Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
120297 Planning
4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 1997 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT ITEMS PUBLIC HEARINGS Case 97-23 Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, North, PAS Properties, Petitioners 5201 Winnetka Avenue Case 97-28 Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-30, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code Section 4.032(3)(i) by Permitting Placement of Air Conditioning Units in Sideyards, City of New Hope, Petitioner Case 97-29 Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-29, An Ordinance Repealing the Lot Coverage Requirement for I-1 Zoned Property, City of New Hope, Petitioner COMMITTEE REPORTS Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: December 18 at 8 a.m. (if needed) Report of Codes & Standards Committee - Next Meeting: December 17 at 7 a.m. (tentative) Report of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - Next Meeting January 8 at 5 p.m. OLD BUSINESS Miscellaneous Issues A. Review/Approve 1998 Planning Commission Schedule NEW BUSINESS Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of October 7, 1997. Review of Comprehensive Plan Update Committee Minutes of September 18, 1997. Review of City Council Minutes of September 22, October 13 and 27, and November 10, 1997. Review of EDA Minutes of September 22, October I3 and 27, and November 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 Planning Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon the Planning Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision. To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Planning Commission will utilize the following procedure: 1. The Planning Commission Chair will introduce the proposal. 2. CitY staff will outline the proposal and staff's recommendations and answer any questions from the Planning Commission. 3. The petitioner is iqvited to describe the proposal, make comments on the staff report, and ~swer questions from the Planning Commission. 4. The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual questions/comments if :a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments. 5. When recognized by the Chair, the person wishing to speak is asked to come forward and to give their full name and address clearly. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 6. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 7. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. 8. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. Al If the Planning'Commission recommends that the City Council approve or deny a request, the planning case will be placed on the City Council agenda for the next regular meeting. Usually this meeting is within one to two weeks of the Planning Commission meeting. B. If the Planning Commission tables the request, the petitioner will be asked to return for the next Commission meeting. DECE~BE~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PC97-23 5201Wi--etka Avenue ZONING DISTRICT MAP R-1 Single ~miiv I~danti~ R-2 ~ingll Ind Two ~i~ R-3 ~ium ~ ~ntilt R-B ~ / DJ' ~denti~ R~ ~ 0~ ~(~D) imi~ O~e - PUD ~1 ~ ~~ ~mn~ ~2 ~ ~ ~3 ~ O~ ~ C~mun~ I-1 ~ I~ I-2 ~ 1 INCH = 2100 FEET 0 2'100 42OO 630O Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEw HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 97-23 Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval 5201 Winnetka Avenue North 07118-21-11-0001 I-1, Limited InduStrial Zoning District R. A. Stinski November 25, 1997 December 2, 1997 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting Comprehensive Sign Plan approval, pursuant to Section 3.467 of the New Hope Sign Code. 2. RAS Properties has purchased the large office/warehouse building located at 5201 Winnetka Avenue North, which was previously owned by Ben Franklin Warehouse. The new owners have converted the building from a single occupancy to a multi-tenant occupancy. 3. The building is being occupied by four different tenants and "Exhibit C" shows where each tenant occupies space in the building, to be known as the Winnetka Business Center. 4. The four tenants include: Tenant #1: Murphy Warehouse Tenant #2: Minnesota Funding Tenant #3: Dedicated Logistics Tenant fl~,.; General Mills 5. The purpose of this application is to place signs on the property identifying the current tenants/companies that are occupying the building. 6. General notes from the survey include the following details: A. This property is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial District B. The existing building contains 291,835 square feet C. Building setbacks are as follows: · 10 feet from railroad right-of-way · 50 feet front yard · 20 feet side yard · 35 feet rear yard D. This property contains 549,485 square feet, being 12.614 acres, more or less, including street right- of-way, and 481,426 square feet being 11.052 acres, more or less, excluding street right-of-way. E. There are a total of 100 parking stalls, with 99 regular stalls and 1 handicapped stall. 7. Comprehensive Sign Plan approval does not require a public hearing, therefore, no notices have been published or mailed. ANALYSIS. Section 3.467 of the New Hope Sign Code, Signs Accessory to Multiple Occupancy Business an. Industrial Uses Includin,q Shopping Centers, states that "when a single principal building is devoted to two or more businesses, or industrial uses, a comprehensive sign plan for the entire building or shopping center shall be submitted and shall include the information required by paragraph (1) to permit a determination as to whether or not the plan is consistent with paragraphs (2) through (4) of this subsection. No permit shall be issued for an individual use except upon a determination that it is consistent with a previously or concurrently approved comprehensive sign plan. The effect of said comprehensive sign plan is to allow and require the owner of multiple occupancy structures to determine the specific individual sign requirements for the tenants of his building. As sign' locations and size, etc. may be of some significant importance in lease arrangements between owner and tenant, it is the City's intention to establish general requirements for the overall building only, thus providing a building owner with both the flexibility and responsibility to deal with his individual tenants on their specific sign needs." (1) Comprehensive Siqn Plan Information. The applicant shall prepare a written and graphic comprehensive signage plan for submission to the City. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: · Sign location (both wall signs and freestanding signs) · Sign area · Sign height · Scaled building elevations · Scaled floor plan that outlines tenant bays · Identification of anchor tenants · Description of window signage use · IdentificatiOn of sign design · Sign Construction Drawings (sections) · The Council, Planning Commission, and City staff may request additional information from the applicant concerning the apPlication or may retain expert opinions at the expense of the City, or may require as a condition of proceeding with its consideration that the applicant furnish expert opinion and data at the expense of the applicant. (2) Compliance. All signs shall comply with the provisions of Subsections 3.465(1)(c) and (4) and 3.442 except as otherwise provided. Subsection 3.465(1)(c), Metal Electrically Illuminated Si,qns, states that "Signs constructed of metal and illuminated by any means requiring internal wiring or electrically wired accessory fixtures attached to a metal sign shall maintain a free clearance to a grade of nine feet. Accessory lighting fixtures attached to a non-metal frame sign shall maintain a clearance of nine feet to ground. In the event a metal sign structure or accessory fixture herein described is grounded by the use of a grounding conductor run with the circuit conductors and said structure or fixture is also grounded by being bonded on a grounding electrode at the sign site, no clearance to grade shall be mandatory." Subsection 3.465(4) refers to roof signs, which is not applicable in this case. (3) Wall Si.qns. Maximum Area. The total allowable sign area for a multiple occupancy structure shall not exceed 15 percent of the combined wall surfaces on walls which abut streets in Limited or General Business Districts or 10 percent in Limited or General Industrial Districts. No individual tenant identification sign may exceed 100 square feet in area. Building Identification. No multiple occupancy structure may display more than two overall building identification signs. Tenant Identification Signs. Individual t~i~a~ 16cated within multiple occupancy structures shall be permitted to display individual identification signs, if they have separate exterior entrances to their use or they are tenants in a shopping center, in which case, not more than one sign may be displayed. A tenant occupying a corner location fronting two streets may display identification signs to both street frontages. Delivery Si,qns. A delivery sign or signs not exceeding nine square feet in area may be located on the side or rear wall of the structure. (4) Ground Si,qns. (b) Other Multiple Occupancies. Multiple occupancy structures other than shopping centers,. or shopping centers having four or less separate and distinct occupancies, may erect ground signs in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.465(3) and may identify each separate and distinct occupancy on said ground sign. The portions of Section 3.465(3) that are pertinent to this request include the following: (c) Maximum Si.qn Area and Height. All ground signs shall conform with the maximum sign area, and maximum sign height provisions in relation to the street classification, as contained in the following table: Street Classification Maximum Area (Square Feet) Maximum Structure Height (Feet) Collector 40 15 Minor Arterial 75 20 Principal Arterial 200 30 (g) Location to Property Lines. No ground sign shall be located closer than ten feet to any property line. Ground Sign 2. The petitioner is proposing to utilize the existing freestanding illuminated ground sign in the front (east side) of the property which is the original Ben Franklin sign. This consists of two ground signs on the existing single post identified as "A" on the survey. One sign is 4'6" x 9' or 41 square feet and one sign is 2' x 8' or 16 square feet. The two signs equal 57 square feet and are under the 75 square feet the Code allows. The signs are 17'3" in height. The sign would remain as is with regards to the existing size. This sign would have only the name of the building on it and the address. No tenant names would be used. The sign is located 20 feet from the property line. 3. The ground sign complies with the Sign Code area height and setback requirements. Wall Signs 4. The petitioner is Proposing to install four (4) business identification wall signs on the front (east) wall, one per tenant; each with a maximum of 100 square feet. Code allows 100 square feet per tenant. Exact wall sign locations are shown on the building elevation. 5. The wall signs would be constructed of metal or wood and have vinyl or plastic letters. The signs would not be painted or illuminated. 6. The petitioner indicates that they will approval all tenant signage to make sure the wall signs are of uniform size and structure. 7. The addresses of the tenants would be 5201, 5211, 5221 and 5231 Winnetka for the tenants shown on "Exhibit A" as tenants 1, 2, 3 and 4. 8. The wall signs comply with the Sign Code requirements. 9. Staff is recommending approval of the plans, but is requesting some clarification of the wall si~,_ construction, as the plans are somewhat vague about the exact nature, size and quality of wall signs. 10. Small parking lot directional signs are also allowed, not to exceed nine square feet, if necessary. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan for the multi-tenant building, subject to the petitioner clarifying the wall signs. Attachments: Zoning/AddressFFopo Maps Comprehensive Sign Plan Description Exhibit A: East Exterior Building Elevation and Pylon Sign Detail & Enlargements (large scale plans to be distributed at meeting) Exhibit B: Site Survey and Enlargement Survey Notes Previous Correspondence from Petitioner Building Official Memo and Tenant Addresses Sign Code Excerpts ZO 5201 WINNETKA AVENUE Comprehensive Sign Plan Description The comprehensive signage plan for the Winnetka Business Center is as follows: 1) We have a free standing illuminated sign in the front of the property which is the original Ben Franklin sign. It has dimensions as indicated on Exhibit A. The sign would remain as is with regards to its size. It is located at the letter marked A on the survey marked Exhibit B. This sign would have only the name of the building on it and the address. No tenants' names would be used. 2) We would want to have a 4 sign allowance at this time on the exterior of the building. These 4 tenants would comply with your 100' maximum ordinance due to the length of building frontage each has. These signs would be located in approximately the areas marked B on Exhibit A. 3) We are also requesting that 4 new addresses be assigned to the property to coincide with the 4 tenants. It is my understanding they have to go in order from south to north. 4) Exhibit C shows where each tenant occupies their space in the building. 5) The signs on the face of the building will be made of metal or wood and have vinYl or plastic letters. They will not be painted or lighted. We have to approve every sign and we will make sure they are of uniform size and structure. II Consultants' Prol'eCt:, .,... ,...,. SA. TH AVE. N. SHEL -- d 10. I1. 35 f~ This survey w perfomaed in' ? gathered at this The loc~-'%,n of on a field surv¢ plans and infom excavation is pi, notify Gopher before excavatin This proL~rty ct acres, more or 481,426 square excluding street The property is for 54th Avcnm Avenue. These area and on C.R. There are a total and 1 handicapp~: The existing fenc southwest corner railroad right-otC, The existing rail property without The paved drive,,, the building app adjoining owner, The existing os'erE of the property wi GENERAL NOTES 10. I1. This property is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial District Building setbacks are as follows: I0 feet from railroad right-of-way 50 feet front yard 20 feet side yard 35 feet rear yard This survey was prepared based on the original survey performed in November 1991, and on other information gathered at this time. The location of underground utilities is approximate, based on a field survey of visible surface improvements, record plans and information supplied by utility companies. If any excavation is planned, State Law requires the excavator to notify Gopher State One Call at 612-454-0002, 48 hours before excavating for location services. This property contains 549,485 square feet, being 12.614 acres, more or less, including street right-of-way, and 481,426 square feet being 11.052 acres, more or less, excluding street right-of-way. The property is subject to easements on the north 47 feet for 54th Avenue and on the east 33 feet for Winnetka Avenue. These are based on existing county maps of the area and on C.P,. Doc. No. 3539580. There are a total of 100 pm'king stalls, with 99 regular stalls and 1 handicapped stall. The existing fence, hydrant, and paved parking area at the southwest comer of the property encroaches onto the railroad right-of-way. The existing railroad spur track enters into the subject property without an easement. The paved driveway and parking area on the west side of the building appears to be used in common with the adjoining owner, without benefit of an easement. The existing overhead power line exists along the south line of the property without an easement. I hereby certify to MILLE lender affiliated with said that on the 26th day of M The East 755 feet of the Hennepin County, Mirme$ and that: (a) This survey was ms and correctly sh0w.~ of any foundation, exterior property lit other matters of rec, affecting or benefiti~ showing the numb~ providing access to significant items on (b) There are no (i) encr, or alleys by the imt except as noted (see (c) Adequate ingress to Winnetka Avenue N~ of New Hope; (d) The required buildin (e) This survey shown ~ March 4, 1996, issue (0 This survey is made i Land Title Surveys". 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7(a), 7(1: and meets the occurs, (g) According to the FIPd · January 2, 1981, the, (h) I understand that CHI~ of the survey plat an( validity and priority c certified will so rely i Dated March 26, 1996 Project No. 96-032 RAS Properties 3647 McKinley St. N.E., bTinneapolis, Telephone (612) 781-3184 MN 55418 September 24, 1997 Mr. Doug'Sandstad Building Official City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 RE: 5201 WINNETKA AVENUE VIA MESSENGER Dear Doug: Enclosed are 2 prints of the property that will hopefully answer your questions regarding the building tenancy and building code issues. The large print is a detailed plan of the interior of the building. The second is.'a survey of the property which shows the outside dimensions of the building and the parking. These 2 prints are designed to show entrances and exits and other code issues. Tenant Space The large detailed print of the building shows the 4 separate tenant areas. They are labeled as spaces 1-4 with square footages and who the ten~-nts are. Space 1 is occupied by General Mills and I understand General Mills submitted plans.for their space before they took out a building permit. Their parking is by theii' doorway entrance. They only have one employee. General Mills is a subtenant of Dedicated Logistics. Space 2 is Dedicated Logistics and they are a public warehousing facility. Their products go in and out constantly. On the large prints you will note we will install a new men's bathroom area and reconfigure a new entrance to the women's rest room. We are also installing an ADA unisex toilet in the warehouse to meet the ADA code. The bathrooms have more fixtures t!" ,,n are Mr. Doug Sandstad September 24, 1997 Page Two specified by code because of what was already existing when we purchased the building. Their office entrance is ADA accessible because it is at ground level. They have 5 parking stalls for customers by their entrance with one stall being handicapped designated. Their employees will park in the main lot to the south. Space 3 is Murphy Warehouse who is storing and shipping materials for Super Valu Foods. The materials they are storing are grocery store items and mostly food from what we have been told. Their entrance requires us to install a new handicapped accessible ramp which is shown on the plan. The plan also requires some'bathroom changes. The two bathrooms by the 8 dock doors will be modified to 1 women's and 1 unisex ADA handicapped. The men's will be at B/1 for which we are making some modifications to the existing men's room as can be seen on the prints. Their parking is outside their new main entrance door where the new handicapped ramp is to be put in. Space 4 is the office area that has not yet been leased. We have a couple of strong possibilities looking at the space. The plan illustrates how the bathrooms will be modified to comply with the ADA codes. A new unisex bathroom will be installed and the men's modified to meet ADA code. Because of the size of the space a second emergency exit will be put in to accommodate the code requirements. A permit will be applied for when we have a signed lease for the improvements they will need. The par~king for these employees will be in the main lot in which we have over 100 spaces. The main parking lot will be striped the same as it was, with the exception of putting in the required number of handicapped stalls. The lines will be painted white pei~ your City Ordinance. Building Materials One of the main concerns on the fire issues was that there are flammable or hazardous materials in the building. Our lease specifically prohibits the Mr. Doug Sandstad September 24, 1997 Page Three storage of hazardous materials and obviously all our tenants know this, as they signed the lease. Plus, we recently spoke to both of them about this. I also spoke to both tenants and neither of them store flammable liquids in the space. The materials that Dedicated Logistics stores are generally storage items and this changes weekly depending on what its vendors bring in. The Murphy Warehouse materials are for Super Valu's grocery items. General Mills is storing mostly machinery and parts that are stored on the'floor. We are presently having our architects work on the comprehensive sign plan and will have it ready for the October deadline. Please call if you have any questions or need more information. Sincerely, R. A. Stinski RAS/jkb cc: Randy Kurtz TO: KIRK McDONALD ' FROM: DOUG SANDSTAD DATE: NOV. 17, 1997 SUBJECT: COMP. SIGN PLAN FOR 5201 WINNETKA WAREHOUSE I have reviewed the Csmprehensive Sign Plan submitted for the conversion of the 5201 Winnetka warehouse from single occupant to "Multi-Tenant". All components fall within the parameters of our sign code, 3.467: Two GroUnd Signs on the existing single post identified as "A" on survey - 16 sf and 41 sr. Code allows 75 sq. ft. No tenant names will be listed. · Four Wall Signs on the front [east] wall- one per tenant; each a maximum of 100sr. Code allows 100 sr. Wall sign materials proposed are vinyl or plastic letters on metal or wood. Signs are not illuminated. · Addresses will be 5201, 5211, 5221 & 5231 Winnetka for the corresponding tenants shown on Exhibit "A" as tenants #1, 2, 3 & 4. Applicant is somewhat vague about the exact .nature, size and quality of wall signs. Some clarification would be helpful, in order to avoid' problems later on. Small parking lot directional signs are allowed, not to exceed 9 sf, if necessary, such as "ACME Receiving". These signs are not required to be illustrated on any Comp. Sign Plan. Staff recommend approval of the CSP, with clarification of wall sign construction. Cc: Attachment "A" file ~-'T'¥'T'T'-;-'T'T'T'T'T'--; 'T'-; .............. ]1 1 ......................... I/l[ll{llllll . 3.464 (~)(b) - ,,d), 3.~5 (1)(a) (b) Name Plate, Directional and Identification Signs. For each apartment development there shall be permitted one identification sign or two signs on corner lots each facing a separate street, each not exceeding twenty-five square feet in area located near the main entrances to the building or complex of buildings, and indicating only the name and address of the building or complex of buildings, the name of the owner or manager thereof, and the phone number of the manager or owner thereof. In addition each building within an apa.rtment development with a separate address shall be identified by a separate sign not exceeding five square feet in area with letters of a size and color to clearly identify the individual building. (c) New Construction or Remodeling. In connection with the construction or remodeling of a building there shall be permitted one sign not exceeding twenty-five square feet in area indicating the names of any or all of the architects, engineers and contractors engaged in the construction; on corner lots two such signs, one facing each street, shall be permitted. All signs permitted under this paragraph shall be removed by the person or persons erecting the same not longer than two weeks after final inspection by thr Director of Fire and Safety of the structure indicated, or two years, whichever is less. (Ord. 76-17) 3.465 (d) Hqme Occuoations. A residential unit with an approved home occupation requiring customer or client visits to the home is all'owed, in addition to the signs in Sections (a) and (b) above, one identification sign for the home occupation. Said sign shall not exceed two square feet in size; it shall be attached to the wall of the residential unit, no higher than six feet above grade, lettering shall not exceed six inches in height and the wording shall be limited to the name and/or function of the home occupation. In addition, a sign not to exceed one square foot in size shall be permitted at the entrance to the home occupation if the entrance is not the main entrance to the building. No illumination of the sign is permitted other than the general house illumination. (Ord. 76-17, 79-7) Signs A~¢essory to Sinqle Occuoancy Business or Industrial Uses. No sign &ccessory to any business or industrial use shall be permitted, except in compTiance with the following regulations: (1) Front Wall Siens. Maximum $ienaqe. Not more than two signs shall be permitted on the front wall of any prinoipal building. The total area of such sign or signs shall not exceed fifteen percent of the area of the front face (including.doors and. windows) of the principal building in all Business Districts, and ten percent in all Industrial Districts, provided that the combined total area of both signs shall not exceed two hundred and fifty square feet. (Code 072584, Ord. 95-10) 3-42 072684 (2) (3) 3.4.65 (1)(b) - (3) (b) Variance to Maximum Signa~e. Front wall signs which consist only of individual, outlined alphabetic, numeric and sYmbolic characters without background except that provided by the building surface to which they are affixed may be increased by twenty-five percent of the allowable sign area permltted in paragraph (a) above, except that the total of each sign shall not exceed one hundred twenty-five square feet. If illuminated, such illumination may be by internal shielded illumination, shielded silhouette iighting or shielded spot lighting, but lighting Where the light source itself is visible or exposed on the face or sides of the characters is prohibited.' (c) Metal Electrically Illuminated Signs. Signs constructed of metal and illuminated by any means requiring internal wiring or electrically wired accessory fixtures attached to a metal sign shall maintain a free clearance to a grade of nine feet. Accessory lighting fixtures attached to a non-metal frame sign shall maintain a clearance of nine feet to ground. In the event a metal sign-structure or accessory fixture herein described is grounded by the use of a grounding conductor run with the circuit conductors and said structure or fixture is also grounded by being bonded on a grounding electrode at the sign site, no clearance to grade shall be mandatory. (d) Gaseous Tube or Interior Illuminated Siqns. Front wall signs may be gaseous tube type or may be illuminated by interior means of lighting of an intensity to prevent excessive glare and shall comply with the regulations established in Chapter 4. Side and Rear Wall signs. A sign or signs shall be permitted on the rear and/or side wall of any principal building subject to the following regulations: (a) Maximum Signaqe. The total area of such .rear or side wall sign or signs shall not exceed nine square feet. No rear or side wall signs, other than a sign provided in paragraph (b) below, shall make use of any word, phrase, symbol or character other than to designate delivery areas. (b) Variance to Maximum Signage. Notwithstanding the above- stated provision, if the main entrance to a particular use in the principal building opens on a side wall, or if the main entrance/exit (as defined in the Building Code) to a particular use in the principal building opens on a rear wall, the applicant shall be permitted to sign the front or rear wall in accordance with the front wall sign provisions of paragraph (a) above. In no case, however, shall either the side or rear wall contain more than one hundred and twenty-five square feet of total sign area. Ground Signs. Not more than two ground signs shall be permitted on any lot or one ground sign if the building should contain more than one wall sign over ten square feet, subject to the following regulations: 3 -43 072684 , 3.456 (a) (b) (d) (e) (f) (g) Metal Electrically Illuminated Signs. Signs constructed of metal and illuminated by any means requiring internal wiring or electrically wired accessory fixtures attached to a metal sign shall maintain a free clearance to grade of nine feet. Accessory lighting fixtures attached to a non-metal frame sign shall maintain a clearance of nine feet to ground. In the event that a metal sign structure or accessory fixture herein described is grounded by the use of a grounding conductor run with the circuit conductors and said structure or fixture is also grounded by being bonded to a grounding electrode at the sign site, no clearance to grade shall be mandatory. Location of Metal Signs. No metal ground sign shall be located within eight feet vertically and four feet horizontally of electric wires or conductors in free air carrying more than forty-eight volts, whether or not such wires or conductors are insulated or otherwise protected. Maximum Sign Area and Height. All ground signs shall conform with the maximum sign area, and maximum sign height provisions in relation to the street classification, as contained in the following table: Street Maximum Area Maximum Structure Classification (Sq. Feet) Height (Feet) Collector 40 15 Minor Arterial 75 20 Principal Arterial 200 30 (Ord. 76-17, 79-14, 81-4) Street Classification and Application. Street classification shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Five Year Transportation Plan for the City of New Hope. The level at which the sign control system applies is determined by the street classification, as outlined in Subsection 3.465 (3)(c), which directly abuts the subject property. In the case of subject property directly abutting more than one road, each designated by a different road type, the less restrictive classification shall apply in determining sign area and height. Sign Height Application. Sign height is dgtermined by the vertical distance between the highest part of the sign structure and the Council-approved grade of the site adjacent to its base. In those cases where the main floor elevation of the building is more than 36" above, or below, the average street curb elevation along the frontage, actual sign height is determined by the grade of the road (average curb elevation) from which the sign gains its principal exposure. ~ Sign Area AppliCation. Sign area for ground signs applies to only one face of a two-faced ground sign, or two faces of a four-faced sign,, etc. Location to Property Lines. No ground sign shall be located closer than ten feet to any property line. 3-44 072684 3.466 ],465 (4),(5), 3.466 (4) Roof $iRns. No part o? any sign shall be maintained that proje]ts into the air space over the roof of any building or structure. (Code 07288~, 7~S-17) (5) Awning or CanoPY Signs. Letters may be painted or otherwise affixed to any permissible awning or canopy as follows: (a) Location. Signs shall be limited to one (1) sign per canopy facia fronting onto a street. (b) Height. The canopy sign shall not protect above or below the physical dimensions of the awnings or canopy facia. (c) Use. Signs shall not denote other than the name and acdress of the business conducted therein and/or a product or products produced or sold or service rendered therein. (d) Maximum Signa~e. Awning and canopy signage shall not exceed sixteen (15) square feet per sign. Awning and canopy sigms shall be included in calculating the maximum sign area of the permissible wall sign. S~ns Accessory to Gas Sales in Conjunction with Automobile Service Stations 'or Convenience Stores. The following signs accessory to automobile service stations and convenience stores with gas sales are permitted in addition to the signs permitted under Subsection (1) Oil Recks. Racks for the orderly display of cans of engine oil for convenience in dispensing said oil may be located on or at the ends of pump islands. (Limit of two ;o each island) (2) Tire Racks. Two open portable tire racks (not more than seven feet in height including signs, and six feet in length) on casters for the purpose of displaying new tire casings shall be permitted for each automobile or tire service station. (3) (~) (5) Portable Signs, Placards, Pennants. Portable signs, placates, pennants, streamers, flags (except the U.S. flag), revolving placards and all other signs not specifically permitted in this section are prohibited, except for grand openings, as provided in Subsection 3.44t. Gasolime and Price Simn. One sign (single or double faced) Der ~rontage on a public street, suitable for apprising persons of the to,al sale price per gallon. The area of such price sign shall not exceed sixteen square, fee: on either side. Each such sign shall be af~ixeC to the standard of a 9round sign or light fixture,-and shall sta:e the total price. No sign posting an incomplete price or less than the total sales price is permitted. InfOrmlatiomal si~nage. Sigms denoting operation instructions associated with self service gas facilities including gas pump, air supply and car washes are exempt from the maximum sign area standards of section 3.465 of this Code. (Code 072684, Ord. 76-17, 9A-03) 3-45 C)72684 3.467 (! - 3) - Signs Accessory to Hultiple Occupancf Business and lmdustrial Use.s Including Shoppin~ Centers. When a single principal Dui]ding is devoted to two or more businesses, or industrial oses, a comorehensive sign o]an for the entire building or shopping center shall be submitted and shall include the information required Dy paragraph (1) to permit a determination as to whether or not the plan is consistent with paragraphs (2) through (4) of this subsection. No permit shall De issued for an individual use except upon a determination that it is consistent with a previously or concurrently approved comprehensive sign plan. The effect of said comprehensive sign plan is to allow and require the owner of multiple occupancy structures to determine the specific individual sign requirements for the tenants of his building. As sign locations and size, etc. may be of some significant importance in lease arrangements between owner and tenant, it is the City's intention to establish general requirements for the overall building only, thus providing a building owner with both the flexibility and responsibility to deal with his individual tenants on their specific sign needs. (1) Comprehensive Sign Plan Information. The applicant shall preOare a written and graphic comprehensive signage plan for submission to the City. Said plan shall include but not be limited to the following information: (a) Sign location (Both wall signs and freestanding signs) (b) Sign area (c) Sign height (d) Scaled building elevations (e) Scaled floor plan that outlines tenant bays (f) Identification of anchor tenants (g) Description of window signage use (h) Identification of sign design (i) Sign Construction Drawings (sections) (j) The Council, Planning Commission and City Staff may request additional information from the applicant concerning the application or may retain expert opinions at the expense of the City, or may require as a condition of proceeding with its consideration that the applicant furnish expert opinion and data at the expense of the applicant. (2) Compliance. All signs shall comply with the provisions of Subsections 3.465 (1)(c) and (4) and 3.442 except as otherwise provided. (3) Wall Signs. (a) Maximum Area. The total allowable sign area for a multiple occupancy structure shall not exceed fifteen percent of the combined wall surfaces on walls which abut streets in Limited or General Business Districts or ten percent in Limited or General Industrial Districts. No individual tenant identification sign may exceed one hundred square feet in area. (b) Buil~in~ Identification. No multiple occupancy structure may' display more than two overall building identification signs. (c) Tenant Identification Signs. Individual tenants located within multiple occupancy structures shall be permitted to display individual identification signs, if they have separate exterior entrances to their use or they are tenants in a shopping center, in which case, not more than one sign may be displayed. A tenant occupying, a corner location fronting two streets may display identification signs to both street frontages. (code 072684, Ord. 76-17, 87-9) (d) Delivery Signs. A delivery sigh'or signs not exceeding nine square feet in area may be located on the side or rear wall of the structure. (Ord. 76-17) 3-46 072684 . 3.467 (4) - (5), 3.468 (4) Grognd Siqn~. 3 ~§8 (s) (b) (5) Shopping Centers. Shopping canters containing more than four separate and distinct occupancies may erect only one ground sign per street frontage (single or double faced) to ba used as an identification sign for the shopping canter. Said ground sign may not exceed two hundred (200) square fast in area, nor thirty (30) feat in height and must ba set Deck a minimum of twenty (20) fast from all property lines, Individual businesses within the shopping canter may be allowed tenant identification in a directory contained within the identification sign pursuant to the following conditions: (1) The shopping-center must use fifteen (15) percent or more of the sign area for tho center's n~me identification. (2) Advertising or reader boards shall also be allowed on the identification ground sign provided the inclusion of said boards in combination with the tenant directory and canter identification does not exceed the 200 square feet maximum sign area. (Code 072584, Ord. 76-17, 84'-13, 90-14, 95-17) Other Multipl$ O~cuo&ncies. Multiple occupancy structures other than shopping centers, or shopping centers having four or lass separate and distinct occupancies, may erect ground signs in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.465 (3) and may identify each separate and distinct occupancy on said ground sign. (Code 072684, Ord. 87-9)' Fee, Comorehensive Si~n Plan Review. When a comprehensive sign plan review is required by this section the applicant shall pay a review fee in addition to s permit fee as set forth in Chapter 14 of this Code. (Ord. 90-2) Aqvqrtisin~ Signs (Billboards). All advertising signs hereafter painted, constructed, erected, remodeled, relocated or expended sh&ll comply with the following standards in addition to those established in Sections 3.44 through 3.453. 3-46A -72684 m Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: cITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 97-28 Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-30, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code Section 4.032(3)(i) by Permitting Placement of Air Conditioning Units in Sideyards All Residential Properties in the City Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: R-l, Single Family Residential City of New Hope November 26, 1997 December 2, 1997 BACKGROUND 1. The City of New Hope is requesting consideration of an ordinance amending New Hope Zoning Code by permitting placement of air conditioning units in side yards, pursuant to Section 4.032(3)(i) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. As you are aware, the Zoning Ordinance requirements prohibiting side yard air conditioners were discussed earlier this year in conjunction with a variance request and the Planning Commission suggested that perhaps this issue should be re-examined. Staff recommended that the Codes & Standards Committee should discuss the ordinance requirements and determine if they want to recommend deleting or amending these requirements. The City Council had no strong feelings on this issue and said the Planning Commission could review the ordinance if they wanted to do so. It is staff's understanding that several members of the Planning Commission would like to see some changes. 3. Staff met on October 6 with the Planning Consultant and City Attorney to discuss the following issues: A. Current prohibition in side yard; B. The required side yard issue and the difference between what the code says and how the ordinance is being enforced; and - C. The Building Official's suggestions re: auto thermostat shut-off in evening hours. The result of the meeting was that it is staff's consensus that the prohibition of air conditioners in the side yard could be eliminated if specific conditions were met and that this change should be proposed to the Codes & Standards Committee. 4. This is a Zoning Code amendment and public notice for a public hearing has been published. Individual property notices were not mailed, as the amendment would be applicable to all residential properties located in the City. ANALYSIS 1. The Planning Consultant has prepared the attached memo on this issue and the City Attorney has prepared the enclosed ordinance which amends the New Hope Code by permitting the placement of air conditioning units in side yards. 2. The Planner's report states that in1992, the City amended its Zoning Ordinance to allow air conditioner units located within a required side yard at the effective date of the ordinance to lawfully continue and be replaced at such a location provided the following conditions are met: (i) The cooling structure or condenser shall not produce noise levels contrary to 9.423 and 9.424 of the Zoning Code. (ii) The cooling structure or condenser shall be screened by landscaping, fencing, or other means rendering it concealed from view from adjacent property. (iii) The cooling structure or condenser shall not lie within a required drainage and/or utility easement. 3. The City has recently processed and approved a variance request to allow an air conditioner unit to be located within a side yard. This particular unit had already been installed (without permit) arid this was an after-the-fact variance. 4. The Planning Consultant states that the current ordinance establishes an inequity between existing non- conforming air conditioners and new air conditioners. The reasons for the side yard exclusion of air conditioners include noise and aesthetics. However, the technology has advanced to reduce the noise of these machines. Additionally, screening of these units can be achieved by planting shrubs on the street side of the units to maintain "curb appeal" in residential neighborhoods. To eliminate the existing inequity and avoid future variance requests, staff is recommending consideration of the attached ordinance amendment allowing air conditioners to be located in side yards. These regulations provide for protection from noise, aesthetics and setback requirements. 5. The proposed ordinance, which was put in final form by the City Attorney, states that "accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers (ground mounted) which generate noise shall be located in rear yards behind the rear building line or in side yards. Air conditioning cooling structures or condensers located within a side yard must comply with the following conditions: (i) The cooling structure or condenser shall not produce noise levels contrary to §§9.423 and 9.424 of this Code. This condition is also applicable to units located in back yards. (ii) The cooling structure or condenser shall be screened by landscaping, fencing, or other means rendering it concealed from view from adjacent property. (iii) The cooling structure or condenser shall be screened by landscaping, fencing, or other means rendering it concealed from view from ~dj:c~nt,., ..... v,.~,'*"., the property's side and front yard property lines. (iv) The cooling structure or condenser shall be setback five (5) feet from a side or rear lot line. 6. The Planning Consultant also contacted other Twin Cities communities to find out how they regulated air conditioner setbacks and the results of that survey are enclosed. 7. This matter was reviewed by the Codes & Standards Committee at its November 25 meeting and the Committee will be expressing its views at the Commission meeting. This report is being written prior to the Committee meeting due to the short work week because of the holiday. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 97-30, which amends the Zoning Code to permit the placement of air conditioning units in side yards, subject to certain conditions being met. Attachments: Ordinance No. 97-30 11/24 and 25 City Attorney Correspondence 11/3 City Attorney Correspondence 10/23 Planner's Report Public Hearing Notice Lewis Plan Case Report 1992 Air Conditioner Code Amendment ' NOV-25-97 TUE 09:1.4 P, 03/03 ORDINANCE NO. 97-30 AN ORDZNANCE AblENOING NEW HOPE CODE 8ECTZON 4,032{3)(t) BY PERMZTTXN~ THE PLACEMENT OF AZR CONDITION[NG IN SZOEYARDS The City Council of the City o¢ New Hope ordains: ~ectton, 1. Section 4.032 (3)(i)"Air Oonditloners" of the New Hope City COd~ is hereby amended to read as follows:-- (il Air Conditionern. Accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling Structures or condensers (ground mounted) which generate nOise shall be located in rear yards behind the rear building line ~r in side Yardz. Air conditioning cooling structures or Condensers located within a+v~ya,~dstde yard , . · ' m~ust comply With the following condlttonsa*r-e--~,+; . (ii) The cooling structure or condenser shall not produce noise levels contrary to §§9.423 and 9.424 of this Code. ~hi condition is also a llcable ~it~ cared in back ards. ..to The coollng str~cture or condenser shall be screened by landscaping, lansing, or other means rendering it concealed ~rom view from ae/-j~. ~1~ ~he Property' DroDerty__~. '" s side and. front yard The ~oollng structure or condenser shall not lie within ~ required drainage and/or utility easement. _T_bJs condition is also aoplicabl, to units located in ba¢k yards~_ ' i_~. The co01in~ structure or condenser shall be setb=c.