The URL can be used to link to this page

050697 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 6, 1997 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 7.1 7.2 7.3 CALL TO ORDER OATH OF OFFICE CONSENT ITEMS PUBLIC HEARINGS Case 97-06 Request for Site and Building Plan Review/Approval for Office/Warehouse Construction, Hoyt Development/Continental Distribution Partners, Inc., 7300 49"~ Avenue North, Petitioner Case 97-07 Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-19, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Exempting "Holiday Signs" From Permitting Requirements, City of New Hope, Petitioner Case 97-08 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 COMMITTEE REPORTS Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: May 15 at 8 a.m. Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: May 28 (reschedule to June 25) OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues NEW BUSINESS Review of Planning Commission Minutes of April 1, 1997. Review of City Council Minutes of March 24 and April 14, 1997. Review of EDA Minutes of March 10, 1997. ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT *Petitioners are required to be in attendance Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use. The Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. City staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Commission. 3. The petitioner is invited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and answer questions from the Commission. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. MAY PLANNING COI~4ISSION PC97-06 Hoyt Development 7300 49th Avenue ZONING DISTRICT MAP R-1 51ng~e Fmmi~ 14e~demi~ fl-2 Single m~d Two ~ ~-3 ~i~ ~ ~(~D) ~mia O~e - PUD I-1 ~ I~ I-2 ~ I~ 0~/~ 1 INCH - 2100 FEET Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Apdl 29, 1997 Oath of Office for New Planning Commission Member The City Code states that "the Planning Commission may consist of up to ten members appointed by the City Council. 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." The Planning Commission consisted of nine (9) members up until March 21, 1997. The number of Commission members was reduced to eight (8) upon Vi Underdahl's resignation. The City sought applications for appointment to various commissions from interested residents and received four (4) applications. The Council interviewed the applicants prior to the April 28 Council meeting and formally approved one (1) new member to the Planning Commission and one (1) new member to the Human Rights Commission at the conclusion of the April 28 meeting. Ms. Kathi Hemken, 3657 Maryland Avenue North, was appointed to the Planning Commission and I have enclosed her application for your information. I will be administering the oath of office to Ms. Hemken at the beginning of the May 6 Planning Commission meeting. Please make her feel welcome to be a part of the Commission. 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.~'"~136 Police Fax: 612-5~ , .5174 Public Works Fax: 612-533.7650 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531-5175 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) May 6, 1997 I, Kathi Hemken, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Minnesota, and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Planning Commissioner in the City of New Hope, Minnesota, to the best of my judgement and ability. So help me God. Kathi Hemken Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of May, 1997 William Sonsin, Chairman Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator (seal) Family Styled City ~ For Family Living ~~p. plying for: o o CITY OF NEW HOPE APPLICATION FOR COMMISSION ( ) Citizen Advisory Commission ( ) Personnel Board (X) Planning Commission ( ) Human Rights Commission Name ~P~ ~t6 i Address How long have you lived in the City? Bus. Phone What skills do you have that you feel would benefit the City? Why do you want to serve on thia commission? What experience have you had that you feel would be pertinent to this commission? H~ve yo~served on any City commissions or boards in the past? S~gnature Date 'Under the law, your telephone number is private data· If you are selected to serve your telephone number(s) will be listed on the Commissioner's list, The purpose is so other Commissioners, city officials, and the public will be able t° contact you. There is no consequence for refusing to supply this information. 03/96 - 103 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: 612-5/3~5136 Police Fax: 6124 ~174 Public Works Fax: 612-533-7650 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531-5175 April 29, 1997 Ms. Kathi Heraken 3657 Maryland Ave. N. New Hope, MN 55427 Dear Kathi: The New Hope City Council unanimously selected you to serve on the City's Planning Commission. Thank you for your interest in serving on this Commission. Your term will expire on December 31, 1999 (3-year term). An oath of office will be administered at your first Planning Commission Meeting of Tuesday, May 6, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. at City_ Hall. Regular meetings are held the first Tuesday of each month. Agenda packets will be delivered to your. residence on the preceding Fridays. This will allow you ample time to read over the material and do a little on-site investigation if you so desire. Should you have anY questions regarding the Commission, please contact Kirk McDonald, staff liaison for the Planning Commission, at 531-5119. Congratulations! Sincerely, Valerie Leone, CMC City Clerk CC: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Bill Sonsin, Planning Commission Chair Family Styled City ~ For Family Living 2.13, 2.131, 9-.132, 2.133, 2.134, 2.135 2.131 2.13 P~ANNING COMMISSION. 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. Al1 members appointed and qualified shall serve until their successoqs -qualify. 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. 96-1) 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) Meetinqs. 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 shat1 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 97-06 Request for Site and Building Plan Review/Approval for Office/Warehouse Construction 7300 49t~ Avenue North 08-118-21-24-0012 I-1, Limited Industrial Hoyt Development/Continental Distribution Partners, LLP May 2, 1997 May 6, 1997 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting site/building plan review/approval to allow construction of a 120,000 square foot multi-tenant office/warehouse, pursuant to Section 4.039A of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. Brad HoytJContinental Distribution Partners, LLP are requesting site/building plan approval to construct a single 120,000 square foot office/warehouse building to be located on the 9.6 acre site remaining from the 36 acres originally purchased from Soo Line in 1988. In 1994, a building was constructed for Navarre Corporation on the property immediately to the west of this site. 3. In May of 1996, the City approved a PUD for two office/warehouse buildings for this site, however, the site was never developed. The property is located north of 49"~ Avenue and west of the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railroad, within the I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District. Office/warehouse buildings are a permitted use in this I-1 Zoning District. 5. Only site/building plan review/approval is required for this development proposal. No variances or conditional use permits are required or being requested. The petitioner has indicated to the City that a letter of intent to lease the south 40,000 square feet of the building to an existing New Hope business has been executed. Internet, a plastics manufacturing firm on Nevada Avenue that has been located in New Hope for 16 years, will relocate to this site. The petitioner is currently working on leasing the remaining space. Surrounding land uses/zoning include the New Hope Ice Arena (R-l) to the east (and Crystal residential east of Louisiana Avenue), I-1 Limited Industrial across 49"' Avenue to the south (and R-1 residential east of the railroad tracks), I-1 Limited Industrial to the west, and vacant R-1 zoned property to the north of the railroad tracks which is owned by the City and has future potential single family residential development possibilities. The area north of the tracks is also identified in the Surface Water Management Plan as a future ponding site. 8. This property is located in Planning District #11 of the Comprehensive Plan which discusses adequate screening and landscaping in the arena area to create a positive relationship in the neighborhood. ' I 9. The property has been zoned industrial since 1956. In 1960, the designation was changed to Hear'---,. Industry (later General Industry and I-2). In 1988, the property was rezoned to I-1, Limited Industrial. 10. It is the intent of this report to incorporate all of the recommendations and opinions from the attached reports into one single report, including the Planning Consultant's report, Building Official's review, City Engineer's comments and the memorandum from the Fire Chief. 11. Site and building plan review approval does not require a public headng, therefore, no legal notice was published or mailed. ANALYSIS I-1 Special Zoning Requirements 1. Special requirements for all developments in the I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District include the following: A. Lot Coverage. Not more than 40 percent of the lot, parcel or tract of land shall be covered in a Limited Industry District. B. Lot Area. Minimum lot area requirement of one acre. C. Green Area. At least 20 percent of the lot, parcel or tract of land shall remain as a grass plot, including shrubbery, plantings or fencing, and shall be landscaped. Required minimum green area should be emphasized in front and side yards abutting streets or residential property. The word "landscaped" means a controlled surface and grade and plantings to allow a smooth surface flow and being under continual maintenance for the preservation of scenic harmony. D. Parking Lots. The minimum setback for parking lots shall be 20 feet adjacent to a residential district and 10 feet adjacent to a non-residential district. E. Parking Lot Screening. The parking lot in front of the building shall be screened from the street and from adjoining property in the residential district in conformance with the provisions of the City Code. F. Landscaping Plan. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted to City Council and approved before a building permit may be obtained. G. Design Standards - Curb Cuts. All off-street parking facilities shall be designed with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or alley as well as maneuvering area. Curb cuts shall be placed at intervals of not less than 150 feet and no curb cut shall be located within 75 feet of an intersection, as measured from the driveway centerline along the edge of the traveled surface to the intersecting edge of the traveled surface. Land Use. The proposed office/warehouse use is considered a permitted land use within the I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District. Lot Size. The subject site meets all of the City's minimum lot area and width requirements for the I-1 Zoning District. Required Subiect Property Lot Area 1 acre 9.6 acres Lot Width 150 feet 150+ feet Setback Requirements. The proposed structure meets the City's minimum setback requirements: Front Yard (south) Side Yard (west) Side Yard (east) RR Rear Yard (north) RR Required Proposed 50 feet 260 feet 20 feet 90 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 93 feet (Industrial property adjacent to a railroad right-of-way requires a minimum setback of 10 feet. The subject property is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way on both the north and east property lines.) Building Height. Buildings within the I-1 Zoning District may not exceed three (3) stories in height. The proposed elevation of the building is thirty-five (35) feet and one (1) story, and therefore, meets the City Code requirement. Lot Coverage. Not more than forty percent (40%) of a lot may be covered by building in an I-1 District. The proposed structure is 120,000 square feet in size, this constitutes twenty-nine percent (29%) of the 419,908 square foot lot, and therefore, meets zoning ordinance requirements. Green Area. At least twenty percent (20%) of the lot shall remain as a grass plot, including shrubbery, plantings or fencing, and shall be landscaped. The proposed landscape plan indicates that 3.5 acres include grass, landscape and ponding area, or thirty-six percent (36%) of the total lot area. Therefore, the site plan meets the 20% green space requirement. 8. The ratios for lot coverage, building and green areas are not specifically stated on the plans and staff are recommending that the specific ratios be indicated on the plans. Review of Plans City Department Heads reviewed the plans on April 18 and the Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on April 21. The major issues discussed included landscaping, relocation of storm sewer, building setbacks and easement vacation, off-street parking requirements, loading, curbing, consistency between survey and plans, need for comprehensive sign plan, lighting, building elevations/materials/ details, water main/fire protection issues and the need for Watershed Commission review. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. The petitioner also met with the Director of Fire and Safety and City Engineer on May 1 to further discuss and resolve water main and fire protection issues. 2. The revised plans include the following details: A. Off-Street Parking Spaces. Based on the City's off-street parking requirements, 75 spaces will be required for the proposed uses, as calculated below: Use Warehouse 118,800 sq. ft. of floor area Office 1,200 sq. ft. of floor area Ratio .~ 1 space per 1,500 sq. ft. 1 space per 300 sq. ft. Plus 1 company truck Total Required 71 4 75 The proposed survey indicates 149 total off-street parking spaces, therefore, the City's off-street parking requirements are satisfied. The original plan submitted showed 190 parking spaces. Per the recommendations of the Design~'~ Review Committee, some parking spaces in the front parking lot in front of the building (along 4S Avenue and the railroad track) were eliminated and converted to green area. B. Disability Parking. State Statutes require that one (1) in every twenty-five (25) off-street parking stalls must be devoted to use by the disabled. The site plan shows that four (4) spaces are to be utilized for disability parking on the southwest corner of the building. Under the current proposal for 149 spaces, an additional two (2) spaces must be added. C. Parking Area Dimensions. Per the City Code, 90-degree parking stalls, as proposed, must measure at least 8'-9" in width and 19 feet in depth. In addition, drive aisles must provide a width not less than 24 feet. All of the proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or exceed the cited stall dimension requirements. D. Curbing/Surfacing. New Hope City Code requires that all off-street parking and driveway areas must be paved and have perimeter curbing. The proposed site plan indicates that the designated parking, loading and drive aisles are to be paved and have perimeter curbing. E. Loading. The number and size of the proposed loading berths meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, as shown on Exhibit C, the proposed loading docks 13 and 14 do not provide adequate turning areas for the backing of a 55-foot semi-truck into the loading dock without interfering with the landscaping/ponding area to the north. Therefore, the site plan must be revised to provide the adequate turning radius or the truck dock location must be revised for the two northernmost docks. F. Property Access. The subject property is to gain access via an existing 32-foot wide shared access from 49th Avenue. In conjunction with a condition required for the original proposal for this site, the applicant must enter into a joint maintenance agreement for ingress, egress and maintenance of the shared driveway with the adjacent property. G. Trash. The site plan indicates that there is one outdoor trash compactor area. It appears that the trash compactors are located within a fenced area. The plans do not indicate any outdoor individual trash receptacles and the site plan includes a note that all trash is to be stored inside the building. Specific detail must be submitted to show how all trash handling and equipment will be screened. H. Building Material. The building plans and elevations indicate that the proposed building material will be insulated precast concrete wall panels, with pre-finished sheet metal fascia and insulated metal overhead doors. Per the recommendation of the Design & Review Committee, upper story windows (4 x 4 feet in size) have been added to break up the length of the facade, and a four-foot high stripe is to be painted around the building to provide an architectural accent. The building plans are subject to review and approval of the City Building Official and must comply with all applicable Uniform Building Codes. I. Signage. The applicant has not submitted a comprehensive sign plan. As a condition of any plan approval, the applicant must submit a comprehensive sign plan showing all site signage in compliance with City Code requirements. The City has been contacted by a Sign ComPany who is working on a sign plan for the building and this may be submitted prior to the Commission meeting. J. Lighting. The applicant has submitted lighting plans. All lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas must be hooded and directed to reflect light away from neighboring properties and public rights-of-way: Based on the lighting contours, it does appear that light is reflected on to neighboring properties and the public right-of-way, and therefore, must be revised. City staff are requesting that the petitioner submit a revised illumination contour drawing to reduce light levels beyond the north and south parking lots and direct light away from residential zones. Roof-Top Units. The plans indicate that screening will be provided for roof-top units if they are visible from the property line. Landscaping. The applicant has submitted a detailed landscape plan to address the issue of screening the parking and loading areas and the plans meet virtually all of the previous suggestions offered by the Design & Review Committee. The planting schedule includes the following: 7 Marshalls Seedless Ash 1 Autumn Blaze Maple 3 Greenspire Linden 5 Summit Ash 6 Silver Queen Maple 4 American Linden 4 Pink Spire Flowering Crab 36 Colorado Spruce 22 Sea Green Juniper 38 Anthony Waterer Spirea 126 Total Plantings The revised plan includes the following highlights: · · A row of 23 Colorado Spruce located along the east front property line. The island between the drive aisle and parking lot has been widened and "mirrors" the landscaping in the island to the west. · Additional screening has been provided along the north property line, including Silver Maples, Ash and Colorado Spruce (around the south pond). · Plantings in the front parking area include Juniper, Spirea, Lindens. · Plantings on the southwest corner of the building include Flowering Crab and Colorado Spruce. The Planning Consultant recommends a minor change in his report requesting that three to four additional Colorado Spruce be added along the north property line in between the two ponds in order to better screen the loading area from the residential property to the north. Easements. There is a 30-inch storm sewer and 10-foot easement that runs north/south through the property. The applicant is proposing to relocate the line and easement to discharge into a storm water treatment pond which will then discharge into a second treatment pond prior to outflow. Therefore, the corresponding existing easement is proposed to be vacated. The applicant has provided specific plans to show the relocated sewer line and easement. The proposed plans and new easement shall be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Additionally, the site survey indicates that there is a 20-foot drainage and utility easement running parallel with the eastern property line. The City is coordinating with the petitioner on these easement vacations, per the attached correspondence. The proposed building is located 10 feet inside this easement. The applicant must request a vacation of a portion of the easement. The Design & Review Committee stated that a reduction in the size of the easement does not present any problems. The applicant is proposing to actively utilize the adjacent railroad to the east via a rail spur. Therefore, in order to get a close as possible to the railroad tracks and to access the loading area via the rail spur, the applicant is requesting the 10-foot setback from the side property line, and an encroachment within the drainage and utility easement. N. Storm Sewer. The developer has verbally indicated he will petition the City to reconstruct tl~"' public storm sewer in accordance with the City Engineer's memo dated April 24, 1997. The pub~,,, storm sewer will be constructed in accordance with City requirements and the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. The ponding areas will be graded by the developer as part of the site improvements in accordance with the April 30, 1997, grading plan. Water quality features will be included in the public contract for storm sewer. O. Water Service. Per the City Engineer, water service will be provided from the existing eight-inch water main in the private drive located along the west property line. The existing six-inch water main stub will be reconstructed as an eight-inch water main and extended into the site as an eight-inch water main shown on the grading/utility plan. Looping of water main is not required based on flow measurements in the area and review by the Fire Marshall. P. Other comments from the City Engineer include: 1) Review of Shingle Creek Watershed is required. 2) Sanitary sewer service will be provided from the existing sewer located along the west property line. 3) Access will be provided by the existing, private shared driveway located along the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2. The existing drive is 30 feet wide, which is not wide enough to accommodate parking. Therefore, no parking shall be enforced along the shared driveway. 4) The removal of excess material from the site shall be accommodated along 49th Avenue to Quebec Avenue to 42nd Avenue. The haul route shall be cleaned periodically, as required. 5) A letter of credit shall be provided for the public storm sewer and ponding areas. Q. Fire Protection. Please refer to the enclosed memo from the Fire Chief on fire protection standards for the building. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of site/building plan review/approval for the construction of a 120,000 square foot office/warehouse building, subject to the following conditions: 1. Vacation of easements along railroad to accommodate 10-foot building setback and vacation of existing storm sewer easement and dedication of new storm sewer easement. 2. Provide adequate water service and fire protection measures for building, per Fire Chief and City Engineer. 3. Execution of a Development Agreement with City and provide performance bond or letter of credit for site improvements (amount to be determined by City Engineer and Building Official). 4. Provide joint maintenance agreement for ingress, egress, and maintenance of shared drive and no parking shall be enforced along shared drive. 5. Haul route for removal of excess material to be along 49th Avenue to Quebec Avenue to 42nd Avenue; haul route to be cleaned periodically, as required. 6. Review/approval of plans by the Shingle Creek Watershed. 7. Provide soils data to Building Official. 8. Submit Comprehensive Sign Plan. Submit revised plans that include the following changes/additions: A. Consistency between engineering and site plan B. Lot coverage ratios C. Revised illumination contours D. Revise truck dock location or additional paved surface to provide adequate turning radius at northern docks E. Revised utility plan to show eight-inch water main F. Provide trash compactor screening details G. Provide two additional handicapped parking stalls H. Provide four additional Colorado Spruce on north property line between ponds to screen loading area from residential properties. Attachments: Planning Consultant's Report Site Location Site Survey Site Plan Grading & Utility Plan Landscape Plan Landscape Schedule Elevations Floor Plans Lighting Plan Site/Building Data Building Official Exhibit Memo from Fire Chief City Engineer Comments City Correspondence Application Log N A6; NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKEt RESEAIRC ~P;F~, PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Cary teague/alan Brixius 1 May 1997 New Hope - Hoyt Development - Site Plan 131.01 - 97.01 BACKGROUND A revised site plan has been submitted by hoyt Development based upon the recommendations by the Design Review Committee and City staff, for construction of a 20,000 square foot office/warehouse building. The subject property is located north of 49th Avenue and west of the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railroad, within the I-1, Limited Industrial Zoning District. In May of 1996, the City reviewed a site plan, submitted by Hoyt Development, for the construction of two office/warehouse buildings. However, the site was never developed. Attached for Reference: Exhibit a - Site Location Exhibit B - Site Survey Exhibit C - Site Plan Exhibit D - Grading, Drainage, & Utility Plan Exhibit E - Landscape Plan Exhibit F - Elevations (Building Plan) Exhibit G - Floor Plan " Exhibit H - Lighting Plan RECOMMENDATION Based upon the following review, our office recommends approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 6 PHONE 6 I 2-595-9636 FAX ~ I 2-595-9837 Two additional disability parking spaces must be added to meet the State, requirements for disability parking. Additional paved surfacing (as demonstrated in Exhibit C) must be added in order to provide adequate turning radius for the maneuvering of a 55-foot semi-truck into loading docks 13 and 14. A joint maintenance agreement for ingress, egress, and maintenance of shared drives must be submitted and reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. An additional 3-4 Colorado Spruce must be planted along the northern property line in between the two ponds in order to screen the loading area from the residential property to the north. The grading and drainage plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. The plans to relocate the storm sewer line and corresponding easements shall be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. The proposed building is located 10 feet inside an existing drainage and utility easement, therefore, the applicant must request a vacation of a portion of the easement. The proposed building plans shall be subject to review and approval of the City Building Official and must comply with all applicable Uniform Building Codes. ISSUES AND ANAL YSIS Lancl Use. The proposed office/warehouse use is considered a permitted land use within the I-1, Limited Industrial Zoning District. , Lot Size. As demonstrated below, the subject site meets all of the City's minimum lot area and width requirements for the I-1 Zoning District: Required Subject Property Lot Area I Acre 9.6 Acres Lot Width 150 Feet 150+ Feet 2 Structure Setbacks. As shown below, the proposed structure meets the City's minimum, setback requirements: Front Yard (south) Side Yard (west) Side Yard (east) RR* Rear Yard (north) RR* Required Proposed 50 feet 260 feet 20 feet 90 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 93 feet Per Section 4.034 (6) of the Zoning Ordinance, industrial property adjacent to a railroad right-of-way, is required a minimum setback of 10 feet. The subject property is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way on both the north and east property line. Building Height. The City Code states that buildings within the I-1 Zoning District may not exceed three (3) stories in height. The proposed elevation of the Building is thirty-five (35) feet and one (1) story, therefore, meets the City Code requirement. Lot Coverage. Per Section 4.145 (1) of the Zoning Ordinance, not more than forty percent (40%) of a lot may be covered by building in an I-1 District. The.proposed structure is 120,000 square feet in size, this constitutes twenty-nine percent (29%) of the 419,908 square foot lot, and therefore, meets zoning ordinance requirements. Green Area. Per Section 4.145 of the Zoning Ordinance, at least twenty percent (20%) of the lot shall remain as a grass plot, including shrubbery, plantings or fencing, and shall be landscaped. The proposed landscape plan indicates that 3.5 acres include grass, landscape and ponding area, or thirty-six percent (36%) of the total lot area. Therefore, the site plan meets the 20% green space requirement. Off. Street Parking Spaces. Based on the City's off-street parking requirements, 75 spaces will be required for the proposed uses, as calculated below:. Use Ratio Required Warehouse 118,800 s.f. 1 space per 1,500 s.f. 71 of floor area.* Office 1,200 s.f. 1 space per 300 s.f. of floor area* Plus 1 company truck ~ 4 Total 75 * Floor Area - The term "floor area" for the purpose of calculating the number of off-street parking spaces required sh~ll be determined on the basis of the exterior floor area dimensions of the buildihgs, structure or use, ~mes the number of floors, minus ten (10) percent. The proposed survey indicates 149 total off-street parking spaces, therefore, the City's off- street parking requirements are satisfied. Disability Parking. State Statutes require that one (1) in every twenty-five (25) off-street parking stalls must be devoted to use by the disabled. The site plan shows that four (4) 3 spaces are to be utilized for disability parking. Under the current proposal for 149 spaces, an additional two (2) spaces must be added. Parking Area Dimensions. Per the regulations of Section 4.036 (off-street parking requirements), 90 degree parking stalls, as proposed, must measure at least 8'-9" in width and 19 feet in depth. In addition, drive aisles must provide a width not less than 24 feet. All of the proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to meet or exceed the cited stall dimension requirements. Curbing/Surfacing. New Hope City Code requires that all off-street parking and driveway areas must be paved and have perimeter curbing. The proposed site plan indicates that the designated parking, loading and drive aisles are to be paved and have perimeter curbing. Loading. The number and size of the proposed loading berths meet the requirements of Section 4.037(6)(a)(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. However, as shown on Exhibit C, the proposed loading docks 13 and 14 do not provide adequate turning areas for the backing of a 55-foot semi-truck into the loading dock without interfering with the landscaping/ponding area to the north. Therefore, the site plan must be revised to provide the adequate turning radius. Property Access. As shown on the submitted site plan, the subject property is to gain access via an existing 32 foot wide shared access from 49th Avenue. In conjunction with a condition required for the original proposal for this site, the applicant must enter into a joint maintenance agreement for ingress, egress and maintenance of the shared driveway with the adjacent property. Landscaping. The applicant has submitted a detailed landscape plan to address the issue of screening the parking and loading areas. Our office has reviewed the plans and found them to meet virtually all of the previous suggestions offered by the Design Review Committee, however, we do offer the following minor comments: Additional screening must be provided along the .northern property line in between the two ponds in order to screen the loading area from the residential property to the north. To accomplish this, an additional 3-4 Colorado Spruce should be planted. .. Grading & Drainage. The applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan. Said plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Easements. There is a 30-inch storm sewer and 10-foot easement than runs north-south through the property. The applicant is proposing to relocate the line and easement to discharge into a storm water treatment pond which will then discharge into a second 4 treatment pond prior to outflow. Therefore, the corresponding existing easement is. proposed to be vacated. The applicant has provided specific plans to show the relocated sewer line and easement. The proposed plans and new easement shall be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Additionally, the site survey indicates that there is a 20-foot drainage and utility easement running parallel with the eastern property line. The proposed building is located 10 feet inside this easement. However, the applicant must request a vacation of a portion of the easement. The Design and Review Committee stated that a reduction in the size of the easement does not present any problems. Rail Spur. The applicant is proposing to actively utilize the adjacent railroad to the east via a rail spur. Therefore, in order to get as close as possible to the railroad tracks, to access the loading area via the rail spur, the applicant is requesting the 10-foot setback from the side property line, and an encroachment within the drainage and utility easement. Again, the issue of the 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement must be considered. Trash. The site plan indicates that there is one outdoor trash compactor area. It appears that the trash compactors are located within a fenced area. The plans do not indicate any outdoor individual trash receptacles. Specific detail must be submitted to show how all trash handling and equipment will be screened. Building Material. The building plans and elevations indicate that the proposed building material will be insulated precast concrete wall panels, with pre-finished sheet metal fascia and insulated metal overhead doors. Per the recommendation of the Design Review Committee, upper story windows (4 x 4 feet in size) have been added to break up the length of the facade, and a 4-foot high stripe is to be painted around the building to provide an architectural accent. The building plans are subject to review and approval of the City Building Official and must comply with all applicable Uniform Building Codes. Signage. The applicant has not submitted a sign plan. As a condition of any concept plan approval, the applicant must submit a comprehensive sign plan showing all site signage in compliance with City Code requirements. Lighting. The applicant has submitted lighting plans. All lighting used to illuminate off- street parking areas must be hoode..d and directed to reflect light away from neighboring properties and public rights-of-way. However, based on the lighting contours, it does appear that light is reflected on to neighboring properties and the public right-of-way, therefore, must be revised. 