040197 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 1, 1997
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:00 p.m.
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.2
6.1
6.2
6.3
CALL TO ORDER
CONSENT ITEMS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case 97-04
Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment
Boger, DDS, 9413 36~ Avenue North, Petitioner
Approval, Stephen P.
Case 96-24
Consideration of Ordinance 97-04, An Ordinance Amending New Hope
Zoning Code by Establishing Regulations for Construction Placement of
Telecommunication Towers and Facilities, City of New Hope, Petitioner
Case 97-02
Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-08, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope
Sign Code by Permitting the Use of Non-Commercial Opinion Signs, and
Amending the Purpose and Political Signage Section, City of New Hope,
Petitioner
Case 97-05
Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-14, An Ordinance Amending Section 2.13
of the New Hope City Code Establishing the New Hope Planning Commission,
City of New Hope, Petitioner
Case 96-31
Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-15, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope
City Code by Establishing a Shoreland Permit Overlay District, City of New
Hope, Petitioner
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: April 17 at 8 a.m. (if necessary)
Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: April 23
OLD BUSINESS
Miscellaneous Issues
NEW BUSINESS
Review of Planning Commission Minutes of March 4, 1997.
Review of City Council Minutes of February 24 and March 10, 1997.
Review of EDA Minutes of February 24, 1997.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
*Petitioners are required to be in attendance
APRIL
COI~fiSSIO~
ZONING DISTRICT MAP
R-1 Single Fami~ Residential
R-2 Single and Two Family Remdantial
R-3 Medium De.airy Residential
R-4 High Deelity Relidentiat
R-5 "Se~io4' / Disabled' Remdentiai
R-O Re~dential Office
R-O(I~JD) ReaidentJat Office - PUD
B-I Umited Neighborho(x:l Bu~nes~
B-2 Retail Bumine&e
6-3 Auto Oriented 8uline~
8-.4. Community Bueineo
I-1 Umited Indur~'iid
I-2 C.,en~id Industrial
Open Sp~ce / Public
PC97-04
Stephen P. Boger
9413 36th Avenue North
1 INCH- 2100 FEET
2101
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
97-04
Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment Approval
9413 36th Avenue North
19-118-21-22-0141/42
R-0, Residential Office
Stephen P. Boger, DDS
March 28, 1997
April 1, 1997
BACKGROUND
The petitioner is requesting comprehensive sign plan amendment approval to allow the installation of
one additional ground sign, pursuant to Section 3.467 of the New Hope Sign Code.
The owners of the professional office building located at the southwest intersection of 36th and Hillsboro
Avenues have requested to revise an existing ground sign and install a new ground sign on 36th
Avenue.
3. This is a multiple occupancy professional building that is owned by two persons (Boger and Reese) and
contains five (5) businesses:
A. New Hope Medical Clinic
B. Boger Dental
C. Reese Orthodonitcs
D. Miller Law Offices
E. Greystone Real Estate
The Sign Code states that when a single principal building is devoted to two or more businesses, a
comprehensive sign plan shall be submitted/approved by the City. Due to the fact that this is a multiple
occupancy building, an amendment to the comprehensive sign plan is required to make the requested
signage changes.
The petitioner states that they are requesting permission to install another ground sign. The requested
location would be on 36th Avenue and would be directed towards the 36t~ Avenue traffic flow. The
petitioner states that the adjacent side street is residential and would be ineffective for the sign. The
petitioner states that the sign installation would require the removal of one tree and that it would be
replaced in a position that would not block the sight line from the street.
The petitioner states that the request should be granted in order to give the dental practice more of an
identity. It would allow current and future dental patrons to easily locate the practice and the sign would
not be 'overpowering or unattractive or change the basic Iow profile of the building.
7. In short, the professional businesses located in the building have a shortage of signs and the primary
goal is to improve 36th Avenue sign visibility.
The 1.4 acre parcel is located in an R-O, Residential Office, Zoning District. Surrounding zoning/land
uses include R-2 twinhomes to the south and west and across Hillsboro Avenue to the east and B-3/B-4
Zoning (Post Haste Shopping Center/Mobil Mart) to the north across 36t~ Avenue.
9. The topography of the property is flat and the site has extensive landscaping.
10. Comprehensive sign plan approval does not require a public hearing, therefore, no notices have been
published or mailed.
ANALYSIS
The Sign Code states that "multiple occupancy businesses must submit a comprehensive sign plan for
the entire building. The effect of the comprehensive sign plan is to allow and require the owner of
multiple occupancy structures to determine the specific individual sign requirements for the tenants of
the building. As sign locations and size, etc. may be of some significant importance in lease
arrangements between owner and tenant, it is the City's intention to establish general
requirements for the overall building only, thus providing a building owner with both the
flexibility and responsibility to deal with individual tenants on their specific sign needs."
2. Note that this is a request for a change to the ground signs only; no wall signs are involved.
Section 3.467, Multiple Occupancy Businesses, Section (4)(B), Ground Signs for Multiple Occupancies,
of the Sign Code states that "multiple occupancy structures other than shopping centers may erect
ground signs in accordance with the provisions of Section 3,465(3) of the Sign Code and may
identify each separate and district occupancy on said ground sign."
Section 3.465(3) of the Sign Code states that not more than two ground signs shall be permitted on
any lot or one ground sign if the building should contain more than one wall sign over ten (10) square
feet, subject to the following regulations (pertinent to this request):
Maximum Area:
Maximum Height:
Setbacks:
40 square feet (collector street)
15 feet (collector street)
No closer than 10 feet to property line
5. The petitioner is requesting to revise an existing sign and install a new sign, as follows:
Revisions to Existing Sign
The existing sign is located at the northeast corner of the property and meets setback requirements and
is not located in the site triangle. The existing sign has had two hanging panels added to it since it was
originally installed that advertise the Miller Law Offices and Greystone Real Estate. The proposed
revision is to remove the two hanging panels and place the copy advertising these two
businesses in place of the "Denistry" copy in the center panel of the original sign. The revised
sign would be 14' in length and 2'10" in height or 40 square feet. It would meet sign code requirements.
New Sign
A second ground sign not exceeding 40 square feet would be permitted because the building has no
wall signs.
The proposed new sign would be to advertise the Boger Dental practice, as shown on the plans. The
sign would be located in the center of the property frontage on 36th Avenue and would be setback 10
feet from the property line. The sign would be 8'3" wide x 4'4" tall, for a total of 36 square feet. The sign
would be placed perpendicular to 36th Avenue and be double-faced. A small tree would be
removed/replaced to accommodate the sign. (The plans show a single-face parallel sign or a double-
face perpendicular sign, but the petitioner prefers the double-face perpendicular sign.) The new sign will
be internally lighted, similar to the existing sign.
6. Staff is supportive of the request, as the Sign Code does allow two 40-foot ground signs on the property
as long as there are no exterior wails signs.
7. There are two details that staff is following up on with the sign contractor:
A. A final version of the revised existing sign.
B. Color identification for the new sign.
The sign contractor will be submitting these details prior to the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend approval of the comprehensive sign plan amendment, subject to the following conditions:
1. Relocate or replace any plantings disturbed by the installation of the new (west) ground sign.
2. Final copy of revised existing sign to be submitted.
3. Colors for new sign to be identified/submitted.
Attachments:
Address/Zoning/Topo Maps
Site Plans
Sign Elevations
_/
~/
33 ~D AVE:
~v£ N
36 TH AVE. N.
AVE.
NORTHWOOD
PARK
wAY
ST. JOSEPH'S
.CATHOLIC
CHURCH
'-'5 5ol
SONNESYN
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
HIDDEN
VALLEY
PAR K
CIRCLE
i
i
"7
~-- ,',~l~..," : :--,~. "',', ..~,'.' '~--:-: .....
.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ., ,. - -~ . , . ..~ .....
~ ~ ~~~ ~_ ~-- ,~ ~: . . : -'~~ -..~ ,.. - ...__~
~ I ~-~~~-'~'-:~ ...... :-~' ' ~ ~ ' : ' ' ~ "-' ~-' " ~-~--
.... ; · . . . ; ~ · .~ . ~ . . , ~ '. . . ~ ·
~~. ~ ....... __ ~ ............. ~ ~ '_~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~__:..~ _ '
:- ...... ,..__ ....................
! ~'. ' :'----- .... : .... ~ ~ '~---, ~ ~'3::~-_ s--~ .... q J ' ' ~ " --' I
I~~:' ': : '~-----:~ : ---~ ..... ~0: ...... ~-' :'~' --- :- I
_ _~ ( ..... ~: ~_:_:~_: · - ~: - --,. ~ ..... ~ --: : - , --~ ~
'-:"-- - - ', --:'-" ':
.... ~ ~ -~ , ~, : ; ~ :- : ~ ~-'~. ~ ..... _ :~ .... S :-- --
. ~ .~ : .... . ..~. -.- ~, '-,. ~:~::~: . -- ~ .... ~.___~__: _ :.~_:: :--
..... : :- .__ :' T::"- ~ : ....:--:'-.~~ - - .......... :~:n'--l'!~
_ ~. ,~ ~: :. ~:-= :-.- ~.--~ ........ .:__= · , ~ :
:-~ ...................... :: :._ 1__ - ~ ~ ................. . ...... ~_~ .
~ .... ~._ -.~> .- ~. ~- ._.~Z~.- .. ~ < ~-~ ..........
_ __ ~ ~.-~ ~ :. '.. . . -~ - >.. , '.~' ~ .... ~--~:---~ ~--- __ ~: ....... .~ _: ~_~_ ~'_ ~_
--- ---J---"~ ..... '~ .... " ~T ' ' '" '" ~ , ' ~ ~i .... . ..... :-' ~..' '- ~JS7 AVE N
..... __.: ......... ~ ~, ~ ~ - .~.. , :_~._~:--, ~ .__ ~_ _ ___
_ - ~ ........ . , ~ ~ -
'1
963.3
968.9
X
972.8
962.4
X
[]
~965.7
35
910--"--~
977.2
970.4 X
35TH
0
979.0
35TH
AVENUE
972.6
REVISED SIGN
40sf
NEW SIGN,
36 sf .'-~"
[
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
96-24
Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-04, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning
Code by Establishing Regulations for Construction and Placement of
Telecommunication Towers and Facilities
City-Wide
All Zoning Districts
City of New Hope
March 28, 1997
April 1, 1997
UPDATE
Subsequent to the March Planning Commission meeting, the City staff, Planning Consultant and City
Attorney met at a staff meeting and discussed in detail all of the comments made about the ordinance
at the Commission meeting. The Planning Consultant has prepared the attached report and
recommended revised ordinance in response to the comments made at the meeting. The City Attorney
has put the revised ordinance into final format for consideration by the Commission. The Planning
Consultant has also prepared a report that compares the Cable Commission model ordinance with the
proposed New Hope ordinance. Lastly, the Building Official has prepared several maps identifying
potential tower locations in the industrial districts, current existing tower locations, and he has identified
potential antenna locations on buildings over four stories high. These maps are intended to defend the
position that towers should not be located anywhere other than industrial zones. (The maps were
already distributed to the Codes & Standards Committee, therefore, they are only being distributed now
to those Commissioners not serving on the Committee.)
2. The Codes & Standards Committee reviewed these revisions in detail at its March 19 meeting and is
recommending approval of the revised ordinance.
The revised ordinance was sent to the two representatives who addressed the Commission about the
ordinance at the last meeting. They were requested to submit written comments back to the City prior to
the distribution of this packet if they had additional concerns about the ordinance. No comments have
been received as of the time this report is being written. If any written correspondence is received prior
to the distribution of the packet, it will be enclosed.
4. Please refer to the enclosed revised ordinance and the comments from the City Attorney and Planning
Consultant for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
Pending comments received at the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
Attachments:
3/13 Planner's report comparing New Hope ordinance to model ordinance
3/13 Planner's report and recommended revised ordinance, including responses to
comments made at the March Planning Commission meeting
3/13 City Attorney correspondence explaining changes to ordinance and revised Ordinance
No. 97-04
Maps prepared by Building Official (for Commissioners not on Codes & Standards)
Larkin Hoffman letter presented at Planning Commission meeting
Information from SBA received after the Planning Commission meeting
Correspondence sent to SBA and Larkin Hoffman
March 4 Planning Commission report
MRR-13-19~9 17:22 M~K] 612 5DS ~B39 P.02/11
N
COMMUNITY PI. ANNTNO - DIr~ION - MAiqKII'T
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Daniel Licht I Alan Brixius
13 March 1997
New Hope - Antenna Ordinance - Comparison with
NSCCC Model Ordinance
131.00-96.11
We have reviewed the proposed NeW Hope Antenna Ordinance in comparison with the
Northwest Suburban Communities Cable Commission model and have found the New
Hope Ordinance to be generally consistent with the model provisions. The following is a
summary of major provisions of the NSCCC model ordinance that have not been included
in the proposed New Hope antenna ordinance that the City may wish to consider including:
The NSCCC model ordinance requires an applicant to provide documentation
regarding the inability to coqocate a proposed antenna either due to technical
reasons or through the inability to reach agreement with an existing tower owner.
The NSCCC model ordinance provides a definition for determining tower height.
The NSCCC model ordinance requires antenna tower sites to provide one off-street
parking space.
The NSCCC model ordinance requires building and zoning code recerfification
every five years for monopoles and every two years for lattice or guyed towers.
A maintenance section has been included in the NSCCC model ordinance
specifying that the towers are to be maintained in compliance with the National
Electric Safety Code and all FCC, State and local regulations and overall in a
manner to prevent failures or ac~=idents that would be dangerous to the general
welfare.
5775
WAYZATA
BOULEVARD, SUITE
LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
~ I ~-5~5-9837
§5416
MAR-13-1997 17:~2 NAC 612 595 98o~9 P.~i]×11
The NSCCC model ordinance is more specific that fencing requirements and no
trespass provisions and postings are for security purposes.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call,
MAR-13-19g'7 17:2~ N~ 612 595 98.~7 P.04/11
N
COMMUNITY PLANNINO D~.~ION MAII~K~"T RI"rSEAI~CH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.;
Kirk McDonald / Steve Sondrall
Daniel Licht I Alan Brixius
t3 March 1997
New Hope - Antenna Ordinance - Revisions
131.00-96.11
The following memorandum outlines proposed changes to the New Hope antenna
ordinance following a public hearing at the 4 March 1997 Planning Commission Meeting.
In addition to comments given at the public hearing, a letter was received from Gregory
Korstad of Larkin, Hoffman Daly and Lindgren, Ltd. on behalf of American Portable
Telecom (ATP), a licenced personal communication services provider.
One of the recommendations within the ATP letter, suggests that the City make antenna
towers a permitted use within the !-1 and I-2 Districts and a conditional use in other
districts. Based upon the current proposed antenna ordinance, antenna towers would be
allowed within the I-1 and I-2 Districts as conditional uses. In addition, antennas located
on antenna support structures are allowed as secondary permitted uses within all zoning
districts, subject to certain height regulations of the support structure. A review of the
City's Zoning Map suggests that the cun'ent ordinance language provides a reasonable
allowance for antennas and should provide sufficient service coverage within the City as
well as to areas beyond New Hope's boundaries. As such, wa do not believe it neoessary
to revise the proposed district provisions.
The following are excerpts from the draft antenna ordinance. New text added to each
provision is highlighted while text proposed to be removed has been stricken. A bdef
comment regarding each revision follows the provision.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 55.-~ ST. LOUIS PARK, I~IINNE~SOTA
PHONE ~ I ;~-5~5-9~3~ FAX ~ I 2-595-~837
MAR-13-199? 19:22 NAC 612 595 98~ P.~5/11
4.o (3E)
Commenb
This definiUon has been added to address a new issue that has a#sen
where service provicler~ are installing antennas on temporary
structures so as to establish the antenna iocaUon. This has been
occurring in Plymouth and may occur in New Hope.
4.022 (3B) (i)
Comment:
Antenna, Personal Wireless Service. A device consisting of a metal,
carbon fiber, or other electromagnetically conductive rods or
elements, ~,.~:~JJy &,"~ng~. :7, ;, ~-.~',&r ~-,~y on a single supporting
pole or other structure, and used for the transmission and reception
of wireless communication radio waves including cellular, personal
communication service (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio
(ESMR), paging and similar services and including the support
structure thereof.
The statement 'usually arranged in a circular arra~ has been
removed so as not lo limit ghe scope of the definiSon, in terms of what
may become dated technology.
4.039 D (2) (b)
Comment
antenna support stmcaxe must be,o;- ,,ct--,,,~' .... ,,~,,'--- twenty (20) feet in
height ~ Within residential zoning districts, the support
structure ~ is ,~c,t l~aa ."-~n thirty-six (36) feet in height~
Editorial change to clarify the intention of the provision.
4.039 D (2) (e)
Comment.
of the antenna
~~-:-~/--':~?i~~=~.-_.'~'i~_~_-__-..~.. shall be in compliance with
manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified and approved by
a registered professional engineer.
Th/,s change has been made to infer that the ~Hficetion of structural
integrity of an antenna attached to an antenna support structure by a
registered engineer is to occur during a design plan review of an
application and not as part of a field inspection.
2
612 S9S 983"?
P.~/11
4.039 D (2) (i)
Comment:
ng, receiving, and switching equipment .~:_-~-'--_-{-~--~?-~';~;~?
shall be housed wiU3in the existing
structure whence. ,'f a ;;;;;- c-qu:p,-n,~,~;
r~eeee~,-~ ~ transmitting, receiving and switching
and ~ ....... _ all-be screened
from view t~,aml.eel~ .
The above provision has been revised to reflect current technology for
housing tmnsmiffing, receiving and switching equipment based upon
industry input.
4.039 D (2) (k)
Comment:
This pro~fsion is to be eliminated entirely. Instead, the City will rely on
screening and camouflaging requirements within the ordinance to
minimize visual impacts.
4.039 O (2) (I)
Comment:
~,C17=~._._~.__~-..-.~_=~..__-~_7.-.t2 ....... -- ............... ~ .................... .__z.~_.~.~ --. --k--it I...~ _.'.J_
S..~...?~'T~:~..'.~.:.:.:z~.:.:~':..~cs~..`~..~...~...~...~:~-.-~::T.`-.~?.~.~.~.:~'~3£~.&=~:~= in order that such
facilities harmonize with the character and environment of the area in
which they are located.
The term 'camouflaging techniques' is perceived as to vague and
subjecE~ to be etRcfenUy applied. Therefore, the provision has been
revised to be more sped~ regarding ~he techniques to be utilized to
minimize the visibility of an antenna tower.
3
MAR-13-199V 17:23 5~qC 612 595 983V
4.039 D (2) '-'
Comment:
This provision is ~ as unnecessary as market forces, as well as
actual service capabilities, will likely dictate the number and location
of antennas within the City. It is unlikely that the industry would install
more than the minimum number of antennas necessary to provide
service based upon their desire to limit equipment and location costs.
4.039 D (3) (b)
Comment:
Ail obsolete and unused antenna towers shall be removed within
twelve (12) months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an
exemption is granted by lhe City Manager or designate. The removal
shall be the joint and several responsibility of the u't~:]ty or.
cc, r,,,c,,u~c.~:~c,~ p~c,v~ and landowner.
The responsibility for the removal of obsolete or unused antenna
towers is a maintenance issue that does not necessarily involve the
service provider. As such, the provision he, been revised to hold the
tower owner and/or land owner accountable.
4.039 O (3) (d)
Comment
Structural design -Zi~'3~/;3_3,~un,i,,u ans ~,, ,,., ,, ,o.u,,ou~.~ of
the antenna towers shall be in compliance with manufacturer's
specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered
professional engineer.
This change has been made to infer that the verification of structural
integ#ty of an antenna support structure by a registered engineer is
to occur during a design plan review of an application and not as part
of a field inspecffon.
4.039 D (3) (-~-)
4
MAR-13-199? 17:24 N~ 612 $95 98~ P.~8×11
Comment:
This provision is to be deleted an#rely as antenna towers are not
anticipated to present any dangers beyond those associated with
other uses in the I-1 and I-2 Diatrict.
4.039 D (3) (h)
Comment:
Antenna towers shall maintain a minimum setback to the nearest
property line of seventy-five (75) percent of tower height and a
minimum setback .?om_...a_._,_b...u..!!..d.!.,ng___ Jn__~_e_._.~...m**e.. !ot_~ ~.~(..5.,.o,.) perce~t
The language added to this provision is intended to provide applicants
with tower design flexibility and efficient use of space while insuring
adequate protecUon for the warfare and safety of adjacent properties
and persons.
4.039 D (3) (i)
Comment:
All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum separation of one
thousand (1,000) feet from existing towers at the time the conditional
use permit is approved.
This provision is maintained as it is currenUy written in the proposed
antenna ordinance. However, the model ordinance prepared for the
Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission (NSCCC)
sugges~ that required separaUon distances may not be desirable due
to the practical realiUes of a wireless network design. Each time a
service provider attempted to locate or re/ocate an. antenna, the
separation distance requirement may cause the provider to
recongifure their entire network due to a 'rippling effect' in the service
coverage areas. Service providers would likely not be able to
supplement sarvi¢~ to a given area as the new tower is needed to be
placed in closer proximity to existing towers.
To address this issue the NSCCC Model Ordinance uses the following
language:
1.4.6 An appliceUon to develop a tower's site shall include:
A map of the City and the first haft-mile of ali bordering
communities showing the design of the applicant's entire
existing or proposed wireless telecommun~ns network.
Such map shall, at a rntYdmum, incScate the exact location of all
5
HRR-i3-19~? 17:24
612 S9S 9~J-~
proposed or exf~'ng tower and antenna sites, Flair dimensions,
specifications and signal area coverage.
Engineers associated with the N$CCC project indicated that such
plans as identified in the above provision should be readily available
from tests providers perform in order to determine proposed tower
IocaUon$. The service providers should also be able to provide a
concept for their overall networlc
This language, to some extent, is similar to that of provisions 4.039 D
(2) (m) and 4.039 D (3) (o) which is currently proposed to be removed
from the ordinance.
If the Codes and b"tandarcla Committee is favorable to language
similar to that of the NSCCC model, it could be drafted and inserted
in place of the seperaUon crmtance required in 4.03,9 D (3) (i).
4.039 O (3) (j)
Comment:
The height of the antenna shall be the minimum neceeeary to function
satisfactorily as verified by an electrical engineer or other appropriate
~mum height of any antenna tower with ~
' ~ ....._ . _ s**hallb® one
The above clause has been revised to increase the tower height to
145 feet for a two antenna array tower and to allow for additional
height above 145 feet pmvided ~ ~apadly is designed into the
antenna tower. This is intended to encourage applicants to co-locate
antenna arrays on antenna towers.
4.039 D (3) (m)
Comment:.
Antenna towers shall be painted silver:i!:-:~'_::~-'":::"'-_ .:~:~:~:_: or have a
galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless otherwise required
by federal law.
This provision has been expanded in terms of color choice.
4.039 D (3)
~' '/
6
MAR-13-19c~7 17:25
612 595 98~
P. 11;~'11
The term 'camouflaging techniques' is perceived as too vague and
subjective to be effectively applied. This ~atement is also repetitive
of 4.039 D (m). Therefore, it has been deleted en/drely,
4.039 O (3) '-'
Comment:
This provision ia viewed aa unnecessary as market forces aa well as
actual service capability, will likely dictate the number and location of
antenna towers within the City. It is unlikely that the industry would
install more than the minimum number of antennas necessary to
provide service based upon thefY desire to limit equipment and
location costs.
4.039 D (3) (q)
Comment:
The above provision has been revised to reflect current technology for
housing tmnsmitUng, receiving and switching equipment based upon
industry input.
4.039 D (3) (r)
Comment:
new antenna tower is to be constructed,,,:',,,-'-_,,-",,,'-- d,o,~, ,~,
so as to accommodate other-uee~ ~ ~:
~ including but not limited to, oth~' F~monal wireless servica~
companies, local, police, fire, and ambulance companies.
This provision has been revised so as to be more specific about
requirfng adequate tower capacity so that co-loca~n is feasible.
7
P1~R-1~-19~r? 17: 2~ HRC 612 5~5 98:~7 P. 11/11
4.039 O (4) (a)
The applicant must demonstrate~
~, that any antenna support structure is structurally capable
of supporting the antenna and related equipment and complies with
the Minnesota State Building Code.
Comment:
The clause requiring cetl/rScation.by a registered engineer was added
to ensure protection of adjacent properties and protect the general
health and safety of residents.
Please do not hesitate to call our office if you have any questions or comments.
8
TOTRL P.11
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
MICHAEL R. I~FLEUR
MARTIN P. MALECHA
WILLIAM C. STRAIT~r
CORRICK & SONDRALL, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza
8525 Edinbrook Crossing
Suite #203
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443
TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671
FAX (612) 425-5867
LEGAL ASSIS rANT
SHARON D. DERBY
March 13, 1997
Kirk McDona]d
Management Asst.
City of New Hope
4401Xy]on Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE-
Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Construction
and Placement of Telecommunication Towers and Facilities
Our File No: 99.49704
Dear Kirk:
Please find enclosed for consideration at the March 19, 1997 Codes
and Standards meeting proposed Ordinance No. 97-04 "An Ordinance
Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Regulations for
Construction and Placement of Telecommunication Towers and
Facilities". As you know, we met on March 7, 1997 to discuss the
recommended changes from the previous Codes and Standards meeting.
With the collaboration of the City Planner, the following changes
have been incorporated into the enc]osed Ordinance:
A new definition was added to Section 1. Specifically,
(3E) "Antenna Tower-Temporary Mobile" was added. This
was necessary to address temporary structures while
service providers are installing permanent facilities.
As pointed out by the City Planner, this has been
occurring in Plymouth.
4.039D(2)(m),
de]eted provis
provisions are
Ordinance.
Several provisions from the previously submitted
Ordinance have been de]eted. Specifically, the
provisions previously found in §4.039D(2)(k),
4.039D(3)(g) and 4.039D(3)(o) are the
ions from the prior Ordinance. These
all found in Section 4 of the prior
(2)(k) dealt with the roof setback
requirement for antennas mounted on support structures.
(2)(m) and (3)(o) required the coverage/interference
analysis. (3)(g) prohibited construction of towers on
property containing hazardous materials. At the request
of the attorney for American Portable Telecom, these
Kirk McDonald
March 13, 1997
Page 2
provisions were deleted. We did discuss these provisions
as a group and agreed they were not necessary.
§4.039D(2)(b) was amended to more clearly indicate
minimum heights for antenna support structures. In
residential districts they must be at least 36 feet. In
commercial and industrial districts they must be at least
20 feet in height.
§4.039D(2)(e) was amended to limit engineering
verification to the antenna design and mounting plans on
the support structure. Previously, we required the
actual installation to be verified by an engineer as
well. It was decided this was an unnecessary
requirement.
§4.039D(2)(i) was amended to allow installation of self~
contained antenna equipment at the base of the antenna as
long as it is properly screened from view from
residential districts or public right-of-ways.
§§4.039D(2)(k) and 4.039D(3)(m) were amended to eliminate
the reference to use of camouflaging techniques. This
language was replaced by a requirement for antenna and
tower color and configuration that will minimize adverse
visual impact. Further, side mounted antennas must match
the color of the structure on which they are mounted·
§4.039D(3)(b) was amended so that antenna tower owners
would be responsible for the removal of obsolete or
unused towers. Previously we required the communication
provider to be responsible, however, with multiple users
on the towers the antenna tower owner should be the
person responsible for removal of obsolete towers.
§4.039D(3)(d) was amended to limit engineering
verification to design and construction plans. As in the
previous similar provision, the actual installation of
the tower will not be verified by an engineer.
§4.039D(3)(g) was amended by permitting a reduced setback
for towers if the applicant can provide engineering
verification that a tower collapse will occur in a lesser
distance than the required setback. However, the
required setback will always be the tower collapse
distance or the base zoning district setback, whichever
is greater.
Kirk McDonald
March 13, 1997
Page 3
10.
