120396 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 1996
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. CONSENT ITEMS
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 Case 96-37 An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Code by Permitting Two
Family Dwellings Within the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts, City of New
Hope, Petitioner
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS
4.1 Report of Design & Review Committee - Next Meeting: December 19 at 8 a.m. (if necessary)
4.2 Report of Codes & Standards Committee
5. OLD BUSINESS
5.1 Miscellaneous Issues
6. NEW BusINESS
6.1 Review of Planning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1996.
6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of October 28 & November 12, 1996.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 96-37
P,equest: An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Permitting Two
Family Dwellings Within the P,-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts
Location: R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts
PID No.:
Zoning: R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts
Petitioner: City of New Hope
P,eport Date: November 26, 1996
Meeting Date: December 3, 1996 ..
BACKGROUND
1. City staff is requesting Planning Commission consideration/approval of an Ordinance
Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Permitting Two Family Dwellings Within the P,-3 and
R-4 Zoning Districts (Section 4.072(1) of the New Hope Code of Ordinances).
2. Per the Planner's report, the owners of the property at 5641 Wisconsin Avenue have submitted
a site plan proposal to the City to construct a handicapped accessible twinhome on the
property. The property is currently vacant. The property owners presently reside in a single
family home adjacent to and just south of this site at 5635 Wisconsin Avenue.
3. The vacant parcel at the southwest corner of Bass Lake Road and Wisconsin Avenue is
presently zoned R-4, High Density Residential.
4. Over the years the City has received many development proposals for this site, including one
for a seven-unit apartment, however, no development has ever occurred.
5. Over the past year, the owners of the property have toured the handicapped twinhomes that
the City has constructed at 51't and Winnetka and near 62"" and Louisiana. They liked the
design of the home, felt that the features would accommodate them as the grow older, and
decided they wanted to construct a similar structure on their vacant property. The plans they
submitted to the City were identical to the ones used for the three-bedroom twinhome at 6073
Louisiana.
6. Staff had always assumed that there would be no problem constructing a twinhome on a
property zoned R-4, as it would be a less intense use of the property. Less intense uses
routinely "roll-over" and are allowed as permitted uses in more intense zoning districts.
7. Upon further review of the Zoning Code when the plans were submitted, staff discovered that
the current Zoning Code does not allow a two family dwelling in the R-4 Zone.
8. After discussions with the City Manager, Planning Consultant and City Attorney, the City
decided to initiate a Zoning Code amendment to allow a two-family dwelling in an R-4 Zone as
a permitted use, as the general feeling by staff was that this was an error in the Zoning Code.
9. Notice for this public hearing has been published, and if approved, the amendment would be
applicable to all R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts.
ANALYSIS
1. The Planning Consultant has prepared the attached report on this code amendment. Please
review the report in detail as it is not staff's intent to duplicate that information in this report.
2. The Planner outlines two options to address this issue:
A. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow two family dwellings wit. bin the R-3 and R-4 Zoning
Districts and make a finding that these are an appropriate land use in these zoning districts.
B. Rezone the property from R-4 to R-2.
3. The Planner outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each option. The Planner and City
staff favor the Zoning Ordinance amendment, as a rezoning of the property could be
considered spot zoning.
4. Staff also believes that two family dwellings are a compatible use in the R-3 and R-4 Zoning
Districts and that this amendment would allow unusual properties with limited lot sizes to be
developed at lower densities.
5. The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed Code amendment. Section 4.072(1) "Multiple
Family" of the New Hope Code would be amended as follows:
(1) Two Family/Multiple Family: Two family and multiple family dwelling structures containing
twelve or less dwelling units.
(In other words, two family dwellings would be added as a permitted use in the R-3 and R-4
Zones.)
6. The Building Official has reviewed the ordinance amendment and is in agreement with said
amendment.
7. The Codes & Standards Committee did not meet to discuss this text amendment due to the
simple nature of the change. If you have questions or concerns and want to discuss them prior
to the meeting, please contact staff.
8. Excerpts for the Zoning Code relating to permitted and conditional uses in the R-l, R-2, R-3,
R-4 and R-5 Zoning Districts are attached to this report for your information.
2
9. The Planning Consultant will be present at the meeting to review/present this proposed
amendment to the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendment to allow two family dwellings
as a permitted use in the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts.
Attachments: City Attorney 11/26 Correspondence
Ordinance 96-26
Planners 11/22 Report
Site Plan
Zoning Map
Address Map :
Zoning Code Excerpts
3
November
Ktrk McDonald :
Clty Of NeW HODS
4401X¥~on Avenue North
New Hopes HN 554Z8
RE: Two Family Dwellings Aa
Permitted Uses Zn The
E-3 And R-4 Zoning
Our File: 99.49625
Please e/nd enGlosed eot consideration a~ ~he December
Commission meeting ~ropoaed ordinance 96-26 wht=h ~i~1 permi~ ~0
fam¶ly dwelling units In the R-3 end
~ ~hanged bhe oralnance from the one proposed by the C~ Planne~
~y combining two ~am~ly and multiple ~am~l~ use, tn 8ubaec~ion (1)
~ ~4.072. ! dJdn'~ mas ~he nme~ ~0 ad~ a~o[her aubsac~ion to the
Code and ~elb ~ m~y I~ con~usJng J~ nearly ~den~ol ueee were
to senara~ the ueee pleaae let me Know an~ I will change the
word~os ba~k ~ the language originally
subsections.
Very ~u]~ yours,
S~even A. Sondrall
z1~2
e~clo8uF~
NOV-28-98 ~ 09:01 P. 03/03
ORDTNANC~ NO. 96-28
AN ORDINANCE ANEND/NG THE NEN HOPE ZONiNG CODE
BY PERNZTTXNQ TNO FAHTtY D'dELLXNQ; NZTHZN
THE R-3 ANO R-4 ZONING D[STRZCTS
The City Council of ~he City o¢ NeW HOpe ord&ins:
Section 1. Section 4.07~(~) "uu~4~ Fam4~y" of 'Che New
HOpe C~ty Code ~ hereby emended [o read as
(1) Two Famtlv\Mul~lpl~,,Fam~ly~ Two family and mul:iole
family dwelling ubruc:ure~ containing :welve or les~
dwelling units.
~_~j_~q_~. Effective Date. This Ordinance abel1 be effective
u~on t~e ps. sage and ~ublicat~on.
day of December, 1996.
edw. ~. Ericl~son, Mayor
v~leri:~ La-one' City Clerk
(Publ(ehed in ~he New Hope-Golden Valley Sun-Pos: ~he __ : day o~
, ~SS,..)
HOU-22-1996 11:09 Mqc 612 59'3 98-3? P.O1
! · COMMUNITY F aLANNINO - DE:~ION MARKE:T RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Cary Teague/Alan Brixius
DATE: 22 November 1996
RE: New Hope - R-3 Two Family Dwelling - Zoning Ordinance
FILE NO: 131.00 - 98.16
BACKGROUND
Veto and Natalie Stuhr have submitted a site plan proposal to constn~ a two family
dwelling (duplex) on property located at the southwest comer of Base Lake Road and
Wisconsin Avenue (5641 Wisconsin Ave.). The subject property is zormd R-4, High
Density Residential which does nct allow two family dwellings, but would allow housing of
a higher density.
Over the yearn the City has received numerous development inquiries for this site,
including one in 1986, for a 7-unit apartment, which included City approval for multiple
variances. However, this property Iqas never been developed and remains vacant today.
This site is difficult to develop with any type of multiple family structure (apartment or
town,e), as allowed under the existing R-4 zoning designation. Based upon the small
size of the lot (21,000 square feet and 98 - 130 foot wide), the required access off of
Wiscensin Avenue, and the required thirty-five foot setbacks off of both rite Wisconsin
Avenue and Bass Lake Road right-of-way, this lot is difficult to develop. Based upon these
site constraints, the twin home concept appears to be a good use of the prope~.
To accommodate the request the City may procccd with one of the following two options:
1. Prepare an ordinance amendment to allow Two Fam//y dwellings within the R-3 and
R-4 zoning district (two family dwellings are not allowed in both the R-3 or R-4
districts), or
2. Rezone the property from its current R-4 zoning designation to R-2, Single and Two
Family Residential.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNF-.$OTA 554 I ~
PHONE e I ~_-e95-9e3e FAX e I 2-595-9837
Attached for Reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - 1960 Land Use Plan
Exhibit D - 1975 Existing Zoning
Exhibit E - 1978 Land Use Plan
Exhibit F - Draft Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission and City Council may proceed with one of the following two
options:
1. Ord/nance AmeedmeeL If the Planning Commission end City Council decides to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow two family dwellings within the R-3 and R-4
zoning districts, it must make a finding that these uses are an appropriate land use
within Medium and High Density zoning districts.
2. ~PJ2J3Jl2l~ If the Planning Commission and City Council prefers to rezone the
property, it must make a policy decision via a positive response to the following:
a. Has the request resulted from a past zoning mistake?
b. Has the ~ of the ama changed 1= warrant consideration of a zoning change?
c. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specir-~ poli~ies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
d. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and futura land uses of the
e. The proposed u~e conforms with all performance standards contained with the
Zoning Ordinance.
f. The proposed use can be aeeemmedated with existing public servicss and will not
overburden the City's sewice capacity.
g. Traffic ganemmd by the prol3OSed use is within the ~apabilitiss of streets serving the
property.
Based on the following review, justifi~=aflon may be made to either approve of a zoning
ordinance amendment to allow tw~ family dv~ilings within the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts
or to rezone the subject property from R-4, High Density Residential to R-2, Single and
Two Family Residential. However, because an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will
offer flexibility for other lots with similar c.,iroJmstances, and a rea:ming of the site offers a
single lot .zoning district, our office recommends that the City adopt an ordinance
amendment to allow [~vo farn~ dv~llin~ within the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts per Exhibit
F.
2
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
~ mentioned the Stuhr property is difficult to build upon for the following reasons:
,- The small lot size of 21,000 square feet and a lot width of betv,=c.n 98 - 130 feet.
Th~ location of the property at the intersection of two high traffic roadways - Bass
Lake Road and Wisconsin Avenue.
Required 35 foot setback from the W'rsconsin Avenue and Bass Lake Road right-of-
Way.
,, Access to the site must be off of Wisconsin Avenue. Property width off of
Wisconsin' Avenue is just 98 feet.
The underlying R-4, High Density Residential zoning designation which requires
high density residential development_
Under the strictest interpretation of the current zoning regulations, the Stuhr property
would have to be developed with at least a 3-unit town~m through a conditional use
permit_ As previously mentim'md, there have been numerous development requests for
this property, however, for various reasons nothing has ever been built, and the property
remains vacant.
With the submission of the current proposal to construct a two family dwelling, the City
may proceed in one of the following two ways:
1. Ordinance Amendment
The City may amend the Zoning Ordinance, to allow two family dwellings within the R-3,
Medium Density Residential and R-4, High Density Residential zoning districts, in doing
so, the Planning Cormn~ and City Council must make a determination that two family
dwellings are an acceptable use within the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts.
In general, two family dwellings are similar in function to townhornse, which are allowed
in the R-3 and R-4 district, as individual units share walls, driveway and access.
Additionally, two family dwell~ am required to have 7,00Q square feet of lot ama per unit
(6 units per acm), which is classified as medium density per the New Hope Comprehensive
Plan. Townhomes are required to have 5.000 square feet of lot area per unit (8 Units per
acre), which is also classified as medium density per the New Hope Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, a case may be made that two family dwellings am a compatible use in the R-3
and R-4 zoning district.
3
~OU-~'~- 199~ 11:10
~e Ci~ must take al~ into a~nt ~ mm~fi~s ~ all~ ~e~ u~s unifo~
throughout ~e CiW.
~mily ~lli~), R~ and R~ ~ffiin the CiW ~ N~ H~ are ~i~ devel~, h~ver,
the po~ibiliW e~s~ for ~tum r~evei~ment of ~e~ lands ~ mu~ I~ densEi~
un~r ~e su~t~ Ordin~ amendment.
In all li~li~d ~ ~ is z~ R~ a~ R~ ~11 n~ ~ ~vel~ ~ ~n ho~
E ~ all ~ible. A de~ ~ ~ ~t~fial ~ devei~ a~~ vs. ~n ~es ~11
likely devei~ ~~ ~ to ~ ~ ~ an ~ ~pl~ is ~re ~table ~an
the ~n h~e. By ali~ ~n h~ ~in ~e R-3 ~d R~ ~ni~ dis~s, e~ing
pm~es ~h limE~ lot size a~ ~, ~ as ~e Stuhr p~, may be develop~
at I~r d~s~i~ (as pm~).
GN~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R-2, R~ and R~ is ~lly develop~
~in ~ Ci~ ~ N~ H~, ~ C~ ~11 ~ ~ ~1~ ~~ls to ~lop la~
at lesser dens~i~ ~n ~at ~i~ is ~sfi~, ~~, it is r~ble ~ a~ ~e
zoning ordin~ to all~ ~ family ~111~ (duplex) ~in ~ ~ium and High
~ zoni~ diS~ as ~ ~11 all~ ~o~ ~em g~ fl~bil~ fm developm~t
~ Io~ ~ buildi~ ~aints due to lot si~.
2, R~i~
~r altem~e to
~mily ~lli~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, Hi~ Dens~ R~id~tiai ~ R-2, Single
~ T~ F~i~ R~ai. T~ f~ily ~lli~ ~ ~sid~ a ~~ u~ ~in
~ R-2, Sidle ~ ~ F~i~ R~~I ~i~ d~ In ~i~on ~ all r~oni~
r~s, ~ C~ ~ N~
~nt~ only via ~sEive ~n~ tO ~e foll~ qu~io~:
~ H~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~i~ mi~e?
A fi~l ~i~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~i~g mi~e ~s ma~ mu~ ~ made
by ~ C~ Co~dl
~ ~ ~~ R~ ~i~ ~i~ is ~~ ~ ~ Ci~s 1975 Z~ing
~p ~~i~ ~ MR - multiple family r~ide~ial, ~d ~e 1978 ~d U~ Plan
d~ig~on
If ~im I~ ~ !~ ~ ~i~, ~ ~ ~ a mi~ ~y h~ ~n m~
~en ~is
iim~s ~ de~io~t
4
NOU-~I~ 11:10 NAC 612 595 985'~ P.05 *
suited for a two family dwelling rather than for high density residential.
B. Hae the character of the ama changed to warrant consideration of a
zoning change?
The character of the area has not changed in recent years, the City's 1975 existing
land use map indicates that multiple family residential development existed to the
west, single family development to the south, multiple family to the north, and
vacant land to the east. However, a rezoning of the site to accommodate a twin
home would not be out of character in the neighborhood. A twin home would
provide a transition from the single family housing to the high density development
to the north and west.
In ad~lition to the above conditions, the City would also review and rezoning within
the following parameters:
(1) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific
official City Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The propomigl use is or will be compatible with present and future land
[roes of the area.