5 CONCLUSION Our office recommends approval of the proposed site plan subject to the conditions listed within the recommendation portion of this report. po.' Doug Sandstad Mark Hanson Steve Sondrall City of New. Hope eal~ F~IL¥ RESIOENTIAJ. R-I SINGLE AND TWO FA~41L¥ RESIDENTtAL- MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. HIGH 0ENSITY RESIDENTIAL. R-4 SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL R-§ RESIDENTIAL OFFICE R-O LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS B-i RETAIL BUSINESS B-2 AUTO ORIENTED BUSINESS B-~ COMMUNITY BUSINESS LIMITED iNDUSTRIAL. ! · I GENERAL iNDUSTRIAL FLOOD PLAIN FP WET L-AND W Kiorthwest ' · ociated ~-' Consultants, inc. ::i::?:!::i LXHIBII' A - SITE LOCATION ~i~i~ I"n X Z C/) J> M&iIb'HAL{..~ SEEDI-I~ A$/{/Fr~xi.~.~ penrts~lv~n,c-~ 'Msi~h~lt's 4 ? G 1.5" BB , ~ ' 36 0" BB ,,I POT · ~LOltAt~O 9PRU~/P'leea partita, ns X X Kirk McDonald From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Doug Smith Doug Sandstad; Kirk McDonald Randy Kurtz Meeting with Brad Hoyt, 7300 49th Thursday, May 01, 1997 4:23PM Randy Kurtz, Mark Hanson and I met with Brad Hoyt, Kevin Olson (fire sprinkler installer) to discuss the following fire issues: Water supply, has been satisfied according to an engineering diagram provided by Kevin Olson. They will switch out the six inch stub to become a eight inch stub to supply the building from the common road west of the proposed building. They are proposing a 1,500 gallon per minute fire pump which will also require the eight inch water supply. According to the model designed there should be adequate water supply to this project. The Access Road does not extend to the east side of the building and because of this I, as Chief, will require a smoke alarm system in the building. Smoke and heat venting will be provided as per the code. Make up air issue is being review by our staff and will advise. Curtain boards are not required for this project as it is totally a esfr fire sprinkler system. Hydrant locations must be accessible by our fire apparatus and not to be shown in front of a vehicle parking space. Access doors on the east side of the building are to be increased to a spacing of one every 100 feet. I believe one more is all that is needed. The parking of vehicles on the common roadway presents a problem of access to the two properties. This will only increase with larger and more trucks taking this same route. We may review this and consider it to be a fire lane the entire length. Page I BONESTRO0 AND ASSOCZATES W612 6361311 05/01/97 11'41 ~:01/02 N0:694 MEMO TO: Kirk McDonald Jeannin¢ Clancy FROM: Mark Hanson DATE: SUB/ECT: May 2, 1997 5000 Winnetka 2~ Addition Lot 2, Block I Our File No, 34-Gen (E97-09) We have reviewed the revised site plan dated April 30, 197, and offer the following comments and recommendations. The developer has verbally indicated he will petition the City to reconstruct the public storm sewer in accordance with our memo dated April 24, 1997. The public storm sewer will be constructed itl accordance with City requirements and the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. The ponding areas will be graded by the developer as part of the site improvements in accordance with the April 30, 1997, grading plan, Water quality features will be included in the public contract for storm sewer. The proposed schedule is aa follows: May 12, 1997 May 27, 1997 Juno 9. 1997 June :23. 1997 July 2, 1997 August 15, 1997 Council receives petition for public storm sewer improvement and authorizes preparation of Assessment Agreement Council accepts Asser~meflt Agreement and authorizes plans, specifications, and bidding Council approves plans and specifications Council receives bids and awards contract Contractor begins construction Substantial completion Water service will be provided from the existing eight-inch water main in the private drive located along the west property line. The existing six-inch water main stub will be reconstructed as an eight-inch water main and extended into the site as an eight-inch water main shown on the grading/utility plan. I.x)oping of water main is not required based on flow measurements in the area and review by the Fire Marshall. ' BONESTRO0 AND ASSOCIATES ~612 6361311 05/01/97 11'41 ~:02/02 N0:694 Review of Shingle Creek Watershed is re~luired. Sanitary sewer service will be provided from the existing sewer located along the west property line. Access will be provided by the existing, private shared driveway located along the common lot line between Lots I and 2. The existing drive is 30 feet wide, which is not wide enough to accommodate parking. Therefore, no parking shall be enforced along the shared driveway. The removal of excess material from the site shall be accommodated along 49th Avenue to Quebec Avenue to 42nd Avenue. The haul route shall be cleaned periodically as required, letter of credit shall bc provided for the public storm sewer and ponding areas. 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 City Hall: 612-531-5100 City Hall Fax: 612-5..136 Police: 612-531.5170 Police Fax: 612-531.5174 Public Works: 612-533-4823 Public Works Fax: 812-533-7650 TDD: 612-531-5109 Fire Dep't. Fax: 612-531.5175 April 29, 1997 FAXED - ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW IN MAIL Mr. Brad Hoyt Hoyt Development Company 13400 15"` Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55441 Subject: Development Plans for 7300 49"` Avenue in New Hope Dear Brad: I am writing in response to our telephone conversation last week following the Design & Review meeting regarding the development plans you have submitted for 7300 49"' Avenue North in New Hope. We specifically discussed the utilities on the site: storm sewer and a potential water main loop, and whether or not the City would participate in the cost or take on the storm sewer/pond work as a public improvement project that could be assessed to benefiting properties. In the past week, I have discussed these issues with the City Attorney, City Engineer, Public Works Director, Director of Fire & Safety and Building Official (see attached correspondence). The purpose of this letter is to summarize their comments, review timelines/schedules, provide preliminary feedback on the revised plans we received, discuss easement vacations, and to recommend a short meeting between you and City staff/ consultants this week to review and try to resolve some of these issues prior to the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Easement Vacations - As we discussed at the Design & Review meeting, easement vacations will be necessary along'the railroad right-of-way and over the existing storm sewer to accommodate the construction of the building. You indicated that you would be providing legal descriptions of the easements to be vacated. You should also submit a letter requesting the easement vacations and evidence of title along with a fee of $200, per the attached excerpts of the City Code. If you can submit this information to the City by May 5, the City Council could pass a resolution establishing the date for the public headng at the May 12 Council meeting and the public hearing itself would be conducted on June 9. Water Main Size, Loop and Fire Protection - I would strongly recommend that you contact Doug Smith, Director of Fire & Safety (531-5120) to schedule a meeting to discuss the water main size and building fire protection issues. I believe that Doug would include the Fire Inspector and City Engineer on the discussion. This is probably the most significant issue that needs to be addressed on the revised plans. If you would like me to coordinate the meeting, please let me know and I will be glad to do so. I am not knowledgeable in that area, but do know that those issues will have to be worked out prior to final plan approval. Family Styled City a','i~/~ ~I~ For Family Living Mr. Brad Hoyt Page 2 April 29, 1997 Storm Sewer Relocation and Size Up~lrade - You inquired about the City participating in the cost of the storm sewer size upgrade and also about the possibility of the City undertaking this project as a public improvement project, similar to the 5000 Winnetka project. Mark Hanson has preliminarily recommended that the City be responsible for $30,000 of the storm sewer cost, per the attached letter. Mark has recommended that the developer be responsible for the site grading and ponds, similar to 5000 Winnetka, but would be receptive to the City installing the pipe. This needs to be considered and approved by the City Council and I would like to place this item on the May 12 Council agenda. I would recommend that you write a letter (petition) to the City requesting that the City either undertake the project as a public improvement and assess benefiting properties or at least share in the cost of upgrading the size of the pipe. Again, it would be helpful if you could send the letter so it is received by May 5 so it could be placed on the May 12 agenda. Timing is also an issue. I am not sure that the City could undertake the improvement fast enough to accommodate your construction. Steve Sondrall has provided the following tentative timeline schedule: May 12 Council considers petition May 27 Assuming that an agreement is reached on costs, the Council could pass a resolution validating the Assessment Agreement and authorize preparation of plans and specifications June 9 Council approves plans and specifications and authorizes bidding July-- Council awards bid - The only scheduled meeting in July is on the 28"', therefore, we would have to see if the Council would conduct a special meeting sometime the first part of July. We would need to determine if the above timeline would meet your schedule and if not, if the timeline could, be somehow shortened. As we discussed at Design & Review, you will also need to dedicate a storm sewer easement at no cost to the City, and you will need to prepare the legal description for the new easement. As soon as that is ready, please forward it to the City so I can distribute it to the City Engineer and City Attorney for their review. The City Attomey will then prepare a resolution for the City Council to accept the easement. Revised Plans - Besides the easement vacation and water main/tire protection issues, a preliminary review of the revised plans indicates that a number of improvements have been made, as requested. Doug Sandstad has prepared the attached memo on the revised plans. The City still needs lot coverage ratios, a comprehensive sign plan, revised lighting contours, and there is still a discrepancy between the site and utility plans. We are requesting that these additional items/corrections be submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Brad Hoyt Page 2 April 29, 1997 I am willing to coordinate a meeting with City staff this week to discuss these issues with you, if you are available. We would like to keep the process moving so {hat you do not encounter unnecessary delays. Please contact me at 531-5119 if you are agreeable to meeting. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator Enclosures: 4/24 City Engineer Correspondence 4/24 City Attorney Correspondence 4/28 Building Official Memo Code Excerpts: Easement Vacation CC: Dan Donahue, City Manager Steve Sondrall, City Attorney Mark Hanson, City Engineer Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant Doug Smith, Director of Fire & Safety Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works Doug Sandstad, Building Official Stephanie Olson, Community Development Specialist Planning Case File No. 97-06 BONESTRO0 AND AssOCZATES Bonestroo Ande?ik & Engineers & Architects MEMO TO: Kirk McDonald, Jeannine Clancy II _ I FROM: lVtm-k Hanson DATE: April 24, 1997 SUBJECT: 5000 Winnetka 2'd Addition Lot 2, Block ! Our File 34-Gen (E97-09) The developer has requested that the City participate in the cost of reconstructing the existing 30.inch ~tonn ~wer and pondinl~ through the above-refetem:ed site similar to ProjeCt No. 449 (50UO Winnetka Avcnm:) comttucted in 1989. The attached l~eliminary report and leuer dated August 21, 1989, discu.e~es the basis for the City constructing and a.ue.~sin$ Project 449. In mmmery, the City's maponsibiliW was based on the cost to oversize the new storm sewer through the site tn accnmmedate storm water runoff from other properties other than 5(X)O W~nnetka Avenue. The pond grading was done by the d~veloper ~ p~trt of his site development. In the Caae of this project proposed on Lot 2 BIo~k I (5000 Winnelka 2aa Addition), the developer should, at a minimum, be respunsible for the cost to reconstruct an equal amount of existing 30-inch storm sewer from that removed and an equivalent amount of storm sewer to serve theft site. The cost to upgrade the existing 30-inch storm sewer to a 36-inch to improve water quality, and the additional length over the existing length of storm sewer wotlld be l~ew l-~ope's teslxle.qlhility (m' the l~'Openies im:luded in the upstream dramuge areas). Reladve to the pond ip'nrlin& the devel~ has StO~t piled material om this ~ite from uther project.q in Plymouth and fi.om the adjacent Navarre project. ~ developer hs responsible for providing .oondin$ to satis~ water quality requirementn far thi.~ site nnd the Navarre site. In addition, tine developer has also indicated thal aporoxinmtely 30,000 cubic ynrda of material must be removed from this rite for d~velopment. From an eni~erlnl .standpoint, il is reco,~,~nded that the developer assume all responsibility for trw site gradint~ in~ludlnl the pondiml areas. The looped water main to Louisiana Avenue or the ice arena is a m~ommendation for fire 'protection for this site. The Iool~t-walet main does nm benefit eesidenta of New Hope by providing increased water pressure or flows. The looped water main provides an alternale water source t'or this site in the event of a water main break and an increase in water flows for rtre prmection. If the developer were to requeat the City to censlruct and azsess the public =nra se. we~, the cost responsibilities (estimating 2S% indirect eosu) baaed on the above approach ate ~stimated a.~ follows: 2, Block I S80,000 3o.noo TOTAL $110,000 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN' SS!13-3898 · 612-636-4600 STEVEN A. SONDRAL[. MICHAEL R. I--(I=LEUR MARTIN P. MALECHA WILLIAM C, STRAIT* *APPROVED ADR NEUTRAL Co~cx & So~rm~,~t,, P.A. ATTORNEYS Ar L^W Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park. Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) 425-5~71 FAX (612) 425.5067 SHARON D OERE Apri 1 24, 1997 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Reconstruction of Public Storm Sewer/Hoyt Development Lot 2, Block 1, 5000 Winnetka 2nd Addition Our File No: 99.10000 Dear Kirk- In our telephone conversation of April 24, 1997 you requested a brief explanation on the procedure for initiation of a public improvement by a private property owner. Apparently, Developer Brad Hoyt has submitted plans for the construction of an industrial facility on the referenced property. However, a public storm sewer easement dissects this property and would need to be relocated to facilitate the proposed development. Mr. Hoyt would like the City to assume responsibility for the relocation and reconstruction of the storm sewer within the easement as a public improvement, thereby prompting your question. The procedure is set forth in Minn. Stat. §§429.031, 429.035 and 429.036. Basically, Mr. Hoyt would need to submit a petition to the City requesting the public improvement. If the requested improvement benefits only Mr. Hoyt's property, a public hearing on the improvement would not be necessary. However, the Council would need to make findings by a resolution that the improvement benefits only Hoyt's property. Therefore, an engineering report describing the project and supporting this finding is recommended prior to ordering the project. Also, we would require Mr. Hoyt to sign an Assessment Agreement for the cost of the project including a waiver of all appeal rights under Chap. 429 relating to special benefit and increased market value from the improvement relative to his property. Mr. Kirk McDonald April 24, 1997 Page 2 We would also need to initiate a proceeding to vacate the existing easement and obtain a new easement from the record owners of the property signed also by any mortgagees. This will require us to examine the title to the property as well. This easement vacation proceeding and title work relating to a new easement will be necessary regardless of whether this is done as a public or private improvement. I hope this letter satisfactorily addresses your concerns. contact me if you have any other questions or comments. Please Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slt2 CITY OF NEW HOPE SPECIAL ZONING PROCEDURES APPLICATION LOG A B C D E F G H I J Appli- Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60- Date 120- Date Deadline Date City Date City cation application was sent day time day time Applicant for City approved or sent response number Name received notice limit limit was notified action denied the to Applicant Address by City that required expires expires of under application Phone information extension extension was missing or waiver 97-06 Hoyt/Continental Distribution 4/11/97 June 10, August 9, Partners, LLP 1997 1997 13400 15"' Avenue N. Plymouth 55447 W- 551-4944 Fax - 551-4943 B. C. D. Boxes A-C and E-F will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the date of a specific application. Assign each application a number. List the Applicant (name, address and phone). List the date the City received the application. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice, it must do so within t0 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is "restarted" by such a notice, assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. To calculate the 60-day limit, include all calendar days. To calculate the 120-day limit, include all calendar days. Despite the automatic extension, the City will notify the Applicant a second time by mail that a 120-day approval period applies to the application. (The date in Box G must come before the date in Boxes E and F.) List the deadline under any extension or waiver. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box I must come before the date in Boxes E or F, or, if applicable, Box H.) List the date that the City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit, but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit expires. Planning Case: Request: Location: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 97-07 Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-19, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Exempting "Holiday Signs" from Permitting Requirements PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: All Zoning Districts City of New Hope May 2, 1997 May 6, 1997 BACKGROUND The City of New Hope is requesting consideration of An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Sign Code by Exempting "Holiday Signs" From Permitting Requirements, pursuant to Section 3.43 of the City Code. o This issue was raised at the April Planning Commission meeting when the amendment to the Sign Code for non-commercial opinion signs and political signs was being discussed. One of the commissioners pointed out that holiday signage was not adequately addressed in the Sign Code. The Codes & Standards Committee agreed to examine this issue and report back to the full Commission as to whether it felt an amendment was necessary to address this issue. The Planning Consultant has prepared the enclosed report on this issue and staff have attached excerpts of the current Sign Code regarding definitions, exceptions, temporary signs, and illuminated signs. The Planning Consultant is recommending a minor amendment to the Sign Code to address this issue. The Building Official has also provided comment on this recommendation and his comments are attached. 4. The Codes & Standards Committee reviewed this subject at their April 23 meeting and recommended approval of the attached ordinance. The City Attorney put the ordinance in final format. 5. This is an amendment to the Sign Code and does not require a public hearing, therefore, no legal notice has been published and no notifications have been mailed. ANALYSIS 1. Section 3.43 of the Sign Code lists exemptions to the code, including flags, memorial signs, public convenience signs, political signs, and government signs. 2. Holiday signs are not specifically addressed in the Sign Code. 3. The Planning Consultant has indicated that, after a review of various ordinance examples, it appears that most cities exempt holiday signs from permit requirements. Some cities also regulate the size and duration of holiday signs. The Codes & Standards Committ~'-'~ and City staff acknowledged the potential difficulties in enforcing the size and duration requirements. ~,. such, the recommended ordinance amendment does not impose a size or duration limit on holiday signs and this has not been a problem for the City in the past. 5. The enclosed ordinance amends Section 3.43 "Regulations and Permit Exceptions" of the New Hope Sign Code by adding subsection 3.438 "Holiday Signs', to read as follows: 3.438 "Holiday Signs. Signs or displays which contain or depict a message pertaining to a religious, national, state or local holiday." 6. The ordinance amendment would be effective upon its passage and publication. RECOMMENDATION The Codes & Standards Committee and staff recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Attachments: Ordinance No. 97-19 4/30 City Attorney Correspondence 4/16 Planner's Report Building Official Comments Sign Code Excerpts April Planning Commission Excerpts RPR-30-9? WED 17:00 P. 03/03 ORDINANCE NO. 97-19 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE SIGN CODE BY EXEMPTING "HOLIDAY SIGNS" FROM PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS .The City Council of the City o¢ New Hope ordains: Se___ction 1. Section 3.43 "Eeaulatinn And Permit Excep~ionc" of the New Hope C~ty Code is hereby amended by addin9 Subsecbion 3,438 "Holi.dey Sign~" to read as follows: Holiday $i.Rne. Signs or d~solay~ which.contain Or a message pertaining to a.reli~ious, national state or ]~ca~ holida.v~.. ' section 2. E~fective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon it~ pass~ge and publication. Dated the _.. day of ._, 1997, W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: Valeri~ Leone, City '~lerk (PUblished in ~he New Hope-Golden Valley Post the , 1997.) day o~ ~PR-30-97 ~ED 17:00 P, 02/03 April 30, 1997 Kirk HcDonald City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 86428 RE: HOliday Sign Exemption 'fo Sign Code Permitting Process Our File: 99.49719 Dee r K irk: Please find enclosed for consideration at the May 5, 1997 Ptanning Commission meeting proposed Ordinance No. 97-19 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE SIGN CODE BY EXEMPTING "HOLIDAY glGNS" FROM PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS, As you know, this ordinance was initiated by the discussions at the April Plannin9 Commission meetin9 in relation to opinion and political ~awn signs, Basically, ~he ordin~nce's effectwou]d be ~o leave unregulated Chris~mas and other such light displays. The Codes and s=andards committee recommended %he exclusion of any durational limit. A~ a result, it .was omitted from the enclosed ordinsnce, A 75 dey time ~imi% was initially written into ~he Planner's draft ordinance. We can always amend ~ls sec~lon la~er if duration of display becomes a problem. Please contac% me if you heys an~ o'bher questions or comments, v~ru~y yours, Steven A..~ondra~ ZlW enclosure ~c; Valerie Leone NORTHWEST ASSOCIATEd COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - CO N S U LTANTS MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE no: Steve Sondrall Kirk McDonald Doug Sandstad Bob Kirmis / Alan brixius 16 April 1997 New Hope - Holiday Signs 131.00 - 97.02 At the last meeting of the Planning Commission, it was indicated that the City's Sign Code does not address holiday signage. As a result, question was raised as to how proposals for such sign types would be handled by the City. In review of various ordinance examples, it appears that most cities exempt holiday signs from permit requirements. For reference purposes, the following have been attached which pertain to this matter: Exhibit A - Lakeville Ordinance Exhibit B - Wayzata Ordinance Exhibit C - Draft Ordinance Amendment In review of the attached ordinance examples (Exhibits A and B), botli the size and duration of holiday signs are regulated. Acknowledging potential difficulties in .enforcement, we would question the imposition of similar requirements. Please review this material and advise our office of any questions or comments. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 I 6 PHONE 6 I Z-595-9636 FAX mo 2-595-9837 9-3-4 :t and )dablo more enses eriod. hah a tback. er lite thal tire '~dplpe laces tacos sides '~ area o l/iai along ng the ~,all be r shall are ~asa Is it il 9-3-5 9-3-5: A. 9-3-5 FERMI'I'rED AND PROIliltI'IED Permitted Signs. The lollowlng signs are allowed wllhout a permil: 1. Publlc Slgns. Signs of a publtc noncommercial nalure Including safely signs, directional signs !o public facilities, Irespasslng signs, traffic signs, signs Indlcallng scenic or historical points gl inleresl, memorial plaques and the like, when erected by or on behall gl a public olllclal or employee In Ihe pedormance gl olllclal duly. 2. Idenflflcallon Signs. °Identification signs not exceeding Ihree (3) square feet. 3. Informational Signs. Informational signs not exceeding slxleen (16) square feet. 4. Directional Signs. a. On-Premise Signs. Shall nol be larger thnn four (4) square feet. The number gl signs shall not exceed lout (4) unless approved by the City CouncIL b. Oil-Premise Signs. Shall be limiled to situallons where access Is conluslng and Iraltlc safely could be Inapproprtafely routed through residential streets. The size o! Ihe sign shall be approved by the City Council and shall conlaln no advertising. 5. Integral Signs. 6. Campaign Signs. Campaign signs, nol exceeding elghl (8) square leer. The sign must conlaln the name and address gl the person responsible lot such sign, and that person shall be responsible lot its removal. Such signs shall remain for no longer Ihan sevenly live (75) days In any calendar year. The Clly shall have Ihe right Io remove and deslroy signs not conforming to the Chapter. The City shall assess a lee gl two dollars ($2.00) per sign removed by Ihe City. 7. J-~llday Signs. Signs or displays which contain or depicl a message perlalnlng to a religious, national, Stale or local holiday and no other malter and which are displayed for a period not Io exceed seventy five (75) days In any calendar year. 