Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
010395 Planning
AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 1995 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSENT ITEMS PUBLIC HEARINGS Case 94-30 Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Construction of a 40,000 Square Foot Office/Warehouse (Paper Transfer) Facility and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outside Storage (20 Semi- Trailers), 7300 49th Avenue North, Hoyt Development, Petitioner 4.2 Case 94-34 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Marky Addition, 5009 Winnetka Avenue North, City of New Hope, Petitioner 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 5.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Miscellaneous Issues 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Review of Planning Commission Minutes of December 6, 1994. 7.2 Review of City Council Minutes of November 28, 1994. 7.3 Review of EDA Minutes of November 28, 1994. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ANNOUNCEMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT JANUARY PLANNING CASE PC94-34 5009 Winnetka Avenue North Planning Case: Request: Location: PID No: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 94-30 Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Construction of a 40,000 Square Foot Office/Warehouse (Paper Transfer) Facility and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outside Storage (20 Semi-Trailers) 7300 49th Avenue North 08-118-21-24-0012 Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District Hoyt Development Company December 30, 1994 January 3, 1995 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot office/warehouse (paper transfer) facility and a Conditional Use Permit to allow outside storage (20 semi-trailers), pursuant to Sections 4.039A, 4.21 and 4.144 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. Hoyt Development is proposing the construction of a paper collection/transfer station on Lot 2, Block 1 of the recently approved plat of Five Thousand Winnetlm 2nd Addition. The property is located on 49th Avenue, west of the intersection of 49th and Quebec Avenues, between the newly constructed Navarre Corporation and the New Hope Ice Arena. The facility is being constructed for Waldorf Corporation and would be a collection site where recycling trucks would dispose of their paper products and the paper would be baled and shipped, with the potential for future shipment by raft. The petitioner is requesting site and building plan review/approval and approval of a conditional use permit for the outside storage of 20 semi-trailers. This request was tabled at the November Planning Commission meeting due to lack of detailed site plans. o The petitioner has notified staff that the tenant has made a decision to locate this operation in another suburb and, therefore, the request is being withdrawn. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission pass a motion formally accepting withdrawal of the request. Attachments: Hoyt 12/14/Correspondence Previous Planning Case Report Hoyt Development C O M P A N Y 13400 15th AVENUE NORTH, SUITE F PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 Phone 612-551-4944 Fax 6 t 2-551-4943 December 14, 1994 Mr. Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: New Hope 3'Project Development Status Dear Kirk: Thank you for keeping me apprised of the Planning Commission and City Council schedule concerning oUr application for the above project. Unfortunately, the tenant prospect has made a decision to locate this particular operation in another suburb at this time. However, your efforts are appreciated and I will keep you posted on any new developments. Happy HolidayS!!~ Your~ vez-l tz-aly, Bradl~'~.~ Hoyt Preside~%t ' BAH:kc DEVELOPMENT e. CONSTRUCTION ' MANAGEMENT ' INVESTMENT Planning Case: Request: LoCation: PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 94-30 Request for Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to Allow Construction of a 40,000 Square Foot Office/Warehouse (Paper Transfer) Facility and a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Outside Storage (20 Semi-Trailers) 7300 49th Avenue North 08-118-21-24-0012 I-1, Limited Industrial, Zoning District Hoyt Development Company October 27, 1994 November 1, 1994 BACKGROUND The petitioner is requesting a Site/Building Plan Review/Approval to allow the construction of a 40,000 square foot office/warehouse (paper transfer) facility and a Conditional Use Permit to allow outside storage (20 semi-trailers), pursuant to Sections 4.039A, 4.21 and 4.144 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. Hoyt Development is proposing the construction of a paper collection/transfer station on Lot 2, Block 1 of the recently approved plat of Five Thousand Winnetka 2nd Addition. The property is located on 49th Avenue, west of the intersection of 49th and Quebec Avenues, between the newly constructed Navarre Corporation and the New Hope Ice Arena. The facility is being constructed for Waldorf Corporation and would be a collection site where recycling tracks would dispose of their paper products and the paper would be baled and shipped, with the potential for future shipment by rail. The petitioner is requesting site and building plan review/approval and approval of a conditional use permit for the outside storage of 20 semi-trailers. ° Preliminary site/building data is listed below: Warehouse area: Office area: Total Building Area Building footprint: Parking provided: 420,273 square feet, 9.6 acres 37,600 square feet 800 square feet 38,400 square feet 38,400 square feet 20 spaces provided - 8'-9" x 19' (includes 1 ADA space) The Design & Review Committee met with the petitioner on October 13th where preliminary plans were presented/discussed. Staff requested that a traffic analysis be completed that would identify the number of trucks per day that would utilize the site, hours of operation, truck routes, etc. The FIVE 'THOUSAND WINNETKA OUTLOT A I 2ND ADDITION Ik.T. DOC. NO,__ RON KRUEGER & ASSOCIATES, INC. LAND / /'.. / / / / / / / IMP DATA (-;-~m-iT m ~'&TIC~{ ~"""lT -- 1/' ~LE ELEVATIOH8 IMI8 LOT 2 " FOTURE PONO BY OTF · / TEMF~ORAR' SEDIMENT PON[ W/ RIPRAP - -'00.0 )RAN' STORM MH~I / / SITE 4401 Xylon A venue North New Hope. Mtnnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: TOD L/ne: 612-531-5100 612-531-5109 City Haft Fax: =5 ~ 2- 5~. ~- 5' Police Fax: =5 ~ 2-5J '-=~ ' - PuDlic Works Fax: ~6 ~2-535. ~ October 18. 1994 Mr. Brad Hoyt Quebec Limited Partnership c/o Hoyt Development Company 13400 15th Avenue N., Suite F Plymouth, MN 55441 Subject: Proposed Waldorf Paper Transfer Station on 49th Avenue Dear Brad: Enclosed please find the information on outdoor storage that you requested. As I indicated earlier, the Planning Commission is currently studying an ordinance revision that would allow certain outdoor storage without a conditional use permit. Outdoor storage is currently allowed in the I-1 and I-2 Zoning Districts, but a conditional use permit is required for all outdoor storage. Over the years staff has found that a number of businesses are not in compliance, therefore we are cortsidering loosenin~ the ordinance up and allowing a certain amount of outdoor storage without a CUP. The current proposal is to allow outdoor storage with a building/outdoor storage ratio limiting tile permitted outdoor storage to a maximum of 20 percent of the adjacem building area. Other conditions are also outlined in the attached materials. The Planning Commission will be discus$~ this code amendment informally at their November 1st meeting. If the Commission is in general agreement with the code amendment, it would then be advertised and a formal public hearing would be held on the code amendment at the December 6th Planning Commi.~sion meeting. The City Council would probably consider the Planning Commi~ion's recommendation at their meeting on December 12th. This could work well with your proposal, but keep in mind that if Waldorf's outdoor storage exceeded 20 percent of the buildi~ size, a conditional use permit would still be necessary. As I stated, I ~ your proposal with Dan to possibly get a "concept" CUP approval at the November Planning Commission meeting and delay the site and building plan review approval until December. We are generally not in agreement with that strategy, as the Zoning Code does not allow for any type of "concept" CUP approval; this is only allowed under the PUD process. If you come to the Plaiming Commi~ion meeting with only half of the information in November I am certain that you will be tabled, because the site and building approval and CUP for outdoor storage are integrally related to each other. I think you would be much better off to either present all the information for the November meeting or hold off until December. If you want Family Styled City ~ For Family Living Mr, Brad Hoyt Page 2 October 18, 1994 both the CUP and site/building plan review considered at the November 1st meeting, you need to get revised plans, traffic analysis, etc. to us by this Friday, the 21st. I think you would probably have better luck with your approvals if you waited until the December meetings and submitted plans/information to us by November 10th, came back to the Design & Review Committee on November 17th and were on the agenda for the December 6th Planning Commission meeting. I hope this answers some of your questions. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance, and keep me posted as to what your plans are for the November and December Planning Commission meetings. Sincerely, Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/ Community Development Coordinator KM/prs Enclosures: As stated Dan Donahue, City Manager Doug Sandstad, Building Official DESIGN-REVIEW Preliminary Staff Report MEETING DATE: October 13, 1994 SITE: 7300 49th Avenue North PETITIONER: Brad Hoyt PLAN CASE: 94-30 LAND OWNER:Brad Hoyt VALUE $ ? RECOMMENDATIONS: Person: Dept.: Paulson PUBLIC WORKS; Unable to comment-no utility or grading/drainage plans Kastanos POLICE; Major concerns in 3 areas: 1) Traffic problems on shared drive and public roadways to #169 2) Security problems with outdoor storage-no fencing & gates in a secluded area near Park facility and residences. 3)Nighttime noise and conflicts resulting from trucking. Smith FIRE; Plans incomplete -no water mains shown-3 yard hydrants are required in location shown for adequate fire department use, pending review. Outside storage of 20 semi-trailers is a major concern, depending on the contents of them and the security of the area. Hanson Engineering; No complete plans received. Phmts~g / Zoning; Fili~ is incomplete- * Extra fees required for CUP filing (deposit) * Lot survey required. * Grading/drainage plans required. *.Traffic study is required .for truck terminal * Landscaping plan & schedule require~ * See Design-Review checklist for many missing details. * No architect's certification of plans. ** Building Code redesign needed, due to indoor vehicle access. Different standards apply for ventilation, plumbing and electrical in vehicle areas. * Outdoor storage of 20 semi-trailers raises concerns about security, contents, snow plowing, nuisances and more. * Outdoor storage of 20 semi-trailers raises questions about security, contents, nuisances and fire suppression~ Staff recommend continuing the matter due to incomplete plan preparation and submittal DESIGN-REVIEW Ail construction projects that re~,~e Plannin~ C~ission and Council approval and which exceed $10,000 in value must be su~m~ to the Design & Review Cu~,,~ttee prior to the public hearing/s. Filing deadlines for these ~views are approximately 30 days before the re~ul~ly scheduled Plann/r~ (kmmnission meetings. Each proposal, in order to be accepted, must include all of the followir~: Project Name: ~Applicant :~ manni~ ca~ # 8 ~ of blueprints one set 8 1/2" x 11" redh~ctio~s one set of 8 1/2" x 11" ~ie~. Detailed Site Plans designed ar~ sigD~d___ by a registermd architect; site d/mensi=m ~jaoe..-m Muildin~ locatior, s ~t ~: al~. %, ~ Area %, ~.~p~!t % (~~) Design & Review Form ~' 4. Traffic circulati 5/08/89 Access points Sidewalk plans, public and private Parking areas with all dimensions (50 ' r for semis) Type and location of curbin~ Sno~ storage (Area = 10% of Asp~lt) Detailed landscape plan and schedule illustratir~: Location of existing plantings Iocation of pr~ Size of plants Type of plants (~eci~) mm~ar of plm~s Estimated value of lar~pin~ ~ 2% of cc~st~u~ci~ value) Exterior elevations an~ floor plar~ designm~ by a re~istere~ ~ ~l-a.~ f~tur~ (~:mity, mmmiti~, etc.) Lawn s~g~nkle~ Fire ~on S~rinkler s~, if include~ Poin~ of aooess ~or people an~ v~xicles 'detland / Erosion Control Xssues Illus£raced Planning Case: Request: Location: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT 94-34 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Marky Addition 5009 Winnetka Avenue North PID No: 07-118-21-14-0001 Zoning: Petitioner: Report Date: Meeting Date: R-2, Single and Two Family Residential City of New Hope December 30, 1994 January 3, 1995 BACKGROUND The City of New Hope is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of Marley Addition, pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code. The property is zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and the purpose of the plat is to subdivide the parcel into two lots to accommodate the construction of a zero lot line handicapped accessible twin home. The project is being sponsored by the City in conjunction with the newly created 5-City CO-OP Northwest Community Housing Revitalization Corporation and is being funded with a variety of fmancing sources, including funds from the Federal HOME Program. The CRC has signed a Letter of Intent to provide second mortgage write downs so that the twin home will provide affordable housing for New Hope residents with special needs. The City will oversee the construction and on completion the homes will be sold to qualified buyers (who will sign a purchase agreement prior to the start of construction). The City acquired the vacant, deteriorating home and property from HUD, in cooperation with the previous owner, in February, 1994. An extensive environmental and historical review was completed on the property in the spring, per Federal/State/County regulations. The New Hope Fire Department utilized the vacant home as a test burn site this summer and once the training was completed the home was demolished and the site was cleared and made ready for development. In June, 1994, the Planning Commission and City Council approved the rezoning of this property from an R-l, Single Family Residential, Zoning District to an R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, Zoning District based upon the following fmdings: Ao Bo The character of the area in which the subject property is located has changed since initial development of the site and adjacent properties. The character of the area has evolved such that the allowance of townhome type development is common to the area. Based on an examination of surrounding uses and zoning designations, it appears that the proposed use (twin home) could compatibly exist on the subject site and is in character with existing land uses in the area. Planning Case Report 94-34 2 January 3, 1995 Co Do The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. According to the Zoning Ordinance, 7,000 square feet of lot area must be provided for each two-family unit. At 19,200 square feet in size, the subject site provides ample area to accommodate the proposed use. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. A dilapidated, older house formerly existed on the subject property. The removal of the structure and construction of the proposed twin homes will only escalate property values. The proposed twin home development will allow the City to address the health and safety concerns associated with the former house while at the same time expanding available housing choices within the City. The City is currently working with Equal Access Homes, Inc. on a twin home design that is accessible to people with disabilities. The City Council provided input on concept design plans at the December 12th Council meeting and plans and specifications will be considered at the January 9th Council meeting. If approved, bids will be sought and considered in February. It is anticipated that construction of the twin home will begin in March and be completed by July, 1995. The site is bordered on the north (across 51st Avenue) by R-2 and R-3 properties, on the west by R-1 properties, on the south by an R-O, Residential Office, Zoning District, and east, across Winnetka Avenue, by I-1 and I-2, Industrial, Zoning Districts. The topography of the property is basically fiat with several trees on the site. The site will be relandscaped in conjunction with the new construction. As per routine policy, the preliminary plat was submitted to City Department Heads, City Attorney, City Engineer, utility companies and Hermepin County for review and comment. The City Code states that copies of the f'mal plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commi~ion during their review of the preliminary plat. City staff is not requesting a waiver of this requirement and recommends that the final plat be reviewed by the Planning Commission. 10. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. City staff sent the enclosed letter describing the development plans to neighboring property owners along with the legal notice in an effort to keep them informed about the project. ANALYSIS The total area of the proposed plat is 25,199 square feet or .578 acres and has a width of 168 feet on the north (51st Avenue North) and south (including a 40 foot easement for Winnetlm Avenue) and a length of 150 feet on the east (Winnetlo Avenue) and west. The width on 51st Avenue excluding the Winnetka Avenue easement is 128 feet and this is considered the front yard as the Zoning Code defmes lot frontage as "that boundary abutting a public right-of-way having the least width." Planning Case Report 94-34 3 January 3, 1995 2. The setback requirements for the R-2 Zoning District, as applied to this site, are as follows: o Front Yard (north) Side Yard (east-Winnetka Avenue) Side Yard (west) Rear Yard (south) 30 feet 35 feet 10 feet 35 feet The twin home proposed for this site meets or exceeds the setback requirements: the front of the structure will be located 30 feet from 51st Avenue; the west side will be located 35 feet from Winnetka Avenue; the rear of the structure will be located 47 feet from the south property line (exceeding the 35 foot requirement); and the east side will be located 35 feet from the east property line (exceeding the 10 foot requirement). The plat subdivides the property into two (2) equal parcels. The lot area and lot width requirements for the R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, Zoning District (Subdivision of Double Bungalow or Townhouse Lots: to permit individual private ownership of a single dwelling unit within such a