§4.039D(3)(i) was amended to provide a 145 foot maximum
tower height for towers with 2 antenna arrays. The
maximum height will increase to 165 feet if the tower is
constructed to accommodate 3 or more antenna arrays.
§4.039D(3)(o) was amended to provide for installation of
self contained equipment at the tower base provided it is
appropriately screened from view. This is much like the
prior provision dealing with antennas mounted on support
structures.
12.
§4.039D(3)(p) was amended to require that the
construction of any new tower must provide for at least
2 antenna arrays.
13.
§4.039D(4)(a) was amended to require a registered
engineer's certification regarding the structural
capability of radio and television transmitting antennas
and towers.
If either yourself or the City Planner has any questions regarding
these amendments, please contact me so they can be incorporated
into this Ordinance for consideration by the Codes and Standards
committee.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
slt3
Enclosure
cc- A1Brixius, City Planner
ORDINANCE NO. 97-04
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE
ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
FOR CONSTRUCTION AND PLACEMENT OF
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND FACILITIES
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 4.022 "Definitions" of the New Hope City
Code is hereby amended by adding subsections (3B)"Antenna", (3C)
"Antenna Support Structure" (3D) "Antenna Tower", (3E) "Antenna
Tower-Temporary Mobile", (~12A) "Public Structure" and (122B)
"Secondary Use" and by amending subsection (50) "Essential
Services" to read as follows:
(38)
Antenna. Any of the below described uses requiring-an
antenna shall be subject to the regulations of this Code
and more specifically §§4.032(3)(i) and 4.039D herein:
(i) Antenna, Personal Wireless Service. A device
consisting of a metal, carbon fiber, or other
electromagnetically conducive rods or elements on a
single supporting pole or other structure, and used
for the transmission and reception of wireless
communication radio waves including cellular,
personal communication service (PCS), enhanced
specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and
similar services and including the support
structure thereof.
(ii)
Antenna, Public or Commercial Radio and Television,
Broadcast Transmitting. A wire, set of wires,
metal or carbon fiber rod or other electromagnetic
element used to transmit public or commercial
broadcast radio, or television programming and
including the support structure thereof.
(iii)
Antenna, Public Utility Microwave. A parabolic
dish or cornucopia shaped electromagnetically
reflective or conductive element used for the
transmission and/or reception of point to point UHF
or VHF radio waves in wireless telephone
communications, and
structure thereof.
including the supporting
(iv)
(v)
(vi_l
Antenna, Radio and Television Receiving. A wire,
set of wires, metal or carbon fiber element(s),
other than satellite dish antennas, used to receive
radio, television, or electromagnetic waves, and
including the supporting structure thereof.
Antenna, Satellite Dish. A device incorporating a
reflective surface that is solid, open mesh or bar
configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish,
cone, horn, or cornucopia. Such device is used to
transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic
waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based
uses. This definition shall include, but not be
limited to, what are commonly referred to as
satellite earth stations, TVROs (television,
receive only) and satellite microwave antennas and
support structure thereof.
Antenna, Short-Wave Radio Transmitting and
Receiving. A wire, set of wires or a device,
consisting of a metal, carbon fiber, or other
electromagneticatly conductive element used for the
transmission and reception of radio waves used for
short-wave radio communications, and including the
supporting structure thereof.
(3C) Antenna Support Structure. Any building or other
structure other than a tower which can be used for
location of antennas.
(3D) Antenna Tower. A self-supporting lattice, guyed or
monopole structure constructed from grade which supports
personal wireless service antennas. The term tower shall
not include amateur radio operators'
licensed by the FCC.
equipment, as
(3E) Antenna Tower-Temporary Mobile. Any mobile tower, pole
or structure located on a trailer, vehicle or temporary
platform intended primarily for the purpose of mounting
an antenna or similar apparatus for personal wireless
service, which is commonly referred to as cellular on
wheels (COW).
(112A) Public Structure. An edifice or building of any kind, or
any piece of work artificially built up or composed of
parts joined together in some definite manner which is
owned or rented, and operated by a federal, state, or
local government agency.
2
( 122B )
Secondary Use. A use of land or of a building or a
portion thereof which is subordinate to and does not
constitute the primary use of the land or building.
(50) Essential Services. The erection, construction,
alteration, or maintenance by public utilities or
municipal departments of underground or overhead
telephone, gas, electrical, communication sto~,m, or water
or sewer transmission~ e~~ distribution, ~¢ ....... ,
collection, ccmmunlc~tlon, supply or disposal systems
including poles, wires, mains, drains, sewers, pipes,
conduits, cables, .fire alarm boxes, police call boxes,
traffic signals, hydrants and other similar equipment and
accessories in connection therewith for the furnishing of
adequate service by such private or public utilities or
municipal departments. Personal wireless service and
commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not bE
consideredan essential service be ..... . .............. ~''- "*'''''--
Section 2. Section 4.032(3)(j) "Communication Reception/
Transmission Devices" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended
to read as follows-
(j)
Accessory Antennas. C ........... c:t .... R~-ticn'Trsnsmlss~v,,
.... t ................. t ..... '~-~--/---~-t~-m d~"~c"~
"~ *~ -~ * *~^ ~"" .... ' ..... '~'--- Accessory
Antennas shall be limited to R£adio and television
receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TYROs, short-wave
dispatching antennas and amateur short-wave radio
transmitting and receiving antennas. Accessory Antennas
that are accessory to the principal use of property are
permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts provided
they meet the following conditions:
(i)
............ -- ~ ..... he ~ht g nd
Height Tho ----m"-'oQti~,, ~-"'-- , -i A rou
mounted accessory antenna shall not exceed twenty
(20) feet in height from ground level.
(ii)
Yards. =h~. ~ ~,,,^-mmunl~`--~.,~,, dc¥~,~ Accessory antennas
shall not be located within the required front yard
setback or side yard setback abutting a street,
except for wall mounted antennas less than twenty-
four (24) inches in dimension, wall mounted to a
principal building and the setback encroachment
does not exceed two (2) feet.
3
(iii)
Roofs. If vegetation or obstructions interfere
with satellite signals at a location in any
allowable placement area, the c~mmunic:tion d¢'¢ic~
accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any
authorized structure on the premises.
(iv)
Setbacks The height of the ....... ic:t'A- ~,,i~
accessory antenna attached to an antenna support
structure may exceed five (5) feet above the peak
of the roof only by conditional use permit.
~ ...... '^~''-- ~-"'--- Accessory antennas shall not
be located within five (5) feet cr ,,move from :Il of
any lot lines of adjoining lots :nd :h:ll not bc
~ or within a drainage and utility easement.
(v)
Building Permits. A building permit shall be
required for the installation of any --m .... ~^~''
~ accessory antenna requiring a conditional
use permit. Building permit applications shall be
accompanied by a site plan and structural component
dat fo the .............. sory
a r ........... i~tl .... ~.,~~-"~ acces
antenna, including details of anchoring. The
Building Official must approve the plans before
installation.
(vi) Lightning Protection. Each csmmunicction device
accessory antenna shall be grounded to protect
against natural lightning strikes in conformance
with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the
City of New Hope,
(vii)
:al Cod ~ ...... :~:~- ~"~^~
Electri e. ..................... ~ ~ Accessory
antenna electrical equipment and connections shall
be designed and installed in conformance with the
National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of
New Hope.
(viii)
Color/Content, ¢ ...... ~--~-- ~-"~-- Accessory
antennas shall be of a neutral color and any
lettering or scenes contained on said device
qualifying it as a sign shall be subject to the
regulations of Sections 3,40 through 3,485 of the
New Hope Sign Code,
(ix)
Effective Date, The provisions of this section
shall be applicable to all cc,,m,,mu,qlc:ti¢,q/rcccptlon/
* ..... '~-~-- *-"~--- ant rected
...................~ ~. accessory ennas e
after 7 April ~988. All such structures existing
prior to this date shall be addressed as legal
nonconforming uses.
4
Section 3, Section 4.035 (4) "Exceptions" of the New Hope
City Code is hereby amended by adding subsections (m) and (n) to
read as follows:
(m) Persona1 wireless service and commercial broadcastinR
antennas not exceeding twenty (20) feet above the roof of
the antenna support structure,
(n) Antenna towers.
Section 4. Section 4,039D "Persona] Wireless Service Antennas
and Towers" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as
follows:
4.039D Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers.
(1)
Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to
establish predictable, balanced regulations for the
siting and screening of wireless communication equipment
in order to accommodate the growth of wireless
communication systems within the City of New Hope while
protecting the public against any adverse impacts on the
City's aesthetic resources and the public we]fare,
(2)
Personal Wireless Service Antennas. Personal wireless
service antennas erected on an antenna support structure
may be allowed as a permitted secondary use in all zoning
districts by administrative permit and provided they
comply with the following standards:
(a)
Unless the antenna/antenna support structure and
land is under the same ownership, written
authorization for antenna erection shall be
provided by the property owner as well as the
applicant,
(b)
In commercial and industrial zoning districts, the
antenna support structure must be twenty (20) feet
in hei,clht or greater. Within residential zoning
districts, the support structure must be thirty-six
(36) feet in height or greater.
(c) The antenna shall not extend beyond the height of
the antenna support
twenty (20) feet.
st ructure by ~reater than
5
(3)
The antenna support structure and antenna shall be
in compliance with the Minnesota State Building
Code and all other applicable federal and state
regulations and permits.
The structural design and mounting plans of the
antenna on the existing antenna support structure
shall be in compliance with manufacturer's
specifications and shall be verified and approved
by a registered professional engineer.
(f)
No advertising message shal 1 be affixed to the
ant enna.
Antennas shall not be artificially illuminated
unless required by law or by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to protect the public's health
and safety.
(h)
When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna
shall be accompanied by any required federal,
state, or local agency licenses.
(i)
Transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment
which is not self-contained shall be housed within
the existing antenna support structure whenever
possible. Self-contained transmitting, receiving
and switching equipment shall be located at the
base of the antenna and screened from view from
residential uses and public right-of-ways.
All obsolete and unused antennas shall be removed
within twelve (12) months of cessation of operation
at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the
City Manager or designate. The removal shall be
the joint or several responsibility of the utility
or communication provider and land owner.
(k) Antennas shall be of a color and configuration as
to minimize adverse visual effect. Antennas
mounted to the side of an antenna support structure
shall be of a matching color in order that such
facilities harmonize with the character and
environment of the area in which they are located,
Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers. Personal
wireless service antennas erected on an antenna tower may
be allowed as a conditionally permitted use within
Industrial zoning districts, provided they comply with
the following standards:
6
(a) Unless the antenna tower and land is under the same
ownership, written authorization for antenna and
antenna tower erection shall be provided by th~
property owner as well as the applicant.
(b) All obsolete and unused antenna towers shall be
removed within twelve (12) months of cessation of
operation at the site, unless an exemption i~
granted by the City Manager or designate, The
removal shall be the joint and several
responsibility of the antenna tower owner and land
owner.
(c)
All antenna towers shall be in compliance with the
Minnesota State Building Code and all other
applicable federal and state regulations and
permits.
(d)
Structural design and construction plans of the
antenna towers shall be in compliance with
manufacturer's specifications and shall be verified
and approved by a registered professional engineer.
(e) When applicable, proposals to erect new antenna
towers shall be accompanied by any required federal
state, or local agency licenses,
(f)
The City may authorize the use of City property for
an antenna tower in appropriately zoned districts
in accordance with the procedures of the City Code.
The City shall have no obligation whatsoever to use
City property for such purposes.
(g) Antenna towers shall maintain a minimum setback to
the nearest property line of seventy-five (75)
percent of tower height and a minimum setback from
a building in the same lot of fifty (50) percent of
tower height. The setback requirements may be
reduced if the applicant provides documentation by
a registered engineer that any collapse of the
tower will occur in a lesser distance under all
foreseeable circumstances. The setback
requirements shall not be reduced below the
collapse area of the tower or the minimum setback
requirements of the base zoning district, whichever
is greater.
7
All antenna towers shall maintain a minimum
separation of one thousand (1,000) feet from
existing towers at the time the conditional use
permit is approved.
(i)
Maximum height of a two antenna array tower shall
be one hundred forty-five (145) feet. A tower
providing for three or more antenna arrays may have
a maximum height of one hundred sixty-five (165)
feet.
Antenna towers shall not be artificially
illuminated unless required by law or by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect
the public's health and safety.
(k) No advertising message shall be affixed to the
antenna tower.
(1) Antenna towers shall be painted silver or have a
galvanized finish to reduce visual impact, unless
otherwise required by federal law.
(m) Antenna towers shall be of a color and
configuration as to minimize adverse visual effects
in order that such facilities harmonize with the
character and environment of the area in which they
are located.
A security fence eight (8) feet in height shall be
provided around the base of the antenna tower. A
locked anti-climb device shall be installed on all
towers extending twelve (12) feet above the ground.
(o)
Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment,
whether self-contained or located in a free-
standing equipment building, shall be located at
the base of the antenna tower and shall be screened
from view from residential uses and public right-
of-ways.
(p) Zf a new antenna tower is to be constructed it
shall be designed to accommodate at least two (2)
antenna arrays including but not limited to other
personal wireless service companies, local, police,
fire, and ambulance companies,
(a)
The conditional use permit provisions of Section
4.21 of this Code must also be satisfied.
8
(4) Commercial and Public Radio and Television Transmitting
Antennas, and Public Utility Microwave Antennas and
Related Antenna Towers. Such antennas shall be
considered a conditionally permitted use within the I-1
and I-2 Districts of the City and shall be subject to the
regulations and requirements of Section 4.21 of this
Code. Commercial and public radio and television
transmitting, public utility microwave antennas and
antenna towers shall also comply with the following
standards:
(a)
The applicant must demonstrate by certification of
a registered engineer that any antenna support
structure is structurally capable of supporting the
antenna and related equipment and complies with the
Minnesota State Building Code.
(b)
Antennas located in an existing structure shall not
extend more than twenty (20) feet above the height
of the structure to which they are attached,
(c) Antennas attached to a tower shall comply with the
tower provisions set forth in Section 4,039D(3) of
this Code.
Section 5. Section 4.052 "Permitted Uses, R-I" of the New
Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection (7)"Personal
Wireless Antennas" to read as follows:
(7)
Personal Wireless Service Antennas. Personal wireless
service antennas in conformance with §4.039D of this
Code.
Section 6. Section 4.053 "Accessory Uses R-I" of the New Hope
City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection (7) "Accessory
Antennas" to read as follows:
(7)
Accessory Antennas. Accessory antennas in conformance
with §4.O32(3)(i) of this Code.
Section 7. Section 4.103 "Permitted Accessory Uses, B-I" of
the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsections (7)
"Personal Wireless Service Antennas" and (8) "Accessory Antennas"
to read as follows:
(7)
Personal Wireless Service Antennas. Personal wireless
service antennas in conformance with §4.039D of this
Code.
(8)
Accessory Antennas. Accessory antennas in conformance
with §4.032(3)(i) of this Code.
Section 8. Section 4.144 "Conditional Uses" of the New Hope
City Code is hereby amended by adding subsections (14) "Personal
Wireless Service Antennas" and (15) "Commercial and Public Radio
and Television Transmitting Antennas and Public Utility Microwav~
Antennas and Related Antenna Towers" to read as follows:
(14) Personal Wireless Service Antennas. Personal wireless
service antennas in conformance with §4.039D of this
Code.
(15) Commercial and Public Radio and Television Transmittin~
Antennas and Public Utility Microwave Antennas and
Related Antenna Towers. Commercial and public radio and
television transmitting antennas and public utility
microwave antennas and related antenna towers in
conformance with §4.039D of this Code.
Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall
effective upon its passage and publication.
be
Dated the day of , 1997.
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
At t est:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the
, 1997.)
day of
10
March 4, 1997
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 5543%1194
TELEPHONE (812) 8:35-3600
FAX (612) 896-3333
,JCX. JE S. F'~E.CEIam,,XSG~
Planning Commission
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Re: Proposed Telecommunications Towers Ordinance
Dear Planning Commission Members:
This letter is written on behalf of American Portable Telecom ("APT") one of the Federal
Communications Commission licensees developing personal communications services ("PCS") facilities
in New Hope and throughout the metropolitan region. APT appreciates the level of effort City staff and
Planning Commissioners have exerted in developing a draft ordinance for construction and placement of
telecommunications towers and facilities (the "Proposed Ordinance"). The purpose of this letter is to
present comments relating to specific issues of concern to APT in the current draft of the Proposed
Ordinance. APT requests the Proposed Ordinance be modified as clesfibed in this letter.
Generally, the City's approach of allowing antennae as a Permitted Accessory Use throughout the City is
sound. However, allowing telecommunications towers only in the I-1 and I-2 zoning districts may be
overly restrictive to the extent that there are not otherwise available sufficient antenna support structures
to serve other parts of the City. This is a significant point to APT in its development of the infrastructure
for it's PCS system. For PSC service to function adequately, radio frequency coverage must be
continuous throughout the service area. APT proposes the City consider making Towers a permitted use
in the Industrial districts to encourage siting to occur primarily in the Industrial districts. Towers could
then be allowed as conditional uses in other districts, using the conditional use process to mitigate any
land use conflicts.
Section 4.039D(2)(e) and (3)(d) concerning consmtction and design issues should be revised so the
construction is in accord with manufacturer's specifications and the design is approved by a registered
engineer.
Planning Commission
March 4, 1997
Page 2
LARK~, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Section 4.039D(2)(i) and (3)(c0 should be revised to provide accommodation for wireless PCS provider's
receiving, transmitting and switching equipment which is typically self contained and mounted at the
tower base.
Section 4.039D(2)(j) and(3)(b) would impose removal obligations on tower and/or support structure
termants which they may not be legally able to perform and is a si~ificant disincentive to co-locate
antennae.
Section 4.039D(2)(k) requiring roof-top setbacks may cause signal interference and conflicts with FCC
safety regulations. The portion of this provision requiring a set-back for side mounted antennae is
unclear. This section should be modified.
Section 4.039D(2)(1) and (3)(n) requiring camouflaging is ambiguous and calls for a very subjective
analysis to determine compliance. This provision is requested to be deleted. In the Industrial districts it is
unnecessary. In the other districts, the conditional use process can be used to influence compatibility:
Section 4.039D(2)(m) and (3)(0) should be deleted. Coverage/interference analyses and capacity analyses
evaluation unnecessarily involves the City in radio frequency engineering issues which have little to do
with zoning considerations. This provision would require unnecessary engineering documentation which
is not typically performed by registered professional engineers on behalf of system developers. The
approvals process itself is a strong incentive to locate towers and antennae where they are least
restrictively regulated.
Section 4.039D(3) subparts g, h, i, andj unnecessarily restrict the available sites which may be available
for tower locations. These provisions also could interfere with the use of creative site development
techniques to improve site suitability and are requested to be deleted.
Section 4.039D(3)(r) would obligate co-location of multiple antenna users on any new tower, and is
appropriate under the fight circumstances. This provision should clearly describe how to determine
whether the co-location requirement has been met. As currently written it is ambiguous. Many
communities resolve this issue by requiring a tower be designed to accomodate at least one other antenna
array.
Please make this letter a part of the record in this matter. We look forward to working with the Planning
Commission and staff so provider interests are understood. If you have any questions about these matters,
please feel free t9 contact me at 896-3292.
/- /. / //
Cn'ego~ E.!I~r, ~,. Stad, for
LARKIN, I~IOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Number of Pages including cover sheet
18
DATE: March 7, 1996
TO:
Phone: 612/531.,6100
Fax: 612/531-5136
FROM:
Anne M~m S~be~, Zo~n~ S~$L SBA. Inc.
Phone: 612830-1555 ext. 230
Fax: 612/830-1924
RE:
Telecommunications Towers and Ant~nrms in the City of New Hope
IVh-. McDonald-
.~lnCbec[ for yotlr ~foi'~a~oD and ~ b CO~~e ~fl;n~ ~mm~ of Sp~t
~. I ~ve ~ ~1~ for yo~ ~~n a ~ a ~ of a l~ ~ V~mon~ a ~wer
p~mt of tl~~~ tow~ ~ ~ in ~e C~ of
I hope ~ infom will be usefltl to you. Should you have any questions or commem~s, please
feel free to ~nmot me az 612~830-1555, ex--ion 230.
&T/TO'd t,~GT~8 '3HI 'NS T0:ST
$prMt
Post-ite Fax Note 7671
,t PCS'
Match 6, 1997
P. 01/01
Mr. ~rk McDonald
City Planner
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Re: Draft Ordinance Regulating the Placement of Telecommunications Towem and Antennae in the City
of New Hope
Dear Mr. McDonald:
This letter is submitted by SBA, Inc. on behalf of Spdnt Spectrum LP. (S~LP). ~ Inc. is a
telecommunications consulting ~rrn specializing in wireless telecommunications site devetopmanL SBA, Inc. has
been retained by $SLP to lease, zone, and construct Personal Commu~ Sewices (PCS) 1Dwer and
antenna sites within 11 counties tithe Twin Cities metro area and a small porlJon of Wisconsin.
We appreciate the opporlunity to work with New Hope in deveiol3ing this ordinance.. Following are our
comments as discussed at the New Hol3e Planning Commission on the evening of March 4, 1997.
1) Definitions - ~ ~SLP genem~ utilizes a triangu[m' conjuration to mount PCS antennas. We
therefore recommend deletion of~e dea<~ptive language"usua,y mmngecl in a circu~r army.'
Also. we bring to your attention the language "conduc~ rod~ of c..~flts" in the third sentence of this
sec~on. We believe this language i~ intended to read "condu(~ive n3d~ or c.~,,'nants".
language stating: 'Within the 1-1 and 1-2 Districts oflhe City" as ~ in Seclion 4.039D(4).
4) Section 4J33gO(3Xh). We recomn'mnd a provision be added to this seclJ;tt providing for reduction of
the setback limitation. It ~ be su~a:iant to require apprmants to meet existing ~ of the underlying
which specifias the impa~ ora tower ~m. Enclosed for your consideration is an example ofa ~ from a
TOTAL P.O1
New Hope and encouraging
7) Section 4.039EX'3~'n). This ~ m'etates to camouflaging of antennas. W'mtt'x:~ guidance to
applicants as bo acomptmble "carnou~ge" techniques, we recommend this section be deleted in its entirety.
~)) Sec'don 4.039D(. 3X~} All equipment uaed by ~ is self-contained and does not require an
equipment shelter. We mcol/lmend that Ibis seclJon be rrxx:lilied to recognize new tachn~ies which utilize
self-contained un~.
Thank you for ~ opfxxtunity to comment on the pmpoeed ordinance. Should you have any questions
or comments, please feel frae to contact Anne Marie a( 012f830-1555, ext. 2~) or Jason at 612/586-2659.
Jerneh F_ R. Funk
Enclosures
Cc: ~ C. Runk~, SBA, Im ~ I~
Temy Hanna, Spdnt ~ Property Manager
,,.'i:/L:=IB ' cl PE6'I; O&-"B '3H! 'UI~ '1;0 :<::~
P.2/4
2900 Lo= O~k ~
Sure 140
Att~tioa: Mr. Dm 1~.~
to m.,pport m, lluhr anm~m mi eq ~u~-__~__. sad ~ m ln~bnution to allow you to
ap~mp~e to start off'bya hdef~ of'the ~ edtm-h tlmt ~ t,/p~ reed,
~G~0~8
The l~ad8 pmrand ~tht4 wind and tb~ w~o.,_h_t of the ~ (~ai~ ~
Ut, here ever Was ,I relhre h the monopob'm'uct:uro, k b m.v eptnton the! ~he top
Heflon would def. onn o~ 'Mnk". This top .oefltm may dcfann find brad, but: i~
would not shear off'f~m, cite ~ dibs pob ibrd% ~re, a c. bar redla~ of'
fifteen ~o twen~ fee~ amend tho pob b very um~ lu.Mcl~ to eu:rart ~he rodu~oe
! hope this hu biped. PIe,LM :bel fn:e u) oallwhhsn~,comme~ 7ou m~hiwe. ! cenbe
:eec. bed e: l..800..34f,-612S oxmmk,n 3727 ~ ndllbu 818d to ~ tm~ conccf~ you
znay~
~ CZTY OF :PLYM(H.rI'R O~DA~$:
ruhr. by am~:l to ~ tl~ foNo~g ~
P-.qsential Sea'vices :
gX/90'd ~E6ZOF_B '3NI 'UBS
ccrmmuni~tions, and ~-auai.o ,u. ~.~_~_"_ ~' ,.,~o_. w~ves usecl for
strucatre vet/ich a d ' ' · ~ ma~ tower, tripod, or any other
Sectlon~. s~ 7, Subd. c. of ,~ ~l~unout~.~ ormnance (~e,~aent~/.
~Allow~le Urns) ts J~reby ~ ~o ack[ f~e follow.mg
P=Penn/tt~[ T.f~ C=Use~ by Conditional T. fm Perm/t
~ R-IA R-lB R-2 R-~ R.4
~0. A A A A A A
neeessf~ ~ tl~ openff~ of houschoM
as ~ in ~ect/on I0. Salxl. F. of
2
R-L~ R-2 ,R-3
51. C C C. C C C
52. p p p p p p
c c C C C C
siu~ ~ ~ zvimos {rea~.e,au
one (I) me~:r ia diameter a.s m~ i,,
Section I0, ~ubd. 1~, of thh Ordiuauc~
CeRular re. hone ante-~_s attached m a
public structu~ as ~ in
Secti~ I0, Subd. F. of this Ontinauce.
on a public mucmu, re, am x~ulalad in'
Sea, ton 10, Subd. p. of this ~... o
Section 4. Se~ion 8, Subd..~. of' tl~ Plymouth ~oniug Ckrdinance
P----P~l{mil~ U~ C-U~ by ~ U~ Permit' A~Acce~ot, y U~
B-2 ~ 9-3 Send~
A
P
C
A
P
C
wave u,,dio ~g an~nnas, m' ~mse
t~ceivcrm, feden.lly ~ amahnn- radio
~ in S~h,n 10. sut~ ~. of
Ceiht~r tektuhonm anten~ loca~ on a
public mm~mm, as ~ in
Section I0, Sulxl. p. of this ~.
Ce. llu~ re. hone antennas not located
on a public ~mmtum. n~ regula~ in
Section I0, StexL 1% of this Ordin~ce.
P~'mi~ Use~) is tmm~ ~ m add ~ following:
¢¢-~ D~suict.
lo, Subd. F. of tt~ O,-dimn~. upo~ = public s~ ~ ~ in
CC-R Distlist.
a~ioa 10, Subd. P. of this
'" CC-OT ~
~cction I0, Subd. F. of this ~, ... ..
semo,~ z.. ~ s, s,~ ~.. o~ t~ m?ma~ zo~.~ ~ (cc
Acccsm~ Uses) is nen~ amanded to add tI~ folkrn, ing:
receivers ,,_.._ . ~..~_-, ,~ ,ouseno~ electronic equitime~ ~.,..,...,: ....
ze~:~=,_~ m Sectm 10, Subd. F. oftl~ Ordimm~ ' ralevtsm ~~, as
All CC~
(c) Cellular mJephotm aatenn~ not located upon a public muctu~ as z,~uhted in
Section I0, 3ubd. F. of this ~.
4
/.,T/60 'd
d. Cellular t~l~pho~
re~lated in Sectio~ I0, Subd. 1'. of this Ontinance.