(3) Tha proposal use conforms with dl perfornanc, e standards contained
with the Zoning Ordinance.
(4) The ~ ues can be accommodated with exJetlng public services
and will not overburden the City's service capacity.
($) Traffic generat~ by the propo~ u~e is within the capabilities of
etreet~ ~a~ving the property.
A case can be made that · rezoning of the site to accommodate the proposal to
consln~ a two family dwelling on the Stuhr property will satis~ the above criteda
(1-5). The land use i~ cmnpaflble wilh the S[aTounding area, the site plan would be
required to meet all performance requirements of the City Code, the use could
easily be accommodated with existing services and not overburden the City's
service capacity, and traffic generated by the use would not compromise the
serving capacity of the adjacent streets.
5
CONCLUSION
Based on the information contained within this report, our office recommends a zoning
ordinance amendment to allow two family dv~llings within the R-3, Medium Density and
R-4, High Density Residential Zoning District, per Exhibit F.
6
BROOKLYN PARK
SITE LO~.TION
ixO~-l~ 11:13 ~ " 612 595 9t3,37 P.l~
¥\ I \ ! \ '\ ' ~ I
I I I
i I I
' ~''. l"'... :,l I--5/' I
.. :,:,~.- · ~... ,
- .~o ~,~'' 't. , I,
~ ~ I ! f .i I /
- I I I I I I /
! I I I t /
, ,. ~.
. . I I I ~ ~
,.,-..",, ,, /.
~ Ii '1 ',. I ~
! I !
I I I '*"
! .' I ~ /
· -- ~ ~ /
'~.
EXHIBIT B
· existing land use 1975
._ .:~ single f'am;ly residence
._~ 2-7 family resldence
~ 8+ family residence
publ?c and ~em;-publlc
¢ommerc;al
;ndusfrTal
undeveloped
so. urce: c;fy of new hope
1960 new hope plan
new hope, minn.
' -- EXHIBIT C
existing zoning 1975
$1~ single family resldence
MR multiple family residence
LB Iim~ted business
RB ' fetal ! bud ness
GB' general buslne~
LI Iimlted industry
Gl general industry
source: cHy of new hope .=-._.
U
new hope, minn.
EXHIBIT D
NOU-~2-19~ 11:15 ~C 612 5~5 ~ P. li '
land use density/
intensity
Residential
~[Iow-densJty .
' ~[mid~enslt¥
~j~ h~gh-dens~ty
Commer¢~a!
~ _~T~ low-~ntemity
]~ mid-~ntensity ·
Industrlal/Business
Iow-intemity
~m[d-lntem~ty
new hope, minn.
EXHIBIT E - ~"?~ ,^.o us~ .LA;
612 595 9837 P. 12
NOU-22-1996 11:17
O~O~NANO£ NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE NEW HOPE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO ALLOW TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN THE R-3
AND R-4 ZONING ZONING DISTRICTS
THE CITY OF NEW HOPE ORDAINS:
8eclion 1. Section 4.072 (Permitted Uses, R-3) of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance
is hereby amended to add the following language:
(8) ~ Two family dwelling units.
Sec'den ?.. Effective Date. This Orclirmnc~ 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 1996.
Edward Erickson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dan Donahue, City Manager
EXHIBIT F
TOTRL P. 12
B-2
~ - ~ '~ ,~,: ~._,~---
..~ .~_~ ..
.. ~.1 ,. : ~ ; ; '" ~ ~ ~
ST. THERESA
NURSING
m,i~ t 56 TH. N. C~
;; ;~ HOSTERMAN WINNETKA
JR HIGH SCHOOL ELEMENTARY
-- 55~ SCHOOL e~ ,
~ I 54 TH, AVE. N.
leem
MARIE RAILROAD -~T
' I .......... -- ......
6'100 5'/75"- ?7
4.05. 4.051.
4.053 (1) - (5)
4.05 "R-I' SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
4.051 Purpose. The purpose of the 'R-i' Single Family District is to
provid~ ~or low density single ~amil¥ detached residential dwelling
i. units and directly related, accessory and complementary uses.
4.052 Permitted Uses~ R-1. The following are permitted uses in an "R-i"
(1) Single family detached dwellingS.
i (Ord. 84-3)
(~) Deleted.
I COrd. 84-3, 8S-2)
(3) Day Care Facility. A state licensed Eacilit¥ serving twelve or
I fewer persona. ..
(Ord. 84-3, 05-2)
I (4} Public Perks and Play, rounds.
(5) Essential Services.
I (Ord. 84-3)
(6) Group Care Facillt~. A state licensed facil£ty serving six or
fewer persons.
(Ord. 84-3, 85-2)
4.053 Accessory Uses~ R-1. The following are permitted accessory uses in an
"R-l" District:
(1) Auto Parking. Private garages, parking spaces and ca=po=ts ~or
licensed and operable passenger cars and trucks not to exceed a
gross weight of twelve thousand pounds, as regulated by Section
4.036 (Off-Street Parking) of this Code. Private garage space
can be rented to non-residents of the property for private
passenger vehicles and/or non-co~aercial vehicles, tra£1ers, or
equii~ent if sufficient off-street parking in full compliance
with thie.C~da is provided elsewhere on the property. Such
garage shell not be used for the storage of more than one
cm~ercial vehicles mened or operated by a resident per dwelling
R~re~tion~l Vehicles and F~uiweent.
Non-coemercial Greenhouses and Conservatories.
(4) Recreational Factlitiee. Swimming pooL, tennis courts and other
recreational facilities which are operated for the enjoyMnt and
convenience of the residents of the principal use and their
cj~eete.
(5) Storaqe Sheds. Tool houses, sheds and similar buildings ~or
storage o~ domostic sUpplies and non-commercial recreational
equipment.
4-47
(7), 4.054
(7) Signs. signs in compliance with applicable sections of this
Code.
4.054 Conditional Uses~ R-1. The following are conditional uses in an
District. (Requires conditional use permit based upon procedures set
. forth in and regulated by Section 4.20 and screening as regulated in
Section 4.033)
Publicr Religious Buildings. Public or semi-
(l)
Educational
and
public recreational buildings and neighborhood or community
centers; public and private educational institutions limited to*
element~ry, junior high and senior high schools; and religious
institutions such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues
provided that=
(a) Side Yards. Side yards shall be double that required for
the district, but no greater than thirty femt.
(b) Parking. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided
on the site or on lots directly abutting directly across a
public street or alley to the principal use in compliance
with Section 4.036 and that such parking is adequately
screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting
residential uses in compliance with Section 4.033 (4).
(c) Off-Street Loading. Adequate off-street loading and service
entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by
Section 4.037.
(2) Recreational. C~ercial outdoor recreational areas including
golf courses and club house country clubs, swimming pools and
similar facilities provided that:
(e) Outdoor. The principal use, function or activity is open,
outdoor in character.
(b! Limited Structures. Not more than five percent of the land
area of ~he site be covered by buildings or structures.
Area. The land area of the property containing such use or
activity meets the minimum established for the district.
Government and Utility Buildings. Governmental, publicly
regulated communications, and public utility buildings and
structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare
of the community, provided that:
(a) C~patabilitz and Setbacks. Conformity with the surrounding
neighborhood is maintainea and required setbacks and side
yard requirements are met.
(b) Equipment Enclosed. Equipment is completely enclosed in a
permanent structure with no outside storage.
(4) PUDr Residential. Residential planned unit development as
regulated by Section 4.19 of this Code.
4-48
4.054 ($) - ($)~)
'Cemeteries. Cemeteries platted after July 5, 1979, provided
la) Plst~inq Re~ui=ed,,. The cemetery must be platted under the
Pla~ting Code of the City.
ih) Aras. The ova=all site does not contain more than twenty-
(c) Access. The site accesses on a minor or principal arterial
only.
(d) Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has applied for a
comprehensive plan amendment and said amon~nt has been
processed sad approved in acco=dance with applicable state
statutes.
(Coda 072684)
Day Care Facllity. A state licensed facility, serving thirteen
~re ~ople, proviaea that~
(a) Accesso=~ Use. ~e ~y care facility is an accessory use of
a build~ng us~ ~o= ~ucaC~onal o= religious purposes as
C~e.
Hours o~ .~=a~on. The ~aclli~ies operating hours are
lime,ed ~o =he ~ri~ o~ 6=30 a.m. to 6~30
P=on~ Yard Se~-~ck. The ~ron~ yard se~-~ck is a minim~ of
th~,~y (30) f,et. ( I
O~f-Street Park~nq. A~ua~e off-street ~ck~ng an~
i~ 9=ovia~ in co~an=e with 5~t~on 4.036 o~ this C~e.
(e) Off-Street ~nq. A~equate of~-st=eet loa~ng an~ service
entrances are provi~e~ in co~liance w~th Section 4.037 of
th~s C~e.
(f) ~taoor Play Aras. ~tdoor play area8 are landacap~ and
w~th S~t~ofl 4.033(3) of =h~s
sezv~ by an arterial or co~lec~or stree~ of su~f~cien~
!
(h) ~. All signing and ~nforM~lon oF visual co~unica~ion devices
iff ~l~ance w~b ~on 3.464(1)(d) of th~s
(i)~t=a~ Conditional Use R~ui=~ents. The provisions of
S~o~ 4.21 through 4.212(6)(c) of ~h~s C~e are
(])Stato R~ulat~o~s. The =egulat~ons an~ con~t~ofls of
Rules hrts 9545.0510 th=ough 9545.0678 as a~opt~
operation wi~hou~ a sta~e ~icense as required ~ the
regulations referr~ in ~his sub-sec=ion
4-49
072684
4.06, 4.061, 4.062 (1) - (2), 4.063 (I),
.' 4.064 (1) - (2), 4,07, 4.071, 4.~72 (l),- (3)
4.06 'R-2'_SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
4.061 PUr_~__~. The purpose of the "R-2= Single and Two P~mily Residential <
DiOrite is to provide for low density one and two unit dwellings and
directly related, complementary uses.
4.082 per~itted uses~ R-2. The following are per~itted uses in · "R-2"
District:
Less Intensive Use District. All permitted uses allowed in an
'R-l' District.
{2) ~ Family, Two really dwelling units.
4.063 ACCeSSory uses Permittedr R-2. The following are permitted accessory
uses in a =R-2= District:
(1) Less Intensive Use District. All accessory uses as allowed in an
=R-1= District.
4.064 Conditional Usesr R-2. The following are conditional uses in a
District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set
forth in and regulated by Section 4.20)
(1) Less Intensive Use District. All conditional uses and subject to
the name conditions as required in an "R-l" District.
(Code 0726141 (
(2) Deleted.
(Code 0?2684, O~d. 85-2)
4.07 'R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
4.071 P~rpose. The.purpose of the "R-3= Medium Density Residential District
is to provide for mediumdensity housing in townhouses and multiple
family structures and directly related co.ple~emtary uses.
4.072 Permitted Usesr R-3. The following are permitted uses in an
District: '
(1) Multiple Family. Multiple family dwelling structure containing
twelve or less dwelling units.
(2) Bnardinq Houses. Boarding houses limited to not more than ten
resident persons.
(Ord. 84-3)
(3) Deleted.
(Ord. 84-3, 85-2) ~
4-50
0~2684
4.0?2 (4)-(7), 4.073, 4.0'74
(4) Day_Care Facility. A state llcensed facility serving th£rteen to
C sixteen ~ersons.
(Ord. 84-3, 85-2)
(5) Publ£c Parks and Playgrounds.
(6) Essential Serv£ces. (See definition).
lOrd. 84-3)
(7) O,leted.
(Ord. 84-3, 84-16, 85-1, 85-2)
4.073 Accessory Usesr R-3. The following are penn£tted accessory uses in an
"R-3" District=
(1) Less Intensive Use District. All pemitted accessory uses
allowed in an "R-2" District.
(2) Off-Street Loading.
4.074 Conditional Usesr R-3. The following are condit£onel uses in an "R-3"
District (Requires a conditional use pemit based upon procedures set
forth in and regulated by Section 4.20 and 4.036, Parking~ 4.037, off-
street loading)
(1) Less Zntensive Use District. All conditional uses, subject to
the same conditions, allowed in an 'R-2' District.
(Code 072684)
(2) Day Care. A state licensed facility serving seventeen or ~ore
persons, provided there
(e) Front Set Beck. The front y&rd depth is & minimum of thirty
feet.
lb) Off-Street Perking. Adequate off-street parking and access
is provided.in compliance with Section 4.036 of this Code.
lc) Off-Street Loading. Adequate off-street loading and service
entrances are provided £n compliance with section 4.037 of
this Code.
la) Street Access; The site and related parking and service is
served by en arterial oF collector street of suffLc£eflt'
capacity to accommodate the traffic which will be generated.
(e) General Conditional Use Requireuents. The provisions of
section 4.21 through 4.2~2(6)(c) of this Code are
satis~ecorily met.
(f) S~ate Regulations. The regulations and conditions of
Rules Part 9545.05~0 through 9545.0670 are satisfactorily
met. ~o facility shall begin operation without · state
~lcense as required by the regu~at£ons referred to in this
sub-secton (f).
07~684
4.0?4 (2)(g) = (4)(g)
(gl Buildin~ and Fire Code. That all applicable provisions of
the Minnesota State Building Code and Fire Code have been
met. That the City Building Official and Fire Marshall
shall inspect the property prior to the issuance of the
conditional use permit to determine if this sub-section of
this Code has been complied with.
(Code 072684, Ord..85-2, 85-7)
(3) Townhouses. Townhouses as defined by Section 4.022 provided that
the regulations and requirements of Section 4.19 are
satisfactorily completed and met.
(Code 072684)
(4) Group Care Facility. A state licensed facility serving seven to
sixteen persons provided that the following cond£tiona are met for
the protection of the residents of the facility=
(a) The facility is licensed by the State of Minnesota and the
operator of the facility provides documentation of compliance
with all applicable Federal, State, MetroDol.itan and County
regulations.
Cb) The facility is in 'compliance with and is mainlined in
accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code and Uniform
Building Code.
(c) The facility is in compliance with all regulations as
determined by the City Director of Fire and Safety or his
designated agent.
(d) The facility is not located within one thousand three hundred
twenty feet of any similar type use or care facility.
(e) The entrance of the facility is located within four hundred
feet of a public transit route and stop, and pedestrian access
is available, or the operators provide &
transPortation/access plan which is found acceptable by the
City Council.
(f) The operation is subject to annual review and continual
monitoring by the City's Human Services Committee and is
found to be in compliance with all applicable construction
and operation regulations and standards.
(g)The criteria as specified in Section 4.212 of this Ordinance
are considered and found to be satisfactorily met.
(Ord. 85-2)
-52
0726"4
4.08, 4.081, 4.082, 4.083,
4.08~ <~)<2)
4.08 'R-4" HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
4.081 Purpose. The purpose of the 'R-4' High Density Residential District
is =o provide for high density residential uses, and directly related
USES.