~ ~ive (~) feet from a .si~e oF rear .lot l~nc. Section 2. Effective Date, This Ordinance shall be effective upon its Passage and publication. Dated the ~ day of November, 1997, W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest: ValerJe Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Va71ey Sun-Post the , 1997.) ~ day of NOV-25-9? TUE 09:14 P, 02/03 MIGHAI-~I-. R, L~FI.~UR MARTIN p. Com~cx & Soxo~,~,L, P.A. A~'ORN£YS AT LAw Ed/nbl~gh Eeeeutive O~cc PI~ 8525 Edinbr~k Crowing 3ulte ~203 ~ Park, Minne$o~ 554~3 November 25, 1997 Kirk McDona]d City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Placement OT Side Yard AC Units Ordinance No. 97-30 Our File: 99,49730 Dear Kirk: in Follow up to the November 24th Codes and 8tandarOe meeting please ~nd encloeed & revised Ordinance NO. g?-30. ~t no~ c~rJ~e~ ~ubp~rt (ii) ~o indJcste side ¥~rd Ae unit~ mu~ be screened From view from both the side and Front property lines, Very ~ruly yours, Steven A. 8ondrall zltl encloeu.e NOV-24-97 HON ~3:39 ?,02/03 M~H'rlN I=. WILLIAM C. ~TRAITw *Af~F'FIO~EI3 A~ N~UI I-1AL Comuc~ & $ONDPALL, P.A. A~q~mq~ A~ L~w Edinbur~ ~ccu~v~ Offlc~ ~ 8525 Ed~Dr0ok Cross~ Suite ~203 Br~k~ Park. Minnesota 55443 ~.HARON D:-OERDY November 24, 1997 Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Placement of Air Conditioning Unigs Ordinanoe No. 97-30 Our File: 99.49730 Dear Kirk: In follow up to our NOvember 24th telephone conversation please find enclosed a revised Ordinance No, 97-30. The ordinance has been revised to include a clause requiring a 5 foot setback from side or rear ]o't ]ines. Call if you have any other questions or comments. Very truly yours, 8revert A. SOndral] zlm enclosure cc: Vulerie Leone CORRICK ~t[ SONDRALL, RA. ATTORNEYS Al' LAw Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 85'25 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park. Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671 FAX (612) 425-5867 November 3, 1997 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401 Xy]on Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Amendment to Sideyard Placement Requirements for Air Conditioning Units Our. File No: 99.49730 Oear Kirk: I have reviewed the City Planner's October 23, 1997 memo concerning an amendment to New Hope Code §4.032(3)(i) regulating the placement of air conditioning units in side and back yards of residential property. I agree with the position taken by the City Planner in said memo. As a result, I have enclosed a proposed Ordinance incorporating the recommendations by the City Planner for consideration at the next Codes and Standards meeting. If you have any questions concerning this Ordinance, please contact me. Very truly yours, St even A. Sondrall elm Enclosure CC: A1Brixius, City Planner (w/enc) Valerie Leone, City Clerk (w/enc) Doug Sandstad, City Bldg. Official (w/enc) N ~ ,~ N 0 I~ H W ~...~ ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY PLANNING OESIGN C O N S U I-TA N T S MARKET ~ESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Cary Teague/Alan Brixius 23 October 1997 New Hope - Air Conditioner Setback Requirements 131.00 - 97.11 In 1992, the City amended its Zoning Ordinance, to allow air conditioner units located within a required side yard at the effective date of the Ordinance, to lawfully continue and may be replaced at such a location provided the following conditions are met: (i) The cooling structure or condenser shall not produce noise levels contrary to 9.423 and 9.424 of this Code. (ii) The cooling structure or condenser shall be screened by landscaping, fencing, or other means rendering it concealed from view from adjacent property. The cooling structure or condenser shall not lie within a required drainage and/or utility easement. The City has recently processed a variance request to allow an air conditioner unit to be located within a side yard. This particular unit has already been installed (without permit). The current ordinance establishes an inequity between existing non-conforming air conditioners and new air conditioners. As mentioned within Doug Sandstad's memo dated August 28, 1997, the reasons for the side yard exclusion of air conditioners include noise and aesthetics. However, the technology has advanced to reduced the noise of these machines. Additionally, screening of these units can be achieved by planting shrubs on the street side of the units to maintain "curb appeal" in residential neighborhoods. To eliminate the existing inequity and avoid future variance requests, our office was directed to prepare the attached Ordinance amendment allowing air conditioners to be located in side yards. These regulations provide for protection from noise, aesthetics and setback requirements.. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 6 ,I 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC~WINTERNET.COM As was done for the Ordinance amendment in 1992, our office contacted other Twin Cities communities to find out how they regulated air conditioner setbacks. The following is a list of the City's contacted and their regulations: city Burnsville Setback Requirement Not allowed within a side yard, except a side yard abutting a public street. Cottage Grove May encroach 2-1/2 feet into required setbacks. Eden Prairie Five (5) foot side yard setback, but may not be located within a drainage and utility easement. Eagan Five (5) foot side yard setback, but may not be located within a drainage and utility easement. Edina Five (5) foot side yard setback. Lakeville May be allowed within a side yard as long as the required setback is met and is not located within a drainage and utility easement. Must be set five (5) feet back from any lot line within the rear yard and not be located within a drainage and utility easement. Minnetonka No specific requirement. setback. Must meet minimum structure Plymouth May be allowed Within a side yard as long as the required setback is met, the unit is properly screened, is not located within a drainage and utility easement, and does not exceed State noise regulations. Units are allowed in the rear yard within 10 feet of any lot line. St. Louis Park No specific requirement. Must meet minimum structure setback. Wayzata May be allowed within a side yard as long as the required setback is met, the unit is properly screened, is not located within a drainage and utility easement, and does not exceed State noise regulations. Units are allowed in the rear yard within 10 feet of any lot line. 0~24~97 DRAFT DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 4.032 (3)(i) REGULATING AIR CONDITIONER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.032 (3) (i) "Air Conditioners" of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as folloWS: (i) Air Conditioners. Accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers (ground mounted) which generate noise shall be located in ~id~y'~.'rd$:.i~ rear yards behind the rear building line, A~ ysrd th~" ' "' '"-: .... t:-- m~y '-"""' ..... :-' ",T,~y '- , ~,,~,,.~,, ,~, o,,,.,, & ',,~,.~t,,~,, provided the following conditions are met: (i) The cooling structure or condenser shall not produce noise levels contrary to 9.423 and 9.424 of this Code. (ii) The cooling structure or condenser shall be screened by landscaping, fencing, or other means rendering it concealed from view from adjacent property. (iv) The cooling structure or condenser shall not lie within a required drainage and/or utility easement. The cooling structure or condenser shall be setback five (5) feet {mm a side or rear lot line. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. ~-"' ADOPTED by the Mayor and City Council of New Hope, Minnesota this day of 1997. W. Peter Enck,' Mayor ATTEST: '~','¥~ Oonahue, City Manager NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO 'CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY PERMITTING PLACEMENT OF AIR CONDITIONING UNITS IN SIDEYARDS City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 2nd day of December, 1997, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the affect of permitting placement of air conditioning units in sideyards as an accessory structure to a principal building if the unit complies with noise requirements, is screened from view of adjacent properties and does not encroach on drainage and utility easements. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are available upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531- 5109). Dated the lOth day of November, 1997. s/ Valerie J. Leone Valerie J. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 19th day of November,. 1997.) PLAN CASE REPORT 97-17 Applicant: Todd & Joan Lewis Property Owner: same Location: 4617 Del Drive Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family District Requested Actions: Variance for Side Yard Air Conditioner Size: Lot = 10,000 sq. ft. Existing Land Use: Single Dwelling Surrounding Land Uses: · East; Street + R-1 · South; R-'I dwellings · West; R-1 dwellings · North; R-1 dwellings Comprehensive Plan: Planning District #13 suggested no changes for this residential neighborhood. A need to enact a preventative housing ordinance to ensure maintenance was repeated. Zoning History: 1956-Residential Special Info~..ation: · Public Utilities; No change · Public Services; No change, unless noise complaints result · Transportation; No change · Parking; No change · Physical. Characteristics: Property slopes toward the south side following street grade, dropping 7 feet. Landscaping is routine. Continued... Analysis: Ciq; code prohibits buildings and equipment within a "required setback~ area. Setbacks differ based upon the "yard" , street frontage and zoning district. See ordinance 4.034(3). For exceptions or permitted "encroachments" into the required setback areas, see ordinances 4.33 (9), 4.034 (5) and 4.032 (3) i, attached. The latter is one violated code section in question, since Standard Heating & Air Conditioning Co. installed a new a/c unit in the required side yard of the Lewis home [NOT a replacement]. In addition, the contractor failed to apply for and obtain the required mechanical permit, before commencing the work, in violation of the State Building Code, adopted by ordinance 3.21. This contractor has done many similar installations in New Hope and is familiar with our code. Both our mechanical permit application and the mech. permit clearly state the side yard equipment prohibition. The TWO REASONS behind our ordinance are easily explained: 1. NOISE; We have had a tough noise ordinance, 9.42, since the late 1970% that severely resthcts nighttime noise levels in residential areas. Sleep disruption is a recognized, negative health effect we have tried to eliminate between the hOurs of 10:00pm and 7:00 am. [Our noise code was based upon the 1975 M.P.C.A. Noise standard.] Placing such a/c condensers between the end walls of adjacent homes has been a significant source of conflict in New Hope, unless one home had the garage wall adjacent [without sleeping .rooms]. Once such a noise complaint is received and violation confirmed, the only practical solution is to move the condenser to the rear yard. 2. FRONT YARD AESTHETICS can be preserved by planting two shrubs on on the street side of an a/c unit so that "curb appeal" is maintained. One irony in our code is 'the fact that a home that has a slightly w/der side yard building setback is able to install an air conditioner on the side as long as the equipment, itself, meets the minimum setback [10 feet on most yards]. The buildings would normally be about 15 feet, or more, from the same lot line, in this example. However, nearly 75% of our homes are built at the minimum setback. IN ALL cASES, our noise ordinance still applies: A homeowner who elects to install an..a/c unit in a w/de side yard must still comPly with our noise ordinance. The primary effect is a ban on a/c noise after 10:00 pm and before 7:00 am. Recommendations: While city. code requires a "non-economic hardship" in order to qualify for a Variance, there seems to be sympathy for property owners like the Lewis's. No hardship has been demonstrated I can easily issue a citation to the contractor for 2 violations, or order it moved to a legal yard. An amendment to our code is another possibility. At this time, [ propose that staff draft such an amendment that may be a win-win improvement to this type of neighborly conflict. [This item can be continued for 30 days.] The components of such an amendment will accomplish three things: Peimit side yard a/c installations regardless of yard width, IF... Mechanical permits for these side yard units must include an automatic setback thermostat, and... Maintain the integrity of the noise ordinance by obligating each property owner with the mech. permit to set the auto thermostat to shut off cooling at night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Typical complaint response, then, would be for the me to infoLm the property owner by form letter to set or reset their thermostat to those settings. Existing, older a/c units could be brought into compliance by a simple thermostat replacement. Many Of our homes already have them. Prepared By: 8-28-97 ,qu~pment anal4 ~ot ~e considered as encroachments on yard ~) eaves, ~utte~s, and the Like p~cv~ded tne~ do ~ot pro;eot ~) ~n all yards: terraces, steps, dec~s, stoops :~a~u~es p~ovided they do not ex~end a~ve tne ground ~loo~ level o~ t~e p~incipal structure d£s=ance less t~am two ~eet froa an~ lo= l£ne. ~ .423 c) ~n rear 7a~s.* recreational and ~aundry drying equipment, ~ors a~rellises, balcon£ee, breezeways, open ~:~rc~es, dec~s, detached outdoor L£v~ng rooms, ~arages, and conditioning o~ ~eat~ng equipment. Po~chee, cutdoo~ L£v~g rooms wh£c~ becomt c~osed £~ and attac~ed to ~ne dwe~g su~seq~em~ ~o ~n~t~ cons~uc:~oa o~ ~e p~nc~pa~ dwelling snaal no~ :~im ex.pt ~:om yard se~bac~ requi:~ents. ~ece~v~nq Land Use Standards. sna~ operate or cause o~ perm~ to. re operated any source o~ noise in such a manner as to cmeate a noise level exceeding ~£mit set La Table I ~or t~e receiving ~afld use category rece~v£ng Land use. Table l. Sound Levels by aeceivinq Land ~se D£st=£cta (7 a.m. - (lO p.m. - L~ pom.) '7 a.m. ) ~-~, ~-2, ~'3, ~'4, ~-5, ~-O 65 6Q 5S ~0 a-L, ~-2, ~3, ~4 70 6S ?O 65 Z-I, ~-2 80 75 80 75 bounda=iee ~etween d~ffffe~eflt land use caceqor£ea. date~mAnatiom c~ land use shall be ~y i~a zan~i designation. ~xem~tione. The levels prescribed in (1) a~ove do not apply to s~all be subject to other applicable 'subsections o~ t~s section. 9.424 Air Circulation Oevicea. No person shall permanently install or place any outdoor location until the noise control o~£¢er determines t~ac ~e device in t~&t Location will comply wit~ t~e max£mu~ noise Level The noise produced by any windo~ unit and ~y any existing air circulation device s~all ~e attenuaeed by means deemed a~propr~ate by o~ =~e maximum noise ~evel standards. ~evels contrary ~o §§~,~3 amd ~.~ oF t~$ C~e. (Cedi 072~84, Or~. 8&-3, EXtlr~Or Storaal. All materials aha equipment, except ss specifically sutnorizeO elsewhere in this :ode, s~ill )e saetia within I Ouilding or Cully ¢ollowtng: (a) ~lotnesline pole (0)' ~ecreetionI1 equipment aha vehicles on :~t prem£se~. 4.034 (d) exceed&ag a grOSS · nd R-4 O~ecrActl. (2). <3) ~educed"'m area or dAaenm~oa so es co ma~e suc~ ~oC, yard or open space lees t~aa the mAnAB~ requA:ed by t~As code, and LE aa s~ace p~ovLded a~uC any buAldLaq pc structure s~all be mchd~ as a ~cc of any open space c~u~ ~o~ anocAe~ structure. s~all be measured ffrom tA~e appropriate loc lane. Front Yard SAde Yard Rear Yard R.I 30AA(a) (b)(c) R-2 30(a) (b)(c) R-3 30 20 R-4 3S 20 R-5 35 20 35 R-O 35 10()) a-L 35(&) LO(b) 9-2 35(a) lO(b) 35 a-3 35 LO(b) 35 :-L $0 20 35 REQUEST FOR ACTION or/ginating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Developmen~ and City Manager l 1-23-92 Planning Kirk McDonald ~ Item No. By: Management Assistant By:.// 8.2 PLANNING CASE 92-29 - ORDINANC6 NO. 92-17, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 4.032(3)(i) REGULATING AIR CONDITIONER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS This is a request by the City of New Hop~ to consider a code text amendment regarding side yard air conditioners. In June of this year a variance application was processed regarding the replacement of an air conditioning unit located in the side yard of an existing home at 2748 Ensign Avenue North. The existing zoning code states that "No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may be located in a required side yard except for side yards abuttin~ streets and in such case the equipment shall be fully screened from view". Therefore, even though there are a number of homes in the City with air conditioners located in the side yard, every time a homeowner desires to replace an existing unit a variance application is required. The Planning Commission and City Council both requested that staff research this issue, determine the code requirements of other cities, and recommend possible changes to the existing City Code regarding air conditioners. The ordinance amendment is a result of that research. The intent of the amendment is to not force homeowners who want to replace/update existin~ air conditioning units located in the side yard to make application for a variance, but instead to allow side yard units currently in existence to remain in place and be replaced...subject to certain conditions. The intent of the ordinance prohibitin~ the location of air conditioning coolin~ structures or condensers within sid~ yards ia generally to limit potential adverse effects of air conditioning units upon neighborin~ properties (noise and visual concerns). Staff contacted a number of communities in regards to their specific regulations relating to air conditioner setbacks and while the survey shows that setback requirements imposed on air conditioners vary Review: Admimstra~on: FinanCe: RFA-O01 ~ Planning Case 92-29 November 23, 1992 Council Meeting widely from city to city, the prohibition of air conditioners within required side yards is not uncommon. The Planning Consultant indicated that if the City does wish to allow existing ground moUnted air conditioners within required side yard, that the following conditions be upheld to limit adverse impacts: The air conditioner does not produce noise considered a nuisance as defined by the nuisance ordinance. The air conditioning unit is screened via landscaping and/or fencing as judged acceptable by the City. The air conditioner does not lie within required drainage and utility easements. The Codes and Standards committee met on this issue and the general consensus was to revise the existing ordinance to allow existing .side yard air conditioners to remain in place and be repaired/replaced without a variance application, subject to certain conditions. While the amendment does not address all situations (moving an air conditioner from the rear yard to the side yard due to noise conditions interfering with rear yard patios/decks would still require, a variance), it does address the replacement on an existing unit which is non-conforming. The amendment would only apply to units now in existence; all new units would still be required to be placed in the rear yard. The City Attorney drafted the enclosed ordinance amendment for consideration. The proposed ordinance amendment states that "accessory ns~ or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise shall be located in rear yards behind the rear building line. Air conditionln~ cooling structures or condensers located within a required side yard at the effective date of this section may lawfully continue and may be replaced at such aloe. ation provided the followin$ Conditions are met: Ae The COOIin~ struCtUre or condenser shall not nroduce noise levels contrary to .~9,423 and §9,424 of this code. The coolln_~ str~g.mre or condenser _ah_all be screened by landscaning, fencin~t, or other'm_~an~ ren4~vln~ it concealed from view from ad!acent pro_mt, tv. Ce The coo_lln~ stTucture or condenser shall not He within a reouired drainage and/or utility easement. The Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance amendment at their November 4th meeting and recommended approval. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 92-17, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code Section 4.032(3)0) Regulating Air Conditioner Setback Requirements. The amendment keeps in place the City's long-standing prohibition of placing air conditioners in. side yards, which is not uncommon among municipalities, but does allow for the replacement of existing non-conforming units without variance application. ORDINANCE NO, 92- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 4.032 (3)(i) REGULATING AIR CONDITIONER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.032 (3) (i) "Air Conditioners" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (i) Air Conditioners. ~ accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers (around mounted) which generate noise m~ shall be located in rear yards behind the rear building line. Air conditioning cooling structures or condensers located within a required side yard ;~.. ..... =--,~, ~,d~ ..... j~, ~- full% ;;r;cn;~ f~;; ,.,i=w at the effective date of this section may lawfully continue and may be replaced at such a location provided the following conditions are met: (i) The cooling structure or condenser shall not produce noise levels contrary to §§9,423 and 9 of this Code. (ii) The cooling structure' or condenser shall be screened by landscaping, fencing, or other means rendering it concealed from view from adiacent property. (iii) The cooling structure or condenser shall not lie within a required, drainage and/or utility easement, Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its-passage and publication. Dated the 23rd day of November 1992. At t est: Valerie Leone, City Clerk /Edw. ~. 'Erickson, Mayor (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the 2nd December , 1992.) day of CITY OF ,NEW HOPE PLANNLNG CASE REPORT Planning Case: Request: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: 92-29 Request for Text Amendment Regarding Residential Zoning Districts City of New Hope October 30, 1992 November 4, 1992 BACKGROUND Side Yard Air Conditioners This is a request by the City of New Hope to consider a code text amendment regarding side yard air conditioners.. In June of this year a variance application was processed regarding the replacement of an air conditioning unit located in the side yard of an existing home at 2748 Ensign Avenue North. The existing zoning code states that "No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may be located in a required side yard except for side yards abutting streets and in such case the equipment shah be fully screened from view~. Therefore, even though there are a number of homes in the City with air conditioners located in the side yard, every time a homeowner desires to replace an existing unit a variance application is required. The Planning Commission and City Council both requested that staff research this issue, determine the code requirements of other cities, .and recommend possible changes to the existing City Code regarding air conditioners. This ordinance amendment is a result of that research. The intent of the amendment is to not force homeowners who want to replace/update existing air conditioning units located in the side yard to make application for a variance, but instead to allow side yard units currently in existence to remain in place and be replaced .... subject to certain conditions. The Planning Consultant, City Attorney, staff and Codes and Standards Committee have been studying this issue the for past several months and the City Attorney has drafted the attached ordinance amendment for consideration. The Codes & Standards Committee has recommended approval of the amendment. While the amendment does not address ail situations (moving an air conditioner from the rear yard to the side yard due to noise conditions interfering' with rear yard patios~decks would still require a variance), it does address the replacement on an existing unit which is non-conforming. The amendment would only apply to units now in existence; aH new units would still be required to be placed in the rear yard. An ordinance amendment to the Zoning Code does require a public hearing and official notice has been published. This amendment would be effective city-wide in all R-1 Distric..ts, this notification of all property owners within a specified distance is not required. Planning Case Report 92-29 November 4, 1992 Page -2- ANALYSIS In rune the Planning Commission suggested that Codes & Standards review the air conditioner placement ordinance and compare it with other cities requirements to see if more flexibility could be allowed on the issue. The Planning Consultant has indicated that the intent of the ordinance prohibiting the location of air conditioning cooling s~ructures or condensers within side yards is generally to limit potential adverse effects of air conditionin~ units upon neighboring properties (noise and visual concerns). Within recent years the City has received several requests for variances from the existing standard. The Planning Consultant contacted a number of communities in regards to their specific regulations relating to air conditioner setbacks, as listed below: Ci~ Setback Reeuirement Burnsville Prohibited in side yard, except those abutting public streets Cottage Grove May encroach 2-1/2 feet into required setbacks Eden Prairie Five foot side yard setback (not within required drainage and utility easemen0 Eagan None - must not lie within required drainage and utility easement Edina Five foot side yard setback Inver Grove Heights No requirement Minnetonka Varies, may encroach five feet into required yard setbacks Plymouth Not allowed in side yard St. Louis Parle Within 6 feet of principal building, must comply with nuisance ordinance The survey shows that setback requirements imposed on air conditioners vary widely form city to city, however the prohibition of air conditioners within required side yards is not uncommollo The Planning Consultant indicated that if the City does wish to allow ground mounted air conditioners within required side yard, it is recommended that the following conditions be upheld to limit adverse impacts: A. The air conditioner does not produce noise considered a nuisance as defined by the nuisance ordinance. B. The air conditioning unit is screened via landscaping and/or fencing as judged acceptable by the City. C. The air conditioner does not lie within required drainage and utility easements. Planning Case Report 92-29 November ,*, 1992 Page -3- The Codes & Standards Committee met on this issue and the general consensus was to revise the existing ordinance to allow existing side yard air conditioners to remain in place and be repaired/replaced without a variance application, The Consultant then drafted a preliminary ordinance amendment that essentially requires all new air conditioners to be located within rear yards. Ah' conditioning units which currently lie within required side yards are allowed to continue to exist at such loc,~tion provided a number of conditions are satisfactorily met. The City Attorney prepared the final proposed ordinance for consideration, incorporating the Planning Consultant's comments. Two minor changes were made from the original draft: A. The noise level restrictions were tied to the City's noise ordinance, as this is a more specific and measurable regulation as opposed to tying the noise levels to the nuisance ordinance. B. The screening condition has been amended to require that units loca~d in the side yard are concealed form view from adjacent property. The proposed ordinance amendment sta~s that "accesso~ uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise shall be located in rear yards behind the rear bulldlng [hie. Ah* conditioning cooling structures or condensers located within a required side yard at the effective date of this section may lawfully continue and may be replaced at such a location provided the following conditiom are met: A. The coolins structure or condenser shall not produce noise lcve[~ ¢ontrar~ tO .t9.4:~3 and §~),.4:14 of this code. B. The cooling structure or condenser shall be screened by landscapin_~, fencin_~, or other mea~ renderin_~ it concealed from view from ad_iacent pro~rtv. C. The coo[[l~_s structure or condenser shall not lle within a reouired draina~_e and/or utility l~semenL* RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of an Ordinance Amending New Hol~ Code Section 4.032(3)(0 Regulaling Air Conditioner Setback Requirement. The amendment keeps in place the City's long-standing prohibition of placing alt conditioners in side yards, which is not uncommon among municipalities, but does allow for the replacement of existing non-c, onfotming units without variance application. Attachments: PrOposed Ordinance Amendment 9/18 Attorney Correspondence Public' Hearing Notice 8/27 Planner's Report 7/17 Attorney Correspondence 6/11 Planners's Report & Survey Current City Code Planning Ca.~ 92-14 I I I I ( ~'~3~ ~]) ~)' ~)'~)- 'vii) Garage and On-Site Par~in~ Spat-. Ho permit snail he issued !or :n~ co'structure of ~ore :n~n one ~r~vate ~ccessor7 ~arage s~ruc~ure ~or each dwelling. ~acn ~PPL~¢ant ~:r a space to ~ ~sed. ~very dwelling unit ~ereafter erected snell ~e so ~oca~ed on t~e L~t so ~mac ac ~east a two car accessory mu~ld£ng ~m eddA=ion to eft accessory ga~a~!t. ------ ..... Air Cofldi~ionern, ~1~ accessory uses or e~ui~ent suc~ as'-~. I/. ~enerate noise may be located in a required side yard exceo~.~~' air ooadA~ioniflg cooling structures or condensers whic~ , (L) equl~xaen~ snail be fully screened ~r~ view. (Code 072184, Ord. 84-3) (J) C~mmunAca~ion Recep~lon/?ransmiseion 0evices. Satellite 0isnes, television and ~adio antennas and o~ae~ accessory uses within ali :offing dAa~ricts, provided ~ney ~eec cae ~ollowAng conditions: (t) ~e~. ?~e communication device (ii) Yardi. The communication device shall no~ be located v~-~'~h-~'n the requAred fron~ ~ard or side yard set~ac~, or any sade yard e~u~ing a street. (iAi) the communication device may be placed on cms roo~ of any eutAorisod structure on t~a premises. ( iv} exceed five feet a~ve ~Ae peak of tme roof only ~ conditional ~ae permit. Communication devices shall be located ~lve ~ee~ or more from eli lot Lines of ed~otnin~ iota and snail flo~ be located within a ~clXA~y easement. (v) (vi) for c~e ino~allation o~ any communication device requirtO~ 4 ~OflditionaX u~e permit. Building permit appLl~&tioal I~aL~ M accompanL~ by a si~e plan and device, in~i~ing details of anchoring. TWa Building Official BUt approve ~Ae piano ~ore /fls~aiLa~iou. (viA) '~lectricll ¢o~e. CmmGnicetAon device electrical equiGxuefl~ and connections shall be destvfled and installed tn confomance vice tee Mattoflal Bleo~ricai Code aa adopts4 by ~e City o~ Ney ffope. (Ord. 84-3, Ord. ti-l) 4-20 C.AVO#~ F_ ~ September 18, 1992 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Residential Air Conditioning Setback Requirements Our File No. 99.40051 Dear Kirk: I have reviewed the August 27th, 1992 memo from the City Planner.in connection with the referenced matter. Please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance for Planning Commission and City Council consideration incorporating the comments made by the City Planner. I have made twO changes to the condi-tions for placement of air conditioners in the side yard as follows: I have tied the noise level restrictions to our noise ordinance found in Sections 9.423 and 9.424 of our Code· This is a more specific and measurable regulation and in my opinion preferred to a regulation tying the noise levels to the nuisance ordinance. I have amended the screening condition by requiring that units located in the side yard are concealed from view from adjacent property and have deleted the reference to the Building Official as the judge in connection with the acceptability of the screening method used. If we want to define a specific screening regulation, it should be stated. Giving the Building Official complete discretion concerning what is acceptable, could not be enforced in my opinion. Kirk McDonald Sept ember 18, 1992 Page 2 Contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slf2 Enclosure cc: Doug Sandstad, City Bldg. Official (w/enc) A1 Brixius, City Planner (w/enc) P L A *N G . 0 E S I G N Consultants, Inc M A R K E T R E S E A R C ~ 5'rl~MOR.~N'D UM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius 27 August 1992 New Hope - Air Conditioner Setback RequiremenCs 131.00 92.11 Attached please find an Ordinance amendment relating co air conditioner seCback requirements. The amendment essentially requires all new air conditioners Co be located within rear yards. Air condi=ioning uniCs which curren=ly lie within required side yards are allowed co continue Co exist at such a loca=ion provided a number of condicions are satisfactorily met. If you have any questions or comenCs regarding chis material, please advise. pc: Dan Donahue Doug Sands=ad 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416, (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 July 17, 1992 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Air Conditioner Side Yard Setback Requirements Our File No. 99.40051 Dear Kirk: I have had a chance to review the City Planner's June 25th, 1992 memo in connection with the referenced matter. If we do adopt an amendment to our zoning code allowing air conditioners in side yards, [ agree with the recommendations of the City Planner relative to the glacement of air conditioners in a side yard. P]ease contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondra11 slf U R g P L A N H G , D ~ $-I G H M A I~ K E FI ~ $ E A ~ C~ TO: PROM: DATE: RE: PILE NO: Kirk McDonald Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius 11 June 1992 New Hope - Air Conditioner Setback Requirements 131.00 - 92.10 At your request, I have contacted a number of conm~lnities in regard to setbacks imposed upon air conditioners. This effort has been prompted by some questions raised as to whether the City of New Hope's existing setback regulations (imposed upon air conditioners) are appropriate. Currently, Section 4.032 (3) (i) of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance prohibits the location of air conditioning cooling structures or condensers within required side yards (except on side yards abutting streets). The intent of the stated requirement is generally to limit potential adverse effects of air conditioning units upon neighboring properties (noise, visuai concerns). Recently, the City has received numerous requests for variance from the existing standard. The following is a listing of City's con~acted and their specific regulations relating to air conditioner setbacks. Setback Re=uirement Burnsville Prohibited in side yard, except those abutting public streets. Cottage Grove May encroach 2-1/2 feet into required setbacks. Eden Prairie Five foot side yard setback (not within required drainage and utility easement). Eagan None must not lie within required drainage and utility easement. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.. Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416. (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 City Edina Inver Grove Heights Minnetonka Plymouth St. Louis Park Setback Req~iremen~ Five foot side yard setback. No requirement. Varies, may encroach five feet into required yard setbacks. Not allowed in side yard. Within 6 feet of principal building, must comply with nuisance ordinance. As shown above, setbacks imposed upon air conditioners vary widely in the sampled coam~unities. It should be recognized, however, that the prohibition of air conditioners within required side yards is not uncommon as evidenced in the sample co~unities previously listed. If the City does wish to allow ground mounted air conditioners within required side yards, it is recom=nended that the following conditions be upheld to limit adverse impacts: The air conditioner does not produce noise considered a nuisance as defined by the nuisance ordinance. The air conditioning unit is screened via landscaping and/or fencing as.judged acceptable by the City. 3. The air conditioner does not lie within required drainage and utility easements. If you have any questions or comments regarding this material, please do not hesitate to ask. With your authorization, we can prepare a Zoning Ordinance amendment. 2 Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No.: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 97-29 Consideration of Ordinance No. 97-29, An Ordinance Repealing the Lot Coverage Requirement for I-1 Zoned Property All' Properties Zoned I-1, Limited Industrial, in the City I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District City of New Hope November 26, 1997 December 2, 1997 BACKGROUND The City of New Hope is requesting consideration of an ordinance repealing the lot coverage requirement for I-1 zoned property, pursuant to Section 4.145 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The New Hope Zoning Code imposes special requirements on the I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District that are not required in other zoning districts. Besides the lot area, lot width and building height regulations applicable to all zoning districts, the following special requirements apply only to I-1 zoned properties: (1) Lot Coverage. Not more than forty percent of the lot, parcel or track of land shall be covered in a Limited Industry District. (2) Lot Area. In determining the minimum lot area requirement of one acre, the contiguous dedicated streets shall be excluded. (3) Green Area. At least twenty 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 the 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. (4) Parking Lots. The minimum setback for parking lots shall be twenty feet adjacent to a residential district and ten feet adjacent to a non-residential district. (5) Repealed. (6) 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 Section 4.033(3). (7) Landscaping Plans. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted to City Council and approved before a building permit may be obtained. (8) 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 one hundred fifty feet and no curb cut shall be located within seventy-five 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. 3. Several years ago the Planning Commission and City Council made several changes to these requirements to allow greater flexibility in this zoning district to accommodate busine growth/expansion. 4. In 1993 the green area requirement for this district was reduced from 35 percent to 20 percent because it was determined that the old standard established an artificial limit to industrial expansion which could discourage private reinvestment on established industrial sites. At that time, it was determined that the Zoning Ordinance had other performance standards to provide green area, landscaping, and to prevent the over-utilization of the site, such as setbacks, landscape, screening, building coverage, drainage and parking requirements. 5. At that time the green area ratio was lowered, the lot coverage requirement of 40 percent was not changed. City staff are suggesting that the City consider a code amendment to increase or eliminate the lot coverage requirement, in light of the green space reduction. Recently, Archive Corporation came in with a preliminary plan for expansion that met the green space requirement, but exceeded the lot coverage requirement and this is what prompted staff to think about this issue. 6. City staff, the Planning Consultant and City Attorney discussed this issue at an October 6 staff meeting and everyone was in agreement that this change should be proposed to the Codes & Standards Committee. 7. This is a Zoning Code amendment and public notice for a public hearing has been published. Individual property notices were not mailed, as the amendment would be applicable to all I-1 properties located in the City. ANALYSIS 1. The Planning Consultant has prepared the attached memo on this issue and the City Attorney has prepared the enclosed ordinance whi~:h repeals the lot coverage requirement. 2. The Planner's memo states that recognizing the need to accommodate and promote the in-place expansion of existing New Hope industrial land uses, City staff have re-examined the need for a 40 percent building lot coverage requirement within the I-1 Zoning District. Upon discussion among staff, it was concluded that the existing zoning standards regulating building setback, mandatory green space and on-site parking provided adequate protection to prevent over intensification of the industrial lot. City staff are recommending that the current requirement limiting building coverage to 40 percent of the lot . area be repealed. An ordinance amendment to that effect is attached. 3. The Planning Consultant is in agreement with staff's recommendation. 4. This matter was reviewed by the Codes & Standards Committee at its November 25 meeting and the Committee will be expressing its views at the Commission meeting. This report is being written prior to the Committee meeting due to the short work week because of the holiday. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend approval of Ordinance 97~29, which repeals the 40 percent lot coverage requirement in the I-1 Zoning District. Attachments: Ordinance No. 97-29 11/3 Attorney's Correspondence 10/24 Planner's Report Public Hearing Notice 1993 I-1 Green Area Reduction Report/Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 97-29 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR [-1 ZONED PROPERTY The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 4.145 (1) "Lot Coverage" of the New Hope City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. Section 4.145 "Specia] Requirements For All Limited Industrial Uses" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by renumbering subsections (2) through (8') as follows: (1) Lot Area; (2) Green.'Area; (3) Parking Lots; (4) Parking Lot Screening; (5) Landscaping P]ans; (6) Design Standards - Curb Cuts. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication, Dated the day of November, 1997. ' W. Peter Enck, Mayor Attest Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope,Golden Valley Sun-Post the , 1997.) day of SI'EVEN A. SONORALL MICHAEL R, LAFLEUR MARTIN P MALECHA WILLIAM C. STRAIT* CORPaCK & SO~DR.~,~,, P.A. ArTORNEYS AT [,AW Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park. Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE (612) 425-5671 FAX (612) 425-5867 November 3, 1997 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Repeal of Lot Coverage Requirement for I-1 Zoned Property Our File No: 99.49729 Dear Kirk- This letter is in response to the City Planner's October 24, 1:997 memo concerning the referenced matter, I agree with the position taken by the Planner in said memo, To that end, please find enclosed a proposed Ordinance Repeating the Lot Coverage Requirement for 1-1 Zoned Property for consideration at the next Codes and Standards meeting. Contact me if you have any questions regarding this~matter. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slm Enclosure cc: A1 @rixius, City Planner (w/enc) Valerie Leone, City Clerk (w/eric) Doug Sandstad, City Bldg, Official (w/enc) N LTANTS COMMUNITY PLANNING DESIGN MAt~KET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Daniel Licht / Alan Brixius 24 October 1997 New Hope - Lot Coverage - I-1 Districts 131.00 - 97.12 Recognizing the need to accommodate and promote the in-place expansion of existing New Hope industrial land uses, City Staff has re-examined the need for a 40 percent building lot coverage requirement within the I-1 Zoning District. Upon discussion among staff, it was concluded that the existing zoning standards regulating building seti~ack, mandatory green space and on-site parking provided adequate protection to prevent over intensification of the industrial lot. City Staff is recommending that the current requirement limiting building coverage to 40 percent of lot area be repealed. An Ordinance amendment to that effect is attached. pc: Doug Sandstad Steve Sondrall 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612_-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@WlNTERNET.COM 10/21/1997 DRAFT DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 4.145 REGARDING SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL LIMITED INDUSTRIAL USES The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 41145 Sc)ecial Reauirements for all Limited Industrial Uses. of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) kot ~o~. In determining the minimum lot area requirement of one acre,.the contiguous dedicated streets shall be excluded. Green Area. At least twenty 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 the 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. P~ The minimum setback for parking lots shall 'be twenty feet adjacent to a residential district and ten feet adjacent to a non residential district. 