Dishict-~r~' . Section I0. S~ion 8, Subd. D.3 of ~h~ Pllmou~h Zon.i,,g Orgima~ (hatusUial
u~) ~ ~ ~d~d ~ ,~d ~ rono~: ·
s~cflon ii. ,Scatoa 10, Subd. C.I.c.i3) ~t' the Pllmiovth Zoni~ Ordimmc~ ~
~ns) is ~ .m~nd~l ~ tend as follovs:
the foxlovan~:
a. , AU o. bsolete and tmund m3tem~ shaZZ be tern----' --, ..... ~ , I
ces~ of cmeration at o,e ,;+,...-,--- ,,-.u w-from twelve.(12)mOflths of
~~r'. ----r~-,,, ,~ ~ Dy tt~ .':Zoning
d.. When applicable, writem authodzatioa for antenna erection shall be provided by ~'
the prope~ owner.
h.. when applicable, ~ to erect new
x'eq. uited federal, s~,_ee_-, or local agency licens~ a. meanz, shall'bc accompmied by any
J. Antem two hundred (2OO)
paim~ sttver or n~ve a ga~~ fu~sh to re~. ce visual impact.
must c~nply ~ SUb-~ (I) below. ------~---x--- v.,;, u.;, ~ LU above, a]ld
1. A'~"~r radio suppol~ smicoj_~es (towera) must be installed in aceordn_~:e with
~ i~s=uc~ms fumbbe~ by tf~e mmmf-e~rc~ of tim tow= model, ttecaase of the
experimental namm of the amain= .radio service, antennas moume~ on such a towet
LT/TT'cl 1~6TG~-'13 '3lqI 'b~S t~:c:T L6GT-£O-~dW
.... -- ,~..vw.,,u~,. t t*,~,,,a/r~v. ,,J ,J ;J & t... "t, TJt...,OU i
and ~ be s~ f,-,,~- - --~-,----'""~- ~'""' -'~-- v_r private ---~ - ..,.~,..mum or one (1) foot from
d. Tile ~ _.m~_ ~_'tiO~.. of me~ce ~ o~ (1) aul:~x)rt
thc al~mwaZ of a condiU'o~T use pennk. ~ 1:~ pmpe~ stmU ~
a. Re, si~ ~ StamJards.
1) -a-arums loca~ upon pub~ ~
~ · s~flmm ~Kf r~
tTeas wJ~ch cannot be adequately served '-- -- - .
7
LT '~T 'd i~a6TBi~B 'ONI 'bHS t~O :ST LGGT-LO-~4~N
I. The lx~te n~t ~ sevt:tty-~ve (753 feet
8
/~5/£~'d lz~.6TS~8 '3NI 'b~S t~O:S~ £66T-AO-t;dW
l) Antennes Loc:el:ed Upon A Public StmctuFe. Cellu!:,_~ h:lephone aflten~ -'
located upon a public stxuccu~ she.Il con?ly wi~ the foHowh:~ stend~s.
prov~mns ,,. o~ tu, ~Uad. ¢.6.c.! Of'tM_, Clrapmr.
~ ~ unaer aa loreseeab~ ch'cum~.
I0
'3HI 'b~tS SO:ST
L .._nil ~.cm~_md ~ tm pmviaons or secaon 10, s.bd. ~.~. of
2._ The lm on which the ~ ~m..... ....
' ' w' ' · '-,v. mcuon-tre~ reoeive ~ '
3. ~ wh~ ~e ~~ ~ ~ .......
~~ .... ~ ..... - .... ~ ~ ~ ~ 0~ ~TT
1. ,,,,.Ali aggessory and sccondaD, use l~visions of Section I0, Subd. F.3. of.
t1~ ~ am ~y met.
11
4T/OI'd t~g6TOk-'8 '3tqI '~JSS SO:SI 466T-AO-aUW
I996.
A'I'r~T;
12
'it, II
4,~0 7 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898
City Hall: 612-531-5100
Police: 612-531-5170
Public Works: 612.533-4823
TDD: 612-531-5109
City Hall Fax: 612.531.5136
Police Fax: 612.531.5174
Public Works Fax: 612-533-7650
Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531.5175
March 21,1997
Mr. Gregory Korstad
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
1500 Norwest Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55431-1194
Subject: New Hope Telecommunications Towers Ordinance
Dear Mr. Korstad:
Thank you for attending the March 4 New Hope Planning Commission meeting and for submitting written
comments regarding potential modifications you would like to see incorporated into the proposed New
Hope Telecommunications Tower Ordinance.
Subsequent to that meeting, the City staff, City Attorney and Planning Consultant have reviewed each of
your suggested modifications in detail. Staff has made recommendations on each of the requested
modifications to the Planning Commission sub-committee studying this issue, as outlined in the attached
reports and correspondence from the Planning Consultant and City Attorney. The City has revised the
ordinance and incorporated many, but not all, of your suggestions. The sub-committee is in agreement
with staff's recommendations.
A copy of the proposed revised ordinance and supporting documents are enclosed for your information.
This revised ordinance will be considered by the Planning Commission at its 7 p.m. April 1 meeting. The
Planning Commission Chairman has requested that I send this information to you and has requested
that, if possible, any written comments you have on the ordinance be submitted to the City by Friday,
March 28, so that they can be included with the Apdl 1 Planning Commission packet so Commission
members have an opportunity to review any comments you have pdor to the meeting. Please send or
fax your comments to me at the address on this letterhead if you would like them to be included in the
Planning Commission packet. Of course, you are also welcome to attend the meeting.
Thank you for your cooperation. The City welcomes input from the communications industry as we
modify our ordinances to address new technological issues.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/
Community Development Coordinator
Family Styled City ~~ For Family Living
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898
City Hail: 612-531-5100
Police: 612.531.5170
Public Works: 612-533-4823
TDO: 612-531-5109
City Hall Fax: 612.531.5136
Police Fax: 612-531.5174
Public Works Fax: 612-533-7650
Fire Oep?. Fax: 612-531-5175
March 21, 1997
Anne Marie Solberg
Zoning Specialist
SBA, Inc.
7625 Metro Boulevard, Suite 235
Edina, MN 55439
Subject: New Hope Telecommunications Tower Ordinance
Dear Ms. Solberg:
Thank you for attending the March 4 New Hope Planning Commission meeting and for submitting written
comments regarding potential modifications you would like to see incorporated into the proposed New
Hope Telecommunications Tower Ordinance.
Subsequent to that meeting, the City staff, City Attorney and Planning Consultant have reviewed each of
your suggested modifications in detail. Staff have made recommendations on each of the requested
modifications to the Planning Commission sub-committee studying this issue, as outlined in the attached
reports and correspondence from the Planning Consultant and City Attorney. The City has revised the
ordinance and incorporated many, but not all, of your suggestions. The sub-committee is in agreement
with staff's recommendations.
A copy of the proposed revised ordinance and supporting documents are enclosed for your information.
This revised ordinance will be considered by the Planning Commission at its 7 p.m. April 1 meeting. The
Planning Commission Chairman has requested that I send this information to you and has requested
that, if possible, any written comments you have on the ordinance be submitted to the City by Friday,
March 28, so that they can be included with the April 1 Planning Commission packet so Commission
members have an opportunity to review any comments you have pdor to the meeting. Please send or
fax your comments to me at the address on this letterhead if you would like them to be included in the
Planning Commission packet. Of course, you are also welcome to attend the meeting.
Thank you for your cooperation. The City welcomes input from the communications industry as we
modify our ordinances to address new technological issues.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/
Community Development Coordinator
Family Styled City ~ For Family Living
Planning Case:
Request:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
96-24
Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-04, An Ordinance Amending New Hope
Zoning Code by Establishing Regulations for Construction and Placement of
Telecommunication Towers and Facilities
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
City-Wide
All Zoning Districts
City of New Hope
February 28, 1997
March 4, 1997
BACKGROUND
This is a request by City staff for Planning Commission and Council consideration of Ordinance
No. 97-04, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing. Regulations for
Construction and Placement of Telecommunication Towers and Facilities. This ordinance
specifically amends or adds Sections 4.022 "Definitions," 4.032(3)(j) "Communication
Reception/Transmission Devices," 4.035(4) "Exceptions," 4.039D "Personal Wireless Service
Antennas and Towers," 4.052 "Permitted Uses, R-l," 4.053 "Accessory Uses, R-l," 4.103
"Permitted Accessory Uses, B-l," and 4.144 "Conditional Uses" of the New Hope Zoning
Ordinance and City Code.
This ordinance is in response to action taken by the City Council in June of 1996. At the June
24, 1996, Council meeting, the Council passed a Resolution Directing a Study be Conducted
Regarding the Regulation of Transmission and Reception Facilities of Radio Common Carriers.
The resolution stated that the Council found it necessary to conduct a study to determine if
there is a need to amend the City's official controls or comprehensive plan relating to Radio
Common Carrier Facilities (RCCF). Market demand, rapid advances in technology and
expanding federal licensure of radio frequencies has resulted in the proliferation of RCCFs and
that trend can be expected to accelerate in the future. The City's existing regulations of
antenna and tower transmission facilities predate the current expansion trend and the
resolution stated that the City Council was concerned that official controls may not be adequate
to meet the anticipated proliferation of RCCFs.
At the time the resolution was approved, the North Suburban Cable Communications
Commission, a joint powers organization of which the City is a member, was considering
undertaking a study of the appropriate locations and control of RCCFs in its member cities. The
resolution authorized that a study be conducted by City staff and/or the Planning Commission
in conjUnction with the Cable Commission to determine if the City's official controls need to be
modified.
o
At the same meeting the resolution was passed by the Council authorizing a study on this
subject, the Council also approved An Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting the
Establishment, Expansion, Modification or Rebuilding of Any Radio Common Carrier Facilities
Within the City. The ordinance prohibited the construction of new or the expansion of existing
RCCFs for a period through December 1, 1996 (approximately six months). The resolution and
the moratorium ordinance were intended to protect the planning process while the study was
being conducted. The Council has the authority to extend the moratorium for an additional 18
months subsequent to December 1, 1996, if they so desire. The Council subsequently has
extended the moratorium until June 11, 1997.
Over the last nine (9) months, the City has received numerous calls from companies desiring to
construct new or expand existing communication towers and antennas. Once the new
ordinance is adopted and the moratorium lifted, it 'is anticipated that the Commission and
Council will be considering a number of zoning requbsts related to this issue.
The City and Northwest Consultants cooperated with the North Suburban .Cable
Communications Commission on their study, which was initiated in September. On September
19 a meeting was conducted with member cities to discuss the new Telecommunications Act of
1996 and City authority with respect to existing zoning ordinances and to discuss the
desirability of cooperative and collaborative action. A second meeting was conducted on
October 23 to review the preliminary draft of a model ordinance. A revised draft ordinance was
presented in November and the ordinance was distributed to representatives of the industry for
their comments/suggestions. Once the model ordinance was finalized, the language was
modified to be New Hope specific. This involved coordination with the Public Works
Department, Joint Water Commission, the Parks & Recreation Department (towers in parks),
the Building Official, and the Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning Commission.
The Codes & Standards Committee discussed this issue and a preliminary draft ordinance in
detail at the January Codes & Standards meeting. Minor modifications were recommended and
incorporated into the attached final draft ordinance, which was prepared by the City Attorney.
8. A public hearing notice was published for this Planning Commission meeting, as enclosed.
=
ANALYSIS
The current City Zoning Code only allows radio/cellular transmission towers in the I-1 and I-2
Industrial Zoning Districts kY conditional use permit. Staff had a lot of discussion as to whether
these towers should be allowed in commercial and residential zoning districts. Staff's
recommendation is that they not be allowed in those districts and this ordinance is similar to the
existing code in that it only allows towers by conditional use permit in the industrial zones.
The ordinance also adds much more detail and guidelines to address issues such as antennas,
etc., which the current zoning code does not contain.
The Planning Consultant will be present at the meeting to make a presentation on this
ordinance. He has prepared the enclosed reports and staff requests that you revlew the
attached reports and comments from the Planning Consultant and City Attorney, as it is not
staff's intent to repeat all of that information in. this report.
3. There is also additional information attached from the Northwest Cable Commission study for
your information, and there is additional information available for review at City Hall on the
1996 Telecommunications Act if you are interested'.
4. A brief overview of the ordinance is as follows:
Section 1
Section 1 of the draft Ordinance provides specific definitions of related terms used throughout
the Ordinance. The definitions provide an understanding of the differ~ent types of antennas,
antenna support structures and towers, and redefines the City's definition of essential services
to exclude accessory antennas and personal service antennas and towers. These types of
uses are clearly not "essential services," however, the existing definition of essential services
may be interpreted as including antennas.
Section 2
Section 2 modifies the existing language for regulations of Communication Reception/
Transmission Devices by changing the definition of these uses to accessory antennas for the
purpose of making a distinction between accessory antennas and personal wireless service
antennas.
Section 3
Section 3 adds personal wireless service and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers
as an exception to the building height limitS established for zoning districts for consistency in
the height limitation requirements for these uses.
Section 4
Section 4 includes the specific regulations for personal wireless service antennas and towers.
Personal wireless service antennas and accessory antennas are allowed as a secondary
permitted use in all zoning districts. Personal wireless service antenna towers erected on an
antenna support structure are allowed as a conditionally permitted use within the I-1 and I-2
Zoning Districts. Commercial and public radio and TV antennas and public utility microwave
antennas and related antennas are also conditionally permitted within the I-1 and I-2 Zoning
Districts.
Sections 5 - 9
Sections 5 - 9 site the specific zoning districts in which the subject uses are allowed. As stated
above, the following highlights the specific use and corresponding districts in which the uses
are allowed:
· Accessory antennas - Permitted Accessory use within all Zoning Districts.
· Personal wireless service antennas - Permitted Accessory Use within all Zoning Districts.
· Persona/wire/ess service towers + Conditional Use within the I-1 and !-2 Zoning Di{tricts.
· Commercial and public radio and teleViSion transmitting antennas and public utility
microwave antennas - Conditional Use within the I-1 and I-2 Zoning Districts.
5. In addition, staff is not recommending the adoption of a licensing ordinance, as it is staff's
opinion that the proposed zoning regulations will provide adequate controls. As in past cases,
when towers are proposed to be located on City property, a lease agreement containing
specific provisions/requirements will. be prepared. ~
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Codes & Standards Committee recommend approval of the enclosed ordinance.
Attachments: Public Hearing Notice
Ordinance No. 97-04
2/21 City Attorney CorrespOndence
2/12 Planner's Report
1/10 Planner's Report
Resolution 96-142 Directing a Study to be Conducted
Ordinance No. 96-15 Estal~lishing Moratorium
Northwest Cable CommissiOn Information
Other information available at City Hall for your review if you are interested:
Implementin.q the New Telecommunica'
Telecommunications Act of 1996
"Local Government and the Telecommun
Sprint Spectrum "Personal Communicati(
:ions Law: A County and Local Official's Guide to the
ications Act of 1996"
~ns Services"
Planning Case:
Request:
97-02
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Ordinance No. 97-08, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign
Code by Permitting the Use of Non-Commercial Opinion Signs, and Amending the
Purpose and Political Signage Section
Location: City-Wide
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
All Districts
City of New Hope
March 28, 1997
April 1, 1997
BACKGROUND
The City of New Hope is requesting consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope Sign Code
by permitting the use of non-commercial opinion signs, and amending the purpose and political signage
section.
For the past several months the Codes & Standards Committee has been studying the portion of the
Sign Code that deals with political lawn signs. They have also been reviewing the "opinion sign" issue,
as recommended by the City Attorney. The enclosed proposed ordinance amendment is a result of
those discussions.
The ordinance addresses three issues in the Sign Code: 1) length of time political lawn signs can
remain in place, 2) number and size of political lawn signs allowed on a single property, and 3) opinion
signs.
Enclosed are excerpts from the current Sign Code and State Statutes regarding political campaign
signs. The current New Hope Sign Code states that no person shall permit any such sign to be
located/maintained on his/her property more than 31 days before or five days after the election to
which the sign relates. State statutes indicate that non-commercial signs of any size may be posted
from August 1 in a state general election year until 10 days following the state general election. In
other words, State statutes permit political lawn signs to remain in place for a longer period of time
than the current City Code in the year of a state general election. The intent of this ordinance
amendment is to make the Sign Code consistent with State Statutes.
The Sign Code currently limits the number of political campaign signs that can be located on a
property and the City Attorney has suggested that this limitation may be questionable. The enclosed
ordinance amends the Sign Code to allow one sign per candidate and issue on each street frontage.
Lastly, the City Attorney feels that the Sign Code needs to address the opinion sign issue. The
current Sign Code imposes a total ban on non-commercial opinion signs and this is not
constitutional. The proposed ordinance amendment also addresses this issue.
4. The goal of the Codes & Standards Committee and staff is to make one ordinance amendment that
incorporates all of these changes and address all of these issues at once.
The Sign Code is not part of the Zoning Code and no public hearing is required for amendments.
Therefore, no legal notice has been published and no notices have been mailed. The ordinance
amendment would be effective upon publication.
ANALYSIS
1. The proposed ordinance amendment makes the following changes to the current ordinance:
· In Section 3.412 "Purpose," the term "impartial series of standards" has been revised to "content-
neutral series of standards."
· A new paragraph has been added stating:
"The regulations set forth in this Code are necessary for the following reasons: to preserve the
residential character of residential neighborhoods; to preserve order and cleanliness; to avoid the
appearance of clutter; to protect property values; to avoid litter and the growth of weeds around
signs; to reduce the traffic hazard caused by distractions to motorists and impairment of sight lines;
to ensure that the City remains an attractive place to live and work; and to reduce administrative
burdens."
This paragraph was added under the "Purpose" section of the ordinance, per the recommendation of
the City Attorney, because the City must clarify the aesthetic issues on which the ordinance is based:
Section 3.413 "Intent" of the ordinance is repealed in its entirety, due to the fact that the Purpose
Section has been expanded.
Section 3.435 "Political Signs" of the ordinance has been revised by increasing the allowable square
footage for signage from 8 to 32 square feet and by allowing "one sign per candidate and issue on
each street frontage." The section has also been amended to permit the public display and posting
of political lawn signs from August 1 to 10 days after the State general election. This change makes
the City ordinance consistent with State Statutes. Also included in this section is a durational period
for special election lawn signs.
· Section 3.43 of the Code has a new section added to address "non-commercial opinion signs" that
reads as follows:
"Non-Commercial Opinion Signs. Signs, not exceeding thirty-two square feet in area, displayed on
private property, containing information which expresses an opinion or point of view, but does not
advertise products, goods, businesses or services. One sign per street frontage is permitted in any
zoning district, however, an illuminated or motion sign may not be used in residential zoning districts
as a non-commercial opinion sign."
As pointed out in the City Attorney's January 16 correspondence, the current Sign Code imposes a total
ban on non-commercial opinion signs and this would be difficult to defend. The City Attorney is
recommending that the code be revised to allow non-commercial opinion signs in a similar fashion to
political lawn signs.
Please refer to the enclosed correspondence from the City Attorney for further explanation on these
issues. He will be present at the meeting to answer any questions you have.
The Codes & Standards Committee and staff have discussed these revisions in detail on several
occasions and support the ordinance amendments. These amendments address all three issues
identified at the beginning of the report.
RECOMMENDATION
The Codes & Standards Committee and staff recommend approval of the ordinance.
Attachments:
Ordinance 97-08
3/10 City Attorney Correspondence
2/25 Planner's Memo
2/19 City Attorney Correspondence
Political Lawn Sign Article
1/16 City Attorney Correspondence
5/22/96 City Attorney Correspondence Re: Opinion Signs
Current Sign Code
State Statutes/Campaign Signs
ORDINANCE NO. 97-08
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE NEW HOPE SIGN CODE BY
PERMITTING THE USE OF NON-COMMERCIAL OPINION
SZGNS, AND AMENDING THE PURPOSE AND POLITICAL
SIGNAGE SECTION
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 3.412 "Purpose" of the New Hope City Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
3~412
Purpose. This Sign Code is established to protect and
promote health, safety, general welfare and order within
the City of New Hope through the establishment of a
comprehensive and impcrt~c~ content-neutral series of
standards, regulations and procedures governing the type,
number, size, structure, location, height, lighting,
erection, use and/or display of devices, signs or symbols
serving as a visual communication media to persons
situated within or upon public right-of-ways or
properties. The provisions of this Sign Code are
intended to encourage opportunity for effective, orderly
communication by reducing confusion and hazards resulting
from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of
communication facilities.
The regulations set forth in this Code are necessary for
the following reasons: to preserve the residential
character of residential neighborhoods; to preserve order
and cleanliness; to avoid the appearance of clutter; to
protect property values; to avoid litter and the growth
of weeds around signs; to reduce the traffic hazard
caused by distractions to motorists and impairment of
sight lines; to ensure that the City remains an
attractive place to live and work; and to reduce
administrative burdens.
Section 2. Section 3.413 "Intent" of the New Hope City Code
is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 3. Section 3.435 "Political Signs" of the New Hope
City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
3.435 Political Signs. Smcl~ ~igns, not exceeding ~
thirty-two square feet in area, displayed on private
property, containing matter which is intended or tends to
influence directly or indirectly any voting at a primary,
general,
municipal, special or school election, including pictures
or announcements relative to candidates or campaign
advertising. S~id signs ~re One sign per candidate and
issue on each street frontage is permitted in addition to
other signs in any zoning district, pr$¥1dcd that I__n
State general elections, no person shall permit or allow
any such sign to be ~ccctA~ v, .... ,,,~,,,'-t~'-A~,,,~ ~,,~- h~s property
............ z ....... publically displayed or
posted before August 1 or 4-~ ten days after the State
general election to which the sign relates. In special
elections, the durational limit shall be 90 days before
and 10 days after the special election to which the sign
relates. Any sign permitted by this section may be used
as a non-commercial opinion sign.
Section 4. Section 3.43 "Regulation and Permit Exceptions" of
the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection 3.437
"Non-Commercial Opinion Sign~" to read as follows:
3.437
Non-Commercial Opinion Si.qns. Signs, not exceeding
thirty-two square feet in area, displayed on private
property, containing information which expresses an
opinion or point of view, but does not advert iso
products, goods, businesses or services. One sign per
street fronta.qe is permitted in any zoning district,
however, an illuminated or motion sign may not be used in
residential zoning districts as a non-commercial opinion
sign.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective
upon its passage and publication.
Dated the day of , 1997.
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Attest -
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the
, 1997.)
day of
2
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
MICHAEL R. I~FLEUR
MARTIN P. MALECHA
WILLIAM C. STRAIT1~
~APPROVED ADR NEUTP, AL
Co]~acx & Sor~]3m~u.[., P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza
8525 Edinbrook Crossing
Suite ~203
Brookl~ P~k, Minnesota 55443
TELEPHONE (612) 42~71
F~ (612) 42~7
LEGAL ASSISTANT
SHARON E). DERBY
March 10, 1997
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:
Amendment to New Hope Sign Code Regarding Campaign Lawn
Signs and Opinion Signs
Our File No- 99.49708
Dear Kirk-
In follow to our March 7, 1997 meeting, please find enclosed a
revised Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Permitting the
Use of Non-Commercial Opinion Signs, and Amending the Purpose and
Political Signage Section.
Basically, I have amended Section 3 and Section 4 of the Ordinance
by increasing the allowable square footage for signage from 8 to 32
feet. Further, I have amended Section 3 to permit the public
display and posting of political lawn signs from August 1st to 10
days after the State general election. As we discussed, this
change conforms our Ordinance to Minn. Stat. §211B.045. Said
section provides for this durational lawn sign posting period.
Further, it supersedes any municipal ordinances anyway. I also
included in this section a durational period for special election
lawn signs. I do not think this will have much of an application
since special elections in New Hope are few and far between,
however I made the durational period for special elections
basically consistent with the durational period for State general
elections on lawn sign postings.
Please contact me if you have any other questions, comments or
revisions to this proposed Ordinance.
Kirk McDonald
March 10, 1997
Page 2
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondra11
slm2
Enclosure
CC'
Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager (w/enc)
Doug Sandstad, Bldg. Official (w/enc)
A1Brixius, City Planner (w/enc)
Valerie Leone, City Clerk (w/enc)
COMMUNITY IleL. ANNINO " DI='~ION - MARKI='T RESEARC:H
MEMORANDUM - VIA FAX TRANSMI,.~SION
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Steve Sondrall - 425-5867
Kirk McDonald
Alan Brixius
25 February 1997
New Hope - Opinion Signs
131.00
In review of the Codes and Standards packet report on opinion signs, I raise the following
issues relative to the Sign Ordinance amendment:
1. Section 3.435 - Political Signs
The current Sign Ordinance language limits political signs to a maximum
size of eight (8) square feet. Does this size restrk=tlon represent the current
standard for political signs? Was there any larger political Signs used in the
last election?
The State election laws allow non-commercial signs to be posted from
August 1st until ten (10) days after the election. The New Hope political sign
language is mom restrictive than the statute pertaining to the posting time
frame. Should we be consistent with State statutes?
2. Section 3.437 - Non.commemial Opinion Signs
Can we limit the size of non-commercial opinion signs toe size smaller than other
commercial or non-commercial signs permitted within the zoning district?
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST.
PHONE 6 I ::'-595-9636 FAX
LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
6 I ;~-5~5-~837
612 595 985~
P. 02~2
On page 465 of the Goward vs. Mpls case, there was a finding that stated:
· Further the exception in the City's ordinance which allows "for sale' and "for rent'
signs impermissibly inverts a first amendment values. The City may not treat
commercial speech more favorably than political speech.'
The City allows for a few large commercial signs in a residential area.
Section 3.461 (2) - 7 or more. re;-ident[al dwellina units - maximum sign size
seventy-five (75) square feet.
Section 3.464 (1) (c) - New Construction or Rernodelina - maximum sign size
twenty-five (25) square feel
In review of the ~ vs. Mpls case, it appears that opinion signs should be allowed the
same sign area as the largest commercial signs within the zoning district. If this is true,
we should re-examine the currant sign size requirements for commercial signs in the
residential district.
While I realize this is late notice, i raise these issues in an attempt to prepare for the
Codes and Standards discussion. Please cell me with your comments if time permits.
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
MICHAEL R. L~FLEUR
MARTIN P. MALECHA
WILLIAM C. STRAIT1~
1¥APPROVED ADR NEUTRAL
Co~cx & SON]:)~,LL, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza
8525 Edinbrook Crossing
Suite//203
Brooklyn Park, M~nesota 55443
TE~PHONE (612) 42~71
F~ (612) 42~7
LEGAL ASSISTANT
SHARON D. OERBY
February 19, 1997
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:
Political Lawn Sign Ordinance
Our File No: 99.49708
Dear Kirk:
Please find enclosed a short article about political lawn sign
ordinances I received from the International Municipal Lawyer's
Association.
Basically, the article is a comment on the recent Federal court
decision of Dimas v. City of Warren, 939 F.Supp. 354 (E.D.Mich.
'1996). Apparently, the City of Warren has a lawn sign ordinance
permitting the display of political lawn signs only within the 45
day period prior to an election. It further limited lawn sign
displays to one sign per candidate per issue during said 45 day
period. It prohibited the display of political lawn signs at all
other times.
The Court ruled this ordinance unconstitutional. It detePmined the
ordinance was not content neutral because it did not subject any
other types of signs to this durational limitation. Further, the
Court held the City must seriously and comprehensively be
addressing aesthetic concerns with respect to the environment to
claim aesthetic issues as the governmental interest promoted by the
ordinance. In other words, simply to say the purpose of the
ordinance is aesthetic concerns is not enough without proof we are
actually addressing said concerns by some means.
Kirk McDonald
February 19, 1997
Page 2
Clearly, our ordinance in its present form would not Pass a
constitutional challenge. Contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
'sl w2
Enclosure
· 3 February 6, 1997
III
Ii
land Use New
thc new development r~strictions that the
city .sought to impo.se failed ~o substgntialiy
advice a lc~timate public p~o~.
uoui~ also h~ld ~at ~cr~ w~ s~icient
cvi&~ ~ ~onclu~ ~at by ~%~tially
ruquifin8 ~c Ired to be IoR in ils hat.al
s~to thc city d~cd ~e d~w~lopgT
c~momically viable usc oF ~ prop~y
U~c~by ~fl~t~ a ~ing which untitl~
own~ to compensation. Thcr~, the
considered cx~ssiw.