4.082 Permitted Uses¢ R-4. The following are permitted uses in an "R-4"
Dis=r~c=:
(1) Less Intensive Use District. Ail permitted uses allowed in an
(2) Club or Lod~e witAout the Serving of Food or Severa~.
(3) Multi~le Family Dwellings. =
4.083 Accessory Uses Permitted~ R-4. The following are permitted accessory
uses ~n an "R-%" D~m~ric~:
Less Intensive Use Dis~ric%. Ail permit~e~ accessory uses as'
allowed in an "R-3" District.
4.084 Conditional ~ses~ R-4. The following are conditional uses in an
District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set
for=h in and repulated by Section 4.20 of this Code, and compliance
with Chapter 3, Signing, 4.03~, Parking, and 4.037, Off-Street Loading).
(1) Less Intensive Use District. All conditional uses, subject to
the same conditions, as allowe~ in an "R-3" District.
(2) Nursing Homes. Nursing homes, bur no~ including hospitals,
sanitariums or similar institutions, provided tha~
(a) Side,Yardsr Double. S~de yards are double ~he minimum
requirements established for U~is Dis~ic= and are screened
in compliance wi=A Section 3, 4.033 (3).
(b) Rear Yard Re~uireme~.=~. Only =he =caf yard shall ~ used
~o= p~ay or =ecrma~ooal areas. Sa~4 area shall ~ ~enced
and con~=o~ ~d sc=eefl~ ~n compliance w~ Sec=~ofl 4.033
(3).
(c) Street Access. The site shal~ Me served by an arterial or
collector stree~ o~ sufficien= capaci=y to accommodate
traffic which wiLL Me gene~a~e4.
Perm£=s and S~a~e Laws. AL~ state laws and s:atutes
governing such use are strictly adhered to and all required
operating permits are secured.
4-53
072684
~oo~ (~) - (~)(c)
(3) A~ar~ment Density Bonus. Except for elderly housing, a maximum
o~ twenty percent reduction in square fee= of lot area per unit
for multiple family dwellings of ten units or more as required in
Section 4.035 based upon the following bonus features and square
foot reduction:
Square Foot
Bonus Feature Reduction Per Unit
(a) Construction. Type two construction 100 square feet
(b) Elevator. Elevator serving each floor 50 square feet
(c) Underground Parking. Two-thirds of the required
free parking underground or with the principal
structure (no= including attached or detached
garages). 1SO square feet I
(dj Recreation~ Indoor. Indoor recreation and
social rooms equal to twenty-five square feet
per unit or seven hundred fifty square fee=
to~al, whichever is greater. 50 square feet
(e) Recreationr Outdoor. Major outdoor recreational
facilities suc~ as swimming pools, tennis courts or
similar facilities requiring a substantial investment
equaling at minimum five percent of ~he construction
cos~ o~ the principal s~ruc=ure 20 square feet
(fl Public Transit. Transit service available within
t~ree hundred ~eet of entrance 50 square feet
(4) Elderly Housing. Elderly (Senior Citizen) housing provided
requiraments are me= as to procedure, 4.20~ 4.036, Parking~
4.037, Off-Street Parking~ 4.033 (3), Screening~ Chapter 3,
Signing~ and provided ~hat=
(a) A~e Limit. No= more than ten percent of the occupants may
be persons sixty years of age or under (spouse of a person
over sixty years of age or caretakers, e~c.)
(b) Public Transit. The site of the main entrance of the
principal use is served or is located within four hundred
fees of regular transit service.
(cD A~e Certification Required. To continue to qualify for the
elderly housing classification, the owner or agency shall
annually file with the City Clerk and the Building Official
a certified copy of a monthly resume of occupants of such a
multiple dwelling, listing ~he number of ~enan=s by age and
clearly identifying and setting forth the relationship of
all occupants sixty years of age or under ~o qualified
tenants, or to the building.
4-54
072684
4.08, 4.o8~t,
4.08A3 (1) - (2)
4.0~ "R°5'' SEX!O~ CITIZE~ AND P~Y~IC~LLY ~AXDI~PE~ RESiDeNTIAL HOUSING
4.08A1 Purpose. The purpose of the #R-5# Senior Citizen and Physically -~-
~and~capped Ci:izen Residential Housing District is to provide areas
wi:nih the Ci:y which are particularly suitable as to location and
amenities fcr elderly and physically handicapped housing,'and to limit
:he developmen: of such districts to this type of residential
cons%fur=ion, and directly tala%ed comDlemen:ary uses.
I
(Code 072684, Ord. 88-19)
4.08~2 Permitted Uses. Elderly (Senior Citizen) Housing which is a
cond~:~onal use under 4.084 in an R-4 Distric% is the only permitted
use in an R-5 Dis%tic%, provided however that all of the conditions of
Sec:ion 4.084(4).
(Ord. 81-1)
4.08a3 Cor, di-.iona! Uses, R-5.
(1) Nursin~ Homes. Nursing homes, but not including hospitals,
clinics, sani:ariums or similar institutions as defined by 4.012
(100) of this code provided
(a) Side Yards, Double. Side yards are double the minimum
requiremen:s es:ablished for this District and are screened
in compliances with 4.033 (3) of :his code.
(b) Rear Yard Requirements. Only =he rear yard shall ~ use4
for recrea=~onal areas. Sai~ area shall ~ ~eflce4
con%rolle~ an~ screened in com,!lance wi:h 4.033
co~e.
collar=or s:reet of sufficient capaci:y =o
traffic which will ~
(d) Permi=~ and g=ate Laws. All state laws an4
governing such use are strictly adhere4 to an4 all reguired
opera:ing permi%s are secured.
(2) Adul= Day Care. A state license~ facility as defined in 4.022
(2) of =~is code provi~e~
(a) Front'.=e~- Back. The front yar~ depth is a minim~ of thirty
fee:.
~ar Yard ~equir~en:s. Only the rear yar~ shall ~ use~
for recrea=Xonal areas. $aia area sAall ~ fences
controlled an~ screened iff compliance wi=h 4.033 (3) of this
co~e.
O~-S~reet Loadin~. Loading and unloading o~ adul~ ~a~ care
~r~icipants shall take place in an area designated solely
(d) Street Access. The site and related ~rking and service is
served by an arterial or collector stree: of sufficient
ca~aci:y ~o acc~m~a:e the :=affic which will ~ genera=ed.
(e) Permi:s and ~=a=e Laws. All state laws and s~a=u=es
governlng such use are s~ric:ly adhered to and all required
opera:ing permits are secured.
(Ord. 88-14)
· 072686 I
4.08A3 (3), 4.08.A4
(3) Physically Handicapped Housing as defined in Section
4.022
(109a)
of this code provided that:
(a) Every dwelling unit, including entrances and exits
throughout the common area of the structure, shall be
handicapped accessible per the Minnesota State Building
Code.
(b) Usable open space as defined [n Section 4.022 shall be at a
minimum eq.ual to twenty percent of the gross lot area.
(c) Landscaping shall be provided per Section 4.033(4)(b} of
this code.
(d) The main entrance of the principal building shall be served
or located within four hundred feet of regular public
transit service
(e)All trash enclosures shall be fully screened and handicapped
accessible.
(f) One unit per building may be designated for a non-
-'handicapped caretaker.
(g) Physically handicapped housing shall be architecturally
compatible with surrounding uses in the area as to exterior
design and construction materials.
(Ord. 88-19)
4.QB.A4 .Conditional Accessory Uses. The following commercial uses shall be
allowed as conditional accessory uses to Senior Citizen and Physically
Handicapped Housing and Nursing Homes. It is the intent of this
section that said uses primarily serve and benefit the residents of
said facilities~
(1) Financial Institutions.
(2) Barber/Beauty Shop.
Limited Retail Sales.
(4) Newsstand.
(5) Pharmacy.
Performance Standards. All conditional accessory uses listed
herein shall conform to the following provisions~
(a) Location. All uses shall be located completely within the
principal structure of the residential facility.
(h) Access. Mo separate exterior entrance or exit shall be
allowed for any accessory use(s).
(c) Signage. Mo exterior signage of any type shall be allowed
for accessory use(s).
(d) Size. Any individual conditional accessory use shall not
e~csed five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor area.
All combined commercial accessory uses within a single
building shall not exceed two thousand (2,000) s~uare feet
gross ~lo~r area.
(e) Hours. NO accessory use shall be open for operation between
the hours of 9~00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M.
(f) Parking. Sufficient parking for the commercial use(s) shell
be provided in accordance with Section 4.036 of this Code.
(Ord. 89-21)
4-56 A
0?2684
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 1, 1996
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Issues
1. November 12 Council Meeting - At the November 12 Council meeting, the Council took action
on the following planning/development/housing issues:
A. Resolution Consenting to Assignment of Victory Park Antenna Site Agreement:
Approved, see attached Council request.
B. Public Hearing. Resolution Vacating Utility and Drainage Easement for Sheridan Sheet
Metal, 4116 Quebec Avenue North: Tabled until November 25 Council meeting, pending
additional review by the City Engineer. Please refer to the Council request, correspondence
and maps for further information.
C. Public Hearing, Resolution Approving a Housing Program for the Issuance of
Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Park Acres Apartments): Approved, see attached
Council request, correspondence and Housing Program for acquisition and renovation.
D. Planning Case 96-36, Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval and a Conditional
Use Permit Amendment to Expand Veterinarian Clinic, 8119 Bass Lake Road: Approved,
subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The petitioners
submitted revised plans.
E. Ordinance 96-24/Planning Case 96-24, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Code
Section 1.59 by Extending the Cellular Phone Tower Moratorium: Approved, see attached
Council request and correspondence. The moratorium has been extended until March 11,
1997. The Codes & Standards Committee will be discussing this issue in January after the
Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission has completed work on a model
ordinance.
F. Project #$42, Resolution Awarding Contract for the Construction of the Public Works
Remodeling Project to Mikkelson-Wulff Construction, Inc., in the Amount of $710,159;
Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Sign: Approved, see attached Council request.
Construction will start in the spring of 1997.
2. November 25 CouncillEDA Meetings - At the November 25 Council/EDA meetings, the
Council/EDA took action on the following planning/development/housing issues:
A. Project #519, Motion Approving Final Payment to H&M Asphalt Company in the Amount
of $1,886.91 for the construction of Utility Extensions at 607316081 Louisiana Avenue
North: Approved, see attached Council request. All work has been completed and the homes
have been sold.
B. Resolution Vacating Utility and Drainage Easement for Sheridan Sheet Metal at 4116
Quebec Avenue North: Approved, see attached Council request with additional information
from City Engineer. This was continued from November 12 Council meeting.
C. Project #499, Resolution Adopting Surface Water Management Plan and Directing
Implementation of Said Plan: Approved, see attached Council request. If you are interested
in reviewing this plan, please let Pam or I know and we will provide a copy for your review.
The executive summary is enclosed.
D. Project #$84, Discussion Regarding City Property Acquisition Request by Grace,
Management, Inc.: The Council directed staff to work with the property owner on this request
and staff will proceed to have an appraisal completed on the property. See attached Council
request.
E. 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): Continued to a future work session. The Council thanked
the Commission for their extensive work on these ordinances. A copy of the final revised
ordinance and correspondence from the City Attorney is being distributed to you as a
separate hand-out with this packet. Please replace the original proposed ordinance in Section
9 of your notebooks with these revised ordinances.
F. An Ordinance Amending the New Hope Zoning Code by Establishinq Pawn Shops as a
Permitted Use in the B-4 Zoning District (Planning Case 96-04): Continued to a future
Council work session.
3. Codes & Standards Committee - The Committee did not meet in November. The Committee
will initiate discussion on the cellular tower and DNR Shoreland Management ordinances in
January, along with several other miscellaneous items.
4. Design & Review Committee - The Committee did not meet in November.
5. Commission Vacancies - With Commissioner Cassen moving up to the City Council there will
be vacancy that needs to be filled on the Commission. Commission openings will be advertised in
the February City newsletter.
6. Code Book Revisions - Also enclosed as a separate attachment are the most recent Code book
revisions. Please insert them in your red City Code book.
7. Miscellaneous Articles Also enclosed are several miscellaneous articles from planning
publications. The article on political lawn signs is particularly humorous.
Hope that you all have a safe and happy holiday season. Note that the next Planning Commission
meeting will be conducted on January 7. At that meeting, election of officers for 1997 will take place.
Attachments: Victory Park Antenna Site Agreement
4116 Quebec Avenue
Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds
Cellular Phone Tower Moratorium
Public Works Remodeling
6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue
4116 Quebec Avenue
Surface Water Management Plan
Grace Management
Pawn Shop Licensing & Zoning Requests
Miscellaneous Articles
Separate Attachments: Pawn Shop Ordinances
Code Book Revisions
' COUNCIL
{ UEST o *crxo
Or/glnattng Department Approved for A~enda A~enda Section
City Manager Consent
11-12-96
Kirk McDonald . ~ Item No.
By:. Management Assistant !~.// 6.4
RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO ASSIGN~IENT OF VICTORY PARK ANTENNA SITE AGREEMENT
In September 1994, the City Council approved a request by U.S. West NewVector Group, Inc. for a
conditional use permit for the construction and operation of a 95-foot cellular telephone antenna tower
in Victory Park (Planning Case 94-25). At the same time the City also entered into an Antenna Site
Agreement for the lease of the park property on which the antenna is located. Annual lease payments
are made to the City for the lease of the land.
Per the attached correspondence from the City Attorney, the NewVector Group is preparing to m~rge
its domestic cellular operations with those of AirTouch Cellular, Inc. to form a new joint venture, and
wishes to assign its interest in the Antenna Site Agreement to the new joint venture. The name of the
new partnership has not yet been selected. AirTouch Communications, Inc. is expected to be a 70
percent partner in the new venture and the NewVector Group will be a 30 percent partner. The assets
of the NewVector Group include certain cellular telephone properties, including the lease for the New
Hope Victory Park site. The NewVector Group wants to transfer its rights and obligations under the
lease to the new partnership and is requesting City consent to the assignment.
The Antenna Site Agreement (lease) does contain a term requiring the consent of the City if the lease
is transferred to anyone other than NewVector Group's affiliates or subsidiaries. Since the new joint
venture will not be a subs. idiary or affiliate of NewVector Group, the City Attorney indicates that
assignment of the lease to NewVector Group's new joint venture with AirTouch requires the City's
consent. The agreement also states that the City's consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. The City
Attomey is recommending that the City consent to the proposed assignment because the agreement
includes provisions to ensure that the City receives its rental payments and that the property is used in
the manner set forth in the agreement.
The City Attomey hae prepared the attached Resolution Consenting to Assignment of Victory Park
Antenna Site Agreement and staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MOTION BY SECOND BY ~
TO:
P. evtew: Admtnlstra~n: Finance:
RFA .-iX) I
I I I COUNCI~
/~ RE~T FOR ACTION
Or~~ Department Approved for ~ ~m~ ~on
City Manager Public Headng
11-12-~
Ki~ McDonald ~ It~ No.