'Amended t;y O~oqnRnce No. 323, deled June 15, 1087. EXHIBIT A LAKEVlLLE SIGN ORDINANCE 801.27.06: Lighter-than-air, inIlatable devices and/or balloons shall not be permitted. A copy of the owner's insurance certificate shall be required prior to issuance of a temporary permit. The additional gross sign 'area of such devices, where applicable, and when added to the existing sign area, shall not exceed 110% of the total allowable sign area. For shopping centers, these provisions apply to the entire center as a complex and not to the tenants on an individual basis. The use of a temporary and portable sign shall be limited only to charitable, non-profit or civic organizations and shall reqdire a temporary permit not to exceed a period of ten (10) days. This permit may be granted by the C~ Manager, or designee, no more than three (3) times during any twelve (12) month period per organization. Portable and temporary signs may not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area unless first approved by Council and shall not be illuminated with any flashing device. Any temporary electrical connections to such devices shall be made by an approved cord in proper condition from an approved GFI receptacle outlet in accordance with the National Electric Code. Temporary and portable signs shall not be permitted in any residential district. At least one (1) address sign identifying the correct property number as assigned by the City Manager or designee shall be required on each principal building in all districts. The number shall be at least three inches (3") in height, but no larger than twelve (12) inches in height. Said sign shall be excluded from the total allowable sign area calculation. No permit shall be required for such address sign. Public directory signs intended to identify a group of businesses, an organization or a public or quasi-public entity may be located upon public property only when first approved by the City Council. Public directory signs shall be required to comply with the provisions of this Section except where, due to unusual and unique conditions that may exist, such as in the East Lake Street area, a special exception may be granted by the City Council to achieve a desired public purpose. The design and construction of all signs within the City shall be done with the highest quality materials and workmanship to promote safety and a quality sign appearance. All signs located in residential and commercial areas shall be aesthetically pleasing when designed and constructed and shall relate harmoniously to the terrain, site circulation and existing or proposed buildings that have a visual relationship to the proposed signing. PROHIBITED SIGNS: E. F. G. 801.27.07: The following signs shall be prohibited within the City: Any sign which does or would interfere with the ability of drivers or pedestrians to see any traffic sign or signal or any crosswalk or which otherwise would constitute a public hazard. Revolving beacons, revolving, swinging, moving signs or signs with moving parts, zip flashers, flashing signs or similar devices, excepting time and temperature information. In the case of allowed time and temperature signs, the message depicted shall be reasonably accurate or the message shall be removed until it is repaired. Signs which are tacked, posted, painted or otherwise affixed on trees, fences, utility poles or other such accessory structures or landscape features. Si§ns which contain any indecent or offensive picture or written matter. Advertising signs. Roof and projecting signs. Pylon signs on Lake Street between Ferndale Avenue and a point three hundred (300) feet east of Superior Boulevard, as well as north-south streets bounded by Lake Street, Wayzata Boulevard, Superior Boulevard and Femdale Avenue. Portable signs, except as provided for under Section 801.27.05.0. ALLOWABLE SIGNS: The following signs shall be allowed without a permit in accordance with the height requirements of the corresponding zoning district under Section 801.27.08 of this Section. Apd11992 EXHIBIT B WAYZATA SIGN ORDINANCE A. Free-standing, temporary political signs, which may remain for a period o¢ not more than eight (8) weeks prior lo an election and five (5) days after an eleclion, provided thal such signs are no more than six ~'"'" square feet in area and are placed with permission of the p"operty owner or lessee. B. Signs located on, above or beside entrances or exits to buildings or driveways which direct pedestrians (e.g. "employees entrance", "exit only", "rest rooms"), provided that such signs are no more than four (4) square feet in area. C. Temporary signs den,oting an architect, engineer or. contractor, when placed upon work under construction, provided that each such sign is no more than sixteen (16) square feet in area and is removed'upon the completion of construction. There shall be a maximum of one (1) sign per company and not more than four (4) of these signs allowed per property. D. Memorial signs or tablets and integral signs not exceeding nine (9) square feet in area. E. At least one (1) address sign identifying the correct property number as assigned by the City Manager or designee shall be required on each principal building in all districts. The number shall be at least three inches (3") in height, but no larger than twelve (12) inches in height. Said sign shall be excluded from the total allowable sign area calculation. No permit shall be required for such address sign. F. Governmental traffic control signs, non-commercial municipal signs, legal notices and temporary "danger" or "emergency" signs. G. Temporary advertising signs painted on or attached to the interior of a display window for commercial and retail businesses, provided they do not exceed 50% of the area of the individual window. H. One flag per government unit or agency with a pole height not exceeding forty (40) feet in residential districts and sixty (60) feet in height for all other districts. The vertical height of the flag(s) where attached to the pole shall not occupy more than 20% of the pole height. All additional flags shall be subject to permit requirements and applied toward the total allowable sign area for a property and shall not exceed forty (40) square feet in area or twenty (20) feet in pole height. There shall be no setback requirements for flag poles. I. Real estate signs, including banners, on a temporary basis, for the purpose of selling or leasing individual lots or buildings, provided that each such sign is no more than eight (8) square feet in area for single family detached residential uses and thirty-two (32) square feet for any other use, not exceeding eight (8) feet in height. Such a sign shall be located only on the premises involved, and it shall be removed immediately upon safe or lease of the property or within twelve (12) months, whichever is sooner. Real estate signs shall be allowed independent of the allowable sign area and limitations of the subject property. J. Rummage (garage) sale signs only on private property not exceeding six (6) square feet in area and displayed only during the time of the sale. Holiday' signs or displays which are displayed for a period not to exceed seventy-five (75) days in any calendar year, and shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet in area. L. Exterior pdvate directory signs not exceeding six'teen (16) square feet in area. M. Non-illuminated identification signs for home occupations not exceeding two (2) square feet in area attached to the dwelling. 801.27.08: PERMITrED SIGNS: In the following zoning districts as noted on the following page and as esteblished w~thin this Ordinance for the C~ty of Wayzata, the corresponding signs and standards are here!- established as the regulatio~,s governing new sign construction, installation or a~teration from the effective date of this Section forward. A sign permit in accordance with Sections 801.27.02,801.27.03, and 801.27.04 shah be required under this Section prior to any sign construction, installation or alteration. The following Sign Table shall be interpreted as providing for sign usage by right where standards are indicated for gross surface area and prohibited where blank. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) may be requested for a sign where indicated. Conditional Use Permit requests shall be processed in accordance with Conditional Use Permit · procedures established within Section 801.04 of this Ordinance. OK. Apd11992 27.4 DRAFT- DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDINANCE NO, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE SIGN CODE BY EXEMPTING "HOLIDAY SIGNS" FROM PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 3.43 of the New Hope City Code (Sign Permit Exceptions) is hereby amended to add the following: 3.438 Holiday Signs. Signs or displays which contain or depict a message pertaining to a religious, national, state, or local holiday ~,,~.,, ~,, u,,p,oy=.., ,,.,, ,~ per~d p..nt exceeding ...... *"-~I"~ (75) days i,, ~r~y ~l,~n,~,r ~ar. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the New Hope City Council this day of 1997. ATTEST: W. Peter Enck, Mayor Valerie Leone, City Clerk Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun Post the __ day of 1997 EXHIBIT C Kirk McDonald From: To: Subject: Date: Doug Sandstad Kirk McDonald NAC Memo on Holiday Signs (4-16-97) Thursday, April 17, 1997 12:29PM This memo is a bullseye ! Al Bdxius and Bob Kirmis have described exactly why the cities tend not to regulate size, location or other limitations on holiday-type signs. Common sense tells us that celebrations of a personal nature are appropriate, whether it's for the new baby, Hannukah, birthday, Christmas, Graduation or other event. It was intentionally omitted from regulation, by previous Planning Commissions and Councils. Staff would have great difficulty in the enforcement of such an ordinance. Doug Sandstad Page 1 3.aL3, 3.42, 3.G22 (1.)(2) 3.40 SIGN CODe. 3.41 T£tlet purpose and Intent. 3.411 Title. Sections 3.40 through 3.485 shall be known, cited and referred to as the =New Hope Sign Code' except as referred to herein, where it shall be known as 'Sign ~ode'. 3.412 Purpose. This Sign Co~e is established to protect an4 promote health, safe:y; general welfare and oYdet within th~Ci=y of'New Hope through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial series of s:afldards, 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. 3.413 .Intent. In its interpretation and application, the provisions of this Sign Code shall be held to the minimum requirements for the promotion of the publio health, safety and welfare. No sign shall be erected, converted, enlarged, reconstructed, altered or used for any purpose in any manner which is not in conformity with the provisions of this Sign Code. 3.42 Rules and Definitions. 3.421 Rules. The language set forth in the text of this Sign Code shall be interpreted in accordance with the rules of construction prescribed in Chapter 1 except for the following provisions= {1) Measured Distances. All measured distances shall be to the nearest integral foot. If a fraction is one-half foot or less, the integral foot next highest shall be taken. (2) Construction of Words. Wheneve~ a word or te~m appears in the text of this Sign Code, its meaning shall be as set.forth in the definitions in Subsection 3.432. Whenever a word or term appears in the text of this Sign Code, which is not specifically defined within the definition section herein, the definition for said word or term, where such exists in the New Hope Zoning Code set forth in Chapter 4 shall apply, otherwise the definitions set forth in Chapter I shall apply. Definitions. o ' Any writing {including letters, words, or numerals),. rial representation (including illustrations or decorations), emblem (including devices, symbols, or trademarks), flag, banner, streamer, pennant, string of lights, or display designed to attract the attention of the public, whether it be attached to a structure, painted on, or in any other manner represented on a building or other structure or on the ground. (2) Signr Advertising. A billboard, poster panel board, painted bulletin board, or other communicative device which is used to advertise~products, goods, and/or services which are not exclusively related to the premise on which the sign is located. 3 -36 072686 ¢~) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) C9) (lO) (11) (12) (13) (~4) Address. A sign communica~ng st{ee~ 4ddress on~y, w;~tten or Ln numer£ca~ ~orm. s~gn surface which bears =he adve=t£sement or, in the case of building, which ~s £nc~uded in the smallest ge~metr£c ~£gure which can be made to circumscribe the message, f~gure or symbol displayed thereon. SLqnr Banners and Pennants. Attention getting devices which resemble ~lags and are of a paper, cloth or plastic or p~astic- like consistency. -- , , ~:.. .... .,.., . S~qnf Billboard. Any advertising sign having an.area of more ~han three hundred square feet. Sign~ Business. Any sign which identifies a business or group of bus~nesses, e~ther reta£l or wholesale, or any sign which identifies a pro~essiona~ or is used in the idefltifLcation or promotion o{ any principal commodity or service, including entertainment, o{{eFed oF sold upon the premise where such sign is located. $i~n, Canopy and Marquee. Any message c= ldentitication which is a~ixed to a canopy or marquee. SAtnr Flashint. Any illuminated sign on which the artificial light is not maintained stationary and/or constant in intensity and color at all time when such sign is in usa. Slqnf Ground. Any sign placed upon, or supported by the ground independently of the main building or structure on the property. Signs on accessory structures shall be considered ground signs. S~gn,_Xdentification. The principal sign identifying the business conducted on the premises.- In ResidentLal Districts, the sign identi£ying a resident, school, church,.or other non- business use. Silnr Illuminated. Any sign which has characters, letters, figures, design 'or outline illuminated by electric lights or lum£nous tubes as pa:t o~ the sign prope~. (Ord. 76-17) Sign, ~ogo. Any letter, chi=ac=er, symbol,.or abbrevietion used to represent an entire word or group o~ words denoting the name or purpose of any business. For purposes of thai Sign COde, a trademark may quali~y as a symbol, but only i£ any brand name or other word used the=ein is a single letter, character or an abbreviation. (Ord. 76-17, 80-5) Si~nr Notion. Any sign which revolves, rotates, has any moving parts, oF g~ves the illusion of motion. 3-37 072684 l l £ [ [ [ I i [ I l l I l l l l 3. 432. 3. 433 Sign, ~on-Canfo:min~. (a) ~e~al. A sign whic~ lawfully ex£sced ac the time oE the Code, is legal. (b) Zlle~a~. A sign which was constructed after the original passage of this Sign Code or Amendments thereto and does not conform with regulations of this Sign Code is illegal. (16) Signr Portable. A sign so designed'as to ~e movable from one location =o another and.~hich is not ~ermanently attached to the ground, or structure. ~ ~ ' ~ .... (17) Sign, Pro~ecting. Any sign, which is affixed ~o a building and which projects from the building wal~ a distance greater than twelve inches. (18) Si~n~ Public. Signs of a public, non-commercial nature, to include safety signs, danger signs, trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or historical [~o£nts of memorial plaques,' and the like, when signs are erected by or. on order of a public officer or employee in the ~erformance of o~ficiaL duty. (~9) Si~nz RooE. A roo~ sign is define4 as a sign which Is located a~ve =he cave or coping line. (20) Si~nf Structure. The supports, foundations, uprights, b~acing an~ f=ame~rk'~or a sign, inc~uding the sig, area. (21) Si~n~ T~o=ary. A sign o~her than a ~=~able sig~, tha~ is no~ in=ended =o ~ ~ermanently displayed or af~ix~ to the ground =o a building. (22) Si~n~ wall. ~ sign which is affixe~ ~o the exterior wall bu~ding and which does no~ ~roject ~re than twelve inches f~om the surface ~o which i= is a~tached. (23) Si~n~ wall Letters. A sign composed of individual letters which are a~=ached (no= gain=ed) separately on a wa~ surface. (24) Si~n~ Window. A sign a~fixed to a window or loca~e4 i,slde a window surfee legible to the general public. (C~e 072684) Regulation And Per The signs indicated in Sections 3.431 ~hrough 3.4]~the permit requirements 3.~[6 and from the regulations of the New Hope Sign C~e, Section 3.40 through 3.48S, except tha~ they shall ~ se~ back from khe right-of-way line a dis=ance of a= ~eas~ one-half of the minimum setback sGecified in the New Hope Zoning C~e distric~ regulations. 3.431 Flags. Flags or ~blems of a na~ional,'-~edera~ or sta~e govern~n=, or a subdivision thereof, displayed on private 3.432 M~or~al Signs. Memorial signs and tablets on ~=iva=e property. 3.433 Signs Required B~ Law. regal no~ices, address numerals and other signs requzred"to be maintained by law or governmen~a~ order, rule or regula~lofls, provided tha~ the conten= and size of the sign do no~ exceed the requirements of such law, order, rule or regulation. 3-38 072684 i I I I 1 ! ! I I i 3.43. 3.434. 3.435, 3.438. 3.44 3.434 PuOLLc Convenience Signs'. SmeLL signs, not exceeding two · quare ~eet in area, d£spLayed off private property ~oc convenience o~ t~e public, including directional or ~ent£E£cation signs Esr cestrooms, Eceights entrances, garage and runmage sa~es and the L£~e. Garage and cumauage sale sLgfls shall show, cLearLy £mpc£flted, the name and address o£ the person e:ect£ng the s£gn, or respons£bLe the same. Said signs shall not be e:ecCed ~ore CAen days be~o~e sc ~aintained more than one day a~ter the sale to whAch ~he s£gn relates. 3.435 PoL£tical Signs. Small s£gns, not exceeding eight square ~eet in a~ea, dispLayect.on p~ivat~ Pr~p~rty,.~cofltaining ma~ter which is intended or tends to influence d£rectLy or indirectly any voting at any primary, generaL, municipaL, special or school election, including p£c~urex, or. announcements relative ~o candid&res or campaign advert£sinq. Said s£gna are perm£tte~~ in addition to other signs iff any zoning d£stricC provided chat no person sheLL permit or allow any such sign to be Located or ma£ntained on his property more chaff ~hLr~y-ofle days before or eLve days a~ter the election to which the sign reLa~es. 3.136 Government S£~ns. S£gns o£ · duly constituted governmental body £ncLud£ng ~efE£c or sim£1ar regulatory signs, Legal notices and warnings at railroad crossings. (Code 072684, Ord. 87-5) 3.44 GENERAL STANDARDS. All signs hereafter painted, constructed, erected, :emode~ed, relocated or expanded shall comply w£th the following standards~ 3-38A 072884 L [ [ l 3.44] ~ -2--m=~o~e s~gns, Oanners; ~ennan~s, .~reamers, s~r~n~ o~ light, search commercial or ~ndus~r£al spe¢£a~ or promot£ona~ events duration by permit acquired ~rom the City pursuan~ ~o ~he following conditions: (1) Special or Promotional Events - Special or promotional events shall mean events such as grand openings, maflagemen~ or ownership c~anges, or periodic sales or similar°eye, ts. , .:. .... :..... (2) Permi~ Application - Permits for any temporary sign pursuan~ ~o this section s~al~ be issued only to owners or tenants of commercial or industrial property. Applications must be submitted to ~he City Building Official on a form approved by the City a minimum o~ 14 days prior to the special or promotiona~ event when the signs will ~e used. (3) Permit Ouratiofl - All permits issued hereunder shall be lot a maximum period of fourteen days and shall expire automatically after said ~eriod. Upon the permit expiration, the applicant shall cease to display any and all signs permitted by the permit unless the applicant has obtained a new permit for said signage. (4) Limitation on Permits - No more than three permits yearly sha~l be issued to any one property or location. If two permits are obtained in succession by any applicant per subsection 2 above, both permits shall be counted for ~he purpose of determining the yearly limitations of this subsection. (5) Sign Location - All special or promotional signs must be located on the premises where the event is occurring. Slgnage shall not exceed an amount equivalent to the permitted signage area allowed the applioan~'s business in the respective toning district. (6) Grand O~enings - Nothwithstanding the duration provisions of subsection 2 above, grand opening signage may be fo= a maximum period of thirty days. (7) Exception - Temporary signs permitted by section 3.463(2) of this Code shall be exempt from the requirements of this section. (8) Non Compliance - Any violation of any of the --. conditions of this section will result in a forfeiture for additional sign permits for the property under this section for a period of 12 months from the date o£ the violation. The perml~ forfeiture shall be in addition to any other penalties for code violations allowed by this Code. (Code 072684, Ord. 67-9) 3-39 072664 [ £ [ [ [ 3.442. 3.443. 1.44.,I. 3.445, 3.448. 3.447, 3.448 3.442 Maintenance_of_Signs. ALL signs, LncLud£ng eL~c:rLc ~LrLng, suppoc~£ng structures, guy wires or chains, shall be properly maintained and kepi tn a sate condition. The owner of any sign shall be required to have properly painted, at lease once every three years, all paris and supports of the said sign, unless the same are galvanized or otherw£se tree:ed to prevent corrosion. 3.443 Building and Electrical Codes ApplicabLe. AIl signs shall be wired to conform to Subsection 3.221 (2). Sign structures shall be designed to provide, a forty pst snow load and a eorty psf wind pressure. 3.444 (Code 072684) Window Signs. (1) ~aximum W£ndow Area. Zn no event shall th~ size of the interior window signage exceed the lesser of twenty percent of the entire window area of the one side of the building upon which said signs shall be displayed or one hundred twenty-five square feet. ¢2) Illuminated Signs. An interior window sign may be illuminated provided it compl£es with the following condit£ons~ a. Use. The sign is restricted to business identification on-'~'y, as defined in Section 3.422 (il). This may include the business name or logo exclusive to the property. b. Flashing S£gns. Flashing signs are prohibited. c. Total Area. The encompassed area of the ittuminated sign shal~ not exceed the maximum window sign area as de,tried tn paragraph 1. above. (3) Temporary Advertis£nq Signs. Advertising signs that are clearly intended for temporary display only, may be affixed to a window provided that the sign area ccneorms with the formula allowance outlined in this subsection. The allowable sign area for a window advertising s£gn is in addition to the total permitted wall sign area as regulated tn Section 3.465 (1). ~Lndow signs other than for advertising, s~ch as business identification, or any sign which is permanently a£fixed to a window,.ehaLl constitute a dual purpose sign and thus be regulated under both the above and the ptov£sions o~ Section 3.465 (Code 072684, Ord~ 87-9) illuminated Signs..~tgns shall be shaded wherever necessary to avoid c&;~i,u b,~;,L ~hgt upon property located in any residential district ~r-'upon any public street or pack. Any illuminated sign located on a ~ot adjacent to or across the street from any single family residential dis~ric~, which sign la visLb~e from a~dh single fami~ residen:ia~ district, sha~ not ~ illuminated a: any t~me ~t~een the hours of l~=O0 p.m. and 7=00 a.m., ~hen the premises i$ no2 open for 3.446 elashln~ or Moving Signs. No flashing signs, rotating or moving signs, animated .signs, signs with moving lights, or creating the illusion o~ movement shall be permitted. 3.447 3.448 Pro~ect£nq Siqne. No projecting sign shall be permitted. Access Way or Window. No sign shall phys£ca~ly obstruct any required access way or w£ndow In such a manner as to create a safety hazard. 3-39,& 072684 MOTION Item 3,2 North Suburban Cable Commission to require the mapping To show ~.he potential locations. It was the Committee's recomme~.dation that the City hold with the 1000-foot separation after studying the map prepared by the Building OffiCial Which shows the variable locations and setback arrangements. This setback offers opportunities for co-location requirements to be incorporated into the ordinance. Mr. Sondrall added that this was the reason that the coverage analysis requirement was eliminated. Mr. Martin stated that he wanted to raise this issue on The record so that when a problem does arise, everyone can work together to solve it. Mr. Jason Funk, Sprint PCS, stated that he had submitted a letter concerning the ordinance and wanted to thank everyone on the Commission and staff for the efforts put into drafting this ordinance, for the opportunity to give input into the ordinance, and to offer their support of the new ordinance. Motion by Commissioner Landy, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to approve Planning Case 96-24/Ordinance 97-04, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Regulations for Construction and Placement of Telecommunication Towers and Facilities, City of New H o'p~, Petitioner. Commissioner Kramer asked why some of the numbers on the ordinance and comments from the Planning Consultant did not match. Mr. Sondrall answered that some of the provisions were deleted from the first draft which changed the numbering system in the final ordinance. Mr. Sondrall asked if the language should be changed in 4.039D(3)(f} regarding towers on City property or should this be left as is, and the consensus was to leave the language in its present form. Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen, Kramer None None This Planning Case will be presented to the City Council on April 14, 1997. PC97-02 Item 3.3 Chairman Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.3, Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-08, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Sign Code by Permitting the Use of Non,Commercial Opinions Signs, and Amending the Purpose and Political Signage. Section, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. McDonald stated that this ordinance basically addresies three issues: 1} the, length of time political lawns signs can remain in place (at the last election, it was discovered that the City Code does not comply with State Statutes), 2) the number of political signs that can be displayed on a property, and 3) opinion signs (City Code currently prohibits these signs Which 'iS. u~constitutional)..The purpose of this amendment is to take care of all of these items. Mr. Sondrall stated that there were several cases from the Supreme Cour~ and the Appellate Court that would have a direct bearing on the City Code as it is currently writ'ten. This change was motivated by a request from a resident to put up an opinion sign on his property and was advised by the Planning Commission Meeting 7 April 1, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting Building Official that opinion signs were not permit'ted in th~ residentia~ zoning district. The Building Official contacted the City Attorney's office tO look into the Sign Code with respect to opinion signs and political signs and discovered that there is a problem. The Codes & Standards Committee spent a lot of time studying this and dealt with both the political lawn signs and opinion signs. As a result, it was determined that the ordinance needed to be loosened in order to provide for more signs, especially signs of a political nature or first amendment, free speech nature. This entire ordinance is driven by the notion that signage in speech and regulation of signage in speech needed to be content neutral. The City can impose legitimate time, place, and manner restrictions on signs and on speech, but once the City starts limiting or censoring speech, this becomes a problem. As a result, staff also reviewed the size of signs. The City Planner also pointed out that even the ordinance relative to size signage might have an inverse relationship to the protection that the City affords signage and speech. This means that the City seems to be protecting commercial speech more than political speech, because larger signs are allowed for commercial speech. From the point of view of the courts, this is backwards because the Constitution and First Amendment is clearly based on the right of individuals to express their opinions freely. By making an unreasonable distinction between the size of signs, it could be concluded that the City is attempting to impact or regulate the content of the sign because the City is giving more latitude to commercial signs than political signs. The Codes & Standards Committee and staff tried to conform this ordinance to New Brighton's ordinance, which was known to have been interpreted by the Appellate Court and upheld. Mr. Sondrall added that this ordinance is something that should be recommended to the City Council to adopt, because if it is not adopted, there is the potential risk of seeing action such as the 1983 action which was a violation of constitutional rights by an individual. In a case such as this if an individual bdngs action against the City and is successful, the municipality has to pay the attorney's fees. Commissioner Svendsen raised the issue of illuminated or motion signs in the residential zoning district as addressed in Section 3.437, such as temporary signs for birthdays, etc. He also wondered whether Christmas signs such as "Merry Christmas' and "Noel,' most of which are in lights and are up from November to mid-January or February, are considered opinion signs and under the Code would be illegal. Mr. Sondrall remarked that it was his opinion that lights depicting 'Merry Christmas' was not a sign. This would be Christmas decorations, which is not addressed in this code. Chapter 412 regulates statutory cities within the state, and one of the powe~ of a statutory city is to-put up Christmas decoratio, ns and holiday decorations. There is a distinction between a sign and a decoration that is not intended to express a political opinion. The establishment clause says to separate church and state. Some phrases like 'Merry Christmas' are now considered to be mo?e generic and are though of as secular rather than religious. Mr. Bdxius added that a portion of the Sign Code now states that there ara permitted and prohibited signs. The holiday s,gns are pe~hlt'ted signs. There are also provisions in the Code that address temporary signs. Mr. Brixius stated, after checking the sign ordinance, that there are no provisions for holiday signs, but it is not atypical for communities to make this an exemption. Chairman Sonsin added that some of these items may come up on a complaint basis. Mr. Brixius pointed out that the City does have a restriction on motion signs due to the fact that in a residential area the City does not want flashing signs. Motion signs are distracting for traffic. Mr. Brixius added that if there is a concern regarding holiday lighting, etc. to make an exception to 8 April 1, 1997 MOTION. Item 3.3 the sign ordinance so it doe's not require a permit and residents can continue this pracficei Commissioner Svendssn interjected that this item could be a separate issue rather than hold up the ordinance now. Motion by Commissioner Keefe, seconded by Commissioner Landy, to approve Planning Case 97-02/Ordinance No. 97-08, An Ordinance Amending 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, Voting in favor: Voting against: Absent: Motion carried. Keefe, Stulberg, Landy, Sonsin, Oelkers, Damiani, Svendsen, Kramer None None This Planning Case will be presented to the City Council on April 14, 1997. PC97-05 Item 3.4 Ch~man Sonsin introduced for discussion Item 3.4, 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. Chairman Sonsin reported that this ordinance amendment concerns the Planning Commission and language changes within the ordinance to make it gender neutral (deleting 'chairman' and replacing it with "chairperson," etc.) and to clarify when terms of officers begin and end (currently terms begin January 1 and end December 31). Technically, the Planning Commission did not have a chair the beginning of this year since there was no meeting until March. This amendment will also allow the Commission to hold elections for officers at the first regular meeting of the year and terms would be extended to that time. There were also some clarifications concerning special meetings and the open meeting laTM. Mr. Sondrall added that this is primarily a housekeeping item and eliminated gender-based identification in the ordinance, determined the offices to be elected, and the length of time the officers will serve depending upon the meeting schedule. The City Attorney added that if there is no meeting in July, this would have to be initiated and approved by the City Council. Mr. McDonald called attention to the fact that the current ordinance states that a July meeting is not necessary. If there are issues to be discussed, the Planning Commission is made aware of them at the June meeting, and a determination would be made regarding whether or not to hold a July meeting. Based on this new ordinance a meeting would have to be held unless prior Council approval would be obtained. Mr. McDonald wondered whether holding a July meeting could be handled in the same way as before. Mr. Sondratl stated that the ordinance states that the Planning Commission shall hold one regular 'rfl'eet~n'g' ~a~h month offsucfl day and at such time as established by the Council. Mr. McDonald questioned whether there could be a statement added to the ordinance that would eliminate this requirement. Mr. Sondrall answered that the Council could pass a resolution that stating that the Planning Commission could decide whether it needed to meet depending upon whether or not there were issues or planning applications to discuss. Chairman Sonsin asked for a motion to approve the ordinance subject to a condition being added that the Planning Commission could cancel a Planning Commission Meeting 9 April 1, 1997 Planning CaSe: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 97-08 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 Wide Residential Zoning Districts City of New Hope May 2, 1997 May 6, 1997 BACKGROUND The City of New Hope is requesting consideration/approval 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, Sections 3.412, 3.413, 3.435, 3.43, 3.461, and 3.472 of the City Code. As you are aware, the Planning Commission recently recommended approval of an amendment to the Sign Code to the City Council that would allow political lawn signs and opinion signs not exceeding 32 square feet in area. At the time the Codes & Standards Committee and Commission was reviewing this issue, it was discussed that the Sign Code allow for some larger signs in residential areas (for example, multiple dwellings with 7 or more units can erect signs 75 square feet in size). The City Attorney and Planning Consultant indicated that it was questionable whether the City could limit the size of non-commercial political and opinion signs to a size smaller than other commercial or non-commercial signs. Previous court cases have said that the City cannot treat commercial speech more favorably than political speech, therefore, it appears that the opinion signs should be allowed the same sign area as the largest commercial signs allowed in the zoning district. This led the Committee to think that the City needed to re-examine the current sign size requirements for commercial signs in the residential zoning district. In short, perhaps the 75 square feet allowed for commercial signs should be reduced to 32 square feet. The Building Official conducted a random survey of commercial signs in the residential district to determine the number and size of signs of this type that currently exist in the City. Please refer to the attached survey. This is important information because if the sign size is reduced, the Commission needs to make a recommendation as to whether existing signs that are non-conforming would be grandfathered in or not. 7. The Planning Consultant also has prepared a report on this issue and the report is attached. The Council tabled the recommended ordinance amendment on political and opinion signs at the April 14 Council meeting. One of the reasons for the tabling was that they wanted to know where the Commission was headed on this issue and they felt that a change to allow an increase in size for political and opinion signs should be tied to a reduction in size for commercial signs in residential zonir~-~ districts. The Council also felt that "corner lots" should not be allowed a greater number of political sigr,. than "interior lots" simply because they have more street frontage. The Codes & Standards Committee reviewed this subject at its April 23 meeting and recommended approval of the concept of the attached ordinance and the City Attorney put the ordinance in final format. 