Political Sign Ordinance
Invalidated
A Ibdoral district court in Michigan has
l'ot,nd unccmstitmional under tho First
Amcndmc'nt a city ordlnanoe that pg-rmitt~
property owners to dialalay political
only within thc period 6.5 days prior to an
cl,;tiaa an~i limited property owners to
displaying only one sign p~r eandidalg, per
isstg de,ring that time. The e~urt l~und that
the otxlinango wa.,~ hca. content
because thc ordinan~ did not subject my
oth,~' tyix~s of siena to tl~ dar. riehl
limilatk~ ~ ~urt aim c. oncluded that the
city had lkilcd to gsl~blish a significm~
government intcm~t in th~ pr~v. wation of
neighborhood a~stheties, property value, or
tratlic sal~:ty t~at would justify the
ordinangg's bur&'n on t~,'e spa:ch. Citing
Metromedia, lac. v. C[~y of,gan Diego, 453
U.S. 490 (1981), the acute stated that
city must sissy thai. it ia ",,~rkm.sly
comprch~4vely addrgs,,,~n8
amo~rm with r~ to its ~vironnm~ in
order to ju.stil~ dutatioaal er other llmita or.
puliti'r~l udvolisin&" Finally, the courL
relied on l~due v, GiHeo, 114 S. CL 203R
(1994) in finding thaL by prohibiting the
resid~mtial politioa! sigm~ thc
lhrcck~..~ thc t,niquu medium ~ff displaying
a message fi'urn the front of oae'~ hom~.
Dlma,s v, Cl~ ~f f,V~rrea, 9.'t9 F. Supp. 3:54
(E.I). Mich. 1996).
II
Clot a bright ,dca For thc n~xt L~suc o~'/.ami
(/st .New.~' C.k~nta¢l; Walter Wilson, l.and
Devd,:pmca~t. l'I:aming n~d Zoning
Section t,iai$oll, aL 202-4e, e-$424
(tdeph,mc) o,. 202-785-0152 (lax) ar
imlad~aol.gom
I I L
Read Any Good Sign
Ordinances Lately.'?
IMI,A ia in thc proco.~'s of drafting
new Model Sign Ordinance ;md ~xlit~'s
~t~ ~m will bc inclu&d in
IMLA Model Ordinan~ ~i~, In
~di~on to ~mp~ing ~aditicmal
~g~latia~ i~sxg~, such as those involving
business sig~, ~ Modal ala~ will
~n ~ mgtdafion of t~mpor,~ signs,
ineludlng ~og ~at fi~r polifigg
~ampui~s (sc~ st~m~ of
City ~ War~n ~bove). A nt~boe of
local gov~mems ~e grappling wi~
c~mstittaional :md o~z ~mffo pracfic~
sigos (~.g., rollo~g ~e U.S. Supsgmc
Court's &~ision in l~due v. C/~ of
Giileo, 114 S. Ct. 2038 (1994), wha~ if
any, ~ of si~ ~egulationa ~ting
resi&~tial p~p~y ~ ~¢ms~itotionally
PI~< ~m~t Rtxinuy Will,et at
I~,A. ~iepho~ (202)
~ 1~, f~ (202) 7a5-0152.
¢opi~ of yo~ si~ t~in~ an~
'~ a~" ~n~Mg si~ ~guhttio~
Yotff ~n~ibutio~ to ~
ordin~ will be u~owl~g~ in
a~)mp~ying ~it~'s
-Capitol Hill Update:'
Lawmakers Revisit
Unfinished Agenda
Many items on the ag~da of th~ 105th
Congr,,,'~, particularly in areas affecting land
usc ~d property rights, ar~ hoick)ver~ lh~m
the unlinished busmu.x..q of thc 104th
C~mgr¢,-:..¢. As this newsletter w~nt tu
several hilts w,',x: I~ing dnd~.ed and
propur~.xl tbr thc'eduction in both hot,s~s of
Congn..'~ in thc ~oming w¢~do~, Some issu~.~
to be on the lookout fur bc~au~ o£ their
pol~ntial impa¢l at ~c kx:al lgwl ur~ as
lbllows:
" Endangered Species. Senator Dirk
Kempthomc (R-Idaho) is cxpoct~xi to lead
thc chargc araong lawmakers ~x:king
rewrite md ruauthoriz/~ tl~ Endm~gcrud
Spe¢iea Act of 1973, The law expired in
1992 ~ h~s 1~ to heated debat~ I~twuclt
s~on8 ~v~atc~ of p~vutc pm~gy rights
on one side ~d s~ong adwmat~$ [br
cnvir~t on ~¢ o~cr. Thc proponents
oRg~ ~ ~ law in ~ way &u~ prgvgnts
bushggs ~td individuals t~)m m~in~
ogo~migaily vi~blg u~s or &git pciwtg
privy. In~ in tho lcgislutiv~ outcome
of~ia ~b~o will probably be p~i~ulm-ly
stroh8 M ~e W~ smsa. Tho bill that
S~t~ K~mp~omo will likely inmMuo¢
¢~p~t~ to bo v¢t~ simih~ to H.R.
whi~ ~ld have done away with basic
prot~s For ~nd~gor~ sp~i~ In~ il
b~o~ l~w in ~ 1~ Con~ss.
* ~op~ R~,A~ 7'a~gt. S~(cmunls
LJt~) suggc~% ~a h~ will pu~ s~ongly lbr
~o p~ or lugisl~cm. ~ drailing of
~i~ ~ ~ntly tad~ay, to
p6vag p~ay o~s it' a gow~mcnnd
polioy or a~6~ subst~6ally ~u~
v~ao of thg4r priORy. Such a bill
introdu~ ~s S. 1954 in ~c
Gon~. Bat it wins nov~ brought to a
v~ ~ S~a~ M~o~ty l~adcr Trent l.ott
(R-Mi~) dc~in~ &at ~or~ wgrg not
gnoa~ vog~ ~ ov~oo~ a lilibuster by
~ag op~menc$.
* ~6~Ha~v~. Congr~a will ~gvivo
~ attar m a ~mpr~gnsivo ovorhaul
~ p~lio ~sin~ f~ding ~m ~riM~d
2~e ov~a~ ~uid ~msf~ tomy of th~
t~d~ll pubic housing pn)gm~ ~at the
l~p~t of Ho~in8 and th-bu.
l%welopm~mt eun~tly ~s into blo~k
~ts to I~ h~sing
I I _ _ I I IIIIIIIIII IIIIII I I II I
JAN-16-97 THU 14:27 P. 02
CoRmcx & SOm~R~a.L, P~
Edinburgh Execut/ve ~ce ~
~25 ~b~k Cro~
Sui~ ~03
~r~kl~ P~, ~un~ 5~
January 10, 1997
Mr. KIrK MCOonal~
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:
Amendment to New Hope Sign Code Re~arding Campaign Lawn
Signs and Op/nton Signs
Our F/la No: 99.49708
Dear Kirk:
At your request we have prepared proposed Ordinance 97-8 enclosed
herein.
Basically, this Ordinance is in response to the Appellate Court
cases of Q~w~rd v. qfty of Minnea=olje, 45e N.W.Zd, 4~0 (Mlnn. App.
1990) and Bravton v.. Ct~y of.. NeW Brighton, 519 N.W.2d, 243
(Minn. App. 1994). Cop/ss of these cases are also enclosed.
Basically, as we pointed out in a previous May 22, 199~ letter tO
Doug S=ndstad (copy a~so enc}osed), o~r current e~gn code wou~d be
he~d unconstituttona~ /n its treatment of political and
~pe¢ifi=ally, we currently impose a total ~an on non-con~ercial
opinion s~gns. As ~oJnted out /n the ~ cass, th/s ieen
illegal subject based restriction. W® would need to Drove a
"compelling' state interest is promoted by this ban before a court
wou~d uphold its validity. ! doubt if any of the reasons we have
stated in our purpose c~ause under Section 1 of thts Ordinance
would even rise to the level of a compe11, tng state interest. As a
result, the probability of this tot&l ban being upheld ~s very
react ·.
RelatiYe to the amendment regarding political stgns, ! have
utilized the Ctty ct NeW Brighton sign code. New Brighton's
J~N-t6-97 THU 14:28 P, 03
Kirk McDonald
January 16, 1997
P&ge 2
regulations were upheld by the Appellate Court tn the ~ c&ee.
Since botl~ tl~e Minnesota Supreme court and the U.S. Supreme Court
denied review of the B_.~ton case, ! am fairly certain this opinion
w~33 be contro~3~ng for some t~me to come.
BaeScslly, during the c~psign season New Brighton permits as many
political lawn signs on private proDerty es t~ece are candtdetes
~oss~b{llty that numerous polit~ca3 ~awn s~gne could be ~laced on
~ e~n~le 3ct during the relatively ehort elect{on ~esson, The
~ Court held:
"Pol~t{oal speech ~s at the core of First Amendment
protection, and the C~ty ~ the w~dest ro~ fo~
discussion, the narrowest range for 1ts restrictions"
See 456 N.W.2d, p.464.
Based on this judtotel attitude concern(rig the sanctity
pol itical speech, our Code must loosen rather th~n ttghten
restrictions on the use of pol~ticel lawn s~gne. Also, to eneure
our regulations are not deemed "content-based", we muet guarantee
~n equality between ~o]~tica~ s~eech and non-come,cia1
speech. As a result, Section 3 of the Ordinance regulating
political lawn s~gns w~11 also permit a property owner to
subet~tute non-oo~ero~al op{nion s~gns fo~ political lawn
during [he ~paign season.
I ~ looking forward to our d~scussion regarding th~s proposed
Ordinance at future Codes and Stand~rds meetings. Please contact
me if you have any othe~ quest~on~ o~ Go~ents about it.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondra11
att2
Enclosures
M~R-28-97 FRI 09:18
P, O2/OB
May 22, 1996
Doug San~lst ad
But ldtng Offtctal
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, UN 55428._
RE: op'i n~'~
Dear Doucj:
I am responding about the tssue of whether a disgruntled home
purchaser in New Hope c&n place astgn on his newly acquired
property suggesting potential purchasers of other houses in the
~evelopment look elsewhere. The New Hope Sign Code, particularly
Sections 3.464, limits signs accessory to residentlal uses, and
would prohibit the type of sign in question. The proposed oplnfon
s19n also does not,fall within the exceptions to the regulation and
permit requirements listed in Section 3.43 of the Code'.
Enclosed for your revtew you will flnd a copy of Brayton
~ew Briahton, 519 N,W.2d 243 (Minn. App. 1994), a case upholding &n
ordinance that was mu~h lees restrictive of signs than the New Hope
819n Code, Though only a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, the
8ravt~_~. case is ~ strong Indication of what is ~urrently acceptable
for opinion s~gn regulat.~on, &ppeals to the M~nnesota and United
States Supreme Courts havtng been attempted bu~ denied. T~e s~gn
Is question in New Ho~e wou~d clear]y be el]owed under the Br~yton
ordlnance.
Our conclusions are chat the proposed sign would be prohibited by
the New Hooe Sign Code, but the S~gn C~da a~ applied ~o opln~on
signs i~ almost certainly unconstitutional as too restrictive of
free speech.
By c(~py of this letter to Dan and Kirk, we suggest th~s may be a
MhR-28-97 FRI 09:18 P, 03/03 '
Dou~
May
Page
good time to review the ~ign Code regarding optnton S4gns, eu!.d
bring the Code in line with the ~ standards, Pie&se review
and tat us know if end how you wish us tO prOGeed.
Martin P. Malecha
Assistant Ctt¥ Attorney
3mw
t;ncloeure
CC;
Daniel d. Donahue (w/erie)
Kirk McDonald (w/eric)
Steven A,.Sondr~11
3.43, 3.434. 3.435,
3.436, 3.44
3.434 Public Convenience Signs.. Smal~ signs, not exceeding two
square ~eet £n area, displayed on p~iva~e property
convenience of ~he public, including direc~iona~ nc
identif£cation signs for res=rooms, fre£ghts entrances,
garage and rummage sales and the like. Garage and rummage
sale signs shall show, cleaFly impFinted, the name and
address of the person eFect£ng the sign, o= respons£ble for
the same. Said signs shall not be erected more than five
days before or maintained more than one day after the sale
to which the sign relates.
3.435 ~litical Signs. Small signs, not exceeding eight
/ feet in area, displayed on private property, conta£fl£ng~,~
/ matter which £s intended or tends to influence d£rectly
indirectly any vot£ng at any pr£mary, generaL,
spec£al or school election, including pictures or
announcements relative to candidates or campaign
advertising. Said signs are permitted in add£tion to other
signs Iff any zoning dis=tic= provided that no person shal~
permit or allow any such sign to be located or maintained on
his proper=y more than thirty-one days before or five days
a£~er ~he elect£on to which the sign relates.
3.436 Government Signs. Signs of a duly constituted governmental
bod~ iflc~uding =Fabric o= sLm~a= ~egula=o=y s~gns, lega~
no=ices and wa=aings a~ call=nad crossings.
(C~e 072684, Ord. 87-5)
3.44 GENERA~ STANDARDS. AI~ s~gns he=ea~te= pa~fl=ed, cons==uc=ed, ecec~ed,
remodeled; =e~oca=~ o= expanded sha~ comply w~h =he following s=anda=ds=
3-38A
072684
MINNESOTA ELECTION LAWS- 1995
211B.04 CAMPAIGN LITERATURE MUST INCLUDE DISCLAIMER.
(a) A person who participates in the preparation.or dissemination of campaign material other than
as provided in section 211 B.05, subdivision 1, that does not prominently include the name and address
of the person or committee causing the material to be prepared or disseminated in a disclaimer
substantially in the form provided in paragraph (b) or (c) is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Except in cases covered by paragraph (c), the required form of disclaimer is: "Prepared and
paid for by the .......... committee, ......... (address)" for material prepared and paid for by a principal
campaign committee, or "Prepared and paid for by the .......... committee, ......... (address), in support
of ......... (insert name of candidate or ballot question)" for material prepared and paid for by a person
or committee other than a principal campaign committee.
(c) In the case of broadcast media, the required form of disclaimer is: "Paid for by the ............
committee."
(d) Campaign material that is not circulated on behalf of a particular candidate or ballot question
must also include in the disclaimer either that it is "in opposition to ..... (insert name of candidate or
ballot question ..... )"; or that "this publication is not circulated on behalf of any candidate or ballot
question."
(e) This section does not apply to objects stating only the ckndidate's name and the office sought,
fundraising tickets, or personal letters that are clearly being sent by the candidate.
(f) This section does not modi~ or repeal section 21 lB.06.
History: 1988 c 578 art 3 s 4; 1991 c 227s 24
NOTES AND DECISIONS
211B.04
Absence of authorship clause on eard~ held tri~,ial. Miske v. Fisher, 193 Mhm. 514, 259 N.W. 18 (1935).
Candidate for office may include word "lawyer" on em'nl~i~la card but ~meh a card must contain addr~s of author, while card containing a mere
statement that a per,on is a candidate for office without ~ything in the way of an al~ or argum~t do~ not need to state its autho~hip. Op. Atty.
Gen. 6275-1, March 16, 1936.
Sticker with nothing mom on it tha~ the name ofa i~oa fer whom vot~ ar~ d~h'ed is not in eff~t a e~ml~ig~ card. Op. Atty. Gen. 6275-1, Au-
gust 18, 1942.
Use ofa palriotic poster with candidate's ~olicitation ofvotm the~on mu~t bear the name and add~ of the author. Op. Atty. Gen. 627F- I, Au-
gust 18, 1942.
Emery boards must be~r name ~nd add~ of author. Op. Atty. Gen. 62~F-1, Sel~tember 24, 194&
If open letter is circulated in inter~t of bett~ gov~mnont mad not for l~rtieul~' candidate, then section do~s not requi~, in addition to author's
name and address, name ofaay candidate. Op. Atty. ~ 6275-3, October 6, 194~. Sen also Op. Att3t. Oen. 6275-3, February 10, 1947 on the same is-
Name ofi~son or person~ on committ~ who authorize insertion of adve~isement must be stated. Op. Atty. Gen. 627C-5, October 1, 1938.
11B.045 NONCOMMERCIAL SIGNS EXEMPTION. .
In any municipality with an ordinance that regulates the size of noncommercial signs, notwithstand-
g the provisions of that ordinance, all noncommercial signs.of any size may be posted from August
in a state general election year until ten days following the state general election.
History: 1990 c 585 s 30 ·
211B.05 PAID ADVERTISEMENTS IN NEWS.
Subdivision 1. Acceptance of paid advertisements. A newspaper, periodical, or magazine may
not intentionally accept for insertion in the newspaper, magazine, or periodical a political advertise-
ment unless the words "PAID ADVERTISEMENT," and the disclaimer required under section
211B.04 are included at the beginning or end of the advertisement. A radio station, television station,
or cable system may not accept for broadcast a political advertisement unless the words "PAID
ADVERTISEMENT" are included at the beginning or end of the advertisement.
Subd. 2. Advertising rates. Rates charged for advertising to support or oppose a candidate or ballot
question must be the same as the charges made for any other political candidate and may be no greater
than charges made for any other comparable purpose or use according to the seller's rate schedule.
Sub& 3. Compensation prohibited, except for paid advertisement. An owner, publisher, editor,
reporter, agent, broadcaster, or employee of a newspaper, periodical, magazine, radio or television
broadcast station,-or cable system may not directly Or indirectly solicit, receive, or accept a payment,
211B-2
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
97-05
Ordinance No. 97-14, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending Section 2.13 of the
New Hope City Code Establishing the New Hope Planning Commission
PID No.'
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
City of New Hope
March 28, 1997
April 1, 1997
BACKGROUND
The City of New Hope is requesting consideration of an ordinance amending Section 2.13 of the New
Hope City Code establishing the New Hope Planning Commission.
In response to some questions and issues raised at the March Planning Commission meeting, staff
have been working with the City Attorney to clarify some of the items in this ordinance. City staff met
with the City Attorney in early March and discussed revisions that would:
A. make the ordinance gender neutral and eliminate references to "his duties," "chairman," and
"Councilman."
B. better clarify when the terms of officers start and end.
C. revise the portion of the ordinance dealing with special meetings so it complies with the open
meeting law.
The City Attorney prepared a preliminary draft ordinance that was considered by the Codes &
Standards Committee at its March 19 meeting. The ordinance was further revised at that meeting and
the final proposed ordinance is enclosed for your consideration.
This ordinance is part of Chapter 2 of the City Code" Council Rules, Commissions and Organization." It
is not part of the Zoning Code, therefore, no public hearing is required, no notice has been published,
and no notices have been mailed. The City Council could act on this ordinance without consideration by
the Planning Commission. However, because the proposed ordinance directly impacts the Commission,
City staff are requesting that the Planning Commission consider these amendments and make a
recommendation to the City Council.
ANALYSIS
1. The specific amendments contained in Ordinance 97-14, as recommended by the Codes & Standards
Committee and City staff include the following:
Section 2.132 "Composition," subsection (1) Number, has been revised to remove all gender
specific references. Specifically, the terms "discharge of his duties," "he will," and "of his office" have
been deleted.
The revised section of the ordinance will read:
"(1) Number. The Planning CommiSsion may consist of up to ten members appointed by the Council.
Before taking office, every appointed member shall take an oath to faithfully perform commission
member duties.
· Section 2.132 "Composition," subsection (3) Councilman may be tenth member, has been revised to
state Councilmember may be tenth member.
Section 2.134. "Organization," has been revised so that the reference to "Chairman" has been
changed to "Chairperson." Aisc, the reference to "Secretary" has been changed to "Third Officer."
The organization provisions were also amended to provide that officers of the Planning Commission
would maintain their positions until a successor is duly elected at the Planning Commission's first
meeting of the succeeding year. (The current ordinance states that officers shall hold office until
December 31 following their election. We did not have a Planning Commission meeting until March,
so in effect there were no officers between January 1 and March 1. This portion of the amendment
is intended to correct that situation.)
The revised section of the ordinance will read:
"Or,qanization. The Planning Commission shall elect yearly a chairperson, vice chairperson, and a third
officer from its membership. Each officer shall hold office until a successor is elected at the first duly
called meeting in the succeeding year."
Section 2.135. "Meetings," was revised to insure that the Code language complies with the State
Open meeting Law. The reference to Chairman was changed to Chairperson. Also, the last
sentence indicating that a meeting would not be held during the month of July was deleted. This
change will require a July meeting unless the City Council determines a meeting should not be held
in July.
The revised section of the ordinance would read:
"Meetings. The Planning Commission shall hold one regular meeting each month on such day and at
such time as established by the Council. Special meetings shall be called by the Chairperson not
sooner than three days after receipt by the Chairperson of a written request for a special meeting
signed by three or more members of the Planning Commission. Special meetings shall require three
days written notice to each member and further require compliance with all other provisions of Minn.
Stat. §471.705(1)(b)."
· The ordinance amendment would be effective upon publication.
RECOMMENDATION
The Codes & Standards Committee and City staff recommend approval of the ordinance amendments.
Attachments: Ordinance 97-14
3/24 City Attorney Correspondence
3/10 City Attorney Correspondence
Current Ordinance
H~R-25-97 TUE 09:18 P. 04/05
ORD ! NANCE NO, 9 7-1 4
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECT!ON 2.13
OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE ESTABLISHING
THE NEW HOPE PLANNZNG COMMZSSZON
The City Council of the city of New Hope ordaine:
Section ~. Section 2.132(1) "Number" of the New Hope City
Code is hereby added to read as follows:
(1)
Number. The Planning Commission may cons~et of up to ten
members appointed by the Council. B_efore.taking of?ice,
every appointed member shall
faithfullyperform commission membe ~--~
r ........ ~ .... e duties
~- Section 2.132(3) "Councilman May be Tenth Memb[r"
of the New Hope C~ty Code {s hereby amended to read as follows:
(3)
~ Councilmembe.r. May. Be Tenth Member. The
Couno{1 may appoint a member of the Council to serve on
the Planning Commission who shall serve a term expiring
on the f~rst bus,ness day of January in ~he year
follow~n9 the year appointed.
~u~_~. Section 2.134 "~_rganiza%~o.n" of the New Hope City
Code ~a hereby amended to read as follows:
2.134
Or~an~z&t~on. The Planning Commission sh~11 elect c,q; of
~t~ ......... ~ ~ chairperson
officer from it~ membersh~o~ e~a~h~-wh~mofflcer shall
hold off,ce unt~l .... ~ ......... ~ - .
successor ~S elected At the f~st duly called meet~n~
the ~ucceed{nR year. '
~_ectlon. 4. section 2.135 "Meet{n~e** of the NeW Hope City Code
ia hereby amended to read as follows:
MhR-25-97 TUE 09:19 P, 05/05
2.135
Meetings, The Planning Commission shall hold one regular
meeting each month on such day and at such t
established by the Council. Special meetings shall be
called by the Ch---.i ~,,,,.,, .._,, h-'-,, rc~:a,t Chairperson not
~ sooner than ~ three days after receipt by the
Ch~,r,m~,~ or,,~~ Cha~roerson of a written request
for a specia] meeting signed by three or ~e members
the P~enning Co~ss~on. Special meetings shall requ~e
two three daye written not,ce to each member and further
.~e_quJre compliance wJth a11 other notice provisions
MJ Stat ~471 705(1)(b) -- -
~ ................ . ..... 1------ 11
section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance sh&11 be effective
upon its passage and publication.
Dated the day of ., 1997,
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Attest .-
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley sun-Post the
, 1997,)
day o'r
MAR-25-97 TUE 09:18 ?. 02/05
Co~mcK & Som~l~r.r., P.A.
S:.~ARON D.
March 24, 1997
Kirk McDonald
Managemeflt Asst.
C~ty of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope~ MN 55428
RE:
Proposed Ordinance Amending City Code Establishing
Planning Commission
Our File No: g9.49714
Dear Kirk:
Please find enclosed proposed Ordinance No. $7-14Amending the New
Hope C~ty Code Establishing the Planning Commission.
Pursuant to the recommendations made by the Codes and Standards
Committee at its March 19th meeting, I have revised the enclosed
Ordinance aS follows:
1. In Section 3 dealing with the "Organization" of the
Planning ComrlHssion, the reference to Chairman has been
changed to Chairperson. Also the reference to Secretary
has been changed to Third Officer.
2. In Section 4 the reference to Chairman has again been
changed to Cha{rperson. Further~ ! removed the ProDosed
language ~ndicating the Commission meetings would begin
at 7:00 ~.m. o~ the first Tuesday of each month and
reDlaced ~t w~th the ~rev~ously exlsting language
ind{oat~n$ the day aha t~me of the meetings wi33 be
established by the C~ty Council. Also, ! deleted the
last sentence indicating a meetin9 would no~ be held
during the month of du3y. As a result, th~s change w~
require a July meeting unless the C~t¥ Council determines
a meeting should be not be held in ~u1¥.
Z believe the referenced changes implements all the recommendations
made by Codes and Standards at ~ts recent meet~n~ and th~s
MAR-25-97 TUE 09:18
P, 03/05
Ma?ch 24, 1997
Page 2
Ordinance can now be considered by the full P~annlng Commission at
~te Apr~l 1, 1997 meeting. Contact me if you have any other
questfons or comments rega?d~ng the enclosed Ordinance or th~s
letter.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondra11
slm2
Enclosure
CC.'
Oan~el J. Donahue, City Manager (w/enc)
Valerie Leone, City Clerk (w/enc)
STEVEN A. SONDRALL
MICHAEL R. [-~FLEUR
MARTIN P. MALECHA
WILLIAM C. $TI=L.(klTlk'
CORRJCK ~ SONDRALL, RA.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza
8525 Edinbrook Crossing
Suite #203
Brooklyn Park. Minnesota 55443
TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671
FAX (612) 425-5867
L ~' C, AL ASSISTANT
SHARON D. DERBY
March 10, 1997
Kirk McDonald
Management Asst.
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:
Amendment to Planning Commission Ordinance
Our File No: 99.49714
Dear Kirk:
Please find enclosed for consideration at the March 19, 1997 Codes
and Standards meeting a revised Planning Commission Ordinance.
The Ordinance addresses the concerns you raised in our recent
meeting. Specifically, all gender specific references have been
removed from the Ordinance. Also, the organization provisions of
§2.134 were amended in Section 3 of the Ordinance to provide that
officers of the Planning Commission would maintain their positions
until a successor is duly elected at the Planning Commission's
first meeting in the succeeding year. Further, §2.135 regulating
special meetings was amended in Section 4 of the Ordinance to
insure our Code language complies with the State Open Meeting Law.
The residency requirement was repealed by previous Ordinance 97-6.
As a result, §2.132(4) of the Code dealing with the residency
requirement is no longer in effect.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this proposed
Ordinance,
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
slm
Enclosure
2.13, 2.131. 2.132, 2.133,
2.134, 2.135
2.13 P~ANNING COMMISSION.
2.131 Establishment. The Planning Commission heretofore established may be
abolished by two-thirds vote of all the members of the Council.
2.132
Composition.
(1) Number. The Planning Commission may consist of up to ten members
appointed by the Council. Every appointed member shall, before entering
upon the discharge of his duties, take an oath that he will faithfully
discharge the duties of his office.
(2)
(3
(4)
2.133
2.134
2.135
Term. Unless sooner removed by a four-fifths vote of'the Council, nine
of the members shall serve a term of three years, and the person
appointed as the tenth member shall serve a term expiring the first
business day of January in the year following the year appointed. All
members appointed and qualified shall serve until their successors
quali.fy.
Councilman May Be Tenth Member. The Council may appoint a member of the
Council to serve on the Planning Commission who shall serve a term
expiring on the first business day of January in the year following the
year appointed.
(Code 072684, Ord. 95-1)
Residency Reauirement. All members of the Planning Commission shall be'
a resident of the City of New Hope.