structure), are compared below: R-2 Requirement Preliminary Plat Minimum Lot Area = 7,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width = 1/2 of the base lot street frontage of 75 feet or 37.5 feet Lot 1 = 9,600 square feet Lot 2 = 9,600 square feet Lot 1 = 64 feet Lot 2 = 64 feet The City Engineer reviewed the preliminary plat and made the following comments/ recommendations: Sanitary sewer/water service need to be verified. It is likely an additional sanitary sewer/water service will have to be constructed. Easements are properly shown on the plat. The right-of-way dedication along Winnetka Avenue should be verified. The City Attorney reviewed the preliminary plat and made the following comments/ recommendations: The preliminary plat of the proposed Marky Addition is in order from a legal standpoint with the exception of the following: Ao The property has been transferred from the City of New Hope to the Economic Development Authority. So the owner of the plat should be Economic Development Authority in and for the City of New Hope, a Minnesota municipal corporation. The signature blank for the owner on the plat should reflect signatures by the President and Executive Director. Planning Case Report 94-34 4 January 3, 1995 The legal description for the property needs to reflect a legal description contained on the Certificate of Title. This is the same legal description by which City received title from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development of Washington, D.C., and also the legal description used to transfer the property from the City to the EDA. A copy of that legal description is attached to this letter and should be incorporated into the f'mal draft of the plat. It is legally appropriate to use the attached legal description, but doing so also raises one further issue. The legal description makes an exception for the west seven feet of the east 40 feet of the property in question. This seven foot strip was probably transferred to the City by the property owners for- the expansion of Winnetka Avenue North. If that was the case, the City will either have to transfer out that seven foot strip to the EDA or join in the plat. Within the very near future I will check the property records and confu'm ownership of this seven foot strip. I will then contact you with a recommended course of action. Certain other miscellaneous information required by our Zoning Code does not appear on the preliminary plat, including the zoning classification and the building setback lines. The Code appears to require a front yard setback of 30 feet if the property faces 51st Avenue North, with a side yard setback of 35 feet. If the property is considered facing Winnetka Avenue North, special setbacks are required. Hennepin County reviewed the preliminary plat and made the following comments/ recommendations: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: Ao Do The existing 40 feet of right of way is sufficient, no additional right of way is required at this time. All access from the plat to CSAH 156 must be via the existing City street system. Hennepin County will not permit any driveway access to CSAH 156. All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed during construction. The Planning Consultant reviewed this proposal and indicated that since the property is presently not platted, a preliminary and f'mal plat are necessary. Based on the given lot size and the proposed building size, he found the subdivision acceptable. He stressed that the plat should not have a utility easement at the adjoining property line. Also, restrictive covenants will be drafted by the City Attorney and filed upon sale of the property to the two owners regarding maintenance of the building, upkeep, exterior finishes, etc. The Building Official reviewed the plat and had no additional comments besides those already made. Planning Case Report 94-34 5 9. No comments were received from utility companies on the plat. January 3, 1995 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Marky Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat to be presented to the Planning Commission for review/approval. 2. Verification of sanitary sewer/water service, per City Engineer. 3. Verification of Winnetka Avenue right of way, per City Engineer. Signature blank for the owner on the final plat should reflect signatures by the President and Executive Director of the New Hope Economic Development Authority, per City Attorney. Legal description to be changed to same description as shown on Certificate of Title, per City Attorney. The plat illustration and legal description needs to be changed to show an exception for the west seven feet of the east 40 feet of the property, as this seven feet is owned by Hennepin County, per City Attorney. All access to the plat will be via the existing City street system (51st Avenue), no driveway access onto Winnetka Avenue, per Hennepin County. o An approved permit be obtained from the County prior to any construction within the County right of way and all areas in right of way disturbed during construction to be restored, per Hennepin County. Attachments: Zoning/Section/Topo Maps Preliminary Plat City Attorney Comments City Engineer Comments Henne_pin County Comments Buildable Yard/Setbacks Easements Correspondence to Neighbors Plat Review Letter Concept Twin Home Plans JR HIGH SCHOOL { { { , o B.2 ',{ HOUSE SITE .0 R.4 EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION (59) N (58) ! I I I I I 19,20 sf ,~!_ , ! I,.,!--'/o'----! I I-- ~'o'--'1','. I "'"' "_.'i lo.,,oo ~ 7 ~ ~.e 1900-era= a-1 Zonel p~og-fesntona 1966 Residential (Special Use Pe ~ 1969 LB 197& HR (82)' ~/-~.03-). ~ ) Z 1979 R-o EXHIBIT B - AREA ZONING HISTORY L~J Plat Map J 64) ?S -,_- ( ) - 51ST AVE N (58) I (5"/') $ 4 (75) (74) (73) (?2) TS 'tS '7 (~) 8 (78) g ,0 (79) ~ (~0) I I Z '$ f4 (8~) (82) (83) (84) ~0 (47) ig (48) (45) 50TH AVE N I lO , (28) Z (29) $ (3O) Z (28) ~ I I I I I I SCALE IN FEET S89o31'40"E_ 64.CX:) EASEME~ ~4.00 o qi'r,s: I0 Z Z MORK -- CAMPION Z. ND ADC, I'TI MANOR J I MORK- CAMPION MANOR PRELIMINARY PLAT MARKY ADDITION ,CITY OF NEW HOPE DE0-30-94 FRI 3:52 P, 02/04 STEVEN A. SONDRALL MICHAEL R. L~FLEUR MARTIN P, MALECHA WILUAM C. STRNT CORRICK & SONDRALL, P,A. ATTORneyS AT LAW Edinburgh Executive Office Plaza 8525 Ed/nbrook Crossing Suite #203 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 TELEPHONE ($12) 425,5671 FAX (612} 425-$85? LAVONHE E. KE~KE SHARON D. DERBY December 30, 1994 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Proposed Marky Addition Our File No: 99.15043 Dear Kirk: I have reviewed the preliminary plat of the proposed Yarky Addition and find it to be in order from a legal standpoint with the exception of the following: ~1. The property has been transferred from the City of New Hope to the Economic Development Authority. So the owner of the plat should be Economic Development Authority in and for the-City of New Hope, a Minnesota municipal corporation. The signature blank for the owner on the plat should reflect signatures by the President and Executive Director. 2. The legal description for the property needs to reflect a legal description contained on the Certificate of Title. This is the same legal description by which City received title from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development of Washington, D.C., and also the legal description used to transfer the property from the City to the EDA. A copy of that legal description is attached to this letter and should be incorporated into the final draft of the plat. 3. You will note that the attached legal description makes an exception for the west 7 feet of the east 40 feet of the property in question. This 7 foot strip is in fact owned by Hennepin County, and was acquired during an expansion of Winnetka Avenue North. The EDA should proceed with platting the property using the attached legal description. The plat will show an 'exception for this 7 foot strip. · DE0-30-94 3:53 P, 03/04 Mr. Kirk McDonald December 30, 1994 Page 2 4. Certain other miscellaneous information required by our Zoning Code does not appear on the preliminary plat, including the zoning classification (which appears to be R2) and the building setback lines. The Code appears to require a front yard setback of 30 feet if the property faces 51st Avenue North, with a side yard setback of 3§ feet. If the property is considered facing Winnetka Avenue North, special setbacks are required. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha s3f2 Enclosure CC: Daniel J. Donahue, City Manager Steven A. Sondrall, City Attorney ~E0-29-94 ?HU 15:49 P. 04/04 EXHIBI~ "A" That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, ~ction 7,' Township 118, Range 21, described as beginning at a point on the East line of said quarter-quarter distant 330 feet South along said East line fr~u the Northeast corner thereof; thence North along said East line 150 feet; thence West parallel to the North line of said quarter-quarter 168 feet; thence South parallel to said East line 150 feet; thence ~t to the point of beginning, except the West 7 feet of the East 40 feet thereof, according to the Government Survey thereof. Bonestroo Rosene Ander. lik & AsSoaates Engineers & Architects December 23, 1994 Bone~o'oo, t~o~ne. Anderllk and As~:~fg£es. tr~c is a~ Affirrnagv~ AcoOn/Equgl Opportunrry Eml~lo3~r Otto G Bones[too. PE Robert VV Rosene, Joseph C. Anderhk. PE Marvin L Sorvala, RE Richard E Turner, PE, Glenn R. Cook, PE Thomas E. Noyes, Ro0ert G Schun~cht, PE. Susan M Eberlin. CRA *Sen~or Consultant Howard A Sanford, PE M~chae~ P Rau, PE. Mark D Walhs. RE Kelth A Gordon PE Agnes M R~ng, AIC.P Miles B Jansen, PE Rober~ R Pfefferle. PE Thomas W. Paterson. PE. L Phdhp Gravel. PE R~c,hard W' ~oster, PE Michael C. Lynch. PE ~n L W~emen PE Dawd O. Loskota. PE James R Malarial. PE Robe~ C Russek, A J AJer~ O. ~sch, RE. ~tn R Yapp, PE Jer~ A Bourdon. PE ~oE J. Arganek, RE Douglas J BenoE. PE Mark A. Hanson RE. Kennet~ P Ande~n, PE.