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 Section 4.033 (3). (5X-6-) Landscaping Plans. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted to the CitYCouncil and approved before a building permit may be obtained. (6)(--7-) 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. Cum cUts shall be placed at intervals of not less than one hundred fifty feet and no curb cut shall be located within seventy- five 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. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Mayor and City Council of New Hope, Minnesota this day of 1997. W. Peter Enck, Mayor ATTEST: Dan Donahue, City Manager NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY REPEALING LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR I-1 ZONED PROPERTY City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 2nd day of December, 1997, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the affect of repealing New Hope Code §4.145(1) which prohibits coverage of more than 40 per cent on properties in the Limited Industrial I-1 Zoning District. The ordinance w~ll also renumber the remaining subsections of §4.145. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Accommodations such as sign language interpreter or large printed materials are available upon request at least 5 working days in advance. Please contact the City Clerk to make arrangements (telephone 531-5117, TDD number 531- 5109). Dated the lOth day of November, 1997. s/ Valerie J. L~one Valerie J. Leohe City Clerk i'Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post on the 19th day of November, 1997.) I REQUF T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda ~. A~enda_Sectlon uevetoprnent City Manager & Planning 5-10-93 Kirk McDonald ~) Item No. By:Management Assistant By:f/ 8.1 PLANNING CASE 93-06, ORDINANCE/93-04, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.145 OF THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY REDUCING THE GREEN AREA REQUIREMENT IN THE I-1 ZONING DISTRICT City staff is requesting City Council consideration of Ordinance 93-04, An Ordinance Amending Section 4.145 of the New Hope Zoning Code By Reducing the Green Area Requirement in the I-1 Zomng District. The review of this zoning ordinance requirement is a result of action taken in connection with Pla~nin~ Case 92-35, Request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to Allow Exgansion of Outdoor Storage Area and Increase in Trailer Limit~ and Variance tO Green Area Requirement, 3531 Nevada Avenue North. The Planning Commission reviewed this request on December 1st and recommended approval on a split vote (the petitioner was requesting a 2% green area variance). At the January 11th meeting the City Council passed a resolution that extended the existing conditional use permit for outdoor storage for three months and increased the trailer limit to 5 and tabled the request for an amendment to the CUP to allow expansion of the outdoor storage area and the variance to the green area requirement for 3 months so that the I-! 35 % green area requirement could be studied. Staff was directed to study the I-I green area requirement with the Planner and Codes & Standards Committee and to bring a recommendation back to the City Council from the Planulng Commi~ion regarding whether the existing 35% requirement should be changed or not. Section 4.145 of the New Hope Zoning Code (Special Requirements for ail Limited Industrial Uses), subsection 3 (Green Area), currently reads as follows: Green Area. "Not les~ than thirty-five percent of the lot, parcel or tract of land shall remain as a grass plot, including shrubbery, plantings or fencing, and shall be landscaped. The work "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." Review: Ad.mmtstration: Finance: I RFA-OOI ~ Request for Action Planning Case 93-06 May 10, 1993 Page -2- The proposed amended ordinance would read as follows: Green Area. At least twenty' percent of the lot, parcel or tract of land shall remain as a grass plot, including shrubbery, plantings or fencing, and shall be landscaped. or residential ro . The work "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. The Codes & Standards Committee of the Planning Commission has studied the I-I green area requirement over the past several months in conjunction with City staff and are recommending a reduction in the green area requirement from 35% to 20% for the following reasons: 1. While the intention or'the I-i special Performance standards provide some strong aesthetic benefits, they also serve to limit the usable and buildable areas of I-1 lots. Lot coverage restricts building size to 40 Percent of the lot area and green area limits the usable area of the lot to 65 percent of the total lot area. For lots at or exceeding these standards, future expansion or building alterations that increase the site's impervious surface are prohibited w/thout a variance. 2. The current regulation does not dictate the location of the required green area. While the City emphasizes landscaping to screen incompatible land uses, the developer often creates green space area anywhere on site just to comply with code. Green space and screening between rear yards · nd _req. un.ed seth. acks has limited aesthetic or screening effectiveness, 3. .pc pe riced s~gniflcant mF~ffi, development to a point of near saturation dtmm]sh/ng land supply reduces the City's opporttmit/es . The for economic development opportunities through new industr/al construction. Maturing communities must rely on the expans!o.n of h~.-place..b .u~. ~ for new industrial growth. Fixed development and roe ~o_w~_e.r_.s_n_~p paR. e.rn~_ I,m~t .the potent/al for adding land to a site to uermit 2o"°~P~ Ir~ cumpilance wire .~5 percent ~reen are sta.ndarde . . . -.. -:---..,. · u=. x · ~a ?.rcenz green space standard ~navb~.tnm~en~on~X~be/iis~e~m~du~.~dsitu~al..e..x?an~on ~w~ch may al?courage private · . '. wlmout flexibility these businesses may need to relocate outs/de the City to satisfy then- growth needs. To promot~ privat~ investment and reinvestment, the New Hope Vacant Land Study recommends Zoning Ordinance goals and policies, one of which is that provisions of the City Development Ordinance~ (including zoning, s. ubdivision, signage, etc.) shall be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure its up-to-date status m response to the changing needs of the community. Under the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the New Hope Vacant' Land Study, an ordinance change, to promote and encourage private economic development is consistent with the community land use goals. The 35 percent green area requirement is exclusive to the Iol zoning. The City does not impose this standard in the other commercial or industrial zoning districts. RequeSt for Action ?{anmng Case 93-06 May 10, 1993 Page -3- Aside from the I: i green area requirement, the New Hope Zoning Ordinance has other zoning performance standards to provide green area, landscaping, and to prevent the over- utilization of the site, such as setbacks, landscape, screening, building coverage, drainage, and parking requirements. In considering a variance, the City must f'md a non-economic hardship unique to the specific site not created by the property owner. Generally, a variance from the green space standard would not meet these criteria because a request to expand a business involves financial considerations, the hardship is not unique to a specific site, and the. request is generated by the property owner. The variance process is not the appropriate meann for reducing I-1 green space, a zoning text amendment is recommended. Most communities do not rely on a green area ratio standard, rather they address green area through required setbacks, buffer yards, landscaping, screening, and building coverage. New Hope's application of a green area ratio in a single zoning district is a unique arrangement. Any change in the existing requirement should be si.tyniftcant enough to provide some flexibility for future growth and should give attention to the existing non-conforming sites. The 20 percent ratio requires green area in excess of just the minimum setbacks, expands the usable area of the existing I-1 sites for business expansions, and reduces the number of non- conforming I-I lots from 40 to 4. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this ordinance amendment to the zoning code at their meeting on May 4, 1993, and staff concurs with that recommendation. ORO[NANCE NO. 93-0~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION ~.1~5 OF THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY REDUCING THE GREEN AREA REQUIREMENT IN THE [-1 ZONING DISTRICT The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: ,Section 1. Section ~.145 (3) "Green Area" of the New Hope Zoning Code is hereby amended to reed as follows: (3) Green Area. At least twenty .~;t Ic;~ t..-~ t~'rt'' ''"^ percent of the lot, parcel or tract of land shall remain as a grass plot, including shrubbery, plantings or fencing, and shall 0e landscaped. Required minimum ~reen area should be emphasized in the front and side yards aOuttinq 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. ~. EffectiVe Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the 10th day of May , 1993. Attest: / Edw. ~.-Erickson, Mayor Valerie Leo~e, City Cl~rk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Post the ~ay , 1993.) 19th~ day of 'AC Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc-, U R B A N P L A N N I NG 0 E S I G N . M A R K E T R E S E A R C H pLANFFING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Kirk McDonald Alan Brixius 5 March ~993 New Hope Green Area Ratio 13~.00 - 93.0~ INTRODUCTION Recent development requests within the !-1 Zoning District raised a concern over the district's requirement of maintaining 35 percent of the site for green area. This standard presents Ordinance limitation on site development and/or building alterations tha~may result in increased impervious surface on the I-1 site. As a result of these inquiries, the City has directed us to evaluate the I-1 green area requirement to determine if an ordinance amendment would be appropriate. In considering a change to the Zoning. Ordinance, this report attempts to outline the original purpose of the existing zoning standard and then. evaluate the standard against the following criteria: 2. 3. 4. Changing conditions within the courts,unity. Consistency with the City Comprehensive Plan. Existing development condition. Compariso~ with other City commercial districts. Survey of adjacent communities. Variance opportunities. Alternative City performance standards. and industrial 5775 Wayzata Blvd.. Suite 555 · St. Louis Park, MN 55416' (612) 595-9636.Fax. 595-9837 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS I-1 ZONIN~ DISTRICT The predominant Industrial Zoning District in New Hope is the "I- l'', Limited Industrial Zoning covering 94 of the City's 123 industrial zoned sites. The purpose of the "I-1", Limited Industrial .District is to provide for the establishment of industrial development in a well planned, residentially compatible setting. To accomplish this expressed purpose, Section 4.145 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance establishes the following special performance standards exclusively for the I-1 Zoning District: 4.145 Special Re~=uirements for all Limited Industrial Uses. (1) Lot Covera=e. Not more than forty percent of the lot, parcel or track of land shall be covered in a Limited Industry District. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) L_Q/,__AN_~A~ In determining the minimum lot area requirement of one acre, the contiguous dedicated streets shall be excluded. Green Area. Not less than thirty-five percent of' the lot, parcel or tract of land shall remain as a grass plot, including shrubbery, plantings or fencing, and shall be landscaped. 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. parkin= Lots. The minimum setback for parking lots shall be twenty feet adjacent to a residential district and ten feet adjacent to a non-residential district. E2~Dlovee-Parkinu. No parking lot in front of the building shall be used by vehicles of employees. ?arkin= Lot Screenin~ 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 provision of Section 4.033 (3). L~ndscapin? plans. Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted to City Council and approved before a building permit may be obtained. Desi=n Standards - Curb Cuts. Ail 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 one hundred fifty feet and no curb cut shall be located within seventy-five 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. The performance standards and most specifically, the green, area provision, are intended to: 1. Provide or enhance the aesthetic quality of the I-! industrial areas· Insure proper setback and screening between'industrial development and less intense land uses. Limit impervious surface to reduce the on-site storm water drainage. While the intention of the I-1 special performance standards provide some strong aesthetic benefits, they also serve to limit the usable and buildable areas of the I-1 lots. Provision #i lot coverage restricts building size to 40 percent of the lot area and provision #3 green area limits the usable area of the lot ~o 65 percent of the total lot area. For lots at or exceeding these standards, future expansion or building alterations that increase the site's impervious surface are prohibited without a variance. While the benefi~ of green space is significant, the impact of the I-1 green space s~andard raises the following comments: The current regulation does not dictate the location of the required green area. While the City emphasizes landscaping to screen incompatible land uses, the developer often creates green space area any where on site just to comply with code. Green space and screening between rear yards of industrial sites beyond 'required setbacks has limited aesthetic or screening effectiveness. According to the City Engineer, the drainage significance of the 35 percent'green area ration is minimal. The City's tough parking and site plan review process, erosion control policies and sensitivity to drainage issues exceeds ~he value of raw green space. CHAN~ING CONDITIONS Since the 1975 Comprehensive Plan, New Hope has experienced significant infill development to a point of near saturation. In 1987., the New Hope Vacant Land Study identified 14 industrially zoned sites comprising 72.1 total acres. Development since 1987 has consumed seven additional sites and resulted in a total vacant land supply of 45.9 acres. The diminishing land supply reduces the city's opportunities for economic development opportunities through new industrial construction. Maturing communities must rely on the expansion of in-place businesses for new industrial growth. Fixed development and property ownership patterns limit the potential for adding land to a site to permit growth in compliance with 35 percent green area standards. Under these circumstances, the I-1 35 percent green space standard establishes an artificial limit to industrial expansion which may discourage private re-investment on established industrial sites. Without flexibility these businesses may need to relocate outside the City to satisfy their growth needs. COMP]LEHENS IFE PLAN New Hope has had a strong economic recognized in the following policy Comprehensive Plan: development philosophy as statements of the 1975 Industrial ~oals Provide for a sound industrial base for the City that will be stable and on-going. Concentrate industrial development in the existing industrial parks (Science and Industry Center, 01son, Winnetka). o Fully develop existing industrial parks. Promote continued industrial development in order to create an expanded employment base and opportunity within New Hope. Industrial Poli=~e. Continue to maintain and expand the City's industrial and commercial tax base to assist in paying for needed serVices and in reducing tax impact on housing costs. within economic capabilities, provide those public services and facilities to New Hope industries to help ensure their satisfaction with locating in the community. Promote continued industrial development in existing industrial parks which have direct access to major highways. 4 o Encourage the development ~f compatible, non-industrial activities within industrial parks in order to increase %ke potential utilization of undeveloped industrial park land. Identify industrial activities complementary to existing activities and promote and facilitate the development of such industries in New Hope. Investigate alternative fiscal incentives to attract new desired types of industries to New Hope· Promote the type of industrial development which maximizes the return on City investments in public facilities and services. Give due consideration to all potential physical implications and services and facility demands (i.e., traffic generation, sewer and water demands, etc.) of any proposed industrial development. These economic development goals and policies were more recently supported by the 1987 New Hope Vacant Land Study Phase II. This study has outlined strategies for promoting the economic development of the vacant industrial sites and for remaining competition with other coA~=~unities in the area of economic development. The City TIF policies promote business growth in=the coA~=~unity through actual public financial assistance. To promote private investment and re-investment, the New Hope Vacant Land Study also recommends the following Zoning Ordinance goals and policies: Goals~ Utilize City codes and ordinance to promote and direct privately initiated development activities on vacant parcel of land in New Hope. New development must meet the modern standards and needs of the coA~=~unity. Policies, Provisions of'~ the City Development Ordinances (including zoning, subdivision, signage, etc.) shall be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure its up-=o-date status in response to the changing needs of the community. Under the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the New Hope Vacant Land Study, an ordinance change to promote and encourage private economic development is consistent with the community land use goals. EXISTING CONDITIONS As par= of this study, the City s~aff inventoried the existing developed industrial sites in New Hope to determine the degree of conformity with the I-1 green area standard (see Exhibit A). There are currently 113 developed properties divided among the two industrial zoning districts in New Hope. Of these, 19 (16.6 percent) are located in the I-2, General Industrial Dis=riot and 96 (83 percent) are located in the I-1, Limited Industrial District. As illustrated in Table A, the I-1 site's greenarea range from 2 to 75 percent. The average green space ratio is 38.6 percent, however, this statistic is deceptive due to the number of sites with a high ratio of green space, which may be reduced with future development. A more pertinent statistic is median ratio of green space of 36.5 percent. Half of the sites fall below this point. Currently, 40 sites fall below 35 percent green space ratio and exist as non-conforming sites. Under Section 4.031 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance, these sites are not permitted to expand without variance if the degree of nonconformity increases. Twenty-three additional I-1 sites fall into 35 percent to 39 percent green space range. Industrial expansion on these sites may also be limited by the 35 percent green area standard. TABLE A SURVEY OH ~REEN SPACE IN INDUSTRIAL SITES IN NEW HOPE Percent Green Area 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 Percent I-1 I-2 Green I-1 ~ Sites Area Sites 2 I 40-44 6 I 3 45-49 2 0 4 50-54 8 1 2 55-59 7 10 i 60-64 1 9 I 65-69 4 17 i 70+ 3 23 i '- TOTAL 94 Mean Green Area: Median Green Area: I-1 - 38.6% I-1 - 36.5% I-2 24.1% I-2 - 18.8% I-2 Sites 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 19 SOURCE: Aerial Photo Study by Bones=too, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates with correction by City Staff (2/2/93) INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL .DISTRICT STANDARDS The 35 percent green area requirement is exclusive to the I-1 zoning. The City does not impose this standard in the other commercial or industrial zoning districts. Table B provides a comparison of development standards in both the I.-1 and I-2 Zoning Districts. The I-2 District offers a slightly broader range of uses, but may accommodate development with less restrictive zoning standards. The two zoning districts require the same minimum lot areas, however, the I-1 Zoning District requires a greater lot width and side yard setbacks in addition to the green area and lot coverage standards. TABLE B COMPARISON OF I-1 AND I-2 ZONIN~ PE~OP~MANCE STANDARDS 1-1 I-2 Lot Area 1 acre I acre Lot Width 150 feet 100 feet Setback: 3 stories 3 stories Front 50 feet 50 feet Side 20 feet 10 feet Rear 35 feet 35 feet Building Height 3 stories 3 stories Green Space 35 percent N/A Building Coverage 40 percent N/A SOURCE: New Hope Zoning Ordinance A survey of the I-2 industrial (see Table A) area indicates that these lots average green area of 24 percent and a median green area ratio of 18.8 percent. There appears to be a significant discrepancy in the permitted usable area of lots between the existing industrial zoning districts. The New Hope con~nercial zoning districts do not impose a mandatory green area ratio. The New Hope Building Official estimates that the average green area ratio of the commercially zoned sites is approximately 10 percent. OTHER CITY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Aside from the I-1 green area requirement, the New Hope Zoning Ordinance has other zoning performance standards to provide green area, landscaping, and to prevent the over-utilization of =he site. This performance standard addresses: Set. backs: Building Se=back (Section 4.034) Front Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: 50 feet 20 fee= 35 fee= Greater se=backs from major streets are also required. Parking Setbacks (Sec=ion 4.145): The I-1 zoning requires a minimum parking lot se=back of 10 feet. Landscaping and Screening (Sec=ions 4.033 and 4.145): The New Hope Zoning Ordinance requires screening of commercial and indus=rial si=es from residential areas and public rights-of- way. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance general provisions and I-1 special performance standards require the submission of detailed landscaping plans that emphasize landscaping or screening of the building perimeter, parking lot area, =and required yards· Building Coverage (Sec=ion 4·145): The I-1 special requirements limit =he building cover of =he lo= to 40 percent of the lo= area. Drainage (Sec=ion 4.032.(4)): The City requires drainage plans for all industrial cons=ruction. Parking (Sections 4·036 and 4.145): These sec=ions define the amount, the design and location of accessory parking for industrial development. These zoning provisions stress the proper screening and landscaping at the perimeter of the parking lo= area. These design elements undergo critical review by staff, the Design and Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. New Hope, through its strict review process, has been effective in requiring quality development and site design· VARIANCE It should be noted that a small number of variances from =he green area standard have been granted in the pas=. The City Building Official identified four pas= variances including 5010 Hillsboro, 5621 International Parkway, 8701 Bass Lake Road, and 3531 Nevada Avenue. Section 4.22 of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance states: P~Voose of Variance. The purpose of a variance is to permit relief from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code to prevent undue hardships or mitigate undue non-economic hardship in the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property and where circumstances are unique to the individual property under consideration, and the granting of a variance is demonstrated to be in keeping with the spirit and intent cf this Code. A hardship may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific parcel of property or a lot existing and of record upon the effective date of this code or that by reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the terms of this Code would result in exceptional difficulties when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district in which said lot or parts1 is located, or would create undue hardship upon such lot or parcel that another lot or parcel within the same district would not have if it were to be developed in a manner proposed by the appellant. In considering a variance, the City must find a non-economic hardship unique to the specific site not created by the property owner. Generally, a variance from the green space standard would not meet these criteria for the following reasons: The alternative to the green space variance would be: a) not to expand the specific business, b) purchase additional land, or c) relocate the business to a larger site to accommodate it in accordance with City standards. These are each a financial consideration when expanding the business. The hardship is not unique to a specific site. As illustrated on Table A, 40 I-1 sites are currently non-conforming under this zoning standard and 23 other sites are within 4 percent of the green area limit. With these conditions, the likelihood of additional similar variance requests is great. The choice oZ expanding a business is a decision of the property owner. As such, the variance to reduce green space is generated by the property owner. The past variances establish a precedent for future variance considerations. These variances were given to acco~odate local business growth and are supportive of the City's economic development philosophies to maintain local industrial tax base and employment opportunities. Since the aforementioned conditions suggest that the variance process is not the appropriate means for reducing I-1 green space, a zoning text amendment is recommended. sURVEY OF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES In preparation of this study, a sur~ey of surrounding communities was conducted to determine if a green area ratio was common in other cities. Exhibit B s~=~rizes the findings of the community_ survey. Most communities do not rely on a green area ratio standard, rather they address green area through required setbacks, buffer yards, landscaping, screening, and building coverage. Brooklyn Center is a community that does use a green area ratio. They established a green area ratio for each zoning district. The Brooklyn Center green area ratio for industrial zoning district is 15 percent. New Hope's application of a green area ratio in a single zoning district is a unique arrangement. CONCLUSION Changing development conditions in New Hope has caused the City to re-evaluate the green space standards of the I-1 zoning. Diminishing landsupplyand fixed development patterns have limited new economic development growth resulting in greater reliance on the expansion of in-place businesses. The I-1 green area ratio establishes an artificial limit on expansion of I-1 businesses. The City must now weigh the benefits of the existing green area standard versus the community's ability to promote and aid further reinvestment and expansion of New Hope's in-place I-1 businesses. A review of the green area standards, we believe that the City can achieve the benefits of this I-1 standard through the application of other existing zoning performance standards. We would suggest a reduction of the green area ratio from 35 percent to 20 percent. Exhibit C provides examples of a variety of green area ratios applied to a minimum I-1 lot. The City may consider a reduction of the green area ratio to a lesser degree as alternative amendment options. However, the change should be significant enough to provide some flexibility for future growth and should give attention to the existing non- conforming sites. The 20 percent ratio requires green area in excess of just the minimum setbacks, expands the useable area of th~ existing I-1 sites for business expansions, and reduces the number of non-conforming I-1 lots from 40 to 4. pc: Steve Sondrall Dan Donahue Doug Sandstad 10 Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator November 26, 1997 Miscellaneous Issues NOTE: The purpose of this miscellaneous issues memo is to provide commissioners with additional detail on CouncillEDA actions. It is not required reading and is optional information provided for your review, at your discretion. October 13 Council/EDA Meetings - At the October 13 Council/EDA meetings,-the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: Project #611, Resolution Relating to a Project on Behalf of Primo Piatto, Inc. Under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act; Granting Preliminary Approval Thereto and Authorizing Submission of Application for Bond Allocation: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Motion Declining Potential Purchase of the Single Family Home Located at 7911 601/2 Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain an Appraisal of the Single Family Home Located at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Motion Authorizing Staff to Obtain an Appraisal on Multi-family Dwelling Located at 7621 62na Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. E. Ordinance No. 97-23, An Ordinance Establishing a Housing Improvement Area for the Sandpiper Cove Townhome Development, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §428A: Tabled until November 10 meeting. F. Planning Case 97-19, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Outdoor Storage Trailer, Midland Shopping Center: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission, see attached Council request. G. Planning Case 97-20, Request for Variances to the Side Yard Setback to Allow Construction of a Retractable Enclosed Ramp Between Two Buildings, 5600 Highway 169 and 5621 International Parkway: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission, see attached Council request. H. Planning Case 97-21, Request for a Variance to Allow a Second Driveway Access, 2865 Quebec Avenue: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission, see attached Council request. I. Planning Case 94-15, Resolution Authorizing Release of Security for Kimball Addition: Tabled until October 27 to allow developer to finish sodding. J. Project #589, Motion Approving Plans and Specifications for the Rehabilitation of 9116 31st Avenue and Authorization to Advertise for Bids: Approved with several alternates. See attached Council request. K. Ordinance 97-15/Planninq Case 96-31, An.Ordinance Amending the New Hope City Code b~,' Establishing a Shoreland Permit Overlay District: Adopted as recommended with flexibility. The ordinance has been sent to the DNR for their review/approval and will not be published until they have responded. If the DNR does not accept the flexibility incorporated into the ordinance, it will have to be reconsidered and amended, and then published. L. Project #609, Resolution Approving Proposal by the McNulty Group, Ltd. d/b/a Planet Publications, Inc. to Produce 1997-98 City of New Hope Resident Guide/Business Directory: Approved, see attached EDA request. October 27 CouncillEDA Meetings - At the October 27 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Project #5981Planning Case 97-06, Resolution Accepting Easement from Kalway Construction Company, Inc. for 7300 49th Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request. B. Consideration of Ordinance 97-03/Plannin.q Case 96-04, An Ordinance Amendinq the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Pawn Shops as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zonin_n District: Adopted, see attached Council request. C. Planning Case 94-15, Resolution Authorizing Release of Security for Kimball Addition: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Planning Case 97-03, Final Plat Approval for Saint Therese Addition, 8000 Bass Lake Road: Approved, see attached Council request. E. Ordinance 97-21Planning Case 96-04, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the New Hope City Code by Establishing Licensing Regulations for Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal and Second Hand Goods Dealers: Adopted, see attached Council request. F. Motion Approving Summary of Ordinance 97-2 Establishing Pawn Shop Licensin~ Regulations: Approved, see attached Council request. G. Ordinance 97-28, An Ordinance Deleting New Hope Code Sections 8.11 through 8.117 Regarding Christmas Tree Sales: Adopted, see attached Council request. H. Presentation by Project for Pride in Livinq, Inc. Regarding Concept Proposal for Redevelopment of Multi-family Dwelling at 7302-7316 Bass Lake Road: November 10 CouncillEDA Meetings -At the November 10 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Proiect #587, Acceptance of Report on Senior/Community Programming Study: Accepted report and CAC to review report. The executive summary is attached. If you want to review the full report, please contact Pam (531-5110). B. Motion Authorizing Submittal of Capacity Building Grant Program Application to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for Housing Element of Comprehensive Plan Update: Approved, see attached Council request C. Project #589, Resolution Rejecting All Bids for the Rehabilitation of 9116 31st Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. D. Project #.493, Resolution Approving Third Party Agreement for the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program for the Adult Daycare and/or Senior Center Public Facility at 5501 and 5425 Boone Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request. E. Project #600, Consideration of Ordinance 97-23, An Ordinance Establishinq a Housina, Improvement Area for the Sandpiper Cove Townhome Development, Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §428A: Continued to December 8 Council meeting. F. Project #613, Motion Authorizing Staff to Negotiate with Property Owner for Potential Purchase of Multiple Family Dwelling Located at 7621 62nd Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. G. Project #589, Motion Approving Revised Plans and Specifications for the Rehabilitation of 9116 31st Avenue and Authorization to Advertise for Bids: Approved, see attached Council request. H. Project #493, Resolution Approving Third Party Agreement for the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program for the Adult Daycare and/or Senior Center Public Facility at 5501 and 5425 Boone Avenue: Approved, see attached EDA request. I. Project ~93, Resolution Approving Land Disposition Agreement Between Hennepin County and the New Hope EDA in Conjunction with the Adult Daycare and/or Senior Center Public Facility at 5501 and 5425 Boone Avenue: Approved, see attached EDA request. J. Discussion Regarding and Authorization to Participate in Suburban Remodeling Planbook Project: Council authorized funding up to $5,000. See attached EDA request. 4. November 24 CouncillEDA Meetings - At November 24 Council/EDA meetings, the Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues: A. Resolution Approving Metropolitan Council Local Planning Assistance Program Grant Agreement and Authorizing Execution by Mayor and City Manager (Grant SF-97- 168/Planning Case 96-27): Approved, see attached Council request. B. Project #589, Motion Approving Quote by Crystal Tree Service in the Amount of $1,331.25 for Tree Removal at 9116 31s* Avenue: Approved, see attached Council request. C. Resolution Approving Agreement to Submit Order by Fire Chief Requiring Installation of Fire Alarm and Smoke Detection System at 7300 49t~ Avenue to State Fire Marshal's Variance Process (Planning Case 97-06): Approved, ~ee attached Council request. D. Discussion Regarding Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMMHC) Home Ownership Resource Center Program: Council request attached - staff to give update at Commission meeting. E. Discussion Regarding Establishment of Enterprise Facilitation Program in New Hope and Crystal and Authorization to Proceed: Council request attached - staff to give update at Commission meeting. 4. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee did not meet in October, and issues discussed at the November meeting included lot coverage in the I-1 Zoning District, side yard air conditioners, shopping center parking requirements, R-1 setbacks and accessory buildings, and sign code update. 5. Design & Review Committee - Design & Review did not meet in October or November as no applications were submitted that required review by the Committee. 6. Comprehensive Plan Update Committee - The Committee did not meet in October. A tour of the City was conducted by staff in October to determine neighborhood planning district issues. At the November 20 meeting, the Committee discussed the Life Cycle Housing Study prepared/presented by Nancy Reeves, the Planning District Identification Map, and the revised Planning Inventory. Roger Landy, the Chair of the Committee, can provide an update on the Committee activities for interested Commissioners. 7. Project Bulletins - Enclosed are project bulletins mailed during October and November to residents on the City's 1997 sidewalk project, Northwood Park improvements, street project, 9116 31= Avenue and backyard drainage improvement project. 8. 3"" Quarter Reports - Enclosed are the third quarter reports for planning, housing, and engineering for your information. 9. 1998 Planning Commission Schedule - Attached is a tentative schedule for 1998. The March and November meeting nights are also election nights and no meeting can be held after 6 p.m. A decision will need to be made on whether to have the meeting on Monday or Wednesday evening. This item will be placed on the regular agenda for discussion. 10. Commission Openings - The terms of office expire for four Planning Commissioners at the end of the year, and two Commissioners have notified the City Clerk that they will be resigning. Openings will be advertised in the City Report and BuSiness Link newsletters. Another Commissioner has informed staff that he will be moving out of the City. 11. Miscellaneous Articles- Enclosed are several articles from the Zoning News, Zoning Bulletin and a newspaper article for your information. 12. Other planning/housing/development issues that staff have been working on include: A. Potential expansion at Archives on Nevada Avenue B. Potential expansion at West Pac in Science Industry Park C. Potential expansion of ColliSys Electrical in Science Industry Park D. Winnetka Center Shopping Center has been sold to the developer that owns Four Seasons Mall in Plymouth E, Potential multi-family housing developments on Bass Lake Road F. Continued coordination with Sandpiper Cove at 42nd & Boone re: major renovations to structures G. Potential SuperAmerica development on Medicine Lake Road and Hillsboro Avenue H. Potential expansion of St. Therese Nursing Home I. A number of inquiries have been received regarding the re-use or redevelopment of the Ponderosa site J. Continued coordination re: office development on City-owned site on 49th Avenue near Highway 169 Attachments: Pdmo Piatto 7911 60 ~ Avenue 5629 Wisconsin Avenue 7621 62nd Avenue Value Village at Midland Center Liberty Diversified Industries 2865 Quebec Avenue 9116 31'* Avenue Plans & Specs Resident Guide/Business Directory 7300 49"~ Avenue Pawn Shop Zoning Ordinance Kimball Security Release St. Therese Final Plat Third Party Agreement 7621 62n" Avenue 9116 31'* Avenue Revised Plans & Specs Third Party and Land Disposition Agreements Remodeling Planbook Planning Assistance Program Grant Agreement 9116 31't Avenue Tree Removal 7300 49t~ Ave Fire Alarm/Smoke Detection System GMMHC Home Ownership Resource Center Enterprise Facilitation Program Pawn Shop Licensing Ordinance & Summary Ordinance Christmas Tree Sales Ordinance Project for Pdde in Living Proposal SeniodCommunity Center Programming Study Capacity Building Grant Program Application 9116 31,t Avenue Rejecting Bids REQUEST FOR ACTION OrigtnarJ.ng Depa~U~ent Approved for Agenda A/ienda Section geveTooment City Manager & Planning 10-13-97 Kirk McDonald ~ Item No. By: Management Assistant By:.,Z~/ 6. ~, RESOLUTION RELATING TO A PROJECT ON BEHALF OF PRIMO PlA'Ir'O, INC. UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT; GR~NT1NG PRELIMINARY APPROVAL THERETO AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR BOND ALLOCATION (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 611) The enclosed resolution relates to a potential bond issuance for the Pdmo Piatto site prepared by the City's Bond Counsel. The resolution simply provides preliminary, approval for the issuance of revenue bonds and starts the consideration of a project that would be for the acquisition of land, buildings anct equipment at Primo Piatto's present site at 7300 36'" Avenue North. Primo Piatto purchased the former Creamettes facility this past spdng and essentially saved the plant from closure. : This resolution simply starts the process and does not bind the City to a bond issuance. Also, the revenue bonds would be paid by the project. The bonds would not be general obligation bonds, therefore, the City w, ould have no obligation to guarantee payment of the bonds. The resolution states that: 1. Representatives of Primo Piatto, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, have advised this Council of their desire to finance a project consisting of the acquisition of land, building and equipment located at 7300 36"' Avenue North in the City. 2. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to issue its revenue bonds to finance capital projects consisting of properties used and useful in connection with a revenue-producing enterprise. The Borrower has requested the City to issue its revenue bonds in an aggregate total amount not to exceed $7,000,000 to finance the cost of the Project. 3. On the basis of the information given the City to date, it appears that it would be desirable for the City to issue its revenue bonds to finance the Project. (cont'd.) MOT[ON BY SECOND BY TO: 1~lew: Adrnin/stratton: Finance: RFA-OO Z ~ Request for Action Page 2 4. it is hereby determined to proceed with the Project and its financing and the Council hereby declares its present intent to have the City issue its revenue bonds to finance the Project. The adoption of this resolution shall not be deemed to establish a legal obligation on the part of the City or this Council to issue or to cause the issuance of such revenue bonds. Ail details of such revenue bond issue and the provisions for payment thereof shall be subject to final approval' of the Project by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development and may be subject to such further conditions as the City may specify. 5. Pursuant to the provisions of the Income Tax Regulations, the Corporation has represented to the City that it intends to reimburse costs previously paid by the Corporation with respect to the Project from the proceeds of the revenue bonds, if and when issued. 8. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to take such action as may be required to obtain a bond allocation for the revenue bonds and to obtain the approval of the Commissioner of the Department of Trade and Economic Development for the issuance of the revenue bonds. All costs of the City relating to the issuance of the revenue bonds, whether or not successfully issued, shall be paid or reimbursed by the Corporation Staff recommends approval of the resolution. REQIIF T FOR ACTION Originating Dep~ent Approved for ~enda ~enda Secllon City Manager Consent Stephanie Olson Item No. ~ Communi~ Development Specialist ~ 5. L0 / MOTION DECLINING POTENTIAL PURCHASE OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 7911 60% AVENUE NORTH On September 16, the City was contacted by the owner of the prope~ located at 7911 60'~ Avenue No~h inquiring if his prope~ would quati~ for acquisition through the City's sca~ered site housing program. ~e prope~ is located in an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning Distd~, su~ounded by single family homes. ~e lot area is approximately 13,150 sq. ff. here is a 1-~ sto~ house and single-car detache~ garage located on the prope~. ~e house was built in 1920, has 1,092 sq. ff. of living space an~ includes a kitchen, dining room, livin~ room, (3) bedrooms, ~11 bath and ~A bath, and an unfinished basement. The assessed value of the prope~ is $75,000 ($24,500 1an~$50,500 building). ~e owner's are also sellin~ the adjacent pmpe~ located at 7921 60~ Avenue No~h. An additional single-car garage is Iocat~ on the adjacent pmpe~. ~e lot ama of this prope~ is approximately 10,325 sq. ff. The assessed value of the prope~ is $23,300 ($21,000 lan~$2,300 building). A code compliance ins~e~ion was recently complet~ and after evaluating 7911 60% Avenue No~h, ' staff believes that the Ci~ should not purchase the prope~ for several reasons: · ~e house is in good condition and does not need to be mhabilitat~ or demolish~ due to code violations. · 7911 60~A Avenue No~h, and the adja~nt lot, am desirable prope~ies for the open market. Staff recommends approval of a motion declining potential purchase of the sin~l~ family home located at 7911 60~ Avenue NoAh. M~ON ~Y SECO~ BY ~: ~~n: F~e: REQUF T FOR ACTION Originating Depa~h~ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent 10-13-97 Stephanie Olson ~ Item No. By: Community Development Specialist By:.