(Ord. 89-19)
Purpose, Authority and Duties. The Planning Commission shall serve as
an advisory body to the Council. It is hereby authorized and directed
to carry on City Planning activities and to adopt a plan for the
regulation of the future physical development of the City, and to
prepare and adopt an official map of all proposed alterations of
existing lands and public spaces, and the future development of
unplatted properties and shall recommend approval or disapproval of
subdivisions of land. The Commission shall make a study of future
developments of the City, including proposed public buildings, street
arrangements and improvements, public utility services, parks,
playgrounds, and other similar developments. The results of all studies
made by the Commission, together with the recommendations of the
Commission shall be submitted to the Council. The Planning Commission
shall upon request of the Council, make recommendations to the Council
regarding matters affecting zoning, platting, the making of public
improvements and other measures affecting the future or present
development of the City.
Organization. The Planning Commission shall elect one of its members as
chairman, one as vice chairman, and another as secretary, each of whom
shall hold office until December 31st, following their election.
(Code 072684)
Meetinws. The Planning Commission shall hold one regular meeting each
month, on such day and at such time as established by the Council.
Special meetings shall be called by the Chairman upon his request not
more than two days after receipt by the Chairman or Secretary of a
written request for a special meeting signed by three or more members of
the Planning Commission. Special meetings shall require two days
written notice to each member. No meeting shall be held during the
month of July unless called as a special meeting according to the
procedure of this section.
(Code 072684, Ord. 85-11)
2-9 , 072684
2. 136
2.136
Minutes.. The Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of
business, and shall keep a public record 'of its resolutions, motions,
transactions and findings. One copy of the minutes of each meeting
shall be delivered to the Clerk prior to the next regular meeting of the
Council, and the Clerk shall record the same as a permanent record of
the City.
2-9A 072684
Planning Case:
Request:
Location:
PID No.:
Zoning:
Petitioner:
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
96-31
Ordinance No. 97-15, Consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City
Code by Establishing a Shoreland Permit Overlay Distdct
City of New Hope
March 28, 1997
April 1, 1997
BACKGROUND
The City of New Hope is requesting consideration of an ordinance amending the New Hope City Code
by establishing a Shoreland Permit Overlay District
In 1996 the City of New Hope formally adopted its Surface Water Management Plan after the plan was
formally approved by the Shingle and Bassett Creek Water Management Organizations. One of the
recommendations/requirements of the plan was that the City adopt and implement the DNR Shoreland
Regulations.
City staff and consultants, including the Planning Consultant, City Engineer, City Attorney, Director of
Public Works, Building Official, representatives from the DNR and Management Assistant met on many
occasions over the past six months to review and discuss the regulations. The Codes & Standards
Committee has also reviewed the ordinance. The purpose of the standards is to preserve the quality of
lakes. As the Planning Consultant has stated in his report, the City of New Hope agrees with the intent
of the regulations, but due to the fact that the land surrounding the water bodies in the City is fully
developed, the City is unable to meet all of the regulations of the DNR Model Ordinance and some
flexibility is being requested.
Per the enclosed correspondence between the City and DNR, there are on-going discussions about the
extent of the flexibility that the DNR is willing to grant the City. Also, the DNR has not established the
ordinary high water mark for the water bodies in New Hope and is not expected to do so until the end of
April. The ordinary high water mark determination will have an impact on the setback requirements in
this ordinance.
Therefore, although a public hearing on this ordinance has been scheduled for this meeting,
staff and the Codes & Standards Committee are recommending that the ordinance be tabled
until the May 6 Planning Commission meeting, as the issues with the DNR may be resolved at that
time.
6. Staff have enclosed the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney and reports from the Planning
Consultant on this issue for your information.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Codes & Standards Committee recommend tabling this ordinance for one month.
Attachments:
Public Hearing Notice
Ordinance 97-15
3/13 City Attorney Correspondence
3/14 DNR Correspondence
Planner's Report
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY
ESTABLISHING SHORELAND REGULATIONS FOR
LAKES AND TRIBUTARY STREAMS WITHIN THE CITY
City of New Hope, Minnesota
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the
City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 1st day of April,
1997, 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 creating a shoreland
permit overlay district on real property abutting protected lakes
and tributary streams. Said district will be subject to land use
regulations in addition to the underlying zoning district~
regulations. It will primarily control placement, height and
design of structures, relative to their proximity to protected
shoreland.
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 lOth day of March, 1997.
s/ Valerie J. Leone
Valerie J. Leone
City Clerk
(Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 19th day
of March, 1997.)
ORDINANCE NO. 97-15
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE
CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING A
SHORELAND PERMIT OVERLAY DISTRICT
The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains:
Section 1. Section 4.022 "Definitions" of the New Hope City
Code is here0y amended by adding subsections (gD) "Bluff", (gE)
"5!uff [mpact Zone", (12A)"Building Line", (23A)"Commercial Use",
(2~C) "Commissioner" (33A) "Deck", (71A) "Hardship", (74B)
"Inaustr~al Use", (7~C) "Intensive Vegetation Clearing", (103A)
"Ordinary High Water Level", (112A) "Public Waters" (122B)
"Semipublic Use", (122C) "Sensitive Resource Management", (1248)
"Shore Impact Zone", (125F) "Steep Slope", (.128C) "Toe of the
Bluff", (128D) "Top of the Bluff", and (132A) "Water-Oriented
Accessory Structure or Facility" to read as follows:
(gD) Bluff. A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or
embankment having the following characteristics (an area
with an average slope of less than eighteen (18) percent
over a distance for fifty (50) feet or more shall not be
considered part of the bluff):
a. Part or all of the feature
shoreland area;
is located in a
The slope rises at least twenty-five (25) feet
above the ordinary high water level of the
waterbody;
The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to
a point twenty-five (25) feet or more above the
ordinary high water level averages thirty (30)
percent or greater; and
d. The slope must drain toward the waterbody.
(gE) Bluff Impact Zone. A bluff and land located within
twenty (20) feet from the top of a bluff.
(12Al Building Line. A line parallel to a lot line or the
ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond
which a structure may not extend.
(23A) Commercial Use. "Commercial" refers to the use
classification defined as B-l, B-2, B-3, and B4 under
provisions of the New Hope Code Chapter 4.
24C)
Commissioner. Relating to §4.16 of this Code
"Commissioner" shall mean Commissioner of the Department
of Natural Resources.
33A)
Deck. A horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without
attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features,
attached or functionally related to a principal use or
site and at any point extending more than three (3) feet
above ground.
7lA)
Hardship. A situation where property in question cannot
be put to a reasonable use under the conditions alt~wed
by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is
due to circumstances unique to the 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 a hardship if
a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms
of the official controls.
(74B)
Industrial Use. The use of land or buildings for the
production, manufacture, warehousing, storage, or
transfer of goods, products, commodities, or other
wholesale items.
(74C)
Intensive Vegetation Clearing. The complete removal of
trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or
block.
( 103A )
Ordinary High Water Level. The boundary of public waters
and wetlands which shall be an elevation delineating the
highest water level which has been maintained for a
sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the
landscape, commonly that point where the natural
vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to
predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary
high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank
of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary
high water level is the operating elevation of the normal
summer pool.
2
112A)
Public Waters. Any waters as defined in Minn. Stat.
§103G.005, Subd. 15 and 15a.
122B)
Semipu01ic Use. The use of land by a private, non0rofit
organization to provide a public service that Ts
ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular
constituency of the organization.
122C)
Sensitive Resource Management. The preservation and
management of areas unsuitable for development in their
natural state due to constraints such as shallow soils
over groundwater or bedrock, highly erosive or expansive
soils, steep slopes, susceptibility to flooding, or
occurrence of flora or fauna in need of special
protection.
124B)
Shore Impact Zone. Land located between the ordinary
high water level of a public water and a line parallel to
it at a setback of fifty (50) percent of the structure
setback. '
(125F)
(128C)
Steep Slope. Land where agricultural activity or
development is either not recommended or described as
poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil
characteristics, as mapped and described in available
county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless
appropriate design and construction techniques and
reports, unless appropriate design and construction
techniques and farming practices are used in accordance
with the provisions of this Code. Where specific
information is not available, steep slopes are lands
having average slopes over twelve (12) percent, as
measured over horizontal distances of fifty (50) feet or
more, that are not bluffs.
Toe of the Bluff. The lower point of a 50-foot segment
with an average slope exceeding eighteen (18) percent.
(!280) Top of the Bluff. The higher point of a 50-foot segment
with an average slope exceeding eighteen (18) percent.
(132A)
Water-Oriented Accessory Structure or Facility. A small,
above ground building or other improvement, except
stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which
because of the relationship of its use to a surface water
feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to public
waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of
such structures and facilities include gazebos, screen
houses, pump houses, and detached decks.
Section 2. Section 4.022 (123)"Setback" of the New Hope City
Code is hereby amended to read as follows-
(123)
Setback. The minimum horizontal distance between a
bu~lding~ ~d street e~ lot line, shoreline or bluff.
The setback distance is measured at ground level from the
lot line, lake ordinary high water level, top of bluff,
or street riBht-of-way, to a point on the ground directly
under the most outwardly extended portion of the side of
the structure nearest the lot line, lake ordinary high
water level, top of bluff or street right-of-way.
Section 3. Section 4.16 "Shoreland Permit Overlay District
of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows-
4.t6 SHORELAND PERMIT OVERLAY DISTRICT
4.161 Policy and Application. :
(1)
Policy. The uncontrolled use of shorelands in the City of
New Hope affects the public health, safety and general
welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public
waters, but also by impairing the local tax base.
Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public
health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise use
and development of shorelands of public waters.
(2)
Statutory Authorization. These shoreland regulations are
adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies
contained in Minn. Stat. Chapter 103G, Minnesota
Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, and the
planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minn. Stat.
Chapter 462.
(3)
Jurisdiction. The provisions of this Code shall apply to
shoreland$ of the public water bodies as classified in
Section 4.187 of this Code. A body of water created by
a private user where there was no previous shoreland may,
at the discretion of the governing body, be exempt from
this Code.
(4)
Compliance. The use of any shoreland of public waters;
the size and shape of lots; the use, size, type and
location of structures on lots; the grading and filling
of any shoreland area; and the cutting of shoreland
vegetation shall be in full compliance with the terms of
this Code and other applicable regulations.
~.162
(8)
(1)
(s)
District Application. The "SP" Shoreland Permit Overlay
District shall be superimposed (overlaid) upon all the
zoning districts as identified in Section 4.041 of this
Code as existing or amended by the text and map of this
Code. The regulations and requirements imposed by the
"SP" Shoreland Permit Overlay District shall be in
addition to those established by the base zoning district
which jointly apply. Under joint application of the
districts, the more restrictive requirements shall apply.
District Boundaries. The boundaries of the "SP",
Shoreland Permit Overlay Bistrict within the City of New
Hope consists of the first tier of riparian lots abutting
a protected lake or tributary identified in Section 4.182
of this Code. The specific boundaries of the "SP",
Shoreland Permit Overlay District is shown on the New
Hope Zoning Map.
Shoreland Classification System.
,:
Public Waters. The public waters of New Hope have been
classified below consistent with the criteria found in
Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120.3300, and the Protected
Waters Inventory Map for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Official Map. The Shoreland Permit District for the
waterbodies listed below shall be shown on the New Hope
Zoning Map.
Lakes.
General Development Lakes
Northwood Lake
Protected Waters
Inventory 1.D. #
27 - 627P
Meadow Lake
27 - 57P
(4) Rivers and Streams.
Tributary Streams
Bass Creek
Bassett Creek - North Branch
4..163
(1)
Administration.
Shoreland Permit Required. A permit is required for the
construction of buildings or building additions (and
5
including such related activities as construction of
decks and signs), and those grading and filling
activities not exempted by this Code that occur within
the Shoreland Permit District. Application for a permit
shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator or any staff
persons designated by the City Manager on an official
application form of the City, accompanied by a fee as set
forth in Chapter 14 of this Code, The application shall
include the necessary information so that the Zoning
Administrator can determine the site's suitability for
the intended use.
(2) Certificate of Zoning Complianc~, The Zoning
Administrator shall issue a certificate of zoning
compliance for each activity requiring a permit as
specified in this Code. Any use, arrangement, or
construction at variance with that authorized by permit
shall be deemed a violation of this Code and shall be
punishable as provided in this Code.
(3) Variance. Variances may only be granted in accordance
with Section 4.22 of this Code. A variance may not
circumvent the general purposes and intent of this Code.
No variance may be granted that would allow any use that
is prohibited in the zoning district in which the sub)ect
property is located.
When a variance is approved after the Department of
Natural Resources has formally recommended denial in the
hearing record, the notification of the approved variance
required in subsection (5) below shall also include the
Planning Commission and City Council's summary of the
public record/testimony and the findings of facts and
conclusions which supported the issuance of the variance.
Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permits may only
be granted in accordance with Section 4.21 of this Code.
A conditionally permitted use may not circumvent the
general purposes and intent of this Code, The following
additional evaluation criteria and conditions apply
within shoreland areas:
(al
The prevention of soil erosion or other possible
pollution of public waters, both during and after
construct ion.
(b)
The visibility of structures and other facilities
as viewed from public waters is limited.
4.164
4.165
(c)
The types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the
project will generate are compatible in relation to
the suitaDility of public waters to safely
accommodate these watercraft.
Notifications to the Department of Natural Resources.
(1)
(a)
Public Hearings. Copies of all notices of any
public hearings to consider variances, amendments,
or conditional uses under local shoreland
management controls must be sent to the
commissioner or the commissioner's designated
representative and postmarked at least ten days
before the hearings. Notices of hearings to
consider proposed subdivisions/plats must include
copies of the subdivision/plat.
(b)
Approval. A copy of approved amendments and
subdivisions/plats, and final decisions granting
variances or conditional uses under local shorel~nd
management controls must be sent to the
commissioner or the commissioner's designated
representative and postmarked within ten days of
final action.
Land Use District Descriptions.
Allowed Uses. Allowed land uses within the Shoreland
District shall be determined by the underlying zoning
district, as listed within Sections 4.05 through 4.15 of
this Code.
Lot Area and Width Standards. Lot area and width
standards for residential development shall be regulated
per the underlying zoning district. Said minimum
requirements are as follows:
( 1 ) Resi dent i al:
Area
Per Unit Width
Single 9,500 s.f. 75 feet
Duplex 7,000 s.f, 75 feet
Townhouse 5,000 s.f. 80 feet
Multiple Family 3,000 s.f.* 100 feet
Elderly Housing
and/or Physically
Handicapped 1,000 s.f. 1OO feet
· 4,000 square feet in an R-3 District
4.166
(2) Commercial and Industrial.
(1)
Limited Business
Ne1 ghborhood Bus.
Resident ial Office
Reta~ 1 Business
Limited Industrial
General Industrial
Area
Per Unit
10,000 s f
10,500 s f
15,000 s f
43,560 s f
43,560 s f
43,560 s f
Width
80 feet
80 feet
100 feet
100 feet
150 feet
100 feet
Placement, Design, and Height of Structure~.
Placement of Structures on Lot~. When more than one
setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must
be located to meet all setbacks. Where structures exist
on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed
building site, structure setbacks may be altered without
a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the
ordinary high water level, provided the proposed building
site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a bluff
impact zone. Structures shall be located as follows:~
(a)
Required Setbacks. All required rear yard, side
yard and front yard setbacks shall be met per the
underlying zoning district.
(b)
Ordinary High Water Level Setback. Structure
Setbacks (in feet) from the Ordinary High Water
Level.
Classes of
Public Waters
StrUcture Setbacks
General Development
Tri but ary
40 feet
40 feet
(c)
Required Bluff Setback. The following setback shall
be applied, regardless of the classification of the
waterbody:
Structure Setback
Top of Bluff
30 feet
(d)
Bluff Impact Zones. Structures and accessory
facilities, except stairways and landings, must not
be placed within bluff impact zones.
8
(e)
Desig
(a)
(b)
Height of Structures. Required height
structures shall be as follows:
for al 1
District Building Height
R-1 2-~ stories
R-2 2-~ stores
R-3 3 stori es
R-4. 4 stories
R-5 4 stories
R-O 3 stories
B-1 2 stories
B-2 3 stories
B-3 3 stories
B-J, 3 stories
I-1 3 stories
I-2 3 stories
n Criteria for Structures.
High Water Elevations. Structures must be place¢ in
accordance with any floodplain regulations
applicable to the site. Where these controls do not
exist, structures must be placed at least three (3)
feet above the highest known water level, or two
(2) feet above the ordinary high water level,
whichever is higher.
Water-oriented Accessory Structures. Each lot may
have one water-oriented accessory structure not
meeting the normal structure setback in subsection
(1) above if this water-oriented accessory
structure complies with the following provisions:
(i) Each lot shall be limited to one (1) accessory
building in addition to an accessory garage.
(ii)
(iii)
The structure or facility must not exceed
fifteen (15) feet in height, exclusive of
safety rails, and cannot occupy an area
greater than two hundred fifty (250) square
feet. Detached decks must not exceed eight (8)
feet above grade at any point,
The setback of the structure or facility from
the ordinary high water level must be at least
ten (10) feet.
9
(c)
iv)
(v)
(v~)
('vii)
The structure or facility must be treated to
reduce visibility as viewed from public waters
and adjacent shorelands by vegetation,
topography, increased setbacks or color,
assuming summer, leaf-on conditions.
The roof may be used as a deck with safety
rails but must not be enclosed or used as a
storage area.
The structure or facility must not be designed
or used for human habitation and must not
contain water supply or sewage treatment
facilities.
As an alternative for general development and
recreational development waterbodies, water-
oriented accessory structures used solely for
watercraft storage, and including storage of
related boating and water-oriented sporting
equipment, may occupy an area up to four
hundred (400) square feet provided the maximum
width of the structure is twenty (20) feet as
measured parallel to the configuration of the
shoreline.
Stairways, Lifts and Landings. Stairways and lifts
are the preferred alternative to major topographic
alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs
and steep slopes to the Shoreland Permit District
areas. Stairways and lifts must meet the following
design requirements:
(i)
(ii)
Stairways and lifts must not exceed four (4)
feet in width on residential lots. Wider
stairways may be used for commercial
properties, public open-space recreational
properties, and planned unit developments.
Landings for stairways and lifts on
residential lots must not exceed thirty-two
(32) square feet in area. Landings larger
than thirty-two (32) square feet may be used
for commercial properties, public open-space
recreational properties, and planned unit
developments.
10
(3)
(~i)
Canopies or roofs are not allowed on
stairways, lifts, or landings.
(iv)
Stairways, li.fts, and landings may be e~ther
constructed above the ground on posts or
p~llngs, or placed into the ground, provided
they are designed and built in a manner that
ensures control of soil erosion.
(v)
Stairways, lifts, and landings must be located
in the most visually inconspicuous portions of
lots, as viewed from the surface of the public
water assuming summer leaf-on conditions,
whenever practical.
(vi)
Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility
paths for physically handicapped persons are
also allowed for achieving access to shore
areas, provided that the dimensional ~nd
performance standards of subitems (i) to ~v)
are complied with, in addition to the
requirements of Minnesota Regulations, Chapter
1340.
(d)
Steep Slopes. The Zoning Administrator must
evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and
development visibility from public waters before
issuing a permit for construction of roads,
driveways, structures, or other improvements on
steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions
must be attached to issued permits to prevent
erosion and to preserve existing vegetation
screening of structures, vehicles, and other
facilities as viewed from the surface of public
waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation.
Shoreland Alterations. Alterations of vegetation and
topography will be regulated to prevent erosion ~nto
public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland
aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank
slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat.
(a) Vegetation Alteration. Removal or alteration of
vegetation is allowed subject to the following
st andards:
(i) Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore
and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is
not allowed.
11
(b)
(c)
(d)
(~i)
In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep
slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs
and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is
allowed to provide a view to the water from
the principal dwelling site and to accommodate
the placement of stairways and landings,
picnic areas, access paths, beach and
watercraft access areas, and permitted water-
oriented accessory structures or facilities
provided that:
The screening of structures, vehicles, or
other facilities as viewed from the
water, assuming summer, leaf-on
conditions, is not substantially reduced.
Along rivers, existing shading of water
surfaces is preserved.
The above provisions are not applicable
to the removal of trees, limbs, or
branches that are dead, diseased, or pose
safety hazards.
Construction Permit. Grading and filling and
excavations necessary for the construction of
structures and driveways under validly issued
construction permits for these facilities do not
require the issuance of a separate shoreland
grading and filling permit.
Shoreland Grading/Filling Permit. Notwithstanding
(b) above, a shoreland grading and filling permit
will be required for:
(i)
(ii)
The movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards
of material on steep slopes or within shore or
bluff impact zones; and
The movement of more than fifty (50) cubic
yards of material outside of steep slopes and
shore and bluff impact zones.
Conditions. The following considerations and
conditions must be adhered to during the issuance
of construction permits, shoretand grading and
filling permits, conditional use permits, variances
and subdivision approvals:
12
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Grading or filling in any type 2-8 wetland
must be evaluated to determine how extensively
the proposed activity would affect the
following functional qualities of the wetland
(This evaluation shall also include a
determination of whether the wetland
alteration being proposed requires permits,
reviews, or approvals by other local, state,
or federal agencies such as a watershed
district, the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, or the United States Army Corps of
Engineers):
I. Sediment and pollutant trapping and
retention.
Storage of surface runoff to prevent or
reduce flood damage.
Fish and wildlife habitat.
Recreational use.
5. Shoreline or bank stabilization.
Noteworthiness, including special
qualities such as historic significance,
critical habitat for endangered plants
and animals, or others.
Alterations must be designed and conducted in
a manner that ensures only the smallest amount
of bare ground is exposed for the shortest
time possible.
Mulches or similar materials must be used,
where necessary, for temporary bare so~l
coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover
must be established as soon as possible,
Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap
sediments befOre they reach any surface water
feature must be used.
Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable
erosion control standards consistent with the
field office technical guides of the local
soil and water conservation districts and the
United States Soil Conservation Service.
13
(~)
(vi)
(vii)
Fill or excavated material must not be placed
in a manner that creates an unstable slope.
Plans to place fill or excavated material on
steed slopes .must be reviewed by qualified
professionals for continued slope stabi t
and must not create finished slopes of thirty
(30) percent or greater.
(viii)
Fill or excavated material must not be placed
in bluff impact zones.
(ix)
Any alterations below the ordinary high water
level of public waters must first be
authorized by the commissioner under Minn.
Stat. §103G.245.
(x)
Alterations of topography must only be allowed
if they are accessory to permitted :.or
conditional uses and do not adversely affect
adjacent or nearby properties.
(xi)
Placement of natural rock riprap, including
associated grading of the shoreline and
placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if
the finished slope does not exceed three (3)
feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical, the
landward extent of the riprap is within ten
(10) feet of the ordinary high water level,
and the height of the riprap above the
ordinary high water level does not exceed
three (3) feet.
(e)
Connections to public waters. Excavations where the
intended purpose is connection to a public water,
such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors,
must be controlled by local shoreland controls.
Permission for excavations may be given only after
the commissioner has approved the proposed
connection to public waters.
Stormwater Management. The following general and specific
standards shall apply:
(a) General Standards.
(i) When possible, existing natural drainageways,
wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be
(b)
(iii)
Speci
(i)
used to convey, store, filter, and retain
stormwater runoff before discharge to public
waters.
Development must be planned and conducted in a
manner that wilt minimize the extent of
disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion
potential, and reduce and delay runoff
velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and
delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be
stabilized and protected as soon as possible
and facilities or methods used to retain
sediment on the site.
When development density, topographic
features, and soil and vegetation conditions
are not sufficient to adequately handle
stormwater runoff using natural features and
vegetation, various types of constructed
facilities such as diversions, settling
basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways,
and ponds may be used. Preference must be
given to designs using surface drainage,
vegetation, and infiltration rather than
buried pipes and man-made materials and
facilities·
fic Standards.
Impervious surface lot coverage shall not
exceed thirty five (35) percent of the lot
area, except as a conditional use, which shall
comply with the following standards:
All structures, additions or expansions
shall meet setback and other requirements
of this Code.
The lot shall be served with municipal
sewer and water·
The lot shall provide for the collection
and treatment of storm water in
compliance with the City Surface Water
Management Plan if determined that the
site improvements will result in
increased runoff directly entering a
public water, All development plans
shall require review and approval by the
City Engineer and the underlying
Watershed District.
15
Measures to be taken from the treatment
of storm water runoff and/or prevention
of storm water from directly entering a
public water. The measures may include,
but not be limited to the following:
Appurtenances as sedimentation
bas~ns debris basins, desilting
basins or silt traps.
Installation of debris guards and
microsilt basins on storm sewer
inlets.
Use where practical, oil skimming
devices or sump catch basins.
Direct drainage away from the lake
and into pervious, grassed, yards
through site grading, use of gutters
and down spouts, ~
E o
Construction sidewalks and driveways
of partially pervious raised
materials such as decking which has
natural earth or other previous
material beneath or between the
planking.
Use grading and construction
techniques which encourage rapid
infiltration, e.g., sand and gravel
under impervious materials with
adjacent infiltration swales graded
to lead into them.
Install berms, water bars, or
terraces which temporarily detain
water before dispersing it into
pervious area.
(ii) When constructed facilities are used for
stormwater management, documentation must be
provided by a qualified individual that they
are designed and installed consistent with the
field office technical guide of the local soil
and water conservation districts.
16
New constructed stormwater outfall to public
waters must provide for filtering or settling
of suspended solids and skimming or surface
debris before discharge.
4.~57
Nonconformities. All legally established nonconformities
as of the date of this section may continue, but they
will be managed according to Section 4.031 of this Code
for the subjects of alterations and additions, repair
after damage, discontinuance of use, and intensification
of use; except that the following standards will also
apply in shoreland areas:
(~)
Deck additions may be allowed without a variance to
a structure not meeting the required setback from
the ordinary high water level if all of the
following criteria and standards are met:
(a)
The structure existed on the date the
structure setbacks were established.
(b)
A thorough evaluation of the property and
structure reveals no reasonable location for a
deck meeting or exceeding the existing
ordinary high water level setback of the
st ructure.
(c)
The deck encroachment toward the ordinary high
water level maintain a minimum setback to less
than twenty-five (25) feet.
(d)
The deck is constructed primarily of wood, and
is not roofed or screened.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective
upon Its passage and publication.
Dated the day of , 1997,
At t est:
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
W. Peter Enck, Mayor
Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the
, 1997.)
day of
17
STHVEN A SONDRALL
MICHAEL R. L~FLEUR
MARTIN P MALI:(~HA
WILLIAM C STRAIT~
CORR[CK & SONDRALL, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT L^w
Edinburgh Executive OtTme Plaza
$525 Edinbrook Crossing
Suite #203
Brooklyn Park. Minnesota 55443
TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671
FAX (612) 425-5867
March 13, 1997
Kirk McDonald
Management Asst.
City of New Hope
4401 Xy]on Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:
Shoreland'Permit Overlay District Ordinance
Our File No: 99.49715
Dear Kirk:
Please find enclosed for consideration at the March 19, 1997 Codes
and Standards meeting a final version of the proposed Ordinance
Establishing a Shoreland Permit Overlay District in the City.
Basically, I have not changed any substantive provision of this
Ordinance from the one previously prepared by the City Planner,
The changes from the City Planner draft are as follows:
I removed the modification to the definition of "setback"
from Section 1 of the Ordinance to Section 2 of the
Ordinance. This was done because all of the definitions
in Section 1 are new, as opposed to the definition of
setback which is not new but simply being amended to
incorporate language dealing with shoreland regulations.
Several numbering changes were made. The definition of
public waters is now (112A) and the definition of steep
slope is (125F).
3. All references to ordinance have been changed to code.
Relating to Section 4.162(3) and (4) I removed the
reference to North branch of Bassett Creek from (3) to
the reference "Bassett Creek - North Branch" in (4).
After speaking with Mayor Enck, this more accurately
reflects the description of the tributary stream entering
into Northwood Lake.