~n D Gus[a~on, PE Michael T Rautmann, RE. Mark R: Rolls, PE. Cealio Oliwer. RE Ted K. Field, PE Mark A ~, PE, Paul G. Heuec PE Thomas ~ Anderson, A I A Ga~ ~ Monen. RE. John R Gorder. PE. Donald C Burgardt. REPaul J. Gannon, A~A Charles A. Enc~son Thomas A. SCko, PE Daniel J. Edison. RE.L~ M P~isky Fmdenc J Stenborg. REA Rick ~hmidt. RE. Hadan M Olson rsmaei Mamnez. RE. Philip J Cas~ll. RE. James F Engelhardt Mr. Kirk McDonald City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Ave. New Hope, MN 55428 Re: Marky Addition Our File No. 34 Gen De~r Kirk: We have reviewed the above plat and recommend the following: · Sanitary sewer/water service need to be verified. It's likely an additional sanitary sewer/water service will have to be constructed. · Easements are properly shown on the plat. The fight-of-way dedication along Winnetka Avenue should be verified. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO,~R~SENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAH:pr 2335 ~Vest Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 Hennepin County An Equal Opportunity Employer Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 December 27, 1994 RE: Proposed Plat - Marky Addition CSAH 156, southwest quadrant CSAH 156 and 51st Avenue North Section 7, Township 118, Range 21 Hennepin County Plat No. 2207 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. McDonald: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: The existing 40 feet of right of way is sufficient, no additional right of way is required at this time. · All access from the plat to CSAH 156 must be via the existing City street system. Hennepin County will not permit any driveway access to CSAH 156. · All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at g30-2550 for permit forms. · The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed duringconstruction. Please direct any response to Doug Mattson. Si ncerely,.: Thomas O. Johnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DBH Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 (612) 930-2670 FAX:(612) 930-2513 TDD:(612) 930-2696 Recycled Paper I 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428-4898 Telephone: 612-531-5100 TDD Line: 612-531-5109 City Ha# Fax: #612-531-513~ Police Fax: #612-531-517, Public Works Fax: #612-533-765~ December 20, 1994 Dear New Hope Property Owner or Resident: I am writing to update you on the housing activity that the City is under.king in your neighborhood. In February, 1994, as part of the City's Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation Program, the City acquired a vacant single family HUD home in deteriorating condition, located at 5009 Winnetka Avenue North. For several weeks during the summer the property was used as a test-bum training site for New Hope Fire Department. Once the training was complete the home was demolished and the site was cleared and made ready for development. Currently the City is working with Equal Access Homes, Inc., on a twin home design that is accessible to people with disabilities. The twin home will be accessed off 51st Avenue, will be one story, and is being designed to blend in with the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood. Each side of the twin home will be sold for home ownership, thus the City is in the process of platting/subdividing the property into two lots, per the attached legal notice. Construction of the twin home will begin in March and be completed by July, 1995. Please feel free to contact Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator (531-5119) or Sarah Bellefuil, Administrative Analyst (531- 5137) if you have any comments or questions about this project. .~incerely,/q City Manager Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Valerie Leone, City Clerk Improvement Project File #505 5009 Winnetka Property File Family Styled City ~ For Family Livin~ CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE': December 21, 1994 TO: Minnesota Department of Transportation Hennepin County Public Works Minnegasco Northern States Power Co. U.S. West Telephone King Cable Television New Hope Director of Public Works New Hope New Hope New Hope New Hope Director of Finance/Administrative Services City Attorney City Engineer Building Official FROM: SUBJECT: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Community Development Coordinator Preliminary Plat of Marky Addition Enclosed you will find the Preliminary Plat for Marky Addition, proposed by the City of New Hope to plat and subdivide City-owned property. Please review and return your comments by 4:30 p.m. Thursday, December 29th. This Preliminary Plat will be considered by the New Hope Planning Commission and the New Hope City Council on January 3rd and 9th, respectively. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at 531-5119. 12 12 4 PITCH: 4&5 BACK 12 FRONT. Option I PITCH: 4&5 SIDE . WINNETKA SIDE Option I 12 12 4 PITCH: 4&5 BACK . 12 FRONT. Option 2 PITCH: 4&5 SIDE . WINNETKA SIDE Option 2 4 PITCH: 4&5 BACK . 12 FRONT. Option 3 PITCH: 4&5 SIDE . 13 WINNETKA SIDE Option 3 CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 30, 1994 Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Community Development Coordinator Miscellaneous Issues 1. December 12th City Council Meeting - At the DeCember 12th Council meeting, the City Council took the following action on planning cases and other related issues: Planning Commi,~sion Resignations Resolutions accepting the resignations of Commissioners Doug Watschke and Mary Zak were approved and appreciation was extended for their years of service. Letters with copies of the resolution with the official City seal were mailed to Mary and Doug. They will also be honored with a plaque at next summer's appreciation picnic. Approval of Quote from Hy-Land Surveying for Preparation of Preliminary_ and Final Plat for the City-owned Property at 5009 Winnetka Avenue North -The City Council approved the low quote from Hy-Land Surveying in the amount of $950 to prepare the plats/subdividion of this property in preparation for the construction of a handicapped accessible twin home. Planning Case 94-32, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Installation of a Liquid Propane Back-up System, 3943 Quebec Avenue North, Versa Die Cast, Inc., Petitioner: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. A revised landscaping plan was submitted prior to the Council meeting. Bo Planning Case 94-33, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Occupation for a Home-based Mailing Service, 4801 Zealand Avenue North, Teresa Snell, Petitioner: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Ordinance No. 94-17/Planning Case 94-09, An Ordinance Amending New Hope Zoning Code to Allow Open Outdoor Storage as a Permitted Accessory and Conditional Use Within the Industrial Zoning Districts: Approved as recommended by the Codes & Standards Committee and the Planning Commission. Do Ordinance 94-18/Planning Case 94-26, An Ordinance Amending the. New Hope Zoning Code Regulating the Keeping of Animals Within the City: Approved as recommended by the Codes & Standards Committee and the Planning Commission. Presentation of Final Report of Joint Water Commission Water System Annlysin - The City Council received the report of the 3-City Joint Water Commission (Crystal/New Hope/Golden VAlley), which recommends that the existing north water tower (500,000 gallons) located at 47th/Aquila Avenues be demolished and that a new 1,000,000 gallon reservoir be constructed at the same location. The larger tower would provide more storage capacity and allow the tower to be used as a control tower in conjunction with the Crystal pumping station, which would aprovide more operational flexibility and enhance the reliability of the overall water system. It is recommended that the construction of a new tower proceed on a timely basis. The road and sitework at Cooper High School should anticipate the replacement of the existing water tower, therefore if the tower replacement does not proceed at this time, the planning and site plan for the new tower should be developed to insure that the Cooper and tower improvements do not conflict. An approved site plan would allow both the City and School District to anticipate the new tower construction in the future. Resolution Awarding Contract for the Construction of Street and Storm Sewer Improvements (36th Avenue Street Improvements) - The City Council awarded the contract for the reconstruction of the 36th Avenue Railroad Bridge and Phase I of 36th Avenue street and storm sewer improvements. A temporary bridge will be constructed to allow trains to cross over 36th Avenue during construction of the new bridge. Construction of the Phase I improvements, which will include the bridge replacement and street/utility work 250 feet either side of the bridge, will begin in April and are scheduled to be completed in September. The $1.2 million project is being funded with a $1 million State Transportation Fund grant, MSA funds and special assessments. Resolution Authorizing City Engineer to Prepare Feasibility Report and Plans and