~/// 6. L ]. MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBTAIN APPRAISAL OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 5629 WISCONSIN AVENUE NORTH In September, the City was contacted by the owner of the property located at 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North. In his letter, the owner stated his intent to sell his property in the spnng, and inquired if the City was interested in discussing the purchase of his property. The owner does not currently occupy the property, and staff has knowledge that the house has been rental property for many years. :~ The property has a long history of zoning and housing code violations, including illegal storage of vehicles, excessive garbage, etc. As a result of recent complaints, the General Inspector completed an inspection on August 13, 1997. The Inspector noted several items in need of repair to meet minimum housing standards. Other major repairs needed to bdng the house into code compliance include reroofing, replacing the driveway, windows, and tdm on the house and garage, repairing and painting the siding. The properties surrounding this house are in good condition, and this property is a detriment to the neighborhood. Staff is interested in potentially acquiring the property, demolishing the structure and constructing a new single family home. There is a single family house and single-car detached garage located on the property. The home is .approximately 832 sq. ft. finished, with no basement. The lot area is approximately 13,500 sq. ft. The assessed value of the property is $58,000 ($23,500 land/S34,500 building). The home was built in 1949. The property is located within an R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District, and is surrounded by R-1 Residential properties to the north, east and south and R-4 High Density Residential to the west. Staff is requesting authorization to obtain an appraisal to determine the market value of the property. Staff obtained two quotes for the appraisal as follows: BCL Appraisals $350.00 Herman Appraisals $500.00 (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: AdmirdstraUon: Finance: Request for Action Page 2 10-13-97 Staff recommends accepting the low quote from BCL Appraisals who will complete a standard appraisal for $350. The appraisal will be paid for using EPA or scattered site housing funds. Staff recommends approval of a Motion Authorizing Staff To Obtain An Appraisal Of The Property Located At 5629 Wisconsin Avenue North. Once the appraisal is completed, the information will be presented to the City Council to determine if any further action should be taken. PARK VILLAGE GREEN GOLF :ENTER RD 56 TH. 5-900 NOR~'H R!OGE CARE £/_. _~ ,;ENTER 54,TH. g,4,~ AVE N HOSTERMAN JR HIGH SCHOOL 55TH AVE. N. BEGIN PARK AVE. ~)o ST. THE~E.~ NURSING COUNCU REQUF. T FOR ACTION Orlgtnat/ng Depa~b~ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent 10-13-97 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO OBT~,IN AN APPRAISAL ON MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 7621 62N° AVENUE NORTH Staff have received the enclosed correspondence from the owner of the four-plex at 7621 62'" Avenue stating it is their intention to sell the property and inquiring if the City has an interest in the property. The building has four two-bedroom apartments and was constructed in 1960. The current market value of the property is $117,000 ($26,000 land and $91,000 building). Per the Inspection's Department, the building is in deteriorating condition and would require substantial rehabilitation. Staff is interested in potentially acquiring the property, demolishing the building and land banking the site for combination with other adjacent parcels for future redevelopment purposes. The south side of 62 Avenue between West Broadway and Sumter Avenue has been identified by the Council as a potential future redevelopment area. The block has also been included in an area where tax increment financing funds from other districts can be utilized. It is a non-TIF generating property eligible for T1F expenditures. It is possible that relocation benefits would have to be paid if the City acquired the property. Staff is requesting authorization to obtain an appraisal to determine the fair market value of the property. If and when an appraisal were completed, staff would present the results to the Council to determine if there is interest in pursuing acquisition of the property for redevelopment purposes. Staff obtained two quotes for the appraisal as follows: BCL Appraisals $600.00 Herman Appraisal Services $1,200.00 - $1,400.00 Staff recommends accepting the Iow quote from BCL Appraisals in the amount of $600.00 to complete the appraisal. The appraisal will be paid for with EPA, TIF or scattered site housing funds. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to obtain an appraisal on the multiple family dwelling located at 7621 62" Avenue North. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Admm/straUon: Finance: I RFA.O01 Christians Otubushin 4930 Arrowood Lane Plymouth, MN 55442 Kirk McDonald 4401 Xylon Ave. N. New Hope, MN 612-531-5l 19 9/15/'97 This is to inform you that I am in the process of selling my property located at ., 7621 62'~ Avenue N. So far the prospective buyers expressing interest in the property are buyers who have no property management experience. I am of the opinion that considenng the history of tenants in the building, it will require a buyer with experience in property management to effectively operate the building. It's with this opinion that l find it necessary to approach the City of New Hope and inquire about the possibility of the city purchasing the property from me. I believe that purchasing this building will be of great benefit to the city in the sense that it will give the city a chance to provide public housing, and with the city's operation of the building, it may possibly curb the number of police calls to the building thereby freeing up the police's time to serve the community in other ways. · Please give this a serious consideration, and give me a call at 566.7677. I hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, Christia~a Otu~ushin AVE. ~ -- 61 $ T AVE. AY I AVE. AVE. N. VILLAGE GREEN ' GOLF COURSE. ST. THERESA NIJR SiNG ~oo ~ COUNCIL Originating Depa~U~ent Approved for Agenda _ Agenda Section ueveropment City Manager & Planning 10-13-97 Kirk McDonald Item No. By:. Management Assistant By:. 8. i PLANNING CASE 97.19, REQUEST FOR/~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OUTDOOR STORAGE TRAILER, 2751 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH, ARC OF HENNEPIN COUNTY/VALUE VILLAGE THRIFT STORE AND KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY~ PETITIONERS The petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor storage trailer, pursuant to Sections 4.133(1), 4.125(3) and 4.121 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. Value Village Thrift: Store, which is owned and operated by the non-profit organization Arc of Hennepin County, has been located at City Center Shopping Center at the comer of 42"~ & Winnetka Avenues for the past five years. They have outgrown their current location and are expanding and relocating within New Hope. The store will move south on Winnetka Avenue to Medicine Lake Road and into the Midland Shopping Center. The store will occupy over 5,000 square feet and will be located in the tenant spaces adjacent to and just north of Cinema Caf~ at the northwest comer of the center. The new location will include a sales floor, an expanded support room, and a ddve-up donation drop-off area. In regards to use of the building at the rear, Value Village will feature a staffed donor ddve-up drop-off center, as well as a loading area and door for the removal of recycled textiles. This will require the presence of a plain, signage-free trailer to collect and remove small balee 'of. textiles. The parking lot location for this trailer will be striped, and the trailer is expected to be removed monthly and replaced with an empty. trailer. Midland Shopping Center is located in a B-4, Community Business, Zoning District and retail sales/ stores are allowed as a permitted use. This should focus on the outside storage issue. Outside or open storage is allowed as a conditional accessory use in the B-3 Zoning District and these uses "roll ovef' into the B-4 Zoning District. The petitioner is specifically requesting a CUP to allow one semi-trailer at the rear of the building for staging (temporary storage) of clothing before it is shipped off-site once per month. The property is zoned as B-4, Community Business, Zoning District. Surrounding land uses and zoning include R-2 duplexes to the north; Residential/Office, B-1 and B-3, Business/Auto and R-4 (apartments) zoning to the east across Winnetka Avenue; R-O zoning (Ambassador Nursing Home) and R-3 to the west; and Golden .Valley/residential across Medicine Lake Road to the south. The topography of the shopping center is primanly fiat, except for the west and north edges which slope upwards dramatically to the existing apartments and duplexes. A new 20-foot wide green landscaped border along Winnetka was added in recent years in front of the building. MOTION BY SECOND BY Review: .~,tmlntstration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 10-13-97 Appropriate Department Heads met to review these plans and the comments made related to adequate lighting/security and concerns about the aesthetics of the trailer. Staff find that the proposed outside storage of a single semi-trailer generally meet the criteria outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. as follows: 1. 'Traffic - the use will not significantly alter traffic patterns, hazards or increase congestion. 2. Nearby Residences - no apparent adverse impact will result for adjacent residential land due to noise, traffic, glare or other nuisance characteristics. New wall pack lights must be "down lights," shielded from adjacent residential uses. 3. Existinq Businesses - nearby are not likely to be adversely affected by curtailment of customer trade because of unsightliness or heavy non-shopping traffic. To the contrary, the new thdff store will probably have a very positive impact on existing businesses because more shoppers will be drawn to the center. Staff base this opinion on the existing experience with Arc at City Center and a similar Arc facility in Richfield that recently received an award. 4. Screeninq - has not been proposed in this case, due to the fact that the area is a truck loading zone and the screening of a single semi-trailer tends to be damaged quickly. This loading area is not visible from either street and the screening ordinance maximum of eight feet in height does not screen 16-foot high trailers. There will be no signage on the trailer and the trailer will be screened to the north and west by a significant grade change and existing landscaping on that slope. 5. Surfacinq - the area is surfaced to control dust and drainage. 8. Parkinq - the storage does not take up existing parking spaces. The odginal use of this site provided a large unloading area for semi-trailers. The plans include the following details: 1. Zoning of adjacent properties is denoted on site plan; 2. Statement on plan that "Semi-Trailer to be Clean Neutral Color, Rust Free, With No Graphics"; 3. Pavement around trailer to be striped in 8' x 45' dimension; 4. 8' x 10' concrete slab to be installed for trailer posts; 4-6" diameter steel ballards filled with concrete to separate parking area from storage area; 8. Note on plan that 'Landlord to Maintain Parking Lot and Add New Striping"; 7. 8' x 6' trash dumpster enclosure with screened gates to be installed; 8. Existing mechanical units on top of building to be removed by owner and three new units installed (to be same color ae roof) 9. Note on plan "Landlord to Provide New Secudty Lighting" and six (6) new wall packs shown around rear of building near trailer;, 10. Note on plan "Existing Penthouse to be Removed by Owne¢'; 11. Setback distances from residential property shown on plan: 84 feet to west, 111 feet t° north; 12. Elevations shown on plan: parking lot (~ 910, west residential ~ 926; north residential (~ 920; 13. Directional signage for Value Village donors 'shown on shopping center plan; 14. Floor plans show sales area, sorting and pdcing area, salvage/receiving/storage areas, offices, break rooms and restrooms; 15. The petitioner has provided a color photograph of the elevation change and the view toward the residential from the trailer location; Request for Action Page 3 10.13.9-~-~ 16. It is staffs understanding that the hours of operation will be similar to the Richfield store: Monday- Fdday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Saturday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Sunday Noon to 6 p.m. 17. It is staff's understanding that any signage being proposed will comply with the.existing al2proved Comprehensive Sign Plan for the shopping center and that a new signage proposal may be presented in the future. 18. It is staff's understanding that there wilt be signage at the entrance to thestore indicating that there is a dro0-off area at the rear of the store. (Staff did visit the Richfield store and took interior/exterior photos of the store which will be displayed at the meeting.) 19. It is staff's understanding that no major changes to the front elevation of the building are planned at this time. While some concerns have been raised about the aesthetics of the trailer, it will be parked in the back of the center and will not be visible from the street and barely visible from the residential areas. Staff generally finds that this is a good use for the site and is pleased to see the vacant space filled. The community service, non- profit nature of the business is also a benefit to New Hope. The Planning Commission considered this request at its October 7 meeting and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: j 1. Maximum one trailer. 2. No signage on trailer. 3. All new lighting to be "down lights." 4. Annual inspection by City staff. 5. Signage plan to be submitted at the time of building permit application. 8. Rooftop HVAC units to match building color. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. COUNC/'~ REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~b~ent Approved for Agenda _ Agenda Section ueveropment City Manager & Planning 10-13-97 Kirk McDonald Item No. 57:. Management Assistant By:. 8.2 PLANNING CASE 97-20, REQUEST FOR ~ARIANCES TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A RETRACTABLE ENCLOSED RAMP BEI'WEEN TWO BUILDINGS, 5600 HIGHWAY 169 NORTH AND 5621 INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY, LIBERTY DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIES, PETITIONER The petitioner is requesting variances to the side yard setback requirements to allow construction of a retractable enclosed ramp between two buildings, pursuant to Sections 4.034(3) and 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. Liberty Diversified Industries operates its business out of its headquarters building located'at 5600 Highway 169. They are also the owner of the building at 5621 International Parkway, north of and adjacent to this site. Safco Products, an affiliated company of Liberty Diversified Industries, shares office space at 5600 Highway 169, and utilizes warehouse space in both buildings. Safco Products receives, ships and stores products at 5600 Highway 169. They also store material at the adjacent building; 5621 International Parkway. Safco Products has experienced rapid growth in past years and needs to more efficiently move items between both buildings, to meet shipping and delivery schedules. Currently, Safco Products, using a truck, loads product at one building and ddves around to the other to unload and pick up items. This requires additional time, handling, and creates problems with safety and product damage. Liberty Diversified Industries is requesting to construct a connecting way for fork truck traffic between the two buildings to improve efficiency and eliminate the need to drive around on City streets'. The connecting way will consist of a compacted fill ramp with a concrete slab driveway, footings and support steel for metal siding and roof. A lift bridge and sliding doors will be installed to allow railroad cars to pass through the connecting way. The connecting way will be insulated, tied into existing security and sprinkler systems, and properly lighted. A property line currently exists between the two buildings; each building occupies a separate lot. In order to accomplish the bddge connection between the two buildings and meet the Zoning Code requirements, the property owner essentially has two options: eliminate the property line and combine the two lots and connect the two buildings or apply for setback variances to construct the buildings up to the side yard of MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: I RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 10-13-97 each lot. Due to financial arrangements involved in the purchase of the properties, LDI did not want to combine the properties. Therefore, the petitioner is requesting a side yard setback variance to construct a building up to the property line on two adjacent lots. The side yard setback requirement for the I-1 Zoning District is f20 feet. The petitioner is requesting the following specific variances: 1. A 20-foot side yard setback variance for the building at 5621 International Parkway to construct a building connection up to the south property line, and 2. A 20-foot side yard setback variance for the building at 5600 Highway 169 to construct a building ~2:~o the north property line. Department Heads reviewed the plans and the main issues of discussion were the aesthetics of the connection, whether any landscaping would be installed, and security concerns about the open area under the walkway. The City Engineer also reviewed the plans and stated that "The drainage between the buildings appears to drain west'to east, therefore, the proposed walkway may block drainage on ~ts west side. Storm sewer exists between the railroad spurs on the west side of International Parkway. It is recommended storm sewer be extended west of the walkway/building extension." Staff feels that the variances could be justified based on the fact that this situation does involve conditions that are unique to the properties: two buildings on adjacent lots under the same ownership with a rail spur between them. Staff also support the request because the pedestrian link will result in a big traffic safety improvement because semis will not continue to circle the neighboring streets in order to move products between building$~ The plans and issues include the following details: 1. Project Description is stated on plan: 'This project involves the construction of a pedestrian walkway between two B-Occupancy Buildings. A bridge is used to maintain rail traffic access." 2. The walls of the connection will be prefinished architectural wall system by Vicwest Steel with 12" panels and a Kynar paint finish/selection by owner. 3. The roof of the connection will be a prefinished standing seam metal roof by Vicwest Steel with 16" panel and a Kynar paint finish/selection by owner. 4. New 20-minute coiling overhead doors will be provided between the existing buildings and the walkway and red lights will be installed inside the north building to indicate when the bddge is up. 5. The exterior elevation shows that a red light will be lit when the bddge is in the down position and reflective tape will be provided on the sliding door. Raised grade and retaining wall are also shown on the plan. 6, An eXterior wall light will be provided above the service door of the link. 7. An auto dry fire sprinkler system will be extended from the north building into the walkway. 8. No land_s_caDing has been proposed 9. A 4(~mage plan'h~as been 'submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer an~l h~$ comments are as followS'~ "it was previously suggested that a storm sewer be extended form th® existing storm sewer in International parkway to.collect drainage from the westerly side of the walkway. A drainage plan has been submitted providing for a culvert beneath the walkway. A culvert will convey drainage beneath the walkway; however, depending upon its elevation, it may be subject to movement due to freeze/thaw. This movement may or may not. impact footings and/or fill beneath the walkway or the walkway structure itself. The culvert and drainageway to International' Parkway is private. Therefore, Request for Action Page 3 !0-13-97 the decision ',s Liberty Diversified Industry's depending upon the risks they want to accept with drainage in this area. 10. The final issue that needs to be addressed is removal of the structure if one of the buildings is sold. The City does not want to be left with an abandoned pedestrian link with no demolition authority. Staff recommends a condition similar to the communication tower ordinance that requires the property owner to remove the link once its use is discontinued and a letter from the property owner confirming this. The Planning Comm'i.;,ssion considered this request at its October 7 meeting and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Color of walkway structure to match existing buildings. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. COUNCtL REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Department City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant Approved for Agenda 1 O-13-97 A~enda Section DeveTopment & Planning Item No. PLANNING CASE 97-2--1, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SECOND DRIVEWAY ACCESS, ~865 QUEBEC AVENU~ NORTH, PATRICK & CAROL BENOLKIN, PETITIONERS The petitioners are requesting a variance to allow a second driveway access, pursuant to Section 4.036(4)(x) - New Hope Code of Ordinances. The petitioners recently purchased the home at 2865 Quebec Avenue North, which is located on the north side of the "Y" intersection of Valle Vista and Quebec Avenue North. The existing ddveway access/curb-cut is located on Valle Vista and a new (second) access/curb-cut is being requested on Quebec Avenue to facilitate a driveway extension and a circular drive. The Zoning Code states that "Each property shall be allowed one driveway access for each 125 feet of street frontage; that all property shall be entitled to at least one ddveway access; and that single family uses shall be limited to one driveway access per lot. The petitioners are requesting a variance from this code requirement. The petitioners state that they are requesting the second access/driveway entrance on Quebec Avenue to facilitate the unloading and loading of a disabled mother and sister. They state that currently there is no easy access to the home from the current driveway. They indicate that disabled people would have to enter through the garage, which involves three nan'ow steps, then through a porch and another rise to the dining room, or along an outside sidewalk with a turn and a potentially difficult time during poor weather conditions. The petitioners also state that the curve on the current driveway makes backing down difficult and potentially dangerous because of the streets intersecting at that location. They state that the proposed Quebec access is not near any of the neighbors driveways, adjacent to, or across the street. The property is located in an R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District and is surrounded by R-1 properties. The property is an irregular, triangular-shaped lot that contains 9,500 square feet. The existing structure on the site meets all setback requirements. The topography of the property is fiat. __ SECOND BY ------ MOTION BY -' ------ TO: Finance:. Administ~tton: ~evtew: RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 10-13-97 This request was reviewed by appropriate Department Heads and no serious concerns were raised by the Police Department or Pul~lic Works. Public Works indicated that City crews will continue to plow streets without changing pace or method at driveways. The extra plowing or shoveling due to the driveway extension is significant and the responsibility of. the property owner. The Design & Review Committee of the Planning Commission reviewed this and discussed the uniqueness of the lot and confirmed with the petitioner that the materials for constructing the driveway extension would match the existing drive. The Committee was generally supportive of the request. Staff find that the ree,,Jest is justified due to the following factors: 1. The irregular lot shape yields a difficult ddveway arrangement; 2. The circumstances are unique; 3. The situation does not result from the actions of the owner;, 4. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or diminish property values; 5. No public safety concern or street congestion is created. 8. The request is being made to accommodate disabled relatives; several other requests of this nature have been approved in the past. 7. Also of importance is the location of the proposed second cu~ cut. The new access ~vould be located approximately 120 feet north of the Quebec~/alle Vista intersection and the next ddveway entrance on the west side of Quebec is approximately 100 feet north of the proposed curb cut. Council direction to staff recently has included a request to reconsider the entire issue of accessory buildings and the "one garage" limitation, which is directly related to the 'one driveway" limit. For many property owners, a second garage is possible only with a second driveway, such as comer lots, etc. The Codes & Standards Committee will be undertaking a study of accessory buildings and related issues this fall. The Planning Commission considered this request at its October 7 meeting and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Materials of driveway extension to match existing driveway. 2. City standards must be complied with on the boulevard portion of the new driveway, with a driveway permit. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. I REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~Lu~ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Developmert~ City Manager ~ ?lannin~ 1 O-13-9'7 Stephanie Olson /r,-..) Item No. By: Community Devet('.pment Specialist ~// 8.5 MOTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE REHABILITATION OF 9116 31s; AVENUE NORTH AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 589) In July, the City Council authorized the purchase of the property located at 9116 31'~ Avenue North. Both the house and property have suffered deferred maintenance for many years, the most extensive problem being water damage evident in the yard and basement. To eliminate water ponding caused by drainage from adjacent properties and insufficient grading, storm sewer along the north and e_ast sides of the proper'b/, connecting to an existing storm sewer in 31" Avenue, will be constructed. This will be completed as one of three projects awarded to Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. (Improvement Project No. 586). The project will begin in early November. In addition, plans and specifications for th® rehabilitation of this property have been developed. The scope of the project includes expanding the single-car garage to a double-car garage and rehabilitating the single family home to include a living room, kitchen, dining room, (3) bedrooms, full bath and unfinished basement. Estimated costs for the project are attached. In order to complete the project, some trees will need to be removed from the site. A plan for tree removal, in addition to a landscaping plan for the properb/, will be presented to the City Council at a later date. A timeline for the project is as follows: Approve Plans and Specifications October 1997 Solicit Bids October 1997 Award Contract November 1997 Remove Trees/Rehabilitate House November 1997 - January 1998 Landscape Prol3erty Spring 1998 (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY , TO: Review: AdministraUon: Finance: II RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 I 0- t 3-97 The City and The 5-c~ty Community Development Housing Organization (CHDO) are sponsoring this project. Funding sources include Federal HOME funds and CDBG scattered site housing funds. Once the project is completed, the affordable home will be sold to a first-time home buyer. Staff recommends approval of a motion approving plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of 9116 31't Avenue North and authorization to advertise for bids. (if any City Councilmember would like to view the property pdor to the October 13 meeting, please contact Stephanie O[5on at 531-5137.) REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~h~,ent Approved for Agenda ED~genda Section City Manager 10-13-9? Kirk McDonald Item ]37: Management Assistant B~. RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSAL BY THE MCNULTY GROUP, LTD. d/b/a/ PLANET PUBLICATIONS TO PRODUCE 1997-98 CITY OF NEW HOPE RESIDENT GUIDE/BUSINESS DIRECTORY (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 609) The enclosed resolution approves the proposal submitted by Planet Publications to produce a 1997/98 City of New Hope Resident Guide/Business Directory. Susan McNulty from Planet Publications will be present at the meeting to answer any questions that the EDA may have and several New Hope business owners may also be present. The EDA gave general concept approval to this project at the September 22 EDA meeting. The. idea for the promotion is the development of a New Hope Resident Guide and Business Directory, which effectively combines two projects into one. City staff have long wanted to publish a guide for residents informing them of City services so that a vadety of City information could be provided under one cover. The business community feels that some type of quality business directory listing businesses with the potential for advertisements would be beneficial. The result will be a quality city/business publication that would provide information on the City and also serve as a business directory by indexing local retail businesses and their location on a fold-out map and through advertisements. Many cities are currently utilizing this concept and the vendor that the committee would like to hire for the guide/directory, Planet Publications, has published similar city/business guides in Plymouth and St. Louis Park. The idea was .. presented to and approved by the businesses serving on a sub-committee earlier this fall. The total cost for the project is approximately $30,000, with the City contributing about one-half of that amount and the business community contributing the other one-half through the purchase of advertisements. There are adequate funds budgeted in the 1997/98 EDA budget to cover this expense. (cont'd.) ,? MOTION BY _~'~.~J~/-~ - SECOND ElY ~' / - Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 Request for Action Page 2 10-13-97 The major components of the contract are described in detail in the attached written EDA report dated September 22. These include: Every New Hope retail/commercial/service business will be contacted regarding placing an advertisement or being listed. The original ad rates were reduced to encourage greater business participation. Businesses that purchase an advertisement will be listed at. no charge; businesses that do not want to advertise will have the option to purchase a listing for $45.00 A four-color, fold-out map of the City will be stitched in the center of the book and will identify City facilities, parks, schools, churches, streets and shopping centers. An "Index of Advertisers" will be placed on the back of the map and will list every advertiser by name, address, phone number, and a map reference location. The City will send out an initial letter to all businesses advertising the promotion, coordinate a kick-off event and provide a listing of ali businesses to Planet Publications. Planet Publications will sell all advertising, coordinate ad layout with businesses, and collect fees for ads and listings from businesses. 4. A total of 20,000 initial copies,will be produced with delivery to even/ New Hope residence and distributed to businesses. 5. The guide/directory will be published the first part of 1998. The size of the guide/directory will depend on the number of ads sold. It is anticipated that the book will be 64 pages with an ad to edit ratio of 50-50. :: The cost to the City is directly related to the number of ads sold. It is anticipated that the fee after ad sales will be approximately $9,.000, Additional costs for telemarketing, cover design, map design, art direction for map and copy editing will bdng the total City costs to approximately $14,000. The contribution from businesses from ad sales is estimated at $17,000. Also attached is a detailed memo regarding issues on this project that the EDA requested staff to further investigate after the September EDA meeting. PleaSe review this in detail, as it is an attempt to answer all of the questions raised at that meeting. Staff recommend approval of the resolution approving the proposal submitted by Planet Publications. !997-98 Citvof New Hope Resident's Gu~ Pro00~al PLANET PUgLiCA F,'ONS ,RE.~PONSIBILITIES and 08LIGA FIONS Planet Publications takes full responsibility and guarantees New Hope ~ts publishing expertise in order administrate, develop, design, print, and distribute the City of New Hope's Residents Guide. 1) Planet Publications will develop a production schedule and timeline to highlight ail respons~bditJes and timetines. 2) Planet Publications will assist New Hope in its editorial efforts to create copy ~n conversion-ready materials, develop the proper flow of edit, sorts, and indexes. A design meeting wilt take place in order to review all editorial and art direction. 3) All advertising for the guidebook will be sold, invoiced, and collected by Planet Publications. 4) Planet Publications will staff the project with a qualified sales representative(s) with the expertise :o ensure a successful advertising campaign. 5) Planet Publications shall be fully responsible for hiring, training, directing, and supervising its staff. 6) Planet Publications shall produce all promotional materials necessary for ad sales. These promotional materials will be approved by The City of New Hope. 7) Planet Publications wilt adhere to timelines and deadlines set forth by both parties. 8) Planet Publications will be responsible for all litho preparation, manufacturing, and distribution of a portion of the guidebook. This includes litho preparation of both ads and edit, alt presswork, and a professional distribution of approximately 10,000 copies in plastic bags. The distribution price per piece $.14. If Planet Publications distributes more or less than the 10,000 quantity, the cost or savings will be passed on to the City of New Hope. 9) The City of New Hope will provide a vendor and local business list to Planet Publications for use in selling ads. 10) Planet Publications may not represent to potential advertisers that favoritism will be shown by the City of New Hope to advertisers in the guidebook. And, in addition, Planet Publications will not engage in "high pressure" sales tactics. 11) Advertisers will be informed in the ratecard that a disclaimer will appear in the guidebook that will state the following: "Advertiser participation in this guidebook does not constitute endorsement of any company or product by the City of New Hope." 12~ Planet Publications will not solicit or acceot ads for oor~oqraDhic/aduit materials, firearms, lottery or gambling sales, political advertising, or special interest group issue/ads. New Hope will view each ad in ~ts final stage in order to approve context and content. The City of New Hope Residents Guide ~ F~age 1 13) Planet Publications vvdl provide a list of ail so:d advert!sements to New Hope every :wo ,reeks 3r when requested. 14) The City of New Hope will provide to Planet Publications the cover on disk, :he four page center spread map on laser paper tn layers, each layer representing a color or screen of a color for the pnnter shoot and strip, and a distribution list to assist the delivery. 15) Listinas containing a business name. street address, and ohone number will be sold and inout bv our telemarketer-sales oersons. These listings will be at no charge to the disolav advertisers and sold for $45.00 to each listee. Planet Publications will set a COD oolicy for th~ listing$ in order to elim~nat~ th,~ need for collections. 1~) The telemarke~ng fee of $2000.00 otus all listing revenue includes contactinq all businesses on the list. administration, invoice develooment, postage, entry_ of business listing into our database. ~,ortmq_ and (;Igwnto~qiing to our art direction program, cooveditina, litho, orinting and any collections. NOTE* The $:~OOO.OO f~ will remain even if the City of New HOoe determines NOT to sell listinos. This fee be aoolie~l 1;0 the a~t~d task of contacting even business (200 aoorox) in the city of New Hooe. Listina revenues will remain as oart of the oublisher's revenue. 17) Planet Publications will sell ads ONLY to New Hooe business until we exhaust all possibility of contacts in the City of New Hooe. The ontv ads we will sell outside of the New Hooe list are tq comoanies or organizations that do not have comoetit0rs in New Hol~e (i.e. Grocery stores). Publication Date: Janua~ 1998 Press Run: 20,000 Page Size: 6 X 9 Binding: Saddle-stitched Text: Black plus one PMS. 50# offset paper stock Cover: 8 pt coated one side cover stock 4 color PROCESS on front cover olus a flood aloss Photos: Up to 10 black and white photos provided by the City of New Hope Text Design: All text pages to printer as camera-ready keylines. Distribution: 10,000 publications to your specific residential guidelines. 10,000 delivered to the City of New Hope Total Page Count: 48 or 64 plus cover depending on ad sales. Ad / Edit Ratio 50 % edit / 50 % ads-listings or ~ased on final sales and edit provided. The eib/of New Hope Resident~s guicle REV/$ED ~/~2/97 Page 2 CiTY Of NEW ~,OPE ?,E.~.?O'~,'StBtLI?E$ 1) New Hope w~il sucply editorial, photography, front cover art on disk, and kevlined !ayer~ for map center spread. All editorial ~s to be provided on disk (Microsoft Word or simdar program) with a hard for instructions to the art director. As part of this edit, New Hope can provide masthead ~nformat~on, disclaimers, organization of edit sections, and other necessary ,ntroductory editorial. Planet Publications will provide its ,nformation for the masthead and an Index of Advertisers. 2) A meeting to review this information will take place before the disk goes into production. All editorial must be 90% of final format. New Hope will receive two drafts to make editorial changes during the edit/art direction p~cess. 3) The City of New Hope will provide one contact person for overall coordination of ail activities relating to the guidebook. 4) The City of New Hope will approve all copy and layout for the guidebook and all information on rate cards for mailings. 5) The City of New Hope will provide announcements of the guidebook in the city's newsletters. 6) The City of New Hope will copy edit and verify all editorial information for accuracy of content. Pl_a:net Publications' copy editor will do a final edit for context. 7) The City of New Hope will provide to Planet Publications a copy of all final changes necessary to develop the guidebook on the date determined by the production schedule. Any editorial changes that are made by New Hope after the disk has gone to Planet Publication's titho vendor or printer will result in alteration charges. 8) The City of New Hope will adhere to all pre-developed production schedules in order to keep production costs at a minimum and to properly interface client and publisher duties as outlined throughout the contract. 9) The City of New Hope will develop a distribution list and map to ensure the proper circulation of the guidebook. PROPOSED AD RATE:5 Size 8lack only Add'l edit color ACtCt'I 4 color process Back Cover $900.00 n/a $300.00 Inside Front Cover $800.00 n/a $300.00 Inside Back Cover $800.00 n/a $300.00 Full Page $700.00 $75.00 n/a Half Page $400.00 $75.00 - n/a One Third Page $300.00 $75.00 n/a One Sixth Page $235.00 $75.00 n/a The City of New Hope Residenfs Guide ~ Page 3 FEE STRUCT~'R£ ~or :,.2,^,~ ~ressrun Total Pa~,Te Count Display Ad Sales Revenue New Hope Fee. -48 text/4 oage cover 0 $20,500 00 -48 text/J, page cover $1,000.00 $19,500.00 -48 text/4 oage cover $2,000.00 $18,500.00 -48 text/4 ;age cover $3,000.00 $17,500.00 48 text/4 ;)age cover $4,000.00 $16,500.00 48 text/4 page cover $5,000.00 $15,500.00 48 text/4 page cover $6,000.00 $15,000.00 48 text/4 page cover $7,000.00 $14,500.00 48 text/4 page cover_. $8,000.00 $14,000.00 48 text/ 4 page cover $9,000.00 $13,500.00 48 text/ 4 page cover $10,000.00 $13,000.00 48 text/4 page cover $11,000.00 $12,500.00 48 text/4 page cover $12,000.00 $12,000.00 48 text/4 page cover $13,000.00 $11,500.00 48 text/4 page cover $14,000.00 $I 1,000.00 48 text/4 page cover $15,000.00 $10,500.00 48 text/4 ¢~age cover $16,000.00 $10,000.00 64 text/4 page cover $17,000.00 $9,100.00 54 text/4 page cover $18,000.00 $8,500.00 64 text/4 page cover $19,000.00 $7,800.00 64 text/4 page cover $20,000.00 $7,100.00 64 text/4, page cover $2.1,000.00 $6,000.00 64 text/4 page cover $22,000.00 $5,300.00 64. text/4 ;)age cover $23,000.00 $4,500.00 54 text/4 page cover $24,000.00 $3,800..00 64 text/4 page cover $2.5,000.00 $2,500.00 64 text/4 page cover $26,000.00 $2,000.00 64 text/4 page cover $27,000.00 $1,100.00 64 text/4, page cover $28,000.00 $500.00 64 text/4 page cover $2,9,000.00 $00.00 Sales Revenue Definition: The sales revenue is defined by the collected amount of net dollars AFTER any discounts. NOTE' Planet does not plan to offer discounts but in order to define the above chart dollar figures, this issue must be addressed. The sales revenue DOES NOT include any production rates that are charged to produce ads. tt DOES include all color sold. Any listings revenue is NOT included in the above chart. The proceeds of all listings sold will remain with the publisher. The $45.00 listing price is built on a break-even level that will pay for commissions, administration, data-base management, collections, etc. CONTRACT' ADDITIONS Telemarketing Fee Additional Pressrun of 48 page book: 5,000 10,000 $2000.00 (see above) $1,800.00 plus MN State Sales Tax $3,200.00 plus MN State Sales Tax The City of New Hope Resident'$ Guide ~ Page La/'8211397 17:39 5125467a89 =LA~E~ :'~BS 5HCNbLT"/ :!GF ~' Aci~itional Pressrun of 64 pa~e book: 5,000 $2,200.00 plus MN State Sales Tax I 10,000 $3,800.00 plus MN State Sales Tax PrOvided to P~anet as 4 layers for the map side and on disk in correct ardor for the("B side") location detail and information side. Printed Black plus two PM$ over Black plus one PM$. Map equals 8 additional 6 X g pages--- g X 24 fl'aL Same paper s~od( as ~ext pages of guide. ~ap s~i~ci~,d into guide as a roll-fold. SEE ENCLOSED. Price includes acidition~l administration dine. A¢,ditional cost for Map Printing. Lit no, and administration A(tditional Art Direction for "B side" of Mag 20,000 25,000 30,000 C~ oywriter to review first draft and make r~ommended changes in context and content of edit. $3.400.00 ~lus MN State Sales Tax $3.700.00 plus MN State Sales Tax $4.100.00 plus MN State Sates Tax $400.00 $600.00 ~t Dire~inn for front cover: ~SO0.OO far the art dire~-tion olus any cn~t~ associated witl~ obtainin~ a~ ~s~annina photos (scan~ are SIO.oO-$?5.0o each deoendina on color) (ohnto ourcha~es can run from $50.0Q ) ~)and-any costs. ,,.oat. with iilu,tration ne.s: P~vment Terms: S2000.~ down. re~t of o~ment from sch~ute due on delive~ of oub~cations. C' ora~) d ~ a Planet ~Ot~ation~ Wh~eas ~e Ci~ ~ ~ H~ d~ir~ a pu~i~g re~n~ip for a publ~n t~t~e foiling ~ Hope. 5ubj~ to the for~i~, ~is Agr~t ~aii b~ a~ ~n~e to ~e ~ of ~e ~ ~d ~r r~ ~¢~s aaa ~S W~NESS TH~, ~ f~ u~ ~r~ ~ ~ ~: lhe McNuity Group, LTD. d.b.a.Planet Publications 200 Circle Down olden Vatley. MN 55416 ' ;usen Nowiing McNuity ~a:e_./_/_. COUNC/L REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa_rl=nent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent Kirk McDonald ~ 10-27-97 Item No. ~ Management Assistant ~ 6.5 / RESOLUTION ACCEPTING EASEMENT FROM KALWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR 7300 49TM AVENUE NORTH (PLANNING CASE NO. 97-06) In August 1997 the City Council accepted a drainage and utility easement from J.S. Winnetka over the relocated storm sewer and holding ponds at 7300 49u' Avenue North in conjunction with the construction of an office/warehouse building, The City Attorney indicates that prior to recording that easement, title to the property was transferred from J.S. Winnetka to a related entity, Kalway Construction Company, Inc. The enclosed resolution accepts a new replacement easement from Kaiway. The easement is identical to the earlier document, except for the change in the owner of the property. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 COUNCIL KE U . T FOR ACTION Approved for Agenda--'-'-'--- Originating Departmen~ Agenda Section Public Hearing City Manager ~ 10-27-97 ' --'-' ~ Kirk McDonald ~ ~ ' , I Item No. By: Management Assistant ~ ~ __~7. ]. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED): CONSIDERATION OF ORDIN/~NCE O. --vlENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING PAWN SHOPS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE B-4 ZONING DISTRICT (PLANNING CASE 96-04) At the November 25, 1996, City Council meeting, the Council opened a public headng on Ordinance No. 97-03, An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishing Pawn Shops as a Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District. (A public hearing ia neceaaary to amend the Zoning Code.) Per the reports contained in the Planning Study (excerpts attached), the City Attorney and Planning Consultant have indicated that pawn shops cannot be totally prohibited in the City and it is staff's recommendation that the moat appropriate area for these uses ie the B-4, Community Bu~ness Zoning District. The Planning Commission considered this ordinance at its November 6, 1996, meeting and recommended approval of the ordinance. Due to the fact that the APS (Automated Pawn System) technology was not available until 1997, staff recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing for consideration at a future Council work session. The Council tabled this public heanng until the January 13, 1997, Council meeting and subsequently tabled the public headng to March 24, June 9, September 22 and October 27. The City Council approved the APS Software License Agreement with the City of Minneapolis at the September 2.2 Council meeting and the connection with Minneapolis is in process. The Licensing Ordinance, which appears under the Ordinances and Resolutions section of this agenda, has also been revised per the Council's direction. The ordinance aisc repeals the current moratorium on pawn shops in the City. Staff recommends that the public headng be closed and that Ordinance No. 97-03 be adopted.. MOTION BY SECOND Ad~tn/stratton: Finance: RFA-OO I COUNCIL, REQUF T FOR ACTION Ortgtnatmg Depa~Luient Approved for Agenda _, Alienda. Section etanmnga Development City Manager 10-27-97 Item No. Kirk McDonald EASE By:. Management Assistant ~ 8. ]. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REL ' CURITY FOR KIMBALL ADDITION (PlanNING CASE The City has held a certified check in the amount of $3,000 on the Kimball Addition housing development at 36t" 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 authonzed 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. As you are aware, for the past ten months there have been on-going discussions between the City and the developer regarding corrections to the drainage swale between lots 7 and 8. At the May 27 Council meeting, the Council gave the developer the approval to proceed with a solution to correct the situation. That work has been recently completed and the City Engineer has inspected the work and Prepared the attached correspondence recommending release of the security. The CoUncil considered this issue at the October 13 meeting and .tabled the matter due to the fact that the sod had not been installed. The sod has now been installed. The one outstanding issue that needs to be settled is the administrative fees that are due. It is routine policy (and stated on the planning case application materials) that all outside consulting expenses (legal, engineering, and planning) will be the responsibility of applicants. The City bills applicants on a quarterly basis and Hidden Creek Development was current on their bills up through the 2nd of 1996. Since the 2.nd quarter of 1996, no invoices have been paid and there have been significant legal/engineering consulting expenses incurred by the City over the past year in dealing with the drainage swale issue. Per the attached invoices, a total of $1,769.00 is owed the City through June 30, 1997. Additional engineering expenses have also been incurred in October, but not yet billed to the City, for inspection of the work and preparation of the correspondence. The additional expenses are estimated at $80.00, so the total owed the City is $1,849.00 The attached resolution authorizes the release of the $3,000.00 security, subject to the developers paying outstanding administrative expenses for legal and engineering services in the amount of $1,849.00. if the Council desires to change this amount, the resolution needs to be modified. Staff recommends ap~oval of the resolution. MOTION BY _ SECOND BY ~Uon: Ftnance: COUNCIL REQUF T FOR ACTION Originating Depa~Luient City Manager Kirk McDonald Management Assistant Approved for Agenda 10-27-97 A~enda Section DeveTopment & Planning Item No. PLANNING CASE 97-03.: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR SAINT THERESE ADDITION, 8000 BASS The petitioner is requesting Final Plat approval of Saint. Therese Addition, pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code. In October 1996, the City Council approved a request for site/building plan approval to allow parking lot expansion on an 'adjacent parcel of land acquired by St. Therese, which had previously been used for a twinhome residential purpose. At the same time, the Council approved rezoning the R-2 property and the remaining property owned by St. Therese, which was zoned R-4, all to an R-5 "Senior/Disabled" Residential Zoning District. The site/building plan review and rezoning were approved subject to several conditions. One of the conditions was that St. Thersse complete the platting of all the parcels into one lot within six months. The purpose of this plat is to combine: all of the parcels/legal descriptions into one parcel/plat, as requested by the City. : The total area of the proposed plat is 12.15 acres. The area of road dedication is 0.76 acres, thus the net area of the plat is 11.39 acres. The plat has a width (from east to west) of 614.77 feet. The plat has a length (from north to south) of approximately 810 feet. The p/at comloines five (5) existing parcels into one lot. The lot area and width requirements for the R-5 Zoning District are compared to the plat below: R-5 Requirement. Preliminary Plat Minimum Lot Area 15,000 square feet 529,254 square feet Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 615 feet The plat meets the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for the R-5 Zoning District. The Preliminary Plat was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council on March 4 and 10, respectively, subject to the condition that the Final Plat incorporate all recommendations/revisions requested by the City Attorney, City Engineer and Hennepin County. There .,,~as discussion regarding a request by St. Therese to reduce the width of perimeter drainage/utility easements on the north side of the plat and one of the conditions was that a topographic location survey be completed showing existing buildings, parking areas, driveways, utilities and topography. The Planning Commission also waived its review of the final plat. MOTION BY SECOND BY ' ~t. ton: Finance: Request for Action Page 2 t0-27-97 Over the past six months, the City Engineer and City staff have met with St. Therese officials a number of times regarding the location survey, the width of drainage and 'utility easements and dedication of additional right-of-way. After the survey was completed, staff agreed.to recommend to the Council a 5- foot drainage/utility easement width around the "U" shape on the north property line due to the location of existing structures. There also has been considerable discussion between the City, St. Therese and Hennepin County regarding the right-of-way dedication and easement width along Bass Lake Road west of the pond. St. Therese has agreed to provide the additional seven feet of right-of-way, as requested by Hennepin County. St. Therese has requested a reduction in the drainage/utility easement width along Bass Lake Road from ten feet to five feet because of fence installation issues and the desire to protect the existing trees. Hennepin County has agreed to the five-foot easement width and City staff have tentatively agreed to t~'3 five-foot width, subject to City Council approval. St. Therese is waiting to instatl their fence, per staff's recommendation, until after they learn if the Council will approve the plat with a five-foot easement in this area. The easement reductions are shown on the Final Plat. As per routine policy, the Final Plat'was submitted to City Department Heads, City Attorney, City Engineer, Building Official, utility companies and Hennepin County for review and comments are as follows: Hennepin County 1. The Final Plat showing the additional seven feet of right-of-way and the five-foot easement along County State Aid Highway (CSAH 10), Bass Lake Road, is acceptable to Hennepin County. :: City Attorney 1. The plat illustration labels for the vadous north, south, east and west lines of the property, and for the NE corner of the property, show the legal description as the "(i.e. north) line of the E ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 6 - T118 - R21W." The legal description on the signature page of the plat lists the property as the "... East Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6 .... "The labels of the lines for the plat illustration are missing the "Southeast Quarter," and need to be changed. 2. The notarization blank for Nor'west Bank, N.A. on the signature page lists the bank as "Norwest Bank, a national association," and should read "Not, vest Bank, N.A., a national association." 3. I have not yet received any evidence of title from St. Therese's. This must be done before the City can approve the Final Plat'. Otherwise, the Final Plat is in order from a legal standpoint. City Enqineer 1. The right-of-way (l:~¢/) and dedication along Bass Lake Road provides for an additional 7' (total RRV 40') in accordance with Hennepin County. In addition, a 5' wide drainage and utility easement is provided beyond the-7' in lieu of the required 10'. The 5' wide easement reduction is to accommodate their fence construction. The 5' wide easement has been reviewed by Hennepin County and New Hope staff and each are.agreeable to the reduced width. 2. The RAN dedication along Winnetka Avenue provides for a 40' wide ½ R/VV and 10'-wide drainage and utility easement as required. 3. Drainage and utility easements 10' wide are provided along all lot lines as required except the "U" shaped portion along the north property line where a 5' width is provided. The reduced width is proposed due to the location of building/driveway/retaining walls in this area. The existing retaining wall, light pole, and ddveway does encroach onto the golf course property by approximately 3'-4'. In addition, it should also be noted the St. Therese fence along the north and west property lines of the parcels abutting Bass Lake Road and Winnetka Avenue does encroach onto the adjacent property Request for Action Page 3 I0-27-97 by approximately 45' at their northwest corner. These encroachments should be reviewed w~th adjacent property owners to determine whether adjustments to property lines are required before the plat is approved/recorded. From an engineering standpoint, the 5' wide drainage and utility easement through the "U" shaped portion abutting New Hope Golf Course is acceptable provided the City understands the implications of a reduced easement width in this area. The drainage and utility easement over the ponding area is at elevation 902, which equals the overflow elevation in Winnetka Avenue with the exception where the 902 contour exists over their southeasterly corner of the easterly parking lot abutting Winnetka Avenue. From an engineering standpoint because the storage volume in the pond for retention is adequate, the drainage/utility easement as drawn is acceptable provided St. Therese understands the pond will encroach onto their parking lot be~'ore it overflows Winnetka Avenue. From an engineering standpoint it would be desirable if the drainage and utility easement over the pond adjacent to Bass Lake Road connected to Bass Lake Road as opposed to leaving a 8' wide strip of land. We understand the 6' wide strip of land is to accommodate their fence. Buildinq Official 1. Show all property boundary dimensions in bold pdnt. 2. Correct west lot line (delete 7' for county road) should be 800.55'. 3. Correct east lot tine that intersects Bass Lake Road ~ 57 degrees - 101.65'. 4. Correct south lot line to 369.62'. 5. Existing "Highway Easement" is not shown along Winnetka Avenue (4' x 25'). 8. NOTE: Parking calculations on Survey are not accurate. Approved on-site parking is 240 sl~acee. No CUP has been applied for, or approved, for off-site parking. Minutes should reflect this number. Staff recommend approval of the Final Plat subject to the following condition: 1. Final Plat to be revised and incorporate recommendations of City Attorney, City Engineer and Building Officiat. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. © COl REQUF T FOR ACTION Originating Depa_mment Approved for Agenda _ A~enda Section Ordir1'ances. & City Manager Resolutions 10-27-97 Kirk McDonald ~ Item No. By: Management Assistant B~.// [0. l ORDINANCE NO. 97-2/PLANNING CASE 96-04: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING LICENSING REGULATIONS FOR PAWNBROKERS, PRECIOUS METAL AND SECOND HAND GOODS DEALERS (PLANNING CASE 96-04) At the November 25, 1996, City Council meeting, the Council also considered Ordinance No. 97-02, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the New Hope City Code by Establishing Licensing Regulations for Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal and Second Hand Goods Dealers. (This ordinance doee not require a public hearing because it is not part of the Zoning Code.) The ordinance establishes license and application requirements, establishes four (4) fees for applicationlinvestigationllicenselbillable transactions, establishes conditions of approval for licenses, describes general license restrictions, etc. The ordinance is a result of a resolution passed by the City Council in March 1996 authorizing a planning study on this issue. The Planning Commission considered this licensing ordinance at its November 6, 1996, meeting and recommended approval of the ordinance. Due to the fact that the APS (Automated Pawn System) technology was not available until 1997, staff recommended that the City Council table this issue for consideration at a future Council work session so that staff could explain ail sections of the ordinance to the Council in detail. The Council tabled this ordinance until the January 13, 1997, Council meeting and subsequently tabled this matter to March 2.4, June 9, September 22, and October 27. The City Council conducted a work session to review the pawn shop ordinances in May 1997 and found the ordinances to be generally acceptable. The Council directed staff to conduct further research on the "second hand dealers" section of the ordinance, as the Council did not feel that consignment shops needed to be regulated through this ordinance. The odginal proposed ordinance would require said stores to be licensed, subject to all investigation and license fees, ali billable transaction fees, and all reporting requirements contained therein. The City Council indicated it might be "overkill" to subject clothing consignment shops to this ordinance. The major revision made to the ordinance is found on pages 5 and 6. Specifically, §8.334(2) dealing with exemptions to the license requirement for second hand dealers was modified to incorporate additional (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 10-27]~7 exemptions. The revised ordinance incorporates the exemption provisions for second hand dealers from the Minneapolis and Coon Rapids ordinances. The following transactions would be exempt from the second hand dealers license under the revised ordinance. A. garage sales; B. book and magazine dealers; C. second hand clothing consignment shops; D. kitchen and laundry appliance dealers; E. furniture dealers; F. auctions held by licensed auctioneer; G. dealers of recyclable materials; H. occasional private sales of second hand goods between pdvate parties; I. sales by charitable organizations that are gifted second hand goods (i.e., Salvation Army); J. used car dealers; K. any resale of second hand goods for less than $15.00; L. any dealer of second hand goods taken inn as partial payment for the purchase of new merchandise; M. a bulk sale wholesaler or retailer; N. goods sold at an exhibition. The revised ordinance was reconsidered by the Planning Commission at its October 7 meeting and the Commission recommended approval of the ordinance. Subsequent to that meeting, one-_ additional section was added at the end of the ordinance repealing the pawn shop moratorium. Therefore, this ordinance accomplishes two purposes: 1) it establishes licensing regulations and 2) repeals the current moratorium. The City Council approved the APS Software License Agreement with the City of Minneapolis at the September 22 Council meeting and the connection with Minneapolis is in process. As you are aware, the licensing ordinance utilizes the APS technology. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. COUNCIL .. tc'rxo Originating Depa~h~ent Approved for Agenda .. ,.Agenda Section urolnances & City Manager Resolutions ,~ 10-27-97 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant By:. ~ [0.2 / MOTION APPROVING SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 97-2 ESTABLISHING PAWN SHOP LICENSING REGULATIONS Per the attached correspondence from the City Attorney, Minnesota Statutes permits the publication of ordinance summaries with respect to lengthy ordinances such as the Pawo Shop · Licensing Ordinance No. 97-2. Enclosed is a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney. If the Council determines the Summary of Ordinance No. 97-2 clearly provides the public the intent and effect of the ordinance's entire text, the summary may be published in lieu of publication of the entire text. However, the summary ordinance must be adopted by a 4/Sths vote of the entire Council. Also, the summary must inform the public that the entire text of the ordinance is available for inspection at the City Clerk's Office during regular business hours and another public location in the City.. Staff are recommending that the Ice Arena be utilized as the other alternate public location. Staff recommends approval of the summary ordinance. ~fO~ON BY S~COND BY Review: Administration: Finance: ' RFA-O01 ~ REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~t~ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Ordinances & City Manager Resolutions 10-27-97 Kirk McDonald ~) Item No. By: Management Assistant ~/// ].0.3 ORDINANCE NO. 97-28.: AN ORDINANCE DELETING NEW HOPE CODE SECTIONS 8.11 THROUGH 8.117 REGARDING CHRISTMAS TREE SALES In 1995 the City adopted an ordinance regarding the "Outdoor Sales of Seasonal Farm Produce." The ordinance defines sales of seasonal farm produce and includes the sale of Christmas trees. As a result the current New Hope Code sections 8.11 through 8.117 regarding Christmas tree sales are no longer necessary. The major change is that the old code sections required a $50.00 license fee and theqicense fee for the sales of seasonal farm produce is $100.00. Staff does not see this as a major issue, as the City Council has the prerogative to reduce or waive the fee for special organizations if you so desire. The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed ordinance repealing the old code sections. Also, per the City Attorney's recommendation, staff have reviewed the performance standards for lot sales being deleted with the Planner to insure that this issue is covered in the 1995 ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: [ RFA-O01 ~ REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~i~ient Approved for Agenda ED~genda Section City Manager 10-27-97 Kirk McDonald ~ Item No. By. Management Assistant By:.~/]? 4 P'NI::SENTATION BY PROJECT FI:::R PRID.~ IN LIVING, INC. REGARDING CONCEPT PROPOSAL FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF MULTI-FAMJL~Y DWELLINGS AT 7302-7316 BASS LAKE ROAD Project for Pride in Living, Inc. (PPL) will be making a presentation to the EDA regarding a concept proposal for the redevelopment of the multi-family dwellings at 7302-7316 Bass Lake Road (see enclosed report). PPL is one of the developers selected by the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority for the implementation of the Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program (MHOP) in the suburbs. MHOP is a rental housing program that was created as a result of a legal settlement, the Ho#man Consent Decree. As one of the defendants in the lawsuit, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA) ~greed to expand affordable housing opportunities for lower income residents in areas where there has traditionally not been a supply of public housing, in both the City of Minneapolis and in suburban locations. The MPHA will develop and operate the Hollman replacement units in the City, but a new kind of'approach was needed for the MPHA to provide Hollman funds for the development of public housing in the suburbs, MHOP is this tool. MHOP-funded new construction homes can be built anywhere outside Minneapolis and St. Paul, but within the MUSA (metropolitan services) line. Rehabilitation of existing homes with MHOP can be done anywhere in the seven-county area, outside of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Sites are selected which meet public housing site and neighborhood standards, and the MPHA strongly encourages the development of MHOP units in places that are accessible to jobs, transportation, and other amenities important to families with children. PPL approached the City this spring and inquired if the City might be interested in such a redevelopment and requested that the City identify potential redevelopment sites. City staff provided a list of sites and identified the Bass Lake Road properties as one of the top redevelopment priorities for the City. PPL reviewed the list,, analyzed the sites and selected the Bass Lake Road properties as the site with the best financial potential for redevelopment. Since that time, they have met with the City Manager and staff on several occasions to prepare a concept for potential redevelopment. (cont'd.) SECOND BY TO: ~ ~, ~ Review: Administration: Finance: Il RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 10-27-97 There are seven buildings being considered for redevelopment with four apartments in each unit (two up/two down) at 7302/7304/7306/7308/7310/7312/7316 Bass Lake Road, also known as Park Square Apartments. All are two-bedroom apartments and there are no garages at the complex. Most of the buildings are under separate ownership. These seven buildings are the source of a number of police calls to the City and complaints have been received from surrounding homes and businesses. The eighth building on the site, 7314 Bass Lake Road, is the Breckenridge Group Home, which is not the source of complaints or problems. City staff indicated to PPL that the City would probably welcome a partnership that provided for either substantial rehabilitation or demolition/redevelopment on the site. The site is located on the north side of Bass Lake Road between Pennsylvania Avenue and Nevada Avenue. The site is acceSsible only through an alley off of Bass Lake Road which runs between two commercial properties. The property is bordered on the east and west sides by Crystal single family homes. Adjacent to and north of the site is School Distdct 281 property with Thorson Resource Center, also in Crystal. Directly adjacent to the site on the north is a vacant piece of property owned by District 281 located in New Hope, but part of the Thorson Resource Center complex. This concept proposal has been reviewed with representatives of both the City of Crystal and District 281. PPL is proposing to renovate seven of the eight brick four-plexes into side-by-side duplexes and build twenty three-bedroom townhouses on the existing site. The two commercial buildings on Bass Lake Road would be replaced by one row of twelve townhouses. Eight additional townhouses would be built on the small piece of property located in New Hope south of the resource center, which would be acquired from District 281. The existing 32 two-bedroom apartments in eight four-plex buildings would be redeveloped into 14 four-bedroom side-by-side units in seven of the four-plex buildings and=20 three- bedroom townhomes with tuck-under garages and off-street parking for each unit. TwentY, two units would have market rate rents between $700 and $850. Twelve units would have rents subsidized for lower income families (those earning less than $26,000 per year). Eight of the affordable units need to be offered first to residents on the Minneapolis waiting list; the other four (and any not accepted by people on the first list) would be for New Hope residents. PPL would provide an on-site management office with a full-time staff: All residents (market rate and affordable) would be carefully screened: each must have a good rental history, adequate income to afford the rent and no criminal background. Renters at the time PPL purchases the property will receive assistance in finding a new place to live and help with the expenses of moving. The total cost of this redevelopment is approximately $5 million. Financing is proposed to be a combination of approximately $1.5 million in an equity investment, a first mortgage and a grant from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, an investment from the City of New Hope and a loan from the Family Housing Fund. The twelve affordable units are paid for by the Metropolitan Housing Opportunities Program, which was created to increase the supply of affordable rental housing outside the center cities. The property is located in an area eligible for TIF expenditures or PPL may propose the creation of a new TIF District. PPL indicates that this development provides high quality, well designed townhomes which will be well maintained by an owner with a long-term commitment to the community. This creates more value and more stability than the current rental situation. From Bass Lake Road the new townhouses will present a welcoming appearance to the street while orienting the development to the interior of the block. The proposed timeline for the project is as follows: Finish purchase of the property ........................................ : .... June 1, 1998 Start rehabilitation and construction .......................................June 15, 1998 New residents move in ....................................... November-December 1998 Staff request that the EDA consider the concept and provide direction to staff as to whether this redevelopment is something the EDA is interested in pursuing. / / >.~_ AVE. AVE;. ROAD '7:3 f ~.. ST RAPHEL CATHOLIC CHURCH Q..OV Townhomes ue~t Per~ing _ TCwnhomes Garage ~our'Warcl Fire Access :es{ P~king Proiect Tabulations 14 Four Sedroom Renovated. t700 sf 20 ~ree S~drocrn ToWnhornes New - 38 Garage Parking Spaces 22 CDen Parking Spaces New Towlli'~s Concept 0nly Fire Accessi'~--' Renovated Towniqomes Garage I ,,. New TOwilhOm~ll New Tewnhomes Site Plan Concept Proposal for ~ Residential community 7302-7316 Bass Lake Road New Hope, Minnesota Developer. Project for Pride in Living Arcnitecc Hokanson/Lunning Associates, ~nc. October, 1997 6 REQI3F T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section Consen: Parks and Recreation ~ 11/10/97 Item No. By:. Shad French By:.~J// ACCEPTANCE OF REPORT SENIOR/COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING STUDY ( PROJ[CT NO. 587) Last spring the City Council directed that staff contract with Essential [Decisions, Inc. to conduct a study regarding the need for senior adult programming in this community. Attached is a summary of the findings of this study. Staff recommends that Council accel~t the report and direct tl~e Citizen Advisory Commission to discuss the findings and make appropriate recommendations to the Council based on these results. MOT[ON BY SECOND BY TO: Revtew: ,~elmtn. t~t. tOrU Finance: RFA-O01 Octct2er 24, 1,997 EDI ESSENTIAL DECISIONS, INC, APPRAISAL SERVICES & MARKET RESEARCH o City of New Hol~e Mr. Daniel Donahue, Administrator Ms. Shah French, Director of Parks and Recreation 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428-4898 Senior/Community Programming Study Dear Mr. Oonahue and Ms. French: Please find enclosed the senioflcommunity programming study for New Hope, Minnesota. The study consisted of three steps and included an evaluation of resident preferences arid needs, with the scope of the study evaluated by the strategic planning commit'tee. The first .step of the study included meetings with the strategic planning meml3ers. At these meetings, i) the trends and conclusions of the Senior Center Feasibility Report as preparect by EDI as of January 1997 were reviewed, ii) the goals and ot3jectives of the study were estai=lished through consensus 13uilding, and iii) and the scope of the focus groQps were determined. The strategic planning committee met periodically throughout the study, reexamining the direction and the scope of the study. As discussed in further detail elsewhere within this report, the focus group discussions indicated little support for the concept of a senior only center concept. Rather, the focus groups showed strong interest in further study and information regarding the concept of a community center with designated space for seniors. Given these findings, the strategic planning committee determined that the scope of the stuc~y be expanded with the mail survey addressing the needs of all community programming rather than just senior community programming. Based on the focus group and mail survey findings, the strategic planning committee recommendations are as follows: The City should further explore the need for developing a community center with designated space for seniors rather than the development of a senior only center. Such a community center would promote intergenerational programs as well as avoiding the isolation of age groups. The City should consider the development of a town square concept, with the community center I=eing an integral part of this development. The City is in the process of updating its comprehensive land use plan addressing the development/redevelopment needs of New Hope. The development of a town square concept would promote a sense of community as well as give New Hope a stronger identity. 2345 RIcE STREET · SUITE 240 · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA · 55113 PHONE: 612.490.1685 · FAX: 612.490.9145 if a ccmmuni~ center is cleveicced, :he City should consider [easing s~ace to area ~,us;nesses ~'.i.e. ~ay care, deli) w~tn the income stream generated ~y this space ',o nei~ offset !~,~levetoc)ment or operational costs. Any rent generate~ from th~s s~ace. however, must ~e at market rates so as not to provide an unfair a~vantage over ot~er area ~usinesses. In aaditien, the puDlic must ~e info.ed that ~usinesses within communi~ center are not being provided wit~ a suDsi~ized rent and that the rent ~eing ~aid is used to fund the facili~. If developed, a communi~ center should be Io~t~d in a central Io~tion, with many residents indicting suppo~ for a development to ~e Io~te~ near the Ci~ administrative offices. ~e development should promote pedes~an access be~een the various uses. The'~ecision to build a center s~ould occur only after a vote of New Hope residents. Pdor to any vote, the Ci~ must have well defined ~rograms and detaile~ development plans. Included s~ould be t~e total ~st of the development, t~e cost to operate t~e program and facili~, and what impact tl~ese costs would have on the taxpayem. Info~ation and on~oing ~mmuni~tion to t~e public regarding a propos~ center vital, with resident input considered cnti~l to the success of any development. The Ci~ must info~ and edu~te New Hope residents aDout existing ~rograms so.ices. ~e focus group pa~icipants and mail su~ey responaents indicated a lack awareness of programs cu~en~y being offered by the Ci~. The Ci~ needs to address the s~o~-te~ needs of ~e communi~, as well as th~long- te~ needs. One sho~-te~ soluaon to explore ~uld be ~nsidedng such things as the feasibili~ of retrofi~ng ~e ice arena for a~difional utilization of space. The Ci~ should maximize exis~ng ~mmuni~ programs and facilities. ~e Ci~ s~ouid pursue ~opemtion, coordination, and utiliza~on wit~ other ama communi~ centem as well as communi~ program and so.ice pmvidem, in~uding, but not limited to No~hwest YMCA, Courage Center, school distn~ and ~mmuni~ eduction programs, area cities, area c~urches, and Care Break. Of most impo~an~, ~e Ci~ must beEer ~mmuni~te, edu~te, and info~ its residents of existing and ptann~ ~mmuni~ programs and so.ices. Please contact our firm if you have any questions or comments after reading this study report, it has been a pleasure being of assistance to you on this project. Sincerely, MarshaL. Goff President Enclosure 2345 R~CE STREET B SUITE 240 · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA · 55113 PHONE: 612.490.1685 · FAX: 612.490.9145 COUN( REQUF T FOR ACTION Originating DepasLamnt Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent 11-10-97 Kirk McDonald Item No. ]~y': Management Assistant ~ 6.5 MOTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF (~APACITY BUILDING GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION TO MINNESOTA.HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY FOR HOUSING ELEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Staff is requesting approval of a motion authorizing submittal of a Capacity Building Grant Program Application to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to assist in financing a portion of the housing element of the Comprehensive Plan Update. A small grant has already been received from the Metropolitan Council. Eligible applicants for the MHFA grants are cities located in Anoka, Carver. Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, Washington and Dakota counties who participate in the Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account Program. The application has not yet been completed, but applications are due on November 21, therefore, staff is requesting authorization to submit the application at this time because the application must be submitted prior to the November 24 .Council meeting. Up to $50,000 will be available in the Twin Cities area for eligible applicants to retain consultants who will assist cities develop or revise the housing element of their local comprehensive plans so the plans are consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint and Regional Growth Strategy and meet the housing planning requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The grant funds will be paid directly to the consultants by the MHFA. It is anticipated that up to 20 cities will be assisted and the maximum amount of grant funds that a single community may apply for is $2,500. The selection criteria for grant applicants includes: · City must be a participant in LCA Local Housing Incentives Account Program. · Communities commitment to prepare a housing plan that is consistent with the Regional Blueprint and Growth Strategy, and the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. · The degree to which the community's affordable and life-cycle housing goals are consistent with the Metropolitan Council's planning sector benctnmarks for such housing. · The level to which the plan encourages citizen input and involvement. New Hope meets all of the cntena. (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2' The City Council has 12revio~s'ly approved an agreement with Northwest Consultants to complete an overall update of the Comprehensive Plan and has approved an agreement with Nancy Reeves and Associates (in conjunction with the North Metro Mayor's Association) to complete a Life Cycle Housing Study Report as an element of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff are recommending that, if approved, the funds be paid to one or both of these consultants to reduce the cost of this I~roject. Staff recommend approval of a motion authorizing submittal of the grant. REQUF. T FOR, A ION O~ma~g Dependent App~ved for ~enda ~enda Section City Manager Consent ~G10-"-10-97 Ste~hanie Olson ~ Item No. ~: Communi~ Development Specialist ~ 6.9 / RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS~OR THE REHABILITATION OF 9116 31sz AVENUE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 589) At the OctoDer 13 City Council meeting, City ~ouncil approved the plans and s~ec~fications for the rehabilitation of 9116 31" Avenue NoAh and authonzed adve~isement for ~i~s. The adve~isement for bi~s was published in the SunPost, the official newspaper for the Ci~, on October 22 aha Const~ct/on Bulletin on OctoDer 17 and 24. Bids for the rehabilitation were opened at the New Hope Ci~ Hall, ~01 Xylon Avenue Noah, on NovemDer 3 at 11:00 a.m. Two bids were received: Company Bid Amount Anton Construction, Inc. $73,925 BCB Const~ction $68,708 BCB Construction did not include a bid bond, therefore, only one responsive bid was received for the project. The bid su~miffed by Anton Constm~ion, Inc. was signifi~ntly higher than the proje~ed budget of $50,000. Staff and the contra~or reviewed the specifications and ident~ed areas where potential savings could be incu~ed. Because this would involve changing the original specifications, the City A~orney recommended reje~ing the bid, revising the specifications, and re-bidding the projea. Therefore, staff recommends approval of a resolution rejecting all bids for the rehabilitation of 91 Avenue NoAh (Improvement Pmje~ No. 589). ~ON BY SECO~ ~ TO: R~: ~~on: F~ce: ~A-OO I COUNCIL R QUF. T FOR ACTION ' - ..... '~a " A~enda Section ,t -'- pruved for o~a~g Dep~en ~ ~ ~ City Manager ~ ~ ) 11-10-97 KirkMcDonaid nt ~ ~/ . ~0 ~ Management Assistant ~..,~ ~ TH~ uRBAN HENNEPIN cOUN~ OR THE ADULT DAYCARE AND/OR m=~LUTION AppROVIN~__ --~K G~NT pROG~~ ~/=~UE NORTH 0MPROVEMENT coMMUNI~ DEV~,~ c.CiLi~ AT 5501 AND 5425 SENIOR CENTER Pu~c,~ ~ The enclosed Third Pa~ Agreement from Henne~in CounW is actually be~een the City of New Hope and the New Hope EDA. As a result, this agreement needs to be on bo~ agendas. The CiW set aside $100,000 in CommuniW Development Block Grant funds for purposes of assisting in t~e development of an adult daycare anCOt senior center faciliW at 5501 and 5425 Boone Avenue, including land acquisition. The CiW a~uired the prope~ies through eminent domain and desires to utilize CDBG funds for a potion of the land acquisition costs. ~e CiW is the regal ent~ which redeives CDBG funds from Hennegin counW. Since the EDA acquired the prope~ through condemnation and · responsible for developing the prope~, the Thir~ Pa~ Agreement Pe~its the CiW to delegate its responsibilities, powers and authOnW to the EDA for the development of the site. The CounW requires this document to be executed be~een the CiW and the EDA to establish clear authOnW for the EDA's use of the City's CDBG funds. The CiW Affomey has review~ the agreement and recommends approval. Staff recommends a~provai of the resolution approving the ~ird Pa~ Agreement. S~;cOND BY ~ Ad333intst. r'at. ton; · -- Ftnance: ~ RFA-001 -. REQUF T FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda _ A~enda Sectton ~eveTopment City Manager & Planning Kirk McDonaLd Item No. 9y: Management Assistant By:. 8. ]. MOTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NE{;~TIATE WITH PROPERTY OWNER FOR POTENTIAl_ PURCHASE OF MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 7621 62N° AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 613) At the October 13 City Council meeting, staff requested and the Council authorized an appraisal of the multiple family dwelling located at 7621 62"4 Avenue. The request was made in response to correspondence the City had received from the owner of the four-plex stating that it was their intention to sell the property and inquiring if the City had an interest in the property. The building has four two- bedroom apartments and was constructed in 1960. The Inspection's Department has indicated that the building is in detenorating condition and would require substantial rehabilitation. Staff is interested in potentially acquiring the property, demolishing the building and land banking the site for combination with other adjacent parcels for future redevelopment purposes. The south side of 62"~ Avenue between West B¢oadway and Sumter Avenue has been identified by the Council as a 13otential future redevelopment area. The block has also been included in an area where tax increment financing funds from other districts can be utilized. It is a non-TIF generating property eligible for T1F expenditures. It is probable that relocation benefits would have to be paid if the City acquired the property. The appraisal of the property has been completed and is attached for your review. The current market value of the property (tax book listing), the appraised value ("fair market value") and the seller's asking price are listed below: Current Market Value = $117,000 ($26,000 land & $91,000 building) /Proposed January 1997 value for taxes payable in 1998) Appraisal Fair Market Value = $127,000 Owners Asking Pdce = $139,900 (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 Staff is requesting authorizati~ to negotiate with the property owner for the t2otential acquisition of the prol~erty. Any agreement reached would be sul2ject to Council approval. Also, if an agreement reached to purchase the property, in the future staff will be requesting authorization to obtain tl~e services of a relocation exl3ert to assist the City with relocation matters. The acquisition of the property and relocation costs would be paid for with TIF funds. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing staff to negotiate with the property owner. 61 $ T mlmlmlm AY VILLAGE GREEN ' GOLF COJR~ ST. TH ~' RE.~A N'~R $1NG COUNCIL REQUF T FOR ACTION Originating Depa~ t~ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section DeveJ. op~eat: & City Manager ?lannin~ 1 `1-10-97 Stephanie Olson Item No. B~. Community Development Specialist Ely:. 8.2. MOTION APPROVING REVISED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE REHABILITATION OF 9'1 `16 31s~' AVENUE NORTH AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 589) In October, the City Council approved plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of 9`118 3`1~ Avenue North and authorization to advertise for bids. Bids were opened on November 3 and one valid bid was submitted by Anton Construction, Inc. in the amount of $73,925. Because the City only received one responsive bid and that bid exceeded the projected budget, staff recommended rejecting the bid, with the intent to revise the plans and specifications and re-bid the project. ~: The scope of the project will remain the same, however, staff has reevaluated the onginal plans and specifications and identified areas where potential savings could be incurred. These areas inctucle siding, windows, roofing, and cabinetry, with minor revisions in plumbing, electrical, appliances, anct miscellaneous. All changes have been incorporated in the revised specifications. A revised timeline for the project is as follows: Approve Revised Plans and Specifications November 1997 .Solicit Bids November-December 1997 Award Contract December 1997 Remove Trees/Rehabilitate House December 1997-March 1998 Landscape Property Spring 1998 Staff recommends approval of a motion approving revised plans and specifications for the rehabilitation of 9118 31'~ Avenue North and authorization to advertise for bids (Improvement Project No. 589). MOTION BY SECOND BY , TO: P, ev~ew: ~Uon: FLna.,tce: SPECIFICATIONS FOR HOUSE REHABILITATION AT 9116 31sT AVENUE The City of New Hope ~s seeking bids for the fo!lowing repairs needed on the City-owned house at 9115 31 ~ Avenue North. Please contact Kirk M. cDonaid, Community Development Coordinator, at 531-5119 for access to the home and/or specific information regarding the repairs. GENERAL INFORMATION The scope of the project includes expanding the single-car garage to a doubie-<:ar garage and rehabilitating the single family house. A separate contract will be developed for correcting grading and drainage problems and landscaping the proper'cy. 2. All contractors shall have a State Residential Contractor's License 3. Contractors/subcontractors will submit evidence of insurance coverage. Specific requirements included in contract. 