10. This is an amendment to the Sign Code and does not require a public hearing, therefore, no legal notice has been published and no notifications have been mailed. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission previously approved changes to the Sign Code amending it to allow 32 square foot political and opinion signs. The attached ordinance includes those previous changes plus additional changes outlined below. All changes have been consolidated into one amendment. The Planning Consultant's report states that it appears that opinion signs should be allowed the same sign area as the largest commercial signs within the zoning district and that the regulation of non- commercial opinion signs cannot be content-based. As a result, area requirements for such signs should be consistent with other commercial types of signs allowed within the applicable zoning district. The report continues that Section 3.461 (2) of the City's Sign Code states that structures with seven or more residential dwelling units may erect one sign (per street frontage) which advertises the sale or rent of the property. Such sign may not exceed 75 feet in area. If the City wishes to establish a maximum 32 square foot area requirement for opinion signs, an amendment reducing for sale or for rent signs to 32 square feet should be considered. 4. The enclosed ordinance incorporates several changes recommended at the last Codes & Standards Committee meeting as follows: A. Section 3.461(2) has been amended to reduce the size of "for sale" or "for rent" signs located on rental property containing seven or more dwelling units to 32 square feet. Section 3.472(3) regarding removal and compliance for non-conforming signs has been changed to include all amendments to the Code for compliance with the stated amortization schedules of said section as follows: Si,qn Cost · $1 - $3,000 36 months $3,001 - $6,000 60 months Over $6,000 84 months · Sign cost shall be established by original bill of sale, written appraisal from a sign manufacturer, or copy of depreciation schedule from federal and state tax return. Amortization of Two or More Si.qns. VVhere more than one non-conforming sign exists on a single property and both are owned by the same individual, the cost of both signs may be added together for purposes of this amortization schedule. C. Also, the enclosed ordinance incorporates the changes requested by the City Council at its last meeting. Specifically, the reference to "street frontage" in determining the number of political signs or non-commercial opinion signs which may be displayed on private property has been removed and replaced with language limiting the number of signs that may be displayed to a "per lot" basis. In other words, corner lots may not display more of these signs than interior lots due to the double street frontage. 5. The other ordinance provisions have previously been approved by the Commission. 6. The City Council has requested that these ordinance amendments be reconsidered at the May 12 Council meeting, therefore, appropriate action by the Commission is being requested at this meeting. The Codes & Standards Committee, City Staff and the City Attorney are recommending that a more thorough review of the Sign Code be undertaken so that these piecemeal amendments can be eliminated. RECOMMENDATION The Codes & Standards Committee and staff recommend approval of the attached ordinance. Attachments: Ordinance No. 97-08 5/1 City Attorney Correspondence 4/16 Planning Consultant's Report Building Official Sign Survey l'IAY-O1-97 THU 15:58 P. 04/07 ' ORDINANCE NO. 97-08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEY/HOPE 8IGN CODE BY PERMITT~N~ THE USE OF NON-COMMERCIAL OPINZON SIGNS, AND AMENDING THE PURPOSE AND POLITICAL SlGNAGE SEOTION The City Council of the c~ty of New Hope ordatns: Section 1. Section 3.412 "Purpose" of the New Hope City Code hereby amended to read ae follows; 3,412 PurOo...se. This Sign Code is establlshed to protect and promote health, safety, general welfare and order within the City of New Hope through the establishment of a comprehensive and ~ content-ri.surfs! series of standards, regulations and procedures goYerning the type, number, size, structure~ location, height, lighting, erection, use and/or display of devices, s{gns or symbols serving as a visual communication media to persons situated within or upon public right-of-ways or properties. The provisions of this SiOn Code are intended to encourage opportunity for effect~¥e, orderly communication by reducing conl'usion and hazards resulting from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of communic&tion facil~t{es. The...regulatlons set forth i.n. this Code. are necessary f. or the following reasons: to pre~erve _the residential chmracte.r of resi¢l~.ntial ,neighbprhood, s; to p. reserve order ~nd,llll,,{~leanllness; tO avoid.t_he annearapce of. clutter; ..to p.rotect orooerty Values: to avol.d 1.{tt. er and.,thell growth ,of weeds around s{.qns; t.o re_da.ce 1;he traffic .hazard c~used by distrsctlons ,to motor.ist$ and imDalrment of st_qht line.si to ensure that the ,,, O~ty reread, ne an attractive Dlace to llve and . work: and 1:o reUuce .admi nj st rat lye burdens. Seotlon 2. Section 3.413 "~ntent" of the New Hope City Code is hereby repealeU in its entirety. ~ecti~n 3. Section 3.435 "Political St;ns' of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.435 P~)litical Si._qns. ~ S~tgns, not exceeding =.iGht thirty-two square feet in area. displayed on lar~vate property, containing matter which ia intended or tends to influence directly or indirectly any voting at a primary, ' ~Y-01-97 THU 15:58 P, 05/O? general, mun~G~pal, speGial or school ele~t~on, including pictures or announcement~ relative to candidates or c~pa~gn advert~m~ng ~-=~ ........ .... ~ ~,, ...... One s~an pe~ o~ndJdate and ~ssue per lot Oerm~tted ~n addition to o:h.er s~gna on or,rate oroperty ~n any zon~ne ~r:v:'~:~ ~ ~:t .Zn State aeneral eleotjon~,_ . _ no peraon ~h~11 permit or allow any such a~gn to be ~ ~ oubl~cly d~eolaved or posted before A~aus~ 1 or ~ te~ days after t~e ~[ elect~on to which ~he slgn relates. ~n soecial ..elect~ons..tha durations1 ]~m~t sha.11 be 9o days before and 10 days at,.pr ~he aoe~al eleot~on to whtch the si~n relates, Any aermi~e~ ~y t. hiS section may be used a~ ~ non-oommerc~.al oo~nion Section 4. Section 3.43 "Regulation andiPermlt, Ex=ePtto~" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection 3.437 "Non-Commercial opinion ~l. ans" to read as.follows: 3.427 Non-Commercial,, Opinion 8~gn~.~. ~gns. not exceedina thirty-two square f~et in area. disolayed ~n .private orooert¥, conta~n~na information,, whtG~ expresses a~ oo~n~on or oo~nt, of viewt but, does not a~vertis~ o~oducts, goods. ~s~nesses or serv~ce~. One s~gn per ~.~t is oerm~tted ~n any zonina dt.str~ct~ ho~p,ver~ an ~11um~nated or mot~n s~nm~¥ ~ot ~e.used in resid, entia! ~ontnn dis~rlct~ as a...non-commerc~al oo~n~o,n s~nn. seR~ion 5. Section 3.461(2) "7 Or Mor~,Res~dent~al, Dwellin? 'ts" ~ of the New Hope C~ty ~ode ia hereby amended to read as 7 or More Residential Dwelling U~it~. Where more than six dwelling unites (or lots ~or residential development ~urposes) are offered for sale or rental by the same party, e~gns advertising suoh sale or rental may be conetruot®d therefor in any d~strict. TheFe shall be permitted one sign facing each-public street providln~ access to the property being offered. Each suoh s~gn shall not exceed ~;~:y-f~v; t~lrtyrtwo square feet in area; shall be located at least one hundred thirty feet from any ore-existing home; and ~hall be removed w~thln one year from the date of building permit issuance, or when les= than six units remain for sale or rent, Y-01-97 THU 16:66 P, 06/O? whichever is less. $&id sigll shall fully comply with the setback requiremellt for the zoning district in which the property i~ located. Section 6. Section 3.47Z(3) "Re~oval end__~lzD.~EJl_g~" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as Remqva] and Compliance. In any district any lawful non- conforming sign which does not comply with all of the regulations of this Sign Code and.a]] amendments hereto, shall be eliminated or made to conform in accordance with (a) and (b) be]ow, provided, however, that signs of the type prohibited by Subsection 3.466 (3) and signs not in compliance with Sub~ections 3~.=~, =.~3~,.3,3~3,. 3.441 3,~44, 3~446 and 3.448 - 3.4~1 shall be eliminated or brought into compliance within one year 'following adoption of this Sign Code. Amortization Schedule. All signs made non-conformin9 through the adoption of the previous Slgn code (Section 4.67 of the New Hope Zoning Code) in 1972 and 9ivan an amortization period of five years through February 1, 1977, shall continue to comply with that previously established amortization schedule, (b) Amprtization Schedule. Al] signs (except ae provided for in (a) above) made non-conforming through the adoption of these Code provisio~s, a]l. amendments hereto,, shall be brought into compliance or eliminated in accordance with the following amortization t&ble: $~n Cost~ $ I - $3,000 $3,001 - $~,000 Over $6,000 36 monthe 60 months 84 months ·Slgn cost shall be established by origin&l of sale, written appraisal from a s'i 9r~ manufacturer, or copy of depreciation schedule from federal and state tax return. 3 MAY-01-97 THU 15:66 P, O7/O7 (c) Amqrt.~zat~on of Two or Mqre $~ns. Where more than one non-conforming sign extsts on a single property and both are owned by the same ind~v~dual~ the of both signs may be'added together for purposes this amortization schedule. ~Action 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day o~ , 1997. Peter EncK~ Mayor Attest: Valet,s Leone, City Clerk Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the · 1997.) day of 4 ~Y-01-97 THU 15:55 P. 02/07 MICHACL Iq, L~FL~U~ b~l=rllN p. lVlAU~CMA WtLUA~ C. ST~m~Te I~ROVF-~ ~ NEUTRAl. May ~, 1997 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of NeW HOpe 4401Xy]on Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Amendment to Sign Code Relating to Political and Opinion Signs Our File NO: 99,49708 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed for consideration at the May 6, 1997 Planning Commission meeting proposed Ordinance No. 97-08, an Ordin&nce Amending the New Hope Sign Code Dy Permitting the Use of Non- Commercial Opinion Signs, and Amending the Purpose And Political Signage Section. The enclosed ordinance incorporates several changes recommended at the last Codes and Standards Committee meeting as follows: 5action 3.4§1(2) has been amended to reduce the size of "for sale" or "for rent*' signs located on rental property containing 7 or more dwelling units to 32 sq. ft. Section 3.472(3) regarding removal and compliance for non-conformln9 signs has been changed to include all amendments to the Code for compliance with the stated amortization schedules of said section. However, the amortization time period is /alrly liberal and we may want to reduce the number Of months for the continued display of a legal non-conforming sign. Also, the enclosed Ordinance incorporates the changes requested by the City Council at its last meeting. Specifically, the reference to "street frontage" in determining the number of political signs or non- =ommercial oplnlon signs which may be displayed on private property has been removed and repla=ed with ~Y-01-97 THU 15:55 P. 03/07 Mr. K-i ~'k McDonald Me~:y' 1, 1~97 Page 2 language ]1miring the number of signs that may be d~s~layed to a "per lot" bae~e, In other words, corner lots may not display more of these signs than ~nterior lots due to the doubts street frontage. As we have discussed~ ! recommend we undertake a more thorough review of our entire sign ~ode, [t seems that the exceptions are be91nnin9 to outnumber the rules with regard to this area of our C~ty Code. It appears further discussion is necessary on this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions or Gomments regarding the enclosed Ord(nance. Very tru3y yours, Steven A. Sondra11 SltZ Enclosure cg: Valerie Leone (w/enc) NASSOCIATED COMMUNITY PLANNING DESIGN CONSULTANTS MARKET RESEARCi-~-~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Steve Sondrall Kirk McDonald Doug Sandstad Bob kirmis / Alan Brixius 16 April 1997 New Hope - Opinion Signs 131.00 - 97.01 At your request, we have given some thought to the City's regulation of "opinion signs" and the issues associated with recent related case law. Attached for your reference (as Exhibit A) is a summary of the Goward v. City of Minneapolis court case which has raised legality questions regarding the City's existing regulation of this sign type. Existing Regulation. As you are aware, the City recently amended its Sign Ordinance to allow non-commercial opinion signs up to 32 feet in area in all Zoning Districts. The ordinance describes opinion signs as: Signs displayed on private property, containing information which expresses an opinion or point of view, but do not advertise products, goods, businesses or services. Goward Case. In the case of Goward v. the City of Minneapolis, a homeowner brought action for injunctive relief after the City threatened to prosecute him for erebting signs with political messages on his property. The case included a finding that: "Further the exception in the City's ordinance which allows "for sale" and "for rent" signs impermissibly inverts First Amendment values. The City may not treat commercial speech more favorably than political speech" (see Exhibit A, p.465). 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 I (5 PHONE 6 I 2-595-963~ FAX ~ I 2-595-9837 In review of the aforementioned case, it appears that opinion signs should be allowed the same sign area as the largest commercial signs within the zoning district and that the regulation of non-commercial opinion signs cannot be content-based. As a result, area requirements for such signs should be consistent with other commercial types signs allowed within the applicable zoning district. The application of this finding in the City of New Hope would have the following results: Residential Districts. Section 3.461 (2) of the City's Sign Code states that structures with seven or more residential dwelling units may erect one sign (per street frontage) which advertises the sale or rent of the property. Such sign may not exceed seventy-five feet in area. The Goward Case basically establishes that an opinion sign up to seventy-five feet in area may be erected within a Residential Zoning District. If the City wishes to establish a maximum 32 square foot area requirement for opinion signs, an amendment reducing for sale or for rent signs to 32 square feet should be considered. City staff should examine existing conditions with regard to for sale or for rent signs to determine the scope of their existence. Commercial/Industrial Districts. Section 3.465 of the Sign Code establishes the following maximums for various sign types: Type Maximum Area Requirement Wall Signs 15% of front face of building or 250 square feet, whichever is less Ground Signs Along Collector - 40 square feet Along Minor Arterial - 75 square feet Principal Arterial - 200 square feet Awning or Canopy Signs 16 square feet Recognizing that commercial speech cannot legally be favored (or regulated differently) than political speech, the preceding requirements are considered applicable to all signs, including those which express opinion. It is anticipated that this material and the possible need for various sign amendments will be discussed at the forthcoming Codes and Standards meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. 2 JAN-18-97 THU t4:3? ~ P '~ Th.; roe,.',| mHqmrtx that. Trnvcltu:~ fa~[,:d ing of thc n,~t.h'v ~'~, 19}0C and I[)H~. ,i~,~ LmL v,,mldY with ~hc ,.rquimm~cmt:~ .f Mi,m.~mC. ~ 5()0.~,t, t~on, Trav~[crs k,m'ned Lhat }[nu~m~ wa:~ no caring that alt future notices should be sent ~ Gerzew~ki a~d the mt[mr HLF shavehold- ers. T~velers did send thc correct form of ~he notice on August ~0, to ~an$on instead of ~ Gerzewski and the oth~r~. H~nson af{ain notified Travclerm that not;cea ~honhl he scut to Gerzew~ki and the othem. It was not until Scptembur 20, 1988, that Oerzcwski received notice in t~e proper form from Travelers. While Tr;~vcIcr~ A[~o conLen([s that i~ acthmfl eon- ~titulcd a good f;tith effort to i)rovidc no- t~ce, there is sufficient evidence m sttI~port the jury's finding that Travelers failed make proper mailing of tl:e ~mt.ic~ of the right of first ~cfusaL Mhm. .156 N{HVI'II WI.L'qI'I.;RN llF, l,()ltTl';lt. 2d 8EItiE.~ DECISION Thc trial court properly instructed the jury that in~cnt of the parties may be con- ~{dered in dutermining wimn prolmrty is "acquired" or "hehY' under Minn.Stat. ~ 500.2L gubd. G. 'Fha trial court's refusal ~) inzkvuc~ the jury or, thc doctrine of weir, er was l)ro{)er. Thus, the jury's vcrdic~ tltaC Travelers acquired Clio proi,crty on August l~ 1U~3, was proper, is ~ut)portcd by ~e record, and was not influenced by aa error of law. There ia support in tim record for tim findiag that Tr~vclcr~ failed to make a proper mailing tff tim notice of right of Affl, mcd. Homeowner brought action for injunc- tive relief after city threatened to proze- cute ifim for erecting signs with political messag¢~ on his residential property in vi~ lotion of city lawn sign ordinance. The District Court, ttcnnepiu ~unty, lie.fy W. McCarr, J-, joined enforeemunt of ordi- x)ance against homeowner. City appealed. Tim (lm~rt of Appeals, Short. J.. held th/LC First Amendment barred city from l)rohi~ icing property owner from displaying signs that contained poli~cal Blessages on prop- erty zoned for residenUal uses, since ordi. nonce did not constitute valid time, pla~ or ~anner restriction on speech, Affirmed. 1. Constitutional Law 0,48(4) "- Ordinary presumption of constitution- ality afforded {egislativ~ enactmenLs docs not al)lilY tn lawa restricting First. Amen,t- merit right& U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1. 2. Constitullunal l,aw ~.17 Court of Appeals' standard el review of case at~cking constitutionality of ordi- nance is determined not by broad powe~ of city to enact zoning ordinances but by righ~ allegedly inDing~d by city's action. 3. Constitutional Law ~90(3) (h'di:mnce restricting time, 1flace or mum:ur ,ff ap~ech will survive omstitution- al scrutiny only if it is justified widmut reference to ~vutent of rcgu}=~d is narr,wly t:dlOrCd to se~'e :;ignif~cant tim; -f information. Ii.S.C..A. Amcnd. 1. ,/.' 4. not otb,cts, tJ 8. Conttiu:tioT. al Exception rend:roi city' ' based, so th. at se~'e ...... ~ ....... ly dragon ~ 6. Conskltutiona compcii:.ng lawn ~ik:n cfi: Amen& t. Git7 did no ordinvncc dC4 n ernmen~l iLtcr,: and c~q: sic ev:/enc¢ of ~ance; city tionale behind e. was aesthetics. Zoning' and effect ~f cri:ici~ing treat did ~o~ leave I~t~aD~ cf COlT c ose!:,' adequate u~ter: 9, Cuns:itutiOr Municipal JAN-16-97 THU 14:32 P, 11, ,ppell~nt. csota, fat injmw.- I t.o Ill political arty in vic- Henry W. L of uralS- : appealed. . h~ld that ~m prohiN ylng $ignu s on ~ro~ since ordi- ,:atitutiun- entz does :t Anmnd- 'end. 1. review ;ower.s 0]' hut by COWAI{I) V, CITY tic,.: *.. 45~ 4. (]on~litulimml .l.aw analysis, rt:tfuhtLion iu cont.cnt-ncuWal if ia justified.wkhout ,-clarence tn cant,mt of regulated speech; regulation that serve~ purlm~e, mwulutcd to content of expres- sion is lmmrat, evuu if it 4au incidental effect on ~o,ne spcaker~ or nlessage~ but not olhcrs. II.RC.A. Const. Amend. t. 5. Constih~{itmnl l,nw ~90.3 Exception for c;tmpaign-related signs b;lsed, ~o that it wauht survive lqrst Ammu{m,mt scr,iluy m,ly if ncce~s;Iry to serve cmn{iclli~/~ ~t{ttu inkcrt:~ and llal'rOw- ly drawn to uclmwe that end. C~n~t. Amond. 1. 6. Conatitulimml l,nw ~9t1.3 (liLy's roLm'cat in uu~khutic~ was not compelling state iht.crest ttutt could justify contcnbbased restrictions contained in city [ilWI] 9ig'll Ol'dill;illCtL [I,$.C.A. CanaL. Amend. 1, ~. Consliiutionn{ l,aw ~90,3.- City did not c~tuhliM~ baal= for ordi- ll3~ctC t'aslriclill~ Sl)Oet:h wllgr~ city sign ordi{mncu did m~t idcatify p:trticular ernme,~tai i,tcPest saught to be advanced un,l city otherwise f:dlml to pre,ertl ~xl.rin- Me uvidcm-c of imcr,':;t umlurlying oralS. n:mcu; city l';tilt:ti to dutlmnstrate that timbale huhiud enactment of sign ordinance was aesthetics. [.I.S.O.A. CanaL. Amend. 1. 8. Consiih, ionM l,nw ~90.3 Ztming ired l'lamdng City's I.;wn si~n ordinance, which had effect or I,;mnin{{ homeowm~r's lawn signs criti,:izi,,g trc:~tumnt of bis zmfing dispute, dan ,'.xi,at,:,] Ii S(i.A. (lnnst. Amemi. }. 7.,,t:Jztg ;;;~,i I'l:mni/sg ,~-,~i ~"i:':;l ;k:~t,qi,J::lcl~t },al'r,:~i t'i/5 i;,>l'{t plo- i,ibith:i; i,,'.:t..',qy ...v.,q' fc.,m ' :~Clil:l~ ;st. !::,~:'.' ',} I~i,' ('llt$1'l O[ A;,i,,'.d'. by OF MINNEAI'¢)I.IS Mira;. /t61 ~ (.Mhm.App. .sign~ conlainingl political tncasaiUm on property zongd ~(~r ,'t:sidcnki;t} ll~tl l~wn sign ordinance that pcrmit~d other political apaach in form 0~ campaign ordinance was not valid Ume, place or man- ncr restriction on speech because it content-based, city failed to =how signifi- cant governmental interest underlying ordi- nancu, and ordinance did nat leave eden adeqtlato altern;ttu channels of communica- tion. U.S.(kA. (',m~st. Arnen,i. 1. Svltablts I,y thc 'the fir~. ;llllt:lldmua[ bltra il cit,y frmn lmohibiting a property owner from diaphty- ing sign~- contafining political mes~agel{ un property zoned for residential uso. Mark R, Anfinson, Charles J. Rethwisch, Minneapolis, for rcslmndent. Robert a. Alfto,~, Minneapolis City Atty., Michael T. Norton, Ass~ City Atty., Minne- apolis, for appellant. Considered and duc.tea by Stt('}R1, P.J., anti NOiVI'ON and MIII,AIJ,Y,' .l.I, OI,INIgN SHORT, Judge The City of Minncapoiis appeals from an order of tho trial co,rt enjnh, i,,tl ,:nfnrca- merit of part ur h~ municipal code against respondent Clayton Coward. Respondent brought this action for iniunetivo relief wt~en the city thrcalenmt to i,ras,cuh~ him for erecting aigllS tm his resid~,,tiai proper. ty criticizing the ~ ,.y govm.nmcnt. The tigris violated city code/~rovisions for ap/ms zm,eu for r,~sfdcnti;tt us,.. Wc ::ffirm. FA ( .,'N'o l'ac;ia ttrc in OW!tat! his !:, 191}:{, ~}m :~ i:q.', k' tim;fly i{,,llt'g ,/t~i,i,:X }Jt',':IH:,' ;: I;,,:,,',..[,WJ::JI:'.,'. U:;'', J~N-16.-97 THU 14:33 b~ck side et LJle second slor~; Blld aJJ open deck on the front of the third ~tory. In 1985, city inspectom cited rusponden~ for cxpamling the'noncmfformi:tg use with- out city permission. Respondent pled guilty t.t~ thcuc charges. Thc city also remove the cxlmnsions. Tim parties really reached an agreement whici~ catlcd for reslmndent to remove most of [ilo room ;dtcrlt[imm wm'e jl~l-l~iJt~:t[ to l'gltt;I~%l, lmrLic~ reduced this agreement to hll order and judgment in July 9f 19~7. No appeal was ~ken, and bofl~ partie~ complied fully with the terms of the judgmc,t. In 0ctol~er of 19B?, however, respondent erected several large sJglm in his yard and attached more to hi* }muse. Some of the siins f;u:i~ thc street con~ined the fol. lowing messages: Watch my prediction: The Mhmeapolis l)eu;wtme-t of lnspediu,~ Rill[ the City At~ormws Office will qutcaly force me signs could mush:r symlmthY for my ALLent,km: Mim~eapolis Dept. of hmpee- Lions; {liLy Attor.eys ()[fica; MY dear neighbor: Yml have el{do my llfe a liv- ing hell for dm last two yua~l Drive up the leek alley & see what iH.:POIITEII. 2d .%'1';1¢1 lC."; J[ 7{m h::vl: h:l,I .'t Cl'U,'l :ll,I si~cctinn~ or with ;t },:tie[u} m'iKhlmr, twa tri~Js to the hospimt. The ~ame or worse could happen ~ you. Are you thinking of buying your own home? Don't do it! Your home is not your castle. Owning a home could come a disaster m you. Two slKIIS wet(, :dtnctn'd tn the Jmck Of thc house. One of ttmm Mated: 'I'hia was once my lmautifttl ~rcat room; complete wi~h carpeLing& beautiful cur- A few days later, file city ii;formed r~ sponden~ the signs violated tim city code and had Lo be removed. Respondent upper early was permitted to retain the siena an additional five days and was then r~ quired to remove them. Respondc,~t eom- menced this action seeking dccl:tra~)ry and injunctive relief from the city's enforce- meat of the sign ordi,~anee. Ti~c cit.y con- cedes it would enforce thc ordinance against respondon~ if ho reinstalled t.hn signs. Ilcspamlent si~ted in dci,n:fition timt ho did not attempt h} us~ any mi;cc mualm cnmmunicn~ hL~ grievance m the pul>lle. Specifically. he dkt avl wrke Lo [f~e nuwspa. per~; ha di~ no[ protest before city hall or city council; and he did not buy adverts{ag space in nny naWSlmPer. }lowuvur. a news- paper article about respondent's problems was published in the Minneapolis Star uae on Oc[olmr 16, Ii)aY. The :~rtlclo in- clt;ded a photl~ of rcstmmhmt wil.h SOlll¢ of his Thc ;rk:l re'tort dcchtr,',i tm, P. 12 ',:~ Area a permit{, shall be ~ (2) Are~ For non'. iden~fica (9) squat may })e ~ lo~ two ( s {re.: (a) Proje (4) than one curb }er (BI "F SIGN'S nzore th: excep~ t' t>ermittc (12) ('Z) l'roj yoml t} v. '.y. (3) Hci: thxn or t.hn cur (C) s lNG O) Arc p:~rkin: cd tn c ;m({ tO tity o[ ' JRN-18-97 THU 14:34 P, 13 ~d. of ln- ,yton Go- ,f hmpce- ye forccd ti.il00 and 'OUD own could back of :at room; tiful cur- 'ye who rmcd ;ity code ,~t appar- signs for then re- ~ory ami enforce- city con- .rdinanee ,lied the ,liowing the '~l (:()WARD v. (qTY OF MINNE.~,I'()I,15 (A) NAMI,',I'IA't]': ANI; II;ENTII.'I- (B Area and content-.Residential. There ahall be nc, t mor~, than one name- plate--not exceeding one square foot in nrea~for each dwelling unit, indicating thc name ;md addrez~ of the occupant or a pe,-mittvd ,~ccul)alion. On ;t corner zon- il~g h)t. two (:5 ~u,'h ,mmt, lfl:tt~ fi)r each Mmll be l)(n'mittcd. (gl Area and c.,,tent~Nonre*id~ntial. For mmreM,I,u{ti:d t),til,iix,g~ a single (9) square feel i~ ;n-ca--indic;tti.g tim name ami add,ess of th, huikting may be displayed. 0n a corner zoning lot two (2) ;tach ~ign~m,' facing each street~sNdl be permitted. (8) Projection. All signs shall ba fixed fiat tn the surf',xce of the buildiug. (4) Heigbk N, sign s}mlt project Idgher than one st~)ry, or fifteen (15) feet almvc curb level, wlfich,vcr is (H) "t,'OI~ NAt.{"," ANI)"TO RENT" SHINS tuore th;tn t)nc ~m-h ~iKit pt:r z,)uing h)t., sign~-..-m~e facing e:tch zh'm:t--~hall permitted. No ~ign shall exceed twelve (12} sqm~re feet in area nor be closee tim. ciglsi (8} fm:t to ney ,)ti,et xnning ]eL (2} Projeeri(m. N. sign shall prol~ct yon,t the property tine into the public W:ly. (3) Heig};t. No s~sOm Mmll urojeet higher the e,,,'h levei wifichcv,~r is hnver. i(;) SteiNS A(:(:I.iSS~)RY 't'i~ PAR'K (:d 1,1 olt,: t.]g,~ ft,z' ~';~,'}~ ,'Xil ,)r f,,,.t ,,:ici:. t):;,' 2j;f[i ~:,'f o;irkll,{' d(:silum~ml: t}t~: ,:,m,liti,;,;:, of us,: <:r jd,,n thy ,)f :iu,'h l,.;,'hh,)1 ,,,',';t ;,u,{ imfih'd h,t two (2) seels sig',~- ~{:~e facing (:;tell strct!k~.sh;tlt bu },crmittcd, (2) Projection. No sign ~hall project yond the prnpcrty li~e in~ th~ public way. (3) Height. No sign shall project higher titan sewn (~) feet above curb level. Minneapolis, blinn., C. dc of Ordinaneea { 53S.lg0(A~C) (1987). The city (:.alu c~,nl:tins (,ther i)r-vi:do)m for political c;m,paig,, 522~300. Signs, (a) Permanently ab fixed. All signs shall he permanently ;tf[ixutt to l}:u ground or ;t :;(rm:Luru. Parable MEAls ute not (bi Political camlmlgn signs. Political campaign siena are authorized in ail trictm. Suhsectinn (bi ~lmlI n~t be eon. strued as authorizing any =uch ,igns on public property or on private property where otherwise praEibi~d. Minneapolis, Minn., Ca)de of Ordinances { 522.~00 (1983), 109.60. Political campaign rigns, Not- withstanding inly olhur provisl.n of thi~ Code to tim contrary, no license or permit shall be required for ~he phtcing of tem- lmrary political camlmlgn Mgm{ not more than thi,'ty.tw- CI~) squ;tr(; r,:(.t, in where the placing ;ff ~;uch signs is sign9 shall he removed six (6) daya Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances ~ 109.00 (1981), Re~pomienCs signs do not fall into any of tho permitted categories, Ifil.fits reslmmlent frmn imsti.g hi~ Iloe~ ~nforceuu. nt ()f >linrm;Hmti~, Minn., ('.ode ()t' ()rdm:m(:,'a { fi:iS lH(l (IgS~) vio- ,>f fr,',~ ,IGl Mi,,,,. ,15g N(IR'rll WE.q'rERN flh'//Ht'¢,~lt: //o:q,it',l:~ ,0 i'll,i,":. 42G N.W,2d 425, ,127 (Mmn. IHSH) Tim mmmov- d,,m',~ ;~s t,, all mnt,,ri;d Ltcts f,,r wldels il (',..p.p. (;.D'ctt, 47~ l~.F~, :11~, 322--2a, lng S.;h.. 25.tg, 25f,2-52, 91 I..E,I.2,I ~i;5 C,,h'.sh' t'. (:ity of Mitz,ettpoli.% 437 N.W2d 71g. %15 (Minn. App. 19~9). The of dinary I~resu:npfion u~ cu,~timtionaii;y forded leglshxtiva enacmwn~s does n~ ap- ply ~ law~ restricting first amendmcaL right. ,lahnson v. State Cicil Scm,ice De- partment, 280 Minn. ~1. tlr;. 15~ N.W.2d 747, 751 (19(i8). Tim Imrdcn of proving a ill; sec .Is. Meyer z[ (;rttttl. .IgG [[.S. 414, 42d, 108 S.{',t. 18~6, 189'1. 100 I,.Ed.2d 425 i2] The ci&.y ~m'k~ dcfcrcuce to its The city's power to zone, however, ia ihnit- ed by express consdt, t~[iotud and statutory prcJvisiuns. Our stamhn'd o~ review is tcrmined m)[ by [he power exercised by the city, but by the rifflers allegedly infringed by the city's action. Sc&id v. Borough Mottn~ [~phr, im, 452 U.S. Gl, 68, 1~1 S.(3L ~17(1, 2182, 68 I,.Ed.gd ifil (1981). Respon- dent's signs vent his criticism of city don. Such political speech i~ at the cole first, amendment protection, and the city mull ":allow klm wides~ room for discus- Mom tim narrowc~t rlttl~¢ for its rc~Lrle- lion." Sot Thom,s v. Collins, $2a 516. 5:D. 65 S.C,L. :llfi, 1122, 89 l,.Ed. 4:i0 [3] An ordinance restricting the time, place oc tmmner of speech will ~urvive con- stit~ttionai scrutiny mdy if 11) it is justified without reference tn tho mmlm~t of the regulated speech; (2) i[ is narrowly ~ilorad t,o serve a signifiean~ governmental inter- I. The ~e~: nrlic~:l;qcd {,t f'it)' t~)i,,tcil o/ Los .4,:gcl,'x e. 7%xlmyar.~ [~'~' l'im'en~, 466 U.S. ]i~a fiCt. 2;I~. gO l..Ed.2d '2'/~ (lOS.l) is some. IIEPORTER. 2d SEIII1.;.q c:d.; nnd (:1) it l(';tvmx ,,1",~ ,,,,,pi,. :lll,.,.ll;'l. formation. Il'etd ,' h'm'k Aw,i,.~t Ih~r. ism, -~ [J.S.. , .... . iil',t S.t;l. Z'~(;, ~l~:1, lilt b,l'M.gd lil;I 119~9),~ 'l'i,v ti.m, rc3trict, ing.~;peech on priv;tt,,ly-.wtwd prwp- crty. See, e.g., City of l&'nto)t v. l'hq/~ime Theatr&% Inc., 4~5 tLS. 4t, 4C~47, I()6 SCl. 925, 928, 89 l,.Ed.2d 29 (1986) (adult films shown in privatdy-nwnud thea~cs): Me. tromedia, Inc. v. Cit~ of San Die9o, 453 ti.8. 490, 51~!~, 1~1 S.Ct. g882, 289~()L 69 l,.Ed.2d 800 (198I) (plnrality o!:{n[on) (billboards containing cmnmorci.M speech ILS. at ~4-76, 1ol S.CL uL Z185-gts(; (live nude dancing); St.te v. tfo~ :123 N.W2d ~4~, ~3 (Minn.l~gg) (ndvcrdsing devices Wa thus r, naly2e each rmluirmnm~L iu turn. 1. Content Neutrality. [41 In determininff whether ,'t govern- merit regulation is content-neutral, Om .governmenL'u purlmse is fl~e ¢onWolling consideration. Rock Aoai)l~t Rnci.v~ ~ U.S. at .... ,10~ S.Ct. a[ g~54. The regula- tion ia eontc,~Sneutral if i~ is justified with- out tolerance to the content of the reguht- ed speech. Id. A re[ulat.ion t}~at purposes unrelated to tho e,mtcn[ of prussion is neutral, even if it has an ind. (!enm} effect on [olll~ Sl)eakers or mca- sages but not otl~era, ld. ttcre, the preserve the appeanmce of residential neighborhoods by reducing tim visual t~r caused hy signs. This objective ia roland to Om content of the signs. The ordinane~ contains exceptions, how. ever, wkieh permit cerUdn signs based ly on th~ speech eon[~ined on them. ~or freedoms i~ no greater than is caacntt:d Iv furtherance of d~a[ imcrcst. 466 U.S. at 80~. 104 S.Ct. at 2128 (qac6n~ Unit- ed Sf~fc~' v, O'~ria,, 391 U.S. 367. 377 88 S.CI. See Day, The l$-brit[icorion of the Aciz. StA_J. 195. 215 (1987). (..×:,:.,! ¢;t;..l~':Lq ~f tS,? do:: ~;rt said: Has the" t:~ for a'.ly forb 466 U.S. ether topic~ ayes, da for 92, 03, 92 process o~ fur truth-- the a viewpo[ .- ' · . · :::z:' 77, c ' JAN-16-97 THU t4:35 P. 15 :~0n ar:,lple a{terna- ',;~k A£ainst -', t05 S.Ct. 274S, !98~).~ The time, ~v;:~ zon/ng laws .'*~tdy-owne:t prop- citron ~. t, 4(;-.17, 10d 8.CC :I~)S~;) (adult film~ ~'Salt Diego, 453 ~[. 