Specifications for Cooper High School Street Project - The City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility report and plans/specifications for street improvements near Cooper High School. The City's part of the project will include improvements to 47th and Zealand Avenues and school parking lot improvements, with costs being shared between the School District and the City. The tentative timeline and schedule, which is being coordinated with the School District, calls for plans/specifications to be approved in January and bids to be opened in February, with possible construction to start at the end of the school year. Public Hearing - Resolution Authorizing Sale of 7109 62nd Avenue North to Daren Mattson - The City purchased the property at 7109 62nd Avenue North in October, 1993, from HUD for $36,263. Prior to the purchase, the property had been vacant for over a year and was in need of substantial rehabilitation. During the summer and fall of this year, this property was rehabilitated for the total cost of $31,885. Both the purchase and rehabilitation of the property was funded through a MHFA Blighted Residential Property Acquisition and Rehabilitation Program grant, CDBG Scattered Site Housing funds, and EDA funds. In October the City put the house up for sale for $59,900. The house was sold using a lottery system with New Hope residents having first option in the lottery. The winner of the lottery was long time New Hope resident Daren Mattson. Daren is a first-time home buyer and is currently working with Marquette Bank New Hope to secure a MHFA first-time home buyer loan. The EDA approved a resolution which authorizes the sale of 7109 62nd Avenue North to Daren Mattson for $59,900. The proceeds from the sale of the property will be used to fund other housing rehab projects in the City. K. Motion Approving Concept Design for the Twin Home to be Built at 5009 Winnetka Avenue North - The City purchased the property from HUD on February 7, 1994. Since the time of ,purchase, the City has prepared the site for the construction of a handicap acCessible twin hOme. During the past several weeks, the City has been working with Equal Access Homes to design a twin home plan that is fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. Two proposed plans for the twin home were reviewed by the EDA. Access will be from the north via 51st Avenue. Each unit will be 1235 square feet and have an oversized two car garage. Each unit has two bedrooms, one bathroom, a kitchen, laundry room, living room, and dining room. Plans and specifications will be drafted and presented to the EDA for approval/authorization to seek bids in January. 1995 Street Project - The City Council has accepted the preliminary report on the surface evaluation for the 1995 street improvement project area and has ordered the preparation of a feasibility report, which will be presented in January. The report will identify the type of street reconstruction required and necessary storm sewer/sanitary sewer/water main improvements, total estimated project cost and estimated assessments to property owners. Transportation Plan - The City is in the process of updating its Transportation Plan and an open house for public comments on traffic issues will be held on January 28th at the City Hall. 42nd Avenue - The majority of work on this landscape/maintenance improvement project was completed this fall. A new reader board sign on 42nd Avenue directing people to the "Civic Center" area, which includes the Fire Station/Swimming Pool/City Hall/Civic Center Park, was recently completed. The new sign will replace the old reader board, which will be removed in the spring to accommodate a future new entrance to Gethsemane Cemetery. The clock tower at the intersection of 42nd and Winnetka Avenues will also be constructed in the spring. Site Lease Agreement - During the past month the City received the first year's payment and deposit due from U.S. West according to terms in the Site Lease Agreement. The tower is presently under construction. o Ho_vt/Waldorf Paper Transfer Station - Brad Hoyt has withdrawn his request for a CUP for outdoor storage and site/building plan review approval to construct a paper transfer station on property just west of the New Hope Ice Arena. Waldorf has decided to locate in Maple Grove. American Plannine Association "Zoning News" Article - Attached is an article from the November issue of "Zoning News" dealing with bias and conflicts of interest often faced by local planning and zoning officials. You may find it interesting if you want to do some extra reading. Planning Commission Chair Resignation - The City received the enclosed letter of resignation from Bob Cameron and I have attached it for your information. Bob will be missed by all of us and it will certainly seem strange not to have him at the helm of the Planning Commission. cc: Zoning News" Article Bob Cameron Letter of Resignation NOVEMBER 1994 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Dealing with Bias and Confl,cts of Interest By Mark S. Dennison Zoning officials must be mindful of ethical dilemmas and prevent improper influences from swaying their decision making. A landowner applying for variances, special use permits, rezonings, and other local zoning approvals is entitled to a fair and impartial decision by the local zoning body. If an official has a personal bias or conflict of interest regarding any aspect of the application, he should remove himself from the proceedings to ensure a decision free from any taint of bias. This issue of Zoning News examines various types of ethical dilemmas faced by local zoning and planning officials and offers guidance on how to handle potential conflicts and improper influences during the decision-making process. Bias and Conflicts ~f Interest Although zoning ordinances and state enabling legislation provide standards and criteria for deciding variances and other types of ~,~ applications, zoning decisions do not f---'-~..-~ always turn on straightforward assessments of objective factors. Community pressures ~.--"/ ---- and outside interests often infiltrate the process and threaten an applicant's right to an impartial decision. Unfortunately, / the ad hoc, discretionary natUre of many zoning decisions exposes them to potential abuse and unfairness. Zoning officials are susceptible to ~ Ik _ community pressures, political '~"~ influences, and personal bias because ~'~ of the localized nature of zoning regulation. Zoning officials are generally appointed because of their close contact with the community, understanding of community needs, and interest in promoting the public welfare. But an official's close association with the community increases the chart~ of bias or conflict of interest arising in regard to a partic~ zoning decision. Quasi-Judicial vs. Quasi-Legislative DedsleBs The distinction between quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative zoning actions can be especially important in challenges alleging zoning bias. Some courts will accord substantial deference to decisions labeled quasi-legislative, declining to question the motives for the zoning body's decision, notwithstanding the possible presence of bias or conflict of interest. For purposes of reviewing zoning decisions, this distinction arises predominantly in the context of rezonings. Courts universally' agree that decisions on variances and special use permits, building permits, and the like are quasi-adjudicatory in nature and, therefore, subject to judicial review for evidence of zoning bias. On the other hand, most courts consider rezonings to be legislative in nature. The rezoning is presumed to be as valid as the enactment of the original ordinance, and the burden is on the chgllenger to overcome that presumption. The court will not invalidate the grant or denial ofa rezoning on grounds of bias or conflict of interest--or for any other reason--unless the rezoning is clearly shown to be "arbitrary and capricious," "an abuse of discretion," "totally lacking in relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare," or some variation on the highly deferential standard applied to legislative acts. This legislative label may not settle the issue, however, became some courts will look beyond the legislative label to evaluate the type of rezoning action taken by the zoning body. [See, e.g., North Point Breeze Coalition v. Pittsburgh, 60 Pa. Commw. 298, 431 A.2d 398 (1981) (when a governing body applies specific criteria to a single applicant and a single piece of property, the governing body is acting in its adjudicative capacity and not its legislative capacity).] A minority of jurisdictions including Oregon, Washington, and Idaho make a distinction between comprehensive rezonings and piecemeal rezonings that affect single or small parcels of land. These courts characterize small parcel rezonings as quasi-judicial in nature. [See Fasano v. Board ofl County Commissioners, 264 Ore. 574, 507 P.2d 23 (1973).] Impartiality Standards The law governing bias and conflicts of interest in zoning decision making has been refined through ongoing judicial analysis. A finding of zoning bias depends on individual facts and circumstances. If the evidence shows that a zoning decision was tainted, the usual remedy is for the court to invalidate the decision because the biased decision maker should have disqualified himself from participation. Courts have said that when a zoning official must disqualify himself became of bias or a conflict of interest, the disqualification is absolute and cannot be waived. [See, e.g., McVoy v. Board of Adjustment of the ToWnship of Montclair, 213 N.J. Super. 