4. Contractor shatl obtain all required permits, inspections and related contracts. 5. Equipment and matenats must Oe installed according to state codes and manufacturers specifications and must perform the intended function. Please contact the New Hope Building Official for all questions regarding building codes. 5. Materials, patterns and colors to be selected by City. 7. When it is required to remove or replace an item, the replacement item should be equal in quality, size and function to the replaced item when new. 8. Contractor to provide all transferable warranties to City 9. Any matehals which differ from those specified below are to be approved by City. A list of alternate materials must be submitted with Bid. ~ 10. The City reserves the right to delete any portion of the work listed below without affecting the qu~oted costs of the remaining work, before or during the construction, due to budgetary concerns. 11. The City reserves the right to reject all bids. SPECIFICATIONS QUOTES Demolition 1. Demolition of partial structure to Pe done within ail state, county and c~ty codes. Contractor to provide all necessary permits for demolition Work to proceed in a manner ~at minimizes distu~ance$ to adjacent and public properties. Damage to ~ese areas will be repaired or replaced 3. Demolish driveway, sidewalk, garage slab, patio slab and service door step 4. Demolish existing SW end garage wail and foundation 3' below new sial= level 5. Remove sheetrock and ceiling finishes in lower level 5. Properly dispose of all del~ri$ Footing~/Foundl#on/Flafwor~ Evaluate condition of basement sial3. Consult with City as to appropriate repairs 2. Install 12" X 48' frost footing and 6" X 6" cedar post under NW roof overnang 3. Install 24' X 24' garage slab and 5' X 24' patio slab, 4" thick with 6" X 6' ~10 WRM and 4" sand base 4. Install curved sidewalk, width equal to steps (maximum 5' wide) 5. Install concrete step(s) at garage/house door per code 5. Replace broken or damaged garage foundation elements at south side of house, if footing is solid. Replacement block/mortar to match existing materials Siding/Soffits/Fascia 1 Re;~a~r all Camage~j or broken s;ding, soffits, and fasc;a 2. Garage s~ding, soffits, ar~, fascia to match existing siding 3. Mandwasn s~ding Winclows/Ex~erior Doors 1 3. 4. 5. Remove ex~sting exterior door~ and install 6-panel steet insulated front c/oor, neif wew storm door, and steel insulated rear door Install door ctoser at top of house/garage door per coqe Install Anderson, or equal, 5'0" X 6'8" patio door in dining room Repair all damaged or broken windows, storms, screens, hardware, and wells Install (1) egress window and window well in southeast comer of basement. If area well is not manufactured, submit design plan Roofing 1. Remove roof covenng and felt and inspect. Replace roof sheathing, if needed, with ½", 4' X 8' Oxl:~ard 2. Install (5) new 8" plastic fixed attic vents 3. Rel~lace roof covenng with 15 lb. felt, Ice & Water shield per code, and 3-tai~ 22.5 lb. fiberglass/asphalt shingles. Color to be selected by City Gutters 1. Repair existing gutter system Driveway 1. Lay 3" aspt~alt driveway. Ddveway to be 20' wide Camentry Repair rotted or damaged stair framing in basement 2. Construct new bearing walls with treated bottom plate in basement 3. Provide ;22' X 30" attic access. Verify location with City Install new I~eader and framing for patio door in dining room 5. Construct 10' X 24' garage addition. Roof pitcl~ and ove~ang in front to matc~ existing roof 6. Repair and tape gypsum fire wall in garage 7. Remove bookcase in living room HVAC 1. Remove existing unit and install Rheem or equal, 80% efficient furnace :2. Remove and dispose of air conqitioner in dining room Plumbing 1. Verify anq correct all plumbing deficiencies per code 2. Remove lave, faucets, tub/shower faucet/heed, toilet and fiberglass tub surround in bathroom 3. Install Moen, or equal, chrome faucets Install Kohler, or equal, white toilet 5. Install Kohler, or equal, white drop-in sinks 6. Install fiberglass tub surround with rod 7. Install single laundry tub, standard faucet and standpipe in basement 8. Remove sink and faucet in kitchen. Install Moen, or equal, single lever faucet with spray and stainless steel 2-compartment sink 9. Remove existing unit and install Bradford, or equal, 40-gallon water heater 3 Electrical 1 Verify and correct all electrical deficiencies Remove ex~st~ng ~gnt fi×~res and ceiling fans 3. $500 Light Fixture Allowance. Fixtures to be selected by City 4 CenTer light fixture ~n foyer with door. 5. Install fan in bathroom 8. Install (8) hard wired smoke detectors t2er plan 7 Install GFCI bullets in kitchen, laundry and garage per code 8. Remove front yard post Interior Mi#work 1. Rel2air or replace any damaged or broken interior millwork, including doors and hardware 2. Install rod/shelf in (1) bedroom closet Interior Paint/Stain 1. Remove wallpaper, paneling, shelving and tile from walls 2. Paint all ceilings with Sherwin WilliamS, or equal, white flat interior paint 3. Patch and repair walls as needed. Paint walls with two coats of Sherwin Williams, or equal, fiat interior paint. Color to be selected by City 4. Paint bathroom cabinets/millwork with semi or high-gloss Sherwin Williams Superpaint. Color to be white Cabinetry 1. Rel2air all damaged or broken cabinets, shelves, and hardware 2. Install new cal~inet hardware in kitchen and bathroom. Style to be selected by City Counfertops 1. Remove countertops in kitchen and bathroom 2. Install WilsonArt, or equal, plastic laminate top in kitchen and bathroom with standard edge, backsplash, and overhang. Colors to be selecteq by City Floor Covering, 1. Remove existing floor covenng on main leve~ 2. Install 1/2", 8lb. pad anti World Exquisite, or equal, carpet in living room, hallway and (3) bedrooms 3. Install Armstrong Solarian, or equal, vinyl in kitchen, dining room, and bathroom 4. Install 12." ceramic tile at front entry Appliance,1 1. Remove existing appliances 2. Install Kenmore 30' X 30" refrigerator, white in color 3. Install Kenmore, or equal, 32' range, white in color 4. Install recirculating range hood, white in color Deck 1. Install 8' starter plate for future deck and steps to grade Miscellaneous 1. Clean all surfaces in basement with a sanitizing solution 4 Drain 7'i/e 1 Remove ex~st~ng system anci install new ~nter~or (3ram tile system at all basement ~:enmeter walJs, w~th 1/3 HP pump w~th check valve. Direct drainage to sumo basket tocated in south center, discharge to exterior TOTAL BID. Company _ Contact Pemon Addreee Telephone Number Fax Number Signature of Person Sul3mitting Quote PLEASE RETURN QUOTES BY MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, TO: Kirk McDonald New Hope City Hall 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Bids will be opened at 11:00 a.m. on Monclay, Deceml~er 1. The bids will be considered by the New Hope City Council at the Monday, December 8 City Council meeting. All work is to be completed by Friday, February 27, 1998. The lowest responsible bidder will be expected to enter into a contract with the City to ensure the completion of the work in a timely manner. Payment will be made by the City upon acceptance of the quatity and completion of the project. 5 Note - The foilcwzmg ~,tems are o~tlons only, and should not t~e /nctuded /n the Total Bid ~rzce. ~/ease i/st as adcJitions or crec/ts to the Totat Bid prtce. The C/'ty may add any of the/terns/istect t~elow to the contract prtce. . .. Options Quote 1. Sancl. stain, and seal hardwood floors with (:2) coats polyurett~ane tn foyer, liwng room. (3) bedrooms/closets, and hallway in lieu of carpet and vinyl 2. Paint millwort< in foyer, living room, bedrooms and t~atlway 3. Install 10' X 10' deck with guardrail and steps in lieu of steps to grade 4. Demolish basement slab, properly dispose of all debris and pour new I:asement slab, 3000 psi concrete 4" thict( 5. Clean, prime and paint siding with Sherwin Williams Superpaint, or equal, in lieu of siding repair 6. Paint basement wells with Sherwin Williams, or equal, latex paint 7. Remove all windows on main level in lieu of repair. Install Anderson, or equal, windows to match existing rough openings. One window in each bedroom must meet egress requirements per the building code. The new windows shall include screens and hardware L__ REQ[TF~T FOR ACTION ~-~ Originating DepaxLu~ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section EDA City 'Manager By:Kirk Management McDonald Assistant RESOLUTION APPROVING THIRD/PARTY AGREEMENT FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE ADULT DAYCARE AND/OR SENIOR CENTER PUBLIC FACILITY AT 5501 AND 5425 BOONE AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 493) The enclosed Third Party Agreement from Hennepin County is actually between the City of New Hope and the New Hope EDA. As a result, this agreement needs to be on both agendas. The City previously set aside $100,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds for purposes of assisting in the development of an adult daycare and/or senior center facility at 5501 and 5425 Boone Avenue, including land acquisition. The City acquired the properties through eminent domain and desires to utilize the CDBG funds for a portion of the land acquisition costs. The City is the legal entity which receives CDBG funds from Hennepin County. Since the EDA acquired the property through condemnation and is responsible for developing the property, the Third Party Agreement permits the City to delegate its responsibilities, powers and authority to the EDA for the development of the site. The County requires this document to be executed between the City and the EDA to establish clear authority for the EDA's use of the City's CDBG funds. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and recommends approval. Staff recommends approval of the resolution approving the Third Party Agreement. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: l~view: Admmts~Uon: Finance: REQUF T FOR ACTION Originating Depa~l~uent Approved for Agenda ED~genda Section City Manager Kirk McDonald Item No. Management Assistant RI=SOLUIION APPROVING LAI~g) DISPOSITION AGREEMENT (CONTRACT NO. A20867) BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE NEW HOPE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADULT DAYCARE AND/OR SENIOR CENTER PUBLIC FACILITY AT 5501 AND 5425 BOONE AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 493) The City previously set aside $100,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds for purposes of assisting in the development of an adult daycare and/or senior center facility at 5501 and 5425 Boone Avenue, including land acquisition. The City acquired the properties through eminent domain and desires to utilize the CDBG funds for a portion of the land acquisition costs. Even though a definite project has not yet been identified, the funds need to be transferred to the City from Hennepin County before the end of 1997, or they may ha~e to be forfeited. The enclosed Land Disposition Agreement resolves that situation and allows Hennepin County to transfer the funds to the City for use by the EDA for the acquisition of property for this project, subject to the. conditions outlined in the attached correspondence from the City Attorney. The agreement states that the EDA must develop the property as an adult daycare facility and/or senior center public facility no later than three years after the CDBG reimbursement is received by the EDA. If the property is not developed within a three-year period, the City has an option to extend the pedod for development for an additional three years. The agreement states that if the daycare/senior facility project is determined not to be viable, then the City may either request approval for an alternate use for the site utilizing the funds or the site can be sold for its fair market value. If the property is sold, the portion of the proceeds of the sale attributable to the ratio of the CDBG contribution to the purchase pdce must be returned to the County as program income. Program income returned to the County is redistributed to the City for other program uses after the deduction of administrative fees. The agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney and he recommends approval. Staff recommends approval of the resolution approving the Land Disposition Agreement. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 Or~mat. m~ Depa~ L~eat Approved for ~enda ~enda Sec~on EDA City Manager Kirk McDonald. ~ 11-10-97 Item No. ~: Management Assistant ~~ 6 DISCUSSION REGARDING AND AUTHORI~TION TO PARTICIPATE IN SUBURBAN REMODELING P~NBOOK PROJECT A number of inner-ring suburban communities have been meeting over the past several months to discuss the development of a remodeling planbook for use by residents of our communities to encourage the remodeling and expansion of their homes. This ~ncept is ve~ similar to the Remodeling Fair held annually for the past five years. A completed planbook with remodeling and expansion ideas for several different syes of homes (rambler and cape cod) will be made available to'each city pa~icipating in the proje~. A request for proposals has been sent and the group is currently ~eviewing the proposals from qualified persons to prepare the planbook. Each ci~ interested in paAicipating in the project is being requested to make a maximum financial commitment of $5,000 to the project. (The total cost of the proje~ would be divided evenly among the pa~icipating cities.) Please refer to the affachments for fu~her information. New Hope staff am requesting to pa~icipate in the proje~ and there are adequate funds in the EDA budget to cover the cost of this proje~. Staff requests authorization to pa~icipate in the Suburban Remodeling Planbook Proje~ at a maximum cost of $5,000. ~ 7 27 Oc~o~ 199"/ ludie Erickson Comrnuni~ Develp°Par~ent Deparm~nt Ci~ of S~ Louis r Sc Louis P~k, ~nnesoca 55416 Dear ludie Erickson & Other Consomum Membcrs: . t yet Nnraed Remodelin $ Planb°°k"-' ,:..,,~,,.,a i, our oro~x~sal for A No - The cor~ contfa~t covers two hous~ t~ues: 1.) die ~vo-bedroom rarribler typc house wit~ & der, ached ~araSe and ~.) die story-and-a-half house type (often called a "cape cod") with a detached tara$e. We are anxious t.o m.cm~ - "~"i"L r~-'e w Id I ) re~tiY cxpag, c~ u~ ~ ......... .~l.~e nf homeownem ir~ ~ne 2.~Cn~k~ die ~o~k relevant tot, much 8~c--,,, ........ consortium cities, f s stematic study of housin$ types in these cities. o discover any sor~ o ~ · · uIion We huve yet ~ ....... · ,'-,--, al die Sca~e I-Iistoric Preserv We consulted wi~ ~e Mlcnae~ (SHPO). ~Iuclith Martin and even Myron Off-~eld but no one is aware of any sys~cmnt uypoto$ical surveys. . ' al survey We spenl much of yesmrd'~Y (Su.nd~..Y_) dn_.m_n.,~a-'~°~ ~,-st included as me a,rd ~ }~di.~i Sscm~:aYered ~¢o~uphic-~lly (the "bump on ~¢ back ) dia~ in my c~pcnen remgd~lb~g project for houses of this · I add two months to the overall project Addinz a third house type would .FoT_n,~ [..~ be on oaternity leave for mos~ of ~hed~le And while we'~ on scnecu~c. November, and assuming we still need to negotiate a contract, it ;s unhk c..ould begi_n.a, cmal work measurin,, the ho ............. ' ' el>, .~_anuary. Very little h ens in t ~ · ,,? ~_t~_,.__aml lntervm__wmg the owners u New Year's. app h res~dentla,1 amrk~t between 'l-hanksgiving and n~l You ._w. ill note that in' the "core" co,,, .............. unveilin of the I - ' ' , ,,,,,,,, w~ nave trlcluclea a kick-off even g p anoooK .a.t-ter it s tinted. Our ex erienc t, a grand Planbook tau ht ~ that · . ., p . e on the I,,on el · the g this kick..ot~cvent is critical: it's the "news hoo~' ~h°a~ m med~& used to report the book's release. It gives the media an event to attend. many And it gave homeowners a feeling that they are participating in something momentous when ~ey finally go~ their copy of the book. Lis. ted in the.".~'vices additional to the core contract" ou w' ..wntte.n by Richard MacLau,, r _:_ _y lit find the_ proposal · · ~ m a: the Tovm Planmn Col ' r.n se house-scale remodehno ,, ,,;-.,.-: .... ,_ . g . l_aboranve for wortc to knit e ~,r,-d,.,.,~ ~,~, me larger scale of the City fabric. Something listed in your "planbook features" thai we feel very stroh y about is ' read'on/- a~mm text of ~e ~,ook for the following 1.) Construc. tion.cost, is. a free-market phenomena. I had m · .s..u_ _.n?e.r ~? r. ro? a tight specification received ~,~,~. ~-,, ~m-y--h~use P..ranted w?ncea w,m ~rore) of !;31500 $75a'~ ..,,, e,, ~t~ ~' ~xum..repucaole pamten rd of coat estim ' ot ~ ' ."" ",,'., :j_-,:~,~. ~n sma, er projects this ~ re:~ azes ~s n__ _nusual. It s almost .,mn,~ ............. . , : p d sA~a/d'cosL r ,.--,o ,u u~ ~o premcc wnata project 2.) Bids are typically only good for :30 days from the date of estimate. Which means thai any ' · · · . even be cost mformazion included m the book wdl be outdated before the book can printed and reach the reader. To print cost information in the book wiJl instantly da~e it and decrease irs potential shelf life, greatly we:ukening the long-~erm value of your investment in our work. You must remember laughing out loud at the absurd prices printed in old catalogues. 3.) Listing prices in the book opens you to liability problems. Say we list a kitchen remodeling at $:2~,000. A homeowner buys the book, decides to build the ~no.v~on, bu.t purchases I20,000 worth toe-of-the-line Vikin a ' nm construction coat is s~0 ~ ,.--~ -,---- ~r .... g pphances. Their c . -- ,,,,,~, a.a mey clectcle tO SUe OU Otc · ' · · onrd'act thai: the Drole~: would aalu ~,,,,.. e,'~e ~ ~,~ Y .. ~ of the ~mphc~c ....... ., ,va~ a~.a),.,,.,u, ocrangeF mings have happened. the 4.) If we try to solve "single price" problem by including a range of prices (say 'r. his kitchen remodeling could cost from $~-$$0,000') ~hen my experience is people will o~ly remember the lower number and see it as a guarantee. Money and cost brings out the worst in people. At the same time we recognize that the first question most homeowners are going co ~k i~ "how much will it cost?" What we propose is to have ~ builder prepare an actual cost e~timate for each project, a one- ' ' ~ to what' . . _ ........ page l_istmg of parameters :md as,sum ti , .....,,__s_ going !n~_..~e project (i.e. listings of m:~terials allowane_,_, ¢,~, ,,,,ap I~ances etc ' · · · ......... , -,,,, , · .[;) , , .). 'ITlis way the price ~s accurate for a sin le ' '= point in time for a _ .. & broider at a stngle defined scope of work. These estimates could be printed in ,.~OV- 5-9'7 ~ED t9:42 CITY OF ,.,RYSI'AL FAX NO, u!25370~44 ~ ~=,'"', separatc pack¢~ and included with other supporting informauon when ~omeone purchased the book. Prep~/ng accurate cost e~t/n'~t~s, however, takes a lot of t/me, effort a~d energy, and we have mclud~ ~ item for ~s ~h under ~don~ se~s. ~c ~m~es would be p~p~ed by Paul B~gger, who h~ ye~ of experience. We look fo~d to ~er dis~ssing ~I ~e i~u~ in ~is propos~ wi~ you this co~g F~day ~ 1, Sincerely, Ro~rt Gcrloff, AIA I~sti lohnson Peter J. Musty o Suburban Remodelin~l Planbook Planbook Objective - To provide ideas and plans for remodeling and improving suburban homes. The planbook should have the end result of providing remodeling plans as weil as inspiration for owners to improve their current home to meet their changing needs, and to preserve, maintain and Protect older suburban neighborhoods and cities. preserving the Home's Character- The planbook should assist homeowners with identifying elements of their homes which create architectural character, style and interest. The planbook can also help to preserve the elements which make up the character of a home and enhance the home's aesthetic and monetary value. How to Use the Remodeling Planbook - Should include a bdef explanation of how the planbook works and how the plans can be reproduced or copied without violating copyright protection. Remodeling Plans. To inClude a bdef description of the elements and style that make up a typical suburban type home. a) b) c) d) e) 0 The Rambler -. Most ramblers are one-story homes with a simple Iow-pitched roof line and a large picture window on the front elevation. The majodty of ramblers were built from the late 1940's through the late 1960's, however rambler are still being built today. 1990's ramblers will have large garage~ in the front instead of the picture windows and a front dormer or gable over the front entry. i) Odginal Floor Plan and Perspective ii) Adding a Front Porch a) Plan b) Perspective iii) Adding an Attached Garage a) Plan b) Perspective iv) Intedor Remodeling - Kitchen and Formal Dining a) Plan b) Perspective The Split-Entry The One and a Half Story Bungalow The Ranch The Split or Multi-Level The Cape Cod Building Code Information. The plans in the book should haVe been reviewed and approved in concept.by the inspections divisions of all participating cities. A bdef discussion should be included within this section to assist owners with plan review and the inspections process. Resources. Listings of public sector agencies, utility companies and any other entities 'which may assistance in home repair, improvement and remodeling. In addition, reference books, magazines and periodicals which may offer assistance or insight should be listed. REQUF. T FOR'ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager ~ Consent .. 11-24-97 Kirk McDonald Item No. By: Management Assistant By:. / 6./, RESOLUTION APPROVING METROPO~TAN COUNCIL LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION BY MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER (GRANT NO. SG-97-168/PLANNING CASE 96-27) In June 1997 staff requested and the City Council authorized the submittal of a Local Planning Assistance Grant to the Metropolitan Council to assist with costs associated with updating the New Hope Comprehensive Plan. The planning assistance fund included $1 million available for grants and the funds were to be distributed based on the community's demonstrated need and available financial resources. Grants cannot exceed 75 percent of the total costs and expenses of the work plan for which the grant is awarded and the maximum grant allowed for each community was $20,000. The Council approved a proposal from Northwest Consultants in the amount of $30,000 to update the plan, therefore staff submitted a grant request in the amount of (75% x $30,000 = $22,500) $20,000 (the maximum allowed). Upon award of the grant, the Met Council will execute a grant agreement with the appropriate local unit of government. The City was notified in August that New Hope had received a grant in the amount of $8,190. Although this is lower than the requested amount, it will assist in reducing the amount of City funds needed to update the plan. Met Council has recently forwarded the enclosed grant agreement for execution. The agreement describes the funding disbursement schedule, progress reporting requirements, accounting and records, audit procedures and the authorized use of funds. The agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Staff recommend approval of a resolution approving the agreement and authorizing execution by the Mayor and City Manager. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: RFA-O01 ~ COUNCIL, [ REQUF T FOR ACTION - Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent Kirk McDonald ~ 11-24-97 Item No. By: Management Assistant By:. 6.5 MOTION APPROVING QUOTE BY CRYSTAL TREE SERVICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,331.25 FOR TREE REMOVAL AT 9116 31s'r AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 589) The City has acquired the single family residential property at 9116 31'~ Avenue North under the scattered site housing program for purposes of rehabilitating the property and placing it for sale. The~ scope of the entire project includes correcting drainage problems, expanding the garage and rehabilitating the house, and landscaping the property. As part of the rehabilitation and landscaping, some trees, shrubs, and other plant matedai must be removed from the property. A detailed list of the plantings to be removed and/or tdmmed is outlined under the attached project specifications. :: The City sought quotes from several landscape contractors and received the following bids: FIRM QUOTE Crystal Tree Service $1,331.25' (includes tax) Urban Foresters $1,368.53 (includes tax) Tim's Tree Service $1,389.82 (includes tax) The Iow bid was submitted by Crystal Tree Service in the amount of $1,331.25. One thousand dollars was budgeted for tree removal and the Iow bid is $331.25 over the budgeted amount, however, it is anticipated that landscaping costs will not total the budgeted amount of $3,000.00 (as some of the removal items were previously anticipated to be included in the landscaping budget). Therefore, staff recommends accepting the quote from Crystal Tree Service, the iow bidder, for the tree removal, stump grinding, and hauling debds from the site in the amount of $1,331.25 for 9116 3i'~ Avenue North (Improvement Project No. 589). MorION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: - RFA-O01 ~ Tree Removal Bid 9116 31" Avenue Nor'd~, New Hope The City of New Hope is accepting bids for tree removal at the city-owned property located at 9116 31st Avenue North. The scope of the entire project includes correcting drainage problems, expanding the garage and rehabilitating the house, and landscaping the property. As part of the rehabilitation and landscaping, some trees, shrubs, and other plant material must be removed from the property. General Specifications 1. Contractor must provide Certificate of Insurance to the City before work begins and comply with terms set forth by the City. 2. The City reserves the right to delete any portion of the work listed below, without affecting the quoted costs of the remaining work, due to budgetary concerns. 3. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids. Project Specification= 1. Remove and haul ash on NW corner of garage 2. Remove and haul maple on SW side of garage 3. Remove, stump, and haul weed maple on SW side of garage 4. Remove, stump, and haul pine on SW corner of garage. 5. Trim Crabapple on SW side of garage 6. Remove, stump, and haul pine at SE corner of house 7. Remove and haul ash on east side of house (window well) 8. Remove, stump, and haul shrubs/plant material on S side of house 9. Trim bottom (4) branches from ash on south side of house 10. Remove plant material, to ground level, along fencetine in backyard TOTAL BID Quote Company Contact Person Address Telephone Number Signature of Person Submitting Bid COUNCIL REQLrEST FOR ACTION Originating Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section City Manager Consent ~~ 11-24-97 Kirk McDonald Item No. By:. Management Assistant ~ ~ 6.7 RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENt' TO SUBMIT ORDER BY FIRE CHIEF REQUIRING INSTALLATION OF FIRE ALARM AND SMOKE DETECTION SYSTEM AT 7300 49TM AVENUE NORTH TO STATE FIRE MARSHAL'S VARIANCE PROCESS (PLANNING CASE 97-06) The enclosed resolution authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with J.S. Winnetka, Inc. and Hoyt Development Company with respect to the construction of the warehouse facility at 7300 49~ Avenue North. Per the attached correspondence from the City Attorney, a dispute has arisen regarding the Fire Chief's order for the installation of an automatic fire alarm and smoke detection system at the property. The Fire Chief made this order because the property does not have a "ring road" permitting access to all exterior walls of the building. The Minnesota Uniform Fire Code indicates all exterior walls must be accessible to within 150 feet from an access road. Due to th~ railroad spur adjacent to the east line of this property, the east and north portions of the building are outside the 150 foot requirement. However, the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code also permits the developer to request a variance from the order. The developer believes the fire alarm and smoke detection system requirement is not necessary for several reasons as follows: 1. The building is equipped with an early suppression fast response automatic sprinkler system (known as ESFR); 2. Access to the east and north portions of the building can be gained through the Ice Arena parking lot which is apparently within the 150 foot requirement. However, this would require fire hoses to be laid over railroad tracks; and 3. The order to install the fire alarm and smoke detection system is not a mandatory requirement but a discretionary order made by the Fire Chief as permitted under the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. In other words, the developer believes the building is already adequately protected by the ESFR system and as a result the Fire Chief's discretionary order is unnecessary and unreasonable. The developer has an automatic dght to request a waiver from the State Fire Marshal under Minn. Stat. §299F.011. This agreement is only necessary because we have allowed tenants to move into the property under a temporary Certificate of Occupancy prior to the resolution of this Code requirement. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: II RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 11-24-97 The City is covered under the agreement for permitting tenant occupancy of the building prior to resolution of this issue by the developers indemnification and hold harmless agreement and by the tenant's actual knowledge of the variance request and their occupancy under a temporary CO. Also, the agreement provides the completion of any work ordered by the State Fire Marshal will be financially guaranteed under the developer's Letter of Credit which the City currently holds. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. EDA REQUF, ST FOR ACTION Agenda Section Originating Department Approved for Agenda EDA City Manager Kirk McDonald ~ 11-24-97 Item No. By:. Management Assistant ~~// 4 DISCUSSION REGARDING GREATER MINNEAPOLIS METROPOLITAN HOUSING CORPORATION (GMMHC) HOMEOWNERSHIP RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM Per the enclosed correspondence and attachments, over the past year the Greater MinneaDolis Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMMHC) has been working with city staff from the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, New Hope and Robbinsdale to discuss a "Homeownership Resource Cente¢' program for the 5-city group. GMMHC has submitted several grant requests to secure funding operations of the ~Homeownership Resource Center." In recent conversations with the McKnight Foundation, the Foundation indicated that it is waiting for the 5-city group, or as many cities as:are going to participate, to finalize their respective funding commitments for the "Homeownership Resource Center," pdor to the Foundation making a final commitment of financial support. Staff request to discuss this proposed program with the EDA and to determine if the EDA wants to make a financial commitment to support the program or not. Early in 1966, Hennepin County contacted GMMHC and indicated that the county staff had met with elected officials from suburban Hennepin County communities, and many of these communities had requested assistance from the County in coordinating programs to provide a one-stop approach to assist homeowners with their housing needs. At the same time, the County Board authonzed staff to identify approaches for strengthening the county's coordinating role in addressing housing issues and stabilizing the tax base. Hennepin County engaged GMMHC to look into the possibility of establishing a Home Ownership Center, like its Northeast Minneapolis model, in a suburban setting. The county targeted the Northwest area of the county for this probe. The request was reviewed by the GMMHC Board and they agreed to consider the feasibility of expanding the program, in February of 1997, GMMHC entered into a (cont'd. MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Admlntstrat. ton: Finance: ! RFA-O01 ~ Request for Action Page 2 1 Professional Services Agreement with Hennepin County whereby they would share the cost, up to $7.400, to undertake a suburban He.nn. epin County housing resource center feasibility study. Since that time there have been numerous meetings with staff, city planners and managers, as well as elected officials and other interested parties in the communities of Brooklyn Center', Brooklyn Park. Crystal, '"'"w Hope and Robbinsdale. They have also had other meetings, with the McKnight Foundation and the Metropolitan Council in regard to funding such an initiative. The enclosed 5-City North Suburban Homeownership Resource Center Feasibility Fact Sheet states that the "center" would be structured to be a "one-stop resource" for home ownership and home improvement programs and services needed to intervene in neighborhoods on the edge; those neighborhoods poised to change from high homeownership to absentee ownership and from stable housing stock to disrepair and disinvestment. All home ownership and improvement resources, public, private and non-profit would be invited to operate out of this 'one-stop resource center" and have their respective products and/or services available for the homeowner, home buyers, and renters. The "center" would provide one-stop shopping for comprehensive housing information, tailored to the circumstances of each family and property. Information and applications would be available for all of the dozens of mortgage and home improvement loan programs available. GMMHC states that the "cented' would not duplicate programs and services, rather would provide an opportunity to collaborate with other providers to make existing programs and services available at the 'center." The Fact Sheet also address why a resource center is needed and outlines the benefits, programs and services that would be available. Each of the 5~city group is invited to become a sponsor of the 'Homeownership Resource Center." The enclosed letter is a request from GMMHC to approve participation in the program and commit to city funding as per the initial budget amount of $5,000 in 1998, $6,000 in 1999, and $7,000 ih- 2000. This request for each member of the 5-city group to commit its resl~ective funding is subject to sufficient funding becoming available from other sources, e.g., the McKnight Foundation, etc. If projected funding cannot be achieved in 1998, the operation and related budget will have to be modified to the satisfaction of the city participants. In addition, there may be other potential funding resources that may be available for this project, and GMMHC is prepared to attempt to access these resources on behalf of the 5-city group. GMMHC is prepared to move forward with its commitment to operate the suggested 5-city "Homeownership Resource Center" and awaits only the commitment of the cities to partner with GMMHC on this program. Staff is requesting direction from the EDA on this request and wants to know if the EDA is interested in 'participating in this 5-city venture. Staff is generally supportive of the program on a pilot project or trial basis. There are adequate EDA funds available to participate in 1998 and staff would recommend that only a one-year approval for particil~ation be considered at this time and that funding for subsequent years be considered with the annual budget process. REQUEST FOR ACTION Originating Depa~ent Approved for Agenda Agenda Section EDA City Manager Kirk McDonald //~ 11-24-97 Item No. By: Management Assistant By:.~// 5 DISCUSSION REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF ENTERPRISE FACILITATION PROGRAM IN NEW HOPE AND CRYSTAL AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED At the February 24, 1997, City Council public hearing regarding the use of :1997/98 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, the Council authorized the allocation of $15,000 for a potential joint-city pilot project with the City of Crystal for the establishment of an enterprise facilitation program. At that time, staff indicated that the City had been discussing the project with Crystal and the Hennepin County Department of Jobs and Training and that the Hennep_in County Office of Planning and Development had indicated that the cities could utilize CDBG funds:to finance their portion of the program due to the micro business/job creation aspect of the project. Staff requested that the Council set aside the funds for this project with the understanding that this action would not formally authorize City participation in the program and that staff would come back to the Council/EDA for formal authorization to proceed once funding commitments from other agencies had been made and the program was ready to proceed. Over the past nine months, staff have coordinated with Crystal, Hennepin County and Metro HRA to secure funding commitments and staff requests to discuss this program with the EDA and receive authorization to proceed with the establishment of the joint-agency program. Enterprise facilitation is an, alternative approach to economic development which uses a grass-roots bottom-up strategy. This model spurs economic development by working with individuals to create business opportunities rather than relying on the more traditional approach of a city attracting large businesses to a community. The program would help nurture local business development and expansion in order to stabilize the local economy and create new jobs. The program supports local entrepreneurs and encourages growth within the community. (cont'd.) MOTION BY SECOND BY TO: Review: Administration: Finance: I RFA-OOI ~ Request for Action Page 2 ! i -24-9'~ Enterprise facilitation is based on the belief that entrepreneurs need technical assistance (rather than financial) to pursue their ideas. In order to offer the assistance, an enterprise facilitator would be n~red and shared between the two cities and act as a catalyst' to assist/encourage local business innovat~Cc~A local advisory board would be created to oversee the activities of the facilitator and it is anticipate(~' at · the TwinWest New Hol2e/Crystal Business Council could potentially serve as a por[ion of the board. A tentative budget for a two-year pilot project is attached and the estimated cost would be $50,000 - $80,000 per year. Metro HRA has made a commitment of $15,000 for a two-year period and Hennepin County will be making a similar contribution. Each of the two cities will be making equivalent contributions of $15,000 each for a two-year period and New Hope's share is proposed to be with CDBG funds and this use of the funds has been approved by Hennepin County. Staff will also seek contributions for the program from local businesses. The cities believe that this program will greatly benefit the many residents in our communities who operate businesses out of their home. Generally speaking, the home-based businesses are successful and provide needed services in the community. In many cases, however, the businesses have outgrown the parameters of the home and, preferably, should be located in a separate location so as not to violate local zoning ordinances and disrupt the neighborhood. This transition may be prohibitive for several reasons: inability to raise capital, unfamiliarity with the real estate industry, lack of formal accounting and business skills, and so forth. With Metro HRA's participation, the cities hope to demonstrate how enterpnse facilitation can serve as another tool for self-sufficiency in the current welfare-to-work movement. The City of New Hope has a local Section 8 housing representative who provides contract services for the cities of Golden Valley, Maple Grove, Osseo, and Edina and will be actively involved in communicating the enterprise facilitation program to these Iow to moderate income residents. Additional information on the enterpnse facilitation project is attached for your review. The City Manager is familiar with this concept and will be able to explain the I~rogram in greater detail at the meeting. Staff is requesting authorization to proceed with the initiation of this program and to utilize the CDBG funds allocated for this purpose. PROJECT NO. 498 Bulletin #3 NORTHWOOD LAKE PARK STORM SEWER, PONDING AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT INTRODUCTION The intent of this project bulletin is to update residents on the status of the Northwood Lake storm sewer, ponding, and park improvements project. All elements of the park project are in the final phase of construction. Thank you for your patience and cooperation during the construction project. PARK CLOSED All residents and park users are reminded that areas of the park within the construction limits are still closed. Only authorized personnel are permitted within the construction limits (orange fence). Unauthorized persons are asked to stay outside of those limits. WORK COMPLETED Construction had focused on the outlet structure and channel excavation. Once these areas reached a state of substantial completion, attention was directed to ballfield reconstruction and site restoration. In the last few weeks: · All excavation was completed. · The general grading has been completed and the paths have been laid out. · The final grading is about 90% complete. The work that remains is near Boone Avenue. · The bridge abutments are being constructed. The bddges will be constructed in approximately one month. · The outlet structure has been constructed and stained to resemble field stone. UPCOMING SCHEDULE The primary focus in the next weeks will be to reconstruct Boone Avenue and to build the ballfields and begin site restoration. In the upcoming weeks: · Ballfield construction will continue including the sodding of the fields, placement of infield aggregate, installation of the fences and benches, and the pouring of concrete slabs between the infields. · Wetland plantings will be installed in the creek channel. · The outlet structure will be completed, and the flow of water through the culvert and into the channel will be restored. · Boone Avenue reconstruction will begin after the new box culvert is functioning. · The railings wilt be installed on the outlet structure and the sidewalks completed after Boone Avenue is restored. CONSTRUCTION HOURS Standard construction hours will be Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and Saturday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. All work, including mobilization of equipment, will take place during these time periods. No work will take place on Sundays or holidays. 10/9/97 Northwood Lake Park Storm Sewer, Pondinfl & Park Improvemen?~ CONTACT PERSONS If you have questions or concerns about the project, please direct your calls to the engineer representatives: Vince Vander Top, Project Inspector: Mark Hanson, City Engineer: 604-4790 or 533-4823 ext. 15 604-4838 If you desire to speak with someone with the City of New Hope, please contact Tom Schuster, Contract Manager, 533-4823 ext. 13. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 PROJECT NO. 579 Bulletin #3 Sidewalk Replacement Project The Sidewalk Improvement Project is nearing completion. Thank you for your patience and cooperation during this project. Project Status The project has come a long way during the past few weeks. To date: · With the exception of a few "punch list" items, all sidewalk replacement has been completed. · All pedestrian ramps have been installed. · All turf restoration along the replaced sections of sidewalk has been accomplished. · New sidewalk has been installed along Winnetka Avenue near the School Distdct #281 Administration Office. · Restoration of bituminous pavement, where required, has occurred. Proiect Schedule : With the replacement of existing sidewalk accomplished, the only part of the project yet to be completed is the installation of new sidewalk in areas where it previously did not exist. Presently, the only sections of sidewalk that have not been completed are on the east side of Winnetka Avenue between Quebec Avenue and Winpark Drive. Work along this area has been going on for several weeks and should be completed shortly. Contact Persons If you have questions or concerns as this infrastructure improvement project is finalized, please direct your calls to engineer representatives: Vince Vander Top, Project Inspector: Mark Hanson, City Engineer: 604-4790 604-4838 If you desire to speak with someone with the City of New Hope, please contact Tom Schuster, Contract Manager, 533-4823 ext. 13. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 10/10/97 4,~01 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 CityHall: 612-531-5100 CityHatl Fax: 612-53!