2382, ph~rnlky opinion) ~'cy); &:ha{ 452 .t 2~85-2186 (live /op/ 32g N.W.2d /erdsin~ devices · :d scenic areas). ~irement in turn. ':that a govern- mt-neuLral, Lhe dm ccntrollin~ 'D~e regula- 5u*tifiod with- o~ ti~e regular- cent. et of ,x- N~s an inei- .:Let'S or Here, the asserts ia residential visual clut- based [hetn. For 577. s8 S C~. )~. 'i'l;c=c two (I(')WAIID v. (:tTY OF ,MINNI,2AI't)I.I.S example, th~: m'clinancc permits "for ~aiC' :m:t "f,,r r,mt" s~gu:;, ;md temporary poi(If cai si~n~ rchtting to a campaign. We must determina whether Ih()sa eXCCl)ti0ns rake the otherwise contenbnuutral ordinance out of the dom;tin of time, I)lace or manner regulations. In Citg Council of Los Auqeles v. T~- p~tg(m~ ./i)r ['i)tt'cn l, ,lii6 [ I.~. 7~D, i 04 S.CL 21lS, 811 I,.l':d.2d 7'12 (19H.l}, the 8upremu An a~crtitm thitt "Jesus Saves," that "AJmrttm~ is blur(Jer." that every woman hit~ Iht: "llil:ht It) Choo:ic," or t. hut }ml Kills," Illity have a claim to a consti- tutional exumption from lbo ordinance that is jtmt ;t~ sttm~g aa "Roland Vin- ecnt--(;iky Council." To create an excep. tion for itppellcca' political ,poach and ~ot these other type~ of speech might CFClIIC :t riSii of e~gltgi~lg [zt cun,titution- :tlly l'm'bithlen O)l~h~llL dist:riminatiml- 46fi 11.8, at 816, 104 S.Ot. at gl3.1 (citation .mitred/. By placing-a higher value on c~ain topics of political speech than on oitlcs' topics, tint city impermissibly sets the :tgcml;t for [)ttbh¢ dcl)at~. .b'c~ cd Edisou ('c). t'. l't, hlic Service si,),..t.l~ IlS. 530. 537-118. 10l) SCL 23Z6. Zi);I;I 34, (iii I,.l:'.d.2d ;119 (1980); Polic~ l)t:. p~[rtmt;,t qt' Ctdc, go 'v. Moslem, 408 U.S. 92, 95, 92 8.CL. 2280, 2ggg, 83 I,.~d,gd 212 (1972); sec ,l~c) Note, The (;cutlet Dis- gresen, 102 lta~.L.tlev, ltl04, 1918 {"[S]ubject matter restrictions dluDrt tho proecs:; of self.government and the f,~r trud~--the norm ultimately underlying the murketl,htce of iti;:a~." (footnote, tedB. a viewp,)inl ,iiscrilllinttinry c:ffecL See lu ..lilt'ct. /h.hcvior. 63 Den ILl..Rev. 37, P'it'xt ..!f/~t:~l~t,tt(:ttt: ,'1 I'/o.It i)~ ?);'rt.~ 3! Va;:,i.I..iN:¢. 2f15, 28.1--~5 {!98i); J?e~.t,.i,'.yi,,'u¢ q/.glu',','h ih:t:,~sc q/Its { Icr /?c:;l~tClit,~t& .Iii ll.Cbi.l..Rcv. 81, 169- l'i (1:178). This i:; Irue hoc:ruse pohtw:tl M;,,,~..t65 ui)cct:h ill Se)mc.* forum.~; i.~ re,st oft.m! it:al o~ t.t~e utatus quo. An imp:~rti;tl ban thus has the urecck ,,r suppressing view- points critics{ of the govcrnmant.. [51 By 1)ermit~ng campaign-rela~d sign~ while banning signs on such political issues as abortion, ~xe~, and gun con~ol, tlm city ordinane, falls into the dilemma nc)ted in 7~tXlmycr~j}~r Vincent. The city of mt,it it l'ilnl~ itCCul)lahle, }mL iU dm~ying that forum to tu~ favom,{ or lc:;u fhtt~ring topics, attch as ru~p(m(tent'S criticism of city act.ion. Tim plurality in Matromcdia, Inc. said: Although the city may diutinguish twecn tho rdaLive value of diH~rant cab egories oe cc)mrnercial speech, the city does not have 2,e ~ame range of choice in the area el noncommercial speech evahmtc the ~t?ongt}~ ,~, or dixtingoi~h 4~g U.8. a[ ~14, 101 S.(;L ~[ 28¢0. The plurali[y concluded tbak With resl)c~[ ~ nnncommercial speech, tim city may )m[ ch,o~e [he ~d)ject~ fro' lmbtie al[st:ourse: "To allow a govcr,mmnt thu ch,ic:~ of permissible allow thai govcrn{nen~ ceatroI over ~careh for politi~[ truth." Id. at 5]5, 101 S,Ct. at 289H (citation h~d). S{Ich aubjccbba~ud restrictions make th~ ordinanc~ ccnten[-basod, Id. at 101 S,Gt, a[ 28~%98. W~ hold that exception for c:~mpaign.related ulgr,s ren] dera the ordinance <ontent-based- Purther~. '~"fur $;t;C" and "~or rant" signs ira. SIlttt:t'.}l. ,5'iF t~i. ;:: ~5!;;, 101 S.(;~. ;iL 'ZS~5 ()~her ?)-i:;,iic;:,,)i:~ witich h;tv{~ con- sdt red sin,it:~ ~;l',illt;::;C':.~ hitvg .f :;peech f,,r d{:".-',.mi:d iro;;tmc~;~.. ()r,:'.~l,h 841 l.'k{.l Zll;. X.V.} (9lb J~N-16-97 THU 14:36 P. 16 ~ 4(~[~ Mhm. I.q;~ N()IrFI! WI.::;TI.3IIN wbcql.'r :tnd wiwrr [I.'v are H. Id.'i. r. I&.d.',m,I ('dy. :~.~a 1",51 1:G'2-i;{ (~)th Ci..l',l%) (.rdi.:mccs wlfich ,.x,.h.l,, i,,,Ihh':tl ,:~Fn'~ I'r,un r,':~hb'ntml 43! I;.S. 913, fl7 S(~I.. 2~7:;, ~:1 1, J.ht 2d 223 (1'.177); Nntionnl Adc('rti.~i"9 Co. t,. m~rcial speech over non~,mmerclal ~f>eech), a/I'd in part. ~00 F.2d 551 (2d (',mlg0a); Ro.¢~ v. Goxb~. 351 [".Sulq). 949. ~54 tl).ltaw. 1972)(ordin;mce pruhlbiting po- tin,. 631 P.Zd 52, 1i2 (Co{o.19al) (ordinance lim~ti,g Imrmt~.-:ible mcss:tgcs tmr~tc by litica~ ai~ns is unctmstitufimml); Nc., Jer- x,'y ,. Mi/h,'. ~:t N..I. ,D2..I 13.-I1.41 ¢; A ~Zt, 8Z'? (IgStD (.rdinanc¢ whk'h limikml ru~idcntial properly ownur's contlxlgnica' don constit',itez ~n at)sfllute btm o. polidcal speech); /'cltz v. Cit~ qf S,ulh E,nlid, Il Ohio St..ad 128. 13;{. Z2a N.lq. Zd 320, 323 (t957) (ordhmnce protfibidng political imperm)a~ibly bars a t,'nlmrty owner from ~xpresaing his opinion t,, his own I.,roper- ty); CiO/ of Euclid r. M,bcl, 19 Ohio App.;kl 235, 2:1~, 4S4 N.~.2d 2a9, 25~{ (19a4) (ordinance which regulates on the basis of std)j,t:L re:trier is invalid tm its face), cert. dc,ird, ,17.t II.S. ~Zti, lO6 S.CL. aS, ~S 1,.Ed.2d ?() (1985); t'{t, ,. Tram'/ lio:t Cott,eil q/' Or(71o", 52 ()r. App, 399, ,115, 628 l'.2d 1217, 1227 (1981)(ordinance which cont:thig time iii,dt:tlin,ta ,m political signs in,l,crnfis~ibl5 restricts thc scope of pnlidc, al speech). l(il Api.,.ltanL conced(m the ordinance cal,,)t mwvive the ~trict am'utiny al,piled ~untunt-baacd restrictions on political soeeeh. Con~nt. baaed restrictions on ai)cech survive first amendn,cnt scrutiny (>niv if ti,cy are necesS;U'y tO stervc 1~ cmn- ~rnwn tt~ u~hiev~ th;it ~nd. ]{/{dnlnr /'~ncc'nt. 454 U.S. 2(33. 27o, !02 S.Gt. uti, 7;~ ',..2.'.d2d .1.t;l (lgSl). We are ItI.~P()IITEIL 2,1 .qEItll"..q ;twlzr~ ut' itny ca~e th{ti {,nh]:~ ;t cB.y'~ ruler. e~l in :testlictin; ia COnH,dliug. Wc h.ht acuLl;etic interest ;th)tm c;l{lm)~ lillg nllth~ {ltl.('rt'st. Thc .,dl,,:,,,,',' lhe rcmithfing rC,lnirt:mruls t)f thc Ih.c, 2. Narrowly t:tilvrcd to meet sig,fifi¢;mt governmental interest. ltl Aesthetic eoncern~ nra a significant govmrnmen~al interest that may justify t):mnin~ billboards and sig,,s. See ers for lq~c~ng, 4~0 tLS. at 8ot;-0% 104 S.Ct. at 2129-30; Hop~ :i23 N.W,2d at 754; City of Cottage f;rm,e v. Ott, :195 N.W.2d 111, ] 13-14 {Mim~.App. 19~(;}. The city dinanec prohibiting r~sl'"'"lctWa signs, while arguably serving tlmt interest) eon- bdns no statement of a sig:fificant govern- tnt, n~al interest, Itor hll*t the city cxtrinsic evidence of such an interest. In u=~cnce, the city aeekm judicial notice of unstated ~nd uncxplained legislative pose for an ordin;u)ce that rcALricta slmech, See National A(h,~rtisi2~ Co. v. 7bwn of Bn6pton, 900 F.2d 551, 556 (2d Cir.13O0). It i~ trt)e that the Minncapolin zoning code as a wh.le was adot)~d, in genc. ral, for the imrpo~m of promoting and protecting the public healtl~, safety, morals, comfort, aesthetics, economic vial,ility and general viability of the city. ,%c Mimmapolis, Minn., (3.de of Ordin;mccs, ~ 5~2.20 This docn not demonstrate ti~:;t tim ratio- hale behind the e,mctm(mt of the sign ordi- ve,'tisin7 Co., 900 F.gd at 555. We accel]: the city r ttorney's s~temcnt that aeathutlca was the eiW'a mokivnling pt,r- pose where the record was silent on that pol,~t.. See Dills ~. Crf:~ ~f .~laHctm, 674 F.2d I377, 1381 (llth Cir.1982), ce*'& ~zied, 4~1 lt.g. 905, 10a $.Ct. t~a, ]..I':d.2d 80~ (198B). 'rl~e omm of pruvl.g need for a ]aw burdening Si)cecil fa~l~ on :he cky. Wro,,t, a~(; ILS. at ~26. 108 S.CL. at 1H~4, Because the city ~;~ ordinance ', ..t s :.z f..~! k'O;;5 t. it~ tt ¢.1. Q',:adres. St,: ie ti:dj. 3q fi:la city ::;e fcru 21;;3. t{ city has; con::'olIi. c: 8!i, ('ourc h~ e~ aiO: i:~t~rc:nt speaker. igl T lc::va el- th': edi: bitling. whekher .. q ua:e, gl2, 104 does o:: ;i:c ~.ig ~s. ,.flee ~ JhN-18-97 TRU 14:37 P, 17 :y's inter. We a compel. also fails the time, gnfficant justify Taxpny. · 07, i t at 75.1; N.W.2d city ~overn- offered ~peech. .1900). ~ code '~r the .~ the ,n fort, mo]is, rat~O. ordi- :Ad- (;()WARI'~ v. ('.ITY city i~a~ od~erwi~c f;~ilcd to preuent extrin- sic evid6ncu ,f dm i,leres~ underlying the crdk~ancc, the city t~i~a not c~bllshed a I:z~s for an ordinance restricting speech. Except for 7h.ry.y~:rs ~r Vinccnt, the cases holding that aesthetic iutcre;~ts can cou~tiLutu a ~{glfit'icant government] inter- est involved "scmj-proleciud" ~peech. Q,:adrc~, C~,,/cnt-Nc,tr, d t'.l.,lic Rrgulations: 7'he llisv qf the Ae~ihctic Slate Interest, The bhll qf ,htdicial Scm- tiny, a7 ttautinga l,.J..139, 4.13-.17 (1986). Thc city in 7}t.rpuycrs./i,r Vincent had tim a4.Sti,nnl inlcrcat ut' traffic safety, t:.'.a[ n~t asserted here. The city there ~l~o had a greater inicreat in controlling thc forum L,:,au~se il wa~ gowrnment- ewned and no[ normally available aa a pub- I~2 [orum. .lt;6 1l.S. at 814, 104 S.Gt. at 2133. Here ,'uspomtcnt l~as m~ interest in usiag h~s owu property i~s he sees fit. The city has a correspondingly lesser interest in eor:~olliug speecl~ on private property. I~k ar ~11, 1~4 S.Ct. at 2132. The Supreme C~urt tm~ uevur huhl that acstt~etic inter- esL3 akmu can c0nstiLute a govcrnmun~l intcru=t ~iguific;mt enough to ov, rridu p~ titical ~pem't, eli lU',qa,rty owned hy tim ~t~akcr. We imhi il mmnot. 3. Alternaiiw ch:muels. {$l Tim l.,:ovurmnC,~tal regulation must leave open ;:topic alternative clr. lnnel$ tot communicating ti~ information. The city ~rgues respandent could communicate his liSSom{g(: throtlgh .such nt~u{l~ a~ letter~ to fl~c miiior, l~ickcting at city hall, or hand- billing, tt,:wev,,-. ~h, iszde is nec merely whut)ter ;lhOrlmtive fnrtllns exist, hut w}wlitcr ti,,, ;i][~l~:ttlv~ ~orlllllfi ~rk' 3tic h::fi ~l itt t::(J: 'l'imt ia ,'elrui:~ti,m'} leaves open "more d-,'~ ,,,,; r, dk:,c it~ burden u;, i"ir:it :~:m:ndm,:n{. ,.,?,::;:,ion. 'l'i,c l"i~ :;~ A,,,.,d,....,i Fv,.t,.,'~': :,lq,,'lh',':C ~ i;~hl {H{I OF MINNEAPOI.I.R Minn. 467 (~tnnl, 41i(; Il.SI. at .424, 1,3g S,CL. ;ti. (ell atlo~ a omitted}. Sevccal cases havt~ he'.d that notwith- s~nding the r~gulation, ample aharnative channels of eommunicati~a ~malned o~en. See Rock A~ainst Rctcism, -- II.S. at ..., 100 S.Ck at ZT(;o; Frisby v. Schut~z, 487 U.S. 474,485-84, ltl8 S.CL. 2,195. 2501... 02, 101 I,.Ed.2d 420 (l!)gS): Playtime The- atre$, I~c., 475 {I.S. at 5:{-54, 106 S.Qt. at 931-932; ~hxpayersJbr Vincent, q(i{i ll.S. at 812, 10~ S.Ct. at 21aZ: Hopf :~2a N.W.2d at 754. 'l'iicsc cases involved relatively mi- mn' intertm',mce with lhe ri~:ht Rock Agaiust tet:cia,n, for uxamptu, in- volved a city requirement that a plied tecEnician ~ontrol the sound at con- eort~ givan in a puhlia band shell. The Court held the law bad "no effect on quantity or content of that expression." -- U.S. at - , 109 S.Ct. at 2~80. Sim- i!arly, in PSqsby, the cil.y enacted an ordi- nance banning piekoti~*g in front of resi- dences. Aa the Court eons~ued it, ordinaneo allowad general marching t~rough the neighborhm~d,, or armmd the block. 48~ lI.S. at .18:1-84, lm~ 8.Ct. at 2S01~2. As narrowe:i, the ordinance therefore left open ampig atternnlives. In l~ltzylilttv ~'ht:uircy. Inc.. thc t:ity had banned adult movie t.ht:;tti:ra from locating within 1,0O0 fe<t of residential and ot.h~r zonen. The (~urt hehl ample alternatives remained open becausu 520 acreu of acccs- sihlu real c=tatc rcmai;~ed available. 4'I5 US. at 53-54, 10B 5.Ct. at 9~1-9a2. Tazpay~rs for Vincen~ the city had harmed posting sign, oa public The Court noted Ii:itt ample alternal.ivc I'i]0de~ Of communication rcmai{wd, and that no findings indici~tgd that the posting of political sig)~s nn p,:!dle prat),:rty c()n;:uu:)iCittlt,n, (~:' tiwt :,;,i:ull~e';' ability cnmrmmical~ effc¢:iiw~ly is liire;ttcncd," 46~ ti.S. at ~12. 104 S.C~. at 2182. t.'imdly h: .:]oE~ tin: M hln,;:mi:t Sui;m:mc 1()0 feet Of churches ;i::,i ~(:hvtd~ l,:ft ;m,:. ;12:{ N WEd at 'I:,L ?}lCSO ca:;ea al{ h:~ve a ct):n:tlo:~ ;},. :',,gt.ti:;il.4::: d~d Ii,;; :::.]o;r ~L,- j~N-16-97 THU 14:37 P, I8 lhe ,lcsh',',l :tt,diem:o In cn,,t, ras~ a regu- lation t. imt tcaves upun no adequate ulterna- ll.S. xt. ,124, t08 iq. Ct. aL l149:J; dim ]~tc., 453 U.S. at 516, 525. 101 2Si{~, 29()1 (plurality :md cmmurring opin- ions); Her~Fog t,. I~;te~atio~al Sociat~ .~r E~Sshna Co~m:im~s~ess, 452 U.S. 040, 654-55, 101 $.Ct. 2559, 256ff-68, 69 L.~d.2d 2::~ (19~1); Schgd, 452 U.S. ~ 7~, 101 $.CL a~ 218~218~; Li,~ar~ Associate, l~e. v. Township of ~Sllin~boro, 4~1 U,S. ~5, 93, 9ff S.CL 1614, 1618, 5Z L.~d.2d 155 (~9~). These c~es expressly reject the view that a law dm~ limk~ expression can be jusdfkM merely ~m the ground tlmt the expre~sion can be exercbed elscwhcrc. ,S'chnd, 452 U.S. at 76-.77, 101 S.C~ 21~6-2187. The ca,cs rcco~nize that are ~ cheap, effective and me~ed of communication. Scs Mstrom~. di~ I~c., 453 U.S. at 516, I01 S.Ct at 2897; ~c~ ~I.w Ilvp~ 32~ N.W.2d ~t 754 b~I~board is a unique ~dvertlsing device which ~nnot easily be replaced by newspa- pers, telcviMon, tcaflc~ and the like."). Lifemark Az.~oclat~z, I~c., the Supreme Court held ~hat ~ lawn sign advertising fact tha~ ~e house was for sale was u~ique form of expression, for which no a.:'... :~ al~ern~d':e existed, 431 U.S. at 93, 97 S.Ct. at 16~8. The Court no,ed that such ~igns ~re most llkeiy to reac~ the ~udiance to which the me,sage is direc~d. We think ~e messages confined on r~ spen~en~'s signs ~re ~o closely connee~d their locution ttmt no adequate aRern~tiw m~mm o~ communication exist. The Mgns invi~ passe~ by to look at the house, to consider whether thc city ~ea~d respon- deal in ~ humane fashion. Tha ~m~ ma~- sage communicated any place other than thc house would carry little impact. [91 The city's lawn sign ordinance zmo~n~s t~ z ~o~a! b~n on ~ iorm of potiE- cai ~:mrcs~mn. I%-~p~e the narrow excep- tion f'or cmn~aign-re!ated siins, tim first amend;none doe~ r,~t permlk c. uch a law P.'.~ PO RT {':It. 2d quart, altern;ttive channels). We it:tva pre- viou~ly lmm Ih;ti. ~ [o~l b:lll Oll cotnt,{erci;tl billboard~ i, permissible. See Ot~ 305 N.W.Zd itl 114. Tha~ decision was prem- ised on dm fact tha~ the ordim, oce in ques- tion did not reach noncommercial I& Noncommercial speech, ~e type at issue in the presen~ c~e, is a~ U~e zeni~ firaz amcndmen~ pro~c6on. Grang 486 U.S. at 425, 108 SCL at 1~93-94. Ther~ fore, wa hold ~a~ ~e near-~ml ban on noncommercial lawn signs in zones violate the first amendment. Our holding does not prevent tim city from acting reasonable ordinahcca limi~ug sign dimensions, establishing setback require- menu, and so forth. DEGISiON Th~ Minneapolis ordinance is no~ a valid Ume, place, or manner restriction on speech because fa) i~ ia content-based; (b) the has failed ~ 9how a slgnifkaa~ governmen- ~I in~resC underlying thc ordinance; and (c) the ordinance does not leave open quat¢ ak~rnative channels. Because we find ~ ordin~nc~ viob~ respond~t'2 first amendmeat right of free speech, affirm the trial court's rulin~ th~ the ordi- nance is unconstitutional. Affirmed. Patrick G. O'KIIONGI,1S, Appellant, Va Ardell BROBERG, individually ann d/b/a Ktngsway Home*, Inc., Respondent. · No. C3~9-1S32. Court of Appeal~ of 5Iinneso~. Employer challengad conemauo court judgmeut fur u. npaid xvuge.~. 'D,e I)i~trict doas reco'v for u ~o~ Kirk McDonald From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Kirk McDonald Doug Sandstad Dan Donahue; Doug Smith; Jean Coone Commercial Signs in Residential Zones Thursday, April 10, 1997 10:44AM ,As you are aware, the Planning Commission is recommending that the Sign Code be amended to allow political lawn signs and opinion signs not exceeding 32 square feet in area. This will be considered by the Council on Monday. VVhen the Codes and Standards Committee was discussing this with Al and Steve, the issue came up that the code allows for a few large commercial signs in the residential area (Brixius 2/25 report on opinion signs) as follows: Section 3.461(2) - 7 or more residential dwellinmg units - maximum sign size 75 square feet Section 3.464(1 )(c) - New Construction or Remodeling - maximum sign size 25 square feet The question is can the City limit the size of non-commercial opinion signs to a size smaller than other commercial or non-commercial signs. Previous court cases have said that the City cannot treat commercial speech more favorably than political speech, therefore it appears that opinion signs should be allowed the same sign area as the largest commercial signs in the zoning district. Al and Steve and the committee think that we should re-examine the current sign size requirements for commercial signs in the residential district. With all of the above in mind, could you please do an inventory of any 75 square foot signs currently in place for rental properties and identify the location. I think the committee may consider reducing this sign size to 32 square feet to conform to the recent code amendment, but they want to know how many of these signs are out there and which properties they would be impacting. I will be sending out a Codes & Standards packet next Friday (4/18) so if possible I'd appreciate it if I could have your information by the end of next week I'm not sure that an inventory of the 25 square foot New Construction or Remodeling signs is necessary being that they are below the 32 square foot limit, but if you have time it might also be nice to know approximately how many of these signs are out in the City, also. Please let me know if you have any questions and thanks for your help. I would also like your opinion on the proposed change. Page 1 Memorandum To: KIRK McDONALD From: DOUG SANDSTAD DATE: APRIL 18, 1997 Subject: COMMERCIAL SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS In response to your Apdl 10"~ e-mail, I provide the following description and the attached chart, which summarizes a random survey, this week, of real estate or rental type signs. The focus of your recent debate has been on two types of residential signs, "New construction" [25 sf] and "For Sale or Rent- 7 or more dwelling units"[75 sf]. It is important to emphasize that BOTH ARE TEMPORARY signs, by city code. The former must be removed within 2 weeks of a final inspection approval of a new construction project and the latter must be removed within one year of the date of the building permit, or when less than 6 units remain for sale or rent.. An identical commercial-industrial "Sale or Rental" [75 sf] sign is allowed under the same ordinance section, for equity purposes: Requiring smaller signs for the sale of one type of real estate, tike the Ben Franklin warehouse or another type, such as the Kimball development (9 home lots), was perceived to be an unfair regulation. For this reason, my survey includes both residential and commercial-industrial ~For Sale or Rent" signs. The limit on one single family home Sale to a modest sized-sign [6 sf] is considered traditional, rourine and acceptable by community standards. My random survey of*Sale-Rental" signs in the city is highlighted on attachment dA", with some interesting details. I sampled both residential and commercial for your baseline information. All sizes are close estimates, except for the 100 sf sign, with approximately 50% of the city surveyed. Consider the following observations and thoughts: · Commercial- industrial signs are larger, on average= 33 sf vs. 25 sf (residential) · The largest sign of this type is residential and illegal (100 sf), fronting on State Hwy #169 · The range of sign sizes is wider for residential 9 sf- 100 sf vs. 15 - 75 sf (Commercial-Ind.) · Signs over 32 sf in residential zone = 1 · Signs over 32 sf in Commercial-lndus~ial = 2 · Properties of any kind on State Hwy #169 need larger signs in order to be seen Some residential rental signs are ~permanent" exceeding the maximum 25 sf · 1. Code section 3.116 (1) [not in sign code] exempts apartment ID signs from permit FEE only. · Code section 3.116 (2) [not in sign code] exempts these signs from permits: · 2. ~New Construc'don-Residential' · 3. ~For Sale-To Rent' commercial-indus~al AND residential · 4. "Single family nameplate signs' · Clearly, previous Councils considered the four sign-types, above, worthy of a different standard and less government intrusion. · 20 pages of existing sign code may be too complicated for public understanding and compliance · An apartment complex "X" of 250 units may ALWAYS have 7 or mom apts. for rent If they never had 100% occupancy in the first 10 years, our code allows this ~Temporary" 75 sf sign to remain for 10 years. Likewise, the owner of an apt. complex would not be allowed to have a large "Rental" sign over 25 sf, after initial full occupancy, even if they owned 4 acres, were located on a freeway, had 400 apts and a mural-million dollar property. Since a sign mat small is of little value on a freeway, this code section seems punitive. Customer Service should not unreasonably limit a property owner from full use of their land. · It is desirable on large apt. complexes or multiple apt building clusters to have a large sign in a visible location, ra~er than a 25 sf, on each lot. Staff believe that the city should ENCOURAGE the flee-market sale and rental of properties of all types. Residential "New Construction" signs are rare, except for minor remodeling, because our community is fully developed. We have, in practice allowed small signs for single family cons~'ucfion and larger signs for apartment construction. You should know that NO REGULATIONS exist pertaining to "New Cons~'uction-Commercial-lndustrial" ! We have operated under a common sense approach, where the code is silenL As an ardent supporter of simple, clear code language, I am aware of the balance we seek between a reasonable level of local regulations and public acceptance. There are, probably, too many instances in which a sign code question can be answered by only one or two staff members, even when attomeys or property owners have the code in hand.. The perception that our sign code is restrictive and obscure has been voiced, even though staff have been spearheading a selection of code ~relaxations", recenW. We can do more. I would be glad to meet ~ you, and others, to illustrate or discuss the matter. cc: enclosure Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development COordinator May 2, 1997 Miscellaneous Issues April 14 Council Meeting - At the April 14 Council meetings, the Council took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Resolution Accepting Resignation of Vi Underdahl from the New Hope Plannin.q Commission and Extending Appreciation for Her Service: Approved, see attached resolution. Ordinance No. 97-14/Planning Case 97-05, An Ordinance Amending Section 2.13 of the New Hope City Code Establishing the New Hope Planning Commission: Adopted, see attached copy of final version of ordinance. Project #567, Resolution Ordering Construction of 1997 Infrastructure Improvements and Preparation of Final Plans and Specifications: Approved, see attached Council request and maps. Project #585, Resolution Ordering Construction of Street Improvement No. 585 and Approving Final Plans and Specifications (32"d Ave. Between Winnetka and Winpark Drive): Approved, see attached Council request. E. Planning Case 97-04, Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment Approval, 9413 36= Avenue: Approved, per the recommendation of the .Planning Commission. Planning Case 96-27, Resolution Approving Northwest Associated Consultants to Prepare Comprehensive Plan Update: Approved, see attached Council request. We will be organizing a sub-committee on this issue that will consist of several Planning Commission members. Ordinance No. 97-08/Planning Case 97-02, An Ordinance Amendinq the New Hope Sign Code by Permitting the Use of Non-Commercial Opinion Signs, and Amending the Purpos~ and Political Signage Section: Continued until 5/12/97. Please refer to Council minutes. The Council wants to eliminate the advantage to corner lots and wants to wait to act on this item until the ordinance regarding commercial signage in residential zoning districts is amended. H. Ordinance No. 97-04/Planning Case 96-24, An Ordinance Amendinq New Hope Zoning Code, by Establishina Reaulations for Construction and Placement of Telecommunication Towers and Facilities: Adopted as approved by the Commission. Ordinance No. 97-18, An Ordinance Repealing the Temporary Prohibition of Transmission and Reception Facilities of Radio Common Carriers: Adopted. Project #587, Approval of Market Analysis Proposal for Senior Center Study Submitted by Essential Decisions: Approved, see attached Council request. 2. April 28 Council/EDA Meetin_cl - At the Apdl 28 Council/EDA meeting, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: Project #579, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for the 1997 Sidewalk Improvement Program and Ordering Advertisement for Bids: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Project #~67, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for 1997 Infrastructure Improvements: Approved, see attached Council request. Project #585, Resolution Approving 32nd Avenue North Street Resurfacing Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of New Hope and the City of Crystal (1997 Crystal Phase 3 South Central Street Reconstruction Proiect): Approved, see attached Council request. Project #585, Resolution Approving Agreement of Assessment and Waiver of Irregularity and Appeal Between the City of New Hope and the Jones Company Properties (1997 Crystal Phase 3 South Central Street Reconstruction Proiect): Approved, see attached Council request. Resolution Approving 1997-2 Amendment to Master Modification to Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plans and Making Findings with Respect Thereto: Approved, see attached Council request. This action allows the expenditure of tax increment funds for costs associated with the potential development of a senior adult day care and senior resource center on EDA-owned property at 5425 and 5501 Boone Avenue. F. Planning Case 94-15, Discussion Regarding Release of Security for Kimball Addition: Tabled until 5/12, please refer to attached Council request. Project #583, Resolution Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 1997 Backyard Drainage Improvement Projects: Approved, see attached Council request. Project #$97, Discussion Regarding Vacant Industrial Property at 9200 49~h Avenue North and Motion Authorizing Staff to Negotiate Purchase of the Property with MLB Properties, Inc.: Approved, see attached Council request. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee met in Apdl and discussed holiday signage and commercial signs in residential districts. The information for the DNR Shoreland ordinance was not yet complete and this item will be discussed in May or June along with several other minor signage issues. Design & Review Committee - The Committee met in April to review the site/building plan for the new Hoyt development on 49~ Avenue. Quarterly Reports - A synopsis is enclosed for planning/housing/engineering issues for the first quarter of 1997. Full reports will be completed only dudng the second and fourth quarters this year. City Council Work Sessions - The joint Planning Commission/City Council work session is scheduled for Monday, May 5, at 6:00 p.m. at the Fire Station (please see enclosed agenda for this meeting) and the work session to discuss the Pawn Shop ordinance is scheduled for Wednesday, May 14, at 6:00 p.m. in the Park & Rec Conference Room. Miscellaneous Articles - Enclosed is an article regarding antenna towers for your information. June Planning Applications - We have two telecommunication tower applications for June, so the Design & Review Committee will be meeting on Thursday, May 15, at 8:00 a.m. Attachments: Underdahl Resolution Ordinance No. 97-14 1997 Infrastructure Improvements/Maps Street Improvement #585 (32n~ Avenue) Northwest Consultants Comprehensive Plan Proposal Minutes from Apd114 Meeting Re: Ordinance No. 97-08 Senior Center Market Analysis Proposal 1997 Sidewalk Improvement Program 1997 Infrastructure Improvements 1997-2 Amendment to Master Modification Kimball Addition 1997 Backyard Drainage Improvements 9200 49"~ Avenue/Brandell Property 1 ~ Quarter Reports Miscellaneous Article CITY OF NEVV HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING RESIGNATION OF VI UNDERDAHL FROM THE NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION AND EXTENDING APPRECIATION FOR HER SERVICE WHEREAS, Vi Underdahl was appointed and served on the New Hope Planning Commission from October 1991 to March 1997 and during those years she also served on the Codes & Standards Committee; and WHEREAS, Underdahl also served as'third officer of the Commission during 1996; and WHEREAS, Underdahl has submitted her resignation to pursue new challenges; and WHEREAS, Underdahl contributed input to several significant code changes and also served on the Commission during a time period when some significant industrial, commercial, and public/semi-public development projects were proposed and approved. WHEREAS, the City of New Hope accepts Underdahl's resignation effective April 14, 1997, with regrets and desires to thank her for her years of dedicated service and contributions to the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of New Hope hereby accepts the resignation of Vi Underdahl and extends its appreciation for her dedicated service to and interest in the City of New Hope. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 14th day of April, 1997. Mayor Attest: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 97-14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.13 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE ESTABLISHING THE NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 2.132(1) "Number" of the New Hope City Code is hereby added to read as follows: (~) Number. The Planning Commission may consist of up to ten members appointed by the Council. Before taking office, every appointed member shall ~-~ ........ ~ ....... th~ ~--~ ..... ~ ~- ~"'~-- take an oath th t,~- ~, to faithfully perform commission member d~==h;~c thc duties Section 2. Section 2,132(3)"Councilman May be Tenth Member" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) ~ Councilmember May Be Tenth Member. The Council may appoint a member of the Council to serve on the Planning Commission who shall serve a term expiring on the first business day of January in the year following the year appointed. Section 3. Section 2.134 "Organization" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.134 Organization. The Planning Commission shall elect ;mc ;f ~;, ...... --m~.,.--- ;; yearly a e~a-~.w~w chairoerson, e~--e~ vice ........... -- -r" a third ~h~M-mwew chairperson, and .... ~ .... ;c;,.t. ~ Officer from its membership. ~ach e4-w4~m~ officer shall hold office until-..~,,,.., ~ .... '--.,..~'**, fc''cw~--,, ,,~ ',,~r.~. c'cct~-~, . a successor is elected at the first duly called meetin~ in the succeeding year. Section 4. Section 2.135 "Meetings" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.135 . The ~re~ular monthly Planning Commfssfon ~ on s. uch day t re ular month1 Plan-~ ..... y u~ [ne Council. Any canceled for lack of end~n 1 nn~n a · a 1i ation · ea11 be called by the ~c~-~ ....... ~. not ~ sooner nan ~ three days a written request for a s~ecial meeting signed by three ~-''~ ~ [nree aays written no ' -' each member an . . t~ce to . . ¢ further ~e u~re om l~ance with 11 other 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 COUNCIL O~ma~ D~~t ~p~d for ~e~a ~enda ~on Public Works 4-14-97 Public Hear lng Jeannine Clancy lt~ No. PUBLIC H~RING: RESOLUTION ORD.ERING CONSTRUCTION OF 1997 INF~STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 567 On March 10, 1997, the City Engineer presented the Feasibili~ Repo~ for the proposed 1997 Infrastructure Improvement Proje~. Council reviewed the repoA and scheduled the Public Hearing for Apdl 14, 1997. Council also dire~ed staff to noti~ the prope~y owners utilizing Assessment Role A. The Ci~ Cle~ has notified prope~y ownem in Area 1 (63 pro,Ales) and Area 2 (7 prope~ies) regarding the proposed assessment project. The Ci~ Cle~'s leffer is aEached which describes the project, identifies the estimated cost of the assessment, and presents the financing alternatives. The proposed assessments for the proje~ am as follows: Area 1 Estimated Cost Single Family Residential $5,000.00/Iot Commercial/Industrial Rate $90.91/Front Foot Multi-Family Residential $60.61/Front Foot Area 2 Estimated Cost Multi-Family Residential Rate $742.00/unit Commercial/Industrial Rate $105..97/Front Please note that the rate for muEi-family residential diffem ~een Areas I and 2. This is due to the fact that the multi-family prope~ in Ama 1 is four units, and the multi-family pro~Aies in Area 2 are all greater than 11 units in size. M~ON BY SECO~ ~ ~: ~~m: F~e: Improvement Project 567 April 14, 1997 Page 2 The City Engineer's office and Public comments about the proposed project. attached. Works staff has received phone calls and written A log of the calls as well as the written comments is The City Engineer will present the prpject to Council and audience at the meeting. After public testimony is taken, Council may consider closing the public headng and adopting the resolution. If Council agrees to adopt the resolution, the following proposed schedule is suggested: Approve Plans & Specifications Receive Bids/Award Contract Construction Completion through Wear Course Complete Construction Assessment Headng April 28, 1997 May 26, 1997 October 17, 1997 June 15, 1998 August, 1998 Staff recommends that Council close the public hearing and adopt the resolution. ' \, 60TN AN,~E: ~ NI AREA No. PKWY Z z ESEARC~ CENTER ROAD WEST ROAD EAST ~Ld::IL)c W~)RKS SC;ENCE CEN'ER DR LOCATION PLAN NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 1997 INFRA STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT No. 567 34198F07.DWG MARCH 1997 COMM. MEAOCW ;AKE SC-COL -c MARY ~LLAGE ~RE'_-\ COL, ESE 54TH AVE N C. P. RAIL! SYSTEM FIGURE 34.198 A Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik 4, Associates · //~/ COUNCIL 1/EQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Public Hearing Public Works 4-14-97 Item No. ~y: Jeannine Clancy By:. 