109, 516 A.2d 634 (App. Div. 1986).] A biased decision maker's participation in the actual vote on a zoning application is not necessary for invalidation. A biased zoning official may disqualify herself from voting, and the court will still invalidate the decision if it finds that she participated in the proceedings or otherwise influenced the zoning body's voting members. [See, for example, Szoke v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Monmouth Beach, 260 N.J. Super. 341,616 A.2d 942 (App. Div. 1992); Manookian v. Blaine County, 112 Idaho 697, 735 P.2d 1008 (1987).] Likewise, the decision would be invalidated if the biased official voted, even though the zoning action would carry without the necessity of counting that vote. Further, courts may invalidate a zoning decision even when the biased official is only a member of an advisory board that makes findings and recommendations to the zoning body that ultimately makes the decision [see Buell v. City of Bremerton, 80 Wash. 2d 518, 495 P.2d 1358 (1972) (biased planning board member participated in recommendation to city council concerning zoning change)]. Courts have said that the self-interest of one official infects the action of the other members of the zoning body regardless of their disinterestedness. One court denounced a township supervisor's appearance before the zoning.board over which he had appointment powers as an imposition of duress on members of the decision-making body and a violation of basic due process. The supervisor appeared on behalf of a variance applicant. [Abrahamson v. Wendell 76 Mich. App. 278, 256 N.W.2d 613 (1977).] Courts have developed a number of approaches and standards for evaluating problems of bias and conflicts in zoning decisions. These approaches vary by state and take particular factual circumstances into account. Courts have articulated several tests or standards for addressing zoning bias. Many courts may use a combination or variation of more than one approach. ActualBias. The actual bias standard is the most stringent test and distinguishes between situations where a clear benefit will be conferred on a zoning decision maker and instances when only a potential for benefit exists. Courts applying this approach require clear and tangible evidence of actual bias as opposed to the mere appearance of impropriety or the potential for partiality. - Substantial Interest or Temptation. Under this standard, an aggrieved landowner must show more than a mere appearance of unfairness but need not prove the existence of "actual" bias. This standard is premised on the need to remove public officials from situations where a potential conflict of interest would have the capacity to tempt or improperly influence an official's decision. Under this test, direct and substantial interests provide grounds for disqualifying an official from participation in a zoning decision, whereas indirect or remote interests do not. Thus, the focus centers on the probability that particular interests may affect the ultimate outcome of a zoning decision. Appearance of Unfairne~ Some courts, in weighing evidence of potential bias, will disqualify an official and invalidate the zoning body's decisions ifa mere appearance of unfairness exists. Courts using this lesser standard, most notably those in the state of Washington, emphasize the need for public perceptions of fairness and confidence in the zoning process. In virtually every zoning bias case, the courts will discuss the importance of the appearance of fairness in zoning decisions. Most courts will not, however, rely on it as a separate standard Mark Dennison is an attorney and author who practices environmental, land-use, and zoning law in Ridgewooa~ New Jersey. and will not hold that an appearance of unfairness alone suffi~es to invalidate a zoning decision. Instead, they will consider the appearance of fairness in combination with evidence of "actual bias" or "substantial interest or temptation." In this s~nse, the threat to public confidence in the zoning process is viewed as coterminous with actual or potential conflicts and operates as an additional rationale for regulating bias. Types of Bias or Conflict of Interest In applying their various approaches to determining bias and conflicts of interest in zoning decisions, the courts will review evidence of several relevant factors. The various types of zoning bias and conflicts of interest can be grouped into fairly distinct catego- ries, one or more of which determines every zoning bias case. Financial Influences. Financial interests represent the most prevalent type of conflict. When zoning decision makers stand to benefit financially from ruling in a certain way on a zoning application, the zoning official's failure to disqualify himself from participating in the decision clearly arouses an appearance of unfairness and may be evidence of actual bias or "substantial temptation," which may provide sufficient justification for the court to invalidate the zoning decision. Zoning decisions tainted by financial influences especially undermine public confidence in the process because this type of bias creates a strong impression of local government corruption and dealmaking. Courts have invalidated zoning decisions both in cases where a local official actually benefited and in situations where the decision maker could potentially benefit. Zoning decisions have been struck down when a zoning official stood to gain financially as a neighboring landowner, as an employee, as a business associate of an affected landowner, or as the seller or purchaser of property impacted by the zoning decision. The most obvious type of financial conflict arises when the zoning official's own property will be affected financially by a proposed zoning change. Associational Interests. This type of bias arises in situations where a zoning official's impartiality may be compromised because she has a personal or business relationship with State Laws l~,cgul~ Zoning Contllcu.of Intere~ Ala. Code § 11-43--54 (prohibits cou_nci~en from deciding issues where spcdal financial inter~t exists). Ala. Code § 36-25 (code ofethics for ali governmental officials and emplOyees). Alaska Stat. § 29.20.010 (prohibits having a ~substandal financial interest'). ~ Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-222 (memb~ of board of county supen4sors shall nor vote upon any me, ute in which he, any · member of his family, or Fils pmmer is ~ interested). Ark_ Stat. Ann, § 21-8-304 (public ottldals or state employees cannot use office to advance persom~ interests except incidental). Conn. Gen. Stat./~am. ~ g-ll (prohibits pmxidpating when there is a direct or indirect, pm~oaal or financial interest). Fla. Stat. Ann. § 112.3143 (requiring public office~s to disclose interests wirhln 15 days ofvo~). Ga. Code Ann. § 36-30-6 (ill~ fo~ a couaciI member to vote on any matter in which hedsl~ is ~ intes~ed). Ga. Code Ann. § 69-204 (prohibits participation when it concerns a matter ~in which [the decision maker is] personally interested'). someone who will be affected bv the decision. Although this relationship may not involve a ~nancial conflict of interest, courts recognize that the associational interest may just as improperly bias the zoning official's decision. Although the evidence is generally circumstantial that a zoning official's familial, business, or other relationship actually has caused a biased decision, an appearance of unfairness is usually evident. Courts applying this standard will invalidate decisions when an associational interest raises the specter of impropriety. As with other types of potential conflicts of interest, the courts must weigh the evidence to determine whether the associational conflict is great enough to justify invalidating the zoning decision. They will generally examine the nature of both the association and the underlying interest to determine whether it warrants invalidation. Generally, the underlying interest has a greater impact on the court's determination of the issue of impartiality, but a close personal relationship may indicate just as strong a propensity toward bias. Close family relationships are usually subject to greater judicial scrutiny. More distant familial relationships are generally tolerated, although the nature of the underlying interest may justify invalidating the zoning decision. The potential for bias also may exist because of a zoning official's relationship to various community organizations, although the nature of the underlying interest is usually the determining factor. For instance, courts have found that mere membership in a church that has an interest in proceedings before the zoning body is not enough to warrant invalidating a zoning decision without evidence of actual bias. Prejudice andBias. This category is generally based on statements made by a zoning official that reflect a prejudgment of the merits of a particular zoning application. If the landowner can prove that the zoning decision maker was somehow predisposed to decide his application in a certain way, a court may choose to invalidate the decision. However, a zoning official's particular political view or general opinion on a given issue will generally not suffice to show bias. Courts recognize that public officials have opinions like everyone else and :inevitably hold certain political views related io their public office. In fact, zoning officials are typically chosen to serve in their