~ Management ~sis~ ~~ 7.1
PUBLIC. H~RING: RESOLU~ON V~A~NG UTILI~ AND ~I~GE ~SEMENT FOR
SHERIDAN SHEET MET~ AT 4116 QUEBEC AVENUE NOR~, N~ HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNt,
MINNESOTA
~is is a public ~ad~ to ~ a ~ ~m S~n ~ M~, 4116 Q~ Aven~ No~,
to have ~ C~ v~te a ~ d a dmin~e a~ ~1~ ea~ ~ ~r ~o~. ~e C~ Council
Ci~ Coundi m~fi~. N~ ~ ~ ~ ~ad~ was ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~r and m~l~
C~ ~pa~en~.
~e C~ ~ ~s ~ ~ C~ ~1 may, ~ ~d~, v~ ~ ~ ~ ea~me~, or
a~mpani~ by a no~~a~ ~, ~ ~is~ by ~ C~ C~. ~ ~oner also must
submt to ~e C~ a ~ ~ or ~er e~n~ d ~ to ~ ~i~s to ~ vastY, as
a~ov~ by ~e C~ A~y. ~ ~e ~ s~t~ ~at no v~fion ~ ~e premiss shall ~ made
unless ~e Cou~i det~i~s ~at E is in ~e int~ d ~ pu~ to v~e sa~ ~1~ easemem. ~e
d~men~ a~ ~.
Sheddan Sh~t Meal C~ ~ 4108 ~m~ Pa~mhi~, an ~ m~ to and o~mt~ by
Sheddan S~t M~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ a 41~ ~ 4116 Q~ A~ No~, and on
and ~il~ e~ ~ ~ ~h ~e exi~ ~i~ ~ a 4116 Q~ Avenue (the
~e~y ~~). ~ ~~ is s~lN ~~ ~ vain et
MOTION BY , . SECOND BY
TO: , ,
Request for Action Page 2 11-12-96
~the easterly 105.04 feet of the westerly 271.71 feet of that part of the 10.00 foot
drainage and utility easement as dedicated along the north line of Lot 1, Block 1,
Graving Acres, per the recorded plat of Hennepin County, Minnesota."
The generat description of the easement vacation is ten feet from the north property line and extending
just past the' iength of the building on the east and west (see attached survey).
The petitioner states that the existing building on the site was constructed in 1957 'and improved in
1960. A plat was filed in 1980 containing a ten-foot drainage and utility easement around the perimeter
of the property running in favor of the City, pursuant to the City Code. The petitioner further states that
the preliminary plat, which preceded the final approved plat, likely contained a sketch of the buildings
on the site. Evidently the final plat, which was approved by the City and which illustrated the ten-foot
easement around the perimeter, did not contain the location of the building. Despite the existence of
the building, the plat was approved with a portion of the City's easement running directly through the
building.
The petitioner is requesting that the City vacate the portion of the drainage and utility easement along
the north property line to correct the previous platting mistake. The 'vacation will also satisfy certain
objections made by mortgagees of the property and will prevent objections made by a potential buyer.
All other portions of the drainage and utility easement would remain intact for the use by the City. ·
City staff, the City Engineer and utility companie~ have reviewed the request and have no oojection '
the easement vacation, as follows:
· The Public Works Department ha~ confirmed that there are no water, sewer or storm sewer utilities
located in the easemenL.
· The City Engineer has recommended that the easement be vacated under the existing building to
allow the present building to exist, but that the remaining easement west of the building remain in
place.
· Hennepln County, NSP and King V'K~eo responded to the notice and have no objections to the
vacation.
· The Building Oflicial hal ~ past files to determine how thil error could have occurred and
his chronology of eventl it attached. Both the City Engineer and Building Official suggest that the
vacation be ~ with the condition that the easement be reinst.~ed if the building is
demolished in the future, but the City Affomey does not feel that the City can impose this condition
on the vacation.
The City Attomey haa prepared the enclosed resolution vacating the portion of the easement that is
directly under the building and staff recommends approval of the resolution.
September 27, 1996
20685-JG
Kirk McDonald
Community Development Coordinator
City of New Hope
City Hall
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hop~ MN 55428 :
Re: Sheridan Sheet Metal/4108 Limited Parmer~p
As you know, this law ~tn represents Sheridan Sheet Metal Company ('Sheridan
Sheet Metal') and 4108 Limited Partnership ('4108"), an entity related to Sheridan Sheet
Metal and operated by Sheridan Sheet Metal's majority shareholders. 4108 was established,
among other reasons, for the purpose of owning and operating the building in which
Sheridan Sheet Metal conducts 1rosiness located at 4116 Quebec Avenue North in New
Hope (the "Premk~es"). As we ~ during our recent telephone conversation, because
there is no special City form, this letter constitutes 4101rs petition for vacating part of a
public utility easement which runs through the existing buildin& The legal description of
the Premises is contained on the survey of the property which I enclose for your review.
The legal description for the portion of the easement which we ate requesting be vacated
is as follows:
The easterly 105.04 feet of the westerly 271.7! feet of that part
of the 10.00 foot clrnin-ge and utility easement as dedicated
along the north line of Lot 1, Block 1, GRAVING ACRES,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
~Vl'innesotA.
The easement vacation my client is requesting is 10' from the north property line and
extending just past the length of the building on the east and the west. I enclose a part of
September 27, 1996
Pa/e 2
the survey which hi/Itlights the proposed easement vacation.
HI~'fORY OF PROPERTY
'[~h~ existil~ build~ on the Premi_ses was constructed in 1957 and improved in
approximately 1960. Subsequently, a plat was filed in November 1980 containing, pursuant
to a dty ordinance, a ten foot drainage and utility easement around the perimeter of the
Premi-~es running in favor of the City of New Hope. The preliminary plat, which preceded
the f~n~! approved plat, likely contained a sketch of the but'ldino on the Premises.
Evidently, the final plat, which was approved by the City of New Hope, and which likely
illustrated the ten foot drainage and utility easement around the perimeter of the Premi.,,es,
did not cont_nin the location of the building. Despite the existence of the buildin& the plat
was approved with a portion of the City's easement ~ directly through the building.
4108 has been informed by City Staff that there is no water, sewer or storm sewer located
w/thin that p~.rticttlar easement.
4108 and Sheridan Sheet Metal, having been good, taxpayin~ corporate citizens for
a number of years, respectfully request the City of New Hope to vacate the portion of the
drainage and utility easement alon~ the north property line to correct the previous platting
mistake. Moreover, the vacation of the easement will satisfy eena/n objections made by
.mortgagees of the Premi.~e,s and will prevent any objections made by a potential buyer in
the event 4108.decides to sell the Premises in the future. All other portions of the drainage
and utility easement will remain intact for use by the City. I enclose a check for $200 as the
required fee for this application. Please let me know when the public hearing will be held
on this matter. If you have any questions or need more information, please feel free to
contact me.
Very truly yours..
SIEGEL BI~n-~; GREUPNER & DUFFY, P.A.
JAY/caw
£n¢losures
{3reg John-~on
~- 4- ,-'-.. +- -4--
DRAINA~ · UTILITY JAUNT /
PER PLAT ~ ~AVINO
EXISTING BUILDING
4116 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH ,'
NEW HOPE, MN , .'
1-~ V I
In 1955, the original Sheridan Sheet Metal building was built over 200
feet south of 42~ Avenue North {then called **State Highway #55"!. It was
4,000 sq. ft. No Survey, site plan or floor plans exist for the original building.
Only a copy of the 1'955 building permit states that the building will be 1
foot from the north lot line. No easements existed on the original lot. Refer
to lot *"S-1'* on Exhibit A.
In 1960, a 4,000 sq. ft. addition was built on the south side. The addition
was accompanied by a survey and complete plans, which we have on
file. Refer to Exhibit *"1960'*..
In 1978, Jerry Horrington built the office building immediately north of
the Sheridan building on an existing 1.02 acre lot. No ufirfly or drainage "
easements existed on this lot. Refer to lot '*H'* on Exhibit A. No discussion is
· recorded about the adjacent Sheridan building being close to the
propert~f line.
In 1979, Planning Case 79-45 was flied by Sheridan to plat their lot, in
order to erect a new building on the south halt [Lot "S-2'* on Exhibit A]. No
discussion of easements is recorded in the minutes. No h/pical Preliminary
plat or as-built survey was submitted. Easements, however, are illustrated
on the final plat of Graving Acres. A variance for the undersized lot was
approved, along with the "construction approval". In Octob~, 1980,
Sheridan built a new 8,000 sq. ft. building. In November, 1980, the Graving
acres plat was signed and recorded. This had the effect of overlaying a
drainage & utir~f ~:~rnent on top of the north section of the oflginal
Sheridan ~
In response to the recent request for easement vacation, there is one
realistic compromise we may want to consider. While we created the
problem with the Graving Acres plat approval in 1980, they submitted and
revised the very same plat. An apparent oversight seems likely, along with
a cursory platting process review. Our present interest is to maintain
continued...
perimeter easements in all new plots for the general reasons, present and
future, that our Engineer has exploined to us. Mark Hanson and I suggest
that the portion of easement that is coincident with the bu~ding can be
vacated, for the life of the existing building, as long as the owner agrees
to the easement replocement when the building is demolished in whole
or part. This prevents expansion along any lot perimeters.The result, then, is
a vacation of 105 feet x 10 feet of easement directly UNDER the old
Sheridan building and steps. The new as-built survey {1996) that the ci~
received from Sunde Land Surveying, is copied as Exhibit "1996", clearly
showing the building and metal steps overlapping the easement.
Please advise, if you have any questions, or would like to meet on this.
1996
-, ,~o. g ,,2No Avl NO. ~-iHS 'fA/~ ~AIV/( Ot~ MI/V/VE$(~I-AI, /VA )"lC,
FIllET'AMERICAN TITLE ilVSUSAN
· 4tO~UMITEDFAR~ER
i
,- ,. ~ -~u~f ,~m~t'_
-- '"'f'~ ~_.) A ~, t I N !
I ,1~~ I A ! !
i L. O "'
~ '_-.L .... '-. -- --i t-~-~-~- .... './
, ,. ~'° J ~?
) REQUEST FOR ACTION
Onginatir~ Depa~t ~p~ for
Ci~ ~anager public Hea~ng
· ~~~ 11-12-~
~ M~n~m~nt ~i~t~ ~. 2
PUBLIC H~RING: RESOLU~ON A A HOUSING PR~~ FOR ~E ISSUANCE OF
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING R~NUE BONDS~ARK ACRES ~~E~S
~is is a public ~ad~ to ~ns~ ~e ~ue~ of Re~ P~ ~ Pa~~ for $2.2 million
in T~ ~ ~s to ~u~ ~ ~a~l~ ~ P~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 8~7~011 Bass
~ke Road. ~ ~n~ ~i~ ~
Coundl's i~ment ~ ~ $2.2 m~
a~u~on, ~a~l~ a~ ~ua~ ~ ~~ ~i~ ~lm ~ a~i~nt to ~m~te for~e
S~e of Min~'s ann~ ~ a~ a~ ~ ~ J~, 1~7.
~ C~ ~o~y ~d ~ ~~ h~ ~ ~ ~ R~~ ~vi~ a Housing
P~mm for ~ I~ua~ ~ Mu~m~ H~ Rev~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~e adoption of the
resol~ion ~11 ~ ~i~ a ~M ~~ ~ ~ p~ of ~ ~ to ~ ~ ~. ~e ~d i~ue
also ~11 n~ =s~ a ~, I~ ~ ~m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ly revenues genemt~
from the mn~l of ~e a~ent ~m~ex ~11 ~ pl~ ~ payme~ f~ ~ ~nds. In o~er words, this
~ issue ~11 n~ ~s~ a ~ ~ ~ C~.
Pa~ A~s ~en~ w~ ~v~ ~ ~iR in 197~9 ~ ~ ~ ~ a la~ pm~ ownemhip
group ~ includes 110 ~ h~si~ ~, ~ apa~~h~e un~ I~t~ in Broo~yn Pa~,
and 45 apa~ent un~ in Ro~n~aM. NI ~~ ~ su~N u~ a ~on 8 ~ntra~ that
is due to exam Janua~, 1~. Pa~ A~ ~ins 41 a~ a~ t~h~ (16 on~mom
apa~, 13 ~~ a~~, 6 ~~~ a~~, ~ 6 ~r~mom
to, homes). ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ $1,765,~
R~ $250,~
~ R~wes
TOT~ $2,2~,~
M~ON ~ S~O~
~A~ I
Request for Action ' page 2 11-12-96
The funds for rehabilitation would be utilized for windows, re-aiding, elevator, structural repair and
appliances.
A draft Housing-Program ia required to be Submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and
comment on or before the public hearing. The ap~icant'a 1orogmm states that the City of New Hope
believes that.a primary housing need of the City ia rehabilitation of existing muitifamily rental housing in
the City in order to prevent blight and blighting conditiona and to maintain decent, safe, and affordable
housing in the City for persona of Iow and moderate income. A method available to the City to facilitate
renovation of existing multifamily rental housing is the issuance of tax exempt bonds.
Subsequent to the October 14 Council meeting, the following additional information has been received
by the City regarding this request:
1. The Metropolitan' Council has responded that they have received and reviewed the housing
program and state that they find no apparent inconsistencies between the proposal and the policies
of the Metropolitan Development Guide.
2. The petitioner ha~ provided additional information, a~ requested, about the description of the
propo~cl ownership, the type of rehabilitation to take place, and they have provided a list of
The petitioner will be in attendance at the meeting to answer questiona from the Council. Staff
recommends, with the change in conveyance, that the propertie~ be subject to a full code compliance
inspection by the City in addition to the routine quality housing irmpec6m~ performed by HUD.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
O~ob~ 22,
C~ o~ N~ ~o~
~k M~d
~ST. MGK/Co~~ ~. C~r~or Bo~ ~~ ~u~
~01 X~on Av~. No~
N~ Ho~ ~ta ~428
D~ ~. ~~d:
Fo~o~ up on o~ p~ ~~oa ~~ ~ ~~ h ~~e to ~ ~u~
for cl~fion:
ProDo~ ~~ ~~on
fom~) ~
the sen~ p~ ~ ~of~ P~. ~ ~. Bo~ ~~, ~ ~ ~le
~old~ of~ Co~.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~r I0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ie o~
if qu~ low
~c~t~ or ~ l~e
int~ ~P~~. ~~ l~~o~~~Co~.
Reh~ Election
do~ ~~
i~o~
~~ - ~~~ 2~% of~ o~ i~ ~ ~ (for
budg~ ~
~- ~ ~ d~ o~ ~ o~ I~d ~m ~ ~e. It
S~~ ~ - ~ ,p~ b~ ~ ~ o~ ~ d~
sup~ by ~ ~ ~. So~ of ~ ~~ ~m~ r~ r~~ due to
d~o~on ~
rep~~.
3005 OTTAWA AVE. · ~1'. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416..220~ · PHONE: (612) 922-3~1 · FAX: (612) 922-3071
Aim, you requested z list of properties owned ~ man~$ed by us which is enclosed.