Kirk McDonald
March 13, 1997
Page 2
In Section 4.166(3)(d)(i) I moved the footnote dealing
with additional evaluation by the various departments to
the end of paragraph (i). The footnote seemed out of
place. I think it's current location is more appropriate
for a better understanding of the provision.
In numerous sections, a statutory reference to Mi~n.
Stat, Chap. 105 was made. This chapter has been repea~ed
and reptaced by Minn, Stat. Chap, 103G. As a result, all
references made to Chap. 105 have been changed to the
correct reference in Minn. Stat. Chap. 103G.
With the exception of the foregoing changes, the enclosed Ordinance
is nearly identical to the Ordinance previously prepared by the
City Planner.
Also, we did prepare and mail the public hearing notice to the
paper for a public hearing at the April 1, 1997 Planning Commission
meeting. Said notice will be published in the March 19, 1997
edition of the Sun-Post. If you have any questions about the
enclosed Ordinance or public hearing notice, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrall
slt2
Enclosure
CC:
A1 Brixius, City Planner
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
March 14, 1997
Mr. Cary Teasue
Not0n~at A~aoci~ Coasultmla, Lie.
5775 W&rma Boulevard, Suixe 555
St. Loui~ Park, I~N $S416
CITY OF NEW HOPF~ SHORELAND ORD~fANCE
Dear Mr. Teasue:
I have reviewed the maZe.-iah received fi'om you and Aim Brixim on lanue'y 28, 1997. In th~
covet memo for the mam'ia~ mayoe uked £or my ~ommema on the ~merai a~,eptabifity of the
I have ~o lxoblem ~ the flexibility requem for District Boundaries, Allowed Uses, and Lot
~rea and W'm~h Smxlard~ The justflkation gi~ea for theae requem ere ~le.
The ca~e for flexibility Mem~ to be · Steel deal weaker ~or Structure Setb~ and pan of
Structure ~
Aa for muctute heisbl~ I do not object to thc reuomble tequ~ ~ 2½ stot~ for dwelling
units. I do aot qtee bo~ver, th~ · 1 $ foot heist ~ould be allowed iht w~te~ ofiemed
~ ~uctutM. It i~ my opinion ~ · ~ ~ mariani ~id be held to for lake
shore~ The &r'gum~t tim the hcisht of'wirer oriemed accenof7 muctures shotdd be 15'
because tht is wire has bern historically ~llowed in the City is nm pe~uivt
Mp~-I?-i~B~J7 8'?: 3~ NRC 612 5~5 ~ P. ~
Cary Teq~e letter
tv[arch 14, 199/
Pag~ 2
t hope these commenu bdp h your process. It is clur to me that the Cit7 W 8eminely concerned
about protectins md ~ improvinf the water qmlit7 and the shordafld olios public waters.
The oppo~ to ~nmaX is appreciated. Ple~e feel f~e to call i~you htye thy quesdo~ o~
Tom Hovey ~
c: Ed Pick
TOTAL P. 0~
N
COMMUNITY PI-ANNINO ' Ol~.~lON - 1,4ARKI~'I' R~'SE:ARCH
MEMORANDUM- Via Fax Transmission
TO: Kirk MoOonald
FROM:
Cary Teague/Alan Brixius
DATE: 12 March 1997
RE:
City of New Hope - Shoreland Ordinance
FILE NO.'
131.00- 96.13
Per a phone conversation with Tom Hovey on 10 March 1997, Mr. Hovey stated that the
City's proposed Shoreland Ordinance is generally acceptable. Mr. Hovey did however,
cite t~ concerns. First, the City's ~ acceasoty structure height of fifteen (15) feet
exceeds the DNR Model Ordinance requirement of ten (10) feel Secondly, the Model
Ordinance requires a filty (50) foot stnx:ttxe setback to ordinary high water elevations, and
New Hope is requesting e forty (40) foot satDeck. The DNR has not yet determined the
ordinary high water elevations of the City's water bodies. It is likely that these elevations
will De establi~ by the end of Apdl. Mr. Hovey stated that he would put his comments
in writing and fax them to our office by Thumclay, March 13. We will then fax the
comments to you as soon as possible.
.-.-5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, -e. UITE 555 ST, LOUIS PARK, NIINNESOTA ,.~54 I 6
PHONE 6 I 2-5~5-~030 FAX ~ I 2-595-9837
TOTI:L P.01
CO N S U LTAN TS
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED
COMMUNITY PLANNING DESIGN
MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Cary Teague / Alan Brixius
10 January 1997
New Hope - Shoreland Ordinance
131.00 - 96.13
INTRODUCTION
As part of the City's update of its Surface Water Management Plan, New Hope is required
to adopt a Shoreland Ordinance to carry out the intent of the Minnesota Department of
Resources' State-Wide Standards for "Management of Shoreland Areas". The purpose
of the State-wide standards is to preserve the quality and user enjoyment of all lakes. The
City of New Hope agrees with the intent of the shoreland regulations, however, due to the
fact that the land surrounding the City's water bodies is fully developed (see attached
zoning map), the City is unable to meet all of the regulations of the DNR Model Ordinance.
The water bodies within the City of New Hope are classified as General Development
Lakes and, as demonstrated on the exhibits attached to this document, many of the
existing lots and structures do not meet the minimum lot area, structure height, impervious
surface, and structure setback requirements. Recognizing the existing conditions
surrounding the City's water bodies, the DNR should also be aware that New Hope is very
pro-active in encouraging reinvestment and maintenance in the City's housing stock and
commercial properties, and is therefore, not willing to adopt an ordinance to make property
improvement more difficult, therefore, flexibility to the Model Ordinance is being requested
in the following areas:
District Boundaries.
Allowed Uses.
Lot Area and Width Standards.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 I ~
PHONE 6 I 2-595-9636 FAX 6 I 2-595-9837
Structure Setbacks.
Structure Height (principal and accessory).
Impervious Surface.
The City's request for flexibility is based on the following background technical data. This
information is presented to demonstrate the need for flexibility in specific areas of the
Model Ordinance. The request will also illustrate how New Hope proposes to address
each flexibility item through its Zoning Ordinance.
CURRENT REGULATIONS
Due to the fact that all of the land which surrounds the City's water bodies is fully
developed, the City of New Hope has not yet adopted shoreland regulations per the
requirement of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Therefore, the regulation
of the shoreland area is governed by regulations of the underlying zoning districts.
BASIS FOR FLEXIBILITY REQUESTS
The State Model Ordinance establishes base shoreland development standards intended
to be imposed on a state wide basis. These regulations give no attention to the unique
development constraints of the individual cities within the state. Recognizing that it is
impractical to have a single shoreland ordinance applicable to all Minnesota communities,
the state allows cities to pursue flexibility from the State Model Ordinance to address
unique conditions.
While the City of New Hope has adopted State wetland and floodplain regulations, no
shoreland specific regulations have been adopted. In conjunction with the City's Surface
Water Management Plan, an amendment to the New Hope Zoning Ordinance is now being
proposed which would establish shoreland regulations within the City.
Considering that New Hope is a fully developed community and that no shoreland related
standards existed at the time of development, adoption of the State Model Ordinance
would have the result of establishing widespread non-conformities and create performance
standards which cannot realistically be attained.
Recognizing this condition, the City requests flexibility from the following standards
contained in the State Model Shoreland Ordinance:
2
1. District Boundaries
All land within the City of New Hope that is located within what is defined as "shoreland"
by the Model Ordinance (1,000 feet from the ordinary level of a lake and 300 feet from a
river or stream) is currently developed. Additionally, the vast majority of these lots do not
conform to the minimum standards of the Model Ordinance in terms of lot area, lot width,
setbacks and impervious surface. As stated earlier, the City of New Hope does not wish
to adopt an Ordinance that would render the existing properties as nonconforming,
complicating any expansion, renovation or reinvestment efforts for these properties.
Therefore the City of New Hope is proposing to limit the shoreland regulations to the land
that consists of the first tier of riparian lots abutting a protected lake or tributary as
identified within the proposed Ordinance. The specific boundaries of what is proposed to
be defined as the "Shoreland Permit Overlay District" are shown on the New Hope Zoning
Map enclosed (Exhibit A).
2. Allowed Uses
Rather than repeat the uses allowed within each of the City's zoning districts, the proposed
New Hope Shoreland Ordinance simply refers to the allowed uses within the existing'
underlying zoning districts. The City does not wish to establish uses within the Shoreland
Permit Overlay District that differ from that which is allowed within the underlying zoning
district.
As demonstrated on the attached zoning district map, the vast majority of the "Shoreland
Permit Overlay District" is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential. Only four lots hold a
different zoning classification, all are located on Northwood Lake (north branch of Bassett
Creek: The other zoning districts include: R-4, High Density Residential; B-l, Limited
Neighborhood Business and B-3; Auto Oriented Business.
3. Lot Area and Width Standards
Currently, all land within the proposed Shoreland Permit Overlay District is developed.
The majority of such development is in the form of Iow density residential development
upon +/- 9,500 square foot lots. A small amount of multiple family and commercial uses
do however, exist in the southeastern portion of Northwood Lake. So as not to create
significant numbers of non-conforming lots, it is requested that the DNR minimum area
standards of 15,000 square feet for riparian lots and 10,000 square feet for non riparian
lots be reduced to 9,500 square feet as currently established by the City's base zoning
designations.
4. Structure Setbacks
The State Model Ordinance requires a minimum structure setback of 50 feet from the
ordinary high water (OHW) level of lakes and tributaries. Under the current City Code
regulations, these setbacks would be considered a rear yard, and a minimum of 35 is
required.
As shown on the attached exhibits, there are numerous structures that do not meet the
Model Ordinance requirement of 50 feet, therefore, the City is proposing a minimum
setback of 40 feet. This will increase the required setback from the OHW, and protect the
lake shore views, and it will also allow some additions to be built on existing homes.
Further, the 40 foot setback will allow the reconstruction of a "reasonably" sized home on
an under sized lot which has been damaged, burned or torn down. This is a concern of
lots located on the south side of Meadow Lake and on the north side of Northwood Lake.
5. Structure Height
Within the State Model Ordinance a maximum height of 25 feet is established for
residential districts. The New Hope zoning ordinance currently establishes a maximum'
height requirement of 2-1/2 stories for single family homes and four stories for multiple
family dwellings. Recognizing that adoption of the State Model. Ordinance standards
would have the result of creating widespread non-conformities, the City is requesting
flexibility from the state's height requirement for residential structures.
The State Model Ordinance also establishes a maximum height requirement for water
oriented accessory structures of 10 feet. Such height standard is not consistent with the
maximum 15 foot height requirement historically imposed by the City of New Hope. As a
result, the City requests that a maximum 15 foot height requirement be applied to water-
oriented accessory structures.
6. Impervious Surface Coverage
The State Model Ordinance states that impervious surface coverage of lots must not
exceed 25 percent of the lot area. It is the opinion of the City that such 25 percent
threshold cannot realistically be attained, as such requirement would render approximately
30-40 percent of all lots within the Shoreland Overlay District as non-conforming (attached
exhibits). Recognizing that all lands within the shoreland district are fully developed, the
City is requesting that a maximum impervious surface coverage requirement of 35 percent
be established. Such requirement would allow approximately 90-95 percent of the lots
within the Shoreland Overlay District to satisfy the impervious surface requirements.
7. Bluffs
The proposed shoreland regulations include provisions addressing the development of
bluffs. A closer examination of the steep slope areas along the northern boundary of
Northwood Park reveals that this area files to meet the criteria identified in definition of
bluff. The slopes in these areas have an average percent of slope less than 30 percent.
Under these circumstances, the bluff regulations may be removed from the ordinance.
CONCLUSION
The City of New Hope strongly agrees with the purpose and intent of the State Model
Shoreland Ordinance and is willing to incorporate the vast majority of such regulations into
its local ordinance for the purpose of protecting and preserving its shoretand areas.
Recognizing however, that New Hope is a fully developed community and the negative
legal repercussions associated with the creation of widespread non-conformities, the City
is requesting flexibility from the lot area, structure height and impervious surface coverage
requirements of the State Model Ordinance.
We believe that the City's physical characteristics and fully development nature represent
a unique condition which make full conformance with the DNR Model Ordinance
requirements unrealistic. This is not to say however, that the City does not recognize the
value of its water resources and the need for their protection and preservation. In this
regard, it is believed the City's Water Management Plan coupled with the City's Floodplain,
Wetland and pending Shoreland Ordinance, demonstrates the City's commitment to the
continued protection and preservation of is valued water resources.
DRAFT- DRAFT- DRAFT
CITY OF NEW HOPE
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 402
DEFINITIONS AND ESTABLISHING SECTION 4.16 SHORELAND PERMIT DISTRICT
(SP)
THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 402 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to
add the following language:
4.022 Definitions.
(9D)
(9E)
(12A)
(23A)
Bluff. A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having th(~
following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than
eighteen (18) percent over a distance for fifty (50) feet or more shall not be
considered part of the bluff):
a. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area;
The slope rises at least twenty-five (25) feet above the
ordinary high water level of the waterbody;
The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point
twenty-five (25) feet or more above the ordinary high water
level averages thirty (30) percent or greater; and
d. The slope must drain toward the waterbody.
Bluff Impact Zone. A bluff and land located within twenty (20) feet from the
top of a bluff.
Building Line. A line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at
the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend.
Commercial Use. "Commercial" refers to the use classification defined as
B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 under provisions of the New Hope City Code Chapter
4.
(24C)
(33A)
(71A)
(74B)
(74C)
(103A)
(112B)
(122B)
(122C)
Commissioner. Within Section 4.16 "Commissioner" shall be defined as:
The commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources.
Deck. A horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings,
seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a
principal use or site and at any point extending more than three (3) feet
above ground.
Hardship. A situation where property in question cannot be put to a
reasonable use under the conditions allowed by the official controls; the
plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his or her 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 a hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the official controls.
Industrial Use. The use of land or buildings for the production, manufacture,
warehousing, storage, or transfer of goods, products, commodities, or other
wholesale items. '-
Intensive Vegetation Clearing. The complete removal of trees or shrubs in
a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block.
Ordinary High Water Level. The boundary of public waters and wetlands,
and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been
maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the
landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from
predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the
ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the
channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the
operating elevation of the normal summer pool.
Public Waters. Any waters as defined in Minnesota Statues, section 105.37,
subdivisions 14 and 15.
Semipublic Use. The use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to
provide a public service that is ordinarily open to some persons outside the
regular constituency of the organization.
Sensitive Resource Management. The preservation and management of
areas unsuitable for development in their natural state due to constraints
such as shallow soils over groundwater or bedrock, highly erosive or
expansive soils, steep slopes, susceptibility to flooding, or occurrence of
2
flora or fauna in need of special protection.
(123)
Setback. The minimum horizontal distance between a building,street, lot
line, shoreline or bluff. The setback distance is measured at ground level
from the lot line, lake ordinary high water level, top of a bluff, or street right-
of-way or to a point on the ground directly under the most outwardly
extended portion of the side of the structure nearest the lot line, ordinary
high water level, top of bluff or street right-of-way.
(124B)
Shore Impact Zone. Land located between the ordinary high water level of
a public water and a tine parallel to it at a setback of fifty (50) percent of the
structure setback.
125D)
Steep Slope. Land where agricultural activity or development is either not
recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the
site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil
surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and
construction techniques and reports, unless appropriate design and
construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance witlt
the provisions of this ordinance. Where specific information is not available,
steep slopes are lands having average slopes over twelve (12) percent, as
measured over horizontal distances of fifty (50) feet or more, that are not
bluffs.
128C) Toe of the Bluff. The lower point of a 50-foot segment with an average slope
exceeding eighteen (18) percent.
128D) Top of the Bluff. The higher point of a 50-foot segment with an average
slope exceeding eighteen (18) percent.
(132A)
Water-Oriented Accessory Structure or Facility. A small, above ground
building or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and
retaining walls, which because of the relationship of its use to a surface
water feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than
the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities
include gazebos, screen houses, pump houses, and detached decks.
3
Section 2. Section 4.16 is hereby established to add the following regulations:
4.16 SHORELAND PERMIT OVERLAY DISTRICT (SP)
4.161 Policy and Application
(1)
Policy. The uncontrolled use of shorelands of the City of New Hope affects
the public health, safety and general welfare not only by contributing to
pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base.
Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare
to provide for the wise use and development of shorelands of public waters.
(2)
Statutory Authorization. This shoreland ordinance is adopted pursuant to
the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105,
Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500- 6120.3900, and the planning and
zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462.
(3)
Jurisdiction. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to the shorelands
of the public water bodies as classified in Section 4.167 of this Ordinance.'
A body of water created by a private user where there was no previous
shoreland may, at the discretion of the governing body, be exempt from this
ordinance.
(4)
Compliance. The use of any shoreland of public waters; the size and shape
of lots; the use, size, type and location of structures on lots; the grading and
filling of any shoreland area; and the cutting of shoreland vegetation shall
be in full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable
regulations.
(5)
District Application. The 'SP" Shoreland Permit Overlay District shall be
superimposed (overlaid) upon all the zoning districts as identified in Section
4.041 of this Ordinance as existing or amended by the text and map of this
ordinance. The regulations and requirements imposed by the 'SP"
Shoreland Permit Overlay District shall be in addition to those established
by the base zoning district which jointly apply. Under joint application of the
districts, the more restrictive requirements shall apply.
(6)
District Boundaries. The boundaries of the 'SP", Shoreland Permit Overlay
District within the City of New Hope consists of the first tier of riparian lots
abutting a protected lake or tributary identified in Section 4.162 of this
Ordinance. The specific boundaries of the "SP", Shoreland Permit Overlay
District is shown on the New Hope Zoning Map.
4
4.162 Shoreland Classification System
(1)
Public Waters. The public waters of New Hope have been classified
below consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations,
Part 6120.3300, and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for
Hennepin County, Minnesota:
(2)
Official Map. The Shoreland Permit District for the waterbodies listed
below shall be shown on the New Hope Zoning Map.
(3)
Lakes.
General Development Lakes
Northwood Lake
(North branch of
Bassett Creek)
Meadow Lake
Protected Waters
Inventory I.D. #
27-627P
27- 57P
(4)
Rivers and Streams.
Tributary_ Streams.
Bass Creek
4.163 Administration
Shoreland Permit Required. A permit is required for the construction
of buildings or building additions (and including such related activities
as construction of decks and signs), and those grading and filling
activities not exempted by this Ordinance that occur within the
Shoreland Permit District. Application for a permit shall be filed with
the Zoning Administrator or any staff persons designated by the City
Manager on an official application form of the City, accompanied by
a fee as outlined in Chapter 14. The application shall include the
necessary information so that the Zoning Administrator can determine
the site's suitability for the intended use.
(2)
Certificate of Zoninq Compliance. The Zoning Administrator shall
issue a certificate of zoning compliance for each activity requiring a
permit as specified in this ordinance. Any use, arrangement, or
construction at variance with that authorized by permit shall be
deemed a violation of this ordinance and shall be punishable as
provided in this ordinance.
5
(3)
Variance. Variances may only be granted in accordance with Section
4.22 of the Zoning Ordinance. A variance may not circumvent the
general purposes and intent of this ordinance. No variance may be
granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning
district in which the subject property is located.
The Planning Commission and City Council shall hear and decide
requests for variances in accordance with the rules that it has
adopted for the conduct of business. When a variance is approved
after the Department of Natural Resources has formally
recommended denial in the hearing record, the notification of the
approved variance required in subsection (5) below shall also include
the Planning Commission and City Council's summary of the public
record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions which
supported the issuance of the variance.
(4)
Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permits may only be
granted in accordance with Section 4.21 of the Zoning Ordinance. A
conditionally permitted use may not circumvent the general purposes:
and intent of this ordinance. The following additional evaluation
criteria and conditions apply within shoreland areas:
(a)
The prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of
public waters, both during and after construction.
(b)
The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from
public waters is limited.
(c)
The types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project will
generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public
waters to safely accommodate these watercraft.
(5) Notifications to the Department of Natural Resources.
(a)
Public Hearings. Copies of all notices of any public hearings
to consider variances, amendments, or conditional uses under
local shoreland management controls must be sent to the
commissioner or the commissioner's designated
representative and postmarked at least ten days before the
hearings. Notices of hearings to consider proposed
subdivisions/plats must include copies of the subdivision/plat.
6
(b)
Approval. A copy of approved amendments and
subdivisions/plats, and final decisions granting variances or
conditional uses under local shoreland management controls
must be sent to the commissioner of the commissioner's
designated representative and postmarked within ten days of
final action.
4.164 Land Use District Descriptions.
(1)
Allowed Uses. Allowed land uses within the Shoreland District shall
be determined by the underlying zoning district, as listed within
Sections 4.05 through 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4.165 Lot Area and Width Standards. Lot area and width standards for residential
development shall be regulated per the underlying zoning district. Said
minimum requirements are as follows:
(1) Residential:
Area
Per Unit Width
Single 9,500 s.f. 75 feet
DUplex 7,000 s.f. 75 feet
Townhouse 5,000 s.f. 80 feet
Multiple Family 3,000 s.f.* 100 feet
ElderlY Housing
and/or Physically
Handicapped 1,000 s.f. 100 feet
4,000 square feet in an R-3 District
(2) Commercial and Industrial:
Limited Business
Neighborhood Bus.
Residential Office
Retail Business
Limited Industrial
General Industrial
Area
Per Unit
10,000 s.f.
10,500 s.f.
15,000 s.f.
43,560 s.f.
43,560 s.f.
43,560 s.f.
Width
80 feet
80 feet
100 feet
100 feet
150 feet
100 feet
4.166 Placement, Design, and Height of Structures.
Placement of Structures on Lots. When more than one setback
applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all
setbacks. Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides
of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without
a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high
water level, provided the proposed building site is not located in a
shore impact zone or in a bluff impact zone. Structures shall be
located as follows:
(a)
Required ~;etbacks. All required rear yard, side yard and front
yard setbacks shall be met per the underlying zoning district.
(b)
Ordinary High Water Level Setback. Structure Setbacks (in
feet) from the Ordinary High Water Level.
Classes of
Public Waters
Structure Setbacks
General Development
Tributary
40 feet
40 feet
(c)
Required Bluff Setback. The following setback shall be
applied, regardless of the classification of the waterbody:
Structure Setback
Top of Bluff 30 feet
(d)
Bluff Impact Zones. Structures and accessory facilities,
except stairways and landings, must not be Placed within bluff
impact zones.
(e)
Height of Structures. Required height for all structures shall
be as follows:
District Building Height
R-1 2-1/2 stories
R-2 2-1/2 stories
R-3 3 stories
R-4 4 stories
R-5 4 stories
(2)
District
R-O
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
I-1
I-2
Building Height
3 stones
2 stories
3 stones
3 stories
3 stories
3 stories
3 stories
Design Criteria for Structures.
(a)
High Water Elevations. Structures must be placed in
accordance with any floodplain regulations applicable to the
site. Where these controls do not exist, structures must be
placed at least three (3) feet above the highest known water
level, or two (2) feet above the ordinary high water level,
whichever is higher.
(b)
Water-oriented Accessory Structures. Each lot may have one
water-oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal
structure setback in subsection (1) above if this water-oriented
accessory structure complies with the following provisions:
(i)
Each lot shall be limited to one (1) accessory building
in addition to an accessory garage.
(ii)
The structure or facility must not exceed fifteen (15) feet
in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy
an area greater than two hundred fifty (250) square
feet. Detached decks must not exceed eight (8) feet
above grade at any point.
The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary
high water level must be at least ten (10) feet.
(iv)
The structure or facility must be treated to reduce
visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent
shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased
setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on
conditions.
(v)
The roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but
must not be enclosed or used as a storage area.
9
(vi)
The structure or facility must not be designed or used
for human habitation and must not contain water supply
or sewage treatment facilities.
(vii)
As an alternative for general development and
recreational development waterbodies, water-oriented
accessory structures used solely for watercraft storage,
and including storage of related boating and water-
oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area up to
four hundred (400) square feet provided the maximum
width of the structure is twenty (20) feet as measured
parallel to the configuration of the shoreline.
Stairways. Lifts. and Landings. Stairways and lifts are the
preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for
achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to the
Shoreland Permit District areas. Stairways and lifts must meet
the following design requirements:
(i)
Stairways and lifts must not exceed four (4) feet in width
on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for
commercial properties, public open-space recreational
properties, and planned unit developments.
(ii)
Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots must
not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area.
Landings larger than thirty-two (32) square feet may be
used for commercial properties, public open-space
recreational properties, and planned unit developments.
Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or
landings.
(iv)
Stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed
above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the
ground, provided they are designed and built in a
manner that ensures control of soil erosion.
(v)
Stairways, lifts, and landings must be located in the
most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed
from the surface of the public water assuming summer,
leaf-on conditions, whenever practical.
10
39'
35' 30'
40'
50",
50'
30'
!"!1
X
NORTHWOOD LAKE
SETBACKS
3O%
36%,*
'43% 35%
31%
NORTHWOOD LAKE:-'"
o m
0 x
./
m ~
0
,j
-":BASS CREEEK '''~ °
i
/
,'
· ! \
./ [
....... D ,....~ , "-. """-.,
;
::::~___:.-.:- -- - .... · .... ~' .../
.... "EXHIBIT D 1
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND SETBACKS
f" : [
31% 26% 29%r X
o IMPERVIOUS SURFACE'
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED
CO N S U LTANT$
MARKET RI'SE:ARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM:
Cary Teague/Alan Brixius
DATE:
30 December 1996
RE:
New Hope - Shoreland Ordinance
FILE NO:
131.00 - 96.13
In conjunction with the City's Surface Water Management Plan, the City is required to
adopt Shoreland Regulations per the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
requirement. Currently, the City of New Hope does not contain specific shoreland:
regulations, therefore, our office has prepared a "draft" ordinance amendment to establish
a Shoreland Permit District and regulations (attached).
We are recommending that this new section be inserted into the Zoning Ordinance as
Section 4.16, following the Zoning District regulations. Section 4.16 of the New Hope
Zoning Ordinance has been set aside for future use, as it is currently defined as "Blank".
The Shoreland Ordinance will precede the Sections 4.17 (Flood Plain regulations) and
4.18 (Wetland regulations), therefore, inserting the Shoreland Ordinance as Section 4.16,
makes sense sequentially.
The lands surrounding the water bodies within the City of New Hope are fully developed.
In general, these lots and structures do not meet the minimum requirements of the Model
Shoreland Ordinance, in terms of lot size, lot width, structure height and impervious
surface. Therefore, because the City does not wish to create non-conforming lots, uses
or structures, flexibility to the Model Ordinance is being requested.
The following provides a summary of the "draft" ordinance. Please note that this is only
a draft, and is subject to any revisions found to be necessary by staff, the Planning
Commission or the City Council:
Section 4.02 Rules and Definitions
Definitions have been added which are not within the City's existing zoning ordinance, and
must be defined as they are used throughout the Shoreland Ordinance. These definitions
shall be inserted within the existing definitions section of the Zoning Ordinance (Section
4.02), and not within the Shoreland Ordinance. The additional words to be defined are
as follows:
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55,~, I 6
PHONE 61~-595-9636 FAX 61~-595-9837
Bluff
Commercial Use
Industrial Use
Ordinary High Water Level
Sensitive Resource Management
Shoreland District
Top of the Bluff
Bluff Impact Zone
Commissioner
Intensive Vegetation Cleadng
Semipublic Use
Setback
Steep Slope
Water-Oriented Accessory
Structure or Facility
Building Line
Hardship
Deck
Shore Impact Zone
Toe of the Bluff
4.16 Shoreland Permit Overlay District
The title of the Zoning District has been changed to be reflective of the land area where
the regulations are to be enforced. Section 4.161 (5) describes the district as an overlay
zoning district to be superimposed on the underlying base zoning district. Section 4.161
(6) defines the boundaries of the Shoreland Permit Overlay District as being the first tier
of riparian lots abutting the protected lake and tributary.
