the buildings have been relocated as of October 31. At this time, city staff is gearing up for demolition activities. Proiect Schedule Building demolition is scheduled to begin Monday, November 231 The three city- acquired buildings will come down November 23 and 24. FollOWing the long Thanksgiving holiday weekend, site cleanup activities will continue. This prOcess will likely take place much of the week of November 30. Construction Houm New Hope City Code states that construction can occur on the site between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Monday thrOugh Friday, and 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekends or holidays. -. Site Management Over the winter months, the City will maintain the vacant site. If you see something unusual near the site, please contact the Police Department directly at 531-5170. Contact Person If you have questions or concems dudng the project, please contact Susan Henry, Community Development Specialist, at 531-5137, or Kirk McDonald, Director of Community Development, at 531-5119. The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents and businesses in the area that may be impacted during this project. The City will keep you informed about any future activities that are to take place on the site. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 11/16~98 PROJECT NO. 618 Bulletin #2 DOROTHY MARY PARK SITE IMPROVEMENTS STORM SEWER AND PARK STRUCTURES INTRODUCTION The intent of this project bulletin is to update residents on the status of the Dorothy Mary Park improvements. The work in the Park was separated into two parts, storm sewer work and work on structures in the Park, and was awarded to two separate contractors. Work began in late August. WORK COMPLETED The extension of the storm-sewer from Xylon Avenue to the south side of the pond is complete. Reconstruction of the storm water outlet on the southeast side of the pond has also been completed. The wooden stairs along the south side of the Park on 60½ Avenue North have been replaced. A new dock has been constructed on the north side of the pond. The channel that serves as the outlet for the pond has been excavated and redirected through the wetland near the west Park entrance~ Four new boardwalks have been built to cross the wetland area. The dock and the boardwalks were built according to the plan. The stairway design was modified slightly so that it would fit better into the slope of the hill along 60½ Avenue North. After much feedback from neighborhood residents, the stairway was again modified to include a wooden handrail instead of the cable ra~l as originally planned. UPCOMING SCHEDULE The removal of buckthorn from the Park has begun and should be accomplished in the next few weeks, weather permitting. Buckthom conveniently retains its green leaves well into the fall, making identification much easier. The small plants will be pulled from the ground while the larger plants will be cut off at ground level and their stumps treated with herbicide. There will be additional work done in the Park next spring. That work will involve landscaping of the Park entrances and restoration of the areas disturbed by this year's construction. The City of New Hope has received a grant from the Minn~asta Department of Natural Resources to help fund the buckthom removal and the re-establishment of woodland and wetland plant communities in the Park. CONTACT PERSONS If you have quastlen~ or concem$ dudng the improvement project, please direct your calls to the Project Engincc,-, Vince VanderTop, at 604-4790 or 533-4823 ext. 15, or Tom Schuster, Contract Manager, at 533-4823 ext. 13. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 11118198 AVTEC FINISHING SYSTEMS, INC.' 9101 Science Center Drive · Minneapolis, MN 55428 Phone (612) 533-4822 · Fax (612) 533-8576 AVT$C FINISHING SYSTEMS, IN~ November 4, 1998 Planning Commission and City Council City of New Hope Attn: Kirk McDonald 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Application for CUP-PUD/Subdivision/Site and Plan Review Dear Mr. McDonald: This letter replaces my letter to .you dated October 16, 1998. As you are well aware, Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc. has submitted an Application to the City of New Hope for,& CUP/Subdivision/Site and Plan Review with regard to property which the Applicant leases and~ located at 9101 Science Center Drive in New Hope. Avtec's desire was to expand its operations upon the properties which are the subject'of the Application. As you are also aware, in the course of the City's review of the Application and preparation for hearing on the matter, certain additional requirements were disclosed to Avtec, including, without limitation, th~ need for the construction of a wetland/holding pond on the property. At the present time, Avtec Finishing Systems, Inc. has not been able to determine a financially and practically feasible manner in which to satisfy the requirements of the City and complete the proposed expansion. Notwithstanding the fact that Avtec is currently unable to determine an approach to this problem, Avtec remains willing to work on this matter to allow the expansion project to continue in the year 1999. Accordingly,.Avte¢ Finishing Systems, Inc. hereby requests that the City hold the Application until the May 10, 1999 New Hope City Council meeting. Between now and then, Avtec expects that further re~airch can be done and a final determination made as to the feasibility of this matter. Plea,m be advised that notwithstanding Avtec's request that the City hold the Applicati'on without further action, Avtec reserves the right to later, withdraw the Application, should a determination be made. that the project cannot feasibly proceed. In that event, I will provide you with written notice of the withdrawal on or before April 10, I999. Should you have any further questions in connection with this request, please call me. Very Truly Yours, AVTEC tffNIStiiNG SYSTEMS, INC.