If there is any other questions or clarifi~on needed please do not hesitate to call me at 922-
3881.
Meanwhile,, thank you for your support and we will see you at the November 12th public
hear
S ere ,
~j~ Metropolitan Council ·
Working for the Region, Planning ~for the Future
bin MIOI
S~,
230 F.a~t Flftlt Street St. PuuL M~ ~10t- 1634 (612l 20t -63~0 Faa 291,~_~_e~_ TDD/TFY :30t.0804 Metro ~ t,tiw 229-3'7*80
c'~ ofN~,~ f~op~ P~rk m A~mmm~
4401 Xyloa Art Nm'th 41 Al~mMm & Tmmlmm~
~ew Hoi~, MN$~42~ 8007 Ba~ Mm RoM
, Ne~ 1~ MN ~S42~
3005 OTTAWA AVE. · ST. LOUIS PAIqK, MN SS416-22~ · PI,,ION~ (el~ 9~2-3481 · FAX: (612) 922-3071
I) W'mdowl. S~O, O00.O0
~) Xe-sidies- S6S,O(X).O0
4) Strucmu-el l~ep~- S35,0O0.00
S) Apphncee-
S~O,O00.O
1'~ bom Ixocee~ ~'e to be ~oplied u foilow~:
Totd ~2,200,000
tm, md ~ wOi b dbcted with a ~ ~ ~
We rupect~dly request ~ mm~ be bmrd .t ]~ur nexl sdmduld com~ mee~b~ in ~.
We would be hpt~ to mpo~ to mZ queaio~ or mque~ b ~ ~ou ma~ hvt
HOUSING PROGRAM
FOR ACQUISITION AND RENOVATION
PARK ACRE APARTMENTS
General
The City of New Hope (the "City") believes that a primary housing
need of the City is rehabilitation of existing multifamily rental housing in the City
in order to prevent blight and blighting conditions and to maintain decent, safe and
affordable housing in the City for persons of low and moderate income. A method
available to the City to facilitate renovation of existing multifamily rental housing is
the issuance of tax-exempt bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter ~62C, and
Sections 142(d) or 145, as appropriate, of the L~ternal Revmue Code of 1986, as
amended.
Housin_~ Pro_~,ram to Meet Need
A separate section of this Program contains specific information
regardin$ a project to be undertaken by Reprise Parmem Limited Parmezship, a
Minnesota limited parmership (the "Developer"), to acquire and renovate an
existing multifamily rental housin$ development in the City.
Monitorin~ Methods
With respect to the specific development hereiz~fter discussed on
behalf of the Developer, no ~ monitoring by the City is necroseS. Proceeds of
the bonds proposed to be issued to Finance the development will be held and
disbursed by a I~stee bank durin$ construction, and it is believed the oversight
exercised by the trust~ bmr, ~nd any title imm-ance coml~ny assistin$ the bank
with the disb~ of tl~ proce~ls, will be adequst~ to insu~ the development
Adrni~i~trative ~l.~i~ ~ City to Su~rvi.~ P~
~ s~,dal edministrativ~ work by the City is antk:ipated in cormection
with the dl~lm~l~t l~roposed.to be undertaken by the Devel~. As noted
above, constz'uctim~ d~ents will be handled by the trustee bank for the
proposed bonds. Afire' consl~ction, the facility must be operated by the Developer,
in accordance with various operatin$ covenants (re]atin$ to such thin~ as
maintenance, insurance, err..) to be contained in · Loan A~,eement to be entered
into by the City and the Developer, which Loan A~'eement will be assi~,d by the
City to the trus~ bank as security for the bondholders.
All costs incurred by the City in connection with the proposed
development will be paid by the Developer and therefore no administrative costs
~vill be incurred by the City. No additional staff will be required bv the City
carrying out the pr~p~seci' development.
Ceneral De~criotion of the Development
' The Developer proposes to acquire and renovate Park Acre Apartments
a 41-unit rental housing development located at 8007 Bass Lake Road in the City (the
'Pro. iect;'). The Developer proposes that the City finance the Project by issuing
revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $2,200,000 (the "Bonds"). putstiant to the
authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.07.
The costs of the Project are anticipated to be aa follows:
Acquisition
Rehabilitation 2.50,000
Bond Reserves
Rehabilitation to be undertaken aa part of the Project conaists of the
following: :
Windows $ 80,1300
Residin$
Elevator
Structural Repai~
Appliances
$ 2~,000
Tb.e Project co~iaa of 16 one-becttoom apattmettts, Lt two-bedroom
apattme~t~ and 6 tlu~.e.bed~om townhome~.
Bond Allocation'
An allecaelon of bondin$ authority ia requited trader Section 146 of the
Code in ot'd~ m imue the Bond~. l'b.e City intenda eo apply to the Minnesota
Depamame o~ l~mmce foe an allocation of bondin$ authority ia ~'aauaty 1997'.
Revenue Bond
It ia anticipated that the Bond~ will be i~ued ia the principal amount
of S2,200,000 and will mature ia n~ mote than forty ~40) yem'~ followia$ the date of
i.~ue, the BoncL~ will be sold publicly if credit enhanced by FHA ot FNMA ot will be
privately placed with an institutional investor if not ctedlt enltanced.
-2-
~(eetin~ ~Ieeds of Low and Moderate Income Persons
Park Acre Apartment~ is subiect to a Section 8 contract that is due to
expire in January 1998. The current owner is unlikely to renew the Section 8
contract, but the Partnership intends to obtain tax credit~ with respect to the Project
and renew the contract, this will result in the maintenance of units subject to a
Section 8 subsidy in the City.
~CHOOL i
AVE. N.
,, ~ COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Ot-lgtnating Deparunent ] Approved for Agenda _ Aaenda Section
Ordnances &
CityManager i ~I Resolutions
11-12-96 ~ [tem-"-~o.
Kirk McDonald
By:. Management Assistant By:. . ~0. ~
/
ORDINANCE NO. 96-24: AN ORDINA/NCE AMENDING NEW HOPE CODE SECTION 1.5g
BY EXTENDING THE CELLULAR PHONE TOWER MORATORIUM (PLANNING CASE
96-24)
At the June 24 Council meeting, the Council passed a Resolution Directing a Study be
Conducted Regarding the Regulation of Transmission and Reception Facilities of Radio
Common Carriers. The resolution stated that the Council found it necessary to conduct a study
to determine if them is a need to amend the City's official controls or comprehensive plan
relating to Radio Common Carrier Facilities (RCCF). Market demand, rapid advances in
technology and expanding federal licensure of radio frequencies has resulted in the
proliferation of RCCFs and that trend can be expected to accelerate in the future. The City's
existing regulations of antenna and tower transmission facilities predate the current expansion
trend and the resolution stated that the City Council was concerned that official controls may
not be adequate to meet the anticipated proliferation of RCCFs.
At the time the resolution was approved, the North Suburban Cable Communications
Commission, a joint powem organization of which the City is a member, was considering
undertaking a study of the appropriate locations and control of RCCFs in its member cities.
The resolution authorized that a study be conducted by City staff and/or the Planning
Commission in conjunction with the Cable Commission to determine if the City's official
controls need to be modified.
At the same meeting the resolution was passed by the Council authorizing a study on this
subject, the C0u~ also approved An Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting the
Establishment, Expansion, Modification or Rebuilding of Any Radio Common Carrier Facilities
W'rthin the City. The ordinance prohibits the construction of new or the expansion of existing
MOTION BY SECOND BY ,
TO:
Request for Action Page 2 11-12-~
RCCFs for a pedod through December 1, 1996 (approximately six months). The resolution and
the moratorium ordinance are intended to protect the planning process while the study is being
conducted. The Council has the authority to extend the moratorium for an additional 18
months subseqUent to December 1, 1996, if you so desire. '
The City is ~,ooperating with the North Suburban Cable Communications Commission on their
study, however it was not initiated until September and will not be completed' by December 1.
On September 19 a meeting was conducted with member cities to discuss the new
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and City authority with respect to existing zoning ordinances
and to discuss the desirability of cooperative and collaborative action. A second meeting was
conducted on October 23 to review the preliminary draft of a model ordinance. It is anticipated
that a revised draft will be ready in November and the ordinance will then be distributed to
representatives of the industry for their comments/suggestions. Once the model ordinance is
finalized it is anticipated that the language will need to be modified to be New Hope specific.
This will involve coordination with the Public Works Department and Joint Water Commission,
the Parks & Recreation Department (towers in parks), the Building Official and the Codes &
Standards Committee of the Planning Commission. The full Planning Commission will then
need to review the ordinance before it is presented to the City Council. It is not anticipated .that
the final ordinance will be ready to present to the City Council until the first part of 1997,
therefore staff is recommending that the moratorium be extended.
The City Attorney has prepared the attached ordinance which extends the cellular phone
tower moratorium for an additional three and one-half months or until March 11, 1997. It is not
anticipated that the moratorium will be in effect for that long, a~ staff will be recommending
lifting the moratorium once the new ordinance is adopted. However, the extension on the
moratorium will give staff several more months to complete the study that is in process. Within
the last year City staff have been contacted by several telecommunications firms seeking to
locate towers in the City, and once the ordinance is adopted and the moratorium lifted, the City
will be able to deal with these requests.
Staff recommends approval of ttm ordinance extending the moratorium.
NORTHWEST'SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
6900 W/nnetka Avenue North
Brooidyn P~rk, MN 55428
August 29, 1996 (612) 536-8355
Dan Donahue, City Manager
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue N
New Hope, HN 55428
T~.T.ICOI/~UNZCATZONS TOad/tS ~ND PUBI~ZO ~tZG~S-OP-~AY
Deer Mr. Donahue,
Many, if not all, area cities are being asked by various
telecommunications providers and others =o build new towers and
use the public rights-of-way.
The Teleco~munications Act of 1996 has significantly altered city
authority wtth respect to towers and public rights-of-way and
spurred increased demand for new towers and greater use of the
public rights-of-way.
The Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications 'Co~mission is holding.
a special informational meeting regarding these issues on
Thursday, September 19, 1996, at 7:00pm.
The purpose of the meeting will be to share information about
what other area citiee are doing to deal with these issue, to
discuss the new law and city authority with respect to existing
zoning and public rights-of-way ordinances and to discuss the
~esirability of cooperative or collaborative action.
Elected city officials, city managers, city attorneys, city
engineers and planners from your cityehould all attend this
meeting. Please invite these people on the Commission's behalf.
Please R.S.V.P.'by .T~eeday, September 17, 1996.
I look forward to seeing you there.
si ¢ rel
Gre~j~oore. Executive Director
Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1996
7:00 PM TO 8:30 PM
CRYSTAL CITY HALL
cc: Nl~ G~in-L~th, #~ Hope IrMSCCC
BrooMyn Center · Brookd)'~ Park · Cryst~ · Golden VeUey * Meplt Grove · New Hope ·Osseo · Plymouth · Robbinsdele
NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
6900 WMnetka Avenue North
Bmoldya Pa~k, ~ ~28
(612) 536-~55
October 10, 1996
Kirk McDonald
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue No,ch
New Hope, MN 55428
re= TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Dear Mr. McDonald,
On Thursday, Sep~meber 19T/1, we held an information meeting
regarding ~he Telecommunications Act of 1996 and £te impact on
public rights-of-way and telecommunications, towers and zoning.
The meeting was well attended and ~here were many positive
comments about ~he presentation.
As we suspected many, if not all area cities are receiving many
recjueete for permission to attach antennas to existing
or build telecamnunications towers. To · lesser ex~ent, there was
· concern expressed regarding increased usa o£the public
rights-or-way.
As you probably know ~.he League or Minnesota ¢[[~es and the City
EngineersAseociation of Minnesota have drartodanodel public
rights-of-way ordinance and are working on drafttng state
legislation which will be consistent withe, hat model ordinance.
The Suburban Rate Authority has a model ordinance as do other
attorneys who do work in tJ3is field, all of which have merit.
Unfortunately, all ~hesa choices only sam to add to the
confusion.
At ~he conclusion of ~.he information meeting we asked if the
Cable Commission should continue to play a role'wi~.h respect
these issues. The overvhelming feedback we recetvodwas
continue. Those tn attendance seemed to want help in drafting
ordinances but perhaps more impor~ant, wanted someone to
~acll~ute & discussion of the issues and to facilitate an
exhange o£ information among area cities.
Because ~he ~ssue of telecommunication towers and antennas seems
· . to be of more inodiate concern we will begin wi~hthie issue, we
" have scheduled a meeting for Wednesday, October S3, 1996
A.M., ak Crym2&~ C~tyHall to review, in detail a nodel Master
Tower Regulatory Ordinance. We intend to walk t~rough the
ordinance in detail and answer questions and take suggestions and
comments to improve the model.
Brooklyn Center · Brooid~n Park · Crystal · Golden Valley * Maple Grove · New Hop~ · Ooaeo · Plymouth · l~bbin~dale
We will then redraf~ ~hs ordinance and distribute At to
representa~ives of ~he industry for their comaents and
suggestionl and then try to hammer out language which is
acceptable to everyone, to the extent possible.
I wan= to emphasize that your city's pa~cicipation in this
process is volun~a~ and your pa~icipation will no~ preven~ you
from changing the lan~age or tailoring ~e lan~age ~o sui~ your
ci=y ~f you so desire.
City ~nagers, city engineers, city pla~ers, and city arCo=heys
who are inolved wi~ ~ese issues should at~end ~his meeting. You
may wan~ ~o selec~ one or ~wo people ~o represen~ your city.
I also encourage your co~ents and sugges~ions regarding ~his
process. Please phone me a~ 533-8196 wi~ your advice.
Sincerely,
~r~oore, ~xe~tve Director
No.wes= S~urbs C~le Co~ica~ons Co~iss~on
~0 S~O~ A~D:
city e~ineers;
city a~o~eys ~
couvc .
I/F UEST FOR ACTION
Orl~matln~ Department Approved for A~end~ A~enda ~on
Public Wo~ ~ 11-12-~ ~ve~ent & Plannin~
It~ No.
Jeannine Clan~ ~ 8.2
RESOLU~ON AW~DING FOR ~E CONs~UC~ON OF ~E PUBLIC
WORKS REMODELING PROJECT TO MI~LSO~LFF ~NS~UC~ON, INC., IN ~E
~OU~ OF $710,159; A~ORIZlNG ~E ~YOR ~D CI~ ~GER TO SIGN
(IMPRO~MENT PROJECT ~2)
~e b~s f~ ~ Publ~ W~ Rem~eli~ ~ ~m o~ on ~o~ 22, 1~. ~ere
were 14 ~em on ~ ~o~ ~ons~fing e~s~e i~ in ~ pro~ by ~e
~ns~on ~mmun~. A~~ A is ~ ~u~ ~ ~e ~. ~ I~ b~der was
Mi~el~m~. :
Pmi~ Budg~
~ ~~ 23, 1~, ~ ~ Ho~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'s estimat~
val~ of ~e ~ ~ ~9,~. In ~, ~ ~~ ~m~ ~ ~ ~st of
mmo~ ~e exisfi~ ~iN a~ m~i~ ~ ~i~i~ ~s an ~n~ $20,~.