Section 4.161 Policy and Application
This section includes language regarding the Shoreland District policy, statuton)
authorization, jurisdiction, compliance district application and district boundaries.
Section 4.162 Shoreland Classification
Northwood Lake and Meadow Lake have been classified by the DNR as General
Development Lakes. Additionally, Bass Creek and Bassett Creek have been classified as
Tributary Streams.
After the last staff discussion, Bass Creek has been included as a protected shoreland.
Analysis of the Bass Creek Tributary illustrates a number of homes having setbacks less
than 50 feet from Bass Creek. This should be discussed again at the next staff meeting.
Section 4.163 Administration
An administrative section is established for the purpose of requiring a shoreland permit for
construction of buildings (including decks and signs) or additions. Each permit is to be
reviewed by the Zoning Administrator to ensure compliance with the code. If compliance
is not met, a variance may be requested, therefore, the City's Variance Procedure is
referenced within this section.
All requests for variances, subdivisions, conditional use permits, and amendments under
the local shoreland controls must be sent to the DNR for review and approval.
2
Section 4.164 Land Use Descriptions
This Section simply references the allowed uses within the Shoreland District as
determined by the underlying zoning district.
Section 4.165 Lot Area and Width Standards
This section reiterates the City's minimum required lot size and width requirements for
single family, duplex, townhome, multiple family, and elderly/handicapped housing as well
as commercial and industrial uses. This is an area in which flexibility is being requested
for minimum lot area and lot width.
Section 4.166 Placement, Design, and Height of Structures
This section provides specific regulations for the following:
Structure setbacks are regulated by the underlying ZOning district. On riparian lots,
the principal building is required to maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary
high water level of general development lakes (per State Ordinance). DNR has no[
established OHWL for the New Hope Lakes. As such, the City cannot be certain
as to the impact of a 50 foot setback requirement may have on existing homes. A
rough analysis using available topography suggests that the majority of homes will
comply. Final recommendations on the setback standard should be delayed
pending DNR findings on OHWL of the lakes.
Height regulations are included per the underlying zoning district. The New Hope
Zoning Ordinance allows heights between 2 % stories for single family homes and
4 stories for multiple family dwellings. Therefore, flexibility is requested here, as the
Model Ordinance requires that the minimum height for buildings shall be twenty-five
(25) feet.
Each lot within the Shoreland District is allowed one water-oriented accessory
structure subject to compliance with specific conditions, such as limit on number of
accessory buildings, setbacks, size, and visibility. Additionally, the structure may
not be livable.
Flexibility is being requested for the height of water-oriented accessory structures.
The Model Ordinance requires a maximum height of ten (10) feet. The New Hope
City Code allows for heights of fifteen (15) feet for accessory structures. Therefore,
a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet is proposed.
Detailed provisions are stated for construction of stairways, lifts and landings for
achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas.
3
Specific regulations are proposed for the regulation of all shoreland alterations,
including vegetative alteration and grading and filling. This type of work is covered
either by a building permit for construction, or by a shoreland permit. In either
instance, specific conditions must be satisfied prior to commencement of any work.
· Specific regulations have been added regarding stormwater management.
Impervious surfaces are required not to exceed 35%, unless specific conditions are
satisfied. Under the 35% requirement 90% of lots within the Shoreland District
meet the minimum requirement. The DNR model ordinance allows a maximum of
25%, therefore, flexibility is being requested.
Section 4.170 Nonconformities
A section regarding nonconforming uses is included. This section references the City's
existing non-conformance provisions of Section 4.031. An additional provision has been
added in regard to the construction of decks on to nonconforming structures within the
shoreland district without the need for a variance.
Please review these documents and make comments or recommendations you feel
necessary.
pc~
Mark Hanson
Steve Sondrall
Doug Sandstad
4
orthwest Ass ciated onsultants, In¢
COMMUNITY PLANNING · DESIG MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Kirk McDonald
Cary TeaguelAlan Brixius
20 September 1996
New Hope - Shoreland Ordinance
131.00 - 96.13
Our office contacted Brett Anderson of the DNR to discuss the adoption of a Shoreland
Ordinance for the City of New Hope. Mr. Anderson stated that New Hope would be
required to adopt shoreland regulations, however, due to the City's developed status, it is
not seen as a "high priority' City.
It was explained to Mr. Anderson that the lots that are developed around the City's water
bodies cko.not meet the regulations of the Model Shoreland Ordinance, therefore, because
the City does not wish to create non-conforming lots, flexibility to the Model Ordinance will
have to be requested. Mr. Anderson stated that flexibility could be negotiated during the
review process.
Mr. Ed Fick of the DNR was contacted in regard to the availability of funding for Cities
adopting shoreland ordinances. Mr. Fick stated that there is no funding available.
Attached. is the Model Shoreland Ordinance for your reference. The following provides an
analysis of what sections of the Model Ordinance will have to be incorporated into the New
Hope City Code.
Section 2.0 Definitions
Some definitions will need to be added to the New Hope City Code.
Section 3.0 Administration
This section will not be necessary as the City already has an administrative process for
variances etc.
5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416 · (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837
Section 4.0 Shoreland Classifications and Land Use Districts
Section 4.1 Shoreland Classification. This Section would be necessary to incorporate
within the existing ordinance. The DNR was contacted and stated that Meadow Lake has
not been classified, however, it was recommended that it be a Recreational Development
Lake. The water body that runs through Northwood Park is a protected watercourse, and
designated as a Tributary to Basset Creek.
Section 4.2 Land Use Descriotions. This Section is not necessary, as New Hope already
has established land use districts.
Section 5.0 Zoning and Water Supply/Sanitary Provisions
Section 5.11 Unsewered Lakes. The entire area around the City's two water bodies is
serviced by sewer, therefore, the unsewered requirements are not necessary.
Section 5.12. Sewered Lakes. This section must be adopted into the New Hope City
Code. However, the majodty of the land within the shoreland area (see attached exhibits).,
is fully developed, and most do not meet the Shoreland Ordinance minimum.lot size
requirement. The attached exhibits also highlight areas of concern in regard to meeting
the requirements of the Model Ordinance. As shown, single family residential, high
density and commercially zoned areas will not meet the minimum standards, therefore, the
City will have to request flexibility to these requirements. If Meadow Lake is classified as
Recreat~o'nal Development lake, than greater flexibility must be requested.
Section 5.13 River/Stream I.,0t Width Standards. Portions of this section must be adopted,
as there are R-1 through R-4 zoning distJ'icts within the Shoreland area. However, the only
applicable provision is the Tributary with Sewer regulation.
Section 5.14 Additional Special Provisions. These provisions are not necessary, as they
do not apply to the City of New Hope.
Section 5.~ Placement. Desi_~n. and Height of Structures. This section is necessary,
however, the unsewered regulations are not. It should be mentioned that the City will likely
have a difficult time in meeting these setback requirements, therefore, flexibility may have
to be requested, as the City does not want the create non-conforming uses.
Section 5.3 ~;horeland Alterations. The City does need to adopt specific shoreland
alteration requirements including grading and filling within the shoreland area.
Sections 5.4 through 5.8. These provisions would not have to be included within a
shoreland ordinance amendment as they either do not apply to the City of New Hope, or
the City already has provisions in place to regulate these issues.
Section 6,0 Nonconformities
The goal of an Ordinance amendment is to avoid creating nonconformities. The current
City Code provides specific nonconforming use regulations, therefore, this section is not
necessary.
Section 7.0 Subdivision/Platting Provisions
This section is also unnecessary, as the City already has specific regulations in place.
Section 8.0 Planned Unit Developments
This section is again unnecessary, as the City already has specific PUD regulations in
place.
Please review these documents and make comments or recommendations you feel
necessary.
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Planning Commission Members
Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
March 28, 1997
Miscellaneous Issues
March 10 CouncillEDA Meetings - At the March 10 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took
action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
Planning Case 97-03, Request for Preliminary Plat Approval, 8000 Bass Lake Road:
Approved, see attached Council request and letter to petitioner. You many also want to refer to the
Council minutes on this issue.
Project #498, Public Information Meeting and Presentation Regarding Proposed Northwood
Lake Storm Sewer, Ponding and Park Improvements, Motion to Direct the City Engineer to
Prepare Plans & Specifications: Council authorized City Engineer to prepare plans and
specifications. Please see attached Council request.
C. Project #567, Resolution Providing for Public Hearing on Proposed Infrastructure
Improvements: Approved, see attached Council request.
D. Project #567, Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Preliminary Plans and Specifications for
Infrastructure Improvements: Approved, see attached Council request.
March 24 Council Meetin¢~ - At the March 24 Council meeting, the Council took action on the following
planning/development/housing issues:
A. Resolution Accepting Easements from Kevitt Excavating, Inc. for 4003 Oregon Avenue
North: Approved, see attached Council request.
B. Project #573, Resolution Approving Letter of Agreement with Project for Pride in Living, Inc.
for 5212 Winnetka Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request.
Project #595, Motion Approving Quote Submitted by Agassiz Environmental Systems in the
Amount of $500 to Abandon Wells on City-Owned Property at 7528 42"a Avenue North:
Approved, see attached Council request.
Project #595, Motion Approving Quote Submitted by Angstrom Analytical, Inc. in the
Amount of $650 for Environmental Testing in the City-Owned Building at 7528 42"a Avenue
North: Approved, see attached Council request.
Ordinance No. 97-03/Planning Case 96-04, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoninn
Code by Establishing Pawn Shops as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District' Public
hearing extended until June 9, 1997. The Council is scheduling a work session in May to discuss
the ordinance and the APS technology. See attached request.
Project ~L585, Resolution Providing for Public Hearing on Proposed Street Project (32nd
Avenue North Between Winnetka Avenue and Winpark Drive): Approved, see attached Council
request.
G. Ordinance No. 97-02/Planning Case 96-04, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the New
Hope City Code by Establishing Regulations for Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal and Second
Hand Goods Dealers: Tabled until June 9, 1997, see attached request.
Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee met in March and continued discussion on the
revisions to the cellular tower ordinance following the March Planning Commission meeting. Also
discussed were ordinances regarding the DNR Shoreland Management ordinance, a Planning
Commission ordinance amendment, amendments to the Sign Code regarding political and opinion lawn
signs, and an ordinance requiring payment of delinquent real estate taxes prior to obtaining a license.
Design & Review Committee - The Committee did not meet in March as no applications for
site/building plan approval were received.
5. GTS Training - No commissioners have indicated an interest in training since the last meeting.
Resignation - The City received the letter from Vi Underdahl resigning from the Planning Commission.
The City Council will formally act on the resignation at its April 14 meeting and approve a resolution
thanking her for her service. An article for commission openings will be placed in the next City
newsletter.
7. Miscellaneous Articles - Enclosed are miscellaneous planning articles for your information.
Attachments:
St. Therese Council Request and Letter
Northwood Park Council Request
Street Improvements Council Request/Report Excerpts
Oregon Easements
PPL Agreement
Environmental Quotes for 7528 42n" Avenue North
Pawn Shop Zoning Request
32"~ Avenue Street Project
Pawn Shop Licensing Request
Underdahl Letter
Miscellaneous Articles
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Depa~ta~ent Approved for Agenda _ A~enda Section
L)eve'Topment
City Manager & Planning
3-10-97
Kirk McDonald Item No.
By: Management Assistant ~
PLANNING CASE 97-03: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, ST. THERESE HOME,
INC., 8000 BASS LAKE ROAD, PETITIONER
The petitioner is requesting preliminary plat approval of St. Therese Addition, pursuant to Chapter 13 of
the New Hope Code. In October 1996, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a request
for site/building plan approval to allow parking lot expansion on an adjacent parcel of land acquired by
St. Therese, which had previously been used for a twinhome residential purpose. At the same time, the
Commission and Council approved rezoning the R-2 property and the remaining property owned ~y St.
Therese, which was zoned R-4, ali to an R-5 "Senior/Disabled" Residential Zoning District. The
site/building plan review and rezoning were approved subject to several conditions. One of the
conditions was that St, Therese complete the platting of all the parcels into one lot within six
months and provide the necessary easements. The purpose of this plat, as stated on the application,
is to combine all of the parcels/legal descriptions into one parcel/plat, as requested by the City.
The total area of the proposed plat is 12.15 acres. The area of road dedication is 0.76 acres, thus the
net area of the plat is 11.39 acres. The plat has a width (from east to west) of 614.77 feet. The plat has a
length (from north to south) of approximately 810 feet. The plat combines five (5) existing parcels into
one lot. The lot area and width requirements for the R-5 Zoning District are compared to the plat below:
R-5 Requirement Preliminary Plat
Minimum Lot Area 15,000 square feet 529,254 square feet
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 815 feet
The preliminary plat meets the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for the R-5 Zoning
District.
As per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to City Department Heads, City Attorney, City
Engineer, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comment. Comments received include
the following:
MOT[ON BY $~COND BY
'1'O:
Request for Action
Page 2
3-10-97
City Attorney
· Certain minor information required for preliminary plat by City Ordinance Section 13.041 is missing,
namely the location of existing sewer and water mains, topographic data, and proposed design
features.
· Prior to approval of the final plat, the property owner must provide our office with evidence of title for
the land in the plat.
City En.qineer
· An existing site and utility plan showing topography, parking, driveways, trees, utilities, etc., shall be
provided.
· A 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be provided along all lot lines.
A drainage and utility easement is provided over the ponding area located in the southeast corner of
the plat. The easement line near Bass Lake Road shall be extended to the Bass Lake Road right-of-
way eliminating the small property between Bass Lake Road and the easement. The location of the
easement line shall accurately reflect the 902 contour. :
Drainage issues exist along the northwest comer of the property adjacent to the golf course. Sump
discharge and draintile from St. Therese to the golf course shall be directed to existing storm sewer
in the golf course.
· Water quality requirements shall be reviewed with Shingle Creek Watershed Commission to
determine how they can best be satisfied.
Hennepin County shall review the right-of-way requirements along Bass Lake Road. The 40-foot
wide half right-of-way along Winnetka Avenue is consistent with similar dedication along this section
of Winnetka Avenue.
Hennepin County
· The developer should dedicate the additional seven feet of right-of-way from the centerline of CSAH
10 as shown. This dedication plus the 10-foot easement will accommodate any future bikeway or
utility installation.
· No additional access to CSAH 10 will be permitted. Any revisions to the existing driveway will require
the issuance of an approved entrance permit pdor to construction.
All proposed construction within county right-of-way requires an approved Hennepin County permit
prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, access drainage and utility
construction, trail development, and landscaping.
The developer must restore all areas, with the county right-of-way, disturbed during construction.
NSP and Minnegasco reviewed the plat and responded that they had no issues. The Public Works
Department and Building Official reviewed the plat and had no comments other than those covered by
the City Engineer.
Request for Action
Page 3 3-10-97
Staff considers the majority of these recommendations routine and the petitioner has reviewed and is in
agreement with most of the comments. The one item that should be discussed is the drainage/
utility easement on the north property line of the plat. The City Engineer has requested a 10-foot
wide drainage/utility easement along all lot lines. The petitioner has requested that the easement
be reduced along the north property line because of blacktop, landscaping and building
proximity to the property line in that area.
Also, the City Code states that copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
their review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commission
during their review of the preliminary plat. The petitioner has requested waiver of the review of
the final plat by the Planning Commission and the Commission has agreed that it does not need
to review the final plat.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at its March 4 meeting and recommended approval,
subject to the following conditions which are included in the attached resolution:
1. Final Plat to incorporate all recommendations requested by City Attorney, City Engineer, and Hennepin
County. ..
2. The Planning Commission agrees to waive its review of the Final Plat.
3. Final Plat subject to wdtten correspondence from City Engineer agreeing to five-foot easement along
northern property line.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New HoFe, Minnesota 55428.4898
City Hall: 612-531-5100
Police: 612-531-5170
Public Works: 612-533.4823
TDD: 612-531-5109
City Hall Fax: 612-531-5!36
Police Fax: 612-531.517,~
Public Works Fax: 812-533-7650
Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531.5175
March 17, 1997
Mr. Dave Bredenberg, Administrator
St. Therese Home, Inc.
8000 Bass Lake Road
New Hope, MN 55428
Subject: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval
Dear Mr. Bredenberg:
Please be advised that on March 10, 1997, the New Hope City Council approved the request for
Preliminary Plat approval, as submitted in Planning Case 97-03, subject to the following conditions:
1. Final Plat to incorporate all recommendations requested by City Attorney, City Engineer, and
Hennepin County.
2. The Planning Commission agrees to waive its review of the Final Plat.
3. Final Plat subject to written correspondence from City Engineer regarding easement along northern
property line.
As you are aware, one of the recommendations from the City Engineer was that a site and utility plan be
completed showing existing buildings, parking areas, driveways, utilities and topography. The City
Council also indicated that the site plan and the location of existing facilities would have an impact on its
decision regarding the easement issues on the north property line. I would recommend that you
proceed to have this site plan completed and then meet with City staff and engineer to review the
plan prior to starting work on this final plat. As the Council indicated, if the site plan shows no
conflicts between the existing facilities and the easement requests, the Council would prefer to see a lO-
foot easement. If there are conflicts, we will need to discuss reducing the easements to five feet in
certain areas.
I think the remaining conditions are fairly minor and if you have any questions about them, I would be
glad to assist you. In regards to the City Engineer's recommendation that the plat be reviewed by the
Shingle Creek Watershed Commission, I assume that you received a copy of his March 12 memo which
indicates that the Watershed has stated that this does not need to be done because no construction is
taking place.
Once the site plan has been completed and we have reviewed it, you should proceed with the final plat.
City Code states that the final plat must be prepared in accordance with Chapter 13 of the City Code,
incorporate changes required by the Planning Commission and City Council, and be submitted to the
City within 100 days of preliminary plat approval. I believe you already have a copy of Chapter 13 of
the City Code which outlines the details to be included in the final plat.
Family Styled City ~ For Family Living
'C
Mr. Dave Bredenberg
Page 2
March 17, 1997
As you are aware, the Planning Commission waived its review of the final plat, therefore, it can proceed
directly to the Council. The final plat must also be distributed to the City Attorney, City Engineer,
Hennepin County, City Department Heads and utility companies for review and comment. Therefore, it
will take about three (3) weeks from the time the final plat is submitted until the time it can be considered
for approval by the City Council. The Council meets on the second and fourth Mondays of the month.
The City requests that 20 copies of the final plat be submitted for distribution purposes and one 8 ¼" x
11" reduction is also needed.
If you have any questions on any of these details, please contact me at 531-5119. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/
Community Development Coordinator
CC:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Steve Sondrall, City Attorney
Mark Hanson, City Engineer
Doug Sandstad, Building Official
Valerie Leone, City Clerk
Planning Case File 97-03
Property File (8000 Bass Lake Road)
C~
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Public Works 3-10-97 Development & Planning
Item No.
sT:. Jeannine Clancy ]~. 8.2
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING AND PRESENTATION REGARDING PROPOSED
NORTHWOOD LAKE STORM SEWER, PONDING, AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT
498); MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE A PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS
On February 10, 1997, the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Citizen Advisory
Commission regarding this project and directed the City Engineer to prepare a preliminary
report. This report has been completed and is attached.
In preparing the preliminary plan and report, staff consulted with Mr. George Watson. Mr.
Watson is a Registered Landscape Architect and President of Brauer and Associates. His firm
specializes in land use planning and design.
Using the Citizen Advisory Commission recommended plan as a basis for design, Public Works
and Parks/Recreation staff, Mr. Watson, and the City Engineer collaborated to address more
detailed design issues as well as concerns that were identified by the neighborhood. Some of
the ideas generated dudng this process have added to the estimated construction cost of the
project. However, all of these additional items can be incorporated as alternates to the base
project and need not be constructed. The City Engineer and Mr. Watson will present the
recommended plan at the Council meeting.
Staff wishes to advise Council that contact has been made representatives with the Fdsbee golf
association who are supportive of the preliminary plan. In addition, the size of the area '
currently utilized by the Duk Duk Daze committee for the dde and food venue is consistent with
the proposed preliminary plan.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
Request for Action
Northwood Lake Project 498
March 10, 1997
Page 2
Should Council agree to proceed with the preliminary plan, staff will continue to manage both
the City Engineer and the landscape architect in order to control costs and maintain the project
schedule.
The following is a recommended milestone schedule for the project:
Engineer Presents Preliminary Report/
Council Conducts Public Information Meeting
Council Orders Plans
Council Approves Plans
Council Awards Contract
Construction Begins (After Duk Duk Daze)
Substantial Completion
March 10,1997
Mamh 10,1997
May 26,1997
June 23,1997
July14,1997
Fa11,1997
Recommendation
Staff requests that the following motion be made: "Motion directing the City Engineer to prepare
plans and specifications for the Northwood Lake Storm Sewer, Ponding, & Park Improvements
(Project 498)."
COUNCIL
i REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Public Works 3-10-97 Development & Planning
BL~~ Item No.
By: Jeannine Clancy ~ 8.3
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PU EARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
NO. 567 (1997 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT)
The City Engineer presented the Concept Report for the 1997 Infrastructure Program on
February 24, 1997. At that meeting, Council directed the City Engineer to prepare a Feasibility
Report for Areas I and 2. The report has been completed and will be presented at the Councit
Meeting.
Attached is a copy of the Feasibility Report. Staff wishes to direct Council's attention to page 6
of the report, which lists recommendations for proceeding with the project. Please note that the
recommendations were developed after consultation with city staff, the City Attorney, and a
consulting appraiser.
The report includes two assessment roles for each area. Assessment Role A was developed in
accordance with the City's Assessment Policy (100% street cost) and the increase in market
value of the land as a result of the improvement. As directed by Council, staff developed
Assessment Role B which proposes not to assess costs associated with utility work, soil
corrections, removals and grading. However, costs associated with new gravel base,
bituminous surface, concrete curb, and boulevard/driveway restoration are proposed to be
assessed. The report details the costs for Preliminary Assessment Roll A and B for each area.
So that staff can properly notice the property owners affected by the project, staff requests that
Council select either Preliminary Roll A or B for Areas 1 and 2.
Once the City's portion of the project is identified, staff will develop a financing plan for the
City's cost utilizing utility and enterprise funds.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
Request for Action
1997 Infrastructures Improvements
March 10, 1997
Page 2
If Council agrees to adopt the resolution, the following proposed schedule is suggested:
Conduct Public Hearing/Order Plans & Specifications
Approve Plans & Specifications
Receive Bids/Award Contract
Construction Completion through Wear Course
Complete Construction
Assessment Headng
Apdl 14, 1997
Apdl 28, 1997
May 26, 1997
October 17, 1997
June 15, 1998
August, 1998
Staff requests adoption of the resolution.
II
COUNCE., ~
OzJgtrmLlz~ Departmeat Approved for Agenda Age~da Sect/on
Public Works 3-10-97 Development & Planning
Item No.
]gy:. Jeannine Clancy
/
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PRELIMINARY PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 567 (1997
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT)
Staff is requesting that the City Engineer be authorized to begin development of the preliminary
plans and specifications needed for the proposed 1997 Infrastructure Improvement Project.
The plans would be developed to about a 60% completion level. By beginning the design effort,
staff and the City Engineer are able to commit more time to quality control of the plans and
specifications. In addition, the Engineer will be able to better respond to questions that may be
asked at the Public Headng scheduled for Apdl 14, 1997.
Staff requests approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Admtnlstrat/om Flnaz~:
RFA.O01
~ COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
City Manager Consent
Kirk McDonald J'~ 3-24-97 Item No.
By: Management Assistant By:.// 6.4
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING EASEMENTS FROM KEVlTT EXCAVATING, INC. FOR 4003
OREGON AVENUE NORTH
The attached resolution, prepared by the City Attorney, accepts a drainage and utility easement
for 4003 Oregon Avenue North. This resolution is a follow-up to the one that was passed last
summer for 4003 and two adjacent lots on Oregon Avenue. The ownership of 4003 Oregon
changed hands prior to the recording of the easement. The City has now obtained an easement
from the current fee owner and the enclosed resolution accepts the easement for the City.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
~ RFA-001 ~
COUNCIL _
REQ T FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
City Manager Consent
3-24-97 Item No.
Kirk McDonald ~RE
By: Management Assistant ~ 6.9
RESOLUTION APPROVING LETTER OF A EMENT WITH PROJECT FOR PRIDE IN LIVING, INC.
FOR 5212 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO, 573~
The City purchased the single family residence at 5212 Winnetka Avenue last fall from HUD under their
Direct and Private Sales provisions for municipalities. The house is in need of significant repair and
rehabilitation. Since the home was purchased it has been approved by the 5-City Community Housing
Development Organization (CHDO) as an eligible rehab project which means that federal HOME funds
will be able to be used for a portion of the rehab, marketing and re-sale costs. The home has also been!
respected on a number of occasions by the City inspectors, community development employees and
other housing specialists to prepare preliminary recommendations on the scope and extent of rehab
needed.
Because the property is in need of significant rehabilitation and staff wants to develop and bid out
several alternatives for the rehab, City staff is requesting that the Council approve a contract with an
outside consultant to assist staff in the preparation of final plans and specifications for the property. In
the past staff have worked with Project for Pride in Living, Inc. (PPL) on these types of projects and staff
is recommending that the Council approve an agreement authorizing staff to work with PPL on the
preparation of plans and specifications for this project.
'The Letter of Agreement, which was prepared by the City Attorney, states that the consultant will
develop architectural plans and specifications for the rehab of 5212 Winnetka to include options
specified by the City and that the specifications shall be suitable for obtaining contractor bids for the
work. PPL would be paid at a rate of $50 per hour for their work, and staff does not anticipate that the
contract could exceed $2,000 (40 hours). The agreement further states that the City will be responsible
for project management, soliciting of bids, review of bids, letting of contracts, oversight of construction
and all marketing for the sale of the home. The fee paid for design services will be incorporated into the
project budget and will be paid for with CDBG scattered site housing funds. If the agreement ~s
approved, staff anticipates presenting final plans and specifications to the Council for review/approval ~n
April so that bids can be sought and construction started this spring.
The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed resolution approving the agreement with PPL and staff
recommends approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-001 ~
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
City Manager Consent
3-24-97
Kirk McDonald /'~ Item No.
By: Management Assistant ~'~D 6. [ 1
MOTION APPROVING QUOTE SUBMI BY AGASSIZ ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $500.00 TO ABANDON WELLS ON CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 7528 42"" AVENUE
(IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 595)
City staff is coordinating with the City Engineer and the City's environmental consultant, Northern
Environmental, to prepare for the demolition of the vacant City-owned industrial building at 7528. 42""
Avenue this spring. There are a number of items that must be completed pdor to demolition and one of
the tasks is the abandonment/sealing of the four (4) monitoring wells on the property.
Staff requested that Northern Environmental obtain quotes from reputable firms for the abandonment of
the four monitoring wells on the site. The following firms submitted quotes:
Company Bid for Well Abandonment
Agassiz Environmental Systems $500.00
Bergerson - Caswell, Inc. $900.00
Boart Longyear $900.00
Traut Hydro-Tech $960.00
Northern Environmental recommends that the work be awarded to the firm with the Iow quote, Agassiz!
Environmental Systems. Agassiz has satisfactorily completed work for the City in the past. The
demolition work will be paid for with EDA and TIF funds.
Staff recommends approval of a motion approving the quote submitted by Agassiz Environmental
Systems in the amount of $500.00 to abandon the monitoring wells on the City-owned property at 7528
42"" Avenue.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
co cr
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
City Manager Consent
3-24-97
Kirk McDonald /~ Item No.