official capacity because they are expected to represent certain views about local land- use planning and development. For instance, a zoning official may have campaigned for office on a pro- or antidevelopment stance. The courts tolerate this type of opinion because it is part of the political process. Moreover, official opinions concerning land development generally represent community values and preferences that may implicate important public welfare concerns. Only when the opinion rises to a level of personal or self- interest or shows prejudgment of a specific situation is the right to an impartial decision violated. This might occur ifa zoning official made statements prior to or outside of the ordinary decision-making process that indicated a strong presentiment about the decision. Whether a particular statement would be strong enough evidence of bias is a fact-based determination for the courts. In one case, a Rhode Island court found sufficient evidence of bias when a zoning board member told opponents of a variance application prior to the hearing that "we are going to shove it down your throat." [Barbara Realty Co. v. Zoning Board, 128 A.2d 342, 343 (iLl. 1957).] Ex'Pane Contacts. Proof of ex parte contacts may also show that a zoning decision was tainted by bias, although the courts may tolerate this as a part of the political process. Ex parte contacts--discussions of a topic outside offiCial proceedings-- frequently occur through lobbying efforts by various interest groups seeking to influence the decisions of public officials. In the context of quasi-legislative decisions, such as rezonings, the courts are especially reluctant to scrutinize ex parte lobbying efforts becauie of the separation of powers and First Amendment rights to influence the political process. However, when ex parte contacts are present in the context of quasi-judicial zoning decisions, such as variances and special use permits, courts will be more receptive to challenges on grounds of zoning bias. Gm_Code Ann. § 89-953 (stating code ofethi~ fo~ public officers and eanployces). Idaho Code § 6%6501 (prohibits participation by maunb~ of governing boards or commirte~ in matt~ in which ther~ is an economic interest by self o~ by Idaho Code § 67-6506 (u~ular~ tim economk: intt-r~ of members of the g~d, theSr relativ~ employer, and employees). Ind. Code Ann. §~;'~ .~7.-4~..909 (regulating planning comm of adjamnent conflicts). Md. Ann. Code art. 40/g~:~l~ (prohibits public officials from participating in ~ in which they have a conflict of interest). Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 22510) (prohibits direct and indirect pecuniary interest). Mo. Ann. Stat. ~ 105.462 (prohibits participation by member where decision may restdt in direct tlnancial or loss to him) Mont. Code Ann. § 2-2-125(b) (prohibits an officer or employee of local government from participating in official acrs in which he has a direct and substantial financial interest). N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 673.14 (regulating zoning board of adjustment, building code boa,,i, pM. ming board, or historic district commission conflicta of in~) N.J. Stat. Aura. § 40-55D-23eo) (r~tla~ phu~,fing board conflicts of inter~). N.M. Stat. Ann. ~ 3-10-5 (any member da governing board having any pouibl~ financial inteteat in any policy or decision is required to disdo~ matters). N.Y. Gen. Mun. Imw § 800-809 (prohibiting conflicts of interest of municipal officers and employees). Ore. Rev. Stat. § 244.120(I)(a) (requiting elected public officials other than legialamrs to announce potenti~ conflicts prior to acting ~). ILl. Gen. Laws ~ 36-14-4 (_prohibits pm'ticipation when there is a 'substantial conflict of inter, t% S.C. Code Ann. § 8-1.3-410 (no munic~ off~l or employee shall use his/her positi~ for fmam~ Ti,q. Va. Code Ann. $ 2.I-639.1 (state and locat govmmgat conflict-of-interest act). Wis. Stat. Ann. § 19.46 (no Public official shall ~ off, al action on any matter in which be/she has a substantial : financial interest). Courts that apply the "appearance of unfairness" standard of impartiality are the most likely to consider ex parte contacts as evidence of partiality in zoning decisions. In one case, a Washington court declared that ex parte communications, "however innocent they might be... tend to create suspicion, generate misinterpretation, and cast a pall of partiality, impropriety, conflict of interest, or prejudgment over the proceedings to which they relate..." [Chrobuck v. Snohomish County, 78 Wash. 2d 858,480 P.2d 489 (1971).] State Conflict-of-Interest Statutes A few state statutes specifically regulate bias and conflicts of interest in zoning decisions. Three states--Indiana, New Jersey, and New Hampshire--have statutes that prohibit members of a planning commission or zoning board of adjustment from participating in hearings in which they have a direct or indirect substantial interest. These statutory prohibitions are limited to partiality by zoning bodies that function in an adjudicative capacity. A few other states, such as Virginia, New York, and Connecticut, have broader regulations that require impartiality by zoning decision makers who act in either a legislative or adjudicative capacity. Connecticut's statute has the most comprehensive scheme. For example, it prohibits zoning officials from participating in any hearing or decision in which they have either a direct or indirect personal or financial interest. Several other states have general governmental ethics and conflict-of-interest statutes that provide a basis for regulating various types of bias and conflicts by public officials. At least 19 have statutes that prohibit participation by local officials in decisions in which they or a particular associate have a financial interest. Relatively few cases have been decided under these statutes, however, so the precise scope of ~heir application in the context of zoning bias is uncertain. In the Public Interest Zoning officials should make every conceivable effort to protect the integrity of the zoning and land-use planning process through impartial decision making. Biased de~cisions nog only undermine public confidence in the local zoni~ng body I~ttt ~ more susceptible to unwanted and costly court challenges. Big Box Retail in the Big ApPle? The New York City planning department wants to give big retailers the key to the citym~and much of the small business community is preparing to change the lock if it does. Seeking to reverse the city's significant decline in retail sales and employ- ment, the department is proposing to change the zoning of manufacturing and industrial districts to encourage specialized discount retailers and warehouse stores. The 20,000 acres targeted include abandoned and underused industrial land in every borough but Manhattan. Current zoning allows only 10,000 square feet for food, department, and clothing stores and an array of other retail uses within areas zoned for light and heavy manufacturing. Large retail stores seeking to locate in these districts must apply for a special permit, which can take years. The proposal would allow any retail development up to 100,000 square feet to be permitted as-of-right on wide streets. Others would need a special permit from the planning commission. The planning' department argues that making it easier for discount stores to locate in abandoned industrial areas will promote investment in new retail developments, generate employment opportunities, and increase sales and property tax revenues. But many small storekeepers oppose the plan, claiming it creates an unfair playing field. Should Mayor Rudolph Giuliani support it, the city planning commission would then review it. A st'ate-mandated environmental impact study and approval by both the borough presidents and community boards would follow before it could go to the city council. KevinJ. Krizek Montgomery County Open Space Preservation: Program Recommendations Open Space Preservation Task Force, Montgomery County Court- house, Norristown, PA 19404. September 14, 1993. 60pp. Free. Late last year, Montgomery County in suburban Philadelphia approved a 10-year, $100 million program for open space acquisition. This document details the rationale behind the program as developed by the task force assigned by the county board to study the issue. Modeling Future Development on the Design Characteristics of Maryland's Traditional Settlements Maryland Office of Planning (in cooperation with the School of Architecture, University of Maryland), 301 W. Preston St., Room 1101, Baltimore, MD 21201. August 1994. l l2 pp. $2. Neotraditional and duster designs for rural and suburban communities have been attracting increased attention in recent years as planners seek new solutions to the problem of urban sprawl. This effort, the result of a university research seminar on small town paradigms, examines a series of traditional Maryland communities and concludes with alternative models for zoning ordinance language to facilitate traditional design. The appendices include sample provisions of local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances from existing communities. Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $45 (U.S.) and $54 (foreign). Michael B. Barker, Executive Director; Frank S. So, Deputy Executive Director; William R: Klein, Director of Research. Zoning News is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, Editor; Michael Barrette. Dan Biver, Sarah Bohlen, Fay Dolnick, Michelle Gregory, Sanjay Jeer, Beth McGuire, Marya Morris, David Smith, Reporters; Cynthia Che~ki, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Copyright © 1994 by American Planning A~sociation, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637. The American Planning A~sociation has headquarters offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning A~ociation. 5Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. ~ December 12, 1994 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN/55428 / This letter will serve as my resignation from the New Hope Planning Commission effective immediately. Since the commission will be electing new officers in January, this seems like an appropriate time for me to leave. During the twenty-some years I have served on the commission, I have always been proud to be associated with the City of New Hope. We have an exceptionally well managed and governed city. I have watched this process and am in a position to know that we are served by a mayor and council and city manager and staff who have public interest as the number one priority. It has been a very real personal satisfaction to volunteer my time in assisting the city in some small way. Thank you for the great assistance you have given me in helping the Planning Commission to do its job. CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM II DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 30, 1994 Planning Commission Members Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, Community Development Coordinator ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS FOR 1995 Section 2.134 of the New Hope City Code, Planning Commission - Organization, states that "the Planning Commission shall elect one of its members as Chairman, one as Vice-Chairman, and another as Secretary, each of whom shall hold office until December 31st following their election". It appears to be the intent of the City Code that Planning Commission officers are to be elected on an annual basis. Staff recommends that the election of officers be conducted at the January Planning Commission meeting. As some of you are aware, four years ago we discovered that an election of officers had not been conducted since 1984. An election was conducted and it was determined that thereafter the election of officers would be conducted at the first meeting of the year on an annual basis so that the elections could be officially recorded in the minutes and be in conformance with City Code. Excerpts from the City Code pertaining to this matter, previous minutes regarding 1993 and 1994 officer elections, and a list of current Planning Commission members is enclosed for your information. Current officers include: Robert Cameron, Chairman Robert Gundershaug, Vice Chairman William Sonsin, Third Officer Bob Gundershaug serves as the Chair for the Design & Review Committee and Bill Sonsin serves as the Chair for the Codes & Standards Committee. As you are aware, Robert Cameron, who has served as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the past 20 years, resigned effective December 31, 1994. Therefore, it will be necessary to elect a new Chairman and other officers. In the recent past, the Chairman has not served as a Chair for one of the sub-committees, so if a current sub-committee Chair is elected as Chairman of the Planning Commission, a determination will need to be made if that person will also Chair a sub-committee or if a new sub-committee Chair should be selected. Staff would also recommend that the newly appointed Commissioners be assigned to a sub-committee. Finally, the Planning Commission has operated for the past few years with eight members (although the City Code says the Commission can have up to ten members). With the resignation of Todd Lifson this past spring, the Commission declined to seven members. Applications were solicited and three new members were recently appointed, bringing the Commission up to ten members. With the recent resignation of three more members, the Commission is again down to seven members. Applications will again be solicited so at least one additional member can be appointed so the Commission will have a minimum of eight members. In the meantime, with a Commission of seven and a quorum of four members required to conduct business, please remember that your attendance at meetings is very important. Please contact me (Kirk McDonald 531-5119) or my secretary (Pam Sylvester 531-5110) in advance if you are not able to attend a meeting. Thanks for your cooperation. CHAIR: CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Codes and Standards Sonsin, William 3308 Gettysburg Avenue N. 55427 Underdahl, Vi Roger Landy 7706 53rd Avenue North, 55428 4417 Flag Avenue N. DesiGn and Review Cassen, Sharon 8040 60-1/2 Avenue North, 55428 Gundershaug, Robert 6141 Utah Avenue North, 55428 545-4401 525-0258 (w) 533-5913 535-7602 (w) 537-5193 553-1810 (w) 537-2608 535-4788 (w) Manaqement Assistant/Community Development Coordinator Kirk McDonald 4401 Xylon Avenue North Pam Sylvester Community Development Secretary 531-5119 (w) 531-5110 (w) Planning Consultant Alan Brixius) David Licht ) Northwest Associated Consultants 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555 Minneapolis, MN 55416 595-9837 (Fax No.) 595-9636 NEW MEMBERS - NOT YET ASSIGNED TO COMMITTEES William Oelkers 5909 Ensign Avenue N. 535-6144 (h) 569-5641 (w) Richard Stulberg 8824 47-1/2 Avenue N. 533-9059 831-5828 (w) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETS THE FIRST TUESDAY OF EACH MONTH AT THE CITY HALL AT 7:00 P.M. 2.~32 vote ~OBDOSLt~Ofl, (~) (2) ?ltl. Ufl~ell sooner removed by · four-~thl vote of the (3) v~o ·h&ll serve · tern exp&rLflg off ~e ~rs~ ~oAfles8 ~y o~ Jifluiry LA ~he yel~ ~O~OVLng ~e yel~ (Code 072S84) (Ord. 2.~33 2.~34 on ·dvZsory ~ody to t~c Co, noel. It Lo ~erohy ·uchorLsed and to c&rry on CAty PXannLflg ·c~xvzt~es and ~o adopt · plan ~or the prepare and adopt an official nap o~ all proposed s~teret~ons o~ ~flpXa~ted propartLes and snaAX cecomae~d approval or ~AsapprovaX deve~omncs of the CA~y, ~nc~d~flg pro~s~ ~nL~c ~u~d~flVs, ~ne Cm~aoioa o~aLL M ~t~ed co the C~n~. ~e PLann~ Omission ~ ~a r~st of cae C~neL~, MRS re~n~Lone ~o preHal ~u~nt of the C.Lty. one aa vLcc c~&Lrnan, end &no~or in secretary, earn of dm snell bold of~ce until Oecemner 3~s~, fo~ovLfl9 sheer oloc~on. (Code O?lil4) 2.~3S #eet~flSl. ?~c PLanfl~fl~ Call~llLOfl Ihl~ hO~d OflO re~ar eeet~ng each month, on such day and at such t&me 88 established by ~ne ~ne pressure of cnLo (Code O?~tlS, Ord, 2-! Z'gA ELECTION OF OFFICERS Item 8.0 MOTION Item 8.0 ADJOURNMENT to what options there may be. Mr. 8rixius stated he would recommenc~ changing the definition to give either an exemption or give specific identification to what would be considered public art or advertising. He said he would rather stay with the City's current definition and adjust performance standards. The options that have been identified are: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) No change - stay within existing square footage requirements of business signs. Expand the total size requirements to allow painted graphics in association with letters/words/Iogos, potentially up to 50 percent of wall area. Limit the letter/wording size within the painted graphic through the use of a designated square footage requirement. Allow wall graphics in association with business identification signs, but exempt the background space when calculating the area of the sign. Allow painted wall signs as public art with no commercial intent/relation to on-premise businesses. Mr. Brixius stated that the Codes and Standards would appreciate direction on this issue from the remaining Commission members. Commissioner Watschke stated he was not in favor of having public art murals as art is very subjective. Mr. Brixius stated that as a government body we are "content-neutral" in that the only things that can be regulated is setback requirements, size and location. Chair Cameron said that maybe the ordinance should be looked at from a broader perspective. Commissioner Sonsin stated that Codes and Standards will be talking about this issue again at their January 20th meeting. Chair Cameron informed the Commission that this is the meeting that the annual election of officers is conducted for the Planning Commission for the coming year. Motion by Commissioner Cassen, seconded by Commissioner Underdahl, to appoint Robert Cameron, aa Chair; Robert Gundershaug, Vice Chairman; as William Sonsin as the Third Officer. Voting in favor: Lifson, Underdahi, Watschke Voting against: None Absent: Zak, Gundershaug Motion carried. Sonsin, Cameron, Cassen, Mr. McDonald introduced the new Managers Department Secretary, Para Sylvester, to the Planning CommissiOn. The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:35 p.m. ~espectfully s_~itted, /Jayne Ferry~ :~/ Recording Secretary New Hope Planning Commission - 10 - January 4, 1994 NEW BUIXNBSS (&) llO~TON // \ KeM&rt property and the lack of COOl:~r&tion Co spruce £C up and HcDonAld agr~:l to contac~ K-H~c and pursue ~he ChAl~An C~on offered ~ho 8ugges~ion ~o consider es~lishing condi=ion. Underd.hl. The Dec--e= 1, 1992, Planning Co~islion minu=es beginning of each year and called for n~ina=ions for officers for =he coming year. ~i~ by C~iseioner Sonsin, wi=h ~an~us second, to re-elect PFesAden~ z ~be~ ~e~n race ~A~n, ~be~ Oudershaug ~ Off~cer, w~lliu ~nmin Votes ~ fsvorz ~ votes aga~ot~ None ~son~ O~erahaug ~t~on Co~sa~oner Gundershaug w~ll be~sen~ fr~meet~ngs fo~ the Chr~ ~nChe of ~he year. Relpectfully submitted, Lucille Butler, SecretaL~ -10-