Pmi~ Altemat.:
~e pmje~ was p~g~ ~ ~ fol~ng a~emat..
~emate 1: ~ a ~i~ ~ in ~m~ R~m ~132.
Ntemate 2: ~e ~ dw ~m ~114.
~em~e 3: Add ~ ~ ~at~ in ~eli~ R~ms ~124, 125, and 126. ~ese are
A~emate 4: ~in ~ m ~m~ 11, 1~ a~ mmp~te ~ MW ~.1~7.
~ate 5: R~ove M ~ ~iN ~mugh an a~e ~ a~ m~iN ~e e=edor of
Resu~ ~ ~ BMdi~
~e I~ ~. M~~~ ~n~~, Inc., su~ the foiling b~:
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Request For Action
Construction Award - Project 542
November 12, 199~
Page 2
Base Bid: $687,959
Alternate1: (Folding Partition) Add $ 8,200
Alternate 2: (Delete Day Room) Deduct $ 16,000
Alternate 3: (Remodel existing bathrooms) Add $ 16,000
Alternate 4: (Construct project Winter 1996) Add $ 45,000
Alternate 5: (Remove extedor paint, repaint) Add $ 14,000
Given the base bid and the altemates, staff would request that the Base Bid plus Alternates 1,
2, 3, and 5 be. accepted. This would result in a contract amount of $710,159. Staff from Public
Works recommends these alternates for the following reasons:
Alternate 1: This is the folding partition in the large conference room. This partition would allow
this large room to be broken into two smaller conference rooms. In the event of a
major storm which would require Public Works employees to stay at the facility, the
conference room could serve as a location for rest. ..
Alternate 2: This alternate deletes the day room from the project. The consensus of staff was
that if the folding partition was installed allowing the large conference room to be
broken into two smaller areas, the day room could be eliminated.
Alternate 3: This alternate adds the remodeling of the existing restrooma. Public Works staff
feels that the condition of the restrooms warrants remodeling.
Alternate 4: This alternate allows the contractor to begin the work Winter, 1996 as opposed to
Spdng, 1997. Due to the cost associated with winter construction, staff does not
recommend acceptance of this alternate.
Alternate 5: This altemate provided for removal of the exterior paint and application of new
paint. The building is in need to paint and staff believes that the Planning
Commis~ would object to the deletion of this altemate.
Funding Soumel:
The following funding ~)urces are available for this project:
Community Development Block Grant Funds $ 75,000
(for accessibility items only)
1996 Capital Improvement Program $150,000
Fund balances from Road and Bridge $485,159
Central Garage, and Labor Pool
Total $710,159
All funds are currently on hand. No special financing or tax levy is required for the project.
Request For Action *
Conatruction Award 542
Project
November 12, 1996
Page 3
Every effort will be made to maintain project costs dudng construction in the amount proposed
by the contractor.
Futura Considerations
Future projects that may be proposed for the Public Works facility include intedor paint of the
garage area, improving the access to the mechanic's shop, updating the exhaust system in the
garage area, upgrading the roof in the existing garage, and upgrading the vehicle fueling
system.
G:R~lu~t~542=on~t.
~ ' COUNCE.,
I[E~UEST FOR ACTION
~Ung Depa~Lment Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
City Manager Consent
5-96 Sarah Bellefuil Item No.
~ Community Develol0ment Specialist ~' 6.5
MOTION APPROVING FINAL PAYMIE~'T TO H & M ASPHALT COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,886.91 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF UTILITY EXTENSIONS AT 6073/6081
LOUISIANA AVENUE NORTH (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 519)
H & M Asphalt has completed construction of utility extensions (sewer, water and storm sewer)
to the property at 6073/6081 Louisiana Avenue North and is requesting final payment in the
amount of $1,886.91. The original contract amount was for $26,632.15 (based on estimated
quantities), with a revised contract amount of $30,710.19. This accounted for a project overrun
of $4,078.04.
The project overrun amount of $4,078.04 includes a change order which was approved by the
City Council on December 11, 1995. The change order was in the amount of $1,420.00 for
pipe bedding beneath the sanitary sewer and removal of poor matedal beneath the pipe and
road surface. The remaining $2,658.04 was for additional costs incun'ed to remove bituminous
pavement and import additional crushed aggregate and bituminous mix associated with street
and driveway repair. The City Engineer has confirmed that the project has been satisfactorily
completed and recommends approval of the final payment.
Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing final payment to H & M Asphalt in the
amount of $1,886.91 for completion of utility extensions to the property at 6073/6081
Louisiana Avenue North. CDBG funds will be used to reimburse the City for the utility
construction.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
COUNCE,
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Or~maLu~ Depa~L~em ~plm~-d ~or ~ ~ ~on
Ci~ Manager Public Headng
11-2~
Ki~ McDonald It~ No.
~ Management Assistant ~ 7. t
PUBLIC H~ING (CON~NUED}: RESO~ON VACA~NG U~LI~ ~D D~I~GE ~SEMENT
FOR SHERID~ SHEET MET~ AT 4116 QUEBEC A~NUE NOR~] N~ HOPE, HENNEPIN
MINNESOTA
~is is a public head~ to ~nS~ a r~u~t from She~an Sh~ M~I, ~116 Q~ Avenue No~h,
to have ~e Ci~ va~te a ~on of a drainage and ~1~ ea~m~t on ~eir ~o~. ~e Ci~ Council
pa~ a re~l~ in~afi~ ~il va~fion a~ ~ffing ~e d~e ~r ~is ~ic head~ at ~e ~o~r 14
C~ Cou~i m~. N~ ~ ~ ~ ~ad~ was ~blis~ in ~ ~ n~pa~r and mail~
to a~ ~~ ~ a~ ~1~ ~m~n~s. ~e ~ was al~ mv~ by ~e appm~ate
C~ ~pa~me~. ~ m~r ~ ~b~ at ~e Nov~r 12 Council ~flng for ~er review
by ~e C~ Engi~r.
~e C~ C~e s~ ~ ~ C~ ~u~i may, by ~~, v~e ~y ~ ~1~ ea~me~, or
any ~on ~e~, ~ ~ ~me~ i8 n~ u~ f~ ~, dmin~, e~, telepho~ or gas
pu~s. ~e ~ to v~e ~ ~me~ mum ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~r a~ must ~
ac~mpani~ by a no~~able ~, ~ es~~ by ~ C~ ~. ~ ~oner also must
subm~ to ~e C~ a ~ a~ ~ o~ ev~en~ ~ ~ to ~e ~mi~s to ~ vastY, as
ap~ov~ by ~e C~ Aff~y. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ ~ ~mi~s shall ~ m~e
unl~ ~e ~undl ~te~i~ ~ ~ ~ in ~e int~t ~ ~e ~ to v~e ~ ~1~ ea~ment. ~e
~oner has ~m~ ~ ~ ~ui~~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ h~ su~ ~e appropriate
d~me~ a~ f~.
Sheddan Sh~t Meal ~~y a~ 41~ ~m~ Pa~ip, ~ ~ m~ to ~ o~mt~ by
She~an Sh~t Me~, ~ ~ ~~ ~18 ~ 41~ a~ 4116 Q~ Av~ No~, and on
ea~ pa~ is I~ ~ i~~ ~i~i~. ~ ~st ~ ~ ~ v~n of ~ of a public drain~e
and ~1~ ea~ ~ ~ ~h ~ exisfi~ ~ildi~ ~ at 4116 Que~ Avenue (the
no~hedy pa~). ~ ~ il s~l~ ~~ ~ v~ o~
'~e east~ 1~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~t~ 271.71 f~t of ~ ~ of ~ 10.~ ~ dmin~e and
util~ ea~ ~ ~~ a~ng ~e no~ li~ of ~t 1, B~ 1, Gm~ng A~s, ~r ~e
re~ plat of H~n~n ~. Minn~0ta.'
M~ON ~ S~ ~
Revl~ ~ FImm~:
RFA-O01
Request for Action
11-25-96
The general description of the easement vacation is ten feet from the north property line and extending
just past the length of the building on the east and west (see attached survey).
The petitioner states that the existing building on the site was constructed in 1957 and improved in
1960. A plat was filed in 1980 containing a ten-foot drainage and utility easement around the perimeter
of the property running in favor of the City, pursuant to the City Code. The petitioner further states that
the preliminary plat, which preceded the final approved plat, likely contained a sketch of the buildings
on the site. Evidently the final plat, which was approved by the City and which illustrated the ten-foot
easement around the perimeter, did not contain the location of the building. Despite the existence of
the building, the plat was approved with a portion of the City's easement running directly through the
building.
The petitioner is requesting that the City vacate the portion of the drainage and utility easement along
the north property line to correct the previous platting mistake. The vacation will also satisfy certain
objections made by'mortgagees of the property and will prevent objections made by a potential buyer.
All other portions of the drainage and utility easement would remain intact for the use by the City.
City staff, the City Engineer and utility companies reviewed the original request and had no objection to
the easement vacation. The Public Works Department has confirmed that there ara no water, sewer or
storm sewer utilRies located in the easement. The City Engineer has recommended that the easement
be vacated under the existing building to allow the i:,'esent building to exist, but that the remaining
easement west of the building remain in place. Hennepin County, NSP and King Video responded to
the notice and have no objections to the vacation. The Building Official has researched past files to
determine how this error could have occurred and hie chronology of events is attached. Both the City
Engineer and Building Official suggest that the vacation be approved with the condition that the
easement be reinstated if the building is demolished in the future, but the City Attorney does not feel
that the City can impose this condition on the vacation.
In additional correspondence the City Engineer he~ stated that public utlitlee do not exist in the
easement adjacent to the building. He etatse that it do~ not appear that additional utilities
would have to be constructed where the easement i~ propmmd to be vacated to serve existing
condltione. Pr~ently the storm water runoff flow~ north femn the existing building towards 42"e
Avenue and weet to Quebe~ Avenue. The drainage in the railroad right-of, way is intended to
flow north. The City Engineer atat~ that although the existing grade~ in the railroad right-of-
way am marginal, it d~ not appear that the lack of good drainage Imf caueed problems to
nearby propertie~ beeed on existing conditions.
The City Engineer ha~ alm~ noted that it appears that a portion of the roof drainage does drain
north onto property where eaeementa do not exlet and this ia due to the fact that the building ia
located one te two feet from the property line. Damage to the existing pavement or erosion
doee not exist In thi~ area due to the building location.
Lastly, the City Engineer atatee that an easement exists a short distance to the south {110 feet)
in an eaet/weat direction along the common lot line between Lote I and 2. He states that no
apparent iaeuea will develop if · portion of the easement adjacent to the building is vacated,
and that from an engineering standpoint, it is felt that the eeeement on the north lot line
beneath the exieting building can be vacated. The City Engineer will be present at the meeting
to answer any queeUona that you have.
The City Attorney has prepared the enclosed resolution vacating the portion of the easement that is
directly under the building and. staff recommends approval of the resolution.
MEMO.
TO:. Kirk Mcl~qmald
FROM: Mark Haamn
DATE: Novembm' 18, 1996 '
5U~: Shetiden Sheet Metal
Eammeat Var, arian
Om' Pile No. 34.Gee (E96.28)
The City Council eonlinued the public he~inf _to vacate a pOctt~ of tim ten.foot wide drainage and
utility easement alons the no~ line of Lot I, Block I, Oravinl Amen {Sheridan Sheet Metal)
because U2 existing buJldtng is corumlcud aa the oxtsth$ easanent..At ~ ~irne, lmblie utilkiea
do not exis~ in the eueme~ where the Im/Iding does n~ exist. Prom an enjjneering standpoin~ it
to bo v~ to nerv~ ~xin~hB oonditim~ Il' rodeMdopmsm were to occur, nddi,loMl
utiliticu/va~znvnto may ba ~ whhah would he · eo~litke fca' redevelolnnent. Presently the.
storm wuler runoff flows north ftum d~s extsttnI buildlnS towads drL~d Avenue and wm~ to Quebec
Avcauo. ~ dmina~ in Ibc mileond eight d-way ia inlmubd to flow nm'th. Although the exi.~ting
gtadea in the ~ dEbt.of-way am marginal at beat, it does not aplmar that the lack of sood
It should be hotel it ~ · povtt~ of the roof drainage does drain nc~th onto property where
eM~nLs do no~xLsL Obvioudylids conditionexim .bemm the buiidins is laced one foot from
~t~ prolx~y line. ~ to IS~ c.xis~S l~VC~ Qr L'ro~iQn docs ncX ext~ ia r~is ~ duc tG
buildh~ loc~ofl. ~ fnc~ 1J~ ~a ~t exhu ~ shot ~ to Ihe s~th (I 10 feat) ia ~n ~.~t-
d~voltJp il' ii portion of thc e&~errlent is yin.aMd, from an ef184floorin~ standpoint it is fell that the
casement tnmoath the existins buildin& cnn be vacated.
233S Vt/est HighwaY36 · St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 · ~12-636-4600
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Orlgtrmttng Department Approved for Agenda Agenda Section
City Manager Development
Kirk McDonald ,~ 11-25-96 & pla~,i~o.
~ Management Assistant By:.~// 8.1
/
RESOLUTION ADOPTING SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DIRECTING
IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID PLAN (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 499)
In December 1992, the City Council authorized the preparation of a Surface Water
Management Plan, as required by Minnesota Statutes/Chapter 509. The New Hope Plan was
required to conform to the requirements of the Bassett Creek and Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Plans, which were approved by the State Board of Water and Soil Resources in
1990. Following the approval of their Watershed Management Plans, the Bassett Creek and
Shingle Creek Watershed Districts required that complementary local plans for each member
City be completed. The Council authorized Bonestroo & Associates to prepare said Plan under
the direction of a Task Force composed of residents and City staff. The Task Force, which
included three residents, a council member, representatives from the Public Works, Parks &
Recreation and Manager's Departments and representatives from Bonestroo, began meeting
in Apdl 1993 and concluded their meetings in Apdl 1996. The citizen representatives from
the Taek Force have been invited to attend thie Council meeting, and the Council may
want to recognize their participation on the Task Force.
The Surface Water Management Plan, which was distributed to Councilmembers and Task
Force members several weeks ago for review, is intended to provide a basis for an effective
and economical upgrade of the storm drainage system in the City to meet the new challenges
of surface water management. The Plan incorporates all three surface water elements:
stormwater quantity, stormwater quality, and waterbodies (lakes, streams, and wetlands). The
report provides detailed information on stormwater flows, pond and pipe improvements, pond
storage requirements for flood prevention, wet volume requirements for water quality control
MOT[ON BY , , SECOND BY
TO:
Request for Action Page 2 11-25-96
and pond water levels. The report also provides information about wetland classification and
water quality assessment in lakes. Maps are included which show drainage districts, the storm
sewer system layout, and the wetland and waterbody classifications. Cost estimates for the
proposed water quantity and quality improvements and financial alternatives have also been
prepared and are included for the Council's consideration. Repreeentatives from Boneatroo
& Associates will be present at the Council meeting to provide a brief presentation/
overview of the plan. Please bring your copy of the Plan to the meeting for reference if you
so desire.