-5!36 Poi/ce: 612-531-5170 Police Fax: 5!2-$31~4 Pubfic Works: 6t2-533-4823 Public Works Fax: 612-53: ;0 TDD: 512-531-5109 Fire Oep?. Fax: 612-531.5175 October 24, 1997 Dear Property Owner: Thank you for your patience and cooperation during the 1997 Area 2 Infrastructure Improvement Project. The intent of this letter is to notify you that the sod placed as part of this improvement project has been inspected and has been accepted by the City. Therefore you, the property owner, are now responsible for the continued care and maintenance of the sod and seed that was placed as part of this project. The contractor will be returning in the next few weeks, but only to address several small areas of turf that have already been identified by the City. Beyond these however, the City will not assume responsibility for future claims regarding damaged or dead sod. If you have questions or concerns about the project, please direct your calls to Vince VanderTop, the Project Inspector, at 604-4790 or 533-4823 ext. 15; or to me at 533-4823 ext. 13. Sincerely, Tom Schuster Contract Manager cc: Jeannine Clancy, Director of Public Works. Family Styled City ,.,,, For Family Living '; I ~ t/ '~ '~ 9116 31't Avenue North PROJECT NO. 589 Bulletin #1 Overview In August, residents were notified that the City Council approved the purchase of the property at 9116 31st Avenue North. The City purchased the property in September, with the intent to correct drainage problems and rehabilitate the house. The City of New Hope is proceeding with backyard drainage improvements. The project includes installing storm sewer and yard drains to collect ponding water from the backyard and regrading the area so it drains. Project Schedule The New Hope City Council awarded the contract for construction services to Dave Perkins Contracting, inc. Installation of the storm sewer will begin the week of October 27 and should be completed within one week, weather permitting. Once the storm sewer is installed, the project area will be regraded for proper drainage. The property will be sodded and landscaped in the spring. After the drainage improvements: are completed, rehabilitation of the home will begin. Site Upkeep A fall clean-up of the site will occur in November. the winter months. The driveway will be plowed during Construction Hours New Hope City Code states that construction can occur on the site between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends or holidays. Contact Person If you have questions or concerns during the construction project, please contact Stephanie Olson, Community Development Specialist, at 531-5137 or Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator, at 531-5119. The City appreciates the cooperation of all residents in the area that may be impacted during this project. The City will keep you informed about any future activities that are to take place on the site. Thank you for your cooperation. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 10/24/97 PROJECT NO. 583 Bulletin #2 1997 BACKYARD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Overview Earlier this fall, the City of New Hope proceeded with backyard drainage improvements in four areas of New Hope at the following locations: Area 1 - 46"' / Winnetka Avenues Area 6 - 40"~ / Boone Avenues (east side) Area 2 - Little Acre Park Area 7 - Terra Linda Park Project Status The Backyard Drainage Improvement Project included installation of storm drain pipe to collect nuisance ponded water from backyards and grading to provide positive drainage to the pipe. The project has been completed and all disturbed areas have been restored, except for specific minor items including sod placement. Much of the sod placed this fall will remain dormant until the weather warms again in the spdng. If we experience warm dry weather yet this year, however, it may be necessary to water the sod placed on or near your property this fall. The sod will be inspected in the spring, but at that time it will be the responsibility of the homeowners to keep the sod watered and maintained. Here are some tips for a healthy lawn: · Don't walk on your new sod any more than necessary. · In spring, don't mow the new sod until it either lays over and mats down when wetted or the grass goes to seed. Then mow your sod with the mower deck Set to its highest setting. · Don't fertilize your new sod until late spring. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Contact Persons If you have questions or concerns about the Backyard Drainage Improvement Project, please direct your calls to the engineer representatives: Vince Vander Top, Project Inspector: Mark Hanson, City Engineer: 604-4790 or 533-4823 ext. 15 604-4838 If you desire to speak with someone with the City of New Hope, please contact Tom Schuster, Contract Manager, 533-4823 ext. 13. City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 11/10/97 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Third Quarter 1997 Report The Planning Commission reviewed the folloWing cases during the third quarter: Month~ NO; of Cases: Notices Sent. July 4 35 August 1 0 September 1 46 Mon~ Request: I Number Approvecl~- : ~nie~t W"~hdraw~ Tabled- July GV Comp Plan 1 1 Ord. I 1 CUP-tower 1 1 CUP-Home Ccc. 1 1 August Comp Sign Plan 1 1 Sep. Vadance 1 1 TOTALS 6 6 Comp Sign Plan/Amend. 2 Ordinances 6 2 Plat 1 Site/Bldg Plan Review 1 Variance 2 Comprehensive Plan 1 CUP 3 1 YEAR TO DATE TOTAL 16 3 Dudng the third quarter of 1997, work continued or was completed on a number of potential business expansions, redevelopment projects, planning initiatives, code amendments and business retention activities. A) Major development activities included: 1. A considerable amount of staff time was spent dealing with the developer of the 110,000 square foot multi-tenant 49"~ Avenue Distribution Center under construction at 7300 49"~ Avenue. Construction is nearly complete, but there are on-going issues regarding fire protection issues. 2. A considerable amount of staff time was also spent coordinating with St. Therese Nursing Home on the completion of their final plat and site location survey. Staff met with St. Therese representatives on a number of occasions to discuss easement issues and the dedication of additional right-of-way. 3. The City also continued the process of redevelopment of 42n" and Quebec Avenues by awarding a contract to demolish the City-owned building at 7528 42"d Avenue this quarter. The Council approved plans and specifications, authorized advertisement for bids, and awarded the contract to the Iow bidder after all environmental work had been completed. Demolition was started at the end of June. The City Council also reached an agreement with the Sunshine Factory for the construction of a temporary parking lot on the site, to be financed by the Sunshine Factory. 4. Also related to the 42"" & Quebec Avenue redevelopment, dudng the second quarter the appraisal for the Ardel Engineering property at 7500 42"d Avenue was updated to facilitate future negotiations on the acquisition of that site. At the August 25 EDA meeting, the EDA approved the acquisition of the Ardel Engineering property by direct purchase or eminent domain proceedings and staff are in the process of negotiating to acquire the property. The acquisition of the property and relocation expenses would be paid for with 42"d Avenue TIF funds. 5. City staff participated in a brainstorming session in April at the Creamettes facility in an effort to determine financial tools available to assist in an employee buy-out of the operation. The buy-out was completed this summer and the company is now known as Primo Piatto. During the third quarter, staff met with the new owners to discuss the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the project. Miscellaneous activities in planning/development included the approval of several conditional use permits for the construction or expansion of telecommunications towers, meeting with a prospective buyer of Winnetka Center, discussing the relocation of the ARC store from City Center to Midland Shopping Center, reviewing a Iow interest loan request by Unocal 76, meeting With Alano representatives in regards to a CUP amendment and discussing future building expansions with West Pac and Archives Corporation. B) The Planning Commission and/or sub-committees and the City Council approved or continued work on a number of City Code amendments and planning initiatives during the third quarter, including: 1. Work continued on the Pawn Shop ordinances during this quarter. The Planning Commission revised the licensing ordinance to allow certain exemptions to the regulations, per the request of the Council. The moratorium was also extended until the end of the year. The Council also approved the Automated Pawn System (APS) Service and Software License Agreement with the City of Minneapolis. It is anticipated that the zoning and licensing ordinances will be adopted in October by the Council and that the moratorium will be repealed. 2. The Planning Commission also completed its review of the DNR Shoreland Management regulations/ordinance and will be forwarding this ordinance to the Council for consideration during the fourth quarter. Flexibility from several of the DNR standards will be recommended. 3. The City is continuing to update the Comprehensive Plan; a process that will take approximately one year. All cities in the metro area have been directed by the Metropolitan Council to update their plans by December 1998. A committee has been formed to update the plan consisting of several members of the Planning Commission, Citizen Advisory Commission and City staff. A grant application was submitted to the Metropolitan Council to help finance the cost of the plan update and the City received word during the third quarter that it will reCeive $8,190 in funding. Staff and Metropolitan Council representatives are continuing to meet to reach an agreement on growth projections for the City. The Comprehensive Plan Update Committee began meeting during the third quarter and has discussed the New Hope Inventory and preliminary results of the tactics interviews C) Business retention and development activities during the third quarter included: 1. Staff continued coordination with a sub-committee of business representatives on the potential publication of a Resident Guide and Business Directory for New Hope residents/businesses. The City Council approved the concept in September and will be finalizing details in October. A kick-off event will be held' in November and publication will occur the first quarter of 1998. 2. During the third quarter, staff continued coordination with the TwinWest New Hope/Crystal Business Council which was initiated by TwinWest last year. The purpose of the Council is to enhance business relationships with the local community, to provide access to the business community on local issues, and to encourage economic vitality through business retention and job creation. The Council holds monthly meetings and is comprised of business members from both Crystal and New Hope. New Hope hosted the Apdl meeting and a fund-raiser was held at the New Hope Golf Course in August. 3. The Management Assistant, Community Development Specialist, and Building Official have been publishing/distributing the New Hope Business Link newsletter on a quarterly basis for the past two years. The summer issue was published in July and spotlighted Mello Smello and development activities on 42"~ & Quebec Avenues. The fall issue will be mailed in November. The activities outlined above met the goals and objectives for the planning/economic development/ business retention programs and kept staff busy dudng the third quarter of 1997. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Stephanie Olson Community Development Specialist HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Third Ouarter 1997 Report The New Hope HRA continues to be busy with the management of housing programs and redevelopment activities ~'" the City. Section 8 Rental Assistance Pro.qram Currently, the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program is providing assistance to 295 New Hope and surrounding area Iow income families. This is somewhat lower than the number families that were being served in June. During this same time period in 1996, New Hope was providing assistance to 269 families, so overall the program is serving more families in 1997 as in 1996. The breakdown is as follows: July 193 105 298 August 191 108 299 September 194 101 295 The number of housing inspections has decreased compared to the same time pedod in 1996. During the third quarter of 1996, a total of 89 inspections were completed. A breakdown of housing unit inspections for the third quarter is contained in the following table: Third Quarter 66 42 108 271 Housing Projects During the third quarter, rehabilitation. the City continued coordination of several scattered site housing projects involving 5212 Winnetka Avenue North - At the end of July, the City Council awarded the contract for rehabilitation to Anton Construction, Inc. in the amount of $84,645.00. Staff held a pre-construction meeting with the contractor to review contractual documents, schedules and the work to be completed. The project began with demolition of the garage and interior/exterior features of the home in late August At the same time, the City Council approved a quote from Tim's Tree Service to remove a large cottonwood that had caused significant foundation damage. In order to gain access to the backyard, the contractor completed the tree removal dudng demolition of the garage. Rehabilitation will continue into the fourth quarter. 9116 31" Avenue North - At the end of July, the City Council also approved the purchase of this property for inclusion in the City's scattered site housing program. In addition to other significant repairs, the property suffered severe water damage caused by drainage from adjacent properties and insufficient grading. In order to correct the problem, the City Engineer developed a backyard storm sewer system. The Council approved the Iow quote by Dave Perkins Contracting as part of the rehabilitation dudng the fourth quarter. Dudng the third quarter, staff developed detailed plans and specifications for the home, which will be presented to the Council for approval in October. 7813/7819 Angeline Drive - In August, the City Council authorized staff to negotiate for purchase of these adjacent properties. After the properties are acquired, it is staff's intent to utilize the site for construction of an accessible twin home, similar to the twin home buildings previously built by the City. Staff is continually evaluating sites for inclusion in New Hope's scattered site housing program and a site on Wisconsin Avenue is currently in the process of being analyzed for potential redevelopment. following projects: · Sandpiper Condominiums - During the third quarter, staff continued to cooperate with representatives of the Sandpiper Condominiums regarding possible City financial as§istance to rehab the complex. An ordinance was drafted establishing a Housing Improvement Area and the adoption of the ordinance is on hold until an engineering analysis of the improvements to be made is completed. · Project for Pride in Living Redevelopment/Bass Lake Road -The City continued to coordinate with PPL and District 281 on the potential redevelopment of the four-plex units at 7302~7316 Bass Lake Road during the third quarter and a concept proposal will be presented to the EDA this fall. · Vinland Center/7610 Bass Lake Road - Staff continued to coordinate with representatives of Vinland Center during the third quarter on the potential acquisition/rehabilitation of the 12-unit apartment complex at 7610 Bass Lake Road. · 7621 62"'~ Avenue - Staff also is discussing with the property owner of 7621 62"d Avenue the potential for City acquisition and demolition of the building and redevelopment of the site. Other miscellaneous housing activities took place dudng the third quarter including: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act - In September, the City Council approved a resolution to continue participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for the calendar year 1998. Landlords' Forum - During the third quarter, staff and the CO-OP Northwest cities sponsored the 1997 Landlord's Forum held on September 25 at the Crystal Community Center. The purpose of the forum was to inform rental property owners/managers of their rights and responsibilities as it relates to tenant screening, leasing and unlawful detainers. Approximately 100 owners/managers attended the forum. MHFA Community Fix-Up Fund - Park National Bank continues to review New Hope/Crystal applications for eligible participants. The funds allow middle income homeowners within designated areas of the City access to below market interest rate loans for home improvements. :: MHFA Community Rehabilitation Fund - In the end of September, the City received a letter from MHFA stating the joint New Hope/Crystal proposal was not eligible for funding in 1997. MHFA Minnesota City Participation Program - Funds for this program were exhausted dudng the second quarter. However, any unused city/county funds from other participating cities/counties will go into a statewide pool after October 16, and will be available to all participants until December 19. The projects and activities outlined above address a number of the goals and objectives including in the 1997 housing program statements. Respectfully submitted, ~ar~e Olson Community Development Specialist Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator ENGINEERING PROJECTS Third Quarter of 1997 Report Progress took place on the following major engineednglconstruction projects during July, August and September: Northwood Lake Drainage (Project 498) -. At the May 27 Council meeting, the Council approved plans specifications and authorized advertisement for bids. Bids were opened on June 18. At the June 23 Council meeting, the Council awarded the contract to Ames Construction with five alternates in the amount of $t,023,249.60. A pre- construction meeting was held on July 9 and a project bulletin was mailed to the neighborhood on July 11. Construction started in mid-July on the storm sewer, ponding and park improvements. Initial work included the removal of the existing outlet structure and culvert under Boone Avenue. Boone Avenue was closed for one day so that a bypass culvert could be constructed. After the bypass was constructed, traffic lanes were shifted to the east to provide area to construct the outlet structure. Pilings 45 feet deep were installed to support the new outlet structure and new storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines were constructed. Construction then focused on the outlet structure and channel excavation. The majority of grading was completed and attention will now be on ballfield reconstruction and site restoration. Pedestrian bddges will be completed later this-fall and Boone Avenue reconstruction will begin after the new box culvert is functioning. Project bulletins were also mailed to residents in August and September t~ keep them informed on the progress of the project. 1997 Street Improvement Project (Project #$67) - At the March 10 City Council meeting, the Feasibility Report for Areas 1 and 2 was presented to the Council, which include: Area 1) - 59"' and Hillsboro; Area 2) - near Hosterman School (56"' and Zealand). At the same meeting, the Council authorized the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications, and the public hearing date was set for Apdl 14. The public headng was held on Apdl 14, and the Council directed the City Engineer to prepare final plans and specifications for Areas 1 and 2. At the Apdl 28 Council meeting, the Council approved plans and specifications and ordered advertisement for bids. The bid opening was held on May 23. At the May 27 City Council meeting, the Council rejected the bid for Area 1 and awarded the bid for Area 2 to Ryan Contracting in the amount of $1,071,713.00. A neighborhood meeting was held with property owners on June 4 and a pre-construction meeting was conducted on June 10. Construction started at the end of June and the street and utility phase (through base course) of the project was completed in September and all work scheduled for 1997 has been completed except for punch list items. All of the turf restoration in the project area also was completed. The bituminous wear course will be placed in the spdng of 1998. A project bulletin was mailed to impacted property owners on June 19. A second project bulletin was mailed to impacted property owners on August 1. At the August 25 City Council meeting, the Council approved Change Order #1 in the amount of $4,085.00 for restoration of storage area and the provision of sump pump connections. The contract total is now $1,075,798.28. Another project bulletin will be mailed this fall updating residents of the project status. Sidewalk Improvements (Project #~79) - The Feasibility Report was presented 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 were in need of reconstruction. The 1997 project includes sidewalks on Winnetka and Boone Avenues. Funding for the sidewalks will 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 entrance at City Hall that are included in this project, which are being funded through the City Hall Capital Improvement Program. At the Apdl 28 City Council meeting, the Council approved plans and specifications and ordered advertisement for bids. Bids were opened on May 12, The City Council awarded the contract to West Star Curb in the amount of $248,710.10 at the May 27 Council meeting. A pre-construction meeting was conducted on June 6 and a project bulletin was mailed to impacted property owners on June 20. Construction began in June and all sidewalk replacement, pedestrian ramps and turf restoration was essentially completed by the end of September. Additional project bulletins were sent to impacted residents in August and October. Public Works Remodeling Project (Project ~542) - Construction was completed during the third quarter and the Department moved back into their remodeled/expanded offices. 42"d Avenue Building Demolition/Parking Lot Construction (Project #595) - During the first quarter, Phoenix Manufacturing vacated the City-owned building. The City had previously determined that after Phoenix vacated the building that the building WOuld be demolished for future development. Dudng the second quarter, contracts were completed on well abandonment, asbestos and light ballast removal. At the May 12 City Council meeting, the Council approved the plans and specifications for demolition and authorized advertisement for bids. The plan included alternates for two different sized parking lots. Bids were opened on June 5. At the June 9 City Council meeting, the Council awarded the contract for demolition to F.W. Gartner & Co. in the amount of $44,484.30. Funding for demolition will be from the 42~d Avenue Redevelopment TIF: funds. At the same meeting discussion ensued regarding a temporary parking lot to be utilized and paid for by the Sunshine Factory. The Council directed staff to prepare a lease agreement for parking lot construction and maintenance of the property. A project bulletin was mailed on June 23 to adjacent property owners. The building was demolished n July and the parking lot was constructed. At the September 8 City Council meeting, the Council approved plans and specifications for the landscaping of the City-owned property and authorized advertisement for bids. At the September 22 COuncil meeting, the Council approved the quote from Wrobleski's Lawn Service in the amount of $8,311.25 for the landscaping. The work is to be completed by the end of October. · Backyard Drainage Project (Project #.583) - At the April 28 City Council meeting, the Council ordered preparation of plans and specifications for the project for priorities 1-4. The City Council approved plans and specifications and ordered advertisement for bids at the June 9 Council meeting. At the July 28 City Council meeting, the Council awarded the bid to Jay Bros., Inc. in the amount of $88,675.00. One area of the project will be funded with Park ClP surplus monies and the balance of the project would be funded out of the Storm Water Utility Fund. A pm-construction meeting was conducted on August 11 and a project bulletin was mailed to affected property owners on August 25. Construction is currently in progress. · 42nd/Xylon Avenue Intersection Upgrade (Project #~47) - During the third quarter, the City continued coordination with Hennepin County and Gethsemane Cemetery on this project. Driveway relocation and landscape plans have been submitted by the architect for the cemetery for along the 42"~ Avenue boulevard. Hennepin County has included the project in their 1998 CIP. The County has also determined its cost participation at $410,000.00. The City Engineer prepared a Concept Report and presented it to the Council at its September 8 meeting. A Feasibility Report will be presented to the Council in October. The project is estimated to be completed in the fall of 1998. Other important engineering and/or construction projects that took place in the third quarter include: · Project #551, Louisiana Avenue & 31st Circle Street Improvements - All work is completed on this project. At the September 8 City Council meeting, the Council established October 13, 1997, as the public headng on assessments associated with the street improvements. · Project #486, Phase II 36th Avenue Street Improvements from Winnetka to Louisiana Avenues - All work was essentially completed in the fall of 1996 except for restoration and minor punch list items which were completed in the spring of 1997. At the June 9 Council meeting, discussion took place regarding the wear course laid la~_t year on Winnetka and what corrective repairs should be made. The contractor agreed to perform mill/overlay with~New Hope sharing in the funding. The Council authorized proceeding with the work. A project bulletin was mailed on June 18 to area residents. At the September 8 City Council meeting, the Council established October 13, 1997, as the public hearing on assessments for this project. · Project #593, Sunny Hollow Tennis Courts - At the May 12 City Council meeting, the Council approved plans and specifications and authorized advertisement for bids for tennis court reconstruction. Bids were opened on June 4. The Council awarded the contract to Bituminous Roadways in the amount of $64,334.15 at the June 9 Council meeting. A pre-construction meeting was held on June 30 and a project bulletin was mailed to the neighborhood on July 2. The project includes the removal of the existing paving for the three tennis courts as well as adjacent paving, and the installation of new paving for the courts and adjacent areas. New posts, nets, and chain-link fence will be installed. Construction on the project started in July and the majodty of the work was completed by the end of August. Project #~594, Corner Park Playground Equipment Replacement -. At the June 9 City Council meeting, the Council tabled the approval of plans and specifications until the June 23 meeting to give staff additional time to determine the usage of the park equipment. At the June 23 City Council meeting, the Council approved plans and specifications and ordered advertisement for bids. At the July 28 City Council meeting, the Council awarded the bid to Ardgoni Bros. Co. in the amount of $43,699.00. Funding is available in the Park CIP for this project. A project bulletin was mailed to impacted residents on August 18 and the work will start this fall. · Project #602, Roof Replacement at Lighted Field East Shelter Building - At the July 28 City Council meeting, the Council approved plans and specifications for renovation of a park shelter roof at Lighted Field and authorized advertisement for bids. The City Council awarded the contract to Morcon Construction, Inc. in the amount of $13,831.00 at its August 25 meeting. Work is currently in process. · Project #606, City Hall Roofing Project - At the August 25 City Council meeting, the Council approved plans and specifications and authorized advertisement for bids. The City Council awarded the contract to All Systems Roofing, Inc. in the amount of $48,500.00 at its September 8 Council meeting. Work is currently in process. Respec~ submitted, ~ Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator ENTERPRISE Retailers Love Big Balloons, But OthersTry to Pop Them By ROD~'EY HO g~ett~ Rcpnrrc'r of Tlq£ ~,V-~LL $ rRP.;~T Businesses love them more than ever, but town fathers-along witl~ vandals, thieves and stormy weather- seem to be out to get them. They're the giant balloons shaped tike goofy blue elephants, menacing King Kongs and huge purple dinosaurs that fly from rooftops and other sites to help lure customers. A Chrysler-Plymouth dealer in For- est Lake, Minn., says placing a clown or Godzilla balloon on his roof three weeks out of each month is a sure-fire boost to business. A General Nutrition Center in San Antonio says that pro- moting itself using a 30-foot parrot bal- loon increases its sales 1Wo to 15%. With results tike these, the "cold- air" balloon industry is expanding at a la% to 20% annual pace and now ex- ceeds Sl00 million in annual sales, says Mark Phillips, owner of ASAP Promo- tions Inc. in Cincinnati. He's the founder of the 120-member Inflatable Advertising Dealers Association of Dayton, Ohio. But hundreds of communities con- sider the cold-air balloons eyesores and are cracking down on them. A city official in Roswell, Ga., castigated a discount store earlier this year for placing a MarMax balloon on its roof. · 'They said if it wasn't down within the hour, they'd get the fire department to chop it down," says Richard Wiggs, owner of MarMax of Georgia Inc., in Marietta, which owns 35 balloons and services 100 more. A few months later when Mr. Wiggs tried again to float a balloon in Roswell, the city sent a registered let- ter threatening to take him to court. "As you can ~ess, I don't go there anymore," he says. Roswell, an Atlanta ~ubur~, says it maintains strict ced~ again~ roofto~ advertising, whether it involves neon signs, billboards or bloated blue whales. -It's aimed at certain aesthet- ic benefits chat help maintain proper- ty values," says Michael McGuire, city zoning director. Bloomington, Minn., home of the enormous Mall of America, last year decided to ban bal- loons following a grace peri- od that ends next year. Re- tailers were using the balloons to get around the' city's commercial-signage laws, says Greg Brooker, an attorney for the city. Even Las Vegas-hardly known for understated sig- nage-says it had to tighten en- forcement in March because some businesses kept their bal- loons inflated much longer than their permits allowed, or didn't bother to seek per- mits. "These air devices were on almost every block where there was a retail business," says Orlando Sanciaez, man- ager of code enforce- / merit. "It's kind of funny to have these restrictions with all the neon," he- concedes. But he adds that Las Vegas residents want a less frenetic at- mosphere in the parts of town they live in, where many of the balloons were oouuin~ UD. The crv now restricts balloons to "grand-open- ing'' sales. Paramus, N.J., takes special pride in its vigilance against balloons and anything' else deemed to be visually flamboyant. Mayor Clifford Gennarelli says balloons "would distract people on the road" and'cause accidents. "Every time I see a balloon in another city, I say, 'Thank God we don't have them in Paramus.'" Despite all the local opposition, busi- nesses say balloons are just too good to ignore, especially when companies de- pend on drive-by traffic. Philip Banks, owner of a Dallas Tutor Time child-care center, realized he was losing 20 of his kids to kindergarten, so he rented a 30- foot-tall panda bear to get aUention. He says walk-in traffic tripled, and he quickly filled the empty slots. "It not only. gave us immediate sales, but will reinforce the fact we're here for people who might need child care later," Mr. Banks says. Renting the panda at $1,200 for a week was more effective than using radio or newspaper ads and less intrusive than sticldng fliers on people's cars. he adds. With demand for their services ds- ing, balloon businesses try all kinds of ploys to get around city officials. Alan Barrett, owner of Promotion Rental Service Inc. of Monmouth, N.J., uses a simple technique called a "weekend special." He installs balloons in prob- lem towns on a Friday afternoon and gets them down by Monday morning. By the time town officials notice. "it's too late," he says .with a grin. He says he has used this approach in about 20 cities, but declines to identify them for fear they'll become more vigilant. Four years ago, the Inflatable Ad- vertising Dealers Association began a campaign to curb municipal balloon bans. When restrictions are being debated at city zoning meeting~, a ~balloon dealer ar- ranges to present a 10-minute video em- phasizing that balloons are temporary sales promotions that can help relieve "long-term sigoage ~liution," says Mr. Phillis, the association founder. Bad wealher is also a prohle~n for balloon companies. Owners often have to scramble to deflate balloons in the dead of night to beat an oncoming storm. "It's the most ~iring par~ of the job," Mr. Phillips says. "It grinds you down over the long haul." So do vandals. A penguin belonging to Big S~ BaUoons & Searc~ Inc. of Chicago was felled by 15 archery arrows. And then there are balloon tlaieves. Last year, desperados stole Sit~rvtew Co.'s ,~,00O inflated ~ach:-o'-lantem off the roof of the mgM. mare Factory, a "haunted house" attractio~ in Austin, Texas, operated by h'l~tlhne Enterprises Inc. A local rock radio station got wind of the deed and offered $~00 for information leading to the balloon, says Steve Laurent, owner of the haunted house. Skyview recovered the. deflated pumpkin from a vacant lot a few days later. Despite the publicity, Mr. Caurent says he thin~ the balloon's absence cost him at least 2,000 customers. "It really under- scored to me how important that pumpkin was to me in helping people find our place," he says. The treasured pumpkin is back this Halloween season for a return engagement. Z.B. September 10, 1997 -- Page 3 Adult Entertainment -- Business claims city's zoning ordinances totally ban adult entertainment C.R. of Rialto Inc. v. City of Rialto, 964 ESupp. 1401 (Cali]brnia) 1997 C.R. of Rialto Inc. was an adult entertainment business that provided "erotic performances" in the city of Rialto, Calif. The city had several zoning ordinances regulating adult entertainment businesses. One ordinance required an adult business to get a conditional development permit. Another prohibited such businesses from operating within 1,000 feet of residential zones or other specified uses. A third zoning ordinance allowed adult entertainment only in general commercial and commercial manu- facturing districts. The company's business was not located in either of these zones. The city enforced the permit ordinance against the company. The company sued the city, asking the court for a temporary order preventing the city from enforcing the ordinance and allowing it to return to business in its present location. The court denied the temporary order but later issued a permanent order preventing the city from requiring a conditional development permit from adult businesses. The court decided this requirement was unconstitutional. The company then asked the court to issue a permanenl order prohibiting the city from enforcing the other zoning and related regulations on adult enter- tainment anywhere in the city, including the company's present location. According to the company, the city violated its First Amendment free speech rights by applying the combined zoning ordinances in such a way thai no property in the city was available for an adult business. The city argued its regulations were designed to protect against the adverse secondary effects caused by adult businesses by allowing them only in appropriate zones. The city also claimed the company did not have the right to sue because it operated its business in an area not zoned to allow adult enter- tainment businesses. The court held a hearing on the company's request for a permanent order. The company had a zoning expert testify there was no land in the city zoned general commercial or commercial manufacturing that was not also within 1,00{} feet of a residential zone. The expert said he found no city location where an adult business could be legally operated. The city presented nothing to cont radict the zoning experl's testimony. DECISION: Court stated its intention to issue a permanent order against the city. The court stated its intent to issue an order permanently prohibiting Ihe city from enforcing its zoning regulatioqs against adult entertainment businesses. It ordered the company to snbmil a proposed order within 15 days. The zo,fing ordinances, as applied together, unreasonably limited tile ability of adult cntcrlainme/]l businesses lo operalc wilhin the city anti violated Ihe company's Firs! Amendment rights. The oily coukl not enact zoning regulalions .resnlting in a total ban of adult businesses or make il practically impossible for Z.B. September 10, 1997 -- Page 5 Page 4 -- Scptcm~ 0, 1997 Z.B. them to be in thc city. The company showed the city's zoning plan didn't pm- vide for any location where an adult business could operate. The city didn't s,bmit any evidence to the contrary. Ahhough thc company operated its business in a zone where adult-oriented businesses were not allowed, it could challenge the constitutionality of the zoning regulations because its free speech rights were violated. The whole zoning scheme thwarted thc company's efforts to find alternative sites within the city. see also: Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 106 S. Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed. 2d 29 (1986). see also: Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans Unitedf°r Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, I02 S. Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed. 2d 700 (1982). Nonconforming Use -- Court orders adult entertainment business temporarily closed City of Glendale v. AIdabbagh, 939 P. 2d 418 (Arizona) 1997 Aldabbagh owned an adult entertainment business in the city of Glendale, Ariz. The business would have violated the city's zoning ordinance if not for ils status as a preexisting nonconforming use. The county allorney filed nuisance charges against the owner, claiming his club was used "for the purpose of lewdness, assignation or prostitution." The county altorney asked the court to order the business closed for one year. The court ordered Ihe building temporarily closed, pending a hearing, in May 1992. After the hearing, the court found the business was used on a conlinuing basis for the commission of sexual acts for money. It then granted a temporary order closing the business until a trial was held. In December 1993, the county agreed to dismiss the nuisance charges because it had obtained the relief ii sought -- closure of the business for one year. The owner leased the building to Benz, who applied for a license to operale an adult enlertainment business. The city rejected the application, claiming the property lost its slatus as a lawful nonconforming use because it hadn't been used as an adult euter~ainment business for more than one year. Under the city's zoning ordinance, a preexisting nonconforming use was lost if it was "aban- doned or ceased to be carried on for period exceeding one year." The city sued the owner, asking Ihe court Io declare the business lost its nonconformiug nsc statue based on nonuse for more than one year. The city argued that while abandonment required a showing of intent, the ordinance's usc of the language "or ceased to be carried on" meant lhat any nonconforming usc nol carried on [bt more Ihan a year was lost, regardless of the owner's intcnl. Thc owner argued that despile the ordinance's language, a preexisting noncon- I'orming nsc couldn't be Iosl withool a showing of intent to abandon that use. The court ruled the loss of a mmconforming use required a showing of in~cnt to abandon. Because both parties agreed the owner didn't intend to abandon his usc of lire club, thc court ordered the city to issne a zoning clearance Io allow thc property to be used for adull entertainmenl. The city appealed, and the appeals court affirmed, it held the owner's intent to abandon the use was needed, and the discontinuance of the use for more than a year only created a rebuttable presumption of intent to abandon. This meant the owner could rebut it by proving no intent to abandon, which in this case he did. The city appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona. DECISION: Reversed and returned for a trial. A trial was needed to determine whether thc owner engaged in wrongdoing lhat led to the closure of his club. The owner didnTt have lo intend to abandon the use for it to lose its legal nonconforming status, but the period of nonuse had to be attributable at least in part to the owner. The city could pass an ordinance dispensing with the intenl-lo-abandon requirement, but it couldn't terminate a use just because one year passed -- some conduct attributable to the property owner had to justify the termination. A nonconforming use could be lost through negligence or if a person engaged in misconduct he or she should have known could have lead to involuntary closure. There was no question the owner was properly restrained flora operating his club for more than a year. Had the court's findings in support of granting the temporary closure been- made final, the owner would have been barred from relitigating those facts. However, because the county agreed to dismiss the nuisance action against the owner before the courl issued a final judgment, the city could not rely on those findings. Both parties deserved a trial. If the city proved the owner engaged in wrong- doing that led to the closure of the club, then the city was entitled to a judgment declaring the nonconforming use status lost. see also: Smith v. Board of Adjustment of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 460 lq. W. 2d 854 (1990). see also: Ernst v. Johnson County, 522 N.W.2d 599 (1994). Eminent Domain ~ City seeks to condemn property for recreation trail Town of Parker v. Norton, 939 P2d 535 (Colorado) 1997 Norton owned property just outside the town of Parker, Colo. The Iown wanted to condemn a strip of Norton's land to be used as part of a recreation trail extending into a nearby wilderness area. The town sued Norton, seeking to condemn the strip of laud. It claimed il had the authority to condemn Norton's property under its home rule powers. Norton claimed Ihe stale Recreation Trails System Act of 1971, which governed the development and maintenance of a slatewide Irail syslcm, prohibited the town from condemning his property. The Trails Act stated, "Nothing in this article shall permit the acquisition of recreational trails by pro- ceediugs in eminent domain by any stale agency or any unit of local government." According to Notion, lhis limited lite town's general eminent domaiu powers. Notion asked the court lo dismiss lite Iown's condem,uflion aclion. Tltc court agreed, finding lite Trails Acl prohibited lite Iown I'ron~ condemning Norlon's land h~r a recreational trail. OCTOBER 1997 WSAMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Zoning for Flood Hazards By.Jim Schwab, AJCP Among natural hazards, flooding remains a dominant concern for planners and emergency management officials alike. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), more than 80 percent of the nation's presidentially declared disasters involve floods. Although the other 20 percent--involving such hazards as earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires, and tornadoes--often produce a disproportionate share of the overall damages from natural disasters, floods continue to generate most disaster-related costs in most years. They also pose one of the most manageable and predictable problems connected with natural disasters. Flood mitigation lends itself to land-use planning solutions because, with few exceptions, floods follow the contours of riverbanks and shorelines. Improvements in mapping and other technologies useful to planners have helped improve the effectiveness of mitigation efforts. Flood Insurance and Local Planning This issue of Zoning News examines the ways in which zoning and other land-use controls can be used to t~duce flood losses in communities as part of a comprehensive attack on flood problems. Land-use regulations are just one part of a larger package of mitigation tools available to local planners and other officials involved in disaster issues. Emergency managers and engineers have long played vital roles in planning for disaster relief and evacuation and in designing flood-control structures to relieve the threat of flooding. Since its inception in 1968, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has shaped the basic structure of most floodplain management at the local level. The program had two initial purposes: to provide affordable insurance to flood victims and to promote zoning and land-use regulations that would prevent development in flood-prone areas. Because the program tended to serve the first objective better than the second, FEMA initiated a number of changes in recent years to improve its effectiveness in encouraging sound local land-use planning. Among these changes was the creation of the Community Rating System (CRS), launched in 1990 to provide incentives in the form of flood insurance rate reductions for local flood management efforts (see box on page 2). NFIP regulations, however, simply provide a framework for local programs and do not prevent communities from creating innovative means to solve their flood problems, even though it may not always be easy to get credit for some innovations within the CRS guidelines. More often than not, when communities have limited the scope of their efforts, it was because they asked only what they were required to do and did not consider what they could be doing. Floodplain management consultant French Wetmore has noted that most communities rely on engineers and emergency managers to construct their floodplain programs. When planners are not part of the process, it is likely that no one will ask what types of floodplain land uses are most appropriate to help prevent or reduce property losses from flooding (see "Flooding and Planners," Environment & Development, July/ August 1996). Thus, structural solutions often prevail at the expense of a serious examination of which land uses really need to be in the floodplain in the first place. For instance, a floodplain management ordinance may go no further than to create an overlay zoning district for the floodplain within which structures must be elevated to a certain level--typically, one foot--above the base flood elevation, defined as the level to which water would rise in a 100-year flood. Such measures serve a purpose but often do not address more fundamental questions about locating land uses in the floodplain. Even aj~e~he waters receded from the 1993 Midwest floods, this house in Johnson County, Iowa, remained perilously close to the Iowa River. A number of other publications already detail NFIP requirements (see list on page 4), and the first chapter of PAS Report No. 473, by Marya Morris, Subdivision Design in Flood Hazard Areas, also summarizes the program's operations. What follows here is a summary of details essential for understanding how the program relates to the mechanics of zoning for floodplain land uses. The one element on which NFIP rests is the program's function of mapping floodplains. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) outline Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) by determining how high water would rise in a flood with a 1 percent chance of occurring in a given year. Although these are known as 100-year floods, the definition makes clear to anyone with a knowledge of statistics that such floods carl occur more often than once in a century. It is also true, however, that, in some areas, floods occur with greater frequency not only because of bad luck, but because development after the maps were drawn may have exacerbated the conditions that can lead to flooding. New structures and impervious surfaces in floodways or in the 100-year floodplain, for example, limit the soil's capacity to absorb stormwater and flood waters and thus increase the propensity for flooding downstream. [n such cases, or where new flood-retention structures have been built to limit damages, communities may find the maps out of date. They are entitled to seek map amendments that reflect this new information. FEMA, which oversees the NFIP, is open to considering map amendments, in part to protect the $ l billion investment the agency has made in developing the maps. There is a bigger payoff for local communities in complying with NFIP regulations for floodplains. As Subdivision Design in Flood b[azardAreas notes: "According to FEMA, since t978, buildings constructed according to NFIP standards have sustained 77 percent fewer losses than buildings constructed prior to the regulations being put in p{ace." The report further notes that protective measures for existing buildings have prevented about $770 million in flood damages to buildings and contents. Within that context, FiRMs also show floodways, which are defined as river channels or watercourses and "adjacent land areas that must be reserved to discharge the 1 percent probability flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height, generally one foot." NFIP rules permit no development in the floodway that will increase flood levels. In contrast, the floodplain consists of those land areas beyond the waterway that are normally dry but would be affected by flooding. A floodway ideally could be used for open space such as buffer zones and wildlife habitat. Accommunitycan up to points 210 toward its ommunity Rating System (CR.S) classification. The 10 steps and their maximum possible credit points for each are as follows: a. Organize ~ pr~mre the plan: Up to 10 points for involving a professional planner and including ocher departments in a formally organized planning committee. b. Involve the public: Up to 48 poinu for various methods to obtain public input with 26 of the points for including citizens on the planning committee. c. Coordinate wilt~ olimr a~ncim: Up to tg points for meeting with and otherwise communicating with neighboring communities and tocal, regional, state, and federal floodplain management agencies. d. Assess the hazard: Up to tO points for mapping and describing ~ known flood hazards and other natural hazards, such as erosion ~nd earthquakes. e. Assess the problem: Up to 30 points for assessing the impact of flooding on buildings, infrastructure, public health, safety, natural areas, and the total economy'. f. Set gonl$: Two points are provided for developing a statement of the goals of the community's floodplain management program. g. Review possible ~ Up to 30 Points. Five points are provided £or reviewing measures under each o£six basic strategies. This encourages the community's planners to consider more than the traditional approaches of flood control, regulations, and acquisition. h. Draft an action plan: Up to 50 points are provided based on the variety of activities recommended (more points for more strategies). i. Ado~ the plan: Two points are provided for having the plan officially adopted by the community's governing body. j. Implement, evalual~, and r~vise: Up to i0 points are provided based on the procedures the community establishes to monitor and update its ptan. Source: CRS Coordinaror'~ Manual FEMA (dratk of the 1996 edition), Section 511. This sidebar originally appeared in the July/August 1996 issue of Enwronmenr ~' Develo£ment. m thc article "Flooding and 'P armors" by French Wetmore. Overlay o~ Overhaul Most communities, as Wetmore observes, have stand-alone floodplain management ordinances and use the national mode[ provided by NFiP. [n some cases, he says, this may be attributable to local o(ficials' fear of takings httgation if zoning seems to prohibit all economically viable uses of a floodplain property. Certainly, this is a legitimate concern, but Wetmore notes that [he courts are not always favorably disposed toward the property owner's view when the community is seeking to protect public health and safety by using land-use regulations to mitigate natural hazards. He cites a 1991 case, Beverly Bank v. illinois Department of Transportation ([DOT), 579 N.E.2d 815, 44 ZD 113, in which the illinois Supreme Court upheld IDOT's denial ora permit to build two homes in the i00-year floodplain. The stare high court reached this decision even though the landowner had acquired a state permit that would have permitted filling a part of the flood fringe area in the Butterfield Creek floodway. The permit expired at the end of 1988 afl:er the village of Flossmoor denied a building permit because of the floodplain location. In the meantime, the illinois General Assembly amended IDOT's regulatory program to prohibit all inappropriate uses in the floodway. Those deemed appropriate included flood control structures, parks, and recreation facilities, but no buildings. The high court said the restrictions were justified not only because of the concern "about preventing further flooding, but also the concern about the need to provide disaster relief services and the need for the expenditure of state funds on shelters and rescue services for victims of flooding." Those concerns are worth taking seriously. The issue presented here does not relate to the merits of overlayCdistricts per se but to the tendency to use that approach ro incorporate minimum NFIP requirements in order to quali~ for flood insurance. It is an approach often used in lieu ora more thorough planning review of appropriate floodplain uses. ideally, because almost any structure serves as an obstruction to the natural flow and absorption of flood waters, the floodplain would be almost entirely permanent open space. However, that is often not an option and, with larger waterways, there are some water-dependent uses that would be entirely appropriate and economically desirable (see "Rapid Response Tools for Waterfront Change," Zoning News, November 1995). More than a few communities have drafted effective floodplain zoning regulations using overlay districts. In fact, they are widely used to address special problems in all types of sensitive areas. In some communities, a single comprehensive ordinance establishes overlay districts covering a range of sensitive areas. For example, Scottsdale, Arizona, has an environmentally sensitive lands ordinance that deals with steep slopes~ alluvial fan flooding, and the protection of special features (such as petroglyphs and rock- climbing areas) and desert vegetation. Alluvial fans have long posed a vexing development problem in the West because there is no visible floodplain, instead, the fan consists of layers of sedimentation produced from flooding off steep slopes behind the fan, usually in.heavy rainstorms. The sedimentation serves as a geological clue to the existence of a potential flooding hazard that requires unique zoning restrictions to prevent disaster. Planners seeking additional information on suOh unusual high-risk flooding can obtain a 1987 FEMA guidebook, Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood Hazard Areas. With a narrower agenda, Livingston County, Michigan, focuses on natural hazard areas in a model ordinance it prepared tbr one of its townships. The ordinance includes floodplain, wetland, and steep land areas, within which the only permitted principal uses are public and private nature reserves and wildlife areas, and.public forest preserves, game preserves, hunting areas, fishing sites, and boat launching sites. All other principal uses allowed in the coexisting zoning district require a special use permit, as would any dredging, filling, or similar terrain alterations. In an area lying astride the eastern Piedmont and western slopes of North Carolina, Wake County has amended and strengthened its 1976 floodplain regulations. The county's "flood hazard areas" zoning provisions include not only a list of those areas specified by FEMA in its FIRMs, but also a list of soil types (mostly silt and sand) delineated in the county soil survey and referred to in the ordinance as flood hazard soils. Michad Coughlin, who drafted the 1OO-YE~ regulations as environmental engineer/planner with the county's environmental health division, says the intent in part is to forewarn landowners that development on land with such soils may require proof that the area ! is not part of the floodplain. The county's regulatory measures exempt drainage areas of less than four acres, because, Coughlin says, the average foundation in that region is 18 inches above ground, making it "unlikely that flooding would get into the house" even CLUSTER with the slight water displacement produced by a single building. The strictest regulations apply in drainage areas of 100 acres or more, where the applicant must show that any rise in water level resulting from building on the property can be contained on that property. The only alterna- tive is to secure easements from neighboring property owners to allow for that rise. Moreover, other provisions for such sites require that building encroachments into the designated hazard areas be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer, landscape architect, or land surveyor, including certification of "as-built compliance" of the footings with construction drawings prior to building inspections. Although Coughlin jokes that, when neighbors are aware of the stakes involved, the price of a required easement may be "putting our kids through Duke University," the county is in fact deadly serious about not allowing flood fringe development to accentuate flood levels. As Coughlin notes, FEMA flood maps often do not show the full impact of recent development, nor do they address the potential impact ora full buildout under the allowable densities of a community's zoning codes. Wake Cc?unty is using its requirements to nip the buildout problem in the bud. It is a proactive approach that merits consideration. Even under the impact of Hurricane Fran, Coughlin says, no housing built under the county's flood hazard regulations suffered flooding. A Matter of Design As the Wake County requirements suggest, the larger the encroachment into a floodplain, the greater the need for strict oversight of the resulting development, if development is allowed at all, The same logic applies to subdivision controls and site plan reviews in flood hazard areas, which are the focus of Subdivision Design in Flood Hazard Areas. Often, however, the land involved in such proposed developments is a mixture of both upland soils and floodplain. While it is always possible to reduce density in a floodplain with high minimum lot sizes, that approach does not address the fundamental problem of where buildings are actually located. Both the PAS Report and a number of good FEMA publications, however, contain excellent illustrations of how site plan and ,.o ~" subdivision review can be used to minimize structural intrusion into the floodplain while preserving the development value of large sites · containing flood-prone property. .-"' One common means of accomplish- ing this is to reduce density through larger lot sizes and to require building placement on the lots to be at higher elevations. For nonresidential or Cluster Plan: All floodplain lands and other sensitive lands kept os open space; net density remains equal to conventional plans; lot sizes reduced to protect natural features; all homesJtes are on natural high ground. PLAN multifamily apartment buildings, this is largely a matter of build- ing configuration, devation, and/or floodproofing to be considered during site plan review, The floodplain management ordinance can specify standards for accomplishing these goals. For residential development, however, clustering is receiving growing attention as an alternative solution. For example, a 100-acre site might contain 36 acres within the regulated floodplain and 64 outside, with the latter varying from slight elevation above BFE to those with insignificant flood potential or none ar all. Residential development can be concentrated in smaller lots on higher ground, while an easement can maintain most or all of the floodplain lands in permanent open space (see illustration). Wetmore observes, however, that including such development restrictions for flood-prone land in the ordinance may be essential in order for the community to qualify for CRS credits because FEMA will want some clear indication that this approach will not yield greater density in the future. The best overall guide to the concept of cluster development is probably Randall Arendr's Conservation Design for Subdivisions (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1996). His treatment of the use of conservation easements in subdivision design can be applied as profitably to floodplains as to any other environmental resource. Arendt specifically recommends in floodplains the use of internally transferable development credits, which would allow the developer to regain on high ground the development credits being sacrificed in flood-prone parts of the overall site. in floodplains, however, the issue in subdivision design is not purely one of lot configuration for conservation purposes; it is a matter of public safety. As a result, planners need to consider Association o£ State F!oodpiain Managers, [nc. :ASFPM). . ~[ultt-Objecrtve 3[~rtagemenv Reduce Floo~ Lo~e~ ~re~hed. prepared ~br the U.S. Environmental Protection Agent. Madison, Wis.: ASFPM, ~996. Federal Emergency Management Agen~ (FENL~)..4mwe~ ~ Quesuon$ Abo~ ~he National Flood Insurance Pro.am. Washington, D.C.: March [992. . Des~ Gui~linu)r F~od Damage Reducuon. W~hington, D.C.: FE~, December 198l. Federfl [nteragen~ Floodplain Management T~k Force (FIFMTF). Protecnng Floodp~in Resources: A G~i~book ~r Ommuniues. Washin~on. D.C.: FIFMTF. Sune 1996. · ,4 6'n~fied .Vational Pro.am ./'or Floodplain :Vfanagemenr 1994. ',Vashington, D.C.: FIFMTF. [n:eragency Floodplain Management Review Committee. 5hanng the Challenge: Floodplain Management :nco rhe 2lsr Century. Report to the Administration Floodplain Management Task Force. Washington, D.C.. June 1994. ,Vational Flood Insurance Program (Revised through September 23, 1994). Washington. D.C.: FEM. A, January 1995. Natural Hazards Research and Application~ Information Center. Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report, Volumes 1 and 2. Prepared for FIFMTF. Wright, James L., and j'acquelyn Monday. Addressing Your Community's Flood Problems: A Guide for £lecred Officials 1996. Madison. Wis.: ASFPM. issues such as emergency access when reviewing the alignment and placement of infrastructure, including roads and power lines, both in terms of the uses they encourage within the floodplain and the evacuation they may facilitate during a disaster. The answers to those questions will be as varied as the local topographies involved, but they all speak to a single truth that must guide floodplain regulations: Every floodplain is different, different communities have different development scenarios to consider, and customizing the solutions to maximize public health and safety requires dedicated planning. Massaging tho Regulations Massage parlors have been at the center of a recent controversy in DuPage County, Illinois, over whether several such businesses should be allowed to remain at their current locations. The concern focuses on whether these massage parlors are in reality adult businesses or places of prostitution. DuPage County currendy has 10 massage parlors in its unincorporated area. The problems began when community residents complained that the massage parlors might be offering Zontng ,Vew$ is a monthly newsletter published by thc American Phmning A.t~ociadon. Subscriptions are available (or S50 (U.S.) and S65 (foreign). Fr~k S. So, Ex~ucive Dir~ro~ William R. ~ein, Director of Rese~ch. Zoning ,V~s is produced a~ .~A. Jim Schwab. Editor; 5h~non ~msrron~ Chris Bur~. Mik~ Davidson, Fay Dalnick. 5anjay Jeer, M~ L~is, Ma~ Morris. Matin Roupe. Wittenberg, Reporters; Cyn&ia Ch~. ~sisr~ Editor; Lisa Ba~on, Design and Produc~on. Cop?igh~ ~ 1997 by ~eric~ Planning ~iadom 122 S. Michi~n Ave.. Suite t600, Chicago, [L 60603. The ~eri~n Pl~ning ,~ia~ion h~ headqu~en o~c~ a~ 1776 Massach~ern Av~., N.W.. W~hin~on. DC 20036. .~I rights rescued, No pan of this publication may ~ reproduced or utilized in any form or by ~nv means, electronic or mechaniC, inclg'ding phot~opying, recording, or by any information storage and recri~ system, without portal.ion in wri~in~ (rom the ,~eric~ Plannin~ .~soc~arion. Prin~ed on recycled paper, includin8 50-70% re~cled fiber and [0% postconsumer w~ce. 4 illegal sexual activity, as well as massages. The owner o( cwo o( :he parlors acknowledges that his masseuses go topless or are scantily dressed, but he claims that they perform no illegal sexual acts. 5eve'ral massage parlors are {ocated in strip malls ,'hat caret local family shopping. Coun .ry officials red-tagged those they believed to be fronts fbr adult uses, including topless massages. DuPage Coun .ty allows adult uses in its zoning ordinance, but ~hose businesses whose primary, use is considered adult entertainment are restricted to the I-1 and I-2 industrial districts as conditional uses. Other commercial and professional businesses, such as those offering therapeutic massages, are allowed in B-1 and B-2 commercial districts. The problem is one many communities have confronted previously, how to distinguish therapeutic from erotic massage. Many ordinances tend to be vague in defining adult massage parlors or classify those that are independent businesses as adult uses. DuPage County follows the pattern of most municipal ordinances by allowing and classifying as legitimate therapeutic massage businesses those associated with medical clinics, full- service beauty salons, health spas, and hotels. But it does not clearly define legitimate massage businesses, nor does it apply the standards that the American Massage Therapy Association (AMTA) has set for professional masseurs and masseuses. AMTA requires members to complete a minimum of 500 hours of classroom training. Depending on the local law and the business, members operating in a legitimate business would most likely be required to have graduated from an AaMTA- accredited school and be licensed. To eliminate future gray areas, county officials have proposed an ordinance to restrict hours of operation, require fingerprinting of massage practitioners, and require business owners to be licensed. Because Illinois does not require massage therapists to be licensed, officials have been discussing how a license would be granted. Licensing will provide the advantage of stating clearly what is prohibited or permitted and will expedite the process of forcing compliance in the case of violations. For example, those massage parlors currently operating in the B-1 and B-2 districts will be forced to obtain a license within a 60-day period, after which the sheriff can close unlicensed businesses immediately. In the future, they will have to obtain a license to receive a certificate of occupancy. Initial action on the proposal was expected in lathe September. Chris Burke :.vt t ports California,s Futare Maintaining Viabl® Agriculture at the Urban Edge Ray Coppock, Marcia Kreith, eds. Agricultural Issues Center, Universi{y of Califbrnia, Davis, CA 95616. 84pp. April 1997. $15. Land-use issues at the urban edge just won't fade away, perhaps because our development patterns continue to create and encourage new residential intrusions into former open space. The UC Agricultural Issues Center sponsored a day-long conference in Sacramento on December 4, 1996, from which these summarized proceedings are drawn. The material explores, among other things, planning and design approaches for helping agriculture survive at the city's edge, with contributions from a number of California experts. SEPTEMBER 1997 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION E .,e.s on the Street: Cat,zen Involvement in Code Enforcement By Megan Lewis, AICP When ir comes to enforcing zoning, property maintenance, or building codes, no community has it easy. Staying on top of the situation often demands considerable staff time and depends on routine inspections. It also depends on periodic complaints by neighbors. While local governments are responsible for enforcement, not all have the resources they need to make inspections for violations. Large communities may have separate departments for zoning, building code, and property maintenance compliance, each with several full-time staff able to police their respective ordinances. Smaller communities may be better controlled due to violations being more evident to officials. However, many communities have neither the luxury.of a large staff nor easily detected violations. For them, ~ information about code violations often comes from the general public. Broken Window Th®o~y ~ Citizen involvement in code enforcement often is catal~ed when people notice signs of neighborhood blight, a phenomenon also called the broken window theory. First presented in a March 1982 Atlantic Monthly article by James Q. Wilson, a professor of political science at the University of California at Los Angeles, the theory hypothesizes that one broken window in a building, left unrepaired, will soon cause all the rest to be broken. As Schilling and Hare (see "Resources" box, page 4) note in their text on code enforcement, "Neglected property' allowed to remain in such a condition is a signal to the community that no one cares." A negative neighborhood environment can lead to disregard for other aspects of property maintenance and code compliance, which sometimes precedes incidences of crime and disorder. Citizens concerned about the safety and quality of life in their neighborhood may decide they want to fix the broken window rather than watch this domino effect occur. Where code compliance is a major public concern, volunteerism can be harnessed as a powerful element of an enforcement program. Creating a formally recognized volunteer program can establish direct access between concerned citizens and the municipal service providers, fostering teamwork, and can direct citizen energy to carefully designed progrlums, producing tangible results. Volunteer Programs Some communities have encouraged formal involvement by instituting citizen-based inspection programs. These programs focus on a variety of enforcement goals. This issue of Zoning News surveys programs in three communities--Minneapolis, San Diego, and San Mateo, California. Organization. Started in 199 i, the Minneapolis Citizen Inspection Program is a cooperative effort between participating neighborhoods and the inspections division of the department of regulatory services. Volunteers focus on specific housing maintenance and zoning code violations. The program's qualitative objectives include stemming further neighborhood blight and fostering community involvement in neighborhood upkeep. Where code compliance is a major public corlcerl'l~ volunteerism can be harnessed as a powerful element of an enforcement program. Residents are o~en concerned that disregard for aspects of property maintenance and code compliance will create a breeding ground for crime and disorder. Through San Mateo's code enforcement division, homeowners associations, business associations, and other citizen groups can actively participate in improving their city's conditions. This community of 96,000, located south of San Francisco, has more than 40 homeowners associations, many of which interact with the city to correct code violations. A five- member community improvement commission, composed of citizens, works with the division to conduct formal training of these volunteers. Started in 1987, San Diego's volunteer code enforcement program was developed through active solicitation of existing community planning groups, town councils, and volunteer policing groups ro form code enforcement committees. These committees were formed to support enforcement against minor eyesore violations that could be easily remedied by the violator. The committees' purpose is to identify neighborhood issues, prioritize alleged violations within the neighborhoods, and try to obtain voluntary compliance without referring the case to the city staff. Since the program began. 30 volunteer groups have received training and are currentN involved in var?-ing levels of code compliance activities. Coordination. Each o(the programs has a specific ciw staff person who serves as the volunteer coordinator, either [llegal parking of inoperable vehicles is one issue citizen inspection programs o)qen address. exclusively or along with other departmental duties. The Minneapolis coordinator, Vonnie Linnetl, is a housing inspector within the inspections division of the department of regulatory services. In San Diego, Ty Rogers is the community volunteer coordinator, working within the Neighborhood Code Compliance Department (NCCD). San Marco's coordinator, Leon Nickolas, is part of the code enforcement division, whose program addresses municipal code violations causing a public nuisance. Recruitment. Citizens become involved in inspection programs in a variety of ways. in San Diego, the program initially contacted existing citizen groups to identify participants. San Marco's homeowners associations contact the city themselves to find out how they can participate in correcting violations. To become involved in the Minneapolis program, neighborhood associations send a letter of interest to the Atlanta: Thomas Williams, Atlanta Bureau of Housing, 404-330-6190. ~V[inneapolis: Vonnie Linnell, Housing Inspector II, 612-673-5854. San Diego: Ty Rogers, Senior Planner, San Diego Neighborhood Code Compliance Department, 619-527-5467. San Mateo: Leon Nickolas, Code Enforcement Officer, 415-377-3366. inspections division. The division reviews these letters and selects neighborhoods according to various criteria, such as their past participation rate and current problems. To participate in the coming summer program, neighborhood associations must send a letter of interest each winter. After making its selections, the division sends information packets about srartin,= a citizen inspection program co the chosen associations, whic/x then sdect individual volunteers. Education. To the average citizen, there is not an immed!~ distinction among zoning ordinance, proper~ maintenance code, and building code violations. They identi~ a situation that they want corrected. For example, a junk car that has been parked in someone's driveway for a while becomes an eyesore to the neighborhood, and residents want it removed. Program coordinators understand this situation. While citizens may be identifying violations of the zoning, property, maintenance, and/ or building code, coordinators discuss various violation issues under the general umbrella of code violations. Nonetheless, volunteers are taught to look for specific .types of violations to prevent them from becoming ad hoc enforcers. Volunteers in San Diego are educated on how the municipal code regulates garage sales, signs in the public rights-ohway, and parking of recreational vehicles in residential areas, among other issues. San Mateo volunteers learn both what violations to look l'br and how to look for them. Leon Nickotas stresses during training that citizens "have to be able to see the violation from the sidewalk" to prevent trespassing situations. Training. Before citizens hit the streets, they must participate in a ~brmal training session. In Minneapolis, training always occurs in the spring because the program runs from May 1 to September 30. Volunteers are trained by both neighborhood association members and inspections division personnel. Training is held either on a Saturday or during a weekday evening and includes i:xercises, slide presentations, and field work. Saturday training lasts about Volunteers are taught to look for specific ty-l~es'of violations to prevent them from becoming ad hoc enforcers. four hours; evening training is compressed into three hours. In San Malco, training sessions are conducted by representatives from the community improvement and code enforcement commissions. They explain to volunteers how they can conduct external inspections of residential properties to detect public nuisances or code violations, Before starting their volunteer activities, all San Diego participants receive a three-hour training session on the zoning code, identifying and setting priorities for violations, communication skills, and cultural diversity issues. Ty Rogers conducts approximately eight training sessions per year. In ad~ition to their training, volunteers in San Diego receive a manual that describes the parameters within which the volunteers may operate, general procedures for identifying and addressing violations, and information necessary to identify violations accurately. Diagrams and information sheets provide quick references to common situations such as recreational vehicle storage, garage sales, and satellite antennas. At the beginning of the manual, a "Hints for Success" section gives volunteers quick reminders, such as not to overtly explain the rules or conduct code enforcement in their own neighborhoods. They are reminded that they do not have to know ail the specifics ora code violation. Their materials include contact information for the different code compliance agencies that should be notified. Procedure. Once they complete their training, citizens can get to work. The programs have various procedures on how citizens work the neighborhoods and how they detect, report, and follow up on violations. Once they volunteer, citizens in Minneapolis survey the 'reets and alleys of their neighborhood. Working in pairs, they took for exterior housing maintenance code violations, such as tall grass and weeds, garbage, broken windows and torn screens, and graffiti. They also seek out zoning code violations regarding illegal parking of inoperable vehicles and commercial vehicles and trucks. When it detects a violation, the neighborhood association sends a letter to the owner and/or tenants expressing concern about the particular situation and asking for the recipient's cooperation in improving and maintaining the neighborhood. At a later date, citizen inspectors return to see if the situation has been resolved. If the violation has been corrected, the association sends a thank-you letter. If not, it refers the situation to the city housing inspections office for enforcement. Standard forms are used for doing initial inspections, follow- up inspections, and direct referrals to the inspections division. Standard flyers are also available to say a property looks great or to thank someone for correcting a violation. Residents in San Mateo also use standardized forms, which identify the homeowners association involved in the inspection. These forms are uSed to contact the property owner directly regarding the situation. They request correction or removal of the violation within 10 days of receipt of the notice. (For extensive problems such as house painting, a longer deadline is usually allowed.) Uncorrected violations are forwarded to the code enforcement division. There is also a standard form for the property, owner or tenant to send to the code enforcement division, indicating that the violation has been corrected, does not exist, or can be corrected or removed if more time is granted. In colntrast to those in San Mateo and Minneapolis, (,olunteers in San Diego are asked to work within their community but not in their own neighborhoods. They wear city photo identification badges that indicate they are city volunteers. San Diego volunteers address various violation issues. Some groups may remove illegal signs from public rights-of-way, others may have to canvass identified problem areas for a variety of violations. First contact with a property owner is through a letter, identifying the violation and requesting volunta/5' compliance with the code. If that does not happen, the case is submitted to the NCCD for enforcement action and implementation of appropriate remedies. Institutional Support. The San Diego program provides support to the volunteer groups on an ongoing basis. They meet monthly with an NCCD representative, where groups can turn over priority cases so that the city can send administrative citations, and they can also ask questions about specific ordi- nances or violations. At these meetings, the NCCD also updates the groups on the status of cases referred to it for further action. Groups receive staff support from the program coordinator, who administers the program, attends monthly meetings, and coordinates training sessions, and from NCCD investigators and clerical personnel, who provide support in case processing. Success Rates. In Minneapolis, the inspections division has had a high success rate with its program, with approximately 75 percent of those contacted by citizen inspectors making the requested improvements without involving the inspections department. In San Mateo, Leon Nickolas estimates that half of all forms issued by homeowners associations result in immediate code compliance. Since San Diego's program began, volunteers have achieved 75 percent compliance and have closed more than 1.000 cases, primarily through letters sent to violators and through direct conversations. As Tv Rogers, program coordinator, says, "The purpose of the volunteers is to inform and educate the public. (Their) job is to be the nice guy. The city of San Diego's job is enforcement." Just underway in Atlanta, the housing inspections division is creating a citywide Neighborhood Deputy Program, an expansion of a pilot code enforcement program conducted by the Atlanta Project (TAP). Created in 1991 by former President Jimmy Carter, TAP's aim is to help Atlanta's poorest communities gain access to needed resources to solve their problems. According to TAP's World Wide Web site, the Brown Village area pilot program has helped empower residents and restore community, pride. By canvassing ~he community, volunteers reported more than 300 code violations to the city. Still in the development stage, the cirywide program will focus on housing code violations, such as peeling paint and yard debris. The volunteers will make courtesy citations to residents, warning them that violations exist and need to be corrected. It is anticipated that the project will be funded in the next budget cycle beginning in January 1998, with the program expected to start in March 1998. When the program is ready, it will have three components: a brochure, a monitoring program, and a computer soft'ware program to track violations. The brochure, to be distributed to the neighborhoods, will inform residents of their rights and describe the procedures to be followed and agencies to be contacted to enforce city ordinance violations. Current issues of concern include abandoned cars, deteriorated or vacant buildings, dead animals, broken fire hydrants, and streets in need of repair. The monitoring program, a supplement to the brochure, will promote resident and community participation in identifying violations. The computer program, a }oint endeavor between the city and TAP, will track violations to encourage neighborhood code enforcement efforts. San Diego presently has 130 volunteers from 30 community planning groups. In 1996, volunteers donated more than 3,000 hours to the city, saving San Diego $45,000 in code enforcement staff salaries. The Real World While volunteer programs can result in better compliance, they can also dramatically increase the workload of enforcement departments. In San Mateo, the four-person code enforcement department will be hiring an additional person by the end of this year and anticipates growing to six people in 1998. Vonnie Linnell says Minneapolis breaks even on workload changes, with rubbish and grass-related violations decreasing and issues such as housing maintenance increasing. Programs do not always run smoothly. Some communities have encountered fake inspectors. Minneapolis has experienced incidents where persons were ringing doorbells, passing them- Deems, Nyal D,, and N. Stevenson Jennette l[I. ~'Zoning Enforcement Actions by Local Governments." A Practical Guide ro Winmng Land Use Approvals and Permits, Chapter 8. New York: Matthew Bender & Company'. 1990. Kelly, Eric Damian'. Enforcing Zoning and Land Use Controls. PAS Report No. 409. Chicago: APA, August · 1988. Schilling, Joseph M. and James g. Hare. Cod~ Enforcement: A Comprehensive Approach. Point Arena, Calif.: Solano Press Books, 1994. selves off as inspectors, and asking to enter the residence. Now, when a citizen inspector program is starting in a Minneapo- lis neighborhood, the department sends an informational letter to all residents, telling them that they may notify the department about particular concerns. The letter also says that inspectors carry specific identification. As Sharron Carr, San Diego's neighborhood code compliance program manager, noted at the 1997 national planning conference, "You do have to control, the amount of information given to the volunteers and monitor their activities. You need to be sure that they are truly being community volunteers and not vigilantes." - Liability is also a concern. The San Diego and Minneapolis programs require that the volunteers sign formal agreements. The San Diego agreement, made between the city and the individual volunteer, states the city will defend and indemnify the volunteer in any claim or action arising from actions within her scope of duties as a volunteer. The agreement also outlines the volunteer's specific work schedule, and qualifies her to receive the city's worker's compensation coverage for any action that occurs while volunteering. In Minneapolis, the city enters into an agreement with the neighborhood association establishing the citizen inspection program. The agreement identifies the specific services to be performed by the neighborhood association and the inspections division. It also lays out the procedures for the program, including the specific violations to be observed and documented and how the notification process occurs. It includes language indicating that volunteers are subcontractors and not city employees, and that no liability lies with the city for any wrongful acts. When one neighborhood group violated its contract with the city by hiring subcontractors to inspect for violations, the inspections division removed the group from eligibility for future inspection programs. Often these programs have limited or no funding for the volunteers. To encourage participation, coordinators devise Zoning ;Vews is a monthly ncwsietzer published by the American Planning A~sociation. Subscriptions ate available for S50 (U.S.) and S65 (foreign). Frank S. So, Executive Dir~ror: William IL Klein, Director of Research. Zoning News is produced at APA. Jim Schwab. Editor: Shannon ,-M'mstrong, Ly'netre Bowdcn. Chris Burke, Mike Davidsoa. Fay Dolnick. Sanjay Jeer. Megan Lewis. Ma~,~ Morris, Martin Roupe. Jason Wittenberg, Reporters; Cynthia Chestd, A~istant Editor: Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Copyright © 1997 by American Planning A~sociarion, 112 $. Michigan Ave.. Suite 1600, Chicago, [L 60603. The American Planning A~sociarion ha~ headquarters or'rices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave.. N.W., Washington. DC 20036. Alt rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any Form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and I0% postconsumer waste. {~ 4 creative means of compensation. [n San Diego, volunteers who work at least 12 hours a month with the city can receive a reduced-rate bus pass. At Code Enforcement Week events, volunteers are recognized and thanked for their efforts. San Mateo runs a homeowner recognition program, which recognizes well-maintained residential and cor~mercial properties. Despite these challenges, the program coordinators say it is worth it. "Our program is ari invaluable tool to get people to feet more part of the neighborhood and understand the challenges the enforcement department i'aces," says Linne[l. As for' San Mateo, Nickolas says, "While there are costs in the short term, in the long run this type of program will only help the city improve. Citizen involvement is the key to making a better community." In San Diego, Rogers says, "Our volunteers have pride in their community. They also sing the praises of the enforcement office to the city council, before we have to." Rgports Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Fo~ce~ Findings and Recommendations Ohio Department of Agriculture, 8995 East Main St., Reynoldsbur~ OH 43068. 31 pp. 199Z Available online at www. state, oh. us,/agr. For further information, call ODA at 614-752-981Z Ohio is one of only four stares with more than half of its land classified as prime agricultural land. The industry and its allied food-processing components are worth $56.2 billion and provide one in six jobs in the state. Despite this, farmland is rapidly being converted to urban development, with conversion rates outstripping population growth by a five-to-one margin. The task force that produced this report, under the aegis of an executive order from Gov. George Voinovich, has detailed the problem in fairly cautious terms and structured its recommendations within existing state policies and initiatives in order to facilitate their adoption and implementation. The report calls for all local governments to review their local zoning for compliance with state farmland preservation goals and suggests mechanisms for the state to encourage local governments to prepare comprehensive land-use plans, but stops short of any significant departures from traditional Ohio approaches to growth management. Risks and Rewards of Brownflold Redevelopment /ames G. Wright. Lincoln £nstiture of Land Policy, 113 Brattle St., Cambridge, MA 02138. 32pp. 199Z $14 (25 percent discounr for i 0 or more) plus $3.50 shipping and handling on first copy, $.50 each additional copy. Zoning is hardly the only obstacle to the redevelopment of brownfietds, but it is part of the web of environmental, land- use, and financial liability laws that entangle efforts to put such lands back into productive use. This report, based on a conference in Cleveland in March 1996, explores the various issues highlighted by speakers the Lincoln Institute engaged to debate this complicated topic, including the impact of brownfietd abandonment on urban sprawl.