7.2 PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. 585 AND APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS (32"0 AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH AND WINPARK DRIVE) The City of Crystal awarded a contract to reconstruct streets located in the southern section of Crystal as part of the Crystal 1997 Phase 3 South Central Street Reconstruction Project on Apdl 3, 1997. One of the streets that is located in the project limits is 32'" Avenue. A section of 32nd Avenue (between Winnetka Avenue and Winpark Drive) is located in the City of New Hope. The proposed construction is scheduled for Summer, 1997. The New Hope City Council approved the feasibility report and authorized a Public Hearing to consider this project on March 24, 1997. The estimated cost of construction and indirect costs to New Hope is $56,340. Staff recommends that the single New Hope property which abuts the project, Jones Co. Properties located at 3216 Winnetka Avenue North, be assessed in accordance with the New Hope Assessment Policy; and that the balance of the project be paid for 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 Staff has met with Mr. Robert Jones to discuss the project. Mr. Jones has tentatively agreed to sign an assessment agreement for the project. This agreement is being prepared by the City Attorney's office and will be brought before council in the near future. Even though staff has a tentative verbal agreement with the property owner, the City Attorney recommends that Council proceed with the Public Hearing and adopt the resolution. This will allow New Hope to assess the project if negotiations with the property owner fail to result in an agreement. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Improvement Project 585 April 14, 1997 Page 2 A proposed schedule for the project is as follows: Public Headng Construction Begins Substantial Completion Assessment Headng Apdl 14, 1997 Summer, 1997 Fall, 1997 August, 1998 Staff recommends that Council close the Public Hearing and adopt the resolution. G:Requests~585ph1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects April 1, 1997 Mr. Bob Jones Jones J.R. Fixture Co. 3216 Winnetka Avenue New Hope, MN 55428 R~cr~arcl E Turner ~'E. · Glenn R. Cool~. RE. * Thomas E Noyes. PE . I~ooert (3. Schumcmt ~E · Jerry A. Bouraom, ~E · RoOer: ~ Rosene. RE ama Susan M E~erhn. A~sooate Pr~nc~O~ts. Howara A Sanfora. PE. · gelth A Ooraon. PE. · RoOer: ~ ~feffe?~ =E , R~c~ar~ ~oste' ~E , Daw~O LosKota. PE · RoDert C. RusseR. AIA · Mar~ A ~nso~ UE · M~c~ael T Rautmann. PE · Tea K F~et~. PE , Kennet~ P Anaetson. PE , Mark R Rolls. PE · S~aney P ~lhamson. PE.. L.S · RoDert P Offices ~:. P~U~ Rochester ~llmar ama St. Oou~. MN · Mequon. Re: Crystal's 1997 Street Project 32nd Avenue (Winnetka Avenue to Winpark Drive) New Hope Project No. 585 '* Crystal Project No. 96-5 BRA File No. 34207 Dear Bob: Per our phone conversation today regarding the above project, you agreed to pay the assessment of $49,000.00 for the property at 3216 Winnetka Avenue in calendar year 1998. The assessment would be paid in full at a time specified in the assessment agreement. The assessment agreement will be prepared by New Hope's City Attorney, Steve Sondrall, and forwarded to you for your signature. Relative to the construction in 32nd Avenue, Paul Pasko (SEH engineer) was not certain whether your driveway approach in 32"d Avenue would be reconstructed or not. If it is reconstructed, it would be done such that half of the driveway would remain open at all times. Similarly, the reconstruction in 32"d Avenue will be such that half of the street would remain open while the other half is reconstructed. It is also felt that the reconstruction of 32nd Avenue will occur late this summer and the final wear course will be constructed in 1998. If you have any further questions, please contact Jeannine Clancy (533-4823 ext. 16) or me. Very trulY yours, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAH:la cc: Jeannine Clancy - New Hope Public Works' Director Steve Sondrall - New Hope Attorney Tom Mathisen - Crystal Engineer Paul Pasko - SEH, Inc. 2335 ~./est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN S5113-3898 · 612-636-4600 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Approved for Agenda ~ A~enda Section uevmopment & Planning 4-14-97 [tern No. Originating Department City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant RESOLUTION APPROVING NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS TO PREPARE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE (PLANNING CASE 96-27) In 1995 the Metropolitan Council made amendments to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requiring all municipalities within the Seven County Twin Cities Metropolitan Area to update their Comprehensive Plans by December 31, 1998. All plans must include the information required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, as specified in the attachments. City staff have requested that Northwest Associated Consultants submit a proposal to the City for the Comp Plan Update. Northwest Consultants have long served as New Hope's professional planning consultant and assisted with the preparation of the 1976 Comprehensive Plan. The attached proposal to update the plan would focus on, but not be limited to: Infill of remaining vacant parcels · Maintenance of existing land uses · Changing character of commercial areas · Identification of potential redevelopment areas · Establishing goals and direction for New Hope's future The City has undertaken numerous planning efforts since 1976 and these documents will provide the foundation for the Comp Plan Update. The enclosed proposal and work program are based on a maximum cost of $38,830 and includes six major tasks. The proposal outlines several optional tasks that the City may choose to exclude and it is intended that the work program and budget would be adjusted to focus on City priorities and interests. (cont'd.) MOTION BY TO: SECOND BY Review: Administration: Finance: Request for Action Page 2 The work program and proposed budget are as follows: 4-14-97 Inventory A. Historical Background B. Community Profile 1. Social Profile 2. Natural Environment 3. Physical Profile 4. Land Use Regulations $5,500 II. Issue Identification A. Tactics Interview (20 Interviews) B. ~ Neighborhood Meetings (5 Meetings & Preparation) C. Visioning Session with Council/Planning Commission D. Issue Summary $3,600 3,000 1,200 1,200 9,000 II1. Policy Plan 4,000 IV. Development Framework A. Categorical Analysis B. Planning District C. ~ Neighborhood Meetings (5 Meetings & Preparation) 2,500 4,000 3,000 9,500 Implementation A. Ordinance Review 1,000 B. Capital Improvement Plan 2,000 3,000 VI. Public Participation A. Contact Group Meetings with Subcommittee (10 Meetings) 2,500 B. Review Workshops with Council/Planning Commission (2 Meetings) 500 C. Public Hearing & City Council Presentation 500 3,500 10% Contingency $34,500 3,450 TOTAL $37,950 After evaluating the activities within each of the tasks, staff recommend that a portion of Task II and IV (neighborhood meetings) be considered for deletion, it is staff's recommendation that a subcommittee be established for the Comp Plan Update that would include several members of the Planning Commission, Citizen Advisory Commission, and appropriate City staff, including the Directors of Parks & Recreation, Public Works, Building Official, General Inspector, and staff from the Manager's Department. Other groups could be represented on the subcommittee, per the direction of the Council. It is staff's feeling that neighborhoods in the City would be represented by the representatives of the Citizen Advisory Commission so we probably do not need to duplicate that representation by also conducting neighborhood meetings. Request for Action Page 3 4-1-97 Staff would recommend that the Council consider reducing the cost of the proposal as follows: Proposed Cost Eliminate Neighborhood Meetings (to be represented on subcommittee by CAC) Reduce Contingency Revised Cost $37,950 -6,000 -1,950 $30,000 If the Council is agreeable to proceeding, a subcommittee to update the Comprehensive Plan would be formed and the subcommittee would meet with Northwest Consultants over the next 12 months to update the Plan. Funding would be from the Planning Budget ($15,000 was budgeted in 1997 for the Comp Plan Update and another $15,000 would be budgeted in 1998). As the Council is aware, contracts/agreements utilizing professional services of this type are not subject to the municipal contracting law and competitive bids are not required for this service. With Northwest Consultant's extensive background knowledge of the City, staff thinks there would be many advantages to having them assist with the Comp Plan Update for New Hope. The attached resolution approves the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Update by Northwest Consultants in the amount of $30,000, based upon the revised cost estimate. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION APPROVINg NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS PROPOSAL FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE (PLANNING CASE96-27) the Metropolitan Council has made amendments to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requiring all municipalities within the Seven County Twin Cities Metropolitan Area to update their Comprehensive Plans by December 31, 1998; and a proposal has been submitted by Northwest Associated Consultants to update the plan in the amount of $30,000; and the City desires to utilize the services of Northwest Associated Consultants due to their knowledge and background of previous planning activities in the City; and after reviewing the optional elements of the proposal, the City Council has determined that they want the following activities completed: I. Inventory A. Historical Background B. Community Profile 1. Social Profile 2. Natural Environment 3. Physical Profile 4. Land Use Regulations I1. Issue Identification A. Tactics Interview (20 Interviews) B. Visioning Session with Council/Planning Commission C. Issue Summary III. Policy Plan $3,600 1,200 1,200 $5,500 6,000 4,000 IV. Development Framework A. Categorical Analysis B. Planning Distdct V. Implementation A. Ordinance Review B. Capital Improvement Plan VI. Public Participation A. Contact Group Meetings with Subcommittee (10 Meetings) B. Review Workshops with Council/Planning Commission (2 Meetings) C. Public Headng & City Council Presentation Contingency TOTAL 2,500 4,000 1,000 2,000 2,500 500 500 6,500 3,000 3,500 $28,500 1,500 $30,000 WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Update will be funded and is budgeted in the 1997/98 Planning Budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope that the Council approves the revised staff proposal, as outlined above, to have Northwest Associated Consultants prepare the New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update in the amount of $30,000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 14th day of April, 1997. Mayor Attest: City Clerk N . LTANT3 COMMUNITY PLANNING DESIGN MARKET RESEARCi-~ 25 March 1997 Mr. Mark hansen Bonestroo, Rosene, anderlik and Associates 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 RE: FILE NO: New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update 802 Dear Mark: Attached please find a copy of our proposal to update the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. Metropolitan Council has requested the existing and proposed land use plan be made available on GIS software. Please review my description of the process for creating a land use map and tell me if this can work with your system and staff. Please call me if any work program adjustments are necessary. Sincerely, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS', INC. Alan R. Brixius, AiCP Vice President pc: Kirk McDonald Dan Donahue 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 5SS ST. PHONE e i 2-595-9636 FAX LOUIS PARK. ~IINNESOTA ~ I 2-595-9837 N LTAN T SA. COMMUNITY ~LANNINO OE$10N MARKET RESEARCH 25 March 1997 Mr. Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue No. New Hope, MN 55428 RE: FILE NO: New Hope - Comprehensive Plan Update 802 Dear Kirk: As you are aware, the Metropolitan Council, through its 1995 amendments to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, now requires that all municipalities within the Seven County Twin Cities Metropolitan Area update their comprehensive plans by December 31. 1998. All plans must respond to the informational requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act as outlined in Attachment A. Northwest Associated Consultants staff assisted New Hope with its current Comprehensive Plan dated 1976. We would like the opportunity to assist the City with their plan update. Since the 1976 Comprehensive Plan, New Hope has matured to a fully developed community. The issues and opportunities it confronts differs from those in 1976. NAC's long standing relationship with New Hope gives us a intimate understanding of these changing conditions, including but not limited to: Infill of remaining vacant parcels. Maintenance of existing land uses. Change roles and character of New Hope commercial areas. The identification of potential of redevelopment areas. Establish goals and direction for New Hope's future. The City has undertaken numerous planning efforts since 1976 that have addressed more specific planning topics or issues. These planning documents will provide excellent foundation for the Comprehensive Plan update and will go a long way in satisfying Metropolitan Council requirements. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA PHONE 6 I 2-595-9~36 FAX ~ I 2-595-9837 Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 2 42nd Avenue Improvement Study 42nd Avenue/City Center Market Study New Hope Vacant Land Study, Phases I and II Winnetka Center Market Study New Hope Transportation Plan New Hope Storm Water Management Plan New Hope Housing Action Plan Bass Lake Extension Redevelopment Area Aside from the aforementioned issues, the comprehensive planning process for New Hope is anticipated to include extensive public participation and coordination with neighboring communities. The following work program has been prepared to outline the steps to be taken to undertake the New Hope Comprehensive Plan update. In review of the work program, we have outlined optional tasks that the City may choose to exclude. Upon review of the work program and budget, it can be further adjusted to reflect the City's desires. WORK PROGRAM Task I - Inventory/Community Profile The planning inventory/community profile will be a summary of existing conditions related to the New Hope's demographic profile, land use, housing, land use controls, transportation and infrastructure. This document will provide a historic reference and the empirical data base from which the City will develop its comprehensive plan. Due to New Hope's continuing focus on planning, it is anticipated that most data necessary for the planning inventory has already been assembled and is relatively current. Additionally, in some cases there are detailed reports documenting the information. Within the context of the Comprehensive Plan update, a summary statement of the social, physical and economic aspects of the community will be prepared. To minimize time and costs, it is suggested that the plan inventory merely highlight both in text and graphic form the very basics of the information required by the Metropolitan Council and reference the sources where more extensive detail may be located. To some extent, this could take on the form of an annotated bibliography of existing planning documents. It is further anticipated that with the assistance of City staff, NAC would gather the inventory information and synthesize it into a formal report. Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 3 Consistent with Metropolitan Council requirements, the inventory/community profile must include the following elements: Historical Background: This section would provide a description of New Hope with regard to is past planning efforts, development patterns and growth. B. Community Profile: Social/Profile: This section would provide a description of New Hope's demographic composition including population, household characteristics, employment, age and income. Much of this information has been gathered fro the City's 1996 Housing Action Plan. Census information and Metropolitan Council demographic forecasts will also be utilized. Natural Environment: Description of the environmental sensitive conditions within New Hope that should be protected and will be a constraint on development. In the case of a fully developed community like New Hope. the natural environmental portion of New Hope will focus on the City lakes, wetlands, stormwater issues, as well as the City regulations that provide environmental protection. Physical Profile: The physical profile of the community is intended to describe the various physical components of New Hope including land .use, housing, utility infrastructure, transportation, etc. An existing and proposed land use map is required as part of the Comprehensive Plan submission to the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council requests that the existing and proposed land use map be submitted in a digital format as well as a hard copy. The "Arc Export" format is preferred, but a "DXF" format, can be used. New Hope has GIS availability through its City Engineer. The following efforts are suggested to produce a GIS existing land use map: (1) The City Engineer (Bonestroo) produce working maps at 1 inch equal 200 feet showing parcel boundaries, street names and PID numbers. This information is currently in their GIS system. Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 4 (2) NAC will overlay the working maps over the City's 1991 topography maps and identify the existing land uses. Building permit information and a field inspection will be used to identify land use development since 1991 and remain vacant sites. (3) The City Engineer can digitize the existing land use areas from the working maps and overlay them on a parcel map to assign land use and calculate acreage. (4) The same process can be used for the New Hope proposed land use map. Housing. The housing component of the inventory will reference the approved New Hope 1996 Housing Action Plan. Transportation. The transportation component of the inventory will reference the New Hope 1995 Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Utility Infrastructure. New Hope has recently completed a Stormwater Management Plan which will be referenced in the inventory. Other infrastructure areas such as sanitary sewer, water, parks will require some attention. Information and issues related to these infrastructure areas will be identified through discussions with the Public Works Director, Park and Recreation Director, City Engineer and other. City staff. Land. Use Regulations: A description of New Hope's in place land use regulations is necessary to illustrate how the City addresses local and regional concerns related to environmental protection, affordable housing, and economic development. The inventory information will be gathered and presented consistent with format requested by the Metropolitan Council. (See attached Metropolitan Council checklist and worksheets.) Mr. Kirl~ McDonald Page 5 Task II - Issue Identification Contact Group. The City has established a subcommittee of the Planning Commission as the contact group for undertaking a Comprehensive Plan update. The contact group in conjunction with City staff will provide feedback and direction for the Comprehensive Plan as it progresses through the planning process. Through regular meetings, the contact group will stay abreast of the plan progress and assures that the plan is tailored to address the City's specific issues. Tactic Interviews. Individual interviews would be held with members of the City Council, Planning Commission, City Administrator and department heads to determine needs, issues and initial objectives to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Additional interviews may be held with the City's other advisory groups or other organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, the School District, or adjoining communities if the City feels it may be necessary. Through the tactic interviews, the issues and future land use objectives of the community leaders will be identified. The interviews will provide direction and focus with regard to the local community issues that must be addressed in the comprehensive planning document. A summary of the findings from the interviews would be prepared. Neighborhood Meetings (Optional). To solicit public participation in the identification of community issues, neighborhood meetings are proposed. The City would be divided into five neighborhood areas and separate meetings would be conducted for each neighborhood, the purpose of the meeting would be to disseminate information regarding the planning process and past planning efforts. The meeting would provide citizen input on both community-wide and neighborhood land use issues. The neighborhoods would be delineated with the assistance of the contact group and City staff. Meeting notification and accommodations would be the responsibility of the City. NAC would facilitate the meetings and prepare necessary display boards and handouts to illustrate neighborhood boundaries, existing land uses and zoning. The neighborhood meetings would follow the tactics interviews to allow feed back on perceived community-wide issues identified in the previous step. Following the neighborhood meeting; a written summary of issues and opportunities what were identified by the residents will be prepared. Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 6 Visioning Session (Optional). Upon completion of the tactics interviews and neighborhood meetings, the summaries of issues and opportunities obtained by both efforts will be presented at a joint comprehensive planning workshop for the City Council and Planning Commission. Through this workshop an effort will be made to build consensus as to the priority issues facing the community and the direction that the comprehensive plan will take in addressing these issues. Issue Summary. The issues and directions ascertained from the tactics interviews, neighborhood meetings and visioning sessions will be summarized in a report. The issue summary will identify the issues and community goals that will be addressed through the comprehensive plan process and be included as part of the final report. Task III - Comprehensive Plan - Policy Plan An initial and critical part of the comprehensive plan is the policy Plan. This narrative statement of goals, objectives and policies responds to the issues and opportunities that are presented in Tasks I and II. The policy plan will address topics of land use, natural resources, housing, transportation, community facilities/services, economic development and redevelopment. Working with City staff and contact group, NAC will formulate a draft policy plan using the policy statements of past planning documents as a base and developing new policy statements to address new issue areas. The draft policy plan will be subject to detailed review by the City officials and City staff. City input is essential to insure that the plan is tailored to the need and desires of New Hope. the finalized policy plan will become part of the final report. Task IV - Comprehensive Plan - Development Framework, Categorical and Neighborhood Planning Districts The specific land use and community development recommendations shall be described both as narrative and graphic format within the development framework. The development framework will first address community issues in the following categorical basis, land use, natural resources, transportation, community facilities and services, economic development, redevelopment. Wherever the City has recently completed planning studies such as transportation and stormwater management, the existing plans shall be included by reference and coordinated with development framework recommendations. Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 7 The categorical topic areas will then be combined and addressed on geographically planning district basis. The 1976 Comprehensive Plan utilize planning districts to give planning attention to individual neighborhoods. With this planning effort, NAC would propose to revisit each of the existing planning districts. Task V - Implementation Program So as to assist the City in a realization of its plans, the last task envisioned is the preparation of a Community Improvement/Comprehensive Plan Implementation Program. In cooperation with City staff, a listing of specific projects will be identified and detailed. On an initial basis, priority listing will be provided which will be subject to the review and modification by City officials. Once the project priority listing is agreed upon, further refinement of the project will be pursued. This will include outlining anticipated costs, sources of funding, and responsibility assignment. Task VI - Public Participation Public participation is essential to tailor the plan to meet the City needs. The public participation component is intended to be continuous throughout the comprehensive planning process. The public participation may include the following depending on the City's wishes: Contact Group Meetings. Periodic contact group meetings will beheld throughout the comprehensive plan process. This subcommittee of the Planning Commission would be responsible for directing the comprehensive plan efforts. Meetings would be held on an as needed basis to provide feedback on the previous tasks being undertaken. Neighborhood Meetings are proposed both during issue identification and presentation of the development framework. This will allow for smaller meetings to discuss geographically specific areas of the City. These meetings are optional. Visioning sessions as described in Task II. The workshop is proposed to help focus the comprehensive plan early in the process. This meeting is optional. Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 8 Eo Review Work Shops. Following the final draft of the policy plan and development framework, review workshops with the entire Planning Commission and Council is suggested. This will allow for discussion and revision prior to final draft. Public Hearing. Final draft presentation to the general public is mandatory. The public hearing will be with the Planning Commission with a subsequent presentation to the City Council. BUDGET Per your request, we have attempted to layout a work program that meets the City's needs with regard to its comprehensive plan update. The following budget outlines cost of each task. The work program and budget can be further adjusted to focus on City priorities and interests. I. Inventory~ $5,500 II. Issue Identification 9,000 A Tactics Interview (20 Interviews)2 B. Neighborhood Meetings (5 Meetings and Preparation)3 C. Visioning Session3 D. Issue Summary 3,600 3,000 1,200 1,200 II1. Policy Plan 4,000 IV. 9,500 Development Framework A. Categorical Analysis B. Planning District C. Neighborhood Meetings (5 Meetings and Preparation)3 2,500 4,000 3.000 V. Implementation 3,800 A. Ordinance Review 1,000 B. Capital improvement Plan 2,000 Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 9 VI. Public Participation A. Contact Group Meetings (10 Meetings)2 B. Review Workshops (2 Meetings)2 C, Public Hearing & City Council Presentation 2,500 5OO 5OO 3.500 10% Contingency $34,500 3,450 TOTAL $37,950 The inventory budget amount does not include engineer's cost for GIS services. 2Additional tactic interviews or number of meetings may be provided for an adjusted cost. 3Neighborhood meetings and visioning sessions are optional. The City may choose not to pursue these meetings to reduce project costs. The budget amount does not include final report copying. NAC will provide' one reproducible paper original and a computer diskette of the final report compatible with New Hope's system. Final graphics will be prepared in a Corel Draw 5 and will be presented to the City. SCHEDULE The preparation of the Comprehensive Plan update generally takes between 9 and 12 months. If the proposal is approved, a specific project schedule that coordinates staff time and contact group meetings will be established. Mr. Kirk McDonald Page 1'0 CONCLUSION The work program recognizes New Hope's on-going planning and attempts to avoid duplication of existing studies. In this respect this Comprehensive Plan update is much less expensive than the 1976 efforts which exceeded $50,000. Per your request, we have outlined the efforts necessary to meet Metropolitan Council requirements and to address local issues. We look forward to again assisting the City of New Hope in this plan update. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. Alan R. Brixius, AICP Vice President pc: Dan Donahue Mark Hansen MOTION Item 10.1 OI~INANCE 97-04 Item 10.2 the following voted again.~t .the same: None; Abstained: None; Absent: Norby; whereupon the resOlution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, Ordinance No. 97-08 (Planning Case 97-02), 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. Mr. Kirk McDonald stated the ordinnnce addresses three issues in the Sign Code: I) length of time political lawn signs can remain in place, 2) nun'Aber and size of political lawn signs allowed on a single property, and 3) opinion signs. First, the current New Hope Sign Code states that no person shall permit any political campaign 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 sate general election year until 10 days following the sate general election. In other words, Sate 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 sate general election. The intent of this ordinance amendment is to make the Sign Code consistent with State Statutes. Second, 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 proposed ordinance change 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 allows non- commercial opinion signs which do not exceed 32 square feet in size. Mr. Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, stated the Planning Commission initiated review of the sign code and requested stricter regulations concerning lawn signs. He noted that upon researching he discovered law actually requires the City to loosen its regulations to comply with several supreme court decisions which dealt with political free speech. DiscUSsion ensued regarding the proposed ordinance. It was noted that corner lots could have an .unfair advantage having two street frontages for political signs. Next discussed was the allowable square footage for non-commercial opinion signs. Mr. McDonald indicated staff is currently taking inventory of commercial signage contained within residential .zoning districts. The City Council unanirnonsly agreed to postpone action on the proposed ordinance until completion and review of the sign inventory. Motion was made by Councilmember Collier, seconded by Councilmember Otten, to postpone adoption of Ordinance No..97-08 until May 12, 1997. Voting in favor: All. Motion carried. Mayor Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.2, Ordinance No. 97-04 (Planning Case 96-24), An Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Regulations for Construction and Placement of Telecommunication Towers and New Hope City Council Page 6 April 14, 1997 ~NCZL REQUF T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Manager Other Business 4-14-97 Dan Donahue Item No. By: By:. 