The Plan was approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission on July
11, 1996, and was approved by the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission on
September 19, 1996. One of the recommendations of the Watersheds Was that the City
implement the DNR Shoreland Management Ordinance and City staff is currently working on a
draft ordinance which will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council the first
part of 1997.
The City Attomey has prepared the enclosed Resolution Adopting the Surface Water
Management Plan and Directing Implementation of Said Plan.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
Engineers & Architects
H~Ie ~y~ ~ ~
Ci~ ~ N~ H~
~1 X~ A~ N~
N~w H~ ~
B~ ~ No. ~1~1
Tvm.e'ni~_M hnvwith is the City's Surface WMa' Manqenml Plan. ~ ~~~ ~n~ ~
~nd w~ k~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ c~~ ~ w~
~1~ ~ b ~*s ~
We hope thie docmnesl ~ serve the City well in the futul~ as it addresses proMem m-cas and
strives to mahUin ~r improve tM wsmr resources h the City as well as tho region.
Respecthny submi~
nO~.VFROO, ROSlmF., At~U.IK & ASSOClATP. S, nqc.
233S ~f/est Highway__3~ · St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 · 612-636-4600
Executive Summsry
This mp~n preseau a Comprehensive S~ Waler biamgemem Plan (SWMP) for fl~e City of New
Hope. The report will serve as a comprehensive guide for the upgrade of the stormwa~er
management system in u~ City. This plan incorporates all three surface waxer elements:
Stormwam' ~h~mt~ty, Stormwater ~mItty, and Waterbodi~, (lakes, streams and e~pecially
wedamis). The integratiou of the three distinct elemenu in the overall plan is do~e in b~ce and
harmony ~ each other ami in conformance ~ the specific A/ency requh'emenU regulating each
particular element -.
The New Holm $WMP puts special emphasis on rvA~mi~g fl~e protection to high priority
waterbod~ i~e lakm and DNR pro~ctmi wethnds inside and outside City limits.
The New Hope SWMP satisfies the watershed requirements for local plans as stipulated by
State Statute 103B of the Af'mm~d~d ~ and it Js consistent with the State of Minnesota
The Lqneral objectives of the New .Hope's SWMP are summarized as follows:
· To ndnce to ~b*. grnu~ ~ extnl the lXdtk: capital exl2emiitm~ necessary
· To minbnLm existing flooding, erosion and sedimentm~n from surface flows.
To iml~o~ stommater quality in all protecuM wa~erbodies and lakes by
maximizi~ ~ ~anoum of my. as available for u~am~em.
o To ~ ami enl~mce wildlife _~_~A,
· To pr~mo~ groumiw~er recharge by crea~g ~Milioml pouding axeas.
· To pr~'ve and improve wa~.r r~io~l f~.
F. xecmive Sunmu~ i
Policies that will fulfill these goals were developed by the SWMP Task Force and are set forth in
Chapter 3 - "SWMP Goals and Policies".
The following steps were undertaken to meet the general objectives of the SWMP:
· Identify Regional, State and Federal Agencies' requirements.
· Develop City Guideline, Goals and Poticies.
· Determine design criteria for water qu~it~ and quantity improvements.
· Perform system analys~ and modeling.
· Develop management CTite~
· Esttumt~ cost of improvements and elaborat~ a Capital lmprovemem Program
SI~, the plan contains the following chapters:
1. tutroduction
SWMP Ooals and
4.Wmr ~ and (~mlity Sundards
System Amlysa
6.
7. ~n Program
8. gecp3hml~nts for la. development
9. Capital gmprovem*n* Program and lm.n~mentafion Plan
Chapter I Coma~ gmml information about New Hope, Task Force general objectives and
plan prepm, io-, steps.
Chapter 2 Stmmrizes agency requip~nts for local SWMPs and presem recommendatiolls
Chapter 3 Pre.scm the Task Force goals and policies used to elaborate the SWMP.
Chnpta' 4 Describes th~ set of criteria and standards used to upgrade the City's drainage
system and to improve the quality of the City's nmoff.
ii Erecutive Summary
Chapt~- S Discusses the parameters involved in ~he rJvee different computer models used ~o
m/xiel the sys-m~ Show~ model rem~ and priorifiz~ furore system improvements.
Proposm a short-term intensive sampling program in order to assess ~.e current
qu,alry of key waterbod/es in the City.
Chapter 6 Contains information about key is,sue,s rehted to thz operation and maintenance of
the surface drainage system (quantity/quality ponds, pipes and open channels).
Chapter ? Gives g~ ~.,Omm~6,~m az~d ~te~ to educate the various sectors of the
City about tl~ i,,~o, trance of improving w~ t_~ quality by reducing pol~tant loadings
in th~ runoff. TI~ sectors of the City targeted are: Residents, City Staff and
D6~'oloptllont Commtmi~;y.
Chapter 8 Contains information about requirm~nts for mievelopments in the City. A cash
dedication analysis is tho included.
Chapter 9 Contains a cost esti-,,t~, of all proposed improvements, a prioritization list of the
improvements, a short-term and long-term capital improvement plan, and a list of
This plan also contains a section of appeadit:es intended to provkk more dc"tail information about
and cost
o o°
F. acecutive Summa~ iii
Surface Water Management Plan
New Hope, Minnesota
Edward J, Erickson Mayor
W. Peter Enck Council Member
Gerald Otten Council Member
Pat Lavine Norby Council Member
Terri Wddlng Council Member
Druid J. Donahue City Manager
Lawrence Watts"° Finance Director
Jeannine Clancy Director or Public Works
Steve Sondrall Attorney
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates,
Engineers and Architects
St. Paul, MIn~lesota
Members of the
Surface Water Management Plan
Task Force
Peter Enck
City Council Member
Dan Donshue
City Manager
Kirk McDonnM
Comnmnlt7 Development C. oordinttor
Pnal Coone
Street Superintendent
Put Conrmi
N~w Hop~ CMmn
Bill K~
i New HOW Citizm
New Hope Citizm
Mark Hmsoa
CI~ Enlineer, Bonesm~ Rosene, Andertik & Assodmtes, Inc.
,,~
Cecilio Olivier
Bonesm~ Rosene, Ande~k & ~uodates, Inc.
Brett Emmons
Bonesm~ Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc.
COUNCIL
FOR ACTION
Originating Department Approved for Agenda _ Ag!reda Section
uevelopment
City Manager & Planning
11-25-~
Kirk McDonald Item No.
By:. Management Assistant B~. 8.2
DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY PROPF_.~TY ACQUISITION REQUEST BY GRACE MANAGEMENT
INC. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 584)
The City has received the enclosed correspondence from Grace Management, Inc. who owns property
and operates a business at 3701 Winnetka Avenue North. The property is located in an R-O,
Residential Office, Zoning District. They have inquired about the possibility of acquiring some additional
land at the rear (wast) of the property for building expansion purposes. The property west of the site is
owned by the City and is associated with Northwood Park. Grace Management states that they cannot
accommodate any additional employees in their current space and they anticipate the need to add
additional employees in the near future. They state that they would like the abil~y to heady double the
size of the existing space, and in order to expand, they would like to acquire additional land. They state
that they would need additional partdng spaces to accommodate the building expansion. They indicate
that they would be interested in acquiring an area of approximately 60' x 60' (3,600 square feet) at the
northwest comer of the existing property (subject to survey) to accommodate parking and potential
setback requirements.
This request was referred to the City Attomey for review. The City Attomey has stated that his opinion
is that the City could sell this property to Grace Management for fair market value based on am_
appraisal after a determination by the City Council that said property is not needed for any--Public
purpose, and specifically any park purpose, and that said sale would be in furtherance of the interest
and public purpose of the City.
The City Attorney recommends that any conveyance to Grace Management be done by quit claim
deed only without any general warranties regarding the use of the property. The City owns the property
in fee simple without restriction as to its use. The property was obtained by warranty deed in 1965.
Since the property is so closely connected with Northwood Park, an argument could be made that it is
dedicated park ~.
(cont'd.)
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Request for Action Page 2 11-25-96
The City Attorney states that the property has never been officially dedicated by the City as park
property. The deed does not place any restrictions on the use of the property for park purposes and a
review of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan indicates the City did not designate this area as park
property. A copy of the park and open space system map is attached indicating that Northwood Park
does not extend down to the subject property.
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on this request. The request has been reviewed by the
Parks & Recreation Department and they have no strong opinions on the requesL The requested land
acquisition would not interfere with the park trail system. The City Engineer arid Building Official have
also preliminarily reviewed this request and several concept plans for expansion are attached, If the
Council desires to give positive consideration to this request, the next step would be to have the
property appraised and/or surveyed.
Staff request direction from the City Council on this matter. ,.
October 14, 1996
Mr. Kirk McDonald
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, ~ 5542g
Dear Mr. McDonald: "
o
We spoke a couple weeks ago about the possibility of acquiring some additional land at the rear
of the property located at 3701 W'umetka Avenue North. At that tinm you suggested I put my
Crmce Management i~ in m~l of building ~xpamiom W~ ~an not w.c. ommod~ any additional
employeea in our currant ~ ami w~ anti¢ilm~ tl~ m~l to do ~o in th~ coming moatlm W~
would like the ability to marly doublg tl~ ~i~ of th~ ~ simm. In order to ~ we
would lik~ to ac. quire ~om~ additional ~ W, will mint additional parking ~mea~ with th~
building expansion and would u~ tl~ laml to ~:ommoda~ th~ parking mquimm~t and
potential set back requimm~t~ Our initial thoughts would I~ to ~ aa ama of
apl~ximmly 60~ at th~ aonl~g com~ ofth~ ~ l~lm~ s~bj~t to surv, y, m.
I'll call you in tl~ a~xt wink to &~.rmim o. ur azxt ~. Think you for as~tiag ia thi~ matter.
Sincerely,
Vi~ ~i~
c: C, ene ~ace
ACCREDITED MANAGEMENT C)RG,NiZATIONe
_ I[ _ IJlll I I ' ~ .... ~-- .'---:.~,-~--'--~-~ --'"~-
BETHEL
CEMETERY
THWOOD
PARK
November 9, 1996
Mr. Kirk McDonald
Management Aseistant ..
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
RE:Grace Management/City Property Acquisition Request
Our Ftle NO: 9g.11182
Dear Kirk:
This letter ia in response to the material you provided me
regarding the request by Grace Management, Inc. to acquire City
owned property adjacent to and west of Grace M&nagement'$ property
at 3701 Winnetka Avenue North· The subject property requested for
acquisition by Grace Management is a 3,600 sq.ft parcel in the
Northwood Park area.
It is my opinion that the City could sell this property to Grace
Management for fair market-value based on an appraisal after a
determination by the City Council that said property is not needed
for any public purpose, and specifically any park purpose, and that
said sale to Grace Management would be in furtherance of the
interest and publto purpose of the City of New Hope.
However, ! strongly recommend that any conveyance to Grace
Management be done .by quit claim deed only without any general
warrantiae regarding the uae of the property. The City owns this
property in fee atmple without restriction aa to its use.
Apparently, we obtained the property by warranty deed from Albert
and Patricia Tadeaco in 1965 (sea copy of deed enclosed). However,
since'the property is so closely connected with Northwood Park an
argument could be made that it ia dedicated park prooerty
preventing the City from selling it. Aea result, ! would not want
to convey the property by warranty deed and would only recommend a
conveyance by quit claim deed.
Mr. Kirk McDonald
November 6, 1996
Page 2
! do not believe that the property has ever Been officially
dedicated by the City as perk property. As indicated, the enclosed
deed.does not place any restrictions on the use of the property for
perk purposes end · review of the New Hope Comprehensive Plan
indicates the City did not designate this ares as perk property.
Therefore, it is my opinion the City can sell this property unless
there is · resolution or some other official action taken by the
City of which ! am not aware designating this property as park
property. Enclosed is · copy of the perk end open space system map
taken from the New Hope Comprehensive Plea indicating Northwood
Park does not extend down to the subject property-in question.
ks previously indicated, if the City determines it would be in its
best interests to allow Grace Management to acquire the property
for expansion of its business and the City determines this property
requested for acquisition by Grace Management is not needed to
further Northwood Perk purposes, the City could lawfully sell this
property to Grace Management. Please contact me if you have any
other questions or comments regarding this matter·
Very truly yours,
Steven A. Sondrell
$1w2
Enclosures
cc: O&ntel d. Don&hues City Manager (w/enc)
I!
$
II
CONCEPT NW-1
~ tn ~at ~ ~ ~b
al so elKtrtct ty, ~ '
I ~ ----143.~ WEST ....
uly ~tst~, la~ su~y~
Htnnesotl, ~y c~ttf~es
t~ Plrt~shtp I~ ~lversll
· st ~rJ~n Tttle Innrance ~c.: s~t~ b~ ~ required
· ~r~ by m or u~ ~ dtr~t ~ cr~ b~f.
,ey fully ~ corr~tly.s~
surv~ a~ ~ size, df~flst~s, P~k ~ ~ r~uc~, u w~ u dzat~se/po~
,, s~uc~res, t~rov~ts, eas~fl~,
I f~ther certt~ that (a)
~n~ pro~rttes or s~ts or ¢~-
: ~ ray by any of ~ld ~tld~ngs,
' - e~c~nts on~ ~e S~ject -
COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Origina~ Department Approved for Agenda _ Agenda S~-ction
uromances a
City Maneger Resolutions
11-25-96
Kirk McDonald [tam No.
By:. Management Assistant ~ 10.1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING C THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE BY ESTABLISHING
LICENSING REGULATIONS FOR PAVfNBROKERS, PRECIOUS METAL AND SECOND HAND
GOODS DEALERS (PLANNING CASE 96-04)
At the March 11, 1996, City Council meeting, the City Council passed a Resolution Authorizing a
Planning Study to Consider Regulations for Pawn Shops and Pawn Brokering as. a Legitimate Business
W'~hin the City of New Hope. The City currently has no special zoning or license requirements for pawn
shops and within the past several year~ the City has received several inquiries regarding the possible
location of pawn shopa in the City. The resolution directed the City Manager and staff to prepare a
planning study addressing the secondary impacts that such a busine~ would have on the City's land
planning procese. The study wse to addre~ the need for buffer zone~ from other land uses which may
be sensitive to a pawn shop business and document the licensing fee to be charged in connection with
Police Department costs involving the regulation of such a bu~inese.