By: Management Assistant By:.V/ 6.12
MOTION APPROVING QUOTE SUBMITTI~ BY ANGSTROM ANALYTICAL, INC. IN THE AMOUNT~
OF $650.00 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING IN THE ClTY-OVVNED BUILDING AT 7528 42~"I
AVENUE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 595)
City staff is coordinating with the City Engineer and the City's environmental consultant, Northern
Environmental, to prepare for the demolition of the vacant City-owned industrial building at 7528 42~"
Avenue this spring. There are a number of items that must be completed prior to demolition and one of
the tasks is the completion of an environmental survey. Prior to demolition, the building must be
surveyed for asbestos-containing materials, and any friable asbestos-containing materials must be
identified and reported to the demolition contractor. Also, it is possible that some of the fluorescent light
fixtures contain ballasts containing PCB oils. Both of these items must be surveyed and tested before
demolition.
Asbestos Sampling
For the purposes of providing cost estimates, the contractors were requested to assume a total of 25
samples, and to also give unit costs should the amount of sampling be above or below 25 samples. The
total cost of asbestos testing will only be known after the on-site work is completed.
Light Ballast Identification
As a part of the cost estimate, the contractors were asked to itemize and locate all light ballasts, and to
provide a list of those fixtures that are known not to contain PCBs, and a list of those which may contain
PCBs. For the purposes of property disposal, any ballast which potentially contains PCBs will be
disposed of as though it was known to contain PCBs.
Staff requested that Northern Environmental obtain quotes from reputable firms for the environmental
surveying/testing The following firms submitted quotes:
(cont'd.)
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
RFA-001 ~
Request for Action
Company
Angstrom Analytical, Inc.
Legend Technical Services
Environmental Property Audits
Braun Intertec
Applied Environmental Sciences
Page 2
Estimated Total Cost
$650.00
$795.00
$795.00
$1,018.00
$1,110.00
3-24-97
Northern Environmental recommends that the work be awarded to the firm with the Iow quote, Angstrom
Analytical. Angstrom Analytical has satisfactorily completed work for the City in the past. The
environmental testing will be paid for with EDA and TIF funds.
Staff recommends approval of a motion approving the quote submitted by Angstrom Analytical in the
amount of $650.00 for environmental testing in the City-owned building at 7528 42'~ Avenue.
COUNCIl.
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
City Manager Public Hearing
_ 3-24-97
Kirk McDonald ~ Item No.
]~/: Management Assistant By:. // 7.1
/
PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED): ORI~INANCE NO. 97-03, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING PAWN SHOPS AS A PERMITTED USE
IN THE B-4 ZONING DISTRICT (PLANNING CASE 96-04)
At the November 25, 1996, City Council meeting, the Council conducted a public hearing on Ordinance
No. 97-03, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Pawn Shops. as a
Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District. (A public hearing is necessary to amend the Zoning Code.) Per
the reports contained in the Planning Study, the City Attorney and Planning Consultant have indicated
that pawn shops cannot be totally prohibited in the City and it is staff's recommendation that the most
appropriate area for these uses is the B-4, Community Business, Zoning District. The Planning
Commission considered this ordinance at its November 6 meeting and recommended approval of the
ordinance. Due to the fact that the APS (Automated Pawn System) technology will not be available until
later in 1997, staff recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing for consideration at a
future Council work session so that staff could explain all sections of the ordinance to the Council in
detail. The Council continued the public hearing until January 15, 1997. At the January 13 Council
meeting, the Council continued the public hearing to March 24, 1997.
At the December 9, 1996, City Council meeting, the Council approved an ordinance extending the Pawn
Shop moratorium until June 30, 1997.
Staff recommends that the Council continue the public hearing again until June 9, 1997. This
should allow adequate time for the Council to conduct 'a work session on this ordinance prior to the time
the public hearing is continued.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Administration: Finance:
I RFA-O01 ~
COU~C/L
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
Public Works 3-24-97 Development & Plannin~
Item No.
By: deannine Clancy By:. 8.1
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBL(C HEARING ON PROPOSED STREET
IMPROVEMENT NO. 585 (32"0 AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN WINNETKA AVENUE AND
WINPARK DRIVE)
The City of Crystal is proposing to reconstruct streets lOcated in the southern section of Crystal as part of
the City of Crystal 1997 Phase 3 South Central Street Reconstruction Project. One of the streets that is
located in the project limits is 32~ Avenue. A section of 32~ Avenue (between Winnetka Avenue and
Winpark Drive) is located in the City of New Hope. Given the age and the condition of the street, the City
Engineer and Public Works staff are supportive of the project. The proposed construction is scheduled for
Summer, 1997. A preliminary report is attached.
The City of Crystal has prepared plans and specifications for this project and will continue to manage this
project. Crystal has requested that New Hope pay for the portion of the street lying within New Hope's
boundaries. The estimated cost of construction and indirect costs is $56,340. Staff recommends that the
single New Hope property which abuts the project be assessed in accordance with the New Hope
Assessment Policy; and that the balance of the project be paid through New Hope's allocation from the
Municipal State Aid program. The revenue sources for the project are as follows:
Project Cost Assessment to 3216 Winnetka Municipal State Aid
$56,340 $49,000 $7,340
A proposed schedule for the project is as follows:
Present Feasibility Report March 24, 1997
Public Headng Apdl 14, 1997
City of Crystal Awards Contract Apdl, 1997
Construction Begins Summer, 1997
Substantial Completion Fall, 1997
Assessment Headng October, 1997
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Review: Admin/st~tion: Finance:
RFA-O01 ~
REPORT FOR
CRYSTAL 1997 STREET PROJECT
32~ AVENUE: WINNETKA AVENUE TO WINPARK DRIVE
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
CITY PROJECT NO. 585
BRA FILE NO. 34207
SCOPE
This project provides for street improvements in 32nd Avenue between Winnetka Avenue and
Winpark Drive in the City of New Hope. The project is included in the City of Crystal's project
entitled:
1997 Phase 3 South Central Street Reconstruction
The Phase 3 Area in Crystal includes all the street located between Douglas Avenue a. nd
Winnetka Avenue located in the attached location map. The project is being proposed and
administered by the City of Crystal.
One property in the City of New Hope, located at 3216 Winnetka Avenue, abuts the 32nd Avenue
street improvement.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that:
· The feasibility report be reviewed by City Council and Staff.
· The City of Crystal manage and oversee the construction contract. The City of New
Hope will provided inspection for those improvements constructed in New Hope.
· The street improvements in New Hope be constructed based on the estimated cost of
$56,340.00.
· The assessment to the one benefited property in New Hope be based on the increase
in market value as a result of the improvement which is less than assessing 100% of
the street cost. ~ ~i
· The plans/specifications be prepared such pal State Aid Funds can be
encumbered for the costs eligible for MSA funding for 32nd Avenue which is
designated a Municipal State Aid street in Crystal and New Hope between Winnetka
Avenue and Winpark Drive.
FEASIBLE, NECESSARY, AND COST EFFECTIVE
This project is feasible from an engineering standpoint and is in accordance with New Hope's
Comprehensive Plans for utilities and streets. The project, as outlined herein, can best be carried
out as one contract administered by the City of Crystal..
The project is necessary to maintain commercial property values. Pavement condition surveys
and visual inspections of existing street/utilities indicate that the improvements are warranted
and should be considered at this time.
The project is cost effective based on existing conditions and construction standards proposed to
construct the improvements. In the event the improvements are not constructed, the Cities of
Crystal and New Hope will incur on-going maintenance costs.
DISCUSSION
The street improvements in New Hope include reconstructing 32nd Avenue (remove existing
bituminous surface and gravel base and construct new) between Winnetka Avenue and Winpark
Drive. The existing concrete curbs will be saved except those that are designated for removal
based on their condition. The existing street width will be maintained which is 49 feet wide
between face of curbs. The proposed street section is as follows:
1 V2" Bituminous Wear Course
1 V2" Bituminous Binder Course
2" Bituminous Base Course
10" Class 5 100% Crushed Limestone
24" Select Granular Borrow
COST ESTIMATE
The City of Crystal received bids for the project on March 11, 1997. The City of New Hope's
cost based on the bids received and indirect costs is $56,340.00. Indirect costs are estimated at
25 percent and include legal, engineering,- administration, and bond interest.
AREA TO BE INCLUDED
PID 20-118-21-23-003 (3216 Winnetka Avenue)
ASSESSMENTS
Assessment are proposed to be levied against the benefited property in accordance with New
Hope's Assessment Policy (assess 100 percent of street cost) and the increase in market value of
the land as a result of the improvement. An appraisal was done to determine the increase in
market value. The results of the appraisal indicate that the increase in market value is less than
assessing 100% of the street cost. These results are summarized below.
Parcel Description
PID 20-118-21-23-003
(595.96 front feet (F.F.))
Assess 100% Street
$56,34O.00
($94.54 / F.F.)
Assess Increase in
Market Value
$49,000.00
($82.22 / F.F.)
Appendix A located at the back of this report proposes to assess the lesser amount, which is the
amount based on increase in market value.
REVENUE SOURCES
Revenue sources are summarized below.
Pro, iect Cost Assessments Balance
32nd Avenue $56,340.00 $49,000.00 - $7,340.00
The project deficit ($7,340.00) will be financed by Municipal State Aid Funds.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Present Feasibility Report
Public Hearing
City of Crystal Awards Contract
Substantial Construction Completion
Assessment Hearing
March 24, 1997
April 14, 1997
April 1997
Fall 1997
October 1997
·
APPENDIX A
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
CRYSTAL 1997 STREET PROJECT
(32nd Avenue: Winnetka Avenue to Winpark Drive)
NEW HOPE CITY PROJECT NO. 585
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
BRA FILE NO. 34207
Parcel Description
Section 20
PID 20-118-21-23-003
Assessable Footage
(Front Foot)
Rate / Front Foot
595.96 F.F. $82.22
Amount
$49,000.00
~'/fy of New Hooe
PID 20-118-21-23-~
(3216 Winnetk~ Ave.
, 52nd Avenue
~'" ~,, ~,, ~.,ll~,,~.,,,.~.,,tl,,=,,.~,,~,~,~ ~"~ ~ ~ ~'~,~',~,, ~,, ~,,, ~
· ';: ;: :;;:
Pro · 8 · c
~//~ ~/~~/~/
32nd Avenue (Winnetka Ave. N to Winpark Drive)
NEW HOPE. MINNESOTA FIGURE 1
CRYSTAL 1997 STREET PROJECT
NEW HOPE PROJECT No. 585
34207FO1.DWC MARCH 1997 COMM. 34207
~:]~ Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Aesociates
l Il
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
g)rolrTances ~
Originating Depaxl~ent Approved for Agenda ~ ~[enda S~ction
Resolutions
City Manager
3-24-97 Item No.
Kirk McDonald ~'~
By: Management Assistant ~ tO.'!
~"~DINANC-~-~ NO. 97-2 (CO---'~NTINU~D): ,~ ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE NEW
HOPE CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING LICENSING REGULATIONS FOR PAWNBROKERS
PRECIOUS METAL AND SECOND HAND GOODS DEALERS (PLANNING CASE 96-04)
At the November 25, 1996, City Council meeting, the Council also considered Ordinance No. 97-02, An
Ordinance Amending chapter 8 of the New Hope City Code by Establishing Licensing Regulations for
Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal and Second Hand Goods Dealers. (This ordinance does not require a
public hearing because it is not part of the Zoning Code.) The ordinance establishes license and
application requirements, establishes four (4) fees for application/investigation/license/billable
transactions, establishes conditions of approval for licenses, describes general license restrictions, etc.
'he ordinance is a result of.a resolution passed by the City Council in March 1996 authorizing a planning
study on this issue. The Planning Commission considered this licensing ordinance at its November 6
meeting and recommended approval of the ordinance. Due to the fact that the APS (Automated Pawn
System) technology will not be available until later in 1997, staff recommended that the City Council
table this issue for consideration at a future Council work session so that staff could explain all sections
of the ordinance to the Council in detail. The Council tabled this ordinance until January 13, 1997. At
the January 13 Council meeting, the Council continued the public hearing to March 24, 1997.
At the December 9, 1996, City Council meeting, the Council approved an ordinance extending the Pawn
Shop moratorium until June 30, 1997.
Staff recommends that the Council table this licensing ordinance again until June 9, 1997. This
should allow adequate time for the Council to conduct a work session on this ordinance in conjunction
with the zoning ordinance amendment.
MOTION BY
SECOND BY
Administration:
Ftnance:
RFA-O01
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898
City Hall: 612-531-5100
Police: 612-531-5170
Public Works: 612-533-4823
TDD: 612.531-5109
City Hall Fax:612-531-5136
Police Fax: 612-531.5174
Public Works Fax: 612.533-7650
Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531-5175
March 27, 1997
Ms. Vi Underdahl
7706 53rd Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Subject: Letter of Resignation
Dear Vi:
The City is in receipt of your letter indicating your intent to resign from the New Hope Planning
Commission. The City regrets that you are resigning from the Commission and certainly
appreciates your service on the Commission during the last 5~ years. I anticipate that the City
Council will be formally acting on accepting your resignation at the first Council meeting in April.
If you have any comments or questions regarding City projects or other issues in the future,
please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your years of service to New Hope
It has been a pleasure working with you, Vi.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/
Community Development Coordinator
CC;
Pete Enck, Mayor
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Bill Sonsin, Planning Commission Chair
Family Styled City
For Family Living
Page 2 -- February 25. 1997
z.g,
Neighhur ubjects to board's approval of garage
~.~expansion
Fitanidcs v. CiO' of Saco. 684 A.2d 421 (Maine) ~996
Giarusso owned and operated a used car business in a commercial district
in the cily of Saco, Maine. Under lhc cily's zoning ordinance, automobile dealers
and autnmobilc repair garages were permitted in that district as conditional uses.
Giarusso applied to thc city Planning Board for a conditiomd usc per,nit to
expand his business, lie proposed to add a garage to an existing structure on
the lot. After three meetings, thc planning board approved the conditional use
permit. II found "all zoning requirements [hadI been met, specifically, with
respect lo ... nonconformance of lhe lot and existing structure."
Fitanides, who lived and owned a bnsiness across the street from Giarusso,
attended and participalcd in the three meetings. He appealed Ihe planning board's
decision Itt the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), claiming (among other things
not discussed here) Giarusso's lot and thc exisling structure on it were
nonconfimniug, and the used car business was a nonconforming use. According
to Fitanides, Giarusso needed a variance to expand his business, not a conditioual
usc permil, because of the lot's nonconforming status.
Under thc ordinance, structures that had been built on nonconformiug h~ts
before thc ordinance was enacled could Irc modified without a w~riance, as
long as the modi fications complied with the ordinance. Structures that themselw's
were nonconhtrming could be modified withoul a variance as long as the
modifications met setback and hcighl requirements. Als{}, the modifications --
together with thc existing slmcturc -- could not exceed the maximum lot coverage.
After the ZBA upheld thc board's approval, Fitanides asked a court to review
its decision. Thc court affirmed thc ZBA's decision. Fitanides appealed.
DECISION: Affirmed.
Giarusso needed only a condilional use permit, not a variance.
Dcspilc Ibc planning board's [indings, which mentioned the
"mmconformance of Iht lot and existing structure," neither lhe lot nor the existing
structure was nonconforming. Under thc ordinance, car dealerships and repair
garages were condilional uses, which meanl they were permitted.
Nonconfomfing uses were dcl'incd as uses thai were not permitted.
Eveu il' thc lot and strncture were nonconforming, Giarusso's proposal
wouldn't require a variance under the ordinance. Thc existing and proposed
structures Inet all thc ordinance's dimensional requirements, including those
for setback and height, and logelher would not cover more than 50 percent of
t/"Condit'mnal Use-fi- Board limits gas stations hours and food sales
~ BP ()ilf~4o~? ('ltv of l)avton Board of Zoning Appeals, 672 N.E. 2d 256
(Ohio) /996
BP Oil Company ran an auto service station and convenience store in a
c~mmunilv businc'~'; distric! in l):~vlon, Ohio. Thc ,;ervice ,41alton was a
Z.B.
February 25, 1997 -- Page 3
conditional use in thc district. Although convenience food sales were not
specifically listed as a permitted use in the zoning ordinance, the ordinance did
specifically allow for such things as thc sale of candy, tobacco producls, meat,
periodicals and drugs.
The zoning ordinance said that in granting a conditional use, the zoning
board could impose conditions, safeguards and restrictions "upon the premises"
benefited by that use "as may be necessary ... to reduce or minimize any
potentially injurious effect of such conditional uses." The ordinance did not
define thc phrase "permitted use"; however, zoning boards generally could not
place conditions on a permitted use.
BP applied to the zoning board for a permit to remodel its gas station and
convenience store. The board held several hearings, some open to the public.
Many community members did not want BP to sell food at night because they
felt it would encourage loitering and increase crime. Evidence showed the police
were called to the station almost 500 times in one year.
BP argued a complete ban on food sales would hurt its business financially.
It requested a compromise.
The board finally issued BP a permit, but with limitations. BP could sell
food until 11 p.m., and only tobacco products and gas the rest of the night. BP
also had to make restrooms available to the public from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
BP appealed to court. It argued, among other things, that the board exceeded
its authority by placing restrictions on a permitted use.
To the contrary, the board claimed the ordinance's broad language, "upon
the premises," allowed it to make restrictions regardless of whether the condition
directly affected a permitted use. It also said it could place conditions on the
site's use to promote the public welfare by making the area less conducive to
loitering and crime.
The court granted the board judgment without a trial, and BP appealed
again.
DECISION: Reversed in part and returned to the lower court.
The zoning ordinance was ambiguous and did uot authorize the zoning
board to put restrictions on permitted uses. However, the case was returned so
the board could address thc loitering issue.
Thc zoning ordinauce was ambiguous about whether the board could place
conditions on the site regardless of whelher the condition was placed on a
permitted use. When an ordinance was ambiguous, a court interpreted its
language in favor of the properly owner; in this case, BP. The z{ming board
conld not place a condition on the permiltcd use of thc property merely because
it existed in conjunction with a conditional use.
However, evidence showed BP and its slaff did not adequately keep people
from Ioilcring on its premises, and lhal crime was a big problem. The court
returned the case to thc lower court wilh instructions to have the zoning board
place new conditions on Iht premises based on the loitering problem. In placing
new comliti{ ' ' m~t dirccllv burden lhe permitlcd use. It could.
Page 4-- February 25, 1997
Z.B.
however, require BP to increase security and lighting.
I, ihcrty Savingx Bank ~: Kettering, 665 N.E. 2d 1322 (1995).
Laird ~t McKeesport, 489 A.2d 942 (1985).
Zoning Change ~ City says annexed prnperty needn't confi}rm with
ordinance
~,xt OM ~m,n Neighborhood Asxociation t: City of Alhuquerque, 927
P2d 529 (New Mexico) ~996
In addition to its plauning ordinance, the cily of Albuquerque, N.M., relied
on "sector development plans" which covered large areas and specified standards
fi, r maintaining an area's character. Under the city's planniug ordinance, sector
development plans "create[d] special zoning regulations tbr lhe area covered,"
as opposed to other devclopmenl plans lhal could only propose zoning.
approve or amend a sector development plan, the city followed the same
procedures it would fi)r a zoning map amendment, but passed lhe plan by
resolution rather lhan by ordinance.
One of the city's sector development plans applied to thc Old ]bwn area,
which was oulsidc the city's bouudarics. The area, described in thc sector plan
as "semi-rural," fell under the Bernalillo County zoning regulations.
A conslruclion company that owncd property in lhe Old Town area asked
lhe city Io annex the properly so it could benefit from the city's water and
sewer services. Once annexed, the property would be designated RA- I (allowing
two dwellings per acre) under the seclor plan. The company asked the city to
rezone the property RA-2 (allowing four dwellings per acre), once annexed.
On lhe recommendation of Ihe cily's Environmental Planning Commission,
the city council's l.and Use, Planning and Zoning Committee designed a
cnmpromise to Iht company's request: The city would annex the property, bul
call il "SU-I" (special usc), wilh a density between RA-1 and RA-2. Since the
seclor plan didu'l pcrmil SU-I zones, thc city would then ameud thc plan
accordingly.
The city council passed a ncxv ordinance thai annexed the property and
designalcd il SU-I. II lhcn passed a rcsolulion to amend the seclor plan
only Iht properly iu qucslion.
Thc Wcsl Old ]bwn Neighborhood Association asked a courl to review lhe
council's zoning decision and ils amendment of thc seclor plan (bul not thc
annexation). Thc associatiou claimed both procedures conslituted "rezoning,''
so the city should have followed proper rezoning protocol, which included a
public hearing and review of cerlaiu criteria.
The city argued the annexed area had never before been zoned because
was outside city boundaries. II said Ibc sector plan's "semi-rural" designation
was only advisory, since scclor plaus wcrc adopted by resolution ralher Ihan by
ordie--~qe. According to the city, since thc properly had never been zoned,
was~ to simply choose an inilial zone without fi~llowing rezoning procedures.
q'hc court affirmed Ihc council's decision, finding it was not arbitrary and
Z.B.
February 25, 1997--Page 5
capricious. The association appealed.
DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court.
Tile city could not zone the properly or amend the sector plan without
fl~llowing rezoning procedures.
The city planning ordinance stated sector development plans "created"
zoning. Once annexed, the company's property lost its county-designated zone
and adopted lhe city's sector-plan zone (RA- I ). Any zone created by tile sector
plan had as much authority as an ordinauce-created zone, so a zoning change
required following rezoning procedures.
The RA-I zone wasn't "advisory" simply because the city adopted sector
plans via resolution rather than ordinance. Resolutions were passed with the
same formalities as ordinances, so it didn't matter that they were called
something different. When a resolution was "in substance and effect an ordinance
or permanent regulation, tile name given it is immaterial."
Williams u CiO~ of Tucumcari, 249 P. 106 (1926).
Board ~ Did quick proceedings compromise town board's rezoning vote?
Byer v. Town o]'l'oestettkill, 648 N. Y.&2d 768 (New York) 1996
In 1992, Hammond, a dairy farmer in the town of Poestenkill, N.Y., got a
permit to mine land for agricultural purposes. The nexl year, the town board
passed "Local Law 1993," which prohibited the rezoning of residential areas
for gravel mining.
After Local Law 1993 was passed, Hammond ran for a seat on the town
board, denouncing the law and including the issue in his platform. Itc was
elected.
Once a board member, Hammond proposed "Local Law 1994," which would
permit property owners to apply to rezone up to I(I acres in a residential area
for gravel mining. To consider such a law, the board had to follow the State
Environmental Ouality Review Act, which required it to identify lhe relevant
environmental factors of the rezoning, scrutinize them, and be able to elaborate
on ils decision.
The board held a public hearing, then met months later lo decide on
ltammond's proposed law. The town of Pocstenkill hired all environmenial
engineering finn, which addressed the proposed law's impact on air qualily,
plants and animals and public health, among other filctors. After tiffs one meeting,
the town board voted 3-2 in favor of Ix~cal Law I994.
Residents objected to Itammond's vole, claimiug his mining interests
conslituted a conflict of inlcrest. The Iown's Ethics Board found no conflict of
interest and supported ttammond's right lo vote,
Residents sued lhe town, challenging I,ocal Law 1994's validity fi/r two
rc[lsons. First, they argued ltanlmond had a financial stake in Ihe issue and
should nol have voted. Though ttanunoud's 1992 permit was nol iu jeopardy,
tile residenls argued he owucd other land and could stand Io bcncfi! from his
Ihcv :laimcd thc IOWll board vioJaled thc Act by
ge 6-- March 1(1, 1997
Designating the house residential and thc structure noncouforming
commercial did not violate the zouing code. The code explicitly' allowed
structures, as well as entire lots, 1o be grandfathered, which indicated two
different uses could exist on the same lot.
The lower court should have made clear Ihal storage facilities weren't the
only possible uses for the structure. The code allowed any use that wasn't more
nonconfi~rming than the currenl oue~ il said nolhing about uses that were equal.
Therefore, any use that was lhe same as tlr less nouconforming thau an auto
repair shop could operate in the structure. If the city wanted to exclude equally
nonconforming uses, it should have written so in the code.
The lower court didn't abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees. If
the city had in fact "scared oW' buyers by giving them false information about
~vyr~en unusual circumstance___~s jus___tified the award.
'"'"~---'lO~rakos v. Zoning Hearing Board of Newtown Township, 685 A.2d
639 (Pennsylvania) 1996
The Koutrakoses o,d, ned a restaurant in Newtown Township, Pa. The eight-
seat restaurant shared 94 parking spaces with 19 other small businesses.
The owners wanted to increase their seating to 41). Under the zoning
ordinance, restaurants needed one parking space for every two seats, plus two
spaces for each carry-out window. The owners would need 23 spaces.
The owners applied to the Zoning Hearing Board for a special exception to
expand the seating, and a variance from the parking requirements. At a hearing,
board members said there already was a parking-space shortage, so the expansion
would adversely affect off-slreet parking. Some members said they had
personally observed gridlock situations in the lot.
The owners presented evidence from a civil engineer's parking study, which
showed that during peak restaurant hours the number of spaces that actaally
were available averaged higher than the required 23. So, despite the lot's
seemingly inadequate spaces, the owners complied with the parking
requirements.
The board denied both the special exception and the variance, but did uot
make findings of fact. The owners appealed.
The court did not take additional evidence and, absent any findings from
the board, made its own factual findings. Under the state Municipalities Planning
Code, if there were no factual fiudings from the administrative agency (the
board), or if the court took additional evidence, "Iht court shall make its own
fiudings of fact based on the record ... as supplcmenlcd by the additional
evidence, if any." The court found tile owners could increase their sealing to 4(t
without burdening lhe off-street parking, since lite number of actual spaces
awfilable during peak hours was itt least 23.
Thc township appcalcd. Il claimed thc court slmuld have taken additional
Z.B.
March I(I, 1997 -- Page 7
evidence, returned the case to board In make factual findings, or accepted the
board's findings; it should not have made its own finding without additional
evidence. The board also claimed it did make factual findings, pointing to the
statements made by board members tit the hearing.
DECISION: Affirmed.
The lower court properly made its own factual findings without t~,king
additional evidence.
The board members' oral statements and personal observations did not
amount to "findings of fact" on which thc court could base ils decision. Absent
such findings, the court had authority to make its own. Had the board made
findings, the court would have had to take additional evidence before making
new ones, but that was not the case.
The lower court also properly found the owners could expand their restaurant
without creating a parking burden. The owners' study was a real test of the
actual day-to-day parking situation, as opposed to the township's requirements,
which likely would not be met by any of the surrounding businesses.
Appeal ~ Was company entitled to judicial review of 'wetzone' denial?
Kahana, d/b/a Cherokee Associates v. City of Tampa, 683 So. 2d 618
(Florida) 1996
Kahana owned property in the Ybor City district of Tampa, Fla., in the
district's central commercial core. Property in that area could be used for the
retail safe of alcoholic beverages, but only after being given a "wetzone"
designation. To get a wetzone designation, property owners had to apply to the
Tampa City Council.
Kah,~..~ ....... "vv~;"a .... e,,~.~, a wctzone ""~"~,"""~"A°'~;or'"~;"" ..... for hiq property. The council
held a public hearing at which nearby church parishioners objected to Kahana's
petition, Ka, hana's property was surrounded by the church, a retirement center
and a corrections department half-way house, among other properties. It was
on the edge of an expanding wet district.
After the council denied the designation, Kahana asked a court Itl rcvfew
thc decision. The city asked the court to dismiss the appeal, saying the city
council's decision had been legislative rather than quasi-judicial. Legislative
decisions were not subject to review by lhe courts.
Legislative decisions created a "general rule of policy," while quasi-judicial
decisions applied an existing rule to a specific property. The city claimed its
decisiou was legislative because it affected a large number of citizens --
particularly the church parishioners who opposed the wetzone's designation.
Thc court refused to review the council's decision, and Kahana appealed.
DECISION: Reversed and returned to the Inwer court.
Kanaha's appeal should m)t have bccn dismissqd because tile city didn't
prove ils decision was legislative.
Thc true test of tile nature of lite council's decision was not how many
people it affcctcd or whclhcr residcms were "np-in-arn~s," as thc city scorned