12. ~ APPROVAL OF MARKET ANALYSIS PROPOSAL FOR SENIOR CENTER STUDY SUBMITTED BY ESSENTIAL DECISIONS, INC. (PROJECT NO. 587) This issue was discussed at the March 24th Council Meeting and again at the work session of April 9th. The proposal submitted by Essential Decisions, Inc. (EDI) relates to the second phase of the study to determine programming needs. Four steps are provided in the study: Strategic Planning Session and Consensus Building Focus Groups Mail Surveys Presentation of Final Report The minimum fee for the study is $11,600 based on 3,250 mail surveys and four focus groups. The targeted audience for the mail surveys is as follows: 2,000 seniors, 250 professional/civic group members, 1,000 informal care givers/family members. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ 84/18/1997 13:38 SII-EDI-SF~ 6i24909i45 .. MARKET.:.ANALY'SI,S~ "'?' · 'PROPOSAL · ' :SENiOR'CENTERSTUDY" N oP ' '." ...,".- :. Ew"H E, MN .".. City of. Ne~ HOpe . .... '. .. .. 440, !..Xyl0nA~,enueNozth...' .. :. ...... · Ne~.Hop_~ ~ 55428-'51}t6'.' ... · ' '17-99- " · ~..~0,'. ' 13:38 6124909145 SII-EDI-SH/~ .M atke't.' Analysis '.Prop o s'~l' PAGE 83 · " " CITY OF'NEW LIOI'B'. SENIOI CENTRI~ STUDY . ' · :=> Ci~ ofN. e~ Hope s~io~ dti~ mp~ .c~. ".m.i~,~..' ... 84/18/1997 13:38 6i24909145 SiI_~Di_c~.p , P~ 13:38 6124989145 SII-EDI-S~-~ PAGE .1 '. 2 '4 Titl~. 05 / m council, ACTXON ~a~ Dep~t ~p~d for ~enda ~da ~on Public Works 4-28-97 Consent ~~ Item No. Jeannine Clancy ~ ~ 5' ~ / RESOLUTION APPROVING P~NS AND .SPEC[~[CATIONS ~OR TH~ ~ 997 SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROG~M, iMPROVEMENT 579; AND ORDeRiNG ADV~RTiSSMENT 8IDS [n Pebma~, ~ 997, the City Council accepted the ~easibiiity repo~ ior the ~ 997 Sidewalk improvement Pro,ram and ordered the City ~ngineer to prepare plans and speci~cations ~or Phase [ which focuses on ~nnetka Avenue, 8DOne Aven~e, a poaion oi Bass Lake Road, and the entrance to the New Hope Police Depa~ment. The plans and specifications are before the Council for consideration and approval. Based on direction imm Council and staff, the City 5ngineer has made the adjustments to the plans and speci~cations: · The quantities for sidewalk reconstruction on Boone and ~nnetka Avenues have been increased as a result of a sprin9 inspection of the project area and a determination that additional sidewalk needed to be repla~d. The added cost for these improvements would be paid for with Municipal State Aid and Community Development Block Grant funds. · The project includes constm~ion o~ new sidewalk on ~nnetka Avenue (paas B, C, and D). Staff is approachin9 the adja~nt prope~ owne~ to request that they ~nance ~o thirds the constru~ion cost oi the sidewalk. ~is cost sha~n9 is bein9 requested because the pmOeay is developed. Should staff be unsuc~ss~u[ in obtainin~ agreement from the adjacent prope~ owne~, the City ~uid either ~nance ~ 00 pement oi the cost through State Aid iunds, or delete the sidewalk irom the project. · The proje~ includes constm~ion of new sidewalk adjacent to 890~ Bass Lake Road E). Staff is appmachin~ the adjacent propeay owner to request that they pay ~ 00 percent of the cost oi the sidewalk. This amount is be/n9 requested because the prop~ay is vacant M~ON BY SECO~ BY ~: ~~on: F~e: !Jill I1[ I1! -- [ J ' 1111[, --- - me -- Request for Action April 28, 1997 Page 2 and, when developed, the City would request that the property owner install the sidewalk. Should staff be unsuccessful in obtaining agreement for the adjacent property owners, the City could either finance 100 percent of the cost, or delete the sidewalk from the project. · The project includes construction of new sidewalk on the east side of Winnetka Avenue in the City of Crystal. Staff has approached the Crystal City Engineer and requested that Crystal pay 100 percent of the cost. The City of Crystal has not yet responded. If Crystal chooses not to participate, this area would be deleted from the project. Should Council approve the resolution, ~ proposed project schedule is as follows: Approve Plans/Authorize Bidding April 28, 1997 Award Contract May 27, 1997 Complete Construction September, 1997 Staff recommends approval of the resolution. g:request~579AP Bonestroo Rosene Anclerlik & Associates Engineers & Architects April 17, 1997 Associates. Inc. ~S ~ln Afhrmatlve 8on~troo, Ro~ene. An~rliR Turner PE · Glenn R COOk, RE · Thomas E Noyes FE o,tnc/~als HowarO A Sanford. RE · Kelth A Goroon. Ms. Jeannine Clancy New Hope Public Works 5500 International Parkway New Hope, MN 55428 Re.' 1997 Sidewalk Improvement Program City Project No. 579 Our File No. 34200 Dear Jeannine: The proposed schedule for the 199;VSidewalk Improvement Program (plans attached) is summarized below. Approve Plans / Specifications Receive Bids Award Contract Construction Completion April28,1997 May 21,1997 May 27,1997 Sep~mber 1997 The engineer's estimate for each part of the project is listed below: Part A Boone Avenue Winnetka Avenue Police Entrance Part B - 3510 Winnetka Avenue Part C - 4000 Winnetka Avenue Part D - 4148 Winnetka Avenue (School District 281) Part E - 8901 Bass Lake Road Part F - East Side Winnetka Avenue - City of Crystal 111,541.25 71,266.25 2,205.00 $185,012.50 8,505.00 3,845.00 18,295.00 4,165.00 35,907.50 Parts B through E include new sidewalk construction. At the April 16 staff meeting, it was agreed that we would approach the property owners abutting Parts B, C, and D and request that they finance two-thirds of the project cost for sidewalk through special assessment. The property owner abutting Part E will be requested to finance 100 percent of the sidewalk cost. The cost responsibility difference is because the properties abutting Parts B, C, and D are developed (similar to the J.R. Jones property) while the property abutting Part E is undeveloped. We have reviewed and forwarded the plans to Tom Mathisen at the City of Crystal. At this time, he has not indicated whether the City of Crystal will be included in the project or not. The specifications will allow for Parts B through F to be deleted at the time of contract award or by Change Order after the contract award. 2335 1~/est Highway 36 * St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 ,, 612-636-4600 ? ~'~ . Jeannine Clancy April 17, 1997 Re: 1997 Sidewalk Improvement Program Page 2 The feasibility report dated February 1997 estimated the sidewalk reconstruction cost in Boone Avenue and Winnetka Avenue at $112,100.00 based on inspection last fall. We inspected the sidewalks and handicap ramps again this spring and identified substantially more sidewalk and handicap ramp reconsmaction along Boone Avenue resulting in the cost incr,ease ($70,000.00). All costs are eligible for Municipal State Aid funding. The plans/engineer s estimate have been forwarded to the Municipal State Aid office for their review based on our letter dated April 15, 1997. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Very u'uly yours, M~k'A. Hanson MAH:la CC: Tom Peterson Vince Vander Top Joe Illetschko COUNCIL ?~t REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Public Works 4-28-97 Consent Item No. By: Jeannine Clancy By:. 6.9 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT #567 (1997 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT) On April 14, 1997, the City Council held a public hearing to review the proposed project and receive testimony from affected residents. After closing the Public Hearing, Council authorized the City Engineer to prepare final plans and specifications. The plans and specifications are before the City Council for approval. Should Council adopt the resolution, the following project schedule would be followed: Council Approves Plans & Specifications April 28, 1997 Staff Receives Bids May 23, 1997 Council Awards Contract May 27, 1997 Construction Completion through Wear Course October 17, 1997 Complete Construction June 15, 1998 Assessment Hearing August, 1998 Based on information received from residents at the Public Hearing and Council direction, the City Engineer has made the following adjustments to the plans: Area 1: · Gettysburg Circle: Residents in Gettysburg Circle objected to the project because they believe that the condition of the pavement does not warrant removal and replacement. However, in order to properly collect the storm water in the backyards of homes located on the west side of Gettysburg Circle, the storm sewer in Gettysburg Circle needs to be reconstructed at a lower elevation. This new storm sewer would convey drainage to the reconstructed storm sewer in Gettysburg Avenue. As a bid alternate, the Engineer MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Adm/mlstratlom: F~.amce: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Act*ion ~ April 28, 1997 n~ Page 2 developed a design which includes construction of a pipe in the backyards of the homes o the west side of Gettysburg Circle. The challenge with this approach is that easements to ~ construct and maintain this pipe would need to be obtained, and the backyards of these homes would need to be restored. From a construction and maintenance perspective, staff's preferred approach is to build the pipe in the street. The City Engineer has also included installation of a new watermain in Gettysburg Avenue between 59~ Avenue and Bass Lake Road. Should the costs of this new pipe exceed the project budget, this section could be eliminated through a change order reducing the quantity of pipe. Area 2: The preliminary report indicated that the streets where there is proposed on-street parking would require a 36' cross section. These streets include Zealand Avenue (54= to 56= Avenues), 55t~ Avenue (Zealand to Winnetka Avenues), 56~ Avenue (Boone to Xylon Avenues), and Xylon Avenue (Bass Lake Road to 56= Avenues). As part of the final design process, the City Engineer has recommended that the cross section of the street be reduced to 32'. This will decrease the impact to the boulevards of the adjacent properties and will reduce street reconstruction costs. The Public Works Department has requested that the City Engineer include some miscellaneous capital improvements in close proximity to Area 2. Staff believes that a competitive price will be received if these projects are coupled with a larger project. The projects include: A sanitary sewer connection between the Crystal system and New Hope system in Nevada Avenue between St. Raphael's Drive and Bass Lake Road. This is the final step in balancing the flows of the two cities' sanitary sewer systems related to an exchange effort. The exchange effort was the result of a desire to eliminate a lift station in Crystal and to eliminate the need to a access a New Hope sanitary sewer pipe which was built near Maryland and 36~ Avenues without the proper easements. Repair of a sanitary sewer trunk main located in Winnetka just north of Bass Lake Road. This 15" pipe was televised as part of the City's routine inspection process and found to have been punctured by a 6" pipe. Currently, no utility owners have claimed responsibility for the damage to the sanitary sewer pipe. Installation of storm sewer pipe in the east boulevard of Boone Avenue between the north curb of Bass Lake Road to Boone Circle. As part of a county improvement, the storm sewer in Bass Lake Road was sized to accept run off from the area north of Bass Lake Road and was stubbed out into the Bass Lake Road boulevard. This new pipe will convey water from Boone Circle to the storm sewer in Bass Lake Road. Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution. G:Request$~567AP COUNCIL R,E UEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager~ Public Hearing Kirk McDonald /~) 4-28-97 ItemNo. ]~Y: Management Assistant ]~' ,/ PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION APPROVING 1997-2 AMENDMENT TO MASTER MODIFICATION TO REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS AND MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO At the March 24, 1997, Council meeting, the City Council established a public headng date of April 28 for i the Council and EDA to consider amendments to redevelopment plans, redevelopment projects and tax increment financing plans regarding the EDA-owned properties at 5425 and 5501 Boone Avenue North. The proposed amendments relate to the construction of a senior adult day care center and senior resource center on property currently owned by the EDA. This is the public hearing to consider the l approval, which would authorize the use of tax increments dedved from the tax increment financing districts of the EDA for the costs of the construction and equipping a senior center. The 5501 Boone Avenue property was amended to be included in an area eligible for TIF expenditures in 1989 and the! 5425 Boone Avenue property was added in 1992. A minimal budget was established with each of those two amendments. The amendment to be considered at this public hearing is related to increasing the amount of the budget to fund a senior adult day care and senior resource center. The enclosed plan states that the EDA and the City desire to develop a senior adult day care and senior ~ resource center on property owned by the EDA located at 5425/5501 Boone Avenue North. The Senior Facility is proposed to be a joint effort between the City and CareBreak. CareBreak is presently operating an adult day care program in North Ridge Care Center located across the street from the proposed site. Because of increased demand for adult .day care and space limitations at North Ridge, CareBreak is desirous of moving its adult day care program to the Senior Facility. It is presently proposed that the Senior Facility will be approximately 25,000 square feet, with approximately 10,000 to 12,000 square feet to be used for the CareBreak adult day care program, 3,000 to 5,000 square feet to be leased to others for services and 8,000 to 10,000 square feet to be used for a senior program to be developed by the City. The present estimated cost of the Senior Facility is $2,500,000. (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Adm~ irflstratton: Finance: RFA-O0 / ~ Request for Action Page 2 Two resolutions are involved in the amendment process. 1. The EDA Resolution Approving 1997-2 Amendment to Master Modification to Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plans and Requesting Approval of the City Council should be approved prior to the public hearing before the City Council and before the adoption of the City Council resolution. The EDA is recommending the "Master Modification" to the City Council, therefore, it is appropriate that the EDA act first on its resolution recommending changes to the City Council. After the EDA action, the City Council should conduct the public hearing and, pursuant to the recommendation of the EDA, adopt the City Council Resolution after the public hearing is closed Approving 1997-2 Amendment to .Master Modification to Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plans and Making Findings with Respect Thereto. Since the EDA is requesting City Council approval for these amendments, the City Council meeting should be suspended prior to the public headng on this matter. The EDA meeting should be called to order and the EDA Resolution requesting approval for the amendment by the City Council should be passed before consideration of the amendment at the public hearing called before the City Council. The Council meeting can then be reconvened, the public headng can be conducted and closed, and the City Council Resolution approving the amendment should then be passed. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. 10:88 ~,~ ~81~340~844 OO2 1997-2 A~NDMENT TO MASTER MODI1;ICATION TO REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPlV~.NT AUTHORITY MASTER MODIFICATION - APPROVED JULY 25, 1994 1995 ~MENT - APPROVED OCTOBER 9, 1995 1997 AMENDMENT-APPROVED FEBRUARY 24, 1997 1997-2 ~~ - APPROVED APRIL 28, 1997 04/~4/97 THU 10:57 FAX X6123402644 DORSEY ~ITNEY L INTRODUCTION The Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of New Hope, Minnesota (the "HRA") and the City of New Hope, Minnesota (the "City"), have previously approved six Redevelopment Plans designated as Redevelopment Plan 80-2, Redevelopment Plan 81-1, Redevelopment Plan 82-1, Redevelopment Plan 85-1, Redevelopment Plan 85-2 and Redevelopment Plan 86-1 (the "Redevelopment Plans"), and have approved redevelopment projects (the "Redevelopment Projects") to be undertaken pursuant thereto, and in order to finance the public redevelopment costs to be incurred by the City and the HRA in connection with the Redevelopment Plans and the Redevelopment Projects, the HRA and the City have approved various tax increment financing plans (the "Financing Plans") which establish tax increment financing districts designated by Hermepin County as Districts 1601, 1602, 1603, 1604, 1605, 1606, 1607 and 1608 (the "Districts"). Purs,,Ant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.094, subdivision 2, the City has transferred control of the Redevelopment Plans, the Redevelopment Project~, the Financing Plans and the Districts from the HRA to the New Hope Economic Development Authority (the 'EDA"). Irt order to authorize the City and EDA to undertake certain activities designed to remove, prevent and reduce blight, blighting factors and the causes of blight in the City and provide facilities intended to serve all residents of the City, on July 25, 1994 the EDA and City approved amendments to the Redevelopment Plans, the Redevelopment Projects and the Financing Plans entitled "Master Modification to Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plans" (the "1994 Master Modification") which (i) combined the areas subject to the Redevelopment Plans, (ii) included additional property in the area subject to the Redevelopment Plans and (iii) authorized tax increment revenue derived from any of the Districts to be utilized in any area subject to the Redevelopment Plans. On October 9, 1995, the EDA and City approved additional amendments to the Redevelopment Plans, the Redevelopment Projects and the Financing Plans entitled "1995 Amendment to Master Modification to Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plans" (the "1995 Amendments to Master Modification"). On February 24, 1997, the EDA and City approved additional amendments to the Redevelopment Plans, the Redevelopment Projects and the Financing Plans entitled "1997 Amendment to Master Modification to Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plans" (the "1997 Amendments to Master Modification"). Both the 1995 Amendments to Master Modification included additional property in the area subject to the Redevelopment Plans and authorized additional expenditures of tax increment revenue derived from the Districts. Copies of the 1994 Master Modification, the 1995 Amendments to Master Modification and the 1997 Amendments to Master Modification are attached hereto as Exhibit A and are herein together referred to as the "Master Modification". The EDA and City desire to develop a senior adult day care and senior resource center (the "Senior Facility") on property owned by the EDA and tocated at ~ ~0:S? FA.I; 10~23402644 DOI~EY WH~ ~004 ' 5425 Boone Avenue North and 5501 Boone Avenue North in the City. The proposed site of the Senior Facility is in the area subject to the Redevelopment Plans. The Senior Facility is pro,..p~ to be., jo.~t eff~_~ ~e? the Ci.ty _a~__entlv CareBreak, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ( ~are~reax J. ~.are~reaic pres . ............. ..s ~-ou.-s aliowin~ aaul~s wire pnystcat or meant aria care~ver ~Fp, s-,L, 5' t' ' o . ' .... eS ....... -' ..... rtive servtces, to continue to hve m their horn or who live alone o1: ne~a ~ul~p~ .... . .... i dependently or with family members. CareBrea. pr.esenuy o.?eraung aa.,uic proposed site of the Sen/or Farility. Becau~ ot mcreasea aemana wr aauit any c and space limitations at North Ridge Care Center, CareBreak ks des/rous of moving its adult day care pro,ram to the Senior Fa,-ility. It is presently proposed that ,e _r_F_a ,ity .will.l e _ ,~= atto ~--,,s,.- ~ ,~i+h armroximatelY 10,000 tO l~-,OOU square .feet ~o De u~ '",'"~ 'm. ',- .... , ..... rr - thers for C,r~Br~ak adult day care vrogram, 3,000 to 5,000 square feet to be leased, t,o o ;e~aa~nd s 000 t~ 10,D~ sc~uare feet to be used for a serdor.pro_gr ..a~.. ~eveloped by'~e City. The present estimated cost of the Senior Fa,-,hty By the Master Modit:ication the Corn .n~_' sioner.s ofth, e ED, A am~e~ d,,,ed__' ,~,~ ~a~,,.~,,,,,,,,,,,~ PI-,~ to combine the areas subject to tAe lieaeveiopmen~ and include additional property m the area sublect to the Redevelopment P1 amended the Financin~ Plans to authorize the expenditure of tax increment revenues derived from any of the Districts for public redevelopment costs incurred by the City or EDA in connection with the development and redevelopment of any property in the area subject to the Redevelopment Plans and to pay costs of a community center to be located at Community Center Park. By this 1997-2 Amendment to the Master Modification the Commissioners of the EDA and amend from any of the Districts foz public reoevewpmem costs mcurreu in cormection with the development of the Senio~ Facility. This 1997-2. Amendment to the Master Modification ~ not include the Additional P~operty in any of the Districts. This 1997-2 Amendment to the Master Modification is subdivision 4. IL STA~ OF N~.D AND OBIECTIVES The development of the Senior Fadlity will aid in the redevelopment of the property in the area subject to the Redevelopment Pla~s in a manner bene/iciai to the residents of the City and consistent with the objectives of the EDA as stated in Redevelopment Plar~ and will aid in the construction of public facilities which will serve all residents of the City, all of which will meet the needs specified 04/24/g? THU X0:$$ FAX.. X$X2340R644 DORSEY WHITNEY in Redevelopment Plans. ~ addition, the proposed site of the Senior Facility is subject to poor soil conditions which has hampered development of the site and the a.'.ssistance of the City and EDA is necessary with respect to the development of such $1~e. . m_ ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OF TAX INCRI~MENT Additional expenditures of tax increment authorized by this 1997-2 Amendment to the Master' Modification of the Redevelopment Plans and Tax Increment Financing Plans include costs associated with the site development and construction of the Senior Facility. While the adoption of this 1997-2 Amendment to the Master Modification authorizes such expenditures of tax increment, it does not obligate the City or EDA to develop the Senior Facility. In 1994 Springsted Incorporated on behalf of the EDA has prepared an analysis of the cashflow of the Districts through the year 2004. A copy of such cashilow analysis is attached as Exhibit B to the 1994 Master Modification. Not included in such analysis is any tax increment revenue derived from the tax increment financing district designated in Hennepin County as Tax Increment Financing District No. 6 (in which is located the Anthony James Apartments) since because of obligations previously incurred by the City and the EDA it is not expected that there will be any excc~-~s tax increment revenue generated by such District during the period covered by the cashflow analysis. The estimated additional expenditvres of tax increment related to the development of the Senior Facility is $2,500,000. The use of tax increment derived from the Districts to pay the costs of the Senior Facility is hereby authorized. Such costs may be paid directly from tax increment derived from the Districts, or may be paid indirectly from tax increment derived from the Districts, by the payment of debt service on a loan or loans made by the City to the EDA or by the EDA to finance such cost. Any such loan made by the City or EDA will be repaid, with interest, from the tax increment derived from the Districts. Other than the loan or loans from the City or the E'DA, it is not expected that any obhgations will be issued by the City or EDA to finance such co, ts. FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES It is estimated fiscal and economic implications of the additional expenditures of tax increment revenue derived from the Districts authorized by this 1997-2 Amendment to the Master Modification will be as follows: The local governmental units other than the Ci~ which are authorized by law to levy ad valorem property taxes in the area where the Districts are located ~ X0:$6 FAX X6XZ~402644 DORS~ WIIXTNEY ! are Independent School District No. 281, Hennepin County, the I-IRA, the EDA, and various metropolitan area authorities, including the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Transit Commission, the Metropolitan Airports Commi~ion and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control Diatrict (the local government units). After the establishment and during the continuation of the Districts, as a result of the Redevelopment Projects and the implementation of the Redevelopment Plans and the improvements in the Districts there has been an increase in the tax capacity of the taxable property in the Districts. If the tax increments derived from the Districts are not applied to pay the additional expenditures described herein, the Districts would t~minate earlier than would otherwise be the case assuming ad valorem taxes ~ paid with respect to the taxable property in the Districts in the anticipated amounts. Upon such termination such increased tax capacity would be available for taxation by the local governmental units. However, as a result of this 1997-2 Amendment to the Master Modification such increase in tax capacity will not be available for ta~on by the local governmental units until at least approximately 2007. V. DETERMINATIONS IN ORIGINAL FINANCING PLAN The determinations made in the Financing Plans with respect to designation of the Districts as Redevelopment Districts, the impact of the establishment of the Districts and the implementation of the Redevelopment Plans and undertaking of the Redevelopment Projects and the captured tax capacity of the Districts upon the redevelopment thereof are not affected by this 1997-2 Amendment to the Master Modification and such determinations remain in full force and effect following the adoption of this 1997-2 Amendment to the Master Modification. VI. ADDmONAL AMENDMENTS TO PLAN The City and the EDA reserve the right to alter the Master Modification as amended by this 1997-2 Amendment to the Master Modification and to further amend or modify the Redevelopment Plans and the Financing Plans by their joint action, subject to the provisions of state law regulating such action. VII. ORIGINAL PLAN The Redevelopment Plans and the Financing Plans, except to the extent provisions thereof have previously been explicitly amended or supplemented and are explicitly amended or supplemented by this 1997-2 Amen,-lrr~ent to the Master Modification shall remain in and be in full force and effect. ~006 COUNCIL REQUEST FOR ACTION Or,gmat. lAg DepazLment [ Approved for Ageada Agenda S~Uon City Manager [ Planning & I ~ 4-28-97 n~pment Ki~ McDonald Item No. ~: Management Assistant ~ 8.1 DISCUSSION REGARDING REL~SE ~SECURI~ FOR KIMBALL ADDITION (P~NNING CASE 94-15) As you are aware, the City has held a certified check in the amount of $3,000 on the Kimball Addition housing development at 36"' and Decatur for the installation of public improvements. The developer originally provided a Letter of Credit in the amount of $133,500, and in August of 1995, the Letter of Credit was reduced to $25,000. In August of 1996, the Council authorized staff to draw on the Letter of Credit, but also agreed that the developer could pay the administrative fee (due at that time) and present an alternate security for a lessor amount based upon the remaining grading work. At that time, the developer paid the administrative fees and provided a certified check in the amount of $3,000. Since that time there have been on-going discussions between the developer, the developer's engineer and the City Engineer regarding the grade of the ovedand swale between Lots 7 and 8. The City Engineer recommended that the developer and engineer provide a field survey of the drainage swale, and if the swale satisfied the minimum 1.0% grade, that the swale be accepted and the escrow be released. The developer's engineer did field survey the swale and the data indicates that the swale is constructed based on an average grade of greater than 1.0% (1.05%). The City Engineer notes, however, that the curb elevation is based on the lowest portion of the curb where the top of the curb was cut out to improve the grade in the drainage swale and states that if the top of the curb had not been cut out, the existing swale would be less than 1.0%. The Council discussed this issue at the January 13"' Council meeting. At that time, the City Engineer provided a letter stating that the existing drainage swale would function adequately in most cases and be acceptable to most. He stated that if the City is comfortable knowing that the curb elevation is based on the fact the developer removed the top portion of the curb to satisfy the 1.0% grade, he could (cont'd.) MOTION BY TO: SECOND BY Review: Adm/n/st~on: Finance: RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 recommend 'that the escrow amount of $3,000 be released, but that the Council would need t~ determine whether to accept the swale as is or require additional improvements. After discussing th~s with the developers, the Council tabled the matter un*ij ~-,-;J ,~o,~ -A ,~. ....... ' ' · ' ,, ~P-- ~ ~u ira[ ~,l[y representatives COuld meet the developers at the site and review the situation. The Council also requested that the developer provide the City with a wdtten description of why the top portion of the curb was removed and a letter from the developer is enclosed. City representatives will be meeting with the developers at the site on Fdday, April 25th, prior to the April 28"~ Council meeting to review and discuss the matter with the developers. It is anticipated that a recommendation will then be presented to the Council on Monday. No resolution has been prepared regarding the release or non-release of the security, as staff is unaware what action will be taken by the Council. Previous Council minutes and correspondence are attached for your information. One other issue that needs to be addressed is the $847.50 in outstanding administrative expenses for legal and engineering services. If any of the secudty is released, it should be subject to the payment of administrative services April 22. 1997 C±ty of New Hope Kirk McDonald Last ~all Emro_ Kimball and I personally graded and corrected the drainage mwaim ~t~mmn iota 7 an~ 8 ,_-,f thru Kimball Addition. We removed the sod from t~ tc,~ m~t nmmr t~m lot to tdmm rear of our Lot 8 all the way to the Curb [~_~atu~ ~ourt. W~ mint up a trmnmit ar~ shot in grade stakes every 15 Teet al,_-~' t~m ~ott.~m c~ t~m m~mlm. Wm um~ tbs TOP of the curb and the lowest point in thru rmar ymrd as our end points and then hand raked the swale to mintain pomitive drainage the entire length of the swale. We replaced sod from the rear of the lo% to the front of the garage of the house on Lot 8. We did not replace want to replace the rest of the sod to the curb because the driveways on Lots 7 and 8 are so close together that the sod was getting run over and had died. We decide~ that decorative landmcapin~ rocks would be a solution so w~ graded the end 5 feet of the swale 2 inches lower to prevent the rocks from spilling into the curb and street. We hired Jim Hasser to deliver and spread the rocks and he thought we should cut a notch into curb to facilitate draining the rocks. Although we had not authorized him to cut in the notch, when we inspected his work the next day we discovered the notch had been cut in. We do understand we are responsible for repairs to the curb if the Council determines repairs to be necessary. I believe a dip in %he curb similar to a driveway cut might be the best solution. I would like to add that the grade from the low point in the rear yard to the TOP of the curb, as determined by Hedlund Engineering, is approximately . 