In conjunction with that resolution, the City Council also approved an ordinance establishing a six-
month moratorium on any pawn shop or pawn brokering business within the City. The prohibition was
effective through September 11, 1996. On July 22, the moratorium was extended an additional six
months through March 11, 1997, due to the fact that the Automated Pawn System (APS) being
developed in Minneapolis would not be implemented until early 1997. The proposed New Hope
ordinance utilizes the APS technology. The AP$ is a sedes of linked software programs and hardware
systems that can automate the collection of pawn transection data from shopa in numerous
communities, disseminate the data to participating agencies, provide metro-wide shadng of pawn
related information, and enhance the identification of stolen property and the individuals involved. The
Planning Commiseion is recommending that New Hope implement the Automated Pawn System in
conjunction with the adoption of a pawn shop ordinance.
(cont'd.)
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Request for Action Page 2
For the past seven months the Codes & Standards Commiffee of the Planning Commission hat t)e~r~
studying this issue with assistance provided by the City's Planning Consultant, City Attorney, Ne~
Hope Police Department, Minneapolis Police Department and other New Hope staff. The materials that
were utilized as a basis for the planning study have been compiled in a notebook, which has l~en
distributed to the Planning Commission and is now being distributed to the City Council. This r~otebook
includes reports from the Planner on zoning and licensing issues, surveys of pawn shops and pawn
shop ordinances in Hennepin County and Minnesota, correspondence and legal research from the City
Attorney, a Police Department report describing pawn shop operations in other Hennepin County cities,
a description of the APS technology, zoning and licensing ordinances from other Minnesota cities, a
copy of the recently enacted Pawn Broker Regulation Act co-sponsored by Senator Ember Reichgott
Junge, information on licensing fees and copies of the proposed zoning and. licensing ordinances being
recommended by the Committee.
In October the Codes & Standards Committee presented its recommendations to the full Planning
Commission for informal discussion. At its November 6 meeting, the Planning Commission formally
considered both the zoning ordinance amendment and the Iicenaing ordinance and recommended
approval of both ordinances.
Due to the fa~t that the APS technology will not be available until the trot part of 1997, staff is
r~:emmending that the City Council continue thle matter for coneideration at a future Council
work ceylon eo that ataff can explain all sectiona of the ordinance to the Council in detail.
It should be noted that representatives from Cash 'N' Pawn have been present at previous meetings
when this ordinance has been discussed, have been helpful in explaining the pawn business to the
Commission and have made some recommendations for changes to the ordinance, some of which
have been implemented. Representatives from Cash 'N' Pawn may be present at this meeting. Cash
'N' Pawn is interested in establishing a pawn shop at the Ponderosa building on Bass Lake Road.
Staff recommends continuing this matter to a future Council work session.
COUNCIL
~ ItE~UEST FOR ACTION
Originating Department ] Approved for Agenda A~enda Section
· Ordnances &
City Manager I Resolutions
Kirk McDonald Item No.
By:. Management Assistant I By:. ~/ 10.2
^ ,. zo.,.o
conjuncaon ~ me Pawn ~nop Licensing Ordinance, the Council also needs to consider an
ordinance amending the Zoning Code to allow pawn Shol~ as a permitted use in the B-4 Zoning
District. Per the reports contained in the Planning Study, the City Attomey and Planning Consultant
have indiCated that pawn shol:~ cannot be totally prohibited in the City and it is staff's recommendation
that the most appropriate area for these uses is the B-4, Community Businese, Zoning District.
The Planning Commission considered this ordinance at it~ November 6 meeting and recommended
approval of the ordinance,
A public headng notice has been published, stat/ng that the City Coundl will be holding a public headng
on this ordinance at this meeting. Due to the fact that the APS technology will not be available until the
first part of 1997, staff is recommending that the City Council continue the public headng for
consideration at a future Council work session so that staff can explain all sections of the ordinance to
the Council in detail.
It should be noted that representatives from Cash 'N' Pawn have been present at previous meetings
when this ordinance has been discussed, have been helpful in explaining the pawn business to the
Commission and have made some recommendations for changes to the ordinance, some of which
have been implemented. Representatives from Cash 'N' Pawn may be present at this meeting. Cash
'N' Pawn is interested in establishing a pawn shop at the Ponderosa building on Bass Lake Road. The
Ponderosa property is currently zoned B-3 and would need to be rezoned to B-4 to accommodate a
pawn shop under ttte proposed ordinance. The applicants may be filing for a rezoning in December.
Staff recommenda continuing this matter to a future Council work session.
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO:
Z.B. C ~ Z.B. October 15, 1996 -- Page 7
the possibility of retail sales throughout the district. When the Rivards agreed'
e filed a separate suit to
to apply for that kind of permit, the township dropped the criminal charges.
: the board had no record The township recommended approval of the planned-unit-development
uld have given the board
permit as long as the Rivards gave additional information such as a descrip-
tion of the proposed commercial enterprise, a detailed map of the site and
?d 1011 (1992). proposed hours of operation. After the Rivards failed to provide the informa-
tion, the township sued them for the continued zoning violations.
Meanwhile, the Rivards applied for a planned-unit-development permit.
~m home in agrkulmrai The township said the application was incomplete because the Rivards failed
to include the requested information. About eight months later, the Rivards
(Minnesota) 1996 filed a "fmar' application. They lefi out the requested information.
.'nship, Minn. When they The township asked a court to stop the Rivards from continuing to violate
.1/agricultural. The zoning the ordinance. The Rivards argued the township gave up the right.to enforce
it did not define that term. the ordinance through its own inaction. (Thc Rivards had been publicly con-
;ricultural and residential ducting retail sales from their property since 1972.)
;d. Nevertheless, from the The court found the township could not enforce the ordinance against the
sold horses, tack, feed and Rivards. According to the court, the Rivards were conducting "agricultural
retail sales," which were permitted under "farming and other agricultural
~' housing of livestock, but purposes." It ordered the township to issue them a planned-unit-development
, sent the Rivards a letter _. ~-- permit.
The
township
appealed.
:, regardless of whether it [r
sell and board horses, and '~- DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court.
The trial court improperly ordered the township to grant the planned-
~ illegally parked commer- unit-development permit. The township was not prevented from enforcing its
~ view of nearby properties zoning ordinance. The case was returned for the trial court to decide whether
~ance). Several other items the Rivards' use of the property actu.ally was permitted under zoning laws.
se trailer, fuel tank, a small The township's failure to take action against the Rivards earlier did not
view. prevent it from enforcing the zoning Ordinance. Shortly after the Rivards
~aorse per two acres of land, bought the property, the township told them retail sales were prohibited. The
Rivards ignored the notice.
ften exceeded 12. In some The Rivards were conducting a rgtail and supply business for the general
:eeping 20 to 30 horses on
public. The business was an independent productive activity that was not
~erty and told the Rivards carried on as part of an agricultural function. For example, illegally parking
he property the following the trailers did not affect crop and animal production. They also allegedly
violated the zoning ordinance by keeping too many horses on the property.
be prosecuted if the viola- A court had to decide whether the Rivards' uses were agricultural. De-
ts never corrected the prob- ' spite its finding that the ordinance permitted the uses, the trial court did not
· conclusively resolve the issue. It should have considered additional evidence
nplaint against the Rivards. about the nature and volume of the Rivards' activities.
:ase as long as the Rivards Farmington Town~hip v. High Plains Coop., 460 N.W.2d 56 (1990).
moved an advertising sign, Farmegg Products v. Humboldt County, 190 N.W.2d 454 (1971).
~dment by.mid-March 1992.
ling
ordinance
text
amend-
(~_ Ordinance m Is family's deck a covered porch under ordinance?
; as a conditional use for a City ofFargo v. Ness, 551 N.W.2d 790 (North Dakota) 1996
hip denied the application, The Nesses owned a single-family home in the city of Fargo, N.D.
:Id better avoid opening up
Page 8 -- October 15, 1996 Z.B.
The city ordinance prohibited most structures in yards or courts from ob-
structing any building or structure from its lowest point upward. If structures
were used for private recreational purposes and less than two feet high, they
could occupy a property's entire required side yard. Uncovered porches could
not extend more than 10 feet into any required front yard or rear yard, and not
more than three feet into any side yard or court.
With the city's approval, the Nesses attached an enclosed deck to their
house. The Nesses then built a second deck attached to the enclosed one,
extending to their property's side-lot boundary. The deck was 18 inches high
at the house and 22 inches high at the edge of the yard. The Nesses used it
deck for barbecuing, sunbathing, sitting and reading.
The city building inspector determined the deck extension ~iolated the
city's zoning ordinance because it was an uncovered porch and extended more
than three feet into a required side yard. The city told the Nesses to remove or
modify the deck extension. The Nesses refused.
The city sued, asking the court to order the Nesses to remove or modify
the deck. (Meanwhile, the Nesses twice applied for a variance from the Fargo
Board of Adjustment. Both their requests were denied.) Without reviewing
any other issues, the court found the city acted within its jurisdiction when it
ordered
the
Nesses
to remove or modify the deck. It granted the city judgment
and ordered the Nesses to remedy the problem.
The Nesses appealed. The state Supreme Court found the city did not
show it was entitled to an order forcing the Nesses to remove or modify the
deck extension -- the city had to show the structure violated the ordinance.
The case was sent back to the lower court.
The lower court reviewed the evidence and the city's interpretation of its
zoning ordinance. It concluded the deck did not violate the ordinance. It dis-
missed the CaSe and the city appealed, '
DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the Nesses.
The Nesses' deck did not violate the ordinance, so the city was wrong to --
order them to remove or modify it.
The deck extensioa was not an "uncovered porch." The term was not
defined in the ordinance, but the dictionary's defmition of porch was: "1. A
covere.d entrance to a building, usually projecting fro. m the w.all and having a
separate roof Z An open or enclosed gallery or room on the outside of a "'
building; a veranda." The deck extension was not an entrance to the house,
nor was it a gallery, room.or veranda.
The deck was used for private recreational purposes. As such, it was per-
mired to occupy thc entire side yard as long as it was less than two feet high.
Thc deck was 22 inches at its highest point.
City of Fargo v. Ness, 529 N.W.2d 576 (1995).
Wingerter v. North Dakota Department of Transportation, 530 N.W.2d
$62
MAUMA NEWS __ -- Page 5
r-~ zr-~ ~e'~,'T~' a~'~ ~ T ~ YT'?~-~' . ~ t~ l~te~ si~ ....
· ~' ~e Ci~ of Ba~ d~ offi~ may be k~t "~1 in ~e
Since it's ~ el~ y~ ~d dfi~ ~e r~nsible for ~- f~ily." A m~ ~d ~ ~e ~ng f~ ~ of ~ o~
~ni~ng el~o~, ~e n~l~ s~ &~t it w~d ~e I ~cil ~. N~&~ told &e ~ ~ w~ ~ng m
g~ id~ to touch on s~e el~ y~ i~es ~d stog~ in w~ q~ a m~g~ to ~ b~. ~m, Ba~'s p~t
~s m~'s n~sl~, mayor is ~fing ~ f~ y~. H~ h~b~d is ~ng
. h~ office ~d &~'t ~I h~ of ~s pi~ ~fil &e ~y ~
· ~e L~e of~~ifi~ ~ong ~& ~e C~W Audi- he fil~. ~ f~ili~ ~ sa~ng ~ a maj~~ ~
to~ ~e S~ of S~e, ~d ~ ~~ons-~ - ~ la~s. ~e ~t~ayor ~v~ h~ la~- si~s
m~b~ have a ~e in ~a~ng elf,s-have ~- ' ~ &e I~el~on ~d h~ ~ h~ ~ck~ m~e up
v~ a ~ fo~ 1~ by ~ ~ ~ D~e of el~s ~ ~s fi~t n~e to ~v~ up h~ fi~ ~e so ~ he ~d
for ~e Ci~ of ~. ~e ~k f~ ~e UP ~ m~y ~ ~e ~s. ~, ~m~ of ~e m~ ~d ~ ~
l~slafive ~m~ in~u&ng ~e ~,w~d ~ve ~ ~ p~y ~ Ci~ C~I. She ~v~ her_
m~e ~t~ b~Jofin8 ~. ~ ~m~fions ~ ~ si~s ~d ~ove h~ n~e p~n~ "R~
~e l~sla~ b~.w~ v~ by ~e 8~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .-
m~l-in b~l~ pm~sion. ~e bill ~1I be in~ ~n ~s · ~ ~ 1~4 ~ el~ BI,ne Ci~ CI~ J~ T~'
~on ~ ~e ~j~o~e pro, sion.. '~ ., ~ tol w~ ~ ~ unus~ vot~ ~ ~e of ~e Ci~'s p~-
' ' ' ' ' cin~. A ~'si~ i~lf in a flo~-b~ n~ m ~e
~z ~ r~ ~at ~ ~ ~e ~fit~t 1~ w~k ~llin8 pl~'s ~ ~d w~d not ~ move. Vo~
~ ~' ~ ~e to a C~s~f-P~i~ m~. Liz juu w~ ~ m ~er ~. ~y ~~ ~
h~ to be ~n8 ~e ~ ~h~i el~ judg~ ~ ~ ~e in~y~ of ha~ng m ~k f~'~_
wh~ ~e ~ ~id~t w~ ih Ci~!<. ~s ~ ~ m v~. ~ ~e ~ &d n~ p~u~p~f ~t r~-
~ a ~ fi~c 1~ f~ ~e ~d~. -~. ~ d~ ~d ~'t find ~y~e ~llihs to y~ch f~ i~ ~e
. ~; , ' ~ . ' . ~blic W~ ~re ~d ~m~ C~ ~~ w~
· ~ ~&~m to &e mo ~e ~o~ qu~, ~ CiW ~1~ t~e &e ~ to l~ve. ~s dfi~ i~
of~~is~ll~vea~~m~mtmi~bdl~ ff ddcd~~iy~d&dn~l~ve~l 10:~m.~ma
~e ~en~t i~ ~ov~ by v~ &e ~_~s of ~t~ h~ ~ ~ m ~mfly n~ &e s~'~ &e
;~~lis ~dl m~ w~d be ~iminat~. ~'s fl6w~ ~ ~d ~d ~m ~ ~s ~y. -
i~c ~ ~s p~ ~m~mt is &~ ~ ~s ~ . / . - · '-
-have n~ b~ u~ in ~~is. ~y f~ y~ ~, ~ &e Nov~b~ 5& elam app~ J~ ~ ~at
v~ ap~v~ ~ ~m~t to &e Ch~ ~t ~d ~- ~ flow~ ~ ~ ~ pl~t~ ~ ~s ~llin~ pl~.
Iow ~ t~s ~d l~7~w~d ~ve b~ ~e tim y~ -'.. Will &e ~e ~idmt ,~i~ ~ ~S fi~t m v~e? m
~t~e~sofoffi~w~d~e~. . - , , ~ · ~-- _ ~-
· A d~ ~11 be ~ns m ~ md. ~ 21 y~ ~, ~' - ' · ~'
ofF~&~ ~11 have a n~ m~y&. '~e p~mt,~a~, Bill -' ' ' ~..'~~
, N~, w~ fi~ el~ in 1975. ~ ~e ~y '~ ~ he ~ ~ - . ~. ~ ..
II ..-.-