93%, within 7 hund~'et}~ of a percent of the city 1% requirement. (1.05% to the bottom of the curb cut) Please inform me as to when a representative from the City Council would like to inspect the swale so I can be there as well. Sincerely, Hidden Creek Development Corporation Timotkv P. Jawor, President II AV£NLI£ NO,TM // --[)._ t aE UEST acrxo Orlgtnat. lng Department Approved for Agenda ~enda Section Development City Manager & Planning 4-28-97 Kirk McDonald I'~ ' Item No. By: Management Assistant By:. ,/~/ 8.2 RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARA'~N OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 1997 BACKYARD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT pROJECTS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 583) , The enclosed resolution orders the preparation of plans and specifications for the 1997 Backyard Drainage Improvement Projects (Improvement Project No. 583). At the December 9, 1996, Council meeting, the Council authorized preparation of preliminary plans for areas 1 - 3 and authorized survey investigation work for areas 4 - 6. This work has been completed by the City Engineer and all property owners have been contacted to determine if they would be supportive of the projects and provide the necessary easements. City staff then met with the City Engineer and the Engineer prioritized the projects on need from an engineering standpoint. The basis for constructing backyard projects is based on the need for storm sewer because acceptable grades for backyard drainage swales cannot be met. In addition, abutting property owners must be agreeable to grant temporary or permanent easements to accommodate construction. Projects have been prioritized on how fiat the slopes are in the drainage swales and the size of the drainage area. Listed below is the priority ranking for each project based on the above criteria. Construction Construction + Priority # Area and Location Costs 25% Indirect Costs 1 Area 1 - 46~' / Winnetka Avenues $36,200.00 $42,250.00 2 Area 6 - 40~ I Boone Avenues (east side) 24,500.00 30,600.00 3 Area 7 - Terra Linda Park 15,000.00 18,750.00 4 Area 2 - Little Acre Park 16,800.00 21,000.00 5 Area 3 - 34~ / Gettysburg Avenues 18,200.00 22,750.00 6 Area 4 - 40% / Boone Avenues (west side) 15,300.00 19,150.00 TOTAL $126,000.00 $157,500.00 Area 5 is not included because grading improvements can be done to properly convey storm water. (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-001 ~ Request for Action ~ Page 2 Due to limited funding available in the Storm Water Utility Fund, s 4-2 taft is recommending that the Council authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for priorities 1 - 4, for a total of $115,600. The Ten- Linda Park improvement ($18,750) would be funded out of Park ClP Surplus and priorities 1, 2, and 4 ($96,850) would be funded out of the Storm Water Utility Fund. Priorities 5 and 6 would be delayed until a future project. The enclosed resolution authorizes the preparation of plans and specifications for the specified areas and staff recommends approval of the resolution. BONESTRO0 AND A$$OCZATES Bonestroo Rosene MAnderlik & Associates Enginecra & Architecta April 23, lpg7 612 6361~11 04/22/97 1~:28 S~ R ~, RE. L 3 · ~t ~ Km~m Mr. Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428-4898 Re: 1997 Backyard Drainage City Project No, 583 Our File No. 34202 On April 21 we met to review the above-referenced project. We were asked to prioritize thc seven projects based on need from an engineering standpoint. Thc ba.sis for constructing backyard drainage project is based on thc need for storm sewer because acceptable grades for backyard drainage swales (1.0% to 1.5%) cannot be met. In addition, abutting property owners must be agreeable to grant temporary or permanent easements to neeommodat¢ construction. Existing fences may be removed and reconstructed, however, new fences will not bc constructed in their place. Trees and bushes may also be removed but not replacecL Storm sewers havc bccn constructed on all p~-t projects with the exception of one project. In the case of flint projcck only grading wag dane. bec. at, se storm sewer did not exist to serve the area and the grading had to be done in T.H. 169 right-of-way. Prnjec;s have been prioritized based on how flat thc slopes are in the drainage swales and the size ur the drainage area. Listed below Ls the priority ranking for each project based on the above criteria. Priority Cea~etioa ComtmcUon + C4Mu 25% Indil'K 1 Area 1 - 46' / Winnetlut A~-~es S36,200.00 $45,250.00 2 Area 6 - 40~ / Boone Avenue (FAst Side) 24,500.00 30,600.00 3 Ama 7 - Terra Linda Park 15,000.00 18,750.00 4 Area 2 - Little Acre Park 16,800.00 21,000.00 5 Area 3 - 34'" / Gellysbttrg Avenues 18,200.00 22,750,00 6 Area 4 - 40 ½ / Boone Avenues (West Side) ~ ..~ TOTAL $126,000.00 $15"/,~00.00 Area :5 is not included because grading improvements can be done !o properly convey storm water. We have communicated with most property owners and they are supportive of the improvements with the exception of one property owner in Area 6. However, in the case or the 2335 ~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113-3898,612-636-4600 '------ ASSOCIATES ~ 612 6361 0~/22/97 13:28~]-03 Mr. Kirk McDonald Re: 1997 Backyard Drainage April 23. 1997 Page 2 property owner who objects, the property owner to the north has stated they would agree to allow the improvemenL'~ to be constructed more on their property if agreement canno[ be made with thc property owner who to the south of them who objects. It is recommended that the Cit7 review the above information and determine if wc should proceed with preparation of f'mal plans and .~pecifications for bidding for a portion or ..,Il of the above projects. Plense ¢ont~t thin office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. N0:633 Mark A. Hanson, P.E. MAil:la cc: Jeannine Clnncy Vinoe Vender Top Joe Hletschko Tom Peterson COUNC17., REQUEST FOR ACTION Approved for Agenda _ A~enda Section L~eveTopment & Planning 4-28-97 Item No, By:. ~ 8.3 Originating Department City Manager Kirk McDonald By: Management Assistant DISCUSSION REGARDING VACANT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AT 9200 49T~ AVENUE NORTH AND MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY WITH MLB PROPERTIES, INC. (IMPROVEMENT PRO~ECT NO. 597) At the February 24 Council meeting, the City Council authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the vacant industrial property located at 9200 49"' Avenue North which is owned by MLB Properties, Inc. (Clarence Brandell). The 2.8 acre site is zoned I-1, Limited Industrial, and has never been developed due to questionable soil conditions on portions of the property. The New Hope Surface Water Management Plan identifies a portion or all of the property as a future potential site for a water quality pond to help improve the quality of the large wetland north of and adjacent to the site. The Plan states that by diverting the trunk storm sewers into a pond on a portion of this site, the contaminant loads to the wetland could be dramatically reduced. The sediments would be concentrated and could be effectively managed in the treatment pond rather than being spread over the large wetland. Over the past several years, City staff have discussed the property with numerous developers looking for an industrial buildable site, and there currently is a New Hope business preliminarily interested in the site. Staff have indicated that the City may be interested in a joint venture, similar to the project on Quebec Avenue with Conductive Containers, Inc. where the City would consider sharing the cost of the land acquisition in exchange for a storm water ponding easement on the north part of the property (see attached sketch by City Engineer). It was anticipated that the property sale could take place directly between the current owner and the industrial user, with the City simply contributing to the land acquisition in exchange for the easement. To date this has not occurred. As you are aware, the property owner recently contacted City staff and indicated that he is in failing health and inquired if the City might be interested in purchasing the property directly from him. This led staff to present the option to the Council of the City being more aggressive in po.ssibly acquiring and controlling the development on this property if a portion of it is needed for storm water improvements. (cont'd.) MOTION BY TO: SECOND BY Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 4-28-j BCL Appraisals completed an appraisal on the property and indicated that the property had a market value of $209,000. The appraisal states that an industrial use of the land is the highest and best use, however, the soils are problematic and there is a lot of bad fill and peat which would need to be removed to develop the site and much replacement fill would also need to be added. The City Attorney reviewed the appraisal and had a concern about several of the" comparables that were utilized, and after further analysis, BCL revised the market value to $182,000 or $1.48 per square foot. Copies of both the original and revised appraisals were sent to the property owner. The property owner has not indicated whether he is willing to sell the property for the revised market value or not. City staff is requesting that the Council authorize staff to meet with the property owner to negotiate for the potential purchase of the property. Taking the poor soils on the east side of the property into consideration, the Building Official has prepared a concept plan that shows maximum development of the site with a 26,000 square foot office/warehouse and a storm water pond on the north third of the property. If the Council pursues acquisition of additional property for redevelopment in the 42nd and Quebec Avenue area, staff is suggesting that this 49"~ Avenue site may be a reasonable alternative for a business relocation. Funds from the 42nd Avenue TIF Distdct could be utilized to purchase the site if it were utilized for such a relocation. Staff recommends approval of a motion by the Council authorizing staff to negotiate to purchase the property. The results of those discussions and any purchase agreement would be subject to Council/EDA approval. Max..Warehouse Concept Lot = 80,000 sf Bldg = 26,000 sf [ 33% ] Truck Docks: Yes Parking -- 32 19% Of:rice 81% Warehouse Green - 33%- WORKS S&Ut.T SAINT/, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT First Quarter 1997 Report City Council Synopsis The Planning Commission reviewed the following cases during the first quarter: I ~nua~ I 0 0 Feb~ary I 0 0 Mamh 5 0 Mar. Sign Plan Amend. I 1 Ord.-Towers I 1 Ord.-Signs 1 1 Ord.-Pla. Com. 1 Ord.-Shore/and 1 1 TOTALS 5 4 The first quarter of 1997 was busy with work on several potential business expansions and redevelopment projects, code amendments and business retention activities. /n February the City Council gave conceptual approval to the sale of a small piece of City-owned property to accommodate the expansion of Grace Management at 3701 Winnetka Avenue. Detailed plans for the expansion will be submitted later this year. The Council also initiated action on the potential redevelopment of several properties on Bass Lake Road during the first quarter. In January the Council established a public hearing date to consider amendments to the TIF plans to incorporate the Ponderosa and Taco Bell properties into an area eligible for TIF expenditures. The public hearing was held in February and the properties were incorporated into the district. /n March the Planning Commission and City Council approved the preliminary plat of St. Therese Nursing Home, in follow-up to the parking lot expansion last fall. The plat combines all of the properties into one parcel and the final plat will be submitted this spring. The Council also continued working on a potential Senior Center development on the City-owned property at 5501 Boone Avenue during the first quarter, and accepted a financing study and a programming needs study at the March 24 Council meeting. The Planning Commission and City Council approved or continued work on a number of City cod~~'''~ amendments during the first quarter. · In January the Council eliminated the residency requirement for serving on City commissions, in an effort to allow more business input on City activities and projects. · The Council also continued work on the Pawn Shop Ordinance, with the moratorium being extended and a workshop on this subject scheduled for spring. The Planning Commission spent a great deal of effort finalizing amendments to the ordinance regulating communication towers/antennas and coordinated with industry representatives on final revisions to the ordinance. The final ordinance will be presented to the Council in April. · The Commission continued to work on finalizing an ordinance that would implement the DNR Shoreland Management Regulations. A number of other significant events involving community development activities occurred during this quarter. The City continued to actively participate in TwinWest Chamber of Commerce activities: · State of the Cityaddress on March 12 · Executive calls made to businesses in March · Participation in the TwinWest New Hope/Crystal Business Council Miscellaneous activities included: · Joining the City of Plymouth in sponsoring the first annual Commute West Job Fair on March 13 · The winter issue of the Business Link newsletter was distributed in February · Appointment of Adam Kramer to the Planning Commission · Hiring of Stephanie Olson as the Community Development Specialist The activities outlined above that took place during the first quarter met the goals and objectives for the programs and laid the groundwork for a successful 1997. Respectfully submitted, Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY First Quarter 1997 Report The New Hope HRA continues to be busy with the management of housing programs and redevelopment activities in the City. Section 8 Rental Assistance Program Current/y, the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program is providing assistance to 279 New Hope and surrounding area /ow income families. This is slightly fewer than the number families that were being served in December (281). During this same time period in 1996, New Hope was providing assistance to 290 families, so overall the program is serving fewer families in 1997 as in 1996. The breakdown is as follows: January 180 101 281 February 178 99 277 March 180 99 279 The number of housing inspections has decreased compared to the same time period in 1996. During the first quarter of 1996, a total of 84 inspections were completed. A breakdown of housing unit inspections for the first quarter is contained in the fo/lowing tab/e: Section 8 50 21 71 71 Housing Projects During the first quarter, the City continued coordination on several scattered site housing projects involving new construction or extensive rehabilitation. 6067 West Broadway- Construction was completed during the first quarter and the only items remaining to be completed in the spring are landscaping and driveway installation. In January the Council approved a minor change order for additions/deletions to the contract and the final pay request was approved to Equal Access Homes in February, excluding the escrow amount being retained for the driveway. In February the Council also approved a quote from Wrobleski's Lawn Service for landscaping. During the first quarter, staff continued to send out a number of applications for the property and communicated with Marquette Bank about qualifications. Several persons are close to qualifying and staff anticipates that a purchase agreement will be presented this spring. An open house will be held during the second quarter for the neighbors, City officials and CHDO representatives. 5212 Winnetka Avenue - Staff continued to consider rehab options for this property during the fir~ quarter and recommended that outside assistance be sought due to the structural issues involved. At the March 24 Council meeting, the Council approved a Letter of Agreement with Project for Pride in Living to develop architectural plans and specifications for the rehab work. 9116 31~ Avenue - At the end of January, the Council authorized an appraisal of this property, as the owner had contacted the City to inquire if the City had an interest in acquiring the property due to severe water drainage problems. The appraisal was completed, and at this time, the City is having a second appraisal completed before presenting a recommendation to the Council. The City Council and staff also continued to cooperate with multi-family dwelling owners during the first quarter on the following projects: New Hope Apartments - All rehab work was completed on the New Hope Apartments project, with final invoices being submitted for review and payment. The City Council approved the final pay request at the February 10 Council meeting. At the March 10 EDA meeting, the EDA approved an extension of the repayment term of the rehab loan due to the fact that the improvements took longer to complete than originally anticipated. Park Acres Apartments - At the October 14, 1996, Council meeting, the Council set November 12 as the public hearing date to consider a Housing Program and the Issuance of Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bonds for Park Acres Apartments. At the November 12 public hearing, the Council approved the request of Reprise Partners Limited Partnership for $2.2 million in tax exempt bonds to acquire and rehab the property at 8007-9011 Bass Lake Road, subject to an inspection by the City in January 1997. At the February 10 City Council meeting, the Council authorized the issuance of Multi- Family Housing Revenue Bonds. Sandpiper Condominiums - During the first quarter, staff met with and continued to cooperate with representatives of the Sandpiper Condominiums regarding possible City financial assistance to rehab the complex. Staff and City Attorney are studying recently passed legislation to determine if it would be applicable to this project and will be presenting a proposal to the EDA during the second quarter. Conversion of 3579/3581 Independence Avenue North for Group Home Facilities - In 1995 the City was awarded $90,000 in HOME funds, through the CHDO, to be used toward a residential style special r~eeds housing facility. The City also committed $90,000 in EDA funds as a zero interest, first mortgage for the project. On September 9, 1996, the EDA approved a loan to Tasks Unlimited to purchase 3579/3581 Independence Avenue and on September 20 Tasks Unlimited closed on the property. Tasks Unlimited presented a remodeling proposal of the duplex to the EDA, which included converting one of the double garages into a recreation room for residents. The remodeling was in process du?ing the first quarter. Other miscellan~ous housing activities that took p/ace during the first quarter included: MHFA Minne~ota City Participation Program - In February the EDA approved a resolution for an application for Minnesota City Participation Program (MCPP) funds to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. This year the City is participating in a joint application process with Hennepin County on behalf of a number of cities. Home Improvement Loan Program - At the same meeting, application to the MHFA for the Community Fix-Up Fund. the EDA authorized a similar 1997 HOME Funds - During the first quarter, staff submitted an application to Hennepin County through the 5-City CHDO for 1997 HOME funds for two rehab projects and the construction of another handicapped accessible twinhome. 1997 CDBG Public Hearing - At the February 24 Council meeting, a public hearing was held on the a/location of 1997/98 Community Development Block Grant Funds. The Council allocated the funds to the following activities: Child Day Care Senior Transportation Youth Services Micro Business Housing Rehabilitation Scattered Site Housing $15,000 12,311 6,261 15, 000 30,000 89,290 $167,862 I:~emodeling Fair- A great deal of staff time was spent during the first quarter in preparation for the 5th annual Northwest Suburban Remodeling Fair, which was held on April 5. New Hope coordinated all registrations and booth assignments. The purpose of the Fair was to encourage homeowners to upgrade/expand their homes. The Fair, which was sponsored by the cities of New Hope, Crystal, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Plymouth, Robbinsdale, and Northwest Hennepin Human Services, was a big success, with 75 booths sold and 3, 500 persons attending. The projects and activities outlined above address a number of the goals and objectives included in the 1997 housing program statements. Respectfully submitted, Kirk McD~)nald,-Management Assi~ant/Community Development Coordinator ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS First Quarter 1997 Report Progress took place on the following major engineering projects during January, February and March: Northwood Lake Drainage, (Project #498) - The Citizens Advisory Commission continued to study this project during the fourth quarter of 1996 and an informational meeting with residents was held at the January 28 Citizen Advisory Commission meeting. At the February 10 City Council meeting, a presentation was made to the Council explaining the options available and costs/funding for the project, and the Council directed the City Engineer to prepare a preliminary report on the project. A public information meeting was held at the March 10 City Council meeting and a presentation of the plan was made to the Council and interested residents. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Council directed the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the storm sewer, ponding and park improvements. The plans will be presented to the City Council for consideration in May. 1997 Street Improvement Project, (Project ff~,67) - At the September 23, 1996, City Council meeting, the City Engineer and staff presented the proposed 1997 Street Improvement Project and the Council directed the City Engineer and staff to prepare a concept report and conduct neighborhood meetings. The areas included in the 1997 project include: Area 1) - 59~ and Hillsboro; Area 2) - near Hosterman School (56~ and Zealand); Area 3) - 48~ Circle west of Quebec; and Area 4) - Nevada Avenue and 45? At the December 12 City Council meeting, the Council authorized a contract with BCL Appraisals to obtain sample appraisals of several of the properties involved. Public informational meetings were held on January 15, 16, and 30. At the February 24 City Council meeting, the Council approved a resolution that declared intent to sell bonds in the amount of $1,850,000, which is the estimated cost of the improvement. At the same meeting, the City Engineer presented the concept report to the Council. A recommendation was made to proceed with Areas 1 and 2, to schedule certain maintenance items for Area 3, and to delay Area 4 until other issues were resolved. The Council directed the City Engineer to proceed with the Feasibility Report for Areas I and 2. At the March 10 City Council meeting, the Feasibility Report for Areas I and 2 was presented to the Council. At the same meeting, the Council authorized the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications, and the public hearing date was set for April 14. 1997 Sidewalk Improvements, (Project #579) - At the October 14, 1996, Council meeting, the City Engineer presented information to the Council on potential areas for a 1997 sidewalk improvement project. The Council directed the City Engineer to prepare a Feasibility Report identifying the scope of the project, the cost, and the funding. The Feasibility Report was presented to the Council on February 24 and the Council authorized the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications. Approximately 5,230 lineal feet of sidewalk and 130 pedestrian ramps are in need of reconstruction. The 1997 project will include sidewalks on Winnetka and Boone Avenues. Funding for the sidewalks can be paid for with New Hope's Municipal State Aid Allocation and CDBG funds, which can be used for the replacement of existing sidewalks and ramps that meet ADA requirements. There are several improvements proposed by the Police Department entrance at City Hall that are included in this project, which would be funded through the City Hall Capital Improvement Program. Public Works Remodeling Project, (Project #542) - During the last half of 1996, work continued on the preparation of plans and specifications for the remodeling and expansion of the Public Works building. An agreement for geotechnical investigation to evaluate subsurface soil conditions was approved, the Planning Commission and City Council granted the necessary zoning approval for the project, and staff continued to coordinate with Hennepin County for partial funding of the project (ADA improvements) with CDBG funds. At the September 23 City Council meeting, the Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized advertisement of bids. At the November 12 City Council meeting, the Council awarded the construction contract to Mikkelson-Wulff in the amount of $710,159. The project is being funded by CDBG funds, 1998 CIP monies, funds from Road & Bridge, Central Garage & Labor Pool. Construction was started during the first quarter of lg96. At the February 10 City Council meeting, the Council approved the bid from Satellite Shelters in the amount of $12,282 for three trailers to be used as temporary offices during the Public Works remodeling. Construction is currently underway. Other important engineering and/or construction projects that took place in the first quarter include: · Ice Arena Expansion - Punch list items were being completed and the Council authorized final payments on 11 bid division contracts. 1997 Backyard Drainage Improvements - Survey work and preliminary plans were completed and property owners had informal input into the plans for their particular area. The plans will be presented to the City Council in April and construction may proceed this summer. · 42'~/Xylon Intersection Improvements - Staff and the City Engineer continued to coordinate with Hennepin County, NSP and Gethsemane Cemetery on the preliminary plans for this project. 7528 42~'~ Avenue - Phoenix Manufacturing vacated this building in January and in preparation for demolition of the building, during the first quarter, staff coordinated with the MPCA and Northern Environmental on environmental issues and worked with the City Engineer on demolition specifications. The specifications will be presented to the Council in April and demolition will take p/ace in May or June. 9200 49~ Avenue - The Council also directed staff to proceed with an appraisal of this property during the first quarter for a potential future joint industrial development and City surface water management pond. These projects, in addition to a number of other minor engineering and construction items, kept the City Council and staff busy during the first quarter of 1997, with the goals and objectives of the quarter being met. Respectfully submitted, Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Page 4 -- (~Vmrch 25, 1997 z.n. Rapaport, who lived near Mosser's proposed playgronnd, appealed the granting of the zoning permit. Mosser appealed the conditions the board placed on her zoning permit. The court granted Rapaport's appeal and reversed on Mosser's zoning permit. It also denied Mosser's appeal. Mosser appealed. She argued the court incorrectly affirmed the board's finding that the playground was not a daycare center. She also said the court incorrectly reversed the granting of her zoning permit. DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinance governing special exceptions for daycare centers referred to a "structure." This meant a daycare center had to contain some kind of building or structure. Because Mosser's playground contained no such building or structure, it was not a daycare center. Therefore, the denial of the special exception was proper. The denial of Mosser's zoning permit also was proper. Mosser's playground was not similar in nature to a public playground, so it was not permitted in a medium-density residential zone. The essential feature of a public playground was its accessibility to everyone. Mosser's playground would be open to only Danwell Corp. v. Plymouth Township Zoning Hearing Board, 540 A.2d 588 (19881. Manner Healthcare Corp. v. Lower Moreland Township Zoning tteari.g Board, 590 A.2d 65 (19911. Community challenges construction of 300-foot '"'~gve~;r~rhore Communications Inc., 685 A.2d 454 (Maryland) ~996 Shore Communications Inc. built networks of radio towers in Maryland. [t leased land in a rural/agricnltural conservation zone and planned to build a 300-foot radio tower there. Shore asked the Talbot County Board of Appeals for a special exception to build the tower and a variance to make the tower 3011 feet. The zoning ordinance permitted antenna towers in rural/agricultural conservalioq zones as a special exception if they were not wilhin lhrce miles of any other tower in the county, and if they did not create more harmfi~l effects at that particular location than they would elsewhere. Tile ordinance also limited communications towers to 201} feet. The board could grant variances il' the variance wonld not harm the public's health, safety or welfare, if there were special conditions present not created by the applicant, and if tile ordinance's enforcement would create undue hardship for the applicant. At a hearing, Shore presenlcd evidence the tower would not present any safety hazards, environmental harm. negative impact to property values or unnecessary burden to public services. Shore also pointed out that several other towers in the county exceeded tile 2tlO-fl~ot limit, in addition, it claimed lhe goB. March 25, 1997 -- Page 5 lower would improve the performance of the public agencies, like the fire and police departments, that depended on radio transmission. The tower would be located more than three miles from any other tower in the county. Shore explained it picked that particular location because it had the highest elevation in the area, would serve the most useful purpose for Shore's network of towers, was located near two dense residential areas and was next to a grove of tall trees that could block views of the tower. Several residents spoke in opposition to the project. Most said they feared a drop in property values. Others complained the tower's blinking lights would disturb the horses at local farms and create a general nuisance. Residents also said the tower would harm the community's rural character. The board denied Shore's requests for a special exception and a variance. Il based its decision on a finding that a proliferation of towers would detract from the county's scenic views. Shore appealed. The court affirmed the variance denial but reversed the special exception denial. The court ruled the board improperly based its decision on the proliferation of towers in the area. It returned the matter to the board so the board would grant a special exception for the 300-foot tower. Evans, an opponent of the project, appealed the granting of the special exception. Shore appealed the court's affirmance of the variance denial, arguing it had satisfied the requirements for a variance. Shore claimed the land was a "uniquely ideal" place for a tower, and said it would suffer undue hardship if it lost the chance to build a tower that would satisfy its customers' needs. DECISION: Affirmed. The court properly returned the case to the board. The board should not have used the abundance of towers in the county as its reason for rejecting the special exception. The county council, when it passed the zoning ordinance, already decided a tower could receive a special exception if it met the proper conditions. The board overstepped its authority in deciding there already were too many towers in the county. Since Shore planned to build its tower more than three miles from the nearest tower in the county, all thai remained for the board to decide was whether Shore's tower would cause greater harm at its planned location than at any other location in the county. The board never decided this question. Based upon the evidence presented before it, if lhe board had actually reached that question, it would have granted lhe special exception. Most of the opposition to tile tower came from residents who felt property values would decline. The only solid evidence presented suggesled no such decline would occur. Tile court also properly affirmed thc board's variance denial. Shore did not demonstrate anything unique about the land that justified a variance. The needs of its customers were not relewtnt lo tire distinctiveness of the land, so the hardship Shore claimed was self-created. Schultz v. Pritts, 432 A.2d 1.719 (19811. Movvl,,,.o ~. ~.~,,~tt, ontcrv (_'otattl', 666 A.2d 125.? (19951.